Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Mom-at-Arms has the news.  Gun Feed also covers.  North American Arms decided that they don’t care about you or your beliefs.

“I don’t believe the vaccines are safe”.  How much data, gathered over what period of time, will it take to put this false narrative to bed?

“I don’t believe the vaccines are effective”.  While there have been some, few instances of people contracting COVID after having been vaccinated, the effects they suffer are, almost without exception, an order of magnitude less severe than they would have been otherwise.

“I have already contracted the disease and so I already have some level of immunity and see no benefit from vaccination”.  Right on the first count, wrong on the second; you can be certain that your immunity will only be bolstered with a vaccination.

“I am afraid of suffering side effects from the vaccination”.   While some have reported this to be the case, there are stunningly few and the effects are modest/weak and very short-lived.

“My circumstance puts me at a heightened risk from being vaccinated”.  I don’t know what circumstance that is; it most certainly does not apply to those attempting to become pregnant, for example.

“I have a history of adverse allergic reactions”.  Maybe.  That alone has a taint of legitimacy.

“I claim a religious exemption”.  For the life of me, I can’t understand the basis of such a thing.  What religion would advocate against something that will protect your life and that of others?  Certainly none that I’ve ever heard of.  Go ask the Pope.

“I can’t afford it”.  Bullshit; it’s free.

“I don’t know where to find it”.  Are you living under a rock?

“I’m a freedom-loving American and I simply don’t want to”.  Ahhh, here we go.  This is far and away the most frequent – and lamest – excuse.  Even Donald Trump, the poster-child for the selfish exercise of frequently nonsensical individual freedoms (“I’m not wearing a mask because I don’t want to”.) has been vaccinated and has encouraged other people to do so as well (NB he’s also previously contracted the disease, above).  As a member of a society, you have an obligation not to threaten the health and well-being of others, particularly when doing so comes at no risk or expense to you.

I’ll admit I enjoy no small measure of schadenfreude reading stories of those stubborn people who find themselves stricken and on death’s door, suffering from their earlier foolish decision not to get vaccinated.  I look at it almost as a Darwinian effect, helping cleanse our gene pool.  Excuse my lack of sympathy.  Too bad.  Completely avoidable.  Didn’t have to happen.

I will ask the pope nothing at all.  He’s an unbeliever and godless communist and has an adviser who is a Gaia worshiper and atheist.  Besides, I’ve written on this subject and if the author of this stupid and ill-informed missive took the time he could have studied the issue as well.

When a writer gets to the point that he’s telling people (he doesn’t even know) that he doesn’t care if they live or die, something has gone badly wrong.  It’s time to take a long break and stop writing.  Something is deeply disturbed and wrong in the soul.

He also doesn’t seem to be very well aware of the real data on adverse reactions (see also here, and here, and here).  It doesn’t really matter.  He’s just aping the crap he hears on CNN.

Either way, he’s jettisoned his following, defenestrated them, thrown them out the window.  He doesn’t care any more for whatever reason.  He tried to apologize, but it fails.

Good job, dummy.  You just destroyed your business.  Go find another job now.

I’ll file this one under gun control.

News from Florida.

Some top Florida Republican lawmakers have now said they would support constitutional carry legislation in the upcoming session.

The policy would allow all legal gun owners to carry firearms without a concealed weapons license.

The constitutional carry legislation was filed by the Legislature’s most outspoken conservative member, Rep. Anthony Sabatini.

“Our very liberal Republican Speaker Chris Sprowls has gotten tens of thousands of emails from gun groups,” said Sabatini.

The policy is split into two bills.

The first would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons without a license.

“You don’t have to go ask the government for permission,” said Sabatini.

The second would allow for open carry.

“You shouldn’t have the duty to hide your firearm if you’ve done nothing wrong,” said Sabatini.

Eskamani said she’s doubtful Sabatini’s bills will get a hearing, due to his strained relationship with the House speaker.

“Sabatini does not have a lot of leverage within the chamber,” said Eskamani.

But recently, top brass in the Senate indicated they would support constitutional carry legislation, including Senate Majority Leader Debbie Mayfield.

“I support constitutional carry. That is one of the things that we will probably be looking at this session because it is important,” said Mayfield in a legislative delegation meeting last week.

Florida GOP Chair and State Sen. Joe Gruters said he might support constitutional carry, but doesn’t want to see assault weapons openly carried on beaches.

“Because I think that would adversely impact Florida’s tourism economy,” said Gruters.

While there seems to be some support for constitutional carry legislation in the Senate, a bill hasn’t yet been filed in the chamber.

I predict it won’t go anywhere this session.  Florida has a horrible history on gun control.  But it will eventually pass in coming sessions with enough effort.

You know what would help the case?  If Governor Ron DeSantis went on record for his support for the measure, and even demanded a bill be brought to his desk for approval before any other bill would be considered by the governor.

I also predict he won’t do that.

In the land down under, there is a lot going on, mostly led by the hard core workers.  Truck drivers started this, and I want to know if they’ve hit the roads again and if so, why?  Why aren’t truckers refusing to drive to deliver logistics to the tyrants?  John Guandolo observes:

In 1996, Australia passed significant laws which severely restricted an Australian’s ability to purchase and keep effective firearms.

Now, Stalinesque police and military personnel in Australia – some of whom openly say they disagree with the lockdowns, but are “just doing their job” reminiscent of nazi gate guards – are the oppressors ushering in an the era of slavery in Australia.

Who is behind all this?

It is worth noting the significant Chinese business ventures in Australia, and the Chinese population in Australia – almost 8% of the overall population in a nation of only 25.8 million people.

With the proximity of China, it is not a hard stretch to see Australia may be in China’s sites.

For citizens, the answer in Australia is the same it is in Europe and the United States.

Citizens must resist tyranny and defend liberty at all costs.

Yes, citizens must resist at all costs.  And yes, the Chinese control over Australia is one big reason I am opposed to sharing nuclear and defense technology with them.  But let’s get to that big point he made about the cops.

… some of whom openly say they disagree with the lockdowns, but are “just doing their job.”

That’s like saying I am an engineer and professionally opposed to designing building and bridges that will fall and kill people, and violating rules of ethics, but I’m just doing my job when management tells me to cut corners.

No, and a thousand times no.  No, no, no, no, no.  I will not listen to that, and I wish I could be there when a cop said something like that – or has ever said “I’m opposed to gun confiscations in America, but if the order comes, I’ll just do my job.”

Go ahead.  You’ve made your choice, and the decision is to do something immoral for money.  You’re no different from a whore.  If you’re a cop, listen to me.  If you would violate the second amendment for your job or retirement, you’re a whore, and a relatively cheap one at that.

It shows that not only does the person have no scruples, but the lack of scruples shows that the person does not honor the Lordship of Christ, and thus doesn’t have the savior.

As it will be with all American cops who violate their oaths, it will be for Australian cops who forcibly kidnap people or their children to be sent off to camps or forcibly jabbed.  You do not have authority over a man and woman’s child.  God has given that to the family, not the state.

You will pay for your 30 pieces of silver with your soul.  You will be in eternal torment for your choice.

News from Florida.

Republican Representative Anthony Sabatini, of District 32, is proposing to do away with some restrictions when carrying a gun in public.

The bill could also allow for open carry in the state. This is the third time Sabatini has proposed the bill. It’s been struck previously by both Republicans and Democrats.

This is a copy of the proposed legislation: House bill 103.

If passed, gun owners would not need to get a permit to carry a gun in public places. They could also carry their gun freely without concealing it.

“If they’re a law abiding citizen and this bill is passed, they can carry a firearm without having to ask for government permission,” Rep. Sabatini said. “The second part of the bill is open carry. So, you’re allowed to carry a firearm on your person, even if it’s not concealed. You can carry it on your waistband for example.”

[ … ]

“We’re not saying you can’t have a gun,” Foy said. “At least have some structure with it–where you have to get a license, you have to get a permit.”

Action News Jax reporter Meghan Moriarty also reached out to the Republican Committee Chairman Representative Cory Byrd for a statement. He previously killed Sabatini’s bill in the 2021 session. He did not return Moriarty’s call.

It’s a modest first step.  It sounds like permitted open carry, which is a halfway house.

But this has been proposed and shot down for years in Florida.

I hear all about Ron DeSantis and how he would make such a great candidate for president.

Well, let’s see his mettle.  Let’s see him threaten to veto every other bill until this one comes to his desk.  Let’s see how much he really supports the RKBA.

Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms.

Lawmakers in Stamford, Connecticut are asking for the state legislature to impose a new restriction on legal gun owners: require them to produce their gun permit upon request by police.

The move is billed by supporters as a way to get “illegal guns off the street,” but some of the representatives sitting in the town’s legislature say the measure would be unconstitutional and could lead to big problems.

“Rep. J.R. McMullen, one of the nine representatives who voted against the resolution, said he couldn’t vote in favor of a resolution that asks the state legislature to consider making a law that he claims would be unconstitutional.

“I don’t know why we’re asking the state to do something that wastes their time, when there is so much other stuff that they failed to do over the last year and half that we should get them to focus on,” McMullen said.

McMullen was joined by Gloria DePina, Bradley Michelson, Susan Nabel, Selina Policar, Robert Roqueta, Bob Lion, Dennis Mahoney and Nina Sherwood in opposing the resolution.

Nabel said the reason she couldn’t support the resolution was she felt it could be used as a backdoor for police to racially profile city residents.

“I’m still of the feeling that this is too fragile a situation, too likely to lead to profiling and possibly puts police officers and the public around them in danger,” she said.

I happen to agree with both McMullen and Nabel in their objections. This is really a non-issue, and I have no doubt taht (sic) imposing the requirement on legal gun owners will lead to a disproportionate number of minorities being stopped and questioned by police.

[ … ]

So there’ve only been six cases in the past two years where police were called to check on a person carrying a gun, and only once did a gun owner refuse to voluntarily produce their permit (Connecticut requires all legal gun owners to have a permit, which also serves as their carry permit). Because one person didn’t submit to the police’s request (and acted lawfully in doing so), Curtis wants to change state law and allow police to view anyone exercising their Second Amendment rights as a suspected criminal?

Cam’s objection has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law.  Whether “disproportionate number of minorities being stopped and questioned by police” has to do with how the law is being implemented, not whether it can be implemented.  It’s an irrelevant objection.

This goes back to the issue of open carry in South Carolina we’ve recently discussed.  Regardless of the fact that open carriers are supposed to be permitted, South Carolina isn’t a stop and identify state.  Neither is Connecticut.

Even if there was such a statute, precedent forces LEOs to have reasonable suspicion beforehand for it to be a so-called “Terry Stop.”

This is the objection Cam should have pointed to, not whether blacks are going to be hit the hardest by this law.  The law is prima facie unconstitutional and will eventually be challenged in court.

It’s all the rage.

First, to no one’s surprise, Columbia did it.

The city of Columbia has banned openly carrying guns during events, such as festivals and parades, in the wake of a recent state law.

City officials approved a measure Sept. 7 to banning the open carry of firearms during permitted city events and from carrying a gun of any kind into city buildings or facilities without permission from the city manager or police chief.

Next up, Greenville.

The city may ban guns from being carried openly at events and by people picketing after South Carolina changed its law to allow open carry of firearms.

On the first of two readings, and without public discussion, City Council voted 7-0 to ban open carry of firearms at permitted public events like Fall for Greenville and Saturday Market or by individuals seeking to protest. It still must pass a second vote.

Ah, Fall for Greenville where all the crappy hot dog vendors get to sell their awful food.

Finally, Spartanburg has had its first reading of the same sort of statute.

SPARTANBURG, S.C. (WSPA) – Spartanburg City Council has moved ahead on the first reading for a ban on openly carrying a gun at city-permitted events in Spartanburg.

During the first reading of the ordinance at Monday evening’s city council meeting, council members voted unanimously to prohibit the open carrying of firearms during city-permitted events on public property.

Councilwoman Erica Brown told 7 News, the ban applies to citywide-permitted events, like festivals and protests. Council is able to do this through a clause in the Open Carry with Training Act.

Brown said the vote couldn’t be timelier.

“Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you would see that the City of Spartanburg has had quite a bit of gun violence as of late,” said Spartanburg City Councilwoman, Erica Brown.

Kyle Marlow is passionate about guns. He told us, especially using them safely. In fact, he calls himself a Second Amendment advocate.

“South Carolina is doing it the right way. It’s an Open Carry with Training law so they still have to go through all that training and background checks,” said Manager at T & K Outdoors, Kyle Marlow.

But with that being said, he told us he understands the intent behind the ban for protests.

“Just encourage all these people to follow all laws, whether that’s in the city, state or federal level,” Marlow told us.

In spite of his slow venture towards freedom, Kyle Marlow loves his enslavement.  Open carry with permit – still a government permission slip.  Open carry, except when we say not to.

We in N.C. don’t have much room to talk.  We’re under the same restrictions concerning permitted events.  Here’s one solution.  Don’t go to permitted events.

News from Missouri (this link may or may not work, it’s a paywall NYT article accessed via Google News via cell phone).

OZARK, Mo. — Brad Cole is a fiery defender of the Second Amendment, a set-jawed lawman with a lacquered alligator head on his desk, a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum on his hip and a signed picture of himself with former President Donald J. Trump on his office wall.

So the NYT found themselves somebody they think can give their case creds by describing him as some sort of local yokel who supports gun rights and voted for Trump.  But it’s a “terribly written law.”  Let’s see how so.

Even with the changes, the Second Amendment Preservation Act represents a challenge to federal authority that Biden administration officials and other critics see as a clear-cut violation of the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which prohibits states from passing laws that nullify federal statutes.

Last month, the Justice Department filed an affidavit supporting an effort by the city and county of St. Louis to strike down the law in state court, saying it had already hamstrung weapons and drug investigations. The judge in the case recently rejected a request to keep the law from going into effect, and, in response, Attorney General Merrick Garland is considering a federal lawsuit, according to two administration officials.

That’s a splash of cold water, yes?  Biden and his AG hate the law.  Weapons and drug investigations.  Remember that.

At the heart of the law is an audacious declaration — that all state firearms laws “exceed” the federal government’s power to track, register and regulate guns and gun owners.

The law, however, is as vague as it is expansive: Its authors did not focus on any specific federal law or policy, and state officials say they will not try to stop federal agents from executing raids, conducting background checks for gun buyers or enforcing existing laws, like the prohibition on gun purchases by felons.

They’re “poisoning the well,” an informal logical fallacy, and they know it.  Missouri FFLs still conduct background checks, and the NYT is trying to assert that this law makes it legal for convicted felons to own firearms.  Let’s continue.

But the law features a provision, the first of its kind in the nation, that allows Missourians to sue local law departments that give “material aid and support” to federal agents — defined as data sharing, joint operations, even social media posts — in violation of citizens’ perceived Second Amendment rights.

The law’s sponsors say that mechanism is protective and proactive, intended to counter Democratic gun-control efforts, especially President Biden’s attempts to ban semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. As one of its co-authors, State Senator Eric Burlison, put it, the bill was intended to tell Democrats considering new restrictions to “pound sand.”

After the misdirect, they get to the meat of the thing.  The law was intended to ensure that new infringements on the second amendment are nullified by virtue of lawsuits unique to Missouri where individual citizens go after LEOs.  I think it’s a brilliant idea, worthy of acceptance in every state.

Chief among the activists pushing the Missouri gun law was Aaron Dorr, who leads a family-run, Iowa-based network of far-right nonprofits in the Midwest and South. In an interview, Mr. Dorr described himself as a defender of conservative values and cast the Missouri battle in national terms, as an effort to force Republican moderates to take up his broader cause of confronting Washington.

“Obviously, it’s about far more than simply gun rights,” Mr. Dorr said of his involvement.

At least eight other states, including West Virginia, have recently passed similar bills, but most are more symbolic and less far-reaching than Missouri’s, and feature more explicit carve-outs for coordination between local and federal law-enforcement agencies. The Missouri law has the sharpest teeth: the provision allowing citizens to sue any local police agency for $50,000 for every incident in which they can prove that their rights were violated, provided they were not flouting state law.

That reliance on citizens’ lawsuits — bypassing police officers and prosecutors who may be reluctant to pursue highly politicized criminal cases — represents another political strategy gaining popularity on the right, most notably in the highly restrictive Texas abortion law that the Supreme Court recently let stand.

The Missouri law only went into effect at the end of August. But its critics, at home and in Washington, say it has already done damage, making some local officials afraid to work with federal partners, even on routine criminal cases, at a time when greater cooperation is needed.

“But its critics, at home and in Washington, say it has already done damage, making some local officials afraid to work with federal partners, even on routine criminal cases, at a time when greater cooperation is needed.”  Good.  Local and state law enforcement has no business cooperating with the FedGov on infringement of 2A rights.  This means that the law has served its purpose.

In that respect, it is also testing the limits of one-party Republican state rule: The National Rifle Association, a bedrock Republican-allied institution, did not support the bill, and many local law-enforcement officials fear it will impinge on their ability to fight violent crime and stop drug trafficking. (Sheriff Cole ultimately accepted the political inevitability of the bill’s passage, but says he remains deeply concerned about its consequences.)

Some of those consequences were detailed in the Justice Department’s affidavit.

Nearly a quarter of state and local law-enforcement officials who work directly with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — 12 of 53 officers — have withdrawn from joint task force collaborations. State and local agencies have also begun to restrict federal access to investigative resources, including the Missouri Information Analysis Center, a state crime database, and the Kansas City Police Department’s records system.

Did you catch that?  Read it again.  The NRA did not support the bill.

The police department in Columbia, home to the flagship campus of the University of Missouri, went so far as to disconnect from a national database of ballistics on weapons and ammunition recovered at crime scenes, A.T.F. officials reported.

The law, “has caused, and will continue to cause, significant harms to law enforcement within the state of Missouri,” wrote Brian M. Boynton, the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil division.

Again, all I can say is good.

Mr. Dorr has long drawn scrutiny for his far-right positions on abortion and guns and name-calling tirades against opponents (an unflattering portrait of his family’s organization was the subject of a Pulitzer Prize-winning NPR podcast in 2020). Critics from across the ideological spectrum have accused him of latching onto political controversies, especially resistance to mask orders related to the pandemic, to raise cash for his network.

Mr. Dorr has few compunctions about calling out the N.R.A. — he said it was a “public disgrace” in the interview with The New York Times — and as the gun bill was moving through the legislature, he ridiculed Republicans who did not immediately sign on. As his supporters bombarded lawmakers with emails and phone calls, he labeled one wavering Senate leader a “rodent” in one of his characteristic Hannity-esque Facebook Live broadcasts.

“He ridiculed Republicans who did not immediately sign on.”  Good.  They deserved to be ridiculed.

The Missouri Sheriffs’ Association had quietly opposed the measure, but now intervened to negotiate a compromise. It dispatched several red-county sheriffs, including Sheriff Cole, to persuade sponsors to direct penalties at local departments rather than at officers.

The revised bill passed the Senate in May, as the session was set to end — but not before the majority leader, Caleb Rowden, an eventual yes vote, requested police protection after reporting threats from backers of the bill.

Lauren Arthur, a Democratic senator from the Kansas City area who opposed the bill, said that since the vote she had been approached by Republicans privately expressing hope that it would be struck down in court.

“Republicans around here need to have some kind of legislation they can hold up as a trophy at the end of every session — the dark joke is it is either on abortion or on guns,” said Ms. Arthur, who led an unsuccessful effort to ban gun sales to people convicted of domestic-violence offenses.

Well how about that.  Nothing says liar and cheat like someone who wants to hold high a piece of trophy legislation for the sake of reelection, when they don’t really believe in it and want it to fail.

She added, “I’m not creative enough to think of what else we can do to be more pro-gun other than, I don’t know, giving a gun to every newborn baby.”

Drama queen.

In mid-June, the police chief in O’Fallon, a St. Louis suburb, quit in frustration, writing in an open letter that the new law was so “poorly worded” that it would “decrease public safety” by stigmatizing all interactions with federal agents. Even some who supported its passage started voicing concerns.

Good.  The law took its first victim, and a worthy one at that.

Many sheriffs rely on close collaboration with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the F.B.I. and the U.S. Marshals Service’s fugitive task forces, among other agencies, to help track down criminals. The biggest problem, they say, has been determining which joint investigations run afoul of the new law.

Here’s an idea.  Stop cooperating with FedGov at all.  That’ll fix the problem for you.

As I said earlier, the law is working as intended, and that’s a laudable thing.

Survival Blog.

I am strongly opposed to this proposed rule. It is a gross violation of the Second Amendment. For the ATF to contravene their numerous and long-standing rulings that arm braces are legal is an absurd over-reach of regulatory authority. This is truly an “arbitrary and capricious” move.

