Daily Archives: May 23, 2022

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

"Cross Country" host Lawrence Jones said Americans can no longer rely on the government for their safety in Saturday's monologue and offered his own story where the Second Amendment impacted him.

LAWRENCE JONES: President Biden-appointed Gov. Hochul and Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown: Not only do you miss the cause of the problem, you're miles away from offering a solution. That's why people don't trust you. And that's why people trust the Second Amendment. But the Left has long made their contempt for the Second Amendment and their disgust for anyone who supports it very clear.

NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST BLASTED FOR INACCURATE CLAIMS IN CALLING FOR FULL BAN ON 'SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES'

I had just witnessed an attempted carjacking, a car crash, and all four suspects were fleeing the scene. I went over to the owner to make sure he was OK. We called the cops, but sadly they didn't show up for about 25 minutes. We respect our men and women in blue, but they are understaffed, and they're discouraged about the job they're being asked to do. The reckless rhetoric from our leaders in the recent years hasn't helped either. The reality of it is we can no longer put our safety in the hands of government. They've let us down. My hero, Frederick Douglass, once said, "A man's right rests in three boxes. The ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box." We have constitutional rights. And we have the right to use them all, period.

WATCH HIS FULL COMMENTS BELOW:

More here:
Lawrence Jones gives testimony on the Second Amendment from personal experience - Fox News

The United States Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on a case that started in New York state and could affect the ease with which people nationwide are allowed to carry guns in public.

A lawsuit filed by two Rensselaer County men challenges the states requirement that gun owners must have a justifiable reason referred to as proper cause to get a concealed carry permit. Permit applicants must now state why they have a need to carry a gun in public. For example, it could be because they have been threatened or their job places them in danger.

The Rensselaer County men are making the case that applicants should not have to give a reason for why they want to carry a concealed gun in public. They argue they have that right under the Second Amendment.

The court could rule a number of ways, ranging from throwing out the requirement, keeping it entirely or limiting it to certain places.

The ruling is expected this court term which ends late June or early July. It will mark the first time in more than a decade that the nations top court will decide a major Second Amendment case.

The decision will be made at a time when the court has become more conservative and is considered sympathetic to gun rights.

Republican President Donald Trump appointed three of the nine justices to the bench during his term. That is thought to have resulted in an ideological shift in the court. A leaked draft opinion recently revealed the new court is poised to reverse Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that established abortion rights.

Since 2019, 4,332 gun permit applications have been submitted in Onondaga County. About 90 percent of them have been granted, according to a sheriffs office spokesman. The sheriffs office does not track how many are concealed carry permit applications.

A statewide analysis submitted by the states defense team to the Supreme Court found that 65% of applications for unrestricted concealed carry were approved in 2018 and 2019.

The impact of the decision will reach beyond New York. Seven other states have a similar law. The eight states govern 80 million people.

The decision would follow 40 years of state-level legislative rollbacks of concealed carry regulation in the United States. Since 1981, the number of states with a law similar to New York has decreased by more than two-thirds, according to a review of state-level gun laws by SUNY Cortland professor Robert J. Spitzer.

The next-day ramifications of striking down this gun law would be greater than the next-day ramifications for any other Second Amendment case that the Supreme Court has decided, said Eric Ruben, a Second Amendment expert and assistant law professor at Southern Methodist University.

Locally, law enforcement officials dont expect the decision will affect the policing of guns or safety.

I think (the court is) going to take the narrowest route possible, said Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick.

He said most local gun crimes do not involve weapons for which owners have a concealed permit. Most guns recovered by officers are stolen, come from states with less restrictive purchasing laws or are guns without serial numbers and cant be traced, he said.

Police already deal with legally and illegally owned guns, said North Syracuse Police Chief William Becker, the secretary for the Central New York Chiefs of Police Association.

Two experts contend a decision to strike down the law could have greater implications beyond who can and cant carry a concealed weapon in New York. Such a decision could create an atmosphere in which other gun restrictions come under scrutiny.

