California Lawmakers Pass Yet Another Blatantly Unconstitutional Gun Bill - Why You Should Care Even If You Hate Guns

Eliminating Gun Rights For 18-20 Year Olds Sets A Very Dangerous Precedent

Check Out Our

Web Page - Facebook - YouTube

Lawmakers in California - who have never met a gun restriction they didn't like - have passed a bill outlawing gun sales to 18-20 year olds.  If Gov. Jerry brown signs it, California will effectively remove 2nd Amendment rights for an entire class of adults.  Let that sink in.  California lawmakers think they can disenfranchise whomever they please.  This should greatly concern every American. 

It really is very simple.  SCOTUS has twice held that the right to own a firearm is a fundamental constitutional right.  We have established 18 as the age of majority in America.  So, if we can deny a class of adults a fundamental constitutional right based on their age - what is next?  Can Senior citizens be denied their free speech rights because some senior citizens are senile?  Can 18-20 year olds be denied the right to post on social media?  What about the right to freely exercise one's religion - can 18-20 year olds be denied this right?  IF THIS LAW STANDS, THE ANSWER TO ALL THOSE QUESTION IS YES.

The reality is that we do not deny any other constitutional right to adults based on their age.  Based on their recent actions, I predict that if Gov. Brown signs this bill, the ACLU will join with gun rights groups in challenging the law - not because the ACLU believes in gun rights (they don't), but because if this law stands, all our rights are threatened.

So what to do?

Perhaps we should repeal the 2nd Amendment.  This would solve the "problem" - but it will never happen.  Only 18 states are needed to block an repeal.  Those who want to repeal it would be lucky to get 10 states to ratify an amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment.

Perhaps we should raise the age to buy a firearm - but the only constitutional way to do so is to raise the age of majority to 21.  However, this will never happen - because the very same people who want to deny 18-20 year olds the right to buy and own guns want their votes.  How does it make any sense that we entrust these young adults with our most important civic duty, yet argue that they cannot be trusted with firearms?  In reality, we are not going to see the age of majority raised because it is a political impossibility.

So, like it or not, the only solution is to permit adults 18-20 years of age to buy and own firearms.  After all, 18 year olds have been permitted to buy and own long guns for our entire history.  Even if you believe that doing away with gun rights for young adults would be a good thing to do - and I definitely do not believe this - is it worth shredding the Constitution to do so?  Personally, I think not.

Sen. Jon Tester On The 2nd Amendment - The Good and the Bad

Check Out Our

Web Page - Facebook - YouTube

The Good

When he ran for reelection is 2012, he had an "A-" rating from the NRA.  However, this has definitely changed for the worse.  The only question is, by how much.  I couldn't find a current rating.

Ban of "high-capacity magazines" of over 10 rounds:  TESTER VOTED NO

Would have banned the sale or transfer of any magazine or ammunition feeding device holding more than 10 rounds.  Current owners would have been able to keep them and active and retired law enforcement would have been exempt.

Allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains: TESTER VOTED YES

Ensures that law abiding Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.

Prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership: TESTER VOTED YES

Prohibits the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities (including the United Nations) that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States.

National cross-state standard for concealed carry (2009-2010): TESTER SUPPORTED THE BILL

H.R.197&S.845 - Would have established a national standard for the carrying of concealed firearms by non-residents. Authorizes a person who has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state and who is not prohibited from carrying a firearm under federal law to carry a concealed firearm in another state.

IMPORTANT NOTE: SEN. TESTOR GAVE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT TO THE DAILY BEAST IN REGARDS TO THE CURRENT (2017-2018) RECIPROCITY BILL:
“I’d be inclined to support it, but I’ve got to look at it,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) told The Daily Beast on the day it passed the crucial House committee. “I think it makes things a lot more simpler [sic] for folks, but, like I said, I haven’t studied the bill. Haven’t really done my due diligence on it.”  IT IS FAR FROM CLEAR THAT  SEN. TESTOR STILL SUPPORTS CCW RECIPROCITY OR THE CURRENT BILL.

Veterans registering unlicensed full auto guns from abroad - TESTER CO-SPONSORED BILL

Veterans' Heritage Firearms Act - would have provided another 90 day amnesty period for such firearms that entered the US prior to October 31, 1968, by a veteran while a member of the Armed Forces stationed outside the continental United States.

Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC - TESTER CO-SPONSORED BILL

Would have denied the District any authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms and repealed the semi-auto ban, registration requirement and trigger lock requirement.

The Bad

Background Checks on private transfers: TESTER VOTED YES
Manchin amendment #2908  Note: The measure was developed with input from, and the support of the Second Amendment Foundation/Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (SAF/CCRKBA). NRA, GOA, and most, if not all, other gun rights groups opposed it.


