Gun-rights supporters are eyeing a big win this week as a bill that would make concealed-carry permits valid across state lines heads to the House floor — though it faces long odds in the Senate amid deep-pocketed opposition from gun-control advocates. “This is just simple, common-sense legislation that says if you’re a law-abiding citizen … we’re not going to turn you into a criminal just for crossing an invisible state line,” bill sponsor Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., told “Fox News @ Night.” Hudson says the bill simply attempts to clarify the patchwork of state laws that confuse citizens who can unwittingly get arrested when traveling from state to state. “All I’m saying is, when I cross the state line, I don’t want to automatically become a criminal,” he said. The three-term congressman also is quick to point out the measure does not attempt to usurp state and local authority with federal law, nor does it ease background checks on gun purchases. The bill has 213 cosponsors, including three Democrats, and backing from 24 state attorneys general. Hudson has tried for several years to get his Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act passed and scored a victory several days ago when it got through the House Judiciary Committee. The full House is set to vote on Wednesday.
President Trump shut down a reporter’s gun control stump speech in South Korea on Tuesday. He did so when NBC News’ Ali Vitali asked if he would support more gun control for would-be gun purchasers. She said, “You’ve talked about wanting to put extreme vetting on people trying to come into the United States, but I wondered if you’d consider extreme vetting for people trying to buy a gun?” Trump responded by questioning the appropriateness of the question, given that it was being asked just two days after the heinous Texas attack as well as the fact that it was being asked during a press conference in South Korea. He then quickly dismissed calls for more gun control and went on to praise Americans’ ability to use guns to stop attacks like the one in Texas. In so doing, Trump stressed that gun control carries with it the threat of making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to get the guns they need to defend themselves and others. He said, “[With more gun control] you might not have had that very brave person who happened to have a gun or a rifle in his truck, go out and shoot [the attacker], and hit him, neutralize him.” Similar sentiment was expressed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) on November 6. During an interview by Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade, Paxton said, “What ultimately may have saved some lives is … people that were outside the church that actually had guns that may have slowed this guy down and actually pursued him. So I would rather arm law-abiding citizens and make sure that they can prevent this from happening as opposed to trying to pass laws that would prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns.”
Exactly!! To see these to interview video clips, click on the text above.
Emma Stone, Melissa McCarthy, and Sheryl Crow are among a number of celebrities urging Americans to “reject the NRA” and concealed carry of firearms in the wake of the shooting at a Las Vegas country music concert this month. Laura Dern, Bill Hader, and Adam Scott are also taking part in the anti-gun campaign, as is noted gun control advocate Julianne Moore. The celebrities are part of the Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety PSA against the NRA specifically, and against gun rights generally. In typical Everytown fashion, the PSA does not present real solutions to the attack in Vegas–after all, the attacker complied with all gun controls, including background checks, so no new law would have stopped him. Even gun control advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) admitted as much on the October 8 airing of Face the Nation. Therefore, in lieu of a substantive position, the celebrities are urging Americans to call Congress and oppose things that had nothing to do with the Las Vegas attack. “The mass shooting in Las Vegas has all of us grieving, scared and angry,” Stone opens the video. From here, various other celebrities appear, telling people to text “REJECT” to Everytown. They inform viewers that the gun control group will call those who text, give them contact numbers for lawmakers, and “give [them] guidelines” on what to say when they talk to their lawmakers. The celebrities voice opposition to national reciprocity for concealed carry. National reciprocity means Americans with a concealed carry license from their home state can carry their gun for self-defense in the other 49 states as well. Stone, Crow, and the other celebrities oppose this broadening of Americans’ ability to have a gun on their persons for self-defense. They also mention the SHARE Act, and can be heard urging Congress to oppose it. This Act contains legislation which removes the federal tax from suppressors and lessens the number of hoops law-abiding Americans must jump through in order to acquire a suppressor for hearing protection. It is ironic to note that suppressors had absolutely nothing to do with the Las Vegas attack. Julianne Moore’s participation in the PSA comes as she currently stars in the spy film Kingsman: Golden Circle. That film features the use of automatic weapons 70 times, according to MRC/Newsbusters.
