2nd Amendment Activists’ Lawsuit Forces Illinois State Police to Do Their Job

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation confirmed today its federal lawsuit against the Illinois State Police that compelled the agency to hire additional personnel in order to clear a backlog of applications for Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) cards because the issue has been resolved, and dismissed.

The case was known as Marszalek v. Kelly.

Joining SAF in the legal action, which was filed in July 2020, were the Illinois State Rifle Association and several individual plaintiffs. The lawsuit was also supported by the Goldwater Institute of Phoenix, Ariz. Plaintiffs were represented by attorneys David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., Gregory Bedell of Chicago, Ill., and Timothy Sandedur with the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix.

“The issue was quite simple and we’re glad it is resolved,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “In 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, restrictions were put in place in Illinois that caused the Illinois State Police to completely fail in its statutory responsibility to process applications for FOID cards in 30 days. However, the state was taking up to six months, and sometimes more, to complete this process, and the result was Illinois citizens were being denied the exercise of their Second Amendment rights.”

At the time, the State Police said pandemic restrictions prevented it from hiring additional staff to process applications while the agency updated its system. Thanks to pressure from SAF, ISRA, and the court, the State Police cleared the application backlog and acknowledged its obligation to speed up the process and comply with the time frame.

“We’re satisfied with the outcome,” Gottlieb said, “and we’re especially pleased at the support from the Goldwater Institute.”

While this lawsuit is dismissed, other legal challenges in Illinois are still pending.

And the rest of the country too.

This Is How Much Money Texas’ Economy Makes From the Gun Industry

Gun ownership has been a staple of traditional American life since the inception of the country, and even long before then. Some Americans use guns only to go hunting, for sport, or home protection, but there are many gun enthusiasts who embrace the Second Amendment and load up on as many firearms as they can. Whether it is one gun or 20, selling guns in the United States is a lucrative business.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that Americans bought roughly 18.5 million firearms in 2021, the second most ever in a year and down only slightly from the record-high 21 million in 2020.With these back-to-back years of historic gun sales, someone is profiting big, including some states.

Both directly and indirectly, the firearms sector accounts for a total of 31,632 jobs in Texas – 14,470 in firearm and ammunition manufacturing, sales, and distribution, and another 17,162 in supplier and ancillary industries – the most among the 50 states.

The gun industry in Texas paid an average wage of $51,652 in 2021 and generated an estimated $330.7 million in federal business tax revenue that year.

When accounting for wages and taxes as well as indirect contributions, the firearms industry contributed to $5.6 billion in output in Texas in 2021, the highest amount among states.

All data in this story is from the Shooting Sports Foundation’s Firearm and Ammunition Industry Economic Impact report.

(Chart after the break because itsa biggie

Continue reading “”

Senate Democrats, DOJ at odds over ATF “ghost gun” rule

More than a dozen Democratic members of the U.S. Senate have fired off a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and ATF Director Steve Dettelbach to “encourage” them to issue new guidance to law enforcement regarding the Biden administration’s recently-imposed rules on DIY gun-making kits. According to the anti-gun Senators, led by Richard Blumethal of Connecticut, the rule, which requires kits containing unfinished frames or receivers to be treated as finished firearms (including a serial number and background checks on commercial sales), is supposedly being circumvented by companies exploiting a loophole in the rule.

Notwithstanding the Ghost Gun Rule, ghost gun companies have continued to sell the parts and tools to make these dangerous firearms—contending that the final rule fails to cover them and their products. These companies have adopted the position that selling nearly-complete frames and receivers without the tools (commonly known as jigs) or instructions to complete them means that their products are not firearms under federal law. Of the 100 companies previously known to sell unserialized and nearly-complete frames and receivers, dozens remain engaged in that business—including selling nearly-complete unserialized frames and receivers as well as offering the standalone tools and equipment with directions to help purchasers complete them.

