Politicians often give speeches promising stiffer penalties for criminals in an effort to make the people feel safer. Whether or not they are actually safer is often debatable, however. Enhanced penalties for criminals committing their offense with a firearm is a good example. These laws keep some of the worst offenders off the streets longer and is generally supported by all citizens—or so I thought. That is why it was such a head scratcher when California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a bill into law removing mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who use guns in their crimes.
The clock is ticking on the 2017 legislative year. We have made a lot of progress toward National Concealed Carry Reciprocity, but have not made it across the line just yet. The NRA and like-minded Second Amendment advocate groups are doing their part, but also issuing calls to action for responsible gun owners to ensure that they protect and expand the right to keep and bear arms. The goal is to get them to cosponsor and support the passage of S.446 – the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, in the Senate and H.R.38 – the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, in the House.
Watch U.S. LawShield of Pennsylvania Independent Program Attorney Justin McShane break down the legality of using non-knife or non-firearm weapons for self-defense Pennsylvania and Edwin Walker independent program attorney for Texas. The videos give guidance on the use of items such as tasers, stun guns, pepper spray, and clubs.
Few, if any, gun owners would disagree with more police on the streets or stiffer penalties for criminals who use guns. However, we all have seen surveys that claim gun owners support a proposal based on a couple of pieces such as these when in fact the anti gun forces are proposing something much more insidious. Chicago’s latest Gun Trace report may be just such as a strategy, but that is for the reader’s to decide. Here is the reading and analysis from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).
From the moment the recent tragedy in Las Vegas hit the news, we knew we would have to brace for shock and wait for the fallout. Several states have bills pending. There will be the usual sabre rattling from the normal characters, of course. The question that matters most is, “How do they purpose to infringe on the Second Amendment this time?” We have the answers.
There’s a new sheriff in town and criminals are increasingly finding out what that means. President Trump issued a directive, which seemed novel to some, and common sense to most lawful gun owners. According to a recently released memo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department was directed to focus on getting illegal guns, and those who possessed them, off the streets.
Undoing the laws passed by the last administration may be one President Trump’s crowning achievements. Hunters and sportsmen are the ultimate conservationists. I would challenge that the National Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Mule Deer Foundation, Whitetail Institute, and a host of others have each done more to protect wildlife and public lands than the antis have combined.
During the recent disaster wrought by Hurricane Harvey in Texas and Hurricane Irma in Florida, many readers have been wondering whether the government can confiscate their firearms if the Governor or Federal Government declare a state of emergency. The Shooter’s Log reached out to U.S. Law Shield for the answer.
The election of a new President may have lessened the threat to the Second Amendment at the federal level, but it increased the threat at the state and local levels. Gun control advocates no longer have a friend in the White House, and support in the House and Senate have waned as well. However, while many firearm enthusiasts have relaxed and taken their eye off the prize, the antis have been pressing their efforts to weaken the Second Amendment. One such example is Maryland’s semi-automatic modern sporting rifle ban. Fortunately, organizations such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) have maintained their diligence. Read the full release from the NSSF.
A viral social media post is suggesting that it may be okay to shoot someone to defend a statue. An Independent Program Attorney at U.S. & Texas LawShield® begs to differ. Texas LawShield recently became aware of a viral Facebook post telling people they can shoot someone vandalizing a statue.
With all of the tension in the country these days regarding race, politics and just about anything else we can think of to fight about, we thought a bit of levity was in order. So, Cheaper Than Dirt! teamed up with Texas Law Hawk to bring a bit of humor and let a few Texans know about new knife laws going into effect September 1, 2017.
The Criminal Justice System seems to be taking on a new meaning in America where Citizens are presumed guilty until they are proven innocent. The CJ Grisham case continues to have folks scratching their heads. A retired Army First Sergeant went on a merit badge walk with his scout son out on a country road and winds up in jail after legally carrying a rifle in Texas. The case became controversial, because veteran Temple law enforcement officer Steve Ermis decided to make up a law on the side of the road and disarmed a Texan. It wall all caught on video.
Lawmakers favoring gun control are continually talking about Australia’s gun control and how the United States needs to follow Australia’s lead. While laws attempting to abridge the Second Amendment are bad enough, Australia’s laws go far beyond simply banning guns. Australian laws bans fake or replica guns, crossbows, and several types of knives such as trench knives. You know, like the ones used in WWI, because those are common among street muggers and gang members these days…
Sadly, we have seen it before. Politicians who would prefer to appease a special interest group than do what is best for the people and the wildlife. That is not an opinion of mine; it is based on science and the finding of British Columbia’s Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Here is the full story from Safari Club International (SCI).
“Unconstitutional” is what a federal appeals court has ruled on the D.C. gun law that says people must show “good reason” to have concealed handgun permits. The Second Amendment is sufficient reason itself to issue permits, according to the 2-1 ruling released Tuesday July 25, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The application of the state’s Campus Carry Law at community and junior colleges across Texas kicked off with a whimper—not a bang!—on Aug. 1, to no surprise of TSRA Legislative Director Alice Tripp.
Lawmakers and judges in favor of gun control have continually tried to weaken the Second Amendment and deny citizens of their constitutional protections and rights under the Second Amendment by imposing a “good reason” requirement. The Second Amendment was not written with any such condition and was purely a fabrication by forces intent on gutting the Second Amendment. This week, the Court said as much.