RKBA – Page 103 – MILESFORTIS

A New Kind of Threat to 2nd Amendment & Free Speech Rights

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the wake of another Supreme Court ruling that strengthens and more clearly defines Second Amendment protections, anti-gun politicians have developed another way to threaten those rights, and rights protected by the First Amendment all in an effort to silence gun owners and penalize them for fighting back.

In California, where such strategies are typically developed and then spread across the map, this plan of attack is already in progress.

A federal court case known as Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta cuts to the heart of the problem. Several plaintiffs, including gun rights organizations, are challenging changes in state law created by the passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any firearm industry members to advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law.

The second prong of this anti-gun strategy is legislation enacted to thwart such challenges by financially penalizing anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win on all aspects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.

In essence, California politicians are effectively silencing debate on issues directly affecting rights secured by the Second Amendment by legislating against those who would challenge their laws.

What began as an attack on one constitutional right has now become an attack on another right, yet civil libertarians are silent.

Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom are saying, “You have freedom of speech only if you agree with us.” That is not how the Founders perceived this country, and it is why they included the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

If this were about any issue other than guns, the media would be going crazy. Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post? Why aren’t there reports about this in every newspaper? Are stories being spiked, or is the situation simply being ignored?

One might expect this sort of censorship in Putin’s Russia, but it is here, now in Joe Biden’s America. When anti-rights fanatics take their fight to this level, it’s really an attack on all Americans, not just 100 million gun owners.

Today, they’re coming after gun rights. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll be coming after a right you cherish or your right to protest, publish or provide an alternate viewpoint.

That’s not the country where our parents and grandparents grew up, and it shouldn’t be the country our children and grandchildren are forced to accept.

The Deep Concealment Gun: Possibly Your Most Important Personal Weapon

We preach carrying as much gun as possible, but for people who live in the real world in which professional and social obligations do not lend well to dressing around a full-size gun, a deep concealment pistol is needed. When out and about in casual clothing, I carry a double-stack 9mm pistol, but when I need to dress formally for certain social obligations, I usually carry a small revolver. However, this is not the only circumstances in which I use the small gun; when exercising in gym shorts, when working outside in the yard, and when simply lounging around the home, the small gun is either in the waistband or in a pocket. I suspect that many concealed carriers out there are similar in this regard; the small gun gets carried often.

With this in mind, I would submit that for many concealed carriers, the deep concealment option, which is often considered secondary, is likely the most important defensive weapon due to the amount of time it is actually used. Many concealed carriers may feel that they wear their “full-size” gun most of the time, but in fact, they don’t. If one is honest in their self-assessment, they will likely realize that the small gun is getting carried for the occasions that require something small, but likely, far more often than just that.

Is there anything wrong with carrying a small gun more often? The argument to carry “as much gun as you can” is well-intentioned and well-reasoned. With the increase in criminal activity involving multiple aggressors and with the increase in mass killer events, carrying a capable fighting pistol makes good sense. A larger handgun with more ammunition capacity is typically more shootable, and more capacity is a good thing. However, most would agree that a small pocket pistol or small-frame revolver that gets carried all the time is far more valuable than a more capable gun that is carried only part-time. It is human nature to go with the easier solution, so small guns get carried a lot. Thus, for most, it is the most important gun.

Staying Consistent with Deep Concealment

Know the Limitations
Unfortunately, the majority of concealed carriers that use a small gun rarely practice with it. Even if the small gun gets carried ninety percent of the time, the big gun that only gets carried occasionally tends to get all the training time. Again, human nature, big guns are easier to shoot. However, if you are carrying your deep concealment gun most of the time, then it warrants significant training effort.

The first benefit gained through training with your small gun is understanding the limitations. How much do you give up in performance compared to your full-size carry gun? Three constructive elements will emerge from knowing this: first, you will understand the limits of your range, accuracy, and speed with the small gun. Second, you will better determine how often you should be carrying the small gun compared to the more capable pistol. Third, you may well realize that much of the limitation can be overcome through more practice with the limited platform.

Determine the Role of the Small Gun
If you utilize a small revolver or a pocket pistol chambered in 380ACP or the like, then you should acknowledge that you are, indeed, giving up significant capability compared to carrying a full-size or compact autoloader. The new breed of micro guns that are chambered in 9mm, yet have a substantial capacity of ten plus rounds may be a solution that can be carried anywhere, and these guns, indeed, greatly close the gap between service pistols and pocket-sized guns. If one of these tiny but higher-capacity guns works for carrying all of the time, in all circumstances, I would propose not losing sleep over it. Simply maximize your training with it.

But, If you must use something that is even smaller for deep concealment like the aforementioned small revolver or tiny pocket auto, then having an honest assessment of when you can carry more is warranted. Again, if you only carry such a diminutive option, but you carry it all the time, you are ahead of the curve compared to the general public. However, there is probably a great deal of time when you can carry more. While carrying any gun is far better than carrying no gun, I am always inclined to suggest carrying “as much gun as you can” in light of the current state of the world.

When out in public during times that you can be dressed casually, which is probably quite often, there is no reason not to carry a larger, more capable gun. With modern holster options, most people can conceal compact, or even full-size, pistols under an untucked or open-front shirt. Consider the escalation in active killer events, the prevalence of multiple assailants in armed robbery, or the increase in gang activity; an auto loader with duty capacity is in order.

Still, we return to the reality that determines the course of most concealed carriers’ choices, and even for those committed to carrying enough gun, there are many circumstances that limit this choice. The small, deep concealment pistol is likely the one that will get carried most often when combining the need to accommodate non-permissive environment carry, gym or jogging carry, and home carry. Therefore, do not neglect training with your deep concealment gun, which might be your most important defensive tool.

More women bought guns nationwide. These Charlotte experts are training them.

Gun safety posters lined the walls inside the classroom of the Charlotte Gun Club on a recent Saturday morning as two women took their seats behind a long table.

From the gun-shaped hook holding the set of bathroom keys to the stacks of gun magazines, the set-up was about what anyone would expect.

But with LaToya Workman teaching, bras and tight thigh bands made into holsters litter a table. And, she brought a bright green purse specifically made for conceal carry. Facing the two women who signed up for training — one a mother whose youngest child was just 7-weeks-old, the other a single woman wanting a gun for protection — Workman explained how to load, aim and fire a gun.

