Category Archives: Law

Joe Biden to Gun Confiscator O’Rourke: “You’re Gonna Take Care of the Gun Problem With Me”

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Biden appoints O’Rourke as new gun-control policy-maker, rousing fears. READ MORE

beto

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Presidential contender Joe Biden’s fortunes have recently shifted, with game-changing wins in several important Democrat primary contests. He has succeeded in part by positioning himself as the Democrats’ “safe” choice to square off against President Trump, at least in comparison to self-proclaimed Socialist Bernie Sanders.

But make no mistake, Biden offers no safety to gun owners of any party, as shown by his recent promise that avowed firearm confiscation advocate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke would lead the Biden administration’s effort against the “gun problem.”

On the Monday before Super Tuesday’s multiple state primaries, O’Rourke endorsed Biden for president at a rally in Dallas. Biden reciprocated by offering his former rival in the Democrat primary a job.

“I want to make something clear,” Biden said to the cheering crowd of Democrat voters. “I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ll see of this guy.” He continued by addressing O’Rourke: “YOU’RE going to take care of the gun problem with me. YOU’RE going to be the one who leads this effort. I’m counting on ya.”

Just what sort of position Biden has in mind for O’Rourke is not exactly clear. Trump’s economy has certainly been strong, with historically high levels of employment among various groups. But it might take a Democrat administration with favors to repay to finally land a paying job for Robert Francis O’Rourke.

Average Americans, including those voting in the Democrat primary, certainly were not interested in O’Rourke’s services, forcing him to abandon his presidential run all the way back in November.

The little-known candidate from Texas had tried to distinguish himself from his primary competition and gain some free media exposure by adopting the most extreme anti-gun platform in the field. He had planned not just to ban America’s most popular defensive rifle but to ensure they were stripped from owners who had obtained them lawfully. O’Rourke’s infamous boast, “Hell, yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15”, even adorned t-shirts his campaign was selling, no doubt to offset his lack of actual contributors.

beto ban shirt

O’Rourke was also the only candidate to endorse the unhinged gun control “Peace Plan” put forth by David Hogg and his cohorts at March for Our Lives. A scheme that even the anti-gun mass media called “sweeping,” “ambitious,” and “far-reaching”, the Peace Plan is actually a roadmap to ending gun ownership as America currently knows it.

The “plan’s” centerpiece, of course, is a massive ban on semi-automatic firearms, backed by a forced surrender program. But it additionally calls for annual licensing of gun owners (including in-person interviews and mandatory training), government-funded propaganda to scare people out of owing guns, a ban on online sales of ammunition and gun parts, a national firearms registry, and ruinous civil liability for the gun industry.

And those are just some of the lowlights. Because none of this is consistent with the Second Amendment, the plan would promote a “different interpretation of the Second Amendment” through imposing anti-gun litmus tests for future judicial appointees. The U.S. Supreme Court itself would also face unspecified “reform” under the plan, the better to ensure that “structural limitations” did not stand in the way of the court eventually reversing what the plan calls the “excoriated” and “controversial” Heller decision.

Biden’s choice of Robert Francis O’Rourke to be his gun control point man means that any form of gun control would be on the table under his administration, up to abolishing the Second Amendment’s individual right altogether.

It is, in short, a declaration of war against American gun owners, with appointment of one of their staunchest enemies as the supreme commander of the effort.

Of course, Joe Biden is not yet the Democrats’ presidential nominee. He still faces a stiff primary challenger in the likes of Bernie Sanders, himself an increasingly bombastic gun control advocate.

But gun owners should take note that the supposedly “moderate” Joe Biden has now positioned himself to the left even of the aged Socialist when it comes to confiscating firearms from law-abiding Americans and assailing the individual right to keep and bear arms.

2020 Marks Year Of Change for Arms Trade Treaty

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Dangers arise from possible additions to ATT. READ MORE

AT

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

At the NRA-ILA Leadership forum last year President Trump sent the international anti-firearm community into hysterics by announcing his intent to withdraw the United States from their crowning jewel, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Having never secured membership from China or Russia, the thought of many was that in losing the treaty’s only top tier arms exporter the ATT would die, but that could not be further from the truth. Like every United Nations’ initiative, with or without the United States, the show will always go on.

Despite the ATT’s abysmal compliance rate and ever increasing deficit, voluntary financial contributions continue to keep it afloat, and as the years continue to pass the misguided argument that it be viewed as an international norm grows. This, after all, has always been the goal of the ATT. Despite lacking membership of most of the world’s top arms importers and exporters, treaty proponents have always recognized that by establishing what they view as “legitimacy over time”, an argument can be made that the ATT’s terms be adhered to by everyone, influencing and restraining foreign policies worldwide whether a country is a member or not.

This is why the presence of the United States at every meeting of the ATT has always been critical. They are the proverbial “adult in the room”, effectively keeping the ATT train from running off the tracks. Whether attending as a Signatory or Observer State, the U.S. delegation has to have a seat at the table. No year has this been more important than this, as 2020 marks the first year since the ATT entered into force that it can be amended, a year many of its proponents have been waiting for so that they can expand the treaty’s tentacles beyond diversion.

The first official work on the treaty’s expansion kicked off recently at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland with the convening of the first of two week-long ATT Working Group and Preparatory meetings. While attendance was lighter than usual, the presence of the U.S. delegation was a welcomed sight.

Proposals have been tabled calling for the incorporation of the UN’s other anti-firearm initiatives into the ATT, such as the Programme of Action and Firearms Protocol, and for expanding the ATT’s scope to specifically focus on gender and gender based violence issues. Such expansions may seem inconsequential to some, but we assure you they are not.

Incorporation of the Programme of Action and Firearms Protocol, the first of which is simply a political agreement and later a treaty lacking the membership of the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, China, and Russia, will allow the ATT to legally enforce their terms. The significance of this cannot be overlooked, as they are both actively working to develop international restrictions on ammunition. If successful, this would mean that any restrictions developed in one of those initiatives, such as the marking, registration, tracing and restriction of ammunition, would become legally enforceable under the ATT, even to a State Party that is not a signatory to the Protocol or one who objected to the inclusion of ammunition into the Programme of Action.

On the gender and gender based violence issues, this would grant the ATT the power to legally enforce the principle being tabled in support of their incorporation, which “requires the recognition that small arms possession is linked to violent masculinities,” or in layman’s terms, that the only way to end gender based violence is through an outright ban on males possessing firearms.

While many States recognize these issues, rarely will an objection be raised on the floor. Instead, work to quell support is done behind the scenes, and this is where the value of the U.S.’ presence cannot be overlooked. This was just the first of two week-long meetings leading to the 6th Conference of States Parties to the ATT in August where any proposals developed will ultimately be voted on. We trust that the U.S. has been working to educate our allies on the significance of such attempts to expand the ATT, but we also don’t trust blindly and have been here throughout counselling our friends as well.

 

Alabama: We Need Your Help to Pass Lifetime Permits in Senate Judiciary!

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

New Bill supports statewide, lifetime concealed carry permits. READ MORE

alabama permits

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Senate Bill 47, sponsored by Senator Randy Price, creates a new statewide, uniform system to provide lifetime permits for qualified applicants at a cost of $200. For state residents over 65, the fee drops to $150.

Don’t listen to the “fake news” being pushed by opponents of this bill. Most aspects of the current permitting process will not change. Individuals interested in obtaining a lifetime permit will apply at their local sheriff’s office for a background check and to fill out the appropriate paperwork.

We must make our voices heard loud and clear on this bill to get it passed. This is an important change to the existing permitting system that will give law-abiding gun owners the option of deciding which route is best suited for their individual self-defense needs. This choice should be yours!

