Reactions to Tragedy
We warned you in a previous story this was going to happen.
After the tragedies in Uvalde, Buffalo, El Paso, and the nonstop violence in cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles, Democrat politicians are again trespassing into the realm of personal gun ownership rights by trying to expand their political power.
The irony is that while liberals bemoan gun violence on one side, on the other they champion radical left-wing causes such as “Defund the Police”, “Drug Legalization”, “No Bail”, and “Early Release of Violence Criminals”, all of which has had a far greater impact on crime.
The recent incident with New York City bodega owner Jose Alba only shows that if not for public pressure, Mayor Eric Adams and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg may likely have kept Alba in jail and thrown the book at him, showing a gaping problem in our legal system when self-defense is punishable by prison time unless the security video is clear enough.
Hollywood ‘Cares’
Gun violence and movies have gone hand-in-hand since The Great Train Robbery. However after the tragic accident that occurred on the movie set of Rust, the movie industry rediscovered the Age of Aquarius. The Hollywood group-think of the moment was to ban firearms from movie productions and TV sets.
Daily Beast explains:
Nearly 200 writers, actors, and directors have signed a petition calling for Hollywood to “harness their power as culture makers” and reconsider how they portray gun use in film.
The appeal comes on the heels of two mass shootings carried out by 18-year-olds in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York, last month. Thirty-one people, including 19 schoolchildren in Uvalde, were killed as a result.
So far, it’s been signed by big names like Shonda Rhimes, Adam McKay, Judd Apatow, Amy Schumer, Mark Ruffalo, and Jimmy Kimmel. Other signatories include Ted Lasso co-creator Bill Lawrence and horror filmmaker Eli Roth, ironically known for his gruesome death scenes.
The petition, first reported by the newsletter The Ankler, urges the industry to limit scenes involving children and guns and to explicitly show characters locking their guns and putting them out of the reach of children.
It also asks creators to have “at least one conversation” during pre-production about narrative alternatives to firearm use. It doesn’t call for an outright ban on guns on screen.
Could the (Squirt) Gunfight at the OK Corral ever have the dramatic adrenaline without real firearms? More so, what do the American people think?
Politicians Overreact (Again)
Yahoo News claim to have the answer:
The survey of 1,541 U.S. adults, which was conducted from June 10 to 13, found that the current bipartisan plan could prove very popular if it’s ultimately signed into law. When asked about its four key reforms:
- 66% of Americans favor and 19% oppose “expanding criminal and mental background checks for buying guns to include juvenile records”
- 66% support and 14% oppose “more government spending on security services in public K-12 schools”
- 67% support and 14% oppose “more government spending on mental health programs in public K-12 schools”
- And 54% favor and 26% oppose “expanding so-called red-flag laws, which make it easier for authorities to confiscate guns from people reported to be a threat.”
In the U.S. Senate, where the filibuster creates a 60-vote threshold for legislation, it’s notoriously difficult to create enough bipartisan consensus for action, especially on divisive issues such as gun policy. It appears that the modest reform deal may have enough momentum.
[smartslider3 slider=13]
The once Golden State already has the toughest gun ownership laws in the country. Yet, California has taken ‘passing the blame’ a step further by requiring gunowners to buy liability insurance. Which will be a financial boom for tort lawyers that already donate heavily to Democrats. A series of so-called “bipartisan” gun control laws have recently been signed into law.
Business Insider points out a good example:
The recent string of high-profile shootings in the US is prompting one House Democrat to draft a measure designed to severely restrict access to the AR-15-style weapons used by gunmen in the carnage. Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia, a member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, wants to impose a 1,000% excise tax on such semiautomatic rifles.
New AR-15-style guns cost anywhere from $500 to over $2,000 depending on location, NBC News reported. That means a 1,000% tax on the weapons would add $5,000 to $20,000 to their final sales prices — and would probably keep them out of reach from many younger Americans.
Some details of the bill still aren’t finalized, such as when the tax would take effect and what to do with any revenue raised. It’s also unclear how much money it would generate. The National Shooting Sports Foundation in a 2014 court brief cited estimates that AR-15-style rifles accounted for one in five guns purchased in the US. Gun sales have surged since then and last year reached their second-highest level recorded.
Law-enforcement agencies and the US military wouldn’t be subject to the tax, Beyer said.
Problem is, how many criminals purchase their firearms over the counter? How many black marketeers remember to include federal/state sales taxes to their transactions? Obviously, it’s only the law-abiding citizens that get punished by these draconian laws that neither make communities safer nor reduce crime. The only thing that happens is that Democrat politicians feel better. They also have some “accomplishment” to point to come election time. Yet, nothing Democrats implement actually stops crime overall.
He Can’t Do That…But He Did
California has quite the knack for picking horrendously underqualified Attorneys General. First there was cackling Kamala Harris, who used the office as a stepping-stone to US Senate and then Vice President. Next up was the ‘phony’ AG Xavier Becerra who enjoyed bullying great-grandmothers. He’s now the HHS Secretary in the Biden Administration. What his medical/healthcare qualifications are remain a mystery.
Now we have Rob Bonta, who pouted his way through his 2022 primary commercials. Remember, Bonta was famously the California politician that once tried to push legislation that would have allowed avowed Communists to serve openly and be appointed in California State government. AB 22 was so loudly opposed by Veterans, Hispanic, and Asian groups that the bill was pulled from consideration.
