Gun Control

Virginia’s new gun control laws will cause firearms sales to plummet, stores say

Virginia’s new gun control laws passed by the Democrat-controlled state legislature go into effect Wednesday. The measures includes background checks on all gun sales in the state, a civil penalty for failing to report a lost or stolen gun within 48 hours and a limit on handgun purchases to one per month. That last measure may take away business from gun stores, Steve Garriss, who has worked as a sales clerk at Clark Brother Gun Shop in Warrenton, Virginia, since 2008, he told FOX Business. Virginia Democrats brought back a law limiting gun buyers to one handgun a month that was repealed in 2012. “The one handgun a month thing, they had that when I first started working here. They discontinued it. … You do lose sales from it,” Garriss said. “Some people come in, they bought one two weeks ago. Two weeks later, they may not be interested.” A lawsuit against Virginia State Police Superintendent Gary Settle claiming the law took away residents’ “constitutionally protected right to obtain firearms” was defeated in Goochland Circuit Court, WAMU reported. “I don’t believe they should infringe on any Second Amendment rights,” Garriss said. “It won’t stop any robberies.” Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, signed the gun control measures in April. The new laws include: A red flag law allowing law enforcement to take away residents’ guns if they’re determined to be dangerous to themselves. Raising the penalty for leaving an unsecured firearm in the presence of children to a Class 1 misdemeanor. Local governments can regulate guns in public buildings. In January, pro-Second Amendment activists demonstrated in January to protest Democrats’ gun control agenda.

Our condolences to those of you in Virginia..   Awful..

Appeals court reinstates California law requiring background checks for ammo purchases

A federal appeals court reinstated a California background-check requirement for ammunition purchases this week after another court had deemed the law unconstitutional and a violation of the Second Amendment. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego called the regulations “onerous and convoluted,” but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco disagreed and granted the state’s request to stay the order, according to the National Rifle Association (NRA). “This means that the same restrictions that have been previously in effect regarding ammunition in California are back for the time being,” the NRA said in a statement. California became the first state in the U.S. to require background checks for ammunition purchases when the law took effect in July 2019. Ammunition sales jumped 300 percent last June before the regulations took effect. Voters originally approved the measure in 2016. Benitez had ruled in favor of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which asked him to halt the background checks with a preliminary injunction. “The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background-check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured,” Benitez wrote in his 120-page opinion.

Federal judge tosses California law requiring background checks for ammunition

A federal judge blocked a California gun law on Thursday that required people to undergo a background check before purchasing ammunition. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego called the regulations “onerous and convoluted,” adding that they violate a citizen’s Second Amendment rights, the Associated Press reported. Benitez ruled in favor of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which had asked him to halt the background checks with a preliminary injunction. “The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured,” Benitez wrote in his 120-page opinion. “Criminals, tyrants, and terrorists don’t do background checks,” he added. “The background check experiment defies common sense while unduly and severely burdening the Second Amendment rights of every responsible, gun-owning citizen desiring to lawfully buy ammunition.” Benitez reportedly claimed the law blocked legitimate sales to law-abiding citizens, about 16 percent of the time. He also ruled that California’s ban on importing ammo from outside the state violates federal interstate commerce laws. California became the first state in the country to require background checks for ammo purchases when the law took effect back in July. Ammunition sales jumped 300 percent in June before the regulations took effect. Voters originally approved the measure back in 2016. The state attorney general’s office told the AP it is reviewing the decision but did not immediately say if it would appeal the decision or not.

Kudo to Judge Benitez for this outstanding decision.  It’s a HUGE victory for law-abiding gun owners in California.  The whole background check for purchasing ammo is beyond ridiculous on so many levels.  Excellent!!     🙂

Alyssa Milano Says ‘Stop the Coronavirus Gun Surge’ After Admitting to Owning Guns for Self-Defense

Actress and left-wing activist Alyssa Milano is telling people to stop buying up firearms during the coronavirus pandemic, saying that the “coronavirus gun surge” must come to an end. Her warning comes just a few months after the former Charmed star admitted that she owns two guns for self-defense purposes. Alyssa Milano posted a video on Twitter late Thursday in which she admonished gun owners for stockpiling weapons and ammunition during a time of crisis — and while criminals in states across the country are being freed from prison. “I know that we are all scared and stressed out during these really uncertain times. But that is exactly why stockpiling weapons , you know, could have dire consequences for our own personal safety and those around us,” the actress said. “The weapons that people are buying today could end up being used in households, schools, churches, bars, and on our streets in the future. So we all have to look out for each other. Milano concluded: “We can’t lose anymore lives to guns during this pandemic, or after it’s over.” But the Hollywood star admitted in a debate with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in September that she personally owns firearms. “I have two guns in my household for self-defense, just so you know,” she said. Do as I say, not as I do. Milano has proposed universal background checks, restricting access to AR-15s, and background checks for bullet purchases. At the same time, she has insisted that she is a defender of the Second Amendment. Breitbart News has reported that gun sales are surging during the Chinese conronavirus pandemic, overwhelming both state and federal background check systems. Alyssa Milano has recently come under fire for downplaying a sexual harassment allegation against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, who has been accused by a former staffer of using his fingers to penetrate her against her will. Milano has been a major supporter of the Time’s Up and #MeToo movements, even attending the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and declaring that women must be believed. But she recently said on Twitter that accusations against men must now be investigated “with due process.”