The final rule, however, is clear and unambiguous: a nearly-complete frame or receiver is a firearm. The rule does not cover only frames and receivers sold as part of a kit, but also frames and receivers that can be readily completed. Indeed, enforcing the rule only against sellers of kits would be a colossal loophole that would swallow the rule because the outcome is one and the same: both kits and standalone frames and receivers can readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to an operational frame or receiver. The text of the Ghost Gun Rule is consistent with other steps ATF has taken to ensure that unfinished frames and receivers are treated as firearms. For example, ATF has rescinded prior determination letters that ruled nearly-complete frames or receivers are not firearms and has required manufacturers to resubmit these parts for review.

Here’s the problem for Blumenthal and his anti-gun buddies; the Justice Department has already argued in at least one court case that the new rule does not cover, nor was it meant to cover, unfinished frames and receivers sold by themselves. A Texas company called Division 80 filed suit to block the rules from going into effect, in essence arguing that the rule was as broad as Blumenthal says it is, and would require the company to cease all operations. Not so, argued the Department of Justice.

Continue reading “”

Taking Back the Narrative Around Responsible Gun Ownership

It’s no secret that some in the national media, anti-gun politicians at both the state and federal level and anti-gun special interests groups, are working hard to diminish the importance of responsible gun ownership.  As the crime crisis continues to bombard communities and the midterm elections quickly approach, anti-gun proponents are doubling down on soft-on-crime policies and firearm bans in efforts to point the finger at those legally acting on their Second Amendment rights rather than admitting the negative impact these policies have on public safety.

This unsubstantiated blame game on law-abiding gun owners commonly occurs after tragedies involving firearms, putting guns at the forefront of the issue versus other contributing factors like mental health, loopholes in the criminal justice system or the evildoers themselves.  However, we’re also seeing an effort to cover up the millions of cases of defensive gun use that take place across the nation each year.  Take, for example, the story of how a good guy with a gun took down an active shooter at a mall in Greenwood, Indiana; preventing what could have been a mass casualty event.  It received a fraction of the national media attention that would have occurred if the perpetrator had been successful in killing more innocent people.

According to a new report by Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), even the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been underreporting the number of times legally armed citizens have thwarted an active-shooter situation over the last eight years.

Ultimately, the anti-gun movement wants to demonize all responsible gun owners in order to advance their own political agenda.

That is why the U.S. Concealed Carry Association For Saving Lives Super Pac (USCCA-FSL) is standing up for law-abiding gun owners who use firearms each day to prevent crimes and protect their families.  Most recently, the USCCA-FSL launched a national ad campaign in a number of key congressional races across the country that highlights the story of everyday gun owners in America and outlines why record numbers of Americans are choosing to be their family’s first line of defense.

The ad features Jennifer M., a mother of four and domestic violence survivor, who said that she chose firearm ownership and training to “feel safe in my home and to protect myself and my children.”  Jennifer’s message doesn’t just resonate with gun owners of all backgrounds but with everyday Americans who are thinking of buying a gun amidst rising crime and anti-gun measures at the state and federal level, but haven’t taken that next step yet.  And these stories are starting to gain momentum.

According to a report by Fox News, there have been at least a dozen cases over the last two months where an armed civilian prevented an attack by utilizing their firearm education and knowledge.  For instance, one store owner who defended himself and his store during an armed robbery said, “I took care of it and that was that.”  One woman in North Carolina said she and her husband are working on getting their concealed carry permits because their neighborhood has “gotten to the point where at night, I just don’t feel quite as safe as I used to,” as reported by WSOC-TV.

The USCCA-FSL has also received stories from everyday Americans who have shared why the Second Amendment is important to them.  Jimmie C. told USCCA-FSL “After numerous mass murders in public places, I purchased a handgun to protect my wife, myself, and others where we might be eating, worshipping, shopping, or at some other public event. The Second Amendment gives me that right.”

Whether it’s a mother protecting her family from an abuser or a would-be carjacking victim who had the firearm education and training to thwart an attack at the gas pump, responsible gun ownership is saving lives everyday and is used anywhere from 500,000 to three million times a year.

