Best Self-Defense Tools? Um…I Don’t Know…How ‘Bout a Gun

Ok, so to start, I get that the article in question appeared in the New York Post, published in, of course New York City, where all things “guns” are strictly verboten, so a New Yorker is naturally going to get creative. But therein lies the problem: When trying to determine or write an article about the best self-defense tools available, there is clearly, one option that trumps all others. The others are nice, maybe even kinda cool. But none of them are a gun. A firearm in virtually any of its many designs and configurations is the best self-defense tool ever created by man and, some bumper sticker enthusiasts might argue, perfected by Samual Colt. In the game of rock, paper, scissors, if you added nuke, which would beat all the others combined, the gun plays that same role in a discussion of self-defense tools.

But, for shits and giggles, let’s play along for a minute.

So the Post article, “How to stay safe with some of the best self-defense tools on the market,” was a nice New York-safe (sort of, more on that in a minute) article by Emma Sutton-Williams. A quick look at Ms. Sutton-Williams’ bio reveals she is an ardent electric scooter rider, a proud dog mom to a designer breed of Mini Sheepadoodle (not sure what that really is though speculating it’s a super ineffective version of a tiny sheep dog mixed with some version of poodle and is likely infinitely cute and hypoallergenic) and is a Julliard-trained violinist (impressive). She is no doubt quite talented, rather smart, exceptionally cultured, fashionably attractive, a solid writer and likely has zero familiarity or knowledge of firearms.

So, she got creative and looked at the typical non-gun items that can be used to knock an attacker senseless or simply attack his (or her) senses. Here was the author’s premise:

“In a world where chaos has taken root, propelled by social media and broadcasted entertainment, we constantly feel its toll on our society. The atmosphere is charged with a fearful undertone, robbing us of tranquility, even joy, if we let it. The world has stopped listening to one another, causing a wake of public shaming, name-calling, and acts of violence.

“In an effort to make our readers feel as safe as possible, we researched the best self-defense tools and techniques to feel protected and empowered. Knowing how to shield yourself is crucial whether you’re walking alone at night or navigating crowded public spaces.”

The Post is doing a little what The Truth About Guns is doing. We want our readers to feel safer, too. We just take a more direct, reliable approach to promoting that safety.

Continue reading “”

ANTI-GUNNERS MORE INTERESTED IN PUBLIC DISARMAMENT THAN SAFETY—CCRKBA

BELLEVUE, WA – A recent report by ABC News that gun control groups are vowing to “double down” against incoming President Donald Trump if he pursues national concealed carry reciprocity only proves anti-gunners are more interested in citizen disarmament than in public safety, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in response.

“National concealed carry reciprocity simply would mean American citizens would no longer leave their right of self-defense at a state border,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “The gun prohibition lobby needs to come clean and admit they don’t care if law-abiding citizens can’t defend themselves while traveling. They’re not interested in public safety, only public disarmament.”

A national reciprocity bill passed the U.S. House in 2017, but was never brought up in the Senate, and Democrats have opposed the idea. Now, however, with Capitol Hill under Republican control, and Trump on record as vowing to sign legislation if it hits his desk, anti-gunners—including Everytown for Gun Safety and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence—are promising a fight to keep people traveling from one state to another vulnerable to criminal attack.

“The gun ban crowd can couch their arguments any way they want,” Gottlieb observed, “but when you boil it down, what they really want is for good people to be vulnerable to violent crime. Anti-gunners argue that reciprocity will make it easier for criminals to cross state lines, but that doesn’t pass the smell test because criminals are already doing that.

“Any notion that legally-armed Americans are somehow a threat to public safety when they journey to another state is manufactured paranoia,” he said.

“And,” Gottlieb added, “when armed citizens go to other states, they must obey that state’s gun laws. The argument that states will see their own gun laws eroded by reciprocity is yet another myth invented by anti-gunners to dissuade people from supporting reciprocity. Each state’s laws would remain intact, and they know it.”

Don’t Think Guns Are Treated Differently? Think Again

There are some people who think guns get some kind of special dispensation within the law. This is popular with the “I wish women had the same rights as guns” crowd that can’t seem to shut up. It’s nonsense, of course, but some people really like to pretend otherwise. They like to pretend guns are treated differently than everything else.

But let’s be real. Guns are treated differently than other products. It’s just not the way they want you to think.

See, few other industries are facing threats of government regulation and intervention because of things that third parties do that are already prohibited by law, but  that’s what’s happening in the firearm industry.

After the video montage of criminal violence, Chairman Durbin continued his opening remarks.

