This is being peddled as some sort of national special report by the WaPo, which only goes to show that the WaPo knows little about guns and didn’t bother consulting anyone.   It also should — as I noted yesterday — act as a wake-up call to all the go-along to get-along “hunters” who just don’t see the use in an AR-15-type military style rifle, even as they cling to their

Good. I say go for it, Dick! Because here’s the thing: the sooner people who don’t normally pay attention to politics find out that a US Senator is describing ammo in amounts less than the 2 bricks of 22LR so many gun owners have stuck in drawer for later plinking as “absolutely staggering,” the sooner they’ll determine who the real “extremists” in this gun-control debate truly are. PJM: Search warrants

A sub rosa move in the shadows by Democrats to remove a budgetary check on what in effect would be a gun registry, namely, the Tiahrt Amendment — which would as a result remove compulsory eTrace data destruction, remove the necessity destroy background check information after 24 hours,  and empower the ATF to go after gun dealers who sold guns legally that were later used in crimes: removing the eTrace

Paul Bedard: Supporters of the 380 sheriffs in 15 states who so far have vowed to defy new state and federal gun control laws claim that legislation is starting to pop up around the nation to fire any state elected or appointed law enforcement official who doesn’t obey federal orders. The first effort emerged in Texas. Legislation proposed by Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis would remove any sheriff or law

It’s who they are. It’s what they do: One of dozens of Colorado sheriffs who oppose several gun control bills working their way through the state legislature claims lawmakers are threatening the salaries of sheriffs to punish them for their position. […] El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, while saying he would be obliged to enforce new law, publicly said he would willfully ignore a ban on high-capacity magazines and

Never one not to stick his fingers into the political winds in order to tell us what’s good for “the folks,” Fox News’ longtime fake conservative and mind-numbingly stupid populist Bill O’Reilly joined with many establishment GOPers (who themselves followed a groundswell of erstwhile anti-same sex marriage Democrats) in the Republican Party’s “rebranding effort,” which evidently is meant to alienate constitutionalists, classical liberals, and the socially conservative portion of the

Courtesy of TRS, who has the audio: So let me suggest this to you with respect to the power of the courts, in particularly the Supreme Court. Where there is not a clear constitutional issue as there clearly was in Loving vs Virginia under the 14th amendment, a clear violation of the 14th amendment, then why should the federal courts intervene? Why should the Supreme Court intervene? The Equal Protection

The Hill: The Obama administration is moving to shore up the federal criminal background check system as part of the president’s effort to curb gun violence — with or without help from Congress. — first, let’s stop right there and parse the way this is phrased by the Hill’s Ben Goad.  Congress is not intended to “help” the President move his agenda, but rather to act as a potential check