Ukraine Grants Citizens the Right to Bear Arms—Hours Before Putin’s Invasion thumbnail

Ukraine Grants Citizens the Right to Bear Arms—Hours Before Putin’s Invasion

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The right to bear arms has always been about liberty, and many are beginning to see in the wake of the conflict in Ukraine.


Russian soldiers flooded into Ukraine Thursday under orders from President Vladimir Putin, threatening to obliterate a peace that has existed on the European continent for more than 75 years.

News reports say cities were bombarded by land, air, and sea, and Ukrainian forces were struggling to hold ground surrounding Kiev, Ukraine’s capital, against tens of thousands of Russian soldiers.

Prior to the attack, Ukrainian officials took steps to help Ukrainian civilians protect themselves.

“Ukraine’s parliament on Wednesday voted to approve in the first reading a draft law which gives permission to Ukrainians to carry firearms and act in self-defense,” Reuters reported.

The 30-day emergency order, National Review reports, would “grant citizens the right to bear arms.” It would also allow the government to conscript Ukrainians between the ages of 18 and 60, “adding nearly 200,000 troops to the country’s defense.”

Permitting Ukrainians to arm themselves is a sensible measure. But as Charles Cooke points out at NRO, “it’s also a bit late.”

While Ukraine has relatively loose gun control laws by European standards, estimates suggest only about 1.3 million firearms exist in the country, which has a population of some 43 million. This diminishes the chances of Ukrainian civilians being able to offer serious resistance, an idea that is hardly far-fetched, Stephen Gutowski points out at The Reload:

“…the history of warfare is rife with examples of smaller, weaker, and less organized forces besting even the greatest militaries in the world. From the American Revolution to Vietnam, Iraq, and multiple wars in Afghanistan, it isn’t difficult to find templates for how a Ukrainian resistance could eventually prevail if Russia attempts to capture and hold it.”

Speaking on CNN, Nina Lvovna Khrushcheva, a professor of international affairs at the New School in New York, also said small arms could be decisive.

“If every Ukrainian takes a gun, Russians don’t have a prayer,” she told John Berman. “I mean the military can fight, but… Ukrainians are really ready today.”

Ukrainian leaders apparently agree. The government on Thursday took the unusual step of issuing thousands of automatic weapons to civilians, following the issuance of its emergency order.

Unfortunately, the likelihood of serious resistance is low because the Ukrainian government embraced the right to bear arms so late.

“Next time,” Cooke points out, “bear arms earlier.”

CNN just accidentally learned the importance of the Second Amendment. https://t.co/OC3bzHptjp

— Young Americans for Liberty (@YALiberty) February 24, 2022

Cooke’s words could be construed as flippant, but his point is a deadly serious one.

The Founding Fathers enshrined the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and they made it clear that they were not “granting” citizens the right, but codifying what was a natural right.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, explained in 1789. “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. pic.twitter.com/t5vBVbE2rA

— Lou Perez (@TheLouPerez) February 23, 2022

As some astute observers pointed out on social media, the Second Amendment was never “about hunting” or even self-defense (in a civil sense). It was always about liberty.

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty,” the legal scholar Tucker St. George wrote in 1803. “The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

These sentiments were echoed decades later by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers,” Story wrote, “and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

It’s wonderful that Ukrainian officials finally sought to extend the full, natural right to bear arms to their people. The only tragedy is that it took so long.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

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

VIDEO: Kyle Rittenhouse Plans to Sue Whoopi and Other Celebrities For Defaming and Blood-Libeling Him thumbnail

VIDEO: Kyle Rittenhouse Plans to Sue Whoopi and Other Celebrities For Defaming and Blood-Libeling Him

By The Geller Report

So living for this …… Rittenhouse told Tucker Carlson “We’re looking at quite a few, politicians, athletes, celebrities, Whoopi Goldberg is on the list, she called me a murderer after I was acquitted.”

  • Kyle Rittenhouse has said he intends to take legal action against media outlets and ‘celebrities, politicians and athletes’ that have called him a ‘murderer’
  • Rittenhouse told Fox News he feels several organizations and people were misguided in their coverage of the Kenosha incident He said he was going to set up The Media Accountability Project as a tool to help fundraise and hold the media accountable for the’ lies that were told about him’
  • Claims he has plans to sue talk show host Whoopi Goldberg and Young Turks founder Cenk Uygur both of whom continue to call him ‘a murderer’ NBA superstar LeBron James also accused Rittenhouse of pretending to cry after the teen broke down on the stand during his double murder trial
  • President Biden tweeted how Rittenhouse was a ‘white supremacist’
  • Rittenhouse shot the men during during a street protest in Kenosha in 2020
  • He killed Anthony Huber, Joseph Rosenbaum and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz
  • A jury last year acquitted him of multiple charges, including homicide

By James Gordon For Dailymail.com, 21 February 2022 |

Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse plans to take aim at the people and organizations who called him a ‘murderer’, a ‘white supremacist’ among other things in the run up to his trial and subsequent acquittal.

Rittenhouse killed two men and wounded a third during confrontations amid anti-police protests in Kenosha in August 2020. He testified that he acted in self-defense.

Last November, the 18-year-old was found not guilty of first-degree intentional homicide and other charges, and walked out of court a free man.

Speaking on Tucker Carlson on Fox News on Monday night, Rittenhouse said he wanted to hold major media and entertainment figures ‘accountable’ noting that he had talk show host Whoopi Goldberg in his sights.

Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse has said he intends to take legal action against media outlets and ‘celebrities, politicians and athletes’ that have called him a ‘murderer’

Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse has said he intends to take legal action against media outlets and ‘celebrities, politicians and athletes’ that have called him a ‘murderer’

Rittenhouse told Tucker Carlson on Fox News on Monday night that he feels several organizations and people were misguided in their coverage of him and the Kenosha incident

Rittenhouse told Tucker Carlson on Fox News on Monday night that he feels several organizations and people were misguided in their coverage of him and the Kenosha incident

‘We are looking at quite a few politicians, celebrities, athletes, Whoopi Goldberg is on the list. She called me a murderer after I was acquitted by a jury of my peers. She went on to still say that, and there’s others,’ Rittenhouse told Carlson.

Rittenhouse said he was going to set up The Media Accountability Project as a tool to help fundraise and hold the media accountable for the’ lies that were told about him’

Rittenhouse said he was going to set up The Media Accountability Project as a tool to help fundraise and hold the media accountable for the’ lies that were told about him’

He also revealed that Cenk Uygur the founder of the Young Turks show is on his scope adding that he ‘continues to call me a ‘murderer.”

The Young Turks show is a liberal and left-wing news commentary show on YouTube that additionally appears on selected television channels.

‘What about the people who called you a white supremacist? It makes it pretty hard to get a job for the rest of your life if you are a white supremacist. Will you be responding to them?’ Carlson asked.

‘Absolutely. We’re going to hold everybody who lied about me accountable, such as everybody who lied called me a White supremacist,’ Rittenhouse said in response. ‘They’re all going to be held accountable. And we’re going to handle them in a courtroom.’

Rittenhouse refused to be drawn on who else may come under fire from him but there may end up being quite a list including the President of the United States, Joe Biden.

Two months before Biden was elected president, he criticized then-President Trump for refusing to condemn people who are against the Black Lives Matter riots as ‘white supremacists.’

The tweet from the then-candidate included an image from a video clip of Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time of the shooting.

‘There’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night,’ Biden tweeted in September 2020.

After a jury determined that Rittenhouse did not act with ‘utter disregard for human life’ when he shot the two protesters, Biden delicately weighed in on the verdict – but walk back on his pre-election Tweet.

‘While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken.

‘I urge everyone to express their views peacefully, consistent with the rule of law. Violence and destruction of property have no place in our democracy.’

At the time, Rittenhouse’s lawyer, Mark Richards, said he was dismayed by Biden’s depiction of him as a white supremacist.

‘I’ve never had a case, I don’t think I ever will, where within two days or three days of one another, you know, the President and the presidential candidate comment on it. And both of them had such different beliefs,’ Richards said.

‘President Biden said some things, I think are so incorrect and untrue — he is not a white supremacist. I’m glad that he at least respects the jury verdict.”

NBA superstar LeBron James also accused Rittenhouse of pretending to cry after the teen broke down on the stand during his double murder trial.

In response to the video of him sobbing as he claimed self-defense for killing Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber in 2020, James tweeted, ‘What tears?????’

‘I didn’t see one. Man knock it off! That boy ate some lemon heads before walking into court.’

In December, Rittenhouse fired back at LeBron saying: ‘I was really p****d off when he said that because I liked LeBron, and then I’m like, you know what, f*** you, LeBron.’

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

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

VIDEO: Gunmaker’s New ‘AR-15 for Kids’ Has Left Shooting Intellectual Blanks thumbnail

VIDEO: Gunmaker’s New ‘AR-15 for Kids’ Has Left Shooting Intellectual Blanks

By Selwyn Duke

A good response to the self-righteous exclamation “You let your son play with toy guns!?” might once have been, “Well, yeah, he’s too young to have a real one!” But perhaps not anymore, not with a new addition to the firearms market: a smaller, lighter AR-15 designed just for kids.

Dubbed the JR-15, the AFP relates that it’s “marketed by maker WEE1 Tactical as ‘the first in a line of shooting platforms that will safely help adults introduce children to the shooting sports.’” Clearly aghast, the news organ further reports that the “company’s website says the rifle ‘also looks, feels, and operates just like Mom and Dad’s gun.’”

Unsurprisingly, the AFP reminds people in its commentary masquerading as hard news that the AR-15 “has been used in multiple mass killings in the United States…” while quoting only anti-Second Amendment activists in its piece. Yet is mixing kids and guns really anything to fear? Let’s examine the matter.

Many people today won’t let their sons play with toy guns, perhaps afraid that it could increase the chances their boys could become murderers. But, question: Do these people also stop their kids from playing with trucks for fear they’ll turn into truck drivers? (And with the Canadian protests, this may especially trouble leftists now!)

It’s quite silly supposing that instruction in or experience with a thing increases the probability that thing will be used for evil. Does teaching a youngster to drive increase the chances he’ll mow down a crowd with a car? If a kid becomes skilled at baseball, is it more likely he’ll bludgeon someone unconscious with a bat? Does schooling a lad in carpentry raise the odds he’ll kill with a hammer?

Apropos of this, more people are murdered yearly with blunt instruments than with AR-15s or, for that matter, with rifles of any kind. Do we need blunt-instrument control?

Making this even odder is that there was a time when, unlike today, gun-control efforts had at least some relationship to reality. While I didn’t support the proposals, the emphasis back in the ’90s was on criminalizing handguns. The thinking was that most firearm murders are committed with handguns largely because, being concealable, they’re criminals’ weapons of choice.

In recent times, however, there’s been a fixation on prohibiting law-abiding sport shooters’ weapon of choice (the AR-15 is our nation’s most popular rifle). Given this jump-the-shark version of gun-grabbing, is it surprising that many Second Amendment advocates believe current proposals have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control?

Moreover, while AR-15s have been used in some horrific massacres, they’re not actually the most effective firearms for a typical mass-shooting situation; that is, with “soft” targets (people without body armor) at close range. For this purpose, a semi-automatic shotgun would be far, far more devastating. After all, the AR’s standard round is small caliber — approximately the same as a .22 — and is moderate in muzzle velocity. (Yes, really. The weapon is the Wizard of Oz of firearms, with a reputation greatly exceeding its power.)

So why do some mass shooters choose AR’s, anyway? Part of the reason is that it’s more likely than other long guns to be on hand because, again, it’s our most popular rifle. Second, it’s appealing because it looks cool. Put differently, mass shooters may choose ARs because….

They usually know little about firearms.

Returning to the fevered fears over kids and guns, I remember reading the comments years ago of a judge who noted (I’m paraphrasing), “I’ve never seen a boy with a hunting or fishing license come before me [in court].” This is just common sense. Do you really think the lad with an engaged father — who teaches him proper gun-handling and takes him hunting or target-shooting — fits the criminal profile? The average mass shooter or career criminal is more likely to have had no dad around at all or one who was a miscreant himself.

In truth, the fear that exposure to firearms will somehow increase the chances a child will kill often reflects the godless perspective that conceives of man as just another animal. Put appealing food before a dog and he’ll gobble it down without thinking, governed by instinct; he’ll practically eat himself to death if you let him. Though also subject to temptation, only a human being will think: Should I eat this? Is it healthful? Will it make me fat?

Consider also that every child must learn to manage weapons — they’re called hands, fists and feet. Note, too, the FBI informs that more murders are committed yearly with these appendages, which the bureau classifies as “personnel weapons,” than with rifles of any kind.

The point is that man is a rational being, reflecting God in that he possesses intellect and free will. Yet those making the youth+gun exposure=trouble assumption appear to ignore the moral component. What’s more, they also don’t even rightly consider correlations. To wit: The phenomenon of increasingly frequent mass shootings manifested itself in the ’90s, but AR-15s weren’t born in the ’90s but in the late ’50s.

What does correlate with the ’90s mass shooting phenomenon, however, is the greatly increased medicating of children (especially boys) with psychotropic drugs, the intensification of mindless entertainment violence, the Internet’s rise, continued family breakdown, and burgeoning godlessness with its associated moral relativism. Any discussion about reducing crime that doesn’t include these factors simply isn’t serious.

In the same vein, in earlier times we had relatively few gun laws, and teaching boys to shoot at young ages was common. Why, in the ’40s and ’50s, lads would carry firearms openly on New York City subways (try that today) because they had rifle clubs at school. What changed in the ’60s and beyond? Access to guns?

As for the JR-15, it’s not only a brilliant marketing idea but makes sense. ARs are extremely light and have virtually no recoil, making them ideal for physically weaker people such as women and children. And since it’s smaller and uses .22 ammunition, the JR-15 is even lighter with less kick still. So it only makes sense that if you’re going to teach your kid to use a gun — in keeping with longstanding American tradition — such a weapon would be a logical choice.

None of this will matter to leftists, though, as they occupy an inverted moral universe. They believe children mustn’t be taught to shoot before 10 but must be taught about sex before 8, that it can be toxic to push a boy toward masculine pursuits but healthful to tell him he can become a girl. Operating with intellectual blanks and moral misfires, leftists are twisted souls — and their ideology has killed far more people than any gun ever could.

For those interested, below is a video from the SHOT Show 2022 (a gun trade event) in which the JR-15 is displayed and its features discussed.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe, Spreely or Parler, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

How Biden Could Save His Presidency, But Won’t thumbnail

How Biden Could Save His Presidency, But Won’t

By Bruce Bialosky

When columnists choose to advise elected officials and others from the opposing party how they might improve their political status, I have no objection. Typically, this is done by someone who is an “enlightened” columnist for a Left-wing publication disguising themselves as an independent voice providing observation from 10,000 feet looking down on the plebeians.  This column is about as close as I have ever gotten to writing a column of this type.  It is not to suggest a course of action for President Biden, but in my opinion what he needs to do. No expectations here.

President Biden marched into New York City, a hotbed America’s current crime explosion. The city elected a new mayor with a cop background to clean up the mess created by his predecessor, the worst mayor in America. Unfortunately, they simultaneously elected a new DA in their largest and most famous borough, Manhattan, who is against prosecuting criminals for nearly all crimes. That includes criminals resisting arrest by the cops for whom he is supposed to be working. After the murder of two cops – neither of whom were white oppressors against whom the DA is fighting — DA Bragg reversed course a smidgeon. It is not ok to kill cops, just the rest of the residents.

President Biden laid out his plan to attack the core of the crime problem – guns. He particularly came down against ghost guns, but he apparently has endorsed ghost criminals because the guns shoot themselves. Across the country, San Francisco’s police chief stated the cops will no longer work with the DA regarding prosecutions of cops. This is based on the prejudice by the DA’s underlings by withholding evidence in cases that would aid the cop being prosecuted.

President Biden misses what is going on in America. The cops want to do their jobs – the jobs that their residents want and are overwhelmingly demanding them to do. Simultaneously, enlightened members of Biden’s party masquerading as DAs are either stopping the cops from doing their jobs or they are failing to prosecute the criminals that are arrested, letting them out on no bail even for violent crimes.

Jen Psaki, Biden’s paid mouthpiece, is routinely confronted with questions. Instead of the made-up issues she likes to discuss in the White House Press room, occasionally reporters ask questions about real concerns. Night after night, she states Biden has never been in favor of defunding the police. She virtually never says what he is for, evidenced by his recent visit to New York. Stopping gun crimes.

His “solution” comes out of the standard Democrat playbook: Make it more difficult for millions of Americans who legally own guns and legally maintain guns to get those guns, keep those guns and get ammunition for those guns even for the purpose of properly practicing how to properly shoot those guns. At the same time, do not discuss the folks illegally obtaining guns and using those guns to commit crimes.

Democrats accuse Republicans of ignoring the means by which these criminals obtain the guns they use. Yet, Democrats have no explanation except for the fact that many are stolen from people’s homes during robberies. You know – the robberies the Democrat DAs refuse to prosecute.

Biden has yet to pick up the phone and call one of these marauding DAs and tell them that their policies are not working or to stop what they are doing because it is harming the party of which Biden claims he is the leader. During the campaign in 2020, after he self-designated his position as leader of the Democrats, I suggested he pick up the phone and call the mayors of Portland and/or Seattle. He should have told them to stop the behavior in their cities; it was embarrassing their party. Biden never did. He skated through the election due to an international pandemic he said he would solve for Americans.

President Biden is currently nosediving in the polls for a multitude of reasons. The most significant of which is crime exploding across the American landscape. This is largely due to left-wing Democrats who have produced the ridiculous idea that not prosecuting criminals and letting them out of jail works as public policy and is beneficial for their constituents.

Here is my suggestion.  Mr. Biden picks up the phone and calls one of these woke DAs and tells them unless these failed policies are stopped, the President will publicly call them out and come out against them. He can start in Los Angeles with George Gascon.  Gascon is facing a recall where the signatures are being collected. He is certain to face a very tough recall election to save his job.

Mr. Biden needs only to say Gascon must enforce the laws that he was elected to uphold. None of these lawless DAs (who are self-proclaimed defenders of righteousness) are doing their jobs. Biden must state as much.  He can come to Los Angeles and take a picture of the Union Pacific rail lines littered with the trash from criminals stealing merchandise on the train. At the very least, members of his party would be offended by the scene as they would be afraid the trash would hurt the local seagulls.

Mr. Biden can inform Gascon that he will personally campaign for his replacement unless his policies that have harmed both of their constituents are reversed. Any replacement will likely also be a Democrat, but one can hope for a sane one. Do you think that would be a big national story? And for months? If Mr. Biden did this with just one DA, the others might just get the hint.

Ok, the chances of Biden doing this are slim to none. Not only are his policies failing, but he and his crew have made so many politically tone-deaf decisions that it seems unlikely they would now change their stripes. This would go a long way to mitigate the Armageddon they are facing in November.

Political analysts always lead by stating that crime is a local issue. Not anymore. This issue is nationwide, and it is being exacerbated by policies of one party. President Biden is the head of that party. As Eldridge Cleaver said, “If you are not part of the solution, you must be part of the problem.”

California Senate Bill 906:  Making Schools a Logic Free Zone thumbnail

California Senate Bill 906: Making Schools a Logic Free Zone

By Neland Nobel

Liberals and Progressives continue in their belief that the presence of guns causes crime rather than the presence of criminals causes crime. It appears no amount of evidence or logic can dissuade them. It is a purely emotional position devoid of logic and experience.

This is the assumption behind almost all “gun control” legislation. Guns cause crime and thus fewer guns cause less crime. Guns you see, can leap about by themselves, leave premises, invade school zones, and discharge themselves in an erratic and deadly fashion at almost any time. These pieces of metal are very badly behaved and are a threat to all of us.

