Category: RKBA

An in depth and surprisingly ‘even handed’ look at the new Oregon gun control law.

Can the lawsuit trying to block Oregon’s new gun laws actually succeed?

PORTLAND, Ore. (KGW) — While votes were still being counted after Election Day this month — and well beyond — the fact that gun control initiative Measure 114 was projected to narrowly pass proved enough for some of Oregon’s arcane administrative mechanics to begin churning.

According to the Secretary of State’s office, laws passed via initiative petition like this one go into effect precisely one month after the election: midnight on Thursday, Dec. 8. Even the authors of Measure 114 said that they thought it would become effective a month after the vote was certified.

When and if Measure 114 becomes law in its current form, it would require a permit in order to buy a gun. Buyers would have to get a permit that’s expected to cost around $65 and complete an approved firearms safety course, which would also likely come at a cost. The permits also require submission of a photo ID, fingerprinting and a criminal background check.

Permit applications would be handled by the local police department or county sheriff’s office, and Oregon State Police would handle background checks — which they already do for firearms purchases. All of that information would then go into a database.

Measure 114 also bans the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Immediately after the measure passed, a few Oregon sheriffs released statements about their feelings on the matter. Most were critical of the measure, but a few took that a step further and said that they refused to enforce certain aspects of it — also expressing hopes that a lawsuit would block the law before it could go into effect.

The short timeline between Election Day and the Dec. 8 effective date meant that an inevitable legal challenge to Measure 114 would need to coalesce quickly. And it did, less than two weeks after the election.

On Friday, a Marion County gun store owner, the Sherman County Sheriff and a group called the Oregon Firearms Federation filed a lawsuit. It argues that the new law violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, taking special aim at the magazine capacity portion of the law.

Continue reading “”

‘Roadmap’ Latest ‘Commonsense’ Ploy to Advance Citizen Disarmament

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)-  The 97percent “gun safety” organization purports to have a plan to reduce “gun violence” that can bring people on both sides of the issue together. In Part One, AmmoLand looked at a so-called “Policy Roadmap” put out by the group and examined its three “core principles.” In Part Two we examined the four policies we’re told promise to dramatically reduce gun-related homicides and suicides.

Of course, it will do none of that, but instead is just a “new” tactic to recycle to make old citizen disarmament ideas palatable to a critical mass of low-information Americans amenable to being manipulated by well-funded “gun safety” snake oil salesmen.

What makes 97percent’s “roadmap” all the more insidious is that the organization is (at times) successfully employing a “divide and conquer” strategy by claiming to represent both “responsible” gun owners (as if opponents are irresponsible) as well as “bipartisan” (that is, RINO) interests. We’re essentially talking Fudds and Democrat gun owners, who place faith in centralized government disarmament diktats and hostility to “deplorables” above uninfringed freedom for their countrymen. Out of such, we get groups like Giffords’ calculatedly-named Gun Owners for Safety, and “Republicans” like Joe Walsh, who capitalized on his supposed “pro-gun” bona fides to advance his political career and then “proved” them by “commending” David Hogg and endorsing Joe Biden.

Continue reading “”

Will Support for Gun Control Continue to Sink as Gun Ownership Increases?

The latest polling shows a drop in support for stricter gun laws coinciding with a jump in gun ownership. But how strongly are those trends connected, and will they continue in the same direction?

Gallup released a poll on Monday that shows a nine-point decline in support for “more strict” gun laws. It also found 46 percent of Americans now report having a gun in their home or on their property, a decade-high.

Both of these outcomes are in line with expectations.

With two years of record gun sales and dealer surveys that indicate many of those sales were to first-time buyers, you’d expect a noticeable increase in the number of people telling pollsters they have a gun in their homes. The Associated Press first identified an increase to 46 percent of adults, or about 118 million Americans, earlier this year. And now Gallup is seeing the exact same thing.

With six months passing since the horrific killing spree at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and a subsequent surge in support for new gun restrictions, you’d expect to see that support begin to wane. Past high-profile mass shootings have led to a cycle that starts with a sharp increase in gun-control support followed by a steep, but not complete, decline. And Gallup found that was the case this time as well.

A myriad of past polling has shown gun owners are significantly more opposed to tightening gun restrictions than non-gun owners. So, even though Gallup doesn’t break out the differences between the two groups in this poll, there is reason to believe some of the decrease in gun-control support is due to more gun owners. That’s especially true given the rise of new owners from demographics that have traditionally been more supportive of gun-control policies, including many women and minorities.

But there are also good reasons to believe the downturn in enthusiasm for stricter gun laws may not last long. For one, gun sales have slowed significantly since 2020. They remain higher than in the pre-pandemic era, but we’re no longer seeing millions of new gun owners minted each year. So, the effect on the country’s overall attitude toward guns will be more limited until sales jump again.

Additionally, Gallup’s poll was conducted in October. That’s before the recent spat of high-profile killings at the University of Virginia, Colorado Springs, and a Virginia Walmart. Those could cause a similar spike in support for new restrictions as Uvalde did, especially given how they happened in quick succession.