Typical liberal, elitist, hypocrites…
Martha MacCallum held a cable exclusive interview with Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) on “The Story.” MacCallum asked what Scalise thought of the fact shooter James Thomas Hodgkinson intentionally targeted Republicans on the ballfield that day. “I don’t think that anybody has a rationale or justification for carrying out that attack,” he said. “Nobody in their right frame of mind should think like that.” He said that Congress should be a microcosm of the country, in that way, adding that politics should never be made “personal” and that Americans should be able to have civil disagreements over policy. Asked about the Las Vegas shooting this week, and how Democrats have immediately called for gun control, Scalise said gun control legislation is “the wrong way to approach this.” Scalise said his experiences “fortified” his views on gun rights, but cautioned against politicizing a tragedy. “First of all, you’ve got to recognize, when there’s a tragedy like this, the first thing we should be thinking about is praying about the people who were injured,” Scalise said. “We shouldn’t first be thinking about promoting our political agenda,” he said. He said that in contrast, attention is never paid to incidents where a civilian with a legally-obtained firearm prevents a mass casualty attack thanks to the right to bear arms. Scalise also said that Congress has made strides in attending to mental health issues, which he said could also be the root of attacks like both the one that wounded him and the Las Vegas massacre. The House Majority Whip made an emotional return to Capitol Hill last week. Scalise was severely injured on June 14 when a gunman opened fire on a group of Republican lawmakers as they practiced for the annual Congressional Baseball Game at Eugene Simpson Field in the Washington suburb.
Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) is an inspiration. His courage and steadfastness is an example for us all. To see Martha’s interview with him as he returned to his office, click on the text above.
Whenever a gun tragedy happens in the United States, it seems like there are two sides: One that argues against Second Amendment protections, and one that argues for them. It seems simple enough, but what’s missing is this: The Second Amendment is the argument. It’s alarming how often people forget this. Whenever there’s violence, the Left starts to demand that the government get the guns off our streets, that it do so now, that it should have done it sooner to keep the people safe. In response, the Right often argues for the benefits of #2A, throwing out statistics such as the fact that gun violence has actually been dropping even though more people have been purchasing firearms, or philosophical arguments such as the idea that people looking to murder masses of people will find a weapon and a way regardless of what the laws are. My personal views may happen to fall into the second camp, but here’s the thing: Regardless of what your personal views are, it’s still true that our Constitution prohibits the kinds of things that the first group wants. If people on the left ever do talk about the Second Amendment, it’s often only to say that it’s “obsolete.” This is, of course, factually untrue: According to the Constitution, the Second Amendment is not obsolete until and unless two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of states agree that it is, or through the constitutional-convention method as detailed in Article V. Again, this isn’t even my argument; it’s the Constitution’s — and, like it or not, that’s important. Unfortunately, however, it’s very common to see the requirements of our Constitution being completely disregarded — even by our elected officials. For example: In New York City, it’s basically impossible to get a gun license unless you’re a police officer or security guard, and you have to pay upwards of $400 in fees just to submit an application that will certainly be rejected. Does that sound like a violation of my constitutional “right to keep and bear arms” to you? Yes; yes it does — and that should bother you, regardless of whether you personally happen to favor these kinds of rules or not. You may be someone who believes that it would be safer to eliminate guns from the hands of the public, and that’s fine — but you still need to view your activism through the lens of constitutional process. You need to be lobbying legislators to amend the Constitution, rather than lobbying officials to create laws that disregard it. Why? Because the Constitution always matters. If you want to say that it shouldn’t always matter, or that should matter except on this issue, then really, what you’re saying is that it never truly does — because you yourself have already stated that exceptions are okay. Either the document has integrity or it doesn’t. Either it has the power to protect our freedoms or it doesn’t — and to me, that seems like an easy choice.
Actually, there is NO choice. The U.S. Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights (i.e. the first ten Amendments to the Constitution) is the rule-book. It is the supreme law of these United States. And those First Ten Amendments, or “Bill of Rights” have a certain heightened deference by the courts, as they were penned by those same founders who inked our Constitution. So, millennial author Katherine “Kat” Timpf IS correct in saying that the Second Amendment “is the argument.” But, even that assessment comes up a little short. The fact of that matter is that the Second Amendment is law. Period. And, (God forbid) until that God-given right is legally removed, it is the law of the land; a law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court time and time again for over two centuries.