“Glock switches, which are banned under federal law are cheap, often costing less than $20, and they’ve been increasingly common across our country,” the chairman said. “We must act. Gun manufacturers can and should do more to ensure their products cannot be converted into illegal machine guns.
If manufacturers fail to act, Congress should take up legislation to hold these companies liable for the foreseeable consequences of their actions.”

Of course, the White House coordinated with Everytown and The City of Chicago to sue Glock under this baseless legal theory; and is the subject of an ongoing congressional investigation.

Chairman Durbin gives away his authority here as he knows well lawful firearm manufacturers cannot and should not be held liable for the criminal actions of unaffiliated remote third parties. This is the cornerstone of American jurisprudence and codified in the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that countless gun control activists wish to eliminate.

The chairman said it himself – these illegal firearm conversion devices like Glock switches are already illegal. Prosecutors need to get tough and hold criminals accountable for committing these horrible crimes.

Some argue that the PLCAA is more proof that guns are treated differently, but let’s understand what the PLCAA does and why it exists.

It was created to deal with a particularly insidious series of lawsuits aimed at trying to punish the firearm industry for what third parties did with firearms. There was no wrongdoing by the gun manufacturers, who complied with all federal regulations. It was just a way to try and bankrupt gun companies or force them to stop selling to the general public.

The PLCAA ended that.

Some argue this creates special protections for the industry, and it may, but only because they are needed. For example, the auto industry doesn’t get sued because of drunk drivers. If they did, we’d likely see similar protections put in place.

However, now the target is companies like Glock who find their firearms ending up in criminal hands and who are using devices that are illegal, that have been illegal since they were invented, and that cannot be lawfully purchased. Since most of them were made after 1986, the machine gun ban implemented that year means that no one can buy one even after jumping through all the NFA hoops.

The threat here is that Glock will face regulation if they don’t change their entire design to accommodate for someone doing something illegal.

No other industry would face such threats.

For example, no one has ever threatened the auto industry because the window glass is too easy for thieves to break or the cars are too easy to hotwire. No one sued door lock companies for failing to stop someone busting through the door.

But Glock is being threatened here.

The upside is that it’s an empty threat. The PLCAA does mean that lawsuits can’t really happen, but Congress can end those protections, so that’s not what makes it empty. What does is the fact that Durbin isn’t going to be calling any shots for the next two years at least. The incoming Congress doesn’t exactly look like one inclined to punish a popular firearm maker that provides most of the guns used by law enforcement over what criminals do with devices they add that aren’t even made by Glock in the first place

In the Seventh Circuit, Procedural Red Herrings Threaten the Second Amendment

The Seventh Circuit heard oral argument on November 12 in Viramontes v. County of CookIllinois, a challenge to Cook County’s ban on semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15, inaccurately labeled as assault weapons. These bans are flatly unconstitutional under Heller, which establishes that the law-abiding citizens of this Nation have a right to possess firearms that are in common use. Semiautomatic rifles undoubtedly are in common use – indeed, the AR-15 has been the best-selling rifle in the Nation for years. Unfortunately, the Seventh Circuit departed from Heller in a case called Bevis to hold that arms that are predominantly useful for military purposes can be banned. But even under that reasoning, semiautomatic rifles cannot be banned. They are common civilian firearms, not military firearms, because they lack the capacity for automatic and burst fire.

 The questioning at the Seventh Circuit, however, did not focus much on the merits of the case. Rather, the panel (consisting of Judges Sykes, Brennan, and St. Eve) took a surprise detour through a series of procedural objections put forward in Cook County’s briefs. (Take a listen here). Judges Sykes and St. Eve appeared to think that Viramontes’ challenge should fail because he didn’t put forward critical evidence about semiautomatic rifles in the district court. Viramontes’ lawyer challenged that notion, including by citing to specific pages in the record containing key pieces of evidence. I decided to dig deeper into the history of the case to see who has the better of the argument. The short answer is that Viramontes does. Indeed, he has built one of the most robust records I have seen by a plaintiff in a case challenging a semiautomatic rifle ban.

Before turning to the record, it is helpful to take a step back to see how we got to this point. When Viramontes filed his case, the constitutionality of a ban on semiautomatic rifles was controlled by two Seventh Circuit precedents, Wilson and Friedman. Viramontes did not initially seek to build a record in the district court because his sole path to victory was to have the Seventh Circuit or U.S. Supreme Court declare that Wilson and Friedman were wrongly decided.

