Category Archives: Second Amendment

00:30 Gun Grab (20 minutes)

Joe Biden wants a ban on handguns. During off-the-cuff comments yesterday, Biden said that theres simply no basis in terms of self-protection to have a 9-mm handgun. The irony is that when Biden made that comment, he was surrounded by likely dozens of Secret Service agents armed with 9-mm handguns to protect him. Bidens provocative comments are designed to divide America and undermine the U.S. Constitution. Americas founders intended the Second Amendment to be a deterrent against tyrannical government. In America Under Attack, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry writes: The Second Amendment in the U.S. protects the peoples right to bear arms, but for what? The main point was to protect the citizens from government tyranny.

21:30 Stacey Abramss Stooges in Georgia (7 minutes)

Voter turnout in the recent Republican primary in Georgia was much higher than usual. In Georgia, Democrats and Republican voters can vote in primaries. This year, Stacey Abrams, the Democrat, ran uncontestedso there was no Democratic primary. But that didnt stop Democrats from turning out in droves to vote! Many voted in the Republican primary in order to help Republicans who continue to cover up the 2020 election steal.

29:00 Voting Machines Are Vulnerable (6 minutes)

The Washington Post received advance details about a soon-coming report on Dominion voting machines. According to the Post, the report found nine flaws affecting versions of the machine called the Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suite ImageCast X. But these many flaws were in no way exploited during the 2020 presidential electionso says Homeland Securitys Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency.

35:30 Bible Study: God Expects Growth (20 minutes)

If you are not growing in Gods character, you are dying! That principle is taught throughout the Bible. Jesus said branches that dont produce fruit must be lopped off the tree. I discuss how you can produce the fruit God expects.

Subscribe to the Trumpet Daily on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts or by RSS

Download past episodes here.

See the article here:
Why the Founders Established the Second Amendment - theTrumpet.com

Manhattan: After the massacre in a Texas elementary school on the heels of a massacre in a Buffalo supermarket, I thought I may have to pull up stakes and leave this country. Then I thought about it again and realized I dont have to leave, I just have to support the end of the great experiment known as the United States of America.

I want to live in a land that respects the right of women to have autonomy over their own lives and bodies and to have the right to make medical decisions without government interference unless it impacts the health and well-being of fellow citizens. I want to live in a land that follows the same successes as almost all other industrialized nations when it comes to gun violence by enacting strong laws that make it nearly impossible for private citizens to own weapons whose only function is to kill as many living beings as possible. I want to live in a land where truth is truth and alternate facts are not facts at all, but lies. I want to live in a land where common sense prevails rather than the loudest voice. I want to live in a land where citizens do not ignore science even when it leads to their own demise.

Divided we fall. (Shutterstock)

Its time to divide this country into two lands governed separately. Id be happy to live in the United States of Blue and tackle the issues those states have rather than try to compromise with those whose ideology is the polar opposite of mine. Elizabeth Winters

Somerset, N.J.: In the past week, with all the bad news and divisiveness in the United States, former President Donald Trump said our country is going to hell. What he didnt say was that so much of it was because of himself. Instead of fading away and being a bad memory, he and his diminishing following continue to divide the country and try to wreck any progress in our society. When Congress passed the much-needed infrastructure bill with great input from President Biden, Trump said the Republican congresspeople were stupid because it made the Democrats look good. Thats how this egomaniac thinks. He could care less about the betterment of our country. Fortunately, more and more people realize this and he will probably be a non-factor by 2024. Arthur Bressler

Yonkers: This school shooting comes at a perfect time for Democrats. Now they can get the countrys focus off of President Bidens failed handling of gas prices, food prices and baby formula shortages. Ted Bernhardi

Brooklyn: To Voicer Patricia N. Ravel: What you say might work in a perfect world. Not in todays times. To the gun shop owners, money trumps people any day. Imagine these shop owners losing money heaven forbid. Josie Oliveri

Flushing: In Leonard Greenes column (Shame on the NRA, enough is enough, May 29) he speaks about the possibility that if the Founders had known about 30-40 round magazines and mass shootings, they might have thought twice about the Second Amendment. Maybe the Founders were smarter than we realize. The Second Amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, but it does not say all or any type of arms, meaning that some limits on the type of arms can be implied. The conservatives always talk about being textual and not creating rights that the Constitution does not actually include. There is no mention in the Constitution of assault weapons or high-capacity magazines. Isnt it logical to assume that the right to own assault weapons does not exist? Stu Brustein

Weekdays

Catch up on the days top five stories every weekday afternoon.

Staten Island: Mayor Adams, it is not about how the NYPD would handle a shooting incident. Children were murdered because of the lack of action by police officers. You and other mayors will brainstorm to try and solve the gun violence problem. My opinion is that this violence will never be solved. My biggest query is why are answers always looked for after the tragedy? Why were answers not found before the spike in the violence and before the rise in school shootings? There were Columbine and other school shootings and there were no answers. Is it truly possible to stop this? Jeffrey Van Pelt

Smithtown, L.I.: The New York City motto should be Land of the Free and Home of the Very Brave. Allen Brown

Old Bethpage, L.I.: Re Adams wings clipped on school control (June 1): Once again, there is no mention of teachers being part of the governing power of the educational system. This bill says it will prevent appointees from stepping out of line. Really? What does that mean exactly? Why appoint them in the first place? Adams says he is a graduate of city schools. So what!? Is that his claim to fame for deciding policy? I too am a graduate but I dont have the expertise to govern, nor does he. There is an effort to decrease the number of children in a classroom wonderful idea, but where are the empty rooms to accommodate them? There arent any. I really hope that the new appointees know what they are doing for the students and are not being political pawns. Adrienne Horowitz

New Rochelle: To Voicer Betty E. Weisblum: Thank you for your compassionate response to my recent letter. Your comments represent the views of many in our nation and I understand your concerns and your viewpoints. Let me tell you that I am not positing a theocracy. My views are a need for morals and values found in Jesus as the basis for governance and community life. Sadly, it is clear that these have not been followed by leaders, followers or citizens of any nation to the degree that would acerbate and heal many of the problems we face today. Your examples are evidence of this failure as well as the continuing search of many people to exist safely today. Jesus was a rabbinical Jew who formed a new path. We must work together and be God willing surprised by hope. Warren D. Gross

Itasca, Ill.: A friend of mine once wondered if Americas ill-fated commitment in Vietnam led to the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union and kept us out of a deadlier war later. Would several hundred thousand lives saved worldwide be worth the approximately 58,000 American soldiers lost in Vietnam? Id hate to make that argument before a family who lost a loved one in Vietnam, or a veteran still carrying scars from that conflict. Gen. Colin Powell said, No battle plan survives contact with the enemy. America learned that the hard way in the jungles of Vietnam, as did Russia in Afghanistan. Vietnam moments arent unique to the United States, we just land on our feet better. Whatever happens in Ukraine will be messy, but Im guessing most global observers would rather be America than Russia right now. Jim Newton

Hewitt, N.J.: I understand that Billy-Boy de Blasio plans to run for Congress. Who is going to vote for him? Perhaps his wife and kids! Elaine Young

Bronx: I am so tired of Voicers equating a womans right to choose with vaccine requirements. They feel that my body, my choice should apply equally to both situations. What they dont seem to understand is that you cant stand next to or breathe on someone and make them pregnant, whereas you can spread COVID-19, thereby overtaxing our hospital system by not getting vaccinated. One is a public health issue where the good of the many outweighs the desire of the individual. But we are a selfish society and many dont see it that way at all. Remember that with freedom comes responsibility. Dr. Anthony Fauci is right: If polio had struck in todays environment, we would never be able to eradicate it. Carol Webb

See the original post:
Readers sound off on the American experiment, the Second Amendment and Ukraine - New York Daily News

To the editor:

Re: Dont like the Second Amendment, change the Constitution by Bob Foley, column, May 27:

Bob Foley, and The Sun Chronicle, too, displayed an amazing sense of poor timing. Obviously, Foley has strong feelings about the Second Amendment; I believe it is an important amendment, too, so long as those who own guns are responsible hunters, sportsmen, and/or those who want to protect their homes.

Foley should have, however, waited to write his piece until the 19 young children and two teachers were buried and properly mourned.

I do not want guns taken away from responsible owners; I do want it to be more difficult to gain access to guns, especially assault weapons. The boy who shot the children and teachers should not have had easy access to two AR-15s or 300+ rounds of ammunition. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment when weapons were muzzle loaders not when assault weapons could kill 21 in a matter of minutes, if not seconds.

While I agree with Foley that two of the missions of the NRA are to preserve the Second Amendment and promote gun safety rules, it is also one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington that fights gun legislation it feels may be restrictive.

I grew up and worked in Washington, D.C., and had two friends who worked for the NRA in the 1970s and 80s; they would tell you the NRA is not a big spender as far as funding members of Congress; it uses its money strategically to buy attack ads against candidates who support gun control laws. The NRA also uses its grading system to let its base know which members of Congress are pro-guns and those who are not. Bottom line: the NRA is very effective in blocking gun laws, even ones that a vast majority of our country support, such as comprehensive background checks.

I was an elementary school administrator during the time of Sandy Hook and the fear amongst students and parents was palpable for weeks, so this column should have been saved for later.

Thomas Fuller

Mansfield

Follow this link:
Column on Second Amendment should have waited | Letters To Editor | thesunchronicle.com - The Sun Chronicle

Pound tables to demand change

Finally, the answer from Steve Kerr, coach of the Golden State Warriors: Its not silence and prayers, its noise. Kerr pounded the table. I suggest we follow his lead.

What if instead of moments of silence, we have many moments of noise when the next, and there will be a next, mass shooting happens? Imagine a group of people whether at a sporting event or in a legislative chamber or at a place of worship all at once letting out a big scream to express their true feelings of sadness.

Maybe that would get someones attention. There is a saying. If you always do what youve always done, youll always get what you always got. Gun violence and silence are, sadly, the perfect example of that vicious circle. We should all be using our loud voices and pounding tables, demanding change, not continuing the silence.

Perri Brackett, Lewisville

I cried as I watched the news of the Uvalde school shooting. By the grace of God, my 10-year-old grandson was not there and is safe. But God cannot guarantee his future safety, only our politicians can.

Gov. Greg Abbott talked about how special children are but made no suggestions on how to protect them from future shootings. It would take only two simple laws to make a difference: universal background checks with an age minimum of 21, same as the drinking age, and the elimination of military-style semi-automatic guns whose sole purpose is to kill scores of victims quickly effective in wars but with no clear purpose in civilian life.

The argument is that people should have the freedom of choice to own weapons. How is this more important than the choice of the victims to have a safe life? How is it different from the choice of a woman who is managing her reproductive rights?

So what can we do? Vote. Vote for politicians who will protect our right to life from mass murderers. Vote for politicians who will not allow forced deliveries. Vote for our democracy.

Elizabeth C. Knoop, Frisco

The Second Amendment was ratified almost 231 years ago. Do you think anything has changed in our country since 1791? No matter what political affiliation you may have, common sense should take over our elected politicians to change the Second Amendment.

We, the people of the United States, have to hold them accountable to make owning a deadly weapon difficult, at minimum. Age requirements, background checks and a required waiting period should be the standard for any gun ownership.

The killing of our kids and others can be stopped. I just dont understand the lack of effort to change this right to bear arms by our elected officials. After Sept. 11, the entire country and airlines changed their requirements to fly. We learned from Sept. 11 and have avoided another disaster of that magnitude. However, after 231 years and numerous horrific mass shootings, we havent acted to protect our citizens. Its deplorable.

Curt Richmond, Carrollton

As an independent native Texan, I no longer recognize the Republican Party. What happened to separation of church and state? Thomas Jefferson and fellow Virginian James Madison felt that state support for a particular religion or for any religion was improper. They argued that compelling citizens to support through taxation a faith they did not follow violated their natural right to religious liberty, and I agree.

In my profession, Im driven to resolve problems, not create new ones. This party seems to manufacture problems to proliferate hatred, ignore real problems and divide and distract people. In my opinion, this party has become an authoritarian theocracy where citizens are being forced to follow its beliefs including its version of history, gun laws, abortion policies, voting rules, election results (only valid if they win) and many outrageous conspiracy theories.

Evidence is no longer required for this party, because if enough people believe something then it must be true. My hope is that moderate, reasonable Republicans show up to the polls with love and compassion and right these wrongs.

Vincent Pollinzi, Carrollton

It is hard to comprehend how our country got to this point. The U.S. military is flying weapons to Europe for the war in Ukraine. The U.S. military is flying baby formula back to America for our babies. Does anyone recognize the absurdity? One government is fighting off a Russian invasion. Yet our government cant manage baby formula.

Pam Meyercord, North Dallas

In November, voters must decide to cast their ballots for congressional candidates who view fidelity to the rule of law as sacrosanct or for those who consider the oath to protect and defend Constitution as a hollow pledge. The outcome, likely to determine whether or not our constitutional republic survives, brings to mind John Adams pessimistic assertion: Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. If, as Adams suggested, our form of government is on a path toward suicide, then we must look to the electorate for intervention.

Should Republicans regain control of Congress, the autocratic-leaning movement within the party will probably spearhead further attempts to silence the opposition by advancing its assault on the cornerstone of democracy voting. If we are to prove Adams wrong, the electorate must once again rise to the occasion, as it did in the 2020 presidential election when it ousted a sitting president for undermining democratic governance.

Jan Larkin, Tampa, Fla.

Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Be sure to include sources.

Read the original here:
Letters to the Editor Steve Kerr, gun laws, the Second Amendment, democracy - The Dallas Morning News

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

TEXARKANA -- The 10 people killed make the May 14 gun attack at an upstate New York supermarket the deadliest mass shooting to date in the U.S.

Yet, it's just one of the reported 209 mass shootings the nation has seen since the beginning of 2022, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

-- -- --

CAN'T SEE THE POLL QUESTION? Read the story at texarkanagazette.com/news/polls

-- -- --

In the five days after 18-year-old Payton Gendron's alleged racist rampage at the Buffalo, New York, grocery, there were nine other mass shooting events in U.S. The Gun Violence Archive reports that those attacks killed 12 people and injured 59 others.

Closer to home, on May 12, one person was killed and four were injured when a gunman opened fire after a graduation ceremony in Hot Springs, Arkansas. Over Easter weekend a month ago, one person was killed and six others were hurt by gunfire at a pasture party north of Daingerfield, Texas.

As gun violence continues to mount across the nation, the Gazette was interested in learning what readers do to stay safe in public places. The responses vary, but there is a theme: being armed.

"I carry a Glock .26 everywhere," Jessie Morris said.

Reader Lewis Branan gave a two-prong plan for protection: "Remain vigilant; be armed. Self-preservation is the first law of nature."

The Second Amendment is a cornerstone of what Chris Loveall does to stay safe.

"Always be aware of my surroundings. I carry a concealed weapon everywhere unless it is prohibited," Loveall wrote. "I try not to frequent those places. Most mass shootings occur in places where guns are not allowed."

Daniel Sparks said while he practices concealed carry, it's not a show of bravado.

"(It's) for my family's protection. You never know what can happen one minute from the next," he wrote. "If I had only one piece of advice for those out there is to be aware of your surroundings. Don't walk with your head hung low and looking at the ground. Be aware."

The lengthiest response came from Tom Rainey, who builds his personal protection plan on being selective.

"The wife and I no longer go to places that don't allow open carry. We have also cut out establishments that are heavy on alcohol consumption. As a concealed handgun carrier, I still recognize guns and alcohol don't mix. Everyone needs to know strangers are strangers. We know nothing about them so why be around them always."

Above all, Rainey recommends that people put themselves in the safest situation possible, "even if it means cutting things out that were safe before."

"This world isn't safe," he said. "Don't be the one who was at the wrong place and wrong time. Your place to be is with your family."

-- -- --

SURVIVING AN ACTIVE SHOOTING SITUATION

Sgt. Kim Weaver of the Texarkana Texas Police Department offers three suggestions on how to survive during an active shooting.

RUN. If you can escape and have an exit, escape and evacuate the premises. After you have exited and are safely away, call 911. Warn others that might try to go into the building if you see someone going that direction.

HIDE. If you can't exit the building and cannot escape, you need to hide. Try to get into a room and secure it, turn off the lights, and stay quiet. Call 911 and silence the ringer on your phone. If you can't get into a room, try to conceal yourself behind an object.

FIGHT. If you can't run or hide, fighting is the last resort if your life is in danger. Commit to what action you are going to take and act with physical aggression in an attempt to incapacitate the shooter.

"Always be aware of your environment and always have an exit plan," Weaver said.

Excerpt from:
WITH POLL | 'The wife and I no longer go to places that don't allow open carry' - Texarkana Gazette