Joe Biden Had Bizarre Reasons For Supporting Racial Segregation

H/T The Lid.

I want to hear Slow Joe explain this one.

2spncv-1200x630

Just as the former VP and SCHMOTUS (the schmo of the U.S.) Joe Biden is preparing a 2020 run for president, his past and very bizarre support for racial segregation is coming back to haunt him.

The issue in question harkens back to the year 1975 when then-Senator Joe Biden was developing a stance against bussing minority children to different schools to defeat segregation.

Biden originally made his comments to National Public Radio, but they were rediscovered by the Washington Examiner.

Back in 1975, Biden was weighing in as a supporter of segregation and an opponent of bussing by bizarrely calling it a matter of “Black pride.”

Biden reasoned that forcing de-segregation on black school kids would be destructive for a strong, proud black identity.

“I think the concept of busing,” Biden told NPR in 1975, “that we are going to integrate people so that they all have the same access and they learn to grow up with one another and all the rest, is a rejection of the whole movement of black pride.”

The Senator added that de-segregation of minorities and whites was “a rejection of the entire black awareness concept, where black is beautiful, black culture should be studied; and the cultural awareness of the importance of their own identity, their own individuality.”

Strangely, years later Biden seemed to completely forget that he was not a fan of efforts to afford black kids a better education.

After being chosen as Barack Obama’s running mate in 2008, Biden said, “The struggle for civil rights was the animating political element of my life.”

How will Biden square these competing descriptions of his own record? Well, we don’t know because he won’t reply to questions about this old interview.

Figures, right?

Biden is on the cusp of once again running for the White House. He’s made two other official runs (1988 and 2008), and both failed miserably. But since 1988 he has “considered” running in every single election between then and now. He is a perennial candidate for president who has never gotten anywhere near attaining his goal.

Biden’s only shot at ever being president of the United States was if Obama had been taken out somehow when Biden was serving as vice president. Some say he is a front runner for the nomination as things stand right now in the 2020 race. But, that popularity will no doubt prove chimerical as we get closer to the 2020 campaign season and the more viable candidates appear.

Tale of Two Organizations, from the Perspective of an American Black Man

H/T AmmoLand.

Editors Note: February 1st, 2019, marks the beginning of black history month.
Opinion by Retired Lieutenant Colonel Allen West

National Rifle Association Eagle Badge Logo
As an American black man, the history of the National Rifle Association has a special meaning for me, and I often reflect upon it.

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Three years ago, I was honored to be nominated by petition and elected to the Board of the Nation’s oldest civil rights organization, the National Rifle Association (NRA). My first three-year term is coming to an end, and I will be up for reelection by our membership this year, 2019. This past year was our Fall NRA Board meeting in the D.C. area. Sadly, thanks to the threats, intimidation, and yes, violence of the progressive, socialist left, we can never disclose where we meet. I remember two years ago when the NRA annual meeting was in my hometown of Atlanta, Georgia. How proud I was to take the stage at that meeting before our members. And proud I am to don the pin that has the American and NRA flag side by side.

As an American black man, the history of the National Rifle Association has a special meaning for me, and I often reflect upon it.

At a time when recently freed slaves were transitioning to being American citizens, they came under assault during the Reconstruction Era. When faced with the threats, coercion, intimidation, and yes, violence of an organization called the Ku Klux Klan, it was the NRA that stood with and defended the rights of blacks to the Second Amendment. I guess you must somewhat find it interesting, funny even, that the same political party [Democrat] that started the KKK is the same political party that stands against the NRA today. What is it they say about those who fail to learn from history? This is truly a matter to ponder and consider: the NRA was formed to promote better rifle marksmanship. But, when it was deemed critical, the NRA realized that it had to defend that important right for all Americans to protect and defend themselves, and their families.

For all of these years, since 1871, that has been the raison d’etre of the National Rifle Association, defending a constitutional right. So, why would anyone take issue with that, and especially anyone from the black community?

Mary Fields, Stagecoach Mary with her rifle.
Mary Fields, also known as Stagecoach Mary with her rifle.

Think about it. Would the Underground Railroad have been successful without blacks being able to secure their passage? I always remember that picture of Harriet Tubman with her rifle. Something tells me she was an NRA supporter. The ol’ Buffalo Soldiers were NRA members. Heck, that was, for many, the only organization that would accept them. Yes, they were. Current NRA Executive VP, Wayne LaPierre, saw some of their old membership cards when the Buffalo Soldier Monument was dedicated at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas. And my fellow Atlantan, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., once applied for a weapon carry license, though he was denied by the same folks who belonged to the party that created the KKK.

But today, there is a focused, dedicated war against the nation’s oldest civil rights organization that has stood with the black community since its freedom.

The rich white elites such as Michael Bloomberg, New York’s Governor Cuomo, and many others have openly stated their desire to end, destroy, and bankrupt the NRA. But why? Law abiding, legal gun owners who are NRA members are castigated as terrorists, and having blood on their hands. It’s quite perplexing.

Study the history of the NRA with the black community. You will be hard-pressed to find anything troubling. Heck, Charleston Heston marched with Dr. King during the civil rights movement. And the NRA has an award in memory of Roy Innis, a true civil rights warrior.

Then we have the amazing tale of two organizations, comparing the NRA with another organization, Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was founded by a person that was a white supremacist, a racist, someone who referred to blacks as “weeds” and “undesirables.” Sounds a lot like “deplorables” doesn’t it? And yes, there is a correlation, since the person who referred to some Americans as deplorables is a recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award, the founder of Planned Parenthood.

How very interesting that we have a well-organized movement, supported by a complicit media, to undermine the existence of an organization that has stood with the black community.

Yet, an organization that was started by someone that wanted to exterminate – yes, strong words, but true – the black community is safeguarded. Heck, Planned Parenthood even receives American taxpayer dollars, to the tune of over $500 million. Since 1973, there have been nearly 18 million black babies murdered in the womb, hundreds a day, yet the NRA is demonized as having blood on its hands? This is utterly absurd, and to think, there are politicians who spend their time, money and effort going after the NRA. I tend to recall a statistic that there were more black babies murdered in the womb in New York, than there were born. I tend to believe taking an innocent life, masked under some delusional judgement of being a “right” is criminal, but that is just me, an American black man.

But think about it, why does the progressive, socialist left, and the Democrat party, assail an organization whose purpose is to protect innocent lives, while at the same time praising, protecting, and funding an organization that takes innocent lives as their purpose?

The first Roy Innis Memorial Award will go to an American black man, a former soldier, someone who stood up against the tyranny of being unarmed, Otis McDonald of Chicago. Yes, the same Otis McDonald for whom the Second Amendment case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, is named. And who was it that stood with Otis McDonald? It was not Planned Parenthood. It was the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, the National Rifle Association. Hmm, how many blacks have been awarded the Margaret Sanger Award?

As an American black man, I am proud to be a board member of the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, the National Rifle Association. And I ask myself: what pride does anyone have in being a board member of Planned Parenthood?

In NRA Board meetings we discuss how often we have defended the Second Amendment, a constitutional right, and how we can grow our membership of liberty-loving Americans. We have a motto at the NRA, and it goes, “I am the NRA and I am Freedom’s Safest Place”.

What safety, freedom, does Planned Parenthood provide? Oh yea, the freedom to take the innocent life of an unborn child. Congratulations. Y’all have been very successful in the black community.

Allen West Headshot
Allen West

Allen West is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. Mr. West is a Senior Fellow at the Media Research Center to support its mission to expose and neutralize liberal media bias and is author of the book from Brown Books Publishing Group, “Hold Texas, Hold the Nation: Victory or Death” available on Amazon.

22 Facts You May Not Know About the Medal of Honor

H/T War History OnLine.

I learned several new things about the Medal of Honor.

If you have read the stories of just a few out of all the 3,522 Medal of Honor recipients, you may have noticed one similarity: the actions from these stories read like stuff from the movies. They may seem impossible.

But then, that is why the Medal of Honor has been received by only a tiny fraction of the millions who have ventured onto battlefields in the service of the United States.

It is quite common for the award to be awarded posthumously, due to its nature.

Medal of Honor recipients, and other visitors, watch an Army full honors wreath laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery, March 25, 2016, Arlington, Va. The wreath laying for Medal of Honor Day

Having been in existence for about 155 years, the Medal of Honor, being the highest military decoration of the United States, continues to recognize and reward U.S servicemembers for “conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life.”

Below are 22 things you probably don’t know about the Medal of Honor:

Medal of Honor recipient retired Army Capt. Florent “Flo” Groberg places his medal on fire hose transformed into the American Flag during a troop engagement with airmen assigned to the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing at Al Dhafra Air Base Dec. 23, 2017

The Medal of Honor has only had one female recipient

Her name was Dr. Mary Edwards Walker. At the outbreak of the Civil War, she volunteered with the Union Army, serving temporarily as a nurse before going on to become the first female surgeon of the Army.

Notably, her award was revoked in 1917 because she was a civilian and the updated criteria of the award strictly focused on combat service.

However, in 1977, five decades after her death, her Medal of Honor was restored.

Mary Edwards Walker in around 1911

The youngest recipient of the award was only 13 years old

Drummer boy Willie Johnston received the prestigious award at the age of 13 for his commendable composure during the Civil War.

Some may argue that the recognition for the youngest recipient should go to the indestructible Jack Lucas–who got the award at 17 for jumping over two grenades to save his comrades–owing to the fact that the medal in the modern sense is dedicated to combat service.

But the Medal of Honor of the Civil War days is still the Medal of Honor of today, and although he was not a combatant, Willie’s medal was never revoked.

It is safe, though, to say that Jack Lucas is the youngest man to receive the Medal of Honor for combat service.

Young boy wearing Union Army uniform holds drum, circa 1861

It can be awarded to non-citizens

In fact, sixty-five recipients of the Medal of Honor have been Canadians who served with the US armed forces.

Altogether, more than eight hundred non-citizens have been decorated with the Medal of Honor.

Although you needn’t be a U.S citizen, you have to be serving with the US military in order to be eligible for the award.

Laszlo Rabel, born in Hungary, killed in Vietnam

Recipients have the rare privilege of getting saluted by senior officers, including the President

Alongside this, a Medal of Honor recipient is by default invited to all Presidential inaugurations for life.

Admiral Eric T. Olson salutes Sergeant First Class Leroy Petry at a ceremony at The Pentagon.

Nine hundred and eleven Medals of Honor have been revoked

It must be a terrible experience to have your Medal of Honor revoked after celebrating the achievement of such a status. But In 1916, it was decided that some Medals of Honor had been awarded for reasons other than distinguished service, and consequently, about 911 recipients lost the decoration.

This affected soldiers of the 27th Maine Regiment who had served during the Civil War, servicemen who served as Abraham Lincoln’s funeral guards, and several civilians including “Buffalo Bill” Cody and Mary Walker.

Cody and Walker’s medals, as well as those of four other people, were restored many years later.

“Buffalo Bill,” nicknamed after his contract to supply Kansas Pacific Railroad workers with buffalo meat

Medal of Honor recipients have many distinct benefits

Just to mention a few, recipients get a 10 percent pension bonus alongside a monthly allowance worth $1,259 (US dollars). There is a burial plot reserved for them at Arlington National Cemetery.

In their lifetime, they are covered by the DOD Regulation 4515.13-R to travel anywhere they like by air for free. Their family members are allowed the same travel privilege as long as they accompany the Medal of Honor recipient.

President Lyndon B. Johnson presents Medal of Honor to Major Merlyn Dethlefsen, United States Air Force.

Wearing someone else’s medal is against the law

US law is particularly unfriendly to those who wear military decorations without authorization, and in the Stolen Valor Act it specifies heavier punishment for display of Medals of Honor by persons other than the rightful owners.

Funnily, though, it is not illegal to falsely claim that you own a Medal of Honor. You can say it, but dare not show it.

The highest military decoration awarded by the United States government

Only one U.S President received the Medal of Honor

President Theodore Roosevelt is the only president in US history to have received the Medal of Honor. His son, Theodore Roosevelt Jr., also received the decoration during World War II.

Colonel Theodore Roosevelt in 1898

The Medal of Honor has three variants

There is one for the Army, one for the Navy, and one for the Air Force.

Army, Navy, and Air Force versions of the Medal of Honor

On 25th March 1863, the first Medal of Honor was presented to Private Jacob Parrott, a member of the Andrew Raiders, for his voluntary participation in the raid of a Confederate train during the Civil War.il War.

Jacob Parrott

There are men who have two Medals of Honor

This is quite outstanding, and if you think a new medal should be made specifically for those who go as far as to earn such a rare honor twice, you’re not alone.

There are 19 men who have had the honor twice. Fourteen earned it in two different actions, while the others earned it in one action which was recognized and endorsed for the Medal of Honor by both the Army and the Navy.

Louis Cukela was awarded the Medal by both the US Army and the US Navy for the same action during the Battle of Soissons in World War I

Congressional Medal of Honor?

Well, contrary to popular belief, it is simply called Medal of Honor, nothing more, nothing less.

But it is quite understandable how this came about, because the Medal of Honor is presented to recipients “in the name of the Congress.”

However, it is not the “Congressional Medal of Honor.”

Leo K. Thorsness (centre), president of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society

The Medal of Honor has just two pairs of father-son recipients

The first pair was Arthur and Douglas MacArthur, and as previously mentioned the second pair was President Theodore Roosevelt and his son Theodore Roosevelt Jr.

General Douglas MacArthur, UN Command CiC (seated), observes the naval shelling of Incheon from USS Mount McKinley, 15 September 1950

Five pairs of brothers have earned the Medal of Honor

They are: John and William Black, Henry and Charles Capehart, Harry and Willard Miller, Allen and James Thompson, and Antoine and Julien Gaujot.

Julien E. Gaujot

The Medal of Honor was once investigated for racism

This first happened in 1993, and sprang from the fact that no African-American who had served in World War II had been decorated with the award.

The investigation resulted in the upgrading of ten recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross to the Medal of Honor.

Another investigation occurred in 1998 regarding Asian-Americans, and ended in twenty-two awards going to deserving Asian-Americans.

President Dwight Eisenhower congratulates Korean War veteran Army Staff Sergeant Hiroshi H. Miyamura after presenting him the Medal of Honor. Miyamura earned the medal as a corporal during an April 1951 battle that resulted in his capture by Chinese soldiers. His award was kept secret for his safety until after his repatriation in August 1953.

More than 50 percent of the Medals of Honor awarded since 1941 have been presented posthumously.

The idea of a Medal of Honor was initially disregarded when first proposed.

Before it became America’s most prestigious award, it had its fair share of debates, with General Winfield Scott giving it a resounding “Nay” and saying it was just too European.

Lieut. Gen. Winfield Scott age of 75, 1861

Earning a Medal for saving a Medal recipient

That is the story of Michael Thornton. He risked his life to save his comrade, Thomas Norris, who had been approved for the Medal of Honor six months earlier.

This was the only time since the 1871 Korean Expedition that a Medal was awarded to someone for saving another recipient.

Medal of Honor recipient Thomas Norris second from left.

The first African-American recipient

In 1864, Robert Blake became the first African-American to receive the award. William Carney was actually the first to come under the spotlight for his actions at Fort Wagner, South Carolina on 18 July 1863, but he received his Medal years after Blake did.

U.S. Navy poster featuring Medal of Honor recipient Robert Blake.

Only one African-American has earned it twice

His name was Robert Augustus Sweeney, and he is one of the previously mentioned nineteen men in history to have won two Medals of Honor.

The Navy was the first to adopt the Medal of Honor

The US Navy was the first to adopt the Medal of Honor. It was followed almost immediately by the US Army, which came up with its own version.

Medal of Honor awarded to Seaman John Ortega in 1864 (back view)

The Medal of Honor has been awarded to Unknown Soldiers

The award was first issued posthumously to unknown British, French, American, Italian, Belgian and Romanian soldiers who died in service during World War I.

After World War II and the Korean and Vietnam Wars, Congress approved the posthumous decoration of unknown American soldiers from those wars.

Four Americans were chosen for this decoration, and their medals are kept at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery.

Sens. Harris And Feinstein LIVID As Trump Nominates Conservatives To 9th Circuit Court

H/T The Lid.

To paraphrase Bathhouse Barry Obama, “Elections have consequences and at the end of the day, Trump won.”

Poor babies.

President Donald Trump has infuriated California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris by re-nominating a pair of conservative judges to occupy vacancies on the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals over their objections, according to Fox News.

It’s part of the president’s efforts to reshape and balance the courts with conservative jurists. The 9th Circuit has a history as the most liberal and often overturned circuit court in the nation. It’s the court liberals go to when they want a Trump policy overturned.

Sen Dianne Feinstein

@SenFeinstein

I am deeply disappointed that the White House has chosen to re-nominate Daniel Collins and Kenneth Lee to the Ninth Circuit. We made clear our opposition to these individuals and told the White House we wanted to work together to come to consensus on a new package of nominees.

Sen Dianne Feinstein

@SenFeinstein

.@SenKamalaHarris and I even identified candidates selected by the White House we could support to demonstrate our willingness to work cooperatively. Unfortunately, the White House is moving forward with three nominees to a circuit court who have no judicial experience.

3,219 people are talking about this

Uh-Oh I think that means Senator Feinstein is going to make up a sex scandal about these judges and Senator Harris will swear to it.

Feinstein and Harris had objected to the nominations of Judges Daniel Collins and Kenneth Lee last fall. They had hoped to “work together” with the White House on filling the two open spots. In other words, they wanted him to pick liberals. Although I am not an attorney, I believe the correct jurisprudence term for what the president did in appointing those judges is “lenta stercores dominarum” which when translated from the Latin means something like,  “Tough sh*t Ladies.”

Trump’s ability as president to change the complexion of the federal courts was a significant factor in his 2016 election. Gun owners especially wanted to keep Hillary Clinton out of the Oval Office, where she would have nominated judges and Supreme Court justices who might disagree with the 2008 Heller ruling that affirmed the Second Amendment protects an individual fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

Trump has placed both Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch on the high court, and earlier this week the court signaled that it was prepared to start retaking Second Amendment cases when it accepted a challenge to New York City’s restrictive handgun law.

In all, the White House submitted 51 nominations to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Balancing the federal courts may be Trump’s greatest legacy because the appointments are for life and federal judges do not have to run for re-election. That removes, at least theoretically, any potential of political pressure on judges to reach certain decisions.

While Feinstein and Harris are reportedly furious, Judiciary Chairman Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-SC) seemed happy with the Trump selections. He promised the committee would begin working on the nominations quickly.  Trump’s right-wing additions to the appellate courts will create a circuit court system that follows the constitution.

The liberals are frightened the conservative courts will uphold President Trump’s policies, the Second Amendment and decide that the Constitution doesn’t include the right to kill babies.

Right now the liberals are particularly alarmed that the Supreme Court accepted the New York gun law case. They would rather have the city change its gun ordinance to moot the case, but that might only be a stop-gap effort because there are a couple of other gun rights cases waiting in the wings for the high court to accept.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has complained in at least one dissent that the high court, by not accepting other gun rights cases since it handed down the McDonald ruling in 2010, has been treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right

But with the new judges, our courts will no longer address the Constitution as a second-class document.

Illinois doubles down on “stupid”

H/T JPFO.

As gun owners, we need to stop asking DemocRats “How much stupider can you get?”

Because DemocRats see that as a challenge then they say “Hold my beer and watch this!”

By Jay Carter. January 30, 2019
Original Source

Illinois…there’s something in the water.

For those readers not familiar with Illinois, it’s really two states: one that is basically Chicago/Cook County and its collar counties (mostly “left leaning”), the other is roughly everything south of I-80 (mostly “right leaning”) which is typically labeled as “downstate”. Of course, this is a generalization as we know there are pockets of liberalism in “downstate” (Champaign County, for instance) and vice-versa. Further, there are some “liberals” who own firearm as well….so lets not get too wrapped up in the labels.

Sadly, the population of Cook County, etc. is enough that the entire remainder of the state can think one way and get overruled in an election. The last Gubernatorial race found a few more pockets in support of the democratic candidate as people were rightfully fed up with Gov. Rauner’s ineffectiveness.

Those of us in “downstate” IL knew that the relatively stable, though not ideal, situation for firearms ownership would take a negative turn when Gov. J.B. Pritzker was elected. As it turns out, we underestimated the slope of that downward curve and how quickly the Chicago pols would act.

Yeah, they’re swinging for the fences.

First, they held a bill that they knew Gov. Rauner would veto and passed it off to new Gov. Pritsker shortly after being seated. Seems like dirty pool to me but I’m no expert on that stuff, I expect it to be challenged in court.

This bill was signed and has now become Public Act 100-1178, it requires state level licensing of firearms dealers and includes licensing fees, video camera requirements (video of all doors, all inventory, as well as all transactions….), video storage requirements (90 days minimum), inspection requirements, and so on. Video storage can get expensive in a hurry, just ask any number of small police departments that can’t afford to store body cam footage.

Besides all that, the BATFE already controls firearms dealers at the federal level and we know that criminals with records don’t go to gun shops to buy their firearms. According to the DOJ stats published on the same day this bill was signed, only 1.9% of criminals in possession of a gun claim to have purchased it in a retail location.

Next they dropped SB 0107 in our laps. This is the typical “assault weapons” ban and includes your choice of registration or confiscation of existing firearms that fit their language. No surprises here except for not having a grandfather clause.

A day or two later, we see HB0888 arrive. This is a bill that requires you to turn over info for your social media accounts when you apply for a new FOID or attempt to renew it. I can understand how some people might think this is a good thing, but folks….due process. If someone is doing things on one of the social media networks that makes you raise an eyebrow, I get it. But until they’re prosecuted of a crime I don’t see how the state could use this against them but they’ll certainly try using it for Red Flag purposes.

My personal favorite (so far) is the newly released HB1467. Wondering what’s in this gem? Read on.

A retailer will be required to do the following for an AMMUNITION sale.

Record the following info:
1. Date of transaction
2. Purchaser’s name, address, DOB
3. Purchaser’s FOID information
4. Amount of ammunition, caliber, manufacturer’s name and serial number or other identifying info
5. Requires the retailer to send all of this to the IL State Police within 7 days of the sale of ammunition.
6. Retailer must keep a log book of ammunition sales, available for inspection by law enforcement

The bill also requires the IL State Police to establish and maintain a searchable database which contains these ammunition records.

Sooo, since that pesky U.S. Constitution makes it unlawful for the state to have a database of firearm sales…they’ll just record ammunition sales and then deduce who-owns-what to some degree. To be clear, they do know when a firearm is sold at retail but only that it is a handgun or long gun.

Edit 1/31/19 to add a new bill introduced late yesterday:
HB1586 may be tied for my favorite now….this atrocity will require all handgun ammunition to be serialized. If you possess un-serialized ammunition that was previously owned or was purchased from a sane state…too bad. Also creates a registry of serial numbers from an ammunition sale, so obviously this goes along with HB1467 above.

None of this is going to stop crime of any type and they know it. My opinion is that they’re hoping to drive gun shops out of business and scare a handful of people into turning in a few firearms. Meanwhile, gangbangers will still be bangin and it’s business as usual with them.

Those of us closer to Kentucky than Chicago tend to be of the mindset that these things won’t affect us much but you need to wake up and realize that this will affect you. They aren’t playing around. There is a Democratic super-majority in both houses and a new leftist sitting in the Governor’s chair, it’s going to be tough and you need to get involved. In my opinion, complacency is consent and those who roll over are just as much to blame as those who bring this mess to the table.

How can you help? Stay with me….

Get off of your rear, get on the phone, send a letter, or an email, file witness slips for these bills, wear these elected officials out with communication. You can find the contact info for your elected officials here, just click on Members and follow your nose.

If you’ve never filed Witness slips before, see IllinoisCarry.com (link on the right) for instructions. Lots of good folks there to help you out.

Attend IGOLD on March 27 (there’s time to plan) and get to Springfield any other time you can. Yes, even if you don’t agree with everything that the ISRA does, now is no time to divide ourselves.

If you’re a Sheriff reading this by some strange luck, I ask that you tell the ILGA that you won’t assist with enforcing this attack on honest folks if it does manage to become law.

County boards? Pass a line in your budget barring county funds from being spent on enforcement of this tripe. Help us find a way.

If you’re one of the legislators that have brought these bills forward or support them, please reconsider. These actions will do nothing more than hurt the people that already follow laws, not those who are actually doing harm.

The HR 1 ‘Incumbent Protection Act’ destroys free elections

H/T  The Washington Examiner.

We need to contact our House members and tell them to vote no on H.R.1.

Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., represents arguably the most gerrymandered congressional district in the country, and he wants to keep it that way. His latest piece of legislation, H.R. 1 “For the People Act,” would force taxpayers to fund congressional campaigns.

Congress has a knack for naming legislation after its opposite intended effect. If you’ve spent more than a weekend in Washington, you know that a bill named “For the People” is likely a far cry from actually benefiting the public. The “Incumbent Protection Act” would be a more fitting name for this piece of legislation.

Forcing citizens to fund political campaigns would be an appalling violation of the First Amendment. The right to vote and the right to campaign for other people’s votes are both considered protected acts of free speech. Allowing the federal government to control the purse strings of political communication would rig the system to protect those in power.

H.R. 1 would force 501(c)(4) charity organizations to publicly release their donor lists. Americans have a reasonable right to privacy, and a violation of this magnitude would have a chilling effect on political speech. The conservative groups targeted and persecuted by Lois Lerner and the IRS would be the tip of the iceberg compared to what would come next.

House Democrats should brush up on their history if they believe exposing the names of donors will lead to free elections. It would do the opposite. This was already decided in NAACP v. Alabama, in which the Supreme Court ruled the state of Alabama could not make public the membership rolls of the NAACP.

Without this landmark decision, thousands of African-Americans would have been made even more vulnerable to widespread voter intimidation from groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. It’s hard to believe that Democrats are now trying to circumvent this ruling with H.R. 1, which would once again expose people to dangerous harassment simply by association.

NAACP v. Alabama is not the only Supreme Court ruling that H.R. 1 would overturn. The Citizens United v. FEC decision has long been in the crosshairs of Democrats, who want to restrict political speech for 501(c)(4)s and other associations.

H.R. 1 would prohibit a majority of organizations, including many nonprofit groups, with as few as one foreign shareholder from contributing to a candidate or super PAC.

Suppression of political speech is still very real, and H.R. 1 will only exacerbate it. This goes beyond big-dollar backers who give large amounts of money to candidates on both sides of the aisle. H.R. 1 discourages everyday people from making political contributions to the campaigns of their choice.

This directly harms the “free and fair election” process that H.R. 1 claims to promote. It leads to a reduced willingness for people to engage in civil society for fear of reprisal for their political beliefs.

Free speech aside, H.R. 1 would also be a massive federal power grab. It seeks to mandate federal control over the election processes of individual states. Behind the facade of “fair elections,” the bill goes completely against the concept of federalism in an attempt to implement single-party, establishment rule.

H.R. 1 is not for the people; it’s an opportunity for Democrats to get back to their party machine roots. True to form, they only want free and fair elections so long as they get to decide what “free and fair” really means.

Under the guise of a more open electoral process, H.R. 1 rigs the game in favor of elected officials already in office and strives to censor the political speech of individuals and associations. Those who cherish the First Amendment should oppose this bill at every turn.

New Law Requires Illinois Gun Dealers to get State License

H/T AmmoLand.

It seems the Commie Lib Governor of Illinois is determined to put all 2,400 gun shops in the state out of business.

Springfield, Illinois –-(Ammoland.com)- A new law in Illinois requires gun dealers to be licensed by the state.

Becoming a legal gun dealer is not an easy task. The prospective dealer has to apply with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). The application process is not simple to navigate. Most dealers pay for expensive packages from companies to learn how to deal with just the application process.

The applicant must provide the BATF with passport pictures, fingerprints, and the ATF will submit their information to the FBI for a criminal background check. This step is just the beginning. The new business also has to provide other things such as articles of incorporation, zoning information, a lease that states that the building owner lets the dealer sell firearms, and copy of their business licenses.

The BATF will send an agent out to the new business to inspect the facility to make sure the dealer secures the firearms by lock and key. The BATF agent will then interview the dealer about their business. The ATF will consider everything and issue a Federal Firearms License (FFL) or deny the application.

This lengthy process is about to get longer for any FFL located in the state of Illinois. Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed a law into effect that would require all gun dealers to be licensed by the state as well. This new process is leading the business owners to cry foul.

The dealers must seek a state license that is certified by the State Police. The dealer must provide annual training to all their employees to be able to spot straw purchases. A straw purchase is when one person buys a gun for someone else who is usually not allowed to own a firearm.

All gun dealers must install expensive security cameras and must record all activities within the retail section of the stores. These recordings must be made available to State Police upon request.

Gone will be the days of dealers using the popular log books that most tabletop dealers use to keep track of their firearms. The new law would require all dealers to use electronic logbooks. These digital logbook programs can get costly and can be complicated to install. Also, some dealers have thousands of sales that they will have to transfer to the new system.

Under the new law, the gun dealer must allow inspections of their business by not only state police, but also by local police departments. These inspections are in addition to the surprise inspections that are performed by the ATF.

The license will cost $1,500 for retail stores and $300 for tabletop dealers. The dealers must renew their license every five years. The 2,400 dealers in the state of Illinois will have six months to get the new license.

The anti-gun group, Moms Demand Action, celebrated the passage of the anti-gun law. The law is just one of the many rules that the anti-gun group has been pushing to make it costlier and more difficult to buy and sell guns.

“We feel like celebrating,” said Karen Irvin of Moms Demand Action. “It’s been a major focus for Moms Demand Action. We spent the summer with a push for electing J.B. Pritzker as our gun-sense candidate, and we knew that there was a great likelihood that he would not only support this measure, but he would move to enact it. We canvassed our neighborhoods, made phone calls, and it was something we believe in and think it’s important.”

Gun dealers across the state believe the new law was passed just to make it harder to sell the guns. The margins on firearms are already low so by adding more cost of the price of doing business it could put dealers out of business.

The Illinois State Rifle Association is planning a lawsuit challenging the new law.

“The federal government already licenses gun dealers,” executive director Richard Pearson of The Illinois State Rifle Association said in a statement. “There is no need to add yet another layer of bureaucracy on gun dealers. The only thing this measure is going to do is make it cost more money for gun dealers to do business in Illinois, which is going to hurt the smaller dealers.”

The Illinois State Rifle Association views the new law as an attack on the Second Amendment.