Missouri GOP bills aim to loosen more gun laws.

Prosecutors say they would ‘make murder legal’

One of the measures, Senate Bill 74, would bar cities and counties from imposing their own open carry firearm restrictions. Another includes a provision that someone who kills another person with a gun in self-defense would be presumed to be acting reasonably, removing the burden of proof.

A Missouri Senate committee is considering two bills that would repeal limitations on the carry and use of firearms.

Senate Bill 74, sponsored by Stone County Republican Sen. Brad Hudson, would bar cities and counties from imposing their own open carry restrictions.

If passed, the bill would be in conflict with local laws in municipalities including St. Louis. The St. Louis Board of Aldermen voted to prohibit people without concealed carry permits from openly carrying firearms in 2023. [By the way, that restriction is the ONLY one that state law allows]

Mary Gross, a volunteer for Moms Demand Action, was among those who testified in opposition to the bill at a hearing Monday. Gross said that the bill would interfere with local autonomy, and that cities such as St. Louis face different challenges and should be able to make their own rules.

“Consider the county where the bill sponsor lives, Stone County, has a population density of 70 people per square mile,” Gross said. “St. Louis city has a population density of 5,000 people per square mile.”

The other measure, Senate Bill 147, contains a wide array of changes, including making someone who uses a gun in self-defense immune to prosecution or civil action.
Continue reading “”

Scott Jennings Baits CNN Analyst Into Making a Damning Admission

Scott Jennings, aka the voice of reason on CNN, managed to extract a damning admission from one of the network’s analysts on Tuesday night. Appearing at a roundtable during Abby Phillip’s show, the conservative commentator faced off against former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman.

What was said by the latter was stunning, not insofar as it is a revelation (we already know what Democrats think of American voters) but that someone would be brazen enough to say it out loud. Here’s how Jennings set things up.

JENNINGS: Here’s what I think is a joke, that you have these partisan hack Democrat attorney generals, they get together, and the only thing they know how to do is try to nullify the results of the last election by venue-shopping these district court judges. They find the most lunatic liberals they can. They file lawsuits knowing full well they’re going to try to usurp the president’s authority, tie this up in court for years…

Akerman then responded by describing the bureaucratic state as “sacrosanct.”

AKERMAN: That stuff is sacrosanct, and you’ve got people going in there who don’t know anything about…(crosstalk)…Elon Musk doing this, he knows nothing about it.

The word “sacrosanct” means something is too important to be interfered with. In other words, a former government hanger-on believes that bureaucracies are simply above being controlled and reformed by pesky elected officials. They are, in effect, an untouchable fourth branch of government.

It only got worse from there because Akerman then said the following.

JENNINGS: What you just said is so profound. You said these people don’t know anything and they don’t know what they’re doing.

AKERMAN: That’s right. I’m talking about Elon Musk.

JENNINGS: I understand, but they are appointees of the duly elected president so your view, you’re here as our legal expert, but your view is because you don’t personally believe they know enough, that the duly-elected president who appointed a treasury secretary and who appoints special appointees like Elon Musk shouldn’t be able to act as the president because you don’t personally believe they know enough? Is that how it works? Do elections mean anything to you?

AKERMAN: It’s got nothing to do with elections.

That last line is the money quote that perfectly illustrates the left wing of democratic governance. While they love to toss around the word “democracy” while pretending they are defenders of it, they do not believe in representative government. What they believe in is an unaccountable bureaucratic system that allows them to thumb their noses at American voters. It’s a “heads I win, tails you lose” setup, and it has been the basis of Democratic Party power stretching back to the Woodrow Wilson era.

Akerman and those like him truly think their grip on power has “nothing to do with elections.” They want to be able to dictate their policy wants regardless of who wins. It is a tyrannical mindset wrapped up in a high-minded facade. It’s also abject nonsense in a technical sense. How efficient has the government been while being run by those Akerman would call qualified? How effective has it been at managing your taxpayer money? Meaningless credentialism is how the nation ended up with a nightmarish bureaucratic system that wouldn’t last five minutes in the private sector without major reforms or outright dismissal.

Democrats can continue their lawfare games if they’d like (and they’ll eventually lose), but all it’s doing is postponing the inevitable while continuing to turn Americans against them.

Bill In Congress Would Outlaw Gun Taxes, Insurance Requirements.

We’ve chronicled over the past few years how anti-gun politicians in some liberal states have attempted—sometimes successfully—to bolster their state budget on the backs of lawful gun and ammunition purchasers. In fact, California now levies an 11% excise tax on guns and ammunition, and  Colorado residents must pay an extra 6.5% tax on guns, ammo and accessories.

Other states and municipalities have attempted to pass legislation requiring gun owners to purchase expensive liability insurance policies for firearms they own. In fact, in 2022, San Jose, California, passed a statute forcing gun owners to pay an annual fee and purchase liability insurance to cover damages from accidental or negligent use of their firearms.

Now, a Texas Congressman is attempting to put an end to the trend of punishing gun owners for exercising a constitutional right. On February 4, U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, introduced the “No User Fee For Gun Owners Act,” which would prohibit any state or local government from requiring insurance, taxes, user fees or similar burdensome charges as a condition for the continued ownership of firearms, pistols or revolvers.

Continue reading “”

Gun Rights Activists Need to Use All of the Tools of Federalism at Their Disposal.

At first glance, gun owners have every reason to be optimistic about their prospects of passing pro-gun reforms at the federal level with a Republican trifecta in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump, in particular, won the popular vote and the electoral college—the latter in a decisive manner— with a clear mandate to govern.

Trump did not shy away from the gun issue on the campaign trail, and contrary to what the fearmongers in Gun Control, Inc. say, running on an unapologetic pro-Second Amendment platform is not an electoral loser.

