Biden Goes Swalwell-Lite: “you cannot have 20, 30, 40, 50 clips in a weapon”

H/T AmmoLand.

Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden is showing his ignorance of firearms nomenclature.

Joe Biden Groping Mom Demand Actions Moms IMG NRA-ILA
Biden Goes Swalwell-Lite: “you cannot have 20, 30, 40, 50 clips in a weapon” IMG NRA-ILA

Fairfax, VA – -( The campaigns of Democrats seeking to challenge President Donald Trump in November 2020 seem to be on a never-ending quest to see which one can implode in the most spectacular fashion. We’ve documented the collapse of Representatives Eric Swalwell and Robert Francis O’Rourke, as well as predicted the demise of Senator Kamala Harris. Senator Cory Booker has also left the building, and Senator Elizabeth Warren has seen her support fade precipitously.

All (with the exception of Swalwell) of these candidates, at one point or another, were considered rising stars or poised to be embraced nationally as the new standard-bearer for the Democrats. And while Warren does remain an active candidate, her third-place finish (at least as far as we know) in Iowa was somewhat of a push for her among those making wagers on who will face Trump. Finishing a distant fourth in New Hampshire this week should be enough to tell her that a head-to-head against President Trump is simply not in her future.

Which brings us to the man who had been the frontrunner for the Democrats since he entered the race; former Vice President Joe Biden.

At one point last May, Biden held a commanding lead over his competition, hitting 41% support at the national level, and outpacing his closest rival by slightly more than 25%.

But oh, how the mighty have fallen.

The polling aggregators at Real Clear Politics recently put Biden in second place, his national support having plummeted by more than 20%. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is their new frontrunner.

In the Iowa Caucus debacle, where Biden once held a solid lead with 28% support, President Obama’s old running mate finished a dismal fourth (again, as far as we can tell). This week, in New Hampshire, Biden pulled out of the state before voting was even completed so he could focus on the upcoming South Carolina primary in a desperate attempt to salvage his campaign’s viability. As is a recurring theme with Biden, he once held a commanding lead in the Granite State with 34% support, but that support collapsed, and he fell even further back in the field, finishing in fifth place.

So, what do we make of the Biden collapse? To be honest, everyone should have seen it coming.

After all, Joe Biden has a propensity for making bizarre statements, and we’ve covered his gift for gaffes in the past. His curious approach to winning over Democrats continued while campaigning in New Hampshire, when he uttered one of the most odd insults ever offered by a candidate for president, after a young lady asked him about his lackluster performance in Iowa.

With a struggling campaign, what should a former frontrunner do? Looks like one approach Biden has chosen is to follow the lead of so many failed presidential campaigns during this election cycle; ratchet up the anti-gun rhetoric.

Of course, Joe being Joe, he had to add his own incomprehensible take on the subject.

During a campaign event in New Hampshire, before his hopes of a positive showing had completely flamed out, Biden lamented over the notion that “we’re unwilling to have a rational policy that says you cannot have 20, 30, 40, 50 clips in a weapon.”

Are those paper clips, binder clips, or just news clips of a candidate having yet another “senior moment?”

Biden regularly (although inaccurately) interchanges the terms clips and magazines, so does he think the gun industry has developed a new firearm that is capable of having dozens of magazines attached to it? Perhaps this is another one of those mythical guns that Biden has dreamed of before, like the “James Bond-style” of firearm he believes exists outside of a Hollywood movie lot.

But Biden didn’t stop there. While he didn’t go full-Swalwell (never go full-Swalwell) with the threat of nuclear weapons being used against American citizens, the foundering candidate did make reference to the futility of Americans offering any resistance should a tyrannical government ever rise to power.

“The fact is,” Biden proclaimed, “if you’re going to take on the government, you need an F-15 with Hellfire missiles.”

In other words, don’t bother trying to resist a tyrannical government, as its military will be too well equipped. Tell that to the rag-tag group of citizens who banded together in 1775, armed with their hunting muskets often pulled down from over the fireplace, to face off against, and defeat, the greatest military power of the time.

Below the Radar: The Gun Safety Board and Research Act of 2019

H/T AmmoLand.

Another attempt to undermine the Second Amendment by DemocRat.


Warning Take Action Call Protest
Warning Take Action Call Protest

United States – -( Sometimes, legislation intended to attack the Second Amendment doesn’t go after our rights directly or indirectly. Yet it can still be a threat, and it warrants strong opposition because the effects will be used in future attacks. This legislation, though, often will fly under the radar because of its indirect approach.

This is the case with HR 4177, the Gun Safety Board and Research Act of 2019, introduced by Representative Mark Desaulnier (D-CA). According to a release from his office, the legislation will create a so-called “Gun Safety Board.” This board would be responsible for doing research and for proposing what the release calls “evidence-based” solutions.

However, we should not be fooled. This Gun Safety Board is not out to look at the facts objectively. Just look at what Desaulnier has on his Congressional web page – a separate page that discusses what he calls “America’s Gun Problem.” The numbers there are a host of out-of-context claims and a fair bit of demonizing the National Rifle Association.

So, we can assume with a fair degree of certainty just from the background that this is not going to be a board with a mandate to take an objective look at the stats. We also can assume this because, according to the text of the legislation, this board is being placed under the Department of Health and Human Services. This is where the Centers for Disease Control is also placed.

Second Amendment supporters should take time to brush up on the history of CDC advocacy for gun control. Because that is what this board will be intended to carry out – using the veneer of science. In essence, Desaulnier’s plan is to treat our constitutional rights as a disease to be eradicated.

What is so diabolical is that this legislation is not a direct attack. Desaulnier and other anti-Second Amendment extremists are instead just asking for “research” into the issue. They will claim that they want experts to look into the issue. But which experts will they find? Ones like Arthur Kellerman or Katherine Kaufer Christoffel.

Kellerman’s 1993 study is still used these days to claim guns do not provide an effective means of self-defense. Of course, we all know (or should know) that Kellerman skewed the data by simply noting fatalities. But most people who use guns for self-defense don’t even have to fire a shot. Often, the sight of the potential victim being armed ended the attempt to commit a crime.

Second Amendment supporters should take the time to contact their Senators and Representative, and politely urge them to oppose this legislation. We don’t need to see taxpayer-funded anti-Second Amendment propaganda.


About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post,, and other national websites.

You Bernie Suckers Are Going to Get Fooled Again

H/T Town Hall.

Crazy Bernie Sanders proved in 2016 he could be bought off and he will sell out again.

If you are dumb enough to slobber over a socialist then you’re already inclined toward being a hapless mark, so it should be no surprise that you Bernie dorks are about to get screwed over again by the Democratic Party. Here’s how it’s going to go: Because you are stupid – you support a socialist, so you are presumptively stupid – you think that if you work really hard and win the votes the establishment creeps who own the Democratic Party are going to let you have a say. But, like last time, you won’t get a say. You’ll work real hard – maybe if you worked really hard at actual jobs you wouldn’t be half-wit socialists – and you’ll win the votes, and all your dreams will die as you end up with the nomination going to a malignant midget multi-zillionaire.

I don’t know exactly how they are going to do it – more convenient caucus kerfuffles, super-delegates, shenanigans at the convention – but there is no way your masters will ever let you win. Like I said, you’re socialists, and therefore stupid, so you will get cheated and you will end up having to vote for the Verne Troyer of American big-money politics.

And, like the obedient saps you are, you’ll do it.

Now, at this point, you probably have some complaints about this column. By complaining, you can temporarily distract from the indisputable fact that your own foolishness has put you in the position of being crushingly humiliated by the Democratic elite once again. Let me briefly address your whiny protests.

Yes, I say “socialist” like it’s a bad thing. This is because it’s a very bad thing. Like, to the tune of 100 million corpses bad thing. I’ve actually lived in the ruins of socialism and you, well, you had a man-bunned sociology TA tell you it was swell. And you believed him because you are a dupe. Be glad that I am assuming that you are stupid instead of the only other reason one would ever cavort with these blood-stained goblins: that you are evil.