Cook County, however, requested the opportunity to build a record, and the district court obliged. Then, while the case was proceeding in the district court, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bruen, arguably wiping out Wilson and Friedman as precedent. It was in this context that the parties put forward their evidence and engaged in summary judgment briefing. It was not until summary judgment was fully briefed that the Seventh Circuit decided Bevis, and the parties addressed that decision in short filings.

Continue reading “”

The Illinois ‘assault weapon’ ban fails

The HellerMcDonald and Bruen decisions made clear the Second Amendment acknowledges– does not grant–an individual right to keep and bear arms, a right that does not end at one’s property line, and encompasses weapons—not just firearms–in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense. Government may not erect arbitrary barriers to the exercise of the right, but because the Supreme Court hasn’t absolutely delineated what weapons in “common use” might be, blue states like Illinois remain determined to disarm Americans, the better to crush them when it’s time for the glorious revolution.

 

Graphic: X Screenshot

Among the most common contemporary targets of anti-liberty/gun cracktivists are “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines. That there is no such thing as an “assault weapon” deters them not. Neither does the fact magazine capacity restrictions produce no public safety benefit, and most contemporary handguns and rifles feature magazines of greater than their commonly imposed 10 round capacity. Cracktivists have hit on the most common and popular sporting rifle, the AR-15 family, which since the Vietnam War has featured a standard 30 round magazine, as a particular object of hate. Upholding the narrative, Illinois banned “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.

An ”assault weapon” is best understood as any scary looking gun cracktivists want to ban. True assault rifles are fully automatic military arms. AR-15s outwardly resemble the military M4 but are like all other semiautomatic arms: they fire one round for each function of the trigger.

Don’t anti-liberty/gun crackvisits know this? Of course they do, but they also know they have unlimited taxpayer funds for lawsuits which normally take years to wend their way to the Supreme Court and in the meantime, they get to deprive Americans of their rights and even jail and ruin some of their political enemies.

Fortunately, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn has sided with the Constitution, and overturned the Illinois ban:

Continue reading “”

Analysis: How a Federal Judge Reinterpreted the ‘Military Arms’ Argument to Protect AR-15s

After a federal appeals court wrote AR-15s and the magazines that typically come with them out of the Second Amendment, a federal judge has written them back in.

Last November, a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel declined to enjoin Illinois’ ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines after ruling that each was too akin to military hardware to be counted as “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. Yet just last week, a US District Court judge under the Seventh Circuit’s jurisdiction struck down the exact same ban as unconstitutional.

In fact, he did so by relying on the circuit’s own words.

When the Seventh Circuit panel upheld Illinois’ ban, it set a new standard to determine whether a proposed gun law implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment–a key component of the Supreme Court’s Bruen test.

“In order to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the plaintiffs in each of the cases before us thus have the burden of showing that the weapons addressed in the pertinent legislation are Arms that ordinary people would keep at home for purposes of self-defense, not weapons that are exclusively or predominantly useful in military service, or weapons that are not possessed for lawful purposes,” Judge Diane Wood wrote in Bevis v. Naperville.

Wood drew specific attention to the “military use” prong. Relying on dicta from the Supreme Court’s Heller decision assuring other courts that the ruling did not prohibit regulation of machineguns used by the military (specifically the M16), she posited that civilian AR-15s are nearly indistinguishable from M16s. She concluded, therefore, that they are also “predominantly useful in military service” and may be banned.

Judge Stephen McGlynn came to a different conclusion regarding the “military use” of AR-15s and similar rifles when reviewing the case. While following the analytical structure handed down by the Seventh Circuit, he conducted his own inquiry into what makes a weapon “predominantly useful in military service.” Where the Seventh Circuit panel hand-waved away rate-of-fire differences between AR-15s and military service rifles, McGlynn found cause for highlighting the distinction.

“The commercially available AR-15’s external similarity to the M16 rifle and M4 carbine belies its nature, as its lack of burst or fully automatic fire fundamentally renders it a different weapon,” he wrote.

He also argued that rifles acquired for the military are subject to unique standards of “military specificity and rigorous quality-insurance inspections,” whereas civilian-market AR-15s have no such standards. Ultimately, he concluded, these differences render the AR-15 outside the scope of the Seventh Circuit’s military use standard.

“The Court holds that ‘military use’ refers to weapons that are selected, procured, tested, and issued to military members for use in combat,” McGlynn wrote. “With this in mind, none of the weapons, magazines, or attachments prohibited by PICA can be called ‘military-grade’ since they were not issued to the military for use in combat.”

Furthermore, he noted that the Seventh Circuit previously recognized a “dual use” standard for categories of weapons that have both lawful civilian and military applications in Bevis and its pre-Bruen assault weapons ban rulings.

“Obviously, many weapons are ‘dual use’: private parties have a constitutionally protected right to ‘keep and bear’ them and the military provides them to its forces,” Judge Wood wrote. “In this sense, there is a thumb on the scale in favor of Second Amendment protection. When we refer to ‘military’ weapons here, we mean weapons that may be essentially reserved to the military.”

Though Judge Wood specifically had shotguns and semi-automatic handguns in mind, Judge McGlynn found that AR-15s and similar rifles could just as easily fit the bill.

“Even if arguendo there are no material differences between the M16/M4 and AR-15, so-called ‘dual use’ has clearly been established here,” he wrote. “Clearly, even though handguns are useful and are used in military service, they are clearly protected by the Second Amendment. However, as noted above, AR-15s are distinct from their military counterparts.”

Ultimately, Judge McGlynn’s analysis represents a response to an argument that has become increasingly common among federal appeals courts looking for rationales to uphold state assault weapon bans despite Bruen’s demanding standards. It could serve as a blueprint for gun-rights advocates as they continue challenging similar bans in courts that are primed to rule against their position.

At the same time, it may not be an argument that is necessary for very long. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to take up an assault weapon ban case very soon, one that many gun-rights advocates believe is their best opportunity yet to have the justices weigh in. Should they do so, Justice Clarence Thomas, a member of the likely majority in any hardware ban case, has already tipped his cap regarding his views on the Seventh Circuit’s “military use” analysis.

In a statement accompanying the High Court’s denial of cert after the Seventh Circuit upheld Illinois’ ban, Thomas accused the panel of “contorting” the justices’ past Second Amendment guidance to reach a “nonsensical” conclusion that the Second Amendment does not protect “militaristic” weapons like the AR-15.

“The Seventh Circuit’s contrived ‘non-militaristic’ limitation on the Arms protected by the Second Amendment seems unmoored from both text and history,” he wrote. “It is difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are not ‘Arms’ protected by the Second Amendment.”

It may not matter much to gun-rights advocates in the end whether they’ve found an analytical avenue through the Seventh Circuit’s novel reading of the Bruen test for hardware bans. However, the Court has not been eager to take up an “assault weapons” ban case to this point. So, these lower court battles may continue to take on an outsized importance.

Can the Republican Senate protect the 2nd Amendment?

Donald Trump needs to protect the Second Amendment with Senate leadership choices who won’t negotiate our rights away.

Trump has already put forward a plan that, in the words of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., should earn him a space on Mount Rushmore.  But there is another problem with our ever persistent RINOs who insist on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  Although the First Amendment is being shored up, we have to be concerned with the prospects of the Second, simply because all of our rights are mutually supportive.

The best analogy for this is fortifications with interwoven fields of fire — a case where a gun emplacement can fire to cover another part of the fortification for mutual support.  These were prevalent during the time of the masterful development, writing, and ratification of the founding documents.

In other words, the First Amendment protects the Second, and the Second protects the First.  All the amendments are vitally important, and when one is weakened, the rest are weakened as a result.

The current problem is that Mitch McConnell has scheduled a vote for the Senate leadership this week, attempting to get this under the radar, while everyone is still celebrating the win and no one is paying attention to RINO shenanigans.  Unfortunately for them, many pro-freedom patriots are aware of this and are voicing their opinions on the matter, and it seems as though our politicians are “aghast at the effort.”  Braden from Langley Outdoors Academy has the latest rundown on this issue.

Part of the problem is that the three choices are insufficient, to say the least.  Thus, it’s up to pro-freedom patriots to offer alternatives to the current slate of RINOs, such as Kentucky senator Rand Paul, Texas senator Ted Cruz, Utah senator Mike Lee, or Missouri senator Josh Hawley.  This is why people are calling the U.S. capital switchboard to have the RINOs removed in favor of the far superior alternatives.

We had a fantastic victory last week.  There’s no reason to water it down by putting in place GOP RINOs who have a history of negotiating our rights away for absolutely no benefit.  Senate leadership is vitally important for implementing the Trump agenda, so there is no reason to go “wobbly” within a few days of defeating the Undemocratic party.

Seventh Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Challenge

No, not the challenge to the gun and magazine ban that U.S. District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn found unconstitutional last Friday. The almost half-dozen lawsuits taking on the Protect Illinois Communities Act will be heard by the Seventh Circuit as well, but not for several months. Instead, today’s oral argument is in a case called Viramontes v. Cook County, which is seeking to undo the “assault weapons” ban first put in place by Cook County lawmakers in the early 1990s.

