Without the Second Amendment, all other rights are vulnerable.
– Black Guns Matter
March 28, 2026
Of course the current governor of Kentucky is a demoncrap, so we’ll see if he vetoes it.
HB 312 allowing adults under 21 to bear arms sent to governor
FRANKFORT – Members of the General Assembly voted to approve HB 312. This bill, sponsored by State Representative Savannah Maddox of Dry Ridge, is a straightforward but important statutory update that would allow eligible, law-abiding Kentucky adults between the ages of 18 and 20 to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
“This measure recognizes that many responsible young adults already legally vote, sign contracts, join the military, serve in combat, start a family, own a business, and work in law enforcement fields, yet under current law, these adults are prohibited from carrying a firearm concealed for self-defense,” Maddox said. “This creates a dangerous inconsistency. If we recognize their adulthood and the responsibilities that come with it in every other area, we can’t deny them the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones.”
HB 312 would allow law-abiding Kentuckians age 18 to 20 years-of-age to obtain a provisional concealed carry license, which has the same requirements as Kentucky’s standard concealed carry license: background check, training, and proficiency in handling and operating a firearm.
“This bill strikes the right balance between individual liberty and personal responsibility by ensuring that young adults who choose to carry a firearm do so through a clear, lawful process,” Maddox said. “The Second Amendment is clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Adults 20 and under are very much part of the people. State law should recognize those rights equally.”
The measure would align Kentucky with 25 other states that recognize that law-abiding citizens age 18 to 20 have a constitutional right to carry concealed for self-defense.
“I believe in constitutional carry for all law-abiding American adults. This bill is a good faith step forward that meets in the middle and gives young adults a lawful path to exercise their rights,” said State Senator Aaron Reed, R-Shelbyville, who carried the bill in the Senate. “This matters because every adult deserves a right to defend themselves, especially our daughters, who today are often left without that clear protection.”
March 27, 2026
Daddy, what are ‘secondaries‘?
🇺🇸✈️💥 B-1B Lancer struck Iranian ammunition depot with GBU-72 bombs! pic.twitter.com/ShZ8yjONNZ
— MAKS 25 🇺🇦👀 (@Maks_NAFO_FELLA) March 25, 2026
Cleared in Self-Defense, Charged for Carrying: Michigan Case Shows Why ‘Sensitive Places’ Fail
A licensed concealed carry holder in Michigan is now facing punishment not because prosecutors say he committed a crime in his defensive gun use, but because the state says he was armed in the wrong place when he needed that gun the most. That is exactly why so-called “sensitive places” laws remain one of the most dangerous and constitutionally suspect fronts in the post-Bruen Second Amendment fight.
According to Fox 2 Detroit’s reporting, Genesee County prosecutors determined that 23-year-old Christopher Gill acted in lawful self-defense after being attacked inside a restroom at Ballenger Fieldhouse on the campus of Mott Community College during a day of basketball games. Prosecutors say Gill was confronted by a group, restrained, and punched several times. During the assault, Gill managed to reach into his hoodie pocket, where he had a handgun, and fired one shot through the hoodie, striking Malik Zamir Henderson. Prosecutor David Leyton ruled the shooting was lawful self-defense.
Today’s example of draconian gun laws hurting crime victims is brought to you by Syracuse, NY, and co-sponsored by the Onondaga County D.A.’s Office.
Two of the city’s three homicides this year have been self-defense shootings. Both armed victims now face felony gun charges. 📜
— Amy Swearer (@AmySwearer) March 24, 2026
Henderson was charged with gang membership, assault with intent to rob while unarmed, and assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. Gill, by contrast, was not charged over the shooting itself. Instead, he was charged with carrying a concealed handgun in a sports arena, a Michigan law lists a “sports arena or stadium” among the places where a concealed pistol license holder may not carry concealed. For a first offense, Michigan law provides for a civil infraction, a fine of up to $500, and a six-month license suspension; state guidance also says the pistol is subject to immediate seizure if carried concealed in a prohibited area.
That split outcome should get the attention of every gun owner in America. The government’s position here is effectively this: yes, you were lawfully defending yourself against a violent assault, but you still should not have been armed when the attack happened because the legislature had already declared that location a “sensitive place.” That insane theory collapses the moment it meets real life. The danger to Gill did not disappear because he was inside an athletic facility. The criminal assault did not stop because the law supposedly made the venue special.
“If tolerance means the downfall of Western civilization, then we cannot be tolerant.” —Elon Musk
March 26, 2026
Remember when ATF massacred Randy Weaver’s family because of 2 sawed off shotguns? Meanwhile we have HD videos of gang members with illegal weapons telling you what block they’re from and nothing happens.
Maybe a little less attention on bump stocks and a little more on thugs. https://t.co/wgEOfTc64m— Anthony Cumia (@AnthonyCumia) March 25, 2026
When a ‘Common Sense’ Gun Control Measure Depends on the Fantasy of Competent Government.
In a stunning admission, a Los Angeles County Superior Court has revealed that it failed to report hundreds of thousands of criminal case outcomes to the California Department of Justice—including roughly 147,000 felony convictions.
Let that sink in.
For four decades, criminal records simply weren’t entered into the background check system.
- No alerts
- No safeguards
- No accountability
Just a broken government system quietly failing while politicians demanded…more gun control.
A System That Only Works If Everything Goes Right
Here’s the part they don’t want to talk about…the entire background check system depends on perfect data entry, flawless coordination, and bureaucratic competence at every level of government. And as this case proves—that’s a fantasy.
Because when records aren’t reported:
- Felons slip through the cracks
- Background checks return incomplete or inaccurate results
- And the system politicians claim “keeps us safe” simply doesn’t work
Even federal officials admit the system only functions if it receives “complete, accurate, and timely information” from thousands of agencies nationwide. Clearly, that’s not happening.
The History They Don’t Want You to Know
The federal background check system—known as NICS—was created by the Brady Act in 1993 and went live in 1998.
Since then:
- Hundreds of millions of background checks have been run.
- Millions of Americans have been delayed or denied.
- Tthe system still relies on error-prone government databases.
In fact:
- Only about 1% of transactions are denied.
- Many denials are later overturned on appeal.
- Tens of thousands of justified denials occur each year, but only a tiny fraction are ever prosecuted.
So let’s be clear…this system overwhelmingly burdens law-abiding citizens while failing to consistently stop criminals.
The Real Purpose: A Backdoor Gun Registry
Marines Green Light Optics for Pistol Qualifications
The Romeo M17 sight (NSN: 1240-01-713-9795), seen attached to an M17 MHS handgun, is a mil-spec, fully enclosed and gas-purged red dot reflex sight with a distortion-free glass aspheric lens. It is submersible to depths up to 35 meters. (Photo: Chris Eger/Guns.com)
The nation’s 911 force is now officially authorizing pistol quals with a red dot optic, provided it is one very specific system.
On March 13, Marine Administrative Message (MARADMINS) 104/26 updated that the service’s Marksmanship Program will include the paragraph, “Marines are authorized to use unit funded Using Unit Responsibility Item, M17 Romeo red dot optic, National Stock Number 1240-01-713-9795 for Combat Pistol Program (CPP) qualifications.”
In short, so long as the SIG M17 Romeo sight is used – which was designed specifically for the P320-based M17 and M18 9mm Modular Handgun System – and it is bought with unit funds, the country’s premier amphibious warfare force can run red dots in qualifications.
Completely U.S. made and constructed of forged 7075 aluminum with a beryllium copper flexure arm (more on that in a minute) the Romeo M17 has an extremely low deck height so that armorers can reuse standard iron sights, has 15 illumination settings (including three for use with Gen 3+ night vision), beats drop and submersion tests, and, importantly, has an integral loaded chamber gas deflector shield that keeps the MHS from gassing up the lens after 10-15 rounds.
Marines deployed with the Fleet have already been seen with red dot-equipped M17 Romeo-equipped M18s and Surefire X300 white lights.
The Marines adopted the M18 in 2019, ordering 35,000 of the SIGs to not only replace legacy Beretta M9s but also the Colt M45A1 CQB .45ACP railgun and the M007 Glock.
Pro-Second Amendment groups, industry leaders, and attorneys often argue that getting the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a ruling that strengthens the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms is a glacially slow, systematic, and intricate process.
That is, unfortunately, true. But why?
It’s true because the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has orchestrated a judicial review process designed not only to slow the review of Second Amendment cases but also to indefinitely impede the review of the most significant cases.
As Chief Justice, he sets the tone and theme of the Court. It’s simplistic to think of Roberts as just one of nine Justices with equal say in the handling of cases that come before the Court on a petition for review.
Yes, he has one vote to grant or deny review of a case, as do each of the other eight Justices, but he has a profound say concerning the cases to be voted on. See, e.g., the article in “Legal Clarity.”
“The Chief Justice influences the Court’s docket, the list of cases the Court will hear. While any four justices can vote to grant certiorari and hear a case, the Chief Justice’s vote can hold outsized influence in this selection process.”