Category: RKBA

ARE YOU PREPARED?
BE READY FOR THESE FIVE CATEGORIES

Where’s the danger? Those who carry a weapon in public are constantly asking this question. We’re always in what Jeff Cooper popularized as Condition Yellow. No threat has been recognized, but we’re actively alert for anything that might come up. Once a potential threat has been identified, we move to Condition Orange and begin planning for an attack. We evaluate the threat, the availability of cover and concealment, look for other threats and evaluate the overall environment in case we need to use lethal force. Condition Orange is a critical stage because you’ve identified the threat and must prepare. I propose some threats are already known to us, but most are not adequately prepared to respond.

Threats come in many forms. We can’t always know where they will come from. When we do, however, we’re always better off if we have already prepared rather than waiting until it is staring us in the eyes. A prepared response is always better than an improvised one. This is especially true when the threat is deadly. Massad Ayoob has an oft-repeated phrase for this: “Know where the threats are most likely to come from and have a proven strategy prepared to counter it.” You can’t prepare for everything, so you’ve got to prioritize.

Learning the most common instances where lethal force was used can give you valuable information about where your focus should be. I was listening to the Armed Attorneys (YouTube) discussing this recently. According to them, civilian uses of force cases (as opposed to law enforcement) overwhelmingly come in five categories:

 

Continue reading “”

That the children are apparently purposefully deluded by their instructors and not taught that SCOTUS took care of this in 2008 in Heller, simply shows that it’s not teaching, but indoctrination

Also, JIC:

The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment

Anti-gun op-ed by student hardly the gotcha she thinks it is

Every now and then, we see some person who thinks they’re clever, only to trot out a tired, debunked argument that they’re sure is a “gotcha” moment.

That’s especially true with anti-gun arguments, of course.

I recently came across an op-ed written by a Los Angeles high school student that treads a particularly tired argument.

Titled, “Opinion: The 2nd Amendment requires gun regulation,” you already know it’s going to be good.

How can we decrease gun violence?

According to the 2nd Amendment, since “[a] well regulated Militia [is]…necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Although people have the right to bear arms for their own protection as stated in the Constitution, the Second Amendment also clearly states that this is based on the need for a “well regulated Militia”, not based on random people being able to have guns.

This can be interpreted to mean that no one except for law enforcement should have more than a number of guns or ammunition, because the right to bear arms is for a “well regulated Militia”. People do not need 10 guns to protect themselves from danger, and they certainly won’t need a gun that can shoot 600 bullets per minute either, like the AK-47 as detailed in Britannica.

If we limit a certain amount of guns per person, making sure that gun owners are “well regulated”, then the chance of a mass shooting will be less likely as a gun owner could only own a specific amount of guns and also have “regulated” ways to use them.

I’m sure the author and her teachers are very proud of her for this argument. Too bad it’s an anti-gun argument debunked ages ago by people far better versed in constitutional law than she is.

First, the phrase “well-regulated” means “properly functioning.”

Second, the militia refers to the whole body of free people who can be called upon to defend our nation. While many argue that this means the National Guard today, if you take a look at the Militia Act, you’ll see the unorganized militia is still people within a given age range who aren’t currently serving in the military or eligible for call-up.

Further, the young author here is illustrating just how poor the American educational system actually is, because she clearly didn’t grasp the totality of the Second Amendment.

See, she’s doing what many anti-gunners do, which is focus on the militia clause. Yet the rest of the amendment read, “the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“[S]hall not be infringed.” That part alone debunks the entire premise on which the author based her work. It doesn’t say the right to keep and bear arms shall only be for militia purposes. It explicitly states that it shall not be interfered with by lawmakers.

I don’t blame her, though. I blame her teachers.

It seems no one adequately educated her about the context surrounding the Second Amendment. She likely was never taught about our Founding Fathers’ innate distrust of standing armies, or how they believed any government had the potential to become tyrannical unless held in check by the citizenry.

They never taught her how the Bill of Rights came to be, how many of the amendments were a direct response to actions carried out by the British, and how the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure their new nation wouldn’t go down that same road.

That includes removing arms from law-abiding citizens.

“But you don’t need 10 guns,” she argues, yet the Second Amendment doesn’t call for such anti-gun regulation as she claims. It explicitly precludes any such regulation by saying our right shall not be infringed.

It seems clear that this young woman hasn’t been taught by her teachers. Not about history and likely not even how to think for herself.

Guns don’t cause homicides. The real problem is everyone’s bubble of personal privacy

IT’S NOT THE GUNS

The “guns cause killings” idea is bogus. (Dec. 1, 8A, “Guns, not mental health issues, cause US mass shootings”) There are more guns than people in America.
If guns cause violence, then the annual homicide rate should be more than 1 million killed, with hundreds of thousands wounded. The streets of every city, town and village should be running red with blood, and the bodies should be stacked like cord wood in the streets.
Two classes of homicides dominate mass media today: gang warfare killings and mass shootings by lone killers. Gang warfare is concentrated in urban areas. One-on-one homicides are fairly rare and sprinkled across America. Mass shootings are even more uncommon.
Dealing with lone killers would require America to tackle the very tough issue of privacy. In the past 60 years, civil libertarians have invented an impenetrable bubble of privacy around everyone. This makes it difficult or impossible for employers, law enforcement and school officials to do anything before a mass shooting takes place.
A final observation: Every handgun sold to honest, law-abiding citizens is a vote of “no confidence” in government’s ability — or even willingness — to control street crime.
– Brian Bloedel, Accomac, Virginia

I’ll take : Mostly what the local prosecutor thinks it is, for $500

What Does “Brandishing” a Gun Mean?

For the purpose of our discussion, brandishing is the unnecessary and unlawful display of a defensive firearm. The most important thing for everyone to understand is that the specific legal definition of brandishing may differ from state to state. For this reason, it is critically important for every defensive shooter to contact his local district attorney or a criminal defense attorney and get an accurate understanding of the local interpretation.