Beyond those two factors, the long history of Gallup’s polling on these questions provides insight into how connected they’ve traditionally been. And there hasn’t been a strong correlation there. In the early 1990s, when gun ownership hovered between 47 and 51 percent, support for stricter gun laws hovered between 67 and 78 percent. As gun ownership rates fell into the high thirties and low forties during the early 2000s, support for more gun restrictions didn’t increase. In fact, it decreased to between 50 and 60 percent.

By the 2010s, the two measures became fairly disconnected. As the number of Americans reporting a gun in their home stayed relatively stable, the number supporting stricter gun laws cratered. By 2011, only 43 percent wanted more restrictions, and more said they felt gun laws should be kept as they are. By the decade’s end, though, gun control grew more popular, peaking at 67 percent in 2018.

Perhaps things will be different this time. Maybe other polls will show a closer correlation between gun ownership and gun-control support. But Gallup is one of the only pollsters with results reaching back decades. And their results indicate the connection between gun ownership and gun politics isn’t as straightforward as it may seem.

How Gun Control Creeps In
Olympian Gabby Franco reflects on Venezuela’s downfall and the need to protect American freedom.

Venezuela is surrounded by paradisiacal turquoise waters in the north and an enigmatic rainforest in the south. There are no seasonal natural disasters—no hurricanes, tornados, blizzards or wildfires—such as there are in various areas of the United States. But an idea that the government should be given so much power that it could take away every right of the individual citizen—even their right to self-defense—did lead to the country’s ruination.

As a former citizen of Venezuela who became a U.S. citizen, I am now hearing many of the same things I heard in Venezuela from certain anti-Second Amendment politicians. I was an Olympic shooting competitor representing Venezuela and am now a lawful gun owner here in America. I don’t want to see this right being threatened again.

It has been eye-opening to visit and meet people from all walks of life throughout the U.S. While many Americans constantly fight to preserve our freedoms, it is alarming how many take those freedoms for granted. That is why I always share my experiences in Venezuela before and after socialist Hugo Chávez took power. My dreams as a young woman, Olympic athlete and college student ended because of the socialist ideas that hypnotized not only the poor but also the educated and powerful. To revive my dreams, I had to leave my country.

Venezuela was once a place where people could find jobs, prosper, dream about their future and, with hard work, succeed, despite social and political issues. My parents were born in a rural town where there were not even flushing toilets until the late 1950s. My mom became a high-school teacher, and my dad was a machinist who dreamed of owning a machine shop. They married in the late 1970s and lived on my mom’s salary for several years as my dad built his business. They showed my siblings and me that dreams are possible with hard work and dedication.

During that time, law-abiding Venezuelans could own firearms and apply for a concealed-carry license. My father was an avid hunter who filled up the freezer with venison, duck, rabbit and any other animals he deemed tasty. Children could go to the gun range with their parents to practice the shooting sports. I was 10 years old the first time my dad took my two sisters and me to the gun range. I needed my dad’s help to load the old Feinwerkbau M65 air pistol we used. But that day changed my life, and I have loved the sport since.

Gabby Franco at 2-gun competition

Gabby Franco is shown here shooting in a 2-gun competition at Shadow Hawk Defense in Hedgesville, W.Va., in 2021.

The shooting sports drastically changed my perspective. At first, it seemed like it might be easy to hit the one-centimeter bullseye at 10 meters. My mind constantly raced, however, and I realized my mindset was the most-significant asset I had to learn to control. Maintaining a steady mind was as important as keeping a steady aim. Part of that mental training was understanding that dedication, sacrifices and rewards were part of my athletic life. I trained approximately four to five hours a day, six days a week, for about seven years until I retired in 2002. I missed school parties, school trips and even my graduation ceremony; however, I finally became a member of the Venezuelan National team, and, at 16 years old, I won my first international medal at the 1997 Bolivarian Games in Peru.

Everything seemed to go in a great direction until I learned that elections have serious consequences. I became aware of how avaricious leaders and elites can pulverize the dreams of hard-working citizens.

Hugo Chávez took power in 1999 and ruled the country via executive orders from the beginning. The terrible implications of his actions were palpable, as he aimed to take farmland away from its owners. Chávez did not waste time in pushing his socialist agenda, influenced by Fidel Castro, seeding hatred and envy amongst Venezuelans. I remember one time a person on a motorcycle stopped next to my dad’s SUV and spat on it. It was a symbolic gesture showing his hatred toward us for having a good vehicle. What this man did not know is that my parents were born poor but rose through their will and dedication.

Hugo Chávez’s actions did not go by unnoticed. A Cuban friend, whom I’ll call Jose, warned many of us at the gun range about Venezuela’s future under Hugo Chávez. These warnings were, as Gabriel Garciá Márquez wrote, a “chronicle of a death foretold.” It was indeed a hard pill to swallow for many, who often replied with something like: “That would never happen here. Venezuela is the richest country in the region. Venezuela is not an island like Cuba.”

Crime is uncontrollable, making Venezuela one of the most-dangerous countries in the world—in part because of its strict gun control … .

