This leads me to ponder on the the conundrum facing American gun prohibitionists like Everytown, Moms Demand Action, Giffords, and the Brady Campaign. On the one hand you have a group that brutally subjugates women like it was the 7th Century. On the other hand, they want to ban the private possession of firearms saying, in essence, the state will protect you.
The weekly compilation from the Brady Campaign had an attack on the filibuster. Quoting former President Obama, it was called a “Jim Crow relic”.
This week, President Obama called for the elimination of the filibuster: an arcane rule in the Senate that requires a supermajority of 60 votes, instead of 51, to pass nearly any bill. Our movement knows all too well the dangers of this rule. It’s what stopped Congress from passing lifesaving gun reform legislation following the Sandy Hook massacre.
They were 54 votes in favor and 46 against — clearly a simple majority! But the 60-vote rule stopped Congress from acting even after 26 students and educators were shot and killed.
Enough is enough. Why do we need a 60-vote threshold to pass a bill that will save American lives? Fifty-one is the majority, and 51 is fair.
We’re not asking for a lot. We’re simply calling for a simple majority vote — fair and square — to pass lifesaving, evidence-based policy solutions to end gun violence. There’s no excuse for senseless gun violence, especially when legislative solutions have been sitting before Mitch McConnell and the U.S. Senate for over 500 days!
We need to let every Senator know that #51IsFair and gun violence is a national emergency.
Actually, the filibuster and its use in the US Senate predates both the origin of Jim Crow laws and the Civil War. According to a history of it as published by the Senate, unlimited debate was allowed in both the House and Senate. The growth in the number of representatives saw it discontinued in the House but unlimited debate continued in the Senate. Its use to block bills came to the forefront in the 1840s when unlimited debate was used to block a banking bill. The concept of cloture or the ending of unlimited debate by a vote only came into existence in 1917 at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson.
The history of Jim Crow laws and black codes began in 1865 with the adoption of the 13th Amendment which ended slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States once and for all. The black codes were laws enacted at the state and local level which restricted former slaves as to where, when, and how they could work and also restricted their compensation. It served to put many blacks into indentured servitude.
Jim Crow laws were a follow-on that served to enforce segregation, to ban inter-racial marriage, to keep blacks disenfranchised, and, for the purposes of my discussion here, disarmed.
Let’s talk about two of those Jim Crow relics that I’ve written about in the past. The first from Florida and the second from my home state of North Carolina.
After armed black men using their Winchester repeating rifles prevented a lynching in Jacksonville, Florida, the Florida legislature enacted a law that required a permit for Floridians to carry a handgun or a “Winchester rifle or other repeating rifle.” It was the first law nationwide that treated repeating rifles differently than any other firearm. It was the antecedent to modern day “assault weapons” (sic) bans in states like California and New York (among others).
One need only look to the official proclamations of the Democratic Party and their standard bearer Joe Biden to see that support for such Jim Crow relics as a ban on repeating rifles lives on. In their ideological blindness, neither the Democrats nor the Brady Campaign suffer any cognitive dissonance in pushing Jim Crow originated gun control while attacking the filibuster as a “Jim Crow relic”.
I have written often on this blog about North Carolina’s pistol purchase permit and its role in perpetuating white supremacy in the early 20th century. It was enacted in 1919 soon after a race riot in Winston-Salem. There was a great fear of black veterans returning from World War One. The co-primary sponsor of the bill was Sen. Earle A. Humphreys (D-Goldsboro). Humphrey just happened to be the brother-in-law of US Sen. Furnifold Simmons who was the architect of the Democrat’s white supremacy campaign. The goal was to make it difficult if not impossible for blacks as well as Populists and union organizers to be armed outside the home.
Every time in the last decade a repeal of the pistol purchase permit system in North Carolina is tried, it ultimately fails. Part of that failure is due to recalcitrant sheriffs who don’t want to give up the power or money and the obsequious nature of Republicans towards law enforcement. The other part is due to the unified nature of Democrats and the gun control lobby in opposition. That includes the Brady Campaign. Current Brady Campaign President Kris Brown characterized the repeal effort as rolling back “our decades of a lifesaving policy requiring a background check and a “permit to purchase” for every handgun sale.”
She was wrong. It was an effort to rid the state of the then-98 years of institutionalized racism in the form of a Jim Crow law to keep blacks unarmed and subservient.
