Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
State Lawmakers Disagree On Gun Bill
AB286 would increase penalties for some violations and ban the manufacturing and possession of kit guns.
Wednesday, March 17th 2021, 6:24 PM PDT
Updated:
Legislators are discussing a bill that would increase restrictions on some gun laws. Existing law gives businesses the right to prohibit people from carrying firearms on their property. Assembly Bill 286 would take that one step further, increasing the penalties.
“This is actually giving teeth to that provision, allowing private business owners who have implemented or restricted people from visiting their premise with firearms to lean on law enforcement,” Assem. Sandra Jauregui, D-Las Vegas said.
Jauregui is the bill’s primary sponsor. She says the bill would only apply to businesses who opt in. People who violate the restriction would face a misdemeanor for the first offense, a gross misdemeanor for the second offense and a Category E felony for the third.
A big focus is on the Las Vegas Strip, where they have seen a spike in gun crimes.
“We need to make sure that Las Vegas continues to be an inviting place for the 40 million tourists who visit every single year,” Jauregui said.
Many of the resorts on the Strip already prohibit firearms in their properties. Currently, the violation is a trespassing charge.
“It is essential that we signal to our customers all over the world that Las Vegas is the safest place to be,” John McManus, Executive Vice President of MGM Resorts said.
Supporters say increasing safety on the Strip would result in more visitors and an improved economy. Some lawmakers say it could do the opposite because of some of the gun conventions at the Las Vegas resorts.
“We had one of our biggest shows, today, tell us that they would probably leave if this bill went through and that’s $100 million by itself,” Assem. Jim Wheeler, R-Minden said “Probably another $100 million in other gun shows throughout the state.”
The restriction would include hotel parking lots. Opponents say that would affect hunters. If they travel, they would not be able to have the weapon in the hotel or in their car unless it was off-property.
“I leave that in my truck and I go to that hotel, if that hotel has chosen to be a gun free zone, what am I going to do? I can’t bring my firearm,” Assem. Robin Titus, R-Smith Valley said.
Some say leaving a gun in a car, on a street leaves it vulnerable for theft. Others say it affects 143,000 Nevadans that have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
“These are people that have been licensed, trained, gone through background checks and are authorized by their county sheriff, not to mention the 27 other states that we do recognize their permits,” Dan Reid, Western Regional Director of the National Rifle Association said. “CCW holders are amongst the most law-abiding people in this country.”
The second part of the bill would ban people from owning or manufacturing kit guns in Nevada. Many refer to them as ghost guns because they do not have serial numbers. People can order the parts online and assemble them at home.
“This means that ghost gun building blocks can be delivered right to the front door of a convicted domestic abuser, a gun trafficker, a child or a white supremacist,” Emily Walton, Member of Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action said.
“These guns are untraceable,” Jauregui said. “They don’t have serial numbers so if they are used in a crime, it makes it difficult for law enforcement to be able to identify them.”
The bill would also have an affect on people who build guns as a hobby. Antique firearms and replicas would be exempt. Kit gun owners would have a grace period before they would have to sell their homemade guns out-of-state or surrender them.
“We make guns and having that as a private business and private ownership, to be outlawed is wrong,” Titus said.
“This is a long-standing American tradition,” Reid said. “People have been making their own firearms for personal use since before the American Revolutionary War. This is completely legal for personal use.”
Jauregui says she is willing to work with lawmakers to improve the bill. Her goal is to make Nevada a safer state for residents and visitors.
“We know we’re not going to prevent every single crime or every single act of gun violence,” Jauregui said. “We know that. We’re trying to prevent some of them.”
“Like all gun laws, they restrict the law abiding citizen and they do not restrict the criminal because the criminal doesn’t follow the gun laws,” Wheeler said.
Wednesday’s Assembly Committee on the Judiciary meeting was the first step in the process. The bill could still change before a vote.
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/03/nyc-queens-plea-for-unarmed-citizen-intervention-shows-elitist-arrogance/#ixzz6pdHpQ3xR
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “After ‘Defunding The Police,’ NYC First Lady Pleads For Citizens To Intervene In Violent Crimes As Assaults Spike,” The Daily Wire reported Monday. The story noted a series of tweets from Chirlane McCray, wife of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio urging citizens to place themselves at potential physical risk in the face of hostility and escalating violence.
“As attacks on Asian American communities continue, we’re asking New Yorkers to show up for their neighbors and intervene when witnessing hateful violence or harassment,” McCray pontificated. “I know that can be frightening when you aren’t sure what to do or say, but you can learn.
Intervene against who, exactly?
“Authorities” are keeping who the hate crime perpetrators are close to the vest, making it especially dangerous to get involved if for no other reason than fear of being smeared as a racist for defending against a minority aggressor.
“Fear is a normal feeling when stepping into a confrontation, but being prepared can help,” McCray continues, undeterred by anything so mundane as reality. “I’ll share @iHollaback ‘s 5 D’s, which are easy to remember tactics that we can all use to de-escalate a situation. D is for Distract, Delegate, Document, Delay, and Direct.”
Entitled sociopaths who will punch, stab or shoot you because they feel like it will justify it internally by viewing iHollaback’s wholly unqualified “street harassment” response advice with a “D” of their own, for “Disrespect.” Come to think of it, McCray should have added another “D” for “Duck.”
That’s because her advice doesn’t seem very prudent in a city marked by shootings that had “doubled in 2020 and were up 75 percent last month compared to a year prior.” Big Apple citizen disarmament edicts guarantee the “law-abiding” will be at an extreme disadvantage.
Consider the Sullivan Law, and subsequent New York State edicts and specialized New York City prohibitions. Look at what’s required just to get “permission” to own a gun in that town. Forget about carrying one “legally” unless you’re rich and connected or a celebrity.
Not that Queen Chirlane needs to concern herself with that. She doesn’t need to worry about being “street harassed” or to depend on the kindness of (unarmed) strangers should she find herself being threatened. McCray, hubby, and their royal brood are protected 24/7 by armed security details, and that includes outside the city limits.
Back when he was sticking his toe in presidential waters, de Blasio and the Mrs. were guarded by “at least 10 detectives, including two supervisors, who stayed at the same hotels and ferried the couple around Iowa, South Carolina and other early primary states.” Hizzoner even assigned one of his bodyguards to accompany their son to Yale and “ordered NYPD Executive Protection Unit to move his daughter out of a Brooklyn apartment.”
The curious thing is, between the mayor’s phony budget cuts and his wife’s wholly political pandering, information about reductions in protective detail costs appears to be as guarded as they are. Anybody hear her demand to defund her own security? Or say getting rid of that part of NYPD would be “utopia”?
As for the hapless citizens who pay for it all (and yet somehow always seem to elect elitist violence monopolists to rule over them), the demand that they be rendered defenseless yet still put themselves in harm’s way — to do the job NYPD’s gun law enforcers can’t do — is stunning in its elitist arrogance. It recalls nothing so much as Marie Antoinette’s apocryphal quote when told the people had no bread:
“Let them eat cake.”
