Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Gun Control]]>

Attempt to repeal Virginia gun control laws dies in state Senate

by Leave a Comment

Which, unfortunately, is going to be where a lot of GOP dreams are going to meet a similar fate this year. Republicans in the commonwealth of Virginia captured all statewide offices and took control of the House of Delegates in last November’s elections, but Democrats still hold a one-vote majority in the state Senate, which is enough to give them control of Senate committees.

That means that until 2023, when every seat in the Senate will be up for grabs, anti-gun Democrats are likely going to be able to keep their new gun control laws in place, to the detriment of our individual rights and collective public safety.

The must-pass Senate Judiciary Committee shot down multiple bills that sought to reverse laws passed in 2020, when Democrats controlled every branch of state government. The panel also rejected proposals to make it easier to concealed carry and create exceptions for permit-holders in gun-free zones.

The let down for gun rights advocates is just the latest example of the Senate–still narrowly controlled by Democrats–spoiling GOP priorities after Republicans won back statewide offices and the House of Delegates.

Virginia Citizens Defense League President Philip Van Cleave said getting rid of a law empowering local governments to pass firearm bans in various public spaces was their top priority in the 2022 session. In an email sent out to supporters, VCDL said 16 out of 194 localities have created gun-free zones since the bill took effect, forming “a web of laws that can trip up gun owners as they move around in the Commonwealth.”

Senator Amanda Chase (R-Chesterfield) carried the bill to repeal the law and strip localities of that authority.

“The bad guys with the guns are not going to follow these ordinances,” Chase said. “I think that’s a very naive view to think that if you take the guns away from the good guys that it is going to reduce crime, as we have seen in the City of Richmond.”

The legislation died on a party-line vote of 9-6. Senator Joe Morrissey (D-Richmond) was among those opposed.

In defense of keeping the decision-making power with localities, Morrissey said, “Those closest to the governed, govern best.”

If Democrats truly believed that then they’d allow localities to pass their own gun laws that are less restrictive than state law too, instead of only allowing local ordinances that are more onerous than those already enshrined in state statutes. That’s not how their idea of “local control” works, however.

As Phillip Van Cleave of the VCDL pointed out to members in a recent email alert, since the city of Alexandria, Virginia imposed its own local gun bans, gun-related crimes have increased by 40%. In Richmond, which banned guns in parks (among other locations), there were more than 90 homicides in 2021 compared to 61 in 2019, which was the last year before the city’s local restrictions took effect.

Speaking to the committee on zoom, a member of Moms Demand Action said the policy gives her peace of mind. She said, “That firearms are not allowed in these places, along with libraries, rec centers and other sensitive spaces, makes our family and our community safer from gun violence.”

If this policy gives anyone peace of mind, they’re deluding themselves. Not only has violent crime increased since the state’s firearm preemption law was weakened, the worst mass shootings in state history have happened in gun-free zones; the campus of Virginia Tech and the Virginia Beach city hall, where employees were prohibited from lawfully carrying or possessing firearms. That didn’t stop the killer who targeted his co-workers, but it did prevent those who were concerned about their own safety from being able to protect themselves. Unless these “sensitive places” have taken steps to harden their security, declaring them firearm-free doesn’t actually do anything to make patrons, customers, or employees any safer. In fact, I’d argue it puts them at greater risk.

Meanwhile, Senator Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) is proposing new penalties on so-called ghost guns, despite an uphill battle in a Republican-controlled House. A similar proposal failed to pass last year even with Democratic majorities in both chambers.

Ghost guns are often created using 3D printers or plastic kits. Ebbin said they are intentionally undetectable to metal detectors and don’t have serial numbers.

“We know of some horrific mass shootings that have been perpetuated with what are called ghost guns and they are being sold in Virginia over the internet. We need to see that all guns have a serial number. Responsible gun owners should not object to that and even hobbyists can buy frames, one of the main components of the gun, with a serial number already on it, ” Ebbin said.

Ebbin’s bill was not voted on by the committee on Wednesday but it’s expected to be rescheduled.

The one silver lining here? If the repeal of the Democrats’ recently enacted gun control laws isn’t going to happen thanks to their slim majority in the Senate, the same is true for any new gun control proposals, which are likely to be squashed in the Republican-controlled House.

If Virginians are going to actually get rid of the gun control laws put in place when Democrats captured complete control of state government three years ago, gun owners are going to have to remain just as engaged and motivated to take back the Senate in 2023 as we were to take back statewide offices and the House in 2021.

Felon accused of selling gun used in Texas synagogue hostage situation

by Leave a Comment

In his first public remarks after a British man holding four people hostage inside a Texas synagogue was shot by federal agents, Joe Biden got it half-right when he spoke about the gun obtained by Malik Faisal Akram.

In a press statement, Biden said Akram had been in the US for only a few weeks and had spent his first night in a homeless shelter.

Biden said he doesn’t have all the details yet but speculated that Akram might have “purchased it from an individual in a homeless shelter or a homeless community,” because that’s where he said he was.

“It’s hard to tell. I just don’t know,” Biden said.

While Akram alleged he had bombs, the president said there were none “that we know of.”

Biden added that while background checks are “critical” they don’t work when someone buys a gun off the street.

“But you can’t stop something like this if someone is on the street buying something from somebody else on the street.  Except that there’s too — there’s so many guns that have been sold of late; it’s just ridiculous,” Biden said. “And it’s because of the failure of us to focus as hard as we should and as consistent as we should on gun purchases, gun sales, ghost guns, and a whole range of things that I’m trying to do.”

Sleepy Joe should have just stopped after his first sentence, because as it turns out not one of his anti-gun agenda items would have prevented Akram from getting his hands on a gun. As it turns out, the British national did purchase the gun that he used “on the street,” and according to federal officials, the buyer was himself prohibited by state and federal law  from possessing a firearm.

Henry “Michael” Williams, 32, was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm after authorities say he sold the weapon that Malik Faisal Akram used when he entered Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas, on Jan. 15 and held the synagogue’s rabbi and three others hostage for hours.

The attorney listed for Williams in court records did not immediately respond Wednesday to a phone message and email seeking comment from The Associated Press.

Prosecutors say Williams sold Akram a semi-automatic pistol on Jan. 13 — two days before the hostage-taking. The pistol was recovered from the scene.

Akram paid $150 for the gun, according to charging documents. The documents state Williams was convicted in 2005 of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and attempted possession of a controlled substance in 2013.

Williams allegedly acknowledged to investigators that he was aware he was not allowed to have a firearm and knew selling the gun to Akram was illegal.

He told FBI agents in an interview one day after the hostage crisis that he recalled meeting a man with a British accent but didn’t remember his name. During a separate interview this week, authorities said, Williams was shown a photo of Akram and this time confirmed that he sold Akram the weapon at an intersection in South Dallas.

Williams told investigators that Akram told him he intended to use the gun to intimidate someone who owed an outstanding debt, according to authorities.

If Akram paid just $150 for the pistol, there’s about a 99.9% chance that Williams or one of his associates stole it, which means that all of Biden’s bright ideas about “gun purchases, gun sales, ghost guns” (not to mention his gun bans) are absolutely worthless when it comes to this crime. And Biden himself appeared to have acknowledged this before he started complaining about all those guns that have been sold over the past couple of years; which is itself a bizarre statement for someone who’s repeatedly assured us that he has no issue with gun ownership.

On the other hand, it’s pretty on-point for someone who views the Second Amendment as a clear and present danger, which is much closer to Biden’s actual position than his half-hearted statements of support for the right to keep and bear arms, subject to “reasonable restrictions”, of course.

While Biden’s initial response was to lament the rise in legal gun ownership, I hope that the big takeaway from this incident for a lot of folks is that their safety is their responsibility and shouldn’t be outsourced solely to the State. No matter what gun control laws are in place, if individuals are willing to violate those laws then there’s not much police can do about it (at least proactively) and it’s up to us to make sure that we can protect ourselves from those who would do us harm.

Universal background checks wouldn’t have stopped this crime. If he was willing to take hostages, “may issue” carry laws wouldn’t have prevented Akram from illegally bringing a gun into the synagogue. There’s not a single gun control proposal from Biden that would have made a difference here, unlike the presence of an armed citizen. The president and his anti-gun allies were really hoping they could point to this case as justification for their anti-gun agenda, but the evidence that’s emerged make a much better case for armed self-defense than preventing we the people from exercising our Second Amendment rights.

Op-ed illustrates how ignorance drives gun control

by Leave a Comment

I read a lot of op-eds I disagree with in the course of my day. It’s part of how I know I’m not in an echo chamber.

Many of them focus on gun control but seem to revolve around similar themes, mostly out of both arrogance and ignorance. They don’t know what they’re talking about, but they’ll say it as if there’s no way in the world they could be wrong.

It’s actually kind of hilarious.

This op-ed is a prime example.

A brain teaser book I pull out at small gatherings has a question that asks, “If you could invent something that would be good for humanity overall, but also kill hundreds of thousands of people over time, would you?”