At the end of the day, anti-gun policies do very little to actually address crime because they ignore the fact that criminals, by definition, do not follow the law.  The USCCA-FSL is not going to sit quietly by while law-abiding gun owners are used as political pawns in the gun-control game.  We hope that through our efforts, including this ad campaign, we take back the narrative of responsible gun ownership from the hands of politicians who only want what is best for their own self-interests.  It’s not just about the election this November, but the years to come, and we’ll keep fighting for the protection of our God-given right to self-defense.

Mike Lowney is the chief strategy officer at Delta Defense and executive director and chairman of the Board for U.S Concealed Carry Association for Saving Lives Super PAC.

That’s not a bug, but a feature, if you’ve read Ayn Rand

Collision over Gun Reform Bill: ‘You’re Making Criminals of Common Citizens’

Republicans on the Assembly Appropriations Committee took aim at Assemblyman Joe Danielsen’s (D-17) gun reform bill (A-4769), which establishes certain criteria for obtaining a permit to carry a handgun while codifying certain venues at which the right to carry firearms would be restricted due to security and safety concerns.

Danielsen wrote the bill in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.  His legislation targets the state’s firearm licensing laws and establishes a list of sensitive locations where guns may not be carried, including playgrounds, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, train stations, and polling places.

“Anything we can do to protect New Jerseyans, including police officers,” said Assemblywoman Lisa Swain (D-38).

Ultimately, the bill passed on the Democratic Party-controlled committee, over the 2nd Amendment-fueled protestations of the GOP.

“Do you agree we have a constitutional right to bear arms?” Assemblyman Brian Bergen (R-25) wanted to know.

“I do,” said Danielsen. “I have at many times been an advocate for gun owners. This is a safety first legislation. This bill says more about safety than it does about guns.”

Bergen took the bill apart.

“This bill discriminates against a woman’s right to carry,” said the Republican. “The bill is discriminatory. Will you commit to altering the bill to permit a woman to carry in anything she might be wearing? What’s the rationale for not permitting a woman to carry a gun in a purse? You said under your bill a woman could not carry a gun in a purse.”

Bergen also strenuously resisted another portion of the bill.

“It requires you to take your handgun and lock it to be concealed,” the GOP assemblyman griped. “There is a law against brandishing a weapon; if you show your weapon it’s against the law to do that. You are asking a person to brandish their weapon in public.”

Assemblyman Jay Webber (R-26) likewise voted no, citing a key problem.

“It gives the ability of municipalities to make up their own rules,” Webber said. “You’re talking about 565 jurisdictions. You’re going to trap people into committing third and fourth degree crimes. That is one of the worst parts of the bill. There are parts of the bill that make sense (including adjustments to the supreme Court decision on concealed carry).”

But not enough for him to cast a vote in favor.

Rob Nixon of the state PBA expressed concerns over the bills impact on retired officers.

“My understanding is there are amendments to address those issues but they don’t go far enough,” he said.

Bergen fulminated against the bill.

“The sponsor could not list one place where a person could carry a gun,” he said. “It’s insane. You’re making criminals of common citizens.”

Continue reading “”

Coffee: Just As Healthy As Vegetables.

Coffee: A Low-Key Health Food?

Another family dinner. Uncle Uno (hey, we’re Finnish; we’ve got funny names) is sitting across the table from me as the various dishes are passed around. Uno partakes liberally of the meat and carb dishes, but passes on the salad. He actually swears at the green beans as they glide by. He practically threatens to take up arms against the rutabaga casserole.

Yep, even rutabaga, a Finnish staple!

Uno clearly doesn’t like fruits or vegetables (except for boiled potatoes), yet, surprisingly, he appears healthy. He’s lean, energetic, and he doesn’t have any chronic diseases or ailments, and I can’t remember him ever being sick.

But what Uno does partake of, liberally, is coffee. You rarely see him without a cup in his hand. Most of us think it’s a form of ballast and if you took the coffee cup away from him, he’d float back to Finland, shaking his fist at all of us as he drifted away.

