How About NO?

The Detroit News: Whitmer-created task force recommends ban on assault weapons

A group that Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer created with the goal of making policy recommendations to save lives is urging state lawmakers to ban the possession of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

How about No there sparky? 

 It's always the same ignorant proposals from Democrats instead of actual measures known to work to curb violence - because that would put many of their supporters in prison where they belong rather than out on the streets committing crimes.

The task force also said devices that convert semiautomatic guns into fully automatic firearms — known as Glock switches — should also be banned. 

Glock Switches already are banned under Michigan and Federal law both.  

That this Task force does not know this leads me to suspect the knowledge and credibility of same and instead to consider that this is yet another progressive task force that knows little about firearms and instead is just pushing the Democrat's agenda.

People proposing regulations on things should not be ignorant of the things they are attempting to regulate, much less try to outright ban. 

Detroit City Council Comes Up With The Expected Answer To Detroit Gun-Related Crimes

Detroit is currently going through a notable spate of violent crimes that is also hitting the downtown and Greektown areas where the casinos are  (and where the money is of course). This is hampering the happy image of Detroit being a safe place to come and do business or enjoy yourself.  This makes the Detroit City politicos a tad nervous as it is bad for their image and the sweet tax money the Greektown casinos bring in.

Now, Detroit politicians aren't urging a crackdown on the criminals doing this crime.  Of course not. They're not, for example, pressing the prosecutors and Detroit judges to require bail, and not so easily let violent criminals back out on the street.  They're not calling for strict enforcement of the law, nor curfews on bands of unaccompanied "youths".  They're certainly not calling to quit the revolving-door-justice system, and absolutely not pushing to - dare I say - fund the police.

Nah, they're not actually going after criminals. 

But they have a solution that fits their progressive Democrat ideals, and it's the one they always turn to as their one-trick pony: 

Gun Control! - this time more (legal) gun (owner) free zones!

The Detroit Free Press:  Detroit City Council moves ahead with proposing gun-free zones, if state agrees

Detroit City Councilmember Mary Waters has a message for state lawmakers: Change existing gun laws to allow cities to establish gun-free zones.

As a result of increased violence in and around downtown Detroit, Waters proposed the establishment of gun-free zones by calling on state lawmakers to expeditiously approve changes to current gun laws, which council members approved on Tuesday.

. . . 

Council passed the two resolutions. The first calls for urging state lawmakers to pass a Senate bill that would give municipalities control over establishing gun-free zones on public grounds and the second calls for drafting a gun-free zone ordinance, complying with existing laws, that would require public or private events of 500 people or more that receive a permit from the city to be established as gun-free zones.

The second resolution also suggests areas like the riverfront, Greektown, Hart Plaza, Spirit Plaza and Campus Martius be designated as gun-free zones.

So instead of actual crowd control, or maybe trying some criminal control and enforcing the law, hiring more police,  or something else that would be effective, they're decided to fall back on symbolic gun control. 

Proposing that these areas that people visiting Detroit want to go to become "gun-free zones" means people have to go unarmed into gun-free zones to ensure criminals have easy pickings, as criminals don't care about these gun-free zones.  

Basically this is a post-Bruen-tantrum proposed law to create a whole bunch of "sensitive places" out of just about every single public space in the city.  So, the idea seems to be to ban law-abiding people from carrying firearms to protect themselves instead of actually dealing with the crime wave they've created with their "Defund The Police" / BLM / criminal empowerment song and dance.

Unfortunately, we have a Democrat-dominated state government that may just give it to them, and allow for a patchwork of ridiculous no-carry zones for the law abiding around the state.

How About NO?

The Detroit News: Oxford shooting survivors demand action on gun legislation in next 100 days

The Oxford school shooting, where 4 students were killed by a rather clearly mentally-disturbed fellow student is the current driver in Michgian for more ineffective gun control.

Let's note that prior to the shooting school officials and counselors had such warnings as the kid in question messing with dead animals, drawing pictures of massacres, etc.

To top it off, on the very morning of the shooting, and a charming drawing complete with a message that said: The Thoughts Won't Stop Help Me".

Generally that might be called a clue that the kid wasn't all right.

But, all they did was bring the parents in for a discussion, and they then let the kid go back to class without so much as a psych eval,  after throwing off every possible signal that he was about to cut loose.  So, within an hour of being sent back to class, he then commenced the school shooting.

So of course, the answer is ban guns, right?   

With a Democrat dominated House, Senate and Governorship here in Michigan, that seems to be where the're wrongly headed:

The student-led group focuses on pushing for the passage of state and federal laws that would lead to safer gun storage, universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.

We will note the jerk in question used a handgun, not an "assault weapon" in the shooting incident.

We will also note safer storage won't do squat - the parents insist the gun used was locked up at the time it was taken by the kid, kid has claimed it was not locked up.

We already have a universal background check and it would have done nothing to change this incident.

And red flag laws - look if you're gonna ignore all the red flags - as they were for a damn long time with the kid in this incident -  such laws ain't gonna cut it there Chucky, nor would it have prevented this incident at all.

So, how about we quit with the knee-jerk gun control "solutions" that will not solve the problem?

 Instead how about we do the much harder and more effective thing and work on some serious mental health reform and having school officials do their damn jobs, and have school resource officers (or armed teachers but that gives Dems the vapors) at school to protect kids rather than leaving them vulnerable to the next shooter that gives off every sign but is completely ignored until he starts bustin' up the place?

Surprise: Detroit Criminals Don't Obey No-Carry Zones

So last night they had the Annual Detroit Tree Lighting.

There's quite a list of things you can't bring to attend the lighting ceremony:

Of course, weapons are banned, firearms most especially, but they seem to dislike quality cameras as well. In reading the list, pretty much everything is banned or can be banned, including underwear if it has any explicit, profane or derogatory characterizations.

Funnily enough, the ban on firearms inexplicably did not prevent two shootings:

The Detroit News: 2 shootings confirmed near Detroit tree lighting, police chief says

Criminals don't obey no carry zones - who knew?

Both shootings seems to be due to an "altercation" between two rival groups of youths with in the first shooting a 15-year-old getting a round in the neck.  The second shooting also had a "youth" getting shot and police believe the shootings are related.

Since The Biden Administration Is Floundering - Democrats Decide To Push For Gun Bans Again

The Biden administration has been having a rough start and is flailing about.

The failure of the Afghanistan withdrawal; the economy; inflation brought on by bad economic policy; oil and gas prices; the failure to pass his signature Build Back Better spending spree to further expand the debt and fundamentally reshape America and it's economy.

The failure to lead in Ukraine and green-lighting a Russian minor incursion and then walking that back.

The constant need for his publicists to explain that what Biden says in public is not actually Biden's policies. 

An utter failure to "defeat" Covid 19, and more Americans dead from or with Covid under Biden than Trump, far more than the 200,000 that Biden indicated was a level at which a president should resign for being a failure.

Clear signs that Biden ain't all there mentally or physically.

 On top of that, we get the January jobs report that 301,000 jobs were lost  - not the expected 200,000 gain, and the prior December jobs report also got adjusted downwards to show a job loss.  Funny howe that happens.

An approval level in the toilet and it's starting to swirl around the drain.

Impeding projected massive losses in the upcoming midterms

So what's a Democrat to do?

Anything to try and fire up their base and keep the support of their "progressive wing".

So, a push for Gun Control it is. Right on schedule.

After all, gun bans are still popular among the Democrats, especially amongst the more radical members whose support he needs.

It also helps distract from the defund the police fracas and Democrat Prosecutors' soft on crime non-prosecution of criminals measures while blaming inanimate objects and Republicans for the Democrat-caused crime wave.

Just like his sudden announcement that he's going to redouble his efforts to cure cancer on the day when the 300,000 lost jobs report came out, the gun control push is an attempt to distract attention from his and the Democrat's multiple and ongoing failures.

