Yet, on the First Amendment, Harris previously called for government “oversight or regulation” of social media to stop what she calls misinformation. In 2022, her vice-presidential nominee, Gov. Tim Walz, claimed: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.”

On gun ownership, Harris went so far as claiming: “I am in favor of the Second Amendment, I don’t believe that we should be taking anyone’s guns away.”

Reassuring, but Harris’ emphatic past support for gun control is consistent and legion. Let’s look at her record. She claimed during her 2020 presidential campaign, “I support a mandatory buyback program.” When pressed about Joe Biden’s claim at the time that she couldn’t ban assault weapons with an executive order, Harris enthusiastically responded, “Hey, Joe, rather than saying ‘No, we can’t,’ let’s say ‘Yes, we can.’”

But this is nothing new. Harris has strongly advocated for gun control for years. As San Francisco’s District Attorney, she declared, “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible.”

She even supports warrantless searches, raising concerns she also doesn’t want to be bothered by the Fourth Amendment.

In a 2008 amicus brief, Harris argued that a complete ban on all handguns is constitutional. She even said there is no individual right to self-defense.

The Biden-Harris administration has been the most anti-self defense administration to date, shutting down thousands of gun dealers by mid-2022 due to minor paperwork errors. They renewed Obama’s Operation Choke Point to cut off financial resources for gun manufacturers and dealers; the companies that remained had to grapple with increased costs. The Biden-Harris administration has also established a national gun registry.

If Kamala Harris becomes president, she will push for even more restrictions. The new Office of Gun Violence Prevention is “overseen” by Harris, which coordinates the administration’s gun control initiatives. The office oversaw a recently released U.S. Surgeon General report that fails to mention a single benefit of gun ownership.

The OGVP was instrumental in implementing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, introducing complex rules that classify many gun owners as firearms dealers. If you sell a gun to a friend once and discuss selling a second one to anyone, you must first become a licensed dealer. If you sell one gun and keep a record of the transaction, you are also required to first become licensed.

Many BCSA rules are vague, giving the government discretion to arbitrarily label individuals as dealers.

Under Harris’ leadership, the OGVP pushed for lawsuits against gun makers and sellers whenever criminals use their guns. She also pushed to ban semi-automatic “assault” weapons, and require background checks on all private gun transfers.

By early 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives had developed a digital database containing nearly a billion firearms transactions.

U.S. Reps. Jim Jordan and Thomas Massie found that Bank of America provided the FBI with credit card data for firearms purchases without even requiring a warrant or probable cause.

With a national gun registry in place, officials can now easily identify legal gun owners. Harris’ past threats to confiscate guns become much more likely to succeed.

Gun control has already taken center stage in Harris’ campaign. Harris made gun control a key topic in her first event in Wisconsin and again at a gathering of the American Federation of Teachers.

It isn’t just that Democrats want to regulate every part of our lives, but the real threat to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments to the Bill of Rights are at risk from Harris. Those freedoms are endangered if she wins.

About the Author

John R. Lott Jr. is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He served as senior adviser for research and statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department.

The Mercury News reported in 2005, “Although Mayor Gavin Newsom has not taken a position, several of the city’s most liberal leaders are supporting the far-reaching ban — including District Attorney Kamala Harris and four supervisors who are listed as sponsors.”

This statement underscores the political climate in San Francisco, where liberal leaders like Harris were eager to push their anti-gun agenda.

The ban, which required city residents to surrender all handguns within a mere four months, was a blatant overreach. The New York Post noted that the measure was “approved by San Francisco voters on Election Day 2005, but struck down by state courts before it could take effect.”

It’s telling that even the courts recognized the potential for this ban to violate fundamental rights.

But Harris didn’t stop there. On September 18, 2024, Breitbart News highlighted another alarming aspect of her approach to gun control. While serving as San Francisco DA, she supported firearm storage regulations that essentially allowed police to invade the privacy of citizens’ homes under the guise of compliance checks.

Kamala Harris said, “…just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home… doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs.”

This statement is not just a threat to personal liberties; it is an outright declaration of intent to undermine the sanctity of the home.

In a time when the Second Amendment is under constant attack, Harris’s history raises serious questions about her commitment to the rights of American citizens. Is this the type of leadership we want in our government? It’s time to scrutinize the motives behind such politically motivated actions and demand accountability from those in power.

