Category: Politics

Fact Check: Klobuchar’s ‘Solutions’ to Gun Violence Are Straight Up Lies

During a CNN town hall on Wednesday, a survivor of the Las Vegas shooting asked Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) how she would prevent gun violence without provoking the “gun debate.”

“My state is a pretty big hunting state and so I look at these proposals and say, ‘Do they hurt my uncle Dick in the deer stand?’ And they don’t,” Klobuchar responded with a smile.

She stated a Fox News poll from last summer showed that the majority of hunters approve of universal background checks.

“Let’s think about the reason why we don’t have them. I think the first thing is that there are a lot of politicians out there that are afraid of the NRA and I saw this first hand after the Parkland shooting because I’ve been working on legislation that would make things safer. One of the bills that I’ve always led is to close the ‘boyfriend loophole,’ that basically says that if someone has been convicted of domestic abuse, then they cannot go out and get an assault weapon,” the Minnesota senator explained as the audience applauded. “They cannot go out and buy a gun.”

According to Klobuchar, there are three bills that are currently sitting on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s desk waiting to be taken to the Senate floor. She was specifically referring to the House’s two gun control bills that would develop universal background checks and close the so-called “Charleston loophole.” The other bill she said would close the so-called “boyfriend loophole.”

“Why aren’t these [bills] passing? Well, the NRA wields so much clout right now with some of these Republicans that we basically need to shake things up,” she said.

After Parkland, Klobuchar said she sat across the table from President Donald Trump and counted the number of times he said he wanted to pass universal background checks (her final count being nine). She said after Trump met with leaders from the NRA, he “folded,” something that she promises she won’t do.

What’s interesting is Klobuchar said Congress could have put a ban on bump stocks, which would have been helpful in preventing the Las Vegas shooting.

“We can put in the assault weapon ban, background checks, magazine limits, all of these things,” she explained. “And I think the public is with us.”

On paper, some of the proposals sound great. There are problems though.

Universal Background Checks

Whenever someone purchases a firearm from a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), the buyer has to go through a background check. That is standard procedure and already part of the law. Universal background checks are supposed to make it impossible for criminals to get their hands on firearms. Sounds great but universal background checks do nothing but expand a flawed system. Right now, convictions are missing from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) because not all law enforcement agencies send that information to the FBI.

Back in November, Attorney General William Barr released the first-ever semi-annual report on the Fix NICS Act, which Congress passed in 2018. The head of each federal department or agency is required to submit convictions to the Attorney General twice a year. Convictions that took place from January 1 to June 30 have to be submitted by July 31. Convictions that took place between July 1 and December 31 are to be submitted by January 31 of the following year.

That report showed the Fix NICS Act is making an impact, with over six million convictions added to the three national databases used during background checks. That’s a 6.2 percent increase.

The “Charleston Loophole”

Gun control advocates use the term “Charleston Loophole” to described how the gunman who shot up a church obtained his firearm. A reporting error allowed the gunman to obtain the firearm, although he had previously been arrested for drug possession. By law, Dylann Roof was a prohibited possessor. He should have failed the background check but flaws in the system allowed him to obtain the gun.

If a person attempts to purchase a firearm and the background check is not completed in three days, the FFL has the right to complete the sale, although they’re not required to do so. Roof’s background check was delayed and the firearm was ultimately transferred to him five days after the initial check. Removing the three day grace period wouldn’t have changed the reporting error that resulted in him obtaining the gun he used to commit his heinous crime.

The “Boyfriend Loophole”

The “boyfriend loophole” is one of the most interesting claims. People like Klobuchar say a domestic abuser can obtain a firearm if they’ve been convicted of a domestic violence, as long as they’re not currently or formally legally married to their partner. That claim is a flat out lie.

Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor or felony domestic violence is a prohibited possessor. It’s already a law on the books. They’re not allowed to own a firearm. There is no loophole.

The NRA

Anti-gunners love to say it’s the NRA’s fault that “common-sense gun safety laws” aren’t in place. The truth is this: the NRA has clout because it’s made up of five million members. Those members are average, everyday Americans. They rely on their Second Amendment rights for self-defense and to provide food for their families. The NRA advocates on behalf of gun owners across the nation. And guess what? Just because Republicans side with the gun rights group doesn’t mean that they’re being bought off or are scared of the organization. It means they value the Second Amendment, the very amendment that so many of their constituents cherish.

Communist Candidates Are the Enemy of America

The Washington Examiner recently reported that Presidential hopeful and Democratic frontrunner, Bernie Sanders, made the following statement while running for governor in 1972: “I don’t mind people coming up and calling me a communist.”

During the Reagan era, Sanders even campaigned for self-described Trotskyites, a Marxist sect that openly calls for violent revolutions.

Sanders’ involvement with the Socialist Workers Party raised so many suspicions that he was even investigated by the FBI.

Should this concern Americans?