"Terror Watch List" Gun Ban: TESTER VOTED YES
Feinstein amendment #2910: Grants the Attorney General unconstitutional authority and absolute discretion to infringe and deny 2nd Amendment Rights to any individual on the terrorist watch list or suspected of being a terrorist without due process– even if you are accidentally placed on the terrorist watch list, which happened to Senator Ted Kennedy.  THIS MEASURE WAS SO BAD THAT THE ACLU OPPOSED IT!


Concealed Carry in Washington DC: TESTER VOTED NO
Paul amendment #2915: Would have restored 2nd Amendment Rights in Washington DC to allow for concealed carry permits and allowed active duty personnel to carry a concealed firearm at Department of Defense facilities.  Following the failure of the measure, the DC court of Appeals found that DC's restrictive CCW policy violated the 2nd Amendment and DC chose to comply rather than appeal to SCOTUS.  Thus, it is clear, in this case, that Tester voted against 2nd Amendment rights.


Clarified the definition of "mentally incompetent" to prevent ongoing abuse: TESTER VOTED NO
Grassley amendment #2914: Increases the threshold for adjudicated mentally incompetent to ensure doctors don’t infringe on 2nd Amendment Rights, outlines specific guidelines on what mental health care records can be given to NICS.  Would have prevented the seizure of firearms from people who merely asked for assistance in handling their finances.

SCOTUS Justice Neil Gorsuch - TESTER VOTED AGAINST CONFIRMATION
Their is no question that Justice Gorsuch was essential to the cause of gun rights.  

So, those are the facts.  It seems that, like many formally solid pro-gun Democrats, Sen. Tester has begun to weaken his stance on gun rights.   I leave it to you to decide if he can be trusted on gun rights.

Seven Reasons President Trump Will Not Be Impeached And Convicted

Let me be clear: I cannot and will not condone Pres. Trump's sexual misconduct.  I hope it has stopped.  I wish our president did not have this history.  I also wish he would not make many of the inflammatory statements he makes That said, I generally support his policies.  Looking past all of the above, he has done a good job as president.

The question is not if he is qualified to be a pastor (hint - he isn't), it is whether or not it can be proved that he committed a serious crime - one that could result in impeachment and conviction.  Unless the "special prosecutor" has a ton more evidence that we do not know about, they are going to fall short.

1) A guilty plea does not prove that a crime has been committed.  Michael Cohen faced decades in prison on charges completely unrelated to Pres. Trump.  He simply plead guilty to what prosecutors wanted him to admit in order not to spend the rest of his life in prison.

2) Trump used his own funds for the payment.  He did not use campaign contributions. 

3) Former Federal Election Commission (FEC), Bradley Smith has confirmed that this is not a campaign contribution.  “Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a campaign expense,” Smith wrote in an editorial for the Wall Street Journal.

4) Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards actually used money given to him by a supporter to pay hush money to a woman he had an affair with.  He was charged and it was clearly established that he had indeed used money from a supporter to make the payment.  His lawyers argued that this did not constitute a campaign contribution.  Edwards was found not guilty.  If Trump used his own funds to make the payment, his defense is even stronger. 

5) Michael Cohen's credibility can be easily impeached.  He has made many statements that can be proven false.  In fact, one of the charges he faced was lying to banks in order to get loans.  If Pres. Trump were to face charges, his lawyers would ask Michael Cohen if he had ever be charged with making false statements - and he would have to answer "yes".  The moment he makes that statement his credibility is shot.

6) Michael Cohen has ample reason to lie.  Not only is he a proven liar, the charges against him were a powerful incentive to do so.  Additionally, the more significant the testimony he could offer, the better deal he could make.  As the judge in the Manafort case said, people in these circumstances often not only sing, they compose - meaning they tell prosecutors what they want to hear.

7) If presidents can be impeached for campaign finance violations, virtually every president could be impeached.  Every presidential campaign violates the rules - because it is very hard not comply perfectly with the law.

So, after nearly two years of investigation - which was supposed to be focused on Russian interference, this is the best they can come up with?  Sorry, but it will take more than these charges to get rid of Trump.  Put up or shut up.  

Pew Study Reveals Why Gun Control Is So Difficult To Sell

Why Gun Rights Advocates Start With An Advantage

Check Out Our

Web Page - Facebook - YouTube

In spite of decades a propaganda from the mainstream media, Hollywood, the support of one of two major political parties, and ten, if not hundreds of millions of dollars of support from billionaires, gun control groups have not succeeded in imposing UK like gun control.  Any other "movement" with this level of support would have succeeded long ago.  So why has the gun control push fallen short?

