Researchers propose ‘ethically correct AI’ for smart guns that locks out mass shooters

H/T  The Next Web.com.

More pie in the sky ideas.

A trio of computer scientists from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York recently published research detailing a potential AI intervention for murder: an ethical lockout.

The big idea here is to stop mass shootings and other ethically incorrect uses for firearms through the development of an AI that can recognize intent, judge whether it’s ethical use, and ultimately render a firearm inert if a user tries to ready it for improper fire.

That sounds like a lofty goal, in fact the researchers themselves refer to it as a “blue sky” idea, but the technology to make it possible is already here.

According to the team’s research:

Predictably, some will object as follows: “The concept you introduce is attractive. But unfortunately it’s nothing more than a dream; actually, nothing more than a pipe dream. Is this AI really feasible, science- and engineering-wise?” We answer in the affirmative, confidently.

The research goes on to explain how recent breakthroughs involving long-term studies have lead to the development of various AI-powered reasoning systems that could serve to trivialize and implement a fairly simple ethical judgment system for firearms.

This paper doesn’t describe the creation of a smart gun itself, but the potential efficacy of an AI system that can make the same kinds of decisions for firearms users as, for example, cars that can lock out drivers if they can’t pass a breathalyzer.

In this way, the AI would be trained to recognize the human intent behind an action. The researchers describe the recent mass shooting at a Wal Mart in El Paso and offer different view of what could have happened:

The shooter is driving to Walmart, an assault rifle, and a massive amount of ammunition, in his vehicle. The AI we envisage knows that this weapon is there, and that it can be used only for very specific purposes, in very specific environments (and of course it knows what those purposes and environments are).

At Walmart itself, in the parking lot, any attempt on the part of the would-be assailant to use his weapon, or even position it for use in any way, will result in it being locked out by the AI. In the particular case at hand, the AI knows that killing anyone with the gun, except perhaps e.g. for self-defense purposes, is unethical. Since the AI rules out self-defense, the gun is rendered useless, and locked out.

This paints a wonderful picture. It’s hard to imagine any objections to a system that worked perfectly. Nobody needs to load, rack, or fire a firearm in a Wal Mart parking lot unless they’re in danger. If the AI could be developed in such a way that it would only allow users to fire in ethical situations such as self defense, while at a firing range, or in designated legal hunting areas, thousands of lives could be saved every year.

Of course, the researchers certainly predict myriad objections. After all, they’re focused on navigating the US political landscape. In most civilized nations gun control is common sense.

The team anticipates people pointing out that criminals will just use firearms that don’t have an AI watchdog embedded:

In reply, we note that our blue-sky conception is in no way restricted to the idea that the guarding AI is only in the weapons in question.

Clearly the contribution here isn’t the development of a smart gun, but the creation of an ethically correct AI. If criminals won’t put the AI on their guns, or they continue to use dumb weapons, the AI can still be effective when installed in other sensors. It could, hypothetically, be used to perform any number of functions once it determines violent human intent.

It could lock doors, stop elevators, alert authorities, change traffic light patterns, text location-based alerts, and any number of other reactionary measures including unlocking law enforcement and security personnel’s weapons for defense.

The researchers also figure there will be objections based on the idea that people could hack the weapons. This one’s pretty easily dismissed: firearms will be easier to secure than robots, and we’re already putting AI in those.

While there’s no such thing as total security, the US military fills their ships, planes, and missiles with AI and we’ve managed to figure out how to keep the enemy from hacking them. We should be able to keep police officers’ service weapons just as safe.

Realistically, it takes a leap of faith to assume an ethical AI can be made to understand the difference between situations such as, for example, home invasion and domestic violence, but the groundwork is already there.

If you look at driverless cars, we know people have already died because they relied on an AI to protect them. But we also know that the potential to save tens of thousands of lives is too great to ignore in the face of a, so far, relatively small number of accidental fatalities.

It’s likely that, just like Tesla’s AI, a gun control AI could result in accidental and unnecessary deaths. But approximately 24,000 people die annually in the US due to suicide by firearm, 1,500 children are killed by gun violence, and almost 14,000 adults are murdered with gunsIt stands to reason an AI-intervention could significantly decrease those numbers.

You can read the whole paper here.

