Category: RKBA

DOJ Issues “Relief From Disabilities” Proposal

On July 22, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a proposed rule to revive a statutory process for the restoration of Second Amendment rights lost under federal law as a result of convictions or other disqualifying circumstances. NRA-ILA will be submitting its own comments on the proposal, and we urge our members to do so as well. Thoughtful, pro-gun comments will ensure the best outcome for this critical program.

NRA often emphasizes that it represents peaceable, law-abiding gun owners. Yet the Second Amendment is a restraint on government; it is not a prize the government bestows only on whom it chooses. There are limits to the restrictions the government can place on gun ownership, even when (as is almost always the case) it claims to be acting in the interest of “public safety” or “keeping guns out of the wrong hands.” Rights restoration is an important corrective measure when the government’s “public safety” efforts overshoot the mark.

Continue reading “”

Appeal Brief Filed in Knife Rights’ Second Amendment Federal Switchblade Act Lawsuit

Knife Rights and its fellow appellants have filed their Appeal Brief in our Federal Second Amendment lawsuit against the Federal Switchblade Act.

Download the Opening Brief

Download the Full Excerpts (159MB)

The essence of the case is that the Supreme Court has made clear that the “Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms…” Further, in Heller, the Supreme Court stated the Second Amendment protects weapons that are “‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and that weapons “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” are within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Despite this, the Federal Switchblade Act broadly restricts, or outright bans in over one-third of the U.S., a huge category of such bearable arms that are in common use, in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

The District Court ignored its commands from the Supreme Court with another absurd stretch to avoid ruling in favor of the Second Amendment.We are asking the Appeals Court to reverse this ridiculous decision.

We also hope that with the Department of Justice’s recent amicus briefs in the 7th and 3rd Circuits opposing bans on AR-style rifles (“assault weapons”) and magazines-more-than-10 round capacity as “flagrantly violat[ing] the Second Amendment,” that they will revisit their irrational opposition in our case and stipulate, like in these others, that switchblades are commonly possessed arms under the Second Amendment and that the Federal Switchblade Act (excepting the import ban) also flagrantly violates the Second Amendment.

Knife Rights’ Attorney John Dillon said, “this is a very strong appeal from a district court decision that has no legitimate legal support. There is no question that switchblades are “arms” under every conceivable definition of the term. Because the FSA clearly prohibits the manufacture, transportation, and purchase of these arms in all interstate commerce, as well as possession of switchblades on all federal lands and Indian Country, Heller and Bruen demand that the government bear the burden of justifying the FSA’s prohibitions. The government has entirely failed to meet this burden, and we will prove that on appeal.”

Since 2010 Knife Rights’ efforts have resulted in 58 bills & court decisions repealing knife bans & protecting knife owners in 36 states and over 200 cities and towns! Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America™ and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans™.

The Correct Argument for the Second Amendment

Taking a person’s quote out of context is unfair and disingenuous. Doing so when that person is not present to defend themselves is truly heinous and cowardly. Such has been the case in the weeks following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Of all the misrepresentations and outright lies surrounding Charlie Kirk, his beliefs and actions, perhaps the most insidious is the one used to justify his murder. His quote circulating on social media goes as follows: “It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” The deliberately fallacious logic of the Left then concludes that by Kirk’s own words, he deserves to be one of those unfortunate casualties. They leave out, of course, the part where Kirk stresses that while the Second Amendment allows us to protect many of our God-given rights, this decision comes with an imperative to reduce gun violence.

Rather than waste time justifying the value of Charlie Kirk’s human life to the soulless who do not care to hear it, it is both in better service to the memory of Charlie Kirk and more edifying to focus on just why a full gun ban should not exist in the United States of America.

There are two common answers conservatives give in defense of the Second Amendment, and both are not only insufficient but fundamentally incorrect. The first and most useless is hunting. While in simple terms, the right to hunt animals is self-evident, guns for the sole purpose of hunting would logically exclude the necessity of semi-automatic weapons and AR-15s. As Joe Biden was wont to say, deer do not run around in Kevlar vests. Furthermore, the benefits of hunting are persuasively dismissed by a side that ostensibly argues for human lives. For the average American influenced by media narrative, it is unjustifiable to allow school shootings in order to allow middle-aged men wearing camouflage to shoot deer.

The second is self-defense. This argument holds up considerably better, though it is still lacking. There exist evil actors, some with guns. The best way to counteract this unfortunate reality is by having good actors with guns, both for deterrence and defending against such actors. Taking away Second Amendment protections leaves good-faith actors susceptible to attack, and leaves the likelihood that bad actors will procure firearms illegally. The argument against this, however, is that an effective repeal of the Second Amendment and large-scale gun confiscation would produce a world with no guns for evil actors, eliminating the need for self-defense from gun violence. From a procedural perspective, a full gun confiscation is unfeasible and would not yield the utopian society the Left desires. While these are valid arguments, they are questions of practical application rather than objective principles.

The argument that Charlie Kirk makes, and the argument made by the Founding Fathers, is in fact the correct one. Americans have the right to bear arms because we have the right to possess a physical check against a tyrannical government. In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers were careful to create a constitution that would prevent their new government from devolving into the tyranny they had escaped under the British. An armed citizenry is a blunt solution to this problem. The Swiss resistance model, for example, inspired the American Revolution and the Second Amendment. It allowed the Swiss people to fend off time and again both foreign and domestic tyranny. Consent of the governed does not mean anything at all if the citizens do not have an alternative option. Without the right to firearms, consent of the governed is a vacuous phrase meant to cleverly enslave the population using the delusion of freedom.

Unfortunately, this is a far more uncomfortable argument. The modern American does not like the idea of rising up to fight a tyrannical power. While the Constitution is one of the great written works in the history of the world, it rests on values and assumptions greater than the document itself. One of these values has been lost by the American spirit, namely, a willingness to die for something. The founders, though differing in theological details, held a deep respect for eternity and the final end. Only with that worldview is it at all reasonable to throw away an earthly life for another person, an ideal, or simply God Himself. The modern American has lost this.

This does not mean that every American should be thirstily awaiting civil war. It is simply a reminder that love for America means a respect for its founding principles. Respect here means more than tacit agreement to these principles — it requires a willingness to defend them. If this sentiment were commonly held among Americans, the right to bear arms would not be a rigorous debate but an assumed fundamental bedrock of our country. When Charlie Kirk acknowledged the risk of gun violence, he did so because he understood this fact. Charlie Kirk’s message and legacy are greater than himself. The fact that his enemies are so intent on distorting his words is a sign that we should listen more carefully to them.

Be Not Afraid: Fear, Guns, and Gun Policy

here’s something about fear that makes people do very different things, even if their fear is over the same source. It’s why some people stick their heads in the sand while others prepare for disasters. It’s why some people try to change the world and others just dig in and try to survive in it.

And let’s be real here, the subject of fear is a big part of the gun debate, whether we like it or not.

That’s especially true when people let their fears dictate what policies they back, especially when they’re trying to decide what anyone is allowed to do.

This came up because of an op-ed at an independent student publication at Auburn University. I don’t particularly like picking on college students, but sometimes, they offer up tidbits of what others are thinking, and their arguments need to be addressed. This particular op-ed seems to talk a lot about gun control, of course, but there’s a reason I’m talking about fear.

It’s because the author started it.

The heavy emotions I felt receiving my high school diploma this past May came in distinctly differing ways.
I felt a deep sense of accomplishment for myself and my closest friends. I felt as though a suffocating weight was lifted off of my chest, opening a portal for unlimited success. I felt as though I would never return to Huntsville and live the same simple and carefree life. I would never roam the halls of the high school or put my keeper gloves on for soccer practice.   

It was this breakneck speed of time passing that pried my fingers from holding on. An era of childhood was closing in front of my eyes, and I didn’t know how to react to it. As I took in the occasion, feeling gracious for the memories and sentimental for the time I would never get back, for a brief moment, I thought to myself, “I survived.” I survived a part of life that many children and young adults don’t each year.

Now, let’s understand that school shootings are rare. While the current hotness for anti-gunners is that firearms are the leading cause of death in children, it still should be noted that child deaths aren’t super common, either.

In other words, if you’re born in this country, you’ve got a really, really great chance of reaching adulthood. So long as you stay in school, you’ll graduate. There’s really no reason to fear that you won’t survive beyond the media hype trying to convince people that they won’t.

Yet, what I find funny is that this person, who claims they were so relieved to survive to graduate, then had the gall to write this:

What are pro-gun activists so scared about as they leave their house that forces them to conceal carry a life-ending weapon? What does it say about our nation that people feel such a strong need to always protect themselves? Why are people so willing to look past all of this tragedy for their own convenience of owning a gun? Why are we time and time again allowing unstable citizens and children access to buy these guns or access them without stricter security measures?  

American gun violence in schools blows every other first-world nation out of the water in terms of how often they occur and the amount of deaths that result.  

American non-gun violence blows every other first-world nation out of the water in terms of how often it occurs, especially when compared to those nations’ total rates.

And the vast majority of that violence is carried out by people who cannot lawfully access guns, but do so anyway.

I find it funny, though, that the author has decided to question our courage by opting to carry a gun when he was relieved just to survive high school, when there wasn’t really a great chance he wouldn’t.

The truth is that most of us aren’t really afraid. We have concerns that bad things can happen, but we believe that it’s better to be prepared for the unlikely than to simply trust probability to protect us.

Look, I’ve had people in my sights twice. Once because I was afraid for my own life, and once for the life of another. I’m glad I didn’t have to pull the trigger either time. I’m already outside of the probability range for most people, so you’ll excuse me if I go about my day with a gun on me out of concern that the laws of probability aren’t finished screwing with me. I’m not afraid most of the time. The gun is for when there’s a reason to be afraid.

Yet let’s understand that while the author makes a thing about asking what we’re afraid of, his entire approach to the issue of guns is governed my his own fears. He cites fatal shooting statistics around college campuses after lamenting K-12 school shootings, and I get the concern. Colleges are prime targets for bad people, but not because there aren’t enough gun laws. It’s because college campuses are gun-free zones.

Fear governed the creation of gun-free zones. Fear expanded them onto college campuses. Fear governs the calls for gun control throughout the nation, all while anti-gunners ask us what we’re afraid of.

When I’m carrying, the answer is, “Nothing.”

It’s a lot easier to be not afraid when you have the means to meet the threat. It’s a lot easier to have no fear when you’re prepared for whatever dangers you might encounter.

Sure, fear will pop up then, but that’s a different matter. Everyone else is just as afraid. I’m just in a position to do something about it.

I’m not counting on a law that will be ignored to protect me.

NRA files brief in challenge to federal suppressor registration mandate

The National Rifle Association, American Suppressor Association, and Independence Institute filed an amicus brief Sept. 17, urging the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant rehearing en banc (in full court) in a challenge to the National Firearms Act’s registration requirement for suppressors.

George Peterson was indicted for possessing an unregistered suppressor under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871, and alleges that the NFA’s prohibition on unregistered suppressors violates the Second Amendment.

Here in Ohio: House bill would let certain officials carry concealed firearms in government facilities
On Aug. 27, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit upheld the prohibition. The court reasoned that registration requirements are the equivalent of licensing schemes, and because the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that shall-issue carry licensing schemes can be constitutional, registration requirements for individual arms are also constitutional. The court declined to apply the test for Second Amendment challenges set forth in the NRA’s landmark Supreme Court victory, NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Our brief urges the Fifth Circuit to rehear the case en banc because the panel decision contradicts Supreme Court case law and sets a troubling precedent. The brief warns that by upholding the registration requirement for suppressors while assuming they are protected arms, the decision implies that the government may require the registration of all arms — and without needing to satisfy the Supreme Court’s test for Second Amendment challenges. The brief then provides various examples throughout history, including from England, Germany, France, Australia, and New York City, to prove that registration often leads to confiscation, and confiscation often leads to tyranny. A regulation with such serious constitutional implications, our brief concludes, must be subject to the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment test.

The brief was filed in United States v. Peterson.

DOJ Takes Troubling Position in Second Amendment Case

The case Reese v. ATF challenges the prohibition on 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns. Victorious at the Fifth Circuit, they’re now working towards a final judgment at the district court level, but the Department of Justice has taken a position that’s not sitting well with Second Amendment advocates.

After the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered an opinion on Reese v. ATF, the case was remanded for final judgment to the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The circuit court concluded that “the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among ‘the people’ whose right to keep and bear arms is protected.” The plaintiffs filed an important brief on Friday in support of their proposed judgment.

The government ended up exhausting their timeline to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. When remanded back to district court, both the plaintiffs and the government filed proposed judgments because “a good faith attempt to reach agreement with Government” failed.

The plaintiffs are proposing the government be enjoined from enforcing prohibitions on the sale of handguns to all eighteen-to-twenty-year-old members. The government is requesting that the law be enjoined only “with respect to the identified and verified persons described” in the proposed judgment. In short, the government essentially wants the order to apply only to the individual plaintiffs, not every member of the associations who are part of the lawsuit, which include the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association.

“The laws challenged in this case prevent 18-to-20-year-old adult Americans from acquiring handguns or handgun ammunition in the ordinary commercial market. The Fifth Circuit has held that those laws and their supporting regulations are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment,” the filing states. “And now the Government has taken the position that even so, Plaintiffs should be entitled only to illusory relief and the Government should be free to continue to enforce these unconstitutional restrictions against Plaintiffs’ affected members as though they never brought and won this suit.”

The 19-page brief goes on to explain why the final judgment should not give deference to the government by delivering what would amount to an as-applied opinion. Given the amount of time it takes to bring such cases to completion, many plaintiffs are mooted out by coming of age before there are any final judgments—something the government incorporated in their proposed order.

“What’s at stake now is the scope of the injunction–meaning, which young adults will be able to exercise their rights,” said Second Amendment Foundation’s Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Although it chose not to appeal the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, it is now the ATF’s position that the scope of relief should be so narrow as to cover literally no one. That position is contrary to well-settled law. SAF sued on behalf of its members, and the relief SAF won in the Fifth Circuit flows to those very members. All SAF members should be covered by this injunction.”

“SAF’s victory in this case rightly applies to all of our members, and that is precisely what this brief makes clear,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The government cannot continue to trounce on the Second Amendment rights of young adults by trying to avoid the practical effectiveness of an injunction mandated by a federal circuit court.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition had some harsh words for the Department of Justice. FPC said the government’s brief was full of “brazen arguments” and that “the DOJ is working to push all effective, cause-driven organizations … out of court altogether, and force people to pursue their rights through slow, complex, and expensive class-action lawsuits.” FPC alleges that these moves are all part of a new government ploy.

“The DOJ’s cynical scheme to undermine associational standing and relief for our members is nothing but an attempt to put constitutional accountability out of the reach of ordinary Americans,” Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs said in a statement. “The federal government, having lost on the merits, is now trying to rig the process. But we will not be deterred. While the government has placed FPC and our members in its crosshairs, we are proud to expose and oppose this dangerous strategy as we pursue a world of maximal liberty for all peaceable people.”

We’re allegedly living at a time when the most pro-Second Amendment administration is in power. The government yielding by allowing the clock to run out on appealing to the High Court certainly was a win, but not if in the next breath they’re saying that the relief the plaintiffs are seeking should be grossly limited. The Fifth Circuit was clear when it said that 18-to-20-year-olds are part of “the people,” there should be no further argument—yet here we are.

Florida bill would allow armed volunteers to protect churches, synagogues, mosques
Sen. Don Gaetz said he ‘hoped (the bill) would never have been necessary.’

It’s rare when Sen. Don Gaetz says he filed a bill that he “hoped would never have been necessary.”

“But pastors in my area came to me with the request that I help them,” said Gaetz, R-Niceville, of Senate Bill 52.

The bill he spoke of, entitled “Security Services at Places of Worship,” would provide an exemption from licensure requirements for certain volunteers who provide armed security for places of worship.

“I hope the bill will help in assisting churches who feel like they have to protect themselves and their parishioners,” Gaetz said.

Here’s why: A string of recent shootings across the country and a major Florida court ruling on gun rights have reignited the national debate over firearms.

Recently in late August, two children were killed and and 17 people, including 14 children, were wounded after a shooter opened fire at a Catholic church in Minneapolis.

And last week, on the same day conservative activist Charlie Kirk was killed at an event at a Utah university, two teenagers were wounded after a 16-year-old student fired shots inside his Colorado high school. He later killed himself as authorities confronted him outside.

In Florida, the state’s 1st District Court of Appeal declared unconstitutional  a state law that bans the open carrying of firearms. A three-judge panel said the ban was incompatible with the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, as of Sept. 18, there have been 305 mass shootings in 2025.

Gaetz’s bill will allow volunteers who meet certain requirements to provide security for places of worship if the security plan is approved by the local sheriff’s office; the volunteer has a valid Florida concealed carry permit and does not receive compensation for the security work; and if they pass a level 2 background check.

A level 2 background check is a state and federal-level fingerprint-based check, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

The bill language says “place of worship” but also includes the words “church, mosque, or synagogue.”

“I was approached by Protestant ministers,” Gaetz said, adding that he has not spoken to Roman Catholic clergy, imams or rabbis.

But “I took the liberty of defining a house of worship in a way that would include all denominations,” he explained.

Antisemitic incidents in the United States have increased in the past couple of years, according to the Anti-Defamation League. In 2024, these incidents rose for the fourth consecutive year, reaching 9,354 total incidents, the highest level ever recorded in 45 years of record keeping.

There will be a companion bill in the Florida House, Gaetz said, and he expects it to be filed in the coming days. The 2026 legislative session convenes Jan. 13, and committee weeks begin Oct. 6.

If passed, the measure will take effect on July 1, 2026.

I’ll append a quote:
“The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once”
-Senior Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, Alex Kozinski

Charlie Kirk was Right About the Second Amendment, Remember His Words

When Charlie Kirk was asked about the Second Amendment in April 2023, just days after the Nashville school shooting, he didn’t give a watered-down, politically safe answer. He spoke plainly, and what he said is now being ripped out of context in the wake of his assassination.

Gun-control activists, the media, and opportunistic politicians are seizing on fragments of his response, painting Kirk as an “extremist” who glorified gun deaths. But if you look at the full exchange, a different picture emerges—one of honesty, clarity, and a willingness to say what most politicians are too cowardly to admit.

Americans Prefer Communities With Guns
Gun bans aren’t gaining traction.

With so many laws on the books regulating gun ownership and enforcing myriad gun control measures, it’s more than a bit surprising that Americans prefer law-abiding citizens be allowed to have firearms in their neighborhoods. This includes those who identify as Democrats. A new survey conducted by Napolitan News Service reveals 53% of voters “prefer to live in a community where people are allowed to own guns, while 38% say they would prefer to live where guns are outlawed.” This includes 76% of those who self-identify as Republican and 63% of Democrats.

By an almost 2-1 margin, men say they want to live in an area where their friends and neighbors are allowed to own guns. Women, however, appear to have mixed feelings, with 44% saying they prefer to have firearms outlawed. Forty-three percent of women want to live in a location where guns are allowed.

When asked about gun violence and so-called “mass shootings,” 56% of those polled would rather have the laws already on the books enforced over passing new legislation. Concerning matters of race, it’s clear that blacks and Hispanics are more concerned about “mass shootings.” Only 3% of whites said it was “very likely” that a close family member might be killed in a random shooting, but 11% of blacks and 9% of Hispanics felt more personally threatened.

Sending Thoughts and Prayers

After the recent killing of innocent schoolchildren in Minnesota, controversy erupted over the frequently used phrase “sending thoughts and prayers” to the families of those tragically killed. This poll reveals that only 26% of voters were bothered by this phraseology; 71% said those comments were not offensive.

Perhaps less shocking is that 77% of elites, that is, people with a postgraduate education who make more than $150,000 annually and live in highly populated urban areas, “favor banning private ownership of guns.”

Twenty-two states currently have constitutional carry laws. These gun-friendly states follow the Second Amendment more closely by permitting citizens to have the legal right to both open and concealed carry without having to get a license. These locations tend to be more rural, while urban areas – where much of the gun violence occurs – are more likely to restrict gun ownership.

The most gun-friendly states in the United States include Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and Arizona, with Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri coming in the second tier.

Guns in the Hands of Law-Abiding Citizens

Recently, it was revealed that FBI statistics “massively undercounted defensive gun use for years,” according to Liberty Nation News. Author Graham Noble zeroed in on a report from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) that showed “massive errors” in FBI data during Joe Biden’s administration. “If your agenda is to turn public opinion against gun ownership and spread the fear of gun violence, the last thing you want is people knowing guns can be, and often are, used to deter or prevent crime,” Noble astutely noted.

Conveniently leaving out the many times guns were used to stop crime in order to advance a political agenda is diabolical. The CPRC counted 561 active shootings in which 202 armed civilian interventions were reported. But the FBI recorded only 374 “active” shootings in which 14 armed civilians intervened. A spread that wide cannot be attributed to a simple error.

The fact is that more people surveyed feel safer in communities where law-abiding citizens have their firearms at the ready. And it shows that, instinctively, Americans know that guns in the hands of a good guy are the best defense during an active crime involving handguns.

Grassroots Legislative Update—September 15, 2025

By Tanya Metaksa

What’s New—Trump Administration DOJ: The Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a motion in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to vacate a prior conviction for possession of a “large-capacity magazine,” arguing the DC ban violates the Second Amendment; State Legislatures: California: Three bills moving towards final passage; Illinois: Gov. J.B. Pritzker signs SB8; North Carolina: The veto override vote of SB50 is scheduled for the House floor on Sept. 22.

Trump Administration DOJ

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a motion in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to vacate a prior conviction for possession of a “large-capacity magazine,” arguing the DC ban violates the Second Amendment. Jeanine Pirro, United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, submitted this motion, which requests that the conviction of Tyrie Benson under DC’s large-capacity magazine ban (DC Code 7-2506.01) be overturned. The motion openly states the DOJ now considers the law unconstitutional and will no longer prosecute violations of the statute.

Case Background

Tyrie Benson was charged in November 2022 with several offenses, including carrying an unlicensed pistol, possessing a large-capacity ammunition feeding device, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. After a bench trial before Judge Lynn Liebovitz in April 2023, Benson was convicted on all counts. Benson appealed, arguing that the large-capacity magazine ban violated his Second Amendment rights. Initially, the Biden administration opposed this argument and defended the conviction, but the case remained undecided.

DOJ’s Motion and Rationale

The Trump DOJ’s reversal is articulated in the motion, which states that a complete ban on large-capacity magazines cannot survive constitutional scrutiny in light of Second Amendment protections. The government asserts that such magazines are fundamental to armed self-defense and, by extension, qualify as “arms” under the Second Amendment. The motion further notes that bans analogous to those struck down in District of Columbia v. Heller—which prohibited entire categories of firearms—are similarly unconstitutional if they target items in common use. The DOJ acknowledges that tens of millions of such magazines exist in the United States, making it impossible for the government to prove they are “dangerous and unusual,” the test set forth in Heller for regulating arms.

Legal and Policy Implications

This shift by the DOJ is an indication that the Trump administration is “cleaning up” anti-Second Amendment policies, likely signaling a new approach in other cases, including those pending before federal appellate courts. The government’s stance means it will not prosecute anyone under the DC large-capacity magazine law moving forward. Mark W. Smith suggests this precedent could influence the outcome of similar cases nationwide, such as those in the Seventh Circuit or potentially at the Supreme Court should certiorari be granted.

State Legislature

The following states are still in SESSION:

California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin

California: On Sept. 9:  AB 1078 passed the Senate concurring with the Assembly amendments with all Republicans voting NO: AB 1127, amended in the Senate and awaiting third reading: and AB 1263, passed in the Senate and ordered to the Assembly.

Illinois: Earlier this month, Governor JB Pritzker signed SB8 into law, which mandates new mandatory firearm storage requirements for all gun owners. The legislation requires individuals to securely store all firearms in their homes, vehicles, buildings, or other structures. Previously, firearms were required to be stored to prevent children under the age of 14 from accessing them. SB8 raises this threshold to 18 and adds that prohibited persons and individuals deemed “at risk” must be prohibited from accessing any firearms.

Critics argue that this legislation unfairly punishes responsible gun owners by imposing broad and burdensome storage mandates. They point out that SB8 does little to address criminal misuse of firearms. Furthermore, law-abiding citizens face civil fines of up to $10,000 simply for how they store their personal property within their homes or vehicles.

North Carolina: The veto override vote of SB50 is scheduled for the House floor on Sept. 22.

No, It Wasn’t Ironic That Second Amendment Advocate Charlie Kirk Was Shot
All liberty involves tradeoffs. So does repressing liberty.

Inevitably, in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, some observers looked at the problem of a radicalized young man who drove hundreds of miles to plan and carry out the murder of somebody whose political views he abhorred and concluded that the problem is the tool used by the assassin. A few of those observers even gloat that Kirk was shot after defending the right to keep and bear arms when he discussed the tradeoffs inherent in balancing the benefits and dangers of liberty.

Much political discourse was already stupid, but too many people want to make it even stupider.

After Kirk’s assassination, amidst widespread mourning over his death as well as despicable celebrations of the conservative activist’s murder, came a spate of malicious chuckling over the nature of the crime. Charlie Kirk, you see, was shot with a rifle, and he’d once called shooting deaths the price of keeping the Second Amendment. How ironic!

Except that’s really not what Kirk said.

I had a lot of disagreements with Kirk, but this wasn’t one. His comment about the Second Amendment and deaths was part of a larger discussion about the dangers inherent in liberty. He emphasized that you can’t have the good parts of being free without also suffering the negative consequences.

Asked at an April 5, 2023, Turning Point USA event about the Second Amendment, Kirk answered:

“The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government….Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price—50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving—speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services—is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road.”

“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am—I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal,” he added.

Kirk might also have mentioned that free speech is also dangerous. Unfettered speech is important to the function of a free and open society. But protecting speech risks the popularization of vicious, totalitarian ideas like those of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler. It runs the danger of the radicalization of lost souls who encounter bad ideas, embrace them, engrave “Hey fascist! Catch!” lyrics from the antifascist song “Bella Ciao” and gaming memes on rifle cartridges, and then murder their political opponents.

Undoubtedly, the same people would have found that equally ironic.

And Kirk’s larger point is true across the board. Any freedom that allows us to live to our fullest, any restriction on state intervention into our lives, can be abused by the worst among us. Evil people are shielded by Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, as are good people. We give up such protections at our peril in hopes of rooting out evil.

What peril? Kirk touched on this in his 2023 talk when he said, “the Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government” and noted that “governments tend to get tyrannical.”

Yes, freedom can be abused by bad people. But if we can’t trust everybody to use freedom wisely, why would we trust people in government to wisely administer a more restrictive regime by which they get to disarm the public, censor speech, invade homes at will, and more? Those who seek coercive power over others by working in government are at least as prone to abuse their position as is anybody else.

There are tradeoffs not just in liberty, but in restricting liberty. Given that we have a natural right to be free, and that Kirk was correct to say that all governments tend towards tyranny, we’re better off trusting in more freedom, rather than less. That’s a recognition that there are no risk-free options.

The Call for Gun Control Gets Even Dumber

But the focus on Kirk’s death by gunshot gets even stupider. The conservative activist was reportedly killed with a single round from a Mauser Model 98 .30-06 caliber bolt-action rifle. The Mauser 98 was originally designed in the 19th century for military use but has long since been largely supplanted in that role by semi-automatic and then select-fire weapons, most using less-powerful cartridges (yes, the most common cartridges used in AR- and AK-type weapons are generally less-powerful than other cartridges used for hunting).

But the old design remains ideal for hunting large game animals. It is accurate if properly zeroed, has a longer effective range than many modern military weapons, and cartridges such as the .30-06 are likely to cleanly drop an animal with a single shot. That’s why many of the old rifles were adapted, sometimes with modifications, for hunting. Modern bolt-action hunting rifles used for stalking deer, boar, elk, and the like are variations on designs that go back to the Mauser 98 and similar rifles.

That is, the hunting rifle allegedly used to murder Charlie Kirk is an example of the only type of firearm gun control advocates say they don’t want to ban or restrict. No major law advocated in recent years, such as magazine capacity limits or bans on semi-automatic weapons, would have affected it.

Blame Culture?

Some observers are upset that the left—the radical fringe of it, anyway—is blamed for Kirk’s murder when Tyler Robinson’s family is conservative, Mormon, culturally traditional, and comfortable with firearms. But the Robinson family didn’t shoot Charlie Kirk. Tyler Robinson committed this crime after he adopted views very different from those of his family, embraced the use of violence against political foes, and inscribed antifascist slogans on his ammunition before taking a fatal shot.

If we’re going to delve into culture wars, we could mention the unfortunate use of speech in the social media cesspool. That’s where Robinson was seemingly radicalized, where people celebrated Kirk’s death, and where a few even called for more targets. But that’s part of the tradeoffs of liberty.

If we’re all to be free, and we should be, some will use freedom in repulsive ways. We should punish those who push action to criminal extremes. But all liberty can be misused. And not only are the risks of liberty worth the dangers, they’re also far less perilous than granting governments enhanced powers that they’ll inevitably abuse.

TPTB in Florida state that the state will not appeal, so as I have been told, on the 25th, the ruling will become permanent case law.

Florida Court Strikes Down Open Carry Ban

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeals struck down the state’s 37-year-old open carry ban Wednesday, declaring the prohibition unconstitutional and delivering a significant victory for gun rights advocates.

The three-judge panel ruled unanimously that Florida’s 1987 law violates the Second Amendment, overturning decades of precedent that made the state one of only four nationwide to ban open carry.

“No historical tradition supports Florida’s open carry ban,” Judge Stephanie Ray wrote in the 20-page opinion. “To the contrary, history confirms that the right to bear arms in public necessarily includes the right to do so openly.”

The decision stems from Stanley Victor McDaniels’ July 4, 2022, arrest in downtown Pensacola, where the Republican activist openly carried a loaded handgun while waving a copy of the U.S. Constitution, according to the court document. Police arrested McDaniels despite his concealed carry permit, leading to his conviction. A violation of the 1987 law was previously a second-degree misdemeanor.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier praised the ruling.

“This is a big win for the Second Amendment rights of Floridians,” Uthmeier said in a post.

“As we’ve all witnessed over the last few days, our God-given right to self-defense is indispensable,” he continued.

Representative Byron Donalds, a Republican gubernatorial contender, echoed support on social media: “Shall not be infringed, means shall not be infringed!”

Former Florida State Rep. Anthony Sabatini criticized Republican lawmakers who previously blocked open carry legislation, calling them “fake Republicans” for failing to repeal the ban through legislative action.

The ruling overturns McDaniels’ conviction and establishes statewide precedent.

How 9/11 Made Me Understand Importance of Gun Ownership

The idea of 24 years sounds like an awfully long time. This day, 24 years ago, seems almost like yesterday to me. Especially in the wake of what happened to Charlie Kirk yesterday.

I was home from work. I’d been having a series of migraines and took a week off to deal with that. I woke up and turned on the TV, only to see one of the towers of the World Trade Center burning.

My wife was out with my then-infant son. He was two months old that day and had a checkup, so she was unaware of anything happening. I wasn’t. I saw the second plane hit. I saw the reports of what happened at the Pentagon and of a plane crash in Pennsylvania.

My nation was under attack, and no one had a clue what was next.

All of these reports kept staggering in, adding to the horror we all felt, and I honestly didn’t know if or when it was going to stop. My nation was under attack, and I, not that long out of the Navy, was powerless to do anything. Would the attacks come to our front doors?

I was powerless.

At the time, I didn’t own a single firearm. I had nothing with which to defend my home.

I wasn’t anti-gun. I just hadn’t bothered to get one. Guns were expensive, and I had a young family and wasn’t exactly making the big bucks. There were always other things to buy.

It was clear, at that moment, that needed to change.

No, it turned out that there wasn’t another wave coming on that fateful day. Four planes were all there was, though that was more than enough.

In the coming days and weeks, America changed for a time. We were a nation more or less united. We had an enemy, someone to focus our ire on other than one another. We went to war, then stayed there. An entire generation grew up in the shadow of conflict. First in Afghanistan, then Iraq. Millions put on the uniform and served. Thousands never came home. Tens of thousands came home battered and broken in some way.

But many of us became aware that the bad guys could hit us at home, and that those brave men and women couldn’t be a complete and total shield for the United States.

We’d have to step up.

I carry a gun these days, not just for pedestrian crime from violent Americans or illegal immigrants, but because the Jihadists who hated us then hate us now. I refuse to feel that kind of powerless in the face of such evil ever again.

Since that day, we’ve seen other terrorist attacks on American soil. The nature of radical Islam hasn’t changed, nor has its desire to bring down the freest nation on Earth, the one they call “The Great Satan.” They just haven’t accomplished anything on that scale since that day.

Now, they attack on a more personal level, and should that happen, I refuse to just be a victim.

I might die, but I’ll die fighting, trying to protect others and the nation I love so dearly.

Without our gun rights, I’d be left with harsh language and skills with weapons generally too archaic to take seriously, even as terrorist networks arm their future martyrs across borders without regard for local laws.

Luckily, I do have them, so rather than challenge them to a fight with longswords or spears, I can just shoot them as God and Sam Colt intended.

Wonder how that affects being able to enlist at 17?

DC Appeals Court: Adults Under 21 Are Covered by Second Amendment, But Can’t Have Guns

Do adults under the age of 21 have the right to keep and bear arms?

Since they’re adults, they should. After all, it’s one thing to say children can’t buy firearms, but people who are responsible for themselves in pretty much every other aspect of their lives are a different matter.

Yet many places restrict those under 21 from actually enjoying the full benefits of their Second Amendment rights.

In the District of Columbia, which is a microcosm of how little gun control actually does to stop crime, they have a total gun ban for those under 21. That ban has been challenged and was recently ruled constitutional. The local DC appeals court–not the federal appeals court in DC, just for clarification–just upheld the ruling with an…interesting argument.

So, by operating under the assumption that adults under 21 are, in fact, part of “the people” covered by the Second Amendment, they still find a gun ban constitutional?

How does that make sense?

As the FPC put it later:

Right?

The sad part is that I see the so-called logic being employed. If the right to own guns implies the right to purchase them, which many of us have argued more than once, as have the courts, then the inverse would seem to be true. If you don’t have a right to buy them, as was ruled previously, then the implication is that you don’t have a right to own them.

Hence, the DC restrictions being upheld.

But NRA v Bondi, which is the case cited, was an 11th Circuit decision, not a Supreme Court decision, so I’m not sure about the wisdom of basing everything on that, especially as the DC Circuit Court of Appeals covers the DC area. Of course, it’s not like that court would rule differently.

Personally, I think the 11th Circuit blew it.

While there is a legitimate case for the constitutionality of age limits, the argument that people who are old enough to enlist, sign contracts, and vote in our nation’s elections is bizarre to me. Especially as some want to lower the voting age still further, all while saying younger people are too reckless and irresponsible to exercise a fundamental, constitutionally protected right.

And then to extrapolate it out to justifying a ban on even the possession of firearms by people in that age group is absolutely horrifying to me. Especially as the age limits are often defended as saying these folks still have their Second Amendment rights, they just can’t buy a gun. This, however, makes it very clear where that argument can and will lead.

Here’s hoping someone steps in and lowers a much-needed smackdown on this absolute BS.

Tennessee of all places…

Skrmetti appealing gun law decision

(The Center Square) – Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is appealing a ruling by a Gibson County Chancery Court that said two Tennessee gun laws were unconstitutional.
The laws prohibited carrying firearms in state parks and carrying a gun or club with the “intent to go armed” and use it for violence or aggression.

Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation and three Tennessee residents sued the state, saying the laws violated their right to bear arms.
Skrmetti said his office was asking the chancery court for a stay pending appeal because the court’s ruling was broad and went too far.

“It entirely invalidates two gun laws, even though those laws are constitutional in some situations,” Skrmetti said. “For example, it’s obviously constitutional to prohibit a 10-year-old from bringing a semiautomatic rifle to a rec league basketball game or a drunk with a shotgun from staggering down Broadway or through Market Square or across Shelby Farms. But the Court’s ruling appears to legalize this in Tennessee.”

The ruling by the Chancery Court is causing confusion, Skrmetti said in the appeal.

“Plaintiffs’ counsel has already advised the public that ‘the entire law enforcement network in Tennessee [is] on notice’ and ‘attempts to enforce these two statutes’ by any official ‘should give rise to claims of federal civil rights violations,’” Skrmetti said. “Law enforcement is rightly loath to choose between tempting ruinous civil rights lawsuits and carrying out their duty to protect the public. And there is no doubt: because of its refusal to adhere to its own judicial limits, this Court’s order would leave large gaps in the General Assembly’s efforts to protect the public.”

Rep. Chris Todd, R-Madison County, said he wanted Skrmetti to appeal the decision but not because Todd opposes it. He called the opinion “one of the most thorough, well-reasoned, and well-written decisions we’ve seen.”

Sen. London Lamar, chairwoman of the Tennessee Senate Democratic Caucus, said she supports the decision to appeal the decision.

“These long-standing gun safety laws are constitutional and they exist for a reason: to give law enforcement the tools they need to protect the public,” Lamar said. “If the lower court’s ruling is allowed to stand, it will tie the hands of police officers — even when they encounter someone with a loaded assault rifle parked outside a children’s park. Officers wouldn’t even be allowed to question that person’s intent until it’s too late. That’s not freedom. That’s a recipe for tragedy.”

Well, he’s got several things wrong from the start. (pretty much standard for those with a Harvard education)  The most egregious about the 2nd amendment. It ‘allows’, or ‘gives’  nothing. The people already had RKBA before the U.S. was the U.S. The whole of the Bill of Rights are restrictions on government powers as written by the very authors in its own preamble

Democrats need to drop calling for gun bans and ask these two questions

Another day, another mass shooting — and yet another instance of our politicians failing to keep us safe from gun violence. We see pictures of mothers running barefoot to schools trying to get to their kids. We are told to give “thoughts and prayers” for children who were shot while literally praying. We are told there needs to be bans on guns in a country where there are more privately-owned guns than there are people.

As a liberal, I have lost complete faith that even the most caring Republican will do anything of value to stop gun violence in this country. The Republican (read gun lobby) position is that the more guns that are on the streets, the less safe it is, then we can bilk taxpayers for police budgets while getting people to buy more guns because it’s less safe.

We can see that in the “solution” that President Trump has for crime. But Trump’s use of the National Guard and federal agents walking around major cities won’t do anything to take guns off the street. That would not be profitable for the gun lobby.

But also, as a liberal, I have watched Democrats do the same song and dance over “common sense” gun laws that seem to lack common sense and are about as likely as Kanye West and Taylor Swift recording a duet together. As a gun owner myself, I often scoff or shake my head in confusion over the fact that Democrats could easily get the upper hand on the gun control debate by dropping the insistence on gun bans. They should instead be solely focused on gun trafficking and restrictions based on criminal convictions and mental health issues.

When you go out to the general public and say you want to ban guns you are destined to not get any traction.

Let’s put the whole Second Amendment aside for a moment. Owning a gun is a different experience in different parts of this massive country. I have lived in two Republican counties. When I lived in Waco, Texas you definitely needed a gun, especially when you went out into the boondocks. The police were far away and you could deal with anything from a criminal to a wild animal, so a gun would come in handy.

I now live in Orange County, Calif., where I feel no need to have a gun when I leave the house. There just isn’t a need (for me anyways).

When you scream about gun bans, that message will not resonate at all in either place. I may feel safe in California, but others don’t live in the nice community that I do. And going out into rural areas outside of Waco, you would be dumb not to have protection. Although people in both Texas and California want mass shootings to stop, we know that screaming for gun bans is a non-starter all over the country. And yet, Democrats will continue to scream for them.

It is time for a different approach. Democrats need to ask just two questions in order to get the legislation needed to bring down gun deaths.

First, does the Second Amendment give you the right to sell guns to a criminal?

Second, should a person diagnosed with schizophrenia be allowed to purchase a gun?

The Second Amendment clearly allows citizens the right to bear arms. Every single gun ban proposal runs face-first into that pesky part of the Bill of Rights, which is why many proposals to ban firearms fail.

Democrats need to get rid of this pie-in-the-sky notion that one day the Second Amendment will be repealed, or that Americans will wake up and turn in hundreds of millions of firearms. Instead of challenging gun ownership, they should challenge specific types of sales.

This is not a revelation. There have been calls to end gun show loopholes and private sales for a while. However, thanks to Trump’s insistence that federal law enforcement and National Guard get involved in local law enforcement, there is now an opportunity for Democrats as well. The NRA’s most hated federal entity is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Democratic governors should all invite ATF agents to come to their cities and insist that they go after gun traffickers, giving them a lot of latitude to do so.

The argument is sound. You have the right to bear arms, but you don’t have the right to sell arms to a felon, a drug dealer, a cartel member, a gang member, a terrorist, a foreign entity or other any other nefarious individual. Take that on the campaign trail and see Republicans try to explain that they are against that logic.

The best Republicans have come up with is “there is nothing you can do,” which is about as lazy as one can get. Especially since most firearms used in homicides are illegal or started off as legal and are somehow trafficked into criminals’ hands.

The second question is also politically incorrect but should be asked anyway. We know that the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides and that some mass shooters exhibit signs of mental illness. Again, the idea of red flag laws have been floated before, but the fear is that it is a gun ban as opposed to a question of safety. So, Democrats need to stop worrying about offending and be specific about whom they want to ban gun sales to.

“Should someone who is schizophrenic be able to buy a gun?” carries a lot more weight than: “We need red flag laws.” Identifying mental illnesses associated with suicides and mass shootings will force Republicans to answer why they want someone with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder from owning a gun. Is this politically correct for Democrats? No. But politicians who are committed to reducing gun violence should not worry about offending people.

The Democrats have a huge opportunity to save lives, while not infringing on people’s right to bear arms. They need to stop focusing on gun bans and instead get aggressive on trafficking and mental illness restrictions. They should force Republicans to answer the following two questions: Why are you okay with gun trafficking? And why are you okay with mentally ill people buying guns?

Sticking with those two questions might finally break the political deadlock and this ridiculous cycle of shooting, thoughts and prayers, speeches, no action, and then dealing with another shooting.

Minneapolis Mayor Who Attacked Prayer Now Moves To The Next Amendment Of The Bill Of Rights

Democratic Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey attacked gun ownership and the Second Amendment during an MSNBC appearance on Wednesday in which he doubled down on dismissing prayer.

Frey’s initial comments criticizing those who prayed came during a Wednesday morning press conference after an active shooter opened fire during an all-school mass held by the Annunciation Catholic School on Wednesday morning, killing two children and wounding at least 17 other people. Frey praised “other countries” that passed sweeping gun control after shootings while appearing on “The Briefing with Jen Psaki.”

“We have more guns in America than people. Say that again. We have more guns in America than people. Why? Why is it so easy to get a gun? Why is it so easy to get a whole heap ton of guns? Why is it that you can buy a gun virtually every month if you wanted to? What good is that?” Frey ranted to host Jen Psaki. “We’re not talking about your father’s hunting rifle. We’re talking about people that have gotten guns that seemingly — in this case, legally — that obviously have a whole ton of mental health issues.”

WATCH:

“You’re not right in the head if you’re going to a church to shoot it up. You’re not right in the head. But the fact that you have guns, in fact, many, many guns, why is that okay?” Frey continued. “You know, this has gone down in other countries and they say, ‘You know what, we’re not going to allow this anymore. We don’t want this to happen anymore. We’re going to do something about it.’”

Australia carried out a mandatory “buy back” of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns after a 1996 mass shooting in Port Arthur. Canada passed legislation banning over 1,500 types of firearms in the wake of an April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that killed 23 people.

Other Democrats, including Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota also called for gun laws, including a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” in the wake of the shooting. Frey’s comments drew praise from Klobuchar and CNN host Dana Bash during a Wednesday afternoon segment on the network, during which Klobuchar called for the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

“Assault weapons” is a euphemism that gun-control advocates use to gain support for banning certain semi-automatic firearms with features that provide a cosmetic similarity to firearms capable of fully-automatic operation.

“What has incorrectly been termed an ‘assault weapon’ is a semi-automatic firearm that fires just one bullet with each pull of the trigger (versus a fully automatic firearm — machine gun — which continues to shoot until the trigger is released),” the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) said in a fact sheet. The NSSF estimated that over 24 million “modern sporting rifles,” which include the AR-15, are “in circulation” in a July 2022 release.

The False Choice of Protecting Kids or Our Second Amendment Rights

There is no widespread support for repealing the Second Amendment, but every time there’s a high-profile shooting some anti-gunners inevitably use the tragedy to push for getting rid of our right to keep and bear arms.

I’ve seen numerous posts on social media demanding that we give up those rights in order to protect innocent schoolchildren, as well as several letters to the editor in various newspapers, like this one that recently appeared in the Louisville Courier Journal. ….

It is now way past time for each of us to ask ourselves a question: Which is more important for me — the right of a child to live or my right to keep and bear arms given to me by the sacred Second Amendment to our Constitution?

I’ve been hearing variations of this question for as long as I’ve been reporting on Second Amendment issues, but its very premise is nonsensical. The Second Amendment has existed since 1791, and there has never been any widespread effort to amend or repeal it. Does that mean that every generation that’s come before us, including the one that enshrined the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution, believed those rights were more important than the lives of children?

The Second Amendment largely exists to defend lives, and most of us understand that even if the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow, evil individuals would still be targeting innocent victims.
Continue reading “”

What We Didn’t Learn About Mass Murder

For every problem there is a quick, cheap, and simple solution.. that doesn’t work. A mentally ill person attacked a church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. We’ve been there before. Why are we attracted to solutions that fail time after time?

We love our children. Let’s put up a plastic sign that tells honest people to keep their guns outside our schools. It turns out that murderers are attracted by plastic signs that advertise disarmed victims. We would rather put up another sign than admit that criminals ignore our regulations.

We love to concentrate on our spiritual life at church. It is a rare moment to escape from the pressing cares of the world. Let’s pass a regulation so that honest citizens won’t bring their guns to church. It turns out that our honest neighbors were never a violent problem. Narcissistic mass-murderers look for disarmed victims. These murderers almost always attack “gun-free” zones. Why do we want to make it easier for violent murderers to find their victims?

We hate the idea that our laws don’t work. That is why we require mandatory background checks before someone may buy or own a firearm. Background checks don’t work on criminals because criminals don’t buy their guns at gun shops any more than they buy their drugs at the drug store. Background checks look backwards, and mass-murder is a one-and-done carrier choice.

In hindsight, mass murderers look crazy. Unfortunately, we seldom see mental health professionals diagnose and report a violent patient. We have seen several mass-murderers who were receiving mental health counselling. Experience taught us that mental health treatment isn’t aways a cure. We shouldn’t count on talk-therapy to protect the people we love.

Maybe you once wanted to hurt your neighbors. I’ll bet that feeling left as quickly as it came. Since sober reflection works to stops most of us, we passed mandatory waiting periods in the hope that gun-control regulations would stop violent murderers. It turns out that violent murderers are not like us. They are persistent. They spend years pleasantly planning their violent revenge. Waiting periods don’t stop mass-murderers, but they do disarm honest people who have an urgent need for armed defense. I don’t want our laws to disarm people who flee domestic abuse.

Politicians sold us ammunition capacity restrictions in the hope that less capable murderers would lead to fewer victims. That doesn’t really work in practice. Our honest neighbors defend themselves with a firearm about 2.8-million times a year. The victims are usually the first responders who stop violence. Making the victim less capable doesn’t make us safer when a crazy man attacks a church. We’ve seen what honest defenders can do time after time.

We are wiser as we grow older. That was why we passed age restrictions on firearms purchases and ownership. It also turns out that young people are frequent victims of crime. Disarming the co-ed as she walks home from her job at the convenience store doesn’t make us safer. It does make her an easier victim, and that is what criminals look for.

We know what works. The mass-murderers told us what they wanted. Also, we conducted the experiment with armed defenders a few million times. We’ve never had a mass murderer attack a school that publicly posted a policy of armed school staff. If we want to stop the attack before it happens, then we take down the no-guns signs that attract mass murderers. In public spaces where our neighbors are allowed to defend themselves, we see them save the next dozen victims who would die if we waited for the police to defend us. Unfortunately, defending your school, your church, or your home is harder than passing a law and putting up a plastic sign.

We know how to save lives. Our doctor tells us to eat moderately and exercise regularly. Armed defense isn’t hard, and it works. Like following our doctor’s advice, the difficult news is that we have to do it every day.