GOA Forces Lafayette to Back Down On “Gun-Free Zones” In Downtown, gun free zone iStock-Elisank79 1432356580
The University of Louisiana (UL) Lafayette campus dropped its bid to make downtown Lafayette a “gun-free zone” by designating the Lafayette Science Museum and temporary student housing a school zone after a threat of a lawsuit by Gun Owners of America (GOA).
Under Louisiana law, anything within a 1000 ft radius of a school is considered a “safe school zone” where firearms are banned. Certain agencies and organizations in Louisiana have tried to exploit this law, including the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD), which designated a police station a “school.” GOA threatened to sue the NOPD, and on the eve of the lawsuit, the NOPD dropped its claim that the police station was a school.
UL tried to do the same thing with the Lafayette Science Museum and two rented hotels in downtown Lafayette. The school put up “safe school zone” signs, making it illegal to carry a firearm in the downtown area. Lafayette Mayor-President Monique Blanco Boulet said that the Lafayette Police Department (LPD) would start enforcing the ban on firearms in the downtown area that week.
Acting on behalf of GOA, Lafayette-based attorney Joshua Barnhill sent a letter on August 22 to Mayor-President Monique Boulet, Interim Police Chief Paul Trouard, and university representatives demanding that the University take down the signs or face the legal wrath of the gun rights organization who have had multiple legal victories across the country. GOA gave the city until Tuesday to remove the signs and not enforce the mandate.
City-Parish Attorney Pat Ottinger claimed that the deadline was unreasonable and the city didn’t have time to respond to the gun rights group’s assertions. GOA would not budge, and the deadline would remain the same. Even though the attorney said GOA didn’t give them enough time to respond, the city and University backed down after removing the signs late Tuesday, replacing them with signs stating that the buildings are “gun-free zones,” but the surrounding areas are not.
The Mayor-President’s office and LPD are not responding to the media’s requests for comment, but the University did release a statement to the public. UL stated that after seeking further legal guidance, they realized that the University could not ban guns outside the buildings because they do not own the buildings. They said they work not to infringe on any constitutional rights.
The University’s statement reads:
Louisiana law, R.S. 14:95.6, requires universities to post signs identifying firearm-free zones at university campus entrances. The state law is ambiguous in defining what constitutes a “campus,” so the University of Louisiana at Lafayette looked to the federal Clery Act, that governs campus crime reporting, for a definition. The Clery Act definition of campus expressly includes property owned or controlled by the University, which led to the posting of the “Safe School Zone” signs.
The University sought additional clarifications from the Acadiana legislative delegation and their legal staff. This led to the determination that under state law, the definition of campus may not extend to property that the University does not own. Accordingly, the University has removed the “Safe School Zone” signs erected at the Science Museum and at the hotels being used as temporary student housing, because they are not owned by the University.
The University works to avoid infringing on any constitutional rights while also ensuring the safety and welfare of our students. Therefore, as authorized by state law, the University has replaced “Safe School Zone” signs with “Weapons-Free Facility” signage that precludes firearms within these facilities but does not establish any zones outside them.
This change might not satisfy gun rights activists because guns are banned inside the science museum, but the University claims the building is part of the campus. It remains to be seen if more pressure will be placed on the University to remove the gun-free signs inside the museum.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
In most other states, FBI NICS System Checks are instant and done at no charge, but NY’s Democrat governor insists that all background checks in NY instead go through the NY State Police System, and there is a $9.00 charge for each transaction. $2.50 for each ammunition purchase.
In NYS, you must now pay a fee to exercise your Constitutional Rights, which can be arbitrarily doubled or tripled at any time.
In addition, NY’s State Police System (unlike NICS) has a bad habit of regularly crashing and curiously staying offline for extended periods. During this time, you can’t purchase guns or ammunition at all.
“We apologize for any inconvenience!”
Most onerous of all is NY’s “EXC § 24″
“Suspension or limitation of the sale, dispensing, use, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms (presumptively ammunition too), explosives, and flammable materials and liquids”
With no more than a casual wave of her hand, NY’s governor can now stop you from buying guns, ammunition, and fuel for an indefinite period, and we all know what happens when the government suspends our Constitutional rights as citizens “temporarily.”
NY’s governor now has the power, at any moment, to precipitously prevent you from defending yourself from violent criminals and also prevent you from traveling anywhere indefinitely.
Is any of the foregoing “Constitutional?” Of course not, but Marxists (masquerading as “Democrats”) obviously don’t care!
Like all Marxists, they’re interested only in consolidating absolute political power and elaborately protecting themselves. We see Putin currently doing the same thing and for the same reasons.
Conversely, we citizens are (also obviously) altogether expendable, our personal safety (even our lives) utterly unimportant.
To them, “ordinary” citizens represent little more than replaceable livestock and are conspicuously treated as such, as we see.
Welcome to modern Marxism, brought to you by the DNC.
“If you took the most ardent Marxist revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be far worse than the Tsar himself!” ~ Mikhail Bakunin
/John
About John Farnam & Defense Training International, Inc
As a defensive weapons and tactics instructor, John Farnam will urge you, based on your beliefs, to make up your mind about what you would do when faced with an imminent lethal threat. You should, of course, also decide what preparations you should make in advance if any. Defense Training International wants to ensure that its students fully understand the physical, legal, psychological, and societal consequences of their actions or in-actions.
It is our duty to make you aware of certain unpleasant physical realities intrinsic to Planet Earth. Mr. Farnam is happy to be your counselor and advisor. Visit: www.defense-training.com
Everytown for Gun Safety “Action Fund” joined forces with the Planned Parenthood Action Fund to support federal legislation to create term limits for Supreme Court justices. iStock-1020504756
Further evidence the gun prohibition lobby is frustrated by federal court rulings upholding the Second Amendment came Wednesday when the Everytown for Gun Safety “Action Fund” joined forces with the Planned Parenthood Action Fund to support federal legislation to create term limits for Supreme Court justices.
