Cam & Stephen Gutowski On VA Bills

First off, let me say I’m sorry for the slow blogging the last few days. We always joke about the SHOT Show crud. However, there is a new thing – the pre-SHOT Show crud and I’ve got it. I’m guessing the vectors were my granddaughters who passed me the stuff going around their day care and pre-school. If there is a good thing about it, I’ll probably be immune to any bugs out of SHOT!

Now on to the important stuff. Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms and Stephen Gutowski of the Free Beacon discuss the gun control bills that have been introduced into the Virginia General Assembly by anti-gun Democrats.

It ain’t pretty. The so-called compromise bills are just a prelude to future confiscation. The other bills include outlawing suppressors and a standard capacity mag ban without any grandfathering. Another bill would ban all non-lead ammunition and make it a felony to possess even a single round of a non-lead based ammo. I wonder if they got permission from the environmentalists for that one.

I’ll let Cam and Stephen tell the rest of the story.

A reCAPTCHA For Virginia

We have all been on websites with pictures asking you to select the boxes with buses or stoplights or cars in order to prove you are not a bot. It is a system called reCAPTCHA. It was meant as an improvement over an earlier system that presented you with fuzzy numbers and letters which you had to type in.

Someone decided to create a new picture just for Virginia politicians and gun control advocates.

Flatlanders like Gov. Ralph Northam (D-VA) just don’t get it.

As someone who has lived in the Appalachians for the majority of my life, I can tell him that folks from Tazewell or Grundy or Wytheville are different from the rest of Virginians. They didn’t descend from the planter class and their families won’t be found in a list of the First Families of Virginia. Instead they are descended from the heavily Scots-Irish migrants who ended up there because they just wanted to be left the hell alone. They didn’t take kindly to being told what to do and they still don’t.

People in the mountains are a tolerant people until they are not. This is something the Virginia Democrats bought and paid for by Michael Bloomberg should keep in mind. I hope and pray that they do. Because if they don’t, all hell is going to break loose. And it won’t be pretty.

San Jose Mayor Proposes “Gun Liability Insurance”

Sam Liccardo is the mayor of San Jose, California. He proposed that gun owners living in the city must buy gun liability insurance or pay a fee “to cover the emergency response and medical care for victims of ‘gun violence’ (sic).” San Jose would be the first city in the United States to require such insurance for the exercise of an enumerated civil right.

As reported by Insurance Business Magazine:

He likened his proposed mandatory gun liability insurance to state-enforced auto insurance requirements, stating: “We see in the context, for example, of auto insurance, how insurance can provide a motivator for safe conduct […] Similarly, we could do the same with gun ownership — how you might reduce your premium, for example, by taking a gun safety course or by having a gun safe or by ensuring that you only have guns with child-safe locks.” …

In the interview with FOX Business, Liccardo said the insurance is not intended to “seek [out and] identify all the gun owners” in the city. Rather, he hopes it will address the significant cost of gun violence to California taxpayers.

He said: “All public costs for everything from emergency response to emergency room treatment — all the costs that result from the human harm of gun violence. It seems to me that those costs should be properly allocated and distributed. Insurance is one way of doing that.”

In essence, what Mayor Liccardo is seeking to do is impose a tax on the right of self-defense paid for by the law-abiding. This becomes much clearer when you read the actual key elements of his plan from the city’s website.

These include:

  1. Liability insurance to cover negligent discharges and “for the intentional acts of third parties who steal, borrow, or otherwise acquire the gun.
  2. If insurance is not available, then it would be a per-household fee for gun owners to participate in a public compensation pool.
  3. A gun and ammunition tax which he hopes becomes a regional tax.
  4. A “consent to search” plan in conjunction with the SJPD involving parental permission to search homes and confiscate firearms owned by dependents.
  5. A bounty program for anonymous tipsters who identify “unlawful possessors” of firearms.
  6. Legislative advocacy to promote his liability insurance plan for state-wide adoption.

For perspective on this from the insurance industry I went to the Insurance Information Institute to see what they had to say about “gun liability insurance”. They note first that insurers rarely offer separate “gun liability insurance”. A person would have some coverage for non-intentional acts from their homeowner’s insurance as well as from any supplemental or umbrella liability policies. This would cover negligence but might not cover acts of self-defense. Coverage for Mayor Liccardo’s “intentional acts of third parties” would most certainly not be covered.

Coverage for firearms is usually mentioned only in the property section of a homeowner’s policy. Since firearms are not mentioned in the liability section, it is implied that since it is not excluded that it would be covered.

There are exclusions:

Not all accidents are covered, per the terms of the policy. For example, if a relative living at the same home were accidentally shot, the accident would not appear to be covered.

The policy explicitly says it will not cover “expected or intended injury.” The policy is designed to cover accidents, not intentional, criminal actions, such as a homicide or an attempted homicide. A mass shooting would not appear to be covered. A critical point is that covering an intentional, illegal act like armed assault would violate standard underwriting principles.

Although acts that are intended or expected to cause harm are generally excluded, some policies restore coverage in cases where bodily injury or property damage results from the use of “reasonable force” by an insured to protect persons or property.

The Insurance Information Institute goes on to say you might get coverage through a group personal coverage policy with someone like, you know, the National Rifle Association. The unintended consequence of Mayor Liccardo’s attempt to kill gun ownership and, by extension, the gun culture could be an exponential growth in the number of NRA members in his community. I’ll bet you he didn’t consider that when he made this proposal!

Even MORE Gun Control Laws In California?

Just when you thought California had more than enough gun control laws, the California legislature sends nine more to Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA) for signature. With some sort of luck, he may – and I emphasize “may” – veto some of these laws. He has done that in the past.

Gun law attorney Adam Kraut discusses a number of these laws in this video from The Gun Collective. He also has some great alternative names to the official ones for these laws.

If you would like to know even more about these bill and would like to let Gov. Brown know your opinion on them, the Firearms Policy Coalition gives you that info in this release that went out on Friday.

FPC Seeks Veto of 9 Gun Bills from California Gov. Jerry Brown,

Asks for Approval of Public Records Act Bill

SACRAMENTO, CA (September 7, 2018) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition asked California Governor Jerry Brown to veto nine “dangerous” gun bills that would “radically change” the state’s already-voluminous and complex laws. The advocacy organization also requested that Gov. Brown sign one bill that would help prevent state and local agencies from abusing the Public Records Act attorney fee provisions to chill the public’s right to access government files.

Historically, Brown signs most bills sent to him by the Legislature. But, FPC said, he does sometimes veto bills that don’t make sense to him and has rejected gun bills in the past. FPC’s legislative advocate and spokesperson, Craig DeLuz, thinks that Brown has plenty of reasons to reject the nine gun bills they oppose. “Some of these pieces of legislation are just headline-grabbing garbage because it’s an election year,” he said. “And Brown has vetoed some of these bills before, for good reasons. He may just put the brakes on expanding California gun laws in the last year of his last term to leave these decisions to the next governor.”

SB 1177, “just a few months ago an Education Code bill – would make it a crime to apply for the otherwise lawful purchase of a constitutionally protected firearm more than once a month. This bill is a case study of what happens when opportunistic legislators don’t have any real rules (or ethics),” FPC said in a letter. “The sky is blue, the sun sets in the west, and SB 1177 is yet another ego and animus-driven bill to put Senator Portanino’s name in bold print on yet another bill to attack the right to keep and bear arms.”

Another letter points out that San Francisco state senator Wiener’s SB 221 puts people and rights he doesn’t like in the crosshairs of the state. The bill, that would ban gun shows at the Cow Palace in Daly City if signed, was a health-related bill until it was “gutted and amended” just a few months ago. “In SB 221 the Legislature has targeted for especially unfavorable treatment those who would have the audacity to peacefully exercise their fundamental, individual rights protected under the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments,” FPC argued.

FPC-opposed bills that were passed by the Legislature include AB 1903, AB 1968, AB 2103, AB 2888, AB 3129, SB 221, SB 1100, SB 1177, and SB 1346. FPC supports SB 1244, a Public Records Act bill, by Bay Area Senator Bob Wieckowski.

Gun owners are encouraged to send Governor Brown a message voicing their opinion using FPC’s free Grassroots Take Action Tools at .

FPC’s letters to California Governor Jerry Brown can be viewed or downloaded at .

