The Organic Prepper: Biden’s New Executive Orders Could Turn a Whole Lot of Gun Owners Into Felons

Robert Wheeler at The Organic Prepper talks about President Biden’s gun control orders in Biden’s New Executive Orders Could Turn a Whole Lot of Gun Owners Into FELONS

Joe Biden promised to do it and he has finally delivered. Today, the cognitively declining President of the United States signed a number of Executive Orders allegedly designed to “curb gun violence” but actually designed to destroy the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

In the process, Biden has turned many Americans into felons with a stroke of his pen.

Details are still emerging as to just what the Executive Orders will mean for gun rights but we are aware of some of the ramifications.

Biden has signed 6 Executive Orders related to guns:

1.)Tightening regulations on “ghost guns.” Ghost guns are of course the labels liberals use to describe homemade firearms (because “we will win by slogans”) that are generally put together from parts assembled and drilled with machine tools. As a result, they often do not have serial numbers so it is harder for the government to be able to trace them. It is legal to build a gun in a home or workshop and there is no federal requirement for a background check. But Biden aims to stop this, saying his administration will “rein in the proliferation of so-called ‘ghost guns.’”

“These are guns that are homemade. Built from a kit that include directions on how to finish the firearm. You can go buy the kit. They have no serial numbers. So, when they show up at a crime scene they can’t be traced. And the buyers aren’t required to pass the background check to buy the kit. To make the gun. Consequently, anyone from a criminal to a terrorist can buy this kit for as little as 30 minutes, put together a weapon,” Biden explained.

Biden wants these guns treated as firearms under the Gun Control Act. He argues that, under the act, key parts of gun-making kits would be required to have numbers for traceability and would also require background checks for people purchasing the kits.

The White House stated:

We are experiencing a growing problem: criminals are buying kits containing nearly all of the components and directions for finishing a firearm within as little as 30 minutes and using these firearms to commit crimes. When these firearms turn up at crime scenes, they often cannot be traced by law enforcement due to the lack of a serial number. The Justice Department will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of these firearms.

2.) Measure the “problem of gun violence” in a “data driven way.” The Justice Department will issue an annual report on firearms trafficking. According to the official White House statement:

In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) issued a report summarizing information regarding its investigations into firearms trafficking, which is one way firearms are diverted into the illegal market where they can easily end up in the hands of dangerous individuals. Since the report’s publication, states, local, and federal policymakers have relied on its data to better thwart the common channels of firearms trafficking. But there is good reason to believe that firearms trafficking channels have changed since 2000, for example due to the emergence of online sales and proliferation of “ghost guns.” The Justice Department will issue a new, comprehensive report on firearms trafficking and annual updates necessary to give policymakers the information they need to help address firearms trafficking today.

3.) The Justice Department, within 60 days, will issue a proposed rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act “The alleged shooter in the Boulder tragedy last month appears to have used a pistol with an arm brace, which can make a firearm more stable and accurate while still being concealable,” the White House says.

4.) The Justice Department, within 60 days, will publish model “red flag” legislation for states.

From the White House:

Red flag laws allow family members or law enforcement to petition for a court order temporarily barring people in crisis from accessing firearms if they present a danger to themselves or others. The President urges Congress to pass an appropriate national “red flag” law, as well as legislation incentivizing states to pass “red flag” laws of their own. In the interim, the Justice Department’s published model legislation will make it easier for states that want to adopt red flag laws to do so.

5.) The Administration is investing in evidence-based community violence interventions.

Community violence interventions are proven strategies for reducing gun violence in urban communities through tools other than incarceration. Because cities across the country are experiencing a historic spike in homicides, the Biden-Harris Administration is taking a number of steps to prioritize investment in community violence interventions.

  • The American Jobs Plan proposes a $5 billion investment over eight years to support community violence intervention programs. A key part of community violence intervention strategies is to help connect individuals to job training and job opportunities.
  • The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is organizing a webinar and toolkit to educate states on how they can use Medicaid to reimburse certain community violence intervention programs, like Hospital-Based Violence Interventions.
  • Five federal agencies are making changes to 26 different programs to direct vital support to community violence intervention programs as quickly as possible. These changes mean we can start increasing investments in community violence interventions as we wait on Congress to appropriate additional funds

6.) The President will nominate David Chipman to serve as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

According to the White House:

ATF is the key agency enforcing our gun laws, and it needs a confirmed director in order to do the job to the best of its ability. But ATF has not had a confirmed director since 2015. Chipman served at ATF for 25 years and now works to advance commonsense gun safety laws.

