Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Most in Michigan favor stringent gun control, new survey shows By Tim Skubick

From the streets of Detroit to the woods of the Upper Peninsula, it may seem as if residents in Michigan can’t agree on much. But a new statewide survey shows that a majority of citizens are in favor of more stringent gun control.

When you ask Michigan residents if they support strong gun control laws, you would assume that Up North a majority would oppose it. As it turns out, you would be wrong.

Across the entire state, 66% of all citizens back tougher gun control. Included in that is 50% of Up North residents.

In the Metro Detroit tri-county area, 73% of all those surveyed support stricter controls while central Michigan – including Lansing – is around 54%.

EPIC-MRA Pollster Bernie Porn conducted the poll and made sure to sample gun owners in the survey.

“To include gun owners which represent 53% having one or more gun owners in the household. Concealed Pistol License holders represent 29% and also NRA members – which represents 14%,” Porn said.

It appears that after years of school shootings like at Oxford High School, an impact is registering with citizens. Porn makes this poignant point.

“Several of the proposals that are supported by all those groups would have prevented or could have prevented the Oxford shooting,” Porn said.

A majority of Michigan voters support a ban on assault weapons, a limit on the size of gun magazines, a ban on guns in schools, and 90% in the EPIC-MRA survey want stronger background checks before gun buyers get a weapon.

The GOP legislature, with strong support from the NRA has resisted these controls. In light of this data, will that change?

“That should suggest that no legislator – Republican or Democrat – unless they are pretty much well-owned by the NRA, should vote for these gun safety laws,” Porn said.

Only time will tell if that happens with the Republican-led legislature.

With somebody that knows what they are doing. You can get almost anybody to agree on almost anything. Grumpy

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California You have to be kidding, right!?!

California town enacts gun store ban By Cam Edwards

There are no gun shops in Redwood City, California at the moment, and city council members want to keep it that way even if that means enacting a complete ban on their operation inside the city limits.

This week council members invoked the nuclear option after a pair of businesses applied to open up gun shops in the city, voting unanimously to impose a 45-day ban on gun shops while city attorneys investigate whether the city can make that ban permanent; a tactic that other anti-gun locales are likely to adopt… at least until courts step in.

One of the proposed gun shop locations is at Roosevelt Plaza, which is near Roosevelt Elementary School.

Katie Gaets, a parent who serves as Pastor of Woodside Road United Methodist Church in Redwood City, was among those who spoke in support of the ordinance at Monday’s council meeting.

“Just today a teenager was convicted of killing four people in a school shooting and two more people died in a school shooting in St. Louis,” Gaets said.

“One of the ways we can take a clear and definitive stance of no against such violence, is by taking a clear and definitive step away from firearms dealers in our local community.”

You don’t send an anti-violence message by making it harder for legal gun owners to protect themselves, which is exactly what this gun store ban does. California law already requires every would-be gun owner to go through a background check and twiddle their thumbs for ten business days before they’re allowed to take possession of their newly-purchased firearm, and every time they go and purchase ammunition they’re subjected to additional background checks.

If criminals obeyed the law, these restrictions might actually make a difference. Instead, according to the FBI California had the most active shooter incidents of any state in the Union last year. The real message that Redwood City’s proposed gun store ban sends is that city council members are willing to bend the knee to anti-gun activists at the expense of the rights of the law-abiding.

Unfortunately, as we discuss on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Redwood City isn’t alone in trying to curtail gun purchases. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is also considering a laundry list of new restrictions on current and future gun owners and gun store proprietors, and other communities across the state are taking aim at gun shops that are already in existence. In Torrance, for instance, the owner of Red Rifle Ltd. was originally given approval to move his shop from an industrial part of town to Torrance’s upscale Old Town neighborhood before activists complained and convinced the city’s Planning Commission to rescind the permit they issued to the store.

Now store owner Jack Brandhorst is appealing that decision, arguing that the city’s claim the shop is “incompatible” with the other businesses in Old Town doesn’t fly, and that there’s no reason in state or local law to prohibit the move to a better location.

