Category: Crap For Brains

Behold: The Dumbest Argument for an Assault Weapon Ban So Far

I can’t call anything the dumbest possible reason for trying to justify an assault weapon ban, but mostly because anti-Second Amendment folks seem bound and determined to take that as a challenge and roll out an even stupider one.

However, I can still point out where the bar is at a given point in time, and ladies and gentlemen, we have officially hit a whole new low.

I get that not everyone favors modern sporting rifles even existing, much less being protected by the Second Amendment, but the truth is that they do, and they are.

Yet if you’re going to try to convince me that a ban is justified, you have to do better than this.

Imagine a person making the decision to die by suicide via jumping off a bridge. Successful attempt or not, who is responsible in this scenario? The person? They simply fall. The bridge? It is just doing its job. The factor that is truly bringing that person’s life to a end? Gravity.

That person, even if they lack any knowledge of what gravity is or how it works, has an inherent knowledge that jumping equals falling. And that knowledge is true because of gravity. Not jumping. Not the impact. Not the water. The individual’s decision is executed by an additional factor.

It almost sounds like I am in agreement with the “Guns don’t kill…” statement. But wait. According to my previous paragraph, it’s not the person or the gun. So who is it? That is a matter of deeper study (and a much longer writing piece).

What I can state is studies show that even the least bit of resistance (in the form of a barrier) causes a decrease in the likelihood of someone following through with the decision to jump from a bridge. This could be a fence and/or a net. Even a failed attempt can result in the decision not to not try again — also backed by research.

So the correlation; if guns weren’t so easily accessible, the decision to harm others could still be made, but without the additional factor present. Even if they chose a knife-bat-etc., these are far less lethal and much easier for the everyday citizen — children included — to defend themselves from.

So his “correlation” is really him comparing apples to oranges, and then expecting you to swallow that they’re both bananas.

Continue reading “”

If it was never clear you, by now it should be that government, as a whole and no matter the fundamentals of how and why it was formed (cf. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights), has always been really hesitant to give free and unfettered access to the implements that make it so much easier for the unwashed masses to do away with a tyrant goobermint that sees them as mere peons.

Federal Judge Says Gun Law Unconstitutional, But Allows Feds to Largely Keep Enforcing It

Five years ago, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Louisiana Shooting Association, and several individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the federal ban on handgun sales to adults between the ages of 18 and 20. In late 2022, U.S. District Judge Robert R. Summerhays dismissed the complaint, ruling that young adults have no Second Amendment right to purchase the most common firearm for self-defense, but that decision was overturned by a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in January of this year.

Since then, the plaintiffs and the DOJ have been arguing over the scope of the relief that should be granted, given that the appellate court found the law in question is unconstitutional. That alone should have favored a judgment from Summerhays that covered as many 18-to-20-year-olds as possible. Instead, on Tuesday, Summerhays rendered a judgment that leaves the unconstitutional law in place for almost everyone.

In a press release, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said the “practical effect of this order is almost laughable if it wasn’t so frustrating and didn’t impact the Second Amendment rights of thousands of individuals.”

“What the court has done here is say that this law is unconstitutional, but in order for an 18-year-old to avoid having their constitutional rights trounced by it today they must live in one of only three states in the nation and have been the member of SAF at age 13. And even then, they’re only covered if SAF discloses their membership to the government under duress. We’re currently examining our options in relation to the relief granted and will vigorously defend our members’ right to free association and privacy of such.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition is similarly incensed, stating in a release:

Rather than uphold the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent, the Court regurgitated the Trump Administration’s self-serving demand to wipe away the Fifth Circuit’s ruling against the government’s unconstitutional ban and continue denying millions of peaceable adults their right to keep and bear arms.

To be clear: FPC has never provided a list of its members to the government—and never will.

Our legal team is already taking action to urgently address this appalling order. We will commence appellate proceedings as necessary to protect our members and effectuate the Fifth Circuit’s decision in our favor. Further updates will be provided as the case proceeds.

The descriptions of Summerhays’ judgment aren’t hyperbolic. Here’s the text of the order so you can see for yourself.