It is the height of hypocrisy on the part of the Brady Campaign to rail against the filibuster as a “Jim Crow relic” because it stood in their way of enacting a gun control law. A law that had its very antecedent in a Jim Crow law meant to make it “safer” for racists to lynch innocent blacks.
To be honest, when have politicians or the gun control industry let a little thing like hypocrisy ever get in the way of their pursuit of power.
Steve Kerr is the coach of the NBA’s Golden State Warriors. He also played for seven different NBA teams including championship teams in Chicago and San Antonio. He still holds the career record for highest percentage of 3-pointers made at 45.4%.
Kerr is also an ardent gun prohibitionist and has lent his name to the Brady Campaign for fundraising. Indeed, I just got an email from Brady yesterday featuring him.
Here are parts of it.
John – as a young man, Steve Kerr thought bad things happened to other people – that his life was impenetrable, and that his family was immune to everything. Steve was consumed by basketball, but his life changed forever instantly when his father was senselessly shot and murdered outside his office.
That’s why Steve is working with Brady to elect gun safety champions. He knows that preventing pain and devastation for thousands of families across the country depends on stopping Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump’s inaction on gun violence.
Now you may be thinking that Kerr’s dad was the victim of a robbery or a school shooting given he was murdered outside his office.
And you would be wrong.
Kerr’s father, Professor Malcolm Kerr was a political scientist whose specialty was the Middle East. He had taught at the American University of Beirut. Professor Kerr continued his career at UCLA where he went on to become chairman of the political science department and then dean of the division of social sciences. Then in 1982 he returned to the American University of Beirut as its president.
I should note here that the Kerr family had a long history in Lebanon with both Steve and his father Malcolm being born in Beirut. Steve’s grandparents like his father had been affiliated with the American University of Beirut. AUB has traditionally been considered one of the best universities in the Middle East and North African region outside of Israel.
1980s Beirut was a dangerous place with Maronite Christians, Druze, Sunni Muslims, and Shiite Muslims all vying for power. You could throw in the Palestinians, the Syrians, and the Iranians into the mix as well for good measure. If you were an American or other westerner in Beirut, you were a target. Kidnappings were rife along with murders and assassinations.
Professor Malcolm Kerr was just such a target as he was the head of one of the most prestigious institutions affiliated with America in Lebanon. On January 19, 1984, two gunmen fired two shots into the back of his head from a silenced pistol as he walked to his office.
Soon after the killing of the 52-year- old educator, a male caller telephoned the Beirut office of Agence France- Presse and said the slaying was the work of Islamic Holy War – supposedly a pro-Iranian underground group.
Callers saying they were from Islamic Holy War took responsibility for bombing the American Embassy in Beirut last April 18 and the attack against the Marine compound here on Oct. 23. But the police have no evidence that the group actually exists. Dr. Kerr’s assailants escaped after the attack.
‘We Are Responsible’
The Islamic Holy War caller told Agence France-Presse in Arabic: ”We are responsible for the assassination of the president of the American University of Beirut, who was a victim of the American military presence in Lebanon. We also vow that not a single American or Frenchman will remain on this soil.”
The group who killed Kerr was called Islamic Jihad at the time. Now we know them as Hezbollah. There were ties to Iran as well which actually led the Kerr family to sue Iran in 2001.
The assassination of Malcolm Kerr was a targeted act of political terrorism. Hezbollah assassins just as easily could have used a car bomb, a knife, or a rope to murder him. It was only an “act of gun violence” (sic) because the assassins used a handgun. No amount of gun control or gun prohibition could have prevented this act of state-sponsored terrorism.
There is no correlation between the targeted political assassination of Professor Kerr and your garden variety murder or shooting in the United States. The death of Professor Kerr was a tragedy on both a personal and national level. That said, a contribution to the Brady Campaign is not going to end murders in the United States nor will it stop state-sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. The Brady Campaign knows that and one would hope that Steve Kerr knows that as well.
It is sad that Steve Kerr lost his father to a political assassination. It is even sadder that he is using that event to push an unrelated political agenda in the United States.
If you had told me that a former president of the Brady Campaign was going to speak at the 2A Rally Saturday, I would have wondered what substances you had ingested.
Dan Gross, former president of the Brady Campaign, was an unannounced speaker at the 2A Rally. What he said took a lot of people by surprise including me. You can listen to his short speech below:
Since then he has done a few interviews. The first probably was with John Crump who writes for Ammoland. His full candid interview is here. One thing Gross said really stood out in my opinion.
I think there are people on the “gun control or gun safety” side that have too loud of voice that really believe that there’s no place for guns in our country. Those are the people that lead to a lot of exhaustion that leads me to where I am now.
While Gross believes in background checks, he said he had no problem with someone selling a firearm to a friend without such a check. He also said it was wrong to focus on an assault weapons ban.
Given the tweets from Brady today, I can see why Gross has moved on. What they are calling for in the way of “gun violence prevention” will really have no impact. It is the mag bans, the “assault weapon” (sic) bans, and other such “gun safety” (sic) proposals.
Dave Workman of the Second Amendment Foundation also interviewed Gross for Liberty Park Press. As he notes in his piece on it, they had a 50-minute phone conversation. Gross stressed that there is a common ground and government doesn’t have to be involved.
Gross acknowledged his apprehensions about appearing at the rally and speaking to a crowd of Second Amendment activists. His fears dissipated when it became evident that people who attended are interested in the same things he’s interested in, which boil down to safer homes and safer families.
“We still disagree on some things I am sure,” he emphasized, “but we can’t let that get in the way of a real opportunity to accomplish some things.”
Some of those things are keeping firearms secured from young children and getting more training. I can agree with that.
Gross said that he and Rob Pincus have been working together for the past year on creating a Center for Gun Rights and Responsibilities. It will be interesting to see what comes of that.
chapters are the heart and soul of our efforts and the ‘boots on the
ground’ in this battle against the epidemic of gun violence. If you’re
already involved, please forward this to a friend and ask them to join.
I’m on the mailing list of the gun control organizations. I get the emails from Everytown and Brady and Giffords and the list goes on. I do it so I can read what they are up to in their own words. I’d encourage you to do so as well. It is important to know what the enemies of freedom are doing in advance rather than finding out after they’ve just passed another gun control law.
Anyway, in the Weekly Update from the Brady Campaign was this tidbit:
Brady Will be at Bonnaroo this June!
For the second year in a row, Brady is among a small group of nonprofits selected to partner with the annual Bonnaroo Music and Arts Festival, taking place June 13-16 in Tennessee. We’re excited to introduce the 50,000 concert-goers to Brady and the fight to end gun violence. Our Team ENOUGH leaders will serve on a panel discussion about gun violence prevention, we’ll host an activist-oriented DJ set, and we’ll run a booth throughout the festival. If you’re at Roo, be sure to say hi!
Most people my age don’t have a clue what Bonnaroo is but impressionable Millennials do. Bonnaroo is a four-day music festival held in Manchester, Tennessee which attracts upwards of 100,000 festival goers for music, art, camping, and “changing the world.” Think Woodstock without the mud and with a dose of social justice.
I’ve looked over the list of bands and my age shows. With few exceptions, I don’t have a clue about the performers. Yes, I’ve heard of John Prine, Phish, and Cardi B but I couldn’t tell you a thing about Space Jesus or Trampled By Turtles.
Tickets are not cheap. The prices range from $279 to over $3,000. In other words, you are getting festival goers with deep pockets. It is no wonder that the Brady Campaign wants to be there.
The Brady Campaign knows they are in a culture war and the best way to attract more followers, informed or otherwise, is to go to these festivals. It is their equivalent to the NRA or Grass Roots North Carolina recruiting at gun shows. The problem for us in the gun culture is that there are a lot more people going to Bonnaroo than will be attending my local gun show and they are younger and much more impressionable.
From the Brady Campaign which has been working hard to punch holes in the Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act for many years:
Justices have reversed a lower court ruling allowing the lawsuit to move forward and put the question to a jury of whether or not Remington and gun dealers can be held accountable for its role in the 2012 shooting. The lawsuit argues that the assault-style weapon used in the massacre had knowingly been marketed to the public despite being designed for military use. It is also argued that the weapon’s marketing deliberately appealed to young people, particularly those like the 20-year-old who killed 26 people in Newtown, Connecticut.
“This is a good day for justice and for victims of gun violence everywhere,” stated Brady President, Kris Brown. “The law requires everyone, particularly businesses, to operate in a way that will not cause foreseeable harm. It’s time for gun companies to be held to this same standard, and stop being allowed to put profits over people. Brady stands ready to continue our support of Sandy Hook families in their quest for justice.”