It should be noted that Chipman served an important role in the coverup of the Oklahoma City Bombing and the First World Trade Center bombing and is now serving an even more important role in the war against American citizens.

Biden says no Amendments are absolute.

The President is unconvinced that these orders infringe on the Second Amendment but seems cool with it even if they do.

“Nothing, nothing I am about to recommend in any way impinges on the Second Amendment,” the president said, calling arguments suggesting that those constitutional rights are at stake “phony.”

“No amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute,” he said. “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater — recall a freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.”

He added: “So the idea is just bizarre, to suggest that some of the things we’re recommending are contrary to the Constitution.” (source)

This is just the beginning.

Make no mistake, the Biden Administration is declaring war on the rights of the American people and the first act of resistance is non-compliance. But there seems to be more on the horizon both coming from the White House and Congress itself.

Mises Institute: Gun Laws and Decentralization: Lessons from “Constitutional Carry”

José Niño at the Mises Institute writes Gun Laws and Decentralization: Lessons from “Constitutional Carry”.

Few political movements can boast of success like the firearms movement in the United States. Often overlooked is how before the 1980s there was no concept of licensed, let alone unlicensed, concealed carry in the overwhelming majority of the country. The sole exception was Vermont, which through an idiosyncratic state supreme court decision in 1903 has had unlicensed carry for over a century. “Vermont Carry,” the concept of unlicensed concealed carry, would be the Holy Grail for Second Amendment advocates for up to a century.

In the intervening decades, in large part motivated by notable transgressions on the right to bear arms during the 1930s and 1960s, activists took to using gradualist methods in their efforts to relax gun control laws at the state level. Starting in the late 1970s, Georgia kicked off the modern licensed carry movement after it joined states like Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Washington in enacting some form of licensed concealed carry. Soon thereafter, states began adopting licensed carry one by one, and by the twenty-first century, most of the nation had some form of licensed concealed carry. 

At first, the idea of unlicensed carry seemed like a quixotic prospect only odd states like Vermont were capable of adopting. However, the dam broke after Alaska ended America’s century-long unlicensed carry dry spell by signing its own constitutional carry bill into law in 2003. An even more pronounced momentum shift took place in 2010 after then Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1108, Arizona’s constitutional carry bill. From there, a wave of states have followed suit in making constitutional carry the law of the land.

Constitutional carry’s success is not a coincidence. It reflects a concerted effort by many disaffected gun owners who realized the federal government was not responding to their demands to scale back infringements on gun ownership. Rather than engage in the pie-in-the-sky federal campaigns that the average conservative organization would generally be involved in throughout the post–World War II era, many gun owners shifted their political sights toward state legislatures.

Indeed, there is something to be said about Barack Obama’s occupancy of the White House serving as a lightning rod for gun owners at the state level. At the time, many gun owners were thoroughly spooked by Obama’s campaign promises to enact gun control legislation. Their fears became more pronounced when the Obama administration pushed for a far-reaching gun control package in the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre.

Although Obama’s gun control desires never came to pass, gun owners became sufficiently motivated to not only take action against his gun control attempt at the federal level but to shift their attention toward the state level. Several creative Second Amendment organizations picked up on the grassroots dissatisfaction of the Tea Party and leveraged that energy for state-level projects such as constitutional carry. By the time Obama left office in 2016, there were eleven states with constitutional carry as law.

Constitutional carry’s momentum maintained its course in the Trump era. Five states—New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Kentucky—passed constitutional carry legislation of their own when Donald Trump was in office, thus showing signs of a movement that has a life of its own and a willingness to press forward regardless of the partisan winds blowing in DC.

Presently, there are eighteen constitutional carry states, following Utah and Montana deciding to quickly pass said legislation in the opening weeks of the Biden administration. Furthermore, states such as Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas are seeking to jump on the legislative bandwagon. From the looks of it, the concept of lawful individuals carrying firearms without a license is not going away any time soon.

Undoubtedly, the level of polarization present in the US can be leveraged in a positive direction. Large swathes of red states are filled with “deplorables” who have no love lost for both Democrats and Republicans in DC. One way they could poke DC in the eye is by passing legislation such as constitutional carry.