Funny how his announcement of his gun ban push repudiates the Democrats "Defund The Police"  line that was one of the causes of this massive spike in the murder and violent crime rate:

"The answer is not to defund the police," he  [Biden] continued. "It's to give you the tools, the training, the funding to be partners, to be protectors."

Something tells me the Squad isn't going to be happy with that line repudiating their defund the police refrain. Nice to see the reality check that defunding and demoralizing the police, and having Democrat prosecutors not prosecute crimes leads to a crime wave that makes the Democrats look rather bad.

May his gun ban push end in yet another failure for this administration.

The CDC Should Have Learned By Now To Stay In Its Own Lane

But they have not.

Remember when the CDC decided to have mission creep and pontificate and weigh in on the social side of things, producing studies on bullying and gun control (aside from funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, natch) leaving it woefully inept when it came to deal with its core function - disease control - with the coronavirus pandemic?

Good times.

Well, those times are back.

After all nice sounding platitudes and policy making for social issues real or imagined is easy, dealing with viruses is rather hard. 

Red State: The CDC Is Coming for Your Guns

Yes, the CDC under the Biden Administration is again trying to paint gun control as a public health matter and an epidemic that would call for emergency health powers in response.   

Guns are not a disease nor a virus. While it is impossible for the CDC to not be political, it's not too much to ask that they stick to their core function - disease control - at least until they can perform that core function competently -   before branching out into other Democrat policy preferences outside of the disease arena.

My Comment on ATFE's Proposed Arm Brace Reguation

Not that I expect it to do much good, or that it will make much of a difference, but I just submitted a comment on FR Doc # 2021-12176, The ATFE's proposed new rule on stabilizing braces.

In short the rule doth suck, and in going over the worksheet it seems practically that there is no pistol with an arm brace that will not likely be found to be an SBR under their criteria.

I'd suggest commenting, and there's over 79,000 comments there so far.

When you comment, do be polite, don't swear, and don't copy and paste other people's comments.  Point out what is wrong with the regulation and how it is unnecessary.

You can go and comment here.

So here's the comment I submitted:

Comment on FR Doc # 2021-12176

Agency Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau

Arm braces have been evaluated and specifically determined by ATFE in 2012 and 2014 to not create Short Barreled Rifles (SBR). Millions of law-abiding firearms owners have relied upon that series of determinations and have obtained, installed, and used arm braces on pistols in a law-abiding manner. DOJ and ATFE now seek to withdraw those determinations relied upon by millions of Americans and instead proposes an arbitrary and subjective standard that places millions of law-abiding firearms owners at risk of a felony or being required to pay a tax and wait up to a year or more and have the resulting firearms that they already own now be regulated as an SBR.

DOJ and ATFE’s explanation for the proposed rulemaking identifies 2 illegal shootings that have occurred with firearms equipped with arm braces as one of the rationales for this proposed rule. However, DOJ and ATFE in the explanation also states there are between 3 million to 9 million arm braces currently in circulation. This means the concerning criminal use of such braces varies between 0.0000666% to 0.0000222% of all extant braces, which is statistically insignificant by any rational analysis. With 3 to 9 million arm braces in circulation, one may indeed say that arm braces are now “in common use” under the Heller test. Furthermore, it is clear that considering their ultra-low and infrequent usage by criminals per DOJ and ATFE’s own stated analysis, they do not pose an issue as “dangerous”, nor given their popularity and widespread adoption can they be considered to create “unusual weapons” when installed upon a pistol.

Furthermore, the DOJ and ATFE’s proposed worksheet is both arbitrary and capricious in its composition and in it’s stated subjective enforcement. The worksheet criteria makes it highly unlikely that any arm brace, including all those already examined and found by ATFE and DOJ to be an arm brace, when placed on a pistol would not lead to the resulting firearm being classified as an SBR by ATFE and DOJ.

The proposed Worksheet 4999 is clearly arbitrary as one of the points used to determine if a pistol is to be considered an SBR is the presence of iron sights, earning one point out of a possible four towards a finding that a pistol is instead an SBR. ATFE and DOJ should clearly know that iron sights have been present on the vast majority of, if not practically all, handguns sold and produced in the United States for well over two hundred years. As such, making this a point that may classify a firearm as an SBR is inane as such a feature is absolutely normal and standard for handguns. Further, the addition of a red dot or other electronic sight is considered another point towards a determination that a pistol is an SBR. As ATFE and DOJ knows or should know, red dot sights have been a feature of handgun sport competition for decades, and have in the past few years have become prevalent on everyday handguns used for self-defense, competition, and other lawful usage. As such 50% of the possible points to determine if a handgun is an SBR are awarded for standard or normal accessory items that are installed on handguns today. Many of the other proposed criteria such as that setting of an overall length for a pistol are similarly subjective and flawed in that any AR15 pistol with a barrel over 7.5 inches will now be deemed an SBR under these criteria regardless of the type of brace used. None of these criteria are necessary. All ATFE and DOJ truly need to do is determine whether the end point of a pistol is a brace or a stock. If it is a stock then it is an SBR. If instead, the item has instead been previously examined and declared by ATFE to be a brace, not then it is a brace and the resulting firearm is a pistol and not an SBR.

In conclusion, there is simply no justifiable need for this proposed regulation, nor for this subjective criteria. Crimes committed with brace-equipped pistols remain statistically insignificant. The braces are now well and truly in common use on pistols and ATFE has already evaluated and regulatorily declared brace-equipped pistols to not be SBRs and there is no justifiable basis for, nor any need to be changing that relied-upon determination.

While it's unlikely for the comments to have an effect on changing their proposed rule, we might as well make them work for it as they do have to review properly submitted comments.  Note well that telling them to perform anatomically improbable acts upon themselves is not a properly submitted comment and will be deleted.

Michigan Secretary Of State Bans Open Carry At The Polls

Without any legislative authority, Jocelyn Benson, our Secretary of State, just issued a regulation banning open carry at polling places.

Up until this regulation, open carry at polling places was legal.

Especially so, depending on the location, if you had a concealed carry permit you could then open carry at the polls [don't ask it's a Michigan thing and would take a whole other post - basically there are lots of areas like schools and churches where you can't open carry legally without a permit, and can't carry concealed with a permit but can carry openly with a permit].

Now without any legislation or declared legal authority, and based solely on the Sec State's say so, you now cannot do so:

The Detroit News: Michigan bans open carry of guns inside and near polling places

Michigan is prohibiting the open carry of guns within 100 feet of polling places amid fears of voter intimidation during the pivotal Nov. 3 election, prompting criticism by Second Amendment advocates.

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson sent guidance to local election officials on Friday — 18 days before Election Day — to clarify that the open carry of firearms on Election Day in polling places, clerk’s offices and absent voter counting boards is banned.

A little voter suppression of the open carry crowd, who likely wasn't going to vote Dem, neh?

While I don't open carry much, and don't open carry at the polls, I know plenty of law abiding people who have done so properl,y with no fanfare, and not as a "carrying at someone" type of action. 

Rather unclear where she gets the authority to institute such a ban, so expect some litigation shortly.

VA Dems Jumped The Gun With Their Confiscation Legislation

Silly Democrats, don't you know you're supposed to push for registration first, then confiscation?

Instead, the newly Democratic controlled Virginia government got it backwards and thought they had the power and could skip Step 1 and go straight to Step 2.

They began their legislative session with a bang, by rolling out gun confiscation legislation. The legislation promptly got rolled back when the reality of what door-to-door confiscation of "assault weapons" would look like. This also led to one particularly bright Democrat representative threatening to send out the Virginia National Guard to assist in the confiscation.

This led to lots of push-back, with the VANG politely saying in not so many words to leave them the heck out of it.

So now, the Virginia state government which is completely Democrat dominated, is magnanimously backing away from immediate confiscation, proposing instead that "assault weapons" would be banned but those who have them would be grandfathered in for possession so long as they're registered.

So, after first threatening to confiscate people's firearms, they now think people will comply and register their firearms with the very same government that had until oh so recently been threatening to confiscate them including loosing the military to seize them?

