Category: RKBA

Onondaga County DA on new concealed carry social media review law: “it’s unenforceable”

Onondaga County District Attorney Bill Fitzpatrick is calling a new law set to take effect September 1st “unenforceable.” Anyone who wants to apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon in New York State will have to hand over access to their social media accounts, starting September 1st. “I thought it was somebody pranking me, but sadly it’s true,” said Fitzpatrick. He says he and other leaders in law enforcement were not included in decisions about this law. His biggest worry is how to enforce it.

“You know how much money was allocated to the sheriff’s departments in the state of New York to enforce this, and the state police? Not a dime,” said Fitzpatrick.

John Jay College Associate Professor Adam Scott Wandt says he can see where state leaders are coming from in response to signs allegedly missed from mass shooting suspects on their social media accounts; despite this, the law might not be practical. “They’ll need money, they’ll need training, they’ll need ways of enforcing the new law, and that’s something that always should be taken into account by the legislature,” said Wandt.
They will also need people to do research on all the accounts that come in. Fitzpatrick says he will meet with police departments and the Sheriff’s office in the coming weeks to figure out what they can do, but it very well could be nothing. “People are being shot out there and I’m sitting here in an office reading about your trip to Disney World? It’s unbelievable the lack of thought and foresight,” said Fitzpatrick.

Professor Wandt says the weeks and months after the start date in September will be telling, and pushback could make way to the Supreme Court. “There’s no doubt in my mind that there will be challenges in the near future to this new law. Whether or not they’re successful, is a whole other story,” said Wandt.

A spokesperson for the Governor’s office got back to CNY Central Monday, with a statement saying “Governor Hochul signed landmark legislation to strengthen New York’s gun laws and bolster restrictions on concealed carry weapons. The comprehensive new law—drafted in close collaboration with the Legislature—is devised to align with the Supreme Court’s recent decision inNYSRPA v. Bruen and provides licensing officials with relevant information to complete thorough background checks for individuals seeking concealed carry permits.” Hochul’s Office also saying this is one various tools that are now in their toolbox to determine whether an applicant can obtain a gun permit.

Where does anyone read ‘Need’ anywhere in the 2nd amendment?

An Expert Answers Democrats’ Most Burning Question: Why Does Anyone Need an AR-15?

It’s a cry we hear time and again: Why does anyone need a black, spookily-shaped, mysterious “weapon of war” — which has never been used by the U.S. military?

Contrary to frequently wild framing, the AR-15 is simply the modern iteration of a basic rifle. Take Daniel Boone’s “Old Tick Licker,” fast-forward 270 years, and you get something lighter, more capacious, more accurate, and more easily accessorized.

But why should you — or Daniel’s great (times six) grandchildren — own one? Via a recent video, gun guru Colion Noir fights that burning question with a well’s worth of water.

In case you’re unfamiliar, the Houston-based activist and attorney has hosted NRATV and spoken at the National Rifle Association’s convention; his pro-2A YouTube channel boasts over two million subscribers, and he’s appeared as featured guest on The Joe Rogan Experience as well as Real Time with Bill Maher.

As for why anyone needs an AR, Colion offers a handful of reasons — one for each finger.

But first, he makes clear, “The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs. … [T]here isn’t a ‘need’ requirement for which gun you can use under the Second Amendment.”

Now on to the list…

Continue reading “”

Armed Self-Defense Is Under Attack In The U.S.A.

Is armed self-defense a basic human right? The question may seem rhetorical, even nonsensical to a rational mind. “Of course, armed self-defense is a basic human right,” you would say. Or is it?

In the countries of the EU it isn’t; nor is armed self-defense acknowledged and accepted as a fundamental human right in the countries that comprise the British Commonwealth.

But, what about the United States? Do Americans have a right to armed self-defense?

The natural law right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights makes it plain that Americans do have a natural law right of armed self-defense. And the seminal Second Amendment holdings in Heller, McDonald, and, most recently, in Bruen explicitly assert that. So, why does that remain a question for us? But a question for us it is, disturbing as it is.

The Globalist elite puppet-masters and the Marxist internationalists do not acknowledge—in fact do not recognize—the right.

Of course, it should not matter what these creatures think. But as long as Americans vote their proxies into public office, the right of armed self-defense remains, in practice an open question in many jurisdictions across the Country, despite the clear meaning of the Second Amendment and irrefutable U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

The fact remains that in the U.S. the natural law right of armed self-defense is not to be denied, ignored, dismissed, or abrogated.

The right of armed self-defense is itself subsumed in the broader category of the right of self-defense for personal survival, by whatever means.

Armed self-defense simply means that a person has the natural law right to possess the best means for ensuring both his physical survival and his autonomy of self against those forces that dare crush body, or mind, or spirit. For centuries that best means of self-defense was a firearm. And it remains so.

Continue reading “”

New York Tells Supreme Court ‘Thank You, Sir. May I Have Another?’

New York has made a return appointment for Constitutional scrutiny of their gun-carry laws.

Almost immediately after the Supreme Court struck down the state’s previous law over the subjective nature of its “proper cause” clause, New York is back with a beefed-up and even more subjective “good moral character” clause. In addition to requiring multiple references, the newly-passed standard for issuing gun-carry permits includes a social media review. Instead of relying on objective standards, such as an applicant’s record of convictions or mental health commitments, the state is doubling down on the subjective judgment of its permitting officials.

Instead of judging whether somebody has “proper cause” to carry a gun based on specific threats to their life, state officials will now judge whether or not they are of “good moral character” based on their tweets and Facebook posts. It’s difficult to see how the outcome will be any different.

It’s difficult to see how the legal fight will be any different either. Except, perhaps, how quickly New York loses.

New York is defying the Supreme Court. And it’s not trying to hide that fact.

“With this action, New York has sent a message to the rest of the country that we will not stand idly by and let the Supreme Court reverse years of sensible gun regulations,” Lieutenant Governor Antonio Delgado said in a statement.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
Republican voters deserve better than this. They deserve leadership in Washington that cares about more than just the next news cycle. Mass shootings are, unfortunately, inevitable until the nation gets ahold of the mental health crisis gripping isolated, depressed young men. The foolish decision to pretend as if passing some federal law would stop them has only backed Republicans further into the corner. Will any lessons be learned? Don’t count on it.

Republicans Play the Fool After Compromising on ‘Gun Control’

With the recent mass shooting in Highland Park that took the lives of seven people, a renewed call for “gun control” from Democrats has begun. That comes just weeks after Republicans lined up to sign on to a gun control bill (now passed into law) with the idea that doing so would provide common ground on the issue.

As predicted, though, that didn’t even buy the GOP enough goodwill to make it through the next mass shooting, much less did it put the issue to bed for any length of time. Here’s what I wrote when Sen. John Cornyn was first announced to be negotiating with Democrats on gun control.

Here’s the thing, though. When whatever red flag laws that get passed fail to stop the next mass shooter, the call to “do something” will only grow louder. And the next “something” will be an even further encroachment. I understand the desire to act in good faith and attempt to take some of the heat off, but Republicans have to understand that the Democrat push for gun confiscation and an “assault weapons” ban will not stop with whatever compromise legislation arises here.

That leaves the obvious question for Republicans: Is it smart to give ground when the end goal of the Democrats is being telegraphed to you? I know my answer.

In the case of the Highland Park shooter, he had every red flag imaginable and Illinois’ red flag law still failed to stop him from obtaining guns. That was always the problem with any GOP compromise on this issue. When you concede ground, all you are doing is providing gun control proponents fodder to say “See, your solutions didn’t work so we need to do it my way now.”

I also shared similar thoughts on social media after the text of the then-bill was leaked.

Continue reading “”

Gov. Hochul: Here’s What the Data Actually Says

It only took 30 seconds, that’s all. New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul held a press conference calling back her state’s legislature for an “extraordinary” session to pass more gun control after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s restrictive and subjective “may issue” pistol permit license scheme.

In 30 seconds, she vocalized why her gun control agenda is destined to fail.

Failed Approach

Gov. Hochul exclaimed, “I’m absolutely shocked,” after the Supreme Court held in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding Americans to carry a firearm in public for self-protection. She shouldn’t be. It only takes a simple reading of the actual amendment.

She called her state’s Democratically-controlled legislature back to Albany to restrict where licensed conceal carry permit holders can lawfully carry their firearms. The new laws include even more restrictive provisions like background checks and a state database for ammunition purchases, increased training requirements to obtain the permit, a mandatory sit-down, in-person interview and even requiring applicants to submit social media accounts for content review.

“Do you have the numbers to show that it’s the concealed carry permit holders that are committing crimes? The lawful gun owner will say you’re attacking the wrong person,” asked Albany-based CBS 6 News anchor Anne McCloy. “It’s really people that are getting these guns illegally that are causing the violence, not the people that are going to get the permit legally and that’s the basis for the whole Supreme Court argument. Do you have the numbers?”

“I don’t need to have numbers,” the governor shot back. “I don’t have to have a data point to point to to say this is going to matter.”

That’s what is called “the tell.”  These laws aren’t aimed at stopping criminals. They’re designed to rob law-abiding citizens of their rights.

What’s The Data Say?

Some estimates suggest New York has more than 200,000 concealed carry permit holders. For the entire United States, it’s over 21.5 million. These are law-abiding gun owners that meet state requirements and were approved after an FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification. New York is one of the states with the most stringent conceal carry requirements.

The actual data shows that concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding people in America. The Heritage Foundation’s 2019 data says, “… concealed-carry permit holders accounted for 801 firearm-related homicides over a 15-year span, which amounts to roughly 0.7% of all firearm-related homicides during that time.”

A Fox News report paints a picture Gov. Hochul would rather ignore. According to the FBI, Census Bureau, and Rand Corporation data, states with lower rates of gun ownership and more restrictive gun control – like New York – have more firearm murders per 100,000 residents as a percentage of the gun-owning population than states with high gun owner rates.

New York ranks fifth, with just 19.9 percent of households saying they possess a firearm and 1.53 firearm homicides per 100,000 residents. The Violence Policy Center attempted to “fact check” a claim about concealed carry holders committing fewer crimes but ended up “revealing” there were 37 firearm incidents (not specifically intentional homicide) involving concealed carry permit holders between May 2007 and May 2022. That’s less than 2.5 per year in the entire country.

