Proposed ATF rule change on NFA transfers

NFACurrent ATF regulations require individual applicants to get sign-off from their local chief law-enforcment officer (CLEO).  This is known colloquially as the ‘CLEO Sign-off.’

In many jurisdictions, the CLEO will not sign the form and this acts as an effective ban on the acquisition in defiance of the intent of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

This is one of the reason that many people turn to NFA trusts. Trust applicants as well as other non-individual applicants such as corporate entities do not need CLEO Sign-off and this allows those in jurisdictions where the CLEO is anti-gun to still purchase NFA items.

Additionally, under current ATF regulations, trust applicants do not need to be fingerprinted nor do they need to submit photographs.

The ATF however has proposed a rule change that they say would do three things:

1)  It would eliminate the need for a CLEO sign-off for individual applicants;

2)  It would instead require that a copy of the application be forwarded to the CLEO in the jurisdiction where the applicant is located for all applicants; and

3)  It would require fingerprints and photographs of every “responsible person” in a trust or corporate entity be sent when the applicant is not an individual in order to standardize these requirements.

Several people have told me that they had heard this means NFA trusts will no longer be beneficial.  That is not true. Avoidance of the CLEO Sign-off ban is only one of the many benefits that a properly structured NFA trust gives you.

In addition, this is merely a proposed rule.  We do not have any final text yet and when (or if) that is released, it will will trigger a round of public notice and comment.  The proposed rule is not scheduled for action until July of this year and I will update you if there are any changes at that time.

I should also mention that the proposed rule may be simply allowed to languish without any action being taken.

In short, no one should be postponing their NFA acquisitions based upon this proposal.

To read the proposed rule in its entirety, click here.


Posted in BATFE, Class III, NFA | 5 Comments

Open carry walk draws a big crowd in Brookville Pennsylvania

Brookville_RallyI want to tell you about a wonderful family event that took place in Brookville Pennsylvania yesterday.

It was called the Brookville Open Carry Walk and so many people showed up despite the cold that the police and fire department had to stop traffic for a time.

Notably absent were any counter protestors.  Despite calls by the anti-gun group CeaseFirePA, not a single counter protestor showed up.  I guess CeaseFirePA’s 7 members were busy elsewhere.

According to event organizers Adam Smith and Angel  Yount-Smith, the purpose of the event was to show that the media-backed stereotypes about gun owners are not correct.  And I have to say “mission accomplished!

The walk started at 1:00 PM in front of the Brookville Courthouse, wound it’s way down both sides of main street and ended back in front of the Courthouse.

Brookville_Panoramic

The crowd was a wonderfully diverse mix of young and old, male and female that really illustrated the changing demographics of the gun-rights movement.

One woman bore a sign which said ‘Nurse, Mother, Wife’.  She told reporters “[T]hat’s what I am. I’m not some crazy person with guns in the basement. I’m a regular person who wants my second amendment protected.

The firearms  being carried were a diverse mix as well.  There were 1911s, Glocks, XDs, AR-15s, AK variants, hunting rifles, shotguns, muzzle loaders, and even a pink bb gun being carried by 9 year-old Desert Atkinson who proudly told reporters that it was her Christmas present last year.

After the walk itself, the Pinecreek Fire Department hosted a meet and greet with hotdogs, hamburgers, fries, and drinks.  It was truly an event for the entire family and most participants brought their children with them to enjoy the event and learn about what it takes to keep America free.

Brookville_Family

Representative Sam Smith spoke at the event as did Congressman Glenn Thompson.

As many of you know, I live in Virginia but work in Pennsylvania and consider it my second home.  And I am constantly amazed at the dedication of Pennsylvania gun owners.

Sadly, I was unable to attend this event but numerous posters at PAFOA gave detailed accounts of the event and were kind enough to share their photos and videos.

I want to extend a truly heartfelt “thank you” to the Smiths for organizing the event and to all who attended.

It is people like those in Brookville that keep America free.

Upcoming Event

Everyone in Pennsylvania should have April 23rd on their calendars.  That is the date of the 8th Annual Right to Keep and Bear Arms Rally in Harrisburg.

This is the event of the year and every single Pennsylvania gun owner should plan on attending!