Gun control laws almost always translate to fewer guns in the hands of the law-abiding, and more guns in the hands of criminals. Criminals about to murder, hijack a car, or invade a home, could care less about breaking some peripheral firearms laws. There are too busy breaking all kinds of other laws to be convinced only the gun law is the one they will obey.

Therefore, the law-abiding, are left helpless in the face of criminals and must depend on public authorities, that may, or may not, respond in a timely manner.

The statistical evidence concerning guns and crimes is just the reverse of what liberals allege: more guns cause less crime, but that doesn’t stop these people from attacking your rights both to privacy and the right to own firearms.

And like so much in our current debate, Leftists want to direct the school system to undertake the social reforms they so desperately want to force upon the rest of us.

A rather frightening manifestation of this delusion is found in a new bill introduced in the California Senate.  A pertinent section of Senate Bill 906 is shown below:

“This bill would require, on or before January 1, 2023, the State Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of Justice, to develop model content for use by local educational agencies related to a threat or perceived threat of an incident of mass casualties at a school. Using the model content, the bill would require local educational agencies to require the parents or guardians of a pupil to disclose whether any firearms are located at the home of the pupil and to answer questions about the ownership, storage, and accessibility by the pupil of the firearms. The bill would require local educational agencies to include information related to the safe storage of firearms in the annual notification provided to the parents or guardians of a pupil. If a school official is alerted to or observes any threat or perceived threat of an incident of mass casualties at a school, the bill would require a report of the threat or perceived threat to be immediately made to law enforcement and the Department of Justice. The bill would require a school or local educational agency, in consultation with law enforcement, to conduct immediately an investigation and threat assessment, as specified. The bill would require the investigation and threat assessment to include a review of the parent or guardian’s firearm disclosure information and a search of the pupil and pupil’s property located at the schoolsite if there is reasonable suspicion that a search will result in discovery of a firearm or other evidence that the pupil has or is violating the law or the school’s safety rules or policies. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.”

So, it would appear the school must be notified that you own firearms and how you chose to store them must meet some undisclosed standard and impose some undisclosed liability. In addition, investigations of you and your children can proceed if a school official “observes” a “perceived threat”. Then, they can come search your property, and that of your child, based on their assessment.

Privacy, property rights?

We all know about the latitude permissible in the “perceived threats” teachers have observed.  The classic case, of course, was the child reprimanded for chewing his pastry shaped in an L that “looked” like a gun, at least to the unstable and hysterical liberal teacher.

This bill is written so broadly, that it could mean just about anything.  What it clearly seems to do is create firearms registration with the school being the collection point and make the schools the arbiter of whatever storage arrangements you might have for said firearms.

In addition, school officials (namely the teacher’s unions) can launch “investigations” based on “perceived threats”, at any time for any reason they wish, including if your child eats their Pop-Tart into a shape they might find alarming.

School shootings are a real problem and we do not mean to make light of the problem.

But this is a completely wrong approach.  Schools are already gun-free zones, and those rules are always violated by school shooters. Murder likewise, is both a moral and legal violation, and school shooters ignore those laws.                                                                                                                     And with an obvious lack of self-awareness, have not these same people advocated police be defunded and removed from schools?

Lost on these imbecilic legislators is that school shootings have more to do with moral decline, cultural and family decay, mental health issues, and the lack of fathers in the home, rather than guns.

It would be far better to arm and train select teachers and keep police on campus than to give such arbitrary power over to school district bureaucrats and the Department of Justice.

California is often the Petrie dish for breeding crazy social experiments. Unfortunately, what goes on in California, does not stay in California.  Besides, Californians are entitled to their Constitutional rights as are the rest of us.

The message is clear: Don’t let your local school become a logic-free zone.

Survey: 5.4 Million Americans Legally Purchased a Firearm for the First Time in 2021 thumbnail

Survey: 5.4 Million Americans Legally Purchased a Firearm for the First Time in 2021

By Bethany Blankley

At least 5.4 million Americans legally purchased a firearm for the first time last year, according to the findings of an annual National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) survey. The trade association conducted the survey among firearm and ammunition retailers about their business sales in 2021 based on background checks and other information.

Among those surveyed, 29.6% said their customers were first-time gun buyers, down from 40% in 2020’s annual survey. In 2020, more than 21 million background checks were conducted for firearm sales, with over 8.4 million of them estimated to be for first-time firearm buyers.

First time sales among women in 2021 also was down compared to 2020, when 40% of first-time firearm purchases were women, compared to 33% last year.

“We welcome these new gun owners to the greater community of law-abiding Americans who choose to own a firearm for lawful purposes, including self-defense, recreational target shooting, and hunting,” Joe Bartozzi, NSSF president and CEO, said in a statement accompanying the survey findings.

“The surveys revealed that new gun owners are continuing to embrace their Second Amendment rights and nearly half of them are seeking out professional training,” he added. “These trends show that not only is there still a strong interest in gun ownership but also that these new gun owners are interested in learning more about the safe and responsible handling, use and storage of firearms.”

A little over one-fifth, 22.8%, of first-time buyers last year came back for a second purchase, survey respondents found. Nearly 47% inquired about training and 43% signed up for training.

About 44% of retailers surveyed saw an increase in Black Americans purchasing firearms for the first time; nearly 40% saw an increase of first-time Hispanic purchasers; more than 27% saw an increase of first-time Asian purchasers.

In its 2020 survey, 58% of retailers surveyed saw an increase in first-time Black Americans purchasing firearms in 2020 compared to 2019; 49% saw an increase in first-time Hispanic purchasers; 43% saw an increase among first-time Asian purchasers.

Over 18% of retailers saw an increase of Native-Americans purchasing firearms in 2021; nearly 14% saw an increase of Native-Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders first-time purchasers.

The survey is released annually by the NSFF, a national organization dedicated to promoting the safe, responsible use of firearms. As a leading authority on gun safety, the organization provides a range of information, including safety kits, videos, literature and suicide prevention resources. It also created Project ChildSafe in 1999 to promote secure and responsible storage of firearms when they’re not in use to help prevent accidents, theft and suicides.

The findings were announced after NSFF presented its first “Woman of the Gun Award” this month. The recognition went to champion shooter and safety advocate Julie Golob for her shooting accomplishments and commitment to Project ChildSafe.

Golob began working with the project in 2013, lending her name and expertise to a host of firearm safety education efforts, ranging from social media campaigns to public appearances and videos, including a feature video on “how to talk to kids about gun safety.”

“I’m a huge advocate of passing on the tradition of safe and fun enjoyment of the shooting sports – they’re an indelible part of our heritage as a nation,” Golob said. “My whole family shares that heritage and all of us can take pride in the results of our collective work to promote gun safety and responsibility.”

In the past 30 years, she’s won more than 150 major championship titles, including more than 50 world and national titles. She’s also the first woman in history to win U.S. Practical Shooting Association Championships in all seven handgun divisions.

*****

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

8 Problems With San Jose’s Gun Insurance Mandate and Gun Ownership Tax thumbnail

8 Problems With San Jose’s Gun Insurance Mandate and Gun Ownership Tax

By Amy Swearer

Lawful gun ownership in San Jose, California, is about to become more expensive and onerous after the City Council passed a measure imposing two unprecedented burdens on the possession of firearms inside city limits.

Beginning later this year, San Jose’s lawful gun owners will be required to maintain “a homeowner’s, renter’s, or gun liability insurance policy … specifically covering losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use” of their firearms.

Gun owners also must pay an annual “Gun Harm Reduction Fee”—an as-yet-undetermined amount that officials suggest will be roughly $25 a year.

City officials claim these are necessary steps that will save lives by incentivizing responsible gun ownership practices while making gun owners foot the bill for the financial costs of gun violence.

In reality, the new law imposes unnecessary burdens on lawful gun owners and are unlikely to save taxpayers a single dollar, much less save a single life.

Here are eight major problems with San Jose’s latest gun control push:

1. Enforcement Nearly Impossible

The new ordinance doesn’t require gun owners to certify that they’ve obtained coverage or paid the annual fee.

Unless the city plans on conducting door-to-door compliance checks, it will face a nearly impossible task of ensuring widespread compliance with what is essentially an honor system.

2. Insurance Policies Don’t Exist

Currently, the only independent liability insurance for gun owners is self-defense insurance, which covers the costs for any criminal or civil proceedings resulting from a gun owner’s intentional defensive use of a firearm.

These plans don’t cover civil liability for cases of negligence or accidental shootings, as required by the San Jose ordinance.

This means gun owners will have to rely exclusively on personal liability provisions in their homeowner’s or renter’s insurance plans, or pay hundreds of dollars for a personal liability umbrella plan. Even then, such plans rarely include specific provisions covering liability for gun-related injuries.

3. Insignificant Coverage

Even in a best-case scenario where gun liability insurance is widely available and the requirement is widely enforced, these insurance plans will cover only a minuscule fraction of gun deaths and injuries occurring inside San Jose.

Most acts of gun violence involve criminal or intentionally wrongful acts, which California law prohibits insurance companies from covering. Importantly, this would exclude coverage not just for homicide and assault, but also for gun suicides, which comprise 60% of all gun deaths.

Additionally, while the new law purports to make gun owners responsible for any harm inflicted by lost or stolen firearms unless the guns were first reported as lost or stolen, homeowner’s and renter’s insurance policies cover acts committed only by the insured person while on the insured property.

So regardless of who San Jose deems responsible, if the gun owner has a typical homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy, that policy simply wouldn’t cover, for example, harm inflicted by a thief who stole the gun or by the gun owner during an off-property hunting accident.

Nor do these policies cover harm inflicted on an insured party, as when a gun owner accidentally shoots himself or a household member while cleaning his gun.

This leaves coverage limited to the narrow circumstances in which an insured gun owner, while on his or her own property, accidentally or negligently harms a third party with a firearm.

This type of gun violence is relatively rare.

According to a report that the city itself relied on to support the mandate, San Jose averages only two “unintentional/undetermined” gun deaths a year, amounting to only 3.4% of all annual gun deaths.