However, I listened to my Cuban friend and relied on lessons I learned in the shooting sports to make my decision. You see, shooters learn to control negative thoughts, fears and disappointments during setbacks in competitions. Such a constant exposure made me understand that moving forward amid doubts is possible. I learned that sacrifices and fear of the unknown are part of my journey toward success, even if that means leaving everything behind. I was on the peak of my shooting career. I had participated at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia. I was a gold medalist at the subsequent Bolivarian and South American Games, and I was an Olympic hopeful for the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens; however, there was no future in the “new socialist Venezuela,” and fear of the unknown would not stop me from seeking a better way of life.

Nonetheless, leaving Venezuela was a difficult decision. My parents and I argued and cried, and I became distant as they failed to change my mind. It was as if they thought Chávez was a temporary nightmare in Venezuela’s history and could not see the real threat. Breaking their hearts was never my intention, but my decision to move to the United States was made. Staying in a socialist state was against my beliefs.

Continue reading “”

Oklahoma representative files guns rights bills

guns
(The Center Square) – Rep. Jim Olsen is the first lawmaker to file a bill for the upcoming 2023 Oklahoma legislative session.

House Bill 1001 would lower the legal age limit to carry a firearm from 21 years old to 18 years old.

“You can go in the military and use very lethal weapons (at 18 years old),” Olsen, R-Roland, told The Center Square. “Additionally you can get married and you may want to protect your spouse or children.”

Olsen also filed House Bill 1002 , called the Second Amendment Sanctuary State Act.

“If the federal government were to exceed their authority and start confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens, then we would want to step in and say ‘You are under arrest and you’re going to stop,'” he said.

The bill gives the county sheriffs the authority to arrest anyone acting on the authority of the federal government to seize firearms.

Olsen co-authored a law that makes abortion a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and with fines up to $100,000. He said one matter that has not been settled is the use of abortion pills sent to Oklahoma residents from other states.

“I don’t know if anybody has figured out anything on that,” Olsen said. “I haven’t figured out anything as far as the best way to deal with that. Arguably, it violates the intent of our law that there be no abortions in the state of Oklahoma.”

Olsen and Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, who co-authored the bill making abortion a felony in the state, said in a news release last week they will continue to fight for against abortion.

‘New allowances for abortion might come veiled as compassion and care for difficult and tragic circumstances,” they said in the news release. “In fact, this is not the case at all. This would be nothing less than the taking away of innocent human life.”

Oklahoma lawmakers begin the 2023 session on Feb. 6.

Christian v. Nigrelli – FPC Law 2A Challenge to New York “Sensitive Location” Carry Bans

Summary: Federal lawsuit challenging “sensitive location” carry bans in New York as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Plaintiffs: Brett Christian, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation

Defendants: New York State Police Superintendent Steven Nigrelli and Erie County District Attorney John Flynn

Litigation Counsel: David Thompson, Peter Patterson, John Tienken, and Nicolas Rotsko

Docket: W.D. NY case no. 1:22-cv-00695 | CourtListener Docket

 

Gallup: Support for Gun Control Drops as Gun Ownership Rises

Americans say they are less likely to support tightening gun laws than they were over the summer.

A Gallup poll released on Monday shows a nine-point drop in support for making gun laws “more strict” since the same survey was taken in June. It also shows a three-point uptick in the number of Americans reporting they have a gun in the home. While a majority of respondents report supporting stricter gun laws and having no gun in their home, the gap for both shrunk significantly.

The results reflect a pair of trends in American gun politics.

Support for stricter gun laws tends to peak after high-profile mass shootings and recede a few months later. At the end of May, the murder of 19 children and two adults at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, drove two-thirds of Americans to support new restrictions. But nearly six months and one federal gun law later, support for more restrictions dropped to 57 percent.

The wake of the pandemic and civil unrest has also produced record gun sales in the United States over the past two years. While sales have begun to cool over the past few months, the results of that buying spree are now being reflected in Gallup’s polling on who owns guns. 45 percent now report having a gun in the home, and 46 percent report having one on their property. 33 percent report they personally own the firearm in their house as opposed to a different member of the household. Those measures are at their highest level since 2011, and the polling company hasn’t consistently found gun-ownership rates that high since the early 1990s.

The rising trend of gun ownership combined with weakened support for more gun control could make passing new restrictions more difficult at the national and state levels. Republicans gaining control of the House of Representatives was already going to make new federal gun laws a tall order, but the new polling could complicate things even further. However, the poll, conducted between October 3rd and the 20th, may not reflect the effect recent high-profile shootings at the University of Virginia and an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs, Colorado, will have on public opinion.

Additionally, the poll shows Americans still support stricter gun laws at a higher rate than when the poll was done in October 2021. It suggests that, despite the recent drop in support, Americans remain more supportive of tightening gun restrictions than before Uvalde.

Gallup conducted the poll among a random sample of 1,009 adults. It has a margin of error of +/- four percentage points.

Observation O’ The Day

Hi 97 Percent Team,

Thank you for putting on yesterday’s conference. I am a gun owner and member of the firearm community based in Chicago. I share your desire to decrease gun deaths and find common ground. As a sign of my good faith intentions, I recently put on a Safe Storage presentation with a Moms Demand Action representative for our school community despite vehemently disagreeing with their public policy platform.

