Never forget:
The Left will stop at nothing to enact their gun control agenda and strip the people of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The Problem with California’s Proposed Training Requirement for Gun Purchases
The first bit of advice any new gun owner is likely to receive is that they should go out and seek training on how to handle their firearm safely. It’s not about tactical excellence or anything like that; it’s about making sure they don’t hurt themselves or someone else because they didn’t know what they were doing with the weapon in their hands. That’s avoidable, and we absolutely should continue to tell people to get proper training.
But, as with most things involving firearms, there’s a difference between good advice and the government deciding to mandate something.
There’s a bill under consideration in California that would mandate training prior to gun purchases.
Buying a gun in California could soon require more than passing a written test.
State lawmakers are advancing a bill, Senate Bill 948, that would require firearm buyers to complete a four-hour safety training course, including live-fire exercises at a shooting range.
California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Before buying a firearm, gun owners must pass a written safety test to obtain a firearm safety certificate.
Luis Lopez, a new gun owner, said the proposed law would add another hurdle for people trying to legally purchase a firearm.
“There’s more fees. When you purchase ammo, every year it’s a little bit more, so I feel like they’re just making it a little bit more difficult,” Lopez said.
He said the four-hour training requirement feels unnecessary.
“Those four hours to take that is just a countermeasure, just to make it harder for people to own a gun,” Lopez said.
Supporters argue more training could help prevent accidents involving children and inexperienced gun owners. State Sen. Jesse Arreguin, who is spearheading the bill, said California has strong gun safety laws but does not currently require firearm training for buyers.
“We have some of the strongest firearm safety laws in California, but unlike other states, including Maryland and Hawaii, we don’t have any requirements on training,” Arreguin said.
It would also require gun owners moving into the state to undergo the training course, too.
Now, the original plan was an eight-hour course, which has now been reduced, but that’s not really germane in and of itself. No, what’s germane are the issues with any training mandate handed down by a governmental authority.
First, owning a firearm is a constitutionally protected right. In no other case is it considered acceptable to mandate training prior to people exercising a right protected in the Constitution. You don’t have to undergo training or testing to become a member of the press. The state does not get to mandate a particular training course in order to become a member of the clergy. You don’t have to take a class in California before you can register to vote or to hold a protest.
Nowhere else is a right limited to those who have completed a state-required course of instruction.
Plus, does anyone not see how this could be abused? Right now, the bill calls for a four-hour class. Originally, it required eight hours. That tells me that this is being discussed not as the amount of time needed to convey a particular set of information, but based on how much of an inconvenience they figure they can get away with.
Once the state has mandated training, it’s trivial to increase the length of time that training should take. Both four- and eight-hour classes are inconvenient enough, but it’s still something most people can manage. They might have to take a day off from work to attend the class, but there’s a way to make it work. No, you shouldn’t have to, but it’s still possible.
So then it becomes 16 hours, then 32 hours, then 40, then 80. Then they put a live fire qualification in, where you have to hit a particular score at a particular range, only to raise the score and move the range backward until you’re having to hit something stupidly high at a farther range than you’ll ever actually need, all so they can limit who can buy a gun.
They haven’t banned anything new, and your right to own a gun still exists in theory, but because it’s not realistic for you to meet the qualifications, it’s been essentially stripped in practice.
“But Hawaii and Maryland haven’t done that.”
No, they haven’t done it yet. They haven’t done it because they don’t think they could get away with it. The fact of the matter is that if there’s a training mandate on the books, and it’s acceptable to have it, then where would the line be drawn between an acceptable level of training and too much?
Plus, again, it’s not something we mandate for any other right protected by the Constitution, so why would it ever be acceptable here? Unless, of course, one wants to concede that the Second Amendment really is a second-class right.
Do that, though, and I’ll tell you to show your work that it was intended to be any such thing.
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. — Justice Learned Hand
June 10, 2026
Mass Shooters by Race:Demographics of Assailants 1966-2026
Report Highlights: Mass shooters represent a small portion of the population across all demographics.
- There were 202 mass shooters from 1966 to 2026, equalling 1 for every 1.6 million people in the U.S.
