Category: RKBA

All your printers are belong to us

Background checks for printer purchases

New bill intro by Assemblywoman Jenifer Rajkumar, A-8132, Requires a criminal history background check for the purchase of a three-dimensional printer capable of creating firearms; prohibits sale to a person who would be disqualified on the basis of criminal history from being granted a license to possess a firearm.

From the bill memorandum:

Three-dimensionally printed firearms, a type of untraceable ghost gun, can be built by anyone using an $150 three-dimensional printer.

Three-dimensional printed guns are growing more prevalent each year. There were 100 taken off the streets of New York City in 2019. That number skyrocketed to 637 in 2022.

Concurrently, ghost gun shootings have risen 1,000% across the nation. Currently, three-dimensional printers allow people to make, buy, sell, and use untraceable guns without any background checks.

This bill will require a background check so that three-dimensional printed firearms do not get in the wrong hands.

The Guardian floored that Gen Z isn’t more anti-gun

As a member of Gen X, I look at the younger generation as they’re portrayed in the media and have concerns. Luckily, I know that generations aren’t monolithic. Just as the Baby Boomers weren’t universally hippies and my generation wasn’t all building dot com businesses.

With Gen Z, I expect much the same.

So what does this have to do with guns? Well, it seems The Guardian is floored that a generation that has dealt with mass shootings isn’t completely freaked out over guns.

In the US, Gen Z grew up doing active shooter drills and watching school massacres and other acts of violence unfold on TV. So it’s perhaps unsurprising that many of them have been high-profile faces in the movement for gun reform. But at the same time, research shows many young people, like those Alvarado works with, remain open to – even interested in – gun ownership. What connects those two threads, experts say, is shared trauma and exposure to violence…

While one response to that sense of dread has been to join the gun violence prevention movement, another is to embrace firearms. The 2023 Peril study showed that about one-third of youth under 18 believe they are safer with guns than without them. 39% of participants reported having easy access to a gun, and about half of those answers were from young people who purchased a firearm themselves.

In another study from 2019, 42% of boys and men ages 13-21 reported they will likely own a gun in the future, while 76% of all respondents agreed that gun ownership makes a home safer. And between 2002 and 2019, rates of gun ownership among teens rose by 41%. During the pandemic, one-third of people who purchased guns were between 18 and 29 years old.

These swings coincide with rising ownership among demographics not historically linked to firearms, like women, Latinos and Asian Americans. In the latter two groups, new gun owners say that they are motivated to carry by the increased threat of racist extremism.

“Gun ownership has diversified dramatically,” said Kelly Drane, research director at Giffords Law Center in San Francisco.

Of course, many on the anti-gun side simply cannot fathom the idea that people might actually embrace gun rights to any degree, especially in the face of threats of violence.

The thing is, though, that’s not an irrational response to trauma as many people think. It’s completely rational.

Gen Z understands that violence is an unfortunate part of our lives, which means that it’s not going to go away with platitudes and protests. Sure, we can do that, but we also need to face the fact that gun control doesn’t make criminals stop doing bad things.

If you believe someone wants to hurt you, it’s completely rational to want to be able to use violence in an effort to defend yourself.

I’m actually glad see Gen Z stand up for defending themselves.

What I’m not glad to see is the gaslighting, an attempt to pretend that it’s not that they see the world as it is and is instead a trauma response.

Rationality is traumatizing, apparently.

Less than a month later, Bearing Arms story feels far darker

I write a lot of stuff here at Bearing Arms. More than one-third of all the content on this site has my name on it, and I haven’t exactly been here from the beginning.

As a result, I often write a story, and then forget it after a week or two. It’s impossible to remember everything I wrote unless something sparks my memory and not necessarily even then. It’s a lot to remember.

Yet it’s all there in the archive, waiting to remind me.

Most of the time, that’s not newsworthy. I’ll take a look at a story I forgot about and read it, then go back to the rest of my day. Yet looking for one on the site yesterday, I came across something that, at the time, wasn’t that big of a deal. It didn’t deal with American gun control or anything that would impact us. It was a group of people voicing their support for gun control.

I’ve literally written thousands of those stories.

What makes this one weird in the here and now is just who it was arguing against guns.

If you’re a gun owner and haven’t actively done everything you could to keep that on the down low, there’s a good chance someone has referred to you as some kind of domestic terrorist. After all, some people think the very act of owning a gun is a terroristic act.

