Indiana Republicans reintroducing legislation to end requirement for handgun carry permits

INDIANAPOLIS – Indiana Republican lawmakers are working to reintroduce legislation that would allow many Hoosiers to carry handguns without a permit.

Several lawmakers in both the Indiana House and Senate are writing bills.

Known as “constitutional carry” or “permitless carry,” it’s a change to Indiana law some Republican legislators have been working on for years.

“It’s still to me, it’s an infringement of our constitutional rights to mandate, require somebody to jump through hoops, go get fingerprinted, pay a fee – you still have to pay to get your fingerprints done – wait God only knows how long,” said State Rep. Jim Lucas (R-Seymour), one of the lawmakers planning to introduce this type of bill.

It would still prevent anyone not allowed to carry a gun now from doing so, Lucas said.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
They are fearful and angry not because democracy doesn’t work, but because it does, despite their own media and political efforts to warp it.

When a party is hijacked by radicals and uses almost any means necessary to gain and use power for agendas that few Americans support, then average voters express their disapproval.

That reality apparently terrifies an elite. It then claims any system that allows the people to vote against the left is not “people power” at all.

Why Is the Left Suddenly Worried About the End of Democracy?

What is behind recent pessimistic appraisals of democracy’s future, from Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff, Brian Williams, and other elite intellectuals, media personalities, and politicians on the left? Some are warning about its possible erosion in 2024. Others predict democracy’s downturn as early 2022, with scary scenarios of “autocracy” and Trump “coups.”

To answer that question, understand first what isn’t behind these shrill forecasts.

They are not worried about 2 million foreign nationals crashing the border in a single year, without vaccinations during a pandemic. Yet it seems insurrectionary for a government simply to nullify its own immigration laws.

They are not worried that some 800,000 foreign nationals, some residing illegally, will now vote in New York City elections.

They are not worried that there are formal efforts underway to dismantle the U.S. Constitution by junking the 233-year-old Electoral College or the preeminence of the states in establishing ballot laws in national elections.

They are not worried that we are witnessing an unprecedented left-wing effort to scrap the 180-year-old filibuster, the 150-year-old nine-person Supreme Court, and the 60-year tradition of 50 states, for naked political advantage.

Continue reading “”

What Questions Should Second Amendment Supporters Ask Candidates For State Offices?

Second Amendment supporters should be familiar with the federalist structure that was established by the Constitution. In many ways, it has proven to be a very robust bulwark to protect our Second Amendment rights. Yes, the situation may suck in some of them, but the damage has been limited compared to what happened to gun owners in places like England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

In 2022, Second Amendment supporters have a chance to strengthen the defenses of the Second Amendment. Most states will be electing governors (and other statewide offices), and almost all will elect state legislatures. The stakes are high, and it will be crucial to ask candidates for office the right questions to avoid disappointments like Larry Hogan.

We can start with people running for state legislatures. These are races where grassroots efforts can make a big difference, especially in primary elections.

Continue reading “”

Report: Florida on Track to Become 22nd Constitutional Carry State

A report by the South Florida Sun Sentinel suggests Florida is on track to become the 22nd constitutional carry state.

Constitutional carry is a “priority” for the Republican-led Florida legislature, the Sentinel reported.

Rep. Anthony Sabatini (R) has already introduced legislation to do away with the concealed carry permit requirement for Floridians. Open carry without a permit would also be legalized by Sabatini’s bill.

Moreover, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has already made it clear he will sign constitutional carry legislation, should it reach his desk.

Florida Gun Rights’ Matt Collins posted a video online asking DeSantis, “If constitutional carry made your desk, would you sign it?”

DeSantis responded, “Of course.”

There are currently 21 constitutional carry states in the U.S. Those states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Moving steadily along


[Ohio]Senate votes to allow concealed carry of guns without training or background checks

The Ohio Senate passed legislation Wednesday that will allow any Ohioans 21 and older to carry a concealed weapon, so long as they’re allowed to possess it under state and federal law.

Currently, Ohioans must pass a background check and demonstrate proof of eight hours of training to obtain a concealed carry license. Senate Bill 215 nixes these guardrails, along with a requirement that armed people “promptly” inform police officers that they’re carrying a concealed weapon during a stop.

