FPC Files Lawsuit Challenging Oregon “Large Capacity” Magazine Ban as Unconstitutional

PORTLAND, OR (November 30, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Oregon Measure 114’s ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the ban from being enforced while the case continues. The complaint and motion in Fitz v. Rosenblum can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The State of Oregon has criminalized one of the most common and important means by which its citizens can exercise their fundamental right of self-defense,” argues the complaint. “By banning the manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale, or transfer of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds (‘standard capacity magazines’), the State has barred law-abiding residents from legally acquiring or possessing common ammunition magazines and deprived them of an effective means of self-defense.”

“Today’s filings are proof yet again that when statist idealogues attempt to unilaterally restrict the rights of peaceable people, FPC will step up and fight back,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And the good people of Oregon should keep their eyes peeled for additional FPC responses to the incredibly flawed Ballot Measure 114.”

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

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.

FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

GOP senators behind bipartisan gun control say they’re done

Following Uvalde, a small group of Republican senators broke with the rest of the party and negotiated a bipartisan gun control deal. It wasn’t the broad, sweeping anti-gun measures that many wanted, but it was gun control.

Now, following a series of mass shootings, there’s a renewed push for anti-gun legislation, this time in the form of an assault weapon ban.

Unfortunately for those pushing it, the Republicans behind the last bill aren’t interested in a repeat performance.

Republican senators who, in the past, have worked with Democrats on gun control told the Daily Caller News Foundation they will not support new attempts to pass a more far-reaching firearm ban in the lame-duck session of the 117th Congress, following a mass shooting in Colorado Springs on Nov. 20.

In June, 15 GOP senators voted with Democrats to pass the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, following the killing of 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, which added “domestic violence abusers” to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and enhanced the review process for gun purchasers under 21 years of age.

However, none of these lawmakers who responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation indicated they would support a bill that encompasses the AR-15, a popular rifle among American gun owners.

“Senator [Pat] Toomey [of Pennsylvania]…does not support a ban on assault weapons because it would prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning what are some of the most popular firearms in the United States,” a spokesperson for Toomey told the DCNF.

The office of Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, meanwhile, shared an article with the DCNF about Graham owning an AR-15, indicating his opposition to the ban.

A spokesman for Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who also voted for June’s legislation, said that he had been “consistently opposed” to an assault weapons ban and would not be supporting new legislation. This was echoed by an aide to Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who said that Sasse would not support the ban even though he is leaving the Senate at the end of the year.

Without those lawmakers, an assault weapon ban cannot happen.

Even as Democrats are set to have control of the Senate come January, they would still need many of those same senators. Just how many depends on the outcome of the run-off election in Georgia, but that’s only one potential seat that won’t change the math all that much on this regardless of the outcome.

And the only hope for the Biden administration to get gun control passed is to do it during the lame-duck session.

After the new Congress starts, Republicans will control the House and have enough votes in the Senate to block any legislation they want. Gun control becomes a non-starter at that point, regardless of what Biden and his fellow Democrats want.

Unless, of course, he can manage to get enough Republicans to cross the aisle on this issue.

However, since the handful who already showed some willingness to do so have said no, there’s just not a lot of chance of that happening.

So the president can call for assault weapon bans all he wants–and make no mistake, he will, even when it’s not remotely relevant–but that’s about all he’ll be able to do.

How to Stop School Shootings

My heart sinks every time I see breaking-news graphics announce another school shooting. It’s like a gut-punch — the lost lives, the suffering of the wounded, the horrors the First Responders must encounter, and the families that will never again be whole.

The blame and blood-dancing usually start before the bodies are even recovered. The talking heads call to ban or further regulate firearms, magazines or accessories in common usage, as if the contents of my gun safe located thousands of miles from the crime scene somehow played a role in the killings.

Politicians will gleefully announce new infringements, none of which could have prevented the mass murder, but that is never their intent. They were eagerly awaiting another opportunity to do something that will score points with their base and their donors, as well as disarm law-abiding Americans.

Keep in mind that more than three-times as many people die each year from excessive alcohol use than from firearms, yet no one is calling to ban bourbon or vodka, because the booze-ban industry died on Dec. 5, 1933, while the gun-ban industry sputters on. Their misguided efforts have no chance of ever stopping mass murders because they are solely fixated on banning an inanimate object, while ignoring the person pulling the trigger and those who help facilitate the crime.

