Nashville Mayor Furious Over Leak of Transgender Shooter’s Manifesto, Demands Investigation

After months of false promises regarding the release of transgender shooter Audrey Hale’s infamous manifesto, parts of the document finally leaked on Monday.

Hale committed mass murder in March, killing six people, including three children, at a Nashville Christian school. Further carnage was stopped by police officers who quickly arrived on the scene and stormed the building in order to eliminate the threat.

Steven Crowder obtained pictures of Hale’s manifesto, and they revealed disturbing new details about her motives. In one instance, she described those she was about to go kill as “little crackers.” In another, she ranted about the supposed “white privilege” (she misspelled the latter word) of the children who attended the Christian school.

In response, Nashville’s Democrat mayor appears to be furious. He immediately demanded an investigation into who leaked the manifesto, claiming that the release threatens the security of “Nashvillians who are grieving.”

Following the leak of the transgender Nashville shooter’s alleged manifesto on Monday morning, Mayor Freddie O’Connell said that the city has launched an investigation into how the images of the writings were released.

“I have directed Wally Dietz, Metro’s Law Director, to initiate an investigation into how these images could have been released. That investigation may involve local, state, and federal authorities. I am deeply concerned with the safety, security, and well-being of the Covenant families and all Nashvillians who are grieving,” O’Connell said in a statement, according to WSMV.

If there was any question about whether the photos released by Crowder were real, this answers them. You don’t start an investigation into the leak of something that doesn’t exist.

Still, it’s odd to see Mayor Freddie O’Connell so upset with the fact that this went public. How does knowing the killer’s state of mind and possible motive put anyone in Nashville at risk? Aubrey Hale is no longer among the living, having been dispatched the day of the shooting.

While the topic is obviously very sensitive, it is fair to ask why those in charge have taken such desperate measures to keep this information out of the public eye. Given that manifestos are very often released in other cases, specifically when the shooters fit a certain profile, why only in this case are things expected to be different? One would be forgiven for suspecting that politics is playing a role in this case.

I can’t think of any legitimate reason why the shooter’s anti-white racism should have been kept a secret for nearly the past year. Even if the authorities wanted to not release the actual wording out of concern for the families involved, the public should have been made aware of the situation with a basic description. Instead, false promises were made in what appears to be an attempt to completely memory-hole the entire ordeal.

Meanwhile, the mainstream press doesn’t seem interested in reporting on the matter at all. We know from past instances that they’ve jumped all over other shooter manifestos, but they aren’t interested in this one for some reason. Again, one would be forgiven for suspecting that politics is at the root of that decision.

Weird, but this still doesn’t stop people from making their own personal guns from scratch, if they want to.

Supreme Court allows Biden administration to continue fully enforcing ghost gun regulations

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Biden administration to continue regulating so-called ghost guns – untraceable homemade weapons – as firearms under federal law.

The court’s brief order grants the Justice Department’s request to wipe away a lower court order and allow the regulations to remain in effect while a legal challenge brought by firearm manufacturers continues to play out in the lower courts.

There were no noted dissents to the order.

Ghost guns are kits that a user can buy online to assemble a fully functional firearm. They have no serial numbers, do not require background checks and provide no transfer records for easy traceability. Critics say they are attractive to people who are legally prohibited from buying firearms.

Back in August, a 5-4 court sided with the Biden administration in a challenge brought by a group of manufacturers and allowed the regulations to remain in effect while legal challenges play out. At the time, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the liberal justices in the government’s favor.

After the order was issued, however, a district court judge based in Texas stepped in to block the regulations as applied to two manufacturers. The injunction was then largely upheld by the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

In an unusually sharp filing, Prelogar told the justices in an emergency application that the district court and the 5th Circuit “have effectively countermanded this Court’s authoritative determination about the status quo that should prevail during appellate proceedings in this case.”

The court “should not tolerate that affront,” she wrote.

“Although there’s no explanation for today’s ruling, it’s hard to see it as anything other than a repudiation of the lower courts for not correctly reading the tea leaves of the court’s August ruling that froze a similar injunction,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “In that sense, it’s just the latest in an increasing line of rulings by the Supreme Court pushing back against district courts in Texas and the 5th Circuit.”

Prelogar called the lower court ruling “a grave threat to public safety because the lack of background checks makes ghost guns uniquely appealing to felons, minors, and other prohibited persons – and because when ghost guns are inevitably used in crime, they are essentially impossible to trace.”
In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives updated its regulations to define the kits as firearms under the law so that the government could more carefully track them.