In a prepared statement, Everytown President John Feinblatt asserted, “This Supreme Court is deeply out of step with the American people on both reproductive rights and gun safety, which is why Everytown is joining Planned Parenthood Action Fund in supporting the TERM Act.”
The Everytown news release also quotes Christina Harvey, executive director at Stand Up America.
“A single justice remaining on the Supreme Court for decades can shape federal law for generations,” Harvey said. “Right now, the Roberts Court is advancing a far-right agenda that undermines our freedoms, including the freedom to live free of gun violence and the freedom to make choices about our own health and bodies.”
Second Amendment advocates see it differently where gun rights are concerned. The Roberts Court has been responsible for three significant decisions since 2008, affirming the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual right not dependent upon service in a militia.
High court rulings in Heller, McDonald and Bruen have done much to fully restore the Second Amendment as the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. Recent surveys have shown that liberals and supporters of the Biden-Harris administration still consider the right to bear arms as a government-regulated privilege.
According to a Pew Research report from June 2023, “A majority of Americans (61%) say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun in this country. Far fewer (9%) say it is too hard, while another 30% say it’s about right. (Non-gun owners are nearly twice as likely as gun owners to say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun (73% vs. 38%).”
Evidently, those non-gun owners have never tried to legally purchase a firearm.
In a separate report, Pew Research confirmed, “By overwhelming margins, Joe Biden’s supporters prioritize gun control over gun rights and say gun ownership does more to reduce than increase safety; roughly eight-in-ten Biden supporters (83%) say the increase in guns in the U.S. is at least somewhat bad for society.”
It is a safe presumption those Biden supporters are now Harris supporters
Everytown and other billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying groups are furious over the Supreme Court ruling in Garland v. Cargill, which nullified the ban on bump stocks issued by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives earlier this year. Everytown erroneously calls bump stocks “devices that convert semi-automatic firearms into machine guns.”
Everytown also complains that the “Supreme Court in Bruenunleashed chaos in the courts, setting the stage for challenges to even the most foundational gun safety laws, and leading courts across the country to issue wildly divergent decisions on multiple core issues.”
When it comes to core issues, Everytown might look at other revelations in the Pew poll:
About four in ten U.S. adults say they live in a household with a gun, including 32% who say they personally own one
Personal protection tops the list of reasons gun owners give for having a firearm.
Gun owners tend to have much more positive feelings about having a gun in the house than nonowners who live with them do
All Everytown has really accomplished here is to remind U.S. gun owners that their rights are on the line in this year’s presidential and congressional elections and likely all the way down the ballot to state gubernatorial and legislative races.
For example, Washington’s race for governor pits Democrat Attorney General Bob Ferguson, an extremist anti-gunner who lobbied for passage of bills banning so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines” against former sheriff and Congressman Dave Reichert, who is running on a campaign to restore responsible law enforcement, fiscal responsibility and holding criminals accountable.
This makes it all the more important for gun owners to vote in November. Activists at the state level will be promoting voter registration between now and the end of October, and conducting other efforts to get out the “gun vote” in November.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
This is what USA Today and a handful of connected leftist vets are telling voters is “nauseating” and “a new low.” (Donald J. Trump/Truth Social)
“’Furious’: Veterans slam Trump team’s altercation at Arlington National Cemetery,” USA Today claimed Wednesday in a Harris/Walz campaign ad disguised as news credited to four “reporters.” “Some veterans reacted with alarm to reports of an altercation between a member of Donald Trump’s entourage and a top official at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday…”
It went from “veterans” to “some veterans” in the blink of an eye, making it fair to ask, “Which veterans?” And while we get a few names, it’s up to readers curious enough to do their own research to determine if the sources are honest brokers or if they have political skin in the game.
“For a lot of us, and I’m not the only one, people are aptly furious,” Tim Wellman, identified as “a 22-year Army combat veteran,” claimed. What Wellman was not identified as was the host of @OnDemocracyPod and National Chairman Forgotten Democrats, whose X banner shows idealized portraits of Barack Obama with the slogan “Hope,” Joe Biden with the slogan “Heal,” Kamala Harris with the slogan “Grow,” and an angry Donald Trump with the slogan “Hate.”
Any guesses where he stands?
Former Army undersecretary and Pennsylvania Rep. Patrick Murphy called the Trump campaign’s recording of the former president laying wreaths and honoring the fallen in a private ceremony, at the request of family members of personnel killed in the Biden administration’s disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, “a new low.” For reasons only the four “reporters” can explain, they chose not to put a standard practice (D) after his name to let readers know Murphy’s a Democrat. Of interest to AmmoLand readers, he’s one who “signed on to sponsor legislation which would outlaw hundreds of commonly owned guns.”
Next up is an X video from Veterans for Responsible Leadership, which claims to be Non-partisan veterans” and follows that up with a pinned “tweet” soliciting signatures for a petition that begins, “We, as veterans, find Donald Trump unfit to serve as Commander-in-Chief. …he is a known and serious risk to service members, our apolitical military tradition, and to the U.S. Constitution.”
The next “furious” vet is “Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Paul Eaton, a senior adviser at the progressive political action committee VoteVets, [who] called the campaign’s actions at the cemetery ‘nauseating.’” USA Today made sure to include an unproven and denied “suckers and losers” allegation published before the 2020 election by the Biden-endorsing The Atlantic, but neglected to mention Eaton’s also a longtime Democrat supporter, having served on Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns, who tweeted “President Biden has our six. America and our allies,” and who is now running interference for Tim Walz.
These are the “furious veterans” USA Today used to create an illusion of wider sentiment, all of them Democrat apparatchiks. And again of interest to AmmoLand readers is every one of them supports the Democrat/Harris citizen disarmament agenda, as does one of its biggest cheerleaders, USA Today and its parent Gannett Corporation, long known for dispensing with its own ethics policies to attack gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms.
The Federalist reported “USA Today uses left-wing college interns to censor news media and opinion articles they disagree with, working hand in glove with unaccountable social media giants to suppress it.”
Per CNN,The Journal Newspublished “[a]n interactive map showing the names and addresses of all handgun permit holders in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties.”
Per Fox News,The Des Moine Register’sDonald Kaul “advocat[ed] deadly violence against NRA, GOP leaders.”
Last election, the USA TodayEditorial Board, which represents itself as “an ideologically and demographically diverse group,” urged readers to “Elect Joe Biden. Reject Donald Trump” without dissent.
They’re using deception to carry Kamala Harris’ water by masking political hit jobs as news instead of the reportable free advertising/in-kind contributions that they are.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
What do NRA members, former NRA members, and the general shooting public think about the NRA today?
That’s a question that I and many others have long believed we could reasonably answer, but are my beliefs accurate and justified? Do these folks really think and believe as I think they do, or am I just relying on an echo chamber effect?
Looking at the presidential race and the wide divisions between Republicans and Democrats, “progressives” and “conservatives,” I recognize that we all tend to live in an information bubble of our own making. As a lifelong “conservative,” I tend to gravitate toward Ben Shapiro, Bill Whittle, my community on X, and my favorite blogs and websites for political news and analysis, while my “liberal” friends tend to gravitate to MSNBC, “The View,” their community on X, and their favorite blogs and websites for theirs.
We all like to have our biases confirmed, our ideas echoed, and our beliefs supported. This is true for firearms information and firearms-related politics as well.
So how do I know whether I’ve trapped myself in a self-affirming echo chamber of my own regarding people’s thoughts and beliefs regarding the NRA?
How could I verify or disprove this idea? How could I determine what “regular” people (those not submerged in the intrigue) think about what’s been going on inside the NRA over recent years and decades?
I decided the simple solution was to ask them.
I’m a member of a wide variety of firearm-related discussion forums on the internet, though I don’t have time to frequent any of them with regularity. I looked at those forums and decided to focus on a couple that I thought would best represent the core membership of the NRA: a popular forum for collectors of Smith & Wesson firearms, and a forum dedicated to hunting and the outdoors. I went to those sites and posted a simple survey, asking the forum members to answer a few questions and provide some honest feedback.
Here’s what I posted; feel free to give me feedback on these same questions here in the comments below:
Your Thoughts on NRA Today?
First, thanks to all who supported my campaign for the NRA Board of Directors. Our “Four for Reform” slate came in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 16th out of 26.
We’ve made tremendous headway on the NRA’s path to redemption, but there’s still much work to do.
It’s easy for us to get trapped in our own echo chamber, thought silos, so I’m reaching out to different groups to get a better grasp on what folks are thinking about the current state of the NRA.
I’d like to know your thoughts on where the NRA is now, and what you see as the most pressing issues that we (the NRA Board) need to address.
I particularly want to know:
1. Are you a current or past NRA member? 2. Have you rejoined or are you financially contributing to the NRA now, or planning to do so in the near future? 3. If so, what convinced you to do so? 4. If not, what is holding you back? (Please be as specific and brutally honest as you can. We need to understand your issues.) 5. What internal issues (in priority order) do you think the NRA Board most urgently needs to address?
Any other thoughts or feedback you’d like to share with me and other NRA Directors?
Thanks.
The responses largely confirmed my original beliefs, though not exactly.
Many of the respondents are or have been, NRA members and the broad consensus was that they felt betrayed and frustrated. A few of the current members, perhaps ten percent, expressed their continued faith and trust in the NRA and its mission in general while still expressing anger regarding the scandal. Most of the past and present NRA members expressed a desire to return to the Association but an unwillingness to do so now, preferring to “wait and see” whether NRA leaders could get the Association back on track. A significant number expressed their utter disgust and resolve to never support the Association again under any circumstances.
Many specifically named Wayne LaPierre in their comments, and most of those included “the Board” that allowed and covered up the misdeeds as targets of their wrath. Of those, none mentioned any Directors or other staff members by name, aside from one or two who mentioned Ollie North with mixed reviews and one or two others who mistakenly suggested that Doug Hamlin, our recently elected Executive Vice President and CEO, was somehow a puppet of LaPierre. (For the record, Mr. Hamlin was the “reform” candidate.) There were also a couple who mentioned exorbitant legal expenses, but only in a general context.
Many expressed the need for the NRA to be more resolute and uncompromising in defending the Second Amendment. Many expressed a need for more focus and involvement in Second Amendment litigation, while others looked for a stronger focus on legislative efforts or political activity. A few lamented the NRA’s intransigence on “commonsense” gun control and/or partisan activity, though these were a distinct minority. Still, others wanted to see more focus on competition, training, and hunting.
The respondents were fairly evenly split between “The NRA is dead to me” and “Maybe someday, but I’m going to wait and see.”
The broad consensus of the “wait and see” folks said it would take a lot to win back their trust. They repeatedly expressed the need for the leadership to “come clean” about past failures, apologize, remove all those responsible or negligent in the matter, and provide clear, third-party audit reports.
The Smith & Wesson collectors were, by and large, very civil, respectful, and orderly in their comments, while the folks at the hunting and outdoors site were much more raucous and aggressive. Language occasionally got “colorful.”
What struck me was the mishmash of information among the respondents. A few seemed to be fairly knowledgeable about the whole affair, but even among those, there was some misinformation and much that was clearly missing. The majority appeared to have limited knowledge regarding details of the violations of Wayne and others, the trials, or the recent efforts to reform the Association. They simply knew that Wayne had abused his position, that members of the Board had allowed or assisted in that abuse, and that they held the entire Board responsible for failing to stop the abuse or taking decisive action to rectify the situation sooner. This led to the most often repeated suggestion for reform, which was a call to reduce the Board to a much smaller body. Other often repeated criticisms involved the incessant pleas for money and membership renewals through the mail and over the phone, as well as strong objections to the continued use of “cheap Chinese-made junk” as premiums for memberships.
My informal “survey” was sometimes conversational, as I answered some questions and corrected some misinformation along the way, including a widely held belief that NRA Directors are paid for our service (we’re all volunteers), but avoided arguing with anyone, reiterating that I wasn’t there to advocate or convince anyone of anything, but only to hear their opinions and ideas. Many thanked me for reaching out to them and suggested that other Directors should do the same. I wholeheartedly agree and am sharing all of this information with all of my fellow directors.
All in all, this was a very enlightening exercise. Clearly, the NRA is doing a poor job of communicating with our members, former members, and the shooting public, and we have a whole lot of work to do if we ever hope to restore their faith and trust.
Anyone interested in perusing the several pages of comments on these sites can do so by clicking the following links. Reading the comments is open to anyone, but you would have to be registered with the sites in order to leave a comment of your own.
Both are excellent, well-run sites with tons of interesting and useful information. I just wish I had more time to spend exploring them.
I will also mention that I considered posting a copy of the survey on the world’s largest firearm-related forum site, AR15.com, but decided against it, as past posts regarding the NRA have received almost universal derision and contempt there. This convinces me that the NRA must do a much better job of correcting the historical record and getting our message out, particularly to the younger, more tactical-oriented demographic represented on that site.
The NRA Board of Directors will meet on September 7th, 2024, to hopefully wrap up the final details of the New York v. NRA lawsuit and to set the agenda for continued progress as we head toward 2025. One of the key events of this meeting is the presentation of the Nominating Committee’s list of candidates for the 2025 Board elections. The judge in New York has instructed that he wants to see a more open process that provides an easier path for new candidates to get on the ballot. I am hoping to see a nomination list that includes at least an equal number of new candidates to the number of incumbents on the ballot. I’m also going to suggest that all incumbents should include their years of service on the Board at the top of their bio in the ballot issue of the magazines next year.
I think our members deserve to know how long each candidate has served on the Board.
As always, I’ll do my best to keep you informed, and if you’re a Voting Member of the NRA, please take the time to vote next year. Until then, I want to remind you that there are millions of gun owners who routinely don’t vote in federal, state, and local elections. This is the year that we must change that. Talk to your family, friends, and especially your shooting and hunting buddies to be sure that they all get to the polls in November. This one could be for all the marbles.
Jeff Knox is a dedicated political activist and the director of The Firearms Coalition, following in the footsteps of his father, Neal Knox. In 2024, Jeff was elected to the NRA Board of Directors, underscoring his lifelong commitment to protecting the Second Amendment. The Knox family has played a pivotal role in the ongoing struggle for gun rights, a legacy documented in the book Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War, authored by Jeff’s brother, Chris Knox.
Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, The Firearms Coalition is a network of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs, and civil rights organizations. The Coalition supports grassroots efforts by providing education, analysis of current issues, and a historical perspective on the gun rights movement. For more information, visit www.FirearmsCoalition.org.
Tucker, thank you for writing to me. While we may not agree on every issue, we both know that every person in our nation should have the freedom to live safe from gun violence. The majority of Americans stand with us in support of commonsense gun safety legislation. pic.twitter.com/HUdgFUcKtt
Current Vice President and Presidental Candidate Kamala Harris took to X (formerly Twitter) to post a picture of a handwritten note from “Tucker” thanking her for work on the “White House Office of Gun Violence.” It seems to imply that Tucker Carlson wrote the letter, but even though someone copied it by hand, AI detectors call the language in the note AI-generated.
“Tucker, thank you for writing to me,” Harris wrote. “ While we may not agree on every issue, we both know that every person in our nation should have the freedom to live safe from gun violence. The majority of Americans stand with us in support of commonsense gun safety legislation.”
The letter claims to be a conservative that disagrees with many things that the Biden administration has done but agrees with the White House efforts to establish “common sense gun safety laws.” The letter is full of anti-gun talking points from someone who believes “owning firearms is every American’s Constitutional right.” The AI chatbot calls for age restrictions, universal background checks, and mental health screenings to exercise a natural right. These requirements would most likely fail the Bruen standard.
The letter reads:
Vice President Harris,
One of my absolute favorite things in America is how people of different backgrounds and beliefs have the freedom to communicate with each other. We are so blessed to live in a country where the greatest currency is the free-flowing exchange of ideas. In America, we are blessed with the ability to come together on common ground.
In the spirit of establishing common ground, even though I am fairly conservative and we may have our disagreements, I am writing to express my gratitude for yours and President Biden’s efforts to establish common sense gun safety laws. Owning firearms is every American’s Constitutional right. Like all things, there needs to be reasonable regulation like age restrictions, background checks, and mental health screenings. Thank you for heading the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention and for years and President Biden’s push for common sense gun safety laws. I look forward to seeing what the Biden-Harris administration accomplishes in this regard.
All the best and God bless.
