With midterm elections only a couple weeks away… actually, scratch that, more than a million Americans have already cast their midterm ballots. In fact, I received my Washington State absentee ballot in the mail yesterday (Oct 16th). For fellow Washingtonians, I’d like to express my concerns with I-594 as well as mention its most glaring issues in the hope that you will pass along the good word. For the rest of y’all, let’s discuss NSSF‘s #GUNVOTE campaign.
Back in May, I first wrote about the possibility that a new ruling could open the floodgates for trusts to register new machine guns. On September 11th, that possibility became fact when the ATF approved — and then immediately rescinded — a Form 1 for a brand new machine gun for civilian ownership. Now it looks like a couple attorneys are filing suit against the ATF, trying to use this ruling as leverage to overturn some or all of the provisions of the National Firearms Act . . .
It used to be the case that Chicago banned all firing ranges within city limits. The city’s powers that be detest everything related to firearms, and saw every encumbrance they could place in the path of someone wanting to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms as a good thing. A court took issue with that, though, and ruled that the second amendment protected gun ranges as well as gun owners. Chicago quickly came up with a new law that allowed gun ranges — but banned them from 90% of the city for “public safety” reasons. Yesterday, another court ruling further smacked down Chicago’s attempt to infringe on the rights of its citizens by striking that down as well . . .
A couple months ago, President Obama declared a ban on the importation of Saiga and Kalashnikov Concern firearms to the United States. The stated reason was to punish the Russian government and people for their incursion into Ukraine. But as we all know, the Obama administration never misses an opportunity to screw over US gun owners by making firearms and ammunition more expensive and/or difficult to obtain. In an attempt to circumvent the newly-imposed restrictions, Kalashnikov Concern is reportedly in talks with a non-blacklisted buyer to purchase the company and restart US imports . . .
I talked yesterday about the recently passed emergency concealed carry law that has been enacted in Washington, DC. As you can tell from the video, the council members certainly don’t like it. One member went as far as to state that they flat-out don’t want carry and don’t even want guns, but are being forced to change by both the courts and Congress. Frankly, if this extremely divided and partisan Congress can make up their mind that you’re in the wrong, you know you’re really in the wrong. What really astounded me though was one council member’s statements about whether gun owners should have a right to privacy. His opinion: that right doesn’t exist. Because he wants to ostracize them . . .
It was less than a year ago that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was dealt a significant blow when their high profile lawsuit against Armslist was summarily dismissed for being the dumbest thing the judge had ever seen. The crux of their case was that Armslist had provided the meeting place for an illegal firearm that was sold and later used in a murder, and the Brady Campaign wanted to “hold them accountable” for not stopping the sale. In the end, their lawsuit was so flawed that they had to beg the court to ignore the law to let the lawsuit continue, something that didn’t happen. Fresh off that stunning victory, the Brady Campaign yesterday launched a new lawsuit on equally tenuous grounds, this time aimed at an ammunition distributor . . .
Washington State is ground zero in gun control advocates’ campaign to “expand” mandatory government background checks to all firearms purchases and transfers (including gun shows and family gifts). Come November, Evergreen State voters will either OK or torpedo Initiative 594. Quite how this increased government surveillance would reduce firearms-related crime is anybody’s guess. It certainly hasn’t had any measurable impact in Massachusetts or California. Regardless, billionaire Steve Ballmer’s donated $600,000. Bill Gates has chipped in $1m to the pro-Initiative 594 campaign. Not be outdone, billionaire ballistic bully boy Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety has also ante’d up a cool mil. seattletimes.com reports that the group spending the money is . . .
A couple weeks back we reported on a bill introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives by California Democrat Mike Honda to ban the sale of body armor to “civilians” in the United States. At the time the full text of the bill hadn’t been released, but a couple days ago it was finally posted to Congress’s official website. And yes, it really is as bad as you’d expect . . .
I’ve written before about the difference between feeling safe and actually being safe, but it’s a concept around which most in the anti-gun population will never be able to wrap their heads. Their entire argument is based on emotion, so asking them to think rationally about the issue is like asking a cat to recite a Shakespeare sonnet. A new poll was released on Monday reinforcing this disconnect between logic and emotion in the Windy City, as apparently 55% of Chicago residents feel “less safe” now that concealed carry is legal.
Reader CTSheepdog writes:
In Connecticut yesterday, John McKinney, state Senate Minority Leader, lost his bid for the GOP candidacy to face Governor Dan Malloy in November. McKinney, one of the architects of Connecticut’s restrictive 2013 gun laws, was beaten by 11 percent by businessman Tom Foley. Tens of thousands of CT gun owners turned out in a low turnout primary to lift Foley to victory in all but one CT county . . .
You’d think that at some point Michael Bloomberg would tire of unproductively flushing his cash down anti-gun electoral ratholes. Then again, when you’re worth $33 billion, blowing $150,000 on a futile effort to defeat a midwestern pro-gun sheriff is a little like you or me discovering we lost $20 through a hole in our pocket. It may be annoying, but it won’t affect his lifestyle in the slightest. Just like former Mayor Mike’s failed efforts to prop up anti-gun legislators in Colorado who’d supported his gun control agenda . . . Continue Reading
Reader Brian K. writes:
It appears that Lord Farqaad, aka Michael Bloomberg, is piling on to an easy opportunity to take out a pro-gun sheriff in a liberal county. Apparently he is dumping 150K in ads on top of the rich county executive’s 300K to get Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clark out. In total, Clark is facing more than 600K in money against him by our liberal establishment to put in place a liberal mouthpiece lieutenant from the MPD, who will harp about more gun control laws, joining the MPD chief, mayor, and county DA in pointing fingers at someone else to cover their failing, soft-on-crime philosophy.