Categories
Atf pistol brace rule Biden administration Gun accessories gun control gun rights Intelwars Second Amendment Stabilizing pistol brace

Biden’s ATF moves could turn millions of gun owners with a certain accessory into potential felons

Gun rights activists are pledging to fight a new rule proposed by the Biden administration that could turn millions of gun owners into potential felons.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives on Monday proposed a new regulation that would define a handgun as a short-barreled rifle if it is equipped with a stabilizing pistol brace, a popular gun accessory. The rule would make most guns equipped with such a brace illegal under the National Firearms Act, requiring gun owners to either register, forfeit, or disassemble their weapons or else they be charged with a felony offense.

According to one government estimate, as many as 40 million gun owners could be affected by the rule change.

“[W]hen individuals use accessories to convert pistols into short-barreled rifles, they must comply with the heightened regulations on those dangerous and easily concealable weapons,” the Department of Justice said in a statement announcing the new rules. President Joe Biden’s DOJ claimed that stabilizing braces “make it easy for people to convert pistols into these more dangerous weapons without going through the statute’s background check and registration requirements.”

The proposed rule is a fulfillment of an executive order issued by President Biden.

ATF states that a gun with a brace that is intended to be fired from the shoulder by its manufacturer will be considered a short-barreled rifle. ATF has created a complicated “worksheet” that implements a point system to help owners, retailers, and regulators determine if a gun with a stabilizing brace should be classified as a pistol or instead as a rifle. Factors under consideration include measures like the weight or length of the firearm, the design of the brace, but also “peripheral accessories” that may be attached to the gun like “flip-up sights.”

The agency said stabilizing braces that are intended for individuals with disabilities and are not used for shouldering the weapon like a rifle would not be affected by the rules change.

Gun owners in possession with a handgun equipped with a stabilizing brace that meets the ATF’s proposed definition of a short-barreled rifle must pay a $200 tax stamp and apply to register the weapon with the agency as a rifle. If they do not wish to do so, they would have to remove the brace or remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer barrel to the firearm so that it does not fall under the provisions of the National Firearms Act. Failing that, they could either destroy their weapon or turn it over to a local ATF office, which opponents say is tantamount to gun confiscation.

ATF will receive comments on the rule for 90 days before it is posted in the Federal Register.

According to the ATF’s estimate, between 3 million and 7 million braces are owned by American gun owners and approximately 1.9 million would be affected by the rule.

Gun rights activists blasted the rule as too far-reaching, pointing to estimates that indicate tens of millions more gun owners would be impacted than ATF claims.

“Today’s proposed rule making on pistol-braced firearms represents a gross abuse of executive authority,” Aidan Johnston, director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, said in a statement. “Millions of otherwise law-abiding gun owners now will be forced to destroy, register, or surrender their lawfully-acquired pistol-braced firearms.”

Alex Bosco, the inventor of the stabilizing brace, told the Reload that his company, SB Tactical, manufactured and sold at least 2 million of their best-selling SBA3 model braces alone, which would be outlawed under the proposed ATF rules. SB Tactical makes several other models of stabilizing braces and there are at least seven other manufacturers who compete with them, The Reload reported.

An April 2021 estimate by the Congressional Research Service said there are between 10 and 40 million braces owned by American citizens.

“It will be the largest gun registration, destruction, and confiscation scheme in American history,” Bosco said.

Gun Owners of America and other activist organizations have promised to fight the ATF’s rule during the comments period.

“Gun owners are disgusted by today’s blatant infringement on their right to keep arms by the Biden Administration,” Johnston said. “Gun Owners of America will work to defeat these unlawful regulations during the comment period or, failing that, through legal action.”

“Just as FPC did when the Trump Administration’s DOJ lawlessly declared that bump-stocks were machine guns, we will use every available resource to defend the People’s human right to keep and bear arms from attacks by the ATF,” said Adam Kraut, Firearms Policy Coalition senior director of legal operations. “We stand ready to defend the People, human liberty, and personal property in this rulemaking process and, if necessary, in court.”

Anything Else?

Watch this video, courtesy of Mission Ridge Range & Academy, for a quick explainer on the difference between a short-barreled rifle and a pistol with a stabilizing brace:

Share
Categories
assault weapons ban California Federal judge gun rights Intelwars Second Amendment Us district court

Federal judge strikes down California’s 30-year-old ban on assault weapons

A federal judge on Friday struck down California’s three-decade-old ban on so-called “assault weapons”, declaring the law unconstitutional in a ruling hailed by gun rights activists.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California said the state’s assault weapons ban unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of the right to own firearms that are commonly owned in other states and do not fall under the Supreme Court’s definition of a weapon that is not protected by the Second Amendment.

“Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller,” Benitez wrote in his opinion. ” Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.”

He called the California law a “failed experiment” to prevent mass shootings or attacks on law enforcement. “Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive,” Benitez declared. The judge issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the ban but stayed his order for 30 days to give state Attorney General Rob Bonta time to appeal the court’s decision.

“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes,” Benitez said. “Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.”

California was the first state in the nation to ban the sale of “military-style assault weapons” in 1989. State law defined an “assault weapon” as one of three types of firearms. The first is a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has one of the following features: a pistol grip that protrudes “conspicuously” beneath the action of the rifle, a thumbhole stock, a folding or telescoping stock, a grenade or flare launcher, a flash suppressor, or a forward pistol grip. The second type is a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine that can hold 10 or more rounds. The third type of banned firearm is a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

In 2019, California resident James Miller and several state gun rights groups including the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition challenged the law in court. Plaintiffs argued that gun owners who wanted to use high-capacity magazines in their legal semiautomatic rifles or pistols were prohibited from doing so by the California law, which would impose criminal penalties on otherwise law-abiding citizens for modifying their firearms.

The lawsuit said California is “one of only a small handful states to ban many of the most popular semiautomatic firearms in the nation because they possess one or more common characteristics, such as pistol grips and threaded barrels.”

The state argued that firearms classified as assault weapons under the law were more dangerous and were used in more crimes and mass shootings.

Benitez observed that facts don’t support the state’s assertions and that the law has not demonstrably prevented mass shootings.

“One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles,” he said. “The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter.”

Benitez also ridiculed the term “assault weapon”, calling it a “misnomer.”

“These prohibited guns, like all guns, are dangerous weapons. However, these prohibited guns, like all guns, can be used for ill or for good. They could just as well be called ‘home defense rifles’ or ‘anti-crime guns,'” said the judge.

Reacting to the decision, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) slammed the court’s opinion.

“Today’s decision is a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians, period,” he said in a statement. “As the son of a judge, I grew up with deep respect for the judicial process and the importance of a judge’s ability to make impartial fact-based rulings, but the fact that this judge compared the AR-15 – a weapon of war that’s used on the battlefield – to a Swiss Army Knife completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who’ve lost loved ones to this weapon. We’re not backing down from this fight, and we’ll continue pushing for common sense gun laws that will save lives.”

But gun rights groups praised the ruling.

“In his order today, Judge Benitez held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” said Firearms Policy Coalition president Brandon Combs. “This historic victory for individual liberty is just the beginning, and FPC will continue to aggressively challenge these laws throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court.”

Share
Categories
2a Firearms Gun Sales guns Intelwars Second Amendment

Firearm sales soared during the pandemic; new gun owners surged, especially among minorities and women

The coronavirus pandemic, along with the regular protests and riots in American cities, fueled a buying binge of guns across the nation. The uncertainty of 2020 spurred unprecedented gun sales in the United States, including a wave of new gun owners, especially among minorities and women.

Last year ended up being the highest gun sale year since the current record-keeping system went into effect, according to USA Today. Gun sales skyrocketed 40% in 2020 compared to 2019, with a record 39,695,315 background checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The gun buying surge has continued into 2021 in a major way. In January, which is when Joe Biden was inaugurated as president, U.S. gun sales soared 60% to 4,137,480, the largest single month since figures started to be recorded in 1998.

“There was a surge in purchasing unlike anything we’ve ever seen,” Dr. Garen J. Wintemute, a gun researcher at the University of California at Davis, said. “Usually it slows down. But this just kept going.”

But the gun spending spree isn’t reserved for only gun enthusiasts who are stocking up in fear of a Democratic president who has already proclaimed that he will sign an executive order on gun control, which would roll back Second Amendment rights. Plus, Democrats previously introduced a bill to create a mandatory and publicly accessible registry listing the names of gun owners, how many guns they have, and where they keep their firearms.

“Not only were people who already had guns buying more, but people who had never owned one were buying them too,” the New York Times reported. “New preliminary data from Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center show that about a fifth of all Americans who bought guns last year were first-time gun owners.”

The research found that new gun owners were less likely to be the typical demographic of white males: Half were women, one-fifth were black, and one-fifth were Hispanic.

Stephen Gutowski, founder of The Reload, a publication on America’s firearms policy, told NPR, “I think it’s actually a – part of a larger trend. We’ve seen this going on for over a decade now. Gun owners have become more suburban. They’ve become less white and less male and younger over that time period. And what you saw last year was just an acceleration of that.”

The General Social Survey, a public opinion poll conducted by a research center at the University of Chicago, found that 39% of American households own guns, up from 32% in 2016.

Share
Categories
Alcohol tobacco and firearms AR-15 assault weapons ban ATF David chipman gun rights Intelwars rifles Second Amendment

Joe Biden’s nominee to head ATF suggests ‘assault weapons’ ban would cover much more than AR-15s

President Joe Biden’s radically pro-gun control nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives confirmed Wednesday, when pressed by Republican senators, that he supports a ban on a wide range of so-called “assault-style weapons,” which include more rifles than just an AR-15.

David Chipman, a longtime gun control lobbyist with more than two decades experience working for ATF, faced questions from several Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans on his views on guns, admitting to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that he supports a ban on AR-15 rifles and would enforce such a ban if Congress were to legislate one.

“Mr. Chipman, a minute ago Sen. Whitehouse asked you if any of your views on guns are out of step with a majority of the American people. The AR-15 is one of, if not the most popular rifle in America. It’s not a machine gun, it’s a rifle. Your public position is that you want to ban AR-15s, is that correct?” Cruz asked.

“With respect to the AR-15, I support a ban,” Chipman answered. “The AR-15 is a gun I was issued on ATF’s S.W.A.T team and it’s a particularly lethal weapon and regulating it as other particularly lethal weapons, I have advocated for.”

Chipman works as a senior policy adviser at Giffords, a gun control advocacy group let by former Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords, who was severely injured in a shooting attack in 2011. In that capacity, he has advocated for limits on high-capacity magazines and a federal assault weapons ban.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and others pressed Chipman to define the term “assault weapons,” which some gun control proponents with limited knowledge of firearms have come to use as a catch-all phrase to describe guns they don’t like.

Cotton wanted specifics, asking, “What is an assault weapon?”

“Senator, an assault weapon would be — in the context of the question you asked — what Congress defines it as,” Chipman answered in an attempt to dodge the question.

“So you’re asking us to ban assault weapons, we have to write legislation, can you tell me what is an assault weapon? How would you define it if you were the head of the ATF?” Cotton pressed.

Chipman eventually cited the ATF to define an assault rifle as “any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine above the caliber of .22.”

“I”m amazed that might be the definition of an assault weapon,” Cotton said. “That would basically cover every single modern sporting rifle in America today.”

Share
Categories
Child gun crime Children and guns Children shooting guns Intelwars Maine 2yrold shoots Maine gun laws Second Amendment

A 2-year-old accidentally shot his mother in the leg and his father in the head, Maine police said

Maine police are investigating a bizarre incident where a 2-year-old is said to have picked up a handgun and shot his mother in the leg and his father in the back of his head.

Sagadahoc County Sheriff Joel Merry said the incident occurred at a home in West Bath around 8 a.m. Wednesday before the couple had woken up.

Merry said the child picked up the handgun from a nightstand and shot his parents. The boy was also injured after being struck in the head by the gun from the recoil.

Each parents was struck by the same bullet.

“The question of how the boy was able to pick up and fire the weapon is of great concern and is being investigated. This situation, while disturbing, could have had an even more tragic ending. We are thankful that the injuries were not more serious,” Merry said.

All three were transported to a local hospital but none of their injuries are considered life-threatening. They are all expected to fully recover.

Merry said that the couple also had a 3-month-old baby but that the child not at the home at the time of the incident. That child is in the care of its grandmother.

He also cautioned gun-owning parents to take precautions against children having access to guns.

“You’re never too young to be able to pick up a handgun and have an accidental discharge,” Merry said.

“So you need to take care of firearms, they need to be kept in a secure location, or they need to be protected with a trigger lock,” he added.

Gun control advocates used the incident to push for a bill that would make it a crime in Maine for anyone to leave loaded guns around a child that leads to the child firing a gun.

No charges were filed in that incident.

Here’s a local news report about the incident:


2-year-old shoots parents inside West Bath home, sheriff says

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
Concealed Carry Permit gun rights handguns Intelwars open carry Second Amendment South Carolina

South Carolina Senate rejects constitutional carry, passes open carry with requirements

The Republican-controlled South Carolina Senate on Thursday passed a watered-down open carry bill that would allow trained gun owners with a concealed weapon permit to carry their handguns in public view.

Conservative Republicans in the state Senate attempted to expand the legislation into a full-on “constitutional carry” bill to let all legal gun owners carry firearms publicly without a permit, but nine GOP senators voted to reject the amendment.

The bill that passed Thursday requires people who have concealed weapons permits to undergo training and background checks to be allowed to carry their handguns openly. The training must include how to properly holster a firearm and de-escalation techniques for hostile situations. Those applying for a concealed weapons permit must also fire a minimum of 25 rounds during training.

Following several days of heated debate, during which Democrats decried a bleak future where Wild West shootouts occur in South Carolina streets, the bill passed 28-16 with just one Republican opposed.

“It’s just a recipe for disaster that can easily be avoided,” state Sen. Kevin Johnson (D) said. “I’m just asking that we think very carefully about what we’re doing to our beautiful state by turning into a scene from the wild, wild west.”

Democrats observed that doctors and law enforcement officers testified in opposition to the bill during subcommittee hearings.

“The medical community is against this bill, law enforcement is against the bill, the business community is against the bill and, overwhelmingly, the people of South Carolina are against the bill,” state Sen. Marlon Kimpson (D) said. “Who do we represent?”

Republicans countered that it is legal in South Carolina to carry a long gun openly in public and few state residents choose to do so.

“I don’t think open carry with a pistol will be an issue, either,” state Sen. Tom Corbin (R) said.

South Carolina is currently one of only five states without some form of open carry law, along with California, Florida, Illinois, and New York.

Gov. Henry McMaster (R) has pledged to sign any bill the legislature passes that protects Second Amendment rights.

State Sen. Shane Martin (R) led the unsuccessful effort to amend the bill to let all legal gun owners carry firearms openly, no permit required.

“I want everyone to be able to exercise his or her constitutional rights, but I don’t want our government to have to tell us how to do that,” Martin said.

After his amendment failed, Martin told the State he was “disappointed” but added that he has “no regrets” over the way things turned out.

“I won’t give up advocating for it. I was so close,” he said. “The Senate’s not ready for it yet.”

Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey (R), one of the Republicans who voted to reject the constitutional carry amendment, said having background check and training requirements is important for safety and in line with how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment.

“It’s important to be able to demonstrate at least a minimal proficiency in handling weapons,” he said.

Share
Categories
2a Greg Abbott gun rights Intelwars Permitless carry Second Amendment Texas

Permitless carry of a handgun in Texas nearly law after Senate passes ‘constitutional carry’ bill

The Texas Senate passed a bill that will allow citizens to carry handguns without the requirement of a permit, paving the way for a Second Amendment victory in the Lone Star State.

“HB 1927 would recognize the United States Constitution as our permit to carry and allow all law-abiding adults, aged 21 years or older, to carry a handgun for the protection of themselves or their families, in public places, in a holster, without the requirement of a state-issued license,” state Sen. Charles Schwertner (R), a sponsor of the bill, said.

House Bill 1927 was passed by the Texas Senate by an 18-13 vote on Wednesday night after six hours of debate, and now returns to the House, which passed similar legislation earlier this year. If the legislation passes in the House, it will then go to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who said he would sign the legislation if it reached his desk, which would mark a win for gun rights activists.

“I support it, and I believe it should reach my desk, and we should have ‘constitutional carry’ in Texas,” Abbott told radio host Rick Roberts last month.

“People are already allowed to have constitutional carry for long guns in the state of Texas. This just adds handguns, someone has to still go through a background check when they buy a handgun,” Abbott told KDFW-TV. “I think it can get across the finish line. Constitutional carry exists in 20 states already.”

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) said the passing of the bill was an example of the state’s strong support of the Second Amendment.

“I am proud that the Texas Senate passed House Bill 1927 today, the Constitutional Carry bill, which affirms every Texan’s right to self-defense and our state’s strong support for our Second Amendment right to bear arms. In the Lone Star State, the Constitution is our permit to carry,” Patrick said in a statement. “We have moved quickly on this legislation and I want to thank all those involved who helped gather the votes needed to pass this historic bill.”

“This bill doesn’t change public safety laws. Individuals currently prohibited from possessing a firearm will still be prohibited. Openly carrying a handgun in places where carrying is now restricted, like schools, polling places, & hospitals remain prohibited,” the Texas Senate GOP tweeted. “HB 1927 does not impact the purchase or transfer of a firearm, background checks required to purchase a firearm, and the ability of business and private property owners to exclude the use of handguns on their property. The Republican-led Texas Senate will continue defending your 2nd Amendment rights and applaud Senator Schwertner for sponsoring this liberty-expanding bill!”

Democrats sounded the alarm about the bill, claiming that the legislation puts Texans at risk.

“More criminals are going to walk around with guns openly, I promise you,” state Sen. Roland Gutierrez (D) said during the floor debate, according to the Dallas Morning News. “More vigilantes are going to rise up.”

“Today, by allowing dangerous permitless carry legislation to move forward, disgraced Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is setting Texans up to lose more loved ones to gun violence,” the Texas Democratic Party said, according to Fox News. “Texas Republicans continue to be a major threat to public safety, this time attempting to remove all requirements for people to carry a handgun in public.”

“Republicans in the Texas Senate have prioritized more unregulated guns at the expense of public safety,” the Texas Senate Democratic Caucus warned. “Texas Senate Republicans are making it easier for dangerous individuals to carry a gun nearly everywhere they go.”

Texas Senate Democratic Caucus Chair Carol Alvarado said, “HB 1927 strips away the last remaining safeguards protecting Texans from untrained and unfit individuals being able to carry a handgun in public.”

Share
Categories
constitutional carry Firearms gun rights Intelwars open carry Second Amendment South Carolina

South Carolina advances ‘open carry with training’ bill

“Open carry” legislation is progressing in South Carolina after the state House approved a bill to let concealed weapons permit-holders carry handguns openly in public.

The bill passed 82-33, mostly along party lines, with the Republican majority carrying it through, the Post and Courier reported. It would implement “open carry with training,” a compromise between gun control supporters and staunch believers in the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Bobby Cox (R), said 45 states have some form of open carry law and his bill “will bring us in line with the rest of the country.”

“We have to do better, and we are doing better,” Cox said. “This is sending a message that these legislators and myself stand with the citizens of South Carolina to protect our constitutional freedoms.”

Democrats warned that open carry policies could have an adverse affect on black South Carolinians, who might be profiled by police for openly wielding firearms.

“This does not support or help people who look like me,” state Rep. Jermaine Johnson (D) said, noting that he is a 6-foot-7-inch, 285-pound black man. “If I end up in somebody’s body bag or someone’s morgue, I want you to think about the way you voted today.”

House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford (D) offered an amendment to prohibit the police from detaining someone just because they are openly carrying a gun, but the House voted down that amendment.

State law enforcement officials are opposed to the bill, believing police lives may be put in danger if anyone can openly carry a handgun.

The bill now heads to the state Senate, where historically gun rights bills have faced opposition. However, Republicans expanded their Senate majority in the 2020 election and the newly elected lawmakers are excited to fulfill their campaign promises by advancing gun rights.

“I think there’s a renewed energy within the caucus to do something about it, and certainly some of us who flipped seats in no small part based on issues like this are going to be pretty vocal about it,” freshman state Sen. Josh Kimbrell (R) told the Post and Courier.

Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey (R) said he supports the bill but would not say if the Senate would consider it before the end of the current legislative session.

A spokesman for South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) said the governor would sign the bill if it passes through the legislature.

Share
Categories
2nd Amend. Burgess owens gun control gun rights guns Intelwars Second Amendment

GOP Rep. Burgess Owens blasts Democrats’ push for ‘racist’ gun control laws

Former NFL star Burgess Owens, who is now serving as a U.S. representative from Utah, took to the House floor this week to rip two gun control measures being pushed by the Democratic majority.

The two bills, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446, have the full backing of the Biden administration and are opposed by pro-Second Amendment groups.

H.R. 8 will expand universal background check requirements to include all private firearm transactions, require private gun sales to go through a licensed dealer, and effectively ban adults age 18 to 20 years old from buying handguns.

H.R. 1446 will extend the time the FBI has to perform an “instant” background check from three business days to at least 10 business days, Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards reported. The bill “could extend the waiting period indefinitely,” Edwards added.

Rep. Owens had a big problem with both of these bills — and he noted that this kind of gun control was often used to keep blacks in check.

What did he say?

In a floor speech Wednesday, Owens cited concerns his constituents expressed that the bills will “make it impossible to sell or loan guns” to relatives or trusted friends and will “impose restrictions on natural rights.”

Owens vowed to fight the bills with “every tool in my grasp” in his stand for “rights to protect my life, liberty and property” that “were granted to me by God and cannot be taken from me by D.C. bureaucrats.”