Contrary to what the promoters of traditional politics say, political confrontation can yield positive results. When states start taking matters into their own hands and buck prevailing trends emanating from DC, Americans can carve out their own “freedom domains,” if you will, where they can enjoy particular freedoms other states and the federal government would generally deprive them of.

In turn, when enough states adopt niche policies like constitutional carry, lagging states and the federal government alike will get the message that they are out of touch with the policy wants of large portions of America. At the same time, America is witnessing an ever-expanding Second Amendment sanctuary movement, with similar actors using local means to push back against gun control. Dissatisfaction is high and people are beginning to express it in a concrete, political form. As they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and sufficient pressure from below could be the wake-up call federal lawmakers need in order to act on their constituents’ demands.

Pulling a “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” likely won’t bring about any meaningful political change in a gridlocked Congress. Perhaps real political reforms will be the product of frequent visits to one’s respective state legislatures instead. Getting acquainted with state politics—something many politically active Americans have neglected to do in our federally obsessed political culture—is the first step in casting aside the ossified strategies of yesteryear.

Meaningful reforms will not come from DC but rather state legislatures and lower levels of government that are more prone to yield to grassroots pressure.

Washington Times: Americans have ‘no right’ to carry guns in public, 9th Circuit Court rules

Contrary to the US Constitution’s (and numerous individual state constitutions’) statement that there is a right to “bear arms,” the 9th Circuit Court has ruled that Americans have no such right to carry guns in public. This was decided in spite of the US Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v Heller decision which said of bearing arms that it is “unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.” However, the 9th Circuit appears to be hoping that because the Heller decision was narrowly decided upon a law that made bearing arms illegal in the home, that their decision against public carry is somehow valid.

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that there is no right to carry a gun in public.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to Hawaii’s requirement that residents must pass an application to have weapons outside the home.

“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment,” the court ruled in an “en banc” decision that involved all the panel’s judges.

“We can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self-defense,” the majority wrote, claiming that the Second Amendment applies to the “defense of hearth and home.”

“The power of the government to regulate carrying arms in the public square does not infringe in any way on the right of an individual to defend his home or business,” the judges wrote.

The court noted that “we have previously held that individuals do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public” which means people in the West Coast states it covers have no right to carry a firearm in any capacity in public.

The National Rifle Association noted the impact of the decision and said it would not stand.

“The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit just ruled that THERE IS NO RIGHT TO CARRY – either openly or concealed in public. This ruling impacts RTC laws in AK, HI, CA, AZ, OR, WA, & MT. This was not an NRA case but we are exploring all options to rectify this,” the gun-rights group wrote on Twitter.

Forbes: Biden Administration Urges Supreme Court To Let Cops Enter Homes And Seize Guns Without A Warrant

From Forbes, Biden Administration Urges Supreme Court To Let Cops Enter Homes And Seize Guns Without A Warrant

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear oral argument in Caniglia v. Strom, a case that could have sweeping consequences for policing, due process, and mental health, with the Biden Administration and attorneys general from nine states urging the High Court to uphold warrantless gun confiscation. But what would ultimately become a major Fourth Amendment case began with an elderly couple’s spat over a coffee mug. 

Capitol Breach
People view the Supreme Court building from behind security fencing on Capitol Hill in Washington, … [+] ASSOCIATED PRESS

In August 2015, 68-year-old Edward Caniglia joked to Kim, his wife of 22 years, that he didn’t use a certain coffee mug after his brother-in-law had used it because he “might catch a case of dishonesty.” That quip quickly spiraled into an hour-long argument. Growing exhausted from the bickering, Edward stormed into his bedroom, grabbed an unloaded handgun, and put it on the kitchen table in front of his wife. With a flair for the dramatic, he then asked: “Why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery?”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the tactic backfired and the two continued to argue. Eventually, Edward took a drive to cool off. But when he returned, their argument flared up once again. This time, Kim decided to leave the house and spend the night at a motel. The next day, Kim phoned home. No answer.

Worried, she called the police in Cranston, Rhode Island and asked them to perform a “well check” on her husband and to escort her home. When they arrived, officers spoke with Edward on the back deck. According to an incident report, he “seemed normal,” “was calm for the most part,” and even said “he would never commit suicide.” 

