Category: RKBA

Protect Minnesota’s Executive Director gave an interview to the Star Tribune.

She had something to say about you.

“People who vote on gun rights are a very, very small percentage of the population, and they’re already aligned with the right side of the electorate.”

She’s not worried about you. She’s not worried about your rights.

In her view, you’re already written off; too small a group to matter, too predictable to bother with.

That’s the mentality behind every gun control bill they pushed this session.

They lost. You won. And we’re going to remind her what a “very, very small percentage” can do in November.

Prove her wrong. Join us at https://gunowners.mn/join

FPC WIN: Second Circuit Strikes Down New York Public Handgun Carry Ban

What: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Firearms Policy Coalition’s (FPC) Christian v. James lawsuit that New York’s ban on firearms at all publicly accessible private property without the express consent of the owner (also known as the “vampire rule”) violates the Second Amendment. The court however also facially upheld the state’s ban on carry in public parks.

Who: FPC is joined in this case by FPC member Brett Christian and the Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper and Kirk, PLLC, along with Nicolas J. Rotsko of Fluet.

When: The Court’s opinion was issued on May 18.2026. The case will now be sent back to the district court, which will issue a final order in this case.

Where: The opinion was issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in New York City and covers Connecticut, New York, and Vermont.

New Jersey’s Demand for Gun Store Sales Records is an Unconstitutional Attack on Gun Owner Privacy

The Attorney General of New Jersey has sent subpoenas to gun dealers in the state demanding production of customer records regarding sales of Glock pistols to New Jersey residents for the last ten years. The subpoenas are in connection to its lawsuit against Glock, Inc. under the state’s public nuisance law.

(NOTE: The claims in the state’s frivolous lawfare against Glock are not relevant to this particular article. But for context, the state is claiming the over 40-year-old design of the gun is too easy to illegally convert into a machine gun. Other states have filed similar lawsuits, and some like California have now banned the sale of Glocks, which are the most popular handguns in the country. These efforts are a way to coverup the failures of leadership  in antigun states.) It is not immediately clear why New Jersey needs these records, given the state already maintains a de facto registry for handguns through its pistol permitting system. It could be that the Attorney General wants to make these records public, as under New Jersey law and in a small nod towards respecting privacy, firearm registration records are  exempt from public disclosure  under the state’s laws.

Regardless of the reasoning for the subpoenas, they are an unconstitutional attack on gun owner privacy. This article takes a brief look at this emerging issue in Second Amendment law to show why New Jersey’s actions are unconstitutional. It is adapted from prior amicus briefing the Second Amendment foundation has done on this issue.
Privacy in Firearms Ownership Has Always Been a Fundamental Component of the Second Amendment Right

Continue reading “”

NSSF Funds Lawsuit Against Virginia for Unconstitutional Firearm Bans

WASHINGTON, D.C.  — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, is funding a lawsuit filed today against the Commonwealth of Virginia for violating both the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution. Virginia’s expansive new law, HB 217 / SB 749, bans the sale and transfer of firearms that are expressly protected for private ownership by both the federal and state constitutions.

“Governor Abigail Spanberger, and the Virginia General Assembly, are grossly violating rights held by the citizens of the Commonwealth. The constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia expressly prohibit the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that firearms in common use are protected from radical gun control. Denying law-abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves with the firearms of their choosing does nothing to make Virginia safer. The only thing this unconstitutional law does is surrender the freedoms that the Founding Fathers, including Virginians George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison — who authored the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment — so wisely fought for and sought to protect to ensure freedom from tyranny.”

The NSSF-funded complaint, filed by Erick Black, Britton Condon, Clark’s Gun Shop, Inc., Optimus Arms, LLC and Hexmag USA, LLC, in Virginia’s Circuit Court of Fauquier County, details that HB 217 / SB 749 criminalizes not just the sale or transfer of commonly-owned Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and standard capacity magazines, but also commonly owned handguns and shotguns Virginians regularly use for self-defense and hunting. The overly broad definitions of what is wrongfully defined as an “assault firearm” disenfranchise Virginians of their right to keep and bear arms, which are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment and Article I of the Virginia Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision held that firearms in common use are protected by the Second Amendment. That holding precludes bans on the legal sale of MSRs, which number over 32 million in circulation. Likewise, there are a conservatively estimated nearly 1 billion detachable magazines in private possession and hundreds of millions with a capacity exceeding 15 rounds. Many commonly owned pistols are equipped with 17-round magazines, which HB 217 / SB 749 now criminalizes. The law’s expansive definition of “assault firearm” wraps in many commonly owned semiautomatic shotguns and handguns, which will be unlawful to purchase or bear in Virginia.