We will see more states laws struck down, predicted Susan Liebell, a professor at St. Josephs University whose work focuses on law and gun rights.

She and Ruben said striking down the law could invite legal challenges to New Yorks SAFE Act, which broadened the definition of an assault weapons, required background checks for ammunition sales, forced gun owners to report when their guns were lost or stolen within a day and required mental health professionals to report patients to police if they believe the patient is likely to harm others.

Ruben said other laws that could come under attack place restrictions on magazine capacity, impose zoning requirements for shooting ranges and limit the possession of firearms by those who have been deemed mentally ill or have past convictions.

The two experts were interviewed before a gunman this month killed 10 people and wounded three others in a grocery store in Buffalo. After the mass shooting, Gov. Kathy Hochul said she will push for tougher gun legislation.

The two men behind the concealed-carry case, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, initially sued a Rensselaer licensing officer and then-Superintendent of the New York State Police George P. Beach II because their applications for concealed carry permits were denied.

In New York, concealed carry is governed by the Sullivan Act, which requires that New Yorkers establish proper cause to carry a concealed weapon. The law was passed in 1911.

Nash appealed the decision by the licensing office, citing his need for self-protection because of a string of robberies in his neighborhood. His appeal was denied.

Koch separately argued that he had taken the proper safety courses to have the gun and should be issued a concealed carry permit.

Both men are members of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and together sued Beach and the licensing officer in federal court in 2018. They lost when a judge cited a 2012 decision in a federal lawsuit that determined the Sullivan Act did not infringe on a gun owners Second Amendment rights.

A federal appeals court upheld the decision.

The pair then appealed to the Supreme Court which agreed in April 2021 to hear the case.

Ruben and Liebell listened as oral arguments were heard in November 2021. They believe it is likely New Yorks law will at least be partially struck down based on the justices questions and prior rulings.

It did not seem that there was a majority of the court in favor of upholding New Yorks law, Ruben said.

She said justices could leave room for state or local governments to impose restrictions in a few places.

Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, asked if Koch and Nash wanted to carry their guns into a larger city, like New York City. The justices also asked if concealed guns could be carried into places like Times Square or the campuses of New York and Columbia universities.

That indicated to Liebell and Ruben the justices were open to treating densely populated areas differently.

Its possible to strike it down, but then make clear that the state can still restrict the carrying of firearms in subways or other places that might present security concerns, Ruben said.

But he said, there are a lot of permutations and its impossible, based on the two-hour oral argument, to speculate.

Got a tip, comment or story idea? Contact Chris Libonati by phone at 585-290-0718 or by email at clibonati@syracuse.com.

Go here to see the original:
Supreme Court to rule soon on Upstate NY case that could make it easier to carry guns across US - syracuse.com

At midnight on Wednesday, the Alaska Legislature adjourned from its 2022 Legislative Session. Second Amendment legislation both pro-gun ownership and anti-gun ownership died that night.

Mandatory firearm storage legislation, House Bill 203, failed to gain enough votes to pass in committee.

Second Amendment emergency powers protection legislation, Senate Bill 136, fell short by just two votes in the House for final passage.

House Bill 203 (Safe Storage) sought to give law enforcement the ability to issue a fine to gun owners of up to $1,000 if an unauthorized individual gains access to a firearm and proceeds to injure themselvesor another.The bill essentially required firearms to be locked and rendered inaccessible for self-defense in the home. HB 203 was an attempt to punish law-abiding gun owners for the crimes of criminals, while current state law already provides an avenue for cases where true negligence with a firearm is present.

Senate Bill 136, (Emergency Powers Protections) sponsored by Sen. Rob Myers and co-sponsored by 23other legislators, sought to provideprotections for gun stores, ranges, or any other entity that engages in the lawful selling or servicing of firearms, components, or accessories. This measure would have prevented the prohibition, regulation, or seizure of citizens Second Amendment rights during a declared State of Emergency. SB 136 was a direct response to infringements on the Second Amendment that occurred across the country during the COVID-19 pandemic.The bill fell short of passage by two votes in the House on the final day of the legislative session.

SB 136 had unanimously passed the Senate on March 16, and spent nearly two-months in the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee before receiving its passing vote of 5-2, on May 17. The House companion bill, House Bill 179, sponsored by House Minority Leader Rep. Cathy Tilton, has sat in the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee since its introduction on April 16, 2021. That bill never received a hearing.

SB 136 was advanced to the House Floor where it needed a 3/4 vote to advance from second to third reading. The bill received hours of debate and amendments were offered, including an attempt by Rep. Adam Wool, the sponsor of HB 203, to add his government-issued firearms storage programs into the emergency powers bill this amendment failed to pass by a vote of 16-24.

One amendment, offered by Rep. Sara Rasmussen was adopted; it would have required K-12 grade school districts to offer hunter safety education courses.

SB 136 ultimately needed 30 votes to pass from second to third reading, but the final vote was 28-12. Blocking the bill from making it to a final vote were Rep. Harriet Drummond, Rep. Zack Fields, Rep. Sara Hannan, Rep. Andy Josephson, Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Rep. Daniel Ortiz, Rep. Ivy Spohnholz, Rep. Andi Story, Rep. Geran Tarr, Rep. Chris Tuck, and Rep. Adam Wool.

The NRA thanked Sen. Rob Myers (R-Fairbanks) and Minority Leader Rep. Cathy Tilton (R-Wasilla), both 2A champions who sponsored the emergency powers bills and worked with leadership on both sides of the aisle.

(This story is adapted from NRA Institute for Legislative Action, NRAILA.org).

Like Loading...

Original post:
How did gun legislation fare this session? - Must Read Alaska

When it becomes clear that a popular change in state law does something fundamentally good for citizens freedom without doing harm, it becomes much easier to get legislators to do the right thing. This is part of the reason for the quick spread of constitutional-carry laws, which now cover half of the states, as of press time. (A state is constitutional carry if a law-abiding adult who can legally possess a handgun does not need a permit to carry that handgun concealed for lawful protection.)

Another part of the reason for the fast spread of constitutional-carry legislation is the NRA Institute for Legislative Actions (ILA) team, which has worked across America to bring the facts to state legislators. They have been so effective that a majority of state legislators in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana and Ohio most-recently opted to get their states bureaucracies out of the way of their law-abiding citizens Second Amendment rights.

An underlying reason this has been an effective push is the basic fact that law-abiding American citizens are not problems that needs to be solved. Despite what the Biden administration argues, armed citizens help to keep individuals safer. Nevertheless, each time a constitutional-carry law comes up for debate, gun-control groups argue that getting the government out of the concealed-carry-license business will result in Wild West-style shootouts on the streets. But each time these laws pass, the data clearly shows that doesnt happen.

This has been a big change from a few decades ago when Vermont was the sole state with constitutional carry. The term constitutional carry comes from legal history; when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, constitutional carryeither open or concealedwas lawful in every state.

Still, as more and more states return to the original understanding of the right to bear arms, opponents warn that constitutional carry (or permitless carry) will cause murder rates to increase; for example, Eugenio Weigend, director of the Gun Violence Prevention program at the Center for American Progress, says that constitutional carry will raise some confrontations in some places, further escalating violence to reach lethal levels. Michael Bloombergs anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety says states that have moved toward constitutional carry are abandoning core public safety standards.

While Vermont has long had constitutional carry, thanks to the 1903 state supreme court decision State v. Rosenthal, the move toward constitutional carry in the 21st century started with Alaska in 2003.

In this article, we present the data about what actually happened when states adopted constitutional carry. The data comes from a report co-written by Alexander Adams and Colorado State University Professor Youngsung Kim. (The data and code are available at: https://github.com/K-Alexander-Adams/Am1st)

Except for Vermont, all the states that currently have constitutional carry already had shall-issue licensing systems for concealed carry. That is, applications for concealed-carry permits could not be denied simply because the licensing official did not like citizens carrying firearms.

So, why did the NRA work for constitutional carry in those states? Because even a fairly administered shall-issue system can take weeks or months for a license to be issued. The delays can leave the innocent defenseless for too long; this is especially true for victims of stalkers and for people fleeing domestic violence. The same is true when civil order breaks down, such as during riots or natural disasterstimes when law enforcement is often overwhelmed. Some licensing offices, for example, shut down or slowed down during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Even when a state statute sets up a fair process for licensing, local governments can find ways to manipulate the system to delay applications. This has been a long-standing problem in Denver, and is one reason why civil-rights activists are fighting for constitutional carry in Colorado.

A second reason for constitutional carry is cost. To some people, spending a few hundred dollars for fees, fingerprints and so on is no big deal. But for lower-income people, the financial barrier of a licensing system can be severe to prohibitive. Constitutional carry also eliminates the possibility of bias against any racial, gender or socio-economic groups in the permitting process.

Even in constitutional-carry states, many people still choose to obtain permits. Permits make it easier to carry in other states when traveling, because many states have laws that recognize the permits issued by some or all other states. Depending on state law, a permit may allow carrying in some places where constitutional carry is not allowed.

How Does Constitutional Carry Impact Crime?How can we determine the effects of constitutional carry? One approach would be to just compare current crime rates in states with and without constitutional carry; for example, Vermont, with constitutional carry, has much less crime than neighboring New York, which does not. The same is true for Utah versus Colorado. But skeptics would accurately point out that other differences between the states could account for the differences in crime rates. Portions of New York, for example, are more urbanized than Vermont.

Further, because crime rates change over time, looking at several years is more revealing than just a single year.

To get answers, Adams and Kim studied all 50 states and the District of Columbia from 1980 to 2018. Their study also accounted for 30 control variablesthat is, factors other than constitutional carry that might raise or lower a states crime rate. The control variables included population density, alcohol consumption, poverty rates, unemployment rates, the Fryer crack-cocaine index, incarceration rates, age cohorts in five-year blocks from age 15 to over 65 years of age, police per capita, other gun control (such as assault-weapons bans), racial variables and more.

To show how important it is to consider control variables, we will first show you the results without them, and then the results with the control variables included.

Here is a short explanation on how to read the tables. Suppose you flipped a coin 100 times, and 65 of those times, it came up heads. Does that prove the coin was biased (unevenly weighted), or could the results just be random chance? In social science, the probability that the result was not due to chance is called statistical significance. In the tables, if there is less than a 1% chance the result is due to chance, the result has three asterisks. If the probability that a result is random is less than 5%, there are two asterisks. If less than 10%, there is one asterisk. Traditionally, statisticians use the 5% cut-off to call something statistically significant, but they also report results for 1% and 10%. We do the same.

Below each result, in parentheses, are the standard errors. The standard errors measure how far the average data pointin this case, a states homicide or suicide rate in a given yearfalls from the regression line. Imagine a scatter plot through which you draw a line of best fit. The messier the plot looks, the higher the standard error is in relation to the result; the cleaner and tighter the points are to that line, the lower the standard error is in relation to the result. Standard errors are important since they are used in the calculation of statistical significance.

R-squared is a measure of how strong the correlation is between the variables in the model and the outcome we are studying. It is measured from a scale of 0 to 1, with 1 meaning the model captures everything and 0 meaning the model has no relationship with what you are studying at all. In this case, an R-squared close to 1 means the model explains nearly all of the differences in homicide/suicide levels and trends between states, whereas a low R-squared means the model does not explain a lot.

Observations in the table simply represent how many data points are in the model. One state in one year is a single observation. Given the number of states plus D.C. (51), and the number of years the dataset spans (39), there should be 1,989 observations. Some of the regressions have fewer observations than that; this is because if there is missing data, the observation is dropped.

Now look at Table 1. It shows effects of state-law changes to adopt constitutional carry, and state-law changes to adopt shall-issue permits.

In Table 1, there are many statistically significant results from state adoption of constitutional carry and of shall issue. We see statistically significant decreases in homicide and statistically significant increases in suicide. Some of the data in this table would in fact be ripe for misinterpretations by those who would like to paint shall-issue and constitutional-carry in an unfavorable light. Remember, Table 1 does not account for other social factors, such as urbanization, illegal drug use and so on.

Now lets take all 30 independent variables into account. The results are in Table 2. Once the independent variables are considered, the effects of different carry laws shrink dramaticallyby at least an order of magnitude. Whatever positive or negative effects of the laws, they are about 1/10th the size (or even smaller) compared to Table 1, which ignored social variables. In Table 2, almost all of the statistically significant results disappear after other social variables are accounted for.

The data clearly show there is no statistically significant relationship between constitutional-carry laws and homicide. There was likewise no association with firearm homicide rates. The predictions of doom and gloom have not been statistically validated, at least as far as this analysis goes.

In fact, the relationship between constitutional-carry laws and homicide is negative, which is the opposite of what gun-control activists have predicted. Constitutional-carry laws were associated with about 6% lower homicide rates; but, again, the result was not statistically significant. In other words, we cannot be 99%, 95% or 90% sure that this happy result was not due to chance.

For suicide, there is a positive association between constitutional carry and suicide rates, but it is not significant at the traditional 5% level. Although it is significant at the looser 10% level, there are reasons to believe this result is not due to constitutional carry. If constitutional carry were going to affect suicide, then it would affect suicide by firearm. It is impossible to believe that someone who was lawfully carrying a firearm without a permit would be, because of the firearm, more likely to jump out of a window or drive a car off a bridge. The only way that constitutional carry could affect suicide would be by increasing suicide by firearmand the results on firearm suicide are not statistically significant.

The bottom line, based on what social science can measure, is that constitutional carry does not lead to large-scale change in homicides or in firearm suicides. The doomsday scenarios of constitutional-carry opponents are not supported by social science.

It is certainly true that constitutional carry can make a difference in individual cases. The 2021 National Firearms Survey, by Georgetown professor William English, suggests there are 1.67 million defensive gun uses each year, each representing an incident of resistance to homicide, rape, robbery, assault or other crime. Obviously, an unknown subset of these defensive uses may be attributable to constitutional carry.

For all crimes, successful self-defense is certainly significant to the people involved. When a woman saves her children from a carjacker, it is of the utmost importance to that family. Its just that these cases do not happen often enough to create a statistically significant difference in homicide rates. (The Kim and Adams study did not analyze other crimes, such as rape or robbery.) Similarly, for firearm suicide, the laws might have had an effect in individual cases, but not often enough for social scientists to be confident that the results are not due to chance.

If you dont care about statistical significance, then constitutional carrys raw benefit (homicides down by 6%) is larger than its harmful effect (firearm suicides up by 3%). Again, every death is significant to those involved, but ultimately, the data indicate more lives may be saved.

It should be noted that the CDC database used in this study does not distinguish criminal homicides from lawful defensive homicides. So the very small increase in firearm homicide (0.6 of 1%) is consistent with an increase in lawful defensive shootings leading to a lower overall murder rate; such as one dead carjacker instead of three dead children and one dead mother.

Gun-control advocates predict increases in murders with constitutional carry, but the data says otherwise. Self-defense is a natural right. That right can be restricted when there is a strong reason to do so; for example, people confined in prisons are not allowed to possess firearms. But, the opponents of constitutional carry across society have not met their burden of proof.

Read more:
The Statistical Truth About the Impact of Constitutional Carry | An Official Journal Of The NRA - America's 1st Freedom

On May 17, the Department of Justice announced the release of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives publication titled the National Firearms in Commerce and Trafficking Assessment (NFCTA). The report is the result of the Biden-Harris Administrations April 2021 Initial Actions to Address the Gun Violence, which called for the creation of an annual report on firearms trafficking. The May 17 release is the first volume in a planned four-volume series.

Despite the presidential mandate, the first volume of the NFCTA is long on commerce and short on trafficking. Most of the document is a collection and presentation of firearm industry data that is available elsewhere. To the extent that the document is a convenient compilation of firearm industry data, it is useful. Gun rights supporters inclined to delve into the 308-page document will find much of interest.

Those who appreciate Second Amendment rights will be less enthused by portions of the document devoted to touting ATFs recent controversial regulatory moves and the frequent editorializing.

The document spends significant space defending ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F concerning the Definition of Frame or Receiver and Identification of Firearms, which seeks to make it more difficult for Americans to exercise their longstanding right to make their own firearms for personal use. NRA-ILA filed extensive comments opposing ATFs perversion of federal law, which readers can examine here.

Likewise, the NFCTA attempts to justify ATF Proposed Rule 2021R-08 Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces. That rule seeks to re-classify millions of commonly-owned pistols as short-barreled rifles, items that are required to be registered under the National Firearms Act, based on the pistols being equipped with a stabilizing brace that allows for more accurate one-handed shooting. NRA-ILA also filed comments on this rule, which can be read here.

Some of ATFs editorializing makes it into what should otherwise be a straightforward presentation of facts. Consider the following passage on Constitutional Carry:

Permit-less Concealed Firearm Carry

Following the issuance of the Heller decision, several states enacted statutes allowing the concealed carrying of firearms without a permit, often referred to as "constitutional carry" states. These permit-less concealed firearm carry laws allow any person lawfully allowed to possess a firearm to also carry that firearm in a concealed manner. In 2008, Vermont became the first state to enact one of these statutes, and as of the writing of this report an additional 23 states have enacted similar statutes. These changes in state laws continue the expansion of concealed firearm carry abilities first from "may issue" to "shall issue" and then to an automatic right to carry a concealed firearm for non-prohibited persons.

Vermont did not enact Constitutional Carry in 2008. Rather, the state never prohibited the practice of carrying a concealed firearm. Vermonters Right-to-Carry without first obtaining government permission was affirmed in the 1903 case of State v. Rosenthal, where a plaintiff challenged a local ordinance that prohibited the carrying of pistols, among other items, within the city without the express approval of the mayor or chief of police. The Vermont Supreme Court determined that the ordinance was so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the laws of the state and therefore void. Moreover, Alaska recognized the Right-to-Carry without a permit in 2003.

An innocent mistake by those who purport to be the nations foremost experts in firearms law? Maybe. Or maybe those seeking to restrict gun rights are determined to undermine the historical legitimacy of permitless carry and are reluctant to acknowledge that the vast majority of Vermonts conspicuously peaceful existence coincided with the state having almost no gun control.

Where the NFCTA verges directly into gun control advocacy is in its recommendations section.

As to be expected with any bureaucracy, the several recommendations are aimed at increasing the agencys budget, power, and regulatory footprint. While some of the recommendations are rather benign, others could have a severe impact on gun owners.

For instance, ATF recommends a change to the criteria governing curio or relic firearms, and therefore the types of firearms collectors would be able to obtain using a Type 03 FFL. At present, 27 CFR 478.11 defines C&R firearms to include Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof.

Seeking to further regulate the transfer of firearms that fall into that category, ATF stated, DOJ should review the C&R criteria in 27 C.F.R. 478 to determine if the more than 50 years old factor is still valid in determining that a firearm is truly a curio or relic. ATF goes on to whine about the types of firearms that have more recently become C&Rs. Tellingly, ATF doesnt allege that the current C&R scheme has had a detrimental effect on public safety.

Another ATF recommendation is for increased hiring of Industry Operations Investigators. IOIs are tasked with performing compliance inspections on Federal Firearms Licensees (gun dealers). ATF is seeking to more than double the number of field IOIs from 655 to 1,509.

This demand for more IOIs must be viewed in the context of the ongoing war on FFLs.

On June 23, 2021, the Biden-Harris Administration announced a new policy of zero tolerance for rogue gun dealers that willfully violate the law. The policy further specified that [a]bsent extraordinary circumstances that would need to be justified to the Director, ATF will seek to revoke the licenses of dealers the first time that they violate federal law . . . for certain specified violations.

This zero tolerance policy can result in the revocation of a well-meaning gun dealers license for minor mistakes, including simple paperwork errors. The new zero tolerance policy has a clear aim of reducing the number of federally licensed dealers, which will in turn make it more difficult for law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. More than doubling the number of bureaucrats tasked with carrying out Bidens confused anti-gun scheme would further this attack on gun rights.

Unsatisfied with its limited ability to produce gun control advocacy, of which the NFCTA is an example, ATF recommends the creation of a permanent Analytics Division. The document noted that Analysis generated by the Analytics Division should be incorporated into publications designed for distribution to firearm industry members, policymakers, and the general public. As with the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions efforts in the 1980s and 90s, ATF appears intent on using taxpayer resources to advocate for gun regulation and its own power.

If this vague recommendation and other portions of the NFCTA have the distinct flavor of previous taxpayer-funded attacks on gun rights, thats because the document was produced in partnership with a veritable whos who of anti-gun researchers. With CDCs anti-gun advocacy funding restriction and fading reputation, these academics may be searching for another trough to gorge at.

The acknowledgements section of the NFCTA explains, The heart of this project is a unique partnership between ATF and members of academic institutions. The document then goes on to list those who contributed immeasurably to the report. This list includes such longtime gun control advocates/researchers as Anthony Braga, Philip J. Cook, and Garen J. Wintemute. Also included is Alaina De Biasi of the California Firearm Violence Research Center (that states taxpayer-funded gun control propaganda outfit).

Braga and Cook have both advocated for the imposition of severe gun control measures. In a December 2000 working paper titled Gun Control, the pair promoted a prohibitive federal tax on guns and ammunition. Acknowledging that such a tax would price lower-income individuals out of exercising their rights, the researchers wrote, we recognize that this tax is repressive, and will be particularly burdensome on poorer people who want a gun. Braga and Cook also endorsed federal legislation to criminalize the private transfer of firearms and contended that the government should advance devices to personalize guns, commonly understood as so-called smart gun technology.

The researchers looked favorably on the use of frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers as a form of leverage to secure acquiescence to state gun control measures. In endorsing public policy by lawfare, the two recalled events in one state, noting, the plaintiff's lawyers were successful in improving the terms of political trade by changing the status quo, and the result, while still quite moderate, went farther to control guns than otherwise would have been possible. The paper also endorsed state gun rationing schemes.

In a 1981 article for the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology titled, The Saturday Night Special: An Assessment of Alternative Definitions from a Policy Perspective, Cook argued in favor of the efficacy of a ban on the manufacture and sale of small handguns. In a 1995 piece for the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Cook advised, Gun shows should be regulated or abolished.

Perhaps best known to gun owners for having spent years skulking around gun shows with a hidden camera, Wintemute is the Director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis - which is the site of Californias state-funded anti-gun factoid factory. Wintemute is a vocal critic of the CDC anti-gun advocacy funding restriction and has previously collaborated with handgun prohibition organization the Violence Policy Center.

There is no indication on when the remaining volumes of the NFCTA will be published. However, a reasonable person might expect this anti-gun collaboration to be wrapped up before January 3, 2023 the date the 118th Congress will be seated.

Continued here:
ATF Partners with Anti-gun Researchers to Expand Agency's Power - NRA ILA

Looking at the Bucs.

It frightens Joe to think that Tom Bradys two more trusted targets may not be with the Bucs to begin the season, and may miss a lot of time.

A guy who has a backchannel for intel from One Buc Palace, former Bucs defensive tackle and current BSPN talking head Booger McFarland, said recently that Bucs receiver Chris Godwin should not be expected to return until after Thanksgiving. Yikes.

And then there is the will he/wont he drama from foot-rubbing tight end Rob Gronkowski. If he doesnt return, hes done, that is it. The Bucs playing without Godwin maybe until the final month of the season and without Gronk? That gives Joe the shivers.

Well, per Daylight-Savings-Time-scared, crossword-puzzle-puzzled, Elon-Musk-peeved, Barstool-Sports-triggered, almond-milk-sipping, hot-dog-eating-contest-protesting, mock-draft-scowling,L.L.-Bean-wearing, tennis fans advocate, Second Amendment abolitionist,Mike-Florio-arguing,parrot-insensitive,chewing-with-his-mouth-open,soup-gulping,California-train-romancing, anti-football proliferation,outhouse-admiring,airline-napping,steerage-flying,Yogi Berra-worshiping,urinal-picture-taking,video-game-playing,Taylor-Swift-listening,pickpocket-thwarting,Bucs-uniform-frowning, Allie LaForce-smitten, Big-Ten-Network-hating,pedestrian-bumping,olive oil-lapping,popcorn-munching,coffee-slurping,fried-chicken-eating,oatmeal-loving,circle-jerking, craft-beer-chugging, cricket-watching,scone-loathing,college football-nave,baseball-box-score-reading,NPR-honk,filthy-hotel-staying,fight-instigating,barista-training, Budweiser-tolerant,baseball-scorecard-keeping, pasta-feasting, vomit-dodging scrooge, Kay-Adams-following, Coors-Light-souring, pineapple-upside-down-cake-eating social activist and NFL insider Peter King of NBC Sports fame, Joe and all Bucs fans should get the shivers.

King put out his team rankings Nos 1-32 this morning and he has the Bucs at No. 6, behind both the Rams and the Packers. A big reason is Godwins unknown status. King likely would have dropped the Bucs a few more spots if he knew Gronk was retiring.

6. Tampa Bay (14-5, lost in the divisional round to the Rams)

I could have put the Bucs ahead of Green Bay. Maybe I should have. I just dont take for granted that 45-year-old Brady will just pick up where he left off. Even with bottom-feeders Carolina and Atlanta to get fat off, the Bucs will be seriously challenged by the Saints (4-0 versus Brady and Tampa in the regular season in the last two years) for division supremacy, even post-Payton. It worries me, too, that both starting guards, Ali Marpet and Alex Cappa, left in the offseason. Bradys a statue, and anything that affects his protection is an issue. Career backup Aaron Stinnie and ex-Pat Shaq Mason have big jobs to do at left and right guard.

Have you noticed a trend in the NFC? Every top contender is somehow diminished. The Rams without Von Miller and maybe Beckham. The Packers without Davante Adams. Dallas without Amari Cooper and Randy Gregory. The Saints without long-time coach Sean Payton. Arizona without Chandler Jones, Christian Kirk and, for a six-game suspension, DeAndre Hopkins. The Bucs are part of that trend. Theyve got two new guards protecting Brady, Rob Gronkowskis future is uncertain, and they might be without Chris Godwinrecovering from Jan. 3 ACL surgeryat the start of the season.

The Bucs scored 30 points a game last year, thanks in large part to the chemistry between Brady and Chris Godwin. In his last two full games last season, Godwin was targeted 32 times by Brady and caught 25 passes. Were all used to Brady figuring it out with whoever he has to catch the ball, and hell still have Mr. Reliable, Mike Evans. But if Gronk and Godwin are missing in September yikes. The Bucs open at Dallas, at New Orleans, Green Bay home and Kansas City home. Not too friendly.

Its impossible to not like Tampa Bay. The Bucs are 30-9 since Brady walked on campus, and hes still here, coming off leading the NFL in passing yards. I doubt the coaching change to Todd Bowles will be much of a factor. The schedule might be the biggest factor of all. Other than four against the Panthers and Cards and one against Seattle, I dont see any fluff.

Joe does believe there will be a difference between former Bucs Super Bowl-winning coach Bucco Bruce Arians and Todd Bowles. How could there not be? But that may only be a difference of a game, maybe two.

Godwin missing time is bad and the longer he is out the worse it is for the Bucs. If Gronk throws in the towel, then the Bucs are looking at Cam Brate (solid receiver, not a blocker) and two rookies at tight end, or the free agent market.

Not very comforting.

Read the original post:
Peter King Is Worried About Chris Godwin (And Rob Gronkowski, Too) - Joe Bucs Fan