Category: Safety

Jewish camp leaders challenge carry law due to anti-semitism.

If you’re part of a group that may well be targeted by someone simply because you’re part of that group, it’s probably a good idea to take steps to protect yourself.

Anti-semitism, homophobia, racism, and so many other forms of hatred are, unfortunately, real and if you’re someone who is concerned about any of those, it makes sense to arm yourself and to carry a firearm everywhere you can.

In New York, though, the people who run a camp for Jewish kids are challenging the state’s carry laws because it makes it impossible for them to protect the kids.

The CEO of Kars4Kids, a Jewish charity with a catchy advertising jingle, is challenging New York state’s concealed carry law in court — claiming that it leaves children vulnerable to antisemitic attacks.

Eliohu Mintz, who heads Kars4Kids, is also the CEO of Oorah, a Jewish outreach nonprofit funded by Kars4Kids that runs a summer camp in upstate New York. In a federal lawsuit filed Friday, Mintz and a camp administrator, Eric Schwartz, say the law exposes the camp to antisemitic attack because it bans private citizens from carrying guns in places where religious activities are conducted.

“The violent attacks on Jewish people targeting places of worship and places where children are — the most vulnerable of the population — are random and provide the victims with no notice or advance warning,” Mintz said in a declaration attached to the lawsuit. “I cannot be left unprepared and unarmed in the event that an evildoer decides to attack one or both of the [camp’s] campuses nor can the other licensed staff members.”

Now, there’s a provision that amended the law in question that allows for armed security personnel at places of worship. The problem?

“The plaintiffs are staffers who have carried for personal protection and want to continue carrying,” Amy Bellatoni, the attorney for Mintz and Schwartz, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “They are not designated security personnel and, therefore, not part of the exemption.”

And therein lies the problem.

Obviously, I side with Mintz and Schwartz here. The carry law was written to include as much of the state of New York as possible and removes any possibility of a so-called sensitive location to decide for itself whether it allows firearms or not. New York decided and a lot of people are paying the price.

And anti-semitism is very real and isn’t likely to go away. Those who want to harm Jews aren’t going to be deterred by the idea that these places of worship are gun-free zones, either. I mean, if the laws against murder aren’t going to deter them, a Ghostbuster-like side with a gun in the center instead isn’t likely to do anything either.

So it’s my heartfelt desire to see this change. The people of New York deserve better than they’re getting from their so-called leadership. Concerns of racism or anti-semitism or anything else like that should be taken seriously and people should be empowered by the constitutionally protected rights granted them by being human beings to combat them, with words when appropriate and with bullets when their lives are threatened.

As I heard it explained many years ago; ‘Fast with a gun’ didn’t mean the “quickdraw” that western movies, TV & some artists have made famous. It meant the man was fast -as highlighted below – in deciding that he would draw and shoot and then not hesitate in doing so.

Lessons on Gunfighting from Wyatt Earp.

Wyatt Berry Stapp Earp (March 19, 1848 – January 13, 1929) was an American Old West gambler, a deputy sheriff in Pima County, and deputy town marshal in Tombstone, Arizona Territory, who took part in the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, during which lawmen killed three outlaw cowboys.

Here is an interview that Wyatt Earp shares on “gunfighting“. This was dated back in the 1910 he offered to give an interview about his thoughts on using a gun. In his own words, Wyatt is going to explain how he became one of the most feared and accurate gunslingers… even if he was about the slowest.
The interview was originally posted on primaryandsecondary.com forum.

The most important lesson I learned from those proficient gunfighters was the winner of a gunplay usually was the man who took his time. The second was that, if I hoped to live long on the frontier, I would shun flashy trick-shooting—grandstand play—as I would poison.

Continue reading “”

What’s next for the Blue Grass Army Depot?

RICHMOND, Ky (WTVQ)- A piece of national and world history was made Friday afternoon right here in Central Kentucky when workers at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Madison County destroyed the last of more than 500 tons of chemical agent stored there since the 1940s.

The rockets containing the deadly nerve agent sarin also were the last declared chemical weapons in the United States and the world.

Closure and cleaning up the site will take three or four more years and keep many of the 1500 workers employed. But local leaders already are looking at the opportunities the multi-billion dollar effort offers the army depot and community for the future.

“The workforce here is highly skilled, highly trained, highly security-cleared. They will be looking for work in the next year and a half to two years. We would like to have that work force as an entre’ for corporations that could use those talents to come here. We’re also looking at a number of projects be erected inside the depot fence line that will add to the depots military value and keep it viable,” says Craig Williams, co-chair of the Citizen’s Advisory Board.

The Blue Grass facility is the last of nine across the country and the Pacific Ocean where thousands of tons of obsolete chemical weapons were destroyed since 1990.

Construction of the pilot plant began in 2006. Destruction of chemical weapons began in 2019.

Once the plant is completely closed in 2026, the army depot will continue its mission serving the country.

Analysis: The Murder Rate Appears to Be Dropping. How Will That Impact Gun Politics?

After a multi-year spike following the onset of the COVID pandemic, the U.S. homicide rate looks to be falling. If that continues, it could usher in a reshuffling of the country’s current gun politics.

The murder rate is down roughly 11 percent in 100 major U.S. cities through the first half of the year, according to crime analyst Jeff Asher. Though the overall murder rate is still about 12 percent above pre-pandemic levels, according to the AH Datalytics dashboard, the numbers are on track to land about 10 percent lower than last year.

That drop would “be among the largest declines in murder ever formally recorded,” according to Asher.

He found that the U.S. homicide rate declined slightly in 2022 from 2021 levels as well, though not to the same degree as in the first half of 2023. That means that the decline in murder has been more sustained than just a simple six-month window of good fortune. If Asher’s analysis is anything close to accurate, and the reduction in homicide continues to be as substantial as it appears, the American people will eventually take notice.

As it stands now, they don’t seem to know quite yet. A series of recent polls have identified violent crime and gun violence as a significant focus for voters, so much so that the public has even begun to sour on the need to defend gun rights.

A May NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found the highest number of Americans in over a decade who say the need to defend gun rights is less important than reducing gun violence. It found 60 percent of Americans now think controlling gun violence is more important, including 55 percent of self-described political independents, while just 38 percent say the opposite. That’s up significantly from a decade ago when the public was evenly split on the question.

Additionally, a June poll from Pew Research found 60 percent of Americans now say violent crime and gun violence are “a very big problem.” The number of respondents who rated gun violence as a “very big problem” increased 12 percent since 2016 and was up nine percent since May of last year.

That same poll found that 58 percent of Americans want gun laws to be stricter, up five points from 2021. There was also an 11-point increase since 2018 in the number of Americans who say overall gun ownership does more to “reduce safety by giving too many people access to firearms and increasing the chances for misuse.”

In other words, as broader concerns over gun violence and violent crime began to increase alongside real-world increases in homicide, so too did support for gun control and negative feelings toward guns. As the reverse starts to happen with homicides, support for gun rights may begin to rise again.

However, some important caveats could complicate that. While murder appears to be declining, mass shootings do not appear to be abating. According to the Gun Violence Archive, which takes an expansive definition covering any incident in which four or more people are shot, the U.S. is currently on a record pace for mass shootings in 2023.

Even under a more traditional definition like the one used by the Violence Project—which tracks events where four or more people are killed in public shootings, except those attributable to underlying criminal activity, such as robberies or gang fights—2023 is shaping up to be a particularly grim year. The site tracked seven such incidents in all of 2022, while there have already been five recorded this year.

Though such events only represent a small fraction of the country’s homicides every year, they tend to disproportionately capture the psyche of the American public, shape political narratives around guns, and have the largest impact on public opinion over gun control. That means that whatever boost gun-rights supporters might otherwise receive from an overall decline in homicide could ultimately hinge on the frequency of mass shootings moving forward.

Ultimately, it remains to be seen what happens over the next six months. If current trends hold and there is a substantial reduction in homicides, historical polling dynamics would suggest that could be a boon for political support for gun rights. But the ongoing scourge of mass shootings could thwart any potential polling boost unless those also start to decline.

Defending Your Vehicle: From carjackings to aggressive drivers to violent demonstrations, it’s not all that safe on our streets right now.

A man’s home is his castle, or so the saying goes, but these days, we also tend to look at our cars, trucks or vans as a castle as well. They’re our refuge in the stormy maelstrom of traffic. They provide us with soothing music from the stereo and cool breezes from the air conditioning vents. However, just because our vehicles are comfortable, it doesn’t mean they’re invulnerable, and that’s why something like the Vehicle Defense Class from Go Noisy USA starts to make a lot of sense.

Neil Davis, Go Noisy’s chief instructor, is a veteran with years of service in British Intelligence in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan and a number of other locations, working primarily undercover in some of the hottest of the world’s hotspots. These actions required him to work primarily from “civilian” vehicles like passenger cars and trucks, so unlike other vehicle skills classes tailored to law enforcement, Neil’s classes have “real world” application for the armed citizen, as the needs of a teacher driving to work vary from the needs of an Uber driver who regularly has strangers in the car or a law enforcement officer at a traffic stop. The class was four hours in the classroom and four hours on the range and covered three different scenarios:

  • Carjacking
  • Aggressive Motorists
  • Violent Demonstrations

Carjackings

Carjackings, according to Davis come in two different flavors: Opportunistic carjackings, where the crooks are looking for any old car in a storm, and planned or targeted attacks, where the goal is to relieve someone of their expensive car.

shooting from the car

Shooting through your door? Bad idea. Move your pistol up a little higher.

 

For the armed citizen, an opportunistic carjacking will most likely be a “wrong place, wrong time scenario,” something we can help avoid by not being in the wrong places at wrong times. Targeted carjackings, on the hand, are meticulously planned, with copious prior surveillance so the crooks know exactly when and where they are going to strike.

Which brings up an important point. Crooks choose victims based on how they look and act, so anything you can do to deselect yourself as a victim is probably a good thing. One way to do that is what Davis called the “soak.” Simply put, when you arrive at a new location, take a few seconds and “soak in” the environment. Where are the other cars parked? Is there anyone just standing around? If so, how many, and where are they standing? Who is coming and going from your destination, and what do they look like? Taking a few moments to observe your surroundings like this gives you a baseline of what “normal” looks like and allows you to quickly spot what’s changed when you come back out of your destination, helping you spot potential trouble before it becomes a real problem.

Aggressive Motorists

Angry attacks on the road, Davis says, generally aren’t caused by traffic jams by themselves. Rather, traffic is the spark that sets off an emotional reaction to pre-existing frustration, such as a bad day at the work or a previous incident on the road. Because these kinds of incidents are escalations of other events, being able de-escalate the event is critical, as is not escalating things even more.

Getting out of dodge and putting distance between you and your attacker is the fastest and easiest way to avoid becoming a victim of an incident that has the potential for violence, as is knowing your state’s use of force laws so you can respond in an appropriate way if violence cannot be avoided or de-escalated.

Violent Demonstrations

Here’s where things get really tricky. A mob blocking a road can turn ugly and violent in the blink of an eye, and that can change your response just as quickly. It’s one thing to be stuck in traffic surrounded by a crowd of angry, shouting people, and it’s another thing to have Molotov cocktails thrown at the car next to you and a brick come through your windshield.

Your options for what you should do if you’re alone are radically different than if you have people in your car. This is dependent on the situation, of course. If you can use your vehicle to exit the area, make great haste to do so. However, if you can’t get away (which is the optimal solution) because your vehicle has been disabled or blocked in by immovable objects and it’s clearly a situation where things have gotten out of control, staying in your car means staying in one place, making yourself an easy target. If you’re alone and have to use a firearm, Davis recommends exiting the car to engage an attacker as soon as things turn to lethal force because of the shorter draw time when standing and the wider range of options available to you.

However, if there are others in your vehicle and you can’t leave, he recommends having the unarmed passengers assume the “crash position” found on airliner safety cards into order to give themselves a smaller, more defensible position. Either way, the instability of a riot means you’ve got to have a flexible plan. A one-note response of going to lethal force as quickly as possible is probably going to get you and those in your car in a lot of trouble. We are not in control of the people outside our vehicle, and that’s where the problems can happen.

Staying safe when you’re away from home is a complex task that pushes all our self-defense skills to their limits. However, a calm, clear mind and having the tools and ability to respond quickly and appropriately can help us come out on top when everything has gone south.

The sun may be out, but guns are not. Lawsuit challenges a new gun ban on Hawaii beaches

HONOLULU — 
Sun’s out, guns out? Not on Hawaii’s world-famous beaches.

Beginning Saturday, a new law prohibits carrying a firearm on the sand — and in other places, including banks, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

Three Maui residents are suing to block the measure, arguing that Hawaii — which has long had some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and some of the lowest rates of gun violence — is going too far with its wide-ranging ban.

Residents carrying guns in public is new to Hawaii. Before a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year expanded gun rights nationwide, Hawaii’s county police chiefs made it virtually impossible to carry a gun by rarely issuing permits to do so — either for open carry or concealed carry. Gun owners were only allowed to keep firearms in their homes or to transport them — unloaded and locked up — to shooting ranges, hunting areas and places such as repair shops.

The high court’s ruling found that people in the U.S. have a right to carry firearms for self-defense. It prompted the state to retool its gun laws, with Democratic Gov. Josh Green signing legislation in early June to allow more people to carry concealed firearms.

At the same time, however, the new law prohibits people from taking guns to a wide range of places, including beaches, hospitals, stadiums, bars and movie theaters. Private businesses allowing guns must post a sign to that effect.

The lawsuit, which the three residents and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition filed in U.S. District Court in Honolulu last week, doesn’t challenge all the prohibited locations. But bans on carrying at beaches and parks, in family restaurants or in bank parking lots where people might be getting cash from ATMs are “egregious restrictions on their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms,” the lawsuit says.

“There’s a lot of crime at some of the parks and beaches,” said Todd Yukutake, a director of the coalition. “And it can be very scary at some of these beach parks.”

Alan Beck, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said his clients especially want to protect themselves at isolated beaches, where they might be fishing or going for a walk rather than sunbathing or swimming.

“The truth is it’s probably safer at Waikiki Beach during the day when there’s, you know, thousands of people around,” he said of Honolulu’s tourist mecca. “But a lot of these beaches in Hawaii aren’t the beaches people think of when, you know, they see movies or TV.”

Guns at beaches is not the image that tourism-dependent Hawaii wants to project, said Democratic state Sen. Karl Rhoads.