The ordinance, which was revised in 2006 and again in 2013, makes it “unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell, offer or display for sale, give, lend, transfer ownership of, acquire, carry or possess any assault weapon or large capacity magazine in Cook County.” Earlier this year U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, a Clinton appointee, ruled in favor of Cook County and dismissed the claims brought by the plaintiffs.

Pallmeyer’s decision was based almost entirely on the Seventh Circuit’s denial of an injunction in yet another challenge to a semi-auto ban in Illinois. In Bevis v. Naperville, the appellate court ruled that both local and statewide bans on so-called assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are likely to withstand constitutional scrutiny because the arms in question are  “more like military weapons than those useful for self-defense.”

That decision was authored by Judge Frank Easterbrook; a Reagan appointee with a long history of upholding Illinois gun laws. In 2009, Easterbrook ruled that Chicago’s ban on handguns didn’t violate the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment’s protections didn’t extend to state and local laws. In 2015 Easterbrook ruled in favor of Highland Park, Illinois and its ban on “assault weapons”, arguing that even if arms that were in common use were prohibited, gun owners had other options available to them if they wanted a firearm for self-defense.

But Easterbrook is not a part of the three-judge panel that’s considering the constitutionality of Cook County’s gun and magazine ban today. Instead, Judge Diane Sykes (who’s authored a good ruling for gun owners), Judge Michael Brennan, and Judge Amy St. Eve will determine whether the county’s prohibition on modern sporting rifles and ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds violate the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

Well, he wants a whole lot more than that, view that video, and I’m not sure he should what all he wants.


Trump Reaffirms Push for National Concealed Carry Reciprocity.

In a decisive message released this weekend, President-elect Donald Trump reaffirmed his commitment to protecting Second Amendment rights, announcing his intent to implement national concealed carry reciprocity once he takes office. This proposed legislation would require all 50 states to recognize concealed carry permits issued by any individual state, enabling gun owners to carry firearms legally across state lines without fearing discrepancies in local regulations.

Trump addressed the nation with a promise to uphold the right to self-defense, stating, “I will protect the right of self-defense wherever it is under siege, and I will sign concealed carry reciprocity. Your Second Amendment does not end at the state line.”

The announcement quickly gained traction, with the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., a diehard hunter and shooter, enthusiastically sharing his father’s message on social media, writing, “Boom! My father just announced concealed carry reciprocity. The Second Amendment will stay and remain protected.”

This policy has long been part of Trump’s platform. Since his 2015 campaign, he has voiced support for a nationwide reciprocity measure, arguing that if a driver’s license can be universally recognized, so too should a concealed carry permit, which he describes as a “right, not a privilege.” During his 2020 campaign, he reiterated his stance, expressing readiness to sign a national reciprocity act if brought to his desk.

For gun owners and Second Amendment advocates, Trump’s pledge represents a significant step in ensuring that state borders do not interfere with their rights to self-defense. Many argue that reciprocity would eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic barriers, allowing law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to carry consistently across the country, and also help avoid ensnaring them in unwitting legal blunders because of different laws that follow no consistent standard from state to state.

As Trump prepares to take office, his announcement on reciprocity underscores a commitment to preserving gun rights nationwide, promising a potentially significant shift in the landscape of Second Amendment protections, a sea change from the current administration in the White House. While this is great news for gun owners, don’t expect national reciprocity to become the law of the land easily. Democratic state’s attorneys and anti-gun groups are already gearing up to fight every action Trump proposes to take even without knowing everything he plans to push legislatively. Expect the courts to become a rife battleground over gun laws for the next four years. That much will likely not change in the political landscape for the foreseeable future.

Below is Donald Trump’s entire statement shared on his website at DonaldJTrump.com.

Extract from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright

Monticello in Virginia. June 5. 1824.
…the constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed…

NSSF Celebrates Major Legal Victory as District Court Strikes Down Illinois’ MSR Ban

WASHINGTON, D.C.— NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, celebrated today the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Stephen P. McGlynn of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois striking down as unconstitutional the Illinois law that bans most semiautomatic firearms including Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), certain models of semiautomatic handguns and standard capacity magazines. The decision is a significant victory for the millions of law-abiding gun owners and the firearm industry in Illinois.

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law HB 5471, the “Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA),” in January 2023. HB 5741 is among the nation’s most expansive gun control laws and banned the sale of hundreds of models of rifles including commonly-owned MSRs, certain semiautomatic handguns and rifle magazines with a capacity greater than 10 cartridges and pistol magazines with a capacity greater than 15 cartridges.

