Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador thinks he can do no wrong. After all, U.S. federal courts are turning over sovereignty to the Mexican head of state at the same time he’s issuing ultimatums to the United States and thumbing his nose to Texas.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Marquez, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, ruled that a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government against five Arizona-based firearm retailers can proceed. Mexico claims these firearm retailers are facilitating illegal firearm trafficking to Mexico. There’s no evidence of this. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) would have shut these businesses down if there was. Of course, gun control groups backing Mexico’s claims are crowing over the development.
That’s on top of the $10 billion lawsuit Mexico is also bringing, with the backing of U.S. gun control groups, against U.S. firearm manufacturers. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit revived that case in January after a lower court dismissed the claims.
The irony is Mexican President López Obrador is issuing a list of demands to the United States and telling a U.S. court in the State of Texas law to fight illegal immigration would impinge on Mexico’s “sovereign right” to decide who enters the country.
Mexican Shakedown
The irony is rich, if not absurd. Mexico is running roughshod on America’s sovereignty in American courts because it refuses to enforce its own gun control laws on their side of the border. At the same time, President López Obrador is shaking down not just U.S. firearm manufacturers for $10 billion, he’s demanding $20 billion in what can only be described as “patronage fees” to Latin American countries. He also wants work visas for 10 million illegal immigrants, an end to U.S. sanctions in Venezuela and a halt to the blockade of Cuba.
The arrogance is astounding but it is being backed by weak U.S. responses and kowtowing by U.S. courts to Mexico. President López Obrador is a head-of-state only because he’s working hand-in-glove with the narco-terrorist drug cartels that are the scourge of Mexico. He refuses to confront those cartels, which are facilitating illegal firearm trafficking. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency uncovered “substantial evidence” that drug cartels funneled $2 million to his campaign and that it was impossible to divorce government officials from criminal cartels.
U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is demanding answers from 16 federal law enforcement agencies over a secretive Project Thor, that was designed to disrupt those known networks. It was working, until the ATF pulled the plug – at the same time Mexico brought their claims against U.S. firearm manufacturers.
Weakness Invites Arrogance
The Biden administration’s response to this shakedown was anemic. Fox News reported a Biden administration official said President López Obrador “has a very ambitious agenda.” That official added that Congress would need to act to acquiesce. The response should have been an outright rejection.
President López Obrador was equally flippant to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s law to force illegal immigrants to return to Mexico or face criminal charges.
“The Texas governor acts that way because he wants to be the Republican vice presidential candidate and wants to win popularity with these measures,” said President López Obrador, according to Fox News. “He’s not going to win anything. On the contrary, he is going to lose support because there are a lot of Mexicans in Texas, a lot of migrants.”
The Mexican president’s arrogance is being placated by the Biden administration. President Joe Biden’s administration is using a “whole-of-government” approach to attack the firearm industry and Second Amendment rights. His ATF has been issuing rules that carry criminal punishments, even though that’s the responsibility of Congress. His Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) “paused” firearm exports for 90 days but that pause continues well past 150 days with no end in sight. He installed gun control lobbyists in The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention that appear to be colluding with Chicago to bring frivolous lawsuits against Glock.
Placating Cartels
All the while, there is no answer from the Biden administration why it stopped efforts to disrupt Mexican drug cartels illegally funneling guns south of the border. No answer has been offered for why this administration refuses to close the U.S-Mexico border when it is known that firearms are being illegally trafficked, human smuggling is becoming a multi-billion dollar narco-terrorist funding source, illicit drugs are flowing into the United States and U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies are telling Congress and the Biden administration that there are “blinking lights everywhere” warning that the United States is exposing itself to terror attacks. Just this week, the U.S. Border Patrol chief warned terrorists may be crossing the border, after the U.S. saw the reach of ISIS-K attacks in Moscow.
President López Obrador is scoffing at the United States. He is twisting U.S. law, trampling U.S. sovereignty and claiming the United States can’t enforce their own laws because it would offend Mexico. The Biden administration and U.S. courts are giving him the stage to do it.
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
Pennsylvania Ban On Home Firearms Advance To The State Senate, iStock-884188404
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives advanced a bill (HB 777) that would ban homemade firearms to the Commonwealth’s Senate, where it will face a tough battle to pass in the Republican control chamber.
The bill will ban Pennsylvanians from owning, transferring, or making homemade guns without serial numbers. It will also prohibit 3D-printed firearms and modular frames with serial numbers. Anti-gun politicians refer to these firearms as “ghost guns” and blame them for the rise in crime in cities like Philadelphia.
All but one Democrat, Frank Burns (D-72), voted to pass the bill. Three Republicans crossed the aisle to join their left-leaning colleagues in voting for the bill. Ultimately, the bill was passed with a vote of 104-97. Democrats hold a slight margin of 102 to 100. The Republicans who voted for the bill were KC Tomlinson (R-18), Martina White (R-170), and Joe Hogan (R-142).
Their votes drew the ire of many gun rights advocates and gun rights groups. This anti-gun vote isn’t the first time that two of the three voted for anti-gun bills. Hogan and Tomlinson have previously voted for red flag laws and universal background checks. Gun Owners of America (GOA), which has a significant presence in Harrisburg, downgraded its rankings for the Republicans to an “F.”
While most derided the Republicans for voting for constitutionally dubious anti-gun laws, one Pennsylvania state-level gun group has started running cover for the three Republicans, which has upset many in the gun community.
Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC) sent out an email stating that the three Republicans didn’t have a choice other than voting for the bills. They claimed that the three would have lost their seats in the House if they voted against gun control.
“I would encourage members to realize that Republicans who voted in favor of this bill did so knowing they would lose their seats if they did not, not because they wanted to,” the email read. “I would encourage members to understand that even with those three Republicans voting against this bill, it would have passed 101 to 100, even with Democrat Frank Burns voting against the bill. Understand these Republicans know this bill will NOT become law because their fellow Republicans in the Senate will kill it promptly. Understand the ONLY reason the Democrats ran this bill was to make these Republicans either vote this way and get attacked by 2A groups, which has already started, or vote our way and get attacked by their local voters over a vote they could not win. Try to remember those Republicans are in heavy Democrat districts and we need them to stay in their seats to regain the House and stop this nonsense.”
FOAC has a mixed track record on homemade firearms. FOAC’s late President Kim Stofer was instrumental in getting JSD Supply banned from Eagle Arms Gun Shows for selling Polymer80 kits. The deal was brokered with the gun show owner, Amen Brown, then-Attorney General and now Governor Josh Shapiro. Mr. Stofer told this reporter that he wanted a paper trail for “ghost guns.” JSD Supply’s owner, Jordan Vinroe, would end up buying the gun shows and return to selling kits.
FOAC did fight against this bill, but the pressure wasn’t enough to stop it from passing the House. AmmoLand News asked current FOAC President Jim Stoker to comment on the bill passing to the Senate. Mr. Stoker believes it is more critical to protect Republicans who backed the bill than to hold their feet to the fire for their bad votes.
“FOAC Institute is non-partisan. We are neither pro-Democrat nor pro-Republican; we are pro-gun,” Stoker said in a state released to AmmoLand News. “Right now, the pro-gun legislators in this Commonwealth’s House consist of Republicans and only ONE Democrat. Our strategy moving forward is to attack specific anti-gun politicians in Democrat controlled districts where we can replace with pro-gun legislators and return control of the House to the pro-gun party in Pennsylvania. The result would be maintaining existing Republican seats and gaining two or three seats back from the Democrats who benefitted from the Democrat controlled courts handing them control of the House in 2022.”
The bill will now head to the Senate. It faces an uphill battle if the Republicans hold the line. Governor Josh Shapiro will sign it into law if it does pass the Senate.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. Mr. Crump 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.
Opinion by Gary Mauser, Alan J. Chwick, & Joanne D. Eisen
Immense gratitude goes out to the Second Amendment Foundation for their hands-on data gathering at the 2024 Geneva, Switzerland meeting. SAF stood out as the sole Human Rights Organization present with a focus on safeguarding your right to own and carry firearms.
United Nations Gun Control Arms Trade Treaty Fail iStock-Sakramir-534207072
The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) entered into force on December 24, 2014, and will reach its tenth anniversary soon. Horrified by the misdeeds of mankind, the UN hailed it as the Treaty that would surely lead to peace because it would be ‘legally binding.’ According to Article 7 of the treaty, if an arms exporting country sees the possibility of misuse of a weapon, the “exporting State Party shall not authorize the export.” Countries that sign on to the ATT, would be expected to judge each other and make decisions about which countries could purchase weapons.
Did it work?
A person’s opinion about the actual demise of the treaty depends on what was expected. Did one wish to see actual progress toward peace via disarmament? There is no such appearance of peaceful progress. Laura Vatella, an ATT proponent writing for the ATT Monitor, 2/22/2024, in a report of civil society perspectives, opined, “the ATT was not fulfilling its goal of reducing human suffering…”
‘Not fulfilling?’ … That’s the answer.
But then, can a person be satisfied with only the appearance of working hard towards peace and disarmament? If one wants actual progress, then the ATT failed to perform as promised, despite its often touted, but somewhat missing, ‘legally binding’ aspect. The world is no closer to peace because of ATT features. And now, ten years in, the ATT, marginally alive because of the presence of left-over diplomats, is technically in its death throes and totally non-functional.
But perhaps, 2014 was not the best time to launch ATT. Let’s recall what happened to two countries that went through the process of voluntary disarmament and found the promises of peace to be false words. In January of 1994, Ukraine signed the Trilateral Agreement with Russia and the U.S. in which Ukraine, with promises of peace, would give up all of their original Russian nukes, which remained in Ukraine after the fall of the USSR. Then, in March of 2014, just as the ATT was about to come into force, Russia invaded and annexed the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, now in 2022, Russia continued the invasion to try to take the rest of Ukraine. And that war is not over yet.
Then there is the Libyan example of broken promises. On December 19, 2003, in exchange for the promises of peace, and financial aid, Libya and the U.S. signed an agreement for Libya to give up all of its nukes. On March 14, 2011, as the ATT was getting written and just three years before it entered into force, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton backed the bombing of Libya and the destruction of the regime, leaving Libya a failed nation for all to see and remember.
After Gaddafi’s death, his son, Saif al-Islam surmised, “it’s a good lesson for anybody…that you have to be strong, you can never trust them…and you have to be on the alert. Because those people, they don’t have friends. Over one night, they change their minds, and they start bombing…and the same thing could happen to any other country.”
Those memories are alive, and the lessons are well learned but not spoken aloud in disarmament circles. They should be addressed because those examples set the scene for distrust and failure of the ATT.
Here’s the present situation.
The President’s Working Paper
The President of the Tenth Conference of States Parties (CSP10) H. E. Razvan Rusu, who is the Romanian Ambassador to the U.N., sent a draft working paper on February 9, 2024, implying that the theme of the Tenth Conference was The Role of Interagency Cooperation in the Effective Implementation of Arms Trade Treaty Provisions. He indicates that individuals and related entities are not cooperating, with each other, in a way that will save the world as promised, and until they can, work related to the ATT is failing. In effect, he complained that progress was at a standstill and that major changes are required before the group can get back to their primary job of furthering disarmament to achieve peace. This could be almost any organization suffering from uncontrollable internal and external dysfunction. But it’s a microcosm of societal challenges at the global level, a sad reminder of our very faulty species.
Rusu explained that the various participants and related entities don’t know what they’re doing. They have a “limited understanding of each other’s mandates, responsibilities, and priorities…with basic technical knowledge lacking in some entities…frequent changes in personnel involved…which leads to a lack of institutional memory, or prioritization of ATT obligations.” Among other problems, there is competition for scarce resources and there are different levels of seniority of the diplomatic officials involved leading to frustrating rivalries. And so, at almost ten years of age, the atmosphere lacks “trust and confidence.”
Adding to this disarray, Dumisani Dladla, the Head of the ATT Secretariat, left his position, so the Secretariat must search for someone to replace him, hopefully by August when the tenth anniversary Conference of States Parties is held.