Alyssa is a nauseating, self-righteous, elitist, liberal hypocrite.  She wants you to do as she says, but not as she does herself.  She thinks its ok for her to have multiple weapons in her house…but not ok for you to do the same.  Why?  Because she thinks shes better than the rest of us peasants…and that we don’t “need” them.   And, then her duplicitous handling of Joe Biden’s sexual harassment allegations versus how she sat right behind Justice Brent Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation hearings and said that women needed to be believed first…and yet Joe Biden should have “due process?”  Really?  Why is that, Alyssa?  Because he’s a Democrat?  Hmm?  Alyssa is the poster child for HollyWEIRD, self-righteous, entitlement-mined, arrogant, liberal elitists who look down at the rest of us and tell us how to live, while they do just the opposite.  Ironically, she was ripped by conservatives for the video, including by actor James Woods, who thanked her for the “reminder” to stock up.  “Thank you for the reminder,” he tweeted.   “When the looting starts, always be prepared. Buy more ammo!”  Agreed!!  Thanks James!      🙂

Opinion/Analysis: Bloomberg: Guns for Me, but Not for Thee

‘How do you justify pushing for more gun control when you have an armed security detail that is likely equipped with the same firearms and magazines you seek to ban the common citizen from owning? Does your life matter more than mine or my family’s or these people’s?” a Virginian named Clarke Chitty asked Democratic Party presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg during a recent Fox News town hall. It’s an outstanding question. And Bloomberg’s answer is pretty straightforward: Yes, his life is worth more than yours. “Look, I probably get 40 or 50 threats every week, OK, and some of them are real. That just happens when you’re the mayor of New York City or you’re very wealthy and if you’re campaigning for president of the United States,” Bloomberg replied. “You get lots of threats. So, I have a security detail, I pay for it all myself, and . . . they’re all retired police officers who are very well trained in firearms.” In the United States, our rights aren’t — or shouldn’t be — meted out according to status. But you’ll notice Bloomberg doesn’t really answer the question, anyway. I suspect millions of Americans who aren’t as famous or rich (very rich, in this case) live in situations in which their property and safety are threatened to the same extent. Not that it matters. Does Bloomberg propose that everyone undergo a government risk assessment before being allowed to practice constitutional rights? Probably, right? More importantly, Clarke Chitty, one suspects, has zero interest in stripping away Bloomberg’s constitutional right to own a firearm, or to hire professional armed bodyguards to protect him from legitimate threats. The former mayor of New York City, on the other hand, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in efforts to pass laws and regulations that would leave Americans like Clarke Chitty defenseless. It’s this kind of arrogance that brought about District of Columbia v. Heller, the case affirming that the Second Amendment is an individual right. One of the first plaintiffs in that effort, Shelly Parker, was an African-American resident of Washington, D.C., who had gotten fed up with the crime near her Capitol Hill home. She attempted to rally her neighbors to clean up the neighborhood, provoking the ire of local drug dealers, who began vandalizing her property and threatening her life. “In the event that someone does get in my home,” she explained, “I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them.” It would have been illegal for Parker, neither wealthy nor famous, to obtain a gun to protect herself. She was also in danger. Or take Otis McDonald, the retired 76-year-old of McDonald v. City of Chicago, a case that affirmed that the right of individual gun ownership extended to the states. By 2010, the neighborhood McDonald had lived in since 1971 had become infested with gangs, drug dealers, and widespread criminality. His home had been broken into on five separate occasions, so he had a legitimate reason to worry about his safety. Someone like Bloomberg might have suggested that Otis keep some paper towels handy, but McDonald wanted a handgun. At the time, Chicago had a handgun ban in place, ensuring that only criminals could own them. I suspect that McDonald was in as much jeopardy as Bloomberg. To top it off, Bloomberg then blatantly lied to the Fox crowd, claiming that “the Supreme Court said you can have reasonable restrictions, and the only restrictions which I am in favor of is to prevent us from selling guns to people with psychiatric problems, criminals, or people that are minors, OK?” Not really. If Bloomberg had any practical hope of overturning the Second Amendment, he would certainly do it. As it is, Bloomberg bankrolls major anti-gun efforts that go much further policy-wise than keeping guns out of the hands of children and people with serious psychiatric problems — both of which are already illegal, and supported by nearly everyone. Bloomberg, the presidential candidate, supports banning “assault weapons,” the most popular rifles in the country, which account for a sliver of the gun crimes in the country. Bloomberg supports stripping gun companies of “immunity” in civil lawsuits that would allow activists to hold manufacturers responsible for all criminality — a blatant attempt to put them out of business. Bloomberg supports “red flag” laws, which strip away due process for gun owners. Bloomberg supports raising the age of gun ownership from 18 to 21. Bloomberg supports federal efforts requiring every gun buyer to obtain a permit. Bloomberg wants to create a position for a federal gun czar to implement all these restrictions on the federal level. In other words, Bloomberg supports every single active effort to restrict gun ownership that exists. Well for you, not him.

Mike Bloomberg is the poster child for an elitist, self-righteous, arrogant, self-serving hypocrite.  He looks down at the rest of us unwashed peasants and tells us that we have no right to have a firearm…and yet he himself is surrounded by firearms protecting his pompous ass.  He is quite literally a little Nazi.  If you think that’s over the top, then consider this…   Not only is he short in stature….but, he would love nothing more than to register all gun owners, before ultimately having those guns confiscated.  Hitler did the exact same thing in the late 1930s in Germany.  Thanks to David Harsanyi over at National Review for that sobering assessment of that little Nazi from New York.

Joe Biden Essentially Pushing Ban on All Semiautomatic Firearms

Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden essentially pushed a ban on all semiautomatic firearms Thursday night during a CNN town hall. Biden talked of meeting with victims’ families after the December 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary attack and also meeting with families from the February 14, 2018, Parkland high school attack. He said he committed in both instances to secure more gun control. He said: ” I made a commitment that I’m going to do everything in my power in office or out of office to get those assault weapons off the street, which I have done once already. And to get those clips that have multiple bullets in them not for sale, not be able to sell silencers, all those things.” GOP Rapid Response Director Steve Guest tweeted video of Biden making the comments: Targeting guns with “clips that have multiple bullets in them” is essentially going after all semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Biden made clear that he wants to ban suppressors as well.

Joe is just trying to out-liberal his competition for the Dem nomination for president in this election year.  And, part of that is pandering to the Dem base which is VERY anti-gun.  So, Joe is trying to portray himself as the most anti-gun Nazi running…even more than “mini” Mike Bloomberg who is a crazy, fascist, anti-gun Nazi.  No matter who wins the nomination on the Dem side, that person will be someone who wants to come for your guns.  Remember that..

Johns Hopkins Study: No Evidence ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans Reduce Mass Shootings

A study released by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health declares there is no evidence “assault weapon” bans lead to a lower “incidence of fatal mass shootings.” The push for an “assault weapons” ban is central to the Democrats’ gun control agenda nationally and is front and center for Democrats at the state level in places like Arizona and Virginia. According to the Johns Hopkins study, researchers”did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings.” Researchers did claim licensing requirements like those in Connecticut help reduce the number of mass shootings, but their study omitted the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 26 were killed at the school and another victim was killed in a private home. In other words, a study which claims licensing reduces instances of mass shootings omitted one of the most often cited mass shootings in U.S. history, even though that shooting occurred in a licensing state. Moreover, John Hopkins’ criteria for licensing laws allowed them to bypass Illinois which, in turn, allowed them to sidestep the never ending gun crime of Chicago. But the study was clear there is no evidence tying “assault weapons” to a lower incidence of mass shootings.

Gee..  Imagine that…  This is the type of story you will NEVER see on CNN, MSNBC, PBS/NPR, or any other organ of the dominantly liberal mainstream media, as it totally undercuts their fascist anti-gun narrative.

Joe Biden: It Is Rational to Prohibit ’50 Clips in a Weapon’

Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden spoke in Hudson, New Hampshire, this week and told attendees that it is “rational” to prohibit “50 clips in a weapon.” Ryan Saavedra quoted Biden maligning the absence of “a rational policy” that makes it illegal to have “20, 30, 40, 50 clips in a weapon.” Also in Hudson, Biden intimated that gun owners who cling to their AR-15s and AK-47s are no match for the government. He made reference to gun owners who quote Thomas Jefferson’s statement on the tension that exists between free men and the rulers who wish to subjugate them, a statement that includes Jefferson’s observation that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.” Biden then said, “Those who say ‘the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots’ — a great line, well, guess what: The fact is, if you’re going to take on the government, you need an F-15 with Hellfire missiles. There is no way an AK-47 is going to take care of you if you’re worried about the government knocking down your door.” He also stressed his belief that the right to keep and bear arms is limited, saying, “There is a Second Amendment, and you do have a right to bear arms but not an unlimited right.” He added, “The Constitution does not say anybody can own a weapon; it says only certain people can own weapons.”

Wow…  Just think, crazy ol’ Joe is a former Senator and former Vice President of these United States, and he’s saying such spectacularly, factually incorrect statements like this.  I’ve got the Constitution and the Bill of Rights right here in front of me, and NOWHERE does the Second Amendment specify who can, and who cannot own a weapon.  As for the clips comment…  C’mon..  We all know he means “rounds;” not clips.  So, on that minor gaffe, we’ll give him a minor pass.  But, he’s SO out-of-touch, and being 77, his age is showing.  Joe should have just stayed retired.  Now, he’s just making a fool of himself each time he gets on stage.  Ya almost feel sorry for him..  It’s unlikely he’ll get the Dem nomination now, and even if he somehow pulls that off, he’d get destroyed and humiliated by Trump.

Ammo Sales Surge as Virginians Anticipate Democrat Gun Control

Ammunition sales are surging as many Virginian seek to stock up ahead of a slew of Democrat-mandated gun controls for the state. WSET reports online ammunition seller AmmunitionToGo.com notes a 137 percent increase in ammo sales to Virginians now versus this same time last year. AmmunitionToGo’s Brandon Black said, “We’re now seeing a massive number of Virginia shooters stocking up on ammunition in anticipation of new laws that they believe will make it harder to purchase rounds legally.” Black noted firearm and ammunition sales are impacted by political change in a way unseen with other retail items. He said, “I doubt that any other businesses are affected as much by politics as firearm and ammunition manufacturers and retailers.” WSET reports Virginians have purchased enough ammo to take the state from simply being in AmmunitionToGo’s “top 20 markets” to being in the top five. On January 21, 2020–the day after thousands rallied for Second Amendment rights in Virginia–WJLA quoted a Democrat State Senator making clear his conviction a mandate for gun control remains. Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax) said, “We are in charge now” and “We feel like we have a mandate to do something and we are going to continue to move forward.” On the very next day the Virginia Senate took up various gun controls. Breitbart News reported those controls included a permanent ban on exercising Second Amendment rights on Virginia Capitol grounds. Stricter requirements for concealed carry permit issuance, gun storage laws, and penalties for gun owners who fail to report stolen firearms within 24 hours of the theft, are also being pushed. House Bill 961 would put in place a licensing requirement for all AR-15 owners and Democrats have made clear that the licensing process would be used to create a database of said owners.

The Democrat anti-gun, fascist Nazis are in charge in Virginia now…and they’re putting a target on the backs of law-abiding gun owners in that state.  Keep this in mind come November when we all go to the polls.  This is what happens when Democrats are in power.  They come for your guns and raise your taxes.  Unreal…

For First Time, A Colorado Judge Denies Confiscation Request Under Red Flag Law

For the first time, a judge has denied a request to take away a man’s guns under Colorado’s new red flag law. A Limon woman claimed a man who she had a relationship with threatened her with a gun and filed the request. Since the law took effect, the red flag law has had many gun owners seeing red. At least four requests have been filed since the first of 2020; CBS4 is aware of them being filed in Denver, in Larimer County and this one — in Lincoln County. Many gun owners, like Jak Gruenberg, despise it. “Red flag laws just allow for harassment of legal gun owners,” he said. The law allows guns to be taken away from those who present a danger to themselves or others. The decision is up to a judge. A woman wrote she was getting “verbal and physical threats” with a handgun from the man identified in the order. She said he had a problem with alcohol and marijuana. The judge denied the request to take his guns. “I think it’s a good thing. I think any other new law you’re going to have a lot of case law to determine exactly where the lines are,” said Gruenberg, a gun owner not associated with the case. Lincoln County is one of the many counties that has indicated it would not honor the red flag law.

This so-called “red flag law” in Colorado (and in other states) is brazenly unconstitutional on its face.  And, the fact that some local judge can arbitrarily make the decision as to whether or not they’ll sign an order to remove someone’s guns without due process should have every law-abiding gun owner in Colorado (and other states that have similar laws) terrified.  Anybody can just go into a police station and say, “so and so scares me and I think he should have his guns taken away,” and then it goes to some local judge who makes the arbitrary decision.  Crazy!!  This is the kinda crap that happens when Democrats are in power.  The raise your taxes, increase the size and scope of government, and take away your freedoms.  Unreal…