Let me reiterate:

Bondi Beach Shows Why Self-Defense Is a Vital Right
Individuals and communities must take responsibility for their own safety.

At Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, a father-son team of ISIS-inspired terrorists murdered attendees at a celebration of the first day of Hanukkah. One of the attackers was disarmed by a heroic civilian who was shot in the process, while others lost their lives trying to help.

Contrasting Responses to Threats

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responded to the shooting with promises to further tighten gun laws in the already restrictive country—a measure more likely to disarm potential victims than to inconvenience those planning a homicidal attack. In the U.S., by contrast, Jews stepped up security by themselves and alongside police. At the request of my wife’s rabbi, I recruited a friend who served as a Force Recon Marine. We strapped on armor and pistols to patrol the crowd at the menorah lighting in Sedona, Arizona. Members of the congregation carried concealed weapons of their own.

Nothing happened, but we were there to deter problems and respond if necessary. There’s a big difference between doubling down on failed state policies and taking responsibility for your own safety.

According to Prime Minister Albanese’s office, after the attack, “leaders agreed that strong, decisive and focused action was needed on gun law reform as an immediate action” and promised “to strengthen gun laws” with further restrictions. Of course, that’s what Australia did in 1996 after the Port Arthur mass shooting. The government banned a variety of firearms, with compensation for their surrender. Compliance was limited and the effort spawned a significant black market for guns.

But Australia’s millions of guns didn’t kill 15 people at Bondi Beach. Two men with known Islamist ties who traveled last month to the Philippines for training at terrorist summer camp committed the murders. They chose guns as their tools, but they could just as easily have used explosives, vehicles, incendiaries, or something else to cause mayhem.

“The issue is not gun laws. It’s hatred of Jews,” Rabbi Daniel Greyber of Durham, North Carolina commented after the Bondi Beach attack.

A Government That Can’t Be Trusted

And there’s little reason Australian Jews should trust the Australian government.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
No, permitless carry has increased.

Has Concealed Carry Fallen?

In its annual report on concealed carry, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) determined that 20.88 million Americans now have concealed-carry permits—this is a 2.7% drop from 2024.

The number of citizens with concealed-carry permits in the U.S. peaked in 2022 and has now declined for the third year in a row. Today, roughly 8% of U.S. adults hold permits. But has the number of people who choose to legally carry concealed really dropped?

The straightforward answer is no. The number of people with permits actually rose in the 21 non-constitutional carry states, but they fell by a slightly larger percentage in the 29 constitutional carry states.

“Even so, our data show that the total number of people legally carrying firearms has increased, driven by the expansion of constitutional carry,” says John Lott, president and founder of the CPRC.

The central reason for this decrease is the widespread adoption of constitutional carry laws. As this was being written, citizens in a total of 29 states now enjoy some type of constitutional carry. Indeed, “46.8% of Americans (157.6 million) now live in constitutional carry states, with 67.7% of the land in the country (2.57 million square miles),” reports the CPRC.

Although no additional states enacted such laws in 2025, the impact of more state governments getting out of the way of citizens’ constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms has continued. Many people in constitutional carry states still go through the trouble to get permits, as this enables them to travel with their self-defense firearm to states that don’t have constitutional carry but do recognize their state’s permit.

The trouble for researchers like Lott, however, is that unlike gun ownership surveys that may be affected by people’s unwillingness to answer personal questions, concealed handgun permit data is the only really “hard data” on the number of people who carry we have available; in fact, this data becomes less accurate as more states become constitutional carry. But then, that is in step with the true nature of freedom—law-abiding citizens shouldn’t need to apply to the government for their rights.

So, though the number of permit holders from 2024 to 2025 fell by 0.59 million to 20.88 million, the number of people carrying is thought to be rising. Interestingly, outside of the restrictive states of California and New York, about 9.3% of adults have a permit; whereas the inclusion of these two states brings the number down to about 8%.

Well, all they really know is grandstanding Kabuki theater, so what should we expect?

Democrats’ performative anger on guns offers no real solutions

Even while law enforcement officers hunted for the gunman who murdered two students and wounded nine others at Brown University in Rhode Island last week, gun restrictionists unleashed their typical unhinged rhetoric. Take the reliably partisan Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): He blamed President Donald Trump for engaging in a “dizzying campaign to increase violence in this country.”

The anger is performative and cynical.

After all, Rhode Island already features every gun regulation Democrats propose we pass nationally. Like everywhere else in the country, all gun purchases go through an FBI background check in Rhode Island. The state has closed the so-called “gun-show loophole.” There’s a waiting period to obtain a gun. Felons are banned from owning firearms. Rhode Islanders must take safety training to obtain “blue permits” to own handguns even in their own homes. “Assault weapons,” the concocted classification Democrats have given scary-looking semiautomatic rifles, are banned. There’s also a ban on magazine capacity above 10 rounds. Citizens have a duty to retreat for self-defense rather than a right to stand their ground. Rhode Island has one of the lowest percentages of gun owners in the country.

One of the popular rejoinders from restrictionists when you point out all these laws is to tell you that passing “safety” laws means little if neighboring states have permissive gun regulations. So, for instance, Chicago politicians are perpetually blaming Indiana for crime, even though Indiana has lower crime levels. Well, Rhode Island is surrounded by states with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, Connecticut and Massachusetts. All three states have passed restrictions that go well beyond any bill that could conceivably pass national or, likely, constitutional muster.

Besides all those constraints, guns are also effectively banned in all Rhode Island schools and universities. Brown University is a “gun-free zone.” Or, in other words, staff, professors, and students are expected to cower in fear and wait for police or security to arrive as the murderer walks around with impunity. Parents trust administrators and professors to house, feed, and educate their children, but not to have a concealed carry permit and possibly save students in case of tragedy.

In any event, the idea, often pushed by the Left, that people have unfettered access to guns is a myth. There are somewhere around 40,000 laws restricting guns on the books in the United States. No constitutional right is nearly as regulated. It’s exceptionally likely that the Brown shooter broke a slew of laws before he murdered anyone.

Continue reading “”

Homeowner says intruder shot, killed after entering Las Vegas house

LAS VEGAS (FOX5) — A man is dead after a homeowner told police he intruded into his home before being shot, police said.

According to police, the shooting occurred just before 11 a.m. [Wednesday]in the 5200 block of Greene Lane in south Las Vegas.

Dispatchers received a 911 call from a homeowner who said he had shot an intruder. The homeowner, identified only as a man in his 30s, said the individual, identified as a man in his late 40s. came over uninvited and unannounced, investigators said.

Police said the individual entered the home and a fight ensued before the homeowner shot the alleged intruder. The individual was taken to an area hospital, where he died.

Investigators believe there may have been a prior relationship between the two, although they could not speak to the nature or closeness.

Authorities said the homeowner was claiming elements of self-defense. Police said there is no threat to the public, and the incident is believed to be isolated.

IN REPLY:

@ShamashAran

I’m a black woman who pretends to be a catgirl on the internet. I enjoy sci-fi novels and I fix cars for enjoyment. None of that tells you a damn thing about the usefulness of MY stance of gun control. Just like you being a gun owner, a veteran, or married to a crime victim tells nobody anything about whether a proposed law is constitutional, effective, or even coherent.

Personal biography is not policy analysis. It’s just vibes in a dress uniform. In your case, I’ll bet the medals are on backwards. Gun control is a nice idea. So is banning drugs. So is banning murder. The problem isn’t intention, it’s reality. Laws don’t operate in a vacuum where only good people follow them and bad people politely comply. They operate in the real world, where criminals route around restrictions the way water routes around rocks. Felons and domestic abusers are already prohibited from owning firearms.

The “Charleston loophole” rhetoric pretends this isn’t true, as if violent criminals are currently wandering into gun stores, twirling mustaches, and lawfully purchasing rifles because a stopwatch hit zero. That isn’t how crime works, and it isn’t how criminals acquire guns. (HINT: They steal them, generally)

What these laws ACTUALLY do is expand discretionary denial and delay for people who are already legal, already vetted, and already compliant. They turn a right into a permission slip that expires if the government is slow, incompetent, or simply hostile. If the state can block a right by failing to act, that right no longer exists. It’s a favor. You can believe gun control should work. (Many people do.) The thing is, belief isn’t evidence. Your credentials aren’t arguments. If the policy fails in practice, pointing at your life story doesn’t make it succeed.

SNAP recipient goes viral: “What’s the point of food stamps if it’s just for real food?”

If the Babylon Bee were to write a parody of a food stamp recipient and create this lady out of thin air it would be the most racist, sexist, and offensive thing imaginable.

But this is real life, so don’t be offended:

She said this, out loud, on the news.

This woman is under the impression that the point of food stamps is to buy processed junk food for overweight people, and not to buy real food for people who can’t afford to eat.

She even calls the food she’s allowed to buy now “real food”! She knows she was using it for ultraprocessed junk!

Really, you can’t make it up.

ATF Will Shut Down eForms After Christmas to Retool for Zero Dollar Tax Stamps

As you surely recall, one of the features of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill that’s near and dear to the hearts of gun owners is the elimination of the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barrel rifles and short-barrel shotguns. No longer will you have to fork over a couple of Benjamins for the privilege of buying a can for your AR or pistol caliber carbine. And if you decide an 11-inch barrel suits your need in a rifle better than one that’s 16 inches or more (18+ inches for shotguns), you won’t have to send Uncle Sam any of your hard-earned dollars.

This welcome change will take effect on January 1.

That means, however, some system tweaks are needed for our friends in ATF’s NFA Division. To make the necessary upgrades to handle the law change, they’re going to shut the eForms system down for Form 1 and Form 4 submissions after Christmas to let their geeks get to work.

From ATF . . .

On December 26, the eForms system will be temporarily unavailable while we upgrade the system to permit reduction to tax rates for certain NFA firearms.

    • The ATF eForm 1 and ATF eForm 4 will be made unavailable on the eForms platform with no new electronic submissions available until January 1.
    • All ATF eForm 1 and ATF eForm 4 applications in a DRAFT status will be deleted from the eForms system.

All completed ATF eForm 1 and ATF eForm 4 applications submitted within eForms before December 26 will be processed before January 1.

This is necessary to implement statutory changes contained within the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which reduced the making and transfer tax for certain firearms to $0. Deletion of all DRAFT applications is necessary because of the field and formatting changes required on the new forms, available January 1. This will also allow ATF to add additional functionality to the Form 4, allowing both qualified licensees as well as other transferors to submit Form 4 applications through the eForms system.

If you’ve ever been through a system change or upgrade, you know that the process seldom goes to plan. Let’s hope ATF has its digital ducks in a row. As noted above, any eForm applications in draft status when the system goes down will be zapped, so act accordingly.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

Soros: The Other Billionaire Behind the Anti-Gun Agenda

Everyone knows that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is knee deep in funding just about every anti-gun effort that comes around the bend. The man has it bad for gun rights, and I have no idea why, especially as he’s surrounded by armed bodyguards all the time. He can’t be that anti-gun.

He’s just anti-you having a gun.

But he’s far from the only billionaire funding the anti-gun agenda. Another name is one familiar to anyone who follows the left-leaning money trail on pretty much any issue, and that’s George Soros.

As Frank Miniter notes at America’s 1st Freedom, Soros is a major funder of anti-gun efforts via his Open Society Foundations.

Indeed, the Hungarian-born billionaire’s public persona could have been inspired by Ian Fleming’s villains in his James Bond novels. Soros, who is now 95 years old, could be a combination of Dr. No and Ernst Stavro Blofeld (a character the Austin Powers trilogy parodied so well!). Indeed, Soros’ Open Society Foundations can be SPECTRE level nefarious.

The Washington Free Beacon recently jumped into this topic with a piece titled, “‘Assault on Our Sovereignty’: How George Soros Funds Foreign Government Lawsuits Against American Gun Makers.”

The report details how Soros’ Open Society Foundations helped fund the anti-gun group Global Action on Gun Violence (GAGV), which worked with Mexico to bring a lawsuit against U.S. firearms manufacturers, a case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court—the Court ruled 9-0 that Mexico could not make gun makers pay for criminal actions in Mexico.

“Over the years, Soros has funneled $32 billion to the Open Society Foundations, which in turn bankrolls many leftwing causes throughout the world,” explains NRA-ILA.

Indeed, Soros’ money has been used against Americans’ Second Amendment rights for decades.

“In 2000, Open Society published a widely circulated report entitled, Gun Control in the United States. The publication called for a host of new federal and state gun restrictions … . In the early 2000s, Open Society also gave support to gun control groups such as the Million Mom March, the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, and Women Against Gun Violence. Further, the group funded various dubious lawsuits against the gun industry, including a high-profile case brought by the NAACP.

Now, I’m not saying that Soros is a real-life Bond villain. I’m just saying that I don’t know anything that a real-life Bond villain would do differently.

Especially since people compared Elon Musk to just such a character for working with President Donald Trump, when he hasn’t come close to the level of manipulation of our society that Soros has.

Couple his efforts with Bloomberg’s, and what we’ve clearly got here is the money behind the efforts.

While the anti-gunners love to make a big thing about money playing a role in the gun debate, our money tends to come in the form of private individuals donating what they can to organizations they believe in, while the gun control side is funded by billionaires who wouldn’t know what it’s like to have to defend the lives of themselves and their families. They hire people for that and if you can’t afford to do the same, well, you’re just not important enough to live.

I’m sure some will try to flip the script and make out like my issue is some other characteristic of these two men, but it’s not. I don’t even care that they’re rich. That doesn’t bother me at all.

It’s that they’re trying to destroy this country by taking away the very right our Founding Fathers enshrined in the Bill of Rights to protect all others.

SAF Files Amicus Challenging Lifetime Firearm Ban

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a case challenging the federal lifetime ban on firearm possession as applied to an individual with a decades-old misdemeanor DUI conviction.The case, Williams v. Attorney General of the United States, will be argued before an en banc panel in February. SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Second Amendment Law Center.

“The government’s position defies Bruen and Rahimi by seeking to impose a permanent disarmament on a law-abiding citizen based solely on a nonviolent misdemeanor from 20 years ago, with no evidence of ongoing danger,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows that Founding-era laws addressed the risks of intoxication and firearms through temporary restrictions on those currently impaired, never by stripping gun rights forever from someone who once drank irresponsibly but has since reformed. We urge the Court to reject this overreach and affirm the district court’s ruling.”

If the Third Circuit rules in favor of Mr. Williams, it could have major implications for many others who are disarmed due to similar convictions.

“This case highlights the unconstitutional overreach of federal disarmament laws that ignore historical limits and present-day realities,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF is committed to defending the rights of individuals like Mr. Williams, and we believe this case warrants the Court’s careful consideration.”

For more information visit SAF.org.

“There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw.”
– Ayn Rand