Texas Bill to Restore Legal Status to SBRs

Before it became the MP5K, the original MP5 SMG first morphed into the MP5 Navy like this SBR clone from Turner Fabrications. IMG Jim Grant

In Texas statutes, Section 46.05(a) lists some items that are forbidden to knowingly possess, manufacture, repair, or sell. The statute includes short-barreled firearms, which have been heavily regulated by the federal government since 1934. SB1596 strikes short-barreled firearms from the list of prohibited items. From SB1596:

Any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms andExplosives or otherwise not subject to that registration requirement or unless the item is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice:

(A)  an explosive weapon; or 

(B) a machine gun; [or

(C)  a short-barrel firearm;

Short-barreled firearms were in common use before 1934. Most people will immediately see the silliness of this rule. Handguns are protected by the Second Amendment. Handguns are short-barreled firearms. 

How is it that handguns are not regulated by the law regulating short-barreled rifles and shotguns?

The answer goes back to 1934. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was President. He had appointed Montana Senator Thomas Walsh as Attorney General. Senator Walsh had uncovered the Teapot Dome Scandal. Senator Walsh died on a train en route to DC. Then, President Roosevelt appointed Homer Cummings, from Connecticut, as Attorney General.

Cummings devised the scheme to pack the Supreme Court and, essentially, created the FBI. He was also a gun control advocate who proposed circumventing the Second Amendment by using the federal government’s taxing power to regulate the ownership and possession of firearms, especially handguns.

Originally, the 1934 bill required all handguns to be registered and licensed by the federal government. Firearms enthusiasts rebelled against the idea. The NRA agreed to a compromise: allow sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and silencers to be banned by extortionist taxes, but remove handguns from the bill.

At the time, there were few machineguns or silencers in private hands. The taxes imposed on silencers, short-barreled shotguns, and short-barreled rifles were 10-20 times the cost of the items, about six months’ worth of wages. The NFA was an effective ban on formerly legal items, using federal taxes as the tool.

In a curious twist, the Cummings Department of Justice never meant to include short-barreled rifles in the bill. They were included at the insistence of Harold Knutson, a representative from Minnesota on the Ways and Means committee. Knutson’s comments did not make sense, but the DOJ agreed to add them to the bill.

FDR went on to be elected to four terms. He appointed numerous federal judges, transforming the federal court system into a Progressive court system. Progressive judges were more interested in finding ways to subvert constitutional limits than in enforcing the Constitution. Multiple states endorsed the federal prohibitions, under the realization of how weak the federal “ban through taxes” was under the Constitution. Texas was one of those states. The Supreme Court has since ruled that taxes, aimed at an enumerated right protected by the Bill of Rights, are not an allowed workaround.

Why is SB1596 so relevant today?

Inflation wore away the extortionist taxes imposed by AG Cummings’ 1934 bill. More people experienced using silencers and short-barreled firearms. They saw the obvious stupidity of the 1934 law.  Texas lawmakers removed the state prohibition on silencers. Now, Texas lawmakers are moving to do the same with short-barreled firearms.

The Texas bill will not affect the federal law, except to showcase the stupidity of the federal regulation.  Ridicule is a powerful political tool.

The fundamental assumption behind the 1934 law is: Guns are bad. More guns are worse. It is a false assumption.

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

from https://ift.tt/DM4GWud
via IFTTT

Awkward: Legally-Armed Citizen Fatally Shoots Gunman in Anti-Gun Seattle

A legally armed citizen killed a teen gunman in anti-gun downtown Seattle. It may be an awkward situation for city leaders. iStock-1354934183

When a legally armed citizen intervened in a shooting in downtown Seattle, killing the suspect who had just wounded two victims, there was not a sound heard from the billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobby headquartered in the city, nor the anti-gun mayor.

It’s a rather awkward situation for Mayor Bruce Harrell and his gun ban allies, who would have the world believe guns are only bad, and gun owners are worse.

The unidentified armed bystander remained at the scene and cooperated with police. Investigators recovered the suspect’s gun, which he was carrying illegally because he was only 16, and the Samaritan was not arrested. What’s so special about this incident?

A string of far-left Seattle mayors and state legislators have been trying for years to make it difficult, if not impossible, for law-abiding citizens to carry guns in the Jet City. The city was successfully sued by the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association in 2012 after trying to ban guns in city park facilities, in direct violation of the state’s long-standing preemption law.

Subsequent attempts by the city to repeal state preemption have been rejected by the Democrat-controlled legislature.

The incident was put in perspective by Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, who observed, “In a city where political policies have resulted in reduced police manpower while placing limits on the officers who remain, it should come as no surprise that an increasing number of law-abiding citizens are now licensed to carry firearms for their personal protection. Seattle and King County have the highest number of active licenses of any county in the state. Coincidentally, just a few blocks away at about the same time, there was a fatal stabbing, which says a lot about crime in the city.”

An online poll by KOMO News, the local ABC affiliate, showed that an overwhelming 70 percent of respondents say their feeling of safety when working or visiting downtown Seattle is low.

Preliminary indications so far suggest the armed citizen’s intervention looked like a “clean shoot.” Here are the reasons for taking that perspective:

State court rulings have made it clear there is no duty to retreat in Washington state.

The Evergreen State has—despite passage of draconian gun control laws in recent years—solid statutes covering the use of force.

Under RCW 9A.16.020, force is lawful “Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

“Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary…”

Then there is RCW 9A.16.050, which covers homicide by a private citizen. This statute explains, “Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

“(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

“(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.”

Perhaps also by no surprise, coverage of the incident by the traditionally liberal and anti-gun Seattle Times quickly disappeared from the newspaper’s website, but not before it correctly acknowledged the suspect was stopped by a legally armed citizen.

According to the state Department of Licensing, King County, which encompasses Seattle, has the highest number of active concealed pistol licenses of any county in the state, more than 112,000 at the end of April. There are 705,000 active CPLs statewide, which translates to about 1 in every 9 eligible adults in the state being licensed to carry.

Former King County Sheriff John Urquhart told KING5 News, the local NBC affiliate, that the ultimate decision whether the armed citizen acted within the parameters of state law will come from the county prosecutor’s office. The former sheriff now acts as a law enforcement analyst for the station.

However, Urquhart observed, “The fact that the citizen was not arrested, was not booked, is not being described as a suspect, leads me to believe Seattle police see this as a legal and justified use of force.”

All of this may put Mayor Harrell in the uncomfortable position of having to acknowledge a legally armed bystander stopped an illegally armed would-be killer from causing further mayhem. That is, if he says anything at all. Harrell is known for dodging issues which may put him in an unfavorable position with his hard-left Seattle constituents, and it is an election year.

More than 17,000 Guns Reported Lost/Stolen from FFLs in 2024

D.C. Double Slaying: Suspect Crossed State Lines, Media Ignores Lesson

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

from https://ift.tt/Nx4bY71
via IFTTT

Police Responses to Florida Open Carriers Show Need for Direction from DeSantis

Until Florida Republicans get serious about recognizing “shall not be infringed,” their deliberate indifference to police ignorance will continue to leave citizens in danger.

Halfway through Wednesday’s Armed American Radio’s Daily Defense, with host Mark Walters and school safety advocate Ryan Petty, discussion turned to my recent AmmoLand article, “Staged Video Gets It Right About Many Cops and Ignorance on Open Carry.” That article highlighted how street officers have many times not been cognizant of the law and how their lack of awareness can put legally armed citizens at risk, including being intimidated and in danger of being shot for exercising their rights.

That was the case when “Six men who openly carried guns on their hips as they walked onto a Miami Beach pier with fishing equipment” were “assaulted” by police, even though Florida Statutes allow a person hunting, camping or fishing to openly carry a gun.

This is the level of legal acumen a lawful open carrier can expect when exercising his Constitutionally recognized rights. Note how the cop at @ 10:02 in the video below declares, “I’m a firm believer in the First Amendment [sic].”

And his recommendation a few seconds later “to put a jacket over it” — to someone who told him he does not have a concealed carry permit — would seem to open up a whole ‘nother legal pitfall:

Why open carry — which would certainly meet the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard of text, history, and tradition at the time of the Constitution’s ratification —  isn’t recognized in “The Gunshine State,” reflects shamefully on Republican legislative “leadership.” While Gov. Ron DeSantis has come out in favor of signing such a bill, Senate President and resident Vichycon Ben Albritton sides with “Only Ones” over citizens, saying “I trust my law enforcement officials. They oppose it … and I stand with them today in opposition.”

Until such time as Florida gun owners get serious about booting this guy, probably not likely because he wins by wide margins, DeSantis’s hands are tied and the danger of “law abiding” open carriers being rousted by cops prepared to escalate things to deadly force if not immediately obeyed will remain.

There is something that is in DeSantis’ power to do that can mitigate that danger without having to rely on oath-breaking Republican power players, the same thing I recommended to three reluctant successive Ohio attorneys general to do. Here’s what I asked:

How hard could it be for the state’s top law enforcement officer … to write a memorandum recognizing the legality of peaceable open carry, and then send it to every police and sheriff’s department in the state, as well as to the Highway Patrol? One would assume flow-down communications explaining your interpretations and positions on law enforcement issues are already established and routine.

And how hard would it be for the individual LE departments to transmit this information to their sworn personnel? If you’re already requiring employees to sign acknowledgments such as they understand sexual harassment rules, etc., and are placing such proof of training documents in their personnel files, how much more effort would be required to have each officer sign and date a simple acknowledgment that he or she understands that open carry is lawful?”

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has already shown a willingness to buck infringements when he refused to defend a law (supported by former Florida AG Pam Bondi) stopping citizens under 21 from legally buying a long gun.

It’s an easy ask, Florida gun rights advocates, and an easy thing to do, and would put the expectation on rights deniers to learn the law they swore an oath to uphold. Why not come up with a letter of your own, send it to the governor, publicize that you sent it, and get your lobbyists to seek a commitment when next they get face time with the man?

And if they’re already doing something like this? It isn’t taking. Tell leadership it’s on them to make sure it does.

The life you save may be one of your members.

---

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

from https://ift.tt/P2a4vBN
via IFTTT

Texas Takes Aim at Local Gun Buybacks in New Legislative Move

Texas Takes Aim at Local Gun Buybacks in New Legislative Move IMG iStock-884200682

A bill banning local governments from buying back guns on the taxpayer dime is making substantial progress in the Texas State legislature. 

On May 13, 2025, the Texas House of Representatives passed House Bill 3053, a measure that prohibits counties and cities from spending taxpayer money on gun buyback programs. 

The bill was introduced by freshman Republican legislator Wesley Virdell. It was passed with a decisive 85-56 vote after heated debate. On May 26, the State Senate passed HB 3053 by a vote of 20-11.

State Sen. Bob Hall, said to elected officials during an earlier discussion on May 26 it was a “necessary guardrail against misuse of local authority.”

Gun buyback programs are initiatives where local governments offer cash or gift cards to citizens who voluntarily turn in firearms. The stated goal of these measures is to reduce the number of guns in circulation, thereby lowering the risk of gun violence, accidents, and suicides, at least on paper.

Politicians have implemented these programs in cities across the United States for decades, often in response to spikes in gun crime or high-profile shootings.

However, the effectiveness of these programs is hotly debated. Multiple studies have found that the guns turned in are rarely those most likely to be used in crimes—often old, inoperable, or unwanted firearms. The scale of most buybacks is also too small to make a notable dent in the overall number of guns in circulation. As a result, critics argue that buybacks are more symbolic than substantive, offering little impact on public safety. 

Virdell, alluded to the case of Baltimore, Maryland, where the city held a gun buyback program that “when adjusted for inflation, they spent the equivalent of today’s money of $4.3 million. Though Virdell noted that the result was troubling: “homicides and firearm-related assaults rose by over 50 percent following the Baltimore ‘buyback.’”

“[B]ased on the studies and some of the people who’ve actually participated in these gun ‘buybacks’ … huge costs of money from the taxpayers, and it doesn’t actually have any statistical evidence that it reduces crime or suicides… in some cases, crime actually increased in those areas afterwards,” added Virdell.

Democratic lawmakers, led by Representatives Gene Wu and Trey Martinez-Fischer, pushed back against the bill. They argued that local governments should have the freedom to try different approaches to gun violence, including buybacks, if their communities support them. 

While acknowledging that buybacks may not dramatically reduce crime, they pointed to other benefits—such as providing a safe way for people to dispose of unwanted firearms and raising awareness about gun safety.

For opponents, HB 3053 is part of a broader trend in Texas politics of the state government preempting local authority, particularly in urban areas that lean Democratic. In recent years, the Texas legislature has passed laws limiting cities’ ability to regulate issues ranging from minimum wage policies to environmental standards. 

State Sen. Roland Gutierrez emphasized that while state lawmakers oversee state funds, they don’t control city budgets.

“No disrespect, but how dare you come to me and tell me what the City of San Antonio should do with their tax dollars?” Gutierrez, who represents parts of San Antonio, said.

With the Senate’s passage of HB 3053, the bill now heads to Governor Greg Abbott’s desk, where it is expected to be signed into law, making Texas one of the few states to explicitly ban taxpayer-funded gun buyback programs.

House Bill Aims to Shield Tenants’ Gun Rights in Federally Funded Housing

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

from https://ift.tt/M8ZJGx2
via IFTTT

More than 17,000 Guns Reported Lost/Stolen from FFLs in 2024

Data from the ATF shows firearms thefts from gun stores last year exceeded 17,000.

Data posted by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives shows more than 17,200 firearms were reported lost or stolen from federally licensed firearms dealers in 2024, which at least partly explains how criminals invariably seem to manage getting their hands on a gun, while also demonstrating that restrictrive gun laws don’t work.

Minnesota posted a startling 4,847 missing/stolen firearms, and according to Ashlee Sherrill, a public information officer with the ATF in St. Paul, the problem may be with a single retailer, although she could not elaborate.

Following Minnesota in the “Top Ten” for lost or stolen firearms from FFLs are Texas (984), North Carolina (661), Florida (637), California (631), Tennessee (586), Pennsylvania (568), New York (473), Indiana (453) and Georgia (405).

Regardless of how the numbers break down, it amounts to a lot of hardware making its way into the criminal element, and the downside is that law-abiding gun owners often wind up being penalized for crimes they didn’t commit. Anti-gunners gleefully use such crimes to complain about “careless gun dealers,” when nothing is further from the truth. Gun thieves are known to crash their way into gun stores. Such thefts are nothing new, and have been illustrated time after time by security videos such as this one, released in June 2024 by the Murfreesboro, Tennessee Police Department:

As noted at the ATF website, “Federal firearms licensees (FFLs) must report to ATF each missing, lost, or stolen firearm from the FFL’s inventory or collection within 48 hours of discovery of the loss or theft by completing and forwarding a Federal Firearms Licensee Theft/Loss Report (ATF Form 3310.11). In addition, the FFL must also report the firearm theft or loss to the appropriate local law enforcement agency.”

One case which underscores the necessity for retailers to keep a sharp eye on their inventory is that of the infamous “D.C. Sniper” attacks, also known as the “Beltway Sniper” case in September and October 2002. As noted at Wikipedia, over the course of 10 months, the murderous team of John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo are known to have murdered 17 people and wounded 10 others, and when they were apprehended in Maryland, the rifle they used was found to have been stolen from a popular gun store in Tacoma, Washington, some 2,800 miles away. The store apparently didn’t realize the gun had been essentially shoplifted until the Maryland arrest. Muhammad was eventually executed by lethal injection and Malvo is serving multiple life sentences in Virginia.

Like it or not, more guns are stolen from private citizens than firearms retailers, according to data from an unlikely source: Everytown for Gun Safety, the Michael Bloomberg-backed gun control group. According to an Everytown report from last year, “Research from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund finds that in cities that report data to the FBI, gun thefts from cars are the largest source of stolen guns.”

Source: ATF

Back in 2022, the National Rifle Association posted a short advisory regarding how to store firearms in vehicles, which sometimes cannot be avoided because of various policies prohibiting concealed carry in certain businesses or public buildings. Ideally, such places can be avoided, but that’s not always possible.

The Everytown report asserted, “Everytown analyzed crime data from 337 small- to large-size cities across 44 states—covering roughly 63 million people—obtained from the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Analyses revealed that in 2022, nearly 112,000 guns were reported stolen in these cities. This is likely a conservative estimate since only a third of US states legally require reporting of lost and stolen guns to law enforcement, and thus thousands of missing guns go unreported annually. While guns can be stolen in a variety of ways and places (e.g., from people’s houses or from gun shops, or individuals directly), in 2022, just over half (51 percent) were stolen from cars. This amounted to nearly 62,000 guns stolen from cars in 2022 across these 337 cities.”

A May 2024 report appearing in the Twin Cities Pioneer Press asserted, “The rate of guns stolen from cars in the U.S. has tripled over the last decade, making them the largest source of stolen guns in the country.” It is important to note this report relied on the Everytown analysis, which became the source for such stories, and was circulated by the Associated Press.

Gun theft is a problem, whether from retailers or private citizens. That much was clear when AmmoLand News looked at gun thefts from vehicles six months ago, in November 2024. However, when the gun prohibition lobby acknowledges gun thefts, it amounts to a refutation of their argument that restrictive gun control laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Apparently, this fact appears to escape their logic, or perhaps anti-gunners just hope the public won’t see the discrepancy, regardless how glaring it is.