All Senate Republicans, minus Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, voted for the legislation. Democrats opposed the bill.

Both the House and Senate have now passed separate but similar versions of “constitutional carry” or “permitless carry” legislation, as it’s commonly known. Lawmakers will have to agree on a final version to send to Gov. Mike DeWine.

A DeWine spokesman said Wednesday the governor is reviewing the bill and noted he has “long supported the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.”

Continue reading “”

OOPS

Liz Cheney, Daily Beast Tout ‘Bombshell’ Texts That Actually Prove There Was No Insurrection.

The Leftist political and media establishment now takes for granted that on Jan. 6, Donald Trump attempted a coup, with his slavish minions storming the Capitol and threatening the very survival of our free institutions. The only thing they haven’t been able to do is to prove it, even with a vindictive round of impeachment proceedings conducted after Trump left office and an endless round of somnambulant Jan. 6 insurrection hearings in a House committee.

So it was understandable that the far-Left propaganda organ the Daily Beast was thrilled Monday when Rep. Liz Cheney (R-NeverTrump) revealed numerous texts sent to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Jan. 6, begging Trump to tell the people who had entered the Capitol to desist. They got him now, right? After years of the Russian collusion hoax and Stalinist show trial impeachment proceedings, they finally got him! Well, no. In fact, the texts Cheney revealed prove definitively that there was no Jan. 6 insurrection at all.

The Daily Beast gives Cheney’s revelations the biggest possible buildup: “A bombshell dropped in Monday night’s Jan. 6 committee hearing when it was revealed that Donald Trump Jr.—along with Fox News stars including Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham—begged White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to get the president to make a national address and halt the Capitol riot.” The unspoken corollary is that Trump paid no heed to these appeals from some of his most fervent supporters because he secretly or not-so-secretly supported the “insurrection.”

At first glance, it does look damning. Donald Trump Jr. texted Meadows: “He’s got to condemn this s**t ASAP. The Capitol Police tweet is not enough.” And then: “We need an Oval Office address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand.” Hannity texted in the same vein: “Can he make a statement. Ask people to leave the Capitol.” Ingraham wrote: “Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy.” Fox & Friends’ Brian Kilmeade chimed in: “Please, get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished.”

The Daily Beast does not bother to inform its unfortunate readers that Trump, far from orchestrating an insurrection, actually heeded these calls and issued a video statement just after 4 p.m.:

 

I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. I know you’re hurt, I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time.

There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election. But we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home, we love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home at peace.

This statement only enraged the Left, because in it Trump continued to charge that the election was stolen, which the establishment media insists is a false claim. But Trump’s statement is also unequivocal in telling the people at the Capitol on Jan. 6 to disperse peacefully; that’s hardly what one would expect from the leader of an insurrection. What’s more, it strains credulity that Trump would have been planning an “insurrection” on Jan. 6 but that his son, one of his closest confidantes, would not have known about it, and that it would have caught his top supporters in the media completely by surprise.

The bottom line is that Donald Trump Jr. and others texted Mark Meadows asking him to get Trump to make a statement pacifying the situation on Jan. 6, and Trump did so. This very simply and clearly proves that there was no insurrection at all and that the House’s Jan. 6 committee should make a statement to that effect and end its proceedings. But of course, its real purpose is to prevent Trump from being able to run again in 2024, and in pursuit of that goal, it will be with us for a long time to come.

NY State Lawmaker Thinks Constitutionality Is Irrelevant

When a law is challenged in court, what’s really being challenged is whether that law is constitutional or not. The constitutionality of any given law is something we should always be questioning. Just because we think it may yield some benefit or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether that law should exist within the framework the Founding Fathers provided.

However, it seems that some people don’t really believe that.

One such person got to write their opinion at Newsweek:

Kyle Rittenhouse’s recent acquittal portends a dire future: one in which anyone can bring a loaded weapon anywhere, and where daily encounters can turn into deadly shootouts within seconds. Luckily, states are free to regulate the concealed carry of weapons, while balancing the rights granted by the Second Amendment. But right now, the Supreme Court is considering a case that could have sweeping implications for the safety of my constituents and many other Americans. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the Court must grapple with the very real tensions between public safety and constitutional rights.

Many gun regulations, like so much else in our legal system, do have a racist and anti-immigrant origin story and are frequently applied unequally to people of color. But my state’s concealed-carry permit law comports with a long, if imperfect, history and tradition of regulating guns in public spaces. Conservative justices have long held these traditions sacrosanct when interpreting the Second Amendment. It remains to be seen whether this fealty to history comes from a genuinely held belief, or is simply a convenient means to an end. Regardless of how the Court rules, my colleagues and I stand ready to continue legislating in the best interest of the communities we represent. As one of the people closest to this problem, I believe elected officials like me should be closest to crafting the solution.

In other words, this New York state lawmaker believes that he and his colleagues should be free to pass whatever laws they want and the courts should give deference to their decisions rather than consider the constitutionality of those laws.

Continue reading “”

Another demoncrap scheme falls flat on its face.


Biden judicial commission approves final report, avoids recommendation on expanding Supreme Court
Commission’s decision to make no recommendation likely to upset liberals who called for adding justices after confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett

President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court commission unanimously approved Tuesday a final report that pointedly declined to make recommendations on the most controversial ideas offered by liberals such as expanding the number of justices.

“The commission takes no position on the validity or strength” of arguments for or against increasing the number of justices, an idea often called packing the court, the final report noted.

While avoiding a recommendation, the panel noted most serious scholars opposed court packing.

“No serious person, in either major political party, suggests court packing as a means of overturning disliked Supreme Court decisions, whether the decision in question is Roe v. Wade or Citizens United,” the final report said.

”Scholars could say, until very recently, that even as compared to other court reform efforts, ‘court-packing’ is especially out of bounds. This is part of the convention of judicial independence.”

The 34-member commission’s 288-page report is likely to disappoint liberals, who called for adding justices after the confirmation of Trump-appointee Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Biden created the commission in April to study expanding the court. He proposed the commission as a 2020 presidential candidate, when the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the swift confirmation of then-President Donald Trump’s nominee in the final weeks of the presidential election led many progressives to urge Biden to consider expanding the number of justices.

Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has not publicly embraced such a move.

The commission, made up of more than two dozen experts, also reviewed structural changes to the court like term limits and reducing the power of the federal judiciary, NBC reports.

Florida Governor DeSantis Signals Support for Permitless Gun Carry

Florida may soon become the next permitless gun-carry state.

Republican Governor Ron DeSantis indicated he supports eliminating the permit requirement for concealed carry in Florida. When asked by a gun-rights activist at a private event, he said he would sign a bill to that end if one made it to his desk.

“Of course,” DeSantis said in a video made public on Tuesday.

Christina Pushaw, a spokesperson for the governor, said the video accurately represents his position. However, she noted the governor would need to see the details of an actual bill before commenting further.

Continue reading “”

Supposing, of course, that the prognosticaations of a massive demoncrap loss actually occur…..


What Will A Post-2022 Congress Be Able To Do?

One thing Second Amendment supporters need to have in mind is what they should push for after the 2022 elections. Now, there is a lot of time between now and 2022, but based on what happened in Virginia and some other trends, it is shaping up to go very nicely for those who support the Second Amendment.

But what is to be done with what could be a pro-Second Amendment majority in the House and Senate? While Joe Biden will still have a veto pen, it doesn’t mean that Second Amendment supporters will be without options.

One could say that there is a Second Amendment supportive majority in the United States, given that all 50 Republicans and Joe Manchin, Angus King, and Jon Tester have made pro-Second Amendment votes at times. However, currently, the Senate Majority Leader is Chuck Schumer, and Schumer is making Second Amendment supporters miss having Mitch McConnell in that position.

So, what changes when Congressional leadership is pro-Second Amendment. The biggest changes will be in oversight and spending. Here, they can help prevent things like Operation Chokepoint and also put the halt to funding for anti-Second Amendment propaganda from the Centers for Disease Control. In addition, Congressional oversight could also be a way to shine the light on corporate gun control and put the heat on the CEOs.

The other thing they will do is block a lot of anti-Second Amendment legislation via a numbers game and control of the committees in the House and Senate. Now, given pro-Second Amendment legislation will not be signed into law by Biden and getting the veto-proof majorities will be highly unlikely, but just blocking anti-Second Amendment legislation at the federal level will protect our rights, especially in a post-NYSRPA v. Bruen world.

