I have not often seen stupidity of this level. It’s like the concept of the black market doesn’t even enter the thought process since it might hash the narrative.
The ability for innocent people to have guns DIRECTLY allows perpetrators to purchase firearms as well. If you do not get to have one, a school shooter doesn’t get to have one as well.
— Lesser G
If you are a white person that owns a gun for protection, you are a racist.
– University of Kansas Medical Center pic.twitter.com/s8fOJTqDCy
— Mythinformed (@MythinformedMKE) May 18, 2023
In a public hearing by the Maine Legislature’s Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning, Rep. Rebecca Millett (D-Cape Elizabeth) struggled to clearly define the terms “abnormally dangerous” and “assault style weapons” in relation to her proposed bill to hold firearm manufacturers liable for damages inflicted by people who use their products.
WATCH: Rep. Rebecca Millet Crumbles Under Question From Rep. John Andrews
Rep. Millett’s LD 1696, “An Act to Create a Civil Cause of Action for Persons Suffering Damages Arising from the Sale of Abnormally Dangerous Firearms,” would allow firearm manufacturers to be held liable for the manufacturing, marketing, importing, wholesale or retail sale of a firearm that is considered “abnormally dangerous” and causes “unreasonable risk of harm to public health and safety” in Maine.
Millett began her testimony before the Judiciary Committee by saying that every industry other than firearm manufacturers are held accountable through civil liability. She gave the examples of toy manufacturers selling defective toys, and toxic fumes in buildings.
Millett went on to blame the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) for allowing firearm manufacturers to be knowingly irresponsible in their distribution of firearms and to “recklessly skirt” federal regulations.
The PLCAA is a federal law which prohibits civil liability actions from being brought against firearms and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers for damages resulting from crimes committed with their products.
Under the PLCAA, firearm manufacturers may still be held civilly responsible for damages caused by defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, or any other direct responsibility for the damages in question.
Millett said that her proposed bill would only apply to “abnormally dangerous” firearms, not those made for self-defense, hunting, or recreation.
Millett hopes that her bill will compel firearm manufacturers to stop selling to dealers who fuel the criminal market, and encourage basic safety measures among manufacturers and retailers.
However, upon taking questions from members of the Judiciary Committee, Millett struggled to answer seemingly basic questions about the terminology used in her proposed bill and claims made in her testimony.
When asked by Rep. John Andrews (R-Paris) to define “abnormally dangerous,” Millett said that any “assault style weapon” would fall under that category.
Rep. Andrews asked Millett to point to where in her proposed bill “assault style weapon” was defined, and Millett was unable to provide a definition.
Sen. Anne Carney (D-Cumberland), Senate Chair of the Judiciary Committee, asked Millett to provide a citation on the claim that firearms were flowing from manufacturers to criminal dealers. Millett was unable to provide a citation for this claim.
John Andrews asked Millett to give an example of any firearm manufacturer who does not go through the federally mandated process of selling firearms to federally licensed dealers. Millett was unable to give any examples of any firearm manufacturers violating federal law.
CAUGHT! Biden using fake data to gaslight Americans on mass shootings
Biden proves once again he’ll do anything to win his war on our guns.
Joe Biden has always struggled with the truth. Whenever he wanders off script and speaks extemporaneously, he invents personal anecdotes — boldfaced lies, actually — in which he assigns himself the starring role.
Whether he’s getting arrested in South Africa for trying to bust into Nelson Mandela’s prison cell, or bravely confronting AR-toting hunters in a Delaware swamp or going toe-to-toe with the arch-criminal, CornPop, no one actually believes him or takes his tall tales seriously. It’s just Joe being Joe, right?
But when Biden’s lies are actually signed and set into type, it’s a bit more serious. He loses his normal litany of excuses: he was tired, he was confused, he misread the teleprompter, he was sundowning.
In an editorial published Sunday in USA Today and reprinted in scores of other newspapers, the Fabulist-in-Chief dropped a whopper — even for someone who has lowered the presidential-truthfulness bar so significantly.
The editorial was titled, “President Biden: I’m doing everything I can to reduce gun violence, but Congress must do more.”
