Category: Safety

People arming up to deal with violence…in San Francisco

The city of San Francisco is one of the most anti-gun cities on the planet. If they had their way, guns would be completely and totally outlawed within the city limits.

Actually, they’d be outlawed everywhere, but they can’t really make that call for everyone else.

Luckily, they can’t go that far. However, between the city itself and the state of California, getting a firearm lawfully isn’t easy.

Despite that, a lot of people there are doing what they have to do to protect themselves from violent encounters.

In June, the SOMA RISE Center, a drug sobering facility, opened in northeast San Francisco and attracted dangerous drug-addicted vagabonds to the area, causing residents of the once peaceful neighborhood to walk with weapons such as baseball bats and tasers for self defense.

According to local news, a 31-year-resident of the neighborhood named Ghis said, “More troublemakers settling in, feeling comfortable doing their drugs, pissing and sh*tting in the street blocking the sidewalks,” all because of RISE.

“They’re letting their clients come out here and get high, go inside and get sober and then get high again,” said Mark Sackett, a businessman who said the drug-addicted itinerants have cost him $100,000 in lost business.

It’s so bad, according to ABC 7, “Some even resorted to arming themselves against the belligerent or violent with baseball bats and tasers.”

So no, they’re not arming themselves with guns. At least so far as the reporting goes.

The truth is that anyone who is carrying a firearm in San Francisco isn’t likely to go around telling anyone, especially the media.

But it’s the right to keep and bear arms, not just guns, so if we look at it that way, baseball bats and tasers certainly count. More than that, though, I don’t blame them.

Look, I respect what these drug treatment centers are trying to do. Getting clean and sober shouldn’t just be the domain of the wealthy, after all.

Yet when these same people are doing this kind of mess in the neighborhood, you’ve got a huge problem. If people are scared, they’re going to arm themselves with whatever they think they can get away with. Yes, I honestly do believe that includes guns–even if those guns are being carried illegally.

The people of San Francisco tend to prefer gun control. That’s been obvious in their politics for decades now.

But we also see when they’re the ones facing a threat, they’re going to arm themselves with whatever weapons they have at their disposal.

Unfortunately, handheld stun guns–most likely what they’re carrying instead of actual Tasers–and baseball bats have their serious downsides. It’s only a matter of time before someone gets hurt by one of these homeless people lurking around the streets of San Francisco.

And the kicker is that, knowing the local government there, they’ll blame the stun gun or the bat and not the homeless drug addict strung out and assaulting people.

That would just be par for the course for the city.

Another, more in depth, look at the takedown of the kneejerk New York gun ban.

N.Y. Law Banning Gun Carrying in Churches (Including by People Authorized by the Church) Struck Down

From Hardaway v. Nigrelli, decided yesterday by Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. (N.D.N.Y.):

Eight days after the Supreme Court struck down New York’s unconstitutional “proper cause” requirement for conceal-carry licenses, the State responded with even more restrictive legislation, barring all conceal-carry license holders from vast swaths of the State. The complaint and motion in this case focus solely on one aspect of the new legislation, namely, the portion making it a felony for such a license holder to possess a firearm at “any place of worship or religious observation.”

Ample Supreme Court precedent addressing the individual’s right to keep and bear arms—from Heller and McDonald to its June 2022 decision in Bruen—dictates that New York’s new place of worship restriction is equally unconstitutional. In Bruen, the Court made the Second Amendment test crystal clear: regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations. As set forth below, New York fails that test. The State’s exclusion is, instead, inconsistent with the Nation’s historical traditions, impermissibly infringing on the right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense….

Reverend Dr. Jimmie Hardaway, Jr. and Bishop Larry A. Boyd filed this lawsuit on October 13, 2022, and are joined by institutional plaintiffs, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. (“FPC”), and Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”)…. Hardaway and Boyd, leaders of their respective churches, “wish to exercise their fundamental, individual right to bear arms in public for self-defense by carrying concealed firearms on church property in case of confrontation to both themselves and their congregants.” They allege that, as “leaders of their churches, they would be authorized to carry on church premises to keep the peace, and would do so, but for Defendants’ enforcement of the unconstitutional laws, regulations, policies, practices, and customs at issue in this case.” In particular, they seek to prevent the enforcement of New York’s new law that makes it a felony to carry firearms at all places of worship and religious observation….

 

The State argues that the place of worship exclusion complies with Bruen. The State cites to 1870-1890 enactments by four states (Texas, Georgia, Missouri, and Virginia) and the territories of Arizona and Oklahoma that contained place of worship firearm restrictions. This does not carry the State’s burden, as explained below.

At the outset, as the Supreme Court has made clear, individuals have the right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. New York’s exclusion is valid only if the State “affirmatively prove[s]” that the restriction is part of the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The test is rigorous because the Second Amendment is the very product of an interest balancing, already conducted by “the People,” which “elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms for self-defense.” …

New York’s restriction finds no analog in any recognized “sensitive place.” In Bruen, the Court noted: “[a]lthough the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century ‘sensitive places’ where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions …. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of ‘sensitive places’ to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.” Id. (emphasis in original).

In particular, places of worship or religious observation are unsecured, spiritual places that members of the public frequent as often as daily as part of day-to-day life, and encounter vast numbers of other people there—as they do anywhere in public. In contrast, legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses are civic locations sporadically visited in general, where a bad-intentioned armed person could disrupt key functions of democracy. Legislative assemblies and courthouses, further, are typically secured locations, where uniform lack of firearms is generally a condition of entry. The State’s argument that places of worship are analogous because the exclusion supposedly also minimizes the chance of violence between those with opposing views is undeveloped and, in any event, belies the non-confrontational purpose drawing people to houses of worship in the first place. The argument would apply nearly everywhere in public. The places of worship and religious observation exclusion thus finds no analogy in Bruen‘s recognized sensitive places.

