The Biggest Threats To 2A Rights In 2021

H/T Bearing Arms.

If they do get sworn in Joe Pee Pads Biden and Kamala Knee Pads Harris will be two of the biggest threats to the Second Amendment in 2021 and beyond.

We’ve finally put 2020 in the rear view mirror, but unfortunately there’s more rough road ahead for those of us engaged in the fight to protect our Second Amendment rights. From an anti-gun administration ready to seize power in just a few weeks to gun control advocacy groups that will spend millions of dollars this year on legal lawfare aimed at turning our rights into privileges, the coming months will challenge gun owners and gun rights activists on a number of fronts.

Despite the dozens of Republicans in Congress who have vowed to challenge the results of the Electoral College on January 6th and the last minute lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are almost certain to be sworn in later this month. Biden’s already indicated he plans to use executive actions and the power of the regulatory state to target both legal gun owners and the firearms industry, and if Democrats capture both of the Georgia senate seats up for grabs next Tuesday, there’s potential for anti-gun legislation to make it through Congress as well.


I think Biden’s plan to ban and “buy back” so-called assault weapons and ammunition magazines is still going to face long odds in the short term, even if Democrats have control over both chambers of Congress. Legislation to mandate background checks on all private transfers of firearms, however, could get enough support from Republicans like Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania that even with the legislative filibuster in place a bill could squeak out of both the House and Senate if gun owners aren’t mobilized in opposition.

On the legal front, the Supreme Court is expected to take up one or more Second Amendment cases in the coming term, but anti-gun outfits like Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords are ramping up their own legal challenges and preparing to help defend restrictive gun control laws in states like New York, New Jersey, California, and Hawaii.

The legality of 80% frames and receivers will be one of the primary targets for the gun control groups and their in-house law firms in the new year. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (tapped by Biden to head up Health and Human Services) is already working with the gun-banners to sue the ATF over its current definition of a “firearm,” and the agency seems to be falling in line by targeting manufacturers of the unfinished gun parts with raids and threats of legal sanctions.

Gun control activists are also going to be busy in state legislatures across the country, though thanks to the strong turnout by Second Amendment advocates on Election Day the anti-gun crowd failed to capture any additional legislative chambers during the 2020 elections. While their hopes for new gun control laws in states like Iowa, Minnesota, and even Texas aren’t likely to come to fruition, gun control strongholds like New York, New Jersey, and California will be pushing to add even more restrictions to the draconian laws already in place. We could also see restrictions on the right to carry and even a ban on so-called assault weapons gain traction in Rhode Island thanks to the ouster of the “A”-rated Democrat House Speaker, whose replacement is far more amenable to pushing a gun control agenda.

To face down these threats gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are going to have to present a united front, despite the growing divisions in the Republican Party and among conservatives in general. The Second Amendment community is a big-tent movement that’s home to everyone from libertarians to social conservatives to rural Democrats and even socialists, but it remains to be seen if the political fault lines that are causing cracks in both the Republican and Democrat coalitions will split the gun rights movement as well.

My sincere hope is that, despite our differences, we can come together to protect and secure our Second Amendment rights in the face of these growing threats. If we fail to do so we’ll be giving our ideological enemies both a tactical and a political advantage, but if we band together I believe that our coalition will be strong enough to turn back the most egregious threats to our liberties through grassroots lobbying and our own legal challenges when necessary. This is not a year to sit on the sidelines and be a mere spectator. We need gun owners in the arena standing up for our right to keep and bear arms, and with the fights already underway, now is the time to get involved and engaged.

Biden, Harris Move Against Guns Before Getting in Office:joe ‘It’s Past Time’

H/T Western Journal.

The will be a major push from Joe Pee Pads and Kamala Knee Pads Harris to disarm the American people.

They will try a end run around the Congress by using Executive Orders.

The political party that controls cities where shootings are out of control wants to talk about controlling Americans’ guns.

In a year when the Democratic bastions of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles are witnessing sharp spikes in criminal gun violence, presumptive president-elect Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris tried to use the eighth anniversary of the tragedy at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School to push more “common sense” gun laws.