In my humble opinion, if we truly want to stop school shootings we should harden the staff, not just the buildings, and we should focus on the other bad actors, too, not just the trigger-pullers. It’s time to start holding parents, law enforcement and the legacy media strictly accountable — criminally, morally and very publicly — for aiding and abetting these preventable deaths.

Continue reading “”

Building on the moon: NASA awards Texas company $57 million for lunar construction system

Project Olympus just got a significant cash infusion

Artist’s illustration of ICON’s envisioned Project Olympus lunar construction system in action on the moon. (Image credit: ICON)
A nascent off-Earth construction system just got a big funding boost.NASA has awarded the Texas-based company ICON $57.2 million for its Project Olympus, which is working to develop technology that will allow humanity to build outposts on the moon and Mars using locally available dirt and rock.”To change the space exploration paradigm from ‘there and back again’ to ‘there to stay,’ we’re going to need robust, resilient and broadly capable systems that can use the local resources of the moon and other planetary bodies,” ICON co-founder and CEO Jason Ballard said in a statement today (Nov. 29).”We’re pleased that our research and engineering to date has demonstrated that such systems are indeed possible, and we look forward to now making that possibility a reality,” he added.

Artist’s illustration of lunar infrastructure built by ICON’s Project Olympus construction system, along with a SpaceX Starship in the background. (Image credit: ICON)

ICON is a pioneer in the use of advanced construction technologies here on Earth. For example, the company built the first-ever fully permitted 3D-printed home in the United States in 2018 and has since delivered entire communities of such houses in the U.S. and in Mexico.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
The good news is that a bunch of Antifa prags has been arrested and/or convicted lately for violent crimes. The not-so-good news is that many have been been given probation instead of prison time. It’s yet another reminder that despite embracing Nazi tactics and terrorizing cities — and citizens — across the nation, Antifa enjoys the protection of the powerful left, from mayors and prosecutors all the way up to the Big Guy in the White House — just like Hitler’s brown shirts.

Don’t Be Fooled — Antifa Is America’s Nazis.

The key to understanding the Democrats is this: They accuse the Republicans of whatever they are up to. So when the libs call us “Nazis,” it’s time to take a peak under the non-binary, black bloc fashion-wear of their own street thugs and see what they’re really up to.

Antifa violently attacks Republicans, Christians, and conservatives around the nation. They shut down speeches by conservatives like Ann Coulter. Such violence is reminiscent of Hitler’s S.A., which is short for Sturmabteilung (assault division), also known as the “brown shirts.”

FASCISM-O-RAMA! Nazis, commies, and fascists hate democracy. They use/used violence against their political opponents, including shutting down speeches by their ideological adversaries. Antifa also opposes democracy, attacks people who disagree with them, and riots to cancel speeches by conservatives. If it walks like a duck goosesteps like a Nazi…

The only difference between Antifa and Hitler’s street thugs is sartorial: Hitler’s thugs preferred wearing brown shirts, hence their nickname, while Antifa fancies the Italian fascist fashions championed by Mussolini’s Blackshirts.

IRONY-O-RAMA! Fifty tears ago, leftist, soap-dodging hippies fought for free speech at Berkeley. Today, their gender-free Nazi/commie/fascist grandkids screech and battle to shut it down.

Below, we see the dames of Antifa sporting matching helmets and black uniforms. In other pictures, you’ll see them carrying shields.

AP/Reuters Feed Library

Yet Democrats have historically refused to admit Antifa exists, much less tried to leash their street animals. Let’s not forget:

That “myth” recently planned on burning down Tesla dealerships because, as true fascists, they hate that free speech is back on Twitter. Stupidly, they used Elon Musk’s own Twitter to organize their violence. Musk suspended their accounts, something Twitter refused to do before Musk bought the social media giant.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
Those who want to disarm you do not have your best interests in mind.

How the Orwellian Term “Gun Violence” is used to Push Citizen Disarmament

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The term “gun violence” has been deliberately inculcated into the public debate over the last 20 years. It is common in news articles. It has been used in numerous court briefs. It appears in court decisions at the appellate level and in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court.

George Orwell, in the novel 1984, explained how language can be structured to eliminate and curtail thought.

“Gun violence” is an Orwellian term designed to structure and limit debate to pre-determined solutions. It is designed to hamper the ability to think about reality in certain ways. The purpose of Orwellian structuring of language is to make it difficult or impossible to think certain thoughts or entertain certain concepts. This is the purpose of the term “gun violence”. The term “gun violence” frames the problem as guns.  It frames all violence committed with guns as illegitimate.

Guns can be used or misused. Violence can be legitimate or illegitimate.

