Category: RKBA

SIXTH CIRCUITS GRANTS DOJ EN BANC REHEARING IN GOA’S BUMP STOCK CASE

The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted an en banc rehearing of Gun Owners of America VS. Garland.

The Gun Owners of America (GOA) backed lawsuit deals with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) banning bump stocks through changing the definition of a machine gun. Most bump stock cases primarily focus on the Second Amendment issue. This case’s primary focus is the ATF’s use of Chevron Difference to create new laws through regulation instead of going through Congress. The courts seem keener on tackling Chevron Deference than taking on Second Amendment issues.

Chevron Deference dates to 1984. In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, the United States Supreme Court set a legal test to determine whether to grant deference to a government agency’s interpretation of a statute. The test consists of two parts. The first is “whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” The second is that Congress has not dealt with the exact issue in question.

GOA’s counsel argues Chevron Deference can be applied only to administrative law. They further state that since the definition of a machine gun is criminal law, that distinction means that the ATF cannot use Chevron Deference to redefine a machine to include bump stocks. A three-judge panel agreed with GOA’s reasoning and ordered the district court to enact an injunction against the ATF’s arbitrary ban of the item.

Because the court granted the Department of Justice (DOJ) an en banc rehearing of the case, the panel’s decision is vacated, which means the District Court will not issue an injunction against the bump stock ban until the full bench hears arguments from both GOA’s lawyers and the Government lawyers. For all intents and purposes, it is like the three-judge panel’s decision never happened.

The decision to grant an en banc rehearing was not a total surprise, with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the government in Aposhian v. Barr. That case was another case dealing with the bump stock ban. A three-judge panel ruled the ATF had the right to apply Chevron Deference to the definition of a machine gun. Counsel for Aposhian asked for an en banc review, but by a vote of 6-5, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs an en banc rehearing.

Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) doubled down on their commitment to fighting back against the ATF using rulemaking to ban certain items. GOF is GOA’s legal non-profit. The two groups also plan to fight back against the ATF’s attempts to restrict the sale of unfinished frames and receivers and the changing of the classification of pistol stabilizing devices. The ATF is trying to use rulemaking to push a de facto ban on items that Joe Biden does not like.

“Today, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a brilliantly written opinion on bump stocks,” GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told AmmoLand News. “But the fight is not over. Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation are committed to combating the lawless ATF at every turn in GOA v. Garland. And as the battle continues, GOA will continue to champion the common-sense decision from the appellate panel that a bump stock is not a machine gun.”

The court has not set a new date for oral arguments but did ask both parties to file briefs as soon as possible.

First Principles: The relevance of District of Columbia v. Heller

June 26 marks 13 years since the Supreme Court delivered its landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, ruling that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms and that the District of Columbia’s absolute ban on the possession of handguns was therefore unconstitutional.

Now more than a decade later, Heller will have a large influence in mounting a challenge to New York’s handgun law in the Supreme Court.

At issue in Heller was whether the Second Amendment guarantees citizens an individual right to own a firearm or rather that this right could only be exercised in regard to service in a militia.

Relying on extensive historical sources and other areas in the text of the Constitution, the court sided with the individual rights argument. The court’s opinion cited the Second Amendment’s operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The court noted that the phrase, “the right of the people,” appears three other times in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution.

As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the court’s opinion, “All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.”

Section 400.00 of the New York Penal Code requires that applicants seeking a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public must have a “proper cause” for wishing to do so, and the determination of whether an applicant has demonstrated proper cause is left to the discretion of the county’s issuing authority.

Previously, this requirement has been unsuccessfully challenged in court. In Klenosky v. N.Y. City Police Dept., the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court ruled that permit applicants must “sufficiently demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.”

Klenosky’s permit application was denied despite the fact that he was a practicing attorney who had received threats from dissatisfied clients, in addition to having an artificial leg which caused him to walk with a limp.

Last April, the Supreme Court agreed to hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett in which two applicants in Rensselaer County were denied permits. One of the plaintiffs applied for a permit and took a firearm safety course after multiple robberies in his neighborhood, yet still had his application denied.

Reflecting on the ordinary use of language reveals that the potential unconstitutionality of New York’s “proper cause” provision is fairly clear. A “right” is something which can be done on one’s own accord, while things which can only be done through the grant of special permission are privileges. Additionally, the most basic definition of “to bear” is “to carry” which would indicate that the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s ability to carry a firearm for legitimate defense.

