Well, the Senate passed it with 15 Republican stunnedtaters voting for it.

Senate easily passes bipartisan gun control bill, sending it to the House

The US Senate approved a historic bipartisan gun control bill Thursday night following two recent horrific mass shootings, marking the most comprehensive piece of gun reform legislation passed by federal lawmakers in nearly three decades.

The $13 billion measure was approved 65-33 and received enough Republican support to avoid a filibuster, a compromise that seemed far-fetched before a pair of 18-year-old gunmen used assault weapons to commit mass shootings at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas and a Buffalo grocery store last month.

The rampages spurred weeks of closed door negotiations between a group of Democrats and Republicans, and 15 GOP senators ultimately crossed party lines to support the bill.

The measure toughens background checks for gun buyers under 21 and provides financial incentives for states to create mental health programs and implement “red flag” laws that would keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

It also cracks down on straw purchases of weapons, and closes the “boyfriend loophole” by banning people convicted of domestic abuse from owning a gun. The current law does not apply to abusers who are no longer married or living with their partner.

The bill was the strongest piece of gun legislation since the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired ten years later. There were five active shooter situations in the US in 2004 compared to 61 last year, according to the FBI.

Democrats had sought much stricter restrictions, including an outright ban on assault rifles and requiring people to be 21 before they can buy semi-automatic weapons, however the once unthinkable bipartisan compromise was hailed by lawmakers in both parties as a clear message to the American people.

“This is not a cure-all for the all the ways gun violence affects our nation,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. “But it is a long overdue step in the right direction. Passing this gun safety bill is truly significant, and it’s going to save lives,” the New York Democrat said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged the Second Amendment rights prioritized by much of his base while touting the bill.

The bill is the most comprehensive piece of gun reform legislation passed by federal lawmakers in nearly three decades.

“The American people want their constitutional rights protected and their kids to be safe in school,” the Kentucky Republican said. “They want both of those things at once, and that is just what the bill before the Senate will have accomplished.”

Texas Republican John Cornyn and Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy were among four lawmakers instrumental in hashing out the bill.

“I don’t believe in doing nothing in the face of what we saw in Uvalde,” Cornyn said.

Murphy referenced the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, which failed to prompt meaningful legislation in Washington.

He said Thursday’s bill would save thousands of lives and “prove to a weary American public that democracy is not so broken that it is unable to rise to the moment.”

The legislation is likely to face stronger Republican opposition in the House, where Republican Whip Steve Scalise called the bill “an effort to slowly chip away at law-abiding citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, said her legislative body would move quickly to advance the measure.

“First thing tomorrow morning, the Rules Committee will meet to advance this life-saving legislation to the Floor,” she said.

If passed, the bill would be sent to the White House.

“Our kids in schools and our communities will be safer because of this legislation. I call on Congress to finish the job and get this bill to my desk,” President Joe Biden said.

The National Rifle Association, a powerful gun lobby, had said the bill “falls short on every level.”

“This legislation can be abused to restrict lawful gun purchases, infringe upon the rights of law-abiding Americans and use federal dollars to fund gun control measures being adopted by state and local politicians,” it said in a statement Tuesday.

The measure passed in the Senate on the same day the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on the carrying of concealed firearms as unconstitutional.

Did Feinstein Just Sabotage The New Gun Bill?

I don’t know whether to condemn Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) or praise her. She has filed a bill as an amendment to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that would raise the age to purchase many semi-auto rifles, pistols, or shotguns to 21. The impact of this amendment could cause the carefully crafted “compromise” (sic) to fall apart.

From her press release:

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today filed the Age 21 Act as an amendment to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the gun violence prevention bill pending before the Senate. The amendment would raise the minimum age to purchase assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines from 18 to 21.

Senator Feinstein reintroduced the Age 21 Act on May 19, five days after the massacre at a Buffalo supermarket and five days before the school shooting in Uvalde, each of which involved an 18-year-old who legally purchased an assault rifle.

 “The Senate gun safety bill is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t address the major problem of teenagers owning weapons of war,” said Senator Feinstein. “It makes no sense that it’s illegal for someone under 21 to buy a handgun or even a beer, yet can legally buy an assault weapon.  My amendment is a commonsense fix with broad public support that should receive bipartisan backing and I hope that it’s allowed a vote.”

Reading through the amendment, something as innocuous as a semi-auto shotgun such as the Mossberg 940 Pro Waterfowl Snow Goose edition would be forbidden to anyone under 21. The reasoning, according to the amendment, is that it has a tubular magazine that holds more than 5 rounds. Likewise, a turkey shotgun that had a pistol grip would be forbidden. On pistols, if you wanted to have a threaded barrel for a suppressor to protect your hearing, sorry but young ears need to be damaged is the message this amendment sends.

I really think these sorts of amendments could cause the whole thing to fall apart and force the Republicans to walk away. It is one thing to say you want to do careful background checks taking into account juvenile records for those under 21 and a whole another thing to ban a whole category of firearms to them. I don’t think a Manchin or Sinema could get by with voting for such a bill that included that along with the other stuff.