But he’s a “democratic socialist,” you interject, because you are stupid. Would you feel fine with a “democratic Nazi?” Actually, you probably would, since Nazis are just a genre of socialist with white and black added to the color palette.

Then you’ll claim that the Box Boy won’t be the nominee, no, one of the other pouty posse will get it. Maybe Biden will. You totally want to vote for a guy who thinks his powder-diving, dancer-diddling loser son should totally be getting $83K a month. Man, if you got money like that you could move out of your parents’ place! Or maybe Audie Buttigieg – he seems plausible. No, I’m not laughing! And then there’s Big Chief Sanders Lite. Maybe she could get elected. Really, I’m not laughing. Okay, then Amy Klobuchar – no, I’m not laughing, I’m just scratching my head wondering why she is even still in. Face it. The only viable option besides Vermont Stalin is Scrooge McSuck.

And your next protest will be that Donald Trump is worse than Mini Mike. In fact, you’ll say, Trump is like Hitler combined with…well, Hitler is the only dictator you don’t like, so we’ll just stick with “He’s literally Hitler for real!” Again, you have been suckered. If you were actually raging against the machine rather than aspiring to be a cog in it, you would back him. Now, you may not like it, and you may be too dumb to see it, but Trump is the only disruptor of the establishment in this race. Short Stuff’s gnome-ination is designed to re-establish the establishment. And mark my words: you’ll help him do it.

Yeah, I bet Wall Street is quivering in its collective Guccis over the muffled pitter-patter of the tiny little footsteps of the approaching Bloomberg administration. Bloomberg is not just an eager supporter of the globalist vision but a leading advocate, the Dwarf King of Davos. Trump, not so much. But you’ve been told to hate Trump, and like obedient little ants, you hate him.

In fact, you hate Trump so much that you will vote for the polar opposite of your crusty commie hero even after your preference has been torn from your soft little hands yet again. If you wanted to burn down the system, Trump would be your man. But you don’t…not really. You just want some scraps, like getting out of your loans or making other people pay for your doctor and you’ll be happy. That’s why you’ll give your general election vote to the Stop ‘N Frisk Doughboy even as you assure yourself that the guy who got minority unemployment to record lows is the big, bad racist in this race

You’ve been had. You’ll cry, but you’ll still go along with the scam as this all plays out.

Suddenly, the media will turn on the Bern in a coordinated attack. Oh wait, that’s happening. Then Frodo Moneybags will start buying off individuals and liberal groups. Oh wait, that’s happening too. Crusty has-been Sam Donaldson decided to show off his new blonde rug during his endorsement; so many more are coming. And I bet it’s not his cash but the power of Mikey’s ideas…okay, now I am laughing.

There will be more primary and caucus “surprises,” except the only people who will be surprised are you suckers. If it gets as far as the convention, your masters will adjourn to the un-smoke-filled rooms and decide for you who you will vote for. And you’ll whine and winge and ultimately obey like the good little suckers you are.

See, you bought into the idea that another four years of prosperity and peace under Donald Trump is much, much worse than reinstalling the party apparatus that has screwed you over in the last two cycles. You’ll ignore the economy, the lack of new wars, the trade rebalancing, and all the other stuff and instead focus on what your masters have commanded you to focus on: that Trump tweeted something mean. Oh, and Russians.

And here’s why you will let the Democrat puppetmasters succeed. It’s because you are stupid. Now, you could stop being stupid. You could refuse to play along. You could even insist Bernie run as a third-party candidate. I like that because it guarantees Trump II: Fossil-Fuel Generated Electric Boogaloo. But it would serve your interests too by forcing the party to recognize and respect you instead of assuming you’ll fall into line once again. But you won’t. You’re all talk and no revolution. Take off that Che t-shirt and put on one with Mini Mayor’s pouty little mug on it. He’s your man. You’re all Bloomberg Bros. Just give it time.

You’re saps, and you’ll take whatever you’re given and tell yourself you like it.

