Total Permitless Carry in Oklahoma becomes active today.

House Bill 2597 was the first bill Governor Stitt has signed into law since he was elected Oklahoma’s 28th governor.

…………….except this section shall not prohibit:

6. The carrying of a firearm, concealed or unconcealed, loaded
or unloaded, by a person who is twenty-one (21) years of age or older or by a person who is eighteen (18) years of age but not yet twenty-one (21) years of age and the person is a member or veteran of the United States Armed Forces, Reserves or National Guard or was discharged under honorable conditions from the United States Armed Forces, Reserves or National Guard, and the person is otherwise not disqualified from the possession or purchase of a firearm under state or federal law and is not carrying the firearm in furtherance of a crime.

Keeping one’s eyes and ears open (intelligence gathering) for the crap-for-brains anti-gun/anti-civil rights BS in the media is a good habit.

The Indiana Daily Student (IDS) is an independent, student-run newspaper that has been published for the community of Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, so we see the quality of education the college students are getting these days. i.e. Leftist claptrap.

This is nothing more than a re-iteration of a racist smear on the people of the U.S. who choose to exercise a enumerated right.
Just to make it easy for everyone to send this fallacious letter to the trashcan:

Everywhere else in the Bill of Rights where “the right of the people” is used it is expounding on an individual right as ruled by the Federal courts.

That that author attempts to deny that the Second Amendments doesn’t protect an individual right when it has that exact terminology used is more than risible, it’s blatant redefinition and mendacity.
If true it would mean those other ‘rights of the people’, already defined as individual rights aren’t either.


the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment 1

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment 4.

One point to make clear..No amendment in the Bill of Rights gives the U.S. citizenry anything, The document was demanded by “…the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added” as a restriction on government. A “these are ‘hands off’ to you” .

The only ‘threat’ gun ownership poses is to those people- and their lackeys as seen here – who seek power and control over the free people of the U.S. That’s why you see these types of deceptive letters being posted.

It is necessary to understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment

The interpretation of the Second Amendment commonly accepted by many Americans is that the right to bear arms is necessary to maintain freedom against a tyrannical government. However, when looking back at the historical context of why the amendment was passed, it is painfully obvious this was far from the intent of the founders.

The Second Amendment’s original intent was the disbanding of standing armies because they were viewed as a threat to a stable government. Following a war, the army would be forced to disband, forming local militia groups in their states.

This actually served to protect the government against a hostile takeover by a standing army rather than to empower the people to fight against a tyrannical government, the exact opposite of how many interpret the amendment.

Militias were regulated by the states and southern militias were referred to as slave patrols. In Georgia, for example, all white plantation owners or their white male employees were required by law to join the Georgia militia, making regular inspections of slaves’ quarters to prevent uprisings.

The main concern at the time to many southern slaveholders like George Mason and Patrick Henry was that the proposed constitution’s general welfare clause (Article 1, Section 8) could be interpreted to eventually free the slaves.

The general welfare clause included giving the federal government the power the supervise and regulate the militias. This worried slaveholders due to the possibility that federal militias could absorb state militias, causing them to no longer be slavery-enforcing institutions.

There was precedent for thisconcept in the lead-up to the revolutionary war during which slaves were offered freedom in exchange for fighting for the British army.

To compromise with slave states, at the command of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison changed the original draft of the Second Amendment from reading “a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country” to “free state,” to be sure there was zero ambiguity as to the state’s right to regulate state militias.

So, to be clear, the Second Amendment was enacted to disband standing armies and to allow slave states to regulate slave patrols in order to enforce and maintain the institution of slavery. Nothing to do with fending off a tyrannical government.

Until the famous court case District of Columbia v. Heller, it was understood that the right to bear arms was primarily endowed to militias, including state defense forces and the National Guard.

This case redefined the right to bear arms to be expanded to individuals, interpreting “militia” to include all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to serve in one.

This controversial case was a turning point in how the Second Amendment was interpreted with regard to self-defense and non-military gun ownership rights, overturning decades of jurisprudence on Second Amendment cases.

Now that the legal interpretation of the Second Amendment has completely changed to individual gun rights, gun ownership has become a constitutional issue rather than a political issue like it had been previously.

Unfortunately, overturning District of Columbia v. Heller is extremely unlikely and would have little effect on gun legislation.

Now that individual gun ownership rights have been grounded in judicial precedent, there will likely continue to be the endless expansion of gun rights by gun anarchists in groups like the National Rifle Association.

The intention of the Second Amendment was never to bolster individual gun ownership rights, rather it was specifically passed to protect the federal government from a military coup and to prolong the institution of slavery.

By shifting the legal interpretation of the amendment to non-military gun ownership, this strays greatly from the main reasons the amendment was passed to begin with.

The U.S. today is plagued with substantial gun violence, and strengthening individual gun ownership rights and accessibility is proven to lead to more violence.

The U.S. cannot keep following this path of universal gun accessibility. It is a threat to public safety, and it was not the founders’ intention in the slightest.

Pence: Democrats Dropped Gun Control For Impeachment

Vice President Mike Pence said congressional Democrats abandoned reforms on gun control, health care and opioid abuse in favor of impeaching President Donald Trump.

Pence, speaking in a wide-ranging Monday interview with PBS’ Judy Woodruff, said Democrats have chosen a “reckless pursuit of impeachment” rather than potential progress on bipartisan domestic reforms. Pence said the Trump administration was working with both Republicans and Democrats over the summer to come up with changes to gun laws and combating opioid addiction. But Democratic leaders including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Pence said, decided to “spend all their political capital on investigations” he described as meaningless political impeachment fights.

Gun Owners of America filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit, defending standard capacity magazines in the Duncan v. Becerra case.

California state law bans any magazine that can hold over ten rounds. But in March, a district court judge blocked the law from going into effect. Not long after, California appealed the decision to the full Ninth Circuit Court. Now the 9th circuit has long been called the ‘9th Circus’ due to its many wacko rulings that were later overturned by the Supreme Court and also its noted anti-gun rulings, but things have changed. Almost 1/2 the court has been replaced during President Trumps first term in office and the new justices are noted by the Federalist Society as being a lot more attuned to citizen’s rights protected by the Bill of Rights.

We refute several anti-gun arguments in our brief, including the idea that the Second Amendment does not apply to so-called “military-style” firearms. For example:

The Second Amendment protects first and foremost the right to self-defense — not just against petty criminals, but against governments, both foreign and domestic. In order to combat foreign aggression or domestic tyranny, military-grade arms are, as the framers understood, “necessary to the security of a free State.”

GOA Amicus Brief-Duncan v Becerra


Judge Tosses Pittsburgh Gun Laws Passed After Massacre

There’s a reason state legislatures passed preemption laws about guns and some other things. They had had enough of cities creating a patchwork of laws that were designed for nothing more than to harass people the politicians didn’t like.

A judge on Tuesday struck down gun restrictions that the Pittsburgh City Council imposed after last year’s synagogue massacre, noting that Pennsylvania state law forbids municipalities from regulating firearms.

Pittsburgh’s trio of gun ordinances violate state law and are therefore “void and unenforceable,” Allegheny County Judge Joseph James ruled.

State law has long prohibited municipalities from regulating the ownership or possession of guns or ammunition, and Pennsylvania courts have thrown out previous municipal attempts at regulation.

“We are extremely pleased with Judge James’ decision today striking down the City of Pittsburgh’s unlawful firearm ordinances and signage, which only sought to eviscerate the inviolate right of the residents of the Commonwealth to keep and bear arms and ensnare law-abiding citizens through a patchwork of laws,” said attorney Joshua Prince, who represents Firearms Owners Against Crime and other groups that sued to overturn the measures.

City officials vowed an appeal.

Pittsburgh “will continue to fight for the right to take commonsense steps to prevent future gun violence,” said Timothy McNulty, a spokesman for Democratic Mayor Bill Peduto.

The gun restrictions were passed in April after a mass shooting at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life Synagogue that killed 11 worshippers. The ordinances would have restricted military-style assault weapons like the AR-15 rifle authorities say was used in the attack. It also banned most uses of armor-piercing ammunition and high-capacity magazines, and allowed the temporary seizure of guns from people who are determined to be a danger to themselves or others.

The overwhelmingly Democratic council passed the legislation, and Peduto signed off. Council members who voted no called the legislation a waste of time and money, given the uncertainty over whether it would ever go into effect. Supporters said it was worth the effort.

The city “expended a large amount of energy” arguing that its new laws did not run afoul of state law, the judge noted, but city officials “are not able to avoid the obvious intent of the Legislature” to prevent municipalities from enforcing their own gun laws.

Pittsburgh tried enforcing an assault-weapons ban in 1993, but the state Legislature quickly took action to invalidate the measure, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that city officials had overstepped.

