Category: RKBA

Gun industry sounds off on House gun ban, ATF chief, and more

It’s a busy time for the firearms industry at the moment, and I’m pleased that National Shooting Sports Foundation senior vice president and general counsel Larry Keane could spend a some quality time with Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co today to hit on a number of different topics ranging from the House Democrats’ push for an “assault weapons” ban to the new installation of anti-gun politician and former U.S. Attorney Steve Dettelbach as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives….

  • On the Democrats’ proposed ban on “assault weapons” (and magazines holding more than 15 rounds) approved by the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday – “We’ll see next week if they have the votes to move forward. I think it will be very, very close one way or the other. There are a very large number of Democrats sponsoring this bill, but whether they’ll continue to sponsor it or support it if it moves to the floor… we’ll see. There are a couple of Democrats on the bubble, and there are several Democrats in very competitive races who are reported to be very upset with Speaker Pelosi for pushing this issue when they’re in competitive races and they’re concerned that it will hurt their chances at re-election.”
  • On Steve Dettelbach taking over as ATF director – “When you have the president who calls the industry the ‘enemy’, when you have this ‘zero tolerance policy’ and you have (FFL license) revocations up 500% and the basis for those revocations have nothing to do with any risk to public safety, when you have closed inspections being re-opened after being closed for six months and then seeking to revoke six months later after saying [the violations] didn’t rise to that level, it’s very very troubling. So we’re really considered about this approach by the administration; instead of going after trigger-pullers and the bad people (and there are a lot of people who need to be locked up) going after law-abiding citizens and showing up unannounced at their doorstep and trying to coerce them into letting them into their house with no warrant, that’s troubling.
  • On the gun control lobby’s attempt to sue gun makers based on claims of deceptive marketing, including California’s new law banning marketing materials supposedly aimed at minors – “Look, this law in California is obviously unconstitutional. It obviously violates the First Amendment right to speech, the right to freedom of association, and it violates the Due Process clause because it says you know, ‘what’s attractive to a minor’; a vague and subjective standard. I feel like I’ve gone back in Mr. Peabody’s Wayback Machine to the 1990s because we’re hearing all the same arguments from the same gun control groups trying to file lawsuits against the industry. You know, the House Judiciary Committee also last night passed a bill to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment that prevents the disclosure of law enforcement-sensitive trace information outside of law enforcement because it puts law enforcement at risk…. they’re filing these complaints with the Federal Trade Commission… they have disdain for the Second Amendment, and they’re entitled to their opinion, but they’re not entitled to suppress the First Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, law-abiding companies to be able to advertise their products.”

    • LAPD Stops Enforcing California’s ‘High-Capacity’ Magazine Ban

    The Los Angeles Police Department has stopped enforcing California’s state law banning “high-capacity” magazines, according to an internal LAPD email obtained by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project.

    The email was sent Wednesday morning to all LAPD personnel by Commander Ernest Eskridge, assistant commanding officer of the department’s Detective Bureau.

    Eskridge noted that on June 23, the “United States Supreme Court vacated the ruling in Duncan v. Bonta and remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal for further consideration in light of its recent decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.”

    Because of this ruling, Eskridge said in the email, all sworn LAPD personnel shall not “investigate, detain or arrest” anyone for possessing a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds unless they are already legally barred from possession of ammunition in the state.

    There were three issues in Duncan v. Bonta: whether a law prohibiting law-abiding citizens from possessing magazines in common use violates the Second Amendment, whether confiscating legally obtained magazines violated the “takings clause,” and whether the “two-step” approach of the 9th Circuit and other courts applied to Second Amendment cases is constitutional and meets Supreme Court precedents.

    In Bruen, the Supreme Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home and that New York’s “special need” requirement for a concealed-carry permit violates those protections.

    ‘That’s The Point’
    Rep. Nadler Admits Bill Will Confiscate Guns In ‘Common Use’

    Democratic New York Rep. Jerry Nadler admitted a Democrat-led bill intends to confiscate guns in “common use” during a Wednesday House Judiciary Committee hearing.

    Republican North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop asked House Democrats if they dispute the fact that the proposed legislation H.R. 1808, titled “Assault Weapons Ban of 2021,” bans firearms in “common use” throughout the country.

    “Would anyone on the other side dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?” Bishop asked.

    “That’s the point of the bill,” Nadler replied.

    “So, to clarify, Mr. Chairman, you’re saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today,” the Republican representative pressed.

    “Yes,” Nadler clarified. “The problem is that they’re in common use.”

    The bill, introduced by Democratic Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline, would ban a so-called “semi-automatic assault weapon,” including all AK types of weapons and AR-15s. The legislation, if passed, would ban semi-automatic weapons that contain a magazine, a pistol or forward grip and a “folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.” It also intends to ban weapons that can fire more than 10 rounds or contains a threaded barrel or second pistol grip.

    The representative then told Cicilline that he has used his advanced legal skills to “obfuscate” the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which deemed a ban on handguns a violation of the Second Amendment. The decision further protected a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms that are in common use.

