Third Street Promenade shopkeeper fatally shoots man during attempted robbery

A shoe store owner shot and killed a man Sunday night during an attempted robbery on the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, according to police.

The shooting unfolded around 9:30 p.m., the Santa Monica Police Department announced in a news release. The owner of the shoe store, Sole & Laces, was carrying out an after-hours sale with a customer when the attempted robbery took place, according to property manager John Alle.

A second person, who allegedly knew the customer taking part in the private sale, entered the store and pepper-sprayed the owner, according to police. There was a struggle and the store owner, who had a legally owned gun, shot the suspect, police said.

The suspect was taken to a local hospital and later died from his injuries, police said.

The customer who arranged for the private sale, later identified as Karen Melikyan , 41, was arrested on suspicion of being involved in the attempted robbery, according to authorities. He was booked on suspicion of murder, robbery and conspiracy, police said.

The name of the person killed in the shooting was not released pending notification to the kin. The incident appears to be targeted and involved people who knew each other, police said. “There is no ongoing threat to the public,” the Santa Monica Police Department said in a news release.

Police said the shopkeeper, who was also not identified, is cooperating with the authorities.

The investigation remains ongoing.

Criticisms of the Military’s XM7 Rifle Spill Into the Open

When it comes to those of us who choose our own rifles, it’s possible to get the “perfect” gun. We each have our own wants, needs, and and preferences we can accommodate. Only the thickness of our wallets limit how satisfied we can ultimately be. Hunters, target shooters, people defending their families, and many law enforcement officers can pick the platform, choose the caliber, and select the accessories that will ride on it.

But the United States Army doesn’t get to do that. No matter how many wants and needs the military may specify in its procurement process, they still need to come up with a “one size fits most” solution. Sure, every soldier could theoretically build their own rifle that fits their tastes and the needs of their particular job, but that would make things far too expensive and complicated logistically. Worse, the military has to be prepared to go up against the mass manufacturing power of China, so volume has to be an important consideration, too.

The military’s answer in its search for a next generation rifle has been the XM7. Unlike the intermediate cartridge M16 and M4 rifles, the plan this time was to pack in a lot more pep, even at the cost of how much ammunition a given soldier can carry into the fight. That decision has, of course, led to inevitable comparisons with the M14 rifle, and virtual barrels of digital ink have been spilled criticizing the philosophy of battle rifles versus the intermediate-cartridge rifles virtually every military has shifted to since World War II.

But, despite widespread criticism, the Army has gone all-in on defending the brass’s choice of the XM7. The first soldiers to experiment with the weapon, we’ve been told, gave it glowing reviews. Then, subsequent units that picked it up had nothing but good to say about it. This led public opinion to waver a bit. Maybe the brass was right if all of the grunts love it…right?

It turns out that (as is often the case) we may not have been told the whole story. This video by Cappy Army goes into great detail on what the public and lawmakers were told about the XM7 versus what was actually said when soldiers were handed a copy of the rifle.

In short, the soldiers weren’t big fans. The rifle certainly has some upsides, and legitimate praise for it was passed on to the public. But, when anyone had something negative to say about the gun, that part got left out of press releases, reports, and other materials the public was given. As happens these days, many soldiers then took their unedited and uncensored feedback online, while a few more stubborn and brave officers decided to push against the chain of command to look at both the good and the bad.

The video itself is worth watching, but in a nutshell, it’s a mix of “the M14 haters were right,” technical problems with the gun (sloppy accuracy, jams, cases coming apart), and problems with overheating cans and faulty “smart” optics. Worst of all, feature bloat has led to the weapon weighing several pounds more than the old M14 ever did. There’s more recoil and reduced barrel life. And then there’s the fact that soldiers can only carry about two-thirds as many rounds into combat as they can for an M16/M4.

When faced with a captain’s report detailing these criticisms and calling the rifle “unfit” for its intended use, SIG SAUER said that he wasn’t close enough to the program and its goals to understand it. The company also made it clear that the rifle’s development isn’t yet fully complete, and that problems will still be resolved.

Again, it’s very much worth reading about the issues and responses to them in depth and watching the video above. I’m just scratching the surface here.

Continue reading “”

Numerous Gun Rights Groups Unite in Open Letter Calling for NFA Reform

Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee really screwed us.

The reduction of the $200 tax stamp for suppressors to nothing is, at best, a good start. However, it’s also not the biggest problem with suppressors, at least in my mind. A couple hundred bucks more for a product is a pain, sure, but the paperwork, the pleading with the crown for a scrap of your rights, and the permanent registration of the device are the bigger issues to me.

It’s why I’ve never gone down that particular road.

And we had a chance to address that.

Well, to be fair, we still do, but that’s not going to happen without a lot of pressure.

To that end, an open letter is circulating calling for NFA reform that we can all rally behind that has a butt-ton of state-level gun rights groups as signatories.

Open Letter to Reform the National Firearms Act

May 17, 2025

The Honorable Jodey C. Arrington
Chairman, House Committee on Budget, U.S. House of Representatives
1111 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4319

The Honorable Virginia Foxx
Chairman, House Committee on Rules, U.S. House of Representatives
2462 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3305

Rep. Arrington, Rep. Foxx, members of the House committees on Budget and Rules:

As leaders of the undersigned organizations, we demand immediate inclusion of portions of the Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 404) and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act (H.R. 2395) in the forthcoming reconciliation bill. These critical pieces of legislation address longstanding, unjust restrictions imposed by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, which infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. The failure to incorporate these bills into the reconciliation package would represent a profound missed opportunity to restore individual liberty, protect public health, and uphold constitutional guarantees.

The Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 404), introduced by Representative Ben Cline (R-VA-06), seeks to remove firearm suppressors from the NFA’s burdensome regulatory framework, replacing it with a streamlined purchase process for typical accessories. Suppressors, contrary to popular misconceptions, do not silence firearms but significantly reduce noise levels, mitigating the risk of permanent hearing loss for shooters and hunters. The American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery has endorsed suppressors as effective tools for preventing hearing damage, a public health concern affecting millions of Americans. The current NFA requirements — including a $200 tax stamp for both manufacture and transfer of the devices, extensive paperwork, and excessive waiting times — serve no meaningful public safety purpose while imposing undue financial and administrative burdens on responsible citizens. With over 4.8 million suppressors in civilian circulation, their widespread use underscores the need for reform.

Similarly, the SHORT Act (H.R. 2395) addresses the arbitrary NFA classification of short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), which subjects them to the same onerous regulations as transferable machine guns and other highly restricted devices. This outdated framework, rooted in 1930s-era fears of organized crime, lacks relevance in the modern context, where SBRs and SBSs pose no greater threat than standard rifles or shotguns. The SHORT Act would delist these firearms from the NFA, eliminating unnecessary barriers to ownership and ensuring that law-abiding Americans are not penalized for exercising their constitutional rights.

Language compliant with the U.S. Senate “Byrd rule” (2 U.S.C. 644) is circulating the Second Amendment community and should be incorporated in the current budget reconciliation package. The urgency of including this language in the reconciliation package cannot be overstated. Recent reports indicate that the House Ways and Means Committee has delayed action on both H.R. 404 and H.R. 2395, potentially due to lobbying efforts that prioritize commercial interests over the public good. Such delays are unacceptable, particularly when public sentiment, as reflected in numerous grassroots calls to action, overwhelmingly supports NFA reform. The reconciliation process offers a unique opportunity to bypass Senate filibuster constraints, ensuring that these common-sense reforms reach the House floor and become law. Failure to seize this moment risks further entrenching an antiquated and unconstitutional regulatory regime.

Opponents of these reforms, such as Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety,” argue that suppressor deregulation poses public safety risks by making gunfire less detectable. This claim is false and ignores the reality that suppressors reduce, but do not eliminate, firearm noise. Moreover, homemade suppressors are readily accessible to those with criminal intent.

The public safety argument against SBR deregulation is equally baseless, as these firearms are functionally identical to their longer-barreled counterparts. These objections, often rooted in fearmongering rather than evidence, should not override the constitutional rights of millions of Americans.

The Second Amendment unequivocally protects the right to keep and bear arms, and the NFA’s restrictive provisions—originally enacted to combat gang violence nearly a century ago—have long outlived their utility. The Hearing Protection Act and the SHORT Act represent measured, practical steps toward aligning federal law with contemporary realities and constitutional principles. Their inclusion in the reconciliation bill is not merely a policy preference but a moral and legal imperative.

We, the signatories, therefore, demand that the House Committee on Rules and the committee on Budgets act decisively to ensure that the publicly available, broadly supported, modified language of H.R. 404 and H.R. 2395 are incorporated into the reconciliation package in their entirety, without dilution or compromise. The American people deserve legislation that respects their rights, promotes public health, and dismantles unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles. We strongly urge you to heed the calls of millions of gun owners and Second Amendment advocates who have made their voices clear. The time for action is now.

Respectfully,

F. Paul Valone
President, Grass Roots North Carolina
Exec. Director, Rights Watch International

Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association

Philip Van Cleave, President
Virginia Citizens Defense League

Sean Caranna, Executive Director
Florida Carry, Inc.

Tom King, President
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.

Rep. JR Hoell, President
New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, Inc.

Kevin Starrett, Director
Oregon Firearms Federation

Mike Duralia, President
South Carolina Carry

Kevin Patrick, Jr., Acting President
West Virginia Citizens Defense League

Matthew Andras, President
Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners

Mark W. Pennak, President
Maryland Shall Issue

Richard Pearson, Exec. Director
Illinois State RIFLE Association

Kimberly Morin, President
Women’s Defense League of NH

Klint Macro, President
Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League

Rich Kerlin, President
Beaver County Sportsmen’s Conservation League

Blaine Toy, President
Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania

Rob Pincus, Director
2nd Amendment Organization

Dianna Muller, President
Women for Gun Rights

J.R. Stoker Jr., President
Firearms Owners Against Crime Institute

Dr. Joe Hannon, VP
Gun Owners of New Hampshire

Dennis Fusaro, Member*
Legislative Policy Committee,
BOD National Rifle Association

Jon Richardson, Member*
BOD National Rifle Association

Bryan Strawser, Chair
Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus

David Adams, Exec. Director
Virginia Shooting Sports Association

Laura Whitcomb, President
Gun Owners of Maine.

Holly Sullivan, President
Connecticut Citizens Defense League

John C. Poole II, Exec. Director,
Texas State Rifle Association

Charles Hiltunen, President
Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association

Rocky Marshall
Boerne, TX

Eric Davis, President
Gun Owners of Vermont

Linda Walker, President
Buckeye Firearms Association

Jeffrey Kaufman, MD, BoD
VT Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs

Chris Bradley, President
VT Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs

Huey Laugesen, Exec. Director
Colorado State Shooting Association

James D Jones, Secretary and Board Member BamaCarry
*(title for identification only)

Yes, this is long, but it’s worth every minute of it.

Normally, I wouldn’t include the signatories, but the plethora of gun rights groups represented here makes it imperative that I include them. For those whose organizations aren’t on this letter, who would like to be included, reach out to Rep. J. R. Hoell of New Hampshire at RepJRHoell@gmail.com  for inclusion.

Now, let’s understand what’s important here. These grassroots organizations represent a lot of voters. These aren’t people who joined the NRA when they were 16, got a life membership, and haven’t paid attention to gun rights since then. Or, to be sure, some other group that they joined, then promptly ignored. I’m not picking on the NRA here, but pointing out that some people join some national organization and figure that’s enough fighting for them. They’ve done their part.

These are the boots on the ground. These are the fighters in the various states.

And it’s pretty clear that these people want more than just a nullification of the tax stamp’s cost. The fact that we have to get a tax stamp at all is the major issue, and we want the Hearing Protection Act and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today Act, as they were written, as part of the budget process.

The anti-gunners have pulled this stunt repeatedly, putting various measures into the budget process because they know how difficult it is to vote against the budget for either side, and they get what they want through the back door. We can and should use this same process against them.

But we need lawmakers with a spine to step up and do what’s right for a change, and not just try to throw us scraps, and not even scraps from the king’s table, but the peasant’s.

That won’t happen unless we, the voters, pressure them. They need to be afraid that if they don’t put this language in the budget that they’ll be out of a job well before the general election.

Turn up the heat, and do it fast enough that they jump.

Supreme Court Allows DHS to Suspend Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans.

The latest SCOTUS order shows the justices are taking a more nuanced approach to district court injunctions of Trump Administration policies than its critics, left or right.

Today, over a lone noted dissent, the Supreme Court stayed a district court injunction barring the Department of Homeland Security from terminating Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans in the United States. The unsigned order in Noem v. National TPS Alliance noted that Justice Jackson would not have granted the stay.

The order was not an unqualified victory for the Trump Administration, as it does not extent–and expressly does not prejudice–challenges to the Administration’s withdrawal of other benefits or status designations for TPS beneficiaries. Those questions will be litigated separately.

The Court’s action was likely driven by the justices’ conclusion that the federal government is likely to prevail on the merits, as the decision whether to confer, maintain, or terminate TPS is largely discretionary. Indeed, it is not even clear TPS decisions are subject to judicial review (as the Administration argued in its stay application).

The Court’s order also highlights that, even within the constraints of the emergency docket, the justices are considering each application for relief on its own terms, and will police district court overreach where such overreach is clear. So while a majority of justices will not allow the Trump Administration to summarily deport individuals under the Alien Enemies Act without providing for adequate process, it is will also prevent individual district court judges from enjoining policy decisions that are clearly within the discretion of the administration.

This approach may not satisfy partisans, or those who presume the Trump Administration is entitled to prevail (or should be stymied) on every question (often without acknowledging, let alone understanding, the legal questions at hand), but it suggests the justices are endeavoring to pay attention to what the law actually allows or requires.

MISSING AIRLINE SLUMP

Just like the M.I.A. stock market crash, the long-promised airline travel slump is nowhere to be found.

I checked the most recent TSA statistics available on airline passengers. More than 2.8 million people passed through TSA checkpoints on the latest day available, Thursday, May 15. That was some 40,000 more than the equivalent day in 2024 (May 16) and over 200,000 more passengers than the same day in 2023 (May 18). Not a holiday weekend, not spring break, not yet the summer rush, just packed airports and packed planes on a random Thursday.

Yet this headline featured in Forbes last week,

‘Trump Slump’ Hits Expedia: Shares Fall 8% Due To Weak U.S. Travel Demand

Ah, yes, the much-promised, but little-seen “Trump Slump.” I had occasion to venture out to the local airport this afternoon for a passenger drop-off. Despite the Trump Slump and the surrounding city in its final death throes, the airport on a Sunday mid-afternoon was a complete zoo both inside and out.

Unfortunately, I fear that all too few departing passengers were traveling on one-way tickets.

[Update: it turns out that I was correct about yesterday (Sunday). TSA data show passengers over 2.9 million, some 86,000 above the equivalent day in 2024. Yesterday marked the biggest travel day since December 1, 2024, the Wednesday after Thanksgiving.]

Right on time comes this headline from the Baltimore Sun,

Despite economic concerns, Americans are set on getting away for Memorial Day weekend

Bon Voyage!

What the left doesn’t want you to know about the 2nd Amendment

Cultural myths have always held that the left is better at comedy than the right, at least according to the left.  But circular logic aside, the results of the past few years speak for themselves.  The left can’t meme, and it’s falling behind in comedic talent.  Case in point would be a comparison of the sheer genius of the folks of the Babylon Bee and the hapless, out-of-touch, and unfunny skits of Saturday Night Live.

The first video from the Babylon Bee is of a leftist (we’re using that term instead of the other “L” word) going back in time to try to “fix” the 2nd Amendment, applying many of the leftist tropes we’ve been endlessly subjected to over the past few decades, such as only covering muzzle-loading muskets and nothing else, especially scary-looking assault weapons.

In the video, the character portraying James Madison notes that an armed citizenry is the point of the Second Amendment in keeping the government in check.  At one point, he asks the Democrat who came back in time to alter the amendment a great question, one that should be asked of any leftist gun-grabbing ghoul:

“Do you trust your government?”

To which the leftist answers in the negative, and the natural response is:

“Then why would you want them to have much better guns than you?”

It’s a very entertaining 6 minutes that demolishes most of the myths of the gun-grabber ghouls, while making a strong case for our firearm freedoms and the commonsense human right of self-defense.

The second video proves our adage on the left and humor, but what is truly interesting is that this skit inadvertently also makes the case for the Second Amendment, making it look cool.  Naturally, in their little way, they tried to knock our firearm freedoms with an ending tagline, but it ends up coming up short on the message.  Their main, inadvertent point is that guns and gun-owners are cool instead of “scary.”  It’s more than amusing that Saturday Night Live has fallen so far as to have the opposite intended cultural effect.

We can only guess from the sign-off from the second video from the formerly funny Saturday Night Live that it was meant as a criticism of the commonsense human right of self-defense and the Second Amendment.  Unfortunately for them, they end up making firearm freedom cool and inadvertently boost that part of the Bill of Rights.  These videos are well worth sharing with those on the fence, as a way of easily dispatching some gun-grabber ghoul myths.

Occasionally life intrudes; Spent most of the night and early morning at the ER with Dad. He’s back home and feeling a lot better, but Ich Bin was worn out and spent the day and early evening sacked out.

We now return to our somewhat regular scheduling