I am honored to be attending on behalf of OpenCarry.org.  I hope to see you all there!

Posted in Open Carry, Open Carry Public Events, Pennsylvania | 6 Comments

Open carry may be coming to the Kansas Capitol Building

Kansas_John_WilsonIn an effort to make a political point about concealed carry in public buildings, an anti-gun Kansas Democrat has inadvertently introduced an amendment that makes open carry legal in the state capitol.

The amendment was introduced by Lawrence Kansas Democrat John Wilson who states that he is, in fact, opposed to guns in public buildings and only introduced the bill to “draw attention to what he considered the hypocrisy of legislators who wanted to allow the concealed carry of weapons in other public buildings, including schools and mental health centers, but not in their own workplace.

He went on to add this his actual intent was “to allow concealed carry in the Capitol, and only the Capitol and only concealed.  That’s what the amendment I drafted did — or so I thought.

In typical fashion for a politician, he blamed the mistake on someone else, in this case an attorney in the Revisor of Statutes office.

But Wilson’s little political joke may backfire on him as his amendment actually passed the House and is moving on to the Senate.

However, there are reports that Senate Republicans are planning to remove the open carry provision and they need to hear from you now!

Tell them that removing the open carry provision will be considered a vote against gun owners!

Posted in Kansas, Open Carry, Public Buildings | 3 Comments

Democrat’s ‘Universal Background Check’ bill discriminates against same-sex couples

Pink_PistolsAs if same-sex couples were not faced with enough social and legal bigotry, the so-called ‘Universal Background Check’ bill being pushed by Democrats adds the threat of being made a felon for simply going on a long business trip.

What?” I hear you cry.  “How is that possible?

The answer is simple. It is possible because the bill is not what it appears to be. Contrary to the rhetoric being mimicked by the media, it is far more than a mere extension of background checks to private sales.

The bill being pushed by Democrats requires background checks and documentation for all ‘transfers’ of firearms, not merely sales. And they define ‘transfers’ expansively to include practically any situation in which a firearm might be out of your control, even for a second.

Specifically, it addresses the issue of transfers between those living within the same home where the two parties are not ‘spouses, parents and their children, siblings, or grandparents and grandchildren’.

And because of DOMA, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages even if the couple live in a state which has recognized their right to marry. Therefore, they cannot avail themselves of the exception for spouses.

The bill does have another exception that might apply.  It allows such transfers if ‘the firearm is not removed from the home’ and ‘ the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days.’

So … the consequences of this bill begin to mount.

Under this bill, same-sex couples could no longer jointly own a firearm. And if the partner who has ‘legal’ ownership of the firearm were to leave town on a business trip that ultimately lasts more than 7 days then both partners would be felons!

Even if the business trip lasted fewer than 7 days, if the partner remaining in town decided to go to the shooting range, they would both be felons!

Unmarried heterosexual couples are similarly affected as are step-children.

And it gets even worse.  Other felonies created by the bill include:

  • A soldier deploying overseas who leaves his guns with a friend = felony!
  • Loaning a firearm to a friend to go to the range = felony!
  • Loaning a firearm to a friend for hunting the day before the season opens = felony!
  • Allowing a friend to shoot your gun on your own land = felony!

The real intent of this bill is not to close some imaginary loophole.  Rather, it is to make it so legally dangerous to own a firearm that people will give up their rights rather than attempt to comply.

Don’t believe me? Read the bill yourself and then tell your Senators and Representatives to vote against this discriminatory bill!

Posted in General Civil Rights, Universal Background Checks | 17 Comments

Illinois Congresswoman says handgun bans are next

Jan-SchakowskyIllinois Democratic Congresswoman Janice Schakowsky wants to make one thing very clear … the attempt to ban so-called ‘assault weapons’ is only the beginning of the planned attack on the Second Amendment.

Schakowsky made these comments to a reporter at the One Billion Rising Women’s Rights Rally in February.

Referring to the Sandy Hook tragedy as “a moment of opportunity,” Schakowsky went on to say that “everything [is] on the table … There’s no question about it. We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to … push as hard as we can and as far as we can.

