Right Wing Granny

News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.

Right Wing Granny

Tag Archives: Second Amendment

Protecting The Second Amendment

Posted on by

On Thursday, Just the News posted an article about a new law passed in Ohio.

The article reports:

Gun owners in Ohio won’t have to worry about firearm purchases being tracked by financial institutions or having to carry liability insurance.

Senate Bill 58, one of a series of bills signed into law late Wednesday by Gov. Mike DeWine, received backing from pro-gun organizations like the National Rifle Association and Buckeye Firearms. But the Ohio Mayors Alliance and the Ohio Municipal League both opposed it.

Known as the Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act, the new law stops government entities from keeping a list of privately owned firearms or firearm owners and prohibits banks and other financial institutions from assigning a firearms code in a way that distinguishes a firearms retailer from other retailers.

In 2022, four major credit card companies established a rule that would create a new four-digit code to classify merchants by their business, specifically those that sell guns and ammunition. The rule has been on hold since.

The article notes:

The bill also stops cities from requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance, a provision supported by the NRA. An analysis from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission showed no political subdivisions in the state currently require it.

“Mandating law-abiding gun owners purchase firearms liability insurance is an unnecessary financial burden that infringes upon a constitutionally protected right,” the NRA’s John Weber said in testimony before the Senate Veterans and Public Safety Committee. “Forcing gun owners to incur additional fees on top of the already expensive costs of purchasing and maintaining firearms will only make it more difficult for good people to defend themselves and their families. Furthermore, liability insurance will never cover criminal acts, and those who break the law are already liable through our justice system.”

Let’s hope other states follow this example.

This Is Going To Be A Nationwide Problem

Posted on by

For the past three and a half years, America’s southern border has been wide open. We have no idea who is coming over the border or why. The only control of the immigration coming into America is the Cartels, and they do not have America’s best interests at heart. The open-border chickens are now coming home to roost.

On Tuesday, BizPacReview reported:

Jesse Kelly recently posted a letter regarding the ongoing madness in Aurora, Colorado, in which the author claims leaders are attempting to “minimize the issue.”

A person claiming to be a police officer in the town claimed that the situation is much worse than those talking to the media would have you believe, and the press needs to continue to keep the heat on until the problem is resolved.

This is the letter:

“I am a police officer in Aurora, Colorado and we are in the news for the recent story about the armed Venezuelan gang members taking over apartment complexes,” the letter begins. “I am happy to see the story make national news to where the Aurora Police Department command staff and City of Aurora leadership are being asked the hard question about what is occurring.”

“Unfortunately these ‘leaders’ are not being truthful nor are they acknowledging the problem as they know it to be,” the writer continues. “They are also trying to minimize the issue by implying the issue is confined to just the apartment complexes in the city. This could not be further from the truth. The Venezuelans are wreaking havoc throughout the city.”

“Please help keep this story in the spotlight so the City of Aurora can no longer downplay the matter. The reality is the citizens and out officers are not safe as long as the issue continues to be ignored and real solutions are not being implemented. Due to my employment status and the international information I possess on this matter, I cannot have you air my name. Thank you,” the message concludes.

Meanwhile, on Monday The Gateway Pundit reported:

Last night, a shocking 911 call was shared by Libs of Tik Tok on X, that revealed 32 armed Venezuelan migrants were attempting to overtake an apartment complex in Chicago last night.

…Winter is right around the corner. Did anyone honestly think these Venezuelan gangs who ruled the countries they came from, were going to be sleeping in tents in local parks while unarmed Chicago residents slept inside?

This Chicago resident warns the ARMED Venezuelan gangs thinking about taking over their places of residency in gun-free Chicago, “We got switches!”

Thank God for the Second Amendment. I suspect many residents in places where it has been curtailed are wishing they had guns to defend themselves and their property.

Policies Matter

Posted on by

The crisis at America’s southern border became a national issue when illegal aliens began to be bussed around the country by the State of Texas. However, the State of Texas is still dealing with the impact of the open border. Most Texans, if not all, want the border closed.

On Monday, Just the News reported the following:

Three and a half years into an unprecedented border crisis impacting Texans in border communities and the state’s largest cities, high-profile Democrats are openly endorsing a Republican candidate for Senate who they never endorsed before: U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.

Cruz, a Houston Republican, is running for reelection for his third term. He’s being challenged by U.S. Rep. Colin Allred, a Dallas Democrat, who is trailing in the polls.

While Cruz has been characterized as polarizing or far right by those on the left, those on the right argue he’s a conservative stalwart championing their causes: pro-life, supporting traditional marriage, women’s rights, the Second Amendment, and school choice, among other issues. Differing on these views doesn’t matter. Texas Democrats supporting Cruz argue that border security and combating crime are their top concerns.

Under the Biden-Harris administration, the greatest number of illegal border crossers have entered the U.S., with the bulk illegally entering in Texas, and increasing number of violent crimes being committed against Americans, The Center Square has reported.

The article concludes:

Democrats at the border are also endorsing Cruz, including Zapata County Sheriff Raymundo Del Bosque, Presidio County Sheriff Danny Dominguez, Brewster County Sheriff Ronny Dodson, Reeves County Sheriff Art Granado, Kenedy County Judge Charles Burns and Reeves County Judge Leo Hung. Many are from the 55 counties that declared an invasion, The Center Square exclusively reported.

“The crisis at our southern border threatens our communities and well-being every single day,” Judge Hung said. “We used to live in a state where we could walk outside without fear of getting hurt. Now, because of the policies of the National Democratic Party, we fear for our safety every time we step outside. I’ve been a Democrat all my life and will continue to be, but no one has fought harder to secure the border than Senator Ted Cruz, which is why I am endorsing him for reelection and look forward to his victory in November.”

Policies matter.

Disrespecting the Constitution

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

I think we would all agree that the Constitution has served as the basis of the success we have had in making America the longest lasting and most successful representative republic in history. The Founding Fathers got it right. Unfortunately, many members of the Marxist-leaning Democrat Party are doing their best to undermine the Constitution; led, of course, by the Biden regime. The Constitution, like any other guiding document, can only set forth examples of essential principles that must be followed. It cannot specify every possible way in which those basic principles can be violated. For a constitutional republic to survive, citizens must believe and agree to follow the basic principles. Here are some ways in which the leaders of the Democrat party are showing their contempt for the Constitution and its basic principles.