Hawaii: Mag Ban and Ammo Restrictions Eligible for Vote on Senate Floor

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

New bill is an unfair proposal to Hawaiians. READ MORE

hawaii

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Senate Bill 2519 SD 2 prohibits the manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. Individuals may continue to possess any magazines acquired prior to the effective date, but they can only be transferred to a new owner through inheritance. These so called “high capacity” magazines are in fact standard equipment for commonly-owned firearms that many Americans legally and effectively use for an entire range of legitimate purposes, such as self-defense or competition. The bill recognizes the utility of these magazines by carving out an exemption for law enforcement, but will still violate the rights of ordinary citizens. Just last year, a 9th Circuit opinion ruled that California’s ban on standard capacity magazines was unconstitutional in Duncan v. Becerra. This case is currently under appeal. There is no reason to believe that a similar restriction would not suffer the same fate.

Senate Bill 2635 SD 2 restricts the purchase and possession of ammunition, and requires licensing for ammunition sellers. SB 2635 was amended by the Senate Judiciary Committee to include provisions found in HB 1902, and features a similar approach of over-regulation and bureaucratic involvement.

SB 2635 now requires anyone wishing to buy ammunition to provide proof of firearm registration for the particular caliber of purchase. The registered owner of a firearm may also officially designate an alternate who, after being subjected to fingerprinting and a background check, will be issued a permit to purchase ammunition for that firearm. Additionally, the bill attempts to deal with the common issue of firearms with the capacity to fire multiple calibers. It falls far short of actually addressing the issue however, instead giving discretion to the police department on whether or not they will include additional calibers on the permit, with no outlined process for appeal. Further, the bill still fails to consider many other real-world problems, such as long guns that were acquired prior to 1994, which under current law, are not required to be registered, and instances where a family member or friend who are not designated as an alternate may wish to purchase ammunition for a hunt or recreational outing.

Of course, criminals will simply sidestep these new requirements while law-abiding gun owners and businesses are subject to yet more bureaucratic restrictions.

 

Super Bowl of Dishonesty: Michael Bloomberg Spends Big to Lie to America

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Bloomberg manipulates with Superbowl Ad. READ MORE

superbowl

bloomberg

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Earlier this month, Michael Bloomberg added to the quarter billion dollar tally he has spent pursuing the Democrat presidential nomination with an $11 million ad that aired during the Super Bowl. It was his highest-profile effort to date in a relentless media blitz meant to familiarize Americans with his name and a “life story” that is more PR ad copy than actual biography. But the ad was perhaps more revealing than Bloomberg intended, showing him to be long on dishonesty and emotional manipulation and short on facts and substance.

Bloomberg himself barely appears in the 60 second commercial. Most of the airtime features the mother of an aspiring football player whose son was killed.

There is no question that a grieving mother has compelling emotional impact, and no one can blame the woman for wanting to tell her son’s story or to try to make a difference that will spare others a similar experience.

What is blameworthy, however, is Bloomberg’s exploitation of the woman’s personal tragedy to intentionally mislead the public.

While the woman described her loss, a graphic then appeared on the screen, stating, “2,900 CHILDREN DIE FROM GUN VIOLENCE EVERY YEAR.”

There is nothing in the commercial that explains what policies Michael Bloomberg is promoting that would have prevented the family’s tragedy or that would prevent similar tragedies in the future. The ad gives no information on the circumstances of the son’s death, other than that someone shot him.

But the obvious takeaway is that children like this young athlete are at a high risk of being killed, and only Michael Bloomberg has the moxie and know-how to stop it.

It’s clear that Michael Bloomberg himself knows next to nothing about firearms. In fact, when he began his political career with a run for New York City Mayor in 2001, Bloomberg didn’t know how to answer a question about the Second Amendment because he didn’t know what it was.

But even Michael Bloomberg knows that adults are not the same thing as children. And according to multiple media stories debunking his Super Bowl ad, his figure about “children” dying from “gun violence” inflates the number nearly 100% by including the high-risk category of 18- and 19-year-old adults.