Don't get me wrong: Gun control is a very real threat to gun rights.  We must work hard to keep our rights.  However, I think it's important to understand the advantages we have.

Two Out Of Three Americans Either Own A Gun
Or Think They May Own One In The Future

In reality, this figure is likely higher - because gun ownership is almost certainly underreported in polls.  The combined total of gun owners and potential gun owners could easily be 75%.

Few other issues affect 66-75% of Americans.  The only issue that affects more people is Social Security - and it has rightly been called the third rail of American politics.  Guns are not far behind.  This means that when new gun laws are proposed, a huge majority of Americans believe that the new law will directly impact them personally.

That means that they are likely to listen carefully to what we have to say - and they are very like to oppose any measure to restrict their rights.  That means we start with a huge advantage.

But there is more............

60% of Americans Have A Positive View Of Gun Owners

It makes it very hard to demonize gun owners when so many people own guns or know gun owners well.

One Out Of Six Gun Owners Have

Used A Firearm In Self Defense

This means that a huge number of people have used a firearm in self defense.  The US population is 326.77 million.  According to this survey, 30% or 98 million own firearms.  Of these 17% or 16.7 million have used a firearm in self defense.

Every one of these people have friends and families who may know what happened.  Conservatively, each one of these people knows at least 7 people.  That means that  over 116 million people know someone who has used a gun to defend themselves.  That makes gun bans hard to sell.

In Spite Of Massive Efforts To Demonize The NRA
It Is Still Greatly Respected By A Majority of Americans

55% of Americans think the NRA has either the right amount of influence or should have more influence.  Few, if any, political groups are this respected.

It is often said that 40% of Americans are liberal, 40% are conservative and 20% are moderates.  If this is true, then the NRA has 100% of the conservatives and 3/4 of the moderates. 

The significant number here is that 19% of gun owners self identify as NRA members.  Let's apply a little math.  US population is 326.77 million - of which, according to Pew, 30% are gun owners.  That gives us 98 million gun owners - of which 19% self identify as NRA members.  This gives us a figure of 18.6 million people who self identify as NRA members.

Of course, the reality is that NRA membership is a bit less than 1/3 of that figure,  Some people likely were members - but let their membership lapse.  Some are likely the spouses of members and believe that they are thus members.  Others simply identify with the NRA.

We should also recognize that this group is a huge pool of people who easily could be persuaded to become members when the threat of gun control increases.  Remember, NRA membership in the fall of 2012 was 3 million.  It is now slightly less than 6 million.  The fact that over 18 million people self identify as members means that the NRA has strong growth potential.

Gun Control Advocate's Focus On

Gun Owners As Hunters Inflames Opposition

Anti-gun rights advocates continue to speak in terms of what is "needed" for hunting, as if only guns used for hunting are protected.  This is a huge mistake - because the natural reaction from 2/3 of gun owners who do not hunt is, "So I guess he thinks it's OK to take MY guns!".  Most of those who do hunt likely react in the same way - since they likely own guns for other purposes.

Additionally, many people who do not own guns recognize that hunting is only one reason that law abiding people own guns and see through the argument.

The High Number Of Americans Who Have

Some Exposure To Guns Causes Much

Gun Control Propaganda To Fall Flat

Nearly three out of four Americans have fired a gun.  They may not own a gun, but maybe they have been to a range with someone who does.  Maybe they have served in the military, or learned to shoot in the Scouts or 4H. 

Many of non-gun owners in this group have fired the very guns the anti-gun rights advocates and politicians lie about.  They know that what they are saying simply is not true.  They know that an AR15 does not spray bullets as long as you hold down the trigger.  They know that they cannot fire 30 rounds in less than a second.  They may also recognize how ignorant these same people are about firearms - even when they are trying to tell the truth.

The Actual Behavior Of Gun Owners

Refutes The Lie That They Are Careless

With Their Guns

In the real world, they vast majority of gun owners store their firearms safely.  Many people who don't own guns themselves know how their gun owning friends store their firearms - they see the gun safe and they don't see loaded guns all over the place.  When the gun control crowd talks about the need for safe storage laws, the argument falls flat.

So, does this mean that gun owners have nothing to worry about?  Absolutely not!

We still have to be concerned about well financed efforts to pass draconian gun control laws designed to sound reasonable.  We have to be concerned about temporary swings in public opinion after mass shootings.  We also need to be concerned that one of our two major political parties has made vastly increased restrictions on gun rights a virtual requirement for all candidates.  We must fight all of these battles - and we must show up to vote and vote the 2nd Amendment.

However, as we do all of the above and more, we should not ever think that the fight is not winnable - because we have a lot of advantages.