Category: Politics

John Kerry’s Ignorant Gun-Control Rhetoric Is More Dangerous Than Guns

Ignorance is a feature with demoncraps. Facts are fungible, thus changeable

Former Secretary of State John Kerry is back in the headlines, this time for denying reports that he was overheard talking about jumping into the 2020 presidential race. But he’s also stumping for Joe Biden, and during gun-related remarks in Iowa before the caucuses, Kerry passed gun misinformation off to voters who deserve better.

“There’s not a veteran here who would take an AR-16 with a long clip to go out and shoot a deer or shoot anything,” he told voters.

He’s right, and the first reason is the rifle he’s trying to demonize doesn’t exist. He also reminded everyone of how he cloaks himself in the veil of military service to push for gun control. Unlike Kerry, I know gun owners. Veteran gun owners are my friends. Kerry is not a veteran gun owner nor a hunter. He is a caricature though, a veteran version of Elmer Fudd.

John Kerry Doesn’t Understand Guns
Kerry was obviously referring to the AR-15, again conflating the semiautomatic rifle with the military’s M16 and M4 rifles, which are automatic. He also clearly confused magazines with clips.

All the while, though, Kerry confirmed the long-held beliefs that the only thing he and the candidates he supports want to do with firearms are banning, outlawing, restricting, and denying the ability of law-abiding gun owners to buy the firearms they choose. He warned if voters don’t turn out for Biden, those “AR-16s” and “clips” could make a comeback.

“Now we have a crowd who’s willing to bring them back,” he added.

Kerry should be more aware when his anti-gun bias is showing. The ban he’s scaremongering about expired in 2004, and today, the modern sporting rifle is the most popular-selling centerfire rifle in America. More than 17.7 million of them are in circulation today. They’re popular for hunting, recreational shooting, and self-defense. They come in a wide array of calibers, firing not just the popular 223-caliber, but an array of bullets that are often better suited to hunt big game.

Both hunters and veterans are able to ferret out a certain kind of authenticity rather quickly. Just as quickly, Kerry ably fails to convince either group he’s authentic. This isn’t a screed to bash his service. Kerry did, in fact, serve in the U.S. Navy in Vietnam. His service is respected.

His service, though, like mine, should have been instructive on the rifle he carried into combat. The M16 rifle has a selector switch. It allows the rifle to be put on safe, which doesn’t permit it to fire, “semi,” which is short for semiautomatic, meaning one round fired for each squeeze of the trigger, and finally, “auto” or automatic. When I served, this was changed to “burst,” for a three-round automatic burst of fire for one squeeze of the trigger.

The AR-15 doesn’t do that. It’s only capable of safe and semiautomatic, just like the shotgun Kerry toted into the marshes in Ohio for his 2004 presidential “goose hunt.” About the same time, he had a few hunting tales of his own, which were rather revealing.

‘That Dog Won’t Hunt’

“I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach,” he said in 2004. “I track and move and decoy and play games and try to outsmart them. You know, you kind of play the wind. That’s hunting.”

Hunters have a familiar saying that applies here: That dog won’t hunt.

NSSF’s Senior Vice President Lawrence Keane noted as much in a news report at the time. “The only thing Senator Kerry is hunting today is the all-important sportsmen’s vote,” Keane said, according to a UPI report. He added Kerry’s supporters were hardly pro-hunting. “The senator’s rhetoric and play-acting aren’t fooling anyone. Kerry the ‘hunter’ is endorsed by radical anti-hunting organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Fund for Animals.”

Kerry emerged from his goose hunt with a bloodied hand but no goose in tow, saying it was sent forward with his aides. No one was convinced.

“His new camouflage jacket is an October surprise, an effort he’s making to hide the fact that he votes against gun-owners,” said Vice President Dick Cheney at the time. “The cover-up isn’t going to work.”

You can’t blame hunters or veterans for being skeptical about Kerry’s views on guns and hunting.

Kerry Supports Biden, Who Is Also Ignorant About Guns

Kerry’s understanding has been to ban, limit, and control. He supported the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban mandatory trigger locks and voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. As secretary of state, Kerry signed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which would have exposed the firearms and ammunition industry to a confusing web of international regulations that would not have contributed to curbing illegal arms trafficking, protecting human rights, or guaranteeing the rights of U.S. citizens.

The treaty was never ratified, and President Donald Trump withdrew from the treaty in 2019, saying, “We’re taking our signature back.”

The tragic thing is that the once-defeated presidential candidate is backing Biden, who said from the debate stage the firearms industry was “the enemy.” Kerry’s throwing his support behind the guy who would ban modern sporting rifles, and who proposes taxpayer-funded buybacks to gather them up, thinks a federal gun rationing plan is appropriate, and wants to mandate technically impossible DNA-matched “smart guns.”

All of this, and Kerry’s AR-16 proclamation, make about as much sense as Biden infamously advising a woman during an online forum to “get a double-barrel shotgun” and like he told his wife just to “fire two blasts” of a shotgun if she felt threatened.

Think of how dangerous these anti-gun politicians would be if they actually knew what they were talking about. Likely, more knowledge would force the fallacy of their indefensible political talking points.

So Nancy Pelosi had planned out her toddler-like rip stunt all along

After losing her House’s bid to remove President Trump from office after the Senate vote, and facing next the miserable fallout for her party, Nancy Pelosi wanted to do something mean for the cameras, to Get Trump.

In response to the president’s State of the Union speech that was reaching its final applause, it wasn’t enough to leave the premises. With the cameras still on, she ceremonially ripped the papers of the speech behind him, in order to draw applause lines from leftists.

According to Pelosi’s media allies at NBC, she wanted you to believe that it all came in an impulsive moment of pique:

According to Pelosi’s media allies at NBC, she wanted you to believe that it all came in an impulsive moment of pique:

In what at least seemed like an impulsive, gut reaction, the speaker started ripping up the president’s speech behind his back as he took his metaphorical (and later physical) victory lap.

Pelosi tore up the president’s speech. Not once, not twice but three times. Actually, she did it a fourth time, leading some people to wonder if she had even ripped up the large envelope the speech came in. A source close to the speaker told CNN that the moment was an entirely spontaneous expression of anger.

This, as it turns out, was bee ess.

She planned the little rip and tear stunt well before the speech was even made.