Even if there were no brandishing law, I would strongly advise against unnecessarily displaying the firearm. We shouldn’t be carrying a gun in order to try to impress people because it usually does not impress them. And we certainly don’t want to give the criminal any advance notice of what he is about to be up against because, now that he is forewarned, he might just simply change his tactics.

Our society requires us to let the criminal make the first move—which means that we are already behind if his attack is serious. It is far better to surprise him, and ruin his day, by drawing our gun when he thinks he has everything going his way. Drawing against an attacker who is armed with a deadly weapon, in the middle of his attack, is not brandishing….even if you don’t have to fire a shot.

In dealing with criminal attacks, we should establish mental triggers. Seeing a person with a knife in his hand is not going to cause me to shoot him. But my mental trigger is: “If he ignores my commands to drop the knife and comes close enough to strike me then I am prepared to take deadly action.”  If he complies with my commands, or simply runs away, I see no need to shoot. But you can be certain that I will report the incident to law enforcement immediately.

It is important to realize that not every criminal attack is deadly in nature. And, while it is an attack, it may not justify the use of deadly force on the part of the armed citizen. Producing a firearm during an argument with an unarmed neighbor, for instance, may be a violation of the law. We should produce the defensive handgun only when our life is clearly in immediate danger, or the lives of our family.

Everyone’s personal defense plan should include plans for dealing with these less-than-lethal attacks. Training in martial arts, stick fighting, or the use of less lethal defensive tools such as pepper spray, are all important in protecting life and limb. Not every criminal encounter justifies the use of a firearm.

Understanding the law regarding brandishing is very important. Equally important is the need to develop one’s defensive skills so that we can act within the law and still protect ourselves. Knowledge of the law and professional training are the best armor that we can put on.

More of Sun-Tzu’s advice to know your enemy

This is what passes for ‘liberal’ these days.
A wanna-be tyrant with a minimal IQ who somehow believes he’s  discovered an as yet never postulated way to achieve his goal.

The Second amendment is not, and never had been, a permission to allow the People to do anything. It ‘gives’ nothing. It is in no way a ‘the people may’. It declares rights and restricts goobermint power over those rights.
The People already have the right not just to keep and bear arms, but to also make them, right along with the accoutrements and ammunition necessary for their use.
Even this latest ‘ghost gun’ regulation by the bureaucraps at BATFE does nothing to stop a person from making their own guns.

The Second amendment is, as clearly stated by the Bill Of Rights own preamble – quoted below – is a restriction on goobermint power, not on the rights of the people

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The author’s mindless idea is that of the ignoramus who was never taught, or slept through their course in, U.S. Civics. That also goes for many of the people commenting there. Either that, or they have an ulterior motive, a disarmament agenda for their political enemies, because unless they disarm them, they can’t deal with them the way all tyrants want to.

Read Second Amendment Literally: Ban Making and Selling Guns

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A fully contextual reading of the Second Amendment tells us that the Founding Fathers protected the right to bear arms for the sole purpose of supporting a well-regulated militia to keep America free and secure. But various gun cranks and judges have dismissed that prefatory clause and read all sorts of non-original intent into the right to bear arms—self-defense, shooting government officials we don’t like, yadda yadda.

So let’s ignore the preface and focus strictly and literally on the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. (I’m also going to ignore that erroneous comma—a comma should never separate a subject and a predicate unless there is some intervening descriptive phrase or dependent clause.)

The Second Amendment says we may have guns. It says we may carry guns.

The Second Amendment does not say we may make guns.

It does not say we may sell guns.

It does not say that we may box up a gun and mail it across state lines.

We could shut down every gun factory and store and dealer in America today and not violate the Second Amendment. We already have 393 million firearms, more than enough to allow every living American to carry a gun. If you have a gun, you can keep it. You just can’t buy any more or sell the ones you have.

Ah, but what if your gun breaks and you want another one? Or what if you grow up in a household that chooses not to bear arms but then decide when you grow up, you want to be a hero like Kyle Rittenhouse? You can’t exercise your Second Amendment right if you can’t get your hands on a gun? To keep and bear an arm, don’t you have to be able to buy a gun or build your own from bamboo, charcoal, sulfur, and diamonds?

Well, if governments are instituted among men to secure our rights, then the government can secure our Second Amendment right by producing arms—just contract Sig Sauer to crank out a few million more M17s and M18s—and distributing them at local police stations or Army recruiting offices to every citizen willing and able to carry one.  No right is absolute, of course: the government can and should decline to hand free guns to people who are drunk, crazy, angry, or elsewise identifiably dangerous. But if the government ensures that every able-bodied and responsible American who desires to keep and bear an arm can get an arm, then there is no need for private, extra-constitutional gun-running.

The Second Amendment has been perverted by profit-seekers. The Second Amendment does not protect gun commerce. End gun commerce, and we’ll defuse the fear– and machismo-stoking marketing that drives our destructive gun culture.

There is no ‘common ground’ with those who advocate for gun control.

If looking for common ground on guns, this ain’t it

Anti-gunners love to talk about trying to find “common ground” on gun control. They don’t want to just do what we can agree with, they just see that as a starting point. In time, they want to push what’s acceptable to a point that they could never get away with unless they start with something much easier to sell.

So, they start with something they can get passed.

A recent op-ed attempts to discuss that common ground, but folks, this ain’t it.

There can be no debate that what we are doing for gun safety in this country isn’t working. While there is debate over what we can do about it, now is a fresh time to open rational discussions on guns. The clear purpose must be bringing about greater gun safety.

To begin with, only about 30% of gun owners own or have owned an AR-15 or similar assault rifle. These types of weapons don’t represent the typical American gun owner. Their primary purpose is to kill and maim people. Should they be allowed to be carried in public places?

First, 30 percent is roughly a third of all gun owners. When you think of the sheer number of firearms owners in this country, you quickly recognize that this represents millions upon millions of law-abiding citizens. That’s not exactly atypical.

Further, a number of others don’t own such weapons as a matter of choice, but will not support a ban on such a firearm, so even if only a third own such weapons, another large portion aren’t going to roll over and let gun control fans pull this kind of stuff.

That isn’t exactly common ground.

Opinion polls show that gun owners themselves overwhelmingly favor universal background checks. Should a review of those purchasing an assault rifle be as stringent as those required for adopting a rescue puppy?

First, the requirements for adopting a rescue puppy vary from place to place, but almost none require a criminal background check, which most gun buyers actually do undergo.

Further, if someone wants to rehome a puppy, they may or may not make the new owner jump through whatever hoops.

This comparison is beyond stupid and the author should be ashamed for trying to make it.

As for polls showing support for universal background checks, take a deeper look. Most of those polls only ask people if they support background checks on gun sales. There’s no mention of universal background checks at all, and that’s important.

You see, as it stands, the questions may lead many to assume they’re stating their support for the status quo, not a new order of things.

When universal background checks have come up for a vote by the people of a given state, they tend to lose. That’s because the idea of such background checks tends to sound good…for other people. Folks don’t like the idea that they can’t sell a gun to their brother or cousin without getting government permission.

If this were really “common ground,” it wouldn’t be so hard to get voters to pass these measures. That tells us just how useless the polling actually is on this topic.

What law-abiding purpose is served by a 30 shot capacity clip? Should there be any limit? Where should we draw the line? Courts have found that the Second Amendment is not without limits in its application.

Yes, the courts have said the Second Amendment has limits, but this isn’t about the courts, now is it? This is about the author’s supposed search for “common ground.”

Yet he asks what law-abiding purpose is served by a 30-round capacity. Well, the answers are numerous. You see, self-defense may require just that many rounds, if not more. Law-abiding citizens don’t get to pick the nature of their violent encounters, so more ammo is always welcome. No one has ever complained about excess ammunition after a gunfight, after all.

See, all of this is supposed to be about finding common ground, but after a bit, it just becomes the author demanding justification for us maintaining our gun rights. This isn’t finding common ground.

Which is fine, because no such thing exists. The discussion is binary. You either support the Second Amendment or you don’t. It’s just that simple.

Clearly, this author doesn’t.

2022 Closes with A Nation On the Precipice of Ruination

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- As one more year draws rapidly to a close in these first three decades of the 21st Century, the United States stands precariously at the edge of an abyss.

After a century of sidestepping the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court established, in three precedential case law decisions, what had been visibly plain in the language of the Second Amendment itself all along if one would only look.

All three cases were handed down in the first three decades of the 21st Century. They include:

District of Columbia vs. Heller in 2008, McDonald vs. City of Chicago in 2010, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen in 2022.

These three cases, together, stand for the following propositions, now black letter law:

  • The right of armed self-defense is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia
  • The right of armed self-defense is a universal right, applicable to both the States and the Federal Government.
  • The right of armed self-defense applies wherever a person is, inside the home or outside it.

These three legal axioms are, together, the singular Law of the Land.

But for this Law, the Republic would have fallen into ruin, this Century.

There would be nothing to rein in a rogue Congress, a rogue Biden Administration, or rogue jurisdictions like those around the Country: New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Washington State, Washington D.C., Oregon, Hawaii, and several others.

The rot from those State jurisdictions and from the Federal Government would eventually infect many other states.

Forces inside the Government and outside it, both here and abroad—wealthy and powerful, malevolent and malignant—constantly machinate to destroy the right to armed self-defense. These forces will not tolerate an armed citizenry. The existence of an armed citizenry contradicts their end goal of a neo-feudalistic world government. The armed citizenry precept deviates from their plan of world conquest.

Their goal for the 21st Century is a return to the political, social, and economic feudalistic construct operating in the world of the 5th through 15th Centuries—the Middle Ages.

These ruthless elements have declared——

  • The United States can no longer continue as a free Constitutional Republic;
  • The American people must be subjugated; and
  • Any thought of an armed citizenry must be erased from the collective memory of the American people.

The ashes of a once powerful, respected, sovereign, independent United States are to be commingled with the ashes of other western nations.

The EU and the British Commonwealth Nations are a step in the direction of that world empire.

The neoliberal democratic world order is conceived as——

  • One devoid of defined geographical borders,
  • One absent national government; and
  • One bereft of any defining history, heritage, culture, ethos, or Judeo-Christian ethic by which the people of one nation may easily distinguish themselves from any other.

Continue reading “”

Just to point out; In New York the ‘Supreme Court’ is the same as what others places call a ‘District Court’  or the first court that sits on a case.

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT JUSTICE DEEMS NEW YORK’S RED FLAG LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

A New York State Supreme Court Justice ruled last week that New York’s Extreme Risk Protection Order laws, often called Red Flag laws are unconstitutional and declined to issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO). As we have written in the past, extreme risk protections have become very popular in anti-gun states and are a way for government officials to take away the Second Amendment rights of individuals who have not committed any crime. Yet, New York’s Red Flag laws were expanded in July of 2022. Justice Thomas E. Moran, of the Rochester based Monroe County Supreme Court struck down these laws in a 10 page decision, in a case entitled G.W. v. C.N., 2022 NY Slip Op 22392 (Monroe County Sup. Ct. 2022).

This particular case highlights everything wrong with Red Flag laws. The Petitioner who filed for the Extreme Risk Protection Order was the estranged boy friend of the Respondent who was a licensed gun owner in New York State. He alleged that his ex-girlfriend was a danger to herself and others and obtained a Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order. Justice Moran pointed out that the Petition cited a variety of statements that the Respondent allegedly made threatening to harm herself with a gun which the Petition falsely claimed were made within 6 months before the Petition was filed but in fact dated back to 2020 and 2021. The Court also pointed out that there was a Family Court case also going on in which The Petitioner had an Order of Protection against him which among other things barred him from the home that they had shared.

