Gun Control Laws And Opposition
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
The Dubious Challenge to Antonin Scalia’s Heller Decision
A new case, New York State Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen, seeks to cash that check. It’s a challenge to New York’s requirement that applicants for concealed-carry licenses show “good cause,” or a non-speculative need to carry a gun for self-defense, with local officials in charge of making the determination. Especially in the state’s most left-leaning areas, it’s incredibly difficult for the average person to get a permit.
But some academics are claiming, based on a new type of research called “corpus analysis,” to have found fresh evidence that Scalia was wrong. “Bearing arms,” they say, overwhelmingly referred to military service in the Founding era, rather than simply referring to the carrying of weapons. These scholars further suggest that Heller might have been wrong more deeply — even when it comes to keeping arms — though that is not the focus of the current case (and their “bear arms” argument is generally recognized as their strongest).
A new case, New York State Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen, seeks to cash that check. It’s a challenge to New York’s requirement that applicants for concealed-carry licenses show “good cause,” or a non-speculative need to carry a gun for self-defense, with local officials in charge of making the determination. Especially in the state’s most left-leaning areas, it’s incredibly difficult for the average person to get a permit.
But some academics are claiming, based on a new type of research called “corpus analysis,” to have found fresh evidence that Scalia was wrong. “Bearing arms,” they say, overwhelmingly referred to military service in the Founding era, rather than simply referring to the carrying of weapons. These scholars further suggest that Heller might have been wrong more deeply — even when it comes to keeping arms — though that is not the focus of the current case (and their “bear arms” argument is generally recognized as their strongest).
Op-Ed: I Tried Firing An AR-15 Yesterday And I Have Literally Been Soiling Myself For 17 Straight Hours
The AR-15 — the deadliest abomination known to man. A gun so terrible it’s killed more people than net neutrality and Trump’s tax cuts combined. And to demonstrate how awful this weapon is, I did something foolish: I tried firing one. And the experience was so horrible I have not stopped crying...
babylonbee.com
black dog
Free America
I find it amazing with a theses highly educated folks that a simple half of a paragraph is so difficult to comprehend....
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
'Everytown' Gun-Grabbers Now Grooming People for Office
Anti-Gun Lobby Gets More Sophisticated
After failing to leave any kind of substantial legacy in three terms as mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg is seeking to have a substantial impact on the anti-2nd Amendment lobby in the United States. The gun-grabber with the biggest bank account is hoping he can get a host of his frothing minions elected to office.
The New York Times:
Anti-Gun Lobby Gets More Sophisticated
After failing to leave any kind of substantial legacy in three terms as mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg is seeking to have a substantial impact on the anti-2nd Amendment lobby in the United States. The gun-grabber with the biggest bank account is hoping he can get a host of his frothing minions elected to office.
The New York Times:
Biden Assures Everyone That While The Taliban Now Has American Tanks, Rocket Launchers, And Machine Guns, They Haven't Gotten Any AR-15s
babylonbee.com
Biden Assures Everyone That While The Taliban Now Has American Tanks, Rocket Launchers, And Machine Guns, They Haven't Gotten Any AR-15s
WASHINGTON, D.C.—President Biden has received some criticism for how the exit was handled in Afghanistan. One problem is that Americans fled so quickly that numerous military weapons have now ended up in the hands of the Taliban. Biden held a press conference to assure the public that it’s not...
babylonbee.com
warneckutz
Well-Known Member
glhs837
Power with Control
Biden Assures Everyone That While The Taliban Now Has American Tanks, Rocket Launchers, And Machine Guns, They Haven't Gotten Any AR-15s
Biden Assures Everyone That While The Taliban Now Has American Tanks, Rocket Launchers, And Machine Guns, They Haven't Gotten Any AR-15s
WASHINGTON, D.C.—President Biden has received some criticism for how the exit was handled in Afghanistan. One problem is that Americans fled so quickly that numerous military weapons have now ended up in the hands of the Taliban. Biden held a press conference to assure the public that it’s not...
Yeah, they went there....
kom526
They call me ... Sarcasmo
Everytown, Brady, Moms Demand, and Giffords love the Taliban.
www.reuters.com
Taliban in Afghan capital Kabul start collecting weapons from civilians
Taliban fighters in the Afghan capital, Kabul, started collecting weapons from civilians on Monday because people no longer need them for personal protection, a Taliban official said.
warneckutz
Well-Known Member
Just ordered one.
Republicans Slam ATF For Attempting To Alter Legal Definition Of ‘Firearm’
The proposed rule, the “Definition of Frame or Receiver and Identification of Firearms” was introduced in May and signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. Public comments on the rule closed Thursday.
It would amend the Code of Federal Regulations, including the term “firearm” in order to regulate firearm kits, and amend the term “gunsmith” to clarify that gunsmiths must mark unlicensed guns — effectively making the individual the manufacturer. It would implement regulations on nearly all portions of a firearm.
“Contrary to ATF’s claims that the [proposed rule] will ‘clarify’ various aspects of federal gun laws, in reality the proposed rule would inject ambiguity after ambiguity into an otherwise unambiguous definition of ‘firearm,’ which has existed unmolested since its enactment over half a century ago,” the congressmen wrote. “These changes will cause significant problems not only for the law-abiding public and the courts in trying to apply the agency’s intent instead of a statute, but also for the firearms industry.”
The rule would further complicate types of guns by crafting definitions for what ATF deems a “complete weapon,” “complete muffler or silencer device,” and a “privately made firearm.” A deadline would also be put in place for the timeframe of marking guns.
The proposed rule, the “Definition of Frame or Receiver and Identification of Firearms” was introduced in May and signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. Public comments on the rule closed Thursday.
It would amend the Code of Federal Regulations, including the term “firearm” in order to regulate firearm kits, and amend the term “gunsmith” to clarify that gunsmiths must mark unlicensed guns — effectively making the individual the manufacturer. It would implement regulations on nearly all portions of a firearm.
“Contrary to ATF’s claims that the [proposed rule] will ‘clarify’ various aspects of federal gun laws, in reality the proposed rule would inject ambiguity after ambiguity into an otherwise unambiguous definition of ‘firearm,’ which has existed unmolested since its enactment over half a century ago,” the congressmen wrote. “These changes will cause significant problems not only for the law-abiding public and the courts in trying to apply the agency’s intent instead of a statute, but also for the firearms industry.”
The rule would further complicate types of guns by crafting definitions for what ATF deems a “complete weapon,” “complete muffler or silencer device,” and a “privately made firearm.” A deadline would also be put in place for the timeframe of marking guns.
Gun Grabbers Collaborate with Unscrupulous Foreign Regime to Undermine US Constitution, Attack Gun Manufacturers
Last week, Brady – one of the older, gun prohibition advocacy groups in the U.S. – teamed up with the government of Mexico to launch an assault against the American firearms manufacturing and distribution industry.
The move came in the form of a lawsuit that seeks to hold lawful and federally licensed companies in these industries responsible for the crimes of violent Mexican gangs and drug cartels, to the tune of $10 billion, according to media reports.
Not only that, the suit argues that the U.S. federal court in which it was filed should ignore both United States law and the Second Amendment and instead rule against the defendants under the laws of Mexico.
This breathtakingly audacious move shows not just the desperation of the gun control lobby to advance their anti-freedom agenda by any means necessary, it underscores their contempt for the uniquely American freedoms that set our country apart from the rest of the world. That Brady would ally itself with a foreign government that has become virtually synonymous with corruption proves just how detached the gun control movement has become from the values and traditions that define America.
Last week, Brady – one of the older, gun prohibition advocacy groups in the U.S. – teamed up with the government of Mexico to launch an assault against the American firearms manufacturing and distribution industry.
The move came in the form of a lawsuit that seeks to hold lawful and federally licensed companies in these industries responsible for the crimes of violent Mexican gangs and drug cartels, to the tune of $10 billion, according to media reports.
Not only that, the suit argues that the U.S. federal court in which it was filed should ignore both United States law and the Second Amendment and instead rule against the defendants under the laws of Mexico.
This breathtakingly audacious move shows not just the desperation of the gun control lobby to advance their anti-freedom agenda by any means necessary, it underscores their contempt for the uniquely American freedoms that set our country apart from the rest of the world. That Brady would ally itself with a foreign government that has become virtually synonymous with corruption proves just how detached the gun control movement has become from the values and traditions that define America.
black dog
Free America
Just ordered one.
You didn't buy much...
warneckutz
Well-Known Member
4 Tyrannical Regimes That Relied On Gun Confiscation To Maintain Power
David Chipman — President Biden’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms — has a long history of supporting stringent gun regulations.
In addition to working for decades as an ATF agent and senior policy advisor at Giffords, Chipman openly admitted that he favors banning the AR-15 during his confirmation hearing.
“Your public position is that you want to ban AR-15s, is that correct?” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) asked Chipman.
