HB 86 – A Bill To Californicate North Carolina Gun Laws

House Bill 86 – Gun Violence Prevention Act – was introduced into the North Carolina House of Representatives yesterday. The date was chosen to coincide with the Parkland shootings of a year ago. The primary sponsors of the bill are Rep. Christy Clark (D-Mecklenburg), Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford), Rep. Marcia Morey (D-Durham), and Rep. Shelly Willingham (D-Edgecombe and Martin).

The bill is a laundry list of gun control wish items. However, having read the bill I see nothing in it that actually would reduce the criminal misuse of a firearm. Instead it impacts the legal ownership of firearms in such a way as to discourage firearms ownership.

The bill would:

  1. Require a permit for the purchase of any pistol, “assault weapon”, or long gun. I see no exemptions in the bill other than a NC CHP for receipt of a firearm. In other words, as a Curios and Relics FFL I would still need a permit or my CHP to receive a firearm.
  2. Imposes a 3-day waiting period after purchase “or agreement to give away or transfer, the pistol, assault weapon, or long gun.”
  3. Defines an “assault weapon” to include the usual list of ARs, AKs, etc. It does add Saiga 12 shotguns, any semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has one or more of the “evil features” such as a pistol grip or adjustable stock, any semiautomatic pistol that accepts a magazine outside of the pistol grip, semiauto shotguns that can take a detachable magazine, and those shotguns with a revolving cylinder.
  4. Modification of the pistol purchase permit to include “assault weapons” and long guns.
  5. Bans sale, possession, or carrying “assault weapons” by those under the age of 21 with certain exceptions.
  6. Bans bump stocks and trigger cranks including those possessed prior to December 1, 2019.
  7. Requires safe storage of all firearms except when being carried or used by the owner or legally authorized user. Violation is a Class A1 midemeanor and would add punitive damages in civil lawsuits.
  8. Repeal universal concealed handgun permit reciprocity. North Carolina currently accepts any out of state CCW as valid for carry within the state.
  9. Requires the reporting of any stolen firearm within 48 hours. It makes it a Class 3 misdemeanor for the first violation and a Class I felony for the second violation.
  10. Requires liability insurance for all gun owners of not less than $100,000.
  11. Limits magazine size to 15 rounds for pistols and rifles; limits shotgun magazines to 8 shells; limits shotgun tubes to no more than 8 shells. Bans “large capacity” magazines and requires all new magazines made in NC to have date of manufacture imprinted on them. Grandfathers pre-December 1, 2019 magazines so long as continuous ownership is maintained.
  12. Repeals state preemption of local firearm regulations.
  13. Mandates destruction of seized firearms.
  14. Adopts the California Roster of Handguns and adopts their testing requirements. If your handgun is not on the roster, it can only be sold to either a sheriff or a FFL. No mention of microstamping in the bill’s language though that is a feature of the California Roster.
The full bill can be read here.
Rep. Christy Clark (D-Mecklenburg), the lead primary sponsor, is a first-term representative who was one of two politicians to get the Everytown for Gun Safety endorsement in North Carolina. She was also a chapter leader for the Demanding Moms. I’m still looking over her contribution list for funding from Everytown. She was cited by the State Board of Elections for failing to properly identify donors who gave more than $50.

One Day Of The New Congress And There Are Already Gun Bills

The 116th Congress has been in session for little more than a day and we already are seeing gun bills. However, they aren’t all bad. There is even a good knife bill proposed. However, I imagine the really bad ones are in the pipeline. I’m sure Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA), the Carolyn McCarthy of Georgia and a card carrying Demanding Mom, will have a bill sooner or later.

The Good

HR 38 – Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) – This is a reintroduced version of his national reciprocity bill and it even has the same number as last time. 90 co-sponsors.

HR 88 – Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) – To protect the right of law-abiding citizens to transport knives interstate, notwithstanding a patchwork of local and State prohibitions, and to repeal Federal provisions related to switchblade knives which burden citizens. 4 Co-sponsors.

HR 155 – Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) – This bill would remove silencers or suppressors from the definition of firearms. I am presuming this means that they would also be removed from the requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934. 23 co-sponsors.

HR 175 – Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) – To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to more comprehensively address the interstate transportation of firearms or ammunition. I think this means an updating of FOPA 86 to provide more protection for travelers who have firearms. 0 c0-sponsors.

HR 189 – Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R- MO) – To provide requirements for the appropriate Federal banking agencies when requesting or ordering a depository institution to terminate a specific customer account, and for other purposes. The intent of this bill is to end Operation Choke Point. 0 Co-sponsors.

The Bad

HR 33 – Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) – To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking. (Somehow I don’t think Rep. Rush means the gangbangers and their girlfriends on the southside of Chicago). 0 Co-sponsors.

HR 49 – Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) – To require the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to report to the Congress semiannually on the number of firearms transfers resulting from the failure to complete a background check within 3 business days, and the procedures followed after it is discovered that a firearm transfer has been made to a transferee who is ineligible to receive a firearm. Presumably this was inspired by the Charleston church murders. 0 Co-sponsors.

HR 157 – Rep. Dwight Evans (D-PA) – To repeal the provisions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prohibiting the bringing of qualified civil liability actions in Federal or State court. 0 Co-sponsors.

HR 167 – Rep. Al Green (D-TX) – To prohibit the transfer of a firearm at a gun show by a person who is not a licensed dealer. Presumably closing the non-existent gun show loophole. 1 Co-sponsor.

S 7 – Sen. Marco Rubio – (R-FL) – A bill to provide family members of an individual who they fear is a danger to himself, herself, or others, or law enforcement, with new tools to prevent gun violence. This is the first of the Red Flag laws promised. 3 Co-sponsors.

The Rest

HR 110 – Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) – To provide an exception to certain mandatory minimum sentence requirements for a person employed outside the United States by a Federal agency, who uses, carries, or possesses the firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence committed while on-duty with a firearm required to be carried while on-duty. 0 Co-sponsors.

There have been 321 bills or resolutions introduced as of yesterday according to Congress.gov. If I missed any anti-gun bill that was introduced, please list the bill number in the comments.

UPDATE: HR 207 – Rep. C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger (D-MD) – To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a grant program supporting trauma centers with violence intervention and violence prevention programs, and for other purposes. (Given his anti-gun stance, this bill should probably be in the bad column.)

