Category: Safety

Anti Constitutional Carry Study Assumes Gun Laws Stop Criminals

A John Hopkins study critical of constitutional carry rests on the assumption that gun laws and/or regulations deter criminals from being armed in the commission of crimes.

The study was conducted by researchers at the John Hopkins/Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

Researchers began the presentation of their study by pointing to various means of concealed carry permit issuance, specifically “may issue” and “shall issue,” noting that a “may issue” scenario allows a local sheriff or other issuing authority the discretion to deny a concealed carry permit even if the applicant has no criminal record. On the other hand, in a “shall issue” state, the issuing authority must approve a concealed carry application if the applicant has no criminal or mental health history preventing issuance.

The researchers note certain requirements/regulations tied to “shall issue” that they view in a positive light:

Some states require applicants to undergo live firearm training, requiring a certain number of hours at a firing range and/or proficiency (e.g., applicants must hit a designated target with 70% of their shots). These provisions ensure all CCW permit holders have demonstrated that they can safely discharge a gun prior to carrying a loaded handgun in public. Other shall issue states prohibit those with violent misdemeanor convictions from obtaining a CCW permit.

The researchers then make the leap and, in the second paragraph of the study, reveal their belief that gun laws and/or regulations deter criminals from being armed: “In the absence of a state law prohibiting the purchase or possession of guns by violent misdemeanants, these provisions serve as the only legal means from keeping previously dangerous individuals from carrying a loaded handgun in public spaces.”

There are immediate problems with the researchers’ assumption. One such problem is that the state with the most stringent gun control–California–is also the state that had the most “active shooter incidents” in 2021. Moreover, it is the state in which over 17 percent of annual firearm deaths in the United States occur.

Additionally, CNN noted that California had four mass shootings during one week in January 2023.

The gun violence in California appears to counter John Hopkins researchers’ assumption that gun laws deter criminals from using guns.

Live With It
Get familiar with your handgun by living with it every day.

Lately I’ve been re-reading the works of that grand old man of sixgunning, Elmer Keith, and I noticed that Mr. Keith had the same advice that was later offered by Col. Jeff Cooper; live with your handgun. The savvy handgunner has their gun on, or within reach, during most of their waking hours. But, actually, that’s not enough. On a regular basis, it is important to handle it, shoot it, and practice with it. That’s what it really means to live with your defensive handgun.

As a young peace officer, my first duty gun was a 4-inch Smith & Wesson Model 19. I shot some of our department matches with it but the smartest thing that I did was to start handgun hunting. The .357 Magnum cartridge was plenty powerful for Rio Grande turkey, javelina, feral hogs and even our Texas Whitetail deer. The hunting experience really helped to learn to judge distance, press the trigger smoothly and even handle moving targets. The bonus was all of that good, wild game that went into my freezer. Handgun hunting gave me a graduate course in gun handling long before I ever heard a shot fired in anger.

The desire to live with my handgun also drove me to handloading because that was the only way that I could afford to shoot a lot. The side benefit to that was that I learned a great deal about cartridge development, velocities and the various kinds of bullets that were available to the handgunner.

Today, I know that times are tough but I have trouble sympathizing with the person who is continually buying new guns but can’t seem to find the funds needed to get professional training. The smart thing to do is to get that training and then put a lot of rounds downrange practicing what has been taught. And, to really conserve funds it is a great idea to get some dummy rounds and do some regular dry practice at home. And handloading is still a good way to cut costs for live-fire practice.

Living with the defensive handgun doesn’t mean just having a gun and keeping it nearby. We budget good training, we practice what we’ve been taught and we shoot every time we have a lawful chance to put some lead in the air. I’ll probably never be the game shot that Elmer Keith was or a fast shot like Bill Jordan… but it won’t be from not trying.

Of Course Gun-Control Fails in Practice, but Does it Work in Theory?

The murderer who attacked children in a Nashville Christian school wrote a diary. Parts of it were published and then taken down. This murderer hoped that she was the only one with a gun and that her victims were unprotected. Many people want the same thing.

In theory, disarming honest citizens makes your country safer. Last month, Israelis again confirmed that gun-control is a failure. Gun-prohibition assumes that murderers and terrorists will obey the law, that they will only buy a firearm through legal channels. In practice, disarming your neighbors gives you all the vulnerability of disarmed victims with none of the benefits of actually disarming murderers. Despite those repeated failures both in the US and abroad, anti-rights politicians want ordinary citizens disarmed. So do academics in both the US and in Israel.