Let’s start with free speech. It is clear that the Founding Fathers considered the ability to express one’s thoughts without government control to be the essence of a free society. The efforts of the Biden regime to block free speech on social media platforms by influencing what they define as “misinformation,” violates the very principle of free speech. The CCTA radio show experienced this recently when the safety of vaccinations was discussed and the show was canceled on You Tube. Labelling free speech as “hate” speech and or “misinformation” is another attack on the principle of free speech.

Another example is the Biden regime’s continuing attacks on the right of citizens to bear arms as guaranteed in the second amendment. Defining semi- automatic rifles as “assault weapons,” as well as limiting the capacity of gun magazines and buying ammunition, are examples of their lack of belief and support for the principle behind the second amendment.

The Founding Fathers were extremely concerned about the power of big government to restrict the freedom of citizens, which is the reason they severely limited the role of the federal government and supported the role of the state governments. The Biden regime is showing distain for this essential principle of our Constitution. They have grown the federal government to an unprecedented 25% of our overall GDP; including 85,000 additional IRS agents to come after you the taxpayer. Recently, Biden has instructed all federal agencies to begin registering people to vote. This includes paying college students with federal funds to register fellow students, as well as nonstudents, in the local communities. This is clearly a violation of the constitutional principle that the federal government will not use its power to influence elections.

And lastly, the Biden regime is ignoring the Supreme Court decision that the President does not have the power under the Constitution to forgive students loans. This terminology is typical of the lies of the Biden regime in that this is not “forgiving loans” but actually making other people pay for these student loans. The separation of government powers into three branches is the most critical control mechanism in the Constitution. Biden is showing his complete disregard of the Supreme Court.

The irony of course is the Biden regime’s claim that Donald Trump represents a threat to our democracy; whereas, it is they who are the greatest threat to our constitutional republic since its founding. Add this to the list of things to consider when deciding who to vote for in November.

Losing Our Rights In The Name Of Safety

Posted on by

On Saturday, The Justice Department posted the following Press Release. This is in the budget the House passed:

Justice Department Launches the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center

The Justice Department launched the National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center (the Center) which  will provide training and technical assistance to law enforcement officials, prosecutors, attorneys, judges, clinicians, victim service and social service providers, community organizations, and behavioral health professionals responsible for implementing laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who pose a threat to themselves or others.

“The launch of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center will provide our partners across the country with valuable resources to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The establishment of the Center is the latest example of the Justice Department’s work to use every tool provided by the landmark Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to protect communities from gun violence.”

ERPO laws, which are modeled off domestic violence protection orders, create a civil process allowing law enforcement, family members (in most states), and medical professionals or other groups (in some states) to petition a court to temporarily prohibit someone at risk of harming themselves or others from purchasing and possessing firearms for the duration of the order.

In 2023, the Justice Department’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) awarded $238 million to states, territories, and the District of Columbia under the Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP), which was created by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and is designed to help jurisdictions implement crisis intervention strategies, including ERPO programs. In addition, OJP awarded $4 million to support training and technical assistance under Byrne SCIP, including $2 million that was awarded to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions to establish the ERPO Resource Center. In collaboration with OJP’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the Center will support states, local governments, law enforcement, prosecutors, attorneys, judges, clinicians, victim service providers, and behavioral health and other social service providers in their efforts to implement ERPO programs to fit local needs, share resources and promising practices with the field, and help ensure that funding received through Byrne SCIP is effectively utilized.

“Supporting our law enforcement and community partners in curbing the scourge of gun violence is more critical than ever,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer. “In addition to other resources leveraged across the Justice Department, this Center will provide communities with new tools and technical assistance to help them implement effective crisis intervention strategies and reduce gun violence.”

“OJP’s investment in ERPO programs demonstrates the Department’s commitment to addressing the gun violence crisis in the United States,” said OJP Assistant Attorney General Amy L. Solomon. “This crisis cannot be solved at one level of government. We must use all of our resources and collaborate at the federal, state, and local levels to find innovative, evidence-based, and holistic solutions to help keep American communities safe.”

Through the Center and its newly launched website, states, local governments, law enforcement, prosecutors, attorneys, judges, clinicians, victim service providers, and behavioral health and other social service providers will have direct access to critical information that will enhance their ability to reduce firearm homicides and suicides. The website will be maintained and updated to include newly developed resources for the field created through the Center, in partnership with BJA. The website also provides a platform for the Center to highlight emerging and promising practices in successful ERPO implementation and connect states and localities to innovative strategies to reduce gun violence and save lives.

As of this month, 21 states and the District of Columbia have enacted ERPO laws. Successful and effective ERPO implementation requires a comprehensive and holistic approach that incorporates a wide range of stakeholders. The Center is designed to provide resources consistent with that need.

Updated March 23, 2024
This is the beginning of the end of Second Amendment rights in America.

This Shouldn’t Surprise Anyone

Posted on by

Channel 19 in Cleveland, Ohio, posted an article on January 3rd about the impact of the state’s new  “constitutional carry” law.

The article reports:

Contrary to concerns from some local leaders, a new study shows a decrease in gun crimes across six of Ohio’s eight largest cities following the implementation of the state’s “constitutional carry” law.

The research, conducted by the Center for Justice Research (CJR) in partnership with Bowling Green State University, analyzed data from June 2021 to June 2023, covering a year before and after the law went into effect in June 2022.

It focused on crimes involving firearms, verified gunshot-detection alerts, and the number of officers struck by gunfire.

The article notes:

The findings revealed:

  • Overall Decline: Across all eight cities, the rate of gun crimes decreased.
  • Significant Drops: Parma experienced the most significant decline (22%), followed by Akron and Toledo (both 18%).
  • Mixed Trends: Dayton and Cincinnati saw increases in gun crime rates (6% and 5%, respectively).

“This is not to downplay the very real problem of gun violence in our cities,” noted Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who commissioned the study. “But the key takeaway here is that we need to focus on criminals, not responsible gun owners.”

He acknowledged concerns expressed by several mayors before the study, stating, “I genuinely did not know what the study would find. I thought it would be useful either way.”

CJR Director Melissa Burek, a Doctor of Criminal Justice, led the research.

She emphasized the importance of examining the impact of policy changes: “This study helps us understand the complex picture of crime rates and policy implementation. It’s valuable data for informing future decisions.”

The findings add to the ongoing debate surrounding permitless carry laws, challenging concerns that such laws would lead to a surge in gun violence.

While proponents highlight responsible gun ownership and increased self-defense, critics argue it removes valuable safety measures like background checks and training.

Responsible gun-ownership discourages crime. Criminals are less likely to attack a person if he/she might be armed. Citizens have the right to defend themselves from criminals. Our Founding Fathers passed the Second Amendment to make sure that citizens had the power to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

Avoiding Proof That The Second Amendment Works

Posted on by

On Monday, Breitbart posted the following headline:

Report: Biden Admin Threatens to Quit Supplying Rifles After Israel’s Ben Gvir Purportedly Arms Civilians

After what Israel went through on October 7th, why wouldn’t it arm its civilians?

The article reports:

The Biden Administration became upset and threatened to quit supplying rifles to Israel after photos emerged of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir passing them out to “community security squads,” according to Haaretz.

Photos of the rifles being passed out were posted on Ben Gvir’s social media and “led to a diplomatic incident that threatened to stop the arms shipments from the United States to Israel.”

The Biden Administration reportedly does not want guns passed out to civilians nor distributed during “political events.”

Haaretz noted, “The [Biden Administration] also threatened to halt an order of some 20,000 rifles purchased by the National Security Ministry from American suppliers.”

The Telegraph reported that photos purportedly showed Ben Gvir “distributing the arms at political events in Bnei Brak and El’ad, two towns near Tel Aviv.”

A social media user posted the tweet below, which translates: “National Security Minister of Israel Itamar Ben Gvir distributing arms to civilians. Here [in Brazil] the order is to disarm the civilian and arm the criminal.”

On October 23rd, I posted an article illustrating the value of armed citizens. How many lives would have been saved on October 7th if Israeli citizens had been armed? All Israelis serve in the military, so a large proportion of Israeli citizens know how to use guns. Let them defend themselves!

The article concludes:

On October 8, 2023, the day after the Hamas terror attack against Israel was launched, Breitbart News pointed out that private gun ownership among Israelis is low. Unlike the United States, Israel does not have a Second Amendment or its equivalent.

The BBC reported that “Israeli gun ownership is low at about 2% of the population.” In contrast, the findings of a recent study by Rutgers University’s New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center estimated upwards of six in ten Americans — 60 percent —  own guns.

Following the terror attacks Israel expedited the gun license process so Israelis could get firearms to defend themselves and Israel.

Better late than never.

Has The Governor Of New Mexico Read The U.S. Constitution?

Posted on by

On Friday, Red State reported the following:

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham declared a public health emergency over “gun violence” on Thursday following the death of an 11-year-old boy. On Friday, she took the unprecedented step of “suspending” gun rights in Albuquerque, the state’s largest city, with the possibility of other cities following suit.

Gov. Lujan Grisham declared gun violence a public health emergency Thursday, following the murder of an 11-year-old boy on his way home from an Isotopes game Wednesday night. That case, combined with several other violent cases involving children, sparked the decision. 

The new public health order is effective Friday, Sept. 8. After 30 days, they will evaluate whether they should renew the order or make adjustments. 

The public health order is a statewide mandate, but it only suspends open and concealed carry laws in communities with extremely high violent crime rates and firearm-related emergency room visits. Right now, that only includes the Albuquerque metro.

The article concludes:

How many children die in car accidents a month in New Mexico? Could Grisham unilaterally outlaw the use of cars within the state she leads to supposedly prevent driving deaths? Because that’s the same logic being applied in relation to gun rights.

In the end, this isn’t actually about stopping the shooting of children because people who shoot children do not follow gun laws. Rather, this is about Grisham trying to punish her adversaries in response to tragedies they have nothing to do with. Gang members do not worry about legally concealing their guns nor obtaining them through legitimate means. Law-abiding gun owners do. There is no rationale in punishing them, which perfectly exposes what Grisham is really doing.

No doubt, the governor’s move will be quickly challenged in court, as it should be. The idea that she can simply suspend gun rights, much less do so indefinitely, subject to her carrying out a 30-day review, is insane. If this injustice isn’t corrected and correctly swiftly, it will open the door for all kinds of new aspects of government overreach, and you can bet Joe Biden will try it at the national level. 

Lastly, there’s no real indication of who will enforce this order. Will the Albuquerque Police Department use its already limited resources to arrest legal gun owners? Time will tell. 

On Saturday, The Gateway Pundit posted a statement by the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s office.

Here is the statement:

Today, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued an emergency order temporarily suspending open and concealed carry laws in Albuquerque and throughout Bernalillo County for the next 30 days. This move has been positioned as a response to the alarming and tragic rise in gun violence, particularly the heart-wrenching death of an 11-year-old boy this past week.

First and foremost, every lost life is a tragedy, and the well-being of our community is of paramount concern to the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office. We share in the collective grief and urgency to address this issue.

However, as the elected Sheriff, I have reservations regarding this order. While I understand and appreciate the urgency, the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our Constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold. I am wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts, as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense.

I was elected to represent and safeguard all constituents and to ensure the balance between our rights and public safety is maintained. That means we must critically evaluate any proposed solution to the deeply rooted issue of gun violence, ensuring we both protect our community and uphold the values that define us as a nation.

The Sheriff has the right to intervene when a law is passed that is unconstitutional. That is the reason it is very important to consider candidates carefully when you vote for your county sheriff.

Upholding The U.S. Constitution

Posted on by

There are a lot of state right now that are attempting to limit the rights of American citizens to own guns. Any law that ‘infringes’ on that right is unconstitutional.

The Second Amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

On Friday, Townhall reported that a federal judge put an end to one of the attempts to limit the freedom of Americans.

The article reports:

Molon labe. The nation is facing serious domestic and foreign policy crises, making the environment ripe for liberals to pass anti-gun legislation without anyone knowing. The fight to keep our Second Amendment rights is an ongoing struggle. It’s also grounded mainly in lawyer’s work, moving gradually. It took a decade for the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about whether we have the right to carry guns in public for self-defense. Yes, we can declare we already had that right, but the high court never addressed it until New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen in 2022. If you look through past dockets, many gun rights cases like Bruen where a writ of certiorari was denied; Wollard v. Gallagher (2013) and Drake v. Jerejian (2014) are prime examples. 

