Advertisements
Home

New York Bill Would Ban Shooting, Archery From Schools

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Assemblywoman Linda B. Rosenthal(D-67th District) is trying to expand the reach of the nanny state in New York.

While there are a ton of schools out there so terrified of anything resembling a gun that they punish kids over Pop-Tarts, there are also schools with rifle and archery teams. They teach kids a lot of important lessons, such as responsibility, discipline, and patience, just to name a few.

However, a New York bill would strip schools of these teams.

A state lawmaker from New York City has authored a bill that would end riflery, trap shooting and archery as a sport in public schools.

Assemblywoman Linda B. Rosenthal, a Democrat who represents the 67th Assembly District in western Manhattan, introduced the bill on April 20. At this point, there is no co-sponsor for it in the state Senate.

The bill, A10428, which was sent to the Assembly’s Education Committee, would amend the state’s Education Law and calls for the “prohibition of marksmanship and/or shooting programs in public schools” – a change that “shall take effect immediately.”

Rosenthal’s bill, covering “marksmanship and/or shooting programs,” includes “any competitive or recreational shooting activities involving proficiency tests of accuracy, precision and speed in using various types of ranged weapons, such as firearms and air gun, in forms such as handguns, rifles and shotguns and/or bows or crossbows.”

In her memo describing the need for the bill, Rosenthal wrote:

“Marksmanship programs in public schools were once popular, but a rise in gun violence and school shootings in recent years has spurred a long overdue. re-evaluation of their place in our students curriculum. A number of schools which still operate marksmanship programs do so through grants from the National Rifle Association, including Parkland, Fla. high school where a former student and marksmanship team member murdered 17 students and teachers in February 2018.

“In 1990, Congress passed the Gun Free School Zones Act to prohibit the possession of firearms on school grounds, but left exemptions for police officers and school security as well as students possessing firearms as part of an approved school program. Research shows that an increase in guns leads to an increase in gun injuries and deaths, whether intentional or not. To create a true, gun-free school zone we cannot allow students to possess and discharge firearms on school property.

“This bill would increase student safety by prohibiting public schools from offering marksmanship programs or other programs that allow students to possess and discharge firearms on school property.”

Notice how she tries to tie the marksmanship team at Parkland with the shooter? She fails to note that, had the school and police have done their jobs, he not only wouldn’t have had a place on the team, but he also wouldn’t have been able to buy a guy.

Through the years, countless kids have gone through various marksmanship programs at their schools. Parkland is the first known case where someone affiliated with those teams has done anything like this. Once again, though, the anti-gunners want to punish everyone for the act of a single individual.

And let’s not forget that the claim, “research shows that an increase in guns leads to an increase in gun injuries and deaths,” is bogus and based on faulty methodology. That study didn’t just look at lawful gun-owning households, but also included a fair number of criminals. These are people where yes, a gun was in the home, but its presence had nothing to do with the shooting that later followed.

Further, if you’re worried about gun safety, why on Earth would you make it more difficult for a kid to learn how to handle a firearm in a safe manner?

Of course, it’s not about safety. It’s about thinking guns are icky and wanting nothing to do with them while at the same time, wanting to signal that you’re a good little Democrat.

Advertisements

Bank Threatens Ruger Over NRA Ties

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

I hope Strum Ruger & Company does not give into the blackmail attempts by Amalgamated Bank to sever their ties with the NRA.

It stands to reason that gun companies would support the National Rifle Association. The NRA wants to keep as large a pool of people being able to buy guns as possible. That means gun manufacturers would have a much larger base of people to sell their products to. In other words, supporting the NRA is rational self-interest, if nothing else.

However, a bank is threatening Sturm, Ruger & Company over its NRA support.

Amalgamated Bank said it will pull investments from Sturm, Ruger & Company and withhold support for an board member if the gun maker fails to adopt new corporate policies and cut ties with the National Rifle Association. The bank’s chief executive Keith Mestrich described Ruger’s relationship with the NRA as “short-termism” in their resistance to new gun laws.

“They fail to proactively adopt corporate social responsibility efforts commensurate with the lethality of their product, and display hypocrisy in touting adherence to the law while working with the NRA to weaken the law as much as possible,” Mestrich said. He made a fiduciary argument that Amalgamated would have to pull funds because Ruger’s effort “creates significant financial and reputational risks” that will hurt the company and shareholders.