Then the former defensive back explained why Americans — especially minorities — should not allow the government to curb their Second Amendment rights: It was the government that kept blacks down with discriminatory laws, including gun proscription.

“I grew up in the Deep South at a time when black Americans were unable to defend themselves,” he said. “After the Civil War, Black Codes and Jim Crow laws prohibited people of color from owning firearms.”

Owens then reminded lawmakers that “racist gun control laws” kept Martin Luther King Jr. from being able to fully protect himself.

“In the mid-1950s, Martin Luther King Jr. kept firearms for self-protection, but his application for a concealed weapons permit was denied because of racist gun control laws in his state,” Owens said.

And then he got personal, sharing the story of how important guns were in his family to protect against attacks from whites in the South:

As a child, my dad witnessed an altercation between his father and a southern white man who thought my grandfather was being disrespectful and threatened to teach him a lesson. Later that night, he drove up to my grandfather’s home with a bunch of his friends standing on the forerunner of a Model-T Ford.

My grandfather was prepared — he and his brothers hid around his front porch. As these bullies and cowards approached the house, they heard the click of rifles and left just as fast as they came.

Without ever firing his gun on another human being, my grandfather’s right to own a firearm ensured his rights to protect his life, liberty, and property.

Unfortunately, Owens’ words fell on deaf congressional ears. The Democratic House majority passed both measures Wednesday evening.


GOP lawmaker invokes Martin Luther King Jr. in opposition to gun control bill

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
Congress gun control Hr 8 Intelwars Second Amendment Universal background checks Us house

US House passes bill to criminalize all unlicensed private firearm transfers

The U.S. House of Representatives passed an expansive gun control bill that would criminalize firearm sales, gifts, or loans between unlicensed private persons.

On Wednesday, the House passed H.R. 8, the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021,” a bill that expands universal background checks for private firearm transactions, requires all private firearms transactions to go through a licensed dealer, effectively bans persons age 18-20 from purchasing handguns, and contains only limited exemptions for self-defense. The bill passed 227 to 203, with eight Republicans voting with the Democratic majority in favor.

Democrats and gun control advocates praised the bill’s passage, arguing the expanded background checks will help save lives.

“As a mother who lost her child to the very gun violence that every one of us have been fighting to eradicate, thank you. Thank you to all who have been fighting,” Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), vice chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and original co-sponsor of the legislation, said. In 2012, McBath’s son Jordan Davis was murdered by a gunman after an argument over loud music outside a convenience store.

“WE DID IT! At the urging of thousands of our volunteers and other gun safety advocates, the U.S. House just passed #HR8, a bill to require background checks on ALL gun sales in America with bipartisan support!” Moms Demand Action said, before urging the Senate to act.

“Background checks save lives, and during the last year, the need for them has only become clearer. Loopholes in the background check laws have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning more guns sold to people without a background check, and more guns in the hands of people who should not have them,” Everytown for Gun Safety said in a call to action campaign published after the bill passed the House.

However, opponents of the bill warn it would infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment right to bear arms and criminalize lending or gifting a firearm to family members or friends without government approval.

“This bill would criminalize every transfer of a firearm unless it first goes through a government screening process — aka, gun owner registration — or unless the transfer fulfills one of the very few exemptions in the legislation,” Gun Owners of America said. “NOTE: Because ‘transfer’ is not defined, even handing a gun to a neighbor could be severely punished.”

H.R. 8 requires that all loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a licensed firearm importer, manufacturer, or dealer. An individual who wanted to buy a handgun from his cousin, for example, would have to go to the gun store and have a federal background check completed before the sale is finalized. The individuals engaged in the private firearm transaction must pay the same fees, file the same paperwork, and have the same records kept as if they were buying a new gun from a licensed dealer. While the transaction is being processed, the licensed dealer will take possession of the firearm.

Under the bill, unlawful gun transfers would be a felony. David Kopel, writing for Reason, explained: “If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon. Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.”

Kopel also described how the bill would ban handgun sales to any adult ages 18 to 20:

Since 1968, federal law has said that gun stores may not sell handguns to persons under 21. 18 U.S.C. § 922(c)(1). Congress has not chosen to prohibit persons aged 18-20 from acquiring handguns elsewhere. The large majority of states allow handgun possession by persons 18-20.

Some legislators have forthrightly introduced bills to impose a ban on young adults. HR8 prohibits young adults from acquiring handguns, but does so with a clever subterfuge.

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

Further, the bill empowers the attorney general to promulgate regulations setting the minimum fees licensed gun dealers may charge to facilitate a gun transfer and explicitly prohibits the government from capping those fees. So for example, the amount a man must pay to give his brother-in-law ownership of a firearm is only limited by the discretion of the current attorney general at the direction of whoever is president of the United States.

Loans or gifts to family members are permitted only for direct relatives and only if there is no payment of any form involved.

A partial self-defense exemption to proposed gun transfer laws exists for “a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm, including the harm of domestic violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse.”

There is also an exemption for “hunting, trapping, or fishing,” but no such exemption for gun loans on farms or ranches, unless the gun owner is physically present for the entirety of the transfer.

The bill now heads to the United States Senate, where it is unlikely to receive enough support to overcome a filibuster from the Republican minority.

Share
Categories
gun control guns Intelwars Joe Biden Merrick Garland mike lee Second Amendment

Merrick Garland admits his DOJ would ‘advance’ Joe Biden’s gun control agenda: ‘Entitled to pursue’

Merrick Garland, the nominee for attorney general, admitted Monday that the Department of Justice would most likely enforce President Joe Biden’s gun control agenda.

What did Garland say?

Garland revealed his philosophy toward the Second Amendment during questioning from Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R).

Lee asked, “Do you support banning of certain types of firearms?”

“Well, as I’m sure you know, the president is a strong supporter of gun control and has been an advocate all his professional life on this question,” Garland responded.

“The role of the Justice Department is to advance the policy program of the administration as long as it is consistent with the law,” he continued. “Where there is room under the law for the president’s policies to be pursued, then I think the president is entitled to pursue them.”

Garland, however, conceded the Supreme Court has given “a little indication” about the extent of the Second Amendment, a reference to
D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, two landmark Supreme Court cases affirming the fundamental nature of Second Amendment rights.

Garland later said his view is “totally controlled” by those Supreme Court precedents.


Senate holds Merrick Garland’s confirmation hearing

youtu.be

What about Biden’s gun goals?

Biden has made gun control a central concern of his political agenda, both throughout his presidential campaign and since taking office last month.

Biden’s aggressive gun control agenda includes, among other promises:

  • Banning the manufacture and sale of “assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” which Biden calls “weapons of war”
  • Restricting Americans to one firearm purchase per month
  • Ending online firearm and ammunition sale
  • Putting “America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns”
  • Requiring “gun owners to safely store their weapons”

While the constitutionality of assault weapons bans have yet to be determined by the Supreme Court — the high court rejected hearing 10 gun-related cases last year, which included cases involving assault weapons bans — the court has already ruled on at-home safety restrictions.

While many states require gun owners to keep firearms out of access for minors, there is no federal law mandating the safe storage of firearms.

However, the Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v. Heller that a portion of D.C.’s firearm regulations that required all firearms in a home be “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” was unconstitutional.

Still, the Supreme Court has affirmed that some restrictions on the Second Amendment are not unreasonable, and therefore permissible. Where the proverbial line in the sand exists, though, has not been made clear, and will likely be established in due time.