However, none of the officers had asked Edward any questions about the factors relating to his risk of suicide, risk of violence, or prior misuse of firearms. (Edward had no criminal record and no history of violence or self-harm.) In fact, one of the officers later admitted he “did not consult any specific psychological or psychiatric criteria” or medical professionals for his decisions that day.

Still, police were convinced that Edward could hurt himself and insisted he head to a local hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. After refusing and insisting that his mental health wasn’t their business, Edward agreed only after police (falsely) promised they wouldn’t seize his guns while he was gone. 

Compounding the dishonesty, police then told Kim that Edward had consented to the confiscation. Believing the seizures were approved by her husband, Kim led the officers to the two handguns the couple owned, which were promptly seized. Even though Edward was immediately discharged from the hospital, police only returned the firearms after he filed a civil rights lawsuit against them.

Critically, when police seized the guns, they didn’t claim it was an emergency or to prevent imminent danger. Instead, the officers argued their actions were a form of “community caretaking,” a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.

Supreme Court
UNITED STATES – JANUARY 7: The U.S. Supreme Court is seen on Thursday, January 7, 2021. (Photo By … [+] CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

First created by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago, the community caretaking exception was designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety, on the grounds that police are often called to car accidents to remove nuisances like inoperable vehicles on public roads. 

Both a district and appellate court upheld the seizures as “reasonable” under the community caretaking exception. In deciding Caniglia’s case, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals acknowledged that “the doctrine’s reach outside the motor vehicle context is ill-defined.” Nevertheless, the court decided to extend that doctrine to cover private homes, ruling that the officers “did not exceed the proper province of their community caretaking responsibilities.”

Siding with law enforcement, the First Circuit noted that a police officer “must act as a master of all emergencies, who is ‘expected to…provide an infinite variety of services to preserve and protect community safety.’” By letting police operate without a warrant, the community caretaking exception is “designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action,” the court added.

In their opening brief for the Supreme Court, attorneys for Caniglia warned that “extending the community caretaking exception to homes would be anathema to the Fourth Amendment” because it “would grant police a blank check to intrude upon the home.”

That fear is not unwarranted. In jurisdictions that have extended the community caretaking exception to homes, “everything from loud music to leaky pipes have been used to justify warrantless invasion of the home,” a joint amicus brief by the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and the American Conservative Union revealed.

This expansion could also have perverse effects and disincentivize people from calling for help. As that brief noted, “When every interaction with police or request for help can become an invitation for police to invade the home, the willingness of individuals to seek assistance when it is most needed will suffer.”

But in its first amicus brief before the High Court, the Biden Administration glossed over these concerns and called on the justices to uphold the First Circuit’s ruling. Noting that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” the Justice Department argued that warrants should not be “presumptively required when a government official’s action is objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”

“The ultimate question in this case is therefore not whether the respondent officers’ actions fit within some narrow warrant exception,” their brief stated, “but instead whether those actions were reasonable,” actions the Justice Department felt were “justified” in Caniglia’s case.

As a fail-safe, the Justice Department also urged the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court ruling on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that the officers’ “actions did not violate any clearly established law so as to render the officers individually liable in a damages action.”

But the Biden Administration, along with the courts that have extended the community caretaking exception, overlook a key component of the Fourth Amendment: the Security Clause. After all, the Fourth Amendment opens with the phrase, “the right of the people to be secure.”

In an amicus brief, the Institute for Justice noted that “to the Founding generation, ‘secure’ did not simply mean the right to be ‘spared’ an unreasonable search or seizure” but also involved “harms attributable to the potential for unreasonable searches and seizures.” Expanding the community caretaking exception to “allow warrantless entries into peoples’ homes on a whim,” argued the IJ brief, “invokes the arbitrary, looming threat of general writs that so incited the Framers” and would undermine “the right of the people to be secure” in their homes.

The IJ brief further argued that extending the “community caretaking” exception to the home would “flatly contradict” the Supreme Court’s prior rulings, which “has only discussed community caretaking in the context of vehicle searches and seizures.” In those cases, “the animating purpose for the exception [was] to allow officers to remove damaged or abandoned vehicles that pose a risk to public safety.” By contrast, the IJ amicus asserted,  “that justification is entirely absent” when it comes to homes.