Most of Joe’s opus we’ve heard many times before. AR-15s are bad, so is anyone who owns one. Red flag laws and universal background checks will save the world. Congress needs to do more by banning “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines, and of course his ubiquitous: “For God’s sake, do something.”
But then there’s this: “We need to do more. In the year after the Buffalo tragedy, our country has experienced more than 650 mass shootings and well over 40,000 deaths due to gun violence, according to one analysis.”
The hyperlink whisks readers to the Gun Violence Archive — a blatantly anti-gun nonprofit we debunked years ago for their fake news.
Founded in 2013, the GVA has become the legacy media’s source of choice for mass shooting data because they hype the numbers. The GVA came up with its own broad definition of a mass shooting. Anytime four or more people are killed or even slightly wounded with a firearm, the GVA labels it a mass shooting, and politicians, gun control advocates and the legacy media treat their reports as if they’re pure gold. For example, according to the GVA there were 417 mass shootings in 2019. The FBI says there were 30, because it uses a much narrower and more realistic definition.
USA Today’s vaunted fact-checkers never balked at Biden’s use of the fake GVA data. They use it too, as does CNN, MSNBC and FOX News, so they didn’t question the President’s numbers, even though they equate to nearly two mass shootings per day. They were just happy he chose their struggling newspaper to publish his biased screed.
To be clear, if anyone actually believes Biden wrote this editorial himself, I’ve got an ocean-front property in Rehoboth Beach to sell them, complete with a $500,000 taxpayer-funded wall. Lately, Biden has difficulty even reading much less writing. He spars daily with the teleprompter, and the teleprompter usually wins. Of course, he didn’t write the editorial, but that doesn’t matter. It bears his byline: “Joe Biden is the 46th president of the United States,” so he gets the credit and/or the blame. That’s the way the presidency is supposed to work.
That Team Biden would have to juke the stats to buttress their latest anti-gun hit piece is no surprise. They’re getting desperate. No one is listening. Guns are still flying off the shelves, especially ARs, and Black females are now the largest gun-buying demographic, because they realize Biden’s rants are hollow and won’t protect them or their families.
Biden’s editorial should be seen as a warning: He will do anything it takes to win his war against our guns, including gaslighting the American people with fake news. That, too, is no surprise.
Supreme Court Decides Against Early Intervention in Illinois AR-15 Ban Case
The Supreme Court has declined to issue an emergency injunction request against an Illinois city’s “assault weapons” ban on Wednesday.
The request was made by the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), which has challenged a ban on AR-15s and similar firearms enacted by Naperville, Illinois. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees the circuit the case is filed in, requested a brief from the city in defense of its law after the gun-rights group asked the Court to intervene because a lower court upheld the ban.
“The application for a writ of injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Barrett and by her referred to the Court is denied,” the order in NAGR v. Naperville reads.
Barrett’s request for a brief in the case opened the possibility that the Court might be willing to jump the line and block the city’s ban on an emergency basis. That would have been a rare move, which the Court also declined to do in two recent Second Amendment cases challenging New York’s latest gun restrictions. The Court taking the less aggressive path of allowing the case to play out on the merits in the lower courts before deciding whether or not to get involved represents a setback for gun-rights advocates who had hoped they could achieve a quick win on the issue of assault weapons bans.
Naperville said it is “pleased” with the decision and vowed to continue defending its ban.
“The City’s ordinance is intended to protect the health and safety of our community,” Linda L. LaCloche, director of communications for the city manager’s office, told The Reload. “We will continue to defend the ordinance against legal challenges and expect future court decisions as the legal process runs its course.”
The case against Naperville’s ban is separate from the newer statewide ban. Naperville enacted its ban in August 2022. State lawmakers passed their ban in January 2023. Both have faced significant backlash from gun-rights supporters but the statewide ban has come under even more intense scrutiny since its passage.
The statewide ban has since been ruled unconstitutional in state and federal court, though those rulings have since been stayed by higher courts. Oral arguments in the case against the statewide ban were heard at the Illinois Supreme Court yesterday. It has also faced backlash from a majority of Illinois sheriffs who say they won’t enforce the ban because they consider it unconstitutional.
