BELOW THE RADAR: Protecting Americans from Gun Violence Act of 2022IMG NRA-ILA
United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Some attacks on our Second Amendment rights are not as blatant at the past demands for Australia-style gun bans from Beto O’Rourke or Eric Swalwell. In fact, in a post-NYSRPA vs. Bruen America, they will be far more common.
One such attack is the Protecting Americans from Gun Violence Act of 2022, introduced by Representative Nydia Velazquez, and known as HR 6575. Velazquez hasn’t been very vocal on Second Amendment issues, but she has a horrible voting record. In some ways, this legislation barely moves the needle. The problem is what it sets up, even though it seems like nothing.
This legislation starts off by adding a $1 fee to the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) on every transaction. It might not sound like a big deal, but there were 3.1 million NICS checks in December 2021. There were 37.8 million in all of 2021.
In this law were in place, that’s $37.8 million as a slush fund. Of any funds collected as a result of this legislation (there is a $2,500 civil penalty for failing to collect the fee), the first $10 million goes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.
The discussions of what mischief – or worse – that this could cause have been discussed before, especially in the context of the potential pretext CDC research could hand to Silicon Valley to engage in censorship.
The next $5 million that comes from the bill is earmarked for operating NICS. Now, there is controversy about NICS, and the system needs to be overhauled and fixed at a bare minimum. Many Second Amendment supporters want NICS gone, but as a practical matter, elimination is a long way down the road in the best-case scenario.
After that, the money left over, roughly $23 million based on 2021 data, gets used by the Attorney General as he deems appropriate, divvied up between the Office for Victim Assistance of the FBI. And what do Second Amendment supporters think Merrick Garland will find appropriate?
Finally, there is a new federal requirement to report a “lost or stolen” firearm, with the penalty being a year in jail and a fine. Stolen firearms are a big deal for a number of reasons. Part of responsibly exercising our Second Amendment rights is to keep track of your firearms and know where they are at all times, and to keep them secure from unauthorized use.
Now, sometimes stuff happens, and firearms are stolen from their rightful owners. The provisions of 18 USC 922(i) and 18 USC 922(j) protect our Second Amendment rights against that sort of infringement of our Second Amendment rights, but the only way they get triggered is if the firearms are reported stolen.
Ultimately, this legislation is something that Second Amendment supporters should oppose, primarily on the CDC funding, but also because Velazquez’s voting record has been very awful. Second Amendment supporters should contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to oppose this legislation.
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.
Canadian Prime Minister and outspoken anti-gunner Justin Trudeau.
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– Canada is becoming a police state. The Canadian House of Commons has abdicated its responsibilities. This has a significant effect on Canadian gun owners.
The Emergency Act allows the Trudeau administration to punish people for things they legally did months or years ago, particularly political contributions. No Court order is required.
The Emergency Act invoked by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is limited by law in several ways. One of those is a requirement that both houses of Parliament consider the Act within seven “sitting” days, continually debate the act, and then vote on it.
The Emergency Measure (the Act is the law, the measure is what Trudeau proclaimed, using the Act) was proclaimed on 14 February 2022. It has already been approved by the House of Commons, in a vote of 151 to 185. The Conservatives and Bloc Québécois opposed the Act. The Liberals and New Democrat parties (both far left) approved of it.
The Canadian Senate was designed to be a check on the power of the popular vote in the House of Commons. It has not worked out that way. The Senate has become a rubber stamp for the House of Commons.
The Senate has real power. It has chosen not to use it. It could exercise its power by voting against the Emergency Act. The Senate is required to take up the measure on the first “sitting day” following when the motion is laid before the Senate. It is to debate the measure continuously until it is ready for a vote. Then the vote must be taken.
If the vote is negative the Emergency Measure is revoked the day of the vote.
The Canadian Senate calendar shows it has sitting days on February 21, 22, 23, and 24, with possible sitting days of February 25 and 28. In March there are shown sitting days of March 1, 2, and 3.
If the Calendar holds, the Canadian Senate must vote on the Emergency Measure reasonably soon.
This correspondent hopes the Canadian Senate shows a spine and votes to end the Emergency Measure, which does not come close to meeting the required provisions for its use. It seems unlikely the Senate will do so.
The Justin Trudeau administration has ruled in Canada for two years. The Canadian Parliament has voluntarily given up its power, with the excuse of COVID19. The House of Commons has voted to extend the Emergency Measure, which grants dictatorial powers to Justin Trudeau for at least 30 days. Experience shows totalitarian rulers seldom give up power voluntarily.
The Trudeau administration, by executive order, ruled many Canadian guns are contraband. This was done in early 2020. Canadian gun owners have been uncertain of what they may, or may not do. It is a signature of dictators that the rule of law does not apply.
The deadline to turn in the banned guns is April 30th, 2022. If the Emergency Measure is still in place at that time, the Trudeau administration will have all the power it needs to confiscate guns from Canadians, without compensation.
In December of 2021, Trudeau supported a ban on all handguns in Canada. Under the Emergency Measure, the Trudeau administration could require all legally owned handguns in Canada be turned in to the government. All legal handguns in Canada are registered with the government.
Under the Emergency Measure, no compensation is necessary. Canadian bank accounts can be frozen without any court order, for any reason. Canadians are liable to have their lives and livelihood destroyed for things they did legally months or years ago.
While talking to a dual Canadian and a United States citizen in the last few days, this correspondent heard real fear in their voice. They had removed all of their assets from Canadian banks. They still owned real estate in Canada. In totalitarian regimes, real estate is significantly devalued, because the property is no longer secured by the rule of law.
This correspondent has a dismal prediction: The Emergency Measure will not end any time soon. The Measure will be used to destroy any political opposition in Canada. Canada faces a bleak future.