NSSF/SAAMI Joint Statement On Las Vegas Tragedy (And Bump Fire Stocks)

The National Shooting Sports Federation and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute seem to be taking the same approach as the NRA on bump fire stocks: have the BATFE evaluate them under the existing law. All three groups are intent on keeping Congress out of this fight for the time being. They would prefer to have an agency regulation on the stocks than to have new legislation which would most likely go much further. Feinstein’s S.1916 would certainly do that.

The joint statement is below:

Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the families and loved ones of all those killed and injured in the criminal attack in Las Vegas. The manufacture, distribution and sale of automatic firearms and their components has been stringently regulated by federal laws since 1934. We believe the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) should interpret and enforce existing laws and regulations. We call upon ATF to conduct a prompt review and evaluation of aftermarket trigger activation devices such as bump stocks to determine whether they are lawful to install and use on a firearm under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), or whether, if they have no function or purpose other than to convert a conventional firearm into an automatic firearm, they are regulated items under the NFA. We urge Congress to allow ATF to complete its review before considering any legislation so that any policy decisions can be informed by the facts and ATF’s analysis.

On Today’s Legislative Calendar For Gun Rights

Legislative sessions across the country are slowly coming to a close and with it come votes on gun rights issue. There will be important votes today in both Illinois and New Jersey.

The Illinois Senate will be voting on a number of bills that impact gun rights. Perhaps the most important one will be on their version of a concealed carry law. The bill is HB183 Gun Safety and Responsibility Act and is sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago). It is opposed by the NRA, ISRA, and Illinois Carry. The bill is much weaker than SB2193 that passed the State House last week and it preserves home-rule on firearms issues.

The other bills coming up include SB851 Safety Tech sponsored by Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago), SB1002 Criminal Law Tech sponsored by Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge), and SB1003 Criminal Law Tech sponsored by Sen. Antonio Munoz (D-Chicago). Raoul’s SB851 includes both universal background checks and a lost or stolen reporting requirement. Kotowski’s SB1002 is a magazine ban bill with an exception for movie and TV productions. Finally, Munoz’s SB1003 increases penalties for firearms violations – even unintentional. All of these bills are opposed by Illinois Carry and ISRA.

The Illinois Senate is scheduled to go into session at 11am Central.

Meanwhile, the New Jersey Senate will be taking up a number of bills that either ban certain firearms or curtail Second Amendment rights. They go into session at 2pm Eastern.

From the Outdoor Wire on S. 2723 and S. 2178:

Senate Bill 2723 — This omnibus bill sponsored by Senate President Stephen Sweeney includes many different gun control sections which will impact retailers and gun owners throughout the state. It suspends Second Amendment rights if one does not have proof of firearms training, including for all current handgun owners; imposes a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases; bans all private sales of firearms; effectively creates a registry of ammunition purchases and long gun sales.

Senate Bill 2178 — Sponsored by state Senators Raymond Lesniak (D-20) and Barbara Buono (D-18), this bill is a flat-out statewide gun ban on possession of .50 caliber firearms. The current version was amended to make this bill effective immediately upon enactment.

Other bad bills include S. 2485 which bans anyone who is on the No-Fly list from having either a firearms ID card or a pistol purchase permit and S. 2467 which mandates divestiture in gun companies by the state pension system.

The New Jersey Second Amendment Society issued an alert yesterday on these and other bills. It can be found here and gives contact information.

If you are a resident of either state, I’d urge you to contact your state senators as well as senate leadership to register your opposition to these bills.

UPDATE: In what may come as no surprise, the New Jersey Senate passed all the gun control bills before it. Sebastian has the whole story here. One needs only to see this video to understand the disdain those in power in the Garden State hold both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. If the State Trooper’s shirt had been either brown or black, you’d have sworn a time machine had transported you to the era of the Third Reich.

No word yet on any grand compromise from Illinois on concealed carry.

So Much For Pro-Gun Democrats In North Carolina

Last week, the North Carolina House of Representatives passed HB 937 by a margin of 78 to 42. This bill would amend various North Carolina gun laws. Included in this list of laws were provisions that clarified the General Assembly’s intentions with regard to park carry, that would permit concealed carry (but not alcohol consumption) in establishments that served alcohol, that would permit concealed carry at events that charged admission, and that would permit concealed carry holders to leave their firearms in a locked vehicle on university and community college campuses. Note on this last provision, a person would still be breaking the law if they carried on campus.

