Dan Bongino Breaks Down What Just Happened at Mar-a-Lago

Early Sunday morning, the U.S. Secret Service shot and killed a man in his twenties after he breached the secure perimeter at President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in West Palm Beach, Florida. The incident occurred around 1:30 AM, and according to officials, the man was observed near the north gate of the property carrying what appeared to be a shotgun and a fuel can.

No Secret Service protectees were present at the time.

Dan Bongino, the former FBI deputy director, appeared on Fox & Friends Weekend Sunday morning to break down what happened.

“Breaching the property, if what we have from the early reports is accurate, and we have no reason to believe otherwise, with a gas can and a shotgun, it appears the intent seems built in,” Bongino told host Charlie Hurt.

Mar-a-Lago is no ordinary location to stumble into. Bongino, who knows the property well, pointed out that serious security upgrades have already been made — particularly on the north side, where the incident occurred. “That side of the property, the north side of the property over there, they’ve made a number of significant security enhancements,” he said, adding that significant money has been poured into technology and physical security at the site.

Bongino noted that in the end, it was a human being who made the call. “Ultimately, in the end, you know, there was an interdiction here by a human being, and they’re gonna be the ones who are obviously the decision makers,” Bongino said. Under the law, that decision requires a specific threshold. “In order to enact any kind of deadly force, which happened in this case, you have to have a fear of serious physical injury or death. It appears the agent or officer who was involved thought that to be the case.” He didn’t leave much ambiguity about why: “The early reporting of a weapon seems to indicate the obvious reason why.”

That said, it’s also worth noting here is that this was a team effort. Bongino pushed back on the Hollywood image of lone Secret Service agents with earpieces as the only line of defense. “It’s not just Secret Service agents. You see that in these movies, it’s always the Secret Service agents with the earpiece, but we rely heavily on the fantastic work of the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office and others.” Indeed, the official Secret Service statement confirmed that a Palm Beach County Sheriff’s deputy was also involved in the shooting.

Bongino walked viewers through the procedural mechanics of what will happen next. The FBI, per a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Secret Service, will take over the crime scene — a safeguard designed to prevent any appearance of self-investigation. “If there was some kind of security lapse that required an investigation later, you wouldn’t want the Secret Service investigating themselves,” he explained. “So we’ll generally take over the crime scene, and there’s usually a smooth transition.”

The Secret Service confirmed in its statement that the involved agents have been placed on routine administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation — standard protocol. The FBI, Secret Service, and Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office are all jointly investigating the incident, including the man’s background, potential motive, and the use of force.

Bongino said questions remain about how exactly the suspect got as close as he did. The north side of the property isn’t easy terrain to breach undetected. “Was there a backpack involved? Was there some security footage, some security cameras that may have been following this guy sooner?” he asked. “That’s the kind of stuff we’re gonna find out as the fact pattern starts to emerge.”

 We’ve Been Running a Huge, Real-World Experiment in the Expansion of Carrying Guns in America…Here Are the Results.

The United States is currently experiencing what is likely to be a record-low in homicide, which has occurred at the same time as a massive expansion in firearm carry rights across the country. I have previously written
about how those with carry permits almost never commit crime. State-level data proves it, and even gun-skeptical research organizations have recognized that “evidence generally shows that, as a group, [carry permit] license holders are particularly law abiding and rarely are convicted for violent crimes.”

Yet this irrefutable data didn’t stop the usual antigun suspects from predicting doom when the Supreme Court first issued its ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022. There, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. Gun control groups angrily claimed that the decision would lead to dramatic increases in violence.

For example, the then-Chief Counsel of Brady, Jonathan Lowy, said that Bruen “is extremist judicial activism at its worst, and Americans may die as a result of what the Court issued in the sanctity of its protected chambers.” John Feinblatt, President of Everytown for Gun Safety, said the Supreme Court chose “to put our communities in even greater danger with gun violence on the rise across the country.” Giffords claimed the ruling would “escalate gun violence,” “spur unlawful militia activity,” “embolden those inclined to vigilante justice,” “increase violence at protests,” and cause “more domestic violence and hate crimes.”

Antigun politicians made similar breathless predictions. Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey claimed Bruen was a dangerous decision that “will make America a less safe country.” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said it “severely undermines public safety not just in New York City, but around the country.” Senator Alex Padilla of California put it more bluntly: “Today’s decision will make our communities less safe, plain and simple.”

Countless other examples abound. I encourage you to follow @2Aupdates if you want to constantly be reminded of all these claims.

We all make incorrect predictions from time to time, but the degree to which opponents of the Second Amendment were wrong is simply astounding.

Continue reading “”

SAF, FPC,  NRA Jump Into Case In Which Court Ordered SIG To Divulge Customer Names

Two large gun-rights groups are siding with gunmaker Sig Sauer in a court case in which plaintiffs seek to force disclosure of gun owners’ identities without their consent.

On February 17, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and National Rifle Association (NRA) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in support of defendant SIG SAUER’s motion for reconsideration in the case Hall v. Sig Sauer, Inc.

At issue is the court ordering Sig to divulge the identities of some of its customers to the plaintiffs in the case as part of the discovery process. The brief seeks reconsideration of that order, which FPC and NRA deem inappropriate.

Second Amendment Roundup: Bruen’s Citations on Sensitive Places
Enhanced government security is required when a location is made a gun free zone.

Stephen Halbrook

The Second Amendment creates the default rule that, absent a narrow exception, keeping and bearing arms is a right that may not be infringed.  The ongoing debate on the nature of the “sensitive places” where firearms may be prohibited boils down to whether, if individuals may have no arms for self-defense, the government must provide comprehensive or enhanced security.  If not, the disarmed place is just the perfect location for criminals to attack victims.

The Supreme Court has not decided a case on “sensitive places,” but has referred to their existence, most recently in Bruen.  There, the Court set forth the following two-step rule: “[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.  To justify its regulation, … the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”  A modern restriction must be shown to be analogous to laws (either statutes or the common law) that were considered permissible at the Founding.

Continue reading “”

Florida… Where Non-Dangerous Felons Really Can Recover Their Gun Rights.

Christopher Morgan was convicted in Pennsylvania in 2007 after he was caught carrying a firearm without a state license. Fifteen years later, he was stopped by a Florida officer, whom he told of a pistol in the center console of his car. Morgan was charged in Florida with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He has no other criminal history.

Before his trial in Florida, Morgan’s defense team made a motion that the state firearm law, 790.23, is “unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him.” However, the trial court denied his motion. Morgan then pleaded no contest to the felon in possession Florida charges but appealed his conviction. He was sentenced to two days in jail and court costs.

Last week, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a response to Morgan’s appeal, which said that his conviction for possessing a firearm by a felon violates the Second Amendment.

AG Uthmeier actually agreed with Morgan’s legal team.

“On studied reflection, the Attorney General has concluded that the conviction does indeed infringe Morgan’s right, as a nondangerous felon, to keep and bear arms,” Uthmeier wrote. “The state must therefore confess error and urge this Court to reverse.”

In the court document, Uthmeier spells out that he is Florida’s “Chief Legal Officer,” and that he swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

“It is thus the Attorney General’s duty to admit when he believes the State has obtained a conviction in violation of the Constitution,” he wrote.

If the court permits him to file a brief for this case, Uthmeier’s team wrote, he will “discuss the lack of historical evidence supporting the dispossession of all felons as distinct from the strong historical evidence supporting the dispossession of dangerous felons.”

Continue reading “”