Category: Safety

Civilian gun club wins lawsuit against Fort Devens for violating their rights
Gun club had to file a lawsuit against the Fort in 2022.

A small civilian gun club located just 50 miles northwest of Boston has won a “landmark” lawsuit against nearby Fort Devens for violating their rights and federal law by denying them access to military rifle ranges at reasonable rates.

The Ft. Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., filed suit in 2022 claiming that Fort officials were charging range fees in violation of federal law, according to club treasurer Jim Gettens, a retired attorney who assisted with the legal fight.

Gettens said Monday that his club’s victory was a major “David vs. Goliath” event.

“They were running an illegal profiteering racket,” he said. “That’s the best way to describe it. This was a landmark case.”

Gettens and other club members noticed that their problems with the range began only three days after Joe Biden took office in 2022, which they said would never have happened under President Donald Trump’s Administration.

At issue was a little-known section of U.S. code that requires the Army to make rifle and pistol ranges available for civilian use as long as it does not interfere with military training, and it prohibits officials from charging exorbitant fees for range access.

Another federal statute requires the Army to provide logistical support to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., is an affiliate of both the Civilian Marksmanship Program and the National Rifle Association.

For decades prior to the 2020 election, club members had been using a wide array of rifle and pistol ranges at Fort Devens free of charge. Club members supplied their own targets, ammunition, Range Safety Officers and other supplies. They even policed their own brass. Most of the club members are veterans, so they are intimately familiar with range safety protocols and other best practices. To be clear, in terms of taxpayer dollars, the club cost the Fort very little, which is why club member were so surprised when the Fort began charging them.

Just days after the 2020 election, the club was notified in writing that they would have to start paying a minimum of $250 per range, and that the fees would increase based upon the total number of shooters.

The bottom line was that Fort Devens tried to charge personnel costs for Range Safety Officers and technicians who were never there. In addition, a range staff member admitted in a memorandum that the range was unable to prove maintenance, supply and repair costs because the Fort never kept any such records.

“The odds were certainly stacked against us,” Getten said Monday. “As it turned out, the U.S. Army Garrison at Fort Devens croaked themselves with their own administrative records. A range officer filed a memo for the record admitting they kept no maintenance, supply or repair records—one of the most egregious abuses. We detailed all of this stuff in a memorandum in support for summary judgement. We just destroyed them.”

While the gun club won and can stop paying fraudulent fees, hundreds of civilian police officers are still charged for their time at the range, which Getten said is a legal problem for their agencies.

“Non-DoD law enforcement officers, state police and municipal police departments are still paying out the wazoo for all of those costs,” Getten said. “Non-DoD law enforcement agencies should not be getting hosed the way they are. Also, ICE, FBI, U.S. Customs and other federal law enforcement agencies pay out the wazoo for their range time and pass the costs onto taxpayers.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Julian N. Canzoneri, who defended the government against the gun club’s lawsuit, did not return phone calls or emails seeking his comments for this story.

Dad spent nearly 2 years stationed on Guam between WW2 and the Korean War.

AG: Self-defense is ‘inherent right’

There are many scenarios that can justify the use of deadly force, for instance, a home invasion or a person carrying a machete while aggressively approaching you on your property. Both could be arguments for the castle doctrine law on Guam, but as Attorney General Douglas Moylan stressed, the facts must support that an imminent threat of death or serious injury was present.

On Saturday, the Francisco C. Chargualaf Gymnasium filled with residents of Malesso’ and the surrounding southern villages. All wanted to learn more about the laws in place that allow them to protect themselves and others through deadly force on their property and curtilage.

Moylan explained that through the castle doctrine, Guam law provides homeowners the right to use deadly force to defend their homes or vehicles with protection from prosecution when acting against threats such as home invaders and burglars.

“This isn’t just about firearms, OK? This is about any weapon that you use. The focus of the law is a right to self-defense and the right to use deadly force, and there is a presumption that if, in certain areas, that you’re threatened, you have a right to use deadly force. Whether you’re using a machete, a knife, a bow and arrow, anything that causes the potential injury or death to another person, that is what the castle doctrine speaks to,” Moylan told the audience in attendance.