It won’t just be anti-Second Amendment legislation that will be killed if Second Amendment supporters take control of Congress. Various other attacks on our rights will also be halted, like the For the People Act and other campaign finance “reform” schemes. That will allow Second Amendment supporters to make their case to the American people, and when we are able to make that case, we win the arguments.

For the potential gains in the 2022 midterms to happen, though, Second Amendment supporters will have a lot of work to do. They need to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels via the ballot box.

Grassley Shields Second Amendment From Liberal Attack
Offers Grassley-Cruz-Tillis Public Safety, Second Amendment Protection Legislation as Alternative

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today blocked Senate passage of the largely partisan H.R. 8 legislation, which would criminalize private transfers of firearms without government involvement.
Grassley objected to the unanimous consent request, raised by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), to bring up and pass the bill without a vote in the Senate. Grassley, who offered an alternative measure providing for firearm and public safety, provided the following prepared remarks during his objection. [VIDEO]
Let me start off by saying the senseless tragedy we saw in Michigan should not have happened. The shooter killed four and injured others in a shocking act of violence. I cannot imagine what the families of the victims are going through. Difficult topics require across the aisle conversations, and I would invite my colleagues across the aisle to have a bipartisan conversation on this topic. 
 
Violent crime and violence at schools are serious problems. I have supported legislative efforts to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). For example, I introduced the EAGLES Act, a bipartisan bill that would help reauthorize the U.S. Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center, where they study targeted violence and proactively identify and manage threats before they result in tragedies.  
 
However, I have serious concerns with the bill raised by Senator Murphy. This bill is hostile toward lawful gun owners and lawful firearms transactions. This will not solve the problem it seeks to address. So-called “universal” background checks will not prevent crime, but will turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals.  
 
I’ve introduced legislation, along with Senators Cruz and Tillis, the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act. Our bill will be much more effective than the underlying bill, and has been supported by a majority of the Senate in the past. But the Democrat leadership has blocked it, which I assume they will do again today. This legislation would reauthorize and improve NICS, increase resources for prosecutions of gun crime, address mental illness in the criminal justice system and strengthen criminal law by including straw purchasing and illegal firearm trafficking statutes. It does that without burdening the Second Amendment rights of Americans. In addition, this bill would require a commission to study and report to Congress the underlying causes and triggers of mass shootings. The commission and study proposed could not come at a more important time.
 
I urge my colleagues to support this meaningful legislation. 
Sens. Grassley and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) first introduced their Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act as an amendment in 2013. The senators have once again reintroduced the legislation this year alongside Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). A summary of their legislation can be found HERE.
The partisan H.R.8 would significantly burden law-abiding gun owners without addressing the root causes of gun violence. The legislation would potentially criminalize perfectly sensible transfers, including certain transfers between family members.

In early colonial times, some colonies often ordered the populace to bear their weapons to work and even to church services. Even farther back than that, in medieval Europe, the practice of being armed at certain public functions finally devolved into carrying huge, ornately decorated ‘Bearing Swords’ which was more an indication of class status. The bigger and more expensive, the higher up the ladder you- or the master a squire was carrying for -was.
The city council of this town wants everyone attending council meetings to bear arms…. if they want to.
I rather like the idea.


‘Legally armed’ rule has critics gunning for New Mexico town

ESTANCIA, N.M. (AP) — Mayor Nathan Dial said a recently approved rule requiring people to be “legally armed” to attend an Estancia Town Council meeting is just a way of sending notice that the town is not going to let the state dictate what it can and cannot do.

“Rural New Mexico is just tired of being pushed around,” Dial told the Albuquerque Journal as he sat in town hall with a snub nose .357 on his hip. “This is not just about the Second Amendment. This is about all civil liberties.”

Continue reading “”

Bill Introduced To Expand List Of Disqualifiers

The Federal prohibitions on who may or may not purchase/possess a firearm are a subject of debate with many. On one side of the aisle we’re told that too many violent people are still able to get access to firearms. The other side might be saying “shall not be infringed” until blue in the face. Personally, just trying to report on this subject, I’ve been accused of being too “progressive” and that my views embrace unconstitutional provisions in the law. I imagine this’ll be no different. Just trying to get the details out in the open. What’s the subject today? Expanding who’s disqualified from firearm ownership.

