Display posts from previous
Sort by

Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

1 by bigian52
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/liberal-gun ... _lead_pos7

Michael Ciemnoczolowski, a lifelong Democrat, supports stricter gun laws and contributes to Sandy Hook Promise, a gun-violence-prevention nonprofit.

But this summer, the liquor store clerk in Iowa City, Iowa, for the first time in his life bought a gun. Apprehension about street crime, armed right-wing extremists, and “whatever else the world could possibly throw at us,” drove his decision.

“Domestic politics have grown increasingly acrimonious,” says Ciemnoczolowski, 43.


Michael Ciemnoczolowski, a Democrat, at his home in Iowa City, Iowa. Photo: Danny Wilcox Frazier/VII for WSJ

Ciemnoczolowski purchased a gun for the first time in 2024. Photo: Danny Wilcox Frazier/VII for WSJ
American gun culture has long been dominated by conservative, white men. Now, in a marked change, a burgeoning number of liberals are buying firearms, according to surveys and fast-growing gun groups drawing minorities and progressives.

“It’s a group of people who five years ago would never have considered buying a gun,” says Jennifer Hubbert, an anthropology professor at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Ore., who has researched liberal gun owners.

Historically, it wasn’t unusual for Democrats to own guns, with many more of them living in rural areas. Also, hunting was much more popular. But starting in the early ’90s, gun ownership among Democrats dropped significantly. Increasingly divisive political battles over the role of firearms in American society led the Democratic Party to become an advocate for gun regulation. Republicans became the party of gun rights.

Now, today’s Democrats are rediscovering guns.

A turbulent landscape
Researchers, gun merchants and owners attribute the shift to factors including rising concerns about personal safety and a volatile political climate: GOP presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump warning of “potential death and destruction” if he is charged with crimes, Democrats warning of the potential end of democracy, and two assassination plots against Trump.

Neo-Nazi groups have recently been more active nationwide, according to the Anti-Defamation League. Violent threats aren’t limited to progressives or minorities; conservative and pro-gun rallies have also been targeted.

Twenty-nine percent of Democrats or those leaning Democrat said they had a gun at home in 2022, up from a four-decade low of 22% in 2010, according to a long-running survey by NORC at the University of Chicago, a nonpartisan research organization. In 2022, 55% of Republicans had a gun in their home, up 3 percentage points since 2010, the survey of about 3,500 adults found.

In a nationally representative 2023 survey of about 3,000 people by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, about 11% of respondents had purchased a gun since 2020. Among Democratic gun buyers since 2020, more than half were first-time owners, compared with less than a quarter of Republicans, according to researchers who analyzed the data.

And this might be the first presidential campaign where the Democratic candidates are the literal face of gun owners. Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris surprised many during the Sept. 10 debate when she noted, “Tim Walz and I are both gun owners.” (Harris, a former prosecutor, owns a handgun, while Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, is an avid hunter.) Trump, convicted of a felony, faces the prospect of losing his right to possess a gun. He is scheduled to be sentenced in November.

Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz at a sporting clay course in 2018. Photo: Anthony Souffle/Star Tribune/Getty Images
Four decades ago, Democratic gun owners were typically white men, including auto or steel union workers who grew up hunting. Today’s liberal gun owners are much more diverse. Gun dealers saw the largest increase in Black Americans buying guns compared with any other racial group in 2023, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry group. Women accounted for nearly half of new gun buyers from 2019 to 2021, according to the 2021 National Firearms Survey of 19,000 adults, designed by professors at Harvard and Northeastern universities.

Hubbert, the anthropology professor, who received a federal National Endowment for the Humanities grant last year to research liberal gun owners, found that gay and transgender gun owners worried about rising hate crimes and Jewish people feared potential violence from pro-Palestinian groups or individuals. Black gun owners shared similar anxieties, along with mistrust of police in some areas and concerns about crime.

A hidden pursuit
With guns still taboo among many on the left, some new liberal firearm owners say they don’t tell their friends—or even relatives. And they say they don’t want to join, and feel unwelcome in, gun stalwarts such as the National Rifle Association, or online message boards like AR15.com. “We have to have harbors and havens,” said Randy Miyan, who runs Liberal Gun Owners, a 5,000-member group.

In Los Angeles, Tom Nguyen, 54, founded L.A. Progressive Shooters in 2020 as a Facebook group. That year’s social unrest, pandemic and election motivated him to create a place for people to learn about firearms for protection, he said.

Now a certified firearms instructor, he trains 300 people yearly and said his beginner group classes are booked through 2025. “People were hungering for a space that was not this hyperaggressive, male-dominated, toxic gun world.”

