- House Bill 22, House Bill 106, House Bill 284 & House Bill 324 requiring the REPORTING OF LAWFUL SALES of certain firearms and magazines to state and/or local law enforcement — not gonna happen
- House Bill 76 CRIMINALIZING the failure of a victim of gun theft to report having his or her firearms stolen — are you kidding me?
- House Bill 88 & House Bill 447 further TAXING the sale of firearms and/or ammunition and firearm accessories — higher taxes? in Texas?
- House Bill 110, House Bill 146 & House Bill 308 BANNING private firearm transfers at gun shows — LOL no
- House Bill 123 & House Bill 136 red flag GUN CONFISCATION legislation requiring surrender of firearms without due process — nope
- House Bill 129 & House Bill 565 RAISING THE MINIMUM AGE for purchase of semi-automatic rifles — not a chance
- House Bill 155 & House Bill 236 BANNING private firearm transfers between certain family members and friends, requiring FFLs to process these transactions that would include federal paperwork for government approval at an undetermined fee — stomach’s starting to hurt, here
- House Bill 197 BANNING the sale or transfer and possession of standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds — was that a unicorn I just saw?
- House Bill 179, House Bill 216 & House Bill 244 RESTRICTING long gun open carry, with limited exceptions — maybe in hospitals… nah, not even
- House Bill 298 establishes a 3-day WAITING PERIOD for firearm sales — like in California?
- Senate Bill 32 BANNING the sale or possession of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms — we do not live on the Planet Manhattan.
Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
Radek Kucharski courtesy Flickr
President Joe Biden (D) has long made his anti-gun goals clear on his path to the White House. Now, just before the midterm election on Nov. 8, the White House is saying that the president will “do everything in his power” to bring his gun-control agenda to fruition.
In a statement released late in the evening of Nov. 1, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said, “Gun violence in this country is an epidemic that will not end with thoughts and prayers alone. President Biden will continue to do everything in his power to reduce gun violence, including by calling on Congress to increase community violence intervention funding, ensure universal background checks, and send legislation to his desk banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”
Let’s break this statement down.
To start, Jean-Pierre peddled the false claim that firearms ownership is somehow a sickness of sorts. The exercise of a constitutional right is hardly an illness. Charles C.W. Cooke aptly summed this up when he wrote, “Politicians who don’t believe you should have Second Amendment rights have often tried to hide their gun-control laws in arguments for ‘public health.’ The idea is to turn a matter of elementary liberty into a crisis that mandates instant action.”
Anti-Second Amendment politicians have repeatedly claimed that there is a “gun-violence epidemic,” which, according to them, necessitates curtailing the rights of law-abiding citizens. In actuality, firearms are simply tools.
Jean-Pierre then said that President Biden will “do everything in his power” to enact “universal background checks” and to ban so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines.”
These proposed background checks on private gun loans, gifts and sales would never be “universal,” as the criminal element in our society—which is the actual problem, by the way—will not comply to mandated background checks. Only the law-abiding will. Therefore, control of lawfully armed citizens is actually what this entire legislative idea is about.
As for “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines,” these are also (surprise!) loaded terms invented purely for political purposes. It seems that Biden is attempting to revive a version of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was found to have had a negligible effect, if any, on crime according to a congressionally mandated study.
We’ve detailed and debunked these policies numerous times, and repeatedly explained the danger of using these falsified terms. The “assault weapons” Biden seeks to ban are simply semi-automatic firearms, of which there are reportedly more than 24.4 million rifles alone in circulation. Then there is arguably the most popular self-defense handgun—the 9 mm semi-automatic—which numbers in the tens-of-millions, and which Biden has also referred to as “assault weapons” and called for banning. As for “high-capacity magazines,” Biden likes to say nobody needs 100 rounds in a magazine, but then labels magazines holding 10 or more rounds as “high capacity.” More recently, he seems to have changed his definition of “high-capacity magazine” to one that holds more than eight rounds. A 2021 estimate from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) reports there are over 300 million of these magazines in circulation already.
Rather than address the criminal element within society, this administration once again seeks to punish the law-abiding. Though the call for gun control from the Biden administration isn’t new, the renewed effort to “do everything in his power” to pass what is clearly an unpopular and unconstitutional agenda is troubling.
Jean-Pierre, like her predecessor and president, is ill-informed about American freedom. Voters will have the chance to tell them as much on Nov. 8.
Bill Clinton wants Congress to renew the ’94 ban on so-called “assault weapons,” which expired in 2004.
Clinton made his case this week in a short video published by the media company ATTN.
“We must act now,” says Clinton. “Enough is enough.”
The former president leaned on his relationship with gun culture when he was a youth in an attempt to add credence to his plea.