Speaking of what might happen if America’s urban dummies were foolish enough to elect an out socialist, check out my latest conservative thriller, Collapse, along with the other entries in the best-selling series, People’s RepublicIndian Country, and Wildfire.  America breaks in two as leftist foolishness, and evil, becomes unbearable. Action and liberal bashing ensue. Get them all, and also check out my Townhall VIP podcast, “Unredacted” every Monday as well as my new Hugh Hewitt-affiliated Salem podcast, “Fighting Words”!


H/T Guns In The News.

Elections have consequences.

Looking for an indication of how important a single race for a single elected position can be for gun owners? Look no further than Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Josh Shapiro. In 2016, Donald Trump narrowly carried the Keystone State, but—thanks to Michael Bloomberg’s generous support of gun-hating candidates—Shapiro prevailed in his race to become attorney general. Let’s see what this has meant for Pennsylvanians:

Circumventing the legislative process, Shapiro issued a December 2019 opinion in which he (re)defined unfinished receivers as “firearms.” Shapiro’s tortured opinion flies in stark contrast to the prevailing classification of unfinished receivers, which aren’t “firearms” at all. These hunks of polymer, steel and aluminum are unfinished items incapable of firing bullets. Without additional work, inoperative frames and receivers have about as much in common with “firearms” as a shovel; it’s like calling a piece of lead ore a bullet because it one day (with sufficient time, energy and expertise) could be made into a bullet.

So why did Shapiro re-define “firearms” as he did? Because, once he calls something a “firearm,” Shapiro believed he could start restricting our rights. To advance his absurd agenda, Shapiro relied on an exceptionally weak argument: He claimed that unfinished receivers are “designed” to expel a projectile via an explosive action. It doesn’t take a law degree to figure out how backward this thinking is. Unfinished receivers are explicitly designed so that they are unable to function as an operable receiver without further work and sufficient mechanical expertise. In other words, by their very nature, they are not firearms.

Gun-control organizations (and this attorney general) like to argue that the ability to make firearms for personal use is a “loophole” in federal law. This anti-gun narrative is not only false, but inconsistent with American history. Who do they think made many of the firearms that helped win America’s independence? Law-abiding Americans with a passion for firearms and working with their hands often purchase unfinished firearm receivers to craft their own guns for personal use. Unfinished materials used for this pastime take significant additional manufacturing to complete, are purchased for various reasons and advance a legitimate interest in the American tradition of firearm customization. Why should Pennsylvania’s firearm enthusiasts and craftsmen have to suffer infringements because a Bloomberg-funded bureaucrat like Shapiro decided to re-define “firearms” for them?

Predictably, Shapiro’s press office and the media have portrayed his opinion as a way to improve “public safety.” If anything, Shapiro’s interpretation as Pennsylvania’s attorney general encumbers the use of lawful frames and receivers that could lawfully defend the safety of other Pennsylvanians. There is nothing safe about limiting law-abiding Americans’ options for self-defense.

Undeterred, Shapiro is swinging for the most widespread restriction on our rights as possible. His “theory” of treating non-functioning blocks of polymer, steel or aluminum as “firearms” is the equivalent of calling a pile of aluminum tubes a bicycle or even considering a hickory or ash tree a baseball bat.

It’s worth remembering that Pennsylvanians elected both Shapiro and President Trump in the same election because the distinction highlights the consequences of each vote for our right to keep and bear arms. Contrary to Shapiro’s Obama-esque passion for governmental infringement, President Trump has spent most of his first term undoing Obama-era rules and appointing federal judges who will defend the Second Amendment for generations to come. I was present when President Trump ended U.S. involvement in the terrible U.N. Arms Trade Treaty at our Annual Meetings last year. Perhaps our brothers and sisters in Pennsylvania have learned their lesson: if you want to continue enjoying freedom, don’t elect a Bloomberg-backed politician like Shapiro to be your attorney general.

I’ll close with this: I just received word of a victory in NRA-backed litigation to keep 77 million acres in Alaska open to predator hunting. Here again, this victory is made possible by electing a pro-Second Amendment president of the United States. When you add this accomplishment to the long list of nearly 200 judges President Trump and pro-freedom members of the U.S. Senate have confirmed, you can see it for yourself: elections matter.

I’m asking all NRA members, gun owners and all other Second Amendment supporters to get involved. Elect more pro-gun candidates at every level of government this year. There is no position too big or small to occupy in defense of our liberty. If you wish to fight alongside good people in support of America’s most fundamental freedom, I invite you join me alongside the largest, most powerful grassroots army by signing up at


New Bill to Legalize the Interstate Transportation of Magazines & Ammunition

H/T AmmoLand.

I doubt if this bill will make it out of the DemocRat controlled House.


USA – -( Gun Owners of America is proud to endorse Representative Mo Brooks’ upcoming legislation, the Lawful Interstate Transportation of Firearms Act which expands the transportation protections of the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA).

Please ask your congressman to cosponsor this momentous legislation alongside Rep. Brooks.

Because repressive states outlawed “unlicensed guns,” Congress passed pro-gun legislation in 1986 to allow gun owners to transport firearms through these states without having to worry about being pulled over and arrested.

Currently, this provision of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act requires:

  1. That the gun be unloaded and inaccessible to the passenger compartment
  2. That the travel through the repressive state be temporary, and
  3. That the trip originates in a state where it was lawful to possess the firearm and terminate in a state where it is also lawful.

However, it didn’t occur to the lawmakers that repressive states would begin to arrest people who traveled through those states with ammunition, but no guns.

Obviously, they underestimated the psychopathy of anti-gun crazies like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, former Mayor Bloomberg, and so forth.

It has reached the point where someone who transits through New York while traveling from New Hampshire to Virginia—as I do—risks arrest due to state law criminalizing the possession of otherwise lawfully-owned magazines or ammunition.

Congressman Mo Brooks is about to introduce legislation to remedy that. Under the Brooks bill, ammunition and magazines would be added to the list of items protected by FOPA.

In addition, police would be prohibited from harassing transiting motorists on the basis of firearms ownership.

And even if police find some technical violation of FOPA, that nit-picking will not be enough to throw the gun owner in prison and ruin his or her life.

Congressman Mo Brooks IMG from GOA
Congressman Mo Brooks IMG from GOA

GOA has been looking, for some time, for a congressman who could navigate the extremely complex issues surrounding this problem. And Mo Brooks has done it.

So, we have a champion who has stuck his neck out to introduce pro-gun legislation.

And we need to recognize his efforts by reaching out to every member of Congress and by urging them to become an original cosponsor of this bill — before this legislation is officially introduced and assigned a number.

Regardless of who controls the House, it’s important to take action and to keep pushing our pro-gun agenda. You can be sure that if the tables were reversed — and if it were the GOP in control of the House — anti-gun Democrats would still be pushing their obnoxious, anti-rights agenda.

So we need to create momentum for the future pushing a pro-gun agenda now.

Thank you for your help!

In liberty,

Michael Hammond
Legislative Counsel

Gun Owners Of AmericaAbout Gun Owners of America

Erich Pratt, or another GOA spokesman, is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over 1.5 million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Newsroom.

11 Children Shot over Weekend in Gun-Controlled Chicago

H/T Breitbart.

So much for Mayor Light in the head’s promise gun violence.

Chicago has some of the strict gun control laws in the nation and has some of the highest gun crime in the nation.

Eleven children were shot over President’s Day Weekend in gun-controlled Chicago.

The New York Daily News reports a total of 25 were shot in Chicago, “and 11 of them were children.”

NBC Chicago reported that the weekend shootings varied in size and scope from accidental incidents–a 7-year-old shot and wounded himself accidentally–to an attack in an apartment complex that left six wounded, including three children.

There were three fatalities from the gun violence. The first fatal shooting occurred just after 3:30 p.m. Friday, the occurred Sunday afternoon, and the third happened Sunday just before 9 p.m.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot made reducing gun crime one of her chief goals during the mayoral campaign. But the NYDN reports gun crime in Chicago is on the rise. There have already been over 200 shootings and over 50 homicides in 2020, and we are only weeks into the month of February.

