Category: RKBA

Curtis Sliwa Blasts Biden Anti-Gun Gathering

The New York mayor’s race is heating up. Former police officer Eric Adams is already projected to win, and in New York City, that’s not overly surprising. However, his Republican opponent, Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa isn’t exactly rolling over and handing him the keys to the mayor’s office.

Instead, he’s fighting back. In doing so, he’s not afraid to aim at the White House and a recent gathering that included Adams.

As crime in New York City regresses toward the crisis level seen in the 1970s, Republican mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa argues his decades of experience leading the unarmed patrol group the Guardian Angels has prepared him far better than Democratic opponent Eric Adams to tackle worsening violence across the Big Apple a year after the onset of the “defund police” movement.

President Biden included Adams, a retired NYPD captain and current Brooklyn borough president, in a roundtable discussion on gun violence at the White House this week – even though Adams barely won his Democratic primary and there is still a general election in November, Sliwa told Fox News.

“To me, his invitation was purely political,” Sliwa said. “It’s almost as if they decided we don’t want to hear from the Republican, even though in this arena Curtis Sliwa has more credentials than anyone who attended that White House conference, especially Eric Adams.”

Sliwa, unlike other attendees at the roundtable, has a unique perspective as he is personally a victim of gun violence. He was shot five times in June 1992 on the orders of John Gotti Sr. to John Gotti Jr. and the Gambino crime family, and therefore went through four federal trials.

“I understand the problems of gun violence having experienced it,” Sliwa, who was once shot with a .38 Special handgun, said. “You say ‘gun control, gun control’ because that’s always what comes out of these sessions. That would have done nothing to have stopped the gunman.”

Sliwa has always taken a more proactive role in combating violent crime in New York City than most so-called gun violence activists. Rather than blaming the weapon, he’s always recognized the problem isn’t the tool, it’s the tool using it.

While many decried the Guardian Angels’ existence, let’s be honest, at least they were doing something tangible rather than holding rallies and hoping that would somehow stop the violence. They weren’t armed and weren’t trying to be polite, but they weren’t playing around, either.

Whether it worked or not is a topic for another time.

Continue reading “”

Other commentary about the Duke University’s CFL

Duke Center for Firearms Law: Parsing the 2A to Invalidate Individual Gun Rights

The Duke Center for Firearms Law is publishing a series of papers on corpus linguistics and the Second Amendment. Corpus linguistics is the search for and study of words and phrases in their context to discover their original public meaning.

Much of what I’ve read so far will receive a hostile reception from TTAG readers. Nevertheless, it’s useful reading so as to understand what we should expect to be up against in the courts in the future.

As one example, I call attention to the snippet below from Neal Goldfarb’s abstruse Regarding the Strength of the Corpus Evidence (and Noting Issues that the Evidence Doesn’t Resolve). The gist here is the substantial body of corpus evidence that the phrase “bear arms” was used predominantly in a military sense, not in any civilian context such as for self-defense. Very well, I’m prepared to stipulate to this evidence.

Nevertheless, I have a different view of the militia prefatory clause and the corpus evidence that “keep and bear arms” being used predominantly in a military context. I hold that the liberty to own arms kept on one’s property and to carry them off that property existed in some hierarchy of concerns. Each individual might have held his own construction. A subsistence hunter would hold the purpose of hunting higher than pest control, a grain farmer the reverse.

In any case, the Constitution’s drafters had their respective hierarchies, where I presume hunting and pest control would be relatively low on the list and the relationship of arms to the crown would have been paramount.

Moreover, the role of the federal Constitution was to fix the relationship of the new Constitution vis a vis the states and the people. The enumerated powers doctrine and the “police power” vested in the states make it clear that no one drafting, editing, and reading the Second Amendment was particularly concerned with hunting or pest control. These were state domain issues.

If you subscribe to my hierarchy of concerns, then I invite you to consider that the highest of these concerns would have subsumed all the subordinate concerns. That is, if we are to read the Second Amendment to guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the security of a free state, it also served to guarantee that right for all lesser purposes such as hunting, pest control, etc.

The troublesome snippet reads as follows:

…the state provisions are inconclusive because in each such provision, bear arms was modified by a prepositional phrase that has no analogue in the Second Amendment:

bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state

bear arms, in defense of himself and the state

bear arms in defense of themselves and the State

It seems to me that it’s inappropriate to assume that the use of bear arms without any modification would have been understood in the same way as the use of the phrase as modified in the state provisions.

So — allegedly — my ancestral Pennsylvanian ratifiers first read Article XXI of their Commonwealth constitution:

“The right of the citizens to bear arms, in defense of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned”

And then they went on to read the proposed Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution:

“. . . the right of the People to keep and bear arms [no prepositional phrase appears here] shall not be infringed.”

These Pennsylvanian yeomen immediately wrote to their delegates to the ratifying convention as follows:

“In contemplating the proposed 2A you should not understand that the use of ‘bear arms’ without any modification as guaranteeing a federal right to self defense.”

Does this contrived, purely hypothetical, original public understanding square with common sense?

The typical yeoman’s daily life included pest control, hunting, marksmanship development and demonstration, along with regular occasion to contemplate confrontation. Nevertheless, his exclusive concern, reading the proposed Second Amendment, was to secure his rare exercise of a public militia duty. His right was — exclusively — to serve in the militia.

He construed no right to any private use of weapons whatsoever. It would never have occurred to him to implicitly “read into” the unqualified “right to keep and bear arms” at least ‘for self defense’ or at most ‘for self defense, hunting and all other peaceable and lawful purposes’?

Much of the debate over ratifying the Constitution surrounded the sufficiency of the doctrine of “enumerated powers” counterimposed with that of “innumerable rights.” The Anti-Federalists insisted that these doctrines — which the Federalists accepted without question — must be guarded with a Bill of Rights which would enshrine in parchment and ink at least some enumerated rights.

The right to keep and bear arms made the cut. It was among those Madison construed as clouded by not the slightest controversy.

Yet author Neal Goldfarb’s linguistic analysis concludes that . . .

In fact, much if not all existing Second Amendment scholarship is due for reexamination in light of the corpus evidence. To be more specific, what I think needs to be reexamined is any scholarship that interpreted bear arms as meaning ‘carry weapons’ (whether or not such carrying was thought to be associated with militia service). And that, in turn, probably encompasses a large percentage of Second Amendment scholarship—on both sides of the issue.

Of course, the necessary adjustments will pose a bigger problem for gun-rights advocates than for their opponents.

Of course.

Looking back nearly 270 years, are we to believe that the common public understanding of the yeomen ratifier was that his personal right to weapons was secured only to the extent sufficient to enable him to perform his public duty of militia service? That he had no intention of guaranteeing to himself any individual right to weapons useful to him in his private life?

We must be on-guard against those in the corpus linguistics “profession” who are want to use this technique to perform these sleights of hand, especially those as transparent as this one.

Louisiana lawmakers to hold historic veto override session

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) – Louisiana lawmakers will hold a tradition-busting veto session as Republicans push to overturn Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards’ rejection of bills that would ban transgender girls from school sports and remove restrictions on concealed handguns.

The session — to open Tuesday and last up to five days — will make history as the first veto session ever held under the Louisiana Constitution enacted in 1974.

The constitution calls for a veto session to be scheduled automatically when a governor jettisons legislation. However, a majority vote of either the House or Senate can scrap the gathering, and lawmakers had canceled every veto session over nearly five decades.

But the Republican-led House and Senate are spurning that tradition this year. Neither chamber’s membership turned in enough ballots by the Thursday midnight deadline to stop this year’s session, according to GOP House Speaker Clay Schexnayder.

“In accordance with the Louisiana Constitution and the will of the majority of its members, the Legislature will return to Baton Rouge to consider overriding vetoes made by Gov. Edwards this session. This is democracy in action,” Schexnayder said in a statement Friday to The Associated Press.

Continue reading “”

This is how lawyers make their living, arguing over ‘fine points’ of language when it’s simpler, and easier to understand that the Bill Of Rights is a list of things the goobermint is to keep its hand off of, as opposed to how far it could pretzel the language to restrict the freedoms and liberties of the American people.

Legal Corpus Linguistics and the Meaning of “Bear Arms”

Over the past decade, research into the ordinary meaning of constitutional terms has been supplemented by corpus linguistics. There is obvious value in examining large databases of historical texts to determine how a particular group of people used a particular word or phrase at a particular time.

The text of the Second Amendment protects the right to “bear Arms.” The majority and dissenting justices in District of Columbia v. Heller disagreed over how the phrase “bear Arms” was understood in 1791. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, read the phrase broadly to include protection for the carrying of firearms apart from military service (what Justice Scalia called its “natural” meaning). Justice Stevens, writing for the dissenting justices, read the phrase narrowly to protect only the carrying of firearms in connection with military service (what the majority and dissent called its “idiomatic” meaning). Both the Scalia and Stevens opinions relied on multiple original sources to support their conclusions, but, at the time, those sources were limited in number.

Since Heller, the creation of two databases—the Corpus of Founding Era American Usage (COFEA) and the Corpus of Early Modern English (COEME)—has enabled researchers such as Dennis Baron, Neal Goldfarb, Josh Blackman, James Phillips, and Josh Jones to analyze how the phrase “bear arms” was understood during the founding era (1760-99).