The Gun Grabbers Mislead Us

Gun control did not become politically acceptable until the Gun Control Act of 1968 signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

The law’s primary focus was to regulate commerce in firearms by prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers.

Today’s gun control advocates have gone much further, calling for an outright ban of what they call assault rifles such as the AR-15.

By the way, AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, which is manufactured by Colt Manufacturing Co. As for being a military assault weapon, our soldiers would be laughed off the battlefield carrying AR-15s.

Let’s look at some FBI statistics on homicide and then you can decide how many homicides would be prevented by a ban on rifles. The FBI lists murder victims by weapon from 2014 to 2018 in its 2018 report on crime in the United States. It turns out that slightly over 2% (297) out of a total of 14,123 homicides were committed with rifles.

A total of 1,515 or 11% of homicides were committed by knives. Four hundred and forty-three people were murdered with a hammer, club, or some other bludgeoning instrument. Six hundred and seventy-two people were murdered by a hand, foot, or fist. Handguns accounted for the most murders—6,603.

What these statistics point out clearly is that the so-called assault weapons ban and mandatory buy-back plan, which Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke and others call for, will do little or nothing to bring down homicides. More homicides could be prevented by advocating knife control, hammer control, and feet and fist control.

Gun controllers’ belief that “easy” gun availability is our problem ignores U.S. history. Guns were far more readily available yesteryear. One could mail order a gun from Sears or walk into a hardware store or a pawnshop to make a purchase.

With truly easy gun availability throughout our history, there was nowhere near the mayhem and mass murder that we see today. Here’s my question to all those who want restrictions placed on gun sales: Were the firearms of yesteryear better behaved than those same firearms are today?

That’s really a silly question; guns are inanimate objects and have no capacity to act. Our problem is a widespread decline in moral values that has nothing to do with guns. That decline includes disrespect for those in authority, disrespect for oneself, little accountability for anti-social behavior, and a scuttling of religious teachings that reinforce moral values.

Dave Chappelle: Second Amendment ‘Is Just in Case the First One Doesn’t Work Out’
The comedian received the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor at the Kennedy Center in D.C. this weekend. His acceptance speech airs on PBS in January.

In what he said was an unscripted acceptance speech on Sunday night, comedian Dave Chappelle continued his recent campaign against cancel culture—while openly defying a smoking ban and defending the right to bear arms too.

Chappelle was fêted on Sunday night in Washington, D.C., as this year’s recipient of the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, a lifetime achievement award bestowed annually by the Kennedy Center. Known for his irreverent and boundary-pushing sketch comedy show and standup routines, Chappelle has never shied away from an opportunity to eviscerate political correctness for laughs. Sunday’s event was no different, according to media reports.

“It’s the best part of the First Amendment to me that I’m able to express myself this way and make a viable living doing it,” Chappelle told NPR prior to going on stage Sunday night………….

Saying that he knows comedians who are “very racist” in their jokes, Chappelle asked everyone listening to please chill.

“Don’t get mad at ’em, don’t hate on ’em,” Chappelle said Sunday. “Man, it’s not that serious. The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the first one doesn’t work out.”

Superior Court Judge Strikes Down Seattle Gun Storage Ordinance

Superior Court Judge Anita Farris struck down Seattle’s gun storage ordinance Monday, ruling it violates the state’s 36-year-old preemption law.
Preemption laws exist in various states around the union. They forbid cities and other localities from passing gun controls that exceed those which exist at the state level.

The suit in which Judge Farris ruled was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association, together with three private citizens, Brett Bass, Curtis McCullough and Swan Seaberg. It rested on a claim the gun storage law of 2018 violated preemption.

Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb said, “Judge Farris’ ruling confirms what we’ve argued all along, that under the state preemption law, first adopted in 1983 and strengthened in 1985, the Legislature has sole authority over firearms regulation in the state.”

Gottlieb explained:

Michael Bloomberg’s gun control lobbying group has been supporting similar restrictive local laws all over the country. This victory will help stop this across the country. Preemption uniformity was a good idea in the 1980s and it is still the most commonsense way to deal with firearms regulation. What is the law in one part of a state should be the law in all parts of that state.

Pending appeal, Farris’ ruling will result in a permanent injunction against the gun storage ordinance.

Controversial Gun Rights Activist Returns To Ghost Gun Project After Sex-Crime Plea Deal
Announces new, faster Ghost Gun mill

Gun-rights activist Cody Wilson told the Washington Free Beacon he will be returning to Defense Distributed, a company that manufactures machines that make gun parts, after striking a plea deal in his sex-crime case

Wilson said he was invited back by Paloma Heindorff, who took over the company after Wilson was arrested in 2018 for paying an underage girl for sex. He also said that the company would be launching a new Ghost Gunner milling machine designed to help manufacture firearm parts on a DIY and small-business scale.

Wilson’s return will put him back at the center of the legal battle over homemade firearms — and just how far Second Amendment protections extend. He has for years now been at the center of several lawsuits seeking to curtail the distribution of firearms blueprints online.

His new brainchild will produce finished gun parts for popular firearms like the AR-15 and 1911 using basic templates and raw materials but will work faster than previous models — and manufacture steel AK-47 parts as well.

“It’s got twice the build volume,” Wilson told the Free Beacon in an interview. “It supports the AK-47 now. It has a variable frequency drive … It’s a totally different animal.”

Preorders for the Ghost Gunner 3 began on Wednesday.

Wilson described it as the ideal iteration of the mini-CNC machine. “It took us five years to figure it all out,” he said. “But, you know, if we had like an unlimited time and budget to design this machine, this is what this would look like. Only like six parts, I think, are carried over from the previous generation. It’s completely rebuilt.”

The company hopes to begin shipping the new machines by January.

Wilson and Defense Distributed have been at the center of a series of federal lawsuits since Wilson’s invention of a firearm design made mostly of 3D-printed material, as well as his subsequent publishing of that and other firearm designs on the internet. He has been a leader in the battle to maintain the right to share gun designs over the Internet.

California struggles to keep illegal guns and ammunition from crossing state lines

Even the tab of the LA Times story calls this what it is:
Undercover agents infiltrate gun shows
“California officials, spying on citizens, then having the CHP fabricate a cause for a stop smacks of a 4th Amendment violation.”

SACRAMENTO — Ten special agents from the California Department of Justice were watching as a man walked out of the Big Reno Show and placed his purchases in his car.

The black Isuzu with California plates headed west on Interstate 80 into the Sierra Nevada, eventually crossing the Nevada state line. That’s when the California Highway Patrol pulled Vincent Huey over. Inside the vehicle, state Justice Department agents found 18 high-capacity magazines, some capable of holding 30 rounds, according to court records.

Cornyn rolls out gun plan focused on mental health; foes demand broader background checks and ammo limits
The Texas senator unveiled the bill in response to shooting sprees in El Paso and Odessa in August.

WASHINGTON — Sen. John Cornyn announced legislation Wednesday that he says would curb mass shootings, after an especially bloody summer in Texas and across the country.

The plan includes none of the steps demanded by gun control activists, such as universal background checks, letting courts confiscate guns from people deemed violent, or more controversial measures aimed at curbing access to assault-style weapons or high capacity ammunition magazines.

Instead, it focuses on finding ways to help police and educators identify adults and students who might turn violent, and expanding access to mental health treatment.

“People have come up with a lot of ideas” but without enough political support and no chance of winning the president’s signature “they don’t count for much,” Cornyn said, addressing criticism that he’s not going far enough…………….

Cornyn dubs his new bill the RESPONSE Act (Restoring, Enhancing, Strengthening, and Promoting Our Nation’s Safety Efforts). He said it would prevent future attacks by giving law enforcement new tools such as:

  • Clarifying legal protection for internet service providers that share information with police about mass violence, hate crimes and domestic terrorism.
  • Speeding executions under state law by limiting appeals in federal court for people convicted of mass murder.
  • Creating and funding state and local task forces to bolster prosecution of illegal gun sales by unlicensed dealers, or by sellers who falsify background checks.

Kennewick woman needs 300k signatures to repeal I-1639

Hey Phat One! Help get word of this out.

KENNEWICK, Wash. — A Second Amendment advocate from Tri-Cities is gathering signatures to repeal initiative 1639.

Radona Devereaux tells Action News she worked with a number of gun-advocate groups to assemble the final initiative.

Now she says they need nearly 300 thousand signatures from registered Washington voters before Saturday, Dec. 28, 2019.

From there, Devereaux says the petitions go to Olympia to get certified and if everything checks out we could be voting on a repeal next November.

She’s urging folks across the state to get involved.

“Use your voice, vote. Sign a petition,” Deveraux says. “If you didn’t participate in the last election, because there was a really low voter-turnout, get educated. Sign the petition and get a second chance.”

She encourages Tri-Citians to be on the lookout for fluorescent signs on street corners this weekend.

According to Devereaux, gun rights advocates across the state are working to gather signatures, including a number of local businesses.

If you’d like to review the initiative and sign your name, or you know someone who wants to gather signatures, she says B & B Express Printing in Kennewick has the PDF.

BOTTOM LINE: Teachers who wish to carry guns and pass all requirements should be able to

WASHINGTON (SBG) – The State of Florida recently joined eight other states in allowing some teachers, staff, and coaches to carry guns in schools.

This effort in Florida is called the Guardian program. School districts can opt-out and teachers are not required to carry guns.

Those who do want to carry a gun have to apply, pass a background check, a psychological evaluation, and complete more than 140 hours of training.

Critics of the program worry about both how effective it will be and about its safety. I believe that school safety is an unsolved problem that requires bold solutions.

We have tried making schools gun-free zones and that clearly has not worked. The Guardian program makes sense. We trust teachers to care for our children.

And if some teachers who feel comfortable and satisfy extensive requirements want to step up and protect our kids, we should thank and celebrate them.

According to the FBI, in the five years between 2014 and 2018, there were at least 19 instances of citizens stopping or repelling active shooters.

That shows that responsible, armed Americans are able to stand up to the evil in our society.

Here’s the Bottom Line: For me as a parent school safety is not just an issue, it is the issue. Enlisting the help of properly trained and credentialed teachers in keeping our kids safe in school is good, common sense.


BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to review a case challenging the State of Illinois’ ban on concealed carry by non-residents, asserting that without high court review, “virtually all Americans will be deprived of their full Second Amendment rights while in the State of Illinois, based on nothing more than their state of residence.”

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), Illinois Carry and nine private citizens. They are represented by attorney David Sigale of Glen Ellyn, Ill., a veteran of Second Amendment cases in Illinois and elsewhere.

“This is a case that literally begs for Supreme Court attention,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “When the Court ruled in the 2008 Heller case that the Second Amendment protected a fundamental right, it was clear that this right belongs to everyone, not just the residents of an individual state. The Seventh Circuit held in Moore v. Madigan that the carrying of firearms in public for self-defense is a fundamental right, but under existing Illinois restrictions, that right has been limited to Illinois residents and citizens from only four other states.

“All the plaintiffs in this case are asking for is to be treated equally to Illinois residents,” he added. “They’re not asking for special treatment. They will take the training required by state law and abide by all the other rules.”

ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson added, “It is unfair that people from out of state cannot get an Illinois concealed carry license. We intend to remedy that.”


Jefferson and Sevier Counties added to the list of Tennessee ‘gun sanctuaries.’

Commissioners in Jefferson County said it was important to them and members of the community to show support for the Second Amendment.

JEFFERSON COUNTY, Tenn. — Jefferson and Sevier Counties are now considered “gun sanctuaries.”  They join Monroe, Blount and Loudon Counties who previously passed similar resolutions.

Both counties passed the Second Amendment gun sanctuary resolutions Monday night at their county commission meetings. This comes after the Town of Dandridge passed a similar resolution earlier in October.

Commissioners in Jefferson County said it was important to them and members of the community to show support for the Second Amendment.

Stewart Harris, who spoke to 10News from WETS-FM in Johnson City before his weekly radio show, is a constitutional law professor at LMU Duncan School of Law. He said becoming a sanctuary city or county is more of a political statement than a constitutional statement.

He said states, counties and even towns making the move to become gun sanctuaries has picked up traction in the last couple of years.

“They will decide they are concerned about gun control laws being imposed by some other jurisdiction,” Harris said.

Harris explained the Second Amendment and right to bear arms only kicks in when the government tries to restrict your gun rights.

“In a state like Tennessee, it’s very unlikely that will happen, but we’re really not talking about a constitutional issue, we’re talking about a political decision from the people of these counties,” Harris noted.

It’s more like insurance.

For instance, One of the sponsors of the sanctuary resolution in Jefferson County, Todd Kesterson, said in a statement:

“We are seeing how many politicians on the Federal level are working toward gun confiscation in efforts to skew or change how the 2A reads. We feel like our freedoms are under attack and wanted to join several of our surrounding counties in letting the State and Federal Governments know that we disagree with these efforts.”

The resolution states the county will not provide resources toward any actions or mandates that infringe on the people’s right to bear arms. But, Harris said the cities or counties cannot get in the way of federal law.