Category Archives: Second Amendment

A bipartisan House bill that would for the first time require New Hampshire to report some mental health records to a federal firearms background check database is up for its first Senate hearing on Tuesday.

The legislation appears to have divided even the staunchest Republican gun rights advocates in the legislature, with some warning the bill is a red flag law in disguise and others pointing to recent tragedies to justify its passage.

HB 1711, also known as The Chief Bradley Haas Mental Health Firearms Reporting Act, is named after the unarmed New Hampshire hospital security guard killed by a gunman in Concord last November. The legislation would authorize the state to report mental health data for firearms background check purposes.

Additionally, the proposal provides for processes for the confiscation of firearms following certain mental health-related court proceedings and for relief from mental health-related firearms disabilities.

The bill is nothing but a gun control measure, state Rep. JR Hoell (R-Dunbarton) told NHJournal. Hoell is a member of the board of the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, and he voted against the bill when it passed the House 204-149.

The intent is to disarm law-abiding citizens under the guise of mental health, Hoell told NHJournal. Mentally ill patients arent criminals, and this bill uses rare exceptions to create a process that could be used to disarm anybody.

Another Granite State Second Amendment organization, the Womens Defense League, has issued an alert to its members to oppose the bill, calling it one of the most draconian gun control bills that has ever been pushed by a Republican in the history of New Hampshire. [Emphasis in original]. A huge red flag is that this bill is co-sponsored by one of the biggest gun control pushers in the legislature, Rep. David Meuse (D-Portsmouth).

While 25 Republicans voted for the legislation, one of the bills chief sponsors embattled state Rep. Jon Stone (R-Claremont) actually voted against it.

Recently released documents show Stone, a former police officer, was dismissed from his job in 2006 amid allegations of an inappropriate relationship with an underage girl. While under scrutiny over those allegations, Stone threatened to kill fellow police officers, murder his chief, and rape the chiefs wife and children.

Just prior to voting no on his own legislation, the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition sent several mailers opposing the bill to voters in Stones district.

Stone did not respond to requests for comment.

Meanwhile, one Republican who voted in favor, state Rep. Bob Lynn (R-Windham), told NHJournal fears that its a red flag gun law are unfounded. He pointed out that federal law already bars individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility from buying or possessing guns. The legislation in question, according to Lynn, brings New Hampshire into compliance with federal law.

Ive testified against most anti-gun bills, but I think this one is different, Lynn said, adding that hes been a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association since he was 14 years old.

Lynn said the proposed law was carefully written to ensure that Granite State judges would not have sole discretion over whether or not individuals will be allowed to legally possess a gun.

In this case, the judges responsibility is determining whether or not an individuals mental health requires institutionalization, not whether they have the right to have a gun, Lynn said. There are a lot of judges I know of who dont think the Second Amendment is very important, but most judges even if they hate guns theyre not going to have someone institutionalized against their will just to take away their right to carry.

Lynn served as a chief justice for the New Hampshire Supreme Court. He added there are some minor tweaks hed like to see the Senate make, including replacing the word may with shall when it comes to one of the bills provisions allowing individuals to petition the court to return their gun after their mental health status improves.

Rep. Terry Roy (R-Deerfield), another lead sponsor, insisted the bill doesnt take away a citizens right to carry.

So in my mind, a red flag law takes away firearms rights from someone who already possesses firearms rights, Roy told NHJournal. This doesnt take them away, but the moment that person is committed to a psychiatric institution under federal law, theyre prohibited from carrying. This just recognizes whats already occurred.

Roy referenced the mass shooting that occurred in Lewiston, Maine, about a month before Haas was gunned down in New Hampshire. The shooter, Robert Card, had a documented history of mental health issues and once shared with police his intention of shooting up a nearby military base. No actions were taken and Card went on to kill 18 people and wound 13 others.

According to New Hampshire State Police, Haass killer was once a psychiatric patient at the same hospital where Haas worked.

Asked what hed tell his GOP colleagues and Second Amendment rights activists who are opposed to the bill, Roys answer was blunt.

Id ask them, What are you suggesting? That we allow dangerous mental health patients to carry firearms?

Kim Morin, president of the Womens Defense League of New Hampshire, told NHJournal shes not convinced.

Its another gun control bill, its confiscation, and its not solving the underlying issue that they claim it is, she said. This will not stop criminals or the mentally ill from getting a firearm and its especially discriminatory against lawful gun owners.

Morin said the real issue is making sure that mentally ill persons receive the right treatment.

Stop juicing people up on psychotropic drugs, she added. This is an emotionally-driven bill based on a tragedy involving an unarmed security guard who wasnt able to defend himself, and something like that has never before happened in our state.

Asked what shed tell lawmakers like Roy who support the bill, Morin likewise didnt mince words.

You take an oath when you are elected to office to uphold the constitution, she said. Whats going on here is the exact opposite.

Both Roy and Morin are slated to testify on the bill during Thursdays Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m.

View original post here:
Mental Health Firearms Bill Divides Second Amendment Supporters in State House - NH Journal

BISMARCK On Thursday, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) announced its Engaged in the Business Final Rule, significantly expanding the criteria for who is considered a firearms dealer under federal law with profound implications for gun ownership. This costly, burdensome rule infringes on Second Amendment rights, while unlawfully expanding background check requirements and circumventing established exceptions for occasional firearm sellers.

U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) issued the following statement regarding the Biden administrations unconstitutional rule:

Instead of respecting the right to bear arms, the Biden administrations overbearing rule unlawfully subjects occasional sellers to the same rules as large-scale, professional firearms dealers. This is an affront to the Second Amendment, a threat to individual liberties, and a manifestation of a broader agenda to disarm America. It needs to stop.

To justify its decision of the 466-page regulation, the Biden administration has relied on theBipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 (BSCA), which does not contain provisions allowing for the implementation of such an expansive redefinition of who is considered engaged in the business of selling firearms. Upon implementation, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) anticipates approximately 23,000 unlicensed firearms dealers will be affected by the administrations latest regulation.

According to the DOJ, the Final Rule will go into effect 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.

View post:
Biden Administration Unlawfully Expands Background Checks on Firearms Sales - Kevin Cramer

From Third Circuit Judge Cheryl Krause's dissent from denial of rehearing en banc yesterday in Lara v. Commissioner; Judges Shwartz, Restrepo, Freeman, Montgomery-Reeves, and Chung also voted to rehear the case en banc, but didn't write an opinion or join Judge Krause's:

When they ratified the Second Amendment, our Founders did not intend to bind the nation in a straitjacket of 18th-century legislation, nor did they mean to prevent future generations from protecting themselves against gun violence more rampant and destructive than the Founders could have possibly imagined. At a minimum, one would think that the states' understanding of the Second Amendment at the time of the "Second Founding"the moment in 1868 when they incorporated the Bill of Rights against themselvesis part of "the Nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation" informing the constitutionality of modern-day regulations.

Indeed, since the Supreme Court tethered their constitutionality to the existence of historical precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), we and the other Courts of Appeals have consistently looked to Reconstruction-era, as well as Founding-era sources, and, even as the Supreme Court has acknowledged the "ongoing scholarly debate" about their relevance, it too has relied on Reconstruction-era sources in each of its recent major opinions on the right to bear arms. Notably, the Supreme Court is expected within the next few months, if not weeks, to issue its next seminal opinion, clarifying its historical methodology in the absence of Founding-era analogues.

Yet despite our own precedent acknowledging the relevance of Reconstruction-era sources, our recognition in an en banc opinion just last year that the Supreme Court relies on both Founding-era and Reconstruction-era sources, and an imminent decision from the Supreme Court that may prove dispositive to this case, the panel majority here announced over Judge Restrepo's compelling dissentthat all historical sources after 1791 are irrelevant to our Nation's historical tradition and must be "set aside" when seeking out the "historical analogues" required to uphold a modern-day gun regulations. The panel majority then heldbased exclusively on 18th-century militia laws and without regard to the voluminous support the statutory scheme finds in 19th-century analoguesthat Pennsylvania's prohibition on 18-to-20-year-old youth carrying firearms in public during statewide emergencies is unconstitutional.

The panel majority was incorrect, but more importantly, it erred profoundly in the methodology to which it purports to bind this entire Court and with far-reaching consequences. Against this backdrop, we should be granting Pennsylvania'spetition for en banc review, supported by 17 other states and the District of Columbia as amici, or at least holding it c.a.v. pending the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rahimi. But instead, over the objection of nearly half our Court, we are denying it outright.

I respectfully dissent from that denial for four reasons. First, without en banc review, the panel majority's pronouncement cannot bind future panels of this Court. We have held Reconstruction-era sources to be relevant in decisions both before and after Bruen so, under our case law and our Internal Operating Procedures, en banc rehearing is necessary before any subsequent panel can bind our Court to a contrary position. Second, en banc review would allow us to apply the proper historical methodology, which would compel a different outcome in this case. Third, en banc review is necessary for error correction: Even if we limit ourselves to Founding-era sources, the panel failed to recognize that legislatures in that era were authorized to categorically disarm groups they reasonably judged to pose a particular risk of danger, and Pennsylvania's modern-day judgment that youth under the age of 21 pose such a risk is well supported by evidence subject to judicial notice. And fourth, the majority's narrow focus on the Founding era demands rehearing because it ignores the Supreme Court's recognition that "cases implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes may require a more nuanced approach." For each of these reasons, discussed in turn below, en banc review should be granted.

The entire dissenting opinion is much worth reading, as is the panel majority opinion that held that 18-to-20-year-olds are protected by the Second Amendment; an excerpt:

Through the combined operation of three statutes, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania effectively bans 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms outside their homes during a state of emergency. Madison Lara, Sophia Knepley, and Logan Miller, who were in that age range when they filed this suit, want to carry firearms outside their homes for lawful purposes, including self-defense. The words "the people" in the Second Amendment presumptively encompass all adult Americans, including 18-to-20-year-olds, and we are aware of no founding-era law that supports disarming people in that age group. Accordingly, we will reverse and remand.

The Commissioner [argues] that, "[a]t the time of the Foundingand, indeed, for most of the Nation's historythose who were under the age of 21 were considered 'infants' or 'minors' in the eyes of the law[,]" "mean[ing] that they had few independent legal rights." True enough, from before the founding and through Reconstruction, those under the age of 21 were considered minors.

Notwithstanding the legal status of 18-to-21-year-olds during that period, however, the Commissioner's position is untenable for three reasons. First, it supposes that the first step of a Bruen analysis requires excluding individuals from "the people" if they were so excluded at the founding. That argument conflates Bruen's two distinct analytical steps. Although the government is tasked with identifying a historical analogue at the second step of the Bruen analysis, we are not limited to looking through that same retrospective lens at the first step. If, at step one, we were rigidly limited by eighteenth century conceptual boundaries, "the people" would consist of white, landed men, and that is obviously not the state of the law.

Second, it does not follow that, just because individuals under the age of 21 lacked certain legal rights at the founding, they were ex ante excluded from the scope of "the people." As then-Judge Barrett explained, "[n]either felons nor the mentally ill are categorically excluded from our national community." But "[t]hat does not mean that the government cannot prevent them from possessing guns. Instead, it means that the question is whether the government has the power to disable the exercise of a right that they otherwise possess."

Third, consistency has a claim on us. It is undisputed that 18-to-20-year-olds are among "the people" for other constitutional rights such as the right to vote, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, government petitions, and the right against unreasonable government searches and seizures. [W]holesale exclusion of 18-to-20-year-olds from the scope of the Second Amendment would impermissibly render "the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.'"

Read the original:
The Second Amendment and 18-to-20-Year-Olds - Reason

Urgent Call to Action! Oppose H.J.R. 1034, Unless Amended!

Proposed Changes to Article II Section 26 of the Oklahoma Constitution are Being Brought Forth that are Inconstant with the Nations First Principles and Places Infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in the Final Stages of Approval!

In short order, the Oklahoma Senate Rules Committee will be holding a hearing on House Joint Resolution 1034, which proposes submitting to the people of Oklahoma a ballot initiative to amend Article II, Section 26 of the Oklahoma Constitution, titled Bearing arms Carrying Weapons.