When pressed on exactly what that meant, Schakowsky noted that her choice for the next ban would be handguns, followed by allowing individual communities to deny Second Amendment rights to those who live or travel within their boundaries.

I am sure that, even now, she is being chastised by the White House for letting the truth slip.  But make no mistake about it … it is the truth and it is the ultimate goal of the Democratic Party.

After all, Representative Schakowsky isn’t a newly-elected rookie.  She is a member of the Democratic Party leadership, serving as Chief Deputy Whip as well as sitting on the Steering and Policy Committee which is instrumental in formulating the party platform and strategy.

So remember her words when you hear Democrats parroting the party line that they ‘support the Second Amendment subject to reasonable restrictions‘ or when your Democrat friends constantly tell you that ‘no one wants to take away your guns.

Because I have news for you … they do want to take away your semi-auto rifle … and they do want to take away your handgun.

And once they have taken those, then your single shot shotgun will suddenly become a ‘close quarters combat weapon’ and they will take that too.

Don’t believe me?  Just ask Congresswoman Schakowsky.

Posted in 'Assault Weapons', Democrats, Handgun Bans, Universal Background Checks | 13 Comments

Walking Dead writers perpetuate gun control myths

Walking_DeadI should start by admitting that I am a huge fan of The Walking Dead. Every Sunday night, my wife and I watch it like clockwork.

Having said that, I was disappointed last night when the dialogue revealed that, while the show may be set in Georgia, the new episode writers almost certainly come from either New York or Chicago.

How do I know this? Because on last night’s episode, when Rick was searching his former town for weapons, he makes the comment that some business owners kept guns under the counter. He goes on to note that he knows this because he “signed the permits” himself.

So how does that comment tell me the writers have either a New York or Chicago mentality? Because outside of those two cities, one does not need a permit to simply possess a firearm in one’s own place of business. And that is most certainly true in Georgia!

Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume he is talking about a carry permit, which in Georgia is called a ‘Georgia Firearms License’, it still doesn’t make sense because those are signed by a probate judge and not by local law enforcement.

We are only left with the conclusion that they are assuming the gun laws in Georgia are just as draconian as those in New York or Chicago because they cannot conceive of citizens who are actually free to possess guns without a government-issued permission slip.

But the lack of cultural understanding didn’t end there. Rick goes on to say that the guns may still be there because none of the customers knew of their existence.

Now that comment is just plain stupid. In most of America, it is the rare exception for the owner of a small business not to have a firearm in their place of business and the customers know it.

Therefore, even if we assume the business owner was one of the first to turn into a biter, every surviving member of the community would know to check under the counter at their local bar or jewelry store or pawn shop for extra guns and ammo.

In short … none of that dialogue made any sense … unless the writers are disconnected from mainstream American culture where gun rights are concerned.

And since gun owners make up a disproportionate percentage of their fan base, I would highly recommend that they take the time to learn a little bit more.

NOTE:  Click here for a better understanding of just how unheard-of registration is.

Posted in Georgia, Popular Culture, Zombie Apocalypse | 13 Comments

Vice President Biden doubles down on his bad advice

Biden_Hands_UpWhat is it with vice presidents and shotguns?  I mean, Dick Cheney may have accidentally shot someone in a display of poor firearms handling, but at least he never claimed that it was a good idea to do so.

But despite being thoroughly lambasted for last week’s illegal advice to shoot wildly into the air from one’s balcony, good ol’ Joe is back with more advice for those who are tired of living outside of prison.

In an interview with Field & Stream he made the following jaw-droppingly stupid statement.

“Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because [if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” 

Now … I know what you are thinking.

You are asking yourself whether or not you are reading a satire article from The Onion.

But amazingly enough, you are not.

A sitting vice president of the United States actually offered that advice to American citizens.

There is so much wrong with his statement that I hardly know where to begin.  But since there are those who are unfamiliar with self-defense laws and might actually take the Vice President at his word, I feel I should do a quick two-point legal analysis for you.

1)  You do not have the right to use deadly force merely to ‘keep someone away from your house’.

That is not self-defense, it is murder.

2)  Even when you otherwise might be facing a legitimate threat, you cannot fire blindly through a door without knowing who or what is on the other side.

That is not self-defense, it is reckless endangerment!

