Category: RKBA

Virginia’s Second Amendment Sanctuaries: An Update

Last week I wrote about the spread of Virginia’s “Second Amendment sanctuaries” — counties, towns, and cities that vow not to enforce state gun laws they deem unconstitutional, in the wake of the Democrats’ taking control of the state government. There are a few new developments worth noting.

For starters, the sanctuaries have spread dramatically. They’re up to 93 jurisdictions — covering roughly 40 percent of the population, by my quick spreadsheet tally. That’s huge, though the biggest victory, in Prince William County, is likely to be overturned when the county board flips to the Democrats, and some of these places have passed vague resolutions in support of the Constitution rather than the more aggressive language proposed by the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

As I noted in my previous piece, these resolutions have limited legal effect; local governments are basically subordinate to state governments. But defiance like this can put political pressure on moderate Democrats — and, failing that, can force the state government to either (A) take drastic action to stamp out resistance or (B) give up and let these places refuse to enforce new gun laws, possibly ramping up state-police activity there as a replacement.

On the politics, it’s worth noting that the state Democrats have already caved on confiscating “assault weapons,” modifying a bill so that it would still ban sales going forward but would require current owners to register their guns rather than turning them in.

It’s also worth comparing this map of sanctuaries:

. . . with this one of Virginia senate districts. (Click here to see the interactive version via the Virginia Public Access Project; I chose the senate because it’s much closer politically than the house.)

If an area is blue in both maps, it’s both a sanctuary and represented by a Democrat, suggesting a senator who might experience this movement as pressure from home. Such places do exist, though often the sanctuary jurisdictions make up only a minority of the Democratic district’s population. (See, e.g., districts 18, 21, and 25.) However, the senate is split 21–19, so it doesn’t take a lot of side-switching to stop a bill.

Finally, on how the Democrats will respond in the event they pass new gun laws and many local law-enforcement agencies refuse to enforce them, the governor has threatened “consequences,” and other Virginia Democrats have floated everything from prosecutions of local authorities, to cutting off state funds, to National Guard deployment.

Fun times.

Congress to fund CDC gun violence research for first time in decades

The CDC could always research ‘gun violence’. The Dickey amendment just kept them from promoting a political gun control agenda.

Congress is poised to approve $25 million in gun violence research as part of its year-end spending deal due Friday.

The sum is half what Democratic leaders requested, but it would be the first time in two decades that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would receive direct funding to look into the issue. The funding is part of the deal Congress must pass by Friday to avoid a government shutdown, with half of the money going to the CDC and the rest going to the National Institutes of Health, which provide grants to scientists.

Democrat Rosa DeLauro, who is chairwoman of the House appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, said the funding would allow the CDC to help Congress better understand the correlation between domestic violence and gun violence, how people can store their guns more safely, and how to prevent suicides, which account for two-thirds of gun deaths.

Despite the funding victory, Democrats were unable to convince the Senate to take up a bill that would require universal background checks, which was passed by the House but is opposed by President Trump.

The push for gun violence research is part of the reaction to the mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, seven years ago. Cries for change grew louder following mass shootings at an Orlando nightclub, a country music concert in Las Vegas, and a high school in Parkland, Florida.

Last year, Congress passed a change to the Dickey Amendment, which was enacted in 1996 and prohibits federal agencies from advocating or promoting gun control, to “clarify” that agencies could research gun violence. Opponents have pushed to have the prohibition repealed, saying it had a chilling effect on gun violence research. Even with the change in language, research languished because Congress hadn’t appropriated funding.

Today is Bill of Rights Day when the Virginia legislature’s vote in 1791 surpassed the number of state’s needed to ratify the amendments.

Now, they’ve got some of the modern day Virginia legislators threatening to use the Virginia National Guard to confiscate arms if the local LE agencies won’t execute proposed laws to ban & confiscate arms in the hands of the citizenry.

