Civilian Gun Club Wins, Returns to Fort Devens for the First Time in Five Years

The Ft. Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., won their legal battle against Fort Devens. Several members of the group posed after spending a day at the Fort’s ranges this week. (Photo courtesy of the Ft. Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc.)

The Ft. Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., is growing and it’s well deserved. The small gun club took on the United States Army over range access and won after a lengthy legal fight.

This week, several Club members returned to the ranges of Fort Devens for the first time in nearly five years.

There have been some changes, which the Club’s lawyers fought hard for during several pitched legal battles.

The Club must now pay only $16.98 per range outing—that’s the club’s total cost, not an individual fee.

If members want to shoot at plastic “Ivan” torso targets on automated ranges, the Club will pay $18.61.

“That’s quite a bit less than the $250-per-range-outing Fort Devens tried to charge us, which the federal court knocked out,” said club treasurer, James Gettens, an attorney and Iraq War veteran.

The club can use two rifle ranges per month, but it gave up the right to shoot handguns at the Fort. However, most members belong to other ranges where they shoot handguns. They come to the Fort for the rifle ranges.

Another new rule requires the Club’s Range Safety Officers to complete NRA’s RSO training, even though many are already NRA certified. This is a major change. For years, Fort Devens range officials belittled NRA training.

Also, the Club is no longer billed $140-per-day for “Porta-Johns” on the ranges, which cost the base only $2.29 per day. In fact, the Porta-Johns are no longer even mentioned by range officials.

History

The gun club held regular shoots at the large military base for decades.

The club first filed suit in August 2022. The club won the lawsuit March 20, 2025. The Fort had 60 days to appeal the court order but allowed it to expire without filing any appeal.

Club members showed up to shoot on May 13, 2025, but officials wouldn’t allow them access. The club had been told they would shoot handguns, so all of the members brought handguns. However. when they arrived at the base, they were told they had been reassigned to a rifle range without any notice.

As part of their initial legal response, the gun club filed a motion for an order of contempt against Fort officials, which scared base leaders.

“Apparently, the Fort would have just strung us along indefinitely had we not filed the motion for contempt,” Gettens said Wednesday.

Two months ago, the gun club even sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, notifying him of the five-year history of problems that the gun club has had with Fort officials. The letter was written by Gettens.

Gettens notified Hegseth that Fort Devens still wasn’t allowing access, despite its legal loss.

“That dishonesty and obstructionism forced the Club to file its Motion for a Finding and Order of Contempt, with supporting documents,” Gettens told the Defense Secretary in his letter.

Copies of the letter were also sent to LTG Omar J. Jones, IV, the three-star general in charge of U.S. Army Installation Management Command, Stephen Miller, Esq., the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association.

(Photo courtesy of the Ft. Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc.)

Gettens wants other private gun clubs to know they too can shoot at active-duty, Reserve or National Guard military bases, nationwide.

“A federal statute provides that civilians can use any military rifle range constructed with congressionally approved funds,” Gettens said. “However, civilian gun clubs invoking this statute can expect to run into resistance. Our lawsuit is the one and only legal action applying that statute, so far.”

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.

Civilian Gun Club Wins Lawsuit Against Fort Devens for Violating Their Rights

Civilian Gun Club Sues Fort Devens for Violating Constitutional Rights

---

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.

---

from https://ift.tt/4ivOl6T
via IFTTT

Minnesota Supreme Court Rules Homemade Guns Do Not Require Serial Numbers

Minnesota Supreme Court: Homemade Guns Do Not Require Serial Numbers

The Minnesota Supreme Court has reversed the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision on a man charged with possessing a privately manufactured firearm (PMF) without a serial number.

On February 14, 2022, Minnesota State Patrol (MSP) responded to the scene of a single-vehicle rollover accident near Interstate 694 and Highway 65 in Fridley, MN. When the trooper arrived on the scene, he found a car owned by Logan Vagle on its roof. Inside the vehicle, the trooper found an AR-15 magazine. When the trooper asked Mr. Vagle if he had any guns in the car, the Minnesota man admitted he did have a pistol.

