Category: RKBA

Supreme Court Decides Against Early Intervention in Illinois AR-15 Ban Case

The Supreme Court has declined to issue an emergency injunction request against an Illinois city’s “assault weapons” ban on Wednesday.

The request was made by the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), which has challenged a ban on AR-15s and similar firearms enacted by Naperville, Illinois. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees the circuit the case is filed in, requested a brief from the city in defense of its law after the gun-rights group asked the Court to intervene because a lower court upheld the ban.

“The application for a writ of injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Barrett and by her referred to the Court is denied,” the order in NAGR v. Naperville reads.

Barrett’s request for a brief in the case opened the possibility that the Court might be willing to jump the line and block the city’s ban on an emergency basis. That would have been a rare move, which the Court also declined to do in two recent Second Amendment cases challenging New York’s latest gun restrictions. The Court taking the less aggressive path of allowing the case to play out on the merits in the lower courts before deciding whether or not to get involved represents a setback for gun-rights advocates who had hoped they could achieve a quick win on the issue of assault weapons bans.

Naperville said it is “pleased” with the decision and vowed to continue defending its ban.

“The City’s ordinance is intended to protect the health and safety of our community,” Linda L. LaCloche, director of communications for the city manager’s office, told The Reload. “We will continue to defend the ordinance against legal challenges and expect future court decisions as the legal process runs its course.”

The case against Naperville’s ban is separate from the newer statewide ban. Naperville enacted its ban in August 2022. State lawmakers passed their ban in January 2023. Both have faced significant backlash from gun-rights supporters but the statewide ban has come under even more intense scrutiny since its passage.

The statewide ban has since been ruled unconstitutional in state and federal court, though those rulings have since been stayed by higher courts. Oral arguments in the case against the statewide ban were heard at the Illinois Supreme Court yesterday. It has also faced backlash from a majority of Illinois sheriffs who say they won’t enforce the ban because they consider it unconstitutional.

The Naperville ordinance has fared better by comparison. A federal district judge denied a preliminary injunction against the Naperville ordinance in February, and the Seventh Circuit rejected NAGR’s request to block enforcement of the law while its appeal is being processed. Now, the Supreme Court has done the same.

The Court’s denial of NAGR’s request in the Naperville case was done without any comment or noted dissents. That sets it apart from one of the emergency injunction denials in the New York Second Amendment cases. In Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, noted the Court’s decision not to intervene on an emergency basis reflected its deference to lower court proceedings rather than an endorsement of New York’s new gun restrictions.

“I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case,” Alito wrote.

The pair said the New York law in question presents “novel and serious questions under both the First and the Second Amendments” and went on to praise the district court’s ruling against much of the law as “a thorough opinion.” It noted the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had issued “unreasoned summary stay orders” against the injunctions in Anyonyuk and several other cases involving the New York law before encouraging the plaintiffs to refile for emergency relief if the lower court drags its feet.

“Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal,” Alito wrote.

In NAGR v. Naperville, none of the justices said anything about the district court’s decision to uphold the city’s ban on the sale of AR-15s and other popular firearms. That provides less insight into how the justices may feel about the case itself beyond agreeing not to get involved at this point.

NAGR did not respond to a request for comment on the Court’s denial.

Comments O’ The Day

Again, just like in NY SCOTUS has chosen their procedure preferences over the rights of millions of Americans

Justices will not get involved with lower courts giving the anti-gun states whatever they want. We get screwed until a case on the merits reaches cert petition.

Maryland governor signs gun-control bills tightening requirements, NRA sues

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed gun-control measures into law on Tuesday, and the National Rifle Association quickly filed a federal lawsuit against them.

The governor signed legislation approved by state lawmakers this year in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The high court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen last year ended a requirement similar to a Maryland law for people to demonstrate a particular need to get a license to carry a concealed gun in public.

One of the measures Moore signed Tuesday removes the “good and substantial reason” language from Maryland law that the court found unconstitutional in the Bruen case. But the Maryland General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats, also tightened gun laws to prevent someone from carrying a concealed handgun in certain areas.

“Gun violence is tearing apart the fabric of our communities, not just through mass shootings but through shootings that are happening in each of our communities far too often,” Moore, a Democrat, said at a bill-signing ceremony.

Moore said the measures he signed into law demonstrate that the state won’t back down from the challenges of addressing gun violence plaguing the nation.

“In Maryland, we refuse to say these problems are too big or too tough,” Moore said. “We will act, and that’s exactly what today represents.”

One of the bills signed by the governor generally prohibits a person from wearing, carrying or transporting a gun in an “area for children or vulnerable adults,” like a school or health care facility. The new law, which takes effect Oct. 1, also prohibits a person from carrying a firearm in a “government or public infrastructure area,” or a “special purpose area,” which is defined as a place licensed to sell alcohol, cannabis, a stadium, museum, racetrack or casino.

The law also prohibits a person carrying a firearm from entering someone’s home or property, unless the owner has given permission. There are exemptions for law enforcement, security guards and members of the military.

The NRA contends in its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland that the state passed the legislation “in defiance of” court rulings that its gun-carry permitting law was unconstitutional.

Continue reading “”

Guns in 42 Percent of Homes With More Female Owners than Ever.

More than 106 million American adults have at least one firearm in their home, according to a survey conducted in January and February by Responsive Management at the request of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The figure indicates 42 percent of citizens 18 years of age or older have a firearm in their residence. More than 32 percent of the respondents personally own at least one gun.

Roughly a quarter of participants in the study, conducted by phone and on-line, spent at least one day target shooting during 2022—almost 60 percent of those with a firearm in their home. Another 6 percent of non-gun owners surveyed joined an acquaintance or family member for firing line sessions last year.

The survey notes, “In 2022, 17 percent of all shooters were new shooters. New shooters are those who started within the past 5 years. The rate of new shooters in 2022 is markedly higher than that of 2020 (when it was 12 percent) but is comparable to earlier surveys.”

In addition, the results defy mainstream media’s addition to the tired gun-owner stereotype. “New shooters are more likely to be Black, Democrats, Hispanic or Latino, younger, female, and from a large city or suburb,” the study found. “Compared to 2020, the percentage of new shooters who are Democrats nearly doubled, and there are large increases in the percentages of new shooters who are young, female and from a large city or suburban area….About a third of sport shooters in 2022 were female, the highest portion yet. This is up from 2009, when females made up just 25.8 percent of all sport shooters.”

The pursuit’s future is also a bright one. The survey’s authors also noted that, “In 2022, younger shooters made up the largest portion of shooters, whereas the largest share in every other survey year was the 35- to 54-year-old age group.”

Results of the study were weighted to reflect current U.S. Census data by state and region. Final sampling error came in at plus or minus 1.76 percent with a 95-percent confidence level in results.

Gun rights advocates win major challenge to N.J.’s tough concealed carry law.

A new law limiting concealed carry of guns in New Jersey suffered another defeat in federal court Tuesday as a judge ordered state officials not to enforce its tight restrictions pending a flurry of legal challenges from gun rights advocates.

The ruling means New Jerseyans with proper permits are free to concealed-carry handguns at beaches, public parks, bars and restaurants — places from where Gov. Phil Murphy and his Democratic allies in the state Legislature sought to ban firearms in an effort to curb gun violence.

Following a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that found restrictive concealed carry laws on the books in states like New York and New Jersey violated the Second Amendment, Democratic leaders in the state fast-tracked a new measure that made it easier for citizens to obtain carry permits, but tightly limited where guns were allowed.

But in a 235-page ruling made public Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb officially put its enforcement on hold.
Gun rights advocates declared victory, praising the decision as a “smackdown” of “draconian laws.”

Continue reading “”

Daydreaming the Guns Away

We find ourselves living in a highly consequential time for the legal clarification of the 2nd Amendment. Extremely aggressive, wide-ranging bans of semi-automatic firearms have been enacted in various parts of the country, drawing legal challenges. While the ultimate resolution of these challenges is unknowable, many observers believe the Supreme Court will eventually arrive at a decision prohibiting the wholesale banning of semi-automatic firearms. Those who dream of eliminating all private gun ownership in the United States face the prospect of a devastating legal defeat.

One can imagine their looming disappointment. They have failed to appoint Supreme Court justices who would effectively redefine the 2nd Amendment out of existence, and they are about to bear the consequences of that failure. But from their perspective, there is comfort to be had in the prospect of eventually stripping the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution altogether, no matter how long it may take.

Such is the hope that animates aspiring intergenerational social reformer Allan Goldstein, who, in his “Let’s get serious and repeal the Second Amendment” has stepped forward to boldly launch a 50-plus year plan to eradicate all privately owned firearms in the United States.

Perhaps the piece might have been better entitled “Let’s Get Hysterical.” How galling it must be to be deprived of so obvious a good — a gun-free society — on account of something as frivolous as an obsolete, suicidally-construed constitutional amendment. On Goldstein’s account “[t]he Supreme Court has decided that ‘a well-regulated militia’ includes gang bangers and wild-eyed loners with a grudge.” What a shame Goldstein did not bother to provide a citation to the Supreme Court decision in which this is asserted.

Continue reading “”

Rasmussen: Gun Owners Feel Safer, Don’t Trust Govt. Enforcement

A new Rasmussen survey has revealed “Most gun owners say they feel safer with a firearm in the house, and don’t think the government can be trusted to enforce gun control laws fairly.”

According to Rasmussen, only 29 percent of American Adults trust the government to fairly enforce gun control laws, while 57 percent don’t, and another 14 percent are not sure.

Forty-two percent (42%) say they or someone in their household owns a gun – up from 37 percent in February 2022 – while 47 percent don’t live in gun-owning households, and 11 percent are not sure, the new report said. It’s not clear how those people aren’t sure someone in the household has a firearm.

The survey of 1,204 American Adults was conducted on April 30-May 2, 2023 by Rasmussen Reports with a margin of sampling error or +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Not surprisingly, Rasmussen’s new survey says more Republicans (51%) than Democrats (41%) or Independents (35%) live in gun-owning households. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats, 35% of Republicans and 50% of the unaffiliated say no one in their household owns a gun, Rasmussen said.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans, 47 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Independents don’t trust the government to enforce gun control laws fairly.

This is not much different from earlier Rasmussen polling on guns, which suggests Americans aren’t shifting their values much on firearms even as times change.

According to the survey, “more men (49%) than women (36%) live in gun-owning households.”

“However, Rasmussen said, “women who do live in gun-own households are about equally likely as men to say they feel more safe because someone in their household owns a gun.”

More whites (48%) than blacks (35%) or other minorities (32%) live in gun-owning households, the survey revealed. Majorities of every racial category – 55 percent of whites, 61 percent of blacks and 58 percent of other minorities – don’t trust the government to fairly enforce gun control laws.

States Attack Private Shooting Ranges as ‘Antigovernment Paramilitary Training Camps’

The small town of Pawlet, Vermont – population 1,386 – has been feuding with Daniel Banyai for years over two shooting ranges he built on the 30-acre property he’s owned since 2013.

Neighbors complained about the noise and said Banyai and his friends are super scary. Town officials said Banyai built structures on his land without applying for any zoning permits.

In 2021 Banyai told the Associated Press his property, which he calls Slate Ridge, is a “safe and environmentally friendly place for people to discharge their firearms.”

None of that mattered to Pawlet town officials. After their initial zoning efforts failed, they sued Banyai in Vermont’s Environmental Court, which ordered him to remove the unpermitted structures and earthen berms within 135 days. Banyai ignored the ruling, and in February the Environmental Court held Banyai in contempt of court. He has been racking up civil fines at the rate of $200 per day ever since.

“Respondent has demonstrated a willfulness, perhaps even an enthusiasm, for disregarding the Town’s Bylaws, this Court’s Orders, and the authority of the Judiciary,” Vermont Environmental Court Judge Thomas Durkin said in his order.

Attempts to contact Banyai for this story were unsuccessful.

Continue reading “”

It’s not about popularity or even the usefulness of a thing. It’s about bureaucraps exercising arbitrary power at the whim of whoever happens to be in charge. We are either a nation of laws, or we’re nothing more than another dictatorship under the rule of man, instead of the rule of law.

Analysis: Despite Trump Claim, Bump Stock Ban is Important

Former President Donald Trump (R.) hand waved his decision to unilaterally ban bump stocks in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting as “very unimportant.” But the ban was enormously consequential both legally and politically.

On Wednesday, Trump was asked about his ban by a Republican primary voter at CNN’s town hall.

“As you know, the bump stocks are actually a very unimportant thing,” Trump replied. “NRA I went with them, and they said, ‘it doesn’t mean anything, or actually all they do is teach you how to shoot very inaccurately.’ So, we did that.”

It is true that the National Rifle Association (NRA) supported instituting the ban via executive order after balking at a legislative ban they argued went too far. Trump listened to NRA and issued an order to have the ATF craft a rule banning the devices as unregistered machineguns–possession of which could lead to upwards of ten years in prison under the National Firearms Act (NFA). However, he turned a deaf ear when the NRA complained the rule went too far by refusing to exempt those who’d legally bought the stocks before Trump ordered the rule.

The result was a total confiscation order for bump stocks from the Trump Administration. Despite previously ruling bump stocks were legal to buy without special regulations under the Obama Administration, the ATF declared under Trump the stocks are actually machineguns and aren’t legal to buy and never were. Only destroying the stock you owned or turning it over to the ATF without compensation were offered as remedies to avoiding potential federal felony charges.

The ATF had made its fair share of contradictory or incoherent rules and determinations before the bump stock ban–it had once claimed pressing a pistol-brace-equipped gun to your shoulder constitutes redesigning it on the fly.

However, the bump stock ban was one step further than many of the agency’s previous proclamations. It was based on a lie. One that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has since called out.

Continue reading “”

They let the truth slip out, and then are so stupid, they believe we’re so stupid, we’ll believe they didn’t really mean  what was said.

After “no more guns” comment, Giffords claims she’s seeking common ground

Giffords co-founder and gun control activist Gabby Giffords is out with a new puff piece in Rolling Stone that’s audaciously headlined “cynicism is not an option when it comes to gun control“. Why’s that so audacious? Because the same person who said just a few weeks ago that her goal is “no more guns” is once again claiming that she’s only looking for “common ground” and blaming Second Amendment supporters for “extremism”.

The gun lobby has done its best to divide our nation and to polarize the conversation around guns. They want their base to believe that their Second Amendments rights are under attack, and that threats are lurking around every corner. This extremism drives votes and sells guns.

Rather than relying on extremism, I’ve sought to find common ground. Most Americans agree that gun violence is a problem we need to address. No American wants to worry that their child might not come home from school because of a mass shooting. Policies like closing loopholes in our federal background checks system, making sure every state has an extreme risk protection order or “red flag” law, and ensuring guns are kept away from kids have broad popular support.

Why would anyone believe their Second Amendment rights would be under attack? Could it be the states that are banning commonly-owned firearms and threatening gun owners with prison time for simply holding on to the guns and magazines they lawfully purchased? Could it be the four-figure fees some localities are charging folks who want to exercise their right to bear arms in self-defense? Maybe it’s the activists who are calling on Colorado Gov. Jared Polis to issue an executive order banning all gun sales and ordering a mandatory “buyback”… or the founder of one of the country’s biggest gun control groups who says her goal is simply “no more guns“?

