RKBA – Page 34 – MILESFORTIS

Fifth Circuit Clarifies that its Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule Covers FPC’s Members

NEW ORLEANS, LA (May 26, 2023) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) released a statement on the Fifth Circuit’s Order clarifying that the Injunction Pending Appeal in Mock v. Garland applies to FPC’s members, Maxim Defense’s customers, and the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members. The order, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

FPC challenged ATF’s administrative rule that seeks to reclassify “braced pistols” as “short-barreled rifles.” In so doing, the rule would transform millions of peaceable people into felons overnight simply for owning a firearm that has been lawful to own for a decade, unless they either destroy their constitutionally protected property or comply with the NFA’s onerous and unconstitutional requirements.

FPC has argued that the rule is a violation of both the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act because it infringes upon the fundamental and natural rights of the People. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to secure their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Per the Fifth Circuit’s Order: “This clarification is granted essentially for the reasons concisely set forth in the May 25, 2023, Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Reply to Their Opposed Motion for Clarification of Injunction Pending Appeal. . . Plaintiffs merely request clarification on whether their reading of the term ʻPlaintiffs’ to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (ʻFPC’) have represented since day one of this litigation is correct.’ That reading is correct. Also as requested, the term “Plaintiffs in this case” includes the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members.”

“We’re incredibly excited to report that the Fifth Circuit has clarified that our injunction covers FPC’s members and Maxim Defense’s customers, as we have always argued for,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation. “This relief will offer protection while we continue to fight against ATF’s overreach.”

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org.

Second Federal Judge Expands Block on Biden Pistol-Brace Ban as Registration Deadline Approaches

Another federal court has cast doubt on the legality of one of President Biden’s unilateral attempts at implementing new gun restrictions.

United States District Judge Jane L. Boyle of the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the ATF’s ban on pistols equipped with stabilizing braces on Thursday in the case Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) v. ATF. Drawing on the injunction issued against the ban on Tuesday by a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Boyle said similar concerns over administrative procedure and Second Amendment rights were at issue in the case before her court. She limited her injunction to just the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

“Although the Fifth Circuit’s order limited relief to the plaintiffs in that case, the Court finds the same relief is appropriate here,” Boyle wrote in her order. “And while Plaintiffs raise some arguments that were not raised in Mock, the resolution of that appeal will almost certainly affect, if not control, the Court’s decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion and issues a preliminary injunction as to Plaintiffs in this case only, pending resolution of the expedited appeal in Mock v. Garland.”

Continue reading “”

ATF: Amend or Abolish?

The Biden administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2024 increases funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 7.4 percent, to $1.9 billion, in order to “expand multijurisdictional gun trafﬁcking strike forces with additional personnel, increase regulation of the ﬁrearms industry, and implement the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.”

Reading that, I’m reminded of James Madison’s musings in The Federalist No. 46, regarding his disbelief that Americans would ever allow tyranny to take hold here, much less continue to fund it once it developed. Madison wrote:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

Today, we do indeed behold the gathering storm — the arming of the bureaucracy and the disarming of the people — yet we continue to supply the materials of this tyranny, and as Madison’s study of history revealed to him, if we continue along this trajectory, there will come a deluge of despotism that will destroy our liberty.

Much of the tyrannical torrent today comes from the ATF itself, an organization whose very existence is anathema to the principles of freedom upon which the U.S. Constitution was founded. There should be no agency devoted to infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. However, just because such an agency has been allowed to be established, it does not mean that we must permit its perpetuation.

Enter the Second Amendment Foundation’s Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA).

Continue reading “”

This is why the media will never understand gun owners

Most people who read stuff here are either gun owners or know someone who owns a gun. At the very least, they’re sympathetic to having one.

Not counting the hate readers, of course.

The media, however, is full of people who don’t own guns, don’t know anyone they know has them, and perhaps more importantly, don’t want to know anyone who is a firearm owner.