Amalgamated sent a letter, dated April 19, to Ruger’s board urging them to adopt corporate policies for gun makers recommended by gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety. The policies range from endorsing universal background checks and increasing funding for federal regulators and gun violence research to monitoring inventory distribution and investing in gun safety technology (ie smart guns).

The letter also singled out company board member Sandra Froman, who also serves on the NRA’s board. Because of the NRA’s political mission, the bank argued her presence is “a potentially significant conflict of interest.” As shareholders participating in Ruger’s annual meeting on May 9, the bank threatened to withhold support for Froman if the company failed to adopt Everytown’s policies.

What Amalgamated doesn’t get is that Ruger and the NRA share the same fight, if for different reasons.

The endgame of all gun control policies is to eventually restrict gun ownership to just a select few, making it practically impossible for the average citizen to own a gun. That means practically no one would be able to buy Ruger products. They’d be forced to compete for limited government contracts.

Why should Ruger support that?

But let’s say that it never got that far. You know, for the sake of argument. Let’s say Ruger decided to bow down to Amalgamated’s demands. What then?

Well, then Ruger would become a pariah in the firearm industry. Second Amendment advocates, most of whom are already gun owners and gun purchasers, would make it their mission to warn people off from buying Ruger products. “They’ll sell to you, but they won’t support your Second Amendment rights,” we’ll say, and we’ll be right.

This will directly impact their bottom line.

Luckily, Amalgamated probably doesn’t have the juice it’s pretending it does. Amalgamated isn’t listed as one of the top-20 investors in the company, which means any impact it makes is likely fairly minimal. While it’s possible it will pick up more shares to increase its ability to pressure the company, it’s unlikely it’ll do so sufficiently to really have much sway.

In fact, I wonder just how many shares of Ruger it owns, anyway. After all, based on its corporate culture–it’s the largest union-owned bank in the country–and how most of its notable clients are progressive/liberal entities, I’d be surprised to see it having owned many gun stocks prior to Parkland.

Oh, I’ll admit it may well have. Hypocrisy is hardly new in gun grabber circles, after all. But I still have my doubts.

Either way, though, Ruger would be stupid to bow down to these demands. There’s literally no upside for the company to do so, which Amalgamated doesn’t seem to get.

Employee Quits Dick’s Sporting Goods Over Gun Policy

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

I applaud Griffin McCullar for his stand for The Second Amendment and The Constitution.

Dick’s Sporting Goods isn’t in a good place right now. Every since it unilaterally decided to raise the age for who it will sell guns to, it’s been blasted by Second Amendment advocates left and right.

Now, it’s lost at least one employee over it.

From America’s 1st Freedom:

When Dick’s Sporting Goods announced it would cease all sales of “assault-style rifles” and “high-capacity magazines” (you know these items as AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines, respectively), and would no longer sell firearms to anyone under 21, reactions among sportsmen and Second Amendment advocates ranged from disappointment to derision. But for 20-year-old Griffin McCullar, a Dick’s employee, it was personal.

In response to the company’s announcement, McCullar submitted this resignation letter, which he also posted to Facebook:
“I am putting in my two weeks’ notice. I greatly apologize as my job here has been great; the staff is phenomenal and very easy to work with, the management is full of great people, and the pay is good. I do not have one bad thing to say about this store. However, I cannot be the face of these new gun policies in effect. I find them morally and constitutionally wrong. I refuse to be part of a corporation with these liberal policies. Again, I truly apologize for the inconvenience. Sincerely, the 20-year-old employee that is an avid hunter, who can no longer purchase firearms from the store in which he is a salesman at the gun counter.” The letter ended with the text of the Second Amendment and a photo of the Gadsden flag.

That just warms the cockles of my evil, black-rifle loving heart.

However, the letter also tells us a little bit about Dick’s hypocrisy; a 20-year-old isn’t mature enough to buy a gun in its stores, but they’re mature enough to sell them? Seriously?

McCullar was able to sell guns all day long and Dick’s had no problem with that at all. He was responsible for making sure all the ATF paperwork was filled out correctly–something that failing to do could land Dick’s in hot water–and to provide information and resources to potential customers. He was mature enough to literally handle firearms all day inside their store. But he wasn’t good enough to sell to.