 

Red Alert: Biden Admin Shreds ‘Fair Access Rule’ Paving Way for Resurrection of Infamous and Hated Obama Program

H/T  Western Journal.

Joe Pee Pads Biden hates guns, gun owners and manufactures and he will do what ever he can to destroy all three.

So I will not be surprised to see Operation Choke Point revived.

It was called Operation Choke Point — an Obama-era initiative specifically aimed at politically unpopular, but perfectly legal businesses that liberals didn’t appreciate.

To some commentators, like Forbes contributor Norbert Michel, it was “an egregious affront to the rule of law.” Little surprise, then, that the Biden administration did away with a rule intended to prevent it.

For the unfamiliar, Operation Choke Point was designed as a way to choke off firearms dealers and payday lenders through Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation guidance that amounted to strong-arm tactics.

During his term in office, former President Donald Trump ended the operation, which had begun in 2013. In January, as the Trump administration was on its way out, it issued the “Fair Access Rule,” which was designed to preclude another such round of intimidation. The rule said “banks should conduct risk assessment of individual customers, rather than make broad-based decisions affecting whole categories or classes of customers, when provisioning access to services, capital, and credit.”

In a piece published in The Federalist on Friday, Kelsey Bolar, policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative group, wrote that “[u]nder Operation Choke Point, federal regulators instructed banks to do the opposite — to openly discriminate against entire industries the Obama administration found objectionable.”

“Weaponizing the power of banking regulators at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, the Obama administration realized it could block entire industries from the banking system that it didn’t like. This made it difficult — if not impossible — for politically unfavored businesses such as gun sellers and short-term lenders to operate,” she wrote.

“Essentially, by using the power of federal banking regulators to intimidate banks from providing their services to these industries, the administration choked off their access to the financial system, leaving them paying more for essential banking services, or unable to use a bank at all.”

Introducing the Fair Access Rule in January, acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian P. Brooks said that it was critical that legal businesses and organizations had access to banking services.

“When a large bank decides to cut off access to charities or even embassies serving dangerous parts of the world or companies conducting legal businesses in the United States that support local jobs and the national economy, they need to show their work and the legitimate business reasons for doing so,” Brooks said in a statement.

“As Comptrollers and staff in previous administrations have made clear in speeches, guidance, and testimony, banks should not terminate services to entire categories of customers without conducting individual risk assessments. It is inconsistent with basic principles of prudent risk management to make decisions based solely on conclusory or categorical assertions of risk without actual analysis. Moreover, elected officials should determine what is legal and illegal in our country.”

While a late-January statement from the Biden administration’s Office of Comptroller of the Currency noted “[t]he OCC’s long-standing supervisory guidance stating that banks should avoid termination of broad categories of customers without assessing individual customer risk remains in effect,” the office still announced it was pausing the Trump administration’s Fair Access Rule.

“Pausing publication of the rule in the Federal Register will allow the next confirmed Comptroller of the Currency to review the final rule and the public comments the OCC received, as part of an orderly transition,” read the Jan. 28 notice.

On one front, this may seem innocuous enough. Payday lenders, once the moral panic of the week during Obama’s second presidential term, aren’t on the administration’s policy radar yet — at least not publicly.

One thing that makes this pause feel a bit more ominous, however, is the Biden administration’s recent focus on gun control.

In announcing his first attack on gun rights last Sunday, on the third anniversary of the Parkland shooting, President Joe Biden talked of “eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.”

What he meant by that was simple: He wanted victims of gun violence to be able to sue gun manufacturers who legally manufactured the weapons.

Sure, no Democrat could pass legislation that could ban all guns, what with District of Columbia v. Heller having set a precedent that Americans have the right to own firearms. Democrats can, however, pass legislation that would end with any company that makes those firearms being hounded through the legal system even if it followed every law.

If something like Operation Choke Point was instituted again, this time focusing solely on firearms dealers, it could have a chilling effect at the retail level.

Beyond that, Bolar’s Federalist piece noted a wider connection “symbolic of the larger attempt by government actors to choke politically disfavored industries and individuals from the mainstream.”

“While cancel culture has led to a politicized economy, the federal government’s arbitrarily targeting of individuals, groups, and entire companies will increase the politicization of the country, where the only acceptable views are from those in power,” she wrote.