I feel that the strongest part of yesterday’s presentation was the Hot Button Topics discussion between Amy Swearer and Fred Guttenberg. I am still shocked that Fred wold be willing to sit down with Amy. More conversations like that need to happen where each side sits down with one another to try and have good faith conversations.

I am writing after watching the entirety of yesterday’s presentation. I watched because I was interested in what the panel, which included elected officials and other policy makers, would put forward as give and take compromises to get the gun community onboard. Unfortunately I feel as if it was a hugely blown opportunity on the whole as zero policy compromises were put forward by any of the speakers except Dr. Seigel.

Many members of the gun community showed up to watch in the hopes that we may have found a partner where we could work together. Instead we were shown a parade of speakers who have all publically asked for or voted recently for assault weapons bans. Governor Roy Cooper, Rep Moulton, Rep Dean, are all elected officials who have publicly pushed for bans and made clear yesterday that not only are they unwilling to remove these bans (despite the organization’s stated policy as presented by Michael Seigel) but rather they said explicitly that they are just waiting for the opportunity to have the votes to pass it in Congress. Congressman Moulton even threw in the usual talking point about shooting deer with AR-15s and needing better aim. Is insulting comments REALLY how you intend to find common ground with the majority of responsible gun owners who train to use their firearms not for hunting, but to defend themselves and family? Our supposed “voice at the table” Former Rep Walsh put forward no push back but rather spent most of the panel virtue signaling his hatred of the NRA (who we all hate too btw). There was not one word, not one proposal that was put forward as a give-and-take compromise with the gun community. That first panel lost many of us but I continued watching.

Former Schumer aid Emily Amick’s social media is full of video clips demonizing gun owners who own AR-15s, calling for an end to the filibuster to push gun ban proposals, and glowing videos of Congressman Cellini saying “spare me the constiutional right bull sh*t.” How was including her, who again has shown no sign of willing to compromise on any policy, intended on getting buy in from the gun community?

What was the point of allowing WH Assistant Stefanie Feldman to read a 5 minute speech about Biden’s domestic policy, including once again her emphasizing that he wants to ban assault weapons and if you don’t agree with the ban then you don’t actually care about crime? Again not one word about compromises that the administration is willing to make with the gun community.

The gun community has a huge amount of respect for Stephen Guttowski and I am glad you included him in the discussion. Stephen’s method and podcasts, calmly discussing the DETAILS of firearm policy and law should be how 97 Percent moves forward in discussions with the gun community.

Unfortunately I’m not sure your organization will get the chance after yesterday’s conference as much credibility was lost. You simply cannot parade out a bunch of speakers, many of whom are board members, who have publically been strong advocates of gun bans and then ask us to trust your organization because…… your official platform says you don’t want an assault weapons ban? We all remember Conor Lamb campaigning with video of him shooting an AR-15 and then voting to ban them this year.

Richard Aborn (instrumental proponent of 94 AWB), Rep Steve Israel (proponent of AWB and on recent 97% podcast spoke favorable of NY’s Bruen-response bill and explained his idea of compromise as “getting 60% rather than 100%” of gun control policies he wants), and Rep Moulton (who’s service I respect yet again just voted for an AWB), are all prominent members of your board. Why should the gun community trust you???

So when will the gun community trust you? When you come forward with REAL policy compromises as well as fight to overturn abusive laws. We want to stand shoulder to shoulder with you in calling out California’s Handgun Roster or New York’s post-Bruen concealed carry restrictions. We are willing to discuss federal Universal background checks in exchange for national concealed carry reciprocity. A federal license (with training perhaps!) in exchange for not needing FFL NICS checks for transfers. These were the types of discussions we were expecting when we showed up to watch yesterday. The ONLY person who in good faith touched on any of this was Dr. Siegel.

I will end with a humorous fictional story written about someone attending the conference in-person that is circulating among the gun community.

https://hwfo.substack.com/p/ninety-seven-percent

I hope your organization will take this criticism to heart and revamp how you plan on engaging in good faith with the firearm community. Many of us are still willing to talk, but not just about how much we are willing to give up in exchange for nothing.

Best,
David Rice
Chicago

If I was he author I wouldn’t have made a joke out of it. Likely some demoncrap transvestite sodomite could take it as a serious suggestion. Yes, that’s how warped they are.

If Democrats want to win back rural voters, there’s only one way to do it

Agricultural-themed drag shows.

Okay, just kidding. Yes, if Democrats want to claw back any semblance of competitiveness and representation in rural America, they’re going to have to kiss the sweet, sweet cash of the gun control lobby goodbye and end their hostility to the Second Amendment that has become increasingly central to the party’s identity over the past three decades.

Even as recently as 2010, a full quarter of the Democrats in the U.S. House were rated “A” by the National Rifle Association, but those days are long gone. Less than 1% of the Democratic caucus voted against the ban on so-called assault weapons that cleared the House earlier this year, and rural voters know that the candidate with the “D” behind their name is going to be a reliable vote against their rights, even if they don’t make gun control a priority on the campaign trail.