You probably have an Uno or two or three in your life.

That predilection may well be what’s kept Uno and others like him healthy. He doesn’t know it, but coffee is as nutritionally valuable as practically any vegetable, something that should be given the same respect as kale, chard, lima beans, broccoli, or any of the other traditional powerhouse vegetables nutritionists (including me) are always attempting to shove down your throat.

Coffee is probably the main supplier of polyphenols 106 in the American diet, and probably the rest of the world’s diets, too. Accordingly, it’s one of the healthiest things you can pour down your gullet.

Its benefits are diverse, but as is the case with most healthful things, there are conditions attached. Let’s look at some of those benefits first before we start looking at any possible negative attributes (and how to remedy them).

What Are The Health Benefits Of Coffee?

Continue reading “”

Former FBI Official Will Testify About White House Pressure to Inflate Domestic Extremism Numbers

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee announced on Thursday that they would be calling a former top FBI official to testify before Congress to address claims that the Biden administration pressured agents to label cases as domestic extremism or a white supremacist threat even if they did not meet that criteria in order to match Joe Biden’s rhetoric.

Last month, current and former FBI agents came forward claiming the Biden administration has been deliberately exaggerating the danger posed by white supremacists. According to the whistleblowers, high-ranking FBI officials were pressuring field agents to fabricate domestic terrorism cases and label people as white supremacists in order to “meet internal metrics.”

“The demand for white supremacy” coming from FBI brass “vastly outstrips the supply of white supremacy,” one agent told the Washington Times. “We have more people assigned to investigate white supremacists than we can actually find.”

“We are sort of the lapdogs as the actual agents doing these sorts of investigations, trying to find a crime to fit otherwise First Amendment-protected activities,” one whistleblower said. “If they have a Gadsden flag and they own guns and they are mean at school board meetings, that’s probably a domestic terrorist.”

On December 2, members of the House Judiciary Committee will interview Jill Sanborn, a former assistant director of the FBI Counterterrorism Division and executive assistant director of its National Security Branch, who has been accused of pressuring agents to reclassify cases per the White House’s requests.

The FBI claims it only investigates those “who commit or intend to commit violence and criminal activity that constitutes a federal crime or poses a threat to national security” and that it does not target individuals or organizations based on their political beliefs.

Last year, the administration previously came under fire for using the resources of the Department of Justice to target angry parents at school board meetings and treat them like domestic terrorists. Merrick Garland authorized the FBI to investigate parents who protested school board meetings alleging a “disturbing trend” of teachers being threatened or harassed. However, PJ Media’s Megan Fox looked into those allegations and concluded that they’re mostly bunk.

In addition, the National School Boards Association (NSBA), which had prompted Garland to write the memo with a letter likening parents to domestic terrorists, eventually apologized for doing so. Despite this, Garland has not rescinded the memo. Late last year, a whistleblower revealed an internal email showing that the FBI was using counterterrorism tools to monitor parents despite Garland denying before Congress that the FBI was doing so. This summer, whistleblowers revealed that the FBI “pressured and incentivized” agents to classify cases as domestic violent extremism.

FPC VICTORY: Federal Judge Blocks New York’s “Places of Worship” Handgun Carry Ban

BUFFALO, NY (October 20, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States District Judge John Sinatra, Jr. has issued a temporary restraining order against New York’s ban on guns in “any place of worship or religious observation.” The order in Hardaway v. Bruen, which is effective immediately, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The Constitution requires that individuals be permitted to use handguns for the core lawful purpose of self-defense,” wrote Judge Sinatra in his opinion. “And it protects that right outside the home and in public. Nothing in the Nation’s history or traditions presumptively closes the door on that right across every place of worship or religious observation. As in Bruen, where the Court stated that, ‘[n]othing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms,’ nothing there casts outside of its protection places of worship or religious observation. New York’s exclusion violates ‘the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.’ It, too, is one of the policy choices taken ‘off the table’ by the Second Amendment.”