You Want to Compromise on Gun Control? OK, Let’s Compromise

H/T The Truth About Guns.

The world of gun owners’ compromise should be considered an obscene word. 

Reader Alan Smithee writes . . .

I keep hearing the word “compromise” used by politicians and anti-gun activists seeking to further restrict citizens’ access to firearms. Or even by those who want to take away guns, from law-abiding gun owners.

“Compromise” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.”

Two proposals by the anti-gun set, the so-called “red flag” laws and universal background checks, are under consideration in Congress and many state legislatures. Those with a firm belief in the Second Amendment are naturally dubious of those pushing these measures.

For generations, we’ve experienced “compromise” after “compromise,” yet in reality, all we’ve gotten is the perpetual erosion of our right to keep and bear arms. All concession by us, no compromise by them.

In the spirit of “compromise,” if taken at word’s worth, let’s enter the Land of Make Believe, and pretend the anti-gun crowd is actually amenable to compromise toward achieving these two goals. Here are a few compromises they could make which would actually benefit gun owners.

‘Red Flag’ Laws

red flag rights due process

While nobody wants to see firearms in the possession of those who may harm themselves or others, the proposed “red flag” legislation, if passed, would be a violation of both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, at the very least. Not to mention, the Second Amendment.

In the spirit of compromise, however, I would propose that those who file a “red flag” report against someone must provide indisputable evidence of their claim in court within 72 hours of its filing. No proof? The guns remain with their owner.

Furthermore, those who are found to have purposely and fraudulently reported someone must serve a minimum of three years in prison, be subject to a civil lawsuit by the accused, and are themselves henceforth banned from firearm ownership for life. This is the typical federal penalty for a felon convicted of firearms possession. If someone is serious about having guns removed from another person’s possession, then he or she should bear the penalty if that charge is unfounded.

Universal Background Checks

Form 4473 and GLOCK (courtesy

While the argument can be easily made that a universal background check violates the Second Amendment, for the sake of discussion, let’s presume it becomes federal law. One painless compromise could be made by the anti-gun crowd in regards to this measure:

If two private citizens agree to the sale of a gun and both undergo and pass the check, the record of those who buy and sell is immediately and permanently expunged from any federal, state or municipal database. Having been conducted legally, there is no reason for any government entity to maintain a record of this transaction from that point forward.

Maintaining a record of this transaction would be a blatant violation of the the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which prohibits the federal government from establishing a registry of gun owners and their guns.

In addition, those possessing a concealed carry license — which is already subject to a federal background check — will not be subjected to a universal background check when selling or buying a gun from another licensee. Law-abiding gun owners should be free to conduct transactions with other law-abiding gun owners without interference if they have already undergone training and licensing.

As well, it would save time and resources for law enforcement to go after actual criminals. Pretty simple, really.

One more idea: all federal form 4473s, i.e. the firearms transaction record, must be destroyed by federal firearms licensed dealers after five years, versus the current 20-year rule. The rule forcing FFLs to retain records for 20 years is in itself a type of de facto gun registry. Five years (or less) of mandatory record keeping should suffice for the purposes of criminal investigation by law enforcement.

But wait, there’s more!

I would consider the compromises listed above only the beginning of the discussion. If the anti-gun set is so determined to make these ideas law, I am equally determined, or more so, to see more pro-Second Amendment legislation enacted.

Call me Veruca Salt, but as a gun owner, I want more and I want it NOW!

Concealed Carry

open carry i vote gun in holster

All concealed carry licenses, no matter which state has issued them, will be respected by all 50 U.S. states and territories. The Bill of Rights applies to the citizens of all 50 states, yes?

Furthermore, concealed carry will be made legal in public libraries, public schools, colleges, universities, and other taxpayer-funded institutions, as well as other places open freely to the public. The only exceptions would be courts, jails and police stations.