Let’s be honest, if 20-year-olds are too young to be trusted with guns, shouldn’t they be barred from handling them by the company completely? No buying and no selling.

The fact that it was more than willing to allow a 20-year-old work the gun counter proves something. It proves that Dick’s wasn’t motivated by any belief that people under the age of 21 are too immature to be trusted with firearms. It was virtue-signaling like a mother. It wanted everyone to know how woke it is by waving its progressive, anti-gun flag.

Well, it did. It hasn’t worked out well for Dick’s, to be sure. Nor should it.

Meanwhile, I hope McCullar has a new job lined up. Even better if its one where he gets to sell guns at a place that will sell one to him as well.

Pro-Gun Shirt Scares Texas Woman

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

This poor little snowflake needs to just stay home so she wont get scared over a t- shirt.

 

Leftists look for any reason to be offended. As strange as it sounds, it seems there is nothing that makes them happier than finding something new to throw a fit over–including what is on a t-shirt.

A few days ago in Texas, Troy Johnson took his two daughters to a local park to play. He wore a shirt that said, “I’ll control my guns, you control your kids” with an AR-15 printed next to the quote. An unidentified woman at the park wasn’t amused. More than one park-goer approached Johnson–who was also openly carrying a sidearm, which is legal in Texas–and told him a lady was in the parking lot seething over what she had read. The second man to approach Johnson with his family made a comment that was dripping with common sense; he told him that he was glad there was someone at the park who was capable of protecting everyone. This flies over the head of a leftist, but anyone who is living in the real world understands.

Johnson also learned that the woman called the police on him. He decided to stay and talk to the officers.

The officer, Cpl. Reese arrived a short time later. He spoke with the woman, who told him all the parents on the playground were “very uncomfortable” with the shirt. Apparently, she spoke for everyone and could read their minds. It was undeniable that Johnson’s shirt wasn’t going to cause physical harm to someone. Anyone can see that.

The real kicker is the woman told the officer she wasn’t scared of the gun. She was bothered by the shirt, a shirt that actually makes a valid point. Sadly, intelligent gun owners are better caretakers of their weapons than some adults who procreate.

While “Mrs. Kravitz” watched and listened from about 25-30 feet away, she began telling people there was a man with a gun in the park. This is highly irresponsible. She acted like a typical liberal, using emotion and fear in an attempt to control individuals.

Staying true to form, she also attacked Johnson’s freedom of speech, simply because she didn’t like what he was saying. If she had a shirt on that said something to the effect of “Bigger Government + More Gun Control = More Safety,” we can assume Johnson would not go after her for wearing the ignorant shirt. That’s her choice. No matter how foolish.

The police in this situation also need to be recognized. There is this mentality that all police officers don’t like anyone else having firearms. Untrue. Many officers go to work and appreciate the Second Amendment. Those officers know they are not omnipresent and that some citizens need to be able to protect themselves at a moment’s notice.

Cpl. Reese was professional and courteous to Johnson. He is an example of an officer who is upholding his oath to protect the Constitution, specifically the First and Second Amendment. He quickly identified the situation as trivial.

This woman wasted the time of the local police department because she was offended by a shirt. A shirt. This is how petulant leftists are. They don’t believe in free speech because the truth hurts.

Illinois Dems Push Bill That Might Result In Dead Kids

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

This ignorance of the DemocRats pushing this bill is mind numbing.

Democrats have these weird ideas sometimes. They seem to think that if they hope really, really hard, bad things will magically disappear and we’ll all live peaceful, happy lives.

That’s the only explanation for this Illinois bill other than pure, outright evil.

Democratic lawmakers in Illinois have drawn up a piece of legislation that would give extra cash to schools that reallocate funds toward replacing armed security officers with unarmed social workers and behavior therapists.

The controversial bill, proposed by Rep. Emanuel “Chris” Welch, D-Westchester, would offer grants to schools that use funds meant for school security and instead spend it on mental health services, including hiring social workers or implementing other practices “designed to promote school safety and healthy environments,” as The Associated Press reported.

16 other Democrats in the House have backed Welch’s plan.

“This increased presence of law enforcement in schools does not necessarily enhance school safety,” Michelle Mbekani-Wiley from the Sargent Shriver Center for Poverty Law told The Associated Press. “Instead it dramatically increases the likelihood that students will be unnecessarily swept into the criminal justice system often for mere adolescent or disruptive behavior.”

However, supporters of school resource officers say their role is essential to keeping students safe, especially from acts of violence.

That’s because SROs are essential. When they’re not cowards, at least. They can meet an armed threat with an armed response. Removing them and replacing them with social workers is absolutely ridiculous.

I’m not saying social workers can’t do some good in some of these schools. I’m sure they can.

But when confronted with an armed threat, talking it out just isn’t really an option. Great Mills High School isn’t remembered as vividly as Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School because the SRO did his job and ended the threat. Period.

The truth of the matter is that this bill has more to do with hopes and wishes than real reality.

When people talk about the presence of law-enforcement in schools “sweeping” kids into the criminal justice system, they forget that unless the law permits the officer to arrest someone for a kind of behavior, they can’t do it. If you want SROs to be used less, then you simply make it so they can only act on things that would be criminal outside of school. Few would take issue with such a law, after all.

But to pretend that SROs represent some threat to students?

I’m sorry, but that’s dumb even by Illinois standards. School Resource Officers fill an important role, a role proven to be essential by the failures of Parkland. Had the SRO acted when he should have, how many lives would have been saved? Would we even be having this current gun debate? My guess is we wouldn’t.

But that SRO is the exception, not the rule, and to try and take SROs out of schools at a time when the public debate about combating violence in our schools is so prevalent isn’t just dumb. It’s potentially lethal.

Seriously, it’s almost like they want kids to be murdered.

Police Chiefs Send Letter Opposing National Reciprocity

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

This 2.6% of the police chiefs opposing National Reciprocity are most likely from DemocRat controlled cities and states. 

As national reciprocity languishes in the Senate, it seems the anti-gun forces aren’t taking any chances on it staying that way. Recently, a group of police chiefs decided it was time to step up and do something about it. You know, just in case.

They sent a letter to leaders of Congress expressing their opinions on the bill.

The country’s police chiefs are rising up against another conservative crime-fighting initiative. They sent a letter Thursday (April 19) to leaders of Congress to oppose a bill that would let gun owners with concealed-carry permits in one state carry concealed weapons in all 50 states.

The letter from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, representing 18,000 police departments across the United States, and Boston Police Commissioner William Evans targets the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,” which passed the House in December and is now pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter is endorsed by 473 police officials from 39 states, from large departments such as Los Angeles and Atlanta to small departments such as Spanish Fork, Utah, and Falls Church, Va.

“This legislation,” the letter states, “is a dangerous encroachment on individual state efforts to protect public safety, and it would effectively nullify duly enacted state laws and hamper law enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence.”

On concealed weapons, states currently issue permits to individual gun owners, and different states have different criteria for issuing the permits. Some states require training and proof of proficiency, while some states require no qualifications. Some states recognize the permits of certain other states, but many do not. And a dozen states now have “constitutional carry,” meaning weapons may be concealed without a permit.

The bill in Congress is described by the National Rifle Association as its “highest legislative priority.” The measure would require all states simply to recognize the permits of all other states, regardless of the conditions imposed by individual states for obtaining the permits.

Now, some may accept this as evidence that this is a bad idea. I, however, don’t.

First, it’s just over 2.6 percent of the departments represented by the Association of Police Chiefs. That’s a tiny fraction of the group. While it’s unlikely you’d ever get all the chiefs to sign onto the letter, if this had some overwhelming support from the chiefs, you’d expect to see at least a double-digit percentage represented.

That didn’t happen.

In other words, this was something more than 95 percent of the chiefs didn’t feel like signing on for because they most likely understood there were no risks involved in this.

Every state that issues a concealed carry permit has different requirements, but all include a background check beyond the NICS check used to purchase a firearm. The reality is, we’ve seen that those with permits are far less likely to commit crime than those who aren’t part of that group. Lawful gun owners aren’t the problem and never have been.

It seems that the vast majority of police chiefs understand that and opted to not sign the letter. Those that did represent liberal communities that just don’t know any better and don’t want to be bothered with facts that blow up their preconceived notions.

Wisconsin Court Of Appeals Reinstates Lawsuit Against Armslist

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

This ruling by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals smacks of judicial activism and hopefully this lawsuit will be dismissed.

If you sell a car to someone who then uses it to commit a crime, are you somehow responsible? The answer is no, of course–not if you had no reason to believe he intended to use the car for something illegal, and honestly, who would?

Why are guns treated any differently?

Every time there’s a mass shooting, someone wants to sue the gun manufacturer, as if it’s their fault the guy who bought their product turned out to be a psycho.

However, it also happens on a smaller scale, such as this now reinstated lawsuit in Wisconsin.

The state Court of Appeals on Thursday reinstated a lawsuit against the online firearms brokerage where a man obtained the gun used to kill three people and himself at a Brookfield spa in 2012.

It is the first court in the nation to hold that a web-based gun marketplace might be held liable for negligence in facilitating an unlawful weapons sale.

“There are far too many bad actors out there, particularly unlicensed online gun sellers, who are putting profits ahead of safety. This court decision puts sites like Armslist on notice that they can and will be held accountable,” said Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is part of the plaintiff’s legal team.

For the record, these are either face-to-face transfers from one private individual to another private individual–thus not an actual gun dealer–or they’re someone who routes sales through a licensed FFL.

What Brown is trying to do here is present it like the internet is the Wild West for gun sales, that you can buy whatever you want and it’ll come right to your door or something. It’s not like that.

What happens with transfers like the one alleged to have occurred is no different than advertising in the classifieds. You put up that you have a gun for sale and someone else says they have money and want the gun. Boom.

Let’s not pretend there are a bunch of people out there playing Lord of War or something.

Zina Daniel Haughton and two others were killed when her estranged husband, Radcliffe Haughton, shot up the Azana Spa where she worked. Four others were injured, and Radcliffe Haughton fatally shot himself. Zina Haughton’s coworkers, Cary Robuck and Maelyn Lind, were killed.

Yasmeen Daniel, personally and as administrator of her mother’s estate, sued Armslist.com, on which Radcliffe Haughton found someone to sell him a gun and ammunition while he was prohibited by a domestic violence injunction from having firearms.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Glenn Yamahiro had dismissed the suit in 2016, citing the immunity granted to “interactive computer services” under the federal Communications Decency Act. He found that Armslist only displays content created by third parties and couldn’t be liable for being just the publisher of others’ content on its site.

Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals felt differently.

However, there’s absolutely no evidence that Armslist actually did anything wrong. They simply provided a site where people could engage in lawful trade. If someone misrepresented himself as a lawful purchaser to a private individual who wasn’t required to perform a background check, why are they responsible?

The paper notes that sites like Craigslist and eBay won’t allow guns to be listed, which is true. That’s why sites like Armslist were created in the first place, to give people a chance to find buyers for firearms they wanted to sell and vice versa.

To blame them for this horrible crime is ridiculous. Hopefully, the courts will finally put this to rest.

Defiant Op-Ed Author Refuses To Comply With City’s Proposed Assault Weapon Ban

2 Comments

H/T Bearing Arms.

It is refreshing to see an Op-Ed writer buking against the proposed tyranny from the city of Boulder. 

States that lack preemption laws are starting to see some of the ramifications of that. Communities are deciding to ban the ownership of so-called assault weapons within the city limits, thus forcing owners to either sell their guns or move.

One community considering such an act is Boulder, Colorado.

At least one resident of Boulder, however, is defiant.

My home town of Boulder is about to define me as a criminal if I do not disarm or move.

Let this column serve as a public notice, I will not comply.

I was raised in Colorado and moved to Boulder in 1984, graduated from CU there and stayed. I proudly represented Boulder on the RTD Board of Directors. My late daughter rests in a Boulder cemetery. I plan to be laid to rest beside her when my time comes. All that to say my roots are deep in my hometown.

But to be who I am, to be true to my values I hold dear, I must choose to leave or go to jail.

Boulder prides itself on promoting inclusion, diversity and tolerance. And there was a time it lived up to those now-empty words — a time when Boulder was diverse enough to welcome such opposites as the beatnik, Buddhist Naropa Institute and Soldier of Fortune magazine.

But it’s getting very clear Boulder doesn’t want my type in their lily-white, homogeneous town.

Boulder City Council is on the verge of passing a sweeping anti-gun ordinance, laughably called an assault weapons ban. So loosely written, this ordinance would ban the first gun I ever owned, a simple .22 caliber rifle, the same type most farm boys get on their twelfth  birthday. Its sin? It can be fitted with a pistol-grip or a folding stock.