NSSF, along with several co-plaintiffs, filed a legal challenge seeking to strike down this unconstitutional law and prevailed. Notably, in his decision Judge McGlynn wrote, “PICA is an unconstitutional affront to the Second Amendment and must be enjoined. The Government may not deprive law-abiding citizens of their guaranteed right to self-defense as a means of offense.” More specifically, the court held that MSRs and standard capacity magazines are in common use and have legitimate self-defense purposes.

“This decision handed down by Judge McGlynn is welcomed and what we in the firearm industry have known all along: commonly-owned firearms and standard capacity magazines are protected by law-abiding Americans under the Second Amendment,” stated Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “The U.S. Supreme Court has already recognized that semiautomatic rifles ‘traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful,’ and with over 28 million of these rifles in circulation today, they are clearly commonly-owned for lawful purposes, meeting the threshold set by the Supreme Court in its Heller decision.

Semiautomatic handguns are overwhelmingly the choice of firearm for personal self-defense. This law was clearly unconstitutional and did nothing to punish criminals who choose to break the law. It only deprives law-abiding Americans from being able to exercise their full spectrum of Second Amendment rights.”

While the court struck down the law, it did stay its permanent injunction for 30 days to give the State the opportunity to appeal and seek an emergency stay from the Seventh Circuit, which means that the law temporarily stays in effect.

NSSF will continue to monitor.

Gun Owners Made a Difference in the 2024 Election Results.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is today congratulating the nation’s gun owners—especially those in critical “battleground” states—for obviously making a difference in the outcome of Tuesday’s presidential election.

“America’s gun owners saw the threat of a Kamala Harris presidency and took action,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Millions of ‘gun voters’ turned out to reverse the nation’s course on firearms rights, and keep Kamala out of the Oval Office. It was gun owners who also made the difference in Montana, re-electing pro-gun Gov. Greg Gianforte and replacing Democrat Sen. Jon Tester with Republican Tim Sheehy, thus shifting the Senate majority to GOP control.

“In this election,” Gottlieb observed, “the Democrats shot blanks and the voters buried their gun ban agenda. 

“But,” he cautioned, “I bet they will double down on gun prohibition because they know that it was gun owners that removed them from power and they are gunning to get even. The fight to defend gun rights is not over and every gun owner who helped win this battle must remember that the war on gun rights is ongoing.”

Gottlieb said Trump’s triumphant return to public office “will become the stuff of legend.” He added that the importance of gun owner participation in this historic achievement cannot be overstated. 

“Here is a man who endured four years of turmoil while he was in office,” Gottlieb noted, “and he suffered from Democrat-engineered ‘lawfare,’ and survived two assassination attempts including one which nearly cost him his life. Yet, despite his wound, he refused to call for more gun control, and encouraged his supporters to fight. And that is exactly what we intend to do, because the right to keep and bear arms is what protects this nation from tyranny, and frustrates the enemies of liberty.”

A well regulated Militia’ is Alive and Well

Tactical shooting, sometimes known as action pistol or practical shooting, is a firearms discipline that involves shooting at targets in simulated self-defense or combat scenarios. The United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) is the largest tactical shooting organization in the United States with over 37,000 active members. At USPSA competitions, members “engage in dynamic and challenging courses of fire, where speed, accuracy, and power are equally tested” (USPSA). The International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA), based in Bogata, Texas, is an organization that emphasizes the skills associated with self-defense and concealed carry scenarios. IDPA boasts a membership of over 25,000, representing all 50 states and over 70 nations.

Both of these organizations function as the governing bodies of countless firearms competitions and training classes that occur weekly in the United States and, in the case of IDPA, around the world. There is a wide array of organized shooting sports (skeet, trap, long-range rifle, cowboy quick-draw, Steel Challenge, to name just a few) and associated organizations which cater to those activities, but it is the tactical shooting sports that have exploded in popularity in the United States over the past ten to fifteen years.

The current craze in the tactical shooting world is “3-gun,” which requires competitors to use a modern sporting rifle (a rifle built on an AR platform), a handgun, and a tactical shotgun, and where the target distances might vary between one and 500 yards: “Just as it is with the practical pistol matches, 3-gun simulates combat or self-defense situations” (NSSF).

One might reasonably ask why, with all the various shooting sports available, it is the tactical shooting sports that have grown exponentially in recent years. The answer is simple: There is a growing recognition in the United States that average citizens may, in the not-too-distant future, have to defend themselves against ungovernable crime — or tyranny. These are the two primary reasons that over a million guns per month are sold in the U.S.

