Is banning assault weapons constitutional?

A week before the House of Representatives approved a ban on “assault weapons,” a federal judge in Denver explained why such laws are unlikely to pass constitutional muster. House Democrats either were not paying attention or did not care because they view the Second Amendment as an outmoded provision that imposes no meaningful limits on gun control.

Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held otherwise, ruling that the government may not prohibit law-abiding Americans from keeping handguns at home or carrying them in public for self-defense. The Court also has said the Second Amendment covers bearable arms “in common use” for “lawful purposes,” which presents a problem for Democrats who want to ban many of the most popular rifles sold in the United States.

On July 22, U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore, an Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order that bars Superior, Colorado, from enforcing its ban on “assault weapons.” The city defines that category to include semi-automatic center-fire rifles that accept detachable magazines and have any of four features: a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a flash suppressor, or a barrel shroud.

Two gun-rights groups argued that Superior’s ordinance, which also bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, violated the Second Amendment. Moore concluded that they had “a strong likelihood of success on the merits.”

Moore noted that the plaintiffs had cited statistics to support their claim that the guns and magazines targeted by Superior’s ordinance “are commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” He also mentioned an earlier case in his court where both sides had stipulated that “semiautomatic firearms are commonly used for multiple lawful purposes, including self-defense,” and that “lawfully owned semiautomatic firearms using a magazine with the capacity of greater than 15 rounds number in the tens of millions.”

Under the Supreme Court’s test, Moore said, those facts mean that “the right to possess, sell, or transfer” the arms covered by Superior’s ordinance is “presumptively protected.” The burden is therefore on the city to show that its ban is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Continue reading “”

Democrats’ Lame Attempt to Flip the Narrative on Crime: Claiming 2nd Amendment is Anti-Police

Ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, with rising violent crime a top concern for voters, the vast majority of Democrats are now working overtime to distance themselves from their prior support for the “Defund the Police” movement. Increasingly, however, it appears that they’re linking this professed newfound support for law enforcement to another pillar of Democrats’ far-left agenda – gun control.

After backlash to the “defund” movement contributed to dozens of House Democrats losing or facing closer-than-expected races in 2020, the party slowly began changing its tune on policing. While some, like Missouri Congresswoman Cori Bush, have continued their calls for “dismantling” police departments, the White House and Democratic leadership are now saying that they in fact support police and have always supported police – even accusing Republicans, who spent all of 2020 and 2021 vigorously defending police from attacks by left-wing politicians and news outlets, of not supporting them.

As Axios reported late last month, Democratic candidates in Ohio, Georgia, Florida, and other states are “spotlighting law enforcement to boost their credibility on fighting crime.” Party strategists are now privately admitting that “the defund debate damaged Democrats’ reputation on crime,” and many “fear a voter perception that Democrats don’t recognize the problem with violent crime and don’t respect the role police play in keeping communities safe.”

But as part of their effort to mask their complete reversal of position when it comes to support for police, many Democrats—including Biden himself—have attempted to make the issue of rising crime about guns rather than policing, implying that support for the Second Amendment is incompatible with support for law enforcement.

Continue reading “”

This was for an injunction to stop the law, before more hearings in court

US Judge Declines to Block San Jose Gun Liability Ordinance

A federal judge has refused to block a San Jose, Calif., “harm reduction ordinance” that requires firearms owners to pay an annual fee and to carry liability insurance to cover unintentional deaths, injuries, or property damage.

The ruling, by Judge Beth Labson Freeman at the US District Court for the Northern District of California, came ahead of a hearing Thursday on the city’s motion to dismiss the first of three lawsuits challenging the first-in-the-nation law. The judge said she was likely to consolidate the three lawsuits and later issue a single ruling.

The lawsuits claim the ordinance violates the Second Amendment, is a special tax requiring a citizen’s vote, and implicates the First Amendment because fees are directed to an as-yet named nonprofit that will spend the money on programs to mitigate gun risk.

“I’m not exactly sure what I’m going to do here. I actually think I might grant the motion to dismiss in regard to insurance and deny the motion to dismiss in regard to the fee,” Freeman said. The judge said she was concerned that the nonprofit designated to receive the collected fees did not yet exist and that it might ultimately be “the city in nonprofit clothing.”

Continue reading “”

The Supreme Court’s Bruen Gun Decision Is Even Bigger Than You Think

Since Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made crystal clear in his ruling in New York Pistol and Rifle v. Bruen that the Second Amendment is not a second-class civil right, the question becomes: how far does this decision go? After consulting several gun and constitutional lawyers, here’s the short answer: very far. Read on.

Thomas stated unequivocally that Americans’ right to carry a gun outside the home has been treated as a second-class right in modern times. Indeed, the whims of politicians have been treated with more respect than bedrock constitutional principles surrounding Americans’ right to defend themselves with guns.

Thomas wrote, “we know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”

The decision didn’t touch on the issues of licensing, background checks, training requirements, or limiting who may have a gun permit in the case of felons and the mentally incapable.

Since the decision came out on June 23, I’ve sought the answer to the question I posed above. I’ve spoken to gun law experts around the country and sought to put things in perspective.

Continue reading “”

Today the taxing power, rather than chattel slavery, is the instrument by which the parasitical element of the population subsists. And that element, which includes politicians, panics at the slightest reduction in the state’s power to plunder. Once you start liberating taxpayers, even a little tiny bit, nobody knows where it may end. —Joseph Sobran

After The Shooting Stops: How does an armed citizen avoid being confused for a threat? There’s no simple solution, but there are ways to minimize that concern.

Our readers have no idea how much I appreciate them. Picture my editor breathing down my neck and wanting to know when my monthly column would arrive on his desk. Also, picture me without a single idea for that column. And then, just like the cavalry to the rescue, here comes a reader with some good questions.

Our reader, talking about a shooting incident in a public place, asks, “How do I identify myself as a ‘Good Guy with a Gun?’” And, “How do I prevent myself from being shot by other good guys with guns?” I would suggest to our reader that you also have to reverse the thought process: How do I identify other good guys and not cause them harm? Excellent questions, but there are no easy answers.

Any time guns start going off, there are a lot of things that can happen, and many of those things are bad. Deadly scenarios place most people under the most stress they have ever experienced. Deadly encounters in a public place just mean more people, more stress, more chaos and more confusion.

Consider, too, that in any such public incident, some of those present may be lawfully armed citizens. Others may be plainclothes or off-duty police officers, while still others may be uniformed police arriving at the scene, but currently unaware of what is actually going on. And the thing to realize is that, due to the confusion and chaos, everyone there is subject to making mistakes—deadly mistakes. The fact is that we cannot simply look at a person and determine whether or not they are a lawfully armed citizen. You already know that good citizens come in all races, genders and clothing styles.

Because of all these factors, I would suggest that the first consideration, even if you are armed, is to gather you and yours and make a quick exit. Just because guns are going off nearby doesn’t necessarily mean that you need to have your gun out. Time might be much better spent finding an exit or, failing that, getting behind good cover. Once good cover is located and utilized, you can more easily identify a person who is, for whatever reason, coming toward you with deadly intent. This gives you nearly the best advantage you can hope for under the circumstances.

Still, there are times when we can’t readily exit a bad situation. We may have family members still unaccounted for and not yet located. We may have been asked by law enforcement to provide assistance. We may have been asked by those in a leadership role to provide assistance until law enforcement can arrive. Regardless, we can’t leave, and we may have to take an active part in resolving the situation.

Our primary concern should be to make as much use of cover as possible. Second, it’s always a good idea to have our back against something solid so bad guys can’t sneak up behind us (or we fail to hear a lawful command from a police officer who has approached from behind). Last, we need to do something with our defensive handgun besides holding it openly, where it might cause us to take on friendly fire.

Gunwriter and former lawman Rich Grassi recently commented on a technique that he calls the hand-on-holstered-gun ready position. Far from being a brand-new defensive technique, it is one we were practicing back in the Dark Ages when I first put on a badge. Oftentimes, when approaching a questionable situation, we had our hand on the sidearm with any holster-security devices already disengaged and a shooting grip on the pistol. It was a simple matter to draw and address the threat should that have ended up being necessary.

This same technique can work very well for the armed citizen. For those rightfully concerned about running afoul of local laws against brandishing, we are talking about a scenario where there is already a clear threat, we are just not clear exactly who the threat is and also want to ensure we ourselves are not misidentified as a threat. By getting a shooting grip on the handgun and being ready to draw and engage if the situation isn’t otherwise resolved, we are prepared to defend ourselves while being less likely to be confused for the bad guy.

Furthermore, in the aftermath of an armed encounter, whether shots have been fired or not, the aforementioned hand-on-holstered-gun ready position makes good sense. We may no longer have a specific threat to address, but we know that could change quite quickly. And it is a really, really bad idea to actually have a gun in your hand when the police show up. The hand-on-holstered-gun ready position should be made a regular part of your defensive-practice sessions.

There are no easy answers to dealing with shootings in public. Get away, if possible, and avoid having to shoot. But, when it isn’t, the goal is be to be a survivor—not a hero.

Grassley Levels Chris Wray With One Simple Fact After He Claims He Has a Flight to Catch

FBI Director Christopher Wray was on the hot seat Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on a variety of issues. As I reported earlier, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) grilled him over the politicization of the FBI, including questions about normal patriotic symbols that they were categorizing as signs of “militia violent extremism.”

That made Wray look bad enough, as though he was ignorant about the problems in his own office and/or lying about them.

Then when he was asked about Russia collusion and the Hunter Biden laptop by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Wray managed to make it worse.

Blackburn asked if Wray would agree that Russia collusion was a “hoax.” He said that he wouldn’t use the terminology. When asked if he agreed that the Hunter Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation, he said, “I can’t comment on that.” He claimed it was an “ongoing” investigation. He wouldn’t even admit they had the laptop.

The fact that the laptop is not Russian disinformation is not part of the investigation. It would be one thing if you were asking about the investigation into Hunter Biden. If you can’t even admit to certain basic truths, that shows how compromised he, and therefore the FBI, are at this point.

So, what exactly can he comment on? All he seems to know how to do is evade questions and turn the FBI into a completely politicized mess.

Then when the senators started to call him out on it, what was his response? Sorry, guys, I can’t stick around, I have to catch a plane. Yes, he seriously said that to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

That astonished Grassley, who nailed him with a little reality, saying but you have “your own plane.”

Of course, Wray doesn’t want to stick around and give the Republicans 21 more minutes to grill him on things. This guy is something else; his smugness is infuriating. Director Wray, you work for us. And you have your own plane–that we pay for. So, it isn’t like you’re going to miss a flight if you leave 21 minutes later. The nerve of this guy.

But the problem is that this guy thinks he can get away with this because he has up to this point. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) acted like it was a lot that this was the third time in a couple of years that they had Wray testifying. Given all the issues, that’s ridiculous. They need to find a way to clean house at the FBI, if they are ever going to rectify this problem; the first thing that needs to be done is put someone at the top who can help do that, and it isn’t Wray. Unfortunately, that might not happen until we take back the White House and clean house. But they have to take back the Senate and apply all the pressure they can until then–and pull out the contempt possibility if they aren’t getting answers.

‘What Are Y’all Doing?’: Cruz Scorches FBI Director for Targeting Patriotic Symbols

In Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with FBI Director Christopher Wray, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz took Wray to task for the Biden administration’s politicization of the Bureau that’s been turned into a weapon against conservatives while ignoring leftist violence — and Cruz pulled out all the stops.

To illustrate his concerns, Cruz brought up a “Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide” produced by the FBI and exposed by Project Veritas that included the Gadsden flag, Betsy Ross flag, and Gonzales Battle flag as being indicators of “militia violent extremism.”

“Now, that’s fairly remarkable that the Betsy Ross flag, in the FBI’s indication, is indicative of militia violent extremism because among other people who’ve been publicly alongside the Betsy Ross flag we have President Barack Obama — who was sworn in directly underneath two Betsy Ross flags,” Cruz pointed out alongside charts showing the Obama inauguration.

“It’s not just President Obama,” Cruz added. “We also have president Biden, who was sworn in under Betsy Ross flags.” Again, another chart showed the giant Betsy Ross flags covering the West Front of the U.S. Capitol.

“Also on this list is the Gadsden flag as a symbol of violent extremism,” Cruz continued. “Now, the State of Virginia has a license plate with the Gadsden flag — as do many other states,” he said. “I think people would be astonished to find that having that license plate, the FBI indicates that you’re a violent extremist.”

“As a Texan, I was particularly struck,” Cruz added, “by the Gonzales Battle Flag — ‘Come and Take It’ — as indicative of being a violent extremist militia. Well, I will self-report right now that every day in the Senate I wear my boots that have the Gonzalez Battle Flag on the back,” Cruz declared, smacking his boot on the dais.

“Director Wray, what are y’all doing?” Cruz asked. “This makes no sense.”

Cruz ended his statement by asking Wray whether he agreed with the FBI guidance highlighting patriotic, historic American symbols with extremist violence, but the FBI Director could only offer that he wasn’t “familiar” with the document.

“When we put out intelligence products,” Wray sought to explain, the FBI clarifies “that a symbol alone is not considered evidence of violent extremism.”

But Cruz again took Wray to task, pointing out that the FBI chose not to “include things like Antifa… things like Black Lives Matter” and instead “identify patriotic Americans as suspect.”

Petition demands Uvalde gun store stop selling AR-15s

Uvalde was such a horrible tragedy that the English language lacks the ability to describe it. It was absolutely awful and no one is going to deny that.

However, as is normal after any such tragedy, some people are trying to capitalize on that tragedy to force others to do things. They expect the world to stop and then fold around them.

But worse than that, though, they’re trying to tell a gun store in Uvalde what kind of guns it can sell.

A new petition online has 1,140 signatures demanding the Uvalde gun store where the Robb Elementary School shooter bought an assault-style rifle to stop selling the guns used to kill 19 students and two teachers on May 24. The petition was started by pediatrician Dr. Roy Guerrero, whose testimony on Capitol Hill revealed the damage those guns cause.

The petition on Change.org is directed toward Randy Kline, owner of Oasis Outback. It asks the gun store to “cease the sale of assault rifles and the ammunition paired with them.” It also asks Oasis Outback to discontinue gun transfers of assault-style rifles.

“Doing so will ensure that children across Uvalde County will never have to worry about a new purchase of this type of weapon,” the petition states.

OK, that’s it. I’m done for the day.

That last bit is, without a doubt, the dumbest thing I’m likely to read today. I know, I know, it’s the internet and there’s likely to be a new challenger, but look at the unmitigated stupidity on display.

Look, first of all, if Oasis Outback complied, people who wanted AR-15s or similar rifles would just find another store. All that will happen is Oasis Outback will lose not just that business, but likely a lot of additional business as well.

After all, these kinds of rifles are among the most popular firearms in the country. Not selling or transferring any of them is going to hurt.

Further, some who like that style of rifle will simply move all their business to a nearby competitor.

The petition has a goal of 1,500 signatures and supposedly gives Kline 30 days to respond. Of course, my response to that bit of information is, “Or what?” It’s a petition. It doesn’t have the force of law, nor should it.

Look, I get that people are still hurting. What happened in Uvalde was, as I said, beyond awful. What these jackwagons need to understand, though, is that it wasn’t the gun’s fault. It was the fault of a maniac who went on a rampage and a police department that didn’t have the cajones to act.

Why should Kline sacrifice his business to appease people who can’t place the blame squarely where it belongs?

The truth of the matter is that while the petition claims the signers support the Second Amendment, it’s pretty clear that they don’t even understand it. They genuinely want to do what they can to deny people the ability to buy a firearm they don’t approve of. That’s not how it works.

Now, granted, what they’re doing isn’t a call for gun control–not yet, anyway–and, as I already pointed out, people will still be able to get those particular weapons, but they’re still trying to blame the gun for the actions of someone biologically classified as a human.

So you’ll forgive me if I don’t take them at their word about being supportive of the Second Amendment. I get Uvalde folks are upset, but this isn’t how you do things.

Ruger Reports Huge Drop in Second Quarter Sales Compared to 2021

The rising tide of gun sales has begun to recede.

That’s the indication from the latest sales figures for one of the country’s largest gun makers. Ruger reported sales dropped nearly $60 million in the second quarter compared to 2021. The company said the drop was the result of lower demand for guns.

“Consumer demand for firearms has subsided from the unprecedented levels of the surge that began early in 2020 and remained for most of 2021, resulting in a 30% reduction in our sales from the second quarter of 2021, which was the highest quarter in sales and profitability in our history,” Christopher J. Killoy, Ruger CEO, said in a statement.

The numbers are in line with the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s analysis of gun background checks for July, which found 2022 saw the third most ever but also amounted to a substantial decline from the two previous years. The signs point to a market still searching for a new bottom. The rate of decline has slowed significantly, though, and sales remain well above historical norms.

The past two years have produced the strongest sales on record across the industry. March 2020 saw more gun-sales background checks than any month on record, and 2020 saw the most of any year. Major brands rode the increased sales to record profits in 2021. Smith & Wesson also achieved the first billion-dollar sales year of any gun company on record.

Ruger’s sales fell from over $200 million in Q2 of 2021 to $140 million in 2022. Diluted earnings fell from $2.50 per share to $1.17 per share.

The first six months of the year saw a similar decline. Sales dropped from over $384 million in 2021 to $307 million in 2022. Diluted earnings fell from $4.66 per share to $2.87 per share.

Killoy said the brand also saw a decline in its profit margins as well.

“Our profitability declined in the second quarter of 2022 from the second quarter of 2021 as our gross margin decreased from 39% to 31%,” he said. “In addition to unfavorable deleveraging of fixed costs resulting from decreased production and sales, inflationary cost increases in materials, commodities, services, energy, fuel and transportation, partially offset by increased pricing, resulted in the lower margin.”

Still, Killoy said the decline does not threaten Ruger’s business, and the company remains low on some stock.

“Yet our broad and diverse product family helps us weather fluctuations in demand as we adjust production accordingly,” he said. “While channel inventory of some of our product families, including certain polymer pistols and modern sporting rifles, have been largely replenished, inventories of other product families remain below desired levels.”

Killoy said the company’s new products were a bright spot, though. Sales of the PC Charger, MAX-9 pistol, LCP MAX pistol, and Marlin 1895 lever-action rifles made up 11 percent of Ruger’s total sales.

BLUF
Politicians railing against MSRs might argue that recreational target shooters and hunters could use other rifles to do the same thing. The numbers, though, don’t lie. The MSR is filling their need – and the Second Amendment gives them the right to choose the firearm that meets their needs. It is not for the government to decide.

WINCHESTER AMMUNITION STUDY SHOWS TARGET SHOOTERS, HUNTERS CHOOSE MSRs

The time has come for President Joe Biden and the rest of the gun control politicians to pack up the worn-out line that “no one needs an AR-15 to hunt deer.”

Turns out, recreational target shooters and hunters do want Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs). That’s the family of AR-platform [semiautomatic] rifles that come in many calibers. According to the 2022 Ammunition Consumption Study by Winchester Ammunition, more than half of recreational shooters firing a centerfire rifle used an MSR. Of those who hunted with an MSR, 40 percent chose the MSR as their firearm of choice.

Continue reading “”

Why the Bruen 2nd Amendment Ruling Has Progressives Tied in an Angry Knots

History shows us that the government’s goal is to disarm its citizens.

“Common sense” gun laws touted by our progressive Democrats continue to aim us towards that disarmament. But the recent United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision on NYSPRA v. Bruen reaffirms that our Constitution codifies the natural Right of self-defense, making the government’s goal of civilian disarmament virtually impossible to reach. They are pulling out their hair and straining to find loopholes and go-arounds.

Historically, we have gained new firearm-owning friends, so, to those 13+M new friends, we say HELLO and WELCOME ABOARD! You have made a thoughtful and courageous decision to opt-in for self-defense. In so doing, you joined your strengths with ours in the cause of SAFETY. And you understand that self-defense and the Second Amendment are intimately intertwined with FREEDOM.

Our new firearm friends, about 13,800,000, purchased their first guns during 2020 (8.4M) and 2021 (5.4M), per the NSSF. The main reason was home defense, and the second reason was self-defense. They instinctively understood that firearms would improve their odds of survival in this increasingly violent society, so they thoughtfully chose to arm themselves. Our new friends grabbed personal control back from our rogue government.

On June 23, 2022, SCOTUS struck down the remnants of New York State’s “May Issue” portion of the 1911 Sullivan Law, so now the ‘May Issue’ jurisdictions in the entire country must switch to ‘Shall Issue.’ Now, the ‘May Issue’ states must stop demanding a ‘proof of need’ for self-defense greater than an average person’s need.

Continue reading “”

‘They Got No Clue’: 80-Year-Old Store Owner Who Stopped Armed Robbery Slams California Politicians, Bail Reform

An 80-year-old store owner in Norco, California, who thwarted an armed robbery over the weekend is taking California politicians to task after the traumatic encounter.

Convenience store owner Craig Cope slammed politicians for being clueless about the escalating crime wave in California, referencing so-called bail reform, which has been criticized for allowing career criminals back on the streets to do more damage against innocent civilians.

“I’ll probably get on the wrong side of some people here, but, uh, the politicians,” Cope told FOX 11 on Tuesday, when asked what he would tell Californians fed up with the crime wave. “There’s people out there that are not the best of people … these people that continually get let out now — it’s been really bad the last year — those people, the majority of them, go right back to what they used to do. So the crime rate is escalating, and it’s gonna continue to escalate until they start putting the people away that are doing the bad things.”

To business owners similarly frustrated, Cope said the answer is not really to “do what I did,” but to “put some pressure on the politicians.”

“You can do what I did, but what you really need to do is put some pressure on the politicians, because they got no clue what’s really going on out here in the real world,” he explained. “I could start naming names, but there are a whole lot of them that are creating major problems for business owners, but for local law enforcement, they’re creating problems for them. I’m sure they’re risking their lives, taking people into custody to see them get let out with no bail. A lot of these guys are career criminals … they need to be locked up.”

The 80-year-old hero also had a blunt message for the “bad guys.”

“This isn’t a good place to pick,” he told FOX 11.

The Daily Wire detailed Monday that Cope reacted incredibly quickly when he realized his store was being targeted in an armed robbery. Surveillance footage shows that Cope fired at the first armed suspect who entered the store before anything else could happen, sending the would-be robber and the other men fleeing.

“He shot my arm off!” one of the armed suspects is heard yelling on obtained surveillance footage.

“He saw on the surveillance — he saw them coming out of the vehicle with weapons,” said Marnie Tapia, one of Cope’s employees.

“I’m proud to call him my boss,” Tapia said. “He makes us feel better about being here, you know.”