Update: The Canadian Senate started debating the Emergency Measure on February 22. The debate continued into February 23. Thank God this correspondent was wrong. PM Trudeau faced defeat in the Senate with a possible vote of no confidence following. Trudeau blinked and canceled the Emergency measure as the Senate continued debate. With the cancellation of the Emergency measure, the Senate immediately adjourned. The Senate voted to adjourn and adjourned at 2 p.m. on Thursday, February 23, 2022.
This is a historic day in Canada.
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.
Opinion
While Trudeau has since rescinded his martial law order and the world has moved on, distracted by the shiny object of the Globalist’s darling, Ukraine, it is worth reviewing the threat this move poses for free countries.
Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is pushing ever-increasing amounts of gun-control. IMG NRA-ILA
New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- Americans should not only be concerned with but greatly alarmed by Trudeau’s declaration of martial law in Canada. His actions over there have repercussions here, a Nation that resides next door.
A declaration of martial law could happen here, but the presence of tens of millions of armed citizens operates as an extraordinarily powerful deterrent against the imposition of it if the Government’s inducement for it were grounded on the notion the armed citizenry itself posed an imminent threat to it.
Yet, given the nature of events at home in the U.S. this past year, under a feckless, corrupt, inept, idiotic Administration and an equally feckless corrupt Democrat-Party controlled Congress, the Government could attempt it.
If the Biden Administration is that stupid, a rebellion would ensue—no doubt about that. But it will be the Government’s call. The Government will have to be the instigator of violence against the American people.
Americans will not suffer tyranny. That much is clear. The question is how far will this Government go in testing the citizenry’s patience? At what point would the Government feel brazen enough to take the risk by pushing the American people against a wall?
There are forces both here and abroad that would love to see the Biden Administration call for martial law, as the Trudeau Government did, notwithstanding here, as there, lack of sound reason—or even flimsy pretext—to do so.
Americans have certainly witnessed in the last few years a clear and callous constriction of their fundamental rights and liberties.
But the Federal Government hasn’t dared to strangle a person’s life by freezing his or her bank account—at least not yet. And, a truck strike, such as the one in Canada, is not likely to result in anything of the sort occurring here in the U.S. for the very reason that tens of millions of Americans possess firearms. The Canadian citizenry does not. Americans would not tolerate a massive attack on their ability to provide for themselves and their families as a means to subjugate them.
Recent events in Canada mark a major step forward in a massive, albeit secretive global enterprise that transects and transcends the needs, desires, and wishes of the commonality of all western first-world countries. The goals of that global enterprise are incompatible with the needs, desires, and wishes of the common people of those countries.
Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, declared martial law in Canada on February 15, 2022. He delivered the declaration of martial law coolly, caustically, perfunctorily, in monotone as if reading a script prepared for him by others, which it undoubtedly was.
This declaration of martial law could have been avoided if Trudeau had deigned to meet with spokespeople for the truckers, allowing them the courtesy of airing their justifiable grievances to which, as citizens, they were certainly entitled. That would have obviated the need for an irresponsible, horrific response to their strike—a peaceful act of civil disobedience.
But, then, the declaration of martial law wasn’t something to be avoided. It was precisely what Trudeau wanted—or rather, and more to the point, it was what those pulling Trudeau’s strings wanted.
It was what the Deep State Globalist ruling elite wanted—the imposition of totalitarianism on Canada. And the Truckers’ strike gave the Globalists the pretext they needed and wanted.
Still, the rationale for it from a legal sense, let alone ethical sense, is problematic and the implications of it for both Canada and other western nation-states, including, and especially ours, as Canada’s closest neighbor, is deeply troubling.
This is no small matter. It marks an unprecedented step backward—to outright barbarism—and it is a dire omen for Americans.
And, what was the rationale and motivation for Trudeau’s invocation of Canada’s “Emergencies Act?”
“Canada’s embattled tyrant Justin Trudeau declared martial law Monday in a desperate bid to crush the truckers who have been protesting his COVID mandates for more than two weeks.
Effectively labeling the protesters terrorists, Trudeau announced he would invoke a never-before-used law, the Emergencies Act, that would give him the power to ban public assembly and freeze the bank accounts of anyone helping the demonstrators.
The Emergencies Act can only be invoked in a dire emergency” that ‘seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians.’ It has never been used in Canada’s history.
By invoking it Monday, Trudeau was essentially declaring peaceful demonstrators who have blockaded the capital of Ottawa to demand an end to COVID restrictions an unprecedented threat to Canada’s security. He laid out a series of extreme measures to deal with the ‘threat.’
Trudeau warned that protesters who fail to obey his orders could lose their vehicle insurance and have their personal bank accounts frozen without a court order. Tow truck drivers could also be coerced to cooperate in breaking up the demonstrations. The authoritarian measures, Trudeau said, are ‘necessary and responsible,‘ and would be ‘time-limited.’”
Trudeau’s invocation of martial law in Canada does not, in his very utterance of it, speak of the need for it, but begs the question,
“ ‘Can it truly be said the security of Canada is threatened by largely non-violent protests? Certainly, our sovereignty and territorial integrity are not at risk.’” See article in the New York Post, citing, “Leah West, an assistant professor at Carleton University in Ottawa,” who pointed out that “‘The federal government [of Canada] must consult with provinces and Cabinet must believe the protests rise to the level of a national emergency.’”
And, there’s the rub. The territorial integrity of Canada was never at risk.
Trudeau apparently never did this. He never consulted with the Parliament and with the Canadian Provinces, as he is required to do. In fact, Parliament would not have granted authority in any case. See article in Lifesitenews. Many critical questions are raised that have gone unanswered.
“Conservative Party interim Leader Candice Bergen. . . suggested that Prime Minister’s antics were unneeded & making the situation worse, [asserting, on January 16, 2022] in the Canadian Parliament, ‘Yesterday, I noted that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would have to get approval from the Canadian Parliament to enact the odious ‘Emergencies Act.’ Given the fact he heads a minority government and that many Canadian citizens support the goals of the Freedom Convoy protest, Members of Parliament may not be too keen to grant it.
It appears I was right. Less than 24-hours after declaring wide-ranging powers, including terror finance laws to defund the trucker, Trudeau came to parliament to persuade them to support his move.’”
Trudeau responded with blather, completely dodging Bergen’s pointed queries. Bergen even noted that there were significant developments that negated the need to invoke the Act:
The Coutts border between the US and Alberta has been cleared.
The Ambassador Bridge is fully
Ontario is ending its vaccine mandate.
When Trudeau explained he was implementing the “Emergencies Act” for the safety of Canadians, he was booed loudly. When he said he was demonstrating exemplary leadership, there were laughter and jeers. The Speaker of Parliament had to step in to quiet the uproar several times.
Interim Conservative Party leader Bergen made one exceptional point: What if what Trudeau is doing makes things worse?
Indeed, the situation appears to be poised to be far more problematic as the truckers remain defiant.”
See article on the website, legal insurrection.
Indeed, the situation is problematic! Martial law shall exist in Canada indefinitely. The Globalist masters have tightened the noose around Canada, just as they have done so in Australia, New Zealand, and as they are doing so in the EU. Now enter stage left, Ukraine. Is Putin moving against the global cabal that controls Ukraine, the same cabal that gives Trudeau his marching orders?
Only the U.S. remains obstinately, indefatigably resistant and defiant to despotic rule. Shall it remain so?
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.
Despite their best efforts, Washington, D.C.’s local government has stumbled onto some important facts about violent crime. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Despite their best efforts, Washington, D.C.’s local government has stumbled onto some important facts about violent crime. A December 2021 study conducted in concert with the federal enclave’s Criminal Justice Coordinating Council and the Metropolitan Police Department, the findings of which are published in a document titled “Gun Violence Problem Analysis Summary Report,” found that much of D.C.’s violent crime is perpetrated by a small portion of the population that is already known to law enforcement.
The study focused on mapping the real-life social networks and criminal justice histories of those involved in violence perpetrated with firearms. The report concluded, “In Washington, DC, most gun violence is tightly concentrated,” and that those involved, “share a common set of risk factors, including: involvement in street crews/groups; significant criminal justice history including prior or active community supervision; often prior victimization; and a connection to a recent shooting (within the past 12 months).”
Further summarizing the data, the report explained,
This small number of very high risk individuals are identifiable, their violence is predictable, and therefore it is preventable. Based on the assessment of data and the series of interviews conducted, [National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform] estimates that within a year, there are at least 500 identifiable people who rise to this level of very high risk, and likely no more than 200 at any one given time. These individuals comprise approximately 60-70% of all gun violence in the District.
The portion of the report examining the criminal justice system history of those involved in violence perpetrated with guns underscored the report’s conclusions. In compiling the data, “A victim or suspect was noted to have prior criminal justice system involvement if they were arrested in DC or other jurisdictions, regardless of conviction, prior to their involvement in the homicide.”
According to the report, “Approximately 86 percent of homicide victims and suspects were known to the criminal justice system prior to the incident. Among all victims and suspects, about 46 percent had been previously incarcerated.” Further, “at least 23.3 percent of all homicide victims and suspects were under active [criminal justice system] supervision.” The report also stated, “most victims and suspects with prior criminal offenses had been arrested about 11 times for about 13 different offenses by the time of the homicide,” qualifying that, “This count only refers to adult arrests and juvenile arrests were not included.”
Those wondering how criminals known to law enforcement, and in many cases under city supervision, would be free to commit heinous violence in the federal enclave should take the time to read the Washington Post’s excellent 2016 series of articles titled “Second-Chance City.” The well-researched journalism explained how the District’s soft-on-crime policies and inability to monitor those placed under their supervision was a detriment to the city.
The fact that the vast majority of those involved in violent crime involving firearms are part of an extremely small subset of the population will come as no surprise to anyone who has studied violent crime.
Recent advances in criminological research suggest that there is significant clustering of crime in micro places, or ‘hot spots,’ that generate a disproportionate amount of criminal events in a city… We find that Boston gun violence is intensely concentrated at a small number of street segments and intersections rather than spread evenly across the urban landscape between 1980 and 2008.
Then-Yale Ph.D. candidate and current Assistant Professor at the University of Texas Michael Sierra-Arévalo outlined some of the research on this topic in a 2015 piece for the Hartford Courant, titled, “The Shooting Disease: Who You Know, Where You Live.” Sierra-Arévalo explained,
The concentration is not just in terms of place, but also people. It’s a tiny handful of the community that’s responsible for the lion’s share of the bloodshed. Turning to Boston again, in the period between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s, more than half of all murders, more than three-quarters of youth homicides, and 70 percent of all shootings were perpetrated by 1 percent of youth between the ages of 15 and 24.
One percent.
The researcher went on to add, “As shown by Yale University sociologists in a recent study, 70 percent of all shootings in Chicago can be located in a social network composed of less than 6 percent of the city’s population.”
The key insight that a significant portion of violence perpetrated with firearms takes place within a small geographic area and among a known fraction of the population suggests that policies narrowly targeted at problem areas, social networks, and individuals is a more appropriate approach to curbing violence than sweeping gun controls that restrict the rights of the population at large.
Now that the District has been confronted with the truth about violent crime, observers will see if the notoriously soft-on-crime jurisdiction has the will to combat the problem or if it will resort to its usual anti-gun scapegoating.
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
Not even impressionable youth are buying Biden’s bologna. NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Virtually every public opinion poll these days seems to deliver bad news for Joe Biden. One recent poll put his general approval at only 43%, but even more troubling for the current White House occupant was that only 28% of the respondents in that poll want him to run for reelection in 2024.
And that was all before Russia invaded Ukraine. Future polls will likely see Biden’s stock plummet even more.
To make matters worse, however, is the fact that Biden also seems to be falling out of favor with at least one core group that worked in lock-step to help get him elected in 2020; anti-gun extremists.
The 2020 Biden campaign was supported with millions of dollars from anti-gun billionaire Mike Bloomberg and endorsed by every major anti-gun group (many of which are also kept afloat with Bloomberg money). Those groups expected an immediate return on their investments, and some seem pretty upset that the Second Amendment has not yet been torn from our Bill of Rights.
March for Our Lives (MOL), a self-described “youth-led movement,” went so far as to issue Biden certain demands shortly after he took office. Nearly a year after submitting its missive, and with nary a single demand met, MOL now seems to be on the attack, and its target is the very president it helped elect.
Partnering with two other anti-gun organizations—Guns Down America and Change the Ref—MOL has created a new website called Shock Market: Tracking Gun Violence Losses Under Biden.
Of course, being a product of an anti-gun organization, the data promoted on this new site is simply regurgitated and repackaged material from other anti-gun researchers and propagandists; those at Gun Violence Archive.
Both websites manipulate categories and definitions to suit their anti-gun narratives and paint every firearm-related injury or fatality with the same broad, anti-gun brush. Lawful, defensive uses of firearms are treated exactly the same as violent firearm-related crimes committed by career criminals and crazed psychotics.
The tracking, as the site says, begins with Biden’s inauguration, and refers to “gun deaths and injuries reach(ing) crisis levels across the country.” That would seem to imply that MOL is blaming Biden for the crisis, as they allege “Biden has fallen far short of the gun violence reform he promised during his campaign….”
But is that really a fair assessment?
Violent crime of all types, not just those crimes that also involve someone using a firearm, has reached alarming levels. While many of Biden’s policies may be to blame, at least in part, for rising violent crime, his inability to enact new gun control certainly isn’t.
The fact of the matter is that rising violent crime is not now, nor has it ever been, because of law-abiding citizens being able to exercise their rights protected under the Second Amendment, in spite of what MOL might want to allege. While the new Shock Market website is bereft of any specific policy goals, MOL does support a litany of anti-gun proposals that would only impact law-abiding gun owners.
The group supports national licensing and registration schemes (schemes from which criminals would be exempt because of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination); banning the most popular semi-automatic firearms and magazines; disarming gun owners who pose, in MOL’s view, “a harm risk;” and a national “buy-back” program for ALL firearms currently owned by law-abiding gun owners.
MOL also supports the government targeting NRA to be harassed by federal bureaucrats from the IRS and FEC and calls for a repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) so that the lawful firearms industry may be sued into oblivion through an avalanche of reckless, meritless lawsuits.
Blaming NRA, law-abiding gun owners, and the firearms industry for the acts of violent criminals is nothing new from anti-gun extremists. But blaming Biden for the current rise in crime is certainly a new tactic for those in favor of gun control.
The real problems that are feeding the rise in crime in America are numerous, but the vast majority of them emanate from the state and local level, not the federal level. Failing to rein in the violence that took place at countless protests during 2020, calls to “defund the police,” kicking convicted criminals and those pending trial out of jail as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and soft-on-crime prosecutors are the most likely culprits for our national crime surge.
These soft-on-crime prosecutors have employed truly dangerous policies, such as refusing to prosecute those accused of actual violent crimes, turning serious felony offenses into misdemeanors, dramatically changing the approach to responding to violent crime, and virtually eliminating any form of bail so that even violent, repeat offenders find themselves walking our streets sometimes mere hours after being caught breaking the law.
A recent case we reported involving someone from the MOL fold—who was charged with attempted murder…using a handgun—adds a touch of nearly-tragic irony to the discussion of MOL dishonesty when it talks about violent crime and what might be appropriate responses.
One could certainly argue that the President could use the power of his office to urge changes on all of these fronts. And considering virtually all of the people who support the aforementioned policies that have likely led to the current spike in crime come from the radical fringe of his party, he could use his power as the leader of the Democrat Party to try to rein them in.
In that vein, and to his credit, he has at least begun to make public statements trying to distance himself from “defund the police” messaging, although such statements do still include dishonest attacks on law-abiding gun owners and the Second Amendment.
His ham-fisted and predictable response to the rise in violent crime has been, of course, to blame law-abiding gun owners and the Second Amendment. We would have thought that’s the kind of response the kids at MOL would support with wild exuberance.
Apparently, that’s not enough. Biden even offered up a radical, anti-gun lobbyist to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), but even moderate Democrats balked at such an outlandish nominee. We all know how that worked out, which led to the disgraced nominee lashing out at everyone possible to blame for his personal failure to become ATF Director.
Still, not enough for the kids at MOL.
Perhaps MOL is hoping its new website will shame Biden into taking cues from our neighbors to the north, inspiring our president to try to impose gun control by executive fiat, the way Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has—not to mention Trudeau’s penchant for abusing his authority to intimidate and silence those who do not share his views.
Thankfully, our Founders built better safeguards into our nation’s governing documents. The US Constitution, with its Bill of Rights, has far greater protections of individual liberty, including the right to arms, than anything Canada has to offer. While we don’t think Biden has a very solid grasp on what the Second Amendment actually says or means, he likely understands his office does not grant him the kind of abusive power we have seen wielded above our northern border, in spite of what MOL may want him to do.
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
Who thinks those telling Joe Biden who to nominate don’t know exactly how Ketanji Brown Jackson will rule on guns? (The White House/Facebook)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “From the moment President Biden promised to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has been the likeliest pick. And that is who he nominated Friday to fill retiring Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s seat, The Washington Post reports. “Here’s what you need to know.”
The two most important points for gun owners to understand:
“Liberals really like her: A dozen liberal groups sent a letter to Biden championing Jackson — without mentioning her by name [and] Democrats seemed totally united behind her, elated even.”
“Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has never affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the individual, fundamental right of all Americans to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves or others. Consequently, the NRA is concerned with President Biden’s decision to nominate her to the Supreme Court of the United States at a crucial time when there are vital cases that will determine the scope and future of the Second Amendment and self-defense rights in our country. As we always do, the NRA will monitor her statements during the confirmation process and advise our members accordingly.”