The margin of victory for this bill was provided by every single Republican and one lone Democrat voting to pass this bill. The lone Democrat was Rep. Paul Tine (D-Dare) who should be congratulated for breaking ranks with his fellow Democrats to vote for gun rights.

Strong efforts were made to derail this bill through amendments proposed by anti-gun Democrats. However, each and every amendment was tabled through the efforts of Speaker Tom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) and Rules Committee Chairman Tim Moore (R-Cleveland). This precluded debates that would delay passage of the bill.

As to the amendments themselves, they were, for the most part, the same sort of anti-gun legislation seen in states like Colorado, New York, Maryland, and Connecticut. Five of the 12 total were introduced before the Second Reading vote and the rest before the Third and final Reading of the bill. I have listed the amendments in order below along with their purpose.

  1. Would provide for universal background checks on all private transfers. Uses the Bloomberg language on transfers. Introduced by Rep. Paul Luebke (D-Durham)
  2. Would have deleted the provision concerning firearms in locked vehicles on university and community college campuses. Introduced by Rep. Alma Adams (D-Guilford)
  3. Would increase the penalty for consumption of alcohol while carrying concealed. Includes a $1,000 minimum fine and five year revocation of NC CHP. It also increases it to a Class 1 misdemeanor from a Class 2 misdemeanor.  Introduced by Rep. Darren Jackson (D-Wake)
  4. Would ban magazines with a greater than 10 round capacity as well as shotgun tubes or magazines holding more than eight rounds. Introduced by Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford)
  5. Would require the safe storage of firearms. Introduced by Rep. Verla Insko (D-Orange)
  6. Would require that a person adjudicated mental incompetent or involuntarily committed and whose rights have been restored under GS 122C-54.1 wait a minimum of seven years after restoration before being allowed to have a CHP. Introduced by Rep. Dennis Riddell (R-Alamance)
  7. Would give universities and community colleges the option to ban concealed handguns on campus. This would also negate storage of a firearm in a locked vehicle on campus by concealed carry permit holders. Introduced by Rep. Rick Glazier (D-Cumberland) Tabled by unrecorded voice vote.
  8. A repeat of Amendment 5 introduced by Rep. Verla Insko (D-Orange)
  9. A repeat of Amendment 4 introduced by Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford)
  10. A repeat of Amendment 3 introduced by Rep. Darren Jackson (D-Wake)
  11. A repeat of Amendment 1 introduced by Rep. Paul Luebke (D-Durham)
  12. A repeat of Amendment 2 introduced by Rep. Alma Adams (D-Guilford)

While it might be argued that a vote against tabling the bill was a vote to have a broader debate on the merits of the amendment, nonetheless the amendments themselves were anti-gun measures. With the exception of Amendments 6 and 11, not one Democrat voted in favor of tabling these anti-gun amendments. Rep. Michael Wray (D-Halifax) voted to table Amendment 6 and Rep. William Brisson (D-Bladen) voted to table Amendment 11. The only amendment to gather more than 3 Republicans against its tabling was Amendment 6 which garnered 11 Republican “Nay” votes. That amendment was sponsored by Republican Dennis Riddell who ultimately voted for the full bill.

With the exception of the provision concerning storage of firearms in locked vehicles by concealed carry holders on university and community college campuses, this bill was not filled with controversial provisions. It should be remembered that restaurant carry and parks carry both passed the State House in the 2011-2012 session of the General Assembly. Both of those bills had significant support from Democrats.

Given the relatively non-controversial nature of this bill, it is disturbing to see Democrats who claim to be pro-gun and pro-Second Amendment not only vote against this bill but essentially in a favor of the more draconian gun control measures passed in states like New York and Colorado. There are five Democrats below who got a B- or better from the NRA as well as five Democrats who received at least one star from GRNC who traditionally is a hard grader. Not a damn one of them voted for the passage of HB 937.