We live in a society where the pace of change is meant to be slow for our protection. So, now that Bruen has decided on this remaining question regarding gun rights expect another lengthy court battle over carry rights, may issue-shall issue protocols, and pushback from blue states who will not go willingly with the Supreme Court’s decision. To start, we have a federal judge in Virginia striking down the age limit for purchasing handguns, which has been set at 21 for years

The article concludes:

Judge Payne is right; our constitutional right to own firearms does not “vest at age 21.” After the Parkland shooting in Florida in 2018 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, some states, like Florida and Vermont, passed anti-gun laws that increased the age to purchase all firearms to 21. It’s always been 18 to buy a long gun and 21 for a handgun. At least some class of firearm would be afforded to those upon turning the age of 18. It’s not shocking the Justice Department is going to appeal the ruling. While a small victory, it should remind us that as we deal with Joe Biden’s incompetence, high inflation, a proxy war in Ukraine spiraling out of control, a looming real estate crisis, a shaky banking system, and the debt ceiling now becoming a ticking time bomb—the fight to keep our guns and expand those rights remains critical and difficult.

This is a fight that we must continue to fight and that we must win.

Concealed Carry: Right or Privilege?

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Notice it does not limit bearing arms in any manner whatsoever. Here in North Carolina, as in many other states, a person can carry a firearm legally as long as it is visible. Carrying a concealed firearm is a different matter in that it requires a Concealed Carry Permit issued by the local law enforcement authority i.e. the county sheriff. This requirement places North Carolina in the category of “may-issue” states as compared to what is called “constitutional carry” states where carrying a concealed firearm does not require a permit. Currently, there are 25 states that are designated “constitutional carry”. In my opinion, North Carolina needs to join this group. Let’s look at some reason why.

First, as stated above the Second Amendment does not permit the infringement of the right to bear arms (i.e. carry). It does not say anything about limiting carrying concealed. So, therefore, states requiring a permit are, de facto, violating the U.S. Constitution.

Second, the permitting process, allows states to include any requirement that they choose to impose; for example, limiting the type or firearm or the capacity of magazines. Third, how many people do you see carrying a firearm that is not concealed? In my experience, it is very rare to see someone carrying a firearm where it can be clearly observed. Given the increasing crime rates in many cities, this reluctance diminishes the right of the individual to self-protection. Fourth, but not least, how many criminals do you think bother to get a concealed carry permit? So, what we do is impede law abiding citizens from self-protection knowing full well that criminals are under no such impediment. Fifth, if you were a criminal seeking a victim wouldn’t you prefer to assume the person is unarmed than to assume the opposite? It is like the absurdity of announcing a location is a gun free zone which only encourages criminals to select those places to commit their crimes. Sixth, some may argue that the required training to carry concealed is a safety factor for all concerned. This is also absurd, since no such training is required for open carry. Are they saying that carrying a firearm under your shirt, sweater or coat makes it more dangerous than carrying in the open? Nonsense.

If you believe that North Carolina should become a “constitutional carry” state let your elected representatives know. Your safety and that of your loved ones may depend on it.

Biden’s Destruction of America

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop,Ph.D

In March 2021, I wrote an article reporting on some of the actions Biden was initiating that would be harmful to America. Let’s update his actions as of November 2022 and see how things stand after almost two years of his administration. I write this on Halloween night, but it is scarier than ghosts and goblins.

The Border: We no longer have a Southern border. Well over 5 million illegals have been welcomed across the border in less than two years. Illegal drugs are coming in unchecked, including fentanyl which has killed close to 100,000 Americans in the last year. Estimates are that illegals will cost each tax payer $2,600/year.

Inflation: The prices of consumer goods are rising dramatically; especially on essential items. Inflation under President Trump was about 2 %. Now at a forty year high of 8.6% and much higher for food.

Energy: On Election Day 2020, the price of a gallon of gas was $ 1.87, it now averages $3.49 and much higher in some areas. We have gone from energy abundance/independence to energy shortages. Recent report shows that there is only sufficient diesel oil for 25 days to meet our usual consumption. Home heating oil, commonly used in the northern states, has gone from $1.45 to $5.72 per gallon. The cost of electricity has gone up 16% in the last year and is expected to go higher. Energy is costing the average family $6,200 more per year. Biden’s depleting our strategic oil reserves and selling this oil to China is treasonous.

Personal Wealth: The stock market is down about 30 % and inflation reduces the value of bank accounts by about 10% per year. People on fixed income are especially hard hit. We are getting poorer.

Cost of Housing: Mortgage rates have gone from less than 3% to 7%. A $300,000 house will cost $878 more per month, $10,536 more per year and a whopping $316,000 more over the life of a 30 year loan. Rents are going up similarly.

Unconstitutional Spending: You will be paying off the loans of college students estimated to cost over $300 billion dollars over the next ten years and will continue going higher; even though you may have paid your own way through college or not gone to college at all. Presidents have no authority to do this.

Second Amendment: The Biden administration is requiring all credit card companies to report all sales of firearms and ammunition to the Federal government thereby tracking your purchases.

IRS/FBI: These agencies are now enforcement arms of the Biden administration. Hiring 87,000 armed IRS agents is aimed directly at the middle class and small business owners.

Crime: Has been increasing dramatically, especially in urban areas, as a direct result of defunding the police and liberal prisoner release policies.

International Relations: War in Ukraine, North Korea firing missiles, conflicts with Saudi Arabia, China emboldened and threatening Taiwan, are all examples of deteriorating relations with other countries.

No doubt there are other destructive actions by Biden and the radical Democrats. No rational person can look at where America is now and say we are better off after the last two years. YOU MUST GET OUT AND VOTE, if you love this country.

The Gun Bill Has Passed The Senate

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Daily Wire posted an article about the gun bill that was rammed through the Senate on late Tuesday.

This is the list of the Republicans who voted to end the filibuster (from The Hill):

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) 

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) 

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) 

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) 

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) 

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) 

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) 

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) 

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) 

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) 

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) 

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) 

It should be noted that most of these Republicans are not running for re-election. I suspect the polling on restricting gun rights shows that voting to move forward with this bill does not reflect popular opinion. All of these people should be voted out of office for not protecting the U.S. Constitution.

The Daily Wire posted a list of problems with the current bill as detailed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC):

Red Flag Laws

  • Incentivizes local disarmament proceedings, of which many states currently employ secret ex-parte hearings.
  • Calls only for standards equivalent only to civil court.
  • For all the bluster in the measure about protecting due process and the constitutional rights of the subjects of the hearings during the “appropriate phase,” it implies that states will still be able to hold secret ex-parte hearings to deprive the People of their rights.
  • Entitles the subject to an attorney “at the appropriate phase,” but it must be at the subject’s expense.

Private Sales

  • Expands the definition of “engaged in the business” by striking “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” in the current definition and replacing it with “to predominantly earn a profit.”
  • This confusion could lead to new and successful prosecutions of private sellers who may fall under the broad and vague definition of “engaged in business” and therefore the need to be licensed.

