2nd Amendment Foundation sues over age limit on handgun purchases
With the current composition of the Supreme Court, this seems a promising way of advancing gun ownership rights. The age limit is arbitrary and contravenes a specific enumerated right. While there are other age limits other than 18 in effect (alcohol, 21) that case has so many special factors that it isn't much help.
Most gun ranges are operated by much smaller businesses, well under that 50 employee limit. So what's the deal here? Aside from making it hard to run large scale gun ranges (which mostly do not exist anyway), why try to pass a law like this if it would have no effect?
I do have an idea why. The NRA HQ range is located in Virginia and the NRA organization undoubtedly has more than 50 employees. This is likely just a petty way to score some points by making the NRA shut down or spin off their HQ range.
There are so many wrong lessons here I hardly know where to start. There's a kid who checks that his mom is peacefully reading a book, then goes upstairs to (presumably) her room and opens her chest of drawers to find a gun (very much not safely stored). Without checking whether it is loaded or if a round is in the chamber or the condition of the safety if the gun has one, he puts it into his backpack without a holster or other protective covering and takes it to school with him before pulling it out of his backpack and putting it on the teacher's desk and asking the teacher to get rid of it because "he doesn't want to have a gun in the house."
Leaving aside the many insanely unsafe gun handling practices in this propaganda video, he's stealing a gun from his parents and taking it to school in order to turn it in to someone who (just based on profession!) likely has no idea how to handle it safely or dispose of it legally. Not to mention the school itself is a gun free zone. So. How many laws did this kid violate?
1) Felony theft of a firearm. Most gun felonies are 10 year federal crimes. 2) Gun-Free School Zone laws. $10,000 fine and 5 years. 3) Carrying concealed without a license, depending on state laws. 4) Illegal transfer of a firearm without a background check, depending on state laws. 5) The teacher may be liable for receiving stolen property. 6) Arguably reckless endangerment of the students and teacher, brandishing, etc. 7) Aside from the above, the student will undoubtedly be immediately expelled.
In addition his mom (and/or dad, who is never shown) will be vulnerable to criminal attack and may get in trouble for their unsafe storage. If either of the parents are police officers, military, or security, the gun may not even be theirs -- meaning they are in trouble with their jobs, and may be legally charged or fired.
This video is stupid propaganda encouraging kids to do things that will get them in serious legal trouble even if they do not accidentally hurt themselves or those around them.
This is certainly a moment of political danger for gun owners -- followed shortly by intense, personal danger as ex-girlfriends, ex-wives, "triggered" liberals, and potential boyfriends of young daughters all call in to "red flag" anyone they think might own a gun and seems angry. But the fact is, so-called "red flag" laws won't change anything (at least not in a positive way) and are likely to instead make things dramatically worse.
Right now, we have laws against making violent threats, laws in many states enabling involuntary commitment of people who pose a danger to others, and most of those laws come with a prohibition on firearms ownership. They are already of questionable legality in some cases for lack of due process, they are already on the books, and they don't work. Every time this happens we hear about the warning signs, the calls to police, the threats. But no action is taken... and not for lack of legal authority. Sometimes the police don't bother. Sometimes they bother, but don't add the murdered to the NICS list. Sometimes the government sponsors straw purchasers smuggling guns to criminals (see Fast and Furious under Obama's watch).
Bottom line, background checks don't actually stop criminals from getting guns. Hardened criminals can get guns on the black market anyway. The people who commit mass shootings have usually come to the attention of law enforcement in myriad of ways before their mass murder but without being added to the appropriate lists or any serious action being taken. Adding red flag laws into the equation will do nothing but increase the false reporting rates and harass peaceful gun owners during divorces or even just a bad breakup with a girlfriend.
If Trump wants to win re-election in 2020, he absolutely cannot afford to piss off gun owners. He's going to have enough problems with the NRA sidelined, and he's already taken some actions that have pissed off the 2nd Amendment community. All we have to do is stay home, and he's a one-term president.
That said, other presidents -- both Bushes, for a recent example -- have danced around this issue successfully. They publicly supported assault weapons bans which Congress never sent to them to sign. At the moment, though, the Democrats control the House, and the Senate is in Republican hands by a very slim majority. The GOPe -- who hate Trump despite sharing his party -- might well send him a gun control bill hoping he would sign it and destroy his re-election chances. Without the NRA to speak up, Trump might not have the instincts to realize how bad an idea this would be.
The antis have had success pushing ballot measures in the past, though they usually try for "background checks" rather than assault weapons bans. This is opening a new front on the ballot measure idea. Will it work? We'll find out, I guess.
She will have control of the House for the next two years, so this should be a matter of significant concern for us. She's specifically talking about gun registration in the form of so-called "universal background checks". In practice that means that every time anyone buys or sells a gun, they have to be background checked, and that check creates a government record of the sale. Transferring a firearm without a background check would immediately become a felony, and any firearm in your possession without a matching record with a manufacture date after the legislation took effect would be a presumption of guilt.
Now, the good news...
Pelosi's comments came immediately after a mass murder in California, which already is practically a gun control paradise. That won't help her argument and passion is likely to cool before the new Congress is seated.
Furthermore, gun control has passed the House before. The Senate is the more difficult hurdle. Republicans still hold the Senate, and even increased the margin a little. However, many of our Senators are a bit wobbly on this, and Trump is a bit of an unknown. He's already backed a bump-stock ban and he has New York attitudes about guns. We don't want this to get to Trump's desk.
Schumer probably can't count to 60 on this, but "universal background checks" are a recognized point of political weakness. We know they don't work but politicians find it hard to vote against them.
It seems likely Pelosi's real goal is to excite her base and force a vote on the record, then use it to fundraise and go after vulnerable 2020 senators.
Worse, this is a declaration of war from the Democrats. They no longer believe that gun control loses elections.
Democrats propose semiauto confiscation backed by nuclear weapons
Does anyone remember the Democrats, as a party, seriously campaigning on gun control this cycle? Sure, a few folks mentioned it. But apparently the real program is mandatory buybacksbacked by nuclear arms. That seems extrema and not what voters were promised.
The population is Texas is approximately 30 million people and the state is solidly Republican. When, not if, Texas says no to confiscating their semiautomatic firearms (note: rifles and pistols both), will the Democrats nuke Texas? According to the CDC (not exactly a gun-friendly source), there are 12,979 firearm homicides per year in the United States. If the goal of firearms confiscation is to save lives, and the cost is nuking Texas, it would take two thousand, three hundred, and 11 years to save a single life... and that's assuming none of those 12,979 firearm homicides was justified or replaced by an alternative weapon.
Luckily the nuclear button is in Trump's hands. Bet you never thought those words would be written here.
Trump may be unpredictable, but he's not crazy.
What the Democrats are proposing would lead immediately to civil war, if passed and implemented. Luckily the chances such a confiscation bill would pass the Senate are low. Luckily, Trump is in a position to veto it for now. But losing 2020 could have dire consequences, and we'll have to watch the Senate like a hawk to make sure nothing gets to Trump, who just might be unconventional and New York enough to sign it.
We will fight you on our soapboxes, our microphones, our websites. We will fight you in the House. We will fight you in the Senate. We will fight you in the White House. We will fight you on the streets in protests and petitions. We will fight you at the ballot boxes. We will fight you in the courts. If necessary, we will fight you from our rooftops, in the back alleys of your cities, in the tanks and aircraft and naval vessels based on those states which remain free, and in every place you don't expect us to be. We will pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to this cause. Should your nuclear fire rain down upon our nation, burning friend and foe alike, from our backyard bunkers our answer shall resound throughout history, soaked in the blood of your abbatoir altar: NO.
I won't be trying to read the tea leaves here. But it would be nice to see a gun case or two reach SCOTUS soon to see how the justices vote. We may have a solid five votes now, but if not, it would be nice to find out on a case that isn't for all the marbles.
The imaginary date suggests December, ie, next month. BATFE is going to do this without legislation, and it will have a significant economic impact (hundreds of millions) even ignoring the fact that the law will take probably thousands of people who bought legal products for their firearms and turn them until felons unless they destroy their property for basically no reason, all sparked by a shooting that the government continues to hide details about -- and can't even prove the shooter actually used bump stocks, because they did not examine any of his firearms.
Trump should step in and smack this down hard. But he probably won't, because it's not really his issue.
Maybe the NRA can wake him up... except they are kinda-sorta-agreeing.
Anti-gun politicians abusing the Parkland murders for their own purposes
Not everyone who lost someone to the Parkland murder is for gun control. And the people who are using that crime to push for policy changes they favored, and that have nothing to do with the murders, are vile. The ones using it to fundraise are worse.
What is it with corporations spending millions on idiotic political virtue signaling? Nike made the face of their brand the anti-patriot kneeler, and now a jeans manufacturer decides that going against the Constitution is a good public image and worth millions of dollars to convey to the public.
So, the CEO even admits it is unpopular, but he felt compelled to do it anyway.
He could have saved himself a little unpopularity if he had stuck to the platitudes about wanting to stop the violence, but he had to go and compare American gun owners to racists. That makes it clear where he stands, and that this is far more about virtue signaling and looking down on ordinary Americans than it is about safety.
As far as I knew, they already had. It's been a long time since I was in school, and I was never offered archery as an option. This would make it official across the whole state, I suppose. Perhaps some rural districts offered it and they are determined to shut it down?
They explicitly say they are wanting to shut it down because it promotes "gun culture", which aside from being literally nonsense, may open them to First Amendment challenges.
Confiscation of semiautomatic rifles in Chicago area town
So, once they figure out you own an assault weapon in this town, they want you to give it up to their police force. Not remove it from their jurisdiction, sell it to someone else, or destroy it -- the daily fines continue until they have it in their hands and you do not. That's a definite escalation from other attempts at gun bans that have focused on banning new manufacture or sale while grandfathering existing firearms.
The actual ordinance is more precise. It's a one-feature test. Semiautomatic, capacity to accept a detachable magazine, plus one feature (including a pistol grip, forward grip, thumbhole stock or other scary stock types, shroud, or anything scary on the muzzle).
In practice, that means almost any semiautomatic firearm with the capacity to accept a magazine regardless of size (since you can always find a standard-capacity magazine).
His take is about the same as my take: some guy reloading ammunition as a hobby and occasionally selling the results of his work. Consensus seems to be so far that the armor piercing element of the charge is somewhere between complete bullshit and a technicality, and we're not going to know which without knowing the details of the ammunition that was found. I don't have any idea what the law on manufacturing and selling tracer rounds is.
In a Democrat administration we'd get some BS gun control laws passed over this. I bet the ATF is salivating over the possibility of eliminating or regulating reloading if the House turns over to Democrat hands, figuring they can pick up enough Republican squishes in the Senate and pressure Trump to sign it.
Folks, we're going to have to keep an eye on this. It's not going away.