Watch TPUSA’s Newest Reality Series ‘Reloaded’ with Paige Roux thumbnail

Watch TPUSA’s Newest Reality Series ‘Reloaded’ with Paige Roux

By Turning Point USA

Turning Point USA is excited to announce a new reality show series, Reloaded. Starring TPUSA Contributor and accomplished firearms instructor, Paige Roux!

“Reloaded” brings you an intimate first look at Roux and her family’s life in their well-established business Shooters World. She’s a fulltime firearms instructor with an unapologetic mission to inspire Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

This behind-the-scenes journey follows Paige as she explores what it takes to become an elite competitive shooter as she collaborates with the most accomplished and respected marksmen, reviews advanced firearm craft from the best in the industry, and pushes her own boundaries until she ultimately competes in the prestigious TACTICAL GAMES.

Paige Roux will bring her passion for firearms—and competition—to the forefront in this action-packed new series!

Reloaded is powered by Turning Point USA, and is designed to empower the 2A community by opening doors for interested viewers who want to understand the importance of firearm education and constitutional freedoms.

You can watch the trailer HERE. Full episodes of “Reloaded” are now streaming on and Real America’s Voice.

©2023. Turning Point USA. All rights reserved.

California Ban On Standard-Capacity Gun Magazines Overturned thumbnail

California Ban On Standard-Capacity Gun Magazines Overturned

By Kenneth Schrupp

Editors Note: For years, the progressive clarion call has been to “follow California.” From auto emissions, treatment of the homeless, criminal enforcement or lack thereof, to gun policy, our oversized state has provided a swagger and arrogance coupled with its immense economic power, to change the political debate. However, overreach has now become a huge problem as well as public demonstration of failed policy. Now it seems that the new mantra needs to be “avoid becoming like California.” The controversy over “high capacity” and “semi-automatic weapons of war” is relatively new, but the weapons are not. Pictured above is a Mauser C96 “broom handle” that even came with a controversial “pistol brace.” When was this gun made available? It first appeared in 1896, 127 years ago. Clearly, guns have not changed. It is our people that have changed.

Federal judge Roger Benitez overturned California’s ban on standard-sized ammunition magazines, with California Attorney General Rob Bonta filing an immediate notice of appeal. The injunction on the ban will be stayed for 10 days, which means that the ban’s overturn will likely not take effect as the decision is appealed.

“Unless we enshrine a Right to Safety in the Constitution, we are at the mercy of ideologues like Judge Benitez,” said California Gov. Gavin Newsom in a public statement responding to the decision. “This is exactly why I’ve called for a Constitutional amendment, and this is why I’ll keep fighting to defend our right to protect ourselves from gun violence.”

Standard-capacity magazines have been illegal to manufacture, import, keep, or offer for sale, give, or lend since 2000, and illegal to purchase or receive in any way since 2013. Proposition 64, passed by California voters in 2016, made it illegal to possess even legally acquired standard-capacity magazines with more than 10 rounds under the rationale such a measure would limit mass shootings. Anyone who did not turn in their standard-capacity magazines by July 1, 2017, could have faced up to a year in prison before an earlier injunction by Benitez. The most popular firearm sold in 2022, a Sig Sauer P320 pistol, comes with a 15-round magazine except where otherwise limited, such as in California. 

“There is no American history or tradition of regulating firearms based on the number of rounds they can shoot, or of regulating the amount of ammunition that can be kept and carried,” wrote Benitez in his latest ruling.

Benitez first struck down Proposition 63’s rule in June 2017 right before enforcement began, noting only six mass shootings between 2006 and 2013 used the banned magazines, and that “entitlement to enjoy Second Amendment rights and just compensation is not eliminated simply because they possess ‘unpopular’ magazines holding more than 10 rounds.” In 2018, a 2-1 panel of the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed Benitez’s ruling on the confiscations.

In 2019, Benitez ruled against the ban on the acquisition of standard-capacity magazines, citing varying outcomes of women’s self-defense cases where having additional bullets made the difference between life and death. This decision was upheld in a 2020 panel of the Ninth Circuit Court, then overturned by an en banc decision of the same court in 2021. The United States Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit Court’s en banc decision in 2022 and remanded it back to Benitez for a new decision. Benitez’s latest ruling, if upheld in the appeals process, could allow for the resumption of the legal sale of standard-capacity magazines in California.


This article was published The Center Square and is reproduced with permission.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Race Hustler Sharpton: Lack of Gun Legislation is ‘Arming Bigots’ thumbnail

Race Hustler Sharpton: Lack of Gun Legislation is ‘Arming Bigots’

By Discover The Networks

Friday on MSNBC’s Deadline, race hustler and network host Al Sharpton said he believed a “lack” of gun legislation in the United States was a civil rights issue because society was “arming bigots.”

Anchor Nicolle Wallace said, “Kamala Harris will lead this effort. She spoke today about witnessing firsthand the impacts of gun violence during her time as a prosecutor and attorney general.”

Sharpton said, “Absolutely. The fact that she has an effective background as a prosecutor, she wasn’t just holding the title, and dealt with this in California, dealt with it when she was D.A. of San Francisco. It was a good choice of the president to put her there. And I know she’ll be all in.”

Biden, or whoever the actual President is, put her there to keep her occupied. She’s the most incompetent, worthless politician in the Biden administration, and she’ll accomplish nothing as Gun Control Czaress.

He continued, “This is the most dangerous time, particularly for young people, that we have seen in American history. And yet, you have almost a wall there of people saying, no, we’re not giving up our AR-15s, we’re not giving up not even background checks.”

Sharpton added, “We just had the hate killing in Jacksonville, Florida. This guy had an AR-15. So even whether you want to look at it from advocating in terms of civil rights, advocating just on guns, it weighs in because people cannot do mass killings unless they have mass instruments. We are arming bigots, we are arming people that are not respectful of the United States citizens. All of these people are being armed by a lack of legislation.”

Sharpton doesn’t care about stopping gun violence. He doesn’t care about the black shooting victims of black criminals every weekend in Democrat-run big cities like Chicago. Like all Democrats, he cares about disarming the law-abiding citizens who stand in the way of total Democrat power.

Al Sharpton

136 Known Connections

  • Founder of the National Action Network
  • Views America as a nation infested with systemic racism
  • Helped incite anti-Jewish riots in Crown Heights, New York in 1991
  • Was convicted of libel for his role in the racially charged Tawana Brawley hoax
  • Incited black anti-Semites against a Jewish business establishment in Harlem in 1995

To learn more about Al Sharpton, click here.


Biden Appoints Border Czar Kamala as New Gun Control Czar

Hochul Glad Biden Gave NY Asylum Seekers Work Permits

Adams Deploys Police Robot to Times Square Subway Station

Glover, Other Dictator Lovers Greet Cuba’s Puppet Prez in NYC


Trump handles custom “Trump 45” Glock at Palmetto State Armory in Summerville, SC

American badass 🇺🇸🔥

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 25, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Uh Oh, Biden/Harris announce ‘First ever White House office of gun violence protection’ thumbnail

Uh Oh, Biden/Harris announce ‘First ever White House office of gun violence protection’

By Dr. Rich Swier

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” ― Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle.

“An armed society is a polite society.” ― Robert A. Heinlein, American science fiction author, aeronautical engineer, and Naval officer. 

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” — Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Adolf Hitler said, “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

Other have noted that, “To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.”

Fast forward to August 2023 and the White House announcement of a new Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

The attacks on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution have been relentless. Both parties have embraced “red flag” laws and restrictions on gun ownership. They use the excuse to severely restricting gun ownership because guns have been used by mass murderers in our public schools, which are “gun free zones.”

On August 22nd, 2023 Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. during his remarks on this new White House office of gun control stated,

If you need 80 shots in a magazine, you shouldn’t own a gun.

[ … ]

That’s why this new White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention — it’s what it’s designed to do. It will drive and coordinate a government and a nationwide effort to reduce gun violence in America.

[ … ]

An office — and the office will have four primary responsibilities:

First, to expedite the implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and the executive actions already announced. And I mean it: We’re going to fully implement it.

Second, coordinate more support for survivors, families, and communities affected by gun violence, including mental health care, financial assistance — the same way FEMA responds to natural disasters. The same way. And it helps folks recover and rebuild and alter. Look, folks, shootings are the ultimate superstorm, ripping through communities.

Third, identify new executive actions we can take within our legal authority to reduce gun violence.

And fourth, expand our coalition of partners in states and cities across America because we do have partners to get more — we need more state and local help to get these laws passed locally as well — and to strengthen our laws and give us more hope.

As many point out its not the gun that does the crime but the criminals who use guns to commit crimes.

This White House announcement came just days after a federal judge temporarily blocked New Mexico Governor’s gun ban.

This also comes after Hunter Biden was indicted by the DOJ on three gun charges.

So, does Hunter fall under this new White House gun control agency?


Enjoy being defenseless against carjacking, home invasion, rape, and murder…

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) September 22, 2023

Violence is perpetuated by people.

If you want to stop violence focus on those who are most likely to become violent.

If you want to stop violence then arm the non-violent so that they may protect themselves and their loved ones.

As Tiffany Madison said, “Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly ‘free’ state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors? It cannot.”

©2023. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Hunter’s Gun Charge Is A Big Problem For The Biden Crime Family thumbnail

Hunter’s Gun Charge Is A Big Problem For The Biden Crime Family

By Josh Hammer

Thursday’s indictment of presidential prodigal son Hunter Biden on three gun-related criminal counts is the latest twist in the long, winding and rapidly escalating saga that is the Biden crime family.

The indictment, served up by U.S. Attorney — and now “special counsel,” despite the fact 28 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 600.3 requires that a special counsel be “selected from outside the United States Government” — David C. Weiss, comes a month and a half after Weiss’ obfuscatory plea agreement was summarily rejected by Judge Maryellen Noreika. That prior plea deal, curiously, would have handled the same gun crimes for which Hunter has now been indicted with a slap-on-the-wrist pretrial diversion agreement. The fact is, Hunter transparently lied that he was “not an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance” when he filled out a Firearms Transaction Record to purchase a Colt revolver in 2018. It is indisputable that Hunter was a drug addict at the time he purchased the firearm; he openly admitted as much in his ill-advised 2021 memoir.

True, the third count of Weiss’ indictment, invoking the federal provision (18 U.S. Code Sec. 922(g)(3)) that criminalizes possession of a firearm when one is “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance,” is arguably unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s current Second Amendment jurisprudence; in fact, just last month, a panel of the conservative-leaning U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held just that. But Delaware is not part of the Fifth Circuit, which only covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. A criminal defense on such grounds, moreover, would put someone named “Biden” in the highly ironic position of advancing a maximalist, National Rifle Association-style Second Amendment argument. And even if Hunter did make such an argument, the first two counts of the indictment would remain untouched. In sum, the three criminal counts could in theory — and assuredly only in theory — yield up to 25 years in the slammer. (RELATED: JOSH HAMMER: Biden Can’t Gaslight Struggling Americans Into Thinking His Economy Is Good)

At first blush, Weiss’ 180-degree turn over the course of a mere month and a half gives off the impression of someone who got their hand caught in the cookie jar, and who is now penitent. Under this theory of the case, Weiss was thoroughly embarrassed by Judge Noreika’s rejection of his murky, sweetheart plea agreement, and he now seeks to redeem himself. That is a plausible explanation, but it is probably wrong.

Zoom out a little bit. Earlier this week, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced the commencement of a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, the “big guy” implicated in Hunter’s myriad shady overseas business dealings. There is increasing evidence that Joe knew all about, at minimum, and probably even personally profited from Hunter’s foreign dalliances with Ukrainian oligarchs, Romanian tycoons, Chinese investors, and others. At the same time, the senescent octogenarian faces increasingly vocal calls from Democratic Party voters, ruling class elites, and Regime-approved media apparatchiks alike to pack it in and not seek reelection next November. On Tuesday evening, for instance, Regime stenographer David Ignatius used his Washington Post column to argue, in a straightforwardly titled enough manner: “President Biden should not run again in 2024.”

Perhaps Hunter had a little chat with his father, wherein Don Corleone — sorry, the president of the United States — instructed his addlebrained son to take one for the team and be a useful fall guy. The Weiss indictment sure does make for a nice, shiny distraction amidst all the smoke now engulfing the “big guy.” Is this indictment intended to make McCarthy and House Republicans forget about the impeachment inquiry they just opened? Even worse, is this where the Weiss “special counsel” probe somehow ends — thus letting Hunter off scot-free for his significantly more dastardly, possibly money laundering- or Foreign Agents Registration Act-implicating business pursuits overseas?

Ultimately and perhaps most importantly, the Biden Regime’s handling of the Hunter indictment will tell us everything we need to know about the Regime’s nature. It will be a moment of truth — a “put up or shut up” moment. If Weiss ends his investigation here, content with his firearms charges and willing to look the other way as to Hunter’s presidential impeachment-adjacent foreign bribery and corruption, then the Regime will necessarily vindicate the conservatives who have long lambasted its “two-tier system of justice.” That same conclusion also holds if Hunter somehow avoids all jail time, in a possible future plea agreement, for firearms offenses that would certainly land anyone else in prison for years.

Weiss’ indictment has thus clarified the stakes. We all now know what is on the line — and it isn’t just Hunter’s fate as a free man.

Game on.


This article was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Gun Charges Against Hunter Biden Are Meant To Protect The President, Legal Experts Say thumbnail

Gun Charges Against Hunter Biden Are Meant To Protect The President, Legal Experts Say

By The Daily Caller

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) decision to bring felony gun charges against Hunter Biden protects both him and his father, legal experts argued.

Hunter Biden was indicted on three counts Thursday for making false statements and possessing a gun while addicted to drugs, charges stemming from his purchase of a Colt Cobra revolver in October 2018. Legal experts said the gun charge, which is based on a statute that may soon be found unconstitutional, protects the Bidens, as it is the only charge that does not implicate the President.

“It’s the one charge that will not lead to President Biden,” Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, told the Daily Caller News Foundation, describing the charges as a “cover-up” in a separate tweet. “Tax fraud, wire fraud, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and Foreign Agent Registration Act—all those charges could have led to President Biden. But the Biden Justice Department declined to pursue those charges and instead pursued a gun charge that is in serious constitutional doubt.”

Former Assistant United States Attorney Andy McCarthy similarly said on Fox News Thursday that it was “the only charge that this prosecutor could’ve brought against Hunter in which Hunter’s father is not implicated.”

An appeals court ruled in August that the statute Hunter was charged with violating, which bars gun possession for anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance, violates the Second Amendment.

“In short, our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage,” the ruling written by Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, states. “Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users.”

Hunter Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell already pointed to the ruling to argue the case will “be dismissed before trial.”

“The only change that has occurred between when they investigated [this alleged crime] and today is that the law changed,” Hunter’s attorney Abbe Lowell told ABC News Friday. “But the law didn’t change in favor of the prosecution. The law changed against it.”

Don’t be fooled.

Today’s indictment of Hunter Biden for gun felonies is just more coverup by Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who has protected the Bidens for years.

Weiss, handpicked by both Democrat home-state senators in Delaware, let the statute of limitations expire on…

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) September 14, 2023

Lawyer and former federal prosecutor Bill Shipley said on Twitter the charge is “on shaky legal ground with the trend in 2nd Amendment jurisprudence.”

“Doesn’t matter if it is Hunter or someone else, the DOJ should not be filing these counts until there is further clarity in the appeals courts that some kind of effort under this statute going forward is going to survive a Second Amendment challenge,” Shipley said.

The charges carry a maximum sentence of 25 years and $750,000 in fines, according to court documents.

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said on his podcast Friday that the charge was brought “by design, to insulate Joe Biden.”

“The reason this matters is because there’s considerable evidence that Hunter Biden solicited and received tens of millions of dollars from corrupt foreign players in exchange for official favors from his dad, Joe Biden, now the president of the United States,” he said.

“The Biden DOJ was prepared to give him [Hunter] complete and total immunity for any and all criminal conduct, especially, the criminal conduct that implicated his father, and that really, I believe, was the entire objective of this whole thing,” Cruz continued.

However, Politico reported in 2021 that Secret Service agents asked the owner of the store where Hunter purchased the gun to hand over paperwork from the sale in 2018, which the owner refused to do, though he later provided it to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Neither Joe Biden nor Hunter Biden were under the protection of the Secret Service at the time.

Special counsel David Weiss requested to dismiss tax charges filed against Hunter Biden in August in order to refile in another venue, a motion District Judge Maryellen Noreika approved. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss as special counsel in August.

Biden’s initial plea deal, which would have had him plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and enter a diversion agreement allowing him to avoid jail time for the felony gun charge, fell apart under Noreika’s questioning during a July 26 hearing after she highlighted a section of the diversion agreement promising broad immunity for future charges.

Weiss and the White House did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.





Hunter Biden Indicted On Three Gun Charges

‘Disturbing’: Jonathan Turley Says DOJ’s Hunter Charges Seemingly ‘Insulate’ Joe Biden

Jen Psaki Says Biden Is A ‘Heartbroken President’ As He Watches Hunter Get Indicted

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

No, Governor, Rights Are NOT Government-Issued Privileges That You Can Suspend thumbnail

No, Governor, Rights Are NOT Government-Issued Privileges That You Can Suspend

By Connor O’Keeffe

Editors’ Note: Governor Grisham’s ill-fated attempt to repeal the Second Amendment by decree has not gone well either in the Courts or with the local sheriff. Additionally, while she must have felt she would feel the glow of national media praise, the whole gambit has turned into a public relations disaster. But the back story is her appalling ignorance about the nature of rights and from whence they come. The right to self-defense is perhaps the most basic right of all, for without it,  you can’t defend life or the property that sustains it. The fact that leaders as high as governors can attain such power in our Constitutional system while maintaining such striking levels of ignorance, speaks volumes about the problems with our current politics.

On Friday, September 8, Michelle Lujan Grisham, the governor of New Mexico, announced a new public health order suspending the right to carry firearms in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County for at least thirty days.

The New Mexico governor announced the thirty-day suspension at a press conference. Citing the shooting deaths of three children in Albuquerque this summer, Grisham declared “a public health emergency,” which she says gives her the authority to suspend the right to carry firearms in the surrounding county for thirty days.

In front of reporters, Grisham was quick to acknowledge some obvious problems with the order. She admits that the order will not have much of an effect on the level of gun violence in Albuquerque. She instead stressed the symbolism of the measure.

When asked if she really thought that criminals—like those who committed the shootings she cited—would comply and not carry a gun in Albuquerque, Governor Grisham said that she didn’t but thought the motion was a “pretty resounding message.”

Grisham also repeatedly said she expected the motion to be challenged in court. Her demeanor suggested that the entire purpose of the executive order was to spur a legal fight. The governor spent much of the press conference pontificating about a constitutional right to be safe and presented the Second Amendment as incompatible with that right.

Grisham is distorting how rights work to justify her program. She frames rights as a handful of unrelated positive freedoms granted to citizens by the government, which can revoke them during emergencies or when they conflict with rights that government officials deem more important.

In reality, rights are derived from self-ownership. We alone have the highest claim to our own bodies. That right is absolute, so any aggression against our bodies is a rights violation that can be justly resisted or punished proportionately.

And from self-ownership, we can derive the just ownership of property. Self-ownership gives you the highest claim to the fruits of your labor. Unowned resources can justly become owned through homesteading—mixing your labor with unowned natural resources. Once these resources are owned, they can be justly transferred as gifts or through voluntary exchange. Because they are derived from self-ownership, property rights are absolute, meaning any violation can be justly resisted or punished proportionately.

We can see, then, that the right not to be harmed and the right to own property do not conflict—they are variations of the same fundamental right. This is especially evident when the property in question equips us to better protect ourselves and our other property. That’s the case with firearms. The debate Grisham calls for is built on a lie.

The governor is trying to account for the government’s failures to protect people, a service it monopolizes, by violating the property rights of Bernalillo County citizens. She understands this is probably illegal and at the press conference even called herself courageous for moving ahead anyway. Even though, unlike the rest of us outside of government, she wouldn’t face consequences if it were determined that what she’s doing is illegal. She’d, at most, be told to stop.

Or so she thought. Instead, over the weekend, the gun owners of Bernalillo County took to the streets, carrying their weapons peacefully in protest. And the Albuquerque police chief and Bernalillo County sheriff issued statements saying they would not enforce the governor’s order. Because it violates the rights of citizens and draws resources away from preventing real crimes.

That’s real courage.


This article was published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute and is reproduced with permission.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Hunter Biden Indicted On Three Gun Charges thumbnail

Hunter Biden Indicted On Three Gun Charges

By The Daily Caller

Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, has been indicted on felony gun charges in Delaware, according to a partially redacted court filing by Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel David Weiss.

Biden was indicted Thursday on three counts for providing false statements and knowingly possessing the gun while he was addicted to drugs, in connection with the acquisition of a Colt Cobra revolver in October 2018, the indictment states. He faces a maximum prison sentence of ten years for the first and third offenses, with the second offense holding a maximum of five years, according to a defendant information sheet.

BREAKING: Hunter Biden indicted on felony gun charge in Delaware @DailyCaller

— James Lynch (@jameslynch32) September 14, 2023

“Robert Hunter Biden, provided a written statement on Form 4473 certifying that he was not an unlawful user of, and addicted to, any stimulant narcotic drug, and any other controlled substance, when in fact, as he knew, the statement was false and fictitious,” the indictment reads.


The DOJ said in a Sept. 6 status report that it was seeking an indictment for Biden’s felony gun charge by the end of the month. Biden’s legal team responded by arguing the pretrial diversion agreement proposed by the DOJ is legally valid, a notion the DOJ has disputed.

Hunter Biden was expected to plead guilty in July to two tax misdemeanors and sign a pretrial diversion agreement to avoid jail times for a felony gun charge. His plea agreement collapsed when Delaware U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika scrutinized an immunity provision tucked into the diversion agreement, resulting in a dispute between Biden’s defense counsel and DOJ special attorney Leo Wise.

Biden’s defense counsel Christopher J. Clark withdrew from the case in August because of his role in the failed guilty plea negotiations. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss special counsel in August and Weiss immediately requested to withdraw Biden’s two tax offenses to potentially charge him in a different jurisdiction. Noreika granted Weiss’ request and dismissed the tax charge without prejudice.

The House Ways and Means, Oversight and Judiciary Committees continue to investigate IRS whistleblower testimony accusing the DOJ of giving Hunter Biden special treatment in the tax case against him. House Oversight is also investigating Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings and the role Joe Biden played in his son’s affairs.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said Tuesday the House Ways and Means, Oversight and Judiciary Committees will be spearheading the House’s impeachment inquiry into Hunter Biden.

This is a breaking news story and it will be updated.



Investigative reporter.


Biden-Appointed Prosecutors Did Not Cooperate In Hunter Biden Case, FBI Agent Testifies

Judge Shoots Down Fani Willis’ Bid For October Trump Trial

‘File The F*cking Motion’: McCarthy Challenges GOP Opponents To Follow Through With Threat To Remove Him

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks New Mexico Governor’s Gun Ban thumbnail

Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks New Mexico Governor’s Gun Ban

By The Daily Caller

A federal judge temporarily blocked Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s public health order banning the carrying of guns in public, according to Reuters.

U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico David Urias, a Biden appointee, found the order to be unconstitutional, Reuters reported. Grisham issued the 30-day public health order banning the right to open or conceal carry guns in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County on Friday.

“They just want the right to carry their guns,” Urias said in reference to the plaintiffs, according to Reuters.

BREAKING: New Mexico federal judge says he will issue a temporary restraining order against the governor’s gun carry ban.

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 13, 2023

Grisham’s order drew immediate backlash from both Republicans and Democrats and was swiftly followed by lawsuits and public protests. New Mexico’s Democratic Attorney General Raul Torrez refused to defend the order Tuesday on the grounds that it would not hold up in court.

“Though I recognize my statutory obligation as New Mexico’s chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence,” Torrez said. “Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster.”

Grisham told reporters after announcing the order that no constitutional right is “absolute.” “If there’s an emergency, and I’ve declared an emergency for a temporary amount of time, I can invoke additional powers,” Grisham said. “No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute.”




RELATED ARTICLE: New Mexicans Do The Most American Thing Ever To Defy Second Amendment Ban

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

New Mexico Sheriff Stands for the U.S. Constitution thumbnail

New Mexico Sheriff Stands for the U.S. Constitution

By Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.

The Sheriff in each county within the United States of America is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of that county. NO ONE outranks the Sheriff! This fact is little discussed nor understood, but it is a true statement. Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (to which I am a Life Member) teaches this and other significant roles of a duly elected Sheriff. Sheriff Richard Mack, Founder and President of Constitutional Sheriff and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) frequently travels the nation teaching Sheriffs and law enforcement the rights and duties of the Sheriff, and the Constitutional authority of the Sheriff in each county across our nation, all 3,143 counties.

Bernalillo County, New Mexico Sheriff John Allen stood strong for the Constitution of the United States, for the citizens rights under the US Constitution, and against a politician who clearly spoke contempt for the very same US Constitution she swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend. Listen to Sheriff Allen’s clear and concise response to a socialist giving an unconstitutional illegal order, the Governor of New Mexico, an order this Constitutional Sheriff stated clearly he shall not enforce or go along with in any sorts.

May we begin to see additional Americans, whether in elected office or not, stand for the rights and privileges granted to us in our founding documents. May we begin to see leaders come forth, not mere managers or those simply willing to straddle the tide and spend energy keeping all sides happy. May we begin to witness Americans standing against the forces of tyranny just like our ancestors the colonists did in 1775. Sheriff Allen’s 4 minute response is strong and to the point. Thank you Sheriff Allen. Thank you Sheriff Mack and CSPOA. Thank you to each Sheriff across our Land who sees their holding the office as a privilege, not a right, and who will stand and defend the rights of WE THE PEOPLE and the exceptional documents and principles that gave us this exceptional nation.

This is what upholding your OATH OF OFFICE looks like!

The Bernalilllo County Sheriff on Governor MLG Gun Ban: It’s unconstitutional and we will not enforce it

— Beau Hightower (@beauhightowerdn) September 11, 2023

New Mexico sheriff says he won’t enforce ‘unconstitutional’ gun ban: ‘Protecting the Second Amendment’

Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is facing widespread pushback from state law enforcement officials following her attempt to ban concealed and open carry permits.

Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen described Grisham’s 30-day “public health order” as “unconstitutional” during a press conference this week despite standing beside the governor during her rollout of the policy.

“It’s unconstitutional, so there’s no way we can enforce that order,” the sheriff said in a Monday news conference. “This ban does nothing to curb gun violence.”

Read more.

©2023. Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D. All rights reserved.


BARR: New Mexico Governor’s Anti-Gun Policy Doesn’t Even Pretend To Be Legitimate

Power Drunk Dem Governor Confirms Another Lockdown ‘Conspiracy’

CNN Host Whips Out New Mexico Constitution, Point Blank Asks Governor If She’s Violating It


The Changing Landscape of Gun Control: A Nuanced Debate thumbnail

The Changing Landscape of Gun Control: A Nuanced Debate

By Michael Infanzon

Recent shifts in support for gun control measures in the United States have ignited fresh debates among politicians, interest groups, and the general public. The passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act a year ago seems to have become a watershed moment that has resulted in significant changes in public opinion (Congress, 2022). While Democrats largely continue to support gun control, Republicans’ support has decreased, and even independent support has slightly declined (Knighton, 2023). However, the complexity of this issue extends far beyond these broad characterizations.

Republicans and Gun Control

A closer examination of the Republican stance reveals an intricate picture. The decrease in support for gun control among Republicans since the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act’s passage is evident but lacks concrete evidence to pin solely on this legislation (Knighton, 2023). Factors such as changing public sentiment or political strategies could also play a significant role, and it is crucial to approach the subject with caution rather than definitive conclusions.

The Democrats’ Perspective

Characterizing Democrats as overwhelmingly supportive of gun control may be an oversimplification of a more complex reality. Within the Democratic ranks, there exists a diverse range of perspectives and opinions on specific gun control measures (Knighton, 2023). The collective stance on gun control might not fully represent the individual opinions within the party, highlighting the need to recognize the nuances within these broader classifications.

Universal Background Checks: A Complicated Issue

The topic of universal background checks brings another layer of complexity to the debate. While there is bipartisan support for enforcing background checks on all potential gun buyers, support for universal background checks often drops when people become aware of what they actually mean (Knighton, 2023). This decline in support might not just be a result of a lack of awareness but might also include principled objections or concerns about potential infringements on personal liberties.

I will explain “universal background checks” in my next article.

A Binary Debate?

One significant challenge in the gun control debate is the tendency to frame the discussion as a binary choice between restricting gun rights and supporting them. However, this oversimplification misses the nuanced perspectives many individuals hold regarding specific policies. Public opinion varies based on the particular measures proposed, with many people endorsing certain regulations while opposing others (Knighton, 2023).

The changing landscape of gun control in America is a multifaceted and nuanced issue. While recent shifts among Republicans, Democrats, and independents have caught headlines, the underlying complexities of these changes warrant a more thoughtful analysis. From the impact of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to the intricacies of universal background checks and the diversity of opinions within political parties, the gun control debate demands an open mind and a willingness to engage in nuanced dialogue.

Congress. (2022). S.2938 – Bipartisan Safer Communities Act – Library of Congress.
Knighton, T. (2023). Gun control support slipping among independents, Republicans – Bearing Arms.


Michael Infanzon is a political and government policy contributor at The Prickly Pear.

 Michael writes about government policies that affect millions of Americans, from their introduction in the legislature to their implementation and how policies impact our everyday freedoms.

 Michael is the Managing Partner for EPIC Policy Group, located in Phoenix, AZ. EPIC has clients ranging from motorcycle rights organizations, firearms organizations, 2A rights organizations, veterans advocacy, chambers of commerce to agricultural products and personal freedoms among other policy issues.

 You can follow Michael on X/Twitter (@infanzon) and email him at


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

BATF To Expand Rules On Who Must Have A Federal Firearm License thumbnail

BATF To Expand Rules On Who Must Have A Federal Firearm License

By Neland Nobel

The Biden Administration, after suffering a string of judicial defeats on gun control, is now attempting to expand the definition of who can have a Federal License to deal in firearms.

After repeated judicial defeats on bump stocks, frames, receivers, and braces, the Administration has decided to throw great uncertainty over who must be licensed to transfer a firearm.

As The Reload, an online magazine devoted to firearms law has stated:

“The new proposal is the latest in a series of moves President Biden has undertaken to try and further tighten American Gun regulations.  With his legislative agenda on firearms hamstrung by a lack of support in Congress, he has instead attempted to unilaterally enforce new restrictions through federal rulemaking.  However, his previous attempts to reclassify or ban parts kits for homemade guns and pistol-braced AR-15s, have been found unconstitutional by multiple federal courts.”

Under the new proposed ruling, anyone who sells a gun without said license could face a fine of $250,000, five years in Federal prison, or both.

At the behest of gun control lobbyists, this is just another attempt on the part of the Biden Administration to force “universal background checks” and close what they consider to be loopholes in the law.  It is not clear that it would stop criminals who already violate firearms laws, but it potentially could ensnare people who rent a table at a gun show, transfer firearms to friends, neighbors, or relatives, or deal with guns on an occasional basis just to enhance their collections or to make a bit of money on the side.

Clearly, the intent is to expand the number of people who must be licensed and thus subject to ATF rules. Or, why else would this be proposed?

Those in the firearms industry are critical of the complexity of the 108-page set of regulations and the flexibility it gives the ATF to prosecute those it feels violate the laws that they just made up without any Congressional approval.  Lost on these advocates is that it is precisely in those cities with the strictest gun control rules we have seen the most increase in gun-related murders and crime.

The intent seems to be to expand the definition of those who must obtain a license yet it also appears to stop short of requiring everyone who might sell a used gun to be licensed.

Critics say it is too loosely written, which allows the government to intimidate through vagueness the secondary trade in guns and does not make clear if collectors using an FFL (one with a Federal license) are violating the law or not.  From the standpoint of the public, clearly written rules help avoid getting entangled with the authorities while vaguely written rules allow agencies wide discretion.

Senator Joni Ernst for example has said, “President Biden is twisting the law to fit his liberal gun-grabbing agenda.”

As legal scholars wade through the 108 pages and challenges reach the courts, more clarity is likely.

Already though, observers have noticed that the list of reasons for firearms ownership listed by the ATF includes hobby and sporting reasons, but it does not mention the most often cited reasons for firearms ownership, which is the need for self-defense.  Also absent from their definition of need, is the need for firearms to resist a tyrannical government.

Above all, the immediacy of this ruling is the clear pattern of this Administration:

Weakened laws for bail, prosecution, and incarceration of criminals, while increasing the regulation of the means the public has to protect themselves from the predators set loose on them by the government that is supposed to protect them.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

This Is the Largest Gunmaker in Arizona thumbnail

This Is the Largest Gunmaker in Arizona

By Samual Stebbins

The United States is the single largest civilian firearm market in the world. A recent Gallup poll found that 45% of Americans have a gun in their home. And many of those households have more than one, as the U.S. is the only country with more privately-owned guns than people.

Whether for hunting, target shooting, personal protection, or home defense, consumer demand for firearms in the U.S. fuels a $32.1 billion a year industry. And across the country, companies are cashing in. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives reported that over 13.3 million firearms were manufactured in the U.S. for the domestic market in 2021. (Here is a look at which Americans own the most guns: a survey of all 50 states.)

According to the ATF, there are more than 3,200 federally licensed firearm production plants in the U.S., and 192 of them are operating in Arizona. Between them, a total of 699,100 firearms were manufactured in the state in 2021.

No company made more firearms in Arizona that year than Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. Through a production facility in Prescott, the company produced a reported 603,500 guns – or 86.3% of all firearms made in the state in 2021.

State Gun production facilities in state, 2021 Guns manufactured in state, 2021 Largest gunmaker in state, 2021 Largest gunmaker output, 2021
Alabama 52 294,166 Kimber Mfg Inc. 275,325
Alaska 21 258 Annex Industries, LLC 50
Arizona 192 699,100 Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. 603,500
Arkansas 47 73,351 Wilson’s Gun Shop Inc. 41,746
California 76 82,532 Senga Engineering Inc. 23,324
Colorado 75 3,109 M+M Inc. 1,712
Connecticut 33 184,633 Colt’s Manufacturing Company LLC 151,771
Delaware 2 11 Gusovsky Gunsmithing LLC 8
Florida 198 671,359 SCCY Industries LLC 216,932
Georgia 105 1,496,877 Glock Inc. 581,944
Hawaii 2 8 Koffin Wurks LLC 7
Idaho 75 43,241 FM Products Inc. 18,593
Illinois 43 647,423 Springfield Inc. 590,750
Indiana 60 41,498 Tippmann Arms Company LLC 15,113
Iowa 47 25,326 Brownells Inc. 11,024
Kansas 46 19,287 CZ-USA 14,383
Kentucky 39 510,679 WM C Anderson Inc. 505,635
Louisiana 43 2,658 Brothers LA Arms, LLC 640
Maine 21 23,226 Windham Weaponry Inc. 22,930
Maryland 24 30,358 LWRC International 27,331
Massachusetts 27 435,514 Savage Arms, Inc. 406,867
Michigan 73 26,424 Great Lakes Firearms and Ammunition LLC 22,388
Minnesota 37 46,584 Magnum Research Inc. 14,586
Mississippi 39 3,003 JMS Manufacturing Inc. 1,289
Missouri 93 2,467,145 Smith & Wesson 2,316,857
Montana 55 26,446 Noreen Firearms LLC 16,296
Nebraska 26 6,882 Zermatt Arms Inc. 4,076
Nevada 56 262,086 Legacy Sports International Inc. 214,258
New Hampshire 27 1,992,731 Sig Sauer Inc. 1,293,532
New Jersey 11 209,770 Henry RAC Holding Corp. 208,423
New Mexico 24 281 Farnsworth, Dustin Robert and Angie J 81
New York 61 128,276 RemArms LLC 86,594
North Carolina 152 894,882 Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. 604,941
North Dakota 10 1,301 Roughrider Arms LLC 1,167
Ohio 117 130,848 Strassells Machine Inc. 106,807
Oklahoma 69 14,654 International Firearm Corporation LLC 11,423
Oregon 50 16,619 TNW Firearms Inc. 4,004
Pennsylvania 110 228,400 IWI US Inc. 96,662
Rhode Island 5 144 Ocean State Armory LLC 50
South Carolina 55 240,114 Fn America, LLC 169,407
South Dakota 20 906 West River Rifle Company LLC 277
Tennessee 82 185,720 Beretta USA Corp. 155,352
Texas 401 814,838 Maverick Arms, Inc. 492,167
Utah 103 271,862 TDJ Buyer, LLC 72,983
Vermont 20 135,030 Century Arms Inc. 132,705
Virginia 84 17,890 Kriss USA, Inc. 12,809
Washington 62 242,736 Aero Precision LLC 174,662
West Virginia 28 6,941 Childers Guns LLC 5,108
Wisconsin 80 137,397 Henry RAC Holding Corp. 112,180
Wyoming 52 10,341 Weatherby Inc. 7,630


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Weekend Read: What Does The Second Amendment Really Mean? thumbnail

Weekend Read: What Does The Second Amendment Really Mean?

By Charles M. Strauss

Let’s take it word by word.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

What is a “Militia”? What is a “well regulated” Militia (as opposed to a poorly regulated one)? What about a well-regulated Militia makes it “necessary”? What is the “security” of a free State? What is a “State”? What is a “free” State (as opposed to an unfree State)? Who are “the People”? What does “keep” mean? What does “bear” mean? What are “Arms”? What does “infringed” mean?

Legal scholar and author Bryan Garner and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia co-wrote a textbook, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (West, 2012), in which they set forth a long list of principles (“canons”) of construction, including these two:

  • Fixed Meaning Canon: Words must be given the meaning they had when the text was adopted;
  • Absurdity Doctrine: A provision may be either disregarded or judicially corrected as an error (when the correction is textually simple) if failing to do so would result in a disposition that no reasonable person could approve.

Let’s take an easy example of the Absurdity Doctrine. The word “bear” can mean either “carry” or “large mammal of the family Ursidae that defecates in the forest.” The word “arms” can mean “weapons” or “upper limbs (human) or forelimbs (non-human animal).” If the Second Amendment were interpreted to mean that the people have the right to the forelimbs of pickanick-basket-stealing mammals, then the Second Amendment would be absurd/meaningless. If the Second Amendment means the people have the right to carry weapons, then it makes sense. A constitutional provision must always be given an interpretation that makes it mean something, not nothing – whether or not the interpreter likes the resulting meaning.

What, then, is a Militia? When the text was adopted, the term was universally understood to mean “armed populace,” the antithesis of a standing army, the antidote to tyranny.

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by (the Second Amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe, “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.)

“What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” (Eldrige Gerry, Rep. of Massachusetts, 1 Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789.)

Some current commentators, horrified by the very idea of an armed citizenry, propose that “militia” means the National Guard. That definition is absurd, for many reasons, including:

  • The National Guard did not come into being until the 20th Century, so it can not have been the meaning “when the text was adopted.”
  • While the National Guard may consist of “part-time soldiers” (as in a militia), their stated purpose is to do things like putting down rebellions, or warring against foreign enemies – but not resisting a tyrannical government. In Perpich v. DOD, the Supreme Court disabused him of that idea, explaining that the President, not the Governor is the Commander in Chief of National Guard troops. Thus, the National Guard cannot be the “Militia,” because the core purpose of the Militia is to protect the people against  a tyrannical President “perverting his power to the injury of his fellow citizens.” It would be absurd to suppose that a tyrannical president would order National Guard troops to stop him. Defining the Militia as anything other than an “armed populace” would make the Second Amendment an absurdity, no less than defining “bear arms” to mean the forelimbs of furry forest excretors.

What about “regulated” and “well regulated”? If regulated meant “subject to rules and regulations issued by the government,” then again that would make the Second Amendment meaningless, to wit: “The People have the right to keep and bear arms, unless the government passes rules and regulations that say no they don’t.”  In fact, at the time the Second Amendment was adopted, “well regulated” had a commonly understood meaning: “in good working order.”

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

1709: “…if a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world…”

1812: “The equation of time…is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

1848: “…remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

1894: “…the newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

Thus, the term “well regulated” meant that something (a clock, a person’s mind) was functioning well, and properly tuned and calibrated. For example, Regulator-style clocks were developed in the early 18th Century. They were so-called not because they were subject to more government rules, but because they were more accurate than other clocks.

In DC v. Heller (2008), Scalia wrote: “Finally, the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”

Because “regulated” means “trained/competent,” “well regulated” means well trained, i.e., the People know how to shoot, and they know how to maneuver and operate tactically in concert with their fellow People, to effectively resist all enemies, foreign and domestic.

In Heller, Scalia went on to explain what a State is, and why a well-trained armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free State:

The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States… Joseph Story wrote in his treatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community.” … It is true that the term “State” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to individual States, but the phrase “security of a free state” and close variations seem to have been terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a “free country” or free polity.

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” … First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary – an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia… Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.  (Italics added.)

Who are “the people” who have the rights to keep arms and bear arms acknowledged (NB: not “granted”) by the Second Amendment? The Supreme Court answered that question in a very unpleasant case, US v. Verdugo-Urquidez. Verdugo-Urquidez (hereafter, VU) was a Bad Dude, worse even than Corn Pop. He was a cruel, sadistic, violent drug dealer from Mexico, allegedly responsible for the unspeakably horrific torture and murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena Salazar. DEA agents went to Mexico and arrested (i.e., kidnapped) VU and brought him to the United States for trial. They searched his home in Mexico and brought back records of drug shipments which they tried to use as evidence in the trial. VU’s lawyers objected that the DEA did not have a warrant to search for and seize those records. The Supreme Court noted that the Fourth Amendment says that “the people” have the right to be free from warrantless searches, but said that VU, a resident of Mexico, was not one of “the people.”

… “the people” refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

… “the people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by “the people of the United States.” The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people.” (Italics added.)

In other words, all Americans (and resident aliens, presumably) have Second Amendment rights, not just those who are members of the armed services/National Guard.

The text of the Second Amendment actually contains a grammatical error (in addition to the unnecessary comma between “Arms” and “shall”). It’s not the “right” to keep and bear arms; it’s the “rights” (plural). Keeping and bearing are separate rights. To keep means to own or possess. To bear means to carry. Does the right to carry mean the right to carry openly? Concealed? Some states permit open carry but prohibit concealed carry. Other states permit concealed carry but prohibit open carry. Which is right, or are they both wrong? As the Second Amendment is silent on the question, the presumption must be that carry means to carry, whether concealed or unconcealed.

The rights prohibitionists insist that the right to carry again pertains only when the militia has been called out (by the government). That is wishful thinking. The purposes of having a well-trained armed populace include showing up to quell uprisings and oppose foreign invasion – the same as the Army. But unlike the Army, the militia has another purpose – its core purpose (according to every single contemporary commentator, including the author of the Second Amendment) – and that is to resist tyranny. There would not be much hope of resisting tyranny if the people’s guns were kept locked up until the government unlocked them and told the people to resist the government’s own tyranny. Nor could the militia/armed populace be well-trained if they were not able to practice with and maintain their own arms.

As a side note, the rights prohibitionists scornfully insist that an armed populace could not possibly resist the most powerful army in the world, which has F16s and nuclear missiles. A bunch of Vietnamese communists in pajamas, and a bunch of goatherders in Afghanistan, would laugh at that (and thanks for all the cool weapons, President Biden!) A ragtag bunch of farmers and tradesmen in 1775 were told that they had no hope of resisting the most powerful army in the world, but by golly, here we are. However, that is beside the point. At issue is not whether the Second Amendment is a good idea, but what it actually says and means.  There are people who think freedom of the press and religion are bad ideas, but their opinions do not change what the First Amendment says.

In one of the most bizarre Supreme Court cases ever, US v. Miller, the Court addressed one issue, the definition of the word “arms.” What “arms” do the people have the right to own and carry? Miller was a career criminal, a bank-robbing gangster who had been convicted of possessing (keeping) a sawed-off shotgun (barrel shorter than 18 inches), which had been made illegal by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller’s lawyer argued that the NFA violated the Second Amendment – and won the argument. The US appealed to the Supreme Court. By that time, Miller had gone into hiding, fearing he would be killed in retribution for testifying against other members of his gang. Neither Miller nor his lawyer appeared at the Supreme Court hearing, and indeed, Miller was murdered before the Court announced its decision.

The Court considered whether a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18 inches was an “arm” that the people had the right to keep and bear.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly, it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Because the Court could not decide whether a short shotgun would be useful on the battlefield, they remanded the case to the lower court to answer that question. By that time, though, Miller was dead, and the case became moot, so the question has never been answered, and the NFA has stood unchallenged since then. Of course, the reason for the absence of evidence is that neither Miller nor his lawyer was there! Had there been somebody there to give evidence, the Court would have learned that short-barrelled shotguns have been in use as ordinary military equipment since the time of the blunderbuss, as well as in trench-clearing in The Great War of recent memory. Nevertheless, the Court did establish the principle that the arms that people have the right to keep and bear are those that would be suitable for fighting – what today are called “assault weapons” designed to be used for fighting. It is not clear whether the Second Amendment protects the right to own deer hunting rifles or duck hunting shotguns or Olympic target pistols. The only guns we know for certain are protected are those that “only belong on the battlefield,” that is, “assault weapons,” to use the language of those afflicted with enuresis ignavus (involuntary urination induced by cowardice).

“Infringed” is an interesting word. It doesn’t just mean “violated” or “denied.” Its root word is “fringe.” Fringe is something around the edge, the periphery, like the fringe on a flag. “Shall not be infringed” means “Not only don’t revoke completely but don’t even nibble around the edges, got it?”

In short, what the Second Amendment says is “Because a well-trained armed populace is necessary to the security of a free country, the people have the absolutely inviolable rights to own and carry military-type weapons suitable for resisting tyranny.”


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

CHICAGO: Democrat Alderwoman Asks Gang Members to Limit Their Shootings and Murders to Evening Hours thumbnail

CHICAGO: Democrat Alderwoman Asks Gang Members to Limit Their Shootings and Murders to Evening Hours

By Dr. Rich Swier

If it weren’t for Democrat policies coddling criminals and encouraging crime, Chicago wouldn’t be the hellhole it is today. There is a direct connection between decades of Democrat rule (and not just in Chicago by any means) and rampant crime and corruption.

How much are the residents of our once-great cities going to take?

How long are they going to tolerate living in increasingly dangerous and precarious circumstances, with politicians such as Maria Hadden offering laughable solutions such as this one, rather than vote out the sinister corruptocrats who have created this mess?

Chicago Democrat Asks Gang Members To Limit Shootings to Nighttime

by Ben Wilson, Washington Free Beacon, August 18, 2023:

A Chicago Democrat is asking gang members to limit their shootings and murders to the evening hours.

Democratic alderwoman Maria Hadden, in an email newsletter, promoted a proposal from the community group Native Sons called “the People’s Ordinance,” which asks gang members to not shoot between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m.

“We have to start somewhere,” cofounder of Native Sons Tatiana Atkins said of the ordinance, according to CWB Chicago. “Our goal is to approach our city’s gun violence problem strategically and not all at once. Things didn’t become this way overnight, and change won’t happen overnight.

The idea is to reduce risk for people “not involved in high risk activities,” especially children.

Atkins hopes parents “may become more proactive” with children if they know when gang shootings are likely to occur….

Read more.


Atlas Shrugs


Iconic San Francisco store may leave city: ‘when you walk the streets you step over needles and human waste’

VIDEO from Belgium: Migrant teens force Belgian boy to kiss their feet, beat him savagely

Utah Woman Attends Party Without Her Muslim Boyfriend, So He Shoots Her

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Media, Politicians Chronically Mislead On Total Number Of ‘Mass Shootings,’ Data Analysis Shows thumbnail

Media, Politicians Chronically Mislead On Total Number Of ‘Mass Shootings,’ Data Analysis Shows

By Lyrah Panarigan and Anne Brown

More than 97% of “mass shootings” that have occurred in the U.S. in the first six months of 2023 do not fit the “active shooter” type scenario driving the majority of new legislative proposals, a Daily Caller analysis of the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) shows.

Stricter gun regulation favored by Democrats would only address 38 of the 1,768 people killed or injured in shootings with more than four victims, a comprehensive analysis of mass shootings from Jan. 1 to June 30, 2023 shows. The remaining 1,730 casualties are from suspects that do not conform to the dominant narrative of premeditated, often ideologically charged, shooters deliberately targeting innocent bystanders. The legislation proposed to address those 38 cases leave the situations leading to the remaining 1,730 untouched.

Two major profiles of “mass shooters” emerged as a result of the analysis:

  • Mass murderer targeting innocents: Preplanned targeting of public places with little security and a large opportunity for mass murder. Subsequent investigations often revealed these shooters had ideological motivations and a history of mental illness.
  • Seemingly random, violent criminal event: A criminal activity that escalated from an altercation, often in a public place like a bar or a club, often at night, and more often than not involving an illegal firearm, when such information was available. Gang-related affiliations or activities were also not uncommon.

“I think we’ve seen also an increase in gun violence gun deaths over the past three years, sort of homicide, and essentially mass shootings as GVA defines it, largely because there is less social control being exercised formally and informally, over the small subset of the population,” Charles Lehman, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told the Daily Caller. (RELATED: 9 Injured In Ohio Shooting, Prompting Congresswoman To Call For ‘Significant Legislative Action’)

Prosecutors in some cities in recent years have been increasingly hesitant to prosecute that small subset of the population that is responsible for the majority of gun violence due to criminal justice reform efforts. News stories covering mass shootings rarely, if ever, mention what kind of criminal is driving the mass shooting statistics.

Pew Research Center, CNN, The New York Times and the National Institute of Health are just a few of the major media outlets using GVA data in their reporting. In every article that the Daily Caller reviewed, reporters failed to contextualize the numbers.

The public is then left to assume that most of the 335 mass shooting cases in 2023 are caused by Nazi-adjacent, bigoted, terrorists who deliberately target random, innocent people. Four mass shooting cases out of the 335 best fit this scenario — East Lansing, MI, Nashville, TN, Allen, TX and Farmington, NM. The remaining 97% — or 1,730 of the 1,768 casualties — happen due to public disagreements that turned deadly outside of clubs and bars in mostly urban areas. Often they are correlated with gang and criminal activity with the use of illegally obtained firearms. 

“The term ‘mass shooting’ has been grossly manipulated by the media and politicians to distract from the real crisis: the Biden Crime Wave. This national crisis is caused by coddling criminals and not prosecuting and punishing them. The Daily Caller’s analysis of the GVA proves this to be true,” National Rifle Association (NRA) Spokesperson Billy McLaughlin said in a statement to the Daily Caller.

President Biden signed an executive order aimed at curbing gun violence by increasing background checks and banning assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. The order additionally seeks to promote awareness surrounding “red flag laws” and keep the gun industry accountable through public awareness and safety practices.

“Mass shootings” only account for 5.6% of the work done by the GVA, director Mark Bryan told the Daily Caller. “Most journalists are lazy and they’re going to just go to the top line number,” Bryan said. The GVA is a platform dedicated to reporting various gun-related activities around the U.S., including unintentional shootings, defensive use and home invasions. GVA provides the “full number and then lets you, the journalists, do as much work as you want to understand that number,” Bryan said.

Lehman told the Daily Caller that the “solution to that problem” of gun violence is “more aggressive policing and more aggressive incarceration, more aggressive prosecution, which we’ve seen less over the past three years.”

President Biden spoke at the National Safer Communities Summit in Connecticut to address rising gun violence in June. “We all want to drop them off at a house of worship, a mall, a movie, a school door without worrying that it’s the last time we’re going to see them,” President Biden stated.

The Daily Caller analysis shows that 1.7% of “mass shootings” that have occurred in the first six months of 2023 were in “a house of worship, a mall, a movie, a school.” There has been little to no motivation from leaders to address the remaining 98.3% of shootings. (RELATED: California’s Share Of Mass Shootings Remains High Despite Strict Gun Laws)

President Biden said that the Justice Department had provided more than $230 million for states to expand the Safer Communities Act and the laws that come along with it, including stricter background tests. Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services has also provided more than $1.5 billion to states to hire 14,000 mental health professionals for schools.

“There’s not one mass public shooting this century that would have been stopped if you had such a law in effect, and had been perfectly enforced. There’s not one attack,” Dr. John Lott, President of the Crime Research Prevention Center, told the Daily Caller. Lott also explained that these initiatives furthered the long-standing efforts of the Obama administration and resulted in higher Federal Firearm License (FFL) costs that make it difficult for “law-abiding good citizens.”

“President Biden and his allies target law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights, while ignoring law-breaking thugs obtaining illegal guns and spreading violence. The media is complicit in overusing the term ‘mass shootings’, which helps Biden and his team to sweep their disastrous policies under the rug,” McLaughlin continued.

The Daily Caller analysis found that of the 335 “mass shootings,” 77 reports provided information on the weapon. Fifty-five cases involved an illegally possessed gun, thus being untouched by stricter regulations. “Law enforcement never even sees half the guns used in murders each year,” Bryan told the Daily Caller. (RELATED: Texas GOP Rep. Says Americans Should Carry Guns To Stop Active Shooters, Following Mall Shooting)

The conflation of career criminals with attention-driven killers through the term ‘mass shootings’ has shifted focus from violent criminals, corrupt prosecutors and failed policies to the “good guys,” McLaughlin stated.


This article was published by The Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Fifth Circuit Says Lifetime Firearms Ban for Marijuana Users is Unconstitutional thumbnail

Fifth Circuit Says Lifetime Firearms Ban for Marijuana Users is Unconstitutional

By Michael Infanzon

Puff, puff, plink?

In a recent landmark decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals[1] ruled that imposing a lifetime gun ban on marijuana users is unconstitutional. The case of US v. Daniels[2] centered around Patrick Daniels, a Mississippi man who had been arrested and sentenced to prison for possessing firearms as an unlawful user of marijuana. The three-judge panel unanimously concluded that this conviction was inconsistent with the historical context and traditional understanding of gun regulation[3], ultimately violating the Second Amendment rights of citizens.

Judge Jerry E. Smith, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, authored the opinion[4] for the panel, asserting that while history and tradition may support limitations on an intoxicated person’s right to bear arms, disarming a sober individual solely based on their past marijuana use is not justified. The panel argued that disallowing a nonviolent drug user from possessing firearms was a violation of their Second Amendment rights. The court specifically noted that the challenged statute, § 922(g)(3)[5], was unconstitutional as applied to Daniels.

This ruling contributes to the ongoing national discourse surrounding the scope and limits of the Second Amendment. Courts across the country are grappling with defining who exactly the Second Amendment protects and the circumstances under which a person can be legitimately disarmed. This decision emphasizes that while there may be valid concerns about the intersection of gun ownership and drug use, a more nuanced approach is needed to balance individual rights with public safety.

It’s important to note that this decision does not challenge the broader federal prohibition on gun possession by drug users. Instead, it focuses on the specific scenario of nonviolent marijuana users being subjected to a lifetime gun ban.[6] The ruling provides an opportunity for reevaluation of how drug policy intersects with gun rights, particularly in the context of states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use.

As this case joins the ranks of recent legal developments reshaping the landscape of gun laws in the United States, it underscores the intricate relationship between individual liberties, constitutional rights, and evolving societal norms. This decision serves as a reminder that the interpretation of the Second Amendment continues to evolve, reflecting the changing dynamics of our society and the ongoing efforts to balance personal freedoms with public safety.


[2] USA v. Daniels, No. 22-60596 (5th Cir. 2023)

[3] N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2126 (2022)

[4] Ibid

[5] 18 U.S. Code § 922 – Unlawful acts

[6] That accords with the holding in Range v. Att’y General United States of America,

69 F.4th 96, 101–03 (3d Cir. 2023) (en banc), where the court held that a man convicted of

a false statement was part of “the people” and had Second Amendment rights, even though

he was not “law-abiding.” Range relied in part on then-Judge Barrett’s dissent in Kanter

  1. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 452 (7th Cir. 2019), in which she reasoned that “all people have the

right to keep and bear arms,” but “history and tradition support Congress’s power to strip

certain groups of that right.”


Michael Infanzon is a political and government policy contributor at The Prickly Pear.

 Michael writes about government policies that affect millions of Americans, from their introduction in the legislature to their implementation and how policies impact our everyday freedoms.

 Michael is the Managing Partner for EPIC Policy Group, located in Phoenix, AZ. EPIC has clients ranging from motorcycle rights organizations, firearms organizations, 2A rights organizations, veterans advocacy, chambers of commerce to agricultural products and personal freedoms among other policy issues.

 You can follow Michael on Twitter (@infanzon) and email him at


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Second Amendment Foundation Challenges New “Firearm” Definition in VanDerStok v. Garland thumbnail

Second Amendment Foundation Challenges New “Firearm” Definition in VanDerStok v. Garland

By Michael Infanzon

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has taken a bold stand against the Biden administration’s attempt to redefine firearm regulations in the case of VanDerStok v. Garland. The controversy centers around the government’s move to classify unfinished firearm frames and receivers as “firearms,” a decision that SAF believes goes beyond the established statutory boundaries. In response to this, SAF recently filed its opposition brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, opposing a stay on the case and seeking to challenge the administration’s new administrative definition of a firearm.

Background of VanDerStok v. Garland:

Last month, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay portions of the rule that SAF had previously challenged successfully. The case revolves around SAF’s assertion that the Biden administration’s expanded definition of a firearm violates the Administrative Procedures Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act.

SAF’s Legal Strategy:

SAF, led by its attorney, Chad Flores of Houston, Texas, is arguing that the administration’s attempt to redefine the term “firearm” constitutes an unlawful power grab, as it aims to bypass Congress and create a new definition without any Congressional action. The organization firmly believes that the district court was correct in holding the new “firearm” definition as illegal and in violation of established laws. In its opposition brief, SAF requests that the U.S. Supreme Court grant certiorari, allowing the court to review and rule on the legality of the administration’s new definition.

“We’re arguing that the Biden administration’s new administrative definition of a firearm illegally expands the term beyond its critical statutory boundaries. We consider this expanded definition to be nothing more than a power grab. Our opposition brief details our position to Associate Justice Samuel Alito succinctly” said Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF Founder, and Executive Vice President.

Adam Kraut, SAF Executive Director also stated, “The Biden administration’s new definition is in direct contradiction to the 1968 Gun Control Act, and they know it. The administration is attempting to literally redefine what constitutes a firearm. We contend that District Judge Reed O’Connor’s summary judgment, in this case, was spot-on, and we are hopeful Justice Alito will understand and concur with our position.”

Controversy Surrounding District Judge Nationwide Injunction:

It appears that this development has placed SAF in the position of supporting the concept of a district judge issuing a nationwide injunction. This is a controversial legal issue, considering that a significant proportion of district judges are considered Progressive, leading to concerns about concentrating too much power in their hands. However, it is anticipated that SAF, along with the Firearms Policy Coalition and Mountain States Legal Foundation, will eventually petition the Supreme Court to resolve this contentious matter.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s opposition to the Biden administration’s new definition of “firearm” is rooted in its commitment to preserving the integrity of the 1968 Gun Control Act and protecting the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. As the case of VanDerStok v. Garland progresses, it remains to be seen how the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly Associate Justice Samuel Alito, will approach and rule on this significant legal challenge. Ultimately, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for firearm regulations and the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress.

Keep an eye on this.


Michael Infanzon is a political and government policy contributor at The Prickly Pear.

 Michael writes about government policies that affect millions of Americans, from their introduction in the legislature to their implementation and how policies impact our everyday freedoms.

 Michael is the Managing Partner for EPIC Policy Group, located in Phoenix, AZ. EPIC has clients ranging from motorcycle rights organizations, firearms organizations, 2A rights organizations, veterans advocacy, chambers of commerce to agricultural products and personal freedoms among other policy issues.

 You can follow Michael on Twitter (@infanzon) and email him at


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

How Democrats and Their Media Allies Cooked Up a Phony Supreme Court ‘Legitimacy Crisis’ thumbnail

How Democrats and Their Media Allies Cooked Up a Phony Supreme Court ‘Legitimacy Crisis’

By Jarrett Stepman

The legacy media has signaled that it’s all in on the Left’s cooked-up Supreme Court “legitimacy crisis.”

This week, Senate Democrats plan to vote on Supreme Court ethics rules that are clearly meant to give them the ability to hector and harass the court to get the decisions they want. The vote coincides with an increasingly aggressive media campaign to create the appearance that the Supreme Court is mired in scandal.

There’s no question the Left has launched this scheme because it is infuriated by the Supreme Court’s recent decisions.

A Supreme Court leaker struck the first big blow in 2022, releasing the upcoming draft opinion that would ultimately overturn Roe v. Wade. The opinion did not mark an aggressive change—it merely overturned the badly reasoned Roe decision, which had effectively outlawed abortion restrictions across America. That leak inspired death threats against justices, alongside political threats from Democrats in Congress.

More defeats this year, on affirmative action and the student loan bailout, have sent the left-wing media machine into overdrive.

The loss on affirmative action was particularly stinging given how unpopular racial preferences in admissions are. Without elite institutional backing, the issue is a dead letter with the American people.

The Left had become so accustomed to every institution doing its bidding that its only strategy in the face of defeat revolves around putting a metaphorical stick of dynamite under the Supreme Court and setting it off.

Every scheme Democrats have drawn up to deal with this challenge like court packing — has come off as obviously partisan and downright reckless.

They need the media to step in and make this all seem serious and noble. As you would expect, their friends in the media have been happy to oblige.

Politico basically acknowledged that the legacy media en masse is all too eager to carry water for the Democrats’ crusade to pulverize a Supreme Court they no longer control. This was from Monday’s Politico Playbook—a widely read media newsletter:

Fourteen months ago, our colleagues Josh Gerstein and Alex Ward’s revelation of the Supreme Court’s draft Dobbs opinion didn’t just upend American politics and abortion policy — it also ushered in a new era for the media’s coverage of the court.

No longer do SCOTUS reporters principally cover only the cases before the high court. Now they’re focused more regularly and aggressively on ‘the justices’ business dealings, relationships, and ethical issues,’ as well as the broader politics around the high court, Vanity Fair’s Charlotte Klein reports in a new story that interviews Josh about the shift.

The “new era” that they are referring to is one in which those on the Left must endure Supreme Court decisions they don’t like. Therefore, they will now do anything to smear the court and delegitimize it until they get decisions they like again.

Politico noted that media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post are suddenly pouring resources into “asking explosive ethics questions” about Supreme Court justices.

After not caring to ask questions for generations our noble, objective media has suddenly become highly interested in ethics reform on the Supreme Court. What incredible and surely coincidental timing for the Democrat Party messaging effort.

They are here to convince Americans that the Supreme Court’s “crisis of legitimacy” is something other than the cooked-up Democrat campaign to bring the high court to heel.

Where was this legitimacy crisis when the Supreme Court sided in favor of Obamacare by reclassifying it as a tax? When that decision came down, the legacy media celebrated it as a wonderful affirmation of the Supreme Court’s institutional integrity.

That phase is over. The Bat Signal has gone up. The Left’s media pawns are in full delegitimizing mode now.

As columnist Dan McLaughlin wrote in National Review, some of the media’s “explosive” revelations about Supreme Court justices have been hilariously shallow non-stories. Apparently, some of Justice Clarence Thomas’ former clerks used Venmo—a commonly used money transfer app—to receive money for a Christmas party. A lawyer who worked on the latest affirmative action cases also happened to attend that party.

All the party attendees had clerked for Thomas at some point. The bill was $20. So, it was roughly equivalent to a fast-food lunch in a big city these days if you splurge on dessert. I guess we’re supposed to believe this sum swayed Thomas’ opinion on affirmative action, even though Thomas surely had no long public record of statements on the issue.

Get ready for a series of stories about how Thomas or Justice Samuel Alito, or any one of the other justices on the Supreme Court not controlled by the Left, once bought a hot dog at a baseball game that pro-life advocates also attended—a scandal of the highest proportions, implying that we need to restore Roe v. Wade or something.

As I’ve noted time and again, those on the Left will seek to destroy any institution they don’t control. They don’t care about constitutional limits, they don’t care about the structure of government, checks and balances, or anything like that. They only care about amassing power and enforcing their agenda.

If that means bulldozing the court, so be it. If that means empowering an activist court to overstep its bounds and act as a kind of super-legislative body as it did during the Warren Court era of the mid-20th century, again, so be it.

This latest campaign to intimidate and smash the court has been obvious and cynical to anyone paying attention.

In the end, this moment reveals a lot more about leftists than it does the integrity of the justices they seek to impugn.


This article was published by Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Bank of America Fined $250 Million for Illegal Practices: Are Conservative Lawmakers Holding Financial Institutions Accountable? thumbnail

Bank of America Fined $250 Million for Illegal Practices: Are Conservative Lawmakers Holding Financial Institutions Accountable?

By Michael Infranzon

The recent news of Bank of America being fined $250 million for engaging in illegal practices has once again raised concerns about the accountability of financial institutions.

Bank of America’s Illegal Practices:

Bank of America has been ordered to pay a substantial amount in penalties and customer compensation due to a range of illegal practices. These include double charging for insufficient funds, withholding reward bonuses, and surreptitiously opening new accounts without customers’ consent or knowledge. Unfortunately, these practices, while shocking, are not entirely surprising considering the systemic issues within the banking industry.

The Lobbyist Influence:

One reason for the lack of accountability is the influence of lobbyists representing the banking industry. During recent sessions, these lobbyists openly admitted to discriminating against legitimate and legal businesses in Arizona based on arbitrary factors. This admission suggests that discriminatory practices are not only tolerated but also defended by industry representatives. It is concerning that the state seems powerless to intervene in these matters.

Legislation Attempts:

Senator Frank Carroll (LD-28) has been actively working to address the issue by introducing legislation multiple times aimed at distancing the state of Arizona from discriminatory banking institutions. One such bill this session, SB1096, sought to prohibit public entities from entering into contracts with companies that discriminate against firearm entities and associations. Unfortunately, when the bill reached Governor Hobbs, she vetoed it, deeming it unnecessary and expressing concerns about potential financial repercussions for the state.

Broader Banking Industry Scandals:

Bank of America is not the only major bank implicated in scandals involving discriminatory practices. Wells Fargo and JPMorgan & Chase have faced significant fines for similar offenses. Wells Fargo faced allegations of targeting vulnerable communities and charging fees on dormant accounts without customers’ knowledge, while JPMorgan & Chase settled a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in mortgage interest rates.

Discriminatory Practices Beyond Wall Street:

While the large national banks grab headlines, it is important to acknowledge that discriminatory practices exist across the entire financial services sector, including small and community banks. These practices often go unnoticed due to public perception, limited geographical reach, and smaller market share. However, the relationship banking model, often associated with smaller banks, can enable discriminatory practices through discretionary decision-making, challenging the wholesome image of “Main Street” banks.

The Call for Accountability:

In light of these recurring scandals and discriminatory practices, it is crucial for conservative lawmakers and regulators to hold financial institutions accountable. Rather than perpetuating the status quo, lawmakers should take a stand and say, “We will no longer do business with institutions that engage in discriminatory practices.” It is essential to establish clear regulations and ensure strict enforcement to protect consumers and businesses from these harmful practices.

Only through comprehensive banking reform and enforcement can we hope to create a fair and transparent financial system that serves the interests of all stakeholders.


Michael Infanzon is a political and government policy contributor at The Prickly Pear.

 Michael writes about government policies that affect millions of Americans, from their introduction in the legislature to their implementation and how policies impact our everyday freedoms.

 Michael is the Managing Partner for EPIC Policy Group, located in Phoenix, AZ. EPIC has clients ranging from motorcycle rights organizations, firearms organizations, 2A rights organizations, veterans advocacy, chambers of commerce to agricultural products and personal freedoms among other policy issues.

 You can follow Michael on Twitter (@infanzon) and email him at


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.