An article by FactCheck.org., for example, claims the misleading statistic is based on information from Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group that is funded primarily by the billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg’s “source,” in other words, is actually propaganda that he himself paid to generate.

But even Everytown was more honest than the ad itself, claiming in a 2019 fact sheet, “Annually, nearly 2,900 children and teens (ages 0 to 19) are shot and killed … .” That figure that comes from averaging Centers for Disease Control Data from 2013 to 2017.

FactCheck.org explains that when 18- and 19-year-old adults are omitted from the data, the figure drops to 1,499. So the Bloomberg ad nearly doubles the number of minors who succumb annually to gunshot injuries to come up with a figure for “children.”

Again, these deaths are lamentable, but they are not what Bloomberg claims. What the ad did establish is that Michael Bloomberg cannot be trusted to tell the truth even on his own signature policy issue and that he will in fact spend huge sums of money to lie to the American public for his own political benefit.

Everytown Distances Itself from Bloomberg Due to ‘Stop and Frisk’ Speech

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Michael-Bloomberg-founded Everytown for Gun Safety reportedly distanced itself from Bloomberg following the publication of his comments in defense of stop and frisk. READ MORE

bloomberg

SOURCE: Breitbart, AWR Hawkins

On February 11, 2020, Breitbart News reported a speech Bloomberg gave at the Aspen Institute wherein he defended his strategy of aggressively policing minority neighborhoods. He gave the speech in 2015, and a recording of it is now seizing public attention.

The Aspen Times quoted Bloomberg as saying, “Cities need to get guns out of [the] … hands” of individuals who are “male, minority, and between the ages of 15 and 25.” In the full audio of the speech, he bluntly said of young minorities, “Throw them against the wall and frisk them” and admitted that they “put all the cops in minority neighborhoods … because that’s where all the crime is.”

Also, on February 11, 2020, Breitbart News reported excerpts of a 2013 interview with WOR during which Bloomberg said:

One newspaper and one news service, they just keep saying, ‘Oh it’s a disproportionate percentage of a particular ethnic group’ being targeted by the city’s stop-and-frisk policies. That may be, but it’s not a disproportionate percentage of those who witnesses and victims describe as committing the murder. In that case, incidentally, I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little.

On February 14, 2020, WAMU noted that Everytown for Gun Safety released a statement distancing itself from Bloomberg.

Everytown was founded as an umbrella group of sorts, absorbing Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns and sharing a gun control agenda with Bloomberg-funded Moms Demand Action.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

 

Virginia: Gun Ban Bill Defeated!

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Virginians’ rights upheld by help of 2nd Amendment supporters. READ MORE

virginia gun laws

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Thanks to Second Amendment supporters around the Commonwealth ceaselessly voicing their opposition to a sweeping gun ban, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-5 to reject House Bill 961 on February 17th. Bloomberg’s House majority in the General Assembly is not going to deliver their most coveted agenda item to their billionaire master.

House Bill 961 was a comprehensive ban on many commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, suppressors, and standard capacity magazines. The original bill sought to impose a licensing and registration scheme for citizens who wish to keep affected firearms they lawfully owned prior to the ban, with felony penalties for noncompliance. It also broadly banned any part that could be used to change a firearm into a banned configuration. While the House Public Safety Committee amended the bill to allow citizens to keep currently owned firearms and suppressors, there was no option for citizens to keep their lawfully acquired magazines with capacities greater than twelve rounds, forcing millions of Virginians to dispose of their property, become a criminal, or surrender them to the government.

Virginia: Petty Bloomberg-bought Delegates Target NRA Firearms Training and Right-to-Carry

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Bloomberg stands in the way of Virginians’ Right-to-Carry. READ MORE

bloomberg

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Further revealing that their operative motive is political prejudice rather than public safety, the Michael Bloomberg-bought Virginia House of Delegates has escalated their direct attacks on law-abiding gun owners and your NRA. Astute readers will remember that earlier this year Delegate Dan Helmer (D-40) introduced HB 567, a bill calculated to shut down the NRA Range in Fairfax, Va. This week, the House of Delegates Public Safety Committee passed HB 264, which targets NRA’s high-quality firearms training.