A bill was recently introduced by Colorado Congressman Joe Neguse, the Vice Chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. Neguse announced on November 4th the introduction of the legislation. The Congressman was joined by Representatives Jake Auchincloss and Robin Kelly in bringing the bill forward. H.R.5878 – End Gun Violence Act of 2021 aims to add certain misdemeanors to the current list of those who no longer have a Second Amendment right.

Continue reading “”

It’s actually quite fun to watch demoncraps fight among themselves


Centrist Dems sink Biden’s nominee for top bank regulator.

Five Democratic senators have told the White House they won’t support Saule Omarova to head the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, effectively killing her nomination for the powerful bank-regulator position.

Why it matters: The defiant opposition from a broad coalition of senators reflects the real policy concerns they had with Omarova, a Cornell University law professor who’s attracted controversy for her academic writings about hemming in big banks.

  • Their opposition also hints at a willingness of some Democratic senators to buck the White House on an important nomination, even if it hands Republicans a political — and symbolic — victory.
  • Republicans have attacked the Kazakh-born scholar in remarkably personal terms, and turned her nomination into a proxy battle over how banks should be regulated.

Driving the news: In phone call on Wednesday, Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), all members of the Senate Banking Committee, told Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) — the panel’s chairman — of their opposition.

  • They’re joined in opposing her by Sens. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).
  • The five senators’ offices either declined to comment or did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Go deeper: Biden officials also have heard directly from the senators. They’re aware of their deep opposition and know Omarova faces nearly impossible odds for confirmation.

  • Still, they continue to back her publicly.
  • “The White House continues to strongly support her historic nomination,” a White House official told Axios.
  • “Saule Omarova is eminently qualified for this position,” the official said. “She has been treated unfairly since her nomination with unacceptable red-baiting from Republicans like it’s the McCarthy era.”

Omarova tried to salvage her candidacy during a hearing last week, where Republicans savaged her for her previous academic writings about how community banks should be regulated.

  • Her nomination, reflected in an ugly hearing in which Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) questioned whether he should call the native of the former Soviet Union “professor” or “comrade,” became a proxy battle.
  • It split between the banking industry and progressives eager to impose more regulation on it.
  • “The OCC charters, regulates and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations, as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks,” it says on its website.

The big picture: Now that the president has stared down progressives by renominating Jerome Powell for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve, ideological fights between centrists and progressives about economic appointments are going to become more pronounced.

  • Progressives like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have already indicated they’ll work to oppose Powell.
  • Warren does support another Biden move, elevating Fed governor Lael Brainard to the vice-chair position.
  • With centrists like Tester getting their preferred Fed candidate nominated for a second term, they may feel more emboldened to challenge the White House on lower-level nominations.

Governor Parson can be as ‘open to adjustments’ as he wants, but that counts for little as the legislature passes changes to laws, not him.


Police Propose Changes To Missouri’s 2A Preservation Act

Even before Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act took effect, there were a lot of grumbles from some law enforcement in the state who felt that the new law was going to set them up to be sued if they cooperated with federal agents in taking down criminal suspects who might be armed with a gun. SAPA, as it’s commonly called, not only prohibits state and local law enforcement from cooperating with the feds in enforcing any unconstitutional gun control laws, but provides an avenue by which officers can be individually sued for doing so.

Since SAPA took effect back in September, a handful of agencies have suspended all cooperation with federal authorities for fear of running afoul of the law. The law was also the subject of litigation by the city of St. Louis and a couple of counties, but a judge rejected a request to block the law from taking force. And while I don’t believe that the law as written should stop police from working with their federal counterparts, and plenty of agencies continue to do so, the Missouri Police Chiefs Association is now officially asking lawmakers to make some changes.

In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Star, the MPCA proposes specifying that the law would only apply to new federal gun restrictions approved after this past August, and that it doesn’t apply to suspects whom police encounter committing a crime.

It also proposes clarifying which weapons-related federal crimes local police are allowed to help enforce. The current law allows them to help enforce gun restrictions that are similar to those in Missouri law, as long as those charges are “merely ancillary” to another criminal charge — wording that police groups have called vague.