Virginia’s HB 217 / SB 749 fails the Supreme Court’s Bruen “history and tradition” test, as there were no analogous laws banning the lawful acquisition or bearing of firearms at the Nation’s founding. In fact, it is well documented that rifles with a capacity greater than 15 rounds were available and possessed by Americans when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791.

Additionally, because HB 217 / SB 749 bans rifles, pistols and shotguns commonly used for hunting, it violates Article XI, Section 4 of the Virginia Constitution.

Letter to the Editor in Connecticut Asks Question No One Seems Interested in Answering

Connecticut passed its Glock ban, which doesn’t just impact Glocks. They did it, as per usual, in the name of public safety, all while failing to ignore the facts that criminals aren’t supposed to have guns in the first place and that the full-auto switches are illegal to buy, own, or possess without very specific licenses that most people will never have.

They passed it just the same.

In Connecticut, though, one letter to the editor took issue with a bit of hate thrown at a state lawmaker because of a simple question that no one seems interested in answering.

I was disappointed to see criticism of Representative Mitch Bolinsky for voting against Connecticut’s proposed Glock ban. Whether someone supports or opposes gun control generally, this particular proposal deserves honest scrutiny.

Connecticut already has a 10-round magazine limit. Supporters of the bill argue the ban improves public safety because certain pistols could theoretically be converted to automatic fire with illegal aftermarket devices. But those conversion devices are already illegal under federal law, and automatic weapons themselves are already heavily prohibited.

The practical question is simple: how much additional safety is actually gained?

With a 10-round limit already in place, the difference in discharging 10 rounds between rapid semiautomatic fire and illegal automatic fire is often only a fraction of a second. Even supporters of the bill acknowledge the focus is largely on the possibility of illegal modification, not on the firearm’s normal lawful operation. Given Brandon Moore’s background as a West Point graduate, Army officer, combat veteran, and Apache pilot, one would expect an understanding of the technical distinction between lawful semiautomatic firearms and illegally converted automatic weapons, which makes the practical effectiveness of this proposal a fair subject for public debate.

Like it or not, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” People may disagree on how that should be interpreted, but constitutional rights are not supposed to be selectively respected only when politically convenient.

The practical question itself is an interesting one, because while we can all make the constitutional arguments in our sleep, most likely, the reality is that many people don’t really seem to understand that “shall not be infringed” means that our rights shall not be infringed at all. So, you need to frame commentary based on where people are, mentally, rather than rely purely on the (completely valid) constitutional arguments.

And here, the letter writer asks a simple question that it seems people are offended by it even being asked.

If Connecticut’s laws work as they are, then how much additional safety would be obtained by banning an entire category of handguns that might be illegally modified with a device that’s already illegal to buy, sell, or own?

If the magazine limits work, does the gun taking a half-second longer to empty a magazine actually matter in any appreciable way?

No? Then why ban the guns at all?

If you argue that the magazine ban isn’t respected by criminals, then I have to ask why you think they won’t get striker-fired handguns to modify just as easily?

Seriously, these bans are probably the most ridiculous bits of gun control I’ve ever seen, especially when Glock has actually tried to modify their design. Some people are just really good at finding ways around stuff like that.

DOJ Targets D.C. AR-15 & Suppressor Bans as Second Amendment Civil Rights Violations

The Trump Justice Department just sharpened its attack on Washington, D.C.’s gun-control regime, and this time the target is bigger than a single bad law.

In a First Amended Complaint filed May 14, 2026, the United States argues that the District of Columbia, its Metropolitan Police Department, and Acting Police Chief Jeffrey Carroll are violating the Second Amendment by enforcing local laws that ban AR-15-style rifles and suppressors. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asks a federal judge to declare those bans unconstitutional and block D.C. from enforcing them.

