Ghost Guns and the Deeply American Tradition of Gun Privacy.

“Ghost guns” are the modern manifestation of an American tradition of liberty that stretches back to Lexington and Concord.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) and Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) introduced the Untraceable Firearms Act, a bill that targets “ghost guns,” or unregistered firearms without serial numbers.

Also called “kit guns” or “80% guns,” most are built at home from manufacturer-produced gun kits. Improvised weapons, also known as “pipe guns,” are another variation, and they’re constructed using 3D-printed parts or salvaged and repurposed materials.

The proposed law would place strict limitations on the obtainment and manufacture of these guns. For example, it would prohibit building or housing a homemade, 3D-printed firearm, as well as trading a kit gun with a friend. Punishments for an initial violation include fines and up to a year in prison. Subsequent violations can incur up to a five-year sentence.

Continue reading “”

Philadelphia Sued Again for Withholding Gun-Carry Licenses

Philadelphia is facing a new lawsuit in a year-long battle over gun-carry licenses.

A gun-rights group filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania’s largest city in state court on Monday for refusing to issue the licenses to residents. Gun Owners of America (GOA) claims the city is withholding the licenses in violation of state law. And it’s not the first time.

“Last October, Philadelphia wanted residents to wait months just to apply. Now they want residents to wait months to pick up their application,” Andrew Austin, who is representing GOA in the case, told The Reload. “Gun Owners of America sued them last year—forcing them to take applications—and now we have to sue them again so they’ll issue them.”

Despite applying for licenses to carry a gun and being approved for one by the Philadelphia Police Department, five residents claim in the suit the department has refused to actually issue their permits. Instead, they’ve been told they are not allowed to legally carry a gun until they pick up their license during an in-person appointment, and the appointments aren’t available for 100 days or more. They claim withholding the licenses violates a state law requiring the documents to be issued or denied within 45 days of an application being submitted.

“We are merely asking that the city follow the law exactly as written,” Austin said. “But it’s Philadelphia, so I am not at all surprised.”

Miguel Torres, a spokesperson for the Philadelphia Police Department, said the department would not make a statement on the situation “due to civil litigation” and referred The Reload to lawyers representing the city in the case. Lydia Furst, one of the lawyers representing the city, told The Reload “the city does not comment on pending litigation.”

The new chapter in the legal fight comes after a state police report found the number of new gun-carry licenses jumped by 25 percent in Pennsylvania as a whole but actually fell 19 percent in Philadelphia. The city shuttered its application process altogether for most of 2020. It refused to allow residents to submit applications without obtaining an appointment that, at points, wasn’t available for over a year. The city abandoned its onerous application process after losing the first legal battle with GOA and opened up an online application process in December—but not before its policies resulted in the largest drop in the raw number of permits issued by a Pennsylvania locality.

Demand for licenses has soared in the city. Philadelphia issued 7,440 gun carry licenses in 2020. It has already received 29,718 license applications in 2021, according to Austin.

GOA is hoping a judge will intervene in the case to make sure those Philadelphians can quickly move through the process. It has filed for an emergency preliminary injunction in the case. Austin said the group would continue to fight the city in court until it complies with the 45-day limit set out by state law, even if that means more lawsuits in the future.

“The lesson here is clear: Philadelphia must follow Pennsylvania law,” he said. “If they don’t, GOA will see them in court.”

Yeah, that ‘almost’. They’re still basically nonsensical.


Gun Control Group Almost Talks Actual Gun Sense

The phrase “gun sense” is generally nothing more than a euphemism for gun control. It’s a term that’s been corrupted from what it could have meant to be nothing more than a synonym for a term that has less and less popularity with the American public.

However, a gun-control group has decided to step away from talking about infringing on our Second Amendment rights for a moment to talk about something that almost equates to actual gun sense, more or less.

GunSense Vermont, a non-partisan group that works to keep Vermonters safe from gun violence, is looking to change the conversation around gun violence prevention by focusing on safe storage.