Nor is there an American tradition supporting the challenged law here. As in Bruen—where, “apart from a handful of late-19th-century jurisdictions, the historical record compiled by [the State] does not demonstrate a tradition of broadly prohibiting the public carry of commonly used firearms for self-defense”—the State does not demonstrate a tradition of broadly prohibiting the public carry of commonly used firearms for self-defense at all places of worship or religious observation across the state.

Nevertheless, the State relies on a few laws from the late-1800s to insist that a relevant tradition exists. Bruen anticipates this argument. Rejecting the relevance of an outlier analogous law and state-court decisions, the Court stated that it would “not give disproportionate weight to a single state statute and a pair of state-court decisions. As in Heller, we will not ‘stake our interpretation of the Second Amendment upon a single law, in effect in a single [State], that contradicts the overwhelming weight of other evidence regarding the right to keep and bear arms for defense’ in public.” …

Here, the State cites to a handful of enactments in an attempt to meet its “burden” to demonstrate a tradition of accepted prohibitions of firearms in places of worship or religious observation. The notion of a “tradition” is the opposite of one-offs, outliers, or novel enactments. Rather, “tradition” requires “continuity.”

These enactments are of unknown duration, and the State has not met is burden to show endurance over time. As a result, the Court is left with a handful of seemingly spasmodic enactments involving a small minority of jurisdictions governing a small minority of population. And they were passed nearly a century after the Second Amendment’s ratification in 1791. These outlier enactments also contrast with colonial-era enactments that, in fact, mandated such carry at places of worship. These enactments are far too remote, far too anachronistic, and very much outliers—insufficient, then, in the search for an American tradition….

For instances of effective defensive gun uses in church shootings, see the Colorado Springs New Life Church shooting and the Antioch (Tenn.) Burnette Chapel Church of Christ shooting, though of course these are just anecdotal illustrations.

Congratulations to Nicolas J. Rotsko (Phillips Lytle LLP), and David H. Thompson, John W. Tienken, and Peter A. Patterson (Cooper & Kirk, PLLC), who represent the plaintiffs. Note that one of the plaintiffs is the Firearms Policy Coalition; I have consulted for the FPC, but I haven’t been involved in this case.

Taking Back the Narrative Around Responsible Gun Ownership

It’s no secret that some in the national media, anti-gun politicians at both the state and federal level and anti-gun special interests groups, are working hard to diminish the importance of responsible gun ownership.  As the crime crisis continues to bombard communities and the midterm elections quickly approach, anti-gun proponents are doubling down on soft-on-crime policies and firearm bans in efforts to point the finger at those legally acting on their Second Amendment rights rather than admitting the negative impact these policies have on public safety.

This unsubstantiated blame game on law-abiding gun owners commonly occurs after tragedies involving firearms, putting guns at the forefront of the issue versus other contributing factors like mental health, loopholes in the criminal justice system or the evildoers themselves.  However, we’re also seeing an effort to cover up the millions of cases of defensive gun use that take place across the nation each year.  Take, for example, the story of how a good guy with a gun took down an active shooter at a mall in Greenwood, Indiana; preventing what could have been a mass casualty event.  It received a fraction of the national media attention that would have occurred if the perpetrator had been successful in killing more innocent people.

According to a new report by Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), even the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been underreporting the number of times legally armed citizens have thwarted an active-shooter situation over the last eight years.

Ultimately, the anti-gun movement wants to demonize all responsible gun owners in order to advance their own political agenda.

That is why the U.S. Concealed Carry Association For Saving Lives Super Pac (USCCA-FSL) is standing up for law-abiding gun owners who use firearms each day to prevent crimes and protect their families.  Most recently, the USCCA-FSL launched a national ad campaign in a number of key congressional races across the country that highlights the story of everyday gun owners in America and outlines why record numbers of Americans are choosing to be their family’s first line of defense.

The ad features Jennifer M., a mother of four and domestic violence survivor, who said that she chose firearm ownership and training to “feel safe in my home and to protect myself and my children.”  Jennifer’s message doesn’t just resonate with gun owners of all backgrounds but with everyday Americans who are thinking of buying a gun amidst rising crime and anti-gun measures at the state and federal level, but haven’t taken that next step yet.  And these stories are starting to gain momentum.

According to a report by Fox News, there have been at least a dozen cases over the last two months where an armed civilian prevented an attack by utilizing their firearm education and knowledge.  For instance, one store owner who defended himself and his store during an armed robbery said, “I took care of it and that was that.”  One woman in North Carolina said she and her husband are working on getting their concealed carry permits because their neighborhood has “gotten to the point where at night, I just don’t feel quite as safe as I used to,” as reported by WSOC-TV.

The USCCA-FSL has also received stories from everyday Americans who have shared why the Second Amendment is important to them.  Jimmie C. told USCCA-FSL “After numerous mass murders in public places, I purchased a handgun to protect my wife, myself, and others where we might be eating, worshipping, shopping, or at some other public event. The Second Amendment gives me that right.”

Whether it’s a mother protecting her family from an abuser or a would-be carjacking victim who had the firearm education and training to thwart an attack at the gas pump, responsible gun ownership is saving lives everyday and is used anywhere from 500,000 to three million times a year.

At the end of the day, anti-gun policies do very little to actually address crime because they ignore the fact that criminals, by definition, do not follow the law.  The USCCA-FSL is not going to sit quietly by while law-abiding gun owners are used as political pawns in the gun-control game.  We hope that through our efforts, including this ad campaign, we take back the narrative of responsible gun ownership from the hands of politicians who only want what is best for their own self-interests.  It’s not just about the election this November, but the years to come, and we’ll keep fighting for the protection of our God-given right to self-defense.

Mike Lowney is the chief strategy officer at Delta Defense and executive director and chairman of the Board for U.S Concealed Carry Association for Saving Lives Super PAC.

FPC VICTORY: Federal Judge Blocks New York’s “Places of Worship” Handgun Carry Ban

BUFFALO, NY (October 20, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States District Judge John Sinatra, Jr. has issued a temporary restraining order against New York’s ban on guns in “any place of worship or religious observation.” The order in Hardaway v. Bruen, which is effective immediately, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The Constitution requires that individuals be permitted to use handguns for the core lawful purpose of self-defense,” wrote Judge Sinatra in his opinion. “And it protects that right outside the home and in public. Nothing in the Nation’s history or traditions presumptively closes the door on that right across every place of worship or religious observation. As in Bruen, where the Court stated that, ‘[n]othing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms,’ nothing there casts outside of its protection places of worship or religious observation. New York’s exclusion violates ‘the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.’ It, too, is one of the policy choices taken ‘off the table’ by the Second Amendment.”

“Today another court blocked an unconstitutional gun law, this time the ‘places of worship’ carry ban New York imposed as punishment for the Bruen decision,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today, the Court recognized what we have long argued: That no one should be forced to forgo one constitutional right in order to exercise another.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation.

Anti-Gun Junk ‘Science’ Misleads Ignorant with Deceptive Fallacies

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Firearm sales in the United States broke records at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic,” U.S News & World Report notes. “Now, researchers have found that firearm injuries to children also increased during the pandemic’s first two years compared to the preceding year.”

A reasonable conclusion would be that the two occurrences are somehow related. The way this is presented implies that increased gun sales have resulted in more children suffering firearms injuries, or in the parlance of the citizen disarmament lobby, hurt BY guns. Right?

Wrong, of course.

The obvious logical fallacy is that correlation equals causation. It does not. An extreme example to illustrate why is the nonexistent ice cream/rape “connection,” claiming both sales and sexual assaults go up in hotter weather and falsely concluding that one influences the other.

We’re being led down another deceptive path as well with loaded terms. To see what we’re supposed to envision, enter the word “children” in Google’s image search. The results, happy munchkins doing happy munchkin things, are pretty much what everyone is going to expect.

You have to do a deeper dive to find the population being exploited here includes 19-year-olds and that the dramatic increases are happening due to gang activity participated in by minority populations:

“Firearm-related injuries in Black children grew from nearly 31% in 2019 to 40% in 2020 and 48% in 2021. Those cases also showed increases in patients with mental health issues and in injuries where the shooter was a friend.”

Increased firearm sales are extrapolated by increases in background checks. Who thinks teen gangs submit to those? In order for pandemic-related sales to significantly move statistics, the transference from the “legal” to the “illegal” market would need to be almost instantaneous, when in fact, ATF time-to-crime (“the amount of time between the retail sale of a firearm by a federal firearms licensee (FFL) and its recovery by law enforcement”) statistics show a national average period for 2021 of  6.21 years.

True, the Michael Bloomberg-“seeded” agenda “journalism” project The Trace tries desperately to  establish a connection, but after it’s all said and done must concede the relationship is only “suggested” and admit:

“[T]he increase in gun sales is not solely responsible for the increase in short time-to-crime recoveries [and] the number of guns recovered and traced by law enforcement does not always indicate the amount of gun crime in a given year. In other words, factors driving increases in the amount of short-time-crime guns in the ATF’s data may be separate from the factors contributing to gun violence.”

Continue reading “”

Man can argue he needed handgun because police did not protect him, N.J. court rules

A state appeals court has reversed a man’s handgun possession conviction after finding he should have been able to argue he needed it for protection from people trying to kill him for cooperating with police.

The court, in a Tuesday decision, found merit in the man’s arguments that the danger he faced was real, and that authorities had not sufficiently helped him – after he’d helped them by wearing a wire in an investigation.

The man, who was identified only by his initials, was beat up twice, shot at once and moved residences before finally arming himself in case his attackers accosted him again, the decision describes.

Before that occurred, a Lawrence police officer arrested him during a traffic stop in 2015, and found the Beretta pistol in his pants. He was 21 years old at the time.

After being unable to suppress the gun evidence and the trial judge in Mercer County ruling against his defense, the necessity defense, the man took a plea bargain. A judge sentenced him to eight years behind bars with four as a mandatory minimum.

The man’s appeal failed in one part. He argued that the Lawrence police officer overstepped during the traffic stop by asking the driver to roll down the rear, tinted windows, where he found the man as one of two backseat passengers.

The officer also smelled marijuana and eventually searched the car, with the driver’s consent, and the occupants – and only found the gun in the defendant’s pants. One bullet was in the chamber.

The appeals court found the officer’s actions lawful, as he was dealing with four people during a nighttime stop and the steps he took to protect himself were reasonable.

The court took issue with the barring of the necessity defense, which allows defendants to argue that their conduct, while normally illegal, was necessary or justified in a limited instance – in this case, carrying a gun.

The decision says the man described his situation to a police detective: he’d helped police and prosecutors in a prior case and now people were “after him.”