The rule does not prohibit the sale or possession of any ghost gun kit, nor does it block an individual from purchasing such a kit. Instead, it requires compliance with federal laws that impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms. Those conditions include requirements that commercial manufacturers and sellers mark products with serial numbers and keep records to allow law enforcement to trace firearms used in crimes.

demoncrap SOP for decades; Throw money at the problem.

Appeasement in Real Time
Biden and Blinken pay the Dane-Geld

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:–

For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

Rudyard Kipling, Dane-Geld (closing verses).


Showing weakness has long been regarded as an invitation to aggression and war. Perhaps the most infamous example in modern history is Neville Chamberlain’s sit-down with Adolph Hitler in Munich in 1938, where he agreed to appease Hitler by agreeing to Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland, in exchange for “peace for our time.”

But history has taught us that, like paying the Dane-Geld, such appeasement is more likely to cause war and indescribable suffering than it is to prevent it.  Despite those blood-soaked lessons, the appeasement gene continues to proliferate among cowardly politicians. 

There are countless examples of this in modern history, but it is beyond the scope of this short article to attempt to catalogue them here.  Each reader will think of examples.

Often the end results of policy decisions and statements, and how they invite more aggression and war, are not fully apparent until sometime later when it is too late because the damage has already occurred.  Joe Biden’s statement that a limited Russian invasion of Ukraine might be somewhat tolerable or at least met with dissention among the Western allies, is a good example.  Predicting what Russia would do, he said, “it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do.” Even though Biden and his handlers tried to “walk back” (the press’ euphemism of correcting a dumb statement) that invitation, the damage was already done – Biden had sent a signal to Putin of his thinking, and it was a signal of weakness.

To the extent that we can, it therefore is important to call out such projections of weakness and appeasement in real time, as they are occurring. Because of the homicidal intent of the Islamists in the Mideast – indeed, across the globe – it is of over-riding importance to shine a light – no, to focus, focus and focus – on the most recent examples of this appeasement that are certain to cause more bloodshed, not only in Israel and the Mideast, but in the United States, Europe, and other countries worldwide.

I am referring to the blatant lies and craven cowardice by U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and his ostensible boss, Joe Biden, which have further encouraged Iran in its support for its and its proxies’ murderous jihad against Israel (and potentially the U.S. and Europe) about the supposed non-involvement of Iran in the barbaric atrocities Hamas is perpetrating upon Israeli civilians. These are not civilian “collateral damage” caused by bombing, when Hamas attempts to hide among civilian shields or has situated its arms caches near hospitals and mosques.  And, contrary to some attempts by our media to equate the two, they most decidedly are not in any way comparable to the IDF’s targeting and killing of the barbaric Hamas fighters terrorists.

Blinken led off on Sunday, October 8, with his claim that our government has no evidence that Iran is behind Hamas’ bloody and barbaric attacks on women, girls, babies, and other civilians. And his weasel-worded statement encourages both Iran and Hamas with its blatant evasions and flat-out lies.


 Sunday, on NBC’s Meet the Press, and CNN’s State of the Union.  Blinken said, “In this moment, we don’t have anything that shows us that Iran was directly involved in this attack, in planning it or in carrying it out.” “In this specific instance, we have not yet seen evidence that Iran directed or was behind this particular attack.”

What a weasel-worded evasion.

Continue reading “”

“Dear FBI, not everything you fail to understand is a threat. Unless reality is a threat to you now.” 

A lot of assuming going on…

LARPing and Violent Extremism

Over the past half century, live action role play (LARP) has grown into a worldwide cultural phenomenon. It involves preplanned theater wherein participants portray characters in an imaginary environment and interact with one another in real time.

On the other hand, violent extremism supports or commits real, ideologically motivated violence to further political, social, or religious goals.1

This article will outline definitive ways to distinguish between LARP and criminal or malicious activity, which may be helpful to both law enforcement and prosecutors if suspects of targeted violence claim they were playacting.

Continue reading “”

Why Is Biden Going Into Hiding on the 9/11 Anniversary?

Sept. 11, 2023, will mark 22 years since the terror attacks on our nation. Two planes flew into the World Trade Center towers, another into the Pentagon, and another, likely headed for the U.S. Capitol Building or the White House, crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

In the years since that dark day in America’s history, presidents have typically sought to mark the anniversary at events in New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, or the White House.

