Second Federal Judge Expands Block on Biden Pistol-Brace Ban as Registration Deadline Approaches

Another federal court has cast doubt on the legality of one of President Biden’s unilateral attempts at implementing new gun restrictions.

United States District Judge Jane L. Boyle of the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the ATF’s ban on pistols equipped with stabilizing braces on Thursday in the case Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) v. ATF. Drawing on the injunction issued against the ban on Tuesday by a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Boyle said similar concerns over administrative procedure and Second Amendment rights were at issue in the case before her court. She limited her injunction to just the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

“Although the Fifth Circuit’s order limited relief to the plaintiffs in that case, the Court finds the same relief is appropriate here,” Boyle wrote in her order. “And while Plaintiffs raise some arguments that were not raised in Mock, the resolution of that appeal will almost certainly affect, if not control, the Court’s decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion and issues a preliminary injunction as to Plaintiffs in this case only, pending resolution of the expedited appeal in Mock v. Garland.”

Continue reading “”

ATF: Amend or Abolish?

The Biden administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2024 increases funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 7.4 percent, to $1.9 billion, in order to “expand multijurisdictional gun trafficking strike forces with additional personnel, increase regulation of the firearms industry, and implement the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.”

Reading that, I’m reminded of James Madison’s musings in The Federalist No. 46, regarding his disbelief that Americans would ever allow tyranny to take hold here, much less continue to fund it once it developed. Madison wrote:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

Today, we do indeed behold the gathering storm — the arming of the bureaucracy and the disarming of the people — yet we continue to supply the materials of this tyranny, and as Madison’s study of history revealed to him, if we continue along this trajectory, there will come a deluge of despotism that will destroy our liberty.

Much of the tyrannical torrent today comes from the ATF itself, an organization whose very existence is anathema to the principles of freedom upon which the U.S. Constitution was founded. There should be no agency devoted to infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. However, just because such an agency has been allowed to be established, it does not mean that we must permit its perpetuation.

Enter the Second Amendment Foundation’s Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA).

Continue reading “”

May 26

1135 – During the Reconquista, Alfonso VII of León and Castile is crowned in León Cathedral as Imperator Totius Hispaniae (Emperor of all of Spain).

1538 – Geneva expels John Calvin and his followers from the city. Calvin lives in exile in Strasbourg for the next 3 years.

1783 – A Great Jubilee Day is held at North Stratford, Connecticut, celebrated the end of fighting in the American Revolution.

1857 – Dred Scott and family are emancipated by the Blow family, his original owners.

1864 – Montana is organized as a U.S. territory.

1865 – Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith, commander of the Confederate Trans-Mississippi division, is the last general of the Confederate Army to surrender, at Galveston, Texas.

1868 – On a second vote at the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, the Senate again fails to convict by one vote, ending the trial with his acquittal.

1869 – Boston University is chartered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

1896 – Charles Dow publishes the first edition of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

1897 – The original manuscript of William Bradford’s history, Of Plymouth Plantation, is returned to the Governor of Massachusetts by the Bishop of London after being taken during the American Revolutionary War.

1900 – During the Thousand Days’ War, the Colombian Conservative Party turns the tide of war in their favor with victory against the Colombian Liberal Party in the Battle of Palonegro.

1908 – The first major commercial oil strike in the Middle East is made at Masjed Soleyman in southwest Persia.

1917 – Several powerful tornadoes rip through east central Illinois, killing 64 people and injuring 467 in the city of Mattoon and killing 34 and injuring 182 in Charleston.

1927 – The last Ford Model T rolls off the assembly line after a production run of 15,007,003 vehicles.

1940 – The Siege of Calais ends with the surrender of the British and French garrison and British and Allied forces begin Operation Dynamo, the evacuation of Dunkirk during World War II.

1948 – The U.S. Congress passes Public Law 80-557, which permanently establishes the Civil Air Patrol as an auxiliary of the United States Air Force.

1969 –  Apollo 10 returns to Earth after a successful 8 day mission testing all the components needed for the first manned moon landing.

1972 – The United States and the Soviet Union sign the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

1981 – An EA-6B Prowler crashes on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, killing 14 crewmen and injuring 45 others.

1998 – In the case of New Jersey v New York, the Supreme Court rules that due to the language of the original colonial land grant, Ellis Island, the gateway for immigrants, is mainly in the state of New Jersey, with a small area of New York state nearly surrounded by the other state.

2002 – The captain of the tugboat Robert Y. Love passes out due to a heart problem, losing control of the craft and causing the barges he towed to collide with the Interstate 40 bridge over the Arkansas River, causing it to collapse, killing 14 people and injuring 11 others

2004 – Terry Nichols is found guilty of 161 state murder charges for committing the Murrah federal building bombing.

2021 – A disgruntled employee of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority shoots and kills 9 other employees at a company rail yard in San Jose, California before committing suicide.

Justice, for once!

Last month I wrote about a case that the Pacific Legal Foundation was arguing before the Supreme Court.

At issue in the case, Tyler v. Hennepin County was the outright theft of Geraldine Tyler’s home equity. Geraldine is 94 years old, and currently living in a nursing home, having been driven out of her condo due to high crime (caused by the failure of the city and the county to enforce the law).

She fell behind in her property taxes, and the county sold her condo and kept all the money, including equity that remained after paying her tax bill.

It was an appalling act of government theft, but of course, appalling and government are often found in the same sentence.

Well, the Supreme Court ruled on the case today, and the news, for once, is good. The good guys won by a unanimous decision. Every single Justice agreed that Hennepin County is a bunch of lying, thieving, greedy, and tyrannical bunch of MFers.

Uh, maybe that last part is hyperbole. They only said lying, thieving and greedy. None of the Justices would swear in an opinion.

Governments are very big on seizing property. And in this case, the seizure was particularly galling because much of the money owed was due to penalties, not taxes. A small GoFundMe would have gotten the taxes paid off in a few days, but at 94 such things don’t generally occur to a person, and she had nobody to think of such matters.

The Court’s decision seems like a no-brainer, but then again it should have been for lower courts. The fact that she won in the Supreme Court is great news, but the fact that it had to be decided there is very bad news indeed. The county in which I live–and in many others around the country–have been stealing money from taxpayers without remorse.

Continue reading “”

U.S. Supreme Court rules against EPA in wetlands regulation challenge

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday put another dent in the regulatory reach of the Environmental Protection Agency, ruling in favor of an Idaho couple in their long-running bid to build a home on property that the EPA had deemed a protected wetland under a landmark federal anti-pollution law.

The justices in a 9-0 decision overturned a lower court’s ruling against the couple, Chantell and Mike Sackett, that had upheld the EPA’s determination that their property near a lake contained wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act of 1972. Though the justices unanimously agreed to reverse the lower court’s decision, they differed in their reasoning for doing so.

The ruling marked the latest instance of the court backing a challenge to the scope of the EPA’s ability to regulate in the environmental arena under existing law. In a 6-3 ruling last June powered by its conservative justices, the court imposed limits on the EPA’s authority to issue sweeping regulations involving greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal- and gas-fired power plants under a different environmental law, the Clean Air Act.

Continue reading “”

This is why the media will never understand gun owners

Most people who read stuff here are either gun owners or know someone who owns a gun. At the very least, they’re sympathetic to having one.

Not counting the hate readers, of course.

The media, however, is full of people who don’t own guns, don’t know anyone they know has them, and perhaps more importantly, don’t want to know anyone who is a firearm owner.

And yet, they routinely write crap like this:

The story of a Pennsylvania church blessing AR-15s made the rounds on traditional and social media last week. The ceremony at the World Peace and Unification Sanctuary ministry in rural Newfoundland, PA, was widely ridiculed as bizarre and out of touch, but once you take away some of the theatrics, how different are these worshippers really from millions of Americans and the NRA?

The answer, it turns out, is not that much.

WhoWhatWhy went to Newfoundland twice last week, attended the gun-blessing ceremony and saw some things that the rest of the media seems to have missed.

Now, the church in question is the Unification Church, whose members are often called “Moonies” after the founder, Rev. Hyung Jin (Sean) Moon.

Continue reading “”

And with CHF and CAD/CAM-CNC manufacturing, such ‘forensics’ are even more problematical

FYI, this is a l-o-n-g article.

Devil in the grooves: The case against forensic firearms analysis
A landmark Chicago court ruling threatens a century of expert ballistics testimony

Last February, Chicago circuit court judge William Hooks made some history. He became the first judge in the country to bar the use of ballistics matching testimony in a criminal trial.

In Illinois v. Rickey Winfield, prosecutors had planned to call a forensic firearms analyst to explain how he was able to match a bullet found at a crime scene to a gun alleged to be in possession of the defendant.

It’s the sort of testimony experts give every day in criminal courts around the country. But this time, attorneys with the Cook County Public Defender’s Office requested a hearing to determine whether there was any scientific foundation for the claim that a specific bullet can be matched to a specific gun. Hooks granted the hearing and, after considering arguments from both sides, he issued his ruling.

It was an earth-shaking opinion, and it could bring big changes to how gun crimes are prosecuted — in Chicago and possibly elsewhere.

Hooks isn’t the first judge to be skeptical of claims made by forensic firearms analysts. Other courts have put restrictions on which terminology analysts use in front of juries. But Hooks is the first to bar such testimony outright. “There are no objective forensic based reasons that firearms identification evidence belongs in any category of forensic science,” Hooks writes. He adds that the wrongful convictions already attributable to the field “should serve as a wake-up call to courts operating as rubber stamps in blindly finding general acceptance” of bullet matching analysis.

For more than a century, forensic firearms analysts have been telling juries that they can match a specific bullet to a specific gun, to the exclusion of all other guns. This claimed ability has helped to put tens of thousands of people in prison, and in a nontrivial percentage of those cases, it’s safe to say that ballistics matching was the only evidence linking the accused to the crime.

But as with other forensic specialties collectively known as pattern matching fields, the claim is facing growing scrutiny. Scientists from outside of forensics point out that there’s no scientific basis for much of what firearms analysts say in court. These critics, backed by a growing body of research, make a pretty startling claim — one that could have profound effects on the criminal justice system: We don’t actually know if it’s possible to match a specific bullet to a specific gun. And even if it is, we don’t know if forensic firearms analysts are any good at it.

Continue reading “”

Cook County judge dismisses city’s lawsuit against Gary gun shop

A Cook County judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the city against a Northwest Indiana gun shop in a brief hearing Thursday.

The city filed the lawsuit against Westforth Sports, located in Gary, Ind., in April 2021, alleging the shop repeatedly violated federal gun laws, often resulting in criminal charges against straw purchasers. The city further alleged that the shop’s owner, Earl Westforth, ignored warnings from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives about suspicious purchases at the store.

Attorneys for Westforth Sports filed a motion to dismiss last year. They argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the city’s allegations concerned transactions between Westforth and residents of Indiana.

“Where the matter is one of specific personal jurisdiction, the question is simple: does Plaintiff prove that the alleged straw purchase transactions arise out of or relate to Westforth’s contacts with Illinois? Absent such, Plaintiff has not met its burden, and the case must be dismissed,” attorneys for Westforth wrote in support of the motion last year. “Plaintiff has neither alleged nor provided evidence of any such customer being a ‘straw purchaser’ or otherwise involved in any alleged third-party criminal trafficking activity at the heart of its claims against Westforth.”

A 2017 report issued by the Chicago Police Department stated that Westforth Sports was the third-largest supplier of guns used in crimes in Chicago. The department said that, between 2013 and 2016, 2.3% of all crime guns recovered in Chicago originated at Westforth.

In a statement issued after Quish’s ruling, Westforth attorney Timothy Rudd said “the Court properly found that Constitutional due process does not allow an out-of-state firearms retailer to be hauled into court in Illinois unless the claims against it arise out of or relate to the retailer’s own contacts with the state.”
The city was represented by attorneys from Everytown Law, Mayer Brown LLP and the city’s Law Department.

Alla Lefkowitz, Everytown Law’s senior director of affirmative litigation, said that during discovery, the city “found significant additional evidence of wrongdoing by Westforth that is specifically targeted at Illinois.”

“The City has not yet had an opportunity to review the decision, but fully intends to press on with its case against Westforth after studying the Court’s ruling and deciding on the best path forward,” Lefkowitz said in a statement.

Observation O’ The Day:
Well, maybe it’s that ‘lizard sized brain’ you say you have that inhibited your intellectual development past moron level. What a hypocrite of an editor, sitting behind your desk, using rights protected by the 1st amendment to denigrate rights protected by the 2nd.

As Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit put it:
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.

From my cold dead hand: Gun groups perpetuate militia myth to keep whatever arms they dream of

About the Second Amendment: I have questions.

I cannot wrap my lizard-sized brain around the notion that the reason for people to keep and own guns is to protect against tyranny.

Spare me the historical discourses about the establishment of the Second Amendment, because I realize a bunch of a rag-tag colonists rose up against the lobsterbacks and sent the British running.

That was when the average firearm for both sides could take more than a minute to load one bullet or any other trash you could find to pack down the barrel. Saying Americans should still own any gun or as many as they want isn’t the same as saying we rose up once with muskets, swords and cannons. One is set against a historical backdrop when dysentery and smallpox killed as many soldiers as bullets. Today’s backdrop is set against a scene of unspeakable firepower often used against innocent citizens, many times kids at school.

One was in defense of an entire country; the other, killing for the sake of killing – and quickly.

Everyone has accepted that the primary reason for accepting guns everywhere is because of the concept that those same firearms may be needed to fight against a tyrannical government.

Few, though, really question how sound that rationale is.

You see, I am all for keeping my guns for a lot of different reasons, but I’d rather say it’s for self-defense before tricking myself that I am just a soldier-in-waiting for the government to go full-tyranny on the country.

Continue reading “”

Judge right on history of gun owners’ rights

After the Supreme Court ruled nearly a year ago that making it unduly burdensome to acquire a permit to carry a firearm violates the Second Amendment rights of Americans, New Jersey and New York tried a new approach.

The two states attempted to disqualify Americans with permits from carrying a gun at a broad assortment of places — so broad that, as Reason magazine notes, “effectively prohibits the carrying of that handgun virtually everywhere.”

Fortunately, a federal judge struck down the attempt at circumventing the rights to self-defense and to bear arms in mid-May.

One of the hallmarks for the right to bear arms the Supreme Court set forth was historical analogues — testing new policies against the history of our nation and whether similar limitations have ever existed. As Judge Renee Bumb noted, New Jersey failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to offer historical evidence. She was left to comb through the state’s history herself, and what she found was numerous examples of permissiveness toward carrying guns in many of the most similar conditions to which New Jersey attempted to limit the right to carry.

No one should be surprised by what this judge found. Modern sentiments aside, the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the necessity of guns as tools of deterrence and self-defense are ingrained in our nation’s history — and illustrate that guns are not the problem, nor gun control the solution.


Never an Easy Target

Millions of American women are buying guns for self-protection. If you are one of them, or plan to be, Paxton Quiqley urges you to arm yourself with information and train with experts so that you can safely defend yourself and your loved ones against any potential violence. Reading this book is the perfect place to start.

“Highly recommended reading, especially beginners, for those considering firearms training. Paxton addresses the essential factors related to choosing firearms as an option for protecting yourself and those you love.” -Mark Vinci, Director, Model Mugging Self Defense for Women

“Paxton Quigley-an expert on women, on home intrusion, and rape.” –Oprah Winfrey

“Paxton Quigley, a modern-day Annie Oakley who teaches women how to shoot in the name of empowerment.” -Caitlin Kelly, Blown Away, American Women and Guns

“If you’re a woman in the market for a gun to protect yourself, reading this book is a vital first step.” -David Patrick Columbia,

“In the women’s gun movement, Paxton Quigley is the great persuader.” –60 Minutes

“15 million women are gun owners, and they’re finding a guru named Paxton Quigley. Her message is being heard.” –NBC Nightly News

My Armed & Female book series has been called “the bible of gun self-defense for women,” and although the first book has been available for many years, I realized that with all of the changes in laws and the new attitudes about guns, it was time to update the book. Numerous people asked me to revise it without losing its spirit and intent since it has helped many women make the decision to arm themselves safely and confidently.

Owning a firearm for self-defense is your right as an American, but with that right comes extreme responsibility and accountability. Gun ownership is not a Red State vs. Blue State issue. In a country with 120 guns for every 100 people, plenty of liberals are pro-gun, and many conservatives support some type of gun regulations. Even in a state like California, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, as well as a strong anti-gun political climate, many residents are buying and learning how to use firearms. All over America, women of all ages, religions, nationalities, and races have come to the realization that to protect themselves and their families against escalating violence – many feel that they cannot trust their local law enforcement – they need to own a firearm.

Many of these women report that they’ve left or are trying to leave violent relationships. Others just want to have some control over their own personal safety in a rapidly changing world. Many purchased handguns without knowing how to use them. It is for all the women who want to learn about the pros and cons of gun ownership, and about how to protect themselves safely and effectively with a firearm that I decided to write my newest book, Armed & Female II: Never An Easy Target.

Woman shoots crowbar-wielding man during road rage incident in University City

PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) — Philadelphia police believe a woman who shot a crowbar-wielding man during a road rage incident in University City was acting in self-defense.

The incident began just before 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday at 30th and Chestnut streets.

“This was a road rage incident. This 22-year-old was operating a Chevy in the area of 30th and Chestnut and got into a road rage incident with a 27-year-old female who was driving her vehicle also at 30th and Chestnut,” said Philadelphia Police Chief Inspector Scott Small.

At some point, police say the 22-year-old man got out of his vehicle and smashed the woman’s rear window with a crowbar.

In response, the woman shot the man one time in the groin.

Small says the man tried to drive himself to the hospital but fell out of his vehicle along 22nd and Market streets in Center City.

He was then transported to Penn Presbyterian Hospital with serious injuries.

Officials say the woman had a permit to carry and is cooperating with police in the investigation.

There is no word yet on the man’s identity.

Police also said another woman was riding passenger in the man’s car, but she fled on foot from the scene.

No arrests have been made.

Man fatally shot attacker in self-defense at South Austin Dairy Queen

Police say a man shot and killed another man in self-defense Monday night at a fast-food restaurant in South Austin. The incident occurred at the Dairy Queen situated on the southbound I-35 service road near the East Slaughter Lane intersection.

The Austin Police Department (APD) reports officers responded to a 911 call of a shooting at around 9 p.m. The caller, who was also the shooter, claimed he had shot a man who was dating the mother of his child after the man had attacked him.

When officers arrived, the man who had been shot was not at the scene. However, APD received a second 911 call reporting that 19-year-old Efrain Jaimes had been rushed to a local hospital with a gunshot wound. He later died at the hospital.

Following an investigation, APD determined that Jaimes had initiated an attack on a man known to him, resulting in his being shot in self-defense. The case has been referred to the Travis County District Attorney’s office, and no charges have been filed as of now.

Gun “buyback” focused on so-called assault weapons is a huge flop

I’ve long believed that the primary benefit of gun “buybacks” are the positive headlines for politicians and anti-gun activists typically generated in the local press both before and after the compensated confiscation event takes place, and one recent campaign in the Michigan town of Ludington has done nothing to disabuse me of that idea.

As the Midland Daily News recently reported, an event specifically designed to get gun owners to hand over their modern sporting rifles in exchange for a $300 gift card led to “one less assault weapon” in the area, because only a single rifle was turned in. Despite that, the local paper still delivered glowing praise for the organizer of the failed “buyback”.

For a group of Mason County residents, the Uvalde tragedy was more than a time for thoughts and prayers, it was a call to action.

On Saturday, a group hosted an anonymous and voluntary assault-style weapon buyback program at the Ludington Police Department.

It was the first local event of its kind sponsored by the Starfish Buyback Program.

Eligible weapons brought to the police department could be exchanged for a $300 “supercenter” gift card.

Karen Reader, a member of the program’s task force, reported that one assault style-weapon was voluntarily exchanged during the event.

In an email, Reader stated, “We are looking at this from the standpoint, one less assault weapon in our community.”

It appears a fitting start for a program, which according to its mission, “is based on the belief that no matter how small or futile this action may appear, any effort to save lives matters.”

I’m glad they state that they’re doing this based on their “belief” rather than any supposed facts, because the idea that gun “buybacks” actually accomplish anything of substance is a leap of faith not backed by any evidence. In fact, one recent study found that violent crime actually increased, at least in the short term, after these kinds of compensated confiscation programs were put in place.

Controlling for “demographic, socioeconomic, and policy controls measured at the county and state levels” that might affect the gun crime and gun death rates no matter what was going on with buybacks, the researchers concluded that “with 95 percent confidence, we can rule out gun crime declines in the 12 months following a [buyback] of greater than 1.3 percent and gun crime declines of greater than 2.2 percent” more than a year after they happen.

They also found that in the immediate two months following a buyback, jurisdictions saw “an increase in incidents of firearm-related crime. The 7.7 percent increase in gun crime…is relatively modest, suggesting at most, two additional gun crimes.” They saw no corresponding increase in non-gun crimes in those two months. Breaking down the distinction between violent and nonviolent gun crimes, they found no evidence that buybacks lowered either in the short or the long run.

And that’s when more than one gun is turned over. I guess the good news here is that since only one gun was handed in they’re not likely to see any increase in violent crime either.

Thankfully this initiative isn’t taxpayer-funded, so its private donors who are wasting their money on this virtue signaling effort to go after modern sporting rifles. And since they only shelled out $300 the first time around, the Starfish Buyback Program has plenty of cash on hand for their next event in case anyone actually shows up.

I wouldn’t count on that happening, but maybe after another wasted weekend the folks behind the “buyback” will get the hint that their efforts at promoting public safety are better directed elsewhere. I’m sure there are some worthy non-profits who are doing valuable work in the area that doesn’t involve demonizing commonly-owned firearms or the people who own them, and sending some extra cash their way would do far more good than the compensate confiscation program ever could.

Like Vermont has a problem.

Vermonters, lawmakers await decisions on contentious gun reform bills

One year after the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Vermont lawmakers looked back on firearm-related bills passed in the 2023 session that they believe will make Vermont a safer state.

One of those will implement a mandatory 72-hour waiting period from the time you purchase a gun to when it enters your possession.

“When somebody has the impulse to buy a gun and use it for a sinister purpose like maybe a school shooting or something like that, or if they intend on harming themselves, those 72 hours can be so vital,” Rep. Conor Caser, Executive Director of GunSense Vermont, said.

Some believe the bill violates the Second Amendment and is unconstitutional. Gov. Phil Scott has not said he will veto the bill but has expressed strong concerns in recent weeks.

“I don’t doubt that if this goes into law that there will be a constitutional challenge,” said Scott.

However, the governor is expected to sign off on a bill that strengthens penalties on straw purchases and the defacing of serial numbers on firearms, which lawmakers believe will reduce crime in and out of state.

“They go in and buy them [guns] and then trade them for drugs, and the folks who can’t possess obviously have the firearm. And we’ve seen them used in crimes in other states,” Sen. Richard Sears said.

It remains clear that lawmakers will not agree on the policies of all the bills, but both sides of the aisle say the fact that three firearm reform bills made it to the governor’s desk this session is something they have never seen before.

