I see this as nothing much more than Goobernor CYA

Tennessee: 2023 Special Session Convenes – Gun Control Legislation Introduced

[On the 21st] the Tennessee General Assembly convened for a Special Session at the request of Governor Bill Lee.  While the announced purpose of the session is to address public safety, there is an attempt to force through several ineffective gun control measures that were rejected by the General Assembly earlier this year.  As of this afternoon, there are numerous anti-gun bills introduced.  We urge all NRA members and Second Amendment supporters in Tennessee to contact their state senators and representatives to let them know you OPPOSE all gun control and ask them to protect your Second Amendment rights.

Below is a list of restrictive measures that have been filed.  You can view the text of each bill at Tennessee General Assembly – Bill Search.

  • House Bill 7001/Senate Bill 7068 specifies that classes that qualify as training for issuance of an enhanced handgun carry permit or concealed handgun carry permit must include training on the use of gun locks. Therefore, classes that don’t explicitly address “gun locks” would no longer be certified by the state for permitting purposes.
  • House Bill 7047/Senate Bill 7011 creates a Class E felony of threatened mass violence for the reckless handling, displaying, or discharging of a firearm while operating or as a passenger in a motor vehicle.  This legislation could seemingly sweep in conduct, such as a person or passenger moving guns around in their car in a completely non-threatening manner.  Under current Tennessee law, threatening someone with a firearm from a motor vehicle is already aggravated assault and is a Class C felony.
  • House Bill 7056/Senate Bill 7049 expands the offense of aggravated stalking to include persons who purchase a semi-automatic rifle or attempt to use a semi-automatic rifle for the course and furtherance of stalking. The legislation attempts to carve out lawful semi-automatic firearms for different treatment under the law.
  • House Bill 7074/Senate Bill 7044 & House Bill 7075/Senate Bill 7043 include several “safe storage” provisions that control how individual Tennesseans keep firearms.
  • House Bill 7079 requires a federally licensed firearm dealer to install a firearm safety device on a firearm before delivering the firearm to a purchaser if the purchaser is not a federally licensed firearm dealer.
  • House Bill 7090/Senate Bill 7040 requires the Department of Safety to use its existing permanent electronic overhead informational displays located on the interstate system to provide messages that encourage the safe storage of firearms.
  • House Bill 7098/Senate Bill 7026 establishes the Tennessee voluntary do not sell firearms list to prohibit the possession, transportation, and sale of firearms to any person who is voluntarily admitted to a public or private hospital or treatment resource for diagnosis, observation, and treatment of a mental illness or serious emotional disturbance and voluntarily registers to be enrolled to the list.
  • House Bill 7099House Bill 7100/Senate Bill 7029, & House Bill 7101/Senate Bill 7042 so-called “red flag” gun confiscation legislation requiring firearms surrender without due process.

Well, that is part of it.

For Most U.S. Gun Owners, Protection Is the Main Reason They Own a Gun
Nearly half of U.S. adults who do not currently own a gun say they could see themselves owning one in the future

Gun owners in the United States continue to cite protection far more than other factors, including hunting and sport shooting, as a major reason they own a gun.

And while a sizable majority of gun owners (71%) say they enjoy having a gun, an even larger share (81%) say they feel safer owning a gun.

A Pew Research Center survey, conducted June 5-11 among 5,115 members of the Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel, finds:

72% of U.S. gun owners say protection is a major reason they own a gun. That far surpasses the shares of gun owners who cite other reasons.

Continue reading “”

Joe Biden Boasts He Has Bypassed Congress for Gun Control More than Any Other President

On August 17, 2023, President Joe Biden boasted about the number of times he has used executive action to institute gun control that Congress did not pass.

He tweeted:

On April 8, 2021, Breitbart News reported Biden used executive gun controls that included restrictions on “ghost guns,” a push for red flag laws, recategorization of AR-15 pistols, and DOJ-led research into gun trafficking.

These controls led to an ATF-issued rule classifying “partially complete pistol frames” as firearms. That rule means a background check is now required in order to purchase certain gun parts kits.

The  same executive controls also led to an ATF-issued rule categorizing AR-pistols with stabilizer braces as short-barrel rifles. This new categorization means owners of said pistols with stabilizer braces are required to the register the firearms under the auspices of the National Firearms Act (1934).