“I grew up in this culture. … Most of those people would never do anything to endanger an innocent life,” Clinton says.
“They have been terrified into thinking that if they agree to the most simple, straightforward, obvious, noninterfering mechanisms, somehow it’s the beginning of a slippery slope that will rob them of their Second Amendment rights. It’s not true,” he adds.
This wouldn’t be the first time Clinton’s told a bald-faced lie to the American people.
A sweeping ban on America’s best-selling centerfire rifle is a slippery slope that only leads to more draconian gun control.
This is because gun control is wholly ineffective at reducing crime. When a ban on black rifles fails to stop the next mass killing, anti-gun zealots will seek to further restrict 2A rights on the premise that we still haven’t done enough to tackle the “gun violence epidemic.”
We’ve seen this in action in New York, New Jersey, and California.
Politicians in these states didn’t call it quits after they banned so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines.”
They doubled down with measures to prohibit concealed carriers from bringing firearms into “sensitive locations,” require gun owner liability insurance, mandate background checks for ammo purchases, increase fees for gun permits, and allow lawsuits against gun makers for the criminal acts of third parties, among many others.
Anyone who is remotely paying attention can see that the gun prohibition lobby is never satisfied. The slope is indeed very steep and very slippery despite what Clinton maintains.
A national “assault weapons” ban, therefore, would only be the beginning. The next step would be the registration of prohibited firearms in circulation that were possessed prior to the rollout of the ban.
This is something that the Biden administration has explicitly voiced support for. From president Joe Biden’s website:
Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.
What follows registration is also obvious to those of us who’ve been paying attention: confiscation.
Look no further than to our neighbors to the North for proof! The Canadian government is now in the process of using taxpayer dollars to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens under the guise of a “buyback” program.
While one may say, “Well, that’s Canada, that’ll never happen here.” The truth is it is happening here! Delaware, of all places, is forcing responsible gun owners to turn in their magazines with a capacity of over 17 rounds.
Delawareans who refuse to comply could face felony charges and may end up losing their 2A rights permanently.
So yes, Clinton, Biden and the rest of the Democrats are trying to rob us of our rights. Their recent actions in Democratically-controlled states on this issue speak much louder than their words.
Gun owners in Delaware are now being forced to turn in their “large-capacity” magazines to law enforcement following the passage of the “Delaware Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition Act of 2022” in June of this year.
The new law broadly prohibits the production, sale, purchase, receipt, transfer, and possession of magazines with a capacity of over 17 rounds.
The Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security (DSHS) issued guidelines late last month along with dates, locations, and compensation for the mandatory “buyback” program.
The DSHS said that “residents are eligible to receive fair market compensation for” their LCM or large capacity magazine.
Delawareans providing valid identification for proof of residency may receive:
- LCM 18 to 30 Rounds – $15
- LCM 31 or greater round – $25
- LCM Drums – $80
“This buyback program is for Delaware residents only,” states the DSHS. “The program is only intended for individuals and does not apply to wholesale, retail, manufacturers, and distributor business entities. Anonymous relinquishments will be permitted. However, no compensation will be provided.”
Violators face a misdemeanor charge for their first offense and a class E felony for subsequent offenses.
A felony conviction for the possession of an LCM would result in the permanent loss of one’s 2A rights.
There are some key exemptions. Active and retired law enforcement, members of the U.S. military, and licensed concealed carriers are excluded from the ban.
The NRA-ILA is actively suing Delaware over its magazine ban and its 2022 ban on modern sporting rifles, known as the Delaware Lethal Firearms Safety Act of 2022.
However, while gun-owning Delawareans await the outcome of the lawsuits, state officials are hoping to complete the “buyback” program by June 30, 2023 — the end of the fiscal year, according to WHYY.
Mark Oliva, the managing director of public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, lamented the present situation in Delaware.
“There was a time when Delaware was respected for standing for freedom and against restricting God-given rights. Now, the state is literally financing magazine seizures with taxpayer funds,” he told GunsAmerica via email.
“The state cannot buy back something it never owned. As a matter of intellectual honesty, state officials should call it what it is. This is a state-sanctioned seizure of magazines done to bolster President Joe Biden’s gun control agenda,” he continued.
Oliva spoke about the legal challenges the magazine ban is currently facing, especially in light of the landmark Bruen decision.
“The audacity of Delaware lawmakers to move forward with this plan is astounding. The U.S.Supreme Court ordered the U.S. Court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit to revisit its ruling upholding California’s magazine restriction law in light of Bruen,” he said.
“It’s clear that Delaware lawmakers are determined to cause as much damage as possible to the Second Amendment rights of their fellow citizens and it will be the taxpayers that find it and potentially compensate those harmed by this effort,” Oliva concluded.
LANSING, Mich. (FOX 2) – 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
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
REMEMBER
