Illinois Lawmakers Introduce ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban

H/T Bearing Arms.

Illinois is hopelessly anti-gun this law will be challenged in court.

Because of their draconian gun laws, I no longer go there because if my gun is not welcome neither is my money.

It’s shocking, I know, but Illinois doesn’t have an “assault weapon” ban.

While so many anti-gun states have them, it’s easy to forget that they’re not as universal. Mostly, it’s never happened because as much as Chicago dominates the state’s political landscape, guns are something the more rural parts are willing to fight over. Thus far, they have, and they’ve won.

But now it seems that the Democrats in the state are feeling froggy and think it’s time to go at it again.

A pair of Democratic lawmakers have sponsored a piece of legislation making it illegal to own several different firearms.

And several southern Illinois lawmakers plan to fight the bill.

“Our second amendment rights are sacred to we as Americans, and here in southern Illinois we’re not going to tolerate it,” State Rep. Terri Bryant, (R) Murphysboro, said.

Terri Bryant says Senate Bill 107 is just the latest attempt to ban legal guns.

Democratic senators filed the bill Wednesday and it bars anyone from owning certain semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. That includes AR 15’s.

It also allows gun owners to keep their weapons if they register them with Illinois State Police within 300 days of the bill passing, but any future sales of those guns would be prohibited.

Note that it doesn’t just focus on so-called “assault rifles,” but also certain semi-automatic shotguns and pistols. In other words, Illinois Democrats are trying to be as sweeping as possible.

In the process, they’re seriously infringing on the Second Amendment.

But, then again, that’s just what anti-gunners do. They latch onto the boogieman of the moment, then swoop in with new regulations that are supposedly designed to curtail violence but do nothing of the sort, which encourages them to do more of the same.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result, yet doesn’t that perfectly encapsulate gun control efforts through the years?

Illinois has some tough gun laws already, yet look at Chicago. The body count every week from the Windy City is a national punchline, yet what have those gun laws accomplished? Nothing. At all.

Despite that, Chicago continues to push for more and more. Peace is only one or two more gun laws away, at least in local government officials’ minds. But it never materializes.

At some point, you have to stop this nonsense and come to terms with the fact that criminals are going to get those guns regardless of what laws you add to the books. Instead, take a step back and recognize that you have all the tools you need. Step up enforcement efforts while also working on new programs designed to prevent violent behavior early.

Maybe then you’d start to see some peaceful nights in Chicago. That’s not going to happen if you keep pretending guns are responsible for what’s happening there. Only a fool would hold onto that notion despite the decades of proof that it doesn’t work.

Look at New York City. Yes, it has very tough gun laws. But those gun laws were in place during times of relative peace and through times of sky-high crime. The gun laws had no impact on the matter. Instead, it was other factors that reduced crime and made life in the Big Apple safe for all.

Banning certain guns won’t accomplish a damn thing. Worse, I think Illinois Democrats know it. They just want to look like they’re doing something.

Too bad they’re trying to do the wrong thing.



Iowa Secretary of State Error Sets Back Right to Keep & Bear Arms Amendment

H/T AmmoLand.

Was this an honest mistake or did the Iowa Secretary of State cave to pressure and threats of the anti-gun forces in Iowa?

Arizona -( Iowa is one of only six states that do not have some sort of protection for the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution. A amendment to change that seemed to have a good chance of passing.

The amendment suffered a severe setback because the Iowa Secretary of State failed to publish the amendment before the 2018 elections.


The long process of adding gun rights the Iowa Constitution must begin again due to a mistake at the Iowa secretary of state’s office.

Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate said Monday that his office forgot to publish official details of the Legislature’s plan to amend the Iowa Constitution.

Pate apologized, but gun rights supporters said are not happy with the mistake. “I have six children and a husband who travels so (gun rights are) important to me,” said Jessica Pedersen, of Ankeny.

The process to amend the Iowa Constitution is long and difficult. First, the legislature has to pass the amendment.

  • Then, an election must occur.
  • Then, the legislature has to pass the amendment again.
  • Then the amendment is offered in a referendum at the next election.

If the people approve of it with a majority vote, it passes and becomes part of the Iowa Constitution.

The Iowa legislature, after years of struggle, passed the amendment in March of 2018. Part of the process is for the Secretary of State to have the amendment published in the papers of record that preserve the official acts of the legislature.