That said, cautious optimism must always be exercised. Republicans, especially those in the thrall of the establishment gun lobbies, are notorious for letting gun owners down and selling out to the DC swamp. This requires activists to watch their representatives like hawks and hold them accountable.

Beyond federal activism, gun rights activists must be ready to broaden their political horizons. The federal level may not always yield the results they desire. As a result, gun owners will have to fight Gun Control, Inc. through creative means.

Continue reading “”

Ending the ATF Not So Fringe an Idea Anymore

There are a lot of people who want to end the ATF, but for a long time, all of them were gun rights advocates who had seen how the bureau abused its authority. For most Americans, it was just another federal law enforcement agency trying to do the right thing and catch criminals.

They had it in their heads that what happened in Ruby Ridge and in Waco were really just the result of lawless behavior rather than law enforcement screwing the pooch royally.

But as time marches on, things change.

Now, you can talk about ending the ATF and it’s not nearly as fringe of an idea as it once was. In fact, now it’s a fairly normal idea in politics.

The 119th Congress providesgun owners a unique chance to go on offense and advance pro-gun legislation. Donald Trump’s victory in November, coupled with Republicans’ retaking of the Senate and their continued control of the House, puts gun owners in a good position to get on the legislative scorecard, at least on paper.

On Jan. 7, 2025, Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) took the initiative byintroducingH.R. 221, the “Abolish the ATF Act’’, a succinct, one-page bill that aims to abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Burlison’s bill already has 27 co-sponsors, with Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).

In a statement to The National News Desk earlier in January, Burlisondeclared, “The ATF is emblematic of the deep-state bureaucracy that believes it can infringe on constitutional liberties without consequence. If this agency cannot uphold its duty to serve the people within the framework of the Constitution, it has no place in our government.”

Burlison previouslyindicatedthat state governments should handle firearms issues without having the Feds butt in. He accused the ATF of “co-opting or commandeering [local] law enforcement to enforce laws” which elected officials in state legislation did not pass. The congressman suggested that states should be allowed to handle matters themselves, without federal interference.

Burlison’s bill is just the latest in congressional attempts to rein in the ATF’s power. Since the ATF’s infamous Waco siege of 1993, where nearly80 peoplewere killed, gun owners’ attitudes towards the ATF have hardened to the point where several elected officials have stepped up to introduce their respective ATF abolition bills. Members of Congress such Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene(R-GA) Rep. Matt Gaetz(R-FL) have introduced their respective ATF abolition bills over the last decade.

Continue reading “”

Anti-Gun Fury over Trump 2A Exec. Order; Dem States Could Double Down

Washington gun owners expect Democrats who control the state legislature to double down on gun control in response to President Trump’s executive order protecting the Second Amendment.

While the reaction from gun prohibition lobbying groups to President Donald Trump’s executive order to protect the Second Amendment was predictable fury, grassroots gun rights activists in the Pacific Northwest—where Democrats are in control—expect them to “double-down” in retaliation.

The question was raised on Facebook, and remarks posted in response to this question—As Trump dismantles Biden’s gun control agenda, will Washington Democrats double down out of spite?—tell the tale. More about this in a minute.

Trump’s 451-word executive order met with immediate resistance from gun control groups, exemplified by Common Dreams, “An executive order issued Friday by President Donald Trump that aims to rollback gun control measures instituted by his predecessor received a swift rebuke from critics who said the order should be seen as a giveaway to the profit-hungry gun industry at the expense of a society ruthlessly harmed by gun violence year after year after year.”

Trump’s order covers all actions during the period from January 2021 through January 2025 focusing on rules promulgated by the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives during that time period. It also directs the Attorney General to review reports and related documents issued by the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which President Trump has abolished.

Continue reading “”

Boardman neighbor shot during alleged apartment invasion moves from hospital to jail

A Boardman man is out of the hospital and behind bars after police say he was shot while kicking down the door of his neighbor’s apartment.

Fifty-eight-year-old Lawrence Simon was booked into county jail Thursday after spending a couple of days in the hospital recovering from a gunshot wound to the leg.

A man who lives on the 100 block of Shields Road tells police he shot Simon early Tuesday after Simon broke into his apartment.

Neighbors told officers they heard a “commotion” including doors slamming before hearing two gunshots.

Police found the gun used in the shooting in a laundry basket.

Simon is scheduled to answer a burglary charge in Boardman Court next week.

Yale Law Prof Backs Vance’s Claim: DOGE-Blocking Judge Violated Constitution

A Yale law professor says Vice President J.D. Vance is right: the federal judge who blocked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from exposing wasteful spending by the Treasury Department violated the U.S. Constitution.

On Saturday, Judge Paul Engelmayer sided with 19 pro-waste state attorneys general who filed a lawsuit against the President Trump-created, Elon Musk-led DOGE seeking to prevent scrutiny of how Treasury is spending taxpayer dollars.

Judge Engelmayer issued a temporary injunction preventing DOGE and Treasury officials from examining Treasure expenditures – and declared that the Democrats have a strong case for a permanent ban.

However, as Vice President Vance wrote on X.com (formerly Twitter), judges don’t have the legal authority to dictate the actions of generals, prosecutors and the president:

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.

“If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.

“Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

In his response, Yale Law Prof. Jeb Rubenfeld agreed with Vance and explained how Judge Engelmayer violated the Constitution with his ruling:

“JD is correct about this, and his examples are exactly right. Where the Executive has sole and plenary power under the Constitution–as in commanding military operations or exercising prosecutorial discretion–judges cannot constitutionally interfere.”

intranet image

Following the ruling on Saturday, Musk called for Judge Engelmayer to be impeached for being “a corrupt judge protecting corruption.”

​Vance and Yale Law Prof​​