Arizona’s Democrat Governor Signs Range Protection Bill Into Law

Milton Friedman once said that he didn’t believe that the solution to all our political problems is to simply to elect the right people. Instead, he claimed “the important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.”

For Arizona gun owners, Gov. Katie Hobbs is hardly the right person for the job. She has used her veto power to block numerous pro-2A reforms during her time in office, including campus carry legislation and a measure blocking the use of industry-specific Merchant Category Codes for gun stores this year.

So it’s downright shocking that Hobbs has now signed HB 2763 into law. The bill, authored by State Rep.Quang Nguyen, puts some added protections in place for state-owned shooting ranges like the Ben Avery facility in Phoenix. Under the bill, the range could not be closed or shut down unless such a move receives the approval of the Arizona legislature, not just the the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, which oversees the range’s day-to-day operations.

In a press release, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms chairman Alan Gottlieb praised Nguyen for his work in protecting the world-class facility.

“I can say without fear of contradiction that protecting the Ben Avery shooting range and similar facilities around the Grand Canyon State is of paramount importance to Arizona gun owners,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Future generations of Arizona hunters, competitors and recreational shooters will benefit from this bill’s passage.

“The Citizens Committee takes this opportunity to congratulate Rep. Nguyen for his tireless efforts to guide HB 2763 through the legislature and finally to the governor’s desk,” he added. “We’re disappointed that not a single Democrat lawmaker in either the House or Senate voted in support of this legislation, while we are proud of Rep. Nguyen and his Republican colleagues, led by House Speaker Steve Montenegro, who passed this important measure despite that partisan opposition.

“It should be noted that Rep. Nguyen has appeared at the Gun Rights Policy Conference, which is co-sponsored by the Citizens Committee, and I am personally grateful for his dedication to Arizona gun owners,” Gottlieb observed. “I have come to know him as a lawmaker who can be counted on to defend the Second Amendment and the rights protected by Article 2, Section 26 of the Arizona constitution, adopted way back in 1912 when Arizona achieved statehood. He can rightfully be proud of this achievement.”

It’s astounding to me that Nguyen’s bill couldn’t get a single Democrat to vote in support. After all, you don’t normally see lawmakers turn down the opportunity to exercise power.

It’s even more amazing that Hobbs signed HB 2763 given its lack of support among Democrats in the legislature.

With a six-seat majority in the state House and a four-seat majority in the state Senate, Republicans are now in a position to thwart any effort by AZ Game and Fish Commission leaders to shutter the shooting complex, at least in the short term. It’s still up to gun owners in Arizona, however, to ensure that the legislature remains as supportive of the Second Amendment as it is right now, and to replace Hobbs this November with a governor who will sign every single pro-2A measure that gets to her desk instead of selectively doing the right thing when it suits her political agenda.

Is it good to have democracy? Is it good to dumb culture down to the lowest common denominator? Is it good to have religion as a state religion or as a coercive mechanism to instill good behavior? All of these things that we wrestle with today were discussed by people who in some ways were not confused by technology, they were empirical. They just wrote down the world that they saw.
Victor Davis Hanson

I’ve noted this before.
How many times do we see a neighbor, or several, being interviewed by the local TV station and they say something similar to : ‘Things like this just don’t happen here!”

Listen people; The world, along with the “Law of The Jungle™” are right outside your front door. There is no such thing as a ‘peaceful neighborhood’, you’ve simply had the grace, so far, not to have run into bad things.

Shooting during break-in shakes quiet Blue Springs neighborhood

BLUE SPRINGS, Mo. (KCTV) – A homeowner shot and killed a suspected intruder overnight after reporting a break-in near SW Little Garden Lane and SE 3rd.

Police say the homeowner reported the break-in, then shot the suspect before officers arrived. The suspect died at the scene.

Ring camera video shared with KCTV5 by neighbors shows police at a nearby home just after the shooting.

Neighbors say the incident has left them shaken in an area they describe as quiet.

“I’m just more in shock than anything,” said James Ononye, a neighbor.

Oscar Kibkoros, another neighbor, said the shooting has him questioning safety. “It makes me wonder, what if it were me?” Kibkoros said. “I don’t want to jeopardize my child, my family.”

Zion Torres, who used to live next door, said the incident was unexpected.  “I was appalled, because I’m like, for the most part, it’s quiet around here. No issues, anything. So to hear that this happened, this could potentially happen to us, is disheartening,” Torres said.

Ononye said the shooting highlights the need for vigilance. “Especially with how things have progressed in our communities nowadays, we have to be able to protect our families,” he said. “Just be aware of your surroundings because things are happening in our communities.”

Kibkoros said he is now reconsidering his living situation. “I don’t know how I would have reacted. And it makes me now think, hey, maybe I have to look for a new place,” he said.

Blue Springs homeowner shoots, kills alleged intruder, police say

BLUE SPRINGS, Mo. — A homeowner in Blue Springs, Missouri, shot and killed a person who allegedly broke into their home.

Officers with the Blue Springs Police Department were called to the 100 block of Little Garden on Friday morning on reports of a burglary. A homeowner called 911 and said that someone had entered the home unlawfully.

Before police arrived, the homeowner shot the suspected burglar, who was pronounced dead at the scene.

Police remain at the scene while investigating.

Justice Thomas Questions Congress’s Power to Regulate Gun Possession Across State Lines
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas answers questions during a visit to t

AP Photo/Eric Gay

In a concurring opinion for Hemani, Justice Clarence Thomas focused on another aspect of the federal statute on which the case centered and suggested Congress lacks the power to regulate gun possession across state lines.

Breitbart News reported the Supreme Court of the United States handed down the Hemani decision on Thursday, June 18, 2026. All nine justices stood against federal statute §922(g)(3), the statute under which Ali Hemani was arrested and prosecuted as “unlawful user” of marijuana in possession of a gun.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote SCOTUS’s majority opinion and Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, looking at another aspect of §922(g)(3) wherein he believes Congress exceeds its authority.

Thomas opened his opinion: “I agree with the Court that §922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent Ali Hemani, and I join its opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to another issue: As a matter of both original meaning and this Court’s precedents, §922(g)(3) appears to exceed Congress’s enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce.”

He narrowed his focus to Section 922(g), writing that it “appears to exceed Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause.”

Thomas continued: “Congress has the power to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.”

However, he added, “As a matter of both original meaning and this Court’s precedents, Congress lacks the power to regulate the possession of firearms solely on the ground that they crossed state lines at some point in the past.”

Thomas opined, “Because §922(g) criminalizes possession of firearms apart from any purchase or sale of goods and services across state lines, I doubt that it could be an exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers as an original matter.”

Although he stressed that this was not an issue in the Hemani case, he encouraged SCOTUS “and lower courts” to “revisit the constitutionality” of Congress regulation of firearm possession across state lines.

Key rule: Don’t let weirdos run your society.

“A possible referendum in Oregon on animal rights would end fishing, hunting, even pest control, just when Democrats are trying really hard not to be seen as ‘weirdos again.’”

I’m reading “Protect Every Animal From Cruelty? Not in 2026, Oregon Democrats Say” (NYT).

The measure, known for now as Initiative Petition 28… would give all animals the same protections from cruelty that Oregon grants dogs and cats…. Hunting, trapping and fishing would be outlawed, along with scientific research on animals, lethal pest control and conventional livestock production….
The fight is in some ways very Oregon, long a proving ground for ideas that initially seemed politically impossible only to enter the mainstream, such as medical aid in dying, universal vote-by-mail and legalizing the hallucinogenic compound in magic mushrooms for therapy.

When people think of “animals” — as in “I love animals!” — they’re not thinking about cockroaches and mosquitoes.

ADDED: According to Ballotopedia, the initiative “Applies to mammals (including vermin), birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish.” So I think “lethal pest control” is meant to call to mind mice and rats, not the various troublesome insects. The NYT article says “all animals” and also, more than once, says “pest control.”