These people are demented, of course, but they exist. Let’s also not forget that the NRA was called a domestic terrorist organization despite no evidence of an act of terrorism carried out by an NRA member.

Yet Hamas is a terrorist organization, according to the US State Department. They’ve been linked to all kinds of terrorist acts over the years.

And guess where they stand on people carrying guns?

The issue was a suggestion that Jewish settlers should carry guns. Hamas called it “incitement to murder” and denounced it, apparently arguing that settlers doing so would create a danger.

Well, now we know what that danger was.

I wrote that here on Bearing Arms on September 18th, about a day or so after the initial response by Hamas.

Now, understand that what we saw wasn’t the result of a two-day planning session. It wasn’t the result of something that just cobbled together over a lunch meeting. Hamas’ attack on Israel was a well-coordinated assault that probably took months to plan.

Including the month in which Hamas told Jewish settlers that they didn’t really need guns and that saying so was “fascist.”

Here at Bearing Arms, we are one of many sites dedicated to preserving our Second Amendment rights. Israel had no such protections, either from their constitution or sites like ours or our friends across the internet. They were relatively disarmed, even with calls to carry guns.

And Hamas capitalized on it.

It’s kind of hard not to now wonder how many of the groups that are calling for gun control here in the US have similar designs. Hamas knew what it was planning even as it denounced calls for settlers to carry guns because they preferred to have less resistance when they invaded. How many American groups of people also would like to carry out vile attacks on their opposition and want gun control so as to help facilitate that?

Well, they’re not going to find easy prey here and there are a whole lot of us who stand ready to make sure they don’t.

New Jersey faces challenge to ‘assault’ weapons ban

(The Center Square) — New Jersey is facing a challenge to its ‘assault’ weapons ban, with Second Amendment groups asking a federal judge to strike down the law.

In a new filing in U.S. District Court, the plaintiffs in three related lawsuits challenging New Jersey’s ban and other firearm restrictions argue that the gun control measures are unconstitutional and request a summary motion in favor of their claims.

The lawsuits were filed by the Association of New Jersey Rifle, Pistol Clubs and Firearms Policy Coalition and others on behalf of gun owners who argue the state’s ‘assault’ weapons ban violates the Second Amendment and a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision “upholding the right of honest citizens to carry firearms for personal protection.”

“The common thread tying them together is the righteous claim that, at its core, New Jersey’s regulatory scheme blatantly violates the fundamental rights of the state’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in common use for self-defense and other lawful purposes,” plaintiffs wrote in the motion.

Continue reading “”

I will say that I don’t think we’ll see as widespread violence compared to Israel if things ever did go south. Mainly because we are known as the most heavily armed nation on the face of the Earth, and will go kinetic if the opportunity ever presents itself. That being said:

Rogan O’Handley

Many are warning about terrorist attacks in America by Hamas operatives

If you had any doubt about the veracity of those warnings, just look at how many demonstrations in support of Hamas took place this weekend just hours after Hamas slaughtered hundreds of civilians

These people are not playing around and violence against the innocent is their preferred method of communication

Biden removed Trump’s travel ban from terrorist nations and our border has been flooded with millions of fighting-aged men this past year alone, so those Hamas operatives are probably already here and waiting for the green light. Biden is not going to protect us. We must protect ourselves

Godspeed Patriots🇺🇸

Image

Ninth Circuit Rules California Law Banning Firearms Advertisements Likely Violates the First Amendment in NRA-Backed Case.

NRA scored a legal victory in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals against an overbroad California law that bans firearms advertisements that may be attractive to minors.

In June of 2022, the California Assembly passed and Governor Newsom signed AB-2571 into law. NRA filed suit shortly thereafter. The bill as originally drafted was so overbroad that it effectively banned advertising youth-hunter-education programs. The NRA’s lawsuit pointed that out, and the state promptly amended the statute so that it only bans advertisements of firearms products “in a manner that … reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.” But that didn’t fix the law’s overbreadth problem. It still banned advertisements featuring a parent hunting or shooting with their minor child.

The Ninth Circuit rightly recognized that the law was overbroad and banned truthful advertisements related directly to the Second Amendment—which the First Amendment forbids. The court remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. The state, however, is refusing to accept the obvious. It has asked for an extension of time to seek a rehearing en banc, before 11 judges on the Ninth Circuit.

We look forward to continuing the fight in this case for our members.

The Case is captioned Safari Club International v. Bonta. United States Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation are also parties to the case.