Right, like judicial nominees aren’t given a pass on answering tough questions, and as if “affirming” the Second Amendment will tell us a thing about what infringements she would impose regardless. Plenty of Democrats (and no shortage of Republicans) will acknowledge that it’s an individual right — right before turning around and showing everyone their big “buts.”
NRA’s feeble response is a far cry from “Hell no, and any Republican who doesn’t do everything in his power to torpedo this nominee will see his rating with us suffer accordingly.”
Is that fair? After all, we merely have reason to suspect Judge Jackson won’t be a Second Amendment true believer. Without some kind of corroborating evidence, how can gun owners expect them to take a non-negotiable stand?
To anyone asking that, grow up. You want corroborating evidence?
“Giffords Law Center Lauds Nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Succeed Justice Stephen Breyer on US Supreme Court”
Why do you think they sound so sure of themselves?
Want more corroborating evidence on Judge Jackson’s bent for “progressive” judicial activism?
“She has been reversed, and the D.C. Circuit [Court of Appeals] reversed her for basically judicial overreach in a couple of cases,” Fox News quoted law professor Jonathan Turley.
“Cases like these suggest that Jackson might be willing in politically charged cases to ignore the law to deliver a particular policy outcome, and that’s not what we want to see from a Supreme Court justice,” Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino elaborated.
“[I]t’s not clear whether any Senate Republicans would support her now,” the WaPo article continues, nonetheless pointing out past support and/or statements of praise from the “usual suspects,” Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, and former Speaker Paul Ryan.
“If all 50 Senate Democrats support her, Biden doesn’t need any Republican votes to get her nomination confirmed by the Senate,” the WaPo piece claims. “But, given how Biden had prioritized bipartisanship, he may like for his nominee to get some Republican votes.”
So that’s it, though? Bottom line, no matter what Republicans do, they can’t stop Jackson from being confirmed?
Not so fast, Rachel Bovard, The Federalist’s senior tech columnist and senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute writes:
“The Senate of 2022 is tied, with 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, which presents Republicans with an interesting procedural option: denying a quorum in the Senate Judiciary Committee, thus preventing the nomination from being reported out of committee and placed on the calendar, and ultimately moved to the Senate floor.”
That alone won’t be foolproof, but it’s a great opening salvo, and political realities mean overriding such a bold move is not assured.
“Democrats, of course, always have the option to use the nuclear option to ignore this rule,” Bovard admits, but notes they can’t count on that to happen. “Presumably, this would be viewed with suspicion by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., who recently opposed using the nuclear option on Democrat-led legislation to federalize the election system.”
What this means is there is one chance to deny a quorum and that rests with the Republican members of Senate Judiciary, beginning with ranking member Chuck Grassley (IA), and including Lindsey Graham (SC), John Cornyn (TX), Mike Lee (UT), Ted Cruz (TX), Ben Sasse (NE), Josh Hawley (MO), Tom Cotton (AR), John Kennedy (LA), Thom Tillis (NC), and Marsha Blackburn (TN).
Being political creatures of the establishment above all else, don’t look for any of them to act with courage on this. Instead, they’ll need to perceive the political costs of not doing so outweigh the costs of doing it. No doubt those costs will be considerable, beginning with every Democrat and media group out there foaming at the mouth and loudly condemning them as racists (as if that card won’t be played anyway whenever the left finds it useful).
So expect “conservative influencers” (including most “gun groups”) to say there’s no chance this tactic could work under pressure like that, so a member mailing campaign to press the senators (and remind them who voted for them) would be “a waste of political capital.”
It’s a shame that’s the reality, because the courage needed here is nothing compared to what Ukrainians, suddenly rediscovering their right to arms as a deterrent to tyranny, are exhibiting right now. It’s nothing compared to what we as gun owners will have to muster if the Supreme Court sides with the Democrats on guns.
To anyone who falls back on the “politics is the art of the possible” excuse and says this can’t be done, of course, it can: All those in a position to do something about it need is the will.
What have we got to lose if we do? More to the point, what have we got to lose if we don’t?
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.
Tombstone, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)- The police killing of Amir Locke while executing a warrant in Minneapolis, has once again drawn attention to the dangerous and often deadly use of violent surprise tactics in the service of search and arrest warrants. While the common refrain is a call-to-end use of “no-knock” warrants, those are not the only warrants that are a problem. Some warrants authorize police to breach the door directly after knocking or announcing. Too often a warrant that authorizes “dynamic entry” creates more problems than it solves – for both police and the public.
Few details are available in the case of Amir Locke beyond the badge cam videos, but the basics are clear. Using a key from management, police quietly entered the apartment of Locke’s cousin to serve a warrant in a homicide case. The cousin was absent, but Locke, who was visiting, was asleep on the couch.
As officers entered, they began yelling their typical litany of contradictory commands:
“Police – Warrant!”
“Get on the Ground!”
“Show your hands!”
“Don’t move!”
…and so on, and kicked the couch where Locke was sleeping, the 22-year old emerged from beneath a blanket with a pistol in his right hand. At this point, an officer fired several shots, killing him.
The shooting was probably justifiable from the officer’s viewpoint, as he perceived the threat of a gun, but Locke was probably startled and confused, and also justified in grabbing a gun at the violent invasion.
Had Locke been in a less helpless position and somehow been able to fire at masked men coming into the apartment and rousting him from his sleep, there is ample precedent for a finding of self-defense. A dynamic entry puts the rights of the officers and the right of occupants of a home in direct conflict resulting in a situation where both sides can claim a justifiable use of deadly force.
In other words, a raid can create a free-fire zone. Also, for the record, it is not at all uncommon for criminal home invaders and drug rip-off crews to impersonate police as they are assaulting a home.
As mentioned, Locke was not a resident of the apartment, nor was he named in the warrant. Conflicting statements have come out regarding his possession of the pistol, but the consensus is that it was legally owned by Locke and that he might have had a concealed carry permit. Regardless of other details, unless Locke was a “prohibited person” under federal or state law – which it appears he was not – then his possession of a handgun in a home would be completely legal.
