Category: RKBA

Armed Defense of Vatican Highlights Church Hypocrisy on Guns

U.S.A. — “A car driven by someone with apparent psychiatric problems rushed through a Vatican gate Thursday evening and sped past Swiss Guards into a palace courtyard before the driver was apprehended by police, the Holy See said,” ABC News reports. “Vatican gendarmes fired a shot at the speeding car’s front tires after it rushed the gate, but the vehicle managed to continue on its way, the Vatican press office said in a statement late Thursday.”

Yes, of course, and that’s never been a secret. Established in 1506, the Pontifical Swiss Guard is one of the world’s oldest military units, with its work augmented by the Gendarmerie Corps of Vatican City State. And while tourists might find their historical plumed helmets and halberds picturesque and quaint, they’re the real deal, “lavishly equipped,” as colleague Kurt Hofmann has noted, “with some pretty hefty investments in Sig-Sauer, Heckler & Koch, Steyr Mannlicher, and Glock semi-automatic handguns, personal defense weapons, assault rifles, and submachine guns, not to mention whoever manufactures the swords, halberds, and other more traditional weapons carried by [the Pope’s] guards.”

Guns.com did a great piece on all their arms a few years back.

All this makes some official pronouncements by Pope Francis more problematic and hypocritical than infallible.

“Do we really want peace?” he asked. “Then let’s ban all weapons so we don’t have to live in fear of war.”

Responding “You first” hardly seems out of line here.

Continue reading “”

A conversation with constitutional attorney Stephen P. Halbrook

Four Reasons For The Crime Increase
Whenever Anyone Tells You Guns are the Reason for the Rise in Crime, Show Them This Article

Miss Swearer hits another home run

The entirety of the American system of government rests on two very simple yet profound premises—that every human being is endowed by our Creator with natural and unalienable rights, and that the only just end of government is to secure these rights for its citizens. Unfortunately, far too often, ill-considered progressive policies not only fail to adequately secure Americans’ natural rights from criminals who would undermine them, but actively worsen the problem by making it harder for peaceable citizens to defend themselves. Here are four specific policies that routinely make us all less safe and that, after crime rates predictably rise, are then used as excuses from gun-control proponents to further restrict our right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Gun Control: MORE GUNS, Not Less.

So the powers that be have made you terrified of a piece of metal and plastic that goes boom? Have you ever seen a gun jump up and shoot somebody all by itself? Of course not. What we should really be concerned about is the wrong people having guns, not taking guns away from people who will use them safely, responsibly, legally, and lawfully.

Aside from all the anti-gun propaganda, let’s look at the reality of things. First of all, there are not enough police officers to protect you and arrive on time. There is clearly no guarantee. And because these things are so sporadic, there is a greater guarantee that they will not arrive in time. We see in active shooter incidents that the police arrive after people have been killed at least 90% of the time. And that is based on a review of over 300 active shooter incident in the last 20 years in the United States. You can check the FBI data for yourself.

But before I leave this point, I would be remiss not to mention that 90% or more of the active shooter incidents have one thing in common. Nobody seems to have any firearm to protect themselves, or at least nobody fires back at the murderous active shooter. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude if people had firearms in such cases and they were trained to use them, the active shooters would not be able to do nearly as much damage.

Let’s look at another example. How many cases of police stations being robbed or shot up have you heard about? How many cases a police officers being car jacked have you heard about? Likely very few to none. But have you ever stopped to think about why that is? Let me tell you why. The primary reason is not because a criminal would be concerned about going to jail. The primary reason is because criminals know that police officers carry guns, and they are trained to use them. Therefore, a criminal attacking a police station has virtually no chance of getting out of there alive. That by itself is a huge deterrent to criminals.

Let’s look at another scenario. Out of incidents with 300 active shooters in America, less than 1/2 of one percent have happened on military bases in the United States. Why do you think that is? Partially because the military bases have tight security, especially entering the base. But a big reason for such low numbers of active shooter incidents on military bases is because these bases employ and house military personnel who are trained with weapons, and will not hesitate to use them to protect themselves and others. Armed and ready, or at least trained and prepared.

Let’s look at one more scenario before we get to the average citizen in America. Rewind back to the old west where at least practically every adult male capable of carrying a weapon did so in order to protect himself, his family and his home. Each man may not have been the fastest gun in the town, but maybe he was just fast enough in the right situation as he was prepared to protect his family. Or at least he was prepared to try.

Now let’s fast forward to today. Every major city in the United States from Miami to New York, Chicago to Atlanta, New Orleans to Dallas and so on has a severe shortage of law-enforcement officers on the streets. And even if these police departments were at full staff, there still would not be enough of them to protect anywhere near even 1/4 of the citizens, tourists and commuters.