In the comments here, Tom T. said, “Then would come the court decisions defining pet ownership as cruelty and outlawing it.” That got me looking into the argument that pet-keeping is a form of cruelty to animals. Here’s an interesting Vox article from 3 years ago: “The case against pet ownership/Why we should aim for a world with fewer but happier pets.”
Excerpt:
We demand companionship with as little friction as possible, expecting our pets (especially dogs) to be docile and agreeable, and to adapt quickly to the human world, with its countless rules and norms that mean nothing to them. And then when they inevitably fail to do so at first, we deem their natural habits misbehavior in need of correction, or abandonment….

Just how uneven the relationship is between pets and their human owners was demonstrated during the pandemic when, lonely and stuck at home, one in five households adopted a new pet. As new pet owners returned to work, however, their newly lonely pets struggled with the sudden change, showing high rates of chewing, digging, barking, escaping, pacing, hiding, and indoor urination and defecation. Our pets might not be so bored if they just had some autonomy, but having a pet means regularly denying it….

Gary Francione and Anna Charlton, a firebrand animal rights couple who teach law at Rutgers University… have advocated for the abolition of pet ownership. “Domesticated animals are completely dependent on humans, who control every aspect of their lives,” they wrote in a provocative essay for Aeon in 2016. “Unlike human children, who will one day become autonomous, non-humans never will. That is the entire point of domestication — we want domesticated animals to depend on us. They remain perpetually in a netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything that is of relevance to them.”…

Well, from the responses by other Justices to her an Sotomayor’s dissents in other cases, it’s pretty clear both of them are stupid, agenda driven hacks who, like all other leftists, don’t like the idea of their political rivals having the means to make telling them “No” a real decisive statement.

Jackson’s Concurring Opinion in Hemani Case Makes Laughable Argument Against Bruen

The Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen is probably the most important ruling the Court has made on the Second Amendment in history. While Heller and McDonald are critical as well, the Bruen test is a simple, straightforward test that can and should be easily applied to gun control laws. Did something like that exist at the time of the nation’s founding? Was there something like it during the time of incorporation? No, then knock it off.

But while the Hemani decision was ultimately unanimous, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson wrote a concurring opinion, along with Justice Sonya Sotomayor, arguing that the Bruen decision needs to be revisited.

Along with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Jackson is advising the court to review its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Jackson and Sotomayor said the 2022 decision is “unworkable” and that the court may need to “retire the failed Bruen experiment.” That test, according to Jackson, is based on centuries-old evidence that may not be relevant to today’s legal questions.

“It imposes on judges the unfamiliar and difficult tasks of sifting through centuries-old evidence in order to answer ‘contested historical questions,’ and ‘applying those answers to resolve contemporary problems,’” Jackson said in her opinion, per Law & Crime.

“Given those challenges, it is unsurprising that Bruen’s test is vulnerable to inconsistent and arbitrary application, as judges draw different conclusions from the same historical evidence and reach divergent assessments of the same laws.”

I find it interesting that Jackson and Sotomayor seem to think that applying history to whether something would align with the Founding Fathers’ intentions is problematic for “contemporary problems.” Never mind that we still look at their intentions on, say, the Fourth Amendment as it relates to your cell phone data or what’s on your laptop. The historic norms were that your person and your property were largely off limits without a warrant. While frisking was one thing–the things in your pocket, for example–it was easy for the Court to decide that your cell phone was a different thing.

Why is it that guns are a different matter? Is it because the history doesn’t align with what these two justices really wanted?

Continue reading “”

One of the bittersweet things about growing old is realizing how mistaken you were when you were young. As a young political leftist, I saw the left as the voice of the common man. Nothing could be further from the truth.
-Thomas Sowell

This crap-for-brains ‘allegedly’ needs to end. It either happened or it didn’t

Man Allegedly Crashes SUV Into Home, Gets Shot Dead by Resident

A man allegedly crashed his SUV into a San Tan Valley, Arizona, home around 6:30 p.m. Wednesday and was shot dead by a resident.

AZ Family reported that the driver of the SUV was identified as 34-year-old Jewell Vaughn.

ABC 15 noted that Vaughn allegedly drove the vehicle “through the front of the home and into the backyard.” The incident “[injured] both an adult male and adult female resident inside.”

One of the residents shot Vaughn and he succumbed to his wounds.

