Amid Damning Wire Transfer Revelations, Let’s Review What the Bidens Said About Chinese Money

By now you’re likely aware that Hunter Biden listed his father’s Delaware home as the ‘beneficiary address’ in the process of receiving two wire transfers, totally more than $250,000, from Beijing in 2019.   Fox News Digital published the scoop on Wednesday, writing that “the first wire sent to Hunter Biden, dated July 26, 2019, was for $10,000 from an individual named Ms. Wang Xin. There is a Ms. Wang Xin listed on the website for BHR Partners. It is unclear if the wire came from that Wang Xin. The second wire transfer sent to Hunter Biden, dated August 2, 2019, was for $250,000 from Li Xiang Sheng—also known as Jonathan Li, the CEO of BHR Partners—and Ms. Tan Ling. The committee is trying to identify Ling’s role.”  We’ll return to the role of Mr. Li below.  There’s also this significant detail: “The beneficiary for the wires is listed as Robert Hunter Biden, with the address “1209 Barley Mill Rd.” In Wilmington, Delaware. That address is the main residence for Joe Biden.”

Would this be even more ‘no evidence‘ of Joe Biden being intertwined with his son’s various overseas business dealings?  The White House, having abandoned previous talking points Biden had dishonestly advanced about his knowledge and involvement in this family enrichment scheme, recently shifted to claiming that the elder and younger Bidens were not “in business” together.  I’ve argued that quite a lot of evidence suggests otherwise.  Much has been made about Joe Biden’s false, categorical denials on this front (eg “I have never discussed with my son, or brother, or anyone else, anything having to do with their business, period”) which have blown up in his face.  But there was also this lie, told to the American people from a 2020 presidential debate stage (Biden also used the 2020 debates to broadcast his false ‘Russian disinformation’ spin about his son’s authentic and damning laptop):

Biden flatly denied that Hunter had made money from China, saying that the ‘only’ person who had done so was Donald Trump. In fact, bank records show that Hunter and Jim (Joe’s brother) Biden had made money from China.  Millions of dollars worth, some of which was allegedly ‘held for the Big Guy,’ according to Biden family emails.  Hunter had even drummed up business in China after flying to that country with his father aboard Air Force Two, when Joe Biden was Vice President.  The Washington Post fact-checker eventually slapped a Four Pinocchios rating on Biden’s debate assertion, albeit nearly three years after he made it.

Continue reading “”

Teachers With Guns: District by District, a Push to Arm Educators Is Growing
Seconds matter during a school shooting. A rural superintendent wondered, what if staff members could intervene before police arrived?

An act of mass violence hasn’t yet touched the Benjamin Logan Local School District.

Superintendent John Scheu is thankful for that.

But for years, every time news broke about yet another school shooting, Scheu faced a handful of “what if?” questions.

What if a school in this small, rural district about an hour northwest of Columbus, Ohio—where the closest police outpost is 10 miles away—was the next target of a shooting? What if Benjamin Logan students were the next to have to huddle in closets sending “I love you” texts to friends and family? What if Scheu’s community was the next to have to mourn the loss of beloved students and staff members?

“If it can happen in all of these other places, it could happen here,” he said.

So, Scheu and his district invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in security. They hired school resource officers who are stationed at each of the district’s three schools. Security cameras send live feeds to the local sheriff’s office. Staff are reminded often that exterior doors are not to be propped open or left unlocked for any reason.

There’s a new mental health clinic at one of the schools, staffed with counselors trained to help the district’s roughly 1,600 students and 225 staff members.

District leaders felt confident they’d done all they could to keep outside threats from entering their buildings.

But what if the threat came from someone already inside?

Students and teachers have lockdown drills, and, as has become commonplace in American schools, they know to pull down the shades and lock the classroom doors before hiding quietly from a threat. But, beyond that, there isn’t much they would be able to do but “wait and hope that help would come,” Scheu said.

Except, Scheu asked himself, what if there were staff members trained to intervene? What if a handful of teachers, aides, and others could quickly reach for a firearm if an active shooter were targeting students?

“When you’re talking about putting out an active shooter threat, it’s a matter of seconds, not a matter of minutes,” said Scheu, who has served as superintendent in the district since July 2020. “And it’s a matter of life and death.”

After a year of planning, the district’s first “Armed Response Team” was in place to start the 2023-24 school year, part of a growing trend in Ohio and elsewhere in which schools tap teachers and other employees to act as the first line of armed defense against an active shooter.

Continue reading “”

Whamm, Zwap, Bam! Lawsuits Already Filed Over California’s Newest Gun Control Laws
GOA, GOF join Gun Owners of California in suit challenging California’s brand new anti-concealed carry law

Senate Bill 2 by Senator Anthony Portantino’s (D–Burbank), which is California’sresponse bill to New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, was signed into law Tuesday. SB 2 enacts numerous “sensitive locations” where guns are banned, and changes requirements to obtain a concealed carry license. SB 2 was also sponsored by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, and simply put illegally imposes restrictions on those seeking a California Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit.

Notably, Newsom, Bonta and Portantino know they are imposing restrictions to those applying for CCWs, when virtually no crimes are committed by CCW holders, who are required to pass background checks by County Sheriffs, and take gun safety courses.

Remarkably, CCW permit holders don’t commit mass shootings, they stop them. We’ve never had a comment or even a reaction from Gov. Newsom, AG Bonta or Sen. Portantino on this fact. Instead they obsess on legal gun owners, seeking ways to limit Second Amendment protections.

Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation just announced:

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) teamed up with Gun Owners of California (GOC) to promptly serve California AG Rob Bonta in a lawsuit challenging portions of SB 2, a bill that anti-gun Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Tuesday. This unconstitutional legislation was passed in response to the Bruen decision (which ended the state’s draconian “may-issue” policy), and among other provisions would:

    • Enact highly restrictive “sensitive locations” where concealed carrying would be prohibited, including all private property unless expressly permitted by the owner;
    • Require 16 hours of training;
    • And significantly increase the costs associated with securing a permit.

This suit specifically goes after the “sensitive locations” provision of the law.

So that is strike one.

This is strike two.

Continue reading “”

Will Gov. Newsom ever realize California’s gun laws must follow the Second Amendment?

By The Editorial Board | |
How many times will it take for Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta and others to realize California’s gun laws must follow the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?

On Sept. 22, their attempt to limit rifle and pistol magazines to 10 bullets again was shot down by Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of the U.S. District Court, part of the Ninth Circuit. The ban derived from Proposition 63 in 2016.

The case is Miller v. Bonta. On June 5, 2021 Benitez originally ruled the ban unconstitutional. Sixteen days later a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit stayed the ruling, leaving the law in place. Matters changed after the U.S. Supreme Court strongly affirmed Second Amendment protections in its June 23, 2022 decision, NYSRPA v. Bruen. The top court also ordered the Miller case heard again by Benitez.

In his new Miller case decision, Benitez held, “Based on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, this law is clearly unconstitutional … There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity and the 10-round limit has no historical pedigree and it is arbitrary and capricious. It is extreme.”

He noted there is no federal ban on such magazines. And state bans are not uniform and “arbitrary.”

He cited several cases of self-defense where small magazines were inadequate in fighting off criminals. In Kentucky, an intruder came in blasting at a family. One daughter was killed and the father wounded three times as he returned fire with 11 rounds from one gun and eight from a second, failing to hit the assailant, who later was arrested.

Benitez also noted 81 million Americans own up to 456 million firearms. And that criminals don’t follow gun laws.

Benitez performed a “masterful job at the molecular level” of picking apart “every argument put forth by the state of California” and other states to limit the Second Amendment, Sam Paredes told us; he’s the executive director of Gun Owners of California, which filed an amicus brief in the case.

Bonta, who we endorsed for re-election last year, filed an appeal. He said, “We will continue to fight for our authority to keep Californians safe from weapon enhancements designed to cause mass casualties.” Newsom said, “It’s time to wake up. Unless we enshrine a Right to Safety in the Constitution, we are at the mercy of ideologues like Judge Benitez.”

That was a reference to Newsom’s proposed 28th Amendment that, among other things, would ban so-called “assault weapons,” which really are just cosmetically mean-looking rifles.

Ironically, that’s a tacit admission the restrictions he favors currently are unconstitutional.

Earlier this month Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico tried banning open carry of legal guns. She was rebuffed in court and even by such liberal Democrats as Rep. Ted Lieu of Los Angeles, who reminded her, ““No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.”

Gun rights are here to stay. Newsom and Bonta need to end their assaults on Californians’ right to defend themselves.

Go Team Gun Ban

By Mr. Pink

Don’t worry America, the B-Team is here. Gun violence will soon be gone like affordable gas thanks to President Biden’s formation of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Although the official White House press release announcing the new federal office doesn’t say how it will accomplish its goals, it lists them. They include:

“Banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines; Requiring safe storage of firearms; Requiring background checks for all gun sales; Eliminating gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability.”

We are not sure how suing gun manufacturers for the illegal acts committed by criminals with guns will result in anything but the total annihilation of the firearm industry via the courts (gun manufacturers are already liable if they sell defective products) but we suspect that’s the Office’s intention.

We also don’t understand how banning assault weapons and requiring background checks will cause south side thugs to surrender their stolen heaters just because the Office says so, but hey, gangbangers are often misunderstood.

The taxpayer-funded OGVP consists of a cadre of D.C. experts—the Ban Team—whose favorite play is the ol’ “End-Around Power Gun Grab on Two” that, if nothing else, usually results in a few less self-defense options for the good guys. It’s headed by Vice President Kamala Harris who’s fresh off her bang-up job as Immigration Czar, a position that forever dubbed her “The Bill Belichick of Border Security.” After such thorough work in preventing illegals from entering the country, keeping gats out of hands is sure to be a cinch.

On a serious note, it seems to us that if the OGVP were really committed to gun safety and reducing violent crime, it would join with professional organizations who actually teach kids about the dangers of guns, train adults in their proper usage for self-defense, and prosecute criminals who use guns in crime. But nope, gun safety is not what this crack squad of Second Amendment snipers is all about. We can prove it.

If it were about decreasing deaths, they’d go after inner city gangs that are the No. 1 producers of gun crime. It might go after handguns that account for the vast majority of all gun deaths—most of which occur in about a dozen of America’s most impoverished cities—but that would be viewed as racist by their constituents and bad for business.

The OGVP’s agenda, as it admits, is to take your AR-15. Just don’t be surprised when, after AR-15s are banned, it comes for the next gun on their list. Groups like this always work incrementally by taking one right at a time, as long as it “saves just one child’s life.” But over time Americans will wake up to a Second Amendment that’s been whittled down to nothing but a few anemic words on a piece of paper.

We’ve got the First Amendment for words; we must have a fully intact Second Amendment to protect all the rest.

Police investigate stabbing in South Tulsa as self-defense

TULSA, Okla. — Police say they’re investigating a stabbing that took place Wednesday night in south Tulsa as self-defense.

According to the Tulsa Police Department, a man was hitting a home near 63rd and Peoria with a stick and looking into the window.

Police said the teen then went out to investigate and the suspect hit him with a stick.

According to police, the teen defended himself with a kitchen knife and stabbed the suspect multiple times, including in the chest.

Police said the suspect was later taken to the hospital and is now in critical but stable condition.


September 28

48 BC – Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus -Pompey- is assassinated by order of King Ptolemy XIII upon arriving in Egypt.

1066 – William, Duke of Normandy, and in the  lands in Pevensey Bay, Sussex, on the south coast of England, beginning the Norman conquest.

1238 – King James I of Aragon retakes Valencia from the Moors during the Reconquista.

1542 – Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo of Portugal, the first European in California, arrives at what is now San Diego.

1779 – Samuel Huntington is elected President of the Continental Congress, succeeding John Jay.

1781 – American and French forces begin the siege of Yorktown, the last major land battle of the Revolution.

1871 – The Brazilian Parliament passes a law that frees all children thereafter born to slaves, and all government owned slaves.

1889 – The General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM), meeting in Paris, defines the length of a meter

1892 – The first night game for American football takes place in a contest between Wyoming Seminary and Mansfield State Normal in Mansfield, Pennsylvania.

1912 – U.S. Army Corporal Frank S. Scott becomes the first enlisted man, the pilot, Lt. Lewis Rockwell being the fourth officer, to die in an airplane crash as a passenger aboard a Wright Model B Biplane

1928 – Alexander Fleming notices a bacteria-killing mold growing in his laboratory, discovering what later becomes known as penicillin.

1939 – Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union agree on a division of Poland as the siege of Warsaw comes to an end.

1941 – Ted Williams achieves a .406 batting average for the season, and becomes the last major league baseball player to bat .400 or better.

1951 – CBS makes the first color televisions available for sale to the general public.

1991 – The Strategic Air Command stands down from alert all ICBMs scheduled for deactivation under treaty, as well as its strategic bomber force.

1995 – Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat sign the Interim Agreement (Oslo 2) on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

2008 – Space X’ Falcon 1 becomes the first privately developed liquid fueled, ground launched vehicle to put a payload into orbit.

Abolish Gun-Free Zones

We need to get rid of gun-free zones. Yes, this particular issue has been quite contentious over the past few years, especially amid a rash of active shooter situations. But despite what proponents of gun-free zones will tell you, the numbers are in, and they show that prohibiting guns in certain areas is about as effective at protecting people as putting out a California wildfire with an eyedropper.

Data coming from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) have highlighted stark discrepancies in how the FBI reports incidents involving active shooters. The report, compiled by John Lott, CPRC’s president, shows that allowing responsible people to carry firearms in more places does far more to keep them safe than keeping them from being armed in these areas.

wrote about Lott’s report previously:

In a conversation with the Washington Times, Lott pointed out that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has downplayed the percentage of shootings that end with a “good guy with a gun” using their firearm to save lives. The FBI has long held that only 4.4 percent of active shooting incidents are stopped by civilians using guns. However, Lott suggested the percentage is much higher: 34.4 percent.

The report delved further into how the FBI’s numbers have skewed the data:
The report also notes that in 2021, “the FBI listed 61 active-shooter incidents, with perhaps four that were stopped by armed citizens.” But Lott says he found 112 incidents, 55 of which were ended by an armed citizen using a firearm.

From 2014 to 2021, the FBI counted 252 active-shooter incidents and says 11 were ended by an armed citizen, which is where they get the 4.4 percent figure. On the other hand, Lott’s research counted 360 incidents, 124 of which were stopped by an armed citizen, which amounts to 34.4 percent.

“In 2021, the data he has the most confidence in, he says it was 49.1% of the time,” according to the Washington Times. “And looking only at incidents in places where carrying weapons isn’t heavily restricted, the rate is closer to 60%.”

So, there is a lot in that last paragraph, isn’t there? For starters, the FBI is clearly downplaying the number of incidents in which an armed civilian uses their firearm to stop active and mass shootings. This is similar to how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)  removed data displaying the frequency of defensive gun uses at the behest of anti-gunner groups. The government is deeply invested in making sure the public never finds out that gun owners are far more likely to use their guns to defend life and property than they are to victimize other people.

But the data related to the number of active shootings that are stopped by armed civilians is just as noteworthy, especially considering the fact that this is more likely to happen in places where guns are allowed than in gun-free zones. In fact, about 94 percent of active shootings occur in gun-free zones. Go figure.

In light of this, why the hell would anyone advocate for gun-free zones? Not only does the data show that they do not protect people, but common sense will also tell you that having decent people who are armed makes it less likely that an active shooter might be able to massacre a crowd of people. After all, when was the last time a sign saying “gun-free zone” stopped a violent criminal from carrying their firearm in a particular area? The very idea that this will help keep people safe is absurd.

The data shows the wisdom of allowing armed civilians to play a more active role in public safety. Indeed, the police are typically unable to show up in time to save lives when a mass shooting starts. All too often, they arrive too late to save lives. Yet, the people already on the scene are the best equipped to save lives if they are armed. Therefore, it clearly makes no sense to uphold gun-free zones. If we really want to protect life, we have to let responsible Americans carry firearms in as many places as possible.

‘Tent Cities’ out in the field? Sounds like how we lived during FTX (Field Training eXercises) in the Army. (and it’s strange that so many of these loner illegals are what we called ‘Military Age Males’.)

Are National Parks the Next Destination for Illegal Immigrant Tent Cities?

As the endless illegal immigration crisis continues with upwards of 11,000 people crossing into the United States each day, Democrats are proposing National Parks as places to build tent cities and “temporary” housing for individuals breaking the law.

The plans were detailed during a House Natural Resources Committee hearing Wednesday.

During an interview with Fox News, Republican Congressman Michael Waltz pointed out the Biden administration’s policy discrepencies when it comes to how public lands can be used.

Meanwhile, a bipartisan lawsuit has been filed to prevent housing of illegal immigrants in New York parks and recreational areas.

“Today Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11) announced she’s joined Councilwoman Joann Ariola (R-Queens), Assemblywoman Jaime Williams (D-Brooklyn) and a bipartisan group of elected officials in filing a lawsuit to block New York City from using Brooklyn’s Floyd Bennett Field or any other park that’s part of the Gateway National Recreation Area (which includes all of Staten Island’s federal parks) to house migrants,” Malliotakis’ office released in a statement. “The lawsuit was filed in Staten Island Supreme Court along with eleven other members of the City Council and State Assembly and 24 Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island residents.”

Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it. The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.
– of all people – Woodrow Wilson

CRPA, SAF, GOA and Others Jointly File Federal Lawsuit Challenging California’s Carry Restriction Law.

Multiple gun owner’s rights advocacy groups and individuals have joined together and filed a Second Amendment challenge to Senate Bill (SB2) in the United States District Court. The lawsuit is known as May v. Bonta and you can see the filings so far here. We are already in contact with the state’s lawyers, are working out a briefing schedule, and have a tentative hearing date on a motion for preliminary injunction on December 4, 2023.

SB2 designates much of the state as a “sensitive place” and thereby eliminates those places where law-abiding gun owners who have qualified for and been issued a permit to carry a firearm by law enforcement can carry their approved firearms. So, SB2 effectively makes a permit useless. SB2 also makes it much more time-consuming and costly to obtain a concealed carry permit.

SB2 is a vindictive legislative response designed to get around the Supreme Court’s historic Bruen decision from 2022. Bruen held that a permit to carry a firearm in public to defend yourself and your family is a right, not a privilege. As a result, California and other states that previously limited access to these permits had to start issuing them, and the number of permit holders in California has greatly increased.

The Bruen decision also clarifies that governments cannot limit the usefulness of these permits by over-designating places as “sensitive,” where carrying a firearm, even with a permit, would be prohibited. Governor Newsom and the anti-gun-owner legislators who voted for this law are trying to do exactly that. They know this bill will only affect lawful gun owners because they are the only ones who pass the qualification process to get a permit.

SB2 does nothing to stop gun violence by criminals. And in fact, data from several states demonstrates that Americans with concealed carry permits commit crimes at extraordinarily low rates, as the lawsuit explains. Recently, a Hawaii district court relied in part on this same data, which was presented to it by some of the same associations now challenging SB2, to conclude that Hawaii’s similar law could be enjoined.

Designating so many places as gun-free zones is a retaliatory tactic coordinated by well-financed national gun control advocacy that is being used in states hostile to gun ownership to make the right to defend yourself in public useless. California follows in the footsteps of Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii.

Federal courts in those other jurisdictions have already enjoined laws like SB2. These rulings include, but are not limited to: Antonyuk v. Hochul, No. 1:22-CV-0986 (GTS/CFH), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201944 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2022); Koons v. Platkin, No. CV 22-7463 (RMB/AMD), 2023 WL 3478604 (D.N.J. May 16, 2023); and Wolford v. Lopez, No. CV 23-00265 LEK-WRP, 2023 WL 5043805, at *1 (D. Haw. Aug. 8, 2023).

It is an open secret in the hallways of the Capital that Newsom hopes to pass so many gun control laws that Second Amendment advocacy groups cannot keep up. But those groups have responded by forming an unprecedented strategic partnership and coordinating their efforts to fight back.

We now have a strong coalition of gun rights groups fighting against these laws. And when we win, the state will be forced to pay our legal bill.

Pro-Second Amendment groups joining in a lawsuit against Newsom and SB2 are well known in the state, and many have been fighting against unconstitutional gun bans for decades. The coalition includes the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation.

Each organization brings resources, members, donors, and expertise to this challenge. Newsom has unlimited tax dollars to battle for his unconstitutional laws in court and thinks that he can bankrupt us. But we have millions of gun owners who donate to support these challenges. When our elected officials refuse to uphold the law of the land and our Constitution, we are proud to hold that line for the people of California.”

The crown jewel of Newsom’s anti-Second Amendment campaign is his ploy to get a 28th Amendment passed that would gut the Second Amendment, including a ban on semi-automatic firearms. But 38 states would have to agree to that amendment, and 24 states have already filed amicus briefs in courts that urged those courts to strike down laws banning semi-automatic firearms commonly possessed by tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners. So, his constitutional amendment gambit, which insiders already recognize is a ploy to raise money and give him a platform to run his shadow campaign for president, is dead on arrival.

Yes, they’re coming for our guns. No, they can’t have them without a fight.

Academic says quiet part out loud on gun control

Anyone who engages in discussions on gun control has undoubtedly been told that no one is coming for our guns; that all anyone wants to do is to keep firearms from falling into the wrong hands. All those regulations they’re proposing? Those are just for criminals.

Now, we all know this is BS. Things like assault weapon bans, for example, result in taking people’s guns sooner or later. Just because that’s not what they’re saying no doesn’t mean that’s not where we’re eventually going to head.

Enter a discussion about President Joe Biden’s new Office of Gun Violence Prevention over at China Daily.

Yes, it’s China talking about US gun policy–a subject I think I’ve been pretty clear about my feelings on–but in there, we find someone who may have just said the part gun control fans are supposed to keep quiet.

Jeffrey Fagan, an expert on policing, crime and gun control and Professor of Law at Columbia Law School in New York, said: “Every little bit helps, including research, to slow the epidemic of gun violence. However, unless there are strong measures to reduce the supply of firearms, and also the legality of firearms, this will have little effect on the unacceptably high rates of both lethal and nonlethal firearm violence.”

(Emphasis added)

Now, let’s take a look at that bolded section for a moment. We’re going to take that in order–don’t worry, we’ll get to the “legality” thing in a moment.

Reduce the supply of firearms

There are an estimated 400 million firearms in private hands in the United States. The Second Amendment also protects our right to keep and bear arms.

Yet Fagan here has argued that we need to reduce the supply of firearms. Not the supply of black market guns or guns in criminal hands, but guns in general. That despite ample evidence that it’s those guns in particular that represent a problem with regard to violent crime.

As such, that means reducing guns for law-abiding citizens to some degree or another.

The easy thought is to assume Fagan simply means restricting the purchase of firearms in general in some manner, such as gun rationing or some similar policy.

The problem there is that with 400 million firearms already in circulation and the fact that firearms are generally durable, meaning they don’t necessarily wear out or anything if properly maintained, that number isn’t going to decrease on its own. Every gun purchase adds to the availability of firearms.

That means that, at some point, you’re going to have to remove firearms from circulation as a whole. The only way that can happen is via gun confiscation.

You can’t just make guns vanish otherwise. You can’t reduce the availability of guns without that.

Reducing the legality of firearms

Fagan makes reference to the legality of firearms, suggesting he wants to make them less legal to own in some manner. This likely includes things like assault weapon bans and other restrictions, particularly those lacking some kind of grandfather clause that would allow those who already have such weapons to keep them.

Again, that whole gun confiscation thing.

But we need to remember that the legality of firearms is preserved via the Second Amendment. You can’t just wish that away no matter how much you want to. So long as the Second Amendment stands, you’re not going to be able to really do much of anything about the legality of guns no matter how much you favor gun control.

This is one problem gun control is always going to have.

What’s more, following the Bruen decision, it’s clear that one will be hard-pressed to find gun control regulations existing at the time of the Second Amendment that would be an analog for any restriction you could pass today that would restrict the legality of guns in general.

Now, one can imagine gun control advocates dismissing Fagan’s comments as just the words of a single academic, that they’re not reflected in the gun control community as a whole. I disagree, especially since we saw Gabby Giffords, founder of one of the biggest anti-gun groups out there, argue for “no more guns.”

I’m sorry, but I can’t buy that this is just a fringe opinion.

Yes, they’re coming for our guns.

No, they can’t have them without a fight.