For 30 years Brady’s legal team has led the way in winning precedent setting cases that hold gun companies accountable for their role in gun crimes. These cases are reining in and challenging gun industry protection laws, and include a negligent marketing claim against the maker of an assault weapon used in a mass shooting in 1993. This case was discussed at length in today’s decision. Brady’s team provided advice and counsel to the Sandy Hook lawyers throughout the case, also filing an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs.
“We are happy that the Sandy Hook families will get the day in court they deserve. Companies that choose to market weapons of war to the public should not get a free pass from the duty to use the reasonable care that every other person or business must follow,” stated Brady’s VP of Legal, Jon Lowy. “It is unfortunate that the gun industry’s special protection law forced these grieving families to endure years of appeals to get what should be rightfully theirs — their day in court and an opportunity to prove their case. Thankfully this court recognized that if you unreasonably market weapons of war to the public, you can be held accountable for the consequences.”
Reader of this blog know that not one military in the world has adopted the semi-automatic AR-15 or its progeny for use. Calling it a “weapon of war” and “designed for military use” is an outright lie and both Brown and Lowy know it.
Likewise, the Cult of Personality’s Legal Arm otherwise known as Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has weighed in on the ruling with a comment from Adams Skaggs who is their chief counsel.
“Today’s decision is a victory for the families of Sandy Hook and a victory for the principle that no industry is above the law or above accountability. The Connecticut Supreme Court squarely rejected the idea that any industry, no matter how powerful, can slam the courthouse doors shut to the victims of their illegal marketing practices. Now, these families who suffered so much will have the day in court they rightly deserve. We look forward to working with them as this case moves forward, and to supporting all victims of American gun violence as they pursue justice.”
Understandably, those who stand for the rule of law and the recognition that the liability for the criminal misuse of any legal product lies with the criminal were not pleased with this ruling.
Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation responded strongly saying, in part:
“This ruling strains logic, if not common sense,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The court dismissed the bulk of the lawsuit’s allegations, but appears to have grasped at this single straw by deciding that the advertising is somehow at fault for what did that day in December more than six years ago.
“This is like suing Ford or General Motors because a car they sold was stolen and used to run over a pedestrian all because the car manufacturers advertised that their car had better acceleration and performance than other vehicles,” he added.
, 20, first killed his mother and took her legally-purchased Bushmaster rifle to the school, where he murdered 20 youngsters and six adults. The lawsuit contends that Remington’s advertising was designed to glorify the Bushmaster rifle and enhance its appeal to younger consumers.
Justice Richard Palmer, writing for the majority, said that the “regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the state’s police powers.”
“That is absurd in this case,” Gottlieb observed. “Did the advertising even remotely suggest that the Bushmaster is best for murdering people? It appears to me like the court was looking for a way to squeak around the provisions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that Congress passed in 2005. After all, the court dismissed most of the allegations, but now has decided that advertising might be at fault. That’s a stretch of credulity worthy of surgical elastic.”
“There is no evidence the killer was driven by any advertising whatsoever,” he said. “This is an affront to the First Amendment as well as the Second. Even hinting that the killer was motivated in some way by an advertising message is so far out in the weeds that it may take a map for the court to find its way back.”
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is located in Newtown, Connecticut and whom is the actual lobby for the firearms industry, also disagreed with the majority’s opinion in the ruling. While a bit more circumspect that the SAF’s comment, it still expresses their displeasure.
NEWTOWN, Conn. – The Connecticut Supreme Court today reversed (4-3) a state Superior Court ruling and decided in Soto v. Bushmaster that the case can go forward based on the plaintiffs’ allegation that the defendants marketing and advertising of a legal product somehow violated Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The Court’s split decision held that CUTPA fit within an exemption to the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that permits lawsuits where the defendant violated a statute applicable to the sale of firearms. In a strongly worded and well-reasoned dissent, Chief Justice Robinson rejected the majority’s overly broad interpretation of the scope of the limited exception, which is contrary to legislative text, canons of statutory interpretation and the legislative history of the PLCAA. The majority’s decision today is at odds with all other state and federal appellate courts that have interpreted the scope of the exception. As the trade association for the firearms industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation® filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants in this case and both respectfully disagrees with and is disappointed by the court’s majority decision.
Finally, from what I can tell from an internet search, neither Cerberus Capital Management nor Remington Outdoor Company have issued statements.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who suddenly grew a spine during the Kavanaugh hearings may be backsliding a bit. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he plans to hold hearings on gun control including on red flag laws. The Brady Campaign is crowing about it in an email and set up a special alert so as to pack the hearing room.
