Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
Some lawmakers just do not believe in one’s right to keep and bear arms, under any circumstances, no matter what.
Arizona State Sen. Lupe Contreras appears to be one of those lawmakers.
During a recent committee hearing on HB 2316, a measure to expand carry rights for permit holders to include certain public places and during various events, Sen. Contreras responded to testimony in support of the bill by suggesting those who feel unsafe should just stay at home.
“I got my concealed carry because I’ve been a victim of sexual assault… random assault… domestic abuse, and I refuse to be a victim again,” explained Lauren Snyder, a voter in support of HB 2316.
“I don’t carry because I want to harm others, I carry because I don’t want to be harmed,” Snyder continued, during the March 3rd hearing.
A bit later on, Sen. Contreras dismissed Snyder’s argument and, as mentioned, suggested that anyone who believes in armed self-defense is better off shuttering indoors.
“I’m a gun owner, I’m a hunter, I’m a proud Democrat. I don’t need to carry my gun on me at all times to feel safe. I don’t. I don’t walk around, run around, drive around worrying about somebody’s gonna shoot me or somebody’s going to hurt me or somebody’s going to do whatever,” he said.
SEE ALSO: Alabama, Ohio Become 22nd & 23rd State to Enact Constitutional Carry!
“Why even walk around at that point? Stay home. Behind closed doors,” Contreras added.
“I do understand that, yeah, it is a right that we have. But some people, some people just don’t have that right. And some people just shouldn’t have that right,” he concluded while noting his opposition to SB 2316.
What’s that saying? A Liberal is a Conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet?
See, it’s easy to “feel safe” when one hasn’t been the victim of a forcible felony. Sen. Contreras should step inside Ms. Snyder’s shoes before he judges her posture on personal defense. It’s her right to choose what’s best for herself and her family. His opinions on the matter shouldn’t count for a hill of beans.
But unfortunately, over the years, politicians have succeeded in changing laws that treat our fundamental rights as privileges that require the government’s permission to exercise. Fortunately, in many Red states, we’re starting to take them back.
A couple years ago I was working security at a bar in northern Virginia. I overheard a table of college kids arguing about gun rights and gun control and it was getting far too emotional so I did what any sane combat veteran would do and attempted to exfiltrate. I must not have withdrawn as surreptitiously as I intended, because I was stopped in my tracks when a 5-foot-nothing brunette seemingly leapt in front of me and blurted out “excuse me, can you help us?”
I’m sure I must have looked irritated as I cycled through the possible quips and excuses I considered available to me but being uncertain that she wasn’t some Senator’s daughter, I caved: “What’s up?”
She basically leads me to this table of 2 other females (probably both named Karen) and a very soft looking male.
Becky: “So, we were just talking about current events and, you know. So, you look like you’re probably in the military, right? Like the Army?”
(When you accuse someone of being in the military you probably don’t need to give an example.)
Me: “Similar.. yea”
Becky: “Right. Okay. So, do you think civilians should be allowed to own guns?”
Me: “Most of us. Yes.”
Becky: (clearly not happy with my answer) “Okay, so, why do you think you need a gun?”
(At this point it’s almost 2am and I’ve just given up on patience. Hold my beer.)
(With intentionally overt condescension): “Oh, honey, I don’t. I don’t need a gun.”
Becky stares at me blankly, so I continue, but with a more serious tone:
“I could follow you home, walk up your driveway, and beat you to death with the daily newspaper.
I could choke you to death with that purse.
I could take a credit card, break it in half, and cut your throat open with it.
With enough time and effort I could beat your boyfriend here with a rolled up pair of socks.
I could probably dream up six dozen other ways I could easily end your life if you gave me an hour or so.
If I wanted to, I could wrap my hand around that beer mug and kill all four of you before you could make it to the exit. The worst part is, in your utopian little fantasyland, there ain’t a thing any of you could do about it.
I don’t need a gun.
You need a gun.
You need a gun because of men like me.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- According to a New York Times report, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) new rule on unfinished firearms frames & receivers will be out in early April 2022.
The Biden administration is looking for a victory, and so-called “ghost guns” seem to be where the President thinks he can get a win.