Police officers, regardless of how much you hear “protect and serve”, are not bodyguards. As hard as many of them work, they are “law enforcement” officers, not public safety officers. And did you know that around 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled by a majority vote that local law enforcement officers were not responsible for the individual safety of citizens unless you were in their custody or there were special arrangements that had been made? Furthermore, many of you have heroes (the good cops) confused with superheroes who always arrive on time. Police officers are neither Iron Man, nor Superman, nor Flash nor Wonder Woman. Thus they are not able to arrive on time, every time, all the time.

This brings us to the average citizen in the United States. Someone is walking toward you on the highway with a gun because they are a mental road rage case. This is a random incident and you were not even involved in the incident where he or she has the road rage. You have spoken out against guns and you don’t like them, so you don’t have one. What do you do? Clearly, the police cannot be expected to arrive in time unless they are sitting on the highway right near where you are and happen to see what is transpiring.

Someone is breaking into your house in broad daylight while you are home, a home invasion that the FBI says statistically happens more in broad daylight. They have just kicked in the door. But you are so afraid of guns that you don’t even have one. What do you do? You could dial 911 and then tell the home invader to leave because you have called the police, even though you don’t know when they will arrive. And the criminal invading your home just might turn around and walk out the door, but not likely. So what do you do?

You are in a department store bathroom when you hear gunshots and you see everybody running into the bathroom where you are. Terror on their faces. Fear and in their hearts. The gunman is coming to the bathroom as he shoots people. You are unarmed, so what do you do?

In each of these cases, you can pray and run, maybe duck and hide. But the only thing that will protect you from a gun in the hands of a maniac at that moment is you having a firearm to protect yourself and being trained to use it.

I don’t say these things just to promote guns. I say these things, because in a country full of crime, guns serve a purpose in you protecting yourself. I don’t say these things because I am a firearms instructor. I don’t see these things because I have guns, including …  I don’t say these things because I am a former detective, executive protection agent, security expert, criminologist and retired Director of Public Safety. I say these things because they are true and once you realize that YOU have the PRIMARY responsibility to protect yourself, maybe you will start doing it.

Yes, there is a way to arm school teachers (selectively) without having incidents where Miss Mary left a loaded gun in her drawer and a student found it. I know because I wrote a plan on exactly how to do it. You may say that teachers are not the police. My response? First wake up to the world that we live in. And second, every day, millions upon millions of parents trust the teachers and the school with their children for education and safety. So let them provide both in a strategic, organized, responsible manner. It can be done, believe me.

The bottom line, whether you like guns or not, is that you and your family are the first line of defense in your safety. So it only makes sense that you are prepared to protect yourself, your family and your home. Especially when you don’t know what will happen, when or where. It’s time to wake up and stop being afraid of plastic and metal that can do nothing by itself.

A disarmed population is a population of sitting ducks just waiting for criminals to go duck hunting. And out of all the legislators and soccer moms and pastors and businesses that want to demonize and take the guns away, none of them are going to protect you and your family. It’s up to you. But if the criminal has a gun and you don’t, it’s up to them. And I don’t think they are going to do what is in your best interest.

FULL IMPACT
ALMOST 11 MONTHS AFTER BRUEN, COURTS LAY DOWN LAW

It’s been almost 11 months since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a decision authored by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, which could be the most important Second Amendment victory in recent memory.

Bruen builds nicely on the groundwork already put down by the 2008 Heller ruling and the 2010 McDonald decision. Heller established decisively that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense. McDonald affirmed that local governments cannot outright ban possession of firearms and more importantly, incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. Henceforth, whether a state has a right to bear arms provision in its state constitution, all states must comply with the Second Amendment.

Then, 12 years after McDonald, along comes Bruen, which declared New York State’s restrictive concealed carry law — designed more to prevent lawful carry than license and allow it — unconstitutional. And it has a critical section, which did away with what amounted to an invention by the lower federal courts to protect restrictive gun control laws by establishing “means-end” scrutiny in addition to the historical meaning and perspective.

In Thomas’ words, “In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.

“Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach,” Thomas continued. “In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.”

Continue reading “”

Defending Law And Order Is Social Justice

What if the Good Samaritan had arrived a bit earlier? Would he have fought to protect the man who was being robbed and beaten nearly to death, or would he have worried that this would make him a “vigilante” with “bloodlust”?

Jamelle Bouie of The New York Times argues for the latter. Bouie is upset that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis called Daniel Penny a Good Samaritan for defending his fellow subway passengers, and so he attempts an exegesis of Jesus’ famous parable in an effort to prove DeSantis wrong. As Bouie expounds, “[D]o we think that a modern-day good Samaritan would use lethal force or act as a vigilante in defense of order? Probably not. But the idea that he would — and that this is what it means to act either ethically or responsibly — is evidence enough of a sickness that festers in too many American hearts.”

Really? Jesus’ parable is not about when or if violence is morally justified. But unless one is prepared to argue for total pacifism, it is ludicrous to say that the Samaritan would have been obligated to do nothing if he had happened to walk by during the attack that ended with a man being left for dead by the side of the road. Bouie quotes Scripture not to argue that Penny acted precipitously or excessively in restraining Jordan Neely, a mentally ill drug user with a history of random violence who was acting like, well, a mentally ill drug user with a history of random violence. Rather, Bouie is suggesting it is wrong for citizens to defend themselves or others at all, and wrong to support them for doing so.

In this Bouie is, once again, not only wrong, but also self-defeating. Law and order are prerequisites for any positive vision, conservative or liberal, for America. An ideology that disdains order disdains the good of the citizens it aspires to rule, and will constantly sabotage its own stated goals.

Continue reading “”

AR-15 Bans Are (Still) Unconstitutional

The struggle to come up with a sound legal argument to ban a civilian rifle continues.

Gun control advocates have become so dependent on emotional arguments they often seem incapable of offering rational ones. So, I was eager to read a new Bloomberg column (via The Washington Post) headlined, “The Second Amendment Allows a Ban on the AR-15.”

The piece doesn’t get off to a promising start, as author Noah Feldman props up a familiar straw man:

If we each have the right to bear arms, is there a constitutional right to a military-style semiautomatic rifle like an AR-15? What about a rocket-propelled grenade launcher? A small tank?

Notice how he jumps from the oxymoronic “military-style semiautomatic rifle” — not a real thing — to a small tank. Anyway, the proposition is that we should not have access to military-grade armaments. (Feldman is unaware that owning a small tank is legal.) But we’ll get back to that in a moment.

Throughout the piece, Feldman treats the Second Amendment as some kind of courtesy “extend[ed]” by the state, rather than an inalienable right that can only be limited in extraordinary circumstances. The best way to avoid this confusion is to plug the words “First Amendment” whenever you see “Second Amendment” and the words “newspapers” every time you see “guns.” Though perhaps these days that won’t help either.

The main problem in the piece, however, is that Feldman misunderstands the Supreme Court’s 1939 United States v. Miller decision, which he contends is “background to the current doctrine” that makes it permissible to ban a semiautomatic rifle.

Miller revolved around a small-time bank robber and alleged murderer named Jackson “Jack” Miller and a sidekick, who in 1938 were caught in possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun while “making preparation for armed robbery,” according to the police. The two were charged with violating the relatively new National Firearms Act.

If it were up to the two criminals, the case would have ended right there, because both pled guilty. But the judge, Hiram Ragon, a New Dealer and NFA booster, refused to accept the pleas, assigning a court-appointed lawyer to the case. Instead of fighting the charges, the two crooks went on the lam. (Within a few months, Miller’s bullet-ridden body was found in an Oklahoma creek.)

Still, the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court, which is probably what Ragon had intended all along. The ruling was something of a sham. Miller’s lawyers didn’t even bother filing a brief or showing up to make any oral arguments. And because anyone could buy any gun they wanted whenever they wanted, there were no Second Amendment advocacy groups in existence to take up the cause.

The Supreme Court issued a muddled opinion affirming the constitutionality of the NFA, finding that the Second Amendment didn’t guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barreled shotgun shorter than 18 inches, which was a weapon commonly used by criminals rather than law-abiding citizens. “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” the court found, “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” (The justices were wrong, by the way. The military did use 14-inch barrel shotguns at the time, though there was no lawyer there to inform them of this fact.)

Feldman tries to argue that even Justice James McReynolds, a crazy “libertarian,” was a reasonable voice on guns 84 years ago. But the truth is the NFA didn’t ban any kind of mechanism or any class of weapon. In 1939, a person could walk into a drug store and buy a tommy gun if they pleased, after paying a tax.

Miller quite literally undercuts Feldman’s set-up. An unregistered sawed-off shotgun brought across state lines was illegal because such guns weren’t used by the military for the common defense. If it had been, it would have been legal. Meaning, not only an AR-15, but an M16 — a true military-grade weapon — would be legal.

Feldman dismisses this finding in the case as a “practical disadvantage.” Just ignore it, then, I guess. Instead, like many others before him, he pivots to claim that the Miller decision bolsters the revisionist case for a collective theory of gun rights. The left would have you believe they support gun rights, but only if you join a militia. Sure.

The problem is the court didn’t offer any broad ruling regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment. “Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons,” Antonin Scalia wrote nearly 70 years later in D.C. v. Heller. “It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.”

To counter this claim, Feldman throws in this well-worn contention about the Heller decision:

That opinion featured the astonishing act (astonishing for an originalist, at least) of reinterpreting the original meaning of the Second Amendment. This took some jurisprudential jiu-jitsu. Scalia discounted the introductory clause that explains the purpose of amendment as ensuring a well-regulated militia. He shifted the meaning of the right to bear arms to personal self-defense.

The above paragraph is a completely concocted fantasy. Heller did not reinterpret anything. The “well-regulated” in the Bill of Rights refers to an orderly civilian military force, rather than a rabble of men. It always has. It does not mean “regulation” in its contemporary understanding of the state micromanaging your actions from the top down with a bunch of rules, which would have been alien to that generation.

And the regulated militia mentioned in the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment doesn’t erase the operative clause of the amendment, which protects the individual’s right to “bear” arms — a right that virtually every notable figure from the founding era is on the record defending. There is nothing astonishing about it. Anyone who’s spent five minutes reading about Madison and the Second Amendment understands why he wrote it the way he did. Many states codified the individual’s right to bear arms in their own constitutions before the Bill of Rights was even written, most of them in much more explicit terms. No SCOTUS case has ever treated the Second Amendment as anything but an individual right. No Founding Father ever argued otherwise. The “collective right” is an invention of the 1990s.

You have a right to own an AR-15 because it is a gun in common use among ordinary citizens. There is nothing unusual about it. The most popular rifle in America isn’t even close to being the deadliest weapon in the country.

The AR-15 has never been a military weapon. It was sold to civilians before it was modified. But even if we accepted the left’s contentions that ARs were some kind of military super gun — a talking point that might well contribute to its popularity with homicidal nuts — Miller still doesn’t allow for a ban.

Maine Democrat Wants Gun Control for “Abnormally Dangerous Assault Style Weapons” But She Doesn’t Know What That Means

In a public hearing by the Maine Legislature’s Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning, Rep. Rebecca Millett (D-Cape Elizabeth) struggled to clearly define the terms “abnormally dangerous” and “assault style weapons” in relation to her proposed bill to hold firearm manufacturers liable for damages inflicted by people who use their products.

WATCH: Rep. Rebecca Millet Crumbles Under Question From Rep. John Andrews

Rep. Millett’s LD 1696, “An Act to Create a Civil Cause of Action for Persons Suffering Damages Arising from the Sale of Abnormally Dangerous Firearms,” would allow firearm manufacturers to be held liable for the manufacturing, marketing, importing, wholesale or retail sale of a firearm that is considered “abnormally dangerous” and causes “unreasonable risk of harm to public health and safety” in Maine.

Millett began her testimony before the Judiciary Committee by saying that every industry other than firearm manufacturers are held accountable through civil liability. She gave the examples of toy manufacturers selling defective toys, and toxic fumes in buildings.

Millett went on to blame the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) for allowing firearm manufacturers to be knowingly irresponsible in their distribution of firearms and to “recklessly skirt” federal regulations.

The PLCAA is a federal law which prohibits civil liability actions from being brought against firearms and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers for damages resulting from crimes committed with their products.

Under the PLCAA, firearm manufacturers may still be held civilly responsible for damages caused by defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, or any other direct responsibility for the damages in question.

Millett said that her proposed bill would only apply to “abnormally dangerous” firearms, not those made for self-defense, hunting, or recreation.

Millett hopes that her bill will compel firearm manufacturers to stop selling to dealers who fuel the criminal market, and encourage basic safety measures among manufacturers and retailers.

However, upon taking questions from members of the Judiciary Committee, Millett struggled to answer seemingly basic questions about the terminology used in her proposed bill and claims made in her testimony.

When asked by Rep. John Andrews (R-Paris) to define “abnormally dangerous,” Millett said that any “assault style weapon” would fall under that category.

Rep. Andrews asked Millett to point to where in her proposed bill “assault style weapon” was defined, and Millett was unable to provide a definition.

Sen. Anne Carney (D-Cumberland), Senate Chair of the Judiciary Committee, asked Millett to provide a citation on the claim that firearms were flowing from manufacturers to criminal dealers. Millett was unable to provide a citation for this claim.

John Andrews asked Millett to give an example of any firearm manufacturer who does not go through the federally mandated process of selling firearms to federally licensed dealers. Millett was unable to give any examples of any firearm manufacturers violating federal law.

Continue reading “”

I like how they add “the courts 6-3 conservative majority” part in there to remind everyone that “Oh it’s the conservatives fault we can’t pass gun control”.

[Nevada Governor] Lombardo vetoes three Democrat-backed gun control bills

Ahead of a press conference from advocates aimed at pressuring Gov. Joe Lombardo to sign a trio of Democrat-proposed gun control measures, the Republican governor vetoed the three bills.

Lombardo’s action marks the first veto of the session and arrives after he pledged on his campaign website to “veto any legislation” that would take away the “right to build a firearm for personal use.” At that time, Lombardo also said he “supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to own a firearm if they so choose.” Republican lawmakers — who voted en masse against the three proposals — have been unwilling to support such policies.

“I will not support legislation that infringes on the constitutional rights of Nevadans,” Lombardo said in a press release Wednesday. “As I stated in my letters, much of the legislation I vetoed today is in direct conflict with legal precedent and established constitutional protections. Therefore, I cannot support them.”

The first, SB171, sponsored by Sen. Dallas Harris (D-Las Vegas), would have prevented a gun purchase from anyone convicted of a hate crime in the last 10 years.

Separately, AB354, sponsored by Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui (D-Las Vegas), would have criminalized bringing a gun within 100 feet of an election site, while AB355, also sponsored by Jauregui, would have raised the legal age to purchase certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns to 21, as well as aimed to close a legal loophole in the state’s 2021 attempt to ban so-called “ghost guns.”

In a statement to The Nevada Independent, Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui (D-Las Vegas) said she “desperately” wishes the governor would put the safety of Nevadans over partisan politics.

“After his time consoling the families of the 1 October massacre, I expected the governor to have the basic empathy to realize his responsibility to prevent future mass shootings and gun violence tragedies,” Jauregui said in a text message. “I never want a Nevadan to experience the trauma that I and so many have endured.”

She vowed to continue to work on gun violence prevention measures during her time in office.

The three bills passed through the Legislature on party-line votes.

In a press conference held immediately after the governor’s office announced the vetoes, legislative Democrats and gun control advocates pilloried the move as “shameful.”

“We sent over three commonsense options, bills, by the way, that Republicans are supporting in other states across this country today,” Harris said. “If this is how he wants to run his office, if these are the first bills he wants to veto, then I say game on.”

Though she did not clarify what other states she meant in her remarks, Republican lawmakers in Texas moved to advance a bill raising the age limit to purchase certain assault-style weapons through an initial committee earlier this month, following a spate of shooting violence this spring.

However, in legal citations included in the three veto messages sent to lawmakers Wednesday, Lombardo leaned heavily on the potential for two of the measures — AB354 and AB355 — to falter under relatively new Supreme Court precedent established within the last two years.

In both instances, the governor’s office cited New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, a 2021 case in which the court’s 6-3 conservative majority ruled that state-level gun control legislation could only be deemed constitutional if there was a historic precedent for such laws.

“As such, were this bill to become law, it is unlikely it would pass constitutional muster,” Lombardo’s veto message on AB355 said.

State 28? Constitutional Carry on the Move in Louisiana

Legislation to end a permitting requirement for concealed carry is on the move in Louisiana and would make the state the 28th to adopt constitutional carry as the law of the land.

Constitutional carry passed the Louisiana legislature two years ago and Breitbart News reported that Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) vetoed it June 4, 2021.
It is on the move again and WWLTV noted it would “[allow] any law-abiding gun owner over 18, to carry a concealed handgun in the state.”

On May 25, 2023, Biz New Orleans observed the constitutional carry legislation, sponsored by Rep. Danny McCormick (R), had passed out of committee. McCormick noted:

Louisiana is already an open carry state which allows law-abiding citizens to carry their firearms openly without mandatory training… Allowing those same law-abiding men and women to wear a jacket in colder weather or place their firearms in a purse while wearing a dress also would not cause chaos.

The same argument was made when constitutional carry was being debated in New Hampshire, when permitless open carry was legal but covering the gun with a jacket or sweatshirt was not.

There are currently 27 constitutional carry states in the Union.

Those states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
(Florida’s constitutional carry law takes effect July 1, 2023 and Nebraska’s constitutional carry law takes effect September 10, 2023.)

Gun control advocates disappointed in Texas

In the wake of far more shootings than I care to name, it’s unsurprising that there are some in Texas who want gun control. While I’m unconvinced that it’s a majority or, if it is, it’s a strong enough majority to matter, the media is going to give those people a lot of attention.

Which, of course, they did here.

It seems some parents from North Texas spoke about gun control with lawmakers, but are displeased at the results.

It was an early morning leaving Plano. And a late night returning there.

A group of about 40 mothers and fathers from across Collin County made the 440-mile round trip to Austin on Monday.

They were hoping for productive conversations about gun laws in Texas, nine days after eight people were killed and another seven were injured when a 33-year-old man armed with multiple guns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition opened fire at the Allen Premium Outlets mall…

“It’s depressing,” said Maury Marcus who lives in Plano. “I feel that there’s a partisan divide and the pro-gun faction has the upper hand.”

As she was leaving the Capitol rotunda, frustration was visible on Rekha Shenoy’s face.

“I don’t feel good, but I don’t want to give up. So that’s one thing I’m not doing – I’m not giving up,” Shenoy said.

The mass shooting in Allen was only the latest in Texas.

The Second Amendment shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but it has become one.

I get that these parents are concerned. They shouldn’t be, as I’ve noted previously, because, despite the media hysteria, actual mass shootings are pretty rare, all things concerned.

Yet that’s easy to say but harder for some to internalize. I understand it, but it doesn’t change reality.

So, they showed up and hoped their emotions would sway their audience. It didn’t.

The Democrats who already agreed with them still agreed with them. The Republicans who didn’t agree with them still didn’t.

That’s because if you were going to be swayed by emotions, you probably already were. Those who are going to decide safety is more important than freedom–and I don’t actually think those are contrary positions, but many do–already made that decision.

So people like this show up, let their emotions talk, then claim they weren’t listened to by pro-Second Amendment lawmakers. That’s because the only way to show a gun control advocate that you listened is by doing exactly what they want. You can’t listen and disagree. If you disagree, at least in their view, you didn’t listen.