The author, Jon Caldara, is right to be defiant. Such a ban is probably unconstitutional anyway, and defiance can lead to a Supreme Court decision overturning such a ban. Possibly all assault weapon bans, even, though I wouldn’t hold my breath. Still, a guy can dream.

However, Caldara is still right.

There are all kinds of problems with the Boulder proposal, but let’s start from a premise that’s actually bogus: that some guns are bad.

The problem here is that trying to ban particular weapons by name is a fool’s errand. The manufacturer will change as little as they can, then rerelease the weapon under a new name, thus avoiding the ban.

So you ban features. The problem is that then you start catching weapons that aren’t actually bad. You start covering guns like that .22 rifle so many kids get in their tween years. You start covering that collector’s rifle because you’re interested in a particular era of history. You start covering a lot of things you never meant to cover. In theory.

The alternate theory is that you want it broad so you can ban as many guns as humanly possible with your assault weapon ban, but that couldn’t be it, right? Nah. No one would do something like that. (Please tell me you can read sarcasm?)

For what it’s worth, I support Caldara’s defiance and I hope others in Boulder will speak out about their own plans to defy such a law. Perhaps if people understand that their neighbors, the people they’ve known for years, would become criminals overnight, they’d stop with this nonsense.

New Bill Seeks To Push States To Require License To Buy Handgun

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

A bill by delusional DemocRats that is intended infringe on and then destroy our Second Amendment Rights.

It’s not enough that the anti-gunners are trying to take away our so-called assault rifles. No, that’s not nearly enough for them. Not that anyone thought it would be, mind you, but I didn’t expect them to ramp it up quite this soon.

The latest effort seeks to push states to establish handgun purchasing licenses in all 50 states. While it won’t require it, at least not yet, it’s still an effort to undermine our Second Amendment rights (emphasis mine).

Sponsored by Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.), Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) and Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), HR 5490—otherwise known as the “Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act”—is framed as a means of reducing firearm homicide rates nationally.

HR 5490 calls for federal grants to be given to state, local and tribal governments. The governments would then develop and implement a handgun license scheme. To qualify, a state must have a law requiring that a handgun license applicant be at least 21. Furthermore, applicants would have to apply through enforcement agency. In addition, all applicants would be required to supply fingerprints and photographs, as well as pass a “background investigation” and a “criminal history check.”

Under HR 5490, a handgun license would be good for five years. After that, a person would have to go through the process all over again.

In addition, the measure is backed by numerous gun control organizations. The groups include the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; CT Against Gun Violence and the Newtown Action Alliance.

Time and time again, Etsy seems convinced that laws like this will actually work, and she presents supposed data that proves it.

But I don’t buy it.

The reason I don’t buy it is that we already know that criminals don’t buy their guns from gun stores. They simply don’t. Further, handgun purchasers–and every other kind of firearm purchaser–already go through a criminal history check and background check. They’re the same damn thing. And it’s because of these existing background checks that criminals tend to get guns through some other means.

Now, as bad as this bill is, it could be worse. It’s trying to provide a carrot rather than a stick to urge states to adopt this nonsense. I seriously doubt many states that don’t already use some kind of licensing scheme will adopt it just because the feds are offering money for it.

Then there’s the fact that the bill was first introduced a week ago and has a whopping two co-sponsors.

In the world of politics, the number of co-sponsors a bill has is a useful gauge as to how much support the bill has. Even in this rabidly anti-gun environment, liberal politicians don’t want any part of a bill like this.

While gun control activists love it, the average person doesn’t want their right to buy a handgun inhibited by this. Handguns are the preferred choice for self-defense weapons for most people, after all, and if they need a gun right away, licenses get in the way of them getting one.

“But why would anyone need to buy a gun in a hurry unless they have something bad planned?” an anti-gunner may ask.

To that, I simply point out that the moment you start getting death threats or you realize you have a stalker, you have a good reason to want a gun. The last thing you need to do is jump through hoops to get a license just so you can exercise your Second Amendment right to buy a pistol.

Luckily, I think this has a snowball’s chance in hell of passing, but it warrants keeping an eye on just in case.

Students For Concealed Carry Lash Out At Repeated Claims Of Astroturf

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

 Students For Concealed Carry is grassroots unlike David Camera Hogg and his followers. 