“Today another court blocked an unconstitutional gun law, this time the ‘places of worship’ carry ban New York imposed as punishment for the Bruen decision,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today, the Court recognized what we have long argued: That no one should be forced to forgo one constitutional right in order to exercise another.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation.

Preventing A Repeat Of The Firearms Shortage Nightmare
Toilet paper and automobiles aren’t the only goods affected by supply-chain disruptions.

Supply lines are critical in any military operation, and when self-defense-firearm sales soared during the COVID-19 pandemic, gun makers were caught in a historic battle to meet that demand. Their efforts were nothing short of heroic—often quite creative—and Shooting Illustrated asked several experts how they did it and if more problems are looming. 

The attack was on multiple fronts. Shipping-container shortages, stalls at ports, raw-material production throttled during the height of the pandemic and many more created a perfect storm at every manufacturer. The firearm industry wasn’t immune.

“I don’t think we ever completely ran out of anything, but delivery times increased substantially so we had to order larger quantities than normal and order much earlier than we would have pre-pandemic,” said Bill Wilson, president and CEO of Wilson Combat. “The disruption of and huge increase in the cost of shipping actually hurt us more than any material shortages.”

“We did encounter raw-material shortages in all categories, but ammunition was the most impacted,” admitted Tom Taylor, chief marketing officer and executive vice president of sales at SIG Sauer. “As you know, this was industry-wide and it was very real. However, in most cases we were able to overcome shortages. The bigger issues were supply and demand and cost. We were able to maintain or increase in most categories, especially firearms, but we and the industry simply couldn’t keep up with demand. While we did the best we could to hold the line of prices, raw material costs and shipping fees skyrocketed.”

Chris Killoy, president and CEO of Ruger, explained during a quarterly investor’s conference call on May 5 that, “Our supply chain teams have done a fantastic job being able to, well, go over every nook and cranny in terms of suppliers and get what we need.” He added, “But we’re seeing some pretty heavy increases, things like stainless steel, we’re seeing as high as 7 percent increases last year. Alloy steel up 15 percent, aluminum up 20 percent. So those are some pretty heavy hits when you look at commodity prices, as well as things like freight costs and things of that nature.”

SIG Sauer is also feeling that inflation. “At this point, this struggle is more about cost than keeping raw materials in stock,” Taylor said. “We will figure out how to get raw materials, it’s the dramatic cost increases, fees and shipping costs that are the bigger issue.”

Increasing the amount of raw material on hand is expensive up and requires additional storage space, but that heavier inventory would provide some shelter in a wildly fluctuating market. That financially speculative approach isn’t a defensive posture the companies are in complete agreement on.

“I think we’re seeing our ability and our strong balance sheet to buy forward on raw materials helps us both in terms of something like protecting against inflation as well as making sure we have available steel, aluminum, etc. to weather any downturn from a supply standpoint,” Killoy told investors during a February conference call.

“We’re not necessarily keeping more raw material on site, but we’re booking a lot of material for release delivery as we need it,” Wilson explained. “Especially stuff like extrusions that have a long lead time.”

“SIG has taken many steps to keep more raw materials on hand and increase internal capabilities and capacity in order to be better prepared if something like this ever happens again,” Taylor emphasized. “We have been in a constant mode of trying to balance significant raw material and shipping cost increases and keeping our prices in line as best we can.”

Wilson said the biggest change is the realization that things no longer happen fast. “As an example, we’re building a new plant in Texas for Lehigh Defense. Roll-up doors and windows now take 6 to 8 weeks to get,” he said. “Pre pandemic, things like this were available virtually overnight when needed.”

A more ominous warning came from Taylor. “This is an ongoing issue and may only get worse as the large, name-brand shippers, unfortunately, consider their position regarding products like firearms,” he said.

Second Amendment Being Restored to Its Rightful Place, Thanks to Bruen Decision

In Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (aka “Bruen”), decided in June, he wrote:

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a “second-class right,” subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.