So unless you want to enjoy several years of ‘BidenCare’ wherein you receive free meals, medical care, and housing courtesy of the prison system in your state, I would suggest you ignore what Joe has to say about self-defense.

You know … many pro-gun advocates like to say that the reason anti-gun advocates are so afraid of gun ownership is because they know that they themselves would not handle the responsibility well.  Joe seems to be the living example of that hypothesis.

So where will he go from here?  What will be the next gem to fall from his lips?

I don’t know … but I do know this … I would much rather go duck hunting with Dick Cheney than ring the doorbell at Biden’s house.

Posted in 'Assault Weapons', Gun Control, High Capacity Magazines, Vice Presidents | 8 Comments

It’s election time and there are NRA board members who need to go

Joaquin_JacksonFormer Texas Ranger and NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson likes to pose with a lever action rifle.  And apparently, if he had his way, that would be practically all that you would be allowed to own.

While Jackson, who has appeared in the popular “I’m The NRA” ad campaign, likes to claim that he considers the Second Amendment to be a fundamental right, he has made comments demonstrating that he is anything but a true supporter of the gun rights of all Americans.

A leftover relic of the ‘hunters and skeet shooters only’ mentality that once prevailed at the NRA, Jackson said in a 2007 television interview that he thinks 5 rounds are all that any firearm owned by “civilians” should ever be allowed to hold.

That’s right.  There is a sitting member of the NRA Board of Directors that wants laws more infringing than those recently passed by New York!

He also stated that he does not believe that so-called ‘assault weapons’ are protected by the Second Amendment and should be reserved to military and law enforcement but he would be willing to allow you to own them if you only had 5 round magazines.

[P]ersonally, I think that assault weapons, ah, basically need to be [only] in the hands of the military and need to be in the hands of the police.. ah, But, ah as far as assault weapons to a civilian. if you- its – its alright if you’ve got that magazine down to five [rounds]. 

Don’t believe me? Watch the video below to hear his condescending words for yourself.

Following an intense effort to recall him from the Board as well as internal pressure from fellow board members, Jackson recently attempted to redefine what he said in that interview. After watching the video, I will let you make your own determination about whether Mr. Jackson’s words reflect the reality of the situation.

“Some misunderstandings have arisen about a news interview I participated in 5 few years ago. After watching a tape of that interview, I understand the sincere concerns of many people, including dear friends of mine. And I am pleased and eager to clear up any confusion about my long held belief in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.

In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.

In fact, I am a proud owner of such rifles, as are millions of law-abiding Americans. And many Americans also enjoy owning fully automatic firearms, after being cleared by a background check and meeting the rigorous regulations to own such firearms. And these millions of lawful gun owners have every right – and a Second Amendment right – to own them.

As a hunter, I take great pride in my marksmanship. Every hunter should practice to be skilled to take prey with a single shot, if possible. That represents ethical, humane, skilled hunting. In the interview several years ago, I spoke about this aspect of hunting and my belief that no hunter should take the field and rely upon high capacity magazines to take their prey.

But that comment should never be mistaken as support for the outright banning of any ammunition magazines. In fact, such bans have been pursued over the years by state legislatures and the United States Congress and these magazine bans have always proven to be abject failures.

Let me be very clear. As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. As a longtime hunter and shooter, an NRA Board Member, and as an American – I believe the Second Amendment is a sacred right of all law-abiding Americans and, as I stated in the interview in question, I believe it is the Second Amendment that ensures all of our other rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.

I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future.

I appreciate my friends who have brought this misunderstanding to light, for it has provided me an opportunity to alleviate any doubts about my strong support for the NRA and our Second Amendment freedom.”

I personally do not buy his explanation for a minute.  If we allow this man to remain on the Board of Directors then we might as well nominate Michael Bloomberg.

So what do we do about it? We vote his elitist butt out of our NRA! He is up for reelection this year and ballots should be arriving even as you read this. If you are a voting member and do not receive your ballot by March 1, then call the membership department and demand a replacement.

The way that NRA elections work is this. There are 29 names on the ballot and you are entitled to vote for up to 25 candidates. Generally, if you want to get someone on the Board, you would vote only for that one person, however, here we want to insure that Jackson does not get reelected so everyone should vote for 25 candidates and make sure that he is not one of them.