Nguyen, who provides firearms training for 300 people a year, says he wanted to provide a place for other liberals to learn about firearm safety.
Philip Cheung for WSJ
Alejandra Mendez, 32, said she decided to take gun classes with Nguyen in 2019 after moving to a new neighborhood. Mendez, who is married to a woman, worries about antigay violence, and crime in general, she said.

She had initial trepidation about visiting gun ranges dominated by mostly older, white men, but found most people there welcoming. Today Mendez, a healthcare worker, owns four guns—three handguns and an AR-15—and completed training for a concealed-carry permit.

Most criticism, she said, comes from some progressives asking why she would ever own a gun. She finds it hypocritical that those critics assert their constitutional right to free speech, but reject the constitutional right to own firearms.

“I don’t understand that rhetoric of ‘protect my right’ and not protect the rights of other people,” she said.

Black gun groups, spanning the political spectrum, are thriving.

The nonpartisan National African American Gun Association has grown to about 48,000 members since launching in 2015. Founder Philip Smith said police incidents and clashes between white nationalists and their opponents in Charlottesville, Va., boosted membership.

Yet Smith, 65, said he has had “heated arguments” in the Black community, where leaders and pastors argue that guns harm their communities.

“They believe the devil’s hand is in all this,” he said. “I respect that. But you have to respect my view as well.”

Jason Carter, 49, who spoke at this year’s Democratic convention, hunts and uses firearms, in the tradition of his grandfather, former President Jimmy Carter. He hopes the influx of diverse gun owners might break America’s calcified gun debate.

“There are more people saying, ‘Let’s look for middle ground,” said Carter, a lawyer and former Georgia state senator. “Let’s work to respect Second Amendment rights, but let’s figure out ways to make us safer.”

A pile of casings at a shooting range. Photo: Reed Mattison for WSJ
Ciemnoczolowski, in Iowa, said he mostly talks about guns with other liberal or progressive gun owners, many of whom welcome gun restrictions. He sees no reason to own a military-style, semiautomatic rifle like the AR-15, and supports universal background checks.

But the country’s sharp partisan divide renders compromise on guns extremely unlikely, he believes.

He visits the range to practice with his Springfield 1911, arriving early, he said, “before the yahoos show up.”

His $600 handgun serves one chief purpose: “Personal safety.”

Write to Cameron McWhirter at Cameron.McWhirter@wsj.com and Zusha Elinson at zusha.elinson@wsj.com

Re: Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

2 by highdesert
In line with other recent articles about new gun owners, they are more diverse in terms of gender, race and ethnicity than traditional gun owners. Some are into the sport, but most buy a gun to defend themselves and their loved ones. Probably part of that roughly 30% who in polls state they don't own a handgun, but could see owning one in the future.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

4 by CDFingers
featureless wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2024 12:08 pm Speaking of "liberal" gun owners, I don't always laugh aloud when sitting with Oprah, but when I do, it's appropriately right after I say "if someone's breaking into my house, they're getting shot."

https://x.com/Mediaite/status/183694110 ... J4cIA&s=19

Such a weird thing to say on TV, let alone laugh about.
When I saw that this morning, I knew it would appear here. As members of the LGC, we're not surprised that liberals are buying guns. But with Kamala, we have to note the lovely passive voice, where we don't know exactly who is doing the shooting. At least she did not have to surrender two of her three guns, as did the orange spirochete, after his conviction in New York.

On another front, I'm half way through "Gun Curious," by David Yamane. I'm used to reading academic prose, and now with my new LED light set on arc weld, I can keep at it. Those of you who bought it should keep at it. He has some great commentary in the chapter I'm on now where he and his wife earn CCW's.

on edit re: Kamala and her gun, my father-in-law was an assistant DA then County Counsel, and he had pistol and a CCW permit, as do many DA's, public defenders, and those types, as they end up dealing with some dregs of society from time to time.

CDF
It's a buck dancer's choice my friend, better take my advice
You know all the rules by now, and the fire from the ice

Re: Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

6 by BearPaws
While I haven't donated to Sandy Hook Promise, I remember where I was when I first heard about that event on a newscast.

I didn't start buying firearms until 2020, but wife and I had been talking about it for a while (most of the term of dolt45) and recognized that it was all but inevitable that we'd want to be able to defend ourselves and our peeps. The events in Charlottesville hit me a bit--I lived there as a toddler while my father earned his degree at UVA. Work kept me from being able to attend street medic trainings consistently, but my wife did. During the protests in 2020, she was in protest space on the regular, and I was schlepping supplies to free up folks with skills for front-line stuff. I did a few of the marches (again, work schedules sucked), and did pack-mule duty with supplies of water and other stuff.

We had a couple of pistols by the time of what I call "the siege," when LMPD kettled protesters and street medics into a church that was acting as a sanctuary for protesters and a base of operations for the medics, a mile and a half from the square where most of the protests were happening. Police were threatening to raid the church--without a warrant--because they thought a protester had committed arson a block away (turned out to have been an agitator who liked the taste of boot polish). My wife didn't like carrying a pistol while acting as a medic (one more thing to keep track of...), but carried while on sentry watch around that church.
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Re: Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

7 by featureless
CDFingers wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2024 1:01 pm

On another front, I'm half way through "Gun Curious," by David Yamane. I'm used to reading academic prose, and now with my new LED light set on arc weld, I can keep at it. Those of you who bought it should keep at it. He has some great commentary in the chapter I'm on now where he and his wife earn CCW's.
I completed it. Good book, good perspective. No earth shattering conclusions, but that wasn't really the point.
CDFingers wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2024 1:01 pm on edit re: Kamala and her gun, my father-in-law was an assistant DA then County Counsel, and he had pistol and a CCW permit, as do many DA's, public defenders, and those types, as they end up dealing with some dregs of society from time to time.
All the more reason her actions in Peruta were so awful. Guns for me, not for thee. Same as it ever was for those in power.

Re: Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

8 by CDFingers
featureless wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2024 1:50 pm
All the more reason her actions in Peruta were so awful. Guns for me, not for thee. Same as it ever was for those in power.
In this instance, the reference is to her home. So, nah.

AG's are hired/elected to enforce existing law; they cannot make law. Let's also remember that I continually remind folks that democracy is a messy business. To wit:
A landmark ruling came down on February 14, 2014 in the NRA-supported case of Peruta v. County of San Diego. A three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down San Diego County Sheriff William Gore’s policy requiring that law-abiding adults prove they have a special need in order to establish a “good cause” to be issued a license to carry a firearm in public before he would issue them one.

The Peruta ruling affirmed that the Second Amendment protects a law-abiding citizen’s right to bear arms outside of home–in some manner. In other words, the court held that while the government can regulate and even ban some forms of carry (like open or concealed) it cannot ban all forms of carry. California law generally provides only one way to lawfully carry arms in public, i.e., with a carry license. If the Peruta decision stands, California sheriffs and police chiefs will no longer be able to deny licenses to carry to people simply because they cannot prove that they have a special need for the license.
https://michellawyers.com/nra-victory-i ... -ccw-case/

It ain't over till it's over. Personally, I would like to see the Mulford Act erased, but that's just me--because I have two groovy carry holsters each designed for open carry.

CDF
It's a buck dancer's choice my friend, better take my advice
You know all the rules by now, and the fire from the ice

Re: Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

9 by featureless
CDFingers wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2024 2:03 pm
featureless wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2024 1:50 pm
All the more reason her actions in Peruta were so awful. Guns for me, not for thee. Same as it ever was for those in power.
In this instance, the reference is to her home. So, nah.

AG's are hired/elected to enforce existing law; they cannot make law. Let's also remember that I continually remind folks that democracy is a messy business. To wit:
A landmark ruling came down on February 14, 2014 in the NRA-supported case of Peruta v. County of San Diego. A three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down San Diego County Sheriff William Gore’s policy requiring that law-abiding adults prove they have a special need in order to establish a “good cause” to be issued a license to carry a firearm in public before he would issue them one.

The Peruta ruling affirmed that the Second Amendment protects a law-abiding citizen’s right to bear arms outside of home–in some manner. In other words, the court held that while the government can regulate and even ban some forms of carry (like open or concealed) it cannot ban all forms of carry. California law generally provides only one way to lawfully carry arms in public, i.e., with a carry license. If the Peruta decision stands, California sheriffs and police chiefs will no longer be able to deny licenses to carry to people simply because they cannot prove that they have a special need for the license.
https://michellawyers.com/nra-victory-i ... -ccw-case/

It ain't over till it's over. Personally, I would like to see the Mulford Act erased, but that's just me--because I have two groovy carry holsters each designed for open carry.

CDF
Bruh... :laugh:

As you quote, that CA9 decision did stand. Until Harris as AG brought the state into it, who was not a listed party in the suit. The state DOJ, headed by Harris, intervened to ensure the right was not widely available (unless a special class, like DA or retired LEO). Then it went all the way to SCOTUS who denied it. Harris is the reason there was no "bear" in CA until (kinda sorta) Bruen.

And, you brought up DAs with CCWs, which is why Peruta and Harris' intervention was relevant.

Re: Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

10 by highdesert
In Edward Peruta et al vs San Diego County Sheriff, the US district court SDCA, found for the San Diego County Sheriff. As featureless said it was then appealed to the 9th Circuit and a 3 judge panel composed of O'Scannlain, Callahan and Thomas. decided 2-1 for Peruta, Thomas dissented. The CA AG appealed the case en banc and the 3 judge panel decision was reversed. Peruta appealed to SCOTUS, but only Thomas and Gorsuch wanted to grant cert, it takes 4 justices to hear a case. SCOTUS defined the issue in Peruta as
The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” At issue in this case is whether that guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 4_p86b.pdf

That was in 2017 and in 2023 SCOTUS decided the Bruen case 6-3.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

11 by Nomadsurfer
I can relate to a lot of the sentiment in the articles shared above.

I grew up with a very British father and in a former colony where firearms are still illegal - unless you’re a landowner (British rules) and even then, only shotguns are allowed (maybe bolt action)

So, when we moved here, I was fascinated by the Army Navy surplus store near our house. I read Soldier of Fortune, and had military banners on my wall as a kid.

My parents never had any guns. My dad still doesn’t, although he’s a lifelong republican.

I have had shotguns and 22s for years, but only had pistols since around 2014. And, only in the past few years have gotten into carbines - despite several friends in various LEO or military. Never felt like I “needed “ it.

However, I am now about to pull the trigger on an AR or AKV/MP5 to compliment the PCC and other boring (fudd) stuff in my safe.

As I said in my introduction, I have no interest in CQB or whatever shtf fantasies some people have. However, recent events have raised my eyebrows in terms of protecting our community from fallout from the election.

Before you call me chicken little … there are at least 5 homes in my neighborhood flying Q and 3 percent flags. We had a Trump boat parade, and other things….

While the neighborhood is pretty evenly divided and I want to think most of us would squash any foolishness, there is definitely an element to watch. As well as the potential for some 2020 style events that could kick off a couple blocks away, let’s say.

Better to have it and not need it.

Re: Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

13 by CowboyT
As I've been saying all along, if you're concerned about Trump supporters getting violent with you, then that's all the more reason to arm up and fully support the Second Amendment. That includes with your vote. Armed, you stand a chance. Unarmed, you might end up like James Byrd in Jasper, TX or that young woman in Charlottesville.

Arm up, Liberals. Arm up. And if you can learn to handload your own ammo, so much the better.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

15 by highdesert
It also made it to the BBC.
US Vice-President Kamala Harris has spoken of her willingness to use her gun if an intruder entered her home. "If somebody breaks into my house, they're getting shot," she said in a jokey exchange during a livestreamed event in Michigan with host Oprah Winfrey on Thursday. After a laugh, the Democratic presidential nominee continued: "I probably shouldn't have said that, but my staff will deal with that later."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4yxe2xxzdo

Harris has 24 hour Secret Service protection and at her 3500 sq ft home in the posh Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles.

Michigan is a battleground state with a lot of gun owners and this is a very close election. And Michigan has the highest percentage of Arab Americans in the US and there is a push in the Arab American community to vote for Jill Stein in November, in protest against the Biden-Harris support of Israel.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

16 by YankeeTarheel
The article in the WSJ is a bit weak and could have and should have come months earlier, but at least they finally did it, so that's good.
But Jews like myself began arming ourselves because of Felonious Trump praising neo-nazis as far back as his 2015 campaign, NOT because of fear of Gaza-supporting anti-Semites following 7 October 2023. I decided the morning of 9 November 2016, 7 years earlier.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

17 by CDFingers
highdesert wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 8:00 am It also made it to the BBC.
US Vice-President Kamala Harris has spoken of her willingness to use her gun if an intruder entered her home. "If somebody breaks into my house, they're getting shot," she said in a jokey exchange during a livestreamed event in Michigan with host Oprah Winfrey on Thursday. After a laugh, the Democratic presidential nominee continued: "I probably shouldn't have said that, but my staff will deal with that later."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4yxe2xxzdo

Harris has 24 hour Secret Service protection and at her 3500 sq ft home in the posh Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles.

Michigan is a battleground state with a lot of gun owners and this is a very close election. And Michigan has the highest percentage of Arab Americans in the US and there is a push in the Arab American community to vote for Jill Stein in November, in protest against the Biden-Harris support of Israel.
Again, we have to note the passive voice in her statement, and the BBC fell for it. She did not say she would do the shooting. As HD pointed out, she has SS protections, things we do not have. And to remind us again, "A gun is a good thing to have and not need."

A note to non-members: You, too, can become a card-carrying member of the Liberal Gun Club. Just click on this handy link:

https://membership.theliberalgunclub.com/page-1208055

CDF
It's a buck dancer's choice my friend, better take my advice
You know all the rules by now, and the fire from the ice

Re: Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

20 by CDFingers
featureless wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 9:10 pm
highdesert wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 12:59 pm
Harris campaign adviser Keisha Lance Bottoms on Friday brushed off vice president Kamala Harris’s viral comments about how she would shoot anyone who breaks into her home, calling the remarks a “joke.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/har ... iser-says/
That's a stupid fuckin joke.

I actually like Lance Bottoms.
But wait! There's more.
Reinstating a ban would do nothing about the thousands of handgun deaths, including suicides, but it would still help. So would background checks, which Harris also supports.

The American people support these measures, too. In fact, we are much closer to a consensus on guns than partisans on either side would have you believe. And that consensus resides where Harris appears to already be: Let’s keep guns legal, but let’s also do what we can to keep guns out of the hands of people who are demonstrably dangerous, abusive or mentally ill.

After every mass shooting, conservatives say that the last of these is the root cause. It’s better than “thoughts and prayers” but still insufficient. After all, our incidence of gun deaths are so much higher than that of other developed nations that no disparity in psychiatric diagnoses could account for them. And many experts say that access to guns, not mental health, is the key determinant in gun violence rates.

Yet if conservatives are committed to this approach, Harris should acknowledge as much, making more thorough psychiatric treatment—and record-keeping—part of her gun control policy package. That package will go nowhere without Republicans, many of whom know perfectly well that we need stricter gun laws but are afraid to say so because they fear that the National Rifle Association will run a primary challenger against them. The more she can do to soften these reasonable conservatives’ fears, the further she will get.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi ... rcna172298

One big problem existing is that we don't have enough government data to inform a proper decision because Republicans keep preventing funding from passing. The government needs to pay for studies, or else we're stuck with studies funded by anti gun groups, as we have seen. The .gov should hire like seven anti gun .orgs and seven pro gun .orgs to do studies in several areas. They need to fund studies from "both sides" to avoid the inevitable whining that will ooze from the under funded "side."

I believe we all can agree we'd all like to live in a safe society. Now, us being humans suggests we can get only so safe. But we can go a long ways to making a decision if we fund sufficient studies and collect a mountain of data from many perspectives. Otherwise some little minority who whines the loudest will get "something" done, and no one will like it.

Write your congresscritters and lobby for funding to study guns and their impact on society and culture.

on edit, here's a chuckle from reddit, which I think is a pretty good idea:
It would be funny if she does an ad showing her at a shooting range. But the targets are "price gouging", "housing costs", "abortion bans" etc.

And she then puts the gun down and goes "and we need reasonable gun safety laws."

[next post:]

Brilliant. Bonus, it's a shoot off with Walz.
https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comme ... _guns_she/



CDF
It's a buck dancer's choice my friend, better take my advice
You know all the rules by now, and the fire from the ice

Re: Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

21 by highdesert
I'm in favor of objective firearms research. Federal health agencies used the excuse that they didn't fund research because of the Dickey Amendment, which prohibited the use of federal funds "...to advocate or promote gun control...". All they had to do was to write research funding requirements, so that recipients couldn't advocate or promote gun control. I'd like to see firearms research from a sociological, criminological and economics perspective, I think research by health related organizations is biased against gun owners.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Wall Street Journal - The Most Surprising New Gun Owners Are U.S. Liberals

23 by Loquat4440
There is likely a difference in what kind of guns 'liberals' (Another word for Democrats) are buying. My guess is that most of them are not buying ARs or AKs. More likely pistols and in my part of Florida many democrats think a snub revolver is ok, but not ownership of a semiauto long weapon with high capacity magazines. This is more or less the message that I think VP K. Harris and Gov T. Walz are pushing. In 2022 there was for Florida a proposed constitutional ballot that would have banned any semiauto rifle that had a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds and the wording would have included tube fed semiauto rifles. But no mention of pistols with high capacity magazines. What they were going after was the so called ''assault rifles''. The state supreme court at the urging of Attorney General Ashley Moody.

Those that are radical leftwingers are buying ARs and similar
https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Ban_on_ ... ive_(2022)
The measure would have banned possession of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.
Semiautomatic would have been defined by the measure as "any weapon which fires a single projectile or a number of ball shots through a rifled or smooth bore for each single function of the trigger without further manual action required." Assault weapon would have been defined by the measure as "any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in a fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition feeding device." The definition of assault weapon would have excluded handguns under the measure.[1]
Post Reply

Return to “Firearms in the News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 1 guest