“The Fourth Amendment protects our right to be secure in our property, which means the right to be free from fear that the police will enter your house without warning or authorization,” said Institute for Justice Attorney Joshua Windham. “A rule that allows police to burst into your home without a warrant whenever they feel they are acting as ‘community caretakers’ is a threat to everyone’s security.”

Colion Noir: Proof Facebook Fact-Checkers Are Censoring Debates On Constitutional Rights Like the 2nd Amendment

From Colion Noir:

I made a video in response to US Representative Mike Thompson, who tweeted, HR8 “A Universal Background Check Bill”, Has bi-Partisan Support from 90 percent of the American People. In my video, I stated that this is not true, because the polls where Mike Thompson got this 90% number from were misleading because they didn’t ask about Universal Background Checks which are different from the Regular background checks that we already have.

I further Stated that if the people who were polled understood the distinction between a background check and a “UNIVERSAL” background check and that a Universal Background check can’t be enforced effectively without a national gun registry I highly doubt 90% of Americans would agree with a UNIVERSAL Background Check.

Four Days after I released my video, I got an email from a guy named Tom Kertscher with PolitiFact asking me to submit proof by noon CT today.

A few hours later, PolitiFact Released an article from Tom concluding my video was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed & my video was false.

Tom is anything but objective on this issue. All you have to do is search Guns on his Twitter feed and the vast majority of his gun tweets are anti-gun tweets from politicians and the PolitiFact articles that he’s written to try to disprove pro-gun arguments.

Toms’s entire argument for why my video was false, is based on polls about background checks. Here’s the problem, none of the polls used the phrase UNIVERSAL Background Checks in their question. Tom used it in his title when he concluded: Support for UNIVERSAL Background checks on gun buyers is near 90%, but none of the polls actually used the phrase UNIVERSAL background check or explained the difference from the Background Checks we already have.

The reason why this is important is that Universal Background checks do not only apply to gun sales they apply to all transfers.

It’s even harder to believe this 90% Number when this percentage doesn’t show itself when universal background checks are voted on the state level.

Washington State has universal background checks but it only got 59% of the popular vote in Washington and that’s a state that hasn’t elected a Republican senator since 1994 or a republican Governor since 1980.

In Nevada, it only got 50.5% of the popular vote and in Maine, Lost with only 48% support.

If you combine the number of people who actually voted on universal background checks in all three of those states, it’s close to 3.97 million people, and each of these states leans blue, and out of the 3.97 million voters in those three states, only 54.7% voted in favor of Universal Background Checks.

Facebook is supposed to be a platform for open discussion. Instead, it’s turning into a platform where random fact-checkers get to play GOD.

How are we supposed to have an open dialogue and exchange of ideas and opinions when the platforms where the vast majority of these conversations are happening, use a clearly biased “Independent fact-checker” to justify invalidating my video and as a result limiting its reach.

I’m just trying to inform people about one of the most important if not the most important right we have in this country.

I get that Facebook is a private platform and they can do whatever they want and use whatever guy named after a pair of shoes they want to determine what can be posted on your platform but have an ounce of intellectual honesty and let us have the conversation without artificially limiting our voices.

That doesn’t help the country nor does it help the platform. We become stronger as a country by sharpening our ideas against the blade of open discourse. All these so-called fact-checkers are nothing more than political and intellectual bullies, not because they critiqued my video but because there’s no one to check the fact-checkers.

They have the final say and their say dictates how many people get to hear and see my ideas and that indirectly makes them Gods of online political and intellectual discourse and it’s insanely dangerous.

Colion Noir: S.736 Feinstein Introduces Bill To Ban All Commonly Owned AR-15s & Magazines Over 10 Rounds

We posted on this a few days ago, before the bill had been given a number. Here’s Colion Noir talking about S. 736, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2021, or officially “A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.” They just want to save you from your rights; that’s all.

Colion Noir on Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021 HR 1446

 

Link to HR1446 at Congress.

RocketFFL summarizes the bill:

…Currently, a Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) must satisfy background check requirements prior to transferring a firearm to a non-FFL. In most cases, this involves running a background check on the individual purchasing the firearm.

Usually, a response to the background check is received by the FFL within a few minutes. However, sometimes there is a delay of the response for myriad reasons: slow system response, anomaly in the person’s background, or multiple people with the same name.

