Category: Government

New Hampshire: House Defeats Three Anti-Gun Bills

Earlier today, the New Hampshire House held the last of several floor votes on three anti-gun bills. Thanks to the strong support of NRA members and Second Amendment supporters, the bills were defeated and will not move forward this session.  NRA-ILA would like to thank all of those Representatives who defended the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens in the Granite State.

House Resolution 8 urged Congress to pass an “assault weapons ban.” While no specifics were outlined in the resolution, gun grabbers continue to advocate for bans on standard equipment for commonly-owned firearms that many Americans and Granite Staters legally and effectively use for an entire range of legitimate purposes, such as self-defense or competition.

House Bill 158 banned “ammunition designed and intended to penetrate armor plating or ballistic vests.” This legislation is duplicative and unneeded. Federal law already prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale, or delivery of “armor-piercing” ammunition with very few exceptions.

House Bill 191 allowed state agencies to destroy voluntarily surrendered firearms, rather than requiring them to sell these firearms at public auction or to keep them for their own use.

Again, thank you to NRA Members and Second Amendment supporters who contacted their State Representatives in strong opposition to these anti-gun bills.

Proposed Kentucky version of SAPA

Bill would make Ky. a ‘Second Amendment sanctuary’

FRANKFORT, Ky. (WTVQ) — A bill that easily passed the Kentucky House Wednesday would make the state a “Second Amendment sanctuary.”

House Bill 153 would ensure Kentucky couldn’t use tax dollars or law enforcement to enforce a federal gun ban on ammunition, magazines, accessories or certain types of guns, according to sponsor Rep. Josh Bray (R-Mount Vernon).

“Kentuckians should decide firearm policy through their elected representatives, not through some bureaucrat in Washington D.C. who is changing the interpretation of an existing federal guideline,” Bray said.

Democrats, like Rep. Lisa Willner (D-Louisville), shared concerns with the bill.

“The people in District 35 worry every day about too little law enforcement of already existing laws,” she said. “This law that would increase access to guns would reduce enforcement. It moves us exactly in the wrong direction on both counts.”

The bill passed with a 78-19 vote. It now heads to the Senate.

To read the bill in its entirety, click here.

West Virginia Governor Announces Support for Newly Passed Campus Carry Bill: ‘I’ll Sign It’

The Mountain State will soon be the latest to allow those with permits to carry concealed guns on college campuses.

On Tuesday, the West Virginia House of Delegates put the finishing touches on Senate Bill 10. By Wednesday, Governor Jim Justice (R.) announced his intention to sign it into law once it reaches his desk.

“I know it’s controversial, but from my standpoint, here’s where I stand: I stand rock solid with our Second Amendment,” Justice said during a press conference Wednesday. “When this bill comes to me, it won’t be with me but just a matter of seconds because I’ll sign it.”

Once signed, the bill will make West Virginia one of twelve states to allow gun carry in most areas of campus without an option for school officials to implement gun bans. It arrives at a time of heightened scrutiny over gun carry after the Supreme Court’s June decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen recognized a constitutional right to carry a gun in public for self-defense. Many blue states have rushed to pass laws cracking down on public gun carry in response to the ruling. Meanwhile, red states have continued to expand where civilians can carry in public and sought to eliminate permitting requirements.

Governor Justice cited frequent mass shootings across the country committed by “bad, bad, bad actors” that occur on “soft targets” as his reasoning for supporting the bill.

“God forbid, but it may very well be that we’ve got somebody on that campus that has a firearm and something bad starts to happen, and they save a bunch of lives,” he said.

Armed bystanders have intervened to stop or prevent mass shootings on numerous occasions throughout the country. Elisjsha Dicken returned fire against a shooter in July 2022 ending an attack on an Indiana mall food court. Similarly, a legally-armed bystander shot a gunman at an El Paso, Texas mall earlier this month.

He also pointed to long-standing campus carry laws in states like Texas that have been on the books “for years and years” to show that the policy can be implemented safely.

The bill would not prevent schools from instituting any and all restrictions on campus carry. But school officials would be limited to baring guns in buildings and other parts of campus with comprehensive security measures, such as metal detectors. Those provisions, however, were not enough to win over opponents of the bill. Some pointed to the recent mass shooting at Michigan State, where an adult not affiliated with the school shot and killed three students on campus, to argue against the bill.

Marshall University student E.T. Bowen said college students already feel “terrified on campus,” and adding more guns would exacerbate that.

“This bill is like throwing kerosene on the wildfire, and it is appalling that we even need to say that while there’s still blood on the ground at Michigan State,” Bowen said.

The bill’s supporters also pointed to prior mass shootings on college campuses. Delegate Mike Honaker (R.) was a state trooper who responded to the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting. He said the prospect of something like that happening again compelled him to give students a chance to defend themselves.

“Please hear me: Years ago, I sat on the foot of my bed with Windex and paper towels and I washed the blood of almost 30 kids off of my shoes because of an active shooter on a college campus,” he said, according to the Associated Press. “I fear that if I do not support this legislation, and it happens again, washing their blood off my shoes will not compare to trying to wash the blood off of my hands.”

The bill ultimately passed overwhelmingly on an 84-14 vote. Once signed, it will take effect on July 1, 2024.

West Virginia lawmakers overwhelmingly approve NRA-backed campus carry bill, send to governor for signing

West Virginia lawmakers passed an NRA-backed bill that will allow concealed carry permit holders to carry their firearms on the campuses of state colleges and universities.

“The National Rifle Association applauds the West Virginia Legislature’s passage of NRA-backed campus carry,” NRA West Virginia State Director Art Thomm told Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

“There is no reason why any adult who is deemed mature enough to defend his or her country at war should not be entrusted to defend themselves and others on campus. And there is no reason an adult who is allowed to carry in other parts of the state can’t be trusted when on campus,” he added.

The bill passed in the West Virginia House of Delegates on Tuesday 84-13.

If signed into law by Republican Gov. Jim Justice, West Virginia will become the 12th state in the U.S. with such legislation, alongside states like Arkansas, Georgia and Kansas. West Virginia is currently one of 20 other states that have no laws on the books preventing concealed carry holders from carrying on college campuses.

Supporters of the bill include Republican Delegate Mike Honaker, a former Virginia State Police officer who responded to the tragic Virginia Tech campus shooting in 2007 that left 32 people dead.

“I know we have to be careful about this issue,” he said. “But there’s no way that I, as someone who has lived through this and seen it with my own eyes, could forbid another free law-abiding American citizen from carrying a firearm and retaining the ability and the capacity to defend yourself or others, God forbid they ever be put in a position to do it,” he said last week as the bill advanced in state House.

Votes on the bill come just days after a shooting at Michigan State University on Feb. 13, when three students were killed and five others were injured. Critics of the bill cited the shooting in their argument against the legislation, with some college students in West Virginia attending a public hearing last week to voice their concerns.

Marshall University student E.T. Bowen said this month that some students are “terrified on campus as it is,” CBS News reported.

“We don’t need more guns to exacerbate that. This bill is like throwing kerosene on the wildfire, and it is appalling that we even need to say that while there’s still blood on the ground at Michigan State,” Bowen argued.

Thomm told Fox News Digital, however, that criminals break laws no matter if there is a gun-free zone or other rules prohibiting firearms.

“Criminals break laws regardless of boundaries or gun free zones. Law-abiding people don’t. NRA-backed campus carry has been passed in many states, and we look forward to Gov. Justice signing this life-saving legislation into law,” Thomm said.

Tenney introduces legislation to exempt firearms from bankruptcy proceedings

Press Release, U.S. Rep. Claudia Tenney

WASHINGTON, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) today introduced the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act. This bill would exempt $3,000 worth of firearms from bankruptcy proceedings, allowing Americans to maintain their Second Amendment rights through tough financial times.

Current bankruptcy law allows debtors to maintain items to support a base quality of life, including a primary residency, car, clothing, household appliances, and even musical instruments.

But there is no current exemption for a firearm that can be used for self-defense, a constitutional right. This important piece of legislation ensures that Americans can keep their firearms to defend themselves, no matter their financial state.

“No American should ever have to sacrifice their constitutional rights because of their financial situation,” said Congresswoman Tenney. “The Second Amendment is a constitutional right for all Americans, even those experiencing financial hardship. I am honored to lead this important legislation that protects the rights of gun owners everywhere, no matter their financial situation.”

Additional co-sponsors include Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-9), Rep. Randy Weber (TX-14), and Rep. Doug Lamborn (CO-5).

Close to Missouri’s SAPA with some pretty stiff penalties for violating it.

Second Amendment Preservation Act would limit enforcement of federal gun laws in Nebraska

LINCOLN, Neb. (KLKN) – The Second Amendment Preservation Act, which would nullify some federal gun laws in Nebraska, got a hearing Thursday before a legislative committee.

If the bill is passed, law enforcement would be prohibited from enforcing federal firearm laws if they conflict with Nebraska law.

Sen. Steve Halloran, who introduced the bill, said that Nebraska’s own constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and that this bill would keep those rights from being infringed upon.

Other states have passed similar legislation, and supporters say the bill would help keep the federal government from controlling the guns of citizens in Nebraska.

“The people of Nebraska depend on us to uphold and protect their constitutional rights, which is why LB 194 is necessary,” Halloran said. “At this time, 14 other states have passed legislation, making them a Second Amendment sanctuary state, and it is time for Nebraska to be included.”

Several sheriff’s offices from across the state have said they will stand up to federal overreach and attempts to regulate gun ownership.

Opponents say it would be harder to hold police accountable when they enforce some laws but not others.

Representatives of both the Omaha and Lincoln police departments spoke at the hearing, saying the legislation would create a number of complications for law enforcement and how they work with the federal government.

“We believe LB 194 in its current construct would have unintended consequences, the result of which would negatively impact community safety, more specifically gun violence,” said Matt Franken, vice president of the Lincoln Police Union.

Omaha Police Sgt. Michael Todd Kozelichki said the bill leaves more questions than answers for local law enforcement and their federal partners on what exactly they can enforce.

“LB 194 handcuffs the cooperation between local and federal law enforcement more than it handcuffs the criminals who are out there committing violent crimes,” he said.

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders will BAN drag shows in the state to ‘protect kids’ – after already putting limits on teaching critical race theory in classrooms

  • Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders will sign a bill banning drag shows from areas accessible by minors in order to ‘protect kids’
  • The bill would ultimately do away with drag storytime performances, which sees drag queens reading to students for free at public libraries
  • It’s Sanders’ latest move amid the US culture wars after she issued limits on teaching critical race theory in schools

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders is set to ban drag shows in order to ‘protect’ children after already cracking down on critical race theory in schools.

Sanders and her supporters said the bill, which would re-define drag shows as ‘adult-oriented performances,’ is meant to protect social values as it bans the shows from public areas with children despite outcry from the LGBTQ community.

Alexa Henning, a spokeswoman for the governor, said the bill was not aimed at ‘banning anything,’ but rather about ‘protecting kids’ from ‘sexually explicit drag shows.’

‘Only in the radical left’s woke dystopia is it not appropriate to protect kids,’ Henning told The Washington Post.

Continue reading “”

Sen. Hawley’s Insider Trading Bill Returns To Congress Under New Title ‘PELOSI Act.’

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) reintroduced his 2022 insider trading bill Tuesday that would ban lawmakers and their spouses from holding and trading individual stocks and force political figures to return profits to American citizens under a new title dubbed the “PELOSI Act.”

The Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act comes just over a year after Hawley introduced the original bill, in which he accuses politicians of somehow outperforming the stock market every year they hold office.

This time around, the senator’s updated version takes a jab at California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who many Republican lawmakers had slammed after her husband, Paul Pelosi, sold up to $5 million worth of shares in Nvidia, a California company that produces semiconductors, just before the House voted on a bill surrounding the domestic chip manufacturing industry.

“For too long, politicians in Washington have taken advantage of the economic system they write the rules for, turning profits for themselves at the expense of the American people,” Hawley said in a news release.

In addition to prohibiting members of Congress from taking advantage of the market and wielding their power and privilege over American citizens, The PELOSI Act would also ban said politicians from holding diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, or exempt U.S. Treasury bonds.

Six months upon assuming office, the bill would require new congressional members to divest or place prohibited holdings in a blind trust — to remain there while they are serving the American people.

Spouses of American politicians in Congress would also have to forfeit any investment profits back to the American people through the U.S. Treasury.

