The Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Section 7-1-111 provides that local governments have the power to regulate the carrying of permitted concealed weapons. LR-130 would remove local governments’ power to regulate the carrying of permitted concealed weapons. The ballot measure would continue to allow local governments to regulate unpermitted concealed weapons and unconcealed weapons in public occupied buildings
Today, November 5th, LR-130 passed to ensure that your free exercise of the right to self-defense is protected equally across the whole state. For too long, local anti-gun bureaucrats have refused to recognize your freedom by instituting concealed carry restrictions beyond state law. Time and again, they usurp your rights in their quest to diminish your freedoms. LR-130 was put to the voters to end these constant obstructions.
The opposition, with backing from out-of-state interests, launched a campaign of misinformation. Montanans saw through their rhetoric and rightfully sided in favor of the Second Amendment when they went to the polls.
Congratulations to all the Montanan voters who want consistency in their gun laws whether they are in Billings, Kalispell, Missoula, or anywhere else.
Alabama voters have approved a constitutional amendment that provides specific protection to anyone who kills someone in self-defense in a church in Franklin County. The attorney general’s office has said Alabama’s “stand your ground” law already applies inside churches. But backers supported Amendment 5, saying more specific provisions for churches in the northwest part of the state.
Charlotte Heller, a 71-year-old grandmother from Lower Macungie Township, was never a fan of guns.
Then came 2020.
This September, Heller and her 73-year-old husband Ira joined scores of other Pennsylvanians in becoming first-time gun owners during a year expected to break gun purchase records across the country.
“Let me tell you, I’ve never liked guns. I was always kind of afraid of guns,” Charlotte Heller said. “I felt like we didn’t need them.”
But 2020, of course, is a year like no other ― fueling gun sales with a combination of factors, experts say. Start with the coronavirus pandemic and shortage of basic supplies, then add a wave of protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd in Minnesota and the resulting property damage and violence, and cap it with one of most divisive presidential elections in modern history, and you’ve got a perfect storm for one of the most basic human emotions. Continue reading “”
That’s the very optimistic take from Stanford Ph.D. candidate Scott Borgeson, who writes in a new column at the Stanford Review that the millions of new gun owners across the country this year heralds the impending demise of the gun control movement.
Borgeson believes that the influx of new gun owners, most of whom have purchased a firearm for self-defense because of concerns over riots and unrest in recent months, has the potential to upend support for gun control laws at both the state and federal level.
Only a victory large enough to preclude the theft of the presidency by the Democrats and their minions in the media can forestall their plans for America’s future.
The rioting, physical violence, and destruction of property estimated in the billions of dollars experienced by Americans since the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis on Memorial Day was merely practice for the left’s coming exercise of power whether Biden wins or loses.
“It cannot happen here” has been the mantra of those blessed by God with the grace of living in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Yet, aphoristically, “past is prologue” and history is replete with the ruins of civilizations whose citizens believed the same.
Democrats thought their long march through the institutions had succeeded in giving them permanent power. They were convinced when Barack Obama pulled off the unique trick of descending from the heavens to ascend to the presidency.
Academia had long become a social justice warrior training ground with the supremacy of critical theory, implicit bias training, and a cadre of professors better than 90% steeped in leftist dogma having provided an army of reliable Democrats.
During the Obama Presidency, media, always biased and comprised of reporters and editorialists politically mirroring that of academia dispensed with even the pretense of “objectivity” to become nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. Truth had become a matter of opinion with talking heads providing the opinions.
Intelligence bureaus, the administrative state, top military leadership, and every regulatory agency was purged of anyone not steadfastly liberal.
The left deluded themselves into believing that cradle-to-career indoctrination, deliberate media misinformation, and politically forced demographic change had finally created a permanent Democratic majority. They were “bigly” surprised when they lost more than 1.000 federal, state, and local elections. Donald Trump was the straw that broke the spavined camel’s back.
They refused to accept the condign defeat of all they worked so hard to trick or treat Americans into believing. What followed was four years of one confected attempt after another to execute a slow-motion, multipronged coup concluding with a failed impeachment on grounds so slim, had it been tried on a President Biden, it would have elicited a collective “C’mon man” from the variegated components of not only the leftist machine but the American population as well.
Fair-minded Americans are not only cognizant of the rules, but willing to obey them. Not so afflicted, the left follow rules only when winning — when they lose, the rules must change.
We saw this with redistricting, a tactic Democrats used for decades to maintain control of the House of Representatives, as well as state and local governments. When the Republicans started beating them at their own game, the process became “unfair,” “unconscionable” even.