From Fox News here, you can see the little pre-torn centers to ensure clean rips for the speech’s conclusion, not a stray corner rip that might mess up the camera shot.

Video surfaced Wednesday appearing to show House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, testing and pre-ripping paper during President Trump’s State of the Union address before she would later rip it up at the end of his speech.

One of the most talked-about moments of the night on Tuesday was at the end of Trump’s address, when Pelosi was seen ripping pages of the president’s speech in half. When Fox News asked her afterward why she did it, she responded: “Because it was the courteous thing to do considering the alternatives,” adding: “I tore it up. I was trying to find one page with truth on it. I couldn’t.”

There has since been a debate about whether or not Pelosi had planned to rip the speech before she did it, or if it was an act of impulse. Video from the address, however, suggests it was premeditated.

It came after Pelosi got the insult ball rolling, failing to call Trump’s entrance to the room a “a distinct privilege and high honor” as is normally done, and Trump decided that was enough to skip the handshake with her.

That the press went along with her “narrative” about the whole ripping stunt that followed being an act of impulse is why it’s called “fake news.” It almost sounds as if she planned that phony narrative to go along with her insult, too.

Now she stands out as trashier and more deranged than ever. Vice President Mike Pence, who got stuck sitting next to her as Trump made his speech, called Pelosi’s toddler-like spoon toss “a new low.” After that, a supposedly contentious meeting followed between Pelosi and Trump, with Pelosi reportedly hollering about how Trump had turned the speech into “reality TV.” Speaking of reality TV…

Even Trump-hating Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus thought Pelosi had gone off the deep end:

All of which is to say, Pelosi is ahead on points. But on Tuesday night, she lost ground — first with her failure to include the ordinary salutation of respect for the office — “high privilege and distinct honor” — in introducing Trump; and then second, and more flagrantly, with her ostentatious ripping up of the State of the Union text, not once but twice, even as Trump was standing at the podium, basking in Republican cheers.

Trump “owned” her after that stupid stunt, Marcus wrote.

It was such an obnoxious act that it turns out there are laws against it. Rep. Matt Gaetz filed an ethics charge against Pelosi for destroying House records, a lawless act, and will now force a vote:

House Judiciary Committee member Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said Wednesday he will be filing ethics charges against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., over what he called her “temper tantrum” following President Trump’s State of the Union address the previous evening.

Gaetz told Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle” that he will join two other Republicans and file the charges with the House Ethics Committee on Thursday. Reps. Lee Zeldin of New York and Kay Granger of Texas will join him, he said.

“[Pelosi] disgraced the House of Representatives, she embarrassed our country and she destroyed official records. The law does not allow the Speaker of the House to destroy the records of the House and the rules of the House do not permit some little temper tantrum just because you don’t like what the president of the United States says,” he said.

This is fitting for someone who has suddenly discovered a long-lost love for the Constitution.

The good part about this is that Pelosi won’t be around for another go in 2021. Trump will be re-elected, the Democrats will lose the House, and some sane Republican will replace her. It will all happen in no small part because of this toddler-like Trump-deranged stunt.

After losing her House’s bid to remove President Trump from office after the Senate vote, and facing next the miserable fallout for her party, Nancy Pelosi wanted to do something mean for the cameras, to Get Trump.

In response to the president’s State of the Union speech that was reaching its final applause, it wasn’t enough to leave the premises. With the cameras still on, she ceremonially ripped the papers of the speech behind him, in order to draw applause lines from leftists.

According to Pelosi’s media allies at NBC, she wanted you to believe that it all came in an impulsive moment of pique:

In what at least seemed like an impulsive, gut reaction, the speaker started ripping up the president’s speech behind his back as he took his metaphorical (and later physical) victory lap.

Pelosi tore up the president’s speech. Not once, not twice but three times. Actually, she did it a fourth time, leading some people to wonder if she had even ripped up the large envelope the speech came in. A source close to the speaker told CNN that the moment was an entirely spontaneous expression of anger.

This, as it turns out, was bee ess.

She planned the little rip and tear stunt well before the speech was even made.

From Fox News here, you can see the little pre-torn centers to ensure clean rips for the speech’s conclusion, not a stray corner rip that might mess up the camera shot.

Video surfaced Wednesday appearing to show House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, testing and pre-ripping paper during President Trump’s State of the Union address before she would later rip it up at the end of his speech.

One of the most talked-about moments of the night on Tuesday was at the end of Trump’s address, when Pelosi was seen ripping pages of the president’s speech in half. When Fox News asked her afterward why she did it, she responded: “Because it was the courteous thing to do considering the alternatives,” adding: “I tore it up. I was trying to find one page with truth on it. I couldn’t.”

There has since been a debate about whether or not Pelosi had planned to rip the speech before she did it, or if it was an act of impulse. Video from the address, however, suggests it was premeditated.

It came after Pelosi got the insult ball rolling, failing to call Trump’s entrance to the room a “a distinct privilege and high honor” as is normally done, and Trump decided that was enough to skip the handshake with her.

That the press went along with her “narrative” about the whole ripping stunt that followed being an act of impulse is why it’s called “fake news.” It almost sounds as if she planned that phony narrative to go along with her insult, too.

Now she stands out as trashier and more deranged than ever. Vice President Mike Pence, who got stuck sitting next to her as Trump made his speech, called Pelosi’s toddler-like spoon toss “a new low.” After that, a supposedly contentious meeting followed between Pelosi and Trump, with Pelosi reportedly hollering about how Trump had turned the speech into “reality TV.” Speaking of reality TV…

Even Trump-hating Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus thought Pelosi had gone off the deep end:

All of which is to say, Pelosi is ahead on points. But on Tuesday night, she lost ground — first with her failure to include the ordinary salutation of respect for the office — “high privilege and distinct honor” — in introducing Trump; and then second, and more flagrantly, with her ostentatious ripping up of the State of the Union text, not once but twice, even as Trump was standing at the podium, basking in Republican cheers.

Trump “owned” her after that stupid stunt, Marcus wrote.

It was such an obnoxious act that it turns out there are laws against it.  Rep. Matt Gaetz filed an ethics charge against Pelosi for destroying House records, a lawless act, and will now force a vote:

House Judiciary Committee member Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said Wednesday he will be filing ethics charges against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., over what he called her “temper tantrum” following President Trump’s State of the Union address the previous evening.

Gaetz told Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle” that he will join two other Republicans and file the charges with the House Ethics Committee on Thursday. Reps. Lee Zeldin of New York and Kay Granger of Texas will join him, he said.

“[Pelosi] disgraced the House of Representatives, she embarrassed our country and she destroyed official records. The law does not allow the Speaker of the House to destroy the records of the House and the rules of the House do not permit some little temper tantrum just because you don’t like what the president of the United States says,” he said.

This is fitting for someone who has suddenly discovered a long-lost love for the Constitution.

The good part about this is that Pelosi won’t be around for another go in 2021.  Trump will be re-elected, the Democrats will lose the House, and some sane Republican will replace her.  It will all happen in no small part because of this toddler-like Trump-deranged stunt.

 

Is Trump’s Unorthodoxy Becoming Orthodox?
The U.S. has become no better friend to an increasing number of allies and neutrals, and no worse an adversary to a shrinking group of enemies.

When candidate Donald Trump campaigned on calling China to account for its trade piracy, observers thought he was either crazy or dangerous.

Conventional Washington wisdom had assumed that an ascendant Beijing was almost preordained to world hegemony. Trump’s tariffs and polarization of China were considered about the worst thing an American president could do.

The accepted bipartisan strategy was to accommodate, not oppose, China’s growing power. The hope was that its newfound wealth and global influence would liberalize the ruling Communist government.

Four years later, only a naif believes that. Instead, there is an emerging consensus that China’s cutthroat violations of international norms were long ago overdue for an accounting.

China’s re-education camps, its Orwellian internal surveillance, its crackdown on Hong Kong democracy activists, and its secrecy about the deadly coronavirus outbreak have all convinced the world that China has now become a dangerous international outlier

Trump courted moderate Arab nations in forming an anti-Iranian coalition opposed to Iran’s terrorist and nuclear agendas. His policies utterly reversed the Obama administration’s estrangement from Israel and outreach to Tehran.

Last week, Trump nonchalantly offered the Palestinians a take-it-or-leave-it independent state on the West Bank, but without believing that a West Bank settlement was the key to peace in the entire Middle East.

In short, Trump’s Middle East recalibrations won few supporters among the bipartisan establishment.

But recently, Europeans have privately started to agree that more sanctions are needed on Iran, that the world is better off with Soleimani gone, and that the West Bank is not central to regional peace.

Iran has now become a pariah. U.S.-sponsored sanctions have reduced the theocracy to near-bankruptcy. Most nations understand that if Iran kills Americans or openly starts up its nuclear program, the U.S. will inflict disproportional damage on its infrastructure — a warning that at first baffled, then angered, and now has humiliated Iran.

In other words, there is now an entirely new Middle East orthodoxy that was unimaginable just three years ago.

Suddenly the pro-Iranian, anti-Western Palestinians have few supporters. Israel and a number of prominent Arab nations are unspoken allies of convenience against Iran. And Iran itself is seemingly weaker than at any other time in the theocracy’s history.

Stranger still, instead of demanding that the U.S. leave the region, many Middle Eastern nations privately seem eager for more of a now-reluctant U.S. presence.

For the last 20 years, much of the American orthodoxy had agreed with Europe that the increasingly anti-democratic, pan-continental, and borderless European Union was the remedy to all of Europe’s past 20th-century catastrophes.

As a result, American presidents did not do much when EU nations typically racked up large trade surpluses with the U.S., often a result of asymmetrical fees, tariffs, and fines.

The U.S. largely ignored the increasingly anti-democratic and anti-American tone of the EU.

Nor did Americans object much when lackadaisical European NATO nations habitually welched on their defense-spending commitments.

But then Trump again blew up more old assumptions.

NATO will now only survive if its members keep their word and meet their spending promises. An economically stagnant, oil-hungry, and top-heavy EU will have to make radical changes, or it will sink into irrelevance and eventually break apart.

Trump got little credit for these revolutionary changes because he is, after all, Trump — a wheeler-dealer, an ostentatious outsider, unpredictable in action, and not shy about rude talk.

But his paradoxical and successful policies — the product of conservative, anti-war, and pro-worker agendas — are gradually winning supporters and uniting disparate groups.

After all, the U.S. is beefing up its military but using it only sparingly. It hits back hard at enemies but does not hit first. For Trump, being conventional is dangerous; being unpredictable is far safer.

For all Trump’s tough talk, his ace in the hole is American soft power — based on a globally dominant economy, its global lead in the production of gas and oil, and an omnipresent cultural juggernaut.

The result of the new orthodoxy is that the U.S. has become no better friend to an increasing number of allies and neutrals, and no worse an adversary to a shrinking group of enemies. And yet Trump’s paradox is that America’s successful new foreign policy is as praised privately as it is caricatured publicly — at least for now.

 

 

 

Debate continues over red flag laws in Arkansas

Senator Leding doesn’t really get why his bill failed as he believes his fellow legislators just didn’t understand it. That’s a common delusion of those on the left. They believe the only reason someone could disagree with them on anything is a lack of understanding.  I think the committee members who killed in dead understood it just fine.

LITTLE ROCK (KATV) — Could a red flag law come to Arkansas? They’re designed to reduce gun violence but at the cost of some individual rights.

In the last legislative session, some lawmakers tried but failed to pass similar legislation here. This proposal would have given law enforcement the ability to request an individual’s gun rights be temporarily restricted based on mental health concerns.

While one legislator touted this could save countless lives, the opposition said it would infringe upon an Arkansans’ gun rights.

A few Arkansas legislators had high hopes of passing some type of red flag law in the state following the mass shootings that have rocked the nation.

Senator Greg Leding, the bill’s sponsor, said in an interview that there were enough misconceptions that led to its failure.

“There were a lot of questions about how these laws work, they can be very effective but they do need to be put together in a proper way so it can protect individuals and the public and I think it was just a matter of having not had sufficient time to really sit down with lawmakers and address all of their concerns.”

While he began working on the proposal a year prior to the 2019 legislative session, it still wasn’t enough time to convince his Republican counterparts who believe red flag laws violate peoples’ rights.

“There are some lawmakers who simply won’t come aboard for whatever reasons, but I do think there are enough who once they understand how these laws work and they’re confident that the law is constructed in such a way that it protects everybody that we will get the support necessary,” Leding said.