BOHICA

I posted the gun control industry’s wish list earlier this morning. If you don’t think they have a serious chance of getting much of it through the House, you are living in a dreamland. Read Nancy Pelosi’s statement from Friday marking the sixth anniversary of the murders in Newtown, Connecticut.

“For six years, Americans across the country have taken time to remember the 26 beautiful souls that were murdered in an act of unfathomable horror and heartbreak at Sandy Hook Elementary School. While the pain and grief of that tragic day remain, our determination to end the daily horror of gun violence continues to strengthen.


“Since that unspeakable tragedy, too many families in too many places have been impacted by the deadly epidemic of gun violence. In shattered communities across the country, the nation has had to console family members, comfort survivors and honor victims. Yet, at every opportunity Republicans refuse to lift a finger to stop the bloodshed. Enough is enough.


“Countless families, survivors and young people around the country have courageously turned their grief into action. Inspired by their strength and tireless advocacy, the new Democratic Majority will act boldly and decisively to ensure that no other family must endure the pain caused by gun violence.”

 The gun control lobby was supportive of Pelosi becoming Speaker and they are expecting their payoff. I have no doubt that she will attempt to come through. As Politico reports, she even has some Republican allies on gun control like Rep. Peter King (R-NY). Moreover, the House Judiciary Committee will be headed by known gun control advocate Jerold Nadler (D-NY) and there will be a House Gun Violence Task Force headed by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA).

What does all of this mean?

It means that we need to be on Defcon 1 for any and all gun control bills being introduced in January 2019 and those of us who have Republican senators need to be talking to them now. Take Giffords’ wish list, make comments on it, and email or fax it to those senators. Explain that red flag laws aka “Extreme Violence Protection Orders” not only violate the Constitution but get innocent people killed. Given how the GOP bows and scrapes to cops emphasize that some of those killed trying to enforce such a law will be cops. I think you can go through that list and come up with more reasons that none of them need be passed.

Giffords Christmas Wish List

The cult of personality known as Giffords sent out their Christmas wish list yesterday. Robin Lloyd, their Director of Government Affairs (read lobbyist), included everything under the Sun with maybe the exception of a pony. While officially called their “policy recommendations for the 116th Congress”, it is a wish list. The unfortunate thing is that most of it could pass the House. As to the Senate, that will depend upon how squishy or “reasonable” the Republicans will be. As to Mr. Trump and his veto pen, I think it depends on the day.

And here is Gabby and company’s wish list presented in its entirety. I will to comment on parts of it in later blog posts.

This is your comprehensive guide to potential gun safety policy actions the next Congress could take to save lives. Save this email. But please forward it to friends as well. There is no better source for what is possible when the new Congress is sworn in next month.


During the 115th Congress alone, the United States experienced tragic shootings in Alexandria, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Parkland, Santa Fe, Pittsburgh, and Thousand Oaks, just to name a few. In recent years, the number of gun deaths and injuries has increased, with more than 121,000 people shot in 2015 and more than 155,000 people shot in 2016.


The public recognizes that these levels of gun violence are unacceptable: 7 in 10 Americans want stronger gun laws. An overwhelming majority of Americans— 97% —are in favor of universal background checks. 87% believe that gun violence is a public health issue, and 76% support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funding research on gun violence.


In the states, this support has led to meaningful change. In 2018, 27 states passed 67 new gun safety laws; among those, 11 states passed legislation to keep guns away from domestic abusers, six enacted laws to improve background checks, and eight passed measures to fund urban violence reduction programs. The state laws with the greatest momentum in 2018 were extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws, which allow law enforcement or family members to temporarily remove firearms from individuals in crisis. Eight governors— including five Republicans —signed these bills into law.


Still, both state legislatures and Congress must take further action in order to address our nation’s gun violence epidemic and save lives. In addition to passing the legislation outlined below, Giffords urges Congress to exercise its oversight authority over federal agencies responsible for enforcing gun laws and to be wary of efforts to roll back our nation’s gun laws. Congressional committees should proactively seek testimony and information from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about resources needed to better implement and enforce existing gun laws.


CONGRESS SHOULD IMMEDIATELY ACT ON THE FOLLOWING POLICIES:


UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS


Universal background checks would ensure that people prohibited from purchasing firearms cannot do so through an unregulated sale from an unlicensed or online seller, at a gun show, or through a private sale between individuals. Closing this background check loophole is critical to making sure criminals and other dangerous people cannot easily access firearms. A universal background check requirement for all gun transfers — with reasonable exceptions for hunting, self-defense, and family—is the strongest policy solution to prevent prohibited individuals from getting their hands on guns. Background checks are proven to save lives: States that require a background check on every handgun sale experience 38% fewer gun homicides of women by intimate partners, 53% fewer law enforcement officers shot and killed, and 53% fewer firearm suicides.


FEDERAL GUN VIOLENCE RESEARCH


Gun violence is a public health crisis and must be addressed as such. But in order to truly address a public health problem, we must first fully understand it. The solution is simple: legislators serious about protecting their constituents from gun violence should invest in federal research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Leaders have made clear that at this juncture, only a lack of funding constrains the CDC from performing this lifesaving research. Earlier this year, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar acknowledged that his agency is not legally prohibited from studying gun violence—a sentiment echoed by the FY18 omnibus bill. In October 2018, CDC Director Robert Redfield stated that the CDC has no restrictions on potential research, and should money be appropriated by Congress, the CDC will move forward with gun violence research.


ENACT EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS


Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws enable family members or law enforcement to petition a court for a temporary order prohibiting a person from purchasing or possessing firearms. These orders are sought when the individual demonstrates behaviors that indicate they may pose a danger to themselves or others. ERPO laws are designed to help people in crisis—like the shooter in Parkland, Florida, who classmates, teachers, family members, and law enforcement officers noticed was exhibiting dangerous behaviors. ERPO laws are proven to save lives: in Connecticut , for every 10–20 orders issued, one life was saved. Thirteen states have now enacted some form of an extreme risk law, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.


PREVENT DOMESTIC ABUSERS FROM ACCESSING FIREARMS


Domestic violence and firearms are a deadly combination. A woman is five times more likely to die in a domestic violence situation if her abuser has access to a firearm. Current federal law prohibits abusers who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors and abusers subject to certain domestic violence protective orders from purchasing or possessing guns. However, federal laws do not apply to many abusers who victimize non-spousal partners or a family member other than a partner or child, such as a non-cohabiting boyfriend.


