Pro-life students threatened with gun violence

On the morning of December 3, Students for Life Action (SFLA) members were greeted with a note from pro-aboriton activists that read, “We will shoot up your Newman Center with our new AR14 rifles.”

The entire note read, “If our right to abortion in Bellevue is taken away due to the attempt to pass an abortion ban and it gets passed we will shoot up your Newman Center with our new AR14 rifles.”

Students for Life Action was meeting at the Newman Center, located between the University of Nebraska-Omaha & the College of St. Mary, to host a political workshop.

The workshop was intended to “gather pro-life activists from across the state to strategize about how to use the Campaign for Abortion Free Cities to shut down the late-term abortion facility in the state,” according to the SFLA blog.

Kyle Poen, Midwest Regional Coordinator for SFLA, arrived at the training to find the threat.

Poen told Campus Reform it was a “sobering moment, but we had a sense it could get rough when the pro-abortion lobby promoted a ‘Summer of rage.’”

“You always have to assume there is credible danger in a situation like this,” he added.

Poen went on to emphasize, “We are taking precautions but will not be silenced on the human rights issue of our day.”

President of Students for Life Action, Kristan Hawkins, commented on the situation on Twitter, writing that “[w]e are headed towards tragedy if AG Merrick Garland continues to refuse to act to protect peaceful pro-lifers from pro-abortion terrorist groups.”

Campus Reform contacted all organizations mentioned and will update this article accordingly.

Constitutional Carry Bill takes effect Jan. 1

House Bill 272, known as the Constitutional Carry Bill, takes effect Sunday, granting Alabamians permission to carry a concealed gun without a permit.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Shane Stringer, revises certain pistol carry or possession restrictions and eliminates pistol permit requirements for carrying a concealed pistol within the state.

Alabama became the 22nd state to loosen concealed weapon restrictions with the bill, and while the National Rifle Association supports the legislation, representatives from local law enforcement agencies expressed concerns for the impact communities may face from the policy.

Butler County departments did not respond immediately to requests for comments, but key law enforcement officials in neighboring Lowndes and Crenshaw counties highlighted the possibility for increased crime.

“I do not support it,” said Lowndes County Sheriff Chris West. “I absolutely, positively do not support it.”

According to West, the new law expands law enforcement concerns over the increased crime rate which may result from easier access to weapons.

“Lowndes County’s population is predominantly Black,” West said. “Among the Black race, violent crime is especially high. Personally, I can’t see enabling a law that would possibly contribute to that crime rate. It enables people who may have no business carrying a weapon to carry one, even without a permit.”

Crenshaw County Sheriff Terry Mears shared his fears for how loosening concealed carry restrictions could endanger law enforcement officers.

“This is going to be big for us,” Mears said. “There’s going to be more gun-related situations on traffic stops than before because the bad guys will have more access to weapons they can hide.”

Increased incidents involving active shooters present another concern, Mears noted, as do citizens who may shoot first and ask questions later. And, while local agencies are prepared, they hope those situations don’t arise.

“The only guy I’ve written tickets to in Crenshaw County is in jail for murder now,” Mears said. “People like that tend to carry guns now. All some folks want to do is shoot people. That makes our job a little more difficult.”

On March 10, Governor Kay Ivey signed the bill into law, an act she said defends law-abiding Alabamians’ Second Amendment rights.

“Unlike states who are doing everything in their power to make it harder for law-abiding citizens, Alabama is reaffirming our commitment to defending our Second Amendment rights,” she said in a March 10 statement. “I have always stood up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and I am proud to do that again today.”

The law does not impact previously issued pistol permits, and Alabamians who wish to carry concealed weapons to another state must still possess a valid Alabama permit.

Anyone prohibited under state or federal law from possessing a firearm is still restricted from doing so under the revised statute.

The NRA applauded Ivey for signing the bill, a move its leaders said enables law-abiding Alabamians to carry a handgun for personal protection without paying a tax or obtaining a license from the State.

“As law enforcement is being defunded and criminals aren’t being prosecuted, it is more important than ever that law-abiding Americans’ right to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their homes is fully recognized,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Jason Ouimet in a statement. “The NRA will continue to champion this God-given right until every state in the nation is a constitutional carry state.”

For those whose eyesight is still good enough to let them use dots, this appears to be good advice.
I personally have almost completely switched to LPVO & 1X prism sights due to the degenerative effects of age and the capability of adjustable focus eyepieces to compensate.
As it is, the Steiner and  Vortex LPVOs I have are of a size that co-witness of back-up iron sights is impossible, but I do have one AR ‘pistol’ with a prism sight that I will have to check out to see if this effect occurs.

