Monthly Archives: July 2021

Racism seems to be the most common denominator of todays political controversies. Issues long debated over other grounds theSenate's filibuster rule,voter ID laws, evenstandardized testing, math, statistics and meritocracy have all been reframed as a choice between racism and equality.

The reframing of such issues in racial terms removes any need to respond to other issues and it relieves advocates of defending the racism charge. It may be the ultimate conversation stopper but that advantage is precisely its weakness, particularly when racist roots are less than evident.

The latest example comes from the American Civil Liberties Union, which posted a discussion of how the Second Amendment is a product of racism. Supportingcommentaryexplained how Anti-Blackness determined the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and has informed the unequal and racist application of gun laws.

Somemedia and legal commentators have fawned over anew book, The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America, byDr. Carol Anderson, chair of Emory Universitys Black Studies Department. Anderson claims the Second Amendment was designed and has consistently been constructed to keep African Americans powerless and vulnerable.In interviews with media outlets likeCNNandNPR, her theory was not challenged on the Second Amendments history or purpose, despite overwhelming (and largely ignored) evidence to the contrary. Instead, NPR breathlessly billed its interview as Historian Carol Anderson Uncovers The Racist Roots Of The Second Amendment.

Slavery was a matter discussed both at the Declaration of Independence and during the Constitutional debates. However, the suggestion that it was a primary motivation for the Second Amendment is utter nonsense.

States opposed to slavery, like Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island, had precursor state constitutional provisions recognizing the right to bear arms.In his famous 1770 defense of Capt. Thomas Preston in the Boston Massacre trial, John Adams declared that British soldiers had a right to defend themselves since here every private person is authorized to arm himself.His second cousin and co-Founding Father, Samuel Adams, was vehemently anti-slavery and equally supportive of the right to bear arms.

Guns were viewed as essential in much of America, which was then a frontier nation, needed for food but also to protect a free people from tyranny and other threats. (The Minutemen at Concord, after all, were not running to a Klan meeting in 1775.) Law enforcement was relatively scarce at the time, even in the more populous states but, of course, some writers today claim thefirst police departments were products of slavery, too, used to enforce that system and to recapture escaped slaves.

The latest claim is reminiscent of the controversy over The 1619 Project produced by New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, who claimed theAmerican Revolution was motivated in large part to preserve slavery. Hannah-Jones clearly came up with her framing before looking at the facts, which directly contradict her claim. While at least one historian objected during the fact-checking process, it was published and onlylater corrected, along with other errors.

The Second Amendment claim is equally unfounded, but the argument allows for advocates to argue that this original antiblackness continues to shape the unequal and racist application of gun laws.This argument is maintained despite the fact thata quarter of African Americans are gun owners(compared with 36 percent of whites) andgun sales have been increasingin the African American community.Some African Americans have long viewed guns as an equalizer, includingescaped slave and famed abolitionistFrederick Douglass, who, in an editorial, heralded the power of a good revolver, a steady hand.Gun ownership has a long, fiercely defended tradition in the Black community. Indeed,Ida B. Wells, one of the most prominent anti-lynching activists, declared: The Winchester Rifle deserves a place of honor in every Black home.

For decades, the meaning of the Second Amendment wallowed in a debate over whether the right to bear arms is an individual right. Gun-control advocates lost that debate before the Supreme Court in 2008. Now, however, critics can dispense with such long-standing arguments by claiming the amendment is a relic of slavery and a tool of racism. That instantly converts any Second Amendment defenders into advocates not of freedom but of anti-blackness and oppression. It simplifies the argument and silences opposing views.

Indeed, in todays standard, it isnot enough to be non-racist, you must prove yourself to be anti-racist. Yet it is hard to establish yourself as anti-racist if you are defending rules or amendments or countries already decried as being racist. Moreover, if you are trained to view everything through an anti-racist lens, it can become the only discernible option like the old military adage that if you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

It is even dangerous today to observe that any given legal problem is not a problem of racism. Some are; many are not. But if everything is a product or relic of racism, the racism label becomes less notable or less imperative to address.

There is no need to rewrite history. Racism permeates our history, including a war in which hundreds of thousands of many races died to end slavery in this country.

We have continued that struggle through the Civil Rights period and into the current day. But those efforts are hampered, not advanced, by converting all political disputes into zero-sum fights over racism, which leaves little room for debate and even less room for persuasion.

The resulting silence is not evidence of consensus but of intimidation. Racism is real, but it cannot be defeated if it is reduced to a political trump card.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter@JonathanTurley.

Read this article:
Second Amendment latest issue to be reframed wrongly as 'racist' | TheHill - The Hill

Media top headlines July 26

In media news today, a CNN panel agrees that Hunter Biden's art sales are an ethics issue, Andrew Cuomo accuser Lindsey Boylan slams brother Chris and asks whether he 'also harassed and assaulted women, and NBC has a 33-year low viewership for Tokyo Olympics

The American Civil Liberties Union faced withering criticism Sunday for claiming that racism is "foundational to the Second Amendment and its inclusion in the Bill of Rights."

The ACLU enlisted Ines Santos, a communications intern according to her byline, to pen a news and commentary piece headlined, "Do Black Americans Have the Right to Bear Arms?" The intern declared that "anti-Blackness determined the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and has informed the unequal and racist application of gun laws."

Santos wrote the "vigilantism of widespread gun ownership puts Black Americans in an especially vulnerable position" because of brutality and the human cost of discriminatory policing.

MORE JOURNALISTS ADMIT AND EMBRACE BIAS, DISMISSING 'FAIRNESS' IN NEW ERA OF MEDIA

"The gun violence epidemic continues to spark debate about the Second Amendment and who has a right to bear arms. But often absent in these debates is the intrinsic anti-Blackness of the unequal enforcement of gun laws, and the relationship between appeals to gun rights and the justification of militia violence," she wrote. "Throughout the history of this country, the rhetoric of gun rights has been selectively manipulated and utilized to inflame white racial anxiety, and to frame Blackness as an inherent threat."

The piece was only three paragraphs and ended by plugging the latest episode of ACLUs "At Liberty" podcast, which featured a discussion on the same topic. But when the ACLU shared the story on social media, critics quickly slammed the concept.

"The ACLU has completely lost the plot. Meanwhile, the the National African American Gun Association, which began in 2015 with a single chapter in Atlanta, now comprises more than 75 chapters with 30,000 members," Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby responded.

"Youre an embarrassment to your own history," Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor wrote.

FOUNDER OF LIBERAL NEWS SITE SAYS RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS IS 'MADE UP'

"No, the first gun control laws were created to prevent slaves from revolting, and to keep freed slaves fearing for their lives," the Libertarian Part of Texas responded. "Restricting minorities right to bear arms has been the calling card of American racism, not the other way around."

Many others responded with thoughts on the ACLU's tweet:

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Follow this link:
ACLU slammed for arguing racism is foundational to the Second Amendment, its inclusion in the Bill of Rights - Fox News

TIPTON Cedar County on Tuesday became the third county in Iowa to be voted a Second Amendment Sanctuary County, which codifies the countys stance against violations of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

It was after much discussion, including comments both for and against the resolution, during the Cedar County Supervisors meeting that the supervisors voted unanimously to approve the resolution. Supervisor Dawn Smith said while she did not feel passionately either way about the resolution, a social media polling she did found Cedar County residents favored approval of the resolution about 6:1.

There was some concern countywide among our residents that they feel that this administration might do something to change gun laws, either by administrative rules or other things rather than taking it through the proper channels. Smith said. There is a push throughout Iowa, as well as around the nation, about this.

Smith said it was the first time in years that many people turned out to a supervisors meeting to give comments about an issue.

The county joins Jasper and Hardin counties, which approved resolutions making themselves sanctuary counties earlier this month. Throughout the country, over 1,200 local governments have declared themselves sanctuaries from state and federal laws governing gun ownership.

The resolution is not a law or ordinance and not legally binding. It emphasizes the county's opposition to any laws deemed unconstitutional that govern legal gun ownership on Cedar County citizens, including by administrative rule and executive orders. Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington who brought the resolution to the board, explained it includes presidential executive orders being approved as laws as well as changing the definition of a firearm to include something that is not a firearm.

Laws are made by legislators, not by a single person, Wethington, also an executive member of the Iowa Firearms Coalition, said.

The countys sanctuary status will not change day-to-day operations.

On July 21, during a CNN town hall meeting, President Joe Biden said: The idea that you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon whether its a 9 mm pistol or whether its a rifle is ridiculous. Im continuing to push to eliminate those things, but Im not lucky enough to get that done in a near term. Biden has not introduced legislation regarding this.

Wethington said the definition Biden gave would include many squirrel and rabbit guns, as well as most handguns, that use double stacked magazines. He believes modifications to firearm laws, up to and including confiscation, is a possibility if we dont stay on our toes. He said while he didnt believe the Biden administration would be able to bring any such law into action, the intent was there.

I was on the fence about it, Smith said. She said the large number of residents supporting the resolution had encouraged her to vote to approve it. Im not against it. I have a gun permit. I strongly believe people should have the right to defend themselves, and I dont think it should be the governments place to take those weapons away. I also feel strongly that people who arent supposed to have guns shouldnt have them. It takes someone willing to enforce that in order to see that happens.

Link:
Cedar County votes to become a Second Amendment sanctuary - Southernminn.com

It's been years since the American Civil Liberties Union could convince anyone that it is not a left-wing organization, but a recent tweet from the organization shows just how radically leftward the group is heading.

Gone are the days of the ACLU in Skokie, Illinois, only to be replaced by the contemporary iteration influenced by radical leftist thought adhering to core tenets of critical race theory. While some may say such a classification is hyperbole, there is little other explanation after the groups recent tweet stating: Racism is foundational to the Second Amendment and its inclusion in the Bill of Rights.

The tweet links to an article and podcast discussion that advances the inflammatory rhetoric that black people are precluded from the Second Amendment and subjected to unjust and discriminatory practices of our countrys gun laws. Such fallacies are regurgitated leftist tropes designed to advance the notion that black people do not have the same rights as everyone else. While no one would ever argue that that was the case in the past, that is certainly not the case in the present. Moreover, as leftist organizations frequently do, it distorts the truth from reality to generate fear and hate.

Despite what many leftists would have American society believe, there actually were free black Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries. And, yes, these free black people were entitled to the same rights as every American at the time some of whom were even slave owners in the country. And contrary to the illusion that the ACLU tweet and subsequent article would have everyone believe, these free black people enjoyed the right to keep and bear arms.

Research from 1991 published in the Georgetown Law Journal reveals that as early as the beginning of the 18th century, free black people were allowed to own firearms a direct refutation of the claim the ACLU is making. Colonies such as Virginia, Massachusetts, and South Carolina permitted free black people to own firearms.

Additionally, after the Constitution was ratified, there does not appear to be any federal legislation that restricted free black people from owning firearms as a result of their race. There are historical records that show the 19th-century equivalent of the good guy with a gun narrative in which black people used firearms to fend off racist white mobs that were looking to do harm to their communities.

Granted, this is not to discount any of the racism that black people endured or to suggest their rights were not curtailed in American society. Unfortunately, as we all know, that is not true. And there were state laws enacted that restricted gun ownership for black people that many white citizens were not subjected to. So there are legitimate grounds to say that the government did not do enough for black people to ensure their Second Amendment rights were not violated. However, that is a very different argument from claiming that the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights were the results of white supremacist racism. That is unequivocally false.

No one is ever going to suggest that the United States could have and should have done more to ensure that people of all ethnic and racial backgrounds were treated equally. However, what is often the case is the actual history is convoluted to present one side of an argument while ignoring the plights of others, solely for political purposes. This tweet by the ACLU is indicative of the toxic propaganda that encompasses our countrys political rhetoric today, and as is usually the case, it is composed of half-truths and inconsistencies that do more damage than good.

View original post here:
ACLU tweet on Second Amendment and Bill of Rights is radical leftist propaganda - Washington Examiner

Hoping to quell their constituents fears, the Washington State Sheriffs Association put out a statement last week affirming their commitment to uphold the Constitution specifically, the Second Amendment. But a Spokane civil rights attorney is concerned the letter suggests sheriffs have powers beyond their roles as local law enforcers.