On January 10, 1963, less than 10 years before the Senator from Vermont owned the label of “Communist,” Democrat Congressman Albert Sydney Herlong, Jr.,read into the Congressional Record the 45 Communist goals for America, which included No. 28:

“Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of ‘separation of church and state.’“

With so much misunderstanding regarding the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” it is helpful to review opinions of past Supreme Court Justices.

ILLINOIS POLITICIANS MOVE TO REQUIRE $1M OF INSURANCE FOR FOID CARD

According to the US Supreme Court it is unconstitutional to:
-Require a precondition on the exercising of a right.
(Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939)

-Require a license (government permission) to exercise a right.
(Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966)

-Delay the exercising of a right.
(Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971)

-Charge a fee for the exercising of a right.
(Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966)

-Register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right.
(Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968)

“If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”
(Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

 

{395E8140-10ED-4C70-81B9-2673676BF467}Illinois demoncrap State Representative Jennifer Gong-Gershowitz  has introduced HB-5170 , which “Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act.

Provides that an applicant for a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card or for renewal of that Card must submit to the Illinois State Police that he or she has proof of liability insurance coverage of at least $1,000,000 for accidental injuries caused by a firearm.

Provides that the Illinois State Police may require annual proof of the person’s liability insurance coverage and may suspend a person’s Firearm Owner’s Identification Card for failure to maintain that coverage or for failure to provide the Illinois State Police with proof of that coverage.

Provides that the proof of liability insurance coverage required under these provisions is required for both an initial application for a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card and for renewal of that Card.”

As noted by Edgar County Watchdogs, “If passed this legislation would create a financial burden on anyone that simply wants a FOID card, let alone those wanting a gun or to keep their guns. This is a clear attempt to trample people’s Constitutional Rights to bear arms, both State (State Bill of Rights – Section 22)  and Federal (US Constitution – 2nd Amendment).

In Year Of Impeachment More Guns Were Bought Than Any Other Time in US History

I find it quite strange that the Bill of Rights is so easily dismissed–by those who have NO idea as to its origins and purpose–It sure as hell WASN’T, given to us so we could hunt but rather so that our Government could not turn into a bunch of tyrants–more important now than it was then!

One thing is for sure Americans will never lose their guns, furthermore, the latest data shows numbers that will make liberals cry.

In the year of the impeachment trial more guns were bought than any other year in U.S. history.

The Washington Times reported that 28.3 million checks were run on the FBI’s National Instant Check System last year. That included over 2.9 million in December, the month House Democrats voted to impeach the president on a party-line vote.

According to FBI data on NICS checks, the previous record for a year was 27.5 million in 2016.

Did the Democrats’ push to impeach the president boost firearms sales?

Well, certainly is a huge factor but also other events are responsible for this surge in firearms sales.

The fact the U.S. House of Representatives was controlled by anti-Second Amendment Democrats, who passed a number of gun control measures.

Another is the fact that virtually every major Democratic candidate proposed sweeping new gun restrictions.

Gun-rights advocates and other extremists act like every attempt to create sane and logical regulations on guns is a fascist assault on their freedom. But a quick look at other nations shows this to be untrue.

Luckily our country is not doing the same mistake and we are not giving away our gun!

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, released the 2017 Firearms Production Report to members. The report compiles the most up to date information based on data sourced from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF’s) Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Reports (AFMER).

The estimated total number of firearms in civilian possession from 1986-2018 is 422.9 million, according to data reported in the ATF’s Firearms Commerce Report in the United States 2019 report and including the preliminary 2018 Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report (AFMER) figures.

17,740,000 Modern Sporting Rifles are in private ownership today.

More than half (54%) of all rifles produced in 2017 were modern sporting rifles.

In 2017, 7,901,218 total firearms were produced and imported. Of those, 4,411,923 were pistols and revolvers, 2,821,945 were rifles and 667,350 were shotguns.

An interim 2018 estimate showed a total 7,660,772 total firearms were produced and imported. Of those 4,277,971 were pistols and revolvers, 2,846,757 were rifles and 535,994 were shotguns.

Firearms-ammunition manufacturing accounted for nearly 12,000 employees producing over $4.1 billion in goods shipped in 2017. An estimated 8.1 billion rounds, of all calibers and gauges, were produced in 2018 for the U.S. market.

“These figures show the industry that America has a strong desire to continue to purchase firearms for lawful purposes,” said Joe Bartozzi, President of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “The Modern Sporting Rifle continues to be the most popular centerfire rifle sold in America today and is clearly a commonly-owned firearm with more than 17 million in legal private ownership today. The continued popularity of handguns demonstrates a strong interest by Americans to protect themselves and their homes, and to participate in the recreational shooting sports.”

Bloomberg: We Can No Longer Provide Health Care to the Elderly

Bloomberg is nothing more than elitist snob, and a stupid one at that.

