Nevada Judge Announces He Will Strike Down Major Portions of New Gun Law

Polymer80 Pistol Kits

DAYTON, Nev. – -(AmmoLand.com)- On November 23, 2021, in a huge victory for both Polymer80 and the Second Amendment in Nevada, the Hon. Judge John P. Schlegelmilch of the Lyon County, Nevada District Court stated he would be issuing summary judgment in favor of Polymer80, Inc.

All in response to P80’s lawsuit against Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, George Togliatti, Director of the Nevada Department of Public Safety, and Mindy McKay, Administrator of the Records, Communications, and Compliance Division of the Nevada Department of Public Safety.

The judgment would invalidate and bar enforcement of major portions of Nevada Assembly Bill 286, on due process grounds under the Nevada state constitution.

Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui (D-Las Vegas) sponsored AB286 which passed on straight-party line votes in both the Nevada Assembly and Senate. Gov. Sisolak, a democrat signed AB286 into law in early June 2021.

AB286 generally prohibits a person from possessing, purchasing, transporting or receiving any unfinished frame or receiver of a firearm, or assembling any firearm not imprinted with a serial number. Initial violations carry a criminal misdemeanor penalty; repeat violations can be punished by a felony charge.

In deciding to issue summary judgment, Judge Schlegelmilch held that a trial was not needed, and that Polymer80 was immediately entitled to both a Declaratory Judgment that AB286 was unduly and unconstitutionally void for vagueness, and a Permanent Injunction forever banning enforcement of key provisions in the new enactment for that reason. Judge Schlegelmilch, who upon Polymer80’s motion had preliminarily prevented enforcement of those provisions in July 2021, specifically found that Sections 3 and 3.5 of AB286 were unconstitutionally ambiguous in their language criminalizing, among other things, the possession, sale, transfer, transport, and manufacture of “unfinished frames or receivers.”

Polymer80 had argued that this said criminalization would threaten its very existence. In that respect, the Court further found that the definition of an “unfinished frame or receiver” incorporated in those two Sections was exceedingly and unconstitutionally vague in its use and reliance upon various terms including, among others, “blank,” “casting,” and “machined body” that were undefined in the statute and did not have accepted common meanings.

In addition, the Court determined that the additional required component of the definition of “unfinished frame or receiver” mandating that a blank, casting, or machined body have reached such a stage of formation that “most of the major machining operations” needed to turn those items into a firearm had been completed was fatally vague and ambiguous. The Court ruled that those terms, alone and together…

..were so unclear and uncertain that they did not provide fair notice to a Nevadan of ordinary intelligence as to what specific conduct AB286 prohibited, rendering the bill unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Nevada Constitution.

The Court also ruled that those vague terms encouraged and effectively authorized arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement against all Nevadans, in that AB286 left the interpretation and application of those nebulous terms entirely to the discretion of governmental authorities, which Nevada Supreme Court decisions have precluded. Finally, Judge Schlegelmilch indicated that he would be issuing a formal written Order in December 2021, encapsulating and memorializing his oral rulings, declaring the cited provisions of AB286 unconstitutionally vague, and barring their enforcement permanently.

“This is a significant victory for Polymer80, Nevadans, and our customers nationwide,” Polymer80 CEO Loran Kelley said.

“AB286 is vague and unlawful legislation that targets our company specifically for conducting a lawful business. We will continue to challenge lawless attempts to curtail our rights and the rights of our customers. Polymer80 would like to thank our loyal customers, whose continued support allows us to keep fighting for Second Amendment rights across the country and our attorneys at Greenspoon Marder, LLP who worked tirelessly and never gave up this fight. Polymer80 strongly believes that the Second Amendment is a foundational principal in America that can never be violated. Continuing to fight those who strive to take it away is a core belief of our company. It’s one more example of our company motto, ‘Engage Your Freedom.’”

Founded in 2013 and headquartered in Dayton, NV, Polymer80, Inc. designs and develops innovative firearms, components, and aftermarket accessories that allow customers to participate in the build process while expressing the right to bear arms. For more information on Polymer80 and its products visit www.polymer80.com.

from https://ift.tt/3lrFtF1
via IFTTT

Florida Lawsuit Could Be A Template For Dismantling Preemption Laws In Other States

Democrat Nikki Fried Official Photo

Florida – -(AmmoLand.com)- If the gun-banners get their way, they’ll be importing more from Florida than just citrus.