If there is a bit of life to be found this coming August among the diplomats, we can foresee their clever response in last year’s documents. The theme of the Ninth CSP (CSP9) last August was the Role of Industry in Responsible International Transfers of Conventional Arms. We can surely understand the frustrated diplomats’ desire to hand off responsibility for failure to manufacturers to deal with and ultimately take the blame.
The Final Document of that last meeting includes, “States Parties are encouraged to take necessary steps to ensure that industry and private sector entities operating under their national jurisdiction conduct their business consistent with the object and purpose of the Treaty.” One may ask, how can business folks achieve success when diplomats with government tools at hand have been failing? This tactic of spreading the blame has been tried before with little success. Among the many responses, rational courts of law will have difficulty blaming and punishing manufacturers who would soon be seeking refuge in more friendly legal jurisdictions.
The coming CSP10 should be very interesting.
Diversion, Universalization And Transparency
These words, used by disarmament diplomats are important because they reflect the various intransigent problems faced daily by disarmament proponents.
Diplomats use the word ‘diversion,’ and their meaning is, “oh my, the weapons have gone missing.” At present, diversion appears to be uncontrollable and tends to damage the efforts of the ATT to control legal weapons transfers.
Universalization is the code word diplomats use when discussing the number of nations participating and the effort to entice more nations to join. One example of mistrust in the ATT system, explained by Rachel Stohl, is the fact that “there is an imbalance in the Treaty membership, with more major exporting states than major importing states. Thus, one area of focus for treaty universalization should be on increasing ATT membership among some of the larger arms-importing states to demonstrate that the ATT has benefits for all stakeholders in the arms transfer process.” However, “a more deliberate ATT strategy” is not going to change the fact that importing countries have more limited options for their defense and safety, and must make strategic decisions with care.
Transparency is a word used by diplomats that means after joining and paying dues, a country is required to disclose everything about its weapons to other countries. Without that transparency, weapons control is a fallacy. And so, as one might expect, transparency is declining, year by year, even within the small group of countries that were initially willing to report their information.
Article 13 describes an “initial report” and an annual report “concerning authorized or actual exports and imports…reports shall be made available and distributed to States Parties by the Secretariat.” These reports, and the transparency of weapons transfers and acquisition, are the most crucial aspects of the treaty because the knowledge and acceptability of weapons transfers should determine the successful non-violent outcome of each transfer. Transparency points out potential weaknesses of participating Countries, as it also shaves away some of their strength.
The following graph describes the state of reporting. Please note that Annual Reports Due But Not Received is growing, hence the coming ATT failure. An interactive version of this graph is available at: TheArmsTradeTreaty.org/annual-reports.html.
United Nations Country Weapons Transfers And Acquisition Report: Please note that Annual Reports Due But Not Received is growing….
It becomes immediately obvious that the percentage of Countries reporting has decreased since 2014. However, according to the January 22, 2024 paper from the Working Group on Transparency and Reporting (WGTR), “reporting is a fundamental legal obligation of the Treaty, and … submitting initial and annual reports is an indicator of the commitment of a State Party to the Treaty.” So, yes, it’s obvious that commitment has waned, and mistrust has increased.
But there could be another problem brewing. In this document, the WGTR indicated that the peer-to-peer coaching program of regularly reporting countries helping nearby but non-compliant countries has intensified pressure on non-reporting countries. The ATT Secretariat is attempting to form a ‘Voluntary Regional Reporting Champions’ initiative to push reluctant Countries onward to compliance. This cannot possibly improve trust between countries. And since this does not address the core problem of State safety, and might even increase the perception of danger, any success remains to be seen. And there does not appear to be sufficient funding available to make timely reporting just a little more palatable.
Oh, About Money
The subject of finances is easy to explain, even without graphics. In a report by Dumisani Dladla, then head of the ATT Secretariat, we find the simple truth. He says, “The ATT is building an annual deficit of 7% average, which will be rolled over into next year’s budgets. The implication is that liquidity challenges will materialize in the medium term if outstanding contributions remain unpaid.”
The atmosphere at ATT meetings has always been one of financial constraint. Yet proponents know that the presence of money prompts words like ‘yes’ instead of ‘no’. Why has this situation been allowed to persist? What happened on the way to reasonable funding of this supposedly important Treaty?
There is a separate fund for a Sponsorship Programme that is designed to bring participants who cannot afford to attend meetings. This programme is expected to, “maximize the scale and diversity of participation of experts from States in ATT implementation and universalization to ensure representative and participatory discourse and decision-making during the meetings and, ultimately, contribute to strengthening implementation and universalization of the Treaty.” “As at 14 July 2023, the ATT Secretariat had received voluntary contributions from nine (9) donor states, namely Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland. To date, a total of USD 1,233,230 in sponsorship funds has been received into the sponsorship fund.” Since 2018, $1,223,230 (USD) has been donated by Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland, with only $105,701.70, donated from various countries in 2023.
We are not discussing huge amounts here, yet we should be, and we would be if there were a serious, systematic process designed for success.
Don’t forget Gender is at fault as well….
The Human Dilemma
It’s long been true that some countries are more successful than others, and because “Might (so often) Makes Right,” countries can and do make war with each other, so maps change. The most serious flaw in the ATT is that countries know that map changes are frequent. In this unstable time, a Country’s survival depends on both perceived and actual strength, not its stage of disarmament.
Perhaps the thoughtless, naive, too-rapid jump by the UN to disarmament as the holy path to peace was a dream that needs a bit more logical thought. Given the ten-year failure of the ATT to show any progress, perhaps the activists involved need to step aside to let fresh eyes look at their mess. Perhaps the UN and its member governments should concentrate on providing security and good governance instead of demands for disarmament that promises peace but too often leads to violence.
Perhaps we should accept the President’s letter as a warning and should seek out the “lessons learned” from the ATT’s failure. Is the world ready for unilateral, voluntary disarmament and its obvious dangers?
Perhaps we need a long period of security before nations will feel comfortable abandoning their populace to the whims of stronger neighbors.
Draft Working Paper Presented By The President Of The Tenth Conference Of States Parties To The Arms Trade…
About The Authors
Gary Mauser is a professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada. Check out his blog at JusticeForGunowners.ca for more information.
