Some states prohibit the carrying of a firearm lawfully in polling places. In others, a lot of the polls are gun-free zones simply because they’re held in a school or some other building that’s a gun-free zone.
Yet there are a lot of them that aren’t for any reason at all. People carry guns there and never have an issue.
But a bill was introduced in Congress that seeks to change that across the nation, and let’s just say it’s going over about like you’d expect.
A bill under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives that would ban firearms at federal election sites is just another effort to demonize gun owners and the Second Amendment, according to a major gun-rights group.
Ostensibly advertised as an effort to improve safety during federal elections, House Resolution 7965 was introduced by California Rep. Raul Ruiz and is co-sponsored by D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, both rabid gun-ban advocates. The measure prohibits “unauthorized possession of a firearm” at a federal election site.
But the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) says the authors of the measure have far more nefarious reasons for filing the resolution.
“They deliberately want to lower gun owner turnout during important federal elections,” CCRBKA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said in a press release on the measure. “Democrats talk about discouraging voters by requiring identification, yet here they are trying to discourage gun owners from voting by intimidation. The hypocrisy is monumental.”
Gottliebe[sic] said the wording used by the measure’s authors—“unauthorized possession of a firearm” is notable.
Gottlieb notes that it could be argued that a firearm carried by someone who is authorized by law, even constitutional carry, has authorized possession of a firearm.
Which is fair.
And while I’m not a fan of the claim of voter suppression, it’s as accurate here as it is when Democrats scream it over ICE at polling places. People making a decision to not be somewhere that they’re uncomfortable, either because law enforcement is present or because you can’t defend yourself, is a conscious decision…but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so I’ll allow it.
Not that anyone needs my authorization for jack.
For me, though, the true stupidity of this is that there’s literally zero reason for this.
It’s bad enough when something happens, and lawmakers scramble to try to create laws to address what took place, even if there was no way to prevent it. At least I can get where they’re coming from. It’s also bad when they start using some horrific event that happened, and the anti-gunners trot out their favorite proposals, none of which have anything to do with what happened, yet at least something happened that prompted a response.
This is none of these. There’s no history of shootings at polling places. No one has ever been hurt. Anyone who has a problem with a gun on someone’s hip has their own moral failings they need to address, and I don’t have a problem telling literally anyone that.
So why do this?
Because it makes them feel important. It lets them put something up so that they can get money from the anti-gun lobby for the midterms. It lets them buff their gun control credentials by pretending they’re defending democracy from us evil gun owners or something.
It’s stupid, but it’s par for the course from these morons.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
