Category: Politics

[California) SENATE PASSES BILL TO EFFECTIVELY BAN NEW PISTOL SALES IN CALIFORNIA

A measure that greatly expands the mandate for firearms technology that isn’t on the market won easy approval in the California state Senate last week.

California Sen. Catherine Blakespear’s SB 452 passed on a 29-10 vote on May 24 and goes to the state Assembly for further consideration. The Encinitas Democrat argues that the bill “simply puts to use readily available technology to help law enforcement catch criminals” by banning all sales or transfers of any semiautomatic pistol after July 2027 unless it has been verified as having a microstamping-enabled action.

Despite Blakespear’s assertions that microstamping, a process that etches unique identifiers on expended cartridge cases, is available, no such guns are in production.

Anywhere.

In 2013, Kamala Harris, then the California attorney general, put the state’s long-dormant microstamping requirement into effect, requiring new pistols certified for commercial sale be able to mark expended brass with a microscopic array of characters, which identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol upon firing.

Since then, the state’s roster of approved handguns has shrunk, with only legacy semi-autos – which were grandfathered – and revolvers currently listed. For example, the roster contains no approved Generation 4 or Generation 5 Glock handguns, all of which debuted after 2013. Likewise, the SIG P365, one of the most popular carry pistols in the country, cannot be found on the list.

Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, one of the groups currently challenging the 2013 law, told Guns.com previously that the state is experiencing a “slow motion handgun ban as fewer and fewer models are allowed to be sold in the state. California is to handguns what Cuba is to cars; only old models are available.”

Blakespear’s legislation, backed by anti-gun groups such as Brady and Everytown, would effectively close off access to even these legacy guns by creating a separate and distinct restriction on the sale or transfer of any semi-automatic handgun by a licensed dealer unless it is capable of microstamping.

However, the state has seen its current law in troubled waters, with a case brought against it drawing heat from a federal court earlier this year. That court, in the case of Boland v Bonta, saw the California DOJ hit with a preliminary injunction as the case proceeds.

“The microstamping provision requires handguns to have a particular feature that is simply not commercially available or even feasible to implement on a mass scale,” U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney’s order reads.

Meanwhile, SB 482, which is co-sponsored by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, is now in the Assembly, where Dems hold an overwhelming 3/4 (62-18) majority.

Breaking: McCarthy gets debt-ceiling deal — with work requirements.

Utterly predictable, although it still came about 24 hours later than I expected. On a holiday weekend when people are paying the least attention, Joe Biden finally cut a deal with Kevin McCarthy to raise the debt ceiling and end a game of chicken that Biden and Democrats lost months ago. House Republicans didn’t get everything they wanted, but Biden and the Democrats didn’t get anything they wanted except to limit the embarrassment:

President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Saturday reached an agreement in principle to raise the debt limit for two years while cutting and capping some government spending over the same period, a breakthrough after a marathon set of crisis talks that has brought the nation within days of its first default in history. …

The deal would raise the borrowing limit, which is currently $31.4 trillion, for two years — enough to get past the next presidential election.

According to a person familiar with the agreement, it also would impose new work requirements for some recipients of government aid, including food stamps and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
It would place new limits on how long certain recipients of food stamps — people under the age of 54, who do not have children — could benefit from the program. But it also would expand food stamp access for veterans and the homeless, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss details of the package.

The tentative deal also claws back some unspent money from a previous pandemic relief bill, and reduces by $10 billion — to $70 billion from $80 billion — new enforcement funding for the I.R.S. to crack down on tax cheats. It includes measures meant to speed environmental reviews of certain energy projects. And it includes an enforcement measure, meant to avert a government shutdown later this year, that would reduce funding caps for the military and veterans and Congress does not pass into law all 12 regularly scheduled appropriations bills by the end of the year.

The work requirements on safety-net programs will enrage Biden’s allies, not just on principle but also because it hands McCarthy a big win. Without it, McCarthy probably wouldn’t get more than a handful of his caucus to back him. As it is, the reductions in the cuts they already passed are not going to make the Republicans happy, even if they have to swallow it at the eleventh hour.

But come on … they won. Biden and Chuck Schumer lost this weeks ago, and now they just caved. It would not surprise me if the Democrats knew this was coming all along, and they merely waited for a holiday weekend to give them enough cover to pull the trigger.