I do notice that Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) is not one of the co-sponsors of her original bill nor is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

Suspect shot, killed by employee after robbing gun shop in southwest Houston

HOUSTON – A suspect was shot and killed by an employee after attempting to rob two businesses, including a gun shop on Tuesday, according to the Houston Police Department.

The incident was reported around 3:17 p.m. at Carter’s Country, located in the 11800 block of South Wilcrestt Drive and Southwest Freeway.

Before the man entered the gun shop, witnesses told police he entered a Suit Mart next door and tried to steal some items.

“The guy looked like he was a homeless person,” said witness Marcus Fomby. “Basically, they told him to just let go of the jeans or we’ll call the police.”

Leaving the Suit Mart empty-handed, police said the man then entered the gun shop with a sharp object, opened the cash register and stole the money. The employee told officers he shot the suspect in self-defense as the suspect was leaving the business.

“Once he went there (the gun shop), he actually went behind the counter (and) started ruffling through the cash register,” HPD Lt. Larry Crowson said. “He was confronted by one of the employees, at that point, one of the employees felt in fear of their safety and fired two shots, at least one struck.”

Witnesses said the man stumbled into the parking lot where he collapsed. He was taken to the hospital in critical condition where he later died, HPD said.

After consulting with the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, the case will be presented to a grand jury for review.

Armed Citizens Defend Their Families at Home and on the Street

You probably didn’t see these stories covered by the mainstream news media, but again last week, responsible gun owners defended themselves and the people they love. Self-defense instructor Heather Reeves joins the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast to look at four new examples. Were these gun owners lucky, or did they have a plan?

First story- Do you have a firearm nearby at night?

You are at home at night. You’re taking a shower and you hear your girlfriend scream. You leave the shower and go see what is happening. You are attacked by your girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend who has entered your home. You fight him off. He grabs your girlfriend and forces her outside, dragging her by her arm and her hair. You grab your handgun and shoot your attacker. He lets go of your girlfriend. You and your girlfriend go back inside to call 911. You put your gun down as the police arrive. You pull on some clothes and give the police a statement. Your girlfriend also makes a statement to the police. Emergency medical services take you and your attacker to the hospital.

Your girlfriend stays at your home and watches over the two children inside. Later, you find out that your attacker died of his gunshot wounds. He was 20 years old.

You are not charged with a crime.

Second Story- Are you armed as you drive?

You met someone online. Now you’re going to meet at her apartment. You step out of your car and look around for your date. That is when a stranger runs up to you. He threatens you with a knife. You step back and your attacker steps forward. You have your concealed carry permit and you’re armed tonight. You shoot your armed attacker until he drops his knife. You back away again and call 911 for help.

You stay at the scene and holster your gun. You give the police a statement. Emergency medical services transport your attacker to the hospital where he dies of gunshot wounds to the head and chest. He was 18 years old.

Police identify your attacker as your date’s brother. Texts on your attacker’s phone show that she set you up to be robbed. She is charged with second degree murder.

You are not charged with a crime.

Third story- Do you have a firearm nearby at night?

You are sleeping in your bed. You wake up when you hear someone banging on your apartment and then you hear the sound of glass breaking. You get out of bed and grab your gun. You walk into the middle of your home and see an intruder in your home. You shoot him several times. He stops and falls to the floor. You step back and call 911 to get help. It is 4:30 in the morning.

Police arrive and you put your gun away. Emergency medical services transport your intruder to a local hospital. Police report a stolen car that was found on the highway nearby.

You are not charged with a crime.

Fourth story- Do you have a firearm nearby at night?

You and your girlfriend are asleep in bed. It is 4 in the morning on a weekday when you hear someone beating on your door and shouting from outside your house. You grab your gun and go downstairs to see what is happening. The man outside is an acquaintance of your girlfriend. He says she owes him money and he is going to kill you. He throws something through your upstairs window and fires his gun demanding that you come out. You call 911. You go outside to tell him that you’ll settle the debts. He wants to come inside, but you won’t let him in. Your attacker points his gun at you. You shoot him until he drops his gun. You back away and wait for the police.

You give a statement to the police when they arrive. So does your girlfriend. You show the police the broken window on your home. You think your attacker had been drinking. The police interview your girlfriend and your neighbors.

You are not charged with a crime. You are 64 years old.

A discussion of each story is at the Self Defense Gun Stories podcast webpage.

The reason behind the ‘Right to Bear Arms’

So, you think so called assault weapons and high capacity magazines should be outlawed?