American Communists Call for a Violent Takeover.. and the American People are Ready for Them

It is uncomfortable to face violent threats. We endure that discomfort because it is better to face them than run from them. Communists in the US have flocked to Senator Bernie Sanders’ campaign, and the things they want to do are horrible. Fortunately, we’ve faced threats like this before and we’re prepared to face them again. The US model of limited government and an empowered people is up to the dangerous task of defending liberty. We are made for this.

I’m not going to put words in the mouth of American Communists. Project Veritas recorded many Sanders’ staffers in candid conversations. These are their words, not mine. Please see my sources and listen to the Communists in their own words. It is worth your time to read what they said-

“Well, the Gulags were founded as Re-Education Camps…What will help is when we send all the Republicans to the Re-Education Camps.”

“I’m ready to start tearing bricks up and start fighting.. I’ll straight up get armed.. I’m ready for the ****** revolution, bro.. Guillotine the rich.”

“The Soviet Union was not horrible…I mean, for women’s rights the Soviet Union – I think – the most progressive place to date in the world.”

“So, do we just cease – do we just dissolve the Senate, House of Representatives, the Judicial Branch, and have something Bernie Sanders and a cabinet of people, make all decisions for the climate? I mean, I’m serious.”

“..I think the goal is just to build a..coalition… Their politics fall outside of the American norm, so their politics are Marxist/Leninist.. they have more of a mind for ‘direct action’ for engaging in politics outside of the electoral system.”

“…Once we break up Google, YouTube, Facebook, nationalize these things, then that would be a huge thing forward so far as education stuff goes.”

“We would need a federal government and labor union movement that is working together to strip power away from capitalists and preferably directing violence toward property.”

“..it’s gonna take militancy…like a militant labor movement that’s willing to…strike, and if necessary, you know, just destroy property and things like that.”

“A militant labor movement is kind of.. our last real chance before we try other means.” 

“After we abolish landlords, we don’t have to kill them, that’s my feeling I think it’s damaging to the soul, but um, there were plenty of excesses in 1917 (Russian Revolution) I would hope to avoid.”

“We don’t want to scare people off, you first have to feel it out before you get into the crazy stuff…You know we were talking about more extreme organizations like Antifa, you were talking about, Yellow Vests, all that but we’re kinda keeping that on the back-burner for now.”

“It’s unfortunate that we have to make plans for extreme action but like I said, they’re not going to give it to us even if Bernie is elected.”

Communists in the Sanders campaign said they would take power by force once elected, or burn cities if the convention, or the voters, rejected their candidate. Politicians who still call themselves Democrats also want ordinary citizens disarmed. That strange coincidence is no coincidence at all.

Bernie’s campaign workers are not alone in their ideas. Their fellow communists, the Ruling Council in China, said Americans should be disarmed. Remember that the Chinese government killed over 10 thousand unarmed students who were protesting in Tiananmen Square. The Bernie Bros want to bring that level of terror here. I’ll remind you that 10 thousand dead students at is a mere dust mote when compared to the 45 million people the Chinese government killed during Mao’s “Great Leap”. The Bernie Bros think a few million corpses here in the United States will bend us to their will.

Communists Utopia is always a few million corpses away.

McConnell Triumphant: Immediately After Impeachment Acquittal Files Cloture On More Judges To Remake Judiciary

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wasted no time after the Senate acquitted President Trump in his impeachment trail, immediately filing cloture on a number of judges as he continued his relentless march toward remaking America’s judiciary with a conservative bent.

The judges included
Andrew Lynn Brasher to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit,
Joshua M. Kindred to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Alaska,
Matthew Thomas Schelp to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri,
John Fitzgerald Kness to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, and
Philip M. Halpern to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York.

In March 2019, Politico reported that McConnell was intent on moving as quickly as he could to get conservative judges confirmed:

The Senate is on track to confirm the 34th Circuit Court judge of Trump’s presidency in the next week and the GOP has three more ready for floor action; that would give Trump roughly 20 percent of the Circuit Court seats in the country after just two years in office. At this rate, McConnell and Trump could leave few, if any, vacancies there for a potential Democratic president in 2021.

Even more alarming for Democrats, the GOP is also preparing to pull the trigger on the “nuclear option” and change Senate rules once again with a simple majority to allow much quicker confirmation of lower court judges in the coming months. …

Trump currently has 128 District Court vacancies to fill, and each one can take multiple days under current rules if any senator demands a delay; if Republicans change the rules, Trump could conceivably fill most of those over the next 20 months.

Speaking with radio host Hugh Hewitt in December, McConnell stated:

Just to put it in perspective, President Obama appointed 55 Circuit judges in 8 years. President Trump with our Senate confirmation has done 50 in 3 years. So the pace is dramatic. What these men and women have in common is they’re all young, they’re all smart. A heavy percentage of them have been Supreme Court clerks. They’ll be on the court for a very long time, and what they have in common is what Justice Scalia used to say – the job of a judge is to follow the law and the Constitution.

You would think that wouldn’t be such a quaint notion, but among Democratic appointees, that’s been their approach. President Obama tipped his hand when he said he wanted to appoint judges who had empathy. Well, that’s great if you’re the litigant for whom the judge has empathy, not so good if you aren’t.

Letter Shows Sandpoint Mayor Values Money/Power Over Self-Defense!

 

A letter recently obtained by the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance shows that Sandpoint Mayor Shelby Rognstad is trying to recruit other Idaho mayor’s to support his ‘gun-free’ zone agenda.

The letter asks mayors to fill out a survey detailing what venues might benefit from a ‘gun-free’ zone.

Mayor Rognstad makes it clear that the economic interests of his city are more important than the natural right of self-defense.

He uses the typical “I believe in the 2nd Amendment but…” argument to try and justify his efforts.

ISAA President Greg Pruett slammed the letter, saying, “The Mayor should be ashamed of himself for putting money above the rights of his citizens. Mayors in Idaho should tell Mayor Rognstad that the 2nd Amendment means a lot more to them than money.”

At the heart of Mayor Rognstad’s concern is musicians who require concert-goers to be disarmed at their events.

He fears that these artists won’t come to Sandpoint if the city can’t disarm citizens on public property.

Idaho’s current firearm preemption law prohibits cities from enacting ordinances that deal with the possession of firearms on public property.

Mayor Rognstad is proposing that cities and counties have control over events where large groups of people are gathering. Mayor Rognstad’s proposal would be yet another law that criminals would ignore, and he would endanger the lives of Idahoans who wouldn’t be able to defend themself.

His proposal would likely impact an Idahoan’s ability to carry their firearm at a county fair or other popular events.

Rognstad also claims that we must disarm Idahoans at these events for “public safety.”

Idahoans have a long history of carrying firearms for self-defense. They don’t need or want the government’s permission to do so on public property.

However, Mayor Rognstad believes that he deserves the power to control whether you can defend yourself at a concert or other public venue where criminals love to target.
He is trying to convince other mayors and the legislature to go along with his proposal.

Idaho’s gun owners aren’t buying it.

The Idaho Second Amendment Alliance has launched a campaign to stop Mayor Rognstad and his ‘gun-free’ zone proposal.

You can send legislators in Idaho an email telling them to oppose Mayor Rognstad’s efforts using the ISAA’s legislative tool here:
https://action.idahosaa.org/action/tell-your-legislators-to-oppose-sandpoint-mayors-gun-free-zone-proposal/

The ISAA is proposing legislation this year that would strengthen the firearm preemption statute.

It will be interesting to see what side, if any, comes out on top of this fight.

You can see the letter and survey questions sent to the mayors in Idaho below.

Municipal Survey:  Public leased Property

1.       What jurisdiction do you represent?

2.        Does your city, county or other public entity within your jurisdiction lease any public property to a private entity for a private event which bans guns from the event?

3.       If yes, what is the venue, are there multiple events annually, are they recurring?

4.       What is/are the name of the event and estimated total number of attendees?

5.       What is the estimated total financial impact to the city and/or county for said events or events?

Pelosi rips up Trump speech at conclusion of State of the Union

Just another show of demoncrap utter disrespect.
“All they have to do is not act crazy” and they can’t even do that.
I would expect to see that idiotic stunt in several of Trump’s campaign ads this fall.

“Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad”
—Prometheus in The Masque of Pandora

The People Who Want To Run The U.S. Economy Can’t Run A Simple Caucus

Today, I broke my morning routine. Normally I shower, dress, wake kids, brush teeth, and make coffee before I pick up my phone. This morning I couldn’t wait. I had to see the results of the Iowa caucus. Unfortunately, we still don’t have them. There were, um, issues.

“A systemwide disaster,” said Derek Eadon, a former Iowa Democratic Party chairman, speaking more bluntly to The New York Times.

It’s fair to say everyone is still trying to figure out what happened. There were problems involving the new app the Iowa Democratic Party rolled out to help report results, although it’s unclear if the issue was with the app, as The New York Post reports, or user error, as the Times reports. (Precinct captains apparently were not trained on the app.)

News reports make it clear there were suspicions there would be app problems, so there was a backup plan: phone in results to state party headquarters. That failed, too.

A precinct captain, on live TV with CNN, was hung up on while trying to report voting results. A party chair who also had problems phoning in results took pictures of the vote and directed his executive director to drive them to Iowa Democratic Party headquarters in Des Moines. She was turned away. It’s clear that some data got reported, while other data did not, which led to at least three different sets of voting results.

“We found inconsistencies,” admitted Iowa Democratic Party Communications Director Mandy McClure. “In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results, we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report.”

Now there are whispers of conspiracy, as Sen. Bernie Sanders appeared poised for a stunning victory. There is talk that Iowa will now lose its precious spot as the first caucus. While problems always get magnified in the modern news cycle, everyone pretty much agrees last night was a disaster.

The meltdown in Iowa serves as a useful reminder: systems are complicated. We often forget that. We show up at the grocery store and shelves are packed and there’s fresh meat and produce. We need a lift and we pull out our phone and press a button; an Uber shows up. Our car makes a weird sound, and we drop it off and the mechanic takes care of it.

All of this happens on its own. No one is directing the mechanic to be open and service my car. The Uber driver isn’t giving me a lift out of altruism. The grocery store owner doesn’t have fresh produce brought in every morning because she knows how much I love organic peaches right off the tree.

The mechanic, grocery owner, and Uber driver are part of a vast, complicated system that operates with an efficiency the human mind cannot fathom. It’s a system that is directed by no one, and it involves billions of people working in invisible concert. Acting in their own interests, they serve the whole.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest,” the economist Adam Smith famously observed in “The Wealth of Nations.” “We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.”

Last night, Iowa caucus goers were voting on a field of candidates that contains many who are seeking to vastly expand government control of health care, wages, emissions, agriculture, education, finance, and many other parts of the U.S. economy.

It’s amusing to see candidates who have the hubris to claim they possess the knowledge to effectively regulate an entire economy are running for president in a party that appears unable to effectively manage a simple caucus. A rich irony indeed.

Here’s the Transcript of the first 5 minutes – the final 90 seconds is a repetition.

During the proceedings, I asked a question that was disallowed, and I’m going to ask that question again this morning. Because the Constitution does protect debate, and it does protect the asking of questions.

I think they made a big mistake now allowing my question. My question did not talk anybody who is a whistleblower; my question did not accuse anybody of being a whistleblower; it did not make a statement believing someone was a whistleblower. I simply named two peoples’ names, because I think it’s very important to know what happened.

We are now finding out that the FISA investigation was predicated upon 17 lies by the FBI, by people at high levels who were biased against the President, and it turns out it was an illegitimate investigation. Everything they did to investigate the President was untrue, and it involved people using the government to do things that should have never been done in the first place.

So I asked this question, and this is my question: Are you aware that the House Committee staffer, Sean Misko, had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while they were at the National Security Council together? How would you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?

Why did I ask this question? Because there are news reports saying these two people, one of whom works for Adam Schiff, and one of them who worked with this person at the NSC, that they knew each other and had been overheard talking about impeaching the President in the first month of his office. In January of 2017, they were already plotting the impeachment.

And you say, well, we should protect the whistleblower, and the whistleblower deserve anonymity. The law does not preserve anonymity.

His boss is not supposed to say anything about him, he’s not supposed to be fired – I’m for that. But when you get into the details of talking about whistleblowers, there’s a variety of opinions around here.

The greatest whistleblower in American history in all likelihood was Edward Snowden. What do people here want to do with him? Half the people here want to put him to death; the other half want to put him in jail forever. So, it depends on what you blow the whistle on, whether or not they’re for the whistleblower statute.

I’m not for retributions on the whistleblower. I don’t want him to go to jail, I don’t want him to lose his job. But if six people who all worked together at the NSC knew each other and gamed the system, knowing that they would get these protections, they gamed the system in order to try to bring down the President, we should know about that.

If they had extreme bias going into the impeachment, we should know about that.

So, I think the question is an important one, and I think we should still get to the bottom of it.

Were people plotting to bring down the President? They were plotting in advance of the election – were they plotting within the halls of government to bring down the President?

Look, these people also knew the Vindman brothers, who are still in government. So, you’ve got two Vindman brothers over there who know Eric Ciaramella, who also know Sean Misko, who also knew two other people now working on Adam Schiff’s staff.

And Adam Schiff throws his hands up and says, ‘I don’t know who the whistleblower is, I’ve never met him. I have no idea who he is.’

So, if he doesn’t know who he is, the President’s counsel doesn’t know who he is, how does the Chief Justice of the United States know who the whistleblower is? I have no independent confirmation from anyone in the government as to who the whistleblower is.

So, how am I prevented from asking a question, when nobody seems to know who this person is?

My point is, that by having such protections, such overzealous protection, we don’t get to the root of the matter how this started. Because this could happen again.

When the institution of the bureaucracy, the intelligence community with all the power to listen into every phone conversation you have, has political bias and can game the system to go after you, that’s a real worry.

It’s a real worry that they spied on the President, but what if you’re just an average American? What if you’re just a supporter of President Trump, or you’re a Republican or you’re a conservative? Are we not concerned that secret courts could allow for warrants to listen to your phone calls, to tap into your emails, to read your text messages? I’m very concerned about that.

So, we’re going to have this discussion go on. It really isn’t about the whistleblower so much, it’s about reforming government. It’s about limiting the power of what they can do as secret courts.

Virginia Senate blocks another Northam-backed gun bill

The Virginia Senate blocked one of Gov. Ralph Northam’s top gun-control bills Monday, adding to the list of measures the Democratic governor supports that may not pass the legislature.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted against a bill that would make it a felony to “recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm” in a way that endangers a minor.

It’s one of eight gun-related proposals that Northam has urged lawmakers to adopt. Virginia has become ground zero in the nation’s raging debate over gun control and mass shootings as a new Democratic majority seeks to enact strict new limits. Last month, tens of thousands of guns-rights activists from around the country flooded the Capitol and surrounding area in protest, some donning tactical gear and carrying military rifles.

Two moderate Democrats — Sens. Creigh Deeds and Chap Petersen — joined with Republicans to defeat the bill Monday over concerns that law-abiding gun owners could be unfairly punished.

A similar measure has already passed the House, and the legislation could still pass the Senate later during this year’s legislative session.

Lawmakers have already signaled that at least one other Northam-backed gun-control bill — a ban on so-called assault weapons like the popular AR-15-syle rifles — may not pass.

 

Calm Down Hysterical Ninnies

Good grief.

I have been sick since last week and still don’t have much of a voice. I’ve had to keep my mouth shut and just watch TV and read. The amount of hysteria coming from anti-Trump pundits and TV talking heads has reached past absurdity and gone straight to insane.

No, we are not a monarchy now. No, the constitution is not in shambles. No, the President is not a dictator. No, the confederacy is not complicit in protecting the President.

Y’all are a bunch of insane clowns is what y’all are. This hysteria is just too much and too insane.

The GOP needs to be burned down because it refused to toss the guy you didn’t vote for?

The constitution no longer has any weight, merit, or meaning because you lost a political fight?

Stop being stupid. All your talking points have been as stupid as the Republican talking points. The President has turned you people into what you think he is.

Democrats in the House could have called all these people you’re demanding the GOP call. But they chose not to. They didn’t even fight for them. They could have. They chose not to. But the GOP is the bad guy because Orange Man Bad.

You people have made every single thing an outrage so nothing is really outrageous anymore. To the extent the Senate will vote to acquit the President, your willingness to drive up every minor thing into impeachable outrage has played a great deal into it.

Every tweet, every glare, every statement, every misstatement, every policy, every policy misreported, all the news that had to be retracted, all the news that got things right — all of it has aided and abetted the President and got us to this point.

I know none of you think you are responsible because you signal as loudly as possible every second of every day that Trump is to blame, must be removed, and you want to burn down the GOP. But that’s just it — therein lies your portion of culpability. Because you’ve screamed wolf at every shadow and railed against the President for everything he has done, no matter how insignificant, you’ve helped desensitize everyone else.

I mean honestly, it is hard to take any of it from either side seriously at this point.

Let the voters decide in November and you guys try to stop lighting your hair on fire every time the President says something you don’t like.

Stop being hysterical. It cheapens serious points some of you would otherwise make.

Bloomberg Just Gave Gun Owners 60 Million Reasons To Get Involved This Year

Mike Bloomberg Just Lost My Vote With His Super Bowl Ad
The billionaire former three-term mayor of New York panders to Democratic loyalists rather than laying out a vision for a prosperous, tolerant America.

Many Americans will basically be meeting Mike Bloomberg for the first time today, when the billionaire former three-term mayor of New York City drops an ad costing a reported $11 million during the Super Bowl. Despite have served in office first as a Republican and then as an independent, Bloomberg is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination. He’s not exactly unknown (he even once had a funny cameo on Curb Your Enthusiasm), but he’s hardly as familiar to most voters as Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Donald Trump.

But based on his commercial, which is about gun violence in America, Bloomberg has already lost my potential vote. Let me explain.

As a small-l libertarian unaffiliated with any party, my vote is up for grabs in November even if I’ve gone Libertarian in almost every presidential race in which I’ve voted (the one exception came in 1984, when as a first-time voter, I cast a vote for Walter Mondale, whose self-deprecating “Norwegian charisma” and honest declaration that he would raise taxes to close the deficit spoke to me). Especially as I get older, I want to be able to vote for a candidate who might actually win and I understand that presidential politics will never cough up someone with whom I completely agree. Indeed, I even parted company with former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson on various things despite enthusiastically voting for him in 2012 and 2016.

Rare among libertarians, who tend to dismiss Bloomberg as a petty tyrant for many plausible reasons, I was excited when he jumped into the Democratic race. Sure, he was a nanny stater on steroids when he ran the Big Apple, famous for his what-the-fuck efforts to ban Big Gulp sodas and salt and he was an unapologetic champion of the repressive police tactic known as “stop and frisk” (he’s unconvincingly repented now that he’s running for president). He remains an idiot and a hypocrite on pot legalization, among other things. It’s at least a little disturbing that he’s risen as high as fourth in some polls based solely on spending $250 million on ads. His just-announced $5 trillion tax plan is a groaner as well, especially since he doesn’t seem interested in cutting spending.

But he’s running for president of the United States, so the soft bigotry of low expectations works in his favor. In a Democratic field filled with ultra-lefties such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, both of whom want to regulate the hell out of the economy, Bloomberg is a dyed-in-the-wool, unapologetic capitalist who earned his $54 billion net worth the old-fashioned way: by providing an excellent service at a price that customers were willing to pay.

He is thus nothing less than a walking, talking refutation of the “destroy all billionaires” mindset of Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (“No one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars“) and former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich (who says billionaires’ fortunes have nothing to do “with being successful in the supposed free market”).

Like the widely disliked and now-forgotten Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks CEO who flirted with an independent run last year and openly defended free enterprise, Bloomberg has succeeded incredibly in the private sector and unlike his fellow billionaire Donald Trump, his wealth isn’t based on working political connections, getting tax breaks, and pursuing eminent domain grifts.

As important, Bloomberg has a real political record to run on. Talk to just about anybody with a five-digit income in New York and they’ll tell you that Bloomberg was a good mayor despite the Nurse Ratched flourishes. Unlike the current occupant of Gracie Mansion, the failed presidential contender and groundhog killer Bill De Blasio, Bloomberg made the city safe for commerce, improved the provision of basic services, and forced positive changes in the public school system. He was nobody’s idea of a libertarian, but he also oversaw an absolutely booming city.

So I looked forward to seeing him spar with Warren and Sanders on economic issues, mock Joe Biden for never having worked in the private sector, and dismiss Mayor Pete for his unaccomplished tenure in a city whose population is less than New York’s was in 1810. As befits somebody who made his mint in New York, Bloomberg is blunt, mean, and nasty and I caught myself daydreaming about the debates he might have with Donald Trump, whom he calls “a failed businessman whose companies went bankrupt multiple times.”

But that Super Bowl ad kills whatever minor buzz he gave me. This is how he chooses to intro himself to the voting public? The ad recounts the tragic, senseless shooting death of a young black man, a powerful vignette that Bloomberg’s campaign insists will “stop people in their tracks.” As mayor and afterwards, gun control was a central concern to Bloomberg, who helped bankroll 2018 candidates who wanted to restrict gun rights and whose website touts his plans to create “more effective background checks,” “keep guns out of the wrong hands,” “tackle daily gun violence in the hardest-hit communities,” “ban assault weapons and protect schools,” and “confront the gun lobby head-on.”

I believe in Second Amendment rights but I don’t have particularly strong feelings on the matter, especially compared to most libertarians. All of the things that Bloomberg suggests are either already basically the law or won’t have the effects supporters claim. As my Reason colleague Jacob Sullum has written, background checks will do nothing to stop mass shootings because “perpetrators of these attacks typically do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records.” Beyond that, passing more and stricter laws generally don’t stop criminals, who don’t follow laws, from getting guns. Researchers funded by the federal government concluded that the assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 had essentially no impact on gun violence and crime. Most important, Bloomberg simply ignores the massive declines in gun-related crimes and violence over the past 25 years. “There were 4.6 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2017, far below the 7.2 per 100,000 people recorded in 1974,” reports Pew. Between 1993 and 2015, “rates for crimes using guns dropped from 7.3 per 1,000 people to 1.1 per 1,000 people.”

The story told in Bloomberg’s Super Bowl ad is moving and sad, but I simply don’t understand why the billionaire would focus on the issue of gun violence in such a high-profile setting. In its way, it’s as off-kilter as Donald Trump’s insistence during the 2016 campaign that violent crime was somehow out of control. Perhaps Bloomberg is trying to signal loud and clear to Democratic primary voters that despite his past affiliations as a Republican and an independent, he is in synch with Democratic fixations and policy priorities.

Maybe the “George” ad will in fact help seal the deal with Democrats, but it leaves me and, I suspect, other independent voters wondering just how different he is from other candidates who are already in the race.

A Thousand Ways to Get Sold Out.

Although Russia and the Ukraine are the focus of U.S. media coverage, the most important recent events have occurred in China. It remains in the grip of an ever-expanding coronavirus epidemic that the WHO seems reluctant to wall off, saying Beijing would help those foreign countries that got infected.

In the wake of numerous airlines cancelling flights to China and businesses including Starbucks and McDonald’s temporarily closing hundreds of shops, Tedros said WHO was not recommending limiting travel or trade to China.

“There is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade,” he said. He added that Chinese President Xi Jinping had committed to help stop the spread of the virus beyond its borders.

“During my discussion with the president and other officials, they’re willing to support countries with weaker health systems with whatever is possible,” Tedros said.

The 2019-nCoV outbreak is proving to be not only an epidemiological event but a geopolitical development. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross pointed out the obvious. China will be diminished as a result, the only question being by how much.

“Well, first of all, every American’s heart has to go out to the victims of the coronavirus. So, I don’t want to talk about a victory lap over a very unfortunate, very malignant disease,” Ross told Fox Business Network on Thursday. “But the fact is, it does give businesses yet another thing to consider when they go through their review of their supply chain.”

“On top of all the other things, you had SARS, you had the African swine virus there, now you have this,” Ross continued. “It’s another risk factor that people need to take into account. So, I think it will help to accelerate the return of jobs to North America. Some to U.S., probably some to Mexico, as well.”

Perhaps not just China but the whole uncritical notion of a globalized world has taken a hit. In an eerie parallel development, the chairman of Harvard’s chemistry department was arrested on charges of secretly receiving money from Beijing in exchange for American biotechnology.

In 2013 Charles Lieber, a pioneer of nanoscience who is now the chairman of Harvard University’s chemistry department, visited the Wuhan University of Technology (wut), in China, to celebrate the founding of a lab he was credited by that university with helping to establish and oversee: the wut-Harvard Joint Nano Key Laboratory.
It was a remarkable coup. wut is an institution of little renown. Harvard is generally regarded as the top of the academic tree. And Dr Lieber, whose research has since become part of Elon Musk’s ambitious scheme to supercharge the human brain with nanotechnology, has been seen as a potential Nobel laureate.

Harvard’s officials had not, however, approved the laboratory and did not know about it until early 2015, according to the us Department of Justice. Nor did they know that while conducting his research with grants from the Department of Defence and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr Lieber was, according to federal authorities, also being paid up to $50,000 a month by wut, plus at least $150,000 in “living expenses”, as a prized recruit in China’s Thousand Talents programme to bring foreign scientists, and return Chinese expatriates, to that country’s research laboratories.

Lieber’s bail has been set at a $1 million cash, the surrender of his passport, and a ban of large cash withdrawals without court approval. Even without conspiracy theory, the “Thousand Talents” program and the question of international conflict of interest will be in the dock with Dr. Lieber.

What, then, is the Thousand Talents program? This was established by the Chinese government in 2008, and it has several divisions for both Chinese researchers and foreign experts. The general idea is to recruit scientific talent and expertise to China – encouraging Chinese nationals to come back to Chinese institutions after studying overseas, funding research collaborations between Chinese groups and institutions and foreign researchers, and so on. …

There have also been concerns about outright espionage. Here’s a recent Senate report calling the Thousand Talents effort (and the many other Chinese-sponsored recruitment programs) a direct threat to US security. There have been cases of awardees taking proprietary information with them, of nondisclosure of Chinese funding (as with Prof. Lieber), and so on. In recent years, the Chinese government has reacted to this scrutiny by removing the names of awardees from public web sites in an effort to keep them from becoming targets of investigation by the FBI and other agencies (in the US and other countries).

The virus outbreak and the Thousand Talents affair will add fuel to arguments that naive globalization has been all about the elites making a killing at the expense of ordinary citizens. The amorality went both ways. If China had a Thousand Talents scheme in the U.S., the financial industry had “Sons and Daughters” program in 2016.

Regulators slapped JPMorgan with $264 million in fines and said the bank “corruptly influenced government officials” with its hiring and internship tactics in China.

The settlement follows a three-year investigation into JPMorgan and marks one of the first major crackdowns on a big U.S. bank for running afoul of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Known as the FCPA, the law prohibits companies from making payments or giving “anything of value” to win business from foreign officials.

“JPMorgan engaged in a systemic bribery scheme by hiring children of government officials … who were typically unqualified for the position on their own merit,” Andrew Ceresney, director of the SEC’s enforcement division, said in a statement.

The practice of giving the children of China’s ruling class plum jobs and internships was so common at JPMorgan that the bank even had a formal program known as “Sons and Daughters.” The program included spreadsheets that tracked how often the hires turned into business deals.

Whatever the legal relevance of excluding Hunter Biden’s connection to Burisma Holdings from Donald Trump’s impeachment may be, the saga of a political scion getting a cushy foreign job on the strength of his name plays to the populist narrative of elite betrayal almost as if it had been written by a Hollywood scriptwriter.

The 2019-nCoV outbreak poses a potential political threat not just to the Chinese Communist Party but the entire One World project.

If virus spreads unchecked, the public will be looking for someone to blame and it won’t just be the Chinese apparatchiks.

Bloomberg’s $10M Super Bowl ad posts misleading stat on child gun deaths

Cue the meme generator

Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg’s $10 million 2020 Super Bowl ad includes a misleading statistic concerning the number of children killed in violent gun-related crimes, and inaccurately suggests that an adult victim of gun crime in Texas was a child, Fox News has found.

In the raw and emotional one-minute spot, Calandrian Simpson Kemp recalls her son’s death: “On a Friday morning, George was shot. George didn’t survive. I just kept saying, ‘You cannot tell me that the child that I gave birth to, is no longer here.’ Lives are being lost every day. It is a national crisis.”

A statistic immediately appears on the screen: “2,900 CHILDREN DIE FROM GUN VIOLENCE EVERY YEAR.” The number is not attributed to any source.

However, a recent report from the Bloomberg-founded group Everytown for Gun Safety came up with that same number — but only when it included teenagers ages 18 and 19 in the calculation. Bloomberg’s advertisement makes no mention of older teenagers and suggests that the statistic is referring to younger children only. Washington Free Beacon reporter Stephen Gutowski found that once adults were removed from the calculation, the number dropped by nearly half.

Additionally, court documents from a Texas state appellate court reviewed by Fox News show that the victim referenced in the advertisement, George Kemp, was 20 years old at the time of his death.

 

Washington: House Committee Passes Mag Ban & CPL Restriction Bills

When I was stationed at Ft Lewis way back when even dirt was new, I applied for and got my first ever CCW permit as there was no such thing, except for Law Enforcement officers,  in Missouri at that time (Missouri is now a permitless carry state, surpassing Washington- sorry  Bob) . The only thing required then was that I could pass a background check. While I have always advised people get as much training as they can handle, having gubbermint mandate it is just another form of a poll tax.

On January 31st, the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee voted to pass bills to ban most standard capacity magazines and make it more difficult to obtain a CPL. These bills will now go to the Rules Committee awaiting being pulled to the House floor. Please contact your state Representative and ask them to OPPOSE House Bills 2240 and 1315.

House Bill 2240, as passed out of committee, bans the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer, etc. of magazines that hold more than fifteen rounds of ammunition. This measure 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 at licensed shooting ranges or while hunting. These magazines have to be transported unloaded and locked separately from firearms and stored at home locked, making them unavailable for self-defense.

House Bill 1315 requires onerous government red tape and further training to obtain a Concealed Pistol License. Mandatory training requirements are yet another cost prohibitive measure intended to ensure that lower income Americans are barred from defending themselves.

Again, please contact your state Representative and ask them to OPPOSE House Bills 2240 and 1315.

Gun rights advocate Dick Heller, left, and Kentucky U.S. representative, Thomas Massie, get the crowd fired up during a second amendment rally in Frankfort, Ky. on Friday. Jan. 31, 2020

Gun rights advocate Dick Heller, left, and Kentucky U.S. representative, Thomas Massie, get the crowd fired up during a second amendment rally  today at the state capitol in Frankfort, Kentucky.

Signs are raised high during the Second Amendment gun rally at the Capitol in Frankfort, Ky on Friday morning. Jan. 31, 2020