Category: RKBA

Just in time for Christmas: terrorism is comin’ to town!

Just in time for Christmas, the FBI and Homeland Security are announcing a greatly elevated risk of “lone wolf” terrorism. Happy Holidays!

They’re a little late in contributing to the holiday spirit. Hapless FBI Director Christopher Wray has twice in the last month or so sheepishly told Congress with thousands, or tens of thousands of single, military-aged men from countries that want to kill every American, countries like China, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and more, streaming across the totally secure border, we might have a kinda, sorta, terrorist problem, maybe. They’re even kinda, sorta admitting some of these guys might be members of the Chinese Army.

That’s tens of thousands they know about because they’ve chatted briefly with them before letting them go wherever they please by taxpayer-funded bus or jet, or they’ve seen them trotting across the border and kindly waved “bye-bye.” No one knows how many “got-aways” got away, likely as many more.

Our security establishment has gone so far as to say they’re watching some 300 undocumented persons on the Terrorist Watch List. What they’re not saying is why they allowed 300+ undocumented, TWL nabobs into the country in the first place so they would have to “watch” them. Job security? One doesn’t need to watch them so much if they’re not in the country, but that makes sense, so our security establishment doesn’t do that.

Our guardians, brilliant analysts all, are also suggesting because many of these potential terrorists are Islamists—one has to read between the lines to get that–and not fond of Christianity in all its trappings, might want to “disrupt”—helpful translation: shoot up, blow up, generally slaughter—Christmas gatherings, like church services, parades, stores, malls, that sort of thing.

Incredibly for government work, they’re on to something. We probably don’t have to fear another 9-11 style attack or attacks, though such grand gestures can’t be ruled out. With thousands of terrorists already in country, a great many more, smaller, attacks are most likely. Terror states have cooperative arrangements with Mexican drug cartels, which not only help them cross the border, but provide them with all the weapons and support they need.

Most likely are numerous attacks all across the country at churches, schools, shopping malls, theaters, sports events, anywhere Americans gather. Those attacks require only a few terrorists with small arms. Grenades and other explosives are icing on the terrorist cake. Imagine at least one such terrorist attack in every state occurring on the same day at the same time. That’s the very definition of terrorism: making people fear, making them realize the government can’t, won’t, protect them. Imagine that kind of terrorism occurring over and over again. Even a single terrorist armed with an AK—an actual automatic weapon, not a fictional “assault weapon”—can do enormous damage in little time.

The worst part is terrorists don’t need high body counts, though they certainly prefer them.  They need only do many attacks, coordinated or random, to secure the goals of terrorism.  Americans afraid to leave their homes contribute to the economic collapse the Biden Meat Puppet Administration has so ardently pursued.

One of life’s ironies is terrorists will be most likely to strike in blue cities and states, places doing their best to keep their citizens disarmed, places—and here’s deadly irony for you—most supportive of the Palestinian terrorist cause. Terrorists, domestic and foreign, prefer gun free zones, knowing they’ll have the best chance to do the most damage before the police can arrive. That doesn’t mean red states are safe, just that there’s a greater chance of armed Americans who can end an attack long before the police can respond. Foreign terrorists are certainly learning the patterns and practices of the police in their assigned target areas.

Sophisticated actors, like visiting members of the Chinese military, are more likely to be stealthy. They’ll engage in sabotage, probing to see just how and where we’re most vulnerable, though they surely have good intelligence on those vulnerabilities already.  Wouldn’t widespread blackouts on Christmas Eve add to the festivities? Wouldn’t biological agents in water supplies spice up the Christmas punch bowl? Wouldn’t a universal Internet crash be a Christmas morning surprise?

That the FBI has been very busy pursuing domestic terrorists like soccer moms, any Normal American who happened to be anywhere near DC on January 6, or the worst of the worst—Catholics—is only evidence of their staunch defense of “our democracy.”  Unfortunately for us, we’re not a democracy; we’re a representative republic. They’re protecting the people and bureaucracies that want the republic dead, just like those folks on the TWL the FBI is “watching.”

When out and about this Christmas season, bundle up, and put on your most festive Glock.  You might need it.

No. These domestic enemies need prosecution

THEY SKIPPED CIVICS
SENATOR CORY BOOKER NEEDS A REFRESHER COURSE ON RIGHTS

It’s as if the gun control crowd doesn’t want me to retire, because the Capitol Hill clown show seems to be taking every federal court rejection of extremist gun control as a challenge rather than a lesson in civics and the Constitution.

Last month, U.S. Senator Cory “I am Spartacus” Booker of New Jersey and a handful of his Beltway buddies — the “usual suspects,” of course — introduced a stinker known as the “Federal Firearms Licensing Act.” Otherwise dubbed S. 3212, it reads like the handiwork of someone who either slept through American Government in high school or skipped it altogether. The bill was read twice and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Here are the highlights:

“Except as provided in subsection (d), it shall be unlawful for any individual to purchase or receive a firearm unless the individual has a valid Federal firearm license.

“The Attorney General shall establish a Federal system for issuing a Federal firearm license to eligible individuals for firearms transferred to such individual.

“(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The system established under paragraph (1) shall require that—
“(A) an individual shall be eligible to receive such a license if the individual—
“(i) has completed training in firearms safety, including—
“(I) a written test, to demonstrate knowledge of applicable firearms laws; and
“(II) hands-on testing, including firing testing, to demonstrate safe use and sufficient accuracy of a firearm; and
“(ii) as part of the process for applying for such a license—
“(I) has submitted to a background investigation and criminal history check of the individual;
“(II) has submitted proof of identity;
“(III) has submitted the fingerprints of the individual; and

“(IV) has submitted identifying information on the firearm that the person intends to obtain, including the make, model, and serial number, and the identity of the firearm seller or transferor.”

If you liked the above, you’ll love what follows:

Continue reading “”

WOMEN TESTIFY OF SECOND AMENDMENT EMPOWERMENT TO CONGRESS

Congress heard directly from women on the need to empower women by protecting Second Amendment rights in a hearing at the U.S. House of Representatives. The hearing gave voice to women, including domestic violence survivors, of how gun control measures often make it more burdensome for women to protect themselves, even as gun control proponents continue to tell these same women that the government and police will protect them.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance hosted the hearing titled, “Second Amendment Rights Empower Women’s Rights” to inform lawmakers of how gun control puts barriers in the way, or in some cases, robs women of the inherent right to self-defense. Witnesses told lawmakers of their survival stories from horrific spousal abuse. These women also explained that learning to become a responsible firearm owner not only provides them the means to protect themselves and their children while empowering them to determine their futures without fear.

“Female firearm ownership continues to grow in the United States,” said committee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.). “Women are turning to themselves to be their own first responders.” He added that gun ownership among Black women is especially on the rise – by 87 percent according to NSSF 2021 data. “I commend these strong women, and all strong women, for stepping up to protect themselves and their families.”

Chairman Biggs noted that this increase is occurring while crime rates are still elevated and soft-on-crime policies, combined with prosecutors unwilling to apply the full strength of the law against criminals, is compelling many women to consider exercising their right to lawful firearm ownership.

“They fail to realize how more gun control only harms and impacts the vulnerable populations they claim they want to protect,” Chairman Biggs added.

The witnesses explained how life circumstances drove them to take ownership of their rights to keep and bear firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones. Some of their paths to firearm ownership began through awful abuse and threats to their lives. They shared that they were determined to never allow that experience to control them and now teach others, especially fellow women, how to lawfully and responsibly own firearms.

Continue reading “”

Bill to Ban Gun CAD Files Nears Vote In The Senate

A bill to ban computer-aided design (CAD) gun file sharing could be voted on in the United States Senate any day.

The bill reads: “It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally distribute, over the internet or by means of the World Wide Web, digital instructions in the form of Computer Aided Design files or other code that can automatically program a 3-dimensional printer or similar device to produce a firearm or complete a firearm from an unfinished frame or receiver.”

Senate Bill 1819 is known as the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act and was introduced by Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) and co-sponsored by 28 other Democrats, including Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and the late Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). It also has support from most of the other Democrats in the Senate.

“Let me be clear: We aren’t just talking about water pistols here,” said Co-sponsor Senate Kristin Gillibrand (D-NY). “We’re talking about real, fully operational semi-automatic firearms like AR-15 rifles and Beretta M9 handguns. Because many of the 3D printed guns are made of plastic, they can bypass metal detectors commonly used at…secure public areas. People are going into these public spaces and using these ghost guns to commit crimes, and law enforcement is finding it more and more difficult to stop them.”

The bill will prevent the sharing of gun CAD, which is hosted on sites such as Defense Distributed’s Def CAD website. The CAD files let anyone with a 3D printer print a firearm receiver. The affordability of 3D Printers that can be purchased for as little as a few hundred dollars has led to an explosion of DIY gun builders that design and print firearms. The 3D print revolution has made gun laws obsolete.

Due to the lack of action in Congress, President Joe Biden ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to issue a rule banning 80% kits and changed the classification of unfinished frames to be considered firearms. The ATF rule change did not address the 3D printing of guns.

Some states have proposed radical laws to try to cut down on the printing of firearms. New York has proposed a law that would require background checks to buy a 3D printer. Anyone the government prohibits from owning firearms would also be prevented from acquiring a 3D printer.

The proposed federal law raises constitutional questions beyond just the Second Amendment. Many believe that computer code is protected speech, and this law would run afoul of the First Amendment. Many books and resources exist that teach people how to make drugs and bombs, like the Anarchist Cookbook. Some in the gun community reason if that is protected by freedom of speech, then computer code that allows someone to make a gun must also be covered by the First Amendment.

A companion bill in the House of Representatives is currently in the House Judiciary. The House bill is expected to fail due to a lack of support from Republicans. It is doubtful that the Senate bill will have enough votes for a supermajority, but the Democrats have been able to pressure the Republicans into passing anti-gun bills such as the Bi-Partisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA).

Armed mom schools Congress on booming female gun ownership: ‘Refuse to stand by’

Women are considered one of the fastest-growing groups of gun owners in the United States, and a House Judiciary subcommittee this week will examine how gun ownership “empowers women across America” as crime spirals in many areas of the nation.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance will hold a hearing Wednesday morning, and a trio of female gun experts and instructors will appear to advocate for Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

Fox News Digital exclusively obtained a preview of testimony from one of the witnesses, Beth Alcazar, a U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) senior training counselor.

“I am a writer. I am an instructor. I am a doctoral candidate working toward my terminal degree in curriculum and instruction. But, first and foremost, I am a mother. And I have made a personal choice to live as a mom with a gun,” Alcazar will tell the subcommittee, chaired by Arizona Republican Rep. Andy Biggs.

Alcazar is the editor of Concealed Carry Magazine and has authored a handful of gun training documents for the USCCA, including “Women’s Handgun & Self-Defense Fundamentals” and “Children’s Firearms & Safety Fundamentals.”

She will reflect in her testimony that women across the nation have taken self-defense issues into their own hands and are refusing to become the victims of violent crimes.

“For the women who walk across a dark parking lot every night after work. For the Realtors who show houses to strangers every week. For any young women who have shadows in their past. And for moms, like me, with children in tow. I think they would all agree: They refuse to stand by, idle and helpless. They refuse to become someone’s victim. They refuse to allow harm to come to the ones they love,” Alcazar will say in her testimony.

Since the pandemic, gun sales have hit record numbers, including when an estimated 23 million firearms were sold and more than 21 million background checks were conducted in 2020. The numbers smashed records and notably spiked at the onset of the pandemic in March 2020 before jumping yet again in June of that year as protests and riots spread across the nation in response to the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police.

Gun ownership has especially boomed among women. Between 2019 and 2021, as gun purchases exploded, about half of gun customers were women, according to the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Women were the most likely new gun owner demographic during those years, researchers found.

Alcazar said crime has spiraled and women face “violent criminals — many with evil intent,” who “are terrorizing us.” But where violence and crime lurks, an armed woman has a better chance of defending herself from the unexpected, Alcazar’s testimony explains.

“This shouldn’t be the way that we live,” Alcazar will tell the subcommittee. “But it serves as a clear reminder that law-abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves from danger at all times. And any solution to better protect ourselves, our children and our communities should start with our God-given right to self-defense.”

The mother of three’s testimony explains that, through her work training Americans on firearm safety, she has seen “firsthand, a rich diversity as scores of American women are purchasing, training with and carrying firearms in the name of female empowerment.”

“For many women, this self-defense awakening has resulted in a new source of certainty, security, responsibility and equality that we might not have otherwise had,” her testimony states.

The USCCA, where Alcazar serves as a certified instructor and senior training counselor, was founded in 2003 and provides American gun owners with training and education on firearms and self-defense liability insurance through its membership program. The group includes more than 10,000 instructors across the nation, many of whom have reported seeing an increase in women seeking gun training.

Fox News Digital spoke to a USCCA instructor in New Mexico earlier this year who said that Native American women specifically were increasingly signing up for gun safety classes in the face of crime and violence.

“Almost every week we have a Native woman or someone close to family saying, ‘I’m really interested in taking this class and picking up a firearm because you see the numbers with the missing and murdered indigenous women and people,’” Joe Talachy, a USCCA instructor and owner of Indigenous Arms 1680 Ltd. Co., told Fox News Digital this summer.

Alcazar argues that gun ownership and training have fundamentally changed her as a person and mother, and she finds peace knowing that she is her “own protector” and her “family’s first responder.”

“The more I’ve trained, the more I’ve realized that I don’t have to wait for someone else to care for me or protect me. I am my own protector. And I am my family’s first responder. And being able to keep myself and those I love safe? I don’t think there’s anything more important than that,” Alcazar’s testimony says.

The hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m. Wednesday. Geneva Solomon, owner of Redstone Firearms in Burbank, California, and firearms instructor Shirley Watral are also scheduled to testify.

Now New York demonstrates link between Second Amendment, other liberties

Last Tuesday, we criticized developments in Flagstaff, Arizona, where local officials seem to be allergic to the idea that gun shop owners, gun owners and people who champion the Second Amendment deserve to be afforded equality before the law and before the practices of the government entrusted to serve the interests of all its constituents.

Instead, leaders of Flagstaff were walking away from advertising revenue for displays at the city’s airport because of fears the courts might expect them to allow a gun shop the same opportunity to advertise as any other business.

Unfortunately a similar case has popped up closer to home — the American Civil Liberties Union will represent the National Rifle Association in a lawsuit contesting New York state’s Department of Financial Services is targeting the lobbying group with a campaign of harassment, discouraging banks and insurers from doing business with the NRA to punish the NRA for its advocacy.

“The government can’t blacklist an advocacy group because of its viewpoint,” the ACLU correctly notes, according to an article in The Hill.com, a Washington, D.C.-based newspaper.

As we alluded to about a week ago, many advocates for the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms explicitly cite fears that without an armed populace, the government will trample the broader array of rights individuals are given by God.

We understand many people feel these fears are overblown, perhaps even paranoid.

But we also cannot think of any way advocates could make the case that these fears are not overblown and are in fact quite reasonable better themselves than what the governments of Flagstaff and now New York state are doing.

In Flagstaff and throughout New York state, people who presumably wish the broader public to believe that the debate over the right to own firearms is about public safety and not about liberty are conspiring to deny their skeptics the right to advertise in a forum available to other constituents and to orchestrate punishment for exercising First Amendment rights in tandem with the banking and insurance sectors.

As much as some people may wish we could cordon off the Second Amendment from the more comprehensive need to preserve individual right, it is the very actions of those people who demonstrate that the violation of the Second Amendment will require violations of nearly all of our cherished, God-given liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

White House Hosts State Lawmakers, Launching ‘Safer States Agenda’

Approximately 100 state lawmakers were invited to the White House Wednesday for the official introduction of the Biden-Harris administration’s Safer States Initiative, which reportedly outlines “key actions states should take” to “reduce gun violence.”

The White House unveiled an eight-page “Safer States Agenda,” which includes the following recommendations:

  1. Establish a State Office of Gun Violence Prevention
  2. Invest in Evidence-informed Solutions to Prevent and Respond to Gun Violence
  3. Strengthen Support for Survivors and Victims of Gun Violence
  4. Reinforce Responsible Gun Ownership
  5. Strengthen Gun Background Checks
  6. Hold the Gun Industry Accountable

Essentially, it is Joe Biden’s gun control scheme repackaged from his 2020 presidential campaign.

There is very little in the plan about holding violent criminals responsible for crimes they commit, with or without firearms. Part of the Biden-Harris proposal is aimed at funding law enforcement efforts to “hold shooters and gun traffickers accountable.”

Continue reading “”

Hunter Biden seeks dismissal of gun charges, saying law violates the Second Amendment
He’s accused of having a gun for 11 days in 2018, a period where he has acknowledged using drugs. It’s illegal for “habitual drug users” to own guns, but an appeals court has ruled that law unconstitutional.

Hunter Biden pushed back Monday against gun charges filed against him, challenging the case on multiple fronts as unconstitutional and politically motivated days after he was hit with new tax charges.

His defense attorney argued the gun case should be tossed out because an appeals court has found the law violates the Second Amendment under new standards set by the Supreme Court. Abbe Lowell also contended the charges against Hunter Biden violated immunity provisions that prosecutors agreed to in a plea deal they abandoned after Republicans slammed it as a “sweetheart deal.”

Continue reading “”

For our fellow Shootists out there:

New Mexico Governor Pushing Ban on AR-15s, Other Semiautomatics

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) is pushing a ban on AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles in an upcoming 30-day legislative session in her state.

The Santa Fe Reporter noted Grisham wants to do what Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) unsuccessfully attempted at the federal level. Heinrich, together with Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), put forward the Gas-Operated Semiautomatic Firearms Exclusion Act (GOSAFE), and it went nowhere.

Breitbart News reported the focus on the AR-15’s gas operation came some 64 years after the gun was designed to use spent gas from a shell casing to reset the bolt group and ready the gun for the next round. The rifle is still just a semiautomatic, firing one round per trigger pull just like a Glock or Smith & Wesson handgun, but the gas from a spent shell casing replaces recoil in working the action.

Grisham believes New Mexico lawmakers will be more open to banning an entire category of firearms — by highlighting gas operation, etc. — than Heinrich and Kelly’s federal colleagues were.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham launches an effort to confront organized crime by convening a specialized commission of local prosecutors and leading law enforcement officials, on Wednesday, May 24, 2023, in Santa Fe, N.M. (AP Photo/Morgan Lee)

The Sante Fe Reporter quoted her saying, “Let’s try that vehicle in our own assault weapons ban in New Mexico. Because one thing I have that the senator doesn’t have is I’ve got a set of lawmakers that are more likely than not to have a fair debate about guns, gun violence, weapons of war, and keeping New Mexicans safe.”

Grisham made news on September 8, 2923, for issuing an executive order to ban concealed or open carry in larger cities like Albuquerque. Her ban also prohibited licensed concealed carriers from having their guns for self-defense.

On September 13, 2023, Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge David Herrera Urias granted a temporary injunction against Grisham’s ban. So Grisham amended her ban on concealed and open carry, saying it applied only to carrying a gun in parks and playgrounds, and on September 15, 2023, Urias allowed it to stand.

California Is Attempting an Expedited End Run Around the 2A

California is trying to sneak in a ruling that will exclude almost everyone except law enforcement from teaching a concealed carry class.

The California Department of Justice sent out a notification on Monday about some proposed changes in California’s concealed carry instructor qualifications. The changes might mean more than half of the current qualified instructors could no longer teach a concealed carry class in California.

Some instructors have told me they didn’t even get the email, and the deadline to voice any concerns or disapproval is this Friday. The DOJ will make the final decision about the rule change, and they will need no vote from the state legislature to pass it. This is being rushed through and will go into effect on January 1st.

Continue reading “”

Law Enforcement Officers Are Part of “the People,” Not Above Them

Law enforcement amicus brief against Colorado magazine ban.

 

Two weeks ago, I filed an amicus brief in U.S. District Court in Colorado, in Gates v. Polis, a case challenging the Colorado legislature’s 2013 ban on magazines over 15 rounds. The brief was on behalf of Sheriffs and law enforcement training organizations: the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, the Colorado Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association, the Western States Sheriffs Association, 10 elected Colorado County Sheriffs, and the Independence Institute (where I work).

Some of the brief explains the practical mechanics of armed self-defense, and why bans on standard magazines do not impair mass shooters, but do endanger ordinary citizens, especially when attacked by multiple criminals. Another part of the brief shows that the key data created by some of the Colorado Attorney General’s expert witnesses is obviously false.

But in this post, I will focus on a more fundamental argument in the brief. The law enforcement amici reject the claim that arms universally recognized as appropriate for ordinary law enforcement officers should be banned for ordinary citizens. The claim is based on the pernicious idea that law enforcement officers are above the people, rather than part of the people. Here are some excerpts from the brief:

Continue reading “”

Hawaii Resident Challenging ‘Suitable Person’ Criterion for Carry Permits

It’s been awhile since I’ve had to say aloha to new litigation in Hawaii. In our post NYSRPA v. Bruen world, there’s been all kinds of shenanigans that jurisdictions have been playing that keeps permitting systems “may issue.” There are also pre-Bruen standards that need to be revisited, as is the case here. Any subjective standard in an application scheme is de facto “may issue” criteria, and goes against Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen. Resident of the Aloha State, Blake Day, was denied a permit to carry for allegedly being “not of ‘good moral character’ and/or ‘suitable.’”

Drawing details from the complaint that was filed on the 6th of December, 2023, Mr. Day’s alleged lack of “good moral character” and suitability arises from what the Hawaii County Chief of Police stated was “due to ‘recent violent conduct.’” The so-called “violent conduct” is in reference to an incident where Mr. Day was forced to defend himself – with non-lethal force – while executing his duties as a contractor for a bank. The conflict resulted in no criminal charges.

In January of 2023, the job Day was tasked with was cleaning up and securing a vacant property. “Mr. Day was led to believe (by his contact at Five Brothers) that the property had been foreclosed upon by Home Street Bank, the mortgagee identified on the Work Order.” The complaint states. It was further noted that Mr. Day believed the property was vacant based on the information he received from Five Brothers.

While Mr. Day was at the property, the owner of the property, Darren Rodrigues, Jr., who had in fact previously vacated the property, was alerted by a Ring doorbell camera that someone had entered the property.

Mr. Rodrigues called the police and then drove to the home.

Mr. Rodrigues aggressively entered the driveway at a high rate of speed. Mr. Rodrigues came to an abrupt stop directly behind Mr. Day’s vehicle which had also been parked in the driveway. Mr. Rodrigues’ vehicle blocked Mr. Day’s exit and Mr. Day could not leave.

Mr. Rodrigues quickly exited his vehicle and stood by the driver’s side door of the vehicle yelling obscenities and “what are you doing at my house?”

Mr. Rodrigues appeared to have something in his right hand and Mr. Day believed it was a weapon. Mr. Day used lawful non-lethal force, i.e., a pepper spray air gun, firing it several times in self-defense.

Mr. Rodrigues threw the object that was in his right hand, which Mr. Day learned to be a Coca-Cola can shortly after it struck Mr. Day in the face.

The complaint details that the police responded and “upon completion of the investigation, neither Mr. Day nor Mr.Rodrigues were arrested or booked. No charges were ever brought.”

In May of 2023, Day filed for a permit to carry through the County of Hawaii Police Department. In June, Day received a denial letter stating that he did not meet the suitability requirements in order to be issued a permit to carry. According to the complaint, Mr. Day suffers from no statutory state or federal disabilities which would create disqualifiers for him to own or carry a firearm.

This is the same issue we’ve been dealing with which Bruen struck down – subjectivity. While many will concede that jurisdictions that have “suitability” requirements like the County of Hawaii and New Jersey, they have been issuing permits to carry – mostly without issue. However there are also a whole slew of situations where they haven’t been, and the old guard needs to surrender their grip on civil liberties. Mr. Day unfortunately is being weighed against the subjective opinion of a government employee and not measured to an objective statutory standard.

Continue reading “”

How Anti-Gunners Manipulate the Data

Yesterday, researchers from Johns Hopkins said gun-friendly states have the highest rates of gun deaths. The problem with this statement is that ten of the fifteen states with the lowest homicide rates are constitutional carry states.

In a constitutional carry state, you do not need any training or a permit to carry a firearm. The researchers claimed to have used “advanced statistical modeling” to support their claim.

The study looked at 34 states that made it easier to carry a gun between 1980 and 2019 and compared them to “predicted” crime rates using data from “may issue” states.

Professor Cassandra Crifasi said, “If you graph all of the states in the U.S. by their rate of gun death from the highest to the lowest, a very clear pattern emerges.”

Several factors make this study inaccurate, but let’s look at the one that jumped out first. If you sort the data differently, you will get a different result.

The researchers used “advanced statistical modeling,” but @AHistory pointed out on X that ten of the fifteen states with the lowest homicide rates are constitutional carry. These states have some of the least restrictive gun laws since they are constitutional carry states.

Here are fifteen of the safest states based on factual homicide data, not “predicted” crime rates.

constitutional carry safest states

The researchers used the same old talking points that don’t hold up under scrutiny. “When states made it easier for potentially untrained gun owners to carry their weapons in public, assaults with guns increased.”

Part of that can’t be backed up with reliable data because what do they consider assaults?

“While the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision is forcing some states to weaken their concealed carry permitting systems, this study shows that states can reduce the expected increase in gun assault rates by including training requirements.”

This video from @wethepewple tries to explain the confusion since the gun control groups seem to be using fussy math.

 

Gun rights group applauds after federal appeals court deals blow to NY concealed carry law
Gun Owners of America praised the Second Circuit decision but said the court should have thrown out all of the New York gun control law

Gun rights activists cheered Friday after a federal appeals court struck down parts of New York’s expansive concealed carry law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit blocked three provisions of New York’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA), a law Democrats passed last year in response to a Supreme Court ruling that declared the state’s previous concealed carry permitting requirements unconstitutional. In doing so, the appeals court allowed other parts of the law to go into effect.

In a 261-page ruling, the three-judge panel struck down a requirement that gun owners disclose their social media accounts for review when applying for a concealed carry permit. The court also blocked restrictions on carrying firearms on private property that is accessible to the public, as well as a restriction on concealed carry in houses of worship.

However, controversial parts of the law remain intact, including a requirement that applicants demonstrate good moral character and disclose household and family members on a permit application. New York will also be allowed to enforce bans on concealed carry in so-called “sensitive places,” including theaters, bars, public parks and other spaces.

Gun rights activists praised the court’s decision but said the judges failed to faithfully apply the Supreme Court’s precedent, arguing the entire law should be thrown out.

“Governor [Kathy] Hochul and her cabal in Albany never seem to get the message, and in turn, GOA is proud to have played a major role in rebuking her unconstitutional law,” Gun Owners of America (GOA) Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said in a statement.

“Nevertheless, this was not a total victory, and we will continue the fight until this entire law is sent to the bowels of history where it belongs,” Pratt added.

Friday’s decision is the first federal court ruling to consider potential limits on where licensed gun owners can carry concealed firearms since the Supreme Court expanded gun rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022). Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in that opinion for the court that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

The consequences of the Supreme Court’s ruling have been far-reaching, upending gun regulations in several states.

The circuit court judges acknowledged their ruling won’t be the final word on New York’s gun control law as the case winds its way through lower courts.

READ THE SECOND CIRCUIT OPINION BELOW. APP USERS: CLICK HERE

Continue reading “”

It’s Not Just the Second Amendment Anti-Gunners Oppose

I’ve long argued that our gun rights were included in the Bill of Rights as an insurance policy, one meant to make absolutely certain we could fight back against tyranny if our free speech or freedom to worship as we choose were to be stripped from us.

And, to be fair, we do see more restrictions of freedom of speech and things of that sort in countries that have already eliminated people’s ability to arm themselves effectively.

Here in the US, our anti-gun crowd says they respect our right to keep and bear arms, they just want some “common sense” gun control.

That’s hard to believe when it’s clear they don’t even respect freedom of speech.

Two gun control groups on Wednesday came out in favor of moderating “hate speech” on social media in a brief filed with the Supreme Court in a pending First Amendment case, alleging that it poses “a real-world threat to our democracy.”

Giffords Law Center and Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed an amicus brief in a challenge brought by NetChoice against Texas and Florida laws intended to prevent viewpoint censorship online. The groups didn’t speak to the constitutionality of the laws but wrote to warn the justices that social media companies “have a role to play” in protecting individuals from “hate-motivated gun violence.”

“Across social media platforms, hate speech has been tolerated, fostered, and even promoted,” they wrote. “In a time of increasing political strife, online hate speech presents a real-world threat to our democracy and to the lives of every human being in America.”

The brief notes Americans report “disturbingly high levels of online harassment and hate speech targeting their race, ethnicity, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”

The brief later argues that hate speech can “chill” free speech.

“Social media companies have resisted regulation or content moderation on the theory that such efforts would stifle the marketplace of ideas and infringe the free-speech rights of their users,” they wrote. “And yet, by fostering and promoting hate speech across their platforms, social media companies have in fact often chilled free speech and other protected First Amendment activities, both online and in the real world.”

The problem with this, of course, is that these groups routinely pretend that opposition to their gun control schemes is racist, thus making it entirely possible to argue that opposition to gun control is, in fact, a type of hate speech.

Continue reading “”

Attorney General Knudsen Leads Opposition To Biden’s Latest Attack On Gun Rights

HELENA – Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen led a coalition of 26 attorneys general in opposition to the Biden administration’s shocking and unconstitutional attack on American’s right to keep and bear arms that could criminalize law-abiding citizens for selling a single firearm for profit unless the seller obtains a federal license. 

The attorneys general submitted a formal comment letter Thursday to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding its proposed rulemaking, “Definition of ‘Engaged in the Business’ as a Dealer in Firearms.” The proposed rule is unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment by making any individual who sells a firearm without a federal license liable to civil, administrative, or even criminal penalties.  

“This proposed rule is a flagrant violation of every American’s rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, ignoring the very concerns our founders had when they ratified it,” Attorney General Knudsen said. “Rather than meaningfully addressing the rise in violent crime occurring around the country, the Biden administration is once again criminalizing law-abiding citizens. I will always fight federal overreach and attempts to erode Montanans’ gun rights.” 

The rule defines “dealer” as anyone who “sells or offers for sale firearms, and also represents to potential buyers or otherwise demonstrates a willingness and ability to purchase and sell additional firearms.” It also expands the definition of earning a profit to be determined by something other than money to include personal property, a service, another medium of exchange, or valuable consideration and would not even require a firearm to be sold, just an offer would engage in a transaction. 

The Biden administration made no attempt to comply with the Second Amendment in the rule. While longstanding regulations of large commercial enterprises that sell firearms might be consistent with the Second Amendment, that is not what this rule does as it seeks to require a license of every individual who sells a firearm for anything the ATF sees as a profit.  

The Supreme Court of the United States made it clear in their recent ruling on New York State Rifle & Pistole Ass’n Inc. v. Bruen that if the Second Amendment “covers an individual’s conduct,” any burden on that conduct is presumptively unconstitutional and only showing historical tradition, which the Biden administration cannot show in this case, can overcome that presumption. 

Additionally, many courts have held the ability to buy a firearm is encompassed in the right to keep a firearm, which is guaranteed to Americans in the Second Amendment. Therefore, the ability to sell a firearm, which also necessarily implicates the right to buy one, to someone else is also a protected by the Second Amendment. 

Not only is the rule unconstitutional, but it is also arbitrary and capricious and is unlawful under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). While the ATF claims the rule builds on the Gun Control Act of 1968, it violates the GCA’s “letter and spirit” as it “renders anyone that the Department identifies to be selling a firearm for profit a firearms dealer.” And while there are a few exceptions (like sales of firearms to family members), they can still lead to absurd implications. 

“In America, it should be legal for a family member to sell a firearm to another family member without risk of prosecution. But the exception is flawed,” the letter states. “Reading the exception, one can conclude that if a family member sells another family member a firearm for as little as one dollar more than the original purchase price, that seller could be open to civil, administrative, or criminal liability. That absurdity risks hurting innocent people and chilling law-abiding behavior.” 

Rather than focusing on its job to arrest, investigate, and aid in prosecuting violent criminals using firearms to terrorize communities across the nation, the ATF is using the proposed rule to criminalize law-abiding Americans.  

“If the Bureau was serious about combatting violent crime, it would focus on enforcing the laws that are already on the books to hold violent criminals accountable for their actions. That would be the type of work that could save lives.,” the attorneys general wrote. 

Attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming joined the letter led by Attorney General Knudsen, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, and Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird. Additionally, the Arizona legislature joined the letter. 

Click here to read the letter. 

###

Maryland attorney general wants new hearing in gun licensing case

BALTIMORE (AP) — After a federal appeals court struck down Maryland’s handgun licensing law last month, the state attorney general is requesting a new hearing where more judges would consider the case, which could have significant implications for gun rights across the country.

On Nov. 21, a three-judge panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond issued a 2-1 ruling that found it was unconstitutionally restrictive for Maryland to require people to obtain a license before purchasing a handgun. The process of obtaining a license can take up to 30 days.

In the majority opinion, the judges said they considered the case in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that “effected a sea change in Second Amendment law.”

The underlying lawsuit was filed in 2016 as a challenge to a Maryland law requiring people to obtain a special license before purchasing a handgun. The law, which was passed in 2013 in the aftermath of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, laid out a series of necessary steps for would-be gun purchasers: completing four hours of safety training that includes firing one live round, submitting fingerprints and passing a background check, being 21 and residing in Maryland.

Several state leaders, including Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, expressed opposition to the recent appeals court ruling and have pledged to fight it.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown filed a petition Tuesday asking the full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the case, which would mean 15 judges instead of three.

“The Second Amendment does not prohibit states from enacting common-sense gun laws like Maryland’s handgun licensing law,” Brown said in a statement. “My office will continue to defend laws that are designed to protect Marylanders from gun violence.”

Polymer80’s Injunction Stayed for Supreme Court

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed Polymer80’s injunction issued against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) frames and receiver rule (ATF final rule 2021R-05F) in Polymer80 v. Garland until the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) can decide whether to grant a writ of certiorari in VanDerStok v. Garland.

Polymer80 sued the ATF in a Texas federal court over the ATF rule against what the Biden administration calls “ghost guns” and the ATF refers to as privately manufactured firearms (PMF). The company is the country’s biggest seller of unserialized 80% frames and accounts for the vast majority of the market. After the injunction was issued, it returned to selling complete kits, including the frame, jigs, and drill bits.

The Fifth Circuit’s stay on the injunction was expected after SCOTUS stepped in and stayed injunctions for other companies, such as 80 Percent Arms and Defense Distributed in VanDerStok v. Garland. The stay allowed the ATF to enact the frames rule. The stay will last until a writ of cert is denied, or SCOTUS issues a judgment.

“IT IS ORDERED that Appellants’ opposed motion to stay the injunction pending appeal is GRANTED. In accordance with the stay granted by the Supreme Court in Garland v. VanDerStok, if a petition for a writ of certiorari is not timely sought in VanDerStok, this stay shall terminate automatically as of the date on which the petition was due; and if a petition for a writ of certiorari is timely sought in VanDerStok, this stay shall remain in effect until either (a) the date on which the Supreme Court denies certiorari, at which time the Supreme Court’s stay will terminate automatically, or (b) if the Supreme Court grants certiorari, the date on which the Supreme Court issues its judgment,” the order reads.

In the VanDerStok case, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the progressive members of the Supreme Court in issuing the stay until the government files a writ of certiorari with the court. The other Republican-appointed judges would have let the injunction stand until the final decision.

Continue reading “”