At the same time, the city with a population over 1 million averages 25 annual nonfatal hospital inpatient admissions and 59 annual emergency room visits without hospitalization due to “unintentional/undetermined” gun injuries.

Even if most of these deaths and injuries are truly “unintentional,” as opposed to merely “undetermined,” it’s impossible to know how many were committed with lawfully possessed guns in circumstances that would be covered with traditional homeowners’ or renter’s liability policies.

And, of course, no insurance policy would cover situations involving unlawfully possessed guns.

The law’s burdens on San Jose gun owners aren’t justified by the rare times when insurance might cover an incident of gun violence.

4. Payouts Don’t Reduce Taxpayer Burden

San Jose officials repeatedly defended their gun insurance mandate by lamenting the financial cost of gun violence on the city’s emergency response services and insisting that gun owners should pick up the tab for gun violence.

And yet, mandating gun liability insurance does nothing to alleviate the cost to taxpayers. In the rare instances where insurance policies might cover gun injuries, the payouts wouldn’t go to the city or to its emergency responders.

Instead, the payments would be directed toward the victim’s medical bills (a cost only sometimes and indirectly borne by taxpayers if the victim is uninsured or on state-subsidized insurance) and any potential civil damages for lost wages or pain and suffering (a cost never borne by taxpayers).

5. Mandate Won’t Save Lives

Just as the insurance mandate is unlikely to save taxpayer money, it’s equally unlikely to save lives by deterring future acts of gun violence.

California has the most stringent gun laws in the nation. If gun owners aren’t deterred from negligent, reckless, or unsafe conduct by the state’s existing criminal sanctions or impositions of civil liability, why would they be deterred by the risk of increased insurance premiums?

Perhaps worse, gun liability insurance for negligence may create perverse disincentives for gun owners, who no longer risk financial ruin for careless conduct that harms others.

6. Unconstitutional Tax

San Jose refers to the new fee imposed on gun owners as a “Gun Harm Reduction Fee,” but it’s nothing less than an unconstitutional tax on the exercise of an enumerated right.

The Supreme Court has struck down similar laws, reasoning that “a state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution.”

This is precisely what San Jose’s fee does—require gun owners to pay an annual sum of money to exercise their Second Amendment rights inside the city.

7. Misplaced Blame

Lawful gun owners aren’t the driving force behind gun violence, and yet San Jose has singled them out to pay for gun violence.

Law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be saddled with the blame (or the bill) for criminal actions they didn’t commit, encourage, or facilitate.

8. Legitimate Solutions Ignored

If San Jose officials are serious about reducing gun violence and lowering associated financial costs, there are plenty of better solutions.

The city could focus its energy on enforcing existing gun laws—perhaps, for example, by disarming its share of the 23,000 Californians who state authorities know possess guns despite being prohibited persons.

It could make these unlawful gun owners and others who commit gun crimes pay by imposing fees and restitution to the state as part of criminal sentencing.

The city also could increase the size of its police force to deal with chronic understaffing and workload problems that inhibit officers’ ability to enforce the law.

Instead of opting for these rational and straightforward steps, however, the city apparently has defaulted to what’s become an all-too-common tactic in gun control politics—passing unserious laws that burden lawful gun ownership without addressing any of the real problems.

*****

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

2ndVote Gun Cam AR-15 Celebrates Three Years of Not Killing Anyone thumbnail

2ndVote Gun Cam AR-15 Celebrates Three Years of Not Killing Anyone

By 2ndvote .com

We’ve heard them all; the plethora of arguments against firearms and the second amendment are false and uninformed.

“Guns are the issue.”

“Guns are dangerous.”

“Guns kill people!”

“Guns should only be used by individuals over the age of 21.”

“We need gun-free safe spaces.”

“We need common sense gun laws.”

“Places with strict gun laws don’t have shooting problems.”

“Less guns, less gun violence.”

“Certain guns should be banned completely.”

Have you ever heard any of these arguments and just wanted to roll your eyes? Even the President of the United States has added to the long list of lies about firearms and the second amendment, after also saying that American patriots’ AR-15’s were not enough to stop his fighter jets and nuclear weapons. These anti-gun claims come from people who are lying, ignorant, or both.

These arguments are the very reason why we at 2ndVote decided to start live streaming an AR-15 three years ago. Over the last three years – starting February 1, 2019, we have proven that the gun itself is not the issue. 2ndVote founder Dr. David Black says he has spent literally hours over these past three years making sure this gun understood what America is all about, that we have come together to celebrate what we have in common, as opposed to our weaknesses and differences. The scary black military-style assault rifle has not argued, disagreed, or threatened Dr. Black or his staff even once.

We are proud to report the 2ndVote AR-15 shown in the Gun Cam live stream has not:

  • Loaded even a single round of ammunition into the magazine.
  • Aimed at even a single person.
  • Fired at any inanimate objects.
  • Shot at any living creature.
  • Shot at any human – the kill count remains at “000” despite being designed to “kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible”.

Unfortunately, the AR-15 shown in the Gun Cam has also refused to clean itself (either field dressing or simple dusting) so we take care of that. So we must ask again…are guns really the issue? Of course not.

We hope the gun cam proves the theory that a gun is not the issue, but simply an important reminder of our American right for protection of life, liberty, and property from thieves, ne’er-do-wells and tyrants, also known as the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

So the next time that loud, woke friend of yours starts to go into their “guns bad…no guns solve problem” argument, before they start to sound like the droning-on talking heads on TV, make sure to show them the 2ndVote Gun Cam Livestream. If they are honest, they will have to acknowledge that guns are not the problem.

As for the 2ndVote Gun Cam, it will continue live streaming and proving the left’s false claims to be the hyperbolic deception that it always was.

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

25 States Urge Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging Maryland’s Strict Firearm Laws thumbnail

25 States Urge Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging Maryland’s Strict Firearm Laws

By Bethany Blankley

Arizona, West Virginia, Kansas among states wanting law struck down

Twenty-five states, led by Arizona and West Virginia, are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Bianchi v. Frosh, which challenges Maryland’s restrictive Firearms Safety Act of 2013.

They’re asking the court to ultimately strike down the law, which the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld last September, in a brief filed with the Supreme Court in support of the petitioners.

On Jan. 14, the Supreme Court ordered Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, a Democrat, to file a response to a petition filed by the plaintiffs last December. At issue is, “Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with a type of ‘Arms’ that are in common use for lawful purposes?”

Maryland’s 2013 law, one of the strictest in the country, requires residents to undergo safety training and fingerprinting in order to get a license to legally purchase a pistol. It also attempts to define assault weapons, generally prohibits the sale, transfer or receipt of semi-automatic weapons, including the AR-15 and similar rifles, and restricts magazine capacity to 10 rounds of ammunition.

The law also bans firearms that have features like folding stocks and flash hiders, which the 25 states argue provide additional structural support for safer use.

The Center for American Progress says the law has made Maryland safer. Still, Maryland gun control advocates are pushing for even more gun restrictions to be passed.

The 2013 law “goes against Supreme Court precedent and steps on the Second Amendment,” West Virginia Attorney General Morrisey argues. “Law-abiding gun owners routinely use these firearms for self-defense or sporting. Such an unconstitutional act cannot stand.”

If the Fourth Circuit’s decision isn’t overruled by the Supreme Court, it would set case law governing any similar law passed in West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, the attorneys general argue.

The lower court “inappropriately limited the scope of the Second Amendment by taking an earlier Supreme Court ruling out of context,” the AGs argue. They’re referring to the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Americans who aren’t in the military or in a militia have the right to possess firearms for lawful purposes. The AGs argue the ruling should be clarified to extend to sporting rifles, including AR-15s, in “common use.”

“Americans bearing these firearms benefit public safety, counterbalance the threat of illegal gun violence, and help make our streets safer,” Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich said. “Arizona and forty-two other states allow the commonly-used firearms that Maryland has banned outright.”

Joining Arizona and West Virginia are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Kansas AG Derek Schmidt, a strong Second Amendment defender, told The Center Square that he was pleased that the high court recognized the Second Amendment was a fundamental right in Heller and extended that in McDonald v. Chicago (2010). But after these court cases, “the high court largely went silent on the Second Amendment,” he said, “for the better part of a decade.”

“We tried repeatedly to persuade them to hear other challenges,” and the latest in that effort is requesting the court to hear the Maryland case, he said.

The state of Maryland “has essentially enumerated large specific lists of firearms that are not to be permitted as lawful to possess. We don’t think that approach is permissible under the Second Amendment,” Schmidt said. “We don’t think that political actors, legislatures get to pick and choose which weapons in common use are available to Americans and we’ve asked the Supreme Court to take the case and give us greater definition. I’m hopeful that they will.”

The Supreme Court’s recent order indicates that at least one justice on the bench wants a response and “likely means that the court will hold this petition pending a decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen,” Maryland Shall Issue, an all-volunteer, non-partisan organization committed to defending the Second Amendment, argues. The Supreme Court is currently considering the constitutionality of New York’s “good cause” requirement for carry permits in a case it agreed to hear last year.

“Holding Bianchi would be consistent with the hold that the Court has apparently placed on the petition filed in the New Jersey ‘large-capacity magazine’ case, ANJRPC v. Bruck,” the group adds. That cases’ petition has been pending in the Supreme Court since April 2021.

“All of this is good news,” Maryland Shall Issue says. “A decision in Bruen this spring may mean that the court will thereafter vacate the lower court decisions in both Bianchi and ANJRPC and remand for further consideration in light of Bruen. At least, we hope that is the outcome.”

*****

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

Let’s Do Our Part thumbnail

Let’s Do Our Part

By Todd Woodard

After the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, and the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, Gun Tests magazine tried to steer the after-action conversation toward a concept everyone can agree on. People who love guns and who love to shoot must be the first line of defense when it comes to denying firearms access to the wrong kinds of people. The latest school-shooting incident in Oxford, Michigan, on November 30, 2020, is an example of that concept failing.

Three students were killed at Oxford High School, and eight other people were injured. On December 1, a fourth student died in the hospital as a result of injuries sustained during the shooting. Within two to three minutes of the arrival of first responders, 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley was arrested unharmed by a deputy assigned as a school resource officer and a second deputy who had responded to the scene. A 9mm SIG Sauer SP 2022 semi-automatic handgun and at least two 15-round magazines were recovered from Crumbley, while a third magazine was found at the school.

The 15-year-old sophomore has been charged as an adult, with one count of terrorism, four counts of first-degree murder, seven counts of assault with intent to murder, and 12 counts of possession of a firearm while committing a felony in connection with the school shooting.

On December 3, 2020, the shooter’s parents, Jennifer and James Crumbley, were charged with involuntary manslaughter for failing to secure the handgun used in the shooting.

Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said the father James Crumbley had purchased the gun under his name from a local shop on Black Friday, four days prior to the shooting. Prosecuting attorney for Oakland County, Karen McDonald, later said that Ethan Crumbley was with his father at the time of the purchase, and that he posted about it on social media later that day. Prosecutor McDonald also said that Jennifer Crumbley referred to the gun as Ethan’s “new Christmas present” in a social media post.

At present, all of these efforts are simply charges, and the boy and his parents have the right of being innocent until proven guilty.

For our part as gun owners, we must stick to a scrupulous dedication to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminal, and the crazy, and the careless. We must understand that people we know, including our relatives of all ages, might not be right in the head, and responsible gun owners must deny them access to firearms.

We the people who own and enjoy firearms need to pay serious attention to security — and our focus must never waver. We can’t forget that the Sandy Hook shooter shot his own mother with her own semi-automatic rifle. It’s too easy and flip to say “ban this” and “ban that” without getting to this crucial element of firearms security.

We also posited that it’s up to us to be sufficiently aware of our environment and the people around us — to be on the alert for people who might commit these horrible acts of violence against innocents. Following the Parkland massacre, there have been many discussions about how, and even if, we can spot those sufficiently deranged who might be capable of committing mass murder. But we have to try. The first step is gun safes, action locks, trigger locks—and simple awareness.

In the Oxford incident, the “see something, say something” concept went wrong. Law-enforcement officials have said they haven’t ruled out charges against school officials who might not have acted to stop the shooting in advance.

Gun Tests readers are just as horrified as anyone else by what happened in Michigan. Our condolences go out to the families and to the larger Oxford community who have to bear the consequences of this horrible act. Further, Gun Tests readers, like other responsible gun owners, want something done to stop school shootings.

As knowledgeable gun owners, Gun Tests readers know that paying lip service to restrictions and limitations isn’t the answer. Guns aren’t going to magically disappear. But gun owners, in particular, do have a responsibility to report erratic and potentially dangerous behavior in their communities. Likewise, we need to make absolutely certain we don’t lose custody of our firearms.

Because we have access to guns, it’s up to gun owners to be the front line of responsible gun ownership and report when we see dangerous behavior. We can’t stand on the sidelines and say “It’s not my business” and move on. The trouble is, will we get law enforcement and schools to follow up effectively? That clearly did not happen in the Oxford event.

Legitimate gun owners want law enforcement to have the tools to stop such people before they commit mass murder. We believe gun owners are willing to police our own ranks and report dangerous gun use and threats to people or places. But we have to have some confidence that if we “say something,” then law enforcement will “do something” to stop the violence before it occurs.

*****

This article was published in Gun Tests and is reproduced with permission from the author.

Gun Control Comes from a Place of Privilege thumbnail

Gun Control Comes from a Place of Privilege

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Assuming we know what’s best for others is rarely a good idea.


The concept of privilege gets a bad rap in many circles, and understandably so. Many have taken it way too far, using it as a means of bullying their political opponents into submission. But while the excesses of this rhetoric are certainly problematic, I don’t think we should do away with the concept entirely. Behind all the moral grandstanding lies a kernel of truth, one that can provide some valuable insights if applied correctly.

The principle, essentially, is that certain people have unearned advantages, and those advantages can shape how they see the world. Affluence, for instance, can make someone blind to the needs of the poor. Likewise, those with an above average aptitude, intelligence, or physical appearance might find it difficult to relate to those who were not equally endowed with those gifts.

The problem with this blindness is that it can easily lead to hubris, that is, unwarranted self-confidence. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of privilege is thinking we know the best course of action for a given situation when we really don’t.

The classic example of this is the story of a famous French princess who, upon hearing that the peasants had no bread, simply replied, “then let them eat cake.” She was so unfamiliar with their circumstances that the solution she dismissively prescribed was positively laughable. Another example of privilege was when the lockdown elite told us to “just stay home,” seemingly oblivious to the fact that staying home is simply unfeasible for many working class people.

Now, progressives are typically pretty good at pointing out places where privilege is leading to blindness and hubris (indeed, they often see privilege even where it doesn’t exist). But there’s one occurance of privilege that always seems to get a pass, and that is the privilege associated with gun control.

Consider, for example, someone who’s from a wealthy, safe neighborhood. They know very little about what it’s like to live in a high-crime area. They have probably never been robbed or threatened with violence from a total stranger. And if they do face threats, they have no qualms with calling the (armed) police who are usually responsive and happy to help.

Now compare that to the experience of someone from a rougher part of town. First, the cops there are probably not as responsive. What’s more, the cops can often become antagonistic, poking their nose where it doesn’t belong (see below) and sometimes arresting the very people they arrived to help.

Unsurprisingly, confidence in police is noticeably lower in these communities.

So what do you do if you live in a high-crime area where you can’t trust the police to help you? For many, the answer is to buy a gun. Indeed, 88 percent of gun owners cite crime protection as one of the main reasons they own a gun, and people who have been recent crime victims report higher rates of gun ownership than those who have not been recent victims.

This brings us to the point about privilege. To many people who grew up in these rough neighborhoods, saying “just call the cops” is like saying “let them eat cake.” It isn’t actually helpful advice. It just demonstrates how little we know about their circumstances and how unqualified we are to speak to their issues.

To be sure, the people in these communities are often divided over the issue of gun control themselves. Even so, if someone is buying a gun, there’s a good chance it’s because they don’t feel safe without it. So before we tell them they are better off disarmed, perhaps we should take stock of how privileged we are to not need guns ourselves.

A Decades-Old Problem

The connection between gun control and privilege may sound new to many, but it’s actually an issue that goes back decades. In 1978, for instance, the economist and libertarian philosopher Murray Rothbard drew attention to this problem in his book For a New Liberty. To make his point, he quotes an article written by Don Kates for the Cato Institute’s Inquiry Magazine. Kates, for his part, pulls no punches.

“Gun prohibition is the brainchild of white middle-class liberals who are oblivious to the situation of poor and minority people living in areas where the police have given up on crime control,” Kates writes. “Such liberals weren’t upset about marijuana laws, either, in the fifties when the busts were confined to the ghettos. Secure in well-policed suburbs or high-security apartments guarded by Pinkertons (whom no one proposes to disarm), the oblivious liberal derides gun ownership as ‘an anachronism from the Old West.’”

Kates goes on to highlight exactly what kind of people are being impacted by gun control policies. Citing a 1975 national survey, he notes that the leading subgroups who owned a gun only for self-defense were blacks, the lowest income groups, and senior citizens. “These are the people,” Kates eloquently warns, “it is proposed we jail because they insist on keeping the only protection available for their families in areas in which the police have given up.”

Four decades later, FBI data showed African Americans were still disproportionately impacted by anti-carry laws, accounting for 42 percent of all possession charges even though they accounted for just 13 percent of the overall population.

Of course, none of this will make gun control any less contentious. There is no silver bullet here. But perhaps this paradigm can at least give us a lesson in humility. Namely, don’t assume you know what’s best for someone if you haven’t walked a mile in their shoes.

COLUMN BY

Patrick Carroll

Patrick Carroll has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

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

Newsom, Democrats Go for Californians’ Guns thumbnail

Newsom, Democrats Go for Californians’ Guns

By John Seiler

Even as crime is surging in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies in the legislature are seeking to make it more difficult for citizens to defend themselves.

This week, Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) introduced Assembly Bill 1594, which reads, “This bill would specify that a gun industry member has created or maintained a public nuisance, as defined, if their failure to follow federal, state, or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices.”

It’s a blatant attempt to bankrupt the gun companies, a clear violation of the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The 2008 Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court clearly affirmed that meant an individual right, not just that of a state militia. And a right obviously can only be exercised if one has the physical means to do so.

For example, the First Amendment right to freedom “of the press” can only be exercised if paper companies are not impeded in their business of selling paper to publishers and the public. If the “paper industry” could be sued because, say, terrorists used paper to publish plans for attacks, then the paper would go up in cost so high the exercise of freedom “of the press” would be impinged.

AB 1594 was introduced after Newsom reacted against a U.S. Supreme Court action that let stands, for now, a Texas law allowing private citizens to sue abortion providers. It’s by no means clear the court will let that law stand permanently. But Newsom said in a Dec. 11 statement, “If states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way.”

Newsom’s spokesperson, Daniel Lopez, reiterated that sentiment in a statement Tuesday, “So long as the United States Supreme Court has set a precedent which allows private citizens to sue to stop abortions in Texas, California will use that same ability to save lives.”

Actually, pro-lifers say abortion takes a life, and with modern medicine childbirth rarely leads to the death of the mother. All medical procedures involve some risk, including abortions, not only to the baby, but for the mother.

Guns also are specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, while abortion only has become a right since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision—still controversial—which the court might reverse or modify.

*****

Continue reading this article at The Epoch Times.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp Pushes Legislators to Pass Constitutional-carry Bill thumbnail

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp Pushes Legislators to Pass Constitutional-carry Bill

By Bob Adelmann

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp announced his support for constitutional-carry legislation on Wednesday. The announcement was made at Adventure Outdoors, which touts itself as the “World’s Largest Gun Store” in Smyrna, outside Atlanta. Kemp was joined by other Republicans supporting the move.

Constitutional carry refers to the carrying of a handgun, either openly or concealed, without requiring its owner first to obtain government permission, through a license or a permit, to do so.

Said Kemp,

In the face of rising violent crime across the country, law-abiding citizens should have their constitutional rights protected, not undermined.

And while this position has recently become popular for [22 other states] as we enter the campaign season, my position has remained the same: I believe the United States Constitution grants the citizens of our state the right to carry a firearm without state government approval.

According to Georgia’s constitution, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.”

State Senator Jeff Mullis plans to introduce just such legislation next week, and other legislators are preparing similar bills. Both chambers of the General Assembly, along with the governor’s office, the secretary of state, and the state’s attorney general are in Republican hands. So, if Mullis’ bill, or one like it, is passed by the General Assembly, Kemp will sign it into law.

Kemp got sideways with the former president over the November 2020 presidential election results. Trump believed there was significant fraud in the election process in the state, giving Biden a razor-thin victory with just a one-quarter of one percent margin — less than 12,000 votes out of nearly five million that were cast — over Trump.

When the former president called Kemp for help, whom he had previously endorsed for the governorship, his plea was ignored.

Trump recalled that conversation with Kemp:

You know you have a big election integrity problem in Georgia. I hope you can help us out and call a special election and let’s get to the bottom of it for the good of the country, for the good of the state of Georgia.

Kemp instead ratified the election results, and Trump retaliated. In a telephone interview with Fox News days after the controversial election, Trump said,

Everything [in Georgia] has to be approved by the legislature, and they had judges making deals, and they had electoral officials making deals, like this character in Georgia [Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger] who’s a disaster.

And the governor’s done nothing. I’m ashamed that I endorsed him. But I look at what’s going on, it’s so terrible.

Now Trump has endorsed Perdue in his race against Kemp for the governorship and his endorsement has, according to a recent poll, pushed Perdue into a dead heat with Kemp.

In another poll taken among Georgians, Trump’s favorable/unfavorable image is 84 percent-10 percent, Perdue’s is 79 percent-nine percent, while Kemp’s is just 68 percent-22 percent. In that same poll, 78 percent of Republican voters in the state believe that “significant fraud occurred in the 2020 election” and just 31 percent “believe Kemp did enough to prevent voter fraud in the election.”

While Kemp’s move to free Georgians from state demands that gun owners first obtain government permission to exercise their Second Amendment-guaranteed rights is applauded, his motives for doing so, even before the General Assembly has passed anything for him to sign, must be questioned.

*****

This article was published in The New American and is reproduced with permission.

Are Citizens Arming themselves for an ‘American Revolution 2.0’? 18.5 Million Guns Sold in 2021 thumbnail

Are Citizens Arming themselves for an ‘American Revolution 2.0’? 18.5 Million Guns Sold in 2021

By Dr. Rich Swier

On November 20th, 2021 we wrote a column titled “An American Revolution Version 2.0?” We wrote:

We are now in the 256th year since the beginning of the American Revolution on March 22nd, 1765. “The shot heard round the world” occurred when British soldiers and minutemen—the colonists’ militia—exchanged gunfire at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts.

Questions: Is it time for a Second American Revolution? Will there be a second shot heard round the world?

To have a Second American Revolution one must arm themselves to defend one’s family, property and community. Since writing this column we have seen a rise in violence in certain communities and the murder rates in certain cities reach historic numbers.

It now appears that the citizens of America are exercising their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

On January 4, 2022 The Reload’s Stephen Gutowski in an article titled “18.5 Million Guns Sold in 2021” wrote:

2021 was the second-best year on record for gun sales.

Americans bought more than 18.5 million guns, according to an industry analysis of FBI background check data. That puts the 2021 numbers about 12 percent off the all-time record set in 2020. But it also puts 2021 40 percent ahead of 2019’s total.

“The fact that over 18.5 million Americans chose lawfully purchase a firearm in 2021 is indicative the value Americans hold of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which did the analysis, said in a statement.

[ … ]

Oliva pointed specifically to the nomination of former-ATF agent and current gun-control activist David Chipman as an example of the Biden Administration’s animus towards the gun industry. He said Chipman’s failure to get confirmed coupled with the big sales numbers was further evidence the president’s gun agenda, which polled poorly throughout 2021, is faltering.

“Americans have taken stock of their personal safety concerns and their fundamental, God-given rights,” he said. [Emphasis added]

Read more.

The Bottom Line

Tom Paine wrote,

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

Today in America we are clearly seeing abuses and usurpations. The goal is absolute despotism.

When we the people see these truths to be self-evident, that our despotic government does not hold that all men as created equal. When our government takes away our inalienable rights, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is time to take action.

We the people must either alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

George Washington  wrote:

“Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; this is all we can expect – We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die…”

We are now all called to become Minutemen and women preparing to defend our Constitutional Republic.

Give me liberty or give me death.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

We aren’t going to save America from the tyrannical left by doing nothing.

— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) January 5, 2022

The Bait and Switch Con Game to Destroy our 1787 Constitution thumbnail

The Bait and Switch Con Game to Destroy our 1787 Constitution

By Kelleigh Nelson

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.  The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”  – James Madison

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” –  Thomas Jefferson

“Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.” – John Adams letter to Abigail Adams, July 7, 1775


The Convention of States (COS) proponents have continuously lied to their constituents, most of whom have never opened the US Constitution and read Article V. The push for an Article V Convention is the most vicious bait and switch con-game of all time.

Amendments to the Constitution

COS adherents tell us we can simply open the US Constitution and add amendments to rein in the powers and jurisdictions of the federal government, but if elected officials won’t obey the constitution now, why would they obey changes to the document unless the changes benefited them?!

Article V unequivocally provides only two procedures for amendments to the Constitution, to wit: Method 1.  Congressional Enactment when “two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,” OR Method 2.  Congressional Convening of a Convention in response to “the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states.”  Furthermore, even the choice between the two declared modes of State ratification of any resulting amendments therefrom is specifically left to “be proposed by the Congress.”

How much semantical distortion of the English language; or “bouncing off the wall of legalize” does it take to create a “Convention of States” out of Article V?  Nowhere in Article V does it say that a convention can be called, opened or convened and bypass Congress, which COS promoters claim they can do.  Read it for yourselves:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. (Emphasis mine)

Why can’t we add amendments to the constitution as we have for 235 years rather than risking opening the constitution to violent partisans and nefarious individuals?

1787 Convention Precedent

The COS promoters have also stated that they could “control” the convention, but the precedent for total lack of control was set in 1787 when the Founding Fathers realized the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation could not be fixed under the current form of government and thus, started anew.  Throwing out our 1787 Constitution, written by true statesmen, and substituting “privileges” rather than individual freedoms is the goal of those behind the Convention of States and their irreputable monetary benefactors.

At the time the Articles of Confederation were written there was a widespread fear of a strong central government among Americans whose loyalties were to their own state rather than any national government.  During the American Revolution, the Articles purposely kept the national government as weak as possible and the states as independent as possible.  But there were serious weaknesses, and these weaknesses were discussed at the 1786 Annapolis Convention.  Thus, a new document was needed, but states rights were strongly included in the ten unalienable Bill of Rights.

Convention Advocates and Financiers

Mark Meckler is the man being funded with millions from Koch Brothers organizations, American Legislative Exchange Council and other odious groups and organizations. Rob Natelson, formerly of the Goldwater Institute and now with the Independence Institute, and Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association and Patrick Henry College are also defenders of the egregious Convention of States.  Yet, they’re afraid to debate those constitutional scholars who know the truth of their intentions.

Their real purpose in opening another Constitutional Convention is to impose a new constitution of their own making.  One of the early rewritten constitutions was published in Rex Tugwell’s 1974 book, The Emerging Constitution.  It was a project over a period of 10 years and $25 million by Fund for the Republic (the Ford Foundation).  The proposed “New States Constitution” is a frightening combination of government privileges rather than individual freedoms, and a culmination of the final objectives of regional governance conspirators.

In addition to the proposed new Constitutions already out there; the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project has released three proposed new constitutions to replace our existing constitution.  You can read the proposed new constitutions here. These proposed constitutions would transfer massive new powers to the federal government; would legalize the unconstitutional acts which have been going on for over 100 years; and bring about a long list of additional horrors.

Robert George and the Conservative Constitution

One look at the “Conservative Constitution” headed up by Robert George should give anyone the willies.  Robert George, globalist Council on Foreign Relations member, who poses as a conservative Christian while serving UNESCO and the CFR’s agenda, has found common ground with the purveyors who wish the destruction our 1787 Constitution.

Quite obviously, COS board member, Robert George, would like to delete the entire second amendment.  Here’s what he has written that negates the original meaning of the founder’s “teeth” of our Bill of Rights.

The modified “Second Amendment” clarifies what we understand to be the best original understanding. It provides, “Neither the states nor the United State shall make or enforce any law infringing the right to keep and bear arms of the sort ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes, provided that states, and the United States in places subject to its general regulatory authority, may enact and enforce reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others.” (Emphasis mine)

So, who will determine those who are dangerous to themselves or others?  Unelected councils as in Soviet Russia?  The same unelected councils as our local county health departments?  Those unelected councils determined healthy people should be locked up, schools should be closed, and everyone should don face diapers, breathing in their own exhaled bacteria, depriving their brains of oxygen, and literally doing damage to themselves. Adopted because other unelected councils told them what to do…NIH, CDC, FDA, AMA, etc… the snakeholders!  Our elected officials willingly complied.

Robert George’s revision of our unalienable second amendment is a prescription for the annihilation of our God given right to defend ourselves, and we know exactly who the targets will be.

America’s Gun Owners

Will Dabbs MD writes for Firearms News and in a recent article he said, “American civilian shooters bought as many firearms in the month of January 2021 as are maintained in the entire US Army inventory.  In a nation of 328 million people, we own more than 400 million guns and forty million of those firearms were sold in 2020.  There’s just no putting that back in the box.  As a people, we are irrevocably armed to the teeth.  No amount of legislated social engineering will ever make a dent.  That means the bad guys in the United States will be well armed until the sun burns out.”