“It is our desire to protect the rights of ALL Missourians while protecting officers from frivolous civil litigation related to the continued joint endeavors with our federal partners,” the association wrote. “We look forward to working with you and your fellow lawmakers to address some clarifications in the law and eliminate those unintended consequences without derailing the intent of SAPA.”

MPCA director Robert Shockey, who is Arnold police chief, declined to be interviewed about the requests.

I haven’t seen a copy of the letter, so I can only base my opinion off of the report by the Kansas City Star, but the first two requests don’t seem to be unreasonable. I do have some concerns about the MPCA wanting to “clarify” which gun-related federal crimes can be enforced by law enforcement, though. First, if SAPA is only going to apply to federal gun laws that were passed after August of 2021, then there’s no need to clarify anything. Beyond that, though, does the phrase “merely ancillary” really need clarification? If an agency is cooperating with, say, a federal drug task force and a gun is discovered in the course of that drug investigation, then the gun charge is an ancillary one. If the feds are going after someone specifically for violating a new federal gun control law or regulation that isn’t mirrored in Missouri state law, local police can’t help. It’s really not that complicated.

Even if some of these complaints by police are overstated, I expect that they’re finding some receptive ears among lawmakers. SAPA original sponsor Rep. Jared Taylor has said he’s not in favor of any changes, but Gov. Mike Parson has indicated that he’s open to “adjustments” if necessary.

I don’t think there’s any chance of the law being repealed outright, but whether or not the changes would make the law better or merely water it down is going to be the topic of much debate in Jefferson City in the months ahead, and I wouldn’t be shocked to see at least some minor revisions agreed to next session.

Bleat Zero opens wide again (It is interesting that he’s got enough ‘integrity’ that he’s still so open about his fantasies of gun control)


O’Rourke: Permitless Carry & AR-15s Prevent “Responsible Gun Ownership”

We’ve seen poll after poll in recent weeks pick up on the fact that Americans are souring on gun control, with organizations like Gallup and Quinnipiac noting plunging support for new gun control laws as violent crime rises around the country. Gun control supporters like UCLA professor Adam Winkler are urging their fellow activists to quit talking about trying to ban AR-15s and “large capacity” magazines and instead focus on issues that are supposedly more popular with the public like universal background checks. Joe Biden himself isn’t talking up his gun ban plans much these days, though he was quite vocal about banning AR-15s and forcing gun owners to either hand over their modern sporting rifles or register them with the federal government.

But while Biden has mostly stopped mumbling about his gun ban, the guy he said would be in charge of rounding up the guns is still very much in favor of the idea. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke isn’t in the Biden administration, however. He’s running for governor of Texas, and on Sunday he once again told Texans that he’s coming for their guns… and their right to carry.

The former Democratic presidential and senatorial candidate told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” that Texas has a “long, proud tradition of responsible gun ownership.” But Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s support of civilians owning military-style weapons, now without training and background checks, has threatened that tradition, he said.

“Most of us here in Texas … do not want to see our friends, our family members, our neighbors shot up with these weapons of war,” he said. “So yes, I still hold this view.”

O’Rourke was responding to a question Bash posed about whether he maintains a position he shared in 2019 while expressing support for mandatory buybacks for semiautomatic weapons. He said: “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47, you’re not going to be allowed to use it against your fellow Americans anymore.”

I don’t want my friends, family members, or neighbors to die in a drunk driving accident, but I’m not trying to ban cars or liquor. Similarly, I don’t want my loved ones (or strangers, for that matter) to become the victim of a violent crime, but I don’t think that banning guns is the answer.

What Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke is really saying is that he’s willing to put people in prison for exercising their Second Amendment rights. He not only wants to criminalize owning the most commonly-purchased rifle in the United States, but wants to repeal the Constitutional Carry law that Gov. Greg Abbott signed earlier this year.

“I have also been listening to my fellow Texans who are concerned about this idea of permitless carry that Greg Abbott has signed into law, which allows any Texan to carry a loaded firearm, despite the pleadings of police chiefs and law enforcement from across the state, who said it would make their jobs more dangerous and make it harder for them to protect those that they were sworn to serve in their communities,” O’Rourke said.

“So, we don’t want extremism in our gun laws. We want to protect the Second Amendment. We want to protect the lives of our fellow Texans,” he said. “And I know that, when we come together and stop this divisive extremism that we see from Greg Abbott right now, we’re going to be able to do that.”

