Written by Brandon Combs, Director of the Calguns Foundation (@CalgunsFdn), and posted with permission.
In a press release issued by his office on Tuesday, California State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) announced that he has introduced a new piece of legislation, SB 47, modeled after a bill he introduced last year [SB 249] but that was held by the State Assembly. The bill prohibited semi-automatic weapons like AR-15s and AK-47s from having devices known as bullet buttons and mag magnets….SB 47 will also prohibit add-on kits that allow high-capacity magazines.”
The text of the bill as it stands today is simply: “It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to assault weapons.”
We’re not yet sure what “add-on kits” will defined as in SB 47 - the bill is currently a “spot bill” - but we are betting that Yee chief of staff Adam Keigwin will find some way to make a mess of the bill like he did last round. Sen. Yee’s SB 249 gun ban attempt, which stalled in the Appropriations Committee after significant efforts by the STOP SB 249 campaign (a project of CGF and dealer association) as well as groups like NSSF, would have forced gun owners to reconfigure their firearms as “featureless builds” and use detachable magazines (including lawfully-possessed large capacity magazines) or dispose of the firearms before the bill would have taken effect. If you haven’t seen the SB 249 YouTube videos by Wes Morris of Ten Percent Firearms and Jeff M of PRK Arms, be sure to check them out.
Podcast: Jim Bunning, 2nd Amendment, Health Care Reform, Reconciliation, Extremism, Puppycide,Guests: Doug Deal & Mike Hassinger
Now that I have alienated all of the conservatives that read my articles, it is only fair that I explain how I should not be classified as a liberal either. I made my case for most of the tenets of liberalism I support in part one, so let’s see how I stack up against “the other side.”
I can’t imagine the framers of the Constitution thought the simple wording of the 2nd Amendment would ever be brought into question.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This week the National Rifle Association, universally considered one of the nation’s most powerful political institutions, endorsed Senator John McCain for President, a decision that has to leave many of its members scratching their heads. Whether or not you support the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, you have to question the reasoning behind the endorsement, given the specific candidate and the current political outlook.
Article excerpt from NRA’s Political Magazine “America’s1st Freedom” - June 2001
In this clip from a Fox News, we learn about Brian Aitkens, a father, Foundation For Economic Education scholar, and an entrepreneur in transit from Colorado to New Jersey during a change of residence, who was arrested in January of 2009 for illegal possession of firearms. Subsequently, he was convicted of that offense, even though the guns in question were legally owned, disassembled, and with ammunition segregated from the weapons, as he fell under the exceptions to the particularly onerous New Jersey gun control laws.
Several days prior to traveling to his new home with his personal belongings, loading his car so full that it took police nearly three hours to reach the firearms, he contacted the New Jersey state to inquire as to how to legally transport them to his new residence.
A full rundown of the circumstances, as well as the movement to set Brian free can be found here.
As a Texan, it’s hard to not like “Walker, Texas Ranger” at least a little bit, but Chuck Norris lost a lot of my respect when he endorsed Tax-Hike Mike in 2007. However, he’s redeemed himself to the liberty movement recently as he has started to talk about Ron Paul and some of the more pressing issues of the day. He’s always been an advocate of the 2nd Amendment, so he’s a logical choice to lead the GOTV efforts for the NRA. This first video should be a big hit.
In an MSNBC segment about citizens bringing guns to presidential events, network commentators suggest that one man carrying an AR-15 rifle was motivated by racial hatred against Barack Obama. What they intentionally didn’t show you is that the man with the gun is an African American.
I see this all the time in Washington, but that about takes the cake for the most ridiculous form of dishonest hackery I’ve seen…well… this week, at least.
Though not at the rate of former presidents such as Reagan or Clinton, the expected rush of Bush Presidential pardons have begun, sure to raise the ire of some and the thanks of others. While all the pardonees have a “non-violent” offense in common, the wsj.com has noted another attribute that some of them share- a love of guns.
Coincidentally or not, at least seven of the 14 pardoned on Monday are former hunters or shooting enthusiasts. In interviews, five of them said they wrote in their petitions to the government that a desire to win back the right to bear arms was a chief reason for wanting a pardon.
When it comes to the 2nd Amendment who is the political gunslinger? Let’s go beyond the rhetoric.
It’s a question we need to look at closely, especially as the election draws near. Shutting off the media circus for a bit, lets look at these candidates strictly on issues. Then see what we come up with.
Sure enough, today we got a great article to back us up.
Kevin Tracy over at ktracy.com wrote a great post laying out, quite simply, why the NRA looks positioned to endorse Bob Barr. As many of you know, the NRA endorsement is something that most Republican’s sweep each year and is considered to be one of the bigger endorsements Presidential candidates seek. Bob Dole missed out on it in 1996 with his assault gun ban flip-flop, but other than that, the NRA is usually a GOP lock. This year however, the Libertarians have fielded Bob Barr, and he isn’t just a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, he’s quite a bit more…