Category: Gun Rights

Bloomberg is dumping 3 million into the ballot fight we have going in Maine. I appreciate that the Associated Press was kind enough to note:

“Two gun safety groups in Maine are getting more than $3 million from a nonprofit backed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in preparation for a big gun control measure on the November ballot.”

The were jerks to call them “gun safety groups” instead of “gun control groups,” but they did note that this is Bloomberg’s effort, and that this is a gun control measure. Everytown has gone to great lengths to try to push money man behind the scenes, and shake off the image that this is meddling by a New York City billionaire. Don’t let them get away with it. Make sure everyone knows what this is, and that this fight is not actually about background checks.

Over at “The Federalist,” it is reporting that the author, Devin Watkins, went down to the DC Police Station and applied for a license to carry, leaving the “good cause” section blank. He was told by the officers that they had been instructed to ignore the court order that good cause may not be considered in applications. It never ceases to amaze me how lawless of a lot of big city officials are. If they deny anyone a license for lack of good cause, everyone up and down that chain of command should be held in contempt.

As it stands now, DC is claiming it never told officers any such thing, and that they will be complying with the court order as long as it is in effect. They also say anyone denied a permit for lack of good cause my reapply.

Seen on the Internets, via Tam:

At this point we’re going to get a probably anti-gun president or a definitely anti-gun president.

What I’m trying to avoid is the constant losertalk of “OH MY GOD BURY YOUR GUNS AND BUY ALL THE PRIMERS” that I had to put up with in ’08 and ’12. We’ve beat this before and we’ll beat it again. Now send some dough to the NRA-ILA, SAF, and GOA, then hop out of the wagon and help pull this thing.

I am by no means pleased Trump is the presumptive nominee, but I do not join with many on the right with all the doom and gloom. If there’s one thing I won’t be in the business of this election it’s predicting Donald Trump.

I actually don’t think Trump will be too bad on the gun issue. I know, I know… he’s said anti-gun things in the past and he’s duping people and lying to us. The truth is they are all lying, except the rare pol who’s actually a shooter. They arrived at their position on this issue by cold political calculation, and as many other interests as Trump has goofed and fumbled, he’s been more consistent with us.  So I don’t worry about Trump on the gun issue too much. Though on everything else…. that’s a different story.

But even if the worst case happens and Hillary is President for the next four or god forbid eight years, we’ll weather. Oh, we may have setbacks. Some may be quite severe. But if you look at the success of the concealed carry movement, the gun rights movement is probably the only movement active today that could pass an Amendment to the federal constitution, and I think we should be prepared to pull that wagon should it become necessary. I hope folks at NRA are reading. I think we will likely need to think about a federal constitutional amendment to do what the Second Amendment should have done in the first place. It’s a hard wagon to haul, but I think we can do it.

It would be a pity for this story to get buried under the Obama smart gun smoke and mirrors, but you might remember from last July, the Obama Administration proposed a broad ban on certain Social Security recipients from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Kate Pavlich is reporting the Administration is now planning to move ahead with that regulation. Anyone taking Social Security through a designated payee could be placed in the NICS system as someone who is mentally ill, and thus prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.

They haven’t even been in place for four months, and already the rest of the camel is coming under the tent. Via the Firearms Policy Coalition:

Authored by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), the bill massively expands a controversial law that has only been in place for 4 months. At present, current law permits family members and peace officers to petition a court, in secret, in order to restrain an individual from possessing firearms. AB 2607 compounds this measure by adding, to the list of qualified petitioners, employers, coworkers, mental health workers, and employees of a secondary or postsecondary school.

There’s way too much potential for abuse with this, and as FPC has pointed out, it would put gun owners in fear of seeking any kind of health treatment for fear an anti-gun doctor will report them to the authorities, causing them to get raided.

They are showing their cards. They want to be able to deny you a fundamental, constitutional right on the flimsiest of evidence with no due process, and if Hillary wins in November, they will almost certainly get away with it.

Polling done by the NSSF shows that 72% of Americans disagree with Hillary Clinton on repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Even a plurality of “Strong Democrats” favor PLCAA. Independents and voters who lean Democrat overwhelmingly support PLCAA.

Ultimately, I think people get that you don’t sue Seagrams from Drunk Driving accidents, and don’t sue McDonalds over the obesity epidemic. Culturally, I think we’re very well off with the right to keep and bear arms, despite an overwhelming cultural campaign over the past few years to try to consign us to the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, I think over the past several, gun rights politically is being swept along by winds from a brewing political storm of historic proportions, and our destiny is now well beyond our control.

Clinton stands a very good chance of winning in November, not because she’s popular, but because the Republican Party is not united, and may be in the process of completely cracking up. Obviously, with the court the way it is, we won’t have a Second Amendment if Hillary picks the next few justices on the court.

Millennial women seem to care about protecting gun rights at least as much as abortion, despite having an uncomfortable leaning toward the assault weapons banning kooky socialist from Vermont. As I’ve said before, it doesn’t really matter whether the Millennials don’t have the gun banning fervor of those that came before them. If they care enough about the issue, they’ll vote on it. If they keep voting for people like Hillary and Bernie, they’ll soon find they don’t have any gun rights. How much do they really care then?