The Naperville ordinance has fared better by comparison. A federal district judge denied a preliminary injunction against the Naperville ordinance in February, and the Seventh Circuit rejected NAGR’s request to block enforcement of the law while its appeal is being processed. Now, the Supreme Court has done the same.
The Court’s denial of NAGR’s request in the Naperville case was done without any comment or noted dissents. That sets it apart from one of the emergency injunction denials in the New York Second Amendment cases. In Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, noted the Court’s decision not to intervene on an emergency basis reflected its deference to lower court proceedings rather than an endorsement of New York’s new gun restrictions.
“I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case,” Alito wrote.
The pair said the New York law in question presents “novel and serious questions under both the First and the Second Amendments” and went on to praise the district court’s ruling against much of the law as “a thorough opinion.” It noted the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had issued “unreasoned summary stay orders” against the injunctions in Anyonyuk and several other cases involving the New York law before encouraging the plaintiffs to refile for emergency relief if the lower court drags its feet.
“Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal,” Alito wrote.
In NAGR v. Naperville, none of the justices said anything about the district court’s decision to uphold the city’s ban on the sale of AR-15s and other popular firearms. That provides less insight into how the justices may feel about the case itself beyond agreeing not to get involved at this point.
NAGR did not respond to a request for comment on the Court’s denial.
The #SCOTUS order is available here: https://t.co/uRxiQ7YADw https://t.co/f2rEvr9Kr4
— Amy Howe (@AHoweBlogger) May 17, 2023
Comments O’ The Day
Again, just like in NY SCOTUS has chosen their procedure preferences over the rights of millions of Americans
Justices will not get involved with lower courts giving the anti-gun states whatever they want. We get screwed until a case on the merits reaches cert petition.
The #SCOTUS order is available here: https://t.co/uRxiQ7YADw https://t.co/f2rEvr9Kr4
— Amy Howe (@AHoweBlogger) May 17, 2023
To these types, the court become ‘illegitimate’ when it rules opposite to what they want. That’s childish ‘stampy footing’ as most proggies do when they don’t get their way. The court, by definition, isn’t illegitimate, but if you don’t like how they rule, you either follow the methods provided in the Constitution, or get yourself classed as domestic enemy of the same.
Democrat Senator Says People Will ‘Revolt’ If Supreme Court Blocks Gun Control.
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) claimed over the weekend that the American people would “revolt” if the United States Supreme Court continued to block new gun control laws.
Murphy made the comments to NBC’s Chuck Todd during Sunday morning’s broadcast of “Meet the Press” — after which he dug in even further, going on to attack the credibility and legitimacy of the current court.
Murphy referenced a 2022 Supreme Court decision — authored by Clarence Thomas in the 6-3 majority — that struck down New York’s restrictions on concealed carry, along with the more recent decision from Virginia District Court Judge Robert Payne. Payne ruled that a ban on gun sales for 18-20-year-olds would effectively impose restrictions on certain citizens that “do not exist with other constitutional guarantees.”
Complaining that the courts had often halted any progress toward stricter gun control measures by interfering in anything legislators were able to get done, Murphy said, “If the Supreme Court eventually says that states or the Congress can’t pass universal background checks or can’t take these assault weapons off the streets, I think there’s going to be a popular revolt over that policy.”
The Connecticut Senator then turned his attack on the Supreme Court directly, adding, “A court that’s already pretty illegitimate, is going to be in full crisis mode.” He went on to promise that legislators would continue to “regulate who owns weapons and what kind of weapons are owned” — with or without pushback from the courts.
It’s not about popularity or even the usefulness of a thing. It’s about bureaucraps exercising arbitrary power at the whim of whoever happens to be in charge. We are either a nation of laws, or we’re nothing more than another dictatorship under the rule of man, instead of the rule of law.
Analysis: Despite Trump Claim, Bump Stock Ban is Important
Former President Donald Trump (R.) hand waved his decision to unilaterally ban bump stocks in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting as “very unimportant.” But the ban was enormously consequential both legally and politically.