Thankfully, as to not violate the Constitutional rights of law abiding Americans, if a denial is not received within 3 days, the FFL may transfer the firearm to the customer. This prevents the government effectively banning guns by delaying a background check response.

Anti-gunners refer to this check on the government’s power as a “loophole” and they are trying to end it…

American Thinker: The Left’s Campaign Against Self-Defense

From American Thinker come the article The Left’s Campaign Against Self-Defense

Last week, federal prosecutors offered an undisclosed plea deal to two lawyers who firebombed an NYPD van and drove around passing out Molotov cocktails to protesters at a violent May 2020 Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest in Brooklyn. Urooj Rahman, 31, and Colinford Mattis, 32, who was driving the car used in the crime, had been indicted in June for arson, conspiracy, and the use of explosives. They faced life imprisonment.

In the name of social justice,” politicians and the judiciary in many cities and states are bestowing moral rights on violent left-wing and anarchist groups. District attorney Mike Schmidt, for instance, announced in August that he wont prosecute most of the 550 people arrested during the 75 days of mayhem in Portland last spring. He said the leniency was an attempt to create a forum” to express collective grief, anger, and frustration” at the death of George Floyd and the history of abuses endured by people of color. Worse, he said using the criminal justice system against them would undermine public safety” for those demanding to be heard.” Schmidt, his Democrat cohort, and leftist sympathizers in journalism, law, and academia willfully ignore the fact that such misplaced clemency condones and encourages militant groups’ violence, their disrespect for the law, and their anti-American agenda.

In stark contrast, prosecutors are bearing down heavily on gun owners who defended themselves at protests by militant leftist groups like Antifa and BLM. Under threat are the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the legal justification to act in self-defense.

The protests and rioting in over 200 cities by leftist groups in 2020 has led to a skyrocketing of gun sales. This is driven by worries that, in response to the groups’ anarchist demands, Democrat-run municipalities and administrations are reducing funds for policing and law enforcement. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) estimates that last year, nearly five million Americans purchased a firearm for the first time. It’s noteworthy that the largest increase in sales of any demographic group was among blacks, who accounted for 58% of the sales. Theres even a black gun advocacy group called Black Guns Matter, founded and led by Maj Toure, a rapper and self-styled social activist.

The Second Amendment grants arms-bearing rights regardless of skin color, and this must no doubt be upheld. But the way biased prosecutors have responded to self-defense cases — all involving people menaced or attacked by Antifa-BLM protestors — is really a cause for worry. For the outcomes in these cases depart from the clement posture prosecutors have taken in cases related to the violence and bedlam perpetuated by the Antifa and the BLM. Three cases of self-defense stand out in particular: the Michael Strickland case, the Mark and Patricia McCloskey case, and the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

The case of journalist Michael Strickland is emblematic: he was found guilty by an Oregon court for defending himself by pulling out and pointing a gun for which he had a concealed carry permit. Covering an Antifa-BLM protest in Portland in 2016, he was surrounded and attacked. Fearing for his life, he pulled out his handgun — and with finger off the trigger — got the mob to back off so that he could escape. He was arrested, accumulated 21 charges, ten of which were felonies, found guilty by a stacked jury, and ordered to jail. The prosecuting attorney launched a media smear campaign against Strickland and the presiding judge, who ended up denying that the case met the reasonable person” standard, refused to allow exculpatory evidence. Strickland served 40 days, received five yearsprobation, and was stripped of his Second Amendment rights. He is no longer allowed to practice journalism and cover leftist mobs.

Top lawyer Robert Barnes, who has taken up Stricklands case in the Supreme Court of the United States, has cited the assault on his client as adequate grounds for self-defense. He reviles the Oregon Department of Justice for describing Antifa as a legitimate part of Portlands protest community” and his client as a polarizing” reporter not fit to cover public events because of his views. Clearly, the felony charges for showing he was armed for protection are unjust, especially in the light of Antifa-BLM being free to perpetuate violence. And clearly, the anarchists are well-protected by the media, politicians, and law enforcement, while those who dare defend themselves are prosecuted.

In another clear case of self-defense, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, both lawyers, stand charged with a felony for defending themselves by openly exhibiting their weapons against a premeditated assault. The protestors had broken into Portland Place, a gated neighborhood in St. Louis, Missouri, in June 2020, and threatened to harm them and destroy their property. The police and private security had failed to respond.

