Joe Biden talked about gun control in a YouTube interview with Wired in 2020 while campaigning for the presidency. He was wrong then, and again in his recent address on fighting crime with gun control. (Snip from YouTube, Wired)
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Joe Biden may have talked tough on gun control and he may expect a great deal of action from Congress, but a new survey by Rasmussen says a majority of American voters don’t think he will get it, and that apparently includes Democrats because less than half of them believe it likely that Congress will pass new gun laws.
The National Rifle Association approached Biden’s strategy to deal with increasing violent crime with sarcasm, but Rasmussen respondents took a more serious tone, with 57 percent saying they “don’t believe it is likely Congress will pass new gun control legislation, including 21% who say it is Not at All Likely.”
The survey was conducted with 775 likely voters around the country on June 24 and 27, with a +/- 3 percentage point sampling error and 95 percent level of confidence.
With the U.S. Senate evenly divided, and the 2022 midterm elections in just over 16 months, lawmakers hoping to keep their jobs are not likely to infuriate tens of millions of gun-owning voters.
Biden has been eating crow since his remarks on June 23 in which he repeated a canard that has already been refuted by fact-checkers across the landscape.
“The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own,” Biden claimed. “You couldn’t buy a cannon.”
But Politifact quickly called the career anti-gunner on that assertion, stating, “The Second Amendment limited government power, not the rights of individuals. Laws at the time that limited firearm ownership were primarily racist, aimed at controlling Black people and Native Americans.
“Broadly,” Politifact continued, “gun regulation came decades after passage of the Second Amendment when gun technology changed. The first national gun regulation law did not rely on the Second Amendment.
But so far, the establishment media has not reported on this important issue. Instead, the media allow Biden a pass on his prevarication.
But Politifact contacted respected University of Tennessee law professor Glen Harlan Reynolds, who observed, “The Second Amendment places no limits on individual ownership of cannon, or any other arms.”
Further cementing Biden’s contention the Second Amendment always allowed restrictions on gun ownership, Politifact quoted Fordham University law professor Nicholas Johnson, who observed, “The amendment limited government action, not people.”
The fact-checker added, “Biden misrepresents what the Second Amendment says.”
According to the Rasmussen survey, a majority of citizens (54%) believe America’s founders “explicitly wanted an armed citizenry to keep potentially tyrannical governments in check.” That position got support from 61 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of Independents. Perhaps not surprisingly, only 46 percent of Democrats agree with that statement.
One potentially startling revelation in the Rasmussen report was this:
“Black voters (58%) and other minorities (69%) are actually more likely than whites (50%) to agree that America’s founders “wanted an armed citizenry” as a check against tyranny. However, black voters (40%) are more likely than whites (32%) or other minorities (33%) to believe new gun control laws would do more than stricter enforcement of existing laws to reduce gun violence in America.”
Biden’s recent claim about cannons and limits on gun ownership is not the first time he has made the error, and been called on it, so nobody can claim he didn’t know the facts.
What he said at the time—May 2020—in his interview with Wired, was stunning for someone who said he had two majors while attending the University of Delaware, history and political science.
“From the very beginning,” Biden insisted at just over eight minutes into the Wired interview, “you weren’t allowed to have certain weapons. You weren’t allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual…No amendment to the Constitution is absolute.”
Maybe, maybe not, but what is a certainty is that no politician who misrepresents history as much as Biden has done on at least two occasions is going to get away with it. He has now made the same assertion at least twice in front of an audience and been corrected both times.
Most people would acknowledge the error, but Joe Biden seems determined to make his falsehood fact. It amounts to an exercise of what is commonly known as “the big lie,” which Wikipedia defines as “a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth, used especially as a propaganda technique.”
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.
Hollywood/United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Second Amendment supporters are rightly offended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives report that the Second Amendment Foundation recently blew the whistle on in an e-mail alert smearing those who make their own firearms. If anything, it shows the blatant disregard for our Second Amendment rights that the Biden-Harris regime has.
But it also represents, in one way, a massive failure by pro-Second Amendment groups and Second Amendment supporters across the board. In the past 35 years, we have greatly improved the situation overall. We went from few states even offering a fair system for concealed carry to 20 states going to constitutional carry. We’ve seen the Supreme Court set the groundwork for ultimately upholding rulings like those of Judge Benitez, especially with a pro-Second Amendment majority on the court – not counting Chief Justice Roberts.
But much of this may not matter. Why? Because Bloomberg and his stooges have been left to spread anti-Second Amendment extremism via pop culture. Let’s take one metric into account: The NA has about 840,000 followers on Twitter. The Second Amendment Foundation has a bit over 32,000. GOA has a little under 196,000. This site has just under 83,000.
Kim Kardashian, who used a Celebrity Family Feud appearance to raise money for Bloomberg’s Everytown anti-Second Amendment extremist group, has just under 70 million followers. To put that into perspective, that is anywhere from 12 to 14 times the number of members the NRA, the largest pro-Second Amendment organization, has (depending on estimates). Alyssa Milano, who has engaged in plenty of anti-Second Amendment extremism, has about 3.6 million followers, or more than twice the membership of GOA (1.5 million, give or take). They are not the only folks in Hollywood/pop cultureattacking our rights, either. Even CMT has signed on with Bloomberg’s bull.
Put it this way, while we rightly fought in the political/legislative arena, our enemies – and yes, the anti-Second Amendment extremists like Bloomberg and the politicians he backs are enemies – went to work with pop culture. In essence, Hollywood provides portrayals of firearm use that are unrealistic when used by heroes (just about any “gun-fu” flick violates basic firearms safety rules), but which are often peddling blood libels when it comes to private ownership.
And it matters. The fact of the matter is that pop culture matters. When the fight for our freedoms is becoming a full-spectrum fight that includes pop culture, corporate boardrooms, Silicon Valley cubicles, and even your doctor’s office, Second Amendment supporters need to play some serious catch-up for the court rulings to have a fighting chance.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
“Gun violence is a public health crisis in communities of color, and the Second Amendment has roots in slavery.” This is the opening remark in an article titled, “Racial equity agenda must include gun control,” as published in the Leftist website, “Crosscut,” by Clyde Ford, March 8, 2021.
In tandem with the incendiary myth of “critical race theory,” thrust on the American public, and especially on our children by an entrenched Marxist-dominated and controlled Executive Branch and Democrat-Party controlled Legislative Branch of Government, quietly but inexorably and insidiously penetrating, permeating, and percolating through the Nation’s public educational system and even through the military—and all with the help of a seditious, legacy Press, arrogant Marxist academia, and the inordinately wealthy, powerful, and abjectly ruthless Neo-liberal Globalist technology mega-monopolies—is the application of erroneous and dangerous critical race theory to the Nation’s fundamental Rights and Liberties.
A new myth recently being propagated by Obstructors and Destructors of a free Republic and being projected into the psyche of the American citizenry is that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights has its roots in racism:
“The Second Amendment is deeply rooted in America’s racist past, and fundamentally connected to the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and others. But to make this connection, one must be a “strict constructionist,” someone who looks beyond the Constitution’s written word to the underlying motives of the founders.
At the Second Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in 1787, Southern delegates were fearful the U.S. Constitution they were drafting would restrict their right to own, sell and transport slaves. In response, Northern delegates crafted a document in which nearly one-quarter of the clauses appeased the slaveholding South, and the words “slave” or “slavery” never appeared. The Second Amendment was key among these appeasements.
Patrick Henry, a Virginia slaveholder, opposed ratifying the Constitution, fearing it would cede state control of slave patrols (politely called “militias” by the founders) to the federal government. James Madison, favoring ratification, said in a debate with Henry, “If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrection. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress.”
Take either side, Henry’s or Madison’s, local or federal, and the same fundamental issue remained: preserve slavery at all costs.” From “Crosscut,” supra.
This, in essence, as set forth in Clyde Ford’s article, is the argument perpetrated on the American people by Anti-Second Amendment Marxist zealots and, very recently, perpetuated by these Anti-American, Anti-Constitutionalist elements with a frantic, frenetic sense of urgency, for they are hell-bent on making as many substantive changes to a free Constitutional Republic as their fevered sociopathic minds can conceive.
In their vision of the ideal political, social, economic, and cultural societal construct, individual thought and expression are not only discouraged, but are not to be tolerated; and a Sovereign people whose sovereignty is made clear in the words of the Constitution and whose sovereignty is assured by virtue of their God-given Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of Self and Family against those two-legged predators who would dare to harm them physically and in defense against an oppressive, repressive bloated Government that would dare to intimidate them, and to subjugate them, and to reduce them to penury. An armed American citizenry is, to these Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists, an anathema. And these reprehensible and ruthless forces are constantly devising ways to defeat exercise by the citizenry of their unalienable, immutable, illimitable, natural right to keep and bear arms.
Although not a new idea, having had its beginnings going back at least as far as the last two decades of the Twentieth Century, the myth has gained renewed attention and vigor from Progressive and Radical Left social media, and Left-wing news organizations, and Marxist academicians. The myth of the Second Amendment having a racist origin, being propagated today is not accidental.
The claim of ‘racism’ is, in fact, a major strategy employed by both the Marxists and Neoliberal Monopolist Globalists as they go about attacking and undermining the very foundation of a free Constitutional Republic. These Anti-American, Anti-Constitutionalist forces apply the appellation of RACISM with complete abandon, and amplify it, most notably to:
Our Nation’s History
Our Nation’s Founding Fathers
Our Nation’s Founding Documents
Our Nation’s Heritage
Our Nation’s Institutions
Our Nation’s Culture
Free Market Capitalism
Our Nation’s Fundamental Rights And Liberties
The Basic Ethical Tenets Of Christianity
Yes, even our Bill Of Rights, Christian Sensibilities, And Judeo-Christian Ethic And Ethos are being senselessly and mercilessly attacked by America’s Marxists, and America’s Neoliberal, Globalist monopolists as “RACIST.” And in that, the American people are being systematically robbed of everything they hold dear.
And why are these Destructive elements in our Nation employing the charge of racism to everything Americans cherish? These destructive forces and influences of atheism and Anti-nationalism are attacking such things because they denote the importance of and indeed the essence of American identity and American cohesion rooted in FAMILY, Country, Personal Autonomy, Individual Responsibility, And Integrity Of Selfhood.
The forces of atheism—Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist Monopolists—can have none of that! They have replaced the aforesaid sacred, invaluable treasures of our Nation, upon which the very BEING of our Nation and our ancestral memory depends, with a radically new political, social, and economic paradigm:
Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion
Of all the schemes falling under this paradigm of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—a paradigm operating, too, as an irrepressible and boisterous MANTRA of the Destructors of our Nation, the fact that they are now applying the charge of “racism” very specifically to one fundamental, unalienable, immutable, natural right, demonstrates the importance these Destructors place on the Second Amendment.
The problem for the Obstructors and Destructors of our Nation is that, despite the consolidation of power, they know full well that however well they might cajole Americans to accept many of the Marxist programs, and notwithstanding their successes in whittling away the right of free speech, and freedom of association, and notwithstanding their major successes in destroying the privacy of one’s personal effects, the Counterrevolution of 2021 cannot have a concrete effect and lasting success as long as Americans possess firearms.
Claiming the Second Amendment has its roots in racism is just one more avenue of attack, preposterous as the claim is. Marxists will say anything, however absurd or inconsistent their remarks, if it furthers their agenda, and they need to make haste on defeating the Second Amendment before the 2022 midterm elections and the very real possibility of losing control of Congress. This is their most difficult but most critical task.
