New England Firearms Advocacy Conference Scheduled for May 2026, iStock-1323754303
BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is calling on New England Second Amendment advocates and activists to mark their calendars for May 30, and save the date!
CCRKBA, in conjunction with their New England partners — Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, Gun Owners of Maine, New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition, and Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs — will host their inaugural Firearms Advocacy Conference on May 30 in Chicopee, Mass. at Castle of Knights, 1599 Memorial Dr.
The Firearms Advocacy Conference will bring together some of the top minds and staunchest advocates from the New England states to discuss legislation, litigation, lobbying, and more! Second Amendment giants, legislators, attorneys, and content creators have committed to participating in the event.
“We wanted to create an environment where state and regional organizations could come together and discuss the issues that are unique to their areas,” conference chair and CCRKBA Director Holly Sullivan said. “Launching our inaugural regional conference in New England will bring together states with some of the best and worst gun laws to share strategies as well as highlight potential battles that may come to the more liberty-minded states.”
The New England Firearms Advocacy Conference will be a one-day event with the benefit of no overnight lodging needs for most attendees; room blocks will be carved out for those who want to stay nearby. Participants will be provided coffee, pastries, and lunch as well as a program packed with quality presentations and speakers.
“Bringing a conference like this into the middle of the battlefield is common sense,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Massachusetts was at the heart of the American Revolution, and Bay Staters — along with many of the New England states — have to fight for their independence from tyranny yet again. We’re proud to bring this event to the epicenter of an anti-gun haven and hope our programming will inspire and educate this generation of Second Amendment supporters.”
The cost to attend the New England Firearms Advocacy Conference is $25.00 and includes a one-year membership to CCRKBA.
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
Florida Carry Calls Out Senate Stonewalling of Young Adult Firearm Purchase Bill. img Jim Grant
A Florida Senate committee chairwoman is blocking legislation that would restore rifle and shotgun purchasing rights to young adults despite the bill passing the state House with a supermajority vote six weeks ago. This move has prompted fierce criticism from gun rights organizations demanding immediate action.
Florida Carry issued an urgent alert on February 26, 2026, calling on Second Amendment supporters to pressure Senate Rules Committee Chair Kathleen Passidomo and Senate President Ben Albritton to allow a vote on House Bill 133. The organization characterized the delay as an unconstitutional obstruction of fundamental rights guaranteed to all adult citizens.
“Senator Kathleen Passidomo, chairperson of the Florida Senate Rules Committee, is blocking House Bill 133 from getting a hearing,” Florida Carry stated in its email to members. The organization noted the bill was referred to Passidomo’s committee on January 16, 2026, just one day after the House approved it by a commanding 74 to 37 margin.
“It has been stonewalled ever since,” the alert continued. “Senator Passidomo is obviously unconcerned that 18 to 20 year olds should enjoy the same fundamental enumerated right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that all other adults enjoy.”
House Bill 133, sponsored by House Majority Leader Tyler Sirois of Merritt Island, would lower the minimum age for purchasing rifles and shotguns from 21 back to 18 by amending Section 790.065 of the Florida Statutes. The legislation specifically targets restrictions enacted through the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, which Florida lawmakers passed in 2018 following the Parkland tragedy.
Under current law, any 18 to 20-year-old who purchases a firearm faces up to five years imprisonment, a $5,000 fine, or both. The bill would restore purchasing rights for long guns while maintaining federal prohibitions on handgun purchases from licensed dealers for those under 21.
The Florida House has now passed virtually identical bills four consecutive sessions, in 2023, 2024, 2025, and again with HB 133 in January 2026, but the Florida Senate has refused to advance the measure every time.
Update from the Capitol.
Senate Leadership is refusing to touch the Military Aged Purchase ban repeal. This is completely unacceptable. This has passed the House four years now.
The 2nd Amendment is being treated as a second class right here in Florida. Check out the tweet… pic.twitter.com/z0M2Njs8n1
Florida Carry framed the ongoing obstruction in constitutional terms, invoking civil rights history in its suggested message to senators. “A right delayed is a right denied,” the organization declared, urging members to remind lawmakers that “Florida gun owners are watching.”