Article generated from corporate media reports.

On April 3, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed HB 543 into law, making his state the 26th to join the constitutional carry movement and the first state to take America officially over the halfway mark in becoming majority constitutional or permitless carry. The law took effect on July 1.

On April 25, lawmakers in Nebraska passed Legislative Bill 77 (pdf), making the Cornhusker State the 27th constitutional carry state. Over the past two decades, more than half of U.S. states have passed laws allowing for constitutional carry or permitless carry.

While the terms constitutional carry and permitless carry are often thought of as interchangeable, there are subtle differences.

As explained by the United States Concealed Carry Association, constitutional carry means the state’s laws do not prohibit its citizens who qualify to possess a firearm legally from carrying one either openly or concealed, eliminating the need, time, and expense of applying for and obtaining a permit.

While gun merchants are required to provide the U.S. government with data on who purchases a firearm—as well as what, when, and where they purchased it—going constitutional carry eliminates the requirement for a permit to carry that weapon, therefore eliminating the need to supply the United States government with data on which of those gun owners may be carrying their concealed handguns in public places.

In most states, constitutional carry is conditional. Most set the age requirement for concealed carry without a permit at 18 or 21. In states like Georgia and Oklahoma, civilians must be 21 years old to conceal carry without a permit. But members of the military can conceal carry at 18 without a permit. In April, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum signed HB 1339 (pdf) into law, which allows non-residents to concealed carry in the Peace Garden State.

Permitless carry includes constitutional carry states, as well as states like Tennessee that require individuals to meet specific qualifications, such as no DUIs in the last decade. Other states allow open carry. However, the rules vary by state.

While open carry is currently legal in Alabama, it’s illegal to open carry in a vehicle without a permit. When carrying a firearm in a vehicle the firearm must be unloaded and locked up.

In the 1800s, as noted by the National Association for Gun Rights, constitutional carry was the law of the land in all 13 of the first states in the newly formed United States of America. However, by the 20th century, 49 of America’s 50 states had enacted bans on concealed carry rights, with Vermont being the lone holdout.

According to the Supreme Court, most states passed their Constitutional or permitless carry laws starting in 2015, with a spike coming during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 and 2022.

“Nationwide, these permitless laws don’t mean that every adult can carry a concealed firearm anywhere they want,” the court states, noting, “There are still bans on guns in specific facilities such as K-12 schools, and states typically ban people with a record of serious criminal offenses from carrying guns. But it does mean that eligible adults no longer have to go through the process of applying for a permit.”

In Pennsylvania, legislators passed Constitutional Carry in the State House on Nov. 17, 2021. At that time, Republicans controlled the State’s House and Senate. On Nov. 22, 2021, SB 565 was passed by the State Senate and handed over to Democrat Gov. Tom Wolf, who vetoed the measure on Dec. 2, 2021.

With a new Democrat governor, Josh Shapiro, and a newly minted Democrat-controlled House pushing no less than four gun control bills—HB 338, HB 731, HB 1018, and particularly HB 714—it is unlikely that the Keystone State will see constitutional carry passed any time soon.

Conversely, while Louisiana’s Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards vetoed a constitutional carry bill, SB 118, in June of 2021, the swearing-in of pro-Second Amendment Republican Gov. Jeff Landry on Jan. 8 has prompted predictions that Louisiana will join the Constitutional Carry club in 2024.

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), an Executive Branch agency that promulgated the rule containing the restrictions in 2022 with President Biden’s support, overstepped its authority, according to a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

“The agency rule at issue here flouts clear statutory text and exceeds the legislatively-imposed limits on agency authority in the name of public policy,” U.S. Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt wrote in the ruling. “Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will.”

The ATF declined to comment. The White House and the U.S. Department of Justice did not respond to queries.

The regulation required that sellers of kits that could be made into guns run background checks before selling them.

It also implemented requirements for putting serial numbers on kits and placing the numbers on already-erected “ghost guns.”

So-called ghost guns refer to guns that can be made in private from kits, lacking serial numbers. Critics say the guns pose a problem because they cannot be traced.

“Buyers aren’t required to pass background checks. Because guns have no serial numbers—these guns—when they show up at a crime scene, they can’t be traced,” President Biden said when announcing the new rule. “Harder to find and prove who used them. Meaning you can’t connect the gun to the shooter and hold them accountable.”

Gun owners and groups said shortly after the restrictions went into effect that they were illegal because the Executive Branch does not have the authority to impose new regulations without approval by Congress.

“Congress also did not give the Agencies the authority to regulate the broad array of materials that may, at some point in the future, be manufactured into firearms by private individual,” the suit stated.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled twice in favor of plaintiffs, finding that the ATF changed the definition of, among other terms, “frame or receiver” as outlined in the Gun Control Act of 1968 from its longstanding interpretation.

The changed definition enabled authorities to regulate parts that had not yet become guns, which strayed from the careful definitions in the law, Judge O’Connor said. The ATF’s redefinition, he said, “conflicts with the statute’s plain meaning.”

Starting in 1978, the ATF defined a “frame or receiver” as “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”

The redefinition held that the terms “shall include a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver, i.e., to house or provide a structure for the primary energized component of a handgun, breech blocking or sealing component of a projectile weapon other than a handgun.”

Congress did not include a definition for “frame or receiver,” meaning the words retain their common meaning, and that the ATF “cannot add … language where Congress did not intend it to exist,” Judge Engelhardt said in the new ruling.

“There is also a clear logical flaw in ATF’s proposal. As written, the final rule states that the phrase ‘frame or receiver’ includes things that are admittedly not yet frames or receivers but that can easily become frames or receivers—in other words: parts,” he added. “Such a proposition defies logic: ‘a part cannot be both not yet a receiver and a receiver at the same time.'”

In a concurring opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham said that the new restrictions replaced “a clear, brightline rule with a vague, indeterminate, multi-factor balancing test,” which resulted in a “new uncertainty” that “will act like a Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of American gun owners.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett joined with his colleagues, making the ruling unanimous.

“We are elated with this unanimous court ruling,” Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, which is one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “The ATF clearly exceeded its authority. This is a major victory for gun owners and the rule of law.”

All three judges were appointed by former President Donald Trump.

Judge O’Connor was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

The case is likely to head to the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices have twice in recent months stayed orders blocking the rule as the litigation continues.

In other words, she caved from her gun ban and turned it into expansion of gun-free zones. It’s not a true win for the 2nd Amendment as any such restrictions are unconstitutional, but it’s good to see we haven’t quite turned into a full-blown police state.

According to Just The News:

At a press conference on Friday, Michelle Lujan Grisham announced that she was amending her controversial gun order to allow open and concealed carry, except in parks and playgrounds “where we know we have high risk of kids and families,” she said.

The move comes a day after a federal judge temporarily blocked the order and fellow Democratic politicians denounced her plan as unconstitutional. Local law enforcement had refused to enforce the order and the state’s attorney general had refused to defend it in court.

Lujan Grisham, citing recent shootings, had declared a public health emergency centered on gun violence. The executive order signed September 8, included an “action plan” that banned carrying a loaded weapon off of private property in Bernalillo County, which includes Albuquerque. The governor’s office threatened fines of up to $5,000 for violations.

The governor made the changes to the order after “listening to the debate in court,” according to ABC.

“I want to point out that the conversation in that court was pretty clear that we are not wrong about this emergency, or about the issues related to violence, gun violence and public safety generally,” she said.

This was a trial balloon to test the acceptance level for abolishing the 2nd Amendment. We can take it as a small victory, but in reality the powers-that-be learned lessons they will use against us. The battle will continue as incremental stripping of our God-given right to fight tyranny is an ongoing threat.

Sound off about this story on my Substack.

(Article cross-posted from Zero Hedge)

“This is an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populous. Rather than addressing crime at its core, Governor Grisham is restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Lord wrote in a press release shared on X.

PRESS RELEASE: @RepBlock & I are calling for the impeachment of @GovMLG. New Mexicans won’t stand by as she disregards her oath to uphold our Constitution.

Read the full press release below! pic.twitter.com/r5kt9nOSvI

— Rep Stefani Lord (@Lord4NM) September 9, 2023

While impeachment calls grow, Erich Pratt, Senior VP of Gun Owners of America, told us: “The Governor’s actions are evil and tyrannical. GOA’s attorneys are already preparing a complaint. So heads up to the Governor: ‘We will see you in court.'”

*   *   *

On Friday evening, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) issued an emergency order suspending the right of law-abiding citizens to open and conceal carry firearms in crime-ridden Albuquerque and the surrounding county for at least 30 days, after declaring a public health emergency in response to a spate of recent gun violence.

Grisham, who apparently thinks criminals will follow her orders, says she expects legal challenges, but was ‘compelled to act’ following recent shootings, AP reports.

The Governor of New Mexico has just declared the 1st & 2nd Amendment “does not exist” due to an “emergency.”

Under this legal theory *all* of our “rights” are essentially eliminated.

Watch the most evil & tyrannical 60 seconds you’ve ever heard from a politician: pic.twitter.com/xLpMSTbyi2

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 9, 2023

“Today I issued a 30-day ban on the open & concealed carrying of guns in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. Gun violence is killing between 2 and 3 children every month in NM – every single one of these deaths is unconscionable and they must stop,” Grisham posted on X.

Today I issued a 30-day ban on the open & concealed carrying of guns in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. Gun violence is killing between 2 and 3 children every month in NM – every single one of these deaths is unconscionable and they must stop. https://t.co/KJdXUMBVaG

— Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (@GovMLG) September 9, 2023

Grisham declared in a statement, “As I said yesterday, the time for standard measures has passed. And when New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game—when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn—something is very wrong.”

Yes governor, now law-abiding citizens won’t be able to match force with criminal threats while in public, after failed progressive policies transformed Albuquerque into a crime-infested metro area with soaring violence.

According to a recent report by the Major Cities Chiefs Association, Albuquerque had one of the highest homicide rates in the country.

Constitutional law attorney Jonathan Turley said the move by Grisham is “flagrantly unconstitutional under existing Second Amendment precedent.”

Turley continued, “Democratic leaders have increasing turned to a claim used successfully during the pandemic in declaring a health emergency to maximize unilateral authority of governors.” 

“The taking away of individual rights as an emergency measure is hardly new. For centuries, governments have claimed that the suspension of individual rights is necessary for the good of citizens,” he said.

You thought the "public health emergency" power grab was a one and done with COVID?

Do not comply. https://t.co/PXLzgt280e

— Sean Agnew (@seanagnew) September 9, 2023

According to Erich Pratt, Senior VP of Gun Owners of America, “The Governor’s actions are evil and tyrannical. GOA’s attorneys are already preparing a complaint. So heads up to the Governor: ‘We will see you in court.’”

According to @erichmpratt, Senior VP of Gun Owners of America said:

"The Governor’s actions are evil and tyrannical. GOA’s attorneys are already preparing a complaint. So heads up to the Governor: ‘We will see you in court.’" https://t.co/2Xj0b4QSv7

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 9, 2023

Trial Balloon?

Grisham’s move signals a new attack strategy by Democrats on the Second Amendment. We must remind readers ever since the ‘defund the police’ movement began several years ago, many Democratic-led cities have faced soaring crime rates. Failed social justice reform only sparked more violence, which may have been intentional to create a crisis and then offer a novel solution with even more gun control.

This “Public health order” is a trial balloon for things to come. The moment we allowed them to do this with COVID, we opened the door. https://t.co/FFSiwDHPzk

— Nick Short ‎‎ (@PoliticalShort) September 9, 2023

And this…

The 2nd amendment isn’t a recommendation. It’s a right.

Friendly suggestion to @GovMLG on how to *actually* reduce violent crime in your state: focus on sealing your own state’s southern border & stop the virtue signaling elsewhere. https://t.co/RgzpFZAPs8

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) September 9, 2023

Democrats have faced gun control roadblocks ever since the US Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen in 2022, which hindered their ability to pass expansive laws restricting guns ever since.

Now, the tactic is to use emergency orders to suspend rights – which police chiefs for both Albuquerque and Bernalillo Counties have said might be civil violations.

Social media users on X weren’t pleased with the governor:

Every law enforcement officer in your state should unite & ignore you.
So should the citizens of NM. Do not comply.

