Image of the Day: FBI Gun Purchase Background Checks Set Yet Another Record High in June
Confirming once again, as Americans witness the increasing lawlessness around them, that the 2nd Amendment isn’t the anachronism that its antagonists believe:
Confirming once again, as Americans witness the increasing lawlessness around them, that the 2nd Amendment isn’t the anachronism that its antagonists believe:
If the problem is too many guns, explain this…
In recent months, Google has justifiably suffered heavy criticism for selectively acting as internet gatekeeper, deciding what Americans can and cannot view online. Countless examples exist when the liberal Silicon Valley giant leveraged its market power to censor along ideological lines, including: banning the conservative blog The New York Conservative, hosted on Google Blogger, for opining on the trial of terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; demoting pro-Brexit/Euroskeptic websites by pushing them down in search results; excluding Donald Trump from “presidential candidates” search; and blocking free speech social network Gab from the Google Play Store, alleging violations of the company’s hate speech policy.
The latest revelation of Google’s partisan bias arrived in late July, when the company quietly shifted its Google Play policy to ban apps selling firearms and accessories. That change went largely unreported, although TechCrunch stated, “Google takes an almost moral position with the addition of a ban of apps that ‘facilitate the sale of explosives, firearms, ammunition, or certain firearms accessories.’” That maneuver follows an instance in which Apple did something similar last December.
Given the sheer market power of Apple and Google, their ideologically driven policy poses an incredibly damaging peril not only to consumers who utilize firearm-related apps, but also an entire industry – a completely legal one – selling firearms or firearms accessories.
The inescapable conclusion is that Google seeks to censor viewpoints and entirely legal behavior that it disfavors out of existence. A full month after Google’s policy was quietly implemented, Steve Urvan, CEO and CTO of GunBroker.com, received an email notification stating that the GunBroker.com app had been suspended and removed from Google Pay due to a “Violation of Dangerous Products policy.” Google’s questionable decision to ban Gunbroker.com’s app raises an ominous specter about politicized and powerful corporations attempting to socially engineer from the boardroom.
Google’s behavior joins a wave of social activism that increasingly pervades American companies and weakens Americans’ ability to purchase perfectly legal goods. In April, Bank of America announced that it would abruptly discontinue banking services to firearms manufacturers that produce legal and popular AR-15-style rifles. Mere months earlier, Citigroup announced a new U.S. commercial firearms policy precluding the company’s commercial and institutional clients, small business clients and credit card partners from selling any firearm to individuals under the age of 21, (even though the legal age remains 18). It also refused to serve any business client manufacturing magazines exceeding ten rounds. Citigroup has also held preliminary discussions about potentially monitoring consumers’ gun purchases within their internal payment systems.
These alarming steps highlight an emerging trend of politicized and politically powerful activist businesses targeting perfectly legal behaviors of everyday Americans. If the leadership of Bank of America, Citigroup and Google want to dictate consumer choices, that’s certainly within their rights, although perhaps they’d be better off running for official office. At the very least, they could be more honest with consumers about their shenanigans.
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.
So that profanity-laced anti-Second Amendment protest last weekend? As illustrated by the Daily Caller, it actually triggered a record spike in online searches for the term “NRA membership.” Oooops.
.
.
John Lott, our favorite economist at least in the arena of criminology and Second Amendment scholarship, cogently summarizes the actual, real-world, data-based sociological effect of “gun control” laws:
While gun bans (either a ban on all guns or on all handguns) have been imposed in many places, every time guns have been banned, murder rates have gone up.
One would think that one time, just out of simple randomness, murder rates would have gone down or at least stayed the same. Yet in every single case for which we have crime data both before and after the ban, murder rates have gone up, often by huge amounts.”
It’s almost as if more guns mean less crime.
In this week’s Liberty Update, we shatter three noxious myths that underlie Second Amendment restrictionists’ agenda. This helpful map illustrates one of them: their claim that the prevalence of firearms in the U.S. has resulted in a a high murder rate compared with the rest of the world.
.
In our latest Liberty Update, we highlight an extremely encouraging new Gallup poll showing that public support for our nation’s police forces jumped by a record amount over the past year.
On a different but not entirely unrelated issue, there’s similarly welcome news in the form of another Gallup release entitled “In U.S., Support for Assault Weapons Ban At Record Low.” Gallup began polling on the issue 20 years ago, and opposition has skyrocketed from 42% to today’s 61%, while support for a so-called “assault weapons” ban has plummeted from 57% to today’s 36%:
Assault rifles have been a contentious issue in American life for decades. Two years after President Bill Clinton signed a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, Gallup found that a solid majority of Americans favored such a ban. By the time the 10-year ban expired in 2004, Americans were evenly divided. And by 2011, public opinion had tilted against the assault weapons ban, with 53% opposed and 43% in favor. In Gallup’s 2016 crime poll, conducted Oct. 5-9, opposition now exceeds support by 25 percentage points, 61% to 36%.”
Equally encouraging in today’s hyperpartisan atmosphere is the fact that opposition to an “assault weapons” ban is bipartisan, as well as shared by both gun owners and non-owners.
It’s understandable in today’s political and pop culture atmosphere to believe that the country, or the world more broadly, are descending to hell in a handbasket. While that may be true regarding some of our political leadership and celebrity influences, the good news is that the resilient American public continues to show a welcome degree of better judgment.
In this week’s Liberty Update, we note the high degree of confidence and respect that Americans hold toward the nation’s police officers. That respect is returned by the nation’s police chiefs, according to a new survey. By a 76% to 19% supermajority, surveyed chiefs say that “qualified, law-abiding armed citizens can help law enforcement reduce violent activity.” Similarly, by an 88% to 9% margin they agree that any vetted citizen should be able to buy firearms for self-defense or sport, and an 86% to 11% majority supports nationwide recognition of state-issued conceal weapon permits.
The lazy assumption that America suffers a uniquely high mass shooting rate is the foundation upon which 2nd Amendment restrictionists must rely.
After all, if allegedly more “enlightened” nations like France or Norway that effectively prohibit so-called “assault weapons” (a meaningless slur, but that’s another subject entirely) suffer a mass shooting rate as high or higher than the U.S., then their rationale for restricting law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms collapses.
Unfortunately for them, as illustrated by crimeresearch.org, that’s precisely what the real-world facts show. France, Norway and other European nations actually suffer higher mass shooting rates than the U.S. In fact, out of 18 European and North American nations measured, the U.S. mass shooting rate is all the way down at number 12:
It’s another inconvenient truth for those who wish to pointlessly restrict the self-defense rights of law-abiding Americans.
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.
President Obama officially nominated DC Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The president dedicated a considerable amount of time during his announcement speech to make the case that Judge Garland is a “consensus” nominee.
But who is Judge Garland and how does he view the U.S. Constitution?
While much will be written and analyzed about Judge Garland and his judicial record in the coming days and weeks, Carrie Severino, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Counsel and Policy Director at the Judicial Crisis Network, provides some insight to help answer that question. In a piece for National Review’s Bench Memos titled “The ‘Moderates’ Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland,” Severino wrote last week:
Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling. He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights” in a previous case. Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years.
Consensus nominee? You decide.
In an interview with CFIF, Cam Edwards, host of NRA News’ Cam & Co., discusses President Obama’s proposed executive action on gun control, how the president’s stated belief in the Second Amendment is inconsistent with his executive action, and why the executive actions will do nothing to stop violent crime.
Listen to the interview here.
Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.
View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.
Barack Obama, the mainstream media and the political left immediately sought to scapegoat firearms and exploit last week’s San Bernadino attacks on behalf of their endless campaign to limit Second Amendment rights. In an encouraging bit of news, however, a new Rasmussen survey shows that by more than a 3-to-1 margin, the overwhelming majority of Americans aren’t buying it:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 69% of likely U.S. voters believe that the shooting incident in California last week is primarily a terrorism issue. Just 20% think the massacre is primarily a gun issue, while seven percent (7%) think it’s about something else.”
That confirms William F. Buckley’s adage of the wisdom of the governed more than those who seek to lord over them, it also demonstrates that we remain steadfast in our support of the timeless individual right to keep and bear arms.
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.
After misfiring in Congress, the gun control lobby is taking aim at states that allow voter-initiated ballot measures to enact tougher restrictions.
In the process, those in charge are also changing their name to the “gun safety” movement.
The policy preferences, however, remain the same.
“After a victory in November on a Washington State ballot measure that will require broader background checks on gun buyers, groups that promote gun regulations have turned away from Washington and the political races that have been largely futile,” reports the New York Times. “Instead, they are turning their attention – and their growing wallets – to other states that allow ballot measures.”
States in the crosshairs include Nevada, Arizona, Maine and Oregon. Others are sure to follow.
Conservatives should be cautiously optimistic about this move. While the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a citizen’s right to “keep and bear arms” applies to the states (McDonald v. Chicago), the extent of that right is up to states and localities to decide. This is federalism. Local communities are in the best position to determine which regulations best serve the interests of residents.
But federalism as the Founders understood it assumes deliberation in the republican sense – i.e. policy choices are made by the people’s elected representatives, not by direct democracy via a statewide ballot initiative. The point of sifting public opinion through elected representation is to strip away passions and get down to first principles. Busy citizens don’t have the time or the staff carefully to review proposals that set the standards for civic life. Better to resource an elected representative with time and personnel, and then hold him accountable for the votes he casts.
Herein lies the reason to be cautious. Being thoughtful about big policy changes isn’t usually achieved in the context of a media-heavy campaign blitz dominated by 30-second ads. But this limitation is no reason for constitutional conservatives to sit on the sidelines. Removing social policy issues like gun control to the state level reduces the expense of advocacy while at the same time making the appeals more personal. If this trend continues, conservatives will need to build on their successes in other issue domains to defend traditional American values in the arenas that are available.
Though it would be better to locate policy debates within the institutions that are best equipped to handle them, if liberals want to make a direct appeal to the public, conservatives will be ready and waiting to respond.
Here’s some good news from Pew Research to interrupt the current sense that the world in which we live is collapsing into a smoldering heap:
For the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. Currently, 52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership. Support for gun rights has edged up from earlier this year, and marks a substantial shift in attitudes since shortly after the Newtown school shootings, which occurred two years ago this Sunday.”
Additionally, a healthy majority believes that firearms protect law-abiding citizens more than they create a safety risk:
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Dec. 3-7 among 1,507 adults, also finds a shift in attitudes about whether gun ownership in this country does more to protect people or put people’s safety at risk. Nearly six-in-ten Americans (57%) say gun ownership does more to protect people from becoming victims of crime, while 38% say it does more to endanger personal safety. In the days after Newtown, 48% said guns do more to protect people and 37% said they placed people at risk.”
Just more confirmation that the American public demonstrates greater wisdom than our self-appointed shamans in the mainstream media and political classes.
And it comes from the most unlikely of places, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Just over the AP wires from San Francisco:
A divided federal appeals court on Thursday struck down California’s concealed weapons rules, saying they violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
By a 2-1 vote, the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said California was wrong to require applicants to show good cause to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
“The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote for the majority.
Judge Sidney Thomas dissented, writing that the good cause requirement limited the number of people carrying concealed handguns in public to those legitimately in need.
This represents a massive shift in California, long home to some of the nation’s most restrictive gun control laws.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling conflicts with those from three other federal appellate courts, which means this issue could eventually make its way to the Supreme Court . For today, anyway, Second Amendment rights are stronger in the Golden State than they have been at any time in recent memory.
CFIF on Twitter
CFIF on YouTube