No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.
— James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses

Real Reasons Gun Owners Should Be Worried About Flock

Technology can be a wonderful thing, but the problem with tech is that engineers are often so preoccupied with whether they could, they don’t stop to ask if they should. Yeah, that was paraphrased from a bit about scientists in Jurassic Park, but the real monsters we have today are things like Flock cameras.

There are times when I think I’m wearing the tinfoil hat being concerned about these things, but then I spend half a heartbeat and remember that, at least in this, I have rational concerns.

And I’m not the only one. You should have them, too.

The increasing prevalence of surveillance cameras, especially the automated license plate readers operated by Flock Safety and its competitors, has raised privacy concerns across the country. The concern is not limited to gun owners, but many are particularly worried about cameras at gun ranges and gun shops that have the potential to track them specifically–possibly even to create de facto registries of gun owners.

The cameras don’t only record license plates, notes Taylor Rhodes, executive director and vice president of the National Association for Gun Rights. “They log make, color, body type, any accessories you have on your vehicle…it tracks bumper stickers,” he told The Reload. “How many gun group stickers are on the back of cars? How many Glock stickers are on trucks?”

“The state can ask for everyone who has been to this shooting range, this gun store,” he said, and then “they have a de facto list of gun owners.”

Maybe not a complete list, but more than close enough to be concerning.

It’s one thing to know that there’s a digital record of you going to a website to buy ammo. It’s another to go in person and be tracked without your knowledge or consent.

Yes, it’s in public, but when you’ve got cameras on every street corner that are tracking me from my house to the store and back, we’ve got a problem.

Moreover, Rhodes’s comments are far from the totality of the issue. In pro-gun Florida, they have a bigger issue.

Flock Safety, which advertises its license plate readers in conjunction with gunshot detection devices, did not respond to The Reload‘s request for comment on the use of its cameras at shooting ranges or gun stores, but Central Florida has become a recent hotspot in the debate over the practice. There, residents outraged by Flock cameras at the entrance to an Ocala shooting range took to social media in protest. Someone apparently took things a step further by vandalizing the cameras, the vestiges of which were later removed.

The state Commission on Fish and Wildlife operates the public range on federal forest land. The agency did not respond to The Reload‘s requests for comment on why the cameras were installed or removed, but confirmed to the Daytona Beach News-Journal that it was investigating the vandalism. Residents have also posted video of cameras at a range operated by the agency in Osceola, where they reported someone also removed the Flock cameras.

“At the gun range the only thing they can track is gun owners, that driveway goes nowhere else,” Patrick McGeehan, a Daytona Beach criminal defense attorney and former homicide detective for the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office, told The Reload. He is one of the residents who first posted about the presence and destruction of the cameras at the Ocala gun range.

“I want to know what data they are collecting, how they are using that data, who accesses that data, is it being used to train AI, what is the commercial value of that data,” McGeehan said.

Yeah, I’m with McGeehan here. This is a massive red flag because, as noted, the only thing they can track is gun owners. There’s apparently nothing else that way that could be tracked. This isn’t looking for poachers on state land. This is tracking the lawful activities of people exercising their constitutionally protected rights.

I want to know just what they’re looking for.

Because even if it’s above board, there are issues.

Recently, in Franklin County, NC, Detective Janet Leonard was fired after Sheriff Kevin White learned via an internal audit that Leonard was reportedly tracking every movement of a private citizen who wasn’t a suspect in any crime. White made the right call and suspended the use of Flock cameras in the county, but this is one of the issues with Flock.

It’s not whether or not they’re intended for such a use; it’s that they can be used for such a use.

For gun owners, that’s an even bigger problem, because Leonard didn’t (allegedly) have to do all that much to track a single person. Neither did any of the other people who have been fired for misusing these cameras, including at least five in my city. What makes it a bigger problem is that these cameras are pointing toward gun stores, gun ranges, and capture all of those stickers on the back of cars, such as those reading “NRA Lifetime Member” or “Gun Owners of America,” to say nothing of the various brand decals.

Plus, there are always the Punisher skulls, the military service stickers, and so on, which can all paint a picture of who is behind the wheel.

If ever there was a time to really work at being a gray man, now is it.

This November, Few States Have As Much At Stake in Terms of Gun Rights as Wisconsin

Wisconsin’s unresolved gun control debates return to the spotlight as the November 3rd election creeps closer. As legislative candidates are surveyed on Second Amendment issues, the state’s open race for governor and legislative elections are all drawing attention due to candidates’ competing views on lawfully exercising the Second Amendment, the firearm industry, background checks and firearm possession altogether.

The stakes extend beyond campaign positions. Wisconsin’s next governor and legislature will determine which proposals receive consideration in 2027, with serious implications for gun owners, firearm retailers, manufacturers and shooting ranges.

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.) and Democrat Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley are competing to succeed Gov. Tony Evers as the first new governor in the Badger State since 2019. Gov. Evers is not seeking another term.

Different Approaches to Firearm Policy

The candidates bring a stark contrast in different policy records to the governor’s race.

Rep. Tiffany has been a staunch supporter of Second Amendment rights and has a long track record to prove it. In fact, not only did NSSF award Rep. Tiffany an A+ grade on the 2026 NSSF Congressional Report Card, but he was also distinguished for going above and beyond and being named to the Dean’s List. He’s supported concealed carry reciprocity and opposed federal legislation expanding background check requirements. His congressional record also includes opposition to legislation pushing states to establish extreme risk protection orders, or so-called “red flag” laws. Conversely, the National Rifle Association has given County Executive Crowley an “F” rating, in part due to his full-throated support for universal background checks that establish a private firearm ownership registry, ERPOs and additional firearm storage requirements.

These opposing views reflect disagreements over the appropriate scope of firearm regulation. Supporters of additional restrictions argue that they can help prevent firearm-related violence. Opponents raise concerns about constitutional protections, due process rights, the deleterious effects additional requirements have on lawful firearm ownership and the fact that these requirements are ineffective in improving public safety because criminals ignore them.

The governor’s authority to sign or veto legislation makes those differences consequential, as Wisconsin’s next administration is set to inherit gun control preferences and questions that remained unresolved during Gov. Evers’ tenure.

Concealed Carry and Background Checks

Wisconsin’s 2025–26 legislative session illustrates the clash between freedom and gun control.

Republican lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 607 and Assembly Bill 609 in October 2025. The companion measures proposed eliminating the general requirement that otherwise eligible individuals obtain a state license before carrying a concealed firearm. The legislation also proposed eliminating some existing restrictions governing firearm possession and carrying in specified locations.

Assembly Bill 609 received a public hearing in January 2026, however, neither measure passed before the session ended on March 23, leaving Wisconsin’s existing concealed carry licensing requirements in effect.

The distinction is significant. Eliminating the licensing requirement would change the legal conditions under which eligible residents may carry concealed firearms and affect the role of the state’s existing licensing and training system.

Gov. Evers has for years advocated for universal background checks and extreme risk protection orders. Those proposals would expand existing requirements for certain firearm transfers and establish a process for courts to confiscate firearms when specified legal standards are met. There are concerns about the accused receiving proper due process rights and to get their firearms returned them quickly, if warranted. These ERPO laws raise separate questions about evidentiary standards, judicial procedures and opportunities to contest restrictions.

Wisconsin, and federal law, already requires background checks for purchases from licensed firearm retailers. But universal background check legislation would extend those requirements to additional private transfers, subject to the exceptions contained in any enacted law. Like usual, supporters of universal background checks and the gun ownership registry they require maintain that these measures could help prevent violence. Critics question their effectiveness and whether the proposed procedures adequately protect constitutional rights. After all, no criminal is submitting to a private background check when he or she illegally steals a gun or buys one on the black market.

The practical effects would depend on the precise legislation adopted. Additional transfer requirements could affect firearm purchasers and retailers, while court-ordered restrictions would establish new responsibilities for courts and law enforcement.

The Firearm Industry Has a Stake

Wisconsin’s gun control debate also reaches the established manufacturing and sporting industry. Henry Repeating Arms announced in 2025 that it would relocate all manufacturing operations from New Jersey to Wisconsin. The announcement underscored the state’s role in the national firearm manufacturing sector.

NSSF’s 2025 economic impact report estimates Wisconsin’s firearm and ammunition industry supported 8,735 jobs and generated more than $2.15 billion in total economic activity. Those figures provide context for proposals affecting lawful firearm commerce, manufacturing and recreational sport shooting. Regulatory changes can carry consequences beyond individual firearm owners, including compliance obligations for businesses and the availability of products and services. As seen often in recent years, firearm industry businesses won’t think twice about relocating away from an unfriendly, confrontational state regulatory environment to sunnier skies in another state that values them and respects the Second Amendment.

Wisconsin’s next legislature will determine which proposals receive hearings, amendments and floor consideration. The next governor will decide whether legislation that reaches his desk becomes law.

Wisconsin’s 2026 elections will not settle every question surrounding gun control or Second Amendment rights. They will determine who holds the authority to address those policy questions when the legislature reconvenes in 2027.

That is the central significance of the Nov. 3 election for Wisconsin’s firearm owners, firearm industry businesses and the hunting and sporting heritage community.

Fort Lauderdale- Armed Renter Stops Two Armed Burglars

The news gave us a scoreboard. The useful part is what the news left out.

Around six in the evening, an hour before sunset, two armed men broke into a Fort Lauderdale home. The home was rented as a bed and breakfast. The neighborhood is older single-family homes set apart from one another. One later report said the attackers had an AR-style rifle. Neighbors heard as many as ten gunshots.

The resident fought the older burglar, then shot the younger burglar in the upper torso. Both burglars ran. The defender called 911. He stayed at the scene and talked to police. Officers followed a blood trail and found the wounded attacker nearby. He was 18. He went to surgery and was listed in stable but critical condition. The second attacker, 25-years-old, has a criminal record as an adult. He was identified, located, and arrested. Both attackers face charges of home-invasion and attempted aggravated murder.

That is the official story. It tells you who lived, who was arrested, and who was charged. It is not enough if you keep a gun at home and treat that as a plan.

The fight we didn’t see

Was the defender already armed when the door was kicked in, or did he have to fight his way to a firearm? Those are two different evenings.

If the gun was on him, the defender could have used it from cover. He did not have to introduce himself or stand in a doorway and offer himself as a target. Armed men who kicked in your front door are not dropping off Christmas cookies.

If the defender’s gun was in another room, the defender had to first survive a fight with two armed strangers. That is the plan that most “I have a gun at home” households are built around. That is the plan that few of us practice. Is that the best plan you have?

There is more we want to know. When did the defender start shooting and when did he stop? Neighbors heard a lot of gunfire. In most states, lethal force is legally justified only while you face an immediate threat of death or grave injury. When the threat ends, so does the justification for using lethal force. Two men with guns in their hands are definitely a threat.

Hope is not a strategy

It sounds decent to shout a warning and hope your armed attackers run away. Let’s ask a colder question. If they meant to flee at the first sign of an occupant, then why did each of the burglars bring a gun with them?

Criminals carry firearms to take what they want. You keep a firearm so you are still alive when the police arrive.

Two questions worth asking tonight

You do not need a new hobby. You need honest answers that fit your situation. Most armed defense happens in your house or on your property.

  • When the front door fails, can you reach a gun without walking into a fight?
  • After shots are fired, do you know what you will say to 911 and then to the police?

This defender lived. The attackers were caught. That is a good night compared with the alternatives. It is not a reason to feel finished. Owning a firearm is not the same as being ready. Please look at your own house before someone else does.

Well, Biden was senile even then, so…..

Joe Biden Said “You Couldn’t Buy a Cannon.” Wrong.

He said the Second Amendment limited the people and the weapons they could own. The text limits the government. A letter of marque took private cannon as given.

On June 23, 2021, in the State Dining Room, he said: “The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.”

That is the claim. The Amendment limited the people. It limited the cannon.

The text does the opposite.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Shall not be infringed is a limit on the government. It is not a menu of who may own what. The Constitution does not grant rights. It does not hand the people a list and cross the cannon off.

What the founding record shows

Jonathan Goldstein, The Militia of the Sea: The Marque and Reprisal Clause as Textual Proof of Private Heavy-Arms Ownership at the Founding (SSRN 7195398, written July 28, 2026; last revised August 13, 2026), reads that claim against the Constitution’s own text.

People could own cannons. That is the point.

Article I, section 8, clause 11 lets Congress “grant letters of marque and reprisal.” A letter of marque authorizes a private citizen to fight in his own ship, with his own cannon. Goldstein: “A license presupposes what it licenses. The Clause takes a privately owned, cannon-armed fleet as given; nothing in the Constitution creates it.” His word “license” means the commission. It is not a carry permit.

Congress issued on the order of 1,700 privateering commissions in the Revolution, voyage by voyage, before the Constitution was ratified. The commission licensed the fight. It did not issue the guns. “The private citizen needed a federal commission to fight. He needed no one’s leave to acquire the guns or to keep them.”

The keep-rule is on the government

Article I, section 10, clause 3 says no state shall, without Congress’s consent, “keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace.”

That keep-rule is on the sovereign. Goldstein: “The Framers made a sovereign ask permission to keep a warship. They made the shipowner ask no one.” And: “Nowhere does the Constitution provide that no person shall keep a ship of war without consent.”

The same Constitution that told a state to ask before it kept a ship of war told the shipowner to ask no one.

Nothing in it says you couldn’t buy a cannon.

Senators Demand DOJ Probe and Destruction of ATF’s 1.4 Billion Out-of-Business Records

Eight U.S. senators are demanding that Attorney General Todd Blanche investigate what they call an illegal national gun registry built from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ out-of-business records (OBRs). Those records now number 1,414,088,513.

The Sept. 24 letter, led by Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) and sent to Blanche at the Department of Justice, also went to ATF Director Robert Cekada. Joining Risch were Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), and Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.).

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the senators treat the OBR holdings as a registry of guns and gun owners, not a passive archive.

“We write to alert you to an illegal national gun registry now containing 1,414,088,513 records of guns and gun owners,” the letter states. “These records, maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) at its Martinsburg, West Virginia facility, were obtained from out-of-business firearms dealers and include names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and the specific firearms purchased.”

 

The Three Demands

The senators argue federal law already forbids what ATF is doing and that Congress does not need to pass another statute before the executive branch acts. They cite the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, which prohibits “any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions,” and annual appropriations riders that bar ATF from centralizing the records and searching them by name.
They urge Blanche to:

  1. Direct an immediate, independent investigation of ATF’s Martinsburg database;
  2. Order the prompt and verifiable destruction of any records maintained in violation of the 1986 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act and the appropriations prohibitions; and
  3. Ensure that any final rule on record retention fully complies with those same prohibitions.

“Congress has already spoken. The American people need executive action to enforce that law,” they wrote. “American citizens are entitled to exercise their Second Amendment rights without the federal government compiling searchable lists of their names and firearms. We ask for your decisive leadership to end this registry and prevent its expansion.”

Risch has separately pushed the No REGISTRY Rights Act, which would require ATF to delete existing firearm transaction records and block any future registry.

Continue reading “”

Well it took long enough

 

Ron DeSantis, Florida Cabinet Declare CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, and Antifa as Terrorist Groups.

“The designations will also apply to more than 90 organizations already listed as foreign terrorist organizations by the U.S. government, including the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, two Mexican drug cartels and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.”

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his cabinet have declared CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Antifa as terrorist groups, along with a host of others, under a new law that took effect over the summer.

 

From CBS News:

DeSantis, Florida Cabinet designate more than 90 groups as terrorist organizations

Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida Cabinet on Tuesday voted to designate more than 90 groups as terrorist organizations, and a legal challenge is already in the works seeking to block the move.

With little comment from the state panel and no public testimony, the Cabinet voted to apply domestic or foreign terrorist designations to a series of groups, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Brotherhood and antifa.

The designations will also apply to more than 90 organizations already listed as foreign terrorist organizations by the U.S. government, including the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, two Mexican drug cartels and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Under a new law, HB 1471, that took effect July 1, CAIR filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee, contending that DeSantis is violating the First Amendment and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, said attorneys intend to file a motion Thursday on behalf of CAIR-Florida seeking a preliminary injunction against the designation.

“There is nowhere in that notice any allegation or evidence that CAIR has engaged in any violent or dangerous act in violation of Florida or U.S. law,” Shamsi said Tuesday outside the Cabinet meeting. “And that’s the first requirement for something as serious as this.”

 

The reaction from the left is exactly what you would expect.

This is from The New Republic:

Ron DeSantis Goes Full Islamophobe With New Terrorist Designation

From here on out, a civil rights group will receive the same treatment in Florida as the likes of Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced Tuesday the implementation of the “anti-sharia law” he signed earlier this year, officially designating 90 groups as terrorist organizations, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, the largest Muslim advocacy group in the nation.

Florida’s authority on the matter superseded the State Department, which does not list CAIR as a terrorist organization, thanks to a state law (H.B. 1471) that went into effect in July. That allowed Florida’s domestic security chief to officially identify terrorist organizations without the involvement of the federal government.

The state government proceeded with the matter without input from the public.

The Muslim Brotherhood and antifa also received the terror group designation. Other groups targeted by the action include the Venezuelan crime syndicate Tren de Aragua, two Mexican drug cartels, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran.