Connect with us

News

Gun Owners of America Rips Apart Lindsey Graham’s New Gun Control Scheme

Published

on

Michael Hammond, the legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, took Senator Lindsey Graham to task in a recent article for the Daily Caller.

Hammond declared that Graham “arrived with the year’s nuttiest idea: To make the GOP the party of gun confiscation and, in the process, jettison the Second Amendment movement from the Republican coalition.”

In this case, Hammond is referring to Graham’s plan to move red flag gun confiscation in the U.S. Senate.

Trending: New Group of Turncoat Gun Owners is Being Launched to Push for Civilian Disarmament

According to Hammond, “To this end, Graham has scheduled a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 26 to consider legislation to confiscate large numbers of guns with no notice and no due process whatsoever.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Over the past year and a half, two red flag bills have been introduced. The first version was introduced by Senator Graham and Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal.

Hammond provided some details about this bill:

Blumenthal-Graham would create a federal gun confiscation program whereby any police or an angry “ex” can petition for a secret court hearing to strip a gun owner of his Second, Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendment rights.

When only the accuser is in the room, a judge will normally sign anything that is put before him.  In an analogous situation in New Mexico, for instance, a housewife obtained a restraining order against David Letterman for sending her coded messages over her TV set.

And the bill only gets uglier:

Under Blumenthal-Graham, the first thing a gun owner would learn of the proceedings is when the police showed up at his door in the middle of the night, ready to ransack his home and, if he resisted, to arrest or kill him.

Hammond’s fears are not without substance when we look at the infamous Maryland shooting:

In Ferndale, Maryland, a 60-year-old man was shot to death by police serving a “red flag order” at 5:17 a.m.  It turned out that the complainant was a non-immediate relative seeking to punish the gun owner after an argument they had.

In addition to Blumenthal-Graham, there are alternatives —S.7 and s. 506—which fund states that have red flag gun confiscation laws in place.

There are 14 states with red flag laws present, with Florida and Indiana as the pro-gun exceptions to this list of red flag states.

In essence, S.7 and S,506 would effectively have Republican, pro-Second Amendment states subsidizing rabidly, anti-gun states to enforce their gun confiscation ordinances.

Although a red flag gun confiscation bill is no laughing matter, Hammond highlights one of the most farcical aspects of the bill:

S.7 has some comic aspects to it. For instance, any “individual related by blood” to the gun owner could bring a suit.

Hence, although Elizabeth Warren may be only 1/1024 Indian, any Cherokee could bring an action to strip her of her guns (assuming she had any). If Michael Bloomberg could go to ancestry.com and prove he was related to you, he could take your guns away.

It seems like the red flag gun confiscation movement that has made waves at the state level is now poised to make a splash at the federal level.

Gun owners must remember that threats to their gun rights don’t just come from Democrats, but also conniving Republicans in the party establishment.

Lindsey Graham happens to be one of those spineless Republicans, and gun owners must recognize that he is no friend of the Second Amendment.

Campaign 2020

Thanks to Spineless, Establishment Republicans, Senate Panel Delays Vote to Subpoena Big Tech CEOs

Republicans Continue to Show Pathetic They are on the Issues that Matter Most

Published

on

America First nationalist’s hopes of having Big Tech CEOs testify before Congress about allegations of censorship directed towards the Right were temporarily dashed on October 19, 2020.

Politico reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee delayed plans to vote on subpoenas to force the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook to go before the Senate and be questioned about their anti-Right wing censorship policies.

Some Republicans ended up having cold feet and decided to postpone the vote much to the disappointment of right wing activists who have complained about Big Tech’s anti-free speech policies.

President Donald Trump and a number of nationalist Republicans have sharply criticized Facebook and Twitter over their censorship of a controversial New York Post report that exposed Hunter Biden, Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, and his corrupt behavior.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Originally, GOP officials in the Judiciary Committee announced plans to hold a markup on October 20 to determine if they would subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to get his perspective on allegations concerning his company’s policies that muzzle conservative viewpoints. Twitter denies claims regarding Twitter’s censorship policies.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who is the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, revealed that the planned vote would also call on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify.

The panel stated on October 19 that it would determine whether they would issue subpoenas during a executive session on October 22 where it will also allegedly approve Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. The committee declared in a statement that it will maintain negotiations with the companies “to allow for voluntary testimony” by the CEO. However, if an agreement cannot be reached, the panel will proceed to take a vote on the subpoenas “at a date to be determined.”

The subpoenas would compel the tech big wigs to testify on the reports of “suppression and/or censorship” of New York Post stories and on “any other content moderation policies, practices, or actions that may interfere with or influence elections for federal office,” according to a committee document released on October 19.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who is the chair of the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution said to reporters that he’s expecting the committee to preside over testimonies from the Twitter and Facebook chiefs “shortly” regardless of whether they come to the decision on their own volition.

“One way or another, either voluntarily or pursuant to subpoena, they will testify and they will testify before the election,” Cruz stated.

In a separate hearing for the Senate Commerce Committee, Zuckerberg and Dorsey will join Google CEO Sundar Pichai on October 28 for a hearing on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields Big Tech companies from a liability.

Cruz, who is a member of both Judiciary and Commerce committees, wants each panel to carry out their own hearings with the tech chiefs before election day. “I believe we need a separate hearing in Judiciary because the issues being discussed in the two committees are different,” Cruz remarked.

Big Tech has become too powerful, especially during a time when social media has become the de facto public square. Republicans will need to get serious about making online speech receive the same treatment as general political speech.

 

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending