RKBA – Page 4 – MILESFORTIS

It is. Letting unelected, nearly unaccountable, bureaucraps decide, all on their own, what’s illegal is the essence of tyranny. Lazy judges are who allowed ‘deference’ to bureaucrap’s decisions become “law” so they wouldn’t have to stir themselves anymore than they absolutely had to.

The Atlantic Worries Bump Stock Case About More Than Bump Stocks

After the Route 91 massacre, the ATF reclassified bump stocks as machine gun parts. This was done, at least in part, to try and stave off legislation that would have banned not just bump stocks but a whole lot of other things–including, arguably, aftermarket triggers.

But regardless of why it happened, it wasn’t the right decision. The bump stock doesn’t change a semi-automatic into a full-auto weapon; not based on the NFA definition of a machinegun which is a weapon that is capable or can be easily made capable of firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger. Bump stocks just let you pull the trigger faster, which is perfectly legal, even now.

Over at The Atlantic, they worry that this case may end up being about more than just bump stocks.

Not so long ago, a case like Cargill would not have come down to whether a court agreed with an agency’s interpretation of a statute Congress had tasked it with enforcing.

Indeed, decades of administrative law, including but not limited to the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, recognized that agency experts were often in a better position to resolve ambiguities in the statutes that Congress tasked them with enforcing than federal judges were.

Thus, it had long been settled that, so long as an agency’s interpretation of ambiguous language in a statute (like what counts as a machine gun) was reasonable, the agency was allowed to act based upon that interpretation…

That was already worrying enough, but what’s alarming in Cargill is that the Court is in the midst of getting rid of deference to agencies outside of the “major questions” context, too. Thus, instead of debating whether ATF’s reaction to the Las Vegas shooting was reasonable (which it clearly was), the oral argument before the Supreme Court devolved into the justices struggling to understand the exact mechanical function of a bump stock—so that they could decide for themselves whether or not it fits within the statutory definition of a “machine gun.”

As even a cursory perusal of the transcript reveals, this wasn’t a high-minded debate about broader points of law; it was nine neophytes trying to understand the mechanics of something they’ve never touched solely by having it described to them.

One comes away from the transcript with the sense that the argument would have been far more productive had it been held on a shooting range. So instead of debating whether the executive branch overreacted or not, the debate was about what, in the abstract, the justices would have done in its place.

Of course, the author clearly frames this as a bad thing. Apparently, if unelected bureaucrats can’t essentially determine law by decree, then something is inherently wrong with our country.

Yet this kind of “thinking” is a major problem with our nation in the first place.

Yes, I get the concept that experts may well be better at understanding complex issues than elected officials who, frankly, write a lot of laws about things they don’t understand and do a poor job of it.

That’s entirely valid.

The problem is that unelected bureaucrats can unilaterally decide something is illegal just so long as they can come up with some reasoning that sort of looks valid. They do this with all sorts of things, not just firearms, but Cargill is a little different. This is something that was declared perfectly legal to sell, then reclassified as illegal simply because it became politically expedient to do so.

If that doesn’t highlight the issues with the current system perfectly, I don’t know what can.

If the ATF can suddenly decide that this device was legal but now isn’t, what’s the next thing they’ll decide is illegal?

While ignorant politicians are a danger, our system was created with the idea that they’d be the ones coming up with the laws and not bureaucrats. If this case turns out to be about more than bump stocks, then you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that it’s a bad thing.

I’ve got a phone number for him; 1-800-CRY-BABY

Dem mayor howls as pastor leads gun-toting citizen patrol to combat violence, clean up streets

Armed citizens are patrolling the violent streets of Hartford, Connecticut as the Democrat mayor decries people with guns taking the law into their own hands.

Minister Cornell Lewis launched the Self-Defense Brigade after Archbishop Dexter Burke demanded patrols following violent crime breaking out in Hartford. The group of citizens are patrolling the violent areas of the city while cleaning up the streets.

Burke remarked, “We are going to bring an armed security that’s going to walk the streets with individuals, help them to the bus stop. Help them to the grocery store and patrol the area,” the Daily Mail reported.

“We are legally armed, and we are patrolling,” Lewis told NBC Connecticut. “The people on Garden Street came to us and asked us for help.”

Continue reading “”

Gun Control Activists Admit They Overreacted to This Concealed Carry Case

Gun control advocates have spent the past two years losing their minds over the Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, a case that affirmed citizens’ right to publicly carry a firearm for self-defense.

One of the commonly repeated criticisms of Bruen has been that the high court’s ruling is dangerous because allowing ordinary peaceable citizens to carry concealed handguns in public would increase rates of gun violence.

In a strange twist of events, some of those same gun control advocates now admit—unintentionally and with no sense of irony—that violent crime rates are actually on the decline in those restrictive gun control states forced by Bruen to recognize the right to bear arms in public.

Giffords, a prominent gun control advocacy organization, previously condemned the Bruen decision as “extremist,” arguing that it would “drastically affect the safety of a large swath of the U.S. population” by “escalating gun violence, leading ever more people to feel unsafe in their own communities.”

Two years later, while retweeting an article that criticizes conservatives for asserting that President Joe Biden’s failed border policies are partially responsible for an increase in crime rates (even though significant evidence suggests that this claim is false), Giffords now highlights a claim that crime rates are actually falling.

Gun control advocates can’t seem to get their story straight. Crime rates often appear to increase or decrease depending on whichever is most useful to the gun control narrative.

The truth is that lawful gun owners—and concealed carry permit holders, in particular—have never been the driving force behind criminal gun violence. At the same time, the right to keep and bear arms in self-defense offers ordinary Americans significant protection against threats to life, liberty, and property.

Almost every major study has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, according to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2021, the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the issue concluded that roughly 1.6 million defensive gun uses occur in the United States every year.

For this reason, The Daily Signal publishes a monthly article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accounts here from past years)

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in February. You may explore more using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database. (The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.)

Feb. 5, Jackson, Mississippi: After arguing over text messages with a contractor for a water utility, police said, a man drove up to the house where the contractor was working and opened fire. The contractor and a member of his crew returned fire, striking the assailant three times. While fleeing, the wounded attacker soon crashed his getaway vehicle. He was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, police said.
Feb. 5, Marysville, Washington: Three armed men in a stolen car approached a homeowner as he pulled into his driveway, police said. The homeowner, also armed, engaged his assailants in a shootout, apparently hitting at least one, until they ran away. After an hourslong manhunt involving drones and K-9 units, police detained one suspect with a gunshot wound. Neither the homeowner nor anyone else in the neighborhood was injured, police said.
Feb. 6, Philadelphia: A gunman began shooting at a mechanic outside an auto shop, wounding a 12-year-old boy, police said. The boy’s father, who was getting his car fixed and wasn’t the gunman’s intended target, drew his own handgun and fired back to defend himself and his son until the gunman fled. The mechanic was seriously wounded, police said. The boy, who suffered a grazing wound to the head, was treated and released from a hospital.
Feb. 10, Tipp City, Ohio: An armed resident fatally shot two pit bulls who wandered onto his property and attacked his own dog, police said. The resident initially tried to scare off the pit bulls by yelling and firing a warning shot from his rifle. As the two pit bulls became more aggressive, however, he used his handgun to protect himself and his dog.
Feb. 11, Surprise, Arizona: After an argument broke out between customers waiting in a Taco Bell drive-through, a man got out of his car and threatened the occupants of another vehicle with a gun. A passenger in that car, also armed, fatally shot the gun-wielding assailant, police said.
Feb. 13, Houston: A man sleeping in the back seat of his truck used his AR-15 to shoot and kill an armed burglar who broke into the vehicle and tried to rob him, police said. The assailant had already burglarized other vehicles in the same parking lot, investigators said.
Feb. 19, Swansea, Massachusetts: A courier depositing money at a bank drop box was accosted by two armed robbers who forced him to the ground and tied his hands behind his back, police said. The robbers tried to disarm the courier, a concealed carry permit holder who had a holstered gun on his hip. When the courier resisted, the robbers pepper-sprayed him. But he was eventually able to free one hand, draw his gun, and fire three rounds at the robbers, causing them to flee in a stolen U-Haul van. A suspect was later arrested and charged with several offenses, including armed robbery with a firearm, police said.
Feb. 21, Memphis, Tennessee: A woman shot and wounded the father of her children after he smashed a window, forced his way into her home, and assaulted her, police said. The two had gotten into an argument earlier that day over alleged infidelity, and the woman put his belongings outside for him. When the man arrived, he became confrontational and then violent, police said. The woman fled the house but he followed, prompting her to shoot him once in the leg before asking a neighbor to call police.
Feb. 22, Palm Beach, Florida: During a road-rage incident, a man pointed his handgun at another driver who had two children in his car, police said. Fearing for his and his children’s lives, the other driver pulled out his own gun and fired it at the assailant in self-defense. The assailant was arrested and charged with three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, police said.
Feb. 27, Nashville, Tennessee: A rideshare driver fatally shot a passenger who became agitated during the ride, then pulled a gun on him and started making threats. The rideshare driver first called 911 by using an “SOS alert” on his smartwatch, which was also connected to his wireless headphones. That call was eventually disconnected because the dispatcher didn’t pick up on the driver’s “quiet hints” about the situation. The driver made a second call about 15 minutes later, after he had apparently been able to access his own gun and shoot the would-be kidnapper.
Feb. 28, Atlanta: Police said an armed man confronted his ex-girlfriend and her family outside her home, then fired shots into the air. After he refused to leave, the ex-girlfriend’s mom shot and wounded the man, who was detained by law enforcement.

Even during the “safest” times, we will never live in a society where violent crime ceases to exist, or where law enforcement can protect the innocent from every harm.

The right to keep and bear arms always will remain essential to a free state, and law-abiding Americans always will be the first line of defense for themselves and their loved ones against threats to their life, liberty, and property.