Any person who thinks so, should first re-read and remember the Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia et al., v. Dick Anthony Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783. Then look at the news about the Ukraine/Russia war. Putin is a tyrant just like King George was when the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution, only worse. The 2008 Supreme Court of the United States’ opinion holds that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm/or traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense…” 

The Second Amendment is not just about protecting ones self, home, or family against a bad guy who breaks in or threatens harm. The important points of the opinion centers around the Court’s language stating the reason for the holding of the case was the historical right citizens have to resist tyranny. The Court reviewed the history of old England where Stuart Kings disarmed their opponents of their right to keep arms, to suppress them. Following that example, King George III took the same measures in the colonies against opponents of the King’s rule.

“…[H}istory showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the peoples arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights. 

“{It} was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary lo oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.” 

One does not need to be a history buff to know that in colonial days, the average British soldier carried a muzzle loading flintlock gun. A colonist could be as well armed if needed, in order to fulfill the purpose of the Second Amendment as it was understood at the time. The Heller case affirms the same right in this United States of America under the Second Amendment.

If this purpose of the Second Amendment is understood in the “gun control” debate going on now, it is reasonable to conclude that the average American citizen may need to be about as well armed as the average military man if a tyrant is intent on oppression or conquering against us citizens or our country. What docs the average military man carry today? An assault weapon with a large magazine. Should not the average American citizen have the same right to carry an assault weapon with a large magazine in order to fairly confront an oppressive tyrant under the citizen’s constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment?

I am sure many will scream “that will never happen!” “Americans don’t need assault weapons with large magazines for such a purpose!” So did the Ukrainian government so think, before Putin attacked! I understand that for many many generations in Ukraine personal firearms were outlawed. People did not even know how to hold or use firearms as a result. When attack by Putin was close the Ukrainian government apparently made wooden replica guns to teach people how to handle guns before handing out military weapons so they could help defend themselves and country. Ukraine citizens lined up for blocks to get a weapon to defend themselves, their families, property and country. And citizens did stand up to and are standing up to Putin. They did so just like the framers of the Second Amendment to our Constitution intended for us to be able to do if necessary.

You think Putin won’t attack the U.S.? Take away the Second Amendment or severely hamper it and you will soon find out. Yes, the mass shootings in our country are horrible beyond belief, especially against little children, and I agree everything that can be done to stop shootings should be done short of eliminating or severally hampering the Second Amendment more than it already is. But if you think nothing can be worse, go over and live in Ukraine for a while and I think you will see that it can be. Do you want to take a chance? I don’t.

I’m An MD Suspended By Twitter For Tweeting A Link To A Scientific Article On COVID-19 Vaccine Lowering Sperm Counts
My suspension is yet another example of Twitter’s arbitrary, Lysenkoist breaches of informed public discourse on covid-19. The suspension must be reversed, and my account restored fully intact, immediately. Please take notice and intervene Elon Musk (@elonmusk).

I am a physician currently affiliated with the Brown University Center For Primary Care and Prevention, and was an Associate Professor of Medicine and Family Medicine at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University from 1997 until June, 2021. My CV lists my many medical and scientific accomplishments.

Among other things, as a clinical trialist and epidemiologist, I designed and completed the largest randomized, controlled trial ever conducted in chronic kidney transplant recipients.  I have 115 scholarly, peer-reviewed publications focused on epidemiology and clinical trials. I have testified as an expert witness in lawsuits pertaining to the Covid-19 pandemic—specifically on vaccine and mask mandates—while researching and writing extensively on those subjects. I recently contributed to an amicus curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court for the covid-19 vaccine mandate case NFIB v. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, et al./Ohio v. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, et al. which was cited by the Washington Post .

Until this morning, I had a very active Twitter account with a large following through which I shared scientific information, as well as my personal views.

[Andrew Boston Twitter Banner As Of February 16, 2022]

 This morning (6/22/22) I awakened to learn that overnight Twitter had summarily and simultaneously locked, and then suspended my account for this “offending” tweet from Father’s Day, 6/19/22:

As of this writing, my Twitter account is suspended. I have received no response so far to my appeal.

The Journal Andrology is highly respected and published through a joint effort of American and European scientific associations:

The study was a straightforward, serial analysis of young male Israeli semen donors evaluating the potential impact of Pfizer’s covid-19 mRNA vaccine on their sperm concentration (count), and related functional measures, “15-45 [Time 1],75-120 [T2], and over 150 days after [T3] vaccination.”

What did the investigators find?

Again, quoting their publication, verbatim, based upon what the authors defined, a priori, as the primary statistical analysis (i.e., “ [a] 1) generalized estimated equation model (GEE) was used for repeated measures analysis,” which is indeed the most appropriate method!):

 “sperm concentration was significantly lower due to decrease of -15.4% (confidence interval -25.5%–3.9%) compared to [Time zero/baseline] T0 (p=0.01). Moreover, [total motile count; how sperm moved] TMC percentage change reduction of 22.1% was significantly lower compared to T0 (confidence interval -35% – -6.6%, p=0.007) as well. Although concentration and TMC were reduced also on T3, these values did not reach statistical significance.”

If anything the text of my 6/19/22 tweet understated the evidence of a possible longer term, ~ 5-month follow-up decline, calling it a “rebound” when “concentration and TMC were reduced also on T3, [though] these values did not reach statistical significance.” In other words, the trend was toward a persistent decline, although it did not “reach statistical significance,” but may well have been evident, and “statistically significant,” merely by studying more subjects.

Finally, my offending tweet added the truthful observation that no data were presented on the effects of booster vaccinations, and asked whether boostering might cause another cycle of decline in the sperm counts and functional measures only studied in relation to the initial vaccination.

My suspension is yet another example of Twitter’s arbitrary, Lysenkoist breaches of informed public discourse on covid-19. The suspension must be reversed, and my account restored fully intact, immediately.

Please take notice and intervene Elon Musk (@elonmusk).

Two people fatally shot during alleged East Hartford home invasion were teens
Two people shot to death during an alleged home invasion on Thursday included a 16-year-old male from Hartford and a 15-year-old from Meriden, according to police on Friday [17th].

The two allegedly entered the home and physically attacked the resident who had a handgun and shot them both, police said Friday. The handgun is legally registered to the resident, police said.

The two people who died have not yet been identified, police said.

Police responded to 87 Graham Road just after midnight Thursday after a neighbor called 911 to report that they’d heard gunfire. Officers arrived at the home and found two people suffering from gunshot wounds. They were treated by paramedics from the East Hartford Fire Department and were taken to a local hospital where they were both pronounced dead, according to the East Hartford Police Department.

The man who lived in the home suffered minor injuries in the incident but did not need medical attention.

According to East Hartford Property Records, the shooting happened inside a white two-family duplex owned by Trieu Phuong of Southington.

Clearwater woman attacked in her bedroom, shoots intruder dead

CLEARWATER, Fla. (WFLA) — A Clearwater woman shot a man who attacked her in her bedroom Tuesday morning, according to police.

A CPD release said officers responded to the shooting on Flagler Drive at 8:49 a.m. after the woman called 911.

Officers said the woman woke up to find Justin William Wright, 26, in her bedroom before he attacked her. Police said he lived on the same road as the victim.

“She was able to reach out and call 911 during this attack, but the attack persisted,” CPD Chief Daniel Slaughter said. “At which time, she was able to retrieve a gun that she had lawfully.”

The victim managed to get a gun and fatally shot him in self-defense, according to police. Slaughter said the woman had injuries that were consistent with a self-defense situation.

“We’re going to avoid talking about too many of the details, but I can tell you she was asleep in the residence,” he said. “She was attacked. She does have injuries that are consistent with that attack.”

“We certainly don’t just chalk it up to self defense and move on,” he said. “There is an awful lot of work that has to occur. The crime scene is going to be investigated just like any other death or murder or homicide or as in this particular case, potentially a justified homicide.”

He is right, just not in the way this gun grabbing communist is thinking though. People who want to be free to enslave you, want to take away your right to keep and bear arms.

Professor Ibram Kendi links ‘freedom to enslave’ with gun rights.

There are some who fight for ‘freedom to exploit, freedom to have guns,’ Kendi said

There is a link between the “freedom to enslave” and the “freedom to have guns,” according to Boston University Professor Ibram Kendi.

Kendi told host Margaret Brennan that “throughout the nation’s history, there’s been two perspectives on freedom, really two fights for freedom.”

“Enslaved people were fighting for freedom from slavery, and enslavers were fighting for the freedom to enslave, and in many ways, that sort of contrast still exists today,” Kendi said.

“There are people who are fighting for freedom from assault rifles, freedom from poverty, freedom from exploitation, and there are others who are fighting for freedom to exploit, freedom to have guns, freedom to maintain inequality,” Kendi said.

Kendi did not further elaborate or explain the connection between white supremacy or “the freedom to enslave” and gun ownership.
[He can’t ‘further elaborate‘, because there is no connection. He just thinks you’re so stupid you’ll simply accept his BS ]

Continue reading “”

They’ve made several movies on this theme, and none of them were good for humans.

Ukraine Unveils Mini “Terminator” Ground Robot Equipped With Machine Gun.

The latest war machine headed to Ukraine’s front lines isn’t a flying drone but a miniature 4×4 ground-based robot — equipped with a machine gun.

According to Forbes, Ukrainian forces are set to receive an uncrewed ground vehicle (UGV) called “GNOM” that is no bigger than a standard microwave and weighs around 110lbs.

“Control of GNOM is possible in the most aggressive environment during the operation of the enemy’s electronic warfare equipment.

“The operator doesn’t deploy a control station with an antenna, and does not unmask his position. The cable is not visible, and it also does not create thermal radiation that could be seen by a thermal imager,” said Eduard Trotsenko, CEO and owner of Temerland, the maker of the GNOM.

“While it is usually operated by remote control, GNOM clearly has some onboard intelligence and is capable of autonomous navigation. Previous Temerland designs have included advanced neural network and machine learning hardware and software providing a high degree of autonomy, so the company seems to have experience,” Forbes said.