Another video of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has resurfaced. Back in 2011, the billionaire paid his respects to the Segal family for the passing of Rabbi Moshe Segal of Flatbush. During that time, Jewish families undergo Shiva, a 7-day mourning period. Bloomberg stopped by to issue his condolences to the family.

Interestingly enough, the then-mayor used the opportunity to talk about overcrowding in emergency rooms, Obamacare and a range of other issues, The Yeshiva World reported at the time. One of those topics included denying health care to the elderly.

“They’ll fix what they can right away. If you’re bleeding, they’ll stop the bleeding. If you need an x-ray, you’re gonna have to wait,” Bloomberg said. “All of these costs keep going up. Nobody wants to pay any more money and, at the rate we’re going, health care is going to bankrupt us.”

But don’t worry. He believes he has a way of addressing cost concerns.

“Not only do we have a problem but we gotta sit here and say which things we’re gonna do and which things we’re not. No one wants to do that,” he said. “If you show up with prostate cancer, you’re 95-years-old, we should say, ‘Go and enjoy. Have nice– live a long life.’ There’s no cure and there’s nothing we can do. If you’re a young person, we should do something about it. Society’s not willing to do that, yet. So they’re gonna bankrupt us.”

Who is Michael Bloomberg to decide who should and should not receive health care treatments? He has a ton of money and we know he’d do everything in his power to get the best doctors and treatment available if he or his loved ones became ill. They wouldn’t be told they’re too old or too broke, would they?

And who would be impacted by this decision? At what point is someone too old to treat? 60? 75? 80? What’s the arbitrary number, Mike? Whatever random number you decide on?

What about those who have chronic illnesses, like diabetes or multiple sclerosis? Do they suddenly stop receiving treatment once they hit a certain age, because they’re no longer deemed worthy?

And here I thought Democrats were supposed to want to take care of anybody and everybody. Guess not.

https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1229127380402393088

Louisiana House Bill 72 (Prefiled Legislation)

This Act is known and may be cited as the “Louisiana Constitutional Carry Act of 2020

Abstract: Exempts certain persons from the crime of illegal carrying of weapons, and
removes the requirement that a person possess a permit issued by the state of La. in
order to carry a concealed handgun in the state of La.
Present law (R.S. 14:95) prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm, provides for criminal
penalties, and provides for certain exceptions to the offense.
Proposed law creates an exception to this prohibition for any person who did not illegally
obtain nor manufacture the firearm and who is not prohibited from possessing a firearm
under any state or federal law.

She’s Completely Lost It: Now Pelosi Is Claiming ‘There Was No Acquittal’

I think her doctors need to reevaluate her Alzheimers medication as it seems to have stopped working.

If you were wondering how Nancy Pelosi has been handling the events of the past few months, it’s safe to say she’s not taking it well. She’s been keeping a low profile after making a spectacle of herself at the 2020 State of the Union address, but over the weekend she gave an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that must be seen to be believed. If reality won’t do what Nancy wants, she’ll just deny it’s happening to her.

She thought the footage you’re about to see was so important that she shared it herself. After babbling for a bit to Amanpour about why she tore up Trump’s speech at the SOTU, Nancy got even crazier:

Denial is the first stage of grief, and Nancy has been stuck there for over three years. Despite all her sputtering, Trump was indeed acquitted. She doesn’t have to like it, she doesn’t have to think it’s fair, but it happened. She has no control over the United States Senate, and they don’t answer to her. They voted. It’s over. The End.

As for Trump being “impeached forever,” so is Bill Clinton. If Trump isn’t vindicated, neither is Slick Willie. And if the Dems had their way, Bill would be back in the White House right now!

I don’t see how blatantly lying about Trump’s impeachment is going to help the Dems in November, but then, I never understood why they impeached him in the first place. Is there anybody who voted for him in 2016 who isn’t going to vote for him now that he’s been impeached? Is there anybody who didn’t vote for him in 2016 who would vote for him whether he was impeached or not? What did any of this accomplish? How did all this wasted time and money help anybody? What was the point?

 

Brawl breaks out at Bernie Sanders rally over ‘Black Guns Matter’ shirt

A brawl broke out at a Bernie Sanders rally in Colorado on Sunday when a supporter of the Vermont senator confronted another man for wearing a T-shirt that read “Black Guns Matter,” a report said.

The man sporting the shirt, who is black, told CBS Denver that he was recording the presidential hopeful at the Colorado Convention Center when another rally attendee called him “racist” because of his shirt.

“He had a problem with the shirt I was wearing,” the man, who was not identified, told the news station.

“I was recording the event, he walks up and calls me a racist. But I thought, ‘What’s he know about black lives, about discrimination, or, for that matter, the representation of the shirt.’”

At some point during the confrontation, the two men began wrestling and the scuffle spilled over a metal barrier that separated the crowd from the stage, video captured by the news channel shows.

The Bernie bro told CBS Denver that the fight escalated when he heard the other man booing Sanders.