The candidates this year are:

1. Joe M. Allbaugh
2. Bob Barr
3. Graham Hill
4. Susan Howard
5. Frank E. Bachhuber Jr.
6. Richard Childress
7. Pete Brownell
8. Marion P. Hammer
9. H. Joaquin Jackson
10. Oliver L. North
11. Larry E. Craig
12. Tom King
13. Johnny Nugent
14. Sandra S. Froman
15. Ted Nugent
16. Willie J. Robertson
17. George Kollitides
18. Dave Butz
19. Karl A. Malone
20. Don E. Young
21. Dwight D. Van Horn
22. James W. Porter II
23. Robert E. Sanders
24. Joel Friedman
25 Carol Bambery
26. Matt Blunt
27. Steven C. Schreiner
28. Jeffrey S. Crane
29. Lance Olson

Remember that ballots must arrive at the NRA no later than April 14th and the results of the election will be announced during the NRA Annual Meeting May 3rd through the 5th in Houston Texas.

Let’s roll gun owners.  It’s time to clean house!

Posted in 'Assault Weapons', High Capacity Magazines, NRA | 10 Comments

Vice President Biden’s criminally stupid advice about self defense

Biden_ShotgunVice President Biden is known far and wide as being the master of the gaffe. Were he a Republican instead of a Democrat, the ‘pet media’ would have long since convinced the American public to have him committed to some nice facility where he could watch Bugs Bunny cartoon for the rest of his life.

But instead, we are stuck with a skinnier version of Peter Griffin as Vice-President, and may God preserve and keep President Obama because we never … ever … want Biden sitting in the Oval Office.

And that brings us to today’s topic.  Biden likes to think of himself as a bit of an expert on … well … just about everything; and guns are no exception. During a Facebook question and answer session yesterday, Biden insisted that no one would ever need an AR15 or similar semi-auto firearm for self-defense because you could just use a double barrel shotgun.

His advice to Americans is the same as his advice to his wife Jill.  “[I]f there’s ever a problem just walk out on the balcony here … put that double-barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.

He went on to add that “You don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim. It’s harder to use and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself.

Well … since we, unlike Vice President Biden, are all bound by the laws of the states in which we live as well as the laws of physics, let’s do a breakdown of his assertions.

Fire Two Blasts From The Balcony

The first problem with this is that Biden apparently forgets that many Americans do not live in a multi-acre, 2.9 million dollar mansion with balconies such as the one he shares with his wife.

Bidens_Mansion

Nor do most of us enjoy round-the-clock Secret Service protection on-site (in a cottage that he actually forces them to pay rent for to the tune of $12,000 a month if you can believe it).

In any case, if your average American were to follow ‘Average Joe’ Biden’s advice, they would almost certainly be committing multiple crimes. Simply walking onto your back porch (which is what most of us have in lieu of balconies) and firing both barrels of a double barrel shotgun in a random direction would probably criminally endanger the neighbors of most Americans who dwell in cities or urban areas.

But don’t blame Joe for his lack of knowledge of the law. After all, he did finish 76th out of 85 in his law school and only barely managed to graduate after being caught plagiarizing 5 out of 15 pages of his law review article. So give him a break on that score. He may have been out with a hangover the day that reckless endangerment was covered in Criminal Law class.

However, to further the debate, let’s just pretend that we all have multi-million dollar mansions on a palatial estate like ol’ ‘Average Joe’ there.

If all we have is a double barrel shotgun and there are home invaders attempting to enter your house, why in the world would you recommend that your wife empty both barrels into the air and put herself in a situation where she is lower on ammo and needs to reload before the gun is useful again?

Makes you think doesn’t it.

How about the next comment?

An AR15 is Harder to Use

As we analyze this comment, we are going to continue the scenario we started earlier. Remember that we are just ‘average’ Americans like Joe with our multi-million dollar estate and our double barrel shotgun which our wife has just fired twice into the air as the bad guys try to break down the door.

At that point, if she had an AR15 with a standard 30 round magazine, she would still have 28 rounds available to actually confront the bad men should they gain entrance to the home and would not be facing a reload situation that, even if successful, will only give her two more rounds.