Palestinians killed about 1,200 Israelis during their attack on October 7th. That would be proportional in size to Mexican drug gangs entering the US and murdering everyone in Galveston, Texas. The Palestinian attackers deliberately targeted schools and youth centers.

The real and undeniable advantage of armed citizens is that they are there when the attack happens. They can respond immediately. They also have local knowledge of who the innocent victims are and who are the bad guys that don’t belong. In practice, a government response that takes hours to protect unarmed victims is a unilateral surrender to murderers and terrorists.

Israel asked to import 24 thousand rifles from the United States. Biden said no precisely because some of those rifles might end up in the hands of Israeli civilians. We wouldn’t want civilians to be able to stop terrorists, now would we. Biden also stopped the export of all US civilian firearms for 90 days. I suspect that the Israelis forgot to include another “10-percent for the big guy.”

Please note that this is the same Biden administration that abandoned 83-billion dollars of military equipment in Afghanistan. I’d bet that some of that equipment is now in the hands of Hamas terrorists who are fighting Israel.

Continue reading “”

Trends in Active Killer Interdiction by Armed Citizens

A lot of active killers are stopped by armed citizens despite what the mainstream media hides from you.  The Crime Prevention Research Center estimates that 34% of active killer attacks are stopped by armed citizens, a much different number than what is declared by the FBI crime statistics.  Even the FBI, however, points out that most such attacks happen in gun free zones.  The truth is, many such attacks have even been stopped through unarmed resistance, but the success rate of armed interdiction is much higher, at over 90% success rate for the citizen.  

The fact is that we now have a fairly extensive list of incidents in which rampaging killers, armed with long guns, have been stopped by armed citizens on the scene who are armed with handguns.  Many question the ability to stop a bad guy with superior weaponry if you are armed with only your carry pistol at the time, but this is not a hypothetical question of “can it be done.”  Rather, it has been done, many times, and the armed citizen prevails the vast majority of the time.  While the perpetrator may be armed with a rifle, and may be wearing body armor, the lesser-armed citizen still has the ultimate advantage of surprise, and typically prevails.  So, the debate over whether or not it can be done can be put to rest.  Rather, we should focus on the lessons learned and the trends apparent in such incidents.  

Continue reading “”

The Gun Joe Biden Doesn’t Want You To Have Just Protected His Own Granddaughter

Secret Service reportedly opened fire Sunday night on three suspects attempting to break into an unmarked government vehicle parked in front of the Georgetown home of Naomi Biden, President Joe Biden’s granddaughter. Reports allege that the three offenders fled the scene after the gunfire started.

These types of scenarios are exactly why Americans advocate for the Second Amendment, but unfortunately, not all citizens have the same protection the Biden family is afforded.

Residents of Washington, D.C., are forced to navigate an onslaught of regulation and red tape before they can use firearms for self-preservation. According to D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department, residents have the “authority to carry firearm[s]” only in “certain places and for certain purposes.” Concealed carry requires a variety of applications and training, while “open carry is prohibited.”

MPDC / DC POLICE DEPARTMENT WEBSITE

Continue reading “”

When some jihadi makes a spectacle of himself, don’t forget to put the blame where it belongs; a goobermint and its open border policy

FBI Director Confirms Hamas-Led Threats Against Americans in the U.S. Now at ‘Whole Other Level’

FBI Director Christopher Wray testified Wednesday before the House Committee on Homeland Security and revealed that, due to the Israel-Hamas war, “The threat of an attack against Americans in the United States” has been raised “to a whole other level.”

In his prepared remarks, Wray provided more context to those threats: “Since October 7th, we’ve seen a rogue’s gallery of foreign terrorist organizations call for attacks against Americans and our allies. Hizballah expressed its support and praise for Hamas and threatened to attack U.S. interests in the Middle East. Al-Qaida issued its most specific call to attack the United States in the last five years. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula called on jihadists to attack Americans and Jewish people everywhere. ISIS urged its followers to target Jewish communities in the United States and Europe.”

In short, Americans are under threat both at home and abroad; not surprisingly, Jews are most at risk from these threats.

During questioning from the House panel, Wray admitted that the threats could be tied to pro-Hamas elements and global bad actors.