After the two assaults and being fired upon, and moving, he sought help from a detective and the prosecutor from the case, but received no assistance. He told police he wanted to move out of state, but could not due to being on probation.

He then admitted obtaining the gun a few days prior and knew it was loaded with the bullet.

He had a plan, he told the detective interviewing him, that if confronted a fourth time, he’d fire the gun and flee.

The Mercer prosecutor’s office argued against the necessity defense in the appeal, saying the man had not qualified for the defense, specifically that he had not been met with an “imminent and compelling” emergency.

The appeals court disagreed.

The man wore a wire for police. “By doing so, he assisted police in performing their duty to protect the public. Through no fault of his own, his cooperation with the police led to him being beaten up twice and fired upon in his own community,” the decision said.

“Defendant was acutely aware that other individuals in the community wanted to hurt or kill him. We find more than sufficient evidence … to conclude that the threat to defendant was ‘imminent and compelling,’ and raised a reasonable expectation in the defendant that he would suffer physical injury, if not death,” the decision went on.

The defendant’s, “plea to law enforcement for assistance went unanswered. He tried to move out of state to avoid the threat to his life, however he was unable to do so. Defendant also changed his local residence to avoid encounters with his attackers, which didn’t work, as he was attacked outside his new home.”

“Consequently,” it said, “he faced a crisis with no opportunity to avoid repeated assaults until he was severely injured or killed.”

A jury should hear those arguments and be the deciders, the decision says.

Woman Who Had Never Fired A Gun Before, Shoots And Wounds Burglar In Attempted Robbery

A North Carolina resident named Tarika McAllister fired a gun for the first time last week and it helped put a man who broke into her home behind bars.

According to WRAL-TV, McAllister, who lives in the city of Dunn, was home alone when she awaken by loud noises and her dog barking around 6 a.m last Tuesday. After hearing the sounds coming from the rear of her house, she went to check if everything was okay. McAllister was stunned to find a man attempting to steal some of her items —including her dog. It was at that moment that she took matters into her own hands.

The 29-year-old yelled for the intruder to get out, but he was unphased. Fortunately, within her reach was the gun she kept stored. And although she had never used it before, she put her nervousness aside and grabbed it.

“All I did was turn around and grab the gun,” McAllister told WRAL. “I was fumbling with it. It’s my first time using it.”

McAllister added that she lifted the safety and did what she had to do.

“I just lifted it up, and I started shooting at him, wherever he was moving to, I just shot him out of the house,” she said.

When the police arrived to the scene, they found the thief, who has been identified as 20-year-old Malihk Giles, only about 200 yards from McAllister’s home with two gunshot wounds, one on his right lower leg and the other on his right side. After his wounds were treated at a local hospital, he was taken into custody at Harnett County Detention Center where he is being held on charges of first-degree burglary and possession of stolen property with a $75,000 bond. McAllister and Giles had no connection to each before the incident but according to McAllister, she experienced a similar incident at her home just three weeks prior. Luckily, she was able to just scare the man away.

“I know a lot of women are scared of guns,” says McAllister. “I feel those are the best protectors for us because we can’t fight a man. We can’t fight an intruder off.”

Although she’s still shaken up and it’s difficult for her to be alone at the moment, McAllister feels “stronger” now and ready for any other attempt at a home invasion in the future.

Yes, Democrats, Sometimes a ‘Good Guy With a Gun’ Does ‘Stop the Bad Guys.’ Here’s Proof.

In a press conference defending the state’s new restrictions on concealed carry permit holders, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, told reporters last month: “This whole concept that a good guy with a gun will stop the bad guys with a gun, it doesn’t hold up. And the data bears this out, so that theory is over.”

With all due respect to the governor, she clearly hasn’t actually looked at the data.

Almost every major study on the issue has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, according to the latest report on the subject by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just this year, a more comprehensive study concluded that roughly 1.6 million defensive gun uses occur in the United States every year.

For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accounts here from 2019, 2020, 2021, and so far in 2022.)

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

The examples below represent only a fraction of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in September. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

  • Sept. 1, Detroit: A woman shot and wounded a man who ran onto her porch while fleeing from police after a hit-and-run. The woman told police that she felt threatened by the man and couldn’t tell what was in his hand when he approached her. The man was charged with fleeing police, resisting arrest, and obstructing justice.
  • Sept. 3, Adams Run, South Carolina: Police said a homeowner isn’t expected to face charges after he shot and wounded a man who smashed a window and climbed into his home in the middle of the night. The suspect apparently had been drinking and doing drugs at a nearby party before he broke in. Police said they found a small bag of cocaine in his possession.
  • Sept. 9, Pensacola, Florida: When a would-be robber with a shotgun entered a convenience store, the clerk ran to a back room and grabbed his own firearm, police said. The threat of armed resistance apparently stunned the robber, who told the clerk: “I’m not from around here. … I’m from Chicago, bro,” before fleeing. No shots were fired. Police arrested a suspect several days later.
  • Sept. 9, Channelview, Texas: A woman was home with her three children—a 12-year-old and two 17-year-olds—when four armed and masked men tried to force their way inside, police said. One of the teens grabbed a shotgun and fired several rounds at the intruders, killing two and sending the other two fleeing.
  • Sept. 13, Chicago: Police said that two gunmen randomly opened fire on a family celebrating a grandmother’s birthday, critically injuring a 13-year-old boy who was returning to the party with his uncle after buying a game at a nearby store. The uncle, a concealed carry permit holder, returned fire at the gunmen, and they fled. The wounded teen was expected to survive, but faces a long road to recovery. Police later arrested two men and charged them with attempted murder.
  • Sept. 14, Hyattsville, Maryland: A resident saw a would-be package thief struggling with a Postal Service deliveryman and tried to intervene, police said. The thief then assaulted the resident and chased him into his house. The resident was able to reach his handgun and shot the thief once in the leg, wounding him, police said.
  • Sept. 17, Ridgeland, Mississippi: Police said that the owner of a popcorn store shot and wounded a teenage girl who pulled a gun on him while trying to shoplift. The teen was taken to a hospital for treatment before being charged as an adult with aggravated assault with a weapon.
  • Sept. 19, Tenino, Washington: A homeowner whose property had been burglarized multiple times spotted two suspicious all-terrain vehicles parked near a storage trailer and alerted his brother, who lived nearby, police said. Armed with a rifle, they confronted two burglars who were breaking into the trailer. One burglar immediately fled, but the second charged at the homeowner and his brother. The homeowner shot him once, wounding him. Police later arrested the first burglar.
  • Sept. 23, Collingdale, Pennsylvania: A man was walking to work early in the morning when a car with headlights off stopped in front of him, blocking his path, police said. Three masked individuals exited and approached the man, and one of them appeared to reach for a gun. The man drew his own legally possessed gun and fired, hitting one person in the leg. The three fled. Police later arrested a 15-year-old girl and a 22-year-old man in connection with the attempted robbery. Investigators determined that the vehicle used had been stolen during a carjacking in Philadelphia.
  • Sept. 24, Patterson, California: A woman fatally shot an intoxicated intruder who had assaulted her husband while trying to break into the couple’s home, police said. The husband initially tried to restrain the intruder, but ended up being injured in “a significant fight,” police said. The woman saw her husband struggling, grabbed a handgun that she had legally acquired just one day earlier, and shot the intruder.
  • Sept. 28, Wichita, Kansas: Police credited the actions of an armed bystander with helping to save a motorist’s life during a brutal knife attack. The assailant rammed a man’s car on purpose, smashed out the windows with nunchucks, then began stabbing the driver as he tried to get his two young children out of the car, police said. One witness drove her car at the suspect, stopping his attack. The bystander then held the assailant at gunpoint, allowing others to give first aid to the badly injured man, police said.
  • Sept. 30, Missoula, Montana: A driver was stopped at a traffic light when he saw a machete-wielding man chasing someone down the street, police said. Armed with his handgun, the driver confronted the assailant and held him at gunpoint until police arrived. The suspect was charged with three counts of felonious assault with a weapon.

As these recent cases show, the reality of armed citizens defending life, liberty, and property never has been more relevant, or more supported by the available evidence.

Restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans doesn’t make them safer. It just hinders their ability to protect themselves and others, making them even more vulnerable to attacks by criminals who know their victims are defenseless.

Black women are the fastest growing group of gun owners. This instructor has taught 2,000 students how to safely bear arms.

During the pandemic, gun and ammunition sales spiked dramatically in the United States — particularly among Black women, who have become the fastest growing group of gun owners in the country.

“In 2021, we were just coming outta COVID and violence was at an all-time high, riots were at an all-time high and human trafficking is at an all-time high,” licensed gun instructor Robin Evans tells Yahoo Life as a way to explain the rise. “So at that moment, I feel like there was a huge shift in Black people, in general, just wanting to learn how to defend themselves.”

After noticing the increasing reports of violence against women in 2021, Evans founded Chicks with Triggers, a business dedicated to teaching women, and specifically Black women, how to safely use firearms.

“When I got into this, there was no one who looked like me, and so I decided to create that lane for people to come and know that they have a safe space,” says Evans. “When I first started, I didn’t even know women would come. I thought maybe a woman here and there, but man, they came through the gates running. I just hit another milestone of 2,000 people that I have trained since I started in 2021.”

Continue reading “”

Obama Judge Denies NY Jews a Temporary Stop of Hochul’s Ban On Guns In Synagogues

In an insulting reiteration of NY Governor Kathy Hochul’s stunning hypocrisy over the rights of people to defend themselves, an Obama-appointed judge has DENIED a requested Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the NY state “sensitive area” gun ban called the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), which went into effect September 1.

As I recently reported, the New York State Jewish Gun Club filed suit on September 29, after members and the group’s legal council recognized the threat of the CCIA – which Hochul signed on July 1, and which represents her leftist NY Assembly’s blitzkrieg response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June “Bruen” gun decision supposedly insuring that the right to keep and bear arms also includes the obvious right to carry a concealed weapon outside the home. The half-hearted Bruen decision left wiggle room for oppressive state politicians to claim that certain “sensitive” public areas were off limits to the right of concealed-carry.

And Hochul’s hypocrisy is so towering that, even as she backed a “legislative package” supposedly honoring Holocaust victims over the summer, she and her pals in the state legislature smacked together a new statute that would ban concealed carry within synagogues and houses or worship — or, as I mentioned, at any of what they ambiguously call places where there is a “religious observance.”

In other words, she is threatening people that she will use gun-grabbing state aggression, and possibly use it against some of the same Holocaust survivors and/or their descendants who were attacked by the gun-grabbing Nazi regime.

Now, the new development. The NY State Jewish Gun Club filing in Federal District Court to temporarily restrain enforcement of Hochul’s gangland CCIA “religious observance” and “house of worship” gun ban has proven fruitless. BearingArms’ Cam Edwards caught the news, right away:

“Their first request was for a temporary restraining order prohibiting the state from enforcing that portion of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act; a request that was denied on Monday afternoon by U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick.”

And, guess what? The judge got his tax-funded job thanks to leftist political engineers:

“In his ruling, the Obama-appointed judge (who also has political ties to gun control fans Michael Bloomberg and former NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo) found that the plaintiffs had not met the requirements for a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order)…”

Here, observers can see a telling sign of the difference between a person who respects natural, God-given, rights, and a person looking only at material concerns, a person who cannot understand, or will not acknowledge, that the term “injury” does not pertain merely to physical harm, but includes the abstract and perennial realm of principles.

Broderick’s argument stands on the spongy notion that, as he declares:

“…I find that the harm pled is too remote and speculative, and fails to reach the stringent standard of ‘immediate irreparable harm.’”

Continue reading “”

TPUSA Ambassador Speaks Up for Women’s Rights When It Comes To Firearms

TPUSA Ambassador as well as the CEO and Founder of Alexo Athletica, Amy Robbins, is always on the frontlines to fight for our right to protect ourselves!

Amy was recently on The Chris Salcedo Show on Newsmax, speaking about the frustrating arguments made by the left regarding firearms.

The host, Chris Salcedo, asked Amy, “What makes you pull your hair out, the disingenuous argument from the other side saying you as a women don’t deserve to protect yourself with a firearm. What is the number one argument that just drives you up a wall?”

She replied, “The number one argument that I hear, is that women are weak and incapable of carrying a firearm, and they are more likely to die in the presence of a firearm . . . So instead of encouraging women to go get training, go get armed, learn to be safe and proficient with some kind of self-defense tool.”

“The only thing that we can do, ladies, is stop believing this lie,” Amy added.

I couldn’t agree more — firearms are dubbed “the great equalizer” for a reason, they give women leverage, and the ability to protect themselves against a male aggressor that, in most cases, is going to be both larger and stronger.

It is so empowering to know that you can take your personal safety into your own hands.

The left constantly seeks to demonize firearm owners for gun violence, even though the vast majority of gun crimes have been committed by offenders who did not legally possess the firearm used in the first place. Individuals who have the desire to go through the legal processes to purchase a gun for self-defense and defense of their families should not be discouraged from doing so, or worse, prevented from doing so.

I encourage everyone, but especially females, to pursue training in self-defense specifically with firearms in order to ensure that they have the best means possible to keep themselves and their loved ones safe.

CDC Data Shows Constitutional Carry States Have Fewer Total and Gun-Related Homicides

In September of 2021, Texas became the twenty-first state to allow some form of permitless or “constitutional” carry. That means in Texas, if you are at least 21 years old and you are not prohibited from lawfully possessing a firearm under Texas or federal law, you can carry a handgun without a permit either openly or concealed.

Since Texas enacted its law, four other states have done the same, bringing the total of constitutional carry states to 25.

While there are some differences in how these states have implemented constitutional carry (e.g., a couple of them require you to be a resident of the State to carry, while others set an age minimum, etc.) it’s fair to say that overall, half of all states now allow citizens who can legally possess a firearm to carry at least a handgun without a permit. This national wave has been a tremendous victory for gun rights and continues the trend of expanding the right to carry.

Of course, not everyone was pleased that Texas chose to respect the right to keep and bear arms. The news of constitutional carry in the Lone Star State was met with the all of the usual sky-is-falling warnings of doom from all of the usual anti-gun suspects.

For example, Ari Frielich, state policy director for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said that permitless carry could drastically endanger Texas residents and even law enforcement officials.

The research is clear that flooding public spaces with more hidden loaded guns in more hands makes them less safe. It turns more arguments, road rage incidents, and fistfights into shootings, more injuries into burials, and it can create a civilian arms race in communities most impacted by violence.

Freilich’s talking points are hardly original. Every time a state adopts constitutional carry, anti-gun groups, as well as much of the media (but I repeat myself), warn that every minor dispute will turn into a bloody shootout and the state’s homicide rate will therefore skyrocket. They also claim that the “research is clear” in favor of their arguments.

But is it really?

With so many states now having enacted some form of constitutional carry, this is no longer a hypothetical question. While some states have only recently enacted these laws, most others have had them for several years.

As of 2020, the most recent year for which detailed CDC data is available, 16 states had already embraced constitutional carry. By looking at the homicide rates in those states as well as their gun homicide rates in particular, we can get an idea of whether constitutional carry states actually are more dangerous than the nation as a whole.

If the anti-gun argument is correct, constitutional carry states should be far more violent, especially in the crime-surge year of 2020.

Fortunately, the CDC provides very detailed statistics on public health, including data on underlying causes of death, so we can check. The statistics are reported online through the CDC’s WONDER tool, an acronym which stands for “Wide-ranging ONline Data for Epidemiologic Research.” All of the data I am about to discuss can be found through that tool.

The overall US homicide rate was 7.5 per 100,000 in 2020, and the gun-related homicide rate was 5.9 per 100,000. Here is the data for each of the 16 states that were constitutional carry in 2020:

Continue reading “”

Massive errors in FBI’s Active Shooting Reports regarding cases where civilians stop attacks: Instead of 4.4%, the correct number is at least 34.4%. In 2021, it is at least 49.1%. Excluding gun-free zones, it averaged over 50%.

Table 1: Comparing the FBI Active Shooting data to the corrected CPRC data
FBI ACTIVE SHOOTER DATABASE is available here for people who want to check all the casesDownload

Data: For convenience, a PDF of the Excel file is also available here. FBI Active Shooting reports are available here (2000-2013), here (2014-2015), here (2016-2017), here (2018), here (2019), here (2020), and here (2021).

Introduction

The shooting that killed three people and injured another at a Greenwood, Indiana, mall on July 17 drew broad national attention because of how it ended – when 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken, carrying a licensed handgun, fatally shot the attacker.

While Dicken was praised for his courage and skill – squeezing off his first shot 15 seconds after the attack began, from a distance of 40 yards – much of the immediate news coverage drew from FBI-approved statistics to assert that armed citizens almost never stop such attackers: “Rare in US for an active shooter to be stopped by bystander” (Associated Press); “Rampage in Indiana a rare instance of armed civilian ending mass shooting” (Washington Post); and “After Indiana mall shooting, one hero but no lasting solution to gun violence” (New York Times).

Evidence compiled by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that the sources the media relied on undercounted the number of instances in which armed citizens have thwarted such attacks by an order of more than ten, saving untold numbers of lives. Of course, law-abiding citizens stopping these attacks are not rare. What is rare is national news coverage of those incidents. Although those many news stories about the Greenwood shooting also suggested that the defensive use of guns might endanger others, there is no evidence that these acts have harmed innocent victims.

The FBI reports that armed citizens only stopped 11 of the 252 active shooter incidents it identified for the period 2014-2021. The FBI defines active shooter incidents as those in which an individual actively kills or attempts to kill people in a populated, public area. But it does not include those it deems related to other criminal activity, such as a robbery or fighting over drug turf.

An analysis by my organization identified a total of 360 active shooter incidents during that period and found that an armed citizen stopped 124. A previous report looked at only instances when armed civilians stopped what likely would have been mass public shootings. There were another 24 cases that we didn’t include where armed civilians stopped armed attacks, but the suspect didn’t fire his gun. Those cases are excluded from our calculations, though it could be argued that a civilian also stopped what likely could have been an active shooting event.

The FBI reported that armed citizens thwarted 4.4% of active shooter incidents, while the CPRC found 34.4%.

Continue reading “”

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Asked About Hurricane Ian Looters, Notes ‘You Loot, We Shoot’ Warnings.

Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis has his hands full with the aftermath of Hurricane Ian. It pretty much trashed southwest Florida and damaged homes all the way across the central part of the state.

As business owners and residents begin the massive cleanup process, he’s stressing law and order. And when discussing those who would take advantage of the destruction, the Governor noted that property owners had written “You loot, we shoot” on the plywood used to board up their buildings.

Florida Politics covered it . . .

As Florida recovers from Hurricane Ian, Gov. Ron DeSantis issued a moral plea against looting that appears to have some firepower behind it.

Speaking near Fort Myers in the leveled community of Matlacha on Friday, the Republican Governor relayed one sight he saw in Punta Gorda in neighboring Charlotte County the day prior.

“They boarded up all the businesses, and there are people that wrote on their plywood, ‘you loot, we shoot,’” DeSantis said. “At the end of the day, we are not going to allow lawlessness to take advantage of this situation. We are a law-and-order state, and this is a law-and-order community, so do not think that you’re going to go take advantage of people who’ve suffered misfortune.”

You don’t hear many Governors mention “you loot, we shoot” these days. But DeSantis isn’t like many governors and given the reality on the ground, there’s no reason to play around with vultures who would take advantage of a mass tragedy.

The story continued . . .

The Governor also commented on the grit and resilience of the community and called for “all hands on deck” regarding the rule of law. However, his dispatch was choppy, making the overall statement unclear.

Lee County Sheriff Carmine Marceno said he had spoken at length to Attorney General Ashley Moody, who was also on the scene.

 “We are not going to tolerate — and I mean zero tolerance — when we say anyone that thinks they’re going to thrive on the residents of this county or state when we just took a horrific hit, I can guarantee you that is not going to happen,” Marceno said.

Scam artists will likely not get off easy either, judging from the law-and-order tone from the state officials.

 

The snowflakes writing the story to wrung their hands over DeSantis’ choice of words.

“You loot, we shoot,” isn’t even new in the hurricane context, used when Hurricane Harvey struck Houston and in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. But others see the phrase as stoking violence and division.

Violence and division? The only division will be between looters and law-abiding residents and business owners.

New study contradicts “More Guns = More Crime” theory

Do increased gun sales lead to increased crime rates? According to gun control activists, the answer is “yes,” but a new study published in the Journal of Surgical Research finds no connection between firearm purchases and the number of crimes. I’m very pleased that Dr. Mark Hamill, a trauma surgeon and associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center who was a primary author and researcher for the new study, could join me on today’s Cam & Co to discuss his findings and the current state of “gun violence” research in the medical community.

For this particular study, Hamill and his associates used both national and state-level data on crime rates between 1999 and 2015 as well as NICS reporting data over the same time period as a reasonable proxy for gun sales. Hamill hypothesized beforehand that there would be no correlation between gun sales and crime rates, and as it turns out, that’s exactly what researchers found.

Nationally, all crime rates except the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–designated firearm homicides decreased as firearm sales increased over the study period.

Using a naïve national model, increases in firearm sales were associated with significant decreases in multiple crime categories. However, a more robust analysis using generalized estimating equation estimates on state-level data demonstrated increases in firearms sales were not associated with changes in any crime variables examined.

Robust analysis does not identify an association between increased lawful firearm sales and rates of crime or homicide. Based on this, it is unclear if efforts to limit lawful firearm sales would have any effect on rates of crime, homicide, or injuries from violence committed with firearms.

This study follows on previous research released by Hamill and others back in 2019 that examined concealed carry laws and crime rates; looking to see if changes to a state’s concealed carry laws resulted in more crime overall. Just as in this most recent study, the data found no significant association between “shifts from restrictive to nonrestrictive carry legislation on violent crime and public health indicators.”

As Hamill says, the results make sense. Most people who legally purchase and lawfully carry firearms are never going to commit a violent crime, so increasing the number of those who are legally exercising their Second Amendment rights shouldn’t result in more violent crime. As for gun sales and crime rates, while the number of firearms sold might vary from year to year, the number of privately-owned firearms in the United States continues to increase. If more guns equated to more crime, then we’d expect to see a steady rise in criminal offenses year after year. Instead, a graph of violent crime rates going back to 1900 shows that crime tends to ebb and flow in waves that can last for decades.

Note, by the way, what happened to the homicide rate in the years after the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968. While homicide rates had been fairly flat throughout most of the 1960s, there was a sharp increase starting around the time the GCA became law, and a steady decline didn’t begin until more than two decades later in the early 1990s.

That crime decline generally continued until 2020, when shootings and homicides soared in the midst of the COVID-19 shutdowns, disruptions to the criminal justice system, riots, and a pullback from proactive policing strategies. Gun sales also exploded in 2020, but despite the assertions of some gun control activists that the increase in gun purchases must have played a role in the increased violence, there isn’t much evidence that was the case, as even some anti-gun researchers have acknowledged.

Dr. Garen Wintemute of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis investigated a possible relationship between 2020’s gun sales and the increase in crime and found none.

“Instead, [researchers] concluded that unemployment, economic disparity and physical distancing exacerbated by the pandemic were far more potent predictors of increased violence,” the FiveThirtyEight article notes.

Hamill’s study comes at a time of heightened interest in the gun control debate within the medical community, including a special issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association dedicated to examining “gun violence” and advocating for a host of new gun control laws. Hamill says that unfortunately there does seem to be a bias towards gun control among many researchers, and described how this most recent study was actually rejected by another journal; not because of any issues with the researcher’s methodology, but because the journal’s editor didn’t like the results.

Thankfully this new paper found a home at the Journal of Surgical Research, and I would encourage you to not only read the paper but share its findings far and wide. More guns does not equal more crime, and we’ve got the data to prove it.

If the left wants to try stuff on this side of the pond, we’ve got a remedy we’ve retained since we were still colonies.

HOMICIDAL URGES ON THE LEFT
If you have the feeling that liberals would like to kill you, you aren’t paranoid. You are catching on.

Around the world, we are seeing increasingly violent talk from the Left. All too often, that talk has led to violent action. When Congressman and Senate candidate Tim Ryan says “we’ve got to kill and confront” the movement of “extremist Republicans,” you are right if you think he means you.

This liberal outrage comes from the U.K.: a video game in which you try to kill Margaret Thatcher. The game is endorsed by a former leader of the Labour Party:

Jeremy Corbyn has been pictured playing a video game modified to let players kill Margaret Thatcher.

The former Labour leader was pictured playing the Thatcher’s Techbase game on a console at Left-wing political festival The World Transformed (TWT).
***
On Thursday night, Mr Purvis tweeted a photograph of Mr Corbyn, the independent MP for Islington North, using the console and posing alongside it, with the caption: “He liked the game.”

I’ll bet he did. Can you imagine the fallout if someone produced a video game where the object was to murder, say, Barack Obama? No, I don’t think you can. But killing conservatives is all the rage.

A description of Thatcher’s Techbase written by Mr Purvis on its release read: “On Sept 24, Margaret Thatcher will rise from her grave. Only you can send her back to hell.

“Faced with the return of one of humanity’s greatest threats, you have no choice but to head to the 10th circle of hell: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Margaret Thatcher is back from hell, and the lady’s not for returning.”

The cover art for the game pictures Baroness Thatcher, who died in 2013, with devil horns, demon eyes, fangs and a gun for an arm.

Here is Corbyn playing the kill-Thatcher game:

I am afraid that political violence is going to get a great deal worse before it gets better.

Yes

Should We Train for the Trends or the Outliers?

The world of self-defense is defined by extreme positions; in particular, when dealing with the use of the handgun for personal protection, most take their sides on what we should be training for. The majority of concealed carriers will regale the troupe of “three yards, three shots, three seconds.” There is some validity to this mantra; most civilian-oriented defensive shootings are resolved quickly, with only a few rounds fired, and take place at close range. The problem is, however, that this is a common theme but hardly a rule. There are numerous examples of incidents that demanded far more rounds fired or happened at far greater distances than this.

On the opposite extreme of the “three rounds, three yards, three seconds” crowd is the “carry as much gun as possible” crowd that tends toward carrying full-size guns with lights, optics, and spare magazines. Of course, in my experience, many who claim to only carry a full-size pistol simply don’t carry any gun much of the time because the full-size gun is more difficult to conceal under many circumstances. Many such practitioners select gear based on the outlier event, such as active shooters with rifles at long distances. Being prepared for the worst may make good sense, but how much more challenging is it to carry such gear and is it worth the effort? And, pertaining to training, should the citizen focus on the trends or the outliers?

There are a number of noted and respected professionals in the field that think little if any, specific credence should be granted to dealing with the outlier event that is the active shooter. As is reasonable, they argue that the chances of being in such an event pale in comparison to the far more likely street-level robbery. While there is no doubt that, statistically, the armed citizen is more likely to be robbed on the street or in a parking lot than being caught in an active killer event, all the statistics don’t matter much to the individual who finds themselves there. Is being in an active killer event likely? Not at all. Is it possible? Sure. Therefore, should time be spent on the more complex problem that is the active killer outlier, or are armed citizens better off focusing on what is more likely?

Continue reading “”