Category: RKBA

States Attack Private Shooting Ranges as ‘Antigovernment Paramilitary Training Camps’

The small town of Pawlet, Vermont – population 1,386 – has been feuding with Daniel Banyai for years over two shooting ranges he built on the 30-acre property he’s owned since 2013.

Neighbors complained about the noise and said Banyai and his friends are super scary. Town officials said Banyai built structures on his land without applying for any zoning permits.

In 2021 Banyai told the Associated Press his property, which he calls Slate Ridge, is a “safe and environmentally friendly place for people to discharge their firearms.”

None of that mattered to Pawlet town officials. After their initial zoning efforts failed, they sued Banyai in Vermont’s Environmental Court, which ordered him to remove the unpermitted structures and earthen berms within 135 days. Banyai ignored the ruling, and in February the Environmental Court held Banyai in contempt of court. He has been racking up civil fines at the rate of $200 per day ever since.

“Respondent has demonstrated a willfulness, perhaps even an enthusiasm, for disregarding the Town’s Bylaws, this Court’s Orders, and the authority of the Judiciary,” Vermont Environmental Court Judge Thomas Durkin said in his order.

Attempts to contact Banyai for this story were unsuccessful.

Continue reading “”

They let the truth slip out, and then are so stupid, they believe we’re so stupid, we’ll believe they didn’t really mean  what was said.

After “no more guns” comment, Giffords claims she’s seeking common ground

Giffords co-founder and gun control activist Gabby Giffords is out with a new puff piece in Rolling Stone that’s audaciously headlined “cynicism is not an option when it comes to gun control“. Why’s that so audacious? Because the same person who said just a few weeks ago that her goal is “no more guns” is once again claiming that she’s only looking for “common ground” and blaming Second Amendment supporters for “extremism”.

The gun lobby has done its best to divide our nation and to polarize the conversation around guns. They want their base to believe that their Second Amendments rights are under attack, and that threats are lurking around every corner. This extremism drives votes and sells guns.

Rather than relying on extremism, I’ve sought to find common ground. Most Americans agree that gun violence is a problem we need to address. No American wants to worry that their child might not come home from school because of a mass shooting. Policies like closing loopholes in our federal background checks system, making sure every state has an extreme risk protection order or “red flag” law, and ensuring guns are kept away from kids have broad popular support.

Why would anyone believe their Second Amendment rights would be under attack? Could it be the states that are banning commonly-owned firearms and threatening gun owners with prison time for simply holding on to the guns and magazines they lawfully purchased? Could it be the four-figure fees some localities are charging folks who want to exercise their right to bear arms in self-defense? Maybe it’s the activists who are calling on Colorado Gov. Jared Polis to issue an executive order banning all gun sales and ordering a mandatory “buyback”… or the founder of one of the country’s biggest gun control groups who says her goal is simply “no more guns“?

As we wrap our interview in her office, I ask how she keeps coming back to a challenge so deeply ingrained in politics. She pauses for 12 pregnant seconds.

“No more guns,” she says.

Ambler, her aide and adviser, tries to clarify that she means no more gun violence, but Giffords is clear about what she’s saying. “No, no, no,” she says. “Lord, no.” She pauses another 32 seconds. “Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”

An aide clarifies that she’s talking about Australia, where gun sales were outlawed after a mass shooting and existing weapons were purchased by the government. Giffords nods in the affirmative. It’s an idealistic goal, for sure, and one perhaps mismatched for the moment in this country. But Giffords has an answer for that: “Legislation, legislation, legislation.”

Time Magazine’s Phillip Elliott is wrong about the Australia gun ban, which didn’t outlaw all gun sales. In fact, there are more guns legally owned in Australia now than before the 1996 ban, which didn’t remove every gun in the country to begin with. In 1996 there were about 3.2-million privately owned firearms in the country. After the compensated confiscation, the number dipped to 2.7-million, but by 2017 there were an estimated 3.6-million guns in the hands of Australians.

Maybe Gabby Giffords herself is unclear about the effects of the Australian gun ban, but there seems to be no doubt about her end goal here in the United States. It’s not red flag laws, storage mandates, or “universal background checks.” It’s “no more guns. Gone.”

So yeah, I think it’s pretty cynical for Giffords and her handlers to pretend she never let the mask slip and revealed her true intentions, especially when she turns around and calls Second Amendment supporters extremists. What position is more extreme: the right to keep and bear arms in self-defense is a fundamental civil right that cannot be infringed upon, or “no more guns”? Where’s the common ground in that statement?

Look, I don’t begrudge Gabby Giffords’ gun control views, even if I don’t agree with them. She’s entitled to her opinion and is free to advocate for any gun control laws she wants. But when she tells a reporter that she wants to eradicate gun ownership and then puts her name behind an opinion piece pointing the finger at gun owners for dividing our nation and polarizing the conversation around guns, she’s engaging in the same cynical and dishonest approach she claims to condemn. I’d have more respect for Giffords if she’d simply come out and announce that the mission of her organization is to repeal the Second Amendment, but I doubt that will ever happen. Giffords may have let the mask slip while talking to Time, but her missive in Rolling Stone shows she knows how to play the gun control long game; claiming moderation and using an incrementalist approach, but always with the end goal of gun prohibition in mind.

“Infringed” – finally – defined by a federal court;  From the summary judgement that prohibiting 18 to 20 year old people from purchasing firearms is unconstitutional.

JOHN COREY FRASER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as a Class, Plaintiff, v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, et al., Defendants.

****

The Second Amendment accords protection of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” by providing that the right “shall not be infringed”  U.S. Const. Amend. II (emphasis added). The Second Amendment is unique in its use of “infringed” for the word does not appear anywhere else in the Constitution. Despite its uniqueness, the term “infringed” has received little attention by scholars or courts. However, Heller took the view that “infringed” “implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right.” 554 U.S. at 592 . As articulated in Heller, the Second Amendment does not serve to grant a right but rather preserves a right that the people already possessed. Therefore, to “keep and bear” serves to identify the right protected, not to define the right in the first instance.

The definition of “infringe” further supports the conclusion that the pre-existing right includes a right to purchase. “Infringe” is defined in modern dictionaries as “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.” “Infringe,” Merriam-Webster.com. “Encroach,” in turn, has two definitions: “to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another” and “to advance beyond the usual or proper limits.” “Encroach,” Merriam-Webster.com. Those words have possessed the same meaning since the sixteenth century and the Founders would have understood them in the same way.9 Not simply protecting the heartland of the preserved right, the Second Amendment protects the environs surrounding it to prevent any encroachment on the core protections. Thus, by virtue of the word “infringed,” the Second Amendment ‘s protective textual embrace includes the conduct necessary to exercise the right (“to keep and bear”) and that, as explained above, includes the right to purchase arms so that one can keep and bear them.

*****

Miss Swearer hit a line drive out of the park again

11 Defensive Gun Uses Show How Lawful Gun Owners ‘Get It Right’

Often lost in conversations about gun violence is the reality of who is responsible for the bulk of that violence. Most gun crimes aren’t committed by lawful gun owners but by a small subset of repeat violent offenders who already are prohibited from legally possessing firearms.

At the same time, the vast majority of the nation’s millions of lawful gun owners will never use their firearms to harm themselves or others (excluding, of course, actions taken in lawful self-defense).

Nevertheless, sometimes people make questionable—or even downright abhorrent—decisions with their lawfully owned firearms. This was quite apparent in recent weeks as several gun owners made national headlines for all the wrong reasons, recklessly resorting to the use of lethal force when it likely wasn’t warranted.

Although these individuals rightly should have their actions scrutinized, the reality is that Americans with legally possessed guns are far more likely to “get it right” than they are to “get it wrong.”

Almost every major study has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged. In 2021, the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the issue concluded that roughly 1.6 million defensive gun uses occur in the United States every year.

For this reason, The Daily Signal publishes a monthly article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accounts here from past months and years. You also may follow @DailyDGU on Twitter for daily highlights of recent defensive gun uses.)