I saw this in my own congressional district this year, where Democrat Josh Throneburg ended up getting a little more than  42% of the vote in VA-05, which sprawls from the suburbs of Richmond up past Charlottesville and all the way down to Danville on the Virginia/North Carolina border. It’s a safe Republican district, but Rep. Bob Good won by 18-points on a better-than-expected night for Democrats overall. I saw no mention of gun control in any news story quoting Throneburg, and he didn’t seem to make it a huge issue, but quietly tucked away on his campaign website you could discover that on board with creating a number of new criminal offenses out of our right to keep and bear arms, including banning permitless carry and passing a federal “red flag” law.

On Election Day, Throneburg won the progressive enclave of Charlottesville with an incredible 87% of the vote. It didn’t matter. He was crushed in rural county after rural county; Good had six counties where his margin of victory was 50-points, and seven more where he won by at least 30-points. The only other part of VA-05 that went for Throneburg was the portion of the city of Danville inside the district’s borders, and that was a much closer six-point win for the Democrat.

The rural numbers are just gruesome for lefties who know the party needs to compete in rural America:

  • Pittsylvania County – 75% Bob Good
  • Campbell County – 77% Bob Good
  • Powhatan County – 75% Bob Good
  • Hanover County – 70% Bob Good
  • Charlotte County – 69% Bob Good

These are the same counties that turned out in historic fashion and helped send Republicans to victory in all statewide elections last year, and a big reason for that enormous turnout was to deliver political payback to the Democrats who used their newfound majority in 2020 to ram through a host of gun control measures (though they failed in their attempt to impose a semi-auto ban on Virginians). These voters are simply not going to side with a candidate who believes that cracking down on law-abiding gun owners and criminalizing a fundamental right is the answer to addressing violent crime or has anything to do with “common sense gun safety.”

But are Democrats willing to give up the significant financial support of the gun control lobby and focus on things like community gun violence intervention programs and other ways to reduce crime that don’t involve turning the Second Amendment into a second-degree felony? No way.

Over at The Nation, the founders of the Democratic group Rural Urban Bridge Initiative offer  some suggestions to Democrats for making inroads with rural America, but nowhere do they come close to telling candidates to ixnay the ungay ontrolcay alktay. In their larger report on Democratic messaging with the folks in the hinterlands, however, they do offer up a  nugget of advice

Among the bigger national issues, guns and abortion generally cannot be avoided on the campaign trail but must be discussed with respect for different points of view. As with most everything else, this begins with listening. In some instances, “agreeing to disagree’” is the best outcome achievable. This generally earns the candidate more respect than either a dogmatic insistence on their position, or avoidance of the issue by pivoting to more comfortable issues.

Hey look, I respected Josh Throneburg for running. He seemed like someone completely out of touch with the Fifth District, which is to be expected since he moved to Charlottesville just three years ago, but I saw him as a nice enough guy with bad ideas. It’s the bad ideas that prevented me from voting for him, not his personality or willingness to listen.

If Democrats want to bridge the urban/rural divide, they have to accept that it’s not a messaging problem. It’s a policy problem, and the biggest issue of all is the Democratic insistence that peaceable gun owners are the real problem when it comes to “gun violence.”

Honestly, I’d love to have a difficult choice when I walk into the voting booth on Election Day, especially since the Fifth District Republic Committee has not held an open primary for our congressional seat since 2018, choosing instead to go with a closed convention that denies the vast majority of voters in our district the opportunity to vote in what would be the most competitive race of the election cycle given the district’s conservative bent. Bob Good won the general election by 18 points, but I don’t know that would be the case in an open GOP primary.

Regardless, whoever the Republicans did pick would be a strong Second Amendment supporter, unlike the Democrats who keep trying to convince themselves that, if only they use the right messaging techniques, they can trick the rubes into voting for something they’re firmly against.

It doesn’t really matter if you accuse us of 
 or patronizingly express support for the Second Amendment and banning some of the most commonly-sold firearms in the same breath, we know what the Democratic Party stands for when it comes to our right to armed self-defense; they don’t believe it’s a right at all. And as long as that’s the case, the rural vote will never swing back in their favor.

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2022

A copy of our newest report is available here (please download). Copies of our annual reports from 2014 through 2021 are available here.

As the United States is moving into a post-pandemic era, the number of concealed handgun permits has continued increasing. The figure now stands at 22.01 million – a 2.3% increase since last year. Unlike gun ownership surveys that may be affected by people’s unwillingness to answer personal questions, concealed handgun permit data is the only really “hard data” that we have. This increase occurred despite 24 Constitutional Carry states that no longer provide data on all those legally carrying a concealed handgun because people in those states no longer need a permit to carry. A 25th state, Alabama, has also adopted Constitutional Carry, but its law doesn’t go into effect until January 1, 2023…

These numbers are particularly topical given that the U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down New York’s “May-Issue” Concealed Handgun Law, affirming a constitutional right to bear arms. The decision will have a major impact conconcealed carry laws in the seven states that had “May-Issue” type rules…

What might happen to the number of permits in those seven states? Illinois, which was also forced by an earlier court decision to adopt right-to-carry rules, may serve as an example. While Illinois has done its best to make getting a concealed handgun permit expensive and difficult, the latest numbers show that over 4.5% of its adult population now has a permit. If the seven “May-Issue” states have a similar experience as Illinois, it implies an additional 2.7 million concealed handgun permit holders in the United States.

John R. Lott, Jr., “Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2022,” Social Science Research Network, November 17, 2022.

 Among the findings of our report:

  • Last year, the number of permit holders continued to grow by about 488,000. At 2.3% growth over 2021, that is the slowest percent and absolute increase that we have seen since we started collecting this data in 2011. Part of that is due to the number of permits declining in the Constitutional Carry states even though it is clear that more people are legally carrying.
  • 8.5% of American adults have permits.  Outside of the restrictive states of California and New York, about 10.2% of adults have a permit.
  • In seventeen states, more than 10% of adults have permits. Since 2019, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota have fallen below 10%, but they are now all Constitutional Carry states, meaning that people no longer need a permit to carry. The concealed carry rates for Connecticut, North Carolina, and Wisconsin have risen to above 10% this year.
  • Alabama has the highest concealed carry rate — 32.5%.  Indiana is second with 23.4%, and Georgia is third with 15.5%.
  • Six states now have over 1 million permit holders: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Florida is the top states with 2.57 million permits.
  • Twenty-five states have adopted Constitutional Carry for their entire state, meaning that a permit is no longer required. Because of these Constitutional Carry states, the nationwide growth in permits does not paint a full picture of the overall increase in concealed carry. Many residents still choose to obtain permits so that they can carry in other states that have reciprocity agreements, but while permits are increasing in the non-Constitutional Carry states, they fell in the Constitutional Carry ones even though more people are clearly carrying in those states.
  • In 2022, women made up 29.2% of permit holders in the 15 states that provide data by gender, an increase from the 28.3% last year. Seven states had data from 2012 to 2021/2022, and permit numbers grew 115.4% faster for women than for men.

Legal Firearm Sales at State Level and Rates of Violent Crime, Property Crime, and Homicides

Abstract
Introduction
The effects of firearm sales and legislation on crime and violence are intensely debated, with multiple studies yielding differing results. We hypothesized that increased lawful firearm sales would not be associated with the rates of crime and homicide when studied using a robust statistical method.

Methods
National and state rates of crime and homicide during 1999-2015 were obtained from the United States Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Instant Criminal Background Check System background checks were used as a surrogate for lawful firearm sales. A general multiple linear regression model using log event rates was used to assess the effect of firearm sales on crime and homicide rates. Additional modeling was then performed on a state basis using an autoregressive correlation structure with generalized estimating equation estimates for standard errors to adjust for the interdependence of variables year to year within a particular state.

Results
Nationally, all crime rates except the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–designated firearm homicides decreased as firearm sales increased over the study period. Using a naive national model, increases in firearm sales were associated with significant decreases in multiple crime categories. However, a more robust analysis using generalized estimating equation estimates on state-level data demonstrated increases in firearms sales were not associated with changes in any crime variables examined.

Conclusions
Robust analysis does not identify an association between increased lawful firearm sales and rates of crime or homicide. Based on this, it is unclear if efforts to limit lawful firearm sales would have any effect on rates of crime, homicide, or injuries from violence committed with firearms.

Why fear is a terrible justification for gun control

“I shouldn’t have to be afraid to go out of my house,” someone will say, usually while trying to voice their opposition to some aspect of gun rights. Gun control advocates often make similar claims, citing their own fear as a reason why they oppose or support some measure or another.

And their fear may certainly feel very real to them.

However, fear is a terrible justification for gun control.

Now, being scared is a powerful motivator. It’s why people do all kinds of things, even if they don’t want to do it otherwise. It’s why scary horror stories of what happens when you don’t do something are such great motivators.

But it’s still an emotion.

When fear is used as an argument to justify some bit of legislation, one should remember that it can also be used to oppose that same bill. After all, one person’s fear may be quite different from another. While some feared armed gunmen in the wake of a mass shooting, others fear being unarmed in the face of a violent criminal.

So now what you’re looking at are warring fears.

I fear being unable to defend my family from an attacker. Is my fear somehow less than the fear that drives many to call for gun control?

“But your fear is irrational. You’re not likely to be attacked,” some might argue, and they’re not wrong. Statistically, I’ll never have to draw my weapon in self-defense at any point in the future. But if that’s the deciding factor, then their fear of being attacked is equally irrational, isn’t it?

And that’s kind of my point.

You see, fear is usually used as a justification for gun control because it’s powerful. Advocates for Second Amendment restrictions want people to be terrified because it’s irrational.

They understand that if you simply use the probability of being the victim of a violent crime is actually pretty high. For example, the probability of being the victim of being robbed is one in 667. Your odds of being the victim of other crimes are also pretty low.

If we’re rational about it, then the debate becomes a different matter. People who are thinking rationally look at this low probability and the fact that criminals obtain firearms through non-lawful means and recognize that gun control isn’t a viable solution to the problem. Some have differing opinions, of course, but as we’ve seen, when there’s little reason for people to be afraid, they tend to support gun rights to a greater degree.

Which is why fear is so well-used.

That doesn’t make it a great idea. That fear pushing some for gun control can and should be used to push for gun rights. We need to propel stories of those who were disarmed when they needed their guns the most at the same time as holding up stories like the Greenwood Park Mall.

Again, it’s because fear is a two-way street.

Yes, it’s a terrible way to promote anything, but that’s because it can be used against that thing. It’s well past time we showed gun control advocates just why it’s a bad idea.

Ohio state senator’s new gun bill drops red flag provisions, adds new restraints

In a last-minute change, Ohio state Sen. Matt Dolan, R-Chagrin Falls, has stepped back from his plan to establish a so-called red flag law in Ohio. In its place, Dolan proposed a restriction on future gun purchases after a person is deemed a threat to themselves or others.

Dolan described the changes as a way to better tailor the bill’s impact.

“Talking with the advocates, both on the mental health side law enforcement side, a couple of things became clear. One is that we’re stigmatizing mental illness,” Dolan explained. “Number two is we weren’t capturing the right people.”

Weapons under disability

The measure now hinges on “behavioral risk assessments.” Those reviews consider behaviors like suicidal tendencies, grievance collecting, or making threats. It also weighs contextual factors like whether a person has been through a “personal catalyst event.”

“The idea is we want to make sure that we create a system where they have an assessment done, so we get to the person help,” Dolan said. “And if that assessment reveals that there they are a violent threat, that they are prohibited from getting firearms.”

 State Sen. Matt Dolan, R-Chagrin Falls. Official photo.
[So nice when pictures are added for positive ID, isn’t it?]

Under Dolan’s bill, an assessment which determines a person is at risk of hurting themselves or others would be a disability for the purposes of acquiring, having, carrying or using a firearm.

Continue reading “”

New Jersey: Bruen-Buster Bill Is Back

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On Monday, November 21, the full Assembly is expected to vote on A.4769.  This legislation started out as a “copy-cat” strategy, mimicking what New York did to lash out at the Supreme Court post-Bruen.  The bill arbitrarily and drastically expands the number of places labeled as “sensitive places” where concealed carry is prohibited.

Over the last month, the bill has been assigned to multiple committees and has been amended several times to clean up drafting errors, among other things.  Incredibly, this bill is so deeply flawed that all of this time and effort has been spent in vain.  Anti-gun Majority Democrats deny that the United States Supreme Court affirmed the right to carry.  The court spoke resolutely and was unambiguous.

Your immediate assistance is needed to help block A.4769, which is unconstitutional and will:

  • Drastically increase the cost of obtaining permits and credentials.
  • Expand the already-rigorous New Jersey training requirements.
  • Use social media and online posts as grounds to deny permits.
  • Require gun owners to acquire insurance, even though it is not known whether or not this type of insurance is even available or legal.
  • Ban carry on all private property unless the owner posts signage permitting it.
  • Expand the number of “sensitive places” to include arenas, parks, beaches, restaurants, and theatres, among other public places.
  • Ban carry at public gatherings.
  • Perhaps most offensively, it would create a special class of public officials who do not need a permit to carry, and these privileged individuals will be exempt from the no-carry zones.

Ultimately, this legislation is destined to end up back where in began – in the courts.  New Jersey has enough serious problems where the Legislature does not need to be wasting taxpayer dollars debating and defending legislation that is already settled law!

America’s Rifle: The Case for the AR-15

This book is the definitive work showing the central place of AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles in the American story. From the founding to the present, rifles and other firearms have played a pivotal role in American history. The story of America’s rifle is largely the story of American history.

There are over forty-four million AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles owned by Americans. Popular adoption on such a monumental scale is indicative of more than a passing fad; only proven utility through long history creates such lasting—indeed growing—demand.

Since the founding of the American republic, rifles—beginning with muzzleloaders and later semiautomatics—have been at the center of American history and pre-history. This book, by renowned historian and attorney Stephen Halbrook, is the definitive account of this centrality of repeating rifles to the American story—from its conception to the present day.

Some factions of state and national politicians now seek to remake America in a different, novel image by rushing to ban and restrict access to firearms that have long been our heritage. As Halbrook decisively shows, theirs is a war against the Second Amendment and the tradition of freedom and self-sufficiency that has sustained our storied past. Our rights hang in the balance—not as lone pillars but, history shows, as dominos ready to fall in quick succession.

Halbrook comprehensively reviews the historical, legal, and policy arguments advanced by gun prohibitionists and demonstrates that these bans are deeply antagonistic to our history, our interests, and our Constitution.

Gun ownership not to blame for rural suicides

It’s long been known that the majority of so-called “gun deaths” were suicides, not homicides. They tend to get lumped in there just to make the number look a whole lot scarier.

Lately, though, anti-gun crusaders aren’t doing that. They’re treating suicide as a separate thing, which is good. Unfortunately, they still seem to think that gun control is the answer.

Then again, when you have people who claim high levels of gun ownership are driving suicides…

In 2020, the rural gun death rate was 28% higher than the urban rate. Nonmetropolitan counties reported 17.01 deaths per 100,000 residents, compared to a rate of 13.19 in urban America, according to CDC reports.

Although urban areas have higher rates of gun homicide, rural places have higher firearm deaths overall because suicides make up about two thirds of gun deaths nationwide, said researcher Michael Siegel of Tufts University School of Medicine. Siegel says it is important to categorize gun deaths into three groups.

“There’s firearm homicide, there’s firearm suicide, and then there’s unintentional injuries,” Siegel said.

Siegel said that the high rates of suicide in rural America can be explained in part by the prevalence of gun ownership. While 46% of rural residents say they own guns, only 19% of urban residents say they own guns, according to PEW Center studies.

“Because we know that guns are the most lethal means for suicide, if a gun is available, a suicide attempt is likely to result in a death,” Siegel said. “Whereas, if there aren’t guns around, other methods that people might use to attempt suicide are not as lethal.”

The piece then goes on to advocate for mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases and red flag laws.

However, both of those measures focus on the tools used, not the causes of suicide. A suicidal person may well shift to another method, and while they might not as lethal, there are methods damn near as deadly.

First, let’s acknowledge that Tufts University is also the facility that’s mentioned alongside 97Percent in a recent story we covered. It seems there’s an anti-gun bias at the university.

Moving on, though, it needs to be understood that suicide is the problem, not guns. Firearms have been with us for centuries and have been a viable method for taking one’s life for just as long. Yet suicides have been with us for ages. The first recorded suicide was over 4,000 years ago in Persia.

Yet as that link notes, we may not have a good grasp on what drives suicide.

So when you look at the divide between rural and urban areas with regard to this issue, why are you focusing on guns and not on potential contributing factors?

For example, the median rural income is 25 percent lower than the median in urban areas. While some of that difference is eaten up by the higher cost of living in urban areas, not all of it is. We’ve long known that economic factors may trigger suicidal ideations in an individual, so why isn’t that part of the discussion?

Most likely because that doesn’t fit the narrative. Working to increase jobs in rural areas, which would drive up wages, wouldn’t advance the gun control agenda, whereas out-of-context statistics and so-called experts talking out of their posteriors does.

That’s all there is to it.

The Midterm Election and Second Amendment Freedom

Just after the midterm election, an AP reporter asked President Joe Biden (D) what he’ll do differently in the last two years of his term. Biden said, “nothing.”

“Nothing, because they’re just finding out what we’re doing,” the president said.

Just finding out?

We know Biden wants to ban popular semi-automatic firearms—he even again promised to do this right before the midterm election.

We know Biden wants to ban so-called “high-capacity” magazines—according to him, these could be any magazine that holes 10 rounds, or perhaps eight.

We know Biden nonsensically wants to ban the 9 mm handgun, even though it is easily the most-popular centerfire pistol caliber sold today—Biden said, “A 9 mm bullet blows the lung out of the body. So the idea that these high-caliber weapons is of—there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of thinking about self-protection, hunting. I mean, I just—and remember, the Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute … .”

We know Biden wants to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) so that activists can again use frivolous lawsuits to sue firearms manufactures into bankruptcy. We know a lot more about Biden’s thoughts on our rights, but let’s stop there; instead let’s take a look at what the midterm elections wrought and, therefore, what Biden might be able to do in the last two years of his term.

Continue reading “”

Analysis: The Supreme Court Probably Won’t Save Non-Violent Felons’ Gun Rights

A federal appeals court has upheld the ban on non-violent felons owning guns using some questionable reasoning, but don’t expect the Supreme Court to intervene.

The Third Circuit found the ban is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation in the United States, as required by the Supreme Court’s standard in New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen. The Third Circuit took something of a scattershot approach to justifying its decision, relying on evidence with varying degrees of

In 1995, Bryan Range was convicted of defrauding the government out of $2,458 in food stamps. He never served a day in prison. However, his non-violent crime was punishable by up to five years in jail. So, under the Gun Control Act of 1968, he has been barred from buying or even possessing guns for life.

The Third Circuit said this permanent prohibition has several historical analogues. It started by citing 17th and 18th-century English bans on gun ownership by disfavored religious groups, especially Catholics. While those bans did survive to the early American republic, the Court argued they demonstrated that the tradition of disarming people based on their inclusion in a group perceived as dangerous, even if they haven’t committed any violent crimes, is deeply rooted.

It went on to cite a handful of bans on disfavored racial groups owning guns during the founding era as evidence this idea was popular in America as well.

“The earliest firearm legislation in colonial America prohibited Native Americans, Black people, and indentured servants from owning firearms,” the court’s per curiam opinion reads. “Likewise, Catholics in the American colonies (as in Britain) were subject to disarmament without demonstrating a proclivity for violence.”

The Third Circuit did not invent this line of thinking. Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the concept in her Kanter dissent, although she came to the opposite conclusion about the constitutionality of gun bans for non-violent felons. But it would be rather disturbing if the legal underpinning for some of the nation’s most significant gun laws, which continue to be disproportionately enforced against minorities, were justified by explicitly bigoted historical laws.

Frankly, I doubt the Supreme Court would actually buy this analysis, given how thoroughly it has rejected racist gun laws from America’s past in its Second Amendment rulings thus far. Instead of viewing them as viable historical analogues for understanding the limits of Second Amendment protections, it has used them as examples of infringements on Americans’ gun rights that help illuminate the expansive nature of those protections.

Continue reading “”