The police request for a “no-knock” warrant has not been published, and the reasoning for the alleged demand for one has not been made clear. A 17-year old cousin, brother to the tenant of the apartment where Locke was killed, was later arrested in connection with a January 10 homicide. That cousin lived in a different apartment in the same building but was known to frequent his older brother’s apartment, so police had warrants for both apartments.
The teen cousin is on probation for a previous shooting, raising questions about the efficacy of the Minneapolis justice system?
Protests calling for a ban on the use of “no-knock” warrants, erupted in Minneapolis as news of the killing spread. Of course, Minneapolis was the epicenter of the 2020 protests and riots after the death of George Floyd. During those protests, which went international, another name was frequently mentioned, that of Breonna Taylor, who, like Amir Locke, was killed by police serving a warrant regarding someone else.
Locke and Taylor are just the most prominent, recent examples among many around the country, several of which I have written about in the past. At about the same time that Breonna Taylor was killed, a 21-year old man named Duncan Lemp was also killed by police executing a “no-knock” warrant in Maryland. Lemp was the target of the warrant, based on suspicion that he might possess an illegal rifle. Not that there was any indication that he had, or intended to use the rifle in a crime, just that he was thought to be in possession of one that has been banned in Maryland.
Unlike the Amir Locke case, there is no body-cam footage of the incident, apparently because the police union demanded exemption from body-cam requirements during SWAT raids. Officials said this policy would be revised. They have also never released the name or record of the officer who actually pulled the trigger. A subsequent investigation (by the police) cleared the police of any wrongdoing.
The main difference between the killing of Breonna Taylor and Duncan Lemp, is that Lemp was a Caucasian from an upper-middle-class family, and an outspoken constitutionalist, while Taylor was Black and working class. Police killing a “rich White kid” did not feed the current narrative, so coverage of Lemp’s case never gained traction outside of “right-wing” circles. Had Duncan Lemp been a Black man, you can bet that his killing would have been headline news, and protests would have ensued. But that’s a discussion for a different time.
The key takeaway right now from these tragedies is not about race. It’s about critically flawed police procedures, and the lack of accountability, both for police who carry out the flawed raids, and the judges who authorize them.
It needs to be said that my default position is to support the police. Members of my family and several close friends have served and currently serve in law enforcement ranging from patrol officer to county sheriff to federal agent. No small part of my opposition to reckless warrant service stems from a concern for officer safety. As pointed out above, under Castle Doctrine rules, an officer serving a warrant in a dynamic entry can face an armed homeowner who can justify use of deadly force. Until a homeowner can verify that the people attacking him are law enforcement officers with a duly sworn warrant, he is under no obligation to allow them entry into his home.
Unfortunately, the number of “dynamic entries” is rising. According to Professor Peter Kraska, of Eastern Kentucky University, the number of “no-knock” and “quick-knock,” SWAT-style raids for serving warrants nationwide, soared from around 3,000 per year in 1981, to over 60,000 per year today.
While I believe there are some very limited circumstances where a “no-knock” or “announce and enter,” or similar “dynamic entry” type of warrant can be justified, those circumstances should be limited to situations where speed is essential because innocent lives are at risk. The risk of destruction of evidence is a specious argument. Commercial quantities of drugs or other contraband won’t flush, and smaller quantities aren’t worth the trouble or the risk.
Tightening rules around dynamic entry warrants is not the best solution. History shows that police can be very creative at working around such restrictions, while still obeying the letter – if not the spirit – of the law. I believe that a better solution is to inject a healthy helping of accountability into the mix. Those requesting, authorizing, and executing warrants in a high-risk manner need to take on a share of the civil risk.
The police officer who swears out the warrant, the senior officer who signs off on it, the judge who issues the warrant, and the officers who execute it, all need to lose some or all of their qualified immunity if the raid goes sideways. Everyone in the legal chain trail of a warrant authorizing high-risk tactics should bear personal, legal liability for anything that goes wrong. If an innocent or a police officer is killed or injured, if the wrong house is hit, the wrong door kicked, or a dog killed unnecessarily, there must be a personal price to pay by everyone involved. If each individual involved has his own skin in the game it might focus minds more on the possible dangers and risks involved in kicking in doors in the middle of the night.
This isn’t a Black thing, a White thing, or a Blue thing. It’s a right and wrong thing. It’s also a Constitution thing.
The Fourth Amendment states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
While an argument can be made that these warrants are issued “upon probable cause, supported by Oath,” it’s a safe bet that the framers wouldn’t consider battering rams and flash-bang grenades as “reasonable.” The vast majority of the time, there’s a better way, and police, judges, and prosecutors need to be motivated to find that better way, and stop these tragedies. The time has come for less adrenaline-charged tactics. What’s so urgent? Set a perimeter. Order pizza.
About Jeff Knox:
Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.
Indiana Judiciary Committee Guts Constitutional Carry Bill – Eric Holcomb, iStock-884171528
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- What follows is this correspondent’s view of what happened at the Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee hearing and vote on February 23, 2022. The hearing was on HB 1077, Constitutional Carry. There were about eight hours of testimony at the hearing. This correspondent did not watch all of it. The impressions gained by watching a couple of hours of the hearing, and the votes, have been supplemented with comments from the Indiana Gun Owners Forum, where members watched most of the hearing and votes.
The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Liz Brown (R) was openly hostile to the bill. The Judiciary Committee was where Constitutional Carry was killed in 2021. The committee hearing was orchestrated to create publicity and cover for Republicans to kill the bill. Chairman Brown was openly more favorable to the three Democrats on the Committee than to the Republicans.
The opposition appeared to have been given prior notice of when the committee would be held. The hearing was packed with opposition. Several officers from Wayne, Indiana testified. The impression was the opposition was given plenty of notice to prepare and be ready for a Wednesday afternoon hearing, before the hearing was officially announced. Both sides were represented.
This correspondent did not see much of the testimony in favor of the bill.