The 7.62mm machinegun mounted on top of the “Terminator-style” robot will provide fire support for Ukrainian forces in dangerous areas. The UGV can also transport ammunition or other supplies to the front lines and even evacuate wounded soldiers with a special trailer.

Temerland said the GNOMs would be deployed near term. The highly sophisticated UGV could help the Ukrainians become more stealthy and lethal on the modern battlefield as they have also been utilizing Western drones.

Killer robots with machine guns appear to be entering the battlefield, and this one seems as if it was “WALL-E” that went to war.

Biden Brags ‘We’re the Only Country in the World’ Giving COVID Vaccines to Children.

Last week, the Biden administration approved the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for children ages 6 months to 5 years old. The FDA advisory committee claimed they found that the vaccines provided safe and effective protection against COVID for kids, even though fully vaccinated and boosted adults have still caught COVID.

The quest to vaccinate kids from COVID has been going on from the moment the vaccines were approved for emergency use, and the Biden administration and the media have colluded in a fear campaign to convince parents to vaccinate their kids. On Tuesday, Joe Biden spoke at a COVID vaccine center, during which he pointed out, “We’re the only country in the world doing this right now.”

He actually thought this was a good thing, that it was something to brag about. Did it ever occur to him that there might be a reason for that? Earlier this year, health officials in Sweden decided against recommending COVID vaccines for kids aged 5-12, arguing that the benefits don’t outweigh the risks.

We’ve known for some time now that school-aged children have a COVID recovery rate of 99.997% — which is better than their mortality risk from the seasonal flu and that unvaccinated children are safer from COVID than even vaccinated adults of any age. Meanwhile, studies have shown that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are more likely to cause myocarditis in young men than natural infection from COVID.

Even UNICEF admits that “The available evidence indicates the direct impact of COVID-19 on child, adolescent and youth mortality to be limited,” but the Biden administration is enthusiastically all-in on vaccinating kids from COVID despite the risks.

The data does not support the universal vaccination of kids from COVID. Period. So why does Biden think the USA pushing unnecessary COVID vaccines on kids when other countries are not is a good thing? It’s all about the money.

STOP! OR I’LL SAY STOP AGAIN!

Chicago cops barred from chasing people on foot who run away.

The Chicago Police Department has unveiled a new policy prohibiting its officers from chasing people on foot simply because they run away, or because they have committed minor offenses.

The policy, which was introduced Tuesday, also encourages cops to “consider alternatives” to pursuing someone who “is visibly armed with a firearm.”

Under the policy, officers may give chase if they believe a person is committing or is about to commit a felony, a Class A misdemeanor such as domestic battery, or a serious traffic offense that could risk injuring others, such as drunken driving or street racing.

Perhaps most significantly, the new policy makes clear that the days of officers giving chase just because someone tries to get away from them are over.

“People may avoid contact with a member for many reasons other than involvement in criminal activity,” the policy states.

The long-awaited foot chase ban is expected to go into effect by the end of the summer, after the city’s 11,900 uniformed cops receive training.

The policy prohibits officers from chasing people on foot simply because they run away.

The new policy comes more than a year after two foot pursuits ended with cops fatally shooting 13-year-old Adam Toledo and 22-year-old Anthony Alvarez in separate March 2021 incidents.

Toledo and Alvarez, who were armed when they ran from police in separate March 2021 pursuits, were not mentioned in the news release announcing the policy or the policy itself.

Toledo was shot in the chest after dropping a gun and raising his hands, and Alvarez was shot in the back while brandishing a gun.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot demanded that the department create an interim policy after the March 2021 shootings and the county’s top prosecutor harshly criticized police over the Alvarez pursuit.

Continue reading “”

Meet the 14 GOP Senators Who Voted to Advance ‘Gun Safety’ Bill.

On Tuesday night, the Senate voted to advance a “gun safety” bill in response to shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y. (the media has conveniently forgotten the shooting at a church in Laguna Woods, Calif., that took place between the other two shootings but didn’t fit The Narrative™ for the gun-control crowd).

The Hill framed the vote as the moment when the Senate “broke through nearly 30 years of stalemate on gun control legislation.”

I won’t rehash the bill here; instead, I’ll refer to my colleague Stephen Kruiser, who pointed out the worst features of the 80-page legislation:

There are two HUGE problems with this legislation, especially for conservatives: it legitimizes both federal intervention in state matters and “red flag” laws. The latter is particularly problematic because implementation is rife with gray areas, no matter how many stipulations are in place. As I have been fond of saying, once red-flag laws are on the books, we’re on the most slippery of slippery slopes. One day people are raising legitimate concerns, the next we have people reporting the neighbor who just rubs them the wrong way.

