Nancy Pelosi Wants a National Emergency to Confiscate Your Guns in 2020

Nancy Pelosi wants to give illegal aliens rights, while declaring a national emergency to disarm the law-abiding. Reject Pelosi’s socialist disarmament. 

Join the NRA.

Polls: No Lasting Support for Gun Control One Year After Parkland

Thursday marked the one year anniversary of the terrible crimes at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL.

It was a somber occasion, but some media outlets couldn’t contain their glee this week that last year’s horror might finally advance the anti-gun agenda. A CNN headlined heralded “A new era on guns.” “After Parkland, everything is different,” Salon gushed.

But a new nationwide poll by NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist tells a different story. The News Hour headline summarized the essential point, “A year after Parkland, support sinks for stricter laws on gun sales … .”

Specifically, the percentage of adults favoring stricter laws covering the sale of guns has dropped 20 points since the immediate aftermath of the Parkland killings, to 51%. In contrast, 46% of those surveyed believe such laws should be less strict or kept as they are. The difference between these responses is essentially a statistical tie, given the poll’s margin of error.

As the Washington Post noted with reference to Gallup and Civiq’s dalily tracking polls, “public support for stricter gun laws has returned to pre-Parkland levels.”

The Marist poll also found only 42% of respondents believed stricter gun legislation should be an “immediate priority for the current congress,” versus 56% who opined that it was not an immediate priority or not a priority at all.

Nevertheless, on Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee advanced two major gun control bills along strict party lines. H.R. 8 would ban most firearm loans and transfers between two private parties. H.R. 1112 would eliminate the current three day safety valve for uncompleted NICS checks. It would instead institute a new procedure where the transferring FFL would have wait 10 business days after initiating the open NICS check.  The prospective purchaser would then have to petition the FBI for an answer to the query, then wait an additional 10 business days before the transfer can proceed.  

Contrary to these surveys, the bills were portrayed by their proponents as reflecting a resurgent demand for gun control following the events of Feb. 14, 2018.

Yet even those proponents could not claim that either bill would have prevented the incident at Parkland.

Nor are they likely to stop other firearm-related crimes. Archly anti-gun media outlet Vox.com recently admitted as much. “[A] growing body of research suggests that comprehensive background checks alone won’t do much, if anything, to combat gun violence in America,” it conceded, even as it argued for far stricter gun control measures.

Democrats likely have the votes to pass both H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 in the House. Their prospects in the Senate, however, appear far less favorable.

Whatever might have changed after Parkland, it hasn’t altered the basic realities that Americans support the Second Amendment and that gun control advocates continue to push measures that would unfairly penalize law-abiding gun owners, without actually reducing violent crime.

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again, bedrock American values prove stubbornly resistant to gun control opportunism. Media firestorms always burn out eventually, but the flame of liberty endures.

Your NRA has been a keeper of that flame since 1871.

And unlike the media-fueled emotionalism of gun control supporters, we’re not going anywhere.

RELATED ARTICLES:

H.R. 8 Markup: Liberal Democrats Markup Gun Control Legislation

Turning a Right into a Privilege: HR 1112 Gives Feds Unfettered Power to Block Gun Sales

Another Study Blames Guns, Excludes Reality

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with images is republished with permission.

Los Angeles City Council Blacklists NRA Members

“The city council voted 14-0 to pass an ordinance that now requires any company that has a contract with the city to disclose any and all ties they have to the NRA. Let’s be clear about what this is. This is an attempt at public shaming for anyone in the city who supports the NRA. This is a direct attempt to go at someone’s wallet just for having ties with the NRA and believing in the Second Amendment.” —Grant Stinchfield

RELATED ARTICLES:

Small, Rural Districts Are Taking the Lead in Era of Post-Parkland Safety

Magazine Bans Are the First Step Toward Total Disarmament

Kerry Picket: What Meaningful Action Has Been Taken Since Parkland?

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with video and images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Parkland Dad Reflects on Feelings of Loss, Motivation to Make Change

“February 14th—we live it every day. I don’t need February 14th to remind me that my daughter was murdered on that day… But we’ve been [working] non-stop in Broward since this murder.” —Andrew Pollack

RELATED ARTICLES:

Parkland Student Activist, Father of Victim Reflect on a Year Fighting for School Safety

A Year Since Parkland Shooting, Gun Control Activists Still Misdiagnose the Problem

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with video and images is republished with permission.

Florida Facing A Complete Assault Weapon Ban In 2020

Florida, the state with some of the strongest Second Amendment protections in the country, may be facing the reality of voters putting a full-on assault weapons ban into the Florida Constitution — bypassing a Republican-controlled Legislature that has resisted any such moves even after last year’s Parkland school massacre.

Gail Schwartz, the aunt of one of the students killed a year ago at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, held a press conference Monday to announce a petition drive she is spearheading to put a constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot in 2020 that would ban “assault weapons.” Her group is forthrightly named Ban Assault Weapons Now.

The language of the proposed amendment defines an assault weapon as “semi-automatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition-feeding device.” Such a broad ban could presumably capture everything down to a revolver, as it has an “ammunition-feeding device.”

“Try explaining to your children that they’re never going to see their cousin again,” Schwartz said, hitting the emotional buttons that are essential to restricting Second Amendment rights. “That’s not a conversation that anyone should ever have to make.”

Schwartz said that she believes her nephew — 14-year-old Alex Schachter — might be alive today if Nikolas Cruz did not have access to such a deadly weapon. Cruz killed 17 students and teachers at Parkland as an on-campus Broward County deputy hid outside. Schachter was one of the very first victims of Cruz, so it seems unlikely his life would have been spared if Cruz only had access to non-semi-automatic weapons.

Each mass shooting is used to evoke the necessity of getting guns out of the hands of Americans. A ban on what the media frequently calls “military-style” semi-automatic rifles — which basically means scary looking guns, regardless of relative lethality — has been a goal of gun control advocates nationally since a temporary federal ban expired in 2004.

In Florida, the push has been particularly fierce since the massacre at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub, where 49 people were killed in 2016. But school shootings elicit the most emotional response for obvious reasons.

So Florida Democrats have been pushing hard for an assault weapons ban. But they are a minority in the Republican-controlled Legislature and their efforts go nowhere.

Last year Democrats tried to attach an assault weapons ban to the larger school safety bill that was ultimately passed in response to the Parkland shooting, which included armed security on school campuses. But the amendment failed, gaining only two Republican votes.

In fact, Florida Republicans annually consider the opposite direction, proposing bills to allow conceal-carry permit holders to carry on college campuses.

However, a direct-to-voters constitutional amendment bypasses the Legislature. Florida now has a 60 percent threshold for amendments to make it into the state constitution. But last November, all but one proposed amendment met that, and that one had 58 percent. Given the media coverage and the number of mass shootings in the state, it would be foolish to think that such an amendment could not pass.

“I think there is a better chance of getting a citizens initiative on the ballot than getting the current Legislature to seriously entertain an assault weapons ban,” said Florida League of Women Voters President Patricia Brigham. Naturally, the “nonpartisan” League supports the ban.

She is right.

Possibly the larger hurdle is actually getting the proposed amendment on the ballot. That means gathering 766,200 legal signatures, which requires spending several million dollars to paid signature-gathering organizations.

The assault weapons ban campaign collected $439,888 as of the last filing date on Dec. 31. It will take a lot more and the question politically is whether Democrat organizations actually want to ban assault weapons, or whether they prefer to run on the issue of assault weapons so they can keep forcing Republicans to defend assault weapons used in mass shootings.

Polling on the issue in Florida is heavily dependent on the length of time between mass shootings. Right after the Parkland shooting, a Florida Atlantic University poll found that nearly 70 percent of Floridians support an assault weapons ban. But the same poll six months later found only 51 percent favored. How it would fare in the midst of a presidential election during heavy voter turnout is the question.

We may find out.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.

Red Flag Gun Laws Turn Due Process on Its Head

Americans should resist the trend of assumed guilt and demand elected officials end this assault on our constitutional rights.

Red flag laws have spurred quite a bit of controversy. This legislative movement seeks to create a process to remove firearms from the homes of people who are rumored to be dangerous to themselves or others. The proponents of such laws cite this as a possible way to help combat mass shootings and suicides. However, the truth is far more damning.

The 5th & 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution mandate that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Although this should be clear to anyone with a basic comprehension of English, it’s often ignored by judges and politicians. Depriving people of a constitutional right before a trial and without charges tramples on the notion of innocent until proven guilty and severely erodes the core values of justice.

Proponents of red flag laws argue due process is respected by allowing the deprived to appeal to the courts to reinstate their rights. However, this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right. Furthermore, state agents finding cause for a warrant and subsequently seizing private property while denying access to a constitutional right seem to be a perfect setup for a kangaroo court system. There is a serious risk that citizens found guilty of nothing and charged with no crime will be paying expensive fees to petition the courts to restore what should be their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Such concerns aren’t just wild superstitions. Our nation’s history of the corrupt process of civil asset forfeiture gives ample reason to believe the aforementioned outcome is more likely than not.

If the open assault on our rights and criminal justice system wasn’t reason enough to reject red flag laws, one should note the paternalistic tone of the advocates. Proponents are selling these bills as a way to reduce suicides. But let’s take a step back and think about the core of this argument. We have authority figures claiming they need the means to deny you of your constitutional rights in order to protect you from yourself. This disturbingly authoritarian doublespeak implies that some of our elected officials believe that people can’t be trusted with their rights. This clear attempt to coax ordinary citizens into surrendering their rights should be rejected as the degradation of free society that it is.

Americans should also pay very close attention to states that have implemented these laws. In places like Maryland and Florida, success isn’t measured in lives saved. Intuitively, it’s impossible to determine how many lives were saved or if lives were ever truly at risk; thus the only practical measure of success for such a law is the number of guns seized and people denied their rights. Americans should resist the trend of assumed guilt and demand elected officials end this assault on our constitutional rights.

This article was reprinted from Intellectual Takeout.

COLUMN BY

Raheem Williams

Raheem Williams

Raheem Williams is an active economist who has worked for numerous liberty-based academic research centers and think-tanks. He received his B.A. in economics at Florida International University and his M.A. in financial economics from the University of Detroit Mercy. He is the founder of “The Policy,” a forum that promotes public policy dialogue across socio-economic levels.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Role of Mental Illness in Mass Shootings, Suicides

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission. Image credit: U.S. Air Force Photo/Tech. Sgt. Thomas Dow

VIDEO: In Non-Apology for Anti-Semitism, Ilhan Omar Attacks NRA Members

“Ilhan Omar learned nothing from her last apology. And she keeps saying this crazy stuff. And why even bring the NRA into it? Which by the way, the NRA has a lot of Jewish members. FYI… we’re trying to calm the hate down, not fan the flames.” –Dana Loesch

Send an Email To Congressional Democrats! Ask Them To Criticize Rep. Ilhan Omar for her virulent anti-Semitic diatribes.

RELATED ARTICLES:

TEN YEARS AGO TODAY: Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar Marries Her Biological Brother from Somalia

Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Bizarre ‘Apology’ for Anti-Semitic Remarks Doesn’t Cut It

6 Things to Know About Rep. Ilhan Omar

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with video and images is republished with permission.

House to Move Forward with Ineffective Gun Control Proposals

On Wednesday, gun owners got to see what a Nancy Pelosi controlled Congress looks like as the House Judiciary Committee held its first gun control hearing in nearly a decade. Things went as one would expect.

While the hearing was labeled “Preventing Gun Violence: A Call to Action,” it was intended to be the legislative launching pad for H.R. 8, the “universal” background check bill introduced by California Representative Mike Thompson (D). As we have pointed out, “universal” background checks will do nothing to prevent gun violence. H.R. 8 does, however, have the potential of ensnaring otherwise law-abiding gun owners unfamiliar with its proposed new restrictions on lawful activities that pose no threat to public safety.

From the beginning, it was clear how anti-gun members of the committee intended to steer the proceedings.

First, there was the panel, which consisted of two crime victims, two anti-gun representatives of law-enforcement, one trauma surgeon (who happens to sit on the Board of the anti-gun Brady Campaign), one constitutional scholar, and the Executive Director of the anti-gun Giffords Law Center. Out of the seven panelists, only two—one crime victim and constitutional scholar Joyce Lee Malcolm—spoke against H.R. 8 and other forms of gun control that were discussed.

Notably absent from the hearing was House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R). While the Louisiana Representative is a survivor of a well-known public shooting, and he asked to be given the opportunity to testify, his request was denied. He was likely denied for being unwilling to toe the gun control line, and anyone interested in seeing what he had to say on the matter can see his full statement here.

A tone that was clearly antagonistic towards the right to keep and bear arms was set early by Democrats on the committee. The panelists were each given five minutes to make an opening statement, and most used that time to make clearly emotional, political, and/or arguable points, which is expected in such a setting. But a courtesy normally extended to panelists allows them to make such statements unchallenged. If legislators wish to question something said during opening remarks, they are free to do so during their own allotted speaking time.

Anti-gun Florida Representative Ted Deutch (D) simply couldn’t wait his turn.

After Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm had made her opening remarks, Deutch decided he needed to make sure the anti-gun community knew where he stood. Abandoning common courtesy, he spoke up, misstating what Malcolm had said so that he could appear as if he was correcting her. The message was clear; support the Second Amendment in this committee hearing at your own peril.

It should come as no surprise that the committee didn’t focus on the actual effectiveness of H.R. 8 at reducing violent crime. Recent studies, even those produced by anti-gun research institutions, have found that “universal” background checks are ineffective at reducing crime.

Ultimately, the hearing went as anyone who pays attention to politics would expect. Anti-gun Democrats made sure they were able to promote anti-gun legislation, and they ignored facts, reason, and the concerns of crime victims that don’t support their agenda. What’s next for H.R. 8?

The bill will receive a “markup” as part of the committee process next Wednesday. That’s why it’s important for all gun owners to take action now to help stop this misguided and ineffective gun control from moving through Congress.

While we will keep working to derail this attack on law-abiding gun owners, you need to take action now. 

Please use this link to let your elected officials know that you won’t be blamed for the actions of violent criminals.

Ask your Representative to oppose H.R.8.

Additionally, you may call your U.S. Representative using the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Everytown Ignoring Bloomberg’s Findings

Aloha to Tax dollars: Hawaii Lawmakers Propose Public-funded Anti-gun Firearm Factoid Factory

Some Semblance of Law Returns to the Woeful Massachusetts Firearms Licensing Procedure

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Cory Booker And The Socialists Want To Disarm You

“The socialist wave continues, and Spartacus has entered the ring. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker announced his candidacy this morning and added his name to a list of candidates that is anticipated to be so long that, well, maybe it will fit on a CVS receipt. Maybe it won’t. Senator Booker is known for showing feigned feelings of love and using his eyes to stare deep into your soul, subliminally telling his constituents to support his anti-freedom initiatives.” —Dana Loesch

RELATED ARTICLES:

Oklahoma! Reaches Peak Virtual Signaling By Going “Gun Neutral”

Gun Laws in New York and California Are a Legislative Cancer

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with video and images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: The Disarmament Primary Is Gearing Up for Its Own Spartacus Moment

“Booker announced bright and early this morning that he’s running for president. We all know he was running months ago when he started grandstanding during the Kavanaugh hearings. Spartacus showed his true beliefs back then: He’s another gun-grabbing, Trump-despising liberal who’s out for power at all costs.” —Grant Stinchfield

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with video and images is republished with permission.

Florida Alert! Universal Background Checks, a Path to Gun Confiscation

HB 135 – Transfers of Firearms by Rep. Margaret Good (D) prohibits the TRANSFER of a firearm from one law-abiding citizen to another without first having a background check performed by a licensed firearms dealer.  

Transfer means sale, giving, lending, renting, or simply handing a firearm to another person or any action that causes a firearm to be transferred from one law-abiding person to another law-abiding person.  

In other words, you must go to a licensed firearms dealer to have a background check done on your best friend just to lend him a hunting rifle to go on a hunting trip. You must also pay the dealer an administrative fee PLUS the background check fee charged by FDLE.
 
Then, before your best friend can return the firearm to you, you must go back to the dealer and the dealer must do a background check on YOU to simply give you back your own gun — AND pay another set of fees. 

The bill also contains a “head-fake.”  Right up front, is a definition:  “Adult family member means an individual’s spouse, parent, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, niece, nephew, first cousin, aunt, or uncle who is over 21 years of age.”  

As must have been anticipated, many folks wrongfully think there is an exemption that allows you to lend or otherwise transfer a firearm to “an adult family member.”  A careful reading of the bill shows that the exemption ONLY applies if that person LIVES WITH YOU and the transfer is for NO MORE THAN 14 DAYS.

Even though HB-135 requires the person transferring the firearm to pay a licensed firearms dealer any amount of fees demanded by the dealer, nothing in the bill requires any dealer, anywhere to do background checks on private transfers, period!  
 
The bill sponsor must assume that dealers will be eager to accommodate this gun control measure because they have an opportunity to make as much money as they choose while implementing the liberal left’s gun control schemes.  Then there’s this:

Confiscation of Firearms under HB-135

Pretend your name is John Smith and you want to give a family shotgun to your son, John Smith, Jr.  (It doesn’t matter what your name is, this could happen to you and FDLE’s or NCIC’s mistake could result in your gun being confiscated).

STEP 1.  You go to your local licensed gun dealer for a background check on your son, as required by this bill.  

STEP 2.  You must then sign over ownership of your shotgun to the dealer before he can legally run a background check.

STEP 3.  The dealer charges you $50 (or more – as much as he chooses) to do the background check on your son.

STEP 4.  FDLE’s background check on your son confuses him for a John Smith with a criminal record: FDLE denies a transfer.  

STEP 5.  Before the shotgun can be returned to you, the dealer must first do a background check on you.

STEP 6.  The dealer charges you $50 (or more – as much as he chooses) to do a background check on you.

STEP 7.  FDLE confuses you with the same John Smith as your son, so FDLE denies the transfer of your gun back to you.

STEP 8.  Your shotgun must then be CONFISCATED by the dealer.

STEP 9.  Within 24 Hours, the dealer must deliver your shotgun to the Sheriff. (After doing a background check on the Sheriff)

STEP 10.  FDLE does nothing to correct the mistake.

STEP 11.  Unless YOU can PROVE that FDLE made a mistake, in 6 months your shotgun is forever forfeited to “the state” with no compensation whatever. There is no mandate that your shotgun be properly maintained while in “custody.”
 
BOTTOM LINE:  You have paid a dealer $100; you and your son have been labeled criminals by FDLE; your shotgun has been confiscated.  That’s only some of what Rep. Good’s bill would do if it passes.

READ THE BILL HERE

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.

VIDEO: State-Owned Fairgrounds Ban Gun Shows, Infringe on Both 2A and 1A Rights

“Because of all the political rhetoric flooding the country and this fixation on spreading as much propaganda as possible about the Second Amendment, anti-gun advocates on the fairgrounds’ board of directors decided that it would just be great to ban all gun shows.” —Dana Loesch

Oklahoma! Musical Producers Take Anti-gun Pandering Clear Up to the Sky

The entertainment industry’s virtue-signaling is as high as an elephant’s eye and it looks like it’s climbing clear up to the sky.

The world of musical theater isn’t exactly known for its depictions of graphic violence that glorify the misuse of firearms. However, that doesn’t mean Broadway is content to be left out of Hollywood’s latest efforts to pander to anti-gun extremists.

This week, producers for the revival of the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical Oklahoma! announced that it would be the first Broadway production to go “gun neutral.” That is, for every prop firearm that appears on stage, the producers will make a small contribution to an anti-gun organization.

Oklahoma! Producer Eva Price announced the move at the Sundance Film Festival in Aspen, Colo. during the “See Change: The Call for Gun Neutral Entertainment” panel. According to a report from WLIW, Price explained, “Just because a particular story calls for the presence of a particular weapon, that doesn’t mean that we have to remain complacent in America’s gun-violence epidemic… Helping to destroy firearms that shouldn’t be in circulation is both a privilege and a responsibility.”

Last November, NRA-ILA alerted gun owners to the new “Gun Neutral” campaign started by gun control activist and Disney heiress Abigail Disney and film company Killer Content.

In an October press release the group explained,

For each prop gun that appears in a production, financiers and producers will add a “GUN NEUTRAL” budget line item to cover the cost of destroying real-world guns and to invest in community-based arts programs targeting youth in the most gun violence-ridden communities. An average of $15 per prop gun will be charged.

The concept is reminiscent of the carbon offset schemes popularized by Al Gore and a host of celebrities in the mid-2000s, whereby elites would pay to abate a certain amount of carbon pollution in order offset their lavish lifestyles.

In concert with the Oklahoma! announcement, Gun Neutral campaigners stated,

Gun Neutral is a collective acknowledgement the creative community can and will do more, that we need a shift on this issue, and that the movement must be unshackled from politics to succeed. As we increase our understanding of the consequences portrayals of gun violence promote on screens and stage, we may re-think them. We know we instigate cultural shifts in our work. Now we will start to account for that.

There may be some value in examining how the entertainment industry depicts the misuse of firearms. However, it is hard to find the logic in how charging the producers of a 1943 musical about turn of the 20th century life on the open range $15 per gun prop might achieve any positive end.

Is there a danger that impressionable young minds will turn to violence after viewing mild western gunplay interspersed between box socials and a square dancing? Are fans of mid-20th century musical theater particularly vulnerable to Oklahoma!’s mild violence?

Rather than the type of high-minded soul searching into the role mass media might play in gun violence proposed by the gun indulgence campaigners, the Oklahoma! producers’ decision to go “gun neutral” smacks of anti-gun political pandering and has underscored the disingenuous character of the entire project.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Throwback Thursday: John Wayne & the Russian Assassins

Why the PC Police are So Afraid of Actor Chris Pratt

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with images is republished with permission.

Governor Noem Signs NRA-backed Constitutional Carry Bill

Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association today applauded South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem for signing into law Senate Bill 47, NRA-backed legislation that fully recognizes the constitutional right of law-abiding gun owners to carry a concealed firearm.

“On behalf of the NRA’s five-million members, we would like to thank Governor Noem for her leadership on this critical issue,” said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA-ILA. “This law is a common sense measure that allows law-abiding South Dakotans to exercise their fundamental right to self-protection in the manner that best suits their needs.”

This was the first bill Governor Noem signed into law. 

South Dakota already recognizes the right to carry a firearm openly without a permit. Current law, however, requires a state-issued permit to carry that same firearm under a coat or in a bag. This new law simply extends the current open carry rule to concealed carry. Those who obtain permits will still enjoy the reciprocity agreements that South Dakota has with other states.

With this law, South Dakota joins Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, New Hampshire and North Dakota as the fourteenth state that allows constitutional carry.

RELATED ARTICLES:

South Dakota: House Passes Constitutional/Permitless Carry Legislation

Washington: Magazine Ban & Firearm Seizure Bills Pass Committee

Illinois: Bill Introduced to Ban Many Firearms & Accessories

California: Deadline to Provide Comments on the Proposed Ammunition Regulations is January 31


Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with images is republished with permission.

Venezuela: A Case Study On What Happens When Gun Rights Are Trampled.

With all deference to hunters and sportsmen, it wasn’t their right to hunt that inspired James Madison and our nation’s First Congress to include the Second Amendment in their proposed Bill of Rights.  There’s was a much greater concern, that of checking the power of a potentially tyrannical state.  The modern left dismisses this argument as nonsensical, superfluous, and yes, even hysterical.  But despite its foolish attempts at diminishing the importance of gun ownership as a check on government, the fact still remains that the concern was central in the minds of the Framers.  Perhaps Noah Webster, that great American scholar and teacher whom we have all come to know by way of his dictionary, put it best when he wrote, “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”

Indeed, history has seen the pattern of gun right suppression in coordination with the rise of tyranny and oppression play out time and again.  China, Nazi Germany, communist Cuba, Russia, North Korea are but a few examples.  In fact, in keeping with Webster’s observation, the propagation of a dictatorship would be difficult to conceive if imposed upon a well-armed population.  And now, as we witness the financial and societal collapse of our southern neighbor, it is evident that Venezuela is no exception. 

In 2012, Venezuela’s, communist National Assembly banned gun ownership.  The stated reason for such an intervention is the oft-quoted safety argument.  In 2011, 40% of Caracas’s homicides were robbery related with armed robberies accounting for 70% of all major crimes.

Predictably, the government’s call for voluntary disarmament produced virtually no results, leading to the forcible confiscation of 12,603 firearms in 2013 alone.

The result? A rise in violence against police officers, and most ominously, a rise in violence by the state against its own citizens.  

In 2015 alone, 252 law enforcement officers were killed in Venezuela.  Why?  Well, in Venezuela, police officers are targeted for their firearms![1]

Additionally, when Venezuelans took to the streets to protest the “unjust laws” of which Webster wrote centuries ago, the state used live ammunition to quiet them down.  And like Cuba, Maduro’s regime established a group of colectivos, groups of local individuals charged with the implementation and enforcement of Maduro’s policies, except that, in Venezuela, 400,000 of them were officially armed and allowed to “carry out the regime’s rule by violence.” 

And what about the national homicide rate?  The rate government was trying to suppress? It actually rose from 73 per 100,000 in 2012 right before the ban was implemented to 90 per 100,000 in 2015.  In fact, in 2015 Venezuela faced the world’s highest homicide rate with 27,875 murders.  

There are elements within our country obsessed with restricting our gun rights.  Yes, there are sections in our country where gun violence reigns supreme.  And yes, the recurrently played out stories of senseless killings and associated suffering is tragic beyond words.  But there is no greater tragedy than a people who once given freedom are robbed of their liberties in pursuit of false assurances of safety and protection.  

Truly, Madison was not thinking of our right to hunt when he penned our Second Amendment.  He was thinking of much more ominous possibilities, the same eventualities that inspired Thomas Jefferson to proclaim, “it is [our] right and [our] duty to be at all times armed.”

The Author acknowledges the work of David Kopel and Vincent Harinam, cited below, on which the Author relied heavily.

[1]  David Kopel, Vincent Harinam, In The Wake Of A Gun Ban Venezuela Sees Rising Homicide RateThe Hill, April 19, 2018.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Countries Where Citizens Don’t Have Guns and Become Subjects

The Second Amendment Now Applies To More Than Just Firearms.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Federalist Pages column is republished with permission. The featured image is from Pixabay.