On Wednesday, Trump was asked about his ban by a Republican primary voter at CNN’s town hall.
“As you know, the bump stocks are actually a very unimportant thing,” Trump replied. “NRA I went with them, and they said, ‘it doesn’t mean anything, or actually all they do is teach you how to shoot very inaccurately.’ So, we did that.”
It is true that the National Rifle Association (NRA) supported instituting the ban via executive order after balking at a legislative ban they argued went too far. Trump listened to NRA and issued an order to have the ATF craft a rule banning the devices as unregistered machineguns–possession of which could lead to upwards of ten years in prison under the National Firearms Act (NFA). However, he turned a deaf ear when the NRA complained the rule went too far by refusing to exempt those who’d legally bought the stocks before Trump ordered the rule.
The result was a total confiscation order for bump stocks from the Trump Administration. Despite previously ruling bump stocks were legal to buy without special regulations under the Obama Administration, the ATF declared under Trump the stocks are actually machineguns and aren’t legal to buy and never were. Only destroying the stock you owned or turning it over to the ATF without compensation were offered as remedies to avoiding potential federal felony charges.
The ATF had made its fair share of contradictory or incoherent rules and determinations before the bump stock ban–it had once claimed pressing a pistol-brace-equipped gun to your shoulder constitutes redesigning it on the fly.
However, the bump stock ban was one step further than many of the agency’s previous proclamations. It was based on a lie. One that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has since called out.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas says he's not worried about being impeached and instead will continue his focus on things like "the increasing severity of extreme weather events" pic.twitter.com/GWgqIkRLX4
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 14, 2023
BLUF
Biden’s administration continues pushing radical and impractical proposals that are imposing regressive energy taxes on low- and middle-income consumers, hurting our energy security, and increasing the risk of a catastrophic failure of our electric grid.
It’s time for sober thinking about our energy and power networks. We need an affordable, reliable, and resilient electric grid. Unfortunately, sober thinking about energy is in desperately short supply in Washington, DC.
EPA v. The Grid
A week after FERC commissioners warned about a looming “catastrophic reliability failure,” the EPA issued rules that could devastate the Mother Network.
On May 4, members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission delivered stark warnings to the members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The agency’s acting chairman, Willie Phillips, told the senators, “We face unprecedented challenges to the reliability of our nation’s electric system.”
FERC Commissioner Mark Christie echoed Phillips’ warning, saying the U.S. electric grid is “heading for a very catastrophic situation in terms of reliability.” His colleague, Commissioner James Danly, averred that there is a “looming reliability crisis in our electricity markets.”
The commissioners pointed to several factors for the reliability crisis, including numerous coal plants that are being retired prematurely, insufficient pipeline capacity to assure natural gas can be delivered to power plants, insufficient high-voltage transmission capacity, and distortions in the electricity market caused by massive federal subsidies for weather-dependent renewables.
On the last point, Danly told the senators, “FERC has allowed the markets to fall prey to the price distorting and warping effects of subsidies and public policies that have driven the advancement of large quantities of intermittent renewable resources onto the electric system.” In his written testimony, Danly went further, saying “Most of these market-distorting forces originate with subsidies — both state and federal — and from public policies that are otherwise designed to promote the deployment of non-dispatchable wind and solar assets or to drive fossil-fuel generators out of business as quickly as possible.”
When Even Artificial Intelligence Doesn’t Want to Address the ‘Gun Violence’ Elephant in the Room
It’s like the other current in “gun control” stories we often move past quickly. I asked ChatGPT a question about that issue we are required to ignore and ChatGPT even danced around it. Here’s the exchange:
Erickson: Break down the 2021 gun crime statistic totals by race of shooter and race of victim
ChatGPT: I’m sorry, but as an AI language model, I don’t have access to real-time data and statistics beyond my knowledge cutoff date of September 2021. Additionally, it’s important to note that collecting and analyzing data on gun violence can be a complex and sensitive issue, and the available data may not always provide a complete or accurate picture of the situation.