Anyway, these parents left Austin disappointed. My hope is that they get used to it.

What happened in Allen was awful and I won’t sugarcoat it. However, if you think that wouldn’t have happened if he couldn’t get an AR-15, you’re deluding yourself. There was nothing done at that outlet mall that couldn’t have been done with some other firearm.

That’s why the focus has to be elsewhere. Gun control doesn’t provide us with answers. It simply covers the problem and lets people pretend they’re doing something.

CAUGHT! Biden using fake data to gaslight Americans on mass shootings
Biden proves once again he’ll do anything to win his war on our guns.

Joe Biden has always struggled with the truth. Whenever he wanders off script and speaks extemporaneously, he invents personal anecdotes — boldfaced lies, actually — in which he assigns himself the starring role.

Whether he’s getting arrested in South Africa for trying to bust into Nelson Mandela’s prison cell, or bravely confronting AR-toting hunters in a Delaware swamp or going toe-to-toe with the arch-criminal, CornPop, no one actually believes him or takes his tall tales seriously. It’s just Joe being Joe, right?

But when Biden’s lies are actually signed and set into type, it’s a bit more serious. He loses his normal litany of excuses: he was tired, he was confused, he misread the teleprompter, he was sundowning.

In an editorial published Sunday in USA Today and reprinted in scores of other newspapers, the Fabulist-in-Chief dropped a whopper — even for someone who has lowered the presidential-truthfulness bar so significantly.

The editorial was titled, “President Biden: I’m doing everything I can to reduce gun violence, but Congress must do more.”

Most of Joe’s opus we’ve heard many times before. AR-15s are bad, so is anyone who owns one. Red flag laws and universal background checks will save the world. Congress needs to do more by banning “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines, and of course his ubiquitous: “For God’s sake, do something.”

But then there’s this: “We need to do more. In the year after the Buffalo tragedy, our country has experienced more than 650 mass shootings and well over 40,000 deaths due to gun violence, according to one analysis.”

The hyperlink whisks readers to the Gun Violence Archive — a blatantly anti-gun nonprofit we debunked years ago for their fake news.

Founded in 2013, the GVA has become the legacy media’s source of choice for mass shooting data because they hype the numbers. The GVA came up with its own broad definition of a mass shooting. Anytime four or more people are killed or even slightly wounded with a firearm, the GVA labels it a mass shooting, and politicians, gun control advocates and the legacy media treat their reports as if they’re pure gold. For example, according to the GVA there were 417 mass shootings in 2019. The FBI says there were 30, because it uses a much narrower and more realistic definition.

USA Today’s vaunted fact-checkers never balked at Biden’s use of the fake GVA data. They use it too, as does CNN, MSNBC and FOX News, so they didn’t question the President’s numbers, even though they equate to nearly two mass shootings per day. They were just happy he chose their struggling newspaper to publish his biased screed.

To be clear, if anyone actually believes Biden wrote this editorial himself, I’ve got an ocean-front property in Rehoboth Beach to sell them, complete with a $500,000 taxpayer-funded wall. Lately, Biden has difficulty even reading much less writing. He spars daily with the teleprompter, and the teleprompter usually wins. Of course, he didn’t write the editorial, but that doesn’t matter. It bears his byline: “Joe Biden is the 46th president of the United States,” so he gets the credit and/or the blame. That’s the way the presidency is supposed to work.

That Team Biden would have to juke the stats to buttress their latest anti-gun hit piece is no surprise. They’re getting desperate. No one is listening. Guns are still flying off the shelves, especially ARs, and Black females are now the largest gun-buying demographic, because they realize Biden’s rants are hollow and won’t protect them or their families.

Biden’s editorial should be seen as a warning: He will do anything it takes to win his war against our guns, including gaslighting the American people with fake news. That, too, is no surprise.

Supreme Court Decides Against Early Intervention in Illinois AR-15 Ban Case

The Supreme Court has declined to issue an emergency injunction request against an Illinois city’s “assault weapons” ban on Wednesday.

The request was made by the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), which has challenged a ban on AR-15s and similar firearms enacted by Naperville, Illinois. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees the circuit the case is filed in, requested a brief from the city in defense of its law after the gun-rights group asked the Court to intervene because a lower court upheld the ban.

“The application for a writ of injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Barrett and by her referred to the Court is denied,” the order in NAGR v. Naperville reads.

Barrett’s request for a brief in the case opened the possibility that the Court might be willing to jump the line and block the city’s ban on an emergency basis. That would have been a rare move, which the Court also declined to do in two recent Second Amendment cases challenging New York’s latest gun restrictions. The Court taking the less aggressive path of allowing the case to play out on the merits in the lower courts before deciding whether or not to get involved represents a setback for gun-rights advocates who had hoped they could achieve a quick win on the issue of assault weapons bans.

