Category: Editorial O’ The Day

Even with his credentials, Bob has a long way to go to have people regain confidence in the NRA.

BARR: When It Comes To The Second Amendment, The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

I recently returned from the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) 153rd annual meeting in Dallas, Texas, an event at which hundreds of retailers and manufacturers of firearms, firearms accessories, archery equipment and camping gear set up shop and attracted more than 72,000 visitors, including many families with children of all ages. As was the case at every NRA annual meeting I have attended since becoming a Board member in 1998, the overarching theme was safe and responsible use and ownership of firearms.

On Monday, May 20th, immediately following the annual meeting and exhibit hall, I was elected by the 76-member Board of Directors to serve as NRA President for the 2024-25 year. I accepted this honor at a time of great challenge and opportunity for the NRA and its more than four million dues-paying members — also recognizing that every year is one of challenge and opportunity for the NRA.

The fact is, when it comes to defending the Second Amendment (and indeed, all the rights guaranteed to us by our Bill of Rights), our opponents never sleep, and a win one day is guaranteed to be followed by another challenge the next. Thus it has been since the founding of our great nation.

Thankfully for freedom-loving and law-abiding citizens, just as our adversaries never sleep, neither does the NRA in confronting challenges in the legislative, legal and regulatory arenas. And, since the turn of this century, those challenges have come also from the United Nations and other international organizations.

Here at home, the recent prosecution of former President Trump by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg illustrates the manner by which our heretofore “blind” criminal justice system has been employed as a cudgel to attack political opponents. The NRA was similarly targeted by New York’s state Attorney General Letitia James, who promised as a candidate in 2018 to go after the NRA, which she considered a “terrorist organization.” Ever since then, she has used the power of her office to wage a multi-year war against the NRA.

With the support of millions of NRA members and a team of crack lawyers, the Association has proactively and successfully withstood such legal challenges, even as we have managed to advance gun rights, self-defense laws and hunting opportunities in states across the country.

The NRA has led the way for passage of constitutional carry – the gold standard in self-defense laws outside the home — in 29 states. Perhaps surprising to some observers, most of those states passed constitutional carry since 2018, when the organized campaign to put the NRA out of business began in earnest in the New York courts.

Whether through landmark Supreme Court cases or strategic litigation at the state level, the NRA has consistently demonstrated its commitment to upholding the Second Amendment as a fundamental civil liberty. The NRA shepherded two major Supreme Court cases just in the last three years: the consequential 2022 Bruen decision and the very recent, seminal NRA v. Vullo First Amendment decision that showed clearly New York’s attacks against the NRA were indeed politically motivated.

The Vullo decision, by a unanimous Court, assures that organizations of whatever political stripe or mission are shielded from government officials abusing their regulatory powers to silence those it regulates because it disagrees with their viewpoint.

As I assume the presidency of America’s oldest civil liberties champion, I am reminded that the right to keep and bear arms remains always under threat by those in power seeking more of it by depriving the citizenry of vital individual freedoms.

When I was first sworn into the 104th Congress in January 1995, our Second Amendment rights were under direct assault by then-President Bill Clinton’s gun-control agenda, which had been supported by the previous Congress under Democrat rule. Now, one generation later, another Democrat president is using the power of that office to weaken those same rights through executive actions wielded both directly and indirectly.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

So the Democrat/Media Complex is aghast that the “Far Right” won so dramatically in the European elections. That “Far Right” is, in reality, just ordinary people, and let me tell you what it is that their votes rejected. They rejected the following:

1. The deliberate depopulation of Europe.
2. The deliberate destruction of centuries-old European culture in favor of Islam via unchecked migration of “refugees.”
3. The deliberate lowering of standards of living and life expectancy through the mandated use of inefficient energy sources in response to the “climate change” hoax.
4. Centralized control of all facets of life by unelected, unaccountable EU bureaucrats.
5. Deliberate reductions in the farming, production and consumption of traditional food stuffs in favor of, among other things, bugs.
6. Failure of law enforcement to protect citizens from urban violence.

Americans, do these issues sound familiar to you? Remember how Brexit was a harbinger of Trump? I suspect that is about to play out again in 2024.

Both European and American citizens have come to understand that for the first time in history their political leadership is deliberately seeking to lower their quality of life as a specific policy objective.

Change is coming.

C. Publius

The Myth That Biden Had Nothing to Do With the Prosecutions of Trump

The five criminal and civil prosecutions of former President Donald Trump all prompt heated denials from Democrats that President Joe Biden and Democrat operatives had a role in any of them.

But Biden has long let it be known that he was frustrated with his own Department of Justice’s federal prosecutors for their tardiness in indicting  Trump.

Biden was upset because any delay might mean that his rival Trump would not be in federal court during the 2024 election cycle. And that would mean he could not be tagged as a “convicted felon” by the November election while being kept off the campaign trail.

Politico has long prided itself on its supposed insider knowledge of the workings of the Biden administration. Note that it was reported earlier this February that a frustrated Joe Biden “has grumbled to aides and advisers that had (Attorney General Merrick) Garland moved sooner in his investigation into former President Donald Trump’s election interference, a trial may already be underway or even have concluded…”

If there was any doubt about the Biden administration’s effort to force Trump into court before November, Politico further dispelled it — even as it blamed Trump for Biden’s anger at Garland: “That trial still could take place before the election and much of the delay is owed not to Garland but to deliberate resistance put up by the former president and his team.”

Note in passing how a presidential candidate’s legal right to oppose a politicized indictment months before an election by his opponent’s federal attorneys is smeared by Politico as “deliberate resistance.”

Given Politico was publicly reporting six months ago about Biden’s anger at the pace of his DOJ’s prosecution of Trump, does anyone believe his special counsel, Jack Smith, was not aware of such presidential displeasure and pressure?

Note Smith had petitioned and was denied an unusual request to the court to speed up the course of his Trump indictment.

And why would Biden’s own Attorney General, Garland, select such an obvious partisan as Smith? Remember, in his last tenure as special counsel, Smith had previously gone after popular Republican and conservative Virginia governor Bob MacDonald.

Yet Smith’s politicized persecution of the innocent McDonnell was reversed by a unanimous verdict of the U.S. Supreme Court. That rare court unanimity normally should have raised a red flag to the Biden DOJ about both Smith’s partiality and his incompetence.

But then again, Smith’s wife had donated to the 2020 Biden campaign fund. And she was previously known for producing a hagiographic 2020 documentary (“Becoming”) about Michelle Obama.

Selecting a special counsel with a successful record of prior nonpartisan convictions was clearly not why the DOJ appointed Smith.

The White House’s involvement is not limited to the Smith federal indictments.

Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis’s paramour and erstwhile lead prosecutor in her indictment of Trump, Nathan Wade, met twice with the White House counsel’s office. On one occasion, Wade met inside the Biden White House.

Subpoenaed records reveal that the brazen Wade actually billed the federal government for his time spent with the White House counsel’s staff — although so far no one has disclosed under oath the nature of such meetings.

Of the tens of thousands of local prosecutions each year, in how many instances does a county prosecutor consult with the White House counsel’s office — and then bill it for his knowledge?

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s just-completed felony convictions of Trump were spearheaded by former prominent federal prosecutor Matthew Colangelo. He is not just a well-known Democratic partisan who served as a political consultant to the Democratic National Committee.

Colangelo had also just left his prior position in the Biden Justice Department — reputedly as Garland’s third-ranking prosecutor — to join the local Bragg team.

Again, among all the multitudes of annual municipal indictments nationwide, how many local prosecutors manage to enlist one of the nation’s three top federal attorneys to head their case?

So, apparently, it was not enough for the shameless Bragg to campaign flagrantly on promises to go after Trump. In addition, Bragg brashly drafted a top Democratic operative and political appointee from inside Joe Biden’s DOJ to head his prosecution.

Not surprisingly, it took only a few hours after the Colangelo-Bragg conviction of Trump for Biden on spec to start blasting his rival as a “convicted felon.” Biden is delighted that his own former prosecutor, a left-wing judge, and a Manhattan jury may well keep Trump off the campaign trail.

So, it is past time for the media and Democrats to drop this ridiculous ruse of Biden’s White House “neutrality.” Instead, they should admit that they are terrified of the will of the people in November and so are conniving to silence them.

Cynical Publius Profile picture

I am hoping there are still a few rational Democrats in existence, so I am writing this post in hopes reason will pull them back from the abyss they are about to throw the United States into.

The following statements are indisputable, verifiable facts:

1. The criminal prosecution of the leading Presidential candidate of the opposition party is a wholly unprecedented event that violates all American political norms.

2. In recorded world history, literally every time a nation’s ruling political party acts against prevailing political norms and imprisons or kills the leadership of its major political opponent, the history books record such action as tyrannical despotism.

Think about it, just as examples—Ancient Greece and Socrates; Ancient Rome and Julius Caesar; the French Reign of Terror; Russia, Lenin and the Romanovs; Stalin and his purges; every other Soviet premier and the Gulag; Nazi Germany (enough said); the British Raj and Gandhi; Mao’s Cultural Revolution; Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and the Warsaw Pact versions of Poland and the Czech Republic; South Africa and Nelson Mandela; Vladimir Putin and everyone who ever opposes him; the list goes on and on and on. History records EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE of this phenomenon as the embodiment of abject evil and tyranny.

3. When tyrants imprison their opponents, they always justify the action as being necessary and lawful. Always. Without exception. Additionally, when that happens, there are MILLIONS of citizens who believe in good faith that their leaders’ actions are justified. Average Germans in 1933, average Russians in 1917 and average Chinese in 1970 all GENUINELY BELIEVED that they were the good guys and the actions of their leaders were entirely justified.

These are facts.
Indisputable.
Undeniable.

Here’s another set of facts: in the USA in 2024, the ruling party is seeking to imprison the leader of the opposition party, acting against historical political norms; the leadership doing this believes its actions are necessary and lawful; and average American Democrats believe fervently that the actions of their leaders are entirely justified. The parallels to historic tyranny are powerful, precise and alarming.

Democrats, please consider these facts. I implore you to reconsider your actions. You are not the good guys. Instead, you are the average German of 1933 or the average Chinese citizen of 1970. I warn you now:

History is about to mark you as yet another despicable entry in the pantheon of evil tyranny.

Step back from the abyss. There is still time.

Cynical Publius

I get the sense that a lot of people across the entire political spectrum do not fully understand one of the very most basic reasons why the US federal government is such a tyrannical soup sandwich, so I thought I would write a quick primer.

The US Constitution limits the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states (or the People). To the extent the federal government has certain enumerated powers, it is up to Congress to make laws, and it is up to the President to enforce them. (Yes, I know that it is a very simplified explanation, but it’s basically true.)

Certain federal agencies housed in the Executive Branch have existed almost from the nation’s founding, but these related solely and directly to the President’s Constitutionally-enumerated powers, thus the War Department (for example) was necessary. However, starting with the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, we began to see Congress abdicating some of its lawmaking powers to federal agencies.

Through the following decades, with the desire of the so-called “progressives” to establish rule by “experts,” that abdication of Congressional law-making responsibilities went on warp drive, through Woodrow Wilson, through FDR and even through Richard Nixon, as numerous new federal agencies came into being.

Over those decades, more and more law-making authority was delegated to those federal agencies, most of which were housed in the Executive Branch and responsive to the President, thus greatly expanding the President’s powers beyond the original Constitutional intent.

Over time, even the powers of the third branch—the Judicial Branch—were co-opted into the Executive Branch as these administrative agencies were given the power to create their own courts, thus ruling on disputes regarding and enforcement of the very laws they made.

Penultimately, we have reached the point today where the Executive Branch has subsumed many of the Constitutional authorities of the Legislative and Judicial Branches, creating the tyrannical federal government we see today—one run by life-tenured, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who rule first and foremost for the growth and protection of their own agencies.

Now Donald Trump wants to undo much of this. He wants to unwind this cabal of extra-Constitutional power, and he wants to do so by taking that power OUT OF THE VERY BRANCH HE WILL RUN and return that power to the Constitutional authorities where it belongs. This effort to unwind the power in the Executive Branch is what worries Fascist Democrats when they talk about Trump “destroying democracy,” and it’s why they call him a “dictator.”

(Which is hilarious, since Trump would be the very first “dictator” in world history whose primary purpose is to reduce his own power, thereby enhancing democracy.)

So hopefully that makes things more clear. I left a lot out and simplified some very complex issues, but I think this covers things at the most basic level. If you want to know more, Google the following:

1. Administrative Procedure Act.
2. “Abolishing the Administrative Procedure Act.”
3. Chevron v. NRDC.
4. INS v. Chadha.
5. Wickard v. Filburn

Have a patriotic day please.

Taking guns away from lawful owners isn’t practical

RALEIGH — When officers from the U.S. Marshal Service, the N.C. Department of Adult Correction, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, and other agencies approached a home in eastern Charlotte on April 29, their purpose was to serve warrants on a fugitive named Terry Clark Hughes Jr.

The fugitive fought back, costing four men their lives: Adult Correction officers Alden Elliot and Samuel Paloche, Deputy U.S. Marshal Thomas Weeks, and CMPD’s Joshua Ayer.

Hughes was a habitual felon. In 2011, he was convicted in Person County of breaking and entering. In 2012, he was convicted in Alamance County of speeding to elude arrest — having fled a checkpoint at more than 100 miles an hour — and possessing a firearm, which as a felon he lacked the right to do.

So, when the task force arrived at the Galway Drive house on April 29, among the charges Hughes faced was the illegal possession of guns. Alas, he still had guns. He used them to murder four men before his outrageous conduct cost him his own life.

The officers were there, in other words, to enforce a gun-control law with nearly universal acceptance. And yet, in the aftermath of this horrific incident, progressive politicians couldn’t help themselves. Rather than tailor their reactions to the facts of the case, they engaged in a robotic plug-and-play.

In his April 29 statement, for example, Joe Biden called the officers “fallen heroes.” Yes, they are.

But the president also said this: “We must do more to protect our law enforcement officers. That means funding them — so they have the resources they need to do their jobs and keep us safe. And it means taking additional action to combat the scourge of gun violence. Now. Leaders in Congress need to step up so that we ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, require safe storage of guns, and pass universal background checks and a national red flag law. Enough is enough.”

Several days later, after President Biden met with family members of the fallen heroes as well as others wounded in the firefight, he insisted lawmakers needed to “keep the weapons of war” out of the wrong hands.

The hands of habitual felon Terry Clark Hughes certainly had no business holding firearms of any kind. But it was already illegal for him to do so. That was one of the main reasons the officers were there to arrest him in the first place.

As for the funding of state and federal law enforcement, I see no evidence it played any role here. Safe storage of guns? While the North Carolina General Assembly has already legislated on this matter, it also had no relevance to the case. Nor did the absence of red flag laws (since any report to authorities by family members that he possessed a gun would already have triggered yet another warrant for his arrest) or broader background checks (since he already knew he was precluded from owning a gun and wouldn’t have tried buying firearms from anyone required to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System).

That leaves only Biden’s stated desire to ban all assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Assuming he means semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 — automatic weapons are already illegal for the vast majority of Americans to own — there are tens of millions of such rifles currently in private hands across our country. Most have magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

To put the matter bluntly, there is no practical way of confiscating these weapons from their lawful owners. Let’s focus on actual criminals like Terry Clark Hughes.

John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His latest books, Mountain Folk and Forest Folk, combine epic fantasy with early American history (FolkloreCycle.com).

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN GAVE US THE ANSWER FOR REJECTING GUN CONTROL

President Joe Biden said it again. Given another term, he’ll do gun control. This time, he’s grotesquely dismissive of the high price of freedom that has been paid with the lives of those who fought and died to preserve American independence. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Bill of Rights, famously wrote “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

President Biden told the “Smartless” podcast, according to Breitbart, that he will “make sure that we do something about gun violence in this country” should he be elected for a second term, adding, “this — the [tree of] liberty is watered with the blood of patriots, I mean, that’s a bunch of crap.”

President Biden specifically took aim at re-enacting the failed 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, that even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admitted had no effect on crime reduction. He reiterated his disproven claims about “cannon control” and again placed himself as the pre-eminent Second Amendment authority, despite the U.S. Supreme Court clearly establishing the Second Amendment as a right of individual Americans.

It’s a mantra that would be easy to dismiss if it weren’t for all the gun control he’s already implemented by bypassing Congress and abusing his executive authority to attack the firearm industry.

Punishing Second Amendment Freedom

He targets “rogue” gun dealers, when even his own Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) officials published data showing they’re not the problem. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Volume Three of the National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment show just 0.1 percent of all federal firearms licensees were implicated in allegedly illegal firearm trafficking between 2017 and 2021.

President Biden’s Commerce Department published a punishing Interim Final Rule through the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and slapped on new firearm export restrictions that have the intent of hobbling U.S. firearm manufacturers and exporters. The administration grasped at straws to justify it for national security reasons but it also belies ATF data. The ATF’s National Firearm Commerce and Trafficking Assessment shows less than one percent of legally exported firearms are ever traced in connection with a crime taking place in a foreign country.

Recently, Everytown for Gun Safety’s President John Feinblatt boasted of his gun control organization’s collusion with the White House’s office of Gun Violence Prevention, staffed by his former employee Rob Wilcox, and the City of Chicago to bring a frivolous and harassing lawsuit against Glock. The handgun maker is renowned for their product’s reliability and Feinblatt and others are upset because Glock refuses to change their handgun designs because criminals illegally alter them by affixing auto-sears – what ATF calls “machinegun conversion devices (MCD) -that are illegal to import, make, possess and install on a firearm. A dozen Democrat state attorneys general are threatening to sue, as is Hawaii.

The goal is to overturn the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), the law that prohibits frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry for the harm caused by remote third parties. To more easily understand that, “remote third parties” is legal-speak for criminals. Feinblatt, President Biden and the Congressional gun control cabal want to return to the days of the late 1990’s and early 2000’s when unscrupulous trial lawyers in shiny suits in concert with gun control groups paraded a series of failing lawsuits to drain firearm manufacturers of funds with claims that were never successful.

That wasn’t the point, though. Disgraced former New York Gov. Anderw Cuomo served as the Housing and Urban Development Secretary under President Bill Clinton and infamously threatened the firearm industry with “death by a thousand cuts.” The objective was to bring the industry to its knees and force through court-ordered settlements gun control measures rejected by Congress or ratchet up the cost of litigation and shutter the industry through bankruptcy. Nothing changed.

Look to Another American President

It’s time to reject this mentality. There was a time in this nation when Americans shrugged off the collective blame that society shoulders responsibility for the ills that plague us and focused instead on holding criminals accountable. Instead of listening to the 46th President of the United States, America should recall the words of the 40th President.

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker,” President Ronald Reagan said. “It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

President Reagan delivered those remarks to the Republican National Convention in Miami in 1968. Those words are as fitting today as they were over a half century ago.

President Biden, with the help of gun control cronies, wants to shift the blame for criminals misusing firearms to snatch that Constitutionally-protected right from every American. Together, they’re doing it through executive fiat, judicial abuse and regulatory overreach. They’ve gone so far as to create an office within The White House that is structured to do that, staffed by former gun control lobbyists.

The notion that others are to blame for an individual’s failings and crimes is as juvenile as the toddler’s “the devil made me do it” excuse. Laws are enacted to protect society. They give society the tools by which to hold individuals accountable when they don’t respect the rights of others or the consequences of their actions. When President Biden and his gun control factions talk of repealing PLCAA, enacting unconstitutional restrictions through the rulemaking process instead of working through Congress – the representatives of “We, the People,” they are abrogating their responsibility to protect the very people they’ve been entrusted to govern. They break the social contract with Americans to shift the blame for crime from the criminal to those who had no part or responsibility for that crime.

This isn’t how Americans want to be governed. Weaponizing government – including the courts to cast the blame for criminal misbehavior on an industry or the rest of society – is anything but accountability. It gives the criminal a free pass. It punishes the innocent and negates rights that belong to law-abiding Americans.

This isn’t what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Americans must not tolerate a chief executive who crassly dismisses the hard-fought liberties that have been secured by patriots with their lives. Americans must not surrender their liberties to carry the collective blame when individuals break the law. Stripping Americans of their Second Amendment rights doesn’t make the country safer. It emboldens criminals and makes citizens wards of an Orwellian government.

Newsom’s gun control constitutional amendment gets nowhere, to the surprise of no one

Gov. Gavin Newsom made headlines last summer for proposing a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution enshrining a handful of gun control measures into the supreme law of the land.

There was some ginned up fanfare, with state Sen. Aisha Wahab praising Newsom as “a man of action” in the press release announcing the amendment.

It was all a bit much for what everyone understood at the time to be Newsom’s latest attempt at positioning himself for the White House.

Alas, the California Legislature, dominated by the Democratic Party, approved a resolution calling for a constitutional convention on gun safety. Thirty-three states must make similar calls for such a convention to happen, but even then there’s an asterisk (more on that later).

Almost a year later, reports Bay Area News Group’s John Woolfolk, no other blue state has taken up Newsom on his proposal.

As Woolfolk notes, there are 18 other states with state legislatures controlled by the Democrats. But none have shown signs of following suit.

This is certainly not a surprise. Most states in the country have little interest in the sort of gun control measures pitched by Newsom.

Constitutional attorney Cody J. Wisniewski explained in these pages back in June: “Given only 10 states and Washington D.C. have any form of ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ or any form of waiting period, while 27 states have enacted some iteration of free/constitutional/permitless carry, it is clear that there isn’t currently much appetite for Newsom’s particular brand of gun control across the country.”

Then there’s the problem with the fact that the California Legislature called for a constitutional convention limited to matters of gun safety.
“But constitutional scholars say it’s unclear that’s legally possible,” Woolfolk reports. If a constitutional convention did indeed get assembled, states could use the circumstance to propose whatever they want.

Oregon Sen. Floyd Prozanski told Woolfolk that’s among the reasons his state doesn’t seem likely to go down the path pitched by Newsom. “The last thing I’d want is to open up something where we can’t put the lid back on the can,” he said.

And so that’s where Newsom’s much-touted constitutional amendment and foray into national politics and national influence-peddling stands: nowhere.

Needless to say, this isn’t any surprise to this editorial board. On June 13, 2023, we said of the proposal: “This editorial board isn’t impressed by Newsom’s proposal and we’re confident most of the rest of the country won’t be, either.”

Firearms bans threaten our personal safety

A week before my mom passed away, she taught me how to shoot a firearm. As a long-time firearms instructor, she trained thousands of Coloradans and passed on to me the vital importance of gun safety and self-defense. I followed in my mom’s footsteps and opened Elite Firearms & Training. Every day, I work to carry on her legacy, equipping men and women to protect— from harm.

After a decade of serving as a firearms instructor, I am confounded by efforts in my home state of Colorado to ban the sale of majority of semi-automatic firearms, including many popular handguns and shotguns used for self-defense. This isn’t a fight to keep your AR-15s. Legislators want to pass a “assault weapons” ban bill that will ban the smallest of guns like the Beretta 21a, a .22lr, 7 round handgun that’s smaller than my hand to a more common handgun used for concealed carry like the Springfield Hellcat RDP 9mm.

The current bill defines “assault weapons” generally to include many commonly carried pistols and shotguns that are used for self-defense. Clearly, the drafters of this bill do not understand how firearms operate and are making it as broadly encompassing as possible by including largely cosmetic features that are in common use.

Within the bill, it says that if the firearm has a detachable magazine and a foregrip, threaded barrel, barrel shroud, adjustable stock, pistol grip, and many other ridiculous characteristics, the firearm will be banned. None of these features increase lethality. This legislation undermines our basic rights as Americans, threatening our safety and well-being.

While lawmakers at the State Capitol exploit tragedy to advance their political agenda, they fail to mention the simple and undeniable truth that gun bans fail to reduce crime or keep people safe. Following the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms use Protection Act of 1994, in which certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines were banned, the nonpartisan National Institute of Justice concluded that the moratorium, “failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder or multiple gunshot wounds.”

Even worse, we’ve seen that violence is often incentivized by the same gun restrictions that Colorado legislators are attempting to pass. According to researchers, five out of six mass shooters choose “Gun Free Zones” to unleash their terror. Colorado’s homicide by firearm rate has surpassed the national rate for the first time in over forty years, while states who have passed constitutional carry are seeing a decrease. This comes after Colorado lawmakers have already enacted gun control measures such as universal and expanded background checks, magazine capacity limits, safe storage, red flag laws, etc. and the state has even created their own Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

The same trend of higher crime with more restrictive gun laws have been proven repeatedly in other states and politicians refuse to recognize that the firearm violence occurring is overwhelmingly not from legal firearm owners.

Beyond the definitive data and research that proves the ineffectiveness of gun bans, is the troubling truth that legislative action to halt the production or possession of semi-automatic firearms ultimately threaten the safety of law-abiding citizens, and more specifically, women like me.

According to a Harvard study, the United States added 8 million new gun owners between 2019 and 2021 with nearly half (48%) of those new gun owners being women (3.84 million). Violent crime continues to ravage our communities, and women are literally taking up arms and fighting back.

These brazen and alarming attempts to disarm — and endanger — citizens in Colorado should be national news. We know that lawmakers across the country use these outrageous bills as blueprints, changing the state names, and implementing them within their respective jurisdiction because they don’t have the votes to do it nationally.

Last year, it was Washington state that passed sweeping legislation to disarm citizens and destroy gun stores. Today, it’s Colorado. We cannot sit on our hands as our rights and safety are eroded. It’s time to fight back.

Almost 50% of Colorado’s population own firearms, so we’re not outnumbered. However, we will be ignored if we don’t speak up. Additionally, elections have consequences and gun owners must elect men and women who will safeguard our rights and freedoms. It’s critical that we bring balance — and common sense — back to the state.

The pro-gun argument isn’t rhetoric — these are proven facts — and I invite anyone who is in favor of Colorado’s “assault weapons” ban to come spend a day with me on the range so I can show you how this ban will only harm law-abiding citizens.

Ava Flanell is a firearms instructor and resident of Colorado Springs.

If there’s any question, he’s referring to a ‘gas pipe’ shotgun. And the price of the materials has increased significantly.

Armies of Chaos
by L. Neil Smith

Before anyone proposes more gun control, he or she should know about a simple, deadly weapon 4 times as powerful as Dirty Harry’s legendary .44 Magnum — and at least twice as concealable — that can’t be controlled.

This simple, deadly weapon can be made by anyone—even a child—with unpowered hand tools in an hour’s time using $5 worth of materials, most of which are available around the house anyway. In traditional form it’s reusable an unlimited number of times, and modern plastics have rendered its disposable version electronically undetectable. You can clear a room with such a weapon (more of a hand-held directional grenade than a gun—sort of a recyclable Claymore mine) and it’s just one of hundreds of similar time-proven designs.

Complete instructions for building this simple, deadly weapon could be given in half the space I’m using here and not require a single illustration. Or it could be done as a line-drawing and not require a word. Either way, the results would Xerox splendidly and reduce, for effortless distribution, to the size of a 3X5 card.

No, I’m not making this up.

Self-styled liberal academics and politicians generally suffer an ancient Greek prejudice against the manual trades and often fail to comprehend what it means, with respect to banning weapons, that we’re a nation of basement lathe-operators. Americans unknowingly tend to follow Mohammed’s precept that, whatever a person’s station in life, he or she should also do something manual, if only to stay grounded in reality. And if there’s any lingering doubt about the ease of basic weaponscraft, ask the Israelis who, early in their nation’s history, turned out submachineguns little more complicated than what I’m discussing here, in automotive garages lacking even a lathe.

Civilized restraint precludes my describing the weapon in any greater detail here. Many gun enthusiasts will know by now exactly what I refer to, anyway. It’s in everyday use in much of the Third World, especially where governments foolishly believe that they’ve outlawed weapons. But that, of course, is impossible—unless the same governments want to try repealing the last 1000 years of civil engineering.

Now suppose somebody went ahead and wrote out those easy-to-follow instructions, made that line drawing, or simply Xeroxed it from any of 100 sources already in print. Suppose the plans for a reusable, undetectable weapon 4 times as powerful as a .44 Magnum and twice as concealable began circulating on every junior high school campus in America. Or suppose they were simply sent to the media who can never resist giving viewers step-by-step directions for committing a crime—even as they bemoan the terribleness of it all.

So what, you say. So this: within hours, every self-styled liberal academic and politician extant would begin to weep, wail, and whimper (the only thing they’re really good at) and before the media-amplified screaming was over—but after the legislature had met—we’d find that the rights protected by the First Amendment (not created or granted, mind you, only recognized and guaranteed) are no more secure than those supposedly protected by the Second. Free expression would be trampled under without another thought or a moment’s hesitation by the same jackals, vultures, and hyenas currently leading the stampede to outlaw weapons—using exactly the same excuses.

When Xerox machines are outlawed, only outlaws will have Xerox machines.

Human rights are indivisible because there’s really only one—the right to remain unmolested by the government or by anybody else. Those who threaten one right threaten them all—and aren’t really “liberals” by any definition of the word. Suppressing the human right to own and carry weapons is a step toward suppressing the human right to read, write, and think. Ask Canadians, for whom censorship is a fact of daily life, and for whom certain “assault” books (many of them published by Paladin Press) are on the “hafta smuggle it in” list.

The same thing can and will happen here. Haven’t we had ample warning in the way self-styled liberals, assisted by the corrupt media, suppress their opposition on these and other issues? Or in their willingness to present lies as truth while the truth is called a lie? Or in the fact that elected officials who advocate gun control—which is a felony—are still at large instead of behind bars where they belong? The very existence of a gun control lobby gives the lie to any claim they make to liberalism. The word “liberal” itself is false advertising, and the question arises, why do we go on applying it when the word “fascist” is so much more appropriate?

A popular bumper sticker proclaims that “GUN CONTROL IS PEOPLE CONTROL”. More to the point, and far more sinister, gun control is MIND control. The relationship only begins with ludicrous attempts by self-styled liberals to convince a population protected by the Second Amendment that the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean what it says. Weapons consist of more than machined steel or wood, cast aluminum or plastic. As John M. Browning or Sam Colt would tell you, their second-most vital component is an idea. (The first, for better or worse, is the will to use them.) Without that idea behind it, all the steel, wood, aluminum, and plastic in the world doesn’t make a weapon.

Those who would outlaw weapons must first outlaw the knowledge of weapons. And those who would outlaw the knowledge of weapons must outlaw knowledge itself.

Similarly, civilization consists of more than just impressive public buildings and a battery of arbitrary rules. Its continued existence depends absolutely on the day-to-day good will of each and every individual. History (especially recent Soviet history) proves that this good will depends on how well individual rights are respected. Alienate the individual, lose his good will, and you lose civilization itself.

Think I exaggerate? Take another look at Beirut, Los Angeles, or the World Trade Center.

Every day we learn again how dependent we’ve been all along on individual self-restraint. Self-styled liberals label this lesson “terrorism” because it makes them feel better and helps them to forget until tomorrow. But it doesn’t matter what they call it. In sufficient numbers, disaffected individuals become armies of chaos, reducing whole civilizations to archaeological rubble. And, as with most violence in our culture, it is self-styled liberals who will make it happen here.

Biden Is Destroying the Firearm’s Industry

The Biden administration is driving gun dealers out of business and radically transforming the firearms industry. Unfortunately, President Biden is only getting started, and four more years of these policies will have truly detrimental impacts on the ability of people to buy guns for self-defense.

Biden sold his  “zero tolerance” policy as going after “rogue gun dealers” who “knowingly” sell guns to violent criminals. Of course, no one wants dealers secretly selling guns to criminals out of the back of their stores. But Biden’s zero-tolerance policy isn’t about that. Instead, it makes trivial and inconsequential paperwork errors into grounds for losing one’s license and going out of business.

Tom Harris of the Sporting Arms Co. in Lewisville, Texas, is a disabled father of five who made two small paperwork mistakes fifteen and sixteen years ago. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF) during the Obama administration cleared Harris, who has made a single paperwork mistake since then. But now, the Biden administration is reopening closed cases, including Harris’s. Harris had to create a crowdfunding page to cover his legal costs.

By the middle of last year, Biden’s zero-tolerance for paperwork typos had put nearly two thousand dealers out of business.

It’s not the only policy that is making life difficult for gun sellers. A gun dealer must comply with new, costly reporting requirements if he has sold at least 25 guns that were traced to crimes committed over a year. The guns traced were purchased within the past three years.  This doesn’t even require that the guns were used in a crime, only that the BAFT traced them.

However, identifying gun stores based on the number of guns traced is problematic. It is one thing for a store that sold 50 guns to have 25 guns traced. It is entirely different for a store that sold ten thousand guns to have 25 tracks. Identifying stores based on the percentage of crime guns, not the total number of traced guns, makes much more sense.

 The Biden administration has publicly released the list of these stores, presumably to give negative publicity. Unsurprisingly, the 1,300 outlets targeted in 2023 by the BATF include the largest firearms dealers – Bass Pro Shops, Cabela’s, Scheels, Rural King, and Sportsman’s Warehouse. Large gun stores in higher-crime areas are more prone to fall victim to the new policy through no fault of their own.

The new detailed reporting requirements might create costs that cause some stores to stop selling guns. If that isn’t enough, Biden may hope that publicly demonizing stores will cause them to stop selling guns.

At the same time that Biden is driving gun dealers out of business, he is proposing other regulations that will force everyone who transfers or sells guns to be a licensed firearms dealer. The BATF released a 150-page proposal last year that would require you to have a licensed dealer if you sell a friend a gun once and then even discuss the sale of a second gun. Or if you sell one gun and keep any record of what it was bought and sold for. Or, for that matter, if you rent a space at a gun show without selling any firearms (anyone who has been to a gun show knows that most tables aren’t selling guns).

Leaked information reports the BATF’s proposal has ballooned to 1,300 pages and effectively bans private gun sales. One can only imagine how much more complicated these rules will be.

These rules will only make Americans less able to afford protection, as guns will become increasingly expensive amidst so many regulatory obstacles. The rich won’t have a problem buying firearms, but many low-income people who are the most likely victims of violent crime will be left vulnerable.

On top of all that, Biden has re-imposed Obama’s policy of pressuring Banks from doing business with “high-risk” industries, reviving what was called “Operation Choke Point.”

It’s clear that Biden is working hard to stop Americans from owning guns, and that he is destroying many law-abiding businesses.

Rantz: Seattle English students told it’s ‘white supremacy’ to love reading, writing

Students in a Seattle English class were told that their love of reading and writing is a characteristic of “white supremacy,” in the latest Seattle Public Schools high school controversy. The lesson plan has one local father speaking out, calling it “educational malpractice.”

As part of the Black Lives Matter at School Week, World Literature and Composition students at Lincoln High School were given a handout with definitions of the “9 characteristics of white supremacy,” according to the father of a student. Given the subject matter of the class, the father found it odd this particular lesson was brought up.

The Seattle high schoolers were told that “Worship of the Written Word” is white supremacy because it is “an erasure of the wide range of ways we communicate with each other.” By this definition, the very subject of World Literature and Composition is racist. It also chides the idea that we hyper-value written communication because it’s a form of “honoring only what is written and even then only what is written to a narrow standard, full of misinformation and lies.” The worksheet does not provide any context for what it actually means.

“I feel bad for any students who actually internalize stuff like this as it is setting them up for failure,” the father explained to the Jason Rantz Show on KTTH.

Everything is ‘white supremacy’ at Seattle Public Schools

The father asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution against his child by Seattle Public Schools. He said the other pieces of the worksheet were equally disturbing.

Continue reading “”

The legal right to Self-Defense

In its natural form and going back to the beginning of time, we have felt that we have the right to self-defense. This statement is true but if you are not aware of the specifics to a self-defense claim, you might find yourself in legal trouble. It is expected that a person has the right to self-defense and the defense of another.

You would think that such a natural act as defending yourself or another would be the same no matter where you go in the United States or worldwide, but self-defense laws vary from state to state. Some states have Castle Doctrines and Stand your Ground laws and others do not. It is important to know what actions you might need to take to re-enforce your self-defense claim.

Self-defense is the act of using force to protect yourself or a third party from imminent harm or bodily injury. So, does this mean if someone is throwing a punch at me, which could cause injury, I can draw my firearm and shoot them?

The level of force that you take will be considered during the evaluation of the incident. The level of force needs to be appropriate to the force being inflected on you. This is where the courts will apply the reasonable person rule. Depending on the force directed at you, was your responding force reasonable to defend yourself from such force?

Self-defense laws can be more complicated than they first appear. Another aspect of self-defense is whether the action taken by the assailant is imminent. Are you reacting to something that you fear might happen, or that could possibly happen, or is it immediate and occurring at that moment where if you did not react, you or a third party will be injured.

Let’s look at another aspect of a self-defense claim. Did you provoke the situation? Yes, we all at times lose our cool and say things or provoke others to react to our actions. This doesn’t rid you of a self-defense claim if the incident were to escalate, but there are other actions that you need to take in an attempt to remove yourself from the incident before you can legally claim self-defense. In other words, I can’t pick a fight and when the other party responds, I react with force and then claim self-defense. If I initiate the scenario and it turns ugly, then I need to take appropriate actions showing that I attempted to calm the situation or remove myself from the quarrel.

I’m constantly given scenarios by students of mine and asked how they should respond to such scenarios. That’s a difficult task because each individual has to articulate their reason for the fear of imminent harm. As a 10-year military veteran and 20-year retired police officer who served 7 years on SWAT, it’s a little harder for me to claim fear for my life than it is for a 120-pound female that has never had any tactical training. That “reasonable person” concept is going to look at every aspect of your life and experiences when determining whether your response was reasonable.

There are many variables to consider during a possible life-threatening event. Cooler heads prevail. Consciously tell yourself to stay calm and consider everything that is occurring around you. Panic leads to tunnel vision and the possibility of miss-reading the entire event.

In the state of Arizona, we do not have a duty to retreat, and we do have a stand your ground law. By law you do not have to take appropriate actions to remove yourself from the dangerous environment. I look at these laws as a re-enforcement of my self-defense claim, if necessary, but I don’t use it as a “why I stayed claim.” I would rather do everything I could to not act in self-defense.

You can serious injure someone or even take their life and be justified in doing so, but you still have to live with that fact. That statement is by no means advising you to not defend yourself, it is persuading you to do everything you can to not have to.

NEVER STOP TRAINING!

Never Stop Training!
Oz Johnson/Lead Instructor, NRA Certified
Karin Johnson/Operations Manager
JohnsonGroupTAC.com

Government should not be the information police

The late Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson made an astute pronouncement regarding the role of government in managing the citizenry. He wrote, “It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” This kind of thinking has served the United States well for almost two and a half centuries.

Justice Jackson would have been shocked and saddened to see the results of a recent Pew Research Center poll which assessed public perception of the role of government in controlling false information. The poll reveals that almost half of Americans (48 percent) support the government taking action to restrict false information in the public sphere. Worse yet, those Americans are willing to yield to government information control even “if it means losing some freedom to access and publish content.”

Justice Jackson was a bright and independent thinker in his time. He was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1942 by President Franklin Roosevelt. He is the last justice to serve on the Supreme Court who did not have a law degree. He was appointed by President Truman to serve as the United States’ chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals — and won praise for his management of such uncharted legal territory. Given his experience prosecuting Nazis, Jackson knew well the dangers of information flow being determined or restricted by dictatorial regimes.

Jackson’s quote about the government playing no role in keeping citizens from error is consistent with the thinking of the nation’s constitutional framers. The nation’s founders particularly feared letting monarchs unilaterally determine what information and ideas were approved for citizen consumption. Thus, the founders created a republic that limited such government authority. Those respondents in the Pew poll who entrust the government to decide what is “false” are abandoning fundamental philosophies on which the First Amendment was created. Nobody should assume the government sufficiently knows what information is, indeed, “false,” or much less, needs to be restricted. Further, the government itself can be and has often been the disseminator of false information.

The First Amendment was put in place with the confidence that free citizens debating robustly could eventually sort out the accurate from the false. Founding father Thomas Jefferson said a free people can “tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” A free press and citizens speaking freely can combat societal misinformation more effectively than politicians or government bureaucrats. The First Amendment was created in the first place precisely to let citizens referee the information landscape and question “information” from the authorities.

Only the most sinister people in a culture support the promulgation of false information, but that’s not the root concern here. The issue is how a society sorts out the false from the sensible and who gets to umpire.

Government leaders, no matter how noble, are still self-interested to a large degree and surely don’t have a corner on common sense or reality. The accuracy or falsehood of information is not always clear cut, as Americans surely know in these confusing times. The picture of reality is quite hazy on national matters today ranging from Afghanistan to COVID protocols to rising crime rates, and so on.

World War II challenged the United States in more severe ways than anything being faced today. As a recent Library of Congress study reported, the Office of War Information at that time became aware of the massive rumors and misinformation floating around the nation. The OWI acknowledged that its own lack of transparency was a cause of speculation and rumors. OWI organizers responded with more robust openness, writing at the time, “Rumors can be converted to positive value if they are studied as a guide to information gaps which need to be filled — not by rumor denials but by intensive information programs.”

Americans of any political leaning should be concerned hearing White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki proudly proclaim the administration’s efforts to “flag” for Facebook any pandemic messages counter to White House approved content, as she did earlier this summer. Worse yet, this effort is conducted in collaboration with social media outlets. Instead of flagging as disinformation material the White House doesn’t like, the administration should simply use its huge megaphone to inject its own perspective into the public dialogue. If that rhetoric is sufficiently convincing, the White House will have nothing to worry about.

Censorship of unwanted content only works when accompanied by the hammer of authoritarianism. Free societies address questionable content with debate and more information, but apparently 48 percent of Americans still need to grasp that notion.

2023 HAS EXPOSED THE MORAL DEPRAVITY OF THE RADICAL LEFT

Tom Slater
Editor
30th December 2023

What does it mean to be radical, left-wing, progressive? Well, in 2023, it meant making excuses for a genocidal anti-Semitism, refusing to believe evidence of mass rape and naysaying about the terroristic murder of infants. This was the year the ‘right side of history’ brigade exploded their phoney moral superiority for good.

When Hamas sent men on paragliders, motorbikes and in jeeps into southern Israel on 7 October – murdering, raping, mutilating and kidnapping as many Jews as they could find – I thought those on the anti-Israel left would be forced to reassess. Forced to rethink their years of Hamas apologism – their thinly veiled support for these Jew-hating maniacs, who they have long whitewashed as a ‘legitimate resistance movement’ in Palestine.

After all, that dark day these supposed leftists were – or rather should have been – confronted by the barbaric consequences of their own luxury beliefs. They were shown, beyond doubt, that Hamas’s genocidal founding charter was not just talk – that Hamas was not in fact ‘dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people and long-term peace and social justice in the whole region’, as one Jeremy Corbyn once put it.

But they didn’t reassess. Many leftists openly celebrated the pogrom, hailing it as a ‘day of celebration’. The Socialist Worker called on its nine readers to ‘rejoice’. Many initially giddy tweets were deleted, as the more savvy left-wingers settled in to blaming Israel for being attacked and refusing to believe women were raped. It was victim-blaming on a geopolitical scale; atrocity denial for the Twitterring, TikToking age.

These supposed anti-racists happily provided cover for the world’s oldest bigotry. Many openly engaged in it themselves. Meanwhile, these supposed anti-fascists turned a blind eye as ‘pro-Palestine’ protests turned our streets into an open sewer of Jew hatred. Genocidal slogans were chanted. Swastikas were brandished. Hate crime soared. And they just didn’t care.

The unholy alliance between radical leftists and radical Islamists isn’t new, of course. Over recent decades, the left has come to confuse anti-imperialism with anti-Westernism. Failed Western revolutionaries began to outsource radical agency to Islamists – turning these Jew-hating, misogynistic, gay-bashing theocrats into ‘freedom fighters’, locked in some grand conflict between the West and the rebellious global Other.

Continue reading “”

Gun deaths rise along with gun control grade

Gun control advocates should have reason to celebrate. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence upgraded Colorado’s grade on the “annual gun law scorecard” from a C+ in 2021, to a B in 2022 and an A- this year.

As reported in Gazette sister publication Colorado Politics, Colorado earned its A- for imposing waiting periods, banning “ghost” guns, enacting legislation on victims’ legal access, increasing the minimum age to purchase firearms and investing $1 million in community violence intervention.

The grade would deserve accolades — if it correlated with a decrease in gun violence. It does not. The year Colorado moved from a C to a B was the year Colorado’s rate of gun deaths reached a 40-year high. It is also the year Colorado set a record for the most people injured in mass shootings in a single year.

Since the Columbine High School massacre of 1999, Colorado has understandably pursued more gun regulation. The state enacted background checks at gun shows in 2000. It later passed a 15-round limit on bullet magazines. In 2013, Colorado required universal background checks.

From there, the state passed a red flag law in 2019. The next year, it enacted mandatory reporting for lost or stolen firearms and a safe firearm storage law.

Despite a 23-year gun-control effort, gun sales and gun crimes have risen.

Colorado’s gun sales in 2022 were 26% higher than in 2019. Early indicators suggest this year’s Colorado holiday gun sales will set a record.

An A- for gun control — after a significant rise in gun crimes — amounts to accolades for policies that don’t work.

It frustrates Colorado’s political leaders. Gov. Jared Polis and state’s Attorney Gen. Phil Weiser want to spend $600,000 to hire outside lawyers. They would lend the attorneys to the federal government to prosecute gun crimes.

If federal enforcement saves lives, this proposal could pay off. Properly written and enforced, gun regulations should allow guns in the hands of stable, sober, law-abiding adults.

It should keep guns from substance abusers, criminals, domestic abusers, severe mental illness patients, and others given due process and deemed likely to misuse them.

If Colorado subsidizes enforcement of federal gun laws, Polis and Weiser should take similar action regarding federal drug laws.

Colorado has undermined federal drug laws and enforcement for years, even as fentanyl became the number 1 killer of young adults. We legalized recreational pot in 2012. More recently, our state decriminalized fentanyl, heroin, crack cocaine and other deadly street drugs.

Likewise, Colorado has consistently undermined federal immigration laws. The combined chaos of immigration, rising crime, drug deaths, homelessness and needles in parks probably led to escalating gun ownership in Colorado and the rest of the country.

“There are many communities with sustained levels of crime that have not abated,” said National Shooting Sports Foundation spokesperson Mark Oliva, as quoted in Gazette sister publication The National Examiner.

“Those concerns, along with the punishing anti-gun measures by the Biden administration and threats of more gun control promised by the Biden-Harris reelection campaign, cannot be discounted as contributing factors (to rising gun sales).

“Americans have demonstrated month after month and year after year, (that) Second Amendment rights matter, and they are investing their hard-earned dollars to exercise their right to lawfully possess firearms before the right can be further infringed (upon).”

Reducing gun violence means more and better mental health care. It means restoring harsh penalties for crimes. It means controlling the border. It means enforcing drug laws and offering help for addiction. It means more looking out for those who suffer.

Sadly, it seems we don’t save lives by simply churning out gun laws — even if handed a medal for doing so.

The Gazette Editorial Board

When even lefties don’t think much of your plan…….

Don’t overdo New Mexico’s red flag laws like other states’

It seems odd that a measure that’s supposed to fight gun crime appears to affect the very people who are the least likely to commit such acts, that is law-abiding citizens who are concealed carry holders.

On Dec. 11, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham joined other state officials for an update on the ongoing public health orders that restrict concealed carry from parks and playgrounds and promote ostensible gun safety measures.

“Let me just state unequivocally, the public health order has been in effect three months and it’s working,” the governor said at the news conference. According to Lujan Grisham, 219 guns were seized, 2,490 arrests were made, 87 juveniles involved in gun-related crimes have been detained, 13 guns were seized from one repeat violent offender arrested and 439 guns turned in at a gun buyback event by Stat.

First, the governor couldn’t be more wrong about the approach. It’s not a health epidemic, it’s a crime epidemic. And guns are the tools used by criminals.

In fact, what the governor touts as a successful mandate is nothing more than officials just doing the job of cracking down on crime. One doesn’t need to have a public health order restricting legal firearms to seize illegal guns, make arrests, host buybacks and have “warrant roundups” for felons and firearms. One doesn’t need a public health order to punish criminal wrongdoing beyond a slap on the wrist. One doesn’t need a public health order to test the wastewater at schools for drugs.

Still, the governor talks of more, newer laws.

There’s talk about novel assault rifle legislation being pushed at the upcoming 2024 legislative session, where rifles would be limited to 10 rounds, or perhaps an assault weapons ban. Limiting rifles sounds good but rifles are rarely used in crimes or even in mass shootings, statistics show.

Then there’s red flag laws, such as New Mexico’s 2020 Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act or ERPO. A total of 19 states and the District of Columbia have these laws. Lujan Grisham and other state officials want them toughened up.

The main reason is that red flag laws haven’t had a really broad impact in New Mexico since passage. Two years after the ERPO legislation was passed, only nine petitions were filed statewide. By comparison, there were 109 in Colorado in its first year, also 2020. California started out with 85 in 2016, according to that state’s Governor’s Office, but now has racked up more than 3,000 red flag actions.

Even though New Mexico’s ERPO petitions started jumping — 48 being filed since 2022 — they are a drop in the bucket compared to states like Florida, which has seen more about 10,000 red flag court seizures since 2018.

But research hasn’t really shown a correlation between lowering gun violence — the problem New Mexico is trying to solve — and using red flag laws. In fact, there’s no proof red flag laws actually work to reduce crime, though they are a promising tool for stopping mass shootings.

The New York Times reported in January that a recent six-state study of more than 6,700 ERPO cases found that nearly 10% involved threats to kill at least three people. That’s a pretty wide dragnet to land just 10%, but with mass shootings, stopping one can be considered a victory. The Times points out why such laws work so well for mass shooters. Nearly half of individuals who engaged in mass shootings (48%) leaked their plans in advance to others, including family members, friends, and colleagues, as well as strangers and law enforcement officers.

But the study also found that most individuals who perpetrated mass shootings had a prior criminal record (64.5%) and a history of violence (62.8%), including domestic violence (27.9%).

That doesn’t match up with what we were told about the reason for red flag laws. Proponents said they fill a gap where people without criminal records can’t be touched. Some law enforcement officials had found it difficult to seize guns if a gun owner was not a felon or convicted of domestic violence. But in some cases, such laws aren’t needed at all. For example, it’s already a crime to threaten to use a gun on someone.

Law-abiding citizens have long feared red flag laws were susceptible to mission creep, meaning they could devolve into a situation where anyone can just report another, perhaps for political purposes, disrupting the life of a totally innocent person. Right now, the law allows family members to contact law enforcement, who petition the court. Guns can be seized for a year. One idea being floated for the 2024 legislative session is to add to the list of who can report and petition for a person to be subjected to gun seizure, exactly the move that concerns law-abiding gun owners.

The Editorial Board stands firmly against expanding the parties that can report, though we think updates to the Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act, such as making sure law enforcement officers are well trained in the law, are a good idea. This law in particular must be kept free of abuse. It’s a slippery slope that could lead to ruined lives. As eager as we are to catch bad guys, some protections are needed. Those protections already exist in the U.S. Constitution. They’re known as due process and they’re precisely the thing critics say is lacking from ERPOs.

We don’t want the optics of New Mexico ordering thousands of gun seizures per year or devolving into a state of suspicion among neighbors and residents. We need to stay focused on the kinds of crimes that actually plague our metro areas and use solutions to target those crimes, not simply follow the solutions other states have for their own problems.

Now New York demonstrates link between Second Amendment, other liberties

Last Tuesday, we criticized developments in Flagstaff, Arizona, where local officials seem to be allergic to the idea that gun shop owners, gun owners and people who champion the Second Amendment deserve to be afforded equality before the law and before the practices of the government entrusted to serve the interests of all its constituents.

Instead, leaders of Flagstaff were walking away from advertising revenue for displays at the city’s airport because of fears the courts might expect them to allow a gun shop the same opportunity to advertise as any other business.

Unfortunately a similar case has popped up closer to home — the American Civil Liberties Union will represent the National Rifle Association in a lawsuit contesting New York state’s Department of Financial Services is targeting the lobbying group with a campaign of harassment, discouraging banks and insurers from doing business with the NRA to punish the NRA for its advocacy.

“The government can’t blacklist an advocacy group because of its viewpoint,” the ACLU correctly notes, according to an article in The Hill.com, a Washington, D.C.-based newspaper.

As we alluded to about a week ago, many advocates for the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms explicitly cite fears that without an armed populace, the government will trample the broader array of rights individuals are given by God.

We understand many people feel these fears are overblown, perhaps even paranoid.

But we also cannot think of any way advocates could make the case that these fears are not overblown and are in fact quite reasonable better themselves than what the governments of Flagstaff and now New York state are doing.

In Flagstaff and throughout New York state, people who presumably wish the broader public to believe that the debate over the right to own firearms is about public safety and not about liberty are conspiring to deny their skeptics the right to advertise in a forum available to other constituents and to orchestrate punishment for exercising First Amendment rights in tandem with the banking and insurance sectors.

As much as some people may wish we could cordon off the Second Amendment from the more comprehensive need to preserve individual right, it is the very actions of those people who demonstrate that the violation of the Second Amendment will require violations of nearly all of our cherished, God-given liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Good guys with guns save lives. Don’t believe the hype.

Gun control advocates keep claiming that good guys with guns are not effective at stopping mass shootings. But it looks that way only if we rely on the news media and the government for crime data.

Records of media reports that I have compiled since the beginning of 2021 show police have noted in 33 cases in which a concealed handgun permit holder stopped what appeared to be a mass murder in the making. But few of these heroic cases have gotten national news attention.

Police are very important in stopping crime, but they have a limited ability to stop attacks.

“A deputy in uniform has an extremely difficult job in stopping these attacks,” noted Kurt Hoffman, a Sarasota County, Fla sheriff. He said that mass shooters can “wait for a deputy to leave the area or pick an undefended location” as an advantage over police. Even with a visible police or security presence, he said, “Those in uniform who can be readily identified as guards may as well be holding up neon signs saying, ‘Shoot me first.’”

There’s a good reason that air marshals don’t wear uniforms on planes. By being inconspicuous, they prevent attackers from having a tactical advantage.

My research also revealed that recent cases such as the Lewiston, Maine, and the  Nashville Covenant School attacks occurred in gun-free zones where patrons are either discouraged from carrying guns or face fines and imprisonment for having them. Very few in the media have covered that fact.

The Nashville police chief, who got a look at the murderer’s entire manifesto, noted that the murderer originally targeted another location but decided against that “because of a threat assessment by the suspect of too much security.” The Buffalo mass murderer last year wrote in his manifesto that “areas where [concealed carry weapons] are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack.”

My research shows it’s hard to ignore the enormous amount of mass public shootings that occur in places where guns are banned.

Continue reading “”

California-Style Gun Control: Does Not Work as Advertised

California has a well-earned reputation as one of the most anti-gun jurisdictions in the United States, with its state and local codes crammed with virtually every cockamamie scheme to suppress firearm ownership conceived within the last 50 years. The state’s current governor, Gavin Newsom, is not only determined to cement this reputation statewide, he’s trying to bring California-style gun control to the country at large by promoting an ill-conceived amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would impose draconian gun control coast to coast. But actual data shows California holds another dubious distinction that puts a lie to the efficacy of its highly-touted “gun safety laws”:

…it is the state with the highest number of mass murders committed with firearms.

Yet highly-publicized mass shootings play an outsized role in influencing gun control policy in the U.S. because they create the (grossly distorted and exaggerated) impression that ordinary, law-abiding people are at a high risk of being killed with a firearm at the places where they learn, work, and play. They also receive breathless media coverage that seeks to exploit the public’s grief, fear, and outrage over these events to give impetus to hastily-pushed gun control, before details inevitably emerge that show these measures would have been useless in stopping the crime. Where this manipulation prevails, however, it results in overreaching policies that intrude on Second Amendment rights with virtually no effect on either “mass shootings” or the more anonymous forms of firearm-related deaths.

California is a case in point, as revealed by data compiled on the website Statista.com.

The Statista survey looked at data between 1982 and October 2023 concerning episodes of a single attack with a firearm in a public place that resulted in four or more fatalities between 1982 and 2012 or in three fatalities from 2013 onward (definitions that track a database compiled by MotherJones.com).

Those figures show that California had by far the most such incidents during the survey period, at 26.

This is as much as the combined amount of the next two states with the highest totals, Florida and Texas. It is also more than the combined total of the 20 states with the lowest frequency of such events (excluding states with no such incidents at all).

It is true that California is the most populous (38.9 million) of the U.S. states, so it is not necessarily the deadliest state for mass shootings per capita. But the strongly pro-gun states of Florida (22.6 million) and Texas (30+ million) have a combined population that exceeds that of California by some 13.7 million people. Thus, whatever California thinks it is doing with regard to countering mass public murder committed with firearms, it is working no better at a population level than what is occurring in two of the most gun-friendly states of the Union.

None of this is to diminish the fact that any firearm-related murder is a terrible event, no matter where or how it is committed.

But along with gun control, Gavin Newsom also likes to promote what he insists is a “science-based” approach to “public health.” In that vein, any honest assessment of California’s notoriously strict gun control regime has to acknowledge that the numbers don’t add up to success when it comes to preventing “mass shootings.”