The American Colonies were all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country.

European countries should not be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them. — George Mason

FBI Continues To Publish Inaccurate Data On Armed Citizens Stopping Active Shooters

Few gun owners were surprised when we learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under President Joe Biden had fudged the numbers when reporting active shooters stopped by armed citizens. Now, however, the Trump Administration FBI is continuing the practice, far underreporting the number of incidents where armed citizens are the real heroes.

According to an October 2 report by John Lott posted at realclearinvestigatiins.com, the past trend of the FBI underreporting armed citizens who stopped active shooters continues to be a problem. And Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), said it’s not just a small discrepancy; the FBI is grossly underreporting the numbers.

“Even though the FBI acknowledged the issue at the time, it never corrected the error involving the politically fraught issue,” Lott wrote. “In the years since, the problem has only gotten worse. Since RCI’s 2022 article, the FBI has acknowledged just three additional incidents of armed good Samaritans stopping active shooters from 2022 to 2024, and none in the last two years. In contrast, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I head, has documented 78 such cases over that same period—a 26-fold difference.”

The FBI defines active shooter incidents as those in which an individual kills or attempts to kill people in a public place, excluding shootings that are related to other criminal activity, such as robbery or fighting over drug turf. They include instances from one person being shot at and missed all the way up to a mass public shooting.

“In 2022, the FBI reported that only 11 of the 252 active shooter incidents it identified for the period 2014-2021, or 4.4%, were stopped by an armed citizen,” Lott wrote. “However, an analysis by my organization identified a total of 281 active shooter incidents during that same period and found that 41 of them—or 14.6%—were stopped by an armed citizen.”

As Lott further pointed out, the FBI report compiled for the Biden administration for 2023 and 2024 contains worse errors.

“It asserts that armed civilians stopped none of the 72 active shooting cases it identified,” he wrote. “The CPRC, by contrast, identified 121 active shooter cases—45 of which were ultimately halted by armed civilians. Those incidents included eight cases that likely would have resulted in mass public shootings with four or more people murdered.”

Ultimately, Lott said that the FBI has the ability to set the record straight in at least some cases, providing a clearer view of remedies to crime.

“But its unwillingness to correct errors—or its efforts to fix them on the sly, as RCI reported last year—and improve its methodology raises more concerns. Its shortcomings regarding armed citizens thwarting active shooters illuminate many of these problems.

Lott’s report at realclearinvestigations.com also delves into the dangerous fallacy of so-called “gun-free” zones. Those interested in learning more about the FBI’s underreporting of armed heroes and the danger of “gun-free” zones should give it a good read.

Judge Vacates Decision Requiring 2A Groups to Identify Members

A federal judge in Louisiana has rescinded his order for the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association to provide a list of its membership to the Department of Justice as part of his judgment in a case dealing with the federal ban on handgun sales to adults under the age of 21.

The new order by U.S. District Judge Robert R. Summerhays comes after both the plaintiffs and defendants asked him to reconsider that requirement. While the DOJ did originally ask Summerhays to limit relief only to the named plaintiffs in Reese v. ATF and those SAF, FPC, and LSA members who were members when the lawsuit was filed back in 220 and “have been identified and verified by respective Plaintiff organizations during the course of this litigation,” Summerhays went even further by demanding the groups turn over lists of every member as of 2020.

That move was reported by some Second Amendment groups as Summerhays simply granting DOJ’s request, when that was not the case. It’s true, though, that the Justice Department’s proposed relief was still far narrower than what was offered by the plaintiffs. In fact, the plaintiffs stated that the DOJ’s position was even though the Plaintiffs won, they “should be entitled only to illusory relief and the Government should be free to continue to enforce these unconstitutional restrictions against Plaintiffs’ affected members as though they never brought and won this suit.”

In a press release responding to the judge’s order vacating his previous judgment, SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack said the group “had no intention of releasing any private membership data and were prepared to take all necessary steps to ensure our member list was not disclosed to the government,” but added that “Luckily, the court responded to our joint motion promptly and vacated its original order.

With that order vacated and a phone conference forthcoming as to the proper scope of relief, it appears we will have more updates on the Reese order in the near future.”

While the plaintiffs and defendants agreed that Summerhays demand the DOJ receive membership lists was the wrong step, the two sides still very much disagree on the scope of the relief that should be provided now that the Fifth Circuit has held the law banning retail gun sales to adults under the age of 21 is unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs would like to see the law enjoined for all 18-to-20-year-old members of the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association, regardless of when they signed up, while the DOJ, as mentioned above, wants to limit the injunction to only a handful of young adults residing in the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

FPC’s Brandon Combs told Bearing Arms last week that Summerhays’ order was likely going to be appealed to the Fifth Circuit, but now that the judge has vacated that order in its entirety we’ll have to see what his amended judgment looks like before we know what the plaintiffs’ next step will be. DOJ has already declined to appeal the underlying decision by the Fifth Circuit regarding the constitutionality of the law, which is good, but depending on how limited the scope of the injunctive relief is, this case (or at least the remedy provided to plaintiffs) could still end up before the Supreme Court before all is said and done.