Naperville said it is “pleased” with the decision and vowed to continue defending its ban.

“The City’s ordinance is intended to protect the health and safety of our community,” Linda L. LaCloche, director of communications for the city manager’s office, told The Reload. “We will continue to defend the ordinance against legal challenges and expect future court decisions as the legal process runs its course.”

The case against Naperville’s ban is separate from the newer statewide ban. Naperville enacted its ban in August 2022. State lawmakers passed their ban in January 2023. Both have faced significant backlash from gun-rights supporters but the statewide ban has come under even more intense scrutiny since its passage.

The statewide ban has since been ruled unconstitutional in state and federal court, though those rulings have since been stayed by higher courts. Oral arguments in the case against the statewide ban were heard at the Illinois Supreme Court yesterday. It has also faced backlash from a majority of Illinois sheriffs who say they won’t enforce the ban because they consider it unconstitutional.

The Naperville ordinance has fared better by comparison. A federal district judge denied a preliminary injunction against the Naperville ordinance in February, and the Seventh Circuit rejected NAGR’s request to block enforcement of the law while its appeal is being processed. Now, the Supreme Court has done the same.

The Court’s denial of NAGR’s request in the Naperville case was done without any comment or noted dissents. That sets it apart from one of the emergency injunction denials in the New York Second Amendment cases. In Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, noted the Court’s decision not to intervene on an emergency basis reflected its deference to lower court proceedings rather than an endorsement of New York’s new gun restrictions.

“I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case,” Alito wrote.

The pair said the New York law in question presents “novel and serious questions under both the First and the Second Amendments” and went on to praise the district court’s ruling against much of the law as “a thorough opinion.” It noted the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had issued “unreasoned summary stay orders” against the injunctions in Anyonyuk and several other cases involving the New York law before encouraging the plaintiffs to refile for emergency relief if the lower court drags its feet.

“Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal,” Alito wrote.

In NAGR v. Naperville, none of the justices said anything about the district court’s decision to uphold the city’s ban on the sale of AR-15s and other popular firearms. That provides less insight into how the justices may feel about the case itself beyond agreeing not to get involved at this point.

NAGR did not respond to a request for comment on the Court’s denial.

Comments O’ The Day

Again, just like in NY SCOTUS has chosen their procedure preferences over the rights of millions of Americans

Justices will not get involved with lower courts giving the anti-gun states whatever they want. We get screwed until a case on the merits reaches cert petition.

Maryland governor signs gun-control bills tightening requirements, NRA sues

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed gun-control measures into law on Tuesday, and the National Rifle Association quickly filed a federal lawsuit against them.

The governor signed legislation approved by state lawmakers this year in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The high court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen last year ended a requirement similar to a Maryland law for people to demonstrate a particular need to get a license to carry a concealed gun in public.

One of the measures Moore signed Tuesday removes the “good and substantial reason” language from Maryland law that the court found unconstitutional in the Bruen case. But the Maryland General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats, also tightened gun laws to prevent someone from carrying a concealed handgun in certain areas.

“Gun violence is tearing apart the fabric of our communities, not just through mass shootings but through shootings that are happening in each of our communities far too often,” Moore, a Democrat, said at a bill-signing ceremony.

Moore said the measures he signed into law demonstrate that the state won’t back down from the challenges of addressing gun violence plaguing the nation.

“In Maryland, we refuse to say these problems are too big or too tough,” Moore said. “We will act, and that’s exactly what today represents.”

One of the bills signed by the governor generally prohibits a person from wearing, carrying or transporting a gun in an “area for children or vulnerable adults,” like a school or health care facility. The new law, which takes effect Oct. 1, also prohibits a person from carrying a firearm in a “government or public infrastructure area,” or a “special purpose area,” which is defined as a place licensed to sell alcohol, cannabis, a stadium, museum, racetrack or casino.

The law also prohibits a person carrying a firearm from entering someone’s home or property, unless the owner has given permission. There are exemptions for law enforcement, security guards and members of the military.

The NRA contends in its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland that the state passed the legislation “in defiance of” court rulings that its gun-carry permitting law was unconstitutional.

Continue reading “”

Guns in 42 Percent of Homes With More Female Owners than Ever.

More than 106 million American adults have at least one firearm in their home, according to a survey conducted in January and February by Responsive Management at the request of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The figure indicates 42 percent of citizens 18 years of age or older have a firearm in their residence. More than 32 percent of the respondents personally own at least one gun.

Roughly a quarter of participants in the study, conducted by phone and on-line, spent at least one day target shooting during 2022—almost 60 percent of those with a firearm in their home. Another 6 percent of non-gun owners surveyed joined an acquaintance or family member for firing line sessions last year.

The survey notes, “In 2022, 17 percent of all shooters were new shooters. New shooters are those who started within the past 5 years. The rate of new shooters in 2022 is markedly higher than that of 2020 (when it was 12 percent) but is comparable to earlier surveys.”