And yet, they routinely write crap like this:

The story of a Pennsylvania church blessing AR-15s made the rounds on traditional and social media last week. The ceremony at the World Peace and Unification Sanctuary ministry in rural Newfoundland, PA, was widely ridiculed as bizarre and out of touch, but once you take away some of the theatrics, how different are these worshippers really from millions of Americans and the NRA?

The answer, it turns out, is not that much.

WhoWhatWhy went to Newfoundland twice last week, attended the gun-blessing ceremony and saw some things that the rest of the media seems to have missed.

Now, the church in question is the Unification Church, whose members are often called “Moonies” after the founder, Rev. Hyung Jin (Sean) Moon.

Continue reading “”

Judge right on history of gun owners’ rights

After the Supreme Court ruled nearly a year ago that making it unduly burdensome to acquire a permit to carry a firearm violates the Second Amendment rights of Americans, New Jersey and New York tried a new approach.

The two states attempted to disqualify Americans with permits from carrying a gun at a broad assortment of places — so broad that, as Reason magazine notes, “effectively prohibits the carrying of that handgun virtually everywhere.”

Fortunately, a federal judge struck down the attempt at circumventing the rights to self-defense and to bear arms in mid-May.

One of the hallmarks for the right to bear arms the Supreme Court set forth was historical analogues — testing new policies against the history of our nation and whether similar limitations have ever existed. As Judge Renee Bumb noted, New Jersey failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to offer historical evidence. She was left to comb through the state’s history herself, and what she found was numerous examples of permissiveness toward carrying guns in many of the most similar conditions to which New Jersey attempted to limit the right to carry.

No one should be surprised by what this judge found. Modern sentiments aside, the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the necessity of guns as tools of deterrence and self-defense are ingrained in our nation’s history — and illustrate that guns are not the problem, nor gun control the solution.

ARMED & FEMALE II

Never an Easy Target

Millions of American women are buying guns for self-protection. If you are one of them, or plan to be, Paxton Quiqley urges you to arm yourself with information and train with experts so that you can safely defend yourself and your loved ones against any potential violence. Reading this book is the perfect place to start.

“Highly recommended reading, especially beginners, for those considering firearms training. Paxton addresses the essential factors related to choosing firearms as an option for protecting yourself and those you love.” -Mark Vinci, Director, Model Mugging Self Defense for Women

“Paxton Quigley-an expert on women, on home intrusion, and rape.” –Oprah Winfrey

“Paxton Quigley, a modern-day Annie Oakley who teaches women how to shoot in the name of empowerment.” -Caitlin Kelly, Blown Away, American Women and Guns

“If you’re a woman in the market for a gun to protect yourself, reading this book is a vital first step.” -David Patrick Columbia, newyorksocialdiary.com

“In the women’s gun movement, Paxton Quigley is the great persuader.” –60 Minutes

“15 million women are gun owners, and they’re finding a guru named Paxton Quigley. Her message is being heard.” –NBC Nightly News

My Armed & Female book series has been called “the bible of gun self-defense for women,” and although the first book has been available for many years, I realized that with all of the changes in laws and the new attitudes about guns, it was time to update the book. Numerous people asked me to revise it without losing its spirit and intent since it has helped many women make the decision to arm themselves safely and confidently.

Owning a firearm for self-defense is your right as an American, but with that right comes extreme responsibility and accountability. Gun ownership is not a Red State vs. Blue State issue. In a country with 120 guns for every 100 people, plenty of liberals are pro-gun, and many conservatives support some type of gun regulations. Even in a state like California, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, as well as a strong anti-gun political climate, many residents are buying and learning how to use firearms. All over America, women of all ages, religions, nationalities, and races have come to the realization that to protect themselves and their families against escalating violence – many feel that they cannot trust their local law enforcement – they need to own a firearm.

Many of these women report that they’ve left or are trying to leave violent relationships. Others just want to have some control over their own personal safety in a rapidly changing world. Many purchased handguns without knowing how to use them. It is for all the women who want to learn about the pros and cons of gun ownership, and about how to protect themselves safely and effectively with a firearm that I decided to write my newest book, Armed & Female II: Never An Easy Target.

Like Vermont has a problem.

Vermonters, lawmakers await decisions on contentious gun reform bills

MONTPELIER, Vt. — One year after the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Vermont lawmakers looked back on firearm-related bills passed in the 2023 session that they believe will make Vermont a safer state.

One of those will implement a mandatory 72-hour waiting period from the time you purchase a gun to when it enters your possession.

“When somebody has the impulse to buy a gun and use it for a sinister purpose like maybe a school shooting or something like that, or if they intend on harming themselves, those 72 hours can be so vital,” Rep. Conor Caser, Executive Director of GunSense Vermont, said.

Some believe the bill violates the Second Amendment and is unconstitutional. Gov. Phil Scott has not said he will veto the bill but has expressed strong concerns in recent weeks.

“I don’t doubt that if this goes into law that there will be a constitutional challenge,” said Scott.

However, the governor is expected to sign off on a bill that strengthens penalties on straw purchases and the defacing of serial numbers on firearms, which lawmakers believe will reduce crime in and out of state.

“They go in and buy them [guns] and then trade them for drugs, and the folks who can’t possess obviously have the firearm. And we’ve seen them used in crimes in other states,” Sen. Richard Sears said.

It remains clear that lawmakers will not agree on the policies of all the bills, but both sides of the aisle say the fact that three firearm reform bills made it to the governor’s desk this session is something they have never seen before.

“Passing three is a first, I must say, but the dynamics have changed also in the last 15-20 years. The makeup of the body, the numbers in the body, you’ll see on most of those bills they are predominately supported by Democrats,” Rep. Patrick Brennan, a Republican, said.

Sears believes public tragedies such as what happened in Uvalde also played a role.

“I think Vermonters’ views of firearms have changed dramatically due to the mass shootings we’ve seen in other states such as Uvalde a year ago,” Sears said.

Most bills passed by the Senate and House within the last two weeks of the session, including the two firearm bills, have still not officially made it to the governor’s desk as the legislative council finishes the process of looking them over.

Once they do, Scott will have five days to make a decision on whether to sign them or not.

Well, it’s really not all that hidden. It’s ‘Rules for thee, but not for me!‘

The Hidden Truth About Gun Control

I’ve debated gun-control lawyers. They said guns aren’t the answer for personal safety. I’ve come to a single conclusion when I look at the people who want us disarmed. Their actions speak so loud that I can barely hear their words. Some of the strongest and most consistent practitioners of armed defense are the people who espouse gun-control for the rest of us. That is the hidden truth in the gun-control debate.

We could talk about California Senator Diane Feinstein who had a concealed carry permit and told the rest of us to turn in our guns. We could talk about the celebrities who show up to a gun-control march in a limousine and are escorted down the street by their security detail. I’d rather talk about the Godfather of Gun-Control. Let’s look at billionaire and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Billionaire Bloomberg is the gun-control movement in the United States. He funds the anti-gun think tanks. He funds the AstroTurf organizations. During an election year, he funds the gun-control campaigns and political lobbying to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

You’d think that Bloomberg was against armed defense if you only listened to him. He sends another message if you watch what he does.

Mayor Bloomberg has an armed security detail with him all the time. He has armed security at his homes and as he moves to his private jets. He and his family have armed security where ever they go. Watch what he does, and even anti-gun politician Michael Bloomberg clearly thinks that guns save lives.

The Bloomberg family is surrounded by armed defenders every minute of their lives, but he wants our children left unprotected.

Bloomberg’s spokesmen say he only wants to save lives. After all, there are thousands of injuries and deaths from criminals using guns every year. Bloomberg doesn’t tell us about the thousands of times we use a firearm in armed defense every day. He is silent on the millions of times we use a firearm to defend ourselves every year.

“Millions” are much larger than “thousands.” Believe me when I say that billionaire Bloomberg can do the math. He believes that guns save lives for him.. but not for us.

While I still have a voice, I say I disagree. We don’t have a security detail of retired police officers. We are the thousands of honest citizens who will defend ourselves today. We are the one-out-of-a-dozen adults who are carrying concealed in public. Honest citizens like us are the defenders of our family, our friends, and our neighbors.

Just like Michael Bloomberg, they deserve protection too.

Poll: Majority of Adults Support ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws, Sour on Need to Protect Gun Rights

A significant majority of the general public support robust legal protections for their public self-defense rights.

That’s according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll released Wednesday. Nearly six-in-ten U.S. adults said they support laws so-called stand-your-ground laws that “allow people who are in a public place and believe that their life or safety is in danger to kill or injure the person who they think is threatening them,”—up three percent since it last polled the question. More than 80 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of Independents said they agreed with the laws, while only 40 percent of Democrats said the same.

At the same time, the poll identified a broader trend of the public turning against the need to defend gun rights in favor of reducing gun violence. It found 60 percent of Americans now think controlling gun violence is more important, while just 38 percent say the opposite. That’s a significant change from 2013, the year the poll first began asking this question, when the public was evenly split between defending gun rights and curbing violence.

Continue reading “”

Live, Practice, and Compete from Concealment

There are over twenty million issued carry permits now in the United States, and bear in mind that this is in a nation that now has over half of the states honoring Constitutional Carry, thus requiring no permit at all to carry concealed. This is a good thing. On any given day, there are millions of American citizens carrying guns, and the majority of these guns are being carried concealed.

Despite these epic numbers, the amount of people who actually practice with their defensive firearm on a regular basis is depressingly small. Among even this small minority, the amount of people who practice from concealment, the way that most actually carry the gun, is even smaller. I have frequented many public ranges, and I rarely see anyone drawing from a holster, in general, even at ranges that allow it. And, while the unusual individual will be drawing from a holster, it is almost always an openly-worn holster rather than from concealment.

It is amazing that, while so many people have a carry permit, so few actually train with the gun from concealment. I realize that firearms are almost similar to automobiles in some regard; while most American adults drive a car, there are very few professional racecar drivers. At least with cars, most people actually drive, even if not at a high level. With firearms, it is far worse as even though a huge percentage of Americans not only own but carry a gun, few practice much with it, and far fewer practice realistically from concealment.

The ability to draw the gun from your concealed holster safely, efficiently, predictably, and quickly is the single most pressing skill directly related to using the gun itself in a defensive capacity, yet it is the skill least practiced by most concealed carriers. Those who take self-defense with a firearm seriously should devote considerable time to the craft of deploying the gun from a concealed holster, and there are a number of ways to maximize this proficiency within the limits of time that life imposes.

Continue reading “”

GUN CONTROL GOV. MAKES ALL-CALL FOR GUN CONTROL, FAILS ON THE BASICS

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham knows exactly where to go to get fawning media coverage and an agreeable viewing audience for her all-call gun control platform.

Gov. Lujan Grisham joined MSNBC’s Morning Joe just days following the murders of three innocent Americans by a mentally troubled 18-year old. She knew there would be no serious pushback or correcting by the host of her false statements about firearms and lies about the firearm industry.

Then again, that was most likely her goal. And, sadly, its standard operating procedure for much of what passes these days for “mainstream media” and journalism.

Facts and Details

Gov. Lujan Grisham’s support for gun control restrictions is already well-known. It’s why she was in consideration to be President Joe Biden’s running mate back in 2019. One of the pillar planks of the Governor’s platform is to ban the possession, sale and transfer of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) in New Mexico. There are currently more than 24.4 million in circulation since 1990. That means they are more commonly-owned than there are Ford F-150 pickup trucks. I’d venture you couldn’t drive five minutes in New Mexico without seeing an F-150 on the road.

New Mexico’s governor started with the “weapons of war” false allegations to demonize all lawful ownership because of the crazed acts of a lone, mentally disturbed individual.

Continue reading “”

Armed Defense- They were Surprised, but they Responded and Saved Lives

Almost no one expects to be attacked. Yes, these honest gun owners were surprised, but they responded and saved lives.

These ordinary citizens faced a lethal threat. Again this week, these honest gun owners saved their lives and the lives of others.

