Gun Control

Joe Biden wants ban on ‘magazines that can hold multiple bullets’

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden either called for the banning of most handguns or displayed basic misunderstanding of the simplest of firearms terminology. Campaigning Monday in Iowa, Mr. Biden demanded the elimination of “magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them,” calling such a ban so obvious that only ill motive could explain it. “The idea that we don’t have elimination of assault-type weapons, magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them is absolutely mindless. It is no violation of the 2nd Amendment. It’s just a bow to the special interests of the gun manufacturers and the NRA,” he said at a Labor Day picnic in Cedar Rapids. The phrase “magazines that can hold multiple bullets” raised eyebrows, though. Ryan Saavedra of the Daily Wire explained why, while posting the clip. “Joe Biden makes the most extreme gun-control push of all the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates: Biden calls for banning ‘magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them.’ All magazines hold ‘multiple bullets,’ that’s the point. This call from Biden would ban most handguns,” Mr. Saavedra wrote. With the exception of old-fashioned revolvers, whose basic design concept has remained unchanged since the six-shooters of the Old West, modern-design handguns store multiple bullets in magazines.

Crazy ol’ Joe is the gift that keeps on giving..  Honestly, he’s not firing on all thrusters these days, and really should just retire.  He’s trying hard to pander to his liberal constituency during this primary season, and in the process making verbal gaffes like this on an almost daily basis.  Even his handlers are getting frustrated trying to get him to stay on script.  We just hope Joe continues to run his mouth and say things like this.    🙂

Dianne Feinstein Falsely Claims ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Lowered Crime

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) claims the 1994 “assault weapons” ban lowered crime even though a Department of Justice report shows it had no impact on recorded figures. On August 20, 2019, Feinstein tweeted: “While the federal assault weapons ban was in effect (1994-2004), the number of gun massacres fell by 37% and the number of gun massacre deaths fell by 43% compared to the previous decade. After the ban lapsed, gun massacres rose by 183% and gun massacre deaths by 239%.” She followed that tweet with a second that said, “It’s long past time to reinstate a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines before more lives are lost.” On February 19, 2018, Breitbart News reported the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) report showing the federal “assault weapons” ban could not be credited with any reduction in crime. The NIJ report was authored by University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper. And the Washington Times quoted Koper saying, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Exactly…  Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a former mayor of San Francisco, is infamous for pulling bs stats out of her butt to push her anti-gun narrative.  The actual facts say something completely different.  The ’94 ban, which since has expired, did nothing to reduce gun violence.  It was all political theater and bs.  Thanks to AWR Hawkins for this little piece.     🙂

Supreme Court invalidates part of law aimed at preventing gun violence

The Supreme Court on Monday invalidated a key part of a law designed to prevent gun violence, saying it left too much leeway for judges to decide what constituted a violent crime. In a 5-4 ruling the justices said Congress was too vague when it tried to slap extra penalties on people who used guns while committing a “crime of violence.” “In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all. Only the people’s elected representatives in Congress have the power to write new federal criminal laws,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote in the court’s opinion. The ruling could lead to thousands of new appeals from people convicted under the vague law, prosecutors warned. The case involved two men who were convicted of a string of robberies. They carried firearms during the crimes, which earned them heightened sentences under the Gun Control Act, which kicks in for cases of a “crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.” The statute said crimes of violence are those where physical force is used or threatened against a person or property. But the justices have long grappled with what, exactly, meets that definition. In a series of cases Justice Gorsuch, joined by the court’s four Democratic-appointed justices, has ruled it’s too tough to say what falls under the law. “Vague statutes threaten to hand responsibility for defining crimes to relatively unaccountable police, prosecutors, and judges, eroding the people’s ability to oversee the creation of the laws they are expected to abide,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing the dissent joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, said the law was successful, and should have remained in place. “Many factors have contributed to the decline of violent crime in America. But one cannot dismiss the effects of state and federal laws that impose steep punishments on those who commit violent crimes with firearms,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. John Marti, a former federal prosecutor now practicing at the Dorsey & Whitney law firm, said the decision will lead to a “title wave” of appeals from defendants convicted under the statute now struck down. “Today the Supreme Court eliminated this powerful tool for federal prosecutors in combating violent crime, by finding that the statute is unconstitutionally vague by using the phrase ‘crime of violence,’” Mr. Marti said.

