Delaware Jury Convicts Hunter Biden On Felony Gun Charges

/in , , , , , , , /by

A Delaware jury convicted Hunter Biden on three felony gun charges Tuesday.

Special counsel David Weiss charged Hunter Biden in September on three counts relating to his purchase of a Colt Cobra revolver in October 2018, alleging he knowingly possessed the gun while addicted to drugs and made false statements on the purchase form. The jury found him guilty on all counts.

Hunter Biden was indicted on separate tax charges in December.

Last July, a deal that would have had Hunter Biden plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and enter a diversion agreement for a felony gun charge fell apart under questioning by District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika, who voiced concerns about an immunity provision included in the diversion agreement. The diversion agreement stated Hunter Biden would not be criminally prosecuted for any crimes encompassed by the statement of facts in his plea deal, which listed the millions of dollars he received through foreign business dealings in China, Ukraine and Romania.

The payments, along with President Joe Biden’s involvement in his son’s business dealings, have been the subject of investigations by the House Oversight Committee.

Prosecutor Leo Wise admitted to Noreika at the time that he was not aware of precedent for an agreement not to prosecute crimes “that have nothing to do with the case or the charges being diverted.”

During the trial, prosecutors called a total of 10 witnesses and rested their case on Friday. Witnesses included multiple women who were romantically involved with Hunter Biden, such as his ex-wife Kathleen Buhle, his ex-girlfriend Zoe Kestan and Hallie Biden, the widow of his late brother Beau Biden.

To show Hunter Biden was addicted to drugs at the time of his gun purchase, prosecutors cited portions of his memoir, Beautiful Things, where he elaborates on his drug use in 2018, as well as text messages he sent relating to his drug use.

“I was sleeping on a car smoking crack on 4th street and Rodney,” Hunter Biden wrote in a text from October 14, 2018.

Some evidence was obtained from the laptop he abandoned at a Delaware repair shop in April 2019. Special Counsel David Weiss shot down the defense’s challenge to the laptop’s authenticity, calling their argument in court filings “a conspiracy theory with no supporting evidence.”

FBI agent Erika Jensen, a witness for prosecutors, confirmed on the stand that she had not seen any evidence of tampering with the data.

“The evidence was personal, it was ugly, it was overwhelming,” Wise said during closing arguments, according to NBC News. “It was also absolutely necessary.”

The defense argued that Hunter Biden did not believe he was an addict at the time of the purchase. Naomi Biden, Hunter’s daughter, testified in his defense, speaking about two meetings with her father during 2018, one at a Los Angeles rehab facility during the summer and another in New York City during the fall.

Naomi Biden recalled that her father seemed during that summer “the clearest” she had seen him in the three years since her uncle’s death, The New York Times reported. On cross-examination, prosecutors presented text messages from Hunter Biden’s visit to New York City in October 2018, where she was living at the time.

“I just want to hang out with you,” she wrote in one message, according to Politico. He apologized for being so “unreachable.”

Defense attorneys opted not to call President Joe Biden’s brother, James Biden, as a witness. Hunter Biden also did not testify in his own defense.

Many Biden family members attended the trial, including First Lady Jill Biden.

Hunter Biden’s California trail on federal tax charges is scheduled to take place in September.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hunter Biden Possessed Crack Rock The Size Of A Ping Pong Ball, Hallie Biden Testifies In Trial

FBI Witness Goes Against Hunter Biden Legal Team’s Laptop Narrative

RELATED VIDEO: The evidence against Hunter Biden is ‘overwhelming’: Gregg Jarrett

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

These Accounts of Defensive Gun Use Speak Volumes

/in , , , , /by

It seems that many gun control activists want to take your guns so badly that they’re willing to take your voice, too. And increasingly, the war for the Second Amendment involves battles waged on a First Amendment front.

Just ask the National Rifle Association, which last week needed the Supreme Court to vindicate its right to free speech against New York’s attempts to suppress the gun rights organization’s pro-Second Amendment views.

New York’s unconstitutional assault on a Second Amendment advocacy group was, unfortunately, far from the first time that gun control activists have attacked the lawful gun industry and lawful gun owners by threatening their right to speak freely.

Particularly when it comes to the importance of armed self-defense, gun control activists know that the closest thing they have to a winning argument is a silent (or silenced) opposition. The numbers simply don’t work in their favor.

Almost every major study has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, according to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2021, the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the issue concluded that roughly 1.6 million defensive gun uses occur in the United States every year.

No wonder gun control activists pressured the CDC two years ago into quietly removing those numbers from the agency’s website. But defenders of the Second Amendment should keep shouting the facts from the rooftops, despite efforts to silence us.

For this reason, The Daily Signal publishes a monthly article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accounts here from past years.)

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in May. You may explore more using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database.

  • May 1, Jackson, Mississippi: A woman returned home to find herself face-to-face with three burglars who’d broken in, police said. At least one burglar was armed and shot at the woman, who drew her own gun and returned fire until all three fled. Police later arrested one suspect.
  • May 4, Omaha, Nebraska: Security cameras captured the moment an armed Air Force veteran defended his jewelry store from a would-be robber who used a rock to smash his way inside after the store closed, police said. Footage shows the veteran store owner jogging out of a back room and pointing his gun at the robber, who stands over a display case with burglary tools in his hands. After seeing the armed owner, the robber puts his hands in the air and scrambles back out of the store, the video shows. Police didn’t have a suspect.
  • May 7, Cheltenham Township, Pennsylvania: A DoorDash driver with a concealed carry permit exchanged gunfire with two carjackers who accosted him while he made a late-night delivery, police said. The driver escaped unharmed and his assailants fled, though police later arrested a suspect after tracking him down with a K-9 unit.
  • May 9, Portland, Oregon: Two private security officers confronted a man who was “aggressively banging on apartment windows” and tried to get him to leave the premises. For unclear reasons, the man then charged at a bystander and continued coming after him, even as the bystander tried to get away. Eventually, the bystander drew his lawfully concealed firearm and shot the man, wounding him.
  • May 11, Yakima, Washington: A homeowner who fatally shot an elderly man did so in self-defense after the man came onto the homeowner’s property and threatened his family with a gun, police said. The homeowner’s version of events was confirmed by video evidence and witness statements.
  • May 14, Vermillion, South Dakota: Police said a man with a history of domestic violence violated a protection order, forced his way into a woman’s home, threatened those inside with a handgun, and shot at a guest. The guest retrieved his own firearm and fatally shot the assailant before he could harm anyone. Records indicate this wasn’t the first time the woman was granted a protection order against the man—or the first time that he violated one.
  • May 15, Willow Springs, Illinois:  An armed homeowner helped end a police manhunt, detaining a wanted burglary suspect at gunpoint after catching him hiding in his backyard, where his young child was playing, police said. The suspect was one of two men accused of stealing chainsaws and leading police on a high-speed chase that at times reached 120 mph. Police arrested a second suspect outside a nearby school.
  • May 17, Monrovia, California: Police said a man armed with knives showed up at a woman’s home in violation of a restraining order, then tried to stab her and another man inside the residence. The woman retrieved her firearm and fatally shot him. Neither victim appeared to be injured.
  • May 21, Vernon Parish, Louisiana: A woman’s ex-boyfriend broke into the home where she and her children were staying as a way to avoid him, police said. He stabbed the woman in front of the children, then stabbed the homeowner when he tried to intervene. Despite life-threatening wounds, the homeowner retreated to another room, grabbed his gun, and fatally shot the ex-boyfriend.
  • May 24, Farrell, Pennsylvania: When a police officer approached a man outside a convenience store, suspecting he carried a weapon, the man refused to cooperate and started shooting at the officer, police said. A bystander with a concealed carry permit helped return fire at the gunman, who was wounded and arrested.
  • May 27, Taylor, Texas: A homeowner shot and wounded a man who, while wielding a large knife inscribed with the words “hail Satan,” tried to break into his house in the middle of the night. The suspect faces felony charges, police said.
  • May 29, Lehigh Acres, Florida: A county sheriff lauded an armed homeowner as a hero for fatally shooting a man who, in the midst of an hourslong violent crime spree, drove a stolen car to a relative’s home and opened fire at those inside. It wasn’t clear what prompted the man, who had no criminal history, to commit four carjackings before targeting the homeowner.

Examples like the ones above make it easy to see why proponents of gun control are often more eager to use the government’s coercive power to silence pro-Second Amendment views than they are to engage in open and honest gun policy debates.

They rely on a narrative that “good guys with guns” really don’t exist and that armed self-defense is rarely an effective solution for crime victims. But that narrative is only persuasive if stories about defensive gun use are swept under the rug.

Because these stories of armed self-defense speak volumes.

We won’t let them be silenced.

AUTHOR

Amy Swearer

Amy Swearer is a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Amy on X: .

Related Posts:

Indiana Prosecutor Laments That Self-Defense Laws Exist, Protect Defensive Gun Users

Sentencing of Shooter’s Parents Underlines Responsibility of Gun Owners

More Defensive Gun Uses Undermine Government Claims About Armed Civilians

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Rep. Mark Green Leads Bid To Reverse Biden Admin’s ‘Politically Motivated’ Gun Restrictions

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Republican Tennessee Rep. Mark Green on Wednesday took action to reverse a Biden administration rule placing new restrictions on firearm exports.

The rule, released by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) on April 30, makes a number of changes to licensing requirements that could make it more difficult for firearm manufacturers and sellers to conduct business. Green, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to overturn the rule, along with 69 other Republicans.

“Congress cannot abandon American firearm exporters to the whims of an administration hellbent on undermining their businesses, their livelihoods, and their constitutional freedoms,” Green told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Congress has the authority to rein in rogue federal agencies—it’s time we used it.”

Republican Tennessee Sen. Bill Hagerty is introducing the Senate’s version of the CRA.

“This rule is another Operation Choke Point—a politically motivated effort that significantly harms Tennessee manufacturers—and will consequently destroy U.S. jobs and small businesses that support the firearm and ammunition industry,” Hagerty said in an April 30 statement. “The Biden administration has made clear that its goal is to damage the firearm industry that supplies the products that allow Americans to exercise their constitutional freedom. Crushing American exports is just a means to skirt the legislative process and do damage to yet another Biden-disfavored industry.”

The CRA comes on the heels of Green’s introduction of the Stop the Bureaucratic Ineptitude Shuttering Respectable and Upstanding Lawful Exporters Act (Stop the BIS RULE Act) bill in early May, which would prevent federal funds from being used “to finalize, implement, or enforce” the rule.

Green previously told the DCNF the rule would “harm American business owners, hinder the right of people overseas to protect themselves, and will allow China and Russia to fill the void.”

The rule lowers export license validity to one year rather than four, inserts a “crime control” licensing requirement that factors in crime in other countries and applies a “presumption of denial” to export applications to 36 countries deemed high-risk.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said in a statement announcing the new rule that it was designed to protect “America’s national security by making it harder for criminals, terrorists, and cartels to get their hands on U.S.-made firearms,” which she noted “fall into the wrong hands and end up being used in ways that directly undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.”

BIS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce, issued the rule following a 90-day pause on new export licenses for civilian firearms, which was announced in October but ultimately lasted over 180 days.

President Joe Biden has a long history of supporting gun control. As a senator in 1994, he helped pass a ten- year ban on “assault weapons” and continues to advocate for a federal ban.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Proposes Increasing Budget Of Agency Pushing Gun Regulations By 30%

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

SCOTUS Hands NRA First Amendment Win

/in , , , , , /by

In a victory for First Amendment rights, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided to reinstate a lawsuit brought by the National Rifle Association (NRA) alleging that New York state officials had violated the Second Amendment advocacy group’s First Amendment rights.

Following a 2018 school shooting, then-superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) Maria Vullo pressured financial institutions “to punish or suppress” the NRA, due to the organization’s gun rights advocacy. The NRA argued that Vullo violated the First Amendment and overstepped her official bounds, going beyond advising financial institutions and actually coercing them into targeting the NRA. But the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that Vullo’s actions “constituted permissible government speech and legitimate law enforcement.”

In an opinion penned by typically-left-leaning Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the NRA put forth a strong enough case that its lawsuit should be reinstated. “Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ against a third party ‘to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment,” Sotomayor wrote. “Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that.”

According to Sotomayor’s summary of the case, Vullo began investigating several NRA-associated insurance programs, finding several minor regulatory infractions. After the February 14, 2018 shooting at a school in Parkland, Florida, numerous companies and financial institutions spoke out against the NRA and some even severed ties with the group. Among those which refused to do business with the NRA were Lockton Companies, Chubb Corporation, and Lloyd’s of London, who respectively administered and underwrote insurance plans for NRA members.

Sotomayor wrote that, after the shooting, Vullo met with executives at Lockton, Chubb, and Lloyd’s and expressed a “desire to leverage [her office’s] powers to combat the availability of firearms, including specifically by weakening the NRA.” She also told executives — specifically Lloyd’s executives — that she had found numerous “technical regulatory infractions plaguing the affinity insurance marketplace,” but indicated “that DFS was less interested in pursuing the[se] infractions” unrelated to any NRA business “so long as Lloyd’s ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA.”

Sotomayor summarized, “Vullo and Lloyd’s struck a deal: Lloyd’s ‘would instruct its syndicates to cease underwriting firearm-related policies and would scale back its NRA-related business,’ and ‘in exchange, DFS would focus its forthcoming affinity-insurance enforcement action solely on those syndicates which served the NRA, and ignore other syndicates writing similar policies.’”

Shortly afterwards, Vullo issued “guidance” letters to New York financial institutions, urging them to fulfill “their social responsibility” by ceasing to do business with the NRA. She and then-Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) hosted a joint press conference reiterating those points. Chubb agreed to stop underwriting NRA insurance policies and Vullo called on others to do likewise. Chubb and Lloyd’s entered into agreements with Vullo and DFS in early May.

“As DFS superintendent, Vullo had direct regulatory and enforcement authority over all insurance companies and financial service institutions doing business in New York,” Sotomayor explained. “So, whether analyzed as a threat or as an inducement, the conclusion is the same: Vullo allegedly coerced Lloyd’s by saying she would ignore unrelated infractions and focus her enforcement efforts on NRA-related business alone, if Lloyd’s ceased underwriting NRA policies and disassociated from gun-promotion groups.”

“One can reasonably infer from the complaint that Vullo coerced DFS-regulated entities to cut their ties with the NRA in order to stifle the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy and advance her views on gun control,” Sotomayor continued. She further explained:

“To state a claim that the government violated the First Amendment through coercion of a third party, a plaintiff must plausibly allege conduct that, viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress the plaintiff ’s speech. Accepting the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true, the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated entities into disassociating with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy.”

“The NRA’s allegations, if true, highlight the constitutional concerns with the kind of intermediary strategy that Vullo purportedly adopted to target the NRA’s advocacy,” Sotomayor explained. “Such a strategy allows government officials to expand their regulatory jurisdiction to suppress the speech of organizations that they have no direct control over.” She concluded, “Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.”

The court’s decision was unanimous. Justices Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, and Biden-appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote concurring opinions. This comes as the Supreme Court deliberates over a case regarding the federal government and its agencies pressuring or coercing social media entities into censoring American political speech online.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Federal Judge Blocks Biden ATF Rule Expanding Gun Background Checks

/in , , , , , , , , /by

A federal judge temporarily blocked the Biden administration from fully enforcing a gun background check rule Sunday night.

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the rule covering background checks for firearms purchases April 10, claiming it was based on bipartisan legislation passed in the wake of a deadly school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. United States District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from enforcing the rule against the state of Texas and certain gun organizations until June 2.

The rule would dramatically expand the definition of when someone is “engaged in business” as a gun dealer subject to background check regulations, thereby expanding the number of people who must run background checks on firearms sales.

“President Biden and his anti-gun administration have aggressively pursued an agenda meant to harass, intimidate, and criminalize gun owners and dealers at every turn,” Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said. “This ruling is a compelling rebuke of their tyrannical and unconstitutional actions that purposely misinterpreted federal law to ensure their preferred policy outcome.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other Republican state attorneys general sued to block the rule May 1.

“I am relieved that we were able to secure a restraining order that will prevent this illegal rule from taking effect,” Paxton said in a press release. “The Biden Administration cannot unilaterally overturn Americans’ constitutional rights and nullify the Second Amendment.”

The Biden administration has pushed multiple regulations of firearms since the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act passed in June 2022 following the shooting at Ross Elementary School in Uvalde.

The states of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming joined the suit, according to a May 1 release by Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen of Montana.

“The NRA applauds Judge Kacsmaryk’s order and congratulates Attorney General Paxton on his win in this important case,” NRA-ILA Executive Director Randy Kozuch told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “As Judge Kacsmaryk notes in his order, ATF’s ‘engaged in the business’ rule far exceeds the agency’s authority and targets gun owners engaged in lawful firearm transfers. The rule is just one more example of how the lawless Biden Administration is willing to put its hatred of law-abiding American gun owners over the rule of law.”

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from the DCNF.

AUTHOR

HAROLD HUTCHISON

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: Republican AGs File Suit Against Biden’s ATF Over Background Check Rule

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

How Many Gun Owners are in America? — 2024 Statistics

/in , , , /by

As the political climate heats up surrounding gun control and legislation, more Americans are buying firearms today than six years ago. In the past twenty years, gun ownership has risen slightly among women and Hispanics while it has decreased among men.

Report Highlights:

  • Gun ownership in America increased 28% from 1994 to 2023.
  • Based on NICS background data and manufacturing records, it is estimated that there are 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the U.S.
  • Only 6.06 million firearms are registered in America (NFA registrations and states with permits to purchase)
  • Estimates show that 82,880,000 people own at least one firearm in 2023.
  • 43% of households have at least one firearm in 2023.
  • Women’s firearm ownership has increased by 177.8% since 1993.
  • Hispanics are the fastest-growing demographic of gun owners, with a 33% increase in ownership between 2017 and 2023.
  • Gun ownership declined by 22% in the 18-29 age group between 2017 and 2023.
  • 1 out of 20 adults in the U.S. purchased a firearm for the first time during the pandemic.

You can see a comprehensive list of our sources here

How Many Americans Own Guns?

In 2023, 32% of Americans own at least one firearm. There are approximately 259,000,000 adults, which equates to 82,880,000 people who own a firearm in the U.S.

Firearm ownership increased by 6.7% in the U.S. (all demographics) between 2017 and 2023. During that same time period, women increased ownership by 13.6%, and Hispanics increased ownership by 33.3%.

Not only is gun ownership on the rise, but some demographics are purchasing guns at higher rates today than ever before.

Furthermore, 7.5 million adults (2.9% of adults in the U.S.) became first-time gun owners between 2019 and 2021. Of those, 5.4 million did not have a firearm in the household before purchasing.

Gun Sale Trends in America 2010-2023

While firearm ownership historically remains between 40% and 47% of the adult population, purchase trends vary widely. More Americans bought firearms in 2020 than any year since 2010.

Increased gun sales backing increased gun ownership in the U.S.

How Many Legal Gun Owners in the United States?

Unfortunately, it’s nearly impossible to tell exactly how many legal firearm owners there are in the U.S. However, we can explore the NICS, gun sales, and firearm ownership trends to better explain the legality of firearm ownership in America.

  • Current estimates state that there have been more than 7 million firearms sold in the US via an FFL dealer or private seller with a background check (January through May)
  • More than 64 million background checks (E-Checks) have been approved since 2002
  • There are currently more than 6 million registered firearms of the estimated 393 million in circulation

How Many illegal?

While some estimate that more than one million Americans possess firearms illegally, criminals do not regularly report firearm possession. Therefore, we must look into past data to better understand illegal firearm ownership in the U.S.

  • Only 146 firearms were confiscated during a license or registration process in 2021
  • 316,464 firearms were recovered by the ATF in 2021 involving the commission of a crime
  • 47,361 firearms were confiscated from individuals under the age of 21 in the U.S. in 2021
  • 68% of firearm offenders are rearrested within 8 years, compared to only 46% of non-firearm offenders (2005)
  • In 2018, there were 6,719 federal convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)

What Percentage of Americans Own Guns?

40%, or approximately more than 82,000,000 Americans own guns. As a matter of fact, 28% more people report having firearms in 2023 than twenty years ago.

Gun ownership has been on the rise in recent years.

How Many Guns Does An Average Gun Owner Possess?

The average American owns between one and five firearms. Men are more likely than women to own more than one, and those with only one firearm typically have a handgun or pistol.

  • 62% of gun owners with only one firearm have a handgun
  • 66% of gun owners have more than one firearm
  • 29% of gun owners have five firearms
  • Men are more likely to own more than one firearm (74%) than women

How Many US Households Have Guns?

Currently, more than 40% of households have at least one firearm (an estimated 52,000,000 households). The number of households with guns increased by 14.3% since 1994, with 18% more buying firearms during the pandemic.

Household gun ownership is on the rise in the U.S. Many households acquired new firearms during the pandemic.

How Many Americans Report That They or Someone in Their Household Have A Gun?

Only 10% of respondents to the June 2023 survey stated they do not personally own a firearm but do live in a home with someone else who does. This is a 6.7% increase from 2017.

What Is The Primary Reason Why Americans Possess Guns?

  • 72% of gun owners say they keep a firearm for protection in 2023
  • Only 32% of Americans own a firearm for hunting
  • 30% of gun owners use firearms for sports
  • 15% of firearm owners keep them as a collection
  • 7% of owners use their firearms in a work-related setting

Despite fluctuations in firearm ownership, the number one reason owners keep firearms is for protection (an increase of 7.5% since 2017). However, firearm collections have increased by 15.4% since 2017.

The majority of gun owners cite personal defense as a reason for owning guns.

How Many Gun Owners are in America(2024 statistics) originally appeared in the Resistance Library at Ammo.com.

©2024. . All rights reserved.

POST ON X:

https://x.com/827js/status/1791483125337391501

Gun Groups Sound Alarm About New DOJ ‘Red Flag’ Law Center

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Gun groups are sounding the alarm about the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) new center aimed at helping states enforce red flag laws.

The DOJ launched its National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center on Saturday to offer assistance to law enforcement officials, social services providers and others who implement red flag laws, which permit judges to temporarily strip individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others of their ability to possess firearms. The center, which will be run by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, was started with a $2 million DOJ grant funded through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) passed in 2022, according to the White House.

“Red flag laws are inherently a violation of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments because they allow for the confiscation of legal firearms from law-abiding citizens without due process based on anonymous accusations,” the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Thus, they have no place in American Jurisprudence.”

President Joe Biden and the DOJ will use the center to “continue their abuse of the constitutional rights of all Americans,” NAGR said.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said in the center’s announcement that it was “the latest example of the Justice Department’s work to use every tool provided by the landmark Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to protect communities from gun violence.”

“The launch of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center will provide our partners across the country with valuable resources to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others,” Garland said.

Twenty-one states, along with the District of Columbia, have passed ERPO laws, according to the DOJ’s press release.

NAGR Vice President Ryan Flugaur told the Daily Caller News Foundation his organization blames Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who led Republican negotiations on the bill, for the “mess.” Flugaur said it should stop Cornyn from becoming the next Republican Senate leader.

Fifteen Senate Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the BSCA in 2022.

Gun Owners of America Director of Federal Affairs Aidan Johnston told the DCNF the office was “being created simply to pressure and bribe states into adopting these laws in exchange for more federal money.”

“For example, Michigan enacted a gun confiscation law within a few months of receiving a Cornyn-Murphy ‘grant.’” he said. “The People should demand their state lawmakers push back and never sell out your rights for 30 pieces of silver.”

Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed the state’s red flag bill into law in May 2023. The state was awarded a $7,945,884 DOJ grant in February 2023 “to help combat gun violence and enhance behavioral health and crisis care programs,” which was made possible through the BSCA.

Thirty-three members of Congress, led by Republican Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall and Republican West Virginia Rep. Alex Mooney, alleged in a letter last July that the DOJ illegally gave grant money to states that did not have red flag laws to “create and implement extreme risk protection order programs.”

“Every single ‘red flag’ gun confiscation law in the United States lacks due process because the government can convene a hearing and take your firearms away without you or your attorney ever being present to counter the claims being made,” Johnston told the DCNF.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Gun Owners Of America Comes Out Swinging Against John Cornyn After He Announced Bid For Senate Leader

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

DOJ Creates New Federal ‘Red Flag’ Center To Seize Firearms From Law-Abiding Americans [But Not Illegals]

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Apparently the Democrat regime’s gun control mania only applies to law abiding American citizens but not illegals. An Obama judge U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman recently ruled illegals can carry guns.

This all goes back to the relentless war on our first amendment – free speech. Once you criminalize speech (under the Orwellian ‘hate speech), all of our other rights come crashing down, like dominoes.

DOJ’s Sinister Scheme: Seizing Guns from Law-Abiding Citizens!

President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) made a significant announcement on Saturday with the launch of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center, catching some congressional Republicans off guard. Attorney General Merrick Garland emphasized in a press release that the new center aims to equip law enforcement officials and other stakeholders with resources to prevent individuals deemed dangerous from accessing firearms. ERPOs, commonly known as “red flag” laws, enable authorities to confiscate guns from individuals deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others, with provisions to prevent them from purchasing or possessing firearms for the duration of the order.

Garland framed the establishment of the center as a proactive measure in leveraging the tools provided by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to address gun violence. The DOJ’s initiative underscores the administration’s commitment to utilizing all available means to enhance public safety and prevent potential tragedies involving firearms.

The newly launched National ERPO Resource Center includes a website offering a plethora of resources and guidance for stakeholders involved in implementing red flag laws. It provides training and technical assistance to various professionals, including law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and mental health professionals, involved in executing laws aimed at curbing access to firearms for individuals deemed risky.

Additionally, the center’s website features a comprehensive state-by-state guide on red flag laws across the country, offering specific information on each state’s ERPO legislation. Currently, 21 states and the District of Columbia have enacted red flag laws, reflecting a growing trend in adopting measures to address concerns related to gun violence and mental health.

Republican lawmakers, however, expressed surprise and concern over the DOJ’s move to establish a federal resource center for red flag laws. Some, like Representative Thomas Massie and Senator Mike Lee, voiced opposition to the initiative, questioning its authorization and raising concerns about potential overreach by the federal government in matters traditionally regulated by states.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why Red Flag Laws Failed Miserably in the Case of ‘J4TH Mass Murderer’ Robert ‘Bobby’ Crimo, III

Obama Appointed Judge Rules Illegals Can Carry Guns

Google and Meta Function as Extensions of the US Intelligence Community

RELATED VIDEOS:

Why Red Flag Laws are a Violation of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments

IN FOCUS: Democrats Vote Against Ban on Flying Illegal Aliens Into U.S. with Emerald Robinson – OAN

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Obama Appointed Judge Rules Illegals Can Carry Guns

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Democrat war on Americans escalates.

Apparently their gun control mania only applies to law abiding American citizens.

Illegal Immigrant Can Carry Guns: Federal Judge

By: Epoch Times, March 19, 2024:

An illegal immigrant was wrongly banned from possessing guns, according to a recent ruling.

A federal law, Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, bars illegal immigrants from carrying guns or ammunition. Prosecutors charged Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, the illegal alien, in 2020 after he was found in Chicago carrying a semi-automatic pistol despite “knowing he was an alien illegally and unlawfully in the United States.”

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman rejected two motions to dismiss, but the third motion, based on a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, triggered the dismissal of the case on March 8.

“The noncitizen possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” Judge Coleman, appointed under President Barack Obama, wrote in her 8-page ruling. “Thus, the court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”

Lawyers for Mr. Carbajal-Flores had argued in the most recent motion to dismiss that the government could not show that the law in question was “part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”

In 2022, the Supreme Court determined that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment “presumptively protects” conduct that is covered by the amendment’s “plain text.”

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: 200K Illegal Deportation Cases Thrown Out of Court Because Biden Regime Didn’t File Paperwork

RELATED VIDEOS:

IN FOCUS: Federal Judge Rules 2A Applies to Illegal Aliens with Dan Lyman – OAN

Deep State PLOT to REMOVE TRUMP Happening NOW

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO EXPOSÈ: Secretary of Defense Personnel, “Why Not Just Have An Open Border?”

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

BREAKING INSIDE THE PENTAGON: Associate Director in the Office of the Secretary of Defense says, “Why not just have an open border?” “Tear down the wall.”

“I think we should repeal the Second Amendment and take the guns all away!” says Jason Beck, who has a classified security clearance and works for the Department of Defense. Beck, who uses a fake name Aidan Grey in his meetings with a disguised James O’Keefe, describes his extremist policies, including “mobilizing the national guard” to confiscate guns from people’s homes. Beck says he wants a “monopoly on state violence,” a concept he describes as “‘We [the government], are the only ones with guns.”

Jason Beck works in Total Force Requirements & Sourcing Policy in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense. This office oversees the Department of Defense and acts as the principal defense policy maker and adviser to the President of the United States. Beck says he helps “writes answers for testimony” of “the department’s senior leadership – basically they go over to the Hill for hearings on the department’s posture.”

In this shocking footage we get an INSIDE look as Jason Beck tells James O’Keefe: “we need to pack the Supreme Court,” ban the United States Senate, and abolish the electoral college. He also discusses his “bottom surgery’ being painful and the changes to his plumbing.

OMG got a concerning peek under the lid of Pentagon policymaking when James O’Keefe went undercover to have dinner with Jason Beck, the Associate Director in Total Force Requirements & Sourcing Policy for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Headquartered in the Pentagon, the Secretary of Defense oversees the Department of Defense (DoD) and acts as the principal defense policy maker and adviser to the President of the United States. The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation’s security.

Oddly enough and never explained, Beck introduced himself to O’Keefe as Aidan Grey. His name was not the only thing Beck was confused about as he detailed his bottom surgery to change his sex, explaining to desired love match O’Keefe: “The plumbing is different.” It is in this mind frame Beck, who has classified security clearance, conducts his work. Beck stated that he helps write answers for senior DoD officials for their testimony before Congress in Posture hearings, is “trying to get policies in place” to revise DoD policies for issues including contracts with private military contractors like former CEO of Blackwater Erik Prince, and implements DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) initiatives throughout the DoD, the nation’s largest government agency. When O’Keefe asked about the recent controversy surrounding Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin hiding his health condition and surgery from the White House, Beck admitted “the way they hid it was really strange um, nobody knew?”

The most disturbing aspect of OMG’s undercover footage of Beck was how he harbored views not only antithetical to the mission of the agency for which he works but also to the very tenets of our government. Beck expressed how he wanted to work on the State’s Monopoly on Violence – the idea that government is “the only legitimate purveyor of violence and enforcement of force, so, we [the government] are the only ones with guns” – something our Founders knew inevitably leads to government tyranny. Nonetheless, Beck advocated for the repeal of the Second Amendment and for the National Guard “to take them [guns] all away,” similar to the forced integration of schools in Little Rock, Arkansas. To ensure individuals within the National Guard followed orders to confiscate Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms, Beck justified packing the United States Supreme Court with a leftist majority so legislation banning all guns could not be overturned as unconstitutional.

Addressing border security, which ensures the security of our nation – the very mission of the DoD, Beck harbored extremist views entirely out of line with the majority of Americans. He claimed the recent immigration bill was “really racist” and wanted to “tear down the wall” even when public health emergencies would allow for the removal of illegal immigrants under Title 42. Instead, Beck demanded: “Why not just have an OPEN BORDER.” He maintained the border is “not a security crisis” and any belief dangerous individuals are coming across the border are “just made up.” It was apparent Beck had not seen OMG’s ongoing border coverage exposing piles of discarded ID cards from China, Venezuela, Cuba, Turkey, Syria, and Egypt found by OMG Citizen Journalists or OMG’s exposé on No Mas Muertas where OMG’s undercover immigrant was held at gun point by Spanish-speaking men who looked and acted like cartel members. Thus, perhaps the only thing more disturbing than Beck’s hatred of Constitutional rights was his ignorance of documented facts and current events. In fact, DoD officials testified before the House Armed Services Committee this week acknowledging concern about an anticipated mass migration into the United States from an incredibly dangerous and unstable Haiti.

The power wielded by Beck influencing DoD policy according to extremist anti-Constitutional views and IRS officials like Alex Mena unconstitutionally using AI to view the contents of our private bank accounts reveals a modern federal bureaucracy that is dangerously unaccountable. We can only hope that OMG and its army of Citizen Journalists continue to expose government corruption and turn the tide.

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This O’Keefe Media Group video exposé is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Historic Business Remington Flees New York For Georgia After 208 Years

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Remington is leaving Ilion, N.Y., ‘after two centuries, abandoning upstate for a gleaming new factory in Georgia. With it goes the village’s identity.’  so wrote the New York Times.

NY village ‘losing its soul’ as nation’s oldest gun manufacturer flees blue state for Georgia

Remington is the nation’s oldest gun manufacturer

“Two hundred and eight years of history. Gone, gone,” Ilion, New York, Mayor John P. Stephens told The New York Times. “Ilion is Remington. Remington is Ilion.”

“Two hundred and eight years of history. Gone, gone,” Ilion, New York, Mayor John P. Stephens told The New York Times. “Ilion is Remington. Remington is Ilion.”

Remington, the nation’s oldest gun manufacturer, told union officials late last year that company chiefs at RemArms, the current version of Remington Arms, made the decision to end its New York manufacturing come March. The remaining operations located in Ilion will move to Georgia, where company leaders say the firearms industry is supported and welcomed.

Residents of the New York village, which is located roughly 230 miles northwest of New York City, are bracing for the manufacturer to officially move, which some say will take part of the town’s identity with it.

A view of the Remington Arms Co., Inc. compound in the middle of Ilion, New York, on Feb. 1. The nation’s oldest gun-maker is consolidating operations in Georgia and recently announced plans to shutter the Ilion factory in early March. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

“When Remington leaves, it’s not going to be like a facility leaving, it’s going to be like part of your family has moved off,” Jim Conover, a retired Remington employee who began his career there in 1964, told The Associated Press.

A furnace operator and technician at the factory, Frank “Rusty” Brown, told the outlet that he and generations of his family worked at the facility and noted he and his wife will be out of jobs.

“My mom worked there. My dad worked there. My wife works there with me now. My daughter works there with me now. My second daughter works there with me now. And my son-in-law works there,” Brown said. “So it’s a double-hit for me and my wife: two of us out of a job.”

The closure of the New York location will result in about 300 people losing their jobs in a town of roughly 7,600. The mayor of Ilion told the Daily Mail that the village is expected to lose $1 million in revenue due to the move, in addition to other local businesses taking a financial hit.

”It’s like the town is losing its soul. It’s almost like losing a family member. That’s the thing that people are struggling with, the nostalgia, the history. It feels like we are losing the identity of the town,” Stephens told the outlet.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York City congestion pricing, first in the nation, is approved at $15 and up for vehicles

Insane Trump’s Penalty Will NY Businesses To Flee to FLA, as New York State Becomes ‘Legal Banana Republic’: Experts

CEO of Cardone Capital To Team: “Immediately Discontinue All Underwriting on New York City Real Estate” In Wake of Insane Ruling in Trump Case

California, New York Lose Most in Tax Revenue as Residents FLEE for Conservative States

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Truth Comes Out About Kansas City Super Bowl Chief’s Victory Parade Shooting — The Shooters are Black!

/in , , , , , /by

Two black teenagers shooting at each other charged with the murder of Radio DJ Lisa Lopez-Galvan and of 22 others, 11 of which were children.

This is reason we’ve heard little about this mass shooting except for more cries for Gun Control by Marxist Democrats. This shooting doesn’t help their gun control messaging.

Every mass shooting over last several decades have been done by mentally deranged or gang member teenagers with guns obtained illegally and/or Islamic terrorists; and/or transgenders out for revenge and/or someone identified on social media as a sociopath but ignored by law enforcement and school officials and/or some combination of these factors but never a law abiding conservative/Trump supporter.

The left continues to blame guns and push gun control despite all the evidence that the cause is not guns but deranged, evil, demons behind the guns. With the most draconian gun control they would still obtain guns illegally.

In the unlikely circumstance they couldn’t obtain guns illegally, they would most likely use some other means to kill like explosives, knives, vehicles running over people or car bombs, et. al.

WATCH: Moment Two Minor Teens Get Into Heated Exchange Before Shooting Up Kansas City Chiefs Parade

By 

This story disappeared quickly.

Two minor [black] teens were arrested and charged last week in connection with a fatal shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs parade.

“Two [black] juveniles were charged on Thursday, February 15, 2024, by the Office of the Juvenile Officer related to the incident at the Chiefs’ rally on February 14, 2024,” the 16th Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri said on Friday.

One woman was killed and 22 others were injured. At least 11 children were injured.

TMZ obtained video of the two minor teens who got into a heated exchange before shooting up the Kansas City Chiefs parade.

Video via TMZ:

Read full article.

Copyright 2024. Royal A. Brown III. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: GoFundMe Set Up for One of the Alleged Super Bowl Parade Shooters | TIPPING POINT

Dem Senate Candidate And Gun Control Advocate Has Shelled Out Thousands For His Own Private Security

/in , , , , , /by

Democratic Rep. Colin Allred of Texas, who is challenging Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in 2024, has given thousands to a private armed security company despite his history of supporting gun control.

The Senate candidate is a vocal critic of the Second Amendment, supports firearm regulation and has backed anti-police measures in Congress. Allred’s campaigns have disbursed thousands to Eagle Protective Group, which offers private armed security, as well as hundreds more to individuals who appear to be police officers for security, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) data.

In 2023, Allred’s Senate campaign doled out over $2,500 to the private armed security company, according to FEC filings. Another $900 was given to Daniel Ramirez, Jorge Cardenas and Beatriz Diaz, all of whom appear to be deputy constables for the county of El Paso.

Allred’s congressional campaign has given $14,496.89 to Eagle Protective Group since its 2018 launch, FEC data shows. The campaign also paid a combined $2,040 for “event security” to two other individuals.

Despite his payments to the private armed security company and to individuals who appear to be police officers, Allred has voiced opposition to the right to bear arms, voted for various forms of gun control and against provisions to support law enforcement.

In 2018, the Democrat said it would’ve been “better” if the Second Amendment “hadn’t been written.” Allred has also been critical of the National Rifle Association (NRA), to which over 400,000 Texas belong.

Allred supported the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order of 2021, a red flag gun law, and voted for the failed Assault Weapons Ban of 2022. The congressman opposed a provision that would’ve made it easier for victims of domestic violence to purchase a firearm.

The congressman also opposed a 2020 measure that would’ve required Washington, D.C., to provide “adequate and continued funding” to the police as the city saw a surge in crime. The congressman voted against condemning the Defund the Police movement in 2021.

Cruz is one of the most vulnerable incumbent Senate Republicans running for reelection in 2024. His seat is currently characterized by The Cook Political Report as in the “Lean R” column along with Florida Sen. Rick Scott.

A National Public Affairs survey released on Feb. 9 found Cruz and Allred tied at 44%, with 12% of Texas general election voters remaining undecided. Other polling for a potential matchup indicates Cruz is largely favored to retain the seat, with the Republican leading Allred anywhere from one to 16 points, according to FiveThirtyEight’s compilation.

Texas went for former President Donald Trump in both 2020 and 2016. The former president is likely to be on the ballot in November against President Joe Biden, who the RealClearPolitics average shows Trump is beating by nearly nine points in the Lone Star State.

Allred’s campaign did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

MARY LOU MASTERS

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrat Running Against Ted Cruz Bankrolled By Donors Who Want To Defund The Police

Joe Manchin Reveals Whether He Will Run For President

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Whistleblowers Allege ATF Is Drafting Rule That Could Effectively Ban Private Firearm Sales

/in , , , , , , , , /by

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is working on a rule that could effectively ban the sale of firearms between private individuals, agency whistleblowers told a watchdog group.

Empower Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog representing one of the Hunter Biden Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers, says that ATF whistleblowers informed it of a 1,300-page document being drafted by the agency that would require background checks for all firearm sales, including those between two private individuals. The new rule would “effectively ban private sales of firearms from one citizen to another,” according to a press release from Empower Oversight.

Empower Oversight submitted a records request to the Department of Justice seeking more information about the rule.

The rule would “violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,” according to Empower Oversight President Tristan Leavitt. Leavitt also said the rule would “circumvent the separation of powers in the Constitution.”

Empower Oversight points out that the ATF’s rule could redefine individuals who occasionally sell guns as being “engaged in the business of dealing in firearms,” thus requiring them to acquire a Federal Firearms Licensee and run background checks on whoever they’re selling to.

In the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, Congress established that the term “engaged in the business” of selling guns “shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby.”

Leavitt pointed out that the courts would likely strike down the rule and argued that it is likely a ploy to fire up the Democratic base during an election year.

Private background checks are popular with voters, according to polling data.

A poll conducted by Morning Consult and Politico in 2022 found that 81% of registered voters supported background checks at gun shows and for private transfers.

Support for background checks is lower among Republicans than among Democrats. A 2021 Morning Consult and Politico poll found that 77% of Democrats supported background checks for all gun purchases, compared to just 53% of Republicans.

While Americans are open to background checks, banning certain kinds of firearms is unpopular among Americans.

Only 27% of Americans supported banning handgun ownership as of October 2023, according to Gallup. An April 2023 poll conducted by Monmouth University found that more Americans opposed an “assault weapons” ban than supported it.

The Biden administration has consistently pushed for stricter gun laws.

President Joe Biden pushed a rule that forced people who owned pistols with arm braces to register them as short-barreled rifles, Politico reported. Pistol braces remain legal as states and gun rights groups sue the ATF over the rule.

Registering a short-barreled rifle with the ATF carries a cost of $200. The National Firearms Act, the law requiring the registration of short-barreled rifles, was last updated in 1986.

Short-barreled rifles are illegal in some states.

Biden also banned the sale of firearm parts lacking serial numbers, which can be used to construct “ghost guns,” and has continuously pushed for a so-called assault weapons ban, according to Fox News Digital.

Some gun rights groups are ready to fight the ATF’s rule should it come to fruition.

“The records of these sales will eventually end up in the ATF’s firearm registry database,” director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America (GOA) Aidan Johnston told the Daily Caller News Foundation. The ATF maintains a registry of firearms sales, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

Johnston said GOA is “actively preparing to take legal action if and when Joe Biden’s administration releases their rule change.”

Empower Oversight and the ATF did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

AUTHOR

ROBERT SCHMAD

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Federal Court Strikes Down Pennsylvania Law That Hamstrung Young Gun Owners

EXCLUSIVE: Nearly 75 House Republicans Demand Mike Johnson Oppose Reauthorization Of Gun Control Law

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Dem-Backed Bill Would Force Gun Owners To Buy ‘Liability’ Insurance In Washington State

/in , , , , , , /by

Legislation pending in the Washington state legislature would force gun owners to purchase insurance.

Democratic State Sens. Patty Kuderer and Javier Valdez of Washington introduced SB5963, which would force insurance companies to ask prospective customers if they own firearms, and to then advise them of the state requirement to own liability insurance, according to the text of the legislation. The legislation did not specify any penalties for those who do not have insurance, nor does it require any specific level of coverage.

“By setting this requirement, Washington attempts to reduce the risk and subsequent cost of hardships of gun accidents,” Kuderer claimed during testimony on the legislation at a Monday hearing of the Washington State Senate Law and Justice Committee, according to local newspaper The Olympian. “This bill achieves these goals and reallocates costs without compromising any Second Amendment rights. This is true because this requirement does not regulate, limit or control the manner or method in which people may keep or bear arms. Instead, it simply says you must have liability insurance.”

Kuderer claimed during her remarks that deaths and injuries from firearms cost Washington state $169 million a year during her remarks, saying the bill “provides financial incentive for responsible arms carrying.”

A similar proposal was passed by the city of San Jose, California in 2022, while Los Angeles County enacted a similar requirement in February 2023 after a mass shooting. Democrats in the United States House of Representatives proposed a similar bill in 2013 following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, but it did not become law.

Yakima County Commissioner Amanda McKinney ripped the legislation, calling it an attack on Second Amendment rights.

“This is yet one more way that Olympia has seen fit to put a cost at simply existing,” McKinney told The Olympian. “And in this case, putting a cost to exercise their constitutional right to simply protect themselves.”

The legislation is scheduled for a vote Tuesday. If passed, the full Washington state House of Representatives will take the bill up for consideration, according to The Olympian.

“The NRA strongly opposes Senate Bill 5963, misguided legislation that unfairly burdens law-abiding gun owners with unnecessary insurance mandates,” NRA Washington Director Aoibheann Cline told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “This bill not only infringes on Second Amendment rights but also exacerbates housing affordability issues, potentially making home ownership unattainable for many.”

SB 5963 fails to address crime and broadly impacts all gun owners, including those ineligible for the required policies. It’s an intrusive measure that risks increasing insurance costs and disproportionately affects low and middle-class gun owners,” Cline added. “The NRA stands with gun owners in rejecting this bill and urges strong opposition to protect our constitutional rights.”

Kuderer did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

AUTHOR

HAROLD HUTCHISON

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘What Other Judicial Outrage Must We Endure?’: Dems Call For Expanding SCOTUS After String Of Losses

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.