Guns can be used for legitimate purposes such as defense, hunting, recreation, and multiple target sports. Guns can be used for illegitimate purposes, primarily for a crime. Guns can be used for suicide. The legitimacy of suicide is a hotly debated topic.

Continue reading “”

We Don’t Need Biden’s Permission To Own A ‘Semi-Automatic’ Gun

“The idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick,” Joe Biden argued on Thanksgiving. “It has no socially redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers.”

Need it really be pointed out that it is perfectly within our rights to purchase products devoid of all socially redemptive value? Certainly, it is not the state’s business to determine what we “need.” That said, semi-automatic weapons happen to have an obvious redeeming value and there is a strong rationale for owning them. Semi-auto weapons are easy to use, and their effectiveness and reliability bolster the ability of people to protect themselves, their families, their property, and their community from criminality and, should it descend into tyranny, the government. Gun bans are autocratic and unconstitutional, and, thankfully, also largely unfeasible.

It is difficult to pinpoint what percentage of the 400-plus million firearms in civilian hands today are semi-automatic. These weapons, which fire one cartridge with a single trigger squeeze while preparing the gun for the next shot, constitute a substantial percentage of new gun sales over the past few decades. Banning them would prevent homeowners and those who concealed-carry — not only some of the most law-abiding people in the country, but a growing contingent —without the weapon of choice. The actions of a small number of irrational criminal psychopaths should not corrode the rights of those citizens. Not to mention, corroding our rights would do nothing to stop the irrational criminal psychopaths.

Indeed, semi-autos meet every criterion of legality laid out in D.C. v. Heller, the decision that finally codified the clear historical and legal intention of the Second Amendment. Not only are semi-automatic weapons “in common use” by “law-abiding citizens,” they are not “unusual.” The first semi-automatic pistols hit the civilian marketplace in the 1890s.

Now, there is always the not-so-small chance that Biden has confused the real-world mechanical designation of “semi-automatic” with the political concoction of “assault weapons.” I’m skeptical. Anyone who’s involved in the gun debate knows that “semi-automatic” guns, often purposely conflated with the more dangerous “automatic” weapons, are the target of restrictionists. A few years back during that shameful post-Parkland CNN gun “town hall,” the crowd loudly cheered at the suggestion of banning all “semi-automatic” rifles. And, earlier this year, the president suggested that ordinary citizens should be banned from owning popular “high-caliber” 9mm handguns. “So the idea of these high-caliber weapons is of — there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of thinking about self-protection, hunting,” Biden said of the type of gun used by the Secret Service to protect him.

It is, as it always has been in the gun debate, incrementalism. From “no one wants to take your guns” to “we only want to take some of them” and so on. Of course, even if the president really intended to talk about a semi-automatic rifle ban, his goals would still be unconstitutional. Again, the gun meets every standard set by Heller for legality. And if the Senate somehow musters the 60 votes to push through the ban on certain semi-automatic guns recently passed by the House, states should challenge the federal government, and, if need be, ignore it.

Biden, who often imparts dreadful, sometimes illegal, advice on gun ownership, also has a long history of saying completely inane, insane, and historically illiterate things about firearms —whether cringingly noting that deer don’t wear “Kevlar” or claiming cannons were banned during the Revolutionary era as a way to argue that the Second Amendment “like all other rights, is not absolute.”

On the latter, Biden often (fittingly) cites one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment, Schenck v. United States, which allowed the Woodrow Wilson administration to throw socialists into prison for speech crimes, to make his point. And perhaps that speaks to the crucial distinction at the heart of so many of our debates. Biden, and thus the contemporary left, seems to be under the impression that it’s the state that “allows” us to buy semi-automatic firearms or “allows” us to say certain things. But we don’t need their permission.

This is why they think you’re a racist

First, I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving.

One of our Thanksgiving traditions, as it is for a lot of you, is watching the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. I started watching it as a kid and while I don’t particularly care about watching it one way or another, the rest of the family enjoys it and I enjoy that. Such is the life of a dad.

Anyway, every year, we get to see the Radio City Music Hall Rockettes and to be quite honest, that part I enjoy. Ahem.

Anyway, after the parade, I found myself on Twitter, and “Rockettes” was trending. I groaned because I knew what I was likely to find.

Sure enough, it seems some people were pissed that more of the Rockettes weren’t black.

Niki @HaulinOats_
Ah and here are the Rockettes, wishing everyone a VERY WHITE Christmas 🙄 #rockettes #MacysThanksgivingDayParade
2:45 PM ∙ Nov 24, 2022
George Miller @justG_Miller
Tell me you don’t represent the diversity in America without telling me you don’t represent the diversity in America. #Rockettes #MacysParade

2:45 PM ∙ Nov 24, 2022

🤷🏼‍♀️ @Possamaquadi
How is it even statistically possible that there are only 2 Black Rockettes???? Come on, now. #MacysThanksgivingDayParade #Rockettes #RockettesSoWhite
Image

2:49 PM ∙ Nov 24, 2022

Optimistic Sophia @OptimisticSoph1
So the @Rockettes only have 2 black dancers out of 30+ girls? #macydayparade #rockettes
7:46 PM ∙ Nov 24, 2022

Now, in fairness, there are also a lot of people who aren’t like this. Many were celebrating having any representation at all while others were just delighted to see the Rockettes.

But these people represent something.

You see, becoming a Rockette is a strange thing. You have to not just be able to do the dances required, but there are height and weight requirements so everyone fits the same mold. As such, it rules a lot of women out right off the bat.

As such, the lack of black Rockettes could mean any number of things, and they’re not all because those who hire them are racist.

But everyone knows that the arts have a profound liberal bias. Even artists tend to acknowledge that. They’re proud of it, actually.

So what does this have to do with us?

Well, the answer is very simple. You see, when they look at something like this and see racism, they simply can’t fathom that those of us not fawning at the altar of diversity and equity could be anything but racist.

They see the supposed racism in their own ranks and hear about how much better they are than we are and cannot fathom any other potential but that we’re racist.

Yet that “logic” is anything but. It assumes facts not in evidence; namely that liberals are better about race than anyone else.

For me and many others, I judge people as individuals. Their race is part of who they are, but it’s not the totality of their identity. I could no more disapprove of someone for their ethnicity than I could their eye color.

But, for the left, they view people as groups. They see them based on those superficial factors and can’t comprehend that they’re not any such thing. They’re not just “black” or “white” or “Hispanic.”

They’re people, with all the complexity that entails.

We can see that. Apparently, they can’t, and that’s why they can’t imagine how everyone who disagrees with them isn’t a raging racist.

Bans on “Assault” Weapons Do Not Reduce Crime

Prominent Democrats, including President Joe Biden, have repeatedly expressed interest in reinstating a federal assault weapons ban. Biden himself included an assault weapon ban in his 1994 crime bill, which lasted ten years until its expiration in 2004. Biden has claimed that the ban did its job and reduced mass shootings: “When we passed the assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled.”

But a detailed review of the data demonstrates that the ban had no real benefits whatsoever, and neither did it lessen the frequency of major shootings.

Continue reading “”

Man shoots another man in self-defense at Midland gas station

MIDLAND, Texas (KMID/KPEJ) – A Midland man was arrested after a shooting at a gas station.

According to a city of Midland press release, on Saturday, November 26th at approximately 8:30 P.M., Midland Police Department officers were called to the DK Convenience Store in the 5800 block of W. Interstate 20 in reference to shots fired.

While responding to the scene, officers were notified of a gunshot victim with non-life-threatening injuries at Midland Memorial Hospital, identified as 21-year-old Luis Miguel Espinoza Galindo. During the investigation, it was discovered that Galindo fired his gun at two males, one of which returned fire in self-defense, striking Galindo.

Galindo was released from MMH and later transported to Midland County Jail for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon.

The investigation is ongoing.

Democratic Senator’s Admission Dumps Cold Water on Joe Biden’s Gun Control Agenda–For Now

President Joe Biden has long been calling for a ban against so-called “assault weapons,” which he just doubled down on this holiday weekend, causing quite a concern with his language for those who care about the Second Amendment. Democratic senators, however, are a bit wiser on the likelihood of such sweeping legislation passing that chamber. During his Sunday appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) admitted to host Dana Bash that when it comes to whether they have currently the votes to pass such a ban, the answer is “probably not.”

“He wants to pass a so-called assault weapons ban in this lame-duck next month. You know the math on how difficult that is better than most people. You have been working on this for a long time. Is there any path to getting that done,” Bash  asked Murphy, referring to Biden and his priorities.

Murphy’s acknowledgment of “probably not” refers to whether or not the ban has those 60 votes in the Senate “right now.” That doesn’t mean he’s given up for good, though. “But let’s see if we can try to get that number as close to 60 as possible. If we don’t have the votes, then we will talk to Senator Schumer and maybe come back next year with maybe an additional senator and see if we can do better,” he offered.

Come next Congress, Democrats will still be in the majority, with at least 50 senators who are Democrats or caucus with the Democrats, in addition to Vice President Kamala Harris’ tiebreaking vote. It’s possible they’ll expand their majority, if Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) holds onto his seat against Republican opponent Herschel Walker, with the runoff election coming on December 6.

Bash also pressed Murphy as to if there’s “any action on guns that’s possible,” or whether they will keep pushing for this ban, to which Murphy reminded her that was the legislation that passed the House and is now before the Senate.

The senator claimed “we would see less mass shootings in this country” with such a ban, and also downplayed concerns with the legislation, offering “nobody’s talking about taking those weapons away from individuals, we’re just talking about stopping new sales. ”

When Bash to her credit did push Murphy on how criminals don’t follow laws, as the shooter at the Walmart in Chesapeake, Virginia, used an illegally-purchased handgun, Murphy was forced to admit that “if you pass an assault weapons ban, you’re not going to magically eliminate mass shootings in this country.”

He did tout the 1994 ban on such “assault weapons,” as Biden has done. As Mia covered in early September, after the president also made remarks on August 30 calling for such a ban, the ban was not as successful as he claims it had been.

Sen. Murphy was a big part of negotiations to pass gun control laws, laws which, as Bash pointed out, did not actually stop the recent shootings in Colorado and Virginia.

Murphy did begin his conversation with Bash by praising the president on the issue, including when it comes to that legislation. “Well, first, let me say, the president’s been heroic in standing up for victims of gun violence. We passed the first gun safety measure in 30 years this summer. It’s going to save thousands of lives. And that wouldn’t have happened if Joe Biden hadn’t led,” Murphy said. The senator also categorized Biden’s recent remarks as how “he stood up and spoke his mind, as he did this weekend.”

When speaking specifically about the law incentivizing states to pass red flag laws, with Bash pointing out that Colorado and Virginia already had them in place, Murphy offered “I think it’s important to know that the bill that we passed is being implemented as we speak. But it takes a little while for these big, complicated laws to be put into place.”

He went on to blame law enforcement in Colorado, referring to as a “so-called Second Amendment sanctuary state,” where gun control laws are not enforced. “That is a growing problem in this country,” Murphy warned, who went on to threaten further action.

“And I think we’re going to have to have a conversation about that in the United States Senate. Do we want to continue to supply funding to law enforcement in counties that refuse to implement state and federal gun laws? Red flag laws are wildly popular, right? You’re just temporarily taking guns away from people that,” he claimed.

When asked by Bash if that means Murphy “want[s] to withhold money for law enforcement,” the senator did not deny it. “I think we have to have a conversation about whether we can continue to fund law enforcement in states where they are refusing to implement these gun laws,” he said. “I will talk to my colleagues about what our approach should be this problem, but 60 percent of counties in this country are refusing to implement the nation’s gun laws. We have got to do something about that,” he again warned.

So much for Democrats trying to claim they don’t actually want to defund the police. It looks like Murphy may have dumped cold water on yet another Biden administration talking point, inadvertently or not.

BLUF
When parents, voters, and political leaders understand the true nature of Drag Queen Story Hour and the ideology that drives it, they will work quickly to restore the limits that have been temporarily—and recklessly—abandoned. They will draw a bright line between adult sexuality and childhood innocence, and send the perversions of “genderf***,” “primitivism,” and “degeneracy” back to the margins, where they belong.

The Real Story Behind Drag Queen Story Hour
Aimed at children, the phenomenon is far more subversive than its defenders claim

Drag Queen Story Hour—in which performers in drag read books to kids in libraries, schools, and bookstores—has become a cultural flashpoint. The political Right has denounced these performances as sexual transgressions against children, while the political Left has defended them as an expression of LGBTQ pride. The intellectual debate has even spilled into real-world conflict: right-wing militants affiliated with the Proud Boys and the Three Percenters have staged protests against drag events for children, while their counterparts in the left-wing Antifa movement have responded with offers to serve as a protection force for the drag queens.

Families with children find themselves caught in the middle. Drag Queen Story Hour pitches itself as a family-friendly event to promote reading, tolerance, and inclusion. “In spaces like this,” the organization’s website reads, “kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where everyone can be their authentic selves.” But many parents, even if reluctant to say it publicly, have an instinctual distrust of adult men in women’s clothing dancing and exploring sexual themes with their children.