This is not another private citizen begging the courts to recognize what the Constitution already says. This is the United States government suing the District of Columbia and saying, in plain terms, that D.C.’s gun laws deprive Americans of their civil rights.

That is a major shift.

For decades, anti-gun politicians have treated the Second Amendment like a second-class right. They have banned commonly owned rifles, criminalized ordinary gun parts and accessories, buried lawful owners in registration schemes, and then acted shocked when Americans objected. D.C. has long been one of the worst offenders. This amended complaint puts that record directly in the federal government’s crosshairs.

The filing opens with the point gun owners have been making since Heller: the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right, not a privilege handed out by politicians. DOJ cites Heller, McDonald, and Bruen to argue that law-abiding Americans have the right to possess and use arms that are in common use for lawful purposes.

That is where D.C.’s AR-15 ban runs into trouble. D.C. does not simply say, “AR-15s are banned,” at least not in the clean way some states do. Instead, the District uses its registration scheme to get the same result. Under D.C. law, a person may not possess a firearm unless it is registered with the police. Then D.C. refuses to issue registration certificates for so-called “assault weapons,” a category that includes AR-15-platform rifles.

The result is the same: possess an AR-15 in D.C., and you are treated like a criminal.

The complaint correctly attacks the loaded phrase “assault weapon” for what it is: political language, not a serious firearms term. The AR-15 is not exotic or rare. It is not some strange military artifact sitting outside the American firearms tradition. It is the most popular rifle platform in the country.

DOJ’s amended complaint leans hard into that reality. The complaint cites estimates that Americans own 20 to 30 million AR-15s. It also points to Justice Kagan’s recent observation that the AR-15 is “the most popular rifle in the country.” It then cites Justice Kavanaugh’s statement in Snope v. Brown, where he noted that because millions of Americans own AR-15s and most states allow them, challengers have a strong argument that AR-15s are protected under Heller’s common-use test.

If the Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, then D.C. cannot ban the most popular rifle in America just because anti-gun politicians dislike it. The Constitution does not allow local officials to veto ordinary rifle ownership with scary language and a registration trap.

The complaint also lays out why Americans own AR-style rifles. DOJ cites surveys showing they are used for recreational target shooting, home defense, hunting, defense outside the home, and competition. In other words, the exact kind of lawful purposes the Second Amendment protects.

The filing also undercuts the usual gun-control narrative that AR-15s are uniquely tied to crime. DOJ notes that FBI homicide data from 2019 showed only 364 homicides with rifles of any kind, compared with 6,368 with handguns, 1,476 with knives or cutting instruments, 600 with hands, feet, or other personal weapons, and 397 with blunt objects.

Anti-gun politicians do not want Americans to see those numbers. The numbers wreck the narrative.

Continue reading “”

SAF FILES LAWSUIT CHALLENGING NEWLY PASSED ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN VIRGINIA

BELLEVUE, Wash. — May 14, 2026 — Following closely on the heels of Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signing new gun control legislation into law, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a lawsuit challenging the commonwealth’s new bans on “assault firearms” and large-capacity magazines.

Gov. Spanberger signed into law a ban on so-called “assault firearms” declaring that “…any person who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, or transfers an assault firearm is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.” The law further defines an “assault firearm” as a semiautomatic rifle chambered in any caliber besides .22 rimfire or one that contains a litany of common features such as a collapsing stock, pistol grip, threaded barrel or more. The law also bans magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition. The new laws go into effect on July 1.

“It’s wild that lawmakers who each take an oath to uphold the Constitution insist on passing bills purposefully designed to gut it,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The firearms and magazines banned in this law aren’t bizarre and unusual outliers, they’re among the most commonly owned guns and magazines in the country. They’re owned in the tens of millions by peaceable Americans who use them overwhelmingly lawfully. Virginia has now joined the minority of radical states to ban these constitutionally protected firearms, and in so doing, joined the club of states we’re suing over it.”