The administration has faced all-time record-low approval ratings from the American public in the wake of several high-profile blunders. The disastrous pull out of troops in Afghanistan started Biden’s slide in popularity.
COVID-19 restrictions also saw the President taking a loss when the courts ruled his vaccine requirements for American companies unconstitutional. His policies on COVID payouts caused a labor shortage in the US, which led to empty shelves in many stores. Many small businesses shut down because they could not outbid the federal government, which paid people to sit home and do nothing.
Gas prices are over $4 a gallon and headed to an unheard of $5.00. Inflation has been out of control and rising to levels not seen since Jimmy Carter’s presidency. The President has refused to approve drilling permits to make the country energy independent, bending a knee to OPEC to help the energy crisis and now banning Russian gas imports. He is worried that he will upset the same far left-wing advocates that want to ban unfinished frames and receivers by approving new drilling permits.
Last April, President Biden announced that he was ordering the ATF to act against unfinished frames and receivers in addition to pistol stabilizing devices. The ATF wrote up new regulations and submitted them to the National Registry for a public comment period. Over 300,000 Americans submitted comments on the topic. Most of the comments opposed the rule change.
If the rule goes through as expected, all 80% firearms frames & receivers sold would require a serial number and be considered a firearm in the eyes of the ATF.
The ATF calls these firearms privately manufactured firearms (PFM). The ones currently in the hands of the public would not require a serial number unless the firearm is transferred by a federal firearms licensee (FFL) or brought into a gunsmith for work.
Homemade suppressors will take a hit under the proposed rules. The tube itself will become the suppressor. The ATF has recently cracked down on Form 1 silencers. The government, law enforcement agency paused 3000 eForm submissions. Out of those 3000 submissions, 850 were denied by the ATF. The agency said the builder used parts that are already silencers. These included parts that the Bureau has always said were not regulated by the NFA.
The law enforcement agency also requested that the makers submit pictures of all parts used in the build, list how they plan on building the suppressor, and list where they acquired the parts. This request for information is a break from previous policies, which only required caliber and length.
The ATF was expected to give dealers and manufacturers 90 days to comply with the new regulations. Inside sources report that the time frame has shrunk to 60 days. The ATF and the Whitehouse didn’t respond to AmmoLand New’s request for comment.
About John Crump
John is an 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.
On March 6, 2022, the AP identified the deceased father as 39-year-old David Mora and noted that he “was in the country illegally.”
Moreover, Mora was “under a restraining order that barred him from possessing a firearm.”
Mora was out on bail at the time he opened fire in the church. He had been arrested five days prior “on charges of resisting arrest, battery on a police officer and driving under the influence.”
The New York Post reports that Mora “was arrested on Feb. 23 for driving under the influence, assaulting an officer and medical staff.”
According to the Post: “ICE issued a detainer — a request that the suspect be held until the agency can transfer him into custody and put him into deportation proceedings. However, due to California’s ‘sanctuary state’ law, authorities say they were barred from holding him or communicating with ICE about his release and he left on bail on a $15,000 bond.”
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. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
Legislators in half a dozen states are considering measures to roll back requirements that gun owners obtain permits and training before carrying concealed weapons, as Republican politicians race to show their support for gun rights ahead of primary and midterm elections this year.
But as the bills progress through state House and Senate chambers, they are running into new and increasingly vocal opposition from an unexpected source: Law enforcement organizations who say allowing more people to carry weapons would add to an already troubling spike in gun crimes.
In the nearly two decades since Alaska became the first state to allow concealed weapons without a permit, 20 others have joined in to scrap their rules. This year, legislators in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and Nebraska are considering their own versions.
“When it comes to the Second Amendment in Nebraska, it’s an issue that really hits home,” said state Sen. Tom Brewer, a conservative member of his state’s nonpartisan legislature and the bill’s chief sponsor. “You still have an obligation to have safe operation training. And I think people with any degree of responsibility or intelligence are going to understand that.”
Ohio legislators have already passed a similar bill; Gov. Mike DeWine (R) has not said whether he will sign it.
“It is going to promote lawlessness. I think that there will be people who carry weapons concealed for the purpose of being vigilantes. I think that it is not very well thought out for very high populated counties such as Hamilton County,” Ohio’s Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey said in an interview. “To vote for people to be able to concealed carry without a license, without any training, without any documentation, it makes it exponentially harder for law enforcement to prevent gun crimes.”
McGuffey, whose county includes the city of Cincinnati, is one of a handful of prominent law enforcement officials to testify or speak out against the proposed legislation. Gary Wolske, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, wrote an op-ed critical of the law in the Columbus Dispatch.
The sheriff of Lincoln, Neb., testified against his state’s proposed version. In Alabama, the state Sheriffs Association held a press conference outside the statehouse to detail their opposition. Mobile, Ala., Sheriff Sam Cochran last year fired one of his deputies, state Rep. Shane Stringer (R), who introduced the bill in the legislature.
Stringer did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But he told the Alabama Political Reporter last year he was proud of his bill.
“After dedicating my life and career to law enforcement, losing a job because I stand in support of Alabama gun owners is certainly surprising, but nothing will discourage me from defending the constitutional guarantees promised to all of us as American citizens,” Stringer said.
Brewer, the Nebraska senator, said law enforcement is by no means universally opposed to his bill.
“I’ve got 13 counties in my district and every sheriff there supports it,” he said in an interview.
Supporters of the measure call it “constitutional carry.” Opponents and gun safety activists call it “permitless carry.”
“Constitutional carry codifies into law the fundamental right to defend yourself when outside of the home,” said Amy Hunter, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association (NRA). “Law-abiding Americans should not have to pay additional fees to exercise their fundamental right to defend themselves and their families.”
Opponents of the laws say they would put more weapons on the streets at a time when gun crimes are already on the rise, underscoring law enforcement’s opposition to the bills.
“There are communities across the country that are already really struggling with the crisis of gun violence,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, a gun safety organization. “Law enforcement are saying lawmakers are just ignoring their concerns.”
Gun safety groups point to studies published in academic journals and by the National Bureau of Economic Research that show states that weaken firearm permitting systems subsequently experience an increase in homicide and violent crime rates.
“Poor decisionmaking happens, and unfortunately, if you’re carrying a weapon and you make a poor decision in a very elevated and high stress situation, the repercussions and ramifications of that are tremendous,” McGuffey said. “People in the general public don’t understand generally how poorly most people shoot.”
Gun rights supporters point to their own studies to make the case that guns are most frequently used outside the home. Hunter, the NRA spokesperson, highlighted a study showing three-quarters of defensive gun uses occurred outside of a gun owner’s house.
“Self-defense situations can arise anywhere, any time, and without warning,” Hunter said in an email.
Intraparty politics likely increase pressure to approve permitless carry laws for some Republicans. In Ohio, DeWine faces a challenge later this year from ex-Rep. Jim Renacci (R), who has cast himself as a staunch backer of former President Trump ahead of the May 3 primary.
But McGuffey said she would continue to press DeWine to veto the legislation.
“If you oppose it and veto it, Gov. DeWine, you may never know the lives you will save,” McGuffey said. “But if you pass this bill, there’s a great likelihood that you will know the lives you didn’t save. Those names will live in infamy.”
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- By a 55-42 dead-of-night vote, the Washington State House of Representatives has passed a ban on rifle and pistol magazines holding more than 10 cartridges (including magazines for rimfire rifles), causing outrage among Evergreen State grassroots activists who will be looking unseat as many Democrats as possible in the November 2022 election.
Senate Bill 5078 goes to the desk of anti-gun Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee, who has already vowed to sign it. Two Democrat House members—Reps. Kirsten Harris-Talley from Seattle and Steve Kirby from Tacoma—voted against the measure, breaking ranks from their majority Democrat colleagues.
The vote came about two weeks after Liberty Park Press published a revealing report about the ineffectiveness of magazine capacity limit that many readers sent to their state lawmakers.
The late-night Friday vote was hailed by anti-gun Democrat Attorney General Bob Ferguson in a tweet now posted at the Facebook page of the Washington 2022 Legislative Action Group. The legislation was introduced at Ferguson’s request by Democrat Sen. Marko Liias of Lynnwood.
“Today is the fulfillment of years of hard work from so many,” Ferguson wrote. “More than five years ago, I stood with the parents of shooting victims, legislators, mayors, police chiefs and representatives from faith communities to say enough is enough, and proposed banning the sale of high-capacity magazines in Washington state. Today, our Legislature chose public safety over the gun lobby, and I am deeply appreciative of their service. This policy will save lives and make our communities safer from gun violence.”
But Wade Gaughran, owner of a Bellevue gun range and firearms retail business, reacted bluntly, telling KING News, “There’s no way that an intelligent person is going to look at this law and see that it would stop or limit or change the of any kind of mass shooting.”
He predicted a surge in magazine purchasing, a notion reinforced by an announcement from at least one firm—Palmetto State Armory—announced it will prioritize orders from Washington State residents: “All magazine orders placed from Washington State with Palmetto State Armory with ship out immediately and receive priority over all other orders.”
Dan Mitchell, owner of Vancouver’s Sporting Systems, posted a “Fact Sheet” about the magazine ban, which included a depiction of the state flag with dictatorial overtones.
One activist member of the Legislative Action Group posted this message:
“The only group that can help us and that definitely will help us is the Second Amendment Foundation,” wrote Perry Singh. “They are responsible for all the lawsuits that are successful. We have a US Supreme Court that will side with us. We just need an organization that is serious about bringing lawsuits and there is no organization more serious than the Second Amendment Foundation. If you are not a member you need to join. These guys fund lawsuits and they’re really good at winning. No you won’t get a free duffel bag or a free hat but they will deliver us victories in court that we need badly.”
Another gun rights activist, Ron Fricks, responded with his own observation: “There are a lot of good organizations that support 2A rights. Perry is correct however, the Second Amendment Foundation is the best. They often work in the background, they may not get the press, but they are there getting stuff done. It is better to donate a dollar to them, then to post a million “we will not comply” post on facebook. There are over 600,000 permit holders in WA state. If each of them sent $1, or even better $10 per month to the organization of their choice, it would make a difference. Talk or act, the choice is yours.”
By no small coincidence, just hours before the House vote, SAF on Friday announced the launch of a national outreach effort to remind America’s gun owners that “Gun Rights Depend On You.”
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb estimated the message—which is already appearing online at the Washington Times, Breitbart, TownHall, Newsmax, BearingArms and Drudge—will reach millions of people. SAF tells gun owners to “Demand the Courts Protect the 2A.”
“It would be a significant step forward in our ongoing outreach effort to educate gun owners that the defense of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms ultimately rests in their hands,” Gottlieb said. “Right now, we have more than 30 active court cases challenging various gun control laws on Second Amendment grounds, in several states, including California, Washington, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland. It is our intention to raise public awareness and grab the attention of various courts so these cases don’t end up gathering dust in some perpetual state of ‘pending’ action.”
A federal case challenging a similar ban in California is already seeking review from the U.S. Supreme Court. Nine states and Washington, D.C. have imposed such bans.
According to the Daily Olympian, violations of the new law “would result in a gross misdemeanor, which carries a maximum punishment of 364 days in jail and/or a fine up to $5,000.”
Gun owner reaction over the weekend was nothing short of fury. One gun owner posting at the Legislative Action Facebook page stated, “Today our legislature chose the anti-human rights lobby over public safety. Quit calling them antigun groups. Being able to possess a weapon to defend oneself from criminals and tyrants is a human right.”
Another observed, “This new law shows the depth of stupidity in Olympia. They think that some person hell-bent on killing people will suddenly follow the law because they could get a misdemeanor charge for magazine capacity. That’s insanity.”
Now, Evergreen State gun owners are saying the only cure for such “insanity” will be taking the House, and maybe the State Senate, away from Democrats this fall. How well that effort does will depend upon whether the anger now being expressed translates into voter turnout in vulnerable legislative districts this fall.
Electable candidates must be recruited, campaigns must be formed and financed, and gun owners will have to register and vote, and all of that involves more than—as Fricks noted above—posting a million “we will not comply” messages on social media.
Gun owners in Virginia did it last November when nobody expected they would. Now it’s Washington’s turn.