What’s more extreme; recognizing the right to bear arms without a government permission slip or putting people in prison for maintaining possession of an AR-15 that was lawfully purchased? Heck, even if you think both are equally extreme positions, wouldn’t you rather side with the “extreme” position that doesn’t involve jailing people for exercising a constitutionally protected right?

Would Texans be safer with some Beto-style gun control laws in place? Why not ask Baltimore residents? After all, AR-15s and other “assault weapons” have been banned for nearly 10 years in Maryland, and the state’s “may issue” laws prevent all but a handful of residents around the state from lawfully carrying a gun in self-defense. Baltimore also just surpassed 300 homicides this year; a grim milestone that has been reached for seven years straight.

The idea that we can ban our way to safety not only runs afoul of our Constitution, but is an affront to common sense. The fact that it’s also the fundamental premise of Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s public safety platform tells me that the Democrat is a true believer when it comes to infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. There are all kinds of reasons for O’Rourke to pivot from his gun banning desires, but instead he’s doubling down on his intent to criminalize our Second Amendment rights.

SAF: SURVEY SHOWS PUBLIC TRUSTS GOP MORE THAN DEMS ON GUNS

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today pointed to a new Morning Consult/Politico survey finding that the public trusts Republicans more than Democrats on gun policy as an acknowledgement that Americans are rejecting the Democrats’ radical gun control agenda.

The survey of almost 2,000 registered voters was conducted Nov. 5-7 and revealed that in the top five areas of concern—national security, the economy, gun policy, immigration and jobs—polling results show Democrats trailing.

“These survey results are revealing, especially on firearms policies,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “After years of failed gun control policies, the public has finally concluded that Democrats have only worked to disarm law-abiding citizens and make us more vulnerable to criminal attack. Policies advertised as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals have actually only been tough on their intended victims.

“The survey found that 46 percent of all American voters think Republicans do a better job on gun policy, while 39 percent still cling to the notion Democrats have the right approach, but a significant 15 percent are still in the middle,” he continued. “When the survey numbers focus on important suburban voters, the numbers get even worse. Forty-seven percent of voters in the suburbs believe Republicans are better on gun policy, while only 37 percent support Democrat schemes, and 16 percent remain undecided.

“The ten percent margin in the suburbs is extremely important for the upcoming 2022 midterm elections,” Gottlieb said. “That is where almost all the swing congressional districts are. This could cost the Democrats between 40 and 60 seats in the House.”

SAF has run more than 1,000 national TV spots on over 24 cable networks, along with radio advertising and millions of impressions on the Internet have helped educate the public on gun policy and the survey reflects the impact.

Gottlieb pointed to the election results in Virginia, which signaled a “new direction in the Old Dominion.” Commonwealth voters filled all statewide offices with Republicans, and put the House back in GOP control following two disastrous years.

“I anticipate Virginia gun owners will press the new administration and legislative majority to quickly undo the policies adopted by Ralph Northam and his cronies in 2020,” Gottlieb predicted. “Those policies, specifically the destruction of state preemption which guarantees uniformity of gun laws statewide, and the one-handgun-per-month purchase restriction, penalize honest citizens and do nothing to reduce violent crime.

“Democrats may have forgotten that right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution,” he concluded. “Rights are not up to a public vote, but people who attempt to infringe on those rights certainly are. Voters made that clear in Virginia and are poised to do it again in November 2022.”

 

NSSF PRAISES SENATE BIPARTISAN OUTDOOR RECREATION ACT

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the firearm industry trade association, praised the introduction of the bipartisan Outdoor Recreation Act. This legislation, introduced by U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), would increase and improve outdoor recreation opportunities across the nation while improving infrastructure and driving economic growth in rural communities.

“The National Shooting Sports Foundation commends Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Sen. Joe Manchin and Ranking Member Sen. John Barrasso for introducing this vitally important outdoor recreation package,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “In particular, NSSF appreciates the bipartisan measures included in this legislation that would require the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to ensure that both agencies have at least one qualifying recreational shooting range in each National Forest and BLM district. Recreational shooting is tied to approximately 85 percent of the Pittman-Robertson excise taxes currently being paid by firearm and ammunition manufacturers, making it a major driving contributor to wildlife conservation. This legislation would ensure that recreational marksmanship can be practiced in accessible and safe environments while also benefiting conservation.”