That did not occur. For the Amendment to proceed the publication had to happen *before* the 2018 election. It did not. From

A Republican-led effort to add gun rights to the Iowa Constitution must start over because the state’s top election office did not complete a key step in the yearslong process, a mistake they described as a “bureaucratic oversight.”

Republican lawmakers and pro-gun advocates said they were shocked and angry after Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate confirmed that his office failed to publish the required notifications that the Legislature had begun the process of amending the state constitution in Iowa newspapers.

A second Constitutional amendment, clarifying the succession rules for the Governor and Lt. Governor, was overlooked as well. The Secretary of State failed to publish SJR 2006. Both amendments will need to be voted on again and passed by both houses of the legislature before they are sent to the people in referendums.

A similar error occurred in 2004, but was less consequential. It involved the removal of the words “idiot” and “moron” from the Iowa Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms amendment seemed likely to pass, because both houses of the legislature are still controlled by Republicans. Now the amendments will have to wait for another election before a second vote of the legislature can be taken. Right to keep and bear arms amendments have been sent to the voters in several states over the last 22 years. All have been approved by wide margins.

There are 280,000 active concealed carry permits in Iowa. In 2016, 1.58 million people voted. People who have permits tend to be registered and to vote. Because the Secretary of state failed to publish both amendments, it seems unlikely that the failure was an act of political sabotage.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dr. Alveda King: Planned Parenthood Targets Blacks For Abortion

H/T The Lid.

Alveda King is right about Planned Parenthood targeting black babies below is a quote from the founder of Planned Parenthood.

  We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. – Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, 1939.



Does Planned Parenthood target poor black neighborhoods? Dr. Alveda King believes the abortion mill still maintains Margret Sanger’s racist eugenics belief

Recently, I spoke on my radio show with Evangelist Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She is the Director of Civil Rights for the Unborn with the organization Priests for Life. The focus was on Planned Parenthood and the African-American community.

Her comments are relevant all year round, especially around this time of MLK day and the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision favoring abortion, Roe v. Wade (January 22, 1973).

Dr. Alveda King told me, “The leading cause of death in the African-American community is not gang-violence, gun violence, heart attack, stroke, HIV, high blood pressure, diabetes. People will name all these. No, it’s abortion. And the reason we have come to that conclusion, statistically, you’ve got 60 million plus abortions legal in America since 1973. About a third of those occur in the African-American community. That means dead babies. And, with us being 13 percent or less of America’s population, that means we are having more abortions.”

She asked, “Now does it mean that African-Americans are more immoral or don’t care? Absolutely not. We are just regular, everyday people like everyone else. But Planned Parenthood moved into our community with the abortion killing centers and said, ‘We’re here to help you. Let’s kill your baby so you can have a better life.’ Well, killing our babies doesn’t give us a better life. I have had my own abortions in the 1970s. They were secret then, and after I became born again in 1983 and became a pro-life voice, I began to talk about how those abortions hurt me and my family.”

In 1921, Margaret Sanger founded the Birth Control League, which later changed its name to Planned Parenthood. Dr. Paul Kengor, the author of Takedown, writes about when Sanger spoke to the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey in May 1926: “The Planned Parenthood founder’s KKK talk was a smash hit. Not only did it go very late, after a very long wait, but she received numerous invitations to speak to other groups like the Klan. Why would the KKK be so interested in Ms. Sanger? The reasons are obvious, a natural fit. It was because Sanger was a passionate racial eugenicist with grandiose dreams of ‘race improvement.’”

Alveda King told our listeners: “Margaret Sanger, the founder of the Birth Control League [later, Planned Parenthood], said, that ‘colored people are like weeds,’ and they need to be eliminated. They need to be exterminated. We don’t want the word to get out, so let’s not package it that way. So that’s why they began to make a lot of propaganda and marketing materials, saying that abortion is a woman’s right. It will help her to finish college, get a job, do this or do that.”

Christian author and educator Dr. George Grant points out that it was not just the African-American community Sanger targeted for population control: “Now for Margaret Sanger and her followers, those undesirable aspects of humanity were largely ethnic minorities: blacks, Jews, oftenSlavic peoples from Eastern Europe. These were considered undesirables, ‘imbeciles’ she called them, ‘human weeds’ she called them; and so Planned Parenthood was initially designed to limit the populations of those peoples and to increase the population of what she felt were the desirable races. So right at the heart of the philosophy of Planned Parenthood is this ideological and scientific commitment to a kind of racism.”

Sanger did not want it known that she believed blacks should be targeted for a significant reduction in their population. She wrote, “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” (Margaret Sanger, Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939.)