    “What you suggest that this order can possibly comply with what the Supreme Court has held in now three separate cases is absolutely absurd. You defy the Supreme Court of the United States in the same way the Democrats mounted massive resistance to Brown v. Board of Education,” Bishop said. “We’re going to explain that for the American people in the course of this hearing. The Democrats of the 1960s are the Democrats of the 2020s.”

    The Court ruled that “self-defense is a basic right recognized by many legal systems” in the case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, which struck down the city of Chicago’s ban on handguns in 2010. The decision further ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

    He cited the recent Court decision in the case, New York State Rifle Association v. Bruen, that the state implementing “proper cause” to obtain a conceal carry permit violates a citizen’s Fourteenth Amendment right to practice their Second Amendment protection to self-defense.

    “This bill bans many types of weapons that are in common use in the United States today,” Bishop said.

    Approximately 20 million AR-15 style rifles are in circulation in the United States and continue to be one of the “most popular rifles sold in America,” according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

    House committee approves first assault weapons ban bill in decades
    The House Judiciary Committee approved the Assault Weapons Ban of 2021 in a 25-18 vote following an hours-long markup

    The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday moved a bill banning assault weapons forward but it’s unclear if the legislation has enough support to pass a floor vote.

    Democratic Reps. Jared Golden, D-Maine, and Henry Cuellar, D-Texas have said they won’t support the bill while Republican Reps. Chris Jacobs, R-N.Y., and Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., have said they are open to voting for a ban, according to The Hill. House Democrats have a four-vote margin.

    The Assault Weapons Ban of 2021 was advanced in a 25-18 vote but a date for a vote on the House floor has not been set.

    “As we have learned all too well in recent years, assault weapons — especially when combined with high-capacity magazines — are the weapon of choice for mass shootings,” committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said during the bill’s markup. “These military-style weapons are designed to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time. Quite simply, there is no place for them on our streets.”

    Ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, argued the bill would take away upstanding gun owners’ rights.

    “Democrats know this legislation will not reduce violent crime or reduce the likelihood of mass shootings, but they are obsessed with attacking law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment liberties,” he said.

    Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said, “They’re coming for your guns.”

    The bill would make it a crime to “import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) or large capacity ammunition feeding device,” according to the bill’s summary. A few exceptions would be made.

    It would not include any “firearm that is (1) manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action; (2) permanently inoperable; (3) an antique; or (4) a rifle or shotgun specifically identified by make and model.”

    The bill was first introduced in March of last year.

    Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., looks on during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on July 14, 2022, in Washington, DC.
    Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., looks on during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on July 14, 2022, in Washington, DC. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

    The bill comes on the heels of the most sweeping gun control bill to pass the Senate in 30 years following a series of mass shootings, including an elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, that left 19 students and two teachers dead.

    President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have also been calling for an assault weapons ban.

    “Assault weapons need to be banned,” Biden said last week at the White House while celebrating the signing of the bipartisan gun law. “They were banned. I led the fight in 1994. And then under pressure from the NRA and the gun manufacturers and others, that ban was lifted in 2004. In that 10 years it was law, mass shootings went down.”

    Former President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban in 1994 that expired in 2004.

     

    The Good Samaritan With A Gun In Indiana Serves To Refute Four Common Gun Control Myths

    On Monday, a good samaritan with a gun averted a catastrophe at an Indiana mall. Douglas Sapirman, a 20-year old man brought more than 100 rounds of ammunition and three rifles: a Sig Sauer M400 rifle he bought in March 2022; an M&P15 rifle that was found in the mall bathroom and bought in March 2021; and a Glock 33 pistol discovered on his body. In the span of a few minutes, Sapirman fired 24 rounds, killed three people, and injured two others.

    But Elisjsha Dicken, a 22-year old man, was shopping at the mall with this girlfriend. And he was carrying a concealed pistol. The New York Times describes his heroics:

    Chief Jim Ison of the Greenwood Police Department called the bystander’s actions “nothing short of heroic,” identifying him as Elisjsha Dicken of Seymour, Ind.

    He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun, was very proficient in that, very tactically sound, and, as he moved to close in on the suspect, he was also motioning for people to exit behind him,” Chief Ison said at a news conference where he described surveillance video footage of the shooting. . . .

    All the victims were shot by Mr. Sapirman, who fired 24 rounds, Chief Ison said. Mr. Dicken fired 10 rounds, killing the gunman as he tried to retreat to a mall bathroom where he had spent an hour apparently preparing for the attack. . . . .

    Over the past two years, the relatives told the police, the gunman had frequently practiced shooting at a range in Greenwood, which is roughly 15 miles south of Indianapolis. . . .

    When the police arrived, they handcuffed Mr. Dicken and took him to a station for questioning, where security camera footage confirmed his description of the events. Chief Ison said that the police could not determine whether Mr. Dicken had a gun permit, but that he was carrying his Glock 9-millimeter handgun legally under the state’s constitutional carry law.

    “This young man, Greenwood’s good Samaritan, acted within seconds, stopping the shooter and saving countless lives,” Mayor Mark Myers said on Monday.

    This amazing story is simply one data point, but it serves to refute four myths about gun control.

    First, a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Recently, Eugene catalogued other similar instances of defensive gun use.

    Second, constitutional carry ensures that good samaritans can carry, even if they do not satisfy onerous carry regimes. I imagine that if this incident happened in New York, the good samaritan would be indicted for illegal possession of a firearm.

    Third, a common argument in favor of “high capacity” magazine bans is that defensive gun use never needs more than a few bullets. Here, the good samaritan used ten bullets, and he could have needed even more. In California, for example, magazines are limited to ten rounds. Had the good samaritan needed one more bullet to drop the assailant, he would have been out of luck in California.

    Fourth, it is commonly argued that a person armed with a handgun cannot take down a person armed with larger rifles. This incident proves that myth is wrong.

    It is difficult to generalize from a single incident, but the situation in Indiana serves to push back against many of the common gun control myths.

    Update: I didn’t realize that Indiana’s constitutional carry went into effect on July 1, 2022. Had this event happened a month earlier, the good samaritan may have been in violation of the state’s carry law. The NY Times has some more details:

    Mike Wright, manager of the Luca Pizza di Roma in the mall’s food court, remembers taking shelter when the firing started and then emerging when it stopped to see the bystander behind a low-slung wall with his handgun trained on the assailant he had shot to death.

    “He stood there maybe 25 or 30 feet from the body and held that pistol pointed at him until law enforcement arrived,” Mr. Wright remembered on Tuesday. “The good Samaritan guy seemed poised and under control. He appeared to be very disciplined.” Jim Ison, the local police chief, went further, saying that his engagement with the gunman, who had killed three people, was “nothing short of heroic.”

    But along with the horror, drama and acclaim came a roaring and rekindled controversy in a country united in revulsion over its ceaseless plague of gun violence, yet bitterly divided over a loosening of gun restrictions like the Indiana law, passed this year, that allowed the bystander, Elisjsha Dicken, 22, to carry his 9-millimeter handgun in the first place. . . .

    Chief Ison said the police found no indication that Mr. Dicken had a permit for the handgun. But the chief said he was carrying it legally under the new law. In a brief interview, Mr. Dicken’s lawyer, Guy A. Relford, described his client as an “all-American Indiana boy,” and declined to provide any specific information about him or the mall encounter.

    Update 2: The Greenwood Police now report that the Good Samaritan acted quickly. In the span of 15 seconds (not 2 minutes), he fired 10 rounds, eight of which hit the assailant. And his first shot hit the assailant from 40 yards!

     

    That is some top-level accuracy.

    With the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, millions of common AR-15 style rifles hit the market, yet annualized homicides by rifle continued to trend downward. GOA opposes any new bans on these commonly owned weapons.

    Image

    Well, to be honest, in a ‘free country’, I’ve never thought that the police could prevent any crime. That requires an authoritarian Police State the likes of which would be on par with North Korea. The poor people who always believed this, were always wrong, and that’s what’s sad; they were delusional

    Confidence in Law Enforcement to Prevent Mass Shootings Plummets

    A new poll from Convention of States Action and the Trafalgar Group shows Americans no longer trust local and federal law enforcement to stop mass shootings. This outcome should be no surprise after a long string of mass shootings where law enforcement knew the perpetrator before the tragedy.

    The tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, is the latest example. However, school officials and law enforcement were aware of the risks posed by the shooter in Parkland, Fla., and the other mass shooting tragedies since then. It seems the left’s preoccupation with social justice rather than criminal justice prevents law enforcement at all levels from taking proactive action to prevent violence. The social justice push ended stop and frisk in New York City and ensured red flag laws in Illinois and New York were useless.

    These examples may explain why a majority of voters report they are not confident local authorities can prevent a mass shooting before it happens. Sixty-two percent of voters say they are not sure their local law enforcement or federal agents could identify and stop a violent person before they started a mass shooting. More than a quarter (26.9%) report they are not confident at all. Only 9.8% indicated they are very confident in their local authorities’ ability to prevent a mass shooting.

    Uvalde officers not immediately and aggressively confronting the gunman in the elementary school was reminiscent of law enforcement failures in the Parkland shooting. “Americans watched in horror as an active shooter was permitted to rampage through a school while the police stood outside and did absolutely nothing. Over and over again, citizens are given the clear message that—when it comes to protecting loved ones—you’re on your own,”  said Mark Meckler, President of Convention of States Action.

    Americans are painfully aware of the tragic results in these situations and believe in the “good guy with a gun” more than the gun grabbers would like. According to the poll, a plurality believes their fellow citizen with a firearm is the best protection for them and their family in a mass shooting situation. Almost 42% of voters believe that an armed citizen would be their best protection if they were caught in a mass shooting event. Local police retained the confidence of 25.1%, and 10.3% had the most faith in federal agents. Almost one-quarter said none of the above.