“A sensitive place is a place where you would not expect there to be guns,” he said. “Where you expect to have a good time and not have to worry about violence and being shot.”

Hawaii’s beaches are “the livelihood of our state in many ways,” said Chris Marvin, a Hawaii resident with the gun-violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety.

“And they are safe today. By allowing people to carry guns on them, they will become less safe.”

He recalled the “pandemonium” that ensued last year when a man brandished a gun on Waikiki Beach, causing tourists “to run for their lives.”

The lawsuit doesn’t challenge restrictions on carrying guns at bars, but the plaintiffs don’t see why family restaurants that serve alcohol should be included, Beck said. As for banks: Going to an ATM at night is “prime time for someone to try and mug you,” he said.

Legal challenges to similar laws adopted in New York and New Jersey last year are making their way through federal courts.

A federal appeals court temporarily agreed to keep in effect part of New Jersey’s handgun carry law, which also includes public beaches, as court proceedings play out.

In January, the high court ruled that New York can continue to enforce its sweeping law that bans guns from places including schools, playgrounds and Times Square.

Hawaii’s law reflects a “vast reach that goes beyond any other jurisdiction to date,” said Kevin O’Grady, another lawyer representing the plaintiffs.

The restrictions render concealed carry permits virtually useless, he said.

The Hawaii attorney general’s office said in a statement that the law is constitutional and vowed to defend it.

U.S. District Judge Leslie Kobayashi is scheduled to hear a motion for a temporary restraining order blocking the law on July 31.

Senator: Gun-free school zone law is attack on 2nd amendment

A law that would place restrictions on guns in schools was tabled in the Senate Friday after Republican legislators claimed it was unconstitutional and unfair to law-abiding citizens.

House Bill 201, sponsored by Speaker of the House Rep. Pete Schwartzkopf, D-Rehoboth Beach, aims to enable a police officer to act immediately when they see or suspect a person with a gun in a safe school and recreation zone.

“I don’t understand how this bill keeps the bad guys out,” said Sen. Bryant Richardson, R-Seaford. “Ones that have nefarious objectives are going to enter the schools anyway, so how does this do anything?”

The bill cites that as of April 4, 74 people have been killed or injured by guns in schools in 13 separate school shootings across the country this year.

School shootings hit a record high in 2022 with 46 shootings, the bill states, surpassing 2021’s record of 42 shootings. In 2022, 43,450 children experienced a school shooting.

Sen. Dave Lawson, R-Marydel, said the bill was yet another attack on the second amendment.

“Law enforcement has a right to stop anyone if they believe there’s about to be a crime committed; they do not have to wait,” he said. “They can intercede and violence does not have to happen for them to take action, so this bill really has a false premise.”

Under the bill, the crime of possession of a firearm in a safe school and recreation zone is a class E felony, which means the culprit could face up to five years in prison.

Only police officers, constables or active-duty military personnel who are acting in an official capacity are allowed to have a gun in the school zone, per the bill.

However, it allows holders of a valid license to carry concealed weapons only if the firearm is in a vehicle.

Lawson said the bill puts out the idea that a bad actor has free run at a school.

“There’s no one there to stop them and they’ll have free rein to get to our kids and our teachers with free rein as we advertise this is a gun free zone,” Lawson said. “Look at Sandy Hook. The man drove by the schools that had SROs and went to one where there were no guns, it was a free zone. This is not a good idea.”

There have been several incidents of guns found in Delaware schools in the 2022-2023 school year, which led to many districts re-evaluating their safety policies and even one investing in metal detectors for entryways.

The bill also would require a student who possesses a firearm in a Safe School and Recreation Zone to be expelled for at least 90 day. However, it also would give a local school board or charter school board of directors may, on a case-by-case basis, modify the terms of the expulsion.

Schwarzkopf’s bill would include exemptions to the rule. They include if a gun-holder is on private property not part of school grounds; if the firearm is in a locked container or locked firearms rack that is on or in a motor vehicle; or if a gun-holder is engaged in lawful hunting, firearms instruction or firearm-related sports on public lands not belonging to a school.

The bill was laid on the table.

Later, though, it appeared in the house with an amendment from Sen. Brian Pettyjohn, R-Georgetown, to create the offense of possession of a firearm in a Safe Recreation Zone while not changing changing the violation of possession of a firearm as established under the Act.

When it came up in the House, Valerie Longhurst, who knew she was about to be elected speaker of house replacing Schwartzkopf, joked, “This is the last bill of yours I’m running.”

The fate of the bill was the object of curiosity in the House of Representatives, where Schwartzkopf was about to announce he was stepping down from the speaker’s role to spend more time with family.

The Senate also sent bills aiming to prevent child abuse to Gov. John Carney’s desk for his signature.

Saving Our School Children from Tennessee Politicians

Tennessee politicians left our students defenseless, and we have to save them. A celebrity-seeking mass murderer killed students in a Nashville private school. That should be a wakeup call that the Republican controlled legislature and Governor have failed us again. We need angry parents to change the status quo and save our kids. As grim as this sounds, there is plenty of good news. We also know how to reduce and to prevent mass murder in our schools. Tennessee parents have been ignored for too long.

The gun-control politicians say we should disarm honest citizens to protect our children. Other politicians say they will put armed deputies in the schools to save our kids. Both have been lying to us for years. Gun-control fails and the legislature never funds enough school resource officers to protect our kids. I understand the problem because mass-murders are rare and even a small school needs several defenders. The solution is simple, but it is not politically easy.

I want our children protected at school the same way our kids are protected by their parents at home. I want our children protected the way our politicians are protected at the capital, and I want it now. Unlike some proposals that sound good in theory, we know this solution stops mass-murderers. Don’t listen to what politicians and celebrities say they want. Instead, look at what they do.

Politicians are protected by men with guns. Celebrities are protected by men with guns. The spouses and children of politicians and the spouses and children of celebrities are protected by men with guns. When a celebrity-seeking mass-murderer comes to school, even the advocates of gun-control shout that we should call men with guns. The only debate is about when the armed defenders should arrive. I want our kids defended now.

Continue reading “”

American U. students at odds with D.C. group that favors unarmed police

Some American University students are skeptical at claims made by the District of Columbia’s so-called “Peace Team” that unarmed police are “highly effective” at preventing gun violence — in one of the deadliest cities in the country.

According to its website, the DC Peace Team’s mission is to “cultivate the habits and skills of nonviolence in communities, so [it] can better resist injustice, and thus, build a more sustainable just peace.”

The team is a huge proponent of, and utilizes, restorative justice (which has been growing in the nation’s school systems, much to many teachers’ chargrin) and weaponless “civilian protection units.”

According to Peace Team Board Member Sal Corbin (pictured), such methods “emphasize inclusion rather than exclusion […] and punishment.”A former psychology professor, Corbin told The Eagle he grew up in a violent atmosphere where punishment was “swift and severe.”

As such, he wanted to study an alternative. Corbin believes an unarmed police force is “extremely effective” and involves “deploying teams to events where violence or escalation is a possibility.”

Robert Schentrup of the youth gun reform group Team ENOUGH added that “when victims of [gun] violence don’t get help, their natural response is to traumatize other individuals in that same way.”

The Peace Team notes it will even intervene in certain situations “with their bodies.”

But The Eagle notes some American U. students are wary. One student said even with stricter gun control, criminals will still find a way to possess firearms, so yes, cops should be armed. Another said disarming police when the threat of a mass shooting is ever-present seems like a bad idea.

American, like other colleges in and around the nation’s capital (Georgetown, Howard) have unarmed campus cops. George Washington University, however, recently decided to arm a small percentage of its officers.

Washington DC’s violent crime is up 10 percent so far this year, and is 147 percent higher than the national average. Other crimes in the city occur at a rate 87 percent higher than the national average.

Even Corbin conceded that “clearly there are circumstances where weaponry is needed.”

“Our goal isn’t to replace law enforcement entirely, but rather give an alternative approach to it that doesn’t necessitate, increase or escalate violence,” he said.

As we knew it would be.

Police Handwringing Over Ohio Permitless Gun Carry A Big Nothing Burger

“It has been one year since Ohio loosened its concealed carry weapon law, and community advocates, elected officials and law enforcement alike are reflecting on the changing gun landscape,” NBC4 Columbus reported Tuesday.

“A year ago on Tuesday, Gov. Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 215, which eliminated a concealed carry permit requirement for adult Ohioans who are legally eligible to own and carry a firearm in the state.”

The usual suspects, starting with the Fraternal Order of Police that had unsuccessfully lobbied to kill the bill, are still bellyaching, “argu[ing] that Ohio’s streets are less safe – and so are its law enforcement.”

“When the delegates met at Philadelphia during the sweltering summer of 1787, the task before the Constitutional Convention was almost insurmountable. How, in the face of the revolution just fought, could a coalition of states unite and govern nationally when individual freedom and state sovereignty were paramount?” he asked. “Our founders got it right in 1787. Their model has stood the test of time and history. The Ohio Fraternal Order of Police strongly urges legislators to look to the founders’ model. Maximize individual freedom.”

Through “compromise”? And means testing against this cop union bureaucrat’s arbitrary definition of the proper “balance between public safety and individual freedom”? That’s what the Framers meant by “shall not be infringed”?

That’s some industrial-grade gaslighting right there, Mr. Wolske.

As for specific FOP objections;

“Michael Weinman, director of governmental affairs for the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, told the House Government Oversight Committee … [I]t would make police jobs harder by removing the requirement to carry documentation, and prevent officers from holding and patting down someone for a firearm… [and] predicted it would lead to more police officers getting shot.”