Senator Manchin explained in a press release that the Outdoor Recreation Act would support outdoor recreation economies and provide an economic boost to local communities while preserving public lands for future generations. Sen. Barrasso added that the bill not only establishes public access to shooting ranges on USFS and BLM lands, but also ensures access to public lands and modernizes campgrounds.

Specifically, the legislation would direct the Forest Service to issue guidance for recreational climbing in designated Wilderness Areas and require the Forest Service and BLM to designate many new shooting ranges on National Forests and BLM land.

Unless demoncrap goobernor Wolf has an ephiphany, my guess is he vetoes this, but that’s politics.


Bill to Make Pennsylvania 22nd Constitutional Carry State Heads to Gov. Wolf

Legislation that would make Pennsylvania the 22nd constitutional carry state passed the state house yesterday and is heading to Gov. Tom Wolf’s (D) desk.

The Associated Press reports that the legislation would do away with any municipal-level permit requirement for open carry and end the statewide requirement that law-abiding citizens get a permit in order to conceal carry.

ABC 27 describes the legislation, House Bill 565, as “polarizing.” Republicans support the bill, Democrats largely oppose it.

House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff (R) commented on HB565, saying, “The legislation to assert Pennsylvanian’s constitutional right to carry firearms without a permit protects the Second Amendment and Article 1, sec. 21 state constitutional rights of legal gun owners. The bill changes nothing regarding who can legally own a gun and takes nothing away from law enforcement from going after those owning and using guns illegally.”

State rep. Jordan Harris (D) voiced opposition to the bill.

Harris said, “We’re wasting time on a piece of legislation that’s gonna be vetoed. We know there’s no votes to override the governor’s veto, we’re literally wasting time when Pennsylvanians have sent us here to address the issues that are of the utmost importance to them and I personally believe this is not one of them.”

The other 21 states with constitutional carry are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Using their own rule book against them.
Rule #5 “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”


Biden tormented by Republican guerrilla campaign and ‘I did it’ stickers

If you see Joe Biden’s picture on a gas pump these days, it’s not a tribute to his amazingly successful energy policy.

The stickers — with Biden pointing to the $3.50 a gallon gas price and saying “I did that!” — are part of a Republican guerrilla campaign to undermine the Democratic administration. They’ve gone viral online.
And it’s cheap and easy. A 100-pack of the stickers is going for just six bucks on Amazon. You might see the derisive stickers up in New Hampshire, the swing state Biden is set to visit on Tuesday to promote his $1.2 trillion infrastructure package that just passed Congress.

The Democratic president may not get the overwhelmingly positive reception he was hoping for, though.

New Hampshire is a blue state that’s in danger of going red in the 2022 mid-term election and, like the colorful leaves that fall before winter, it’s often a harbinger of chilly political winds to come. Biden’s approval rating in the Granite State is the same as it is nationally — abysmal. And the passage of the infrastructure bill won’t change that, no matter how much the Democrats and CNN celebrate it.

The gas pump stickers are similar tactics to what Democrats did to Republican presidents like Trump. Remember those “Not my President” bumper stickers? So in a way Republicans now are just returning the favor.
Biden opponents have also adopted the “Let’s Go Brandon” chant to taunt the president. It’s a PG way of saying something much more crude that has the same number of syllables, but it’s a clever tactic and it drives Democrats crazy.

This is what passes for grass roots political strategy these days. The “Let’s Go Brandon” chant and “I Did it” stickers went viral on social media platforms like TikTok.

New Hampshire is a hotbed of politics, because of the first in the nation primary. Voters have become accustomed to getting up close to presidents and candidates and aren’t afraid to confront them in person.

That’s why Biden’s visit contains some risk, although he’ll be protected in his trip to Woodstock, far out of major cities like Nashua and Manchester.
Biden is also planning to spend some quality time in the little middle class enclave of Nantucket over the Thanksgiving holiday. Nothing like going to an ultra exclusive vacation island to showcase how the infrastructure bill will help the little people in the middle of an economic crisis.

Air Force One is expected to fly right into Nantucket’s tiny airport, and Secret Service will be crawling all over the island, which I’m sure the locals will appreciate.