After all, an armed citizenry is the first and last bastion of a Free People—the final FAIL-SAFE mechanism to ensure the continued existence of a Free Constitutional Republic and a Sovereign American people.
It was force of arms—This And This Alone—that enabled a ragtag group of colonists to defeat the might and power of Great Britain, that made possible at all the success of the American Revolution Of 1776. No less, it is only by force of arms that the American people can hope to prevent the American Marxist Counterrevolution Of 2021 from succeeding. It isn’t that Americans will be compelled to resist Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist Monopolists by force of arms. It doesn’t have to come to that. It is in the exercise of the right that the threat to a Tyrannical Marxist Government. Tyrants cannot and will not abide a population of armed citizens. Tyrants Never Have Abided An Armed Citizenry And Never Will.
But most Americans do have firm convictions concerning the necessity of preserving the Republic; realizing that loss of the Republic means loss of Country. Only in the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms can both a free Republic and the authority of the American people as sole, supreme Sovereign be preserved. And the reality of this sits firmly in the psyche of the American citizenry, and it is a thing not so easily dislodged. And the Marxists and the Neoliberal Globalists know this all too well and that makes them frustrated and, therefore dangerous, for in their anguish to dissolve the Country as a Free Constitutional Republic and to bring the American people to their knees, they might light a powder keg.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
Official Communication by Marion P. Hammer Unified Sportsmen of Florida Executive Director NRA Past President
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has SIGNED HB-259 ~ Church Carry, img iStock
Florida – -(AmmoLand.com)- Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis (R) has signed into law, HB-259 Church Carry. The bill took effect immediately.
HB-259 Church Carry
HB-259, The Church Carry bill authorizes persons who have concealed weapons or firearms licenses to carry firearms on property of churches, synagogues, or any other religious institutions, unless specifically prohibited to do so by the church, synagogue, religious institution, or other property owners.
The House bill was sponsored by Rep. Jayer Williamson (R) and Rep. Cord Byrd (R) and Co-Sponsored by the following: CoSponsors: Andrade, Bell, Beltran, Brannan III, Buchanan, DiCeglie, Duggan, Fernandez-Barquin, Fetterhoff, Fine, Fischer, Grall, Gregory, Harding, Hawkins, Ingoglia, Leek, Maggard, Maney, Massullo, Jr., McClain, Overdorf, Payne, Roach, Robinson (W), Rommel, Roth, Sabatini, Salzman, Shoaf, Sirois, Smith (D), Snyder, Tuck, Yarborough
The Senate bill was sponsored by Sen. Joe Gruters (R) and Co-Sponsored by the following: CoSponsors: Albritton, Baxley, Bradley, Brandes, Broxson, Hutson, Rodrigues (R), Rodriguez (A), Simpson
Nothing screams peaceful return to normalcy like threatening gun owners with airstrikes and nuclear weapons. IMG iStock-85213614
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- President Joe Biden is at it again. The Commander-in-Chief quite literally threatened Americans with unprecedented military action in an attempt to justify the most radical anti-gun agenda ever thrust on the nation.
History, facts, and even the U.S. Constitution don’t matter when it comes to his nouveau interpretation of the Second Amendment. The more President Biden speaks on guns, the more he’s turning out to be the least trusted man to understand them and their place in America.
President Biden’s remarks from The White House, with the U.S. Attorney General standing by his side, completely missed the purpose of the Second Amendment. The president attempted to justify banning modern sporting rifles (MSRs) and standard capacity magazines by reinterpreting the Second Amendment as a Constitutional clause to protect hunting in America.
Rights, Not Needs
He said, “…no one needs to have a weapon that can fire over 30, 40, 50, even up to 100 rounds unless you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests or something.”
That’s not what the Second Amendment is about. It’s a Bill of Rights, not needs and anytime anyone in the government attempts to dictate to Americans what their needs are, be worried. The president wasn’t done, however.
“And I might add: The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own,” President Biden said. “You couldn’t buy a cannon.”
Actually, Americans could own cannons then and still can. In fact, America relied on private citizens and their cannons for military success. The Austin American-Stateman reported this when President Biden attempted to peddle this same falsehood during the presidential campaign.
“Privateers were privately owned and operated ships that in wartime captured enemy ships for profit,” the newspaper reported. “While privateers received a license from the government that allowed them to avoid being prosecuted for piracy, they were not a part of the official navy. So any cannons they set sail with (or that they seized from the enemy) would be private property, not the property of the government or the regular military.”
Washington Post fact-checked the president’s preposterous claim not once, but twice, and gave him Four Pinocchios, the most that can be given. Politifact rated the statement as “False.”
Did He Just Threaten Nukes?
If that wasn’t bad enough, President Biden went so far as to threaten the use of unprecedented military force against American citizens to make the case to ban guns.
“Those who say the blood of lib- — ‘the blood of patriots,’ you know, and all the stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government,” President Biden explained. “Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots. What’s happened is that there have never been — if you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
“The point is that there has always been the ability to limit — rationally limit the type of weapon that can be owned and who can own it,” he added.
Setting aside the fact that this wasn’t the first time President Biden threatened military force against American citizens, he actually justified why the Framers had the foresight to ensure the American citizens were never left without the means to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
The only part of what the president claimed that came close to the truth was restrictions on who could possess a firearm. The federal government placed no restrictions, but states did. They banned black slaves and indigenous Americans from the right to keep and bear arms. That’s hardly a historical point to make a case for disarming Americans today. As we have noted before, the origins of gun control are rooted in racism.