Gun-grabbing New Mexico governor will not give in

Just a few weeks back, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham declared a public health emergency to attain what she believed was the legal justification to override the 2nd Amendment. Her public health emergency was created out of thin air to give herself the power to mandate a 30 day ban on the public carry of firearms in Albuquerque and the surrounding county. She said, “No Constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute.”

The backlash was swift as police departments denied her support in enforcing the rule, the public defied the governor by carrying openly in public to make a point, and even the media, along with some of her fellow Democrats ridiculed her by saying she was overreaching her power. Apparently, this corrupt governor did not care and continued to demand that the police departments enforce her unconstitutional rule regardless of its unconstitutionality, She created an unjustified “health emergency” as a vehicle to push her “one woman dictate” over the people of New Mexico.

Grisham used the death of an 11-year-old boy in an attempt to create irrational fear and hype in her pursuit to violate the rights of the citizens she represents.  Standing on the graves of dead children has been an effective tool for gun-grabbing politicians, as it drums up irrational fear among parents and directs anger toward gun owners. The implication is that these heinous killings wouldn’t happen if gun owners would “compromise-away” their rights. In Grisham’s case, it would appear she used the tragedy to portray herself as the hero.

In response to the overreaching rule, A Federal Judge temporarily blocked Gresham’s ban on carrying guns in Albuquerque and its surrounding county. Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said, “This order will not do anything to curb gun violence other than punish law-abiding citizens who have a constitutional right to self-defense.”

In defiance of the law and the Constitution, Grisham recently revised her public health order prohibiting firearms in parks, playgrounds and other public places where children go in Albuquerque. The governor also added a provision that tasks the state Department of Public Safety with organizing safe surrender events — also known as gun buybacks — in Albuquerque, Española and Las Cruces within a month. According to Maddy Hayden, a spokeswoman for the governor, the renewed order will remain in effect until Nov. 3.

As an additional slap in the face to New Mexicans, Grisham said, “We’re not letting up, and I’m continuing to make investments that drive down violence in our communities and protect our children.”

Throughout this entire battle, Grisham has failed to offer any solutions to solve the problem of “human violence,” and only seems to be focused on gun control. As usual, and like other gun-grabbing governors, Grisham appears to be avoiding responsibility for the violence that is created as a direct result of failed Democrat policies.

After several lawsuits last month in response to the Governors’ 30-day gun ban, U.S. District Judge David Herrera Urias issued the initial restraining order but has delayed a decision on whether to order a preliminary injunction against the edict. Grisham seems to be taking full advantage of every bit of power she can dig up in the meantime.

Michelle Lujan Grisham is the exact type of person our Founding Fathers warned us about. Her attempt to unilaterally suspend the right to carry is why the 2nd Amendment was written, and why so many New Mexico gun owners stood up and defied her unconstitutional order.

A closer look at more amici briefs in the next SCOTUS 2A case

United States v. Rahimi is a case dealing with a prohibited person being in possession of arms. Just the other day I covered one of the many amici briefs that have been filed in support of Rahimi, one that the Second Amendment Foundation wrote. There’s a lot of attention being paid to this particular case, for good reason. It’s quite possible that the U.S. Attorney General is going to use this case as an opportunity to twist and contort NYSRPA v. Bruen.  To date, there have been 21 and counting briefs filed in support of Rahimi and about 36 in support of the U.S. government.

The Rahimi question is whether or not a blanket prohibition on those subject to a civil domestic violence restraining order would be constitutional. Rahimi, during the course of some less-than-savory acts, got charged with being in possession of a firearm when under such an order. The case at hand is not about whether or not violent people or those who beat their domestic partners should or should not have firearms, but rather about if a civil – not criminal – process should lead to the loss of a constitutional right.

Discussed previously, SAF’s brief goes straight to “the only analogue that was around at the time of the founding” concerning blanket prohibitions had to do with British loyalists in a post revolution time.

A brief that was filed on October 4, 2023 by multiple “law enforcement groups” and “firearms rights groups” latches onto an argument that I’ve been making since day one – this is a due process case.

That brief represents the following groups: Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, Gun Owners Action League (Massachusetts), Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, Maryland State Rifle & Pistol Association, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Vermont State Rifle & Pistol Association, Virginia Shooting Sports Association, Western States Sheriffs’ Association, and Women for Gun Rights (Formerly known as the DC Project).

The 37 page text makes the argument that we need not look any further than the facially unconstitutional due process violations that are involved.

Continue reading “”

Old gun controls that were constitutionally repealed are not precedents for modern gun control

This week amicus briefs were filed in United States v. Rahimi, the only Second Amendment merits case currently before the Supreme Court. The docket page for the case is here. I will be blogging later about various briefs in the case. This post describes the amicus brief that I filed, available here.

The case involves the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. sect. 922(g)(8), which imposes a federal prison sentence of up to 15 for persons who possess a firearm while subject to certain state-issued restraining orders. The amici are several law professors, including the VC’s Randy Barnett, the Second Amendment Law Center, and the Independence Institute, where I am Research Director. My co-counsel on the brief was Konstandinos T. Moros, of the Michel & Associates law firm, in Long Beach, California.

The bottom line of the brief is that subsection 922(g)(8(C)(i) does not infringe the Second Amendment; it restricts the arms rights of individuals who have been found by a judge to be a “credible threat” to others. In contrast, subsection 922(g)(8(C)(ii) does infringe the Second Amendment, because it does not require any such judicial finding.

The brief addresses the question of “who” may be restricted in the exercise of Second Amendment rights; the brief takes no position on questions of “how”–such as what due process is required, or whether the severity of 922(g)(8) ban is comparable to historic laws restricting the exercise of arms rights.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
The corporate media refused to correct the President’s lies. Now, Democrat politicians, anti-gun billionaires, and the mainstream media think that ordinary people like you should be disarmed because you’re too dangerous. I have to ask, too dangerous to whom?

Lies My President Told Me

I understand the graft and corruption that are President Biden’s normal mode of business. What I can’t accept are the President’s lies about us. We are far better than he claims, and I refuse to let my neighbor’s be blamed for our President’s failings.

-President Biden said that more children die from being shot than from all other causes. That isn’t true. What the President refused to say is that honest gun owners like you and your neighbors prevented over 30-thousand murders a year because they had a firearm to defend the people they love. Did the President ignore the lives you save because he is too forgetful, or because he is too bigoted against us?

-The President said we have to stop the epidemic of gun violence we hear and see on the news. The President refused to say that the nightly violence we see and hear is from our failing Democrat controlled cities. The president refused to mention that most counties won’t have a single murder this year. He ignored that the worst 2-percent of our counties account for over half of our murders. The worst 5-percent account for about two-thirds of our murders. Even within those failed Democrat controlled cities, most of the murders are within a few zip codes. What our President can’t say is that we are seeing an epidemic of political failure and corruption on the nightly news. Democrats destroyed our once beautiful cities like Detroit, Baltimore, and Washington DC. Now those politicians need to blame you.

-The President said that modern rifles were the cause of this violence. He didn’t tell you that the overwhelming majority of murders, even mass-murders, are committed with handguns. He ignored that more of us are beaten to death with hands and feet than are killed with modern rifles. The President didn’t mention that you and your neighbors use a “modern rifle” to protect yourself thousands of times every month. You didn’t know that because the corporate media refused to correct the old man’s lies.

Continue reading “”

My comment:
So called mandatory ‘safe storage’ laws (unloaded and locked away, with the ammo also locked away in a different container) have been found unconstitutional and applicable to the states by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases.
It’s not unusual for gun control advocates to ‘forget’ and neglect mentioning this fact.
I’ll be interested to see if this comment makes it past your ‘filters’.

In Missouri, 66% Of Suicides Come With a Gun. So Groups Want Firearms a Little Farther Out of Reach

​​Even in Missouri — where politicians risk their careers talking about rules around guns — people will listen to your thoughts about firearm safety.

In a place where two-thirds of the rising number of suicides come with a gun, people trying to reduce that statistic in Missouri expected resistance when it came to suggestions about gun safety.

But amid a mounting mental health crisis, what the organizations found surprised them: Communities across the state were open to talking about how to store their guns and ammunition differently if it meant keeping their family or friends safe. That meant wading into conversations about firearms in the context of suicide prevention through conversations about mental health and community well-being.

“Just launching the conversation with firearm suicides was probably not a good idea,” said Dr. Meenakshi Bhilwar, a project analyst at the Randolph County Caring Community Partnership. “We should sort of lay the ground, talk about mental health, talk about suicides in general and when the audience gets comfortable talking about those, then we bring in the topic of firearms.”

Bhilwar works with a handful of other clinicians across the state through the Missouri Foundation for Health on preventing suicides by storing guns in ways that create as many barriers as possible for someone who is in crisis.

“Over this period of three years, we have seen an increase in how the community is responding to our project and how the community members are responding to firearm suicides,” Bhilwar said.

Public health groups in Missouri partnered to pitch the power of gun locks, safes and having tough conversations about gun safety through schools and community health initiatives.

They also know that a potentially life-threatening crisis can come and go within minutes. And a few minutes of delay in acting on a suicidal thought — spurred from struggling to bypass a gun safety lock or having bullets and firearms stored in separate locations — could mean the difference between pulling the trigger or letting a self-destructive thought pass.

Continue reading “”

Judge Issues Injunction Blocking MD’s Unconstitutional Carry Restrictions

After the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right of law abiding citizens to carry a firearm in public, a Maryland court found it was “self-evident” that Maryland’s carry permitting regime was also unconstitutional. Maryland then followed New York and New Jersey in overhauling their carry laws by effectively declaring the entire state to be a so-called “sensitive place” through the passage of S.B. 1.

And, just like in New York and New Jersey, NRA filed suit as the ink from Governor Moore’s signature was drying on bill.

On September 29th, in a 40-page opinion, a federal judge enjoined three portions of S.B. 1, from taking effect.

The biggest win was stopping the “private building consent rule,” which declares all private property that is open to the public to be a prohibited place—unless the property owner expressly allows individuals to enter the premises with a firearm.

These private building consent restrictions were cooked up by anti-Second Amendment advocates to effectively nullify the Bruen decision. They are the heart of the states’ response to Bruen. And courts are having nothing to do with them. Today’s ruling was the fourth on enjoining these private consent rules from taking effect.

Continue reading “”

2A says ‘right to keep and bear arms’
That’s anything to do with weaponry

Analysis: Pistol Brace Ruling Implies Second Amendment Protects AR-15s, Ammo Mags, and Silencers

“[T]he Court finds that braced pistols regulated under the Final Rule are commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

That may be the most influential finding in Judge Reed O’Connor’s decision enjoining the ATF’s pistol brace rule. It strikes at a key part of the fight over gun and accessory bans across the country. And how Judge O’Connor reached his conclusion provides new insight into the threshold other courts may employ to determine whether the Second Amendment protects a banned item.

Working off of Supreme Court precedent in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago, and 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, Judge O’Connor established the test for whether the Constitution protects an arm is whether it’s in lawful common use or not. And he said the Court had already determined modern handguns fit the bill.

“A weapon is in ‘common use’ rather than ‘dangerous and unusual’ if it is ‘commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today,’” he wrote. “The relevant inquiry under this standard is the current total number of a particular weapon that is in lawful possession, ownership, and circulation throughout the United States. As a per se matter, semiautomatic pistols are commonly used weapons for lawful self-defense purposes across the United States today.”

From there, he found adding a brace to a pistol “does not somehow alter that status and effectively strip these pistols of their Second Amendment protection.” Then he argued the ATF’s own estimate for how many braced pistols have been legally purchased over the years directly undercut its argument they could be banned or significantly restricted.

Continue reading “”

CARJACKED CONGRESSMAN HIGHLIGHTS REASONS FOR INCREASING LAWFUL GUN OWNERSHIP

In a popular up-and-coming area of Washinton, D.C. – just a few blocks from the nation’s Capitol building – a U.S. Congressman was carjacked at gunpoint. U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) was parking his car just outside an apartment building where he and several other Members of Congress reside. The congressman was unharmed during the attack.

“As Congressman Cuellar was parking his car this evening, 3 armed assailants approached the Congressman and stole his vehicle. Luckily, he was not harmed and is working with local law enforcement,” Rep. Cuellar’s Chief of Staff stated in a press release.

Washington, D.C., police are still searching for the suspects. It can be assumed the firearms used in the crime were illegally obtained or stolen. If the criminals are ever caught and prosecuted, more questions will be answered.

However, there are plenty of reasons why other would-be criminals in the D.C.-Maryland-Virginia area might rethink their plans for committing crimes. More Americans are arming themselves to protect against criminals such as these.

‘Support Law Enforcement’

 The Texas congressman may caucus with the political party in Washington, D.C., that pushes an extreme gun control agenda, but his own record shows areas of support for gun rights. Last year, in the 117th Congress that had a Democratic-controlled House, Rep. Cuellar bucked his own party and voted with House Republicans against U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s (D-N.Y.) strict gun control bill. That legislation would have raised the legal age for U.S. adults to lawfully purchase America’s most popular-selling centerfire rifles, Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs). It also would have banned the purchase and possession of standard capacity magazines and required unconstitutional mandatory gun storage in the home.

Also that year, Rep. Cuellar voted against the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022, that barely passed the House. The legislation failed to even receive a vote in the U.S. Senate.

Following the incident, Rep. Cuellar struck a different tone than several of his Democratic congressional colleagues have in the past.

“You got to support law enforcement. And I’ve been doing that for a long time. I have three brothers who are peace officers,” Rep. Cuellar told Fox News. “I do want to thank the Capitol Police and I certainly want to thank the Metro Police. I’m a big law enforcement person. I got three boys in law enforcement. So I certainly appreciate the good work that the police did.”

This isn’t the first attack on a Member of Congress this year in Washington, D.C. Earlier this year, Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) was assaulted in her apartment building and suffered bruises while escaping more serious injuries.

‘They Target Us’

Surging crime in the District of Columbia is a growing concern and has been for several years. Washington, D.C., recently recorded its 200th homicide and it marked the first time in two decades that the federal city has had at least 200 murders for three years in a row. It was the earliest the grim marker has been surpassed. The Metro Police Department recently announced the average murder suspect in the city has eleven prior arrests.

How are would-be victims in Washington, D.C., responding? They aren’t sitting around and waiting to be victimized, especially women in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area – and most specifically African Americans.

“A lot of times men look at women and they think we are defenseless. They target us, first because they think we don’t carry. We can defend ourselves as women, we are not as weak as you think we are.” That’s what Kennette Brown told ABC 7 News in Washington, D.C., about why she obtained her concealed carry permit, purchased her first gun and takes the time to go to training courses.

Calvin Wellington is a firearms instructor for Nova Armory in Arlington, Va., and told media his firearm training courses are now mostly filled with women who are buying and training with firearms.

“The average woman that I get in my class is brand new to this,” Wellington said. “I have had women call me and thank me because when they walk out of their building to their car at night they are no longer scared.”

“With all the things going on in the world, you just want to be able to protect yourself,” added Nicole Washington. She takes classes to be a more confident and accurate gun owner. “I’m a pretty good shot.”

Nothing New

The trend of more women purchasing firearms for the first time isn’t a new phenomenon. It’s a trend that’s been happening for several years – and is welcomed.

Gun owners are increasingly female and also seeing greater minority gun ownership too, including African Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans. Last year, NBC News reported on the growing diversity within the gun-owning community with a report titled, “Why more Black people are looking for safety in gun ownership.” The report highlighted NSSF industry data showing 90 percent of gun retailers reported a “general increase” of Black customers, including an 87 percent increase among Black women.

A headline from The Cut read, “The New Face of American Gun Ownership – Black women are pushing against the (white, rural, and male) stereotype.” “In recent years, story after story has furthered the narrative that Black women are the fastest-growing group of gun owners in the country,” The Cut’s report said, adding Black women now make up a majority of the 40,000 members of the National African American Gun Association (NAAGA).

Fortunately, Congressman Cuellar’s vehicle and possessions were recovered within only a couple of hours.

“A society without law and order is not a society,” Rep. Cuellar told Fox’s Jesse Waters. When criminals are allowed to run rampant with no risk of prosecution for their crimes, innocent people suffer. Thankfully, Congress overturned the Washington, D.C., City Council’s attempts to enact laughably soft-on-crime policies earlier this year.

Even such, criminals thinking about committing crimes against residents have more reason to think again. They’re law-abiding residents like Kennette Brown and Nicole Washington and they have numerous friends taking a stand and exercising their Second Amendment rights for self-defense too.

A Flawed Case Against Black Self-Defense
In the face of state failure, neglect, and overt hostility, black Americans need the right to bear arms.

book2 | Bloomsbury Publishing
(Bloomsbury Publishing)

The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America, by Carol Anderson, Bloomsbury Publishing, 258 pages, $28

Carol Anderson claims the Second Amendment is rooted in the goal of suppressing slave insurrections and therefore is irredeemably racist.

This is part of a new historical revisionism that tries to paint the 2nd Amendment as some slave patrol scheme. However this nonsense is disproven by the very evidence used to try and prove it. Like the aptly named Dr. Bogus whose revisionist history “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment” includes Section 1, part K literally titled: “The Absence of Direct Evidence”.

Advocates of such false history also try to misconstrue the statements of Patrick Henry before the Ratifying Convention in Virginia from June 5th, 1788.

You can read the full speech here.

You’ll see none of what suggest regarding the 2nd Amendment being for slavery is present there.

Meanwhile gun control’s history is firmly based in racism with the specific aim of keeping people of color and non whites disarmed.

Slave Codes, Black Codes, Economic-Based Gun Bans Used To Prevent The Arming Of African Americans, 1640-1995

Diversity has been increasing in gun ownership for awhile now.

“Diversity in gun ownership nothing new to firearms industry”

“Gun ownership among Black Americans is soaring”

And it’s not gun owners that are offended by this, but gun control advocates like the VPC.

Continue reading “”

A Restraining Order Didn’t Stop This Assailant, a Woman’s Gun Did

On September 28, a woman found herself in a domestic violence situation and was forced to take drastic measures to defend her life. The incident, which occurred at her apartment in Wilmington, North Carolina, further illustrates how important it is for women to be armed – especially when it comes to situations involving domestic violence.

Anthony Parker, the woman’s estranged husband, physically assaulted her, but lost his life when she used her gun to stop him.

Wilmington police continue to investigate a suspected domestic violence-related shooting that claimed the life of Anthony Parker on the night of Sept. 28.

Parker was killed after what police say began as a domestic dispute at around 9:26 p.m. at 34 North Apartments.

A WPD representative said on Monday, Oct. 2, that a woman suspected of involvement in the shooting was granted a temporary restraining order against Parker on the day of the shooting.

In the 911 call obtained by WECT, the woman says that she has a restraining order against a man, but that he came to her house. The WPD representative said Monday that Parker took her phone likely the day before the shooting, and that she tracked her phone and met with police at the location she tracked the phone to. They said that he wouldn’t come to the door, so she was advised to take out warrants.

She told the dispatcher that she fired on shot from a weapon registered to her and that he ran.

The woman was attempting to bathe her child when Parker confronted her. When the situation escalated, the woman shot Parker before he fled the scene. “I shot one shot, and he ran,” she told reporters. He was later found dead in a parking lot.

This incident highlights multiple important issues. For domestic violence victims, it is even more important to be armed. In this case, the woman had already placed a restraining order on her assailant. We can see how much protection that piece of paper afforded her. When faced with immediate violence, her only line of defense was her quick thinking and her firearm. There is no telling how this incident would have turned out if she had not been armed.

This is one of the biggest problems with the anti-gunner lobby. They insist that making it harder for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms makes the nation less dangerous. In reality, it helps people protect themselves from those who hold no regard for the gun control laws the left claims will keep people safe. It is why I’m such a big proponent of women becoming gun owners. Firearms are an effective equalizer, when you’re faced with someone who is physically stronger and faster.

There are several cases in which women have used guns to protect themselves from domestic abusers. Unfortunately, there are too many who become victims because they did not possess the means by which they could defend themselves from their attackers. It’s a heartbreaking tragedy.

While society works to find additional solutions for domestic violence, the firearm, for many, remains a crucial ally, especially when law enforcement is unable to arrive quickly enough to diffuse the situation. The bottom line is that a restraining order cannot protect against an attacker like a firearm can.

[Florida AG] Ashley Moody Releases Legal Opinion, Insists ATF Infringed on Gun Rights

This week, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody released a legal opinion regarding the use of stabilizing braces for handguns in Florida.

Moody issued the opinion in response to a request from state Rep. Shane Abbott, R-DeFuniak Springs, to provide clarity on Florida law following a recently released Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) interpretation of a federal law. The ATF interpretation subjects handguns with stabilizing braces to National Firearms Act controls. Moody issued an opinion on a similarly worded provision of Florida law concluding that stabilizing braces are not short-barreled rifles.

“The Second Amendment is alive and well in Florida and our state laws protect the gun rights of law-abiding citizens. We issued this important legal opinion to provide clarity about our state law as the federal government continues to overreach in an effort to over-regulate certain firearm accessories,” said Moody.

The opinion deals solely with Florida state law and has no bearing on the ATF’s action. The opinion states: “Unless and until judicially or legislatively clarified, I conclude that the definition of ‘short-barreled rifle,’ which the Legislature enacted in 1969, does not include a handgun, such as a pistol, to which a person attaches a stabilizing brace, because the use of such an optional accessory does not change the fundamental characteristics of the handgun.” Separately, the state of Florida is challenging the ATF interpretation.

GOV. NEWSOM SENDS GUN CONTROL RUBBER STAMP TO U.S. SENATE

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is ensuring that his gun control agenda is in safe hands with the appointment of Laphonza Butler to serve in the U.S. Senate following the passing of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Sen. Butler was sworn in this week, a Democrat who until the announcement was residing in Silver Springs, Md., and has spoken little on gun control issues. However, her progressive track record and history of working for liberal causes assures that she will pick up the gun control mantle.

Sen. Feinstein was the longest-serving female senator at the time of her death on Sept. 29. She was also the matriarch of the Senate’s gun control agenda. She helped author the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. That law lasted 10 years and was not reauthorized in 2004. Since then, Sen. Feinstein introduced legislation in every Congress to revive the ban on America’s most-popular selling centerfire rifle. In fact, if she had it her way, gun control would have gone much further.

Sen. Feinstein told 60 Minutes in a 1995 interview, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,” she said. “I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

Sen. Bulter’s selection to fill the remainder of Sen. Feinstein’s term promises that not much will change. Sen. Butler is deeply tied to gun control politicians and causes that will surely seek to expand efforts to deprive law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights.

Who is Laphonza Butler?

Gov. Newsom heaped praise on Sen. Butler for shattering glass ceilings in the Senate. He noted that she is the first openly LGBTQ person to represent California in the Senate, first Black lesbian to openly serve in Congress and third Black woman to represent California in the Senate following Vice President Kamala Harris.

He also noted that Butler will pick up where Sen. Feinstein left off with gun control.

“As we mourn the enormous loss of Senator Feinstein, the very freedoms she fought for — reproductive freedom, equal protection, and safety from gun violence — have never been under greater assault,” Gov. Newsom said in a statement. “Laphonza will carry the baton left by Senator Feinstein, continue to break glass ceilings, and fight for all Californians in Washington D.C.”

Sen. Butler grew up in Magnolia, Miss., and attended Jackson State University. Her father died when she was just 16. She worked in the labor movement for 20 years and at 30, was elected president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2015. She was also SEIU international vice president and president of SEIU California’s state council.

Sen. Butler also ran political campaigns and was part of Vice President Harris’ campaign for the vice presidency. She was previously a senior advisor to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. She has been president of Emily’s List, a national political action committee dedicated to electing abortion rights-supportive women candidates to office.

Political Pals

While little in her personal or professional career points to gun control, the list of supporters lining up to congratulate her is telling.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered her endorsement, saying, “A great choice for California and the Senate. Congratulations Laphonza Butler!”

That was echoed by twice-failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, as well as former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile, the Democratic National Committee, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), and California Democratic U.S. Reps. Ted Lieu, Jimmy Gomez, Ami Berra, Ro Khanna, Sara Jacobs, Mark Takano, Brad Sherman, Gloria Johnson, Nanette Barragán and California Attorney General Rob Bonta. All are ardent gun control supporters.

Even Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) offered congratulations, despite the fact that he’s thrown his hat into the ring for the seat she’s filling until 2024. He’s facing a crowded Democratic field including California Democratic Reps. Barbara Lee and Katie Porter – and Sen. Butler if she decides to compete for election.

Gleeful Gun Control

It’s not just gun control politicians that are gleeful at Gov. Newsom’s appointment of Sen. Butler to fill the Senate seat. It’s also gun control groups too.

President of Everytown for Gun Safety’s (and its mouthpiece The Trace) John Feinblatt, the gun control group bankrolled by antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, “Laphonza Butler is an advocate’s advocate and we’re thrilled with her history-making appointment to the Senate. We look forward to working alongside her to keep communities safe from gun violence.”

The Everytown-affiliated Moms Demand Action got in on the action too. Executive Director Angela Ferrell-Zabala wrote on X, “Laphonza Butler is an incredible leader and a fierce advocate for women and girls. I’m thrilled to watch her make history as the first Black lesbian senator to openly serve in Congress. Moms Demand can’t wait to work with her to continue California’s leadership on gun safety!”

Gov. Newsom’s appointment of Sen. Butler is a calculated move to ensure his gun control agenda – including his maligned 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – is preserved. This is his attempt to export California gun control to the rest of the country and potentially pave the way for his own White House bid.