You gotta wonder if at any point a people who have welcomed their freedom to be so abused will wake up and repurpose some of those horse-drawn carriages the mayor tried to ban as tumbrels.
Did you know that if you’ve got the know-how to assemble IKEA furniture that you can assemble a ghost gun? Did you know that gun shows go so far as to actually display ghost guns like candy?
That’s the spin pushed by proponents of two new bills introduced in the California Legislature, both aimed at shutting down gun shows (SB 264-Min/D) and the sale of so-called “ghost” guns (AB 311-Ward/D). The baloney comments about IKEA and candy are all part of the villainization of guns and their owners, and is being used as evidence that we are facing a ghost gun epidemic.
Scare tactics – pure and simple.
Last I checked, IKEA furniture doesn’t require meticulous drilling and labor with specialized hand tools, all which are required to create a working firearm component. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has it right when they say that “GHOST GUNS ARE A GUN CONTROL BOOGEYMAN.” Ever since the foundation of our country, Americans have had the ability to legally make firearms on their own. What’s more, this legal activity is regulated by state and federal firearm statutes.
AB 311 would ban the sale of “precursor parts” at gun shows – which, according to anti-gun propaganda, leads to a proliferation of ghost guns. This is yet another attempt to close the non-existent “gun show loophole” because it would have the net effect of banning gun shows altogether since much of a show’s inventory are “gun parts.”
The word “loophole” is just another politicized term the gun controllers have invented – much like “ghost gun” and “assault weapon.” There is not, nor ever has been a gun show “loophole.” No one can just waltz into a gun show and out with a gun, because all statutory and regulatory rules apply. According to NSSF, “You must run a federal background check on any individual you sell a firearm to through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The same paperwork, recordkeeping, age restrictions, and other rules also apply, as if the sale occurred in the dealer’s place of business. Further, only a small percentage of tables at gun shows, about 20 to 25 percent, actually sell firearms. The others sell books, accessories or other items.” Plus, reporting that unlicensed dealers can sell firearms at gun shows is 100% untrue. Whoever does this is engaging in criminal activity.
Here in California, a press release by the Attorney General dated May 19, 2020, indicated that out of 400 investigations under the Armed Prohibited Persons System, 2 so-called ghost guns were found, both possessed by one individual. But Assemblyman Chris Ward – the author of AB 311 – has said the California Bureau of Firearms seized 512% more ghost guns from persons identified through the APPS database in 2019 than in 2018. That sounds alarming, right? But once we drilled down on these numbers, this percentage translates to 41 guns in 2019 versus 8 guns in 2018. Out of the DOJs 21,916 contacts with prohibited individuals, 0.002% of the cases uncovered a firearm with no serial number. And, when reading the report’s citations, ghost guns data seems to be intermingled with stats about firearms that have had their serial numbers removed. It is difficult, therefore, to make an honest evaluation of the data when the data itself is not credible.
For all the fear mongering and mischaracterization of data, neither 3D printed gun files nor unfinished receiver blanks constitute “firearms” or “handguns” because they are not “firearms.” Additionally, an unfinished receiver sold as a kit with other unregulated gun parts is not a “combination of parts from which a firearm […] can be assembled” because the unfinished frame must first be manufactured before it can be assembled. And no amount of additional unregulated parts sold alongside an unregulated unfinished receiver blank can magically transform a non-firearm into a “firearm” or a “handgun.”
There’s a lot that can be said about any legislation to rid the state of gun shows, but it’s all driven by Boogey-man type rhetoric. Bad guys don’t follow the law. That’s why they are bad guys. We have our work cut out for us here, and GOC will continue to fight the good fight.
Federally, our sister organization Gun Owners of America is working overtime as well on the ghost gun issue, recently submitting a letter to President Biden about any prospective executive actions. You can read the letter in its entirety as well as Ammoland’s commentary on this issue HERE.
I have found that you do not f**k with men with Beards. As junior has just been educated about here. Grumpy
Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Thursday introduced a ban on more than 200 “assault weapons” after the House passed two gun-control measures pertaining to background checks.
Her bill (pdf), called the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2021,” is co-sponsored by 34 Senate Democrats and would ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds—similar to the bans on magazines in New York state and California.
According to the legislation, which was also introduced in the House by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the ban would encompass more than 205 rifles. Feinstein’s bill would allow current owners of the guns to retain possession of them. If that gun is transferred, a person has to undergo an FBI background check before getting the firearm.
The bill also bans any weapon that has the capacity to use a magazine that isn’t a fixed ammunition magazine and has one or more characteristics such as a pistol grip, forward grip, a threaded barrel, a folding or telescoping stock, or a barrel shroud.
The bill “requires that grandfathered assault weapons are stored using a secure gun storage or safety device like a trigger lock” and prohibits the transfer of high-capacity ammunition magazines while banning “bump-fire stocks and other devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire at fully automatic rates,” according to a news release from Feinstein’s office. Bump-fire stocks were made illegal in March 2019.
“It’s been 17 years since the original Assault Weapons Ban expired, and the plague of gun violence continues to grow in this country. To be clear, this bill saves lives. When it was in place from 1994-2004, gun massacres declined by 37 percent compared with the decade before. After the ban expired, the number of massacres rose by 183 percent,” Feinstein said in a statement Thursday.
There are more than 20 million modern sporting rifles owned by private citizens, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, as reported by pro-Second Amendment website Bearingarms.com.
Republicans and gun-rights groups have said proposals from Feinstein, who has long advocated for gun control, are unconstitutional and won’t prevent firearms from getting in the hands of criminals.
“Law-abiding Americans use them for every type of lawful purpose, including personal and home defense, hunting, marksmanship competitions, and recreational target practice,” stated the National Rifle Association (NRA) when Feinstein attempted to introduce the bill in 2019. “Needless to say, however, the modern criminal element will not be playing by the antiquated rules that Feinstein hopes to apply to the rest of us,” the group asserted.
On Thursday, the House passed two Democratic-backed gun control measures, including one would that would expand background checks to those purchasing weapons over the internet, at gun shows, and through certain private transactions. Only eight Republicans joined the Democrats in backing the bill.
The second bill, passed 219-210 with only two Republicans supporting it, would give authorities 10 business days for federal background checks to be completed before a gun sale can be licensed.
Reuters contributed to this report.
The U.S. House Representatives, with the urging and support of Joe Biden, passed two bills on Thursday – H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446 – that would usher in a sweeping overhaul of how firearms are bought and sold in the U.S. Neither would impede criminals, who overwhelmingly obtain their firearms outside normal channels of lawful commerce. But together they would transform the constitutionally protected right to obtain firearms into a privilege administered at the whim of anti-gun bureaucrats.
To understand why these bills are so consequential, it’s important to understand how retail firearm sales work under existing federal law.