Alan J. Chwick has been involved with firearms much of his life and is the Retired Managing Coach of the Freeport NY Junior Marksmanship Club. He has escaped New York State to South Carolina and is an SC FFL (Everything22andMore.com). AJChwick@iNCNF.org | TWITTER: @iNCNF
Joanne D. Eisen, DDS (Ret.) practiced dentistry on Long Island, NY. She has collaborated and written on firearm politics for the past 40+ years. She, too, escaped New York State, but to Virginia. JoanneDEisen@cs.com
Brady United President Kris Brown and her gun control activist allies are running out of lies to tell about America’s law-abiding gun owners and the industry that provides for the exercise of the Second Amendment.
Instead of supporting the Constitution and law enforcement efforts to get tough on criminals who break the law and prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes using firearms, Brown and the gun control industrial complex would instead rather use lies to scare the public and shame them into giving up their own rights.
The latest example of Brown’s displayed dishonesty was on CNN for a segment related to Hollywood efforts to promote safe firearm storage. There was no fact check of Brown’s lie, and it’s readily apparent the falsehood was uttered to tug at viewer’s emotional strings to push an antigun agenda.
New Lie on Display
Last year, Brady United for Gun Control announced it was spearheading an effort to bring on Hollywood executives to help the group sell more gun control. Americans weren’t listening to them enough – meaning they were instead exercising their Second Amendment rights to purchase and possess firearms – and Brady needed a marketing upgrade. Brady announced the addition of three big names to help them sell more gun control to an American public that wasn’t interested. In a release, the gun control group publicized the hires, saying they will “bolster efforts and cultivate new relationships in the entertainment industry.” The goal is to “ignite a movement among culture leaders and creators to spark positive norm and behavior change and reshape America’s relationship with guns.”
Fast forward a few months, and CNN ran a news segment highlighting that actors on the TV show “S.W.A.T.” were using a gun safe in the home when one of the actors returned home off duty. Brown was included and interviewed about the show visually demonstrating safe firearm storage.
“The new approach is one of the successes of the #ShowGunSafety campaign launched by advocacy group Brady United, which is now partnering with studios across the country after first meeting at the White House for a roundtable with actors and writers last year,” the report narrator says.
“That is a gamechanger,” Brown said of the show including the quick scene of the gun safe in use. Then she spouted the lie. “We lose eight kids a day… to family fire. That’s due to firearms in the home that are not safely stored.”
CNN has an in-house fact checker but it’s unlikely that the statement from Brown will get any second look.
Fast False ‘Fact’
There’s really no telling where Brady’s Brown came up with the statistic that eight children are tragically lost everyday due to firearm accidents in the home. The closest data point that could be found was a statistic on the website End Family Fire that says “Every day, 8 kids are injured or killed from unintentional shootings.” Not surprisingly, End Family Fire is a gun control advocacy effort made up of a partnership between Brady United, the Ad Council, Docs Demand Action (an offshoot of the Michael Bloomberg-backed Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action groups), Bishops United Against Gun Violence and others.
Stating the obvious, it is quite different to suggest eight children are killed in the home every day from unsecured firearms than it is to suggest eight kids are killed or injured by firearms each day. The blurring of data and statistics to match their desired gun control outcome is all too familiar for the gun control movement that is running out of facts.
Last month, The Washington Post analyzed, and was forced to concede, that the often-repeated gun control lie that “Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children” was indeed false. President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, official statements from The White House, countless gun control politicians and gun control activist groups – including Brown – have all repeated the claim. Never mind that it is completely false.
“When you focus only on children — 17 and younger — motor vehicle deaths (broadly defined) still rank No. 1, as they have for six decades,” The Washington Post reported. “In the interest of accuracy, it would be better for White House officials to refer to children and teens when citing these reports. When all motor vehicle accidents are counted, then motor vehicle deaths continue to exceed firearm deaths for children — defined as people under age 18 — whether or not infants are included.”
If Brown is going to start making more TV appearances to tout her Hollywood gun control activism, she might want to make sure she has her data and facts straight.
Real Solutions, Responsible Firearm Leadership
Promoting safe firearm storage in the home when guns are not in use is a pillar of responsible gun ownership. The firearm industry wholeheartedly agrees. However, the firearm industry also believes in facts and truthful data and ensuring law-abiding gun owners are knowledgeable and can choose the appropriate safe storage device that works for their individual situation.
One of the firearm industry pillar programs of safe and responsible gun storage is Project ChildSafe® – a program that has provided more than 41 million firearm safety kits, including gun cable locks, free of charge, no questions asked, to anyone who requests one through law enforcement partnerships in all 50 states and five U.S. territories. Keeping firearms out of the hands of children, and also those individuals who may be struggling with depression or other mental health difficulties, is of critical importance. This isn’t something new. NSSF has been at this for a quarter century. This year, 2024, marks the 25th anniversary of this life-saving effort. Those lock distributions are on top of the free gun locks included with every firearm that’s shipped from the manufacturer. The firearm industry’s commitment to safety is unrivaled.
Along with Project ChildSafe, NSSF’s Real Solutions. Safer Communities® initiatives have had a real, positive impact on reducing firearm tragedies and keeping communities safer, all while protecting and ensuring Constitutional rights are honored. It’s why the firearm industry is gratified that unintentional firearm accidents have trended to historic low numbers since data was first collected more than 100 years ago. While the work is never done, that’s a statistic the firearm industry is proud to be a part of and that Brady United’s Kris Brown, CNN and Hollywood should all recognize.
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
Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin Kills Gun Control Bills iStock-884220580
Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin dealt a killing blow to Democrat’s hope of passing additional gun control in the Commonwealth.
Earlier this year, Democrats in the Virginia legislature passed 36 gun control bills, including an “assault firearms” bill that would see most semi-automatic rifles banned, magazine limitations, and a bill prohibiting homemade firearms. The Democrats have a razor-thin majority in both chambers of the legislature. The state’s executive branch is controlled by all Republicans.
The Governor has been tight-lipped on gun issues, although he has claimed to support the Second Amendment. Many worried that the Governor would buckle and sign these bills, but the Gov. Youngkin was true to his word and killed all the bills.
Of the 36 bills, 30 were vetoed, and the remaining six were modified from anti-gun language to pro-gun bills, which are sure to fail when they are sent back to Democrats for approval. This technique of modifying bills to ensure they are rejected is called the poison pill technique. The Governor might not have “talked the talk,” but he did walk the walk.
One of the bills that was modified was the Democratic’s “ghost gun” bill. Youngkin removed the language requiring a homemade gun to have a serial number and replaced it with a law that would prevent the state from prosecuting someone for having a firearm with little to no metal if they were unaware of the undetectable firearms law. Although this change wouldn’t prevent federal charges, it would protect gun owners from local law enforcement.
The Governor’s actions delighted gun rights activists from the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), Gun Owners of America (GOA), and the National Rifle Association (NRA), who all released statements thanking Gov. Youngkin for protecting Virginians’ natural right to bear arms. VCDL President Phillip Van Cleave was particularly happy with the Governor’s actions.
“Governor Youngkin stood firmly with Virginia’s gun owners by vetoing 30 bills that were either unconstitutional or that irrationally targeted law-abiding gun owners instead of violent criminals,” Van Cleave told AmmoLand News.
Anti-gun groups took to social media to bash the vetoes. Mom’s Demand Action and Everytown were particularly upset with the Governor. The groups claim that Youngkin disregarded the will of the voters without acknowledging that most of the state has some form of Second Amendment Sanctuary status. In 2019, 50,000 Virginians took to the streets of Richmond to protest gun control measures.
“Today’s decisions from Governor Youngkin are disappointing and a disregard of the will of the voters,” said Mike Fox, a volunteer with the Virginia chapter of Moms Demand Action. “We demonstrated in the 2023 elections when we helped flip the House of Delegates to a gun sense majority that Governor Youngkin’s guns everywhere agenda isn’t welcome in the Commonwealth and that voters want leaders who will make stronger gun safety laws a reality. Thanks to the leadership of our legislators, there are still many lifesaving gun violence prevention bills on the way to Governor Youngkin’s desk. He’ll have another opportunity to do the right thing and support our efforts to make our communities safer by signing those bills into law.”
For the foreseeable future, Virginia will continue to be a battleground state for gun rights, and these bills will be introduced again. Neither side of the debate seems to be willing to back down.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. Mr. Crump 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.
While we had no reason to think Governor Youngkin would sign any gun-control bills, it was still incredibly important that gun owners were proactive. Your phone calls, emails, and postcards to the Governor bolstered him and helped make this victory possible. THANK YOU!
The Governor vetoed 30 gun-control bills, modified six other gun-control bills so that they no longer pose a threat to Virginia’s lawful gun owners, and signed four bills that had been modified in the General Assembly, changing VCDL’s position from Oppose to Neutral. There are no more gun-control bills left.
There is no way the Democrats will be able to override any of the Governor’s vetoes.
The Democrats and the gun-control organizations pushed this year to go easier on violent criminals while at the same time attacking people like you and me. These vetoes are just desserts for disrespecting the Constitution and minimizing the importance of self-defense for good, decent people.
Bottom line: the gun-grabbers struck out. There are no significant changes to Virginia’s gun laws this year! Of the gun bills that were not vetoed, there are none that are opposed by VCDL!
After the General Assembly Veto Session on April 17, VCDL will do a “Thank you” campaign to the Governor and to the Republicans in the General Assembly for their strong support of our right to keep and bear arms.
Bills signed by the Governor and will become law on July 1 (VCDL is neutral on all these bills):
HB22, Jones, makes auto sears that are illegally owned under federal law, illegal under state law. This bill changes nothing for gun owners. VCDL is neutral on this bill.
HB36, Willett, makes it illegal for a parent, who has been notified by a school or the court system that his child is dangerous to himself or others, to allow that child to gain access to a firearm. VCDL is neutral on this bill.
SB44, VanVaulkenburg, makes it illegal for a parent, who has been notified by a school or the court system that his child is dangerous to himself or others, to allow that child to gain access to a firearm. VCDL is neutral on this bill.
SB210, Perry, makes auto sears that are illegally owned under federal law, illegal under state law. This bill changes nothing for gun owners. VCDL is neutral on this bill.
These bills were modified by the Governor. As modified, VCDL went from opposing these bills to either supporting them or being neutral:
SB100, requires serialization of homemade guns made after 1968 and prohibits totally plastic firearms. The Governor removed the serialization part of the bill, improved current law by adding a protection against someone unknowingly having a plastic firearm (a gun with little or no metal components), and put in a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for 2nd time violent offender convictions. VCDL supports this bill as modified by the Governor.
HB173, requires serialization of homemade guns made after 1968 and prohibits totally plastic firearms. The Governor removed the serialization part of the bill, improved current law by adding a protection against someone unknowingly having a plastic firearm (a gun with little or no metal components), and put in a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for 2nd time violent offender convictions. VCDL supports this bill as modified by the Governor.
SB225, requires schools to text or email subjective information on guns to parents at the start of a school year. The Governor’s amendments will require this bill to be passed again next year to take effect. It also requires parents to be notified about a host of other things, including various parental rights and responsibilities not related to firearms. VCDL is neutral on this bill as modified by the Governor.
SB363, makes it unlawful to possess, sell, or distribute a firearm with an altered serial number. The Governor’s amendment makes the bill basically duplicate federal law on altered serial numbers. This bill now changes nothing for gun owners. VCDL is neutral on this bill as modified by the Governor.
SB515, prohibits firearms in hospitals. The Governor’s amendments strike most of the bill’s wording, including the hospital carry ban and gun confiscation provisions. The amendment makes it a crime to willfully provide a weapon to someone who is in a hospital getting mental health treatment. That’s it. VCDL is neutral on this bill as modified by the Governor.
HB861, prohibits firearms in hospitals. The Governor’s amendments strike most of the bill’s wording, including the hospital carry ban and gun confiscation provisions. The amendment makes it a crime to willfully provide a weapon to someone who is in a hospital getting mental health treatment. That’s it. VCDL is neutral on this bill as modified by the Governor.