We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.

The ruling in Bruen was twofold: 1) that New York State’s law requiring a citizen to show “proper cause” before being granted the privilege of carrying a concealed weapon was unconstitutional; and 2) that the right to carry a handgun in public is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

That ruling has unleashed a tsunami of lawsuits by Second Amendment supporters, to the point where far-left news outlet CNN complained that the decision has “put gun control laws in jeopardy nationwide.” Noted CNN:

In the three months since the 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, scores of new lawsuits have been filed against gun restrictions at the federal, state, and local levels….

Since the June ruling, federal judges in at least a half-dozen different cases have already cited the Bruen decision to rule against gun restrictions that have included local assault weapons bans, prohibitions on the manufacture of homemade firearms and bans on older teenagers publicly carrying handguns.

The outlet noted with chagrin that a federal district judge in Delaware declared that state’s ban on “ghost guns” (guns that are made at home without serial numbers) not valid under the high court’s ruling. In addition, reported the network, assault weapons bans inflicted on Coloradans in two local jurisdictions were placed on hold, and Texas’ public-carry ban on individuals aged 18 to 20 was struck down as well.

CNN failed to note, probably by design, that many other rulings following the Bruen decision have begun to restore the Second Amendment to its rightful place in the Bill of Rights.

Here is just a partial list of Second Amendment victories scored since Bruen:

  • To avoid going to trial over its ban preventing concealed carry licensees from carrying more than 20 rounds of ammunition, the chief of Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department repealed the ban in September.
  • The Supreme Court, following its Bruen precedent, tossed Massachusetts’ lifetime ban on anyone convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor involving the possession or use of a firearm from ever being able to purchase a firearm in the future.
  • The Attorneys general of New Jersey, California, and Hawaii concluded that, based on Bruen, a citizen no longer must show a “justifiable need” to carry a firearm.

Second Amendment scholar and attorney Dave Workman listed other targets for lawsuits following the Bruen decision, including Illinois, which requires citizens to have a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card in order to purchase a firearm or ammunition. New Jersey has a similar law, as do North Carolina, Minnesota, Nebraska, Hawaii, Michigan, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

There is a case pending in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — Dominic Bianchi v. Brian Frosh — challenging Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic rifles. Attorneys general from 25 states have filed an amicus (friendly) brief supporting the case, which was brought immediately after the Bruen decision by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Workman estimates there are some 20,000 to 25,000 restrictive gun laws in the United States. If he is anywhere close to right, the rising tide of lawsuits is likely just the beginning.

BLUF
That’s why I don’t really care what 97Percent wants or claims to be about. They’re no different than Giffords, Brady, Everytown, and every other group that wants to annihilate our Second Amendment rights.

Don’t get too excited about “common ground” survey results

For many, the goal is to find common ground on issues relating to guns and gun control. It’s their hope that if they can find enough points of agreement, gun control laws can be passed.

Even if I accepted this premise, though, I know what will happen. Those laws will be passed, only we see no results (at best) so now they want to find “common ground” on still more regulations. Little by little, we’ll see our rights whittled away.

Yet the question remains, does the common ground exist?

According to a recent report, it does.

The majority of gun owners are concerned about gun violence and support policies to reduce gun-related injuries and deaths, according to new research from Tufts University and gun safety organization 97Percent.

Three-fourths of gun owners surveyed said they are concerned about the frequency of school shootings, and 71 percent said the same of mass shootings, according to the research released on Monday. Seventy percent said they also want to help find a way reduce gun-related injuries and deaths.

Most gun owners, including Republican ones, said they support several proposed laws to prevent people with a high risk of violence from accessing guns.

Gun safety organization 97Percent, which touts itself as a bipartisan group of both gun owners and non-gun owners, noted in its report on the research that this defies the current perception that there is an “intractable divide” over gun control in the U.S.

And since 97Percent paid for this study, it’s not surprising that the result was exactly what 97Percent wanted.

