Earlier this month, the Department of Justice published updated numbers on how guns used and found at the scenes of state and federal crimes were obtained, and the American people will be shocked to know that criminals still don’t like to follow gun laws.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) survey was conducted in 2016 and reported that an estimated 287,400 prisoners possessed a gun in 2016 while they committed the crimes for which they were imprisoned.

Overall, it turns out that the vast majority of them didn’t obtain their firearms from a retail source, and fewer than one percent of them got them at a gun show. And a lot of them got their weapons illegally. Who could have guessed?

Here’s what the DOJ found:

Among the prisoners who had a firearm when they committed their crimes, 90 percent did not get their gun from a retail source, and less than one percent got theirs at a gun show.

Only seven percent of state and eight percent of federal prisoners “had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer at a retail source.”

About one fifth of those who possessed a gun during their offenses bought it with the intention of committing the crime.

A plurality of prisoners, 43.2 percent, got their guns off of the black market, off the street, or through theft.; 25.3 percent got the gun from a family member or friend, either through purchase, rental, trade, or as a gift; 6.9 percent said they found the gun at the scene of the crime, and 4.6 said the gun was brought by someone else.

These numbers will come as little surprise to Second Amendment advocates who are well aware that gun control laws only keep guns out of the hands of those willing to abide by them. Illegal transactions, black market purchases, and theft all remain as pipelines to get hardware into the hands of criminals.

But anti-gun crusaders keep pushing draconian gun laws (see: Chicago), enhanced background check regulations, and banning specific types of firearms based on mostly cosmetic criteria.

But then again, when have pesky things like facts, data, and reason ever really mattered when it comes to gun control legislation? (For more from the author of “New Gun Crime Numbers Are Bad News for the Gun Control Lobby” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Not to be outdone by gun control promoters in the House, a group of anti-gun senators released a new “assault weapons” ban earlier this week.

“Americans across the nation are asking Congress to reinstate the federal ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” reads a press release from sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “If we’re going to put a stop to mass shootings and protect our children, we need to get these weapons of war off our streets.”

Legislative text still wasn’t available at the time of this writing, but a first look at some of the outlined portions of it shows that it would be about as effective at curbing gun violence as Feinstein’s 1994 weapons ban (which wasn’t).

Since the term “assault weapon” has no intrinsic meaning either in the gun world or the legal world, the definition means whatever the anti-gun politician using it wants it to mean. So what makes something an “assault weapon” in this case?

The bill “bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock.”

So the bill wouldn’t outright ban all semi-automatic weapons (as some have already suggested); rather, it would just affect semi-automatics that have certain features, most of which are aesthetic or ergonomic in nature and none of which affect how the gun itself fires. They’re all also features typically found on a modern sporting rifle (known as an AR-15), which has been the anti-gun crowd’s big boogeyman for the last few years.

But those features can look pretty scary if you don’t know what you’re looking at. That’s why we put together the Firepower 101 series last spring.

According to the press release, the legislation would also ban so-called “assault pistols,” which are defined as handguns that weigh over 50 ounces unloaded. If that sounds obtuse and silly, it’s because it is. Weight itself doesn’t necessarily make a gun more dangerous. A violent gangbanger or armed robber can do a lot more damage with a light, compact semi-automatic handgun than an antique flintlock pistol.

It also would ban pistol stabilizing braces that magically “transform assault pistols into assault rifles” because they allow shooters to “fire more accurately.” Of course, if accuracy was what made something an “assault weapon,” stabilized pistols aren’t really where someone would want to start banning. Hunting and competition rifles are designed to be far more accurate.

It also bans magazines and other “ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds,” but current owners would be able to keep their existing magazines. This, of course, would do little more than put law-abiding gun owners at a disadvantage against non-compliant criminals who still won’t have to reload as often when committing violent crimes.

However, to give credit where credit is due, the bill would exempt all guns and magazines affected by the legislation that are lawfully owned at the time of passage. That would seem like a fairly obvious exception to include, but the Trump administration’s recent bump stock ban didn’t even allow that.