Inevitably, my guests turn to talk of cars and motorcycles but no one ever mentions guns which, unlike cars, were made for the explicit purpose of killing.

I’m quite sure your guests don’t mention guns, but that doesn’t mean guns would never come up in such a conversation. One person’s guest list is hardly indicative of the totality of mankind. Especially since folks like them rarely invite people over who share a different view of something like gun control.

Frankly, I doubt the author has actually asked that question and gotten any kind of response.

Yet his overall point is that guns are explicitly made for killing, which is that whole ignorance thing talking again.

See, guns are made for a variety of purposes. Yes, some are made for “killing,” though that is an overly broad term. A hunting weapon, for example, is made to kill…kill animals cleanly and humanely.

Other guns are made for self-defense. While some would say that’s the same as saying they’re made for killing, that’s not quite accurate. Protecting human life doesn’t always mean taking life. Most self-defense situations don’t even involve firing the weapon. Gun manufacturers know this.

As such, those guns aren’t made for killing, but for protecting life. Unfortunately, they have to be capable of taking life to do so, but that’s hardly the same thing as saying that’s their sole purpose.

Then we have things like target pistols and target rifles. We have guns built for competitions like IPSC and IDPA and other forms of competition. Those are made to shoot paper or steel targets, not humans, so how are they made explicitly to kill?

Then we have his comments on mental health and guns:

Yet in recent years it happened again and again and again when a close friend and two acquaintances died by suicide. I feel like a mound of bread dough getting punched over and over, deflated. I know I am not alone.

The problem with guns is not that you can own one, it’s that they are easier to get than mental health care.

First, understand that this is an “apples to oranges” comparison.

Guns are goods. Goods are often easier to obtain than services like mental health care. After all, guns are easier to get than a plumber or an electrician. Wait until the dead of summer and need an air conditioner repairman and see how difficult that is.

“But he’s talking about suicides, for crying out loud!”

Yes, I’m aware, and my point stands. Goods are often easier to get than services. Do you know what’s even easier to get than guns? Razor blades, rope, and a trip up an elevator to the top of a tall building. All of those can be used for suicide, too.

And honestly, with the supply chain issues and the massive demand for guns, I’m not actually sure it’s easier to get a gun than an appointment with a therapist.

Look, if you want to increase access to mental healthcare, by all means, do so. While I don’t want tax dollars to pay for it, I personally think it would do a lot of good for the country as a whole. More good than gun control.

But mental healthcare’s availability has no bearing on the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that the author is unable to comprehend that fact says plenty about him.

Then again, if you are going to pontificate about the purposes of a firearm without actually knowing anything about guns, you probably already told on yourself aplenty. Including why we shouldn’t listen to you on topics like gun control.

Jewish gun owner shares why he has a Nazi gun

by Leave a Comment

The Nazis were vile. We can argue about whether anyone was viler–and I say the communists were at least as bad–but there’s really no debate to be had about whether or not they were bad.

That’s especially true if you’re Jewish.

I mean, when a group wants to exterminate you from the planet, you have a good reason to despise them.

When it comes to collectible firearms, I could see why a Jewish gun owner would want nothing to do with a Nazi gun. Yet for one Jewish gun owner, it’s quite the opposite.

Before anyone starts yelling and screaming how horrible of a person I am, the date stamped on the firearm is AC G 44.  That means, this gun was manufactured in June of 1944 and most probably not used in the Holocaust portion of the war.  With the Allied forces invading on June 6th, this pistol was most probably sent to the front to some officer to fight the Americans.

That said, here is why I felt a need to purchase it, despite it being a Nazi gun. My son asked me one day to take him shooting at the range.  While there, we got to talking about the Second Amendment.  I explained to him that the Second Amendment was written into our constitution to make sure that we as Americans have the ability to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.  My 10-year-old who is an avid reader and a bit of a history nut asked what that meant.  I explained to him, a tyrannical government takes away all the freedoms that people might enjoy in the place they live in.

I went on to explain that Hitler was a tyrant who took away Jews’ guns and then proceeded to murder six million of us.  “The Jews couldn’t fight back?” he asked.  “Well, some did.  But many did not have a chance and were killed.”

Purchasing a Walther P.38 with the Nazi insignia is the purest form of revenge.  It is also, in my opinion, the perfect educational tool to ensure freedom.  What do I mean by that?  I explained to my son after buying it that the only thing that separates a free people from a tyrannical government is the firearms that a civilian population owns.

Author Yehuda Remer, who bought the gun, makes an excellent point. It really is the ultimate form of revenge.

The fact that someone like Hitler would go nuts at the thought of a Jew having one of the guns made for his troops would make it just that much sweeter in my mind.

There are generally two reasons for people to want to own something that belonged to the Nazis. One is that they’re a Nazi themselves, in which case I don’t want to classify them as “people” anymore (and I mean real Nazis, not the “everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi” kind).

The other is to hold onto a piece of history, a trophy of a vanquished foe.

For anyone of Jewish descent, I can imagine that draw being so much more. That’s especially true with a firearm, the very thing Hitler and his ilk wanted to be kept from the German Jews.

No way, San Jose: 2A activists fight new infringements

by Leave a Comment

San Jose’s new ordinances requiring most gun owners to purchase liability insurance and pay a private third-party a fee in order to lawfully possess a firearm in the city was just approved on Tuesday evening and won’t take effect until August, but the first lawsuits challenging the new rules have already been filed by Second Amendment organizations and individual gun owners hoping to halt the law from being enforced.

On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, I’m joined by Mark Walters, the host of Armed American Radio and my colleague on the board of directors at the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and Mark has plenty to say about Mayor Sam Liccardo’s attempted power grab. To Walters, San Jose’s move is part of a broader attack on our Constitution by the left; one that also includes Joe Biden’s end run around the Constitution by imposing vaccine mandates and declaring an eviction moratorium through administrative orders.

Thankfully, most of those efforts have been roundly rejected by the Supreme Court, but as Walters points out, SCOTUS only hears about one out of every 10,000 cases that are filed. Walters believes that Liccardo and his fellow anti-gun politicians are counting on Ninth Circuit upholding San Jose’s gun control scheme and the Supreme Court taking a pass on judicial review, and that seems like a pretty sound bet, given that since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Heller in 2008, the Ninth Circuit has yet to find a gun control law it’s examined to be unconstitutional.

Still, these new ordinances are so egregiously awful that even the Ninth Circuit may not be able to defend them. The mayor and city council members say mandating these new Second Amendment “sin taxes” is designed to encourage responsible gun ownership, but this is really about making legal gun ownership more burdensome and legally dangerous. Failure to abide by the law, after all, is punishable by up to a year in jail, a $1,000 fine, or both. If Liccardo and his colleagues on the city council were truly interested in promoting responsible gun ownership, they could have incentivized things like buying a gun safe or a locking safety device. Instead they decided to impose criminal penalties on the mere possession of a firearm in the home.

We already know that those who illegally possess a firearm aren’t going to abide by the insurance mandate or pay their annual fee to keep ahold of their ill-gotten guns, which means legal gun owners are being singled out to help pay for the damage done by violent criminals in the city. Public safety is a concern of the general public, so why are only those exercising a constitutionally-protected right being forced to pay a fee to a private third-party non-profit that will supposedly benefit anti-violence programs (along with things like resources for mental health and addiction treatment)?

In fact, while the entirety of San Jose’s new gun control scheme is constitutionally suspect, the idea that the city could force gun owners to pay money to a private entity is particularly troubling. What’s stopping San Jose from designating an outfit like Everytown for Gun Safety or Giffords as the third party through which gun owners’ money is funneled to various groups?

If there’s any doubt that San Jose’s new ordinance is unconstitutional, imagine what the courts would say about a city imposing insurance mandates and requiring payment from all those who don’t own a gun. There are several cities, including Kennesaw, Georgia, that require residents to own firearms, but those ordinances are largely symbolic and have no real enforcement mechanism, unlike San Jose’s ordinances.

Maybe that will change now that San Jose has decided to impose financial burdens and red tape mandates on legal gun owners. I suppose it’s possible that we’ll start to see red-state communities penalize those who aren’t exercising their Second Amendment rights as a reaction to San Jose’s new ordinances, though I don’t think those laws would any more constitutionally valid than the gun control measures adopted by the San Jose city government. Who knows, though. Before too long we could see both extremes on the books and facing court challenges.

What I’m really hoping will happen is that a federal judge will grant an injunction blocking enforcement of San Jose’s new provisions while the lawsuits play out, the Ninth Circuit does the right thing and invalidates the law, and the Supreme Court leaves the lower court’s decision intact.

Relying on the Ninth Circuit to actually recognize the validity of the Second Amendment is a dicey proposition, even when it comes to measures that are clear infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, but if the Ninth Circuit gets this one wrong, gun owners are going to have keep their fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will step in and eventually set things right.

Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Mark Walters in the video window above, and if you’re not already listening to Armed American Radio on a regular basis, be sure to tune in right here.