“With respect to the AR-15, I support a ban as has been presented in a Senate bill, and supported by the president,” Chipman responded plainly.
According to one estimate, Americans own 5 million AR-15s, rendering it one of the most popular firearms in the nation. Banning the weapon would therefore be easier said than done.
David Chipman — President Biden’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms — has a long history of supporting stringent gun regulations.
In addition to working for decades as an ATF agent and senior policy advisor at Giffords, Chipman openly admitted that he favors banning the AR-15 during his confirmation hearing.
“Your public position is that you want to ban AR-15s, is that correct?” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) asked Chipman.
“With respect to the AR-15, I support a ban as has been presented in a Senate bill, and supported by the president,” Chipman responded plainly.
According to one estimate, Americans own 5 million AR-15s, rendering it one of the most popular firearms in the nation. Banning the weapon would therefore be easier said than done.
In 2018, the world’s largest investment management firm, BlackRock, announced it would exclude all firearms manufacturers and retailers from their ESG funds, including Walmart, as well as put additional pressure on corporate leaders to limit their exposure to guns.
BlackRock’s voice is one of the most powerful on Wall Street. It controls nearly $10 trillion in assets. (Yes, you read that correctly — that’s trillion with a “t.”) To put that into perspective, the total consumer spending of the United States in 2020 was about $12.5 trillion.
It’s also important to remember that BlackRock is just one of many woke investment management companies pushing ESG standards and anti-gun policies.
The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) group suggests ESG standards include “the production or sales of controversial weapons and tobacco products, or gambling services.” It might be tempting to write off “controversial weapons” as nothing less than rocket launchers and land mines, but conservatives know all too well that virtually all modern firearms are now considered “controversial.”
thefederalist.com
BlackRock’s voice is one of the most powerful on Wall Street. It controls nearly $10 trillion in assets. (Yes, you read that correctly — that’s trillion with a “t.”) To put that into perspective, the total consumer spending of the United States in 2020 was about $12.5 trillion.
It’s also important to remember that BlackRock is just one of many woke investment management companies pushing ESG standards and anti-gun policies.
The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) group suggests ESG standards include “the production or sales of controversial weapons and tobacco products, or gambling services.” It might be tempting to write off “controversial weapons” as nothing less than rocket launchers and land mines, but conservatives know all too well that virtually all modern firearms are now considered “controversial.”
Democrats Are Using Economic Chokeholds To Restrict Your Gun Rights
The State Department announced new sanctions banning the importation of ammunition and firearms from Russia amid a large ammunition shortage.
thefederalist.com
The Same CDC That Can’t Figure Out What A Man Is Now Wants To ‘Study Guns’
CDC Can’t Address the Real Causes of Gun Violence
The firearms industry has reason to be concerned about this sudden imperative by the nation’s disease prevention agency when it – again – wants to take on firearms as a cause. The real concern is criminal misuse of firearms and since committing a crime is a behavior and not a disease, it’s hard to see where the CDC is going to recommend a prophylactic regimen to stop it.
Of course, the CDC doesn’t want to tackle criminal behavior. Officials there don’t even want to use the word “criminal.” Most media didn’t report that, at the same time Walensky announced her push to study guns, the CDC published new guidelines for the agency to use more “inclusive language.”
The guide “suggests replacing terms such as ‘Inmate,’ ‘Prisoner,’ ‘Convict/ex-convict,’ and ‘Criminal’ with terms such as ‘People/persons,’ ‘Persons in pre-trial or with charge,’ ‘Persons on parole or probation,’ or ‘People in immigration detention facilities,’” Fox News reported. Gone too are references to drug abusers.
It begs the question: If the CDC appeases “woke” political agendas and can’t be honest in its terminology, then how is America supposed to trust CDC studies of gun ownership? Walensky claims the CDC insufficiently studies the issue when that’s demonstrably false. Restricting language regarding criminal factors is disingenuous and prevents open and honest reporting.
The CDC’s announcement is just another Biden administration overreach on guns. President Joe Biden has nominated an anti-gun activist to run the ATF. Now his CDC director, the same one who has gotten away with unlawful decrees in the name of a pandemic, is targeting guns.
Walensky is rewriting the basic facts to fit a gun control narrative, even as she claims her effort isn’t about gun control. It absolutely is. This is why there is a Dickey Amendment in the first place.
CDC Can’t Address the Real Causes of Gun Violence
The firearms industry has reason to be concerned about this sudden imperative by the nation’s disease prevention agency when it – again – wants to take on firearms as a cause. The real concern is criminal misuse of firearms and since committing a crime is a behavior and not a disease, it’s hard to see where the CDC is going to recommend a prophylactic regimen to stop it.