The two students listened closely as she laid out the basic rules. One of the most important, she said: “Don’t point your gun at anything you aren’t willing to destroy.”

Workman owns Woman with a Weapon, a company designed to encourage more women to get gun permits in North Carolina and to provide training and safety classes.

While Black women are one of the fastest growing demographics of firearm owners in the country, there is still a lack of representation in the gun world, Workman says.

Gun sales reached an all time high in 2020 nationally, especially among women and the Black community, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. In North Carolina, the number of people who requested conceal carry permits hit a record high for the state in 2020. Locally, there was a similar trend — and notably a surge in interest among Black women, with nearly 15,000 permit applications, according to Mecklenburg County data on pistol purchasing and conceal carry permits. Since then, the trend has slowed considerably.

WOMEN IN GUN INDUSTRY

When she first moved to Charlotte almost five years ago to be closer to her aunt, Workman was single and wanted to have a gun for personal protection but she wasn’t quite sure where to start.

Growing up, she remembers, her grandmother owned a gun for protection and to shoot snakes at her Arizona home but her exposure to gun ownership stopped there.

In Charlotte, she decided to take one-on-one firearm training before applying for a concealed carry license. At her first class, her instructor was an older man who focused on Workman’s gender: She says he tried to tell her how to dress, the challenges a woman might face using a gun, and that she would need to cut her long, manicured nails.

“I wanted to pursue training from a female and … I was not able to find one in the area,” Workman said.

She decided to become an instructor in 2020 to help encourage other women. It’s part-time and a bit of a hobby for Workman. During the day she works in cybersecurity risk management.

“It takes a lot of courage for women to actually come to class and overcome their fears,” Workman said. “The more you’re able to learn about a subject, the less intimidating it is. At least that’s how it was for me. … I’ve seen that same progress in other women as well.”

Fellow instructor Kisha Kincaid says representation makes a difference.

The owner of Armed and Empowered based in Charlotte, Kincaid used to sell self defense items to women, including pepper spray and stun guns. But, her real interest was with firearms and she enjoyed shooting. Starting from a young age she learned from family members by shooting at cans.

Kisha Kincaid shows her gun for the camera at a gun range in Concord, NC Wednesday August 17, 2022. Makayla Holder mholder@charlotteobserver.com

Often, when Kincaid would set up her booth at gun shows and other locations, women would come up to purchase something and tell her they were really interested in learning how to shoot.

“But they were intimidated by the process, or they had a fear around it, and then there was a lack of women representation in that field,” Kincaid said.

So, Kincaid decided to fill what she describes as a need in her community by becoming a firearm instructor in 2013. Her day job is in tech in the banking industry.

Kincaid said the biggest barrier women face when becoming responsible gun owners is fear and intimidation, and not knowing where to start. She said the number one reason women purchase guns is for personal protection and empowerment. The second most common is if there is already a gun in the house and they want to learn how to use it.

Kisha Kincaid discusses aiming techniques with her student, Taylor Smith, at a gun range in Concord, NC Wednesday August 17, 2022. Makayla Holder mholder@charlotteobserver.com

The recent increase of guns purchased by Black women is partially because of a heightened recognition that they’ll need to defend themselves, says LaShonda Hopkins. Hopkins lives in Fayetteville and is a veteran. Her company LaBleu Tactical Training, also aims to make shooting more accessible.

“… If you look at the statistics, we are also the ones that are being kidnapped, and human trafficked in high numbers and no one’s checking for (us). When we go missing, we’re just gone,” Hopkins said.

She says many women assume their spouse or significant other will protect them.

“But that’s just not reality,” Hopkins said. “… The whole idea of just depending on a man to do that, I feel like we’re so far past that now and women got to step out of their comfort zone, and go ahead and pick up a gun as well and just get properly trained.”

5 Things You Might Not Know About the Bill to Ban “Assault Weapons”

The arguably unconstitutional ban on so-called “assault weapons” recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives is a lot worse than most people are aware. That’s because the measure is nearly 14,000 words long, and most of it is based on sheer ignorance, so digging through the entire document to see what is hidden inside is actually disheartening.

Here’s a brief look at five things in H.R. 1808 that you might not have been aware were included in the legislation.

The criteria used for banning rifles are ignorant and nonsensical. The measure purports to ban “military-style” weapons, although all of the guns banned by the bill fire only one round with a single pull of the trigger like all semi-automatics. Our military, as well as most militaries of the rest of the world, equip their soldiers with rifles capable of fully-automatic fire. And the alleged “military” features that can cause your gun to be banned include the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, along with one of the following: a pistol grip (certainly not uniquely military), a forward grip (doesn’t make it any more “deadly”), an adjustable stock (why is it bad to be able to make your gun fit you correctly?), a grenade launcher (which is actually an NFA item, subject to strict controls, as are any explosive grenades one may want to use with the launcher), a barrel shroud or a threaded barrel (so much for hearing protection).

The measure also bans many firearms by name, not just criteria. It bans all AK-type rifles and lists 28 specific models by name. It also covers “AR types,” and went on to list dozens of different rifles by name or manufacturer that would be banned. When you consider several entries that include all of a company’s semi-automatic rifles, like “Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Rifles” and “Stag Arms AR Rifles,” the list grows to literally hundreds. Also banned by the measure are a long list of semi-automatic rifles that are not ARs, including the Beretta CX4 Storm, Ruger Mini-14 and more than 60 other models. Lastly, it bans all AK and AR pistols.

The legislation bans many pistols and shotguns, too. It bans “any semiautomatic pistol that has an ammunition feeding device that is not a fixed ammunition feeding device” and has one of the following: A threaded barrel, a second pistol grip, a barrel shroud, the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device at some location outside of the pistol grip, a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm, a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded, or a buffer tube, stabilizing brace or similar component that protrudes horizontally behind the pistol grip, and is designed or redesigned to allow or facilitate a firearm to be fired from the shoulder. It also bans any semi-automatic shotgun that “has the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device or a fixed ammunition feeding device that has the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds,” along with any one of the following: a folding, telescoping or detachable stock, a pistol grip or bird’s head grip, a forward grip or a grenade launcher. It even bans any shotgun with a revolving cylinder; a type of shotgun that is fairly rare, and even more rarely, if ever, used to commit violent crime.