Set the Record Straight
David Harsanyi, writing for National Review, pointed out that President Biden not only edited history to fit his anti-gun narrative, he also edited quotes. The quote referenced by the president is derived from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to William Stephen Smith, son-in-law of John Adams. The full quote reads: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
A government that would threaten the lives and liberty of its own citizens is exactly the reason the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the list of things the government couldn’t do. When it comes to guns, it’s clear – shall not be infringed.
President Biden is the last person who should be dictating gun policy to America. Time and again he speaks about a subject of which he has no practical understanding of, at best, or totally ignorant of, at worst.
President Biden infamously told his own wife to blindly fire two blasts of a shotgun if there was ever an intruder. This advice was actually invoked in a court case, where the accused, Jeffrey Barton, was charged with aggravated assault. Prosecutors ended up dropping those charges and instead charged him with police obstruction, of which he was convicted.
President Biden once argued to ban 9mm Glocks, claiming in an interview with Charlie Rose that he could kill more people with a .38-caliber revolver. He also oddly told police they should shoot “unarmed” attacking criminals wielding knives “in the leg.” Police ripped that suggestion. Fox News reported the Fraternal Order of Police said it was “completely ridiculous,” “unrealistic” and a “pandering talking point.”
President Biden is the last person America should be looking to for firearm policy. His ideas are beyond ignorant. They’re dangerous.
About The National Shooting Sports Foundation
NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org
SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO –-(Ammoland.com)- On January 1st, 2020, The Puerto Rico Weapons Act of 2020 went into effect to bring Puerto Rican law into greater alignment with US law. The act made it easier for Puerto Ricans to own and carry firearms.
The law turned Puerto Rico into a “shall issue” territory for the issuance of an ownership license and concealed carry permits. Before the new law, it was almost impossible for citizens of the island to navigate the confusing maze of requirements to be able to own and carry a gun. The new law also recognized all other concealed carry permits from the United States. It seems like gun ownership has exploded since the change of the Draconian firearms law.
This number is actually down by 4% from April of 2021, which was another record-setting month for gun sales. Gun shops have sprung up all over the island paradise, leading to Puerto Ricans being able to acquire guns, and they did so in droves.
Puerto Rico used to have a “may-issue” license scheme to own a firearm before the new law passed in 2019 and went into effect in 2020. In the past, the prospective gun owner would have to spend several thousand dollars in attorney fees to appear in front of a judge to plead their case for owning a firearm. There would be no guarantee their license would be granted.
The requirement for pleading your case in front of a judge is now gone. Once a person receives their license to buy a firearm, they also receive a concealed carry permit automatically. The permit and license are one and the same. Gun owners can also own short-barreled rifles and shotguns without getting a tax stamp and going through the national firearms act requirements because the island considers tax stamps to be a form of “taxation without representation.” SBRs and SBSs are sold over the counter as regular firearms.
The explosion in gun ownership in 2021 could be due to the backlog of processing of firearm license applications. According to the law, the territory has 45 days to approve or deny a gun license. It is currently taking Puerto Rico about a year to issue a new firearms license. That delay could be the reason why we are seeing an explosion in gun ownership on the island in 2021.
Even though that the Puerto Rican government is far exceeding the 45-day mandate, they claim they are within the law. The government claims the timeline doesn’t begin until the future gun owner files their paperwork. All paperwork must be filed in person with their local police through an appointment. The clock will not start ticking until that point in time.
Right now, it is taking a year to get the appointment with the police department. The island nation is claiming the bottleneck is due to COVID-19 and budget cuts. But the long delay hasn’t discouraged Puerto Ricans from getting their firearms licenses. There are no signs that the buying spree on the island is slowing down.
Even though there is still licensing requirement, and to many gun-rights activists, this runs afoul of the right to bear arms, Puerto Ricans are embracing guns, and gun culture.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Only proponents of a dystopian future will demand technology render an armed citizenry obsolete. Photo Courtesy of Jeremy Tremp for NRA-ILA
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The Second Amendment protects modern weapons,” Judge Roger T. Benitez observed in his landmark Miller v. Bonta ruling striking down California’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. He was citing Caetano v. Massachusetts, a 2016 United States Supreme Court decision vacating a woman’s conviction for carrying a stun gun for self-defense.
“The Court has held that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,’” the High Court, citing the Heller case, unanimously held. “In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining ‘whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.’”
Aside from the obvious, no-nonsense assertions of Founding-era voices such as Tench Coxe (“every terrible implement of the soldier”) and James Madison (see “militia” observations in Federalist No. 46), it helps to understand another gun-grabber lie, that the Founders only had single-shot muskets and couldn’t have imagined technological advancements leading to more lethal weaponry.
Firearms technology from long before their time included Fourteenth Century multiple-barreled volley guns and a design by Leonardo DaVinci for a rotating triple-barrel breech-loading cannon. The Founding Era had already seen pepperbox revolvers, Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifles, cartridges to combine shot and powder, the British breech-loading Ferguson rifle, the 11-cylinder crank-operated Puckle gun, and the Girandoni air rifle, capable of firing 22 .46 caliber balls and that had actually been used by the Austrian army 11 years before the Bill of Rights was ratified. And the above is by no means an exhaustive list.
The Founders were enlightened men, schooled in classical, political, and legal history, aware of current developments (and in cases like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, innovators and inventors themselves), and visionaries with eyes toward the future, and to “secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to … Posterity.”
Oblivious to that, Constitutional and historical illiterates, like the head of the oxymoronically named “Texas Gun Sense,” are getting ink spreading astonishingly ignorant assertions like “There weren’t automatic weapons or 100-round magazine capacities in the guns 100 years ago.” And, like useful idiots, they’re making such moronic pronouncements for Chinese communist propagandists (who want Americans disarmed and live Chairman Mao’s maxim that “Political power grows from the barrel of a gun”).