The longer discussion of what we might want to do is on the Self Defense Gun Stories webpage. For now, here are the stories and the links to the original news sources. How will you protect the people you love?

Continue reading “”

Veto-proof majority in Louisiana House approves constitutional carry

So far this year we’ve seen two states adopt permitless or constitutional carry, not only with the support of lawmakers but with the backing of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen. If Louisiana is going to follow suit and become the 28th state to recognize the right to bear arms without a government-issued permission slip, however, legislators are going to have to overcome an anticipated veto by Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards, who previously killed a similar measure back in 2021.

We’re one step closer to that becoming reality today after the Louisiana House voted 70-29 on Tuesday in favor of HB 131, just enough to override Edwards’ veto… at least if no one changes their vote.

Continue reading “”

FPC Secures Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule, Will Seek Clarification on Scope of Ruling

NEW ORLEANS, LA (May 23, 2023) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) released a statement on the Fifth Circuit’s Order granting an Injunction Pending Appeal in Mock v. Garland, FPC and FPC Action Foundation’s federal lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF’s) recent rule reclassifying braced pistols as National Firearms Act (NFA)-regulated short-barreled rifles. The injunction, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

Per the the Fifth Circuit’s Order, “IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is EXPEDITED to the next available Oral Argument Calendar. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants’ Opposed Motion For a Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal is GRANTED as to the Plaintiffs in this case.”

FPC intends to seek clarification as to who is covered under the scope of the injunction.

“We are very excited and encouraged by the Fifth Circuit’s decision this morning,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation at FPC Action Foundation. “We intend to ask the Court for additional information about who is covered under the injunction, but cannot stress enough just how important this decision is. The fight is far from over, but this is a huge victory in the battle against the ATF’s unconstitutional and unlawful brace rule!”

Actually that doesn’t matter so much as long as I can be armed.

Move over Uber and Lyft; new rideshare app offers armed drivers

If you’re a regular reader here at Bearing Arms, you’ve seen or heard me talk about Uber and Lyft’s driver (and passenger) disarmament policies that force contracted drivers to go unarmed in order to stay in the good graces of the companies. Even when drivers have been forced to use their gun in self-defense, they’ve been quickly cut loose from Uber and Lyft because they dared to have their legally-carried firearm with them while they’re doing a dangerous job.

Given the large number of carjackings, murders, and other targeted crimes against rideshare drivers, I find it unconscionable that these companies are putting drivers at risk by demanding they get behind the wheel without the means to defend themselves from an attack, and I refuse to use either platform until their policies change.

Admittedly, it’s easier for me to take that stand since I live in a rural area and have little need for a rideshare service to begin with, but I know that there are plenty of other gun owners out there who try to avoid these companies whenever possible.

Now we may soon have another choice, at least for those gun owners and Second Amendment supporters who live in New York and Atlanta. A new rideshare app called Black Wolf has just launched, and company founder Kerry KingBrown says riders can choose to have an armed driver behind the wheel if that’s what they prefer.

“Who are mostly on the news getting robbed, getting raped? The average person,” Brown told Atlanta News First. “What I’m creating is a necessary evil. It’s a necessity.”

In the week since it has launched, there have been some 80,000 downloads, according to Atlanta First News.

“Every Black Wolf App vehicle comes equipped with GPS Tracking and Live-streaming technology that allows our riders to share with their loved ones,” the company says on its Facebook page.

The app, which utilizes real-time data to let others know of the riders’ locations, charges a premium rate to ride with a driver who is armed.

Riders pay a base rate of $50 for an unarmed driver in addition to $1.75 per mile. A driver who is packing heat would set a rider back $60 as a base rate followed by a rate of $1.75 per mile.

The Black Wolf ride sharing app requires drivers to pass a background check and undergo training on how to handle a firearm as well as de-escalation.

Brown, a Long Island native, aspires to bring the service to the Big Apple — but New York City’s strict gun laws could complicate those plans.

He said that he is looking to enter the New York City market with help from a “connection” — a detective in the NYPD who has his own security company and provides training for drivers.

Brown acknowledged the strict gun laws that make it difficult to obtain a permit to carry a firearm.

It’s definitely going to be a challenge to bring Black Wolf to the Big Apple, but Brown has already launched a fleet of fifteen vehicles in Atlanta. The service may be more expensive than an UberX or a Lyft ride, but Brown is banking on the idea that many riders would prefer to have some extra security while they’re on the road.

I’ve reached out to Black Wolf and hope to bring Kerry KingBrown on Cam & Co in the near future to talk more about the company and his plans. It sounds like a worthy addition to the rideshare companies that are already operating, and a huge step forward for driver (and passenger) safety.

Dër GrëtchënFührër® is at it again.

Michigan governor signs red flag gun law, questions linger over enforcement

ROYAL OAK, Mich. (AP) — Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer gave final approval Monday afternoon to a red flag law that aims to keep firearms away from those at risk of harming themselves or others as the state grapples with ways to slow gun violence in the wake of its second mass school shooting.

Michigan joined Minnesota as the second state in under a week to implement a red flag law after Democrats in both states won control of both chambers and the governor’s office in November. New Mexico previously was the last state to pass a red flag law in 2020.

Whitmer signed the legislation just outside of Detroit, flanked by state lawmakers and individuals affected by gun violence. Former Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who began campaigning for gun safety after she was shot in the head in 2011, was also in attendance.

“We have heard too many times from those who knew a mass shooter who had expressed concern in advance about that mass shooter’s intentions,” Whitmer said Monday. “With extreme risk protection orders, we have a mechanism to step in and save lives.”

The new law, also known as extreme risk protection orders, is expected to go into effect next spring. It will allow family members, police, mental health professionals, roommates and former dating partners to petition a judge to remove firearms from those they believe pose an imminent threat to themselves or others.

The judge would have 24 hours to decide on a protection order after a request is filed. If granted, the judge would then have 14 days to set a hearing during which the flagged person would have to prove they do not pose a significant risk. A standard order would last one year.

Michigan became the 21st state to implement a red flag law. Questions remain of whether the state will have better success in enforcing it than others have. An Associated Press analysis in September found that in the 19 states with red flag laws, firearms were removed from people 15,049 times since 2020, fewer than 10 per 100,000 adult residents.

Some local sheriffs in Michigan have told The Associated Press that they won’t enforce the law if they don’t believe it’s constitutional. Over half of the state’s counties have passed resolutions declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, opposing laws they believe infringe on gun rights.

Continue reading “”

“No one is trying to take your guns.”

🙄 https://t.co/arkJULsICz

— SAF (@2AFDN) May 22, 2023

Armed Defense of Vatican Highlights Church Hypocrisy on Guns

U.S.A. — “A car driven by someone with apparent psychiatric problems rushed through a Vatican gate Thursday evening and sped past Swiss Guards into a palace courtyard before the driver was apprehended by police, the Holy See said,” ABC News reports. “Vatican gendarmes fired a shot at the speeding car’s front tires after it rushed the gate, but the vehicle managed to continue on its way, the Vatican press office said in a statement late Thursday.”

Yes, of course, and that’s never been a secret. Established in 1506, the Pontifical Swiss Guard is one of the world’s oldest military units, with its work augmented by the Gendarmerie Corps of Vatican City State. And while tourists might find their historical plumed helmets and halberds picturesque and quaint, they’re the real deal, “lavishly equipped,” as colleague Kurt Hofmann has noted, “with some pretty hefty investments in Sig-Sauer, Heckler & Koch, Steyr Mannlicher, and Glock semi-automatic handguns, personal defense weapons, assault rifles, and submachine guns, not to mention whoever manufactures the swords, halberds, and other more traditional weapons carried by [the Pope’s] guards.”

Guns.com did a great piece on all their arms a few years back.

All this makes some official pronouncements by Pope Francis more problematic and hypocritical than infallible.

“Do we really want peace?” he asked. “Then let’s ban all weapons so we don’t have to live in fear of war.”

Responding “You first” hardly seems out of line here.

Continue reading “”

A conversation with constitutional attorney Stephen P. Halbrook