These gun-control bills were vetoed by the Governor:
HB2, bans “assault firearms” and magazines holding more than 10 rounds made after July 1, 2024. The definition of “assault firearm” is expanded to capture more types of firearms. It also prohibits ownership of “assault firearms” by young adults. VETOED!
SB2, bans “assault firearms” and magazines holding more than 10 rounds made after July 1, 2024. The definition of “assault firearm” is expanded to capture more types of firearms. It also prohibits ownership of “assault firearms” by young adults. VETOED!
SB99, prohibits the carry of “assault firearms” in public areas, regardless of whether they are loaded, and removes an exemption for CHP holders. VETOED!
HB175, prohibits the carry of “assault firearms” in public areas, regardless of whether they are loaded, and removes an exemption for CHP holders. VETOED!
HB183, requires all firearms in a home, that are not being carried by the owner, to be locked up if there is a minor present. VETOED!
SB258, expands the things a judge can consider and must consider when issuing an Extreme Risk Protection Order (Red Flag). VETOED!
SB273, requires a five-day waiting period for firearm sales. VETOED!
HB318, allows for frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry in a blatant attempt to litigate a legitimate industry out of business. VETOED!
SB327, makes it illegal for young adults to purchase an “assault firearm.” The definition of “assault firearm” is expanded to capture more types of firearms. VETOED!
SB338, creates a commission to study the social, physical, emotional, and economic effects of gun violence on communities across the Commonwealth. VETOED!
HB351, requires a person purchasing a firearm to sign a certification that no minor lives in the home, otherwise a locking device must be included with the firearm. VETOED!
HB362, adds “dating relationship” to the definition of a “domestic relationship” for purposes of prohibiting guns for misdemeanor domestic violence. VETOED!
SB368, requires all firearms in a home, that are not being carried by the owner, to be locked up if there is a minor present. VETOED!
SB383, prohibits firearms in higher education buildings unless part of an authorized program or activity in that building. VETOED!
SB447, creates a $500 fine and makes a vehicle subject to towing if there is a visible handgun inside an unattended vehicle. VETOED!
HB454, prohibits firearms in higher education buildings unless part of an authorized program or activity in that building. VETOED!
HB466, severely restricts recognition of out-of-state CHPs. VETOED!
SB491, allows for frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry. VETOED!
HB585, prohibits home-based Federal Firearms Licensees from operating within 1.5 miles of any elementary or middle school. VETOED!
HB637, creates a training program to make more frequent use of Substantial Risk Orders (Red Flags). VETOED!
SB642, adds “dating relationship” to the definition of a “domestic relationship” for purposes of prohibiting guns for misdemeanor domestic violence. VETOED!
HB797, removes NRA and USCCA training courses from the list of qualified training courses to get a CHP. It also requires the firing of ten rounds of ammunition. Interestingly, the House cognate for this bill, SB522, died for lack of a conference committee report. VETOED!
HB798, takes away a person’s right to own a firearm for several types of misdemeanor convictions, including simple assault. VETOED!
HB799, requires a person to be fingerprinted when applying for a new or renewed CHP. Applicant pays the fingerprinting fee. VETOED!
HB916, creates a Substantial Risk Order (Red Flag) reporting system. VETOED!
HB939, prohibits firearms within 100 feet of an electoral board, voter registration, voter satellite building, or a drop-off location or absentee voter precinct. VETOED!
HB1174, makes it illegal for young adults to purchase an “assault firearm.” The definition of “assault firearm” is expanded to capture more types of firearms. VETOED!
HB1195, requires a five-day waiting period for firearm sales. VETOED!
HB1386, provides that any locality that adopts an ordinance prohibiting the public carrying of firearms shall not have workplace rules that are less restrictive than such ordinance. VETOED!
HB1462, creates a $500 fine and makes a vehicle subject to towing if there is a visible handgun inside an unattended vehicle. VETOED!
About Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL):
Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.
Michelle Lujan Grisham at a rally. By AFGE – #Handsoff Budget Rally, CC BY 2.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
The Second Amendment Foundation and its allies in a federal lawsuit against New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s prohibition of lawful carrying of arms in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County have filed an appellants reply brief with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The case is known as Fort v. Grisham, and is part of a consolidation of cases all challenging the governor’s arbitrary firearms carry ban announced last year.
SAF is joined by the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and a private citizen, Zachary Fort, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys Jordon P. George at Aragon Moss George Jenkins in Albuquerque, and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and Kate Hardiman at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.
The case is on appeal from U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, where Judge David Herrera Urias issued a temporary restraining order against the governor’s edict.
The governor is now appealing.
“Gov. Grisham cannot escape the fact that her unilateral restrictions on public carry are in direct violation of the Second Amendment,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “She offers no analogous laws, no proof of regulations consistent with the nation’s historical tradition, to support her actions. As the Heller and Bruen rulings clarified, the government simply cannot use gun-related violence to restrict, much less suspend, Second Amendment rights.”
“The governor’s order of last September, declaring a state of emergency and suspending the right to bear arms was and remains a flagrant violation of the Second Amendment,” stated SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “No governor has the constitutional authority to nullify, even temporarily, rights secured under the federal constitution and Bill of Rights. We’re determined to pursue this case as far as necessary, and we are confident we will prevail.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
Spreading the Biden Administration’s citizen disarmament agenda throughout the land. (The United States Department of Justice/Facebook)
A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request was filed Tuesday with the Department of Justice by this correspondent to obtain information on the newly announced National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center.
“[The Center] will provide training and technical assistance to law enforcement officials, prosecutors, attorneys, judges, clinicians, victim service and social service providers, community organizations, and behavioral health professionals responsible for implementing laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who pose a threat to themselves or others,” the Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice announced Saturday.
“The establishment of the Center is the latest example of the Justice Department’s work to use every tool provided by the landmark Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to protect communities from gun violence,” Attorney General Merrick Garland declared.
Democrats continually remind the public the bill was “bipartisan” because it helps them sell infringements as “commonsense gun safety laws” to voters not steeped in such matters beyond how the media influences them. Gun owners who are protective of their rights consider the “compromises” made by Republicans, many of whom owe their seats to Second Amendment activism, continued inexcusable examples of betrayals that are, at best, foolish and naive. In this case, it’s one more example of the all-too-foreseeable consequences when Republicans, trying to appear “reasonable,” either let Democrats outsmart them or hide that they were in on the fix from the start.
That ERPOs, or “red flag laws,” or however they normalized to allow for the denial of a fundamental right without a citizen even being charged with a crime let alone convicted of one, is a gun prohibitionist’s dream. That even Donald Trump, who has pledged Second Amendment fidelity to adoring masses of gun owners, has advocated “take the gun first, go through due process second,” ought to wake them up, but all too often provokes an angry response from the true believers.
Because information regarding the formation of the Center is of public interest, particularly to gun owners who have a personal and legal stake in the way it operates, with whom, and how it achieves mission objectives, the FOIA request seeks records to include:
All records regarding the creation of the “National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center,” including but not limited to all communications, emails, memoranda, recorded telephone calls, text messages, and notes;
All records, including but not limited to all communications, emails, memoranda, recorded telephone calls, text messages, and notes from any individual or group to and from the Department of Justice regarding the “National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center;” and
Any legal citations/correspondence/analysis used in the development of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center’s purpose, scope, and objective demonstrating consistency with the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard of text, history, and tradition at the time the Constitution was ratified.
Who the DOJ is partnering with and how their activities are lawful in light of the Supreme Court’s latest ruling on the Second Amendment are of particular interest.
The FOIA request, filed by attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh, is embedded below.
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.
Gun Free School Zone Case Sees Metcalf Accept Plea, Appeal Expected, iStock-490657417
Gabriel Metcalf of Billings, Montana, has accepted a plea deal in the Gun Free School Zone (GFSZ) case, which has been extensively covered by AmmoLand. The plea deal appears to be for probation only, with forfeiture of the single-shot Rossi shotgun and six rounds of ammunition. There is no mention of a fine in the plea agreement. The right to appeal is preserved on page 7 of the agreement.
The plea deal specifically preserves the right to appeal the conviction based on the motion to dismiss entered on October 10, 2023. The motion to dismiss made two arguments. First, the claim was made Gabriel Metcalf was covered by the exception at 18 U.S.C. §922(q)(B)(iii), where the Montana statutes specifically create an individual license for the federal law. Second, §922(q)(2)(A), the GFSZ law, is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The Gun Free School Zone Act was initially found to be unconstitutional in 1995, in U.S. v Lopez, because the United States government did not have the authority to regulate the mere possession of a firearm within a thousand feet of any school.
President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno lobbied for a change in the law, declaring if the firearm had moved in interstate commerce, the federal government had the authority to regulate possession of the firearm. The change was passed as part of a larger spending bill. Eight circuit courts of appeal have ruled on the constitutionality of the law based on the wording change. Five have ruled the wording change cured the constitutional defect. Three have ruled the change did not cure the constitutional defect. No court has ruled on the constitutionality of the GFSZ act under the Second Amendment, except for the Billings District court, in this case, where Judge Susan Waters ruled the GFSZ act did not infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment.
The decision to accept the plea deal was an agonizing one for Gabriel Metcalf. A previous plea offer was rejected. This plea deal was only accepted at the last minute after seeing what evidence would be allowed at trial. No evidence would be allowed showing valid reasons to possess the firearm for the defense of self and others. The federal statute does not contain a defense of self and others exception. The constitutional argument would not be allowed at trial. Preventing juries from hearing constitutional arguments has become standard practice. The recording of Gabriel Metcalf calling federal officers to ask for help because of perceived local police misconduct would not be allowed at trial. An estoppel defense, where the defendant relies on information given by local police, would not be allowed.
Billings police repeatedly made statements to the effect Gabriel was not breaking any laws, so they could not arrest him. The prosecutors had several witnesses who claimed they had seen Gabriel with a firearm outside his property, on a public sidewalk, inside the Gun Free School Zone. There was never an indication Gabriel had been on school property, had threatened anyone, or had broken any other law.
As a practical matter, in order for the case to be appealed, Gabriel Metcalf had to be found guilty, either at trial or through a plea deal. If Metcalf had been found not guilty at trial, he would not have grounds for appeal in this criminal case. This case appears to be the best test case to challenge the constitutionality of the GFSZ Act. The Ninth Circuit has been hostile to treating the Second Amendment as a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights. Some three-judge panels have followed the Supreme Court guidance as given in the Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen decisions. At the Ninth Circuit, those have been taken to en banc panels and reversed.
Judge Susan Waters is reported as saying in court she will not hold it against Gabriel Metcalf if he appeals her decision to the Ninth Circuit. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for August 2, 2024.
Gabriel’s mother has set up a GiveSendGo site to help defend their home and aid in Gabriel’s defense.
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.
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an Appellant’s Brief in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in response to the Biden administration’s appeal of SAF’s lower court victory in its challenge of the administration’s “final rule” regarding pistol braces, seeking oral arguments apart from other cases with which the SAF case has been consolidated.
The case is known as SAF v. ATF.
Joining SAF are Rainier Arms, LLC, and two individual citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Flores Law in Houston, Texas. Defendants are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and its director, Steven Dettelbach, in his official capacity; United States Department of Justice and Attorney General Merrick Garland. The case is on appeal from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
“The Final Rule enacted in 2023 constitutes a marked departure from the BATF’s past position about whether brace-equipped pistols still constitute ‘pistols,’” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we explain in our brief, for over a decade, the agency took the position that brace-equipped pistols did not constitute short-barreled ‘rifles.’ Between 2012 and 2014 in particular, ATF issued no fewer than 17 classification letters about one specific arm brace or another, all opining that arm brace designs did not convert pistols into short-barreled rifles. But that suddenly changed under the Biden administration.”
“The Final Rule completely alters the rifle-pistol distinction,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “There are millions of common firearms formerly defined as ‘pistols’ covered by the 1968 Gun Control Act that are now defined as ‘rifles.’ By shifting this definitional boundary, the Final Rule turned millions of Americans into potential felons overnight, simply because they complied with the letter of the law and ATF’s own guidance. We look forward to defeating this legislative fiat by the executive branch.”
Second Amendment Foundation
The Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters, and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
How are gun owners who won’t surrender their rights supposed to “unite” with gun prohibitionists who demand that they do? (Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Facebook)
“What will you do to confine semi-automatic weapons to use only by military and law enforcement?” a woman asked independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at a New Hampshire townhall meeting (see video below). Her biased presumption was that such a ban would be desirable, beneficial, and constitutional, no doubt the result of relying on Democrats and the media (same thing) for what she “knows” about the issue.
“I am not going to take people’s guns away,” Kennedy responded. “You know, anybody who tells you that we can end the violence to our children that’s going on now by removing people’s guns is not being truthful with you.”
He’s spent time in rural communities, Kennedy explained. He’s seen that the “gun culture… is closely tied to people’s identities” and notes those people view talk of taking their guns as “an existential threat.”
“It hasn’t worked it, has polarized our country more and it’s made people dig in more and I’m trying to end the polarization,” he elaborated. People fear “our entire Constitution is under attack,” and to underscore that point, Kennedy cited government censorship, identifying dissenters on social media, and closing businesses during the Covid panic without due process and compensation.
“Going after people’s guns at this point in history is to me just going to cause more polarization and make it so that we can’t listen to each other anymore because we get put into these kinds of tribal silos which we have to somehow figure out a way to get past,” Kennedy asserted. “We cannot have any more school shootings even if that means protecting schools the same way that we protect Airlines.”
His answer is way better than a Biden alternative, and it sounds good on the surface– at least to people who haven’t looked very deeply at the issue, like some of the YouTube comment posters.
“I’m going to refer people to this video when they say your anti 2nd Amendment,” one responded. “I am a pro-gun Conservative and RFK, Jr. could not be more correct on this point. He has my vote,” wrote another.
So, what did he miss? Aside from the barn?
That the country is “polarized” and at risk of becoming more so should not be his main argument. Polarization is a necessity because those in “tribal silos” demanding citizen disarmament are wrong. “Compromising” with anyone corrupt or ignorant enough to believe otherwise is surrendering to tyranny.
“The FASTER program has trained over 3,000 teachers and school staff. FASTER qualified teachers are in over 300 schools around the country. FASTER has programs in Ohio, Colorado, and Arizona. And it’s growing.”
Nowhere has Kennedy shown that he understands any of this, or of the true purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment. Instead, his “going after people’s guns at this point in history” qualifier is a red flag – it implies there might come another time or set of circumstances where he’ll return to his past hostility to guns and decide the time is right.
We shouldn’t forget a 2018 tweet he deleted because recalling it conflicts with the image he’s trying to project now:
“Let’s be honest. The NRA is as responsible for the MSD child murders as if they pulled the trigger. NRA has turned 2d Amendment into a suicide pact for our children. When do we deal with NRA?”
“Kennedy said that he would get behind a bipartisan assault weapons ban, which the overwhelming majority of Democrats support, but has little chance of getting through Capitol Hill given widespread GOP opposition. ‘If we can get a consensus on it, if Republicans and Democrats agree to it and it passes Congress, I would sign it,’ he said.”
Sorry, Bobby. That kind of polarizing talk just makes some of us want to fortify our tribal silos. And gun owners who don’t get that had better wise up before throwing away their vote on a spoiler to the benefit of Joe Biden.
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.
Are gun owners responsible for figuring out and resolving the mental health issues we have in our country? The question always comes up from the anti-gun side of the conversation. That is, what do you gun owners propose to do about mental health issues? And the question comes up because, typically, people who commit acts of violence usually have some sort of mental issue. Often, they use a gun but not always. Sometimes it’s a car, a knife, a baseball bat, or whatever they can find.
When the question is asked, “What do you gun owners propose to do about mental health issues?” my response is always the same. “When did it become the responsibility of gun owners to fix the ills of the world, especially when a lot of those problems are caused by left-wing politicians for the purpose of gun restrictions?” The question is asked implying that somehow it is our responsibility, and we gun owners are burdened with the problem of solving mental health issues in this country.
Propaganda works in mysterious ways and the political left has been capitalizing on them. In this case, just by asking, “What do you gun owners propose to do about mentally incapacitated people getting hold of firearms?” responsibility for solving the problem is implied. There is also an inherent assumption that unless the problems of mental health are resolved, gun restrictions on everyone are justified.
Why is it my responsibility as a gun owner to fix mental health issues so that I can keep my 2nd Amendment rights? The truth is, it’s not my responsibility to fix the problem, and I resent the fact that gun-grabbing politicians and anti-gunners are putting that burden on my fellow gun owners and me.
Studies have shown that major mental disorders are higher in prisoners, yet Democrats insist on early release programs and bail reform policies without any attention to mental health. This makes it even more important to me and logical, thinking people that we can defend ourselves against violent actors in America.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t read: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed as long as gun owners make sure others with mental illness are unable to acquire firearms.”
Mental health issues and gun ownership are two completely different issues, and it’s never the responsibility of the law-abiding gun owner to solve one problem in order to keep a God-given right.
It’s not the responsibility of gun owners to bridge that gap. However, a group called Hold My Guns is surprisingly and respectfully doing exactly that. They have found a way to help in the area of mental health while protecting our Constitutional rights. They are making a difference with a unique and effective approach. They have created a system that makes it easy for people to voluntarily place their firearms with an FFL for any length of time the gun owner may feel necessary while keeping the government out of it. Watch this video for more on this new approach.
If the gun-grabbers in America were really concerned with mental health and guns, they would get to work on the causes of the diseases most likely to cause violent behavior, schizophrenia being one of them. The truth is that gun-grabbing politicians and anti-gun lobbying groups need violent gun-related deaths to justify gun restrictions on law-abiding Americans. They understand that waiting periods, background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, gun free zones, rifle bans, state-mandated training courses, and permit fees do nothing to stop those who should be incarcerated from possessing guns, but it works great to discourage those who would likely stand up to a tyrannical government from being properly armed.
Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information contact PR HERE
Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.