               

Grassroots organizations tend to come with a certain appeal for politicians. After all, these are groups that represent a groundswell of support from the real people of this country. That’s why charges of “astroturf” are so damaging to such a group.

A while back, the Students for Concealed Carry got such a charge, and as the author seems intent on repeating it, they’ve decided to defend themselves.

Anti-Campus Carry “Journalist” Persists in Touting Conspiracy Theory About SCC

AUSTIN, TEXAS – When The Trace, the “news” arm of gun-control conglomerate Everytown for Gun Safety, published a 2015 article claiming that Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) was founded by a wealthy cabal of gun lobbyists rather than by a poor group of college students, SCC not only denied the accusation but also offered to make a $5,000 charitable donation in the name of any gun-control group that could corroborate the accusation. When nobody tried to collect, SCC considered the matter settled. Sadly, the freelance journalist who wrote the original article refuses to let the issue rest.

In 2015, Adam Weinstein, now a senior editor for military magazine Task & Purpose, was working as a stringer for The Trace when he wrote “The Secret History of the Campus Carry Movement.” In the article, Weinstein notes that approximately one year before SCC was founded, the gun-rights group Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the libertarian-leaning Leadership Institute (LI) had preliminary talks about starting a college-based gun-rights organization. Weinstein then makes the unsupported leap to the conclusion that SCC was actually founded by GOA and LI and not, as SCC has always claimed, by a handful of students.

When neither Weinstein nor his editors at The Trace responded to SCC’s offer to donate $5,000 in the name of any group that could substantiate Weinstein’s claims, SCC leaders felt vindicated enough to let the matter drop. However, in the wake of former congressman Steve Stockman’s multiple felony convictions, Weinstein is now touting his conspiracy theory—which attempts to tie Stockman to SCC—on social media.

On April 12, Weinstein tweeted, “Former congressman Steve Stockman was just convicted on 23 felony financial fraud counts. Good time to recall that he was instrumental in funding and organizing the right’s astroturfed, paid ‘campus carry’ activist network in US colleges.”

In recent years, The Trace has seemingly backed away from Weinstein’s conspiracy theory—a theory that at least two mainstream journalists, one writing for The Chronicle of Higher Education and the other writing for Rolling Stone, have failed to corroborate. So SCC decided to reach out to the editors of The Trace and ask them pointblank whether they stand by Weinstein’s 2015 article.

In an April 17 tweet to The Trace’s five editors, SCC writes, “@TraceBurnett, @ben_hallman, @KO_616, @3ba, and @MilesKohrman, does The Trace stand by @AdamWeinstein’s assertion that Students for Concealed Carry is a paid ‘astroturf’ organization?”

In a series of follow-up Tweets, SCC adds, “@TeamTrace, what does it say about your credibility when the same journalist who wrote your 3,400-word article accusing @NRATV of ‘fake news’ and baseless ‘conspiracy theories’ also wrote your 3,200-word article espousing a baseless conspiracy theory about a gun rights group?”

As of the morning of April 18, nobody from The Trace has responded to SCC’s inquiries.

As has been the case since the day Students for Concealed Carry was founded (by a political science major at the University of North Texas), all of SCC’s leaders and activists are unpaid volunteers.

###

ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY — Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other organization. For more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus. For more information on the debate over campus carry in Texas, visit WhyCampusCarry.com or tweet @CampusCarry.

Now, in the grand scheme of things, it probably doesn’t matter too much who started SCC. They’ve done great work, and I say that as someone who now can carry on a college campus thanks to the good work of people like SCC.

That said, though, the charges SCC are leveling are serious. A claim was made by a journalist, one he’s still not backing down on, that a group was created by two larger organizations rather than a college kid who wanted to defend himself. The Trace ran it, seemingly without fact checking to make sure the claims were accurate or possibly even reading it.

A claim like that calls Weinstein’s journalistic integrity into question, as well as that of The Trace. While The Trace is a biased entity, that doesn’t mean they are above journalistic ethics. Bearing Arms is a biased entity as well, but I wouldn’t run a claim, present it as fact, without having actual proof.

What Weinstein did was see a piece here, a piece there, and figured he had the whole blasted puzzle figured out. SCC argues that he wasn’t even close since those two pieces weren’t even from the same box (just to strangle the crap out of this metaphor).

Either way, SCC has done some good work, and I hope they continue.

             

Older Entries Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: