We may earn revenue from the products available on this page and participate in affiliate programs. Learn More ›
TOP STORY
Your Tax Dollars To Finance Search For ‘Facts’ To Support Predetermined Gun Control Narrative
The House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies staged a hearing on “Addressing the Public Health Emergency of Gun Violence” on March 5.
“That hyperbolic title, however, betrayed the real agenda of the event, which was to create the false impression that an unprecedented wave of firearm-related violence urgently demands an infusion of federal research dollars,” writes the NRA-ILA on March 7.
The truth is gun-control advocates have been itching for an opportunity to blame law-abiding gun owners for gun crime for more than a decade and now, with November’s mid-terms giving them control of the House … well, elections have consequence.
As the NRA-ILA notes, “Rates of firearm-related violence are relatively stable and near historic lows in the U.S., while tens of millions of dollars are already being poured into firearm-related studies by a variety of funding sources.”
Which is why the hearing was important: Gun control activists want to funnel federal tax dollars into even more studies until they can compile enough studies with cherry-picked “facts” to justify the eventual dissolution of the Second Amendment.
Right now, numerous provisions in federal law prohibit using congressionally appropriated money for lobbying. As the NRA-ILA notes, one of these provisions specifically bans using appropriations for America’s public health apparatus to lobby for limitations on Second Amendment rights.
The provision states: “None of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control” (see Title II, SEC. 210 of legislation at this link).
The provision was put in place to prevent the Centers for Disease Control from being influenced by shifting Congressional whims imposing mandates to find the data that supports a predetermined outcome, a track it was on when the Republican-controlled House imposed the restriction in 1996.
As the NRA-ILA states: “The overarching goal of the CDC’s efforts in the 1990s was not the earnest quest for knowledge but helping to defraud the public into believing the gun control agenda had the imprimatur and mandate of ‘government scientists’ whose only concern was ‘public health.’”
For instance, the “study”—long-debunked, yet still cited—that residents of a home with a firearm in it are more likely to be killed by that firearm than to use it in self-defense.
But, as Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center explained during the hearing, 86 percent of the homicides covered by the study were committed by means other than the residents’ own firearms.
And, he said, researchers undercounted defensive firearm use by ignoring cases in which the assailant was not actually killed with the firearm.
But none of that matters. What matters is to put taxpayers’ dollars at work to find the “facts” to support the predetermined narrative and, since taxpayers’ dollars are apparently inexhaustible, the search for those “facts” never has to end.
For more, go to:
— Lawmakers talk funding for gun violence prevention research
— Anti-gun Democrats Press for Publicly Funded Gun Control Advocacy
— Daily Bulletin: The House is Holding a Hearing Today on Federal Gun Violence Research
— House Democrats press to stop gun export rule change
— Lindsey Graham tells CNN: Judiciary Committee to hold gun control hearing March 26
— TRUMP JR: HOUSE DEMOCRATS JUST TRIED TO UNDERMINE THE SECOND AMENDMENT
— Reality Check: Do ‘Red Flag’ Gun Laws Work?
— Politically active doctors test limits of gun control debate
2ND AMENDMENT SAVES LIVES
Law-Abiding Gun-Owners’ Risked Their Lives To Save Lives In 10 Of 50 Active Shooter Incidents
According to the FBI, there were 50 active shooter incidents in 2016 and 2017 combined. In at least 10 of them, a legally armed citizen intervened, either stopping the shooter dead cold or distracting him from unleashing further carnage.
Among the most notable is the November 2017 Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting where Devin Patrick Kelley, after killing 26 people and wounding 20 more inside, was confronted by nearby resident, Stephen Willeford, as he exited the church and was forced to flee following a gun battle.
Willeford then flagged down a stranger driving by, Johnnie Langendorff, and together both men—true heroes—chased after Kelley until he crashed and was apprehended by police when they showed up.
“What do you say to the man who stepped up when he heard the gunshots? I’d say he’s a hero,” Wilson County Sheriff Joe Tackitt Jr. told CNN. “I don’t think there’s any question about that. Had he not done what he did, we could have lost more people.”
The FBI report, published last April, shows that, in numerous incidents involving active shooters, there were people who stopped them by use of a weapon.
“Armed and unarmed citizens engaged the shooter in 10 incidents. They safely and successfully ended the shootings in eight of those incidents,” read the report. “Their selfless actions likely saved many lives.
“The enhanced threat posed by active shooters and the swiftness with which active shooter incidents unfold support the importance of preparation by law enforcement officers and citizens alike.”
Of those 10 active shooter incidents where an armed citizen confronted a mass-murderer in the act of slaughtering others, “eight of them ended successfully,” according to The Daily Caller. “Four of those eight shooters were stopped by a lawfully armed citizen.”
As Timothy Hsiao writes in The Federalist, any conversation that centers around firearm policy needs to acknowledge those that are saved by the legal use of guns and self-defense, such as those in the active shooter incidents.
“The value of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens should be measured in terms of lives saved or crimes prevented,” he said, “not criminals killed.”
For more, go to:
— FBI Releases Pro-2nd Amendment Statement, States the Importance of Armed Citizens in America
— Gun Groups Question Congressional Motives Behind NRA Investigations
— Activists Demand MoMA Divest from Private Prisons and Weapons Manufacturers
— Why Shares of American Outdoor Brands Dropped Friday Morning
— 1791 Gunleather introduces International Market to Holsters at IWA
— Review: Springfield Armory XD-S Mod.2 9mm
— 5 Facts About Ruger You Probably Didn’t Know
— State Pensions Fought Guns and Tobacco. Why Aren’t They Divesting From Opioids?