Continue reading “”

A Deep South outlier, Louisiana’s Democratic governor vetoes ‘constitutional carry’ gun law

Louisiana Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards has vetoed a no-permit concealed carry law for guns that he said could endanger the public, leaving the self-described “Sportsman’s Paradise” an outlier in the Deep South where such laws have recently passed in neighboring states.

Mr. Edwards’ veto of the bill, which would have allowed legal gun owners to carry a concealed weapon without obtaining a permit, puts Louisiana in opposition to Texas, where Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a similar bill two weeks ago. Five states have passed such legislation this year.

The Thursday night decision comes at a time where both sides in the national gun debate feel they are making progress. President Biden has vowed to “defeat” the National Rifle Association, and in New York, where the NRA began in 1871, the gun rights group is headed to trial against the state attorney general who has moved to shut it down.

Continue reading “”

Dangerous, Threatening Rhetoric is the Tactic of Tyrants

Only tyrants threaten the use of force against their own people. On Wednesday, President Biden remarked,  “If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

This is reminiscent of California’s infamous Chinese-spy-bedding Congressman, Eric Swalwell’s threats via Twitter back in 2018, when he said about a hypothetical war against gun owners, “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes….”

Both references to nuclear weapons is designed to do one thing: to intimidate America’s  armed populace.

 

Drilling down, the core question is why do these politicians distrust the people with the arms the Constitution guarantees their right to keep and bear? What are they doing, or planning, that makes civilian disarmament a priority? If civilian gun ownership isn’t a threat, why are lawful gun owners constantly conflated with criminals, scapegoated for crimes they didn’t commit, and their rights under incessant, incremental attack?

The reason is the power of an armed civilian populace is not to be underestimated, and they know it.

All men have the potential to be tyrants. As Aristotle warned . . .

The three aims of the tyrant are, one, the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; two, the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not to be overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another — and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they will not be ruled despotically, but also because they are too loyal to one another and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men — three, the tyrant desires that all his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny if they are powerless.

Wednesday’s speech was a prime example of attempts to humiliate, foment mistrust, and lay the foundation for plans to render popular action ineffective, just as Aristotle described. Biden’s ham-handed remarks about the government’s arsenal of F15s and nuclear weapons were intended to mock and humiliate anyone who believes she is free citizen, not a subject. Anyone who believes her life if worth defending against those who wish her harm. Anyone who subscribes to the historic values enshrined in our Constitution.

The second tactic was intimidation, the use of divisive language, stoking fear and mistrust amongst our fellow citizens by scapegoating gun owners. He all but blamed us for higher crime rates rather than looking at other, more politically inconvenient factors such as defunding, demonizing, and demoralizing police forces throughout the nation.

Biden tried to stoke fear of modern sporting rifles, of which there are about 20 million in common use in the United States. Attempting to ban them over arbitrary, mostly cosmetic features defies all logic. If it wasn’t so clearly tyrannical, it would almost be humorous.

Finally, Aristotle recognized that tyrants desire to render their subjects incapable of acting. In Biden’s case, through civilian disarmament. How would one actually accomplish this? Enter Biden’s ATF Director nominee and current gun control lobbyist, David Chipman. The man refused to identify what constitutes and “assault weapon” because he knows it will be far more convenient to let that definition be whatever the tyrants want or need it to be.

In the end, Biden’s speech was embarrassing and his empty threats pathetic. America’s gun owners will not be intimidated. If gun-grabbing politicians didn’t fear the people, they wouldn’t spend so much time, energy, resources, and linguistic wrangling attacking Second Amendment rights.

We rest easy knowing our constitutional foundations, and the pre-existing rights codified therein, have brought us to this. Not to disappoint the President, but we know that the Supreme Court has already ruled that we have an individual right to possess arms in common use. That’s a feature, not a bug as this very moment was thoughtfully crafted and designed by the Framers. Our duty and responsibility is to uphold the Constitution.

 

If You Want to Support Women’s Rights, Then Support their Right to Defend Themselves

I remember what it felt like the first time I had my sense of newly built security ripped from me. I had just turned 19. I was so young. I was just a kid. Like most young people, I never thought that it could happen to me.

At the time I was in the military, living off base in Missouri with a female roommate. After about a week of noticing things were “off” in the house (the back door would be unlocked, then open physically, etc.) I brought it up at work.

Some of my co-workers said I was working too much. They even suggested I go speak to someone in mental health… but I kept listening to my gut instincts as I have done my entire life. That ultimately is what ended up keeping me safe.

Shortly after informing my work about what was happening in our house. The break-in happened. The local police got involved, the base got involved… everyone knew. As a result, my commander ordered us back on base because that was all he could do to keep us safe.

My roommate and I had been targeted and as a result, the only way to avoid us being put directly in danger was to be ordered onto a military installation with 24/7 security.

Soon after, I received orders to move down to Florida. I had gotten married and thought after moving I’d feel safer.

I was wrong. In fact, things got worse. Even at home, I didn’t feel safe. I had no way of defending myself. When it got dark outside, I’d go around making sure every door and window was locked. I couldn’t even sleep through the night. I had regressed to an almost child-like state of being afraid of the dark. I felt weak, afraid, even violated.

My husband was getting ready to deploy, so he was gone most of the time. I bought a big dog, but that didn’t help. I was suffering from a form of trauma, and it was a major problem.

But then a friend, a technical sergeant, explained to me what a concealed-carry permit was — and it changed my life forever.

In the military and law enforcement, guns are a tool that we all learn to use that allows us to defend ourselves. There is a misconception in parts of our society that label guns as “dangerous, evil weapons for destruction,” but that wasn’t my experience.

I quickly applied for my concealed carry and I was (until recently) able to sleep through the night again. I felt at that time that I could defend myself. I finally felt like myself — a young woman able to live her life to the fullest.

It was a wonderful transformation — one that I expanded on recently in an episode of my podcast, “Luna Talks with Anna Paulina.”

With my sense of security restored, I felt I had to share my story. I wanted people, especially women, to know they had an alternative way of dealing with fear and trauma. Little did I know this endeavor would cause such backlash, especially on social media.

My civilian friends didn’t understand why I needed a gun, even though I went through a traumatic experience. And these women’s clothing companies with which I was working wanted to cut ties with me after I began posting online about my story and using firearms.

The strangest response was people saying they didn’t want me to be political. I didn’t think I was being political. To me, the Second Amendment isn’t a political issue. It’s a matter of basic protection. I was simply sharing experiences to get people to realize that self-defense is an option. Was I not exhibiting the ultimate support for women by empowering them to feel safe and secure?

Yet I was being called a “terrorist” and “a baby killer.” But I didn’t care. I knew there were people out there who would benefit from my story.

This issue is especially relevant after COVID-19. According to the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice, incidents of domestic violence spiked more than 8 percent nationwide in 2020 following lockdown orders. And mind you, these were just the reported incidents; so many victims don’t come forward.

What I went through was only a fraction of what many women endure. According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, one out of every six American women have been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. What a sad and horrifying statistic.

Yet self-defense for women isn’t promoted in mainstream society — especially not in our schools — and there’s often a stigma around firearms (I know firsthand from the demonization I endured).

But if we truly want to empower women to be victors, not victims, shouldn’t we teach women how to defend themselves? Shouldn’t we demonstrate for girls how to feel secure and confident in a cruel world? Isn’t that a better long-term strategy than, say, decrying the patriarchy during a college seminar?

So, let me conclude with this: Thank God for the Second Amendment.

I want to pass this message on to people everywhere — especially women and victims of domestic violence. Because if we truly want to help, we should be empowering them, not hindering their God-given right to self-defense.

White House Doc Shows Plan To Use Threat of “Domestic Terrorism” For Gun Control

Is the White House using the threat of “domestic terrorism” to institute gun control? According to a White House document titled the “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism,” gun control is a crucial component of Joe Biden’s plan.

The document says there is a rise in domestic violet extremists (DVE). It highlights the biases against minority populations as one factor of the growth of DVEs. It also states that those that believe that the Federal government is overreaching its power are at risk for becoming extremist, and the “perceived government overreach will almost certainly continue to drive DVE radicalization and mobilization to violence.”

While left-wing groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter are not mentioned in the document, patriot groups are referred to as militia violent extremist (MVEs). Last summer, left-wing riots caused havoc across the country, causing millions of dollars of damage to properties and cost several people their lives.

According to the document, the idea of fraud in the recent general election led to the January 6th breach at the Capitol. It also claims that COVID-19 conspiracy theories also have led people down the path of extremism. It lays down the idea that not trusting the government leads to violent domestic extremism. It claims that this plan is something all Americans can get behind. Many gun owners would disagree with President Biden’s statement.

