Anti-gun violence activists have voiced their concerns about public safety. Lynn Pownall with Moms Demand Action says she doesn’t like the idea of people walking around downtown Aiken with visible guns. “I can’t imagine going downtown to walk around and seeing people openly carrying weapons,” she said. “How does law enforcement tell a good guy with a gun from a bad guy with a gun when everyone’s carrying a gun?”
The South Carolina State Legislature is set to adjourn on May 13. So far, neither bill has been scheduled for a vote. Fox 54 reached out to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Luke Rankin for comment, but have not heard back.
First of all, that’s an idiotic objection. Her problem is psychological. The fact of a weapon not being visible means nothing concerning whether an individual has a weapon or is a “bad guy.”
Perhaps Luke Rankin needs to meet the same fate as Larry Martin and be ejected from the S.C. Senate. So what gives, Luke? Where do we stand? Why hasn’t action been taken?
The Supreme Court on Monday denied appeals from three people who sought to have their right to own guns reinstated after being convicted of nonviolent crimes, a move that disappointed gun rights advocates.
The denials, which were issued without comment or noted dissent, left intact lower court rulings which found that the lifetime bans did not run afoul of Second Amendment protections.
One case involved a Pennsylvania man who sought to have his right to own a firearm restored after he was subjected to a lifetime ban following a misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence in 2005.
The other cases involved a Pennsylvania woman convicted of lying on her tax returns and a man convicted of copyright violations and smuggling counterfeit cassette tapes in 1987.
For a case to be heard, or granted a writ of certiorari, at least four justices must vote to take up the case.
How sad. The Supreme Cast Of Clowns couldn’t even find four justices to agree to hear these cases. Thus, they ensured that if these three people, or thousands of people just like them in America, want means of self defense, they must obtain it illegally.
They have ensured the very thing the system claims to want to repair, i.e., that people must become lawbreakers in order to do things usual and typical humans do.
How arbitrary. How cruel. How utterly detestable. How expected and customary from the court.
The video was captioned: “There’s a new Vaccination! It’s called GUN CONTROL! Should be mandatory. It will SAVE lives!”
I don’t know this person. Apparently she’s popular among people who have no minds of their own.
You have to hand it to them. They did accomplish masks and vaccinations through fear, and the lemmings went right along with it. Gun control is next on their agenda.
Biden Adviser Richmond: Republicans Need to Stop Hiding Behind Second Amendment — It’s Not Meant for ‘Weapons of War’ [More]
The second amendment isn’t the source of anything for me. The Almighty God of the Holy Scriptures grants the right and even duty of self defense and protection of my family, whether from criminals with badges or without.
I don’t hide anywhere you can see. I find refuge under the wings of the Lord, whose pinions cover me from evildoers like you (Psalm 91:4).
And yes, I believe that, and yes, the Scriptures speak eternal truth.
"No amendment to the Constitution is absolute. You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech. From the beginning, you couldn't own any weapon you wanted to own." pic.twitter.com/shOkaXmLqH
Among the actions Biden will take will be to direct the Department of Justice to begin, within 30 days, the process of requiring buyers of so-called ghost guns — homemade or makeshift firearms that lack serial numbers — to undergo background checks and, within 60 days, regulating concealed assault-style firearms, according to the White House.
Biden will announce that the Justice Department will pursue two new regulations: one to curb the proliferation of so-called ghost guns, weapons that lack serial numbers and, in some cases, can be constructed at home; and a second that would regulate stabilizing braces, accessories that can be used to make pistols more like rifles.
The Politico article is muddled, perhaps the NPR article a little clearer. I assume that the regulation will be that no lower receivers can be sold without being serialized, regardless of the stage of completeness. Nothing is stated about what they might do about upper receivers, if anything. How this might affect the sale of components and parts (trigger assemblies, springs, detents, BCGs, etc.) isn’t currently known. Clearly, this is unlawful and unconstitutional.
The presumed second component of this appears to be that they wish to regulate the full assembly of pistol stabilizing braces – when installed on guns barrels shorter than 16″ – as an SBR. Also quite clearly, this is unlawful and unconstitutional. It also affects at least hundreds of thousands, and maybe millions, of gun owners.
I don’t expect compliance with any new regulations of this sort by gun owners, but the magic sauce is in what manufacturers must do. But you already know that, and so do they.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) 2018 National Vital Statistics show 37,455 people died from unintentional falls throughout the year.
The same CDC data shows unintentional firearm deaths for 2018 came in at 458, which means accidental death by falling was about 82 times more likely than accidental death via any kind of firearm.
The numbers become especially pertinent to today’s political climate when FBI Unified Crime Report figures are brought into the equation. The FBI figures look at the intentional, criminal use of firearms, and show a total of 297 deaths from rifles of any kind in 2018. This means accidental death by falling occurred 126 times more often than intentional death by a rifle of any kind in 2018.
Breitbart News reported other FBI figures for 2018 showing death by hammers and clubs far exceeded death by rifles of any kind as well. Whereas there were 297 deaths by rifle, 443 people were killed with hammers, clubs, or other “blunt objects.”
I’ve discussed the dangers of assault hammers before, and as an engineer I certainly know about fall protection and the dangers of a fall, engaging in safe practices when I’m elevated, including in a tree stand.
But if I engage in more safe practices than the average person, does that mean we should outlaw falls, maybe? Or perhaps we should outlaw any activity that means placing your body more than 6′ off the ground?
For the children. I don’t hear doctors complaining about falls, and yet I know they treat falls commonly in the ER of most hospitals.
Since they’re focused on rifles instead of falls, I can only conclude they don’t care about the children.
3 years, 10 months ago