Of course, the CDC doesn’t want to tackle criminal behavior. Officials there don’t even want to use the word “criminal.” Most media didn’t report that, at the same time Walensky announced her push to study guns, the CDC published new guidelines for the agency to use more “inclusive language.”
The guide “suggests replacing terms such as ‘Inmate,’ ‘Prisoner,’ ‘Convict/ex-convict,’ and ‘Criminal’ with terms such as ‘People/persons,’ ‘Persons in pre-trial or with charge,’ ‘Persons on parole or probation,’ or ‘People in immigration detention facilities,’” Fox News reported. Gone too are references to drug abusers.
It begs the question: If the CDC appeases “woke” political agendas and can’t be honest in its terminology, then how is America supposed to trust CDC studies of gun ownership? Walensky claims the CDC insufficiently studies the issue when that’s demonstrably false. Restricting language regarding criminal factors is disingenuous and prevents open and honest reporting.
The CDC’s announcement is just another Biden administration overreach on guns. President Joe Biden has nominated an anti-gun activist to run the ATF. Now his CDC director, the same one who has gotten away with unlawful decrees in the name of a pandemic, is targeting guns.
Walensky is rewriting the basic facts to fit a gun control narrative, even as she claims her effort isn’t about gun control. It absolutely is. This is why there is a Dickey Amendment in the first place.
FBI abuses 'no-fly list' to infringe on Second Amendment rights
Being on the watch list doesn’t mean that you are guilty of anything. You can be on the list simply because the FBI wants to interview you about someone you might know. As of 2014, about 40 percent of people on the watch list were under “reasonable suspicion” despite having “no affiliation with known terrorist groups.” People can get nominated for the list by various government agencies, and no oversight agency exists to ensure that these additions are justified.
The Democrats want to strip all 2 million of these people of their Second Amendment rights. When he was president, Barack Obama called for a ban on gun sales to people on the watch list. Sen. Dianne Feinstein tried to add a ban as a budget amendment in 2016, but Republicans blocked it. Republicans had their version of the ban, but they at least required a court hearing before people were listed, which was unacceptable to Democrats.
Every time a person on the terror watch list attempts to buy a gun, the FBI is notified. The case receives further scrutiny if it raises other flags. Despite these obstacles, between 2004 and 2015, 91 percent of people on the terror watch list were able to buy a gun when they tried to — and rightly so. None of the over 2,000 people on the watch list who bought guns between February 2004 and December 2014 have been found guilty of committing a gun crime. So, what kind of problem were the proposed gun bans supposed to address?
The terror watch and “no-fly” lists affect many people who aren’t even on it. The “no-fly” list stopped the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) from flying on five occasions because someone with a similar name was on the list. Other prominent individuals, such as Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA), have also run into this problem. Apparently, both had names similar to Irish Republican Army activists. Would such a clumsy system work any more precisely if paired with a gun ban? The results of the NICS background check system are telling.
Being on the watch list doesn’t mean that you are guilty of anything. You can be on the list simply because the FBI wants to interview you about someone you might know. As of 2014, about 40 percent of people on the watch list were under “reasonable suspicion” despite having “no affiliation with known terrorist groups.” People can get nominated for the list by various government agencies, and no oversight agency exists to ensure that these additions are justified.
The Democrats want to strip all 2 million of these people of their Second Amendment rights. When he was president, Barack Obama called for a ban on gun sales to people on the watch list. Sen. Dianne Feinstein tried to add a ban as a budget amendment in 2016, but Republicans blocked it. Republicans had their version of the ban, but they at least required a court hearing before people were listed, which was unacceptable to Democrats.
Every time a person on the terror watch list attempts to buy a gun, the FBI is notified. The case receives further scrutiny if it raises other flags. Despite these obstacles, between 2004 and 2015, 91 percent of people on the terror watch list were able to buy a gun when they tried to — and rightly so. None of the over 2,000 people on the watch list who bought guns between February 2004 and December 2014 have been found guilty of committing a gun crime. So, what kind of problem were the proposed gun bans supposed to address?
The terror watch and “no-fly” lists affect many people who aren’t even on it. The “no-fly” list stopped the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) from flying on five occasions because someone with a similar name was on the list. Other prominent individuals, such as Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA), have also run into this problem. Apparently, both had names similar to Irish Republican Army activists. Would such a clumsy system work any more precisely if paired with a gun ban? The results of the NICS background check system are telling.