Crime rates, especially in New York City, continue to climb.

Gov. Hochul and Albany Democrats praised themselves for their “fast work” to jam through more restrictions on law-abiding New Yorkers. The policies won’t stop criminals from perpetrating their crimes. It will, however, turn law-abiding New Yorkers into criminals overnight when enacted in a few months.

Gov. Hochul isn’t to be bothered with facts.  She doesn’t need the data or the science. She doesn’t even need to focus laws on holding criminals accountable. When it comes to gun rights, Gov. Hochul needs only the echo chamber of New York’s legislature to nod in agreement as they strip New Yorkers of their rights.

NYS Sheriffs: New gun laws unconstitutional by creating rules impossible to follow

New York State (WRGB) — Sheriffs from across New York State are coming out in force against gun laws passed by Governor Kathy Hochul (D-New York) and the state legislature, telling CBS 6 the governor violated the constitution in more than one way when passing new gun laws in a rush.

Peter Kehoe is Executive Director of the New York State Sheriff’s Association, which represents all 58 sheriffs across New York State.

Kehoe sat down with CBS 6’s Anne McCloy.

They wanted to make a political statement so they introduced the bill in the morning, passed it in the afternoon and signed it in the evening which is unheard of,” Kehoe said.

Anne: Did you have a chance to read the legislation before it went into law?
Kehoe: Absolutely not, and no one else did either. I think a lot of people didn’t see it until it was passed including the lawmakers.

Continue reading “”

Women Now Make Up the Largest Group of New Gun Owners

According to a recent study conducted by Harvard University, women now make up 42% of new gun owners accounting for nearly half of all new gun owners over the past 5-years. This number is up 14% from that same span of time and 3.5 million women joined the ranks of new gun owners between January 2019 and April 2021. An NSSF survey partially backs up this claim by the Harvard study by stating that 1/3rd of 2021’s new gun owners were women.

Keen observers of the firearms industry might have also noticed a distinct shift in the way that firearms companies are producing marketing material with many new products like the recent release of the PDP F Series being specifically marketed towards female shooters. Shooting organizations like “Shoot like a Girl” have also cropped up featuring female firearms instructors whose aim is to bring more women into shooting sports and provide them with a more comfortable environment to train in.

In the study conducted by Harvard University, one-quarter of the women surveyed said self-defense was the main reason they wanted to purchase a firearm for the first time with many citing the uptick in civil unrest and reduction of law enforcement assets during the summer of 2020. Another reason cited by many women as to why they’ve armed themselves is that many of them are now living alone and feel more comfortable having a firearm in the home for self-defense.

Regardless of what is spurring this increase in gun ownership amongst women, I think this is a net positive for the firearms industry as a whole and the women that the industry is trying to serve. Let us know if the ladies that you know are taking on an increased interest in firearms and what they are saying as to how or why they’re getting into firearms.

Arizona, Texas gun owners demonstrate the importance of armed self-defense

The national media can’t get enough of stories involving the criminal misuse of firearms, but they often fall strangely silent when it comes to armed citizens defending themselves or others. That appears to be the case with two recent incidents that unfolded in Harris County, Texas and Safford, Arizona this week. I’ve seen no mention of either story in any major national news outlet, despite the fact that both offer a pretty compelling narrative.

Let’s start with the defensive gun use in Harris County, where a woman is alive and well today thanks to the fact that her neighbor was able to protect her when her own son tried to kill her.

A mother was celebrating Independence Day at the Highland Cross Apartments when her son returned home, supposedly acting erratic and wielding a suspected AK-47.

Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez estimated more than 20 rounds were fired in an apartment with his mother inside. Those rounds hit at least two nearby apartments.

“The mother emerged from the house shortly thereafter. She was bleeding from the face. The male tracked his mother down outside here and was shooting her on her lower extremities when a neighbor arrived with his firearms and shot and killed the son,” said Sgt. Dennis Wolfford with the HCSO Homicide Unit.

The 58-year old woman is expected to survive her injuries, which almost certainly would not have been the case if good guy with a gun hadn’t shown up when he did.

At some point, the mother managed to get out of the apartment. That’s when another neighbor saw what was happening and grabbed his gun to try and help her.

Investigators said gunfire may have been exchanged between the son and the neighbor, but no one was hit.

The mother was trying to hide behind a tree, but the son found her and stood over her, firing several shots, deputies said.

That’s when the neighbor shot and killed the son, according to Sheriff Ed Gonzalez.

“The way the suspect was just firing indiscriminately, just point-blank shot the mother apparently as he stood over her, was a dangerous individual that likely could have continued shooting. He was already shooting. He damaged not only his apartment, but the neighbors,” Gonzalez said. “The neighbors are shaken up because a 16-year-old daughter was sitting at the table where the shots rang out into the main living area. Another apartment was also shot up. Thankfully, that owner, we’re told, was away from the apartment at the time.”

Meanwhile, in Safford, Arizona early Wednesday morning a couple were confronted in their home by a man with a knife. Unlike many home invasions and burglaries, the victims in this case recognized the intruder as their neighbor. Little did they know that by the time Miguel Garcia broke into their home he had already allegedly murdered someone in his own residence.