Bonta has been christened by His Holiness King Gavin I upon Becerra’s ascension to Washington DC. Bonta has been bungling his way through the State’s AG job over the last 18 months with little national attention.
That is until Bonta doxed California gunowners by releasing all their personal information on the internet.
KPIX-TV reported:
The California Department of Justice on Wednesday acknowledged the agency wrongly made public the personal information of perhaps hundreds of thousands of gun owners in up to six state-operated databases, a broader exposure than the agency initially disclosed a day earlier.
Names, dates of birth, gender, race, driver’s license numbers, addresses and criminal histories were exposed for people who were granted or denied permits to carry concealed weapons between 2011 and 2021, the department said. Social Security numbers and financial information were not disclosed.
The California Rifle and Pistol Association noted that the release came days after the U.S. Supreme Court threw out New York’s requirement that those seeking to carry concealed weapons provide a reason. That also derailed California’s similar requirement, though state lawmakers and Bonta are working to impose new requirements.
Bonta’s actions of intentionally doxing thousands of Californians has the potential of endangering the lives of thousands of gunowners. More than 18,000 concealed weapons permit holders in Fresno County alone have been impacted by this data dump.
The possibility exists that the California Attorney General was working in tandem with the Biden Administration and liberal activists as a work-around of the 2nd Amendment. Activists now have a list of gunowners that they can flood law enforcement and the courts with demanding the removal of the legally purchased and registered firearms.
Washington Post explains what ‘red flag’ laws are:
Red-flag laws allow police, family members or even doctors to petition a court to take away someone’s firearms for up to a year if they feel that person is a threat to themselves or others. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia — including two Republican-controlled states, Florida and Indiana — have some form of this law on the books.
Under red-flag laws, you don’t have to have a criminal record or a history of mental illness to lose your gun temporarily. If a judge is persuaded by an argument that you are a danger to yourself or others, police can take your guns away for days, weeks, months or a year.
That’s in contrast to federal law and laws in most other states that require someone to have been convicted of a felony, committed to a mental institution or on the receiving end of a domestic violence protection order before they can lose their right to a firearm, even temporarily.
State implementation of these laws varies widely. Florida’s version is relatively narrow, allowing only law enforcement to petition the courts to take away someone’s guns. Maryland and D.C. allow mental health providers to petition. New York allows school officials, and Hawaii allows co-workers.
Thus, it makes sense as to why Sheriffs across California have voiced their outrage opposing Bonta’s actions. Nevertheless Biden and Bonta’s actions have emboldened Governor Gavin Newsom to sign anti-gun legislation in defiance of recent Supreme Court rulings.
Have You Ever Read It?
The 2nd Amendment reads per vadim:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Supreme Court had further interpreted this inalienable right in recent months.
NBC News reports:
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Constitution provides a right to carry a gun outside the home, issuing a major decision on the meaning of the Second Amendment.
The 6-3 ruling was the court’s second important decision on the right to “keep and bear arms.” In a landmark 2008 decision, the court had said for the first time that the amendment safeguards a person’s right to possess firearms, although the decision was limited to keeping guns at home for self-defense.
The law at issue said, however, that permits could be granted only to applicants who demonstrated some special need — a requirement that went beyond a general desire for self-protection.
The court agreed with the challengers and struck down the heightened requirement, but it left the door open to allowing states to impose limits on the carrying of guns.
Experts on gun laws said that part of the ruling sets a high bar for further gun restrictions.
After the SCOTUS ruling, Democrats lost their collective minds. One of the ideas that is in front of the Ways and Means Committee is a 1,000% sales tax on firearms. An even crazier idea that liberals are ballyhooing is to actually repeal the 2nd Amendment, an idea championed by late-Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
President Biden tried to explain liberal perspective:
Biden told reporters on Memorial Day that the Second Amendment didn’t allow for the ownership of cannons when it was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791.
Biden has repeated the claim at least five times during his presidency, despite it earning him “Four Pinocchios” from the Washington Post in 2021 and a “False” label from Politifact on three separate occasions dating back to May 2020.
The Second Amendment as it is written does not limit who can “keep and bear arms” or what kind of arms people can keep and bear.
Federal gun regulation didn’t come until 1934, decades after the Second Amendment was introduced, according to Politifact.
The idiocy of these perspectives that the 2nd Amendment does not say what it means, or that it can be overturned by a mere act of Congress is sheer lunacy. To repeal or amend the Constitution requires any proposed changes to go through the Amendment process.
In addition, Marbury v. Madison reinforced the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land as stated in Article VI. Unfortunately, so many are ignorant of what is in the Constitution that it is becoming easier for Democrats to pull these tricks on the American people, and someday one of these unconstitutional actions is going to slip through.
Besides, this would not be the first time, nor the second, (or the third) in which the Biden Administration has tried to redefine the obvious.
!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=”https://rumble.com/embedJS/u827p”+(arguments[1].video?’.’+arguments[1].video:”)+”/?url=”+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+”&args=”+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, “script”, “Rumble”);
Rumble(“play”, {“video”:”v1c54c3″,”div”:”rumble_v1c54c3″});