Dr. Dabbs continues, “While the left wishes the United States was actually Sweden or Norway, we pragmatists appreciate that in the face of such a sordid state, we need to assume responsibility for our own security.  In the Information Age, this means we avail ourselves of the proper tools and train to proficiency.”

Remember the summer of 2020, when Antifa thugs pulled Adam Haner out of his pickup truck in Portland during a BLM protest march and beat him unconscious?  His crime was just trying to help another person who had been beaten by the same mob.

As Dr. Dabbs says, “I don’t know about you guys, but that’s just not happening to me.”

“We must avoid this type of chaos at all costs, but should the exigencies of life place you in that sort of place, nothing screams, ‘Don’t screw with me, dude!’ like a handy takedown AR.”

Conclusion

Too many evil entities wish to destroy the finest document of individual God given freedoms ever created by man.  Frederick Douglass said, “Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the constitution is a Glorious Liberty Document!”  He was right.

In 1788, James Madison wrote to G.I. Turberville when he was asked how he felt if another General Convention should be called.

He wrote, “You wish to know my sentiments on the project of (an Article V) Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans [sic] on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.”

My friend, Joanna Martin, a true scholar of our 1787 Constitution as well as the Federalist papers, has written a much more in-depth article exposing the deleterious effects of allowing another constitutional convention.  Please take the time to study her work.

The war to save our 1787 Constitution continues.  Please join the battle to restore our God given liberties and freedoms.

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

How Joe Biden Plans to Spend Your Money on the “Gun Violence Public Health Epidemic”

By Editors at Second Amendment Foundation

For gun owners, Joe Biden’s FY2022 discretionary budget plan is an assault on our individual freedoms and civil liberties – an assault that could cost us both billions of taxpayer dollars as well as our guns.

Whoever actually wrote the plan is a master of creative writing – fiction writing, to be sure.

For example, Biden’s budget plan first refers to gun violence as a “public health epidemic” in a paragraph that’s sandwiched between two legitimate epidemics: opioid addiction and AIDs.

To address this “gun violence public health crisis,” Biden wants to give $2.1 billion – an increase of $232 million – to the Department of Justice, to “improve background check systems, and invest in new programs to incentivize State adoption of gun licensing laws and establish voluntary gun buyback pilot programs.”

Don’t forget that the buyback program Biden has frequently called for is designed for our ARs, AKs, and other popular rifles, and there’s nothing voluntary about it. It’s confiscation, pure and simple.

His own campaign website shows that Biden wants to “institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.” Those who don’t comply could be charged with illegal possession of an NFA-regulated firearm – a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Biden wants to give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives $1.6 billion – an increase of $70 million – “to oversee the safe sale, storage, and ownership of firearms and to support the agency’s other work to fight violent crime.” In addition, he wants to double funding for “firearm violence prevention research” at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health. Who better to help maintain the fiction that guns are a public health epidemic than the CDC and NIH, right?

Most worrisome, however, is the funding Biden wants to spend on domestic terrorism, especially since the definition of domestic terrorism seemingly expands every single day, and now includes both critics of the Biden-Harris administration as well as parents who may object to the actions of their local school board.

Biden’s budget plan would give $45 million to the FBI to investigate domestic terrorism, $40 million to U.S. Attorneys to prosecute more domestic terrorism cases, $12 million to the U.S Marshals Service to arrest domestic terrorists, $131 million to the Department of Homeland Security for domestic terrorism prevention and, of course, $4 million to the National Institute of Justice for domestic terrorism research.

While I’m very concerned about real domestic terrorists – those who seek to kill Americans and/or violently overthrow our system of government – I’m more concerned about foreign terrorists. Foreign terrorists have killed Americans. Irate parents who may object to their school’s mask mandate or curriculum have yet to crash any planes.

If Joe Biden has his way, it will only be a matter of time before gun owners are labeled domestic terrorists, especially those of us who own what Biden calls “weapons of war.” We’ve known for a long time Joe Biden wants our guns. This is how he intends to pay for it.

*****

This article is reproduced with permission from The Second Amendment Foundation.

Kansas City: Firearms store won’t let Muslima use gun range with hijab, Hamas-linked CAIR sues thumbnail

Kansas City: Firearms store won’t let Muslima use gun range with hijab, Hamas-linked CAIR sues

By Jihad Watch

The involvement of Hamas-linked CAIR makes this suspicious on its face, as does the fact that the woman was told she could not use the range unless she removed her hijab not because of “Islamophobia,” but because of a headgear rule that is enforced for everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim. This is a highly dubious lawsuit, but despite their lack of substance, such suits are often successful — and lucrative for CAIR’s lawyers and their clients — if they come up before a judge who is susceptible to their rhetoric of hatred, discrimination and “racism.”

Lawsuit: Missouri shooting range made Muslim woman remove hijab

Associated Press, December 29, 2021:

A firearms store and gun range in suburban Kansas City refused to let a Muslim woman use the range unless she removed her hijab, a Muslim civil rights organization alleged in a federal lawsuit.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the law firm of Baldwin & Vernon in Independence alleges that the gun range at Frontier Justice in Lee’s Summit enforces its dress code in a discriminatory way that disproportionately affects Muslim women….

Rania Barakat and her husband went to Frontier Justice on Jan. 1 to shoot at the gun range. According to the lawsuit, Barakat was told she would not be allowed to use the range unless she removed her hijab, a religious head covering typically worn by Muslim women.

The gun range requires shooters to remove all head coverings except baseball caps facing forward. A store manager explained that shrapnel could cause the hijab and skin to burn….

The lawsuit contends that it is Frontier Justice’s policy to turn away Muslims wearing hijabs, citing several social media posts from other Muslims about being refused use of the shooting range. It also claims that Instagram posts from Frontier Justice show customers wearing baseball caps turned backward, and hats and scarves.

“It is completely unacceptable for a business establishment to deny service to customers based on their religious beliefs — and that is exactly what Frontier Justice has done,” Moussa Elbayoumy, chairman of the board of CAIR-Kansas, said in a statement. “The claim that a hijab somehow presents a safety issue is merely a bad excuse in an attempt to justify a pattern of discriminatory treatment of Muslim women.”

CAIR had asked the U.S. Department of Justice in July to investigate civil rights practices at Frontier Justice.

At the time, Bren Brown, Frontier Justice’s president, said Barakat was not discriminated against and was asked to follow a dress code that is applied to all patrons equally, The Kansas City Star reported.

The lawsuit asks the federal court to find that Frontier Justice’s policies regarding the wearing of hijabs violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act and prohibit the gun range and its employees from acting in ways that discriminate against anyone based on their religion.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran: Grand Ayatollah says Qur’an is ‘healing for all pains of humans and can solve all problems’

Iran news agency claims Egypt is writing ‘modern interpretation’ of Qur’an, moving to replace Arab-Islamic identity

Afghanistan: Taliban orders mannequins beheaded after head of Virtue and Vice ministry rules they are ‘idols’

Spain: Muslim migrant posts jihad messages online, calls for murder of blasphemers

Uganda: Man converts to Christianity, Muslims meet in mosque, then break into his home with machetes and stones

Uganda: Muslim woman converts to Christianity, her husband beats her with a stick

Nigeria: Muslims murder two Christians driving home after an evening of Christmas caroling

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Gun Rights: Gunless People Are Dangerous thumbnail

Gun Rights: Gunless People Are Dangerous

By Alan Korwin

Fear and hatred of guns have unintended consequences; political fallout and dangers which are largely missed in the running monologues that pass for “news” in America today.

Age-old wisdom suggesting knowledge of guns leading to harm is incorrect, according to leading experts on both sides of the aisle. People who avoid guns, and refuse to discuss the subject, exhibit fear bordering on paranoia, leading to accidents, defenselessness, and potentially dire consequences. Criminals now running rampant on a small number of American streets have virtually no training, and certainly don’t represent the values of marksmanship and firearms education, which generally lead to self-control and responsibility.

“A person who knows nothing about guns, and preserves that ignorance with great vigor, which many anti-gun people do, harms society’s fabric by promoting counter-productive law, hampering police efforts, and putting children at risk,” I noted in a recent public speech. Starbucks, as a case in point, had ignorantly refused to serve armed police officers, people tasked with protecting society. How did that help anyone? It simply showed their disdain for something good.

Projection?

“Many people who fear guns secretly harbor internal rage, just waiting to break into violence upon some slight provocation. They project this instability onto others, falsely assuming anyone with a firearm will eventually erupt into violence and injure others — as they believe they might do, according to Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. “They cannot imagine most people are not also plagued by the demons under which they suffer. So, they fear guns and believe everyone should be disarmed, just as they don’t trust themselves from erupting into violence,” he said. Mr. Marbut is a firearms instructor accepted as an expert witness in state and federal courts concerning self-defense, use of force, and firearms safety. His cogent testimony has helped defendants wrongly charged by misguided anti-gun prosecutors.

Heavily credentialed firearms training expert and author Stephen P. Wenger notes that gun-fearing folks have what’s called “poor impulse control” and project that onto others. The lack of understanding gunless people exhibits leads to laws that affect the innocent and ignore the criminal element, which I have personally witnessed repeatedly in legislatures nationwide. People with terror in their eyes and myths on their lips over imagined dangers band together, hire lobbyists and rally for laws to disarm people who haven’t done anything.

Real Responsibility

The gun-fearful flatly ignore actual perpetrators entirely. Frequently, the criminal perps are people of color or other “disadvantaged” types (ethnic, immigrant, poor, released prisoners, gang members) who they are afraid to single out or implicate out of fear of being called names like “racist.”

Red-flag laws are an example. Notice these laws let police confiscate your property on hearsay and without a trial, merely on suspicion of you being a potential mass murderer. Afterward, they just set you loose back on the streets. How much more dangerous could a plan be? “You haven’t done anything, so we’re letting you out. Go buy a chainsaw, matches, and some gasoline. You’re not angry at the person who had you detained, are you?” Red-flag laws were drafted by the gun-control lobby, without evidence that they work, based on their desire “to make guns go away.”

Authorities might take “your gun” for a while, but that doesn’t put you in the database preventing you from buying another gun, because you lack guilt or a conviction necessary to be included. And they may not check to see if you already have several guns. It’s an irrational response to psychotic mass murderers and sociopathic children seeking to slaughter their classmates.

Also at issue are prosecutors — or perhaps lack of prosecutors — willing to prosecute, using laws we have to incarcerate truly dangerous people using guns for illegal purposes. That’s how we get felons on our streets with mile-long rap sheets, committing one serious crime after another. In an insidious way, this serves a valuable purpose. It keeps gunless people terrified, clamoring for more so-called “gun control,” which increases government power. Just take the guns away and we’ll all be safe while leaving officials armed to the teeth. Right. The fact it hasn’t worked for decades doesn’t seem to enter the equation, and efforts continue to hamper the innocent.

There is no known way to reliably make or staff a “pre-crime” bureau, according to forensic experts, and catch psychopaths before they act out. That’s a fanciful feature of sci-fi films, with no place in the real world. “It’s hoplophobic,” said Dr. Bruce Eimer, Ph.D., a police forensic psychologist, “just a manifestation of irrational fears. Those people promoting such things need help, but typically refuse any.” Red-flag laws are delusions, typically promoted by gunless people, to quell their fears, without any hope of success.

Take a gunless person to a shooting range, an often-reliable cure for their phobia, and help improve the safety of the nation, Dr. Eimer would advise.

Award-winning author Alan Korwin has written 14 books, 10 of them on gun law, and has advocated for gun rights for nearly three decades. See his work or reach him at GunLaws.com.

*****

This article was published in the January-February 2022 edition of American Handgunner and is reproduced with permission from the author.

Was Alec Baldwin’s Finger On The Trigger? thumbnail

Was Alec Baldwin’s Finger On The Trigger?

By Charles M. Strauss

Last October, Alec Baldwin shot and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.  The bullet passed through Hutchins’ body and wounded director Joel Souza.

Whose fault was it?

Alec Baldwin insists it was not his fault; somebody handed him a gun and told him it was unloaded. According to Baldwin, assistant director Dave Halls inspected the gun to determine that it was unloaded, declared that the gun was “cold” (unloaded), and handed it to Baldwin.  (Halls, through his lawyer, has denied this.)  The “armorer,” Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, was supposed to be responsible for verifying that all the firearms were safe.  Her lawyer has opined that somebody put a live round into the gun as intentional sabotage, possibly because of the bad will on the set.  (Several crew members had left the set “on strike” shortly before the shooting.)  Hutchins and Souza positioned themselves in front of the gun, some two feet away, which was not a safe thing for them to do.  Firearms safety rules apply to all guns, whether loaded or unloaded, precisely because so many accidents occur with guns that are believed to be unloaded.

So, the first question is, “Who is responsible?”  The answer is “Possibly – probably — more than one person.”  There is a tendency to want to point a finger at one culprit, but in the real world, there is such a thing as “contributory negligence,” wherein several people contribute to a bad outcome.  If a drunk driver crosses the center line and kills a mother and her young child who is riding in the back seat, the assumption is that the drunk driver is at fault.  But what if the mother was texting on her cell phone at the time, and not watching the road?  And what if she was not wearing a seat belt, and the child was not in a car seat?  Then a jury would likely find that both the drunk driver and the mother were each partly at fault.

So it is with the Baldwin shooting.  The fault may lie partly with Baldwin, partly with the director, partly with the assistant director, partly with the person who put the live ammunition into the gun, and partly with who knows who else?  There does not have to be just one person who is 100% responsible.  In this case, most likely it was a “tragedy of errors.”

The next question is, “Did Baldwin pull the trigger?”  Baldwin swore to George Stephanopoulos that he did not.  Halls’ lawyer says that Halls also swears that Baldwin did not pull the trigger.

Baldwin told Stephanopoulos: “So, I take the gun, and I start to cock the gun. I’m not going to pull the trigger,” he added. “And I cock the gun; I go, ‘Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that?’ And then I let go of the hammer of the gun, and the gun goes off.”

“I let go of the hammer of the gun – the gun goes off,” he repeated.

That cannot happen, unless the gun is seriously broken mechanically.  If the gun is broken, that will be easy to demonstrate by the forensic examiners, and easy to demonstrate in court.  If an actual chunk of metal has been broken off, it will be apparent on inspection, and the accident will be easy to replicate in the lab.

More likely, though, Baldwin did have his finger on the trigger.  That does not mean that Baldwin is lying.  What people remember is often very different from what actually happened, which is why witness evidence is so often unreliable.  It is common for people to swear, under oath, that there were three bank robbers wearing red hats armed with shotguns, when the surveillance video shows there were two bank robbers wearing blue hats armed with pistols.

In 2014, New York police officer Peter Liang was searching a dark apartment building, when he was startled by a loud noise, and fired a shot that penetrated a couple of walls and killed a bystander, Akai Gurley.  Liang testified in court – under oath – that he did not pull the trigger.  The forensic experts tested the gun and determined that the gun could not fire without pulling the trigger.  Liang was convicted and went to jail.  Did he commit perjury?  No, because he testified truthfully — not about what actually happened, but about what he vividly and honestly remembered.

As the psychology experts say, “It is not that the witness lied, but that the witness’ brain lied to him.”  Liang’s brain lied to him.

Baldwin’s gun, the Pietta replica of the Colt 1873 Single Action Army, cannot be fired by pulling the hammer back and releasing it, as Baldwin reported.  There are four “clicks” or “safety notches” that will catch the hammer if it is pulled and released.  The only way that gun can fire is by cocking the hammer – and pressing the trigger.

Let’s give Baldwin the benefit of the doubt.  He genuinely believes his finger was not on the trigger.  He is not lying – his brain is lying to him.

Where Did Our Law Enforcement Lose Its Way? thumbnail

Where Did Our Law Enforcement Lose Its Way?

By Bruce Bialosky

“In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.” That cold open to Law and Order became ubiquitous in our society. But, somehow, we have lost our way. This simple concept no longer exists in many parts of our country.

Most people do not pay attention to who their District Attorney is or the position at all. I learned that vividly in 2000. Steve Cooley had just gotten elected to the position for Los Angeles County. I was a principal party in hosting a fundraiser for him to clean up his campaign debt. I was stunned to find that I was the only (yes, only) non-attorney who worked on the event or wrote a check. At the time no one cared about this position except for the attorneys who wanted to work in the office or might have cases against the ADA’s (Assistant District Attorneys).

How times have changed. As you probably know, the Left (funded by George Soros and his gang) have found these positions a hot place to focus. They figured there was little focus on this position so if they threw an outsized sum at the position, they could get one of their people elected. The test case was spending $300,000 to elect Kim Foxx, the DA of Cook County (Chicago). We all know how that situation turned out, though she alone is not the only one deserving blame for Chicago’s various calamities and neighborhood murders. As a perfect example of her massive abuse of her position, she initially dropped the 16-count indictment against Jussie Smollett.

Realizing success with pouring outsized monies into that race, they decided to proceed across the nation wreaking havoc coast to coast. They elected Chesa Boudin in San Francisco, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, and Jose Garza in Austin. Their two crowning achievements were moving George Gascon from San Francisco to Los Angeles (spending $2.5 million and defeating a black, female Democrat) and electing Alvin Bragg in Manhattan. In five short years, they have used their targeted monies on formerly sleepy elected positions to transform the criminal justice system in the United States and unleash criminal activity across the country.

These newly elected DAs start by telling everyone how they are not going to enforce the laws. Right off the bat Manhattan DA Bragg stated he will not prosecute trespassing, resisting arrests (always builds confidence in your police force), and/or illegal gun possession unless someone is shot. The last point validates the position of gun owners that the proposed new laws will only limit legal gun owners. DA Gascon’s laundry list of “reforms” announced his first day in office got him nominated as Man of the Year by the United Criminals of America. No cash bail and trashing the death penalty were among his biggies.

One must ask: who appointed these people King? Californians voted in favor of retaining the death penalty in 2016. All these jurisdictions have duly elected legislative entities and these DA’s just disregard the laws in place. Makes you wonder what the criminals are contemplating when the law enforcement entities are wholesale not following the laws.

If you go back to the opening quote of this column, the police are responsible for investigating the laws and the DA’s prosecuting them. In Los Angeles County, Sheriff Alex Villanueva recently stated he sent 12,000 cases to Gascon’s office, of which none or very few have had any follow-up. One must assume these cases are based on laws enacted by a legislative body and signed by the executive officer of that entity. Yet the DA just ignores the laws. In Chicago, Ms. Foxx has ignored 25,000 felony cases sent to her by the police.

These prosecutors want to expand their responsibilities even further. A recent Washington Post column by Hillary Blout (former prosecutor in SF DA’s office) called attention to her desire to expand a prosecutor’s authority. Since she had nothing to do as a DA in SF due to Gascon and his successor Boudin, she researched and “was shocked to learn that there was no law in the country allowing prosecutors to review old cases for possible release.” For the entire column she omitted any mention of parole boards which are in place everywhere to deal with this, not to mention the multiple nonprofit legal operations pursuing potentially wrongly convicted cases.

She did crow about Prosecutor Initiated Resentencing (PIR) which she points out is an innovation born in California (what could go wrong there). “PIR allows prosecutors – whose role has traditionally been to put people in prison – to get people out when the sentence is no longer in the interest of justice.” Not only do the DA’s not want to prosecute the cases handed to them, but they now want to free more criminals who they do not like being in prison under the laws dutifully passed in their jurisdiction.

We have ourselves to blame for this mess. We voted these miscreants into office. We voted for CA Prop 47 which allows theft of up to $950 from a store to be treated as a petty crime. In NY, the legislature voted in bail reform that has criminals instantly out on the streets.

Our women are afraid to walk in areas that until recently were considered safe because of smash and grab random crimes. We created this mess. We must now fix it.

*****

This article was published on December 26, 2021, in Flash Report, and is reprinted with permission from the author.