Biden Never Misses a Chance to Push Gun Bans

Over the weekend through Independence Day the nation saw more shootings in several metropolitan areas. It happens somewhere in America every single weekend. Biden's answer? Ban so-called "assault weapons", so-called "high capacity magazines" and universal background checks. The usual gun ban talking points. On radio last night, talk show host Mark Levin took these on and explained what is really at work, control.  That's what they want.  They don't care about you or our right to defend ourselves.  Take a listen below.

Biden constantly repeats lies about his gun control, lies that even and CNN has fact checked and said were untrue.  Gun owners need to remain active to push back on the constant attacks.  Use the information in the audio above and from the CNN fact check and write letters to the editor to your local paper and get the message out that law abiding gun owners are not the problem.

Mark Levin Addressing the Weekend Shootings: We Have a Broken Culture

On his nationally syndicated talk show Monday Night, Mark Levin addressed the shootings of the past weekend.  He said it's not a gun problem, it's a broken culture, we no longer have virtue as part of the public square.  It is worth the time to listen.

Banning Bump Stocks are Just the First Step

The gun banners think they have finally found something that will get them a win - banning "bump stocks."  But as talk show host and NRA member Mark Levin pointed out last night on his program, that is just the first step.  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi again began pushing so called "universal" background checks, even though the Las Vegas shooter passed numerous background checks. Nothing that the gun ban crowd is pushing would have stopped the shooter.  Apparently, the White House is ready to jump on board too and have a "conversation" on gun laws.  Levin opened his program with these comments:


Levin went on to talk about a New York Times op/ed by Bret Stephens titled "Repeal the Second Amendment."  Levin said such an attempt would not happen because you currently would not get two thirds of congress or the states to go along with it but it does show the thinking of the gun ban crowd.  Then he took apart Stephens argument.

Listen to both clips. There are great points on why we should not give in to the gun ban talking points.

Friday Was Full of Good Information on the Failings of "Universal Background Checks"

First, this from the Heritage Foundation:

Addington, head of Heritage’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, lays out some of the dangers in Reid’s proposal:

• It effectively puts a new tax on selling or giving away a firearm.
• It could help criminals figure out where it is easiest to buy guns.
• It allows for the beginnings of a national gun registry.
• It makes a missing firearm a ticket to five years in prison.

And this one from Dave Kopel on National Review Online that explains how Chuck Schumer's "Fix Gun Checks Act" is based on "model language" that the Bloomberg gun-ban lobby is pushing all over the country:

To see how the Bloomberg bill makes felons of people who do not sell guns, consider a woman who buys a rifle when she is 25 years old. She keeps the rifle her entire life. Yet over her lifetime, she — like most gun owners — engages in dozens of firearms “transfers.” She brings the unloaded rifle to a friend’s house, for instance, because the friend is thinking of buying a gun and wants to learn more about guns. The friend handles the rifle for a few minutes before handing it back. Another time, the woman lends the gun to her niece, who takes it on a camping trip for the weekend.

While the woman is out of town on a business trip for two weeks, she gives the gun to her husband or her sister. If the woman lives on a farm, she allows all her relatives to take the rifle into the fields for pest and predator control — and sometimes, when friends are visiting, she takes them to a safe place on the farm where they spend an hour or two target shooting, passing her gun back and forth. At other times, she and her friends go target shooting in open spaces of land owned by the National Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management.

Or perhaps the woman is in a same-sex civil union, and she allows her partner to take her gun to a target range one afternoon. Another time, she allows her cousin to borrow the gun for an afternoon of target shooting. If the woman is in the Army Reserve and she is called up for an overseas deployment, she gives the gun to her sister for temporary safekeeping.

One time, she learns that her neighbor is being threatened by an abusive ex-boyfriend, and she lets this woman borrow a gun for several days until she can buy her own gun. And if the woman becomes a firearms-safety instructor, she regularly teaches classes at office parks, in school buildings at nights and on weekends, at gun stores, and so on. Following the standard curriculum of gun-safety classes (such as NRA safety courses), the woman will bring some unloaded guns to the classroom, and under her supervision, students will learn the first steps in how to handle the guns, including how to load and unload them (using dummy ammunition). During the class, the firearms will be “transferred” dozens of times, since students must practice how to hand a gun to someone else safely. As a Boy Scout den mother or 4-H leader, the woman may also transfer her gun to young people dozens of times while instructing them in gun safety.

Under S. 649, every one of the above activities would be a federal felony, subject to precisely the same punishment a person would receive if he had knowingly sold a firearm to a convicted violent felon. S. 649, like other Bloomberg-model bills, has a few exceptions to the ban on transfers, but none of them apply to the situations described above.

And finally, talk show host Mark Levin spent a great deal of time on his program in each hour talking about the background check issue and the 2nd Amendment in general.  It is worth the hour and fifty two minutes to listen to the podcast.

Tim Kaine Thinks Word "Nullify" is "Anti-Government Rhetoric"

Mark Levin shared this nugget on his program last night courtesy of CNN where Virginia's new junior senator Tim Kaine says that Kentucky Senator Rand Paul's use of the word "nullify" in describing what should be done by congress to respond to Obama's overreach of power with executive action.


Levin said "thank God" Kaine is just a "slip and fall lawyer" after demonstrating Kaine's knowledge of the Constitution is obviously limited. Unfortunately, before taking over Jim Webb's senate seat, Kaine was teaching law classes at the University of Richmond Law School.

There was a lot to dislike about Jim Webb, but he voted for our rights the few times he had the opportunity.  Sadly he abandon gun owners and supported an anti-rights candidate like Tim Kaine to take over his seat in the U.S. Senate.  Now we have both Kaine and Warner who will support the president's call to ban modern sporting rifles.

What To Expect After House Vote on Holder Contempt Charge

After the Holder Contempt of Congress vote by the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, talk radio was almost wall to wall Fast and Furious on Thursday.  Rush Limbaugh dedicated most of his show Wednesday and Thursday to the President claiming executive privilege and Fast and Furious.  Wednesday night, Mark Levin put the issue into a legal context that was easy for the non-lawyer to understand.

The full House is scheduled to vote on the charge against Eric Holder next week if he does not comply with the subpoena issued by the House Oversight Committee.  So what does a vote by the full House mean?  Yesterday's Roll Call Daily Briefing offered their take:

And, after that vote, there’s no reason to believe the Justice Department will do anything other than what other Justice Departments in other balance-of-power clashes with other presidents have done, which is to slow-walk or outright stonewall its response to the contempt order. (Federal prosecutors, in other words, are not going to move against their own boss to make him turn over the records the House GOP wants.) And at that point, Boehner and the other GOP leaders are extremely unlikely to escalate the standoff by suing (or sending the House sergeant-at-arms to arrest the attorney general) because what they really want is to use the contretemps to illustrate their view that it’s the fault of Obama and the Democrats that Washington is a non-functioning cesspool.

Lawyer, former Chief of Staff to Ed Meese (President Reagan's  Attorney General), and talk show host, Mark Levin, offered some advice to Rep. Darrell Issa and the GOP members of the House Oversight Committee.
Levin stated his belief that this is all part of the administration's plan.  It was all calculated to stretch this as far as possible.  We will see if they have miscalculated.

The right way to proceed is to hold Holder in contempt by resolution of the House and seek authorization from the House for the Committee, by its Chairman, to proceed by civil action to compel production of the documents. (Holder will not enforce a holding of contempt against himself -- and by the way, he should have authorized, say, the assistant attorney general for legal counsel, to handle the contempt matter once the House voted as at that point he is representing his own interests and not those of the nation generally). Chairman Issa should file suit in federal court in DC and seek expedited action. There is no need for Senate action. The use of this procedure has been acknowledged by the Congressional Research Service in a 2007 study. Further, a privilege log should be sought by Issa and ordered produced immediately by the court, in camera inspection done promptly by the judge, and a final order entered compelling production of all documents for which no legitimate reason justifies Executive Privilege.