However, I can provide some general information on gun violence statistics in the United States based on available data. According to the Gun Violence Archive, which tracks incidents of gun violence in the US, there were over 43,000 incidents of gun violence in the US in 2020, resulting in over 23,000 deaths and over 19,000 injuries. The data on the race of shooters and victims is not always available or complete, but based on available information, it appears that gun violence disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic communities.
According to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on firearm homicides from 2015-2019, the firearm homicide rate among Black non-Hispanic individuals was 28.5 per 100,000 population, while the rate among Hispanic individuals was 7.8 per 100,000 population. In contrast, the rate among White non-Hispanic individuals was 3.3 per 100,000 population. These numbers suggest that Black and Hispanic individuals are more likely to be victims of firearm homicides than White individuals.
Regarding the race of shooters, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) suggests that in incidents where the race of the offender was known, Black individuals were disproportionately represented as offenders of violent crime, including firearm-related offenses. However, it’s important to note that this data does not provide a complete picture of gun violence, as it only includes incidents that were reported to law enforcement and where the race of the offender was known.
Overall, it’s clear that gun violence is a serious issue in the US, and efforts to address the problem should take into account the disproportionate impact on Black and Hispanic communities. It’s also important to continue collecting and analyzing data to better understand the nature of gun violence and the factors that contribute to it.
The woke AI can dance around it if it wants, but the reality is that the black and Hispanic communities are disproportionally affected by gun violence, and they are disproportionately affected by gang violence.
Instead of politicians lecturing Americans on AR-15s, which do not account for most gun deaths in the country, maybe they should be talking to the black and Hispanic young men of America who are killing each other and other members of their communities with guns.
There were 48,830 gun deaths in America in 2021. 54% were suicides. 43% were murders. Of those 20,958 murders, 103 were mass shooting victims according to the FBI, and only 3% involved rifles like an AR-15.
Disproportionately and overwhelmingly, the murders caused by guns are through violence in non-white communities, often by gangs. The media focuses on the few mass shooters and the white shooters of non-white victims and chooses to ignore the gangs and the violence in non-white communities. The media demands we ban the AR-15 and rarely comment on handguns.
In other words, the media and the politicians focus on the least used gun for murders and focus on the least common gun deaths all to advance an agenda where, if they really wanted to reduce gun deaths, they’d focus on crime, gangs, and the need for more robust law enforcement. That would actually be politically viable and would actually reduce gun deaths.
But that would not focus on white supremacy, Republicans, and gun owners. It’d cover the problem, not the political opposition.
— Erick-Woods Erickson in The Data and the Silence
9-Year-Old Boy’s Life Hangs in the Balance: Denied Transplant Over Vaccination Status
Despite the fact that COVID-19 is no longer a major threat to anyone, the COVID cult is still in effect, and it could cost a nine-year-old boy his life. The COVID regime has already caused immense damage and ruined far too many lives. But, unfortunately, it appears the cult is not through with us just yet.
Tanner Donaldson, a 9-year-old boy with stage 4 chronic kidney disease, was born with a rare birth defect causing irreversible kidney damage. Tanner’s father, Dane Donaldson, is a suitable live kidney donor, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital has refused to conduct the transplant surgery because Dane is not vaccinated against the coronavirus.
The hospital has a policy that requires all organ donors to be fully vaccinated to minimize complications during and after surgery. Dane questioned the hospital’s hypocrisy, pointing out that deceased organ donors are not required to be vaccinated. He even offered to sign a waiver freeing the hospital from liability.
But the hospital still rejected him.
In April, the Epoch Times reached out to the hospital for an explanation. “Individuals who are actively infected with COVID-19 have a much higher rate of complications during and after surgery, even if the infection is asymptomatic,” the hospital responded.
Dane opposes the vaccine for religious reasons. But he has also been hesitant “because he has seen a rising number of clients get critically ill after receiving it,” according to the news outlet.
The hospital acknowledged that live donors are the best for kidney transplants but said they are “not without risks.”
“We continually strive to minimize risk to our living donors, and vaccination is an important component to ensure the safest approach and optimal outcomes for donors,” the hospital asserted.
Dane Donaldson indicated that he and his wife are trying to find another hospital to perform the operation.