- White Americans accounted for 56.9% of mass shooters in the U.S.
- When methodology is expanded to include gang and dispute-related shootings, black adolescents account for 53% of school shooters.
Ammo.com provides accurate and reliable data on a variety of subjects. You can view the sources used in this article here.
Karmelo Anthony supporter after his conviction:
"What do I tell my 5 boys? What do we do now!?"
I’m not a rocket scientist but maybe, JUST MAYBE, tell them to not murder people. pic.twitter.com/KmG4CObYQx
— Jack (@jackunheard) June 9, 2026
From the article, we again see confirmation that violence can be completely random and come from out of nowhere. Don’t let: “Oh, nothing like that happens here” influence your preparations.
Neighbors Speak Out After Gun Owner Kills Home Intruder
We’re learning more details about a defensive gun use in San Jacinto, California that happened last Friday night and resulted in the death of a home intruder.
According to the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, 45-year-old Israel Martinez was shot and killed after firing a shotgun at the homeowner, who was visiting with neighbors when he heard screams and the sound of a gunshot coming from his home. The sheriff’s department said that Martinez’s girlfriend was also found about a half-mile away from the armed citizen’s home shortly afterwards, suffering injuries she allegedly received after Martinez assaulted her.
Now neighbors are providing more information about the confrontation between the homeowner and Martinez.
“His goal was to get his daughter out safely, regardless of what happened to him,” neighbor Robert Dorame said. “I’m shattered for them because they’re good people.”
… The family who lives at the home isn’t ready to speak out, but neighbors told KTLA that they, too, were home, and the ordeal was terrifying.
Neighbors said the father was hanging out with neighbors outside when his wife went inside to charge her phone. When she did, she reportedly came face-to-face with a man who had armed himself with guns he found inside the home. He allegedly then started shooting.
“From what I understand, the guy tried shooting at her as she started running,” Dorame said. “Then when she goes into the garage, she yelled out, ‘There’s a stranger in the house with a gun.'”
Her husband then attempted to get inside to save their daughter, who was also inside.
“The guy started loading up again. He got in there and the guy shot at Chris,” Dorame recalled. “He dropped, got up and he unloaded at him and got the guy down.”
He was then able to get his daughter out of the house unharmed.
… “He did more than just save his own family,” Dorame said. “Because if he didn’t take that guy down and that guy took him down, his next step was probably to come to one of our houses and unload because, at that point, he had a death wish. He didn’t care.”
Authorities still have no idea how Martinez ended up in the home. According to investigators, Martinez assaulted his girlfriend with a knife while they were in a car less than a mile from the residence, but it’s unclear why Martinez then made his way to the armed citizen’s home. According to police, there was no connection between Martinez and the homeowner, and it appears that he just randomly chose the home and made his way inside.
While there’s no doubt that the homeowner was justified in using lethal force to defend his family against the home invader, it’s possible that the Riverside County District Attorney could bring charges against him if it’s determined that his firearms were not stored in accordance with California law.
The state requires that all firearms be kept locked up or disabled using a CalDOJ-certified firearm safety device or a gun safe. I think one-size-fits-all storage mandates are unconstitutional, but the California law is actively enforced, and depending on the results of the sheriff’s investigation the homeowner could still find himself the target of a district attorney who wants to make an example out of him.
The penalty for a first offense is only a fine, thankfully, so even if the D.A. decides to go after the homeowner for storing his guns in a way they could be accessed by Martinez, he won’t be facing any jail time or the loss of his Second Amendment rights.
Echoes of Joe Biden: James Talarico Says Second Amendment ‘Not Absolute’
During an appearance on the Unity Over Division podcast, U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico (D) echoed Joe Biden by saying the Second Amendment is “not absolute.”
Talarico said, “I believe in the Second Amendment just as much as I believe in the First. We have a right to bear arms to protect ourselves, our families. We have a right to own weapons for sport or for hunting. But like any freedom in the Bill of Rights, it’s not absolute.”
Breitbart News reported that on February 26, 2020, during a CNN Town Hall, Biden argued that the Second Amendment was not “absolute.”
