Tag: firearm

HR 8 Bipartisan Background Checks of 2019 Passes House

Thomas DiGennaro | @tom.digennaro

HR 8, a bill greatly expanding federal background checks coasted through a Democrat-controlled house the morning of February 27th, 2019. The bill also had eight Republican signatures on it, five of whom were co-sponsors. Democrats and gun control advocates describe this as a major victory and “the most significant gun control measure in two decades”.

It is unlikely that the bill will pass through the Senate. If the unlikely occurs, President Trump has publicly expressed that a veto would come from his office. 

Continue reading “HR 8 Bipartisan Background Checks of 2019 Passes House”

Advertisements

Gun Groups File Lawsuit in Defense of California Gun Owners

Thomas DiGennaro | United States

The FPC is at it again, furiously defending gun owners and their rights. This time, they have partnered with the Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Madison Society Foundation to file a joint suit against the State of California, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, California DOJ Bureau of Firearms Chief Martin Horan, and California Deputy Attorney General Robert Wilson. This suit is filed by legal representation for two California residents, as well as the previously listed advocacy groups.

The two residents are Chad Lipton and Paul McKinley have previously (decades ago) been convicted of non-violent felonies in states outside of Californias jurisdiction, have had those felonies vacated by their respective courts, and have no federal prohibitions against firearm ownership. However, California DOJ has still not afforded them and outright denies them, their firearm purchases. The California DOJ is awfully aware that Arizona and Washington (the courts of original jurisdiction) have restored and recognized their Second Amendment Rights, which is a key factor in this lawsuit being filed.

This contradiction between Washington and Arizona’s courts to California’s courts extends the unconstitutionality of the matter from solely the Second Amendment to the Fourteenth Amendment as well, specifically the “full faith and credit” clause. Plaintiffs also argue that this contradiction occurs because California and its DOJ has set out to prevent as many citizens from being armed as they can make a legal justification for, no matter how remote or unconstitutional. They have “ignored the judgments and pronouncements of the courts of other states because they do not prefer the policy outcome“, and thus the Fourteenth Amendment violations. While California isn’t exactly known as the most gun-friendly state, there are still over 4.2 million gun owners residing within its borders, and many of the elected officials, as well as chief law enforcement, are working very hard to reduce that number. 

“The question presented by this case is whether the State of California, through its chief law enforcement officers, can prevent current California residents who are not federally or otherwise prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms if their previously-disqualifying offenses, which occurred in other states, have been vacated, and especially when their fundamental, individual rights have been fully restored to them by courts of competent jurisdiction in those respective states”, reads the first lines of the key filings of the legal suit.

Firearms Policy Coalition is a well run, fierce, and vehemently pro-gun advocacy group that puts the dollars you give them towards legal action to defend the rights of gun owners in all fifty states. Prior to their role in this suit, they filed two separate suits against the ATF and the Trump Administration for the bump-fire stock ban and are actively devoting time and resources to the cause they stand for, unlike the NRA, who don’t earnestly fight for your gun rights.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Featured Image Source

The Wide World of Unregistered Firearms

By Clint Sharp | United States

In a world where the right of the individual to own firearms — especially ones deemed “assault-style” rifles– is constantly being threatened, people are turning to less orthodox means of obtaining guns that bypass the over-the-counter registration process. These firearms are known by most as “ghost guns” as they are 100% unregistered, virtually untraceable, and as far as the State knows, nonexistent. While this seems too good to be true, it isn’t. Not only are these invisible guns cheap and easy to obtain, but they are also completely legal.

Image result for 80 percent lower

One notable company on the frontier of this industry is Ghost Gunner. Ghost Gunner specializes in manufacturing and selling “80% lowers”. An 80% lower is the lower receiver of a firearm and makes up around 80% of the completed receiver, hence the name. The lower receiver of a firearm is perhaps the most important part for two reasons. For one, it is the part of the gun where the bullets are fed into the chamber and the part that actually fires the round toward its designated target.

The other important aspect is that this is the part of firearms that is registered by both the seller and by the government. It is where that you will find the name of whatever brand of gun that you have, i.e Colt or Smith&Wesson, as well as the unique serial number used to identify the weapon. That is what sets the the Ghost Gunner receivers apart from the rest. They do not have the registered serial number that the other guns have. After you have your receiver, all that’s left is assembling the other 20% of the gun, which includes the stock and the barrel.

Ghost Gunner even sells entire CNC milling machines so that you can make the 80% lowers in the comfort of your own home. What’s great about that is that you do not have to be a certified machinist or gun expert to do this. All you have to do is pop in a block of aluminum, do a little clicking, and the machine mills out your receiver, completely free from the prying eyes of Uncle Sam. In addition to their original AR-15 lower, Ghost Gunner also provides receivers and software for MP5, AK-47, and M1911 lowers.


Featured Image Source

Concealed Carry vs. Open Carry: Which is Better?

By Osh | United States

Without a doubt, most conservatives and libertarians can agree: The 2nd Amendment protects both concealed and open carry. However, many will debate on which is ultimately more effective. Though both have their merits, it is clear that concealed carry is by far superior.

Concealed carry, for those who do not know, is concealing a firearm on your person. Concealed carry is my preferred method of carrying, for several reasons. First, I believe that concealing gives someone the element of surprise. If a criminal is trying to harm someone, they most likely will not be expecting an armed victim, especially if the weapon is not visible. Also, it is less likely to agitate a peaceful group of people, who will not know about the firearm.

Open carry, on the other hand is the act of carrying around a firearm in plain sight. This type of carrying is more common among police officers than civilians. I am not a fan of open carry, to be quite frank. First of all, I fail to see the appeal of lugging around a 6 – 7 pound AR-15 . It also may make surrounding people uncomfortable. Some may argue, on the contrary, that an open carry makes it easier to fend off an attacker in a public place, such as a bank robbery. However, in that event, the armed robber is more likely to initially target someone with a visible firearm. If the same person hid it, they would be more able to defend themselves without the attacker killing them.

Clearly, both are constitutional rights, which the state has no right to infringe upon. Despite this, what is legal is not always what is right. Undoubtedly, concealed carry is by far preferable. It may save more lives, while allowing for the public to remain at ease.

(Image from KWCH.com)

The Left’s Contradictions on Gun Control

By Will Arthur | USA

One of the few issues dividing the economic left and right today is their respective views on gun control. Generally, Republicans and conservatives support and respect a citizen’s right to own a firearm to a greater degree. However, Democrats and liberals are more likely to fight for gun control, believing it would bring safety to our nation. They claim this safety as more important than the freedom it restricts. Despite this claim, there are serious contradictions with who the left thinks should own and control firearms.

Far too often, citizens are shot, tazed, brutally injured, or even killed by police officers. The vast majority of the time, these acts are wrongful, but courts rarely deem them as such. Frequently,  the officer in question receives no trial at all, let alone an adequate punishment. When these awful events occur, Democrats are often keen on pointing out cases of police brutality. Perhaps most famously, they spoke out against such police violence at their 2016 National Convention.

However, what makes these protests interesting is that the same ideology supports gun control, enforced by the U.S. police. As a Pew Research poll shows Democrats are more likely to lack confidence in the police force, it seems rather strange that they are willing to place the dangerous and complex issue of gun control into the hands of the police. When enforcing gun control, protests and lack of compliance may cause more conflict, injury, and death. So, why then, do Democrats oppose preventable violence in one area but not another?

Yet, Democrats’ desire for a police force that they often protest to enforce gun control is not the only contradiction. If police enforced gun control, Democrats would have to put full trust into the police force not to abuse this given power. If the state stopped citizens from buying certain guns, this would not eliminate them. Instead, state funded groups like the military, FBI, CIA, and the police would be the only ones with them. This transfer of ownership of firearms would create huge differences in power between the people and government.

Essentially, Democrats are protesting one part of our government. Yet, as soon as they would like a law enforced, they turn to this same group of people. They have no problem giving power to the same group they accuse of committing murder. This shows how fast some Democrats will go back on their word. Any supporters of gun control should know this. Gun control is not anti-gun; rather, it is simply giving the guns to a corruptible police force.

(Image from thedailybeast.com)