Armed man killed while trying to rob tow truck driver with CPL

DETROIT – An armed robber was shot and killed when he targeted a tow truck driver who had a concealed pistol license, Detroit police said.

The shooting happened around 9:30 a.m. Monday (Dec. 26) in the 15400 block of Young Street on Detroit’s east side.

Officials said a man with a gun tried to rob a tow truck driver, but that driver was a CPL holder and also armed.

The tow truck driver shot the robber, and the robber died from his injuries, according to authorities.

Police continue to investigate.

PING! GARAND RIFLE PATENT TURNS 90

On Dec. 27, 1932, the U.S. Patent Office granted Patent Case File No. 1,892,141, for a Semi-Automatic Rifle to one John C. Garand. The rest is history.

Quebec-born Jean Cantius Garand, his name Americanized to John, grew up in Connecticut and learned to shoot after working at a shooting gallery after school as a kid. Working for the United States Bureau of Standards in Washington D.C. during World War I, he became a U.S. citizen in 1920 shortly after he began working at Springfield Armory, the Army’s small arms plant he would call home for 34 years.

His self-loading rifle project, incorporating several novel ideas, would go on to be adopted by the U.S. Army in 1936 as “U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M1” to replace several bolt-action models in the same caliber that the military had gone to war with back in 1917.

However, before all that, the patents had to be protected.

The 75-page patent application filled out and filed by Mr. Garand himself is so historical that it is on file and digitized in the U.S. National Archives. Filed in April 1930, it was endorsed by the Secretary of War with W.N. Roach, the Army’s Chief of the Patent Branch of the Ordnance Department, signing the drawing sheets and application forms as Garand’s attorney of record.

Continue reading “”

Dr. Lott Testifies Before House Committee
(Gives 3 Basic Facts Everyone Should Know!)

Dr. John Lott Jr., president of the nonprofit Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), testified before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security last week for a hearing dedicated to “Examining Uvalde: The Search for Bipartisan Solutions to Gun Violence.”

Dr. Lott delivered a lot of information but he began with three basic facts that everyone should know about gun-related violence in America.

Here they are:

1, Over 92% of violent crimes in America do not involve firearms. The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey for 2020 shows 4,558,150 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults, and the FBI reports 21,570 murders. Of those, firearms were involved in 350,460 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults. Adding those numbers up, 7.9% of violent crimes were committed with firearms.

2, While the US media doesn’t give much, if any, coverage to mass public shootings in other countries, mass public shootings per capita are relatively low in the United States compared to the rest of the world. Over the 20 years from 1998 to 2017, the US had less than 1.13% of the world’s share of mass public shooters and 1.77% of its mass public shooting murders. That’s much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Since 2000, there have been nine mass public school shootings in the US. Germany had only three over that period and Finland had only one, but the United States has four times the population of Germany and sixty times that of Finland. Russia has had four such massacres, but we have 2.3 times its population. On a per capita basis, all three countries have a similar or higher rate compared to that of the US.

3, Like many other mass public shooters, the Buffalo shooter targeted defenseless people. He even wrote in his manifesto: “Attacking in a weapon-restricted area may decrease the chance of civilian backlash. Schools, courts, or areas where CCW are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack. Areas where CCW permits are low may also fit in this category. Areas with strict gun laws are also great places of attack.” The national media refuses to report other explicit statements by attackers explaining why they pick the targets they do. Nor do they report the fact that 94% of mass public shootings occur in places where civilians are banned from having firearms.

Meet the American who rowed Washington across the Delaware on Christmas: sailor-soldier John Glover
The leader of the remarkable Marblehead militia of Massachusetts, Glover three times saved the cause of American independence

General John Glover delivered a priceless gift to the nation.

He saved the cause of American independence on Christmas Day 1776.

Glover was a Marblehead, Massachusetts, mariner-turned-Revolutionary War hero who led a rugged regiment of calloused New England fishermen.

This famed Marblehead militia ferried George Washington and 2,400 troops in row boats across the ice-choked Delaware River on the night of Dec. 25 with the American rebellion on the brink of collapse.

The daring assault overwhelmed a garrison of 1,400 Hessian mercenaries in Trenton, New Jersey, who were fighting on behalf of the British crown.

It was a stunning victory that reversed the course of the American Revolution and, ultimately, reshaped world history.

Portrait of John Glover (1732-1797), American Revolutionary officer. Supervised the retreat and troop transport from Long Island and led the advance on Trenton, New Jersey, on Dec. 25, 1776. Original Artwork: Engraving is facsimile of pencil drawing from life by Col. J. Trumbull.  (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

“This was a major military crossing under extraordinarily difficult circumstances,” American Battlefield Trust historian Kristopher White told Fox News Digital.

“More than just men, there were horses, provisions and artillery. Washington came armed for a fight.”

The daring triumph after a year of humiliating losses was, by many accounts, a Christmas miracle.

Officially known as the 14th Continental Regiment, the Marblehead militia was an extraordinary fighting force.

It was a fully integrated unit of Latin, White, Black and Native American troops, and at least one Jewish member, who worked together on the high seas before battling the Brits. About 20 percent of the unit was non-White, according to regimental rolls.

Three races of Glover’s unit are represented in the oarsmen in Leutze’s painting: a Black man by Washington’s knee, rowing on the starboard side; several White militiamen; and a Native American in moccasins and bead-pattern pouch steering the boat in the back.

“Washington relied on Glover to do a lot of very difficult things. And Glover always came through.”

Powering Washington’s assault across the Delaware was only one of three miracles delivered by Glover and his Marblehead men to save the rebellion in that terrible-turned-glorious year of 1776.

“Washington relied on Glover to do a lot of very difficult things,” Pam Peterson of the Marblehead Historical Commission told Fox News Digital.

“And Glover always came through.”

Continue reading “”

BLUF
So let’s be clear about what the Defensive Gun Use Database shows, and what Heritage’s position is: Civilians—just like the law enforcement officers who are exempt from these restrictions—sometimes need to defend themselves with more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

And in those cases where more than 10 rounds are needed, the extra ammunition may mean the difference between life or death.

BOLD-FACED LIE: Gun Control Groups Twist Heritage Foundation Data Out of Recognition in Court Documents

A conglomerate of gun control groups has filed a brief in federal court supporting the District of Columbia in a lawsuit challenging the city’s prohibition on civilian possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

This was not at all surprising.

What was quite perplexing, however, was the gun control groups’ citation of two of my recent monthly articles for The Daily Signal on defensive gun use. The groups claim the two articles “support” the premise that the District’s ban doesn’t negatively affect law-abiding gun owners, because none of the cases I cited “involved the use of anywhere close to 10 rounds of ammunition.”

Worse, the gun control groups spun this as The Heritage Foundation, among others, having “acknowledged that the ability to fire more than 10 rounds of ammunition without reloading is not necessary for defensive purposes.” (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

These are incredible claims in the most literal sense: They lack any credibility.

At best, the legal brief’s characterization of my monthly articles on defensive gun use is lazy to the point of recklessness and wrongly attributes to my employer, The Heritage Foundation, a policy position that it doesn’t hold. At worst, this constitutes an intentional effort to manipulate a federal court with a blatantly misleading representation of Heritage’s work on defensive gun use.

Continue reading “”

No, Jesus Was Not a Refugee and He Was Not Homeless

Every Christmas, we hear the same tired refrain from the same charlatans. Jesus, they claim, was a refugee. The implication is that if you are a Christian that you are obligated to welcome refugees because they are pretty much like Jesus.

The latest edition comes from Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg is one of those people who, despite living an immoral and dissolute lifestyle explicitly condemned by Scripture (that would be the proscription on homosexual acts) and in direct disobedience to the words of Christ (see Matthew 19:4-6), takes it upon himself to lecture everyone else about what it means to be a Christian.

This is patent nonsense.

First, at no point in Scripture, or, if you are Catholic, in Sacred Tradition is there any intimation that Jesus was born in poverty. Tradition holds that Saint Joseph was a carpenter. Lately there has been a debate among lefty theologians over his occupation, rendered by Matthew as “tektori,” and whether than meant “carpenter.” Tektori can mean any skilled artisan. There is a hint, based on the procedures laid out for a census in 1st Century Egypt, that Joseph might have had some property interest in Bethlehem that would have required him to register for the census there. The upshot is that Joseph was a skilled craftsman and while probably not affluent, he most likely provided a home for his family that was a bit above the poverty line for Judea in the 1st Century AD.

Jesus was not homeless. He was born in a manger because his parents arrived in a Bethlehem in the midst of an influx of people there to register for the census. There were no rooms to be had. It was the manager or nothing. The Holy Family had a home in Nazareth.

Finally, Jesus was not a refugee.