As I said, utterly predictable. Just like the way we knew McCarthy would win, because — again — he won the moment he got the debt-ceiling hike through the House. He forced Biden and Schumer to negotiate on his terms, and he kept enough of them to matter. We’ll have more on the deal as it comes together, and as the media tries to spin it any other way.

Update: This is apparently what counts as a win for Biden:

Republicans had sought to repeal Biden’s efforts to waive $10,000 to $20,000 in debt for nearly all borrowers who took out student loans. But the provision was a nonstarter for Democrats. The budget agreement keeps Biden’s student loan relief in place, though the Supreme Court will have the ultimate say on the matter.

The Supreme Court is dominated 6-3 by conservatives, and those justices’ questions in oral arguments showed skepticism about the legality of Biden’s student loans plan. A decision is expected before the end of June.

That plan is going to die a very well-deserved death at the Supreme Court no matter what, on a number of grounds. McCarthy probably put it in the bid so that Biden could claim a concession from Republicans in the final deal.

Veto-proof majority in Louisiana House approves constitutional carry

So far this year we’ve seen two states adopt permitless or constitutional carry, not only with the support of lawmakers but with the backing of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen. If Louisiana is going to follow suit and become the 28th state to recognize the right to bear arms without a government-issued permission slip, however, legislators are going to have to overcome an anticipated veto by Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards, who previously killed a similar measure back in 2021.

We’re one step closer to that becoming reality today after the Louisiana House voted 70-29 on Tuesday in favor of HB 131, just enough to override Edwards’ veto… at least if no one changes their vote.

Continue reading “”

Barking mad Nebraska State Senator really wants you to know that she’s pro-trans.

I don’t know whether it is an overstatement to suggest people with “gender dysphoria” have a mental illness, or whether there is a social contagion at work (like the anorexia epidemic among young women a couple decades ago that ultimately faded out to a large extent), but scenes like this state legislator in Nebraska aren’t reassuring that there’s a rational defense of the trans-phenomenon. (Wonder what she will do when told that Trans World Airlines went bankrupt 30 years ago. Probably another screech about capitalism or something.)

This video is about one minute long, but it seems much longer.

Hyde-Smith reintroduces GRIP Act to block state gun registries

U.S. Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), of Brookhaven, on Thursday reintroduced her legislation to prohibit states, localities or any other organization from using federal funding to maintain gun registries.

The Gun-owner Registration Information Protection (GRIP) Act would clarify existing law that prohibits the use of any federal funding by states or local entities to store or list sensitive, personal information related to the legal ownership or possession of firearms.

Hyde-Smith first introduced the GRIP Act in the 116th Congress (2019-2021). “The GRIP Act is needed now more than ever as more anti-gun and anti-violence proposals too often end up infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Hyde-Smith said. “The GRIP Act would ensure that states and cities comply with federal statutes that specifically prohibit the use of federal funds to keep gun registries, which can then be used to target people who own or purchase firearms legally.”

While current law prevents the federal government from storing information acquired during the firearms background check process, the GRIP Act would ensure the federal government does not support, either intentionally or otherwise, state or local efforts to collect and store personally identifiable information related to legal firearm purchases and ownership.

The bill also clarifies that states and local entities cannot use federal grant funds from programs, such as the National Criminal Histories Improvement Program, NICS Amendment Records Improvement Program, or the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, to create or maintain full or partial gun registries.

It would not limit states’ recordkeeping for permitting, law enforcement-issued firearms, or lost or stolen firearms. Hyde-Smith’s original eight co-sponsors included Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). U.S. Rep. Michael Guest (R-Miss.) cosponsored companion legislation introduced in the House by U.S. Representative Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.).

Maine Democrat Wants Gun Control for “Abnormally Dangerous Assault Style Weapons” But She Doesn’t Know What That Means

In a public hearing by the Maine Legislature’s Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning, Rep. Rebecca Millett (D-Cape Elizabeth) struggled to clearly define the terms “abnormally dangerous” and “assault style weapons” in relation to her proposed bill to hold firearm manufacturers liable for damages inflicted by people who use their products.

WATCH: Rep. Rebecca Millet Crumbles Under Question From Rep. John Andrews

Rep. Millett’s LD 1696, “An Act to Create a Civil Cause of Action for Persons Suffering Damages Arising from the Sale of Abnormally Dangerous Firearms,” would allow firearm manufacturers to be held liable for the manufacturing, marketing, importing, wholesale or retail sale of a firearm that is considered “abnormally dangerous” and causes “unreasonable risk of harm to public health and safety” in Maine.

Millett began her testimony before the Judiciary Committee by saying that every industry other than firearm manufacturers are held accountable through civil liability. She gave the examples of toy manufacturers selling defective toys, and toxic fumes in buildings.

Millett went on to blame the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) for allowing firearm manufacturers to be knowingly irresponsible in their distribution of firearms and to “recklessly skirt” federal regulations.

The PLCAA is a federal law which prohibits civil liability actions from being brought against firearms and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers for damages resulting from crimes committed with their products.

Under the PLCAA, firearm manufacturers may still be held civilly responsible for damages caused by defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, or any other direct responsibility for the damages in question.

Millett said that her proposed bill would only apply to “abnormally dangerous” firearms, not those made for self-defense, hunting, or recreation.

Millett hopes that her bill will compel firearm manufacturers to stop selling to dealers who fuel the criminal market, and encourage basic safety measures among manufacturers and retailers.

However, upon taking questions from members of the Judiciary Committee, Millett struggled to answer seemingly basic questions about the terminology used in her proposed bill and claims made in her testimony.

When asked by Rep. John Andrews (R-Paris) to define “abnormally dangerous,” Millett said that any “assault style weapon” would fall under that category.

Rep. Andrews asked Millett to point to where in her proposed bill “assault style weapon” was defined, and Millett was unable to provide a definition.

Sen. Anne Carney (D-Cumberland), Senate Chair of the Judiciary Committee, asked Millett to provide a citation on the claim that firearms were flowing from manufacturers to criminal dealers. Millett was unable to provide a citation for this claim.

John Andrews asked Millett to give an example of any firearm manufacturer who does not go through the federally mandated process of selling firearms to federally licensed dealers. Millett was unable to give any examples of any firearm manufacturers violating federal law.

Continue reading “”

State 28? Constitutional Carry on the Move in Louisiana

Legislation to end a permitting requirement for concealed carry is on the move in Louisiana and would make the state the 28th to adopt constitutional carry as the law of the land.

Constitutional carry passed the Louisiana legislature two years ago and Breitbart News reported that Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) vetoed it June 4, 2021.
It is on the move again and WWLTV noted it would “[allow] any law-abiding gun owner over 18, to carry a concealed handgun in the state.”

On May 25, 2023, Biz New Orleans observed the constitutional carry legislation, sponsored by Rep. Danny McCormick (R), had passed out of committee. McCormick noted:

Louisiana is already an open carry state which allows law-abiding citizens to carry their firearms openly without mandatory training… Allowing those same law-abiding men and women to wear a jacket in colder weather or place their firearms in a purse while wearing a dress also would not cause chaos.

The same argument was made when constitutional carry was being debated in New Hampshire, when permitless open carry was legal but covering the gun with a jacket or sweatshirt was not.

There are currently 27 constitutional carry states in the Union.

Those states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
(Florida’s constitutional carry law takes effect July 1, 2023 and Nebraska’s constitutional carry law takes effect September 10, 2023.)

Gun control advocates disappointed in Texas

In the wake of far more shootings than I care to name, it’s unsurprising that there are some in Texas who want gun control. While I’m unconvinced that it’s a majority or, if it is, it’s a strong enough majority to matter, the media is going to give those people a lot of attention.

Which, of course, they did here.

It seems some parents from North Texas spoke about gun control with lawmakers, but are displeased at the results.

It was an early morning leaving Plano. And a late night returning there.

A group of about 40 mothers and fathers from across Collin County made the 440-mile round trip to Austin on Monday.

They were hoping for productive conversations about gun laws in Texas, nine days after eight people were killed and another seven were injured when a 33-year-old man armed with multiple guns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition opened fire at the Allen Premium Outlets mall…

“It’s depressing,” said Maury Marcus who lives in Plano. “I feel that there’s a partisan divide and the pro-gun faction has the upper hand.”