They actually think people will now register them so the government will know in the future who has them in order to confiscate them more efficiently, which they just stated they would do?

Good luck with compliance with that law, especially since you let the mask slip and let everyone know exactly what you will do with the registration list once you have it and feel the time is right to move forward again with confiscation.

Also, good luck for any Democrat politician in the future proposing "common-sense" legislation like registration by claiming they have no intention of ever confiscating or banning such registered firearms.

One also hopes that gun owners in VA just got a wake-up call and will vote to protect their rights accordingly in the next election.

If Only The Place Had California Levels Of Gun Control.....Oh, Nevermind

The shooting took place in California.

The Detroit News: California police say 10 shot, 4 killed at backyard party

Funny how such strict gun laws in California just don't seem to keep the criminals from breaking those same laws and committing crimes.

There oughta be a law against doing that, right?

Good Thing That Wayne State University Is A Gun Free Zone - Oh, Wait.

The Detroit Free Press: Wayne State police warn students, staff after 2 campus robberies

Wayne State University is in Detroit, co-located with some rather, um, exciting in a bad way shall we say areas of Detroit.

Wayne State University police are warning students and staff to use caution after two on-campus robberies.

Let's note that per the article, both robberies, all of six minutes apart, involved the armed robbers using handguns to rob the two students in question.

I guess the criminals didn't follow the gun free zone rules for Wayne State University.

Funny how that happens.

Orange Isn't The New Black At The Oscars

Well it looks like Everytown's attempt to get all the stars to wear orange flags for gun bans at the Oscars fizzled. Lots of coverage that stars and starlets would be wearing orange pins for gun bans, but looking at the crowd at the opening, in the end it looks like not many if any did.

Even Jimmy Kimmel hosting the event wasn't wearing one. When even Jimmy Kimmel won't jump on board an emoting display to push for gun bans with no real substance then well....

It looks like the highest rated actors they could get to wear them were Lin Manuel-Miranda and Keala Settle. I know, you're asking "Manuel-Miranda and Settle Who?" Yeah, Me too, not exactly names on everyone's lips, those.

Speaking of #MeToo, it looks like the women of Hollywood weren't distracted by this new orange-aid shinyness to give up their black Times Up pins - after all Hollywood starlets are far more likely to be sexually assaulted or required to put out to get their career by the "men" (I use the term "men" loosely in this case - any man who sexually assaults a woman is no man) of Hollywood then they are to face "gun violence".

Let's Start With No.

The Detroit News: Gun control advocates rally at Michigan Capitol

More than 100 gun control advocates rallied Thursday at the Michigan Capitol, urging the state’s Republican-led Legislature to enact new “common sense” regulations after a teen gunman last week killed 17 people at a Florida high school.

Common sense in this case includes things that are already the law, and banning stuff they don't understand because it scares them rather than concrete steps to stop mentally ill persons from committing these acts and making it harder for schools to be attacked. Banning stuff is easy - actually trying to solve the problem is hard.

Let's put it into perspective:

There are currently at least 6 million AR-15 type firearms in circulation in the United States. Probably many more than that, and the call to ban them will only increase this number.

If we take very school and terrorist shooting where an AR15 gets used in a mass shooting we have 7 incidents - Newtown, Connecticut a school shooting by someone mentally ill and known to be so before the fact; Aurora, Colo. a theater attack by someone mentally ill and known to be so before the fact; Santa Monica a college shooting by a mentally ill person and known to be so before the fact including by police who had informed him he was not eligible to purchase a firearm and San Bernardino, Calif. an ISIS terrorist attack; Orlando, Florida an ISIS terrorist attack; Las Vegas Nevada which is still being investigated and motive not understood or known but likely due to some mental issues; and Parkland where another mentally ill individual well known to police is committing a shooting.

So, that's five attacks and we'll generously increase this from 5 to say 24 AR-15s as the Nevada nutcase brought a lot with him, regardless of whether they were actually used or not.

24 out of 6 million is 0.0004% of all AR-15s out there being used in a mass shooting. That's almost a rounding error in statistical terms.

If the only purpose of an AAR15 is to kill, as claimed by the gun banners, it is clearly not doing the job they claim it was designed to do.

So for the acts of 5 people, two driven by terrorist sympathies and the rest by mental illness, we want to ban something legally owned by millions who have hurt no one.

Not Exactly A Ringing Endorsement For Gun Control, That.

Sure enough, life imitates Scott Adams when it comes to the Democrats' calls for gun control:

Scott Adams last year put it very well on his blog:

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

On the heels of Las Vegas we have, just as Scott Adams predicted, the oh-so-clever Democrats tweeting clear invitations that the NRA give in on gun control exactly as he predicted:

But don't worry, after Sinatra and her ilk wish death on NRA members, they'll express surprise and outrage and claim we're "unreasonable" and against common sense when we refuse to go along with their gun banning schemes.

The Blood Is Not Yet Dry, And The Stupid Has Already Started To Fly

While much is still not known about the atrocity in Las Vegas, that has not kept the talking heads and pundits from a full-court press for gun bans, nor for the uninformed to spout off on things about which they know not.

Nor has it taken long for moronic politicians to start introducing laws in order to show they will "do something", and one of the dumbest proposals so far goes to Detroit Councilwoman Janee Ayers:

The Detroit News: Councilwoman wants gun restrictions in Detroit hotels

Yes, she's actually proposing to ban guns from hotels in Detroit, seriously.

a Detroit City Council member said she wants restrictions on rifles and semiautomatic weapons in hotel rooms in the city that face public spaces.

Councilwoman Janee Ayers said she will ask the city’s Law Department to study the feasibility of measures to secure powerful weapons during the council’s Tuesday session. An ordinance could include anything from an outright ban to measures to secure patrons’ guns in the hotel.

While she got some face-time and publicity that she would otherwise not get from this inane proposal, at least we can be happy that Michigan has state level preemption that prohibits dancers in the blood from infringing on people's rights in truly inane knee-jerk ways in response to a criminal and murderous act.

Michigan Court Of Appeals Decision Hammers Legal Open Carriers

The Court of Appeals decision in Michigan Gun Owners v Ann Arbor Public Schools upheld the Ann Arbor Public School's position that it can prohibit people from carrying firearms even as state law specifically states people with concealed carry permits may open carry (only no concealed carry with the concealed carry permit mind you) in schools.

The Michigan Court of Appeals, without any irony whatsoever, was able to declare it the law inapplicable as they determined, with a straight face no less, that a local school district was not a local unit of government, unlike a library district in a previous case which had been found to be a local unit of government. This of course is an awfully outcome-determinative decision considering all those elections for school boards, and the rules and regulations they promulgate, not to mention the public funding for them.

The Court also determined, likely with a nod and a wink, that the law exhaustively allowing such did not specifically and entirely preempt the field of firearms regulation prohibiting the school district from banning carry in compliance with state law.

We'll see if this gets appealed to the State's Supreme Court as the Supreme Court tends to be less anti-gun than our Court of Appeals.

Or better yet, would the Republicans please send another bill to Snyder to get rid of the no carry zones and amend the law to say pistols may be carried concealed with a concealed permit in schools rather than the current stupid mix of only being able to carry openly with a concealed permit in schools and other listed places? That would likely get rid of the pearl-clutching craziness as if the Lefties don't see the pistols they won't be alarmed by it, and there won't be people out trolling and trying to cause them to become so alarmed so that we get to this situation in the first place.

The Movie That Would Have Kicked Off Clinton's Gun Control Push Is Released With A Whimper

There's a movie trailer popping up on Facebook and getting an awful lot of play for a movie now being only released to select theaters but is no longer relevant after flopping on its opening weekend US release making all of $59,797 which is one helluva flop by any description. It looks like the producers were banking on Hillary Clinton to have won the election and release this with a bang. Had Hillary Clinton actually won the election the release timing would have been dead on, but now it seems to be dead on arrival.

Miss Sloan, a not even thinly veiled portrayal of "Nasty Woman Takes On The Gun Lobby Troglodytes To Get More Gun Control In America" is every but the hit piece you think it would be. Yes, the words "Nasty Woman" even flash by in the trailer and the whole thing was pretty clearly produced to help a push for gun control on the assumption that Hillary Clinton would have won the election.

Unsurprisingly, the Facebook based trailer leads off with the false statement that "Any nutcase can buy an assault rifle at the Bowlarama without an ID", and it goes downhill from there.

If you think it's a coincidence that Miss Sloan was timed to be released now and its trailer features a fearless female lobbyist taking on the "gun lobby" with a catchphrase of "Nasty Woman", think again.

This was pretty clearly designed to be released under the assumption that Hillary would be elected and free to push for more gun control.

As a result, this political emotive hit piece of gun control propaganda masquerading as a movie is now only being "released to selected theaters". In other words, it's a propaganda piece that lost the leader it was written for and will likely fade out as a result, which is a darn good thing. On the upside for the film it's about to be released in France and will likely do well there amongst the chattering classes and perhaps will even bust its US opening weekend gross of $59,797.

Such a pity they just don't get that Americans really aren't interested in gun control hit pieces to aid a political candidate masquerading as a movie.

Undoubtedly, there would have been a full court press for gun bans had Hillary been elected with the media, entertainment industry, and the Clinton administration relentlessly pushing for it and we've dodged that particular scenario.

If You're Too Dangerous To Be Allowed To Fly...You're Too Dangerous To Serve In Congress, Right?

You really can't make this stuff up.

One of the leaders of the gang of pouters currently having a tantrum on the floor of Congress seeking to prevent anyone on the no-fly list from buying a firearm is in fact on the no-fly list himself.

Independent Journal: Congressman Leading the Way to Stop Those on Terrorist Watch List from Buying Guns is on Watch List

Surely John Lewis is too dangerous to be allowed to serve as a Congressman. After all, he's on The List.

Perhaps Because Gun Owners Are Better Behaved?

The Detroit News: Democrats: Ban guns, allow signs in Michigan Capitol

In Michigan's Capitol building, guns may be lawfully carried, signs may not and this has some rather gun-phobic anti-gun Democrats riled up.

Two state House Democrats on Wednesday announced legislation seeking to ban firearms in state government buildings but allow political signs in those places.

The proposal would reverse longstanding rules at the Michigan Capitol, where signs are banned but guns are allowed.

The article goes on to note that signs are banned not due to politics, but due to the damage that has been caused by protesters with the sticks the signs are mounted upon.

No such damage by law abiding gun owners has been reported.

Yet more noise by anti-gun Democrats who never saw a gun ban they didn't like. This is especially so to ban guns where the presence of such in the hands of law abiding citizens in and around the state capitol have never caused a problem. Thankfully, the proposed legislation is likely going nowhere due to the Republican majority in the House and Senate and Governor's office.

Hmm, No Calls For Brick Control Yet

Chalk up another defensive gun use. This one in a church, by a pastor no less.

Detroit Free Press: Police: Pastor shoots, kills attacker in church

Note that while churches are gun free zones in Michigan, you can carry in them if you have the express permission of the personages running the institution. Presumably the pastor did have such permission. In this case, as is typical with law-abiding gun owners, the gun in church saved lives.

So next time someone asks why you may need a gun in a house of worship - and by example, noted ant-gun Freep Columnist Rochelle Riley states that churches are anathema for the presence of guns, in her typically sardonic column that has more emotion and cant than logic in it as usual, one might reply to her and others that carrying in such a place makes sense as some people won't respect it as a place of prayer but instead will view it as an unarmed zone for mayhem.

After all, would Rochelle have preferred the pastor with his head bashed in with a brick so he could have died all saintly and unarmed, rather than armed and alive as he is now?

Certainly this latest defensive gun use is timely as we in Michigan debate ending (sort of) the gun free criminal empowerment zones we now have.