Beyond Stand Your Ground: Second Amendment Immunity Defense is the Next Legal Frontier

Lee Williams;

Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute and similar laws in other states can offer immunity from prosecution when someone uses deadly force to defend themselves, and affords them quick access to an appellate review if the case doesn’t go their way.

In other words, if a defendant involved in a defensive shooting invokes a Stand Your Ground defense, their case can be dismissed before a trial even begins if it is proven they are entitled to statutory immunity, or appellate judges can be brought in quickly to make sure the case gets handled correctly.

When a defendant files a Stand Your Ground motion, their case is put on hold. Prosecution is halted. The trial court must hold a “Stand Your Ground” hearing – a sort of mini trial – to determine whether the defendant’s use of force meets the standards for Stand Your Ground immunity.

At this point, the burden shifts to the prosecutors, who must then prove by “clear and convincing evidence” why the defendant is not entitled to immunity from prosecution.

After this mini trial, the judge can either dismiss the charges or allow the case to go forward. However, if the charges are not dismissed, the defendant can file a Writ of Prohibition, which quickly bumps the case up to an appellate court for review. This writ can save the time it normally takes to get to the appellate level — usually as much as 18-months to two years — because it allows the defendant to forego a jury trial, sentencing and other delays and present their case directly to the appellate judges, who can affirm or deny their writ.

Stand Your Ground was created to protect people from unjust, malicious or politically motivated prosecutions after they acted in self-defense. By shifting the burden of proof to the state and by making an appeal quick and easy, the law has become a powerful tool, which some believe should be expanded to include other statutes involving Second Amendment rights.

“We need a Second Amendment immunity defense for anything involving the lawful possession of a firearm,” said former Florida prosecutor Lisa Chittaro. “It should mirror Stand Your Ground statutes, but it needs to be broader. It should allow defense attorneys to ask the court to find immunity under the protections of the Second Amendment quickly and efficiently and if they don’t, it should provide a quick route to the appellate level without having to go through the entire court process, which can take years.”

Chittaro pointed to several types of criminal cases that should be covered by Second Amendment immunity. Most involve arrests stemming from gun-free zones, such as schools, sporting events and airports. Many of them lack knowledge – a major factor in a criminal case – much less actual intent to commit a crime.

“If a parent picks up their child from school and they forgot their firearm and someone sees it and complains, they should be covered by Second Amendment immunity,” she said. “The same goes for other gun-free-zone prosecutions where there was no knowledge or intent.”

The problem with most of the prosecutions resulting from arrests in prohibited places, is that police and prosecutors often forget that Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. A trial judge and/or appellate court should review these cases to determine specifically if it involved this constitutionally protected right, or if the defendant knowingly and with intent committed a crime. Besides, in many states, the list of prohibited places grows every time their legislature meets. This is lawfare – pure and simple.

Every prosecution stemming from an arrest in a prohibited place should begin with an acknowledgement of the defendant’s Second Amendment rights, especially since gun-free zones infringe upon these rights. If a case involves absentmindedness, and not knowledge or the specific intent to commit a crime, judges need to toss them out. It is, after all, what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.

The Iowa governor says gun control is not the answer.

Reynolds says strict gun control is not the answer after drive-by shooting

DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds had a message Wednesday on the deadly drive-by shooting outside of East High School last week.

At an event Wednesday, Reynolds called the shooting a heartbreaking tragedy but argued stricter gun laws are not the answer.

“The tragedy is our educational system is letting these kids down. They should have been in school. We should be figuring out resources to help them stay there,” Reynolds said.

Instead, she says the focus should be on keeping kids in the classroom.

“Let’s figure out how we get these kids in school, get them the education they need and set them up to be successful. Not set them up for jail or a life of crime. And so that’s where we’re going to continue to focus. We have gun laws. We have laws on the books right now for guns, and those weren’t accessed legally,” Reynolds said.

Des Moines police haven’t determined how the teens got the guns, but say they were possessed illegally because they were minors.