In a win for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Thursday decided to let stand a ruling that found it is unconstitutional to require firearms owners prove a “good reason” in order to be permitted to carry a concealed handgun in the nation’s capital. The D.C. government had petitioned for the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the case en banc, but the court declined to revisit the 2-1 decision handed down earlier this year, noting that none of the 10 judges who considered the matter requested a vote on it. The decision leaves in place the D.C. Circuit’s prior ruling, which found that the city’s “good reason” requirement was unconstitutional. It also sets up the potential for the Supreme Court to take up the case, as the decision creates a split with other federal circuits that have found discretionary permitting schemes elsewhere are legal. “Sometimes the most important thing a court does is not do anything,” said Adam Winkler, a University of California at Los Angeles law professor who has written extensively on the Second Amendment. “Because of what the D.C. Circuit didn’t do today, the Supreme Court is now far more likely to take a concealed carry case.” D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine said he was disappointed in Thursday’s decision, but it was not immediately apparent if his office would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. “As we review options for next steps in consultation with the mayor, the council and the Metropolitan Police Department, our primary concern will be ensuring public safety through reasonable gun laws,” Mr. Racine said. But the circuit split created by the D.C. ruling is the type of scenario gun rights activists have salivated over for years, with the hope that the Supreme Court would take up a case on concealed carry rights and rule to expand Second Amendment protections. Four other federal appeals courts have ruled in favor of similar restrictions elsewhere. The city’s law had required gun owners to prove they have a “good reason to fear injury” or another “proper reason,” such as a job that requires carrying large amounts of cash or valuables, in order to get a concealed carry permit. Under the city’s law, living in a high-crime neighborhood was not reason enough to justify approval of a concealed carry permit. Second Amendment advocates who brought the lawsuit said the city’s law was so restrictive that most law-abiding citizens would be unable to obtain permits. As of June, the Metropolitan Police Department reported having granted just 125 concealed carry permits. The city’s strict concealed carry laws have remained in effect while the D.C. Circuit was considering whether to rehear the case, so the ruling marks the first time the “good reason” requirements will be cast aside.
It’s about time! Glad to see the D.C. Circuit slap the fascist, Democrat, D.C. city government’s unconstitutional “good reason” requirement down. Outstanding!! 🙂
Court documents filed this week claim an armed good Samaritan intervened and stopped an alleged sexual assault after hearing a female runner scream. The incident occurred on a running trail near Lady Bird Lake in Austin, Texas. According to the Austin American-Statesman, an affidavit claims the unidentified female was running around 5:46 a.m. when she began to hear loud steps closing in behind her. Suddenly, “the victim was grabbed behind by the suspect with both the suspect’s arms, (bear hug).” The victim said both she and the suspect fell to the ground “and she was on her back and the suspect was on top of her.” The woman said she tried to use a whistle to attract help but the suspect had her pinned down. Moreover, he placed his hand over her mouth to mute her screams. The suspect allegedly told the woman that he was “a virgin” as he assaulted her. At some point, the woman was able to scream and nearby armed jogger heard her. He ran toward the scream with his handgun and flashlight drawn and ordered the suspect to get off the woman. The attacker allegedly stood up “naked from the waist down” and took off running with the woman’s shoes and shorts. The partially naked woman walked toward the jogger who was holding the flashlight in hopes of finding protection. Three days later, police arrested 22-year-old Richard Jordon McEachern and accused him of perpetrating the assault. Police are also investigating whether McEachern may have been involved in a similar assault–carried out by grabbing another female jogger from behind–on August 22. On January 12, 2017, he New York Times editorial board wrote against expanding the opportunities for armed citizens to be armed for self-defense. The paper claimed, “The grim truth is that concealed-carry permit holders are rarely involved in stopping crime.”
Typical liberal factually inaccurate bs from the NY Times.. Whoever this “good Samaritan” was, he was definitely a hero. And, his actions show the value in arming yourself. If you don’t have a conceal carry permit yet, then get one.