After searching the car, the trooper found a privately manufactured firearm based on the popular Glock 19. Like most PMFs, the gun did not have a serial number. Police arrested Vagle and charged him with violating Minnesota Statutes section 609.667(3) (2024). That law requires firearms to have serial numbers but doesn’t directly address PMFs. There is no Minnesota law directly referencing homemade guns. The law is almost a carbon copy of federal law, which doesn’t apply to DIY firearms.

Mr. Vagle would fight the charge, stating that the trooper lacked probable cause for the search. His lawyers said that he was not challenging the constitutionality of section 609.667(3). Although he was not challenging the constitutionality of the law, the District Court raised the issue sua sponte. Sua sponte is a legal term meaning “of its own accord.” The Court ruled that the law was unconstitutionally vague as applied and dismissed the charge against the Minnesota man.

The State filed a pretrial appeal of the District Court’s order. In the Minnesota Court of Appeals, Mr. Vagle’s attorneys would argue that the Minnesota law only applies to firearms that are required to have serial numbers under federal law, which would exclude PMFs. The State argued that the law applies to all guns equally, regardless of whether they are purchased or homemade. The Court of Appeals would agree with the State and reverse and remand the Court’s decision to the District Court, stating that the law “plainly applies to any firearm.”

Mr. Vagle would appeal the Court of Appeals decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would start by analyzing the law itself. It would note that Minnesota “does not have a general independent scheme requiring serial numbers to identify firearms.” The statute references federal gun serialization laws and appears to defer to those laws, such as the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA). Neither of those federal statutes requires serial numbers for homemade guns. Because of these facts, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decisions and remanded the case back to the District Court, where it is expected to be dismissed.

The Supreme Court wrote: “We conclude that section 609.667(3) criminalizes possessing a firearm not identified by a serial number only if federal law requires that the firearm have a serial number. The firearm Vagle possessed is not such a firearm. We reverse the Court of appeals and remand to the district court.”

The case will have rippling effects across the State of Minnesota, where other defendants were charged with having firearms without serial numbers, including Matthew Walker Anderson, who is currently awaiting trial for target shooting with a homemade AR-15. That case has not been dismissed yet, but with the Minnesota Supreme Court decision, a dismissal is likely.

---

Can’t Stop the Files: Media’s War on 3D-Printed Firearms Exposed

ATF Inflating ‘Ghost Gun’ Numbers Hoping Congress Inflates its Budget

---

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.

---

from https://ift.tt/zg7KU5O
via IFTTT

Australia’s 2nd-Largest State Bans Machetes, Rolls Out Disposal Bins in Sweeping Crackdown on Knife Ownership

Victoria, Australia – In a move that’s being watched closely by gun and knife rights advocates worldwide, the state of Victoria has become the first Australian jurisdiction to officially ban machetes—a broad class of bladed tools with blades longer than 20 centimeters.

Effective September 1, the new law criminalizes the ownership, sale, use, or purchase of a machete without special government exemption.

To support the crackdown, Victoria has launched a so-called “Machete Amnesty” and set up over 40 confiscation-disposal bins at police stations across the state. The bins—reinforced steel containers anchored by concrete—are designed to receive the dangerous surrendered machetes without penalty until November 30.

“These knives destroy lives – so we’re taking them off the streets,” declared Premier Jacinta Allan, using language eerily reminiscent of past firearm bans.

The Ban Follows Gang Violence

This dramatic policy shift came after a high-profile gang fight at a Melbourne shopping mall in May, where machete-wielding teens injured a young man who later had his arm amputated due to his injury, which sparked national headlines. In response, Allan took time off from promoting free pads and tampons for everyone to fast-track a temporary ban on sales using consumer protection laws—Amazon.com quickly removed machetes from its Australian listings—and now the government is making it permanent.

