RKBA – Page 105 – MILESFORTIS

Portland mayor admits homicides have increased 200% over last year

One of the bitter ironies in the gun control debate is playing out right now in Oregon, where years of progressive policies have led to a huge spike in shootings and homicides and gun control activists have successfully used that staggering rise in violent crime to put a voter referendum on the ballot this year promising increased public safety at the expense of the right of self-defense; outlawing the sale, transfer, and possession (in most circumstances) of “large capacity” magazines, imposing a new “permit-to-purchase” requirement on all firearms, and creating a state-run database of all permit holders.

Legal gun owners aren’t the drivers of Portland’s crime spike, but that’s not stopping these anti-gun advocates from blaming them for the actions of criminals, even though most folks might point to the city’s opposition to policing as a bigger factor in the increasing dangerousness of Portland’s streets.

It was just a little more than two years ago, after all, when Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler announced he was disbanding the police department’s gun violence reduction team, and in the months afterwards violent crime and shootings soared across the city. A little more than a year later Wheeler reversed course and launched a new Focused Intervention Team with the same mission, only to find a lack of volunteers within the Portland Police Bureau eager to sign up for the job. After months of struggles the FIT unit hit the streets in January of this year, but so far it hasn’t had much of an impact. As Wheeler acknowledged during a recent interview with public radio program Here & Now, homicides in the city are up a staggering 200% over the past year, and are double the national average.

“We engaged an organization to do a study, and what they concluded for the city of Portland is that more than half of the shootings involved group or gang activity. There’s a very small population of people, about 200 people in our city driving the vast majority of gun violence in Portland. And black teen and adult men continue to be disproportionately impacted by shootings and homicides. They represent nearly 47% of suspects and victims in these shootings, but they only make up 6% of the city’s population.”

If a tiny fraction of Portland’s 650,000 or so residents are driving the “vast majority” of violent crime in the city, it makes even less sense to impose new gun control restrictions on millions of law-abiding Oregonians, but Wheeler is also insistent that an increase in gun sales is to blame for the violence in his city.

“The ‘why’ of it is an increase in purchasing of firearms, disinvestment in communities that are struggling even more than ever under the impacts of COVID, and tensions are really high and people are settling their disputes with firearms. We had one shooting earlier this year where three adults settled a fight that they had during lunch at a really nice restaurant in a nice part of the city with gunfire.”

If the “vast majority” of gun violence is stemming from about 200 people across the city, then it shouldn’t matter how many people lawfully purchased firearms over the past couple of years, but Wheeler is largely following the Democratic playbook in targeting guns and not the trigger-pullers. I say largely because Wheeler told Here & Now that with his latest proclamation of a state of emergency over “gun violence,” the city does indeed want to focus on “those who we know are directly impacted by gun violence,” but only through “non-law enforcement interventions.”

While Wheeler and other Portland progressives are loathe to use police against the most violent and prolific offenders in the city, they’re fully on board with creating new non-violent, possessory crimes out of our right to keep and bear arms… crimes that will be policed not by community activists but by law enforcement officers.

Given Oregon’s leftward tilt, IP17 stands a very good chance of passing, though the odds of it being struck down by the courts are also strong. Regardless of what happens with the gun control initiative, however, Portland’s murder problem is going to remain in place as long as anti-gun politicians like Ted Wheeler recognize the problem is being driven by a relative handful of violent and prolific offenders but choose to target law-abiding gun owners and their Second Amendment rights instead.

Law-abiding gun owners will not harm you. But criminals will

There have been innumerable debates on gun ownership. These discussions generally address two critical factors: gun violence in inner cities and mass shootings. As a result, some Americans have called for the removal of certain weapons, such as the AR-15, from civilian ownership, and the limitation of magazines to 10 rounds as a means to combat these two problems. While I understand the desire to act quickly, we should not act in a way that makes villains of law-abiding gun owners who only wish to protect themselves and their families while simultaneously giving criminals the upper hand in their pursuit of destruction.

Can good, responsible citizens with firearms actually make a difference in life-threatening situations? A recent incident in Indianapolis demonstrates that, with training, a responsible gun owner can respond swiftly, safely and responsibly to save lives. A 22-year-old saved a significant number of lives when he eliminated a shooter who murdered three people and injured three more in an Indiana mall; the situation likely would have been much worse. Since 2021, there have been a total of 22 confirmed incidents of concealed carry permit holders employing deadly force to stop criminals in life-threatening situations. This number sounds insignificant in a vacuum; however, it is critical to consider that most shootings do not occur in places where firearm carry is permitted — for obvious reasons — thus there is generally no armed person available to stop a shooter.

As a gun owner with a license to carry a concealed handgun, I am fully aware that the use of force is an action of last resort. Firearm carriers are trained to avoid risky situations and make every attempt to deescalate whenever feasible. Nonetheless, taking a life is only appropriate if your own life is in imminent danger. I hope that I will never be in such a life-or-death scenario, but it is comforting to know that I can safeguard my life and the lives of others if necessary. After all, no sane individual goes about his or her day craving blood; rather, people carry to secure their own safety. Responsible individuals can use a weapon to prevent mass shootings and other types of deadly violence.

However, the villainization of law-abiding gun owners has prompted many Americans to distrust firearms and gun owners in general. This has occurred at the hands of government actors and gun control lobbyists who twist the facts to make people believe that guns are both dangerous and unnecessary in life-threatening situations. They make gun owners out to seem like fringe conspiracy theorists who have a deep distrust for authority.

Unsurprisingly, this could not be further from the truth. Gun owners are your neighbors, your friends and your family members. The firearms community is comprised of people you care about, and they are neither monsters nor evil; they are ordinary citizens concerned with their safety and the use of the fundamental right to defend themselves. No one should be at danger of having their rights and liberty infringed upon by criminals intent on causing bodily harm. Restrictive gun laws merely place criminals who flout the law in control.

When I recall growing up in rural South Carolina during a very difficult period in our nation’s history, I recognize that it was firearms that enabled Black people in the South to fend off the Ku Klux Klan. I consider today’s single moms and women who, in most cases, would be powerless against an assailant but could have the ability to protect themselves with a firearm. It goes without saying that members of the LGBTQ community have the right to keep and bear arms, and they most certainly ought to have the right to defend themselves if they find themselves a potential victim of a transphobic or homophobic attack. I consider the hatred of Asian people and atrocities committed against our Jewish brothers and sisters; they absolutely deserve to use deadly force against assailants who seek to harm them for their immutable characteristics. This privilege is available to all law-abiding Americans, regardless of color, religion, orientation or any other classification.

Criminals and those seeking to commit mass violence do not care if you are armed or not; they will find other ways to harm you. This has been the case since the beginning of human history. However, the question is how to strike a balance between protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens and keeping us safe from criminals. Maintaining access to weapons for law-abiding citizens is essential, and a balance must be struck between laws that screen out criminals and laws that make it difficult for law-abiding people to acquire and possess firearms.

You may not like firearms, and you may not want to possess one, but if you ever find yourself in a situation similar to the victims in that Indianapolis mall, you will wish there was a good Samaritan with a gun who could mean the difference between survival or death.

The New Federal Gun Law Violates Our Civil Liberties

Democrats’ Lame Attempt to Flip the Narrative on Crime: Claiming 2nd Amendment is Anti-Police

Ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, with rising violent crime a top concern for voters, the vast majority of Democrats are now working overtime to distance themselves from their prior support for the “Defund the Police” movement. Increasingly, however, it appears that they’re linking this professed newfound support for law enforcement to another pillar of Democrats’ far-left agenda – gun control.

After backlash to the “defund” movement contributed to dozens of House Democrats losing or facing closer-than-expected races in 2020, the party slowly began changing its tune on policing. While some, like Missouri Congresswoman Cori Bush, have continued their calls for “dismantling” police departments, the White House and Democratic leadership are now saying that they in fact support police and have always supported police – even accusing Republicans, who spent all of 2020 and 2021 vigorously defending police from attacks by left-wing politicians and news outlets, of not supporting them.

As Axios reported late last month, Democratic candidates in Ohio, Georgia, Florida, and other states are “spotlighting law enforcement to boost their credibility on fighting crime.” Party strategists are now privately admitting that “the defund debate damaged Democrats’ reputation on crime,” and many “fear a voter perception that Democrats don’t recognize the problem with violent crime and don’t respect the role police play in keeping communities safe.”

But as part of their effort to mask their complete reversal of position when it comes to support for police, many Democrats—including Biden himself—have attempted to make the issue of rising crime about guns rather than policing, implying that support for the Second Amendment is incompatible with support for law enforcement.

Continue reading “”

Well, at least the goals of this group are crystal clear. https://t.co/jyiG8JtuYi

— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) August 4, 2022

After The Shooting Stops: How does an armed citizen avoid being confused for a threat? There’s no simple solution, but there are ways to minimize that concern.

Our readers have no idea how much I appreciate them. Picture my editor breathing down my neck and wanting to know when my monthly column would arrive on his desk. Also, picture me without a single idea for that column. And then, just like the cavalry to the rescue, here comes a reader with some good questions.

Our reader, talking about a shooting incident in a public place, asks, “How do I identify myself as a ‘Good Guy with a Gun?’” And, “How do I prevent myself from being shot by other good guys with guns?” I would suggest to our reader that you also have to reverse the thought process: How do I identify other good guys and not cause them harm? Excellent questions, but there are no easy answers.

Any time guns start going off, there are a lot of things that can happen, and many of those things are bad. Deadly scenarios place most people under the most stress they have ever experienced. Deadly encounters in a public place just mean more people, more stress, more chaos and more confusion.

Consider, too, that in any such public incident, some of those present may be lawfully armed citizens. Others may be plainclothes or off-duty police officers, while still others may be uniformed police arriving at the scene, but currently unaware of what is actually going on. And the thing to realize is that, due to the confusion and chaos, everyone there is subject to making mistakes—deadly mistakes. The fact is that we cannot simply look at a person and determine whether or not they are a lawfully armed citizen. You already know that good citizens come in all races, genders and clothing styles.

Because of all these factors, I would suggest that the first consideration, even if you are armed, is to gather you and yours and make a quick exit. Just because guns are going off nearby doesn’t necessarily mean that you need to have your gun out. Time might be much better spent finding an exit or, failing that, getting behind good cover. Once good cover is located and utilized, you can more easily identify a person who is, for whatever reason, coming toward you with deadly intent. This gives you nearly the best advantage you can hope for under the circumstances.

Still, there are times when we can’t readily exit a bad situation. We may have family members still unaccounted for and not yet located. We may have been asked by law enforcement to provide assistance. We may have been asked by those in a leadership role to provide assistance until law enforcement can arrive. Regardless, we can’t leave, and we may have to take an active part in resolving the situation.

Our primary concern should be to make as much use of cover as possible. Second, it’s always a good idea to have our back against something solid so bad guys can’t sneak up behind us (or we fail to hear a lawful command from a police officer who has approached from behind). Last, we need to do something with our defensive handgun besides holding it openly, where it might cause us to take on friendly fire.

Gunwriter and former lawman Rich Grassi recently commented on a technique that he calls the hand-on-holstered-gun ready position. Far from being a brand-new defensive technique, it is one we were practicing back in the Dark Ages when I first put on a badge. Oftentimes, when approaching a questionable situation, we had our hand on the sidearm with any holster-security devices already disengaged and a shooting grip on the pistol. It was a simple matter to draw and address the threat should that have ended up being necessary.

This same technique can work very well for the armed citizen. For those rightfully concerned about running afoul of local laws against brandishing, we are talking about a scenario where there is already a clear threat, we are just not clear exactly who the threat is and also want to ensure we ourselves are not misidentified as a threat. By getting a shooting grip on the handgun and being ready to draw and engage if the situation isn’t otherwise resolved, we are prepared to defend ourselves while being less likely to be confused for the bad guy.

Furthermore, in the aftermath of an armed encounter, whether shots have been fired or not, the aforementioned hand-on-holstered-gun ready position makes good sense. We may no longer have a specific threat to address, but we know that could change quite quickly. And it is a really, really bad idea to actually have a gun in your hand when the police show up. The hand-on-holstered-gun ready position should be made a regular part of your defensive-practice sessions.

There are no easy answers to dealing with shootings in public. Get away, if possible, and avoid having to shoot. But, when it isn’t, the goal is be to be a survivor—not a hero.

BLUF
Politicians railing against MSRs might argue that recreational target shooters and hunters could use other rifles to do the same thing. The numbers, though, don’t lie. The MSR is filling their need – and the Second Amendment gives them the right to choose the firearm that meets their needs. It is not for the government to decide.

WINCHESTER AMMUNITION STUDY SHOWS TARGET SHOOTERS, HUNTERS CHOOSE MSRs

The time has come for President Joe Biden and the rest of the gun control politicians to pack up the worn-out line that “no one needs an AR-15 to hunt deer.”

Turns out, recreational target shooters and hunters do want Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs). That’s the family of AR-platform [semiautomatic] rifles that come in many calibers. According to the 2022 Ammunition Consumption Study by Winchester Ammunition, more than half of recreational shooters firing a centerfire rifle used an MSR. Of those who hunted with an MSR, 40 percent chose the MSR as their firearm of choice.

Continue reading “”

‘They Got No Clue’: 80-Year-Old Store Owner Who Stopped Armed Robbery Slams California Politicians, Bail Reform

An 80-year-old store owner in Norco, California, who thwarted an armed robbery over the weekend is taking California politicians to task after the traumatic encounter.

Convenience store owner Craig Cope slammed politicians for being clueless about the escalating crime wave in California, referencing so-called bail reform, which has been criticized for allowing career criminals back on the streets to do more damage against innocent civilians.

“I’ll probably get on the wrong side of some people here, but, uh, the politicians,” Cope told FOX 11 on Tuesday, when asked what he would tell Californians fed up with the crime wave. “There’s people out there that are not the best of people … these people that continually get let out now — it’s been really bad the last year — those people, the majority of them, go right back to what they used to do. So the crime rate is escalating, and it’s gonna continue to escalate until they start putting the people away that are doing the bad things.”

To business owners similarly frustrated, Cope said the answer is not really to “do what I did,” but to “put some pressure on the politicians.”

“You can do what I did, but what you really need to do is put some pressure on the politicians, because they got no clue what’s really going on out here in the real world,” he explained. “I could start naming names, but there are a whole lot of them that are creating major problems for business owners, but for local law enforcement, they’re creating problems for them. I’m sure they’re risking their lives, taking people into custody to see them get let out with no bail. A lot of these guys are career criminals … they need to be locked up.”

The 80-year-old hero also had a blunt message for the “bad guys.”

“This isn’t a good place to pick,” he told FOX 11.

The Daily Wire detailed Monday that Cope reacted incredibly quickly when he realized his store was being targeted in an armed robbery. Surveillance footage shows that Cope fired at the first armed suspect who entered the store before anything else could happen, sending the would-be robber and the other men fleeing.

“He shot my arm off!” one of the armed suspects is heard yelling on obtained surveillance footage.

“He saw on the surveillance — he saw them coming out of the vehicle with weapons,” said Marnie Tapia, one of Cope’s employees.

“I’m proud to call him my boss,” Tapia said. “He makes us feel better about being here, you know.”

Gun Sales in Deep Blue Massachusetts Hit Record Levels Beginning in 2020, Sparked by Fear: Report

Gun sales in Massachusetts — a state with historically low firearm ownership — have skyrocketed since 2020, due in-part to people wanting to arm themselves out of fear, according to a new report.

Many customers “haven’t fully grasped the idea of wanting to own a firearm for defensive purposes, but something brought them here,” Cape Gun Works co-owner Toby Leary told local outlet WBUR. “They feel like they’ve been spurred to do it based on what they see, or their own personal feelings about the world.”

Leary said many of his customers during the pandemic and following months told him that they did not like guns, but that fear pushed them to make the purchase, WBUR reported. Continue reading “”

Larry Correia’s In Defense of the Second Amendment

In Defense of the Second Amendment by [Larry Correia, Nick Searcy]

What Part of the Second Amendment Don’t You Understand?

That’s the question posed by award-winning, New York Times bestselling author, and professional firearms instructor, Larry Correia.
Bringing with him the practical experience that comes from having owned a high-end gun store—catering largely to law enforcement—and as a competitive shooter and self-defense trainer, Correia blasts apart the emotion-laden, logic-free rhetoric of the gun control fanatics who turn every “mass shooting” into a crazed call for violating your rights, abusing the Constitution—and doing absolutely nothing to really fight crime.
In his essential new book, In Defense of the Second Amendment, Correia reveals:

Why “gun-free” zones are more dangerous for law-abiding citizens
How the Second Amendment does indeed include your right to own an AR-15—and why that’s not an “outdated” concept
Why “red flag” laws don’t work, can be easily abused, and ignore a much more commonsensical approach to keeping guns out of the wrong hands
The insanity of “criminal justice reform” that frees dangerous criminals and “gun reform” that penalizes your right to self-defense
How we can return to a society that has a safe and healthy relationship with guns—as we had for most of our history
Correia’s promise: “Believe me, I’ve heard every argument relating to gun control possible. I can show you how to defend your rights.”

Urgent, informed, with vitally important information for whoever who owns a gun—or is thinking about owning a gun—or who cares about the preservation of our constitutional rights, In Defense of the Second Amendment is a landmark book of enduring importance.

New Orleans PD response time is why you need a gun

Major cities tend to favor gun control. People figure they don’t need a gun because they can just call the police. In many cases, that works. After all, larger police departments tend to have the kind of manpower were help can be just a few minutes away.

That doesn’t help if seconds count, but in New Orleans, it seems even if they don’t, you’re still screwed.

It is one of the most startling crime stats to emerge in recent months: It takes New Orleans police an average of 2½ hours to respond to a 9-1-1 call, according to a new analysis presented to the City Council on Wednesday.

That figure, calculated by the data firm AH Datalytics and presented to the council’s criminal justice committee, was determined after looking at response times for all calls — including low-priority incidents, like fender-benders or stolen cars where residents are in little danger.

The New Orleans Police Department immediately took issue with how data analyst Jeff Asher crunched the numbers, asserting that residents should focus instead on the department’s response times for emergencies, which police get to largely within minutes.

Low-priority calls are often placed at the end of long backlogs, driving up the overall average.

The problem is that what can start as a low-priority call can become a high-priority call pretty quickly. And, of course, if you’ve already been marked down as low-priority, no one is coming faster unless you can make yet another call to 9-1-1.

At least some on the city council agree.

City Council members said the situation is a crisis that demands immediate action from City Hall.

“We’re just done with the talk,” said Council President Helena Moreno. “We just have to be really honest and say that potentially, people’s lives could be at stake.”

The problem is that the New Orleans Police Department is having a manpower problem. They simply don’t have enough officers on the job to put them on the streets.

It doesn’t help that funding for law enforcement was cut in 2021 to the tune of $15 million.

Earlier this year, the police union president cited progressive politicians as the reason still more officers are leaving the city, some for lower-paying positions. After all, why work to make arrests when the bad guy is going to just end up back on the streets in no time flat?

All of this brings me to point to this as why gun rights matter.

We cannot trust the police to save us. Even if Uvalde hadn’t happened, this would be a big warning sign that maybe, just maybe, the police won’t instantly respond to your 9-1-1 call, the same call you’re counting on to keep you safe from that bump in the dark.

But if you have a gun, you have the means to protect yourself. It doesn’t matter if it takes the police two and a half hours to finally get to your door because you’ll still be alive to open it for them.

Remember that even in the best of cities, you can only count on the police to get there in time to draw a chalk outline around the body. It’s your gun rights that give you the ability to make sure the body in question isn’t yours. It’s not a difficult decision to make

When CNN Quotes Everytown Troublesome Facts Kick In

Over the weekend, CNN reported on gun control laws passed so far in 2022, adding this reference, “There is a direct correlation in states with weaker gun laws and higher rates of gun deaths, including homicides, suicides and accidental killings, according to a January study published by Everytown for Gun Safety, a non-profit focused on gun violence prevention.”

However, an article in the Keene Sentinel, a newspaper serving southwest New Hampshire, reveals a small problem with Everytown’s research that might raise an eyebrow, if not some serious questions. Headlined “New Hampshire paradox: State gun laws remain loose as violence rate remains low,” the story’s lead paragraph tells a different tale.

“National rankings indicate New Hampshire has some of the weakest gun laws in the nation, and yet the state also maintains a low rate of firearm violence,” the newspaper says.

The report also quotes State Senate President Chuck Morse (R-Salem), who told the newspaper’s editorial board recently that gun-related violence is a problem of people, not guns.

“I don’t believe it’s a gun problem because look at New Hampshire.,” Morse reportedly stated. “We have more guns than probably any other state per capita. We have open carry, we passed constitutional carry, and we’re one of the safest states in the nation.”

Continue reading “”

No, the 13th Amendment isn’t a “new path” for gun control advocates

Gun control supporters really aren’t doing a good job of coping with the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Not only have we seen a number of blue states defiantly respond to the Court by adopting new laws that will almost certainly be declared unconstitutional, they’re struggling mightily to come up with legal arguments that might convince the Court to uphold some of their most treasured restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

One of the more interesting (though not convincing) arguments I’ve seen made since Bruen was handed down came from attorney Kirk Jenkins, who believes that the Thirteenth Amendment is a useful vehicle for gun control activists going forward… because, in his view, the only reason the Second Amendment came into existence was to promote the continuation of chattel slavery.

Properly interpreted as constitutionalizing the slave-holding South’s ability to arm its slave patrols brings the Second Amendment squarely into conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has held that the Thirteenth Amendment extends beyond merely abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude to giving Congress power to sweep away its badges and incidents as well: power that Congress used in enacting the Civil Rights Act.

But is Congress empowered to decide what the badges and incidents of slavery are, or is that task assigned exclusively to the courts? The answer is yes: subject only to a test of rationality, Congress has the power to define the badges or incidents of slavery and enact legislation to address those practices.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull was clear: “the second section declares that Congress shall have authority by appropriate legislation to carry this provision into effect. What that ‘appropriate legislation’ is, is for Congress to determine, and nobody else.” Rep. Burton Cook agreed during the debate over the Civil Rights Act, saying that Section Two “meant … that Congress should be the judge of what is necessary for the purpose of securing to [the former slaves] those rights.”

Although for the first century following ratification the Supreme Court held that certain discriminatory practices could not rationally be found to be badges and incidents, the court has never questioned that Congress has the power to determine what the badges and incidents of slavery are.

It’s a creative approach, but it falls apart upon the slightest application of historical scrutiny. First, there was plenty of support for the individual right to keep and bear arms in northern states, despite the relative scarcity of slavery within their borders. In Federalist 46, Virginian James Madison made an explicit argument in favor of ratifying the Constitution by pointing out that the people, with their right to bear arms, would serve as a check on federal tyranny, not a slave uprising. Federalist 46 predates the ratification of the Constitution, much less the Bill of Rights, and clearly spoke of a non-racist motivation behind ensuring that right of the people to keep and bear arms would not be infringed if the Constitution was adopted as a replacement to the Articles of Confederation.

Shortly after the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by Congress and the states as well, and during the congressional debates over the protections afforded to newly-freed slaves, it’s clear that Congress intended to protect their right to keep and bear arms in self-defense.

Deprivations of freed slaves’ Second Amendment rights featured in debates over bills leading to enactment of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Rep. Thomas Eliot, sponsor of the former, explained that the bill would render void laws like that of Opelousas, Louisiana, providing that no freedman “shall be allowed to carry fire-arms” without permission of his employer and approval by the board of police. He noted that in Kentucky “[t]he civil law prohibits the colored man from bearing arms . . . .”

Accordingly, the Freedmen’s Bureau bill guaranteed the right of freedmen and all other persons “to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right to bear arms.”

Senator Garrett Davis said that the Founding Fathers “were for every man bearing his arms about him and keeping them in his house, his castle, for his own defense.”

Many of those members of Congress who voted to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment were around for the debate and ultimate vote to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as well, and if they viewed the Second Amendment as a stain on the soul of the nation that needed to be repealed in the name of abolishing badges of slavery they could have.

They did not. Instead, they chose to ensure that all law-abiding Americans, including freed slaves, possessed the right to use arms in defense of themselves, their families, and their communities. Today, black women are the fastest growing demographic of new gun owners; a badge of freedom and the individual right of self-defense, not slavery or subjection to violent actors.

That’s reason enough for the courts to reject Jenkins’ approach, but his biggest problem is going to be convincing the Supreme Court that it got it wrong in Heller, McDonald, and now Bruen.

Heller was wrongly decided. The Second Amendment would never have been ratified if the slave state ratifiers had been told that it protected an individual right of all persons, including free African Americans, to stockpile and carry concealed weapons in public. Properly understood as guaranteeing Southern states their “right” to organize and arm slave patrols, the Second Amendment was a fundamental pillar of the slave system—every bit as essential as the infamous slave codes and Reconstruction-era Black Codes. As such, the Second Amendment is an incident of slavery that the Thirteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to regulate.

The problem with Jenkins’ argument is that it places more importance on an assumption of what the Founders would have done rather than the reality of what they did do. You could also make the argument that the First Amendment never would have been ratified is slave state ratifiers had been told that it would one day protect the sending of abolitionist pamphlets through the mails to southern states, or that it would one day protect an individual right of all people, including free African Americans, to advocate for the freedom of those who continued to be held in bondage.

But the First and Second Amendments weren’t rejected by the Founders. They were added in to the Constitution because, in the words of the Bill of Rights’ preamble, “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”

Jenkins’s entire argument is a misconstruction and abuse of the Constitution’s powers, but that’s pretty much the only legal argument the gun control lobby has left; the Supreme Court got it wrong, and everything it’s said to date about the right to keep and bear arms should be disregarded. That might make them feel better about themselves, but it’s not going to carry the day at the Supreme Court.

In defense of AR-15, Second Amendment

A recent letter discussed the dangerous capabilities of the AR-15, dubbed by many a “weapon of war” designed to maim and kill. The absurdity of this claim is apparent to anyone who has spent time with and owns this platform of rifle. From flintlocks in the 1800s to revolvers in the 1900’s and AR-15s in the 2000s, firearms have always been tools; ones that can be used for many things. Much as a hammer can be used to drive nails into wood, an AR-15 can be used for many productive tasks and is not simply a killing machine — even though it can be used as such.

Like many tools, all guns are deadly in the right hands. This is precisely why more responsibly armed good Samaritans are something we should all want. I know and trust my community to handle firearms and use them to protect each other. If you want evidence of this happening in similar places, look up the Greenwood Park Mall shooting or the recent incident at the Renaissance Circle apartments in Charleston — both cases involve responsibly armed citizens who used the Second Amendment to stop mass shooters. Ironically, both perpetrators in these cases brought an AR-15 to gun down innocent people but were stopped by civilians with handguns.

Obviously, AR-15s are only as effective as those who wield them and become less deadly to potential mass shooters against a responsible and well-armed populace. Consider the countless other defensive uses of firearms each year, and we would do well to remember that our fellow civilians are the first line of defense against threats to the community and should have the best tools to do the job, including handguns and AR-15s. This is especially true considering criminals aren’t looking to follow gun prohibition laws anyway and will probably have the tools they want to enact their destructive delusions.

Alexander Crecelius

Sheridan

No Compromise Alliance of GOA Sends A Letter To The Senate

On Friday, a group of Gun Owners of America (GOA) industry partners known as the No Compromise Alliance sent a letter to Congress opposing the proposed so-called “assault weapons” ban (H.R. 1808) and the repeal of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (H.R. 2814).

The coalition consists of Fort Scott Munitions, Classic Firearms, Rifle Dynamics, Alpha Omega Kydex Holster, T.Rex Arms, Kahr Firearms Group, Wolfpack Armory, Freedom Ordnance MFG, and Foxtrot Mike Products. The letter was sent to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Minority Whip John Thun (R-SD).

The letter urges the Senate to oppose two bills currently expected to pass the U.S. House of Representatives and head to the Senate. The first bill is the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 (H.R. 1808). The proposed law will ban commonly owned semi-automatic firearms for mostly cosmetic features. The ban targets the popular AR-15, known as the modern American musket, and AK pattern guns that Rifle Dynamics produces. It would also limit magazine size to ten rounds. The bill refers to any magazine that can hold more than ten rounds as “high compacity.” One of the most concerning parts of the anti-gun House bill would ban guns that have a fully automatic version. Since Glock makes the automatic Glock 18, the Glock 17, the most popular handgun in the world, could be banned by the new proposed “assault weapons” ban.

The second bill is the Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act of 2022 (H.R. 2814). That bill would repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This proposed law would allow anyone to sue firearms manufacturers for any reason. Congress passed the PLCAA to protect the firearms industry from litigation from anti-gun groups trying to bankrupt the gun industry.

Continue reading “”

BREAKING: House passes “Assault Weapons” Ban 217-213.⁰⁰But, anti-gunners won’t stop here. Their ultimate goal is total firearm confiscation and the end of the Second Amendment.⁰⁰This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause. pic.twitter.com/bUvXScFp0u

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) July 29, 2022

Bloomberg gathers anti-gun mayors to plan post-Bruen moves

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made it his life’s mission to essentially erode the Second Amendment to the point that it means nothing.

Standing in his way, however, is that whole pesky “constitutionality” thing.

The Bruen decision was undoubtedly a major setback for the former mayor and his anti-gun allies. Now, as NSSF’s Larry Keane notes, it seems they’re getting together to plan their next step in attacking our rights.

Democratic mayors from the largest cities aren’t going to stand idly by and allow the U.S. Supreme Court to reaffirm Americans’ Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) is the gun control kitchen cabinet of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, ever on his quest to deny God-given rights to law-abiding Americans even while he enjoys them. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, Bloomberg summoned his coterie to New York City.

Reporting for Duty

The cattle call included a who’s-who of gun control mayors. Many have defunded their police departments, restricted gun rights and some have already been rebuffed by courts for misguided local policies.

Baltimore Democratic Mayor Brandon Scott joined the meeting, as did St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones, Little Rock, Ark., Mayor Frank Scott and Buffalo, N.Y., Mayor Byron Brown. Kansas City’s Mayor Quinton Lucas attended too – he was just named “Gun Sense Lawmaker of the Year” by Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety for his participation in a scheme by mayors to sue gun manufacturers.

Their focus seems to be to use “public nuisance” lawsuits to try and punish gun manufacturers for the actions of third parties.

Likely emboldened by the Remington lawsuit’s results, we’re going to see a lot more such lawsuits, but what they’re forgetting is that this wasn’t Remington who settled. This was an insurance company with no stake in the Second Amendment.

A lot of gun companies will fight such lawsuits and challenge these efforts right to the Supreme Court.

Do Bloomberg and company like their chances there?

If so, they’re more masochistic than I gave them credit for.

But until the Court smacks them down, they can do a lot of damage to the firearm industry. Pro-gun legislatures may want to look at how they may be able to curtail such actions by the anti-Second Amendment mayors marching to Bloomberg’s tune. Otherwise, the damage could become incalculable over the long term.

See, the purpose of the lawsuits isn’t to get restitution for some wrong. It’s extortion. The Bloomberg Bunch are basically saying, “You do things our way or we sue you into oblivion.”

After all, Michael Bloomberg has deep pockets, no heirs to worry about, so he can throw his billions at little more than just this. That’s something most gun manufacturers can’t afford to deal with.

And that’s the point.

They’re threatening these companies to either comply or die. If I did that to you, it’s basically extortion and I’d be thrown in prison for it, as I should be.

Yet Bloomberg’s efforts are considered perfectly legal.

Which means we need to dig in and fight back. After all, if Bloomberg gets his way in this, there won’t be any guns to buy, which essentially renders the Second Amendment irrelevant.

Are permits to purchase the next anti-gun domino to fall?

“May issue” concealed carry laws are out, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, but they’re not the laws that are likely to be implicated by the Court’s opinion. We’ve already seen SCOTUS vacate lower court decisions upholding bans on so-called assault weapons and “large capacity” magazines, and Bruen has been referenced in new challenges to the “sensitive places” and “good moral character” or “suitability” concealed carry restrictions slapped on the books in blue states like California, New York, and New Jersey in recent weeks as well.

The pro-gun control website The Trace reports that anti-gun activists are also worried that another subjective and arbitrary gun control law on the books in a handful of states is also in danger thanks to the Bruen decision: permits to purchase a firearm.

Of the 14 states that have such a policy, three — Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York — are may-issue, giving authorities the discretion to deny applicants a license in the interest of public safety, again based on criteria beyond basic requirements. Such criteria includes arrests that don’t result in convictions and other documented instances of violent behavior, including domestic violence. Now that the court has struck down may-issue for concealed carry, these last vestiges of the policy may be ripe for a court challenge as well, legal experts say.

“I wouldn’t be surprised, given the similarity,” said Alexander McCourt, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health. In many permit-to-purchase states, the handgun purchasing permit and concealed carry permit processes are one and the same, involving some of the same paperwork and evaluated by the same issuing authority, McCourt said. Several permit-to-purchase states also require handgun safety training, fingerprints, photographs, proof of residence, and waiting periods to own or buy a gun, just as they do for concealed carry permits. “There’s just a lot of parallels,” he said.

Issuing authorities in some of the permit-to-purchase states without may-issue still wield the discretion to deny permits, in the form of suitability and character requirements. In North Carolina, where purchase permits are required for handguns only, some sheriffs require applicants to be of “good moral character.” It’s unclear exactly how issuing authorities determine this, but it’s not “arbitrary discretion,” McCourt said. “They have to at least articulate a reason that could then be appealed and challenged.” McCourt expects suitability and character requirements to be challenged in court, as well.

As well they should. As The Trace acknowledges (somewhat surprisingly, I have to say), the only real historical analogues to the current permit to purchase laws are some 19th Century statutes that were put in place specifically to prevent black Americans from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Leftist Attacks on Law and Order are Precipitating a Shift in Favor of the Right to Self-Defense

On the morning of July 19, news broke that Manhattan District Attorney (DA) Alvin Bragg dropped a second-degree murder charge against 61-year-old, bodega clerk, Jose Alba. Earlier in the month, Alba had been arrested in Manhattan and charged with murder after defending himself from 35-year-old Austin Simon’s attack.

Alba’s saga is just one of many instances sending the same message. It is one that Soros-backed prosecutors and the left have been pushing for years: you do not have the right to defend yourself, ever.

Video surveillance would show Simon’s girlfriend berating Alba after her government issued food-stamp debit card was declined. Only moments later, Simon entered the store, walked behind the counter and shoved Alba against the wall. Simon then stood over Alba and blocked his exit.

When Alba attempted to get up, Simon grabbed him by the neck. That’s when Alba reached for a knife and stabbed Simon during the brawl that ensued. Simon died.

Alba’s bail was originally set at $250K, an outlandish number considering DA Bragg is an advocate for ending the cash bail system. In a move paralleling Bragg’s distaste for self-defense, ‘GoFundMe’ removed Alba’s page after people began donating to him.

After his arrest, it was revealed that Simon’s girlfriend pulled out her own knife and reportedly stabbed Alba during the brawl. At the time officers chose not to arrest her explaining that she was simply defending her boyfriend.

So, in the city of Manhattan you encourage your boyfriend to assault the man who refuses to let you steal from him and you have the legal license to stab him when he fights back.

Thankfully, the charges were dropped. But why were they filed to begin with? And why hasn’t the DA instructed his deputies to avoid charging victims and instead stay focused on the myriad number of violent criminals?

Alba’s mistreatment is the natural outworking of the Soros-backed prosecutors’ efforts to protect the criminal at all costs.

Continue reading “”

Threaten? That would be the least of a bunglars worries with me.

83 Percent: OK to Threaten Intruder With Gun

If someone is breaking into your home or business, 83% of voters say that it is appropriate to protect yourself by threatening him with a gun. A Scott Rasmussen national survey found that just 8% think it is not appropriate, and 9% are not sure.

The survey also found that 79% of voters believe that self-defense is a legitimate purpose for owning a gun, 69% say that hunting is, and 26% say protection against the government. Just 9% say there is no legitimate purpose for owning a gun.

Methodology
The survey of 1,200 registered voters was conducted online by Scott Rasmussen on July 12-13, 2022. Fieldwork for the survey was conducted by RMG Research, Inc. Certain quotas were applied, and the sample was lightly weighted by geography, gender, age, race, education, internet usage, and political party to reasonably reflect the nation’s population of registered voters. Other variables were reviewed to ensure that the final sample is representative of that population.