As the two homeowners fled into a bedroom, then later a bathroom, Garcia continued to approach saying that “they would have to kill him,” officers said.

One of the victims was able to retrieve a pistol and shot Garcia, killing him.

While trying to reach out to a next of kin to inform them of Garcia’s death, officers were unable to get a response and entered Garcia’s home. There, they found another victim dead in one of the home’s bedrooms.

Police did not share the victim’s identity or cause of death beyond being connected to Garcia.

In both of these cases simply calling 911 and waiting for police to respond likely would have resulted in officers arriving to the scene of a murder, rather than a clearly justifiable homicide. The ability of these armed citizens to access a firearm in defense of another or themselves was the key component in preventing the loss of life, which I suspect is the real reason why neither of these stories have received any real national attention by the media.

Actually everyone should prioritize it.

Conservatives Must Prioritize The Second Amendment
We need to look at all our civil and natural rights as being connected.

Without the right to defend ourselves, all other political battles become irrelevant. At different times, for different reasons, it is perfectly acceptable for different conservatives to prioritize different issues. But at no time should any conservative compromise on the right to self-defense.

Not only is the threat of a tyrannical government ever-present, but street violence is an ever-present danger, too. The threat to life posed by a rapist in the night is just as much a threat as that from a totalitarian regime. If the conservative movement really is a pro-family movement, then no law-abiding American citizen should be denied the right to protect himself and his family.

To compromise on gun rights is to necessarily compromise on abortion, taxes, immigration, school choice, welfare, right to work, and any other political issue. All other political questions are irrelevant if you and your family are at the mercy of a tyrannical government or a violent street thug. What good is your right to free speech if it can be taken away at a point of gun? What use is your right to life if you cannot defend yourself?

Americans understand we are born with rights and it is the duty of the government to preserve those rights. But as conservatives, we understand humans and human institutions cannot always be trusted. Americans understand we are born with rights and it is the duty of the government to preserve those rights. But as conservatives, we understand humans and human institutions cannot always be trusted. Yet, knowing human nature, we also know we can trust the government not to infringe our rights if we make the prospect of doing so too costly. Officials must know they can be held to account.

As we witnessed with the resent passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, Senate and House Republicans who campaigned on protecting the Second Amendment were not only willing but happy to give a win to the anti-gun left with a whole slew of new gun-control provisions for absolutely nothing in return. In fact, Utah’s Senator Mitt Romney wanted the deal to be even more extreme. Elected Republicans have this mentality because conservative voters have given them a pass to cut corners off the Second Amendment. So long as the left appears more radical than they are, voters think the GOP can do no wrong, even as our right to bear arms is eroded. They, and we, must learn you cannot claim to support the Second Amendment if you compromise on it.

If removing the right to defend yourself really made everyone safer, then perhaps the anti-gun groups would have a point. But it is just not true. According to the CDC’s analysis of several studies in 2013 during the Obama administration, there were “about 500,000 to more than 3 million” defensive gun uses per year. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives are saved by guns every year. Since nearly 70 percent of criminals committed their crimes with an illegally obtained firearm, more gun regulations will only hinder a minority of gun-related crimes.

In general, regulations only serve as barriers for lawful Americans ability to exercise their right to defend themselves and their families. Common gun-control initiatives, such as waiting periods and protracted background checks, can deny access to life-saving firearms. If a riot were to break out in your hometown, like the George Floyd riots of 2020, and you needed to protect your family that very day, a waiting period would make you and your family defenseless in your time of greatest need. Regulations like expanded background checks, which are already required for every retail gun purchase, serve as an excuse to deny Americans their rights; the background-check system is flawed, as about nine out of ten denials are the result of false positives. Additionally, the background-check system provides a paper trail so the government can expand its illegal registry of gun owners. An ATF official could easily search thousands of firearm records and produce a list of lawful gun owners’ home addresses with a simple use of Control+F. These records are the first step towards gun confiscation.

At its core, any call for gun regulation—be it on the right or left—ignores a far more worrisome problem: humanity’s capacity for evil. The anti-gun crowd targets the gun is because they are afraid of focusing on the true culprit in gun violence, namely, the person behind the gun. There is rarely an attempt to understand why a young man would become so twisted as to murder innocent children. The media and politicians gloss over that hard question and immediately jump to asking how soon they can pass the next useless firearm regulation.

We need a serious national conversation focusing on why a young man would commit such a vile act, not on how he accomplished it. Conservatives need to stop thinking gun rights are an issue about which we can compromise. Do not fall for the lie that we can give over our Second Amendment rights in exchange for a win on some other policy issue. We need to look at all our civil and natural rights as connected. Compromising with the left on the right to self-defense gives them the green light to stomp on everything else.

They’re also mistaken that the 2nd amendment ‘gives’ us rights.. Of course, even the Supreme Court, way back in the 1800s, properly recognized that it was a restriction, on the government, not the people!

What Liberals Get Wrong About the Second Amendment

Must we really respond to the “musket” argument again?Apparently so. It’s all the rage among Democrats right now.New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (Democrat) and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (Democrat) both think it’s quite brilliant to claim that, if we care what the framers of the Constitution meant, then the Second Amendment applies only to “muskets”!In The New York Times, a couple of professors (Democrats, but you knew that) asked: “Is a modern AR-15-style rifle relevantly similar to a Colonial musket? In what ways?” They liked their argument so much, the op-ed was titled, “A Supreme Court Head-Scratcher: Is a Colonial Musket ‘Analogous’ to an AR-15?“[Frantically waving my hand]: Yes, professors, it’s exactly analogous.The Second Amendment does not refer to “muskets”; it refers to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” “Bear” means to carry, so any handheld firearm carried by the military can be carried by the people. Just as the musket was once carried by our military, the AR-15 is a handheld arm (technically, the less powerful version of the automatic M-16) carried by our military today. As soon as the U.S. military goes back to muskets, then muskets it is!

But I’m not here to refute idiotic arguments. These guys may as well claim that the First Amendment protects only speech delivered in pamphlets and sermons, but nothing communicated on television, the internet, or with poster boards and Magic Markers.

The Second Amendment is nearly the only prescriptive policy in a document that liberals have been trying to pump their nutty ideas into for 50 years. Unfortunately for them, there’s nothing in the Constitution about a right to dance naked in strip clubs, contraception, marriage or sticking a fork in a baby’s head.

But on the right to bear arms, our Delphic framers were nearly Tolstoyian with their explosion of words: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (An earlier draft of the amendment specifically defined “militia” as “composed of the body of the people,” but was rejected as redundant.)

In the boldest affirmation of their worldview, the framers announced our natural, God-given right to self-defense — against the government, against criminals, and against assailants the government can’t or won’t stop. Free people prepared to defend themselves are the nucleus of the republic. It’s the most beautiful thing in the whole Constitution. Here, at last, the Founding Fathers told us something specific they want us to do: Teach the boys to shoot.

The “right to bear muskets” crowd — protected by taxpayer-supported armed guards, or cordoned off from the public by phalanxes of security officers in the lobby of, for example, NBC’s television studios in Rockefeller Center, before they return to their homes in crime-free, lily-white neighborhoods — tell us to focus on the freakishly rare mass shooting.

The highest estimates of mass shootings — including by gang warfare, drive-bys, drug wars and domestic murder-suicides — put the number of deaths at under 400 per year, or approximately the same number of Americans who drown in swimming pools every year. Four hundred, out of more than 20,000 murders annually.

Which is why, despite the media’s best effort to terrify suburban moms about weirdos shooting at crowds, nearly half of Americans prefer self-reliance to the government taking away our guns and promising to protect us.

In 2020, the Year of Our Floyd, gun sales went through the roof. The previous high for gun sales was in 2016, with about 16 million guns sold. But in 2020, as BLM tore through our cities, Americans bought 22.8 million guns. The following year saw the second-highest record for gun sales, at 19.9 million purchases.

By now, 44% of Americans report living in a gun-owning household. Thirty-two percent say they personally own a gun.

As much as I’d like to institutionalize the crazies — for their sake, as well as ours — the risks from bad faith actors at present are too high. With anti-gun zealots on the rampage and the U.S. attorney general siccing the FBI on parents who complain at local school board meetings, the most likely result would be marijuana-crazed schizophrenics continuing about their days unmolested, while gun owners get locked up.

In any event, it appears that the lunatics aren’t heavily armed, anyway. Here’s a demographic breakdown of gun ownership in 2022, according to Gallup:

Republicans 50%
Democrats 18%
Conservatives 45% (Oddly, Gallup calls them “self-identified conservatives,” as if Gallup would never use this cruel epithet without consent of the accused.)

Liberals 15%
Men 45%
Women 19%
Southerners 40%
Eastern residents 21%

Gallup left out one category. The subgroup most likely to own a whole buttload of guns, but not admit it: gang members and other recidivist felons protected by George Gascon and other Soros D.A.s.

Being a rational people, Americans are more worried about those guys than the random rifle-bearing psycho in a woman’s dress.

Russian Invasion Offered Hard Lesson on Gun Control, Ukrainian Says

Gun control in Ukraine has proved to be highly problematic in the wake of the Russian invasion, a Ukrainian activist told a gathering of journalists and friends of DonorsTrust in Washington recently.

Natalia Melnyk, communications director for the Ukraine-based Bendukidze Free Market Center, said that in Ukraine, before Russian President Vladimir Putin’s forces invaded, “You could not own handguns legally; only hunting weapons if you had a license.”

“All handguns were ‘award’ weapons, randomly distributed by our Ministry of Defense. Usually, you needed to have some connections to get these weapons,” she said at the event sponsored by DonorsTrust, a nonprofit libertarian- and conservative-leaning donor-advised fund.

Amid the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, Melnyk noted the development of arming citizens—but with restrictions and even then not all citizens.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

“In areas not under immediate attack, the government said to these territorial units, ‘If you are not under immediate danger of attack, please return the weapons. We will safely store them in a warehouse. If something happens, you can come and get them.’ Of course, [the Ukrainian people] said, ‘No, thank you.’”

Melnyk criticized the Ukrainian government’s move to arm citizens while at the same time imposing restrictions, such as mandatory storing of guns in a warehouse.

“We do see improvement, but it resembles two steps forward, one step back … because that idea about returning weapons is also very recent. We jumped from that idea to the idea that we do need weapons for self-defense,” she said.

The Ukrainian government is currently discussing further plans for arming citizens, Melnyk said in her June 16 remarks at the City Tavern Club in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington.

“It never was such a big issue in the broader Ukrainian society, because we were a peaceful nation,” she said. “A lot of people honestly believed [and] I was one of them: ‘Why would you need a weapon? We are not going to war, and if you are not a hunter … why do you need it?’”

But after the Russian invasion, “it appears we really do need it,” she said.

Melnyk described the cultural change toward caring about self-defense after Russia invaded. “It was nearly impossible to get a time slot at a shooting range because so many Ukrainians went in to learn how to actually handle a gun, because they have no idea,” she said.

“It’s not the case of the Ukrainian government sending Ukrainian people to die,” Melnyk told The Daily Signal, explaining a common misconception of those observing the Ukrainian crisis from the outside. “This is the conscious decision of thousands of Ukrainians to protect their freedom, protect their land, and to protect the future of their children.”

Highland Park Mayor Rotering Says the Nation Is ‘Enslaved to Guns,’ Calls for Nationwide Ban

The disconnected and feckless responses of local leadership to the shootings in their cities over the July 4th weekend have been nothing short of abysmal. If you do a perusal of the cities that suffered violence this past weekend, you’ll find that the majority are run by Democrats.

Color me shocked.

My colleague Sister Toldjah wrote about the truly disgraceful and tone-deaf response by Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney to a mass shooting in Philadelphia.

During a press conference, Kenney – after going on a rant about gun violence – essentially told a CBS Philly reporter in so many words “f*** it, I can’t wait to get out of here” because he could never stop worrying about what would happen next in the city that elected him:

“There’s not an event or a day where I don’t lay on my back and look at the ceiling and worry about stuff. So everything we have in the city over the last seven years, I worry about. I don’t enjoy Fourth of July, I don’t enjoy the Democratic National Convention. I didn’t enjoy the NFL draft. I’m waiting for something bad to happen all the time. So I’ll be happy when I’m not here, when I’m not mayor and I can enjoy some stuff.”

When he was asked to confirm that he was “looking forward to not being mayor,” Kenney responded with a smile and said “yeah.”

He’s a Democrat, of course.

Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering is no better. Instead of updating the national press about the ongoing investigation into shooter, Robert “Bobby” Crimo, and the state of the survivors, Rotering is pushing the gun control narrative, complaining to NBC’s Meet the Press NOW that this nation has not done enough to stop gun violence.

“People need to recognize these guns are absolutely meant to destroy human life. And again, I question national leadership’s decision to allow these to continue to be in the United States.”

It’s as if Rotering thinks Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer can just wave a magic wand and make them all go away. Rotering acts like there is no such thing as the Constitution and the Second Amendment, let alone human agency and free will. Not to mention those pesky Supreme Court decisions from Heller to Bruen which continue to uphold that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The founders failed to include a mass shooter clause, much to the Democrats’ chagrin.

At least Rotering admits that Illinois and Highland Park already had gun control measures in place before the July 4th shooting occurred.

As much good as it did them.

Continue reading “”

Well, it’s not the guns that are the problem. It’s the hands the guns are in.

When Gun Laws Don’t Prevent Gun Crime

On Monday, in the city of Highland Park, Ill., a deranged goblin of a man opened fire on a July 4 parade, killing seven innocent people and wounding three dozen others. After an intense search, the culprit was apprehended and taken into custody. Yet again, a mass shooting has sullied America.

And, yet again, it is unclear what lawmakers can do to prevent the next one. Just weeks ago, the Senate passed a gun-control bill that Chris Murphy described as “the most significant piece of anti-gun violence legislation in nearly 30 years.”

Today, posturing as if nothing has been done recently, Democrats are asking for more. But what, exactly, does that mean? A red-flag law? Illinois already has one. A permitting system for the purchase and ownership of guns? Illinois has that, too. “Universal” background checks? That’s already Illinois law. What about “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines? Highland Park has banned both since 2013. Concealed carry?

That was prohibited at the parade under an Illinois law that renders it illegal to carry firearms at “any public gathering held pursuant to a license issued by any governmental body.” Straw purchasing? That’s already illegal, and, besides, the gun was obtained legally. Can the courts be blamed, perhaps? They cannot. In 2015, the Seventh Circuit upheld Highland Park’s ban on “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines, and the Supreme Court then declined to take up the case. As for Heller, McDonald, and Bruen — thus far, nothing that has flowed from them even intersected with this case.

California added Montana to a list of states banned from state-funded travel in 2021.
Because they are, relatively speaking, so rare and so unpredictable — and because America is so free — mass shootings remain one of the most intractable forms of crime. The ubiquity of firearms all but guarantees that a person who wishes to obtain one will do so before too long. The breadth of the First Amendment makes it tough to track threatening or unusual conversations. Absent a set of reforms that would gut the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, there is no way for American authorities to keep tabs on everyone who comes across as a little weird.