Gun Owners of America appreciates the intent of the sponsors to strengthen protections within the Oklahoma Constitution, but there are too many concerns, as currently drafted, that would actually undermine rather than support the right to bear arms within Oklahoma.

Given the very real consequences for the citizenry of any effort to modify foundation legal compact, such an endeavor requires the drafters to be intentional in choosing their words by employ language that contains legal precision so that rouge courts and politicians cannot create regulation or edicts that take advantage of vagueness within the law.

We have already witnessed the disastrous consequences of the deluge of anti-liberty forces and their continual assault upon the with the right to keep and bear within the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the right has never been under greater assault across the nation then it is in our time. Hence the importance of maintaining a solemn bearing of exactness in language, which ensures that there is certainty within the mind of the citizenry about what the constitution says in plain English.

Lastly, but most importantly, the language of the constitution must maintain fidelity to the First Principle of the nation. For reasons covered within GOAs testimony, the right of Oklahomans to keep and bear arms stands on unstable legal grounds due to the original 1907 language, as well as subsequent Oklahoma court precedents that were clear deviations from the original internet of the right in the Federal Compact. Any ground that has been gain in recent years has occurred within the state statutes. Meaning that, at any point, a legislature that does maintain loyalty to the tenets that lay at the heart of our nations laws could arbitrarily reverse those gains by merely changing the statutes with a simple majority.

Given that the singular duty of a just government is to safeguard the liberties of the citizenry and to provide justice, we must maintain fidelity to the noble aim of ensuring the furtherance of prudent government.

Our rights are not only self-evidently true, but they are also endowed upon us by or Creator. Thus, they are not a grant by the government, nor can they be stripped away by any earthly power. That timeless truth is such, regardless of whether the infringing misconduct is instigated by a lawless individual or by the actions of an unjust government.

Consequently, we need to aggressively, but respectfully, fight with the pen (or keyboard), because a government that forces the citizenry to ask permission before exercising their God-given rights or, through a convoluted web of edicts and regulations, denies the citizenry their essential liberties, is one that views our cherished freedoms as mere privileges to be revoked at their impulsive authoritarian whims.

As introduced, the new subsections A and C must be amended to align H.J.R. 1034 with the original intent of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and with the first principles that the amendment was drafted to protect.

Additionally, the new subsection B should be stuck in its entirety from the resolution. Subsection B is unconstitutional as written and contains clear deviations that places the new language in direct conflict with the Federal Compact, as well as significant Supreme Court precedents.

Please review GOAs in-depth opposition testimony for information that provides more context detailing our significant concerns about the dangerous nature language of H.J.R. 1034.

Therefore, it is imperative that you take action now in order to preserve our God-given rights and let your voice be heard.

Continue reading here:
OK: Oppose H.J.R. 1034, Unless Amended! | GOA - Gun Owners of America

A new review of artificial intelligence chatbots popular with students, reporters, and researchers shows a liberal bias on crime and guns in a trend likely to turn even further left with todays announcement that Seattle-based Amazon is planning to invest $2.7 billion into artificial intelligence.

On some of the most controversial crime and gun issues, current popular AI rewriters and research tools show little love for conservative positions in bending in favor of an anti-gun and crime reform agenda.

The Crime Prevention Research Center, which has produced dozens of reports aimed at balancing the medias anti-gun bias, recently tested 20 AI chatbots by asking sixteen questions on crime and gun control and ranked the answers from liberal to conservative.

President John R. Lott Jr. said the results revealed a left-wing bias on questions that the systems answered.

On just one question, did the average answer score moderately conservative. That was on whether gun buybacks cut crime. On a zero to four scale, with two at the mid-point, it scored a 2.22. Answers to the rest were in the liberal 0-2 range.

For all the questions on crime, the average AI chatbot score is liberal, with answers for punishment versus rehabilitation (0.85), whether illegal aliens increase crime (0.89), and the death penalty as deterrence (1.00), creating the most consistently liberal responses, per Lotts report, which was shared with Secrets.