Grant County Sheriff and president of the sheriffs association Tom Jones said sheriffs in many counties get almost daily questions from their constituents worried about their constitutional rights being infringed upon.

Jones said the idea for a group statement came after sheriffs in Utah put out a similar letter in June. The sheriffs got together on July 15 to sign their own document.

Promoted by increasing public concern to safeguard constitutional rights, we, the elected Sheriffs of Washington State, soundly reaffirm our sworn oaths to support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington, the letter begins, before continuing to mention the right to bear arms specifically.

Only King County Sheriff Mitzi Johanknecht declined to sign. She did not respond to multiple requests to comment. The King County Sheriff position will be appointed after her term ends due to a vote last year by the King County Council.

Kitsap County Sheriff Gary Simpson recently retired, and is not among the signees. His replacement has yet to be appointed.

Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich said he agrees one of the biggest questions we get asked as sheriffs is how they feel about gun rights.

I think that all the sheriffs just finally went, enough, time to just make a definitive statement, Knezovich said.

Knezovich said he sees the statement as reaffirming the oath they took when sworn in.

Were going to do what were supposed to be doing with the oath that we took upholding the constitution of the state of Washington, the United States, enforcing laws thereof, he said. And thats regardless of anybodys ethnicity, nationality, race or political lunacy. Were going to do our jobs.

In the letter, the sheriffs cite destructive influences, but do not define what those are, which Spokane civil rights attorney Jeffry Finer said allows people to fill that in with their own private fears.

It took a close study of the text to figure out why the letter bothered Finer, he said. He finally realized it was because the letter implies sheriffs are untethered from the criminal justice system, namely the courts, which interpret how the Constitution is applied.

Sheriffs do not decide what is or is not constitutional. Courts do, Finer said. Thats why the sheriffs swore to their actual oath of office when they started the job. Their actual oath promises not only to support and defend, but to obey. The sheriffs swore an oath to obey, and (the) force to be obeyed is judicial review.

But the sheriffs position didnt come as a surprise to Jeremy Ball, president and owner of Spokanes Sharp Shooting, a gun store and firing range.

My personal opinion is thats a good thing and its good to see them reinforce that, Ball said. The gun issue right now is obviously, like always, a dynamic situation.

Ball said he thinks his customers will appreciate the statement.

I think its good that this is written in generality, because I think it puts in perspective that the sheriffs association specifically is interested in enforcing constitutional laws, Ball said.

He also appreciates it as someone in the firearms industry, who is concerned about proposed restrictions. He mentioned a proposal restricting pistol braces, after the accessory was used in the March mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado.

While Ball hopes the general statement will quiet his customers concerns on a variety of proposed gun legislation, many of the sheriffs who signed the document didnt cite specific legislation as reasoning for the letter.

Knezovich cited the political climate, noting people on the extreme ends of the political spectrum are using the threat of the government taking peoples guns to scare citizens.

You literally have extremes on both sides that are pushing that narrative that we are going to do that, Knezovich said.

About a decade ago, there was a movement among some sheriffs to elevate themselves above their actual authority, calling themselves constitutional officers with additional powers and duties, Finer said.

The National Association of Sheriffs wrote an article at the time addressing the idea.

Lately, there has been much discussion about the Oath of Office taken by any elected sheriff and the legal significance of that oath of office, the article reads.

The article acknowledges sheriffs offices have unique duties because they are the only law enforcement agency that reports directly to an elected official, the sheriff, before saying sheriffs offices are bound by judicial review.

In short, an individual sheriffs oath of office does not contain any additional or unique language conferring special duties, powers or responsibilities on any Office of Sheriff, the article reads. As a result, an individual sheriffs oath of office is the same or identical oath of office conferred on and taken by all of these other public local, county and state officials.

Finer said he is concerned the signed letter tries to add additional powers.

The pledge adds new words to the job description, namely that sheriffs will do all in their power to steadfastly protect the Second Amendment from what or whom we need to protect the amendment goes unstated, Finer said. The pledges promise to use all power is new; this is not in the oath of any elected official. The sheriffs have added a special, new provision and they did so on their own.

Knezovich said the statement is not meant to be interpreted as sheriffs having more power than other elected officials or as adding to the oath, citing the most important word in the oath as obey.

He said the letter should not be interpreted as a dog whistle to people who believe in the anti-federal government movement led by former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, founded by Mack, posits that sheriffs are the first line of defense for the Constitution and hold power above the president, according to its website.

If the sheriff was all that and a bag of chips, why arent there sheriffs in every county in the United States? Knezovich said with a chuckle, noting two states dont have sheriffs.

Knezovich balked at the idea, calling Mack a phony and a coward.

While Knezovich said he disapproves of the extremist point of view, he does see significant concern among people that new legislation will infringe on their rights, noting record-breaking gun and ammunition sales in 2020.

Officials allowed their cities to be burned during Black Lives Matter protests, Knezovich said, specifically mentioning the CHOP autonomous zone in Seattle.

You dont think that had a psychological effect on the American people? Knezovich said. When they view that their government will not protect them, they will protect themselves.

Sheriffs offices work directly for the people because the head of the office is directly elected by the people, Whitman County Sheriff Brett Myers said.

I dont think youre going to find another office thats as close to the people as the sheriffs office, Myers said. Thats what keeps sheriffs offices so focused on ensuring that the right thing is done all the time. We answer directly right to the people we serve.

Over the years, Myers said rights have been whittled away to some degree and that concerns constituents.

While Myers said there hasnt been anything specific in the last month or two that spurred the statement, the buildup of concerns warranted it be addressed.

Ferry County Sheriff Ray Maycumber agreed, saying changes and movement both at the state and national level left people concerned about the long term, big picture about their right to bear arms.

This is just our way to kind of ease their concerns, Maycumber said. If its time to stand up and be counted, this is how were going to be counted.

Douglas County Sheriff Kevin Morris said many people in his jurisdiction felt the government overreached during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Theres a lot of folks that felt that there was a major governmental overreaching locking people down, freedom, you know, he said. I think it just continually started to escalate in their own minds.

While theres no way to address everyones concerns in the brief statement, Morris said, he hoped the letter would serve as a reminder for the community to care for each other like the sheriffs are trying to do.

We dont have to have the exact same opinion about anything, but what we have to do in my mind is be willing to listen to somebody elses opinion and accept that they have a right to it no matter what I think about it, he said.

Read more:
Washington sheriffs sign letter vowing to uphold Second Amendment, but some question their messaging - The Spokesman-Review

The Kane County Commission held a special meeting on Monday, July 26, to hear comments regarding two proposed ordinances: No. O-2021-23, an ordinance establishing the Kane County Constitutional Defense Council and No. O-2021-27, an ordinance enacting the Second Amendment Sanctuary County Ordinance.

Ordinance O-2021-23 is proposed to create a council made up of the following members: the Kane County Commissioners, Kane County Attorney or designee, the Kane County Sheriff or designee and two residents of Kane County appointed by the commission. One of the main duties of the council includes determining the constitutionality of executive orders by the President of the United States or the Governor of the state of Utah.

Another duty of the council would include determining whether the Kane County Commission should seek to have an executive order declared to be unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful. Comments were made in opposition of such council, stating that the council was unnecessary and that the current commission and sheriff already fill such roles.

The general purpose of Ordinance O-2021-27 is to prevent the possibility of unlawful state or federal executive orders from infringing on the Second Amendment rights of Kane County citizens. The ordinance states that an unlawful act shall consist of any federal or state executive order, act, law, order, rule or regulation, which restricts an individuals constitutional right to keep and bear arms, including any federal or state executive order, which has been determined by the Kane County Constitutional Defense Commission to be in violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Comments were made in opposition of the ordinance as it is currently written. There was a general consensus that current law enforcement powers should be maintained with the county sheriff, and that the proposed ordinances or council would detract from the current duties of the sheriff.

After hearing statements from the county commissioners, Attorney Rob Van Dyke and Sheriff Tracy Glover, the public comment period was opened to the residents of Kane County. Comments were made with strong opposition to both ordinances. Some comments were directed at the wording of the ordinance, suggesting the language wasnt strong enough.

There were roughly fifty residents in attendance, with the overall majority opposing both ordinances, but being in favor of a resolution instead of an ordinance defending Second Amendment rights against unlawful federal or state executive orders.

Go here to read the rest:
Commission weighs public comments on Second Amendment sanctuary ordinance | by Neal Brown | July 29, 2021 | News - Southern Utah News

WASHINGTON U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson took aim this week at a proposed federal regulation that targets pistol stabilizing braces. Hudson led a Capitol Hill news conference Tuesday drawing attention to the issue.

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives proposed the rule in June. The news conference encouraged people to submit comments to the bureau opposing the rule.

"The Biden administration's ATF is attacking our Second Amendment and attacking our veterans," Hudson said. "Crime is up, and Republicans are prepared to address that. But Democrats are determined to go after law-abiding citizens and our Second Amendment."

Stabilizing braces are designed to enable disabled military veterans to exercise their Second Amendment rights, Hudson said. "This regulation turns law-abiding citizens, including our combat veterans, into felons."

Under the regulation introduced June 7, an individual could face felony charges unless he turns in or destroys a firearm with a brace, destroys the brace, or pays a tax, according to a news release from Hudson's office.

Hudson and 140 U.S. House colleagues sent a June 14 letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Acting ATF Director Marvin Richardson. The representatives urged the U.S. Department of Justice to withdraw the proposed guidance. Forty-eight senators sent a similar letter on June 24.

One of the original designers of stabilizing braces helped Hudson make his case. U.S. Army veteran Rick Cicero was injured in combat in Afghanistan in 2010. An improvised explosive device caused significant damage to his right arm and leg.

"Stabilizing braces gave me the ability to get back out and shoot things that I never expected I would be able to again, and my life changed drastically," said Cicero. "Since then, I have been traveling across the country teaching veterans how to shoot again. That brace is the foundation of everything I do because I can take someone who has limited strength in their hands or is missing digits and give them confidence and the skills and capability to grasp a firearm again and get them back to the things that were such a part of their life."

"If this overreach is allowed, it would make a majority of law-abiding veterans and first responders criminals overnight," said U.S. Army veteran Pablo Cadena, who was injured in Iraq in 2008. "These are the people who answered the call of our great nation."

"This regulation is wrong," said U.S. Marine veteran Anson Roberts, who was injured in Iraq in 2007. "It's taking away the self-defense right for me, for my family or some other person in America who is disabled. I don't have the same strength in my hands or my arms or my legs anymore. Using this device helps me protect my family."

Hudson had support from congressional colleagues. "It is perplexing to see how the Biden administration is trying to take away the Second Amendment rights of our disabled veterans," said Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana, at Hudson's news conference. Scalise holds a top House post as Republican Party whip. "I would urge every American who wants to stand with our disabled veterans and any other American who believes in the Second Amendment, and the ability for every law-abiding citizen to be able to exercise those rights, to go online now and oppose this rule by the Biden Administration."

"But more than anything, we call on the Biden administration to stop this attack on our veterans and just withdraw the rule," Scalise added. "Lets allow veterans to exercise their Second Amendment rights since they risked so much in preserving our rights."

Another news conference speaker, Rep. Mike Bost, R-Illinois, serves as the top Republican on the U.S. House's Veterans Affairs Committee. "The ATF proposal could hurt thousands of law-abiding, gun-owning veterans simply because they use a stabilizing brace," Bost said. "Disabled veterans have given their country enough. The last thing they should be subject to is absurd fines and government overreach."

Attacks on stabilizing braces aren't new. In December 2020, Hudson helped fight a similar ATF rule proposal. Following a letter signed by Hudson and 90 members of Congress, in addition to widespread feedback during a public comment period, ATF revoked the rule on Dec. 23, 2020.

People can comment about the latest ATF regulation through Sept. 8. Hudson is offering a link to submit comments at Hudson.House.Gov/Issues/2a.

View post:
Hudson bashes proposed new federal gun regulation - The Richmond Observer