Will Joe Pee Pads Biden convince Congress to legalize pot?
Throughout the nation, numerous states have decided to legalize marijuana for medical use, if not for recreational use. Medical marijuana is a fair bit less controversial since it’s medical, meaning it goes through a physician, but still, pot is being legalized to varying degrees all over the nation.
4. In Virginia like other states, medical marijuana patients are not allowed to possess a gun or ammunition because of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968.
That’s right. Despite being legalized by the state, marijuana is still considered a schedule 1 controlled substance by the federal government, which means if you’re using it under any circumstances, you can’t legally have a firearm.
And, if you couple this with gun registration, you have a real problem because the state knows who has guns. This isn’t just supposition, either, because it’s happened.
With Joe Biden set to take office tomorrow, it’s a safe bet he’s not going to be interested in doing much of anything that will benefit gun owners. He doesn’t like us and, frankly, the feeling is mutual.
However, he might just be willing to help marijuana users and growers, and that might end up helping us.
See, if Biden were to work with Congress to de-schedule marijuana, lower it to, say, a schedule 2 drug, then it would negate this concern. After all, GCA prohibits people who use or are addicted to illegal drugs. It doesn’t prohibit those who use a lawful substance. By classifying it as a schedule 2 drug, marijuana would have lawful uses under federal law. It wouldn’t be an illegal drug anymore.
While it’s unlikely Biden would listen to, say, the NRA if they pushed this line of reasoning, there are a lot of other people who might push for descheduling it that he might listen to.
In fact, I’d actually be surprised for Biden not to at least float an idea of legalizing marijuana.
He’d better do it early, though, because while it’s popular with progressives, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris made her name prosecuting drug offenders. It’s entirely possible that she’ll refuse to legalize anything. While she doesn’t have complete say in the matter, she does have veto power, so nothing is happening unless she’s on board.
Well, that or Congress put aside all its stupid and acts together on something like this.
Look, I know a lot of you aren’t fans of marijuana use. I get it. However, it’s here and the current laws are hurting gun owners, often gun owners who aren’t aware of what is coming because they’re doing what a doctor told them to do.
At the end of the day, if we want our gun rights to matter, we have to be willing to defend them, even for people who do things we may not be particularly fond of but don’t hurt anyone but themselves. That’s just how it is and it’s really just that simple.
There will be more states becoming Second Amendment Sanctuary States during Joe Pee Pads Bidens regime.
After Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared that one of his top legislative priorities this year is turning the state into a Second Amendment Sanctuary, I predicted that other states would soon follow suit. Now several Republicans in Arizona have introduced legislation that would bar the state from spending any resources to enforce unconstitutional federal gun control laws.
The bill, filed by State Rep. Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu City, and known as the “Second Amendment Firearm Freedoms Act,” is a simple piece of legislation. In fact, in it’s current form the bill is only a couple of paragraphs long.
AN ACT, LAW, TREATY, ORDER, RULE OR REGULATION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATES AMENDMENT II OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 10 UNITED STATES IS NULL, VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE IN THIS STATE.
2. THIS STATE AND ALL POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE ARE PROHIBITED FROM USING ANY PERSONNEL OR FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO ENFORCE, ADMINISTER OR COOPERATE WITH ANY ACT, LAW, TREATY, ORDER, RULE OR REGULATION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATES AMENDMENT II OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
I hate to say it, but this language is more symbolic than anything else. If a gun control law has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, then it’s not going to be enforced regardless.
A more meaningful way of approaching the issue would be to take a page from California, oddly enough. The sanctuary state bill limiting law enforcement cooperation with ICE that was signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown has been upheld by the federal courts, and could easily be used as a blueprint for turning a state like Arizona into a Second Amendment Sanctuary.
Rather than trying to base enforcement (or lack thereof) on the constitutionality of any new gun control law, legislation could declare or specify that local or state law enforcement will not work or assist federal agencies in, say, investigating or prosecuting any non-violent, possessory federal firearm offenses involving legal gun owners.
Not only would the legislation have more teeth than the bill currently filed, by mirroring California’s sanctuary state language on illegal immigration it would have a much better chance of surviving court scrutiny. As law professor Robert Anthony McReynolds has explained, the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the issue of local enforcement of federal laws, and found room for states to decline to participate.
The U. S. Supreme Court has weighed in with two key decisions related to understanding the voluntary language of federal laws as it pertains to state and local law enforcement acting as an agent of the federal government. In Printz v. United States, the question before the court was whether language in the amended section of the Gun Control Act of 1968, known as the Brady Act, could command local law enforcement to conduct background checks on behalf of the U. S. Attorney General who was charged by the Brady Act with creating a national system for conducting background checks of individuals seeking to purchase handguns.
In Printz, the petitioners argued against the idea that the federal government could compel states to administer federal programs and that such attempts by the federal government were relatively new; however, the U.S. government responded that there is a long history of the federal government directing state governments in just such a manner.
In reviewing the historic examples provided by the government, the Supreme Court stated that each instance “at most…was originally understood to permit imposition of an obligation on state judges to enforce federal prescriptions.” (Emphasis in the original.) However, as spelled out in the Constitution, this imposition on judges is not translated to “imply a power of Congress to impress the state executive into its service.”
The Supreme Court went further by dispelling the idea that state governments were “incorporated into the operations of the national government” by being “rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws” by explaining that such a theory would negate the need for there to be language in laws directing state governments to act on behalf of the federal government.
The Supreme Court wrapped up Printz by explaining that there has never been precedent for federal direction of state legislatures and that the only duty owed by the states to the federal government is that the states do not construct legislation that would obstruct the operations of the federal government. The Court’s reasoning in Printz distinguishes the obligation placed on state judges by federal law and the ability to place similar obligations on other state agencies.
In other words, states or localities can’t legally impede the enforcement of federal law, but they don’t have to be a party to enforcement.
I happen to believe that the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement can be a valuable tool for gun owners in the coming years, but the language used to establish those sanctuaries is critically important. If Arizona lawmakers are serious about turning their state into a safe haven for the right to keep and bear arms, I hope they’ll revise the language in the new legislation to make it less symbolic and more substantive in its potential impact.
There are a lot of hot takes going around about last week’s riot at the U.S. Capitol, but Boston Globe columnist Kevin Cullen’s claim that the riots are proof that gun control works is a take hot enough to melt steel girders.
For Cullen, the issue is simple. Washington, D.C. has restrictive gun control laws and there weren’t a lot of guns found on those who were rioting; therefore, the District’s gun laws must be effective.
It is forever a stain on the president and his seditious supporters that five people died in theputsch, but it would have been infinitely worse if the gun-loving insurrectionists had carried weapons as openly as so many of them do in their home states.
The police did find a dozen or so weapons on people they arrested before and after the attack, but if Washington’s firearms laws weren’t as strict as they are, thousands of hyped-up gun nuts who took part in the insurrection would have been armed.
So we’re supposed to believe that thousands of “gun-loving insurrectionists” came to D.C. with the intent of kicking off a revolution, but they left their guns at home because they didn’t want to violate D.C.’s gun laws? Is Cullen serious, or just delusional here?
There’s another obvious possibility that Cullen completely ignores; the vast majority of those attending the Stop the Steal rally in D.C. weren’t violent insurrectionists, and even the majority of those who ended up flooding into the Capitol had no intent of injuring others or committing acts of violence. To me, that makes much more sense than the idea of thousands of wannabe revolutionaries heading to D.C. to kick off a revolt while also trying to remain on the right side of D.C.’s gun laws.
The District of Columbia has some of the nation’s strictest gun laws, which would be even more restrictive except for a 2008 Supreme Court decision that found the district’s ban on handguns unconstitutional. While the Metropolitan Police issue concealed-carry permits, it is a stringent process and there is no reciprocal agreement with other states. Open carry is strictly prohibited, and large swaths of the city are gun-free zones, including the US Capitol buildings and grounds.
It seems to me that if D.C.’s restrictions on both keeping and bearing arms were really effective, its homicide rate would be a lot lower than surrounding communities in both Virginia and Maryland. That’s not the case at all. In 2019, for instance, D.C.’s homicide rate was 49 per 100,000. That same year, Virginia’s homicide rate was 5.0 per 100,000 and Maryland had roughly nine homicides per 100,000 people.
It’s hard to argue that gun control works when D.C.’s murder rate is 10x that of the neighboring state that has far fewer gun control laws on the books, but Cullen tries his best. Given that he doesn’t actually have any evidence to back up his assertions, though, the Globe columnist quickly falls back on the tried-and-true method of lobbing insults at those across the ideological divide.
This week, when some Republican lawmakers from states that let just about anyone walk around with an assault rifle strapped to their chest or a pistol in their purse showed up on Capitol Hill and found metal detectors had been installed, they behaved as children would at a birthday party when told there would be no cake.
One of them, a walking, squawking parody of Annie Oakley named Lauren Boebert, caused a scene just a week into her first term as a congresswoman from Colorado.
The rest of Cullen’s column avoids any effort to try to bolster his argument that the riot in D.C. is proof that gun control works, so there’s no point in quoting any more of his drivel.
One other counterargument to Cullen’s suggestion that it was D.C.’s gun laws that kept the violence from getting any worse. It was almost a year ago that more than 20,000 gun owners legally exercising their right to carry showed up in downtown Richmond, Virginia for the annual Lobby Day rally hosted by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and there was no violence at all that day.
Under Cullen’s theory, that event should have been an absolute horror show of violence based on the number of “gun toting gun nuts” who were present and pissed off about the dozens of anti-gun bills that had been introduced in the state legislature. Instead, I saw gun owners of all ages, sexes, races, and political ideologies come together in a peaceful and powerful protest against the gun control agenda of Ralph Northam and Virginia Democrats. It was Washington, D.C. (home to some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation )where we saw violence erupt; not Richmond, where the gun laws (at that time, anyway) recognized the right of the People to bear arms.
Violence doesn’t come from the gun, or the fire extinguisher, or the American flag used as a spear. It comes from within, and more gun control laws aren’t the answer to those on the Left and the Right who think it’s time for an honest-to-God revolution. You have to address the argument, and frankly, trying to impose sweeping new gun control laws only plays in to their accelerationist beliefs.
I’m not surprised to see anti-gun nuts like Kevin Cullen try to use the storming of the Capitol to push for more gun control laws. I suspect, in fact, that we’re only getting started.
How much will we see in the way of restrictions on our Second Amendment Rights from the Joe Pee Pads Biden and Kalama Knee Pads Harris’ regime?
The Second Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment is corollary to one of the most basic natural rights we have, that of self-defense. However, it has recently been the subject of great controversy. Becoming familiar with the history of this doctrine is critical to understanding it.
Today’s gun-control debate in America focuses on two questions. First, does the Second Amendment give citizens the right to keep and bear arms for personal reasons or did it only pertain to the militia? Second, if the right is granted to individuals, can it be restricted or is it unlimited in scope?
To find the answers, we must examine our Forefathers own words on this subject and understand how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment.
The right to keep and bear arms has been enshrined in English law since 1689 when it was added to England’s Bill of Rights, the precursor to ours. The right was seen by many as a natural right for “self-preservation” and “to restrain the violence of oppression” by the government.
When the Founders created our Bill of Rights, they saw two primary reasons for the need to keep and bear arms. First, there was the inalienable right to self-defense that all people enjoy. Second, this right was deemed essential as a bulwark against oppression by the government.
Samuel Adams stated the Constitution should never be interpreted to “prevent the people from keeping their own arms”. Additionally, Theodore Sedgwick declared “a nation of freemen who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands” cannot be oppressed.
James Madison was also concerned about the threat a standing army posed to our democracy. In Federalist No. 46, he stated militias formed from an armed populace “would be able to repel the danger” of a federal army and thwart any attempt by it to impose autocratic rule.
Thomas Jefferson added, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”. Anti-Federalists, worried about oppression from within, clearly saw the right to keep and bear arms as extending to all citizens for their personal use.
In 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller, a close 5-4 decision, that the Second Amendment guarantees to individuals the right to “keep and bear arms” for self-defense in their home. However, they also stated these guarantees come with some limitations regarding who could own a weapon and on “dangerous and unusual weapons”.
Not all agreed with this position. In his Heller dissent, Justice Paul Stevens stated the prefatory clause “a well-regulated militia” means “the right to keep and bear arms” only protects “a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia” but not for one’s personal use.
Since Heller, two more Supreme Court decisions, McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) and Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), have further confirmed that the Second Amendment does grant individual citizens the right to possess and use firearms in their homes and not only in conjunction with a militia.
Based on these decisions and the words of our Founders, it seems clear Americans have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms and other weapons for self-defense and other personal reasons, but these rights are not unlimited.
WHY IT MATTERS So why should it matter to us today that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by the government?
Nothing is more natural than securing oneself from harm. Whether that danger be a physical assault or oppression by a stronger force such as the government, owning and knowing how to use a firearm is a sound means of ensuring one’s well-being. The Founders recognized this as a fundamental right and made certain they guaranteed it to posterity.
SUGGESTED READING A superb anthology of some of America’s greatest works of literature, famous speeches, and patriotic songs is the book “What So Proudly We Hail”. Published in 2011, it contains excerpts from a wide array of subjects, everything from Theodore Roosevelt’s “True Americanism” to Washington’s Farewell Address to the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
PLACES TO VISIT If you are a gun enthusiast, you should visit Springfield Armory National Historical Site http://www. nps.gov/spar/index.htm in Springfield, Massachusetts. This National Park site includes the world’s largest collection of historic American firearms and several beautifully preserved buildings.
Until next time, may your motto be “Ducit Amor Patriae”, Love of country leads me.
I think oncethe NRA gets moved to Texas they need to tell Wayne LaPierre it is time for you to step down.
On Friday, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) slammed the “corrupt political and regulatory environment” in the State of New York and announced plans to reincorporate in Texas. The NRA has been incorporated in New York for approximately 150 years. The NRA describes the move as part of a new restructuring plan aimed at streamlining costs, handling pending litigation, and operating in a more efficient and welcoming environment.
New York Democrats have not been shy about their disdain for the country’s oldest civil rights organization. When New York Attorney General Letitia James was running for office, James called the NRA both a “terrorist organization” and a “criminal enterprise.” When elected, James vowed to investigate the NRA’s “legitimacy,” the NRA recalled in a press release.
Hostility from New York leaders prompted the NRA to file a lawsuit against the state attorney general, accusing the attorney general of “attempting to ‘blacklist’ the organization and its financial partners in violation of their First Amendment rights.” The NRA has filed similar lawsuits against Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) and New York’s Department of Financial Services.
Part of the NRA’s restructuring plan utilizes the protections of chapter 11 bankruptcy.
“Under this plan, the Association wisely seeks protection from New York officials who it believes have illegally weaponized their powers against the NRA and its members,” said NRA counsel William A. Brewer III. “The NRA will continue the fight to protect the interests of its members in New York – and all forums where the NRA is unlawfully singled out for its Second Amendment advocacy.”
The NRA notes many businesses, nonprofits and organizations of all kinds routinely file voluntary chapter 11 proceedings to streamline their legal and financial affairs. Despite the organization filing chapter 11 protection, the NRA reports to be in its strongest financial condition in years and expects to uphold its commitments to employees, vendors, members, and other stakeholders in the community.
“This strategic plan represents a pathway to opportunity, growth and progress,” said NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre. “Obviously, an important part of this plan is ‘dumping New York.’ The NRA is pursuing reincorporating in a state that values the contributions of the NRA, celebrates our law-abiding members, and will join us as a partner in upholding constitutional freedom. This is a transformational moment in the history of the NRA.”
The NRA says it will seek court approval to reincorporate in the State of Texas, citing Texas as the home of more than 400,000 NRA members and the host of the NRA’s 2021 Meeting set for Houston.
I’ll leave you with this. It may shed some light on why the NRA decided not to reincorporate in California.
Bravo Nebraska for considering a Stand Your Ground Law.
A little bit of good news from the Cornhusker State for gun owners. State Sen. Julie Slama has introduced a bill that would remove “duty to retreat” laws concerning the use of force to defend life property. The bill is similar in concept to the Stand Your Ground law in Florida, though LB 300 approaches the issue from a different angle.
[Under] Bill 300, gun owners would be granted a “rebuttable presumption” to use deadly force when they believe “reasonably and in good faith” that they are endangered by an unlawful intruder. A rebuttable exception means the law would require the court to presume a gun owner had legal cause for taking action, unless that were disproven.
The bill also provides a rebuttable presumption that anyone trying to forcefully enter a dwelling, business or vehicle “is doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.”
With a surge in support of dangerous polices such as the defund the police movement and several cities’ “hands off” approach to dealing with rioting, laws like this one will perhaps serve as a reminder to make the ill-intentioned think twice about what they may do.
Slama, who’s also a law student at the University of Nebraska, says the legislation is designed to clarify more than expand state law, but that doesn’t mean that the bill is symbolic in nature.
Patricia Harrold of the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association says the change would ensure that the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” remains a part of the justice system.
“The bill, if passed, would force prosecutors to prove that a gun was used unreasonably to protect someone from harm, rather than putting the burden on the gun owner to prove they had to use a firearm.”
It would also give homeowners more confidence in using a firearm to defend themselves in their home, Harrold said, by imposing a “reasonable person standard” for the use of force. That helps to ensure that the right of self-defense isn’t given second-class status, which would have disastrous consequences in a time of increased violent crime and civil unrest.
Details on Nebraska Legislative Bill 300 can be found here.
The state of Montana is expanding the peoples carry rights while Joe Pee Pads Biden will try to curtail those rights.
A bill to expand the right to carry in Montana has sailed through the state House and is now on its way to the state Senate, where prospects look good for the measure.
While the bill addresses many aspects of the state’s carry laws, the provision allowing concealed carry holders to lawfully possess a firearm on the grounds of public colleges or universities is definitely drawing the most attention from opponents of the measure. Rep. Seth Berglee, the bill’s sponsor, says that folks shouldn’t overlook the other aspects of the legislation.
“The first thing that it does is what I consider to be permitless carry so it allows you to concealed carry in most of the areas where you can currently open carry,” said Berglee. “So to me, Montana law is very prohibitive of concealed carry but very open on open carry. Concealed carry to me, coming from a strategic or tactical safety background, where negative public impact if you’re in a tourist type area, concealed carry makes a lot more sense. I think it’s a better and safer way to carry.”
Berglee further described areas where firearms could be carried.
“The second thing that it would do is allow permitted carry in a couple additional areas,” he said. “For instance, it allows carry in restaurants that serve alcohol or bars where you’re currently allowed to open carry. I made that a permitted area or as allowed in the bill you would be able to carry in the State Capitol with a permit and as well as other state owned property.”
As for the campus carry provision itself, Berglee says it makes sense.
“To carry on campus, the weapon has to be in a case or holster. It can’t be discharged on campus unless it’s for self defense purposes. You can’t keep it in a dorm room unless you have expressed written permission from somebody you might be living with. If it’s not on your person, it has to be locked and secured. You can’t carry in any area that serves alcohol for like a campus event.”
The bill had little trouble in the House, despite objections from officials with the University of Montana system. HB 102 cleared the chamber on a partisan-line vote of 61-33 (with a few lawmakers absent). The expansion to the state’s carry laws is also backed by both Gov. Greg Gianforte and Attorney General Austin Knudsen, and it should have little trouble in the state Senate as well.
Of course, if you’re a Montana gun owner you should still contact your state senator and urge them to support HB 102, as well as thanking your state representative if they voted in favor of the bill in the House. The bill may be likely to pass, but it’s always good to give your lawmakers positive encouragement to do the right thing.
A look at concealed carry in the People’s Republic Of Illinois.
The rush is over as people go home from work. Now, there is a slow but steady flow of customers into the cell phone store where you work. The next customer walks in. You let him look around for a minute. The store owner continues doing some paperwork so you ask the customer if you can help him. The customer turns away and then turns back with a gun in his hand. He tells you to give him the money and the new phones. You tell the robber that your boss will be back with the phones.
You own a gun. You have your Illinois Firearms Owners Identification Card and your Concealed Carry License. You are armed tonight at work. The robber turns to look at the back room. That is when you draw your firearm. You aim for the center of his chest and shoot your attacker twice. Now the robber drops his gun and turns. You stop shooting. You and your boss run into the back room and call 911.
The police disarm your attacker. EMTs take him to the hospital. The police take your gun as evidence, and you give them a brief statement. Your boss talks to the news media but doesn’t tell them much. That is when you find out that your attacker died in the hospital.
Let’s look at the things our defender did long before the armed robber walked into the cell phone store. Our defender recognized that he works in a dangerous job in a dangerous city. He went through considerable trouble to buy a gun in Illinois. He paid for the expensive training and application fees. He endured the months-long delays so he could get his carry permit. Our defender talked with his employer about being armed at work. That morning, our good guy went through the trouble of dressing around the gun and carrying concealed in public. He did all that before he faced a threat.
During the attack, we know that the defender put shots on the bad guy in order to end the threat. Our good guy didn’t chase the bad guy down the street. The robbery victims retreated and called the police. They also gave a brief statement to the police.
There is a lot that we don’t know about this event. We don’t know how the defender gained a few second advantage over the robber who already had his gun in his hand. We do know those good tactics can keep us from getting shot.
It appears that our defender waited his turn. Our good guy did not draw his firearm when the attacker already had his gun out and pointed at him. He waited until the robber looked away and the robber had his gun pointed in another direction. Perhaps our good guy opened the cash drawer and stepped to the side. Perhaps the defender moved behind a display case to mask his motions. That is important because we’d like to cheat. We’d like to have our hand on our gun before we start the presentation because that cuts our draw time in half.
We want to move as we draw because that buys us time too. The robber has to notice we moved, find out where we are, track our movement and point his gun at us before he can shoot. In that time, we want to put shots on target and move again. Ideally, we can shoot from a position of cover or at least concealment.
Fast hands help, but tactics help us beat fast hands.
Those are certainly good tactics, but there even better options. Have a plan with your boss. If the robber will let you, then you can walk into the backroom to get the robber what he wants. From that position out of sight, you can sound the silent alarm that calls the police. There, you can draw your firearm. From behind a curtain, from a position in the dark, and from behind a wall that will stop a bullet, you can shoot your bad guy through a doorway.
Think about this. Your attacker is threatening to kill an innocent person. You can shoot the bad guy when he isn’t looking at you. You can shoot the bad guy when he doesn’t have his gun pointed at you. You can shoot the bad guy from a position where he can’t see you. In order to save the life of an innocent person, you can shoot the bad guy from behind or from a dark corner.
That isn’t what you saw in the movies and it usually takes some time to sink in. You can start thinking about it now.
Planning like that can put us in a position from which it is hard to lose. Again, we’d like to wait until the robber is not pointing his gun at an innocent party when we fire. We’d like it if there was a solid wall behind the bad guy rather than a glass window that leads onto a public street. We might not get everything we want. Take a look at the place you work and at your home.
We want to give a very brief statement to the police. Of course, tell them that you’ll cooperate and answer all their questions at a later date. Let your lawyer watch the security video and put your story together. Look for legal help today before you need it.
Rob Morse highlights the latest self-defense and other shootings of the week. See what went wrong, what went right, and what we can learn from real-life self-defense with a gun. Even the most justified self-defense shooting can go wrong, especially after the shot. Get the education, the training, and the liability coverage you and your family deserve, join USCCA.
If this bill crosses the President’s desk after January 20,2021 it will be DOA.
New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the midst of an already shaky legislative session both politically and socially speaking, bills are still being introduced in dribs and drabs. There is a lot of doom and gloom in both arenas, as we as Americans, try to wrap our heads around recent events. Some things are business as usual, and really, given the history of this proposed bill, it should not be…The passage of this bill is long overdue.
On January 6, 2021, Representative Morgan Griffith [R-VA9] has reintroduced “H.R. 225: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to more comprehensively address the interstate transportation of firearms or ammunition”.
As American gun owners, we are currently protected by law when transporting firearms interstate from one location which we can legally have them to another location where we can legally have them. This may not seem like a big deal in certain geographic areas, however, it offers many much-needed protections for those traveling through states with varying laws and really, varying levels of respect of the Second Amendment.
Looking at the bill history, similar bills have been introduced in every congress going back to 2012. With hot button topics such as nationwide concealed carry reciprocity taking the center stage, H.R. 225 still has plenty of important relief to offer. In particular, when traveling, the protections afforded in this bill will protect someone’s ability to stay overnight in a state they are traveling through which may be hostile to civil rights. From the text of a former version of this bill filed in the last session:
In subsection (a), the term transport includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, medical treatment, and any other activity incidental to the transport…
This provision is very helpful to safeguard the rights of gun owners on long road trips. Take for example someone driving from Maine to Florida. A concealed carry permit holder of both of these states would have to travel through many states that have unconstitutional laws. If a motorist needs to stop for gas or stay overnight in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, or Maryland through the course of their travels, they are being left subjugated to draconian laws with still felony penalties.
John Filippidis of Florida was driving south with his family on Interstate 95 when the Maryland Transportation Authority Police pulled over his black Ford Expedition and proceeded to raid it while his twins, wife and daughter looked on — separated in the back seats of different police cruisers.
The officers were searching for Mr. Filippidis‘ Florida-licensed, palm-size Kel-Tec .38 semi-automatic handgun, which he left at home locked in his safe. (Maryland does not recognize handgun permits issued by other states.)
When the search turned up nothing, Mr. Filippidis, 51, was allowed to go and was issued only a speeding warning.
From the article, a very compelling question is asked: “How did the police know he was licensed for concealed carry, and what right did they have to search through his personal items on the side of the busy interstate…”?
Abuses of information and 4th amendment rights violations are just some of the problems gun owners face in today’s society. On a personal level, a friend was once pulled over in Massachusetts heading from Maryland to Vermont and the officer demanded to be able to search his vehicle. What was the just cause of the stop? He had a camouflage jacket in plain view in the rear window of his pickup truck. He was without a firearm and acquiesced to the search, but we as citizens of a free nation should not be threatened by such illegal practices.
Some of the other text of the formerly proposed bill seems to protect the style of firearm as well as the magazines:
A person who is transporting a firearm, ammunition, magazine, or feeding device may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related solely to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms, ammunition, magazine, or feeding device unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for in subsection (a).
Without a critical and judicial review of the text, on face value, it appears people will be able to drive through states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc. with their standard capacity magazines above 10 rounds, and hollow-point ammunition, etc.
If there is a time that lawful gun owners need more protection, that time would be now.
With constant assaults by financial institutes, governmental agencies, executive overreach, judges legislating from the bench, and continuing to deal with irrational and erroneous “screaming Mommy’s” from the ilk of Moms Demand Action, Handgun Control Inc. (Brady), Giffords, et.al. things like the interstate of lawful transport of firearms need to be protected in a more affirmative manner. As it is today, too much is left for interpretation.
Representative Griffith does have an insurance policy built into the law to act as an incentive for overreaching police to comply:
When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsection (a).
(3)When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.
Legislators like Griffith need to be commended and support for this bill and bills like it need to be known by our leaders. Reach out to Griffith to thank him for having the moral fortitude to continue the tradition of introducing this bill and reach out to your lawmakers to get them onboard. This is about respect, the 2nd Amendment, and the 4th Amendment, to name a few rights that will be further protected.
The law-abiding population deserves this, and it’s unfortunate that it needs to be even discussed.
David Camera Hogg’s fifteen minutes of fame has long pasted he needs to STFU and go away.
David Hogg has never really covered himself in glory. Oh, if you agree with him, you think he’s great. Then again, you’re also probably part of the small segment of society that actually believes those stories about five-year-old kids supposedly asking supposedly poignant and inciteful questions about various policies.
See, all Hogg did was go to a high school where something bad happened. He turned that into a career advocating for gun control, even though he really didn’t understand the subject in the least.
Now, he’s still going at it, but yesterday, he decided to push for something that took the stupid so far beyond his usual brand, I had to say something.
You want a gun ?
You should need to pay for liability insurance so anyone you injure or kill has all of their medical bills, funeral costs and therapy covered.
It should not be on the victims of Gun violence to pay for their therapy and medical bills- or funerals.
Yes, he actually wrote that crap. It’s a wonder he’s capable of mastering human speech.
See, in David’s world, people go to gun stores and obtain a firearm through legal means simply to commit crimes. Yes, there are a select few people who do just that. They represent a tiny slice of those who commit violent crimes with firearms each and every year.
Most of those injured or killed in violent firearm-related crimes are hurt with guns obtained through illegal means–either through stealing a firearm from a law-abiding citizen or off the black market.
I assure you, no one buying a gun on the black market is going to get insurance.
Now, I can see the desire to have some mechanism for the victims of violent crimes to not be saddled with the expenses that arise from medical treatment for their injuries. I get it.
The problem is, ideas like this–and Hogg isn’t the first to talk about this–is that it’s predicated on an idea that law-abiding citizens aren’t really law-abiding. For something like this to have any impact, the good guys with guns would really have to be bad guys and be shooting up the place. That’s simply not what’s happening and any realistic look at the data can tell you that.
But for people like Hogg and his anti-gun buddies, it’s about what it’s always about. It’s about making things more difficult for the law-abiding citizen.
It’s funny, though. David Hogg also tweets a lot of other progressive politics, suggesting that he’s all kinds of worried about poor people. What he doesn’t get is that this very policy would have a deeper impact on poor Americans living in more crime-ridden neighborhoods. They may not be able to afford to move, but they can afford a shotgun or a cheap handgun.
Yet by requiring insurance, these income disadvantaged gun owners would now have to factor in insurance costs into purchasing a gun, leaving many of them disarmed in the face of numerous criminals.
In other words, David and his crowd love poor people just so long as they know their place.
Honestly, ideas like these aren’t remotely serious. Sure, those who espouse them think they’re serious, but they’re not.
All they are is another way for anti-gunners to try and punish gun owners for the unforgivable sin of having a firearm.