It isn’t licensed concealed carriers who pose a criminal threat to the public. A crime being committed with a firearm is perpetrated virtually 100 percent of the time by someone who is, by definition, already a criminal, or otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a gun. “Gun-free” zones are never gun-free, and in fact, are places less safe than where firearms are allowed.

I’m not finished yet.

As the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, no state or municipality will charge a fee for issuance of a concealed carry license, nor deny a concealed carry license to anyone who is A) a non-felon, B) 21 years of age, and C) has successfully completed 8 to 12 hours of safety training conducted by a licensed instructor.

To take it a step further, these licenses will no longer be subject to renewal as long as the licensee has not committed any felonies. Much the like the poll tax was used in the 1800s to prevent freed black slaves and poor whites from voting, the ability of a citizen to exercise his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms should not be subject to a government fee. And 8 to 12 hours of safety training isn’t an onerous burden on the gun owner. Additional training would be recommended, obviously, but not required.

Thankfully, many states have already established “constitutional carry,” wherein law-abiding citizens may carry their weapons legally, without licensure. For those who believe not only the words, but the intent, of the Second Amendment, this ideally would be the law of all 50 United States.

Ayy Tee Eff

pistol suppressor silencer

All ATF rules regarding gun accessories will be abolished. This includes “bump stocks,” forward grips, pistol grips, and rapid-fire triggers. Furthermore, the use and ownership of suppressors will no longer be subject to ATF approval and no longer require a $200 tax stamp.

The use of any of these accessories on a gun do not constitute any additional danger to anyone. In fact, a suppressor acts as a muffler, helping to prevent hearing loss. It is not a “silencer” as Hollywood and the media have portrayed in countless films and television shows.

All ATF rules regarding the minimum lengths of guns will be abolished. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (yes NINETEEN THIRTY FOUR) made fully automatic firearms illegal, unless the would-be owner paid a $200 tax stamp. It also restricted the possession of so-called “sawed-off” shotguns.

This legislation was passed in response to violence being committed by criminal gangs during the Prohibition era. Remarkably, Prohibition was repealed in 1933, yet at that time Congress determined to crack down on gang violence despite the fact the primary reason for this violence was due to Prohibition.

The NFA needs to go away. That this law is still in effect is both antiquated and preposterous, as criminals aren’t apt to shell out $200 and undergo a background check to obtain these weapons. They do as they please despite the law. Because, well, “criminals.”

As the NFA is abolished, there should be no further legislative measures, by either the federal or state governments, to enact a so-called “Assault Weapons” ban against any semi-automatic guns, or otherwise. The passage of such, akin to the 1994 “assault weapons” ban, is undeniably at odds with both the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment.

Semi-automatic guns have been in common use by Americans for more than 100 years. Just because a gun looks scary to someone is not a valid reason to violate the Bill of Rights.

Handgun, rifle and shotgun ownership, as well as sales of ammunition, will be legal for all law-abiding citizens who attain the age of 18. Old enough to vote? Old enough to serve in the armed forces? You’re old enough to be a firearms owner. Congratulations!

high large capacity magazines

There should be no restrictions on the sale or possession of magazines, regardless of capacity. “High capacity” magazines have become a bogeyman for the anti-gun crowd. The problem is the definition of “high capacity.” Is 10 enough? Is 11 too much? For some vehement anti-gun folk, three rounds is too much.

A .22 long rifle Henry lever action rifle can hold 15 rounds of ammunition in its tube magazine, but because it’s not detachable and because it looks like a classic western rifle, it doesn’t meet the definition of scary much less something “tactical” such as, say, a Keltec CP33 handgun which comes standard with 33-round magazine. Or a GLOCK 19, with a standard capacity 15-round magazine. The examples go on and on.

Do you want “red flag” laws? Universal background checks? I believe what I have proposed are good starting points for a discussion.

Compromise is about each side making concessions, right? If these measures become law without concessions by the other side, then millions upon millions of law-abiding gun owners will become gun “outlaws” – a bad consequence for America and slap in the face to the Founding Fathers who used their “weapons of war” to free the 13 colonies from tyrannical British rule.