Indiana State Police Superintendent Doug Carter testified against the bill. Carter was appointed to the position by Indiana Governor Holcombe (R) From indianagunowners.com:
To sample some of the egregious comments by Indiana State Police (ISP) superintendent Doug Carter, he attacked the legislative process in IN because a bill came forward that he dislikes and that we allow public comments that he disapproves of, attacked the republican party for being a super majority and claimed that the committee was stifling the minority despite Democrats asking question after question of those testifying and he also stated “We are all guilty until we prove our innocence.“ Doug Carter is not a person who is concerned with the welfare of the residents of Indiana or of your constituents like me. Carter and those opposed to this legislation as intended do no respect our civil rights like those affirmed in Pinner V. State (2017).
Several officers from Fort Wayne, Indiana testified. They claimed they did not have access to the FBI NICS system to check if a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm or not. The impression was given the problems common in Fort Wayne were representative of the entire state, which appears to be inaccurate.
One officer claimed a two-week wait for a permit was not a significant impediment to exercising the right to bear arms.
Another (Fort Wayne officer?), Officer Goodman, said he commonly did not carry while off duty. He claimed more people carrying would create more danger.
The three Democrats on the committee came across as ignorant of existing Indiana gun law, constitutional rights, and police procedure. Their ignorance was embarrassing.
Chief Steve Reed, City of Fort Wayne Chief of Police, speaking for Indiana chiefs of police, and others, testified against the bill. He said, every day his detectives are fighting this war on guns. He was uninformed when asked about what happened in other states. His ignorance was embarrassing for a Chief of Police.
These numbers may not be precise, but as recalled, a Fort Wayne police officer testified 147 people were arrested for illegally carrying firearms. However, 800+ handguns were confiscated during the same period (2021?)
147 arrests. 800+ handguns confiscated. The math does not add up. Is there an issue with the legalized theft of handguns in Fort Wayne, Indiana?
Edward Merchant, representing the Fraternal Order of Police, testified in strong opposition to the bill. He claimed, if Constitutional Carry passes, officers will have *no tool* to enforce the law against felons and misdemeanor domestic violence offenders.
Felons and misdemeanor domestic violence offenders who illegally possess firearms are often arrested in states which already have Constitutional Carry.
A representative for the Indiana Prosecuting Attorney Counsel (IPAC) testified against the bill. She used highly selective data to lie with statistics about the effects of Constitutional Carry in other states.
She only cited states that passed Constitutional Carry in 2019, just before the spike in crime and attacks on police, created by the BLM movement, Leftist riots, and the defund the police movement. She claimed Constitutional Carry resulted in more attacks on police officers.
This is classic lying with statistics. It is highly unethical. When people limit the data, they do so for a reason. The reason is not science. It is partisanship.
It appeared no testimony about other states’ experience either by experts or by officials in those states, was allowed. John Lott did not testify, for example. The timing of the committee hearing might have been designed to prevent such testimony. From indianagunowners.com:
Last night, the Senate Judiciary Committee made an 11th-hour change to the bill to strip it of its intended purpose, mostly based on emotionally manipulative testimony and junk data. One primary claim of the law enforcement officers who oppose this bill is that the removal of the licensing system will endanger officers. There is no data to support this. The data that does exist shows no conclusive trend across states and in fact no statistically significant difference for the states that have passed permitless carry. The answer is rather simple: Criminals don’t abide by licensing schemes. Murderers, rapists, and gang members do not concern themselves with the small penalty of carrying unlawfully (but the current scheme’s standards) compared to their actual crimes.
The Chair, Liz Brown (R) offered a series of amendments designed to destroy the bill. The amendment which the sponsor of the bill said “gutted the intent” of the bill passed 6 to 5. Two other Republicans joined with the Chair (Liz Brown (R), and the three Democrats, to “gut the bill”.
The amended (gutted) bill was voted on. It passed unanimously, 11-0 at about 8:24 p.m. The opposition voted for it because it was gutted. The proponents voted for it in the hope it could be restored with an amendment in the full Senate. It was the only way they could get it out of the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Liz Brown.
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.
Where You Used to go Armed in New York, iStock-1169074379
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- There is a bill in the New York Assembly that makes most destinations into “gun-free” zones. I call it the “Prohibited Places” bill and you need to know the back story for this to make any sense at all.. even to the politicians.
It never made sense for honest citizens.
First, there is an important case before the US Supreme Court called NYSRPA v Bruen. That case asserts that New York State required ordinary people to get a permit to carry a firearm in public, and then denied those permits to ordinary citizens. It sounds like New York Democrats are conceding that they infringed on the right of self-defense and will lose the Bruen case. Maybe a liberal justice on the Supreme Court already gave them the text of that decision.
That brings us to Bill A8684 before the New York Assembly which “Prohibits firearms in certain locations, including but not limited to all forms of public transportation, large gatherings, and food and drink establishments.”
Since New York Democrats will soon have to issue carry permits, they want to make everywhere a gun-free zone for everyone.
Bill A8684:
“A person commits a Class E felony if they-
“knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun, or firearm in or upon the following locations:
“Any form of public transportation, including but not limited to railroads, ride-sharing services, paratransit services, subways, buses, air travel, taxis or any other public transportation service;
“Food and drink establishments; or
“Large gatherings, which for the purposes of this section shall mean a gathering together of fifteen or more persons for amusement, athletic, civic, dining, educational, entertainment, patriotic, political, recreational, religious, social, or similar purposes.“
I couldn’t tell if the usual suspects are above the law. Does this law apply to off-duty law enforcement officers, judges, security guards, and politicians? Does it apply to retired cops, retired judges and retired politicians? If the law makes us safer, then it should certainly make them safer too. I can’t think of a single reason why they should be exempt.
Bad things happen when uninformed lawmakers make rules for other people. According to this bill, mere possession of the gun is a crime. That means you can’t have a shotgun or rifle competition with more than 15 people on the premises. Most shooting ranges/gun stores became illegal if they let more than a handful of customers in the door at one time. This bill also outlaws most concealed carry classes. There went your 4H firearms safety class and your school’s rifle team.
