Freedom Line Blog

Confirming once again, as Americans witness the increasing lawlessness around them, that the 2nd Amendment isn’t the anachronism that its antagonists believe:

Background Checks Set Another Record

If the problem is too many guns, explain this…

Writing in the Pensacola News Journal, WEBY 1330 radio host Mike Bates offers potent commentary regarding Florida’s new Second Amendment restrictions:

Although well intended, the law’s exemption that permits 18- to 20-year-old military personnel to buy firearms is an outrageous provision.  Does the government of Florida really believe that military personnel deserve special constitutional rights that are denied to civilians?  Should constitutional rights be earned through military service and denied to those who do not serve?  That’s what the new Florida law does.”

He concludes with a stirring call to action and citizen involvement:

If we are not steadfast in defense of our liberties, the politicians and judges will destroy our constitutional rights.  It won’t occur through outright repeals;  it will happen by rendering our rights meaningless through unconstitutional laws and court rulings.  It is an obligation of all decent citizens to prevent that.  The government of Florida has already shown it will not.  It’s disgraceful.”

Read the entire piece here.

In our latest Liberty Update piece “Inconvenient Truths Undermine Gun-Controllers’ Myths,” we systematically dismantle the untruths offered by 2nd Amendment rights opponents, including their exaggerated claims regarding U.S. murder and mass shooting rates.

In addition to rightfully exposing the misconceptions and outright lies perpetuated by those seeking to deprive law-abiding Americans of their rights, however, it helps to highlight the affirmative benefits of Second Amendment rights, i.e., the value of what we’re protecting.

In that regard, National Review’s David French offers a brilliant piece entitled “Dear Anti-Gun Liberals, Don’t Tell Me Which Gun I ‘Need’ for Self-Defense.” French first explains why a law-abiding American would prefer something like an AR-15 for self-defense:

Any person who breaks into my house or who threatens my family on my property will very soon find themselves staring at the business end of an AR-15…  It’s light, maneuverable, accurate, and highly reliable.  While self-defense experts can and do disagree on the optimal weapon for home defense, large numbers choose AR-style rifles for exactly the reasons I do.  It provides more firepower – with greater accuracy – than the alternatives.

But now I’m told – largely by people who don’t know the first thing about firearms – that no American ‘needs’ an AR-style rifle.  But when your life is on the line, what do you want?  More accuracy or less?  More firepower or less?  More recoil or less?  More reliability or less?  It’s always interesting to take a relatively inexperienced shooter to a range, let them shoot a handgun (where bullets generally scatter all over the target), and then hand them an AR.  Even rookies will shoot far more accurately with far less recoil.  It’s just easier to use.”

Importantly, French then contrasts why an AR-style rifle is not an optimal weapon of choice for a burglar or violent criminal:

But not – in general – for criminals.  For the average criminal, concealment is the key.  So they use handguns.  Moreover, the average criminal isn’t spending $1,000 (or sometimes more) on their weapon.  Rarely (very rarely), extraordinary criminals will use AR-type rifles, but most mass shootings are committed with handguns.”

“Which weapon do I ‘need’ for self-defense?,” French asks in conclusion.  “Why don’t you let me make that choice.”

As we concluded in our Liberty Update piece, anyone seeking to restrict others’ Constitutional rights bears the burden of proof to justify their desire.  In this debate, as illustrated by French, they don’t come anywhere close to satisfying that burden.

Is the U.S. a particularly violent nation, one that stands as an outlier in terms of murder rates or gun violence?  No.  Unfortunately, Second Amendment restrictionists like Barack Obama hastily trot out that tired claim whenever they attempt to politicize the latest highly-publicized crime to advance their agenda.

The actual numbers tell a far different story.

The U.S. is by far the world’s leader in terms of firearms per capita, but its murder and violent crime rates aren’t particular outliers.  Fortunately, the Crime Prevention Research Center provides a helpful set of five data graphs illustrating these facts in vivid terms that even the most hardened Second Amendment opponents can understand (even if they won’t admit it).  It provides an invaluable and instant rebuttal to their attempts to spread misinformation and cliches, so please share it far and wide.

Leftists constantly claim fealty to “science,” except on issues like Second Amendment rights and U.S. crime rates when the data completely undermines their agenda.  Fortunately, groups like the CPRC help set the record straight.

Things were already pretty bad in California, as it hurtles down the fast track toward junk bond status and a Greek-style financial collapse.  But instead of even tapping the brakes, its political leaders are flooring the accelerator.

On Saturday, Governor Moonbeam – pardon, Jerry Brown – signed into law taxpayer-funded financial aid to illegal immigrants.  Never mind that undocumented students can’t even legally work in the state, or that fewer financial aid dollars will now be available to legal residents.  No, what California’s political leaders think the state needs is another new government benefit.

Compounding that assault against California taxpayers, Gov. Brown today signed A.B. 144, which prohibits openly carrying firearms in public – even if they’re unloaded.  The bill also prohibits “allowing a person to bring an open and exposed unloaded handgun into the vehicle,” along with an array of other new restrictions.  While other states continue to allow greater Second Amendment freedoms and enjoy lower crime rates as a result, California opts for the European model (where firearms bans have led to higher crime).

After years of policy mistakes like these, it’s no wonder the formerly golden state failed to gain a new House seat for the first time since 1920.

He’s no John Dean, but ATF Agent Jay Dobyns is flatly contradicting the President of the United States and the U.S. Attorney General on what they knew and when.  The controversy involves ATF’s Project Gunrunner and its offshoot, Operation Fast and Furious.  Both initiatives deliberately allowed military style firearms to “walk” into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, some of which were used to kill American citizens.

In an interview with Fox News‘ Andrew Napolitano, Dobyns said that despite Attorney General Eric Holder’s congressional testimony that he only found out about the programs “a few weeks ago,” both he and the president were aware of the recklessness of each program.

Dobyns also made the startling assertion that “the president and the attorney general are aware of the conclusions that those guys (Newell and Gillett) operate ATF’s business in a reckless and dangerous way, and they did nothing about it.”

During questioning by both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees last week, Holder insisted he did not know about Project Gunrunner’s problems until only “a few weeks ago.” However, this column reported Tuesday that Sen. Grassley personally delivered two letters about Gunrunner to Holder at a meeting Jan. 31 in his office.

The more details that emerge about these programs, the less likely it seems Eric Holder will be back for a second tour of duty at the Justice Department.  If so, thank goodness.

Are new “assault weapons” bans or pistol magazine limits appropriate responses to the Tucson murders?  Airheads from Senator Chuck Schumer (D – New York) to “conservative” commentator Peggy Noonan seem to think so.

If those were effective answers, then one could presumably find evidence that such laws reduce crime.  But that’s not the case, says Dr. John Lott, Jr.:

No research by criminologists or economists has found that the either the assault weapons ban or the magazine-size restrictions reduce crime.  This is not surprising, as magazines are simply small metal boxes with a spring and are thus very easy to make.  Besides, someone planning to harm a large number of people can easily bring two or more loaded guns.”

Indeed, the objective evidence shows that tougher gun restrictions increase crime and violence.  Fewer gun restrictions, on the other hand, reduce crime and violence.  Just look at Chicago, where everyone from Mayor Richard Daley to former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens predicted “more gun death” and “anarchy” following last year’s McDonald Supreme Court decision overturning that city’s draconian gun laws.  Instead, Chicago homicides fell to their lowest level since 1965.

Polls show that the American public understands this.  When will people like Peggy Noonan?