Currently, the primary means by which the federal government regulates firearms is through a network of licensed dealers (FFLs) making commercial sales. Anyone who repetitively engages in firearm sales for livelihood and profit is required to become an FFL. Failure to do so is already a federal felony. So when the media mentions “unlicensed dealers,” they’re actually talking about criminals, not people falling into a legal “loophole.”
Anyone buying a gun from an FFL must first go through a computerized, point-of-sale background check administered by the FBI. This check, which is supposed to be instant, searches several national databases to determine if a would-be buyer falls into any statutorily-defined category of “prohibited persons,” which include such things as felons, people who have been committed to a mental institution, and illegal aliens.
If the search does not turn up a disqualifying record, the system notifies the dealer to proceed. Sometimes, however, the records are unclear, and a response cannot be provided immediately. This results in a delay of up to three business days to allow the FBI to conduct additional research.
If the FBI still has not resolved the check within that three business day period, the FFL has the option (but not a requirement) to proceed with the sale, provided he or she has no reason to believe the buyer is prohibited. This is known as a default transfer.
The system is structured this way not because of some inadvertent loophole but as an intentional safeguard to protect Americans’ constitutional right to obtain firearms.
As with any constitutional right, the burden is on the government to justify a restriction, which in the case of a background check means the FBI must be able to locate a disqualifying record before it blocks a sale. The three day default transfer window ensures the government maintains the burden of proof, provides a specific timeframe to resolve incomplete checks, incentivizes the FBI to administer the system efficiently, and ensures legal transfers are not subject to extended delays.
Without the automatic default transfer option, the FBI could block even legal firearm sales, simply by refusing to complete the check.
Private individuals who are not selling firearms with the principle objective of livelihood and profit can make occasional transfers, sales, loans, or gifts of firearms without becoming an FFL. They cannot, however, transfer a firearm to anyone who they have reason to believe is legally prohibited from buying firearms. Private individuals also have the option (but not the requirement) to process a private transfer using the services of an FFL, with the attendant background check and record-keeping required of the dealer for a commercial sale.
The bills passed by the House last week would – in the case of H.R. 8 – presumptively ban any private transfer of a firearm, including loans and gifts, as well as – in the case of H.R. 1446 – eliminate the automatic three day default transfer period for dealer sales.
This means that every time a firearm changed hands, the transfer would have to be processed by an FFL, which would involve fees, background checks, and government-accessible paperwork documenting the sale. Friends and neighbors could no longer freely loan, sell, or trade firearms amongst the people they know and trust. Even some family members could no longer share firearms with each other.
Handing a firearm over to someone without hiring an FFL to facilitate the exchange would be a federal crime under H.R. 8, unless you could show the situation fell into certain narrow and confusing exceptions. For example, you could loan someone a gun for self-defense, but only if the person was actually under attack at the time. You could not loan someone a firearm as a safeguard against danger that had not yet materialized.
Making matters worse, H.R. 1446 would empower the FBI to indefinitely delay a firearm sale or transfer, simply by failing to complete the “instant” check that would now be mandatory for EVERY non-exempt transfer. There would be no automatic default transfer window. Instead, it would be up to the intended recipient of the gun to appeal a delayed background check and ask – for the second time – for an answer from the FBI.
If the FBI failed to answer this SECOND request for a resolution to the background check, the dealer would have to wait an additional 10 business days before deciding whether to transfer the gun. So, at a minimum, H.R. 1446 would allow the FBI to arbitrarily impose an extended delay, even in the case where a person stood on his or her rights by appealing the FBI’s non-answer to the check. If the person did not appeal, there would be NO option for the dealer to transfer the gun, even though the FBI had not shown the transfer was illegal.
Taken together, these bills transform the right to obtain firearms into a privilege administered at the say-so of the government. They also set the stage for a universal registry of gun owners and the transformation of the current “shall-issue” paradigm for FFL transfers to eligible buyers into a “may-issue” system where the FBI can block sales on a case-by-case basis as they see fit.
Arch anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer has already promised that the legislation will get a vote in the Senate, where the margin for victory or defeat is razor thin.
That is why every freedom-loving American must contact their senators NOW and firmly but respectfully demand that they vote NO on H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446.
Giving the government total authority to document and oversee the movement of every legal gun in America is a recipe for a crackdown on law-abiding gun owners, while leaving criminals operating outside the bounds of the law untouched.
Do not delay. Make your voice heard TODAY or suffer the potential loss of your rights tomorrow! Contact your U.S. Senators Now!
Michael Smith, American Renaissance, May 9, 2014
Still liberal after all these years.
[Editor’s Note: This is just one of thirteen essays in our newly-released collection of first-hand reports about the reality of race, Face to Face with Race.]
I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 percent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.
I have no explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.
As a young lawyer, I believed the official story that blacks are law abiding, intelligent, family-oriented people, but are so poor they must turn to crime to survive. Actual black behavior was a shock to me.
The media invariably sugarcoat black behavior. Even the news reports of the very crimes I dealt with in court were slanted. Television news intentionally leaves out unflattering facts about the accused, and sometimes omits names that are obviously black. All this rocked my liberal, tolerant beliefs, but it took me years to set aside my illusions and accept the reality of what I see every day. I have now served thousands of blacks and their families, protecting their rights and defending them in court. What follow are my observations.
Although blacks are only a small percentage of our community, the courthouse is filled with them: the halls and gallery benches are overflowing with black defendants, families, and crime victims. Most whites with business in court arrive quietly, dress appropriately, and keep their heads down. They get in and get out–if they can–as fast as they can. For blacks, the courthouse is like a carnival. They all seem to know each other: hundreds and hundreds each day, gossiping, laughing loudly, waving, and crowding the halls.
When I am appointed to represent a client I introduce myself and explain that I am his lawyer. I explain the court process and my role in it, and I ask the client some basic questions about himself. At this stage, I can tell with great accuracy how people will react. Hispanics are extremely polite and deferential. An Hispanic will never call me by my first name and will answer my questions directly and with appropriate respect for my position. Whites are similarly respectful.
A black man will never call me Mr. Smith; I am always “Mike.” It is not unusual for a 19-year-old black to refer to me as “dog.” A black may mumble complaints about everything I say, and roll his eyes when I politely interrupt so I can continue with my explanation. Also, everything I say to blacks must be at about the third-grade level. If I slip and use adult language, they get angry because they think I am flaunting my superiority.
At the early stages of a case, I explain the process to my clients. I often do not yet have the information in the police reports. Blacks are unable to understand that I do not yet have answers to all of their questions, but that I will by a certain date. They live in the here and the now and are unable to wait for anything. Usually, by the second meeting with the client I have most of the police reports and understand their case.
Unlike people of other races, blacks never see their lawyer as someone who is there to help them. I am a part of the system against which they are waging war. They often explode with anger at me and are quick to blame me for anything that goes wrong in their case.