Alveda notes that Planned Parenthood said in effect, “We don’t want the word to get out, so let’s get a slick marketing plan.” That plan included such things as handing out awards (such as to her uncle—a few years before Planned Parenthood began to do abortions, beginning in 1970) and scholarships. She said, “So many people rose to success on the backs and bucks of Planned Parenthood—the radical, feminist movement, for example—a lot of people who have been elected…the Congressional black caucus—many of them were put in office and are still in office because of dollars from eugenicists, such as Planned Parenthood.”

To see for yourself the ongoing racism of Planned Parenthood in action, notice how often their clinics are still in impoverished neighborhoods. Alveda notes some of those Planned Parenthood neighborhoods have streets nearby named after her uncle.

Alveda King concludes, “That’s a baby in the womb, who should have human rights, and I believe if my uncle were here today, he would have to agree that abortion is a crime against humanity.”

Elizabeth Warren proposes ‘wealth tax’ on Americans with more than $50 million in assets


Princess Fauxahontias and Alexandria Occasional-Cortex are too stupid to realize that when you tax something the less money you get from whatever you tax.

Will the millionaires in Congress pay taxes at the proposed level?

  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has proposed a “wealth tax” on some of the richest Americans.
  • The new tax from Warren, who recently announced her bid to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020, would only apply to Americans with more than $50 million in assets. 

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has proposed a “wealth tax” on some of the richest Americans.

    The new tax from Warren, who recently announced her bid to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020, would only apply to Americans with more than $50 million in assets.

    Her Twitter announcement on Thursday came hours after an economist who advises her told CNBC he believed the proposal would soon be made official.

    Elizabeth Warren


    The rich & powerful run Washington. Here’s one benefit they wrote for themselves: After making a killing from the economy they’ve rigged, they don’t pay taxes on that accumulated wealth. It’s a system that’s rigged for the top if I ever saw one.

    Elizabeth Warren


    We need structural change. That’s why I’m proposing something brand new – an annual tax on the wealth of the richest Americans. I’m calling it the “Ultra-Millionaire Tax” & it applies to that tippy top 0.1% – those with a net worth of over $50M.

    2,073 people are talking about this

    The Washington Post first reported the development.

    “We helped her with the numbers,” economist Emmanuel Saez told CNBC. He said his understanding was that the Warren team had already spoken with the Post at the time he told them the details of the report.

    Warren’s idea comes alongside other Democratic lawmakers’ plans to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to pay for ambitious policy goals, such as a “green new deal” that aims to reduce economic inequality and combat the causes of climate change.

    The development has not gone unnoticed by affluent investors and executives, many of whom are meeting this week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

    “By the time we get to the presidential election, this is going to gain more momentum,” Scott Minerd, global chief investment officer of $265 billion Guggenheim Partners, told CNBC earlier this week.

    He was referring specifically to freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal for a 70 percent marginal rate on income above $10 million.

    While Ocasio-Cortez’s plan is a tax on income, Warren’s proposal would tax wealth. In America, wealth inequality is greater than income inequality.

    While the 1 percent of Americans with the highest incomes receive about 20 percent of the total income in the United States, the top 1 percent of wealth holders collectively own more than 40 percent of the nation’s total wealth, according to a report published Wednesday by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy arguing for a wealth tax.

    The Post reported that Warren has been advised by Saez and Gabriel Zucman, left-leaning economists affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley, on a deal that would levy a 2 percent wealth tax on Americans with $50 million-plus in assets. For Americans with assets above $1 billion, that tax rate would increase to 3 percent.

    The newspaper, citing a person familiar with the plan, reported that Warren’s plan would try to counter tax evasion by boosting funding for the IRS, and by levying a one-time tax penalty on people with more than $50 million who try to renounce their U.S. citizenship. It would also require that a certain number of people who pay the wealth tax be subject to annual audits, the Post reported.

    Tax-the-rich policies are not a new phenomenon among political candidates. In fact, Trump himself floated a similar measure in 1999 as he explored a presidential bid as a prospective Reform Party nominee.

    Trump’s proposal was to impose a one-time 14.25 percent tax on individuals and trusts worth more than $10 million, according to reports at the time.

    On Tuesday, Saez and Zucman published an article in The New York Times defending Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal.

    “An extreme concentration of wealth means an extreme concentration of economic and political power. Although many policies can help address it, progressive income taxation is the fairest and most potent of them all,” they wrote.