Because criminals will undoubtedly ignore you & this unconstitutional order empowers them. https://t.co/UCmavZwsJb

— Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellUSA) September 9, 2023

Given the real problem of crime in some places, and that people carrying for self-defense are not the perpetrators, the appropriate response is to refuse to comply. https://t.co/7XVqMYvfs1

— J.D. Tuccille (@JD_Tuccille) September 9, 2023

These guys respect emergency declaration orders. They’ll voluntarily disarm just like in old Mexico where gun possession is illegal, I’m sure….. https://t.co/OXE2pUAtxI pic.twitter.com/QkT84WfQtZ

— Randy Clark (@RandyClarkBBTX) September 9, 2023

Tyrants always trample on rights under the false guise of safeguarding the public. https://t.co/MhrHjY5FhE

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) September 9, 2023

Literally treason. You’re not a dictator. You do not have the authority to disregard the US Constitution. The US Constitution cannot be altered via EO. You do not get to disregard your oath of office. Your days in office are numbered. https://t.co/msp9ufnSVu

— Alex Shepard (@Sinnersaint39) September 9, 2023

Albuquerque for the next 30 days: https://t.co/aRvnMo8L5C pic.twitter.com/bVIdTweBaN

— Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) September 9, 2023

How many of those murders, or any murders, are by people with CCW permits?

Will you be personally reimbursing the taxpayers after the inevitable legal challenges result in the government having to pay plaintiffs' legal fees under 42 U.S. Code § 1988? https://t.co/rp66l6Rdji

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) September 9, 2023

In New Mexico, Governor @GovMLG's capricious gun ban in the name of "public health" serves to remind us that history doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes. https://t.co/7NL0No9235 https://t.co/7NL0No9235 pic.twitter.com/loqjzf9EfG

— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) September 9, 2023

Any bets on which Democrat governors will follow suit?

pic.twitter.com/fGih3Czg6h

— Natalie F Danelishen (@Chesschick01) September 9, 2023

Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California and David Hogg, a Parkland shooting survivor and prominent gun control advocate, took to Twitter to criticize the public health order. On Friday, Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham enacted the order, which bans individuals from carrying firearms in certain areas of the state for 30 days regardless of their permit status.

“I support gun safety laws,” Lieu wrote, referencing his prior support for gun control legislation. “However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution,” he continued, adding that “there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.”

Hogg, who himself survived a mass shooting in 2017, agreed with Lieu’s take. “I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution,” he wrote.

After the Parkland High School mass shooting in 2017, Hogg became a leading activist for gun control reform in the U.S., helping to organize the March for Our Lives in March 2018, according to the March for Our Lives website.

The order states that “no person, other than a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer, shall possess a firearm … either openly or concealed, within cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021.” The public health decree applies to Albuquerque, the state’s largest city, and Bernalillo County, according to the Santa Fe New Mexican.

Lieu and Hogg join a chorus of legal pundits and officials who have questioned the constitutionality of the Grisham administration’s declaration that gun violence is a public health emergency.

“There are literally too many people to arrest,” Grisham said in response to a reporter’s question during a press conference announcing the order. “If there’s an emergency, and I’ve declared an emergency for a temporary amount of time, I can invoke additional powers. No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute.”

Grisham’s office did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

State Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) provided the final vote Democrats needed to pass Assembly Bill 28—the Gun Violence Prevention and Schools Act—passed with the two-thirds margin it required. The bill now awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature before becoming law.

The final tally was 27–9 after Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil (D-Jackson) joined with Senate Republicans to vote against it. Four senators abstained.

The bill’s author, Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel (D-Los Angeles), stressed the importance of paying for gun violence prevention programs with funds generated by the new tax.

The measure passed the Assembly along party lines with a vote of 56–17. Seven additional members—six Democrats and one Republican—did not vote.

“It’s shameful that gun manufacturers are reaping record profits at the same time that gun violence has become the leading cause of death for kids in the United States,” Mr. Gabriel said in a July statement. “This bill will fund critical school safety measures and proven violence prevention programs that will save lives and protect communities across California.”

The bill now awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature before becoming law. If signed, California would become the first state to impose such a tax, though some municipalities—such as Seattle and Pennsylvania—collect fees on gun sales and ammunition.

The federal government charges a similar tax on gun and ammunition sales. The United States began taxing guns and ammunition over 100 years ago and now charges 10 percent on the wholesale price of handguns and an 11 percent tax on long guns and ammunition to pay for wildlife restoration projects.

California already charges fees of $31 on gun sales to cover background checks.

The state’s tax and fee department estimates the new tax would generate $159 million from July 2024 to July 2025. If dealers pass the tax onto customers, it would generate another $14 million in state and local sales and tax revenue—$6.3 million of which would go to the state’s General Fund, according to a legislative analysis.

The bill would also establish a fund to pay for school safety and gun-violence reduction programs, counseling and support programs for victims, firearm violence research, and a court-based program to seize firearms from subjects named in domestic violence protective orders.

Former Democratic Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who survived an assassination attempt in 2011, applauded the measure’s passage.

“California just made history – again,” Giffords said in a statement posted on her website Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence. “The state continues to take on the gun lobby and pave the way for effective methods to reduce gun violence.”

Additionally, the gun-control activist organization Moms Demand Action was grateful to legislators who approved the measure.

“This bill is an innovative approach to tackling gun violence and a crucial step to improve the safety of all California families,” Cassandra Whetstone, a volunteer with the group’s California chapter, said in a Sept. 7 statement. “We are grateful to gun sense champions in the [Legislature] and community partners who worked so hard to pass this comprehensive bill that seeks to make our communities safer and target the root causes of gun violence.”

However, the National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed the new tax, saying it was not fair.

“It is unjust to saddle law-abiding gun owners with special taxes,” the NRA said on its website. “Such a measure makes it more expensive for law-abiding citizens to exercise a constitutional right and discourages them from practicing to be safe and proficient with their firearms for purposes such as self-defense, competition, and hunting.”

Sales to active or retired law enforcement officers or any law enforcement agency would be exempt from the tax.

Among the lawmakers who opposed the measure, Ms. Alvarado-Gil told colleagues on the Senate floor Thursday she researched gun violence statistics, and her findings didn’t match data included in the bill. She said her data showed drug overdose deaths far outnumbered firearm deaths in the state.

She said she also discovered that California had the lowest mass-shooting victimization rate among the most populous states.

“For me, I tend to analyze the legislation before us,” Ms. Alvarado-Gil said. “When I look at this very sensitive issue, I feel that we have a duty to legislate through facts, and not fear.”

Sen. Brian Dahle (R-Bieber) also highlighted drug overdose deaths compared to those from gun violence when arguing against the bill.

According to Mr. Newsom’s office, California’s gun death rate is 43 percent lower than the rest of the nation’s and the state is ranked No. 1 for gun safety by the gun-control advocacy organization Giffords Law Center, also associated with the former Arizona congresswoman.

The state’s gun homicide rate is also 33 percent lower than the national average, the governor’s office said in a press release Aug. 29.

Meanwhile, California saw nearly 6,000 deaths from fentanyl in 2021, according to the California Department of Public Health.

“You want to do something about deaths in California, why don’t we focus on fentanyl?” Mr. Dahle asked senators. “Why don’t we focus on fentanyl more than we focus on taxing young folks and people who enjoy their Second Amendment rights?”

Sen. Kelly Seyarto (R-Murrieta) additionally called the bill “ineffective.” He also noted that some initiatives, such as gun buyback programs, can backfire and allow people to turn firearms into being destroyed after the guns are used in crimes.

“That gun gets destroyed and there goes the evidence,” Mr. Seyarto said. “Until we start going after where those illegal guns are coming from, and holding the people who have those illegal guns accountable, you are not going to do anything.”

Democrat Sen. Bill Dodd, of Napa, also opposed the bill, he said, because duck hunters were left out of the process.

“I think there is a way to exclude these 70,000 duck hunters [from paying the tax],” Mr. Dodd said. “Frankly, I look at this as something, when you add another 11 percent [tax], all it’s going to do is decrease the number of young hunters and sooner.”

Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Merced) agreed, saying duck hunters have contributed greatly to a large wetland conservation area in her district, and placing another fee on that kind of activity was an unfair burden.

Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) also refrained from voting because he did not agree with passing the tax onto consumers. He also said everyone should be paying for gun violence programs, not just firearm owners.

“It is a pass-through to the consumer and, frankly, it’s disingenuous to say it’s anything other than that. It’s not equitable,” Mr. Cortese said. “Why aren’t all of us paying for these programs?”

The California Rifle and Pistol Association opposed the bill for the same reason.

“All of California’s law-abiding citizens benefit from efforts to implement programs which remediate the impacts of illegal gun violence upon our public, and all should equally help to fund their implementation,” the organization said in a statement. “Yet, AB 28 would unjustifiably place the entire burden of funding efforts to address illegal gun violence on the backs of law-abiding citizens who legally purchase and lawfully use firearms and ammunition.”

If approved, the firearm excise tax would begin in July 2024.

About the Author

Jill McLaughlin is an award-winning journalist covering politics, environment, and statewide issues. She has been a reporter and editor for newspapers in Oregon, Nevada, and New Mexico. Jill was born in Yosemite National Park and enjoys the majestic outdoors, traveling, golfing, and hiking.

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

The Supreme Court will hear a case this coming term, United States v. Rahimi, that could have significant ramifications for Second Amendment law.

The Supreme Court will hear a case this coming term challenging a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, which is expected to shape the future of Second Amendment law.

Zackey Rahimi, the individual at the center of the case, was involved in five shootings between December 2020 and January 2021, in one instance firing shots into the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger, according to court documents. When police obtained a warrant to search his home, they found him in possession of a firearm, a violation of a civil protective order entered against him in February 2020 for allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend.

A federal grand jury indicted Rahimi under a statute barring subjects of domestic violence restraining owners from possessing firearms. The Fifth Circuit agreed with Rahimi’s challenge to the law’s constitutionality in February, finding it did not fit “within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the standard set out in the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

“Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal,” the court found.

The Fifth Circuit specified in its ruling that the question at hand in the case is “not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal.” Rather, it frames it as a more nuanced question of due process.

“The question is whether a restraining order achieved through the civil law process (lower burden of proof), and not the criminal law process (higher burden of proof) is enough to strip a person’s constitutional rights when that person has not been convicted of a felony,” John Shu, an attorney and legal commentator who served in the George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations, explained to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Rahimi was charged with multiple state offenses prior to engaging in the five shootings — including aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in November 2020 and use of a firearm in the physical assault of his girlfriend in December 2019 — but was not convicted. If Rahimi had been convicted of a felony, the question now before the Supreme Court would be a non-issue because, as Shu said, he “definitely would have had his firearms taken away” as “federal and state law is clear, in line with history and tradition, that convicted felons may not buy, own, or possess firearms.”

“There’s no question that Rahimi admitted to engaging in reprehensible, felonious, criminal acts, independent of the domestic violence allegations,” he said. “One huge question is why both the Texas state and federal criminal justice systems failed to investigate, arrest, charge, hold without bail, and eventually convict and incarcerate Rahimi for any of them, especially given that the civil restraining order was issued nearly a year before most of his misdeeds.”

Advocates against domestic violence have come out in full force against Rahimi: “For thousands of women, children, and other potential victims of domestic violence, as well as potential other victims of mass shootings by domestic abusers, the stakes are literally life or death,” a coalition of gun violence and domestic violence prevention groups told the Supreme Court in a brief.

While gun groups note Rahimi is not a sympathetic plaintiff, they bristle at efforts to frame his case as one about domestic violence.

“One of the problems with this kind of gun control is it merely disarms a dangerous individual and then leaves them at large in society,” Aidan Johnston, director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, told the DCNF. “If Zackey Rahimi is too dangerous to own a gun, then why are we letting him run around in society to go and abuse other women?”

In divorce proceedings, Johnston said the judge will sometimes issue the kind of order applied to Rahimi to both parties in the case — the victim and the abuser.

“That’s what Gun Owners of America is fighting for in this case: to empower victims with their Second Amendment rights,” he said. “An unconstitutional, broad statute like this prohibited person category can result in the good guys getting disarmed while bad guys run free.”

Insofar as the Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies Bruen’s historical standard, legal experts say it could have an impact on pending cases challenging various gun restrictions in the lower courts.

In Florida, for example, the Eleventh Circuit is waiting for the Supreme Court’s ruling before proceeding with a lawsuit that challenges the states’ ban on individuals under 21 owning guns.

National Foundation for Gun Rights Executive Director Hannah Hill told the DCNF she anticipates the case having a big impact on “red flag” laws numerous states have passed.