A constitutional republic with an Electoral College system and equal representation of each state in the Senate worked fine until they decided it prevented them from ruling all 50 states from the left coast and the Acela corridor. Then, the notion of strict majority rule in all things became popular.
The courts for years were stacked by Democrats with judges willing to bypass the legislative process and enact laws from the bench. They used the filibuster prodigiously to prevent conservative judges from being seated but were outraged when it was used against Obama’s nominees. So, Harry Reid waved “Bye-Bye” to the judicial filibuster.
The seating of Amy Coney Barrett as an Associate Supreme Court Justice, done strictly in adherence to the constitution, Democrats have threatened “consequences and repercussions” including eliminating the filibuster in all things, admitting new states to guarantee more Democrat Senators and Representatives, and a new “balanced” Supreme Court — at whatever number of justices necessary to ensure a liberal majority.
The result is an election that only a Trump landslide can prevent the left from stealing using what Biden called in a Freudian slip, the “most extensive voter fraud organization” in history. Nothing short of overwhelming electoral triumph for Trump will stymie their machinations.
The Democrats already have a plan in place to flood the streets with “mostly peaceful” riots before, during, and after November 3. A Trump landslide will open Americans’ eyes to the left’s usurpation of the nation and perhaps provoke action.
To expedite post-election thievery, riots will again become endemic. Every judge that might rule against the Democrats’ lawfare efforts to steal the presidency will be doxed and confronted. Their families will be terrorized in their homes. Special care will be taken to threaten members of the Supreme Court.
Leftist agents will confront congressmen and senators at their homes, offices, and out in public with their families. If need be, they will block them from returning to Washington D.C. and resuming the functions of government. The same will be done to governors and mayors, lest they try to use the National Guard to regain control.
Cabinet members, military leaders, and their families will also be doxed and intimidated.
All these tools will continue to be used by a Biden Administration to implement their Green New Deal agenda, killing the oil industry, gun confiscation, raising taxes, open borders, and citizenship and Medicare for all.
To have a chance of preventing this, Trump must win reelection by a margin so huge it will be impossible to steal in the courts or on the streets.
A landslide will prompt outraged citizens to fight back and confront the left’s revolution in the cities and towns during the days, weeks, and months after the election. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, in the course of these events, good people of our free and independent states have the full power and the right to rise up and prevent the left’s attempt to steal our country.
Trump must win by epic proportions so that this rebellion may be defeated.
The heroes of two Texas church shootings who used their own legal arms to take out the gunmen are warning that Democrat Joe Biden’s “insane” gun control plans will hurt public safety, raise billions in taxes, and force millions to give up their weapons.
“If it was Hunter Biden and your wife and family sitting in those pews at that church, would you still not want me to have this gun to protect them with?” asked Stephen Willeford, who on Nov. 5, 2017, used his AR-15 to stop a shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, that killed two dozen.
“The fact is, the only thing that will keep us safe in times of evil are our guns. Evil will always exist,” added Jack Wilson, who, with his pistol, stopped the fatal shooting Dec. 29, 2019, at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas.
They are featured in a new National Rifle Association video that decries the Biden gun proposals that include taxes on gun parts, rifles, and a potential ban of some weapons. Both are NRA members, and the group has endorsed President Trump.
“Biden’s dream is to leave us all defenseless against criminals,” said Wilson. “I put a terrorist down in a matter of seconds with this gun, and it’s not even a weapon of war or whatever that means. You know what Joe told me? That I shouldn’t have been armed in that church,” he added in the video that shows Biden criticizing the use of the weapon.
The duo also raises two key issues worrisome to gun owners — taxes on guns and a ban of online purchases. And they note that Biden has promised to put anti-gun advocate Beto O’Rourke in charge of gun policy and let gun control advocate Sen. Kamala Harris lead the charge.
“All of this is nuts,” said Willeford.
BLUF: “Our final analysis finds that race, gender, political ideas, ideology does not matter” in determining gun ownership, Khubchandani said. “What matters is, have you been threatened? Have you been exposed to violence? Do you know someone who was threatened, and therefore, by default, does that make you a little more protective about your own self and your family?”
When the coronavirus hit American shores, nurses and doctors stocked up on guns, a new study reports.
Researchers at New Mexico State University and the University of Toledo found that being a health care provider was one of the strongest predictors of buying a firearm during the first few weeks of the coronavirus pandemic. Sixty-seven percent of people who reported buying a gun during the pandemic also reported being health care professionals.