That’s a version of the old and unfounded-in-reality “blood in the streets/Dodge City over fender benders” argument the gun prohibitionists used when railing against licensed concealed carry.  And note his concern was not for “public safety” but for officer safety.

So: Did his dire prediction come true? Have any of the FOP’s concerns?

Instead, because when you’ve got nothing but aren’t ready to admit you were wrong and have face to save, we’re offered this bit of meaningless blather:

“No conclusive research yet exists about the effects of permitless carry on gun crime in Ohio specifically, but a September 2022 study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found firearm assaults rose about 10% in states that relaxed restrictions on concealed carry weapons.”

That’s an old junk science trick, and it’s no coincidence we see the Bloomberg name attached to it: Present a correlation/causation fallacy under the auspices of a presumably authoritative name, and everybody, particularly NBC reporters, with a narrative to parrot, is sure to be impressed and not recognize it for the total unsubstantiated BS that it really is.

Crazy, huh?

Gov. Greg Abbott signs new law mandating armed security at all Texas schools

SAN ANTONIO – Security at your child’s school will look different this upcoming school year.

During a meeting at the capital, Gov. Greg Abbott signed HB 3 into law mandating all public schools to have at least one armed security officer or armed school personnel at each public school campus statewide.

According to the Intercultural Development Research Center, the price tag to pay an armed security guard for an entire school year could cost up to $100,000.

“I’m glad my tax money is going towards that. I support it,” San Antonio resident April Reyna said.

This new law would allot $330 million to build security centers on campuses. Legislators in Austin claim this new law will strengthen the state’s School Safety Center, responsible for disseminating safety information to all schools. The law will also mandate annual audits of school protocol and require staff members to get mental health training.

“We have to provide the support systems to our personnel working in our communities,” San Antonio resident Jenny Kazmierczak said.

Some people believe adding armed personnel to campuses would increase protection.

“I think if we have the good guys armed, I think it would minimize deaths,” Reyna said.

However, others disagree.

“I hope that there are other measures to address this problem. This is not the isolated solution,” Kazmierczak said.

As concerns grow, some people are wondering whether some schools will have to dip into their own locally generated revenue to keep the burden of funding an additional salary from falling on schools and local taxpayers.

If You Draw The Gun, Be Prepared to Use it—Video

This video has tons of lessons we can learn from. I just want to mention one of the more obvious take-aways and encourage you to study the clip to extract all you can. Now the main point I want to focus on, taken the wrong way, leads to some bad advice on defensive handgun tactics and self defense law.

video from gun use

Setting up the Defensive Gun Use Video—

I’m not quite sure from where or when this video comes, but a good guess would be central or south America. I’m not sure about the country, but one person—the guy in the blue shirt—is openly carrying a handgun on his right hip. So wherever it is, civilians must be able to carry firearms openly, or this guy has a military or law enforcement occupation.

It appears the incident happens in a street-side store. The shop keeper is behind a counter and there is a customer wearing a red shirt who is standing at the counter. When the video begins, the shopkeeper is pointing outside the shop, and it appears he is speaking to the armed man wearing the blue t-shirt. Because the video has no audio, I am speculating, but it seems that maybe he is pointing at the man in blue and telling him to go away and not come into the store.

The man in blue enters the store and walks up to the counter a few feet away from the man in red. Both men face each other and begin talking or arguing. Perhaps—again I’m speculating—the argument started outside the shop, the man in red came into the store, the shopkeeper told the man in blue to stay away, but the man wearing the blue shirt came in to argue with the man in red.

Regardless of the exact reason, the men argue. The man in red reaches into his waistband and pulls out a handgun. Now here is the part I want to focus on.

The Purpose Behind Drawing Your Gun Matters—

The man in red drew his firearm, pointed it at the man in blue. Almost immediately the man in blue blades his body and starts drawing his gun. This might have caught the man in red off-guard as he seems to pull the gun back deliberately, and point it straight upward away from the man in blue.

The man in blue responded quickly, but still, because the men stand roughly 6 feet apart, he could point the gun directly at the man in blue before he can respond.

Now certainly people use force unjustifiably, but it doesn’t appear as though the guy in red had a legally justified reason to shoot the guy in blue. Based on what I see in the video, I think he drew and pointed the gun at the man in blue to scare him, and not to use it. This is an incredibly bad idea.

We see that the man in blue didn’t give up and run away. He reasonably perceived the man in red, posed a deadly threat, and used his firearm to stop him. I can’t say for sure how many shots the man in blue fired, nor how many hit the target, but the initial group caused the man in red to drop his gun.

Yes, quite often the display of a firearm CAN be a deterrent, but it doesn’t happen all the time. And if you’re not justified in using the gun, it can amplify the problem, and give the other person a reasonable justification to use deadly force against you.

I don’t know if the guy in red saw the man in blue had a handgun on his hip and thought he wouldn’t use it, or if he just didn’t see the gun and thought he had the only gun in the equation. Either way, drawing it without actually intending to use it was a fatal mistake.

Have the Right Mindset—

If you draw your gun, you better be justified in using it, and prepared to press the trigger. Don’t ever draw the gun as a tool for intimidation only.

Now I also want to touch on some bad information I’ve heard circulated on social media and from students in classes. Maybe you’ve even heard this said.

“If you draw your gun, you have no choice but to use it, because if not, you’ll get charged for brandishing, assault, attempted murder, etc.”

That is bad info.

Now I know I just got done saying if you draw your gun you better be ready to press the trigger, and just showed a video of what happens when you draw your gun and don’t use it. But there is a difference between drawing the gun because you’re justified and ready to use it, and drawing the gun and pressing the trigger just because you drew it.

If you only draw the gun when you are legally justified in using deadly force, then you are also justified in drawing the gun and NOT using deadly force. The only problem is when you draw the gun and you’re NOT justified in using deadly force. It’s not just a matter of semantics. For this guy, it cost him his life. For someone else, it could cost them their freedom.

See the Video For Yourself—

That is just one of the many lessons to pull from this video. Take a look at the video below and leave a comment on something you noticed.

How We Protect Our Children At School

What does it mean to protect our children at school? For the past decade, I’ve been following a program that protects school children from celebrity-seeking mass-murderers. This program teaches school staff to be first responders who provide both armed defense and medical first aid. We’ve learned a lot over the past decade, but there are still unanswered questions.

Protecting our children at school actually covers a lot of ground. Being “at school” is really a shorthand way of saying we want to protect the children when they are out of their parents care. That includes when they are off campus and on the school bus before school starts. It includes the school events after the last class period ends. We want to protect our children from the ball field to the classroom and into the parking lot.

Once you see the scope of the problem, you realize why a single uniformed School Resource Officer is only the beginning of a safety plan. One defender, no matter how well-trained or effective, can’t be everywhere all the time.

First responders must be near the children because we don’t want to give a murderer time to kill. That means an armed defender has to be within a few hundred feet of every child. The number of defenders that we want depends on the size of the campus and the layout of the buildings. A one-room school house takes fewer defenders than a sprawling K-12 campus.

Continue reading “”

Survey: 54% of Protestant Churches Rely on Armed Congregants

U.S.A. — A stunning survey that revealed more than half of Protestant churches across the country rely on “armed congregants as part of their security plan” has just recently been reported by Lifeway Research, even though the poll was taken last September.

The revelation comes 3 ½ years after a gunman opened fire at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, only to be shot dead by armed parishioner Jack Wilson just a few seconds later. The shooting, which was live streamed at the time—the video warped across social media—shows at least a half-dozen armed citizens in the church sanctuary with drawn guns after Wilson fired the single shot that stopped killer Keith Thomas Kinnunen before he could wreak more havoc.

At the time, Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, ripped into anti-gunners.

“The gun control crowd has been predictably silent,” Gottlieb said following the December 2019 incident, “because the use of firearms by private citizens in defense of themselves and others—especially a large crowd of worshippers in a church—just doesn’t fit the extremist gun control narrative.”

He even had some blistering remarks for then-presidential candidate Joe Biden and fellow Democrats for their “deafening silence.”

However, Biden had been critical of Texas gun laws in September of that year, which earned the Delaware Democrat plenty of scorn from gun rights advocates, including Gottlieb. At the time, Biden contended the relaxed Texas gun law was “irrational.” The December shooting demonstrated otherwise as Wilson and other armed churchgoers were able to immediately react.

But the Lifeway Research report, now coming to light nearly nine months after it was conducted, has some other revelations that might elicit silence from the gun control crowd.

As noted by Fox News, “Approximately 81% of churches — or four in five pastors — said they have at least one security measure to prevent potential attacks.”

Continue reading “”

Montana hunter kills grizz in self-defense encounter

ENNIS, Mont. — On June 5, a hunter in Montana’s Madison Range killed a grizzly bear in self-defense after being charged, according to Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (FWP).

The person was hunting black bears on a remote parcel of private land.

According to FWP, the hunter notified the proper officials and a field investigation was conducted. While the investigation is ongoing, the bear’s behavior appeared to be defensive due to the surprise and close encounter with the hunter.

The grizzly was identified as a 15-year-old female that had previously been captured for research in 2013 and had no known history of conflicts with people.

The encounter is a reminder to folks recreating in the backcountry to carry bear spray and be prepared to use it.

Other ways to avoid human-bear conflicts include:

  • Travel in groups whenever possible and make casual noise, which can help alert bears to your presence
  • Stay away from animal carcasses, which often attract bears
  • Follow food storage orders from the applicable land management agency
  • If you encounter a bear, never approach it. Leave the area when it is safe to do so.
  • Keep garbage, bird feeders, pet food and other attractants put away in a secure building. Keep garbage in a secure building until the day it is collected. Certified bear-resistant garbage containers are available in many areas.
  • Never feed wildlife. Bears that become food conditioned lose their natural foraging behavior and pose threats to human safety.