We are all at risk when politicians make laws they don’t understand.
It used to be legal to bring a firearm to the airport and declare that firearm with your checked luggage. Now, possession of that luggage is a crime as you walk into the airport.
Your church security team was just disarmed, and restaurant and bar owners were just disarmed at work. That is really bad since those businesses are already a frequent target for robbery. Was this law written to make robbery easier for the criminals?
It sounds like my Christmas party, my 4th of July celebration, and my birthday party would also be illegal. Fortunately, that is easy to fix because I can celebrate those out of state. Not everyone is so lucky.
It would become a felony for us to use private ride-sharing services while we transport our firearms. That means more of us will drive our own car or have to rent a car.
Firearm possession is against the law, not carrying concealed.
I couldn’t help but notice that this law is an absolute gift to the thieves who are robbing taxi drivers, Uber drivers, and Lyft drivers every day. New York Democrats would be shocked, but some of those drivers would rather survive than be carjacked. The rideshare drivers would like to retain their means of livelihood since they own the car rather than the car belonging to the rideshare services. Now the driver commits a felony if he has his firearm in his own car as he works.
I wonder if the bill is written that way on accident or if those are the intended feature of the bill. Maybe the bill is simply a way to eliminate rideshare services and force us back to unionized and regulated taxicabs.
Maybe this bill was written for the restaurants that catered to New York politicians. Sure, they wanted to put up “no-guns-allowed” signs, but then gun owners would go to restaurants where armed patrons were welcome. This bill is a way to get rid of that competition since all restaurants become “gun-free” zones. That is less far-fetched than it sounds since money talks in New York politics.
Sheriffs in up-state New York will hate it. Hunters could no longer take their cased firearms into a restaurant when they stop to eat. This will become the “steal my hunting gun” bill. Do New York Democrats think it a problem when criminals have more guns, or is that part of their plan?
The solution is straightforward. We have to hold the state liable for the damages it causes. The state must be forced to assume absolute liability for any and all injuries and damages we sustain because we were disarmed. New York Democrats say this law will save many lives so they should be eager to pay up.
TX AG Files Lawsuit against Federal Power to Tax, Regulate Homemade Silencers
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– On February 24, 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a suit against Marvin Richardson, acting head of the ATF, challenging the power of the federal government to regulate personally made silencers used for home defense in Texas, which remain in Texas.
Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives seeking to stop the enforcement of federal regulations regarding firearm suppressors made in Texas. Texas House Bill 957, passed in 2021, expressly exempts from federal regulation firearm suppressors that are made in, and remain in Texas.
Federal law regulates firearm suppressors, making it illegal to own a firearm suppressor for personal use without paying a tax. It is also a federal offense to possess, manufacture, transport, repair, or sell a firearm silencer unless a person complies with federal guidelines.
“Our Second Amendment right must be protected and I will continue to protect Texans from federal overreach interfering with that inalienable right,” Attorney General Paxton said. “The federal government cannot simply override the Constitution. I will not allow them to tarnish the freedom and values Americans hold dear.”
This federal law violates the Second Amendment by taxing and regulating firearm suppressors made and used in Texas. No other constitutional right is subject to payment of a federal tax before an American can exercise that right.
The brief filed by AG Paxton is clear, the arguments are strong. The NFA restrictions on Silencers are attacked on the grounds of taxation of a Constitutional right (Second Amendment), inappropriate use of the commerce clause, and as a law that has no public safety justification.
1. Federal law has heavily taxed and regulated firearm suppressors since 1934. Since 1968, it has been illegal to make a firearm suppressor for personal use without first paying a $200 tax, marking the suppressor with a serial number, getting the approval of the federal government, and registering the firearm suppressor.
2. Heavy federal taxation and regulation of firearm suppressors made in Texas for personal use in Texas does not survive Heller’s recognition that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual, fundamental right. “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 636 (2008).
3. There has never been a public-safety justification for the taxation and regulation of firearm suppressors.
4. Moreover, federal regulation of firearm suppressors made in Texas for personal use in Texas cannot be justified as regulations of interstate commerce, or as laws necessary and proper for the carrying into execution such regulations of interstate commerce.
AG Ken Paxton is following his obligation under the law as required by Texas law passed in 2021, as HB 957. The bill became effective in September of 2021. AG Paxton has been especially busy this year, filing numerous lawsuits against the Biden administration for their illegal ignoring of federal immigration law. He has been winning those lawsuits.
Paxton has been fighting and winning. He has a reasonable chance of winning this lawsuit, which he was required to file, by law. He has wisely chosen plaintiffs who wish to make suppressors for their own private use for self-defense in their own homes in Texas. Ken Paxton has shown himself to be a savvy fighter for the Second Amendment.
This correspondent will be following this lawsuit closely.
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.
Wisconsin is poised to potentially pass laws allowing permit-less concealed carry. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, the Assembly passed Senate Bill 570, to protect Second Amendment rights from frivolous lawsuits. It now goes to Governor Tony Evers for his consideration. NRA thanks the sponsor, Senator Julian Bradley (R-28), as well as all the other lawmakers who supported this bill along the way. Please contact Gov. Evers and ask him to sign SB 570 into law.
Senate Bill 570 protects firearm dealers, manufacturers, distributors, etc., from frivolous lawsuits for the criminal or unlawful use of their product. While federal law currently has this protection, as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), President Biden has promised to repeal it as the main part of his assault on the Second Amendment. Prior to Congress passing PLCAA in 2005, 34 states passed similar laws on their own. In addition, Iowa passed such legislation last year. With this bill, Wisconsin will add an additional layer of protection to prevent anti-gun extremists from attempting to bankrupt law-abiding businesses by suing them for the third party, criminal misuse of their legal products.
Again, please contact Gov. Evers and ask him to sign SB 570 into law.
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