Fifteen-year-old Jose Lopez was killed in the shooting on March 7.

Two teenage girls were injured and remain hospitalized. Four of the suspects that are charged as adults have their first court appearance on Friday. However, one of them will not physically be in court because he entered a written appearance.

Iowa Democrats criticized Reynolds for placing blame on public schools.

House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst released a statement saying, “Iowans know the real tragedy is that a 15-year-old has died and two remain in the hospital. Instead of using our Iowa values to bring us together, Reynolds is using this tragedy to vilify teachers and drive Iowans apart.”

Des Moines Schools Superintendent Tom Ahart said Monday, “It’s unfortunate that our state and our country have become a place where firearms are far too easily accessible. We remain committed to protecting our students and staff, but real change to gun laws and access would go a long way to help us.”

A well written article, but she still makes the – unfortunately near usual – ignorant error about the 2nd amendment. The right to keep and the right to bear arms, as defined by the Supreme Court as 2 separate but intertwined rights, were not given by the amendment! The amendment was a restriction on goobermint from infringing on rights that preexisted even the U.S.

The Second Amendment and the Sovereignty of a Nation

As the world watches the Ukrainian people bravely fight for their sovereignty against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of their country, I am reminded of the importance of the Second Amendment enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

The right to bear arms has been viciously attacked in the past few decades as an archaic vestige of a bygone era. However, as many Ukrainians take up arms for the first time in their lives, it serves as a stark reminder of why our Second Amendment rights at home are critical for the survival of our nation.

Many Americans are familiar with the Second Amendment and how its foundation -as described by our nation’s Founding Fathers – was to grant citizens the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Usually, this understanding is only applied in the case of a tyrannical U.S. government; however, Ukraine has proven that the right to bear arms can be fundamental in protecting the sovereignty of a nation against a hostile foreign government.

While the value of the Second Amendment is disputed within American society, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has—in a dramatic reversal of his initial stance against the legalization of weapons—reversed his policy in the face of Russian aggression. Zelensky recently not only called on ordinary Ukrainians to take up arms in the defense of their nation, but concurrently stated that the Ukrainian government would issue weapons to any citizen who requested one.

Though a judicious decision by Zelensky, many Ukrainians—in preparation before the conflict—had limited experience with firearms. For example, in viral images weeks before the invasion, Ukrainians were seen wielding wooden rifles in an attempt to gain as much training as possible with firearms. While honorable, this deficit in knowledge across the agrarian nation, has no doubt harmed their readiness against the Russian forces.

While the Russo-Ukrainian conflict provides a fresh example of why Americans’ right to bear arms is so critical, there are other examples here in the United States of Americans taking up arms in order to defend their rights. For example, look no further than the Deacons for Defense and Justice. Founded in 1964, the group of Black World War II veterans armed themselves to defend against the Ku Klux Klan as black Americans marched for civil rights against the Jim Crow South. These American patriots looked tyranny in the face and took up arms in the name of liberty and justice. From the Deacons for Defense and Justice to the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, Americans have used the Second Amendment to protect against those who sought to oppress a population.

This is why the Second Amendment is so important for the security of the American people and the prosperity of the United States. From Ukraine to within our own shores, a legally armed citizenry can serve as a deterrent to a wide array of potential threats. Many Americans recognize this and have taken the time to get proper firearms training as, according to one study, over 60 percent of American gun owners have formal training.

So, while some Americans continue to debate the value of the Second Amendment, let us not forget the people around the world who have no such rights and cannot defend themselves against an oppressive government. Let us not take for granted the gift of our Founding Fathers that has allowed millions of Americans the right to self-defense and a formal education on how to properly use arms.

The United States stands as one of only three nations in the world that has enshrined the right of its citizenry to bear arms, and the significance of this rare clause in the U.S. Constitution has enabled us to become the beacon of the free world. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should serve as a reminder of the blessings we in the United States take for granted, and buttress American support for our Second Amendment rights for the sake of the sovereignty of our great nation.