    Results indicating how many respondents feel they will best protect themselves and their families would be an interesting supplement. Democrats appear the most fatalistic, with a plurality of 33.9% saying they do not trust anyone to protect them and their family in a mass shooting event. But, they are still the party pushing for strict gun control. Meanwhile, 70.4% of Republicans trust armed citizens the most, while only 16.8% and 1.6% trust local or federal law enforcement.

    Yet, somehow, our leaders in Congress think more gun laws are the answer. The recent bi-partisan gun law does little to prevent these tragedies, especially in an environment where citizens are losing trust in law enforcement. “At the same time, we’re told guns are the problem, and we should give up our right to self-defense,” Meckler noted. “Voters are not stupid. They understand that responsible citizens offer the best means of protecting our schools, homes, and communities in this country. Pursuing such policies is not only bad politics, it puts all of us at risk.”

    As if to prove the point made by a plurality of voters, an armed citizen stopped a mass shooter in a mall food court in Indiana yesterday. According to law enforcement, the gunman shot three people fatally and injured two Sunday evening before a good guy with a gun shot and killed him. The shooter entered the mall with a rifle and several magazines. Greenwood Police Dept. Chief Jim Ison said, “The real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop the shooter almost as soon as he began.” The poll ended before reports of this shooting appeared in the news cycle.

    A legally armed citizen recently thwarted another mass shooting in West Virginia. A woman used her pistol to shoot a man who had returned to a graduation party with a rifle. He had been in a verbal altercation with the partygoers earlier in the day. “This lady was carrying a lawful firearm,” Lt. Tony Hazelett of the Charleston Police Department said. “A law-abiding citizen who stopped the threat of probably 20 or 30 people getting killed. She engaged the threat and stopped it. She didn’t run from the threat. She engaged it preventing a mass casualty event here in Charleston.”

    Examples like these may be why states like Texas, Georgia, and others are passing open and constitutional carry laws. Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb signed constitutional carry in March of this year. As of July 1, no legal gun owner in Indiana is required to have a carry permit after passing the required background check. That law may have made all the difference for the Hoosiers in the mall on Sunday.

    The Greenwood Mall Shooting Should End Claims of the Danger of Permitless Concealed Carry.

    During the recent attempted mass shooting at the Greenwood Park Mall in Indiana, a 22-year old man who was lawfully carrying a pistol stopped the killing. For this heroic action, he’s been called “good Samaritan” by local law enforcement. Even the owners of the mall, (who ban guns on their properties praised his actions. That got under the skin of anti-gun activists.

    Why? If they were forced to be honest about it like the main character in the 1997 film Liar Liar, they’d have to admit that a quintessential case of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun is utterly devastating to their case against civilian gun rights.

    Sadly (for them) the facts keep coming in, and they continue to be very bad for the gun control industry’s agenda. Not only does Greenwood Park clearly demonstrate that permitless carry (a.k.a. constitutional carry) saves lives, but one of the key arguments against permitless carry was also destroyed.

    Constitutional Carry Allowed Lives To Be Saved

    Recent reporting from WRTV News sheds light on an important detail in how this mass shooting was stopped . . .

    According to [Greenwood Police Chief James] Ison, [Eli] Dicken did not have a permit for his handgun, but due to the passage of the “Constitutional Carry” bill in Indiana, he was legally carrying the weapon.

    “I am 100% certain that many more people would have died last night if it wasn’t for his heroism,” Ison said.

    If there’s a more devastating message for the forces of gun control, I don’t know what it would be.

    Continue reading “”

    A New Report Casts Doubt on the Assumption That Gun Law Violators Are a Public Menace
    The vast majority of federal firearm offenses involve illegal possession, often without aggravating conduct or a history of violence.

    A new report on federal firearm offenses shows that the vast majority involve illegal possession, often without aggravating circumstances or a history of violence. The data undermine the assumption that people who violate gun laws are predatory criminals who pose a serious threat to public safety. They also highlight the racially disproportionate impact of such laws, which is especially troubling given their excessive breadth.

    In FY 2021, the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) reports, 89 percent of federal firearm offenders were legally disqualified from owning guns, typically because of a felony record. Half of those cases involved “aggravating criminal conduct.” But in the other half, the defendant’s “status as a prohibited person solely formed the basis of the conviction.”

    The aggravating conduct, which triggered sentencing enhancements under the USSC’s guidelines, covered a wide range.

    In 11 percent of the cases involving aggravating conduct, “an offender or co-participant discharged a firearm.” In 4 percent of the cases where a gun was fired, someone was killed; someone was injured in 18 percent of those cases.

    Some cases involved a stolen gun, a gun with an “altered or obliterated serial number,” or a prohibited weapon, such as a  machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun. Some defendants were engaged in gun trafficking. In more than a quarter of the cases, “the firearm facilitated, or had the potential to facilitate, another felony offense (most commonly drug trafficking).” That last category would include drug dealers who never threatened or injured anyone but kept or carried guns for self-defense.