But if states are going to institute systems designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, it is not too much to ask that they use them. In the aftermath of almost every mass shooting, we learn that the suspect was “known to authorities” — which, in almost every case, means that the shooter was known to his community, too.

And so it was here. The Highland Park shooter did not spring ex nihilo from the shadows; he repeatedly telegraphed his intentions. In one video, uploaded in August 2021, he foreshadowed his attack on the July 4 parade. In another, he dramatized a school shooting. In a third, he fantasized about getting into a shooting war with police. Per officials in the city, local cops had interacted with him twice in 2019 — once when he attempted suicide, and once when he threatened to “kill everyone” and had 16 knives, a dagger, and a sword confiscated as a result. Illinois has a broad “red flag” law in place, and it requires gun buyers to have a current permit. Why, we must ask, did these incidents not trigger prophylactic action?

We would put a similar question to the press. Study after study after study shows that mass shootings are highly “contagious,” and that, as NPR put it in 2019, “intensive media coverage seems to drive the contagion.” This is a free country, and its media must be free to act as they see fit. But perhaps they could see fit to take that into account? As of Tuesday afternoon, every major press outlet in the United States remains fixated upon the shooter. In our fame-drunk culture, this indulgence can be deleterious. A little less of it would be welcome. As a matter of course, we ask gun owners to be responsible, and we ask citizens to be vigilant. Is it too much to ask the press whether the need to squeeze a few extra clicks out of a story is worth the risk of encouraging the next shooter?

And beyond that? Beyond that, Americans would do well to set incidents such as this one in their proper context. Random acts of violence are, indeed, terrifying, but they are terrifying because they are so rare. When allocating our limited time and resources, we ought to remember that while the most spectacular criminals garner all the attention, a devastating attrition continues unabated in the background. On the day before the shooting in Highland Park, 15 people were killed in Chicago.

Thus far in 2022, there have been 250 murders in Philadelphia, 175 murders in Los Angeles, and 102 murders in Washington, D.C. Bringing down those numbers will take hard work, intelligent policing, a willingness to enforce the laws already on the books, and a commitment to engaging with the problem in its most common form — and not just when it provides clicks, outrage, and a chance to poke one’s political enemies in the eye.

Why the Second Amendment Applies Especially to Travelers

The United States Supreme Court has defended and restored the bear half of the right to keep and bear arms, in the recent Bruen decision.

Much work remains to be done. It is clear that the people have a right to bear arms outside the home. One of the major purposes is for the defense of self and others.

An area left undefined in Bruen is the right to bear arms in defense of self and others while traveling, particularly while traveling across state lines.

There was no prohibition on carrying arms at the time of ratification in 1791. Carrying arms for defense, while traveling, was common and accepted. Even the strictest colonial restrictions on the bearing of arms, the East New Jersey law, enacted in 1686, had an exception for people who were traveling. The colonial law, which was in effect for about six years, was cited by both sides in the Bruen decision: From  P. 6 of amicus curiae briefs on Bruen. 

Continue reading “”

Hmmmm. Pritzker is wrong. I guarantee, with near metaphysical certitude, he knows he’s wrong too and is simply lying because he thinks that most people are too stupid to realize he’s lying.

Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans…. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people  —Tench Coxe ( a member of the “second rank” of this nation’s Founders and a leading proponent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote prolifically about the right to keep and bear arms

Illinois Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker: Founding Fathers Would Not Support ‘Constitutional Right to an Assault Weapon’

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) reacted to the Highland Park parade attack during a Monday press conference by suggesting America’s Founding Fathers would not support a “constitutional right to own an assault weapon.”

Pritzker tweeted a video of his comments on the attack, saying, in part, “Our Founders carried muskets, not assault weapons, and I don’t think a single one of them would have said that you have a constitutional right to an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine.”

In another portion of his comments Pritzker said, “It does not have to be this way, and yet we as a nation, well, we continue to allow this to happen. While we celebrate the Fourth of July just once a year, mass shootings have become … our weekly American tradition.”

The muskets used by the Founding Fathers–the muskets they used to defeat the British military and secure freedom–were very much like the military-issue muskets British Redcoats used when shooting at colonists and members of George Washington’s forces.

U.S. House candidate and former Navy SEAL Eli Crane reacted to Pritzker’s statement on muskets vs. “assault weapons” by telling Breitbart News, “The gap between the firepower of U.S. citizens and the military now is far greater than the gap that existed between colonists and the combination of regimented and ad hoc military forces that had just defeated Britain.

“Think about it. The military has Predator drones–that can drop a Hellfire missile and erase your home without you even knowing it was above you–and they have nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers. Now compare that to what we’re allowed to own today. There’s just no comparison. The American people are greatly outgunned by the 21st century military, far more so than were the colonists in the 18th century.”

No, We Don’t Want Women to Have the Same Rights as Guns

Nearly every time the pro-life movement achieves a significant legislative or judicial victory, progressives create either memes or protest signs riffing on conservatives’ commitment to gun rights. These takes were out in full force after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, both because of the magnitude of that ruling and because the previous day, in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court struck down a New York law that required individuals to demonstrate a need to carry guns outside the home.

Leftists on Twitter said they wished that “women in America had the same rights as a gun.” They must have tweeted these wishes in fits of passion without really thinking about them, because putting women on the same legal footing as guns would be pretty sexist. If Democrats had their way in Bruen, women would have to demonstrate to the government a need to leave their homes. Here’s what else would happen if we were to treat women like guns:

Men would need a permit to bring women outside the home. While Bruen made it unconstitutional for the government to require people to demonstrate a need to carry guns beyond their doorstep, most states in the union require gun-owners to possess concealed-carry permits. The requirements for these permits vary from state to state, but most require applicants to be a minimum age (usually 18 or 21) and take a class on firearm safety. Putting such regulations on women going beyond their doorstep would seem more fitting for a country like Afghanistan than for the United States.

Women would not be allowed to attend school. We often hear about gun-free zones after school shootings. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 criminalizes the possession or discharge of a firearm in a school zone. If we were to treat women like guns, K–12 schools would become “woman-free zones.” Similarly there are many college campuses that do not allow students to carry on campus. There were times in our country’s history when men and women were not allowed to attend school together, and those were not good times. Progressives describe the decision in Dobbs as “going backwards,” but that would be more apt if we treated women the same as guns.

Women could be bought and sold. If we are worried about objectifying women, calling to give them the same rights as literal objects is not helpful.

In short, this idea that “women should have the same rights as guns” would be more like The Handmaid’s Tale than any pro-abortion caricature of pro-life legislation ever imagined. Our political slogans are not meant to be the height of discourse, but we should expect them to be minimally coherent.

Hmmmm. Didn’t know they had one. Oops! I been a baaaad boy.

The Second Amendment Isn’t Only Guns: Virginia’s Switch Blade Ban Died Today.

Knife Rights’ Virginia Switchblade Ban Repeal Bill, SB 758, is effective today (July 1). The possession, carry, sale, purchase and manufacture of automatic (switchblade) knives will be legal in the state.

NOTE: The concealed carry knife bans in Virginia, including of switchblade (automatic) knives, will still remain in effect: “If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, … or (v) any weapon of like kind as those enumerated in this subsection…”

Holding a Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit doesn’t allow concealed carry of an automatic (switchblade) knife.

Knife Rights will never stop until all archaic knife restrictions in Virginia are repealed.

With the repeal in Virginia, only five states remain with a complete ban on civilian possession of switchblade (automatic) knives. Knife Rights has led the effort to repeal switchblade bans or restrictions in 19 states, starting with New Hampshire in 2010. Repeals have since been enacted in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

Altogether, Knife Rights’ efforts have resulted in 39 bills repealing knife bans in 25 states and over 150 cities and towns since 2010.

Poll finds opposition to SCOTUS’ Second Amendment ruling

The reason the Supreme Court is appointed for a lifetime term is so they won’t have to consider public sentiment on controversial issues like, say, guns. Once they’re confirmed, they can’t be removed simply because their findings aren’t popular.

Yet that won’t stop some from looking to see how people feel about rulings made by the Court.

In a recent poll, there appear to be some interesting takes regarding guns.

The Monmouth poll shows just what restrictions people favor, including 60 percent saying they support a national gun registry, as one example.

It also found 83 percent support, to some degree, universal background checks.

Now, in the past, I’ve been critical of how these questions are asked, but Monmouth phrased it as, “Do you support or oppose requiring comprehensive background checks for all gun purchasers, including private sales between two individuals?”

That, at least, removes any ambiguity, so while I oppose the policy, I can at least accept the number.

The poll also argues that most disagree with the Bruen decision.

They asked respondents, “Do you agree or disagree that individual states should be allowed to limit who can carry a concealed handgun by requiring permit applicants to demonstrate that they need the weapon for their work or for protection?”

It found that 56 percent agree that states should be able.

On this, though, there is some ambiguity. The problem is that the phrase “for protection” isn’t quite how things worked. You had to show a specific reason why you needed to be able to protect yourself, as opposed to everyone else.

I suspect at least some of that 56 percent are supportive of a more general idea of “for protection” than the now overturned law allowed.

But not all of the poll’s findings are distinctly anti-gun.

Meanwhile, they also found that 63 percent feel that the law will either make them safer or have no impact on public safety, with just three percent saying they don’t know.

As for the subject of mass shootings, Monmouth asked, “Do you think the number of recent mass shootings in the U.S. is due more to the ease of getting guns or due more to a mental health crisis in the country?”

55 percent said it was the result of a mental health crisis compared to just 33 percent who blamed easy access to firearms, with 9 percent saying it was both.

The poll also looked at why those who admitted to having a gun decided to have one, with “personal safety” and “protect my property” both being a major reason for most of the respondents.

“[D]efend again possible government tyranny” was only a major reason for 28 percent. Yet it was noted as a minor reason for another 23 percent.

So what does any of this mean?

Well, for one thing, we haven’t done a good enough job educating the general populace about the benefits of firearm ownership, nor of the fact that gun control simply does not work. We also haven’t done a very good job of educating people about the importance of their rights as a whole. Far too many are apparently willing to deal their rights away for the illusion of safety, not recognizing that the illusion masks something far more sinister.

We all–and I’m looking at myself–need to do better about that.