On July 21, 2022, the White House recounted that Biden had issued 21 executive actions related to gun control and gun violence up to that point in his presidency.

On May 14, 2023, Breitbart News noted that Biden issued yet another executive order on gun control, this one directing Attorney General Merrick Garland to act where Congress has not acted and take the United States “as close as possible” to universal background checks.

Another executive gun control is anticipated late this year or early next year, in the form of an ATF-issued rule to redefine the meaning of gun dealer so as to broaden it, and thereby broaden the number of gun sales in which a background check will be required. The goal of the ATF rule will be to get as close as possible to a universal background check scenario in America.

ATF’s director says the quiet part out loud and refers to inalienable rights as a ‘privilege’

What a bizarre development in American politics that has seen the federal government cultivate and embrace a fiery disdain for the very ideals upon which itself was founded.

An item published at The Western Journal [on the 19th] reported that the ATF is intensifying its war against the pro-gun portion of the body politic; from the article:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is escalating efforts to strip gun dealers of their federal firearms licenses.

The licenses, which enable businesses to sell firearms for profit, are being revoked in increasing numbers….

The ATF has yanked 122 federal firearms licenses, or FFL’s [sic], from dealers this fiscal year alone.

That’s up from 90 in all of fiscal year 2022, and merely 27 in fiscal year 2021.

In June of 2021, Department of Injustice’s Merrick Garland announced a new “Gun Crime Prevention Strategy” which in part, focused on compliance inspections of FFL businesses. Some of the offenses which would result in “notice of [license] revocation” included:

  • Refusal to allow an IOI [Industry Operations Investigator] to conduct an inspection
  • Transferring a firearm to a prohibited person
  • Failing to conduct a required background check
  • Falsifying records
  • Failing to respond to a trace request

Now aside from the fact that the ATF has absolutely no right to exist, I know enough about the bureau to know they have one of the worst reputations out of the more than 438 federal agencies, so it’s reasonable to assume at least some of the “compliance” investigations weren’t “lawful” — as loosely as you can use that term for an agency that’s unlawfully operating. Just because the ATF calls their unreasonable searches and seizures a “request” or a compliance “inspection” doesn’t make it so; I can only wonder if 122 firearms dealers last year told federal agents to take a hike until they came back with a warrant?

According to the Western Journal article, Joe Biden’s ATF Director Steve Dettelbach said of the business owners with revoked licenses, “They’re not going to have the privilege of being a gun dealer anymore.”

Someone needs to remind Dettelbach, and every other aspiring despot in Biden’s regime, that rights come from God, not government — the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, was written to affirm this reality, and this government, this brilliant and extraordinary new government conceived in liberty and born out of a rebellion to tyrants, would guarantee that it was not a benevolent authority doling out “privileges” at it saw fit, but rather a safeguard for inalienable rights that came from a moral Authority; nothing more, and nothing less.

Of course, the Founders emphasized that human beings have a right to self-defense, or to keep and bear arms as noted in the Second Amendment, and we have a right to autonomy and privacy, or the right to be secure in our persons, houses and effects, as noted in the Fourth Amendment.

Death by bureaucracy, or regulation, is the modus operandi of the gun-grabbers. They come after the brass mines with OSHA; they use the CDC to declare “gun violence” an epidemic; they buy out reloading supplies on the market for years to come via FDA and NIH government contracts ; they choke out the points of sale with the ATF’s “Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement Policy.”

Strangely, you rarely read news stories about the ATF targeting anybody other than the gun community; it was never really about alcohol or tobacco now was it?

Another pissant wanna-be tyrant, shilling for those BloombergBucks.
But it is so nice when pictures for positive ID are provided.

the need for that assault weapon ban. Not one on the buying of weapons in the future. One on ALL military style assault weapons in American hands now. Buy them back and make the penalties so severe that no one will be tempted to keep one

We aren’t doing enough to address gun violence

C.J. Mikkelsen is a retired Lieutenant/paramedic for Dallas Fire Rescue in Dallas, Texas. He was born and raised in Michigan and is glad to be back in his home state.

CJ Mikkelsen

Mark Barden’s face looks out from my phone imploring me to contribute to Sandy Hook Promise to stop gun violence about every three minutes while
I swipe it away as soon as that five second countdown ends. But it bothers me when I do it.

Yes, I’ve contributed. “I’ve done my part,” I say to myself.
But have I? Have we, as a society?

Do we protect our most vulnerable citizens, our children, like we should?
So many of us go on ridiculous rants about drag queen story hour or share posts about the “Sound of Freedom” movie on our Facebook page. We’re all about “saving the children” as long as all it takes is a painless couple of clicks of a mouse.

Sorry, folks. I can’t let it go and fade into the background.
I know, I’ve written about gun violence and I’m supposed to have moved on to the next big topic. Something keeps bringing me back to guns. It’s either Mark Barden’s face or another tragic mass shooting or something as mind-boggling as an article about a mini-AR15 that a company is marketing to children less than eight years old.

America is, according to Everytown Research & Policy, (The Impact of Gun Violence on Children and Teens | Everytown Research & Policy) killing or maiming our children at a rate of 53 each and every day of the year.

Continue reading “”

Kyle Rittenhouse Launches Foundation Aimed At Fighting Gun Control

Kyle Rittenhouse has launched an anti-gun control nonprofit in Texas, according to a filing with the Texas Secretary of State’s office, which was first reported on by the Texas Tribune—a sign the young man who became a conservative star after being acquitted of killing two Black Lives Matter protesters in 2020, is ramping up his political activity in Texas.
Rittenhouse Conference

Rittenhouse filed with the Secretary of State on July 23 to create the Rittenhouse Foundation, a nonprofit based in Fort Worth, Texas, which aims to protect “an individual’s inalienable right to bear arms” through “education and legal assistance,” according to the filing.

Rittenhouse is listed as a director alongside Chris McNutt, president of the gun advocacy group Texas Gun Rights and Shelby Griesinger, treasurer of the Defend Texas Liberty PAC, which has financed the campaigns of right-wing candidates across the state.

The foundation’s registered agent is the law firm of Tony McDonald, a long-time legal representative of conservative organizations in Texas, including Empower Texans, a now-defunct Tea Party-aligned group that was active from 2006 to 2020 and was described by Texas Monthly in 2013 as “one of the most influential advocacy groups in Austin.”

Defend Texas Liberty and Empower Texans have been given tens of millions of dollars by Tim Dunn, Farris Wilks and Dan Wilks, conservative mega donors who’ve spent decades using their oil wealth to promote their ultraconservative causes, according to the Tribune.

Forbes has attempted to contact Rittenhouse and his foundation via the foundation’s attorney.

KEY BACKGROUND
Rittenhouse first became a household name in August 2020 when he shot three Black Lives Matter protesters, two fatally, during the aftermath of the death of George Floyd. Rittenhouse, who was 17 years old at the time, attended a racial justice protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, armed with an AR-15-style rifle with the stated goal of protecting private businesses from protesters.

After being chased into a parking lot, Rittenhouse fatally shot a man who had grabbed the barrel of his rifle. He then fatally shot another man who struck him with a skateboard, and shot and wounded a third person who subsequently pointed a handgun at him.

The incident was widely condemned by liberals, but many conservatives came to his defense. U.S. Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) and Paul Gosar (R-Arizona) both offered the then-teenager internships, and then-President Donald Trump hosted him at his Mar-a-Lago estate. In a closely-watched criminal trial in November 2021, a jury acquitted Rittenhouse of murder charges and ruled that his actions were done in self-defense. After the trial, Rittenhouse moved to Texas.

Since moving to Texas, Rittenhouse has become active in conservative politics. He has endorsed right-wing Republican political candidates including Andy Hopper, who attempted to unseat Lynn Stucky for her Denton-based seat in the state House of Representatives, and Brandon Herrera, YouTube star known for supporting gun rights, running against U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-San Antonio). He also worked with Texas Gun Rights in May to oppose a House bill that unsuccessfully tried to raise the minimum age to purchase semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21. On social media, he railed against the Texas House impeachment of state Attorney General Ken Paxton and posted messages in support of gun rights.

Biden’s DOJ Asks SCOTUS to Gut the 2nd Amendment in 67-Page Brief

In a notable development, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has submitted a significant brief (67+ pages, embedded below) to the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States of America vs. Zaki Rahimi. The focus of this case is the constitutionality of 18 USC 922 G8, which pertains to domestic violence restraining orders and their alignment with the Second Amendment.

Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, suggests that the DOJ, representing the Biden Administration, is arguing for extensive interpretation measures. The contention seems to be that the Second Amendment allows Congress and other legislative bodies the power to disarm individuals [aka “infringe”] deemed not “Law Abiding” or “responsible.” The criteria for such judgments, as outlined in the brief, could range from minor infractions like jaywalking to more serious criminal activities.

The broad implications of such an interpretation might leave a vast number of citizens without the right to keep and bear arms.

Central to the case is Zaki Rahimi’s incident from December 2019, where he allegedly assaulted his girlfriend and threatened a witness with a firearm. The event resulted in a restraining order against Rahimi in February 2020 after he ostensibly admitted to the accusations.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously held that the federal law in question in Zaki Rahimi’s case was in violation of the Second Amendment. Still, the DOJ’s arguments seem to lean heavily on connecting firearms with domestic violence, potentially setting a precedent for justifying ‘red flag’ laws. Their position leans on the Heller case from 2008, which identified the rights of “law-abiding and responsible” individuals to bear arms.

The DOJ attempts to spin its argument based on three main talking points, all taken out of legal and historical context:

  1. Previous court precedents distinguished between law-abiding citizens and those deemed otherwise.
  2. Historical precedents allowed for disarmament during the founding era, citing laws that existed during the period.
  3. Arguing that the majority of American states having similar domestic restraining orders suggests a national consensus.

Critics rightfully argue that simply because many states have implemented certain rules doesn’t automatically affirm their constitutionality.

This shocking 67-page brief from the DOJ would be a significant shift in interpreting the Second Amendment. Whether this unconstitutional human rights grab prevails will be determined by the Supreme Court in its upcoming deliberations.

Biden DOJ Legal Brief to SCOTUS in U.S. v. Rahimi

BLUF
America needs only look to the recent past to see how the federal government handles a “public health crisis.”…  The tendency of the government to assume police-state authorities is enough to warn Americans when their elected officials want to invoke a “public health crisis.”

VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS PROPOSES PUBLIC HEALTH GUN CONTROL REMEDY

Vice President Kamala Harris believes gun control is a public health issue, giving Americans more reasons to be wary of gun control efforts.

The problem is, crime isn’t a disease, as much as gun control advocates want to treat it as such. Criminal activity is a behavior and science has yet to bring about a medical remedy that prevents an individual from committing crimes. That’s not stopping Vice President Harris from tossing out debunked data, purposefully confusing suicides with criminal firearm misuse and conveniently glossing over the Biden administration’s failures to address the real problem of crime.

“I — as Vice President of the United States, I am acutely aware of the fact that gun violence is the leading cause of death of the children of America,” Vice President Harris told Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund’s Annual Gun Sense University Conference in Chicago last week. “It’s — it’s the number one cause of death — not some disease — well, although this is a form of a disease, to be sure.  Gun violence is the leading cause of death of our children.”

Continue reading “”

Someone with a verified disability could take New Joisey to the cleaners.

Deep Dive: New Jersey’s New ‘John Wick’ CCW Qualification Test

After the U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic Bruen Decision, which obliterated most state restrictions on the public carrying of arms and changed forever how lower courts should decide Second Amendment-related challenges to anti-gun regulations, many blue states seemingly tried to outdo each other with the number of unconstitutional post-Bruen tantrum laws they could pass. At this, New Jersey certainly lead the way, especially for its residents seeking to carry a defensive firearm.

Obtaining a New Jersey permit to carry was never easy. It is not easy now. Instead, it remains an expensive multi-step nightmare specifically designed to make the process as difficult as possible for the applicant.

Now, not only must New Jersians bend a knee, pay a fee and beg permission from the Crown to buy back their constitutional rights, they must also pass a difficult shooting test that was designed for police, not civilians, to prove they’re capable of exercising their constitutional rights to the government’s satisfaction.

Last month, the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police in conjunction with the state’s Attorney General, issued new requirements titled “Use of Force Interim Training for Private Citizen Concealed Carry.” The document contains written material for in-person classroom training as well as the requirements for an arduous 50-round qualification course that every concealed-carry applicant must pass.

It is easy to get lost in the minutia of the qualification standards and lose sight of the big picture: New Jersey’s concealed-carry requirements are a massive infringement of the Second Amendment, which clearly violate Bruen. Does New Jersey test other constitutional rights? Do journalists there need to demonstrate competency before writing news stories? Do clergy in the Garden State need to pass state testing before delivering a sermon? Must voters prove proficiency before they’re allowed into a booth?

Clearly, New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin and his state police sycophants want to hold gun owners to a higher standard than those who exercising other constitutional rights.

Continue reading “”

Illinois’ latest gun law is an affront to more than just the Second Amendment

Illinois’ new “Firearms Industry Responsibility Act” isn’t just an attack on our right to keep and bear arms. It’s an assault on our freedom of speech as well. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co Mark Oliva of the National Shooting Sports Foundation sits down with me to discuss the group’s newly-filed lawsuit challenging HB 218, as well as the impending ATF rule on private sales and transfers of firearms.

The NSSF’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for Southern Illinois, challenges the validity of Illinois’ new gun control law on multiple counts, starting with the argument that HB 218 is preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act. But the NSSF is also raising a First Amendment challenge, asserting that the law discriminates against speech based on its content or viewpoint and arguing that such discrimination should be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts.

The topics and views that Illinois has singled out in HB 218 do not fall into any “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech” unprotected by the First Amendment. To be sure, the First Amendment does not preclude imposing liability for false, deceptive, or otherwise “misleading” commercial speech.

But HB 218 does not even purport to target only speech that is false or misleading. It authorizes the imposition of liability for speech about a product—a product expressly protected by the Constitution, no less— even when that speech is truthful and not misleading. Indeed, the words “false,” “misleading,” and “deceptive” appear nowhere in the relevant provisions.

A manufacturer that places online advertisements containing entirely accurate specifications of its products and subsequently sells that product to a distributor, could be liable under HB 218, even if that product is fully lawful in every state in which it is sold, if a Illinois court later deems the product to have been marketed (1) in a way that “contribute[d] to a condition in Illinois that endangers the safety or health of the public,” or (2) encouraged non-servicemembers to use it for “a military-related purpose”.

“They’re trying to squelch the First Amendment rights of firearm manufacturers and retailers,” Oliva explained to me. “If they can eliminate the discussion of safe and responsible firearm ownership to the next generation, they can diminish the desire for ownership and people exercising their Second Amendment rights. So they’re trying to play the long game of eliminating the Second Amendment by eliminating and curtailing the First Amendment. And it’s important to remember that commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. It is a right for these companies to be able to advertise a constitutionally-protected product.”

In its suit, the NSSF says that the speech code established by HB 218 is so vague that it’s “virtually impossible for regulated parties to tell what speech is and is not permitted, leaving them with no realistic choice but to err on the side of refraining from exercising their First Amendment rights.”

By its terms, HB 218 renders unlawful any marketing of a firearm-related product that “create[s], maintain[s], or contribute[s] to a condition in Illinois that endangers the safety or health of the public” if it is deemed “unreasonable under all circumstances.” This restriction “will provoke uncertainty among speakers,” as such indeterminable and subjective abstractions do not articulate at all—let alone articulate with “narrow specificity”—what kind(s) of speech may later be deemed to have unreasonably contributed to a “condition … that endangers the safety or health of the public.”

Those restrictions are problematic enough, but HB 218 further prohibits marketing “in a manner that reasonably appears to support, recommend, or encourage individuals” who are not in the military “to use a firearm-related product for a military-related purpose.” The problem with this broad prohibition is that Illinois provides no guidance on what qualifies as a “military-related” purpose, leaving industry members to guess whether their marketing materials will later be deemed unlawful.

HB 218 goes on, moreover, to prohibit an industry member from “advertis[ing], market[ing], promot[ing], design[ing], or sell[ing] any firearm related product in a manner that reasonably appears to support, recommend, or encourage persons under 18 years of age to unlawfully purchase or possess or use a firearm-related product.”

A state of course may prohibit speech directly concerning unlawful conduct. But, unless this provision covers nothing more than advertisements that tell minors to buy guns (despite being minors), it is not at all clear what it means. Does any advertisement that shows minors lawfully using firearms (e.g., with a parent while hunting, or at a Boy Scouts shooting event) fall on the wrong side of the line?

What about marketing in a way targeted toward young men, who share many characteristics with those just a few years younger—but are lawfully able to purchase firearms (and serve in the armed forces)? The questions vastly outnumber the answers. And while no statute must preempt all potential complications, when it comes to a prohibition on speech, the lack of clarity is destined to create a massive chilling problem.

If HB 218 is so narrow that it only prohibits advertisements that entice juveniles into breaking the law, then this particular provision is never going to come into play in practice. If, on the other hand, the bill is written broadly enough to target manufacturers like Wee1 Tactical and its JR-15 rimfire rifle, then it’s going to make it virtually impossible to not only market but produce firearms designed for youth shooting. As Oliva says, that’s nothing more than abridging the First Amendment rights of gun makers to curb the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, and a sign of the contempt that Illinois lawmakers have for all of our individual rights.

Check out the entire conversation with Mark Oliva in the video window below, including his initial thoughts on the yet-to-be-introduced ATF rule that seeks to impose a near-universal background check system on gun sales and the dangers it poses to lawful gun owners across the country. Be sure to tune in tomorrow as well, when we’ll be talking with Jim Wallace of the Gun Owners Action League about how gun owners are pushing back on the “Lawful Citizens Imprisonment Act” and what’s happening behind the scenes at the statehouse in Boston.

I respect your second amendment.    
[leaves out the ‘but’ like they always do]

I also respect understanding ways our society works. We need to reform background checks, we need better ID scanning systems to ensure the guns don’t go into the wrong hands.

I’ll protect the American people at all cost, that starts with-
Preventing mass shootings, you don’t need an AK-47 to hunt, defend yourself or your home. You could simply defend yourself with a simple firearm.

I as your president of the United States of America, have no rights to interfere with your private life but I will protect Americans.

Respecting the Second Amendment should stand without further contradicted commentary.

Our society possesses a level of violence, and neither existing nor new gun laws will lead us to a utopian state where laws alone rectify criminal or violent actions.

Background checks have demonstrated limited effectiveness, given the rise in gun-related crimes since their introduction. Numerous mass shooters acquired firearms by providing false information on their 4473 forms (background check applications) and passing due to insufficient government scrutiny of buyers’ backgrounds.

Additionally, some potential mass shooters who harbor intentions of carrying out mass violence might lack a criminal record or documented mental health issues to identify during background checks.

Everyday criminals affiliated with gangs have no concerns about passing a background check to acquire firearms, which they then use for activities such as targeting rival gangs or engaging in various criminal acts.

Criminals frequently steal firearms or obtain them through straw purchases. The access to firearms for individuals should be a straightforward and uncomplicated procedure, without unnecessary restrictions on where they can carry those arms.

Imposing gun restrictions inadvertently empowers criminals while penalizing law-abiding citizens.

Dealing With The Panic
Familiarity with a firearm breeds competency rather than contempt, says Sheriff Jim.

In one of the rare interviews that he gave, Texas Ranger Frank Hamer said, “The one superlative thing you want to achieve is to hit your mark… Really, it is very simple. Just keep cool and take time to aim straight, and that’s all there is to it.”

In line with that, to paraphrase, Col. Jeff Cooper said that, when dealing with a violent attack is unavoidable, we should purge our minds of everything except target acquisition… front sight… press.

For us mere mortals, the real enemy is a combination of panic plus lack of ability. And, while both are serious problems, they can be overcome. We should never be surprised that something like a criminal attack is happening to us. We deal with these things by honing our skills. Continually working to improve our skills builds self-confidence and properly placed self-confidence has won many a fight.

Just about everyone has seen those targets that some folks post on social media. You know the ones, shot at 5 or 7 yards, and the pattern looks like it was shot with a shotgun instead of a handgun. Not to hurt anyone’s feelings, but a really good place to start is the basic handgun marksmanship class from the NRA. You know, just be able to stand on your hind legs and hit a target dead center, not once in a while, but most of the time. The ability to draw quickly and shoot fast has to be built upon a foundation such as this.

In my case, I began roaming the local creek with my Red Ryder BB gun and later my Winchester .22 rifle. Targets of opportunity were everywhere, and I hustled whatever paying jobs I could find to keep stocked up on ammo. In high school I joined the ROTC, not because I was enamored with the military, but because they had a smallbore rifle range in the basement and taught marksmanship. My first police job was with a department that encouraged marksmanship among the officers, and you can bet that I learned a lot there. Even today, I try to take at least one defensive shooting class per year. That commitment to continuing education definitely increased my self-confidence and helped me to deal with some serious issues over the years.

Nothing builds self-confidence like getting a good gun, buying lots of ammunition, and shooting on a regular basis. Take a basic marksmanship class if you’ve never had one or if it’s been a while since the last one. Learn to point a handgun and hit a target dead center at various ranges, not just up close. Once you can do that on a regular basis, you are ready to learn to fight with the handgun and avoid the panic that might defeat you.

GOP Senators Condemn Biden Admin’s Misapplication of Gun Control Law

A group of 19 Republican Senators led by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) sent a letter to President Biden Friday criticizing the attempt to use the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to justify withholding funds from schools that have hunting and/or archery programs.

Breitbart News reported on July 28 that Biden was blocking funds for elementary schools that had hunting and/or archery programs.

FOX News noted there are certain funds earmarked for archery and hunting programs via the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. But the Biden Administration had allegedly begun claiming that the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, secured in the summer of 2022, “[precluded] school hunting and archery classes…from receiving federal funding.”

Sen Barrasso and his colleagues explain that they opposed the gun control when it was passed and signed into law, and they oppose its use to deny funding to schools now.

Barrasso wrote: “The Biden Administration’s purposeful misinterpretation of the gun control bill is attempting to take away valuable programs from students across the country. Hunter education and archery programs are beneficial to students both in rural and urban areas.”

He and his colleagues also noted that the attack against programs for elementary school children is part of a larger animosity against hunters and archers in general: “It is now clearer than ever that the Biden Administration will use the [gun control] bill to attack the constitutional right of Americans. Hunting and archery are strongly connected to the traditions and heritage of America. This outrageous overreach is an attack on hunters and outdoor recreation that must be addressed.”

Barasso and his colleagues called on the Biden Administration to do an about-face on blockage of funding: “We call on the Biden Administration to immediately withdraw the guidance and support these essential programs.”

On Friday Breitbart News noted Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R) fired back at the Biden Administration for withholding money from elementary schools in his state, noting that the woke leftists who defunded the police are now defunding school hunting and archery programs.

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
— Patrick Henry

Orthodox Jewish camp in Schoharie County sues to keep its guns in place
Administrators at TheZone summer camp have concealed-carry permits and are requesting an injunction to a new state law

GILBOA — New York’s gun rights activists are a diverse lot, ranging from rural hunters and Second Amendment supporters to Black pastors in urban churches who say they want to protect their flocks from armed white supremacists.

Now, the operators of an Orthodox Jewish summer camp have joined the gun rights debate, with a lawsuit seeking an injunction that, despite a contested state law, would let them continue to be armed for self-defense.

Eliyohu Mintz, CEO of TheZone summer camp, and camp Administrator Eric Schwartz cited numerous anti-Semitic threats as a reason they should be allowed to continue to carry concealed weapons despite a recent tightening of state gun control laws.

“New York State’s fabrication of ‘gun free’ zones through the enactment of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act in 2022 calculatedly leaves our most vulnerable people — children — defenseless and at the mercy of violent and predatory evildoers,” reads a legal action seeking an injunction against the new rule.

Mintz and Schwartz, who both have concealed-carry gun licenses, have gone to Federal Northern District Court seeking permission to keep carrying their guns at the summer camp.

In their injunction request, they name Schoharie County District Attorney Susan Mallery; Sheriff Ronald Stevens and Steven Nigrelli, the acting State Police superintendent, as defendants.

Oorah Gun Case by rkarlin on Scribd