As noted in the complaint, “The firearms that Virginia bans as ‘assault firearms’ are, in all respects, ordinary semiautomatic firearms. To the extent they are different from other semiautomatic firearms, their distinguishing features make them safer and easier to use. Regardless of any new category of arms created by state lawmakers, they cannot be banned because they are not dangerous and unusual.” SAF is joined in McDonald v. Katz by the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens.

“Virginia lawmakers lied to their constituents and to themselves when they said these laws weren’t bans,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “A new sales and transfer ban is a ban that’s just one generation removed. On July 1, anyone turning 18 in Virginia will find out that the rights enjoyed by their predecessors don’t apply to them. These bans are an afront to the Constitution and an insult to the intelligence of Virginians who were fed lies and misrepresentations by their elected officials. We’re excited to fast track this case to the Supreme Court.”

Grassroots Judicial Report—May 13, 2026

By Tanya Metaksa

What’s New —SCOTUS—Patrick Tate Adamiak v. United States of America: Docket No. 25‑1190: Current certiorari petition before U.S. Supreme Court; Fourth Circuit’s ruling: The Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished per curiam opinion in United States v. Patrick Adamiak, No. 23‑4451 (4th Cir. 2025): U.S. District Court: Hawaii: Ninth District (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii); Justin Arnold, Bryan Garland, James Grell, Andrew White v. Hawaii County, non-residents can apply for Right-to-Carry permit in Hawaii.

SCOTUS

The U.S. Supreme Court meets on Thursday, May 14, to discuss cases. All 5 Second Amendment cases that have been relisted many times are on the list. Decisions will be announced on Monday, May 18, 2026.

Continue reading “”

Don’t Expect the Persistent Mismatch Between Perception and Reality to Affect Gun Policy or Politics.

Semi-automatic long guns, such as the AR-15, have been a hot topic of political rhetoric for decades now. And for those same decades, those same firearms have remained statistically under-represented in violent crime, while remaining wildly mischaracterized in policy debates and lawmaking.

NRA-ILA undoubtedly sounds like a broken record reiterating,  again and again, this non-wavering fact, especially in the face of introduced and re-introduced “assault weapons” bans and reliable demonization of semi-automatic long guns by the media. However, NRA-ILA’s repeated emphasis reflects a critical and consistent assertion of fact, which is that rifles, of all types, account for a very small fraction of homicides nationwide, as once again confirmed by the most recent available data.

Last week, Pew Research Center published their updated research on “[w]hat the data says [sic] about gun deaths in the U.S.” The relevant statistics were collected and synthesized from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), among other sources.

Under the subtitle of: “Which types of firearms are most commonly used in gun murders in the U.S.?” the FBI found that in 2024:

Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” were involved in 3% of these deaths.
Shotguns were involved in 1%.

An important distinction should be noted that of the 3%, semi-automatic firearms such as AR-15s are an even smaller subset of the general term “rifles.” The same goes for “shotguns” that gun control advocates [mis]characterize as “assault weapons;” they are a smaller fraction of the 1%.

There has long been a detrimental mismatch between perception, proportion, and actual data that has distorted firearm policy discussions. Not only has it drawn attention away from clear factors most strongly associated with violent crime, but it has also continued to be a disservice to efforts to craft evidence-based policies meant to keep citizens safe.

Even during the actual ten-year federal “assault weapon” ban signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, two federally funded studies said the exact same thing as we repeat today; then, as now, so-called “assault weapons” were and are rarely used to commit violent crime. A study conducted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 1997 acknowledged, “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”

A subsequent study done in 2004, also by DOJ, came to a similar conclusion, determining that “AWs [assault weapons] and LCMs [large capacity magazines] were used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban,”  and, “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

The current circulation and ownership numbers of AR-15s and similar rifles are debated and predictably underreported by the media but may reach over thirty million, according to National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) research. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense, hunting, competitions, and target shooting.

Of course, whenever one of these 30 million guns happens to be used in a highly publicized crime, consumers of mass media will be told that the platform represents a “weapon of war” and the “choice of mass shooters.” In fact, it is neither. The AR-15s available at your local gun shop are not designed for automatic fire, as are military rifles, and they are not even the preeminent firearm used in mass shootings, where handguns still predominate.