As she was leaving the Capitol rotunda, frustration was visible on Rekha Shenoy’s face.

“I don’t feel good, but I don’t want to give up. So that’s one thing I’m not doing – I’m not giving up,” Shenoy said.

The mass shooting in Allen was only the latest in Texas.

The Second Amendment shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but it has become one.

I get that these parents are concerned. They shouldn’t be, as I’ve noted previously, because, despite the media hysteria, actual mass shootings are pretty rare, all things concerned.

Yet that’s easy to say but harder for some to internalize. I understand it, but it doesn’t change reality.

So, they showed up and hoped their emotions would sway their audience. It didn’t.

The Democrats who already agreed with them still agreed with them. The Republicans who didn’t agree with them still didn’t.

That’s because if you were going to be swayed by emotions, you probably already were. Those who are going to decide safety is more important than freedom–and I don’t actually think those are contrary positions, but many do–already made that decision.

So people like this show up, let their emotions talk, then claim they weren’t listened to by pro-Second Amendment lawmakers. That’s because the only way to show a gun control advocate that you listened is by doing exactly what they want. You can’t listen and disagree. If you disagree, at least in their view, you didn’t listen.

Anyway, these parents left Austin disappointed. My hope is that they get used to it.

What happened in Allen was awful and I won’t sugarcoat it. However, if you think that wouldn’t have happened if he couldn’t get an AR-15, you’re deluding yourself. There was nothing done at that outlet mall that couldn’t have been done with some other firearm.

That’s why the focus has to be elsewhere. Gun control doesn’t provide us with answers. It simply covers the problem and lets people pretend they’re doing something.

It’s not about popularity or even the usefulness of a thing. It’s about bureaucraps exercising arbitrary power at the whim of whoever happens to be in charge. We are either a nation of laws, or we’re nothing more than another dictatorship under the rule of man, instead of the rule of law.

Analysis: Despite Trump Claim, Bump Stock Ban is Important

Former President Donald Trump (R.) hand waved his decision to unilaterally ban bump stocks in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting as “very unimportant.” But the ban was enormously consequential both legally and politically.

On Wednesday, Trump was asked about his ban by a Republican primary voter at CNN’s town hall.

“As you know, the bump stocks are actually a very unimportant thing,” Trump replied. “NRA I went with them, and they said, ‘it doesn’t mean anything, or actually all they do is teach you how to shoot very inaccurately.’ So, we did that.”

It is true that the National Rifle Association (NRA) supported instituting the ban via executive order after balking at a legislative ban they argued went too far. Trump listened to NRA and issued an order to have the ATF craft a rule banning the devices as unregistered machineguns–possession of which could lead to upwards of ten years in prison under the National Firearms Act (NFA). However, he turned a deaf ear when the NRA complained the rule went too far by refusing to exempt those who’d legally bought the stocks before Trump ordered the rule.

The result was a total confiscation order for bump stocks from the Trump Administration. Despite previously ruling bump stocks were legal to buy without special regulations under the Obama Administration, the ATF declared under Trump the stocks are actually machineguns and aren’t legal to buy and never were. Only destroying the stock you owned or turning it over to the ATF without compensation were offered as remedies to avoiding potential federal felony charges.

The ATF had made its fair share of contradictory or incoherent rules and determinations before the bump stock ban–it had once claimed pressing a pistol-brace-equipped gun to your shoulder constitutes redesigning it on the fly.

However, the bump stock ban was one step further than many of the agency’s previous proclamations. It was based on a lie. One that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has since called out.

Continue reading “”

Democrats’ Nightmares–African Americans See Racism in Democrat Attacks on Clarence Thomas.

An idea for a poll: Survey black Americans to see if they think racism is any way behind the three-decade-long, never-ending criticism of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

This shouldn’t be a controversial notion. Progressives and Democrats have long attributed racism to criticism of black government officials they like. Only last month, former White House chief-of-staff Ron Klain said racism is behind the criticism of Vice President Kamala Harris (of course along with sexism).

The left never tires of telling us how deeply racism infects the nation, that American institutions are embedded with systemic racism, that white people can’t recognize the unconscious racist attitudes they harbor about people of color, that white children develop racial bias as early as 4 years old, that racism permeates even math and science, that “white privilege” remains an ongoing injustice, and on and on.

With racism so deeply entrenched in American society, criticism of black politicians and government officials can be — even sometimes must be — based on race, according to progressive thinking.

That is, it applies when the criticism is aimed liberal office holders and public figures, according to the progressive narrative. You never heard that accusation when black conservatives are attacked.

That’s a double standard at the heart of liberal cries of racism.

But, if America is so deeply and intrinsically racist, as the far left never hesitates to remind us, why would any black official, including conservatives, be immune from race-based attacks?

Which brings us to the case of Justice Thomas.

Now it’s true that there is a bigger picture at work at the present. The most recent criticism of Justice Thomas comes amid a broad-based Democrat and left-wing assault on the Supreme Court, a full-scale, no-holds-barred campaign to delegitimize the nation’s highest court.

Like the segregationists of the 1950s and ’60s who sought to undermine the high court because of its rulings ending segregation in schools and public places, today’s progressives attack the independence and integrity of the court because they hate its prominent rulings, most notably the one returning the issue of abortion to the people to deal with through their state legislatures.

But the brunt of the anti-court blitz falls on Justice Thomas. And it’s just the latest example.

Continue reading “”

We must Doooooo Something!™

Tennessee Governor Announces Special Session for ‘Red Flag’ Style Gun Law

The Tennessee General Assembly will officially reconvene this summer to consider legislation aimed at preventing future mass shootings.

On Monday, Governor Bill Lee (R.) formally announced a special legislative session starting August 21st. The goal of the session will be to “strengthen public safety and preserve constitutional rights,” according to Lee, and will likely involve debate over his take on legislation aimed at temporarily taking guns from those determined to be a threat to themselves or others.

“After speaking with members of the General Assembly, I am calling for a special session on August 21 to continue our important discussion about solutions to keep Tennessee communities safe and preserve the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens,” Lee said. “There is broad agreement that action is needed, and in the weeks ahead, we’ll continue to listen to Tennesseans and pursue thoughtful, practical measures that strengthen the safety of Tennesseans, preserve Second Amendment rights, prioritize due process protections, support law enforcement and address mental health.”

The announcement sets the stage for what is shaping up to be one of the most interesting debates in gun politics as a Republican-controlled state legislature debates a policy that has rarely seen adoption in red states. It comes weeks after a shooter murdered three students and three staff members at a Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee. While he remained non-specific in his announcement, Lee’s “order of protection” proposal is expected to be a key feature of the special session.

Continue reading “”

Vermont Gun Bill Creating 72-Hour Waiting Period Passes

The Vermont Legislature on Friday passed a bill that requires a 72-hour waiting period for the purchase of guns and includes other provisions aimed at reducing suicides and community violence.

The Vermont House concurred with a Senate amendment by a vote of 106 to 34. But Republican Gov. Phil Scott “has significant concerns about the constitutionality of the waiting period provision,” his spokesman Jason Maulucci said Friday.

The legislation also creates a crime of negligent firearms storage and expands the state’s extreme risk protection orders so that a state’s attorney, the attorney general’s office or a family or household member may ask a court to prohibit a person from purchasing, possessing or receiving a dangerous weapon.

Supporters say it’s time to take action against gun violence and the rate of suicide in Vermont, which is higher than the national rate.

Opponents say the bill violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Per Heller and the Bruen Standard, it mostr certainly does

According to the bill, more than 700 Vermonters died of gunshots from 2011 to 2020 and 88% of those deaths were suicides. In 2021, the state’s suicide rate was 20.3 per 100,000 people, compared to a national rate of 14 per 100,000, the bill states. Children in a home with a firearm are more than four times more likely to die by suicide than those in a home without one, the legislature states.

PA’s Insane Ammunition Registration Database, Wants All Your Ammo to Have Separate Serial Numbers

Proposed Pennsylvania House Bill 586, introduced on March 20, 2023, proposes significant changes to ammunition regulations that would impact law-abiding gun owners in the state. The bill, which was introduced by 12 state Democrats, including prime sponsor Representative Stephen Kinsey, seeks to give the Commissioner of Pennsylvania State Police and the Secretary of Revenue the power to enforce the new rules and collect a tax on ammunition to fund the changes.

Encoded Ammo Database, Pennsylvania House Bill 586

The bill has several provisions, including a requirement that all ammunition sold in Pennsylvania must be encoded with multiple serial numbers. This means that a manufacturer must add individual serial numbers to all ammunition provided for retail sale in a manner yet to be established by the Pennsylvania State Police commissioner. Each bullet would have a unique serial number located at its base, inside the cartridge casing, and outside the box of ammunition.

In a related article that alerted us to this crazy bill, Riley Bowman, Vice President of ConcealedCarry.com pointed out that this could pose significant challenges for producers and negatively impact ammunition produced for law enforcement, even though they are exempt from this bill. He noted that ammo producers are already struggling to keep up with demand, and the time required to produce a single round of ammunition could increase from seconds to minutes.

The bill also requires anyone who possesses non-encoded ammunition to dispose of it by January 1, 2024. Is what they are proposing that millions and millions of rounds of ammunition be shot in less than a year by Pennsylvania gun owners?

Continue reading “”

Colorado: Extreme Private Property Ban Killed

Thanks to the strong response of NRA members and Second Amendment supporters, HB23-1165, the bill giving counties the power to ban shooting on private property in their jurisdiction, was defeated. NRA also thanks all lawmakers who defended the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens in Colorado.

17 gun restriction bills flounder at Georgia Capitol

ATLANTA — This year, the Georgia legislature mostly ignored 17 gun restriction bills – including bills that would have limited access to guns for folks with mental health issues.

The 17 gun restriction bills were introduced by Democrats. The capitol is run by Republicans, who have expanded, not restricted, gun rights.

When police converged on the Northside Medical building in Midtown Atlanta Wednesday in an attempt to take down a mass shooter – and ordered people nearby to shelter in place – one of them was state Sen. Josh McLaurin (D-Atlanta), who was having lunch.

McLaurin said after taking stock of the mass shooting, the injuries and death, and the danger inherent in the ongoing manhunt, he took stock of the Georgia politics that he says enables gun violence.

“Frustration is the right word,” McLaurin told 11Alive Thursday. “This is a policy decision. We are choosing to live like this. There are common-sense gun safety, sensible regulations legislation that we could pass.”

In 2023, Democrats introduced bills ranging from requiring background checks and waiting periods to safe storage of firearms, to red flag laws limiting firearms for people who may have mental health issues.

Republicans didn’t allow a vote for any of them, even in committee.

Vernon Lee, a longtime capitol lobbyist and gun rights backer, said the problem isn’t an absence of gun restrictions – it’s an absence of stiff law enforcement.

“There should be swifter, stricter punishment [for gun crimes],” Lee said.  “There are laws on the books (that say) these are the ramifications if you do that. Some of those ramifications have not been enforced enough to curtail gun violence.”

McLaurin said he’s heard that far too much.

“The public that want commonsense gun reform are being blocked by, again, a tiny minority of people who are characterizing any reasonable attempt at sensible legislation as repealing the second amendment. And it’s BS,” McLaurin said.

All those gun bills are still technically in play during next year’s legislative session. But by all but ignoring them this year, Republicans spoke volumes about their interest in advancing them next year.

Democrats’ scheme to bludgeon the Supreme Court exposed at Senate Judiciary Committee hearing

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing Tuesday on “Supreme Court Ethics Reform.” The title implies that Supreme Court ethics need reform and that Congress can do the reforming.

The hearing failed to make that case.

Everyone agrees on the critical importance of public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality and integrity, and that that confidence is on the decline. That observation, however, raises the question of what’s causing the decline.

Democrats and their allies among left-wing groups and the media, after all, have relentlessly accused the current Supreme Court of partisanship and bias, even warning certain justices not to make the “wrong” decisions in certain cases.

There was Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on the Supreme Court steps in March 2020, calling out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh and shouting that they had “released the whirlwind” and would “pay the price” if they continue making “awful decisions.”

And there was Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and four Democratic colleagues filing a brief in a Second Amendment case that closed this way: “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself” before being forced to do so.

Or there was Whitehouse claiming, through the liberal American Constitution Society, that the GOP appointees to the court consistently deliver decisions that “advantage the big corporate and special interests that are, in turn, the political lifeblood of the Republican Party.” Not surprisingly, his methodology is itself deeply ideological, but even if he were right about the pattern, his own analysis would show that the Democratic appointees just as consistently oppose those interests. It’s funny that Whitehouse’s diatribes on this subject are always focused in one direction.

He and other Democrats were just as glaringly one-sided in Tuesday’s hearing.

Continue reading “”

Americans Have Something to Say That Biden Won’t Like to Hear

President Joe Biden and his gun control advisors won’t like this news.

One of the most consistently accurate and reputable polling organizations found more Americans oppose one of the president’s top gun control goals than support it. Monmouth found nearly half of Americans – 49 percent – oppose a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

The poll was released just days after the president once again called for a national ban on Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs).

It’s a Trend

“In 1994, I led the fight to successfully ban assault weapons… We know the solution. Congressional Republicans need to show some courage,” President Joe Biden tweeted last month.

The American public, though, is saying not-so-fast. The Monmouth poll reveals Americans don’t want a ban. It’s a trend and the new data represents a nine-point drop in support for a federal ban on America’s most popular-selling centerfire semiautomatic rifle in almost a year. The new polling also represents a seven-point increase in opposition to a ban.

The Quinnipiac poll even showed a majority of Americans – 51 percent – opposed a ban. “While President Joe Biden is calling on Congress to renew the long-expired ban on assault weapons, the public now is divided on the question…,” that report stated.

Continue reading “”

Detroit City Council to consider gun-free zones as advocates push back

Advocates Scotty Boman, Rick Ector and Ryan Brennan are urging Detroit City Council to vote against a resolution that would create gun-free zones in Detroit.Advocates Scotty Boman, Rick Ector and Ryan Brennan are urging Detroit City Council to vote against a resolution that would create gun-free zones in Detroit.© Dana Afana

Detroit City Council members on Tuesday postponed a vote on a resolution to establish gun-free zones in certain high-traffic parts of the city.

Councilmember Mary Waters pushed the resolution back to committee where members can further discuss proposed changes. The resolution calls for urging the Michigan Legislature to repeal the Firearm and Ammunition Act 319 of 1990 since Detroit is not allowed to establish the zones under current state gun laws. At a meeting in April, Waters proposed gun-free zones in areas that include the Detroit riverfront, Greektown, Hart Plaza, Spirit of Detroit Plaza and Campus Martius. Shootings have occurred in the downtown area in recent weekends as the weather warms toward summer and more people head outside.

In pushing for the change, Waters said parents need to ensure their children conduct themselves responsibly, urging guns in a household with children “should be locked up and stored so children cannot gain access.”

But Scotty Boman, founder of Detroit Residents Advancing Civilian Oversight, said despite council members being well-intentioned, such a move would have adverse effects.

“I don’t believe the correct response to the violence that we have had in our city is to deny basic liberties to the residents, and specifically the idea of making Greektown into a gun-free zone is not going to help make anyone safer and it is an infringement of people’s basic rights,” said Boman, who gathered on Monday in Greektown with other gun rights supporters. “The fact of the matter is that criminals don’t care about the law. If we set up checkpoints on public streets, that’s yet another thing, now we’re talking about search and seizure rights. … I think it’s best to have responsible gun owners who can actually respond and help protect and help stop active shooters.”

Boman, alongside National Rifle Association member Rick Ector and Wayne County Libertarian Party member Ryan Brennan, said it punishes individuals without ensuring safety.

THEY WANT A FIGHT
SO LET’S GIVE IT TO ’EM!

It will have been one year on June 23 since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and ever since, anti-gun Democrats have been acting like the decision never happened.

A state House representative in Olympia, Wash. may have pegged the reason why during an interview with me back in January. His analysis was matter-of-fact, entirely sensible and a little scary.

The $10,000 Secret

The gun control crowd wants a fight. They are determined to wage a war of perpetual litigation if necessary to have their way — or at least make sure you don’t get your way — at the expense of taxpayers rather than acknowledge they’ve been wrong about the Second Amendment.

Rep. Jim Walsh, from the Evergreen State’s Grays Harbor area along the Pacific Coast has watched them.

“That’s the dangerous thing,” he said about the gun prohibition mindset. “They have a blind spot on this issue. The profound question is whether it’s an ideological position or a political calculation.”

Either way, gun owners cannot allow them to win.

Continue reading “”