“One of the things we should see, in my limited view, is these are people who are civilians who are not criminals and they have seen a lot of unrest in the past six months,” New Mexico State University professor Jagdish Khubchandani told the Washington Free Beacon. “And they want to be on the front foot with their own safety.”
Khubchandani said this surprising finding becomes more understandable when considered alongside the study’s other main finding: Gun-ownership demographics as a whole have shifted during the pandemic.
Gun buyers were more likely to be younger, more urban, more female, and less white. As the gun-owning demographic diversifies, then, it starts to look more like the demographics of health care, one of the country’s largest industries.
“America now has more job opportunities in health care,” Khubchandani said. “Almost 15 percent of Americans today have a job in health care. And as that demographic has changed, so has the gun-owning demographic, and they’ve intersected.”
Khubchandani pointed to two recent surveys finding that between a quarter and half of physicians own guns. He also noted recent real-world examples of health care professionals lining up at gun shops to purchase guns. Continue reading “”
CHANTILLY, Va. — Like many Americans, two women a thousand miles apart are each anxious about the uncertain state of the nation. Their reasons are altogether different. But they have found common ground, and a sense of certainty, in a recent purchase: a gun.
Ann-Marie Saccurato traced her purchase to the night she was eating dinner at a sidewalk restaurant not long ago in Delray Beach, Florida, when a Black Lives Matter march passed, and her mind began to wander
It takes only one person to incite a riot when emotions are high, she remembers thinking. What if police are overpowered and can’t control the crowd?
Ashley Johnson, in Austin, Texas, worries about the images she’s seen in past weeks of armed militias showing up to rallies and making plans to kidnap governors. The outcome of the election, she thinks, will be devastating for some people regardless of the winner.
“Maybe I’m just looking at the news too much, but there are hints of civil war depending on who wins,” Johnson said. “It’s a lot to process.”
In the U.S., spikes in gun purchases are often driven by fear. But in past years that anxiety has centered on concerns that politicians will pass stricter gun controls. Mass shootings often prompt more gun sales for that reason, as do elections of liberal Democrats. Continue reading “”
A top gun-control group has blanketed Virginia airwaves with a new ad, but its missive is missing one key word: guns.
Brady PAC, which advocates for increased gun control, released an ad attacking Virginia Republican congressional candidate Nick Freitas on health care policy. The ad, for which Brady and the House Majority PAC paid, does not mention gun issues at all.
Brady’s turn away from gun-control messaging comes after Everytown, the largest gun-control group in the country, also abandoned the issue in election ads.
The change provides further evidence that Democrats and liberal interest groups do not view gun control as a winning issue in 2020—a year that has seen record gun sales and an influx of new gun owners.
George Mason University law professor Joyce Malcolm told the Washington Free Beacon that gun-control groups have lost faith in their core message and believe focusing on other issues is the best way to get their allies elected.
“The gun-control issue is a loser at this point,” she said. “So, the gun-control groups are pushing the health care issue in hopes of helping the election of Joe Biden.”
“If Biden wins, the gun-control folks expect to be in the driver’s seat,” Malcolm said. Continue reading “”
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”— Sun Tzu
So, here’s to knowing the enemy. And as you can see from his first words, you can figure out what sacred cow of his is actually being gored.
The author tapdances around the large body of work surrounding not just the 2nd amendment, but the entire bill of rights. Not just the intent, but the actual framing of the bill of rights is entirely about constraining the federal government from doing certain things. It would be odd if the 2nd amendment was the only one that had specific constraints on people; let alone the fact that you have to torture the text to arrive at that meaning.
His logic is extremely clouded by his bias. The operative clause ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ” is not contingent upon the descriptor.
A well regulated (kept in proper working order) militia (both the organized and unorganized variants) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (not the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The second amendment describes the purpose of arms, why they are to be kept, so that an unorganized militia of the people can be mustered to provide for the common defense, which includes self-defense.
An unregulated militia will be of poor form and will lack training and suitable armaments necessary to provide for the common defense, or ideally self-defense.
The part – ‘the right of the people’ – would specifically state ‘militia’ and not ‘people’ if it had specified that militia were to keep and bear arms, and not the people. The framers specifically said the right of the people for a reason, it’s not up for debate.
To keep (possess) in their own arms in their homes or elsewhere, to bear on their persons.
“Pro-life” Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who will almost certainly be seated on the Supreme Court this week, seems to have no problem putting guns in the hands of individual Americans who want to buy them — every Tom, Dick and Kyle. She reportedly takes “an expansive view” of the Second Amendment, writing in her only ruling on gun regulation that it should not be considered “a second-class amendment.”
A number of groups advocating gun control and gun safety, including Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, expressed their deep concerns with Barrett’s nomination in a recent letter sent to leading members of Congress.
The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller expanded the meaning of the Second Amendment far beyond militias — regulated or not. And that 5-4 majority opinion was written by Barrett’s mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia.
It might be useful to look back on that ruling to take another look at the “textualist” approach to reading statutes and the “originalist” approach to reading constitutional questions, and to learn what one might then expect of a Justice Barrett.
There are a number of things one might find admirable about Barrett. She was a seriously engaged student at all levels of her education, taking an English degree at Rhodes College and graduating at the top of her law school class at Notre Dame. She’s a mother (of seven) who manages to work in a demanding career. At her gym, she’s apparently known for her commitment to doing pull-ups, for gosh sakes.
Barrett is also a self-proclaimed “textualist” or “originalist” when she looks at statutes or the Constitution. In rendering decisions as a judge, she says she believes in adhering to precedent but also in closely reading the text of an enacted statute or the Constitution, seeking the reasonable meaning of that text, in the context of what most people at the time it was written would consider it to be. Continue reading “”
It comes as no surprise former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris are campaigning on promises “to end our gun-violence epidemic.” The leftward drift of the Democratic Party on most policy questions, including lawful firearm ownership, has been made explicit in its 2020 party platform. The presidential nominee’s campaign “issues page” takes it several steps further, promising to pass or incentivize all manner of gun restrictions.
In addition to the lack of evidence supporting these initiatives and their dubious constitutionality they all share one principal problem: The federal government — the helm of which Joe Biden seeks to occupy — has very little authority in this domain. In order to accomplish these policy aims, state and local law-enforcement agencies would need to be pressed into service.
Biden has already had his wrist slapped in this regard. His website touts his “shepherding” of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Among other provisions, the bill required that local chief law enforcement officers (CLEOs) perform background checks on prospective firearm purchasers.
Jay Printz, sheriff of Ravalli County, Mont., brought suit against the United States, stating that the federal government had no authority to compel state and local officials to execute federal law. In Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, holding that despite the increasingly expansive interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause, Congress cannot enjoin state officials to do its bidding. As a result, the mandate was subsequently ejected from the Brady Bill.
Harris’s understanding of the Second Amendment within our system of federalism is even more stunted. As the attorney general of California, she signed on to an amicus brief claiming that governments have complete authority to wholly ban handguns — an assertion that has been repeatedly rejected by courts and historians alike. During her presidential run in 2019, she promised to enact her preferred elements of gun control via executive orders, none of which were within the realm of executive control. Paradoxically, she is seeking to leave the one body that could enact substantive reform without so much as ceremonially filing legislation to do what she is promising. Continue reading “”
While looking at gun-related stories earlier, I came across one that asked people of different faiths if the American interest in firearms was idolatry. Now, as a Christian myself, I was curious to find what people thought.
I had my ideas of what I’d find, of course, but one of the responses just outright infuriated me.
See, while most of those they talked to about it recognized that there’s no actual worship of firearms, one person both failed to answer the actual question and managed to show just how idiotic they were on the topic itself. It was kind of impressive, really.
David Gardiner – Buddhist
David Gardiner is an associate professor in the Colorado College Religion Department, specializing in Buddhism and religions of China and Japan, and is co-founder and director of BodhiMind Center.
I believe the relationship many Americans have with guns is pathological. Not all gun owners idolize their possession, but those who do suffer from insecurity, paranoia, susceptibility to conspiracy theories, likely racism and other disorders. Similarly, some idolize the power of the military and police to keep our world and communities safe. Missing is a consensus to care for one another just as we care for ourselves. We have a violence fetish in America that profoundly damages our individual and collective well-being. As some bible scholars say, perhaps one source is the image of the angry, retributive God of the Hebrew bible that remains strong in our Christianity, despite Jesus’ teaching to turn the other cheek, to practice forgiveness. Regardless, we need to grow.
Now, first, I’m always amused when a non-Christian seems to try to lecture Christians in how to Christian correctly. Usually it’s atheists that try to do it, at least in my experience, but a Buddhist doing it doesn’t surprise me.
However, what really pisses me off is the first sentence in his response. “I believe the relationship many Americans have with guns is pathological,” Gardiner said.
Just how is it pathological? Our relationship with firearms, even if you’re susceptible to conspiracy theories or what have you, is not a pathology. Maybe the susceptibility is, but the relationship with guns? Hardly. Continue reading “”
A study issued by Crime Prevention Research Center on Sept. 21 reported that the number of concealed carry permits nationwide is now up to 19.48 million, a 34-percent increase compared to 2016’s figure. The continued upswing is particularly noteworthy when the number of states that no longer require law-abiding citizens to secure the license is now up to 17.
Roughly 7.6 percent of Americans have a carry permit, according to its findings. Slightly more than 26 percent of them are female and the number of new women outpaced men by 101.2 percent. There are now five states with more than 1 million people with carry permits. They are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Texas. Per capita, by qualified adult resident, 28.5 percent of the Alabamans have a license—the top figure in the nation. Indiana claims second-place honors with 18.7 percent and Iowa trails in third.
The cost is even going down. John R Lott and Rujun Wang, the report’s authors wrote, “A lot of changes in fees are occurring this year. Arkansas just reduced its fee from $142.11 to $91.9 and Washington from $48 to $36. Indiana’s 5-year license to carry has become fee exempt since July 1, 2020, while Tennessee’s 8-year license fee has dropped from $100 to $65, effective from January 1, 2020. West Virginia also reduced $75 fee for a LCDW to $25, starting on June 1, 2020.”
The number of people with carry permits in 1999 totaled 2.7 million. The figure rose to 11.1 million by 2014, but pales by comparison to this year’s record-setting 19.48 million.
“At the same time that there has been an exponential growth in permits, there has been a general linear decline in murder and violent crime rates,” the co-authors wrote. “Murder rates fell from 5.7 to 5.0 per 100,000, a 12-percent drop. Overall violent crime fell by 29 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of adults with permits soared by five-fold.”
In the summer of 2020, riots and looting broke out across the United States. In cities from Seattle to New York, police were ordered to stand down and let the riots and looting take their course. The lesson from these events is that you cannot rely on the police to protect your life and property from criminal aggression. And that makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms more important than ever.
The right to defend oneself with firearms against criminal aggression dates back to the days before the U.S. became independent of Great Britain. While that right was often successfully defended in the political process, it took until 2008, in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller,for the Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment guarantees against the federal government an individual right to possess firearms and to use them for self-defense within the home. Still, that right has been hanging by a thread because four justices dissented.
The Heller dissenters argued that whatever the original intent of the Second Amendment, the right is obsolete in modern society. They claimed that, while armed self-defense may have been needed when the U.S. lacked the infrastructure needed to provide security for the citizenry, the existence of modern professionalized law enforcement eliminates the need for armed self-protection.
Two years later, multiple large American cities unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to allow local and state governments to disarm citizens in McDonald v. City of Chicago. They argued that “in more urban areas that have the benefit of a concentrated and highly trained police force … the need for individuals to arm themselves for self-defense is less compelling.”
Seeking justice outside the courtroom
The riots of this summer undermine this claim. The country hadn’t seen such destructive violence in decades. For example, in Minneapolis, the killing of George Floyd sparked mayhem and lawlessness that resulted in two more deaths and at least $500 million in damage, the most destructive riots since 1992 in Los Angeles.
The chaos that followed Floyd’s killing touched off an unprecedented surge in Minneapolis crime the following month, including more than 1,500 shots-fired 911 calls — twice as many as the same period the year before. Homicides in Minneapolis went up 114%.
Second Amendment critics tell people to rely on the police for self-protection. Where were the police during this crisis? The mayor ordered them to stand down, leaving Minneapolis residents and business owners to their own devices. The same thing occurred during riots and looting in Chicago, Columbus, Louisville, and Portland. Continue reading “”
The Giffords Gun Control Group launched a new entity titled “Gun Owners for Safety” to spearhead the organization’s latest efforts to attack the Second Amendment. This group markets itself to American gun owners, who they claim are looking for “an alternative to the NRA … but [who] also want to reduce gun violence.” The past two decades, however, show that fake gun-rights groups like “Gun Owners for Safety” are always smokescreens for the same, tired gun control agenda of Giffords, the Brady Campaign, and others like them.
That agenda, which includes banning modern sporting rifles, is unpopular with gun owners and was conceived with zero input from the firearms industry. That industry has in fact proposed and implemented truly effective firearm safety proposals for decades.
Giffords Is No Friend of Gun Owners
Giffords’s latest iteration of a gun control group made up of gun owners is an obfuscation of facts. The group’s website landing page is a front. It hosts an image of a hunter plus a word salad that includes talk of gun ownership, common-sense gun laws, and reducing violence. It lists its principles as respect, devotion, and compassion, as if these traits are exclusive to those who favor the group’s gun control ideals.
Past this mirage is the truth. The so-called common-sense gun control ideas are really the radical proposals embraced by ideologues such as failed presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke. Giffords’ gun control measures would criminalize private firearm transfers, enact a national licensing scheme for Americans to exercise Second Amendment rights, enact mandatory home storage requirements the Supreme Court already struck down as unconstitutional, and ban, ban, ban.
Giffords seeks to outlaw the sale of precursor firearm parts for home-built hobbyists, which has always been legal, and to ban the most popular-selling centerfire rifle on the market, the modern sporting rifle. More than 18 million are in circulation. The group also wants to ban the standard-capacity magazines used in those rifles, which account for more than half of all the magazines in existence. If Giffords had its way, open and licensed concealed carry would also be gone, and the group would repeal laws that protect homeowners who are forced to defend their lives in their own homes.
STAUNTON, Va. (WVIR) – In Staunton, a special meeting over the second amendment is now planned for next week.
Council will hold a public hearing using both virtual and in-person participation. The meeting will be held at City Hall on Thursday, October 29 at 6 p.m.
At Council’s last meeting, the majority of council members voted to revisit talks of becoming a “second amendment sanctuary”. Several cities and counties deemed themselves as such to make it clear they will not use public funds to restrict second amendment rights.
The rioting and looting that occurred in American cities during the summer of 2020 highlights an heretofore ignored aspect of the Second Amendment—the Framers’ concerns about the danger of factions.
The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, through which the Second Amendment applies to the states, witnessed first-hand freedmen and white Republicans being subjected to terrorist campaigns supported or accommodated by local law enforcement which the “Redeemers” controlled politically. Similarly, the riots and looting of 2020 illustrate that even today, local government officials can be complicit in law-enforcement using political, unequal criteria in determining whether and to what extent to preserve and enforce law and order.
Reviewing the events of Summer 2020 suggest that the individual right to self-defense is not only still important, but remains a necessary check on violent factions allied with corrupt local government.
This paper argues that the Second Amendment carries a particular force and has special application when individuals must defend themselves and their property against tyrannous factions that operate with the direct or indirect support of government.
The Second Amendment counters faction in two ways: it protects the individual right of self-defense against violent factions; and it checks the power of government to oppress its citizens through violent factions. Although the Constitution as a whole embodies a concern about faction, the Second Amendment provides unique protections against the abuses of faction by giving citizens the right to defend themselves from criminal aggression when the government will not.
BLUF: To find out more about the Ghost Gunner and reserve their machine for a $500 deposit, readers can visit www.ghostgunner.net .
A couple of years ago, I tested out the Ghost Gunner 2 by Defense Distributed. The Ghost Gunner 2 was great for taking an 80% lower and turning it into a fully working firearm. In November of 2019 AmmoLand News reported the next GG3 would be a ground-up redesign. So when Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed gave me the chance to review their new Ghost Gunner 3 CNC machine, I couldn’t say no. Before we get into my review of the latest Ghost Gunner, we have to talk about what it does and why it is groundbreaking.
Ghost Gunner 3 CNC Machine
To put it simply, The Ghost Gunner is a purpose-built CNC machine that lets anyone turn an 80% lower receiver into a fully working firearm. Defense Distributed designed the Ghost Gunner not only to finish 80% AR15, AR10, AR9, and AR45 lowers, but it also complete 1911 and Polymer 80 frames. In 2021 they will be releasing a cutting code for an AKM. The operator doesn’t need to have any machine skills to use the Ghost Gunner. Continue reading “”
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. – Armed protesters gathered outside the Newport News Police Department headquarters exercising their Second Amendment rights, which they say are being taken away from them.
Dozens of gun owners with their weapons in hand gathered outside the police headquarters, protesting against the ordinance they say is unconstitutional.
“We are all here, and we are all heavily armed. We are unified, and if you mess with one of us, you are going to mess with all of us this time,” said organizer Mike Dunn.
Dunn was arrested last week for trying to go into Huntington Park with his gun. In response, he organized a protest in front of the police headquarters with Police Chief Steve Drew’s “OK.”
“I thought it was good dialogue. They didn’t have to talk to me – I appreciate they did, but I think it shows good faith,” said Chief Drew.
According to Chief Drew, the group did not defy the city ordinance since they were outside headquarters. Continue reading “”