New Misdemeanor Firearms Prohibitions

  • By expanding the definition of a prohibiting misdemeanor domestic violence in such a vague, broad, and subjective way it invites confusion, and potential firearms prohibitions.

Transfers and Straw Purchases

  • Prohibits the government from arming drug cartels, unless the government exercises more oversight on said drug cartels, thus allowing the free flow of arms to these cartels to continue in perpetuity.

Employer Background Checks

  • Allows all employers to ask for a firearms background check prior to employment or during current employment, regardless of its connection to job duties.

Americans need to wake up and realize that this bill is an infringement on our rights as Americans.

 

If You Had Any Doubt…

Posted on by

There may be (or not be) some good ideas in the current gun legislation moving through Congress. However, those of us who believe in the Second Amendment need to be very wary of what is happening. On Monday, Townhall posted an article that should give all of us pause. Public Safety may not be the goal of the Democrat Party.

The article reports:

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy (D) praised the details of the bipartisan framework from the Senate on the issue of gun control but noted this should be used to pursue even more aggressive restrictions.

In a statement on Sunday, Murphy said the framework is a great step “in restoring sanity to our national dialogue” on firearms and “while this agreement is only a narrow first step, it is recognition that the ability of the gun lobby to block any and all common sense gun safety laws by its mere presence is waning and reform is possible. The door has cracked open. We must open it wider.”

One of my main concerns in this debate is the acceptance of ‘red flag laws.’ These laws are unconstitutional as they deny the person whose guns are confiscated his day in court. The only way I would support a ‘red flag law’ would be if it came with a promise of an appearance before a judge within 4 hours of the guns being seized. Even then, the constitutionality of the law is questionable.

Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Second Amendment is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, how can it be denied without due process?

A Disturbing Statement

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner reported a troubling quote from President Biden.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden said Thursday that his gun violence prevention strategy is necessary to combat rising violent crime in cities across the country and that preventing the sale of certain firearms “doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment rights.”

“Making sure that people who are not allowed to have a gun, don’t get the gun in the first place,” the president said of his push to institute stricter background checks for firearm sales. “This doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment right. There’s no violation of the Second Amendment right to talk like there’s no amendment that’s absolute.”

“There’s no amendment that’s absolute.” What? Didn’t this man take an oath stating, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”?

The article reports:

Biden, speaking alongside Attorney General Merrick Garland, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, additionally outlined new measures the Justice Department was taking on Thursday to clamp down on the illegal sale of “ghost guns” and other “assault” weapons. Those actions include:

    • Directing every U.S. Attorney’s office nationwide to increase resources dedicated to district-specific violent crime strategies.
    • Cracking down on the “Iron Pipeline,” an illegal flow of guns sold in the South, transported up the East Coast, and found at crime scenes in cities from Baltimore to New York City.
    • Launching a National Ghost Gun Enforcement Initiative, “which will train a national cadre of prosecutors and disseminate investigation and prosecution tools to help bring cases against those who use ghost guns to commit crimes.”
    • Pursuing “unlawful gun sellers that put firearms in the wrong hands by taking steps such as prioritizing federal prosecutions of those who criminally sell or transfer firearms that are used in violent crimes, including unlicensed dealers who sell guns to criminals without the required background checks.”

The president also called on Congress to approve $500 million in new funding “for proven strategies we know will reduce gun crime,” including $300 million to expand the COPS Hiring Program and $200 million for evidence-based community violence interventions.

Why is the President focusing on the guns rather than focusing on arresting criminals with guns and keeping them in jail? How many gun crimes in America are committed by repeat offenders? What does the President consider an assault weapon? These are questions that need to be answered.

This Does Not Sound Like “Shall Not Be Infringed”

Posted on by

The Epoch Times is reporting today that Democrats in the Pennsylvania legislature have proposed legislation to tax and encode ammunition sold in the state.

The article reports:

A 5 cent per bullet tax will be proposed in Pennsylvania as part of legislation to be brought forth by two state House Democrats, Rep. Manny Guzman and Rep. Stephen Kinsey.

The tax would fund a state police database of ammunition sold in Pennsylvania.

The planned legislation would require ammunition manufacturers to encode ammunition provided for retail sale in Pennsylvania, and to provide ammunition serial numbers to the Pennsylvania State Police for the ammunition database. The plan was revealed in a joint memo to the state legislature by Guzman and Kinsey.

“Since 2015, only 21% of the nearly 8,500 shootings that Philadelphia has endured have resulted in an arrest or conviction,” the memo said. “Far too often, all that is left for the police to find is a victim and a bullet. By making the bullet a more useable piece of evidence, independent from the associated firearm, we can give our law enforcement officers the tools that they need to solve more of these heinous crimes.”

“By maintaining a record of purchases of ammunition,” the memo continues, “our law enforcement officers will be able to easily trace the ownership of any ammunition involved in a crime. This proposal is a much more reliable method of forensic tracing than current systems like ballistic fingerprinting, since determination of a bullet’s code does not require any special skills or equipment, and it serves as an objective identifier.”

Has it occurred to anyone that cause of the problem of shootings in Philadelphia might not be ammunition?

This is ridiculous. It would set up a situation where people living near the border with other states would simply drive into a neighboring state to purchase ammunition. It would also task the state police with keeping a database of ammunition–which would be time-consuming, expensive, and probably not particularly helpful. How much time would be wasted registering ammunition that people were firing at rifle ranges? What is the percentage of ammunition purchased that is actually used to commit crimes? Does anyone actually believe that criminals with evil intentions would purchase ammunition that they knew would be tracked?

Hopefully common sense will prevail in the legislature. If not in the legislature, at least in the courts. This is simply another attempt to infringe on the constitutional rights of Americans. It needs to be stopped in its tracks.

This Is An Alarming Statement

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about a statement made by President Biden while introducing his executive action on gun control.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden declared Thursday that “no amendment is absolute” while unveiling a series of executive actions targeting American citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

“Today, we’re taking steps to confront not just the gun crisis, but what is actually a public health crisis,” Biden announced in a speech at the White House’s Rose Garden, claiming: “Nothing, nothing I am about to recommend in any way impinges on the Second Amendment.”

The President contimued:

“No amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute,” the president continued. “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater — recall a freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.”

