Guns

Permitless gun carry in Oklahoma takes effect

A “constitutional carry” gun law in Oklahoma took effect Friday. Also known as permitless carry, the law lets some Oklahomans carry a firearm in public without a license. Most Oklahomans 21 and older can now carry concealed or unconcealed firearms without having gone through a background check or training requirements, with exceptions for those illegally in the country or who have been convicted of certain crimes. Firearms are still prohibited in public buildings, bars, casinos and schools, and at professional sporting events. Oklahoma’s Supreme Court and a county judge this week rejected Oklahoma City Democratic Rep. Jason Lowe’s requests to hold off on the law. Lowe had introduced a petition in August following the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. The petition would have stopped the law from taking effect and made it a 2020 ballot question, had it been successful. The Oklahoma Second Amendment Association filed a protest against the petition that rendered its signatures invalid. Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt signed the bill into law in February. “As I traveled all over the state to all 77 counties, I heard from Oklahomans all over that they wanted us to protect their right to bear arms,” Stitt said at the time. There are at least 14 states that have some version of a permitless carry law, according to the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Some other states that do this include, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Wyoming, Missouri, Alaska, Kansas, and North Dakota.  Congrats to the great state of Oklahoma for enacting this constitutionally-sound law, and joining these other states that are strong supporters of our Second Amendment rights!  Our founders would be proud!    🙂

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: Right to bear arms protected by highest category of liberty recognized by law

Last weekend’s mass murders in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, have produced a flood of words about everything from gun control to mental illness to white nationalism. Most of those words have addressed the right to keep and bear arms as if it were a gift from the government. It isn’t. The U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled in the past 11 years that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual pre-political liberty. That is the highest category of liberty recognized in the law. It is akin to the freedoms of thought, speech and personality. That means that the court has recognized that the framers did not bestow this right upon us. Rather, they recognized its pre-existence as an extension of our natural human right to self-defense and they forbade government — state and federal — from infringing upon it. It would be exquisitely unfair, profoundly unconstitutional and historically un-American for the rights of law-abiding folks — “surrender that rifle you own legally and use safely because some other folks have used that same type of weapon criminally” — to be impaired in the name of public safety. It would also be irrational. A person willing to kill innocents and be killed by the police while doing so surely would have no qualms about violating a state or federal law that prohibited the general ownership of the weapon he was about to use. With all of this as background, and the country anguishing over the mass deaths of innocents, the feds and the states face a choice between a knee-jerk but popular restriction of some form of gun ownership, and the rational and sound realization that more guns in the hands of those properly trained means less crime and more safety. Can the government constitutionally outlaw the types of rifles used by the El Paso and Dayton killers? In a word: No. We know that because in the first Supreme Court opinion upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, the court addressed what kind of arms the Second Amendment protects. The court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership of weapons one can carry that are of the same degree of sophistication as the bad guys have — or the government has. The government? Yes, the government. That’s so because the Second Amendment was not written to protect the right to shoot deer. It was written to protect the right to shoot at tyrants and their agents when they have stolen liberty or property from the people. If you don’t believe me on this, then read the Declaration of Independence. It justifies violence against the British government because of such thefts. Governments are the greatest mass killers on the planet. Who can take without alarm any of their threats to emasculate our right to defend our personal liberties?

Agreed..   Thanks to Andrew Napolitano for reminding us how much our precious Second Amendment is protected.  Andrew is a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey.  He is the author of nine books on the U.S. Constitution.

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.

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.

Many guns used by criminals bought on black market, study shows

As the gun-control debate continues to rage, a survey released this month by the Department of Justice (DOJ) showed that many armed criminals have relied on the black market for guns. Based on the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI), about 1 in 5 – 21 percent – of all state and federal prisoners reported they had “possessed or carried a firearm when they committed the offense for which they were serving time in prison.” According to the study, an estimated 287,400 prisoners possessed a firearm during their offense. The findings concluded 6 percent had stolen the weapon, 7 percent found it at a crime scene and 43 percent obtained it off the street or on the black market. More than 25 percent had received it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. About 1.3 percent of all prisoners obtained a gun from a retail source and used it during their offense, the study stated. Moreover, among the prisoners who possessed a firearm during their offense, “0.8 percent obtained it at a gun show.” Overall, handguns were the most common type of firearm possessed by prisoners, and about 1 in 5 state and federal prisoners who possessed a firearm during their offense obtained it with the intent to use it during the crime.

Some interesting figures..  Bottom line..  VERY few guns used in crime are obtained at gun shows…  And many criminals get their weapons illegally.  Imagine that!  Keep that in mind the next time you hear some Dem politician or political hack say, “we need to close the gun show loophole.”  It’s a talking point that means nothing.  There is no “loophole.”  If you buy a firearm at a gun show (something I’ve personally done on more than occasion), you undergo a background check there and cannot leave with your purchase until that background check comes back clean.  Period.