But when it comes to Democrats and guns, not much is sensible.

In a prepared statement on the Dec. 14, 2012, elementary school shooting that left 20 children and six adults dead, Biden addressed the survivors of those who died with a vow to end “gun violence.”

“Together with you and millions of our fellow Americans of every background all across our nation, we will fight to end this scourge on our society and enact common sense reforms that are supported by a majority of Americans and that will save countless lives,” the statement said.

In a Twitter post, Harris declared that “[t]o honor the lives lost in this terrible tragedy, it’s past time we implement common-sense gun safety reforms to keep our children safe.”


It’s important to note that when Democrats like Harris say “common sense gun safety reforms,” what they really mean is the strictest regime possible, preferably one that confiscates the most popular weapons completely. (Ask former Rep. Beto O’Rourke.)

But as Breitbart News Second Amendment writer John Hawkins pointed out in a piece on Tuesday, Democratic ideas for keeping children safe from gun violence are already in place in New York City, and the results are not a solid argument for convincing Americans to give up a constitutionally protected right.

Under the leadership of the reckless, feckless Democrat Bill de Blasio, New York City shootings had nearly doubled through November 2020 over 2019, according to WABC-TV.

In Chicago, where gun control laws are among the tightest in the country, the city has seen shootings rise more than 50 percent through November over the same period last year, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

And in Los Angeles, the largest city in a Democrat-controlled state with strict gun control laws, shootings were up by almost a third and fatal shootings were up by 25 percent through October compared to the same period last year, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Those are numbers from the here and now – in the stricken year of 2020. And they’re happening under the kind of laws Democrats want to inflict on the country on a national basis.

Yet for Democrats like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, what happened at Sandy Hook eight years ago should apparently be the determining factor in whether American citizens should be stripped of a constitutional right.

Obviously, the deaths of children at the hands of a madman is a tragedy – and one that every human being of good faith should both mourn and condemn, not try to use as a political prop.

But this is a year when rioters have ruled the streets of once-proud cities, and lunatics on the left talk about a program to “defund police” as though the world would be a utopia without armed men and women who are willing to risk their lives every day for the safety of their fellow citizens. (And whom, by the way, do liberals expect to enforce any gun control laws they pass — social workers?)

It’s almost beyond understanding that the shooting at Sandy Hook, or other massacres like Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018, could be used as an argument to convince Americans to surrender their right to self-defense.

The killings at Sandy Hook at the hands of a madman were a tragedy in 2012; they shouldn’t be a political prop in 2020.

Liberals have a long and established history of attempting to use the death of innocents to advance their political agenda. (Of course, in the case of abortion, the death of innocents is their political agenda.)

With President Donald Trump in the White House, the country was blessed with a pro-gun president, and with Republicans in control of the Senate, all sides in the gun control wars knew there wasn’t a chance of major gun-grabbing legislation being passed and signed into law.

With the presidential election all but decided against Trump, and the fate of the Senate hanging on two runoff elections in Georgia, the situation has changed — and the latest battle over gun rights is only just beginning.

And now Biden and Harris have made it clear, again, to those who believe in gun rights — and those who oppose them — just where they stand.

The Democratic Party’s own record failure at controlling violence by imposing gun control laws on jurisdictions unfortunate enough to be under its power is convincing proof of the basic flaw in its logic. The strictest gun laws in the country haven’t stopped crime in a year when criminals apparently feel immune to police pressure, thanks to progressive activists.

To talk about taking away the gun rights of the vast majority of Americans who are neither criminals nor madmen is worse than just not sensible – it borders on insane.

Everytown Encourages Biden to Pursue Unlawful Executive Gun Controls

H/T AmmoLand.

I said it before and I will say it again it will be a long hard four years for gun owners under Joe Pee Pad Biden and Kamala Knee Pads Harris.


U.S.A. -( According to the December 10 report from the New York Times, Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun organization Everytown for Gun Safety is pushing Joe Biden to enact a raft of gun control by executive fiat. As much as Everytown and their would-be autocrat benefactor might wish, the U.S. Presidency is not a dictatorship. The executive actions Everytown contemplates implicate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners and are not moored in a credible reading of federal statute.

The article noted that the group has targeted three areas for executive action. Everytown is urging Biden to further restrict the private transfer of firearms between non-dealers, force Federal Firearms Licensees (gun dealers or FFLs) to notify the FBI whenever they complete a firearms transfer following the FBI’s failure to complete a background check within three days, and further regulate unfinished firearm frames and receivers – sometimes referred to as 80 percent frames or receivers.


Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)) provides,

        (a) It shall be unlawful–

            (1) for any person–

                 (A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce; or

Therefore, a person may not “engage in the business” of dealing firearms without a Federal Firearms License. FFLs, of course, are required to consult the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System before transferring a firearm to a non-dealer.

The term “engaged in the business,” as it pertains to firearms dealers, is defined by statute (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)) as,

a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

Notice that the language does not contain a specific number of firearm sales or transfers that triggers the definition of “engaged in the business.” The language in the definition was carefully crafted to exempt individuals from selling and trading firearms in and out of their private collections, no matter the frequency or volume. Rather, it is when a person sells firearms “as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” that a person must obtain a Federal Firearms License.

Under this language, an individual who sells 20 firearms in a year with “the principal objective of livelihood and profit” would be required to become an FFL. However, an individual who sells 50 firearms in a year with the principle objective of enhancing their collection would not be required to become an FFL. The definition creates a distinction between commercial and private conduct, rather than various volumes of transactions.

Enacting this statutory definition of “engaged in the business” was a key component of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. Prior to FOPA, BATFE had targeted private individuals at gun shows who sold a few firearms out of their private collections on multiple occasions.

Despite the clear language and legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21), Everytown is reportedly pushing Biden to place an arbitrary five firearm per year cap on private sales. Everytown’s proposal is particularly egregious given the recent history surrounding this issue.

President Barack Obama’s administration acknowledged that they had gone as far as unilateral executive action would permit on firearms. In late 2015, White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Shultz told reporters that Obama “has asked his team to scrub existing legal authorities to see if there’s any additional action we can take administratively.”

The Obama administration looked into further restricting the private transfer of firearms by executive fiat. Understanding that they did not have the authority to place a cap on the number of private transfers a person may engage in, the administration issued a 15-page guidance document that explained the relevant federal statutes and regulations concerning firearms dealing and summarizing its view of the controlling case law. Given the nature of the issue, one would expect there to be a plethora of Obama-era documents available through the Freedom of Information Act on this topic that would make a policy U-turn politically unpalatable and provide compelling evidence for any potential litigation.

In fact, the statutory language and legislative history are so clear that Biden would not have the authority to enact Everytown’s proposal that Bloomberg anti-gun mouthpiece The Trace has admitted as much. In June 2018, the Bloomberg organ whined, “Under the Gun Control Act, the ATF had wide latitude to pursue illegal dealing charges against unlicensed sellers. FOPA protected private dealers by narrowing the definition of just who qualified as being ‘engaged in the business’ of selling guns.

At present, federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(t)) provides that an FFL may transfer a firearm to a prospective buyer after “3 business days (meaning a day on which State offices are open) have elapsed since the licensee contacted the [National Instant Criminal Background Check System], and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate federal law.” This provision ensures that the FBI is not empowered to indefinitely delay a gun sale, either for an inability to conduct a background check or out of malevolence. As NRA-ILA has explained, this three-day safety-valve provision is vital and its elimination would turn the right to keep and bear arms into a privilege.

The Bloomberg proposal to force FFLs to notify the FBI whenever they complete a firearms transfer following the FBI’s failure to complete a background check within three days is an obvious attempt to intimidate FFLs into not transferring a firearm to individuals burdened by FBI’s inability to perform what is supposed to be an “instant” background check. This would curtail the ability of many individuals who routinely experience a lengthy NICS to access firearms at all.

There is no statutory language authorizing this requirement. Further, the proposal is unnecessary given current federal law enforcement practice. In the rare instance where a firearm is transferred to an individual following the three-day period and the FBI subsequently determines that the individual is prohibited from possessing firearms, ATF will then retrieve the firearm.

Concerning unfinished frames and receivers, the current federal statute and regulations are clear. Federal law defines a “firearm” to include “any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” and “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” In the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), “firearm frame or receiver” is further defined as “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”

In order to treat unfinished frames and receivers as firearms, ATF would be required to broaden the definition of “firearm frame or receiver” in the CFR. Such a change is inadvisable and should at the very least require a formal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.

By targeting the materials Americans use to make their own firearms, Everytown and Biden would be striking at the core of the Second Amendment right in a manner that has no basis in the text, history, and tradition of the right. Since long before the founding, Americans have enjoyed the right to make their own firearms for personal use without government interference.

NRA-ILA will continue to monitor any attempts to enact unlawful gun control through executive action and stands ready to challenge such measures should they arise

Dem Insiders Hit Feinstein on Mental Fitness, Ignore Biden, Who Seems So Much Worse

H/T Western Journal.

While Di-Fi maybe non compos mentis but Joe Pee Pads Biden in totally senile.

I do not think Biden will make 3 months in office before DemocRats and Kamala knee pads Harris  push to remove him under the 25th Amendment.

In another glaring example of left-wing hypocrisy, some Democrats are secretly grousing to the reporters that Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California might be getting senile.

At the same time, the party dismisses the seemingly nonstop gaffes pointing to the flagging mental fitness of Joe Biden, 78, whom they hope will be installed as the oldest U.S. president next month.

At age 87, Feinstein is the oldest member of the U.S. Senate. She recently decided to step down as the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee amid volcanic criticism from her peers that she wasn’t harsh enough in her questioning of Justice Amy Coney Barrett during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

The anger ramped up after the hearings when Feinstein hugged Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Feinstein further triggered Democrats by thanking Graham for his “fairness” and for holding “one of the best set of hearings that I’ve participated in.”

In apparent retaliation for being civil to a Republican, anonymous Democrats smeared Feinstein to The New Yorker, insisting that the octogenarian is “seriously struggling.”

“They say her short-term memory has grown so poor that she often forgets she has been briefed on a topic, accusing her staff of failing to do so just after they have,” The New Yorker reported. “They describe Feinstein as forgetting what she has said and getting upset when she can’t keep up.”

One former Senate aide said Feinstein should never have been allowed to run for re-election two years ago and instead should have retired then.

“She should have gone out on top in 2018,” the former aide said. “We only have 100 senators. I don’t think she should be there. Someone should have told her.

While Democrats are leaking innuendo casting doubt on Feinstein’s mental capacity, they hypocritically wave off the multiple, epic gaffes committed by Biden.

As it is, two former physicians to Barack Obama, the man Biden served under as vice president, have expressed dire concerns about his mental fitness.

“I’ve watched Joe Biden on the campaign trail and I’m concerned that he does not have the mental capacity, the cognitive ability, to serve as our commander-in-chief,” former White House physician Ronny Jackson said. “He routinely gets lost in the middle of a thought and can’t recalibrate.

Jackson, who’s now a Republican congressman-elect in Texas, said that “we can all see … something’s going on here. He is having some extremely bad days. This is serious. We’re picking a commander in chief [who] has to be at the top of their game cognitively. And he’s really not.”

Winners and Losers of The 2020 Election (So Far)

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Hopefully we can add Joe Pee Pads Biden and Kamala Knee Pads Harris to the losers column.

Election Day finally happened on Tuesday, but as of Wednesday most of the key races remained too close to call. The lack of clarity, however, does not preclude an advanced analysis of the partial results. Even with many votes left to be counted, the election has already produced a number of clear winners and pathetic losers. Scroll down to learn more.


1) Donald Trump

The biggest winner of Election Night, by far. If he wins, he’ll Make American Great Again, Again. If he loses, he will have already accomplished his goal of becoming the most famous person on Earth, as well as president of the United States. He will have achieved an unprecedented level of success in just a single term in office and will go down in history as one of the most illustrious leaders of the modern era. Plus, he’s still the frontrunner in 2024. Either way, mission accomplished!

2) Mitch McConnell

Just days after quarterbacking the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Senate majority leader dominated his Democratic challenger, Amy McGrath, who raised tens of millions of dollars from liberal donors who apparently hate money almost as much as they hate Mitch McConnell. Regardless of who wins the presidency, it is now increasingly likely that Republicans will retain control of the Senate, where McConnell’s benevolent reign of terror can proceed apace.

3) Racial Diversity

Millions of Hispanics were instantly reclassified as “white,” mostly by aggrieved libs, after it became clear that Trump would increase his share of the Hispanic vote significantly compared with 2016. The president also managed to win a larger percentage of the non-white vote than any Republican candidate since 1960. That’s great news for Americans who value racial diversity but bad news for the “woke” libs who favor racial division. Barack Obama promised to promote racial harmony; Trump has actually done it.

4) Law and Order


At least in the short term. Trump’s failure to secure a decisive win on Election Night means that Antifa thugs have temporarily postponed their plans to desecrate America’s cities in “protest” against his reelection. That’s a good thing. Trump could still win, so it’s probably best to keep those storefronts boarded up a little longer just to be safe.

UpdateNever mind.

5) Hillary Clinton

Joe Biden couldn’t deliver an overwhelming victory—as foretold by the “experts.” He could still lose. That’s great news for Hillary Clinton, whose 2016 loss to Trump was assessed by many to be the result of her unique deficiencies as a candidate and as a human being. The 2020 results suggest perhaps the Democratic Party’s unique deficiencies as a political organization are to blame. Congrats!


1) The Libs

They are going to be so owned if Trump wins. Even if he doesn’t, this was not the overwhelming repudiation they would have liked. If Republicans hold the Senate, that means at least two more years of Mitch McConnell confirming judges on the reg, and absolutely no chance of any radical structural reforms being enacted.

2) The Experts

The polling in 2016 was way off. In an effort to correct those mistakes, professional pollsters ruthlessly scrutinized their methodologies and made the necessary changes. That’s what they told us, anyway. At this point, we should consider the possibility that these so-called “experts” really have no idea what they’re doing. This year’s polls were even less accurate than in 2016. Congrats!

3) Lincoln Project Donors

They gave millions of dollars to a bunch of ex-GOP grifters who wooed them with their “edgy” ad campaigns, and promised to make a difference by taking down Trump’s “enablers” in the Senate. The grifters are laughing all the way to the bank, while Mitch McConnell, Joni Ernst, Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, and (probably) Thom Tillis are laughing all the way to the Senate.

4) Court Packers


5) Race Hucksters

See winner #3 above. Trump’s growing support among minority voters ought to raise serious questions about whether the Democratic Party’s race-obsessed “woke” rhetoric is little more than a masturbatory dog whistle for educated white liberals. Using the word “Latinx,” which most actual Hispanics have never heard, might impress the New York Times editorial board, but it doesn’t bring voters to the polls.


Anti-Gunners Hail Gun Control Legislation, Targeting Online Ammo Sales

H/T AmmoLand.

Just think of the bills the DemocRats have to pass if Joe Pee Pads Biden and Kamala Knee Pads Harris win.

U.S.A. –-( Federal legislation introduced in September by perennial anti-gun U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) may not have a chance in Congress right now, but it may be a warm-up effort that is already being hailed by the gun prohibition lobby as a way to place restrictions on perfectly-legal businesses, and even publications, that deal with or discuss on-line firearm and ammunition sales.

Their S. 4718 is a short bill, but it could have far-reaching consequences, depending upon how it is implemented.


Here is the full language:

“To amend title 18, United States Code, to make fraudulent dealings in firearms and ammunition unlawful, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the “Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act”.


(a) In General.—Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and at the end and inserting “; and”; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

“(10) for any person—

“(A) to import, manufacture, or sell a firearm or ammunition by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises; and

“(B) to transmit or cause to be transmitted, by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any communication relating to the importation, manufacture, or sale described in subparagraph (A).”.

(b) Penalty.—Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting “(a)(10),” before “(f)”.”

According to Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, S. 4718 is bad news, something akin to the proverbial “camel’s nose under the tent.”

“This is an attempt to weaponize the Soto decision,” Keane said, “to turn truthful advertising gun control groups don’t like into a crime and a basis for ATF to revoke licenses. It is designed to and would chill First Amendment protected commercial speech pertaining to the lawful commerce in firearms and ammunition products and create a basis for suing industry members gutting the PLCAA.”

Keane was referring to Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms, a Connecticut case involving the lawsuit against Bushmaster by the survivors of Sandy Hook victims. In 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that Sandy Hook families could pursue legal action against Bushmaster, which manufactured the rifle used by mass killer Adam Lanza to murder 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012.

The PLCAA is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, passed by Congress to prohibit junk lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, distributors and retailers for the misuse of their products.

In a press release announcing their joint legislation, Feinstein asserted, “While some technology companies have banned selling firearms and ammunition on their websites, the problem persists. Our bill would make it illegal for gun sellers to circumvent websites’ terms of service and continue the underground proliferation of firearms. It’s part of a larger effort that needs to be taken to stop the plague of gun violence in our communities.”

Critics contend the language of this legislation will make it possible criminalize any online advertising for firearms or ammunition, a common practice in today’s business environment. Major firms or online publications such as Brownells, Bass Pro, Cabela’s, Sportsman’s Guide and even AmmoLand News could be targeted.

The gun prohibition lobby has been quick to support the measure. They were quoted news releases from both Feinstein and Menendez.

“Internet marketplaces like Facebook are the virtual dark alley where unscrupulous gun sellers go to meet dangerous individuals who are trying to get their hands on a firearm,” said John Feinblatt, President of Everytown for Gun Safety. “Stopping these illegal sales would save lives, and we applaud Senator Feinstein for introducing legislation to do exactly that.”

“Overwhelming majorities of Americans support policies that ensure that individuals who should not possess firearms are not able to purchase them, including online,” said Kris Brown, President of Brady. “Brady is grateful to Senators Feinstein and Menendez for addressing a dangerous practice of falsely advertising firearm sales online. Such sales are designed to circumvent the regulations that help keep our families and communities safe. This is a common-sense fix to a growing problem that applies the spirit of our nation’s existing gun safety laws to novel, 21st century issues.”

While The Feinstein-Menendez legislation may get no traction this year, its introduction could be a test to see what chances it might have in a future Democrat-controlled Congress, with a Democrat in the White House willing to sign such a bill.

Companion legislation was introduced Oct. 5 by Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA). She, Feinstein and Menendez cranked out boilerplate comments essentially demonizing the firearms industry, and they all appeared to be remarkably similar.

“The fact is, no matter how many times big tech companies claim they’re cracking down on illegal online firearm sales, determined gun sellers and buyers find new ways to get around it,” Sen. Menendez asserted. “With this bill, we are making very clear to gun sellers who are caught illegally moving their weapons online: if you make the sale, you will pay the price.”

“We hear time and time again from big tech companies that they are cracking down on illegal, online gun sales, yet this problem persists, and has extended far beyond traditional websites and is now present on social media platforms,” Congresswoman Scanlon echoedThis bill would make it illegal for gun sellers to circumvent websites’ terms of service and continue the underground proliferation of firearms. It’s part of a larger effort that needs to be taken to stop the plague of gun violence in our communities.”

Feinstein’s remark appears cut-and-pasted out of the same playbook: “While some technology companies have banned selling firearms and ammunition on their websites, the problem persists. Our bill would make it illegal for gun sellers to circumvent websites’ terms of service and continue the underground proliferation of firearms. It’s part of a larger effort that needs to be taken to stop the plague of gun violence in our communities.”

Michigan Gun Store Owners: Biden Gun Tax Would Damage Declining Hunting Economy

H/T Breitbart.

One more reason to keep Joe Pee Pads Biden and Kamala Knee Pads Harris out of the White House.

Two Michigan gun store owners told Breitbart News that Joe Biden’s proposed taxes on firearms and accessories would hurt an already ailing hunting economy in the state.

“I think the hunting economy is already suffering in Michigan,” Ed Swadish, owner of Huron Valley Guns of New Hudson in Oakland County, said, adding that hunting among young people is on the decline.

A coalition of organizations called “Hunting Works for Michigan” reported $2.3 billion is spent annually by hunters in Michigan. The group said 529,000 people hunt in Michigan every year, including 28,000 from out of state.

According to Mlive, as many as 1.2 million Michiganders hunted in the 1990s. By 2018, that was nearly cut in half — less than 675,000 individuals.

“If you add costs to hunting you’re just going to whittle that down even more,” Swadish said.

Breitbart News previously reported that Biden’s proposed gun policy includes a plan to register so-called “assault weapons” like AR-15s under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), which means hunters could be required to register their AR-15s with federal authorities, submit their fingerprints and photographs, potentially submit to an FBI background check, and pay a $200 federal tax on AR-15s they already own, if these owners decide not to participate in any proposed federal buy back program.

Moreover, Biden’s proposal could also apply the same $200 tax and NFA registration requirements to every so-called “high-capacity” magazine a gun owner possesses, if the owner decides not to participate in any proposed buy back program.

The $200 tax on AR-15 rifles alone would impose a collective $3.6 billion in new taxes on the estimated 18 million privately owned AR-15 rifles in the United States.

Biden’s proposed policy does not define how many rounds a “high-capacity” magazine contains, but past gun control legislation like the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban defined it as a capacity of over 10 rounds. Biden himself has criticized the existence of “magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them.”

“The interest in hunting has gone down,” Lisa Mayo, owner of Flashpoint Firearms in Comstock Park, Michigan told Breitbart News.

She predicted Biden’s possible taxes “would make it go down even further.”

Swadish thought the taxes would create a “gray market,” where owners would sell guns among themselves, and avoid retailers, who would likely be responsible for collecting such taxes.

An accelerated decline would also impact wildlife management and conservation.

“Hunting and fishing fees account for more than 90% of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ $42 million wildlife conservation budget,” Mlive reported.

According to Hunting Works for Michigan, hunters pay $289 million in state and local taxes annually, and the pastime supports over 34,400 jobs in the state.

Additionally, hunters spend $1.3 billion on hunting equipment, averaging $4,400 per hunter each year.


Joe Biden’s Gun Control Proposals Include Ban on Online Ammo Sales

H/T Breitbart.

This will be only the beginning of the Joe  Pee Pads Biden and Kamala Knee Pads Harris nightmare for gun owners.

The gun control proposals set forth by Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden include a ban on online ammunition sales.

The proposed ban would also prohibit online sales of guns and gun parts.

Biden’s campaign website says, “Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.”

It also contains a link to the March for Our Lives’ “Peace Plan”, which calls for “a prohibition on any and all online firearm and ammunition sales or transfers, including gun parts.”

Breitbart News reported that one of Biden’s other gun control policy proposals includes a provision that could require every AR-15 rifle be registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Unless there were some form of carve-out, this could mandate that American gun owners pay a $200 federal tax per AR-15 that they own.

The National Rifle Association’s Andrew Arulanandam told Breitbart News that the current “low end” estimate of privately-owned AR-15s in the United States is 18 million. A tax of $200 on 18 million AR-15s means that gun owners could potentially be required to pay a collective $3.6 billion in taxes if this policy were enacted into legislation.

Breitbart News also reported that one of Biden’s proposals includes a provision that could require Americans to sell back their so-called “high-capacity magazines” to the government or be registered under the NFA. The latter, unless there were some form of carve-out, could mandate that American gun owners pay a $200 federal tax for every high-capacity magazine they currently own.

Kamala Harris Says She Would Give Congress 100 Days To Pass Comprehensive Gun Control Before Signing Executive Order

H/T Concealed Nation.

As bad as a Joe Pee Pads Biden a Kamala Knee Pads Harris would be worse.

Vice President hopeful Kamala Harris spoke on CNN Town Hall last year, and one of the topics was gun control. If you think a Joe Biden President is scary for the 2nd Amendment, I can assure you that a Harris President is scarier.

Harris stated that if elected President, she would give Congress 100 days to pass comprehensive gun control legislation before she took matters into her own hands by way of executive order.

“Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action,” Harris said during the CNN Town Hall.

Give it a watch below and keep one thing in mind: The 2020 election isn’t Trump vs. Biden. It’s Trump vs. Harris.

Receive the latest new

Dems Efforts Gives Lie To “No One Wants To Take Your Guns”

H/T Bearing Arms.

If you believe Joe Pee Pads Biden and Kamala Knee Pads Harris won’t take your guns see me for some oceanfront property in Arizona I have cheap.

“No one wants to take your guns. We’re just looking to enact some ‘common sense’ gun reforms.”

How many times have you heard that or some variation there of? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve encountered it. Over the years, it’s been said countless times to countless people, some of whom foolishly believed that no one wanted to take your guns.

However, as David Harsanyi writes at America’s 1st Freedom, anyone who really believes that should probably read the DNC’s gun policy platform first. They should then take a step back and think about things.

We have reached what should prove to be an infamous moment. The 2020 Democrat Party presidential ticket will be the first in American history to feature a candidate who openly supports the confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens.

During the primary debates, Joe Biden’s vice-presidential pick, Kamala Harris, warned that she would give Congress 100 days to pass her gun-control agenda, an agenda that includes a ban on AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles. If Congress fails to implement her wish list? Well, then, Harris explained, “I will take executive action.” Harris has also publicly stated her support of a “mandatory gun buyback program,” which is simply how anti-gun extremists refer to confiscation without saying confiscation.

Those who believe Harris’ rhetoric is merely campaign hyperbole should peruse the draft of the 2020 Democrat Party’s national platform. It, too, supports the banning of “assault weapons,” which has the possibility of instantaneously transforming millions of gun-owners—the vast majority of whom have undergone criminal background checks and never used firearms for any illicit purpose—into criminals.

Many more Americans, of course, are murdered by fists or knives than AR-15s. But the DNC document is laden with misleading statistics and the kind of scaremongering intended to allow them to push through authoritarian gun policies.

Take, for instance, the DNC’s claim that criminal violence with guns is a “public health crisis” that takes “nearly 40,000 lives.” By conflating criminal and suicide deaths—around two-thirds of all gun deaths are self-inflicted—these politicians not only diminish the importance of mental-health struggles, but also inflate the problem of criminal use of guns. There is little evidence that tighter firearm restrictions do anything to stop suicides; for instance, nations with the highest rates of suicide—Russia and South Korea—also have some of the strictest gun laws.

Harsanyi goes on to detail and destroy each of the anti-gun provisions the DNC has laid out, and I highly recommend you go and read it. It does a great job of it. However, the official DNC position isn’t one of gun confiscation.

Not directly, at least, though it does seem that there’s at least support for that kind of thing. After all, let’s just look at that ticket Harsanyi mentioned.

Kamala Harris, as a potential vice president, is bad enough. However, let’s also remember that Joe Biden doesn’t seem to be firing on all cylinders. Whether he has outright dementia or something else, the man hasn’t been at his relative best for a while now. Also, the man is 77 years old. That alone is a reason why his vice presidential pick matters.

Should Biden die or leave office for some other reason, that leaves Harris in the driver’s seat. That means all those promises she made while campaigning can be enacted, or she can at least try.

Further, there’s nothing at all in the DNC platform that actually opposes Harris’ proposals.

Then there’s the man Biden said would spearhead his gun control efforts. That’s right, Beto O’Rourke. The very man who swore during a debate that, “Hell yeah, we’re coming for your AR-15s and AK-47s.”

Oh, he’s not elected, but if Biden wants him running point on this issue, then just how far can the two of them actually diverge on things? Especially since Biden also chose Harris as his running mate.

So-called “fact checkers” love to claim that because Biden hasn’t specifically claimed he was supportive of gun confiscation, he’s not in favor of it. Oh no, he’s clearly in favor of it. If he wasn’t, why would he try to surround himself with people who do?