Black men often try to trip me up and challenge my knowledge of the law or the facts of the case. I appreciate sincere questions about the elements of the offense or the sentencing guidelines, but blacks ask questions to test me. Unfortunately, they are almost always wrong in their reading, or understanding, of the law, and this can cause friction. I may repeatedly explain the law, and provide copies of the statute showing, for example, why my client must serve six years if convicted, but he continues to believe that a hand-written note from his “cellie” is controlling law.
The risks of trial
The Constitution allows a defendant to make three crucial decisions in his case. He decides whether to plea guilty or not guilty. He decides whether to have a bench trial or a jury trial. He decides whether he will testify or whether he will remain silent. A client who insists on testifying is almost always making a terrible mistake, but I cannot stop him.
Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.
Prosecutors are delighted when a black defendant takes the stand. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. However, the defense usually gets to cross-examine the black victim, who is likely to make just as bad an impression on the stand as the defendant. This is an invaluable gift to the defense, because jurors may not convict a defendant—even if they think he is guilty—if they dislike the victim even more than they dislike the defendant.
Most criminal cases do not go to trial. Often the evidence against the accused is overwhelming, and the chances of conviction are high. The defendant is better off with a plea bargain: pleading guilty to a lesser charge and getting a lighter sentence.
The decision to plea to a lesser charge turns on the strength of the evidence. When blacks ask the ultimate question—”Will we win at trial?”—I tell them I cannot know, but I then describe the strengths and weaknesses of our case. The weaknesses are usually obvious: There are five eyewitnesses against you. Or, you made a confession to both the detective and your grandmother. They found you in possession of a pink cell phone with a case that has rhinestones spelling the name of the victim of the robbery. There is a video of the murderer wearing the same shirt you were wearing when you were arrested, which has the words “In Da Houz” on the back, not to mention you have the same “RIP Pookie 7/4/12” tattoo on your neck as the man in the video. Etc.
If you tell a black man that the evidence is very harmful to his case, he will blame you. “You ain’t workin’ fo’ me.” “It like you workin’ with da State.” Every public defender hears this. The more you try to explain the evidence to a black man, the angrier he gets. It is my firm belief many blacks are unable to discuss the evidence against them rationally because they cannot view things from the perspective of others. They simply cannot understand how the facts in the case will appear to a jury.
This inability to see things from someone else’s perspective helps explain why there are so many black criminals. They do not understand the pain they are inflicting on others. One of my robbery clients is a good example. He and two co-defendants walked into a small store run by two young women. All three men were wearing masks. They drew handguns and ordered the women into a back room. One man beat a girl with his gun. The second man stood over the second girl while the third man emptied the cash register. All of this was on video.
My client was the one who beat the girl. When he asked me, “What are our chances at trial?” I said, “Not so good.” He immediately got angry, raised his voice, and accused me of working with the prosecution. I asked him how he thought a jury would react to the video. “They don’t care,” he said. I told him the jury would probably feel deeply sympathetic towards these two women and would be angry at him because of how he treated them. I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others: “What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”
No fathers
As a public defender, I have learned many things about people. One is that defendants do not have fathers. If a black even knows the name of his father, he knows of him only as a shadowy person with whom he has absolutely no ties. When a client is sentenced, I often beg for mercy on the grounds that the defendant did not have a father and never had a chance in life. I have often tracked down the man’s father–in jail–and have brought him to the sentencing hearing to testify that he never knew his son and never lifted a finger to help him. Often, this is the first time my client has ever met his father. These meetings are utterly unemotional.
Many black defendants don’t even have mothers who care about them. Many are raised by grandmothers after the state removes the children from an incompetent teenaged mother. Many of these mothers and grandmothers are mentally unstable, and are completely disconnected from the realities they face in court and in life. A 47-year-old grandmother will deny that her grandson has gang ties even though his forehead is tattooed with a gang sign or slogan. When I point this out in as kind and understanding way as I can, she screams at me. When black women start screaming, they invoke the name of Jesus and shout swear words in the same breath.
Black women have great faith in God, but they have a twisted understanding of His role. They do not pray for strength or courage. They pray for results: the satisfaction of immediate needs. One of my clients was a black woman who prayed in a circle with her accomplices for God’s protection from the police before they would set out to commit a robbery.
The mothers and grandmothers pray in the hallways–not for justice, but for acquittal. When I explain that the evidence that their beloved child murdered the shop keeper is overwhelming, and that he should accept the very fair plea bargain I have negotiated, they will tell me that he is going to trial and will “ride with the Lord.” They tell me they speak to God every day and He assures them that the young man will be acquitted.
The mothers and grandmothers do not seem to be able to imagine and understand the consequences of going to trial and losing. Some–and this is a shocking reality it took me a long time to grasp–don’t really care what happens to the client, but want to make it look as though they care. This means pounding their chests in righteous indignation, and insisting on going to trial despite terrible evidence. They refuse to listen to the one person–me–who has the knowledge to make the best recommendation. These people soon lose interest in the case, and stop showing up after about the third or fourth court date. It is then easier for me to convince the client to act in his own best interests and accept a plea agreement.
Part of the problem is that underclass black women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different black men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work. I do not see this among whites, Hispanics, or any other people.
The black men who become my clients also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support. When I learn that my 19-year-old defendant does not work or go to school, I ask, “What do you do all day?” He smiles. “You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.
If you tell a black to dress properly for trial, and don’t give specific instructions, he will arrive in wildly inappropriate clothes. I represented a woman who was on trial for drugs; she wore a baseball cap with a marijuana leaf embroidered on it. I represented a man who wore a shirt that read “rules are for suckers” to his probation hearing. Our office provides suits, shirts, ties, and dresses for clients to wear for jury trials. Often, it takes a whole team of lawyers to persuade a black to wear a shirt and tie instead of gang colors.
From time to time the media report that although blacks are 12 percent of the population they are 40 percent of the prison population. This is supposed to be an outrage that results from unfair treatment by the criminal justice system. What the media only hint at is another staggering reality: recidivism. Black men are arrested and convicted over and over. It is typical for a black man to have five felony convictions before the age of 30. This kind of record is rare among whites and Hispanics, and probably even rarer among Asians.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 percent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.
I have no explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.
As a young lawyer, I believed the official story that blacks are law abiding, intelligent, family-oriented people, but are so poor they must turn to crime to survive. Actual black behavior was a shock to me.
The media invariably sugarcoat black behavior. Even the news reports of the very crimes I dealt with in court were slanted. Television news intentionally leaves out unflattering facts about the accused, and sometimes omits names that are obviously black. All this rocked my liberal, tolerant beliefs, but it took me years to set aside my illusions and accept the reality of what I see every day. I have now served thousands of blacks and their families, protecting their rights and defending them in court. What follow are my observations.
Although blacks are only a small percentage of our community, the courthouse is filled with them: the halls and gallery benches are overflowing with black defendants, families, and crime victims. Most whites with business in court arrive quietly, dress appropriately, and keep their heads down. They get in and get out–if they can–as fast as they can. For blacks, the courthouse is like a carnival. They all seem to know each other: hundreds and hundreds each day, gossiping, laughing loudly, waving, and crowding the halls.
