Not so strangely, because the Israeli government is scared that their Arab citizens would arm themselves and go off on their own murder sprees, there is no RKBA, and possession of guns by the general population has always been severely restricted, the Israeli government apparently having decided that a few dead Jewish citizens are better than possibly more dead from an internal Arab uprising.

Israel Bus Attack: Armed Civilians Helped ‘Neutralize’ Terrorist Killers

By Dave Workman

An unknown number of “armed civilians” is being credited with helping “neutralize” two terrorists who opened fire at a Jerusalem bus stop Monday morning, perhaps underscoring the benefit of armed citizens who can fight back.

Various news agencies are reporting the tragedy, which so far has claimed six lives and left at least a dozen wounded. The Times of Israel is reporting that the Palestinian terrorists were residents of the Wet Bank. They opened fire on people waiting at a bus stop. An off-duty soldier immediately returned fire, and so did “a number of civilians.”

Fox News’ report only indicated one armed citizen was involved, but the Associated Press is also indicating more than one armed civilian was involved.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms says the incident “underscores the importance of an armed citizenry.” Continue reading “”

So Red Flag Laws Didn’t Fail in Minneapolis, People Did?

Minnesota passed a red flag law in 2023. It went into effect in 2024.

Despite that, no red flag order was sought for the 23-year-old who decided to seek out a gun-free zone and shoot through the windows, killing two children and injuring so many more.

It’s pretty clear that the red flag law that was sold as a way to stop attacks like this from happening failed.

But it seems that rather than acknowledge this, the media is more interested in spinning this as a failure of people to notice the problem.

Police say that an emergency risk protection order was not sought for the suspect, nor did this person have a criminal record. Shortly before the attack, the shooter posted on social media a diary and a manifesto that indicated hate and the potential for violence.

The chorus of concern after the shooting serves as a reminder not only that Americans aren’t powerless in the face of pervasive gun violence, but also that red flag laws are only effective when people speak up. For many here, there is a sense that there may have been missed clues that could have been used to disarm the person under the new law. The investigation is ongoing.

“A crisis was enough to push them over the edge,” says Chris Carita, a former police officer and a senior trainer at 97Percent, a nonprofit that helps law enforcement use what are commonly referred to as red flag laws. “They didn’t get the help they needed or the intervention that they needed.”

The philosophical core of the laws is that they exhibit not only concern for public safety but also empathy for people in distress who may be leaving clues of potential deadly intent.

“It’s an individual tool that people and families can use, but the bigger and more challenging task is making sure that folks understand it and know how to use it,” says Minnesota state Rep. Emma Greenman.

It’s funny how the red flag law is supposed to be the savior, but when it fails, no one who supported it ever steps back and thinks, “Oh, wait, maybe this law wasn’t quite what I thought it was.”

Oh no, the problem is that the people in the killer’s life completely failed to recognize the problem and take this particular action, which isn’t actually needed since existing laws could do far more.

Of course, despite what the Christian Science Monitor might claim, 97Percent isn’t a nonprofit that helps law enforcement. I mean, they might do some of that, but what they actually are is a gun control group that pushes an anti-gun agenda and pretends they’re really just a centrist organization looking for some common ground on guns. We’ve talked about them before. We’ve talked about them a lot.

That’s important because this is someone who works for an organization with a vested interest in defending this particular law rather than acknowledging that the laws don’t work as advertised.

“But the problem is still the people!” someone might exclaim, which I find funny, because we say the same thing about guns and they reject that out of hand.

The difference is that me having a gun doesn’t impact anyone else except for me and my family.

Their red flag law can impact everyone.

And the fact that they don’t even work just makes it that much worse.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
– Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice

Cynical Publius

Looking for black people in this video. Not finding them.

See, in DC the worst crime is in predominantly black neighborhoods. 41% of the DC population is black.

So where are all the black people in this “protest”?

I’ll tell you why there are so few: DC’s black population is the primary beneficiary of Trump’s incredibly effective crackdown on DC crime.

These “protesters” are all white Democrat self-appointed “elites” who live in crime-free Northwest DC (or the DC suburbs) in their $2mm+ homes.

White Democrats feel a congenital need to virtue signal, even if it means killing black people. Then they go home in their lululemon yoga pants, Allbirds loafers and Subaru Forester, where they open a $200 bottle of wine and celebrate themselves over all the “good” they did today.

Sickening.

You may not like guns, and choose not to own one. That is your right.
You might not believe in God. That is your choice.
However, if someone breaks into your home the first 2 things you’re going to do are:
1) Call someone with a gun.
2) Pray they get there in time.
– Unknown

Wonder how that affects being able to enlist at 17?

DC Appeals Court: Adults Under 21 Are Covered by Second Amendment, But Can’t Have Guns

Do adults under the age of 21 have the right to keep and bear arms?

Since they’re adults, they should. After all, it’s one thing to say children can’t buy firearms, but people who are responsible for themselves in pretty much every other aspect of their lives are a different matter.

Yet many places restrict those under 21 from actually enjoying the full benefits of their Second Amendment rights.

In the District of Columbia, which is a microcosm of how little gun control actually does to stop crime, they have a total gun ban for those under 21. That ban has been challenged and was recently ruled constitutional. The local DC appeals court–not the federal appeals court in DC, just for clarification–just upheld the ruling with an…interesting argument.

So, by operating under the assumption that adults under 21 are, in fact, part of “the people” covered by the Second Amendment, they still find a gun ban constitutional?

How does that make sense?

As the FPC put it later:

Right?

The sad part is that I see the so-called logic being employed. If the right to own guns implies the right to purchase them, which many of us have argued more than once, as have the courts, then the inverse would seem to be true. If you don’t have a right to buy them, as was ruled previously, then the implication is that you don’t have a right to own them.

Hence, the DC restrictions being upheld.

But NRA v Bondi, which is the case cited, was an 11th Circuit decision, not a Supreme Court decision, so I’m not sure about the wisdom of basing everything on that, especially as the DC Circuit Court of Appeals covers the DC area. Of course, it’s not like that court would rule differently.

Personally, I think the 11th Circuit blew it.

While there is a legitimate case for the constitutionality of age limits, the argument that people who are old enough to enlist, sign contracts, and vote in our nation’s elections is bizarre to me. Especially as some want to lower the voting age still further, all while saying younger people are too reckless and irresponsible to exercise a fundamental, constitutionally protected right.

And then to extrapolate it out to justifying a ban on even the possession of firearms by people in that age group is absolutely horrifying to me. Especially as the age limits are often defended as saying these folks still have their Second Amendment rights, they just can’t buy a gun. This, however, makes it very clear where that argument can and will lead.

Here’s hoping someone steps in and lowers a much-needed smackdown on this absolute BS.

Tennessee of all places…

Skrmetti appealing gun law decision

(The Center Square) – Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is appealing a ruling by a Gibson County Chancery Court that said two Tennessee gun laws were unconstitutional.
The laws prohibited carrying firearms in state parks and carrying a gun or club with the “intent to go armed” and use it for violence or aggression.

Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation and three Tennessee residents sued the state, saying the laws violated their right to bear arms.
Skrmetti said his office was asking the chancery court for a stay pending appeal because the court’s ruling was broad and went too far.

“It entirely invalidates two gun laws, even though those laws are constitutional in some situations,” Skrmetti said. “For example, it’s obviously constitutional to prohibit a 10-year-old from bringing a semiautomatic rifle to a rec league basketball game or a drunk with a shotgun from staggering down Broadway or through Market Square or across Shelby Farms. But the Court’s ruling appears to legalize this in Tennessee.”

The ruling by the Chancery Court is causing confusion, Skrmetti said in the appeal.

“Plaintiffs’ counsel has already advised the public that ‘the entire law enforcement network in Tennessee [is] on notice’ and ‘attempts to enforce these two statutes’ by any official ‘should give rise to claims of federal civil rights violations,’” Skrmetti said. “Law enforcement is rightly loath to choose between tempting ruinous civil rights lawsuits and carrying out their duty to protect the public. And there is no doubt: because of its refusal to adhere to its own judicial limits, this Court’s order would leave large gaps in the General Assembly’s efforts to protect the public.”

Rep. Chris Todd, R-Madison County, said he wanted Skrmetti to appeal the decision but not because Todd opposes it. He called the opinion “one of the most thorough, well-reasoned, and well-written decisions we’ve seen.”

Sen. London Lamar, chairwoman of the Tennessee Senate Democratic Caucus, said she supports the decision to appeal the decision.

“These long-standing gun safety laws are constitutional and they exist for a reason: to give law enforcement the tools they need to protect the public,” Lamar said. “If the lower court’s ruling is allowed to stand, it will tie the hands of police officers — even when they encounter someone with a loaded assault rifle parked outside a children’s park. Officers wouldn’t even be allowed to question that person’s intent until it’s too late. That’s not freedom. That’s a recipe for tragedy.”