Violation of the Act could result in losing the ability to deduct the losses of those investments on their income taxes and other additional fines.

Earlier this month, Business Insider reported at least 78 congressional members, Democrats and Republicans alike, had violated a 2012 law known as the STOCK Act — Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act — which lawmakers designed to combat insider trading among lawmakers and force public servants to disclose their personal financial dealings, including any stock trade made by themselves, a spouse, or a dependent child.

Still, according to the report, lawmakers allegedly broke the law, citing ignorance, clerical issues, and accounting mistakes.

“As members of Congress, both Senators and Representatives are tasked with providing oversight of the same companies they invest in, yet they continually buy and sell stocks, outperforming the market time and again,” Hawley said. “While Wall Street and Big Tech work hand-in-hand with elected officials to enrich each other, hardworking Americans pay the price.”

Missouri AG prioritizing Biden social media collusion lawsuit, defending Second Amendment law

(The Center Square) – A lawsuit against President Joe Biden’s administration for alleged collusion with social media companies and defending Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act are priorities for Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey.

Litigation in both cases began while Republican U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt was serving as Missouri’s attorney general. After the State of the State address on Wednesday, Bailey, who was appointed in November to replace Schmitt, said depositions in the social media collusion case are leading toward an injunction.

“We have documentary evidence, we have testimonial evidence and we intend to seek more evidence in the coming weeks,” Bailey said in an interview with The Center Square. “We’re on an expedited discovery timeline. At some point, we’re going to get into a procedural posture where we’re going to ask for an injunction to prevent further coercion and collusion from the federal government and prevent Biden and his team from censoring speech.”

Missouri v. Biden was filed by Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry in May and they were granted a motion for discovery to expedite a possible preliminary injunction in July. In addition to releasing documents in the case, they released the transcript of a deposition of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Biden’s chief medical advisor who recently retired.

Last week, Bailey released emails from White House Digital Director Robert Flaherty and other associates to major social media platforms. It included an email from Flaherty to Facebook asking why a video by Tucker Carlson on COVID-19 vaccines didn’t violate the social media platform’s standards.

“What we’ve demonstrated and what we believe is going on is censorship because it’s unelected federal bureaucrats targeting specific speech that they disfavor and asking that it be removed from big-tech social media platforms,” Bailey said. “That’s the problem. It stifles free, fair and open debate and it undermines our First Amendment. There should be marketplace of ideas that is free from government censorship.”

Bailey said defending the Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act in lawsuits also will be a priority. The city of Arnold filed a lawsuit and St. Louis city and county and Jackson County filed a separate suit seeking to overturn the law. Both lawsuits claim the law restricts local police cooperating with federal law enforcement on gun violations.

“The Second Amendment is what makes all of the other (amendments) possible,” Bailey said. “It prevents enforcement of federal firearm regulations that exceed or violate the Second Amendment. We need to be going after criminals and not guns, first and foremost. I think most law enforcement officers in the state of Missouri agree with that. If we spent more time going after the criminals and not the guns, we will have safer streets.”

Bailey said the Missouri law is aligned with the principles of the authors of the U.S. Constitution.

“The founders understood that, number one, our rights come from God and not men,” Bailey said. “The federal constitution was a floor, not a ceiling, and the states could be guarantors of individual liberties. So the state legislature wants to expand upon the foundational rights codified in the Second Amendment and they have authority to do that. It’s about federalism and individual liberty.”

New Hampshire Bill Would Take on Federal Gun Control; Past, Present, and Future

CONCORD, N.H. (Jan. 15, 2023) – A bill introduced in the New Hampshire House would end state enforcement of a wide range of federal gun control measures; past, present and future. The passage of this bill would take an important step toward nullifying federal acts in practice and effect that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.

Rep. Tom Mannion (R) introduced House Bill 474 (HB474) on Jan. 11. Titled “Protection of Natural Right to Property and Self-defense,” the legislation would ban any entity or person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The bill is similar to the Missouri Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA) enacted in 2021.

Mannion said he was building on the momentum created by a bill passed last year that took a small step toward banning state and local enforcement of federal control. Mannion called that bill a “foot-in-the-door” and said he was “adding teeth to this law.”