Ironically, circuit attorney Kim Gardner released dozens of rioters held for looting, arson, and destruction in St Louis. Two trial court judges had disqualified Gardner for prosecuting the McCloskey case because she inappropriately used it in fundraising emails before the Democratic primary. She recently requested that the Missouri Supreme Court restore her authority to prosecute the case. The McCloskey’s ordeal isnt over. As Mark McCloskey astutely observed, The circuit attorney has apparently decided her job as a prosecutor isnt to keep us safe from criminals but to keep the criminals safe from us.”

The third case is of 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, an Antioch, Illinois, a resident who volunteered to guard businesses in Kenosha, Wisconsin, when riots broke out in September over the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse is a lifeguard, an emergency medical technician, and founder of Humanizing the Badge, an organization to forge stronger relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve.” He was legally armed.

While trying to put out a fire, Rittenhouse was chased by a rioter, Joseph Rosenbaum, a registered sex offender convicted by an Arizona court in 2002 for sexual contact with a minor. A random shot rang out, and Rittenhouse found himself surrounded by a mob with bats and other weapons. The teen fired four shots in self-defense, tried to flee, and even tried calling 911 to turn himself in. As he ran, he was assaulted with a skateboard and suffered an attempt to seize his rifle. In the end, Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, were killed, and Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, was injured.

Although he acted in self-defense, Rittenhouse was charged with two counts of homicide and released on a $2 million bond. His family, facing death threats, has moved to a safe house. Remarking on the case, President Trump said, I guess he was in very big trouble.  He probably would have been killed.”

In all three cases, there seem to be clear-cut arguments for self-defense in the face of imminent danger. So the prosecution of Strickland, the McCloskeys, and Rittenhouse looks like a witch hunt meant to bolster calls for radical gun-control legislation. The exoneration or light sentencing of rioters responsible for destroying communities and hundreds of assaults underlines that suspicion. The Biden administration is pushing to gut the Second Amendment, and gun confiscation may be on the horizon. This leads to the logical conclusion that the outcome for Strickland, the McCloskeys, and Rittenhouse is anything but certain.

The final rulings on these cases will be a weathervane for the future of self-defense in the U.S.  Americans could very well be in danger of losing their right to own firearms and use them for their protection.

Townall: Biden Calls for More Gun Control/Bans

From Townhall comes Biden Uses the Parkland Anniversary to Call for Three Major Gun Control Moves.

As predicted, the Democrats are using the third anniversary of the tragic shooting in Parkland, Florida to call for stricter gun control laws. President Joe Biden issued a statement on Sunday calling on Congress to “enact commonsense gun law reforms”

“This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer,” the president said in a statement. “Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets. We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now.”

While Biden was on the campaign trail back in 2019, he called for a registry for magazines and so-called “assault weapons” – what the rest of us call AR-15s – that are currently in circulation, in addition to an outright ban on new production. On his campaign website he promised to implement those changes, as well as pushing red flag laws, which allows family, co-workers, teachers and colleagues to petition a court to take away a person’s firearms without due process. Oh, and he wants to make sure all firearms moving forward are “smart guns,” meaning no one can pull the trigger unless their DNA matches the pre-programed information (you can thank James Bond for the idea). Smart guns have not only logistical nightmares but there’s also the privacy concerns surrounding DNA.

When Harris was running for president she threatened to sign an executive order on gun control if Congress didn’t pass “common sense gun laws” within the first 100 days of her being president. Specifically, she called for an Assault Weapons Ban, universal background checks and prosecuting Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs).

Harris has made gun control one of her top two legislative priorities throughout her time in the Senate. And once she hit the road to campaign for president in parts of flyover, she suddenly became a gun owner (as if 2A advocates wouldn’t notice her aim at the Second Amendment).

It wouldn’t be surprising if these two come out of the woodwork and flat out say Biden will sign yet another executive order if Congress doesn’t pass sweeping gun control laws in the first 100 days. Democrats are so focused on “making history” that they’re willing to do whatever’s necessary for their legacy sake, including signing yet another EO. And you know they’ll word it like “Congress failed to rise to the moment” or “we asked Congress to honor the victims of gun violence by passing much needed reform and they didn’t rise to the occasion.”

Black Man with a Gun: The Rights of Gun Owners

Kenn Blanchard of Black Man with a Gun has a short article and video on The Rights of Gun Owners. There is also a longer podcast recording through the link.