FUND EVIDENCE-BASED VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS


Gun violence disproportionately impacts communities of color. From 2012 to 2016, African American children and teens were nearly 15 times as likely to be shot to death as their white peers. In that same time frame, Hispanic children and teens and Native American children and teens were both three times as likely to be shot to death as their white peers. In many cities heavily impacted by interpersonal gun violence, such violence is driven by a very small subset of the community, and a handful of strategies have proven to be successful at breaking cycles of violence. One such strategy, community-based violence intervention programs, deploys targeted services for high-risk individuals with clear and swift consequences from law enforcement for those who continue to perpetrate violence.


PREVENT GUN TRAFFICKING


Every year, tens of thousands of guns are diverted from legal to illegal markets through unregulated gun sales, straw purchases, gun traffickers who falsely claim their guns were lost or stolen, and corrupt gun dealers who sell guns off the books to traffickers. Deadly weapons are too easily purchased in states with weak gun safety laws and trafficked to states with stronger gun laws, where they end up in the hands of people unable to pass a background check and are often ultimately used in violent crimes. While straw purchases are currently prohibited under federal law, they are often treated as a mere paperwork violation and go unchecked. Congress should pass a clear statute prohibiting the diversion of guns into the illegal market to ensure gun trafficking is treated as the serious and dangerous offense it is.


REGULATE ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES


Assault weapons are designed to maximize the number of people shot in the shortest amount of time. The danger posed by these weapons is substantially increased by detachable large capacity ammunition magazines, which allow the shooter to fire a large number of rounds in a row and quickly reload. As a result, these weapons are often the weapon of choice for mass shooters. It should not be easier to purchase an assault rifle than it is to purchase a handgun. Under current federal law, an individual must be 21 to purchase a handgun from a gun dealer, but only 18 to purchase an assault weapon. The Parkland shooting showed us what’s at stake if we fail to close this loophole. Americans are demanding action on assault weapons: 78% of voters support a ban on assault weapons and 77% support raising the minimum purchase age to 21.


The expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 banned the future production of assault weapons but did not address the weapons already in circulation. Today, an estimated 15 million assault rifles are currently in circulation, and any legislative solutions must apply to them. Regulating semiautomatic assault weapons under the National Firearms Act (NFA)— the same way that gun silencers and machine guns are regulated—allows law-abiding gun owners to legally possess these firearms, while also addressing the public safety concerns of the public and law enforcement. Congress must also limit the future manufacture and sale of assault weapons to reduce the easy availability of such weapons.


Large capacity magazines, typically defined as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, significantly increase a shooter’s ability to injure and kill large numbers of people quickly because they enable the individual to fire repeatedly without needing to reload. The time required to reload a weapon can be critical in enabling victims to escape and law enforcement or others to intervene. Large capacity magazines have been used frequently in mass shootings. Congress should consider a ban on large capacity magazines, which would reduce the potential lethality of any firearm that can accept a magazine, including a firearm that is not an assault weapon. 70% of voters support a ban on large capacity magazines.


TREAT BUMP STOCKS LIKE MACHINE GUNS


A gun does not have to be fully automatic in order to act like an automatic firearm. In October 2017, a gunman in Las Vegas used a firearm accessory called a “bump stock” to fire more than 1,100 rounds of ammunition in 11 minutes, killing 58 people and injuring over 500. Despite calls for Congress to act and confirmation by the acting ATF director that a legislative solution would be the best route, over a year after the Las Vegas massacre, bump stocks remain unregulated and legal to purchase. Regulating bump stocks has broad support: Eight in ten Americans, including 77% of Republicans, support banning these dangerous devices, as do nearly three-fourths of voters in gun-owning households. The Department of Justice is currently considering a new rule to regulate bump stocks like machine guns; however, such regulation is likely to become tied up in litigation after being finalized. As a result, swift congressional action is critical to ensuring these dangerous items do not fall into the wrong hands.


REPEAL GUN INDUSTRY IMMUNITY


The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) provides broad immunity to gun manufacturers and dealers in federal and state court. Enacted in 2005, PLCAA prevents plaintiffs from filing lawsuits against gun manufacturers or dealers in cases where these parties have been negligent and there has been “criminal or unlawful misuse” of a firearm or ammunition. Such immunity is unique to the gun industry and removes any incentive for manufacturers to innovate and adopt new gun safety practices. In other industries, civil liability has historically played an important role in injury prevention” lawsuits against the tobacco industry forced cigarette manufacturers to adopt new ways to market their products to prevent youth smoking, and lawsuits against car manufacturers have forced the industry to adopt better safety measures to reduce automobile deaths. Congress should pass legislation repealing PLCAA and place the firearm industry on equal ground with other American industries.


IMPLEMENT CHILD ACCESS PREVENTION LAWS


Research shows that easily accessible firearms in the home are associated with an increased risk of suicide, as well as unintentional injuries and deaths, among children and young people. More than two-thirds of students who used guns to commit “targeted violence” against their school acquired the gun or guns used in their attacks from their own home or that of a relative. Child access prevention laws hold adults liable when minors gain access to negligently stored firearms or when parents or guardians directly provide a firearm to a minor. With 4.6 million American children living in homes with loaded, unlocked guns, it is critical that Congress pass legislation to encourage states to enact child access prevention laws and discourage unsafe storage of firearms.


ENACT PERMIT-TO-PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDGUNS


Permit-to-purchase laws require an individual to obtain a license or permit from law enforcement before purchasing a gun. These laws have been enacted in ten states thus far, and are proven to make communities safer by reducing firearm homicides and keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited individuals. In states which have had effective handgun purchaser licensing laws on the books for decades, like Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, the vast majority of crime guns originate in other states, indicating that gun traffickers seek guns elsewhere. After Connecticut’s implementation of a permit-to-purchase law, gun homicides decreased 40% between 1996 and 2005. Conversely, when Missouri repealed its permit-to-purchase system in 2007, gun homicides increased by 25%. The evidence is clear: Congress should encourage more states to implement this lifesaving policy.


ENSURE THE COMPLETION OF ALL BACKGROUND CHECKS


Background checks on firearms sales and transfers help keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) consists of a set of databases maintained by the FBI and used to conduct background checks on sales and transfers at federally licensed dealers.


Though most background checks are processed within minutes, occasionally a NICS examiner will need time to conduct more research if records indicate the buyer may have a possible firearms prohibition. If the firearms dealer has not been notified by the NICS examiner within three business days that the sale would violate federal or state laws, the dealer must determine if he or she will proceed with the sale. When firearms sales proceed by default because the FBI is not able to complete the background check within the three-day timeframe, ineligible people can purchase guns, like the shooter who murdered nine people in a church in Charleston, South Carolina in 2015. In 2000, the FBI said the three-day window should be extended to give examiners more time to investigate; in March of 2018, FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich agreed that “it would make sense” to extend the window to ensure fewer guns are sold to prohibited purchasers. Congress should pass legislation close this “Charleston loophole” to prohibit firearms dealers from selling a firearm before a background check is completed.


ALERT LAW ENFORCEMENT OF ATTEMPTED PROHIBITED PURCHASES


When felons and other prohibited people lie on the form when buying a gun, not only are they violating federal gun laws, they may also be planning violent crimes. Current law does not, however, ensure that state or local law enforcement are made aware of these situations. Bipartisan legislation was introduced in both chambers in the 115th Congress to ensure state and local law enforcement are notified when prohibited individuals attempt to purchase a firearm. Prompt notification of local law enforcement can help ensure the prohibited purchaser does not attempt to access firearms in other ways, like through an unregulated private sale or over the internet.


STRENGTHEN OVERSIGHT OF FIREARMS DEALERS


Proper oversight of gun dealers is essential to reducing firearms trafficking. Gun dealers supply the majority of guns sold to the public, including guns eventually recovered in crimes, but they are subject to few federal regulations and weak enforcement of these regulations. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is responsible for inspecting gun dealers, but ATF is often under-resourced and unable to provide adequate oversight. In many cases, dealers that are found to be in violation of the law often have their penalties reduced. As a consequence, corrupt gun dealers represent a major source of guns trafficked to dangerous individuals and criminals, either directly or through straw purchasers (who buy guns for individuals who are prohibited from buying them) and gun traffickers (who purchase guns to resell on the black market). Guns lost or stolen from dealers who fail to responsibly secure their inventories are also a major source of guns on the black market. Congress should pass legislation to increase ATF inspections of gun dealers and strengthen penalties for corrupt gun dealers.


SET FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES UP FOR SUCCESS


The ATF and FBI can only perform their intended functions if they have the resources to do so, but both agencies have been under-resourced over the past several years. The FBI maintains the NICS system and is responsible for meeting increasing demand for background checks. 2016 saw the highest number of background checks ever, with 2017 not far behind. ATF, the agency primarily responsible for the investigation and prevention of federal firearms offenses, consistently receives insufficient funding to carry out its duties. In 2017, nearly 135,000 federally licensed firearms dealers were operating in the United States, which ATF is responsible for regularly inspecting. But with a small workforce —ATF is smaller than the Broward County, Florida, sheriff’s office—and not enough funding, this can be an impossible task. In March 2018, Acting Director Tom Brandon described ATF as “$20 million in the hole,” but noted that with more resources, the agency “could do more.”


But even with the appropriate resources, the ability of federal law enforcement officers to do their jobs effectively will remain hindered by restrictive budget riders known collectively as the Tiahrt Amendments. These riders hamstring ATF’s ability to trace crime guns by prohibiting the use of searchable databases and banning the consolidation of gun sales records maintained by federally licensed firearm dealers, (FFLs). A prohibition on the release of crime gun trace data to the public prohibits researchers from clearly identifying trafficking patterns, while another rider forbids ATF from requiring FFLs to take a physical inventory, making it easier for dealers to avoid accountability for proper record-keeping and timely reporting of lost and stolen guns. By placing such restrictions on federal agencies, Congress significantly weakens law enforcement’s abilities to enforce gun laws, prevent gun crime, and keep communities safe. Acting Director Brandon referred to these restrictions as “not optimum, but it’s the law.” This is a law that Congress should repeal.


DEVELOP GUN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY


Gun safety technology includes personalized guns and accessories such as gun safes, trigger locks, and retrofit kits that prevent firearms from being fired by unauthorized users. These innovations have the potential to reduce gun suicides and unintentional shootings, especially among children, as well as gun thefts. Nearly 7,000 children in the United States receive medical treatment for gun-related injuries each year. Personalized guns and accessories let owners control who can access their gun. The technology that gives owners this control includes biometric security methods, like fingerprint sensors, and radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology, which uses radio waves to identify objects.


Personalized accessories, like a fingerprint trigger lock, add an extra layer of security to gun safes or locks. When used with traditional guns, they offer a similar level of security to personalized guns. Congress can encourage the development of these potentially lifesaving technologies by providing research and development tax credits and grants for gun safety technology.

A Takeaway For Gun Owners From Pelosi’s Campaign For Speaker

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

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.

In a story in the Washington Examiner about Pelosi’s campaign for Speaker and the battle her allies are waging on her behalf was this:

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.

SAF And NRA File Joint Suit Against Washington State Over I-1639

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

The Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association have joined together to challenge parts of the recently passed Washington State Initiative 1639 in a federal lawsuit. The initiative contained a laundry list of gun control measures including a definition of an assault weapon (sic) that would include Ruger 10/22s, raised the age to purchase semi-automatic rifles to 21, specified waiting periods, enacted a safe storage provision, includes a $25 tax on each semi-automatic rifle sold, requires law enforcement to verify annually that owners of handguns and semi-auto rifles are legally allowed to own them, and it includes a training requirement.

The initiative was funded in great part by billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg, Nick Hanauer, and the late Paul Allen. The goal, while not state overtly, is to kill out the gun culture in Washington State by making it so onerous and creating such a slippery slope that casual gun owners will just give up. You can hear some thoughts on this from a Washington State resident in Episode 308 of The Squirrel Report podcast.

The lawsuit, Mitchell et al v. State of Washington et al, was filed on Wednesday in US District Court for the Western District of Washington. It is a complaint for both a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief based upon a claim of violations of the Commerce Clause, and the 2nd and 14th Amendment.

The plaintiffs are firearms dealers Daniel Mitchell and Robin Ball, 19 year old competitive shooter Luke Rettmer who is a member of the US Long Range Rifle Under 21 team, 19 year old Army reservist and college student Nathaniel Casey, and recreational shooters Armen Tooloee and Matthew Wald who are 20 and 19 years old respectively. The Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association are the organizational plaintiffs in the case.

The lawsuit focuses in on four aspects of I-1639 which goes into effect, in part, on January 1, 2019 with the remainder going into effect on July 1, 2019. First, it challenges Section 12 of the Initiative’s ban on the sale of semi-automatic rifles to out-of-state residents on the grounds it “impermissibly burdens interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. I § 8 cl. 3.”

Secondly, the lawsuit challenges Section 13 of the Initiative which raises the age to purchase semi-automatic rifles to 21. It seeks a declaration that “by preventing the sale to otherwise qualified adults under age 21 of certain rifles, impermissibly burdens their exercise of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.” They are making this claim on behalf of both the Young Adult Plaintiffs and the Organizational Plaintiffs. It is asserted that no state interest justifies this infringement and that the ban is broader than needed to serve any “possible alleged governmental interest.”

Thirdly, the lawsuit contends that the Section 13 of the Initiative “impermissably burdens” the rights guaranteed to the Young Adult Plaintiffs under Article I Section 24 of the Washington Constitution.

Finally, the lawsuit says that the intention of Washington State Attorney General Robert Ferguson to enforce the provisions of I-1639 and will be acting under “color of law”. Thus, Ferguson will be depriving “plaintiffs of civil rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

The plaintiffs seek to have the challenged portions of I-1639 declared unconstitutional and to enjoin enforcement of the entire I-1639 unless the challenged parts are ruled severable, and if so, then enforcement of the challenged parts.

The complaint in its entirety can be found here.

Both the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association have issued releases regarding this lawsuit.

Alan Gottlieb of SAF had this to say:

“We are also considering additional legal challenges,” SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb confirmed. “We are disappointed that too many Evergreen State voters were fooled into supporting this 30-page gun control scheme, despite overwhelming law enforcement opposition. This initiative is an affront to the constitutional rights enshrined in the Second Amendment and the Washington state constitution, especially for young adults.

“We’re determined to fight this egregious measure because constitutionally-protected rights should never be subject to a popularity vote,” he stated. “The wealthy elitists behind I-1639 want to turn a right into a regulated privilege. This measure was only designed to have a chilling effect on the exercise of a constitutional right by honest citizens while having no impact at all on criminals, and we cannot let it go unchallenged.”

Chris Cox of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action had similar comments:

“The NRA is committed to restoring the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding Washingtonian,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA¹s Institute for Legislative Action. “I-1639 violates the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and puts people at risk. This lawsuit is the first step in the fight to ensure that Washingtonians are free to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense.”…



“The NRA will fight to overturn this unconstitutional initiative. We will not sit idly by while elitist anti-gun activists attempt to deny everyday Americans their fundamental right to self-defense,” concluded Cox.

I, for one, am quite pleased to see the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifles Association working together on this lawsuit and not competing with one another for bragging rights. This is the way it should be.

“I want gun control and I hope to God nobody else sends me any more prayers.”

The above quote comes from Susan Orfanos. She was the mother of Telemachus Orfanos who was one of the victims in the multiple murders committed at the Borderline Bar in Thousand Oaks, California. It was reported on the CBS Evening News for Friday, November 9th.

“He didn’t come home last night,” said his mother, Susan. “I don’t want prayers. I don’t want thoughts. I want gun control and I hope to God nobody else sends me any more prayers. I want gun control. No more guns.”

The link to the story includes the video interview with her and a friend of the murderer.

I can excuse the bitter words of a distraught mother who lost a son. However, I have also gotten emails from both the Brady Campaign and the cult of personality known as Giffords calling for more gun control and asking for donations.

Excuse me but these murders happened in the gun control paradise known as California. Giffords Law Center rates the state an “A”. It is the only state in the Union rated this high. Even New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts only get A minuses. In the last Brady Campaign rankings I can find from 2015, California was the number one state in terms of adopting the gun control measures they wanted.

Red Flag laws?

Check!

Highly restrictive may issue concealed carry?

Check!

Ban on open carry?

Check!

Waiting periods?

Check!

Assault weapon (sic) bans?

Check!

Magazine size restrictions?

Check!

Purchase of ammunition only through licensed dealers?

Check!

Background check to buy ammo?

Check!

Ban carry in establishments that serve alcohol?

Check!

The state has every thing that the gun prohibitionists have been calling for to supposedly stop “gun violence” and “mass shootings” and yet it failed. When a murderer is determined to commit evil deeds the weapon really almost becomes irrelevant. It could just as easily have been an attack using a knife as in Melbourne, Australia on Friday. Even worse might have been an arson attack where an exit was illegally locked or blocked. Some of the worst night club fires in the US and the rest of the world have been due to arson.

My point is that there is little that can be done to stop the initial attack even with the most restrictive of laws. Evil people will do what evil people will do.

That said, there are a number of things that might have lessened the toll. For example, if the six off-duty cops there had been allowed to carry in the Borderline Bar, they could have responded with deadly force to stop the murders. Or, for example, as Greg Ellifritz points out, the murderer posted to Facebook and Instagram during the attack which was an opportunity to attack the murderer when he was distracted. While it might have been illegal in California, in many states you can carry in a place that serves alcohol so long as you don’t drink. This would be the place for Designated Defenders as suggested by Massad Ayoob.

I’m not sure how to prevent all mass violence events. I do think Malcolm Gladwell is on to something with his theory of threshholds where each event begets a larger and worse event. Media publicity doesn’t help. I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be reported but restraint and discretion should be exercised. For a start, do like many bloggers and academics have pledged: don’t report the killer’s name. As the No Notoriety campaign suggests focus on the victims and not the killer.

It would be a start. In the meantime, be alert and be careful where you go.

NSSF Analysis Of The Midterms

The National Shooting Sports Foundation sent out an email yesterday analyzing the midterm elections for their impact on the firearms industry as well as on firearm regulations. They will also be having a pair of webinars next Tuesday afternoon which I hope to be able to watch. I’ll report on those afterwards.

I think the NSSF is correct in that a lot of bills will be proposed and may even pass the House dealing with gun control. These will then die in the Senate. They refer to the Senate as the Red Wall. I think they are also correct that the pace at which new judges will be confirmed will pick up.

From the NSSF:

A Blue Ripple, A Red Senate Wall And What It Means For The Firearms Industry

The
results are still trickling in on Wednesday, but we’re getting a
clearer picture of what we can expect when it comes to the next two
years for gun laws in the United States.

Conventional
wisdom says that the party in the White House loses “bigly” when it
comes to the midterm elections, but last night’s results are proving
different. We’re seeing more of a mixed bag in the Congressional
results, a changing landscape in the governorships and gun control
advocates that spent big and claim victory. But that call might be a bit premature.

House of Representatives

The U.S. House of Representatives will flip back to Democrat control in the 116th Congress.
There are several West Coast races still awaiting final counts, but Fox
News’ Karl Rove predicted the final count will be 228-207 in favor of
Democrats, which will see the Speaker of the House’s gavel change hands.

Prevailing sentiment says Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will again become house speaker, but many incumbent and congressmen-elect have vowed to not support her
for the top leadership spot. We can expect short-term leadership
power-plays, but they will have little effect on what we will eventually
see in the next two years from the House.

What it Means

The “Blue Wave” wasn’t the tsunami gun
control advocates expected, but that doesn’t mean we won’t see a flood
of gun control bills. Rep. Pelosi promised Floridians when she visited
there in October that gun control would be a “top priority” in the
coming year. She said then that she’d push for a gun background check bill, which we can only assume means what she’s already advocated for in universal background checks.

Expect more. Virginia Democratic Congresswoman-elect Jennifer Wexton defeated Rep. Barbara Comstock on a platform that included banning AR-15 modern
sporting rifles and standard-capacity magazines. She’s just one of
several newly elected members of Congress who will be looking to make
good on their campaign promises.

Expect
the House to turn from a legislative body to an investigative body.
Democrats will take over every committee chairmanship. We should expect
little to get done in the way of legislation because they’ll be more
interested in investigating everything from impeachment to Russian collusion to President Donald Trump’s tax returns. And firearms will be in the mix too. Expect hearings on
taxpayer-funded gun violence research, magazine restrictions,
ammunition bans, age-based gun bans and attempts to outright ban entire
classes of firearms.

Senate

If
the House was the “Blue Ripple,” the U.S. Senate served as the Red
Wall. And it got bigger. Republicans appeared to pick up at least net
three seats, including North Dakota’s Kevin Cramer beating Heidi
Heitkamp, Missouri’s Josh Hawley defeating Claire McCaskill, Florida’s
Rick Scott topping Bill Nelson and Indiana’s Mike Braun overcoming Joe
Donnelly. Nevada’s Sen. Dean Heller lost to Jacky Rosen, turning one
Republican seat blue. Votes are still being counted in Arizona, and
Mississippi is headed for a runoff. The first and most glaring lesson is
that with the exception of Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), each of these
Democratic senators voted against Supreme Court Justice Brett
Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

What it Means

Most
importantly, the Senate has been called the saucer that cools the hot
tea that comes over from the House. It’s been a frustrating
characteristic at times, but now will become a reality that benefits the
firearms industry and gun owners. Legislation can pass the House by
simple majority, even if it’s just one vote. But it only takes one
senator to kill a bad bill.

It also means that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is going to keep up the blistering pace of
confirming judges to the bench and Trump Administration nominees won’t
be automatically mired in the morass of politics. That’s especially important when
it comes to the Supreme Court. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen
Breyer are in their eighties. Neither has indicated a desire to retire,
but no one foresaw that President Trump would nominate and confirm two
justices in his first two years either.

More to Come

We’re
still sifting through all the results, including state governorships,
state legislatures and ballot initiatives. Tune in when NSSF hosts webinars on
what the midterm election results mean to our industry and what we can
expect. You can know this much: NSSF will remain engaged, fighting
against legislation that hurts our industry and that infringes on our
rights while working to America safer while respecting our liberties.

Democrat State Party Platforms – Oklahoma To South Carolina

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

My series of Democrat state party platforms on gun control continues with Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. As I have found, some state parties merely adopt the national platform as their own and this continues with this series of states.

Oklahoma

There used to be a tradition of Oklahoma Democrats being strong supporters of the Second Amendment and gun rights. Former Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK) is on the NRA Board of Directors and his father Sen. David Boren (D-OK) served on the NRA Board of Directors before him. That was then and this is now. The Oklahoma Democratic Party has adopted the DNC platform with its full agenda of gun control as their own.

Given the state party doesn’t have anything specific to say about gun control, it is important to look at the candidates for governor and attorney. Drew Edmondson is the current attorney general of Oklahoma. His website makes no mention of “gun violence” or “gun safety”. However, he is on record elsewhere as saying that the age to purchase modern sporting rifles should be raised to 21.

Running to replace him as attorney general is Mark Myles. He is an attorney in private practice in Oklahoma City. He says he “Support gun safety and responsible gun ownership.” He then goes on to say:

Gun Safety


I support the Second Amendment and common sense regulations that are constitutional, reasonable, and in accord with the holdings of appellate courts. Guns must be stored safely and they must be out of the hands of the mentally ill. Mark strongly values the opinion of law enforcement and their role in keeping Oklahomans safe, and supports responsible gun ownership across the country.

Hmm. “Common sense regulations” that are in accord with the holdings of appellate courts? I wonder how many Oklahomans are aware that the 9th Circuit has said you don’t have a right to carry outside the home or that the 4th Circuit has ruled that certain semi-automatic firearms and their magazines are outside the Second Amendment.

Oregon

 Moving from a state where politicians and the Democratic Party are circumspect about their intentions for gun control to a state where it is more explicit, the Democratic Party of Oregon’s 2018 platform and legislative priorities call for gun bans (among other things).

From the platform, Article Six – Health Care, Basic Needs, and Gun Safety:

We support the 2nd Amendment and believe that hunting, sport shooting, and safe, responsible gun ownership
are traditions worth preserving for future generations. We thus support comprehensive background checks for all
gun sales and believe in measures to reduce firearm-related violence, injury, death, and to promote public safety…



We support a ban on the civilian sale and purchase of military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Their legislative priorities go even further:

4. Ban the sale and purchase of military-grade and assault weapons, such as AR-15s, and
equipment used to modify weapons into assault weapons. Limit magazine capacity
to 10 rounds. Raise the minimum age of long gun purchases from 18 to 21. Fund and
implement buy-back programs for those weapons and magazines.



6. Repeal the Dickey Amendment and resume public research into gun violence in the
United States and fund comprehensive research to form evidence-based gun ownership
and use controls.

The Oregon Democrats have a number of caucuses including a Gun Owners Caucus. Reading their mission seems to be a mess of contradictory objectives. While they say they will push for a pro-2A legislative agenda, they then say they will support Democrats in office and those that are nominees. Gov. Kate Brown (D-OR) is a strong proponent of gun control having signed many gun control bills and calling for more. Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum (D-OR) is likewise a strong proponent of gun control. Those in the Gun Owners Caucus really can’t have it both ways. As it is, they seem to function more as a fig leave for the gun prohibitionists than anything else.



Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Democratic Party doesn’t have a platform on their website and Ballotpedia says they adopt the DNC platform. Their “issues” page does not address anything dealing with firearms, gun control, or even gun safety (sic).

Thus, let’s look at what Gov. Tom Wolf (D-PA) says he wants on gun control. Like the party, he doesn’t put gun control items on is campaign website. That said, he is where he stands according to the York Daily Record.

Here’s what Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf has said and done about gun control and the Second Amendment.


Wolf has supported:

  • expanding background checks to cover private sales of long guns, including shotguns and rifles;
  • banning bump stocks — devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire more rapidly, mimicking the speed of automatic weapons;
  • increasing gun restrictions for defendants in domestic violence and protection-from-abuse cases.

Likewise, Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D-PA) who is not up for re-election is a strong proponent of gun control and was strongly backed by Michael Bloomberg. It should be pointed out that many Philadelphia area Republicans are, at best, neutral on gun control as they fear the influx of Bloomberg’s money. Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned has reported on this for year.s

Rhode Island


According to Uprise RI, the gun prohibitionists were upset that the earlier versions of the party platform of the Rhode Island Democrats didn’t include gun control. The 2018 version adds this to the platform but the prohibitionists are upset it doesn’t include a “assault weapon” (sic) and magazine ban along with language condemning attempts at national carry reciprocity.

That said, the platform seems to be as bad as most.

REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE


As Democrats, we
respect the Constitution’s Second Amendment and its guaranteed rights for
law

abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. At
the same time, we recognize that there is a serious
issue with gun violence in our country, and we support
regulations regarding the safe use of
firearms.
We are proud of the thoughtful work that has been done in our state to
ensure the safety
of our children and our communities
and we support
passage of
other common sense measures
aimed at protecting the public from individuals who have demonstrated their inability to possess
a firearm without putting others around them in danger.
We
believe that we must
provide the public with the tools to be proactive partners with law enforcement to reduce gun violence. To
keep our communities safe, Rhode Island Democrats insist that Congress enact legislation to
require
unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows
and private gun dealers to conduct the same instant
background checks that licensed dealers need to conduct
using the National Criminal Instant
Background Check System
.
Additionally, we support laws that protects our children and our
families and will work to support common sense gun violence prevention measures. Finally,
because we view gun violence as a public health issue, we also call on Congress to pass
legislation allowing the Centers for Disease Control to study this issue.

South Carolina

South Carolina Democrats passed a resolution adopting the DNC platform in its entirety as their own platform. To get a better idea of what the Democrats would do if elected, let’s examine the positions of their candidates for governor and attorney general as those two positions would have the greatest impact on firearms legislation.

James Smith is the Democrat nominee for governor facing Gov. Henry McMaster (R-SC). His website has this platform regarding firearms:

Advocating for Common Sense Gun Safety


James believes in a South Carolina that’s stands with our youth and he was proud to stand with them at the March for our Lives rally in Columbia. As Governor, James will sign legislation that:

  • Closes the Charleston loophole
  • Bans bump stocks and trigger cranks
  • Requires universal background checks, including for gun show sales
  • Makes it a crime to threaten use of a weapon on school grounds
  • Restricts retail sales of military-style assault weapons, including AR-15s
  • Introduces individual responsibility measures requiring owners of military-style assault weapons to be responsible for safekeeping and reporting stolen weapons promptly

The Charleston loophole refers to a FFL being allowed to release a firearm to a purchaser after three business days if a delayed response is received during the NICS check.

Constance Anastopoulo is the Democrat nominee to face pro-gun Attorney General Alan Wilson (R-SC). She is the wife of Akim Anastopoulo whose personal injury ambulance chasing ads run daily on South Carolina TV stations. Before becoming a law professor at the Charleston School of Law, she practiced with her husband. She doesn’t have anything on her website dealing with the issues. However, in announcing her intention to run, she said she would work to deny firearms to “domestic abusers”. I know this seems to be a common refrain from the gun control lobby but it would seem to already be covered by the Lautenberg Amendment which makes anyone convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic violence a prohibited person.

Fortunately, neither Smith nor Anastopoulo have much chance of beating the incumbent Republicans.

Democrat State Party Platforms – New Mexico To Ohio

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

I’m pushing to finish this series before early voting starts in most states. In North Carolina, it starts on October 17th. This group of platforms will include those of the Democrat Parties of New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Ohio. It is an interesting mix composed of three top-10 in population states along with two rather small states.

New Mexico

The 2018 platform of the New Mexico Democratic Party is interesting in that it is upfront about the influence that progressive and leftist groups and politicians have had on it. Of the 31 state platforms I’ve examined so far, it is the only one that has something like this in it. In a beginning section called “Representation”, the platform states:

While this 2018 Platform as a whole is new and original, reflecting New Mexico’s uniqueness and a fresh step
forward for the party, it is inspired by language from the 2014 and 2016 New Mexico State Platforms, the 2016
DNC platform, the Santa Fe and Eddy county platforms, Progressive Democrats of America- Central NM
Chapter, the Unity Reform Commission, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Campaign promises, and several
Obama era Executive Orders. The 2018 Platform borrows language that aligns with the priorities of
organizations who are unaffiliated with the Party but who share similar values and goals including: 350.org,
New Energy Economy, Food and Water Watch, Common Cause, Frack Free New Mexico, Taos Pueblo, Public
Citizen, Move to Amend, Sierra Club…

 Given this background, it is not surprising to see a whole litany of gun control proposals in this platform under “Public Safety”.

  • We must expand and strengthen background checks for firearm purchases and close dangerous loopholes in
    our current laws
  • Oppose the sale of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines by reinstating and
    strengthening the assault weapons ban
  • Repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that revokes dangerous legal immunity
    protections for firearm manufacturers and sellers
  • Support the enactment and enforcement of aggressive laws against illegal gun trafficking

As a side-note, this section also has quite a bit about nuclear arms contained within it including challenging the unilateral authority of the President to use nuclear weapons.

New York

New York is home to the NY SAFE Act which was rammed through the legislature in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown murders. Thus, the platform of the New York State Democratic Committee is more of a patting on the back for what they’ve done than a what we intend to do in the future. The state’s gun control laws are already draconian so there is little more that could be added.

In the section of their webpage entitled What We Stand For devoted to firearms they say:

Reducing Gun Violence


When the Sandy Hook tragedy happened, New York Democrats took common-sense action, requiring universal background checks on gun purchases, increasing penalties for people who use illegal guns, setting a penalty of life in prison without parole for anyone who murders a first responder, and establishing the toughest assault weapons ban in the country.

North Carolina

As a lifelong North Carolinian and former Democrat, I’m not surprised by what I’ve read in the North Carolina Democratic Party’s platform. The party that was composed of moderate and conservative Democrats has been fully taken over by the left wing. That trend started in 1972 with the McGovern campaign and went into high gear in the 90s and early 2000s. Some of this was indigenous and a good bit was due to in-migration from the Northeast.

In the section entitled Security and Law Enforcement, it states with regard to firearms:

GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION As Democrats we recognize that there
is a serious issue with gun violence in our country, yet we also
respect the Constitution’s Second Amendment. We believe the
promotion of standards to curtail gun violence is not inconsistent
with the Second Amendment. Among the measures we support are
strengthening background checks, closing loopholes such as the
well-known “gun show loophole,” holding gun manufacturers
accountable through repeal of their special immunity status, and
keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. We believe
that responsible gun owners should not be punished for the
wrongdoing of those who seek to do harm, but that we must also
take proactive measures to slow and eventually eliminate this
epidemic in our country.

Given that the General Assembly no longer really has any pro-gun Democrats, I look at their “respect” for the Second Amendment as a joke. In an earlier section of the platform they state:

We support the fundamental rights to freedom of
speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and assembly
2016 North Carolina Democratic Party Platform  and the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law
. We oppose efforts to limit or eliminate these
fundamental constitutional rights.

 They are big on the freedom of speech and assembly parts as evidenced by the “Moral Monday” protests but are paying lipservice to the taking of property without due process of law. The red flag law proposed by Rep. Marcia Morey (D-Durham) provides for ex parte orders taking a person’s firearms. This means a judge issues an order based upon what a family or household member or LEO says without the person whose guns are being taken being involved in the hearing. It is only days later that the person who is the subject of the order gets to have their day in court.

North Dakota

North Dakota Democrats are moving right along with the rest of the national Democrats in their support of gun control including age discrimination, training requirements for a first time purchase, waiting periods, and universal background checks. The NPL in the name of the North Dakota party is the Non Partisan League which merged with the Democrats back in the 1950s.

From their platform adopted March 17. 2018:

Firearm Safety – The Dem-NPL Party supports common sense regulations regarding the safe use of firearms for North Dakotans.

  1. The Dem-NPL supports legislation to close the loophole stating that it’s legal to sell and buy modification kits that can convert semi-automatic weapons into automatic ones.
  2. The Dem-NPL supports requiring North Dakota unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows, and private gun dealers to conduct the same instant background checks that licensed dealers need to conduct, using the National Criminal Instant Background Check System.
  3. The Dem-NPL Supports school Resource Officers who are trained in law enforcement, and in adolescent behavior.
  4. The Dem-NPL supports secure processes for students and adults to anonymously report suspected gun violence behavior, along with organized community forums where groups can share ideas, parents and kids can learn where to turn for help, and training is provided in the community to learn the signs of potential danger, and provides information on how to seek out interventions.
  5. The Dem-NPL supports a mandatory Certified Firearm safety training for any first time purchaser of a firearm.
  6. The Dem-NPL supports increasing the age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21, and require a 3-day waiting period to purchase.

I presume that Item 1 refers to bump fire stocks as any other kit or sear would come under the National Firearms Act. Likewise, there is no such thing as a private gun dealer. You either are a licensed dealer or you are a private individual selling or trading your personally owned firearms on occasion but not as a business. This is an indication to me that whoever wrote this was unfamiliar with federal firearms law.

Ohio

The Ohio Democrats have adopted the national DNC platform as their own and have not written a separate Ohio-specific platform. Therefore, to get an idea of what Ohio Democrats will do let’s look at the platforms or issue statements of Richard Cordray who is their candidate for governor and of Steve Dettelbach who is their candidate for attorney general. These seem to me to be the two major offices impacting firearms rights in the Buckeye State.

Cordray says his administration (if elected) would do the following:

  1. Require universal background checks
  2. Ban the sale of “high-capacity” magazines and bump stocks
  3. Raise the age to purchase any firearm to 21
  4. Extreme violence protection orders
  5. Appoint a “gun violence protection czar”
  6. Create “gun violence task forces”

Bear in mind that Cordray was Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s handpicked choice to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which should show where he aligns politically.

Dettelbach doesn’t mention firearms, gun control, or even “gun safety” on his campaign website. However, in an interview with WOSU Public Media, he says he is for the following:

  • Taking guns away from domestic violence offenders
  • Restricting guns for people who have an established record of serious mental health problems
  • Reinstating the assault-style weapons ban
  • Universal background checks

Moreover, in the state where the FASTER program began, he says he is against arming teachers and administrators regardless of whether they were former military or law enforcement officers. He says, “I think this is a politician’s plan quite frankly I mean it doesn’t protect people in any meaningful way it’s more than a day late and much more than a dollar short.” I guess he is ignorant of the studies that have shown the speed of response is key to saving and protecting students.