That’s bad enough, but the grabbers then bring those arguments into court cases and equally corrupt judges then create “settled law.” As the Brady Center argued in a brief supporting the State of Maryland’s semiauto and magazine ban:
“Suppose, for example, that a new, unregulated and highly lethal weapon were developed before a statute was enacted. When first offered for sale, the weapon would not be protected because it would not be in common use. However, under Plaintiffs’ theory, if sales of the weapon grew explosively over the next year, prior to any legislation, then the weapon would, within that short time frame, become constitutionally protected, even though a ban would have been permissible had the legislature acted just a few months earlier. Such an approach makes little sense.”
That’s the crux—if new developments in weaponry can be denied to We the People, then it’s just a matter of time before the disparity between what the government has and what the people have will be as wide as if we were relegated to Brown Bess muskets and flintlocks against modern infantry. Unless “in common use at the time” is held to mean by soldiers in the field, with real “weapons of war,” as opposed to a sporting arms popularity contest, the Second Amendment will be nullified as a last-resort defense against foreign and domestic tyranny.
To argue otherwise is to argue the Founders thought sending an outmatched yeomanry to their slaughter was “necessary to the security of a free State.” That’s insane.
We’re well on our way along with that, though, notably with the National Firearms Act restricting the transfer of militia-suitable arms to tribute-paying supplicants meeting overlord approval, and the illegitimate (whether a real vote was taken or not) Hughes Amendment denying post-1986 select firearms to all but government troops and enforcers. I’d argue that one of the most in-your-face tyrannical phrases ever constructed is:
“RESTRICTED FOR GOVERNMENT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY”
“Things to Come” was my Second Amendment column in the January 2002 issue of Guns & Ammo magazine. I wrote a bit about the bans but focused on developing technology, definitely stuff the Founders would have never imagined — as if that’s supposed to make a difference. I always began those articles with a quote to set the tone, and for this one, I borrowed from H.G. Wells in The Shape of Things to Come:
“We have declared the Declaration of Independence is inoperative…”
How that could happen isn’t hard to see.
“It’s the difference between a bow and arrow and a modern rifle,” I quoted an executive describing his company’s Objective Individual Combat Weapon System, a weapon that could “hit targets completely behind barriers.”
I cited articles on supposedly “less than lethal” microwave weapons that could burn the skin or temporarily blind, or “tetanize” (paralyze skeletal muscles). If stun guns are “protected,” why wouldn’t they be?
But who needs phasers set on “stun” when the real thing is being developed to vaporize targets Star Trek-style, along with assurances that “advances will be made and power plants will be shrunk and one day it will dominate the battlefield”?
Since when have rayguns not been seen as the great future equalizer, and who thinks keeping them away from the bad guys will work any better tomorrow than what we see happening today?
“Just remember, not so long ago your pocket calculator would have filled a room, requiring programmers, technicians and keypunch operators, and cell phones, laptops, and GPS units would have been considered no more plausible than … paralyzer beams and death rays,” I wrote. Unarguably, those advances are now all “in common use.”
“It’s been said a battle isn’t won until a man with a rifle occupies and controls the field,” that article concluded. “Someone probably once said the same thing about spears.”
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.
Ocasio-Cortez proving her detractor’s correct with her hypocrisy. IMGiStock 1168671348
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- By now, tens of millions of Americans have seen the video, and their reaction has been anything but ‘hysteria.’ A masked criminal firing several rounds at a tumbling victim within point-blank range, two small children caught in the middle.m
U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) should’ve seen the footage by now. It happened in her backyard after all, in a Bronx, N.Y., neighborhood and her congressional district includes portions of the Bronx.
The recent incident is just one in a larger trend of spiking criminal violence as Americans have seen the consequences of rising calls to ‘defund the police,’ slashed law enforcement budgets and criminals receiving ‘get out of jail’ cards from prosecutors. They’ve had enough and millions have taken the completely reasonable action of lawfully purchasing a firearm. On a virtual town hall event with fellow ‘Squad’ member Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), Rep. Ocasio-Cortez called their reaction ‘hysteria.’
Security For Me, Not For Thee
More than 8.4 million. That’s how many first-time firearm purchasers were driven off the fence in 2020 and into the local community retailer to buy a gun. The reasons vary and are all worthy; hunting, recreational shooting, and target practice, but most commonly for self-defense.
Eddie Lawrence of Orlando, Fla., is one of the millions of first-time gun buyers this year and he was looking for peace of mind and protection for his home and family so he bought a handgun from a local Orlando gun store. “Home security,” Lawrence told News Channel 13. “I don’t need to carry it out in public, that is not the reason of me buying it. It’s to protect my family and my home.” NSSF firearm retailer survey data shows handguns were the most common purchase with an average price of $594.95.
That’s not good enough for either Rep. Ocasio-Cortez or Rep. Bowman. Despite mocking first-time firearm purchasers as giving in to the crime ‘hysteria,’ the two representatives favor strict gun control, support efforts to defund the police, and yet both spent thousands of taxpayer dollars on private armed personal security details.
“Defunding the police means defunding the police,” Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said on June 30, 2020, statement. “It doesn’t mean budget tricks or funny math.” However, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has paid more than $31,000 for private armed security services in 2021 already.
Rep. Bowman on the other hand, according to a report, “asked for and received a special police detail to guard his Yonkers, N.Y., home.”
Coast to Coast
As anyone who’s paying attention knows, the spiking crime isn’t only a New York problem. From Atlanta to Pittsburgh, to Kansas City, Chicago, and Denver, and all the way to Oakland, Calif., law-abiding citizens are legitimately worried for their safety and the safety of their families. In Oakland, Calif., the city council just this week diverted $17 million from the police budget, in a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Police Chief LeRonne Armstrong condemned the recent rising violence in his city and laid the blame directly at the feet of politicians calling for slashed police budgets and the city leaders who approved the cuts.
“So we see clearly that crime is out of control in the city of Oakland. And our response was for fewer police resources,” Chief Armstrong said. The two members of the Oakland city council who voted against the budget cuts were from the two council districts that experience the highest crime.
In the Golden State, nearly 1.2 million new firearms were registered in 2020 and according to local reporting, “gun sales show no signs of slowing down.” Even local progressive activist Stacy Williams bought her first gun, recognizing the severity of her safety concerns, saying “So how does a single woman protect herself? If the police won’t help, you know?”
These real concerns for personal safety are far too common across the country and are far from the ‘hysteria’ that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez would have you believe.
Not Paying Attention
Elected officials like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Bowman, and others who continue to push policies that limit the ability of local law enforcement to keep communities safe remain surprised at record firearm sales month after month. They shouldn’t be. Polling from numerous outlets shows support for more gun control declining and at the lowest levels in several years, including a drop of several points among self-described Democrats.
Americans want safety. If it cannot be assured by local police whose budgets have been cut, then they will lawfully take their security concerns into their own hands. If politicians like Reps. Ocasio-Cortez and Bowman continue to curtail their ability to do so, voters may very well vote them out. That’s not hysteria.
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
Texas Removes Ban on Gun Mufflers, Silencers, Suppressors
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On 15 June, 2021, Governor Greg Abbott signed Texas HB 957 into law. The new law removes the Texas prohibition on firearm suppressors, commonly known as silencers or gun mufflers. From the bill:
“Firearm suppressor” means any device designed, made, or adapted to muffle the report of a firearm.
From the legislative history, it appears silencers, suppressors or gun mufflers were first banned in Texas in 1973. Although they were banned in Texas law, there was an affirmative defense from prosecution if the gun mufflers were legally possessed under federal law, as shown in this AmmoLand article from 2014.
As you can see, lawful registration in accordance with the National Firearms Act is a “defense to prosecution”. In Texas, any “defense to prosecution” has to be disproven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt is established that the item in question is properly registered, the state requires that the defendant be acquitted.
Texas changed the affirmative defense to clear law with the passage of HB 1819 in 2017. It removed the sweeping prohibition of silencers from Texas law, but granted sovereignty over silencer regulation to the federal government. The federal government requires a payment of a $200 tax and numerous regulatory requirements to possess such items. From the federal statutes:
The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.
Silencers will no longer be banned under Texas law when HB 957 goes into effect on 1 September, 2021.
HB 957 enacts strong anti-commandeering language.
Texas state resources shall not be allowed to enforce the federal National Firearms Act with respect to silencers, suppressors, or gun mufflers. If any Texas official aids in the enforcement of NFA silencer law, they are subject to losing any grant funds from the State of Texas for the following fiscal year. From HB 957:
Sec. 2.103. STATE GRANT FUNDS. (a) An entity described by Section 2.101 may not receive state grant funds if the entity adopts a rule, order, ordinance, or policy under which the entity enforces a federal law described by Section 2.102(a) or, by consistent action, allows the enforcement of a federal law described by Section 2.102(a).
(b) State grant funds for the entity shall be denied for the fiscal year following the year in which a final judicial determination in an action brought under this subchapter is made that the entity has violated Section 2.102(a).
Once the law goes into effect, people in Texas will have to work at being prosecuted for the possession of a suppressor without an NFA tax stamp.
How would anyone know if the suppressor is possessed with a tax stamp or not, unless the possessor is in the habit of bragging about not having a tax stamp, or if they broadcast their possession of an unregulated suppressor on social media?
Both such situations have occurred.
There may be prosecutions for illegal importations of suppressors. There have been a couple of those in the last two years, in the entire USA.
Texas is the largest market for NFA items in the USA. There were 401,861 silencers registered with the ATF in Texas as of April, 2020. In 2011, there were 36,204.
This correspondent found only one Texas prosecution for an illegal silencer in Texas, in the last 5 years. It was Rick Montevealvo in Houston, in 2019. There were multiple other charges and warrants. Montevealvo had no criminal record, but had a considerable record of mental issues.
The Texas reform of silencer law is part of the broad movement to reform or repeal the National Firearms Act.
Arkansas repealed its ban on silencers in 2019. Texas law goes further, with the strong anti-commandeering provision.
From this correspondent’s review of state firearms laws, as collected by the ATF, 22 states do not have a state prohibition on the possession of silencers.
There is more. HB 957 sets up a test case of the extraordinary powers which have been given to the federal government by the Supreme Court, under the current bizarre interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Those implications will be discussed in a future article.
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.
Governor Phil Murphy has questionable connections, probable cronyism, with those dealing with New Jersey. He has approved a Big-time anti-gunner working in New Jersey’s finance office!
New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- Over the last year I’ve covered several stories that highlight and outline the incredibly close ties the anti-freedom, gun-grabbing groups have with New Jersey’s Governor Phil Murphy’s office.
When you talk about a swamp, things don’t get much swampier than the situation in New Jersey.
In an Open Public Records Act (W171220) obtained by AmmoLand News (embedded in full below), there is some pretty compelling information in there.
First, as the title suggests, there was information that NJ’s former “Gun Czar”, William “Bill” Castner did not quite like the feel of in a press release. The email exchange occurred between Kevin A. Quinn, the Board Chairmen of Brady (AKA Handgun Control Inc), and Castner on April 23, 2019. Quinn was running past Castner his draft and apparently, it was not 100% acceptable, asking for some changes. For your review, find included both versions Quinn wrote, and the published version, so you can decide if “they” are trying to hide anything:
Draft One:
Brady has established crime guns initiatives in three major US cities: Los Angeles, Oakland/Stockton and Milwaukee. In each of initiatives, Brady partners with city officials, local law enforcement and community activists: to educate communities on the social and economic injustice of trafficked crime guns; to identify the sources of crime guns; and to reform or shootdown “bad apple” dealers through potential litigation or enforcement actions. Brady brings its institutional knowledge; its programmatic experience; and its long history of gun industry litigation to these impacted communities. In New Jersey, Brady will leverage of its deep experience to work with the mayors, city officials and municipal police departments of the 5 largest New Jersey cities which comprise the fact majority of gun crime and gun homicides in the state. these cities includes: Newark, Camden, Paterson, Jersey City and Trenton.
What did Castner say?
Looks good Kevin. I’m wondering right now if we can delete “5” and simply state major cities, and delete singling out cities at the end. Back and forth today with the front office staff about whether we should expand so as to not exclude other cities.
Was this about excluding other cities? Or about not so blatantly including the worst cities in the state? Kevin had no issues whipping up something new, this is the draft Quinn sent back:
Brady has established crime guns initiatives in three major US cities: Los Angeles, Oakland/Stockton and Milwaukee. In each of initiatives, Brady partners with city officials, local law enforcement and community activists: to educate communities on the social and economic injustice of trafficked crime guns; to identify the sources of crime guns; and to reform or shutdown “bad apple” dealers through potential litigation or enforcement actions. Brady brings its institutional knowledge; its programmatic experience; and its long history of gun industry litigation to these impacted communities. In New Jersey, Brady will leverage of its deep experience to work with the mayors, city officials and municipal police departments of major New Jersey cities which comprise the vast majority of gun crime and gun homicides in the state.
Okay, so they excluded the city names and made a few tweaks here and there. I would have added in the country to the end of the statement, but I digress. Where did that statement end up? A press release talking about the Brady partnership and the newly launched (at that time) Rutgers “Gun Violence Research Center” dated April 29, 2019. Almost a week after the start of the talks, similar verbiage popped up:
Brady has established crime gun initiatives in three major cities across the U.S.: Los Angeles, Oakland/Stockton, and Milwaukee. In each city, Brady partners with local officials, law enforcement, and community activists to:
Educate communities on the social and economic injustice of trafficked crime guns;
Identify the sources of crime guns; and
Reform or shut down gun dealers violating the law through potential litigation or enforcement actions.
Brady brings its institutional knowledge, programmatic experience, and its long history of gun industry litigation to these impacted communities. In New Jersey, Brady will leverage its deep experience to work with mayors, city officials, and municipal police departments across the state. The program will be run out of the New Jersey Center on Gun Violence Research at Rutgers, which is only the second center in the country to conduct multifaceted research on the causes, consequences, and solutions to gun violence.
Last year, New Jersey became the first state to publicly release firearms trafficking data, pledging to release the information on a monthly and quarterly basis. That data, which shows where crime guns originate, will help guide and inform the partnership in a new and innovative fashion. The state has also passed a number of significant gun safety laws in recent years, including a package of bills to implement extreme risk orders and expand background checks on private sales.
More information about the new initiative will be made available in the coming weeks.
They very conveniently left out mention of any crime-ridden New Jersey Cities or how Camden was once the murder capital of the United States. Having to dive deep into those cities, the failures of policy, the failures of leadership, etc. does not really have to occur. Camden, Newark, and Trenton are synonymous with violent crime to most everyone in the country. At least those who watch the crime statistics.
What else interesting happened from the date of the first draft of the email to the rollout of the press release? Looking at another press release dated April 26, 2019, we can learn the following:
Governor Phil Murphy today appointed Kevin Quinn as Chairman of the New Jersey Economic Development Authority (EDA). Quinn will be integral to implementing the Governor’s plans for reformed state tax incentive programs focused on growing New Jersey’s communities and investing in residents.
Cronyism much? I personally find it to be a gross conflict of interest to have a board member of Brady working for the government while at the same time feeding the same ammunition to be used against the civil rights of the citizens. I further find this marriage to be suspect, especially in light of other “gun control” groups applauding the Murphy administration for enacting operation choke-point-like tactics, which I covered last week: Gun Control Group Applauds NJ Gov’s Office, For ‘Operation ChokePoint’ Style Actions. In that light, there certainly needs to be someone that is concerned that a man who is aligned with a group that wishes to disarm the population, Brady, has anything to do with finances in the state. The press release also gives us a little more info on Quinn:
Quinn is the founder of Genki Advisory, an advisory and investment firm focused on early stage companies. With a portfolio of over 30 companies, Genki Advisory has invested across the tech, consumer and health care sectors.
For over 20 years, Quinn was employed at Goldman, Sachs & Co., where he worked with high tech companies in the firm’s investment banking division. Kevin served in a number of senior roles in Goldman Sachs’s New York, San Francisco, and Tokyo offices. In 2012, he retired as a Partner and Co-Head of the Global Technology Banking business. Prior to his time at Goldman Sachs, Kevin worked as a consultant at Bain & Co. in its Boston office.
Looking through the OPRA, it’s hardly anything to mention that Quinn’s email address was blacked out. In these events, usually, that’s because it’s a personal account. Everyone else listed with an @brady email address had their full addresses displayed. The only identifying information in the emails was an address in Quinn’s footer: 1 Park Pl, Short Hills, NJ. Which happens to be the address of record for Quinn’s company Genki Advisory. What exactly Genki does, would be nice to know, however, there is no information on the company online. A Buzzfile report states an annual revenue of over $200,000.00. From Quinn’s history, we also learn he too, like Murphy, worked for Goldman Sachs.
How ex-Horizon exec kept ties to company AND became Phil Murphy’s gun guru NJ . com
More mystifying than Quinn’s connection with New Jersey is perhaps William “Bill” Castner’s. Castner was appointed the “Senior Advisor to The Governor on Firearms”. From a press release we know that this task Castner performed for free. According to available information, Castner held this position from May 7, 2018, until January 2020. At that time, when Castner left the position with the state, per the ROI-NJ article the following was stated:
Castner, who lives in South Jersey, said he was eager to return to private practice.
What duties Castner actually performed in his role as Murphy’s Senior Advisor on Firearms is not really known or understood. Outside of quotes and press items, it’s hard to tell what he actually did. Based on his convictions from the press release announcing him taking on the role, we can only wonder:
“Governor Murphy in a very short period of time has already emerged as a national leader in our fight against gun violence,” said Bill Castner. “Despite complete inaction in Washington, New Jersey will lead the way in taking on the gun industry with aggressive, innovative and impactful ways to combat gun violence.”
“…taking on the gun industry” sounds very akin to exactly what is going on now; the Smith and Wesson lawsuit(s), the New Jersey AG going after the mom and pop gun dealers in Florida, and the Rutgers Center that is studying so-called gun violence.
If Castner was ever issued a New Jersey email address, he did not use it. In most of the OPRAs his email address was blacked out completely, however, if you look into some of the other OPRAs (W160618) that AmmoLand News has obtained, you can find it. The domain used is @castnerlaw.us. It’s rather convenient for Castner’s communications to be veiled behind his own private email address. Because of this, what I’m going to call a tactic, we’re unable to get a larger picture of what Castner was up to while leading the charge against civil rights in New Jersey. Is this why Castner’s poistion was unpaid? So that he could veil most of his communications? We don’t really know. One would think that any government position, paid or not, appointed or elected, would have a New Jersey email address. Especially any “Senior Advisors”.
In May, Bill Castner walked away from a $1.4 million senior executive job at Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, the state’s largest insurance carrier, to advise Gov. Phil Murphy on gun control issues.
What he may have lost in salary, Castner may have gained in clout.
Castner has agreed to act as a consultant to Horizon — a state-regulated company — while at the same time having the ear of the Democratic governor.
It’s an arrangement that some ethicists say should be watched to safeguard against potential conflicts of interest. That’s because Castner is a high-level consultant working with both the government and one of the most important companies in New Jersey — a company the state negotiates with and regulates.
…
Mark Holmes, the head of the state Ethics Commission, said private contractors are not subject to the same conflict of interest rules that state employees must follow. But there are rules for contractors the state Department of Treasury enforces, Holmes said.
Add the private medical insurance industry to where else Castner had his fingers in. I have to side with the ethicists who are right to say the arrangement should have been watched. At this juncture, anyone working with Murphy should be watched. From the same article we find out when Castner created his own “business” (which there is, like Quinn’s situation, no webpage for that can be found):
Castner, an attorney, formed a professional corporation, Castner Law, PC on April 26, according to state records. Murphy announced Castner’s appointment less than two weeks later, on May 7.
That @castnerlaw.us email handle is looking more and more questionable given the information we’re able to take in.
When bringing up New Jersey, corruption almost goes hand and hand with the name of the state. There are “peas and carrots”. There is “Forrest and Jenny”. And there is “New Jersey and corruption”. I’m certainly not saying there is anything foul that is going on or occurred. I do however think it would be rather naïve to not find all these connections suspect. Connect the dots. Rather swampy. What do you think?
The Gubernatorial Election is coming up this November. How many people really know the depths of questionable relationships that Murphy has? Spread the word.
W171220 NJ OPRA Request Seeking Specific Communications by Mahen Gunaratna Attachment 1 for W171220 Redacted
Addressing Straw Purchasers And Other Bad Apples A Must For 2A Supporters (Dave Workman)
United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Sometimes, there are some things that we don’t want to admit but ignoring them is just not feasible, nor is it wise. It’s unpleasant to deal with those who give the many of us who safely, responsibly, and prudently exercise our constitutional right to keep and bear arms a black eye. Those who own – or wish to own – modern multi-purpose semiautomatic long guns know that all too well, especially after a mass shooting. The fact of the matter is that Second Amendment supporters need to deal with the straw purchasers and other bad apples.
The harsh reality is that Michael Bloomberg and his stooges are looking for any excuse they can to inflict their anti-second Amendment extremism on the country, no matter what. It’s like Aesop’s fable of the wolf and the lamb, they find whatever excuse they can to justify the injustice they seek to inflict by punishing millions of Americans who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights for horrific crimes and acts of madness they did not commit.
Now, when we are talking about “straw purchasers,” we’re not talking about people who buy a firearm as a gift for a friend or family member. In fact, federal and state laws should be reformed to make that sort of thing hassle-free and worry-free for any law-abiding citizen. We are discussing the people who knowingly are buying firearms on behalf of those who intend to use them in the course of committing violent crimes or while engaged in the drug trade. The fact is, while some of the categories in 18 USC 922(d) need to go, the provisions covering fugitives, felons, illegal aliens, and those dishonorably discharged (who have been convicted by a general court-martial) certainly would pass constitutional muster.
More importantly, Second Amendment supporters know how often “gunrunning” is used to justify calls for legislation like “one gun a month” schemes that ration our Second Amendment rights. Sending some “straw purchasers” to federal prison is a small price to pay when it can prevent the spread of “gun rationing.”
Similarly, addressing those who misuse firearms in the commission of violent crimes is in our interest. Already, we have Terry McAuliffe acting as if violent crime is the fault of those who support the Second Amendment. As if McAuliffe didn’t know about the many left-wing DAs who put thugs back on the streets or the fact that the Justice Department can’t be bothered to actually use laws that punish the misuse of firearms, like the sentencing enhancements in 18 USC 924.
Freedom has never been free – it often has come from sacrifices. Second Amendment supporters are not asked to give their lives. But they do need to figure out ways to convince our fellow Americans to oppose the anti-Second Amendment extremism from the likes of Bloomberg and the Biden-Harris regime. Second Amendment supporters should also support NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF to ensure the defeat of anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local level at the ballot box as soon as possible.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