“After being choked from essential services in the economy, conservatives and right-of-center businesses will have no choice but to Build Your Own — if that’s even still tolerated or allowed. Build your own banks, build your own credit card processing companies, build your own web hosting platforms, build your own social media platforms, build your own companies, build your own media, build your own schools, and build your own country — because you’re choked from ‘ours.’”

This is how liberals are going to fight their war on constitutional freedoms — because it clearly won’t be legislatively.

And this doesn’t necessarily have to involve firearms, keep in mind. Parler, which became the boogeyman of the Jan. 6 Capitol incursion despite evidence that most of the social media planning took place on Facebook, found itself deplatformed from web services by Amazon. That’s bad enough, but Parler can recover from that. The same thing wouldn’t necessarily happen if the company were cut out of the banking system, which would remove any way for it to stay afloat.

If this seems farfetched, remember all of the talk connecting Parler directly to the violence on Jan. 6. Once you single out conservative social media platforms as being a haven for violent groups, choking them off from banking services doesn’t seem like such a stretch.

Consider the fact there are plenty of liberals who could read this, hear me talk about effectively strangling Parler by financial means, and say to themselves: “Yeah, and? Actions have consequences.”

We’re dealing here with the potential for a low-rent, China-style social credit score, and the Biden administration is fine with pausing a rule that would prevent it from happening. That should tell you a lot.

Straw Buy Ring Reportedly Armed 30 Criminals In PA

H/T Bearing Arms.

The law is not tough enough on people that make straw purchases.

Pennsylvania has been an interesting battleground over the Second Amendment. It has two large urban centers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh as well as a very anti-gun governor. However, the state has a history of being pretty pro-gun.

 

Yet gun laws exist even in the most pro-gun state. Despite those gun laws, criminals find ways around them.

In Montgomery County, PA, recent arrests shed some light on just one operation that armed a number of bad guys.

Law enforcement officials in Montgomery County announced Wednesday that they had dismantled a gun-trafficking ring that spread more than 30 handguns throughout the region, some of them used in violent crimes in Philadelphia.

 

District Attorney Kevin Steele said the 14-member group used social media and text messages to arrange gun sales, openly displaying photos of the weapons and haggling over prices. They acted quickly, buying the guns and turning them over for sale in a matter of days, he said.

 

In one instance, they distributed eight illegal handguns in nine days, according to Steele.

 

Some members of the group, charged late Tuesday, acted as straw purchasers, buying guns for others in the ring who were unable to legally obtain or possess weapons because of criminal convictions, according to the affidavit of probable cause for their arrests.

 

And in one instance, a suspect was caught selling “ghost guns,” firearms without traceable serial numbers that are built using kits purchased online.

 

“This is a huge, growing problem we’re facing in Southeastern Pennsylvania,” Steele said. “And it’s a problem simply because it puts guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t be holding them.”

And yet, every step of that is illegal.

See, even “ghost guns” are illegal to make for sale. It’s also illegal for someone who can’t legally own a gun to make one. Straw purchases are, of course, also illegal.

Yet, here we are.

I mean, it’s almost like criminals don’t obey laws or something, right? But that can’t be it. I have it on excellent authority that gun laws totally work so it has to be something else.

The thing is, criminals spend all kinds of time trying to figure out how to get around laws. Once someone figures out how to do it, they tell their buddies–this happens to be how many criminals are caught, thankfully–and then a bunch of them do it too. The word spreads and soon everyone knows how to skirt the law.

We’ve seen so many straw purchasers through the years that it’s laughable that anyone thinks a background check really keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. I’d argue that more straw buyers likely obtain handguns than criminals who try to buy at a licensed dealer each year. Those that do either didn’t think their felony counted or were just too stupid to understand how things work.

But some still think the solution is more background checks. It’s absolutely amazing.

You’d think a story like this would help illustrate the futility of it, but it’s not like anti-gunners are known for letting reality get in the way of their agenda.

Democrat’s plan to ban outlaw and confiscate guns is illegal

H/T JPFO.

It is going to be a long hard four years for gun owners under Joe Pee Pads  Biden and Kalama Knee Pads Harris.

DISARMING JEWS IS VERBOTTEN!

Disarming everyone else at the same time is no excuse

Broad public disarmament actually makes it worse

Expert analysis of Democrat’s proposed federal gun law HR127 reveals it would have the net effect of disarming wide swaths of the American public, including the Jewish community. The sacred Jewish oath Never Again! taken after the Holocaust, when properly honored, prevents Jews from passively complying with arbitrary, capricious and facially illegal government orders to disarm or subarm (accept inferior arms). In the U.S., where so many Jewish people reside, infringing the public’s right to arms, even incrementally, is flatly banned, a reason many have chosen to live here.

Politicians who walk the path of civilian disarmament must understand that infringement at that level is a direct usurpation of power not granted. Just the opposite is the case, it is prohibited. Rethink your position, instead of risking civil unrest. While JPFO stands four square with all on crime reduction and control, we know this sort of so-called “gun control” is not it. What the current Democrat’s bill attempts in HR127 seeks power you are expressly denied. The language preserving government power to have the arms denied to the public is especially offensive and tyrannical.

Infringement, gun and ammo bans, public licensing and registration for personal firearms and possession are constitutionally impermissible. This should go without saying, and never be the subject of introduced bills, especially under the false flag of reducing crime or improving law enforcement.

A law having the effect of disarming Jewish people, no matter the justification, cannot stand.

 

Elderly Man Uses Shotgun To Stop Knife Attack On Wife

H/T Bearing Arms.

It was a good thing this man had a shotgun and was able to use it.

An elderly couple in South Carolina are alive today thanks to the family shotgun and the quick actions of the husband who was able to come to the defense of his wife after a stranger attacked them in their home.

The incident unfolded Monday afternoon in Jackson, South Carolina when a strange man came to Herbert and Lois Parrish’s front door and began knocking.

“I opened the door and he said he was looking for his little white chihuahua and wanted to know if I saw it. I told him, no, I didn’t,” said Lois Parrish.

That’s when the situation became violent. Lois said as she was closing the door, the man, who has now been identified as 61-year-old Harold Runnels, pushed his way inside. According to a police report, Runnels pulled out a large knife and began attacking Mrs. Parrish.

Police say Runnels began beating Lois Parrish on the head with the blunt end of the knife handle. Parrish, who’s 79-years old, fell to the ground and Runnels continued his attack, lacerating the woman’s forehead with the knife blade.

Herbert Parrish, believing that the stranger was going to kill both of them, knew he had to fight back.

“He was not going to go out that door and leave us alive. That’s the way I felt. That’s why I said, I’ve got to do something quick and get the edge on him. Get the advantage on him,” said Parrish.

Herbert Parrish was able to act quickly, grabbing hold of a shotgun that was hanging on the wall by the door. Parrish said he then hit the intruder with the handle of the firearm until Runnels was unconscious.

“I started hitting him in the head with the barrel and I know I must have hit him at least ten times right in the face, just as hard as I could hit him,” said Parrish.

I don’t know if it was pure adrenaline or if Herbert Parrish is just stronger than your average 82-year old man, but the blows not only disabled the home invader, they ultimately resulted in his death. Runnels passed away on Monday evening, hours after he was taken to a local hospital.

Herbert Parrish isn’t facing any charges for acting to protect his wife and himself, and though the couple were injured in the attack, they’re both expected to make a full recovery.

While most defensive gun uses don’t actually involve a pull of the trigger, neither do they typically involve using the gun as a blunt object self-defense tool. It’s unclear why Parrish clubbed the home invader in the face rather than firing a round at him, but there are a couple of possibilities. The gun could have been unloaded, but Parrish may also have felt that he would have injured his wife as well by firing a blast of steel shot in such close quarters.

I’m glad that Herbert and Lois Parrish survived their encounter with a violent stranger, and I hope that they quickly recover from both their physical injuries and the psychological impact of the home invasion.

As for their attacker, police say he lived just a couple of blocks from the Parrish home, but have describe the home invasion as a random encounter. They don’t know why the 61-year old picked that particular house, but residents in the area say it’s scary to know that it could have been them.

“I’m pretty sure everyone around here feels some type of way now. Everyone’s saying make sure your doors are locked, don’t go anywhere, don’t answer the door,” [neighbor Alyssa] Hill said.

Well, never answering your door again isn’t really an option. Having a plan if the person on the other side has nefarious intent, however, isn’t just an option, but should be something that everyone thinks about. It doesn’t matter if you live in a high-crime neighborhood in Baltimore or a quiet small town community like Jackson, South Carolina. Crime can happen anywhere, and to anyone, and ultimately your safety and the safety of the people you love are in your own hands.

If Herbert Parrish had grabbed his phone and called 911 before grabbing his shotgun and bashing the face of the man attacking his wife, police may have arrived on the scene of a double murder instead of a justifiable homicide. Sometimes it’s just not possible to call police and wait for help, no matter what anti-gun police chiefs might say about the idea of armed citizens.

 

 

Biden Still Mulling Executive Action On Gun Control

H/T Bearing Arms.

Joe Pee Pads Biden will do whatever it takes to stiffel our Second Amendment Rights.

President Joe Biden has long been a fan of gun control. He’s quite proud of his work on the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban that accomplished absolutely nothing, for example. He doesn’t like the American people having certain firearms that he finds too scary for civilian hands, and he’s more than willing to do everything he can to strip those guns from those hands.

 

Yet there’s a lot of things he can also do to make life difficult for gun owners well shy of a new assault weapon ban, and it seems Biden is considering all of them. As we recently reported, some of Biden’s top domestic advisors, including Susan Rice, recently met with gun control activists, and they not only talked about Biden’s gun ban, but about the possible executive actions he might take as well.

Second Amendment advocates say Biden doesn’t have the authority to ban assault weapons or magazine capacity by executive order but could use regulatory authority to restrict guns without Congress’ input.

“I think that President Biden will try to get away with as much as he can with executive orders,” Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told Fox News, adding that his organization is “very prepared to go to court” if Biden oversteps.

“What we’re expecting him to do is anything with foreign commerce — if the firearm is being imported in or magazine or ammo is being imported in — he could by executive order try to do something in that nature,” Gottlieb continued.

Gottlieb said Biden could use the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to tighten regulations he says are “beyond the scope of what Congress has given him the authority to do,” in which case he says the foundation is prepared to sue. But the White House has yet to nominate a leader for the ATF.

He also said the administration could slow walk the background check process, which is overloaded as gun sales are on the rise. The growth has been attributed to anticipation that Biden will act on gun control and fear and uncertainty amid the coronavirus pandemic and civil unrest, amplified by concerns of a cutdown on police presence.

Gun control advocates say the White House could take executive action to expand the background check system by redefining who is in the business of selling guns. They say they want to see the administration reclassify what is considered a gun in an effort to shut down the “ghost gun” market. Ghost guns are not subject to serial numbers or background checks because they are assembled from kits that include one unfinished piece, typically the receiver.

The problem is that there will never be a point that homebuilt firearms aren’t a thing. With 3D printers now available for the private market, people can build any number of firearms without ever having to get a background check if they want to. Further, even if Congress did intervene and ban the practice of building your own firearm, it’s going to be impossible to actually stop.

You can’t stop the signal.

However, it’s very likely that Biden will use executive action to stymie gun owners in any way he can imagine. He doesn’t like people buying guns from private parties without asking the government for permission, so don’t be surprised if he changes who is considered a dealer and who isn’t.

Also, don’t think we know all the ways he can find to screw us over. He’s got smart people working at the White House, some of which may come up with new and interesting infringements on our Second Amendment rights, so get ready for whatever comes our way.

Father of Parkland Victim Slams Biden for Taking Advantage of Anniversary of Shooting to Push Gun Control

H/T Western Journal.

Joe Pee Pads Biden is doing what DemocRats excel at is dancing on the graves not only of the Parkland dead but all of the dead of gun violence.

The father of a student killed in the 2018 Parkland, Florida, school shooting slammed President Joe Biden for using the third anniversary of his daughter’s tragic death to further his radical anti-gun agenda.

Andrew Pollack’s daughter Meadow, 18, was a beautiful teen girl whose life was ended, like the lives of 13 other students and three staff members, on Feb. 14, 2018, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in South Florida.

This week, Biden used Meadow and the school’s other victims to promote his proposed gun-grabbing measures.

“The Parkland students and so many other young people across the country who have experienced gun violence are carrying forward the history of the American journey,” a Sunday statement from Biden read. “It is a history written by young people in each generation who challenged prevailing dogma to demand a simple truth: we can do better. And we will.