WATCH:

TRANSCRIPT:

Certainly we’re in an environment where a number of tips and threats that are being reported to us have gone up significantly since October 7. We are already, as I testified earlier, already at an elevated threat environment even before October 7, and it’s gone to a whole other level since October 7.

The biggest chunks of the threats that have been reported in to us, but a good margin, are threats to the Jewish community. Synagogues, Jewish prominent officials, things like that. We also have a large number of tips and leads related specifically to Hamas and radicalization and recruitment.

As RedState has previously reported, Jews make up 2.4 percent of the total U.S. population but are the target of more than 50 percent of the religiously motivated hate crimes reported to the FBI. And this was before the October 7 massacre.

Worryingly, Wray also admitted at the Wednesday hearing that there are individuals on the terror watch list who may have slipped into the U.S. illegally and whose whereabouts are currently unknown. Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) asked Wray, “Are there people that you don’t where they are that the FBI is searching for today? Yes or no?” Wray responded with a simple, “Yes.”

Despite Wray’s confirmation that threats against Americans by Hamas sympathizers have seen a dramatic rise in the past six weeks, the official threat level of the United States has not been raised since May 24:

The United States remains in a heightened threat environment. Lone offenders and small groups motivated by a range of ideological beliefs and personal grievances continue to pose a persistent and lethal threat to the Homeland. Both domestic violent extremists (DVEs) and those associated with foreign terrorist organizations continue to attempt to motivate supporters to conduct attacks in the Homeland, including through violent extremist messaging and online calls for violence.

It’s worth reading Wray’s entire prepared statement; surprisingly, there are a lot of good nuggets in there about the precise nature and targets of these threats.

If past history is any indicator, a reprogramming of car computer software for this will just be added on the list of services hackers have.

Massie: Vehicle Kill Switch Amendment Foreshadows Greater Danger to Guns

“The federal government has mandated that all vehicles sold after 2026 must have a kill switch that can disable your vehicle based on your driving performance,” Rep. Thomas Massie “tweeted” Wednesday. “My amendment to defund that unconstitutional mandate failed tonight.”

“Here is the roll call,” Massie added, linking to the House Clerk’s “Final Vote Results” for his Part B Amendment No. 60 to H R 4820, the “Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024.” 19 Republicans joined 210 Democrats to defeat Massie’s amendment:

Gus Bilirakis (FL), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Mike Carey (OH), Chuck Fleischmann (TN), Andrew Garbarino (NY), Mike Garcia (CA), Garret Graves (LA), John Joyce (PA), Thomas Kean, Jr. (NJ), Kevin Kiley (CA), Young Kim (CA), David Kustoff (TN), Mike Lawler (NY), Nancy Mace (SC), Michael McCaul (TX), Zach Nunn (IA), María Elvira Salazar (FL), Chris Smith (NJ), and Glenn Thompson (PA).

Still, this must be a tempest in a teapot, right? After all, didn’t a January USA Today Fact Check conclude, “No, there’s no vehicle ‘kill switch’ in Biden’s 2021 infrastructure bill”? And it then followed up that headline with denial after denial until buried near the end of the piece came a curious admission:

“Whether or not the technology will become a part of the infrastructure bill’s final rule remains to be seen…”

Massie followed up his tweet by addressing the USA Today denials with a copy of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act with an entry in the “Definitions” section circled:

The term “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology means a system that … can … passively monitor the performance of the driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and… prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected…”

Besides, the technology to remotely disable cars has been in development for years. From a 2010 report:

“If you’re crawling through traffic in 2025 and approach a traffic light, IBM hopes it will be able to take control of your car. And according to the patent, you won’t be able to go again until it lets you. …With a laptop and customized software called CarShark, the researchers disabled the brakes of a regular family car and switched its engine off – while it was moving.”

And to show the incremental moves in development:

“In 2008, it became mandatory for all American cars to be fitted with CAN (Controller Area Network), a standard protocol for enabling all the car’s electronics to talk to each other, so there’s one part of the puzzle in place.”

OK, fine, but what does any of this have to do with guns?

But perhaps the most immediate and insidious threat we face from technology comes under the guise of “safety— for the children,” so-called “smart guns” under development and soon to be required in a state near you. Because…they’re also lobbying for another technology they developed to be required on cars— a “shutoff switch” that police can activate by remote control, making the rest of us pay for the infinitesimal fraction of drivers who lead them on car chases.

