Smyrna woman kills stranger who smashed her window, forced his way in to her apartment

SMYRNA, Ga. — A woman shot and killed a man in self-defense at her Smyrna apartment on Thursday night after he shattered her window and forced her way inside, according to investigators.

Police said no charges will be filed and that it appears the two did not know each other.

Smyrna police said they received a call about a person shot at Alder Park Apartments on Cumberland Way. Officers got to the scene and found a man shot to death at an apartment.

In an update on Friday, police said that the man had broken into a woman’s apartment. The resident told police that she heard someone beating on her front door around 7:50 p.m.

Beware of liberals bearing bugs

Lately, Glenn Reynolds has been sounding the theme that liberals are trying to make the lives of ordinary Americans worse. As here, for example:

MAKING ORDINARY PEOPLE’S LIVES WORSE IS THE GOAL, THE ENVIRONMENT IS JUST THE EXCUSE.

I wavered on this. Does it go too far?

No. No, it doesn’t. These are horrible people–sadists, basically–who want to make your life worse. Not their lives, your life. I imagine this scene:

Hey, I’ve got a good one–let’s make them eat bugs!

Bugs? How in Hell are we going to do that?

To save the environment, of course! How else?

Yes, yes, that’s genius! Bugs!

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ROFL

When I tell people that liberals are working on substituting insects for meat, they often think I am imagining things. But it is true. The beachhead is “flour.” You can dry insects, turn them into powder, and put the powder into foods. This is actually starting to become common. Thus, from Italy, “Italy bans insect flour from its pasta despite the eco buzz.”

The growing use in cooking of flour made from crickets, locusts and insect larvae has met fierce opposition in Italy, where the government is to ban its use in pizza and pasta and segregate it on supermarket shelves.
***
Packed with vitamins, proteins and minerals, flour made from crickets is increasingly seen as an ecological way to obtain nutrients, and the market is forecast to reach $3.5 billion by 2029. The EU has already authorised foods made from crickets, locusts and the darkling beetle larva. In January mealworm larvae was added to the list.

Happily, the Italians are standing up for civilization. I think Giorgia Meloni can be counted on here.

All four insects are cited in the Italian decrees, which will require any products containing them to be labelled with large lettering and displayed separately from other foods.

“Whoever wants to eat these products can, but those who don’t, and I imagine that will be most Italians, will be able to choose,” [Francesco Lollobrigida, the agriculture minister] said.

Choice being antithetical to liberals, this won’t satisfy them. The battle is only now beginning.

Today it’s flour, tomorrow you will be expected to boil grubs and toss locusts on the grill. Why? To combat global warming, of course! For the same reason you won’t be permitted (at anything like a cost you can afford) to fly in an airplane, enjoy reliable electricity, heat your house in the winter, drive a normal motor vehicle, cook on a gas stove, and so on.

It is true: liberals are trying to make your life worse, in every way they can get away with.

The post-Bruen “Sugar High” is a serious threat to our Second Amendment

The NYSRPA v. Bruen verdict passed by the Supreme Court last June was a watershed moment in American history. What began as a fight against the arbitrary power of government apparatchiks to grant concealed carry permits, often with a dollop of corruption, ended with a judicial standard that limits the power of government to infringe upon our right to keep and arms. The new guidance from the Supreme Court places the burden of proof on the government to show that a law that implicates the Second Amendment rights of citizens is in line with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation.

The implications have been massive. From coast to coast, laws that were previously rubber-stamped by a jaundiced judiciary are being struck down.

  • Laws that created a malleable category of “assault weapons” and banned them? Gone!
  • Laws that mandated non-existent James Bond technology? Gone!
  • Magazine capacity restrictions? Poof!
  • Laws that banned out-of-state ammunition purchases? In the process of getting shot down.
  • Laws that restrict young adults from owning guns? On their way out.
  • Ammo background purchase requirements? About to get overturned…

California has seen a lot of the above action but New York, my state of residence, has also seen its fair share of lawsuits after the Empire State struck back.

There is a lot to celebrate. Gun owners in anti-Second Amendment states are giddy at being able to own pistol grips instead of obscene workarounds, threaded barrels, detachable magazines, and folding/adjustable stocks. They’re no longer limited to Gen3 Glocks, and are no longer discouraged to apply for a carry permit because they aren’t rich, politically connected, or refuse to participate in Third World bribery.