For hunters:

  • Carry bear spray and be prepared to use it immediately.
  • Look for bear sign and be cautious around creeks and areas with limited visibility.
  • Hunt with a group of people. Making localized noise can alert bears to your presence.
  • Be aware that elk calls and cover scents can attract bears
  • Bring the equipment and people needed to help field dress game and remove the meat from the kill site as soon as possible.
  • If you need to leave part of the meat in the field during processing, hang it at least 10 feet off the ground and at least 150 yards from the gut pile. Leave it where it can be observed from a distance of at least 200 yards.
  • Upon your return, observe the meat with binoculars. If it has been disturbed or if a bear is in the area, leave.

Grizzly bears in the lower 48 states are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Management authority for grizzlies rests with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

More than 17 Percent of U.S. Firearm Murders Occur in One State: Gun-Controlled California

More than 17 percent of the annual firearm murders in the United States occur in gun-controlled California, according to the most recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

PEW Research reported that CDC figures show 20,958 people were murdered with firearms in 2021.

The CDC’s state-by-state map shows that 3,576 of those murders occurred in California alone.

Ironically, California is the number one state in the U.S. for gun control, according to Mike Bloomberg-affiliated Everytown for Gun Safety.

California gun controls include universal background checks, an “assault weapons” ban, a 10-day waiting period, a red flag law, firearm registration requirements, a ban on campus carry for self-defense, a ban on K-12 teachers being armed for classroom defense, a limit on the number of guns a law-abiding citizen can purchase each month, and a background check requirement for ammunition purchases, among many other controls.

Yet California is also number one for “active shooter incidents,” according to FBI figures.

When California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) contrasts gun violence in his state with that of other states–especially red states–he does not mention California firearm homicides. Rather, he talks about homicide rates and claims a lower rate in California than in other states.

On Thursday, he took this approach with Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R):

By shifting the focus to rates, Newsom does not mention that Mississippi only had 962 firearm homicides compared to 3,576 such homicides in California.

Gun Banners Want to Raise Legal Age for Gun Ownership, But their Logic is Flawed


During an intriguing video discussion between John Lott, founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, and Frank Miniter, editor-in-chief of NRA’s America’s 1st Freedom Magazine, both men dissected the pipe dream by gun banners to raise the legal age for gun ownership to 21. They questioned the basis of the arguments for the increase and noted the implications for the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

A “compromise” from the gun prohibitionists – you can’t own one, but maybe you can borrow one

Earlier today we reported on the first few hours of the supposed-to-be massive protest outside the Colorado state capitol in Denver, where the group Here 4 The Kids is holding a sit-in to pressure Gov. Jared Polis into signing an executive order banning gun sales and possession in the state. While organizer Saira Rao predicted 25,000 or more would be on hand early Monday morning, the Colorado Sun reports the number was closer to 250 people, and though a few folks have trickled onto the capitol grounds since then there’s nowhere near 25,000 in attendance.

The Sun did manage to speak with a few supporters of the flagrantly unconstitutional executive order proposed by Rao, and it’s fascinating to see how deep the delusion runs with some of these folks, starting with Rao herself.

“Yes, it is in violation of the Second Amendment, and what we are saying is, as a decent human being, at some point, you have to decide that the right to life and our children’s’ right to life must trump anybody’s right to bear arms,” Here 4 The Kids co-founder Saira Rao said Friday.

“The people who have been elected to office have to choose if they will choose children’s lives over guns,” said Rao, a former lawyer who unsuccessfully challenged U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette in the 2018 Democratic primary and then moved to Virginia. “That’s the fundamental choice. And if he’s saying he will not, he is making a choice that will put him on the wrong side of history.”

Change doesn’t happen without major shifts, she said. Americans had to amend the Constitution to abolish slavery, which was considered radical and unthinkable to many in 1865, at a time when slavery was the foundation of the American economy, she said.

“Imagine if people were just like, ‘We can’t do it.’ Indeed, they can, and they did, and now we have the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery,” Rao said.

Rao’s not trying to amend the Constitution. She’s trying to get Polis and other Democrat governors to ignore it, which isn’t going to go well. As we’ve seen from states like New York and California, anti-gun Democrats would prefer to pay lip service to the Second Amendment while violating the fundamental right to keep and bear arms rather than explicitly rejecting the right altogether, which would cause even courts that have been traditionally hostile to our Second Amendment rights to step in put a halt to their attempt at prohibition.

Continue reading “”

Frightened Politicians Leave Students at Risk

How good is good enough when it comes to protecting our children in school? One extreme view says that Superman who stops bullets with his bare hands is barely qualified to protect our children. The opposite extreme says that anyone who isn’t in jail should be qualified to act as an armed guard for our kids. One argument asks for quality while the other asks for quantity. While we are busy debating, mass-murderers are still stalking our children at school. We can stop mass-murderers if we’re willing to face a few truths.

Continue reading “”