Concealed carry holder shoots car thief who tried to run him: report

Chicago police are investigating after a concealed carry holder reported shooting a man who tried to run him over with his own stolen car Sunday morning in South Shore.

The licensed gun owner called 911 around 7:14 a.m. and reported that two men had just stolen his blue 2023 Acura and attempted to hit him with it in an alley behind the 6800 block of South Cornell Avenue.

Less than five minutes later, a 23-year-old man arrived at the University of Chicago Medical Center with a gunshot wound to his lower back. He was taken directly into surgery and was listed in critical condition.

Officers recovered three shell casings in the alley where the shooting occurred and questioned the concealed carry license holder on Sunday morning.

No charges had been announced against anyone as of Sunday evening.

My latest Substack essay: The Insurrection Act: A short guide to President Trump’s options.

With resistance to ICE in many blue cities, there’s been a lot of talk about Trump invoking the Insurrection Act. There are other, lesser statutes that he can employ, but this is the big gun. It intentionally gives the President enormous freedom and power to put down resistance to the law.

This is the relevant part of the Insurrection Act:

§252. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

So first, it’s discretionary to employ: “Whenever the President considers.” This language leaves no room for judicial review, by design; it’s up to the President to determine when the predicates for invoking the Act apply. Second, this phrase, “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” seems to fit perfectly with what’s going on in places like Portland or Chicago.

Third, discretionary language again: “as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”

It’s entirely up to the President under the statute. You may think it’s a bad idea — I’m not so sure it is, because I don’t think it’s a good idea for state and local governments to have a veto on federal law enforcement actions — but it’s entirely lawful. And, properly understood, not subject to judicial review. (The Insurrection Act, once triggered, also overrides the Posse Comitatus Act’s prohibition on using the military for law enforcement purposes.)

Invoking the Insurrection Act wouldn’t be unprecedented — it’s been done thirty times in the history of the Republic, or a bit less than once every 8 years. A state actively resisting federal authority could be met with the full power of the U.S. military — and the President could even recognize a competing, alternative state government. There’s no meaningful opportunity for judicial review under the Insurrection Act as its invocation is a “political question” and hence non-justiciable. (The same is true, as the Supreme Court held almost 200 years ago, in the case of Luther v. Borden, of recognizing one of two competing state governments as the legitimate government of a state).

“Political question” just means that the decision is left to one or both of the political branches of the government, leaving no room for judicial resolution. There is discipline, just not judicial discipline; instead it comes ultimately from voters.

And invocation of the Insurrection Act carries a special political resonance, though how much of one depends on how it is used. Using it to send troops to Portland to control a mob isn’t likely to be too controversial. Using it to replace the government of California, or to support a breakaway state of “New California,” would be more so.

Unless pushed, I don’t think Trump will go very far with this. Politically, it suits him to have Democrats, who yammered about “insurrection” for the past several years, acting loudly insurrectionary. And he seems to be able to accomplish a lot with threats — a threat to send the National Guard in to Chicago produced a sudden flurry of action from the Illinois State Police.

As Clay Whitehead used to say, the value of the Sword of Damocles is that it hangs, not that it falls. That may be the case here, too. But if the sword of the Insurrection Act falls, it can fall very heavy indeed.

4chan to British Censors: Get Stuffed.

A funny thing happened on the way to once-Great Britain’s transformation into George Orwell’s dystopian Airstrip One: The renegade users of the anonymous 4chan forum got themselves legal representation and told British busybodies to sod off.

A little background.

4chan’s exploits are legendary, if not always savory.

Ever wanted to know how lefties came to believe that the perfectly innocent “OK” hand gesture is some kind of secret code for white supremacy?

That was 4chan.

When Pepsi held an online contest in 2012 to name a new Mountain Dew flavor, 4chan users hijacked it, flooding the rankings with names like “Hitler Did Nothing Wrong” and “Diabeetus.” That same year, they rigged a contest where fans could vote for Taylor Swift to perform at their school. I hesitate to tell you this part, but they rigged it so that the winning school was the Horace Mann School for the Deaf.

So I’m not saying that 4chan is a bunch of world-saving good guys. They aren’t. What I am saying is that it is unwise to mess with the DGAF anonymous users of a forum dedicated to cultural and political pranks, and who often describe themselves as “weaponized autists.”

They will come for you if you do.

And Another Thing: “Weaponized autists” is their term, not mine.

Even the Trump administration tried to warn off the U.K.’s censors. Last week, Marco Rubio’s State Department warned that the “human rights situation worsened” in Britain in 2024 and criticized the country’s so-called Online Safety Act, which is used and abused by British authorities to stifle speech around the world.

Including 4chan.

Big mistake — but not for the reason I would have guessed.

Instead of going after the U.K.’s censorship board — aka the Office of Communications — in ways only they could dream up, 4chan hired Byrne & Storm, P.C. and Coleman Law, P.C. to represent them against His Majesty’s Craptaculent Government.

Coleman Law is headed up by Ron Coleman. I’ve known Ron (virtually) for probably 20 years, and can tell you that you don’t want to be opposite him in court.

“According to press reports,” 4chan’s new lawyers said in a statement, “The U.K. Office of Communications (‘Ofcom’) has issued a provisional notice under the Online Safety Act alleging a contravention by 4chan and indicating an intention to impose a penalty of £20,000, plus daily penalties thereafter.”

However, “4chan is a United States company, incorporated in Delaware, with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United Kingdom. Any attempt to impose or enforce a penalty against 4chan will be resisted in U.S. federal court.”

And: “American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail. Under settled principles of U.S. law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes.”

Finally, they warned that if needed, “we will seek appropriate relief in U.S. federal court to confirm these principles,” and that “United States federal authorities have been briefed on this matter.”

The same U.S. authorities at State, I’d wager, that just ripped the U.K.’s censors a new one last week.

So color me shocked that 4chan pursued a legal remedy against Britain’s notorious nannies, instead of doing what they do best, and waging an attritional war of embarrassment and manipulation.

At least for now.

NRA Puts Gavin Newsom on Notice: Lawsuit Coming over ‘Glock Ban’

The NRA put California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on notice that a lawsuit is coming over AB 1127, the bill Newsom signed to enact a ban on new sales of Glock handguns.

AB 1127, the “Glock ban” bill, takes effect July 1, 2026.

Breitbart News reported that the “Glock ban” bill accomplishes its prohibition by labeling Glocks a “machinegun-convertible pistol.”

Such a definition sets the stage for other language in the bill, which says, “This bill would expand the above definition of ‘machinegun’ to include any machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter.”

The NRA pounced on the new ban, with NRA-ILA executive director John Commerford saying, “Gavin Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights.”

He continued, “Once again, they are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.”

Commerford concluded, “This flagrant violation of rights cannot, and will not, go unchecked.”

Florida Bill Will Make Churches Safer

My late father, a retired police officer and Freewill Baptist preacher’s son, wasn’t a fan of carrying in church. As a retired officer, he could, even though churches are off-limits here in Georgia. He just didn’t like it. He told me once that he didn’t believe carrying in church should be necessary, and it just felt wrong for him to do so.

At least, that’s how he felt until I reminded him that the world is full of goblins who don’t feel that way and see churches as targets.

The Annunciation Catholic School shooting is odd because it’s both a school shooting and a church shooting. While most of those attending mass that day were children, the truth was that they were left undefended during worship.

Church security has stopped mass shootings before. Most famously in White Settlement, Texas.

Now, Florida wants to make it easier to provide that kind of security.

A FloridaRepublican wants to make it easier for armed volunteers to provide security for churches and other houses of worship.

A bill, titled “Security Services at Places of Worship,” has been sponsored by Senator Don Gaetz and aims to waive some of the licensing and training requirements for individuals who want to volunteer to protect religious facilities.

Gaetz said that pastors in his district have asked for the measure, adding that smaller congregations typically don’t have the money to afford private security, FOX 13 reported.

Anyone hoping to volunteer will have to obtain a concealed carry permit, pass a level 2 background check, and secure approval from their local sheriff’s office before formally acting in a security capacity.

The bill specified that those acting as security via this method cannot be paid for their work, but it allows them to receive a “reasonable” reimbursement for their training costs.

It’s not a bad start.

I think a better move would be to just make it so anyone can lawfully carry in a church, then you don’t have to worry about the rest of the stuff. Those who mean harm will make it clear soon enough, and with an armed congregation, that will be a bad move.

However, I think there are a lot of ostensibly pro-gun people who somehow think people shouldn’t carry guns in churches–people like Dad–because it’s supposed to be a place of peace and worship. I sincerely understand that. I just repeat that not everyone feels that way, and far too many of those want to rack up a massive death toll.

Because of that, this might be the way to step forward without completely pushing those parties too far. When this turns out not to do any of the things the anti-gunners claim it will–and there will be claims of the church aisles running red with blood–then it becomes a bit easier to move that line a little farther down the road to where it should have been all along.

And, in the meantime, churches get a lot safer than they might otherwise be if they don’t have the resources to hire private security.

Government should be good for the liberty of the governed, and that is when it governs to the least possible degree. It should be good for the wealth of the nation, and that is when it acts as little as possible upon the labor that produces it and when it consumes as little as possible. It should be good for the public security, and that is when it protects as much as possible, provided that the protection does not cost more than it brings in…. It is in losing their powers of action that governments improve. Each time that the governed gain space there is progress. -Augustin Theirry