— Guess Who’s Hurt by U.S. Sanctions? Russia’s Gun Makers
— Artisans of Michigan: Early American custom gunmaking
Read Next: Trump Vows to Veto Latest Gun Control Legislation
STATE ROUNDUP
Hey, Robbie Leonard: ‘Dox’ You!
Maryland Democratic Party Secretary Robbie Leonard despises your Second Amendment right to legally own a personal firearm so much that he was to do away with the Bill of Rights to disarm you.
During a February 25 hearing on proposed gun control measures before the Maryland House of Delegates Judiciary Committee, gun-owners in the audience wore ‘We Will Not Comply’ t-shirts.
This outraged Leonard who doesn’t think it should be allowed for anyone to express an opinion—on a t-shirt or in testimony or, well, anywhere—that he disagrees with. And if they do, they should be punished for that transgression, he apparently believes.
Unfortunately, that darn First Amendment protects free speech—for now—so, until it doesn’t, Leonard is calling on gun control zealots to attack “terrorists” with the audacity to stand up for their rights.
Leonard posted on his Facebook page, “I hope the FBI runs the name of every witness who is wearing a t-shirt that says, ‘We Will Not Comply.’ They’re a bunch of terrorists in the making.”
In a later post, Leonard added photos from the hearing along with the message “Time to dox some homegrown terrorists.”
“Doxing” is an intimidation tactic whereby someone makes another person’s private or identifying information available to the public with the intent to prompt a harassment campaign against them.
For more, go to:
— Maryland Democratic Party Secretary Labels Gun Rights Activists “Terrorists,” Calls for Doxing
— Study links permissive state gun laws to higher rates of mass shootings
— New Mexico governor enacts expanded gun background checks
— 2 Nevada Sheriffs Vow to Defy State’s New Gun Law Passed in Response to Las Vegas Massacre
— Understanding Nevada’s new gun transfer law
— New York: A gun law that embraces common sense
— Illinois: Bill to Create Gun Seizure Regime Introduced
— Arkansas: Womack files bill to eliminate gun-free zones
— Illinois: Under bill, here’s what would happen to your guns if your FOID card is revoked
— Minnesota: Gun rights debate rages in Capitol, region
— List of Colorado counties formally opposing gun control bill grows
— Why did New Hampshire lawmakers wear pearls at gun control hearing?
— Bump stock ban latest of 4 gun bills stalling in Utah House committee in past week
— Guns are popular with Texans, and so are “red flag” laws, says UT/TT Poll
— Guns or cannabis? Ohio patients must choose.
— West Virginia: Campus carry gun bill misses target
IN THE COURTS
SAF Lawsuit Seeks A Pause On Avalanche Of Popular, But Often Flawed, ‘Red Flag’ laws
In late February, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of individuals improperly denied their Second Amendment rights over mental health issues by California ‘red flag’ laws.
The suit alleges that current state law is unconstitutionally flawed because even if someone is ultimately found to be mentally competent again by a court, their name still gets flagged in a federal database because of their past record and they can’t get a gun, SAF Founder and President Alan M. Gottlieb told David Sherfinski of The Washington Times.
“Some of our plaintiffs are 15, 16 years old—they went in for a mental evaluation. They were found to be competent and fine, but because they were in the hospital for a week, 10 days, they’ve lost their rights for their lifetime,” he said. “Some of our plaintiffs had a temporary problem, but now they can never get their rights back ever again, either.”
Mr. Gottlieb said “either one or both” of the state of California and the federal government are violating people’s constitutional rights, Sherfinski writes.
A federal statute restricts people who have been adjudicated as a “mental defective” or who have been committed to a mental institution from getting a gun.
SAF’s lawsuit says under California law, mental health “holds” can result in the denial of someone’s Second Amendment rights for five to 10 years. It argues that the federal statute has been effectively interpreted as a lifetime ban.
“There are several theories for WHY constitutional violations are keeping plaintiffs from exercising a fundamental right, with the most benign explanation being bureaucratic inertia, and the most sinister being a hostility to Second Amendment rights by government actors and policymakers,” the lawsuit says.
Gottlieb said people subject to such a “red flag” or “extreme risk” order who end up being flagged in a federal database could struggle to try to petition to get their rights back.
“It has very long-range implications all the way down the line for lots of things,” he told Sherfinski. “This is going to be interesting because it’s in the 9th Circuit…the 9th Circuit is pretty good on restoration of people’s mental health stuff but bad on guns, and now we threw them a very big curveball.”
For more, go to:
— Second Amendment Foundation sues over mental health ‘holds’ and suspension of gun rights
— Gun owner takes aim at Sig Sauer in lawsuit over alleged drop fire defect
— What’s really at stake in the Supreme Court’s new gun case
— Lawsuits Target Constitutionality of Voter-Approved Gun Control Measure in Washington State
— Shawnee Mission district settling ACLU lawsuit over free speech at gun protests
— ICYMI: Sutherland Springs Families File Suit Against Gun Dealer Who Sold AR-15 to Shooter
— SAF Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Second Amendment Enforcement Practices