The document breaks up the plan into four strategic pillars, and one pillar should be very concerning for gun owners. The Biden administration is using the threat of domestic terrorism to infringe on the right to bear arms.

The document reads:

Strategic Goal 2.1: Strengthen domestic terrorism prevention resources and services.

While those who break the law in furtherance of domestic terrorism must face investigation and prosecution for their crimes, it is equally important that the Federal Government engage in efforts to prevent individuals from being drawn into the grip of domestic terrorism in the first instance. That means reducing both supply and demand of recruitment materials by limiting widespread availability online and bolstering resilience to it by those who nonetheless encounter it, among other measures. It also means reducing access to assault weapons and high–capacity magazines and enforcing legal prohibitions that keep firearms out of dangerous hands. Such prevention efforts must be pursued while safeguarding civil rights and civil liberties, including privacy protections, and while avoiding discrimination, bias, and stereotyping.

The document wants to restrict access to modern sporting rifles. The AR15 is included in this category. The AR 15 is the most popular rifle in the country. Americans of all walks of life own these rifles, and people like Stephen Willeford have used an AR15 to defend their community from a crazed murderer. One pregnant woman even used an AR15 to protect her family against home invaders. According to the document, the Biden administration wants to make it harder for Americans to defend themselves with the rifle that has been called the modern musket.

The document also states the White House wants to use the threat of domestic extremism to reduce access to standard compacity magazines. It does not say how it will accomplish that goal, but people like Biden’s ATF director nominee, David Chipman, want to add standard capacity magazines to the NFA. Chipman went as far as comparing detachable magazines to machine guns.

It also talks about using “legal prohibitions” to prevent firearms from falling into “dangerous hands.” The document never mentions what prohibitions it will use. Gun rights advocates are worried that this move could be an excuse to push for new gun control restrictions. The Biden administration, in the past months, has launched attacks on the right to bears arms. These attacks include going after homemade firearms and pistol braces.

The White House did not return AmmoLand’s request for comment.

A Biden minion blames America’s crime spike on the NRA.
Well, I’ve never yet found a demoncrap that made sense anyway, so…

What a Top Biden Staffer Said About the NRA and the Spike in Crime Makes No Sense

As Katie wrote yesterday, the Biden gun grab is coming. They’re prepping it. They’re doing a test-run with this regulation tweak on pistol stabilizers that will place 10-40 million law-abiding Americans in legal jeopardy. These people did nothing wrong, but the firearms they own must be registered, disassembled, or turned over to authorities to avoid legal action. It will be the largest gun confiscation and registration effort ever. And now, Biden announced new initiatives for gun dealers concerning background checks. It’s not new, by the way. It’s already illegal to conduct straw purchases, falsify your background check form, and knowingly sell to criminals or other prohibited persons.

And now, top Biden adviser Cedric Richmond went on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to blame the National Rifle Association (NRA) for the spike in violent crime. Well, first, he picked the right network because MSNBC is only meant to stroke the fragile egos of liberal America. It does well to keep their moral superiority complex well fed. Second, he said that the NRA has governed the country for too long. Uh, what? As Chris Martin of America Rising notes, Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress. What the hell is he talking about?

It’s the same old tired game. With the NRA in serious legal and financial trouble, Richmond is doing his part to drive the stake into the heart of the nation’s oldest civil rights organization.

Just look in the mirror, man. Your party’s embracing of defunding the police, passing disastrous bail reforms, and letting hundreds of rioters, looters, and arsonists from last summer go is what’s causing this crime spike. You’re telling them they’ll get away with it. This isn’t hard, sir. When a major party decides to adopt a pro-crime stance, mayhem will ensue in the areas this party dominates politically, which would be the cities.

 

 Senate Judiciary Committee Deadlocks On Chipman Confirmation Vote

On Thursday morning the Senate Judiciary Committee split evenly on advancing David Chipman’s nomination to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

11 Democrats voted for him with 11 Republicans opposed.

Reuters notes this puts the Chipman nomination in a tough spot, but suggests “it is not an insurmountable roadblock.”

President Joe Biden nominated Chipman, a long-time gun control advocate and affiliate of Gabby Giffords’ gun control work, to lead the ATF.

During May 26, 2021, confirmation hearings, Chipman affirmed his support for a ban on AR-15s and other firearms the Democrats label “assault weapons.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) asked Chipman to define “assault weapon,” but Chipman demurred, choosing instead to say, “An ‘assault weapon’ would be, in the context of the question you ask, whatever Congress defines it as.”