Anti-gun groups are being defrauded by people who are in the movement just to line their pockets.

‘Violence In Boston’ Founder Monica Cannon-Grant And Husband Indicted On Federal Fraud Charges

BOSTON (CBS) – A federal grand jury has indicted Monica Cannon-Grant and her husband Clark Grant, the founders of Violence In Boston, on more than a dozen charges for allegedly using the nonprofit for their own benefit.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for Massachusetts announced on Tuesday that Cannon-Grant, 41, and Grant, 38, both Taunton residents, are facing charges as part of an 18-count indictment.

A grand jury found the couple allegedly led a series of schemes designed to defraud Violence in Boston donors, the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance, and a mortgage lending business based in Chicago.

Federal prosecutors allege the couple intended to use charitable donations for their personal benefit.

Continue reading “”

Peppermint Psaki gets painted into hypocrite corner saying that small arms including “machine guns” are quote: “defensive weapons”… These are the same people that call semi-automatic firearms “assault weapons” for the sake of vilifying Americans who own firearms legally.

License-to-Carry Applications Have Skyrocketed In Philly — Even More Than You’d Think
“When I saw how high the numbers were, I had to call our stats department to make sure they were right,” a Philadelphia Police Department representative told us.

It didn’t surprise me a bit to learn that license-to-carry applications in Philadelphia have risen over the past year. First, you have the constant reports of shootings, carjackings and other violent crimes in the city. Second, the Philadelphia Police Department made it dramatically easier to apply for a license to carry, starting in January 2021. But I wasn’t exactly ready for just how big this increase has been. And neither was the Philadelphia Police Department, it seems.

“When I saw how high the numbers were, I had to call our stats department to make sure they were right,” police department spokesperson Jasmine Reilly told me after I requested the data.

From 2017 through 2020, the number of license-to-carry applications in Philadelphia held about steady, ranging between 11,049 and 11,814 applications each year. But in 2021, 70,789 people applied for licenses to carry guns.

In other words, license-to-carry applications more than sextupled last year. And in January of this year, the number of applications continued its upward trajectory. (The Pennsylvania State Police publish an annual report showing the number of licenses issued in the counties surrounding Philadelphia as well as in the rest of the state, but a spokesperson for PSP says that data isn’t yet available for 2021.)

Wake Forest University sociologist David Yamane, author of the 2021 book Concealed Carry Revolution, says there’s a well-established trend over the past few decades of gun culture in America shifting from guns for sport, like hunting and target shooting, to guns for personal defense. “This trend has accelerated during the pandemic and other events of the last two years,” he says, adding that licenses to carry surged right along with gun ownership. “But this increase in Philadelphia is exceptional.”

Continue reading “”

Columbia, SC to roll back gun control amid state threats

Some cities think they should pass gun control measures regardless of what rules the state may have in place. In South Carolina, for example, they have preemption. That means cities are forbidden from trying to have local gun control in place. Columbia, South Carolina seemed to think that rule didn’t apply to them.

Now, they’re trying to roll back the gun control measures they passed so they don’t lose state funding.

Columbia will move forward with repealing a series of gun-control measures after bowing from a court fight with S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson and not wanting a fight with state lawmakers who have the power to fund much-needed city projects.

Columbia, with the backing of then-Mayor Steve Benjamin, passed a series of gun ordinances in 2019 making it illegal to possess firearms within 1,000 feet of a school; allowing gun seizures from people under an extreme risk protection order, commonly known as a “red flag” law; and a rule that added buildings where homemade firearms known as “ghost guns” are constructed to be subject to the city’s nuisance laws.

Wilson sued the city in 2020, arguing that state law preempted local authority on the gun regulations. A Richland County judge sided with Wilson in 2021.

The City Council gave initial approval March 15 to roll back the gun rules in a split vote. Mayor Daniel Rickenmann and council members Aditi Bussells, Howard Duvall and Joe Taylor voted to repeal. Council members Tina Herbert, Ed McDowell and Will Brennan voted against taking the ordinances off of the books.

It seems some of the City Council objected to the idea that they lost the court case. Of course, they did.

The confusion was because the city planned to appeal, but withdrew the appeal the day of the vote. However, that wouldn’t have changed matters in the least. Preemption laws have been upheld time and time again, so there’s no reason to believe South Carolina’s preemption law would have been an exception.

This leads us to what state lawmakers were considering to push the city back on the straight and narrow.

State Rep. Kirkman Finlay, a Columbia Republican and member of the House budget-writing committee, said he urged a city lobbyist and some council members to outright repeal the rules after the deferred vote or risk jeopardizing his ability to secure backing for $170 million the city requested from lawmakers for a number of projects.

At the top of the list is a $35 million request to fix train crossings that can snarl traffic around downtown.…

Finlay has proposed a bill in the House that would allow the state to withhold money for municipalities that do not follow state law.

Frankly, it’s certainly an option that states should at least consider.

See, the problem with far too many preemption laws is that they lack any real teeth. A municipality can pass a gun control law and while it may be illegal, it can linger indefinitely for any number of reasons. Usually, it’s because private citizens lack standing to challenge such a measure unless they’ve been impacted–that often means “arrested”–and if the state opts not to do its job, you get quite the mess.

We’ve seen it happen in Pennsylvania, for example.

Threatening to withhold funding for various projects may be a good incentive to keep places like Columbia from trying to pass their own gun control measures.

“In 36 days of fighting on Iwo Jima during World War II, nearly 7,000 Marines were killed. Now, 20 days after President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia invaded Ukraine, his military has already lost more soldiers…”

“… according to American intelligence estimates. The conservative side of the estimate, at more than 7,000 Russian troop deaths, is greater than the number of American troops killed over 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. It is a staggering number amassed in just three weeks of fighting, American officials say, with implications for the combat effectiveness of Russian units, including soldiers in tank formations. Pentagon officials say a 10 percent casualty rate, including dead and wounded, for a single unit renders it unable to carry out combat-related tasks…. ‘Losses like this affect morale and unit cohesion, especially since these soldiers don’t understand why they’re fighting,’ said Evelyn Farkas, the top Pentagon official for Russia and Ukraine during the Obama administration… ‘It is stunning, and the Russians haven’t even gotten to the worst of it, when they hit urban combat in the cities,’ [said] Representative Jason Crow, Democrat of Colorado….”

From “As Russian Troop Deaths Climb, Morale Becomes an Issue, Officials Say/More than 7,000 Russian troops have been killed in less than three weeks of fighting, according to conservative U.S. estimates” (NYT).

Observation O’ The Day
“Most of the West is run by woke morons. The West’s wealth has largely insulated it from the costs associated with having morons in charge, but we’ve pretty much run through the safety margins.”

Scottish Government Ignores Frantic Food Crisis Warnings, Embraces Green Piety.

The Ukraine was the bread basket of Europe, and Russia was a major source of fertiliser. Yet as the interruption of grain and fertiliser supplies raises the spectre of crop failures and severe food shortages, senior British politicians are ignoring frantic pleas from farmers to release arable land reserved for “re-wilding” projects, and other whacky green schemes.

Green Agenda: Minister Ignores Ukraine Food Crisis Warnings in Favour of Solving ‘Nature Emergency’

PETER CADDLE 14 Mar 2022

A UK minister has ignored the pleas of farmers to take action against the forthcoming Ukraine food crisis in favour of maintaining her leftist government’s green agenda.

As the Ukraine crisis causes Europe’s food security situation to significantly worsen, British farmers have asked authorities to allow land earmarked for “rewilding” to be used for crops in the hopes of curbing ever-rising food prices.

However, Scotland’s leftist Biodiversity minister, Lorna Slater, has outright rejected the farmers’ pleas, instead prioritising pushing her government’s green agenda.…

“We want to do as much as we can for nature and the environment, and we have done that for a long time and yes we will do more,” said the president of the National Union of Farmers Scotland, Martin Kennedy.

“But right now the world has changed and we need to focus on what is really important… food and water is something we take for granted far too much,” he warned.

However, despite the serious supply problems the Ukraine crisis poses for Britain’s supply of food, Minister Slater has outright dismissed the request in favour of her administration’s green agenda.

“We are still in a nature emergency that hasn’t gone away… so it’s a no,” Slater is reported as saying in response to the pleas of farmers.…

Read more: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/03/14/green-agenda-minister-ignores-ukraine-food-crisis-warnings-in-favour-of-solving-nature-emergency/

If you can’t get your hands on enough fertiliser, the next best option is to expand the acreage of cultivated land, to bring every acre of arable land you can get your hands on into production, like Britain did in WW2.

Fertiliser production is an energy intensive process, which is why it has long been outsourced to countries like China and Russia, the number one and two global producers, countries which have plenty of cheap energy. Just under 2% of the world’s global energy production is expended producing ammonia, a first step in the production of agricultural fertiliser. The USA and Canada produce significant amounts of Ammonia, but US and Canadian production is dwarfed by Russian and Chinese production.

The chemical factories which produce ammonia are very large, and contain enormous, multi-story, high pressure reaction vessels. Not something which could be built in five minutes – especially in nations which have also outsourced most of their heavy industry to Russia and China. I fully support starting construction of new fertiliser plants, but plants which have yet to be built won’t solve this year’s problems.

Fertiliser application makes a big difference to crop productivity – around 35 – 60% of modern crop yields is attributable to application of fertiliser. We might get away with one year of reduced fertiliser application, but If soils are depleted by a series of years in which inadequate fertiliser is applied, crop yields could drop by more than 60%.

It doesn’t take much to trigger a food crisis. In 2007-2008 the world experienced a food crisis. The 2007-2008 crisis was not severe enough to significantly affect rich nations, but it led to mass starvation and riots in poor countries. The root cause in that case was a series of droughts, and excessive biofuel subsidies. Just a small blip in production and use of food was enough to push millions of people into hunger.

There is no way of knowing how the current food crisis risk will play out, and who will be affected.

Time is running out to make a decision – northern nations like Britain have very well defined planting and growing seasons. Some high nutrition plants like potatoes grow well throughout Britain, including Scotland, but planting must start in the next month, for most crops, or it will be too late to harvest by the end of Summer.

I strongly suggest people in Britain let green obsessives like Minister Lorna Slater know their “nature emergencies” and re-wilding projects can wait, before British food prices spiral out of the reach of poor people.

House Dems want Biden to declare national ‘climate emergency’ and ban oil drilling on federal lands.

Progressive Democrats in the House of Representatives are reportedly planning to publicly urge President Biden to ban oil drilling on federal lands amid record gas prices and a war in Ukraine that has disrupted oil markets.

According to a report from Politico,  the Congressional Progressive Caucus is planning to demand that Biden use his executive power to declare climate change an emergency and ban drilling on federal lands.

“Progressive Caucus member @JaredHuffman told me calling on Biden to declare a climate emergency is one of the ‘centerpiece’ actions to headline their EO plan,” Politico reporter Joshua Siegel tweeted Tuesday. “A draft of the plan I saw also calls for Biden to ban oil/gas drilling on public lands and end fossil fuel subsidies.”

Siegel added that House Democrats will also call on Biden to manufacture more heat pumps to “ease the strain in oil and gas markets that has been caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine.” Some of those heat pumps would be donated to Europe, according to the House Progressives’ plan.

The reported move drew immediate criticism on social media with many pointing out that gas prices have surged to record levels prompting Republicans to call for increased drilling to ease pain at the pump, not less.

“Dems want $10 gas,” Republican Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted.

 

“The Democrats need to wake up,” Republican Sen. Steve Daines tweeted. “We must unleash American energy.”

“And Democrats wonder why people blame them for high gas prices,” a Twitter account associated with the National Republican Congressional Committee tweeted.

“We need to focus on building critical infrastructure and increasing domestic production, not jeopardizing North American energy security,” President and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers Jay Timmons tweeted. “Manufacturers oppose this attempt to potentially further disrupt domestic energy production and drive up prices.”

 

The use of a “climate emergency” also raises constitutional concerns, as the nation eases out of emergency COVID restrictions imposed two years ago by governors and local authorities, which shut down businesses and destroyed millions of jobs nationwide.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News.

The Biden administration has faced intense criticism in recent weeks for refusing to commit to increasing oil production in the United States as gas prices have surged roughly $1.50 per gallon since he took off in a crisis that has been exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“It’s going to go up,” Biden told a reporter when asked about gas prices last week. “Can’t do much right now. Russia is responsible.”

Rhode Island’s Stun Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, many people simply think about guns, and for good reason. Firearms are typically what face the tightest controls and are what most people want to trust for self-defense.

However, the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. That includes all kinds of weapons, including less-lethal weapons like stun guns and tasers.

Unfortunately, a number of states banned them.

One by one, such statewide bans fell before the courts, but few besides Rhode Island’s remained. Now, even that one has fallen.

 

This is fantastic news for the people of Rhode Island. Especially since the state also heavily restricts the private ownership of firearms.

It’s an odd quirk that many gun control-favoring states, like Rhode Island, also like to restrict less-lethal self-defense options. You can’t defend yourself with lethal force, but you can’t defend yourself with less-lethal force, either.

Further, while proponents may argue that such tools in the hands of criminals will lead to assaults, particularly against women, the truth is that many women prefer to use something like a stun gun to a firearm anyway. That means these bans actually prevented women from choosing to do something other than seeking out a firearm for self-defense.

A bit of an oxymoron, if you ask me.

Attorney Eugene Volokh wrote over at The Volokh Conspiracy that now only a couple of bans remain.

“Stun gun bans remain in effect, to my knowledge, in

● New York, where a federal district court held that the state stun gun ban was unconstitutional, but a state trial court in a different case disagreed (yes, state courts can do that),

● Wilmington (Delaware) and the county in which it is located (New Castle County),

● plus some smaller towns.

Stun guns are also heavily regulated (e.g., with total bans on carrying in most places outside the home) in Connecticut and in some cities. New Jersey lawyer Dan Schmutter tells me that New Jersey likely also essentially bans carrying stun guns outside the home. For more, see this article, though the listing of restrictions in Appendix II is now out-of-date.”

It’s good to see the courts recognize that the Second Amendment doesn’t just apply to firearms but rightfully should include less-lethal weapons. If only these few other places can be shown the error of their ways.

Doing so might allow a lot of people, particularly those who may not be permitted to own firearms due to various reasons, to have a way to protect themselves. Again, it’ll also benefit people who want to protect themselves but don’t feel they can pull the trigger on a gun pointing at another human being.

As it stands, though, folks in Rhode Island are a bit freer now than they were when they woke up Tuesday morning.

We are ‘led’ by the literally mentally defective

Biden’s Remarks at ‘Equal Pay’ Event Were a Gaffe-Filled Dumpster Fire

The White House hosted a Women’s History Month event on Tuesday evening to highlight the left’s ‘Equal Pay Day’ but President Biden apparently decided to make an attempt at breaking the record for how many gaffes he could spit out during his 14 minute remarks.

Right out of the gate, President Biden sought to explain who wasn’t appearing at the event with him saying “there’s been a little change in the arrangement of who’s on the stage because of the First Lady’s husband contracted COVID, but look at this room and what you see,” Biden stated before someone off-stage in the White House pointed out that the “First Lady’s husband” is…Joe Biden. Uncomfortable laughter from the crowd followed as Biden said “that’s right, she’s fine, that’s me that’s not together.” No kidding.