“Red Rifle is a legal, reputable, long standing business that is not prohibited from opening in Downtown Torrance by any law, statute or rule,” Brandhorst wrote in his appeal, which was filed with a $750 fee on Oct. 11. “Thus, legally we should be allowed to move our boutique to Downtown Torrance.”
Brandhorst said in an interview that his store will only serve to elevate the area, with its high end products, personable customer service and smithing services. He said he takes stringent safety precautions, including all mandatory background checks, requiring customers complete a 30-minute gun safety lesson, requiring customers with children to purchase a safe, and securing all ammunition in store.
Former Councilwoman Maureen O’Donnell, one of the four residents who filed the initial appeals, said she remains steadfast in her belief that Old Town Torrance is not a safe location for a gun store.
“The gentleman is within his rights to appeal and we will go again and present our case before the council as we did before the (Planning) Commission,” she said.
“I think that the commission’s decision is the correct one,” she added. “I hope that the City Council will see the reasonableness of that decision and our position.”
O’Donnell also said that there are already 12 licensed firearms dealers in Torrance and that regardless of the safety precautions taken by the store, the owner cannot know a person’s true intent in purchasing a weapon.

If that’s her argument then I don’t know how O’Donnell would be okay with any gun being sold anywhere in Torrance, whether in the tony Old Town neighborhood or the grimiest part of town. Regardless of her hostility towards the right to keep and bear arms, it is a right that we’re talking about here, and one that by necessity includes the right to acquire a firearm as well as the right to keep and carry it for self-defense.

As many gun control restrictions are ruled unconstitutional in the wake of the Bruen decision, look for more anti-gun locales to set up as many hurdles as possible for new and existing gun store owners to navigate.

It might be restrictive zoning ordinances limiting gun stores to just a few acres of land in undesirable locations, as we’ve seen in Torrance, or it could be an outright ban on gun stores like the one Redwood City council members are hoping to permanently impose, but either way we have some major legal fights brewing over buying and selling the arms we have the right to keep and bear.

 

00:00
/
22:18

 

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Another Election Hint

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

See a pattern?

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

REMEMBER

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

Financial Deplatforming Raises Its Head Again

Opinion

Revolver gun money iStock-1060256694
Second Amendment supporters already see court rulings strike down laws that violate the Second Amendment across the country – it’s a good start. IMG iStock-1060256694

USA -(AmmoLand.com)- Second Amendment supporters already see court rulings strike down laws that violate the Second Amendment across the country – it’s a good start. But they also swing good reasons to make addressing financial deplatforming a priority.

With JP Morgan Chase deciding to close Kanye West’s business accounts and Bank of America going after conservative social media commentator Catturd, the alarm is buzzing again – and Second Amendment supporters cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button with regards to financial deplatforming.

The stakes aren’t just whether or not buying guns becomes a case of using cash. It also has the potential to cripple our ability to exercise the First Amendment to protect the Second Amendment. This is right out of a playbook long run by anti-Second Amendment extremists.

They tried and failed with McCain-Feingold, especially in the wake of Citizens United. They’ve been unable to pass other legislation that would expose donors. Letitia James and Andrew Cuomo’s jihad against the NRA ran into a First Amendment brick wall regarding their desire to dissolve the group.

However, the CEOs and top executives of big financial services corporations – be it banks, credit cards, or insurance companies – can act independently (or after prodding from anti-Second Amendment extremists in office), and there are not many Second Amendment supporters can do. Sure, some smaller banks might be safe havens for the short-to-medium term, but the only long-term security is the passage of strong legislation to address financial deplatforming in as many Second Amendment-friendly states as possible.

Think it won’t happen? There are two likely scenarios for a massive surge of financial deplatforming of the Second Amendment community – the first would be a SCOTUS ruling explicitly striking down bans on modern multi-purpose semi-automatic long guns. In that case, anti-Second Amendment extremists would likely push for corporate gun control due to a lack of other options.

The second scenario would be repeated school shootings like those in Uvalde or Sandy Hook. This time, we could see financial services companies cite “reputational risk,” with or without pressure from government officials (again, see Andrew Cuomo and Letitia James) or lawmakers.

The financial deplatforming can be halted firmly with strong legislation in the form of state-level versions of the Freedom Financing Act as a bare minimum. The fact of the matter is that Second Amendment supporters have to defeat the ability of banks to financially deplatform them in order to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels.


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.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Judges: Tennessee public housing leases can’t ban guns by JONATHAN MATTISE

Kinsley Braden Archives - Tennessee Conservative

Public housing agencies in Tennessee can no longer include provisions in their leases that bar tenants from having guns in their homes, a state appeals panel has ruled.

A three-judge panel of the Tennessee Court of Appeals made the unanimous decision Thursday, saying that the prohibitions in public housing violate the 2nd Amendment rights of its residents.

In the ruling, the judges cited a prominent U.S. Supreme Court decision from June that expanded gun rights, while striking down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry a gun in a concealed way in public.

The Tennessee decision could set up an appeal to the state Supreme Court, which has a majority appointed by Republican governors.

The case centers on a lawsuit by Kinsley Braden, who signed a lease agreement with Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corporation in April 2018 that barred him from having a gun on the premises.

In November 2020, housing officials sought to evict Braden when they found out he had been keeping a handgun in his residence at the Creekside Acres low-income housing complex. Lower court judges ruled in favor of Columbia Housing in the initial case and an appeal, then Braden sought another review, the ruling states.

In the latest decision, Judge Frank Clement wrote that “a total ban on the ability of law-abiding residents — like Mr. Braden — to possess a handgun within their public housing unit for the purpose of self-defense is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.”

The ruling reasoned that public housing is not similar to other types of “sensitive” government buildings where guns can be banned, including statehouses, polling places and courthouses.

Clement also acknowledged that it is “largely unsettled whether public housing developments could constitutionally prohibit firearm possession under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and nearly identical provisions of certain state constitutions.” He wrote that states have come to different conclusions on whether such bans are allowed.

Categories
All About Guns Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

CNN Sounds Alarm: SCOTUS May Wipe Out Gun Control ‘Nationwide’

U.S. Supreme Court building; inset-Tierney Sneed
J. Scott Applewhite, File/AP; JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images
3:48

CNN sounded the alarm Sunday, warning that the pro-Second Amendment makeup of  the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) portends an end to gun control “nationwide.”

CNN’s Tierney Sneed pointed to the June 23, 2022, SCOTUS decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, noting that it not only struck down New York’s proper cause requirement but also set forward stringent rules for how lower courts must decide cases related to the Second Amendment.

On July 1 Breitbart News noted that SCOTUS remanded a number of cases, vacating the decisions and ordering them to be reconsidered in light of Bruen. The cases centered on an “assault weapons” ban in Maryland, a “high capacity” magazine ban in California, and carry restrictions in Hawaii, among other things.

Roughly two weeks later Breitbart News pointed to a Washington Times article suggesting the Bruen decision puts all types of gun control in the crosshairs of gun rights groups.

The Washington Times paraphrased Justice Clarence Thomas’s emphasis on the important of decisions like BruenMcDonald v. Chicago (2010), and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), saying, “The test courts must apply is whether a firearms restriction would have seemed reasonable to the founding generation that crafted and ratified the Second Amendment. If not, the law must give way to the Constitution.”

In light of this framework for testing restrictions, CNN warns that gun control in every state is in jeopardy:

Since the June ruling, federal judges in at least a half-dozen different cases have already cited the Bruen decision to rule against gun restrictions that have included local assault weapons bans, prohibitions on the manufacture of homemade firearms and bans on older teenagers publicly carrying handguns.

Several other laws now face new legal challenges under the precedent, among them zoning restrictions barring shooting ranges, licensing and training laws and the federal ban on certain misdemeanor offenders from possessing firearms.

CNN noted changes that have already occurred in jurisprudence in light of Bruen:

A federal district judge cited the ruling last month when halting Delaware restrictions on possessing and manufacturing untraceable firearms, saying that the law’s defenders failed to provide persuasive evidence that similar restrictions existed in the historical record. The precedent was also referenced when local assault weapon bans in two Colorado jurisdictions were put on hold this summer; the judges in both cases were each appointed by Democratic presidents.

CNN also noted a decision handed down on Thursday to “pause” new gun controls New York enacted in response to Bruen.

Breitbart News indicated the New York controls were paused via a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio and a Turning Point USA Ambassador. AWR Hawkins holds a PhD in Military History, with a focus on the Vietnam War (brown water navy), U.S. Navy since Inception, the Civil War, and Early Modern Europe. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange. Reach him directly at [email protected].

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! Cops You have to be kidding, right!?!

FOIA Uncovers ATF and Legacy Media Working Together by John Crump

ATF Police Raid IMG 2nd instagram.com/atfhq/
ATF Police Raid IMG 2nd instagram.com/atfhq/

SPRINGFIELD, VA -(Ammoland.com)- When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) told Representative Michael Cloud’s (R-TX) office that it held nearly one billion out of business records, Gun Owners of America (GOA) called it an illegal gun registry. The legacy media newspaper, USA Today, issued a “fact check” stating that the claim was false. Now thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by GOA and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), we know how much of a role the ATF played in determining the rating.

Last January,  the ATF answered an inquire by Rep Cloud’s office stating that it held nearly one billion records in its Out of Business Office in Martinsburg, West Virginia. The vast majority of the records were digitized, and the ATF’s Firearms Trace Center had access to the documents. Although the ATF claims the records are not searchable by anything other than the former federal firearms licensee (FFL) name, by just selecting a few options in the software, those records could be usable by using optical character recognition (OCR).

A new FOIA request by GOA and GOF shows the communication between the USA Today fact checker, ATF’s former Chief of the Public Affairs Division, April Langwell, and former ATF Associate Deputy Director Thomas Chittum. Mr. Chittum has left the ATF to work for ShotSpotter. Ms. Langwell also recently left the ATF to work as the Director of Communications for the United States Marine Corp (USMC).

In the exchange, the unnamed fact-checker asked about the alleged registry. Ms. Langwell and Mr. Chittum denied the existence of the gun registry. Mr. Chittum replied that there was no firearms registry and handed off the conversation to Ms. Langwell. Ms. Langwell repeated the claim that the database is only searchable by FFL name. She stated that the ATF doesn’t consider the digitally scanned records to be a gun registry. The fact checker did not follow up on how easy it would be to turn on optical character recognition. The fact checker seemed to accept Ms. Langwell’s claims at face value.

The issue the fact checker overlooked is that according to the email exchange, the records are stored in PDF format. The PDF file format is the product of Adobe. Adobe Acrobat is needed to read the documents in the file format. The ability to OCR documents is built into Adobe Acrobat and can be applied to a PDF in as little as two clicks.

The ATF also told USA Today that all records had been digitized as of 2017. This claim contradicts what the ATF told Congressman Michael Cloud (R-TX). The fact checker did ask Ms. Langwell about the discrepancy. The ATF repeated the claim to the fact checker that the ATF completed the move to a digital format in 2017. The fact checker never followed up on why the ATF told USA Today something different than what the Bureau told Congress. Someone received the wrong information from the ATF, and it is unclear who has the incorrect information.

GOF and GOA were deeply troubled by USA Today’s “fact checking” methods. They point out that the paper discounted the mountains of evidence and the ATF’s own statements on the matter.

“ATF openly admitted to USA Today that ‘scanning out of business records began in 2005’ and now ATF ‘processes an average of 5.5 million’ records containing private gun and owner information into its database per month,” said Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs, Gun Owners of America. “We are disappointed that this ‘journalist’ simply reported ATF’s denial of an illegal gun registry as truth, without any critical thinking whatsoever.”

USA Today did not respond to AmmoLand’s request for comment.


About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Cops Gun Fearing Wussies

CRPA Files Suit To Stop The State’s “Chilling” Effect

Last summer, Governor Gavin Newsom expressed outrage over a Texas law he found objectionable.  In fact, Mr. Newsom was so incensed that he bought billboards outside California to air his frustrations (and annoy potential national political rivals).  Then, he decided to copy that law and aim it at something he found even more objectionable: gun culture.  He even tipped the scales to make sure those who object would be at a distinct disadvantage.

Last week, CRPA filed suit to roll back the most insidious aspect of Mr. Newsom’s gambit.  In the complaint, CRPA and a host of plaintiffs point out not only the logical fallacies behind the Governor’s ill-fated attack, but the many reasons that the law is patently unconstitutional.  Making those who challenge new Second Amendment restrictions pay all legal costs unless they win EVERY argument in their case while the state can recover their costs if they win ANY part of their case is, of course, in direct violation of the Constitution (not to mention all sense of fairness).

We know the fight we have on our hands in defending the Second Amendment here in California.  From outlawing youth shooting sports, to banning gun shows, to the endless attempts to tax and outright prohibit one’s fundamental right to self-defense, anti-2A advocates have shown no regard for the Constitution in an attempt to demonize lawful gun owners.

In this case, the Governor wants to use a law he himself views as outrageous to attack your rights.  The Constitution is not a vehicle for wannabe Presidential candidates to send messages to rivals.