HB 264 would limit law-abiding Virginians’ ability to obtain a Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) by reducing the ways in which an applicant could demonstrate the requisite competence with a handgun.

At present there are a several ways to demonstrate this competence, which are enumerated in VA Code Ann. § 18.2-308.02. This includes:

Completing any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course;
Completing any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law-enforcement agency, institution of higher education, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Criminal Justice Services;
Completing any firearms training or safety course or class, including an electronic, video, or online course, conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor;
HB264 would eliminate all reference to the National Rifle Association in § 18.2-308.02 and eliminate the training option outlined in the first bullet point entirely.

This means that the state would no longer by default recognize the firearm safety and training courses offered by NRA. Firearms instructors would be required to obtain an additional state certification from the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) in order to offer classes that would satisfy the training requirement for a CHP. The legislation does not grandfather current NRA instructors from this requirement. At present, there are almost 3,000 NRA certified firearms instructors in the Commonwealth.

This change would be even more dangerous than it first appears. The DCJS firearm instructor certification requirements are set by regulation. This means that they can be altered by Virginia’s executive branch. Anti-gun politicians, like disgraced Gov. Ralph Northam and Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security Brian Moran, could increase the burdensome certification requirements without going through the General Assembly. This could choke off the availability of the DCJS firearm instructor certification, and therefore law-abiding Virginians’ access to the training necessary to exercise their Right-to-Carry.

HB264 would also eliminate the ability to acquire the requisite CHP firearms training through a video or online course.

These changes are designed to make it harder for law-abiding Virginians to access the firearms training required to exercise their Right-to-Carry. Reducing the number of individuals certified to provide CHP training and manner in which the training may be administered would limit the availability of such training – endangering those facing a threat that necessitates immediate access to a CHP. This reduction would also increase the costs of receiving training – creating a regressive economic burden that would disproportionately harm the poor and vulnerable.

These burdensome changes will not benefit public safety. For his book More Guns Less Crime, Economist John R. Lott attempted to measure the effects of burdensome Right-to-Carry training requirements. Lott determined that “The presence or length of training periods typically show no effect on crime…” Lott also found that an increase in training requirements and permit fees will lower the rate at which individuals obtain Right-to-Carry permits.

The Public Safety Committee’s attack on high-quality electronic, video, or online firearms training is especially luddite and nonsensical. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles offers online “driver improvement clinics” (sometimes court-ordered) that can determine whether or not a driver will be permitted to continue to operate a motor vehicle in the Commonwealth. Virginia’s premier public institutions of higher education, like the College of William & Mary, offer online degree programs.

Once again, the Bloomberg-bought House of Delegates has proven that their gun control agenda is about their own ugly political and cultural bigotries.

Stay tuned to www.nraila.org for updates. And, in the meantime, please sign up to volunteer to help defeat Gov. Ralph Northam and Michael Bloomberg’s gun control legislation.

 

State of Ignorance: California Pushes False Information to School Kids on the Second Amendment

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

California continues to try to limit constitutional rights. READ MORE

california

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

As an incorporated provision of the United States Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is the supreme law of the land, applying to all U.S. jurisdictions and to the actions of federal, state, and local officials. The U.S. Supreme Court provides the final and authoritative interpretation of that provision, as well as other provisions of the U.S. Constitution. All of this is elementary civics.

But the State of California believes it knows better, requiring publisher McGraw-Hill to annotate a discussion of the Bill of Rights in a popular social studies textbook with the state’s own peculiar view of the Second Amendment’s meaning.

According to pictures from the California edition in the New York Times, the annotation states:

Right to Bear Arms

This amendment is often debated. Originally it was intended to prevent the national government from repeating the actions of the British, who tried to take weapons away from the colonial militia, or armed forces of the citizens. This amendment seems to support the right of citizens to own firearms, but the Supreme Court has ruled it does not prevent Congress from regulating the interstate sale of weapons.

The Times article goes on to state that the publisher “said it had created the additional wording on the Second Amendment and gun control for the California textbook.” The same language, however, does not appear in a national version of the same section, according to the Times report.

The point of the New York Times article is to suggest that different states emphasize different aspects of U.S. history in otherwise similar textbooks, depending on the prevailing political outlook among the state’s education officials.

Whatever might be said of that approach, the problem with California’s account of the Second Amendment isn’t just one of emphasis but of accuracy. California, which prides itself on being one of the most anti-gun states in the nation, simply gets it wrong, using language that falsely portrays the Second Amendment as a “debated” provision that has changed meaning over time and that only “seems” to protect an individual right.

Any “debate” about the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual right have been authoritatively settled by the U.S. Supreme Court: The Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” independent of service in an organized militia. That fact was unambiguously articulated in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.

That decision, moreover, was based on the public understanding of the Second Amendment at the time it was ratified. In other words, not only was the Second Amendment an individual right as of 2008, it has always been an individual right. As the Supreme Court noted, “virtually all interpreters of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment interpreted the Amendment as we do.” It is false to suggest, as the California textbook does, that it originally meant something different and then somehow changed meaning in 2008.

Regarding the prefatory militia clause, the Supreme Court took pains to explain the difference between the justification for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights and the scope and substance of that right.

“The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution,” the court wrote. What justified its codification was “the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms … .” But, the court noted, the prefatory militia clause announcing the reason for the right’s codification “does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.”

That scope, meanwhile, included using arms for “self-defense and hunting,” with self-defense being “the central component of the right itself,” according to the Supreme Court.

The California textbook also misconstrues what the term “militia” meant to the founding generation at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment. It wasn’t just a discrete, organized military force, the court explained, but members of the population “physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” whether they were mustered in that capacity or not. Thus, the terms “militia” and “the people” are not at odds with each other in the Second Amendment. The people, with their own arms, are the basis of the militia. To protect the peoples’ private right to arms is therefore to protect the militia’s ability to muster with arms and to preserve its viability.

As for Congress’ ability to regulate the interstate sale of weapons, the Supreme Court indicated in Heller that “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” are part of the “longstanding” history and tradition of the Second Amendment, and are thus “presumptively lawful.” That does not mean, however, that every such law trumps the amendment’s protections, especially if there is no longstanding precedent for it.

In any event, the Supreme Court has yet to hear a case that pits the Second Amendment against the Commerce Clause, and it explicitly reserved that and other questions for later consideration. “[S]ince this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field,” the court wrote. “[T]here will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.”

California likes to emphasize how it sees things differently than the rest of the United States. That’s why common consumer products come with warnings that they include substances “known to the State of California” to pose various hazards, including cancer or birth defects. So numerous are these warnings that people at this point are most likely to ignore them as sensational and unreliable.

The state’s students would be wise to take the same approach to official state pronouncements about firearms and the Second Amendment.

California, as the saying goes, is entitled to its opinions. But it’s not entitled to its own facts.

And when it comes to the Second Amendment, the facts are different than the opinions expressed in the California-specific version of McGraw-Hill’s social studies textbook.

Activist Wilma Mankiller is quoted as saying, “Whoever controls the education of our children controls our future.”

Year after year California chips away at the Second Amendment with its ever-expanding gun control regime.

If this continues unabated, the right to keep and bear arms will effectively be nullified for future generations of Californians.

What’s worse – if California’s educational bureaucrats have their way – is that those generations will be too ignorant of their liberties to even understand what has been taken from them.

Our advice to these students is to exercise their First Amendment rights to learn and speak the truth, and as soon as they are able, exercise the right to vote in favor of those who respect their fundamental liberties, rather than those who try to write them out of history.

Trump Jr Blasts FL Republican Bill Galvano Over Past Support From Anti-Gun Extremist Bloomberg

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Donald Trump Jr. slammed incoming Florida Senate President Bill Galvano, a Republican, for siding with extreme anti-Second Amendment advocate and communist China sympathizer Michael Bloomberg. READ MORE

SOURCE: DailyWire.com by Ryan Saavedra

Last Friday, Breitbart Second Amendment columnist AWR Hawkins called attention to two massive contributions totaling $500,000 that Bloomberg’s far-left group Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund gave to Galvano’s political committee, the Innovate Florida committee, after the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018.

Galvano responded to the contribution by saying in September 2018 that he “will make no apologies” for supporting gun control championed by Bloomberg, and said that he was “grateful for the support” from Bloomberg’s group.

In a statement to The Daily Wire, Trump Jr. slammed Galvano for siding with Bloomberg, who is running for president as a Democrat and on the issue of stripping Americans of their Second Amendment rights.

“Any supposed ‘Republican’ who proudly accepts money from Mini Mike Bloomberg and is supportive of his gun control agenda is nothing more than a stone cold RINO,” Trump Jr. told The Daily Wire. “The last thing Florida Republicans need is a liberal, gun-grabbing Bloomberg minion leading them in the State Senate.”

Andrew Pollack, who lost his daughter in the Parkland tragedy, slammed Galvano in a tweet, writing: “Democrats exploited the murder of my daughter. I never imagined a Republican would do the same, but that’s exactly what Bill Galvano did. He took $500,000 from Bloomberg & tried to reinstate disgraced Sheriff Scott Israel This boils my blood! #FixIt”

SEE TWEET

In a separate tweet, Pollack highlighted the money that Galvano got from Bloomberg’s far-left group, writing: “Florida Senate President @BillGalvano is bought and paid for by Michael Bloomberg. He’s accepted over $500k from Bloomberg’s anti-gun PAC. He’s constantly working against Governor Desantis and the Republican Party. He’s a RINO #FixIt”

SEE TWEET

The past donations from Bloomberg’s far-left group to Galvano garnered attention because Galvano led a Senate panel this last week to ram through Bloomberg’s gun control agenda in Florida.

News 4 Jax reported: A Senate panel Monday unanimously signed off on a far-reaching measure that would close the gun-show “loophole,” create a record-keeping system for private gun sales and set aside $5 million to establish a “statewide strategy for violence prevention.” The proposal (SB 7028) is a priority of Senate President Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, as evidenced by the Senate Infrastructure and Security Committee’s consideration and passage of the measure the day before the 2020 legislative session begins.

The sweeping legislation would require background checks and a three-day waiting period for firearms sold “on property to which the public has the right of access,” such as “a flea market, a gun show, or a firearm exhibit.” The measure would also mandate that guns be securely stored in households and other places where minors under age 18 — up from the current threshold of 16 — could have access to the weapons.

Former NRA President Marion P. Hammer responded at the time by indicating that Galvano betrayed those who voted for him, saying, “Looks like our Second Amendment Rights were sold for a large contribution from anti-gun former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.”

Hammer said that the gun control bill advocated for by Galvano this week, SB-7028, was “the worst I have ever seen” and “is clearly meant to simply ban all private sales of firearms through red tape and fear.”

“This bill contains so much red tape and nonsense that there is almost no way a law-abiding person could comply,” Hammer continued. “The only thing we know for sure is that this bill will only stop law-abiding people from exercising a constitutional right, and it will be completely ignored by criminals.”

“Voting in favor of this bill is like a doctor giving a patient an antibiotic for a virus. The doctor knows an antibiotic won’t cure the illness, but at least he can make people think he’s ‘doing something,’” Hammer added. “Supporting a bill so you can say you’re doing something is ‘political eyewash.'”