These concerns are justified. But to mount an effective opposition, one must first understand the sexual politics behind the glitter, sequins, and heels. This requires a working knowledge of an extensive history, from the origin of the first “queen of drag” in the late nineteenth century to the development of academic queer theory, which provides the intellectual foundation for the modern drag-for-kids movement.

The drag queen might appear as a comic figure, but he carries an utterly serious message: the deconstruction of sex, the reconstruction of child sexuality, and the subversion of middle-class family life. The ideology that drives this movement was born in the sex dungeons of San Francisco and incubated in the academy. It is now being transmitted, with official state support, in a number of public libraries and schools across the United States. By excavating the foundations of this ideology and sifting through the literature of its activists, parents and citizens can finally understand the new sexual politics and formulate a strategy for resisting it.

Continue reading “”

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy questions law enforcement funding for ‘Second Amendment sanctuaries’

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said Sunday that there needs to be a “conversation” about whether to continue to fund law enforcement in a “Second Amendment sanctuary state” or counties that are “refusing to implement” gun laws that are on the books.

Murphy said “Second Amendment sanctuaries” are counties that have declared that they are “not going to enforce state and federal gun laws” and that there needs to be discussion in the Senate over whether they want to continue to fund law enforcement in these counties.

CNN’s Dana Bash followed up and asked if he wanted to withhold funding for law enforcement.

“I think we have to have a conversation about whether we can continue to fund law enforcement in states where they’re refusing to implement these gun laws,” Murphy said. “I’ll talk to my colleagues about what our approach should be to this problem. But 60% of counties in this country are refusing to implement the nation’s gun laws. We’ve got to do something about that.”

Murphy said the county where the Colorado shooting at Club Q happened is a “Second Amendment sanctuary state.”

Continue reading “”

SAF FILES BRIEF SUPPORTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST DELAWARE HB 450

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an opening brief in support of its motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction against the State of Delaware and enforcement of House Bill 450, which radically expands the state’s laws and bans so-called “assault weapons.”

SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., DJJAMS LLC, and two private citizens, William Taylor and Gabriel Gray, for whom the lawsuit is named. The lawsuit names Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings as the defendant. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Bradley P. Lehman at Gilbert Scali Busenkell & Brown LLC.

The case is in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

“We are hopeful that the Court will take swift action with today’s motion for preliminary injunction against Delaware’s ban on constitutionally protected arms that are in common use across the nation,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Each day this law is not enjoined, Delawareans suffer an impermissible deprivation of their constitutional rights. This cannot stand and we are hopeful that the Court will preliminarily enjoin the State from enforcing its ban while the case proceeds on the underlying merits.”

The brief notes that the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling in the Bruen case “rejected all interest balancing and the Third Circuit’s prior ‘two-step’ approach in the context of Second Amendment claims.” As a result, plaintiffs contend the Delaware General Assembly’s attempt to justify HB 450 by claiming it has “a compelling interest to ensure the safety of Delawareans” and that the banned arms, which are in common use, “have no place in civilian life,” are entitled to no deference.

“Banning an entire class of firearms may create the impression Delaware lawmakers are ‘doing something’ about violent crime,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “but in reality, it will not prevent criminals from misusing firearms, and only serves to penalize law-abiding gun owners.”

20 MILLON MORE ROUNDS SENT IN 26TH DRAWDOWN FROM U.S. STOCKS TO UKRAINE

The Pentagon last week announced the latest withdrawal of equipment from U.S. military inventories for Ukraine since August 2021– including millions of rounds of ammo.

The 26th draw-down authorized by the Biden Administration includes 150 heavy machine guns fitted with thermal sights to counter Russian drones, 250 vehicles, 10,000 120mm mortar rounds, and “over” 20 million rounds of small arms ammunition among other items. In all, the latest stockpile is valued at up to $400 million. Overall, this brings the total of American military assistance to Ukraine this year to more than $19 billion. By comparison, Ukraine spent just $5.9 billion on its entire military in 2021.

“To meet Ukraine’s evolving battlefield requirements, the United States will continue to work with its Allies and partners to provide Ukraine with key capabilities,” noted the Pentagon.

When it comes to the running tally of equipment transferred from U.S. stocks to Ukraine this year, more than 104 million rounds of small arms ammunition of .50 caliber or smaller have been allocated along with 198 pieces of artillery and over 1.2 million shells. Add to this over 1,600 Stinger anti-aircraft missile systems, 8,500 Javelin tank killer missiles, and 38,000 “other anti-armor systems.”

The full list, as of Nov. 23, is below:

US Arms to Ukraine 2022 Nov 23a
US Arms to Ukraine 2022 Nov 23a