Biden continued by referring to Doug Emhoff as “the Second Lady” before correcting himself with (also wrong) “First Gentleman,” listing two additional incorrect monikers for Kamala Harris’ husband who is in fact the Second Gentleman and not the husband of the president nor the vice president’s wife, nor a lady.

But Biden’s nomenclature challenges didn’t end there. In a line about his U.N. ambassador, the president incorrectly called her “Linda Thomas-Greenhouse,” before correcting himself and using her actual name Linda Thomas-Greenfield. Biden was reading from his teleprompter at this point and, assuming the White House knows the name of the ambassador to the United Nations, Biden should have trusted the words scrolling in front of his eyes. It also wasn’t the first time Biden incorrectly called her “Greenhouse.”

Then, when telling one of his classic freewheeling anecdotes, Biden tripped himself up talking about his Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. “I often kid her, and I wasn’t kidding, early on when I was seeking the nomination had she been born in America she’d be standing here and I’d be sitting there,” Biden said.

“She was a former governor of the state of, uh, Michigan. Michigan, wrong,” Biden said incorrectly fact-checking himself in real-time. “She was a former state of, she was a governor. I’m teasing.” Biden was, of course, right the first time. But he incorrectly corrected himself, called Granholm a former state, and then decided to write the situation off as “teasing.” Hoo-boy.

Continue reading “”

Is the nature of gun control changing?

When you spend a lot of time studying gun control, it gets to be easy to see the same old patterns pop up time and time again. I see the same bogus statistics, the same BS arguments, the same tired rhetoric over and over again.

However, it seems that some believe that the nature of gun control in this country is starting to change.

In late January 2022, the city of San Jose, California was the first US city to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance. A recent trend in Democratic-leaning cities has led to a slew of similar laws being discussed by other cities. San Jose’s law may encourage them to wait before they join the trend. Critics of the San Jose law point to its lack of enforcement or penalties for gun owners who fail to purchase insurance and a $25 fee levied against gun owners that may prove unconstitutional. Sam Liccardo, the mayor of San Jose, suggested that the insurance mandate would encourage gun owners to have gun safes, use trigger locks, and enroll in gun safety classes, likely to reduce their hypothetical insurance bill. Gun insurance remains a nebulous, theoretical concept, so it’s unclear whether insurance agencies will offer financial incentives for gun owners to be responsible. …

San Jose’s recent gun insurance mandate has been making waves on social media, but it doesn’t tell the whole story when it comes to the evolution of laws surrounding our personal security. Not only are states like Ohio loosening restrictions on responsible gun owners, but states like Tennessee and Washington are experimenting with less restrictive, more incentive-based programs that encourage responsible ownership without burdening owners or infringing on their rights. The success of the Tennessee and Washington programs may pave the way for other innovative measures in the future. They serve as proof that you don’t have to restrict rights in order to steer citizens in a more responsible direction and keep everyone safe.

The mention to Tennessee references the measure that would waive sale tax on things like gun safes.

Unfortunately, though, the Washington measure is their mandatory storage law, which is an infringement on gun owners’ rights.

But does the overall point remain? Are gun control laws shifting to be less invasive on people’s rights? I’m afraid I can’t agree.

While Tennessee took a positive tact, Washington’s law still boils down to telling people what they must do in their own homes. We’ve continued to see gun control-supporting lawmakers pushing through more and more regulations.

Hell, we just had gun control pass at the federal level that includes a lot of problematic language.

The truth is that gun control isn’t so much shifting as expanding. They’re still trying to ban so-called assault weapons, push universal background checks, and expand the definition of domestic violence so they can deny gun rights to legions of additional people. They’re just doing a lot of other stuff.

In fact, the part about this claim that bothers me the most is that Tennessee’s measure is so not gun control that it shouldn’t be compared with some of these other measures.