The female resident was taken to the hospital to have her injuries treated and the male resident was detained by police for questioning then released. Upon release he, too, was taken to a hospital for treatment.

Vaughn was “a father of five and a grandfather of one.”

Another Day, Another Reason ‘Public Safety’ Arguments for Gun Control Fall Flat

As Cam noted earlier this week, the Second Amendment Foundation is suing the sheriff in Contra Costa, California, over some rather bizarre concealed carry rules.

In particular, he will not issue a permit for any firearm that has a red dot sight or a flashlight, as well as any single-action only firearm. While I vehemently disagree with his position on SAO firearms, one can almost see the argument there. After all, single-action handguns have to be carried cocked and locked, which makes a lot of people nervous. It’s a non-issue, though, but I also understand many people don’t realize it. Still, we don’t base our rights around what makes other people scared, so it’s still a non-starter.

But the other things are a big issue in and of themselves, and it’s part of something I’ve noticed for a while with anti-gunners. Despite their claims about wanting to keep the public safe, they actively attack things that help keep the public safe.

Even if you think gun control works, most anti-gunners will still say the right to self-defense exists. They can’t afford not to, granted, but that right is there, has been affirmed by the courts numerous times, and that means we have a right to use a firearm in self-defense.

Now, let’s think about the sheriff in Contra Costa for a moment.

Red dot sights make it faster for someone to get a weapon on target and help to increase accuracy, particularly during high-stress situations. That means the rounds go where they’re meant to go, preferably into the bad guy and not someone standing off to the side who isn’t part of anything except, maybe, trying to be a good witness on your behalf.

Flashlights on a weapon are beneficial for properly identifying your target in a dark alley or parking lot. They help people make sure there’s actually a threat to their life by helping them identify the weapon as, you know, an actual weapon. They help to make sure the person you’re pointing the gun at is someone who needs a gun pointed at them, rather than someone else who popped up at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Both of these things are almost as common as oxygen in this day and age, and many firearms are built around them being added rather easily, and that’s assuming the gun didn’t come with the red dot from the factory. Moreover, they help make sure the good guys don’t shoot someone who doesn’t deserve it.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, we’ve got New Jersey.

For all the state’s many sins against the Second Amendment, the one that stands out for our purposes here is its ban on hollow-point ammo. While it’s sometimes framed as expanding so as to cause more damage to the person being shot, the reality is that hollow points are in my gun because they have less of a chance of overpenetrating my target and hitting someone or something else that doesn’t need shooting.

Yes, I should pay attention to both my target and what’s beyond it, but if lives are on the line, I can’t guarantee I’m going to get everything right. Police departments use hollow points for the same reason I do, so that officers don’t end up shooting through bad guys and into bystanders.

New Jersey, though, has banned them and is very strict on the subject, even prosecuting people who came in from out of state with them in their firearms.

From red dots to hollow points, the items that make it so the general public is safer in self-defense situations are treated like they’re somehow making guns less safe for that public. There’s no evidence of any of it, but they scare someone somewhere, so screw our rights because it makes someone nervous.

Why, if I were more cynical, I’d swear that the reason they do this is because they want innocent people to get shot, all so they can demonize self-defense even more than they already have.

But they wouldn’t do that, now, would they?

Cynical Publius

RE: The Reflecting Pool

Let’s review a few undeniable, irrefutable facts about this subject:

1. The Reflecting Pool on the National Mall has been a leaking, algae-overgrown mess for years.
2. Having a national monument in such disrepair reflects poorly on our nation.
3. President Trump saw these problems and decided America deserved better for our 250th Birthday, and has been trying to resolve those problems in time for July 4th.
4. Democrats everywhere want the repair efforts to fail.

*******************

These are FACTS people, not my opinion.
FACTS.

So what logical conclusion do all these facts lead to?
Simple.

***Democrats would rather see the United States of America fail than see President Donald J. Trump succeed.***

Democrats are not patriots. They do not care about our nation or our national pride.
They only care about power, and to achieve power they would destroy our nation if that was what they deemed necessary.
It’s basically the same ethos that caused them to burn down our cities in 2020 rather than see Trump win a second term.

I really do not see how it is possible to coexist with these people unless they change.