Joseph and Mary and Jesus were citizens of a province of the Roman Empire. When the Massacre of Innocents took place, they fled to Egypt and stayed, we think, in the rather sizable Jewish community there. Egypt was also part of the Roman Empire. The odious Reverend James Martin claims that Jesus was a refugee based on the UN High Commissioner on Refugees definition

A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

Martin, by the way, is probably the most dishonest non-televangelist pastor/priest in any denomination. There is literally no lie he will not tell to warp Scripture to fit his personal goal of mainstreaming homosexuality. Here is the central lie in his argument:

The Holy Family, as Matthew recounts the story, was fleeing because of a “well-founded fear of persecution” because of their “membership in a particular social group,” in this case people with young children living in Bethlehem. I am not sure how you could get any clearer than that.

This is [also, ed.] patent nonsense. A birth cohort is not “membership in a particular social group.” The Holy Family were refugees in exactly the same way that anyone today on the run from state authorities would be called a refugee. The move from one region of the Roman Empire to another is not even remotely similar to that of a modern refugee. At a stretch, He could be classed as an internally displaced person, with an emphasis on the singular form of “person” because there were no others similarly situated. The period of time in which the Holy Family was away from Nazareth was fairly short. Herod the Great died no more than a year or two after the birth of Christ and then the family returned home. By age 12, we know the Holy Family was traveling openly to Jerusalem for Passover pilgrimage (again, not a mark of a family in poverty).

The truth here is very simple. Christ is not a metaphor for whatever political cause you are flogging. The Nativity is not a primarily a reminder of illegal immigrants or the poor or the social justice cause you are pushing. The Nativity is the a demonstration of God’s love for the world and his desire that we all be saved…………

Biden Administration, State Governments Carried Out Elaborate Hoax On Gun Owners

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The “why” of the attack on the armed citizenry is as pressing as the “how”—the strategies employed. It all goes back to Government’s lust for “power” and “control” over the common people. The Globalists and their puppets in Government treat people like random bits of energy that require a firm hand lest common people get “out of hand.” The fear of the Tyrant is always that the common people will revolt against his Tyranny.

The “sticky wicket” for the Globalists is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It serves, one, as evidence of the sovereignty of the American people over their Government, Federal, State, or local, and serves, two, as a mechanism to thwart the rise of tyranny. The Second Amendment, unlike the First or any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Has a tenacity that, when unleashed, a ferocity that scares the dickens of the proponents of a world empire and world domination, as well it should.

In this second half of the Biden Administration regime, we are seeing more and more emphasis placed on reining in the armed citizenry. And State Governments under Democrat Party leadership, like that of New York, are fully on board with this. Expect to see more of this, much more, in the weeks and months ahead.

The argument NY Governor Kathy Hochul makes in support of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) boils down to these two propositions:

  • People are afraid of guns and of average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners who keep and bear them.
  • Average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners pose an imminent threat to public safety and order.

Concerning the first, if some Americans happen to fear guns and those who exercise their fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense—indeed, if any American should happen to register such fears—those fears aren’t the product of something innate in a person, but, rather, are the product of an elaborate, concerted well-coordinated, and executed plan.

The question of why such psychologically damaging programs would be initiated by and ceaselessly and vigorously propagated by the Federal Government and many State Governments against the civilian population has nothing to do with a desire on the part of the Government to secure the life, health, safety, and well-being of Americans.

Rather, it has everything to do with carrying out a plot focused on the demise of a free Constitutional Republic, the only one like it in existence, the dissolution of our Constitution, and the subjugation of our people to the dictates of a new order of reality: the rise of a neo-feudalistic global empire.

Continue reading “”

If you’ll remember, the ‘joke’ name for Chicago for years has been ‘Chiraq’.
Plus I’m shocked that this unpolitically correct statistic is in the article:
“Black and Hispanic men represented 96% of those who were fatally shot, and 97% of those injured in a shooting…”

Seem Bill Whittle was right: “Maybe it’s the people holding the guns.”

Risk of death by gun violence is higher for men in some U.S. areas than in wartime. 

In some parts of the United States, young men face a higher risk of dying from gun violence than if they’d gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, a new study reports.

Young men living in certain high-violence ZIP codes in Chicago and Philadelphia run a greater risk of firearm death than military personnel who served in recent U.S. wars, according to findings published online Dec. 22 in JAMA Network Open.

Young men in Chicago’s most violent ZIP code were more than three times as likely to experience gun-related death compared to soldiers sent to Afghanistan, the researchers found, while those in Philadelphia’s most violent area were nearly twice as likely to be shot to death.

In all ZIP codes studied, young men from minority groups overwhelmingly bear the risk of firearm-related death, the findings showed.

“These results are an urgent wake-up call for understanding, appreciating and responding to the risks and attendant traumas faced by this demographic of young men,” said study leader Brandon del Pozo, an assistant professor of medicine at Brown University’s Warren Alpert Medical School in Providence, R.I.

His team examined shooting data from 2020 and 2021 in four large U.S. cities — Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Philadelphia.

The investigators zeroed in on shootings involving nearly 130,000 men between 18 and 29 years of age. They grouped them by ZIP code so U.S. Census data could be used to examine demographics in those neighborhoods.

The researchers also compared the cities’ gun violence data with combat-related deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan — from 2001 to 2014 for Afghanistan and 2003 to 2009 in Iraq.

While young men in Chicago and Philadelphia had a much greater risk of firearm death, those in the most violent parts of Los Angeles and New York had a 70% to 91% lower risk than U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, the researchers said.

“We often hear opposing claims about gun violence that fall along partisan lines: One is that big cities are war zones that require a severe crackdown on crime, and the other is that our fears about homicides are greatly exaggerated and don’t require drastic action,” del Pozo said in a university news release.

“We wanted to use data to explore these claims — and it turns out both are wrong,” he continued. “While most city residents are relatively safe from gun violence, the risks are more severe than war for some demographics.”

Black and Hispanic men represented 96% of those who were fatally shot, and 97% of those injured in a shooting, according to the report.

The study authors noted that exposure to combat has been associated with post-traumatic stress disorder and higher rates of homelessness, alcohol use, mental illness and substance use.

“Our findings — which show that young men in some of the communities we studied were subject to annual firearm homicide and violent injury rates in excess of 3.0% and as high as 5.8% — lend support to the hypothesis that beyond the deaths and injuries of firearm violence, ongoing exposure to these violent events and their risks are a significant contributor to other health problems and risk behaviors in many U.S. communities,” the research team concluded.

The health risks are likely even higher for city dwellers because they have a lifetime “tour of duty,” as opposed to a typical year-long posting to a war zone, del Pozo added.

“The findings suggest that urban health strategies should prioritize violence reduction and take a trauma-informed approach to addressing the health needs of these communities,” he said.

SAF SUES NEW JERSEY OVER NEW CONCEALED CARRY LAW

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit against the State of New Jersey, challenging the state’s new gun control law prohibiting licensed concealed carry in an expanded list of so-called “sensitive places,” and further criminalizes carrying an operable handgun “while in a vehicle.”

Joining SAF are the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners and the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, along with three private citizens, Nicholas Gaudio, Jeffrey M. Muller and Ronald Koons. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney David D. Jensen, David Jensen PLLC, of Beacon, N.Y.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case is known as Koons et al v. Reynolds et al.

Named as defendants are Atlantic County Prosecutor William Reynolds, Camden County Prosecutor Grace C. Macaulay, Sussex County Prosecutor Annemarie Taggart, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and State Police Supt. Patrick Callahan, in their official capacities.

Shortly after New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed the new legislation on Dec. 22, SAF and its partners quickly filed the lawsuit.

“We are asking for a declaratory judgment against certain tenets of the new legislation,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are also seeking a preliminary and/or permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their officers, agents and other employees from enforcing the challenged segments of the law.

“The specific sections of law violate the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment,” he continued. “There is no established historical tradition that could be used to justify these restrictions. This new legislation literally criminalizes licensed concealed carry just about everywhere, making a mockery of the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.”

“New Jersey’s Legislature and Governor have shown that they do not wish to heed the Supreme Court’s guidance as to the bounds of the right to bear arms in Bruen,” said SAF’s Executive Director Adam Kraut.  “Despite clear directives as to a citizens’ right to bear arms, New Jersey continues to thumb its nose at the constitutional rights of its citizens in the name of ‘safety’. Such disregard for the rights of New Jerseyans will not be tolerated. As such, we are seeking to vindicate the rights of our members and the public in an expeditious manner. It is a shame the elected officials of New Jersey have no respect for the enumerated rights of the People and continue to needlessly waste their state’s tax dollars passing unconstitutional laws which render the common person defenseless.”

SloJoe isn’t being negligent about the ‘border crisis’, he and the rest of the demoncraps want this.

The Data Is In: Democrats Embrace ‘Replacement Theory’ in Plot to Displace Republican Votes

In simple terms, “replacement theory” holds that welcoming immigration policies are part of a plan designed to undermine or “replace” the political power of conservatives in the U.S. Make no mistake: replacement theory is real — and the Democrat Party blatantly continues to embrace it at the southern border.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson has in the past been all but burned at the stake by the rabid left for daring to discuss replacement theory on his program, including by Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which laughably describes itself as an “anti-hate” group, went after Carlson in early 2021:

In the days following Tucker Carlson’s vitriolic, xenophobic commentary about demographic change, most white supremacist reactions were supportive of the Fox News personality and praised him for railing against “white genocide.” Some suggested that Carlson is finally showing his true colors and fully embracing white nationalism.