Well, all but one, anyway. According to a report from The Hill, Joe Biden will be in Alaska on the 22nd anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks to participate in a memorial ceremony there. Adding insult to injury, Joe Biden has sent Kamala Harris and her husband to attend a commemoration ceremony in New York City.

While 9/11 was a national tragedy, the decision to be in Alaska has many baffled. Joe Biden couldn’t be further away from New York, D.C., or Virginia and still be in the United States unless he was in Hawaii. Given his recently botched response to the wildfires in the Aloha State and the sour reception he got from locals, he certainly wasn’t going to go there.

When you consider how much effort goes into choreographing every move the president makes for the purpose of public relations, Biden’s absence from any of the three traditional observation sites or even the White House strikes many as odd.

One possible explanation is that they’re giving Kamala Harris an opportunity to shine, but I’m not buying that. I’ve never believed that Biden really wanted Harris as his running mate, and there have long been reports of tension between the Biden and Harris teams. So there’s little reason to believe that she’s being primed to take his place as the de facto nominee for the Democratic Party in the event he drops out, which many people are predicting is inevitable.

My theory is that it’s related to his botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, the most consequential moment of his presidency. Afghanistan sent his approval ratings underwater, where they have stayed ever since.

Biden ignored the advice of his military advisors and lied about the situation on the ground because he wanted to have a victory photo-op for the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. As a result of Biden’s hubris, 13 American service members were killed in a terrorist attack at Kabul Airport, and the Taliban quickly took over the country, erasing all the progress we and our allies made in a twenty-year war.

One thing is for sure: Biden has to make some sort of public appearance on that day, and his location on the anniversary of 9/11 is no accident. He’s definitely trying to hide.

To Win Our Nation’s Wars”?
Lions Led by Donkeys.

The 248-year-old institution that this country depends upon to fight and win our wars has lost its focus, which is, “to win our nation’s wars.”  Preparing to do that is one of the most complex tasks on earth.  There is no profession more complex, more dangerous, or more crucial to the country’s survival than the United States Army. But its focus on “woke” social solutions has diluted the necessary focus on that duty.

The Army has thousands of magnificent and highly skilled officers and enlisted men and women who perform continuously at the highest levels.  Yet, as German General Erwin Rommel said of the British after he captured Tobruk, they are “lions commanded by donkeys.”  Today’s donkeys are officers and civilians in the highest levels of the current administration, up to and including the Commander in Chief, Joseph R. Biden and a Secretary of the Army who wants to reduce recruiting from families with a tradition of service because she fears a “warrior caste.”  Donkeys indeed. And they set the tone for all their subordinates in the Army.

The latest display of the donkeys’ madness is an article on the Army’s official website, lauding another man who claims to be a woman.

U.S. Army photo by Sarah Patterson 

The first sentence of the article accompanying the photo pronounces that “Coming out as a transgender female saved Maj. Rachel Jones’ life.” It goes on to describe how an in-the-closet Jones “lived every day deeply depressed and suicidal.”  After President Joe Biden lifted the prior ban on transgenders in the military, “Jones was finally able to come out publicly as transgender.”  The Army’s article does not state that Jones had any type of so-called “gender affirming surgery,” so presumably “coming out” merely means that he announced that he now prefers to be known as “she.”  This allows “her” to “live her truth” and be “so much more comfortable with myself.”

The article claims that any thoughts of suicide are now a thing of the past.  It does not explain how an obviously unstable Jones managed to remain in the Army and get promoted to major.  Nor does it mention the suicide rate among transgenders who have “come out” or had the life-altering surgery, such as the 30+ year study that concluded that “Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.”

Now, this author’s quarrel is not with MAJ Jones, who obviously is a person in need of help.  No responsible person wishes him or any other human being to suffer depression to the point of potential suicide.  No, the proper quarrel is with the donkeys leading the Army who create the command climate that tells subordinates that, in the words of West Point’s Battalion Orders in 1820, Jones is a soldier to be “venerated and emulated.”

Continue reading “”

Connecticut state parks gun ban challenge dismissed

Connecticut’s ban on guns in state parks has survived a challenge.

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit where a man had argued the policy violated his Second Amendment rights.