DETAILS OF THE LEGISLATION

The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including:

  • Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services.
  • Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.
  • Any registration or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.
  • Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens.
  • Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

The proposed law defines a “law-abiding citizen” as “a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm.”

Continue reading “”

Murphy Introduces Bill to Protect 2nd Amendment Rights for Military Families

January 13, 2023

Press Release

Washington, D.C. – Today, Rep. Greg Murphy, M.D. (NC-03) introduced legislation to protect military families’ constitutional rights. The Protect Our Military Families’ 2nd Amendment Rights Act (H.R. 341) guarantees Second Amendment rights to the spouse of a service member. This is the first piece of legislation introduced by Rep. Murphy in the 118th Congress.

“When I was elected to Congress, I made a promise to protect my constituents’ constitutional rights and support our service members and their families. This legislation does both,” said Rep. Murphy. “Far too often, military families are forgotten when Congress addresses issues that impact our warfighters. The Protect Our Military Families’ 2nd Amendment Rights Act goes a long way in ensuring the spouses of our service members are afforded the same constitutional rights as those in uniform. I am proud to always support our outstanding military families and am hopeful this essential piece of legislation will finally see the light of day in a Republican majority.”

Summary of H.R. 341

Under current law, active-duty service members of the United States Armed Forces may purchase firearms at their assigned duty station with proper documentation. However, their spouses are not granted this same constitutional right.

This bill would amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide that a member of the Armed Forces and the spouse of that member shall have the same rights regarding the receipt of firearms at the location of any duty station of the member.

The Protect Our Military Families’ 2nd Amendment Rights Act was previously introduced in the 117th Congress by Congressman Murphy.

This bill is cosponsored by Reps. Dan Crenshaw, Mike Kelly, Byron Donalds, John Rutherford, Rick Crawford, Michael Cloud, Elise Stefanik, Paul Gosar, Dusty Johnson, Ashley Hinson, Scott Franklin, and Randy Weber.

Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act introduced

We’re dealing with a revolving door justice system in the United States. Progressive jurisdictions just bounce perpetrators and predators back and forth from the back of police cars, to holding cells, and all too often back onto the street. A bill just introduced in the House of Representatives aims to require prosecutors to prosecute certain crimes. Republican Representative Nicole Malliotakis introduced H.R.27 – Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act on January 9, 2023.

This bill requires certain state and local prosecutors to report data on criminal referrals and outcomes of cases involving murder or non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson, or any offense involving the illegal use or possession of a firearm.

The reporting requirement applies to state and local prosecutors in a jurisdiction with 380,000 or more persons that receives funding under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. The report must contain data on

  • cases referred for prosecution,
  • cases declined for prosecution,
  • cases resulting in a plea agreement with the defendant,
  • cases initiated against defendants with previous arrests or convictions, and
  • defendants charged who were released or eligible for bail.

This measure might not solve all our problems in the criminal justice system, however it will help combat the practice of supporting prosecutors who vow to outside entities they’ll allow chaos to ensue in their jurisdictions. Accountability might be achieved.

The text of the bill indicates an extensive list of original cosponsors, and at this time there are 23 total.

Ms. Malliotakis (for herself, Mr. Reschenthaler, Ms. Stefanik, Ms. Van Duyne, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Johnson of Louisiana, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Issa, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Calvert, Mrs. Lesko, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Spartz, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mrs. Cammack, Mr. McClintock, Mrs. Greene of Georgia, and Mr. Moylan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

One of the features built into the bill is that once all the prosecutors and district attorneys report to the Attorney General, the Attorney General is required to create a report that’ll be publically available.

(3) SUBMISSION TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEES.—The Attorney General shall submit the information received under this subsection to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and shall publish such information on a publicly viewable website.

Having such information reported on will arm the population, as well as those who wish to truthfully report on such statistics, with information on potential bad actors. While some of these positions are elected and others appointed, having the data for all to see can affect both categories of persons. If the bill had provisions in it that would have a little teeth, that would be nice, but we’ll just have to deal with scrutiny via public opinion as a punitive measure.

This is the first bill of 2023 that I’m reporting on. There’s already a big pile that are worthy of bringing up. We’re dealing with a rather lame duck session. The House Speaker can mutter all he wants about promises kept, but we’d be fooling ourselves if we purported that any of these pro-liberty bills or pro commonsense ones will pass both chambers, and find their way to the Resolute Desk. Are we in a better position than we were a few weeks ago? Absolutely. But as far as legislation goes, we’re going to be best situated to hold the line. Given the make-up, we’ll have to be ready for further executive overreach.

IRS Audits Targeted Poor at Higher Rate Than Millionaires in ’22

New House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said in his acceptance speech repealing the funding for “funding for 87,000 new IRS agents” will be “our first bill” – and that came amid a recent report finding a far-higher audit rate for lower-income taxpayers than millionaires.

Still, the report spins that data to suggest more agents are needed to go after millionaires more, rather than reduce the effort to scrape from the poor to fund the Democrats’ big-spending agenda.

“The taxpayer class with unbelievably high audit rates — five and a half times virtually everyone else — were low-income wage-earners taking the earned income tax credit,” Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) reported this week.
>
TRAC called the poorer taxpayers “easy marks,” but President Joe Biden is an alumnus of Syracuse, and the report does argue the IRS “doesn’t have the resources.”

Regardless, the data showed a bias to audit the poor over millionaires if you throw out “correspondence audits” that merely send a letter in the mail.

“If one ignores the fiction of auditing a millionaire through simply sending a letter through the mail, the odds that millionaires received a regular audit by a revenue agent (1.1%) was actually less than the audit rate of the targeted lowest income wage-earners whose audit rate was 1.27%!” the report read.

“While these small differences may sound trivial, the difference represented tens of thousands of low -income families. And the question remains, should these low-income families be the ones targeted when millionaires are responsible dollarwise for most tax underreporting?”

With inflation raging and recession talk still a potential drag on the economy in 2023, McCarthy’s speech vowed to try to repeal the funding of 87,000 new IRS agents in the new Congress – even with Democrats’ control the Senate and Biden is in the White House.

“There is nothing more important than making it possible for American families to live and enjoy the lives they deserve,” McCarthy said in his speech early Saturday morning. “That is why we commit to stop wasteful Washington spending to lower the price of groceries, gas, cars, and housing and stop the rising national debt.

“We pledge to cut the regulatory burden, lower energy costs for families, and create good-paying jobs for workers by unleashing reliable, abundant American-made energy.

“Our first bill will repeal funding for 87,000 new IRS agents. Because the government should be here to help you, not go after you.”

Nebraska senator confident permitless carry bill will pass

One wouldn’t picture Nebraska as being anti-gun. Then again, it’s not really. It’s just not as pro-gun as some might imagine.

That’s because, like many places, a couple of urban areas have a lot more say in matters than they should. Just enough to block permitless carry from passing last year, as a matter of fact.

Well, the lawmaker behind that bill is back with it again, only this time, he thinks it will pass.

he new legislative session is just weeks away, and one state lawmaker believes that some controversial bills have a good chance at passing.

Sen. Tom Brewer said that includes his gun rights bill, which would bring permitless concealed carry to Nebraska.

The proposal fell just two votes short of the 33 needed to overcome a filibuster last legislative session.

Brewer said in a column last week that November’s election made the Nebraska Legislature slightly more conservative, so there are finally enough votes to advance several priorities.

After the last session, Brewer told Channel 8 in June that this bill would be his top priority going into the next session.

“The very first bill that I will drop in the next session will be constitutional carry,” he said. “What the decision today has done has helped us to better shine a light on why it’s important, and to take away some of the concerns folks had about legalities.”

Constitutional carry, permitless carry, they both amount to the same thing. They mean that law-abiding citizens don’t have to ask for government permission to carry a firearm.

And they should pass it.

Critics will claim that constitutional carry will benefit bad guys. Some have started trying to frame it as “criminal carry.” What they miss is that the bad guys are already carrying guns. It’s only the law-abiding being hamstrung by permit requirements, which in Nebraska includes mandatory training for a carry permit.

That creates still more delays, all while the bad guys are just ignoring the law.

So permitless carry doesn’t empower anyone but the law-abiding.

It’s my sincere hope that Nebraska passes his measure. No one should have to take a particular class in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right, and the Second Amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms.

Permitless carry is just a step in the right direction, to be sure.

But do they have the votes? That remains to be seen. I’m not as familiar with the politics of the state as I’d like to be before speculating on it, but falling just a couple of votes shy last year is a promising sign this year. If they can get those two votes, then permitless carry is a done deal in the state and the people of Nebraska will no longer be required to jump through hoops just to get a carry permit.

Especially since there’s little evidence that training requirements yield any actual benefits except to make anti-gunners feel better.

Then again, screw poor people who want to defend themselves, right?

This guy is Gov DeSantis’ deputy press secretary, so, no joke.

Key House Republican says gun rights bills will be on 2023 to-do list

Key backers of the gun rights amendment Iowa voters have just added to Iowa’s Constitution say they’ll introduce a series of gun-related proposals in the 2023 Iowa Legislature. House Republican Leader Matt Windschitl of Missouri Valley has been involved in gun-related issues since he was elected to the House in 2006.

“There are multiple different things we’ve been trying to get done to restore freedoms in Iowa and we’ve not been able to get across the finish line on some of those things,” Windschitl said this afternoon. “I’m not at a point right now where I’m going to discuss publicly what all of those items are, but you can expect us, after this victory, and restore freedoms to Iowans that never should have been taken away.”

Windschitl and others gathered in the statehouse this  afternoon for a ceremony to mark passage of the amendment.

“Iowans now have the best protections for their fundamental right to keep and bear arms of any state in the nation,” Windschitl said.

The amendment got a majority of votes in 97 of Iowa’s 99 counties.

“Iowans have made their voice loud and clear,” Windschitl said. “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”

That last sentence is the state motto, adopted in 1847, the year after Iowa was recognized as a state. Secretary of State Paul Pate said the gun rights amendment was added to the state constitution on December 1st when statewide election results were certified.

“On November 8, Iowans voted overwhelmingly to amend the Constitution, enshrining in it the right to bear arms,” Pate said. “In fact, 65% of Iowans supported the adoption. Congratulations to all of you for your hard work and the efforts to secure its passage.”

Richard Rogers of the Iowa Firearms Coalition lobbied for the amendment as well as recent state laws on the use of weapons and gun permits.

“However, each and every improvement in the law was subject to being reversed, or worse, by the next or any future legislature,” Rogers said during the ceremony. “Now, with the ratification of this freedom amendment, as we call it, such a course will be much more difficult.”

This is the 49th amendment added to Iowa’s Constitution. It goes beyond the wording of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and says Iowa courts must evaluate any lawsuits challenging Iowa gun laws by the toughest legal standard.

Some of our neighbors to the North ……..

Canadian Provinces Refuse to Assist in Trudeau’s Gun Grab

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau banned some 1,500 makes and models of military-grade “assault-style” weapons in Canada in May of 2020, shortly after the mass killings in Novia Scotia. That ban ended licensed gun owners being allowed to sell, transport, import, or use these sorts of weapons in Canada.

At that time, Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said, “As of today, the market for assault weapons in Canada is closed. Enough is enough…. Banning assault-style firearms will save Canadian lives.”

Now, Trudeau and Canada’s Liberal government are preparing to launch the mandatory buyback of the outlawed weapons, and several provinces and territories say they won’t assist in the process.

“The most strident opponents, including the United Conservative Party government in Alberta, are suggesting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP] ‘refuse to participate,’” reported The Washington Post.

Part of the provincial government’s concern is that this gun confiscation program pushed by the Canadian federal minister in charge of the RCMP is unfunded. In a press release, Alberta’s provincial government stated that “Alberta taxpayers pay more than $750 million annually to fund the RCMP as our provincial police service. Alberta’s government expects that no tax dollars or police resources be wasted implementing a program that will not increase public safety…. Alberta is not legally obligated and has informed Ottawa it will not offer assistance.”

They also advised the commanding officer of the RCMP in Alberta that “pursuant to the Provincial Police Service Agreement (PPSA), the confiscation program is not an objective, priority or goal of the province or the provincial police service, nor is such deployment ‘appropriate to the effective and efficient delivery of police services.’ Consequently, the RCMP should refuse to participate.”

The release continued, “Despite taking this step, the federal government may still direct the RCMP to serve as confiscation agents. To prevent this from happening, Alberta will formally dispute any attempt to do so by invoking Article 23.0 of the PPSA.”

Continue reading “”