Anything else?

The White House confirmed last week that Biden may use executive action to enact his gun control agenda.

Biden earlier used the third anniversary of the Parkland, Florida, tragedy to push for gun control.

“Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets,” Biden said on Feb. 14.

Share
Categories
guns Intelwars Jefferson gun store Louisiana Second Amendment Shooting

Louisiana gunman learns the hard way not to open fire at people inside gun store

Armed citizens are being credited with saving lives after they engaged a gunman who opened fire on customers inside a Louisiana gun store on Saturday.

The Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office said a gunman opened fire inside the Jefferson Gun Outlet — a combination gun store and indoor shooting range located in Metairie, Louisiana — before being engaged by armed bystanders outside the store.

The gunman shot four people, killing two and leaving two others injured. The gunman was killed by the armed citizens.

The Jefferson Gun Outlet in Metairie, Louisiana. (Michael DeMocker/Getty Images)

“Arriving deputies located several victims suffering from gunshot wounds,” the JPSO said in a statement, Fox News reported. “Three individuals were pronounced dead on the scene, and two more were transported to a local hospital for treatment. The two transported victims are in stable condition.”

“At this time, it appears a suspect shot two victims inside the location, then was engaged and shot outside the location by multiple other individuals,” the statement continued. “The suspect is one of the deceased on scene.”

The incident happened shortly before 3 p.m. on Saturday.

What did witnesses say?

Michael Mayer, an executive at the Jefferson Gun Outlet, told the New York Times the gunman opened fire after becoming enraged by a request to unload his firearm before entering the store.

“He became agitated by the request and pulled his gun out of his pants and started firing,” Mayer told the Times. “Our armed and trained employees, as well as some armed permitted customers, returned fire and eliminated the threat.”

Tyrone Russell told the newspaper that he was taking a concealed carry permit class at the gun store when the shots rang out.

“All of a sudden, all I hear is a whole lot of gunshots,” Russell said, adding that “everybody started panicking” and “it was like a real shootout.”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said the agency’s New Orleans office is assisting with the investigation.

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment Biden administration gun control guns Intelwars Joe Biden Nancy Pelosi Parkland shooting Second Amendment

Biden uses Parkland anniversary to call on Congress to enact gun reforms: ban ‘assault weapons’ and ‘weapons of war’

On the third anniversary of the Parkland school shooting, President Joe Biden called on Congress to implement “commonsense gun law reforms.”

On Sunday, Biden made remarks about the horrific 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

“Three years ago today, a lone gunman took the lives of 14 students and three educators at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida,” Biden said in a statement. “In seconds, the lives of dozens of families, and the life of an American community, were changed forever.”

Biden called for gun control.

“This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call,” the president stated. “We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer.”

“Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets,” Biden declared. “We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also marked the anniversary of the tragedy by detailing how Democrats would enact gun control measures in Congress.

Pelosi proclaimed, “Today, we continue to grieve and work with the Parkland families and survivors who have turned their pain into courageous action, inspiring a movement across the country to say, ‘Enough is enough!’

“Last Congress, moved by the daily epidemic of gun violence and guided by the millions of young people marching for their lives, House Democrats took bold action to save lives and end the bloodshed by passing H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, and H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act,” Pelosi said in a statement on Sunday.

“Now, working with the Democratic Senate and Biden-Harris Administration, we will enact these and other life-saving bills and deliver the progress that the Parkland community and the American people deserve and demand,” Pelosi claimed.

To commemorate the lives lost from the Parkland shooting, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ordered flags to be flown at half-mast on Sunday. The Republican governor also implored Floridians to join him in a “moment of silence” at 3 p.m. in remembrance of the lives lost in the shooting.

DeSantis asked the country to mourn the lives of the victims, “Whereas, our state and nation continue to mourn and will always remember the lives of Alyssa Alhadeff, Scott Beigel, Martin Duque Anguiano, Nicholas Dworet, Aaron Feis, Jaime Guttenberg, Chris Hixon, Luke Hoyer, Cara Loughran, Gina Montalto, Joaquin Oliver, Alaina Petty, Meadow Pollack, Helena Ramsay, Alex Schachter, Carmen Schentrup and Peter Wang.”

The Parkland school shooting perpetrator is still awaiting trial.

“The case could have been all over by now. [The alleged shooter’s] lawyers have repeatedly said he would plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence. But prosecutors won’t budge on seeking the death penalty at trial,” the Associated Press reported.

Share
Categories
2nd Amend. gun rights guns Intelwars Second Amendment utah

Utah kills requirement that citizens get a permit to carry concealed guns

The people of Utah are about to see a layer of restrictions on their Second Amendment rights lifted.

Republican Gov. Spencer Cox told the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday that he would sign legislation this week to eliminate the permit requirement for residents of the Beehive State who want to carry concealed guns.

The new law, which passed both chambers of the Utah Legislature overwhelmingly, will allow any law-abiding Utahn 21 or older to carry concealed in the state. Naturally, people already prohibited from owning a gun, including convicted felons and the mentally ill, are not covered by the new policy.

Advocates for the bill called it a victory for gun owners and said it will be another layer of protection for people who are in danger because the current permitting process can take as long as 90 days, the Beacon said.

Pro-gun groups celebrated the soon-to-be law as evidence of the growing influence of Second Amendment advocates. More from the Beacon:

The repeal of permit requirements for concealed gun carry has accelerated over the past decade in a show of the increasing influence of gun owners and Second Amendment groups, especially at the state level. Utah is the 17th state to adopt a permitless carry system. While Vermont has used a permitless system since its founding, most states effectively banned any form of concealed gun carry until the mid-1990s. As recently as 1986, 16 states banned concealed gun carry while another 25 had laws allowing state officials to reject permit applications for any.

Now, no states outright ban concealed carry, and only eight states still allow officials to reject permit applicants who otherwise comply with training and background-check requirements.

Experts said the relaxation of concealed gun carry restrictions in recent years after concerted efforts from groups such as the National Rifle Association is proof of how influential politically active gun owners can be.

Of course, anti-gun groups claimed that loosening any gun laws will lead to increased gun violence.

But the bill’s sponsor, state Sen. David Hinkins (R), countered those typical talking points, noting that the safest states in the union — Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine — all have permit-less carry laws, the Beacon noted.

The law will go into effect on May 5.

Share
Categories
Constitution constitutional republic Intelwars Sanctuary counties Second Amendment

Horowitz: Missouri county authorizes arrest of feds who violate Second Amendment

What is our recourse when our own government criminalizes our most basic rights while it allows Black Lives Matter and Antifa to rampage through our streets with impunity? Is there no Plan B when the federal or state governments treat all conservatives like terrorists, business owners like pariahs, and those who yearn to breathe unmasked air like murderers? Well, one Missouri county is demonstrating the importance of sheriffs and county officials returning to self-government and interposing between the governmental usurpers and the most sacred rights of the people.

On Feb. 3, the Newton County, Missouri, Commission passed a bill that will not only block federal enforcement of unconstitutional gun policies, but criminalize their implantation thereof within the jurisdiction of the county. The “Second Amendment Preservation Act of Newton County Missouri” declares that “all federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations passed by the federal government and specifically any Presidential Administration whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in the county.”

That section of the Missouri constitution reads as follows:

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement.

Specifically, the ordinance targets federal policies that order the tracking or registering of firearms of ammunition, an idea that Democrats have been floating recently. It also bars the enforcement of any effort to confiscate guns except from those who are “suspected criminals.”

The Second Amendment sanctuary movement has been growing throughout the country, with hundreds of counties passing some form of a declaration protecting gun rights from encroachments perpetrated by higher levels of government. The sanctuary movement has only recently come to the state of Missouri, with several counties recently declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries and the state legislature pushing similar bills. But Newton County might have adopted the strongest language in the entire country – going so far as to criminalize enforcement or cooperation with federal law enforcement who seek to enforce such policies.

This is a takeoff of what states like New York did when they criminalized the cooperation between state and county government officials and Immigration and Customs Enforcement with regard to enforcement of federal immigration laws, even against illegal aliens with criminal records. The difference, of course, is that the Second Amendment sanctuary movement seeks to protect legitimate constitutional rights for Americans and, unlike the illegal alien sanctuary movement, does not harbor suspected criminals.

Specifically, section 4a of the Newton County ordinance grants the sheriff’s department “full authority to make an arrest of any and all federal agents that violate state laws and enforce regulations” that violate the Second Amendment. Finally, the ordinance bars anyone “who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements identified in this ordinance” from “being hired as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers in the county.”

It is to be hoped that this will spawn a debate in the country over what citizens should do when the higher levels of government violate the very essence of the social compact by wielding one executive power after another to confiscate the most foundational of natural rights, including self-defense, free speech, property rights, and the right to breathe free air unrestrained, which absolutely is a natural right that predated any government.

The Newton ordinance was signed by commissioners Bill Reiboldt, Alan Cook, and David Osborn on Feb. 3 and is effective immediately.

While most sanctuary ordinances have thus far targeted Second Amendment violations, some counties have begun to pass sanctuary resolutions protecting local business owners and citizens from COVID restrictions that violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. SanctuaryCounties.com is a website that tracks the growing list of these sanctuary counties. Also, a group of listeners of my podcast have organized a network (Constitution Action Network) for people of the same state and county to meet, collaborate, and raise awareness of the power of state and local government to interpose against the growing list of blatant constitutional violations and extra-lawful lawmaking at the stroke of Biden’s executive pen.

The left-wing sanctuary city politicians, while wrong on the policy and legal merits of their arguments, will likely rue the day they created this monster that will now serve as the only remaining beacon for patriots to protect legitimate rights of American citizens.

Share
Categories
Censorship Facebook bans gun group facebook censorship gun rights Intelwars Second Amendment

Facebook permanently bans pro-gun group without explanation: Report

In another concerning example of Big Tech censorship of conservatives, Facebook reportedly removed a pro-Second Amendment group’s page from its platform this week without providing an explanation.

What are the details?

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, an active gun-rights advocacy group in the commonwealth, told the Washington Free Beacon that the group’s page suddenly disappeared on Tuesday without any note from the tech giant.

In a statement, Facebook acknowledged the removal, calling its decision final, but made no mention as to why the action was taken.

“This was correctly actioned and we will not be republishing,” Facebook spokeswoman Kristen Morea said. According to the Free Beacon, Morea “declined to elaborate on the decision.”

Facebook confirmed the action to TheBlaze, noting that the page was removed and administrators were disabled for violating the company’s Community Standards. A Facebook “group” operated by VCDL remains active on the platform. Facebook added that its removal of the page came after employees re-reviewed their original action to remove violating content found on the page.

According to Van Cleave, the group reportedly used its Facebook page primarily to organize events and communicate with members about legislative initiatives, such as to raise awareness about Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s controversial 2020 gun control agenda and to mobilize efforts for “Lobby Day,” an annual pro-gun driving demonstration.

What else?

However, the group’s resistance efforts may have been interpreted much differently by some in the media. In a recent article published by the Guardian, VCDL appeared to be lumped into a large group of guns rights supporters that the news outlet said were “openly discussing violent resistance and civil war.”

In the article, VCDL was characterized as “a local pro-gun group that’s politically to the right of the National Rifle Association” that served as “the main driver” of the state’s the sanctuary movement. The movement pushes for local municipalities to act as sanctuaries for gun owners from national or state laws that are thought to impede upon citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Van Cleave was quoted in the article as saying, “I’m telling you, people that have never committed a crime, that are law-abiding, and pay their taxes, do everything right, don’t even have a speeding ticket, are saying, ‘I’m not giving up my guns.'”

Anything else?

The no-explanation ban issued by Facebook against VCDL may foreshadow similar bans against other conservative organizations, Van Cleave told the Free Beacon.

“If they did this to us, it’s just a matter of time,” he said. “I think we’re a high-profile group and that’s why we got singled out. Those who aren’t as high profile as we are, I’m sure they’re on the chopping block next.”

Van Cleave claimed neither he nor the group ever advocated violence or were involved with protesting the 2020 election results.

Share
Categories
Capitol building guns Intelwars Lauren boebert Rep boebert Rep lauren boebert Second Amendment

After triggering Democrats, Rep. Lauren Boebert appears to notch win on gun debate at the Capitol

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) is making quite the impression with her new colleagues on Capitol Hill, and she wasn’t sworn in until Sunday. Boebert, a gun rights advocate, pushed for bringing her own firearm to work with her in Washington, D.C. It appears that she may have won her first battle in the nation’s capital.

After she won her election in November, Boebert has discussed bringing her gun to the Capitol building. Boebert and any other member of congress can carry a firearm into their office thanks to a 1967 regulation that makes lawmakers exempt from the ban on firearms inside the Capitol building.

The rule states that no federal or District of Columbia laws restricting firearms “shall prohibit any Member of Congress from maintaining firearms within the confines of his office” or “from transporting within Capitol grounds firearms unloaded and securely wrapped.” However, the politicians are prohibited from carrying weapons into the House chamber and other nearby areas.

Boebert’s desire to utilize her Second Amendment right has triggered some Democrats. A letter was signed by 21 Democrats, who were led by Reps. Jared Huffman, Robin Kelly, and Jackie Speier. The Dec. 15 letter addressed to House Leadership requested a “change in House Rules for the 117th Congress to ensure that Members of Congress are held to the same firearm safety rules as the public while they are on Capitol grounds.”

“Ultimately, the current regulations create needless risk for Members of Congress, their staff, members of the Capitol Police, and visitors to the Capitol grounds,” the Democrats wrote.

Boebert, 34, responded with her own letter, which was signed by “83 members and member-elects of Congress in an effort to block a gun grab recently proposed by House Democrats.”

“I refuse to give up my Second Amendment rights,” Boebert wrote. “I’m a 5-foot tall, 100-pound mom with four children and will be walking to work and serving in one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. I choose to defend my family and my life with all of the force the Constitution provides. I will not let a bunch of gun-grabbing House Democrats take away my Constitutional right to protect myself.”

The rules for the 117th Congress were unveiled on Friday by Rules Committee Chairman James P. McGovern (D-Mass.) and newly re-elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who on Sunday afternoon narrowly edged Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) – 216 votes to 209.

The new rules for the 117th Congress did not appear to include the Democrats’ proposed ban on lawmakers carrying firearms inside the U.S. Capitol building — giving the House freshman Rep. Boebert a win on her first day on the job.

Share
Categories
Gun defense Intelwars Port arthur armed burglary Port arthur home invasion Port arthur lethal home invasion port arthur texas Second Amendment Self-Defense

Father shoots and kills armed burglar threatening his family during home invasion in Texas

A Texas father foiled a home invasion when he shot and killed one of three armed burglars who allegedly broke into his home and threatened his family at gunpoint, including two young children.

The alarming incident unfolded in Port Arthur, a city east of Houston, on Sunday.

Port Arthur police said that they were called to the home at about 8:30 p.m. and found a deceased 27-year-old who had been shot by the homeowner and father of the family.

The victims said that three armed burglars forced their way into the home as a female resident arrived at the house. The suspects allegedly demanded that the woman hand over her belongings.

From a separate room, the 29-year-old father of the home heard the commotion from the home invasion and confronted the intruders with his rifle. He says that he shot one of the intruders and the other two fled. Police are seeking the two suspects who escaped.

The father was trying to protect his two young children, who where also in the house at the time. Port Arthur Detective Mike Hebert told KBMT-TV that the suspect who was killed was not a stranger to the homeowner who killed him.

“We know that the individual who defended himself inside the house was an acquaintance of the suspect that was shot and killed within the house,” said Hebert.

Police said two other suspicious incidents occurred at the same residence.

Hours after the lethal shooting, the home was subject to a drive-by shooting, but no one was at the home at the time. Then, a day later, the home was engulfed in flames. Police are investigating whether the three incidents are connected.

The mother of the children, who doesn’t live at the house, said that her 5-year-old child was shaken up by the incident because one of the suspects pointed a gun at his face.

The deceased suspect was later identified and KBMT reported that he had been previously arrested for assault, numerous times for deadly conduct, and for making terroristic threats.

Here’s a local news report about the incident:


Deadly home invasion followed by shots fired call, house fire in Port Arthur

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
Armed carjacking attempt Armed carjacking attempt foiled Good guy with a gun Gun foils carjacking attempt Guns used for good Intelwars Missouri carjacking Second Amendment

Armed woman foils alleged carjacking attempt by three teens, and an 11-year-old

A woman foiled an alleged carjacking attempt when she pulled her own gun against the suspects, which included three teens and an 11-year-old.

The alarming incident unfolded about 7:30 a.m. Saturday in Wentzville, a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri.

The victim said that she was sitting in her vehicle when she was approached by a young man who was with three other youths. He asked her for directions but then produced a gun and demanded that she give him her vehicle, according to police.

She refused to leave the vehicle, and instead produced a gun of her own.

“Her actions caused the male subject with the firearm and the three other subjects to flee on foot,” the police report said, according to the St. Louis Dispatch.

Wentzville Police were called to the scene and were able to later apprehend three teenage suspects and an 11-year-old suspect. Two of the teens were 15 and the other one was 17.

Police said they recovered a firearm from one of the 15-year-olds, and they charged him with armed criminal action and attempted robbery. He was charged as an adult and remained under custody with a bond set at $50,000.

The other three suspects face charges of conspiracy to commit robbery. The minor is also charged with possession of alcohol.

Rochelle Harris told KSDK-TV that she believes she encountered the four youths in the parking lot of a convenience store on that same morning.

Harris said that one of the males asked her a question but that she got into her car and drove away.

“What happened to her was exactly what my fear was, from the moment I stepped out of my car,” Harris said.

Here’s more about the alarming incident from KSDK:


Carjacking foiled when victim pulls gun, 4 children arrested in Wentzville

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
Chainsaw attack hate crimes Intelwars Nebraska racial attack Norma nimox Second Amendment Tieesha essex Tiemonex

Racist chainsaw attack spurs on viral pro-Second Amendment video: ‘Oh hell no, not today!’

Business owner Tieesha Essex, a military veteran and police officer, filmed a viral video for her firearms accessory company, Tiemonex, after the attempted attack on 25-year-old Lincoln, Nebraska, black woman Norma Nimox.

What’s a very brief history?

According to a report from PJ Media, Essex was moved to film the ad following an apparent racially motivated attack on Nimox.

Authorities charged 41-year-old Daniel Stueck with a hate crime after he allegedly armed himself with a chainsaw and chased his neighbor, Nimox, while shouting racial slurs at her during a November incident.

Nimox, who is mother to a 5-year-old son, was able to outrun Steuck, and authorities captured the suspect and placed him under arrest for the bizarre crime.


A White Man Almost Chopped Up A Black Woman With A Chainsaw While Calling Her A Naker

www.youtube.com

What are the details of Essex’s video?

Essex’s company, Tiemonex, sells firearms accessories online.

In a now-viral message, Essex posed as Nimox in a parody video of the original incident and took a decidedly pro-Second Amendment slant on the incident. In the video, Essex claims that she was armed at the time of the incident and shot the suspect as he chased her with his chainsaw.

“I’m going out the steps of my apartment and I see this dude with a chainsaw,” Essex says in the video. “I’m like, who the hell does he think he is, Leatherface?”

Essex — as Nimox — describes how she saw the man give chase and begin using racial slurs to speak to her.

“Oh hell no, not today! Remember, I was wearing my Tiemonix belly band holster, I took out my gun and as soon as he started charging down them steps at me with that chainsaw, I shot his ass,” she said, showcasing how she would have handled the frightening incident if she were Nimox.

At the time of this reporting, the spoof video, shared to social media, has been viewed nearly 1 million times.

What else?

After Essex’s video went viral, she spoke with Nimox for an interview shared on her YouTube channel.

During the exchange, Essex offered to pay for any firearms training Nimox might consider taking in order to safely and legally use firearms in order to protect herself in the future.


#LivingWhileBlack The Norma Nimox Story | Surviving a HATE CRIME

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
Gov. cuomo covid Gov. cuomo covid restrictions for religious gatherings Intelwars religious liberty Second Amendment Supreme court slaps down cuomo

SCOTUS sides with 1st Amdt., slaps down Cuomo’s COVID restrictions on religious gatherings

The Supreme Court slapped down New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s COVID-19 restrictions on religious gatherings Wednesday, arguing that strict limitations on the number of people in churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship — while liquor stores, bike shops, and many other non-religious places face few or no restrictions at all — are in violation of the First Amendment.

On the radio program Monday, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere applauded Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who reportedly cast the deciding vote in the 5-4 ruling, as well as Justice Neil Gorsuch who took specific aim at Gov. Cuomo for limiting religious gatherings to as few as 10 people in some areas, while imposing “no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers ‘essential’.”

“It turns out the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores,” Gorsuch said. “Bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too.”

“Government is not free to disregard the 1st Amendment in times of crisis,” Gorsuch wrote in a separate opinion.

Gov. Cuomo has since called the Supreme Court ruling “moot” and “irrelevant” because he had recently lifted restrictions in most of the affected areas.

“This is a trick they play all the time. They’ve done this with Second Amendment cases as well,” Stu noted. “They’ll put a ridiculous restriction in that’s obviously not constitutional, keep it in place for a year while it goes through the courts, and right before it gets to the Supreme Court they withdraw the rule. So then the case gets thrown out because it’s moot.”

Watch the video below for more details:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Subscribe to BlazeTV today with our BEST DEAL EVER for $30 off with promo code GLENN.

Share
Categories
Conservative sanctuary Conservatives Intelwars Oklahoma legislature Oklahoma second amendment Second Amendment

Horowitz: When conservatives can’t even guarantee Second Amendment protection in Oklahoma …

When Donald Trump became president and it was widely assumed that there would be a crackdown on illegal immigration, Democrats swiftly moved to create a sanctuary for illegal aliens in every state they fully controlled. Well, if Democrats could create a sanctuary for people who have no right to be in the country, most certainly one would expect Republicans to create sanctuaries for Americans and constitutional rights in the states they control, right?

Think again.

Following this election in Oklahoma, Republicans will hold an 82-19 majority in the state House and a 39-9 majority in the Senate. Those are greater supermajorities than what Democrats hold in California. One would think that this state would be a sanctuary for freedom during coronavirus fascism, for self-defense during the era of BLM and gun confiscation, and all-around fiscal and social conservatism in an era of ubiquitous socialism and cultural Marxism. The problem with that assumption, though, is that conservatives don’t really have any majority, much less a supermajority. Liberal Republicans, who, by and large, are the less attractive side of the tyranny coin from the Democrats, are the ones who hold that majority.

In the days following the election, News 9 reported that Oklahoma state Sen. Nathan Dahm is drafting legislation to make the Sooner State a sanctuary from any potential unconstitutional violations of the First and Second Amendments in pursuit of a gun control agenda under a Joe Biden administration.

“A lot of how the feds try to implement these things is through local law enforcement, whether it’s county sheriffs, local police departments, and they try to attach funding to that to force those cities and counties to do that,” Dahm told News 9 in explaining the logic behind his proposal. “So what we could do is make sure that those cities and counties don’t accept any federal funding to implement any gun control measures.”

So why hasn’t this bill become law, given the GOP’s dominance in the legislature and the fact that such legislation has already been introduced in some form for several years?

“The Republicans have killed it in the state Senate each time,” said Don Spencer, president of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association, in an interview with Personal Defense World. “The Republicans are the problem of why you cannot get pro-Second Amendment legislation done in the state of Oklahoma. We have a supermajority in the Senate, a supermajority in the House and we have the Governor’s office, so there is no one else to blame.”

Across the country, Republicans are disenfranchising conservatives on nearly every issue of our time. If illegal aliens have states where they can go and claim sanctuary, why can’t Americans find a constitutional sanctuary against gun-grabbing and coronavirus fascism in any state?

What about morals and values? Despite Republicans controlling the trifecta of government in Oklahoma, conservatives have failed for years to pass meaningful legislation protecting life for the unborn. The only successful measures they seem to pass are jailbreak provisions to weaken sentencing and deterrent for criminals.

Obviously, issues pertaining to foreign policy and national security are controlled by the federal government. But for conservatives, if they actually had a party representing them, there is no reason why they couldn’t enjoy a sanctuary from coronavirus fascism, gun-grabbing, and violent crime and rioting in a substantial portion of the country. Trump likely won over 80% of the nation’s counties, and Republicans control the trifecta of government in 24 states. So why is it that there seems to be no place that is an asylum for civil and religious liberty as well as for law and order? Because we refuse to look beyond the wretched Republican Party for our representation.

Putting aside the obvious election fraud for a moment, let’s just say Trump lost the election. The reason why the base refuses to let go of Trump is because they don’t see anyone else in the party fighting for them. Everyone is focused like a laser beam on the Senate elections in Georgia as if the world hangs in the balance based on their outcome. But we all know that the Left will continue to enact its policies administratively (as they are successfully doing now in the states even under Trump) and Republicans will do nothing meaningful with control of the Senate to stop that through budget fights.

Again, just look at all the states where Republicans hold supermajorities – and we still have tyranny. Why should a slim RINO majority in the Senate matter at all if Republicans already have robust majorities on the state level and refuse to govern in accordance with constitutional values? If 82-19 majorities are not enough for us to acquire our own version of California, it is quite evident that there is nothing worth salvaging in this party.

Share
Categories
2nd Amend. gun rights guns handguns Intelwars Second Amendment

Support for stricter gun laws falls to lowest point since 2016; backing for handgun ban falls to near record low

With all the civil unrest that plagued the country over the last year, support for instituting stricter gun laws has dropped, while support for making gun laws less strict has seen a bump. And support for a ban on handguns has fallen to nearly record-low levels.

As Americans watched neighborhoods burn, business suffer looting, protesters demand that we “defund the police,” and fellow citizens hit with violence from rioters and other criminals, they made their way to gun stores, hoping to add another level of security for themselves and their families.

And as a result, the nation has seen a surge in gun sales the last few months, with gun sales shattering records this summer.

In early October, Rasmussen revealed that 22% of gun-owning households said they had added at least one firearm to their arsenal since the start of violent anti-police and Black Lives Matter protests.

When those factors are combined with the absence of a mass shooting in the U.S. this year, it likely comes as no surprise that Americans have grown significantly less supportive of imposing stricter gun laws.

A new Gallup survey posted Monday showed that a shrinking majority — 57% — of Americans support calls for stricter gun laws, which is down seven points from last year and down 10 points from 2018.

The share of U.S. citizens who want guns laws to be made less strict moved up from 4% in 2018 and 7% in 2019 to 9% today.

The percentage of voters who believe gun laws should be left untouched grew from 28% last year to 34% this year.

When broken down by demographics, the widest difference of opinion is found, unsurprisingly, between political parties, with the gap between gun owners and non-gun owners coming in second.

  • 85% of Democrats want to see stricter gun laws imposed, while 22% of Republicans feel the same.
  • 72% of non-gun owners support stricter gun laws, while just 26% of current gun support such a move.

Gallup also reported that support for a ban on handguns in the U.S. has fallen to a near record low of just 25%. The previous record low was 23% in 2016.

Share
Categories
Florida Intelwars looting Rioting Ron DeSantis Second Amendment stand your ground

Report: Florida governor pushes bill that would allow armed citizens to use deadly force against looters, rioters

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) is pushing “anti-mob” legislation that would reportedly allow citizens to confront looters with firepower.

The bill, which comes after months of civil unrest in the wake of George Floyd’s death, would broaden Florida’s Stand Your Ground law by expanding the “forcible felonies” list to justify the use of deadly force against individuals engaged in criminal activity resulting in “interruption or impairment” to a business, according to the Miami Herald.

That legislation would also justify deadly force used against individuals engaged in looting businesses within 500 feet of a “violent or disorderly assembly.”

Currently, Florida state law declares:

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

“Forcible felonies” in Florida include: murder, manslaughter, sexual battery, robbery, kidnapping, assault, battery, aggravated stalking, carjacking, among others, and “any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.”

Also, the bill DeSantis is promoting would give immunity to motorists who “unintentionally killed or injured protesters who block traffic,” the Herald reported.

The bill would also withhold state funding from local governments if they make “disproportionate funding reductions” to police budgets.

What was the reaction?

Although the legislation has not yet been filed with the Florida Legislature, legal experts are concerned the bill would encourage vigilantism and result in unnecessary deaths over mere property crimes.

“It allows for vigilantes to justify their actions,” Denise Georges, a former Miami-Dade County prosecutor, told the Herald.

She added, “It also allows for death to be the punishment for a property crime — and that is cruel and unusual punishment. We cannot live in a lawless society where taking a life is done so casually and recklessly.”

Former Miami-Dade prosecutor Aubrey Webb agreed that the proposed bill “dangerously gives armed private citizens power to kill as they subjectively determine what constitutes ‘criminal mischief’ that interferes with a business.”

“The Boston Tea Party members would have been lawfully shot under Florida’s law by the British East India Tea Company,” Webb told the Herald.

Share