Trump Rules Out Gun Control After Shooting at Florida State

If Kamala Harris were president today, the White House would have already put out a statement demanding a ban on “assault weapons”, regardless of the fact that Leon County Sheriff Walter McNeil says the perpetrator of the shooting on the campus of Florida State got at least one of his guns from his mom, a sheriff’s deputy.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, made it abundantly clear on Thursday afternoon that the fault lies with the person who pulled the trigger, not the inanimate object he used.

Asked about shooting, Trump said “it’s a shame,” adding that he knew the school and the area “very well.”

But Trump suggested that he would not be advocating for any new gun legislation, saying, “the gun doesn’t do the shooting, the people do.”

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump called himself a “big advocate” of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.

“I have an obligation to protect the Second Amendment,” he said.

I appreciate Trump’s sentiment, and he’s absolutely right that the gun doesn’t do the shooting, the person pulling the trigger does. The gun control lobby, however, is going to have a field day with his comment about an obligation to protect the Second Amendment, which they’ll twist to claim Trump doesn’t think he has an obligation to protect us, including our sons and daughters attending class on a college campus.

The sad truth is that today’s shooting is a tragic and painful reminder that gun control laws don’t stop those who are committed to the idea of killing as many innocent people as possible.

Florida bans concealed carry on college campuses, and open carry everywhere in the state. The killer didn’t care.

Florida bans the sale of firearms to adults under the age of 21. The killer didn’t care.

Florida has a three day waiting period on firearm transfers for most adults over the age of 21. The killer didn’t care.

The killer cared as much about Florida’s gun laws as he did the lives he took on Thursday afternoon. They served as no impediment to playing out his murderous fantasies, and most importantly, they offered no protection to his victims or those in the nearby vicinity who, by luck, chance, or God’s grace, weren’t harmed in his cowardly killing spree.

Would an armed citizen have been around to stop the killer’s attack if Florida allowed campus carry? Maybe, maybe not. But the odds of intervening before more lives were lost and more people were hurt would at least have been much higher if students, staff, and visitors who can lawfully carry off campus had the same ability to do so once they set foot on the university’s grounds.

The Second Amendment isn’t a guarantee that a good person with a gun will be there when you need it any more than it’s a magic solution to all our social ills. But at its core, the right to keep and bear arms is supposed to give us a fighting chance at survival; whether against a tyrannical government or the petty tyranny of a mentally disturbed or downright evil individual who’s decided the most important impact they can make in life is destroying someone else’s.

Protecting the Second Amendment doesn’t mean we’re not interested in protecting our kids, our neighbors, our communities, or ourselves. It just means that we fundamentally disagree that the pathway to safety must include the destruction, degradation, or deprivation of a fundamental civil right.

Bills Protecting Veteran Second Amendment Rights Hit The House And Senate

A pair of companion bills currently making rounds in the House and Senate seek to protect the Second Amendment rights of veterans by preventing Veterans Affairs (VA) from reporting names to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as a routine part of benefit-related actions. According to the authors of the bills, the NICS system uses those reports to strip veterans of their right to purchase and possess firearms without the same due process afforded to American citizens who did not serve in the military because the process doesn’t include a court finding that the veteran is a danger to themselves or others.

Republican Representative Mike Bost from Illinois, the bill’s sponsor, and House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs chairman, spoke about H.R. 1041, which has over 50 Republican co-sponsors, at a February 25 hearing.

“This bill is not about guns on demand… It’s about giving veterans the same due process as every other American,” said Bost.

The issue stems from a VA-appointed fiduciary program intended to assist veterans in managing their benefits and finances. Bost says that such an appointment has nothing to do with a veteran’s propensity to be a danger to the public and should not affect their NICS background checks in such a way that deprives them of their Second Amendment rights, which some veterans say discourages or prevents them from seeking mental health care.

Continue reading “”

First Circuit Upholds Massachusetts ‘Assault Weapon,’ Magazine Bans

he Bay State’s ban on the sale of certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines does not run afoul of the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

A three-judge panel for the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction against Massachusetts’ ban on the sale of “assault weapons,” such as the popular AR-15, and ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. It determined that the logic of a prior ruling upholding Rhode Island’s ban on certain magazines applied to the weapons banned by Massachusetts law.

“A straightforward application of our prior holding in Ocean State Tactical supports the Commonwealth’s demonstration that the Massachusetts Ban’s AR-15 restriction ‘is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,’” Judge Gary Katzmann wrote in Capen v. Campbell. “This means that Appellants have failed to demonstrate at this stage that the Ban is unconstitutional in all its applications.”

The ruling extends the unbeaten streak for states defending hardware bans at the federal appellate level ever since the Supreme Court handed down its New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision in 2022. It will undoubtedly add to the growing sense of frustration among gun-rights advocates who believe Supreme Court precedent forecloses sales bans on common semi-automatic firearms and the magazines that come standard with them.

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), the plaintiff in this case, did not respond to a request for comment. The group sued over Massachusetts’ bans in 2022, shortly after the High Court handed down the Bruen decision. They were first upheld by US District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV in December 2023 after Saylor ruled that the banned items fit within the country’s historical tradition of regulating “dangerous and unusual” weapons.

Between that ruling and Thursday’s update on appeal, the First Circuit issued a separate opinion upholding Rhode Island’s nearly identical ban on ammunition magazines in March of 2024.

“The justification for the law is a public safety concern comparable to the concerns justifying the historical regulation of gunpowder storage and of weapons like sawed-off shotguns, Bowie knives, M-16s and the like,” Judge William Kayatta wrote in Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island. “The analogical ‘how’ and ‘why’ inquiry that Bruen calls for therefore strongly points in the direction of finding that Rhode Island’s LCM ban does not violate the Second Amendment.”

Continue reading “”

Many claim that only government can say what is and isn’t a right, largely so they can justify stripping people of their natural rights, and invent new rights that have no moral or logical basis.
It’s by this claim that they seek to destitute perceived enemies to subjugation, while those enemies serve the preferred classes.
It’s the immoral basis for all authoritarianism, totalitarianism, slavery, communism and fascism.
-Jeff Shetler

Weapons concerned are a shotgun and handgun…
Officers shot the suspected gunman, who is now hospitalized.

2 dead, [Leon County] sheriff deputy’s son in custody after shooting at Florida State University; multiple victims injured

What we know

  • Two people are dead and a sheriff deputy’s son is in custody after an active shooter was reported at Florida State University’s campus in Tallahassee.
  • The suspect is the 20-year-old son of a current sheriff’s deputy who had access to one of her weapons, according to Leon County Sheriff Walt McNeil.
  • At least six people are receiving treatment at Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, a hospital spokesperson confirmed to NBC News.
  • In a recent update, FSU informed students that the threat to the campus has been “neutralized” but the area around the campus is still considered an active crime scene.
  • One FSU student who saw the shooter described him as a “normal college dude” who was wearing an orange T-shirt and khaki shorts. “I was walking and this guy pulls up in an orange Hummer,” the student said. “And he gets out with a rifle and shoots in my direction.”

ATF Targeting Old Men in Rural Missouri

The entire State of Missouri can rest much easier now. The ATF has made the Show-Me State a much safer place. Two rule breakers from small Missouri towns were indicted by a federal grand jury last week. Their crimes? They’re accused of selling guns without a federal license. Their ages? One was 75 and the other was 81 years old.

This, friends, is not a sick joke. The ATF actually publicized the arrests in a press release, which was sent out last week.

“According to an indictment returned this week, Aubrey Foxworthy, 81, of California, Missouri, was charged with dealing firearms in Morgan and Moniteau Counties from approximately June 2, 2023, through September 9, 2024. He did not have a federal firearms license to deal firearms. Foxworthy was also charged with possession of a rifle with a barrel length less than 16 inches and that rifle was not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record,” the press release states. “According to an indictment returned this week, Philip Leroy Rains, 75, of Popular Bluff, Missouri, was charged with dealing firearms in Morgan County from approximately April 1, 2023, through April 4, 2024. He did not have a federal firearms license to deal firearms.”

Each man now faces five years in a federal prison and fines of up to a quarter-million dollars for the no-FFL charges, but Foxworthy faces an additional 10 years in prison and fines of up to $10,000 for whatever the ATF considered an unregistered short-barreled rifle. Nowadays this could be a legal firearm with a brace. Unfortunately, if things go the ATF’s way, Foxworthy could leave federal prison in 2040 at the ripe age of 96.

Foxworthy could lose a lot more than just his freedom. According to his indictment, the ATF also ordered him to turn over all of his guns, and the 81-year-old had a decent collection.

The ATF wants 197 of Foxworthy’s personal firearms, according to a list attached to his indictment. The guns are about what you’d expect a lifelong gun owner to have in his safe. Almost all are American made: Ruger, Colt, Winchester, Savage, Browning, Remington, Marlin, Mossberg, Henry and Smith & Wesson. The ATF also wants Foxworthy’s ammunition, and the list claims he had more than 16,000 rounds.

Because the ATF prepared the list, there are four firearms identified as “machineguns,” but the type, manufacturer and calibers are listed as “unknown.” Also, Foxworthy was not charged with the illegal possession of any machineguns. This makes sense in a sick way, because experience has shown when the ATF can’t identify a firearm, they usually just consider it a machinegun.

The list also shows that Foxworthy owned a dozen Winchester Model 94 rifles. The serial number of one rifle shows it was manufactured before 1896. Depriving the man of that rifle is a sin, especially since it will likely be kept or even resold by some nameless ATF agent.

Calls to Foxworthy’s defense attorney were not returned.

Takeaways

Who hasn’t seen an old man at a flea market with a couple guns for sale either on a folding table or laying on a blanket in the bed of his pickup?

It’s classic Americana, right? There is certainly no crime or criminal intent.

Unfortunately, Joe Biden robbed us of this for a few years. Biden’s “engaged in the business” rule required anyone who made a profit on a single gun sale to obtain a federal firearm license.

“Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store: if you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks,” former Attorney General Merrick B. Garland announced about a year ago.

The press release shows that both arrestees’ alleged law-breaking occurred while Biden was napping at the White House. Besides, it was easier for the ATF. Their agents are much less likely to be shot or scared if they harass a couple old men, rather than going after big-city gangsters armed with full-auto Glocks with Glock switches.

Truth be known, Attorney General Pam Bondi or her staff should examine all of the ATF’s cases made during Biden’s term. Some were much worse than this one.

I certainly hope that whoever is actually in charge of the ATF today will take this into account and drop all charges against Messrs. Foxworthy and Rains.

The ATF has put each of them through enough. I hope that Foxworthy gets to keep his guns, too, especially the pre-1896 Model 94.

To do anything else would be a real crime.

Task Force’s Exclusion of Gun Owner Advocates Means Continuing DOJ Disappointments

How about combining department-wide policy and litigation resources” with counsel from the people most affected by infringements, the gun owners who made this new administration possible? (The United States Department of Justice/Facebook)

“For too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated as a second-class right,” Attorney General Pam Bondi began in an April 8 Memorandum to All Employees. “No more. It is the policy of this Department of Justice to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

It’s a refreshing sentiment considering Justice Department sentiment during the last administration, but it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about where the right to keep and bear arms comes from. As the Supreme Court noted about an earlier decision in the Heller case:

“The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’

As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…’”

It’s not quibbling over words, and it recalls a similar disconnect from the previous administration, when the Trump White House website declared “The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms,” and then ignored a petition to make a simple correction.

That points to the danger in not formally partnering with the gun owners Donald Trump would not have won without. And the Second Amendment Task Force AG Bondi introduces in the memorandum is an invitation to continued dysfunction:

“I will serve as the Chair of the Task Force and the Associate Attorney General will serve as the Vice Chair. The Task Force will be further composed of representatives from my personal staff, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office of the Associate Attorney General, the Office of the Solicitor General. the Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Criminal Division, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and any other components or representatives that I may from time to time designate to assist in the Task Force’s labors.”

Forgetting anyone (scroll to pg. 73)? Because the primary loyalty of all of those people Bondi cites is to the chain of command, and when its priorities conflict with “shall not be infringed,” guess which will win.

I’ve been advocating replacing Joe Biden’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention with an Office of Second Amendment Protection for a while now, arguing:

“Gun rights leaders and legal scholars could be identified and nominated to analyze and prioritize bills, lawsuits, regulations, opportunities, and threats, to advise on judicial and other federal nominees, and to help educate the public. The Office would provide a way for the public to express their concerns and to offer ideas and suggestions, meaning gun owners would have a conduit.”

Such a body could nip misunderstandings and surprises in the bud and put a stop to much of the Second Amendment bipolarity we see being manifested in Justice, where one day they come out with an announcement gun owners cheer, and the next do something that leaves us slapping our foreheads and wondering what the hell is wrong with these people. Such uncertainty breeds mistrust and causes real divisions among gun owners, especially when we see actions being taken that fly in the face of Donald Trump’s campaign promise that “Every single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will be terminated on my very first week back in office, perhaps my first day.”

Aside from the fact that, instead of making that pledge come true, assessment reports, studies, and task forces just kick the can down the road indefinitely (see an instructive video from National Association of Gun Rights on this), such actions leave many wondering how serious and sincere the promises are.

Some recent cases in point:

Continue reading “”

Inside the mind of the politically violent

Starting in 2016, how many of us heard the phrase “bash the fash” or “punch a Nazi” somewhere? I know I heard it or saw it all over the place. Those who espoused such things argued that this kind of thing was acceptable because the threat was so dire. They had every right to resort to violence in the face of what they argued was violence.

Of course, no one actually did anything to hurt them, but it didn’t matter because they’d already rationalized it in their minds.

Most of those who said it were big on talk, short on action. That’s probably for the best, really, because most of those couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

But now, with Trump’s return to the White House, I expected to hear a repeat of those mantras. I really haven’t, all things considered.

Instead, the violence is real, not rhetoric.

And while the firebombings and attempted assassination make the bigger news, even more pedestrian assaults happen, and we’ve got a glimpse inside the mind of one of those attackers.

WSU student Jay Sani said he was attacked by instructor Patrick Mahoney and Gerald Hoff after Mahoney forcibly took his red Trump hat which read “Trump 2024 Take America Back.” The altercation reportedly occurred outside The Coug, a well-known campus bar, and was captured on surveillance cameras.

According to Sani, Mahoney ripped the hat off his head and taunted him by saying “Go get it, b***h,” before repeatedly punching him in the back. Hoff then kicked Sani several times, while Mahoney grabbed him by the chest and slammed him to the ground. Sani said he was left with multiple bruises.

Pullman police located and interviewed Mahoney and Hoff within hours. Both men admitted to the attack.

Mahoney told police that he had seen Sani on campus before and knew he was a “right-wing dude.” He admitted that he grabbed his hat, threw it, and said “Go get it.”

Hoff admitted, “We did grab him and threw him to the ground.”

Despite their admissions, Mahoney claimed he did not hit Sani and said he didn’t believe he had done anything illegal. Police, however, emphasized that the incident involved unwanted physical contact. Mahoney also blamed Sani, telling officers he “got what’s coming to him.”

Sani only came forward now because it looks like Mahoney might be reinstated, even after assaulting a student.

What’s interesting to me, though not surprising, is the argument that Sani “got what’s coming to him” simply because he wore a Trump hat.

Note that nothing we see here that these two said to the police really contradicts anything of relevance. They say they didn’t punch Sani, which isn’t surprising since it’s clear they figure that’s what assault is, but they admit to throwing him on the ground. They admit to taking his hat and throwing it, telling him to go and get it like he’s a dog.

They admitted to everything needed to justify charges, and they did it because they felt completely justified. They even told the police Sani “got what’s coming to him” simply because he was a Trump supporter.

In the mind of the leftist, everything they want to do is righteous, and anyone who opposes it is evil. They believe anything necessary to achieve their goal is good and just, including blatant assault over simply supporting the “wrong” guy for president.

Sani didn’t do anything. There’s no evidence he said anything. Even if it did talk smack, that’s grounds for talking smack in return, not snatching his property and assaulting him.

Now, let’s think about things like the vandalism of Teslas, the attacks against Tesla dealerships, the Trump assassination attempts and plots, the attack on the Pennsylvania Governor’s Mansion, and whatever other insanity is yet to come.

These people all believe what they’re doing is righteous, that they’re the ones in the right, and everyone who opposes them is aligned with the forces of evil. The guy who attacked the governor’s mansion, for example, claimed that he was justified because of what Gov. Josh Shapiro—a Democrat, it should be noted—wanted to do to the Palestinian people.

They have decided that elections only have consequences when they win, and they will be the consequences when they lose. They’re ready to destroy each and every one of us if given half the chance.

Hell, look at Taylor Lorenz fangirling over Luigi Mangione. Yes, I get that there are a lot of people who have absolutely no sympathy for Magione’s alleged victim, but she crossed an insane line, not by just shrugging off a bad person dying, but by celebrating his murderer as if he’s the messiah or something.

As I noted over at Townhall, people like Taylor Lorenz are why I carry a gun. People like Mahoney and Hoff are, too.

Sooner or later, one of these leftist nutjobs is going to go beyond a simple assault and try something else.

They deserve the Kyle Rittenhouse Special, and they deserve it good and hard.