Grass Roots North Carolina took notice of the hearing a bit earlier and sent out their own alert. This is one that readers from anywhere can use to contact Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. If you are from a state where one of your senators is a member of the committee, make sure to use their email contact form. Just modify the one GRNC composed to be sent to Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC).
THE GOP THREATENS A GUN CONFISCATION
Is the old Lindsay back? According to US Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), so-called “red flag” laws are an area where
Republicans may just reach across the aisle…
As you review the details below, please keep a few things in mind:
“Red Flag Law” and “Extreme Risk Protection
Order” are simply euphemisms for the unlawful suspension of a person’s constitutional rights, absent any due process, based
solely on hearsay from an accuser who has neither witnessed a crime, nor been victimized by one.
The US House is currently held by Nancy Pelosi’s extremely anti-gun party. This means the Senate may be the
only reliable road block to extremist gun control bills. Yet, we now see influential Republican senators suggesting they just might send a
“red flag” bill to Speaker Pelosi for her party’s rubber stamp.
If it can pass the Senate, it’ll breeze through the House, and then it’s on to the
President, who unfortunately, seems
open to unconstitutional ‘red flag’ laws, and who gets along great with Lindsay Graham.
This is Serious
speaking on CNN as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Senator Graham confirmed that the powerful
committee will hold a hearing on gun control. The hearing is expected to
cover “extreme risk protection” orders (“red flag”
laws). Gun control is a topic usually shunned by members of the
Republican held senate, and rightfully so. This is why their sudden
interest in a gun
control hearing is an ominous sign.
Click here to read the CNN story, a
story that quotes Senator Graham (emphasis ours):
“I think there’s a lot of common ground
[with Democrats] on enrolling people in the background system who
are a danger to themselves or others.”
It’s probably safe to assume that you
don’t want to be “enrolled” in anythingconcocted by Lindsay Graham and approved by Nancy
Pelosi, especially when it comes to infringements on your Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The CNN Story goes on:
Graham, a supporter and strong ally of President Trump also says he has spoken with the President about it.
(See the last bullet point,
above). Say NO to Ending
American Due Process
It is critical that
each of us contact the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Particularly North Carolina’s own, Senator Thom Tillis. Below,
see how you can reach each member, starting with Senator Tillis, and let them know that you expect them to stand for due process, for gun rights, and against “red flag” laws.
SEND AN EMAIL MESSAGE TO US SENATOR THOM TILLIS
(R-NC): Tillis is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Use the link provided below, under ‘Contact Info,’ to
visit his Senate contact form. Use the copy/paste message provided below, under ‘Deliver This
PHONE ALL SENATE JUDICIARY REPUBLICANS: Use the phone numbers provided below. Tell them you
are calling about the Judiciary Committee’s upcoming gun control hearing (March 26), and make the following points:
flag” or “extreme risk
protection” laws are a blatant violation of the due-process rights
guaranteed to each citizen by the Constitution, not to mention a
of Second Amendment rights themselves.”
The Senator surely knows that the term “red flag law” is simply a euphemism for the unlawful suspension of Constitutional
rights, and the suspension of these rights is based on hearsay from someone who was neither a witness to, nor a victim of, a
Supporting this type of legislation would be a violation of the senator’s oath of office and would
be a severe breach of the trust the senator has earned from the voters.
No American lawmaker could support this sort of law and still
claim to be a supporter and protector of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, I demand that the senator lend
precisely zero support to any gun control legislation, particularly “red flag” bills.
PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO
GRNC: Help us fight gun control while we promote Second Amendment principles. Please CLICK HERE to contribute. Bear in mind that GRNC is an all-volunteer organization, so you can be sure your
donations are put to the best possible use. Any amount helps, and any amount is appreciated.
Republicans on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee:
Suggested Subject: “NO to Unconstitutional ‘Red
Dear Senator Tillis:
It has come my attention that the Senate
Judiciary Committee intends to hold a gun control hearing on or around
26. I also understand that the committee chairman has expressed a
willingness to work with Democrats on gun control, specifically
“Red flag” or “extreme risk protection” laws are a blatant violation of
the due-process rights guaranteed to each citizen by
the Constitution, not to mention a violation of Second Amendment rights
themselves. Because of this, supporting this type of legislation would
violation of your oath of office and would be a severe breach of the
trust you’ve earned from the voters you serve.
You know as well as I that “red flag
law” is simply a euphemism for the unlawful suspension of (several)
Constitutional rights. The suspension of these rights is based on
from someone who was neither a witness to, nor a victim of, a crime. No
American lawmaker could support this sort of law and still claim to be a
supporter and protector of the Bill of Rights.
Therefore, I demand that you lend precisely zero
support to any gun control legislation, particularly “red flag”
bills. Rather, I expect you to speak against “red flag” laws, exposing
them for what they are.
I will be monitoring your actions on this
matter through alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina.
I had been waiting to see the response of the gun prohibitionists to the Supreme Court granting certiorari in NY State Rifle & Pistol v. City of New York. Jonathan Lowy, head of the Brady Campaign’s Legal Project, didn’t disappoint. A fundraising email was sent out yesterday under his signature yesterday afternoon.
He said, in part, that the stakes are high and it is a case of “life and death”.
The Supreme Court announced yesterday that, for the first time in almost a decade, it will hear a Second Amendment case – the first gun case to be decided by a Court with two Donald Trump-appointees. The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, challenges a city ordinance governing transportation of firearms. Make no mistake: the stakes could not be higher. Commonsense gun safety laws across the country are at risk. We need your support to make sure that the voices of Americans who want stronger gun regulation are heard loudly in the Supreme Court.
The stakes for this case are nothing short of life and death. Whatever the Supreme Court says in its decision will help determine whether Americans maintain the right to enact the strong, commonsense public safety laws they want and need to protect loved ones and communities from gun violence, or if judges will take this right from us. But the Framers put “well-regulated” in the Second Amendment and “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence for good reason. We are committed to making sure the Supreme Court doesn’t write the gun industry’s guns-everywhere vision into our Constitution.
He goes on to say that the Supreme Court never meant the Second Amendment to apply outside the home as evidenced by the Heller decision. In my opinion, he has misconstrued the late Justice Scalia’s decision.
What is interesting about all of this is that none of the gun prohibitionist organizations bothered to file amicus briefs against the Supreme Court granting cert in this case. The only amicus briefs were from a coalition including GOA, another organized by the Attorney General of Louisiana on behalf of a number of states, and another from the Western States Sheriffs Association and various law enforcement groups. These all were in favor of cert being granted. I don’t know whether it was hubris or ignorance that explains the casual approach of the gun control industry to this case but I am certain they will now be submitting amicus briefs fast and furiously in support of the position of New York City.
window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || ;
gtag(‘js’, new Date());
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will probably be the next Speaker of the House of Representatives. I say probably because there are some Democrats that are opposed to her and the aging leadership. She, Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and James Clyburn (D-SC) are all in their 70s. However, while this group of dissidents might prevent Pelosi from getting the requisite number of votes (218), it is doubtful they will win in the end.
As the leadership fight escalates, Pelosi’s lined up endorsements from former President Barack Obama — who called Pelosi “one of the most effective legislative leaders” on Tuesday — and key advocacy groups that helped Democrats retake the majority. Progressive groups, gun control organizations, unions, reproductive rights groups like NARAL Pro-Choice and more have thrown their weight behind Pelosi’s speaker bid.
“Do you really want to make enemies out of these groups?” said (Rep. Jan) Schakowsky, adding later, that the fight “is not just inside baseball, this has enormous ramifications for how we successfully move forward to pass an agenda that’s going to help people.”
The Brady Campaign and Shannon Watts have all formally endorsed Pelosi for Speaker. Moreover, Michael Bloomberg who “invested” over $100 million in this election cycle to get Democrats elected has worked closely with Pelosi and shared office space with her super PAC.
What does this mean for gun owners?
It should be obvious – expect gun control to be on the Democrats agenda in the House from day one of the new Congress. Pelosi has a constituency to repay and she will. I fully expect that bills will be introduced that will contain every gun control measure that you can think of and some that we haven’t. Moreover, these bills will get a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee and most will pass in the House. Furthermore, the Hearing Protection Act, national reciprocity, and even provisions for use of Pittman-Robertson funds to construct shooting ranges are dead.
Our only hope for stopping these infringements will be the Senate which remains in Republican hands. Even then, there are some Republicans who might vote for things like red flag laws or bans on bump fire stocks. Fortunately, the filibuster is still alive when it comes to bills passing the Senate and it still will require 60 votes to invoke cloture. Therefore, if you haven’t contacted your two Senators or Senator-elect, you better do it now and put opposition to gun control on their radar.
The Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times” will epitomize the next two years when it comes to the fight for gun rights.