Not to be outdone, CNN in April 2021 declared: “Racist ‘replacement theory’ has it all backward.”

White supremacist groups, conservative media personalities, and now Republicans in Congress are trying to inflame nativist feelings among conservative Whites by warning that liberals want immigrants to “replace” native-born Americans in the nation’s culture and the electorate.

But that racist “replacement theory” inverts the real consequence of immigration for its target audience of Whites uneasy about social and racial change: Many of the Whites most drawn to the far-right argument that new arrivals are displacing “real Americans” are among those with the most to lose if the nation reduces, much less eliminates, immigration in the decades ahead.

The verdict: Carlson was right, and “shockingly,” the left is lying.

Continue reading “”

Why aren’t stalked women ever told to get a gun for self-defense?
Murder rates decline when people carry concealed handguns

Authorities say Ewen Dewitt murdered 40-year-old Julie Minogue with an ax this month in her Milford, Connecticut, home. Two of her children were home when the murder occurred. Mr. Dewitt, an ex-boyfriend, had been stalking her.

“I’m scared he’s going to kill me,” she told the police. In 2019, she had a protective order issued. Just a week before she was killed, a judge had granted her a full no-contact restraining order.

The case clearly illustrates the limits of protective orders when the stalker is intent on murdering the victim. Suppose the murderer is already facing the possibility of life imprisonment without parole for first-degree murder. How will an additional five years in prison and a $5,000 fine deter such murders?

It is an important problem. Reportedly, 76% of women murdered by someone who had been an intimate partner were stalked.

Violence prevention advocates for women have a long list of changes they recommend. These changes require women to uproot their lives.

Dangerous amounts of heavy metals found in many dark chocolate bars
White House’s Karine Jean-Pierre is proof of ‘Peter Principle’ incompetence
Among the advice: Women should change jobs, their travel routes, the time of day they leave home or work, move in with a friend or family member, change the locks on their home, or do their shopping and other chores with friends or relatives.

A few recommend that women practice martial arts such as judo, jujitsu, karate or boxing.

But the most obvious answer is missing from these lists: Women should get a concealed handgun permit and a firearm.

Men are typically much stronger than women, particularly in the upper body. Unfortunately, real life isn’t like the movies, where one woman can knock out and overpower several well-trained men. Even well-trained women often struggle to defend themselves against larger and stronger men. Men also tend to be faster runners.

A gun represents a much bigger change in a woman’s ability to defend herself. Men can readily hurt women without a gun, and if a woman is already in physical contact with the attacker so that he can take away their gun, they are already in trouble.

The peer-reviewed research by one of us shows that murder rates decline when people carry concealed handguns, whether they are a man or a woman. But a woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than a man doing the same.

And this message is getting across to women. Between 2012 and 2022, in states that provide data by sex, permits for concealed handguns increased 115% more quickly among women than among men. The percentage of women who say that gun ownership protects people from crime has also been growing faster than their male counterparts.

Connecticut and other states could make it much easier for stalked women to defend themselves. Even after taking the required training and applying for a permit, it “generally takes eight weeks to obtain” a permit. And that’s an optimistic estimate by the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. The Connecticut Citizens Defense League has had to file a lawsuit against three cities where the process regularly takes a year or more.

But even two months may be much too long for a threatened woman. Even women who have proved to a court that they are facing serious threats must wait to get a permit. One solution would be to allow women with court orders of protection to carry a concealed handgun while they are waiting for a permit to be issued.

Many single women with children may also find it difficult to pay $140 for a permit plus added fees for fingerprinting and training.

Connecticut’s concealed handgun permit cost is already almost three times higher than the average in other states. Despite this, 11.3% of adults in Connecticut have a concealed handgun permit — the 12th-highest state. And as crime in Connecticut has soared, the permit-possessing population has increased by 55,000 since 2019. Only 26% of permit holders in Connecticut are women, significantly less than in other states.

The high cost of permits disarms the very people who most need protection, including minorities who live in high-crime urban areas.

Police are important. Protective orders can help. But if we are going to be serious about protecting women like Julie Minogue, we have to let them protect themselves.

Shots filed: New Jersey hit with first lawsuits over new carry laws

When he joined me on Cam & Co earlier this week, Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs executive director Scott Bach promised that a lawsuit challenging the state’s new concealed carry restrictions would be filed before the ink was dry on Gov. Phil Murphy’s signature, and the group has delivered; submitting a complaint to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on behalf of the organization and seven individual plaintiffs that seeks an injunction blocking enforcement of the law.