When I am appointed to represent a client I introduce myself and explain that I am his lawyer. I explain the court process and my role in it, and I ask the client some basic questions about himself. At this stage, I can tell with great accuracy how people will react. Hispanics are extremely polite and deferential. An Hispanic will never call me by my first name and will answer my questions directly and with appropriate respect for my position. Whites are similarly respectful.
A black man will never call me Mr. Smith; I am always “Mike.” It is not unusual for a 19-year-old black to refer to me as “dog.” A black may mumble complaints about everything I say, and roll his eyes when I politely interrupt so I can continue with my explanation. Also, everything I say to blacks must be at about the third-grade level. If I slip and use adult language, they get angry because they think I am flaunting my superiority.
At the early stages of a case, I explain the process to my clients. I often do not yet have the information in the police reports. Blacks are unable to understand that I do not yet have answers to all of their questions, but that I will by a certain date. They live in the here and the now and are unable to wait for anything. Usually, by the second meeting with the client I have most of the police reports and understand their case.
Unlike people of other races, blacks never see their lawyer as someone who is there to help them. I am a part of the system against which they are waging war. They often explode with anger at me and are quick to blame me for anything that goes wrong in their case.
Black men often try to trip me up and challenge my knowledge of the law or the facts of the case. I appreciate sincere questions about the elements of the offense or the sentencing guidelines, but blacks ask questions to test me. Unfortunately, they are almost always wrong in their reading, or understanding, of the law, and this can cause friction. I may repeatedly explain the law, and provide copies of the statute showing, for example, why my client must serve six years if convicted, but he continues to believe that a hand-written note from his “cellie” is controlling law.
The risks of trial
The Constitution allows a defendant to make three crucial decisions in his case. He decides whether to plea guilty or not guilty. He decides whether to have a bench trial or a jury trial. He decides whether he will testify or whether he will remain silent. A client who insists on testifying is almost always making a terrible mistake, but I cannot stop him.
Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.
Prosecutors are delighted when a black defendant takes the stand. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. However, the defense usually gets to cross-examine the black victim, who is likely to make just as bad an impression on the stand as the defendant. This is an invaluable gift to the defense, because jurors may not convict a defendant—even if they think he is guilty—if they dislike the victim even more than they dislike the defendant.
Most criminal cases do not go to trial. Often the evidence against the accused is overwhelming, and the chances of conviction are high. The defendant is better off with a plea bargain: pleading guilty to a lesser charge and getting a lighter sentence.
The decision to plea to a lesser charge turns on the strength of the evidence. When blacks ask the ultimate question—”Will we win at trial?”—I tell them I cannot know, but I then describe the strengths and weaknesses of our case. The weaknesses are usually obvious: There are five eyewitnesses against you. Or, you made a confession to both the detective and your grandmother. They found you in possession of a pink cell phone with a case that has rhinestones spelling the name of the victim of the robbery. There is a video of the murderer wearing the same shirt you were wearing when you were arrested, which has the words “In Da Houz” on the back, not to mention you have the same “RIP Pookie 7/4/12” tattoo on your neck as the man in the video. Etc.
If you tell a black man that the evidence is very harmful to his case, he will blame you. “You ain’t workin’ fo’ me.” “It like you workin’ with da State.” Every public defender hears this. The more you try to explain the evidence to a black man, the angrier he gets. It is my firm belief many blacks are unable to discuss the evidence against them rationally because they cannot view things from the perspective of others. They simply cannot understand how the facts in the case will appear to a jury.
This inability to see things from someone else’s perspective helps explain why there are so many black criminals. They do not understand the pain they are inflicting on others. One of my robbery clients is a good example. He and two co-defendants walked into a small store run by two young women. All three men were wearing masks. They drew handguns and ordered the women into a back room. One man beat a girl with his gun. The second man stood over the second girl while the third man emptied the cash register. All of this was on video.
My client was the one who beat the girl. When he asked me, “What are our chances at trial?” I said, “Not so good.” He immediately got angry, raised his voice, and accused me of working with the prosecution. I asked him how he thought a jury would react to the video. “They don’t care,” he said. I told him the jury would probably feel deeply sympathetic towards these two women and would be angry at him because of how he treated them. I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others: “What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”
No fathers
As a public defender, I have learned many things about people. One is that defendants do not have fathers. If a black even knows the name of his father, he knows of him only as a shadowy person with whom he has absolutely no ties. When a client is sentenced, I often beg for mercy on the grounds that the defendant did not have a father and never had a chance in life. I have often tracked down the man’s father–in jail–and have brought him to the sentencing hearing to testify that he never knew his son and never lifted a finger to help him. Often, this is the first time my client has ever met his father. These meetings are utterly unemotional.
Many black defendants don’t even have mothers who care about them. Many are raised by grandmothers after the state removes the children from an incompetent teenaged mother. Many of these mothers and grandmothers are mentally unstable, and are completely disconnected from the realities they face in court and in life. A 47-year-old grandmother will deny that her grandson has gang ties even though his forehead is tattooed with a gang sign or slogan. When I point this out in as kind and understanding way as I can, she screams at me. When black women start screaming, they invoke the name of Jesus and shout swear words in the same breath.
Black women have great faith in God, but they have a twisted understanding of His role. They do not pray for strength or courage. They pray for results: the satisfaction of immediate needs. One of my clients was a black woman who prayed in a circle with her accomplices for God’s protection from the police before they would set out to commit a robbery.
The mothers and grandmothers pray in the hallways–not for justice, but for acquittal. When I explain that the evidence that their beloved child murdered the shop keeper is overwhelming, and that he should accept the very fair plea bargain I have negotiated, they will tell me that he is going to trial and will “ride with the Lord.” They tell me they speak to God every day and He assures them that the young man will be acquitted.
The mothers and grandmothers do not seem to be able to imagine and understand the consequences of going to trial and losing. Some–and this is a shocking reality it took me a long time to grasp–don’t really care what happens to the client, but want to make it look as though they care. This means pounding their chests in righteous indignation, and insisting on going to trial despite terrible evidence. They refuse to listen to the one person–me–who has the knowledge to make the best recommendation. These people soon lose interest in the case, and stop showing up after about the third or fourth court date. It is then easier for me to convince the client to act in his own best interests and accept a plea agreement.
Part of the problem is that underclass black women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different black men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work. I do not see this among whites, Hispanics, or any other people.
The black men who become my clients also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support. When I learn that my 19-year-old defendant does not work or go to school, I ask, “What do you do all day?” He smiles. “You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.
If you tell a black to dress properly for trial, and don’t give specific instructions, he will arrive in wildly inappropriate clothes. I represented a woman who was on trial for drugs; she wore a baseball cap with a marijuana leaf embroidered on it. I represented a man who wore a shirt that read “rules are for suckers” to his probation hearing. Our office provides suits, shirts, ties, and dresses for clients to wear for jury trials. Often, it takes a whole team of lawyers to persuade a black to wear a shirt and tie instead of gang colors.
From time to time the media report that although blacks are 12 percent of the population they are 40 percent of the prison population. This is supposed to be an outrage that results from unfair treatment by the criminal justice system. What the media only hint at is another staggering reality: recidivism. Black men are arrested and convicted over and over. It is typical for a black man to have five felony convictions before the age of 30. This kind of record is rare among whites and Hispanics, and probably even rarer among Asians.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
At one time our office was looking for a motto that defined our philosophy. Someone joked that it should be: “Doesn’t everyone deserve an eleventh chance?”
I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.
My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.
However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.
I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth. As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.
Top 5 – Best Gun-Friendly States
1. Arizona
2. Idaho
3. Alaska
4. Kansas
5. Oklahoma
Bottom 5 – Worst Gun-Friendly States
47. California
48. New Jersey
49. Massachusetts
50. Hawaii
51. New York
Each year we provide an update on firearms-related legislative activity and use each state’s laws and rules to create our Best States for Gun Owners rankings. Calling 2020 a “different year” would be a gross understatement. As COVID-19 swept the world and the nation, states suspended or adjourned their legislative sessions midstream. Thousands upon thousands of bills died on the vine as lawmakers vacated their respective state capitols. Some legislatures, including those in Texas, Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming, meet every other year and did not go into session in 2020 at all. The short version is, as a result of these events, very few changes in firearms laws occurred this year.
Due to this unusual set of circumstances, this year’s rankings will be a bit different than in years past. Where states made meaningful changes in law, we will outline those. Where states took no action that would change our scoring, we note that as well. As in previous years, we evaluate each state numerically in each of five categories: Right-To-Carry/CCW, access to “Black Rifles”, the states’ use-of-force laws i.e., Castle Doctrine, the prohibition of items regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) and a catchall Miscellaneous column.
States are awarded 0-10 points in each category and ranked according to their total number of points. In the case of a tie, which is common, we dig deeper into the “intangibles” category and rank states accordingly. Please note that while we have done our best to rank states as objectively as possible, reasonable minds disagree with our findings. No article of this length could capture every nuance of a state’s statutory and regulatory framework. Each year I receive comments from readers on individual states’ rankings and, in many cases, I learn something new from that feedback — please keep it coming.
Right-to-Carry/CCW
This category is evaluated using the criteria applied in our “Best States for CCW” rankings: standard for issuance, training requirements, cost, reciprocity and the extent of locations where licensees are prohibited from carrying. May-issue states that rarely issue permits are graded accordingly and can receive 1-6 points, depending on the standard review factors. Shall-issue states, states that require that a permit be issued as long as the applicant is qualified, are given 6-8 points. States with legal permitless or “constitutional” carry are given 9 points, whereas states that both issue permits and allow citizens to carry without one are given a full 10-point score. States that issue permits and allow for permitless carry for residents only are given 9.5 points. Open carry laws are considered under the miscellaneous column and can also be used as a tiebreaker.
Black Rifles
This category examines whether a state regulates or bans firearms based on their appearance. These laws often require registration of certain firearms and, in some states, ban ownership altogether. Our rankings reflect whether a state regulates any category of firearm by its features or limits magazine capacity.
NFA
The National Firearms Act (NFA) regulates the sale, transfer and possession of machine guns, suppressors (actually called “silencers” in the law), short-barreled rifles (SBR), short-barreled shotguns (SBS), Any Other Weapons (AOW), and Destructive Devices (DD). This federal statute allows states to further restrict these items (we use the term “items” since suppressors are not firearms but are covered under the NFA) and some states ban their ownership altogether or piecemeal; we rank each state based on a sliding scale of regulations. This has been an active category in recent years as states have moved to legalize the ownership and use of suppressors.
Castle Doctrine
The term “Castle Doctrine” has become shorthand for a state’s use-of-force laws. Some states require citizens to retreat before the use of deadly force is authorized. We rank states based on the right to use force both inside and outside of homes and businesses. We award maximum points to states that allow the use of force wherever a person has a legal right to be and protect citizens from both criminal and civil liability if appropriate force is used.
Miscellaneous
This is the most subjective category in our survey but allows us some leeway to quantify the culture and environment in a given state. We use this category to track preemption statutes, laws and rules that fall outside of our other buckets as well as the availability of places to shoot. States with thriving competitive shooting communities are also recognized here and states with laws that allow for gun confiscation without due process, i.e., Red Flag laws, are penalized.
51. New York
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 51)
50. Hawaii
Dozens of gun control bills were introduced in Hawaii this year but only two actually became law. A magazine ban and other bills failed to advance, but the Governor did sign legislation that will make the creation of home-made guns a felony. The other bill requires that gun owners give formal notice when permanently removing a firearm from the state, with financial penalties imposed for non-compliance. (2019 rank: 48)
49. Massachusetts
Gov. Baker closed gun shops as part of his executive powers related to the pandemic, but a Federal Court ruled that the state overstepped its authority and placed an undue burden on the Second Amendment. The court ordered that gun stores be allowed to reopen and the Governor subsequently opened shooting ranges by executive order. A small victory in an otherwise hostile environment for gun owners. (2019 rank: 50)
48. New Jersey
Governor Murphy shut down gun shops, shooting ranges and firearm transfers in March by executive order. Thanks to action by the Trump Administration and a lawsuit by the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC), transfers eventually resumed and outdoor shooting ranges reopened. An attempt by the Governor to exponentially raise the cost of pistol permits and firearm licenses failed when the measure was omitted by the legislature’s budget bill. (2019 rank: 49)
47. California
One of the most important Second Amendment cases in recent memory moved closer to resolution this year when a Federal Appellate Court struck down the state’s magazine ban in the Duncan V. Becerra case. The fight isn’t over yet, though, as the state’s Attorney General has petitioned for an en banc review by a panel of judges. The ban remains in place as the court considers the case. If the larger panel upholds the ruling, it will be a game-changer for gun owners, so stay tuned. (2019 rank: 47)
46. Washington D.C.
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 46)
45. Connecticut
Unlike some of his neighboring Governors, Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont declared firearm and ammunition retailers as “essential businesses” as part of his pandemic-related executive order. A special session of the legislature is currently underway but, as of now, there are no indications that gun control bills will be pursued. (2019 rank: 45)
44. Maryland
2020 was a surprisingly good year for Maryland’s gun owners. Gov. Hogan kept gun stores open despite the state’s shutdown, and vetoed legislation that would have banned the private transfer of long guns. In July, the State Police announced that mandatory handgun training required to obtain a Handgun Qualification License can now take place online due to the pandemic. (2019 rank: 44)
43. Rhode Island
Numerous anti-gun bills, including “assault weapon” and magazine bans, were introduced in 2020, but the COVID-related shutdown prevented any of them from passage. Time will tell whether these issues will see new life in 2021. (2019 rank: 43)
42. Delaware
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 42)
41. Illinois
Legislation that would ban private transfers and “reform” the state’s FOID (Firearms Owner Identification) system were been carried over from the 2019 session but did not pass. The Illinois Legislature can meet year-round, so the fight is never over. (2019 rank: 41)
40. Colorado
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 40)
39. Minnesota
Bills that would ban private transfers and allow for firearm confiscation by law enforcement passed the Democratic-controlled Minnesota House in February but stalled in the Republican-led Senate. (2019 rank: 39)
38. Washington
Magazine bans and other gun control bills failed to make their way out of the Legislature, but three bills did pass. One of the bills, which was signed by Governor Inslee, prohibits carrying a firearm at a daycare center, regardless of whether the individual has a CPL (CCW) permit. Other bills that became law will create an Office of Firearm Violence Prevention and impose additional requirements related to court-ordered surrender of firearms. (2019 rank: 38)
37. Vermont
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 37)
36. New Mexico
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 36)
35. Nebraska
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 34)
34. Iowa
Governor Reynolds signed legislation in June to protect Iowa’s shooting ranges from local ordinances designed to put them out of operation. Access to safe shooting facilities is key to ensuring the future of responsible gun ownership. The bill also preempts municipal governments from imposing their own restrictions on firearms ownership. This important move earns Iowa an additional point in the Miscellaneous category. (2019 rank: 35)
33. Virginia
All eyes were on Virginia this January after Democrats took majorities in both chambers of the Commonwealth’s General Assembly. What looked like certain victory for a semi-auto, magazine and suppressor ban took a sharp turn when a handful of Democrats voted against the measure during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Still, the Governor achieved passage of at least some of the items on his gun control wish list. Legislation passed that weakens the state’s preemption laws and numerous municipalities are already acting to prevent firearm possession in public areas. Virginia’s old “one gun a month” law was reinstated, though those with carry permits are exempt. Private transfers were effectively eliminated and a Red Flag confiscation program has been created. Virginia is a shining example of how a single election cycle can drastically change the fate of gun owners in a given state. These actions costs Virginia points in the Miscellaneous category and look for efforts to pass more onerous legislation in 2021. (2019 rank: 31)
32. Oregon
Bills that would have gutted Oregon’s preemption law and imposed mandatory storage requirements on gun owners failed when the Republican members of the Legislature staged a walk-out, preventing the body from achieving the quorum necessary to pass the bills. Efforts to put semi-auto and magazine bans on the state’s November 2020 ballot failed, but the proponents will surely be back. (2019 rank: 33)
31. Pennsylvania
Since our last report, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shaprio issued an Opinion declaring that partially-manufactured firearm components including so-called “80% receivers” qualify as firearms under state law, and should be regulated as such. A bill that would prevent the Governor from restricting firearm rights during an emergency has passed the House and currently awaits action in the state Senate after advancing from the Judiciary Committee in September. (2019 rank: 32)
30. Maine
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 30)
29. South Dakota
Governor Noem signed important legislation protecting gun owners in March, just a day after its passage by the Legislature. This law prevents state and local government from restricting the rights of gun owners during emergencies and took effect immediately. Other bills were signed that increased opportunities for concealed carry, including legislation that specifies that a permit is not required when carrying a firearm on a motorcycle, snowmobile or off-road vehicle. (2019 rank: 29)
28. Michigan
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 27)
27. North Carolina
Last year, the NC General Assembly passed legislation that would allow concealed carry permit holders to carry in places of worship. Governor Cooper vetoed the bill and the Assembly made an unsuccessful attempt to override that veto in July. All eyes were on North Carolina in the November election where gubernatorial, U.S. Senate and Assembly races all carried serious implications for gun owners. Despite huge advantages in fundraising by out-of-state groups, Democrats were unsuccessful in gaining majorities in the state’s two legislative chambers. (2019 rank: 26)
26. Nevada
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 25)
25. Florida
The biggest news for gun owners in the Sunshine State came in June when the state Supreme Court removed a serious gun control proposal from the November ballot. The measure would have amended the state’s Constitution to prohibit possession of “assault weapons”. The state’s Attorney General challenged the proposal and the majority of the court agreed that the ballot summary was “misleading” and took it out of consideration for this election. (2019 rank: 24)
24. Louisiana
Governor Edwards proved that protecting the Second Amendment need not be a partisan issue when he signed four pro-gun bills in June. These bills allow permittees to carry in places of worship, protect the rights of gun owners in times of emergency and prevents municipalities from restricting firearm possession. (2019 rank: 28)
23. Ohio
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 23)
22. South Carolina
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 22)
21. Wisconsin
Nothing notable happened in Wisconsin’s Legislature in 2020 but the state’s Stand-Your-Ground law made national headlines in the context of the riots and shootings in Kenosha. (2019 rank: 21)
20. Indiana
Indiana continued to establish itself as a gun-friendly state this year as laws passed in 2019 went into effect. Those laws protect individuals from frivolous lawsuits related to self-defense encounters, and eliminate fees for concealed carry permits in the state. Additionally, the Governor declared that firearm and ammunition suppliers and retailers could remain open during the COVID-19 crisis. (2019 rank: 20)
19. Arkansas
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 19)
18. Alabama
An effort to create a lifetime carry permit in the state failed when the Legislature adjourned Sine Die in May. This measure was opposed by the state’s sheriffs, many of whom derive revenue from the issuing of carry permits. The good news was that gun stores remained open during Gov. Ivey’s shutdown of the state. (2019 rank: 18)
17. New Hampshire
Governor Chris Sununu vetoed legislation in August that would have allowed for firearm confiscation without adequate due process protections. An attempt by the legislature to override that veto failed, closing the book on this issue for 2020. (2019 rank: 17)
16. Mississippi
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 16)
15. West Virginia
Governor Justice signed legislation in March that strengthens the state’s firearm preemption statute, making the state even more friendly for gun owners. Attorney General Patrick Morrisey stood up for the Second Amendment once again when he advised Sheriffs that they may accept LCDW/Concealed Carry applications and renewals by mail. Though West Virginia is a permitless carry state, the LCDW is key when traveling to other jurisdictions and also satisfies the background check requirements for purchasing a firearm. I have long lampooned a WV law that prevented guns from being displayed in a store window — thanks to legislation sponsored by Delegate Brandon Steele, that law is off the books! (2019 rank: 15)
14. North Dakota
No relevant outcomes in 2020, the state’s legislature did not meet in 2020. (2019 rank: 14)
13. Tennessee
Tennesseans have sought permitless carry for years, but their efforts got a boost in 2020 when Gov. Lee endorsed the proposal. What looked like a sure thing in January fell victim to the COVID shutdown when the bill failed to advance before the legislature’s adjournment. Barring any unforeseen events, we should see passage of this bill in 2021. (2019 rank: 13)
12. Missouri
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 12)
11.Georgia
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 11)
10. Texas
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 10)
9. Montana
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 9)
8. Utah
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 7)
7. Wyoming
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 8)
6. Kentucky
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 6)
5. Oklahoma
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 5)
4. Kansas
An emergency powers bill designed to protect gun owners was passed during a Special Legislative Session, but the measure was vetoed by Gov. Kelly. Nonetheless, firearms-related businesses were exempt from the Governor’s COVID-19 shutdown order. (2019 rank: 4)
3. Alaska
No relevant outcomes in 2020. (2019 rank: 3)
2. Idaho
The big news for gun owners in Idaho this year was Governor Brad Little’s signature on a permitless carry bill in March. Permitless carry was already legal for Idaho residents, but this legislation extends the law to cover all U.S. Citizens over the age of 18 to carry, including in the cities. With this slight change in law, Idaho ties the number one state in terms of points. (2019 rank: 2)
1. Arizona
No relevant outcomes in 2020. Arizona remains number one on our list due to its thriving competitive shooting scene and firearms industry presence. (2019 rank: 1)
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
In “Surf City,” the Beach Boys sang that there were two girls for every boy. But in Swamp City, there are four cops for every Congressman.
That doesn’t refer to Washington D.C.’s already huge concentration of law enforcement and multiple overlapping police forces. Washington D.C. has the highest ratio of police to people of any major city in the country. There are 650 officers for every 100,000 residents in D.C. That’s 40% higher than any other major city in America including Chicago and Baltimore. It has a 58% higher police ratio than New York, more than double that of Boston, and triple that of L.A.
But that’s nothing compared to the private police force dedicated only to protecting Congress.
The Capitol Police, which has been in the spotlight since the Capitol Riot, has over 2,000 sworn officers. Pelosi’s private police force is the 19th largest police force in America.
It’s already larger than the police forces of Atlanta, Baltimore, Denver, and Milwaukee.
While Democrats advocated defunding the police, their private police force budget shot up from $375 million in 2016 to $460 million in 2020. And now it’s demanding even more money.
Speaker Pelosi claimed, “It’s going to take more money to protect the Capitol in a way that enables people to come here.”
How much money? Who knows.
Colonel Bowie managed to hold off the Mexican Army at the Alamo for over a week with a few hundred men, but the Capitol Police couldn’t keep Congress for an hour with a thousand.
Acting Chief Yogananda Pittman, told Congress that she needed funding for 212 new sworn officers and 111 dignitary protection agents. That’s a fancy name for the congressional version of secret service agents for “high-profile members of Congress.” Teams of four of these “agents” accompany their important charges. Since then, the number of agents has been increased and there are six dignitary agents protecting every single “high-profile member of Congress”.
(Some dignitary protection agents had even been deployed to protect the homes of “high-profile members of Congress” during the Capitol Riot and weren’t available to help during the fighting.)
That would take the Capitol Police up to at least 2,200 sworn officers. And with 535 elected officials in the House and Senate, that’s a ratio of 4 cops for every congressman and woman.
Meanwhile the high-profile members get a private security detail of 6 cops.
While the names of those high-profile members are not available for security reasons, these likely included senior leadership figures in both parties as well as high-profile politicians who attract a lot of threats. That would likely include some members of the Squad and other Democrat proponents of police defunding. Or defunding other people’s police anyway.
While Democrats have advocated for police defunding, their House and Senate majorities currently enjoy some of the densest possible ratio of police for them and their employees.
House members had 3,695 staffers (total 6,880 nationwide) and Senate members had 2,342 staffers (total 4,120 nationwide) working in their D.C. offices for a combined 6,037 people.
That’s up from 146 in 1891, and 304 in 1943, which is understandable since our government works much better now than when we won WW2.
Between members of Congress and their staffers (not to mention kits, cats, sacks, and wives), that’s over 6,500 people to be protected by 2,200 sworn officers. Or a cop per 3 employees.
Even Vatican City, with the highest police ratio in the world, is more modest than that.
The shopkeepers of Kenosha would have appreciated that kind of police ratio during the Black Lives Matter riots that robbed them of their livelihoods with the backing of the Democrats.
But it stands to reason that the big government elites of the political faction that embraced police defunding not only need their own private police force, but that while the people in the cities whose police forces they want to defund have to make do with 440 officers per 100,000 people in Chicago and 320 officers per 100,000 people Detroit, they enjoy a 1 officer per 3 people ratio.
Police defunding means no cops to answer the call in Seattle or Minneapolis, but 4 cops for every Democrat Congressman whose life is much more important than those of mere taxpayers.
Some might argue that Republicans also enjoy the benefit of a private police force. But that’s not how Speaker Pelosi sees things. According to Pelosi, Republicans are the enemy.
Speaker Pelosi insisted on “more security for members, when the enemy is within the House of Representatives, a threat that members are concerned about.” Who is this enemy within?
“We have members of Congress who want to bring guns on the floor and have threatened violence on other members of Congress,” Pelosi incited. If members have actually threatened violence against other members, why doesn’t she file charges? But Pelosi has admitted that she wants more cops to protect Democrat members of Congress from Republican Congressmen.
If the “enemy is within the House of Representatives”, then the only solution is to turn the Capitol Police into a Praetorian Guard to accompany Democrat police defunders everywhere. And then Republicans can create their own police force to protect them from the Democrats. If America is going to live out the last era of the Roman Empire, we might as well do it in style.
And since history has been cancelled on account of racism, Pelosi will be really surprised when Chief Yogananda Pittman threatens to replace her unless she ups the ‘donativum’ to the force.
Meanwhile the calls for more money and more personnel for the Capitol Police continue to grow.
D.C. is already the most overpoliced city in America. And yet somehow, no one could manage to cope with one day of riots. The Capitol Police, with 2,000 sworn officers, over 1,000 of whom were on duty, claimed that they couldn’t cope with the riot and needed the National Guard.
The D.C. police force, with 3,750 sworn officers, the Park Police, which was also on the scene, and the multitude of other law enforcement personnel and services, some you have heard of, like the FBI, and some which you may have not like the Supreme Court Police (yes, they exist), the D.C. Protective Services Division, and the Federal Protective Service, couldn’t help either.
Washington D.C. is the epicenter of law enforcement in the country. There are more law enforcement personnel in the imperial city than anywhere in the country. And there are more individual agencies, services, and sub-services with armed personnel than anyone can count. Nearly every federal agency has its own private police. Some have SWAT teams. These are often attached to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) departments based out of D.C.
Four years ago, the Obama administration sent a contingent of heavily armed agents wearing body armor on a Department of Defense plane to Chicken, Alaska, a town of 17 people, on an EPA investigation of Clean Water Act violations that turned up absolutely nothing. If the Democrats could do this to Chicken, Alaska, one of the furthest places in America, they can manage to protect 2 square miles and a handful of buildings with thousands of officers.
Four cops for every Congressman is more than enough in Swamp City, USA.