And how hard is it to reload a double barrel shotgun while panicking?  It is extremely hard! Unless you are a practiced shotgunner, it is hard to reload a double barrel shotgun quickly in a non-stressful situation when you do have fine motor skills available to you.

In a home invasion scenario such as the one painted by Biden, adrenaline would be coursing through your wife’s body, robbing her of all but her gross motor skills; making the task of reloading a double barrel shotgun a daunting one indeed.

The good news? It only takes gross motor skills to insert a new magazine in an AR15. And you would only have to do so if you had already had to fire 30 times.

And that brings us to his final comment.

You Don’t Need 30 Rounds to Protect Yourself

Well of course not … that’s why we only arm law enforcement officers with 2 shot firearms.  Wait … what? You mean we don’t? Well that can’t be right can it?

This just in. The most popular handgun for police officers in the US is the Glock 22 which features a 15 round magazine and officers carry at least one backup magazine as well.  Hmm … that’s 30 rounds minimum. Strange.

But at least they don’t carry AR15s right?  Oh wait … they do? They call them ‘patrol rifles’? Now I am just confused.  Joe told me no one needed an AR15.

Wait … I know.  Maybe the police just don’t use all that ammo. Let me Google a little.

Holy smoke!  In a 2011 study of NYPD officers, it was determined that, on average, officers discharged 11.5 rounds in a gunfight with a bad guy.  Even more startling is the fact that only 30% of those rounds, fired by presumably proficient officers, actually struck the bad guy. And even fewer were fatal or sufficient to stop the threat.

It looks like even 30 rounds might not be enough to stop a determined attack by a group of armed criminal.

Wow.  Myth busted!

Vice President Biden might want to consider not offering any further advice on self defense until he gets that stupid of his fixed.

 

UPDATE:  Steve Griffiths does a great job of covering the manual of arms differences between the AR15 and a double barrel shotgun in his column at Ordnance Corner.

Posted in 'Assault Weapons', Gun Control, High Capacity Magazines, Humor, Presidential Politics, Vice President Biden, Vice Presidents | 25 Comments

First Amendment violations in fight over Second Amendment

Second_Protects_FirstThose of us who support the entire Bill of Rights like to say that the Second Amendment protects the rights recognized by the other amendments … even those that allow anti-gunners to attack us.

After all, if you don’t support the civil rights of all Americans then you have little moral authority when you claim the protection of the Constitution for the right to keep and bear arms.

Conversely, those who wish to strip the right to keep and bear arms from the Constitution are often willing to compromise on other rights as well.

We have seen both sides of this coin during the last week.

In the Garry_McCarthy‘gun-control paradise’ of Chicago, which continues to lead the US in murders and violent crime, Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy told a Sunday morning talk show audience that those who advocate for gun rights are guilty of ‘corruption’ for daring to contact their elected representatives.

Superintendent McCarthy might need a refresher in First Amendment law. Not only does the First Amendment protect freedom of speech but it also protects the rights of citizens to ‘petition the government for redress of grievances.’

Because Superintendent McCarthy seems to have a hard time understanding basic civil rights, I will break that phrase down for him.

It is ‘founding father talk’ for contacting your elected representatives to advocate for a position.  And what you are doing Mr. Superintendent … is called exerting a chilling effect on that fundamental right.

Mike_LearaAnd while Superintendent McCarthy is the only anti-gunner who needs a reminder this week, one of our own is wasting political capital on a bill that has similar First Amendment issues.

Missouri Representative Mike Leara has introduced a bill that would make it a felony in Missouri to introduce a gun control bill.

He goes on to state that he has introduced the bill purely to make a statement.  “I want it to be clear that the Missouri House will stand in defense of the people’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

And while I am deeply grateful to Representative Leara for his principled stand, I think that this bill does not serve us in the long run as it too is a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of legislators.

Representative Leara’s fellow pro-gun Representative Kevin Engler said it best.  “Everybody should have a right to introduce bills, even bad ones.

In closing I will say that this however. I am certainly willing to listen to legal arguments asserting that actually passing gun control laws might qualify as treasonous.

Posted in First Amendment, Gun Control, Missouri | 3 Comments