    As you would expect, aggravating factors resulted in relatively long prison sentences. The average was 55 months for cases involving stolen firearms or guns with altered serial numbers, 58 months in cases involving a prohibited weapon, 62 months in cases involving gun trafficking, and 119 months—nearly 10 years—in cases involving “the use of, or conspiracy to use, a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.” In other words, the combination of drug possession and gun possession can be enough to put someone behind bars for a decade, which starkly illustrates the interaction between those two kinds of prohibitions.

    In half of the cases involving “prohibited persons,” the defendant “did not engage in additional aggravating conduct.” The average sentence for such defendants was about three years. Even in those cases, you might surmise, the defendants’ prior criminal records probably indicated violent tendencies that justified sending them to prison for possessing a gun. But that is not necessarily true.

    Continue reading “”

    In case it slipped anyone’s mind, I’ll reiterate that I’m not ‘anti-cop’, I’m anti stupid, and in this case, coward cops.

    Uvalde Shooting Report Undermines Calls To Ban Guns and ‘Back the Blue’
    Only you can be relied upon to protect you and your loved ones.
    Ignore anybody who claims otherwise.

    If you really need further evidence of how foolish it is to surrender your right to protect yourself and defer to government employees who are supposed to assume that responsibility, the record of police non-response during the Uvalde mass murder should do the job. Those who, in the future, continue to insist that we disarm ourselves and venerate government enforcers who are tasked to protect us should be unceremoniously kicked to the curb.

    “At Robb Elementary, law enforcement responders failed to adhere to their active shooter training, and they failed to prioritize saving the lives of innocent victims over their own safety,” finds a devastating report published July 17 by the Texas House of Representatives Investigative Committee on the Robb Elementary Shooting. “The first wave of responders to arrive included the chief of the school district police and the commander of the Uvalde Police Department SWAT team. Despite the immediate presence of local law enforcement leaders, there was an unacceptably long period of time before officers breached the classroom, neutralized the attacker, and began rescue efforts.

    That delay (73 minutes in the report, or 77 minutes according to news stories) was documented in excruciating detail in video of police response published last week in both edited and full form by the Austin American-Statesman and KVUE before it was formally screened by authorities.

    “We know now…that some students quietly called 911 from inside the classrooms for help, a critically wounded teacher could hear officers just outside the classroom, and that 911 dispatchers were fielding their calls of desperation,” Manny Garcia, executive editor, wrote for the Austin American-Statesman in explaining the decision to publish the video. “We also know that exasperated parents, family members and bystanders standing outside the school begged authorities to do something. After 77 minutes, the video shows the officers breach the classroom.”

    Before the release of the Texas lawmakers’ report documenting failures not just by police, but by school officials who ignored their own security measures, some Uvalde families and government officials criticized the media for publishing the video before a carefully planned screening by Texas lawmakers.

    Continue reading “”

    Sen. Chris Murphy Strangely Silent After His ‘Good Guy With a Gun’ Theory Goes Down in Flames

    As we previously reported, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) appallingly declared in a tweet last Tuesday that the fact that it took the Uvalde police so long to respond to the horrific Robb Elementary School mass shooting “puts to bed, forever” the “good guy with a gun” scenario often cited by Second Amendment defenders in their arguments.

    “We’ve always known it was a gun industry created lie, designed to sell more guns,” he also wrote. “Now we just have the gut wrenching proof”:

    While the chilling 77-minute police response video from Uvalde was indeed gut-wrenching, it in no way proved Murphy’s point – in fact, it proved just the opposite for reasons I and thousands of others explained to him in response to his remarks.

    In the aftermath of the deadly Greenwood, Indiana mall mass shooting Sunday where three were killed and two were injured, Murphy has gone silent on his “good guy with a gun” theory – perhaps because Greenwood Police Chief James Ison noted in a press conference that the shooter was shot dead “almost as soon as he began” by a “good Samaritan,” a 22-year-old unidentified man who Ison said was “lawfully carrying” his firearm:

    “The real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop that shooter almost as soon as he began,” Ison told reporters during a press conference on Sunday night.

    Greenwood Mayor Mark Myers also confirmed that the suspect was “shot by an armed individual,” whom he called a “good Samaritan.”

    “This person saved lives tonight,” Myers said in a statement late Sunday. “On behalf of the City of Greenwood, I am grateful for his quick action and heroism in this situation.”

     

    Continue reading “”

    Silence from Gun Prohibitionists After Armed Citizen Stops Mall Shooter

    Once again, gun prohibition lobbying groups are locked in silence after a legally-armed 22-year-old intervened quickly to fatally shoot a would-be mass killer who opened fire at the Greenwood Park Mall in Greenwood, Ind., in an action police are hailing as heroic.

    “The real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop the shooter almost as soon as he began,” Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison told a press briefing Sunday evening.

    Reuters quoted Greenwood Mayor Mark Meyers, who said in a prepared statement, “We do know that someone we are calling a ‘Good Samaritan’ was able to shoot the assailant and stop further bloodshed. This person saved lives tonight. I am grateful for his quick action and heroism.”

    It is not the first time an armed private citizen has killed a killer. According to the FBI, last year armed citizens stopped six “active shooters.” In four of those cases, the perpetrator was killed. In each case, the gun ban lobby was mum.

    CNN noted in its coverage of the shooting, “It’s rare to have an armed bystander attack an active shooter, according to a data analysis published by The New York Times.”

    “There were at least 433 active shooter attacks in the US from 2000 to 2021, according to the data analysis,” CNN added. “Active shooter attacks were defined as those in which one or more shooters killed or attempted to kill multiple unrelated people in a populated place.”

    “Of those 433 active shooter cases, an armed bystander shot the attacker in 22 of the incidents. In 10 of those, the ‘good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer, the Times reported.”

    Three people were killed and two others wounded before the unidentified armed citizen intervened. However, authorities have suggested things could have been much worse if the killer had been able to continue his mayhem.

    There is a small bit of irony reported by Reuters, which notes the mall is owned by the Simon Property Group, and they have a “no guns” policy. Here is the mall’s Code of Conduct found online:

    While visiting this mall, the following general activities will not be accepted:

    • Violations of the law
    • Any activity that threatens the safety of our guests, tenants and/or employees
    • Any activity that threatens the well-being of the property
    • Any activity that disrupts our pleasant, family-oriented shopping environment
    • Any activity inconsistent with the general purpose of the property, which is shopping, dining, visiting theaters or offices for business purposes
    • Any activity that would disrupt the legitimate business of the property and its tenants

    Examples of specific activities that are prohibited include but are not limited to:

    • Disruptive profanity, vulgar or threatening language
    • Unnecessarily blocking walkways, roadways or storefronts
    • Running, horseplay or disorderly conduct of any nature
    • Excessive loitering
    • Operating unauthorized recreational and/or personal transportation devices in the shopping center
    • No firearms or illegal weapons

    “The center is a privately owned property. Guests who do not act responsibly may be asked to leave. If they refuse to leave the property, they may be arrested and prosecuted for criminal trespass.”

    Clearly, the dead gunman violated virtually all of these rules, while the armed citizen apparently violated only the last tenet.

    Greenwood Park Mall posted this statement on its website:

    “We grieve for the victims of yesterday’s horrific tragedy at Greenwood Park Mall. Violence has no place in this or any other community. We are grateful for the strong response of the first responders, including the heroic actions of the Good Samaritan who stopped the suspect.”

    Continue reading “”

    BBC asks what’s next for gun control in the US

    The United States has just passed a gun control bill. It doesn’t do all that much, though it’s still an infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.

    However, for many, it’s nothing but a first step, a good start toward still more regulations imposing on our right to keep and bear arms.

    Over at the BBC, they ask

    what’s next for gun control here in the US.

    Last month, US President Joe Biden signed a landmark gun-control bill into law.

    While the legislation, which was passed with bipartisan support, has many limits, it was a step in America’s efforts to tackle escalating gun violence. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court issued a decision that cast the future of more strict limits on gun ownership in doubt.

    So where does gun control go from here? Here’s a look at some solutions that gun-control advocates and gun-rights proponents say could help stop escalating gun violence – and our North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher assesses their chances.

    The future of red flag laws

    Red flag laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders, allow police to temporarily seize legally owned guns from people who a judge has ruled to be a danger to themselves or others.

    A judge’s emergency order can be issued even in cases where a gun owner has no criminal record or history of mental illness.

    Opponents say this violates the right to due process, as the orders can be issued by a judge without the subject present to object.

    They go on to bring up things like assault weapon bans, gun buybacks, new rules for younger gun buyers, and a bunch of other things.

    Now, in fairness, they also mention arming teachers and hardening schools as well, but not until the very end and even then, the story drips with bias and disdain.

    However, all of this ignores the political realities gun control measures face here in the United States.

    In other words, it’s easy for the BBC to ask what’s next, but the truth is that the Biden administration has gotten all they’re going to get. You know the gun control side asked for much more, but what they got was the totality of what they were going to get. There’s nothing left on the table.

    Even Sen. John Cornyn, who sold us out, has said there’s  nothing more that will be done.

    So while the BBC can ponder the future of gun control, it’s nothing more than journalistic navel-gazing. It’s an exercise in what might have been and nothing else, because we’re not interested in giving up more ground and the gun control side is only interested in gun control. They don’t care about kids, they care about taking away our rights.

    If they were, they’d at least be open to hardening schools. The fact that they’re not tells you they don’t care about dead kids, they care about taking away your guns.

    The BBC can ask the question all they want, but we all know the real answer here.

    Church Pastor Sees Crime, Offers Gun and Self Defense Class

    AUGUSTA, Ga. (WJBF) — The recent crime wave is pushing a local pastor to organize a series of classes to keep churchgoers safe.

    Church is typically the place you attend to find peace. But there is a lot of unrest nationally and locally with pockets of criminal activity. So, the leader of one faith facility wants to make sure that his congregation and the community are ready.

    “This is my family and I will do everything to protect them,” said Macedonia Church of Augusta Pastor Gregory Fuller.

    He may teach people about how to guard their faith each week.  But he will soon offer three classes focusing on how to escape the trials of life, an unlikely encounter with crime.

    “Hearing about the lady who was attacked at the Augusta Mall. The elderly lady attacked, robbed and then hit.  That really let me know that we need to do something to protect our women, in particular,” he explained.

    Pastor Fuller said some of his members were harassed and threatened in town.  And with the increase in other crimes, Macedonia is rolling out Gun Safety, Women’s Self Defense and Fire and Fellowship gun range style classes, teaching people how to use a weapon, store it and thwart off an attacker without one.

    “Most of my calls are from the local gun club that I teach at,” said Amontre Adams, Black Marshal Precision, LLC. Firearms Instructor. “They help me promote my classes.  But now, I’m seeing a bigger increase of people outside of the gun club contacting me.”

    While there is a big interest in firearms, Adams told us people need to seek out classes to know exactly what they are doing.  But despite preparation, when the time comes, it could all backfire.

    “When it hits the fan, you will devolve back to your lowest level of training,” Adams said.

    The three free events:

    • Gun Safety – Macedonia Church of Augusta – July 23rd – 10:00 am
    • Women’s Self Defense Class (FLAG “Fight Life A Girl”) – Macedonia Church of Augusta – July 30th – 9:00 am- 12:00 pm
    • Fire and Fellowship to practice shooting firearms – Name and directions provided upon registration – August 6th – 9:00 am – 11:00 am

    Well, even though it’ll go nowhere, it is a nice gesture.

    Sen. Daines Introduces Bill To Give Gun Owners Freedom To Carry Across State Lines

    Republican Montana Sen. Steve Daines introduced legislation Monday that would allow for those who live in a concealed carry or Constitutional carry state to carry their concealed firearms in other states.

    The legislation, first obtained by the Daily Caller, is titled the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. The bill would ensure a Montana resident can legally conceal carry a gun into a state where the state’s own residents can conceal carry. This bill also allows for individuals with a state-issued concealed carry license to conceal a gun in any other state, as long as the permit holder follows the laws of that state.

    READ THE BILL HERE: 

     

    It’s not guns. It’s the hands the guns are in.

    Countries with strict gun control hit by recent mass shootings and gun violence
    Denmark, South Africa, and Sweden have all attempted to combat gun violence despite strict restrictions

    South Africa, Denmark, and Sweden have been combating a wave of gun violence and mass shootings despite strict gun control laws in all three countries.

    South Africa was the latest to see a mass shooting, with at least 19 people being killed in two separate shootings last week in Johannesburg and Pietermaritzburg. In Johannesburg, 15 people were killed and many more injured when a gunman opened fire on patrons in a bar. A similar scene played out the same night in Pietermaritzburg, where two men entered an area bar and opened fire on patrons there, killing four people an injuring eight.

    The two shootings happened despite tight gun regulations in the country, with GunPolicy.org rating South Africa’s firearms regulations as “restrictive.” Civilians in the country are not allowed to possess semi-automatic weapons without a special endorsement, while handgun ownership is permitted but only after obtaining a license under specific circumstances.

    South Africa’s strict restrictions have led to a large black market for guns in the country, with almost 13,000 people being arrested in the country for illegal possession of firearms in 2020/2021, according to the Associated Press. 

    Continue reading “”

    Not surprising for demoncrap tyrants

    Politicians Defy the Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Right To Bear Arms
    Several states are retaining subjective criteria for carry permits or imposing new restrictions on gun possession.

    After the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms last month, some states promptly complied with the ruling by eliminating subjective requirements for carrying a gun in public. But other states are either dragging their feet or refusing to acknowledge the decision’s implications.

    The Court said New York had violated the Second Amendment by requiring “proper cause” to carry handguns for self-defense, a standard that gave local officials wide discretion to reject carry-permit applications. But anti-gun politicians have other tricks up their sleeves, including similarly vague standards and bans on firearm possession in specific locations, that will invite further litigation to vindicate a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

    New York responded to the Court’s rebuke with a law that eliminates the “proper cause” requirement but specifies a long list of “sensitive locations” where gun possession is a felony punishable by up to four years in prison. Those restrictions will make it impractical or legally perilous for many permit holders to actually exercise the right recognized by the Court.

    In addition to listing myriad places where permit holders may not carry firearms, New York’s law bans guns in all private establishments open to the public unless they post conspicuous signs announcing that they are deviating from the default rule—a step many business owners will be reluctant to take. A bill backed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta takes a similar approach.

    New York’s law retains a requirement that permit applicants demonstrate “good moral character,” an assessment that includes perusing their social media posts. Bonta likewise maintains that California’s “good moral character” standard remains constitutional, and he suggests that controversial opinions could be disqualifying.

    UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist, thinks such a wide-ranging inquiry is “clearly unconstitutional.” Volokh notes that “the government can’t restrict ordinary citizens’ actions—much less their constitutionally protected actions—based on the viewpoints that they express.”

    Although Massachusetts dropped its “good reason” criterion for carry permits, it still requires that an applicant be “a suitable person to possess firearms,” a standard that leaves considerable room for subjective judgments. The same vague requirement applies in Connecticut, where Attorney General William Tong has promised to resist any changes to the law.

    Delaware requires that a carry-permit applicant demonstrate “good moral character” and “a good reputation for peace and good order.” The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), an industry group, reports that Delaware officials are taking a “wait and see” approach, meaning the law probably won’t be changed without additional litigation.

    In Rhode Island, the attorney general “may issue” a carry permit based on “a proper showing of need,” while local licensing authorities “shall issue” a permit “if it appears” that the applicant is “a suitable person to be licensed” and either “has good reason to fear an injury to his or her person or property” or has “any other proper reason” to carry a handgun. Attorney General Peter Neronha seems to think his state’s rules are different enough from New York’s that no reform is necessary.

    “This Case Involves a Religious Psychic Trying to Break a Family Curse by ‘Cleaning’ ‘Dirty’ Money”
    By contrast, Hawaii Attorney General Holly Shikada last week said a concealed-carry applicant in that state will no longer be required to show he represents “an exceptional case” and has “reason to fear injury” to his “person or property.” Maryland and New Jersey recently dropped similar requirements: “good or substantial reason” in Maryland and “justifiable need” in New Jersey.

    Even before the Court’s ruling, the vast majority of states either did not require permits for carrying firearms or had “shall issue” carry-permit laws, meaning applications generally were approved as long as gun owners met objective criteria. Those policies recognize, as the Court did, that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” cannot be treated as a privilege for the lucky few.

    Some politicians still seem determined to reject that point. They will not respect their constituents’ rights until new constitutional challenges force them to do so.

    The dishonesty of the gun control mob

    It’s so predictable, maybe we should start calling it “Gun Control Day.”

    Like the movie “Groundhog Day,” it happens again and again after a mass shooting, like the one at a July Fourth parade near Chicago that killed seven people and wounded two dozen.

    The professional anti-gun mob — i.e., liberal Democrats and the major media outlets — immediately spring into action and exploit the tragedy as much as they can.

    As they did this past week, they automatically blame guns, renew their calls for stricter gun reforms or dream about completely outlawing the private ownership of guns.

    It doesn’t matter if the mass shooter was crazy, a terrorist or just plain evil, the gun control nuts are as unrealistic and dishonest as they are predictable.

    If we’d only outlaw handguns and “weapons of war” like the semi-automatic AR-15, they cry again and again, these bloody mass killings and street shootouts would virtually disappear.

    Sounds easy, doesn’t it?

    But in the real world, the one we 330 million Americans live in, there are nearly 400 million guns in the hands of private citizens.

    Guns of all kinds are virtually in every corner of America, thank the Lord.

    About 44 percent of U.S. households contain at least one, according to the 2021 National Firearms Survey.

    About 32 percent of people older than 18 own a firearm — that’s 81 million people.

    About 42 percent are female, 58 percent male. About 25 percent of Blacks, 28 percent of Latinos and 34 percent of whites own guns.

    The average gun owner owns five firearms. Handguns are the most common type, but 30 percent of gun owners — 24.6 million individuals — have owned an AR-15 or similarly styled rifle that looks like an assault weapon.

    About 20.7 million gun owners have a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public, and that number is growing, notably among Black women.

    The gun-controllers like to mock conservatives who say guns don’t kill people, people do. But last time I checked, Glocks and AR-15s don’t pull their own triggers.

    Fewer than .005 percent of America’s 400 million guns were used to commit a murder in 2021.

    Only about half of the year’s 20,000 homicides involved handguns — and far more people were killed by knives, fists and rocks than rifles of all kinds.

    We know who — not what — is responsible for most of America’s gun violence.

    It’s not law-abiding gun owners. It’s criminals, gang members and other lawbreakers who laugh at the idea of abiding by any tougher gun law.

    The liberal media are generally quiet about the gang-related gun violence that kills dozens of young black men each weekend in cities across the country.

    They don’t give us Monday morning body counts from deadly places like Chicago — where 70-plus people were shot and killed during the July Fourth weekend.

    In case you haven’t heard, over the holiday weekend, at least 220 Americans were shot to death and about 570 were wounded, according to the GunViolenceArchive.com, which documents each incident.

    It’d be nice if the country’s top journalists would do their jobs and challenge the gun control mob when they say they want to rid America of guns.

    “Whose guns will you take away exactly?” the media might ask. “Everyone’s?”

    “And how do you plan to do it? Are you going to go to the south side of Chicago or South Central LA, knock on doors and take people’s guns away?”

    “Who will actually take the guns? The National Guard? The Marines?”

    “Realistically, how many of America’s 400 million guns do you think you’ll collect?”

    It’s a certainty that a whole bunch of good Americans will refuse to cooperate with the totalitarian dream of the gun control mob, but my son Cameron has a deal he wants to make with them.

    “As soon as they disarm the inner city neighborhoods of Chicago, St. Louis and East LA, the rest of us will all turn in our guns. Let us all know when you’re done with that.”