Most of us grow up believing that the only place to access expert firearms training is in the military or law enforcement, but that is not the case. In fact, many shooters from those backgrounds use USPSA and IDPA training and competitions to enhance the sometimes-perfunctory training they receive in their professional capacity. While it is true that many members of USPSA and IDPA are active/retired military or law enforcement, they are in the minority. The overwhelming majority of shooters come from civilian backgrounds, representing every conceivable profession and demographic. Most competitors are male, to be sure, but there is a large and growing cadre of female shooters, many of them spectacularly talented and accomplished.

The point is this: There are currently tens of thousands of highly-skilled, civilian tactical shooters in the United States. Some of those skilled civilians include Hollywood actors such as Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Garner, Micheal B. Jordan, Colin Farrell, Chris Hemsworth and many others who have trained with 3-Gun guru Taran Butler, founder of Taran Tactical Innovations and frequent guest on History Channel’s Top Shot. There is even a small but growing subset of tactical shooters who are also dedicated to extreme fitness (CrossFit, powerlifting, Krav Maga, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, distance running, etc.) — a kind of civilian special forces, if you will.

Unsurprisingly, the political mood at IDPA and USPSA matches is decidedly right-of-center and unapologetically patriotic. Pro-American, pro-Second Amendment, and “Don’t Tread on Me” T-shirts abound, as do camo truckers’ caps advertising a favorite gun or ammo manufacturer. Perhaps the degree of patriotism is best illustrated by relating an incident that occurred the first time I attended an IDPA match at a particular gun club in Northern California.

My shooting partner and I had arrived early to help with the set-up, and, as is common practice prior to any tactical pistol or rifle competition, we were called to a shooters’ meeting by the match director who, in this case, was a retired drill sergeant right out of Central Casting. As the forty or fifty shooters settled into a semi-circle around the director, I was completely unprepared for what happened next. Below is a word-for-word account of how the shooters’ meeting started and what [in brackets] was going through my mind at the time:

(The match director speaking to the group in a booming, commanding voice.)

“Take off your hat.” [What? Why?]

“Put your hand over your heart.” [Wait, what?]

“Face the flagpole.” [Huh?]

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag….” [Oh.]

No preliminaries. No dissembling. No introductory remarks along the lines of “we’re going to recite the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’ for those of you who wish to join.” And the subtext was crystal clear:  If you have a problem removing your hat, if you have a problem placing your hand over your heart, if you have a problem showing some respect, if you have a problem publicly declaring your allegiance to the symbol of this great country dedicated to liberty and justice and founded under the care and protection of God, you’re probably in the wrong place.

At the time of this shooters’ meeting, I had not recited “the Pledge of Allegiance” in decades. But on this particular morning, as the sun peeked above the Sierra Nevada mountains, providing the backdrop for the Stars and Stripes, I was deeply moved. Reciting the “Pledge” for the first time as an adult, understanding for the first time the gravity and responsibility of taking such a pledge, standing among a group of unapologetic patriots with a Glock 17 on my hip, the light bulb illuminated.  It was at this exact moment when I realized I was willing to fight in defense of my country and its founding principles.

The many activities required of any shooter to become a competent tactical pistol or 3-gun competitor — dry fire drills, live fire drills, safety workshops, trips to the range, training classes, Concealed Carry Permit renewals (optional), videos, competitions, equipment purchases, and endless reloading (optional) — all came together in an instant. I realized that my willingness to defend my country was directly related to my ability to handle a firearm.

Of course, competitive shooting is not the only path to firearm proficiency, but it is a rewarding path to follow. It provides the shooter with measurable goals and a way to chart his or her progress. I am by no means an elite competitor; I usually finish my matches with a score placing me squarely in the middle of the pack.  What I am is a safe, responsible, competent gun owner and handler who is willing and able to defend his family, his country, and himself.

In the United States, there are tens of thousands of patriotic, competitive shooting enthusiasts from every walk of life: from teenage girls with pink Glocks, to octogenarian veterans carrying an ancient, army-issue Colt 1911. They can be found at the hundreds of firearms competitions that take place every weekend in the United States and practicing at the thousands of gun ranges that dot the landscape. So, sleep well America. Your well-regulated militia is alive and well and in training.  And it is seeking new recruits.

Country Singer Jay Allen Robbed at Gunpoint in East Nashville

Country singer Jay Allen has reconsidered his stance on gun ownership after being the victim of an armed robbery at an East Nashville grocery store.