If I recall history, almost the same thing happened in Massachusetts back in 1775 and we all know how that ended up.

 

Myth busted: Campus carry never caused that increase in violence liberals predicted

Nothing unusual in busting proggie mythology.

The argument in favor of arbitrarily revoking the Second Amendment rights of college students, as is done in dozens of states, has ostensibly been rooted in safety concerns.

And it just got a lot weaker.

Two anti-gun professors wrote in the Washington Post that “campus-carry laws will invite tragedies on college campuses, not end them.” Another liberal professor, writing for the New York Times, warned that “when there are more guns around, there is more risk – it’s as simple as that.”

The trouble with such predictions is that they tend to be tested as time goes by. And as it turns out, they simply weren’t true. Students just aren’t waging the gun battles that anti-gun activists expected. A new report from the College Fix looked into this narrative, and it came up empty.

When a reporter reached out to numerous universities that permit campus carry, “all of the schools that responded confirmed that they have seen no uptick in violence since their respective policies were put in place.” Responding colleges included Emporia State University, Dixie State University, and Valdosta State University. Separately, the Texas Tribune has reported that after the Lone Star State implemented campus carry at four-year colleges state-wide, it resulted in “no sharp increase in violence or intimidation,” and in fact, the following year was “quiet” and “uneventful.”

These are just a few examples, but even studies cited favorably by gun control advocates admit that “results certainly do not prove that campus carry causes more crime.” Essentially, it’s now clear that conservatives and libertarians had this one right. Allowing American adults aged 18 to 22 to exercise their Second Amendment rights on public college campuses is a no-brainer, as there are few rights more fundamental than the right to self-defense. Plus, the inconsistent nature of current “gun-free campus” rules already makes little sense.

The current system in many states bans college students from carrying guns but would allow adults of the same age who do not attend college to carry firearms. This is an arbitrary inconsistency that makes little sense, as there’s nothing to suggest that college students are more violent or less responsible than their noncollege peers. So, too, guns are often allowed at high-risk off-campus sites such as fraternity houses, yet barred from the actual campus — a glaring inconsistency that makes little sense. And now it’s officially confirmed that arbitrarily revoking college students’ Second Amendment rights doesn’t even make anyone safer.

It’s impossible for blue-state legislators and liberal college administrators to keep justifying their harsh anti-gun policies. That is, unless they’re willing to admit that they just hate the idea of gun rights.

INSLEE, FERGUSON TO LEGISLATURE: IT’S TIME TO LIMIT HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES, STOP SELLING ASSAULT WEAPONS IN WASHINGTON

Y’all didn’t really think the gun-grabbers were going to stop after I-1639 did you?

Ferguson also proposes safety measures for ammunition sales

SEATTLE — Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced today he will propose a package of legislation to combat mass shootings in Washington state. Gov. Jay Inslee, a longtime supporter of gun safety measures, is joining Ferguson for the first time to propose limits to magazine capacity and a ban on the sale of assault weapons…………..

High-Capacity Magazine Limits……..
Ferguson and Inslee are proposing joint-request legislation to limit the capacity of magazines sold in Washington to 10-rounds……

Assault Weapons Sales
For the fourth consecutive session, Ferguson is proposing legislation to ban the sale of assault weapons. For the first time, Gov. Inslee will jointly request the legislation…………

Ammunition Sales
Ferguson’s ammunition legislation:

Prohibits violent felons and other individuals who cannot lawfully obtain firearms from purchasing or possessing ammunition
Makes it illegal for firearms dealers to knowingly sell ammunition to violent felons and other individuals prohibited from owning firearms
Prohibits dealers from knowingly selling ammunition to violent offenders and other individuals prohibited from owning firearms
Requires ammunition sellers to obtain a state firearms license, which costs $125……..
Requires background checks for all ammunition sales 30 days after the U.S. Department of Justice changes its rules and authorizes dealers to use the national instant criminal background check system, known as NICS, to initiate a check for a transfer of ammunition…….

Virginia Dems Cave on Confiscation as 2A Sanctuaries Expand
Gun-rights groups unsatisfied with concession, vow to fight on

Virginia Democratic leaders abandoned their gun confiscation proposal Monday following a grassroots outpouring of opposition to gun control across the state.

Governor Ralph Northam (D.) and incoming Senate majority leader Dick Saslaw (D.) said they will no longer pursue their marquee plan to ban the possession of “assault weapons.” Instead, they will include a provision to allow Virginians to keep the firearms they already own. The reversal comes before the newly elected Democratic majority has even been sworn in, after a majority of the state’s counties declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries.”

“In this case, the governor’s assault weapons ban will include a grandfather clause for individuals who already own assault weapons, with the requirement they register their weapons before the end of a designated grace period,” Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky told the Virginia Mercury.
The Democrats’ backtracking may indicate a trend in the gun debate in Virginia. Gun-control advocates poured millions of dollars into successfully flipping the state legislature, but the outpouring of opposition to their agenda, even in deep blue areas, may cause some new members of the state legislature to be cautious about backing gun control. The concession is unlikely to end the fight brewing across the state, however, as Democrats still plan to pursue a ban on many new sales.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League, which has pushed counties to refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws, said there is “no doubt” the Democrats’ retreat was a result of the Second Amendment sanctuary movement.

“They were hoping to play that card later, but they’re playing it now because they have to find some way to slow down this whole process,” Philip Van Cleave, the group’s president, told the Washington Free Beacon.

Gun-rights groups said the backtracking is merely a political strategy designed to enact new gun bans and registration.

“Gov. Northam and the rest of Virginia’s anti-gun politicians’ idea of a compromise is to threaten hundreds of thousands of Virginians with felonies unless they submit to government control,” Catherine Mortensen, a National Rifle Association spokesperson, told the Free Beacon. “The NRA will stand with the Commonwealth’s law-abiding gun owners in solidarity to oppose gun bans, confiscations, and registrations.”

“We’ve been down this compromise road and their version of a compromise is they never give up anything,” Van Cleave said. “We are expected to give up something every time and we’re not doing it anymore. I think gun owners are tired of this and they’re gonna stand up and fight this stuff.”

The grandfather clause offered by Northam’s office had no impact on VCDL’s opposition to the bill, Van Cleave said, and the group will fight any new gun ban—whether it has a confiscation component or not.

“The problem with what his suggestion is it’s still taking away guns,” Van Cleave said. “Yeah, we get to keep our AR-15s, but what about the next generation and the generation after them? Who are we to negotiate away their rights and accept this crap?”

He did suggest they could work with Democrats on gun legislation if it targeted criminals instead of gun owners.

According to Van Cleave, there were 59 sanctuaries in the state as of Tuesday. VCDL is organizing supporters to attend 20 more meetings this week alone.

Gov. Northam says localities could face ‘consequences’ if law enforcement officers don’t enforce gun laws

‘The law is the law’: Virginia Democrats float prosecution, National Guard deployment if police don’t enforce gun control

Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill say local police who do not enforce gun control measures likely to pass in Virginia should face prosecution and even threats of the National Guard.

After November’s Virginia Legislature elections that led to Democrats taking control of both chambers, the gun control legislation proposed by some Democrats moved forward, including universal background checks, an “assault weapons” ban, and a red flag law.

Legal firearm owners in the state, however, joined with their sheriffs to form Second Amendment sanctuary counties, which declare the authorities in these municipalities uphold the Second Amendment in the face of any gun control measure passed by Richmond.

Over 75 counties in Virginia have so far adopted such Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions in the commonwealth, the latest being Spotsylvania County. The board of supervisors voted unanimously to approve a resolution declaring that county police will not enforce state-level gun laws that violate Second Amendment rights.

Virginia Democratic officials, however, already say local law enforcement supporting these resolutions will face consequences if they do not carry out any law the state Legislature passes.

“I would hope they either resign in good conscience, because they cannot uphold the law which they are sworn to uphold, or they’re prosecuted for failure to fulfill their oath,” Democratic Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly told the Washington Examiner of local county police who may refuse to enforce future gun control measures. “The law is the law. If that becomes the law, you don’t have a choice, not if you’re a sworn officer of the law.”

Democratic Virginia Rep. Donald McEachin suggested cutting off state funds to counties that do not comply with any gun control measures that pass in Richmond.

“They certainly risk funding, because if the sheriff’s department is not going to enforce the law, they’re going to lose money. The counties’ attorneys offices are not going to have the money to prosecute because their prosecutions are going to go down,” he said.

McEachin also noted that Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam could call the National Guard, if necessary.

“And ultimately, I’m not the governor, but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law,” he said. “That’s his call, because I don’t know how serious these counties are and how severe the violations of law will be. But that’s obviously an option he has.”

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring blamed the numerous Second Amendment resolutions in the state on the “gun lobby” as a tactic to frighten state residents.

“The resolutions that are being passed are being ginned up by the gun lobby to try to scare people. What we’re talking about here are laws that will make our communities and our streets safer,” Herring told CBS 6.

US Supreme Court Denies Pennsylvania’s Appeal Regarding Whether Display of a Firearm Constitutes Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity

As our viewers are aware, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince drafted an Amicus Brief in Commonwealth v. Hicks on behalf of Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, Firearm Owners Against Crime (“FOAC”) and Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”), resulting in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issuing a monumental decision on May 31, 2019, wherein it held, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that the mere display of a firearm did not constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. As the Court explicitly held that its decision was rendered pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 (in addition to the 4th Amendment) and the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn the PA Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Pennsylvania Constitution, it was expected that the case was over.

However, as we previously discussed, on August 16, 2019, the Commonwealth appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. You can find a copy of the Commonwealth’s Petition for Certiorari here and Mr. Hick’s response here. The Petition and Mr. Hick’s response were considered during the December 6, 2019 conference and on December 9, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Commonwealth’s request to review the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision; thereby leaving in place the decision by the PA Supreme Court that the mere open carrying or display of a firearm, in and of itself, does not constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

If you or someone you know has had their constitutional rights violated by merely openly possessing a firearm, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.

Thousands of lawful California gun owners are being denied ammunition purchases. Here’s why

It’s not a bug. This is a feature of the new law.

Christopher Lapiniski, operations manager at Last Stand Readiness & Tactical, describes the hurdles to buying ammunition in California on Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2019, at the gun store on Florin Road in Sacramento.

Zachary Berg usually buys guns and ammunition with relative ease. After all, he’s a Sutter County sheriff’s deputy and needs them for his job. California’s stringent gun laws usually don’t apply to him.

But Berg couldn’t buy shotgun shells at his local hardware store in Yuba City prior to a duck hunting trip last month. He was rejected under California’s stringent ammunition background check program that took effect July 1, because his personal information didn’t match what state officials had in their database.

Berg was one of tens of thousands of Californians who have been turned away from buying ammunition at firearms and sporting goods stores, even though they appear to be lawfully able to do so, a Sacramento Bee review of state data shows. Between July 1 and November, nearly one in every five ammunition purchases was rejected by the California Department of Justice, the figures show.

Of the 345,547 ammunition background checks performed, only 101 stopped the buyer because he or she was a “prohibited person” who can’t legally possess ammunition, according to state Department of Justice data.

From the vid commentary:

Virginia’s 2A: Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

44-1. Composition of militia.
The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age.
The militia shall be divided into three classes: the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; and the unorganized militia.

I do not think that it can be any more clear, on how much of a violation SB16-18-64 will be.

Virginia Sheriff: ‘I Will Deputize Thousands of Citizens To Protect Their Gun Rights’

Culpepper County, VA — It looks like what Virginia gun owners needed was a wake up call. Or more accurately, a wake up slap in the face.

Sheriff Scott Jenkins of Culpepper County, VA made a post on his official county Facebook page pledging to support the Second Amendment.  In the post made on December 4th, Jenkins went so far as to say that he has a strategy if gun control comes knocking:

“I plan to properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms.”

Tazewell County Forms Militia in Response to New Virginia Gun Laws

In response to the wave of proposed anti-gun legislation in Virginia, many of its cities and counties have declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries. One county, in particular, took it a step further at their December 3rd County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting.

In addition to passing their Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolution, the county also passed a Militia Resolution. This resolution formalizes the creation, and maintenance of a defacto civilian militia in the county of Tazewell.

Bloomberg Unveils Radical Anti-Freedom Plan Attacking Second Amendment Rights

Nothing unusual from the elitist, wanna-be, know nothing, nanny-tyrant.

Democrat presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, who is sympathetic toward the Chinese Communist Party, unveiled a massive anti-freedom proposal on Thursday aimed at severely clamping down on American’s constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights.

Speaking in Colorado, Bloomberg called for criminalizing transfers of firearms, increasing the age required to purchase firearms, a multi-day waiting period when purchasing firearms, unconstitutional red flag laws that allow the government to confiscate a person’s firearms without due process, and banning semi-automatic firearms……..

From his website:

More effective background checks

Create an effective background check system so that no one can purchase a gun without passing a completed background check.

    • Require point-of-sale background checks for all gun sales and finally close the private sale loophole, which enables prohibited people to buy guns simply by finding unlicensed sellers at gun shows or on the Internet.
    • Require every gun buyer to get a permit before making a purchase.
    • Use sales records to identify crime guns and notify local police when individuals have been prohibited from having a gun. A central system will let local authorities know when a gun owner has become barred from having firearms – due to a criminal conviction or a restraining order.
    • Allow for extreme risk screening before guns are purchased so that issuers would be equipped to deny licenses to troubled people who pose a danger to themselves or others.
    • Curb the dangers of downloadable guns and ghost guns by reversing Trump’s proposed firearm export regulations that loosen oversight of gun exports—and make it easier to publish 3D-printing gun blueprints online. And work to pass legislation barring online publication of those files.

Keep guns out of the wrong hands

Close loopholes, including one that prohibits married domestic abusers from possessing guns, but not unmarried ones.

      • Close the “boyfriend loophole” which allows domestic abusers to have guns, despite criminal convictions or restraining orders—simply because they are not married to their victims.
      • Pass a federal red flag law that expands extreme risk orders to 50 states—and funds state efforts to maximize the policy.
      • Require gun buyers to be at least 21 years old to buy handguns and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
      • Set a temporary bar on gun possession by assault and other violent misdemeanor offenders.

Protect our children and communities by banning assault weapons, protecting schools, and preventing unintentional shootings

      • Reinstate the federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
      • Require secure storage of firearms which have been shown to reduce the risk of child gun injuries by up to 85 percent. However, an estimated 4.6 million American children live in houses with an unlocked gun.
      • Ban all guns in K-12 schools, colleges, and universities – except for law enforcement.

Tackle daily gun violence in the hardest-hit communities

      • Fund at least $100 million annually for local violence intervention programs.
      • Increase ATF funding by up to $100 million annually so that the Bureau is able to police the gun industry more effectively.
      • Fund at least $100 million annually for public health research into gun violence.
      • Require all gun buyers to wait at least 48 hours before any firearm purchase.
      • Make straw purchasing and trafficking stand-alone federal crimes, with serious penalties for offenders in order to help stop illicit sales.
      • Require all gun owners must report to police if their firearms have been lost or stolen, within 3 days after they know or should know that their guns are missing.

    Hold the Gun Industry accountable and elevate government’s response to the gun violence crisis

      • Repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) so that gunmakers and gun dealers will no longer have broad immunity from civil lawsuits.
      • Allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to treat guns like other household products so that the federal government will have the power to set safety requirements for gun technology.
      • Formally declare the gun violence crisis to be a public health emergency to expedite funds and research.
      • Appoint a White House gun coordinator to mobilize the public to fight gun violence and launch an interagency hub to fight gun violence.
      • Focus executive energy on suicide reduction, school safety interventions, and corporate partnerships.

‘Universal’ Background Checks and Waiting Periods are Inherently Dangerous

By Miguel A. Faria, M.D.

A good approach to gun violence and street crime should not involve penalizing law-abiding citizens and infringing on their Second Amendment rights, while coddling criminals. Yet that is exactly what Democrats want to do. In fact they have tried to exempt criminal gangs from the draconian laws, including red flag laws, that they want to exact on the law-abiding citizens. It sounds incredible but it is true.

The Democrats want to force strict background checks upon law-abiding citizens with no time limit or deadline for the FBI to issue an approval. Before the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was instituted in 1998, the Brady Law (1994-1998) was in effect. It mandated a federal background check on all firearms purchases and imposed a five-day waiting period before the transfer of the purchased firearm. It was ineffective and did not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Gun control is inherently dangerous.

Incidentally, the Democrats also instituted an “assault weapons” ban from 1994 to 2004 that had no effect on crime or mass shootings. Congress, led by the Republicans at the time, wisely let it expire and refused to re-introduce it.

The Brady Law enforcing waiting periods for gun purchases passed in several states, endangering lawful citizens needing to purchase a gun quickly for self-protection. There are lurid stories of victims killed by attackers who previously threatened them. They were killed while waiting to pick up newly-purchased and badly needed guns for self-protection.

The “universal” background checks legislation now pushed by Democrats would do the same thing, endangering potential victims — not to mention the fact that the information can be used for illegally registering firearms, which we know is a prelude to banning and confiscation. This has happened in Washington, DC, Detroit, New York City, Seattle, and several jurisdictions in California.

Gun Owners of America keeps useful data available for study. As I outlined in my book, their research shows that waiting periods threaten the safety of people in imminent danger.

One case described was that of Bonnie Elmasri, who tried to obtain a gun for self-protection against an abusive husband, a spouse who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was subjected to a 48-hour waiting period to buy her handgun. Unfortunately, Bonnie did not get her gun in time. The next day, her abusive husband, a man well known to the police, killed her and her two sons.

In yet another tragic case, Carol Bowne of New Jersey tried to buy a gun for self-protection but was forced to wait several weeks for her background check. While fearfully waiting, the man who had been stalking her and who she was afraid would kill her, stabbed her to death.

In contrast, we have the case of Marine Corporal Rayna Ross. She was able to purchase a gun in a state without a waiting period and was forced to use it in self-defense only two days later, killing her assailant. If Corporal Ross had been subjected to a waiting period or burdensome universal background checks, like Bonnie Elmasri or Carol Bowne, she would have been defenseless against the man who was stalking her.

Serious attempts to decrease gun violence should involve keeping guns away from convicted criminals who have legally forfeited their right to possess guns. In fact, the vast majority of murderers are career criminals with long criminal records.

We now know that the typical murderer has a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record. But instead, Democrats coddle criminals and penalize law-abiding gun owners. Why?

In a recent article, Dr Jim Ausman, Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of Surgical Neurology International and I analyze the topic in some detail. We concluded that gun control is about people control. My recently released book, America, Guns, and Freedom: A Journey Into Politics and the Public Health & Gun Control Movements, which examines the push for civilian disarmament by the public health establishment, also concludes that gun control is about people control which is inherently dangerous.

If the Democrats win the Presidency and the US Senate in 2020, they will empower government to implement very dangerous, draconian gun control legislation. If we are to preserve freedom, that must not be allowed to happen.