“Passing three is a first, I must say, but the dynamics have changed also in the last 15-20 years. The makeup of the body, the numbers in the body, you’ll see on most of those bills they are predominately supported by Democrats,” Rep. Patrick Brennan, a Republican, said.

Sears believes public tragedies such as what happened in Uvalde also played a role.

“I think Vermonters’ views of firearms have changed dramatically due to the mass shootings we’ve seen in other states such as Uvalde a year ago,” Sears said.

Most bills passed by the Senate and House within the last two weeks of the session, including the two firearm bills, have still not officially made it to the governor’s desk as the legislative council finishes the process of looking them over.

Once they do, Scott will have five days to make a decision on whether to sign them or not.

Well, it’s really not all that hidden. It’s ‘Rules for thee, but not for me!

The Hidden Truth About Gun Control

I’ve debated gun-control lawyers. They said guns aren’t the answer for personal safety. I’ve come to a single conclusion when I look at the people who want us disarmed. Their actions speak so loud that I can barely hear their words. Some of the strongest and most consistent practitioners of armed defense are the people who espouse gun-control for the rest of us. That is the hidden truth in the gun-control debate.

We could talk about California Senator Diane Feinstein who had a concealed carry permit and told the rest of us to turn in our guns. We could talk about the celebrities who show up to a gun-control march in a limousine and are escorted down the street by their security detail. I’d rather talk about the Godfather of Gun-Control. Let’s look at billionaire and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Billionaire Bloomberg is the gun-control movement in the United States. He funds the anti-gun think tanks. He funds the AstroTurf organizations. During an election year, he funds the gun-control campaigns and political lobbying to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

You’d think that Bloomberg was against armed defense if you only listened to him. He sends another message if you watch what he does.

Mayor Bloomberg has an armed security detail with him all the time. He has armed security at his homes and as he moves to his private jets. He and his family have armed security where ever they go. Watch what he does, and even anti-gun politician Michael Bloomberg clearly thinks that guns save lives.

The Bloomberg family is surrounded by armed defenders every minute of their lives, but he wants our children left unprotected.

Bloomberg’s spokesmen say he only wants to save lives. After all, there are thousands of injuries and deaths from criminals using guns every year. Bloomberg doesn’t tell us about the thousands of times we use a firearm in armed defense every day. He is silent on the millions of times we use a firearm to defend ourselves every year.

“Millions” are much larger than “thousands.” Believe me when I say that billionaire Bloomberg can do the math. He believes that guns save lives for him.. but not for us.

While I still have a voice, I say I disagree. We don’t have a security detail of retired police officers. We are the thousands of honest citizens who will defend ourselves today. We are the one-out-of-a-dozen adults who are carrying concealed in public. Honest citizens like us are the defenders of our family, our friends, and our neighbors.

Just like Michael Bloomberg, they deserve protection too.

Biden Spent $1 Billion To Get Schools Electric Buses. This Michigan District Says Theirs Hardly Work.

Michigan’s fourth-largest school district is having “significant” performance issues with its expensive electric buses, issues that come after the Biden administration spent $1 billion to “transform America’s school bus fleet” with electric models.

During an April 19 presentation to the Ann Arbor Public Schools Board of Education, the district’s environmental sustainability director, Emile Lauzzana, highlighted a number of issues with the district’s electric bus fleet. Those buses, Lauzzana said, have “a lot of downtime and performance issues” and aren’t “fully on the road,” despite the fact that they are “approximately five times more expensive than regular buses.” The infrastructure upgrades required to use the buses, meanwhile, were “originally estimated to be only about $50,000” but “ended up being more like $200,000,” according to Lauzzana. “I have a number of colleagues in different states who are facing similar challenges,” the district official lamented. “For the school bus market, it’s been challenging for us.”

Just months before Lauzzana’s admission, President Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency announced it awarded nearly $1 billion in taxpayer funds to “transform America’s school bus fleet” with “over 2,400 clean school buses that will accelerate the transition to zero emission vehicles.” But problems with electric buses occurred long before the agency’s announcement.

Continue reading “”