For example, 10 of the 16 AI chatbots responded that they strongly disagreed that punishment is more important than rehabilitation. Six of the 14 strongly disagreed that illegal immigration increases crime, and all the other eight disagreed. Nine of the 16 who answered the question on the death penalty strongly disagreed that it deterred crime, and five others disagreed, he added.

On gun control, the bias is even worse, he said in a post published on RealClearPolitics.

Questions eliciting the most liberal responses are background checks on private transfers of guns (0.83), gunlock requirements (0.89), and Red Flag confiscation laws (0.89). For background checks on private transfers, all the answers express agreement (15) or strong agreement (3). Similarly, all the chatbots either agree or strongly agree that mandatory gunlocks and Red Flag laws save lives, the report said.

While polls show support for those measures, it is not as high as the chatbots suggest.

At issue, said Lott, is the degree to which research papers and media reports on crime and guns are written by AI or through AI filters and how it could skew the presentation left.

SEE THE LATEST POLITICAL NEWS AND BUZZ FROM WASHINGTON SECRETS

But, he added, most who use online search engines such as Google are already getting a liberal view.

I am sure that reporters already use Google search a lot, and that is already similarly very biased, Lott told Secrets.

Read the original:
Chatbots like crime, hate firearms: A Second Amendment study - Washington Examiner

Demonstrators clashed at Western Kentucky University, in Bowling Green, on Wednesday, March 27, outside a student event hosting Kyle Rittenhouse, who famously shot and killed two people at a Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest in 2020.

The university chapter of the conservative nonprofit Turning Point USA hosted the on-campus event, where Rittenhouse was set to speak about the importance of the Second Amendment and the lies of BLM.

In 2020, Rittenhouse shot three people at a BLM protest in Wisconsin, killing two of them. He pleaded self-defense and was acquitted in 2021.

Footage taken by Brendan Gutenschwager shows protesters outside the speechs venue holding signs reading Fascists Not Welcome in BG, amid loud chanting and a heated exchange between two men, with one shouting, It has nothing to do with race.

The other responds, It has everything to do with race!" Credit: Brendan Gutenschwager via Storyful

- Everybody [INAUDIBLE].

- Make it make sense. Make it make sense. It's the Second Amendment? OK.

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

- Does it give Kyle the right to kill two people?

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

- Does it give him the right to kill two people?

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

- How does it have to do with--

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

- How does it have to do with--

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

- Because you have your Second Amendment rights.

- Has nothing to do with race.

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

- It does not give you a right--

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

- Get over yourself.

- Hey, OK, so look, look, they've-- OK.

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

- I got you.

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

- Let me help you out here.

- Do something.

- Is it OK if I come to your state, right--

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

- Let me find out. Let me find out she--

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

- --going shoot you.

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

- Is that OK?

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

- I appreciate it.

- And I got--

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

- You go to go.

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

- OK. So let me--

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

Read more:
'It Has Everything to Do With Race': Protesters Clash Outside Kyle Rittenhouse Event - Yahoo News UK

Governor Mark Gordon signed four bills today that strengthen Wyomings status as a Second-Amendment friendly state. The Governor signedSF0073 - Concealed firearms-permit eligibility,SF0105 - Wyoming Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act,SF0109 - Prohibit Red Flag Gun Seizure Act., andSF0086 - School safety and security-funding.

SF0105 protects the privacy and sensitive financial information of people purchasing firearms, firearms parts, or ammunition in Wyoming by prohibiting credit card processors from using firearms or firearm-related merchant category codes. It also prohibits government or private entities from keeping any registry of privately-owned firearms or the owners of those firearms created or maintained through the use of a firearms code.

SF0109 prohibits red flag gun laws from being enforced or implemented in Wyoming, while SF0073 amends the concealed carry permit regulations to make those who have had their firearms rights restored, eligible. SF0086 creates an account to reimburse school districts for costs related to possession of firearms on school property by school district employees.

The Governor vetoedHB0125 - Repeal gun free zones and preemption amendmentsdue to concerns that HB0125 exceeds the separation of powers embodied in Article 2 of ourWyoming Constitution.If the bill were enacted, any specific policy, further regulation, or clarification of the law could only be implemented by the Legislature.

House Bill 125/Enrolled Act No. 49, erodes historic local control norms by giving sole authority to the Legislature to micromanage a constitutionally protected right, Governor Gordon wrote in his veto letter. Any further clarification of the law, if this bill were enacted, would augment the Legislatures reach into local firearms regulation.

The Governor noted the bill would require each state facility, such as the University of Wyoming, Wyoming State Hospital, or the Wyoming Boys School, to receive legislative approval to restrict carrying firearms, or even to set policies as practical as proper weapon storage. It would also repeal the statute that has allowed school districts to establish specific policies allowing concealed carry in their districts.

Every piece of legislation must stand for critical review, particularly those affecting our constitutional rights, the Governor wrote. As delivered to my desk, this bill lacks sufficient review and debate. A bill covering such a sensitive topic does not lend itself to successive tweaks to correct flaws, and therefore I believe the Legislature should be open to debating and fully working this bill through its established processes.

The Governor concluded he will direct the State Building Commission to begin a process to reconsider rules to allow concealed carry permit holders to exercise their rights within the Capitol and other appropriate state facilities. That process will involve significant public input.

The Governors veto letter may be foundhere.

Original post:
Gordon Signed Four Second Amendment Bills, Vetoed Another - WyoToday.com

CHEYENNE, Wyo. On Friday, March 22, Governor Gordon signed four bills in support of the second amendment, while vetoing House Bill 125, which would eliminate gun safe zones in schools and hospitals.

Gordon signed SF0073 Concealed firearms-permit eligibility,SF0105 Wyoming Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act,SF0109 Prohibit Red Flag Gun Seizure Act andSF0086 School safety and security-funding, in order to strengthen Wyomings status as a Second-Amendment friendly state, according to the announcement from his office.

According to the Governors Office, Senate File 105 protects the privacy and sensitive financial information of people purchasing firearms, firearms parts or ammunition in Wyoming by prohibiting credit card processors from using firearms or firearm-related merchant category codes. It also prohibits government or private entities from keeping any registry of privately owned firearms.

Senate File 109 prohibits red flag gun laws from being enforced or implemented in Wyoming. The Red Flag Law, also known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order law, prevents individuals showing signs of being a threat to themselves or others from purchasing or possessing any kind of firearm.

Senate File 73 amends concealed carry permit regulations to allow those who have had their firearms taken away to be eligible to have their gun rights restored. The bill states that applications for a permit to carry a concealed firearm will be distributed by the division of criminal investigation and local law enforcement agencies.

Senate File 86 creates an account to reimburse school districts for costs related to possession of firearms on school property by school district employees.

Gordon emphasized his support of firearms in Wyoming but cited Article 2 of the Wyoming Constitution in his opposition of HB0125 Repeal gun free zones and preemption amendments. He said that the bill exceeds the separation of powers in local and state government.

I am a fervent supporter of the Second AmendmentHowever, House Bill 125/Enrolled Act No. 49, erodes historic local control norms by giving sole authority to the Legislature to micromanage a constitutionally protected right, Governor Gordon wrote in his veto letter. Any further clarification of the law, if this bill were enacted, would augment the Legislatures reach into local firearms regulation.

The Governor noted the bill would require each state facility, such as the University of Wyoming, Wyoming State Hospital or the Wyoming Boys School, to receive legislative approval to restrict carrying firearms, or even to set policies including proper weapon storage. It would also repeal the statute that has allowed school districts to establish specific policies allowing concealed carry in their districts.

With the repeal of the bill, state, county and town governments can regulate or ban concealed firearms in public spaces, including schools and hospitals.

According to the Governors Office, House Bill 125 needs more input, discussion and review. The State Building Commission will begin a process to reconsider rules to allow concealed carry permit holders to exercise their rights within the Capitol and other appropriate state facilities. That process will involve public input.

Every piece of legislation must stand for critical review, particularly those affecting our constitutional rights, the Governor wrote. As delivered to my desk, this bill lacks sufficient review and debate.A bill covering such a sensitive topic does not lend itself to successive tweaks to correct flaws, and therefore I believe the Legislature should be open to debating and fully working this bill through its established processes.

The Governors veto letter can be seenhere.

See more here:
Governor signs firearm bills, vetoes bill to repeal gun-free zones - Buckrail

Let me take a moment to educate the masses, so to speak not to exclude constitutionalists who spend the vast majority of their time analyzing and dissecting each word and phrase in every amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

There exists a formal and dignified principle that, although unstated, is nevertheless etched in stone. Its non-negotiable. Its cold-blooded, hard-boiled fact. The Second Amendment protects all the rest.

Write that on the bedroom mirror so its the first thing you see when you get out of bed in the morning. Attach it to the door of the refrigerator within which is stored the nutrients nutrients that not only nourish your body but also give you the ability to exercise your mind. Nail it to the blackboard (OK, traditionalist I am) in the classroom that your kids attend so that no socialist-indoctrinated chowderhead can erase it and replace it with some sort of Mandan manifesto hogwash.

Understand, please, that once the Second Amendment is toast (done and dusted, to cite an old Scottish clich) and your right to possess and use firearms is effectively gone, the United States spontaneously becomes Cuba or North Korea or Venezuela or China or Argentina or Australia or Canada? OK, omit the last one, although the tyrannical Trudeau delights in shoving his weight around clamping down on freedoms once naturally assumed by Canadians.

No, I dont claim to be an oracle in any sense, able to see into the future and predict the unraveling of events. That is risky business. But, when my wife said to me, Congratulations, you were certainly right about that, her tone reflected a hint of disappointment that precluded my taking her comment as praise. Her reference, incidentally, was to my prediction that the $80 billion in weaponry left in Afghanistan would end up being used against us perhaps in the Middle East.

Despite claims to the contrary by Biden administration officials, including Jake Sullivan (who knows less about foreign policy than does your average CNN or MSNBC pundit) and John Kirby (who manages to come up with a feeble excuse for every boneheaded decision the Biden crew makes), documentation proves that Hamas gunmen had access to that very arsenal. Anyone who is surprised about that result is much too stupid to deserve a cabinet position in the US military.

But, unabashed ignorance appears in vogue nowadays especially on college and university campuses where liberal professors have corrupted the minds of helpless students whose (im)moral compass knows not which way to turn. The rising tide of anti-semitism (taking the side of terrorists who delight in raping women, burning people alive, and beheading mere children) should stand as a clarifying moment for the country. Its a sign of sheer irrationality. Still, why expect anything different given evidence that recent graduates cant read (beyond fifth-grade level), cant write (aside from crude text messages), cant add (absent computer assistance), and cant subtract (5 - 2 = 4)? Critical thinking skills? In your dreams.

Yes, the rot that defines higher education has been made possible by Harvard-type elites and corporate CEOs (Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.) who are complicit in its destruction (financial contributions and woke foolishness run amok). Public institutions K-12 are failing, also evidenced by poor performance (near the bottom) in key subject areas compared to other industrialized nations ... which may have something to do with the prolonged disinvestment in history and civics education (averaging $0.05 per pupil).

Frankly, what I find most incredibly shameful and alarming is this. At a time when politics (and politicians?) are more divisive than ever, when America is being torn apart by a myriad of societal issues, when the (social) media is a hotbed of impassioned (misinformed and disinformed) opinion, and when youth are more visible as advocates and activists than ever before (incomprehensible Hamas demonstrations notwithstanding), the knowledge of and appreciation for our countrys history is demonstrably at a dangerously low ebb.

Which tells me that our gratitude and gratefulness for constitutional amendments (freedom of speech, especially) is fleeting if not in dire peril and makes it more crucial than ever that folks understand that the Second Amendment protects all the rest.

More here:
Second Amendment protects the rest | Commentary | norfolkdailynews.com - Norfolk Daily News

It is hard to tell which of the following Colorado Democrats hate more: the Second Amendment, or local control of government. A newly drafted bill sponsored by Dems allows them to continue to attack both.

Fewer than three years ago, Sen. Sonja Jaquez Lewis of Longmont, Sen. Chris Kolker of Littleton and Sen. Tom Sullivan of Centennial, all Democrats, voted with their party to blow up Colorados long-standing law which ensured a predictable, statewide approach to firearm regulation. Senate Bill 21-256, passed by all Democrats, created a patchwork of local gun laws that create confusion for law-abiding gun owners. The change in the law did not change the behavior of gun-toting criminals, but that is not the goal of the modern Democrat blame-the-guns approach to governance. Purportedly libertarian-ish Democrat Gov. Jared Polis signed the bill into law without hesitation.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

SB 21-256 made clear the General Assembly believes (o)fficials of local governments are uniquely equipped to make determinations as to regulations necessary in their local jurisdictions and to make determinations as to where concealed handguns can be carried in their local jurisdictions.

Fewer than 30 months later and without any data to support a change Jacquez Lewis, Kolker and Sullivan have changed their minds and now believe local governments are too stupid to determine what laws are necessary in their communities and too untrustworthy to determine where concealed handguns can be carried. No legislator has yet explained what happened to the uniquely equipped local governments. Once again, Democrats show up to save the day with a solution in search of a problem.

Sans any data let alone new data justifying the need for change the bill drafters hijack local control of the regulation of firearms at parks, playgrounds, rec centers, stadiums for any sport and at every level of competition, amusement parks, carnivals, circuses, water parks and any property in any way connected to local government or the grounds next to it. No joke.

This bill draft is the equivalent of the energy-company-crushing setbacks for oil rigs in Colorado. Remember that one? The proposed ballot measure excluded drilling from so many places by creating setbacks from so many sensitive areas that oil production could have lawfully only occurred in Weld County Sheriff Steve Reamss driveway and nowhere else.

This bill draft seeks to push Colorado toward becoming a statewide sensitive space.

Current law prohibits the open carrying of firearms at a polling place, because it may intimidate, threaten, or coerce voters The new law prohibits concealed carrying of weapons for the exact same reasons. To be clear: these gun-hating Dem law makers believe voters may become intimidated, threatened, scared to death, or worse by firearms they cannot see and do not know are there.

After the property owners suck approach of the special legislative session last year, this years legislature and Polis continue their assault on private property rights with this bill. This would-be legislation would ban carrying firearms at numerous private businesses, organizations and on private property, to include: private colleges; churches, synagogues, or other places of worship unless expressly authorized; private nursing homes; any private hospital or place at which medical or health care services are provided, and others.

The most insidious and potentially life-threatening provision of the law is the intended elimination of local school districts authority to protect the children in their charge. For 20 years, rural districts across Colorado the ones with schools 25-plus minutes from law enforcement response to emergencies have had the ability to provide an on-site, immediate response through highly-trained school faculty. Faculty Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response (FASTER) has trained more than 400 people to carry concealed in their schools across 41 districts in Colorado. The participating schools and school districts have eagerly jumped on the opportunity to better protect their students and faculty. But that is not enough, when it comes to those who hate guns.

Despite not a single bad incident having occurred in the seven years FASTER has been training faculty, the Dems under the Gold Dome appear poised to eliminate it as an option for those communities whose law enforcement protectors are relative eons away.

What could be the penalty for the commission of such damning acts with firearms at sensitive places? In 2021, a concealed carry holder who ran afoul of local gun regulations faced only a civil penalty of no more than $50. The new bill by the same folks who voted in the 2021 bill ups the ante to a criminal misdemeanor and a $250 fine. That's 500% more than the just-enacted bill. There is a bigger question here: If carrying concealed in places prohibited by local or state law is a matter of such supreme importance, that as the bill claims it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, why a small fine? Why no chance for jail and there is none no matter how many times the law is violated?

The answer is obvious. The Democrats in the legislature (and Polis) hate guns and do not value the Second Amendment. Instead, they take any and every opportunity to chisel away at that right.

Whether this draft bill becomes official or not, the one constant in Colorados experience with Democrat-dominant rule in state government is the gun-hating ends always justify the hypocritical means when it comes to hating firearms and infringing on Second Amendment rights.

George Brauchler is the former district attorney for the 18th Judicial District. He also is an Owens Early Criminal Justice Fellow at the Common Sense Institute. He hosts The George Brauchler Show on 710KNUS Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. Follow him on Twitter(X): @GeorgeBrauchler.

See the rest here:
Dems bow to local control on guns then take it away | BRAUCHLER - coloradopolitics.com