The singer and former The Voice contestant opened up about the scary experience on social media, assuring fans that he’s “ok (besides being out a few bucks.)”

But what really distressed him wasn’t the loss of the money — it was the feeling of vulnerability and terror that stuck with him, even after the danger had passed.

“Even with having a muscular stature and being covered in tattoos, it didn’t matter,” Allen reflects. “He had a gun, and I didn’t. I felt helpless, taken advantage of, and mad at myself more than anything.”

In the wake of the incident, Allen says he made a big decision: To purchase a firearm for protection.

“I’ve always been on the fence about guns, but today I’m a proud new gun owner,” he continues. “It’s strictly for self-defense, and I will NEVER feel that way again.”

Allen also shared a closeup shot of his new pistol, as well as video of himself at a gun learning to use it.

I have only been to Minnesota twice. The first on a summer family vacation decades ago, and second, on a layover when flying to Alaska. Other than necessity required by the latter, I have no plans to ever visit that tyrant run state again


Is Your Private Vehicle a ‘Public Space’ When There’s a Gun Involved?

It’s an odd question stemming from an equally strange case, but that’s the question the Minnesota Supreme Court will soon answer after hearing oral arguments on Monday.

Back in 2022, a guy named Kyaw Be Bee was arrested for the misdemeanor charge of carrying a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun in a public place after police discovered a BB gun underneath the driver’s seat of Bee’s car. The deputy had become suspicious of Bee and another man when he spotted them standing near a vehicle in a parking lot around 2 a.m. Bee and his companion strolled back to their own vehicle when they became aware of the deputy, and once they drove away the deputy pulled them over, which is when he discovered the BB gun.

Bee’s attorney argued in a pre-trial hearing that a private vehicle should not be considered a public place and a judge agreed; dismissing the misdemeanor charge after reasoning that a private vehicle is not a public place, even when it’s on a public road.

Prosecutors appealed that decision and the Minnesota Court of Appeals found in their favor, ruling that private cars on public roads should be considered public spaces. Bee’s attorneys then appealed to the state Supreme Court, which heard from both sides yesterday.

“To focus the law on the method of transportation upon a public roadway, instead of the geographic area of the roadway itself, ignores the clear statutory text, renders portions of the statute ineffective, leads to absurd results and is therefore not reasonable,” Saint Paul city attorney Lyndsey Olson, who argued for the state, told justices Monday.

However Drake Metzger, an attorney for Bee, said the statute is “unambiguous” about what makes a space public.

The law defines public space as “property owned, leased, or controlled by a governmental unit and private property that is regularly and frequently open to or made available for use by the public.”

Lawmakers included exceptions for hunters; target shooters; people’s homes or business; and gun shows and shops.

What the law doesn’t address is whether or not a private vehicle is considered a public place; it simply says that if a gun is being transported in compliance with the law, the statute does not apply.

“At the end of the day, the inside of a motor vehicle is not a public space under this definition,” Metzger said Monday.

Metzger also argued that his client could have been charged with carrying without a license based on how the BB gun was stored in the vehicle, but accusing Bee of having a gun in a public place when it was in his car just doesn’t make sense given the language of the statute.

Olson, arguing for the state, saw it differently.

“I don’t think that this is saying that being in a motor vehicle inherently means that you’re in a public place,” Olson said. “It depends on the geographical place that the vehicle is on.”

Bee could have been charged with another crime as well, Olson said, public safety is at the root of gun laws.

“The consequences of a particular interpretation excluding vehicles on public roadways from public space could risk public safety by allowing the gun possession within vehicles without restriction,” she said.

The problem with Olson’s argument, at least from my perspective, is that it requires “interpreting” the statute instead of simply reading and adhering to the text. As Metzer says, the law in question defines what constitutes a public space, and while it does include some private property, that property must be “regularly and frequently open or made available for use by the public”. Your car, my truck, and (presumably) Bee’s vehicle aren’t open for use by the public, even when they’re on a public road, so how could they reasonably be considered public spaces?

Even if the Minnesota Supreme Court finds in favor of Bee (which, given the makeup of the court, is probably unlikely), as his own attorney pointed out, the state could still have charged Bee with improper storage of the BB gun. Whether that statute is constitutional under the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment is another question for another day, but when it comes to the question of whether a private vehicle is a public space, I think the answer is and should obviously be “no.”

Polls Are Now Open. The Fate of the 2nd Amendment Rests in Your Vote Today

If you are reading this, and you have not yet voted, stop what you are doing and go vote. And if it isn’t clear to you yet, Harris is not the one to vote for.