Holiday Warning: Secure Your Gun, Don’t Leave it in Vehicle

D.C. Double Slaying: Suspect Crossed State Lines, Media Ignores Lesson

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

from https://ift.tt/dpJxFkP
via IFTTT

Social Media Posts by Know-It-Alls with Guns Spread Ignorance

Ignorance is self-defeating, even though the purveyors are blind to it. iStock-1766256041

Two stories came across the transom over the weekend from X that both involve guns and provide insights into the minds of eccentric personalities whose actions could endanger others, but mostly themselves.

The first  came as a video with commentary by Jason B. Alexander, a self-described “journalist” who is “offering to train supporters of the Palestinian people all I know about self-defense.” His stated motivation is that he anticipates retaliation against “leaders and organizers of the Palestinian movement” by “Israel and its supporters” following the targeted assassination of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, DC. His qualifications appear to be that he “was raised in the Bronx, in the 1970s. I know alot.”

To prove his skill, he aims a scoped air rifle out his window and fires it, then walks the viewer to a target in his backyard that he says, “is about 50 yards.” He shows a close-up of a paper target with several holes in it, points to one, and claims, “I got a bullseye.”

I’m offering to train supporters of the Palestinian people all I know about self-defense.

I was raised in the Bronx, in the 1970s. I know alot.

After the assassination of two Israeli agents in Washington, DC, by Elias Rodriguez, Israel and its supporters can be expected to… pic.twitter.com/RuuBlVkfZ4

— JB Nicholas (@JasonBNicholas) May 22, 2025

While there’s no way to validate when that shot was fired and from what distance, it’s hardly a remarkable achievement, but it does make some questions fair:  Why an air rifle? And, since he doxes himself announces his address, apparently so the internet can’t be used to trace communications, what do the people who live behind him think of him firing it in their direction with no solid backstop?

Alexander confirms in a subsequent comment that he is the subject of a news account that relates the time he killed a man with a “sawed-off shotgun” and “spent nearly 13 years behind bars.” That would make him a “prohibited person.”

And while New York law is unclear on felons with airguns, 6 CRR-NY 180.3  on Fish and Wildlife adds confusion into the mix:

“The terms firearm or gun shall mean any rifle, pistol, shotgun or muzzleloading firearm which by force of gunpowder, or an airgun as defined in subdivision (b) of this section, that expels a missile or projectile capable of killing, wounding or otherwise inflicting physical damage upon fish, wildlife or other animals.”

Perhaps Mr. Alexander’s skill at saying he is qualified to train others to put down Israeli retaliation will give Mossad operatives reason to pause. Then again, perhaps his time would be better spent mowing his lawn and cleaning his room.

The second instance is another head-scratcher, coming from “Christopher,” an “08’ Obama delegate and independent CD1 congressional candidate” who was complaining that Republicans do nothing on guns and block attempts to control them, When challenged on being a  gun-grabber, he responded by claiming to be a gun owner himself, and then “proved” it by posting a photo of him holding a pistol to his head with his finger on the trigger.

I go to c4 with my friend when we get a few hours on our weekends at the same time pic.twitter.com/rI9CLhqEh7

— Christopher (@tennismd7) May 25, 2025

When challenged for violating cardinal rules of gun safety, he wouldn’t back down from insisting the gun was empty and he’d checked it himself. True, it doesn’t have a magazine, and he may have even cleared the chamber, but that doesn’t alter some inconvenient truths.

Cavalier attitudes toward the Four Rules originated by “Gunner’s Guru” Col. Jeff Cooper, whom Christopher presumably knows better than, lead to careless mistakes over time. That’s evidenced by regular gun owners and “trained” police officers causing negligent discharges because they “thought” the gun was empty and touched the trigger.

Also, as gun owners, we have a moral obligation to conduct ourselves responsibly and safely. That’s especially true for a would-be politician. Posting photos like this for the world to see disregards that not everyone who does knows why it is dangerous and may emulate it themselves. That’s particularly true of young people trying to impress others. And speaking of people with no gun handling experience, one of Christopher’s proposed “solutions” to “make the country safer for all of us [is] we can do gun buybacks…”

Disregard that no less an authority than the DOJ’s National Institute of Justice concluded years ago in its “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” that:

“Evidence: Gun buybacks are ineffective as generally implemented. 1. The buybacks are too small to have an impact. 2. The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime. 3. Replacement guns are easily acquired. Unless these three points are overcome, a gun buyback cannot be effective.”

They’re also used to offer inducements to people, who never heard of Cooper’s Rules and may not know how to remove a magazine, or clear a chamber, or keep fingers or anything else from touching triggers, to pick guns up and transport them to collection centers. That hardly “makes the country safer for all of us.”

It would be a waste of time to leave replies to either Jason or Christopher. Their minds, such as they are, are obviously made up and resistant to being changed and to accepting that they may not be as “right” as they think they are. That’s what makes this a learning experience for all of us when dealing with intractable people who act like they know it all. None of us do.

I’m reminded of an article I did decades ago on “smart guns,” where I sought advice from a former Navy SEAL and expert’s expert, providing weapons and tactics training to elite military fighting personnel, civilian law enforcement tactical specialists, and authorized security professionals. With candor typical of true professionals, he admitted up front that “our staff does not know it all, nor have we ‘arrived’. We are in a constant state of learning and consider ourselves perpetual students.”

Compare that to the presumed warfighter trainer who shoots pellets out his bedroom window and the guy who insists it’s OK to put a gun to his head, both of whom refuse to consider that those who do not “respect their authoritah” may have a point.

I know who I’ll listen to.

---

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

from https://ift.tt/PXGct3x
via IFTTT

Constitutional Carry: 29 States and Hoping for More

Constitutional Carry: 29 States and Hoping for More

The ongoing fight between Pennsylvania state representative Frank Burns (D-District 74) and gun rights groups continues. Burns said he only voted against an amendment that would have required the anti-gun Speaker of the House to send House Bill 454, Constitutional Carry of a Firearm, to the floor for a vote. Key opponents claim he used a procedural trick to scuttle permitless carry in the Keystone State.

While acknowledging his 15 years of support for gun rights, the Gun Owners of America announced it is withdrawing its endorsement of Burns. GOA had previously demanded that Burns resign from the House Second Amendment Caucus.

The truth is out there, somewhere. However, constitutional carry was dead the moment it was filed, months before Burns’ vote.

While Republicans won a three-seat majority in the 2024 elections, they wound up with a one-vote deficit in the House.

Had Burns voted with the Republicans on the amendment and the floor vote, the bill very likely would have passed in the Senate – and then everything would end.

Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro has already said he would veto this bill: There’s no way Republicans could marshal a two-thirds supermajority in the Pennsylvania House to override it.

A similar roadblock faces constitutional carry in North Carolina. Democratic Governor Josh Stein has pledged to veto permitless carry in the Tar Heel State.

Senate Bill 50, Freedom to Carry North Carolina, has passed the Senate, been sent to the House, and has been languishing in the House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operation of the House since March 25.

Republicans hold the majority of seats in both chambers. There are enough Republicans in the Senate to easily override a veto, but the GOP comes up nine seats short in the House. Without the firm commitment of nine Democrats, the bill might as well sit in committee until the legislature adjourns on July 31.

All of the low-hanging fruit has been plucked; expanding constitutional carry beyond the 29 states that already have it will be challenging.

The best option is action at the federal level. However, Senate Bill 65, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, introduced with much fanfare by Texas Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on January 9, where it has stayed ever since.

House Resolution 38, the House version of the same bill, has fared far better. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC-9) introduced it on January third and it currently has 183 cosponsors. It was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On March 25, the committee considered it and sent an amended version for consideration by the full House of Representatives.

If the House approves it, the next stop is the Senate, where the House and Senate versions will need to be reconciled while Senate majority leadership tries to persuade resident RINOs Susan Collins (R?-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R?-AK) to vote with the majority and convince seven Democrats to join in. Otherwise, it will fall to the filibuster.

Making the bold assumption it passes the Senate and is signed by President Trump, SB 65/HR 38 is a very good bill, even if it falls slightly short of nationwide permitless carry, because it will be fun to see the reactions of Kathy Hochul, Phil Murphy, JB Pritzker, and Gavin Newsom, to name a few.

There’s also House Resolution 645, introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY-4) on January 23 and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary the same day. Massie’s bill was a moon shot which would have made true permitless carry the law of the land. It would be very unlikely to get unanimous support from even the Republicans.

Constitutional carry and the nationwide acceptance of our right to keep and bear arms are important issues affecting millions of Americans. However, there’s no easy path.

Constitutional carry or even just mandatory permit reciprocity can’t be added to a must-pass budget reconciliation; they aren’t financial issues. This means we have to keep up the pressure. Keep making contact with your representatives and senators: We know it works.

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago and has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

from https://ift.tt/gm2LpFT
via IFTTT