As we wrap our interview in her office, I ask how she keeps coming back to a challenge so deeply ingrained in politics. She pauses for 12 pregnant seconds.

“No more guns,” she says.

Ambler, her aide and adviser, tries to clarify that she means no more gun violence, but Giffords is clear about what she’s saying. “No, no, no,” she says. “Lord, no.” She pauses another 32 seconds. “Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”

An aide clarifies that she’s talking about Australia, where gun sales were outlawed after a mass shooting and existing weapons were purchased by the government. Giffords nods in the affirmative. It’s an idealistic goal, for sure, and one perhaps mismatched for the moment in this country. But Giffords has an answer for that: “Legislation, legislation, legislation.”

Time Magazine’s Phillip Elliott is wrong about the Australia gun ban, which didn’t outlaw all gun sales. In fact, there are more guns legally owned in Australia now than before the 1996 ban, which didn’t remove every gun in the country to begin with. In 1996 there were about 3.2-million privately owned firearms in the country. After the compensated confiscation, the number dipped to 2.7-million, but by 2017 there were an estimated 3.6-million guns in the hands of Australians.

Maybe Gabby Giffords herself is unclear about the effects of the Australian gun ban, but there seems to be no doubt about her end goal here in the United States. It’s not red flag laws, storage mandates, or “universal background checks.” It’s “no more guns. Gone.”

So yeah, I think it’s pretty cynical for Giffords and her handlers to pretend she never let the mask slip and revealed her true intentions, especially when she turns around and calls Second Amendment supporters extremists. What position is more extreme: the right to keep and bear arms in self-defense is a fundamental civil right that cannot be infringed upon, or “no more guns”? Where’s the common ground in that statement?

Look, I don’t begrudge Gabby Giffords’ gun control views, even if I don’t agree with them. She’s entitled to her opinion and is free to advocate for any gun control laws she wants. But when she tells a reporter that she wants to eradicate gun ownership and then puts her name behind an opinion piece pointing the finger at gun owners for dividing our nation and polarizing the conversation around guns, she’s engaging in the same cynical and dishonest approach she claims to condemn. I’d have more respect for Giffords if she’d simply come out and announce that the mission of her organization is to repeal the Second Amendment, but I doubt that will ever happen. Giffords may have let the mask slip while talking to Time, but her missive in Rolling Stone shows she knows how to play the gun control long game; claiming moderation and using an incrementalist approach, but always with the end goal of gun prohibition in mind.

“Infringed” – finally – defined by a federal court;  From the summary judgement that prohibiting 18 to 20 year old people from purchasing firearms is unconstitutional.

JOHN COREY FRASER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as a Class, Plaintiff, v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, et al., Defendants.

****

The Second Amendment accords protection of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” by providing that the right “shall not be infringed”  U.S. Const. Amend. II (emphasis added). The Second Amendment is unique in its use of “infringed” for the word does not appear anywhere else in the Constitution. Despite its uniqueness, the term “infringed” has received little attention by scholars or courts. However, Heller took the view that “infringed” “implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right.” 554 U.S. at 592 . As articulated in Heller, the Second Amendment does not serve to grant a right but rather preserves a right that the people already possessed. Therefore, to “keep and bear” serves to identify the right protected, not to define the right in the first instance.

The definition of “infringe” further supports the conclusion that the pre-existing right includes a right to purchase. “Infringe” is defined in modern dictionaries as “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.” “Infringe,” Merriam-Webster.com. “Encroach,” in turn, has two definitions: “to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another” and “to advance beyond the usual or proper limits.” “Encroach,” Merriam-Webster.com. Those words have possessed the same meaning since the sixteenth century and the Founders would have understood them in the same way.9 Not simply protecting the heartland of the preserved right, the Second Amendment protects the environs surrounding it to prevent any encroachment on the core protections. Thus, by virtue of the word “infringed,” the Second Amendment ‘s protective textual embrace includes the conduct necessary to exercise the right (“to keep and bear”) and that, as explained above, includes the right to purchase arms so that one can keep and bear them.

*****

Miss Swearer hit a line drive out of the park again

11 Defensive Gun Uses Show How Lawful Gun Owners ‘Get It Right’

Often lost in conversations about gun violence is the reality of who is responsible for the bulk of that violence. Most gun crimes aren’t committed by lawful gun owners but by a small subset of repeat violent offenders who already are prohibited from legally possessing firearms.

At the same time, the vast majority of the nation’s millions of lawful gun owners will never use their firearms to harm themselves or others (excluding, of course, actions taken in lawful self-defense).

Nevertheless, sometimes people make questionable—or even downright abhorrent—decisions with their lawfully owned firearms. This was quite apparent in recent weeks as several gun owners made national headlines for all the wrong reasons, recklessly resorting to the use of lethal force when it likely wasn’t warranted.

Although these individuals rightly should have their actions scrutinized, the reality is that Americans with legally possessed guns are far more likely to “get it right” than they are to “get it wrong.”

Almost every major study has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged. In 2021, the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the issue concluded that roughly 1.6 million defensive gun uses occur in the United States every year.

For this reason, The Daily Signal publishes a monthly 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 past months and years. You also may follow @DailyDGU on Twitter for daily highlights of recent defensive gun uses.)

Continue reading “”

Doesn’t fit the stereotype, must not be real

Black, Millennial, Female and Conservative

Antonia Okafor Cover joined me on Feedback to discuss her transformation from Democrat to Republican and her dedication to the Second Amendment. Antonia is the Director of Women’s Outreach with Gun Owners of America and Founder and President of Empowered, a nonprofit group designed to educate, train and equip young women in the use of firearms for protection on college campuses. The group also helps women advocate for their Second Amendment rights.

Antonia has been working on Second Amendment issue advocacy and firearms education for women for several years and has appeared on and been quoted in major news outlets, and has testified on Capitol Hill. News media are finally starting to cover the steady and growing trend of new female gun owners, which includes a large number of new black female gun owners.

For Antonia, this is not surprising, and she can highlight some of the major reasons women are deciding to empower themselves and buy a gun. Number one on that list is personal protection and self defense.

Antonia shared that her political evolution began when she realized that Democrats’ lack of principles and values, as well as their intolerance of diversity of thought led her to become a Christian and then a conservative who embraced our constitution and more specifically, the Second Amendment.

Women should be empowered to defend themselves and their families and because Democrats offer no real solutions to empower women, this is, indeed, the natural progression in becoming a conservative.

Well, you know the old lines about ducks and buffalo country, right?

Do Gun-Control Democrats Want Us Dead?

Modern politicians don’t ask to kill their opponents right away. There is a ladder of dehumanization to climb as they justify increasing levels of violence. We’ve heard Democrat politicians say that Republicans don’t care about killing children because the Republican legislators won’t pass more gun-control. Not only is that extremist rhetoric, it is murderously dangerous. Look at the facts and it seems gun-control Democrats really want more of us to die.

To quote Democrat Congressman Mike Thompson, “How many more kids need to get murdered before House Republican Leadership steps up and puts gun violence prevention legislation on the House calendar?”

The Democrat party news site DemCastUSA said, “Republicans ..block gun safety reforms while stoking hate. The GOP has blood on their hands while offering ‘Thoughts and Prayers’…”

Let’s look at what Democrat Politicians are asking for. This is what happens after honest citizens are disarmed.

Violent criminals commit about 1.2 million violent crimes a year (2019). Most criminals, about five-out-of-six, don’t use a gun in their violent crimes. In contrast, honest citizens use a firearm about 2.8 million times a year to stop death or great bodily injury. We don’t know how many of those defensive incidents would result in the victim’s death if they were disarmed. We can estimate the answer by assuming that criminals who attack disarmed victims are the same sort who attack armed victims. We are assuming that the criminals stay the same and only the actions of the victims change. That is overly simplistic, but it is a start. In fact, violent criminals become more violent when their victims become more vulnerable.

Here is an example to show you what I mean. If half of violent crimes were aggravated assaults, then we’ll assume that half of the attacks on the newly disarmed victims will remain as aggravated assaults. That may be wishful thinking since we don’t know how many aggravated assaults today were really attempted murders where a victim was able to reduce the severity of the attack because he was armed.

Violent criminals committed about 16.4-thousand murders in 2019. That is about 1.4-percent of the violent crimes. We now have 1.4 percent of what used to be armed defenses, about 38-thousand, now become new murders when the victims are disarmed by Democrat gun-control.

Gun-control Democrats more than tripled the number of murdered victims by disarming the good guys.

Continue reading “”

Fraser v. ATF
Judge strikes down the federal law banning FFL handgun sales to young adults, saying that doing otherwise “would impose limitations on the Second Amendment that do not exist with other constitutional guarantees.”

gov.uscourts.vaed.524643.47.0

Ordinary Men Will Save Our 2nd Amendment

U.S.A. — The 2nd Amendment is one of the most important barriers to tyranny. Our Founders knew that he who has the guns, has the power. The fight for those guns, between those who want control and those who want to preserve freedom, has become especially fierce in recent decades. The enemies of freedom have become much craftier and have been able to use the legal system to their advantage in many cases. However, every once in a while, ordinary men do extraordinary things and often don’t realize the impact on future generations they will have.

In the Bruen case out of New York State, an extraordinary new precedent was created when Judge Clarence Thomas declared gun laws must meet “historical tradition.” Did he know the impact he would have? Did he know that he would be giving the 2nd Amendment new life?

Let’s go back a bit further to two men named Brandon Koch and Robert Nash. Koch and Nash were denied their concealed carry permit in the State of New York because they did not show “proper cause” according to the State. The State of New York had decided, despite the 2nd Amendment, that they would be the authority to which New York residence would plead their case and request permission to carry a gun outside their home. The anti-gun group The Giffords Law Center agreed that licenses are only granted to individuals who show “proper cause,” which means applicants must “demonstrate a special need for self-defense.” The irony of course would be in whom would determine the parameters of “special need” and “proper clause.”

You’ve heard the anti-gun crowd use terms like, “nobody needs to carry a gun in public,” or “nobody needs an AR 15,” or “Nobody needs ten rounds to kill a deer.” The word “need’ is used to get people comfortable with the idea that rights are not actually rights but government issued privileges measured by a metric of need that Democrat legislatures will determine. The New York legislature literally wrote “need” into law when they implemented the “proper cause” requirement. New York Citizens would now be required to demonstrate a compelling “need” prior to being allowed the “privilege” of exercising a “right.” God granted the right to self-defense, New York Democrats believed they can take it away.

Brandon Koch and Robert Nash had a different understanding of rights and privileges and proceeded to take on the fight of their lives. In the process, reminding all those who were watching why it is important for ordinary men to stand up in the face of tyranny. With help from the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the nearly 8-year process to shut down the State’s overreach had begun.

Continue reading “”

Missouri: Time Running Out for Self-Defense Bill

The 2023 legislative session will soon draw to a close and the critical self-defense bill, House Bill 282, has still not been brought to the floor for a vote. Please contact Senate Majority Floor Leader Cindy O’Laughlin by phone, at 573-751-7985, and by clicking the button below, to ask her to please bring HB 282 to the floor for a vote.

House Bill 282 repeals arbitrary “gun-free zones” that do nothing to hinder criminals, while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. It removes the prohibition on law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for self-defense on public transit property and in vehicles. This ensures that citizens with varying commutes throughout their day, and of various economic means, are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights and defend themselves.

The bill also repeals the prohibition in state law against carrying firearms for self-defense in places of worship. This empowers private property owners to make such decisions regarding security on their own, rather than the government mandating a one-size-fits-all solution.

Again, please contact Senate Majority Floor Leader Cindy O’Laughlin and ask her to please bring HB 282 to the floor for a vote.

Who wants more “gun-free” zones?

You must have seen the news stories about the attack outside a shopping mall in Texas. If you didn’t read the whole article, at least you scanned the headlines. It was awful that innocent people were attacked and many were killed. In response, some gun-control politicians said we should have more gun-free zones. That makes good headlines, and “gun-free” zones have the support of a surprising group of people. Like us, they just want to feel safe as they go about their business. Maybe you feel the same way, so let’s see if you agree.

Everyone wants to feel a degree of safety. Unfortunately, what makes one person feel safe might make the next person feel at risk. Let’s slow down and look at gun-free zones one step at a time.

We agree that it is easy to put up a plastic sign. Unfortunately, that thin plastic decal on a window doesn’t stop a murderer’s bullet. It might protect the business owner from legal liability, but does it do anything else? Come to think of it, the “sign” doesn’t even need to be a real object that is posted near the business’s doorway. It can be the words “No weapons allowed.” on the mall owner’s website somewhere. Does that make you feel safer?

I’m skeptical that the words on a website will stop a criminal. I don’t think that criminals check websites before they choose where to attack us.

Maybe you want real physical signs that say “No Guns Allowed” outside of every door. Maybe you want the business owner to wand everyone who enters the store just like they do to the audience at a rock concert. That means they need a security team at every entrance whenever the business is open. Maybe that means that there can only be one entrance. That sounds safer too. Unfortunately, that didn’t work out too well in practice.

One of our largest mass-murders was at a bar with two off-duty police officers who were checking people at the front entrance. The murderer shot his way inside past the guards. Once the murderer was inside, there was no way for the unarmed victims to escape. That attack went on for hours.

Maybe the facts don’t matter because we’re talking about what feels better. Maybe you want everyone disarmed because it makes you nervous to think that there are people around you who have guns. You are not alone.

Some people feel exactly the same way. I’ve read about them and how they felt. I’ve studied them. These people felt much safer where ordinary citizens were disarmed. They searched out “gun-free” zones. They were mass-murderers looking for easy victims.

Mass-murderers intensely search for “gun-free” zones so they can murder at will.

I’m not that smart, but even I can see a pattern here-

  • We saw mass murderers deliberately attack us in theaters that were called “gun-free” zones.
  • They attacked us at county fairs that were called “gun-free” zones.
  • They attacked us in secure areas of airports that were called “gun-free” zones.
  • They attacked us in bars and restaurants that were called “gun-free” zones.
  • They attacked us in churches that were called “gun-free” zones.
  • Mass-murderers attacked us in grocery stores in towns where the police chief and sheriffs made sure that ordinary honest citizens were disarmed.
  • Mass-murderers also attacked us in schools that were called “gun-free” zones, and that is an interesting test case.

Schools are frequent targets of mass-murderers, but we have never seen a mass-murderer attempt to attack a school that had a program to train and arm school staff. I think that tells us a lot. It says that mass-murderers feel safer in “gun-free” zones. That certainly makes sense from their point of view, but it leaves us with other questions.

Why do people who are not mass-murderers feel safer in a gun free zone?

I’m not sure, but I have a guess. We know that mass-murderers target us in “gun-free” zones. The people who are afraid of guns would rather face the remote risk of a mass-murderer than be around their harmless neighbors who might be armed.

If I’m right, then that tells us a lot about the people who are afraid of their neighbors, but it doesn’t tell us much about guns.