Moylan referenced the recent amendment to the castle doctrine, which extends those “certain areas” to curtilage.

Curtilage legally refers to the immediate land and buildings surrounding a home. An example would be the yard between the front door and public easement, where children may play or an area where one can expect to have reasonable privacy from government intrusion, like a shed at the back of a home.

“There is an inherent right for everybody to be able to protect themselves and to protect their loved ones and to protect one another,” Moylan said.

Several southern residents who spoke presented scenarios like a homeowner catching a thief stealing a lawn mower as the suspect turns to get away. Or an individual trespassing on property and taking produce and firing a warning shot. They all questioned how to know if the requirements of the castle doctrine are met in different scenarios.

“No. 1 is, whenever you’re confronted with a situation, always try to think when is the last moment can I use deadly force? If you do that, and … if you have the presence of mind to be able to think, I’m not going to, for instance, if you have a gun, I’m not going to immediately shoot what I’m seeing in my house, which the castle doctrine, I think, was originally designed for. But I (the homeowner) want to figure out (how) not to harm somebody as much as possible until they become that clear and present danger to you. Because if you use that type of rule, you’re probably going to be able to get through our AG’s office analysis when the police come there and do the police report and then send it up to our office so that we don’t charge you,” Moylan said.

However, Moylan cautioned against pulling the trigger on a retreating culprit.

“And just to jump to the front of the line here, if you guys see the guy that came into your house at 2 o’clock at night, turn around and then try to get out of the house because he saw you, you guys made eye contact. Please don’t shoot him,” Moylan said.

While Moylan was not advocating for shooting another person, recognizing that many crimes committed in Guam are fueled by methamphetamine addiction, he did support the right to defend oneself as allowed in the castle doctrine law.

“You can use deadly force if the person is using a weapon against you. You have to use nondeadly force if the person is coming to just fight you,” Moylan said. “You can’t just pull out the firearm and shoot him in the street.”

Application of the castle doctrine law comes down to the “fact patterns” of the case and whether the AG green lights the prosecution.

“So, you literally can have somebody killed by you, the police officer would put together the report, what they’re seeing, different statements, and then it would come up to the AG’s office. My first group would be looking at it and, especially if it caught my attention, it would be brought to me, or they would have the sense of mind to bring it to me, and then I would sit down with them and then go over the facts on what happened,” Moylan said noting the need for the facts to justify the use of deadly force.

Moylan referenced the Dave Barber Shop shooting, where the shop owner shot a burglar in the leg as the suspect entered their private living quarters. He noted the shop owner was afforded criminal and civil protections of the castle doctrine law and not charged.

Moylan encouraged residents, if faced with the need to use deadly force against an aggressor at home or in a vehicle, to aim for the leg or fire a warning shot.

“When you shoot somebody, you don’t need to hit them between the eyes. You don’t need to hit them necessarily in the heart. You can hit him in the leg. You can hit him in the kneecap,” Moylan said.

Moylan repeatedly stressed that castle doctrine law does not protect one’s property from theft or damage. For the doctrine to apply, the threat of imminent loss of life or serious bodily injury must be present to respond with deadly force.

WINNING: CA Democrat Withdraws His Own Anti-Self Defense Bill in State Assembly

In a victory for common sense, human rights, and the Second Amendment, a California Democrat assemblyman, Rick Zbur, has withdrawn his own bill, which would have gutted legal protections for innocent citizens who use force in self-defense.

The California Globe has more details on AB 1333:

Assemblyman Rick Zbur (D-Los Angeles) announced late on Wednesday that he would be withdrawing his new self-defense limitation bill following significant public backlash and confusing language in the bill.

Assembly Bill 1333, which was introduced last month, would have eliminated certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property. The bill would have also additionally clarified circumstances in which homicide is not justifiable, including, among others, when a person uses more force than necessary to defend against a danger.

Zbur said that AB 1333 would simply close a “legal loophole” over public confrontations and then claiming self-defense. However, AB 1333 instead sparking public outrage. Many pointed out that the bill would severely limit self defense against crime and leave open questions into when homicide was and wasn’t legal.