Turning to the Constitutionality of the Article 63-A, which lays out New York’s Red Flag laws and procedures, the Court cited the United States Supreme Court decisions in Heller, McDonald and most recently Bruen and applied the Bruen Standard that when the 2nd Amendment’s text covers a person’s conduct, a law which regulates that conduct is presumptively unconstitutional unless the State can demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the country’s historical tradition of firearms regulations.

The Court also noted that many safeguards of due process that the State had in other analogous situations did not exist in New York’s red flag laws. For example, the Court noted that Red Flag laws and the New York Mental Hygiene Law use the same definition for “likely to result in serious harm”. However, under the New York Mental Hygiene Law, those determinations are made by a Doctor, a person licensed trained and experienced in making such determinations. However, in the case of New York Red Flag laws, most of the authorized Petitioners are not Doctors and are not licensed, trained or experienced in making that determination. Under the Mental Hygiene Law, two doctors are required to make the determination if a person’s liberty is to be taken away for more than 48 hours. No such safeguard is required, not even one doctor is required, before a person loses their gun rights for one year.

Another example cited by the Court is under Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law which permits civil detention of certain dangerous sex offenders after they have served their sentence. However, before a Judge can civilly detain someone under this statute, the convicted sex offender is entitled to a Court appointed, free attorney, a state-funded psychiatrist to assist in the defense, a probable cause hearing within 30 days and ultimately a full jury trial before the convicted sex offender’s liberty can be taken away. The Court pointed out that none of those protections exist in New York’s Extreme Risk Protection order Laws.

The Court pointed out that where mental health issues have formed the basis for a loss of fundamental Constitutional rights in the past in New York, the laws have always provided a number of substantive and procedural due process protections none of which are afforded under New York ERPO laws. The Court reiterated a statement from the Supreme Court that Second Amendment rights are not a second class constitutional right.

We should note that this decision, and the Courts reasoning, may form the basis of also striking down many of the Safe Act provisions as they relate to people with past psychiatric issues being prohibited from purchasing or owning guns.

Analysis: What to Expect on Guns in 2023

2022 was a watershed year for gun politics in America.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard and decided its first consequential Second Amendment case in over a decade and recognized for the first time a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. It also finally established the specific legal test lower courts must use when reviewing gun cases, a text and history-based standard that many gun-rights advocates hope can be used to overturn restrictive modern gun laws.

At the same, horrific mass shootings like the one at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, created a sudden groundswell of support for new gun laws midway through the year. That ultimately led to the passage of the first federal gun restrictions in nearly three decades, with bipartisan support.

Both sides of the American gun debate achieved significant victories in 2022 and will be looking to capitalize on that momentum in the new year. Here’s a look at what to expect on guns in 2023.

Second Amendment Litigation

The Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen opened the floodgates on legal challenges to all kinds of gun restrictions. Animated by the Court’s new test for gun cases, gun-rights groups filed a bevy of lawsuits across the country in 2022. Expect that trend to continue in 2023.

While it would be nearly impossible to document the several dozen cases expected to arise in the new year, there are certainly some big ones to watch. Those include the ongoing challenges to New York and New Jersey’s Bruen-response bills. The resolution of those cases will determine how far states can push the limits of the Supreme Court’s holding in Bruen. That will impact the residents of each respective state who hope to carry a firearm for self-defense and the expected copycat measure likely coming from California.

The New York cases, in particular, will also test the willingness of the High Court to superintend its own decision. After several injunctions against the New York law were stayed by the Second Circuit, gun-rights advocates filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court to vacate the stays. Justice Sonya Sotomayer, who oversees the Second Circuit, is requiring New York to respond by January 3rd.

How the Court decides to rule in this matter could provide insight into how active it intends to be on gun cases moving forward.

Other significant cases include the ones against Maryland’s assault weapon ban and California’s magazine ban/confiscation law. Both cases were granted, vacated, and remanded by the Supreme Court to be revisited in light of the Bruen decision. The outcome of those challenges will provide test cases for how lower courts previously favorable towards gun bans will respond to the Court’s new test.

Lastly, the state and federal challenges to Oregon’s new gun-control ballot measure will be worth keeping an eye on. The cases could provide the first high-profile test of the legality of permit-to-purchase laws under the Supreme Court’s text and historical tradition standard, an interesting question in light of Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts defending the constitutionality of shall-issue gun-carry permitting in a Bruen concurrence.

State-Level Gun-Control Push

Continue reading “”

Federal Judge Tosses Lawsuit Opposing Concealed-Carry Ban on D.C. Metro, Finding Challengers Did Not Show ‘Any Threat’ of Prosecution

A federal judge threw out a challenge to D.C.’s concealed pistol law after four D.C.-area residents failed to include a basic part of their case. Although the challengers made multiple arguments about the use of guns in 1600s New England, they included nothing to show that they were — or ever would be — personally affected by the statute. Gregory T. Angelo, Tyler Yzaguirre, and Cameron M. Erickson live in the District of Columbia, and Robert M. Miller lives in Virginia. The four hold licenses to carry firearms, and say that they regularly use public transportation including the D.C. Metro. The plaintiffs waged a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of D.C. Code § 7-2509.07(a)(6), which prohibits the carrying concealed firearms in “sensitive areas,” which include D.C. public transportation, and levies a penalty of fine or imprisonment up to 180 days for violators.

In their 35-page complaint, the four alleged that if it were not for the statute, they would carry their concealed handguns on the Metro and buses for self-defense. They said that because of the statute, they now refrain from doing so because they fear arrest and prosecution.

Taking cues from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, the challengers pointed to Justice Clarence Thomas’s recently established test that gun laws must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The plaintiffs reached back centuries in support of their argument that there is “no basis to label the Metro as a sensitive area,” providing an extensive history of gun law anecdotes going back to the early 1600s in the U.S. and several hundred years prior in Europe. Plaintiffs allowed that, “Public transportation systems did not exist as they do today at the founding of the nation,” but argued that because, “a March 9, 1636 ordinance provided that every person above 18 years of age (except magistrates and elders of the churches) were ordered to ‘come to public assemblies with their muskets,’” that 2022 concealed-carry restrictions conflict with our nation’s founding principles.

The D.C. law, said the plaintiffs, interferes with their Second Amendment right of self-defense and goes far beyond any limits imposed by Supreme Court precedent.

They asked the court to issue either a preliminary or a permanent injunction, restricting enforcement of the statute.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, a Barack Obama appointee, rejected their argument, finding that the plaintiffs couldn’t prove harm. They provided no evidence that the law has been used to prosecute anyone, much less the four of them.

Moss wrote in the court’s 25-page ruling that in order to establish Article III standing, all plaintiffs must demonstrate some kind of “injury in fact.” In other words, it is not enough for a plaintiff to simply disagree with a law — that plaintiff must be actually harmed by the law. That’s where the four plaintiffs fell short.

Moss pointed out that, “No plaintiff in this case has been arrested and prosecuted — or threatened with arrest or prosecution or with the imposition of a civil penalty — for violating the provision of D.C. law at issue here.” Moreover, none of the plaintiffs even alleged that they have either been “singled out” or were somehow “uniquely targeted” for prosecution, said Moss. Without such a showing, the plaintiffs could not sufficiently establish their right to bring the lawsuit.

According to the Moss, the case’s shortcomings went farther. Not only did the plaintiffs fail to show that they were especially at risk of prosecution, but they did not show that anyone was at risk of prosecution.

“Plaintiffs have failed to proffer any evidence relating to any threat or risk of enforcement,” wrote Moss. To underscore the omission, Moss recounted exchanges from oral argument in which the court appeared to prompt the plaintiffs’ lawyer to provide the kind of evidence that could have supported the claim:

Indeed, when asked at oral argument, Plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to identify any case in which an individual licensed to carry a handgun has ever been prosecuted simply for carrying a concealed handgun on a Metrorail train or a Metrobus. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel merely speculated that those carrying concealed handguns often pat their sides (to confirm that they have their guns with them) and that, by doing so, they might provide a tell for law enforcement officers and thereby invite arrest.

Moss also called out the attorney for a general response to the specific question of threat of enforcement. Moss said that during colloquy with the court, plaintiffs’ counsel answered that the Metropolitan Police Department “invariably arrests those who violate any of ‘the myriad of firearms regulations’ in the District of Columbia,” but noted that, “Neither statement by counsel, however, is evidence, and the evidence that Plaintiffs have offered says nothing about the risk of criminal or civil enforcement of § 7-2509.07(a)(6).”

Moss denied both requested injunctions.

Counsel for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Constitutional Carry Bill takes effect Jan. 1

House Bill 272, known as the Constitutional Carry Bill, takes effect Sunday, granting Alabamians permission to carry a concealed gun without a permit.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Shane Stringer, revises certain pistol carry or possession restrictions and eliminates pistol permit requirements for carrying a concealed pistol within the state.

Alabama became the 22nd state to loosen concealed weapon restrictions with the bill, and while the National Rifle Association supports the legislation, representatives from local law enforcement agencies expressed concerns for the impact communities may face from the policy.

Butler County departments did not respond immediately to requests for comments, but key law enforcement officials in neighboring Lowndes and Crenshaw counties highlighted the possibility for increased crime.

“I do not support it,” said Lowndes County Sheriff Chris West. “I absolutely, positively do not support it.”

According to West, the new law expands law enforcement concerns over the increased crime rate which may result from easier access to weapons.

“Lowndes County’s population is predominantly Black,” West said. “Among the Black race, violent crime is especially high. Personally, I can’t see enabling a law that would possibly contribute to that crime rate. It enables people who may have no business carrying a weapon to carry one, even without a permit.”

Crenshaw County Sheriff Terry Mears shared his fears for how loosening concealed carry restrictions could endanger law enforcement officers.

“This is going to be big for us,” Mears said. “There’s going to be more gun-related situations on traffic stops than before because the bad guys will have more access to weapons they can hide.”

Increased incidents involving active shooters present another concern, Mears noted, as do citizens who may shoot first and ask questions later. And, while local agencies are prepared, they hope those situations don’t arise.

“The only guy I’ve written tickets to in Crenshaw County is in jail for murder now,” Mears said. “People like that tend to carry guns now. All some folks want to do is shoot people. That makes our job a little more difficult.”

On March 10, Governor Kay Ivey signed the bill into law, an act she said defends law-abiding Alabamians’ Second Amendment rights.

“Unlike states who are doing everything in their power to make it harder for law-abiding citizens, Alabama is reaffirming our commitment to defending our Second Amendment rights,” she said in a March 10 statement. “I have always stood up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and I am proud to do that again today.”

The law does not impact previously issued pistol permits, and Alabamians who wish to carry concealed weapons to another state must still possess a valid Alabama permit.

Anyone prohibited under state or federal law from possessing a firearm is still restricted from doing so under the revised statute.

The NRA applauded Ivey for signing the bill, a move its leaders said enables law-abiding Alabamians to carry a handgun for personal protection without paying a tax or obtaining a license from the State.

“As law enforcement is being defunded and criminals aren’t being prosecuted, it is more important than ever that law-abiding Americans’ right to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their homes is fully recognized,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Jason Ouimet in a statement. “The NRA will continue to champion this God-given right until every state in the nation is a constitutional carry state.”

Dr. Lott Testifies Before House Committee
(Gives 3 Basic Facts Everyone Should Know!)

Dr. John Lott Jr., president of the nonprofit Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), testified before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security last week for a hearing dedicated to “Examining Uvalde: The Search for Bipartisan Solutions to Gun Violence.”

Dr. Lott delivered a lot of information but he began with three basic facts that everyone should know about gun-related violence in America.

Here they are:

1, Over 92% of violent crimes in America do not involve firearms. The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey for 2020 shows 4,558,150 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults, and the FBI reports 21,570 murders. Of those, firearms were involved in 350,460 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults. Adding those numbers up, 7.9% of violent crimes were committed with firearms.

2, While the US media doesn’t give much, if any, coverage to mass public shootings in other countries, mass public shootings per capita are relatively low in the United States compared to the rest of the world. Over the 20 years from 1998 to 2017, the US had less than 1.13% of the world’s share of mass public shooters and 1.77% of its mass public shooting murders. That’s much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Since 2000, there have been nine mass public school shootings in the US. Germany had only three over that period and Finland had only one, but the United States has four times the population of Germany and sixty times that of Finland. Russia has had four such massacres, but we have 2.3 times its population. On a per capita basis, all three countries have a similar or higher rate compared to that of the US.

3, Like many other mass public shooters, the Buffalo shooter targeted defenseless people. He even wrote in his manifesto: “Attacking in a weapon-restricted area may decrease the chance of civilian backlash. Schools, courts, or areas where CCW are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack. Areas where CCW permits are low may also fit in this category. Areas with strict gun laws are also great places of attack.” The national media refuses to report other explicit statements by attackers explaining why they pick the targets they do. Nor do they report the fact that 94% of mass public shootings occur in places where civilians are banned from having firearms.

Biden Administration, State Governments Carried Out Elaborate Hoax On Gun Owners

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The “why” of the attack on the armed citizenry is as pressing as the “how”—the strategies employed. It all goes back to Government’s lust for “power” and “control” over the common people. The Globalists and their puppets in Government treat people like random bits of energy that require a firm hand lest common people get “out of hand.” The fear of the Tyrant is always that the common people will revolt against his Tyranny.

The “sticky wicket” for the Globalists is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It serves, one, as evidence of the sovereignty of the American people over their Government, Federal, State, or local, and serves, two, as a mechanism to thwart the rise of tyranny. The Second Amendment, unlike the First or any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Has a tenacity that, when unleashed, a ferocity that scares the dickens of the proponents of a world empire and world domination, as well it should.

In this second half of the Biden Administration regime, we are seeing more and more emphasis placed on reining in the armed citizenry. And State Governments under Democrat Party leadership, like that of New York, are fully on board with this. Expect to see more of this, much more, in the weeks and months ahead.

The argument NY Governor Kathy Hochul makes in support of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) boils down to these two propositions:

  • People are afraid of guns and of average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners who keep and bear them.
  • Average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners pose an imminent threat to public safety and order.

Concerning the first, if some Americans happen to fear guns and those who exercise their fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense—indeed, if any American should happen to register such fears—those fears aren’t the product of something innate in a person, but, rather, are the product of an elaborate, concerted well-coordinated, and executed plan.

The question of why such psychologically damaging programs would be initiated by and ceaselessly and vigorously propagated by the Federal Government and many State Governments against the civilian population has nothing to do with a desire on the part of the Government to secure the life, health, safety, and well-being of Americans.

Rather, it has everything to do with carrying out a plot focused on the demise of a free Constitutional Republic, the only one like it in existence, the dissolution of our Constitution, and the subjugation of our people to the dictates of a new order of reality: the rise of a neo-feudalistic global empire.

Continue reading “”

SAF SUES NEW JERSEY OVER NEW CONCEALED CARRY LAW

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit against the State of New Jersey, challenging the state’s new gun control law prohibiting licensed concealed carry in an expanded list of so-called “sensitive places,” and further criminalizes carrying an operable handgun “while in a vehicle.”

Joining SAF are the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners and the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, along with three private citizens, Nicholas Gaudio, Jeffrey M. Muller and Ronald Koons. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney David D. Jensen, David Jensen PLLC, of Beacon, N.Y.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case is known as Koons et al v. Reynolds et al.

Named as defendants are Atlantic County Prosecutor William Reynolds, Camden County Prosecutor Grace C. Macaulay, Sussex County Prosecutor Annemarie Taggart, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and State Police Supt. Patrick Callahan, in their official capacities.

Shortly after New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed the new legislation on Dec. 22, SAF and its partners quickly filed the lawsuit.

“We are asking for a declaratory judgment against certain tenets of the new legislation,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are also seeking a preliminary and/or permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their officers, agents and other employees from enforcing the challenged segments of the law.

“The specific sections of law violate the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment,” he continued. “There is no established historical tradition that could be used to justify these restrictions. This new legislation literally criminalizes licensed concealed carry just about everywhere, making a mockery of the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.”

“New Jersey’s Legislature and Governor have shown that they do not wish to heed the Supreme Court’s guidance as to the bounds of the right to bear arms in Bruen,” said SAF’s Executive Director Adam Kraut.  “Despite clear directives as to a citizens’ right to bear arms, New Jersey continues to thumb its nose at the constitutional rights of its citizens in the name of ‘safety’. Such disregard for the rights of New Jerseyans will not be tolerated. As such, we are seeking to vindicate the rights of our members and the public in an expeditious manner. It is a shame the elected officials of New Jersey have no respect for the enumerated rights of the People and continue to needlessly waste their state’s tax dollars passing unconstitutional laws which render the common person defenseless.”

Why aren’t stalked women ever told to get a gun for self-defense?
Murder rates decline when people carry concealed handguns

Authorities say Ewen Dewitt murdered 40-year-old Julie Minogue with an ax this month in her Milford, Connecticut, home. Two of her children were home when the murder occurred. Mr. Dewitt, an ex-boyfriend, had been stalking her.

“I’m scared he’s going to kill me,” she told the police. In 2019, she had a protective order issued. Just a week before she was killed, a judge had granted her a full no-contact restraining order.

The case clearly illustrates the limits of protective orders when the stalker is intent on murdering the victim. Suppose the murderer is already facing the possibility of life imprisonment without parole for first-degree murder. How will an additional five years in prison and a $5,000 fine deter such murders?

It is an important problem. Reportedly, 76% of women murdered by someone who had been an intimate partner were stalked.

Violence prevention advocates for women have a long list of changes they recommend. These changes require women to uproot their lives.

Dangerous amounts of heavy metals found in many dark chocolate bars
White House’s Karine Jean-Pierre is proof of ‘Peter Principle’ incompetence
Among the advice: Women should change jobs, their travel routes, the time of day they leave home or work, move in with a friend or family member, change the locks on their home, or do their shopping and other chores with friends or relatives.

A few recommend that women practice martial arts such as judo, jujitsu, karate or boxing.

But the most obvious answer is missing from these lists: Women should get a concealed handgun permit and a firearm.

Men are typically much stronger than women, particularly in the upper body. Unfortunately, real life isn’t like the movies, where one woman can knock out and overpower several well-trained men. Even well-trained women often struggle to defend themselves against larger and stronger men. Men also tend to be faster runners.

A gun represents a much bigger change in a woman’s ability to defend herself. Men can readily hurt women without a gun, and if a woman is already in physical contact with the attacker so that he can take away their gun, they are already in trouble.

The peer-reviewed research by one of us shows that murder rates decline when people carry concealed handguns, whether they are a man or a woman. But a woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than a man doing the same.

And this message is getting across to women. Between 2012 and 2022, in states that provide data by sex, permits for concealed handguns increased 115% more quickly among women than among men. The percentage of women who say that gun ownership protects people from crime has also been growing faster than their male counterparts.

Connecticut and other states could make it much easier for stalked women to defend themselves. Even after taking the required training and applying for a permit, it “generally takes eight weeks to obtain” a permit. And that’s an optimistic estimate by the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. The Connecticut Citizens Defense League has had to file a lawsuit against three cities where the process regularly takes a year or more.

But even two months may be much too long for a threatened woman. Even women who have proved to a court that they are facing serious threats must wait to get a permit. One solution would be to allow women with court orders of protection to carry a concealed handgun while they are waiting for a permit to be issued.

Many single women with children may also find it difficult to pay $140 for a permit plus added fees for fingerprinting and training.

Connecticut’s concealed handgun permit cost is already almost three times higher than the average in other states. Despite this, 11.3% of adults in Connecticut have a concealed handgun permit — the 12th-highest state. And as crime in Connecticut has soared, the permit-possessing population has increased by 55,000 since 2019. Only 26% of permit holders in Connecticut are women, significantly less than in other states.

The high cost of permits disarms the very people who most need protection, including minorities who live in high-crime urban areas.

Police are important. Protective orders can help. But if we are going to be serious about protecting women like Julie Minogue, we have to let them protect themselves.

Shots filed: New Jersey hit with first lawsuits over new carry laws

When he joined me on Cam & Co earlier this week, Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs executive director Scott Bach promised that a lawsuit challenging the state’s new concealed carry restrictions would be filed before the ink was dry on Gov. Phil Murphy’s signature, and the group has delivered; submitting a complaint to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on behalf of the organization and seven individual plaintiffs that seeks an injunction blocking enforcement of the law.

In fact, the lawsuit was one of at least two that have been filed in the hours since Murphy put pen to paper. A coalition including the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, and three individual plaintiffs have filed their own suit in federal court that also seeks injunctive relief against the new laws.

Interestingly, one of the plaintiffs in the SAF/FPC/CNJFO/NJSAS lawsuit was one of the rare individuals who had been able to obtain a carry license under the state’s previous “may issue” regime. As long as the state could allow broad discretion in choosing who could exercise their right to carry, those blessed by the State to do so enjoyed wide latitude. Now that the Supreme Court has instructed the state that a right of the people means just that, however, New Jersey lawmakers have suddenly declared that guys like 72-year old Jeffrey Mueller are a clear and present danger. From page 17 of the complaint, authored by attorney David Jensen:

Plaintiff Muller is one of the very few New Jersey citizens who was able to obtain a permit to a permit prior to Bruen. In January 2010, an out-of-state gang kidnapped Plaintiff Muller and took him to Missouri, where he was able to escape and summons help. Plaintiff Muller was thereafter a key witness in the kidnappers’ prosecution. Notwithstanding this, Plaintiff Muller obtained a permit only after litigating a judge’s denial of his application, which the New Jersey State Police had approved. One of Plaintiff Muller’s attackers remains in prison in New Jersey, and another was released last month (in November 2022).

After Plaintiff Muller obtained his permit to carry in June 2011, and he began carrying a handgun most of the time. The prosecution against Plaintiff Muller’s attackers was ongoing, and he was particularly concerned about protecting himself. In recent years, as time has passed, Plaintiff Muller has carried a gun less than he did during the years following June 2011, but until just now he has continued to carry a handgun on a regular basis.

Among other places, Plaintiff Muller has often carried a handgun while shopping at stores such as ShopRite, Lowe’s and Tractor Supply Company, stopping at gas stations, getting food at delis and restaurants, including restaurants that serve alcohol. Plaintiff Muller has carried a handgun while attending appointments with his physician and dentist. Plaintiff Muller has carried a handgun while walking in parks and while taking his grandchildren to playgrounds. Plaintiff Muller has also carried a handgun while visiting libraries, as well as while attending music shows at public entertainment venues. Finally, Plaintiff Muller has carried a handgun while attending trade shows at casino facilities (i.e. in a conference room, not on the casino floor). While he does not recall carrying a handgun while using public transit, or while visiting a museum or a theater, Plaintiff Muller would want to be able to carry a handgun in any of these places were he to be present there. As a general premise, when Plaintiff Muller carries a handgun, he normally carries it with him throughout the day, unless he is going to a place that prohibits guns, such as a school. Up until now, Plaintiff Mulller has normally carried his handgun in a holster on his person while traveling in car.