The legislation also bans common, standard-capacity magazines. It specifically bans what it calls “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” and defines the term as “a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 15 rounds of ammunition.” This important portion of the measure has been largely unreported by those in the so-called “mainstream” media.

The authors of the bill knew that much of it is unconstitutional—especially since more than 24 million AR-15-type rifles are owned by American citizens—but pushed the measure through anyway. Proof of that prior knowledge can be found in one section toward the end of the bill that features this clumsy disclaimer: “If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.”

Of course, the measure also contains a lot of other egregious provisions that would likely shock most law-abiding gun owners. You can read it for yourself here.

She Can Shoot: The Rise of Female Gun Ownership
Women are one of the fastest-growing demographics in the firearms industry

Robyn Sandoval is seeing a sea change at the gun range: The executive director of A Girl and A Gun (AGAG) Women’s Shooting League is noticing that women are showing up to shoot more than ever before. “Every week, basically, we’re approached by a new instructor or range that wants to have a women-focused training program in their area,” Sandoval told Discourse.

Her experience is part of a great ongoing transformation in the gun world. Over the past two years, more than 5 million women bought a gun for the first time. That’s about 37% of the 13.8 million new gun owners that the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s dealer surveys identified over that time period. That makes women, alongside minority gun owners, one of the fastest-growing demographics in the firearms industry.

Why Women Are Buying Guns
In just over a decade, A Girl and A Gun has grown to include more than 200 chapters at 300 ranges across the country. And that growth only accelerated as America entered a period of unprecedented gun sales beginning in 2020. It’s no coincidence that period coincided with unprecedented chaos, Sandoval said.

“With the riots and the pandemic, most everything was kind of still fear-based…they’re afraid that they wouldn’t have access to protection,” she said. “That first responders wouldn’t be able to respond. Or they’d be targeted for violence.”

Breaking down barriers. A Girl and a Gun Executive Director Robyn Sandoval: “We’ve broken through a lot of barriers so that people recognize that the everyday moms and women of all walks of life are welcome at the range.”

A 2021 AGAG survey shared with Discourse shows that 45% of its membership were new shooters. The top reason those new shooters gave for buying a gun was concern over rioting and civil unrest. 59% of the new shooters listed a fear of physical safety or new gun bans as a reason they decided to buy.

But those weren’t the only reasons women gave as they began to seek out training and competition. One reason was simply the realization that something like AGAG was available to them.

“Many of them have just learned that training is an option for them,” Sandoval said. “That’s something we’re seeing more and more is that a lot of women thought that you had to be an operator or have law enforcement experience, or that civilian courses were not available to them, or nobody in their social circle had taken them before. Now, at A Girl and A Gun, we’ve broken through a lot of barriers so that people recognize that the everyday moms and women of all walks of life are welcome at the range.”

That may be surprising to many people, but not Sarah Hauptman. She has been involved with gun-rights activism in Minnesota for years and recently started helping to run the holster company Phlster, which her husband founded in 2011. There’s a big difference between when she first started shooting and today, she said: Women are increasingly a fixture at gun ranges.

A path for women. Phlster owner Sarah Hauptman: “When your friends shoot, and you see female faces shooting, and you see people who look like you, it’s a lot more accessible.”

“It used to be you’d go to a shooting class, and you’d be the only girl there,” Hauptman told Discourse. “Now, more often than not, there’s several.”

That kind of representation matters, Hauptman said: It’s created a kind of snowball effect. “When your friends shoot, and you see female faces shooting, and you see people who look like you, it’s a lot more accessible,“ she said. “You don’t have to swim against the current to get into it. There’s a path for you.”

Hauptman said breaking down the barriers to entry also leads many women to embrace what she sees as the empowering nature of gun ownership. Hauptman herself did not grow up with firearms. She only became interested later in life after she and her mother decided to try out shooting and had a proverbial blast. “The fun got me into it and kept me into it,” she said.

But after the fun factor brought her to gun ownership, it was its practical utility that made her want to stay. And it even made her want to advocate for others to get involved.

“You kind of realize, ‘Oh, this actually gives me a lot of capability, and it is a kind of equalizer,’” she said. “Once you realize that you can control that power and make it part of your life and add to your ability with it, you’re not giving that back. You’re not letting anyone take it from you either.”

Hauptman said that’s why more women are turning toward firearms to provide for the safety of their homes—households for which they are more often primarily responsible. “I think more women are taking responsibility for their own self-protection,” she said. “More women are living alone. Whether they’re single moms or whether they’re just single women, more women are solely responsible for their own self-defense.”

That’s borne out in AGAG’s data too, which shows 37% of its members are single. “More women than ever before are actually becoming the first gun owner in their home, as opposed to it being more male-driven in the past,” Sandoval said.

Less Pink, More Practicality
The gun industry has taken note of the increasing prominence of female shooters. Sandoval said the market has evolved for the better in recent years. Gun companies are now doing much more than just making superficial appeals to female shooters.

Ten years ago, it was a “pink it and shrink it” mentality when it came to product development. But now, there are really thoughtful products that women want to use, that are developed for women, that fit women’s hands better, that fit their bodies better, that give them more options for concealed carry. It used to be where women’s choices in concealed carry were pretty limited to really small guns, and now, most women, regardless of their size, can carry a full-size, even decked out with lights and optics.

Sandoval singled out Glock’s introduction of slimline models, such as the Glock 43 a few years ago, and Walther’s recent release of the PDP F-Series as examples of major industry players emphasizing designs that appeal to women. While those guns are also popular with men, their design took the unique needs of women into consideration. Sandoval said Walther consulted with AGAG on the design of the PDP F-Series, and the company’s process included measuring the hands of a thousand women to better tweak the layout of the pistol’s trigger and controls.

Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said those kinds of considerations are becoming more and more common in the industry. “Designs of handguns for personal protection are incorporating features long sought by women, including smaller frames, lighter springs, redesigned magazines for easier loading, and shotgun and rifle stocks designed to more readily fit the needs for women with length of pull,” he told Discourse. “The AR-15, due to its easy adaptability and customization, has been a rifle that can easily fit the needs of women gun owners by simple and small adjustments.”

