“There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people had not been “brainwashed” about gun ownership and they had been well armed. Hitler’s thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half starved group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazi’s.”
— Theodore Haas, former prisoner of the Dachau concentration camp

If This Is Their Best Argument Against National Reciprocity, They Should Give Up Now

Concealed carry reciprocity at the federal level is more likely to happen now, before the midterms, than at any other point in history. It’s still an uphill fight, but President Trump has promised his support, and others are rallying to the cause. That’s the good news.

Unfortunately, there are still enough senators who can filibuster the bill that it makes it a challenge to get it to the president’s desk.

Still, gun control groups are digging in for a fight. They’re trying to lay the groundwork for their attacks on the bill, but if they look like this, they should just give up now.

Let’s start with the headline, because it matters. It reads, “More Than 2,800 Non-Self Defense Deaths Involving Concealed Carry Killers Since 2007, Latest Violence Policy Center Research Shows.”

Note the language here: “concealed carry killers” versus “non-self defense[sic] deaths.”

That’s an important point that will come up here in a bit.

Now, for the “argument”:

Concealed handgun permit holders are responsible for at least 2,817 deaths not involving self-defense since 2007, according to the Violence Policy Center’s (VPC) ongoing Concealed Carry Killers (concealedcarrykillers.org) project, an online resource that provides examples of non-self defense killings involving private citizens with permits to carry concealed handguns in public.

This latest update comes as legislation endorsed by the gun lobby and firearms industry has been introduced in the U.S. House (H.R. 38) and Senate (S. 65) to allow individuals with state-issued concealed firearm permits to carry their weapons in any state that issues carry permits or does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. The bills are currently moving through the committee process.

Overall, Concealed Carry Killers documents 2,552 fatal, non-self defense incidents since May 2007 in 40 states and the District of Columbia, resulting in the deaths of 2,817 people. Thirty-eight of the incidents were fatal mass shootings as defined by federal law (three or more victims killed), resulting in the deaths of 186 victims. At least 24 law enforcement officers have died at the hands of concealed carry killers since May 2007.

VPC Government Affairs Director Kristen Rand states, “While the firearms industry and gun lobby push for coast-to-coast concealed carry, real-world facts show that concealed handgun permit holders are far more likely to kill themselves or innocent victims than use their gun in a justifiable homicide.”

Of course, they note that there are no official records keeping track of this, so they have to base all of their so-called research on news reports and whatever limited data they can get from the states, but let’s start off by looking at the raw numbers presented here. They maintain that the actual numbers are probably higher, which might be true, but probably isn’t. Still, let’s look at what they’ve got because that’s what we have.

It’s been 17 full years since 2007, and I’m making an assumption they’re not including any information from this year–which isn’t a safe assumption, to be fair, but for the sake of argument, I think this will be fine–which means we’re looking at 165.7 “deaths” by concealed carriers per year.

Sure, those are all tragic, to be certain, but when you look at nearly 46,000 “gun deaths” each year, it’s not even a drop in the bucket.

“But Tom, those ‘gun deaths’ include suicides. Isn’t that apples and oranges?”

A fair question, good reader, but it’s not. Why? Because the VPC does the exact same thing.

In the vast majority of the 2,552 incidents documented in Concealed Carry Killers (2,435, or 95 percent), the concealed carry permit holder either died by suicide (1,732), has already been convicted (614), perpetrated a murder-suicide (65), or was killed in the incident (24). Of the 77 cases still pending, the vast majority (61) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, five were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and 11 incidents are still under investigation. An additional 40 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder.

The fact that someone has a concealed carry permit has nothing at all to do with their suicide. Plenty of people take their own lives with guns while lacking carry permits. Others use different means of doing the same thing. Suicide numbers really shouldn’t be included in a look at “concealed carry killers,” now, should it? Not if you really want to make the case that national reciprocity will make people less safe.

Interestingly, the chart they include has a section for “self-defense/no verdict,” which makes no sense at all if you’re trying to claim these aren’t self-defense shootings.

Still, if we decide to accept the remaining numbers at face value–mostly because they don’t include any total on those “self-defense/no verdict” numbers–we end up with 1,085 deaths attributed to concealed carry permit holders. That’s an average of just under 64 killings per year. That’s versus an average of just under 18,000 murders with firearms.

That’s not a problem. That’s statistical noise.

Then we have their interpretation of these claims.

VPC Government Affairs director Kristen Rand is quoted as saying, “While the firearms industry and gun lobby push for coast-to-coast concealed carry, real-world facts show that concealed handgun permit holders are far more likely to kill themselves or innocent victims than use their gun in a justifiable homicide.”

Except that’s not the case at all, and even the anti-gun The Trace knows that’s not true.

How do I know that? Because look at their report on defensive gun uses, which looked at both Gun Violence Archive numbers and numbers from The Heritage Foundation.

Gun Violence Archive, the Kentucky-based nonprofit that tallies gun-related incidents in near-real time, also counts DGUs. But it only captures incidents that make the news or are reported to police. And GVA includes incidents involving illegal gun possessors as well as legal owners, including shootouts as well as stand-your-ground shootings. GVA recorded 8,394 DGUs from 2017 to 2021, which works out to an average of 1,678 a year. But that’s likely a massive undercount.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, launched a DGU tracker in 2019 that relies on media reports, but counts only defensive gun use by lawful owners. Heritage tallied 2,106 shootings from 2019 to 2021, for an average of 702 per year. The group cautions that it’s “not intended to be comprehensive” because “most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.” That’s a common belief among pro-gun advocates, some of whom believe the 2.5 million figure is, in fact, too low.

Both of these totals are much lower than the 165.7 per year average noted above. It’s worth noting, though, that these are compiled through media reports, just as VPC’s numbers are. If their estimates are low, then it stands to reason that we’re right about the defensive gun use totals also being low, especially since a lot of them never make the news.

And if you remove suicides from the equation, as you should, the difference is even more stark.

However, then we need to consider concealed carry holders versus society as a whole, since this whole report was intended to imply that they’re a danger to society.

Joe LoPorto, the Director of Legal Operations for the New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate, did a little math, passed along to me, comparing per capita rates overall. Here’s what he told me:

The VPC, financially backed by the Joyce Foundation, itself a President Obama pet project with over $1 billion in assets has been running its Concealed Carry Killers database for years. We all know the numbers they are producing are massively inflated. However, even when taken at face value and considering the most conservative estimate of the number of Americans with a concealed carry permit (rounded down to just 20 million), their own data support our point.

Based on their own data, presented by VPC in a way to look as inflammatory as possible, the murder rate amongst the population of concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. would be 2.7 per 100,000 people, or less than half the murder rate of the overall U.S. population at 5.9 per 100,000. Again, based on their inflated numbers, the suicide rate of concealed carry permit holders would be 5.0 per 100,000 or about 1/3rd that of the overall U.S. population at 14.2 per 100,000.

Even accepting their inflated statistics, their own data show that concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. are substantially safer than the overall U.S. population.

New Jersey is the perfect example.  Before Bruen, virtually no one was able to obtain a concealed carry permit. In the years since Bruen, nearly 100,000 New Jerseyans obtained concealed carry permits… and the violent crime and gun crime rates in the state declined.

Peaceable people exercising their core constitutional rights in the U.S. are not the problem.

That last bit, especially, is absolutely correct.

On every level, their entire premise falls apart. The attempt to demonize concealed carry permit holders fails in the face of literally any other evidence. It only works in a vacuum, and there’s no such thing in the world of media today.

Seriously, this is so absolutely pathetic that they should hide in shame for the next thousand years or so.

“Do you wish to preserve your rights?
Arm yourselves.
Do you desire to secure your dwellings?
Arm yourselves.
Do you wish your wives and daughters protected?
Arm yourselves.
Do you wish to be defended against assassins or the Bully Rocks of faction?
Arm yourselves.
Do you desire to assemble in security to consult for your own good or the good of your country?
Arm yourselves.
To arms, to arms, and you may then sit down contented, each man under his own vine and his own fig-tree and have no one to make him afraid
.
If you are desirous to counteract a design pregnant with misery and ruin, then arm yourselves; for in a firm, imposing and dignified attitude, will consist your own security and that of your families.
To arms, then to arms….”—Tench Coxe

Tennessee’s “intent to go armed” and “parks” statutes declared unconstitutional

On August 22, 2025, a three-judge panel (the “court”) in Tennessee declared Tennessee’s intent to go armed statute unconstitutional. The court also declared Tennessee’s statute that prohibits carrying firearms in parks to be unconstitutional.

Tennessee’s “intent to go armed” statute is contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a)(1) which provides “A person commits an offense who carries, with the intent to go armed, a firearm or a club.” The statute makes it a criminal offense to carry any firearm at any time and at any place, including a person’s on property or in their own home, “with the intent to go armed.” Thus, an officer would have reasonable cause to believe a crime is being committed just by observing a person carry or wearing a firearm – even in their own yard. That reasonable cause justifies an officer in stopping, detaining, questioning, charging or arresting the individual for that crime. The statutes do provide certain affirmative defenses, such as the individual had a handgun permit or that they were in their own home, but those defenses do not shield the individual from being stopped, questioned or arrested. Indeed, Tennessee law currently puts the burden on the individual to raise and demonstrate those defenses at trial.

Recognizing the statute’s function, the court’s ruling stated “As such, the Going Armed Statute criminalizes conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment as discussed above. Such conduct is presumed to be constitutionally protected—in other words, this statute is presumed to
be unconstitutional—unless Defendants can demonstrate that regulation of carrying a weapon with the intent to go armed is within the historical tradition of this nation.”

Turning to the arguments by Defendants Gov. Lee and Attorney General Skrmetti, which the court rejected, the court stated “Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive because they make no defense of nor even address the constitutional infirmity at the heart of the statute—the criminalization of the constitutional right to bear arms. . . . Defendants do not satisfy their flipped burden under Bruen and have in no way demonstrated a plainly legitimate sweep for proscribing in toto, subject to narrow exceptions in subsequent subsections, the right to bear arms.”

In striking down the intent to go armed statute as violating both the 2nd Amendment and the Tennessee Constitution, the court concluded by stating “this Court holds that the Going Armed Statute violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and therefore also violates Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution. With respect to the Going Armed Statute, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED
.”

The Plaintiffs also asked the court to declare Tennessee’s “parks statute,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311(a), unconstitutional. That statute makes it a crime for individuals to carry weapons prohibited by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1302(a), a statute which Tennessee’s Attorney General asserts includes everyday handguns and other commonly owned firearms. The court, adopting much of its analysis regarding the intent to go armed statute, also found the parks statute to be unconstitutional.

In the effort to defend the park’s statute, the state (Attorney General Skrmetti’s office) had argued that Tennessee’s parks (including its greenways and recreational areas) were “sensitive places.” However, the court likewise rejected this argument by the defendants.

Finally, the Defendants asserted that should the court rule in favor of the Plaintiffs that the determination that these statutes are unconstitutional should be limited and protect only the Plaintiffs and not all Tennesseans. The court likewise rejected that request by the Defendants. Instead, the court stated “Plaintiffs here have vindicated their constitutional rights. No government official, or the public for that matter, has a legitimate interest in the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. Tennesseans that are not party to this action may unintentionally benefit from the protection of their constitutional rights, but no right of theirs could be prejudiced by the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, we do not limit the scope of the declaratory relief sought by and now granted to Plaintiffs.”

This lawsuit was brought by three individuals who are members of Tennessee Firearms Association and in which Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation are organizational plaintiffs. All plaintiffs were represented by John Harris, who is also the executive director of the Tennessee Firearms Association. The defendants were Governor Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti in their respective official capacities in addition to several state commissioners, a district attorney and a sheriff.

Efforts by the Tennessee Firearms Association to repeal these statutes in the Legislature have been rejected repeatedly by the Republican controlled Tennessee Legislature. Those blockades were one of the motivations for bringing this court challenge.

ATF says concealed carry ‘puts everyone involved at risk’
When will the ATF’s civil rights violations end?

by Lee Williams

The millions of law-abiding Americans who have chosen to carry a concealed firearm are putting “everyone involved at risk,” the ATF announced this week in a post on X.

“Take a look into our world. This is a scenario @ATFWashington frequently faces when combatting violent crime and maintaining public safety. Many people attempt to conceal firearms on their person or belongings which puts everyone involved at risk. #MakeDCSafeAgain #ATF,” the ATF posted.

As you can imagine, ATF’s message received hundreds of overwhelmingly negative responses including many that are not fit to reprint.

“Concealed carry is not the issue—you are. Millions of law-abiding citizens carry concealed every single day without incident. Concealed carry saves lives. Disarming people and vilifying them on social media doesn’t,” Ammoland News posted.

Noted Second Amendment scholar and attorney Mark W. Smith asked a prominent Justice Department civil rights attorney in a post on X to “speak with the Washington ATF field office about the Second Amendment and the Bruen decision. I suspect their social media person lacks the relevant knowledge.”

Aiden Johnston, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, tweeted “Try reading Heller, McDonald, Bruen, and the Second Amendment again, tyrants.” In his tweet, he added a picture of the Bruen decision.

The Firearms Policy Coalition tweeted simply: “Your existence puts everyone at risk. AMIRITE?”

“Times have changed. This isn’t 1934,” firearms trainer and author Ranjit Singh posted.

The ATF posted their tweet at 9:05 a.m., Thursday.

Twenty-seven hours and thirty-seven minutes later, the ATF “corrected” their post.

“EDIT-Take a look into our world. This is a scenario @ATF Washington frequently faces when combatting violent crime and maintaining public safety. Many CRIMINALS attempt to conceal firearms on their person or belongings which puts everyone involved at risk. #MakeDCSafeAgain,” the ATF posted.

Takeaways

Most gun owners will not buy ATF’s response, changing “Many people …” to “Many CRIMINALS …”

The reasons for this is simple: We all know too well that the ATF has never understood the massive difference between law-abiding gun owners and criminals.

To the ATF, everyone who owns a firearm is a criminal. This has become their modus operandi. They treat every single gun owner as a criminal.

If you need proof, look at the ATF’s recent history. Look at how they treated Patrick “Tate” Adamiak, Mark “Choppa” Manley, Russell Fincher or Brian Malinowski.

The ATF sent their SWAT teams to raid the homes of all four men, but not a single illegal item was found, even though Adamiak is serving a 20-year sentence for made-up crimes, and Malinowski was shot and killed in his home by ATF Agent Tyler Cowart.

That the ATF actually views concealed-carry as a crime is not a surprise. What is surprising is that no one has done anything about it, at least not yet.

It is definitely time for President Donald J. Trump to end the ATF.

Sheriff Jim’s latest

Remember The Combat Triad.

Owning a gun is only the beginning.

When Jeff Cooper was working on the lesson plans that have become the curriculum at Gunsite Academy, he developed the Combat Triad. These were three equal elements that combine to make us a harder target against criminal attack. They are Marksmanship, Gun Handling and Mindset. These are the three areas that give us the life-saving skills to overcome violent encounters.

Marksmanship begins with a person obtaining a defensive firearm that is compatible to his particular needs. We have to realize that accurate shooting is not a skill that we are born with. Rather, it comes from getting training to develop the necessary skills and then continual practice to keep those skills fresh. In short, we have to learn to hit targets at various distances and to do so as accurately as possible. A friend of mine said that we have to remember that there is a lawyer attached to every bullet that we fire. In other words there are a lot of reasons that it is important to develop the skill level that allows you to hit your target and not endanger non-combatants.

Gun handling first requires us to learn to handle our defensive handgun safely at all times; see the above comment about a lawyer attached to every bullet that we fire. Beyond that, we must learn to make a fast draw stroke, find our sights and get on target quickly. But gun handling also involves learning quick reloading and effectively dealing with any malfunction that is characteristic of the chosen firearm. Different guns may be run differently and maintained differently; it is up to the user to know these things about his chosen defensive tool.

Mindset has to do with spotting trouble and knowing effective ways to deal with it. The best pistol shot that you know of is in trouble if he doesn’t understand how to recognize a serious problem and have a plan for dealing with that problem. If I see the potential criminals while they are still a ways down the street, I am keeping an eye on them and have already spotted close cover options and several exits, I am way ahead of the game. Mindset consists of alertness, ways to avoid trouble and ways to deal with it effectively if it is forced upon us. Through mindset we learn to use the skills developed in marksmanship and gun handling to their greatest advantage.

We need to continually remind ourselves that this whole process is not a “one and done” kind of deal. Instead, it is an ongoing education and ongoing practice deal. What we were taught or what we could do 20 years ago is really of little value if we haven’t kept up with our training and practice.  So it is important to continually think of our defensive skills in terms of the combat triad. Marksmanship, Gun Handling and Mindset – the recipe for survival.

Federal Judge Issues Permanent Injunction on California’s Ban on Non-Resident Carry

The Firearms Policy Coalition is hailing a federal judge’s permanent injunction against the state’s ban on non-resident carry, which allows FPC members to file an application for a permit to carry in any of the state’s 58 counties.

U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued the permanent injunction on Thursday, several weeks after she concluded that the state’s ban on non-resident carry was unconstitutional.

Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta; Defendant’s officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with Defendant, are hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code sections 26150(a)(3) and 26155(a)(3) as to CCW applications submitted by Plaintiff Firearms Policy Coalition’s members who are not residents of California, including the named Individual Plaintiffs.

That’s pretty simple and succinct. And as FPC notes, that’s also pretty much the exact opposite of what Bonta was asking for.

In a statement, FPC elaborated on Bonta’s request.

The State of California had asked the Court to issue a complex injunction requiring applicants to submit a sworn statement declaring intent to carry in a specific county within the next 12 months and limiting applications to that county — along with five pages of additional conditions and qualifications. But the Court agreed with FPC, which asked the Court to enter a straightforward injunction simply blocking enforcement of the ban altogether.

“People do not lose their right to keep and bear arms when they visit California. With this injunction, they can finally protect themselves and their families while in the Golden State,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.

FPC members will be able to apply in whatever county they wish, without having to provide any sort of sworn statement or notarized declaration of intent, which is exactly how it should be. California residents may be forced to apply for a carry permit in the county where they live, but it makes no sense for non-residents to be funneled into one particular county… particularly given the lengthy wait times and excessive fees that are found in some of the state’s most populated counties.

Continue reading “”

Appeals Court Backs Florida Medical Marijuana Patients in Gun Rights Battle

Atlanta, GA –  A federal appeals court has delivered a major win for medical marijuana patients and gun rights advocates, ruling that the federal government cannot automatically strip gun rights from Floridians who legally use cannabis for medical reasons.

The Ruling

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s argument that medical marijuana patients should be treated like drug addicts or dangerous individuals. Writing for the panel, Judge Elizabeth Branch stated:

“When viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the allegations in the operative complaint do not lead to the inference that the plaintiffs are comparatively similar to either felons or dangerous individuals—the two historical analogues the Federal Government offers in its attempt to meet its burden”.

Branch emphasized that plaintiffs Vera Cooper and Nicole Hansell, who disclosed their medical marijuana use on federal gun purchase forms, “cannot fairly be labeled as dangerous people solely due to their medicinal marijuana use”.

The court concluded:

“Appellants cannot be considered relevantly similar to either felons or dangerous individuals based solely on their medical marijuana use. Accordingly, the Federal Government has failed, at the motion to dismiss stage, to establish that disarming Appellants is consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation”.

The ruling vacated a lower court dismissal and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Continue reading “”