All of those actions are now illegal under the New Jersey law signed today, simply because the anti-civil rights Democratic majority in Trenton couldn’t stand the thought of New Jersey residents being able to do the same without having to be kidnapped and taken to another state in order to prove their “need” to carry a firearm.

Continue reading “”

NSSF DENOUNCES U.S. SENATE CONFIRMATION OF OPERATION CHOKE POINT ARCHITECT TO FDIC

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, condemned the U.S. Senate’s confirmation of Martin J. Gruenberg as Chair and Member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Gruenberg led the FDIC from 2011-2018, during which the Obama administration conducted the illegal Operation Choke Point scheme to deny banking services to firearm businesses. NSSF opposed his confirmation in the strongest terms as he has already demonstrated a lack of respect for the law and unparalleled disdain for the Constitutionally-protected firearm and ammunition industry.

“The Senate’s confirmation of Martin Gruenberg is a flagrant disregard for his role in illegally using the levers of government to force discriminatory banking policies on the firearm and ammunition industry,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “His culpability in shepherding this illegal operation was not only previously investigated by Congress but was also highlighted by Senate Banking Committee Republicans. Mr. Gruenberg’s leading role in creating, administering and punishing the firearm industry through illegal means simply because he, President Barack Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder found this industry politically-disfavored clearly disqualified him from being reconfirmed to a position of public trust.”

Under the Obama administration, an initiative called “Operation Choke Point” was launched by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) to stop financial institutions from offering services to some regulated industries in an attempt to choke off banking services. This operation, which represented an abuse of the agencies’ statutory authority, was first aimed at non-depository lenders (so-called payday lenders) but expanded to ammunition and firearms sales, tobacco sales and pharmaceutical sales, among other industries.

The goal of the operation was to coerce banks, third-party payment processors and other financial institutions into closing or denying business accounts of clients that the FDIC has classified as “high risk” or as a “reputational risk” for the financial institution. According to a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigation, the FDIC, “equated legitimate and regulated activities such as coin dealers and firearms and ammunition sales with inherently pernicious or patently illegal activities such as Ponzi schemes, debt consolidation scams, and drug paraphernalia.”

The FDIC included federally licensed firearm retailers and other companies in the firearm and ammunition industry – some of the most heavily regulated businesses in the country – on this list of risky businesses without any evidence or justification. In fact, in its guidance to banks, the agency “justified itself by claiming that the categories had been previously ‘noted by the FDIC.”

Working with the DOJ, the FDIC guidance targeting the law-abiding firearms industry and others was included on DOJ subpoenas. This sent a message to banks that they were to remove those clients from their services or risk a federal investigation.

I’m not the only one who is of the opinion that Goobernor Newsome’s believing this is somehow a ‘win’ for abortion rights is a fantasy. RKBA is a right that is actually addressed in the Bill of Rights. Abortion isn’t. However, as Goobernor Newsome and Attorney General Bonta aren’t likely to appeal this, all fore the good as it will make lawsuits against California’s gun control laws easier .

Federal judge strikes down California’s ‘fee-shifting’ gun control scheme, which echoed Texas abortion law

A federal judge has blocked the state of California from enforcing a gun control scheme that was modeled after a controversial Texas abortion law, delivering Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom the exact outcome he wanted.

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California issued a permanent injunction on Monday against the “fee-shifting” provisions of the state’s gun law – which empowers private citizens to bring lawsuits against manufacturers of illegal guns – declaring it unconstitutional.

“‘It is cynical. ‘It is an abomination.’ ‘It is outrageous and objectionable.’ ‘There is no dispute that it raises serious constitutional questions.’ ‘It is an unprecedented attempt to thwart judicial review,’” Benitez wrote in his opinion, quoting directly from Newsom’s criticisms of the Texas abortion law.

The Texas measure makes abortions illegal after a fetal heartbeat can be detected and permits private citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone else who assists in a woman’s procurement of abortion for $10,000. This fee-shifting mechanism was designed to protect the 2021 law from judicial review to circumvent the Supreme Court’s old abortion precedent in Roe v. Wade. The high court has since overturned that precedent, permitting states to restrict, or liberalize, abortion.

Newsom called on the California legislature to enact a similar law for guns days after the Supreme Court ruled than the Texas heartbeat law could remain in effect following a legal challenge.

California’s gun law also creates a private right-of-action for citizens to sue gun manufactures who make “assault weapons and ghost guns” for $10,000. Newsom described the law as virtually identical to the Texas provisions, but Benitez wrote that “California’s law goes even further.” He observed that the gun control statute denies a prevailing plaintiff attorneys fees. Further, Benitez emphasized that only the California measure “applies to laws affecting a clearly enumerated constitutional right set forth in our nation’s founding documents.”

“Whether these distinctions are enough to save the Texas law fee-shifting provision from judicial scrutiny remains to be seen,” Benitez wrote. “And although it would be tempting to comment on it, the Texas law is not before this Court for determination.”

The judge’s order is likely to set up a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the outcome Newsom desired. The governor’s office called it “hypocritical” to block the state’s gun law while permitting the Texas abortion measure to stand.

“I want to thank Judge Benitez. We have been saying all along that Texas’ anti-abortion law is outrageous. Judge Benitez just confirmed it is also unconstitutional,” Newsom said in a statement Monday. “The provision in California’s law that he struck down is a replica of what Texas did, and his explanation of why this part of SB 1327 unfairly blocks access to the courts applies equally to Texas’ SB 8. There is no longer any doubt that Texas’ cruel anti-abortion law should also be struck down.”