A lawsuit now before the Florida Supreme Court seeks to dismantle the state’s powerful preemption statute, which safeguards all pro-gun laws in the Gunshine State, including the Castle Doctrine, the “Stand Your Ground” statute, and shall-issue concealed carry.

Florida’s preemption statute prohibits anyone other than the state legislature from regulating firearms and ammunition. If a local government such as a city council, county commission or school board tries to create their own gun regulations, the preemption statute allows for their members to be removed from office and fined up to $5,000, which the statute requires them to pay personally, rather than with taxpayer dollars. In addition, the local government can be liable for damages of up to $100,000 plus uncapped attorney’s fees. The law was passed in 1987, but it didn’t get teeth – legal penalties – until 2011.

Without the preemption statute, anti-gun cities and counties could prohibit concealed carry, which would turn the state into a complex patchwork of gun-free zones.

More than 40 states have preemption statutes prohibiting local governments from regulating firearms. Six states – Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas – can penalize elected officials for violating their statutes.

Enter Nikki Fried

In June, Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried and a coalition of liberal local governments petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to hear their lawsuit against the preemption statute. It was one of three lawsuits filed against the law after the 2018 Parkland massacre. Fried’s request came a month after the 1^st District Court of Appeal denied to certify the group’s “questions of great public importance,” which could have created a path to the Florida Supreme Court.

In essence, Fried and her group are asking the Florida Supreme Court to grant them immunity from the penalties they could face for violating the preemption statute. They do not contest the statute, just the penalties, which they claim are unconstitutional because the local lawmakers don’t want to be fined or fired for creating their own anti-gun regulations.

This month, Fried and her group filed a joint brief with the Florida Supreme Court, and a subsequent press release.

“Petitioners ask this Court to recognize a fundamental principle of democratic governance: local elected officials acting in their legislative capacities are entitled to the same immunities and protections historically afforded to all legislators in this country, and the judicial power of the state does not extend to impose financial liability on local governments for the performance of discretionary governmental functions. While the judiciary can, and should, exercise its power to determine whether a local law is preempted (and thus invalid), it may not punish local governments or their elected officials for their legislative actions as is contemplated by the Penalty Provisions. This Court should reverse the First District’s decision,” the petitioners’ joint brief states.

According to the press release, Fried’s coalition consists of Florida Rep. Dan Daly, a Democrat from Sunrise, two Democratic mayors, 30 cities, and three counties. Amicus briefs, it says, will be forthcoming from Giffords, Brady, and the League of Women Voters of Florida, which has become an extreme anti-gun group.

Challenging DeSantis

Those unfamiliar with the structure of Florida’s government may question why the state’s Agriculture Commissioner is challenging preemption. There are several reasons. Fried is the only elected Democrat holding statewide office and she is decidedly anti-gun. Her Agriculture Department oversees Florida’s licensing division, which operates the state’s popular Concealed Weapon and Firearm Licensing program. As the elected official accountable for the CWFL program, Fried’s management has been abysmal and the subject of lawsuits. While she has claimed to be a gun owner and CWFL licensee, Fried also has a Florida medical marijuana card, despite the federal legal issues this creates.

The main reason Fried is fighting the preemption statute is due to her candidacy for governor. Some pundits believe her lawsuit is nothing more than a fundraising and publicity stunt in her race against Republican incumbent Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Fried did not respond to interview requests seeking her comments for this story.

The Playbook

In her press release, Fried cites data from a scholarly paper written by two Columbia Law School professors titled: “Punitive Preemption: An Unprecedented Attack on Local Democracy.” One of the authors, Professor Richard Briffault, is described in his law school bio as “a leading thinker on ‘the new preemption,’ a critique of states that are increasingly passing ideological laws that override local ordinances. Working with the Local Solutions Support Center, he educates city and county government officials on how to respond to state preemption.”

In her lawsuit, Fried clearly took a page from Professor Briffault’s anti-preemption playbook, as she incorporated several of his suggestions that show how local officials should fight what Briffault calls “punitive preemption,” namely, challenging the statute’s constitutionality based upon the First Amendment, and by arguing that “coercive financial penalties could be inconsistent with home rule.”

If Fried’s lawsuit is successful, it will serve as a template for anti-gun groups in other states who seek to overturn their preemption statutes.

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.

---

About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

from https://ift.tt/3lmZmgI
via IFTTT

FPC Responds to 9th Circuit Court Upholding CA Magazine Ban

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement in response to today’s misguided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Duncan v. Bonta. IMG Jim Grant

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement in response to today’s misguided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Duncan v. Bonta, which held that California’s law banning so-called “large-capacity magazines” (those that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition) is permissible under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, Takings Clause, and Due Process Clause:

Today’s misguided decision makes it crystal clear that the Ninth Circuit will not respect the Constitution until the Supreme Court requires it to. Rather than following the binding Supreme Court’s D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago opinions, the Court of Appeals again used legal gamesmanship to avoid the constitutionally required result just as it has for over a decade.

The Supreme Court must make clear in its upcoming Second Amendment opinion that the Bizarro World subversion, obstruction, and avoidance doctrines employed by hostile and recalcitrant judges, as the Ninth Circuit did in this case, cannot continue. That has been and remains a focus of our FPC Law program, which has filed dozens of briefs in the past year, including many at the Supreme Court.

In April, FPC filed a brief in this case that highlighted the history of repeating arms capable of firing more than 10 rounds and made the point that such magazines are not only common now, but have been for centuries. Judge Bumatay’s dissent adopted the approach we articulated and encouraged in our brief and starkly contrasts with the flawed majority opinion.

FPC believes that individuals have a natural right to keep and bear arms—one that is enshrined in our Constitution and which pre-exists government itself—and that entitlement includes the right to purchase and possess firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Just as we have with our Miller v. Bonta challenge to California’s assault weapons ban, the first post-trial victory of its kind in U.S. history, FPC will continue to aggressively execute our mission and litigate these issues in courts across the country until all people can access and exercise their full right to keep and bear arms, including through the possession of the common magazines California unconstitutionally bans.

---

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

from https://ift.tt/31p3CFm
via IFTTT

Senate GOP Candidate Oz No Wizard When It Comes to Guns

Update: Since publishing this article, Dr. Mehmet Oz has announced he is running for the US Senate in Pennsylvania as a Republican.

His close friendship and professional relationship with major March for Our Lives donor Oprah Winfrey, along with his personal advocacy for citizen disarmament laws, should be enough for Pennsylvania gun owners to tell GOP political strategists that, his fame and fortune notwithstanding, Dr. Oz is a non-starter with them as a Senate candidate. (Dr. Mehmet Oz/Facebook)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Celebrity surgeon Mehmet Oz is poised to shake up the Pennsylvania Senate race, bolstered by a vast personal fortune to invest in a 2022 campaign and enviable poll numbers that suggest the Republican would be an immediate front-runner,” the Washington Examiner reported Wednesday. “Oz, 61, has not decided whether to pull the trigger on a bid for the seat being relinquished by retiring Republican Sen. Pat Toomey. But if the television personality runs, he is prepared to back the effort with millions of his own money and would begin a campaign for the GOP nomination with stratospheric ratings among key demographics, a source close to Oz revealed in an interview…”

To bolster the enthusiasm, the report tells readers Oz “is on good terms with former President Donald Trump and has been friends with the former president for 15 years. Indeed, Trump appointed Oz to the President’s Council on Physical Fitness, which included among its members a 2022 Senate candidate who has already received the former president’s endorsement…”

The biggest objection seems to be “culturally conservative pockets of central and western Pennsylvania” may object to Oz moving from New Jersey to Philadelphia “only about a year ago,” leaving him vulnerable to being seen as a “carpetbagger.”

That’s hardly the only one, and the lack of any acknowledgment on how the right to keep and bear arms may influence Pennsylvania GOP choices shows, among other things, DC establishment blinders on Examiner political reporting.

With Toomey taking himself out of the picture, Pennsylvania gun owners have a chance to right some serious Republican wrongs the Party has foisted on them for years. We’re talking about a politician of “Manchin/Toomey” notoriety who “earned” an endorsement from the Giffords gun grab group, and who has been trying for years to enact “bipartisan” infringements. I’ve compiled a partial chronicling of his giving aid and comfort to the enemy (and if you don’t believe that’s what they are you haven’t been paying attention) over at The War on Guns blog, along with other examples of subversive PA GOP offerings like Arlen Specter and Tom Ridge.

Oz will be Toomey on steroids. When it comes to guns, he’ll be able to look at the outgoing senator and say, “Hold my beer.” Among examples it took me mere seconds to find:

• Breaking News: #ThisIsOurLane Doctors Speak Out About Gun Violence – Oz hosts doctors speaking out for citizen disarmament laws (“including the banning of semiautomatic firearms”) under the guise of “public health,” as if they have special and certified insights on the causes rather than dealing with the effects. Conspicuously absent is any representation from medical professionals who have actually developed expertise on the issue, like Miguel Faria and/or Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership. Then again, such exclusion is hardly surprising considering Oz got his big media break from anti-gun (but heavily bodyguarded) Oprah Winfrey.
• Oz feeds his low-information audience one-sided crap about so-called “red flag laws” without a word about due process. It’s telling that one of his guests helping him push them is the neocon Heritage Foundation’s ostensible “gun rights” expert, Amy Swearer, prompting what I find to be the most relevant question in the YouTube comment thread:

“How does this chick come on Dr. Oz all pro-red flag, and go on Liz Wheeler all pro-2A? I’m genuinely confused.”

That Oz, of Turkish ancestry, does not concede genocide by the Ottomans that was partially enabled via a permitting scheme, registration lists, and possession bans is obvious. The other concern all voters should have is with his dual citizenship. As I warned when the GOP was trying to foist another popular “dual citizen” celebrity on Republican voters, gun- (and maid-) grabbing “action hero” Arnold Schwarzenegger:

There’s another oath Arnold took, back in 1983, when he became an American citizen:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen… But there’s a problem: Arnold apparently never really meant it (any more than he would the governor’s oath) and pulled strings with the Austrian government to retain his citizenship there, as well. This despite the fact that the government of Austria “[i]n general… does not allow dual citizenship…Thus, if a person acquires US citizenship, he/she usually has to renounce the actual citizenship he/she is holding.”

The problem reaches beyond Austrian law. According to Kurzban’s Immigration Law Sourcebook, “The U.S. government has generally looked with disfavor on United States Citizens maintaining dual nationality.” Indeed, the US Department of State cautions that “dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.”

Beltway swamp schemers who know nothing of principles and for whom the only consideration is an “R” after a winning politician’s name will try to exploit Oz’s fame and fortune to get him in the Senate, and the rights of gun owners be damned. They’re already exploiting his cordial relationship with Donald Trump (and if the former president backs him that will tell all but the most self-deluded “3D chess” apologists all they need to know).

Don’t let Party strategists get away with this.

If Pennsylvania gun owners do, they may as well elect a “gun sense candidate” Democrat, because this guy will vote for every disarmament bill that comes across his desk, assuming he isn’t the one initiating them. Oz will use his “advise and consent” role to confirm officials and judges hostile to your rights and loyal only to their Big Club interests.

Oz will definitely give you the feeling you’re not in the Founders’ Republic anymore. Throw a bucket of water on this now.

---

About David Codrea:

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

from https://ift.tt/3xJ88dU
via IFTTT

Campus Bigotry 101: Left-tilt Student Groups at ASU Want Rittenhouse Barred

Kyle Rittenhouse survived a court trial, but will he escape attacks by left-leaning students at Arizona State University? (Screen snip, YouTube,NBC Chicago)

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Kyle Rittenhouse, the 18-year-old exonerated by a Kenosha, Wisconsin jury of murder who claimed on the witness stand he wants to study nursing at Arizona State University may get a course he hadn’t planned on, about social bigotry, and his critics are planning a Wednesday rally at the ASU campus to press their demands.

The event will be held this Wednesday at 3:30 p.m.

The New York Post is reporting how “leftist” student groups at ASU “are campaigning to get Kyle Rittenhouse kicked out of his studies — calling him a racist, “blood-thirsty murderer” even though the teen was acquitted of all charges.”

The Guardian describes this bunch as “a small but vocal alliance of left-leaning students.” Their report notes Rittenhouse has been taking a “virtual class” rather than actually attending the university.

Fox News identified the groups as Students for Socialism, Students for Justice in Palestine, Multicultural Solidarity Coalition, and MECHA de ASU. The network quoted from their “demand” letter which states, “Even with a not-guilty verdict from a flawed ‘justice’ system – Kyle Rittenhouse is still guilty to his victims and the families of those victims…Join us to demand from ASU that those demands be met to protect students from a violent blood-thirsty murderer.”

Here are their demands:

1. Withdraw Kyle Rittenhouse from ASU
2. Release a statement against white supremacy & racist murderer Kyle Rittenhouse
3. Reaffirm support for the multicultural center on campus as a space safe from white supremacy
4. Redirect funding from ASU PD to support the multicultural center and the establishment of a CAARE center on campus.

Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all counts following a week-long trial and more than three days of deliberations by a jury of seven women and five men. He had been charged after shooting three men—two fatally and one wounded—during a riot in Kenosha in August 2020. He claimed to have acted in self-defense, using a semi-auto rifle he was carrying.

Fox News quoted an unidentified spokesperson for the Students for Socialism group who asserted, “The goal of these demands is to let the ASU administration know that we as the ASU community do not feel safe knowing that a mass shooter, who has expressed violent intentions about ‘protecting property’ over people, is so carelessly allowed to be admitted to the school at all.” The spokesperson said the campus is “already unsafe.”

The university released a statement, “Kyle Rittenhouse has not gone through the admissions process with Arizona State University and is not enrolled in the Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation.” Fox noted ASU has confirmed that Rittenhouse “enrolled as a non-degree seeking ASU Online student for the session that started Oct. 13, 2021, which allows students access to begin taking classes as they prepare to seek admission into a degree program at the university.”

On the stand, Rittenhouse testified he wanted to seek a career in nursing.

An article in The Atlantic analyzes the Rittenhouse “problem” facing university officials who seem to have determined they are smarter than a jury.

Rittenhouse, who reportedly hasn’t filed defamation lawsuits against anyone so far, might have even more potential defendants in such actions if this discrimination effort continues. As reported by KNPX, this is not the first time a Rittenhouse related problem has sprung up on the ASU campus.

“A Republican student group at the university received backlash last year for raising money for the 17-year-old gunman’s defense fund,” the station reported.

In the aftermath of his mid-November acquittal, rumors and social media have raised the potential for massive civil lawsuits against any number of people and news agencies, and perhaps even Joe Biden, for labelling the teen a “white supremacist” and “vigilante” last year following the incident.

Rittenhouse has become something of a folk hero among many conservatives, The Guardian reported.

However, there is more to the story than the teen, and that is the impact this case might have had on self-defense. As things stand now, the Rittenhouse verdict leaves the act of self-defense essentially unscathed. Contrary to what some on the left have been claiming, the verdict did not essentially put an “open season” on protesters, but it did reaffirm the right of people to defend themselves against physical attack.

Meanwhile, an Op-Ed published by the Duluth News Tribune takes issue with gun prohibition lobbying groups using the Kenosha case to push a gun control agenda. Moms Demand Action released an email blast ten days ago declaring the Kenosha verdict “a miscarriage of justice and an indictment of our broken criminal justice system.”

“A white teenager got his hands on a semi-automatic rifle,” the Moms group declared, “showed up to a demonstration for Black Lives, fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, and he wasn’t held accountable.”

It wasn’t a demonstration; it was a riot. The three men Rittenhouse shot were all white. And as the Op-Ed in Duluth—co-authored by gun rights leader Alan Gottlieb and this correspondent—observed, “Anti-gunners don’t really care about the people he shot, only what he shot them with, and so long as it advances their narrative.”

RELATED:

• Rittenhouse Aftermath: Myths, Lies and Lots of Video Tape

---

About Dave Workman

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

from https://ift.tt/3o8K7JR
via IFTTT

It Is Way Past Time To Vet Candidates For 2022

Take Action Time to Act

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Before you know it, 2022 will be here. But there is a lot of work to be done before the November elections. In fact, how successful Second Amendment supporters are in 2022 could depend on what happens now.

Why is that? Because many candidates are going to run in primaries. These elections are a chance for Second Amendment supporters to have an outsized impact on the November 2022 elections. This is because primary turnout is much lower than that in a general election, and therefore it is a way to shape the landscape favorably.

But before the primary elections, Second Amendment supporters need to vet the candidates who are running so that the best candidate is running in the general election next November. This matters a lot, because there have been past disappointments like Larry Hogan and Adam Kinzinger.

The task of vetting candidates will be particularly important at the local level. As Kenosha shows, the local prosecutor and county sheriff, among other local officials, can have a massive impact on our Second Amendment rights, especially when it comes to situations involving self-defense.

State legislative elections can also be easily affected in the primaries. You will often find that some of them will eventually move up to statewide office or to Congress. These state and local offices are where we can develop future candidates for higher office. Think of the state and local offices as something akin to your favorite major league baseball team’s farm system.

This sort of vetting needs to happen very early in the process of choosing our elected officials. As Joel Pollack noted in discussing the 2020 election, elections aren’t just the casting of votes, they are a process. Why do you think it is so important to resist campaign finance “reform” schemes, Silicon Valley censorship, corporate gun control, financial deplatforming, and the witch hunts that place every Second Amendment advocacy group at risk?

When we point out that Second Amendment supporters need to work hard to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels, the work to do that starts in almost the immediate aftermath of the elections just held. Second Amendment supporters must learn the lessons from prior elections, and you get ready to find Second Amendment champions who can win the next ones.

The fact of the matter is that what is done today will affect the elections of 2022. So, it’s well past time for Second Amendment supporters to start vetting the candidates for office, and letting their fellow citizens know.

---

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.

from https://ift.tt/3xDzXUT
via IFTTT

Reese Witherspoon Reveals Again Hollywood’s Gun Rights Hypocrisy

By Larry Keane

Once again, Hollywood demonstrates its ignorance of the law and open disdain for the Second Amendment. IMG iStock-881108556

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Reese Witherspoon’s not a lawyer. But she’s played one on television.

Witherspoon’s credits during her Tinseltown tenure include roles involving firearms and the legal profession. In real life, her gun control comments following the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wis., show she knows little about either. She demonstrated Hollywood’s hypocrisy on personal security and gun rights upon which regular Americans revere and depend.

Armchair Lawyering

It didn’t take long for the armchair lawyering to begin after a jury unanimously determined Rittenhouse had acted in self-defense when he used a Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) to protect himself when he was attacked during the Kenosha riots last year. High-profile celebrities, sports figures, and even President Joe Biden had already rushed to judgment before the trial. After the facts were methodically laid out to the jury (and on TV for the whole world to see), celebrities still repeated falsehoods about Rittenhouse and called his acquittal an injustice. The starring role in this made-for-television drama was Witherspoon.

“There was no justice,” Witherspoon tweeted. “This is a disgrace. No one should be able to purchase a semi-automatic weapon, cross state lines and kill 2 people, wound another, and go free. In what world is this safe … for any of us?”

Defense counsel proved that Rittenhouse did not, in fact, cross state lines with and MSR. PolitiFact even rated U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler’s (D-N.Y.), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, tweet saying so as “False.” Those facts didn’t get in the way of Witherspoon’s gun control narrative. She even thanked national gun control.

“@MomsDemand @Everytown thank you for the work you do. It is vital,” Witherspoon said.

The two gun control groups already passed judgment on Rittenhouse, including falsely labeling him a “white supremacist.” Facts didn’t matter to Witherspoon, her elite Hollywood celebrity friends or national gun control groups. Neither Witherspoon, her A-List celebrity friends or her vaunted gun control groups acknowledged that convicted felons attacked Rittenhouse, including lone survivor Gaige Grosskreutz, who was illegally possessing and carrying a handgun, to which he testified that he pointed it at Rittenhouse’s head just before he acted in self-defense.

Real World

Witherspoon and her Hollywood friends would do better directing their ire locally instead of halfway across the country at the Rittenhouse verdict. There are legitimate safety concerns in Hollywood and the rest of Los Angeles County.

In California, one of the strictest gun control states in America, residents concerned about their personal safety were just on the receiving end of a one-two punch by local authorities. Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon is under fire for a pattern of allowing violent criminals off easy, including announcing the release of a convicted murderer after only six years of a 50-year prison sentence. Witherspoon’s Twitter account was suspiciously silent on this matter.

Witherspoon didn’t have any tweets about safety following the Los Angeles County Police Department’s recent advice that victims of follow-home robberies should just “cooperate and comply” with criminals.

The Legally Blonde actress may have remained silent because to speak up would have revealed the plot twist in the script. She lives in Hollywood’s gated neighborhoods with armed private security. That’s a luxury unaffordable to the rest of America. Life’s different when your name’s in lights. Calling for gun control while being guarded by guns isn’t real life. It’s just another example of Hollywood’s gun control hypocrisy.

Real America’s Response

Far away from the silver screens, in neighborhoods and communities across the country, law-abiding Americans have responded to the ongoing crime and violence of the past two years by taking ownership of their Second Amendment rights. Over 21 million background checks were conducted for a firearm purchase in 2020, including 8.4 million who did so for the first time, many of them women, African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian-Pacific Islanders. This year the pace is continuing, with nearly 15.7 million going into October and over 687,000 FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verifications concluded including in the run-up to Thanksgiving and Black Friday.

The good news is law-abiding Americans aren’t listening to Hollywood actors and instead are exercising their Second Amendment right.

---

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

from https://ift.tt/3I9H5gA
via IFTTT