What do you do after you buy your firearm, learn, train, share your knowledge and have fun with it?  You have to defend your right to it.  Politically– gun control is a staple in America.  And after the past four years,  this country is more divided than it was since 1975.

If you are a new gun owner, I am asking you to consider becoming a gun rights activist.  If you belong to a new gun club or group, I am suggesting that someone be designated to be the  legislative rep; the one that learns about gun laws, state bills, issues for the rest. The one that will make time to go and sit, talk to, represent us.   

With the increase of black, brown and other gun owners from what is called Traditional, there is a need for us to also step up and represent our clubs, associations and rights. As America mends, as the Republic repairs itself,  it is going to be slow.  Our enemies will take this opportunity to hurt the future of ALL gun owners. 

This is my appeal.  Uncle Kenn Wants You! 

I am asking you to do more than wear black battle fatigues and parade around.  I’m asking you to do more that show off your range time “kings and queens” on social media.

Social media has created an environment of fearlessness, carelessness, thoughtlessness, hopelessness, false bravado, misinformation, and racism.  Those things have always been but it has upped its game.

When the dust settles, and the battle for gun rights begins again, the sage gun clubs, organizations and cool old white guys will be dismissed  like the middle of the road folks have been.  They will be compared to and accused of being insurrectionist, racist and nuts 10 x more than before.  WHY – because they helped.  They made it easy. They fell into the trap.

Friends I am talking to you. We have been pitted against each other;  SUCCESSFULLY.  Your hot buttons have been pushed.  You’ve exercised your rights to speak out and do what you wanted and it hurt us all.

From my optic, law enforcement has less support than since 1968.  (Successful campaigns)

Attention whores rule social media and magazines covers.

There will be less interaction between the new gun owner and the old because of the discourse, media and stances folks have taken. (propaganda)

We are caught up in the fantasy.  We still want to be crusaders, black panthers, confederates, punishers, tactical spectacular militia and minute-men.  

NINJA please!

 

Support the show.  https://patreon.com/blackmanwithagun

https://Buymeacoffee.com/kennblanchard

Thanks

Kenn

Ammoland: HR 127 The Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

From Ammoland, HR 127 The Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

One sad reality of some of the most extreme anti-Second Amendment legislation is that it will come back in Congress after Congress as long as its sponsor is still out there. The Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act is one of these bills.

This legislation was introduced last year in the 116th Congress and covered in Ammoland. It was part of a package of three bills introduced by Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee – the other two being the Santa Fe High School Victims Act and the Kimberly Vaughan Firearms Safe Storage Act. This year, it is labeled under HR 127, as opposed to being HR 4801 in the last Congress.

As you can imagine, this Congress’s iteration of the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act is no less onerous and oppressive as its predecessor. If anything, though, some of the provisions now carry new menace given the constant calls for “deprogramming” we hear from pundits and cable “news” outlets of a certain persuasion.

Like its iteration in the last Congress, HR 127 calls for a psychological evaluation of those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Our past coverage noted that the evaluation could take a lot of time, given the number of interviews that would have to be scheduled. The concern then was the creation of more tragedies along the line of Carol Bowne, who was murdered by an abusive ex.

Now, however, given the desire for “deprogramming,” we could very well see the psychological evaluation used to target those who dissent from anti-Second Amendment extremism, who raise questions about certain issues, or who even supported former President Trump on other issues. After all, we haven’t ever seen government bureaucrats abuse power for political ends before, and even raising that notion might be enough to warrant “deprogramming” these days. After all, to believe some people, Second Amendment advocacy is domestic terrorism.

In addition, the climate of media-fueled hate adds another danger – the registration data is going to be made available to the general public. Someone can look up just how many firearms you own, what types of guns you have. It’s not just a massive planning aid to would-be thieves, but in an era of social stigmatization, it opens the door to discrimination and blacklisting across a number of areas, including employment and housing.

This bill is even more unacceptable now than it was when it was introduced in the last Congress. Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to oppose this massive infringement that only punishes the law-abiding and to instead support legislation like the School Violence Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2019 and the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act, which actually address school security and the misuse of firearms and do not infringe on our rights. Second Amendment supporters should also support the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund to ensure that the current anti-Second Amendment regimes in the House, Senate, and White House are defeated at the ballot box as soon as possible.

Colion Noir also talks about it: