The synagogue attack in Texas on Saturday was another horrible event carried out with the use on a firearm. What is there to be done to prevent future incidents in the future? Continue reading this story curtesy of Breitbart:
President Joe Biden took questions on Saturday’s Texas synagogue attack and suggested more gun control would not have stopped the attacker.
Reuters reports the attacker, 44-year-old Malik Faisal Akram, was a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Federal agents stormed the synagogue after a 10-h0ur hostage standoff and Akram is now dead.
Biden commented on the incident, mentioning more gun control, only to admit that more gun control would not have helped in this situation:
Allegedly, [Akram] purchased…[the weapons] on the street. Now what that means, I don’t know. Whether he purchased it from an individual in a homeless shelter or a homeless community, or whether — because that’s where he said he was — it’s hard to tell. I just don’t know.
…The guns are — we should be — the idea of background checks are critical. But you can’t stop something like this if someone is on the street buying something from somebody else on the street.
Biden then criticized the surging gun sales America has witnessed during the past two years: “There’s so many guns that have been sold of late; it’s just ridiculous.”
Breitbart News reported nearly 23 million guns were sold in 2020 and that the FBI conducted over 38,8 million National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) checks in 2021. The 38.8 is not a precise indicator of the number of guns sold, but it does suffice to show that surge in gun sales continued into 2021.
It is important to understand nearly 23 millions guns sold in 2020, mentioned above, and the number sold after NICS checks in 2021 were all sold via background checks.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio and a Turning Point USA Ambassador. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. Reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
There is a new bill in the Missouri Senate that is seeking to repeal parts of the 2nd Amendment Act. What is the significance of this move? Continue reading this story curtesy of KRMS Radio:
There’s a new bill aiming to repeal parts of the recently enacted controversial 2nd Amendment gun law in the Show Me State.
Missouri Senate Minority Leader John Rizzo of Kansas City says the 2nd Amendment Preservation act prevents law enforcement from working with Federal Agencies on violent weapons crimes.
Current Senate Majority Leader Caleb Rowden of Columbia says changing the law would be terribly difficult..“I think you’re going to have to present a incredibly compelling case that what we did…has had a direct impact on XYZ enforcement, and we’re going to have to see that…then you’re going to have to give us a solution that fixes that problem without undoing all the other things we want to do.”
The law aims to invalidate federal gun laws and fine law enforcement agencies up to 50-thousand-dollars if they enforce the laws.
Free speech has been a hot button issue lately. A second federal court blocked the enforcement of SB 742 in California, was this law an attack on free speech? Continue reading for more information, story curtesy of CBN News:
A second federal court has blocked the enforcement of a California law that banned free speech outside of vaccination sites and abortion clinics.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order against the law known as SB 742 late last month.
The lawsuit was brought by Life Legal Defense Foundation Chief Legal Officer Katie Short representing activists, Teresita Aubin, David Brownfield, and Wynette Sills, who claimed the new statute violates their free speech rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution by creating a broad buffer zone around all sites in California where vaccines are administered.
***Please sign up for CBN Newsletters and download the CBN News app to ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***
The court also found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success with their case based on the merits of their First Amendment claim and so, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins blocked enforcement of SB 742 in its entirety.
The judge also said the language of the law raised serious concerns about a violation of the freedom of speech.
“This language raises a very real risk that speech will necessarily be chilled in the course of enforcement of this law, even in the absence of the overbroad harassment section,” Cousins wrote. “It is not at all clear how a given law enforcement official is supposed to determine, possibly from a significant distance, whether someone is approaching with the lawful purposes of educating or leafleting, as opposed to the unlawful purpose of intimidating or interfering.” The court also held that the law is not “content-neutral” because it targets only certain types of speech. Laws that are not content-neutral are subject to the highest level of judicial scrutiny.
“Life Legal is pleased that the court has carefully considered our arguments and has determined that we are likely to succeed in our lawsuit challenging this unprecedented suppression of speech on public sidewalks,” said Short. “We are confident that California’s assault on the First Amendment will be permanently struck down.”
Law Created 30-Foot Buffer Zone Between Protesters, Vaccination Sites and Abortion Clinics
As CBN News reported in October, SB 742 created a 30-foot buffer zone between protesters and vaccination sites. The measure also included abortion clinics since Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country recently decided to give vaccinations in addition to their usual abortion procedures.
The idea behind the law is to keep those wanting to get an inoculation from being intimidated or harassed while trying to get one. Violators could face a maximum of six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000, The Los Angeles Times had reported.
But the California Family Council says the law’s definition of harassment is so broad that it restricts protected free speech like sign-holding, sidewalk counseling, and literature distribution that pro-life advocates do outside abortion clinics.
1st Federal Case – Judge Suspends Enforcement Related to Harassment
ADF attorneys argued the law restricted Right to Life’s First Amendment right to peaceably offer charitable services to women in need on the public sidewalk and street outside its own building—and even its own parking lot—because Right to Life is located next to a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic that administers the HPV vaccine.
United States District Judge Dale Drozd agreed and on Oct. 30 he suspended the enforcement of SB 742, but only those provisions of the law relating to “harassment.”
“No one should be prevented from getting a vaccine that wants one,” said California Family Council Director of Capitol Greg Burt. “But as too often happens, state legislators enacted an overly broad law as a sledgehammer against a small problem, not caring that the statute violated the constitutional rights of Californians.”
Burt added, “We warned legislators the bill violated the First Amendment, but they didn’t seem to care. So crushing are these legal defeats, I doubt the California Attorney General’s Office will try and defend this law any longer.”
Southern Oregon could have a new voice in Salem in the form of State Representative Christine Goodwin. Goodwin announced that she will be running for election in House District 4, continue reading for more information courtesy of KQEN News Radio:
January 13, 2022 4:00 a.m.
On Wednesday, State Representative Christine Goodwin announced that she will run for election in Oregon House District 4 to replace retiring Representative Duane Stark of Grants Pass.
Goodwin is currently serving out the remaining term of late Representative Gary Leif of Roseburg, in House District 2. A release said due to the state’s new district lines moving north, Representative Goodwin has the opportunity to serve in HD4.
Representative Stark said, “More than ever, Southern Oregon needs a strong, experienced voice in Salem advocating for our communities and defending our way of life”. Representative Stark said, “Rep Goodwin has the skills and passion to keep up that fight for House District 4”.
The release said Goodwin is looking forward to carrying on “…the legacy of leadership House District 4 has had under Representative Stark’s 7 years of honorable tenure”. Goodwin said there are some serious battles ahead in Salem. She said, “Cap and Trade is a real threat to our rural way of life, Democrats continue to erode our 2nd amendment rights, and government agencies are forcing egregious restrictions on our civil liberties”.
Prior to serving in the Legislature, Goodwin was a Douglas County Interim Commissioner, served as a Planning Commissioner, and chaired the South Umpqua School District Board.
Gov. Noem of South Dakota is proposing an end to conceal carry fees. This move would make it easier for South Dakotans to exercise their 2nd Amendment right. Continue reading to find what is developing with this story.
South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem announced during a speech on Tuesday that she is proposing an end to all state concealed-carry permit fees, including payment of federal background checks. Noem made the remarks during her annual State of the State speech at the state’s Capitol on Tuesday.
“Yesterday, in my State of the State Address, I proposed the elimination of all fees for concealed carry permits. SD will also pay the cost for the federal background check. In my proposal it won’t cost you a penny to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights in South Dakota,” the governor posted to Twitter on Wednesday.
Yesterday, in my State of the State Address, I proposed the elimination of all fees for concealed carry permits. SD will also pay the cost for the federal background check. In my proposal it won’t cost you a penny to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights in South Dakota. #2Apic.twitter.com/oVf5o5FJ4o
Noem’s proposal to eliminate fees related to the Second Amendment was part of a larger agenda of tax cuts envisioned during her speech.
“Let’s also eliminate all fees for concealed carry permits in the state. We will pay the costs for federal background checks, as well. It will not cost you a penny to exercise your Second Amendment rights in South Dakota,” she said.
“Three years ago, Constitutional Carry was the very first bill that I signed as Governor. We guaranteed the right of our people to keep and bear arms. Together, we will continue to defend this key constitutional liberty,” Noem added.
The governor also emphasized her focus on limited government in managing the state.
“I am proud to report that the state of our state is stronger than it has ever been in our 133-year history,” Noem said in the introduction of her speech. “This did not happen because of what government did. It happened because of what government did NOT do. And it is because of our people.”
In addition, the governor’s speech addressed Noem’s strong pro-life policies. On January 6, Noem and the Department of Health’s rule blocking telemedicine abortions was approved by the South Dakota Legislature’s Interim Rules Review Committee.
“Chemical abortions are four times as likely to cause a woman getting an abortion to end up in an emergency room – and we have a duty to protect the lives of those women,” Noem said in a statement.
“I look forward to the day when the life of every unborn child is protected in South Dakota. Until then, South Dakotans will know that if a mother uses abortion pills to end her unborn child’s life, she will not get those pills from a stranger over the internet,” she added.
Noem recently drew national attention after calling on President Joe Biden to rescind all federal COVID-19 mandates after he said, “There is no federal solution,” to the pandemic.
“After a year, we finally agree @potus. The federal government isn’t the solution. That’s why from the start, SD took a different approach by trusting our citizens to be responsible and make the right decisions for themselves & their families. Now rescind all the federal mandates,” Noem tweeted in December.
After a year, we finally agree @potus. The federal government isn’t the solution. That’s why from the start, SD took a different approach by trusting our citizens to be responsible and make the right decisions for themselves & their families. Now rescind all the federal mandates.
The South Dakota governor previously criticized Biden over his dire comments ahead of Christmas that told unvaccinated Americans they would be “looking at a winter of severe illness and death for yourselves, your families, and the hospitals you may soon overwhelm.”
Noem argued, “America needs hope and leadership from Biden. Not fear and dire predictions.”
Severe illness and death? Really Mr. President? America needs hope and leadership from Biden. Not fear and dire predictions – America has met every challenge head on and with optimism for generations. Our country will get through this together. pic.twitter.com/wRDsukuke2
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.
Yep… it’s apparently blame the guns time… again. Those pesky high-capacity guns are capacityingly highly and that just cannot be allowed! Think of all the murder (while ignoring that handguns account for most of the murder)! Think of it!! But not.. like.. objectively or critically or anything, you might start putting threats into context then.
Gun violence killed more than 20,000 Americans in 2021, according to the Gun Violence Archive. It was a deadly year across the country, and early data suggests that Washington was no exception, building on what was already a record-breaking 2020.
Imagine a year where drastic social upheaval and shutting down livelihoods resulted in an increase in crime and violence due to the much higher stress on everyone. Throw into that mix a contentious election, riots endorsed by political figures, and very high racial tensions due to shoots and slayings by law enforcement that caused additional pressure on an already stressful pandemic situation. Imagine… oh wait, that was reality. A complex social mix that got a violent shift to a “new normal” with wildly shifting rules and a massive dose of government distrust from all political groups. The government provided a shining example during this period of just how biased they were to their particular teams and that they had no intention of providing a coherent leadership plan if it would possibly aid the other team.
There are no easy answers to address the surge, but the Legislature must show that it can be part of the solution by passing common-sense bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Wait… there is no easy answer, but let’s just ban these things without corroborating data that it will solve the problem? That would make this an easy answer then, common sense right? But there is no easy answer, just do it anyway? Because, ‘AH SCARY!’
For an unbelievable five consecutive sessions, lawmakers have failed to act on these viable proposals, with legislation dying before even reaching a floor vote in the House or the Senate, both controlled by Democrats.
That seems to indicate that they weren’t viable. Viable: capable of working successfully; feasible. Perhaps the biological definition is more accurate here. Viable: capable of surviving or living successfully, especially under particular environmental conditions.
It didn’t make it, it wasn’t viable.
Assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, commonly defined as magazines holding more than 10 rounds, have been used in some of the deadliest U.S. shootings, including at a Las Vegas concert in 2017, where 60 people died, and the 2019 El Paso Walmart shooting that claimed 23 lives.
And in Chicago where.. oh, wait we ignore those murders. Those don’t count. Also don’t point to any shooting where a shotgun was used, a handgun was used, or anywhere another method of injury was used, like arson or a vehicle. Definitely don’t say the name Timothy followed by McVeigh.
Never point out the illogic in that banning ‘these’ items does nothing to move the needle on available methods of injury for mass slaughter should somebody choose to exercise that drastic and devastating agency of their will.
“I just don’t understand when people say, ‘well, that’s not going to really get at all the gun violence.’ Of course, it’s not,” said Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson. “But it’s hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel if we can’t even get bills like these across the finish line in Olympia.”
Bob, it isn’t going to get any of the gun violence. None. Your entire premise is that if we banned one method of injury someone chose in the past, and will again in the future, you will somehow, in some unfathomable way, prevent a person intent on mass murder from choosing any number of other viable methods of injury.
Just say you want to ban all guns, Bob. Just say it. Stop lying.
Ferguson has been pushing for these bans for years and believes that restrictions on high-capacity magazines are within reach this session. He points to the changing makeup of the Legislature, including the exit of legislation opponent Sen. Steve Hobbs to become secretary of state. There is also the recent decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld California’s ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines.
After the Ban was struckdown. Don’t forget that the ban was and is on life support. It has only survived due to politically friendly courts, not common sense. This will probably end up in front of SCOTUS, they’ve gone this far with it and SCOTUS is not likely to rule favorably (to their opinions)
Nine states and the District of Columbia already ban high-capacity magazines, and seven federal courts of appeal have upheld the laws. There is no reason for Washington not to follow.
Appeals courts have a long history of not rocking the boat in their regions when it comes to firearm law. They tend to try and let the issues quietly tie themselves up in court.
High-capacity magazines are often used in mass shootings because they reduce the need for the shooter to stop and reload. No outdoor fun, no afternoon at the gun range, will be disrupted by prohibiting devices that have little function beyond making it easier to kill.
Says a group clearly not familiar with any form of competitive shooting or firearm proficiency training. A group clearly no familiar with ‘an afternoon at the gun range’. Certainly a group not familiar with the time economy of a mass casualty event or the relevant injury factors to make an informed comment.
Washingtonians have consistently shown they support gun reform. In 2014, almost 60% of voters authorized expanded background checks. In 2016, almost 70% voted to allow family members and law enforcement to petition a court to remove guns from troubled people. In 2018, nearly 60% supported Initiative 1639’s set of firearms regulations, including raising the legal purchase age of a semiautomatic rifle to 21.
The support is still creeping lower, and cherry picking the attitudes after emotive events like a mass casualty event isn’t the wisest idea either. Should we look at the American attitude towards Muslims after 9/11 to gauge how we should respond to them? Or should we, just perhaps, take samplings from cool heads with enough knowledge on a topic to have an informed opinion.
While Republican lawmakers share some of the responsibility for why these proposals have failed, continued Democratic control of the Legislature makes it harder to blame the GOP.
Yep. But those Democrats like remaining in their seats. Gun control is not a winning proposition, not since the pressure changed after Clinton’s Crime Bill (and isn’t that an ironic title) and gun owners kept caving hoping the fearful would stop at a reasonable point. The fact is there is no reasonable point, the reasonable points are already law. Murder, singular, multiple, or mass, are all as illegal as they can be. No amount of banning some weapons kinda if their scary is going to move the needle on murder. Not like an economic upswing will, not like an improvement in mental health and treatment availability will, and not like a greater and returning respect for our fellows will.
But we do like to spend a lot of time demonizing the other team. A demonized an ostracized population is easier to hate. They are easier to regard as lesser people. They are easier to convince your fellows that they would be better off without and that societies woes would start to disappear if only ‘those people’ weren’t around or would be reasonable.
That isn’t the attitude that has led to every catastrophic human rights abuse since the dawn of time though, is it?
Democrats have so far avoided forcing some of their colleagues in swing districts to make a tough vote, but lawmakers can’t be allowed to hide forever — not when their inaction could cost people their lives.
They aren’t hiding, they just aren’t as stupid as you believe they are. Even progressive and liberal leaning people are starting to see that the right to armament in the defense of yourself and your community is an apolitical one. Sure it has been embraced by individualists more than collectivists, but those collectivists have had two years and two presidents to see that perhaps the government is not the entity of stalwart reliance that they wished it was.
The topic of Jan. 6th is one that will be debated for many years to come. What protections if any, should be afforded to those that took to the capital that day. Does the First Amendment cover the actions taken by those on Jan. 6th or are those involved in the incident.
By Teri Kanefield/ Special To The Washington Post
In a speech last week about the federal investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, Attorney General Merrick Garland laid down a marker that he is anticipating — and intends to head off — the best likely defense of those who organized and incited the violence, which is that their words and actions were constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.
He similarly indicated that he intends to preempt the claim that any prosecutions of highly placed individuals are politically motivated.
Garland began by letting listeners know that the Justice Department has its sights set on the organizers and inciters of the riot. The department will “follow the money,” he said, to hold “all Jan. 6 perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law.” He then launched into a discussion of the First Amendment: “The department has been clear that expressing a political belief or ideology, no matter how vociferously, is not a crime. We do not investigate or prosecute people because of their views. Peacefully expressing a view or ideology — no matter how extreme — is protected by the First Amendment. But illegally threatening to harm or kill another person is not.” And he mentioned that those who have been victims of violence and threats of violence include members of Congress, election officials, and workers in private industries that serve the public, such as airlines.
Direct threats such as one Garland described against a member of Congress, asking whether she had “ever seen what a 50-caliber shell does to a human head,” are easy to prosecute because they are brutal, direct and straightforward.
Other utterances — even those that do lead to violence — can be harder to prosecute if they are less direct. To take an example of speech that would be harder to prosecute, President Donald Trump called his supporters to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, and told them it would be “wild.” During the days and weeks before a rally on the Ellipse that immediately preceded the attack on the Capitol, Trump called out Vice President Mike Pence, spreading the lie that Pence had the power to stop the certification of the election. At the rally, he told the assembled crowd to “fight like hell” and that “you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and be strong.” Shortly after uttering these words, Trump directed the crowd to the Capitol and told them (falsely) that he would accompany them. Amid the violence that followed, the rioters erected a gallows and called for Pence to be hanged. Others who planned the rally and called Trump’s supporters to Washington made similar statements.
The legal question is whether Trump intended violence and was making veiled threats against Pence; thereby urging his supporters to intimidate or even attack Pence and other members of Congress. A related question is whether any of those planning the rally intended for the rallygoers to attempt to intimidate members of Congress with violence or threats of violence.
What makes these remarks difficult to prosecute is that the First Amendment does protect speech and the freedom to assemble. Indeed, at Trump’s Senate trial after he was impeached for inciting a riot, he claimed that his words were protected speech under the Constitution. It’s not hard to guess that any organizers of the riot or speakers at the rally will simply assert a First Amendment defense.
Trump wasn’t the only person accused of inciting violence on Jan. 6 who has adopted this strategy. His lawyer, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, claimed that everything he said was protected speech in response to a lawsuit brought against him, Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., and Donald Trump Jr. by Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., accusing them, among other things, of incitement of a riot in violation of D.C. law.
Some of those arrested and charged for storming the Capitol have also raised a First Amendment defense. To take an example, former police chief Alan Hostetter was indicted on charges including conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; entering and remaining in a restricted building and grounds; and carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon. In a motion to dismiss the charges, he stated that “in organizing these protests and speaking out against what defendant believed to be the unconstitutional actions of the government, he was acting lawfully and his actions were protected under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
Justice Department officials, therefore, are fully aware that those accused of planning and inciting the insurrection will raise a First Amendment defense. So Garland, in his speech, issued a warning: We know you will accuse us of bringing politically motivated charges, and we know you will try to shelter behind the First Amendment; and we intend to preempt such claims.
To take an example of how this might be done, constitutional law scholars have argued that Trump’s words, on their face, fell under an exception to the First Amendment carved out by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Under the standard given in Brandenburg v. Ohio, Trump’s remarks were “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and … likely to … produce such action.”
We already know from Trump’s impeachment trial that his counterargument will be that he said things like “be peaceful” and later said he wanted there to be “no violence,” which he would argue proved that he didn’t in fact intend violence, making his words protected speech. We can expect similar arguments from others involved in planning and inciting the insurrection.
During the past week, we’ve had hints that the House committee investigating the insurrection is gathering evidence that rebuts Trump’s claim that he said “be peaceful” so therefore he meant “be peaceful.” We learned, for example, that a former White House staffer told the committee Trump resisted adding “stay peaceful” to one of his tweets during the insurrection and was “very reluctant to put out anything when it was unfolding.” Instead, while watching the violence on television, Trump was deliberately “letting it play out.” Former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham, who was chief of staff to the first lady on Jan. 6, 2021, also told CNN Thursday that Trump was “gleefully” watching television coverage of the riot. In other words, investigators are collecting evidence to rebut the First Amendment claims they are anticipating.
So those planning to use the First Amendment as a defense should hear in Garland’s speech a warning: The department respects their right to say what they want and hold whatever views they wish. But their First Amendment rights do not permit threats of violence or incitement of violence.
Teri Kanefield is an author and a graduate of the University of California Berkeley School of Law. For 12 years, she maintained an appellate law practice in California.
Gun control has wasted no time making its way into the workload of legislators up in Olympia. Hearings are set for Jan. 12th, these hearing will be about the new proposed measures to bring new gun control measures the state.
Before even warming their seats in Olympia, Anti-gun legislators scheduled a hearing on three unnecessary gun control measures in the House Committee on Civil Rights and Judiciary. The hearing has been set for Wednesday, January 12, at 10:00 a.m. Please contact committee members and ask them to OPPOSE House Bill 1618, House Bill 1630, and House Bill 1705.
HB 1618 prohibits the carrying of any firearm, whether open or concealed, into an “election related office or facility” including polling places, voter registration centers, and more. Violation would be a gross misdemeanor and revocation of a concealed pistol license for at least 3 years.
HB 1630 prohibits the carrying of firearms at school board or local municipality meetings. Violation may also result in revocation of a concealed pistol license for at least 3 years.
HB 1705 further restricts the centuries-old practice of manufacturing firearms for personal use and self-defense by imposing requirements that far exceed those in federal law. It seeks to prohibit private individuals from possessing certain unregulated components commonly-used by hobbyists to make their own firearms, as well as possessing currently legal firearms that don’t have serial numbers.
Again, please contact members of the House Committee on Civil Rights and Judiciary, and ask them to OPPOSE House Bill 1618, House Bill 1630, and House Bill 1705.
It isn’t unusual for law enforcement to express skepticism on permitless carry legislation. Alabama appears no different in this regard. Sheriff Heath Taylor expressed some common concerns on the subject, including the fact that permits had been denied to people who applied for them. That obviously has the implication that those individuals would be dangerous to allow to carry a firearm, but no specifics were provided on the denials or reasons for denials. If those people are still gun owners it would seem to be a very threadbare point, and if those people are prohibited persons who applied and were denied the rules would still prohibit them carrying a firearm since they are prohibited from owning a firearm.
LEE COUNTY, Ala. (WTVM) – A proposed bill in the upcoming Alabama legislative session is drawing criticism from members of law enforcement.
House Bill 6 would allow most people in the state over the age of 18 to carry a concealed firearm without the need for a permit.
Russell County Sheriff Heath Taylor says he is not for the proposed bill.
Taylor says no sheriff in Alabama is against people’s 2nd amendment right to carry firearms. However he says he is against guns being in the wrong hands.
Sheriff Taylor criticizes lawmakers saying, they have not even let new gun legislation go into law yet before trying to make a change. He says a separate law goes into effect this year for lifetime concealed carry permits.
“I mean, why wouldn’t you let what they did last year, go into effect. See if that satisfies everybody and let it work for a couple of years before you come back and try to change something that hasn’t even went into effect yet” said Taylor.
NewsOne does an admirable job of both victim blaming and putting the problem of Georgia’s violence on Brian Kemp, the Governor. Read below.
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp pushed for a new state gun law during a press conference on Wednesday at the Adventure Outdoors, an outdoor sports store located about 15 miles Northwest of Atlanta.
The new law would do away with the license needed to carry a handgun in public, openly or concealed on one’s body.
During the press conference Kemp, who spoke to a nearly all-white audience, plugged right-ring talking points and claimed that Georgians needs looser gun laws to feel safer in their communities.
“Building a safer, stronger Georgia starts with hardworking Georgians having the ability to protect themselves and their families, said Kemp. “In the face of rising violent crime across the country, law-abiding citizens should have their constitutional rights protected.”
Kemp, like many Republicans, have used fear to create a false narrative that your family isn’t safe because you need a license to open carry.
Gun violence is a serious problem in the black community and a solution was never mentioned by Gov. Kemp as he touted the 2nd amendment in front of his NRA buddies.
GA Rep. Lucy McBath expressed her frustrations with Kemp’s new gun law saying his proposal is outrageous and endangers Georgia families.
Georgia’s laws currently require residents to obtain a license to carry a loaded handgun in public. This includes outside of their homes, in their cars, and at businesses. Georgians are allowed to carry rifles and shotguns in some places, as well as carry unloaded guns in cases.
Many Black people don’t oppose gun laws and gun ownership among black Americans is at an all-time high.
But why should Black Americans support laws that do nothing to benefit their communities, which bear most of the brunt from gun violence?
As the election season in Georgia begins to hit its stride, Kemp and the Republicans will continue to promote the 2nd Amendment just as they did during his first campaign for governor. Only this time he will have to deal with a stronger, more polished Stacey Abrams, who has spent the last three years preparing to defeat him.
Take a look at the press conference below.
Some convenient omissions…
1.) While the shooting victims in Atlanta were predominantly Black residents, NewsOne conveniently omits the perpetrators… Black men, the vast majority of the victims, are overwhelmingly shot by Black men.
2.) The violence in Atlanta, like other major urban centers (Chicago for instance), is usually localized to a few regions. There are lawful areas with lower instances of violence and crime and there are areas where the incidents spike. These regions encompass low income communities, where crime does in fact pay the bills, and one of the currencies of crime is violence.
3.) “But why should Black Americans support laws that do nothing to benefit their communities, which bear most of the brunt from gun violence?” This is a bold presumption. Openly stating that removing a not insignificant cost of access to the right of self defense from a vulnerable segment of the population is harmful. Making lawful self defense a more accessible and less costly endeavor among the most vulnerable community assailed is harmful, that is the presumption in that interrogative.
One can only assume then, that they believe one of two things. They believe the Black community of Georgia is incapable of exercising free agency of their right to self defense and arms responsibly, which seems highly racially insensitive. Or, they believe that the exercise of self defense and the right to bear arms is uniquely a privilege of those who can afford it and is to be kept from those who can’t exercise it by a financial dividing wall. It cannot simply be that they believe the portions of Atlanta where arms are used illegally, in the furtherance of other illegal activities, and often in the hands of those not legally able to possess them in the first place, will somehow be solved by changing the financial cost of legally bearing arms for lawful purposes, could it?