Mediaboss Marketing

As a young lad, I asked my parents to allow me to do some pretty foolish things. Consequently, I heard my mother say the following quite often, If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?

Her question was rhetorical, of course. She wasnt looking for an answer. She was trying to make a simple point its not good to do something stupid, even if everyone else is doing it. What mom was really doing, I now realize, was trying to get me to think for myself.

Sadly, in this day and age of political bickering and back-biting, we often hear of politicians doing foolish things and using the childish excuse that everyone else is doing it.

Such is the case with House Bill 1077, which made its way out of committee in the Senate late Wednesday evening. Dubbed the Constitutional Carry bill, HB 1077 was introduced to allow anyone 18 or older to carry a gun in Indiana without a permit with a few exceptions. Wednesday night an amendment removed the permit-less carry label and granted a provisional license to qualified applicants, cutting down wait times. Supporters of HB 1077 arent finished fighting for the bill in its original form, which passed the House in January. If its signed into law this year, Indiana would join 21 other states allowing gun owners to carry without a permit.

Indiana should not join those ranks because, as your mother would tell you, Just because someone else is jumping off a bridge doesnt mean you should.

I own guns. I have pistols, shotguns and rifles. I love to hunt. I enjoy shooting for recreation as often as I can. I also possess a lifetime permit to carry a weapon in Indiana. Im not in favor of government dictating every move its citizens make. Id fight efforts made by anyone to take my guns away. There are responsible men and women I would trust to protect me with a firearm should the need arise. Likewise, I know people who shouldnt go near a gun for any reason.

The problem with HB 1077 is twofold:

First, requiring a permit to carry a firearm isnt an infringement on our rights as citizens. Its a safeguard a weak one but a safeguard to help keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldnt be carrying them legally or otherwise. The permit system is simple to walk through if you want to carry a firearm. It doesnt take much effort or time. It doesnt infringe on your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

Oddly, proponents of the Constitutional carry argument often neglect the wording in the Second Amendment that states, A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

Theres that dirty word regulated. Many who favor open carry argue that the government shouldnt regulate our freedom to bear a firearm. If were going to use the Second Amendment as a defense for open carry, we must include it all.

Regulate, by definition, states, to govern or direct according to rule.

Indianas current system of requiring a permit to carry a firearm is flawed. It is, however, better than a law that allows anyone (with few exceptions) 18 or over to carry a weapon in public.

That leads to the second problem with HB 1077:

Authors, sponsors and supporters of the bill assume that everyone knows how to use a gun. Ive witnessed far too many incidents of unsafe practices with guns at controlled gun ranges. I shudder to think what might happen if an unprepared citizen feels compelled to pull a handgun in public.

What HB 1077 should address and would make our state far safer is mandatory certification from a gun safety class that teaches us how and when to pull and, God forbid, use a firearm, in public. Most of us cannot imagine the amount of adrenaline/fear/anxiety that courses through ones body in a live situation where shooting at another human being is eminent. I certainly cannot and I was raised around guns.

Its a fools errand to think that ordinary citizens like you and me are equipped to safely pull a trigger on a would-be gunman in a public setting. There are ample statistics that tell us even trained police officers miss the mark as often as they hit it in a live shooting.

If Hoosiers believe that carrying a gun in public is fair and just, they ought to be willing to undergo training that makes it safe to do so. And, instead of pandering for votes, our elected officials across the state ought to be enacting legislation that actually protects its citizens by requiring mandatory training with firearms for those wishing to carry a gun.

Read the original here:
BILL HANSON: If you want to carry, learn gun safety - Evening News and Tribune

Two constitutional amendments will appear on the Student Government Association spring election ballot on March 8 and require two-thirds of student voters approval.

The first amendment was initially written in April 2021 by former First Year Councilor David Ware and would require the Elections Board to publish alleged violations and rulings on violations to the SGA website.

Under the proposed amendment, the Elections Board reserves the ability to redact all contact information of the complainant upon publication, including name, phone number and email address, to prevent harassment of the complainant.

Upon publication of the alleged violation, at the request of the complainant, all personal identifiable information shall be redacted including the name of the complainant and any information that could directly implicate the complainant, the legislation reads.

This amendment is not the first time SGA aimed to share election violations online. When Wares amendment passed in First Year Council last year, former SGA press secretary Jackson Fuentes said the Elections Board posted violations online in the past.

They stopped the practice due to privacy concerns, but Fuentes said the SGA wanted to begin posting violations online again to remain transparent with the campus.

During the spring 2021 election cycle, The Crimson White requested a complete list of violations six times beginning Feb. 28, 2021. The Elections Board did not respond to these requests. Multiple senators faced election violations last cycle, and some believed it was a targeted act.

The second amendment, initially drafted in January by Sen. John Richardson, would formally end SGAs responsibilities in homecoming elections and remove all constitutional language referencing the SGAs former role in homecoming.

Richardson proposed a resolution for the SGA to break ties with homecoming in January that was approved by the Senate. The amendment on the spring election ballot would officially end SGA involvement with homecoming and strike all mentions of the event from the Constitution.

Richardson also chairs the homecoming task force, which was created this semester to develop a new manual for the homecoming queen selection process following this years election cycle.

Questions? Email the news desk at newsdesk@cw.ua.edu.

See the article here:
SGA amendments seek to break homecoming ties, publicize election violations - The University of Alabama Crimson White

WASHINGTONOn Tuesday, Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21), alongside more than twenty colleagues, introduced the No Backdoor Gun Control Act. This legislation would remove Any Other Weapon (AOW) from the definition of a firearm under the National Firearms Act (NFA), ensuring that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) could not use the AOW section to violate Americans' Second Amendment rights. This is especially important should legislation that removes short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns (SBRs, SBSs) from the NFA be enacted. Closing this loophole is an important step forward in reining in the ATF.

Bearing arms in self-defense is a human right. It is evident from the ATFs behavior that, under Joe Bidens Department of Justice, the agency is hellbent on attacking the Second Amendment through every means at its disposal. I am grateful for my colleagues work in Congress to remove short-barreled rifles and shotguns (SBRs, SBSs) from regulation under the National Firearms Act. However, should that legislation be successful in doing so, the NFAs Any Other Weapon provision would still allow an anti-gun administration to use the ATF to unilaterally regulate these firearms, and, more importantly, target their owners. The No Backdoor Gun Control Act would close this notable loophole and help protect law-abiding gun owners, Rep. Roy said.

The federal government has no business taxing and registering privately owned firearms with a catch-all term like Any Other Weapon or AOW. With the Biden Administration weaponizing definitions from the draconian National Firearms Act of 1934 to ban as many as 40,000,000 lawfully acquired guns like AR-15s, Rep. Chip Roys repeal of federal AOW regulations could not come at a better time, said Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs, Gun Owners of America.

The No Backdoor Gun Control Act:

The legislation is cosponsored by Reps. Daniel Webster (FL-01), Lauren Boebert (CO-03), Tom Tiffany (WI-07), Louie Gohmert (TX-01), Ted Budd (NC-13), Dan Crenshaw (TX-02), Marjorie Taylor Green (GA-14), Ken Buck (CO-04), Michael Cloud (TX-27), Matt Rosendale, (MT-at-Large), Jody Hice (GA-10), Ralph Norman (SC-05), Scott Perry (PA-10), Alex X. Mooney (WV-02), Randy Weber (TX-14), Diana Harshbarger (TN-01), Jeff Duncan (SC-03), Bob Good (VA-05), Jeff Van Drew (NJ-02), Thomas Massie (KY-04), Michelle Fischbach (MN -07), and Mary Miller (IL-15).

This legislation is supported by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR).

###

Read the original here:
Rep. Roy Introduces Bill to Close Loophole in National Firearms Act - Chip Roy

What To Know Today

The medium is the message: Survey shows that news sources, not headlines, determine credibility on guns. Researchers at the state-funded New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center polled a sample of 3,500 U.S. adults about two headlines: Gun violence is result of mental health problems, and Storing firearms in a safe can help prevent suicides. Half the survey respondents saw one was designated as coming from Fox News and the other from MSNBC; the other half of participants had the media attributions switched. Perhaps unsurprisingly, subjects judged each headline as credible or not based on how much trust they had in the associated publisher, rather than on the wording of the headline itself. So what does this all mean? study co-author Mike Anestis asked on Twitter. We must ensure that accurate info is voiced by individuals seen as compelling by the audience we most want to reach. Accurate info through the wrong channel is less powerful or worse, counterproductive.

Dozens of advocacy groups push the White House to take more action on gun violence prevention. In an open letter, the 43 signed groups which include some of the movements most influential organizations, like Brady and Giffords called on President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to take a slew of immediate steps. Those include declaring gun violence a public health crisis; adding additional funding for community violence intervention and suicide prevention; launching a federal Office of Gun Violence Prevention to coordinate policy across agencies; and nominating a new permanent head of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which has operated without such a leader since 2015. The last two recommendations echo ones made by a smaller group of gun reform advocates last week. The Administration can, and must, do more in 2022 or potentially face an even more dramatic increase in gun violence than we saw these past years, the new letter reads. We cannot afford to wait for a stagnated Congress to take action; instead, we implore your Administration to use the authority of the office to reverse this deadly trend.

South Dakota Legislature votes down bill that would have made it illegal for state officials to enforce federal gun laws. Like Missouris controversial Second Amendment law which is the subject of state and federal lawsuits the legislation would have prohibited South Dakota officials from enforcing federal gun restrictions and allowed fines of up to $50,000 for state agencies whose employees violated the statute. But on Tuesday, South Dakotas House voted down the measure 39 to 28. Last year, in addition to Missouri, at least eight states with Republican-controlled legislatures passed similar laws, although most excluded penalty provisions, making them largely symbolic.

Federal judge throws out plea deals for suspected Boogaloo believers involved in fatal shooting of a federal officer. Last year, three members of an anti-government militia pleaded guilty to destroying evidence related to the fatal shooting of a federal security guard in Oakland in 2020. Earlier this month, Steven Carrillo, an ex-Air Force sergeant, pleaded guilty to the murder. His three suspected accomplices were expected to receive sentences of between 10 and 12 months in exchange for pleading guilty, but the decision from Judge James Donato means the men will instead stand trial in June, with no guarantees as to their sentences. They were dedicated exclusively and deliberately in a scheme to target and kill law enforcement officers, the judge said. I havent seen a case that is more of a threat to public safety.

65 the number of times the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition were among plaintiffs in more than 90 federal gun-related court cases from 2016 through the end of 2021. The NRA was involved in 12 cases. The cases resulted in close to 20 interim or final wins for gun rights groups. [USA TODAY]

Link:
Daily Bulletin: Mounting Pressure for the White House to Act on Gun Violence - The Trace

A proposal that would bar any government agency in Arizona contracting with a firm that refuses to do business with a firearms company got strong support from majority Republicans on a state House committee but tough pushback from the banking industry. Ross D. Franklin/AP file photo hide caption

A proposal that would bar any government agency in Arizona contracting with a firm that refuses to do business with a firearms company got strong support from majority Republicans on a state House committee but tough pushback from the banking industry.

PHOENIX An Arizona bill to prohibit government agencies from contracting with firms that refuse to do business with firearms companies received strong support this week from majority Republicans on a state House committee but generated tough criticism from the banking industry.

The proposal from GOP Rep. Frank Carroll would require companies doing business with the state or local governments to certify they won't refuse to work with firearms-related companies.

Carroll and other GOP supporters said some banks are refusing to do business with firms involved with the firearms industry. They framed it as an issue of preventing people from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

"Why would you not want to do business with a Second Amendment-related business?" Republican Rep. Quang Nguyen asked a lobbyist for the banking industry during a Wednesday House Judiciary Committee hearing. "I feel that it's more political."

But bankers resisted the bill, calling it government overreach for lawmakers to try to force businesses to deal with other companies against their will and said lawmakers are creating a problem with a non-issue in Arizona.

"This seeks to have government interfere with those private businesses and come put their finger on the scale in support of a single industry," said Jay Kaprosy, a lobbyist for the Arizona Bankers Association. "What this bill is asking you all to do is to pick winners and losers about what businesses in Arizona we're going to favor and that's where we have a problem with it."

Kaprosy said a bank loan officer specializing in farm banking, for example, might reject a loan application for a gun manufacturer because it is outside their firm's focus and that under Carroll's proposal that bank could be barred from handling government banking.

The legislation follows the shutdown of social media sites popular with extremists, including Gab and Parler, when their web hosts, banks or payment processors refused to continue doing business.

The Arizona bill stands in contrast to efforts in more liberal states to target gun manufacturers.

New York last year passed a law aiming to make it easier to get around a federal law that gives gunmakers immunity from lawsuits.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has proposed another approach targeting firearm companies' bottom lines, modeled after a Texas anti-abortion law that allows private citizens to bring lawsuits against those who assist with an abortion.

Attorneys general in 13 states and the District of Columbia have also backed a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government against gun manufacturers. Public pension plans in several states have faced pressure to divest stakes in firearms companies.

Michael Findlay, director of government relations for the firearms industry trade group the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the Arizona measure is justified because gun businesses have faced discrimination in banking.

"This bill is a Second Amendment bill," Findlay said. "We have members in the state of Arizona as well as all over the country that have been discriminated on access to capital, payment processors."

Similar legislation has been enacted in Texas, Wyoming and Georgia, he said.

But Kaprosy said the proposal is purely political and threatens the independence of the banking industry.

"It's a stretch to suggest that this is a Second Amendment issue," Kaprosy said. "This is a political issue in which banks and other businesses are innocent bystanders, frankly, in a war of words and culture that is going on outside the banks."

The committee voted along party lines, 6-4, with no Democratic support. The bill now heads to the full House after a routine review by another committee.

Two more firearms-related bill that passed the Arizona House on Thursday would loosen gun laws by allowing firearms in libraries and many other public buildings and by permitting loaded weapons to be carried in vehicles on school grounds.

Debates on two other proposals one allowing guns on university campuses and another to let people between 18 and 20 years of age get provisional concealed weapons permits were delayed.

Arizona already has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation, allowing anyone legally allowed to own a gun to carry a firearm without a permit, making permits for concealed carry exceptionally easy to obtain and allowing private gun sales without background checks.

Read more:
A bill in the Arizona House would punish banks that refuse business from gun firms - NPR