The Sanders supporter, who told the station his name is Tyler, claimed the T-shirt-wearing man knocked his cellphone out of his hand and attacked him.

He then retaliated and wrestled with him as the senator spoke, he told the station.

But the man wearing the shirt — who says he agrees with Sanders on some policies, but not on gun control — said he was shocked at being physically confronted at a political rally.

“I think it’s really a sad thing at a Bernie rally, when someone has a difference of opinion, that someone would be treated like that,” he told CBS Denver.

“I thought it really would be a lot more inclusive than that. It’s not a safe place to express differences.”

He added: “I would expect that sort of thing at a Trump rally.”

Dershowitz: I Have Proof Obama Ordered FBI Investigation At Request Of George Soros

demoncraps have been trying to claim that President Donald Trump is improperly inserting himself in DOJ cases, like the one on Roger Stone.

Cue the last meme about hypocrisy.

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz revealed in an interview on Sunday that he has proof that former Democrat President Barack Obama ordered the FBI to investigate someone after far-left billionaire George Soros asked for the investigation.

Dershowitz’s remarks come after critics have attacked President Donald Trump for tweeting about matters related to the Department of Justice, which led to Attorney General William Barr publicly asking the president to stop last week.

“There was a lot of White House control of the Justice Department during the Kennedy administration and I don’t think we saw very many liberal professors arguing against that,” Dershowitz told Breitbart News. “I have some information as well about the Obama administration – which will be disclosed in a lawsuit at some point, but I’m not prepared to disclose it now – about how President Obama personally asked the FBI to investigate somebody on behalf of George Soros, who was a close ally of his.”

“We’ve seen this kind of White House influence on the Justice Department virtually in every Justice Department,” Dershowitz continued. “The difference this president is much more overt about it, he tweets about it. President Obama whispered to the Justice Department about it.”

“You said that George Soros asked Barack Obama to have his Justice Department investigate somebody?” Breitbart News pressed.

“That’s going to come out in a lawsuit in the near future, yeah,” Dershowitz responded. “I have in my possession the actual 302 form which documents this issue and it will at the right time come out, but I’m not free to disclose it now because it’s a case that’s not yet been filed.”

Source: Democrat Senator Held Secret Meeting In Munich With Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and other Democratic senators had a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference last week, according to a source briefed by the French delegation to the conference. Murphy’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment by press time.

Such a meeting would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia.

“Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – even during a transition period – may be illegal and must be taken seriously,” Murphy said in 2017 after anonymous leaks of Flynn’s phone call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kisylak were published. He also strongly criticized the open letter some Republican senators sent Iranian leaders during the Obama administration’s campaign for a nuclear agreement.

However, Murphy has previously defended rogue meetings if they’re done by Democrats such as former Secretary of State John Kerry.

“Unless it was authorized by the president or secretary of state, conducting independent foreign policy sends mixed signals to our adversaries,” said Christian Whiton, former State Department senior advisor in the Trump and George W. Bush administrations. “It seems very unpalatable. If we want to talk to Iranians, they know how to reach us and they don’t need to go through an intermediary.”

A State Department official who spoke on background said that the State Department was not aware of any side meetings with Iranian officials that Murphy was engaged in.

The Munich Security Conference, an annual forum on international security policy, welcomes hundreds of world leaders each February. This year’s conference featured robust debate on the United States’ maximum pressure policy against Iran, China’s handling of the coronavirus and technology concerns, and the European alliance with the United States. Other Democrat senators at the conference included Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Former Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts also attended.

Both Murphy and Zarif spoke publicly during a two-hour session on Middle East policy, with Murphy and Zarif both fiercely criticizing U.S. policy.

President Donald Trump has reoriented American policy in the Middle East away from President Barack Obama’s friendly posture toward Iran. He departed from Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a nuclear arrangement with the Republic of Iran that was not ratified by the United States Senate.

Trump has exerted instead a “maximum pressure” campaign against the regime, with 12 demands on Iran before a new deal is reached. Those demands include a full account of its nuclear program, ending its proliferation of ballistic missiles, releasing all U.S. citizens held on spurious charges, ending support to terrorist groups, withdrawal of forces in Syria, and cessation of its threatening behavior against its neighbors.

The “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions has devastated the Iranian economy, which is in recession and faces rising inflation. It has made it difficult for Iran to pay foreign fighters engaged in supported terror operations. Iranians have taken to the streets in protest.

Iran recently killed an American contractor in Iraq and the United States killed Iranian general Qassim Suleimani, a top Iranian leader who was responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands of U.S. soldiers. Iran’s retaliatory strike for that killing resulted in no U.S. deaths, but the country did shoot down a Ukrainian passenger plane then lied about it for days.

At the conference, Zarif said official retaliation for the killing of Suleimani had ended, although he suggested independent attacks from others in the country might follow.

Murphy is a frequent speaker at the National Iranian American Council, a lobbying group with alleged links to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Republican Sens. Mike Braun of Indiana, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, and Ted Cruz of Texas recently asked the Department of Justice for potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

They wrote that the influential lobbying group “purports to improve understanding between American and Iranian people but in reality seems to spread propaganda and lobby on behalf of the Iranian government.” Evidence indicates that evidence Zarif himself was involved in founding the group.

Ten new gun laws for Texas: The Legislature shoots back

We enter 2020 secure in the knowledge that the Texas Legislature has our back on gun rights. If you want proof, look no further than the 10 bills that went into effect last year.

The law now gives you a defense of “mistake.” Everyone knows that it is fairly easy to miss a posted sign that states handguns are prohibited on a premises. Under the old law, the lawful handgun carrier could be prosecuted for such a mistake. Now, the handgun carrier has a defense if he or she promptly leaves after being told that handguns are forbidden on the premises.

Has your landlord been giving you trouble about your lawfully possessed firearm?

That is a remnant of the past. Landlords and condominium regimes can no longer prohibit tenants, owners and their guests from possessing lawful firearms and ammunition in apartments, condominiums and manufactured houses, nor can they prohibit transporting the firearms and ammo between their unit and their vehicles.

Some schools still have a lot to learn. Handgun license holders have always been allowed to store firearms and ammo out of sight in a locked vehicle in a school parking lot, but some schools were putting additional rules in place. Those rules are no longer permitted.

Is there anything more irritating than having to leave your handguns behind during a mandatory evacuation just because you do not have a permit to carry? Apparently not. As long as you are not prohibited by law from carrying a handgun, you can now carry it while evacuating or reentering an area within 168 hours after the area was declared a state of disaster.

A few misguided government agencies were not wild about the idea of legal handgun carry in their buildings, so they put up the premises notices.

Your legislators were not amused. They passed a law providing for a 15-day notice to remove the signs.

Foster parents now have the right to possess and store lawfully permitted firearms and ammunition in the foster home. Some restrictions apply.

What are we to do with local governments who think they know better than the great State of Texas? Sigh. The law now clarifies that municipalities cannot adopt regulations that attempt to modify state law regarding firearms, knives, ammunition and the like.

It is now law that a business cannot be sued because it fails to prohibit legal handgun carry on its premises.

Any law that places a restriction on property owners’ associations is a good law. The legislature tossed their right to restrict you from lawful possession, storage or transport of a firearm or ammunition.

And for the grand finale – this was recently in the news and deserves special mention. A place of worship is now treated the same as any other private property for purposes of deciding whether a license holder may carry on premises.

Washington: Anti-Gun Bills Pass Floor Vote, Others Scheduled

This week, several anti-gun bills received floor votes and passed out of their respective chambers. Additionally, two bills have now been pulled from the House Rules Committee and are eligible for a vote at any time. Please contact your Representative and ask them to oppose House Bills 2240 and 2623!

The following two bills have been pulled from Rules Committee and are awaiting a floor vote:

House Bill 2240 bans the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer, etc. of magazines that hold more than fifteen rounds of ammunition. This bill is strongly supported by the Governor and the Attorney General. These so called “high capacity” magazines are in fact standard equipment for commonly-owned firearms that many Americans legally and effectively use for an entire range of legitimate purposes, such as self-defense or competition. Those who own non-compliant magazines prior to the ban are only allowed to possess them on their own property and in other limited instances such as at licensed shooting ranges or while hunting. Restricted magazines have to be transported unloaded and locked separately from firearms and stored at home locked, making them unavailable for self-defense. Anti-gun legislators are attempting to bring HB 2240 up for a floor vote on Sunday.

House Bill 2623 prohibits an individual from possessing firearms if they are convicted of the misdemeanor crime of unlawful aiming or discharge of a firearm. This poorly conceived legislation even applies to airguns and slingshots and has no exception for an individual aiming or discharging a firearm for self-defense purposes in a location that would have otherwise not been authorized.

The following bills received a floor vote and passed out of their respective chambers:

Senate Bill 5434 passed by a 27-20 vote. It increases prohibited areas where law-abiding citizens cannot possess firearms, including CPL holders carrying for self-defense. The bill extended “gun-free zones” to public parks, libraries, and child care centers before being amended to only apply to child care centers. In addition to leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless against criminals who ignore arbitrary boundaries, the bill requires child care centers to publicly indicate they are “gun-free zones” by posting signs outside the facilities.

House Bill 2622 passed by a 56-42 vote. It modifies Washington’s existing firearm surrender provisions for individuals subject to a court order. This bill compels a respondent to appear and provide proof on how and to what extent they complied with the surrender order. This is a serious encroachment on the right against compelled self-incrimination in any criminal, civil, or other government proceedings. Failure to appear results in the individual being in contempt of court, thereby putting the individual in a no-win situation.

House Bill 2305 passed by a 55-42 vote. It imposes a mandatory firearm prohibition for respondents of a Vulnerable Adult Protective Order. This order, which removes someone’s Second Amendment rights for up to 5 years, requires no criminal convictions or even charges. Due process limits restrictions on constitutional rights to only serious convictions and adjudications that provide procedural protections to the accused, which results in more reliable proceedings. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms should not be treated as a second-class right and should only be restricted when sufficient protections are in place.

Additionally, the House voted to pass House Bill 2467 by a vote of 66-32. HB 2467 directs Washington State Patrol to create a centralized state system for all firearm transfers to allow firearm dealers to submit information electronically and receive feedback instantaneously. This bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of legislators who have recognized that background checks in Washington have imposed excessive delays on gun owners. Background checks for handgun transfers are done in an archaic manner by mail to local law enforcement, who are tasked with manually checking databases. CPL holders previously were able to avoid the archaic check for handguns and instead were allowed to go through the federal NICS as a courtesy, which provided instant feedback. That exemption ceased in July, 2019. The enactment of I-1639 also added transfers of semi-automatic rifles to this system, with the addition of an $18 fee. Though this archaic background check has a ten day waiting period to allow for completion, these factors, along with I-594 requiring background checks on all transfers, has resulted in ever increasing strain on this system, creating delays that drag out up to 30 days. Unfortunately, there will be a fee attached to the background check, which has been capped at $18 per transaction.

 

NRA, other gun groups mobilize to thwart Bloomberg’s aggressive gun play

Billionaire media mogul Michael Bloomberg’s presidential run helped gun-rights groups light a fire under owners of firearms who grew somewhat complacent in the era of President Trump.

Gun groups ranging from the National Rifle Association to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership are whipping up their members with dire warnings about a potential President Bloomberg.

A former mayor of New York City who leapfrogged to the top-tier in the Democratic presidential race, Mr. Bloomberg has a long record of challenging the Second Amendment from his get-tough policies as mayor to bankrolling a massive gun control advocacy organization.

The National Association for Gun Rights alerted its members on social media to Mr. Bloomberg’s $300 million campaign to “DESTROY the Second Amendment,” calling on them to unite and stop “his anti-gun agenda.”

“Our members are motivated by Mike Bloomberg and have been for a while,” said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights. “He is a billionaire and one of his main focuses has been spending his own personal money to destroy the Second Amendment. And he has been relatively successful. All of the groups on the left rely on his money.”

Breaking: Northam’s Gun Ban Bill Rejected By Senate Committee

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s sweeping gun, magazine, and suppressor ban was defeated in the state senate’s Judiciary Committee Monday morning in front of a crowd of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters. Four Democrats joined every Republican on the committee in rejecting HB961, which had narrowly advanced out of the House of Delegates just before a legislative deadline last week.

Committee chairman John Edwards joined fellow Democrats Chap Petersen, Creigh Deeds, Scott Surovell, and every Republican on the committee to send the bill to the Virginia Crime Commission for further study, which kills the bill’s chances for this legislative session.

The gun ban bill was the first on the docket for the Judiciary Committee, and GOP members grilled bill sponsor Del. Mark Levine over his definition of an “assault weapon,” the arbitrary ban on ammunition magazines that can hold more than twelve rounds, and other aspects of the legislation.

“This weapons restriction is clearly constitutional,” claimed Levine, noting that in a challenge to a similar ban in Maryland, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that so-called assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. What Levine didn’t say is that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t taken up a case dealing with semi-automatic long guns.

Gov. Northam’s director of public safety, Brian Moran, also claimed the bill would pass constitutional muster by citing the Kolbe case as well, calling the guns that would be banned under HB961 “weapons of war.” According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the guns that would have been banned under the bill are the most commonly manufactured rifles in the United States today, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment.

Levine also claimed that HB961 didn’t “infringe on anyone’s rights,” though it absolutely would have infringed on the rights of those Virginians who would seek to purchase one of these firearms, magazines, or suppressors after the ban went into effect. Additionally, any owner of a magazine defined as “high capacity” would have been guilty of a misdemeanor if they continued to possess the magazines they currently own.

While the gun, magazine, and suppressor bill is dead for this legislative session, it will almost surely be back again next year, and in the meantime Gov. Northam will likely get a chance to sign several gun control bills, including measures that would roll back the state’s firearm preemption law, change training requirements for concealed carry licensees, and more.

Media Pushes False Narrative That Klobuchar and Buttigieg Are ‘Moderates.’
Contrary to all the media hype, Democratic presidential candidates Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar are nowhere close to “moderate”

With socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ star rising in the Democratic Party and the rampant infighting going on in Democrat circles as to whether or not that’s a good thing, the mainstream media is pushing a new narrative in advance of the upcoming Nevada caucuses, South Carolina primary, and Super Tuesday.

Their message? That Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN) and former mayor of South Bend, Indiana Pete Buttigieg are “moderate” Democrat candidates that primary voters uncomfortable with Sanders can turn to.

For example, in the run-up to the New Hampshire primary, CNN ran a piece asserting that Klobuchar was “one of the three moderate candidates” including Buttigieg and Joe Biden. Both Buttigieg and Klobuchar were described as “moderate candidates” by NPR after their respective 2nd and 3rd place finishes in New Hampshire.

Vox’s Matthew Yglesias characterized Klobuchar as “the thinking moderate Democrat’s electability candidate.” Last month, Politico stated Klobuchar was a “moderate Minnesotan………..

But are they? Examinations of their records and statements while on the campaign trail paint a picture that is at odds with this narrative:

In fact, The Washington Examiner discovered Klobuchar “actually voted with socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders 87 percent of the time over the course of her Senate career.” Klobuchar’s own home state newspaper declared: “Across the spectrum, Klobuchar holds positions that until recently were considered the definition of liberalism, and even on the left edge of that definition….Klobuchar has never gotten a rating lower than 85 percent from the ADA. In three years, ADA scored her at 100 percent….These are the ADA scores of a very solid liberal, which is what Klobuchar always has been and still is.”

One review of Buttigieg’s public stances found that “From health care and abortion to guns and immigration, and from the Supreme Court to the Electoral College, the man is decidedly a radical.”

On hot-button issues like gun rights, abortion, and Medicare for All, both Klobuchar and Buttigieg are far to the left of the average moderate/centrist politician.

GUN RIGHTS:

Klobuchar stated during the first Democratic debate last year that mandatory gun buybacks were not actually gun confiscation because gun owners received “offers” from the government to “buy back” their guns. This was well before failed presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke proposed a mandatory gun buyback program just a couple of months later.

Buttigieg is a proponent of so-called “red flag laws” and a nationwide gun licensing system and, like Klobuchar, supports a ban on “assault weapons.”

ABORTION:

On abortion, both Klobuchar and Buttigieg support unrestricted access to abortion during any stage of pregnancy, although Klobuchar stated during a Fox News town hall back in May that “there are limits there in the third trimester that are very important.”

MEDICARE FOR ALL:

Both oppose the Medicare for All plans proposed by Sens. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, but it’s primarily because they know it would never go anywhere in a Republican-controlled Senate. Klobuchar favors a “public option that expands Medicare or Medicaid” and “improving” Obamacare. Buttigieg has proposed a “Medicare for All Who Want It” plan which is similar to Warren’s and Sanders’ but also gives consumers the option to keep their employer-based or private plans, although in 2018 he was all in on Medicare for All.

While it’s possible the mainstream media is pushing the myth that Klobuchar and Buttigieg are “moderates” simply because they haven’t yet climbed to the tippy top of the socialist flagpole like Sanders and Warren have, that doesn’t mean either of them are ready to break bread and find meaningful compromise with Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Klobuchar and Buttigieg may sound sane in interviews and during debates in comparison with Sanders and Warren but in reality, they are not moderates. Not at all.

Flip-Flop: Amy Klobuchar Says English Should Not Be Official Language of U.S.

Demoncrap hypocrites, but I repeat myself.

Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said at a recent campaign stop that English should not be the official language of the United States, even though she voted for a pro-English language bill during her time in the Senate.

Klobuchar said at the campaign event in Las Vegas on Friday that she has “taken a strong position against” the English-language amendment, which she voted in support of in 2007, the Associated Press reported……

Her policy shift comes a week before the caucuses are set to take place in a state with a large Latino population and an area where Klobuchar has about 10 percent support.

Klobuchar has flip-flopped on immigration policies, once supporting projects like a wall and E-Verify to ban employers from hiring illegal aliens back in 2006.

The Minnesota senator has also been open about supporting amnesty but has hidden her support for exporting college graduate-level jobs overseas.

Go Ahead Bloomberg, Name Hillary As Your Running Mate. We Dare You!

By mid-morning on Saturday my phone was blowing up with the text messages and voicemails, some claiming credit for predicting it, others incredulous at the news.

Some just forwarded the screengrab of the DRUDGE REPORT: “Exclusive: Bloomberg Considers Hillary Running Mate.”

Drudge went so far as to claim sources placed so close to the former NYC mayor he stated Bloomberg was admitting he was willing to move his residence to Florida or Colorado to escape the electoral college dilemma of the president and veep being from the same state.

The New York Post reporting breathlessly on the same story literally broke the internet with the amount of celebrity retweet/reactions it garnered. Actor James Woods parroting a well-timed (if not grossly overused) meme of “Death Wish…” (A not so subtle reminder that people die mysteriously around the Clintons—especially when standing between them and the ascension to power).

Curiously by mid-evening—after literally being the viral story of the weekend—stories appeared in Politico, the Associated Press, and elsewhere claiming the days’ events had “overblown” the case. Note: none of the stories outright disputed the basic facts.

