Articles

Throw Out the Party of Gun Prohibition  by Don Smith

Their goal is to erase the right to “keep and bear arms.” There are many ways to defend the Second Amendment from this bunch, but the most effective is to vote against any member of the gun ban party at all levels: county or city council, state legislature and especially both houses of Congress.

Keep this in perspective: If anti-gun politicians are not in office, they cannot make their policies into law!

This should need no explanation, especially after New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s debacle last summer, when she grossly overstepped her constitutional authority in an attempt to prohibit lawful firearm carry in two counties. She exploited the tragic fatal shootings of three young people as an excuse to declare a “public health emergency” for which she wanted to suspend the Second Amendment. Yet none of the shooters involved in the murders of those children were licensed to carry. Fortunately, gun rights groups quickly took Grisham to court and a federal judge stopped her in her tracks.

Then we have our own governor who gave the middle finger to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) by calling for a special legislative session and passing the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). This followed the successful NYSRPA v. Bruen decision. When asked by a reporter if she could show that law-abiding citizens were truly responsible for shootings, she claimed, “She didn’t need any data”. How is she “protecting NY citizens” if she removes our opportunity to defend ourselves, when law enforcement are minutes away? Criminals, by the nature of the name, will never obey her laws.

John Lott — founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and author of the groundbreaking book More Guns, Less Crime pointed out that the action taken by Grisham in New Mexico would only affect law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits. He stated: “Every place in the world that has tried to either ban all guns or all handguns…every single time, murder rates have gone up…. We tried banning handguns in Chicago and Washington, DC, and what happened to murders? They went up.”

Let us not forget Gavin Newsom. His proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution would — contrary to his claims otherwise — essentially nullify the Second Amendment. He knows this and he hopes you are all as stupid as the Californians who voted for him. The ultimate goal is to peddle this plan to all the other states. Meanwhile he and Grisham are doing nothing to protect us from the “invasion” of millions of foreign nationals crossing our southern border, many into their states.

Next is Joe Biden. Nearly three years ago, he admitted during a televised town hall forum broadcast by CNN he not only wants to ban so-called “assault weapons,” but also 9 mm pistols. This guy is relentless, and despite all of his gaffes, this is one thing about which he never seems confused. Recall, as Vice President, his goal was to “Go after the ammunition”.

Supreme Court Judge Thomas E. Moran of Monroe County in December 2023 held that NY CPLR article 63-A (“Red Flag” law / ERPO) “does not sufficiently protect a citizen’s rights and therefore is unconstitutional”. This law should never have been passed in 2019. Yet some at the federal level still seek such a law nationally.

House Democrats proposing a bill in 2022 to place a 1,000% tax on AR-15 rifles.Although the bill didn’t make any headway, that hasn’t stopped them from proposing the legislation for a second time. And it looks as though they are targeting supposed “high capacity” magazines as well. The tax would price regular, law abiding Americans out of the market. Specifically, a $500 AR-15 would immediately increase to $5,000, and a $2,000 rifle would become $20,000.

But it gets more devious than just placing a tax on AR-15 rifles. It appears they have also labeled most semiautomatic firearms as “assault weapons.” The same 1,000% tax would be imposed on any “semiautomatic assault weapon,” which last year’s bill defined as a semiautomatic rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine of 10 rounds or more or that have other various features. The bill was proposed after 100 Democrats expressed “disappointment” in House Speaker McCarthy for not moving on anti-gun legislation.

Democratic Assembly member Amy Paulin of Scarsdale says that although New York is one of the few states to require a background check on the purchase of ammunition itself, there is no corresponding law to prevent the straw purchase of ammunition, and she will introduce a bill to amend a section of the Penal Law to make straw purchases of ammunition a crime.

Paulin also says she will amend a bill she introduced in January aimed at making it more difficult for criminals to buy guns. She will redefine straw purchases and make it clear that the bill will apply to the purchase of ammunition as well. A federal firearms straw purchase law already exists.

The problem with such legislation was noted by Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, who pointed out that “None of their solutions fit the problem.”