Those facts didn’t stop the measure from passing by a vote of 64-34. Every single one of the Democrats voted in favor of advancing the bill, which means that 14 Republicans went along with it. Here they are:

Some of those names are the usual suspects, the ones who are going to “go rogue” and vote with the Dems on other issues too.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the guy whose constituents booed him over his support for compromise legislation, ran point on the negotiations with Democrats at the behest of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The Hill reports the negotiations in a way that makes them sound just as sinister as compromising with Democrats to violate the Second Amendment should: “McConnell tapped Cornyn to lead the negotiations for Republicans shortly after a bipartisan group of senators met in Murphy’s basement to begin talks in hopes of finding a way to respond to the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings.”

One of the most remarkable things about this list is that, while the usual squishes (Collins, Murkowski, Romney) appear on it, none of them have a low rating with the National Rifle Association. In fact, Collins rates a B with the NRA, while the rest have an A (Portman, Romney, Blunt, Cassidy, Graham, Tillis, Capito, Ernst, Murkowski) or an A+ (Cornyn, McConnell, Burr, Young) rating from the NRA.

Of the “GOP Gun Control 14,” as Off the Press calls them, only Murkowski and Young are facing re-election in 2022. Blunt, Burr, and Portman aren’t running for another term, so the vast majority of these senators have nothing to lose this election cycle.

Gun rights groups aren’t happy, needless to say.

“Once again, so-called ‘conservative’ Senators are making clear they believe that the rights of American citizens can be compromised away,” Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America said in a statement. “Let me be clear, they have NO AUTHORITY to compromise with our rights, and we will not tolerate legislators who are willing to turn gun owners into second-class citizens.”

“We will oppose this gun control legislation because it falls short at every level,” read a statement from the NRA. “It does little to truly address violent crime while opening the door to unnecessary burdens on the exercise of Second Amendment freedom by law-abiding gun owners. This bill leaves too much discretion in the hands of government officials and also contains undefined and overbroad provisions – inviting interference with our constitutional freedoms.”

Stephen Gutowski reports at The Reload:

“Since the shooting, my office has received tens of thousands of calls, letters, and emails with a singular message: Do something,” Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas), a negotiator from the Republican side, said in a floor speech. “Not do nothing. But do something. I think we’ve found some areas where there is some space for compromise”

“Today, we finalized bipartisan, commonsense legislation to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country,” Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.), a key coalition member from the Democratic side, said in a statement. “Our legislation will save lives and will not infringe on any law-abiding American’s Second Amendment rights.”

Gutowski also points out that the vote to advance the bill suggests that the votes are there to pass the bill before Congress goes on its Independence Day break.

a synopsis of the new federal gun control law

Section 12001

The bill amends all of the prohibited categories (18 USC 922(d)(1 through 9)) to include actions taken against such person while they were a juvenile (that is, you got convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year’s incarceration as a juvenile, you would be barred from gun ownership).

The bill modifies the above by saying the adjudication as mentally defective or involuntary treatment under section (d)(4) had to be when the person was 16 years old or older.

This would be “retroactive” that is if you were convicted of a juvenile offense in 1992, but you are now 45 years old, you would become ineligible to possess firearms when this bill is enacted, and would have to dispose of any firearms you have, or your possession would be illegal as of the effective date of this law. The bill does not limit it to only applying to juvenile offenses or adjudications that happen after this bill is enacted.

This section also says that firearm transfers to persons under 21 years of age by a dealer may not be made after three days of no response from NICS, the way that current law works. Instead, as to persons under 21 years of age, NICS can extend the “pending” or non responsive response time to ten business days.

In addition to consulting the three Federal databases that NICS currently checks for a firearm background check, if the buyer is under 21, the bill says NICS is to contact the state, or local, repository of juvenile records, to see if the person has any juvenile adjudications that would disqualify the person.  These requirements for NICS to ask the state or local repositories sunset as of 9/30/2032.

The section also asks every State and every Federal agency reporting information to NICS to submit a report on records removed from the database and the reason why the records were removed.

Section 12002

This section rewrites the definition of being engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. Federal law requires persons “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms have a license. The new definition says that a person is engaged in the business if their purpose is “to predominantly earn a profit.” Formerly, profit had to be the “principal objective” of the seller.

Section 12003

This section allows grants made for criminal justice purposes to states, to also be used for red flag law enforcement. The bill says that such red flag laws have to meet whatever due process requirements the courts have found to be necessary.
The bill says that such programs need not provide indigent persons with counsel at government expense.

Section 12004

This section makes it unlawful to buy a firearm for another person knowing the other person is disqualified from buying a firearm under 18 USC 922(d), or that the other person is going to employ the firearm in connection to a felony crime, a drug trafficking crime or a terrorism crime, or that the other person is going to provide the firearm to a third person who will employ it as described.
The bill defines drug trafficking and terrorism.
The bill provides for a more enhanced penalty for drug trafficking and terrorism, up to 15 years incarceration if the person is buying for someone disqualified under 18 USC 922(d), and up to 25 years if buying for someone who the person knows will employ it for committing a felony, drug trafficking or terrorism.

This section also makes interstate sale of a firearm a crime if the seller knows the buyer intends to use the firearm for crime. It also makes receipt of such a firearm a crime. There is an enhanced penalty, up to 15 years, as compared to regular interstate sale of firearms by unlicensed persons, which is illegal under current law.

The section also has enhanced penalties for unlicensed or unpermitted import or export of firearms or ammunition to or from the U.S.

The section also says that the NICS system may be used for a FFL to conduct a background check on a current or prospective employee. Notice must be provided to the employee, and they have to consent to it.

The section requires the FBI to provide access to FFL holders to the database of stolen firearms maintained in the NCIC database, so they can see if a firearm in inventory is stolen. Checking would be voluntary. Not checking would not create civil liability.

Section 12005

This section creates a new firearm disability for persons convicted of a misdemeanor where the victim is someone the person was ‘dating’. It does not require any prior sexual, or even ‘cohabiting’ relations between the offender and the victim for the relationship to be a ‘dating relationship’.

The section says that in order for the disability to apply, the conviction must have occurred after this bill became law. It will not apply to convictions that happened before this bill became law.

The section says that if a person only has one such conviction as to a dating partner, and five years have elapsed with no other convictions for any crimes involving use or attempted use physical force or the threat of use of a deadly weapon (whether against a domestic partner or dating partner or not), then the dating partner conviction is no longer disqualifying for possession of firearms purposes.

However, convictions related to a domestic partner as a victim (as under existing law) are disqualifying forever, as under current law. And a dating partner conviction, and then a second misdemeanor crime where the victim is anyone, that involves physical force or a deadly weapon (as outlined above) is disqualifying forever.

The powers states have to expunge records and pardon offenders that remove firearm possession prohibitions are not affected

If Gun Control Saves Lives, Then Why are California and New York State so Dangerous?

A few disturbed young men want to become famous by killing innocent people. Each time they try, we are told that we need to take guns away from honest citizens. That proposal isn’t new. Gun-prohibitionists passed severe gun-control laws decades ago in a few Democrat controlled states. Let’s see if that made us safer. Based on recent evidence from New York State and California, it did not.

You don’t have to take my word for it when I say that California and New York have strict gun-control laws. Take the opinion of the Giffords gun-control group funded by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Giffords gives California an A rating and New York an A-.

Laws like this are why-

  • There are many models of firearms that ordinary citizens can’t own in New York and California.
  • Ordinary citizens must pass background checks when they purchase a handgun at a gun store or at a gun show. In California, there is also a mandatory background check before we may buy ammunition. New York proposed similar ammunition restrictions.
  • California has a mandatory ten-day waiting period after we submit our background check and before we may take possession of our firearm. There is also an additional one-gun-a-month restriction. New York also requires a license before we are allowed to own a handgun.
  • Both states have a magazine capacity limit that reduces the number of cartridges that a firearm magazine may hold.
  • Both states have “Red Flag laws” that allow family members, romantic partners, schoolteachers, doctors, and the police to request that we be disarmed. We are not present when a “Red Flag” hearing is held to confiscate our guns.
  • Both California and New York require statement of “demonstrated need” before honest citizens like us are granted a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public. In many cities, those permits are only given to judges, politicians, and to campaign donors. The rate of concealed carry is far lower in New York State and in California compared to the rest of the US.
  • Schools are “gun-free” zones and even school staff are disarmed.

We were told that gun-control would keep us safe. Last year, California had the most active-shooter incidents of any state in the nation. This year, we saw mass-murders and attempted mass-murders in New York state and even in New York City.

How could these gun control laws fail so badly? Here are a few of the many reasons that gun-control fails time after time-

Continue reading “”

Everytown Calls for Censorship on How to Work on Firearms

This correspondent has repeatedly written the First and Second Amendments of the US Constitution are intertwined and support each other. A power-craving government cannot effectively keep a population disarmed unless it censors information on how to make and use arms.

Billionaire Bloomberg supported Everytown for Gun Safety understands they cannot disarm the population, as long as people are free to transmit information on how to make, modify, and use firearms.

Their solution is clear. Forbid the knowledge of how to make, repair, and use firearms. From everytownsupportfund.org:

Based on our review of the writings by the shooter in the Buffalo mass shooting, it appears that he honed his knowledge of firearms and firearm modifications on YouTube. Just days before his attack, posts attributed to the shooter on Discord read, “I’ve just been sitting around watching youtube and **** for the last few days. I think this is the closest I’ll ever be to being ready. I literally can’t wait another week to do this.”

Technology platforms, such as YouTube, have a responsibility to users and the public-at-large to insure that posts do not incite violence or promote extremist content.

This correspondent, contrary to what Everytown posits, claims Technology platforms, such as YouTube, have a responsibility to users to protect and support their First Amendment rights of free expression.

Everytown admits they request that videos on how to modify guns be taken down. They say they have requested YouTube take down videos on how to make guns (which they call “ghost guns”).

YouTube has policies that censor some content on how to make or modify some guns and accessories.  From nbcnews.com:

YouTube’s firearms policy says users can’t post videos that show how to install certain gun accessories, including high-capacity magazines. In a statement on Friday, the company said the videos that the suspect allegedly used to modify his rifle don’t violate those policies.

It is more dangerous to people’s freedom to control the information they are allowed than to control their access to arms. Both are important. If the control over information is extensive enough, people will never attempt to use the arms they may have; they will consider themselves in the best of all possible situations, no matter how badly they are abused. This is the warning in George Orwell’s novel, 1984. It is even more difficult for the people to rise up if the abuse is carefully contrived and increasingly applied over generations, allowing the population to become accustomed to it.

Fortunately, the oligopoly of Big Tech’s control over information appears to be on the edge of collapse. Alternative platforms dedicated to free speech, such as Truth Social and Rumble, are becoming popular. Elon Musk may reform Twitter, from a means of directing cancel culture against its victims to a worldwide sanctuary for free speech.

In a famous case, the US government gave up attempts to restrict the publication of how to build a hydrogen bomb. The First Amendment clearly protects the publication of technology that is already in the public sphere.

What Everytown seeks to do is to convince the distributors of information to censor information it deems to be dangerous.

Everytown is unlikely to succeed.

In the Fifth Circuit, Defense Distributed’s lawsuit against New Jersey’s AG, Gurbir Grewal, was allowed to continue, on the grounds that Grewal violated Defense Distributed’s First Amendment rights when when he threatened to prosecute them for publishing computer code on how to print firearms parts.

It would be a short step for the newly proposed Bureau of Disinformation to censor information they deem “dangerous” to the public.

Unless the Progressive left succeeds in its Supreme Court-packing scheme, it is unlikely the Supreme Court would allow such an egregious violation of the First Amendment, when the inevitable court challenge is effectuated.

Everytown seems to agree with this quote, attributed to Stalin, but disputed:

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?

One of the most important effects of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, is the physical embodiment and clear demonstration the power of the government has limits. There are things it is not allowed to do, by law. An openly armed man, in public, is a clear and present demonstration of a Constitutional limit on government.

Progressives hate the idea of limits on government with a passion. It is part of Progressive DNA.

Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, had a view the opposite of Stalin’s supposed quote. In a private letter, shortly before becoming president, he wrote this:

 “for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”1

It is clear those who wish for a disarmed public are closer to Stalin’s philosophy than to Thomas Jefferson’s.

Author Stephen Hunter makes valid point about guns

Author Stephen Hunter is best known for his Bob Lee Swagger books. He was also a film critic for the Washington Post until he retired in 2008.

While he writes thrillers, his career might make you think he’s anti-gun.

Well, he’s apparently not. In fact, he made a very good point about guns and massacres.

Possibly you’re old enough to remember the great massacre spree of 1964? Classrooms shot up, strip malls decimated, scout troops blown away, fast food restaurants turned into mortuaries.

And all because, in its infinite stupidity, the U.S. government dumped 240,000 high-capacity .30 caliber assault rifles into an otherwise innocent America.

The weapons clearly had a demon-spirit to them. Compared to anything else in the market, they had that murder-most-easy look. One glance at the sinister gleam of the walnut stock which caressed the military-gray receiver and barrel of the weapon, its magazine wickedly boasting of many cartridges ready and waiting, its photo- and Hollywood associations with war, and some went screwball. They had the overwhelming desire to use it as it was meant to be used. It was not powerful enough for deer and not accurate enough for vermin. It existed only to kill human beings.

Except there was no massacre spree of 1964, despite the fact that in 1963 the United States Army surplussed 240,000 M1 carbines via the NRA. They were available through the mail at $20. Not an NRA member? Eighty bucks, then, from any sporting goods store. Denver’s Dave Cook’s–“Guns Galore at Prices to Score”– had them by mail order, magazine and sling included, postage, $1.25.

The M1 carbine was a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that could fire pretty much as fast as an AR-15 and used a much larger round, from a pure diameter standpoint.

It was a recipe for disaster by today’s standard and yet, nothing. Not a single mass shooting with such weapons.

Hunter goes on to point out that in the summer of 1964, there were tons of inexpensive semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles on the open market that could be mailed right to you, but there weren’t people like the Buffalo or Uvalde shooters.

It’s a very valid point and a great example of how the problem isn’t the availability of firearms. They were easier to acquire in 1964 than they are today and they were just as deadly. They could be discharged at a high rate of fire, too.

These were actual weapons of war, even, not something that just looks like one.

And yet, as Hunter notes, no massacres. No school shootings. None of the things we’re told result from “easy” access to firearms.

That suggests strongly that the problem here is something else, something else entirely. We, as a society, would be better off if we could stop blaming guns for five minutes and start looking deeper into why this is happening and why this continues to be an issue.

Yet that’s apparently not allowed by some in our world. They’ve got a vested interest in blaming the guns rather than in solving the actual problem.

Part of that, of course, is also blaming others for not agreeing that guns are the problem despite clear evidence that they’re not.