It’s part of why all such “studies” need to be questioned vigorously.

Continue reading “”

‘Massive Fiduciary Breach’: Missouri Pulls $500M Worth of Pension Funds From BlackRock’s Control

Missouri State Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick announced on Tuesday that the state’s pension fund is selling all of its assets that are managed by BlackRock, a move that will divest up to $500 million from the asset manager.

The Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System is withdrawing its assets from BlackRock’s control because the state believes that the company is using its control of pension funds to push a “left-wing” agenda, as opposed to making money for its clients, according to a press release.

Missouri joins several other Republican-run states that have also pulled funds from BlackRock for similar reasons.

“We should not allow asset managers such as BlackRock, who have demonstrated that they will prioritize advancing a woke political agenda above the financial interests of their customers, to continue speaking on behalf of the state of Missouri,” Fitzpatrick said in the press release. “It is past time that all investors recognize the massive fiduciary breach that is taking place before our eyes, and do something about it.”

Republican state treasurers in Louisiana, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Utah will divest a total of $1 billion from BlackRock by the end of 2022, according to The Financial Times. The removal of state money from BlackRock’s management comes after 19 Republican attorneys general accused BlackRock of boycotting the fossil fuel industry at the expense of its clients, according to a letter sent to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.

BlackRock, which manages roughly $8.5 trillion worth of assets, denied such allegations and claimed that it has “hundreds of billions of dollars” invested in energy companies, according to a response letter the company sent. The company also stated that it was fully considering the interests of its investors in relation to its climate-focused investment agenda, as 90% of global governments are committed to phasing out fossil fuels by 2050.

BlackRock is committed to achieving net-zero emissions by no later than 2050, according to its website.

“Fiduciary duty must remain the top priority for investment managers—a duty some of them have abdicated in favor of forcing a left-wing social and political agenda that has failed to succeed legislatively, on publicly traded companies,” Fitzpatrick said.

Large asset managers such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street are pushing private companies to adopt environmental, social and corporate governance standards. Republicans have previously claimed that those standards seek to force businesses to promote climate activism as well as diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

BlackRock did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Proposed “sensitive places” law scaled back after public outcry

When Hawaii County lawmakers held their first public hearing on an ordinance restricting where concealed carry holders can exercise their right to keep and bear arms, they heard from dozens of gun owners and residents who complained that the proposal was far too broad and infringed on their Second Amendment rights. Somewhat surprisingly, several county council members expressed reservations of their own, and the bill was tabled for a few weeks while tweaks were made.

Today, the public got its first look at the revised proposal, and while the measure still contains several “gun-free zones” that aren’t likely to stand up to court scrutiny, this is the first blue-state response to the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen that I’ve seen that at least half-heartedly recognizes the right to bear arms for self-defense in public rather than attempting to regulate it out of existence.

The original list of “sensitive places” outlined in the county’s concealed carry ordinance bore a close resemblance to the expansive number of “gun-free zones” included in New York’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act”, hospitals and healthcare facilities; schools (both K-12 and colleges and universities) and day care centers, playgrounds and parks, all houses of worship, public transit, private property “open to the public”, and all businesses that serve alcohol among them.

The newly revised proposal removes many of those “gun-free zones” outright, while modifying others.

[Council Vice Chairman Aaron] Chung’s amendment, which had input from the Hawai‘i Police Department, adds a clause saying guns would be prohibited except where permission is granted at schools, colleges, universities or places where people are assembled for educational purposes. It removes language that originally included where people are assembled for literary or scientific purposes as well. The same clause was added in reference to day care centers, but playgrounds, parks and/or other places where children gather remain in the proposed bill.

I don’t think the ban on parks and playgrounds is going to hold up in court, given that there’s no evidence the state of Hawaii or Hawaii County treats them as “sensitive” in any way. There are no metal detectors or fences surrounding all parks, and no dedicated police presence at all parks or playgrounds either.

As I said, the new bill isn’t perfect by any means, but it’s still a substantial improvement.

Continue reading “”