This is one of several stories in which people have been unable to donate their organs because of faulty COVID policies. There is no telling how many people have perished because hospitals are more concerned with making sure people are vaccinated than actually saving lives.
Denying life-saving medical treatments to individuals based on their vaccination status is ethically wrong for several reasons. Firstly, it goes against the fundamental principle of medical ethics, which is to prioritize the well-being and best interests of the patient. In these cases, the patients in need of organ transplants are being denied potentially life-saving procedures solely because their potential donors are unvaccinated.
Even worse, there seems to be no real evidence that an unvaccinated donor would place people like Donaldson in more peril than the ailment they are suffering from. This decision disregards the urgent medical needs of the patients and places a higher priority on vaccination status rather than the health and lives of individuals.
Secondly, it creates a dangerous precedent of discrimination based on personal medical choices. Medical decisions, including the choice to receive a vaccine or not, should be made by individuals based on their own assessment of risks and benefits, taking into account their unique medical conditions and personal beliefs.
By denying medical treatments to individuals who have made a different choice regarding vaccination, healthcare institutions are effectively punishing and stigmatizing those who have made a different decision, undermining personal autonomy and the right to make informed medical choices. Unfortunately, their religious adherence to the COVID cult could result in more loss of life because of unnecessary policies.
You can not make this up
And this is another reason why they want to delegitimize and/or pack the court, so when this type of bureaucrap-for-brains reaches the courts, they believe they’ll have some way to bully the justices to rule things their way.
Anti-gun activist: forget banning ‘assault weapons,’ expand the NFA instead
As Democrats ramp up their demands for a ban on modern sporting rifles, progressive columnist and talk show host Thom Hartmann thinks he’s found a more practical way to make semi-automatic firearms off-limits to the average American; expanding the National Firearms Act to include all semi-autos and require owners to pay a $200 tax in order to possess a Glock pistol or an AR-15.
To make his case, Hartmann turns to history… or at least his version of it.
We still remember their names:
- Bonnie and Clyde gunned down civilians and cops as they cut a bloody swath across the Midwest with their full-auto .30-06 fire from M1918 Browning Automatic Rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, and .45 ACP rounds from full-auto M1911 handguns.
- Machine Gun Kelly preferred the Thompson machine gun to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible.
- So did John Dillinger, who’s famous “Tommy Gun” has been recreated and is sold online today.
- Baby Face Nelson liked to kill FBI agents with his fully automatic .45 pistol.
- Pretty Boy Floyd’s famous weapon was an automatic Colt pistol.
- Ma Barker, who as a child was devastated when her hero Jesse James was killed in 1882, could not hold a rifle being only only 5’ 4” tall so also used an automatic handgun.
- Al Capone preferred to carry a .38 Smith & Wesson handgun, letting his gang do the really bloody work with their automatic rifles and shotguns.
Collectively, through the late 1920s and early 1930s, these and hundreds of other less-well-remembered killers used weapons developed for the battlefield around the time of the Civil War and World War I to spill blood all across America. Weapons the Founders of America and Framers of the Constitution couldn’t have dreamed of.
And then America said, “Enough!”
In 1934, Congress passed and President Roosevelt signed the National Firearms Act (NFA), which didn’t outlaw even one single gun. Instead, it put a tax on automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and a variety of other weapons of war. That’s all it took to stop the slaughter.
Wow, all it took to stop organized crime from continuing their gangland slayings was a gun control law? Pretty impressive, or at least it would be if it wasn’t totally false. Among the factors that Hartmann fails to acknowledge are the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, which removed a huge source of revenue (and conflict) among the mob bosses and gangs that had been growing fat off the fruits of their illicit labor for most of the past decade.
We must Doooooo Something!™
Tennessee Governor Announces Special Session for ‘Red Flag’ Style Gun Law
The Tennessee General Assembly will officially reconvene this summer to consider legislation aimed at preventing future mass shootings.
On Monday, Governor Bill Lee (R.) formally announced a special legislative session starting August 21st. The goal of the session will be to “strengthen public safety and preserve constitutional rights,” according to Lee, and will likely involve debate over his take on legislation aimed at temporarily taking guns from those determined to be a threat to themselves or others.