In addition, the results defy mainstream media’s addition to the tired gun-owner stereotype. “New shooters are more likely to be Black, Democrats, Hispanic or Latino, younger, female, and from a large city or suburb,” the study found. “Compared to 2020, the percentage of new shooters who are Democrats nearly doubled, and there are large increases in the percentages of new shooters who are young, female and from a large city or suburban area….About a third of sport shooters in 2022 were female, the highest portion yet. This is up from 2009, when females made up just 25.8 percent of all sport shooters.”

The pursuit’s future is also a bright one. The survey’s authors also noted that, “In 2022, younger shooters made up the largest portion of shooters, whereas the largest share in every other survey year was the 35- to 54-year-old age group.”

Results of the study were weighted to reflect current U.S. Census data by state and region. Final sampling error came in at plus or minus 1.76 percent with a 95-percent confidence level in results.

Gun rights advocates win major challenge to N.J.’s tough concealed carry law.

A new law limiting concealed carry of guns in New Jersey suffered another defeat in federal court Tuesday as a judge ordered state officials not to enforce its tight restrictions pending a flurry of legal challenges from gun rights advocates.

The ruling means New Jerseyans with proper permits are free to concealed-carry handguns at beaches, public parks, bars and restaurants — places from where Gov. Phil Murphy and his Democratic allies in the state Legislature sought to ban firearms in an effort to curb gun violence.

Following a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that found restrictive concealed carry laws on the books in states like New York and New Jersey violated the Second Amendment, Democratic leaders in the state fast-tracked a new measure that made it easier for citizens to obtain carry permits, but tightly limited where guns were allowed.

But in a 235-page ruling made public Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb officially put its enforcement on hold.
Gun rights advocates declared victory, praising the decision as a “smackdown” of “draconian laws.”

Continue reading “”

Daydreaming the Guns Away

We find ourselves living in a highly consequential time for the legal clarification of the 2nd Amendment. Extremely aggressive, wide-ranging bans of semi-automatic firearms have been enacted in various parts of the country, drawing legal challenges. While the ultimate resolution of these challenges is unknowable, many observers believe the Supreme Court will eventually arrive at a decision prohibiting the wholesale banning of semi-automatic firearms. Those who dream of eliminating all private gun ownership in the United States face the prospect of a devastating legal defeat.

One can imagine their looming disappointment. They have failed to appoint Supreme Court justices who would effectively redefine the 2nd Amendment out of existence, and they are about to bear the consequences of that failure. But from their perspective, there is comfort to be had in the prospect of eventually stripping the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution altogether, no matter how long it may take.

Such is the hope that animates aspiring intergenerational social reformer Allan Goldstein, who, in his “Let’s get serious and repeal the Second Amendment” has stepped forward to boldly launch a 50-plus year plan to eradicate all privately owned firearms in the United States.

Perhaps the piece might have been better entitled “Let’s Get Hysterical.” How galling it must be to be deprived of so obvious a good — a gun-free society — on account of something as frivolous as an obsolete, suicidally-construed constitutional amendment. On Goldstein’s account “[t]he Supreme Court has decided that ‘a well-regulated militia’ includes gang bangers and wild-eyed loners with a grudge.” What a shame Goldstein did not bother to provide a citation to the Supreme Court decision in which this is asserted.

Continue reading “”

Rasmussen: Gun Owners Feel Safer, Don’t Trust Govt. Enforcement

A new Rasmussen survey has revealed “Most gun owners say they feel safer with a firearm in the house, and don’t think the government can be trusted to enforce gun control laws fairly.”

According to Rasmussen, only 29 percent of American Adults trust the government to fairly enforce gun control laws, while 57 percent don’t, and another 14 percent are not sure.

Forty-two percent (42%) say they or someone in their household owns a gun – up from 37 percent in February 2022 – while 47 percent don’t live in gun-owning households, and 11 percent are not sure, the new report said. It’s not clear how those people aren’t sure someone in the household has a firearm.

The survey of 1,204 American Adults was conducted on April 30-May 2, 2023 by Rasmussen Reports with a margin of sampling error or +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Not surprisingly, Rasmussen’s new survey says more Republicans (51%) than Democrats (41%) or Independents (35%) live in gun-owning households. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats, 35% of Republicans and 50% of the unaffiliated say no one in their household owns a gun, Rasmussen said.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans, 47 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Independents don’t trust the government to enforce gun control laws fairly.

This is not much different from earlier Rasmussen polling on guns, which suggests Americans aren’t shifting their values much on firearms even as times change.

According to the survey, “more men (49%) than women (36%) live in gun-owning households.”

“However, Rasmussen said, “women who do live in gun-own households are about equally likely as men to say they feel more safe because someone in their household owns a gun.”

More whites (48%) than blacks (35%) or other minorities (32%) live in gun-owning households, the survey revealed. Majorities of every racial category – 55 percent of whites, 61 percent of blacks and 58 percent of other minorities – don’t trust the government to fairly enforce gun control laws.