    “Our government is supposed to work for all of us,” Warren said in an announcement video. “But instead, it has become a tool for the wealthy and well-connected.”

    Those on the left and right have raised objections to the idea of a wealth tax on legal grounds. Article I of the U.S. Constitution says that no direct tax can be levied unless in proportion to the “Census or Enumeration.” The 16th Amendment expanded Congress’ power to collect taxes on “incomes, from whatever source derived” without regard to the census.

    In 2014, Thomas Piketty, one of the most prominent economists in the world and a proponent of a wealth taxsaid of the idea: “I realize that this is unconstitutional, but constitutions have been changed throughout history. That shouldn’t be the end of the discussion.”

    Piketty is the author of “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.”

    But in an article for the Indiana Law Journal last year, Dawn Johnsen and Walter Dellinger, two prominent legal scholars, argued against the idea that a wealth tax is unconstitutional.

    “We believe this conventional wisdom is wrong and its casual repetition has been harmful,” the two wrote.

    “Devising a progressive tax system that effectively taxes the wealthy is notoriously difficult, but whether a wealth tax is part of that system should depend upon the policy choices of democratically elected representatives, not faulty constitutional understandings.”

So an Italian guy from the Mafia has a workable solution for putting up the wall

Jim Campbell's

By Jim Campbell

January 25, 2019

Members of ICE who have been charged with guarding the wall being built between the U.S. and Mexico have told the government what they need to get the job done.

The video below is ” Seriously funny.”

“Jersey Italians solve government shut down problem”

Former members of the Mafia are staunch supporters of the United States Constitution and back President Trump.(Source)

Seriously the guy is right,in his word, the current government doesn’t work let’s make a new one.

A concept that at the moment seems quite reasonable.

What do we have today from both sides of the aisle but for the most part idiots  who are being paid who have not the slightest of understanding of what the promised to do.

Listen to Vito, he has nailed it,

Disclaimer, I do not work for Vito, own any stock in his companies and I…

View original post 204 more words

California Looking To Pass Previously Vetoed Gun Control Bills

H/T Bearing Arms.

Sadly this anti-gun lunacy filters into the rest of America from the left coast.

Gun Owners of America stay awake and keep locked and loaded for bear.

California Governor Gavin Newsom wants to make his anti-gun credentials loud and clear. Speculation exists that he has his eyes firmly set on the White House and it looks like he sees clear opposition to the Second Amendment as the ticket to get there.

However, right now, it looks like Newsom and his allies in the legislature are more willing to start with some unfinished business.

While former Gov. Jerry Brown was far from an ally to gun owners, he still vetoed several gun control bills he thought were unnecessary or too burdensome.

It seems Newsom plans to revisit some of those measures.

Two days after Newsom’s comments, Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) reintroduced a bill that had been vetoed by Brown to allow teachers, employers and co-workers to seek court orders temporarily removing guns from people thought to be a danger to themselves or others.

Brown said in his veto message that the Ting bill was not necessary because state law already gives law enforcement and family members authority to seek a gun violence restraining order. But Ting said others are also in a position to identify dangerous gun owners, and Newsom’s election gives him new optimism.

“The governor has expressed interest in doing more on gun safety than the previous administration, and we’re hopeful he takes a second look at our proposal,” Ting said.

Newsom’s election has given similar hope to state Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge), who has re-introduced a measure vetoed by Brown that would limit Californians to buying no more than one rifle or shotgun a month.

Brown vetoed similar bills, including in 2015 when he said, “Given California’s stringent laws restricting gun ownership, I do not believe this additional restriction is needed.”

Portantino said his revived proposal is needed to prevent straw purchases, in which an eligible owner buys many guns and then sells them to people not authorized to possess firearms. In one recent year, sales to individuals ranging from five to 54 long guns per month occurred on 1,787 occasions — totaling 12,090 guns, he said.

“California may be a Western state, but it’s no longer the Wild West,” Portantino said. “A person shouldn’t be able to walk into a gun store and come out with an arsenal. This issue was just too important to not give it a fresh try with a new governor in office.”

There’s every indication that Newsom will back all of these bills.

In other words, our Californian friends are about to have a whole lot more difficulty added to their lives.

But don’t delude yourself. California isn’t Las Vegas. What happens in California doesn’t stay in California. Instead, it spreads out to infect other states. Gun control proponents in state legislatures look at these measures and think, “What a great idea!” They don’t care to see if they actually work. No, that would make too much sense.

Instead, they take the ideas and push them elsewhere.

Over time, these measures don’t look as insane to other states. Mostly because California and other anti-gun states have gone on to do even more insane things, and the Overton window will shift. Some of these measures will become law in states that don’t have such an insane record on gun rights.

So we need to fight against these laws and fight against them hard — all of us.

Senators Again Floating Importing Prescription Drugs

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Here is a radical idea Senator Grassley and Senator Klobuchar how about repealing the draconian laws on drug companies that require outrageous testing and recall requirements.

My ex-brother in law works for a major drug company and he has said the draconian laws on the companies inflate prices drastically.

The government needs to get the Hell out of the way.

Law enforcement fears policy will exacerbate drug crisis.

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) are testing the waters of the 116th Congress for support of importing drugs from Canada, an effort to combat exploding prescription costs.

But the pair’s proposal is likely to face suspicion from Republicans, as well as strong public opposition from law enforcement, worried about how it might unwittingly introduce more deadly fentanyl into the United States.

The Safe and Affordable Drugs from Canada Act (SADCA), introduced by Grassley and Klobuchar, would permit individuals to legally fill prescriptions at Canadian pharmacies assuming that the drug they are seeking is not a controlled or otherwise dangerous substance. This is not Klobuchar’s first partnership with a Republican on the issue; in 2017, she joined with then-Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) to try to pass the SADCA as part of the Senate budget bill.

Grassley, who the Hill reports has long been a proponent of prescription drug importation, argued that his and Klobuchar’s proposal would help families unable to afford sky-high American drug prices.

“For decades, safe and affordable prescription drugs have been for sale just across the border, but legally out of reach for American families,” Grassley said at the time of the SADCA’s release. “It’s long past time for Congress to help the millions of Americans who struggle to pay exorbitant prices for medication.”

The price of prescription drugs has risen steadily over the past two decades—healthcare consultancy Rx Saving Solutions indicated that 250 drugs saw an average price increase of 6.3 percent over last year alone. Even life-saving, much-used drugs like insulin have seen huge price surges in recent years.

A longstanding, popular proposal for addressing this problem has been to make it legal for Americans to import drugs from foreign countries for personal use. Current regulation, enforced by both the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration, prohibits the practice, out of an abundance of caution concerning the competency of other nations’ drug safety authorities, and fears of importation becoming a route for controlled substance trafficking.

Were importation to be legalized, however, Americans could take advantage of price differences between the United States and foreign countries—including, critically, Canada. Prescription drug prices are lower in America’s northern neighbor primarily because a government board sets them; this reality allows cross-border arbitrage, a fact that some 8 percent of Americans admit to having taken advantage of.

Grassley and Klobuchar’s bill is not the only one up for discussion in this Congress.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) has his own, more sweeping proposal—cosponsored by 2020 contenders Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.). Sanders’s Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act would permit importation from not only Canada, but also other “major countries.”

Republican senators have already expressed skittishness about even Grassley’s more-narrow proposal. Sen. Mike Rounds (R., S.D.), speaking to the Hill, said that he does not necessarily trust other nations’ lower safety standards.

“Unless we’ve got a case we’re able to look back through and make sure we’ve got the same safeguards coming from there, I’d be a little bit leery,” Rounds said.

Rounds’s caution is moderate compared to the objections of the National Sheriffs Association, a law enforcement organization which also opposed the Klobuchar-McCain proposal in 2017.

The NSA, which represents “thousands of sheriffs, deputies and other law enforcement” nationwide, issued a statement explicitly opposing importation of drugs from abroad, arguing that it would make it easier for illicit online pharmacies, which routinely distribute fentanyl, to prey on American consumers.

In a letter to President Donald Trump last August, the NSA cited a 2017 study by former FBI director Louis Freeh that found drug importation would strain law enforcement resources and increase the risk of Americans’ exposure to deadly counterfeit prescription pills.

It may not seem intuitive to argue that Canada could have a role in the drug crisis; the majority of fentanyl enters the country through Mexico or the U.S. mail. However, according to the DEA, fentanyl sold mixed with heroin or in pill form is also routinely smuggled into Canada, and from there can make its way across the 4,000-mile border with the continental United States.

This means that a deregulated trade in prescription drugs across the northern border is just another vector for American overdose deaths, according to the NSA;.

“Given the current crisis already faced by law enforcement with illegal drugs and the abuse of prescription drugs, now is the not the time for the enactment of drug importation legislation that would only exacerbate that crisis in public health and safety,” said NSA Executive Director and CEO Jonathan Thompson.