Sandoval also praised the latest innovations in concealed-carry options made with women shooters in mind, including those from Hauptman’s company and its competitor Dene Adams. “The Phlster Enigma has been a game changer in the industry,” Sandoval said. “That’s rocked the training world. Dene Adams also has really great products. I love that [Dene Adams products] have Kydex holsters in them to make everything safer. There’s a lot of activewear and concealment wear out there that don’t have the safety controls in place that instructors want to see.” She said the Kydex inserts help cover the trigger of the firearm to stop the trigger from being pulled unintentionally.

Both Sandoval and Hauptman emphasized that certain gun features that appeal to women, like the thinner grip of the Glock 43 or the Enigma’s beltless holster system, for example, are just as appealing to many men. In fact, while the Enigma has quickly earned a sort of cult status among female concealed carriers, it is even more popular with men.

“Our product is 100% gender neutral,” Hauptman said. “It works on basic physical principles that can be applied to any body type. The reason that it’s popular among women is because women are just less likely to wear belts.”

She said Phlster’s goal is to make it easier for everybody to carry regardless of their gender. However, women have long been underserved in the gun-carry market. So being able to more directly address their needs has helped the company gain an enthusiastic following.

“More women are successfully carrying, and they’re not giving up,” Hauptman said. “They’re not saying, ‘I can’t get it to conceal, so I can’t carry.’ And they’re not saying, ‘I can’t get comfortable, so I can’t carry.’ And they’re not saying, ‘I don’t feel safe.’”

Instead, they’re more easily surmounting the barriers that traditionally kept women from owning firearms. Hauptman hopes that brings more of them into the gun-owning community, and, ultimately, into gun-rights activism. “If we can make it easy for people to carry and have a stake, then those people have a much higher chance of going on to become advocates and preserving the Second Amendment for everyone,” she said.

Polling has consistently shown women are more supportive of gun restrictions than men. Women have also traditionally lagged behind men in gun ownership. As more women become gun owners, though, they may be affected by another long-term polling trend where gun owners are less supportive of gun restrictions. If more women become gun owners, and they become less supportive of gun-control laws, it could have a significant impact on gun laws at every level across the country. These trends are definitely worth watching in the years ahead.

The future of female gun ownership is bright—and it will likely continue to shine, Hauptman maintains. “I don’t know if as many women at their core will ever be as interested in shooting as men,” she said. “But I think the snowball effect is probably going to continue for a while.”

ProPublica Horrified That a Lawful Business is Defending Itself in the Courts

After the 2021 ghost gun law passed in Nevada, Polymer80 hired the New York City law firm Greenspoon Marder to file the lawsuit in Yerington, an onion farming town that’s the seat of the county that’s home to Polymer80. One of the firm’s managing partners, James McGuire, traveled to Yerington to argue before Judge John Schlegelmilch that the law was written so vaguely it would be impossible to enforce and would be ripe for abuse.

McGuire said in an email he no longer represents Polymer80 and referred questions to another lawyer at the firm, who didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In court, McGuire argued the law failed to define key terms such as “receiver” and “frame,” and used “murky and undefined terms” to explain what an “unfinished receiver” is. He also argued the law doesn’t specify when in the manufacturing process an unfinished receiver actually becomes a receiver.

During two hearings on the lawsuit, Schlegelmilch seemed to have little patience with the state’s argument that the law relies on industry-specific terms that are well understood by Polymer80. Instead the judge agreed with McGuire that the law didn’t adequately define an unfinished receiver. At one point he asked whether his 5-year-old’s rubber band gun could be considered an unfinished receiver simply because it looks like a gun

“What if I’m at home, and I’m machining a piece of wood. OK? And my 5-year-old wants a rubber band gun. OK? So, I take that piece of wood, I turn it, I make it into — you know, I take a band saw, and I cut out what looks like a firearm. And I put a couple of sticks on it so that you can put a rubber band on it when you push it up. You’ve seen a rubber band gun before, right? So, is that mostly completed?”

“I mean, a rubber band gun’s not a firearm,” responded the state’s attorney, Greg Zunino. “I don’t think you would ever be prosecuted under that scenario because you still have to have an intent to turn something into a firearm.”

Schlegelmilch ruled in favor of Polymer80 and enjoined the state from enforcing the section of the law that prohibited the possession and sale of unfinished frames and receivers. Schlegelmilch let stand the rest of the law, which Polymer80 didn’t challenge and prohibits the possession of a completed ghost gun

The state has appealed Schlegelmilch’s ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Schlegelmilch declined an interview request because the appeal is pending.

[Polymer80 president Loran] Kelley declined to comment on the decision to file the lawsuit on his home turf in Lyon County.

Other courts have ruled differently.

A similar lawsuit filed in federal court in Reno the same month was quickly tossed by a judge who decided the law “is a valid exercise of the government’s police power.”

“What happened here, with the state court being more successful for them, indicates politics and ideology within the judiciary,” [Giffords deputy chief counsel David] Pucino said.

This month, a judge in Washington, D.C., found Polymer80 sold illegal firearms in the district and ordered it to pay $4 million in penalties.

The ATF is also seeking to impose a new rule that would require unfinished receivers and frames to include a serial number — one of the federal strategies that Pucino said would be more effective than a state-by-state approach. The new rule, seen as a way to close the ghost gun loophole, is set to take effect on Aug. 24, but it faces at least three lawsuits from the ghost gun industry seeking to block its implementation.

McGuire, the lawyer who represented Polymer80, authored a 27-page public comment submission on the new rule arguing, in part, that it’s impermissibly vague, the same argument that he used successfully to stop the Nevada law.

To some, there’s an easy solution: Polymer80 could stamp serial numbers on the unfinished frames and receivers they sell.

Kelley said putting a serial number on his products wouldn’t hurt his company. But using those numbers to require background checks is a “critical threat” to his business, which he said relies on a growing market of individuals who “value their Fourth Amendment rights” to privacy.

“There’s a problem when people’s right to privacy is infringed and a government agency is looking at what you bought whenever they want,” he said.

Gov. Kathy Hochul seemingly admits denying permits for wrongthink

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul knew that Bruen would go against her state. As a result of that decision, a number of other measures were passed through, measures that looked to adhere to the decision. At least, they would if you squint.

One of those measures is that authorities can scour your social media to see if you have the proper “good moral character” New York seeks to demand from those seeking permits.

