Of Course Violence against Government Can Be Justified

The media have been making a big deal over a Washington Post/University of Maryland poll which finds that 34 percent of Americans believe violence can be justified against the government. It’s a poll meant to feed the hysteria over the Capitol Hill riot and embarrass Republicans into supporting “voting rights” bills and so on.

Despite the framing of most reaction stories, the question wasn’t about January 6. It was: “Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government, or is it never justified?”

Ever? Of course it is. It’s a failure of our civic education that 100 percent of respondents didn’t answer yes. The ability to resist a tyrannical government is a foundational American idea. It was the justification for the founding revolution. It, not hunting or skeet shooting, is the core reason for existence of the Second Amendment — which, Joseph Story, an associate Supreme Court justice, said best, “offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers.”

Incidentally, the participants were asked to provide instances when violence against the state would be justified, and all of them are perfectly reasonable:

Government violates or takes away rights or freedoms/Oppresses people – 22 percent

Government no longer a democracy/ Becomes a dictatorship/Coup/ Military takes over – 15 percent

Government violates constitution — 13 percent

Government abuses power/Tyranny — 12 percent

Government is violent against citizens/Safety at risk – 11 percent

Contemporary liberals often view this form of rhetoric as an endorsement of treason because they view our rights as an arbitrary and malleable cluster of edicts handed down by the government. What sneering contemporary critics fail to comprehend is that the founding generation believed that those who would undermine the universal and inalienable liberties of the people laid out in the Constitution were traitors.

Now, I don’t believe there was any justification for the rioting on January 6. But if the Post was interested in extracting even marginally useful information, it would have asked if people thought there was a justification for January 6 violence, rather than a separate question about the veracity of the 2020 election followed by a broad question on violent resistance. Though a specific question almost certainly wouldn’t have brought back the intended result.

Trending Data Among Women First-Time Gun Owners

According to the NSSF, approximately 11 million Americans purchased their first firearm in the past 2 years, and it is estimated that half of them were women. A Girl & A Gun Women’s Shooting League (AG & AG) polled new members who were new gun owners to learn more about them. This article provides trending data among this demographic.

AG & AG offered the same survey to new members over the past two years. If a woman indicated she was a new shooter (acquiring a firearm within the past year), she was asked additional follow-up questions. The responses for the new-shooter specific questions totaled 1,176 women responses in 2020 and 1,706 in 2021, providing a good glimpse into general trends of this specific demographic.

Continue reading “”

It appears that West -By God- Virginia has a Second Amendment Protection Act law not unlike Missouri and a few other states.


AG offers guidance on handling gun law conflicts

CHARLESTON — A state law passed early in 2021 regarding federal gun laws now has related policy guidelines.

House Bill 2694 stipulates that state gun laws will trump federal gun laws and no West Virginia law enforcement agency on any level “shall participate in enforcement efforts focused on federal gun control measures when those laws conflict with state laws regarding firearms.”

“The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution,” Attorney General Morrisey said Thursday when announcing the guidelines. “Yet, there is a deep concern on the part of many Americans that the federal government will try to encroach on our Constitutional rights through presidential executive orders or through acts of Congress. The publication of this guidance will help our state’s law enforcement understand what they can and cannot do in this respect under West Virginia statute.”

Morrisey said enforcement of federal firearms laws is a federal responsibility, not the responsibility of West Virginia law enforcement agencies when federal gun laws are in conflict with state Code.

For example, he said, a West Virginia state or local law enforcement agency, department or officer “may not assist federal authorities in executing an arrest warrant just for violation of federal gun laws when the person to be arrested may lawfully possess such firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition under state law.”

The new law also provides that no member of state or local law enforcement may be required to act in a law enforcement capacity to enforce a federal statute, executive order, agency order, rule or regulation determined by the West Virginia Attorney General to infringe upon citizens’ Second Amendment rights, Morrisey said.

Law enforcement officers are also protected and cannot be terminated or decertified for refusing to enforce a “federal statute, executive order, agency order, rule or regulation determined by the West Virginia Attorney General to infringe upon citizens’ Second Amendment rights.”

“This guidance from the Attorney General on HB 2694 will help protect West Virginia from new federal gun control schemes, and ensure our law enforcement officers are immune from retaliation for defending the Second Amendment rights of all West Virginians,” Kevin Patrick, vice president of the West Virginia Citizens Defense League, said in the announcement.

West Virginia Sheriffs Association Executive Director Rodney Miller said the move is fully supported.

“Law enforcement across West Virginia wholeheartedly supports the Second Amendment and lawful possession of firearms by our citizens and are happy to have joined the Legislature, the Attorney General and concerned gun groups in this effort to ensure that responsible firearm ownership is defended without question,” he said. “We, as citizens of this state, are concerned with overreach that could deny all of us the ability to lawfully possess firearms and utilize them as proud Mountaineers have always done responsibly.”

The policy guidance is posted on the Attorney General’s website (https://bit.ly/3zagUlE) and is being sent to state and local law enforcement agencies.

Carrying a Gun Is Part of Being a ‘Free American’

Breitbart News interviewed Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) at Turning Point USA’s Americafest and he told us carrying guns for self-defense is critical to the American experience because the founders placed such high value on life.

We asked Biggs, “Why is it important that I can own a gun, carry a gun, that your wife can own a gun, carry a gun, that my wife can do the same. Why is this important?”

He responded by pointing out two reasons, the first of which he described as the “philosophical reason.”

Biggs outlined, “The Founders said this is what we need to have to preserve a free form of government. Their position was, you need to be able to have this militia, this group of citizens, because you don’t want the government to be putting their thumb down on you, because they are just coming out of King George doing that, so that’s number one.”

He then explained: “The second thing is when you start talking about my wife or me or someone else, we’re talking about self-defense, and the first liberty is the right to life. So, if you can’t defense yourself against the bad guys you start looking like the 12 cities in America that have the highest homicide rate in their history.”

Biggs added, “You don’t want to look like that. You don’t want to look like Venezuela. You want to be a free American and the way to be free and reduce crime is to allow people to carry guns.”

Regarding Biggs’ reference of 12 cities that broke their annual homicide records in 2021, ABC News listed those 12 cities but omitted the fact that they are all Democrat-controlled.

The cities are:

  • Albuquerque, New Mexico
  • Austin, Texas
  • Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  • Columbus, Ohio
  • Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Louisville, Kentucky
  • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Portland, Oregon
  • Rochester, New York
  • St. Paul, Minnesota
  • Toledo, Ohio
  • Tucson, Arizona

Gun Rights 101: Firing Back Against Gun Control’s Biggest Lies Paperback – November 25, 2021

Being hailed as “the holy grail for Second Amendment supporters,” Gun Rights 101 offers Second Amendment supporters of all levels an easy to read guide to expand their gun rights knowledge and train themselves to confidently fireback against any gun grabber.

foreword was written by Lieutenant Colonel Allen B. West:

The history of the successful rise of tyranny, totalitarianism, and despotic rule always begins with a common action, disarming the people.

Our Founding Fathers learned an important lesson from April 19, 1775, Lexington Green. That lesson is, an armed individual is a citizen; an unarmed citizen is a subject.

Hence why the Second Amendment, in those first ten called the individual Bill of Rights, of our Constitution is the right of citizens to keep and
bear arms; a right that shall not be infringed.

Sadly, the totalitarians of the American progressive socialist left seek, like their global comrades, to undermine this right.

That’s why Tyler Yzaguirre’s book, Gun Rights 101, is vital for constitutional, liberty minded Americans. It’s a simple read that arms you with the knowledge to dispel the leftists’ talking points. If we are to preserve this Constitutional Republic for future generations, Tyler’s book enables such.

I recommend you read, study, and prepare yourself to defeat the leftists’ intent to relegate you being a subject.

Gun Rights 101 is an excellent quick-reference primer and effective conversation starter.” – Cheryl Todd, DC Project

Gun Rights 101… is a useful resource!” – Philip Van Cleave, Virginia Citizens Defense League

Tyler’s endless passion for defending your freedoms is his life’s work and it has been printed in black and white for you to reference and learn from.” – Mitch Denham, Delaware Gun Rights Founder & President

Come and Take It: Canadians Aren’t Complying with New Gun Law

Well, good on ya, Canada. It seems the motto ‘come and take it’ isn’t unique to just Americans. Our neighbors to the north have a new gun law. It’s something that anti-gun liberals want here nationwide. All Canadians that owned firearms that have been included in the nation’s latest ban on so-called assault weapons must turn them over to authorities. The only problem is that they’re not doing it (via The Reload):

Few gun owners are turning in weapons recently been made illegal by the Canadian government.

That’s according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). They said Canadians had only turned in 160 of the recently-outlawed firearms for destruction since the announcement of the ban.

“The Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) can confirm that, as of December 9, 2021, 18 firearms (formerly classified as restricted) affected by the May 1, 2020 Order in Council (OIC) have been deactivated,” Sgt. Caroline Duval, an RCMP spokesperson, told iPolitics on Friday. “In addition, there have been 142 OIC-affected firearms recorded as surrendered to a public agency for destruction since May 1, 2020.”

The announcement comes as the April 2022 deadline for the “assault weapon” confiscation order rapidly approaches. The Canadian government’s plan to collect the affected weapons has been rife with problems since it was announced. Consulting fees and enforcement planning have resulted in a bloated budget before even a single weapon has been “bought back,” and a concrete plan for the buyback program is yet to be finalized. It now appears affected gun owners are hesitant to give up their guns.

The difficulties experienced by the Canadian effort and a similar gun confiscation effort in New Zealand may impact the debate over implementing a similar policy in the United States. While gun-control advocates have shunned confiscation policies in the past, some Democrats have warmed to the idea of taking AR-15s and similar guns in recent years. Congressman Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) wrote an op-ed in favor of confiscation in 2018. Vice President Kamala Harris said she supports a mandatory buyback scheme similar to Canada’s policy during a 2020 presidential primary forum hosted by gun-control group March for Our Lives. Beto O’Rourke garnered much attention when he declared, “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47” during the same campaign. He has stuck with the policy since entering the 2022 Texas gubernatorial race despite the idea polling poorly.

It seems the only people who have willingly turned over their firearms are the Australians. As the publication noted, buybacks are hardly a guarantee—they mostly fail as well. These are also commonly owned firearms in the United States. Millions own AR-15 rifles for hunting, target practice, and for self-defense. There are millions of so-called high-capacity magazines as well which makes laws against those items illogical as well. Liberals deem a 15-round magazine to be high-capacity. It’s commonplace. In a year where the credibility around government authority has been shattered by serial abuse due to the COVID pandemic, I don’t blame anyone who is just finished complying with mandates.

New laws aren’t about gun owner’s responsibilities

It’s been said that all rights come with responsibilities, and it’s something I thoroughly agree with. You have a right to free speech, but a responsibility to use that responsibly. For gun owners, you have the right to keep and bear arms, but you have an obligation to exercise that responsibility.

This isn’t a controversial point of view, all things considered. Oh, we might debate what one’s responsibilities are as a firearm owner, but I think just about everyone agrees that they exist.

So when the editorial board of the Salt Lake Tribune wrote a headline saying, “The right to bear arms comes with responsibilities, the Editorial Board writes,” I didn’t worry too much.

Then I read it and realized they have a different view of responsibilities than I do.

There are no rights that do not come with responsibilities.

It is no threat to the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to expect people who own firearms to keep their weapons in such a way that they are not likely to fall into the hands of criminals, children or others who have no business bearing them.

As reported recently by The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah is seeing a troublesome surge in both the number of guns stolen and the number of homicides committed with guns. The former statistic jumped 48% from 2011 to 2020, while the latter number tripled. Gun sales are also up sharply and, while that’s not a crime, connecting the dots strongly suggests that many of the people who legally own firearms are not living up to the responsibility of keeping the community safe from their misuse.

There have been attempts in the Utah Legislature to make responsible gun ownership not just a civic responsibility but also a legal obligation. Sadly, but not surprisingly, every attempt to mandate that gun owners secure their arms, or to make giving or lending a gun to someone who later uses in it the commission of a crime something that a person can be sued for, is rejected on the flawed argument that it would impinge on the rights of gun owners.

Of course, the Tribune editorial board doesn’t see an issue with turning a responsibility into a legal obligation. I sure as hell do.

You see, for one thing, we don’t always agree on what’s a responsibility and what isn’t. For another, what makes sense for one person doesn’t make sense for another.

Firearm thefts are up, but how many of those thefts included guns with some kind of gun lock on them? Many gun owners use those simply because gun safes are big, heavy, and expensive. They’re not an option for a lot of people.

Besides, most mandatory storage laws actually accept the locks as being safely stored.

Yet those locks are relatively easy to defeat if one is given enough time.

See, it’s easy to blame gun owners for the problem and to try to push for some law to make them do what you think is right, but what none of those people ever bother to ask is why are you trying to punish the victims of these thefts, anyway?

Honestly, this idea that gun owners are responsible for gun thefts in some way just sounds an awful lot like telling a woman if she hadn’t been in that part of town dressed that way, she wouldn’t have been raped.

Now, I’m a proponent of securing your weapons when not in use. I actually do think it’s the responsible thing to do. But when it gets mandated, it no longer becomes something you can adjust due to your circumstances. You can’t leave a gun available for your responsible teenager to use to defend themselves from a home invasion. You can no longer keep them in various parts of your home in case you need one and can’t make it to where your weapon is secured.

It removes all ability of the gun owner to determine their own needs.

The truth of the matter is that this isn’t about responsibilities. That’s just a frame the Tribune thought to use in order to make their screed less objectionable. The problem for them is that we see through that kind of thing.

For them, our responsibilities are whatever they say they are and we either do it their way or we’re scum.

I’d say the scum are the people who think they get a say in what we do in our own homes.

The Times May Be A-Changin’

Over time, we’ve seen changes in focus by the hoplophobic elements of society. Originally, it was all about banning handguns or at least “Handgun Control Inc.” The “assault weapon”, that is, the AR ban of 1994-2004 followed, with no discernible effect on crime, homicide, etc. Movement mutation continued, with groups dropping wording advocating bans, moving to claims of fighting pure “violence” and promoting gun “safety”.

Now they want to address “root causes” of violence instead of just restricting legal gun ownership, though still advocating extending background checks while “not taking anyone’s guns”. Intervening within high-crime communities, and with those at high risk of committing and becoming victims of violence, is appropriate, though far more difficult than they may imagine.

Throughout, we’ve had no reason to believe that these anti-gun activists have had any real change of heart. Their “conversation” always comes around to the desirability of somehow limiting the rights of law-abiding American gun owners in some way, even if in “just” creating more hoops to jump through in order to purchase, keep or bear our arms.

However, there is a fundamental factor that will trump all their intentions, both open and disguised. That is us, the people (and voters) of democracies. As Andrew Breitbart famously said, “Politics follows culture” and culture is changing. Much of this is due to the past 2 years of violence approved and applauded by “progressive” politicians who thought this would garner minority votes. Their groupthink about ethnicity blinded them to the reality that people of all ethnicities, communities and societies want crime stopped lest it hit them.

People are simultaneously realizing that they can’t count on being protected and must plan to do that for themselves. Thus the huge rise in gun purchases by more diverse buyers than ever, including women, minorities (especially African-American women) and self-described liberals. It’s been speculated that this increase in valuing self-protection with firearms may transfer to an increase in valuing Second Amendment rights—and now, that’s no longer speculation.

The Trafalgar Group, a non-partisan polling operation, just released a poll in which over 84% of respondents believed that “strict gun laws” either make no difference in or worsen the current surge in retail thefts. Less than 16% believed such laws can make this better.

In November, Quinnipiac found that 48% of those surveyed opposed stricter gun laws versus 47% who support them—following a trend beginning in 2015, now over the tipping point to plurality opposition. Gallup’s polling in November correlates, with a new low of only 52% of Americans caring that “laws covering the sale of firearms” should be stricter (down from a high of 64% in 2019, falling through 57% in 2020).

Meanwhile, ABC/Ipsos found that 66% of Americans disapprove of how President Biden is addressing gun violence (which could imply wanting more or less strict laws). Republicans’ opposition to more gun laws has strengthened, Democrats’ preference for more strict gun laws is lessening, predictably. But the most important political demographic—independents—have shifted dramatically in favor of, shall we say, individual independence on this issue.

In the latest National Firearms Survey published in July 2021, nearly 1/3 of respondents acknowledged owning guns, more than half of those carry them and almost 1/of them reported having to use them defensively in one or more of the estimated nearly 1.7 million episodes of self-defense. In 82% of these DGUs, it wasn’t necessary to fire. Almost 80% of these incidents occurred in the defender’s home or on their property, with the rest mostly occurring in public or at work, still a very substantial number.

NSSF also found that 49% more Hispanic Americans (no, none use “Latinx”) purchased firearms in 2020 than in 2019. With 40% of all gun purchases during the past 2 years coming from new gun owners, it’s no surprise that Hispanics (as well as African-Americans) are increasingly voting more for individual rights than for government “protection”.  In Berkeley, California, of all places, the Latino Rifle Association has grown by hundreds of members since 2020. Its “leftists . . . socialists, progressives” members realize that “The police and the government aren’t taking care of me, so I have to do things on my own.”

Funny thing, that’s what conservatives have recognized for generations. And a much bigger organization, the National African-American Gun Association, has added tens of thousands of new members since 2016, accelerating (along with many local gun clubs oriented toward minorities) during the past 2 years.

Even our less demonstrative Anglophone cousins, Canadians and Kiwis, aren’t cooperating any more with government orders to turn in their newly banned guns than Americans have. Neither are turning in their formerly legal, acceptable firearms—only 160 of an estimated 100,000 affected firearms have been surrendered in Canada in a year and a half. In New Zealand, the 2019 ban of most repeating arms “has had no impact on a rise in gun crime and violence”, except for a steadily increasing rate of the offense of still possessing such firearms.

This is precisely the cultural change that precedes and triggers political change. Most Americans already knew that protecting individual rights is the uncompromisable basis of the success of American society and polity. Many others know that now and more are learning. While Donald Trump improved the Republican share of the Black and Hispanic votes (especially among men), this wasn’t about him or the party. It is about the importance of each person’s rights as an American.

Most expect that the Supreme Court will affirm the Second Amendment with a ruling in Bruen voiding New York City’s may- (= non-) issue handgun carry permitting, along with the 8 other states that persist in that tyranny. The “progressive” left will keep caterwauling if they don’t get their way. But should the decision go otherwise, their wailing would be nothing compared to the anger of the majority who are now convinced that individual rights are more important than political correctness. And that would assuredly lead to even greater political change in favor of ensuring those rights.

To paraphrase St. George Tucker, “the true palladium of liberty” isn’t just “the right of self-defence.” The right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and opposing tyranny is necessary to a free people in a free state. But it is a means to the goal, along with representative democracy lustily embraced, which is “to keep our republic” (h/t B. Franklin). The ultimate mark of liberty is individual autonomy, where the rights of the individual are placed above government’s privileges, which are only bestowed by us individuals.

Prospects for Constitutional Carry in 2022

At the start of 2021 there were 16 members of the Constitutional Carry club in the United States of America. They were:

  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • Idaho
  • Kansas
  • Kentucky
  • Maine
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • New Hampshire
  • North Dakota
  • Oklahoma
  • South Dakota
  • Vermont
  • West Virginia
  • Wyoming

2021 was a record year for Constitutional Carry. In 2021, five states joined the Constitutional Carry club, increasing membership from 16 to 21. The last and largest state to join the club was Texas. The four other states to join the club in 2021 were Tennessee, Iowa, Montana, and Utah.

Several other states are working to pass Constitutional Carry bills. Here are states and possibilities for Constitutional Carry in 2022.

Continue reading “”

Biden’s voodoo crime control: Americans have more reason to own a gun than ever before

President Biden has returned to an old standby for liberal crime fighters — more gun control.

This month, the president used the anniversary of the Sandy Hook shootings to push gun-control legislation that included expanded background checks and $5 billion for community “anti-violence programs.” He assured us that all were “commonsense” measures.

Funny how new gun control proposals are always commonsensical. Whatever background checks we have, they always need to be expanded. Giving money to community programs (read: social spending) is one of the left’s favorite anti-crime measures.

Crime has reached epidemic proportions, and not just crimes committed with guns. Property theft is up. (A new expression has been added to the vocabulary — “snatch and grab.”) The elderly are assaulted on city streets. Women are raped on train cars. The murder of police officers has become routine.

In 2021, 12 major cities, all with Democratic mayors, had record-breaking homicides.

As of Dec. 17, there were 535 murders in Philadelphia, exceeding the previous record of 500 in 1990. Portland, St. Paul and Chicago were among the other winners of the homicide sweepstakes.

To all of this, the Democrats have a set of standard responses — deny, deflect and play dumb.

Earlier this month, Larry Krasner (“Let ‘em Loose Larry”), Philly’s radical district attorney, said there wasn’t an overall crisis of crime in the City of Brotherly Love. (“Basically, we don’t have a crisis of lawlessness. We don’t have a crisis of crime. We don’t have a crisis of violence.”) Mr. Krasner later tried to walk it back, to still the uproarious laughter.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi confessed, “The fact is there is an attitude of lawlessness in our country that springs from I don’t know where.”

Her feigned ignorance is understandable.

The crime wave washing over our cities is due to policies and causes championed by her party and her “just perfect” president — including defunding and demonizing the police, ending cash bail, reducing felonies to misdemeanors, loosening borders and allowing the mob free-rein during last year’s riots.

As business districts went up in flames, police were attacked and stores were looted, Democratic officeholders either ignored the mob or cheered it on. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey helpfully observed: “Yes, America is burning, but that’s how forests grow.” Chaos in the streets is also how totalitarian movements grow, like the Bolsheviks in 1917 and the Nazis in 1933.

As a candidate, Mr. Biden avoided commenting on the orgy of violence until polls showed him losing on the issue. Even then, he repudiated it only in the most general terms, never mentioning BLM or antifa.

The president’s open-borders debacle — stopping construction of the wall, ending remain-in-Mexico (recently reinstated by the courts), and bringing back catch and release — also contributed to the crime wave.

In the past fiscal year, the number of border encounters quadrupled over 2020. We’re not just importing poverty and disease, but gang members, drugs and human trafficking.

But the president says we can end the crime explosion with expanded background checks and midnight basketball.

Background checks are useless. The Sandy Hook shooter used his mother’s legally registered gun. The San Bernardino terrorists used a straw-man purchase to get their weapons. The 15-year-old arrested for the school shooting in Oxford, Michigan, used his parents’ legal handgun. According to the Department of Justice, 1.4 million guns are stolen in this country each year. Perhaps we could do background checks on the thieves.

Gun control is voodoo crime control. It won’t keep guns out of the hands of determined criminals or psychopaths.

We are a nation of gun owners and have been from the beginning. The American Revolution started when the British tried to impose commonsense gun control at Lexington and Concord.

In a September Pew Research Poll, 4 in 10 Americans said they live in a household with a gun, including 30% who said they personally own one. The percentage used in a crime each year is infinitesimal (.004%).

Thank God for guns. Widespread gun ownership is one reason we’ve never had a Stalin, a Hitler or a Castro.

Ironically, Mr. Biden seeks to impose more gun control at a time when his policies give Americans more of a reason to own guns than ever before.

CCRKBA: BIDEN’S YEAR-END POLL NUMBERS EXPLAIN STRONG GUN SALES IN 2021

BELLEVUE, WA – A new Rasmussen poll showing Joe Biden has lost ground among likely U.S. voters for his handling of crime and law enforcement issues helps explain the continued interest in private gun ownership, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

According to Rasmussen’s survey, 51 percent of likely voters give Biden a poor rating for his ability to handle rising crime. Back in July, 48 percent of poll respondents gave the president bad marks on this subject. Rasmussen revealed 77 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Independents rate the president’s handling of crime and law enforcement issues to be poor.

According to the FBI National Instant Check System (NICS), more than 35.7 million background checks have been initiated so far this year, and while that number does not reflect actual gun sales, it does indicate a strong continuing interest in gun ownership.

“Since Joe Biden took office,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “millions of Americans who had never before owned a firearm bought one. During the week leading up to ‘Black Friday’ in November, there were more than 687,000 NICS checks initiated, and we anticipate strong numbers for December when the final tally is available.

“Since Biden took office,” he continued, “police agencies have continued to lose personnel, crime has spiked upward and increasing numbers of Americans have taken more responsibility for their personal safety and that of their families. For a guy who came into office promising more restrictions on legal firearms ownership, Joe Biden has only stoked gun sales because his policies are making Americans feel less safe, because, in fact, they are .

“Joe Biden and his handlers need to face reality,” Gottlieb observed. “Their policies and performance do not resonate with the majority of citizens. When you throw in Rasmussen’s revelation that 67 percent of likely voters think the country is headed in the wrong direction, you have a disaster on your hands, people have lost faith in their ability to lead, and they are preparing for the worst. It’s a signal that Biden should leave gun rights alone for the remainder of his time in office.”

Polls Show More Hispanics Turning Their Backs on Gun Control, Civilian Disarmament Advocates

An Axios/Ipsos poll showed Hispanic swing voters are concerned about crime, criminal violence and personal safety. That finding wasn’t a surprise to NSSF. Hispanic-Americans, along with nearly every other demographic group, are embracing their right to lawfully purchase and own a firearm. Firearm industry retail survey data revealed this growing trend a year ago. That’s when law-abiding Latinos purchased firearms in big numbers and the demographics of America’s gun owners continued to show growth.

Hispanic-Americans aren’t an outlier community and examples are plenty. Suburban swing voters and other minority groups demonstrated similar patterns as they saw policy failures affecting their safety, fully embraced lawful gun ownership and exercised their Second Amendment right.

The Axios/Ipsos poll asked Hispanic-Americans about their top concerns and crime and violence came in at the number two spot at 30 percent – behind only COVID worries at 37 percent. Per Axios, “The finding is a warning for President Biden ahead of next year’s midterms.” A similar Wall Street Journal poll from a week earlier showed Hispanic voters are turning away from Democrats, typically supportive of more gun control, and are now nearly evenly split between their party preference.

The 2022 elections mark the first regular national Election Day since the 2020 election over which time Americans have seen rampant violent crime in cities across the country, calls to defund the police and for prosecutors to go easy on convicted criminals. It also witnessed historic firearm sales.

Continue reading “”

Nebraska state senator to try again to allow ‘constitutional carry’ of handguns

Sen. Tom Brewer, a decorated veteran who knows something about overcoming adversity, is loading up another effort to obtain a victory that has eluded gun-rights advocates in Nebraska.

Brewer said he will introduce a proposal during the upcoming legislative session to allow Nebraskans to carry a concealed handgun without meeting the current requirements of a criminal background check, a $100 fee and an eight- to 16-hour class on safe gun handling.

Constitutional carry — which refers to the belief that the U.S. Constitution already gives people the right to carry concealed guns — is a hot-button issue that has previously failed in the Nebraska Legislature. But it’s the law in 21 states, including every state surrounding Nebraska except Colorado.

As of Nov. 1, there were more than 85,671 Nebraskans licensed to carry concealed weapons.

Earlier this year, Brewer abandoned a proposal that would have allowed Nebraska counties, with the exception of the three largest — Douglas, Lancaster and Sarpy — to decide whether to allow permit-less carry of concealed handguns. Brewer’s decision came after a Nebraska attorney general’s opinion raised serious constitutional concerns about delegating a state matter to county boards.

But Brewer, who represents Nebraska’s traditionally conservative Sandhills, got a boost recently from Gov. Pete Ricketts.

Continue reading “”

Nation of Cowards is now back in print

Nation of Cowards is a collection of amazingly well thought out essays. Jeff Snyder is clearly among the most knowledgeable, well-read scholars writing about guns today. He clearly shows gun control advocates for what they really are. Most importantly, he makes a passionate, intellectual argument on the ethical aspects of gun ownership. He argues convincingly that aside from being unconstitutional and elitist, gun control is also deeply unethical. This book belongs in the library of anyone who believes that people have a right to defend themselves.


A must read for those with an interest in not only the 2nd Amendment, but all of the rights we are possess. The author effectively opens your mind to strong thinking about the ideas associated with gun control.

Boo Hoo – Boo Hoo


Gun control advocates express disappointment with Biden

Gun violence prevention advocates were hopeful a year ago that the Biden presidency would make progress on gun control. Instead, as his first year in office draws to an end, they are feeling disappointed.

Advocates say Biden’s response to the recent school shooting in Michigan, when a sophomore opened fire at school and killed four students, fell short, and they are disheartened that the administration’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) withdrew.

Like his predecessors, Biden has issued executive orders on gun violence prevention while legislation to expand background checks has failed in the Senate.

“I think the biggest thing to highlight here is that the president has been a friend to the gun violence prevention (GVP) movement this year and we’re thankful, but frankly, he hasn’t really been a leader,” said Zeenat Yahya, deputy policy director at March for Our Lives.

Continue reading “”

I hope the ‘a liberal is merely a conservative who hasn’t been mugged carjacked yet’ meme holds true for this one.


Carjacked congresswoman has a long history of embracing gun control

Last Wednesday, Democratic Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon had her luxury SUV stolen at gunpoint by a couple of armed men in Philadelphia. As Cam noted, five people are facing charges after this brazen carjacking that happened in broad daylight at FDR park.

Crime that happens in a dark alley at night is one thing, but this sort of daytime crime becomes common when the State abdicates its basic function in maintaining the rule of law. Philadelphia has done just that, extending its Brotherly Love to violent criminals thanks to far-Left Democrat D.A. Larry Krasner.

Those of us in the Second Amendment community know all too well how criminal-coddling policies that lead to crime spikes are used as a pretext to pass more gun control laws, which turn us – the law-abiding, tax-paying citizens who want to mind our own business – into criminals. That’s a feature, not a bug, of the gun control movement, and that’s what Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon’s campaign website showcases. Here are members of the Gun Grab Lobby who endorsed Scanlon’s congressional bid:

Continue reading “”

Researchers believe more research needs to be done (typical researcher BS)
I’ve done research too and have an actual answer for  ‘gun policy’ that needs no further research.
“A well regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a Free State, the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Which is so simple, only an intellectual can’t understand it.

Now, when these ‘researchers’ say we’re “playing fast and loose with the second amendment” by reading it the way it was written, I’ll tell them, Yes, the Bill of Rights is a “fast and loose” concept, if one chooses to see it that way.
The proper answer is; You don’t like it? Tough. That’s exactly why it exists, so people who hate it can’t do anything about it. That’s the whole point about rights, especially the ones the founders felt were so important they need to be specifically enumerated from government restriction.


 

New RAND Report on Gun Policy Disagreement

The RAND Corporation just released a new report, The Magnitude and Sources of Disagreement Among Gun Policy Experts. Both Center faculty co-directors, Joseph Blocher and Darrell Miller, participated as experts.
The Report’s key findings include:
(1)experts were divided on whether they favored more permissive or less permissive policies, with sharp differences on select laws like assault weapon bans, gun licensing, and registration,

(2) not all policies generated such diametrically opposed views; many experts agreed on largely law enforcement solutions like various prohibitor possessor laws and also child access prevention laws, and

(3) experts prioritized laws that would reduce firearm homicides and suicides, suggesting that more evidence on different proposals’ effectiveness could generate more agreement.

Here’s the overview of the Report:

The effects of firearm policies, though frequently debated, have historically received less-rigorous scientific evaluation than have the effects of other policies affecting public safety, health, and recreation. Despite improvements in recent years, there is still limited evidence of how some gun policies that are frequently proposed or enacted in the United States are likely to affect important outcomes (such as firearm homicides, property crime, and the right to bear arms). In areas without strong scientific evidence, policymakers and the public rely heavily on what policy advocates or social scientists believe the effects are most likely to be.

In this report, part of the RAND Gun Policy in America initiative, RAND researchers describe the combined results from two fieldings (2016 and 2020) of a survey of gun policy experts. Respondents were asked to estimate the likely effects of 19 gun policies on ten outcomes. The researchers use these and other responses to establish the diversity of beliefs among gun policy experts, assess where experts are in more or less agreement on the effects of gun laws, and evaluate whether differences in the policies favored by experts result from differences in experts’ assumptions about the policies’ effects or differences in experts’ policy objectives.

The analysis suggests that experts on different sides of the gun policy debate share some objectives but disagree on which policies will achieve those objectives. Therefore, collecting stronger evidence about the true effects of policies is, the researchers believe, a necessary step toward building greater consensus on which policies to pursue.

Is Mandatory Firearms Liability Insurance a Liability or an Asset?

Anti-gun politicians in New York are proposing mandatory liability insurance for some firearms owners. Let me give you the pitch and let’s see how you react. Yes, this is a test of sorts, so you might want to have some coffee before you dive in.

The theory is that honest gun owners cause crime. The law holds gun owners liable for everything that happens. Gun stores and gun manufacturers are held liable too. They are even liable for the actions of criminals who steel guns until the guns are reported stolen. I didn’t see any first party indemnification, so if you try and stop a robber who is stealing your guns and he shoots you with one of your own guns then you might be held liable. To sum up the theory, society would be safer because criminals will be disarmed after honest gun owners lock up their guns. The politicians say we would finally have peace on our streets, and who could object to that.

Now let’s look at the other side of the argument. Honest gun owners do a phenomenal job of keeping their guns away from children. Accidental deaths with a firearm are rare with only one out of 350 accidental deaths being from a firearm. So we have some perspective on the problem, let me add that an accidental death with a firearm happens a little more than once a day. Now consider that armed defense is frequent rather than rare. Honest citizens use a gun for armed defense a little over 4500 times a day. If we make guns less accessible will that save lives or cost lives? The answer isn’t clear, but armed defense is about 3500 times more common than a lethal firearms accident.

Continue reading “”

DEMAND CREDIBLE ANSWERS
MAKE THE POLITICIANS JUSTIFY GUN CONTROL

How many times have you heard or read this: “If people shouldn’t need photo ID to vote, why should it be required to buy a gun?”

Too many left-tilting reporters and politicians quickly dismiss this question as redneck rhetoric, but don’t let them get away with such dismissive condescension. It is a legitimate question because we’re not talking about guns, we’re talking about rights and all constitutionally protected rights are equal, especially the ones enumerated in the federal and state constitutions.

All Are Equal

The right to keep and bear arms may be treated like the ugly second-cousin at a family picnic but it is just as important and deserving of respect as the rights of free speech, the press, religion, the presence of legal counsel during police interrogation and the right to an attorney when prosecuted in a court of law.

So, you bet this is a question politicians should answer and not with some song-and-dance response that doesn’t really answer your inquiry. Don’t let them get away with it.

Continue reading “”

TIL (Today I Learned)

1421-2021 – 600th anniversary of civilian firearms possession

In late night between 21 and 22 December 1421, reformed Czech militia conducted a breakthrough attack against German Catholic crusader encirclement near the town of Kutná Hora.

Czech militia had been using firearms on the battlefield for two years by then, but only in auxiliary role. On 21 December 1421, firearms first served as primary offensive weapon, on top of and in between of moving war wagons.

At Kutná Hora, it was tactical necessity due to inability of conducting standard cold-weapon based battle during nighttime, moreover while on move. It then became cornerstone of Czech militia’s tactic.

This anniversary belongs to gun owners everywhere, not only in the Czech Republic.