“After speaking with members of the General Assembly, I am calling for a special session on August 21 to continue our important discussion about solutions to keep Tennessee communities safe and preserve the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens,” Lee said. “There is broad agreement that action is needed, and in the weeks ahead, we’ll continue to listen to Tennesseans and pursue thoughtful, practical measures that strengthen the safety of Tennesseans, preserve Second Amendment rights, prioritize due process protections, support law enforcement and address mental health.”
The announcement sets the stage for what is shaping up to be one of the most interesting debates in gun politics as a Republican-controlled state legislature debates a policy that has rarely seen adoption in red states. It comes weeks after a shooter murdered three students and three staff members at a Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee. While he remained non-specific in his announcement, Lee’s “order of protection” proposal is expected to be a key feature of the special session.
Wanna-be Tyrants is as Wanna-be Tyrants dream
Former head of NSA & CIA says
Disarm AmericaThese are dangerous times
This is exactly what #2A
Is designed to stop pic.twitter.com/XGGop8vT2Y— Jim Hanson (@JimHansonDC) May 8, 2023
Vermont Gun Bill Creating 72-Hour Waiting Period Passes
The Vermont Legislature on Friday passed a bill that requires a 72-hour waiting period for the purchase of guns and includes other provisions aimed at reducing suicides and community violence.
The Vermont House concurred with a Senate amendment by a vote of 106 to 34. But Republican Gov. Phil Scott “has significant concerns about the constitutionality of the waiting period provision,” his spokesman Jason Maulucci said Friday.
The legislation also creates a crime of negligent firearms storage and expands the state’s extreme risk protection orders so that a state’s attorney, the attorney general’s office or a family or household member may ask a court to prohibit a person from purchasing, possessing or receiving a dangerous weapon.
Supporters say it’s time to take action against gun violence and the rate of suicide in Vermont, which is higher than the national rate.
Opponents say the bill violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
Per Heller and the Bruen Standard, it mostr certainly does
According to the bill, more than 700 Vermonters died of gunshots from 2011 to 2020 and 88% of those deaths were suicides. In 2021, the state’s suicide rate was 20.3 per 100,000 people, compared to a national rate of 14 per 100,000, the bill states. Children in a home with a firearm are more than four times more likely to die by suicide than those in a home without one, the legislature states.
PA’s Insane Ammunition Registration Database, Wants All Your Ammo to Have Separate Serial Numbers
Proposed Pennsylvania House Bill 586, introduced on March 20, 2023, proposes significant changes to ammunition regulations that would impact law-abiding gun owners in the state. The bill, which was introduced by 12 state Democrats, including prime sponsor Representative Stephen Kinsey, seeks to give the Commissioner of Pennsylvania State Police and the Secretary of Revenue the power to enforce the new rules and collect a tax on ammunition to fund the changes.
Encoded Ammo Database, Pennsylvania House Bill 586
The bill has several provisions, including a requirement that all ammunition sold in Pennsylvania must be encoded with multiple serial numbers. This means that a manufacturer must add individual serial numbers to all ammunition provided for retail sale in a manner yet to be established by the Pennsylvania State Police commissioner. Each bullet would have a unique serial number located at its base, inside the cartridge casing, and outside the box of ammunition.
In a related article that alerted us to this crazy bill, Riley Bowman, Vice President of ConcealedCarry.com pointed out that this could pose significant challenges for producers and negatively impact ammunition produced for law enforcement, even though they are exempt from this bill. He noted that ammo producers are already struggling to keep up with demand, and the time required to produce a single round of ammunition could increase from seconds to minutes.
The bill also requires anyone who possesses non-encoded ammunition to dispose of it by January 1, 2024. Is what they are proposing that millions and millions of rounds of ammunition be shot in less than a year by Pennsylvania gun owners?
Frustratingly, the same judge who issued the foolish opinion which was overturned by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago has once again stepped in to enforce unconstitutional gun control. This is not the last laugh, and we are fully invested in ensuring this law is defeated. GOA will continue to fight until lower courts, executives, and lawmakers at all levels fall in line with the Bruen precedent.