Moms Really Don’t Demand Action…Or Immoral Enforcement of Unconstitutional Laws [VIDEO]

This Gun Rights Week is TTAG’s weekly roundup of legal, legal and other news regarding guns, the gun business and gun owners’ rights.

Is it possible that Shannon Watts is not telling the truth?

Shannon Watts

On Monday published a team of professors from four universities a study whether mothers are more likely than their childless peers to support gun restrictions. Using 2017 data from Pew Research, the team examined factors such as gender, parenthood, and race.

The short answer to your question is no. Being a mother makes it no more likely than someone who has no children to support gun legislation. The gun control support gap actually appears to be gender specific.

Women are more likely to support gun control than men. In other words, despite what “mothers” like Shannon Watts would have them believe, their parenting colleagues are no more likely than any other woman to endorse the Second Amendment laws.

What is actually the case is that Moms Demand Action is simply exploiting the false perception that all mothers support their gun control positions, a misrepresentation intended to advance their anti-freedom agenda.

Canuck Feds is partnering with IBM to develop Canada’s gun buyback program

According to CTV NewsThe Canadian Anti-Weapons Trudeau Administration has awarded IBM Canada approximately CA $ 1.2 million to assist in the development, design and implementation of a program to buy back recently banned firearms. Of course, these are firearms that were banned by Executive Fiat last spring after a single Spree shooting incident lasted twelve hours and may have been stopped by the RCMP.

Considerations for the repurchase plan include types and amounts of compensation, a risk-benefit assessment, and identifying “other considerations” that affect the feasibility of the plan. All of this is based on support for Canadian anti-weapons groups and an announcement from Canada’s Minister of Public Safety, Bill Blair, who said the government intended to put in place laws that would help strengthen the gun ban and ensure that ” only the weapons that are safe for use in this country and will be available to Canadians. “

Confusion about the budget for arms imports

M1 GarandNick Leghorn for TTAG

The Covid stimulus program signed by President Trump is a direct hit 5,593 pages, but there was some confusion from the gun amount over 10 lines of the bill. Section 538 says:

Notwithstanding any other law, no United States department, agency, or body which receives funds earmarked under this statute or any other statute shall in any way oblige or use those funds to pay administrative expenses or to compensate any officer or employee of the United States Reject any application filed under 22 USC 2778 (b) (1) (B) and qualified under 27 CFR Section 478.112 or .113 for the importation of curios or relics from the United States, parts or ammunition.

For the sake of simplicity, this means that the government (read: the ATF) cannot refuse the application if an authorized importer files an application to import a curiosity or relic weapon, part, or ammunition from the United States.

Some have thought that this could finally do Korean M1 carbine available that were banned under the Obama administration. Unfortunately, that language has been in the budget for about fifteen years and doesn’t cut off the bureaucracy that hung Obama.

A man arrested for being a criminal who owned a gun said he was shot 15 times

Do not consent to a search of your vehicleBigstock

December 26th Police in Youngstown, Ohio arrested and charged a man with illegally possessing a firearm following a 2007 drug crime conviction. The officers who arrested him were working on “a gun reduction detail” and charged the man with excessive window tinting.

When the man’s vehicle was searched, “police discovered the smell of marijuana” (but there is no evidence that drugs were actually in the vehicle). They discovered a pistol to justify the search of the vehicle. When asked why the man had a gun, he told police he needed it for protection because he had been shot fifteen times in the past.

There are several problems here. The first, of course, is the fact that these “gun reduction details” are being conducted almost entirely in the South Side neighborhood, which is largely black. The second reason is why the “weapon reduction” police are stopping the vehicle for an immovable violation. Some may call this an excuse to stop.

Then of course comes the problem of the vehicle being searched because officials allegedly “discovered the smell of marijuana,” which is often used as an excuse to conduct vehicle searches. Note that medical marijuana is legal in Ohio, but recreational marijuana is not. In light of the above, I leave it to you to draw your own conclusion as to whether the police have racially profiled and carried out unconstitutional searches and seizures.

As for the second amendment, Congress and the courts need to reconsider the fact that nonviolent crime results in the loss of gun rights almost everywhere.

The ethical attitude of the founders to forbid persons from carrying weapons because of previous acts of violence or a known violent state of mind is permissible. However, blocking people for their previous criminal status, even if they have committed a nonviolent crime, stems from the founders’ unethical practice – prohibition of race possession. If the man arrested in that incident was actually shot fifteen times, laws like the Gun Control Act of 1968, laws that have been on the books for over fifty years, don’t seem particularly effective in the first place.

The Philadelphia prosecutor is upset that he cannot get enough gun convictions

Larry KrasnerLarry Krasner, Philadelphia District Attorney (AP Photo / Matt Rourke)

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner is insane. Big crazy. Why? Because he can’t get the kind of conviction numbers he supposedly wants illegal gun possession. According to an assessment carried out by Krasner’s staff, of the 400 gun possession cases investigated, almost half were thrown out because no witnesses had appeared to testify, while around a quarter were dropped because of alleged “weak evidence”.

While I’m sure some might say that people are afraid to refuse to testify, they may not want to testify because they don’t believe in the moral legitimacy of prosecuting people who have a tool, or, alternatively, that they do I don’t want to testify because they fear being jailed by the same government that is trying to prosecute people for these crimes in order to circumvent the fact that they cannot convict them of actual crimes like assault and murder.

If the Philadelphia Police Department and the city district attorney can’t get a trial without a testimony, then maybe they shouldn’t bring these cases in the first place.

Comments are closed.