In non-political speech, this law could have implemented serious legal dangers, with one GOP assemblyman calling it a “complete assault on self defense.” Both Republicans and Democrats balked, forcing Zbur to withdraw the bill:

“This bill is a complete assault on self defense!” said Assemblyman Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale) last month. “Imagine this: A violent criminal breaks into your home, and YOU have to second-guess whether defending your family is ‘justifiable.’ The misguided energy behind this proposal is beyond comprehension.”

Flooded with criticism from both Republicans and some Democrats, Zbur swiftly responded on X, saying that he wanted to target vigilantes and that AB 1333 would be amended soon to clarify the bill language.

As with so many poorly thought-out gun and self-defense laws, this proposal would never have any effect on criminals but would only serve to place innocent citizens in the position to choose between suffering a criminal attack or suffering legal hassles and possible jail time.

Continue reading “”

Bill Allowing Armed Teachers, Staff Moving in West Virginia House

Legislation to allow armed teachers and staff for classroom defense is set to come before the West Virginia House.

The bill, HB 2187, passed the West Virginia House Education Committee, according to WSAZ.  It is next scheduled for the House Judiciary Committee.

HB 2187 amends the language of current West Virginia law “relating to possessing deadly weapons on premises of educational facilities; authorizing teachers, administrators, or support personnel in elementary or secondary schools to carry concealed firearms and be designated as a school protection officer (SPO).”

The bill also sets forth “information” and “certain qualifications” that must be met in order for a teacher or staff member to become an SPO.

In addition to concealed firearms, SPOs would be able to carry “stun guns or tasers.”

LootPress pointed out that SPO applicants must already have a concealed carry permit and will undergo additional training under the auspices of the “Security Protection Officer Training Program.” The training program includes “firearms training, de-escalation techniques, crisis intervention, active shooter response, trauma care, and other security-related topics.”

Rand.org noted that “at least 28 states allow schools to arm teachers or staff (not just trained guards or peace officers) in at least some cases or as part of specific programs,” as of January 1, 2024.

CNN observed that on April 26, 2024, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) signed legislation allowing armed teachers in the Volunteer State. This puta the number of states allowing armed teachers for classroom defense up to at least 29.

Tennessee moved to arm teachers after Nashville Metropolitan Police Chief John Drake indicated the March 27, 2023, school shooter originally planned to hit another target, but chose the Christian school instead because it had less security. Six innocents were killed in the school, where no one was armed for classroom defense.

BLUF
Heroic citizens stopping bad guys would be just as interesting to watch as police stopping crimes, but permit holders are rarely portrayed that way on television. This reluctance to show normal good guys with guns endangers public safety by fostering a false perception that armed civilians are more of a threat than a solution.

If we truly care about public safety, we should acknowledge the proven role that responsible gun owners play in stopping violent attacks — rather than avoiding the truth for the sake of an anti-gun agenda.

Study: Concealed Carriers Do A Better Job Of Stopping Active Shooters Than Police

You’d never know it from watching television, but civilians stop more active shooters than police and do so with fewer mistakes, according to new research from the Crime Prevention Research Center, where I serve as president. In non-gun-free zones, where civilians are legally able to carry guns, concealed carry permit holders stopped 51.5 percent of active shootings, compared to 44.6 percent stopped by police, CPRC found in a deep dive into active shooter scenarios between 2014 and 2023.

Not only do permit holders succeed in stopping active shooters at a higher rate, but law enforcement officers face significantly greater risks when intervening. Our research found police were nearly six times more likely to be killed and 17 percent more likely to be wounded than armed civilians.

Those numbers paint a fuller picture than the FBI’s crime statistics, which fail to include many of the defensive gun uses my organization has cataloged. But the problem with the FBI’s crime statistics isn’t just the errors in their reported data — they also fail to address useful questions, like how concealed handgun permit holders compare to law enforcement. Kash Patel and Dan Bongino face a major challenge in reforming how the data is collected and reported at the FBI.