“This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer,” he added.

“Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.”

Andrew Pollack, who is one of those family members scarred by the actions of a lunatic, joined Newsmax TV on Monday to slam Biden for his rhetoric. Despite going through hell on earth in the three years since the murder of his daughter, Pollack is sickened by the words and actions of Democrats and concerned about protecting others from losing their rights.

“I was so disgusted that Biden, on the anniversary of my daughter getting murdered, announced — you know, his administration announced — that they were going to do all these … put all these gun control measures in place,” Pollack told host Grant Stinchfield.

“And [Biden] mentioned the Parkland shooting. And every one of those [gun control proposals] that he wants to put in place wouldn’t have made a difference in my daughter getting murdered in Parkland. They’re not capable of looking at solutions,” he added of the Democrats.

The father of a daughter he can now never walk down the aisle, never babysit for and never again be able to tell “I love you” then ripped the media and Democrats for politicizing the tragedy that took his little girl from him.

That tragedy, by the way, likely would not have been prevented with any of Biden’s new gun control proposals in place. Meadow’s killer had no criminal record and was old enough to buy the rifle he used in his attack, which even the left-leaning USA Today reported.

The gun used was not an “assault weapon” — an overly broad term that becomes meaningless when you realize any gun can hypothetically be a so-called “assault weapon” when used to attack people.

But those facts were left out in Biden’s jarring statement about gun-grabbing, and that wasn’t lost on Pollack.

After accusing the media of using the deaths of children to go after the Second Amendment, Pollack nailed the institutional left for wanting to strip law-abiding Americans of their rights.

“I took a step back, and I looked into the failures in Parkland, and I dissected them one by one, Grant, ’cause I wanted to make a difference, I wanted to help law enforcement with their response to a mass shooting, and that’s what I did,” Pollack said.

“I came up with an organization, it’s called School Safety Grant. Any law enforcement agency, I urge them to go on schoolsafetygrant.org. Go on my website, we dissect all the failures.”

“When you put just gun control measures in, you mask solutions, OK, because they’re very simple-minded, you know, they’re not able to look at, really, the failures,” he added. “And that’s what we did. There were so many failures in Parkland. And all those students and the media, they jumped on the gun control bandwagon.”

Pollack speaks from a dark place of experience. In dealing with a leftist machine that no longer believes in nuance, common sense or individual liberty, this gentleman is staring them in the face. Can you imagine what he’s been through?

The man lost a daughter in one of the country’s worst school shootings, and rather than misplace his grief, he is seeking common-sense solutions to prevent further tragedies that don’t compromise the rights of people who realize that evil took Meadow, and not the guns people use every day to defend their own lives.

He’s also calling Biden and other Democrats out for their shamelessly using death as political currency. Of course, we all know Democrats don’t care about children — not really.

Biden has no plan for mending so many broken kids who have spent nearly a calendar year away from other kids amid science-defying school closures. Biden doesn’t care for the unborn. Biden doesn’t give a hoot about the interned Uighur kids in northwest China — or the children in “cages” along the country’s southern border.

Biden only cares about children when they can be used to further an agenda like gun control. One father is standing up to him and the other anti-gun bullies.

Pollack has lost more due to the actions of a psychopath than most people could imagine. The grieving father won’t let his daughter become the statistic Democrats wish to make her into so they can leave others vulnerable to violence — not without a few words about it

You can visit Pollack’s School Safety Grant website by clicking here.

The Shifting Semantics of Anti-Gunners

H/T JPFO.

We Have Facts But They’re Slick With Words.

First it was “gun control” and the “National Coalition to Ban Handguns,” the latter being a group formed back in 1974 that included religious, nonprofit and — according to an online history of this movement — labor organizations; 30 in all, determined to rid the country of privately owned sidearms.

Then it became “gun safety” because “gun control” was politically toxic. The effort to ban handguns became the “Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence.” It was the same group with the same goals but a different name, sort of like Ted Bundy changing his name to Tom Brown and dyeing his hair blond.