Feinstein has introduced this bill into a Senate with a 53-47 Republican majority, so it’s pretty much just for show until either that math changes or something motivates 13 Republicans to go along with it. (For more from the author of “Dems’ New ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Is About as Gun-Illiterate as You’d Expect” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Democrats have wasted little time shaking up Washington, D.C. since they were sworn into office on Thursday. In fact, Democratic leadership in the House is planning to make a big splash on Tuesday, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Mike Thompson introduce legislation requiring universal background checks for firearm purchase. The duo decided to do it on Tuesday, Jan. 8th because it’s the eight anniversary of former Rep. Gabby Gifford’s shooting, which took place Jan. 8, 2011. And, to continue with the “eight” theme, the bill is also called House Resolution 8, POLITICO reported.

Giffords has worked with the pair to bring about this piece of legislation.

“Since the shooting at Sandy Hook, the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force has been fighting for a chance to pass legislation that will help save lives,” Thompson told POLITICO. “Finally, with our new majority that ran on helping to prevent gun violence, we will introduce a bipartisan, universal background checks bill. We will hold hearings, we will have a vote, and this legislation will finally pass the House.”

“In communities across America, courageous survivors, families and young advocates are showing outstanding courage and persistence in demanding an end to the horrific scourge of gun violence in our nation,” Pelosi told POLITICO. “It is an honor to join Congressman Mike Thompson and former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords to answer their call by taking the first step to pass commonsense background checks – which 97 percent of the American people support.”

For six long years since the shooting at Sandy Hook, Democrats on @HouseGVP have fought to take action to address gun violence. And with our new majority, we will finally take decisive action to help save lives.

— Mike Thompson (@RepThompson) January 4, 2019

I’m thrilled to join @SpeakerPelosi and @RepThompson next week in Washington to introduce a bipartisan universal background checks bill.

Americans have spoken. It’s time to address our gun violence epidemic, and this new Congress will not sit silent. https://t.co/MQjkhtiuJU

— Gabrielle Giffords (@GabbyGiffords) January 4, 2019

(Read more from “Brace Yourselves: House Democrats Gear up to Introduce Their First Gun Control Bill of the New Congress” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

By Townhall. While the war on the Second Amendment has taken a more covert path in the sense that anti-gun activists are focusing on state-level initiatives that don’t get nearly as much attention, South Dakota could be a bright spot for those who support our Bill of Rights. New York is mulling applicants for gun permits present a social media and Google search history, New Jersey’s trash law on so-called high capacity magazines is about to go into full effect, and Detroit is about to mandate background checks for ammunition purchases. California already has that law on the books.

Vermont and Florida, both states with GOP governors, increased the age to purchase all firearms, including long guns, to 21. The anti-gun movement has clinched some wins, but South Dakota could be the next state to adopt a constitutional carry. Republican Congresswoman Kristi Noem won the state’s gubernatorial race this year and said that concealed carry without permits could be on the table. (Read more from “A Gun Carry Change Is Coming to This State” HERE)

_____________________________________________

South Dakotans May Soon Be Able to Carry Concealed Handguns Without a Permit

By Fox News. After years of unsuccessful attempts, supporters of legislation that would allow people to carry concealed handguns without a permit in South Dakota anticipate revived prospects once GOP Gov.-elect Kristi Noem takes office in January.

The legislation languished under retiring Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard, but Noem in her campaign offered support for a so-called constitutional carry law. GOP state Sen.-elect Lynne DiSanto, who as a member of the state House of Representatives sponsored a permitless concealed carry bill that Daugaard vetoed, said such legislation is likely in the upcoming session and she’s optimistic about its prospects.

“There are a lot of Republicans that are very excited to have a conservative governor,” said DiSanto. “I think under a new governor it’s very likely to pass.” (Read more from “South Dakotans May Soon Be Able to Carry Concealed Handguns Without a Permit” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.