For folks enjoying the outdoors, there are mixed feelings about the current ban on guns in state parks and forests without authorization.

“There’s no need for a gun in a park with families,” said Connie DeMonte of Middletown.

“I believe people have the right to defend themselves no matter where they are,” said Scott Taffaro of Manchester.

On Wednesday, a federal judge threw out a challenge to the rule.

“This is an important decision, but it doesn’t really get to the heart of the matter. The judge dismissed the case on standing grounds, which is lawyer talk for, you don’t actually have the right to file this lawsuit,” said Mike Lawlor, University of New Haven criminal justice associate professor.

This rule has actually been around for more than 100 years and apparently there’s no record of it ever being enforced. That’s part of why the judge tossed out the case, though the fight is potentially not over.

In the lawsuit filed against the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection commissioner, David Nastri argued the ban prevented him from carrying a gun for self defense.

His lawyer says they will appeal and wrote in part:

“We are profoundly disappointed in the district court’s ruling, which we believe is significantly at odds with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and is based on an unprecedented legal fiction.”

The state attorney general applauded the dismissal, writing in part:

“Connecticut’s commonsense gun laws are life-saving and constitutional– they strike the right balance between respecting Second Amendment rights while also protecting public safety.”

Among those we talked with at the parks just happened to be the father of Lieutenant Dustin DeMonte – the Bristol Police officer shot and killed in the line of duty.

Philip DeMonte is against guns in the parks.

“I don’t need to have to worry or even want to have to worry about that. Because, I mean, there’s a lot of craziness out there already,” DeMonte said.

Lawlor said he believes if a case does move forward, judges would back governments having the right to regulate access to parks.

He points out there are rules about other things you can’t bring in like alcohol in some parks.

“These provisions no more endorse illegal activity than a ‘swim at your own risk’ sign placed at a hotel pool endorses using the pool to drown another.”


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Post-Bruen Gun-Carry Restrictions Might Backfire

Formerly may-issue states continue to thumb their noses at the Supreme Court by passing some of the country’s most restrictive concealed carry laws. In doing so, they run the risk of undermining licensing schemes altogether.

Last Monday, Maryland became the third state impacted by the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen to pass a complete overhaul of its concealed carry laws. In a pair of bills, the state assembly greatly increased the application fees for new “wear and carry” permits, expanded its training requirements, and added new “sensitive places” throughout the state where licensed carry would be a crime. The off-limits areas include almost all publicly-accessible private property, like stores or restaurants.

The bills followed a familiar blueprint already established by states like New York and New Jersey, who were the first two states to rebuke the Court with onerous new laws. Fellow affected states, Hawaii and California, appear poised to do the same.

But those states are tempting judicial fate with their replacement laws, as evidenced by the parameters laid out by Justice Thomas in his Bruen opinion. The early track record of legal challenges to New York and New Jersey’s carry laws, where there have thus far been at least five injunctions between the two, can also attest to that fact. But even aside from the constitutional issues, on a more practical level, establishing a political norm of using licensing regimes to make exercising gun rights as difficult as possible creates new skepticism over the very idea of licensing laws.

The Supreme Court went to great lengths in its Bruen opinion to make clear that it was not yet prepared to call into question the legitimacy of standard “shall-issue” licensing laws.

“To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ ‘shall-issue’ licensing regimes, under which ‘a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit]’,” Justice Thomas wrote in his opinion. “Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.’”

This carve-out for “shall-issue” regimes was likely the result of a compromise done to mitigate political backlash and shore up support among justices. It remains unclear how “shall issue” permitting laws really fare when closely examined under the text and historical tradition test articulated later in the ruling.

Nevertheless, the American people currently are broadly in favor of that compromise. A November 2022 poll from Marquette University’s law school found that 64 percent of U.S. adults favor the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling. Similarly, a separate Marquette poll found that 62 percent favor allowing the concealed carry of handguns with a permit or license required. Conversely, permitless carry laws routinely poll poorly despite their continued success in red states.

But that equilibrium, in which Americans broadly favor both concealed carry rights and licensing laws, could ultimately become upended if more and more states continue to make lawful carry all but impossible. If push comes to shove and one has to go, it’s more than likely that the American people (and the Supreme Court, which has tended to act only after public opinion on guns has shifted) will choose licensing laws.

The recent experience in North Carolina is a perfect example of this. For years, gun-rights advocates favored repealing the state’s permit-to-purchase law for handguns, but to no avail. Meanwhile, at least nationally, the policy continued to poll favorably among the public. However, following the COVID pandemic and a series of scandals involving local sheriffs delaying permit applications, enough political momentum was finally there to get the repeal bill through the legislature. Two years later, with improved majorities, Republican lawmakers were able to get the repeal into law after overriding a veto.

Legal rulings striking down many of these likely unconstitutional Bruen replacement laws may arrive before sentiment shifts enough to make a difference. But litigation often takes many years, and the Supreme Court has thus far shown an unwillingness to intervene in New York’s law despite its restrictions being the first enacted and arguably the most burdensome. Therefore, relief from the courts might not be in the offing for some time.

As permitless carry approaches a political wall in the near future, continued efforts by gun-control advocates to undermine workable permitting schemes elsewhere across the country risks shifting the Overton window toward more permissive gun-carry systems, whether among the general public or the courts.

Since gun-control advocates very much don’t want to see that happen, they may be forced in the near future to give up the push for restrictive “shall issue, may carry” licensing schemes.


No, the wilting flower, necklace clutching, editors should man up

Justice Should Be Mindful of Words

Given the range of concerns over the recently passed Campus Self-Defense Act, Gov. Jim Justice could have chosen his words more carefully as he signed the bill.

Justice said West Virginia is sending “the message, ‘By God, if you wanna mess with us, we can mess back.’”


Such language does nothing to settle the nerves of officials on the campuses of state institutions of higher learning, who are understandably thinking about the challenges such a law will present. The last thing we need is the governor firing off a politicized yee-haw to encourage people to “mess back,” in dangerous situations.

National Rifle Association state director Art Thomm was more delicate in celebrating the law.

“The Campus Self-Defense Act recognizes the fact that danger doesn’t disappear just because you’ve stepped onto campus grounds,” he said. “Now, those who choose to exercise the right will have the ability to protect themselves, their classmates, and their loved ones should they need.”

That is the kind of language calculated to ease fears, rather than increase them.

It’s no secret Justice is ramping up his effort to appeal to West Virginians as he aims for his next political office. Perhaps he should be more mindful of his responsibility to be above such stunts as he leads and serves those people, now.

Former Uvalde Police Chief: I Left the Gunman Unhindered to Continue Killing the Children He Held Hostage, So I Could “Evacuate” The Children Who Were In No Danger Whatsoever

The Uvalde police chief admitted he chose to leave the kids trapped with the gunman, even after hearing “a lot” of shots.

The Texas police chief blamed for the disastrous response to the Uvalde school shooting admitted making the “horrible” call not to rescue kids trapped with the gunman — even after hearing “a lot” of shots and the killer reloading.Pedro “Pete” Arredondo, who was later fired as Uvalde schools’ top cop, made the astonishing admission in his only briefing with investigators — a day after 19 kids and two teachers were slaughtered at Robb Elementary.

He smiled and made jokes during the nearly one-hour interview obtained by CNN, defending his decision to evacuate the rest of the school rather than those trapped with 18-year-old mass shooter Salvador Ramos.

He detailed being one of the first to arrive at the school, hearing too many gunshots to count.

CNN obtained the video of since-fired Uvalde schools police chief Pedro Arredondo speaking to investigators a day after 21 were killed.

“When I opened the [school] door, I saw the smoke,” he recalled, saying “shots started firing” again as he and a colleague started nearing the classroom where Ramos was holed up with kids and teachers.

“Obviously, I backed off and started taking cover,” the lead officer said, which CNN noted was in clear defiance of training that insists officers risk their own lives to “neutralize” active shooters.


He backed off even after hearing gunman Salvador Ramos shooting and reloading his weapon.”I know there’s probably victims in there and with the shots I heard, I know there’s probably somebody who’s going to be deceased,” he acknowledged of the room he backed away from.

But he felt the “priority” was the “preservation of life” of those not under the “immediate threat.”

Like himself, for example.

“Once I realized that was going on, my first thought is that we need to vacate” the rest of the school, he said, telling arriving officers that “we’re taking [other] kids out first.””I know this is horrible,” he said — claiming it was what “our training tells us to do,” seemingly contradicting the actual guidance.

Focusing on evacuating the children who were in no danger whatsoever just happened to also keep Arredondo and the other filthy cowards who gladly followed him out of danger as well.

But I’m sure that’s just one of those coincidences. I’m sure that never, ever occurred to them.

Eight Months Later, We Now Know the Reason the Uvalde Police Chief Didn’t Confront the Shooter

One of the worst domestic acts of violence in American history, the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, still horrifies us even all these months later. And part of the reason we continue to be horrified is that we still don’t know the full scope of the utter failures of law enforcement that took place that day.

Law enforcement on the scene ignored their training (or, worse, weren’t properly trained), leaving children and teachers trapped in classrooms with the killer. The fallout has been intense – firings from the top down, a town turned upside down, and even bipartisan legislation aimed at preventing another incident like it in the future.

CNN obtained the one and only interview then-police chief Pete Arredondo gave to the Texas Department of Public Safety, giving us a glimpse into his logic that day, and it only further shows how flawed and troubling his decisions were that day.

“Once I realized that was going on, my first thought is that we need to vacate. We have him contained – and I know this is horrible and I know it’s [what] our training tells us to do but – we have him contained, there’s probably going to be some deceased in there, but we don’t need any more from out here,” Arredondo said.

His decision to treat the gunman as a barricaded subject and not confront him effectively left all the students and teachers in Classrooms 111 and 112 for dead. It was one of many times he did not follow the training and protocol for an active shooter.

Arredondo stuck with that choice for over an hour, even when he thought he heard the gunman reloading and after it was confirmed children were trapped – injured and alive as well as dead – with the shooter.

It should come as no secret that his decision violated the training his department supposedly received, and it flies in the face of what we know should be the proper response. You can evacuate, but you have got to apprehend – or at least stop – the shooter in that situation before it becomes an even deadlier situation. And because Arredondo decided against proper protocol there, the result was as infuriating as it was tragic.

Records supplied to CNN by DPS show Arredondo took required active shooter training at least three times, including in the December before the massacre. The specific course he took then instructs officers to “isolate, distract and neutralize” the attacker. It reminds officers “First responders to the active shooter scene will usually be required to place themselves in harm’s way and display uncommon acts of courage to save the innocent.”

The decision-making that happened on May 24, 2022, was equal parts cowardly and ignorant, and Arredondo’s words, now that we can see them, verify that.

SCOTUS turns away bump stock, gun seizure cases

For the third time this year the Supreme Court has rejected a case dealing with the ATF’s administratively imposed ban on bump stocks, denying cert in a challenge to the ban brought by a group of federally licensed firearm retailers and several individuals who argued that the ban was an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause by forcing existing bump stock owners to destroy them without any kind of compensation on the part of the federal government.

Today’s decision follows the denial of two other challenges to the bump stock ban, which was imposed by the Trump administration following the Route 91 Harvest music festival shooting in Las Vegas in 2017. Previously, the ATF had determined that bump stocks should not be considered “machine guns” under federal law, given that even with bump stocks attached it took a pull of the trigger to release a single round.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a U.S. Justice Department agency, reversed a previous conclusion and classified bump stocks as machine guns under a 1934 U.S. law called the National Firearms Act. The policy took effect in 2019.

Two sets of plaintiffs filed lawsuits seeking compensation for having to destroy or surrender their bump stocks in the Court of Federal Claims, which hears monetary claims against the U.S. government. A judge dismissed the actions, finding the policy to be a lawful exercise of the federal government’s power to outlaw dangers to public health and safety.

“The Washington-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld those decisions last year for a different reason, ruling that a property right in the devices was inherently limited given the existing federal prohibition on machine guns.

We don’t know why SCOTUS rejected these challenges, just that there weren’t four justices willing to accept any of these cases. And while the odds of any particular case being granted cert by the Court are low (about 1-in-10,000), gun owners are rightfully going to be concerned about the Court’s inaction, especially with the Biden administration using the Trump tactic to pursue administrative bans against unfinished frames and receivers, pistol stabilizing braces, and potentially even semi-automatic handguns and rifles.

Today’s decision doesn’t mean that these same justices will stand by and let future abuses of executive authority slide, but as long as SCOTUS doesn’t object the Biden administration is likely to take their silence as a green light for more rule-making of dubious constitutionality.

The other case turned away by the Supreme Court today dealt with the seizure of a New York man’s firearms; a case that the attorneys for Wayne Torcivia argued was virtually identical to a similar search and seizure that the Court ruled unconstitutional in Caniglia v. Strom

Continue reading “”