Yet, amid all this, I see reason for alarm. Granted, things were far worse and on a bad trajectory but seem to have turned around. Those gains, in my opinion, are tenuous and can be rolled back within our lifetimes. The scoreboard as it stands now is the result of a razor-thin Electoral College victory in 2016. Regardless of one’s sentiments and policy positions on abortion, the overturning of Roe v. Wade should serve as a warning.

In an ideal world, lawmakers would refrain from passing laws that violate the Constitution, the Executive Branch would stop usurping the authority of lawmakers, and the judiciary would make use of its lifetime tenure to judge cases on their merits and not be cowed down by public opinion or political pressure. But the world we live in is far from that. The weakened separation of powers will be dangerous in the long run, not just for the Second Amendment, but for the overall health of the Republic.

Secondly, the enemies of our freedoms are organized, well-funded, and waging an all-out war. They’re working secretly with the CDC, pushing propaganda in Hollywood, applying pressure campaigns on private industry, conspiring with academia, and using public money to push their agenda. I hesitate to say this, but they’re behaving like modern-day Benedict Arnolds, colluding with foreign nations to subvert the American Bill of Rights because of their deep-seated hatred and basic denial of our right to keep and bear arms.

I’ve heard people say that “we’ve got ’em on the ropes” but I’m doubtful. What I see is a danger arising from a post-Bruen “Sugar High” and complacency on the part of gun owners.

Will you stop your activism now that you can buy pistol grips and folding stocks? Will you stop calling your elected representatives now that you have your carry permit? Will you show up to vote or relax at home? Will your rifles gather dust in your safe as you go about your life assuming that the law and political circumstances will stay as they are now, and your freedoms will remain safe?

It’s a good idea to live like an optimist but prepare for the worst. I implore the reader to still act like your freedom is on the verge of obliteration: continue dutifully calling your elected representatives, speak up when needed, and most importantly, continue taking inexperienced people to the range and bring them into the fold of gun ownership, so our freedoms can be enjoyed by our grandchildren and their descendants a hundred years from now.

Litigation Highlight: Legal Challenges to ATF Rule on Stabilizing Braces

In January of this year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) published Final Rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces.’” The new rule changes the operative definition of “rifle” in the Code of Federal Regulations such that most pistols with attached stabilizing braces (often called “pistol braces”) will now be subject to heightened federal regulation under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). Citizens, state attorneys general, and gun policy groups have already filed several lawsuits in federal district courts challenging the legality of ATF’s rule.

In this post, I’ll first introduce the pistol brace and the tale of historical (non)regulation, beginning with a brief table-setting history of the NFA and GCA. Second, I’ll survey the main legal arguments presented in the ongoing lawsuits, with a focus on Second Amendment challenges.

The NFA, GCA, and the “Short-Barreled Rifle” Category

The NFA, passed in 1934 in response to widely-publicized incidences of gang violence, imposed burdensome taxes, regulatory requirements, and criminal non-compliance penalties on the ownership and transfer of weapons associated with criminal use. In 1968, the GCA modified the definitions of certain weapons already regulated by the NFA and instituted a system of federal licensing for firearms distributors. Together, these two acts regulate machine guns (fully-automatic rifles like the “Tommy Gun,” infamously associated with Prohibition-era criminals); short-barreled rifles and shotguns; suppressors; destructive devices (like grenades and other explosives); and an amorphous category of “any other weapon” (now referred to as ‘AOWs,’ and understood to include ‘disguised’ firearms and firearms that don’t fit neatly into another category). Collectively, these weapons are known as “NFA items.”

More specifically, this regulatory scheme limits who may import, build, or purchase NFA items, and under what circumstances they may do so. The most onerous restriction at the time of the NFA’s passage was the $200 tax it imposed on possession of NFA items (equivalent to ~$4,500 in today’s dollars). Since the amount of this tax has not changed over the years, the tax itself is no longer the NFA’s most restrictive element. Instead, that honor now belongs to ATF’s ‘approval’ requirements, which involve extensive background checks and fingerprinting, as well as the registration of the individual NFA item with ATF. The average wait-time for an individual seeking to buy an NFA item, such as a short-barreled rifle (SBR), is estimated to be  270 days.

The NFA as originally written also regulated handguns, but a concerted lobbying effort on the part of the National Rifle Association caused lawmakers to drop handguns from the final bill. So, today, the NFA regulates neither handguns (defined in relevant part as “a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand”) nor full-length rifles (defined in relevant part as “weapon[s] designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” and having a barrel longer than 16 inches). Since neither handguns nor full-length rifles are subject to NFA regulations, these two types of firearms are substantially easier to access than SBRs, which differ from full-length rifles only in their barrel length.

Continue reading “”

People Can Win.
We’ve been trained to think that endless rule by tiny minorities of really horrible people is the natural order of things, but that turns out to be just another lie

Earlier today Susan Schmidt and I published an article about a series of changes at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a creepy sub-division of the Department of Homleand Security. It turns out that CISA, which just a week or so ago was busted for scrubbing embarrasing text from its website by the Foundation for Freedom Online, quietly eliminated its so-called “MDM” or “Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation” subcommittee.

Just a year ago, the Department of Homeland Security was going all-in on the fight against “MDM.” The notion that America is fatally infected with “Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation” was in fact the animating idea begind the asinine plan the Biden administration announced last April to institute a “Disinformation Governance Board,” which was to be headed by Nina Jankowicz, a self-styled Mary Poppins of digital rectitude:

America took one look at Jankowicz and at most a few fleeting moments considering the “Disinformation Governance Board” plan before concluding, correctly, that it was a beyond-loathsome expression of aristocratic arrogance that needed shutting down before the first Jankowicz presser. Characteristically, the press lied about the public reaction, claiming that the only displeasure was heard from the “GOP.” In fact, all sane people across the spectrum were instantly nauseated, their distress loud enough that the DHS hit “pause” on Jankowicz and the batty MinTruth plan after just three weeks.

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment Myths and Misinformation

False Claim #1: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Has Always Been Heavily Regulated.

FACT: Restrictive gun control laws are a distinctly modern phenomenon in the United States. For the first century of American history, serious state-level regulation of individual gun ownership or usage was almost non-existent for law-abiding citizens. For example, despite oft-repeated claims to the contrary, nothing prohibited private citizens from owning cannons. In fact, private cannon ownership was apparently so common that one of the first types of arms restrictions imposed by some towns were ordinances restricting the times and locations where people could fire off those cannons inside town limits.30

Similarly, because gunpowder at the time was very unstable and prone to easy ignition, a number of states and cities limited the amount of gunpowder that could be stored in private residences, hoping to reduce the risk of accidental explosions or fires in urban areas.31 But beyond these sorts of “time, place, and manner” regulations, the right to keep and bear arms was virtually unrestricted in most states until the end of the 19th century.

Restrictive gun control measures are an even more recent phenomenon at the federal level. The first major federal law regulating firearms was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was relatively tame by today’s standards.32 It merely required that machine guns and certain types of “short-barreled” long guns be subjected to a special tax and be registered with the Secretary of the Treasury. The federal government did not even prohibit certain categories of individuals (such as felons) from possessing firearms until the Gun Control Act of 1968, and did not require licensed gun sellers to conduct background checks until the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.33

2022_08_0304_TheEssentialSecondAmmendment_Booklet_MicositeGraphics_v38.jpg

False Claim #2: Armed Civilians Stand No Chance Against Modern Militaries Equipped With Fighter Jets and Tanks, so the Second Amendment No Longer Serves a Purpose.

FACT: This claim misunderstands the importance of the protective role of federalism, in which each state already has well-trained and well-equipped organized militias of their own that can be mobilized and used in tandem with armed civilians. These National and State Guards are better equipped than the entire national militaries of many countries, with their own fighter jets, tanks, heavy artillery batteries, and special forces units. A handful of states even have their own naval militias. It is highly likely that, should a tyrannical federal government attempt to impose its will with the might of the American military, these state-level military entities—acting under the direction of liberty-loving state governments—could be deployed as a meaningful countermeasure, just like the colonial governments mobilized existing militias against the British army during the American Revolution.

Likewise, in the case of sudden foreign invasion, armed civilians would not be expected to act on their own in some ad hoc or unorganized fashion. Just like the colonial militias worked together with the professional soldiers of the Continental Army, armed civilians and their private weapons would, during any modern invasion, be integrated into the nation’s existing military structure and mobilized according to a coherent national or state defense strategy.

Beyond this, the right to keep and bear arms continues, of course, to protect countless Americans in their everyday lives against far more common threats to life and liberty.

2022_08_0304_TheEssentialSecondAmmendment_Booklet_MicositeGraphics_v310.jpg

False Claim #3: The Founders Had Little Understanding of How Firearm Technology Would Develop and Would Be Horrified to See Modern “Assault Weapons” in Civilian Hands.

FACT: This common assertion assumes that modern guns have a fundamentally different nature than weapons that were available in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified and 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. In reality, small arms have changed very little, especially when compared to other advances in technology. The Founders would likely be far more dumbfounded by the internet or smart phones—and their implications for the First and Fourth Amendments—than they would by guns that merely fire projectiles at a faster rate without having to reload them as often. Indeed, by 1791, the idea of rapidly firing dozens of bullets in quick succession or even at the same time was already well developed. By the time the Second Amendment was ratified, repeating rifles capable of firing more than 10 rounds in rapid succession had been around for centuries. By the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, their possession and use by ordinary Americans was very common.34 If anything, modern firearms are much “safer” than 18th and 19th century firearms because they are far less prone to accidental discharges or misfires that injure the shooter.

But, most importantly, this is simply not how we understand constitutional rights. Just like the Constitution protects the broad concept of “speech” instead of particular modes of speech, it protects “arms” as a general concept of weaponry. The idea was not to protect a specific type of weapon, like a musket, any more than the idea of the First Amendment was to protect a specific mode of speech, like a quill pen or printing press. That is in large part because the Framers of our Constitution and the people who ratified it knew that while technology and circumstances would undoubtedly change in unanticipated ways, these broader concepts of self-defense and free speech would remain vital to a free society.

Continue reading “”

March 25

1306 – Robert the Bruce, one of the great grandsons of King David I, is crowned King of Scots at the Abbey at Scone, Scotland, the capitol at the time.

1584 – Sir Walter Raleigh is granted a patent to colonize Virginia.

1655 – Saturn’s largest moon, Titan, is discovered by Christiaan Huygens.

1911 – A fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire kills 146 garment workers in New York City.

1917 – The Georgian Orthodox Church restores its autocephaly – basically being independent from a higher religious authority – that had been abolished by Imperial Russia in 1811.

1947 – An explosion at the No. 5 coal mine Centralia, Illinois kills 111 of the 142 miners working there.

1948 – The first successful tornado forecast predicts that a tornado will strike Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma.

1957 – The beginning of the European Union (EU) , the European Economic Community is established with West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg as the first members.

1965 – Civil rights activists led by Martin Luther King Jr. successfully complete their march from Selma to the capitol in Montgomery, Alabama.

1979 – The first fully functional Space Shuttle orbiter, Columbia, is delivered to the John F. Kennedy Space Center to be prepared for its first launch.

1996 – The European Union’s Veterinarian Committee bans the export of British beef and its byproducts as a result of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy commonly called ‘mad cow disease’.

2006 –  A gunman kills 6 people and wounds 2 more at a party in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, before committing suicide

The Essential Second Amendment
Helping Americans understand and defend the Second Amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, enshrined in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, is centered not on hunting or sport shooting but on the natural right of self-defense. It gives “teeth” to the promises of liberty, ensuring that attempts to reduce our natural rights to mere dead letters may be met with meaningful resistance.
Download the eBook here.

Permitless carry passes Florida House, Nebraska Senate could vote on similar measure Monday

Next week could be a very big week for gun owners and Second Amendment advocates. There’s a very good chance we’ll see one more more favorable rulings coming out of U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s southern California courtroom, while Colorado and Michigan lawmakers could send gun control bills to Democratic governors for their signature.

The biggest news of all is likely to come from Florida and Nebraska, which are poised to give final approval for permitless carry bills early next week. On Friday afternoon, the Florida House of Representatives signed off on HB 543 by a vote of 76-32, with several lawmakers absent. The Florida Senate has its own permitless carry bill on the floor, and lawmakers are expected to start moving it towards a final vote as early as Monday.

On Tuesday Nebraska lawmakers are set for another round of debate and votes on LB 77. The permitless carry legislation passed its first reading in early March, but had been absent from the legislative calendar ever since. As of Friday afternoon, however, LB 77 was on the legislative agenda when lawmakers return from their four-day weekend break.

I’d say that Florida’s in a better position to become the 26th permitless carry state at this point, primarily because the GOP’s majorities in Tallahassee are so large Democrats can’t put up a lengthy fight. In Nebraska the Democratic minority has been filibustering virtually every bill introduced in the unicameral legislature, led by Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh. Legislative progress has almost ground to a halt as Cavanaugh and others have delayed votes by offering up numerous amendments and subjecting as many provisions as possible to as long a debate as the rules allow. As the Daily Mail reported a couple of weeks ago:

Clerk of the Legislature Brandon Metzler said a delay like this has happened only a couple of times in the past 10 years.

‘But what is really uncommon is the lack of bills that have advanced,’ Metzler said. ‘Usually, we’re a lot further along the line than we’re seeing now.’

Only 26 bills have advanced from the first of three rounds of debate required to pass a bill in Nebraska. There would normally be two to three times that number by mid-March, Metzler said.

‘I have nothing, nothing but time,’ she declared at one point. ‘And I am going to use all of it.

‘If people think that they are going to wear me down, if yesterday didn’t show you that you cannot wear me down – you cannot wear me down.

‘I literally left the floor yesterday, went up to my office, and laid down on the floor.

‘I laid down on the floor, a hard floor, and took a 20 minute nap before going to committee hearings. You cannot stop me. I will not be stopped.’

Cavanaugh’s stated reason for the filibuster is SB 574, a bill that, as amended, would ban sex-reassignment surgery from being performed in the state on anyone under the age of 19. After weeks of filibustering, the legislation finally received its first vote on Thursday, but Democrats are likely going to keep the slowdown in place throughout the remainder of the session.

That doesn’t mean that constitutional carry is done for this year. Far from it, as a matter of fact. If LB 77 clears second reading next Tuesday, as expected, only one more vote will need to happen before the bill goes to Gov. Jim Pillen for his signature. Ron DeSantis is probably going to get to put pen to paper first, but I think Pillen is still going to get the opportunity to enshrine constitutional carry into law before this year’s session is over.

Speaking of ‘When is Enough, Enough?”
While the whole hearing is interesting. Skipping to the 2:58 hour mark cuts though a lot of the normal BS.

The demoncraps don’t like the idea that their houses of indoctrination may have some oversight by parents.

‘Parents Bill of Rights’ wins zero votes from Dems who attack it as ‘fascism,’ ‘extreme’ attack on schools
The bill is the GOP’s response to growing anger about lack of access to school information across the nation

The House voted to pass the Parents Bill of Rights Act on Friday over objections from Democrats who argued the bill is aimed at promoting “fascism” and “extreme” views of Republicans by making it easier for parents to ban books and out LBGTQ+ students.

The GOP bill is a response to growing anger across the country about access to information on everything from school curricula to safety and mask policies to the prevalence of gender ideology and critical race theory in the classroom. Parents’ anger over these issues at school board meetings led to an effort by the Biden administration’s Justice Department to examine the “disturbing trend” of violent threats against school officials.

House Republicans reacted by approving the Parents Bill of Rights Act, which would require school districts to give parents access to curriculum and reading lists and would require schools to inform parents if school staff begin encouraging or promoting their child’s gender transition.

The bill passed narrowly in a 213-208 vote that saw just a handful of Republicans vote against it, along with every Democrat.

Continue reading “”

Yes. It took 14 years, Justice Kennedy dying and Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett being seated to get the job nearly done.

Report: Far More Gun Laws Struck Down in Wake of Bruen Than Heller

The Supreme Court’s latest Second Amendment ruling has delivered more immediate effects than its previous landmark decision.

A revised analysis from Jake Charles, an associate professor at Pepperdine University’s Caruso School of Law, shows dozens of gun-rights claims have already succeeded in federal court since New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen was decided in June 2022. The new count, posted on Tuesday, puts post-Breun decisions far ahead of the pace of 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, which saw gun-rights advocates achieve relatively little in its immediate aftermath.

“There wasn’t a single successful Second Amendment challenge in the 6 months after Heller,” Charles said in a social media post. “In my research, I found *31* successful claims in the 8 months since Bruen.”

The disparity demonstrates that lower courts may be taking a different message from Bruen than Heller. While Heller established the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, it didn’t produce an explicit test for deciding future Second Amendment cases and struck down a total handgun ban that was already an outlier. Bruen struck down a concealed-carry permitting regime that was still used by eight states before the case, set down a specific test for deciding gun cases, and chastised lower courts for the test they had been using to decide cases after Heller.

One complicating factor in comparing the results of either ruling is that Heller wasn’t incorporated and applied to the states until 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago. Still, comparing the Charles count to one in a 2018 paper by Duke Law Professor Joseph Blocher and Southern Methodist University associate professor Eric Ruben, it took until 2012 for gun-rights advocates to top 30 wins after Heller. The success rate for Second Amendment claims has also been significantly higher post-Bruen than it was in the first several years after Heller, with Charles finding 14.6 percent of post-Bruen claims succeeding while Blocher and Ruben found fewer than ten percent succeeded in the four years after Heller.

There has been a significant difference in success rates for civil claims compared to criminal claims, which won far less often. Charles also broke out challenges by topic and saw a stark difference in how lower courts have handled different issues. Claims involving carry licensing or defaulting private property to be off limits for gun carry have won every time thus far. Claims over age restrictions, “ghost gun” regulations, and sensitive place bans have succeeded about half the time. In contrast, challenges to commercial regulations, the National Firearms Act, unlawful gun use, sentence enhancements, and bail conditions have failed every time.

Charles, who ran the Duke University Center for Firearms Law before joining Pepperdine, has been critical of the Court’s decision in Bruen. Most of his newly-published analysis focuses on claims the standard it adopted is unworkable and asserts “the Supreme Court may desire to sit as a super-legislature over nationwide gun policy” while imploring ” lower courts, legislators, and citizens” to resist that possibility. He critiques the use of a history-based standard for deciding cases about current firearms regulations and notes areas where lower courts have been at odds on how to implement it in practice.

He cites the increase in victories for plaintiffs making Second Amendment claims as evidence the Bruen standard is degrading gun restrictions across the country.

“The Court’s historical test has the potential to significantly expand the Second Amendment’s scope,” Charles wrote in the analysis. “No matter how compelling the state’s interest, no matter how narrowly tailored its regulation, Bruen’s new method appears to dictate that a modern gun law cannot stand without adequate grounding in the distant past.”

Naturally, gun-rights activists took an opposing viewpoint. The Truth About Guns, a pro-gun publication, echoed language from the Bruen majority to explain the difference in how lower courts have reacted to each ruling.

“It’s no longer a second-class right,” the publication tweeted.

Kostas Moros, a lawyer for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said the deluge of pro-gun decisions was akin to the release of pent-up demand. He argued Bruen itself was the result of how little effect Heller had on the way lower courts viewed the Second Amendment.

“We are just making up for lost time,” he posted. “If courts had applied Heller in good faith and we had a sort of ‘win some, lose some’ scenario, Bruen probably never would have happened (or would have been limited to just being about carry).”

Dianna Muller And The D.C. Project
Women of the D.C. Project meet with lawmakers to bring Second Amendment message.

Last September, the all-women D.C. Project had another successful trip to Washington, D.C., bringing its Second Amendment message that resonated with legislators on Capitol Hill. On a mission to share its credo that gun rights are human rights, the D.C. Project’s visit culminated in a successful rally at the Supreme Court Building.

The D.C. Project is a nationwide organization of women committed to safeguarding the Second Amendment. Started in 2016 by pro shooter and former NRA World Shooting Lady Champion, Dianna Muller, she had one goal—bringing this rapidly-growing demographic of gun owners in direct connection with legislators. Women can provide another perspective on the Second Amendment to lawmakers, including their involvement in competitive shooting.

Dianna Muller

Dianna Muller started the D.C. Project in 2016 to bring women firearm owners in connection with lawmakers. She is pictured on the right testifying last month before the Florida House Constitutional Rights, Rule of Law and Government Operations subcommittee about the Permitless Carry Bill.

Continue reading “”

I remember the sign at Christ Chapel that invited those carrying to volunteer that information so we could include them in our security plan so they could be seated accordingly for better coverage.

Missouri legislation seeks to allow guns in places of worship

Missouri Republicans are making a push to allow firearms to be carried inside religious establishments and lessen restrictions on access to firearms.

House Bill 485, heard in the House Emerging Issues Committee Wednesday evening, would override existing Missouri law that restricts the possession of a concealed carry firearm in places of worship without consent or knowledge of persons in charge.

Rep. Ben Baker, R-Neosho, is sponsoring the bill, which he said the purpose of the bill is to ensure Missourians “constitutional right” to carry firearms when attending places of worship.

Private property rights would still stand, and if religious organizations want to not allow firearms in their spaces they may still choose to do so by posting signage outside, under the bill. Opponents questioned if that would put them at further risk.

William Bland spoke in support of the bill, stating that mass shootings in churches are real and would allow other concealed carry permit holders to strengthen the force against them.

“By granting permission, the church is exposed to liability in the event of a CCW permit holder is involved in an unfortunate event involving the firearm even if that action is justified,” Bland said. He said that removing the restriction of firearms would keep the church from being liable.

Continue reading “”