Tucker
Tucker Carlson laughed off the accusation that he would support such gun laws. Mr. Carlson is a gun owner who every day carries a Sig P365 and has vehemently opposed anti-gun laws. It was obvious to Carlson what Harris was trying to do when posting the letter. A closer look at the writer’s signature would further prove that Carlson didn’t write the letter.
“Ha! Seriously? I’m carrying a gun right now, as I always do,” Carlson responded. “There are few things I hate more than the Democratic Party’s attempt to disarm the American population. That’s what dictatorships do.”
“People actually think I sent a handwritten letter to Kamala Harris endorsing gun confiscation,” Carlson continued. “That’s moronic.”
Mr. Carlson would then post an AI-generated letter of his own from Harris, complete with hearts dotting her letters. In the letter, Harris is eviscerated for her support of open borders and other issues. It was signed with “OXOX” and a heart with an arrow through it.
The confusion around that AI letter is much more concerning than just the AI-produced propaganda. Although she is taking a victory lap from receiving a letter from a fake conservative cheering on her attempt to strip gun owners of the right to bear arms, many are more concerned about her making the post on Twitter and what that holds for our country.
Did Harris know she was posting an AI-generated letter? Many would quickly assume she knew the letter wasn’t genuine, but history has shown that she doesn’t understand technology. Recently, she believed the “cloud” was literally clouds above our heads where data is stored instead of massive data centers full of servers. The lack of understanding of technology is terrifying. The fact that no one around her realized the letter was AI-generated is concerning.
Many wonder how she will handle our technology war with China if she doesn’t understand tech and doesn’t have tech advisors. Her opponent, Donald Trump, has arguably the most extraordinary living mind in tech to advise him, Elon Musk. Harris has lost the support of most of Silicon Valley in recent months. Even Mark Zuckerburg regrets working with the White House. If she doesn’t have tech advisors, how will we maintain our top position in the world for technologies such as AI?
The anti-gun propaganda is scary, but the lack of tech advisors to tell her the letter was fake is even more frightening.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
‘A chameleon’ – Minnesota gun owners sound off about Gov. Tim Walz
One of the most popular booths at this year’s Minnesota State Fair bears a simple sign: “Never Walz.” The booth offers t-shirts and prizes for fairgoers – all emblazoned with the “Never Walz” logo. The line for the booth grows so long at times that it poses traffic problems for police officers patrolling the fairgrounds.
Bryan Strawser, chairman of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, is not surprised by the booth’s popularity. He’s watched Gov. Tim Walz’s career since the vice-president candidate first served in Congress. Walz, Strawser told the Second Amendment Foundation, poses a clear and present danger to the Second Amendment rights of the entire country, should he and Kamala Harris take control of the White House.
“If elected, Walz would become more effective at pushing gun control than any vice president we’ve had in decades because he can speak the language. He’s a hunter – that part’s not fake. He really does hunt,” Strawser said. “People will perceive him as having more credibility on the issue. Biden and Harris are not gun owners, but he is. He could win some folks over who don’t know any better.”
When Walz served in Congress from 2007 to 2019, he was an A-rated, NRA-endorsed congressman.
“He never voted for any anti-gun legislation, and he even celebrated the Heller decision with us,” Strawser said of the landmark 2008 Supreme Court opinion that said individuals have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Everything changed when Walz ran for governor. Another candidate was endorsed by the Democratic Party – known in the state as the Minnesota Democrat-Farmer-Labor party, or DFL. Walz could only run to the left of the DFL-endorsed candidate in the primary, Strawser said, and this included changing his long-held positions on guns.
“He completely flipped,” Strawser said. “Even before the state convention, he came out in favor of red-flag laws, an assault weapon ban, raising the purchase age to 21 and more. As governor, he proposed universal background checks, raising the age to 21, magazine restrictions and a ban on assault weapons.”
Strawser said he and his members have little doubt that if elected, Walz will call for more restrictive gun laws at the national level.
“I think he will push for magazine restrictions, bans on certain rifles, national universal background checks and, if he can get it through, raising the age to 21 for all firearm purchases,” he said.
Strawser warns that Walz is hard to pin down on his positions, but he should not be underestimated. He is a serious politician, and he is known to have a temper.
“Our members think he’s a political chameleon. You cannot trust what he says about the Second Amendment because of how he’s flipped. If you talk to Democratic gun owners like him, they too worry about how far he will go. We have a chapter of liberal gun owners here. They are very disappointed with him. They can’t get him to change his positions, and they can’t figure out why he flipped,” he said. “It’s hard to know what Walz really believes. He was in Congress for 12 years and told constituents he believed in the Second Amendment. Now, he’s on the other end of that equation.”
Based on his actions as Minnesota’s governor, Strawser said it’s not too difficult to determine how Walz would infringe upon the Second Amendment as vice president.
“Walz would have signed any gun-control bill they put in front of him,” he said.
This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.
About Lee Williams
Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.
It’s never hard to find “Fudds” who are enthusiastic about voting for citizen disarmament-pushing politicians and throwing fellow gun owners under the bus.
“We can prevent gun violence while also supporting the Second Amendment,” a Giffords-sponsored “sportsmen’s” effort lies. “Gun Owners for Safety unites hunters, sport shooters, and collectors who want commonsense gun laws.”
Giffords, of course, along with all the other major gun prohibitionist groups, has endorsed Kamala Harris, who will sign whatever anti-gun legislation the Democrats succeed in passing and go for what they can’t through executive action. And then she’ll reshape the Supreme Court. That’s some “commonsense support.”
It’s never hard to find “Fudds” who are enthusiastic about voting for citizen disarmament-pushing politicians and throwing fellow gun owners under the bus. A prime example is Harris’ Vice President pick, Tim Walz, once “A”-rated and endorsed by NRA. But while low information voters are being gaslit into thinking the Second Amendment can be “respected” while it’s being eviscerated, a striking inequity is being revealed:
There is no parallel “pro-Second Amendment Democrat” movement happening. That’s because there’s no such thing as one.
Sure, there are superficially “pro-gun Democrats” who act like the Second Amendment is about duck hunting, but at the end of the day they’ll support Party gun-grabbers and a president determined to reshape the Supreme Court until Bruen becomes a forgotten speed bump.
Where are Second Amendment Democrats for Trump?
Experience shows they prioritize other issues above the right to keep and bear arms, meaning they really don’t understand it to be a right at all. This was unequivocally proven years ago, when I conversed with the head of the Second Amendment Democrats.
After all kinds of weasel-wording and Molon Labe-ing, he finally could not deny the one truth that ultimately defines them:
Under no circumstances will Amendment II Democrats support Republican candidates who run against anti-RKBA Democrats. We are, after all, Democrats.
That’s all I needed to know. They support citizen disarmament. After it’s all said and done, they support taking your guns, which has always been the end goal.
I don’t know (or care) whatever happened to them, but do note there is a Facebook group that goes by that name, a group you can join with all of 19 members that doesn’t look like it’s been active for years. They offer further confirmation that there’s no such thing as what they claim to be:
Hello everyone. Who do we all think will be best on the 2nd Amendment of the current field? My guess is Bernie Sanders, though I suppose Amy Klobuchar has represented the most constituents with guns.
I agree that Bernie is the best bet. Not sure if Buttegeig would prioritize gun control like Booker or Warren.
Personally I feel like Buttigieg is the best candidate for president and to run against Trump, but not sure how I feel about any of their stances on gun control. There are so many issues.
It’s not my top priority either…
Obviously.
It’s not for the Giffords Fudds, either:
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
This week, NRA-ILA submitted a brief to state Attorney General Ken Paxton as an interested party in the matter of RQ-0558-KP, the opinion request sought by State Rep. Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock) and State Sen. Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston) on the matter of the State Fair of Texas’ misguided firearm prohibition for License To Carry holders at Fair Park in Dallas.
NRA-ILA led the fight for passage of these important safeguards over the last two decades, including legislation restricting political subdivisions from posting public premises off-limits to LTC holders (SB 501, 2003), a bill imposing legal remedies and civil penalties on these entities for wrongfully excluding LTC holders from such locations (SB 273, 2015), and critical improvements to the state firearms preemption law to prevent a patchwork of conflicting local restrictions (HB 3231, 2019).
Attorney General Paxton and state lawmakers have repeatedly referenced these laws in their actions and communications with the City of Dallas (which owns Fair Park but leases it out to the State Fair of Texas for three weeks in the fall during the fair), since announcement of the ban earlier this month.
The clock is ticking on the City of Dallas to take corrective action and direct the State Fair of Texas to rescind the ban. Attorney General Paxton sent a letter to the city on August 13, notifying them that unless the wrongful exclusion of LTC holders is corrected within 15 days, he will file suit to seek injunctive relief and civil penalties under Texas Government Code Section 411.209. We thank General Paxton for his swift and decisive action, and Sen. Middleton & Rep. Burrows for seeking key clarifications from his office on the application of the aforementioned statutes to these types of restrictions on the lawful carrying of firearms on public property.
2024 Texas State Fair Board Brief
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
Paul Slane approaches truck with married couple inside. Paul has what appears to be a pistol in his right hand.
On Tuesday afternoon of August 20, 2024, a “road rage” incident happened in Fort St. Lucie, reportedly at about 4:30 p.m. A married couple, in their car, recorded another man, reported as Paul Slane, 63, coming toward them with a pistol in his hand. The video is damning.
Slane approaches the couple’s car and shouts profanities. His car is blocking Briarwood Drive, about 400 yards from Slane’s possible residence. A little internet investigation shows that Paul T. Slane, 63, is listed as the owner of a house in the gated community.
The location of house records shows the arrow pointing to one owned by Paul T. Slane, 63. It may not be the same as Paul Slane, 63, who was arrested. The victim’s location is based on the video and analysis of the homes and trees from satellite images.
The location of house records shows the arrow pointing to one owned by Paul T. Slane, 63. It may not be the same as Paul Slane, 63, who was arrested. The victim’s location is based on the video and analysis of the homes and trees from satellite images.
The married couple is reported as saying they stopped their car in front of their home, so the location shown in the video is used to measure the distance from the house associated with Paul T. Slane, 63. That house is about three blocks from where the video occurred. It has not been confirmed Paul T. Slane, 63, is the same Paul Slane, 63, in the video. All three parties may live in the upscale gated community; this has not been confirmed. Using Slane’s steps as a measure, the vehicles appear to be about 40 feet apart when the video was recorded.
The wife of the couple video-recorded the incident on a phone. Slane appears to be ignorant of this as he approaches the truck. Slane does not appear to know the husband has a semi-automatic pistol in his hand, in his lap. The driver’s side window on the couple’s truck is open. The couple waits and records Slane as he approaches. The husband asks the wife if he should shoot Slane.
Slane approaches the car. He yells at the husband. He reaches through the window and hits/slaps the husband. Slane does not like being videoed. He reaches through the window and grabs at/hits the wife. He demands the cell phone. The wife asks him, rather heatedly, if he knows if Slane will be arrested. Slane turns and goes back to his car.
A police spokesman says he does not know what caused Slane to act in such an illegal and inappropriate way.
Because of the possible proximity of the homes, an obvious question is: Did the parties know each other before this incident? There may be more than has been reported. The Husband says, at one point: You started it. This suggests more has been going on than Slane’s bad behavior at the point of the Video.