What We Found

Continue reading “”

Arkansas public school students will soon be required to take gun safety courses

act229

The Arkansas state Senate passed a bill to provide age-appropriate firearms safety instruction to students last week and the Arkansas Department of Education will be working with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission to develop a plan.

Act 229, also known as House Bill 1117, will require public school districts and open-enrollment public charter schools to annually provide students with instruction on firearm safety.

The bill’s sponsors say the idea came from conversations among neighbors.

Continue reading “”

U.S. House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on ‘The Right to Self Defense’

The U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, under the leadership of Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), held a committee hearing focused on the right of law-abiding Americans to protect themselves.

It’s a critical moment for Second Amendment rights as President Donald Trump campaigned on restoring community safety and vowing to protect the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. That priority resonated with voters, including more than 26.2 million law-abiding Americans persuaded by crime and threats of violence in their communities to purchase a firearm for the first time over the past five years.

This priority also aligns with the House Republicans as they are committed to standing up for those Second Amendment rights and ensuring American communities are safe from criminal violence after historic surges in crime during the Biden-Harris administration.

Continue reading “”

Always be nice. Until it’s time to not be nice.

Let’s dissect the word “no” and make sure that we are using the best tone and body language when it matters most, self-preservation.

I spent time in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and the word “no” can be a noun, an adjective, or an adverb.

  • Nouns are the “subjects” of a sentence that refer to a person, place, thing, or idea. Example: “received a firm ‘no’ in reply.”
  • Adjectives describe or modify a noun. What kind? How many? Example: “no disputing the decision.”
  • Adverbs provide additional information about the verb. How? When? Where? Basically, action. Example: “shook his head no.”

I find this interesting because no matter what the category, “no” means roughly the same thing. Negative. Refusal. None. Denial. Never. Veto.

Think about all the different people you may say “no” to throughout the day. Now, think about some of the non-vigorous diverse ways to say “no.” Here are several examples listed below.

  • I am afraid I can’t.
  • Maybe next time.
  • I am busy.
  • I am not comfortable doing that.
  • I don’t want to.
  • Sounds great, but I cannot commit to it.
  • I am honored but I can’t.
  • I have another commitment.
  • I will have to pass.
  • I’m not interested.

There is a time and a place for everything, why not think of the word “no” in those terms? There are times to be polite, there are times to turn something down and give a reason, there are times to be direct with a simple “no”. The whole while needing time to consider the context and relationship when deciding how passive or firm you need to be.

Scenario: It is the middle of the day; you are at your favorite gas station filling up your tank and you see that a stranger has taken interest in you. He is about twenty-five feet from you, and you recognize that you have just been “targeted.” The bad man stares at you for over half a minute, gives you a charming smile and heads your way.

  1. Do you politely say, “Maybe next time” and then turn your back on him?
  2. Do you say, “I am honored that you have chosen me, but I’ll have to pass” and then offer him a dollar…which brings him closer to you?
  3. Do you say “stop! I cannot help you” while preparing to take other actions?

If your answer was #1 or #2, then you may not fully understand how to use the word “NO!” when you need to stop someone in their tracks.

Hands up

Talk to the hand…

There are times when you need to say “no” in a forceful way. Your goal is to grab their attention and make them understand that you are not vulnerable. Here are a few tips:

  • Your “No, go away” should be guttural and firm with a loud, commanding voice. It is a good idea to try to combine your “no” with simple instructions on what you want them to do, such as, “No, leave now”. Your goal is for them to leave without further confrontation.
  • Maintain solid eye contact for a few seconds that says, “I am serious”. Please manage your eye contact timing so it does not become a challenging stare.
  • Stand tall to show confidence, position your hands/arms in front of you to protect your head if things get nasty (plus it signals the universal “no”) and look around to see what direction you can quickly move to if necessary. Please make note that there is a difference between a confident posture and aggressive body language.
  • While all the above is happening, deploy pepper spray and reposition yourself so your car, the pump, the trash can, etc. are in between you and the bad man. An obstacle can give you time and space to make decisions.
  • If all of this does not stop him then maybe these steps have earned you the option to leave and avoid a potentially dangerous situation, or maybe it has put yourself in a position that you can use your pepper spray to stop him from doing bad things.

I highly recommend that you rehearse these steps, so they are fluid and feel second nature to you. The key to mastery is practice, practice, practice.

I’ll reiterate:

Why ‘Just Call the Police’ Is Terrible Advice

There’s an old saying in the gun world: When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

It’s true.

Many, if not most police officers want to protect the public. They’d love to swoop in and keep everyone safe and sound from the predators that walk among us. They simply can’t. It’s just not feasible.

Yet many people believe that the answer to someone breaking into your home is to just call the police. Just call the police.

I can’t really accept that because I understand how things work in the best-case scenario. You dial 9-1-1 and you get connected with a dispatcher. You tell them everything, then they relay it to the appropriate officer. That officer then has to redirect to your location. Unless he’s just a block away–that’s rare, but it may happen on any given call–it’s going to be a little bit of time before he can get there.

Horrible things could happen in that time.

But a post on X, formerly Twitter, illustrated yet another potential problem. What if you call 9-1-1 and you’re put on hold for almost an hour?

Luckily, this wasn’t an emergency call. There was no threat to life and limb. It was reporting a crime, so 9-1-1 was the appropriate number to dial, especially as there was always the possibility that the bad guy would come back, but that didn’t happen.

Yet it still took them almost an hour to actually speak to someone and get an officer dispatched.

Continue reading “”

Kostas Moros

Moms demand recently published a defense of AB 1333, saying its “right wing extremists” attacking it. Wrong. No rational person wants some antigun prosecutor second-guessing whether you “could have run away” when you are attacked by some criminal and are forced to shoot.
If I am out with my toddler and a lunatic comes at us with a knife or other imminent deadly threat, I should not have to waste several moments (while under an adrenaline rush) calculating if I have a chance to escape before shooting to defend my little girl and myself.
That’s what “duty to retreat” does. It is outright evil. California has always had a Stand Your Ground defense and it’s never been a problem. California’s Stand Your Ground jury instruction already doesn’t allow for a viable self-defense claim if you provoked the attack. The antigunner’s claimed fear is not a thing. They just hate the right to bear arms and hate that more people in California can now exercise it thanks to Bruen.
@Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur have the decency to scrap this monstrous bill. Haven’t California’s voters made it clear they are done with you catering to criminals? If this passes, I say we get a proposition submitted to enshrine SYG into the CA constitution. I think that would pass even in this blue state.
This is already true under current law! SYG still requires that you reasonably bellieve you are facing an imminent deadly threat. All the legal elements of self-defense must still be there, or its criminal homicide. It just makes it so you arent obligated to try and flee first. And again, you don’t want Soros-backed prosecutors second-guessing what was “truly necessary”.
Read all of the Moms Demand’s nonsense here if you want. 

The Hard Part of Armed Defense

I wrote about this story earlier. Now we know a little more after the defender spoke to local reporters. A mom with two kids was attacked in her home at night. She announced to the robbers that she was there. She shouted that she was armed. The robbers shot at her about a half-dozen times and wounded her twice. She was wounded as she held her infant daughter on her hip. She shot back and retreated. She huddled in her bedroom as she was protecting her two small children. The wounded mom begged the robbers to leave. Eventually, they did, but not before they shot at her home 30 times.

One of the robbers was wounded. All three were arrested. This is what we can learn.

Bad guys avoid a fair fight. If they responded to fairness and justice, then they wouldn’t have broken into your home in the first place. Your priority is to be there so you can take care of your children when this is over. You want to avoid being shot, and even being shot at. You definitely want to avoid facing multiple attacker at the same time. The sooner your attackers can’t hurt you the less shot you’ll get.

You don’t have to announce that you are home. You don’t have to announce that you have a gun. You don’t have to say anything to three men who broke into your home in the middle of the night. This isn’t an old-time radio drama. This isn’t a movie where the good guys and bad guys give a monologue before the fight scene. You don’t have to shoot the bad guy from the front or from a position where they can see you at all.

For example, it is hard to get shot if you’re shooting from the back of a dark bedroom and the bad guys are standing in a lighted hallway. Consider that situation for a moment. Some people think that a gunfight is won by the person who draws and shoots the fastest. That tells me you have been watching too many late-night westerns. The person who wins is usually the person with a better plan.

The hard part of self-defense is being ready for a serious but unlikely event.

Notice that the bad guys had to break into this home because the doors and windows were locked. They made noise. That noise alerted the mom and gave her time to react. She called her partner on the phone and then grabbed their gun.

You want to know when you can legally use lethal force to defend yourself. Study that enough so that you recognize a situation rather than having to think it through as it unfolds. Learn if you can shoot a stranger who breaks down your bedroom door in the middle of the night. Knowing what you can and should do makes you faster.

Practice a safety plan with your family. There are good plans and bad plans. Avoid a plan that puts you in a gunfight where bullets are going both ways. Don’t stand in the middle of your hallway and talk to people who broke into your home. Your children will be less frightened if they have rehearsed the family safety plan with you several times.

Let us imagine a very different encounter than this news story. This defender would have a huge advantage if-

  • her children were under her bed,
  • she was crouched down behind the bed,
  • she had her gun pointed at her locked bedroom door,
  • and 911 was on the phone.

How would your safety plan make you and your family safer?

This mom did a lot of things right. She and her child are also lucky to be alive. She was shot twice while she had a child in her arms and either shot was a few inches from being a fatal wound. This was the first time she had held a firearm. Give yourself every advantage so you survive even if you don’t have luck on your side. Practice with your defensive tools before you need them.

As a final aside, the robbers broke into her home looking for drugs and money. Lose your roommates who have a drug problem.. and then change the locks.

Looking at the statistics, it’s reconfirmation that being around Police -Any Law Enforcement- is very dangerous for those who have decided to defend themselves as they’re likely to shoot anyone who’s armed, simply ‘because’. Being aware of that should be taken in consideration and plans made on how to deal with it.

UPDATED: A Deep Dive into Cases Where Civilians Stopped Active Shooters. Did they accidentally shoot bystanders, get in the way of police, get their gun taken away, or create other problems? How does it compare to police who stopped these attacks?

We have previously put out our study on the FBI’s active shooting reports. If you watch entertainment television police shows, you would think something always seems to go wrong when guns are used defensively (including shooting bystanders to getting in the way of police to failing to protect the permit holder to continually having the gun stolen and use in a crime to it being used in an accidental shooting).

During the ten years from 2014 to 2023, there were 180 active shooting cases (as defined by the FBI) where a concealed handgun permit holder stopped an active shooting attack.

We decided to do a deep dive to see how many cases there were out of those 180 cases where a concealed handgun permit holder accidentally shot a bystander (one case, 0.56%), got in the way of police (zero cases, 0.0%), had the handgun taken away (one case, 0.56%), and got themselves killed (two cases, 1.1%). What was more common were cases where the permit holder was injured in saving the lives of others (44 cases, 24%). Fifty-eight of those cases were instances where a mass public shooting was likely prevented. An Excel file with the data for civilians and police is available here.

Continue reading “”

Mexican President Threatens Double-Down Lawfare to Cover for Cartels

By Larry Keane

Mexico has revealed there are no limits to the depths to which it will sink to threaten America’s law-abiding firearm industry and the Second Amendment. Mexico’s government continues to run interference for the narco-terrorist drug cartels that are fueling rampant murder and corruption in their own country. It is also a damning indictment on the nascent Mexican presidency’s entanglement with drug kingpins.

Mexico’s lawyers – supported by American gun control activist and lawyer Jonathan Lowy – will appear before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 4 to argue that their frivolous lawsuit should be allowed to proceed. That case – Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos – was petitioned to SCOTUS by the industry members who are being sued by Mexico. Mexico contends that U.S. firearm manufacturers are legally responsible for $10 billion in damages to compensate Mexico for costs it incurs when Mexican narco-terrorists illegally smuggle firearms into Mexico and criminally misuse them on their side of the border. Mexico is also asking a U.S. court to issue an injunction dictating how and which firearms Americans may purchase when exercising their Second Amendment rights in America. NSSF’s amicus brief filed in the case argues that Mexico’s lawsuit is prohibited by the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and lacks legal merit.

President Donald Trump, in announcing his executive order imposing a tariff on Mexican imports, said, “Mexican drug trafficking organizations have an intolerable alliance with the government of Mexico. The government of Mexico has afforded safe haven for the cartels to engage in the manufacturing and transportation of dangerous narcotics, which collectively have led to the overdose deaths of hundreds of thousands of American victims.”  President Trump issued an Executive Order the day he took office to kick start the process of designating the cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.

This week, President Trump followed up that process with Secretary of State Marco Rubio officially declaring Tren de Aragua, MS-13, the Sinaloa Cartel, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, the United Cartels, the Gulf Cartel, the Northeast Cartel and the Michoacán Family as foreign terrorist organizations.

Continue reading “”

Self Defense & A Long Life Is Yours, But Only If You Want It

“The stupid neither forgive, nor forget. The naive forgive, and forget. The wise forgive, but never forget!” ~ Thomas Szasz.

This response to my Quip of yesterday titled “Being A Warrior Is A Foreign Concept For Most Modern Jews” from a long-time Jewish friend and student:

“For one, I am in agreement with your comments of yesterday.
Yet, the majority in the Jewish Community (at least the part of it with which I am familiar) will blatantly ignore your advice.
Why?

Despite recent history being reason-aplenty for unilateral armed self-protection, the majority of Jews I know immediately ‘push-back’ when the subject of guns, and lethal-force inherent to them, comes up.

Even when I bring up the subject discretely in casual conversation, the response is usually, ‘Oh no! I would never have a gun in my house,’ or the boringly classic ‘Guns are dangerous!’

I conclude there is no point in continuing the discussion!
‘Ignorance is Bliss,’ but it is fatal bliss, as we’ve seen so often!

Yes, I’m frustrated.”

My reply:

My dear friend,
The absolute refusal to face facts that you describe is frustrating indeed, but it is hardly confined to the Jewish Community!

Naive, soft-headed liberals are everywhere, many among Christians, even atheists.

Enlightenment and subsequent delivery from dangerous stupidity require sincere repentance, and the smug of all flavors is just incapable of it.

They would rather die than admit they’re wrong, even when it’s obvious

Unhappily, many will get the martyrdom they think they want!

Of course, they’ll sheepishly ‘change their minds’ at the last minute when they’re staring death in the face, but by then, it will be too late!

History does not deal kindly with arrogant, self-deceiving fools, no matter their religion, as we’ve witnessed over and over!

“Taking the law into your own hands?’

The law IS in our hands!

‘Law enforcement’ is not something sovereign citizens seize from police officers. It is a societal function that citizens delegate to civil police. In doing so, we do not abdicate our own sovereignty nor our duties as citizens. The ultimate responsibility is still ours. When people we hire as police are either unwilling or unable to perform that function at the critical moment, there is no law or standard that says we cannot perform it for ourselves.

Indeed, when personally threatened, we have no choice!

/John

Utah House Overwhelmingly Approves Bill to Teach Kids REAL Gun Safety

A bill mandating true gun safety in Utah schools has sailed through the state House, but anti-gunners are doing their best to derail the measur as it heads to the state Senate for approval.

HB 104 is a common sense measure that would require all public school students to learn about the safe storage and handling of firearms on three separate occasions between kindergarten and the end of sixth grade. Rep. Rex Shipp, the primary sponsor of the legislation, says the instruction would be age-appropriate, with younger kids essentially being taught the advice given by the NRA’s Eddie Eagle.

“A lot of times when they don’t have any firearms in their homes or don’t do any hunting and shooting, then these kids are not taught what to do when they come in contact with a firearm,” Shipp said.

Who could object to teaching young kids not to pick up a gun? Oddly enough, gun control advocates are the main opponents of the measure.

Gun violence prevention advocates have applauded Utah Republicans this year for growing gun safety education programs, but some argue those lessons should only be aimed at adults.

The proposal unfairly places the responsibility of gun safety on children rather than their parents, said Barbara Gentry of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah. “Guns and gun safety are the responsibility of the adult gun owner, not school children,” Gentry said. “We support schools sending home materials to parents outlining the importance of safe storage in keeping our families and schools safe from gun violence.”

Jaden Christensen, a volunteer with the Utah chapter of Moms Demand Action, said lawmakers should instead look to grow programs that teach parents the importance of keeping firearms away from children.

“The burden should always be on adults,” Christensen said.

Utah law already mandates that any parent or guardian of a minor who fails to make reasonable efforts to remove a firearm from the minor’s possession is criminally liable, so adults are already “burdened”, as Christensen put it.

Even with that law in place, however, there are going to be some adults who just don’t give a damn. So why shouldn’t we also teach kids what to do if they see a firearm?

For younger kids, Eddie Eagle’s advice to “stop, don’t touch, run away, and tell an adult” might suffice, but there’s nothing wrong with age-appropriate gun safety lessons that offer older children and adolescents more detailed advice on gun storage and safe handling of firearms.

The abstinence-based approach advocated by Christensen and other prohibtionists is downright dangerous. In making real firearm safety taboo, the gun control activists only increase the chances that a kid who runs across a gun will be fascinated and intrigued enough to pick it up. Taking the mystery out of a gun can go a long way towards keeping kids safe from harm, and it’s utterly ridiculous that these activists would prefer children be left in the dark instead of getting a real education.

The good news is that in Utah, anyway, the gun control advocates aren’t likely to get their wish. With overwhelming approval in the state House, HB 104 looks to be in pretty good shape now that its in the upper chamber. And for those anti-gunners intent on keeping their own kids clueless about what to do if they run across a gun, they can take comfort in the fact that there’s an opt-out provision in the legislation, so even if it becomes law they can still ensure that their children are ignorant when it comes to real gun safety.

Plan Ahead: A firearm is only one part of an integrated defensive plan.

Bob and Sarah (not their real names) owned a small grocery on the edge of town, not far from the interstate highway. On the evening in question, Bob was behind the counter manning the cash register, while Sarah was in their little office. Bob looked up to see a masked man enter the store and point a gun at him. Bob put his hands up and took a step backwards. Just then Sarah fired a shot from inside the office delivering a load of buckshot from her 20 gauge to the armed robber’s neck and head.

That sounds like a lucky save, but there was a lot of planning done ahead of time to insure a successful outcome. When Bob and Sarah first bought the store, they had a carpenter come in and frame up a small office against the wall opposite of the front door, situated so that someone in the office could see the front door and the checkout counter. Next, they had a small button installed on the floor beneath the cash register that would buzz in the office when it was stepped on. Finally, they installed security cameras inside and outside the store.

In this particular case, Sarah saw the crook while he was still outside, putting his mask on. By the time that Bob saw the crook and stepped on the buzzer at his feet, Sarah had already dialed 9-1-1 and was reaching for the office shotgun. Knowing what was about to happen, Bob put his hands up and stepped back to make sure that his wife had a clear line of fire.

My point in all of this is that the firearm in question was just one integral part of the security system. This couple had discussed the dangers of running a store on the edge of town and took steps to make themselves a harder target.

I happen to think that a firearm, and the ability to use it well and wisely, is just one part of what guarantees our personal safety. Merely locking the doors in our vehicle and our house doesn’t keep the crook out, but it buys us time to react, arm ourselves, and notify authorities. Being a lifelong shooter, my hearing is not what it once was, so I also rely on my little dog to tell me when someone is around. And, after hearing Bob and Sarah’s story, I am in the process of looking at inexpensive security cameras.

My situation may not be exactly like yours or Bob and Sarah’s. We each have to ask ourselves … How do I spend my days?  What criminal acts am I likely to be confronted with, and how can I prepare for them? Yes, a defensive firearm, and the ability to use it safely and effectively, is important. But it is only part of the whole situation. You’d be wise to study your particular situation and plan ahead.