The Washington Post reports that a floor vote is the next stop for Chipman’s nomination, as that is the means by which Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) can “discharge the nomination from committee.”

Chipman is not expected to receive any Republican support if his nomination reaches the Senate floor for a vote.

Biden’s Gun Control Speech Was A Mistake

Joe Biden had one real goal in Wednesday’s speech announcing a five-point plan to address the rising violent crime rate in many American cities; reassure voters that Democrats have a strategy that will reduce the increasing lawlessness and reverse the spike in crime that began last year.

Instead, the big takeaway from his rambling and semi-coherent remarks was his off-topic warning to Americans that if they want to take on the government, they’ll need F-15s and nuclear weapons. An address that was supposed to show that the president was focused on violent crime turned into a half-hearted stump speech for gun control, and maybe cannon control as well.

Recent polls have shown that Biden isn’t trusted to handle the crime issue, and I can’t imagine that yesterday’s disastrous turn at the podium made voters feel any better.

Polls signal growing unease over crime, a potential liability for Biden and Democrats in next year’s midterm elections. A Yahoo News/YouGov poll released in May found that nearly 50% of respondents said crime is a very big problem in the U.S. About 36% of respondents at least somewhat approved of Biden’s handling of crime, while 44% at least somewhat disapproved.

Republicans have accused the president of being soft on crime, saying he has not done enough to rebut some liberals who call for cutting spending on police departments. Biden has repeatedly said he does not favor defunding the police.

It’s true that Biden announced that cities can use hundreds of billions of dollars in COVID relief funds to spend on law enforcement efforts, but the officer shortage in many cities can’t simply be blamed on budget issues. Instead, as the New York Times reported a few days ago, officers are retiring, resigning, and joining suburban agencies because of the hostility towards law enforcement shown by many Democratic politicians and elected officials in cities from coast-to-coast.

“We have lost about one-third of our staff to resignation and retirement,” said Chief David Zack of the Asheville Police Department in North Carolina — more than 80 officers out of a full complement of 238. “Certainly with the way that police have been portrayed and vilified in some cases, they have decided that it is not the life for them.”

Those reductions in Ashville echo a nationwide trend. A survey of about 200 police departments indicates that retirements were up by 45 percent and resignations by 18 percent in the period between April 2020 and April 2021, when compared with the preceding 12 months. The percentage of officers who left tended to be larger for departments in big or medium-size cities, according to the Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington policy institute that will release full data next week.

“It is an evolving crisis,” said Chuck Wexler, the organization’s executive director.

Biden could have engaged in a full-throated attack on the Defund the Police movement, but he can’t risk alienating the Democrats’ base, so instead he pilloried gun owners. He could have issued a stark warning to violent criminals that the Department of Justice is going to be coming after them, but instead he warned “rogue gun dealers” that the ATF will have a zero tolerance policy on violations of agency rules and regulations.

A speech that was ostensibly designed to make Americans feel better about Biden’s handling of violent crime instead left many of us scratching our heads. Even Biden defenders like Geraldo Rivera were less than impressed by the president’s remarks.

“Compassion aside, where was the passion? That speech was as laid back as the program he is proposing,” said Rivera.

The longtime journalist, who has reported on violent crime and other major issues throughout his career, said that Biden’s allocation of resources toward summertime social programs for urban and endangered youth and stemming illegal firearm sales will not go far toward solving the problem.

“This is the civil rights issue of our time, murder has become the leading cause of death, if this is not an emergency, what is it?” he later asked.

Now, Geraldo is wrong about murder being the leading cause of death in the United States (heart disease, cancer, COVID-19, accidents, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and suicides are each responsible for far more deaths than homicide), but he’s right that Biden’s speech was “laid back.” I’d actually call it somnambulate, but seeing Sleepy Joe at the podium isn’t exactly a new phenomenon either.

The biggest problem for Biden is that he can’t actually acknowledge why we’re seeing a rise in violent crime. Biden wants to blame legal gun owners and federally licensed firearm dealers, when we know that the vast majority of gun owners will never commit a violent crime and that criminals are getting their guns on the illicit market or through family and friends. The White House refers to an 18-month increase in violent crime, when we all know that shootings and homicides really increased a year ago, after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis and the riots and destruction that followed in many cities.

Biden’s address on Wednesday may have checked a box, but I doubt it moved the needle in terms of public opinion on his handling of violent crime. By continuing to call for more restrictions on legal gun owners at a time when millions of Americans are embracing their Second Amendment rights for the very first time and his unwillingness to get tough on those actually responsible for violent acts, the only people Biden really reassured were his gun control allies. When it comes to everyone else, Biden would have been better off politically saying nothing at all.

BLUF:

In my humble opinion, the Biden/Harris administration, the legacy media and the folks at The Trace and other anti-rights groups are scared witless by the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement…..
As the movement grows — and it is growing by leaps and bounds — we will see more attacks from politicians, which will then be parroted by their staunch supporters in the legacy media, assuming, that is, they can break a reporter loose from their hard-hitting, investigative coverage of Joe Biden’s ice cream cone du jour.

No, NPR, there aren’t 400 Second Amendment Sanctuary counties in the US — there are 1,930

Taxpayer funded National Public Radio tries to downplay and trivialize the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, without letting the facts get in their way.

To be clear, there are 1,930 counties that have now become Second Amendment Sanctuaries, which is more than 61% of all the counties in the United States.

Of these counties, 1,137 made the decision to protect the Second Amendment on their own. The rest are located in the 15  states — the most recent being Texas — that declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries, according to Noah Davis of sanctuarycounties.com and its companion site constitutionalsanctuaries.com.

Davis has the most up-to-date maps and data available on the topic. He has tracked the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement since its inception in his home state of Virginia.

The fact more than 61% of the country has chosen to protect the Second Amendment rights of their citizens has largely been ignored by the legacy media. If they have bothered to do a story on sanctuaries at all, their goal has been to downplay if not belittle the movement. Of course, that, friends, is what we call spin.

Taxpayer subsidized National Public Radio is the latest to try to torpedo the movement, which is growing every single day.

On NPR’s June 21 edition of “Here & Now,” the host falsely states there are only 400 counties that have become Second Amendment Sanctuaries, not 1,930. This is a common error among the legacy media. Davis has said it stems from a story originally published more than a year ago by Bloomberg’s anti-gun propaganda factory — The Trace. The story keeps rebounding around the internet, even though the numbers have increased significantly, because of lazy reporting and shoddy research.

Continue reading “”

F-15S & NUCLEAR WEAPONS: BIDEN SHRUGS OFF 2A IN GUN CONTROL SPEECH

Just over a week before the country’s Independence Day celebrations, President Biden delivered a speech on gun control in which he ridiculed the meaning, feasibility, and intent of the Second Amendment.

In an event meant to be the kickoff for another round of anti-gun legislation and executive actions for an Administration just 155 days in the White House, Biden tried to frame the Constitutional gun rights argument to justify his proposed efforts.

“The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon,” he said.

While the first part, about the Amendment “limiting the type of people,” is somewhat true– for example, the gun rights of enslaved and in some cases even freed blacks were often denied in the Southern States from the earliest days of the Constitution despite the Second Amendment– Biden fails the fact check on cannon ownership. As we have covered before, anyone with the desire and extra cash could acquire their own battery of fully functional cannon without any government paperwork or permission until 1968. 

With that being said, modern breechloading artillery is still available in the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave,” provided it is registered with the federal government and properly taxed. Still, legacy artillery systems such as muzzleloading black powder field guns, do not require tax stamps.

Biden also went further into the woods against what the Second Amendment protects, arguing the enumerated right had something to do with hunting, although many in the gun rights community point out that Washington didn’t cross the Delaware to get to a duck blind.

“No one needs to have a weapon that can fire over 30, 40, 50, even up to 100 rounds unless you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests or something,” he said, although magazine capacity restrictions have only been adopted in nine states– and have been recently found to be Constitutionally suspect by a federal court. Further, industry data suggests consumers in the U.S. own at least 230 million detachable magazines, with about half of those able to hold more than 10 cartridges, the traditional threshold for a “large-capacity magazine” in restricted states.

Then, Biden seemed to paint the Second Amendment’s potential check against tyranny, a concept that dates to the days of Constitutional framer James Madison, as ludicrous in the days of modern warfare, notwithstanding the realities of multi-domain modern insurgency.

“Those who say the blood of lib- — ‘the blood of patriots,’ you know, and all the stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government. Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots. What’s happened is that there have never been — if you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons,” he said.

The quote Biden ramblingly alluded to, drawn a 1787 letter from Founding Father Thomas Jefferson– author of The Declaration of Independence and later third U.S. President– to William Smith, John Adams’ secretary, can be argued to be directly related to the right to keep and bear arms and was penned at the time of Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts.

We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.

It is not the first time that Biden trotted out the Jeffersonian quote in relation to his view on gun policy. In February 2020, while on the campaign trail for the Democratic nomination for President, he argued at a town hall event in New Hampshire that, “Those who say ‘the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots’ — a great line, well, guess what: The fact is, if you’re going to take on the government you need an F-15 with Hellfire Missiles. There is no way an AK-47 is going to take care of you.”

No, the military has nukes. The goobermint merely funds them and only one man has the power to order their use.

Biden Reminds Gun Owners the Government Has Nuclear Weapons

Speaking from the East Room of the White House Wednesday afternoon, President Joe Biden re-introduced his extreme gun control agenda, advocating for a ban on modern sporting rifles and reminding lawful gun owners that the federal government has nuclear weapons.”Those who say the blood of Patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government,” Biden said. “If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

Biden also falsely stated that the Clinton era ban on modern sporting rifles, better known as the assault weapons ban, reduced crime. A 2004 Department of Justice funded study from the University of Pennsylvania Center of Criminology concluded the ban cannot be credited with a decrease in violence carried out with firearms. The report is titled “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003.”

“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury,” the summary of the report on the study’s findings states. “The ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs [assault weapons] were used in no more than 8% of gun crimes even before the ban.”

Another study from Quinnipiac University shows the same.

“The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states,” the study concluded. “It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level.”

Biden also falsely stated that cities with the highest crime rates, like Chicago, Baltimore and New York, don’t already have strict gun control laws. They do.

Throughout his remarks, Biden failed to hold the defund the police movement accountable for skyrocketing violent crime rates but vowed to bailout Democrat mayors with federal tax dollars to hire more police.

Feds Can’t Force States To Enforce Federal Gun Control

From the moment he took office, President Joe Biden wanted to pass gun control. The problem was that he didn’t have quite enough seats in the Senate to force it through no matter what.

However, the Senate is in a precarious position. It doesn’t take all that many Republican lawmakers to cross the aisle to make gun control a reality. It’s concerning, especially since some senators are less than trustworthy, in my opinion. Thus far, though, everyone has held firm. That’s good news.

Many states aren’t willing to bet on it. They’ve passed laws saying that state and local officials cannot enforce federal gun control laws.

Unsurprisingly, this has many in an uproar. How dare they! I mean, sure, there are governments refusing to enforce immigration law, but this is totally different. They argue that states can and should be compelled to enforce gun control.

Well, it sucks to be them, because the federal government can’t force them to do anything.

Continue reading “”

White House Doc Shows Plan To Use Threat of “Domestic Terrorism” For Gun Control

Is the White House using the threat of “domestic terrorism” to institute gun control? According to a White House document titled the “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism,” gun control is a crucial component of Joe Biden’s plan.

The document says there is a rise in domestic violet extremists (DVE). It highlights the biases against minority populations as one factor of the growth of DVEs. It also states that those that believe that the Federal government is overreaching its power are at risk for becoming extremist, and the “perceived government overreach will almost certainly continue to drive DVE radicalization and mobilization to violence.”

While left-wing groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter are not mentioned in the document, patriot groups are referred to as militia violent extremist (MVEs). Last summer, left-wing riots caused havoc across the country, causing millions of dollars of damage to properties and cost several people their lives.

Continue reading “”

BIDEN MOVES TO SHARE FFL INSPECTION DATA, UP ‘ZERO TOLERANCE’ ON DEALERS

The Biden-Harris Administration on Wednesday is delivering another gun control push from the White House, blaming last year’s violent crime spike on guns.

Just prior to an expected speaking event by President Biden about being tough on crime, the Oval Office released a fact sheet to the media largely focusing on just being tough on guns instead.

In addition to a repeated call to ban “assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” the briefing details how ultimately billions of taxpayer dollars authorized by the American Rescue Plan for COVID-19 and economic relief will be funneled “to reduce gun violence exacerbated by the pandemic, including prosecuting gun traffickers, rogue dealers, and other parties contributing to the supply of crime guns, as well as collaborative federal/state/local efforts to identify and address gun trafficking channels.”

Mentioned in the plan is that the ATF will, for the first time, publicly post more detailed information about regulatory inspection findings of, and enforcement actions stemming from, visits to federal firearms licensees. The rate of such visits to FFLs is likely to jump as the Administration continues to call on Congress to increase funding for ATF to hire additional personnel in every field division around the country.

Getting more muscular with violations found during inspections or investigations into FFLs, the Department of Justice is set to announce this week a zero-tolerance policy that will seek to revoke the license of dealers on their first violation for such things as failing to respond to an ATF tracing request or refusing to permit ATF to conduct an inspection.

In the meantime, the ATF will begin sharing inspection data with 16 states “so that officials there can determine whether to take their own steps to shut down dealers that fail to live up to their obligations under state law.”

Besides the added pressure on the country’s legal firearms dealers, the White House reiterated its call to take controversial “red flag” gun seizure laws nationwide, and repeal protections for the firearms industry against frivolous lawsuits designed to run gun makers and sellers out of business.

the latest demoncrap gambit.

Gun Rights Imperiled As State Preemption Laws Face Challenges

Firearm preemption laws across the country currently face legislative and judicial challenges as local governments seek to regulate guns, a trend which threatens Second Amendment rights, a National Rifle Association spokesman told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Preemption provides residents with a uniformed set of rules when it comes to owning, carrying, and using a firearm throughout the state,” NRA spokesman Lars Dalseide told the DCNF. Preemption laws remove the power of local governments to regulate firearm ownership, according to gun control advocacy group Giffords, which the group says prevents local officials from protecting their communities from gun violence.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis repealed the state’s preemption law Saturday, signing into law SB21-256 which allowed cities and counties to enact laws governing or prohibiting “the sale, purchase, transfer, or possession of a firearm, ammunition, or firearm component,” The law was proposed following a mass shooting in Boulder earlier this year that had prompted Democrats and activists to call for further gun restrictions.

“Colorado has been and will continue to be a national leader in firearm regulation,” a spokesperson for Polis told the DCNF ahead of a number of legislative and judicial challenges to preemption laws across the country.

Gun rights organizations, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), argue that preemption laws are essential in preventing localities from violating citizens’ Second Amendment rights, as well as eliminating confusion over the particular laws to which a citizen is subject as they travel throughout the state.

“Dismantling that system creates a confusing patchwork of laws that place law-abiding residents in legal peril just for exercising their constitutional right to carry a firearm or to defend themselves and their families,” Dalseide said.

Gun control groups have focused on preemption laws in recent years, with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence making the issue a central piece of their Safer States Initiative. Giffords has stated that one of its key policy goals is to “repeal preemption laws in states that already have them and resist their enactment in states that do not have them.”

With the passage of the new law, Colorado joins New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Hawaii as states without preemption laws, according to the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. However, that number may soon grow as a number of legislative and judicial challenges to preemption laws are resolved.

Virginia, for example, enacted legislation gutting its preemption laws last year, allowing localities to pass laws regulating firearm possession in public buildings, parks and public roads when used for certain purposes. One such regulation is currently being contested in a lawsuit, LaFave v. County of Fairfax, filed by Virginia citizens along with the NRA.

Similarly, the Illinois state Supreme Court will hear a case later this year over a decision by Deerfield to ban civilian use of “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines, Capitol News reports. The plaintiffs, advocacy groups Guns Save Life Inc. and the Second Amendment Foundation, argued that the ban is preempted by Illinois state law, though an appellate court ruled in favor of Deerfield this March.

Oregon successfully amended its preemption laws earlier this month, enacting a law that permits certain local authorities to regulate firearms in public buildings. Lawmakers in Maine attempted to gut preemption laws this spring, with a bill allowing municipalities to create gun-free zones near polling places failing to pass.

Moreover, Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court took up a lawsuit challenging preemption laws in June, in which the city of Philadelphia sued for the right to enact its own gun laws. The city alleged that preemption laws infringe on residents’ rights to “life and liberty.”

Florida’s preemption laws withstood a challenge this April, with a state appellate court ruling against local governments in a reversal of the lower court’s decision. However, local governments filed notices last week asking the Florida State Supreme Court to take up the case, according to CBS Miami.

Gun rights advocates worry these local challenges will imperil gun owners and citizens alike. Dudley Brown, president of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, told The Wall Street Journal that repealing preemption laws will “open up the floodgates for woke city councils to disarm their citizens.”

“Repealing preemption laws is reckless, irresponsible, and will have no impact on reducing crime because the simple fact is that criminals don’t follow the law in the first place,” Dalseide told the DCNF.

As bills are voted on and lawsuits are decided, further gun restrictions may result as local governments assume more regulatory authority.