Continue reading “”

Doesn’t fit the stereotype, must not be real

Black, Millennial, Female and Conservative

Antonia Okafor Cover joined me on Feedback to discuss her transformation from Democrat to Republican and her dedication to the Second Amendment. Antonia is the Director of Women’s Outreach with Gun Owners of America and Founder and President of Empowered, a nonprofit group designed to educate, train and equip young women in the use of firearms for protection on college campuses. The group also helps women advocate for their Second Amendment rights.

Antonia has been working on Second Amendment issue advocacy and firearms education for women for several years and has appeared on and been quoted in major news outlets, and has testified on Capitol Hill. News media are finally starting to cover the steady and growing trend of new female gun owners, which includes a large number of new black female gun owners.

For Antonia, this is not surprising, and she can highlight some of the major reasons women are deciding to empower themselves and buy a gun. Number one on that list is personal protection and self defense.

Antonia shared that her political evolution began when she realized that Democrats’ lack of principles and values, as well as their intolerance of diversity of thought led her to become a Christian and then a conservative who embraced our constitution and more specifically, the Second Amendment.

Women should be empowered to defend themselves and their families and because Democrats offer no real solutions to empower women, this is, indeed, the natural progression in becoming a conservative.

Well, you know the old lines about ducks and buffalo country, right?

Do Gun-Control Democrats Want Us Dead?

Modern politicians don’t ask to kill their opponents right away. There is a ladder of dehumanization to climb as they justify increasing levels of violence. We’ve heard Democrat politicians say that Republicans don’t care about killing children because the Republican legislators won’t pass more gun-control. Not only is that extremist rhetoric, it is murderously dangerous. Look at the facts and it seems gun-control Democrats really want more of us to die.

To quote Democrat Congressman Mike Thompson, “How many more kids need to get murdered before House Republican Leadership steps up and puts gun violence prevention legislation on the House calendar?”

The Democrat party news site DemCastUSA said, “Republicans ..block gun safety reforms while stoking hate. The GOP has blood on their hands while offering ‘Thoughts and Prayers’…”

Let’s look at what Democrat Politicians are asking for. This is what happens after honest citizens are disarmed.

Violent criminals commit about 1.2 million violent crimes a year (2019). Most criminals, about five-out-of-six, don’t use a gun in their violent crimes. In contrast, honest citizens use a firearm about 2.8 million times a year to stop death or great bodily injury. We don’t know how many of those defensive incidents would result in the victim’s death if they were disarmed. We can estimate the answer by assuming that criminals who attack disarmed victims are the same sort who attack armed victims. We are assuming that the criminals stay the same and only the actions of the victims change. That is overly simplistic, but it is a start. In fact, violent criminals become more violent when their victims become more vulnerable.

Here is an example to show you what I mean. If half of violent crimes were aggravated assaults, then we’ll assume that half of the attacks on the newly disarmed victims will remain as aggravated assaults. That may be wishful thinking since we don’t know how many aggravated assaults today were really attempted murders where a victim was able to reduce the severity of the attack because he was armed.

Violent criminals committed about 16.4-thousand murders in 2019. That is about 1.4-percent of the violent crimes. We now have 1.4 percent of what used to be armed defenses, about 38-thousand, now become new murders when the victims are disarmed by Democrat gun-control.

Gun-control Democrats more than tripled the number of murdered victims by disarming the good guys.

Continue reading “”

Fraser v. ATF
Judge strikes down the federal law banning FFL handgun sales to young adults, saying that doing otherwise “would impose limitations on the Second Amendment that do not exist with other constitutional guarantees.”

gov.uscourts.vaed.524643.47.0

Ordinary Men Will Save Our 2nd Amendment

U.S.A. — The 2nd Amendment is one of the most important barriers to tyranny. Our Founders knew that he who has the guns, has the power. The fight for those guns, between those who want control and those who want to preserve freedom, has become especially fierce in recent decades. The enemies of freedom have become much craftier and have been able to use the legal system to their advantage in many cases. However, every once in a while, ordinary men do extraordinary things and often don’t realize the impact on future generations they will have.

In the Bruen case out of New York State, an extraordinary new precedent was created when Judge Clarence Thomas declared gun laws must meet “historical tradition.” Did he know the impact he would have? Did he know that he would be giving the 2nd Amendment new life?