As writer Vin Suprynowicz warns (and I and some others independently predicted), this technology could be used by the police as “an `electronic master key’ to `disable’ any `smart guns’ in the house,” and be used as a pretext to “ban the manufacture of any gun that ISN’T a `smart gun’.”

So police can turn guns fitted with one “off” and incapable of firing—and that could be mandated. Anybody doubt it will be if remote shutoff technology becomes widespread?

But the legal landscape has changed, some may argue. Such a move would surely fail under the Heller and Bruen tests. No?

First, look at the “rules” that ATF and edicts Democrat strongholds have passed that are obviously nothing more than in-your-face challenges to the Supreme Court on devices, semi-autos, magazines, “sensitive areas,” prior restraints and denials of due process—look at how they have virtually unlimited war chests of tax plunder to drag complaints on for years. Then pray the Republicans don’t blow it in ’24 and enable a Democrat president and majority to alter the composition of the court and achieve whatever reversals and outcomes they desire.

Back to the list of Republicans who voted against Massie’s amendment, and there are enough that they could have turned it: We see some familiar names, like Brian Fitzpatrick, Giffords’ poster Vichycon who never saw a gun he didn’t want to grab. We see others, like Gus Bilirakis, assigned an A-rating by NRA-PVF along with the assurance that he’s “a staunch defender of the Second Amendment and has earned your vote by protecting your fundamental right to self-defense from those who attempt to eradicate it!” Then there are the “moderates” from states like New York and California whose endless “compromises in the spirit of bipartisanship” exemplify the reason why so many refer to the GOP as “the Stupid Party.”

If you see your representative siding with the Democrats (or is one of the five Republicans who did not vote), what would it hurt to take the amount of time it takes to post a comment here and contact them to ask, “What the hell?”

How Far We’ve Come

As many of you know, I am a life-long student of the history of the American West, especially the lawmen and outlaws. Just yesterday, I read a piece about a frontier lawman, in this case Wyatt Earp, pulling his handgun and hitting a troublemaker over the head. In fact, this “buffaloing”, as they called it was quite common and considered a proper response to certain threats and conduct.

Of course, back in those days the old single actions that most folks carried were robust enough to take such abuse. The more modern double-action revolvers and semi-automatics could be more easily damaged and possibly cause a negligent discharge. The only time I saw someone hit with a gun was when a fellow officer hit a thug over the head with his DA revolver, causing the gun to discharge and wound two bystanders.

In time, courts and juries began to take a dim view of using the handgun as a club. And our good, modern training, with an emphasis on safety, along with modern less-lethal options like OC spray and tasers, has pretty much caused the practice to be a thing of the past.

Another thing that a western historian will notice is the old-time practice of leaning on the butt of a rifle or shotgun with the muzzle resting in the dirt, possibly allowing foreign objects to get into the bore of the gun. Even worse are the photos of individuals resting the gun muzzle on the toe of their boot. Sadly, in more recent times, it has been the practice of some shotgun competitors; something that I hope is currently being discouraged. Years ago, I had a friend who had a horribly mangled right hand from resting it on the muzzle of his loaded .410 shotgun; it’s a wonder that he had a hand at all.

In my own case, as a young officer, I attended numerous law enforcement firearm classes. One thing that they had in common was the fact that no one said anything about keeping your finger off the trigger, much less keeping it out of the trigger guard entirely. To my knowledge, the first that this was emphasized was in conjunction with Jeff Cooper’s Modern Technique of the Pistol in the late 1970s. We now call it Gunsite’s Rule #3, the Golden Rule, and there is no telling how many negligent discharges and injuries this training has prevented.

Sadly, the old-time handgun men had to learn the hard way what worked and what didn’t work, what was safe and what wasn’t. In the interim, the National Rifle Association began to put gun safety into the forefront of all firearms training and individual firearms instructors have followed suit. Nowadays, just about any firearms class you attend begins with a safety lecture and that is exactly as it should be.

We certainly can, and should, enjoy the history, stories, and photos of our frontier days. But we should also take time to be thankful and mindful of the great advances that have been made in terms of gun safety. A lot of the old-time gunmen might have lived a lot longer if they had had the same training that is available to the modern shooter.