The Court enters declaratory judgment, as described in paragraph 3 below, with respect to (a) Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, Emily Naquin, and (b) individuals and federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, dealers or collectors who were members of Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, or Louisiana Shooting Association at the time this action was filed on November 6, 2020.

The Court hereby declares that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), and their attendant regulations, are unconstitutional and violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to the extent those provisions prevent the sale or delivery of handguns and/or handgun ammunition by and to persons identified in paragraph 2 on account of the buyer being 18 to 20 years old.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, its Director, the Attorney General of the United States, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert with them and who have actual notice of this Judgment are hereby enjoined, within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (i.e., Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas), from enforcing the provisions referenced in paragraph 3, to the extent those provisions prevent the sale or delivery of handguns and/or handgun ammunition by and to persons identified in paragraph 2 on account of the buyer being 18 to 20 years old.

Within twenty-one (21) days of issuance of this Judgment, those Plaintiffs identified at paragraph 2(b) shall provide to Defendants a verified list of their members as of November 6, 2020.

Summerhays’ order basically parrots the judgment proposed by the DOJ, which is another problem. President Donald Trump’s executive action to protect the Second Amendment states, in part, that:

… the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
     (b)  In developing such proposed plan of action, the Attorney General shall review, at a minimum:
…
(v)    The positions taken by the United States in any and all ongoing and potential litigation that affects or could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights;

The judgment proposed by the DOJ (and accepted by Summerhays) is completely contrary to Trump’s order for the DOJ to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

Donald Trump wasn’t in office when oral arguments in Reese v. ATF took place before the Fifth Circuit last fall, and had only been in office for ten days when the Fifth Circuit overturned Summerhays’s original decision and declared the ban on handgun sales unconstitutional.

Trump issued his executive order on protecting the Second Amendment in early February, and DOJ decided not long after that it would not appeal the Fifth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. That was in accordance with the president’s order, but at some point between February and July, when the DOJ submitted its proposed judgment to the court, the agency adopted a position that runs counter to Trump’s executive action.

What makes this even more frustrating is that the proposed judgment was written, at least in part, by attorneys within the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which has been taking historic actions to protect the right to keep and bear arms. In just the past couple of months the division has weighed in against “assault weapon” and “large capacity” magazine bans and sued the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department over delays in issuing concealed carry permits. It’s bizarre, then, to see the DOJ take the position that, even though this law is unconstitutional, it can continue to enforce it against virtually everyone except the named plaintiffs in Reese.

We’ll be talking more about this case with FPC”s Brandon Combs on today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co, and I encourage you to tune in and check out what he has to say. Thankfully, this isn’t the only case dealing with young adults and their 2A rights in the legal pipeline, and the Supreme Court has the opportunity to grant cert to similar challenges coming out of the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits later this fall. There’s a clear split in the appellate courts on the issue, and hopefully SCOTUS will soon provide young adults the relief denied to them by Summerhays.

I love it when activist judge with a political agenda get slapped by SCOTUS and have to publicly reverse themselves.

Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Blaming Gun Company for Mass Shooting

A Brady-backed lawsuit against Century Arms blaming a Romanian gun company and a U.S. firearms distributor for the 2019 mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in California has finally been dismissed by a federal judge, almost a year after he ruled the case could move forward.

U.S. District Judge William Sessions refused to dismiss the suit in late 2024, arguing that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act didn’t shield Romarm S.A. and Century Arms because the plaintiffs had “plausibly pled an aiding and abetting theory that satisfied the predicate exception to PLCAA’s liability bar.”

The predicate exception, according to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Smith & Wesson v. Mexcio, requires that defendants “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms, and the violation “was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.”

The plaintiffs in the case stemming from the Garlic Festival shooting had argued that Romarm and Century Arms had aided and abetted the shooter’s illegal gun possession in California by selling the WASR-10 that was used in the attack in states where the arm is perfectly legal to own.

Sessions originally accepted that claim under the dubious reasoning that the defendants “knew that California-based criminals were buying guns in Nevada with the illegal intent of transporting them into California,” yet “flooded the Nevada market with guns and employed marketing and pricing strategies with the intent of encouraging or facilitating such transport, not merely with indifference that such transport occurs,” which in turn “aided the commission of illegal gun possession in California.”

But in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, the Supreme Court stated that any aiding-and-abetting claims that aren’t based on a specific violation of state or federal law “must be backed by plausible allegations of pervasive, systemic, and culpable assistance.” After that decision was handed down Romarm and Century Arms asked Sessions to reconsider his decision, and now the judge has reversed himself and dismissed the case.

The issue for reconsideration, in light of Smith and Wesson, is that none of those findings are particular to the specific incident in this case. The shooter was a Nevada resident at the time of purchase, so his purchase was presumptively legal. Plaintiffs have not alleged with any specificity that Defendants advertised or marketed their products in any way that encouraged the shooter to take his legally purchased firearm across the border to California where it would be illegally possessed.

The oversupply argument similarly fails, as applied to the shooter, because he was a Nevada resident. No matter how many surplus guns were distributed in Nevada beyond what the Nevada market could bear, the fact that the Plaintiff was a part of the Nevada market who was not engaged in some sort of broader trafficking scheme is a flaw in that reasoning.

Put another way, the firearm at the center of this case was not part of an excess supply allegedly flooded into Nevada with the goal of attracting California residents for the simple reason that the shooter was a Nevada resident. So, while Defendants’ act in manufacturing the firearm and marketing it in Nevada may have aided the commission of some illegal gun possession in California, it does not follow, on the facts pled, that they aided the shooter’s illegal gun possession in California “beyond providing the good on the open market.”

It seems to me that Sessions could and should have dismissed the case even before SCOTUS handed down its unanimous decision throwing out Mexico’s lawsuit against Smith & Wesson and other U.S. gunmakers, but the fact that he allowed the case to move forward under such specious claims just demonstrates the importance of the Supreme Court’s decision that helped lay out the scope of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s protections.

Sessions, a Clinton appointee who’s served on the bench since 1995, still argued in dismissing the case that “it may well be true” that “Defendants’ acts aided the commission of illegal gun possession in California” in other instances, but the plaintiffs haven’t plausibly proved that to be the case here. That statement was completely superfluous and unnecessary, and appears to telegraph Session’s willingness to punish companies in the firearms industry for the third-party actions of criminals whenever possible. 

In this case, thankfully, Sessions couldn’t get around the plain language of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico. If it weren’t for that unanimous decision penned by Justice Elena Kagan, though, Brady’s junk lawsuit would still be an ongoing threat to the lawful commerce in arms.

Chris Murphy: School Shootings Aren’t Common Enough for Armed Guards

Whenever there’s a high-profile shooting, such as what happened at Annunciation Catholic Schools, we start hearing about how common these have become, with manufactured numbers that drive the total up, all designed to scare people into supporting gun control.

The answer from our side is armed school staff or, at a minimum, armed guards in schools.

Now, there’s no question about which side of this debate Sen. Chris Murphy falls. He’s a noted gun grabber and he’s always looking for a gun control angle. We all know it.

But it seems that even he knows that he’s been running a line of BS for years.

On Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “All In,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) stated that he opposed armed guards in schools because he thinks it creates “irrational” fear in children and “you are still more likely in this country to be killed by a falling object than you are in a mass shooting.” But there is an “underlying story about the easy access of guns. And if we just were more careful about who has access to powerful weapons in this country, we would have less need to board up a lot of our public settings.”

Wait, so these are super rare events that we shouldn’t stress to the point of putting armed guards in schools because it’ll instill fear in children–spoiler: school resource officers are common enough that we’d know if it did, and it doesn’t–but we should totally trample our right to keep and bear arms because of something rarer than being killed by a sack of potatos falling out of the sky and killing someone?

Am I tracking this right?

But the doublespeak continued, with Murphy saying, “As much as this has now become an epidemic, you are still more likely in this country to be killed by a falling object than you are in a mass shooting. There [are] far too many mass shootings.”

It’s not an epidemic if it’s rare. The two things contradict one another, at least as the public sees it.

So either it’s an epidemic and we simply have to do something, or you’re more likely to have something fall on you and kill you than to be shot and die in a mass shooting. It’s one or the other.

Let’s not forget that Murphy argues an armed guard in an elementary school is akin to a boarded-up encampment. Yes, he actually said that, too. People in the United States grow up with armed guards and armed police in a lot of places. There’s a cop at the local movie theater every weekend night, for example. No one blinks. No one feels unsafe. Most of the time, he’s telling loud teenagers to shut up or get out, so that’s what people accept is his purpose, even if they know he’s the guy who will respond if bullets start flying.

Murphy is so terrified of guns that even carefully vetted individuals in a position of security can’t be trusted with them. He talks about being a little more careful about who can get “powerful weapons” in this country, but the truth is that his version of careful would be to prohibit literally everyone.

He can’t even see safety in off-duty cops, after all.

But let’s remember that no matter what Murphy says going forward, he knows these are rare. He knows these make scary headlines, but are the exception rather than the rule.

He’s just trying not to let a good crisis go to waste, all so he can destroy your right to keep and bear arms.

Wonder how that affects being able to enlist at 17?

DC Appeals Court: Adults Under 21 Are Covered by Second Amendment, But Can’t Have Guns

Do adults under the age of 21 have the right to keep and bear arms?

Since they’re adults, they should. After all, it’s one thing to say children can’t buy firearms, but people who are responsible for themselves in pretty much every other aspect of their lives are a different matter.

Yet many places restrict those under 21 from actually enjoying the full benefits of their Second Amendment rights.

In the District of Columbia, which is a microcosm of how little gun control actually does to stop crime, they have a total gun ban for those under 21. That ban has been challenged and was recently ruled constitutional. The local DC appeals court–not the federal appeals court in DC, just for clarification–just upheld the ruling with an…interesting argument.

So, by operating under the assumption that adults under 21 are, in fact, part of “the people” covered by the Second Amendment, they still find a gun ban constitutional?

How does that make sense?

As the FPC put it later:

Right?

The sad part is that I see the so-called logic being employed. If the right to own guns implies the right to purchase them, which many of us have argued more than once, as have the courts, then the inverse would seem to be true. If you don’t have a right to buy them, as was ruled previously, then the implication is that you don’t have a right to own them.

Hence, the DC restrictions being upheld.

But NRA v Bondi, which is the case cited, was an 11th Circuit decision, not a Supreme Court decision, so I’m not sure about the wisdom of basing everything on that, especially as the DC Circuit Court of Appeals covers the DC area. Of course, it’s not like that court would rule differently.

Personally, I think the 11th Circuit blew it.

While there is a legitimate case for the constitutionality of age limits, the argument that people who are old enough to enlist, sign contracts, and vote in our nation’s elections is bizarre to me. Especially as some want to lower the voting age still further, all while saying younger people are too reckless and irresponsible to exercise a fundamental, constitutionally protected right.

And then to extrapolate it out to justifying a ban on even the possession of firearms by people in that age group is absolutely horrifying to me. Especially as the age limits are often defended as saying these folks still have their Second Amendment rights, they just can’t buy a gun. This, however, makes it very clear where that argument can and will lead.

Here’s hoping someone steps in and lowers a much-needed smackdown on this absolute BS.

Tennessee of all places…

Skrmetti appealing gun law decision

(The Center Square) – Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is appealing a ruling by a Gibson County Chancery Court that said two Tennessee gun laws were unconstitutional.
The laws prohibited carrying firearms in state parks and carrying a gun or club with the “intent to go armed” and use it for violence or aggression.

Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation and three Tennessee residents sued the state, saying the laws violated their right to bear arms.
Skrmetti said his office was asking the chancery court for a stay pending appeal because the court’s ruling was broad and went too far.

“It entirely invalidates two gun laws, even though those laws are constitutional in some situations,” Skrmetti said. “For example, it’s obviously constitutional to prohibit a 10-year-old from bringing a semiautomatic rifle to a rec league basketball game or a drunk with a shotgun from staggering down Broadway or through Market Square or across Shelby Farms. But the Court’s ruling appears to legalize this in Tennessee.”

The ruling by the Chancery Court is causing confusion, Skrmetti said in the appeal.

“Plaintiffs’ counsel has already advised the public that ‘the entire law enforcement network in Tennessee [is] on notice’ and ‘attempts to enforce these two statutes’ by any official ‘should give rise to claims of federal civil rights violations,’” Skrmetti said. “Law enforcement is rightly loath to choose between tempting ruinous civil rights lawsuits and carrying out their duty to protect the public. And there is no doubt: because of its refusal to adhere to its own judicial limits, this Court’s order would leave large gaps in the General Assembly’s efforts to protect the public.”

Rep. Chris Todd, R-Madison County, said he wanted Skrmetti to appeal the decision but not because Todd opposes it. He called the opinion “one of the most thorough, well-reasoned, and well-written decisions we’ve seen.”

Sen. London Lamar, chairwoman of the Tennessee Senate Democratic Caucus, said she supports the decision to appeal the decision.

“These long-standing gun safety laws are constitutional and they exist for a reason: to give law enforcement the tools they need to protect the public,” Lamar said. “If the lower court’s ruling is allowed to stand, it will tie the hands of police officers — even when they encounter someone with a loaded assault rifle parked outside a children’s park. Officers wouldn’t even be allowed to question that person’s intent until it’s too late. That’s not freedom. That’s a recipe for tragedy.”

I think it’s quite possible she got her set of talking points mixed up.

Why Has Fort Worth – One of America’s Most Conservative Cities – Hired an Anti-Gun Police Chief?

chief eddie garcia

In a move sparking backlash from Second Amendment supporters, the city of Fort Worth has hired Eddie Garcia — the former police chief of Dallas and San Jose — as its next Chief of Police. Gun rights advocates are sounding the alarm, citing Garcia’s long and well-documented record of opposing constitutional carry, supporting California-style gun control, and pushing for “enhanced limitations” to the Second Amendment.

For a city like Fort Worth — often considered the nation’s most conservative large city — the choice is baffling.

Opposed Constitutional Carry and Civilian Rifle Ownership

During his tenure in Dallas, Garcia vocally opposed permitless carry, placing himself squarely against the will of Texas voters and the state legislature. Despite overwhelming support from grassroots Texans, Garcia parroted talking points from the gun control lobby, claiming it would make Texas more dangerous.

But it didn’t stop there.

As San Jose Police Chief, Garcia called for further restrictions on civilian ownership of AR-15s and questioned whether the Founding Fathers would have written the Second Amendment the same way if they had known about modern firearms — a tired trope often used by anti-gun politicians to justify new bans.

He went as far as to say the Second Amendment should be treated as a “living document” — a red flag for anyone who takes constitutional rights seriously. In the same interview, he referred to Black Lives Matter as a “valid movement.”

Continue reading “”

The Irony of Attacking Prayer in Wake of Minneapolis Shooting

People offer thoughts and prayers after any tragedy. It’s the first thing they do, mostly because doing more requires more time and organization. And, in most cases, people understand that. They understand it perfectly well, and no one bats an eye.

After the shooting at Annunciation Catholic School, though, we got a reminder that it’s only acceptable in the wake of some tragedies.

See, while some have mocked “thoughts and prayers” for some time, it got particularly ugly in the aftermath.

As if the slaughter of children amid screams and shattered stained glass wasn’t cause enough for grief, American opinion makers were convulsed once again this week in a debate over the role of prayer in the wake of a mass shooting, this time at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis.

Those who support some legal restrictions on guns, often Democrats, say that Republican politicians who appeal to prayer are trying to distract from their own inaction on such things as red flag laws or stricter background checks on gun purchases.

“Don’t just say this is about thoughts and prayers right now. These kids were literally praying,” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told a news conference after the shooting, in which an assailant killed two Annunciation students and wounded 18 other people attending Mass.

Of course, it’s not like Frey didn’t catch criticism for his comments.

Critics, especially on the right, chided the Democratic mayor.

“It is shocking to me that so many left wing politicians attack the idea of prayer in response to a tragedy,” Republican Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic, posted on X. “Literally no one thinks prayer is a substitute for action. We pray because our hearts are broken and we believe that God is listening.”

The problem here isn’t that Democrats have a problem with thoughts and prayers specifically–oh, many do, but that’s not what this is about–it’s that they have a problem that our thoughts and prayers won’t force us to embrace their so-called solutions.

The preferred policies of many anti-gun lawmakers, mostly Democrats, tend to be soft on criminals and hard on law-abiding citizens. They’ve resulted in orders of magnitude more deaths than from all the mass shootings in this country’s history combined, but those aren’t relevant in their mind. Those are just good policies, and shame on you for bringing them up in the wake of some awful tragedy.

But they’ll politicize anything and everything when they get a chance, including the fact that pro-gun folks offer their thoughts and their prayers in the aftermath.

Look, my prayers are for the comfort of those who lost people they care about in the attack, because I’ve been there and I know it hurts. I offer prayers for those injured to heal quickly and completely. I offer prayers that those who were there can find peace in the wake of something indescribable.

And I’m not going to stop because some jackwagon thinks that my refusing to give up my rights because some other jackwagon did something terrible is something that should shame me into silence.

It won’t.

They think that our refusal to embrace the things they claim are solutions is some admission that we don’t care about anything, but where the hell was Frey telling us how the red flag law Minnesota passed failed to stop this horrific incident? Where was the admission that the killer sought out a gun-free zone where he could kill the innocent? Where was his acknowledgement of gun control’s complete and utter failure here?

There’s an irony here in people like Frey attacking prayer in the wake of a shooting that took place while the victims were literally praying. It’s a sick irony, but it’s still irony.

Especially since his policies failed, but he’s mad that we pray for the fallen but won’t back those same policies.

Minneapolis Mayor Who Attacked Prayer Now Moves To The Next Amendment Of The Bill Of Rights

Democratic Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey attacked gun ownership and the Second Amendment during an MSNBC appearance on Wednesday in which he doubled down on dismissing prayer.

Frey’s initial comments criticizing those who prayed came during a Wednesday morning press conference after an active shooter opened fire during an all-school mass held by the Annunciation Catholic School on Wednesday morning, killing two children and wounding at least 17 other people. Frey praised “other countries” that passed sweeping gun control after shootings while appearing on “The Briefing with Jen Psaki.”

“We have more guns in America than people. Say that again. We have more guns in America than people. Why? Why is it so easy to get a gun? Why is it so easy to get a whole heap ton of guns? Why is it that you can buy a gun virtually every month if you wanted to? What good is that?” Frey ranted to host Jen Psaki. “We’re not talking about your father’s hunting rifle. We’re talking about people that have gotten guns that seemingly — in this case, legally — that obviously have a whole ton of mental health issues.”

WATCH:

“You’re not right in the head if you’re going to a church to shoot it up. You’re not right in the head. But the fact that you have guns, in fact, many, many guns, why is that okay?” Frey continued. “You know, this has gone down in other countries and they say, ‘You know what, we’re not going to allow this anymore. We don’t want this to happen anymore. We’re going to do something about it.’”

Australia carried out a mandatory “buy back” of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns after a 1996 mass shooting in Port Arthur. Canada passed legislation banning over 1,500 types of firearms in the wake of an April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that killed 23 people.

Other Democrats, including Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota also called for gun laws, including a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” in the wake of the shooting. Frey’s comments drew praise from Klobuchar and CNN host Dana Bash during a Wednesday afternoon segment on the network, during which Klobuchar called for the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

“Assault weapons” is a euphemism that gun-control advocates use to gain support for banning certain semi-automatic firearms with features that provide a cosmetic similarity to firearms capable of fully-automatic operation.

“What has incorrectly been termed an ‘assault weapon’ is a semi-automatic firearm that fires just one bullet with each pull of the trigger (versus a fully automatic firearm — machine gun — which continues to shoot until the trigger is released),” the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) said in a fact sheet. The NSSF estimated that over 24 million “modern sporting rifles,” which include the AR-15, are “in circulation” in a July 2022 release.

FPC Blasts Fifth Circuit’s Flawed Suppressor Ruling

NEW ORLEANS (August 27, 2025) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today condemned a badly flawed decision issued by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. George Peterson, an FPC-backed criminal appeal challenging the federal government’s unconstitutional National Firearms Act (NFA) firearm suppressor rules:

Once again, the Fifth Circuit has wrongly upheld the National Firearms Act in a dangerously flawed opinion that tramples the Constitution and disregards our nation’s history. Suppressors are unquestionably “arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment. Nothing in our nation’s history of arms regulation supports the government’s unconstitutional taxation and registration mandates. Indeed, the federal government’s NFA scheme is not just dangerous to liberty, it is blatantly unconstitutional. FPC will continue to stand with Mr. Peterson and his counsel as they weigh every option in the fight ahead to put an end to the NFA and its unconstitutional regulations on suppressors and other protected arms. Individuals who would like to support Mr. Peterson’s appeal, our Brown v. ATF NFA challenge, and dozens of important cases to eliminate unconstitutional federal, state, and local laws should join our FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.

D.C. Activist Criticizes Trump for Putting Blame on Individual Criminals

Even the BBC has admitted that violent crime has fallen in Washington, D.C. since Donald Trump’s declaration of an emergency in our nation’s capital, but some local activists insist that the surge in law enforcement, including federal officers and members of the National Guard, is political theater at best, and perhaps even counterproductive.

When President Donald Trump announced his federal takeover of Washington, D.C., he conjured images of a dystopia where “caravans of mass youth rampage through city streets” to justify his heavy-handed response.

But those who study and work on preventing youth crime in the district say the president is acting on a caricature of the city, and his decision to flood the streets with soldiers will do little to solve the issue.

Nick Wilson, senior director for Gun Violence Prevention at the Center for American Progress, called Trump’s crackdown “political theater that is disconnected from what we’re seeing here in D.C.”

Wilson would prefer things like a national ban on so-called assault weapons, universal background checks, and a host of other gun control laws that are already in place in Washington, D.C. In fact, as we reported yesterday, federal agents have been actively enforcing some of D.C.’s draconian laws, including multiple arrests for possessing a firearm without a license. You’d think Wilson would be thrilled to see those arrests, and maybe he is, but even the staunchest gun control activists can’t publicly praise Trump without risking condemnation from their fellow liberals.

The dumbest comment in the Time article comes from a local community activist, who is incensed that Donald Trump is trying to hold criminals responsible for their actions.

Tia Bell, who founded a gun violence prevention nonprofit aimed at young people in the city, says Trump’s villainization of D.C.’s youth misses the point.

“It’s a misalignment, because the blame is on the individual and not the systems and structural violence,” she says. “Our youth are angry—they feel like the media perpetuated a lot of narratives about them that led to this blame and criminalization.”

The media made me do it is one hell of an excuse for committing a violent crime, isn’t it?

You know a really good way to not get blamed for violent crime? Don’t commit one.

Even if you believe that there are root causes like poverty and broken families that can exacerbate crime, it’s still individuals who are committing violent carjackings, home invasions, and street robberies. These individuals may feel empowered and emboldened to commit these crimes because of D.C.’s lackadaisical approach to juvenile crime and truancy, and if Bell wants to fix those broken systems I’m with her 100%, but the fact remains that most juveniles in D.C., even those living in the most adverse environments possible, aren’t out there robbing, raping, and carjacking D.C. residents and visitors.

It’s a disservice to those kids to decide that individuals shouldn’t be held accountable for their own actions. In fact, I’d argue that, no matter how good Bell’s intentions might be, by casting crime as the product of “systems and structural violence” or media narratives, she’s essentially telling juveniles who aren’t breaking the law that there’s something wrong with them, not the juvenile offenders.

I’ve expressed my own concern about Trump’s crime crackdown leading to arrests for simply possessing a gun without a license, which contradicts his stance in support of permitless carry, but Bell’s concern is that Trump hasn’t taken a public health approach to gun violence, “addressing it like a ‘disease.’”

Bell believes the problem in D.C. cannot be solved with more guns.

“Federal violence cannot end violence in the communities—only we can,” she says.

I have no problem, at least in theory, with community violence intervention efforts that seek to reduce crime without putting more people behind bars for possessory gun offenses. The issue, though, is that while Bell might believe in a “public health approach” to “gun violence”, that approach all too often involves treating gun ownership itself as a disease that needs to be eradicated. Bell might not like the surge in law enforcement on the streets, but I doubt she’d be in favor of repealing D.C.’s draconian laws surrounding gun ownership either.

If these activists want to question Trump’s heavy-handed approach to fighting crime, they should at least be willing to do the same when Democrats turn our right to keep and bear arms into a criminal offense. Somehow, though, their “public health” approach always leaves plenty of room for putting more gun control laws on the books.