I am equally saddened by the number of African-American legislators who voted against this bill. Twenty out of the 42 who voted against this bill are African-American. Additionally, Rep. Charles Graham (D-Robeson) is an enrolled member of the Lumbee Nation. Both African-Americans and the Lumbee Indians were targets of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists. Gun control laws in North Carolina were meant to keep blacks and other minorities disarmed in the face of these white supremacist groups such as the Klan. Indeed, the current pistol purchase permit requirement is a legacy of these Jim Crow laws.

I have listed below the Democrats who voted against HB 937 on the Third Reading. I have also included their email address and their 2012 ratings by both the NRA and GRNC. If one of these legislators is your representative, I’d write and express my displeasure at their vote.

Adams F 0
Alexander B- 0
Baskerville ? 0
Bell, L F 0
Brandon ? 0
Brisson B+ 1*
Carney F 0
Cotham F 0
Cunningham ? 0
Farmer-Butterfield D- 0
Fisher F 0
Floyd 0
Foushee ? 0
Gill D 0
Glazier D- 0
Goodman D 0
Graham, C C 0
Hall, D ? 0
Hall, L F 0
Hamilton C- 0
Hanes ? 0
Harrison F 0
Holley ? 0
Insko F 0
Jackson D 0
Lucas B 2*
Luebke F 0
McManus ? 0
Michaux F 0
Mobley D- 0
Moore, R D 0
Pierce C- 0
Queen B 3*
Richardson NR NR
Ross, D F 0
Terry ? 0
Tolson C+ 1*
Waddell ? 0
Wilkens C- 0
Wray B 1*

Willing To Settle?

On the heels of the IRS being used to target enemies of the Obama Administration and on the heels of the Department of Justice examining the phone records of AP reporters, the gun prohibitionists say they are willing “to settle”  for certain restrictions.

I will admit to having the same visceral reaction to seeing that pusillanimous, pinch-faced Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) speak as I do to seeing Jay Carney make another sneering denial. I want to slap the shit out of them.

Monday, on the floor of the Senate, Reid repeated the lie that the shooter in Newtown had an automatic weapon when in fact he had a Connecticut-legal AR that he took from his mother after killing her. He goes on to say he admires Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) for continuing to push control.

Reid says he, the Sandy Hook families, and the gun prohibitionists will “settle” for prohibitions to prevent “crazy” people (aka people with mental disabilities) and criminals from buying guns.  Has no one ever told them that prohibitions already exist that make it illegal for felons, those convicted of misdemeanors involving domestic violence, and those adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution to buy a firearm? It is right there on the BATFE’s Form 4473!

Gun rights activists, the NRA, and the NSSF have been pushing for improvements to the NICS background check system. We also want to know why the DOJ and BATFE hasn’t gone after the felons who failed a NICS check while trying to buy a firearm. And what about straw buyers? What good does a new law do when they won’t even enforce existing laws that have teeth in them?

Harry Reid didn’t mention universal background checks but you know he is just biding his time. Given this administration’s blatant attempts to use the IRS to intimidate their political opponents, just think what they could do with a database of gun owners. Thanks but no thanks.

ISRA – The Heat Will Be On This Week

The Illinois State Rifle Association issued an alert this afternoon regarding moves by the gun prohibitionists in the Illinois General Assembly. They feel the anti’s will make some moves this week and they are asking Illinois residents to contact their state senators and representatives.

As June 9th grows nearer, a lot of attention will be focused on the General Assembly’s efforts to comply with the court order to enact concealed carry. As important as passing shall-issue concealed carry is, gun owners should not let the carry issue distract them from other efforts already underway to diminish their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Those of you who have been following the topic of gun control this year know that there are some key items on the gun-grabbers’ legislative wish list. Among the crown jewels are the ban and confiscation of semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns; the ban and confiscation of standard capacity magazines; the registration of lawful gun owners; and the mandatory reporting of lost and stolen firearms. The gun controllers claim that these measures are necessary to protect public safety. Of course, firearm owners know that these measures are designed strictly for the purpose of punishing people who dare to own a gun.

A glimpse of what we may soon be facing was provided by a front-page feature in the latest Sunday edition of the Chicago Tribune. In that story, we learned of a single mom so desperate for cash that she volunteered to become a straw purchaser for hardened criminals who were prohibited from purchasing firearms. She was eventually caught and is now serving a multi-year prison term for her misdeeds.

As far as gun owners are concerned, the hapless straw purchaser is right where she belongs jail. Interestingly, the author of the piece spins the story to suggest that the woman is in jail not because of her decision to commit crimes, but because the “gun lobby” has fought against legislation supposedly designed to combat straw-purchasing. Once again, the notion is put forth that muggers, mass murderers, and straw purchasers only commit crimes because the “gun lobby” lets them. In this case, it’s gun owners’ fault that this mom is in jail rather at than home with her kids.

In short, it seems that the purpose of the straw purchase story is to promote legislation requiring gun owners to report “lost or stolen” firearms to the police within a short time of them being lost or stolen. As is often the case, such legislation may sound good on the surface. But, the devil is in the details, and those details place an undue burden on firearm owners. Such proposals may be fine in theory, but problematic in practice.

So, here is what you need to do to help ensure passage of shall-issue concealed carry and prevent passage of extremist gun control proposals:

1. Call your State Representative and your State Senator. Politely tell the person who answers the phone that you are a law-abiding Illinois firearm owner and that you would like the senator or representative to vote for “shall-issue” concealed carry and vote against “may-issue” concealed carry. Likewise, advise the person that you oppose any proposal that would diminish your right to keep and bear arms and expect the legislator to oppose such measures as well. If you do not know who your representative or senator is, the Illinois State Board of Elections has an interactive search page

If you already know who your legislators are and just need the contact info, you can find that here: and here:

2. Pass this alert on to your friends and family and ask them to make calls as well.

3. Post this alert to any and all Internet blogs or bulletin boards to which you belong.

FURTHER ACTION The Will County Board will vote on a resolution in favor of Concealed Carry this coming Thursday at 9:30 in the Will County Office Building, 2nd Floor, 302 N. Chicago Avenue, Joliet. It’s important that firearm owners show up for the vote to show their support for the measure. Plan on being there at 9:00 AM so that you can get a seat.

Feinstein Gets Her Way

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) got her assault weapons ban (sic) – S. 150 – out of the Senate Judiciary Committee today on a 10-8 party line vote. It now goes to the full Senate.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) offered four amendments to the bill which were all defeated on an 8-10 party line vote. His amendments would have made exceptions for those in rural areas; for those who had obtained a protective order; for those who certified they were the victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, or stalking; and for those people who were residents in a county or municipality that borders Mexico to protect themselves against the narco-terrorists. I think Cornyn’s intention was to put the Democrats on record as anti-rural, anti-woman, and anti-self defense.

The votes on Jane Kelly to be an Appeals Court judge in the 8th Circuit and on Kenneth Gonzales to be a District Court judge in New Mexico were held over.

 The results of the business meeting as reported are below:

Results of Executive Business Meeting – March 14, 2013
The Senate Judiciary Committee held an executive business meeting to consider pending nominations and legislation on March 14, 2013.


I. Nominations

Jane Kelly, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit
Held Over

Kenneth John Gonzales, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico
Held Over

II. Legislation

S. 150, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (Feinstein)
Ordered Reported by Roll Call Vote, 10-8

Amendment ALB13181 (Cornyn)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 8-10

Amendment OLL13116 (Cornyn)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 8-10

Amendment OLL13117 (Cornyn)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 8-10

Amendment OLL13118 (Cornyn)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 8-10

The webcast of the meeting for anyone with the stomach enough to watch it is here.

UPDATE: According to Politico, the White House is urging swift action on Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. Press Secretary Jay Carney had this to say:

“Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary committee voted to send the full Senate an important piece of legislation to help keep weapons of war off America’s streets,” Carney said Thursday. “As you know, banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines is an important piece of the president’s plan to reduce gun violence.

“We urge congress to swiftly vote on and pass this legislation and other common-sense measures like requiring a background check for all gun purchases and cracking down on gun trafficking and straw purchasers. There’s been significant progress this week on these proposals and the president welcomes that. We urge congress to keep it up.”

Frankly every time I hear the words “common sense” out of Jay Carney or President Obama’s mouth, I shudder at the perversion of the English language.