Category: RKBA

Amy Swearer

I read the transcript of Biden’s gun control speech yesterday so that you didn’t have to. Here are the top five most unserious things he said:

(1) “The bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun…and can pierce Kevlar.”

What even…? This is obviously and objectively false. He just flat made it up. Especially if you’re talking about your typical 55 gr. .223/5.56 rounds.

An intern could have fact checked this with a basic google search. There are dozens of readily available charts for this:

chuckhawks.com Improved Rifle Ballistics Table

But also, muzzle velocity is not synonymous with lethality or vague notions of “stopping power.”

(2) “You can’t go out and buy an automatic weapon. You can’t go out and buy a cannon.”

Okay, we’re actually tired of fact-checking this. You can, in fact, own both of these things. Both at the time of ratification and today.

Hundreds of thousands of civilian-owned machine guns are currently in the NFA registry. Heck, you can own a tank if you can afford it.
(3) “For those brave right-wing Americans who say it’s all about keeping America independent and safe, if you want to fight against the country, you need an F-15…need something more than a gun.”

How many F-15s did the Taliban own?

Also, I’m confused…is my AR-15 an ultra-dangerous weapon of war that no civilian should own because it rips bodies apart…or is it a useless hunk of carbon fiber that has zero value in a hypothetical armed defense against a tyrannical gov?

Seriously, though, this view of armed revolution/defense against tyranny underappreciates the role of federalism in that scenario. It’s not “me and my AR.” It’s “tens of thousands of armed Americans and almost certainly a lot of state national guard units [which have F-15s].”

While we’re here, let’s also acknowledge that “your AR-15 is useless because the government could just carpet bomb you into submission” isn’t an argument in favor of gun control. It’s actually an argument for a better armed citizenry and against trusting whoever said that.

Re: Kevlar – literally every rifle round will go through soft body armor. This isn’t unique to an AR-15. There’s a reason body armoring grading exists – if you’re planning on using soft body armor against rifle rounds….don’t. You need the proper grade. That’s the whole point.

(4) “For God sake, what’s the rationale for these weapons outside of a war zone? They inflict severe damage…they rip bodies apart.”
…so then why do we universally exempt law enforcement officers from these bans, including while they’re off duty? Are they waging war against the American people? And how does removing a pistol grip and barrel shroud change the rationale for possession? [It doesn’t].

I mean this sincerely but also gently – if you think a single child in Uvalde would still be alive (or their body less horribly destroyed) if the shooter used a different firearm or a featureless “non-assault” weapon chambered in .223/5.56…you don’t understand guns. At all.

(5) “There are certain gun dealers that are basically… Not gun dealers, they’re wholesalers providing the weapons to anybody who have the money.”

Either he’s suggesting that these gun dealers are breaking the law and selling to felons, etc. – in which case, shut them down and put them in prison – or he’s suggesting that gun sellers are somehow bad for selling guns in full compliance with federal law.

This is how sales of anything work. But yes, gun sellers will sell to anyone who has the money to purchase then gun and who passes a background check….because that buyer has a right to keep and bear arms and his purchase/possession is perfectly legal.

Biden has never showed himself to be a serious person when it comes to gun policy and the Second Amendment [remember “just fire two blasts of your shotgun outside the house if you think there’s an intruder”?] But was hands down his most unserious speech on the issue to-date.

If he wanted to be serious about gun violence, he’d be in Philadelphia talking about rogue prosecutors and straw purchasing. Instead, he’s in Wilkes-Barre telling law-abiding citizens they should give up their ARs because he could just order the Air Force to bomb them.

Biden Is the Semi-Fascist He Is Looking For

JOE BIDEN IS THE FASCIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Biden and his administration are framing out an ideological war which puts Democrats in possession of the “soul of the nation,” and paints conservatives as fascists, bigots and any other insult they can come up with. The goal is to try to seize the moral high ground, only they are doing it on behalf of butchers disguised as doctors, groomers disguised as academics, and racists disguised as equity professionals.

When Biden spoke to Democrats last week and proclaimed that conservatives and Trump supporters are semi-fascist, his handlers knew exactly what they were doing. When Biden was asked what he meant with the comment, he said “you know exactly what I mean,” leaving explanations to flow from the podium in the White House briefing room.

“We have seen MAGA republicans take away our rights, make threats of violence, including this weekend,” Karine Jean-Pierre said when asked about Louisiana Senator Lindsey Graham’s caution against prosecuting former President Donald Trump, “and that is what the president was referring to when you all asked me last week about the ‘semi-fascism’ comment.”

Congress is held by Democrats, the White House has a Democrat in the Oval Office. The approval rating for the president and his administration is trash. Yet somehow, they continuously blame the opposition party for their own failures. Democrats could not, in 50 years, pass a bill federally legalizing abortion. In recent years, their efforts to obstruct states from enacting their own voting laws were met with realizations that Delaware, Biden’s home state, as well as bastion of liberal thought New York, each have voting laws more “restrictive” than Georgia and Texas.

Using the term “fascist” is a language game designed to paint the opposition as something they are not, and obfuscate the fact that it has been Democrats in power that have repeatedly and consistently limited the rights of Americans. Charlie Kirk rightfully noted that Joe Biden is a fascist.

Continue reading “”

That’s Black GUNS Matter, just to make it clear.

If Voters Keep Believing Gun Control Lies, It Will Lead to Communism: Black Guns Matter Founder
Conservatives must spread libertarian message among urban voters, Toure says

Maj Toure is a Philadelphian and founder of “Black Guns Matter,” a movement that advocates for protecting the Second Amendment and promoting responsible gun ownership in black and urban communities. He believes that the gun control movement has been and continues to be racist.

He began his gun rights work after seeing people he knew getting gun charges because they purchased a gun but did not know all the rules of usage, storage, or carry. He began helping people legally acquire and responsibly use guns to defend themselves.

Toure said the Second Amendment is the foundation of liberty in the United States but as more restrictions are placed on gun ownership, we get closer to complete government take over.

“But that [U.S.] Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, is there to check government, not to check the people. But if we keep convincing people that, ‘Oh, this is for your protection’ or restricting the people, we’re going to create another communist regime,” Toure said during a recent interview with EpochTV’s American Thought Leaders program on Aug. 20 at the Turning Point USA Conference.

Toure said what has happened in communist countries is what is slowly happening in the United States.

Necessity of Second Amendment

“The reason why the conversation about the Second Amendment and firearms is so important is that all of your other values and beliefs and all of those different things … if you can’t defend them, you don’t have them,” Toure said.

Recently, the mayor of Philadelphia told Toure that only police should carry guns.

“That’s what he said. That means you’re not fit to serve, you don’t know the Constitution, you don’t even know your job description, you’re just winging it,” he said.

Toure said his organization has to counter these types of anti-American narratives.

“And these are the types of things that we have to consistently remind the American people about because there’s a propaganda onslaught to convince the American people to operate and vote in their own disinterest.”

Continue reading “”

Well, SloJoe has always been known as a liar, so…

Fact Check: Biden Claims Mass Shootings ‘Tripled’ After ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Ended

CLAIM: During his speech in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, President Joe Biden said mass shootings “tripled” after the 1994-2004 “assault weapons” ban expired.

VERDICT: Mostly False.

Biden said, “Back in 1994, I took on the NRA and passed the ‘assault weapons’ ban. For ten years, mass shootings were down.”

He added, “But in 2004, Republicans let that ban expire, and what happened? Mass shootings tripled.”

There are two things to unpack here: First, his claim that the ban itself was successful while in effect and, second, his claim that mass shootings “tripled” once the ban expired.

On February 19, 2018, Breitbart News looked at a report by the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which found that the “assault weapons” ban could not be credited with any reduction in crime.

The NIJ report was written in 2004 as the ban was about to expire.

The Washington Times quoted University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper, author of the NIJ report, saying, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

The NIJ report observed, “The ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

So much for the claims of all the great things the ban accomplished. Now consider the claim that mass shootings tripled after the ban expired.

Breitbart News noted that the Washington Post fact-checked the claim about mass shootings tripling when Biden first made it in early June 2022.

The Post reported:

Biden claimed that mass shooting deaths tripled after the law expired. He appears to be relying on a study of mass shooting data from 1981 to 2017, published in 2019 in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery by a team led by Charles DiMaggio, a professor of surgery at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. That group found that an assault weapons ban would have prevented 314 out of 448, or 70 percent, of the mass shooting deaths during the years when the ban was not in effect. But the data used in that study has come under attack by some analysts.

The Post added, “The new mass-shooting database shows that there were 31 mass shootings in the decade before the 1994 law, 31 in the 10 years the law was in force (Sept. 13, 1994 to Sept. 12, 2004) and 47 in the 10 years after it expired. As noted, some of that increase stems from population growth.”

The claim that mass shootings “tripled” after the “assault weapons” ban expired is mostly false. There was a modest increase in such shootings, but the expiration of the ban does not seem to be causal in that rise.

A New Kind of Threat to 2nd Amendment & Free Speech Rights

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the wake of another Supreme Court ruling that strengthens and more clearly defines Second Amendment protections, anti-gun politicians have developed another way to threaten those rights, and rights protected by the First Amendment all in an effort to silence gun owners and penalize them for fighting back.

In California, where such strategies are typically developed and then spread across the map, this plan of attack is already in progress.

A federal court case known as Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta cuts to the heart of the problem. Several plaintiffs, including gun rights organizations, are challenging changes in state law created by the passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any firearm industry members to advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law.

The second prong of this anti-gun strategy is legislation enacted to thwart such challenges by financially penalizing anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win on all aspects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.

In essence, California politicians are effectively silencing debate on issues directly affecting rights secured by the Second Amendment by legislating against those who would challenge their laws.

What began as an attack on one constitutional right has now become an attack on another right, yet civil libertarians are silent.

Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom are saying, “You have freedom of speech only if you agree with us.” That is not how the Founders perceived this country, and it is why they included the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

If this were about any issue other than guns, the media would be going crazy. Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post? Why aren’t there reports about this in every newspaper? Are stories being spiked, or is the situation simply being ignored?

One might expect this sort of censorship in Putin’s Russia, but it is here, now in Joe Biden’s America. When anti-rights fanatics take their fight to this level, it’s really an attack on all Americans, not just 100 million gun owners.

Today, they’re coming after gun rights. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll be coming after a right you cherish or your right to protest, publish or provide an alternate viewpoint.

That’s not the country where our parents and grandparents grew up, and it shouldn’t be the country our children and grandchildren are forced to accept.

The Deep Concealment Gun: Possibly Your Most Important Personal Weapon

The Deep Concealment Gun: Possibly Your Most Important Personal Weapon

We preach carrying as much gun as possible, but for people who live in the real world in which professional and social obligations do not lend well to dressing around a full-size gun, a deep concealment pistol is needed. When out and about in casual clothing, I carry a double-stack 9mm pistol, but when I need to dress formally for certain social obligations, I usually carry a small revolver. However, this is not the only circumstances in which I use the small gun; when exercising in gym shorts, when working outside in the yard, and when simply lounging around the home, the small gun is either in the waistband or in a pocket. I suspect that many concealed carriers out there are similar in this regard; the small gun gets carried often.

With this in mind, I would submit that for many concealed carriers, the deep concealment option, which is often considered secondary, is likely the most important defensive weapon due to the amount of time it is actually used. Many concealed carriers may feel that they wear their “full-size” gun most of the time, but in fact, they don’t. If one is honest in their self-assessment, they will likely realize that the small gun is getting carried for the occasions that require something small, but likely, far more often than just that.

Is there anything wrong with carrying a small gun more often? The argument to carry “as much gun as you can” is well-intentioned and well-reasoned. With the increase in criminal activity involving multiple aggressors and with the increase in mass killer events, carrying a capable fighting pistol makes good sense. A larger handgun with more ammunition capacity is typically more shootable, and more capacity is a good thing. However, most would agree that a small pocket pistol or small-frame revolver that gets carried all the time is far more valuable than a more capable gun that is carried only part-time. It is human nature to go with the easier solution, so small guns get carried a lot. Thus, for most, it is the most important gun.

Staying Consistent with Deep Concealment

Know the Limitations
Unfortunately, the majority of concealed carriers that use a small gun rarely practice with it. Even if the small gun gets carried ninety percent of the time, the big gun that only gets carried occasionally tends to get all the training time. Again, human nature, big guns are easier to shoot. However, if you are carrying your deep concealment gun most of the time, then it warrants significant training effort.

The first benefit gained through training with your small gun is understanding the limitations. How much do you give up in performance compared to your full-size carry gun? Three constructive elements will emerge from knowing this: first, you will understand the limits of your range, accuracy, and speed with the small gun. Second, you will better determine how often you should be carrying the small gun compared to the more capable pistol. Third, you may well realize that much of the limitation can be overcome through more practice with the limited platform.

Determine the Role of the Small Gun
If you utilize a small revolver or a pocket pistol chambered in 380ACP or the like, then you should acknowledge that you are, indeed, giving up significant capability compared to carrying a full-size or compact autoloader. The new breed of micro guns that are chambered in 9mm, yet have a substantial capacity of ten plus rounds may be a solution that can be carried anywhere, and these guns, indeed, greatly close the gap between service pistols and pocket-sized guns. If one of these tiny but higher-capacity guns works for carrying all of the time, in all circumstances, I would propose not losing sleep over it. Simply maximize your training with it.

But, If you must use something that is even smaller for deep concealment like the aforementioned small revolver or tiny pocket auto, then having an honest assessment of when you can carry more is warranted. Again, if you only carry such a diminutive option, but you carry it all the time, you are ahead of the curve compared to the general public. However, there is probably a great deal of time when you can carry more. While carrying any gun is far better than carrying no gun, I am always inclined to suggest carrying “as much gun as you can” in light of the current state of the world.

When out in public during times that you can be dressed casually, which is probably quite often, there is no reason not to carry a larger, more capable gun. With modern holster options, most people can conceal compact, or even full-size, pistols under an untucked or open-front shirt. Consider the escalation in active killer events, the prevalence of multiple assailants in armed robbery, or the increase in gang activity; an auto loader with duty capacity is in order.

Still, we return to the reality that determines the course of most concealed carriers’ choices, and even for those committed to carrying enough gun, there are many circumstances that limit this choice. The small, deep concealment pistol is likely the one that will get carried most often when combining the need to accommodate non-permissive environment carry, gym or jogging carry, and home carry. Therefore, do not neglect training with your deep concealment gun, which might be your most important defensive tool.

More women bought guns nationwide. These Charlotte experts are training them.

Gun safety posters lined the walls inside the classroom of the Charlotte Gun Club on a recent Saturday morning as two women took their seats behind a long table.

From the gun-shaped hook holding the set of bathroom keys to the stacks of gun magazines, the set-up was about what anyone would expect.

But with LaToya Workman teaching, bras and tight thigh bands made into holsters litter a table. And, she brought a bright green purse specifically made for conceal carry. Facing the two women who signed up for training — one a mother whose youngest child was just 7-weeks-old, the other a single woman wanting a gun for protection — Workman explained how to load, aim and fire a gun.

The two students listened closely as she laid out the basic rules. One of the most important, she said: “Don’t point your gun at anything you aren’t willing to destroy.”

Workman owns Woman with a Weapon, a company designed to encourage more women to get gun permits in North Carolina and to provide training and safety classes.

While Black women are one of the fastest growing demographics of firearm owners in the country, there is still a lack of representation in the gun world, Workman says.

Gun sales reached an all time high in 2020 nationally, especially among women and the Black community, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. In North Carolina, the number of people who requested conceal carry permits hit a record high for the state in 2020. Locally, there was a similar trend — and notably a surge in interest among Black women, with nearly 15,000 permit applications, according to Mecklenburg County data on pistol purchasing and conceal carry permits. Since then, the trend has slowed considerably.

WOMEN IN GUN INDUSTRY

When she first moved to Charlotte almost five years ago to be closer to her aunt, Workman was single and wanted to have a gun for personal protection but she wasn’t quite sure where to start.

Growing up, she remembers, her grandmother owned a gun for protection and to shoot snakes at her Arizona home but her exposure to gun ownership stopped there.

In Charlotte, she decided to take one-on-one firearm training before applying for a concealed carry license. At her first class, her instructor was an older man who focused on Workman’s gender: She says he tried to tell her how to dress, the challenges a woman might face using a gun, and that she would need to cut her long, manicured nails.

“I wanted to pursue training from a female and … I was not able to find one in the area,” Workman said.

She decided to become an instructor in 2020 to help encourage other women. It’s part-time and a bit of a hobby for Workman. During the day she works in cybersecurity risk management.

“It takes a lot of courage for women to actually come to class and overcome their fears,” Workman said. “The more you’re able to learn about a subject, the less intimidating it is. At least that’s how it was for me. … I’ve seen that same progress in other women as well.”

Fellow instructor Kisha Kincaid says representation makes a difference.

The owner of Armed and Empowered based in Charlotte, Kincaid used to sell self defense items to women, including pepper spray and stun guns. But, her real interest was with firearms and she enjoyed shooting. Starting from a young age she learned from family members by shooting at cans.

Kisha Kincaid shows her gun for the camera at a gun range in Concord, NC Wednesday August 17, 2022. Makayla Holder mholder@charlotteobserver.com

Often, when Kincaid would set up her booth at gun shows and other locations, women would come up to purchase something and tell her they were really interested in learning how to shoot.

“But they were intimidated by the process, or they had a fear around it, and then there was a lack of women representation in that field,” Kincaid said.

So, Kincaid decided to fill what she describes as a need in her community by becoming a firearm instructor in 2013. Her day job is in tech in the banking industry.

Kincaid said the biggest barrier women face when becoming responsible gun owners is fear and intimidation, and not knowing where to start. She said the number one reason women purchase guns is for personal protection and empowerment. The second most common is if there is already a gun in the house and they want to learn how to use it.

Kisha Kincaid discusses aiming techniques with her student, Taylor Smith, at a gun range in Concord, NC Wednesday August 17, 2022. Makayla Holder mholder@charlotteobserver.com

The recent increase of guns purchased by Black women is partially because of a heightened recognition that they’ll need to defend themselves, says LaShonda Hopkins. Hopkins lives in Fayetteville and is a veteran. Her company LaBleu Tactical Training, also aims to make shooting more accessible.

“… If you look at the statistics, we are also the ones that are being kidnapped, and human trafficked in high numbers and no one’s checking for (us). When we go missing, we’re just gone,” Hopkins said.

She says many women assume their spouse or significant other will protect them.

“But that’s just not reality,” Hopkins said. “… The whole idea of just depending on a man to do that, I feel like we’re so far past that now and women got to step out of their comfort zone, and go ahead and pick up a gun as well and just get properly trained.”

New lawsuit takes on Illinois ban on SBRs, suppressors

Illinois is one of a handful of states that go beyond federal law when it comes to restricted firearms. While possession of items like short-barreled rifles and suppressors are legal at the federal level as long as gun owners are willing to jump through all of the hoops and hurdles contained within the National Firearms Act, in Illinois it’s virtually impossible for the average citizen to purchase or possess either.

Now an Illinois man has filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s ban, arguing that both SBRs and suppressors fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. Robert Dorman is no stranger to the courts; the local paper in Madison County, Illinois notes that he’s filed “numerous lawsuits and other legal challenges” against officials in the county since he was terminated as the county’s IT director in 2020, though the paper doesn’t say whether or not any of them have been successful.

Regardless of his track record in recent years, Dorman’s latest lawsuit has to be considered a legal long shot.

In the three-count suit, Dorman claims he wants to acquire two prohibited items, a Model 1911 .45 caliber pistol with an attachable shoulder stock and a 5.56 mm rifle with a 14.5-inch barrel. He indicated in the second count that he also is interested in acquiring a suppressor, or “silencer,” for home defense.

Regarding short-barreled rifles, Dorman’s suit states that prior to 1934 — when the National Firearms Act first regulated them — the rifles and handguns equipped with shoulder stocks were common. The suit states those arms are covered under the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms.

Dorman is seeking a ruling that Illinois residents with a federal “Curio and Relics” firearm license be allowed to possess short-barreled rifles and that the prohibition is unconstitutional.

Regarding suppressors, Dorman’s suit states that prior to 1934 suppressors were unregulated. The suit cites the shipping of a suppressor from the Maxim Silencer Co. of Hartford, Connecticut, to a person in Collinsville prior to the National Firearms Act. The suit also claims suppressors are protected under the Second Amendment.

The suit cites the Madison County Sheriff’s Department’s recent purchase of short-barreled AR-style rifles with suppressors. One of the justifications was that, if the rifles are fired within an enclosed space like a building, they would likely cause hearing damage.

Dorman’s lawsuit was filed in state court, so he’s not challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act itself.. at least not directly. Instead, his argument is that the state of Illinois is depriving him and other law-abiding residents of their right to possess items that used to be and would be in common use if they weren’t restricted under the NFA and banned by Illinois law.

The biggest flaw in that argument is, for now at least, the Supreme Court hasn’t called into question the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, nor has it weighed in on whether those restricted items covered under the NFA enjoy any protection whatsoever under the Second Amendment. If NFA items are not protected by the Second Amendment, then Illinois is free to ban any and all arms covered under the Act. If, on the other hand, some or all of the arms restricted by the NFA are protected by the Second Amendment, then the real issue becomes the NFA itself and not Illinois’ ban on the civilian possession of NFA items like short-barreled rifles or suppressors.

So far the state Supreme Court has been reluctant to overturn any Illinois gun control laws, even when lower courts have determined that a particular measure violates the Second Amendment. The state’s FOID card requirement has been ruled unconstitutional twice in recent years, but the state Supreme Court has voided those decisions on technical grounds both times. I highly doubt that the same court would find that Illinois’ ban on the possession of short-barreled rifles and suppressors is a violation of the Second Amendment when it won’t even recognize that requiring a state-mandated permission slip to possess a gun in the home infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. Dorman’s heart may be in the right place, but his argument is probably better suited for federal, not state court… and even there his argument would face pretty long odds given what the Supreme Court has said about the NFA over the decades.

10th Circuit Court Issues Restraining Order STOPPING Superior, CO’s Weapon & Mag Ban

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-— A United States District  Court for the District of Colorado has issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the Town of Superior to prevent enforcement of their recent “assault weapon” and magazine ban, based on the Supreme Court ruling in NYSR&PA v. Bruen.  This appears to be the first of many pending cases likely to knock down laws which infringe on the exercise of Second Amendment rights under the Bruen decision.

The lawsuit was filed on July 7, 2022. The TRO was issued on July 22, 2022.

Superior, Colorado, is a town of about 13 thousand located on highway 36 between Denver and Boulder, Colorado. The outskirts of Boulder are about three miles northwest, beyond the outskirts of Superior. Superior appears to be a trendy, upscale bedroom community serving Boulder and Denver. The average home price is said to be $570k.

Judge Moore was appointed by President Obama in 2013 unanimously. The judge took the challenge by the Plaintiffs (the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, National Association for Gun Rights, and Charles Bradly Walker) to apply to three provisions of the ordinance enacted by the Town of Superior, sections 10-9-40, 10-9-240, and 10-9-260.

From the Court TRO:

In its effort to rule on the Motion, the Court has faced two significant challenges. It is not entirely clear to the Court, based on Plaintiffs’ Motion, which precise provisions of the Amended Code they wish to challenge. The Court also notes, however, that the Amended Code is not, itself, a model of clarity. Nevertheless, based on the Motion, it appears to the Court that Plaintiffs primarily challenge three of the Amended Code’s provisions—section 10-9-40, section 10-9-240, and section 10-9-260.

The ordinance contains a laundry list of leftist talking points and dubious statistical arguments put forward by opponents of the Second Amendment.

They are, essentially, policy balancing arguments ruled inapplicable to the Second Amendment by the Constitution, specifically in the Bruen decision.  Bruen states the policy balancing arguments were decided by the people at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. Judge Moore, instead, uses the historical and cultural approach demanded by Bruen. From the TRO:

Continue reading “”

5 Things You Might Not Know About the Bill to Ban “Assault Weapons”

The arguably unconstitutional ban on so-called “assault weapons” recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives is a lot worse than most people are aware. That’s because the measure is nearly 14,000 words long, and most of it is based on sheer ignorance, so digging through the entire document to see what is hidden inside is actually disheartening.

Here’s a brief look at five things in H.R. 1808 that you might not have been aware were included in the legislation.

The criteria used for banning rifles are ignorant and nonsensical. The measure purports to ban “military-style” weapons, although all of the guns banned by the bill fire only one round with a single pull of the trigger like all semi-automatics. Our military, as well as most militaries of the rest of the world, equip their soldiers with rifles capable of fully-automatic fire. And the alleged “military” features that can cause your gun to be banned include the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, along with one of the following: a pistol grip (certainly not uniquely military), a forward grip (doesn’t make it any more “deadly”), an adjustable stock (why is it bad to be able to make your gun fit you correctly?), a grenade launcher (which is actually an NFA item, subject to strict controls, as are any explosive grenades one may want to use with the launcher), a barrel shroud or a threaded barrel (so much for hearing protection).

The measure also bans many firearms by name, not just criteria. It bans all AK-type rifles and lists 28 specific models by name. It also covers “AR types,” and went on to list dozens of different rifles by name or manufacturer that would be banned. When you consider several entries that include all of a company’s semi-automatic rifles, like “Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Rifles” and “Stag Arms AR Rifles,” the list grows to literally hundreds. Also banned by the measure are a long list of semi-automatic rifles that are not ARs, including the Beretta CX4 Storm, Ruger Mini-14 and more than 60 other models. Lastly, it bans all AK and AR pistols.

The legislation bans many pistols and shotguns, too. It bans “any semiautomatic pistol that has an ammunition feeding device that is not a fixed ammunition feeding device” and has one of the following: A threaded barrel, a second pistol grip, a barrel shroud, the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device at some location outside of the pistol grip, a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm, a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded, or a buffer tube, stabilizing brace or similar component that protrudes horizontally behind the pistol grip, and is designed or redesigned to allow or facilitate a firearm to be fired from the shoulder. It also bans any semi-automatic shotgun that “has the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device or a fixed ammunition feeding device that has the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds,” along with any one of the following: a folding, telescoping or detachable stock, a pistol grip or bird’s head grip, a forward grip or a grenade launcher. It even bans any shotgun with a revolving cylinder; a type of shotgun that is fairly rare, and even more rarely, if ever, used to commit violent crime.

The legislation also bans common, standard-capacity magazines. It specifically bans what it calls “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” and defines the term as “a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 15 rounds of ammunition.” This important portion of the measure has been largely unreported by those in the so-called “mainstream” media.

The authors of the bill knew that much of it is unconstitutional—especially since more than 24 million AR-15-type rifles are owned by American citizens—but pushed the measure through anyway. Proof of that prior knowledge can be found in one section toward the end of the bill that features this clumsy disclaimer: “If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.”

Of course, the measure also contains a lot of other egregious provisions that would likely shock most law-abiding gun owners. You can read it for yourself here.

They want them to start tracking this so they can later force them to deny purchases in that category. It’ll make Operation Chokepoint v.2 much more effective.

Dozens of NY lawmakers want Mastercard, American Express to flag suspicious gun store purchases

More than four dozen state lawmakers have penned a letter to Mastercard and American Express, urging the New York-based credit card companies to support a measure that could make it easier to spot suspicious purchases at gun stores.

Credit card companies track spending based on the type of retailer where a card is used — though they do not track the individual items that are purchased. Each purchase is tagged with what’s called a merchant category code, with the master list set by an international standards body. Some categories are fairly broad, such as those for grocery stores and airlines, while others are quite specific. There are unique codes for tent and awning shops, wig and toupee stores — even separate categories for antique shops, secondhand stores and pawn shops.

But there are no codes just for gun retailers.

A Mastercard reference booklet lumps them into a “miscellaneous” category with magic stores, silk flower shops and bottled and distilled water dealers, or a “durable goods” category that also includes lighting fixtures and grave markers.

“I think people would be shocked to find that out,” said State Sen. Zellnor Myrie, who spearheaded the letter, which was shared exclusively with Gothamist. It asks Mastercard and American Express to support the creation of a new code for gun sellers.

“I think the public would agree that it’s important for us to keep track of these things,” Myrie said.

Financial institutions are already required under federal law to report any suspicious activity to the U.S. government, including when they think someone might be committing tax evasion, money laundering or terrorism. Those mandates were established in 1970, when Congress passed the Bank Secrecy Act, and were further expanded after 9/11 through the Patriot Act.

If credit cards had a code for purchases at gun stores, the same laws would let them flag if someone were spending large amounts of money at one dealer, or traveling to multiple gun retailers in a short amount of time. The legislators say that could ultimately help law enforcement to stop crimes like firearms trafficking, or even to prevent mass shootings.

The legislators’ letter cites a 2018 New York Times investigation, which uncovered eight cases when shooters used credit cards to buy guns and ammunition. The man who opened fire inside the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, for instance, purchased two firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition with six separate credit cards, according to the Times. He reportedly spent more than $26,000 in less than two weeks and searched online for terms including “Credit card unusual spending” and “Why banks stop your purchases.”

Myrie said a new code would make it easier to target individuals who intend to traffic guns or use them for mass shootings. People buying guns legally with no intent to harm people, he said, would have “absolutely nothing to worry about.”

“This, I think, is simply using every tool that we have to help to stem gun violence,” he said. “And frankly, I’m not sure why anyone would be opposed to this, outside of trying to avoid controversy or the politics.”

“I’m not sure why anyone would be opposed to this, outside of trying to avoid controversy or the politics.” –State Sen. Zellnor Myrie

Critics argue it’s not that simple.

“I don’t see how it works,” Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of government and public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said. “I don’t see why it’s necessary. And the only reason it’s being advanced is for a political gun control agenda.”

Keane noted that a buyer already needs to go through a background check to purchase guns from licensed dealers. He said sellers can also choose not to go through with transactions if they feel uncomfortable.

John Deloca, who owns one of New York City’s few gun shops, the Seneca Sporting Range in Queens, told Gothamist he regularly limits prospective buyers.

“If a guy came in and he wanted to buy two AR-15s, I would say, ‘You could buy one today. That’s it. You want to buy 300 rounds of ammo? You can buy one box today, but that’s it.’” he said. “That’s my rules and regulations.”

But Keane worries a new code for gun sellers would lead to credit card companies interfering with people’s second amendment-protected rights.

“If a retailer wants to have a policy, that’s entirely up to them. I have no problem with that whatsoever,” he said. “They’re in a better position to make that judgment than some computer terminal at some bank or some credit card processor, based on some computer code or algorithm.”

The National Rifle Association said in a statement that a code for gun purchases could be used to create a “de facto firearm registration” to confiscate people’s weapons. Federal law limits the sorts of information about gun ownership the government can collect.

Keane also warned it would be logistically difficult to use a different code for firearm retailers, given that many guns are sold in multipurpose stores, like Walmart or Bass Pro Shops. Supporters of a firearm-specific code point to workarounds for other industries, such as in the case of pharmacies within grocery stores that have their own separate registers.

Igor Volsky with the gun control advocacy group Guns Down America thinks it’s at least worth a try.

“There’s no single solution to end all of gun violence,” he said. “Different actors in our society have to step up and do what they can to save lives. That extends to the president, to members of congress and to private companies.”

New York-based Amalgamated Bank, which calls itself “America’s Socially Responsible Bank,” has been at the forefront of the push to create a new code for firearm retailers. The company is outspoken in its support of regulations to reduce gun violence — a strategy Keane from the National Shooting Sports Foundation argues is about politics, not business.

Amalgamated Bank submitted an application to create a code for firearm retailers back in 2019. The bank says major credit card companies opposed that application, along with a later appeal, and both were rejected.

Officials at Amalgamated said the company is trying once again and expects the International Organization for Standardization to vote on its new application early next month. The legislators said they hope Mastercard and American Express will support the proposal this time around.

American Express did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Mastercard said in an email that the company is looking into how a new code could be implemented, if it is approved.

At an event with the Economic Club of New York in 2019, Mastercard’s then-President and CEO Ajay Banga said he personally opposed the proliferation of guns in America. But he expressed some skepticism about whether a credit card company should try to prevent people from buying firearms.

“When you go to a store and you buy diapers, but it also happens to sell guns, should I stop you? Or rather, would you let me know what you’re buying? Would you want me to know that you’re buying diapers and not guns? Is that what you want as your relationship with your card provider?” Banga wondered. “These are very easy things to toss around, but they’re really deep issues that determine — and I think that require — a fair societal conversation.”

She Can Shoot: The Rise of Female Gun Ownership
Women are one of the fastest-growing demographics in the firearms industry

Robyn Sandoval is seeing a sea change at the gun range: The executive director of A Girl and A Gun (AGAG) Women’s Shooting League is noticing that women are showing up to shoot more than ever before. “Every week, basically, we’re approached by a new instructor or range that wants to have a women-focused training program in their area,” Sandoval told Discourse.

Her experience is part of a great ongoing transformation in the gun world. Over the past two years, more than 5 million women bought a gun for the first time. That’s about 37% of the 13.8 million new gun owners that the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s dealer surveys identified over that time period. That makes women, alongside minority gun owners, one of the fastest-growing demographics in the firearms industry.

Why Women Are Buying Guns
In just over a decade, A Girl and A Gun has grown to include more than 200 chapters at 300 ranges across the country. And that growth only accelerated as America entered a period of unprecedented gun sales beginning in 2020. It’s no coincidence that period coincided with unprecedented chaos, Sandoval said.

“With the riots and the pandemic, most everything was kind of still fear-based…they’re afraid that they wouldn’t have access to protection,” she said. “That first responders wouldn’t be able to respond. Or they’d be targeted for violence.”

Breaking down barriers. A Girl and a Gun Executive Director Robyn Sandoval: “We’ve broken through a lot of barriers so that people recognize that the everyday moms and women of all walks of life are welcome at the range.”

A 2021 AGAG survey shared with Discourse shows that 45% of its membership were new shooters. The top reason those new shooters gave for buying a gun was concern over rioting and civil unrest. 59% of the new shooters listed a fear of physical safety or new gun bans as a reason they decided to buy.

But those weren’t the only reasons women gave as they began to seek out training and competition. One reason was simply the realization that something like AGAG was available to them.

“Many of them have just learned that training is an option for them,” Sandoval said. “That’s something we’re seeing more and more is that a lot of women thought that you had to be an operator or have law enforcement experience, or that civilian courses were not available to them, or nobody in their social circle had taken them before. Now, at A Girl and A Gun, we’ve broken through a lot of barriers so that people recognize that the everyday moms and women of all walks of life are welcome at the range.”

That may be surprising to many people, but not Sarah Hauptman. She has been involved with gun-rights activism in Minnesota for years and recently started helping to run the holster company Phlster, which her husband founded in 2011. There’s a big difference between when she first started shooting and today, she said: Women are increasingly a fixture at gun ranges.

A path for women. Phlster owner Sarah Hauptman: “When your friends shoot, and you see female faces shooting, and you see people who look like you, it’s a lot more accessible.”

“It used to be you’d go to a shooting class, and you’d be the only girl there,” Hauptman told Discourse. “Now, more often than not, there’s several.”

That kind of representation matters, Hauptman said: It’s created a kind of snowball effect. “When your friends shoot, and you see female faces shooting, and you see people who look like you, it’s a lot more accessible,“ she said. “You don’t have to swim against the current to get into it. There’s a path for you.”

Hauptman said breaking down the barriers to entry also leads many women to embrace what she sees as the empowering nature of gun ownership. Hauptman herself did not grow up with firearms. She only became interested later in life after she and her mother decided to try out shooting and had a proverbial blast. “The fun got me into it and kept me into it,” she said.

But after the fun factor brought her to gun ownership, it was its practical utility that made her want to stay. And it even made her want to advocate for others to get involved.

“You kind of realize, ‘Oh, this actually gives me a lot of capability, and it is a kind of equalizer,’” she said. “Once you realize that you can control that power and make it part of your life and add to your ability with it, you’re not giving that back. You’re not letting anyone take it from you either.”

Hauptman said that’s why more women are turning toward firearms to provide for the safety of their homes—households for which they are more often primarily responsible. “I think more women are taking responsibility for their own self-protection,” she said. “More women are living alone. Whether they’re single moms or whether they’re just single women, more women are solely responsible for their own self-defense.”

That’s borne out in AGAG’s data too, which shows 37% of its members are single. “More women than ever before are actually becoming the first gun owner in their home, as opposed to it being more male-driven in the past,” Sandoval said.

Less Pink, More Practicality
The gun industry has taken note of the increasing prominence of female shooters. Sandoval said the market has evolved for the better in recent years. Gun companies are now doing much more than just making superficial appeals to female shooters.

Ten years ago, it was a “pink it and shrink it” mentality when it came to product development. But now, there are really thoughtful products that women want to use, that are developed for women, that fit women’s hands better, that fit their bodies better, that give them more options for concealed carry. It used to be where women’s choices in concealed carry were pretty limited to really small guns, and now, most women, regardless of their size, can carry a full-size, even decked out with lights and optics.

Sandoval singled out Glock’s introduction of slimline models, such as the Glock 43 a few years ago, and Walther’s recent release of the PDP F-Series as examples of major industry players emphasizing designs that appeal to women. While those guns are also popular with men, their design took the unique needs of women into consideration. Sandoval said Walther consulted with AGAG on the design of the PDP F-Series, and the company’s process included measuring the hands of a thousand women to better tweak the layout of the pistol’s trigger and controls.

Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said those kinds of considerations are becoming more and more common in the industry. “Designs of handguns for personal protection are incorporating features long sought by women, including smaller frames, lighter springs, redesigned magazines for easier loading, and shotgun and rifle stocks designed to more readily fit the needs for women with length of pull,” he told Discourse. “The AR-15, due to its easy adaptability and customization, has been a rifle that can easily fit the needs of women gun owners by simple and small adjustments.”

Sandoval also praised the latest innovations in concealed-carry options made with women shooters in mind, including those from Hauptman’s company and its competitor Dene Adams. “The Phlster Enigma has been a game changer in the industry,” Sandoval said. “That’s rocked the training world. Dene Adams also has really great products. I love that [Dene Adams products] have Kydex holsters in them to make everything safer. There’s a lot of activewear and concealment wear out there that don’t have the safety controls in place that instructors want to see.” She said the Kydex inserts help cover the trigger of the firearm to stop the trigger from being pulled unintentionally.

Both Sandoval and Hauptman emphasized that certain gun features that appeal to women, like the thinner grip of the Glock 43 or the Enigma’s beltless holster system, for example, are just as appealing to many men. In fact, while the Enigma has quickly earned a sort of cult status among female concealed carriers, it is even more popular with men.

“Our product is 100% gender neutral,” Hauptman said. “It works on basic physical principles that can be applied to any body type. The reason that it’s popular among women is because women are just less likely to wear belts.”

She said Phlster’s goal is to make it easier for everybody to carry regardless of their gender. However, women have long been underserved in the gun-carry market. So being able to more directly address their needs has helped the company gain an enthusiastic following.

“More women are successfully carrying, and they’re not giving up,” Hauptman said. “They’re not saying, ‘I can’t get it to conceal, so I can’t carry.’ And they’re not saying, ‘I can’t get comfortable, so I can’t carry.’ And they’re not saying, ‘I don’t feel safe.’”

Instead, they’re more easily surmounting the barriers that traditionally kept women from owning firearms. Hauptman hopes that brings more of them into the gun-owning community, and, ultimately, into gun-rights activism. “If we can make it easy for people to carry and have a stake, then those people have a much higher chance of going on to become advocates and preserving the Second Amendment for everyone,” she said.

Polling has consistently shown women are more supportive of gun restrictions than men. Women have also traditionally lagged behind men in gun ownership. As more women become gun owners, though, they may be affected by another long-term polling trend where gun owners are less supportive of gun restrictions. If more women become gun owners, and they become less supportive of gun-control laws, it could have a significant impact on gun laws at every level across the country. These trends are definitely worth watching in the years ahead.

The future of female gun ownership is bright—and it will likely continue to shine, Hauptman maintains. “I don’t know if as many women at their core will ever be as interested in shooting as men,” she said. “But I think the snowball effect is probably going to continue for a while.”

Federal Court Strikes Down Texas Ban on Young Adults Carrying Guns in Public

A federal judge has struck down a Texas law preventing individuals aged 18 to 20 years from carrying handguns in public, in the first major court ruling on Second Amendment rights since the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.

Previously, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the state law, but that was before the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling.

The Supreme Court voted 6–3 on June 23 in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen to strike down New York state’s tough concealed-carry gun permitting system on constitutional grounds. At the same time, the court found that laws preventing law-abiding individuals from carrying firearms in public for self-defense cannot be upheld unless they are consistent with the nation’s historical firearm regulation traditions.

Before the ruling, laws in New York and seven other states required applicants to demonstrate “proper cause” in order to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. But the high court’s ruling declared that New York’s proper-cause requirement—and by extension, the laws of the other seven states—violated the 14th Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

Some states like Maryland rescinded their proper cause requirement but other blue states have been slow to comply or have resisted the decision outright. Since the ruling, civil rights activists have filed several lawsuits aimed at reining in gun restrictions they argue are not consistent with Bruen.

On Aug. 25, in a lawsuit filed in November of last year, Judge Mark Pittman of the U.S. District Court in Fort Worth, Texas, ruled that the Texas law violates the Bruen precedent. Texas officials had argued that historical analogs justify the law.

“The issue is whether prohibiting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a handgun in public for self-defense is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Pittman, a Trump appointee, wrote in his opinion (pdf) in Firearms Policy Coalition Inc. v. McCraw, court file 4:21-cv-1245.

“Based on the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by Founding-Era history and tradition, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects against this prohibition. Texas’s statutory scheme must therefore be enjoined to the extent that law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds are prohibited from applying for a license to carry a handgun.”

Pittman stayed his ruling for 30 days to give Texas an opportunity to appeal.

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which brought the lawsuit here, hailed the new court ruling.

“Texas cannot point to a single Founding Era law that prohibited 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a functional firearm for self-defense, because not only did no such law exist, but those individuals are an important reason why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place,” FPC senior attorney Cody Wisniewski said in a statement.

“The typical age of individuals that went to war with the British for our Independence was between 17 and 20 years old. And young people have just as much a right to keep and bear arms in public as adults over the age of 21,” the attorney said.

“This decision is a significant victory for the rights of young adults in Texas and demonstrates for the rest of the nation that similar bans cannot withstand constitutional challenges grounded in history.”

The FPC said it is also pursuing lawsuits seeking to restore the right of young adults to carry firearms in California, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

The Epoch Times reached out for comment to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, but had not received a reply as of press time.

ProPublica Horrified That a Lawful Business is Defending Itself in the Courts

After the 2021 ghost gun law passed in Nevada, Polymer80 hired the New York City law firm Greenspoon Marder to file the lawsuit in Yerington, an onion farming town that’s the seat of the county that’s home to Polymer80. One of the firm’s managing partners, James McGuire, traveled to Yerington to argue before Judge John Schlegelmilch that the law was written so vaguely it would be impossible to enforce and would be ripe for abuse.

McGuire said in an email he no longer represents Polymer80 and referred questions to another lawyer at the firm, who didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In court, McGuire argued the law failed to define key terms such as “receiver” and “frame,” and used “murky and undefined terms” to explain what an “unfinished receiver” is. He also argued the law doesn’t specify when in the manufacturing process an unfinished receiver actually becomes a receiver.

During two hearings on the lawsuit, Schlegelmilch seemed to have little patience with the state’s argument that the law relies on industry-specific terms that are well understood by Polymer80. Instead the judge agreed with McGuire that the law didn’t adequately define an unfinished receiver. At one point he asked whether his 5-year-old’s rubber band gun could be considered an unfinished receiver simply because it looks like a gun

“What if I’m at home, and I’m machining a piece of wood. OK? And my 5-year-old wants a rubber band gun. OK? So, I take that piece of wood, I turn it, I make it into — you know, I take a band saw, and I cut out what looks like a firearm. And I put a couple of sticks on it so that you can put a rubber band on it when you push it up. You’ve seen a rubber band gun before, right? So, is that mostly completed?”

“I mean, a rubber band gun’s not a firearm,” responded the state’s attorney, Greg Zunino. “I don’t think you would ever be prosecuted under that scenario because you still have to have an intent to turn something into a firearm.”

Schlegelmilch ruled in favor of Polymer80 and enjoined the state from enforcing the section of the law that prohibited the possession and sale of unfinished frames and receivers. Schlegelmilch let stand the rest of the law, which Polymer80 didn’t challenge and prohibits the possession of a completed ghost gun

The state has appealed Schlegelmilch’s ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Schlegelmilch declined an interview request because the appeal is pending.

[Polymer80 president Loran] Kelley declined to comment on the decision to file the lawsuit on his home turf in Lyon County.

Other courts have ruled differently.

A similar lawsuit filed in federal court in Reno the same month was quickly tossed by a judge who decided the law “is a valid exercise of the government’s police power.”

“What happened here, with the state court being more successful for them, indicates politics and ideology within the judiciary,” [Giffords deputy chief counsel David] Pucino said.

This month, a judge in Washington, D.C., found Polymer80 sold illegal firearms in the district and ordered it to pay $4 million in penalties.

The ATF is also seeking to impose a new rule that would require unfinished receivers and frames to include a serial number — one of the federal strategies that Pucino said would be more effective than a state-by-state approach. The new rule, seen as a way to close the ghost gun loophole, is set to take effect on Aug. 24, but it faces at least three lawsuits from the ghost gun industry seeking to block its implementation.

McGuire, the lawyer who represented Polymer80, authored a 27-page public comment submission on the new rule arguing, in part, that it’s impermissibly vague, the same argument that he used successfully to stop the Nevada law.

To some, there’s an easy solution: Polymer80 could stamp serial numbers on the unfinished frames and receivers they sell.

Kelley said putting a serial number on his products wouldn’t hurt his company. But using those numbers to require background checks is a “critical threat” to his business, which he said relies on a growing market of individuals who “value their Fourth Amendment rights” to privacy.

“There’s a problem when people’s right to privacy is infringed and a government agency is looking at what you bought whenever they want,” he said.

Gov. Kathy Hochul seemingly admits denying permits for wrongthink

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul knew that Bruen would go against her state. As a result of that decision, a number of other measures were passed through, measures that looked to adhere to the decision. At least, they would if you squint.

One of those measures is that authorities can scour your social media to see if you have the proper “good moral character” New York seeks to demand from those seeking permits.

However, some recent comments are rather suggestive as to what this is really about.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) used a Wednesday press conference to highlight new state gun controls and emphasized that talking to a would-be gun buyer’s “neighbors online” is now part of a background check.

Hochul’s comments to reporters and others gathered for the conference were wide-ranging, focusing broadly on New York’s Interstate Task Force on Illegal Guns.…

She then discussed social media, saying, “I’ve called upon and am working closely with our Attorney General to identify what’s going on in social media. And those questions are now part of our background checks. Just like in the old days you could talk to someone’s neighbor, now you can talk to their neighbors online to find whether or not this person has been espousing philosophies that indicate they have been radicalized.”

In other words, she wants issuing officials to look at your social media history and determine if you have the wrong opinions on particular issues.

See, this isn’t about whether you’re a criminal or anything like that. This measure is a gauge as to whether you’re the “right sort” for New York to give a permit to. Moral character requirements were originally intended to keep from giving permits to people like alcoholics or such. While that’s not a good reason, it’s at least understandable.

But Hochul’s comment about whether some have been “radicalized” is a problem.

For one thing, just about everything that isn’t in line with progressive ideology has been labeled as extremist to some degree. At least some think the GOP as a whole is extremist. Hell, just not supporting gun control has been seen as radicalization.

So who defines being radicalized in this case? There’s a huge gulf between opinions shifting in a more conservative or libertarian direction and calling for the complete and total overthrow of the United States government or for a jihad against American infidels.

So where is that line?

Frankly, it doesn’t matter. What Hochul has essentially admitted is that this is about WrongThink. It’s about not having approved thoughts and if you have those, you risk losing your right to bear arms. That’s not what rights are about.

Imagine if we were considering denying the right to free speech to communists, for example. Now, communism has killed more people than all the mass shooters in American history combined–probably more than all gun homicides in this country combined, really–but we tolerate their right to speak freely and advocate their heinous ideology because that’s what a free society does. Rights exist for all or they exist for none.

And Hochul would likely be right there, defending their right to free speech, which is fine.

What’s not fine, though, is that she’s openly supporting the suppression of other rights simply because people may not think what she wants them to think.

Biden spooked by ghost guns
Protecting you against the president’s war on the Second Amendment

OPINION:

Never mind gas prices doubling since former President Donald Trump left office, or inflation higher than under any elected president since record-keeping began, or the one-year anniversary of President Biden’s botched surrender in Afghanistan, in which 13 American patriots died unnecessarily and which sacrificed the gains another 2,312 Americans died for as well. No, Mr. Biden wants you to be spooked by fictional “ghost guns.”

On Wednesday, Mr. Biden’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ “Ghost Gun” and Gun Registry Final Rule went into effect. The rule cracks down on guns made in American homes, something we’ve been doing since before the Republic was founded.

Mr. Biden’s White House says these “ghost guns” are “the weapon of choice for many violent criminals.” What they don’t tell you is that “many” equals about 115 homicides per year out of a total of about 16,000. In fact, violent criminals use knives, hammers and their own hands and feet more than a homemade firearm. (Don’t tell Mr. Biden, or he’ll want a regulation on your feet.)

Newsom bankrolls Crist campaign to stop Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis
Now, Gun Owners of America doesn’t condone any criminal misuse of a firearm, but let’s get serious for a second. The Biden administration isn’t coming for knives, hammers or your hands and feet — yet. They’re coming for your guns, and they are attacking your Second Amendment right to bear arms, whether that firearm is made by a gun manufacturer or in your own home.

GOA has been on the other side, your side, in Mr. Biden’s War on Guns. We’ve been defending your Second Amendment rights in this war, and in this latest salvo from the administration, we’ve held the line.

Specifically, GOA, with the help of a total of 60,000 of its supporters and other Americans, were able to successfully win three main victories in the battle over “ghost guns:”

First, Americans will not have to serialize (read: register) every new magazine, barrel or trigger used to upgrade their existing firearms, as Mr. Biden’s ATF originally wanted.

Second, Americans will not have to register a firearm when they simply “Cerakote,” or color their firearms to protect them, as Mr. Biden’s ATF also demanded.

Third, GOA forced ATF to walk back a requirement that gun dealers immediately register privately made firearms taken into inventory, allowing homemade firearms enthusiasts a window to avoid registration when going to a gunsmith for same-day service.

In fact, the ATF explicitly conceded that their initial draconian regulations were modified because of the “numerous comments” made by GOA members and gun owners across the country regarding the rule. That’s a win against Mr. Biden and his gun-grabbing minions, and we couldn’t be more proud. But — and this is important — even though we were able to defend you against this attack, it is still an attack on all our rights. Mr. Biden doesn’t want you to be able to defend yourself. Don’t forget that.

There is much more work to do in order to push back against Mr. Biden’s War on Guns, and the GOA, together with the Gun Owners Foundation, are in that fight, on your side, defending your rights.

In fact, GOA and GOF have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this newest rule, and we are excited that 17 state attorneys general has joined us in that lawsuit. AGs from Arizona, West Virginia, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wyoming answered the call and are defending your rights with us.

In fact, according to Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, “The ATF is attempting to overshoot the authority granted to it by Congress.” In his view, this “ghost gun” rule is “unconstitutional, impractical, and would likely put a large number of parts manufacturers out of business.”

We’re going to defend you until this rule is completely gutted, and we will stand vigilant against any further attacks on your Second Amendment rights. We’re not spooked by Mr. Biden’s ghost guns — or his unceasing war on derisively defined “assault weapons.”

In the true interest of public safety, Mr. Biden should stop trying to criminalize law-abiding American gun owners who simply want to protect themselves — thereby freeing precious law-enforcement resources to go after violent, dangerous criminals.

Federal Judge: All Texas Adults Should Have Constitutional Carry

To the extent that Texas’s statutory scheme, TEX. PENAL CODE § 46.02(a) and TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 411.172(a)(2), (g), (h), (i), prohibits law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying handguns for self-defense outside the home based solely on their age, this statutory scheme violates the Second Amendment, as incorporated against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment.

2. Defendants and all their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from enforcing Texas’s statutory scheme against law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds based solely on their age.

3. This injunction is hereby STAYED for thirty days, or pending appeal, for the duration of the appellate process.