In fact, the lawsuit was one of at least two that have been filed in the hours since Murphy put pen to paper. A coalition including the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, and three individual plaintiffs have filed their own suit in federal court that also seeks injunctive relief against the new laws.

Interestingly, one of the plaintiffs in the SAF/FPC/CNJFO/NJSAS lawsuit was one of the rare individuals who had been able to obtain a carry license under the state’s previous “may issue” regime. As long as the state could allow broad discretion in choosing who could exercise their right to carry, those blessed by the State to do so enjoyed wide latitude. Now that the Supreme Court has instructed the state that a right of the people means just that, however, New Jersey lawmakers have suddenly declared that guys like 72-year old Jeffrey Mueller are a clear and present danger. From page 17 of the complaint, authored by attorney David Jensen:

Plaintiff Muller is one of the very few New Jersey citizens who was able to obtain a permit to a permit prior to Bruen. In January 2010, an out-of-state gang kidnapped Plaintiff Muller and took him to Missouri, where he was able to escape and summons help. Plaintiff Muller was thereafter a key witness in the kidnappers’ prosecution. Notwithstanding this, Plaintiff Muller obtained a permit only after litigating a judge’s denial of his application, which the New Jersey State Police had approved. One of Plaintiff Muller’s attackers remains in prison in New Jersey, and another was released last month (in November 2022).

After Plaintiff Muller obtained his permit to carry in June 2011, and he began carrying a handgun most of the time. The prosecution against Plaintiff Muller’s attackers was ongoing, and he was particularly concerned about protecting himself. In recent years, as time has passed, Plaintiff Muller has carried a gun less than he did during the years following June 2011, but until just now he has continued to carry a handgun on a regular basis.

Among other places, Plaintiff Muller has often carried a handgun while shopping at stores such as ShopRite, Lowe’s and Tractor Supply Company, stopping at gas stations, getting food at delis and restaurants, including restaurants that serve alcohol. Plaintiff Muller has carried a handgun while attending appointments with his physician and dentist. Plaintiff Muller has carried a handgun while walking in parks and while taking his grandchildren to playgrounds. Plaintiff Muller has also carried a handgun while visiting libraries, as well as while attending music shows at public entertainment venues. Finally, Plaintiff Muller has carried a handgun while attending trade shows at casino facilities (i.e. in a conference room, not on the casino floor). While he does not recall carrying a handgun while using public transit, or while visiting a museum or a theater, Plaintiff Muller would want to be able to carry a handgun in any of these places were he to be present there. As a general premise, when Plaintiff Muller carries a handgun, he normally carries it with him throughout the day, unless he is going to a place that prohibits guns, such as a school. Up until now, Plaintiff Mulller has normally carried his handgun in a holster on his person while traveling in car.

All of those actions are now illegal under the New Jersey law signed today, simply because the anti-civil rights Democratic majority in Trenton couldn’t stand the thought of New Jersey residents being able to do the same without having to be kidnapped and taken to another state in order to prove their “need” to carry a firearm.

Continue reading “”

Gun lobby money doesn’t compare

By John Hill, Las Vegas

A recent New York Times editorial noted that the gun industry has “reaped an estimated $1 billion over the past decade from sales of AR-15-style rifles.”

While this sounds impressive, compare it to $205.5 billion in sales of iPhones in 2022 alone. An argument can be made that iPhones and other smartphones, with their associated social media apps, have had a significantly bigger impact on American culture than the AR-15.

The editorial also noted that gun rights groups have donated $50.5 million to politicians from 1989 to 2020, mostly to Republicans. But this pales in comparison to the political contributions from teachers unions of $48 million for the 2021-22 election cycle alone — almost entirely to Democrats.

If groups advocating for their Second Amendment right are to be condemned, public employee unions who work to get friendly negotiators on both sides of the bargaining table should be eliminated

NSSF DENOUNCES U.S. SENATE CONFIRMATION OF OPERATION CHOKE POINT ARCHITECT TO FDIC

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, condemned the U.S. Senate’s confirmation of Martin J. Gruenberg as Chair and Member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Gruenberg led the FDIC from 2011-2018, during which the Obama administration conducted the illegal Operation Choke Point scheme to deny banking services to firearm businesses. NSSF opposed his confirmation in the strongest terms as he has already demonstrated a lack of respect for the law and unparalleled disdain for the Constitutionally-protected firearm and ammunition industry.