High profile incidents will continue to receive intense media coverage creating impressions that AR-15s and similar firearms are somehow a primary driver of everyday violent crime. They simply are not, but media cannot be trusted to “zoom out” to understand proper context and truthfully report. This failure continues to skew not just gun control priorities but also public safety outcomes.

These latest data summaries on gun deaths have more to say on firearm-related mortality than just what sorts of firearms are involved. Indeed, the issue of death by gunfire, including homicide and suicide, is of complex sociological origins that deserve a much more robust analysis than the focus group tested talking points of firearm prohibitionists.

But one fact remains simple and unchanged in the face of the endure and growing popularity of semi-automatic long guns like the AR-15: when it comes to firearm-related homicide, they represent a minuscule fraction of crime guns.

Fearing Expanding Gun Rights, Anti-Gun Group Creates Absurd Concealed-Carry Policy

By Lee Williams

SAF Investigative Journalism Project

Times are good and possibly getting even better for those who value guns, gun rights and the Second Amendment.

The changes brought by President Donald Trump are simply stunning. In just one year we went from an ATF that targeted individual gun owners for imaginary crimes to one that’s focused on arresting real bad guys with illegal guns.

Constitutional Carry, known by the other side as permitless carry, is growing. Today, 29 states allow law-abiding adults to carry firearms without a state permit, and the number is expected to grow.

So, it’s understandable that those who want to restrict and subvert the Second Amendment are getting desperate. In fact, they’re willing to try almost anything to restrict access to firearms while President Trump is in office. It’s as if they never even heard of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Enter the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

These egg-headed goons want to roll back the clock to the late 1980s. Their just-released “Public Carry Permitting: Model Policy Guide” is pretty much what some states offered decades ago. It’s laughable—a trip back in time. Nowadays, it’s likely too restrictive for even the bluest of blue states.

Of course, the Center begins their report with lies—absolute deception—about guns, gun owners and gun rights.

By citing previous data from their own inaccurate reporting, they specifically target Constitutional Carry. It’s a hard sell, obviously, but they need to make a case for returning to the decades-old permitting system. They even support “may issue” rather than “shall issue” laws, which Bruen effectively killed.

Their allegations against Constitutional Carry are incredibly skewed and are not based on data or any hard facts.

“There are several hypotheses for the increase in violence associated with deregulation of public carry. Some scholars have argued that deregulation leads to increased carrying of guns in public places, meaning that interpersonal conflicts may be more likely to turn violent. One 2025 paper sought to examine what factors could be driving increases in violent crime and found that states that deregulated public carry saw large increases in gun theft and decreases in the rate of law enforcement clearance of violent crime,” the report claims.

Any attempt to subvert the Second Amendment needs a lot more than “several hypotheses” and scholarly arguments.

Continue reading “”

Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller had this to say about what arms meant:
The 18th-century meaning [of arms] is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘‘arms’’ as ‘‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’’ Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined ‘‘arms’’ as ‘‘any thing that a man wears for his defence…’’

NY AG Claims Body Armor Isn’t a Second Amendment Right

BUFFALO, NY — A legal battle is brewing in New York over whether law-abiding citizens have the right to purchase and own body armor for personal protection. Attorney General Letitia James has formally requested a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which challenges the state’s ban on the sale of this defensive gear to most civilians.

The FPC originally filed the lawsuit on behalf of New York residents who simply want the ability to protect themselves. In response, the state is arguing that body armor is a “dangerous and unusual” item that falls outside the protections of the Second Amendment. Attorney General James’s office claims that because modern body armor didn’t exist when the Constitution was written, it shouldn’t be covered.

However, this line of reasoning seems to ignore a key Supreme Court ruling. In the 2016 case Caetano v. Massachusetts, the court affirmed that the Second Amendment isn’t limited to 18th-century technology. Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that even firearms commonly used for self-defense today, like revolvers and semi-automatic pistols, did not exist back then. The court’s logic was clear: new technology doesn’t negate a constitutional right.

The True Purpose of Body Armor

New York’s argument portrays body armor as a tool for criminals, suggesting it turns a person into a “fortified threat” and is part of a “mass shooter’s toolkit.” This perspective overlooks the fundamental nature of body armor: it is purely defensive. Unlike a firearm, body armor cannot be used to inflict harm. Its sole purpose is to stop projectiles and protect the life of the person wearing it, which is the very essence of self-defense. Many everyday citizens, from late night convenience store clerks to people living in high crime neighborhoods, seek this protection for peace of mind.

The state’s ban was enacted following the tragic 2022 mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket. Now, groups like the National Rifle Association are pushing back, stating that such laws only penalize law-abiding citizens. They argue that criminals, by their very definition, do not follow the law, so a ban on body armor only prevents good people from having another tool to ensure their own safety.

This case is being watched closely, as its outcome could set a precedent for whether states can prohibit citizens from owning defensive gear, raising critical questions about the modern application of the right to self-defense.

Not surprisingly

  Tim Walz’s Daughter Just As Dumb As Dad on Gun Control

Gov. Tim Walz was in a position to become vice president. I think I speak for most of us when I say that I’m glad he’s still governor of Minnesota. It’s not because he’s been stellar at his job there, mind you, as the Minneapolis day care scandal, and Walz’s reaction to it, amply illustrates that he sucks at it. It’s because it means he and Kamala Harris aren’t in charge in Washington.

Both were terrible on gun issues, despite Walz trying to portray himself as a macho man who could out shoot any of us. In fact, when he tried to act big and bad, he just embarassed himself.

When it comes to guns, though, it seems the apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree.

Hope Walz, the daughter of disgraced Minnesota governor and failed vice presidential candidate Tim Walz, called for gun control this week in the aftermath of another attempted assassination attempt on President Donald Trump.

“Gun control doesn’t just save Democrats’ lives. It also saves Republican lives,” she said in a TikTok video posted this week, apparently attempting to position herself as a leftist taking moral high ground.

“You’d think we’d be at a point now where we could call for some common sense legislation, but I don’t know. I don’t know,” she said sarcastically. “Also here to say that political violence is never ok. Duh. That’s the difference between us and them. It’s never ok.”

Walz continued, “But there’s something we can do about it: common sense gun legislation.”

She ultimately called on her audience to “do something about that for everybody’s “For everybody’s sake, yeah. Yeah. Happy Tuesday,” she added. “Feeling a little anxious today, but we’re going to get through it.”

Notably, this is the same “anxious” Walz who described Trump’s previous crackdown on crime in the nation’s capital as nothing more than “bitch baby, wussy, scaredy cat behavior.”

Fascinating, ain’t it?

Look, I agree that political violence isn’t OK. I’ll point out, though, that the left hasn’t exactly been showing any belief in that position. How many have been upset that Thomas Crooks missed, or that this guy didn’t get a shot at the president? How many celebrated the assassinations of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and Charlie Kirk?

Yeah, don’t do the “That’s the difference between us and them” bit. It’s not going to fly.

But let’s talk about “common sense gun legislation” for a moment. We keep having people bring this up, including people with much higher profiles that Hope Walz, but have you noticed how absolutely no one gives us any real concrete suggestions that would have made a difference? Rep. Jamie Raskins suggested universal background checks, but with the would-be assassin getting his guns in California, he passed background checks. That’s ridiculous.

Beyond that, though, most people are just braying about how we need gun control, but no one seems to have anything real to propose. Maybe because they know that nothing they could propose would have done anything and they don’t want people like me to rip it apart for being moronic.

Look, I actually do get her being anxious. Her dad is still governor of a state that’s the center of a lot of strife. People on both sides are antsy and the idea of someone going after her father doesn’t seem so farfetched as it should be. I sincerely don’t want to see that, and I know good and well that she doesn’t, so I’m not going to mock her anxiety here.

But I’ll also repeat that this guy gun his weapons in the most gun-controlled state in the nation, a state that has laws that would never fly anywhere else in the United States, so let’s not pretend this is the result of too few gun control laws. It’s not. It’s the result of leftist talking points and inflamatory rhetoric radicalizing someone to try and rid the nation of a tyrant who is nothing of the sort.