Police reportedly confiscate an average of 44 illegal knives per day in Victoria. However, the new law targets a specific tool that was previously legal for farming, camping, or collecting.

“Our message to anyone with these weapons is simple – get rid of them or face the consequences,” said Police Minister Anthony Carbines, backing the measure with the threat of two years in prison or a $47,000 AUD fine ($30,700 USD) for non-compliance.

Exceptions—But With Strings Attached

The law includes limited exemptions for agricultural workers and for traditional, cultural, or historical use. However, those exempt must still meet strict compliance rules and prove their eligibility upon request by law enforcement. [Who is surprised they don’t have to attend a day-long training course?].

Self-defense? Not a valid excuse. As stated in Victoria’s previous weapons law: “Self-defence is not a lawful excuse for carrying a controlled weapon.”

And as of now, the definition of “machete” isn’t finalized—only that it’s a blade longer than 20cm. Critics warn this vague scope could one day ensnare camping knives, gardening tools, butcher and bread knives, or other large blades.

Machetes destroy lives and we’re taking them off the streets.

More than 40 safe disposal bins will be available 24/7 at police stations across Victoria to allow people to safely and securely dispose of these weapons.

Available from 1 September. pic.twitter.com/AoJn8j9CS6

— Jacinta Allan (@JacintaAllanMP) July 31, 2025

A Symbolic Ban or Just More Government Overreach?

Second Amendment advocates in the U.S. are sounding the alarm.

In a video response,[above] firearms attorney and commentator Colion Noir called the ban “exactly what happens when you give the government an inch.”

“It’s not about the machete—it’s about the power,” Noir said. “They banned guns. That didn’t stop violence. So now they’re banning knives. But the crime didn’t stop—it never does. So next? Toothpicks? High-capacity shoelaces?”

Indeed, the Australian government continues to ignore the glaring problem: criminals don’t follow bans. The machete-wielding teens in Melbourne were already breaking existing laws. Now, instead of targeting gang violence, the government has chosen to criminalize tools, not behavior.

No Compensation, No Real Strategy

Unlike firearm buybacks of the past, this machete ban includes no compensation for surrendered tools, many of which are still legally purchased and used elsewhere in Australia. Victoria remains the only state implementing such a sweeping policy. Citizens could theoretically still buy machetes from other states—or import them legally under federal law.

There is also no outlined enforcement plan for machetes not turned in by the November 30 deadline. The entire scheme depends on voluntary compliance. Making citizens more vulnerable often leads to more crime—which then gives governments an excuse to take the “next step” in the name of public safety. Rinse and repeat.

Echoes of Australia’s Firearm Confiscation

Australia’s approach mirrors its infamous 1996 firearm confiscation, where over 700,000 guns were seized and destroyed. And just this year, Western Australia passed sweeping new gun restrictions that include mental health checks, strict storage rules, and hard caps on firearm ownership.

It’s a pattern: ban, restrict, register, confiscate—and repeat with the next “dangerous” item.

“You’re not changing their direction,” Noir says. “You’re just dragging your feet on the way to the same cliff.”

A Warning for the U.S.

Victoria’s machete ban may seem like a faraway issue to some Americans, but the parallels are striking. Knife bans are increasing in the UK and Canada. In the U.S., anti-gun politicians are already proposing bans on so-called “assault weapons,” “ghost guns,” and “large-capacity” anything.

Today it’s machetes. Tomorrow, it could be your hunting knife—or your AR-15.

As the Founding Fathers understood, the right to bear arms includes all tools of defense, not just firearms. And when a government starts banning steel and polymer over appearance and politics—rather than actions and criminal intent—freedom suffers.

Tactical Takeaways:

• Know your local laws — and how fast they can change.
• Stay politically engaged — bans like this are a slow creep, not a sudden leap.
• Resist the normalization of tool-based bans — whether it’s machetes in Australia or “scary-looking” rifles in the U.S., the issue is control, not safety.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes,” wrote Thomas Jefferson. Australia would do well to remember that.

Like this article? Share it. The best defense against disarmament is awareness—and action.

---

UK Bans Ninja Swords: A Sobering Reminder of Why America Has the 2nd Amendment ~ VIDEO

Australia Doubles Down on Civilian Disarmament with New Weapon Laws

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

N.J. The New Battleground of the 2A? ~ VIDEO

New Jersey has some of the strictest laws regulating the Second Amendment. The current stage looks like the Garden State will be the place to litigate for the foreseeable future.

The laws in New Jersey are so bad that Giffords Law Center gives the state an “A” on “gun law strength” and ranks them two out of 50 of the states. New Jersey was one of the Bruen-affected states, as well as had a strict Bruen-response law enactment. Indicators point to New Jersey as the next battleground on the Second Amendment.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals

New Jersey is within the jurisdiction of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Traditionally, this circuit was the place of business law because of Delaware. That might be changing.

On Tuesday July 29, 2025, Emil Bove was confirmed by the Senate to serve on the court. President Donald J. Trump appointed Bove. Trump appointed Jennifer Mascott, however she hasn’t gone through the confirmation process yet.

Looking at the current makeup of the court, there’s the following presidential appointments: Two George W. Bush, three Barack Obama, five Trump, three Joseph R. Biden, and one waiting on confirmation.

Presidential appointment does not always dictate the leaning of a judge. There’s seven Republican appointed judges and six Democratic appointed judges. In addition to one more Republican on deck.

The Koons Crawl

Second Amendment supporters in New Jersey have been anxiously waiting for almost two years to get an opinion back from a 3rd Circuit three-judge panel on the consolidated cases Koons & Siegel. Oral arguments for a preliminary injunction in the cases occurred October 25, 2023.

There’s been speculation on why there’s been no orders from the court on the preliminary injunction. The case handles sensitive locations and a whole host of other post-Bruen restrictions that are plaguing New Jersey permit to carry holders. Other courts across the country have delivered orders more expeditiously.

An appeal is likely no matter the opinion that comes from the court. The panel that heard Koons/Siegel consisted of Obama appointee Krause, Biden appointee Chung, and Trump appointee Porter.

If the court writes an opinion that gets close enough to respecting the Second Amendment without completely invalidating New Jersey’s laws, it’s possible there would be no en banc hearing. It’s also possible the U.S. Supreme Court would deny certiorari.

Current Litigation

Koons & Siegel are being litigated and deal with a Bruen-response law in New Jersey.

Meanwhile, another ongoing challenge includes a set of consolidated cases; two so-called “assault weapon” ban challenges as well as a challenge to magazine capacity. Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Cheeseman, and Ellman were decided at the district level. However, the cases were subsequently heard by the 3rd Circuit.

Benton v. Platkin is a 2024 case funded by Gun Owners of America and the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners. Benton goes after the state’s one gun a month law and pistol purchase permit system.

Struck v. Platkin is a Firearms Policy Coalition backed case that was filed in September 2024. Struck also goes after one gun a month.

Bergmann-Schoch v. Platkin a is another GOA/CNJFO case and it was filed in February 2025. Bergmann-Schoch goes after New Jersey’s strict hollow-point ammunition possession law.

Hague v. Murphy was filed on June 9, 2025. The Second Amendment Foundation/New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate backed case attacks New Jersey’s under-21 handgun prohibitions.

Padua v. Platkin is a case that goes after New Jersey’s prohibition on suppressors. The case was filed on July 18, 2025 and it took nine months of planning. Padua comes with the backing of the Second Amendment Foundation, American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, Safari Club International, Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, and the New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate.

FPC v. Platkin was filed on July 18, 2025 and goes after New Jersey’s prohibition on short-barreled rifles.

What Does the NRA-ILA Have to Say?

Joseph Greenlee, the director of litigation counsel for the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action said during an interview that New Jersey is a place where we can expect to see more litigation. Greenlee was pivotal in the planning of Padua v. Platkin as well as other current and forthcoming litigation.

“Well, we certainly intend to be very active in New Jersey. And I, again, I think it’s going to be a very good place to bring cases. So I anticipate bringing a lot of litigation there over the next few years,” Greenlee said when asked about litigating in the Garden State. “I invite anyone–reaching out letting me know about laws that they think are infringements, because I think it’s really the ideal state for litigation going forward with just, you know, hostile, very anti-rights state as far as the Second Amendment goes, and a fair court that you can get a fair hearing before.”

The Battle of New Jersey?

Litigation is likely to persist in New Jersey for years to come as indicated by these earmarks. Right now there’s a record number of cases moving around the courts. The Garden State ticks the boxes: strict gun laws and favorable circuit court. Litigation challenging bad gun laws in a good circuit will find a home in New Jersey.

---

About John Petrolino

John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer, writer, author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use and NRA certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on twitter at @johnpetrolino, facebook at @thepenpatriot and on instagram @jpetrolinoiii .

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

Mark McCloskey Retrieves his AR-15 from St Louis Police

Mark McCloskey Retrieves his AR-15 from St Louis Police

On June 28, 2020, Mark and Patty McCloskey displayed firearms in defense against a BLM mob that had illegally entered their property. The case gained national attention because the radical prosecutor in St. Louis, Kim Gardner, decided to prosecute Mark and Patty. St. Louis police Detective Sgt. Burgdorf found evidence to back up the claim that Mark and Patty acted reasonably. Gardner insisted on prosecuting the McCloskeys.

Gardner was eventually removed from the case for a conflict of interest. A special prosecutor was appointed, who had his own problems. The McCloskeys, successful attorneys, decided to cut a plea deal on June 23, 2021, which minimized their expenses at the time. Governor Mike Parson had promised a pardon. The special prosecutor insisted that the deal include surrendering their firearms. He made this statement: 

“I thought the most important aspect was to forfeit and destroy the guns,” Callahan said. “Some groups wanted to buy the gun and use it as a trophy display.”

Picking up the AR at the police property room@ pic.twitter.com/Jcp16tYhpA

— Mark McCloskey (@mccloskeyusa) August 1, 2025

On July 30, 2021, Governor Mike Parson granted pardons to Mark and Patricia McCloskey and ten other people.

On July 6, 2024, a Missouri judge ordered the convictions of Mark and Patricia expunged. Mark McCloskey demanded the firearms be returned.

Now, in August of 2025, Mark McCloskey has been able to legally retrieve his AR-15 rifle from the St. Louis Police Department. To quote Mark from X:

It only took 3 lawsuits, 2 trips to the Court of Appeals and 1,847 days, but I got my AR15 back! We defended our home, were persecuted by the left, smeared by the press, and threatened with death, but we never backed down What’s missing-Patty and the Bryco (soon)

It only took 3 lawsuits, 2 trips to the Court of Appeals and 1,847 days, but I got my AR15 back! We defended our home, were persecuted by the left, smeared by the press, and threatened with death, but we never backed down
What’s missing-Patty and the Bryco (soon) pic.twitter.com/NOEyzyXZWM

— Mark McCloskey (@mccloskeyusa) August 1, 2025

Kim Gardner was one of a series of far-left prosecutors that the Soros-funded constellation of non-profits was able to place in office. The results for the public they were elected to serve were horrible. When the people tasked with enforcing the law believe laws targeting criminals are fundamentally unjust, it is not surprising that the system is turned upside down. The McCloskey event happened during the height of the BLM insanity.

Now, more than five years later, Mark McCloskey, a prominent lawyer, has finally been able to retrieve a firearm that was justifiably used to defend himself and his property. The firearm his wife, Patty, had used is expected to be returned shortly.  Patty is another prominent lawyer. Working as a team, the couple was very successful.  This occurred in a deep red state, with significant safeguards at the state level, to aid and protect Second Amendment rights. The McCloskeys were targeted specifically because of their exercise of Constitutional rights.

Consider the difficulty an ordinary citizen might have in attempting to fight these odds against federal prosecutors. You can see why federal prosecutors obtain convictions in about 99% of their cases.  The vast majority of people accept plea deals. This is why the restoration of the Republic is so important. It is why the political counterrevolution of the Trump administration is so important. We are heading in the right direction. The margin is thin.

We are winning because the Constitution, the people, and the facts are on our side.

I often think we are winning because of Divine Providence.  The founders believed in God and Divine Providence. They faced long odds, fearful suffering, and horrendous sacrifice. In the end, they triumphed.

---

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.

---

from https://ift.tt/O1qsKJi
via IFTTT

Jim Acosta Crosses Ethical Line, Interviews AI Avatar of Dead Parkland Teen to Push Gun Control Agenda

In a move that many are calling grotesque, unethical, and downright disturbing, former CNN host Jim Acosta used artificial intelligence to “interview” a reanimated digital version of a dead school shooting victim — all to push a gun control narrative.

On his Substack-hosted program The Jim Acosta Show, the liberal media personality sat down for a so-called “interview” with an AI-generated avatar of Joaquin Oliver, a 17-year-old victim of the 2018 Parkland school shooting. The segment aired on what would have been Oliver’s 25th birthday and quickly drew fire across the political spectrum for its tastelessness and exploitation.

AI Grief Theatre: The Interview That Crossed the Line

Acosta introduced the show by teasing a “one-of-a-kind” interview. What viewers saw was a lifeless digital recreation of Oliver—complete with jerky facial movements, robotic speech patterns, and pre-programmed talking points.

“I appreciate your curiosity,” the avatar said in a flat, computer-generated voice when Acosta asked, “What happened to you?” The AI voice continued, “I was taken from this world too soon due to gun violence while at school. It’s important to talk about these issues so we can create a safer future for everyone.”

Later in the segment, Acosta asked the AI what its “solution” to gun violence would be. The avatar replied, “I believe in a mix of stronger gun control laws, mental health support, and community engagement.”

Acosta responded, “I think that’s a great idea, Joaquin.”

But Joaquin Oliver is dead. What Acosta did was not journalism. It was digital necromancy — a political performance dressed up in technology.

Langley Outdoors: “Jim Acosta Just Descended into a Level of Disgusting”

Braden Langley of Langley Outdoors delivered a blistering response in a video titled “Gun Controlling HACK Jim Acosta Airs CRINGY Interview.” His reaction was raw and unsparing.

“Jim Acosta just descended into a level of disgusting that’s hard to articulate,” Langley said in the video. “He’s interviewing a resurrected AI child who was killed in a school shooting… It doesn’t get weirder than this.”

Langley clarified that he doesn’t blame the grieving parents who created the avatar of their son, but he strongly condemned Acosta and others who use tragedy as emotional blackmail to erode constitutional rights.

“This is a level of uncomfortable that every single person needs to see — because these are the tactics that they are willing to go to in order to take your gun rights away,” he said. “It is a pre-programmed, preset discussion around talking point gun control… propagated by an AI of the image of a dead child.”

Langley urged viewers to recognize that this is not about mourning — it’s about manipulation.

“The reason that you have a natural aversion to this… is because you have common decency,” he said. “You would never stand on the graves of those that have fallen like this. It’s gross.”

The Reaction: Creepy, Exploitative, and Downright Ghoulish

Outrage was immediate.

“This is unseemly, insensitive, and creepy,” wrote Townhall’s Matt Vespa, echoing the sentiments of many viewers. Social media was lit up with criticism, with one user writing, “There are living survivors of school shootings you could interview, and it would really be their words and thoughts instead of completely made-up.”

Fox News called it a blatant attempt to weaponize tragedy. “Liberal journalist Jim Acosta ‘interviewed’ the artificially animated avatar of deceased teenager Joaquin Oliver to promote a gun control message,” reported David Rutz.

Even viewers who support some forms of gun regulation described the episode as “ghoulish” and “exploitative.”

More weighed in on X.

“Liberal journalist” “Working with the gun control group” is an advocate, not a journalist But we knew that…RT
Jim Acosta ‘interviews’ AI-
Jim Acosta ‘interviews’ AI-generated avatar of deceased teenager promoting gun control message https://t.co/bLkElv8xHr #FoxNews @NSSF “NSSF

— Larry Keane (@lkeane) August 5, 2025

This is so insane and evil. It should never be done. I’m speechless. https://t.co/y7vvIzd1Ov

— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) August 4, 2025

Who’s Behind the Avatar?

Acosta claims the avatar was created by Joaquin’s father, Manuel Oliver, through their organization Change the Ref, a gun control group. According to Acosta, Manuel invited him to be the first journalist to interview the AI version of his son.

“I understand that this is AI,” said Manuel Oliver during the segment. “Sadly, I can’t [bring him back]. However, the technology is out there. I can hear his voice again.”

But hearing a voice and putting words in a dead child’s mouth are two very different things.

Acosta seemed unmoved by the controversy. “I really felt like I was speaking with Joaquin. It’s just a beautiful thing,” he said.

A Dangerous Precedent

Beyond the emotional manipulation, critics warn that stunts like this pose serious ethical and legal concerns. AI deepfakes of the deceased open the door to misinformation, fraud, and erosion of trust in media. Who gets to decide what the dead say? And when does grief become propaganda?

In 2024, a similar AI recreation of Oliver’s voice was used in robocalls to members of Congress demanding gun control. The message said, “I died that day in Parkland, my body was destroyed by a weapon of war.”

But now it’s gone a step further: full-blown digital puppetry under the guise of news.

Bottom Line: This Was Not Journalism. It Was Exploitation.

Acosta’s AI stunt isn’t a tribute. It’s not activism. It’s theater — using a dead teenager’s likeness, without his consent, to score political points. And while the media class may applaud the emotional spectacle, millions of Americans watching from outside the Beltway are left asking:

If you have to fake a person to make your argument, maybe your argument isn’t as strong as you think.

---

The New York Times’ Latest Anti-Gun News Story

Legacy Media Finally Acknowledges Politization of Public Health

from https://ift.tt/KjxP3nA
via IFTTT

When Gun Laws Kill: How New York’s CCIA Enabled a Massacre

When Gun Laws Kill: How New York’s CCIA Enabled a Massacre. Photo taken by Dan Wos

Of course, we always hear the same old argument for gun control after an attack. “We need more gun laws to prevent these violent attacks,” but what if the gun laws are the problem?

The implication of a statement like that is that there are not enough gun laws in place. Anti-gun politicians like New York Governor Kathy Hochul have been pushing this narrative for decades. Yes, there are people in this country, typically those with limited or no firearm knowledge, who fall prey to this type of rhetoric. The constant drumbeat of anti-gun propaganda is important to the gun grabbers because, generation after generation, people become more inclined to adapt to their environment.

If the gun grabbers can create an anti-gun environment, they know that they will be able to eventually eliminate firearms from society, regardless of the 2nd Amendment. As a matter of fact, if society were to shift enough, the 2nd Amendment could be repealed. I know you don’t like hearing that, and I don’t like saying it, but ask yourself, if it were possible to remove any American rights or repeal any Amendment like was done with the 18th Amendment, which was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933, which one do you think would be next on the chopping block?

Every time there are graves to stand on and a tragedy to be exploited, in pursuit of furthering the anti-gun narrative, you can bet there will be a Democrat with a megaphone close by.

Regarding the recent killing in New York City, let’s discuss some of the firearm laws that were in place and subsequently, completely ignored by the killer.

After New York gun owners enjoyed a significant victory in the Bruen case, which recognized New York State gun laws as unconstitutional, Kathy Hochul, the originally appointed Governor, signed into law the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA). She did this a mere eight days after the Supreme Court case was decided. This tells us that not only did she and her anti-gun legislature know that they would suffer a massive defeat, but they were also unwilling to accept it. They were preparing for months and possibly years to create new legislation that would undermine the 2nd Amendment again and force gun rights groups to waste more time and money by going back to court and reliving the extensive legal process all over again.

The new CCIA included several unconstitutional regulations, including, but not limited to, sensitive locations, which deemed practically every space in the state of New York a gun-free zone unless the property owner explicitly informed the public, in writing, that guns were allowed on the premises.

Typically, this type of notification would be in the form of a sign on the building stating the allowance of firearms at the location. How many of these signs have you seen in the State of New York? That was the idea. The anti-gun lawmakers knew businesses and property owners would not post “pro-gun zone” signs on their buildings out of fear of retribution from radical anti-gun protestors and left-wing vandals.

The new package of gun restrictions also included an extensive training course, additional fees, the forfeiture of social media accounts for review, and several other roadblocks to acquiring concealed carry permits, including personal meetings with judges or permitting officers for the purpose of determining whether the applicant was of “good moral character.” Of course, New York State government officials would be the ones determining whether a person was of “good moral character.” No specific metrics were ever given to determine the approval under this rule, as it was left to the issuing officer’s discretion. This, of course, was a workaround for the previous “proper cause” restriction that had been defeated in the Bruen decision.

Before the CCIA, there was a law called the NY Safe Act, which was put in place for the purpose of restricting so-called “assault rifles.”

Most of America is familiar with the propaganda term “assault rifle,” but very few have been able to define it with specificity in legal terms. New York State, however, deemed “assault rifles” as semi-automatic rifles having two or more accessories or attachments, such as a detachable magazine or pistol grip. This restriction on the exercise of the 2nd Amendment has been in place in New York State since 2013, despite the national so-called “assault weapons” ban sunsetting in 2004 after Congress concluded it did nothing to prevent violence.

The Manhattan killer who recently attacked New York City security guards and office workers paid absolutely no attention to any of these New York State gun restrictions, which proves that the restrictions themselves only affected the law-abiding citizens involved. Not only were people killed because they were disarmed by their government, but many would also argue that the New York State government is complicit in the deaths of those involved in this latest New York City massacre.

We, as American citizens, are left with the question, “How long are we willing to accept this behavior and Constitution-violating legislation from our elected officials?”

The New York City gun laws were, in fact, completely ignored by the killer, but they were not ignored by the lawful residents of New York City, and those in the building where the attack took place.

A clear indication of this is the imagery of two grown men in an office, unable to defend their own lives and resorting to piling up couches and office furniture in front of the entrance in a desperate attempt to stay alive. No American citizen should be reduced to such a level of helplessness. This is the irony of gun laws. Killers have no regard for them, and lawful citizens fear violating them.

Our Founding Fathers did not want to see men put in this position again, which is why they wrote the Second Amendment. Kathy Hochul has decided that she knows better and has removed the ability of good people to defend their own lives.

Shortly after this attack took place, and immediately after CNN falsely referred to the killer as “possibly white,” for political purposes, they quickly began peddling the anti-gun narrative. Left-wing media and Kathy Hochul completely ignored the reality of this situation with respect to the role the New York State gun restrictions played in this attack.

The New York State government, led by Kathy Hochul, put innocent lives at risk by eliminating the ability of good people to defend their own lives, and then she went directly to the media to call for more of the same irresponsible and dangerous gun laws.

New York State has run out of gun laws to implement. Hochul has blamed other states, where the attack didn’t occur, for their gun laws in the hopes of reigniting another national so-called “assault weapons” ban.

New York City’s Gun Control Fails to Keep its Citizens Safe

---

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

---

from https://ift.tt/Za4qSo2
via IFTTT