Zohran Mamdani Calls for National “Assault Rifle” Ban After NYC Shooting—Despite NY’s Own Gun Control Failure

New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has returned from his wedding trip to Uganda with renewed political talking points, jumping on the tragic Midtown Manhattan shooting to demand a nationwide ban on so-called “assault rifles.”

Mamdani’s press conference, held at the SEIU union headquarters just hours after visiting the grieving family of fallen NYPD Officer Didarul Islam, echoed Governor Kathy Hochul’s earlier call for a federal “assault weapons” ban. The timing—and political pivot—didn’t go unnoticed by pro-2A observers.

“We are only as safe as the weakest gun laws in this country,” Mamdani said, despite the fact that New York already has one of the most restrictive gun control regimes in the nation.

The firearm used in Monday’s shooting, reportedly an AR-style rifle, was already banned under New York’s so-called “assault weapon” laws. And yet, like so many other tragedies in gun-free zones, those laws failed to stop a determined killer.

As if he weren’t already unpopular, Zohran Mamdani is now calling for a “nationwide ban on assault rifles.”

Somehow, a socialist thinks disarming Americans will solve the nation’s mental health crisis. pic.twitter.com/UbxhPJKUN0

— NRA (@NRA) July 30, 2025

A Quick Reminder for Mamdani: Criminals Don’t Follow Gun Laws

The shooter, 27-year-old Shane Tamura, had a history of mental health issues and left a suicide note citing grievances against the NFL. He murdered four people—including Officer Islam—and then killed himself.

So naturally, Mamdani’s response wasn’t to address mental health, or failed enforcement, or even New York’s soft-on-crime record.

Instead, his solution? Ban guns nationwide.

This is the same Mamdani who, in 2022, tweeted “We need to ban all guns.” Now, trying to rebrand himself as more “reasonable,” he’s shifted focus from all guns to “assault rifles.” But the goal remains the same: disarm law-abiding Americans.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride M4 Carbine 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 949.99 $ 469.99
	PSA PA-15 16"Nitride M4 Carbine 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 949.99 $ 499.99
	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride A2 Mid-Length 5.56 NATO MOE AR-15 Rifle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 879.99 $ 519.99
	PSA PA-15 16"Nitride M4 Carbine 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 899.99 $ 499.99

The Hypocrisy Runs Deep

While Mamdani pushes to strip everyday citizens of their right to defend themselves, he does so while benefiting from armed NYPD protection as a mayoral candidate. Just years ago, he called for defunding the very police he now relies on to protect his ass.

Let that sink in:

• Disarm the people.
• Defund the cops.
• But keep his own security detail armed.

It’s the classic elitist double standard.

Gun Control Theater

This isn’t about safety—it’s about control. New York’s gun laws already outlaw the firearm used in the attack. Just like in Chicago, Philadelphia, and other Democrat-run cities with sky-high crime, gun control continues to fail where it’s tried hardest.

• Pro-Second Amendment advocates know the truth:
• Criminals don’t care about gun laws.
• Disarming lawful citizens only empowers violent thugs.

The right to self-defense is fundamental—especially when government protection fails.

Bottom Line

Zohran Mamdani is using a tragedy to push a recycled anti-gun agenda that’s already failed in his own city. His call for a national “assault rifle” ban won’t stop crime—but it will strip freedom from the very people who need it most.

Let’s not confuse emotion with logic—or political theater with real solutions.

Editor’s Note: We stand with the families affected by this horrific shooting. However, we also stand firm in defending the constitutional rights of every American. Tragedy should never be a stepping stone to tyranny.

Mamdani Useful in Exposing Democrats’ ‘Commonsense Gun Safety’ Lie and More

Zohran Mamdani: The Socialist NYC Mayor Candidate Wants Your Guns ~ & More

---

from https://ift.tt/McXY1u6
via IFTTT

Supreme Court’s Failure: Path to Tyranny ~ & Why Armed Americans Must Care

Opinion

iStock-wildpixel

The recent inaction by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the people’s right to keep and bear arms isn’t just disappointing—it invites tyranny. When the Court refuses to protect a right so explicitly anchored in the Constitution, it risks turning once‑free people into subjects. And as the founding generation understood, tyranny compels rebellion.

Background: What This Means For You

If you’re new to this issue: the Second Amendment guarantees a natural, individual right of self‑defense. Landmark cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) confirmed that Americans have the right to own functional firearms, especially handguns, for lawful purposes in their homes.

Two years later McDonald v. Chicago made clear that this right applies at the state level as well.

Since then, lower courts have been left to navigate whether gun regulations are allowed under an “in‑common‑use” and historical tradition approach, not interest balancing. Yet, gun‑rights advocates have seen many victories blocked, and equally many restrictions upheld under vague standards.

The Court’s Recent Defeat: Antonyuk and Beyond

In its latest term, the Court chose not to review Antonyuk vs. James, a critical Second Amendment case from New York’s courts. That means the lower court’s decision—and the State’s restrictive Concealed Carry Improvement Act—remains in place.

Despite calls from Justices Thomas and Alito for clarity, the Court laid down no reasoning. That silence undermines not just precedent, but the credibility of the constitutional right itself.

Without Court guidance, states pushing severe carry limits and licensing regimes can continue to chip away at our right to armed self‑defense—state power overriding individual liberty, even where founding principles say otherwise.

Why This Matters to Armed Americans

Our in-depth article over at Arbalest, “The Failure Of The U.S. Supreme Court To Ensure The Sanctity Of The RKBA”, spells it out: the failure of the Court to act is not neutrality—it is bowing to tyranny. Masked under slogans like “strong gun laws reduce violence,” the real outcome is disarming law‑abiding citizens, while leaving government unchecked.

A citizenry that cannot defend itself is at the mercy of government power. If free people allow erosion of the right to bear arms, they lose the final safeguard against arbitrary state authority. The author warns: this is not philosophical—they mean actual disarmament, or worse.

Last Words

The failure of the high Court has weakened the natural law right. Its refusal to grant certiorari in key Second Amendment cases refuses to protect the sanctity of those rights. It allows anti‑gun states to continue trampling self‑defense protections under the guise of regulation. This is not legal evolution—it’s legal surrender.

---

If you’re ready to dig into the full arguments, precise citations, and rhetorical power of the original, I encourage you to visit our article and read it in full. It lays out, step‑by‑step, how judicial inaction signals tyranny—and why now is the time for armed citizens to pay attention.

Did The Supreme Court Just Walk Away From Bruen ~ VIDEO

Antonyuk Deserved More: The Court’s Denial Isn’t Just A Letdown—It’s A Warning

---

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/mgUpjvV
via IFTTT

IF You Are Crazy, The Court Can Take Your Gun Rights (temporarily)… ~ VIDEO

Fourth Circuit Rules: Yes, the Government Can Temporarily Disarm You—But Only After a Due Process Finding.

If you’ve ever been involuntarily committed to a mental institution—even years ago—you might lose your Second Amendment rights. At least temporarily. That’s the message from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Gould (No. 24-4192, decided July 29, 2025).

Let’s break it down in plain language for gun owners who care about liberty, fairness, and the Constitution.

The Court’s Ruling in a Nutshell

The federal law at issue—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)—makes it a crime to possess a gun if you’ve been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. James Gould challenged this law head-on, saying it violated the Second Amendment on its face (that is, in every situation). He didn’t argue that it violated his rights specifically—he just said the entire law was unconstitutional.

The court disagreed.

The Fourth Circuit said the law can be constitutional in at least some cases—especially where a court has already found that someone was mentally ill and dangerous to themselves or others. That made Gould’s blanket “facial challenge” a no-go.

What Counts as a Valid Gun Ban?

The judges leaned heavily on Bruen and Rahimi, recent Supreme Court cases that say gun restrictions must line up with our country’s historical traditions. According to the court, there is a historical tradition of keeping weapons out of the hands of dangerous people—whether they were criminals, lunatics, or folks who made threats with weapons in public.

And here’s the key: The disarmament must follow a real legal process. You can’t lose your rights just because your neighbor doesn’t like your politics or thinks you’re “unstable.” A court must first find you pose a real threat.

That’s exactly what happened to Gould. He was committed to mental institutions four times between 2016 and 2019. He never petitioned to get his rights back. Then, in 2022, cops found a shotgun in his home.

Why Shooters Shouldn’t Panic (Yet)

This ruling sounds harsh, but let’s be honest—most gun owners aren’t being committed to psychiatric wards against their will. And the court was clear: This isn’t permanent. You can get your rights restored through a proper legal process, especially in states like West Virginia that offer Second Amendment restoration pathways.

In fact, the court made a point to say they are not shutting the door on future as-applied challenges—where someone argues, “Hey, I’m fine now, and this law still bans me unfairly.” That means the fight isn’t over for folks who’ve recovered from past issues and want their rights back.

The Big Mental Health Question

One of the trickiest parts of this case is how the law draws the line between “mentally ill” and “dangerous.” Plenty of people deal with mental health struggles—depression, anxiety, PTSD—and go on to live safe, responsible lives. But § 922(g)(4) only kicks in when someone has been involuntarily committed by a court because they were considered dangerous.

That’s a big difference from just seeing a therapist or taking medication.

So no, the feds can’t take your guns just because you once took Zoloft in college.

---

---

Fictional Crazies Who Definitely Can’t Have Guns (Thanks to § 922(g)(4))

Let’s be honest: even the most hardcore 2A supporters wouldn’t want these folks armed. If the Fourth Circuit’s ruling applied to famous fictional characters, here’s who’d be out of luck when it comes to gun rights:

• Michael Myers (Halloween): Committed, escaped, and just won’t die. He’s the poster child for why dangerous lunatics shouldn’t have access to firearms—or knives, for that matter.
• Randle P. McMurphy (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest): Sure, he was more of a rebel than a threat. But after getting committed for being “psychopathic,” he’d still be disarmed under this ruling—unless Nurse Ratched restored his rights (spoiler: she didn’t).
• Norman Bates (Psycho): Running a motel while talking to your dead mother in a wig = involuntary commitment material. Firearms? Not today, Norman.
• The Joker (Pick a version—Heath, Joaquin, Ledger): In and out of Arkham Asylum like it’s a drive-thru. He’d qualify for a lifetime NICS ban, even without the purple suit.
• Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs): Doctor? Yes. Mental institution alum? Also yes. Cannibal? Definitely. Shouldn’t be allowed near guns, scalpels, or Chianti.
• Leatherface (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre): Technically never used a gun. But still, the man wears human faces and runs around with a chainsaw. A big “nope” on the 4473.
• ️Tyler Durden (Fight Club): An entire club of mentally unwell anarchists led by a hallucination? That’s a one-way ticket to ATF denial land.
• Jack Torrance (The Shining): “All work and no play” makes Jack… a prohibited person. The Overlook Hotel might be haunted, but that axe-wielding stare is pure 922(g)(4) material.
• Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde: Voluntary potion-induced madness still counts if you start assaulting townsfolk. Jekyll might pass a background check. Hyde, not so much.

Moral of the Sidebar: If your name appears in a horror movie, thriller, or dystopian novel—and you’ve ever had a “chat” with imaginary friends—don’t expect the court to restore your gun rights anytime soon.

---

---

What This Means Going Forward

Here’s the good news: The Fourth Circuit didn’t give the government a blank check.

• They emphasized the importance of due process—a formal court finding of dangerousness.
• They reaffirmed the possibility of restoring your rights.
• And they opened the door to future legal challenges by people unfairly caught up in this statute.

This isn’t the end of the story. If you’ve been involuntarily committed in the past, but you’re stable and safe today, you might still be able to reclaim your Second Amendment rights.

How This Ties Into the Bigger 2A Picture

Mark Smith was right to point out the bigger trend: This case aligns with what the Trump administration and pro-2A lawmakers are pushing—a restoration of rights program that gives folks a real way back after old legal issues. That matters.

Because at the end of the day, if the system takes away your rights without a path to restore them, that’s not justice—it’s tyranny.

Final Word: Yes, the court says if a judge finds you’re dangerous because of mental illness, your gun rights can be taken—at least for a while.

But it’s not forever. And it’s not without a fight.

Iowa Supreme Court Upholds Mental Health Gun Restrictions, Despite Constitutional Protections

4th Circuit Court Federal Judges Caught Intentionally Manipulating 2A Cases

---

from https://ift.tt/t3wVT1k
via IFTTT

Tortured by Bureaucrats & Their Permission Slips ~ VIDEO

Opinion

Americans like licenses. People think they make us safer.

• We license drivers.
• We license dogs.

But most government licensing is useless. Or harmful.

It limits competition, raises costs, leaves consumers with fewer choices, and blocks opportunity for people who want to work.

Michelle Freenor, a tour guide in Savannah, Georgia, gets good reviews from customers.

But her business almost didn’t get off the ground because local politicians said, “No one can be a tour guide without first getting a government license!”

Bill Durrence, a Savannah alderman at the time, told me why it’s important.

“I hear a lot of tour guides saying things that make me cringe. The licensing and testing I thought was a good idea just to make sure people had the accurate information.”

While they were at it, the politicians added other requirements. Anyone who wanted to give tours had to get a criminal background check, which included urine and blood samples, take a physical fitness test, pay fees to the city, and pass a difficult history test.

“A college level history exam with tons of obscure, gotcha questions,” Freenor told me, “It could be three to five months of studying and studying. It was 120 pages!”

Ironically, the test asked no questions about subjects covered by the most popular Savannah tours — ghost tours and “Forrest Gump” tours (the movie’s bench scenes were filmed in Savannah).

Freenor complained to a city official: “There’s no ghost questions on this test!”

His response: “Ghosts aren’t real.”

Why would a city pass rules that block people merely from speaking?

“The city was making a nice amount of money for people failing this,” said Freenor.

When I confronted Alderman Durrence about this, he admitted, “There were a couple of points that maybe went a little too far in the licensing process. Having to have the physical exam periodically. Maybe the cost of the test.”

But he’s a big fan of regulation. “Little by little,” he said, “we’ve managed to get control of some things, but we still don’t have control over a lot.”

What? They control much too much!

With the help of the libertarian law firm the Institute for Justice, Freenor sued Savannah and won. Now Savannah has no licensing rule.

Washington, D.C., killed its rule after IJ sued, too.

IJ also won in Philadelphia and Charleston, where a court ruled that the rules were unconstitutional because, as IJ attorney Robert McNamara put it, “The First Amendment protects your right to speak for a living, whether you’re a journalist, a comedian or a tour guide.”

Good point.

My point is we don’t need most of these complex consumer protection laws. Competition alone protects customers.

Freenor says it well: “The free market is taking care of itself. Bad tour companies don’t last.”

Exactly. A competitive market helps consumers much more than licensing laws ever will. If such laws were once needed (they weren’t), they definitely aren’t needed now that the internet exists, because it’s so easy for consumers to learn about what’s good and what’s not.

But politicians always want more control over us.

Eight years have passed since the Institute for Justice fought Freenor’s case. Despite their victories in court, cities like New Orleans and my home, New York City, still have tour guide licensing rules. New York guides are told to pass a 150-question exam.

Many tour guides ignore the rules, knowing bureaucrats are not likely to enforce them.

That expands the “illegal” underground economy, inviting actual harm.

Government’s rules almost always have nasty unintended consequences. [or deadly in the case of gun permits]

Licensing bureaucrats should regulate much less.

We’re supposedly free people.

It should be up to us how we spend our money.

Carol Bowne Murdered by Ex-boyfriend.. and New Jersey Laws

Are Gun Permit-to-Purchase Laws Unconstitutional?

---

John Stossel

Every Tuesday at JohnStossel.com, Stossel posts a new video about the battle between government and freedom. He is the author of “Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.”

John Stossel

---

from https://ift.tt/eN1oVDU
via IFTTT

Missouri AG Targets Big Tech Over Alleged Censorship of Firearm Content

Free speech censorship censored and freedom of expression gun ban rifle no guns iStock-Jorm Sangsorn 1288437044

In an escalation against Silicon Valley, Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey issued a formal demand letter to Google YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram on June 27, 2025, probing alleged censorship of gun-related content on the world’s largest social media platforms.

Bailey’s move, marked by a Civil Investigative Demand (CID)—a powerful statutory tool under Missouri law—signals the latest step in a growing clash between Republican state attorneys general and Big Tech schemes to undermine free speech online.

The Missouri AG’s office frames the issue as nothing less than constitutional liberty. “When Big Tech companies hold the power to control what Americans see, say, and believe, they hold the power to reshape the nation,” the press release states. “We will not allow Silicon Valley to rewrite the Bill of Rights from behind a firewall.” The CID, permitted by Section 407.040 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, compels these tech giants to hand over a trove of documents, policies, internal communications, and records of any acts such as “demonetizing”, “downranking”, or “delisting” firearms-related content that abides by the law.

Bailey asserts the demand was prompted by “troubling allegations that Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram are obscuring or penalizing content related to firearms, accessories, hunting, personal protection, and related political viewpoints.”

The press release underscores what’s at stake: “The right to ‘keep and bear arms’ is one of the most sacred and cherished rights guaranteed to the citizens of the State of Missouri under the Constitution of the United States.” According to the CID, “If citizens are prevented from owning modern firearms, the government holds a monopoly on the use of force, and as history has demonstrated time and again, this consolidation of power inevitably leads to the violation of human rights and the trampling of individual liberty.”

The Missouri Attorney General’s office invokes both consumer protection law and constitutional freedoms. The investigation seeks to determine if Google and Meta engaged in “deception, fraud, false promises, misrepresentation, or other unfair practices…to suppress speech related to the legal acquisition, ownership, and use of firearms.” Bailey reiterated: “The right to keep and bear arms is the cornerstone of every other constitutional freedom. If tech giants are colluding to silence lawful expression about firearms or shut down commerce protected under the Second Amendment, Missourians deserve to know.”

If the investigation reveals that these companies misled consumers about the availability or visibility of lawful content, it could constitute a violation of the “Missouri Merchandising Practices Act”—one of the nation’s broadest and most flexible state consumer protection statutes.

This announcement is just the latest in a series of high-profile actions by AG Bailey targeting what he calls “corporate censorship.”

Missouri has previously filed a federal lawsuit against the Biden administration—Missouri v. Biden—alleging the existence of a coordinated “censorship enterprise” in which government officials pressured social media companies to suppress constitutionally protected speech, including content related to the Second Amendment. Then, in May 2025, Bailey implemented a groundbreaking state rule requiring social media platforms to allow users to choose their own content moderators, directly challenging the control exercised by platform-driven algorithms.

Under the Missouri CID, Google and Meta must respond with requested records by October 26, 2025. The outcome will help determine whether states can leverage consumer protection laws to compel platform transparency and possibly change how social media handles lawful firearms content nationally.

Bailey’s announcement put it starkly: “We will not allow Silicon Valley to rewrite the Bill of Rights from behind a firewall. The right to keep and bear arms is the cornerstone of every other constitutional freedom.” As the October deadline looms, the clash between Jefferson City and Silicon Valley could redefine the limits of corporate control over constitutionally protected speech.

Wisconsin Congressman Moves to Eliminate Magazine Limit Laws

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/OR97enC
via IFTTT

MI Gov Whitmer Can’t Be Bothered to Thank Armed & Brave Citizens that Stopped Mass Stabbing Attack

Opinion

Michigan Democrat Governor Gretchen Esther Whitmer Official Photo

Criminals Protecting Criminals!

In the aftermath of this week’s mass stabbing incident in MI, which was ended in part by an armed citizen, the local sheriff appeared in person in a timely manner to address the public.

Michigan’s Democratic Governor, Gretchen Whitmer, did not!

She did decry (while safely behind her army of heavily-armed bodyguards) this “brutal act” and then went on to praise first responders.

I’m in touch with law enforcement about the horrible news out of Traverse City. Our thoughts are with the victims and the community reeling from this brutal act of violence. I am grateful to the first responders for their swift response to apprehend the suspect.

— Governor Gretchen Whitmer (@GovWhitmer) July 26, 2025

She conspicuously did not praise, nor even mention, local citizens (one of whom was armed) who aided in the arrest!

This is “horrible news,” says the governor. Yet, apparently not horrible enough for her to actually step down from her ivory tower and reassure local citizens in person, particularly since during her tenure, she has done everything possible to keep these violent criminals out of prison and on the street!

As with most modern Democrats, nothing she has done while governor benefits honest, tax-paying citizens. Every bill she has promoted is designed to support criminals.

In fact, in the summer of 2020 this governor joined in marches with BLM, ANTIFA, and other criminal gangs!

Who is harmed by Democrats’ unshakable alliance with criminals?

All eleven of those innocent Walmart shoppers.

That’s who!

Maybe you and me, next time!

Among Democrat politicians, our personal safety enjoys the lowest of priorities, as we see.

/John

Democrats Encouraging Violence & War Against MAGA Supporters

Legally Armed Civilian & Brave Bystanders End Michigan Walmart Stabbing Spree ~ VIDEOS

---

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

John Farnam

---

from https://ift.tt/wvL6y2P
via IFTTT

4.5 Million Suppressors, Zero Crime Wave: Why the Left’s Fear Campaign Is Pure Fiction ~ VIDEO

If you’ve been online lately—or dared to peek at mainstream media—you’ve probably seen a wave of fearmongering over firearm suppressors (a.k.a. “silencers”) thanks to the anti-gun lobby’s latest boogeyman: Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, which zeroes out the outdated $200 tax stamp on suppressors while keeping all other regulations in place.

But let’s set the record straight. The media spin? Wild. The facts? Simple.

What Did the Bill Actually Do?

Let’s start here:

The bill didn’t “deregulate” suppressors. It didn’t make them easier to get. It didn’t remove the background checks. And it certainly didn’t let “just anyone” walk into a store and grab one like a candy bar.

All it did was remove the $200 tax. That’s it.

You still have to:

• Submit a federal NFA application
• Go through two background checks
• Wait on ATF approval
• Register your suppressor with the government
• Comply with all state laws (many still ban or heavily regulate suppressors)

Why the Meltdown?

Anti-gun groups like Brady United and politicians like Sen. Chris Murphy, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Sen. Mark Kelly are flipping out over this change. Why? Because they rely on emotion and misinformation to push their agenda.

Take the op-ed in The Hill by a Dartmouth student, Sally Young, who failed to disclose her role as a communications intern at Brady United. She claimed that suppressors “muffle gunfire to the point that lives are lost,” and that removing the tax “turns silencers into impulse buys.”

False on both counts.

Cam Edwards from Bearing Arms tore the argument apart. His analysis shows the real threat isn’t suppressors—it’s bad policy, willful ignorance, and a media echo chamber that treats facts like an inconvenience.

The Truth About Suppressors

Let’s be real:

Suppressors are not what Hollywood tells you they are. They don’t make guns silent. They don’t turn people into undetectable assassins. What they do is lower the decibel level of gunshots—from around 165 dB (jet engine loud) down to about 130 dB (still loud, like a jackhammer). It’s about protecting hearing—not hiding crime.

Even ShotSpotter (the controversial gunshot detection tech) admits its system can still pick up suppressed gunfire. That kills the claim that criminals will now go undetected. In fact, criminals rarely use suppressors anyway. A 10-year study showed only 15 crimes nationwide involved suppressors being used in any meaningful way. That’s 0.00006% of crimes in California. Not exactly an epidemic.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Rugged Front Cap, For Rugged Suppressors, 5.56	Palmetto State Armory	$ 68.99 $ 61.89
	Rugged Suppressors Flash Hider Front Cap, 5.56 All Rugged Rifle Suppressors - FC007	Palmetto State Armory	$ 86.99 $ 77.99
	Rugged Razor 556 5.56 Nato Rifle Silencer / Suppressor - Black	Bereli	$ 550.00
	Rugged Suppressors Flash Hider Front Cap, 5.56 All Rugged Rifle Suppressors - FC007	Palmetto State Armory	$ 91.99 $ 70.99

Suppressor Ownership Is Up—Crime Is Not

According to NSSF data:

• 4.5 million suppressors are now registered in the U.S.
• Ownership surged 265% between 2020–2024
• Most common uses? Recreational shooting, hunting, and home defense
• Despite this surge, crimes involving suppressors remain exceedingly rare.

Even the ATF’s former acting director admitted in a 2017 white paper that suppressors should be regulated like regular firearms, not heavily restricted under the NFA. The goal of the original 1934 tax was never safety—it was to price working-class Americans out of owning one.

So Why the Lies?

Easy. Anti-gun groups can’t sell facts. So they sell fear:

• They lie in polls to get rigged results (like Giffords’ infamous push poll)
• They lie in op-eds to sway emotion-driven voters
• They lie on the floor of Congress to score headlines

But facts still matter—and you, the American gun owner, deserve the truth.

Suppressors reduce hearing damage, lower noise pollution, and do not increase crime. They are legal in 42 states, and hunting with them is legal in 41. The only reason they’re still regulated under the NFA is inertia—and anti-gun lobbyists desperate to keep every win from going your way.
Final Thought

If suppressors were truly the “tool of killers,” as some senators screeched, we’d see it

Antigun Lawmakers’ Lie Loudly Over Suppressors

The Golden Age of Small Arms Ammunition? ~ The Part of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill No One Is Talking About

---

from https://ift.tt/wf6AxlD
via IFTTT

Illegal Immigrant Arrested Trying to Buy Firearm, Was Working as Maine Police Officer!? ~ VIDEO

Old Orchard Beach, Maine – In a shocking failure of federal and local systems, a Jamaican national who overstayed his visa was recently arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after he was caught trying to illegally purchase a firearm—while working as a reserve police officer in Maine.

The man, 34-year-old Jon Luke Evans, entered the United States legally on a visa in September 2023 but never left when required. Nearly 10 months later, he had managed to secure a law enforcement position, complete firearms training, and patrol the streets of Old Orchard Beach—all while being in the country unlawfully.

According to ICE, Evans was taken into custody on July 25th, 2025, in Biddeford after his background check during a firearm purchase attempt triggered an alert with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). He admitted that he intended to buy the gun to use for his police duties.

How Did He Get Hired?

That’s the question many are asking—including ICE officials, Maine residents, and gun owners across the country.

The Old Orchard Beach Police Department says Evans was hired as a seasonal reserve officer in May 2025, after passing a full background check, medical and physical screenings, and completing standard law enforcement training. He was reportedly cleared through the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) E-Verify system, which astonishingly listed his Employment Authorization Document as valid through March 2030.

Police Chief Elise Chard said the department relied on that DHS verification when it made the hire, adding:

“We are distressed and deeply concerned about this apparent error on the part of the federal government.”

Was He Armed?

Chief Chard confirmed that the illegal immigrant was issued a department-owned firearm, but officers are not permitted to take weapons home or carry personal firearms while on duty. Evans, however, attempted to personally purchase a firearm—possibly for on-duty or off-duty use—prompting his arrest.

Under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A)), illegal aliens are barred from possessing or purchasing firearms, regardless of their job status or intentions. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld this law, reaffirming that illegal immigrants have no Second Amendment rights.

“We have a police department that was knowingly breaking the very law they are charged with enforcing,” said Patricia H. Hyde, Acting Field Office Director for ICE’s Boston division. “This case is not just disturbing—it’s dangerous.”

Firearms Training & Authority

According to the department, Evans received standard police training. That likely included firearms handling, use-of-force protocols, and arrest procedures. While he may not have been carrying a personal firearm at the time of arrest, he was trained and potentially authorized to use one in the line of duty—despite having no legal right to be in the country or possess a gun.

Not the First Time

Evans’ case isn’t an isolated incident. In April 2025,ICE arrested a Congolese national working as a corrections officer in Falmouth, Maine, who also tried to illegally purchase a firearm. That individual had applied for asylum but remained unlawfully present.

These back-to-back arrests raise serious national security and public trust concerns—especially in light of rising calls for mass deportations and tighter border controls following President Trump’s 2024 re-election.

Maine Law Allows Non-Citizens in Police Work

Maine is one of about a dozen states that allow non-citizens with valid work permits to serve in law enforcement. However, being in the country illegally is not the same as having a valid work permit—and Evans’ visa expired in October 2023.

Despite his expired visa, Biden Administration DHS systems somehow cleared him to work, and the police department never received a flag from ICE—until the firearm purchase attempt brought it all crashing down.

Where We Go From Here

Evans’ employment has been suspended, and the Old Orchard Beach Police Department has launched an internal investigation into how this happened. Meanwhile, ICE says it will ramp up enforcement across New England, targeting illegal immigrants in sensitive public safety roles.

For many gun owners, this situation reinforces what the courts have already affirmed: constitutional rights—especially those involving deadly force—must be tied to loyalty, legal presence, and allegiance to the United States.

This case is a warning. If illegal immigrants can slip through the cracks and end up patrolling American streets with department-issued weapons, what else is broken in the system?

Bottom Line:

Jon Luke Evans should have never been hired, never been armed, and never been allowed to purchase a firearm. This isn’t just a paperwork error—it’s a breakdown in national security, public trust, and the rule of law.

ICE has confirmed he will be placed in removal proceedings.

Is the Second Amendment Only America’s Right? Do Illegal Immigrants Have Gun Rights?

7th Circuit Court Drops the Hammer: Illegal Aliens Have No 2nd Amendment Rights

---

from https://ift.tt/orpsaEt
via IFTTT

Gavin Newsom is Singing the Blues – and it’s About Time

Gavin Newsom is Singing the Blues – and it’s About Time

Last Thursday, Gavin Newsom, the governor of the Kaliforniyskaya Sotsialisticheskaya Respublika (California Socialist Republic), lashed out at a three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after it upheld a federal district court’s ruling that California’s law requiring background checks for ammunition was unconstitutional.

In a press release, Newsom said: “Strong gun laws save lives – and today’s decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence. Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter.”

Of course, there’s never been any evidence to show gun laws, strong or otherwise, are particularly good at saving lives. Based on the evidence we have, the defensive use of guns saves far more lives every year.

As far as any “progress,” Newsom really needs to read the stuff that lands on his desk. Despite having passed some of the most restrictive (and ridiculous) gun control laws in U.S. history, California’s own Department of Justice said the violent crime rate rose 31% in the ten years from 2014 to 2023. In addition, the murder rate rose 11 percent.

On the other side of ‘gun violence’, the state saw an approximately one percent decline in the overall suicide rate, which is good. However, suicides committed with firearms rose three percent, which is bad if you’ve been pushing red flag laws.

Neither of these sounds like California has made any progress in keeping “communities safer from gun violence.”

In fact, the only thing strong about those “strong gun laws” is the stench.

The ammunition law is not the only reason Newsom’s singing the Blue State Blues. Last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals tossed California’s one-gun-per-month law. A Biden-appointed federal district court judge has ruled a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff over lengthy delays in issuing concealed-carry licenses can proceed.

Newsom’s also looking over his shoulder because California’s assault weapons ban and its magazine restrictions have already been ruled unconstitutional – twice. Only the judicial creativity of the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals stands between him and what the Second Amendment actually means. If the Supreme Court pays any attention to the amicus curiae brief flied by the Department of Justice last month, J.B. Pritzker isn’t going to be the only blue state governor to start sweating.

In his statement, Newsom also said: “Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter.”

That doesn’t say a whole lot of good things about Californians and their votes, especially the coasties on the shaky side of the San Andreas Fault. After all, they elected him governor. Twice.

The Hucksters of Gun Control

Gaming the National Firearms Act

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

---

from https://ift.tt/ri3b60s
via IFTTT

Legally Armed Civilian & Brave Bystanders End Michigan Walmart Stabbing Spree ~ VIDEOS

TRAVERSE CITY, MI — What began as an ordinary Saturday afternoon shopping trip turned into chaos and terror when a man armed with a folding knife launched a brutal stabbing spree inside a Walmart in Traverse City, Michigan. Eleven people were stabbed—randomly and without warning—before the attacker was finally stopped thanks to the courage of everyday Americans, including a legally armed citizen.

The suspect, identified as 42-year-old Bradford James Gille, reportedly entered the store around 4:10 p.m. and began attacking people near the checkout counters. He stabbed a total of 11 victims, both men and women, ranging from 29 to 84 years old, including a Walmart employee. Victims were attacked inside the store, in the vestibule, and even just outside the entrance.

Witnesses described scenes of horror as people screamed, fled, and attempted to help the wounded. One employee reported seeing a victim stabbed in the eye. At least three of the injured required emergency surgery, but thankfully, as of Sunday, all victims are expected to survive. Hospital officials have described their recovery as “encouraging,” with several already moved from critical to fair condition.

Heroic Citizens Step In

Cell phone footage captured on July 26, 2025, shows 42-year-old Bradford James Gille (seen on the left wearing a black hat) being confronted by several civilians—one of whom is armed—after authorities say he stabbed 11 people inside a Walmart in Traverse City, Michigan.
@highon16widez / TikTok

What could have been an even deadlier tragedy was cut short by the fast action of shoppers in the parking lot. After the rampage, Gille attempted to flee but was confronted by a group of five or six brave citizens, including one man legally carrying a firearm.

A good guy with a gun stopped the guy who stabbed 11 people at Walmart in Michigan today. Expect legacy media to give this ZERO coverage. pic.twitter.com/qGqqDVBqD3

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) July 27, 2025

In bystander video now widely circulated online, the group can be seen yelling at Gille to “drop the knife” and get on the ground. The armed citizen held him at gunpoint while others surrounded him, one even using a shopping cart to block his path. The standoff ended when one bystander tackled Gille to the pavement, subduing him until police arrived.

Grand Traverse County Sheriff Michael Shea praised the group’s actions at a press conference, calling their intervention “remarkable” and crediting them with saving lives. A sheriff’s deputy arrived just three minutes after the 911 call and took the suspect into custody without further incident.

Charges & Investigation

Prosecutors are seeking one count of terrorism and 11 counts of assault with intent to murder against Gille. Sheriff Shea confirmed that the suspect’s actions appeared completely random and were designed to inflict fear across the entire community—the legal basis for the terrorism charge. Authorities also noted Gille’s prior record involving assault and controlled substance violations. A motive remains under investigation.

Official Responses

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer acknowledged the tragedy on X, stating:

“Our thoughts are with the victims and the community reeling from this brutal act of violence. I am grateful to the first responders for their swift response to apprehend the suspect.”

Note she made no mention of the brave citizens who stopped the attack, instead referring to “first responders,” which all assume is police and rescue.

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino confirmed federal support for the investigation, posting:

“FBI personnel are on the ground in Traverse City to provide any necessary support to the Grand Traverse County Sheriff’s Office in their investigation of the attacks at the Walmart.”

FBI personnel are responding to provide any necessary support to the Grand Traverse County Sheriff’s Office in their investigation of the attacks at the Walmart.

— Dan Bongino (@FBIDDBongino) July 26, 2025

A Reminder of Why the Second Amendment Matters

This harrowing incident serves as a stark reminder of why law-abiding citizens carrying firearms are an essential line of defense when seconds matter. There were no police on scene when the stabbing spree ended—there were only armed and fearless citizens. They didn’t run. They didn’t hide. They acted. And because of that, the attacker was stopped before more lives were lost.

In a country where threats can strike anywhere—whether you’re at a school, a parade, or a grocery store—it’s crystal clear: the right to keep and bear arms isn’t just about liberty—it’s about public safety.

As law enforcement continues to investigate, one thing is already certain: a good guy with a gun helped stop a bad guy with a knife, and Traverse City is safer because of it. Our prayers go out to GOD for the injured.

Readers, stay heavily armed and always ready to be very dangerous.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	17 Gen 5 9mm Luger Semi-Auto Handgun - Glock 17 Gen 5 9mm Luger 4.49'''' Bbl (3)17rd Mags Black	Brownells.com	$ 539.00
	45 Gen 5 9mm Luger Semi-Auto Handgun - Glock 45 Gen 5 9mm Luger 4.02'''' Bbl (3)17rd Mags Black	Brownells.com	$ 539.00
	19 Gen 5 9mm Luger Semi-Auto Handgun - Glock 19 Gen 5 9mm Luger 4.02'''' Bbl (3)15rd Mags Black	Brownells.com	$ 539.00
	19 Gen 5 9mm Luger Semi-Auto Handgun - Glock 19 Gen 5 9mm Luger 4.02'''' Bbl (3)10rd Mags Black	Brownells.com	$ 539.00

Imagine an America Where All the Good Guys Had Guns

Good Guy with a Gun Helps Apprehend Escaped Inmate in Georgia

---

from https://ift.tt/BEln6H1
via IFTTT

Second Amendment Lawsuits Target New Jersey’s Strict Gun Control Measures

JTAC Industries Elf Owl, Vortex Razor Gen III, Rex Silentium Mod X Suppressor

A fresh legal battle over Second Amendment rights is unfolding in New Jersey, where groups are targeting state bans on suppressors and compact rifles.

On July 18, 2025, two lawsuits were filed in federal court challenging New Jersey’s prohibition on firearm suppressors and short-barreled rifles. These challenges arrive in the wake of significant federal developments, including the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill which eliminated the federal tax on suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and other National Firearms Act registered items. The new legislation has cleared the path for constitutional challenges to similar restrictions at the state level.

The first lawsuit, Padua v. Platkin, is focused on New Jersey’s total ban on suppressors. Under state law, possessing one of these devices is a fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a ten thousand dollar fine, even if the suppressor is legally registered under federal law.

The plaintiffs, including individual gun owners and organizations such as the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Second Amendment Foundation, Safari Club International, American Suppressor Association, and the National Rifle Association, argue that the ban violates their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

The plaintiffs specifically contend that the prohibition deprives citizens of access to a widely used and federally regulated device that serves an important safety function for lawful gun owners. They point to the fact that suppressors reduce gunfire noise by around thirty decibels which can make a major difference for people who frequent shooting ranges or suffer from hearing-related conditions like tinnitus.

Medical professionals increasingly recognize suppressors as hearing protection devices. Some refer to them as especially important for shooters because they help reduce the permanent hearing damage associated with frequent firearms use. Contrary to Hollywood depictions, the plaintiffs say suppressors do not silence gunfire but instead reduce the sound to levels more comparable to construction equipment than to lethal stealth tools. By their measure, the noise from a suppressed firearm still exceeds damaging threshold levels, often louder than a jackhammer and far from silent.

The plaintiffs make the case that suppressors are not only safely and widely used but also rooted in a well-established American tradition. Historical records show that former President Theodore Roosevelt used them while hunting and that they were commercially available and commonly used before the government imposed regulation through the National Firearms Act in 1934. They argue that under the legal framework laid out by the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which held that modern gun regulations must align with the nation’s historical firearm tradition, blanket bans like New Jersey’s are unconstitutional.

The second lawsuit, also filed on July 18, challenges the state’s prohibition on short-barreled rifles. These are rifles with barrels shorter than sixteen inches or with overall lengths under twenty-six inches.

The plaintiffs in that case include the Firearms Policy Coalition and Englishtown Borough Mayor Daniel Francisco, a vocal supporter of Second Amendment rights who previously made headlines for refunding concealed carry permit fees to residents in his town. The new complaint argues that these rifles are widely used across the country for self-defense, sporting, and training purposes and that they offer particular advantages in home defense scenarios due to their compactness and maneuverability in tight quarters.

According to records from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, short-barreled rifles are growing in popularity. As of 2021, over half a million of them were registered with the federal agency. By 2024, that number had grown to over eight hundred thousand with likely well over one million now lawfully registered in the country. Plaintiffs say these numbers confirm that SBRs are in common use and not disproportionately used in crimes, making them fully protected under the Second Amendment under the standards set by the Supreme Court.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin is the primary defendant in both cases. His office has promised to continue defending the state’s gun laws, which it has described as common-sense protections. But advocates on the other side believe these new lawsuits will force courts to confront the widening gap between federal and state firearm policy. While the federal government has moved toward removing financial and bureaucratic hurdles surrounding ownership of suppressors and SBRs, states like New Jersey continue to impose outright bans.

The outcomes of these cases could significantly impact the legal status of firearm accessories and restricted weapon configurations across the country. Beyond New Jersey, suppressor bans remain in effect in seven other states, including California, Massachusetts, and Illinois, where similar legal challenges are already underway. With the One Big Beautiful Bill removing federal barriers and the legal landscape shifting after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, gun rights organizations are pressing their advantage. They are hoping to dismantle what they see as outdated and unconstitutional laws once and for all.

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

from https://ift.tt/s9nTF8q
via IFTTT

Designed to Fail? Gun Permit Processing in the City of Angels

Opinion

iStock-460151141

Even as the majority of states embrace constitutional carry (29 so far), California continues to make it more difficult for its responsible residents to carry a firearm for lawful self-defense.

Not only is the state’s concealed weapons (CCW) permit law already more complicated and burdensome than those in other states, but some localities’ implementation of the law (or lack of implementation, to be more precise) has raised allegations of unconstitutional violations of California law and the Second Amendment.

The Los Angeles, California, Police Department (LAPD) is allegedly advising applicants for CCW permits that a lack of resources means an expected processing time of around 18-22 months, even though California law mandates that permits be approved or denied within 120 days. The LAPD, it is claimed, is even manipulating the statutory deadline “by putting applicants on a waiting list and not treating their application as ‘accepted’ until LAPD decides to receive it,” even though the 120-day period starts as soon as the application is submitted. Given that the term of a permit, once granted, is only two years, the outcome is a ridiculous situation where the process takes almost as long as the permit is good for. CCW holders needing to renew are also kept waiting, and stand to lose their carry rights because renewal processing is liable to exceed the time in which a permit remains valid.

These processing issues are now so acute and well known that they are being cited in criminal proceedings as a defense or justification. According to the Vanguard News Group, an applicant with a pending CCW application was apprehended with three legal and registered firearms and was charged with improper firearm carry. The defense counsel argued the matter was appropriate for a judicial diversion (in which charges are dismissed after a defendant completes court-imposed conditions), pointing to the accused’s stable employment with the Coast Guard, their current CCW waitlist status, and the LAPD’s excessive and likely unconstitutional delays in issuing permits. On July 8, Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Brad Miles Fox denied the judicial diversion request but left the door open for further arguments on the processing delays. The denial was without prejudice so as to allow defense counsel to renew the motion next month and provide the commissioner with “additional information about the LAPD’s backlog and its effect on the accused’s case.”

There’s reason to believe the LAPD’s permitting fiasco is unlikely to improve anytime soon.

A Real Clear Investigations report released this month, Pound Foolish: After Cutting Police, Overtime Costs Strain LA’s Budget, outlines the terrible state of police staffing and resources. The number of LAPD personnel continues to drop, due, in part, to decisions motivated by the “defund the police” movement. “In fiscal year 2020-2021, a total of 631 police officers from all ranks left the department or the profession,” and top LAPD officials anticipate a loss of more than 150 officers over the next year. In May, the Los Angeles City Council, with its “defund/abolish the police” proponents, voted for new LAPD budget cuts, which will “leave the agency with just 8,400 cops, the lowest number since 1995.”

The result is the City’s taxpayers are “shelling out tens of millions more in overtime pay than they would have if the police force were fully staffed.” Last year, the LAPD “spent an all-time high of $265.5 million on overtime alone, an increase of $100 million for that line item in the city’s budget since 2019,” and “fiscal year 2025 is on track to exceed last year’s record total.” This outlay will only get worse: “More overtime is likely on the horizon as Los Angeles gears up for high-profile global events, including the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics.”

In the meantime, ordinary citizens are paying in other ways for their politicians’ policy choices. The same report quotes former Interim LAPD Chief Dominic Choi on the fallout of the understaffing crisis. Overwhelmed officers have less time for proactive policing, impacting the “ability to prevent crimes from happening,” and police response times have, in some cases, tripled or quadrupled.

The Los Angeles politicians’ alternative to cops (“a favored program of defund the police efforts”) isn’t doing much to lessen the load on law enforcement. This involves deploying unarmed teams of mental health professionals as the first responders on non-violent calls involving drug abuse, homelessness or mental health issues. A social worker with experience on these teams said the teams “usually end up calling for LAPD backup anyway” because the individuals prompting the calls threaten physical violence or “have weapons and we don’t feel safe.”

For those left in this law-enforcement lurch, there’s a now service, “Patrol,” that allows “[h]omeowners in LA” (Brentwood, Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Holmby Hills, Malibu and “more areas coming soon”) to “book off duty police officers to help protect their homes.” The ad on X refers to residents who would “rather sleep knowing someone’s looking out for you.”  One of the replies notes the obvious: “I thought we were paying taxes to have on-duty police officers protect our homes.” It’s not a good look: at the same time that police understaffing makes permits inaccessible for ordinary people, the police in a private capacity are available for the wealthy.

All of this perpetuates an ugly cycle. Residents, who can no longer trust in a dependable police response and who are struggling to stay safe, resort to the state’s CCW law and their right to bear arms in self-defense. While citizens are expected to play by the rules in the permitting law, the police administering the scheme are not, giving rise to a reprehensible situation that strips away constitutional rights when they may be most needed.

Attorneys on behalf of the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) have already warned the LAPD that its excessive delays over CCW permits violate California law and the Second Amendment, and that a federal civil rights lawsuit lies ahead if the LAPD fails “to make firm commitments to expeditiously resolve its CCW permit application backlog.” The expense of defending any litigation includes the potential of damages, attorney’s fees and costs.

A federal lawsuit may likewise feature in the future, as part of the Justice Department’s investigation to determine whether Los Angeles is “engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving ordinary, law-abiding Californians of their Second Amendment rights” through excessively long processing times or otherwise.

Freedom isn’t free, as the saying goes, but oppression carries its own hefty price tag.

Don’t Be Fooled: Newsom’s ‘Respect’ for the 2nd Amendment Is a Flat-Out Lie

Activists Defeat Motion To Dismiss by Los Angeles Sheriff’s Dept. in Gun Permit-Delay Lawsuit

---

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

---

from https://ift.tt/BkorZ09
via IFTTT