Gun control activists’ reactions to the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision never were based in reality. They were emotion-driven responses designed to evoke irrational fear in people who didn’t know any better.

We’re glad they’re finally willing to admit they got it wrong.

Idaho House passes bill blocking cities and counties from regulating knives
Opponents worry bill would require municipal performing arts centers to allow knives

The Republican-controlled Idaho House of Representatives voted Tuesday to pass a bill banning cities and counties from restricting knives, despite concerns raised that passing the bill would force municipal performing arts centers to allow knives at public concerts and performances.

Rep. Jordan Redman, R-Coeur d’Alene, sponsored House Bill 620a. Redman said knives are a form of arms that are protected.

“This bill would enact a state knife preemption law, which would prevent political subdivisions in the state from regulating the possession, sale, transfer and manufacture of knives,” Redman told legislators Tuesday at the Idaho State Capitol in Boise. “Idaho has (a) preemption law that protects firearms from local regulation, and we need to do the same for knives. It is important to remember that knives are arms too and protected by the Second Amendment. By protecting these we are doing the same as we are protecting the firearms.”

Under the bill, “any city, county, or other political subdivision of this state shall not enact any ordinance, rule, or tax relating to the transportation, possession, carrying, sale, transfer, purchase, gift, devise, licensing, registration, or use of a knife or knife making components in this state.”

Under Idaho state law, political subdivisions include cities, counties, municipal corporations, health districts and irrigation districts. House Bill 620a includes exceptions that would allow public schools, charter schools, court houses, law enforcement facilities, prisons, jails, other involuntary confinement facilities and political subdivisions that regulate child care to regulate knives.

Continue reading “”

Spoiler Alert: ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban ~ Government Must Prove That Weapons Are NOT In Common Use

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Bianchi v. Brown issued an important order that is likely to backfire on the anti-gunners.

The court directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing addressing the following two questions:

(1) does the determination of whether a weapon is “in common use” occur at the first or second step of Bruen’s text-and-history methodology, and
(2) who bears the burden of establishing that a weapon is in common use. Heller and Bruen provide explicit answers to the questions posed by the Fourth Circuit, and those answers favor the protection of our Second Amendment rights.

Bianchi challenges the constitutionality of Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban, which seeks to outlaw the AR-15, among other semiautomatic firearms.

Tellingly, the original Fourth Circuit panel in Bianchi seemed poised to issue a pro-Second Amendment ruling, but before that occurred, the Fourth Circuit took the case en banc likely to avoid the possibility of such an outcome.

Bruen instructs that the constitutional inquiry starts with the text of the Second Amendment. This means that, at the outset, a lower court must determine whether the object of a firearm’s regulation is an “arm.”

At this first step, Bruen instructs that the burden is on the party challenging the firearms regulation to show that the item being banned is an “arm.” Heller defined “arms” as “weapons of offense or armor of defense.” There is no doubt that AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles subject to the Maryland ban are “arms,” which means that the burden shifts to the government to show that the arms it seeks to ban are not “in common use” by Americans for lawful purposes (or are dangerous and unusual).

Continue reading “”

Gun Rights Groups Drawing a Bead on Illinois ‘Assault Weapons’ Law, Taking Issue to Supreme Court

On Monday, the pro-Second Amendment group Gun Owners of America and their affiliate, the Gun Owners Foundation, filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to forward their challenge to Illinois’s restrictive “assault weapons” law.

The groups, representing Illinois gun owners, argue the law imposes an unconstitutional, sweeping ban on hundreds of commonly owned and lawfully used rifles and ammunition magazines.

“GOA has been at the forefront of this challenge since before the bans even took effect, and while our goal was never to have to end up before the Supreme Court, we were fully prepared to do so,” said Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America.

“We urge the Justices to hear the pleas of millions of Americans in Illinois and several other states nationwide who cannot purchase many of the commonly owned semiautomatic firearms available today because of the unconstitutional laws passed by anti-gun politicians,” Pratt said.

The constitutionality argument is especially interesting, coming as it does after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which is generally regarded as having recognized the original meaning of the Second Amendment and has been the cause of much rewriting of laws around concealed carry. Even before Bruen, concealed-carry laws had been on a liberalization trend for some years, in fact since Florida passed the first “shall-issue” law in 1987.

Illinois, not surprisingly, has one of the most draconian “assault weapons” laws in the United States.

The strict gun control law, signed by Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker last year, carries penalties for anyone who, “Carries or possesses… Manufactures, sells, delivers, imports, or purchases any assault weapon or .50 caliber rifle.”

Those who legally possess a banned weapon under the law must register it with the Illinois State Police.

The law also includes statutory penalties for anyone who “sells, manufactures, delivers, imports, possesses, or purchases any assault weapon attachment or .50 caliber cartridge.”

The law appears to have sparked considerable non-compliance, and deliberate civil disobedience may be part of that trend.

Of the over 2.4 million Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) cardholders, there have only been 112,350 disclosures filed as of Dec. 31, 2023, according to state police data. Another 29,357 disclosures were in the process of being completed as of Jan. 6.

Gun rights activists previously told Fox News Digital that apparent high rates of noncompliance came from a mix of ignorance of what the law requires and civil disobedience.

Continue reading “”

ATF Director Frustrated That Congress, The Courts, and the Public Don’t Want ATF to Make Their Own Gun Control Laws

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Director Steven Dettelbach joined CBS’s Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan to talk about violent crime committed with firearms and the tools he wants from Congress. The problem is those requests have already been rejected by Congress for good reason. Those tools would violate federal law and would chip away at the rights of those who obey the law without actually addressing the problem of crime.

“I was in Baltimore a few weeks ago with the law enforcement there, and it’s like, almost a 20 percent drop in homicides, but looks to me the caveat is that for many years in this country, we’ve had a very serious gun crime problem,” Director Dettelbach explained. “And we are the outlier among almost all Western modern nations, and not the outlier in a good way.”

He added later, “Well, I look at — look, I mean, data doesn’t lie.”

Juxtapose that with Director Dettelbach repeating the verifiably false claim that firearms are the leading cause of death among children. That’s just not true.

False Narrative

“The leading cause of death of children in the United States is firearms violence, right,” Director Dettelbach said. “Not cancer, not cars. Guns.”

That’s patently false. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris like to trot out the line in their gun control speeches even though it’s been proven to be false. The Washington Post, hardly a firearm-friendly news agency, admitted the narrative is false. To make the claim, The White House and now Director Dettelbach include people age 18 and 19. The problem is, 18 and 19-year-olds are adults, not children.

“When you focus only on children — 17 and younger — motor vehicle deaths (broadly defined) still rank No. 1, as they have for six decades,” The Washington Post reported. “In the interest of accuracy, it would be better for White House officials to refer to children and teens when citing these reports. When all motor vehicle accidents are counted, then motor vehicle deaths continue to exceed firearm deaths for children — defined as people under age 18 — whether or not infants are included.”

NSSF has blasted this twisting of data to arrive at the heated talking point. The claim in question came about as a result of a faulty study published by the University of Michigan Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention in April 2022. That study included Americans aged 18 and 19 years old – adults – in the data set as well as manipulated motor vehicle crash data to assert firearms became the “leading cause of death among children and adolescents” in 2020. NSSF debunked the study when it was published in April 2022.

Like Director Dettelbach said in his Face the Nation interview…data doesn’t lie.

Continue reading “”

Youngkin Vetoes First of Many Gun Control Bills Across His Desk

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) has vetoed the first of a series of proposed gun control bills to land on his desk from the Democrat-led Senate and House. Among the legislation vetoed were two bills aimed at restricting gun rights on people accused of domestic abuse and one masked as firearm safety, but really a move to push anti-gun propaganda through the state’s public school system.

One bill, which sought to enforce stricter regulations on individuals accused or convicted of domestic abuse possessing firearms, was vetoed by Youngkin, not because Youngkin doesn’t agree that domestic abuse victims need to be protected, but in the arbitrary ways the law sought to restrict firearm’s possession by age and on those who were not even subject to a court order, according to the Virginia Mercury. Youngkin emphasized that while it is crucial to address domestic abusers appropriately, the proposed legislation failed to meet its intended goals and needed to be worked on more.

“Make no mistake, Virginia should ensure that domestic abusers are dealt with appropriately, and those who resort to illegal firearm use, especially, should face severe and harsh punishments,” Youngkin said in his veto. “The legislation fails to achieve its intended purpose and is unnecessary.”

Another piece of legislation targeted by Youngkin’s vetoes sought to require school boards to notify parents about gun risks and advocate safe storage laws. It is an echo of a similar recommendation by the Biden Administration earlier this year. The governor, recognizing there are a host of real-life threats the state’s families and young people face, many that the Democrats did not feel the need to be pushed, should be more equitable in what it covers.

The Governor proposed amendments to the bill that would expand the notification to include a broader range of parental “rights” and “responsibilities,” encompassing topics beyond firearms, such as protecting children from sexually explicit material as well as the extreme risks of drug use. These amendments necessitate the bill’s reapproval in 2025 before becoming effective, as reported by WJLA ABC 7.

Youngkin will need to decide on additional anti-gun bills that have been approved by the Senate and House, chief among them an assault weapons ban, restrictions on who can provide training for concealed carry permits and restrictions on carrying a firearm in any establishment that serves alcohol among others.

Youngkin’s actions are indicative of his stance on gun control legislation and suggest potential future vetoes on similar bills. The General Assembly, having concluded its session without addressing the governor’s amendments and vetoes, is set to revisit these issues in a reconvened session on April 17. However, any overrides of Youngkin’s vetoes appear unlikely due to the Democratic majority being too small to achieve the two-thirds vote necessary to counteract the governor’s opposition.

Making sure we don’t? OK by me!

Missouri senator proposes bill blocking red flag gun laws, which Missouri doesn’t have

Less than a month after the mass shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl victory parade, a Missouri Senator looks to pass legislation further loosening the state’s gun laws.

State Sen. Denny Hoskins, R-Warrensburg, sponsored the “Anti-Red Flag Gun Seizure Act,” which would prohibit the confiscation of firearms from individuals who are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others. His bill was heard by the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee on Wednesday.

“I think we all agree we have a right to keep and bear arms,” Hoskins said. “Unfortunately, some anti-Second Amendment groups can weaponize the red flag laws to quiet their opponents. We have the Second Amendment to protect the First Amendment and a right to due process.”

Although Missouri does not currently have any red flag laws in place, along with 30 other states, Hoskins means for his legislation to serve as a preventative measure against their enforcement, should they be enacted.

“We’ve seen the federal government weaponize the Department of Justice against political opponents, so it is happening,” Hoskins said. “We don’t want that to happen in Missouri.”

Speaking in support of the bill was William Bland of Liberty, a board member of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance. He spoke on behalf of the group to say that they felt red flag laws were unconstitutional and a “bad idea.”

“If a person is believed to be a danger to themselves, or others, taking away their firearms does not remove that danger,” Bland said. “It is easy enough for a suicidal individual to swallow a bottle of Tylenol pills, or harm themselves or others with a kitchen knife or some other weapon.”

He said that red flag laws often deprive some individuals of their firearms because they live with someone who is considered dangerous to themselves or others. In other cases, he worries that red flag laws could be used to take revenge on a person by falsely claiming they are dangerous in order to get their guns taken away, although he offered no evidence of this happening in actuality.

Speaking in opposition to the legislation was Kristin Bowen, a Boone County resident and volunteer for Moms Demand Action, a group that advocates for public safety measures relating to gun violence.

“Missouri already has some of the weakest gun laws in the country and our legislature has spent the past decade gutting our common sense public safety laws, while simultaneously resisting attempts to make our communities safer,” Brown said.

Brown cited a report from Everytown Research and Policy that showed Missouri’s rate of gun deaths have increased 59% from 2012 to 2021, compared to a 39% increase nationwide.

“Constant heartbreak cannot and should not be our reality in Missouri,” Brown said. “Instead of taking steps backward, our state needs to be taking steps forward by passing laws that would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals and provide our communities with the support that they need to adopt local solutions to gun violence.”

Missouri has few regulations surrounding the sale, ownership or carrying of a firearm. State law also prohibits local officials from superseding its gun laws, although it does allow for cities to create local ordinances requiring permits to carry firearms. [this is incorrect]

In 2021, Missouri lawmakers passed and Gov. Mike Parson signed into law the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” sponsored by now U.S. Rep. Eric Burlison, which attempts to bar federal gun laws from being enforced in the state. Police who try to do so could face a $50,000 fine.

The act is being challenged in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in October, and the law remains on hold while the appeal is active.

It is unclear if Hoskin’s bill has any traction this year, as lawmakers near the halfway point of the legislative session. No vote was taken on the bill during Wednesday’s hearing.

The Missouri House decided to stop pursuing the passage of two bills expanding firearms access following the mass shooting in Kansas City last month, including one that would have exempted guns and ammunition from state and local taxes and another that would have allowed guns on public transit and in churches, while also lowering the age to get a concealed carry permit.

Following the shooting, Democrats in the Missouri House of Representatives filed nearly 40 identical resolutions seeking the ability to enact local gun laws that supersede those at the state level.

There are currently initiative petitions filed that seek to accomplish the same goal, though it is unknown where those stand in respect to getting enough signatures to make the ballot this year.

Kennedy secures Second Amendment win for veterans

WASHINGTON – The Senate today passed a bill package including Sen. John Kennedy’s (R-La.) amendment to protect veterans’ Second Amendment rights from bureaucrats at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

“Unelected bureaucrats shouldn’t be able to strip veterans of their Second Amendment rights unilaterally. The Senate did the right thing for veterans and all freedom-loving Americans by passing my amendment today,” said Kennedy.

Current law requires the VA to send a veteran’s name to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) whenever a fiduciary is appointed to help that veteran manage his or her VA benefits. Placement on NICS blocks veterans from purchasing or owning firearms.

Because unelected bureaucrats at the VA ultimately decide—without a court ruling—whether veterans receive help from a fiduciary and therefore end up in NICS, current law denies veterans due process and infringes on veterans’ right to bear arms.

Kennedy’s amendment included in today’s package changes current law to prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from sending a veteran’s personal information to NICS unless a judge rules that the veteran is a danger to himself or others.

Here We Go: SC Sheriff Says He Fears Constitutional Carry Will Turn State Into ‘Wild, Wild West’

[because that’s happened in the other 28 states with permitless carry….not]

Now that South Carolina has officially become the 29th state to adopt Constitutional Carry (and the 28th to have the law formally take effect, since Louisiana’s new statute doesn’t kick in until July 4th), the state’s few pro-gun control voices are ramping up their fearmongering. Everytown for Gun Safety’s South Carolina chapter is already predicting the new law will lead to more violence and less safety, while the state’s most politically powerful sheriff says he’s turning to the Almighty to protect the state from Constitutional Carry’s effects.

Law enforcement agencies in South Carolina are bracing for what could happen as permitless carry of handguns becomes more widespread in the coming weeks, with one sheriff already fearing the worst.

“I just said a prayer last night that I hope my greatest fears don’t come true, and that’s that South Carolina becomes the Wild, Wild West,” Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott told The Post and Courier.

Lott’s comments came as Gov. Henry McMaster signed a bill into law March 7 granting state residents the right to have handguns in most public places.

Key among the change is that obtaining a concealed weapons permit — and the training and background checks that come with it — is no longer necessary.

Additionally, the age to carry a gun lowered from 21 to 18, and firearms no longer have to be secured in the glove compartment or center console of a car.

I’ll never mock a person for talking to God, but it would behoove Lott to also speak to some of his colleagues in the 27 states where Constitutional Carry has been in place for at least a year before he starts panicking about a Wild West revival in the southeastern United States.

Continue reading “”

It’s like the senile dolt believes if he repeats it enough, it’ll be come real

Biden Doubles Down on AR-15 Ban in State of the Union Speech

Headed into a tough re-election bid, President Joe Biden signaled he would stay the course on his aggressive push for new gun restrictions during his speech to the nation on Thursday.

The President laid out his view of how the country is fairing and his agenda for a potential second term. Part of that agenda is to pass new gun restrictions. Biden indicated passing and signing a new ban on popular firearms such as the AR-15 and other so-called “assault weapons” was at the top of his priority list on that front.

“I’m demanding a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” Biden said in his State of the Union address.

The comments echo the President’s previous State of the Union speeches.

Continue reading “”

House Paves Way For Bost’s Veterans’ Second Amendment Provision To Be Signed Into Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. House of Representatives approved a spending package that includes legislation introduced by U.S. Rep. Mike Bost (IL-12) to protect veterans from losing their Second Amendment rights without due process. Bost’s proposal, which restricts the Department of Veterans Affairs’ from automatically submitting veterans’ names for background checks when they need help managing their finances, is expected to pass the Senate this weekend and then be signed into law.

“For far too long, men and women who donned the uniform to protect our constitutional rights have had their own rights violated,” said Bost. “No veteran should lose their constitutional right to bear arms simply because they need help managing their finances. As a Marine and a proud gun owner, I can think of no Americans I’d trust more to responsibly own firearms than our veterans. And if a veteran is determined to be a danger to themselves or others, let a judge make that decision – not some D.C. bureaucrat. I am honored the House approved my legislation and look forward to it soon being signed into law.”

The House and Senate each previously approved an amendment sponsored by Bost to stop the automatic referrals without a court’s order. Bost’s effort has the support of the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mission Roll Call, National Defense Committee, Vets 4 Vet Leadership, Veteran Warriors, Catholic War Veterans, and National Association for Gun Rights.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

“The ultimate authority…resides in the people alone…The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”

James Madison

“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

Patrick Henry

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

Justice Joseph Story

“The great object is, that every man be armed…Every one who is able may have a gun.”

Patrick Henry, Speech of June 14, 1788

“The Constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press.”

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Samuel Adams, in Phila. Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789

I could go on, but I think this is more than enough to tell that Professor Erdozian is ‘full of it’

BLUF & Quote O’ The Day
Having Constitutional Carry is rapidly becoming the bright line that separates free states from those run by would-be totalitarians.

South Carolina Prepares to Join the Ranks of ‘Constitutional Carry’ States

Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed into law Tuesday a bill that removes all permit requirements for state residents who can possess firearms to carry them openly or concealed without a permit. The law goes into effect on July 4. This system, called constitutional carry to reflect the right of American citizens to “keep and bear arms,” is now the law of the land in 28 states.

“Louisiana lawmakers and Gov. Landry have taken a bold step for public safety,” [Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms] Chairman Alan Gottlieb said. “Meanwhile, legislatures and governors in the remaining 22 holdout states are signaling that they do not trust their citizens with the most fundamental right of all, the right of self-defense. What a shameful message to telegraph to the people they are elected to serve.”

As a victory was being sealed in Louisiana, another was about to happen in Columbia, SC.

South Carolinians may soon be able to openly carry a weapon.

State lawmakers in both the House and Senate officially passed the Second Amendment Preservation Act, also known as South Carolina Constitutional Carry. The bill allows anyone who can legally own a gun to carry it openly.

The bill is headed to Governor Henry McMaster, who is expected to sign the bill.

Few things make Leviathan more terrified than free people.

“This is a permitless carry,” Sen. Margie Bright Matthews said. “Why are we going to allow people to carry more guns, and this time without a [concealed weapons permit]? Why? I submit to you that the only reason why this was done and this was passed in this chamber on a partisan vote mostly is because this is an election year.”

“Why are we going to allow people” just drips with contempt for the people this person was elected to serve.

As Charles C. W. Cooke notes at National Review:

Constitutional carry does not allow excluded people to buy, possess, or carry firearms; those people remain just as prohibited as they were before. Nor does it prevent the police from checking to see if an arrested person is allowed to carry a gun.

To believe that to remove the permitting process for eligible citizens is to make life more dangerous for the police is thus to believe either (a) that law-abiding people will suddenly become more dangerous if they aren’t required to apply for a permit, or (b) that the sort of convicted criminal who is willing to shoot a cop might somehow be dissuaded from doing so by the requirement that he apply for a small piece of laminated plastic that he is legally unable to obtain in the first instance.

Neither of these arguments is persuasive to me — or, it seems, given the remarkable spread of permitless carry, to many other people, either.

The permitting process doesn’t make anyone safer. It is more properly seen as a bulwark to prevent the “lower orders” from exercising a constitutional right. In my state of Maryland (haaack…ptoooie!) it runs about $500 to jump through all the hoops of training, fingerprinting, and getting a weapons permit. That is a deliberate decision that keeps people who live in dangerous areas from arming themselves or running the risk of becoming felons if they have to resort to self-defense.

Having Constitutional Carry is rapidly becoming the bright line that separates free states from those run by would-be totalitarians.

From a friend:

Violent criminals and governments always keep and bear arms. Always.

They lose their ability to function if they do not retain the ability to project their will through the deliberate consolidation of the ability to administer violence.

Criminals, because they are lawless sociopaths, don’t fear their victims, the police, courts, or prison. – But they do fear armed prey.
Governments, because they must, through themselves, or through proxies, so that they can self-protect and ensure compliance with laws. – But they do fear an armed populace.

All disarmed / physically disadvantaged people – and nations – rely on others to project strength and the threat of violence to protect them. All of them, without exception.

The decentralized ability to administer violence at will is the coin of the realm. Without it, criminal savages ravage the defenseless. Governments oppress and subjugate the defenseless. The inarguable fact is, that when people do not have the civil right to protect themselves, they are subject to the whims of all those stronger than they are.

Whether or not this is done by criminals or the government is only a matter of scale. Knowing this, why would you allow yourself to be disarmed?

57,000 Reasons – and Counting Every Day – Why You Need an AR-15

I don’t want to sound like an alarmist but that part of the oath our military, police, and politicians take that mentions “enemies foreign and domestic” might be more than just a phrase.

When Gropey Joe Biden isn’t fighting to keep the borders open or flying 320,000 illegal immigrants to our airports at all hours of the night, he is doing his dementia-best to disarm We the People, especially of those big, scary AR-15 rifles.

FACT-O-RAMA! Your pink-haired pinko-in-law likely thinks the AR in AR-15 stands for “assault rifle.” It stands for “Armalite rifle.” Armalite is the company that originally designed the weapon.

No one knows how many illegal immigrants from China have tangoed over the border and disappeared into our society. The numbers I heard last were roughly 37,000 in fiscal year 2023 and 20,000 more since then, for a total of roughly 57,000, but that was three weeks ago.

Roughly 150 Chinese immigrants illegally sneak into the United States every day. Most are men of military age. What’s even more concerning is that the far-left apparatchik “fact-checkers” are defending the tsunami of military-aged Chinese pouring over the border. When the dubiously named “Politifact” tells us we don’t need to worry about the Chinese invaders, it’s time to wake up.

When those multi-tasking “Marxist-Americans” are allowing record numbers of Republic-crushing illegal immigrants into America while simultaneously trying to Hoover up our AR-15s, I start to smell a stink badger in the perfume aisle.

Continue reading “”

It’s Official: Louisiana Becomes 28th State to Adopt Permitless Carry

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry campaigned on a pro-Constitutional Carry platform last fall, and the former Attorney General wasted no time at all to fulfill his campaign promise. Just a little more than two weeks after a permitless carry bill was formally introduced in a special session on crime and public safety, Landry put pen to paper today and officially made concealed carry licenses optional in the Sportsmans Paradise.

“Today, we join 27 other states in passing Constitutional Carry. I promised the folks of Louisiana that I would champion Constitutional Carry into law, and within two months, I have honored that commitment,” Republican Gov. Jeff Landry told Fox News Digital.

“It’s fundamentally clear — law-abiding citizens should never have to seek government permission to safeguard themselves and their families. Today, we have secured an incredible victory for liberty in Louisiana. I want to thank Louisiana’s NRA members for their great work.”

Landry signed the NRA-backed Senate Bill 1 into law Tuesday, which allows eligible residents 18 and older to carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

SB 1’s primary author, Republican state Sen. Blake Miguez exclusively told Fox News Digital that the governor’s signature “marks a key milestone in our enduring quest for liberty.”

“Today, Louisiana asserts its unwavering commitment to the Second Amendment by enacting Constitutional Carry, a move that embodies the absolute right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms. Governor Landry’s pivotal role, combined with the steadfast support from legislators across both chambers, has been crucial in reaffirming our dedication to the rights of law-abiding citizens. Our success owes much to the tireless efforts of NRA members and Second Amendment defenders throughout the state, whose advocacy has been indispensable,” Miguez said.

Second Amendment advocates never gave up in their quest to enshrine Constitutional Carry into law, even after then-Gov. John Bel Edwards vetoed a similar bill in 2021 and a handful of lawmakers flipped their votes in an override session, allowing the governor’s veto to stand. Most of the flip-floppers are no longer in the legislature, but it was Landry’s embrace of the measure that ensured this would be the year that Lousiiana joined more than half the country in removing a needless barrier to the right to bear arms.

Elections have consequences, and in this case good ones for Second Amendment supporters. Starting this Independence Day, if you can lawfully possess a firearm in the state you’ll be able to lawfully carry without the need for a state-issued license. This applies to everyone 18 and older, even those who live outside the state, so folks won’t have to worry if their state has reciprocity with Louisiana.

Will we see a 29th state adopt Constitutional Carry this year? The jury’s still out in South Carolina, where a conference committee is trying to come up with a bill that’s amenable to both the House and Senate, which have passed competing measures rejected by the other chamber. The conference committee comprised of six lawmakers is currently holding meetings, and if they can craft a bill that they support it will be sent to the House and Senate for an up-or-down vote without the possibility of making any changes.

Louisiana has shown the Palmetto State the way forward. In just a matter of weeks, lawmakers in Baton Rouge made more progress than their counterparts in Columbia have made in a year. Now’s the time for South Carolina legislators to follow the lead of their Louisiana colleagues and to adopt a clean Constitutional Carry bill of their own.

Congratulations to gun owners and 2A activists in the Pelican State, who never gave up even when the state’s good-old-boy politics was used to subvert the legislative process. The passage and adoption of this year’s legislation may have been quick and painless, but Landry’s signing is still the culmination of a years-long fight to restore the right to carry to its rightful status, and today’s signing ceremony wouldn’t have taken place without their efforts.

Wyoming Lawmakers Already Approved Constitutional Carry. Now They’re Going After ‘Gun-Free’ Zones.

Monday will be a critical day for one of the most important pieces of 2A legislation introduced anywhere in the country this year. HB 125 would scrap the vast majority of Wyoming’s “gun-free zones”, and the bill sailed through the House last week on a 54-7 vote. Now it’s up to the Senate Judiciary Committee to keep the bill alive. Any bill that’s crossed over from its chamber of origin has to pass out of committee in the second chamber by the end of business on Monday or it’s done for the year, and HB 125 is on the Judiciary Committee’s calendar for an 11 a.m. hearing on Monday morning.

HB 125 would allow for concealed carry in most government-owned and controlled buildings in the state; including K-12 schools, which drew the objections of a handful of lawmakers.

There were 14 amendments as HB 125 navigated its way to House passage, several of them from Rep. Sandy Newsome (R-Cody), who fought to preserve school districts’ authority to regulate concealed firearms in the classrooms and hallways of their public schools. Her home district, Park County School District 6, started its own firearms policy that allows for concealed carry in 2018.

“My concern is we have an armed, trained staff and now we’re going to allow citizens off the street to come into our schools concealed-carry,” Newsome said on the House floor. “My fear is that one of our teachers will shoot a citizen who comes into our school legally.”

Uncertainty over who is armed, she said, could have the effect of killing the district’s concealed carry program.

“My fear is that we will lose the people who are protecting our school children every day,” Newsome said, “because they don’t want that uncertainty.”

At first glance, Newsome’s objections seem fairly rational. After all, if more people are carrying legally in schools, would armed school staff want to take the risk of shooting an innocent person who posed no threat to students or employees? Might they decide it would just be safer, at least from a legal perspective, for them to forgo carrying a concealed firearm of their own?

Maybe, but I’d argue that we’re talking about concealed carry here. Why would any armed school staff member even be aware that a parent or visitor was lawfully carrying a concealed firearm? And the presence of a gun alone isn’t enough to justify a shooting, even under current Wyoming law. The person needs to be actively posing a threat to life and limb in order to use deadly force. If a school staffer sees a gun in someone’s hand, that would be cause for alarm and action, but an accidental flash of a pistol grip as someone’s jacket swings open wouldn’t be reason enough to start blasting away in the name of school safety.

Besides, “citizens of the street” shouldn’t be wandering into schools, regardless of whether or not they’re “gun-free zones”. My youngest have now graduated from high school, but when I had to go check them out for a doctor’s appointment or something along those lines I had to wait to be buzzed in through the visitor’s entrance. There should be physical security measures in place, even in rural schools, to prevent unauthorized entry by those who have no business being on campus, and if I were an armed school staff member I’d be much more concerned about whether or not those barriers had been erected than the possibility of shooting a lawful gun owner who wasn’t a danger.

HB 125 would be a big step forward in a state that already has Constitutional Carry in place, and if it gets out of the Judiciary Committee I’d say it stands a very good chance of clearing the full Senate. While states like California, New York, and even Colorado are looking to expand the number of “sensitive places” off limits to lawful carry, Wyoming’s approach is a breath of freedom-restoring fresh air, and I’m keeping my fingers crossed that committee members feel the same way.