Category Archives: Politics

If it concerns your Second Amendment, or other policy driven content, you’ll be able to find it in our politics section

National Alert: Champaign Illinois First Locality to Cite “Emergency Powers” to Ban Gun Transfers

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Recent pandemic advantageous for gun control legislators. READ MORE

corona vifus gun control

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

As uncertainty about the COVID-19 outbreak continues to swirl, it is clear that anti-gun extremists and elected officials will use fear of the unknown to advance their agenda to undermine our firearms freedom. Not surprisingly, it didn’t take them long to try and quietly pass and implement gun control schemes while Americans are focused on ensuring the health, safety and welfare of themselves and their families.

On Friday, March 13, an ordinance was passed passed in Champaign, IL, to empower the mayor to “[o]rder the discontinuance of selling, distributing, dispensing or giving away of … firearms or ammunition of any character whatsoever.” This action must be swiftly opposed and NRA members in the area have been alerted and are responding to the threat.

The ordinance in Champaign serves as a warning bell to law-abiding gun owners nationwide. We must be on high alert for any attempts to destroy the Second Amendment in jurisdictions throughout the country.

We don’t have to guess that when emotions are running high, some politicians will exploit the situation to overstep their bounds. We know this. We’ve seen it time and time again, including in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, more recently in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and even in a North Carolina city in the face of unusually harsh winter weather. This is hardly an exhaustive list of such abuses.

This is exactly why the NRA has supported legislation to prevent government officials from using their “emergency powers” as a pretext for disarming the citizenry.

In 2006, then-Congressman Bobby Jindal (R-LA) led the fight to protect America’s gun owners against these abuses by introducing H.R. 5013 in the House, a final version of which was signed by President George W. Bush in October of that year. Now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 5207, the law prohibits persons acting under color of federal law, receiving federal funds, or acting at the direction of a federal employee from seizing or authorizing the seizure of lawfully-possessed firearms during a state of emergency.

The majority of U.S. states now have similar laws to prevent state and local officials from using the exercise of their “emergency powers” as a pretext to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. And even in the absence of such laws, the Second Amendment still applies by its own force.

That’s why we are asking gun owners to be alert to any attempt to leverage the fear and uncertainty around the COVID-19 outbreak to assail Second Amendment rights. If you learn of any such attempt, please contact us immediately at nra.org, ILA-Contact@nrahq.org, or (800) 392-8683. If possible, please include a link or reference to the proposed bill or rule in question.

We will continue to monitor the situation in Champaign, as well as the rest of the nation and alert our members accordingly.

Now, more than ever, it is essential for Americans to work together to successfully resolve the current crisis that faces the country. Every person can play a part by keeping a cool head, staying informed with reliable sources of information, and following directives in your locality about hygiene and social distancing.

Rest assured that your NRA will do its part, too, by remaining vigilant against opportunistic actions against your rights and freedoms during this difficult time.

 

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.

Amid the Anti-gun Hysteria of the Democrat Primary, NICS Sets Another Record

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

NICS Checks reach a record high due to gun control fears. READ MORE

nic schecks

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

January 2020 was a record-setting month for the FBI’s NICS Office and our coverage noted that law-abiding gun owners buy firearms whenever anti-gun politicians start targeting them instead of criminals. A couple of things have happened since January: failed candidate Mike Bloomberg and others kept talking about their gun control aspirations, and law-abiding gun owners kept buying firearms and getting permits for concealed carry.

February 2020 was the third busiest month the NICS Office has ever seen. It was also the busiest February and saw more checks run than in January 2020. More than 2.8 million checks were run last month and more than 5.5 million have been run so far this year (through the end of February). February 24th to March 1st was the third busiest week for NICS firearm background checks in history. The only busier weeks were in December 2012 and December 2015.

The total number of NICS checks in February included 719,327 checks related to a handgun purchase; 400,040 checks related to the sale of a long gun; 57,887 checks for the sale of frame, receiver, or other firearm; and, 26,769 checks for multiple firearms in a single transaction. There were also 393,902 permit checks and more than a million permit re-checks. Keep in mind, there are some states that accept a valid permit in lieu of a NICS check so the actual number of firearms purchased in February could be much higher.

The Washington Examiner reports that 2020 could see the most-ever checks in a year, with more than 30 million possible if this trend continues.

Will it? Well, Joe Biden anointed Beto O’Rourke as his front man on gun confiscation on the eve of Super Tuesday last week. Remember Beto? He’s the sort-of-ran candidate who dropped out of the race on November 1st – just a couple of weeks after revealing that he did actually want to confiscate lawfully-owned firearms.

In Virginia, sales-related background checks were up more than 63% in February 2020 compared to same period in 2019. Firearm sales in Virginia have been increasing rapidly as the legislature that Mike Bloomberg bought works to inflict his will upon the good people of Virginia.

Rational people should expect law-abiding gun owners to continue to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights as the Democrat primary season continues. It could be a very busy summer for the NICS staff.

Buying a firearm is an exercise of your Second Amendment rights, but that action alone will not send a message to Biden or Sanders. The only message they’ll actually understand is a complete rejection of their policies at the ballot box. Mike Bloomberg has already pledged to spend “whatever it takes” to get Joe Biden in the White House. While that might sound like an idle boast coming from most people, keep in mind that Bloomberg has already bought the Virginia legislature.

Let’s make sure he can’t buy the White House.

Get involved this election cycle. Contact your legislators and politely ask them to stand up for Constitutional rights. Volunteer with the NRA and your local affiliate.

Most of all, make sure you and your peers vote.

Bloomberg Drops Out of Presidential Race

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

“Three months ago, I entered the race for president to defeat Donald Trump. Today, I am leaving the race for the same reason: to defeat Donald Trump,” he said. READ MORE

bloomberg

SOURCE: Politico, by Caitlin Oprysko and Erin Durkin

Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg suspended his presidential campaign on Wednesday, endorsing Joe Biden after pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into his own failed White House bid.

Make no mistake though, he, and his bankroll, are going to be there through the duration of the race, and beyond.

Speaking to supporters Wednesday afternoon in Manhattan, Bloomberg said he was “clear-eyed about our overriding objective, and that is victory in November.”

He said he bowed out to avoid further fracturing the Democratic Party and helping Trump.

“I entered the race for president to defeat Donald Trump, and today I am leaving the race for the same reason: To defeat Donald Trump, because staying in would make it more difficult,” Bloomberg told the crowd at the Sheraton hotel.

Bloomberg’s exit comes hours after a disastrous showing in the Super Tuesday primaries, which netted the former mayor only a single first-place victory in the territory of American Samoa.

After failing to win any states, he said he realized the numbers would never add up for him.

“The delegate math had become virtually impossible, and a viable path to the nomination just no longer existed,” he said. “I will not be our party’s nominee, but I will not walk away from the most important political fight of my life and I hope you won’t walk away either.”

The former mayor urged his supporters to get on board with Biden’s campaign, saying taking down Trump would require “uniting behind the candidate with the best shot to do it, and after yesterday’s vote, it is clear that candidate is my friend and a great American, Joe Biden.”

Still, Bloomberg took a moment to speculate about what might have been. “There is no doubt in my mind we would have beaten Donald Trump in November,” he said. “And you know who else knows that? Donald Trump. He’s scared stiff of us, and for good reason, because every time he hit us, we hit back twice as hard.

Despite his massive spending, he said he always recognized his campaign was a longshot.

“I knew what this race would be all about, and I knew we didn’t have much of a chance, but we did it anyways,” he said.

Bloomberg made an extremely late entrance into the race last November when it appeared as though Biden’s campaign was faltering. His late entrance into the race kept him from appearing on the ballot in the retail politics-heavy first four states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

The former mayor dumped more than half a billion dollars into his campaign, investing in a vast ground game, blanketing the airwaves with ubiquitous ads and campaigning in Super Tuesday states while his rivals were focused on Iowa and New Hampshire. And it appeared for a time that his spending was paying off as Bloomberg quickly shot up in the polls. But his bid began to come undone after an abysmal performance in the first primary debate he participated in, where Sen. Elizabeth Warren savaged Bloomberg over his treatment of women, his wealth, and his defenses of past policies like stop and frisk.