Pistol arm braces serve a useful purpose for those who are crippled, deformed, injured, elderly, or infirmed.

Because of the numerous and long-standing rulings that arm braces are legal, there are now more than 3 million braces in private hands. Many of the guns equipped with these braces have changed hand numerous times, without any paper trail, as private party sales. So, even if the original owners were informed of the change in legal status via letters from the manufacturers or retailers, the subsequent owners may very well be oblivious. The end result will be that hundreds of thousands of people will become unwitting FELONS, overnight, with the stroke of the pen.

Because there is no compensation for the owners of the 3 million braces in circulation, the proposed rule is a grossly unconstitutional “taking”. Here is the math: 3 million braces valued at an average of $155 each equals $465,000,000. ($465 million dollars!)

These sorts of arbitrary and capricious moves by regulatory agencies undermine public trust in our government. If they continue, they will sow the seeds of so much discontent that they may lead to a revolution by righteously angry gun owners.

Good enough that I thought you should see it.

I could have titled this “South Carolina Attorney General Versus Columbia On Everything,” and it would have been just about right.

First off, while I don’t think we discussed it, S.C. AG Alan Wilson won against Columbia over gun rights restrictions a few months ago (May 2021).

The Court of Common Pleas has agreed with South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and ruled that three local gun ordinances passed by the City of Columbia violate state law. AG Wilson sued the city in April 2020, arguing that state law specifically says local governments cannot pass gun ordinances that are stricter than state law.

“We’ve said for three decades now that state law doesn’t allow cities, towns or counties to regulate firearms, so we appreciate the judge’s ruling,” Attorney General Wilson said. “These Columbia ordinances clearly violate the state law that prohibits local governments from passing any gun laws or ordinances that regulate the transfer, ownership, or possession of firearms.”

In 2015, the City of Columbia was first advised by this office that local gun ordinances are preempted by state law. Since that time, the City has continued to pass similar ordinances. One of Columbia’s ordinances would allow the city to confiscate firearms from those people who have Extreme Risk Protection Orders against them. Another ordinance bans the possession of firearms within 1000 feet of a public or private school. A third ordinance prohibits homemade firearms which have no serial number, known as ghost guns.

Next up, mask mandates.

In the latest of several such legal cases across a nation where cultural and political clashes have erupted over the COVID-19 response, the court ruled 5-0 to issue a declaratory judgment for South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, who brought the case against the city of Columbia.

Wilson, a Republican, argued a state law that allows parents to decide whether their children wear masks in school trumps the city’s mask mandate ordinance for private and public elementary and middle school students and staff.

The emergency school mask ordinance, brought by Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin in response to the surge in infections, had been approved by the city council in Columbia two weeks ago. The ordinance, which also applied to daycare centers, was aimed at children too young to be vaccinated.

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster said in a tweet https://twitter.com/henrymcmaster/status/1433511028327915521 that the court had come to “a sound conclusion” based on the rule of law.

“A parent’s right to decide what’s best for their child is now definitively protected by state law,” he said, while encouraging residents to get vaccinated.

Benjamin, a Democrat, said in a statement that the city “will always act to preserve and protect the lives, health and safety of our children. This is a sad day for children in South Carolina.”

They want to be their own little country down there in Columbia, yes?  What happened that those folks would decide to give themselves such petty tyrants on the city council and for mayor?

Sounds like it’s time for a reckoning in the state capital.

News from North Carolina.

RALEIGH, N.C. — Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed a bill Monday that would do away with the Jim Crow era permit someone must obtain from a county sheriff before buying a pistol, turning back a key agenda item of conservative gun-rights activists.

Cooper’s veto was expected, and an override will be difficult for Republicans who control the General Assembly since they lack veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate. Only two Democrats – both in the House – voted for doing away with the pistol purchase permitting system, which goes back more than 100 years.

Most North Carolinians know nothing about this requirement until they attempt to go purchase a firearm for the first time.  That happened a lot this past year.

People become incensed when they learn about it.

But there are enough progs in Mecklenburg and Wake Counties that we can’t seem to rid ourselves of the controllers.

So there you have it.  If you voted for the Goober and his Goober wife, are you proud?