At a panel discussion on Thursday, the group focused their conversation on educating gun owners about their responsibility to safely secure guns in their homes to keep them out of the hands of kids, thieves, and anyone looking to cause harm.

Now, this is actually a non-controversial position we should all be able to rally behind.

Of course, the group also says some pretty ridiculous things, such as:

According to GunSense Vermont, a properly stored firearm is one that is unloaded, separate from the ammunition, and locked in a safe.

Meanwhile, one of the honchos (a deputy director) with the group also says that if you’re worried about needing your firearm in a hurry, you should get a quick-access safe.

Which, of course, would require one not to have the weapon “properly” stored.

Then there’s the very real concern of not being able to access the weapon from the quick-access safe because of a loss of fine motor control during a particularly stressful event. Trust me, trying to grab a gun in the middle of the night can be hard enough if it’s in a nightstand drawer. Accessing a combination safe in the mere seconds provided may well be impossible for some.

Yet I don’t want to be too hard on GunSense Vermont.

While they’re a gun control group, they’re actually trying to reach out and talk about non-legislative solutions to firearm-related violence. This shouldn’t be mocked or dismissed, but encouraged. This is something I’m willing to sit down with them and discuss things like this.

You really can’t claim you’re not about banning guns and then not at least try to find non-legislative ways to reduce deaths by firearms. Many of us agree that weapons should be stored safely away from children and thieves. That’s some common ground we can build from. Who knows, maybe we can build from that and find all kinds of other ways to address violent crime without infringing on gun rights.

Either way, this is a good thing.

However, this shouldn’t be taken as me being remotely open to any of their anti-gun proposals. I’m not and I won’t be. See, I think much of our problems with violent crime and other firearm-related deaths can be solved without infringing on the right to keep and bear arms in the least.

My hope is that GunSense Vermont is starting to see things that way as well. I’m not holding my breath, but a guy can dream, can’t he?

Massachusetts Attorney General Sued By Gun Owners Over Unconstitutional Handgun Ban

Three days after securing a historic victory in a post-trial ruling overturning California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit today, challenging Massachusetts’ ban on constitutionally protected, current handguns widely owned and used for lawful uses across the U.S.

The FPC’s complaint alleges the State’s new laws and regulations “effectively operat[e] as a bar to the exercise of the fundamental right to bear protected arms,” which “violate[s] Plaintiffs’ rights, and the rights of those similarly situated, under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.” The complaint further states that “some of Massachusetts’ ‘safety’ requirements, such as the mandated 10-lb. trigger pull… make handguns so outfitted more difficult to operate effectively and thus more difficult to operate safely.”

In other words, Massachusetts is effectively making it next to impossible to purchase legal firearms that the U.S. Constitution and Federal government recognizes as legally ownable weapons.

According to Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations:

The State of Massachusetts and Attorney General Healey unconstitutionally infringe upon the fundamental, individual Second Amendment rights of the People by restricting them from acquiring the common, modern handgun of their choice for self-defense. Massachusetts’ laws do not support public safety and cannot survive any constitutionally appropriate mode of scrutiny. Rather, the State’s laws prevent people from exercising their rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Such clearly unjust, unconstitutional laws cannot be permitted to stand, and we look forward to vindicating the rights of our clients and all law-abiding Bay State residents.

Massachusetts, in addition to requiring gun owners to acquire a Firearms Identification Card or a License to Carry Firearms, forbids the commercial sale of handguns that are not on the state’s Unconstitutional “Approved Handgun Roster” or are barred by Attorney General Maura Healey’s “Handgun Sales Regulations.” As a result, citizens of Massachusetts are unable to purchase a wide range of popular makes and models of constitutionally protected handguns.

Nevada Governor Sued By Gun Owners Over Unconstitutional Ban On Firearm Modifications And Self-Manufactured Firearms

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), just one week after winning a historic victory in a post-trial ruling overturning California’s unconstitutional ban on so-called “assault weapons,” has filed a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Nevada’s unconstitutional statutes enacted in Assembly Bill 286 (AB 286). The bill establishes a new, confiscatory ban on all unserialized, self-manufactured firearms in the state, which FPC argues violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak signed AB 286 into law four days ago. The law “radically expands the State of Nevada’s statutes to unconstitutionally and categorically ban, under pain of severe criminal sanctions, the possession, receipt, manufacturing, and sales” of Non-Firearm Objects (“NFOs”) that the State classifies as “unfinished frames or receivers,” while explicitly banning the possession of both new and previously-owned self-manufactured firearms.

According to the FPC’s complaint, Nevada’s ban is unconstitutional because “the government cannot narrow the channels for exercising the right to keep and bear arms by limiting one’s access to the essential instruments of that right to limited, government-approved manufacturers of firearms and firearm precursor materials.” The complaint further states, “Nevada’s Ban imposes a blanket prohibition against a broad class of protected arms in common use for self-defense and other lawful purposes by ordinary law-abiding citizens like the Plaintiffs.”

Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations, said in a statement:

Nevada’s broad ban on the possession and construction of constitutionally protected firearms and precursor materials violates Nevadans’ Second Amendment rights and unlawfully deprives them of their property, in violation of the Constitution. In order for a law-abiding individual to exercise their Second Amendment rights, they must have the ability to possess firearms, including those they build themselves. As our complaint explains, the right to self-build one’s own arms has been enjoyed, and at times absolutely necessary, since the founding of our country. We will aggressively litigate this action and seek an injunction to prevent this law from depriving individuals of their rights and property.

The FPC has also filed a lawsuit against Massachusetts’ Attorney General alleging their Unconstitutional ban on handguns. The FPC’s complaint alleges the State’s new laws and regulations “effectively operat[e] as a bar to the exercise of the fundamental right to bear protected arms,” which “violate[s] Plaintiffs’ rights, and the rights of those similarly situated, under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.” The complaint further states that “some of Massachusetts’ ‘safety’ requirements, such as the mandated 10-lb. trigger pull… make handguns so outfitted more difficult to operate effectively and thus more difficult to operate safely.”

 

Just to point out the intellectual level of some people who believe they’re making a salient point about a subject that anyone can easily determine they are totally clueless about


Letter: What does any of this have to do with the Second Amendment?
Portsmouth Herald

June 10 – To the Editor:

In the news the past month or so:

A 57-year old retired NYC police officer is shot accidentally by a friend trying to break up a dispute outside a pizza parlor.

A 6-year old boy, a passenger in his mother’s car, is shot in a road rage incident.

Another young boy, retrieving his bike from the sidewalk near his home, is shot by a neighbor.

Several dozen are killed or wounded over a weekend in gang-related shootouts in Chicago.

An 18-year old from Ohio is found carrying an AK-47 in a NYC subway.

A woman in Texas shoots a beauty shop owner in a dispute about the cost of her pedicure.

A 5-year old boy is accidentally shot by his mother who was aiming at a dog.

Eight people are killed in Atlanta, followed by shootings in a supermarket in Colorado, an office building in California, a FedEx office in Indianapolis, a rail yard in San Jose. A total of 39 people.

Somebody….anybody….Please! Can anyone tell me what any of this has to do with the Second Amendment?

Anthony McManus

Dover

Not unexpected.


Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom Announce Appeal of Decision to Overturn California’s Three-Decade-Old Assault Weapons Ban

The Attorney General will also seek a stay of the District Court’s ruling

SAN FRANCISCO – California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom announced today that the state has appealed a recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in Miller v. Bonta that declared California’s assault weapons laws unconstitutional. The Attorney General will also ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stay the district court’s ruling, which would extend the current 30-day stay of the decision and leave the laws in effect throughout the appeal process.

Continue reading “”

It’s not just how, but also when, and if you really can that’s important.


There Is Far More to Concealed Carry Than Just Buying a Handgun
You need the proper training and mindset before you decide to concealed-carry a handgun. Here’s what you need to know

There is a lot more to carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense than snapping a holster on your waistband and walking out the door. It’s a serious commitment that will impact pretty much everything someone does outside their home, from the clothes a person wears and how they wear them, to the way they get into a car and buckle a seatbelt, to the exact mechanics of picking something up off the floor—or at least, it should.

If you conceal carry, that means you carry a gun as much as possible to protect yourself and loved ones. It means having a self-defense mindset and having that defensive firearm at the ready. Today, there are a lot of people in the U.S. who may have the necessary physical tools for self-defense, but not the skills or the mindset, which is far more important than which handgun, caliber, or holster someone chooses.

Continue reading “”

Three weeks until Tennesseans can carry without a permit

NASHVILLE, TN (WSMV) – In three weeks, permit less carry goes into effect in Tennessee.

And is it impacting gun sales? The folks at Royal Range in Nashville say they’re not seeing much of an impact on sales due to the Permitless carry law. But, the gun range store says recently they’ve seen a new trend with women.

“So far not a giant impact,” Bob Allen, the Director of Training at Royal Range said. “We’re kind of steady, maybe just a little bit above right now. And really about the same with ammo,” Allen said.

Gun Owner Jarrett Williams said the Permitless carry law will make him buy more guns but not for obvious reasons.

“Yes it will but only because I know there are going to be more people who maybe shouldn’t have guns,” Williams said. ‘I’m going to possibly need something to defend myself against anybody who is less qualified to have a weapon on them,” he added.

Allen at Royal Range said some people are buying up; basically hoarding lots of ammo because they don’t know what the future holds.

“Ammo prices have gone up substantially, but they’ve dropped a bit,” Allen said. “Thousand rounds of 9mm ammo was about $240 before Covid and during Covid it got to $800 and people were still buying it it has since dropped here at our place to $500 for a thousand rounds. And its kind of hard to get nowadays,” he added.

Allen who oversees training at Royal Range says he has seen one major trend; more women buying guns.

‘We’ve seen a lot of; a substantial increase in ladies coming here to buy guns,” Allen said. “We are seeing that increase quite a bit, whether its women self-defense , first time gun owners,” he added.

Allen adds that even though the law takes effect in July, it doesn’t require in- person or online course anymore. Royal Range is putting a course in place to teach people the law when the permitless carry goes into effect.

“We’re all for a person defending themselves. They need to know the law, because if you don’t know the law, you will get in so much trouble. If I pull it out at the wrong time, that’s called aggravated assault which is felony,” Allen said.

He also adds another trend they’ve noticed recently is more people coming to the gun range looking for training.

Likely voters back right to carry concealed guns, 2-1

In a slap at President Joe Biden’s new effort to impose gun control and tax and regulate one of the nation’s most popular (and concealable) firearms, people overwhelmingly have endorsed expanding the Second Amendment to include carrying concealed weapons.

In a new Zogby Poll provided to Secrets Thursday just minutes before the administration released its rule to target AR-rifle-style pistols, likely voters by a 63%-29% margin endorsed the idea.

consealedcarry060721.png

In his analysis, pollster Jonathan Zogby said that most voters “agreed that the Second Amendment to the Constitution should also encompass the right to carry a concealed gun. A majority of voters supported concealed carry as a part of the Second Amendment in all regions.”

The poll, one of a series he released through Secrets this week, is the first to find support for concealed carry laws to be added to the Second Amendment.

And it comes as the Supreme Court is considering a New York ban on concealed carry and Biden is eyeing new gun control laws, including taxing and registering millions of legally purchased AR-rifle-style pistols.

Concealed carry has become a hot-button issue as some liberal states move to limit the issuance of permits, though a majority do. And in Washington, there are several efforts in the House and the Senate to approve national “reciprocity” for permit-holders to travel between states with their concealed weapons.

The survey is likely to be seized upon by the authors of the legislation.

It also confirmed a trend seen in gun stores of many more buyers, including women, black people, and minorities, getting handguns to protect themselves as crime increases.

SECOND AMENDMENT PRESERVATION ACT TO BECOME LAW SATURDAY, WITH MISSOURI GOVERNOR’S SIGNATURE

Legislation establishing a Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) will be signed into law Saturday afternoon by Missouri’s governor, in the Kansas City suburb of Lee’s Summit. Governor Mike Parson (R) will sign SAPA Saturday at 2 at Frontier Justice.

State Rep. Jered Taylor (R-Nixa) speaks on the Missouri House floor in Jefferson City on May 11, 2021, as Rep. Don Rone (R-Portageville) looks on (file photo courtesy of Tim Bommel at House Communications)

House Bill 85 is sponsored by State Rep. Jered Taylor (R-Nixa) and State Sen. Eric Burlison (R-Battlefield). They say it’s about protecting Missourians and gun rights. Critics like former State Rep. Chris Kelly (D-Columbia) say the bill is unconstitutional.

HB 85 declares that it’s the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. It also declares as invalid all federal laws that infringe on the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

I wouldn’t necessarily call criminal being criminals as a ‘failure’ of gun control. This just confirms that these laws aren’t for controlling guns, but controlling the average law abiding citizen.


Gun Control Failures Don’t Mean You Need More Gun Control

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, then there’s no doubt about how insane gun control really is.

Over and over again, proponents of it continue to take everything as an excuse that more gun control is needed. Study says that gun control reduced crime? Then it’s proof we need more gun control. Study shows gun control doesn’t work? Then clearly the problem is that we need more gun control.

It’s not any better when you have a total failure of gun control happen in real life, either.

A month after Gov. J.B. Pritzker took office in 2019, giving Democrats complete control in Springfield, flaws in Illinois’ gun laws were exposed when a convicted felon whose state firearm owner’s identification card had been revoked opened fire in an Aurora warehouse, killing five co-workers and wounding a sixth along with five police officers.

The case became a rallying point for gun safety advocates, who’ve pushed for mandatory fingerprinting for FOID card applications, universal background checks for gun buyers, and a system that ensures people whose FOID cards are revoked hand over their weapons to authorities.

More than two years later, however, Pritzker and the Democratic-controlled legislature haven’t enacted those policies or any other major gun safety measures, even as they successfully pushed progressive measures that range from legalizing marijuana to abolishing cash bail.

“These are complicated issues,” Pritzker said of gun control last week in an interview with the Chicago Tribune.

“We have Democrats from downstate, from areas where people are deeply concerned about protecting their gun rights,” he said. “And then we’ve got people who live in other parts of the state who believe, as I do, that we need to have a greater focus on gun safety, but it’s a complicated challenge in order to get enough votes put together.”

And all of that ignores the simple fact that while the Aurora shooter was a convicted felon, he went through every hoop the state of Illinois cared to present. He got a FOID. He filled out the ATF’s Form 4473. He didn’t lie about any of his personal information–though he did lie about being a convicted felon, to be clear, but not his name, address, or other such data–and still was able to buy a gun.

Gun control failed at every single level.

That’s kind of like what happens every single day in Chicago. There, despite all the gun control laws on the books in Illinois, criminals are able to obtain firearms easily enough. Meanwhile, citizens trying to obey the law are dealing with a screwed-up system.

At what point do people look at these failures and recognize that doubling down on a failed strategy isn’t going to make anyone’s life any better? The gun control we see day in and day out in Illinois doesn’t work, and yet people are asking why isn’t there more of the very thing that has been amply illustrated to not accomplish a blasted thing.

Honestly, it makes no sense to me. It just doesn’t.

What a strategy fails to work, a reasonable person would try something new. In Illinois and far too many other states, they’re enamored with the idea of gun control that they can’t admit that it just isn’t working.

These states are like that friend in a toxic relationship who is convinced that they just need to do one more thing to make the relationship work. We all know how those kinds of things work out, don’t we?

Illinois isn’t likely to turn out the least bit better, either.

 

 

Second Ruling Against California’s ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Offers Supreme Court A Chance To Fix Heller
This could give the Supreme Court the opportunity to correct its errors in District of Columbia v. Heller, which otherwise could be the basis for effectively nullifying the right to keep and bear arms.

Last week, in Miller v. Bonta, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez struck down California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” such as the ubiquitous AR-15, as a violation of the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for the militia purposes of defense against tyranny, insurrection, and invasion, as well as for self-defense against the more common variety of criminals.

Understanding that the Second Amendment was not adopted to protect hobbies and recreation, Judge Benitez implicitly rejected the notion, suggested by some, that AR-15s — semi-automatic variants of the automatic M16s used by the armed forces — are merely “modern sporting rifles,” instead concluding:

[T]he popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle … Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional. …

The Second Amendment protects any law-abiding citizen’s right … to be armed to defend himself, his family, and his home. At the same time, the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms to use should the militia be needed to fight against invaders, terrorists, and tyrants. …

The evidence is clear … that the AR-15 … bears a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency, as well as the effectiveness, of a modern well-regulated militia. It is therefore categorically protected by the Second Amendment. …

[T]he evidence overwhelmingly shows that AR-15 platform rifles are ideal for use in both the citizens’ militia and a state-organized militia. Quite apart from its practicality as a peacekeeping arm for home-defense, [it] can also be useful for war. In fact, it is an ideal firearm for militia service … It is therefore categorically protected by the Second Amendment.

Although the Supreme Court pretended otherwise in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), defense against tyranny, not merely against criminals, is the primary reason the keeping and bearing of arms is expressly protected within the Bill of Rights. For example, in “That Every Man Be Armed,” constitutional scholar Stephen P. Halbrook noted:

Ten days after the Bill of Rights was proposed in the House (of Representatives), Tench Coxe published his ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,’ under the pen name ‘A Pennsylvanian,’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette. Probably the most complete exposition of the Bill of Rights to be published during its ratification period, the ‘Remarks’ included the following: ‘As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the [Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.’

The Legal Trail Ahead

Continue reading “”

Letter To The Editor O’ The Day

As civil unrest grows, guns are essential for protection

Missing the mark

To Jimmy Dorrell: Your thesis that Christians (so-called) often use the Bible and twist scripture to justify their own selfish desires is certainly true, but Texas’ constitutional carry law is not an example of this practice [May 30 op-ed]. Actual examples could include the church’s gradual acceptance of homosexuality, defense of abortion or justification of adultery, rampant divorce, cohabitation and fornication. You chose this more politically correct topic as your hard line on Biblical malpractice but I look forward to your subsequent pieces on the rest of the issues listed above. Regardless, your piece was a mischaracterization of the argument, and the events that you cited from scripture were in no way related to the conversation of self-defense or willfully twisting the Bible for our own selfish desires.

First, you take umbrage with the politicians referring to our “God-given right” to self-defense, but this is a straw man. Nobody be is referencing scripture, but rather they’re employing a turn of phrase that has been used for centuries in America. As an example, you have (and freely exercise) your God-given right to free speech, and assuming that you also use this idiom, no one challenges you, asking where it says in the Bible that you can speak freely. This is because no one believes that you’re actually referencing Scripture when you use this phrase, and you don’t believe that these politicians are referencing Scripture, either. It simply affords you an opportunity to discuss the real issue — guns.

Second, you assert that Jesus’ own disciples twisted his words for their misguided desires but then you cite three seemingly random instances that have nothing to do with your premise. When James and John were arguing about who would be greatest, they were simply arguing what they wanted, not twisting anything they had heard from Jesus. Judas betrayed Jesus, but nothing more — he didn’t do so out of some misinterpretation of Jesus’ words. And Peter attacked an officer that was simply trying to arrest his teacher. There was no twisting of words, only Peter acting independently, out of anger and fear. Jesus even rebukes Peter, asking him, “Am I leading a rebellion?” He was not, and neither are your fellow constitutional carry countrymen.

Third, your arguments lack an understanding in the difference between vengeance, which is the Lord’s, and the protection of yourself and others, which is your responsibility as a man of God. A constitutional carry law simply ensures that everyone has the capacity to protect themselves against those that would do them harm.

“For greater love hath no man than this, that he would lay down his life for a friend” — John 15:3.

We need to be prepared to protect those around us, stranger or family, and we need to be willing to die for them. But throwing yourself in front of a bullet doesn’t mean much when there are 30 more behind the one that put you on the floor. You seem to be dismissive of the growing threats in this country, but as our collective conscience wanes and civil unrest grows, violence, whether perpetrated by a lone, mad gunman or a crazed mob, becomes more and more likely. Those of us who enjoy the right to constitutionally carry will peacefully stand by, and on the day when the forces of hell come crashing down, I hope that I’m nearby so that I might have the chance to protect the people that were put in your care.

Jarek Matthew, Waco

The Expansion of Constitutional Carry

Bureaucrats Bureaucraps were never supposed to be in a position to make us ask—even to beg—for our constitutionally protected rights, as they can in jurisdictions with “may-issue” carry permit laws.

Thanks in no small part to lobbying from the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, and to the many NRA members who stand behind the NRA by contacting their representatives, 20 states have now gotten bureaucrats out of the way by passing some type of “constitutional carry” (or “permitless carry”) legislation; in fact, four of these 20 states were added this year—Iowa, Montana, Tennessee and Utah.

Continue reading “”

Antigun Advocacy Group Tries To Rewrite Current History Of Gun Buyers

It’s widely established that law-abiding Americans are buying firearms at record levels. No one disputes it. Gun control groups decry the trend. Supporters of the Second Amendment celebrate it. But during the past 18 months, the fact is a historic number of Americans have taken ownership of their self-defense and that includes millions of first-time buyers who bought a gun.

Leave it to staunch gun control advocate and billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s agitprop bullhorn The Trace to “report” on a new “survey” severely downplaying what’s happening.

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day:
“I could be down for this. Maybe it would keep those afraid of any firearm from moving away from the coasts.”


BLUF:
Virginia is concerned about a “bad” America.
The one to which she refers — one in which houses host guns — was previously known to both Republicans and Democrats as just “America.”

LA Times Writer Wants Gun Ownership Reported on Real Estate Listings, but for the Opposite Reason as You

When you’re considering moving to a new area, what are the pluses that matter most? Low crime? Good schools? Trash pickup?

A writer for The Los Angeles Times has another metric that may be worth consideration.

On Tuesday, opinion columnist Virginia Heffernan took to Twitter with an idea:

“Real-estate listings should include prevalence of gun-ownership in a 50-mile radius…”

She’d also like info on the “number of annual mass shootings in the region.”

“Time to change what a ‘bad neighborhood’ is,” she announced.

What if someone owns a modern sporting rifle, also known as the best-selling hunting rifle in America?

She believes that’d constitute a bad place for children:

“[A]nd introduce a meaningful tax on guns and gun violence. No one should say, ‘This is a great place to raise kids’ about neighborhoods where even one person has an assault rifle.”

Stop all the racializing:

“The metric would be simple. Example: Staten Island (pop 474k) has 4x the gun ownership per capita of the Bronx (pop 1.4m). If that reads as safer or more [free] to some people, Staten Island is for them. If not, maybe time for the Bronx. Take race, class, politics out of the real-estate equation.”

 

There’d definitely be a lot of items to track.

In 2018, Switzerland’s Small Arms Survey reported there were nearly 400,000,000 guns in the United States.

That was, obviously, two years before 2020’s gun-buying surge.

As for “assault rifles,” the AR-15’s certainly been vilified courtesy of impressive, dedicated effort by some on the Left side of the aisle.

Meanwhile, of course, ownership of any firearm doesn’t equal impending murder, and the lightweight modern rifle isn’t employed in most gun crimes.

The vast majority of such are, as you know, committed with handguns.

Continue reading “”