My theory holds the entire sequence was a trial balloon to garner reaction before the Nevada debate and caucus to insert Bloomberg’s campaign into the equation. He is still not on the ballot for two more contests. Odds are also shaping up for increasing momentum to be garnered by Sanders ahead of Super Tuesday, where his lead in California and now Texas have expanded big time.

Reminder: Bernie has won the most votes (by close to 10,000 votes) but somehow still finds himself being robbed of delegates. In fact, he trails Pete Buttigieg who has yet to corner an outright win to date. That trend will be demolished with big Sanders’ wins in the next three primary contests.

If the bad punch lines Bloomberg continues to ham-handedly deliver (like the ones in Texas this week parroting “Texan” expressions that no one‘s heard of) it’s pretty obvious he’ll need more than his own (lack of) personality to assist his rise.

Voicing refusal to comply with new gun laws has historical precedent
The utterly American history of ‘We will not comply’

On Jan. 20, as Americans remembered civil rights hero Martin Luther King Jr., an estimated 10,000 people peacefully rallied in Richmond, Virginia, to protest the recent introduction of highly contentious gun control bills into the state Legislature.

Motivated in part by the “Second Amendment Sanctuary” movement that has seen more than 100 Virginia counties and cities pass measures denouncing—and in some cases, preemptively refusing to enforce—constitutionally suspect gun laws, some Virginians at the rally began chants of “We will not comply.”

Many gun control advocates have denounced these chants (and the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement itself) as undemocratic and anti-American. While this reaction was predictable, voicing a collective refusal to comply with laws perceived as unconstitutional or unjust is a fundamental part of American democratic discourse.

In fact, the mantra “We will not comply” helped set the stage for America as it exists today.

In 1765, the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which imposed a tax on nearly every piece of paper used by the American colonists. The colonists considered this a direct tax on them without the approval of the colonial legislatures—a flagrant violation of longstanding legal precedent and an affront to their rights as Englishmen.

Threats of noncompliance and public protests so troubled Parliament that the act was repealed before ever being put into effect.

Thus began nearly two decades of actual and threatened colonial noncompliance with British laws that increasingly threatened the rights and liberties of the colonists. This included widespread noncompliance with laws that severely curtailed the ability of colonists to keep and bear arms.

Americans routinely circumvented or ignored bans on the importation of firearms and powder, and eventually resorted to armed defensive action against British attempts to confiscate guns and powder stores from colonial communities.

Noncompliance with federal laws mandating the return of escaped slaves was rampant throughout northern states prior to the Civil War. In 1850, the Vermont Legislature went so far as to pass a law effectively requiring state judicial and law enforcement officers to act in direct opposition to the federal Fugitive Slave Law.

Even in jurisdictions that did not act officially act to condone noncompliance, individual noncompliance with federal slave laws was nonetheless widespread. Moreover, a generally lax approach to local enforcement in the North raised the ire of Southern states, where calls abounded for the federal government to send in military units to ensure adequate enforcement.

Importantly, many abolitionists refused to keep their intentions quiet—they, too, were vocal about their refusal to comply with laws they considered both unconstitutional and morally unjust.

“We will not comply” was very much a general refrain of the now-beloved abolitionist movement.

Noncompliance permeated democratic discourse throughout the 20th century, as well. Some of the most revered figures of the civil rights era were actually brought to the national spotlight by acts of noncompliance.

Rosa Parks refused to comply with a city ordinance mandating segregated buses that would force her to the back of the bus. Hundreds refused to comply with state laws by engaging in sit-ins. King spent periods in jail for his repeated refusals to comply with court orders.

Of course, America’s history with noncompliance and civil disobedience has also been complicated. Not all acts of noncompliance are later held to be meritorious. Many times, one side’s appeal to a higher law is another side’s accusation that the rule of law has been betrayed.

Noncompliance with school integration orders resulted in sometimes-violent standoffs among local, state, and federal agencies, and history has not treated these acts of noncompliance kindly.

Noncompliance with alcohol laws during the Prohibition era helped foster the rise of gangster violence (though, interestingly enough, widespread noncompliance was one of the major underlying factors leading to Prohibition’s eventual repeal).

During the Vietnam War, an estimated tens of thousands of young draft-eligible men faced severe criticism and legal consequences for refusing to comply with what they perceived to be an unjust draft system that would send them to fight in an unjust war.

But the fact that history judges some acts of noncompliance more harshly than others does not negate the reality of history itself. It merely reminds us that threats of noncompliance should not be undertaken lightly. They should be based on well-reasoned and principled appeals that will withstand the judgment of our descendants.

Threatening noncompliance is not unique to modern gun owners, nor unique to modern American discourse.

“We will not comply” is neither an undemocratic threat nor an un-American resolve.

It is a long-standing part of democratic discourse, and an utterly American promise to strive for compliance with a higher law.