Let’s go back a bit further to two men named Brandon Koch and Robert Nash. Koch and Nash were denied their concealed carry permit in the State of New York because they did not show “proper cause” according to the State. The State of New York had decided, despite the 2nd Amendment, that they would be the authority to which New York residence would plead their case and request permission to carry a gun outside their home. The anti-gun group The Giffords Law Center agreed that licenses are only granted to individuals who show “proper cause,” which means applicants must “demonstrate a special need for self-defense.” The irony of course would be in whom would determine the parameters of “special need” and “proper clause.”

You’ve heard the anti-gun crowd use terms like, “nobody needs to carry a gun in public,” or “nobody needs an AR 15,” or “Nobody needs ten rounds to kill a deer.” The word “need’ is used to get people comfortable with the idea that rights are not actually rights but government issued privileges measured by a metric of need that Democrat legislatures will determine. The New York legislature literally wrote “need” into law when they implemented the “proper cause” requirement. New York Citizens would now be required to demonstrate a compelling “need” prior to being allowed the “privilege” of exercising a “right.” God granted the right to self-defense, New York Democrats believed they can take it away.

Brandon Koch and Robert Nash had a different understanding of rights and privileges and proceeded to take on the fight of their lives. In the process, reminding all those who were watching why it is important for ordinary men to stand up in the face of tyranny. With help from the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the nearly 8-year process to shut down the State’s overreach had begun.

Continue reading “”

Missouri: Time Running Out for Self-Defense Bill

The 2023 legislative session will soon draw to a close and the critical self-defense bill, House Bill 282, has still not been brought to the floor for a vote. Please contact Senate Majority Floor Leader Cindy O’Laughlin by phone, at 573-751-7985, and by clicking the button below, to ask her to please bring HB 282 to the floor for a vote.

House Bill 282 repeals arbitrary “gun-free zones” that do nothing to hinder criminals, while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. It removes the prohibition on law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for self-defense on public transit property and in vehicles. This ensures that citizens with varying commutes throughout their day, and of various economic means, are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights and defend themselves.

The bill also repeals the prohibition in state law against carrying firearms for self-defense in places of worship. This empowers private property owners to make such decisions regarding security on their own, rather than the government mandating a one-size-fits-all solution.

Again, please contact Senate Majority Floor Leader Cindy O’Laughlin and ask her to please bring HB 282 to the floor for a vote.

Who wants more “gun-free” zones?

You must have seen the news stories about the attack outside a shopping mall in Texas. If you didn’t read the whole article, at least you scanned the headlines. It was awful that innocent people were attacked and many were killed. In response, some gun-control politicians said we should have more gun-free zones. That makes good headlines, and “gun-free” zones have the support of a surprising group of people. Like us, they just want to feel safe as they go about their business. Maybe you feel the same way, so let’s see if you agree.

Everyone wants to feel a degree of safety. Unfortunately, what makes one person feel safe might make the next person feel at risk. Let’s slow down and look at gun-free zones one step at a time.

We agree that it is easy to put up a plastic sign. Unfortunately, that thin plastic decal on a window doesn’t stop a murderer’s bullet. It might protect the business owner from legal liability, but does it do anything else? Come to think of it, the “sign” doesn’t even need to be a real object that is posted near the business’s doorway. It can be the words “No weapons allowed.” on the mall owner’s website somewhere. Does that make you feel safer?

I’m skeptical that the words on a website will stop a criminal. I don’t think that criminals check websites before they choose where to attack us.

Maybe you want real physical signs that say “No Guns Allowed” outside of every door. Maybe you want the business owner to wand everyone who enters the store just like they do to the audience at a rock concert. That means they need a security team at every entrance whenever the business is open. Maybe that means that there can only be one entrance. That sounds safer too. Unfortunately, that didn’t work out too well in practice.

One of our largest mass-murders was at a bar with two off-duty police officers who were checking people at the front entrance. The murderer shot his way inside past the guards. Once the murderer was inside, there was no way for the unarmed victims to escape. That attack went on for hours.

Maybe the facts don’t matter because we’re talking about what feels better. Maybe you want everyone disarmed because it makes you nervous to think that there are people around you who have guns. You are not alone.

Some people feel exactly the same way. I’ve read about them and how they felt. I’ve studied them. These people felt much safer where ordinary citizens were disarmed. They searched out “gun-free” zones. They were mass-murderers looking for easy victims.

Mass-murderers intensely search for “gun-free” zones so they can murder at will.

I’m not that smart, but even I can see a pattern here-

  • We saw mass murderers deliberately attack us in theaters that were called “gun-free” zones.
  • They attacked us at county fairs that were called “gun-free” zones.
  • They attacked us in secure areas of airports that were called “gun-free” zones.
  • They attacked us in bars and restaurants that were called “gun-free” zones.
  • They attacked us in churches that were called “gun-free” zones.
  • Mass-murderers attacked us in grocery stores in towns where the police chief and sheriffs made sure that ordinary honest citizens were disarmed.
  • Mass-murderers also attacked us in schools that were called “gun-free” zones, and that is an interesting test case.

Schools are frequent targets of mass-murderers, but we have never seen a mass-murderer attempt to attack a school that had a program to train and arm school staff. I think that tells us a lot. It says that mass-murderers feel safer in “gun-free” zones. That certainly makes sense from their point of view, but it leaves us with other questions.

Why do people who are not mass-murderers feel safer in a gun free zone?

I’m not sure, but I have a guess. We know that mass-murderers target us in “gun-free” zones. The people who are afraid of guns would rather face the remote risk of a mass-murderer than be around their harmless neighbors who might be armed.

If I’m right, then that tells us a lot about the people who are afraid of their neighbors, but it doesn’t tell us much about guns.

We must Doooooo Something!™

Tennessee Governor Announces Special Session for ‘Red Flag’ Style Gun Law

The Tennessee General Assembly will officially reconvene this summer to consider legislation aimed at preventing future mass shootings.

On Monday, Governor Bill Lee (R.) formally announced a special legislative session starting August 21st. The goal of the session will be to “strengthen public safety and preserve constitutional rights,” according to Lee, and will likely involve debate over his take on legislation aimed at temporarily taking guns from those determined to be a threat to themselves or others.

“After speaking with members of the General Assembly, I am calling for a special session on August 21 to continue our important discussion about solutions to keep Tennessee communities safe and preserve the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens,” Lee said. “There is broad agreement that action is needed, and in the weeks ahead, we’ll continue to listen to Tennesseans and pursue thoughtful, practical measures that strengthen the safety of Tennesseans, preserve Second Amendment rights, prioritize due process protections, support law enforcement and address mental health.”

The announcement sets the stage for what is shaping up to be one of the most interesting debates in gun politics as a Republican-controlled state legislature debates a policy that has rarely seen adoption in red states. It comes weeks after a shooter murdered three students and three staff members at a Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee. While he remained non-specific in his announcement, Lee’s “order of protection” proposal is expected to be a key feature of the special session.

Continue reading “”

That’s 27

ICYMI: Governor Pillen Signs Constitutional Carry Bill Into Law

LINCOLN, NE – Governor Jim Pillen signed LB77 Constitutional Carry into Nebraska law. LB77 allows law-abiding Nebraskans who are 21 years or older to carry a concealed handgun without a permit. Governor Pillen was joined by the bill introducer Sen. Tom Brewer and state senators.

 “Signing this bill upholds the promise I made to voters to protect our constitutional rights and promote commonsense, conservative values,” said Governor Pillen. “I appreciate the hard work of those senators who supported this legislation, and particularly that of Sen. Brewer who led this charge and carried it through to the end.”

 “Nebraskans should not have to pay the government a fee or ask permission for constitutional rights,” said Senator Brewer. “This bill finally delivers on the promises in Nebraska and United States constitutions. I am proud to help Nebraska join twenty-six of our sister states in removing this obstacle to the right to keep and bear arms.”

 A video of the bill signing can be found here and photos are below.

 

Gavin Newsom tries anti-gun attack that backfires

California Gov. Gavin Newsom will probably run for president someday. I wouldn’t be surprised to see President Joe Biden decide to replace Vice President Kamala Harris with Newsom–it would keep California locked up electorally and Harris is…well, she’s just bad all around.

For now, though, Newsom is content to just act like an idiot when and where he can.

And that’s what he did when he went on the attack following the shooting in Allen, TX.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom immediately criticized the Republican controlled Congress after a deadly mass shooting at a mall in suburban Dallas, Texas killed at least 8 and injured 7 others on Saturday afternoon, slamming Congress for not passing gun control reform.

“This is freedom?? To be shot at a mall? Shot at school? Shot at church? Shot at the movies?” the Democrat governor wrote in a Twitter post shortly after police confirmed the causalities. “We have become a nation that is more focused on the right to kill than the right to live.”

Oh, sick burn.

Except, of course, it’s total male bovine excrement.

I challenge Gov. Newsom to show me one place in the United States that actually has a “right to kill.”

Sure, many have taken steps to preserve the right to self-defense, but that’s fundamentally different. Even Newsom will acknowledge–publicly, at least–that you have a right to defend yourself if you find yourself being threatened.

That’s not “the right to kill.”

So where is it, Newsom? Where is this “right to kill” that Congress is supposedly so focused on?

Nowhere. That’s where it is. At least, not with a firearm.

California, however, wants to be an abortion mecca for people who feel like they can’t get one in their home state. For a lot of people, that sure looks like California and Newsom are worried about an actual “right to kill.”

There’s also California’s euthanasia law that allows anyone who has lived in the state for six months to get assisted suicide–another thing that sure looks like killing to a lot of other folks.

In other words, a case can easily be made that Newsom’s California is one of the few places that actually does have a right to kill.

The truth of the matter is that no matter what gun control you pass, there will be a potential for mass shootings. I reported on three from Europe just recently, including two in Serbia just days apart. Another was in Portugal.

Those three were within the span of a week, folks, and there is no nation in Europe that is particularly gun friendly. Not by American standards, anyway.

Newsom and people like him would do well to stop focusing on the guns and start looking at what we can do that might actually work.

That’s not going to happen, though. It’s not going to happen because Newsom wants to square up his anti-gun credentials prior to his presidential run, whenever that actually happens.

The thing is, I don’t think that will work the way he intends.

Vermont Gun Bill Creating 72-Hour Waiting Period Passes

The Vermont Legislature on Friday passed a bill that requires a 72-hour waiting period for the purchase of guns and includes other provisions aimed at reducing suicides and community violence.

The Vermont House concurred with a Senate amendment by a vote of 106 to 34. But Republican Gov. Phil Scott “has significant concerns about the constitutionality of the waiting period provision,” his spokesman Jason Maulucci said Friday.

The legislation also creates a crime of negligent firearms storage and expands the state’s extreme risk protection orders so that a state’s attorney, the attorney general’s office or a family or household member may ask a court to prohibit a person from purchasing, possessing or receiving a dangerous weapon.

Supporters say it’s time to take action against gun violence and the rate of suicide in Vermont, which is higher than the national rate.

Opponents say the bill violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Per Heller and the Bruen Standard, it mostr certainly does

According to the bill, more than 700 Vermonters died of gunshots from 2011 to 2020 and 88% of those deaths were suicides. In 2021, the state’s suicide rate was 20.3 per 100,000 people, compared to a national rate of 14 per 100,000, the bill states. Children in a home with a firearm are more than four times more likely to die by suicide than those in a home without one, the legislature states.

Image

 

These are semi automatic “assault rifles”, although the term is made up, this is what the left wants to take. I actually don’t care what you call them, at all, as long as you don’t call them “modern sporting rifles”. That term is a pathetic attempt at the gun movement trying to placate the left.

I dont own these rifles for sport, I don’t hunt with either of these rifles although I could. Both of these rifles are owned because they’re effective against two legged predators at varying distances. I own these rifles in case someone or a group of people intend to kill me or my loved ones. These rifles are owned specifically to defend myself against humans.

Let’s not mince words. Every attempt at banning them only makes me buy more and more. No legislation will make me give them to you, no tragedy will ever make me anti gun. Each shooting I see in the news makes me want to buy more and train harder to be more effective against the evil in this world.

These guns don’t make me a psychopathic killer. I’m not a violent person but I’m also not an idiot who believes the world is a safe place. As the world gets increasingly more dangerous I look for better and better tools to defend myself and my family. As the government gets more corrupt and the economy crashes I hedge my bets with effective self defense tools and the skillset to effectively deploy them.

My guns aren’t a threat to anyone that isn’t trying to kill me. So you can cry, you can protest and you can even legislate, these are mine and you’ll never get them. They’re absolutely no danger to you unless you’re someone who means me harm and tries to kill me. How many people need to die before I turn in my guns? There isn’t an amount. What do my guns have to do with shooting rates in this country? Do you advocate chopping off your penis to help prevent others from raping?

Tweet away, vote away, protest and cry. They’re still mine.

PA’s Insane Ammunition Registration Database, Wants All Your Ammo to Have Separate Serial Numbers

Proposed Pennsylvania House Bill 586, introduced on March 20, 2023, proposes significant changes to ammunition regulations that would impact law-abiding gun owners in the state. The bill, which was introduced by 12 state Democrats, including prime sponsor Representative Stephen Kinsey, seeks to give the Commissioner of Pennsylvania State Police and the Secretary of Revenue the power to enforce the new rules and collect a tax on ammunition to fund the changes.

Encoded Ammo Database, Pennsylvania House Bill 586

The bill has several provisions, including a requirement that all ammunition sold in Pennsylvania must be encoded with multiple serial numbers. This means that a manufacturer must add individual serial numbers to all ammunition provided for retail sale in a manner yet to be established by the Pennsylvania State Police commissioner. Each bullet would have a unique serial number located at its base, inside the cartridge casing, and outside the box of ammunition.

In a related article that alerted us to this crazy bill, Riley Bowman, Vice President of ConcealedCarry.com pointed out that this could pose significant challenges for producers and negatively impact ammunition produced for law enforcement, even though they are exempt from this bill. He noted that ammo producers are already struggling to keep up with demand, and the time required to produce a single round of ammunition could increase from seconds to minutes.

The bill also requires anyone who possesses non-encoded ammunition to dispose of it by January 1, 2024. Is what they are proposing that millions and millions of rounds of ammunition be shot in less than a year by Pennsylvania gun owners?

Continue reading “”

Frustratingly, the same judge who issued the foolish opinion which was overturned by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago has once again stepped in to enforce unconstitutional gun control. This is not the last laugh, and we are fully invested in ensuring this law is defeated. GOA will continue to fight until lower courts, executives, and lawmakers at all levels fall in line with the Bruen precedent.

Erich Pratt GOA Senior Vice President

Colorado: Extreme Private Property Ban Killed

Thanks to the strong response of NRA members and Second Amendment supporters, HB23-1165, the bill giving counties the power to ban shooting on private property in their jurisdiction, was defeated. NRA also thanks all lawmakers who defended the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens in Colorado.

Oklahoma Governor Signed Two Important Second Amendment Bills: Boat Carry and Constitutional Carry Cleanup

Recently, Governor Kevin Stitt, signed two important pieces of legislation that uphold our Second Amendment rights.

Firstly, Senate Bill 978, also known as the Boat Carry Bill, has been signed into law. This bill recognizes individuals right to carry a firearm on a boat as long as they are legally allowed to possess a firearm. This is a significant victory for those who enjoy recreational boating and want to exercise their right to self-defense.

Secondly, House Bill 1789, also known as the Constitutional Carry Cleanup Bill, has been signed into law. This bill clarifies language in the existing constitutional carry law and ensures that law-abiding citizens can carry a firearm without unnecessary government permission slips. This is crucial in protecting our Second Amendment rights and ensuring that law-abiding citizens are not unjustly prosecuted for exercising their right to bear arms.

NRA applauds Governor Stitt and the Oklahoma Legislature for taking bold steps to protect our Second Amendment rights. These new laws are a victory for all Oklahomans who believe in the fundamental right to self-defense and the right to bear arms.

Thank you for your continued support of the Second Amendment.