He followed the Town Hall with a post to X in which he elaborated: “I taught constitutional law for a long time and here’s the deal: No amendment is absolute. There are limits.”
Talarico stressed what he believes are limits on other constitutionally protected rights as well. For example, he told Unity Over Division, “You have a freedom to assemble, to protest, but you need a permit.”
The First Amendment does not mention a need for a permit. Rather, the amendment says, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble …”
Montanans Once Again Reject Gun Control Cheerleader at the Ballot Box
By Larry Keane
OPINION: It’s the same story all over again. Montana voters, who overwhelmingly revere their Second Amendment rights and rich hunting traditions, again rejected one of the more outspoken proponents for gun control as he tried again to win their approval and elected office.
Ryan Busse, the former firearm industry executive who’s now a staunch gun control activist working for GIFFORDS Courage to Fight Gun Violence, tried to sell his “I support the Second Amendment, but …” position to Montana voters to secure the Democratic nomination for the open Congressional seat following U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke’s (R-Mont.) announcement that he will not seek reelection in November.
Montana voters said, “No thanks — we’re just not that into you.”
In the Democratic primary for the First District Congressional seat, Montana voters kicked Busse to the curb and instead chose Sam Forstag as their nominee.
Rejection on Repeat
For Busse, this wasn’t the first time Montana voters turned him down. He thought he could win over Montana voters in his run for the governor’s mansion. But he lost his gubernatorial bid to Gov. Greg Gianforte by nearly 20 percent. Montana voters roundly rejected his platform that included implementing strict gun control laws like banning Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) — highly popular in the Big Sky State among both men and women.
It doesn’t take a political genius to recognize that’s a really tough position to sell to voters in the state with the highest percentage of gun owners per capita in the entire country.
For his part, the outgoing Rep. Zinke has been a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and firearm industry that makes the exercise of those Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms possible for tens of millions of Americans. Rep. Zinke earned an A+ in the 2024 NSSF Congressional Report Card. In that regard, Rep. Zinke and Busse were already as far apart on Second Amendment issues as Montana is wide.
Busse, on the other hand, spent 25 years working for a firearm manufacturer, during which span they produced more than 2.3 million rifles, pistols and revolvers. After that, he did a 180 and went and took a hefty paycheck from the national gun control group GIFFORDS. THe national gun control group still has the press release up announcing Busse was joining as a “senior advisor,” and he parlayed that role into multiple television appearances and media opportunities to push an antigun agenda more in line with Fudds than true Montana ranchers and outdoorsmen and women. He hawked his self flagellating book that was just Busse marketing Busse about his supposed “Saul-to-Paul” conversion to gun control.
It wasn’t surprising then that many Montana voters rejected him once again. It’s time he put his political ambitions out to pasture.
Democrats on Capitol Hill Introduce Ban on Suppressors
Signaling the agenda should polarity shift in Washington in the coming months and years, a group of House Dems has debuted legislation to outlaw suppressors.
Dubbed the Help Empower Americans to Respond, or HEAR, Act, the proposal would “ban the importation, sale, manufacturing, transfer, and possession of gun silencers or suppressors.”
Saying “Silencers are not tools of self-defense,” HEAR Act sponsor U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, a New Jersey Democrat, argues such devices “have no legal application,” and her proposal is part of “a common sense approach to firearms legislation.”
SCOTUS Keeps Hardware Bans on Hold, but Makes Interesting Move on Prohibited Person Case
Yet again, the Supreme Court’s orders from its weekly conference have been released with no news on any of the five lawsuits challenging bans on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
I still think SCOTUS is waiting on the Third Circuit to issue its en banc opinion in the challenges to New Jersey’s gun and magazine ban, which could create a circuit court split on the constitutionality of banning commonly-owned arms. As some have theorized, though, the Third Circuit could be waiting on SCOTUS to issue its opinions in Wolford v. Lopez and U.S. v. Hemani to see if those decisions will provide any guidance to lower courts.
SCOTUS 2A Decisions on Horizon; More Cases Waiting in Wings
By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Sometime between now and the end of June, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hand down rulings on a pair of Second Amendment cases which could have considerable impact on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and those who use controlled substances.
The cases are known as Wolford v. Lopez—which challenges a restrictive Hawaii carry law—and United States v. Hemani, which challenges the ban on gun ownership by persons who regularly use illegal drugs, including marijuana.
Reuters is reporting that Hayley Lawrence, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, and is described as a “gun control advocate,” expects Hawaii to lose. The Aloha State currently requires property owners to provide “express authorization” to any legally armed citizen to bring their firearm onto private property which is open to the public (i.e. restaurants, supermarkets, shopping malls, etc.).
An affirmative ruling by the high court could nix, or greatly restrict, government designations of so-called “sensitive places” as a means of discouraging concealed carry.
In the Hemani case, Reuters heard from Darrell Miller, a law professor at the University of Chicago. He suggests the court might deliver a narrow ruling.
Waiting in the wings, according to the Second Amendment Case Tracker, are several other Second Amendment cases, including a couple for which the court has been essentially “kicking the can down the road” for several weeks, and their outcome could have a significant impact on restrictive state gun laws.
Chief among these are Duncan v. Bonta, a case out of California challenging California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines,” and Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, challenging the Evergreen State’s ban on “large-capacity magazines.” Both cases have been essentially gathering dust, and it is likely the Supreme Court would consider both together.
An affirmative ruling would be a hammer blow to several states and the gun control lobby, which has a big stake in the outcome. Should the court take both cases and rule such magazines are protected by the Second Amendment, it would be an embarrassing loss to anti-gun politicians including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, the latter who has boasted frequently that he has never lost a case to the gun lobby.
Another case with sweeping implications is Viramontes v. Cook County, challenging the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in Illinois. If the court takes this case and rules on the side of the Second Amendment, it could remove similar bans in California, Washington, New York and several other states.
Similar cases are Nat’l Assoc. for Gun Rights v. Lamont and Grant v. Higgins, challenging the semi-auto ban in Connecticut. Lamont also challenges the state’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.
— Suzanna Gratia Hupp
June 09, 2026
Hazel Park after-prom party shooting suspect released after self-defense claim
Hazel Park police released a man in custody in a fatal shooting at an after-prom party at a short-term rental, saying the man who died allegedly pointed a gun and stole a watch from someone at the party, and the suspect fired his gun in self-defense.
Police said Monday, June 1, that the suspect was released pending further investigation after speaking with him, reviewing witness accounts and evidence at the scene and consulting with the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office.
A 20-year-old Detroit man was pronounced dead at a local hospital, and a 19-year-old Pontiac woman was being treated after the May 29 shooting at 23401 Powell, police said. A 21-year-old man had been in custody. Police did not name anyone.
What police say happened
Police said interviews of those at the party and evidence suggested an armed robbery occurred in the house, and the man who died allegedly pointed a gun and stole a watch from someone at the party.
Why the suspect was released
The man who was in custody has a valid permit to carry a firearm and was present in the home, police said. They said he saw the robbery when he claimed to have fired his gun in self-defense. A witness to the altercation provided supporting information to the robbery and self-defense claim, police said.
Police said they received multiple 911 calls of a shooting in the area of Powell and Orchard. Officers found a crowd of people fleeing a home on Powell. They found the wounded man outside the home and the woman several houses south of the home.Preliminary information was that the house may have been hosting an after-prom party when a dispute occurred, and people exchanged gunfire inside and outside of the home.
Police said the after-prom party did not involve students from the Hazel Park School District.
First AI-designed ‘universal vaccine’ tested in humans: UK researchers.
A vaccine targeting a broad range of viruses that was designed using artificial intelligence had a “modest” effect on immune systems in a small, early trial, according to a new study.
The trial marks the first time a vaccine whose active ingredient was entirely designed by AI has been tested in humans, researchers at the University of Cambridge in the U.K. said Friday.
The experimental jab is intended to be a “universal vaccine” that protects people against a range of viruses that have previously sparked deadly outbreaks, including SARS, MERS and COVID-19.
The researchers expressed hope that this type of vaccine could one day help fend off future pandemics.
“We’ve converted vaccine development from being reactive to being future-proof,” Cambridge researcher and study co-author Jonathan Heeney said in a statement.
