As I wrote earlier today, I have been bizarrely impressed at how fluently the Democrats have been lying about the DHS shutdown, and even more impressed at their willingness to say anything, no matter how absurd, to prevent the SAVE Act from being voted on.
Adam, you know what’s really funny about this from you? I happen to know for a fact that, in California, even to just get your DRIVER’S LICENSE, if you’re a married woman, you have to provide your marriage license to prove your name change.
You knew that, yes? https://t.co/N3CQawhMpw
— The🐰FOO (@PolitiBunny) March 23, 2026
The SAVE Act, or at least its provisions, is extremely popular. There are very few issues on which the vast majority of Americans can find agreement, but requiring proof of citizenship and a photo ID to vote is one of them. It almost seems like the only people in the world who don’t like the bill are Democrats in office, and it’s obvious why: without noncitizen and ineligible voters, many of them would not get elected.
Here we go again: Joe Scarborough claims he can’t find his birth certificate.
“It’s ridiculous!” https://t.co/MO6uSzuiLd pic.twitter.com/u6nZQ2Aqrz
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) March 23, 2026
In order to justify their opposition to the bill, Democrats have tried just about every argument under the sun, short of claiming that Republicans want to force people to sacrifice virgins at an Aztec altar, but that is probably because there are few Democrat virgins, and insulting the Aztecs would be culturally insensitive.
Schumer: “They wanna make it harder to register to vote than it is to register to buy an AR-15.”pic.twitter.com/ZKfI8Zo0Iu
— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) March 20, 2026
Chuck Schumer has been especially prolific in his lies, which is only mildly surprising. While he is a prolific liar, he is not one of the “designated liars” because is quite bad at it, and is as charismatic as a morgue attendant.
Every American who supports election integrity needs to hear what Dan Goldman just said.
He called the SAVE America Act — a proof-of-citizenship requirement — “a voter suppression bill.”
That’s the Democrat position. Period. pic.twitter.com/KPFMt5G3NO
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 23, 2026
When I ran across Schumer’s claim that the SAVE Act would make voting more difficult than purchasing an AR-15, I was impressed. Only a man who is certain that Pravda will back him to the hilt would have the audacity to make such a claim, and only then with the certainty that the people who would be persuaded by such an argument would never have purchased a gun.
I want purchasing an AR-15 to be as easy as it is to vote in Minnesota. One person being able to vouch for up to 8 people, no ID necessary, no background check, no questions asked. The right to bear arms is Constitutionally protected, too.
— David Strom (@DavidStrom) March 21, 2026
In order to vote in Minnesota, all you need to do is show up at a polling place and have somebody “vouch” for you. You need no proof of identity or proof that you even live in the district. Just show up, have somebody say you live in the precinct, and you can vote.
The headline says it all.
The Republic is decidedly not healthy when it’s deemed more necessary to guard against fraud in aluminum can recycling than it is to guard against election fraud.
Our votes are sacred and should be protected by the highest levels of anti-fraud… pic.twitter.com/Xd3OLOvI3K
— Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) March 22, 2026
So what does it take to buy an AR-15 in Minnesota? (Some states ban them altogether, by the way.)
Purchase
A handgun or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon may be sold by a dealer to a person who presents a handgun transferee permit or carry permit, or to a person who has undergone a seven (7) day waiting period where a transfer report has been filed.
A transferee permit may be obtained at no cost from the police chief of a municipality or the county sheriff. The information requested consists of name, residence, telephone number, driver’s license number or non-qualification certificate number, sex, date of birth, height, weight, eye color, and a statement attesting that the transferee does not fall into any of the disqualifying categories listed under POSSESSION.
The police chief or sheriff investigates the applicant and must issue or deny the transferee permit within seven (7) days. The only basis for a denial is if the applicant falls into any of the disqualifying categories listed under POSSESSION. A transferee permit is good statewide for one year to purchase one or more handguns either at one time or at intervals throughout the year.
A person without a transferee permit or carry permit must utilize a transfer report in order to purchase a handgun or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon. The transfer report contains the identification information and statement attesting qualification as required in the transferee permit, and must be signed by the transferor and the proposed recipient. The transferor must deliver the report to the police chief or sheriff no later than three (3) days after the date of the agreement to transfer, excluding weekends and legal holidays. No fee is charged for the transfer report.
Upon receipt of a transfer report, the police chief or sheriff investigates the potential recipient. A handgun or assault weapon cannot be delivered until five (5) days after the agreement to transfer is delivered to the police chief sheriff. The police may waive all or part of the seven (7) day waiting period. At the end of five (5) days, the handgun or assault weapon may be transferred if the transferor hears nothing unfavorable from the police. There is no restriction on the number of handguns or assault weapons a person may acquire as part of a single transfer report.
Once a police determination has been made that a handgun or assault weapon recipient is not prohibited from possessing a handgun or assault weapon, the recipient may, within 30 days after the determination, apply to the police chief or sheriff for a handgun or assault weapon transferee permit, and the permit shall be issued.
A person transferring a handgun or assault weapon to a person exhibiting a transferee permit or carry permit is not required to file a handgun or assault weapon transfer report.
After a determination has been made that the person receiving a handgun or assault weapon is not precluded from possessing one, the person may request that no record be kept of the fact that he is the recipient of a handgun or assault weapon. The police chief or sheriff shall sign the transfer report and return it to the person receiving the handgun or assault weapon. Thereafter, no government employee or agency shall maintain a record of the transfer that identifies the person who received the handgun or assault weapon.
The requirements of a transferee permit, permit to carry, or report of transfer and a seven (7) day waiting period do not apply to transfers between federally licensed firearm dealers or transfers of antique firearms acquired as curiosities or for their historical significance or value.
No person shall transfer a handgun or assault weapon to another who is not personally known to the transferor unless the proposed recipient presents evidence of his identity.
Each firearm dealer shall display a warning in block letters stating, “IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE OR LEAVE A LOADED FIREARM WHERE A CHILD CAN OBTAIN ACCESS.”
Colorado is the gold standard of elections. Case in point. Neither of my sons have lived with me in many years. However, they still send their election ballots to my address. I suspect the voter rolls are far from accurate in Colorado . We need the SAVE Act to pass. pic.twitter.com/OnPJGfr8A7
— Curt Webbe (@CWebbe) March 22, 2026
I don’t know about you, but just spitballing here, it looks to me like Chuck Schumer is lying.
If you read the Constitution as it was originally written, the right to bear arms was regarded as a more universal right than the right to vote, which was subject to many more restrictions than owning a firearm.
But put that fact aside for a moment and consider this compromise that should be put up to a vote in the Senate: the right to purchase a firearm in the United States should be made no more restrictive than the right to vote. Which would mean that in Minnesota, all you would need is a buddy to vouch for you, or in many states, it would require the state to send an AR-15 to every registered voter in the state, and to hand them out at polling locations.
Let’s ask Chuck Schumer whether he supports that. After all, your right to bear arms is at least as Constitutionally protected as the right to vote, so it certainly should not be restricted any more than the right to vote.
Right?
Editor’s note: If we thought our job in pushing back against the Academia/media/Democrat censorship complex was over with the election, think again. This is going to be a long fight. If you want to join the conversation in the comments — and support independent platforms — why not join our VIP Membership program? Choose VIP to support Hot Air and access our premium content, VIP Gold to extend your access to all Townhall Media platforms and participate in this show, or VIP Platinum to get access to even more content and discounts on merchandise. Use the promo code FIGHT to join or to upgrade your existing membership level today, and get 60% off!
Read the full article here
