The Most Important Election of our Lifetimes is Over (for now)

The 2028 election is now in the rearview mirror. As gun owners and supporters of the 2^nd Amendment, we have to look at this in a very positive light. This election had 61% of Hoosier registered voters cast a ballot, with 54% voting absentee (includes both traditional mail-in and in-person early voting) according to Indianavoters.in.gov. Many people waiting a long time to vote, but were bound and determined to make their vote count.

While I have no numbers to back this up, I have no doubt America’s gun owners turned out in great numbers. For the first time the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) targeted voters in battleground States with peer-to-peer texting. President Trump as well as Senate, House, and State-level 2A supporting candidates who received NRA Political Victory Fund (PVF) endorsements were promoted with text messages. This was in conjunction with door knocking in specific areas of battleground States. President Trump took all seven battleground States and the NRA-ILA was active in all of those States, plus many more.

At the national level, President Trump took both the Electoral College and the popular vote (the first Republican to take the popular vote in 20 years.) With 312 Electoral College electors, that is the most received by a Republican candidate in 36 years. With that said, get ready for the 2028 election to crank up before we know it.

The Republicans also took back the Senate and held the House. The Senate is particularly important for the “advice and consent” for cabinet positions, federal judges, and Supreme Court Justices. Elections do have consequences.

At the federal level here in Indiana, honestly I don’t know if we made progress or not. We have two Republican Senators (one is endorsed by the NRA-PVF) and we still have 7 out of the 9 US House Representatives with an “R” behind their name. The difference is, we went from having seven endorsed by NRA-PVF, to six. The 6^th Congressional District had not one, but two candidates with an “F” grade from the NRA-PVF. I may have mentioned this before, but elections do have consequences. On the positive side, newcomers to the US House in the 3^rd District (Marlon Stutzman) and in the 8^th District (Mark Messmer) bring an A-rating from their previous voting history.

At the State level, Mike Braun went from being an NRA-PVF “A” grade US Senator, to an NRA-PVF “A” grade Governor. Attorney General Todd Rokita was re-elected and also has an NRA-PVF “A” grade. Members of Attorney General Rokita’s staff have testified in support of pro 2^nd Amendment bills at the Indiana Statehouse many times.

At the Indiana Statehouse: the Republicans maintain super-majorities in both the Senate and the House. (The term “super majority” is a bit misleading at the State level since overriding a veto from the Governor only requires a simple majority, not the 2/3 majority required at the federal level.) By my count the House is 70-30 Republican, the Senate is a 40-10 majority. With that said, there have been many Pro-2^nd Amendment bills that were a serious fight to get passed. As gun owners, we have to remind our elected officials we are out here, and we are paying attention.

Finally, I’d like to thank all of you who stepped up in the most important election of our lifetimes (for now.) We definitely put one in the win column in 2024.

Coming up next: a review of 2024. The Indiana Statehouse, Supreme Court decisions, maybe a bit more on the 2024 general election, and possibly a preview of what to expect from the 2025 Indiana General Assembly session.

Kelly Myers, ISRPA Government Affairs Co-Director

October 17, 2024October 17, 2024

Elections Have Consequences – (Part 3)

20 Years Ago: The “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994 Passed into History (or, Elections have Consequences)

Like many of you, I find it hard to believe that 2004 was 20 years ago. A couple weeks ago Guy Relford mentioned it was the 20th anniversary on his radio show (The Gun Guy on WIBC) and it got me thinking about how far we have come in regards to 2nd Amendment (2A) rights. It also serves as another reminder that elections have consequences.

On 13 September 2004, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (AWB of 94) hit the 10-year sunset and was no more. The actual title of the bill was the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, (and that’s the biggest case of false advertising since Chunky Monkey Ice Cream.) Reading the provisions of the AWB of 94 I was reminded of how our elected officials kept us safe by identifying assault weapon features such as: telescoping stocks (making it easier for people of smaller stature shoot effectively is bad?) Bayonet lugs (because attaching a large knife to a rifle gives it an effective range of 1 yard?) A flash-hider (because having night vision after the first shot is a bad thing?) And the ever-evil pistol-grip (which has more to do with ergonomics and design than with making a rifle more “assaultee”.)

In 1994 the Democrats had a 57-43 majority in the Senate. Senate rules require 60 votes to “end cloture” and allow the bill to come up for a vote. Six Republicans voted in favor of the AWB of 94. Elections do have consequences. Less than two months after the AWB of 94 was signed into law, Republicans took the majority in both the Senate and House for the first time in over 40 years. Actions have consequences as well.

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, there are an estimated 28 million modern sporting rifles in private hands, an estimate 20 million are AR-15 platforms. The “in common use for lawful purposes” standard from the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in DC v Heller (2008) would make another ban unlikely to pass judicial scrutiny. Unfortunately, we’ve seen the current administration operate in an unconstitutional manner (student loan forgiveness, rent moratorium.) Elections do have consequences.

After reviewing the provisions of the AWB of 94 (and a couple other things since I saw a lot of similarities) I made a couple observations. First, a lot of our elected officials really know absolutely nothing about firearms. I don’t mean “explain the difference between how a semi-automatic handgun operates compared to a semi-automatic rifle” level of knowledge. I mean “doesn’t know which end the bullets come out” level of knowledge. Second, the ends always justify the means, so they reverse-engineer the means to arrive at the ends.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 gave us a point system which led to the ban of many imported firearms, including the Walther PPK. You can buy the gun carried by James Bond here in the United States, it’s made in Arkansas, not Germany.

Wearing another of my many hats, I’m a staff member on an Internet-based discussion forum that has a classifieds section. In this role I’ve learned there are many things about which I do not know. I can’t tell a counterfeit Benchmade Infidel knife from a real one. I know a Lee-Enfield rifle is chambered in .303 British, but I can’t tell the difference between one used in the Boer War and one used in WW II. Then one day, a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) brought up an issue, and I was even more certain that to people who know nothing about firearms, the ends justify the means.

Since November 1990, there has been a ban on importing semi-automatic rifles and shotguns with certain features. Importers bring them into our country and swap out foreign parts for US-made parts to make it legal according to a point-system designed by people who really know nothing about firearms. This also means that replacing US-made parts with foreign-made parts that have nothing to do with the weapon’s operation, makes it an illegal weapon.

I’d be willing to say that most of the folks reading this are familiar with Benelli and Beretta semi-automatic shotguns. I’d also be willing to say that very few of you know that neither Benelli or Beretta semi-automatic shotguns can be imported with an extended tube magazine. But wait, there’s more.

To determine which firearms are illegal to import there is of course, a point system. 20 parts, if more than 10 of them are imported, then parts must be replaced with US-made parts until the number of imported parts is 10 or less.

Of the parts listed which could possibly make a firearm illegal: a magazine counts for 3 points. The magazine body, follower, and floorplate each count as 1 point. A magazine feeds ammunition into a firearm. Is there a difference in operation of the firearm if the magazine was made in Bulgaria or in Texas? Is anyone surprised they didn’t assign a 1-point value to the magazine spring?

Does the country of manufacture of the butt-stock and fore-grip make a firearm more or less dangerous? Changing the American Walnut butt-stock and fore-grip on my Winchester Model 12 out and replacing it with a Polish Walnut butt-stock and fore-grip really won’t matter. Replacing the American Walnut butt-stock and fore-grip on my Romanian AK-47 (semi-automatic version) imported after November 1990 and replacing it with a Polish Walnut butt-stock and fore-grip could lead to a long prison sentence since that is 2 points. Switch out the pistol-grip made in Texas by Magpul with an original Romanian pistol-grip? That’s another point.

What attaches the butt-stock on an AK-47 to the receiver? It’s a bent piece of metal called a trunnion. An American-made bent piece of metal verses a Chinese-made bent piece of metal can be the difference between a legal weapon and an illegal weapon since it counts as 1 point.

To sum up my observations: Anti-2A individuals seem to pride themselves on their ignorance of firearms. The ends always justify the means. Cosmetic features that have no effect on the operation of a firearm are an easy means to an end, when you have no knowledge about what you want to ban.

The landmark SCOTUS case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) established the “text, history, and tradition” standard in reference to 2A rights. I don’t think any of the examples I provided would pass that standard.

Any way you look at it, a lot of elected officials voted for these laws. Elections do have consequences.

Kelly Myers, ISRPA Government Affairs Co-Director

August 22, 2024August 22, 2024

The Most Important Election in our Lifetimes – Kelly Myers

The Most Important Election in our Lifetimes (and this time I really mean it.)

We are all old enough to remember many elections that were the “most important election.” All we have to do is look at what is happening now and consider what could happen in the next 4 years to know this is the most important election of our lifetimes.

Where are we now? The current administration has shown it will operate in an unconstitutional manner as stated by the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) in “student loan forgiveness” (taxpayer-funded money transfer is more accurate.) The power of Executive Agencies (non-appointed/non-elected bureaucrats under the Executive Branch of government) were severely curtailed in a recent SCOTUS decision known as Loper-Bright. The case points out that the Legislative Branch makes laws, and Executive Agencies do not. This ended a 40-year-old precedent known as “Chevron Deference” where decisions should be “deferred” to the experts at Executive Agencies. Despite this, agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE, or simply the ATF) seem to be doubling down on their attacks on the law abiding.

In a recent case in the 8th US Circuit involving pistol stabilizing braces: the ATF argued that despite publishing slideshows with pictures of specific pistol-length AR and AK variants with specific braces, now being considered short-barreled rifles (and require registration and a tax stamp under the National Firearms Act of 1934 or you can get 10 years in prison for each offense) it really didn’t count since the final rule hadn’t been published in the National Registry. Fortunately, the 8th Circuit was having none of that. Unfortunately, the ATF is playing with our money and can make arguments with such hutzpah. (Hutzpah is Yiddish for gall or audacity. I can’t use the other words I’d like to use here.)

But wait, there’s more. The Department of Treasury is operating an entity known as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) that works with financial institutions and card processors to “track suspected Lone Actor/Homegrown Violent Extremism Indicators.” In reality (as Senator Jim Jordan provided in a press release) the information being sought includes payments to Delta Defense (US Concealed Carry Association,) reloading equipment from Dillon Precision, and Smokey Mountain Knife Works. This all going on while the ATF can’t explain their own 500 pages of rules defining who is “in the business of selling firearms” but can revoke the Federal Firearms License of a gun store in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania because the hyphen in Wilkes-Barre was missing on one ATF Form 4473.

I will be the first to admit the previous three paragraphs paint less than a rosy picture. While reading an op-ed published in The Federalist by Dr John Lott (President, Crime Prevention Research Center) I was reminded that things could actually be worse. The title of the article: If elected, Kamala Harris would be the most anti-gun President in US history. Having met Dr Lott a few times, I can tell you a couple things about him. First, if there is a stereotype for an Economics Professor, it is Dr John Lott. Second, when he makes a statement, he backs it up.

Forced “gun buybacks” (incredibly misleading since the government never owned them, taxpayer-funded confiscation seems more accurate,) taking executive action if Congress won’t change the law (clearly unconstitutional, but that hasn’t stopped the current administration.) In an amicus brief to SCOTUS in 2008 the Democrat nominee for President argued the constitutionality of gun bans since there is no individual right to possess firearms. Thankfully SCOTUS saw it differently.

Heading up the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, VP Harris and her team of gun-banners managed to come up with the following:

“Eliminate gun manufacturers immunity from liability.” As with any manufacturer, if a defective product is brought to market there can be lawsuits. This is a direct attack on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Ford and Jim Beam don’t get sued for drunk drivers. If they did, there would be a similar law for automobile and liquor manufacturers. This is an attempt to sue firearms manufacturers out of existence.

“Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” It would be helpful if “assault weapons” could be identified by means other than “anything we want to ban.” The country had a quote-unquote assault weapons ban from 1994-2004. An Analyst from the Bureau of Justice Statistics stated that another ban would have results that were “too small to measure” or “statistically insignificant.” As far as high-capacity magazines, no one can seem to agree on a number of rounds that constitutes “high.” Much like the number of home-invaders can’t be predicted.

“Mandate people lock up their guns.” This was addressed in the landmark DC v Heller (2008) as well as when New York changed the SAFE Act law prior to a SCOTUS decision. Responsible gun owners secure their firearms. Responsible governments encourage, rather than mandating.

“Impose background checks for all firearms transfers.” Universal background checks require universal registration. As history has taught us, registration leads to confiscation. Only the law-abiding follow the law. I’m sure the criminal element who trades drugs for guns will participate in universal background checks, being the law and all.

Again, not a rosy picture, but this is our current reality. We have made great strides at the State-level here in Indiana to protect the rights of gun-owners, but we have more work to do.

Are you registered to vote? Do you know a fellow gun owner who is not? You can register at the County Clerk’s Office or a Bureau of Motor Vehicles Branch. The general election is 5 November, early voting starts 8 October.

Kelly Myers
ISRPA Government Affairs Co-Director