Let’s review this a minute. If no amendment to the Constitution is absolute, then what good is the Constitution? The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The intention of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of the government. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution so that states who feared an all-powerful central government would vote in favor of adopting the Constitution. The Second Amendment was intended to keep the government in check–not to keep the citizens in check. The Bill of Rights was in no way intended to limit the rights of Americans.

The Second Amendment states:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

President Biden’s executive order does infringe on the rights of Americans to bear arms, and therefore should be declared unconstitutional.

This Doesn’t Look Good For The Future

Posted on by

Yesterday One America News posted an article about what has happened since Colorado implemented red flag laws a year ago.

The article reports:

According to the report released on Thursday, over 100 red flag protection orders were filed in 2020.

Police reportedly removed firearms from the homes of 66 people who were flagged by family members, legal guardians or law enforcement officers. Under the new law, a judge can approve firearm confiscation if there is a belief a person could be a threat to themselves or others.

One of the most recent instances of the order in action is in the case of Bryce Shelby, a man accused of making threats against the state’s attorney general and several other government officials.

Denver Police alleged Shelby’s behavior was escalating and through the red flag laws, they forced him to surrender his two rifles. Though the state’s attorney general chose not to press charges against Shelby, he will not regain possession of his firearms for a total of 364 days.

Several of the year’s emergency Extreme Risk Protection Orders were placed against law enforcement, but were shut down by the courts.

For example, early on in 2020, an inmate tried to claim Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams was a threat. The order request was sent to a judge who quickly threw it out for lack of evidence, which allowed some to say the law worked. However, Reams argues it showed the law can be used frivolously.

The article concludes:

Reams is among those who are the most skeptical of the new law due to its vague guidelines, which allow weapons to be confiscated even without criminal charges.

“But to go in and conduct a search warrant on someone’s home based on the word of a third party, I think that’s a huge overreach of the Constitution,” Reams stated. “And that’s where I’d have to draw the line.”

There has been a lot of debate over the constitutionality of red flag laws. The President has said he supports them at the federal level, but gun advocates argue the orders contradict the Second Amendment.

Andrew Napolitano, who served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge from 1987 to 1995,  said: “The concept of a red flag law violates both the presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of proof of criminal behavior before liberty can be infringed.”

Heading into the New Year with an incoming Democrat majority in the new Congress, many proponents of the right to bear arms worry about future restrictive gun laws.

Losing the Second Amendment while the First Amendment is on life support does not portend good things for the future of America.

Creating A Government That Hasn’t Read The Constitution

Posted on by

Yesterday Sara Carter reported the following:

“We are actually the only campaign with a plan…that supports mandatory buybacks of weapons of war,” Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, recently nominated as Joe Biden’s incoming deputy chief of staff, says in the video.

The Biden-Harris transition team announced Tuesday, that O’Malley Dillon will join incoming administration as a deputy chief of staff.

At the time of recording this video, O’Malley Dillon was working for Beto O’Rourke’s 2020 campaign. She estimated that the mandatory buyback would affect “15 or 16 million” guns.

“An assault weapon ban is very, very important, and we need to have it. But that only takes weapons of war off the streets in the future. It does nothing for weapons of war that are currently out there.”

The obvious questions here is who determines what is an assault rifle. Some of the plans to force Americans to give up their guns include registering those guns and taxing the owners at a high rate. Other plans include allowing liability lawsuits against the companies that manufacture guns, eventually drying up the supply. One of the hallmarks of a potential Biden administration is the total disregard for the God-given rights of Americans enshrined in the Constitution.

We Have Seen The Video

Posted on by

Yesterday Just the News posted an article about Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the St. Louis couple shown on video defending their home.

The article reports:

Al Watkins, an attorney for the couple, confirmed to the Associated Press the indictments against Mark McCloskey, 63, and Patricia McCloskey, 61. A spokeswoman for Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner declined comment.

Joel Schwartz, a McCloskey attorney, told Just the News on Tuesday night that the indictment is called a “suppressed” indictment and that he’s unaware of what it states.

…Gardner, a Democrat, charged the McCloskeys with “flourishing” a weapon in connection with the June 28 incident in which social justice protesters entered the couple’s private, gated community during a demonstration and marched past their home.

The McCloskeys have said they each went outside with a gun because they feared for the safety of themselves and their home.

The article concludes with some information on Attorney Gardner:

As previously reported by Just the News, Gardner’s campaigns have received tens of thousands of dollars from a political action committee financed by billionaire political philanthropist George Soros. 

Gardiner has had several controversies since she assumed office.

In January 2017, she opened a criminal investigation into the then-Missouri GOP Gov. Eric Greitens. Several months later, she was forced to drop the charges for lack of evidence. In the aftermath, the out-of-state former FBI agent she hired to conduct the Greitens probe has been indicted on seven felony counts counts in connection with perjury and evidence tampering.

There are a few things to note in the video of the incident. First of all, the ‘protesters’ broke down a gate to get to the McCloskey’s house. At that point they were trespassing. Second of all, the ‘protesters’ threatened the McCloskeys. I truly believe that if the McCloskeys had not been outside their house with guns we would be reading their obituaries. Their Second Amendment rights need to be protected.

Losing Our Constitutional Rights

Posted on by

Fox News posted an article today about the Missouri couple seen defending their home from rioters on June 28th.. Although Missouri’s Castle Doctrine allows you to use deadly force to defend property, authorities acquired a warrant to search the McCloskey’s home and seized the rifle that Mark McCloskey was shown holding during the June 28 incident.

The article reports:

There was no immediate indication the McCloskeys were arrested or charged with a crime. The warrant applied only to a search for the guns, KSDK reported.

On Monday, the McCloskeys appeared on Fox News’ “Hannity” and disclosed that protesters had returned to their neighborhood July 3 – but the couple was alerted in advance and hired a private security company to protect their residence.

…In the June incident, Patricia McCloskey said, the couple was startled just before dinnertime when “300 to 500 people” entered the gated community where they live.

“[They said] that they were going to kill us,” Patricia McCloskey told Hannity on Monday night. “They were going to come in there. They were going to burn down the house. They were going to be living in our house after I was dead, and they were pointing to different rooms and said, ‘That’s going to be my bedroom and that’s going to be the living room and I’m going to be taking a shower in that room’.””

The article notes:

The couple’s attorney at the time, Albert Watkins, said in a statement that the couple did not arm themselves until after they began feeling threatened.

“My clients didn’t sit on their front stoop with guns. … No firearms were on them at the time that they, were, as property owners standing in front of their home,” Watkins said at the time. “It was not until they basically were in a position of seeing and observing violence, recklessness, lawbreaking, and knowing that the police were not going to be doing anything.”

Were they supposed to just sit there and be attacked? The police were not in sight. Until the police deal with people who are not protesting peacefully but looting and rioting, Americans need to be armed to defend themselves. There was absolutely no reason to take the rifle away. Since the house has been targeted more than once by rioters, how are the McCloskeys supposed to defend themselves? Thank God they were able to hire a security group to protect their home and themselves. The seizing of the rifle not only violates their Second Amendment rights, it puts them in danger. They are lawyers, and I would love to see them sue the person responsible for the search warrant and the seizing of the rifle.

When Government Ignores The Constitution

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article yesterday about an incident in San Jose, California, that should give us pause.

The article reports:

In 2013, Lori Rodriguez called San Jose police to her home because her husband was having a mental health crisis and making violent threats. Seven years later, she is petitioning the Supreme Court to force the city to return her guns.

“It’s not right. I shouldn’t have to do this to get back what’s mine,” Rodriguez told the Washington Free Beacon. “They violated several of my constitutional rights.”

Rodriguez claims police ordered her to open the couple’s gun safe so they could seize all of the weapons in the home after her husband was detained for making threats that the city says included “shooting up schools.” Cops seized not only her husband’s weapons but also the guns that were personally registered to Rodriguez. The city has repeatedly rebuffed her requests to return her property.

The suit is now the sole case with Second Amendment implications remaining before the Court after the justices rejected 10 other gun-rights cases on June 15. Rodriguez’s legal challenge comes as the federal government and a number of states debate “red flag” bills that would allow authorities to deny gun rights to citizens. It has the potential to clarify the extent to which the Second Amendment protects individuals from seizures of firearms.

San Jose city attorney Richard Doyle did not respond to a request for comment. The city defended its actions, saying that authorities were within their rights to confiscate the guns, calling Rodriguez’s claim “borderline frivolous.”

“If the government has lawful authority to effect the forfeiture and observes the requirements of due process in so doing, it has complied with the Constitution,” Doyle said in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. “The forfeiture does nothing whatever to impair the previous owner’s right to buy, possess, or use firearms, and notwithstanding that the owner may recover the full market value of the guns through their transfer and sale.”

The article continues:

Several of the guns confiscated from Rodriguez by San Jose police have special sentimental value, according to Rodriguez. Police confiscated not only handguns that she and her husband purchased but also a war souvenir inherited from a family member.

“One of them is a gun my great uncle brought back from WWII,” she said. “I really want that one back. You can’t replace that one, obviously.”

Don Kilmer, Rodriguez’s lawyer, said that while the case implicates the 2nd Amendment, in addition to the 4th and even 14th Amendments, it ultimately comes down to an undisputed fact: Lori Rodriguez is not prohibited from owning the firearms San Jose took from her house.

“Her mental health has never been at issue,” Kilmer told the Free Beacon. “The law that the city is holding these guns under says that you can confiscate weapons of people who are mentally ill. Lori is not mentally ill.”

In the years since the initial police call, the Rodriguez family continues to live together, but Lori has taken steps to ensure she can legally own the confiscated firearms. She has transferred all of the firearms into her name and she is the only family member who knows the combination to the gun safe. Her lawyers argue that she is in compliance with all California gun laws—including those for individuals who live with people who can not own firearms themselves.

If her husband was the problem and he had no access to the gun safe, how can the city justify taking her guns away? This is definitely overreach.

A Subtle Way To Infringe On A Constitutional Right

Posted on by

“America’s 1st Freedom” is a magazine distributed by the National Rifle Association. I am not including a link to the article I am posting about because I can’t find the article electronically although it is in the April 2020 issue of the magazine.

The title of the article is “The New Gun-Control Activism.” It deals with the strategy those who oppose the right of Americans to own guns are using to limit the availability of guns to Americans.

The article notes:

Last year, for example, Connecticut State Treasurer Shawn Wooden, who commands $37 billion in public pension funds, announced plans to pull $30 million worth of shares from civilian firearm manufacturer securities. Wooden also intends to prohibit similar investments in the future and to establish incentives for banks and financial institutions to adopt anti-gun protocols. The proposition was immediately praised by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and other Connecticut politicians who view the divestment from five companies–Clarus Corp., Daicel Corp., Vista Outdoor Inc., Olin Corp., and ammunition maker Northrop Grumman–as a step toward reducing gun violence.

…Wooden also requested that financial bodies disclose their gun-related portfolios when endeavoring to wok with the treasurer’s office. Wooden subsequently selected tow firms, Citibank and Rick Financial Product (both had expressed the desire to be part of the “solution on gun violence”), to take on the roll of senior bankers in Connecticut’s then-forthcoming $890 million general obligation bond sale.

Technically I guess this is legal. It is a very subtle infringement on the Second Amendment and would be very difficult to prove in court. It is also not a new approach. During the Obama administration, the administration put in place guidelines that prevented gun dealers from getting business loans from banks.

On May 19, 2014, The New American reported:

Following the Obama administration’s “Operation Broken Trust,” an operation that began just months into his first term, the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force was created initially to “root out and expose” investment scams. After bringing 343 criminal and 189 civil cases, the task force began looking for other targets.

The task force is a gigantic interagency behemoth, involving not only the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI, but also the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the U.S. Postal Service, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the U.S. Secret Service.

The next target for the task force was credit card payment processors, such as PayPal, along with porn shops and drug paraphernalia stores. In 2011, it expanded its list of “high risk” businesses to include gun shops. Peter Weinstock, an attorney with Hunton & Williams, explained:

This administration has very clearly told the banking industry which customers they feel represent “reputational risk” to do business with….

Any companies that engage in any margin of risk as defined by this administration are being dropped.

In 2012, Bank of America terminated its 12-year relationship with McMillan Group International, a gun manufacturer in Phoenix, and American Spirit Arms in Scottsdale. Said Joe Sirochman, owner of American Spirit Arms:

At first, it was the bigger guys — gun parts manufacturers or high-profile retailers. Now the smaller mom-and-pop shops are being choked out….

They need their cash [and credit lines] to buy inventory. Freezing their assets will put them out of business.

That’s the whole point, according to Kelly McMillan:

This is an attempt by the federal government to keep people from buying guns and a way for them to combat the Second Amendment rights we have. It’s a covert way for them to control our right to manufacture guns and individuals to buy guns.

With the Obama administration unable to foist its gun control agenda onto American citizens frontally, this is a backdoor approach that threatens the very oxygen these businesses need to breathe. Richard Riese, a senior VP at the American Bankers Association, expanded on the attack through the banks’ back doors:

We’re being threatened with a regulatory regime that attempts to foist on us the obligation to monitor all types of transactions.

All of this is predicated on the notion that the banks are a choke point for all businesses.

How you vote matters.

I Think He Needs To Do Some Work On His People Skills

Posted on by

Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air today about a recent Joe Biden event in Detroit.

The article reports:

Say what you want about the inevitable Joe Biden presidential nomination, but at least it will be entertaining. At least, it will be as entertaining as arrogant ignorance ever gets, a combination that Biden has mastered over long decades in the public eye. Biden went stumping for votes in a Detroit auto plant today, a natural venue for campaigning thanks to the Obama administration’s rescue of GM and Chrysler.

Instead, Biden got caught up in a gun-control argument with a worker who accused him of “actively trying to end our Second Amendment right.” Biden offered a pungent reply — “You’re full of s**t!” — and then things got really testy:

…Biden denies in this clip that he wants to confiscate anyone’s guns. One week ago, though, Biden publicly proclaimed that he would put Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke in charge of his gun policy, a former presidential aspirant who explicitly called for gun confiscations by law enforcement following an assault rifle ban.

The Second Amendment may be a problem for Democrat candidates. Recent statements by all of the presidential candidates and many legislators have advocated gun buy-backs (a polite word for gun confiscation). There are a lot of people in America who value their Second Amendment rights either for hunting or for self-protection. I think most voters are smart enough to see the writing on the wall–that we will lose our Second Amendment rights under either a Democrat President or a Democrat Congress. And I do think Joe Biden needs to work on his people skills.

This Could Get Interesting

Posted on by

Hot Air is reporting today that Everytown for Gun Safety, a Mike Bloomberg-backed gun-grabbing group, is setting its sights on Texas.

The article reports:

Everytown for Gun Safety, a Michael Bloomberg-backed group that pushes for expanded background checks, red flag laws and other measures, is plotting what its political director calls an “unprecedented financial and grassroots effort” to flip the Texas House, defend vulnerable freshmen Democrats in Congress and help Democrats take congressional seats in the suburbs. A memo detailing the plan, the group’s biggest state investment to date, was shared exclusively with Hearst Newspapers.

“We believe that Texas, as it becomes younger and increasingly diverse, can be the next emerging battleground state with gun safety as the tipping point,” Chris Carr, the group’s political director wrote in the memo. “We believe there are opportunities to elect gun sense candidates up and down the ballot, from the statehouse to the U.S. Congress — and potentially even statewide.”

I will admit that I don’t know a lot about Texas politics, but it seems to me that the basic culture of Texas might make this planned gun grab a little more difficult.

The article concludes:

While Shannon Watts (founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a group of activists affiliated with Everytown) uses hyperbole in comparing Texas to Virginia, she should know that Texas is not like most other states. There are plenty of Democrats in elected office who are strong supporters of the Second Amendment and are gun owners themselves. This is not as partisan issue as it is in other states.

“I would say anyone running for office in Texas should look to Virginia,” Watts said. “Six months after a shooting in Virginia Beach, all of the elected officials who refused gun sense were voted out of office.”

Everytown is supporting freshmen Democrats like my own congresswoman – Rep. Lizzie Fletcher, who is vulnerable. The district was a strongly red district – the reddest in Houston – and fell into Democrat hands for the first time in 2018 when she was elected. She is facing a tough battle to retain her seat. I’m counting on my district moving back into the red column in November.

Everytown is also planning to go on the offensive against Republican U.S. Reps. Dan Crenshaw, Michael McCaul, Chip Roy and John Carter, and it’s planning to spend big in districts left open by retiring Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Will Hurd.

As is said in Texas, come and take it.

Let’s hope Texas voters are awake enough not to repeat what happened in Virginia. One thing to keep in mind when looking at Virginia is that a lot of the Democrat candidates ran unopposed. Hopefully that won’t happen in Texas.

Yesterday In Virginia

Posted on by

There was a Second Amendment rally in Richmond, Virginia, yesterday. 22,000 Second Amendment supporters showed up on Martin Luther King Day to support the Second Amendment. The media was predicting riots. On Sunday I posted an article based on a Canada Free Press story that predicted a ‘false flag’ operation by Antifa. That did not materialize.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted a few observations about the rally. The headline on his article was, “Pro-Gun Rally In Richmond Is Peaceful; Liberals Hardest Hit.”

The article notes:

Today an estimated (by police) 22,000 people demonstrated at the Virginia capitol in Richmond in favor of Second Amendment rights, which are being threatened by the newly-elected Democratic majority in that state’s legislature. Liberal news outlets were hoping the rally would turn violent, and their disappointment when it didn’t was palpable.

The article includes this picture and comment from The Washington Post:

The Babylon Bee probably had the best headline and article:

The Babylon Bee headlines: “Media Offers Thoughts And Prayers That Someone Would Start Some Violence At Gun Rights Rally.”

Somber members of the press offered their thoughts and prayers that someone would start some violence at the gun rights rally in Virginia today.

Reporters expressed their grief and condolences as the violence they hyped has so far failed to materialize.

“Nobody has so much as fired a shot. This is an unbelievable tragedy,” said one teary-eyed MSNBC reporter, clearly caught up in the anguish of the moment.

The article cited one possible reason Antifa decided to stay home:

Antifa threatened to show up at the rally, and likely would have created violence if it had done so. But for some reason, the group’s leaders changed their minds. Maybe they focused on the fact that the 2x4s, pipes and baseball bats with which they are used to beating up innocent bystanders might not fare so well in this crowd. One young guy who looked suspiciously like a leftist advocated jumping the fence and killing people. The genuine demonstrators denounced him as an “infiltrator”–which I suspect he was–and told him to “get the f*** out.”

The article concludes:

Virginia’s Democrats are unabashedly in favor of gun confiscation. Why is it that when Democrats take control of a legislative body, they instinctively move to confiscate legally-owned firearms from law-abiding citizens, in violation of the Second Amendment? It would take a psychiatrist to answer that question. Certainly a student of crime statistics wouldn’t be able to explain it. Whatever the cause, the Democrats’ move against the citizens’ constitutional rights is manna from Heaven for Republicans, many of whom mingled with the demonstrators and endorsed their cause.

I would also like to note that those who attended the rally cleaned up after themselves before they left. It is also interesting to me that when so many ‘good people with guns” are in one place, there is no violence.