“The Senate’s confirmation of Martin Gruenberg is a flagrant disregard for his role in illegally using the levers of government to force discriminatory banking policies on the firearm and ammunition industry,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “His culpability in shepherding this illegal operation was not only previously investigated by Congress but was also highlighted by Senate Banking Committee Republicans. Mr. Gruenberg’s leading role in creating, administering and punishing the firearm industry through illegal means simply because he, President Barack Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder found this industry politically-disfavored clearly disqualified him from being reconfirmed to a position of public trust.”

Under the Obama administration, an initiative called “Operation Choke Point” was launched by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) to stop financial institutions from offering services to some regulated industries in an attempt to choke off banking services. This operation, which represented an abuse of the agencies’ statutory authority, was first aimed at non-depository lenders (so-called payday lenders) but expanded to ammunition and firearms sales, tobacco sales and pharmaceutical sales, among other industries.

The goal of the operation was to coerce banks, third-party payment processors and other financial institutions into closing or denying business accounts of clients that the FDIC has classified as “high risk” or as a “reputational risk” for the financial institution. According to a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigation, the FDIC, “equated legitimate and regulated activities such as coin dealers and firearms and ammunition sales with inherently pernicious or patently illegal activities such as Ponzi schemes, debt consolidation scams, and drug paraphernalia.”

The FDIC included federally licensed firearm retailers and other companies in the firearm and ammunition industry – some of the most heavily regulated businesses in the country – on this list of risky businesses without any evidence or justification. In fact, in its guidance to banks, the agency “justified itself by claiming that the categories had been previously ‘noted by the FDIC.”

Working with the DOJ, the FDIC guidance targeting the law-abiding firearms industry and others was included on DOJ subpoenas. This sent a message to banks that they were to remove those clients from their services or risk a federal investigation.

I’m not the only one who is of the opinion that Goobernor Newsome’s believing this is somehow a ‘win’ for abortion rights is a fantasy. RKBA is a right that is actually addressed in the Bill of Rights. Abortion isn’t. However, as Goobernor Newsome and Attorney General Bonta aren’t likely to appeal this, all fore the good as it will make lawsuits against California’s gun control laws easier .

Federal judge strikes down California’s ‘fee-shifting’ gun control scheme, which echoed Texas abortion law

A federal judge has blocked the state of California from enforcing a gun control scheme that was modeled after a controversial Texas abortion law, delivering Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom the exact outcome he wanted.

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California issued a permanent injunction on Monday against the “fee-shifting” provisions of the state’s gun law – which empowers private citizens to bring lawsuits against manufacturers of illegal guns – declaring it unconstitutional.

“‘It is cynical. ‘It is an abomination.’ ‘It is outrageous and objectionable.’ ‘There is no dispute that it raises serious constitutional questions.’ ‘It is an unprecedented attempt to thwart judicial review,’” Benitez wrote in his opinion, quoting directly from Newsom’s criticisms of the Texas abortion law.

The Texas measure makes abortions illegal after a fetal heartbeat can be detected and permits private citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone else who assists in a woman’s procurement of abortion for $10,000. This fee-shifting mechanism was designed to protect the 2021 law from judicial review to circumvent the Supreme Court’s old abortion precedent in Roe v. Wade. The high court has since overturned that precedent, permitting states to restrict, or liberalize, abortion.

Newsom called on the California legislature to enact a similar law for guns days after the Supreme Court ruled than the Texas heartbeat law could remain in effect following a legal challenge.

California’s gun law also creates a private right-of-action for citizens to sue gun manufactures who make “assault weapons and ghost guns” for $10,000. Newsom described the law as virtually identical to the Texas provisions, but Benitez wrote that “California’s law goes even further.” He observed that the gun control statute denies a prevailing plaintiff attorneys fees. Further, Benitez emphasized that only the California measure “applies to laws affecting a clearly enumerated constitutional right set forth in our nation’s founding documents.”

“Whether these distinctions are enough to save the Texas law fee-shifting provision from judicial scrutiny remains to be seen,” Benitez wrote. “And although it would be tempting to comment on it, the Texas law is not before this Court for determination.”

The judge’s order is likely to set up a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the outcome Newsom desired. The governor’s office called it “hypocritical” to block the state’s gun law while permitting the Texas abortion measure to stand.

“I want to thank Judge Benitez. We have been saying all along that Texas’ anti-abortion law is outrageous. Judge Benitez just confirmed it is also unconstitutional,” Newsom said in a statement Monday. “The provision in California’s law that he struck down is a replica of what Texas did, and his explanation of why this part of SB 1327 unfairly blocks access to the courts applies equally to Texas’ SB 8. There is no longer any doubt that Texas’ cruel anti-abortion law should also be struck down.”