An America Without Gun Rights Would Look Like Mexico, Not Australia

Every mass shooting inevitably leads those on the left to call for a ban on “assault weapons,” and this time is no different. Thus begins the barrage of calls for “sensible gun laws” on social media, from network pundits, and via Vice President Kamala Harris herself, using Australia or New Zealand as the models. These unarmed countries, they tell us, prove you can strip citizens of their ability to own firearms and live in a nonviolent utopia. Is that the likely outcome of such a ban in America?

Thought experiment, leaving aside the issue of a right enshrined in the Constitution: If Americans allow their firearms to be outlawed and then confiscated, would we in fact, become like Australia or New Zealand?

If we gave up AR-15s and then a mass shooting took place where a semi-automatic handgun was used, opponents of gun rights would take those too — the same with a shooter with a hunting rifle, then a shooter with a shotgun, and on and on. We know where this leads. It can’t end with “military style” firearms. A confiscation of AR-15s would eventually lead to a complete ban on almost every gun. How long would that take? Five years, 10 years? It wouldn’t take very long once the ball is rolling and mass shooters move to handguns and shotguns, which would quickly be banned as the public’s demand for “safety” would be too much for politicians to stand against.

Cut to a Republican senator being interviewed on CNN the day after a mass shooting where a 9mm handgun was used: Senator, just a few months ago you voted to ban AR-15s because scores of children were killed in a school shooting. Today, with more dead children, you won’t support the banning of semi-automatic handguns? How can you tell those parents why the shooter was able to legally obtain a Glock 19 that, like the AR-15s that you voted to ban, allowed the shooter to fire many rounds and reload in a matter of seconds? What’s the difference, senator? Do those dead children think it was better to be shot by a handgun rather than a long gun? Senator?

That lawmaker would crumble, and so would others. What would we be left with? A technical right to keep and bear arms that practically renders that right meaningless.

How do we know this? We know this because we have seen this before in Mexico.

Continue reading “”

So, it’s confirmed. He was another nutjob, this time one on a vendetta, that the authorities knew about, but “the system” let slip through the cracks, by incompetence, inability or negligence.

Maine shooter thought local businesses attacked in shooting were spreading ‘pedophile’ rumors about him

Maine law enforcement officers investigating last week’s mass shooting in Lewiston have shared evidence that suggests the U.S. Army reservist Robert Card, who killed 18 people at a bowling alley and a bar, may have intentionally targeted individuals at those locations.

On Tuesday, Maine State Police and the Maine Department of Public Safety released a trove of documents on Card, including search warrants, affidavits, criminal records and more that shed light on a possible motive after Card, 40, carried out a deadly rampage at the Schemengees Bar and Grille and Just In Time bowling alley that also wounded 13 other victims on Oct. 25.

According to multiple witnesses, including Card’s brother and son, Card knew people at both locations and may have believed they were calling him a “pedophile.” Card experienced a similar incident over the summer when he accused fellow members of his Army Reserves unit of calling him a pedophile. The incident prompted Army officials to have him undergo a mental health evaluation.

One affidavit reveals Card’s brother told police that the eventual mass shooting suspect thought there was a “conspiracy” involving people “accusing him of being a pedophile.”

State police interviewed a witness just hours after the shooting began, who said Card believed local businesses, including Schemengees Bar and Grille and the Just-In-Time Recreation bowling alley, were “broadcasting online that Robert was a pedophile.” Card, according to his brother, also believed that some businesses were spreading rumors of him being a pedophile online.

Another witness interviewed by police said Card specifically mentioned Joey Walker, the manager of Schemengees Bar and Grille, as one of the people who he thought had disparaged him, according to an affidavit filed in a request to access Card’s cell phone records. Walker was among those killed.

The same witness, whose name was redacted, told police he previously traveled with Card to both the bowling alley and bar, and that Card knew people at both locations.

Continue reading “”

Well, if the goobermint would have secured the border…….

‘A Time for Vigilance’: FBI Dir. Christopher Wray Warns of Heightened Threats to the Homeland

FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on Tuesday morning. The hearing was titled “Threats to the Homeland.”