Students Walk Out When Colorado School Shooting Vigil Turns into Gun Control Rally

Hundreds of Colorado’s STEM School Highlands Ranch walked out of the vigil for Tuesday’s shooting victims citing gun control politicization. The Federalist reported: “Colorado students walked out of an event billed as a vigil for Kendrick Castillo, an 18-year-old killed in a shooting at his school on Tuesday, when prominent speakers attempted to turn it into a rally for gun control. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colorado) and Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colorado) each took a turn calling for gun control at the Douglas County event before students streamed out in protest.” Although the event was advertised as a vigil for Castillo, it was “sponsored by the gun control groups Brady’s Team Enough and March for Our Lives.” USA Today reported that “hundreds of students from the STEM School stormed out.” And while leaving they yelled, “This is not for us,” “Political stunt,” and “We are people, not a statement.” Breitbart News spoke to Andrew Pollack, father of Parkland school victim Meadow Pollack. We asked what he thought of the students’ decision to march out once the vigil turned into a gun control rally. He said, “I praise good parenting.”

Exactly!!  Kudos to those kids for standing up to these Democrat gun-control nazis like Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), and giving them the finger for politicizing such an event for their own self-serving, anti-gun, agenda.  Outstanding!

Joe Biden Calls for Gun Controls that Already Exist Following CO School Shooting

Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden called for gun controls that already exist following the shooting at Colorado’s STEM School Highlands Ranch. Biden was campaigning in Los Angeles Wednesday when asked about the shooting. The Guardian News quoted him saying: “The idea we don’t have universal background checks, the idea that we don’t outlaw a number of the weapons I was able to get outlawed in the crime bill, from large magazines to ‘assault weapons,’ this is crazy.” Biden listed three gun controls in response: 1. Universal background checks 2. “Assault weapons” ban 3. “High capacity” magazine ban. The problem with his suggestion is that Colorado already had universal background checks and a ban on “high capacity” magazines. They do not have an “assault weapons” ban but such a ban would have been of no consequence, as handguns were used in the STEM School shooting. Similar pleas for more gun control were issued Wednesday by Chelsea Handler, Alyssa Milano, Gabby Giffords, and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), although none of the pleas were coupled with calls for a specific gun control that does not yet exist.

And, of course, the dominantly liberal mainstream media won’t call out these brain trusts on their moronic comments.  Typical…

Colorado enacts ‘red flag’ law to seize guns from those deemed dangerous, prompting backlash

Colorado became the 15th state on Friday to adopt a “red flag” gun law, allowing firearms to be seized from people determined to pose a danger — just weeks after dozens of county sheriffs had vowed not to enforce the law, with some local leaders establishing what they called Second Amendment “sanctuary counties.” The law didn’t receive a single Republican vote in the state legislature, and has led to renewed efforts from gun-rights activists to recall Democrats who supported the measure. In a fiery and lengthy statement on Facebook on Friday, Eagle County, Colo., Sheriff James van Beek slammed the law as a well-intentioned but “ludicrous” throwback to the 2002 film “Minority Report,” and outlined a slew of objections from law enforcement. Van Beek charged that the law treats accused gun owners like “criminals,” discourages individuals from seeking mental health treatment, and ignores the reality that “a disturbed mind will not be deterred by the removal of their guns.” Noting that cities with strict gun laws still experience high murder rates, van Beek asserted: “By removing guns from someone intent on committing suicide or murder, we still have the danger of someone who may be unbalanced, now, angrier than before, and looking for another means … explosives, poisons, knives, car incidents of mowing down groups of unsuspecting innocent.” Colorado’s law, approved by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, allows family, household members or law enforcement to petition a court to have guns seized or surrendered based on a showing that someone poses a danger under the “preponderance of the evidence,” a civil standard which means that the defendant is more likely than not to be a threat. “In other words, there is just over a 50/50 chance of accuracy,” van Beek wrote, noting that someone’s guns could be seized even without a mental health professional making a determination of any kind. “Like the flip of a coin. Couldn’t that apply to just about anything a person does?” A subsequent court hearing could extend a gun seizure up to 364 days, and gun owners can only retain their guns if they meet a burden of demonstrating by “clear and convincing evidence” — a much higher standard — that they are not in fact a threat. Gun owners, van Beek said, are “guilty until proven innocent” under this framework. Minority Republicans in the legislature had unsuccessfully tried to shift the burden of proof to the petitioner.

…which, of course, is how it oughtta be.  This new law is brazenly unconstitutional.  Anyone charged under this is guilty until proven innocent, which is totally contrary to how our criminal justice system operates.  It is pure fascism.  When Hitler rose to power in the late ’30s in Germany, one of the first things he did was enact gun confiscation of citizens.  This “red flag” law is simply another form of anti-2nd Amendment, unconstitutional, gun confiscation that has NOTHING to do with metal health issues.  That’s all a phony front and a false pretense, and the Dems in Denver know this.  Some enterprising journalist oughtta ask Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO) how it feels being a Nazi.  Yeah.. that term is perfectly, an historically, accurate used in this sense.  Jared Polis is acting like Colorado’s Hitler.  I double-dog dare ANY member of the dominantly liberal mainstream media to actually do their job, and ask that fascist tool that question on camera.  Wouldn’t it be rich to see his pompous ass try to tap dance around that?  If you’re here in Colorado and want to buy gun, ya better get out there and do so now, while ya still can..and buy things like ammo in cash ONLY.  Kudos to Sheriff James van Beek, and other sheriffs in Colorado, who refuse to enforce this fascist nonsense.  For more, click on the text above.

Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted review in the first Second Amendment case in almost a decade, a case supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA), and perhaps signaling what to expect from the new membership of the Supreme Court. New York law forbids residents from owning any handguns without a permit, and that permit allows the holder to possess guns only in their home or en route to or from one of seven shooting ranges in the city. A gun owner cannot transport a firearm outside the home for any other purpose, even if it is unloaded and locked in a case in the trunk of a car. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and several of its members sued in federal court, arguing that this statute is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, but that 2008 case involved only a law-abiding citizen seeking to have a handgun in his privately owned home for self-defense. The Court further held in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right, and thus extends to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment, but again that 2010 involved a law-abiding citizen seeking to keep a handgun in the home. That is essentially all the Supreme Court has done with the Second Amendment thus far. The Court has repeatedly turned down petitions for review (called a petition for a writ of certiorari) in several major cases over the subsequent nine years. Some experts speculated that Justice Anthony Kennedy – who was the fifth and thus decisive vote in Heller and McDonald – was reluctant to take any additional steps on gun rights. Without his vote, neither side of the gun debate could move the needle in either direction. Some legal strategists wondered if Justice Brett Kavanaugh – who has a judicial recording supporting gun rights – now sitting in Kennedy’s seat would break the paralysis over Second Amendment jurisprudence. It appears the answer might be “yes.” Lead counsel in the case is former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, who also was one of the lawyers who argued in both Heller and McDonald. Clement is one of the most accomplished Supreme Court advocates in American history, having argued over 90 cases before the justices. Clement argues that New York’s statute violates the Second Amendment, the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to interstate travel. The NRA is centrally involved in the case. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association is the NRA’s official state affiliate in the Empire State. This instantly becomes one of the most significant cases of the year at the Supreme Court. Oral arguments should be held in late April, with a decision by the end of June. The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Associaiton v. New York, No. 18-280 in the Supreme Court of the United States.