Slane has been charged with multiple felonies: Two counts of aggravated assault with a weapon and attempted armed robbery (the phone). The husband seems to have been remarkably calm during the encounter.
Slane has likely lawyered up, which would be smart. The couple reported the incident to police, but Slane did not, making Paul Slane the obvious aggressor. If Slane had reported the incident, he would be in a better legal position.
Even if there is more to this than first appears, there were very bad, tactically terrible moves on the part of Paul Slane. Slane should have just driven away. He would likely lose in a confrontation between his vehicle and a truck. He could have been shot as he approached the car, and the husband would likely have been found to be justified.
Paul appears to have been the aggressor in the video. The husband’s remark seems to indicate there was some sort of ongoing action between them.
Slane should never have allowed his temper to get the best of him, place him in a bad tactical situation, and commit, very plausibly, three felonies in the space of a minute or so.
The couple in the truck did not have to wait for Slane to come up to them with a gun in his hand. If they are at their home (as stated), they were still in the street and could have fled in the truck. Slane was out of his vehicle. It would have taken some time for him to follow them. They could have called the police to get help on the way.
Perhaps the husband thought he could reason with Slane. Maybe this is why he had his window open. If the couple did not know Slane, leaving the area would prevent him from knowing where they lived.
As of this date, no reason for Slane’s aggressive behavior is known.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Sometimes, bunkers just become expensive tombs. iStock-1634339719
“UNDERGROUND GLITZ I build world’s most luxurious WW3 bunkers with go-kart tracks & JET SKIS… there’s something super-rich always want,” the subhead to Monday’s “Apocalyptic Luxury” exclusive in The Sun declares. “A worldwide secret bunker network is also being planned.”
They don’t have to be bunkers—they can be luxury yachts, we are told. And whatever the elites choose, “They are being designed to ensure people can maintain their health during an apocalyptic event – keeping them well and entertained for as long as 30 years.”
A world they did their share of damage to burns and they not only absolve themselves of the business and political choices they made that contributed to it, but do so in a giant private perpetual amusement park? It sounds more like a mad dystopian Hollywood fantasy than it does serious people grasping realities necessary to survive. It sounds like a continuation of conditioned beliefs that with enough money, they can buy their way out of anything.
It sounds like desperate denial.
“We are building our first-ever commercial space in a city centre, I can’t say where, that will have bunkers underneath for clients to purchase,” Naomi Corbi, wife of developer Al Corbi claims. How it can be kept secret with zoning and planning approvals and construction is left unsaid, but “The clients can pick their hub.”
“[T]here will be hubs globally, including one in London,” Al Corbi promises, unknowingly revealing a crack in the façade that can end up bringing the whole complex crumbling down.
Subjects can’t own guns in London. And there are plenty of citizen disarmament edicts in other locales. Plus, it’s easier to demolish hardened structures than it is to build them.
Corbi’s company, SAFE, among other things like “nuclear/emp-proof” shelters, bioterror defense shelters, “pirate proof” yachts, emergency medical facilities, and an rooms, promises “Fortified Active Shooter Defense Shelters” that offer everything but the one thing that stops active shooters: other active shooters shooting back.
Do those racing their go-carts through subterranean passages before a dip in the pool and movies on the big screen think that, like everything else, this is something they can offload to “the help”?
“What makes these billionaires think their private security details won’t have families of their own that will be their first concerns, especially the worse things turn out to be?” l asked in an article about billionaires trying to ride out the Apocalypse they helped bring about on remote ranches, in luxury bunkers, and in “sea castles.” “Men may die for a lot of things, for loved ones, for convictions, for country… but for their boss?”
Seeing as how we’re talking the end of the world as we know it, what’s to stop hired gun mercenaries from deciding their employer has paid for a pretty nice setup, electricity, plenty of food, top-shelf booze, and he’s powerless to prevent them from taking it, and maybe his trophy wife or daughters, for themselves?
It’s curious how many billionaires bankroll efforts to disarm the hoi-polloi. Now, comes the Apocalypse, freelance pirates may not be the biggest threat Jeff Bezos and lip-augmented, blouse-busting Lauren Sanchez have to worry about on the open seas. And Mark Zuckerberg may just find that it will take more than “fire moats and water cannons” when the natives, with nothing to lose and everything to gain, are restless.
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Texas State Fair Attempts to Ban Guns. IMG iStock-884200682
In 2002, the City of Dallas leased part of its property, about 77 acres, to a private entity, the State Fair of Texas, for 24 days each year to operate the State Fair. The State Fair allowed people with a handgun carry permit to carry on the fairgrounds. The 2002 lease has a duration of 25 years.
On October 14, 2023, a young man, 22-year-old Cameron Alexander Turner, fired 3 or 4 shots and wounded three people at the fair. Turner did not have a concealed carry permit. Turner claimed self-defense. Video from the fair does not appear to support that claim. Turner was charged with three counts of aggravated assault and serious bodily injury.
Jeff Cotner, the director of security for the fair says they still don’t know how Turner got that gun onto the fairgrounds.
“I’m little emotional, I’m sorry,” he told WFAA. “It was very traumatic on Saturday night.”
He says in the time since the shooting they’ve made some subtle changes – like new fences at the main entrance and increased security.
“We moved like 2 extra officers from one spot to another spot and we moved to police stand about 30 feet,” Cotner said.
According to fair officials, they are still allowing people to enter the fairgrounds with guns, as long as they have a concealed carry permit – something some fairgoers question.
According to fox4news.com, a grand jury formally indicted Turner on November 21, 2023, on three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The dentonrc.com showed Turner was also indicted with unlawful carrying of a weapon in a prohibited place. On Jan 26, 2024, Bond was reduced from 1.6 million to $350,000. From the dentonrc.com:
The new bonds were assigned by Dallas County District Court Judge Nancy Mulder, according to the documents.
It was the first time a firearm at the fair had been fired to injure someone since 1988, according to reports. Initially, the State Fair indicated no policy changes were planned.
In August 2024, in response to the incident, which did not involve anyone with a carry permit, the State Fair changed its policy to ban people with carry permits from carrying at the fair. Retired and active law enforcement personnel would be allowed to carry. Studies have shown people with carry permits in Texas are less likely to break the law than law enforcement officers.
71 Texas State legislators signed a letter asking the fair to restore its previous policy. They stated that if the State Fair did not do so, they would work to change state law to put the change into effect by law. From the letter:
The Texas Legislature has repeatedly enhanced Texans’ Second Amendment Rights, but your actions raise questions about the need for legislation next Session to further protect these rights on lands managed by the public. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss our opposition to this policy further, please do not hesitate to contact any of our offices.
Texas AG Ken Paxton has threatened to sue the City of Dallas to require the State Fair to restore the situation to what it was from 2002 to 2023.
“Texas law clearly states that license to carry holders may not be prevented from carrying a firearm on property owned or leased by the government unless otherwise prevented by state statute,” Paxton said in a statement. “The State Fair of Texas’s recent policy that infringes on LTC holders’ Second Amendment is unlawful. Dallas has fifteen days to fix the issue, otherwise I will see them in court.”
BREAKING: I have sent a notice letter to the City of Dallas directing it to withdraw the statement made by the State Fair of Texas, the organization contracted to run Fair Park during the annual event, that prohibits citizens from lawfully carrying a firearm on the premise.… pic.twitter.com/dBzePtPAUi
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) August 14, 2024
Texas law is not completely clear about whether a private entity that leases public property can restrict carry permit holders on public property. A lawsuit resulting from the crime against the security company and the perpetrator has been filed by one of the people who was injured. This letter from the office of the Texas Attorney General explains some of the issues:
Texas Government Code § 411.209(a) states that “. . . a political subdivision of the state may not take any action, including an action consisting of the provision of notice by communication described by Section 30.06 or 30.07, Penal Code, that states or implies that a license holder who is carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03, Penal Code, or other law.”
It remains to be seen if the State Fair of Texas or the City of Dallas will respond to the requests of state legislators or AG Paxton.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
According to a California judge, 1.2 million switchblades sold annually do not constitute “common use.” IMG Jim Grant
A California Federal District Judge from the Southern District of California ruled that switchblades are not protected arms and not protected by the Second Amendment.
In the case Knife Rights v. Bonta, brought by Knife Rights Inc, North County Shooting Center, LWGG L.P., and three named plaintiffs challenging a California law banning switchblades, the plaintiffs argued that the regulation violated the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. They stated that switchblades are protected arms that the state cannot ban. The case is similar to the butterfly knife case out of Hawaii, where a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Hawaii’s law banning butterfly knives violated the Second Amendment. Judge James Simmons, a Biden appointee, would come to a different conclusion in this case.
In the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, the Court said that the government cannot ban arms in common use. The plaintiffs pointed out that 1.2 million switchblades are sold annually. The plaintiffs say that constitutes “common use.” The judge disagreed, saying that the plaintiffs misunderstood Heller. The judge stated that the number of switchblades sold doesn’t matter. He noted that common use only applies to self-defense cases. The judge didn’t believe that there was enough evidence to show that switchblades are in common use for self-defense.
“Second, the Court must determine whether the regulated switchblade at issue is commonly used today for self-defense,” Judge Simmons wrote. “Though Heller announced and Bruen reiterated that the Second Amendment extends only to bearable arms presently in common use, neither case clarified a metric by which courts should determine whether a weapon is ‘in common use.’ Instead, the latter case, Bruen, simply repeated Heller’s observation that the Second Amendment “protects the possession and use of weapons that are ‘in common use at the time.’ See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2134. In contrast, ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons are ‘outside the scope of the Second Amendment.’”
The judge also said that “dangerous and unusual” are independent of each other. The judge effectively changed “dangerous and unusual” to “dangerous or unusual.” He stated that neither side disputed that switchblades are dangerous; therefore, it shows that the original text of the Second Amendment does not cover switchblades. Step one of the Bruen test is to show a law is not consistent with the text of the Second Amendment. The judge didn’t believe that the plaintiffs satisfied the requirement.
“Because Plaintiffs bear the burden of satisfying Bruen step one and fail to prove that the regulated switchblades are in common use today for self-defense or that the weapons are not dangerous and unusual, it follows that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to this issue,” the judge ruled.
Judge Simmons said since the plaintiffs failed step one of Bruen, he did not have to move to step two. He said he chose to address step two anyway. In step two, the burden falls to the defense to provide historical analogues from the founding era that shows a law is consistent with the history and tradition of the Second Amendment. The state presented laws dealing with clubs before the founding era. They also used two laws from the 1900s banning clubs and several from the late 1800s. The late 1800s and 1900s are well outside the founding era. California also used an 1830s law banning bowie knives as an analogue.
“Defendants also identify clubs as a representative historical analogue,” the order reads. “Defendants claim that laws regulating clubs date back to the Founding era and that ‘our nation’s history’ has a ‘robust tradition of regulating clubs.’ Defendants name seven states that regulated clubs spanning from 1664 to 1889 and two states that regulated clubs in 1905 and 1923. Like Defendant’s proposal of using bowie knives as a historical analogue, they do not describe what properties clubs have that are similar to the regulated switchblades.”
The judge issued a summary judgment for California, meaning the law banning switchblades in the Golden State survives the legal challenge at the District Court level. The case can be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If appealed, a three-judge panel will decide if the judge erred in his ruling.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