Congresswoman Tenney’s Statement on the Election of Speaker Mike Johnson

Washington, DC– Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) today made the following statement on the recent election of Speaker Mike Johnson (LA-04).  "Congratulations to my dear friend, Speaker Mike Johnson, on being elected Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Mike Johnson is an inspirational conservative who will restore faith in our government and bring strong, principled leadership to America. "Speaker Johnson is committed to restoring transparency to Congress, reining in runaway spending, holding our adversaries accountable, and strengthening oversight of federal bureaucrats. Though 70% of appropriation priorities have already been passed in the House, the remaining appropriations bills will be considered expeditiously. "Speaker Johnson's first action was to immediately open the People's House in order to bring a bipartisan resolution to the floor in support of the nation of Israel, our most important ally in the Middle East. He is immediately addressing issues critically important to the American people. This starts with direct action on the border crisis, prioritizing legislation to address runaway inflation due to far-left spending under Pelosi and Biden.   "Speaker Johnson will renew our commitment to backing our courageous officers in blue, empowering parents' rights against the hostile agenda imposed by the Biden Administration and its weaponized law enforcement agencies, unleash American energy production which will lead to greater freedom, prosperity, and security for all Americans. "House Republicans understand this historic moment for America and are laser-focused on providing leadership, restoring transparency and responsible government, and achieving real results for the American people.”

By Jack Phillips  THE EPICH TIMES

10/23/2023

Lawmakers in a Democrat-controlled state passed a major gun law, with the House speaker saying it came after the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling.

The Massachusetts state House of Representatives approved a sweeping gun law that aims at restricting more firearms and cracking down on AR-15-style rifles—after a unanimous coalition of police chiefs in the state publicly opposed it.

The measure, which passed in a 120–38 vote on Oct. 18, prohibits people from carrying firearms into other people's homes without their consent. It also would force major gun components to have serial numbers, which would be registered with the state of Massachusetts, while also expanding the state's "red flag" law that allows a judge to suspend the firearms license of someone who is considered a risk to harming others.

The legislation advanced in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in 2022 that Americans have the Second Amendment-enshrined right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, according to Democrats in Massachusetts, a state that has long had stringent gun laws.

"The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision nullified existing components of our gun laws, threatening the safety of the Commonwealth’s residents. With the passage of this legislation, the House has once again displayed an unwavering commitment to ensuring that Massachusetts remains one of the safest states in the country," state House Speaker Ronald Mariano, a Democrat, said in a recent statement about the measure and the landmark high court decision. 

The proposal would create new laws that bar firing guns at or near homes and outlaw carrying firearms while intoxicated. It would also prohibit carrying firearms in schools, polling places, and government buildings.

The bill expands the state’s ban on certain types of rifles, prohibiting new purchases of AR-15-style firearms. It would also ban someone from turning a legal firearm into an automatic weapon.

The proposal includes an enhanced system to track firearms used in crimes to help curb the flow of illegal guns into the state. It would also modernize the existing firearm registration system while increasing the availability of firearm data for academic and policy use, lawmakers said.

The state Senate has yet to release its version of a gun bill. It will be up to both Democrat-led chambers to hammer out a single bill to ship to Democrat Gov. Maura Healey’s desk for her signature before it can become law.

State Rep. Michael Day, the Democrat who authored the bill, claimed that "we are in the midst of a public health crisis and it is unrelenting" before blaming firearms.

"It's time for the House to once again act in this area and ask for your support on this bill," he said.

Republicans and gun rights groups say the law overreaches.

State Rep. Peter Durant, a Republican, said on the floor that he sees only "one goal" in the bill, which is to target law-abiding citizens who own firearms.

"When the listening tours were going on, when we were having the informational sessions, when this bill was being written, we were all told that the legal gun owner is not the not the target here. We're not going after them," Mr. Durant said, according to a local NBC affiliate station. "But it certainly seems to be that that's exactly what we're doing."

Another GOP state lawmaker, Rep. David Muradian, said that the "legislation is an egregious infringement on all lawful gun owners, and frankly, all residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."

"I have had interactions with hundreds if not thousands of constituents within my district on this matter. The resounding question remains: What is the new proposal trying to solve?" he said.

A coalition of all the Bay State's police chiefs issued a statement saying the bill would affect only lawful gun owners.

“Although disappointed in this very predictable vote—in a proceeding where the House failed to follow their own rules—we applaud those Legislators who recognized that this bill makes no one safer. As we’ve said, the answer lies in the vigorous prosecution of criminals, who have no regard for gun laws, whether old or new. We look forward to addressing this matter with our Senate,” Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association director Mark Leahy told the Boston Herald.

Gun owners opposed to the bill have said that the measures outlined in the legislation do more to target gun owners than to reduce crime. “All of it goes against us, the lawful people. There’s nothing in there that goes after the criminals,” Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners’ Action League, said, adding that the bill is merely an overreaction to the Supreme Court's decision last year.

The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision last June, ruled that a state law in New York was unconstitutional because it unlawfully restricted an individual's right to carry a firearm in public.

The majority affirmed that such a right is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adding that the states can enforce "shall-issue" permitting, meaning that applicants for concealed-carry licenses have to satisfy criteria. But their ruling stipulated that "may-issue" mandates that use arbitrary evaluations that are made by local officials are unconstitutional.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation is celebrating a victory in California as a U.S. District Court judge has declared the state’s decades-old ban on so-called “assault weapons” to be unconstitutional.

Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez’ ruling will almost certainly be appealed to the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, but for the moment, SAF and its partners in the lawsuit known as Miller v. Bonta are celebrating a victory. SAF is joined in the case by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and four private citizens, including James Miller, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys George M. Lee at Seiler Epstein, LLP and John W. Dillon at the Dillon Law Group, APC.

In his 79-page decision, Judge Benitez writes, “Falling back on an old, recycled justification, the State says that its ban should stand because a person can have as many other rifles, shotguns, and pistols as one wants…Heller demolished that argument. The same argument – that a handgun ban might be justified because government- approved alternatives are available – was rejected in Heller and it is rejected here. Heller said quite clearly that it is no constitutional answer for government to say that it is permissible to ban some guns so long as other guns are allowed. This is not the way American Constitutional rights work. It is not permissible for a state to ban some books simply because there are other books to read, or to close synagogues because churches and mosques are open. In their normal configurations, the so-called “assault weapons” banned in California are modern firearms commonly-owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes across the nation. Under Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen, they may not be banned.”

“We’ve known all along the state ban could not hold up under constitutional scrutiny,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and we were encouraged by last year’s Supreme Court ruling in the Bruen case, which rejected the notion of ‘interest balancing’ when it comes to Second Amendment challenges. Judge Benitez came down on the side of the Constitution and history.”

“Judge Benitez has once again affirmed what we have argued since the beginning of this case,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut stated. “California’s ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ is, and always has been, unconstitutional. Despite the Supreme Court’s clear directive as to how these challenges are to be examined, the State of California did everything conceivable in an attempt to interject interest-balancing into the analysis. The Court, as required, ignored these attempts and correctly concluded that based on the text of the Second Amendment, as informed by this nation’s history and tradition, such arms are constitutionally protected. We are pleased with the Court’s decision and are proud to have vindicated the rights of millions of Californians.”

Sep 27, 2023 

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is applauding the 424-1 House vote approving the Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act, thereby crushing the Biden administration’s effort to block federal funding for school shooting sports programs.

“Joe Biden’s attempt to stop funding for these important school programs was yet another demonstration of just how extreme this administration can be when it comes to guns and even hunting,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “These are programs that not only provide valuable and genuine safety training, but they also contribute to teaching the next generation about wildlife conservation while passing along an American tradition.

“However,” Gottlieb continued, “just because 208 Democrats voted for this measure does not forgive their past and future support for restrictive gun control legislation. Evidently, Democrats are beginning to realize the gun issue will not play well during the 2024 campaign, and that Biden’s attempt to cut off funding for school shooting sports could bring lots of angry sportsmen and women to the polls next November. They are trying to distance themselves from this extremely anti-gun-rights administration.”

Only one Democrat, Rep. Veronica Escobar of Texas, voted against the measure. Gottlieb predicted outdoorsmen and women in her district will remember when she seeks re-election next year.

“Joe Biden’s Department of Education deliberately misinterpreted the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in hopes of defunding the school shooting sports programs,” Gottlieb said, “probably hoping nobody would notice. Well, they got caught. The vote shows Democrats on Capitol Hill are trying to do some damage control, but it won’t be enough to make voters forget they have become the party of gun prohibition.

“Hunting is a small, but important part of the much larger Second Amendment movement,” he observed, “but the administration’s effort to withhold funds from this program shows how deeply the Biden White House resents anything even remotely connected to activities that may involve the lawful use of firearms. Our hat is off to Tennessee Congressman Mark Green for introducing this legislation and shepherding it through the House.”

https://lists.youmaker.com/links/YBDxzBnZQ0/jLsm7EC3t/2EyULSL87W/MRzL5eUPx

Concerned Committee for the Right to Keep & Bear Arms

(CCRKBA)

Jul 7, 2023 

BELLEVUE, WA – President Joe Biden appears more determined than ever to make gun manufacturers vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits in the hopes of bankrupting the firearms industry, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

On July 4—a day when the president should be leading the nation in celebrating its 247th anniversary—Biden was instead capitalizing on violent crimes over the holiday weekend in an effort to push his gun prohibition agenda. In a statement from the White House, Biden declared, “It is within our power to once again ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, to require safe storage of guns, to end gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability, and to enact universal background checks.”

But CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said Biden is once again trying to penalize tens of millions of law-abiding citizens and devastating an industry because he is incapable of doing anything meaningful about violent crime. He is trying to deflect public attention away from his policy failures, and his son’s legal problems with drugs and a serious gun law violation, by blaming gunmakers and honest gun owners for crimes they did not commit.

“Biden’s proposals amount to smoke and mirrors, and deflection away from his, and his party’s, monumental failures to prevent crime and hold criminals responsible,” Gottlieb stated. “He would have us believe that banning the most popular rifle in America, locking up guns and allowing expensive, but meritless, legal actions to financially devastate gun companies is the solution to America’s violent crime problems.

“He doesn’t dare admit that the thousands of laws already on the books—pushed through Congress and state legislatures by members of his own party—have failed miserably,” he continued. “He is continuing to scapegoat gunmakers and gun owners, and in the process he and his handlers are trying to destroy Second Amendment rights, which have been the backbone of liberty in this country for more than two centuries. And the only thing he has actually accomplished is to fuel more gun sales with his gun ban rhetoric.

“The thing Biden and his cronies have underestimated, and which makes them furious,” Gottlieb observed, “is the willingness of American gun owners to fight back. Rest assured, CCRKBA will not stand idly by while this administration tramples on the Constitution.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has exposed the links between Big Pharma antidepressant drugs and mass shootings in America.  Kennedy, a Democrat 2024 presidential candidate, pointed out that there’s a significant connection between SSRI antidepressant users and mass shootings.

RFK Jr. highlighted the links during a recent interview with Mark Steyn.  As Kennedy notes, the Democrats and their allies in the corporate media often target guns following a mass shooting event, rather than the person pulling the trigger.

“With all of these shootings, nobody’s looking at the pharmaceutical contribution to that,” noted Kennedy, the nephew of President John F. Kennedy.  “Anecdotally, it appears that almost every one of these shooters were on SSRIs or some other psychiatric drug.

“And this is only happening in America where all of these people are taking these psychiatric drugs.  “We take four times as many [psychiatric drugs] as any other country in the West,” he stated.  

“Prior to the introduction of Prozac, those shootings just were almost unknown, and now they’re an everyday affair.

“But NIH will not study that because it will offend the pharmaceutical industry.

“And it’s something that we ought to be studying.”

https://www.rochesterfirst.com/first-responders-spotlight/first-responders-spotlight-officer-recognized-for-efforts-during-armory-stampede/

Congratulations to Tim Luety on his recognition for his service to the Rochester community while serving with the Rochester Police Department!  Tim grew up in Ontario, NY, Wayne County and is the son of Rich & Carol Luety.  Both Tim and his brother serve as law enforcement officers.  The Luety brothers' father, Rich, was well known around Ontario, NY for modeling community service with his involvement with the Ontario Fire Company.

Pistol Stabilizing Braces

johnrlott crimeresearch.org [mailto:johnrlott@crimeresearch.org]

The Biden administration’s newly released regulations regarding “pistol-stabilizing braces” will instantly turn tens of thousands of law-abiding Americans into felons and create a national rifle registry. Worse, the Biden administration and the media exaggerate the costs and ignore the benefits these braces produce for the disabled.

Stabilizing braces for pistols were originally designed to allow wounded and disabled veterans who may have lost the use of part of their hand to hold handguns. They are essentially a strap attached to the gun. Disabled individuals are often viewed as easy targets by criminals, and stabilizers make it easier to defend themselves. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) originally approved pistol braces during the Obama administration.

Putting aside that the ATF isn’t Congress and can’t make up new laws to redefine what a rifle is, their logic is baffling. 

Take two otherwise identical guns, one with a pistol brace and one that never had a pistol brace: Even if the pistol brace is removed from the gun to which it was attached, it is still banned.                 Meanwhile, the gun that never had the brace attached could have one added, just as easily as the gun that previously had the pistol brace could have it reattached – but only the gun that once had a pistol brace attached to it is banned.

Of course, how the ATF is supposed to know whether you used to have the pistol brace attached to the gun is a mystery. Nor is it obvious why functionally identical foreign-made pistols should be treated differently than domestically manufactured ones.

This started after President Biden cited a crime in 2021 in Colorado – where a shooter used a pistol stabilizing brace when attacking shoppers in a grocery store – to call for classifying such brace-affixed pistols as machine guns. Ahmed Al Alwi murdered 10 people at close range in a Boulder, Colorado grocery store. 

A previous shooting in 2019 by Connor Betts, in Dayton, Ohio, also involved a pistol brace. These are the only two such cases and, more importantly, neither of them had any difficulty holding their guns and all their shots were fired at a short distance. There is no evidence the brace made any difference in their ability to carry out the attacks. There has been no surge in crime by the disabled or others using these braces.

Gun control advocates make no attempt to provide evidence that these two attacks were any more lethal with stabilizing braces. The cost will be to the disabled Americans who will now have a harder time being able to defend themselves and their families.