In conjunction with his appearance, Wray submitted a 15-page statement covering the following topics:

  • Key Threats and Challenges
  • National Security
    • Terrorism Threats
    • Cyber
    • Foreign Intelligence Threats
    • National Counterintelligence Task Force
    • Transnational Repression and Other Counterintelligence Threats
  • Criminal Threats
    • Violent Crime
    • Transnational Organized Crime
    • Crimes Against Children and Human Trafficking
  • Reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

But it was Wray’s testimony regarding the heightened risk of attacks here in the U.S. that really caught the attention. This exchange between Wray and Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) highlights the danger of the times.

WRAY: What has now increased is the greater possibility of one of these foreign terrorist organizations directing an attack in the United States. We haven’t seen evidence that it’s actually happening yet, but what we have seen is — and I listed them off in my opening remarks — one terrorist organization after another calling for attacks.

SCOTT: We should wake up.

WRAY: It is a time to be concerned. We are in a dangerous period.

SCOTT: So, is the FBI able to track all threats and prevent these individuals from conducting an attack on U.S. soil?

WRAY: I couldn’t say that we’re able to detect all individuals. The people that we know about — as Secretary Rumsfeld used to say, ‘the known-known’ — we’re quite good at, together with our partners. But it is the unknown-unknown that I worry about quite a bit.

SCOTT: So, Director Wray, can you say that we do not have either individual foreign terrorists or terror cells affiliated with foreign groups currently operating in the United States?

WRAY: Well, we’re not — we’re not tracking that, but again, I come back to what it is: The gaps in our intelligence are real, and it’s something that we have concerns about.

SCOTT: So, Director Wray, so…what would you say right now to the American public — because, like, in my state, I’ve got a significant Jewish population. They’re scared to go to synagogue, Chabad. They’re scared to send their kids to day schools. So — but it’s not just them. It’s other individuals, like my daughters called me and said: Should they be sending their kids to school? What would you tell Americans right now about the threat today as compared to before?

WRAY: This is not a time for panic, but it is a time for vigilance. We shouldn’t stop conducting our daily lives, going to schools, houses of worship, and so forth. But we should be vigilant. You often hear the expression “If you see something, say something.”  That’s never been more true than now. And that’s probably partly why the American people are reporting more tips and leads to us and we’re pursuing those threats and leads as vigorously and responsibly as we can.

Wray acknowledged the very real threat of terrorist groups like Hamas conducting attacks on U.S. soil.

Continue reading “”

California Democrats Disarm Synagogues

Here’s a story I missed from September that takes on an even more sinister cast in retrospect.

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging multiple parts of California SB2, which unilaterally declares numerous locations as “sensitive places” where California will now ban the carry of firearms by licensed, law-abiding Californians. The complaint in Carralero v. Bonta can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“SB2 restricts where persons with licenses to carry a concealed weapon may legally exercise their constitutional right to wear, carry, or transport firearms. And it does so in ways that are fundamentally inconsistent with the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen,” argues the complaint. “The Second Amendment does not tolerate these restrictions. This Court should enter judgment enjoining their enforcement and declaring them unconstitutional.”

“With Gov. Newsom’s signing of SB2 today, California continues to exhibit its disdain for the rights of Californians, the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s General Counsel and Vice President of Legal, and FPC’s counsel. “Unfortunately for California, and contrary to Governor Newsom’s misguided statements, the state does not have the power to unilaterally overrule individual rights and constitutional protections. Fortunately, courts across the nation have already struck down laws just like SB2, and we expect the same result here.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by three individuals, Orange County Gun Owners, San Diego County Gun Owners, and California Gun Rights Foundation.

If Democrats actually revered the Supreme Court as much as they claim to, Bruen would have ended their attempts to pass Second Amendment infringing legislation. But the goal of disarming the civilian population is only slightly less sacred a Democratic Party cause than taxpayer-funded abortions. So they soldier on trying to thwart the Constitution.

Here is the relevant text of SB2.

This bill would remove those exemptions, except as specified. The bill would make it a crime to bring an unloaded firearm into, or upon the grounds of, any residence of the Governor, any other constitutional officer, or Member of the Legislature. The bill would also prohibit a licensee from carrying a firearm to specified locations, including, among other places, a building designated for a court proceeding and a place of worship, as defined, with specific exceptions. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Well, it’s not like any particular houses of worship are under particular threats from particular terrorist organizations, now is it?

Just four years ago on the last day of Passover, a man armed with a rifle burst into a synagogue in Poway, near San Diego, fatally shot one woman and injured three other congregants, including the synagogue’s rabbi.

A year before, an even more horrific attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue left 11 dead.

In the aftermath of the attack on Israel, many American Jews are arming themselves. But in California, not only will Jews and worshippers in other faiths be banned from protecting themselves in their houses of worship, but would-be killers will know that potential victims in “sensitive” areas will be unarmed.

Everywhere in the west, the radical left is protesting to support Hamas, despite (or perhaps because) of the latter’s calls to completely destroy the Jews. Meanwhile, Gavin Newsom and California Democrats are disarming law-abiding Jewish American citizens in their synagogues.

What are the odds?

The Bloody Failed Experiment of Gun-Free “Death” Zones

After watching senseless killings in Gun Free Zones time and time again, logical-thinking people start to consider the fact that deaths occur in these locations because people can’t defend themselves when under attack. Mainstream media, in coordination with the Democrat party, is highly tuned in to this awareness and works effortlessly to counteract that thought process through an endless stream of propaganda, rhetoric, and gun-blaming.

They know that logical-thinking people are aware of their anti-gun fear campaign. Still, they also know that there is a good portion of Americans who can be easily manipulated into believing the anti-gun lies.

We wonder how, if they know that they are putting good people in danger with their false narrative, Gun Free Zones, and dangerous gun restrictions, they can continue this experiment in unnecessary loss of human life?

The biggest culprit of unnecessary and preventable death is the Gun Free Zone. It is also becoming quite apparent that the Gun Free Zone is a valuable tool for gun restrictions. At a certain point, the gun-grabbers start to look foolish for continuing dangerous policies with no remorse, but the Gun Free Zone brings with it death, and an excuse to blame guns for human violence. This is the main driver for gun-restriction support.

Don’t believe me? Ask yourself why it is that left-wing media and politicians will start blaming firearms, with total disregard to the suffering families and loss of life before the victims are even removed from the scene.

There are several reasons for this immoral behavior, including the fact that a good portion of our Country values politics over morality.

This could be a result of the demonization of Judaism and Christian values in our society. It could also be the fact that there is a concerted effort to teach people to devalue human life if it doesn’t benefit them.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
For the last couple of generations, we in the West have told ourselves that we have changed. We told ourselves that we are beyond violence. And we told ourselves that everyone else was too. But that was a lie.

Accept That Savagery Is the True Nature of the World – and Deal With It

If you want an indicator of how lost Western civilization has become, go to your kids’ school and check their rules on fighting. Most likely, you’ll find out if two kids get into a fight, both get suspended, regardless of whether one was a punk bully who started it and the other was simply defending himself or some little kid. This is a moral disaster, of course – violence in the defense of what is right is a moral obligation and a symbol of a greater rot within society. This is the kind of rule created by middle-aged, divorced cat women who can neither find nor satisfy a man and live in a tranquil bubble of affluent, frivolous safety and security created by their harder, worthier forbearers who understood the world’s true nature.

The true nature of the world is savagery.

The world’s true nature is that good is forever pitted against evil.

That has never changed. What happened over the last 70 years or so was an interregnum of peace in the West, created by violence against barbarians and facilitated by people willfully looking away from the butchery still continuing at the fringes of the map. The West managed to build a civilization that was – for the first time in history since perhaps the Pax Romana – generally internally peaceful. And the West convinced itself that this was normal.

But it was not normal. It was an anomaly, a glorious one, but an anomaly nonetheless. The world is not a peaceful place, and it never was, and it never will be. Despite the best efforts of the arrogant left, human nature has not changed. Human nature is vicious and cruel. Rousseau’s noble savage nonsense, which we are still dealing with today in the form of eager sophomores in Che t-shirts slobbering over Hamas psychopaths – is a giant fraud. Savages are not distinguished by their nobility. Their savagery distinguishes them. And we need to find the moral strength to do what is necessary to defeat them.

Continue reading “”

Maine shooting: Lewiston police were warned about Robert Card weeks before massacre
Police were alerted to ‘veiled threats’ by Card, a US Army reservist

Mass murderer Robert Card, who killed at least 18 people in a gruesome massacre in Lewiston, Maine, Wednesday, was reportedly on state authorities’ radars as early as mid-September.

Card gunned down at least 18 people and wounded 13, after opening fire on a bowling alley and bar in Lewiston, causing the worst mass shooting in the Pine Tree State’s history. He was found dead Friday night after a two-day search, with officials concluding that he shot himself in the head.

Law enforcement officials told the Associated Press that they were alerted to “veiled threats” by Card, a U.S. Army reservist, after he threatened soldiers at a southern Maine National Guard Base in Saco.

When authorities visited Card’s home and couldn’t find him, they dropped their investigation.

“We added extra patrols, we did that for about two weeks,” Saco Police Chief Jack Clements explained. “The guy never showed up.”

“Never came in contact with this guy, never received any phone calls from the reserve center saying, ‘Hey, we got somebody who was causing a problem,’” he added. “We never got anything.”

Sagadahoc County Sheriff Joel Merry alerted every law enforcement agency in Maine after the Army Reserve informed his department, but also could not find Card after a welfare check to his residence.

“We couldn’t locate him,” Merry said.

The FBI told AP that they were not aware of suspicious activity from Card, explaining they “did not have nor did [we] receive any tips or information concerning Robert Card.”

“[The background check system] was not provided with or in possession of any information that would have prohibited Card from a lawful firearm purchase,” the agency added.

Georgia Lieutenant Gov Wants To Pay Teachers $10,000 Annually To Carry Guns On Campuses

Georgia Republican Lieutenant Gov. Burt Jones unveiled legislation on Wednesday that would annually pay school teachers $10,000 to carry a gun at school in an effort to increase safety on campuses.

“One of the most critical duties we have as public servants is to protect those who are most vulnerable – including all of Georgia’s children,” Jones said in a news release.

Jones said the legislation would use state funding to ensure Georgia’s school systems and teachers have the option to receive proper firearms training and certification. The plan also calls for stricter guidelines for existing school safety plans and to distribute more money to schools that hire school resource officers with police certification, The Associated Press reported.

“We feel like this is the best way to prepare faculty, but also prepare law enforcement and the system however we can,” Jones reportedly said at Austin Road Elementary School in Winder on Wednesday, adding the state should take more “proactive” measures to prevent school shootings.

Republican State Sens Max Burns and Clint Dixon joined the Lt. Gov. in crafting the 2024 legislative priority to increase school safety, contending that protecting children and their classrooms is their first responsibility.

Continue reading “”

Maine Mass Shooting Doesn’t Justify More Gun Control. Here’s Why.

On Wednesday night, there was a mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, that has left at least 22 people dead, and many more injured at various locations. The suspect in the shooting, Robert Card, remains at large, and a manhunt is underway. According to reports, the suspect went to multiple locations, including a bar and a bowling alley.

Naturally, Democrats were quick to jump in with calls for more gun control. But make no mistake about it, this incident doesn’t prove the need for more gun control at all. It actually proves that existing gun control measures aren’t being enforced. How so? Well, according to information released to the public so far, we know that the suspect has severe mental health problems and was previously known to law enforcement.

According to a Maine law enforcement bulletin, Card “recently reported mental health issues including hearing voices and threats to shoot up the National Guard base in Saco.” Card was also reported to have been committed to a mental health facility for two weeks this past summer.

 

Let that sink in for a moment. Here’s a man with mental health problems who threatened to shoot up a base. Can anyone explain why he was a free man in the first place, let alone still in possession of firearms?

As Tom Knighton at our sister site Bearing Arms notes, “Maine has their own version of a red flag law. This is the kind of stuff we’re told red flag laws are for, and yet it doesn’t seem anyone bothered to use it.”

It’s inevitable that Joe Biden will deliver remarks at some point about the shooting, and it’s a safe bet he’ll blame the NRA and congressional Republicans—his favorite scapegoats for gun violence. But the NRA has consistently called upon the federal government to tackle the issue of mental illness and violence. In 1966, the NRA stated, “The time is at hand to seek means by which society can identify, treat and temporarily isolate such individuals,” because “elimination of the instrument by which these crimes are committed cannot arrest the ravages of a psychotic murderer.”

As Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms notes, if the suspect “was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, that would have precluded him from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm. A voluntary commitment, on the other hand, wouldn’t necessarily have resulted in a NICS denial after he was released.” However, if Card “did self-report mental health issues including a threat to shoot up an army base and was committed to a mental health facility, that likely would have been seen as ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that he presented a danger to himself or others.”

When existing mechanisms to keep guns away from the mentally ill aren’t used, that’s not a reason for more gun control that won’t actually solve the problem.