However, some recent comments are rather suggestive as to what this is really about.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) used a Wednesday press conference to highlight new state gun controls and emphasized that talking to a would-be gun buyer’s “neighbors online” is now part of a background check.

Hochul’s comments to reporters and others gathered for the conference were wide-ranging, focusing broadly on New York’s Interstate Task Force on Illegal Guns.…

She then discussed social media, saying, “I’ve called upon and am working closely with our Attorney General to identify what’s going on in social media. And those questions are now part of our background checks. Just like in the old days you could talk to someone’s neighbor, now you can talk to their neighbors online to find whether or not this person has been espousing philosophies that indicate they have been radicalized.”

In other words, she wants issuing officials to look at your social media history and determine if you have the wrong opinions on particular issues.

See, this isn’t about whether you’re a criminal or anything like that. This measure is a gauge as to whether you’re the “right sort” for New York to give a permit to. Moral character requirements were originally intended to keep from giving permits to people like alcoholics or such. While that’s not a good reason, it’s at least understandable.

But Hochul’s comment about whether some have been “radicalized” is a problem.

For one thing, just about everything that isn’t in line with progressive ideology has been labeled as extremist to some degree. At least some think the GOP as a whole is extremist. Hell, just not supporting gun control has been seen as radicalization.

So who defines being radicalized in this case? There’s a huge gulf between opinions shifting in a more conservative or libertarian direction and calling for the complete and total overthrow of the United States government or for a jihad against American infidels.

So where is that line?

Frankly, it doesn’t matter. What Hochul has essentially admitted is that this is about WrongThink. It’s about not having approved thoughts and if you have those, you risk losing your right to bear arms. That’s not what rights are about.

Imagine if we were considering denying the right to free speech to communists, for example. Now, communism has killed more people than all the mass shooters in American history combined–probably more than all gun homicides in this country combined, really–but we tolerate their right to speak freely and advocate their heinous ideology because that’s what a free society does. Rights exist for all or they exist for none.

And Hochul would likely be right there, defending their right to free speech, which is fine.

What’s not fine, though, is that she’s openly supporting the suppression of other rights simply because people may not think what she wants them to think.

Biden spooked by ghost guns
Protecting you against the president’s war on the Second Amendment

OPINION:

Never mind gas prices doubling since former President Donald Trump left office, or inflation higher than under any elected president since record-keeping began, or the one-year anniversary of President Biden’s botched surrender in Afghanistan, in which 13 American patriots died unnecessarily and which sacrificed the gains another 2,312 Americans died for as well. No, Mr. Biden wants you to be spooked by fictional “ghost guns.”

On Wednesday, Mr. Biden’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ “Ghost Gun” and Gun Registry Final Rule went into effect. The rule cracks down on guns made in American homes, something we’ve been doing since before the Republic was founded.

Mr. Biden’s White House says these “ghost guns” are “the weapon of choice for many violent criminals.” What they don’t tell you is that “many” equals about 115 homicides per year out of a total of about 16,000. In fact, violent criminals use knives, hammers and their own hands and feet more than a homemade firearm. (Don’t tell Mr. Biden, or he’ll want a regulation on your feet.)

Newsom bankrolls Crist campaign to stop Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis
Now, Gun Owners of America doesn’t condone any criminal misuse of a firearm, but let’s get serious for a second. The Biden administration isn’t coming for knives, hammers or your hands and feet — yet. They’re coming for your guns, and they are attacking your Second Amendment right to bear arms, whether that firearm is made by a gun manufacturer or in your own home.

GOA has been on the other side, your side, in Mr. Biden’s War on Guns. We’ve been defending your Second Amendment rights in this war, and in this latest salvo from the administration, we’ve held the line.

Specifically, GOA, with the help of a total of 60,000 of its supporters and other Americans, were able to successfully win three main victories in the battle over “ghost guns:”

First, Americans will not have to serialize (read: register) every new magazine, barrel or trigger used to upgrade their existing firearms, as Mr. Biden’s ATF originally wanted.

Second, Americans will not have to register a firearm when they simply “Cerakote,” or color their firearms to protect them, as Mr. Biden’s ATF also demanded.

Third, GOA forced ATF to walk back a requirement that gun dealers immediately register privately made firearms taken into inventory, allowing homemade firearms enthusiasts a window to avoid registration when going to a gunsmith for same-day service.

In fact, the ATF explicitly conceded that their initial draconian regulations were modified because of the “numerous comments” made by GOA members and gun owners across the country regarding the rule. That’s a win against Mr. Biden and his gun-grabbing minions, and we couldn’t be more proud. But — and this is important — even though we were able to defend you against this attack, it is still an attack on all our rights. Mr. Biden doesn’t want you to be able to defend yourself. Don’t forget that.

There is much more work to do in order to push back against Mr. Biden’s War on Guns, and the GOA, together with the Gun Owners Foundation, are in that fight, on your side, defending your rights.

In fact, GOA and GOF have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this newest rule, and we are excited that 17 state attorneys general has joined us in that lawsuit. AGs from Arizona, West Virginia, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wyoming answered the call and are defending your rights with us.

In fact, according to Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, “The ATF is attempting to overshoot the authority granted to it by Congress.” In his view, this “ghost gun” rule is “unconstitutional, impractical, and would likely put a large number of parts manufacturers out of business.”

We’re going to defend you until this rule is completely gutted, and we will stand vigilant against any further attacks on your Second Amendment rights. We’re not spooked by Mr. Biden’s ghost guns — or his unceasing war on derisively defined “assault weapons.”

In the true interest of public safety, Mr. Biden should stop trying to criminalize law-abiding American gun owners who simply want to protect themselves — thereby freeing precious law-enforcement resources to go after violent, dangerous criminals.

Fact Check: Are Armed Civilians to Blame For Mass Shootings?

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Our country has been buried in hoaxes, one after another. Lies have become part of American culture.

They are intended to change our thoughts and actions, even if those changes are not to our benefit. A familiar hoax is that guns and gun owners are dangerous. This hoax is almost invisible; it has become an assumption that politicians use to claim we need more laws to deal with gun violence.

The gun violence hoax is bolstered by pseudo-scientific articles published in medical journals, even in a few criminological journals. A proper scientific article is easily identified because the researcher is honestly searching for truth; unscientific ones use complex scientific language to dress up their biases to prove what they already believe. That’s pseudo-science.

Unfortunately, too many editors and reviewers share this bias against guns, so pseudo-science easily slips through the review process.

Any time journalists need an emotional article about guns, a pseudo-science piece is easily found. It is false but looks convincing. The gun violence hoax gets another boost.

In fact, many articles in scientific journals have been discovered to be fraudulent and unscientific. The problem is even worse in social science and medicine.

Journalists typically ignore complex scientific methodology, so they are easy to fool. Besides, most journalists share the same anti-gun biases.

Fortunately, there are honest, competent academics who can see through the pseudoscientific claptrap and are willing to point out the truth.

A recent dust-up between two researchers in Justice Quarterly is illustrative. For the sake of simplicity, we shall only cite 2 of those feisty articles. First, Emma Fridel, a Florida criminologist, wrote Comparing the Impact of Household Gun Ownership and Concealed Carry Legislation on the Frequency of Mass Shootings and Firearm Homicide. Attempting to clear up her errors, Professor Gary Kleck soon after published a stinging critique, The Continuing Vitality of Flawed Research on Guns and Violence: A Comment on Fridel.

The point to take away from this ‘battle of the boffins’ is that without any math at all, you will be able to understand Fridel’s flaws. It’s that obvious that Fridel fiddled with the books to find the answer she sought, not reality. That’s not science.

Continue reading “”

Of course you can still detect the antigun bias, but this is a surprisingly more balanced article for a main stream media outlet

Why even more Americans are arming up with AR-15 guns

The AR-15 is one of the most controversial weapons in America.

Lightweight and easily customizable AR-15 style weapons have skyrocketed in popularity in recent years, taking center stage at gun ranges and shooting competitions across the country. Advocates say the weapons are a symbol of freedom, and important for personal safety.

“I am smaller and less capable to handle violence, and a firearm is the great equalizer,” said Dianna Muller founder of the DC Project, which advocates for firearm education. “I go to bed comfortably and do not worry about it at all because I have an AR-15 beside my bed.”

As of 2018, there were an estimated 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the U.S., according to the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey, a government-backed global organization. As of 2020, there were about 20 million AR-15-style weapons in the country, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association.

Firearm manufacturers have seen revenue surge, taking in about $1 billion from the sale of AR-15 style weapons in the past decade.

The weapons have been involved in a number of mass shootings, including at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, earlier this year that killed 19 children and 2 teachers. Critics argue the weapons are aggressively marketed by gun companies targeting at-risk young males.

In an effort to stem the flow of mass shootings, the U.S. House of Representatives last month passed legislation that would ban assault weapons. That measure is likely to face defeat in the Senate.

So what’s behind the popularity of the AR-15, and what responsibility do gun makers have when their products are used in mass shootings? Watch the video to learn more.

Iowa Firearms Coalition applauds the Spirit Lake School Board for plans to arm staff

SPIRIT LAKE, I.A. (Dakota News Now) – The Iowa Firearms Coalition has been working to change security policies in public buildings, claiming the current system has left them vulnerable to attacks. As a result, the Spirit Lake School Board decided to allow members of their on-campus staff to carry guns.

The IFC applauds the decision that was made unanimously by the school board during their Monday meeting. According to a press release from the IFC, 10 staff members who agree to carry and undergo training will be allowed to take part in the program.

“The Spirit Lake School Board clearly loves their children enough to ensure, should tragedy strike, a threat can be addressed,” said IFC President Dave Funk. “We strongly encourage all other Iowa school districts to follow in the footsteps of Spirit Lake. Our children are worth protecting.”

Iowa Code 724.4B, which allows school districts to regulate armed personnel on school grounds, paved the way for Spirit Lake’s decision.

“Having this policy in place serves as a deterrent for anyone who might consider entering our schools with the intent to do harm,” said Spirit Lake Schools Superintendent David Smith in a statement to Explore Okoboji.

Audio of the Spirit Lake School Boarding meeting can be found here: https://bit.ly/3QPs7A4

The Iowa Firearms Coalition, an affiliate of the NRA and NSSF, is a 501(c4) nonprofit and is Iowa’s only effective pro-Second Amendment rights organization.

Gun law grounded in bigotry reveals its roots

It’s telling when your best argument for a new law is to cite discredited laws of the past as part of your rationale.

But that’s just what New York State has resorted to in trying to convince a judge that its plethora of new restrictions making a permit to carry a handgun virtually useless should pass muster.

As the clock ticks down to the Sept. 1 implementation date, the misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act will do nothing more than create a new class of law-abiding criminals. And if that phrase sounds oxymoronic, you don’t know New York State – where the second half of that word is often the most operative.

Instead of targeting criminals, the new statute targets law-abiding pistol permit holders, many of whom will become felons simply by ignoring a law that will accomplish nothing except to put their lives at risk and put them in handcuffs.

The fact that in defending the law from a legal challenge, the state’s filing contains a footnote practically disavowing its own arguments tells you all you need to know. But that’s what happens when you try to defend the indefensible restrictions pushed through by Gov. Kathy Hochul and a compliant Democratic Legislature.

Continue reading “”

What the Mainstream Media Doesn’t Tell Us About Guns

It’s hard to fool an honest man or woman who wants to know the truth. Unfortunately, many of us depend on the media to bring us much of our news, and lying to us — or withholding key parts of the story — today makes it easier to fool us tomorrow.

Most of us feel horrible when we see news stories about violent crime. Beyond the emotional shock of the story, though, we are seldom told what the story means. Is that newsworthy event a common problem or is it rare? Are there good solutions that make us safer most of the time?

Besides the violence shown in movies and TV dramas, it’s almost as if the news deliberately keeps us in the dark about real violence and its causes. We can’t make good choices unless we have perspective. For a minute, let’s shed some light on the reality of armed citizens and guns

We’re told that guns cause crime. That’s odd because a lot of criminals didn’t seem to have gotten the memo. Only one out of twelve violent crimes are committed with a firearm. If someone says they need to disarm honest people in order to stop violent crime, they are going to leave about 92 percent of those violent crimes untouched. No wonder gun control laws don’t make us any safer.

If guns cause crime, then honest gun owners haven’t gotten the message either. Ordinary citizens like us own a lot of guns. About 40 percent of Americans live with a gun in our homes and we own hundreds of millions of firearms that are never used in crimes.

These are the guns you never seem to hear about. The news media don’t want to admit that firearms are ordinary tools that a huge portion of Americans lawfully own and use on a daily basis.

Continue reading “”

Why a national gun registry would not reduce crime

On Aug. 19^th, Louisville, Kentucky Metro Chief of Police Erica Shields flashed her tyrannical instincts on local television.

Chief Shields’ sanctimonious comments perfectly illustrate an attitude that habitually pops up throughout the gun rights debate: It is your responsibility, the anti-gunners believe, to surrender your civil rights and other legal protections to make enforcing the law easier.

Commenting to a local news channel Shields said that anyone who does not support a new national digital firearms registry is not pro law enforcement, and that all such people “are giving law enforcement the middle finger.”

Her poorly thought-out statement assumes more than a good investigator would dare. The following disclaimer is on the ATF’s website regarding their firearms tracing: “Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general are acquired for use in crime.”

Tracing fireams

The ATF clearly acknowledges that firearms tracing produces mixed results, because firearms both voluntarily and involuntarily change hands – a fact that would confound a digital registry as much as the current system.

The logistical challenges of tying a name and serial number together for every firearm in the country is astronomical.

It’s also unclear what impact ATF traces have on convictions. Do ATF firearm traces substantially help convict murderers? There is very little data to support that assumption, or the legal validity of a trace report in a court of law.

The idea that a comprehensive digital database of gun owners would affect violent crime is nothing but speculation.

However, we do have recent examples of how local law enforcement and federal agents abuse the data they’ve collected on private citizen’s gun purchases.

While we have no fact-based reasons to believe a gun registry would benefit public safety, we can be certain it would create opportunities for more misconduct.

Policing a free society is necessarily difficult. And our justice system is adversarial for very important reasons.

We can’t have both fast and easy solutions, and real justice. We need law enforcement officials who will do the hard work and not cut corners at the expense of our civil rights.

How “sensitive area” battle is shaping up in New York

In the Bruen decision, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said that there were a handful of places where guns could be constitutionally banned. He called these “sensitive areas” and they include places like courthouses, jails, and things of that sort.

On one level, it makes sense. These are places where some are more inclined to be violent. Plus, they’re easily secured so that virtually no one is able to bring a gun in. In other words, they use metal detectors, not signs on the door.

However, in so doing, the term “sensitive area” is getting used to justify a whole lot of restrictions. In fact, the battle over them in New York is just starting to fire up.

“Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department,” wrote Thomas.

While New York politicians have yet to declare Manhattan a gun-free zone, they have pushed back against the ruling. In a long list of new “sensitive places,” state legislators named parks, which by definition includes the biggest park in the lower 48, the Adirondack Park in upstate New York. Interestingly, the Adirondack Park is home to about 130,000 residents—all of whom will effectively see their Second Amendment rights erased when the law takes effect on Sept. 1.

This law is in direct conflict with NYSRPA. When the U.S. Supreme Court recently confirmed the right of Americans to “bear” arms in this case, it didn’t do so in some mealy-mouthed manner that indicated the ruling was a difficult decision or was uncertain in any way.…

For residents of the Adirondack Park, which is about half private land and half publicly owned, the law puts them in a dilemma. Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the state NRA affiliate, said he has received “hundreds of calls” about the ban from residents of the Adirondacks who are confused and frustrated.

Of course, Adirondack Park is only one of the battlegrounds. In fact, the above-linked piece goes on to quote a Democratic lawmaker who takes issue with this particular measure and how it impacts these good folks.

However, I’m going to go a step further and note that while Thomas explicitly wrote that the entire island of Manhattan couldn’t be declared a sensitive area, what has actually transpired there is just a step shy of precisely that.

For example, a large number of areas are declared sensitive areas, for one thing. Then there’s the idea of carrying on private property.

Now, in many states, business owners can put a sign up to serve notice that the building is gun-free. I know it’s not popular, but I’m actually fine with this because property rights are also a thing that needs to be respected. If a business owner doesn’t want guns on their property, they’re free to do so.

However, in New York, the default is that guns aren’t permitted.

While that’s fine for anti-gun businesses, it also means those ambivalent on the subject of concealed carry are, in effect, determined to be essentially the same as sensitive areas. Since most people try to actively avoid politics, the default for these folks is likely to be that ambivalence.

So, in effect, the majority of the island of Manhattan–and the rest of the state, really–has been essentially declared a sensitive area.

Yes, I support businesses being able to declare themselves gun-free–why would I want to spend money with companies who don’t support my fundamental rights–the default position on something like that should be toward freedom.

What New York did looks to have gone beyond what Justice Thomas intended.

The battle over what actually can constitute a sensitive area has just started. It’s going to be rough going for a lot of people, too, unfortunately, before it’s all settled.

Gun control not a “resource” to stop mass shootings

If the idea of being involved in a mass shooting, even if that involvement is just knowing one of the victims, is a personal nightmare of yours, you’re probably right to be concerned. They’re awful and the pain of having someone taken from your life like that hurts beyond words.

Believe me, I know.

In North Carolina, a sheriff decided to stop playing around and decided school resource officers will have AR-15s to use to protect students and staff. To say some don’t like that is an understatement.

In the Charlotte Observer, one columnist put his opposition into words.

Madison County, one county over from where I live in Asheville, garnered national headlines recently with an announcement that every school in the N.C. county will be outfitted with AR-15s this school year.

This initiative embodies how many on the right today bend over backward to suggest anything but gun control as the salve for gun violence.

Madison County Sheriff Buddy Harwood wrote on Facebook, “to exhaust every resource we’ve got to ensure that our kids are safe, that when they go to school, they can learn…and they can go the playground and play, and not worry about some thug who’s going to come out onto the playground and open up on them with some type of AR-15, shotgun, pistol, whatever.”

Only Harwood didn’t exhaust every resource. If he’d done that, he would’ve been advocating for meaningful gun control — a shooter can’t open fire with an AR-15 if they can’t purchase one.

Well, that last paragraph is possibly one of the dumbest ever written in the English language.

First, understand that there are an estimated 20 million or more AR-15s currently in circulation. Does the author think that a new law will magically make them unobtainable for the average citizen? I’m sorry, that ship has long since set sail.

Further, it’s not like the AR-15 is the only weapon used to commit a mass shooting. In fact, handguns are far more commonly used for such horrific acts.

Yet an AR-15 would allow deputies to engage handgun-armed would-be mass shooters at greater range, meaning they could save lives that much sooner without having to close to handgun range. Or, if such a killer has a rifle of some type, he can at least meet them on equal ground.

Moving on…

Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban in 1994, outlawing AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles. As reported by NPR, mass shootings were down in the decade that followed, compared to the decade before (1984-1994) and the one after (2004-2014). Assault weapon bans work.

Except the study referenced used an odd definition of “mass shooting;” one that also happened to reduce tilt the findings more in the favor of the desired outcome. That NPR didn’t critically look at that study isn’t overly surprising.

But the author is starting to approach his point:

Harwood represents a bigger problem: the refusal of law enforcement in North Carolina to lead the gun control conversation.

There we go.

The problem is that Harwood and other North Carolina law enforcement officials aren’t pushing his preferred politics. Yet there are valid reasons for this.

For one, Harwood is an elected official, which means his politics are more likely to reflect the beliefs of his constituents. He’s not going to push a “gun control conversation” in a pro-gun county unless he’s looking to retire without having to announce it.

Second, it wasn’t that long ago when people like the author were screaming about defunding the police, and now they’re upset that the cops don’t seem to be on their side?

The truth of the matter is that a lot of law enforcement see what happens when good people are disarmed. They can’t stop criminals from getting guns, regardless of the laws on the books. They’ve seen how those laws completely fail every time they arrest a known felon and find a firearm on them. So, they often come to recognize that gun control isn’t going to do the trick.

They fail to push the author’s agenda simply because they know it to be a complete failure of an idea.

Putting AR-15 in the hands of school resource officers isn’t just a good idea, it’s the only sane one.

Gun bill modeled on ‘Strong Ohio’

Aug. 20—An attempt to revive some of the “Strong Ohio” proposals against gun violence, stalled in the General Assembly since 2019, faces a timeline that’s hard to meet.
State Sen. Matt Dolan, R-Chagrin Falls, announced Senate Bill 357 this week…….

Dolan’s bill has five major provisions:

—A “red flag” law in which a judge can allow police to temporarily take the guns of someone suffering a “severe mental health condition,” at risk of harming themself or others.

—Requiring anyone age 18 to 21 who wants to buy a gun that can fire more than one shot before reloading to get a cosigner at least 25 years old for the purchase. Dolan said there is an exemption for young people in the military or police.

—A written statement from a county sheriff would be needed for private gun sales, except transfers between relatives, confirming the buyer is legally eligible to own guns.

—Improving background checks by requiring information on gun buyers to be entered in law enforcement databases by the end of the following business day.

—Using $85 million from the federal American Rescue Plan Act to help hospitals and colleges train more mental health workers, and another $90 million in ARPA funds to build mental health crisis centers for people who need treatment but are now being sent to jails.

Both incumbent Republican Gov. Mike DeWine and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Nan Whaley, former mayor of Dayton, indicated their approval of SB 357.

Its provisions resemble some in the “Strong Ohio” bill that DeWine introduced in 2019 after the mass shooting in Dayton’s Oregon District. DeWine’s press secretary noted that similarity, while Whaley called Dolan’s bill a “good first step.”

The Buckeye Firearms Association denounced the bill as “‘Strong Ohio’ by another name.” The group has already opposed its major provisions, BFA Executive Director Dean Rieck said.

Some still cling to idea of Second Amendment and militias

The Second Amendment reads: [no, it does not read that way. I wish these authors would not be so ignorant]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the ~~people’s right~~ right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[FIFY- fixed it for you]

We also know that our Founding Fathers were fearful of a standing army, having seen that army used as a tool of oppression. As such, they favored citizen soldiers, much like how the Greek city-states maintained their armies.

Little did they expect the debate that we would see since then over a single sentence. Unfortunately, the debate continues.

What’s more, we get pieces like this one for LA Progressive subtitled, “Most constitutional experts argue that the Second Amendment protects the right of State militias to bear arms. Not private militias or individuals.”

Now, I’m not sure how they figure most constitutional experts agree with them unless they dismiss anyone who doesn’t as a constitutional expert, but it doesn’t get any better moving forward.

Why does the United States have more civilian gun deaths than the entire rest of the world combined? Is it because people in the US are more violent? NO.

Except, we don’t. Not even close.

If you look at a list of civilian gun fatalities by nation, you’ll find a lot of places whose numbers are far worse than ours, especially if you look at the per capita figures.

Further, are Americans more violent? The author dismisses this out of hand, yet a look at non-gun homicides compared to total rates from places like Europe suggests that yeah, we might just be.

And now look at all of this and we’ve only gotten to the subtitle and the first paragraph. You know this is going to be a disaster.

However, it should be noted that most constitutional experts argue that the Second Amendment protects the right of State militias to bear arms. Not private militias or individuals. Be that as it may, exactly what “well regulated Militias” did [redacting mass killers’ names]

I’m sorry, but that line of “reasoning” is just absolutely insane.

First, why would the government need to protect the “right” of the government to have guns? Yes, it’s different levels of government, but it’s still government.

Further, why is it that throughout the Constitution, when the Founding Fathers wanted to specify the states, they said “the states” in every other instance but this one? And that every other place protecting a right of the people, it meant actual individuals everywhere but here?

On ever level, this argument is absolutely insane. “But militia!” they scream.

Sure, but look at the Second Amendment for a moment. What exactly in the rest of it suggests that the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed for everyone but the militia? Even if the right is to be taken as protecting state militias versus private ones, where in the Second Amendment does it preserve the right just for those state militias?

After all, it says “the ~~people’s right~~ right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

So what gives? Well, it seems some parties are more interested in manipulating the text of the Second Amendment to mean anything they want it to mean, and they expect the American people to swallow it whole.

Sorry, that’s not our style.

Obviously, we haven’t delved too deeply into this piece, but why should we? It’s already clear they can’t be reasoned out of this position because they haven’t shown they reasoned themselves into it. They’re simply trying to play games and hoping people are too stupid to see what they’re doing.

Well, we do.