“The arguments for stripping citizens of a Bill of Rights guarantee just based on a restraining order are identical to the arguments for red flagging someone,” Hill said. “The policies are very, very similar, and both should be struck down for the same reasons. You cannot deprive people of Bill of Rights guarantees unless a) they’ve committed an appropriate crime, and b) they’ve received full due process.”

Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed a “red flag” bill into law in May. Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee called on the state legislature to pass one in April, weeks after the Nashville Covenant School shooting.

“Due process includes jury trial, the right to face your accusers, beyond a reasonable doubt standard of evidence, etc. – namely all the protections on the criminal justice process side, which are laid out in the Constitution and the extensive body of statutory and case law fleshing out exactly what those due process protections are,” Hill told the DCNF.

The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court on Monday to rule against Rahimi, arguing that individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders “pose an obvious danger to their intimate partners because guns often cause domestic violence to escalate to homicide and because abusers often use guns to threaten and injure their victims.” Moreover, the government notes protective orders must “satisfy strict requirements” to strip an individual of their firearms under federal law.

“An order must either contain a judicial finding that the person poses a credible threat to the physical safety of another, or explicitly prohibit the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force,” Department of Justice Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in the government’s brief. “A court must have issued the order after notice and a hearing. And the disqualification lasts only as long as the order remains in effect.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

That’s according to a video released by O’Keefe Media Group, which dispatched an undercover reporter to talk to – and record – special assistant Luke Borwegan, whose assignment, he says, is basically to be between Fetterman and other staff members.

Borwegan is the aide who carries around an iPad programmed to transcribe audio – so the senator can read what others say.

It’s one of the multiple issues that have arisen since Fetterman suffered a stroke during his campaign.

“You’re not quoting me,” Borwegan warns during the interview.

He describes how Fetterman, who he reports owns multiple guns himself, would “like probably” be comfortable with “overturning the Second Amendment.”

“He’s 100% for gun control … banning automatic rifles … red flag laws,” Borwegan explains. “He owns like a lot of guns.”

“Assault weapons. He’d be okay with overturning the Second Amendment probably, so nobody has guns at all.”

There have been a number of issues that have developed, possibly as a result of his stroke.

He is, for example, dealing with major cognitive issues that prompted him to set up the iPad system for him to read the comments from others, so he doesn’t have to rely on his auditory processing to know what’s going on.

He also repeatedly has struggled with making statements – often delivering during Senate hearings a literal word salad of unconnected thoughts.

Further, his office has taken to issuing statements on what he “said,” that reflect highly edited versions of his actual statements.

And he was hospitalized for weeks for depression.

Of late, he’s been criticized for wearing hoodies and shorts to the U.S. Senate, which has a strict dress code that doesn’t include hoodies and shorts.

Fetterman’s prior political experience was as Democratic mayor of small-town Braddock, Pennsylvania, and for a time as the state’s lieutenant governor.

His cognitive issues mean that having his staff control the messaging about him is important, and Borwegan explained in detail.

Fetterman’s office only allows interviews with “journalists” who “will say exactly what you f****** want them to.”

“When you’re so exclusive with who you give interviews to, it’s like…the ones (journalists) you pick will just say exactly like you f****** want them to, you know?” he explained.

“They’re (journalists) just like puppets though. I only pick reporters who will like, who we know will paint the narrative the way we want.”

He said many journalists want a story about Fetterman, but “we only give it to certain people.”

Borwegan continued:

Like if they’re reporters we like, it’s good to have a good relationship with them. We have our press operations like a f—– work of art, like the way that like reporters, we can tell them to go f— themselves, and they can’t do anything, because they need us more than we need them, because, like everyone wants a f—— story about John Fetterman.

And we only give it to certain people. I only pick reporters who will like, who we know will paint the narrative the way we want. So it’s like when John checks himself in for depression, we tell one reporter in particular because like they will hit facts that we want them to because we pick reporters who like, we know will give us like a good treatment. They’re desperate for an interview with John.

He then explained his version of “access journalism,” which is when “reporters who will basically tell whatever f—— story their subject wants, as long as they get the interview.”

He identified some qualifying journalists as being with Pod Save America, which he said is was run by former Barack Obama staffers and reporter Kara Swisher.

“She’s like one of the best,” he said.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].