Coupled with Biden’s resurgence after a commanding victory in South Carolina, Bloomberg’s surge to top-tier status in the polls appeared to stall out, culminating in his disappointing showing Tuesday night.

Bloomberg’s endorsement of Biden comes after two of the former vice president’s chief rivals in the moderate lane — Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg — ended their bids and backed the former vice president in a show of centrist unity.

Bloomberg has long said that even if he did not become the Democratic nominee, he would continue spending his vast fortune in favor of that candidate in order to defeat Trump in November, a pledge he reiterated upon dropping out.

Christopher Cadelago contributed to this report.

Bloomberg’s (Farewell) Debate Bloopers

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

His presidential bid swan song was fraught with errors, and make no mistake — Bloomberg is still going to be “there” fighting the 2nd Amendment tooth and nail.

bloomberg

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Joe Biden isn’t the only presidential candidate having uncomfortable verbal lapses. One of the more telling moments of the tenth Democratic presidential primary debate on February 25th occurred when former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg put his mouth where his money is, blurting out that in 2018, he had “bought” Democrats their majority in the House of Representatives.

The admission came in the wake of an earlier attack by Pete Buttigieg on the viability of Bernie Sanders as the nominee — that of the 40 Democrats “who actually turned the House blue,” none had embraced Bernie’s platform.

Bloomberg — one of the two billionaire bookends on the debate stage — chimed in to take the credit. Out of those 40, “twenty-one of those were people that I spent $100 million to help elect. All of the new Democrats that came in and put Nancy Pelosi in charge and gave the Congress the ability to control this president, I bought … I, I got them.” (See the video at the 1:34:00 mark.)

One of the Democrats that Bloomberg claims to have “bought” is Lucy McBath (D-GA). Ms. McBath was previously a national spokesperson and faith and outreach leader for the Bloomberg-founded and funded gun-control group, Everytown (which includes Moms Demand Action). It should come as no surprise that, earlier this month, Rep. McBath endorsed her benefactor in his run for the White House, as have several of the other Democratic members similarly beholden to the former mayor.

Since 2007, Bloomberg has spent at least a quarter of a billion dollars on gun control efforts across the country, through Everytown and otherwise. Within hours of Bloomberg announcing his presidential bid, it was disclosed that his campaign was being allowed to “rent” the private Everytown/Moms email lists, because of his “unique role” and the “significant investments he’s made.” Small wonder that during the February 25th debate, Bloomberg boasted onstage that, “I have a six million-person organization around this country, Moms Demand Action and Everytown.” (See the video at 1:45:30.)

And while he is self-funding this vanity project presidential run, it is important to remember that Bloomberg has more money than the annual budget of many countries. And we’re not just talking about small countries, like Liechtenstein. Given his net worth is estimated at more than $60 billion, that puts him ahead of the annual budget of countries like Peru, Romania, and Chile.

Now, with his own campaign on the line, Bloomberg is not likely to turn off the money hose. Despite his late start in the race, he has already outspent every other candidate in the 2020 presidential election, racking up over half a billion in campaign advertising expenditures alone – more than the ad buys of all of the other Democratic candidates combined. (For those with less abstract political interests, Mike 2020 events are notorious for their lavish food and drinks.)

Thus far, all that moolah has resulted in considerable movement in the polls for the former New York City mayor. When he entered the race in late November of last year, he had meager polling numbers around two percent. After turning on the money, though, Bloomberg’s numbers have risen to the mid-teens.

The real impact of this extravagant, unprecedented spending remains to be seen, as Bloomberg opted to skip the first four democratic primaries this month to focus on the “Super Tuesday” states.

What is clear is Bloomberg’s attitude about his billionaire “buying power.” In addition to his ill-judged claims of buying politicians and owning so-called “grassroots” organizations, he’s dismissive about the concerns of Americans who – regardless of party affiliation – may feel there’s something inherently wrong about “buying” an election: “I’m spending a lot of money to try to replace Donald Trump. And for people that don’t want me to do that, I guess they want to keep Donald Trump as president because if you want to get him out there, you should hope I spend even more.”

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.