Of course there were exceptions to the desired handgun ban. Police, the military and licensed private security guards could have handguns in working condition, but nobody else. There could be, as the online history explains, “licensed pistol clubs where firearms are kept on the premises.”
But public attitudes about personal protection began to change, thanks largely to groundbreaking research and education efforts by folks such as David Hardy and the late Don Kates. They had the audacity to challenge the popular notion the Second Amendment applied to a mythical “collective” right of states to form militias. It was nonsense then, and thanks to the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller which specifically says handguns are protected by the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms applies to individual citizens not affiliated with a militia, it is even more nonsensical now.

Weasel Words

So gun prohibitionists started changing their rhetoric and repackaging their extremist crusade. What was “gun control” has become “gun safety,” “gun responsibility” and “gun reform.” But, like bags of horse manure relabeled “natural organic fertilizer,” the smell remains the same, rubber gloves are still required and you don’t walk in it without ruining your shoes.

The worst example of this clever social bigotry is the widespread use of the term “gun violence.” ….. 

“Defending your rights is a full-time commitment, and nobody can state your case better than you can. Don’t depend on some tailored suit from back east to come to your rescue. The fight is on, the first punch was thrown long ago and it’s up to you to knock the other guy out cold.”

MONTANA BECOMES 18TH STATE TO ABOLISH CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT REQUIREMENT

H/T Breitbart.

Bravo Montana for adopting Constitutional Carry.

Montana became the 18th state to end its concealed carry permit requirement when Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) signed House Bill 102 on Thursday.

The NRA-ILA reported that Gianforte signed HB102, which means Montanans can “carry a firearm for self-defense throughout the state without a government-mandated permit.”

Breitbart News reported that HB102 also removes a number of state government-mandated “gun-free zones” throughout the state.

On February 12, 2021, Breitbart News noted that Utah became the 17th state to abolish its concealed carry permit requirement.

Montana is now the 18th.

The other 16 states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Biden Faces Uphill Battle On Gun Plan

H/T Bearing Arms.

If Joe Pee Pads Biden can not ram gun control legislation through Congress he will go the route of Executive Orders for gun  control.

President Joe Biden used the third anniversary of the Parkland massacre to announce his gun control plan. Unsurprisingly, it was many of the things we expected from Biden, most notably an assault weapon ban.

 

Biden has never supported your right to keep and bear arms, at least not so long as you choose firearms he disapproves of. This is a man who advocated blasting a shotgun through the door, after all, but he doesn’t trust you with an AR-15.

What should be noted, however, is that while Democrats have control of both legislatures, that doesn’t mean he’s got a slam dunk on his gun control plan.

North Carolina Republican Party votes to censure Burr for vote to convict Trump
 
White House officials met last week with several gun violence prevention groups as they weigh how to move forward on an issue that has stymied Democrats for years.
 
The White House says President Biden is “personally committed” to action on an issue he has tackled many times in the past. Less than a month into the new administration, Biden officials are meeting with advocates backing reforms that Democrats have been pushing for in Congress, like strengthening background checks.
 
However, Americans’ views on guns may be even more divided than the last time Biden confronted the issue. A November Gallup poll found support for stricter gun laws is at its lowest level since 2016.
 
But anti-gun violence groups still see momentum. Brady, Giffords, Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action met virtually on Wednesday with Susan Rice, the head of the Domestic Policy Council, and Cedric Richmond, a senior adviser to the president.
 
 
The meeting comes as gun sales are on the rise across the U.S., which has been attributed to the concerns that Biden will act on gun control and amid fear and uncertainty around the pandemic and protests over racial injustice.

The latest numbers I’ve heard from the National Shooting Sports Foundation director of public affairs Mark Oliva was that there were 8.4 million new gun owners in the United States. Many of those are going to be people who have magazines or firearms that will fall under Biden’s proposal, meaning a lot of people who the president could ordinarily count on to support his proposal will instead be wondering why they should have to pay $200 to keep something they already own.

Plus, any that more than one magazine for whatever firearms they purchased are looking at more.

This means Biden may start getting more pushback from the left than he might expect. Democrats in districts normally considered quite safe may well start getting inundated with calls and emails demanding they oppose this legislation, all because these new gun owners don’t want to give up their property.

Which shouldn’t be surprising, really. Who does want the government to force them to either pay a fee or give up their lawfully-purchased property?

See, these measures are always easier to pass when it’s the other guy having to pay up or lose out. Yet after the pandemic sent millions of new gun owners to stores, suddenly the other guy isn’t so “other” anymore.