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
While anti-gun Democrats like Carolyn Maloney will use this GAO report to push for more gun control laws, what the study tells me is that a) we’ve got much bigger issues that are driving up healthcare costs and b) banning or tightly regulating items doesn’t solve the problem. Even if the right to keep and bear arms wasn’t protected by the Constitution, gun control wouldn’t be the best answer to bring down the rate of violent crime and firearm-related injuries, but the Second Amendment makes the idea a non-starter. Want to reduce gun-related injuries? Reduce the number of violent criminals, and leave the 100-million responsible gun owners alone.

The Fuzzy Math Behind The GAO’s New Report On The Cost Of “Gun Violence”

Democrats have a new talking point in their continued push for new federal gun control laws – restricting the rights of Americans doesn’t just save lives, but money too. A new report from the Government Accountability Office claims that that the United States spends $1-billion per year on hospital costs related to “gun violence,” and anti-gun politicians are already pointing to the new report as a reason to pass more anti-gun legislation.

The nonpartisan GAO found gun violence accounts for about 30,000 hospital stays and about 50,000 emergency room visits annually. More than 15 percent of firearm injury survivors are also readmitted at least once after initial treatment, costing an additional $8,000 to $11,000 per patient. Because the majority of victims are poor, the burden largely falls on safety-net programs like Medicaid, including covering some of the care for the uninsured.

The report, the first of its kind from the watchdog agency, is based available data on caring for people who suffer non-fatal gun injuries each year. It’s expected to fuel Democrats’ calls for expanded background checks amid a stalemate on gun control legislation.

“Congress must do whatever it takes — including abolishing the filibuster if necessary—to address this public health crisis,” said New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney, chair of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, who led the coalition requesting the GAO study.

Do you get the feeling that Maloney was going to use this report to call for an end to the filibuster no matter what it said? This report is a means to an end, and the end result that Maloney and her fellow Democrats are aiming for is the end of the filibuster and the establishment of one-party rule; from enacting sweeping gun bans with 51 votes to packing the Supreme Court full of anti-gun justices that will uphold every new infringement on the Second Amendment approved by Congress.

Continue reading “”

The Big Lie On Gun Study Funding

For years, we were told the reason there wasn’t more research done on “gun violence” is because they legally couldn’t. See, the law stated that federal dollars couldn’t be used to advocate for gun control, and the CDC decided that meant they couldn’t conduct research on gun violence, probably because they knew what their intentions were and how that would influence results, so they just skipped the research.

And then they blamed it on a law that didn’t actually prevent research.

However, some people bought into that lie. Some still are.

So, when an op-ed tries to play the middle ground yet still repeated this Big Lie, there’s no reason to take the authors seriously.

Murder in the U.S. has become political once again, an issue for both the left and the right. But the U.S. can’t afford to bicker on this.

The nation is ranked in the global murder rate index worse than Pakistan, Sudan and Angola. Homicides in American cities rose an estimated 30% in 2020 and were up another 24% early this year. Los Angeles reported last week that shootings had spiked by half this year.

Fortunately, with decades of empirical data about what works and what doesn’t, we now know how to prevent murder. It turns out that both the liberals and the conservatives were on to something.

There are two broad ideological camps in this political quagmire: the law-and-order camp that supports more policing and tougher law enforcement and abhors gun control, and the criminal justice reform and Black Lives Matter camp that demands safety from police violence and racism and wants guns off the streets.

Republicans vilify Democrats as soft on crime. And Democrats face an internal rift between progressives who demand an end to violent and unfair policing, and those worried that such a focus would not help in the face of growing violent crime. In his response so far, President Biden has walked a fine line: emphasizing that states can use the $350 billion in COVID-19 relief funds to bolster local police departments, but also calling for better enforcement of gun control laws.

So far, so good.

But it’s later when things really go off the rails.

Preventing murder also requires a serious discussion about guns. As one study summarizes it: “More Guns, More Crime.” Pro-gun politicians seem to have known this all along, why else would they have blocked federal funding for research about the relationship between firearms and homicide for 25 years?

Enough already. End the murder politics. Dueling soundbites will lead to a rerun of the 1990s, when Democrats postured to look tough on crime to win elections. We know how that story ended: Then-Sen. Biden wrote a crime bill that ballooned the American prison population without reducing crime.

This time we know better, and we should do better. If we burst out of the ideological bubbles, the U.S. can build an evidence-based strategy to end the killing.

How can we end the politics and burst out of ideological bubbles when the authors are perpetuating one of the biggest political lies in the gun control debate?

Federal funding for research was never blocked. As noted previously, it prevented federal money from being spent to advocate for gun control. The CDC decided that meant they couldn’t research guns, likely because they had preconceived notions of what they would find and were bound and determined to find it.

Gun research continued, some of it funded with federal money, but this was open and honest research that found what it found and reported it as they saw it.

Yet when you uncritically claim that the research was blocked for 25 years, you’re ignoring the actual facts. You’re perpetuating a lie that was popular with anti-gunners and the media, though I repeat myself, yet had no basis in reality. If you can get such a basic fact wrong, why should anyone take anything else said at face value?

Besides, at the end of the day, the discussion on gun control is about more than reducing crime. If that’s all it was about, the debate would look very different. No, in part it’s about restricting the constitutionally protected rights of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. The rights of individuals need to be protected first and foremost.

It’s not just a political question. It’s a question of civil liberties.

Then again, if the op-ed writers couldn’t even look past the Big Lie on gun research, why would I expect them to really understand what the gun debate is about?

Massad Ayoob’s ‘In The Gravest Extreme’ Still Relevant in 2021?

Most everyone in “gun land” knows who Massad Ayoob is. In the Gravest Extreme was first published in 1980. Even though it is over 40 years old, it is still available today, either new or used, for a few dollars less. It runs around $20 a copy, and I have seen it used as low as $13 a copy. Cheap enough that there really isn’t a good reason not to read it. 

Basic Overview

There are 17 chapters in the almost 130-page book. A wide range of topics are covered in those 17 chapters. Ranging from car guns (what commonly gets called a “truck gun” now), carrying guns outside of the home, using guns for home defense, and using guns to defend a business, to name a few. The book’s breadth is rather large, so the chapters tend to be short, easy reads. The common thread throughout that serves to tie it all together is the legal use of force and all of the potential pitfalls of using force.

The last few chapters get into topics like selecting a handgun for concealed carry, a comprehensive overview of defensive shooting, and the like. This is perhaps where the content has not aged as well as other parts of the book. Firearms, specifically handguns and the ammunition we feed them, have moved pretty far down the road from where 1980 was.

How Has it Aged?

It doesn’t take long to realize the age of the book when reading it. Not because the information isn’t relevant. But the word choices are just starting to show their age a bit. Ayoob’s flair for writing is clear, making the book a rather easy read despite the dated language. 

Because the laws have changed over the last 4 decades, some of the specific legal examples will not be useful anymore. Conceptually, for the most part, I think there is enough similarity that the value is not completely lost, though. It would be on the reader to know their local laws and what parts of the book are so outdated to no longer be completely accurate.

Even though dated, there is plenty of application left in the larger message Ayoob is trying to get across with this book. First and foremost, avoidance is preferable. Ayoob does a good job of showing both sides of the scale. The potential costs of a defensive action weighed against being able to avoid the need outright. It serves more to temper the often overly aggressive misunderstandings about the use of force to protect self and others than it does to encourage the use of force at all. If there is another way out, take the other way out. This is an idea that sometimes is lost in the bravado of the modern “gun culture.” 

Wrapping it Up

Overall, I think this sums up the purpose of the book well.

“The man who wears a gun carries with it the power of life and death, and therefore the responsibility to deport himself with greater calm and wisdom than his unarmed counterpart…”

It is about being prudent and good decision-making. Do not do the things that would be expected to put you in a bad position.

For something written so long ago, I was surprised to find a significant amount of alignment with what is considered best practice currently. At least partially proving true that “what is old is new again,” I suppose. While I probably wouldn’t call In the Gravest Extreme timeless, I do think there are still plenty of lessons to be learned from it, and it is certainly thought-provoking. It’s worth the read.

OK, Terry, You’re Crazy

One of the more common tactics of anti-gun extremists is to make some dramatic statement comparing our nation’s gun laws with some other aspect of everyday life. Every time—not usually or often, but every time—the comparison is wildly inaccurate. One of the more outrageous claims was made in 2016 by then-president Barack Obama (D), who claimed, “We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.”

Obama’s statement ignored many obvious facts, including that it would be illegal for any teenager to purchase a Glock, such firearms are far more expensive than books (even when purchased through illegal channels), and books are available through innumerable legal outlets—including for free at the more than 100,000 public libraries in America. Even PolitiFact, the “fact-checking” website many consider to favor liberals and Democrats, gave Obama’s statement a “Mostly False” rating.

Last week, Virginia Democrat gubernatorial nominee, Terry McAuliffe, got in on the game of comparing guns to other activities by making a ridiculous, and false comment that puts him in the company of Obama.

“Call me crazy, but I think it should be easier to vote than to buy a gun,” McAuliffe tweeted.

For a response to candidate McAuliffe, please refer to the title of this article. And based on the response to his ill-informed message, we are not alone.

So, where to begin with this latest entry in the competition for stupidest comments about guns?

First, when comparing two constitutionally-protected rights, neither should really be considered “easier” to exercise than the other.

But what of McAuliffe’s implication that it is currently easier to buy a gun than it is to vote? If he truly believes this, then maybe he is crazy.

Continue reading “”

The Politics of Gun Ownership Change as Millions of First-Time, ‘Anti-Gun’ Americans Bought Firearms.

According to this Washington Post article, the percentage of Americans who own guns has jumped from 32% to 39% in the past year. That’s due to huge waves of new, first-time gun owners, of all political and cultural persuasions, deciding that owning a firearm is a good idea.

For many new gun owners, though, the decision to arm themselves is a political pivot — an accumulation of anxieties that led them to discard long-held beliefs. It’s a decision that is particularly difficult for people who belong to groups at higher risk of being on the wrong end of gun violence.

Jabril Battle, a 28-year-old account representative at a financial services company in Los Angeles, had always believed that “anyone who had a gun was a gun nut,” he said. “I really bought into the whole idea that the more people have guns … the more likely it is for people to start killing each other.”

But as the pandemic paralyzed the nation, Battle said, “I just saw how crazy people got.” He found himself conjuring the worst scenarios: “I was like, if my block has 10 houses, how many people in these houses have guns? If the food and water gets cut off, [if] supplies run out … what does that look like? Is this going to be a ‘Mad Max’ situation? Like ‘The Walking Dead,’ but not with the zombies?

“I was just, like, ‘Do I want to be the person who has a gun or doesn’t have a gun?”

Battle bought a Beretta 92FS, then added a Glock 34 pistol.

Still, he had reservations: “Being Black with a gun is a very high risk, a way higher risk than other races,” he said. “You are seen as a threat without a gun, and with a gun you are seen as a super threat.”

He kept imagining the scene if he were stopped by a White police officer.

“It’s still in my head, honestly, when I go to the gun range and I have my gun in my car,” he said. “If I get pulled over, and they ask, ‘Are there any weapons in the car?’ [and] I say there’s a gun, and then I hand in my registration, will they shoot me?”

But he’s enjoying the new world that guns opened to him — classes, an organization of Black gun owners, shooting competitions.

“Once I started being around guns more, and I kind of saw the culture and the environment, I’m falling in love,” he said.

In Battle’s family, guns were “not a good thing,” he said. “It kind of represented crime, especially for Black people. It’s just different for African Americans.”

But his family has accepted his decision, he said. His grandmother and two aunts came to the range with him and are considering returning to take lessons.

— Marc Fisher, Miranda Green, and Andrea Eger in ‘Fear on top of fear’: Why anti-gun Americans joined the wave of new gun owners

Texas silencer law, NFA, No Commandeering, Commerce Clause, Test Case

Texas recently passed HB 957 into law. It will become effective on 1 September, 2021. The law repeals the Texas state ban on the possession of silencers/suppressors/gun mufflers, puts into effect a “no commandeering clause” for federal enforcement of the National Firearms Act (NFA) for silencers, and sets up a federal test case of the NFA in federal court.

In a previous article the repeal of the Texas law and the anti-commandering section were discussed. The likely federal test case was not.

HB 957 came from the brain of Representative Oliverson of Texas District 130, north of Houston. Dr. Oliverson is not a lawyer.  This correspondent was able to talk to Representative Oliverson about how he formed the idea for the law.

Dr. Oliverson came up with the idea to reform suppressor law in Texas because he had purchased two suppressors. He personally experienced the bureaucratic insanity it takes to legally obtain a silencer/suppressor/gun muffler in the United States.

Continue reading “”

Pandemic gun violence surge was not linked to rise in gun sales, study finds
Research suggests looking at role of job loss, economic change, closure of schools and community organizations and civil unrest

Gun homicides surged across the United States during the coronavirus pandemic, in the same year that Americans bought a record-breaking number of guns.

But some of America’s leading gun violence researchers have concluded that what might seem like an obvious cause-and-effect – a surge in gun buying leads to a surge in gun violence – is not supported by the data.

Through July of last year, there was no clear association between the increase in firearm purchases and the increase in most interpersonal gun violence at the state level, according to a new study published in Injury Epidemiology, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Continue reading “”

It makes you wonder if these demoncraps own stock in gun manufacturers

Biden is gun salesman-in-chief, threats driving surge in purchases.

President Joe Biden’s latest round of attacks on guns is helping to drive a historic sales surge that continues to leave store shelves bare of firearms and ammunition.

Industry officials said that June sales were the second-highest ever for the month, at about 1.3 million. Only June 2020 had a higher number for that month, at 2,177,586.

“To be clear,” said Mark Oliva, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, “June 2021 is the second-highest June on record.”

FBI background checks are also rolling to new highs. Through just the first six months of the year, they are already higher than for all of 2014, indicating that 2021 will see a new high of over 40 million.

Driving the sales surge, said industry officials, are the gun control threats from the Biden administration. Most recently, the White House has pushed a plan to tax and regulate the pistol style of AR-15 rifles and one of the most popular firearms.

In a review of the June sales, Oliva, whose group represents gun makers and sellers, also said that Biden’s nomination of a gun control advocate to head Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is helping to spark sales.

He said:

“It cannot be discounted that the continued elevated level of increased firearm purchases is driven, in part, by the gun control overtures by the Biden administration. As we head into Independence Day, Americans are exercising their right to keep and bear arms in record numbers even as the Biden administration is throwing up roadblocks to keep that from happening. These factors continue to drive the elevated levels of gun sales: the nomination of David Chipman, a gun control lobbyist to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the proposed rules to reclassify firearm receivers as well as pistols equipped with stabilizing arm braces under the National Firearms Act, and repeated calls to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The Biden administration is determined to use every lever within reach to stifle and disrupt the free exercise of Second Amendment rights which begin with the ability of citizens who obey the law to freely approach the gun counter.”

However, while Biden has emphasized gun control, his party does not have enough support in the Senate to pass his agenda.

Increase in Home Defense Shootings Affirms Self-Defense Right

Recent days have seen an uptick in self-defense shootings involving burglaries or home invasions, leading to the inescapable conclusion that gun-buying over the past 15 months is not working out so well for people who break into other peoples’ homes.

Down in Orlando, Fla., the police were called to a home in the Lake Como neighborhood to find a man identified as David Havens, 53, who allegedly broke into a home while a teenage girl was there alone. The homeowner arrived in time to confront the suspect and a shot was fired. The suspect was wounded but it was not life-threatening. According to a published report, the homeowner will not face criminal charges.

An incident making lots of headlines occurred in Modesto, Calif., where Rodney Lee Martin encountered an armed homeowner, and after a rapid exchange of gunfire, the 41-year-old Martin’s misadventure came to a sudden end.

According to Fox News, when deputies from the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department arrived, they found Martin lying dead with a stolen firearm. The homeowner had been alerted by an alarm company and rushed home to encounter Martin, who opened fire. The unidentified homeowner returned fire.

It was the second self-defense shooting within one week in the Modesto area. The earlier incident involved a suspect identified as Pearl Fierro, 32, who reportedly smashed through a sliding glass door at the home of an elderly couple. According to a published report, Fierro threatened to kill the couple, but “a woman who lived in the home” apparently gave several warnings before shooting Fierro.

The dead suspect was found in one of the couple’s automobiles.

Down in Harris County, Texas an unidentified intruder was fatally shot when he picked the wrong house to invade. The homeowner and his wife were there when the suspect broke through their back door. As the suspect approached the husband, he grabbed his gun and fired, killing the man.

In Gig Harbor, Wash., an intoxicated intruder reportedly smashed a window to get inside a home where the homeowner first called 911 and then armed himself. A sheriff’s dispatcher was able to hear the intruder screaming, and as he advanced up a staircase and got into a scuffle, the homeowner fired. The 48-year-old intruder fell mortally wounded. The investigation revealed the suspect had a relative living nearby and theorized the man may have been trying to get to that address.

Authorities across the country are trying to deal with a spike in violent crime in recent months. Some believe crime is on the upswing because so many police agencies are apparently cutting manpower or have lost officers due to lack of support from city officials.

In reaction, private citizens have been buying guns at record levels. In that environment, some on social media have suggested that criminals find some other occupation.

But the bottom line appears to be the stark reminder that self-defense is a human right, and that fighting back is once again a popular concept, and the Second Amendment makes it possible.

More than 7,000 Hoosiers apply for free lifetime gun permits

It would appear Indiana’s lifetime gun permits are in demand, now that they’re free.

The Indiana State Police firearms licensing website experienced a “high number” of applicants that stopped many in their tracks as they attempted to apply for a lifetime gun permit Thursday.

On July 1, the lifetime license to carry a handgun became free.

“Due to a high number of current applicants, we must limit the number of individuals applying at one time. Please try again later.”

Many, though, we successfully able to apply for the free permits. Indiana State Police told WANE 15 that 7,054 lifetime permit applications were submitted Thursday.

If you’re still having trouble applying for a free lifetime gun permit, state police said in a statement Thursday to just be patient.

“Today is the first day where Indiana Hoosiers can now go online and apply for a free lifetime permit to carry a handgun. As expected, the Indiana State Police is receiving a large influx of applications being submitted on this first day. With the increased number of applications that are being submitted, the Indiana State Police is asking for the public’s patience and understanding, as we diligently continue to work through such a large quantity of applications.”

Weren’t We Always Extremists?
But over the years, I’ve had to disentangle my pride in my family’s work ethic and character, which so closely align with the American ideals I was taught and still vigorously believe in, from our government itself.

When we said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ the reality is that this principle had been self-evident to practically no one throughout thousands of years of history. When we said that all men are ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,’ it got people’s attention, and suddenly others began to agree. When we said humans are entitled to ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,’ it became a violation to impede such things. But make no mistake. These notions were not mainstream when our founders threw down the gauntlet with the Declaration of Independence.”………….

I always find it odd that America alone is criticized for injustices such as slavery, racism, inequality, and civil rights violations. It’s as if the vast majority of people are truly under the impression these injustices only ever happened here. In truth, the entirety of human history is marred by these evils, and in many places, you’ll find much worse conditions for civil liberties to this day………….

Applying Sun Tzu’s axioms, knowing what your enemy is up to is half the battle.

We thank this author, and the authors of the articles for self identifying and providing such excellent evidentiary material.

Does Expanding Gun Access Threaten US Stability?

Commentators have pointed to the recent uptick in gun violence to push for looser gun laws and greater access to weapons for self-defense.

But the authors of an essay collection published by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law argue that expanding access to guns will undermine safety, stability and democracy in the U.S.

Titled “Protests, Insurrection and the Second Amendment,” the 13 essays “probe the complicated relationship between guns and race, policing, domestic violence, and republican government,” writes Brennan Center fellow Eric Ruben.

The Crime Report spoke with the authors of three essays: Stanford University Law Professor John J. Donohue, Duke University Law Professor Darrell A. H. Miller and Cornell University Law Professor Sherry F. Colb.

The full collection — which includes contributions from 14 scholars — is available here.

Iowa ‘constitutional carry’ law goes into effect

Effective July 1, Iowa no longer requires certain residents to have a permit to acquire or permit to carry [or] to purchase handguns from federally licensed firearms dealers.

Instead, those who apply without permits need to undergo the National Instant Criminal Background Check System background check for each purchase. They must be at least 21 years old unless they possess a professional permit to carry a firearm while working in an occupation that requires it, according to the bill, HB756. A June 24 fiscal note on the bill listed several other factors that would make an individual ineligible to possess a pistol or revolver. The bill, which Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law April 2, also expands the group of individuals able to carry firearms on school property, as outlined in the fiscal note.

The fiscal note said decriminalizing the acquisition of a pistol or revolver without a permit or going armed with a dangerous weapon may decrease costs to the justice system by $2.2 million to $4.7 million annually and expanding the group of individuals allowed to carry a firearm on school grounds may decrease expenditures for the correctional system by between $30,800 to $54,000 annually. Costs per conviction for possession by a minor on school grounds of a taser may increase from $40 to $350. The cost per conviction for possession of loaded firearm or dangerous weapon or a violation of Iowa Code section 724.15 may increase from $410 to $7,500.

“I think it is a great day for freedom in Iowa,” Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, told The Center Square. “While strenuous background checks remain and will likely increase under the new law, Iowans will no longer have to get a permission slip from government and pay a fee for a permit to practice their constitutional right of self-defense.”

Holt added: “I believe that gun rights groups will spend a great deal of time educating the public on the new law in the months to come, which is very important.”

Holt said, over the long term he expects many Iowans will continue to get the optional permit for reciprocity purposes with other states. This means Iowans do not have to get a background check every time they purchase a firearm, since a permit is valid for five years and does not require additional background checks.

“The omnibus firearms bill we passed, which includes a number of provisions including Constitutional Carry, allowing off-duty law enforcement officers to carry their firearms in our public schools, increasing the availability of handgun safety training, and allowing EMTs with tactical teams to get a professional permit to carry, will make all Iowans safer,” Holt said……………….

 

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Signs Bill Allowing Congregants to Carry for Church Defense

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed legislation Tuesday allowing worshipers with concealed permits to carry firearms on their persons for church, synagogue, and mosque defense.

WFLA reported that the bill, HB 259, applies to concealed carry permit holders and it took effect immediately upon being signed.

ABC 7 noted the HB 259 also covers churches and other places of worship that have schools. Until now, there has been a prohibition on carry at such churches and/or places of worship because of the school grounds.

State Sen. Joe Gruters (R-Sarasota), who sponsored the bill, said: “There are always threats. And all we’re doing is giving them, those religious institutions, the ability and the right to be able to say ‘yes,’ if we choose.”

“We’re going to allow concealed permit holders — it’s not the wild, wild West — we’re giving one of the safest subgroups in our society the ability to carry,” he continued.

State Sen. Gary Farmer (D-Lighthouse Point) opposed HB 259, arguing it is built on the “fallacy” that a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy.

Farmer said, “There hasn’t been any Dirty Harry or John McClane or Rambo that’s come to the defense of anyone in any of these mass shootings.”

Here are a few examples of good guys with guns stopping bad guys during the past seven years alone:

Breitbart News reported that a concealed carry permit holder shot and killed an alleged Tulsa, Oklahoma, attacker on March 27, 2020, thwarting a mass shooting in the process.

On December 29, 2019, the Associated Press reported that a man opened fire on a Texas church congregation and was shot and killed seconds later by an armed congregant. Video from the incident showed congregant Jack Wilson shooting the attacker while other congregants closed in, guns drawn, to help end the attack as well. ABC News quoted Texas Department of Public Safety Deputy Director Joeff Williams saying, “The citizens who were inside that church undoubtedly saved 242 other parishioners. That might get swept aside in this whole conversation about active shooter response, and God know law enforcement has done a whole bunch of work to make our response better.”

On August 7, 2018, Fox News reported that a concealed carry permit holder was there to “save countless lives” when a gunman with bad intentions opened fire on a back to school event in Titusville, Florida. Fox 32 quoted Titusville police Sgt. William Amos saying, “Based on the information that we’ve gathered. This person stepped in and saved a lot of people’s lives.”

Breitbart News explained that an Uber driver with a concealed carry permit stopped a mass shooting in Chicago on April 17, 2015. The Chicago Tribune reported the permit holder was in his car when he saw a gunman open fire on a “group of people.” The permit holder pulled his own gun and shot multiple rounds, striking the attacker three times and ending the mass shooting in the process.

Breitbart News also noted that a concealed carry permit holder stopped a March 22, 2015, mass shooting in a Philadelphia barber shop. NBC Philadelphia reported that the gunman was shooting at “customers and barbers” when the permit holder intervened, shooting the attacker in the chest and ending the threat.

ABC News observed that Richard Plotts opened fire in a psychologist’s office July 24, 2014, and his shooting spree was stopped by an armed doctor. Plotts was convicted for opening fire in Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in Darby Borough, Pennsylvania. Delaware County District Attorney Jack Whelan noted that Dr. Lee Silverman, the armed psychologist who ended Plotts’ attack, helped prevent Plotts from reloading his gun to continue firing.

More recently, on May 17, 2021, Breitbart pointed to a good guy who used a hunting rifle to foil an alleged mass shooting in Fort Smith, Arkansas.

H.Res.388 – Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that President Biden’s gun policies are unconstitutional and should never be approved.

117th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 388

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that President Biden’s gun policies are unconstitutional and should never be approved.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 12, 2021
Mr. DesJarlais (for himself, Mr. Norman, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Steube, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Budd, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Perry, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Keller, Mr. Rose, Mr. Aderholt, and Mrs. Miller of Illinois) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that President Biden’s gun policies are unconstitutional and should never be approved.

Whereas the right of the people to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution as the Second Amendment;

Whereas our Nation’s Founders believed this right to be fundamental for Americans to protect themselves and the state of freedom;

Whereas President Biden has directly attacked this right by issuing numerous Executive orders and calling for stricter gun control policies;

Whereas President Biden’s Executive actions on pistol-braced firearms are an unconstitutional attack on Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights;

Whereas President Biden’s Executive actions on homemade firearms, such as 3D printed firearm files or unfinished receiver blanks, are an unconstitutional attack on Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights;

Whereas President Biden has called for Congress to pass unconstitutional laws requiring background checks on all firearm transfers, unconstitutionally banning “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines”, and holding law-abiding gun manufacturers liable for the acts of criminals;

Whereas President Biden’s gun restriction proposals would effectively ban commonly owned firearms and magazines used for lawful purposes;

Whereas President Biden’s gun restriction proposals would criminalize private firearm transfers; and

Whereas President Biden’s gun restriction proposals would seek to hold gun manufacturers and dealers civilly liable, encouraging abuse of the court system to drive them out of business through meritless litigation: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) it should be the policy of the United States to strengthen the Second Amendment rights of Americans and prevent the potential erosion of these rights; and

(2) Congress should never stop fighting to protect the Second Amendment.