Gun Owners of America Florida State Director Luis Valdes has been among the most vocal advocates for the legislation, testifying before committees and providing media commentary throughout the process. During committee testimony, Valdes framed the current law as a violation of rights and specifically highlighted its impact on women.
“Most importantly, the issue with this legislation is that it disarms women. It disarms young people. It disarms my own daughter,” Valdes stated. “She’s 5 years old right now, but when she becomes 18, if she decides to move out of my house and attends college, I want her to be able to defend herself.”
The bill’s sponsor has emphasized constitutional principles in defending the measure. “This country has a problem with school shootings, but the answer to that is not to infringe upon the constitutional rights of law abiding people,” Sirois stated.
Florida Carry noted that Senate President Albritton and Rules Committee members possess the authority to demand a vote on the legislation but have failed to exercise it. The organization provided contact information for 20 Republican senators and urged supporters to be “polite, but firm” in their communications.
“This injustice, born in the kneejerk emotional reaction to the Parkland tragedy, must end,” Florida Carry declared. “Those who can do that need to hear from you immediately.”
In a remarkable development, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced he would not defend the existing age restriction if challenged at the Supreme Court, stating that “men and women old enough to fight and die for our country should be able to purchase firearms to defend themselves and their families.”
Whether HB 133 advances now depends entirely on whether Senate leadership permits a vote before the session concludes. Florida Carry’s urgent mobilization reflects growing frustration among gun rights advocates who have watched the House pass the same legislation year after year only to see it die without consideration in the upper chamber.
José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.
Mayor LaGrand’s Epic Fail: Defensive Gun Use Data Destroys the Narrative, iStock-VasilevKirill 1053113926
Just when you thought you’d heard it all: warning—reading the teachings of Grand Rapids Mayor David LaGrand, who just delivered the comedy gold of 2026 at his “Mayor Monday” forum, may cause you to experience dizziness, confusion, and an uncontrollable urge to buy another gun just to spite this level of nonsense. Void of common sense, after a selfdefense police shooting of yet another illegally armed felon, the mayor decides the crisis demands… shaming lawful gun owners.
LaGrand stated, “I think as a community we need to start having some shaming around gun possession.” LaGrand continued, “I think if you’ve got a gun you should be ashamed of yourself. I really do.” He then blesses us with his profound insight that guns are “for killing human beings,” and argues there is “so much more harm than benefit,” all while barely whispering “Second Amendment” like it’s an embarrassing family secret.
Remarkable. Historic. A living reminder that you can reach a high office without ever once landing on a coherent thought.
But let’s play along with his little shame game for a second. If owning a gun is so shameful, Mr. Mayor, then explain why the “good guy with a gun” keeps showing up in the data as a major check on the very violence you’re pretending to care about.
Defensive gun uses (DGUs) are not a fringe myth. They’re a constant reality, and the numbers make LaGrand’s hot take look like a hallucination. Even the low-end estimates from government victimization surveys land around tens of thousands per year, while other credible work puts defensive uses far higher.
Economist John Lott has spent decades digging into this, and his work points in exactly the opposite direction of the mayor’s feelings. In More Guns, Less Crime and later analyses, Lott points to survey data indicating somewhere between roughly 760,000 and 3.6 million defensive uses per year, with most of them ending the moment a gun is shown, not fired. His article and later congressional testimony on DGUs lay out 18 separate surveys with an average near the 2 million mark.
Want more, Mr. Mayor? Gary Kleck’s review of the CDC’s own buried survey work shows that when they quietly asked people about using guns defensively in the 1990s, the results implied well over a million defensive uses per year, numbers so inconvenient the agency stopped talking about them.
Add in the 2021 National Firearms Survey, which estimates about 1.67 million defensive gun uses annually, with guns used to stop assaults, robberies, home invasions, and more, and a clear picture emerges.
Across multiple surveys, multiple decades, and multiple researchers, the defensive use figures routinely range from hundreds of thousands to a couple of million incidents a year. At that point, pretending the “good guy with a gun” doesn’t exist isn’t just ignorance, it’s its own weird little conspiracy theory.
The “good guy with a gun” is not a bumper sticker slogan; it is a statistical reality that saves lives every single day.
Zoom in on Michigan, and the picture gets even more inconvenient for the mayor’s narrative. Michigan’s shift to “shall issue” concealed carry did not produce the bloodbath opponents predicted. One summary of state data, including before-and-after trends, can be seen here.
Over the decade after the law was liberalized, firearm homicides in Michigan actually declined compared to the decade before, even as the number of residents holding concealed pistol licenses exploded. Other analyses of permit holders’ behavior consistently show that concealed pistol license holders are dramatically less likely to be involved in crime than the general population, offending at a tiny fraction of the general rate.
So, who exactly deserves “shame,“ the law-abiding citizen who deters crime at a rate far out of proportion to their tiny share of offenders, or the violent felon who ignores every law on the books?
LaGrand wants to shame the very people who quietly deter crime without a badge or a paycheck, while the actual criminals, the felony-prohibited possessors, keep arming up illegally. Blame the responsible citizens who stop violence, ignore the prohibited felons released back onto the streets who cause it. That’s not policy; that’s political theater, that’s insanity.
His cigarette analogy is equally absurd. Cigarettes kill passively and provide no protective benefit to the innocent. Firearms in lawful hands actively prevent harm, protect the vulnerable women facing stalkers, the elderly in high-crime areas, minorities tired of being easy targets, and do so on a scale that, by many estimates, dwarfs criminal uses. Again, see the self-defense statistics and survey discussions above for the ranges and methodologies.
And then there’s that pesky Constitution. The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen has made it abundantly clear: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. That is not a suggestion, and it’s not contingent on whether a mayor in Michigan happens to “feel” you should be ashamed. It is a recognized, fundamental right.
To every responsible gun owner in Grand Rapids and beyond: keep doing what you’re doing. You are not the problem. You are part of the solution the mayor refuses to acknowledge because it doesn’t fit his narrative, and the evidence backs you up.
Mayor LaGrand should sit down and ask himself why he’s attacking people who obey the law instead of the thugs who terrorize his city. The real disgrace isn’t gun owners; it’s a mayor so out of touch he thinks shaming citizens for exercising a constitutional right counts as policy. Carry on, folks. The good guys are still winning the day, whether the mayor likes it or not.
Law-abiding Americans should not hang their heads because a grandstanding mayor sneers at their rights; they should do exactly what the Founders expected of a free people: stay armed, stay trained, and be ready to defend themselves and their neighbors when evil shows up.
The men who insisted on writing the Second Amendment into the fabric of our Constitution did it precisely so that ordinary citizens, not just kings, bureaucrats, or mayors, would hold the ultimate responsibility for their own safety and their own liberty. To honor the rights they secured and the blood that has been shed to preserve them, we have a duty to stand firm against petty politicians like the mayor of Grand Rapids, who would strip away the very freedoms our Founders engraved into America’s founding documents 250 years ago and entrusted us to defend.
When you carry a firearm lawfully, you’re not just protecting your family in a dark parking lot, you’re carrying forward a 250-year-old promise that this country would never be a place where only the government has guns. That’s not something to be ashamed of, that’s something to live up to and to fight for as long as the Republic stands.
Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics, including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.
Norming Guns Away: Social Norm Formation, International Influence, and the Second Amendment After Bruen iStock Palto 933906604
Contemporary debates over firearms regulation in the United States are typically framed in terms of public safety, empirical risk assessment, or constitutional doctrine. Less frequently analyzed, but increasingly consequential, is the role of Social Norm Formation in shaping both domestic firearms policy and judicial reasoning. The process commonly referred to as “Norming” is the gradual establishment of shared assumptions about what forms of civilian firearm possession are socially acceptable, legally permissible, or politically legitimate.
This piece is situated within the Supreme Court’s post-New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen framework, and argues that Norm-based reasoning, whether derived from international consensus, comparative law, or evolving policy preferences, stands in structural tension with a constitutional methodology grounded in text, history, and tradition. This tension is not merely theoretical, as it has direct implications for legislative drafting, judicial interpretation, and the durability of Second Amendment (2A) protections.
Norming as an Informal Regulatory Mechanism
Norms function as informal regulatory instruments. Unlike statutes or treaties, Norms operate through cultural reinforcement, professional consensus, and institutional repetition. Once embedded in society, they influence how problems are defined and which solutions appear legitimate. In firearms policy, Norming has increasingly framed civilian gun ownership as a deviation from a presumed baseline of state-managed security.
International discourse has explicitly embraced Norm Formation as a strategy for arms control.
Civilian possession of firearms is often grouped within broader categories such as in the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as “small arms and light weapons,” a classificatory move that minimizes legal and functional distinctions between lawful civilian arms, criminal misuse, and military equipment. Over time, this repetition of Norm Framing across multilateral institutions, non-governmental organizations (a.k.a. NGO), and academic literature reinforces a presumption that civilian disarmament IS the regulatory default.
The ATT illustrates just how international instruments may function as Norm-Generating mechanisms, even where their formal legal scope is limited. Although the ATT governs international transfers of conventional weapons, its broader rhetorical and institutional influence extends well into our domestic policy debates. The ATT does influence international law.
In international law, widespread state practice accompanied by opinio juris (Latin for “opinion of law”) may crystallize into customary international law. While such Norms do not automatically override our constitutional provisions, they can exert extreme indirect pressure by reshaping the expectations about regulatory legitimacy. In the United States, this phenomenon raises recurring questions about the interaction between international soft law and our constitutionally enumerated rights.
As our broader gun-law scholarship has emphasized, the legal significance of these Norms lies less in direct enforceability than in their capacity to recalibrate the interpretive environment in which courts and policymakers operate.
The Bruen Framework and the Rejection of Interest Balancing
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen marked a decisive rejection of the prior means-end scrutiny test in 2A cases, replacing interest balancing with a historical-tradition test rooted in the original public meaning of the constitutional text. Under this framework, contemporary policy consensus, domestic or international, cannot independently justify firearms restrictions absent to a well-established historical analogue.
Sadly, Norm-based arguments still remain prevalent in our legislative findings and lower-court reasoning. Claims that restrictions are justified because they align with modern standards, international practices, or evolving social expectations sit uneasily within Bruen’s methodology. The persistence of such arguments underscores the friction between Norming as a policy strategy and constitutional adjudication as presently conceived.
This piece complements my existing post-Bruen analysis in “The Founders’ Experiment: Arms in America” (Ammoland) by highlighting Norming as a parallel, extra-doctrinal force that may influence outcomes even where courts nominally adhere to historical analysis.
Social Stigmatization and Cultural Reinforcement
Norm Formation also operates at the social level. As civilian firearm ownership becomes increasingly stigmatized because of Norming, lawful gun owners may be portrayed as irresponsible or socially deviant. Such stigmatization narrows the range of acceptable discourse and discourages participation in public debate, thereby reinforcing the Norm itself.
The resulting participation gap, between the number of Americans who legally and lawfully own firearms, and those who actively engage in policy advocacy, has structural consequences. Norms tend to favor organized, professionalized actors over diffuse constituencies, amplifying certain perspectives while marginalizing others.
Understanding Norming is essential to properly evaluating the future trajectory of our 2A laws. Norms shape the background assumptions against which our constitutional rights are interpreted, defended, or constrained. In a legal system committed to written constitutionalism, unexamined reliance on evolving Norms’ risks can transform our enumerated rights into contingent privileges.
This does not require rejecting all regulation or denying the legitimacy of public safety concerns. Rather, it requires analytical clarity about the sources of authority invoked to justify regulations, and fidelity to the constitutional structures that govern those choices.
Constitutional Implications and the Risk to Enumerated Rights
Norming is neither accidental nor neutral. It is a deliberate process that shapes legal outcomes long before formal adjudication occurs. In the post-Bruen era, where historical tradition has been reaffirmed as the controlling interpretive framework, Norm-based reasoning warrants heightened scrutiny.
By situating Norm Formation alongside constitutional doctrine, it is important to reinforce a central theme of contemporary Second Amendment scholarship, making sure that the durability of our enumerated rights depends NOT only on judicial holdings, but also on sustained attention to the cultural, institutional, and international forces that seek to redefine its scope.
Alan J. Chwick, A.S., B.S., FL/NY/SC Paralegal is known for his involvement in legal articles usually related to firearm regulations and for his contributions to discussions on firearm rights. (Ret.) Managing Coach of the Freeport NY Junior Marksmanship Club (FreeportJuniorClub.org). Escaped New York State to South Carolina and is an SC FFL & Gunsmith (Everything22andMore.com).
Kentucky HB 749 Follows West Virginia in Expanding Citizens’ Access to Modern Machine Guns, iStock-927994160
In a decisive move that reaffirms Kentucky’s proud heritage as a constitutional carry state and a bulwark for unalienable rights, Rep. TJ Roberts (R-Burlington) introduced House Bill 749 on February 25, 2026. This landmark legislation establishes an Office of Public Defense within the Kentucky State Police, tasked with acquiring and transferring modern, select-fire machine guns directly to law-abiding citizens. HB 749 is nothing short of revolutionary: it weaponizes a clear federal exemption to dismantle the artificial, unconstitutional barriers erected by the 1986 Hughes Amendment, restoring to Kentuckians the very arms the Founding Fathers intended for a well-regulated militia and the security of a free state.
Rep. Roberts, a steadfast defender of the Second Amendment who just days ago voted against HB 299, the GOP-backed bill criminalizing Glock switches, has long argued that law-abiding citizens deserve parity with the very tools carried by law enforcement and the military. “Federal law explicitly allows states to sell machine guns to their citizens,” Roberts declared upon filing the measure. His bill does exactly that, sidestepping the Hughes Amendment’s post-1986 registration ban through 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(2)(A), which carves out transfers “to or by” a state or under its authority. No more overpaying for pre-1986 “transferables” that now fetch $25,000 to $60,000 on the collector market.
Kentucky residents who pass a standard background check may soon be able to purchase true military-pattern full-auto firearms at reasonable prices, AR-15/M16 platforms, squad automatic weapons (SAW), submachine guns, and the arms “in common use” for militia purposes.
The structure of HB 749 is elegant, efficient, and maximally freedom-oriented. It creates the Office of Public Defense inside the Department of Kentucky State Police, empowering the director to procure machine guns “of like kind” to those issued to law enforcement and the U.S. Armed Forces. Purchases will prioritize in-state manufacturers wherever possible, boosting Kentucky’s firearms industry and keeping tax dollars circulating locally. Qualified persons, any adult not prohibited from owning firearms under state or federal law, can buy these weapons at State Police facilities after a clean NICS check. Upon transfer, buyers receive an official state-issued certificate confirming the firearm was acquired “by” the Commonwealth, providing ironclad protection under the federal exemption.
Subsequent transfers between qualified Kentuckians are streamlined through the same office for a modest administrative fee, ensuring these modern arms remain in circulation among responsible owners. If a buyer later becomes prohibited, the bill requires the return of the firearm within seven days. Returned or forfeited guns are resold rather than destroyed, maximizing access and value for citizens. A dedicated Public Defense Fund, seeded by a reasonable surcharge on initial sales and capped administrative fees, covers operations without burdening general taxpayers, a fiscally conservative masterstroke.
For decades, the Hughes Amendment, rammed through on a disputed voice vote in 1986, has treated American citizens as second-class subjects, denying them the rapid-fire capability that criminals and terrorists obtain illegally with ease. Pre-1986 machine guns are collector items; post-1986 models manufactured for civilians have been verboten. HB 749 flips that script. By acting “by” the state, Kentucky nullifies the practical effect of the ban for its residents while remaining fully compliant with federal statute. Federal courts have never invalidated properly structured state transfer programs under this exemption, and with Bruen’s history-and-tradition test now the law of the land, machine guns invented in 1718 and used by American militias for centuries sail through constitutional scrutiny.
Kentucky’s bold step closely mirrors and builds upon West Virginia’s pioneering Senate Bill 1701, introduced just days earlier by Sens. Chris Rose and Zack Maynard with drafting assistance from Gun Owners of America (GOA).
That Mountain State legislation created its own Office of Public Defense to sell identical classes of modern machine guns to qualified residents, proving the model works in Appalachian terrain where rugged individualism runs deep. HB 749 adopts the same proven framework but tailors it to Kentucky’s larger population and robust State Police infrastructure, potentially making implementation even smoother across the Bluegrass. Where West Virginia led by lighting the fuse, Kentucky is ready to detonate the powder keg of restored liberty.
Critics from the gun-control lobby will predictably screech about “arming the streets” and “blood in the holler.” Their hysteria collapses under basic facts. These sales require the same rigorous background checks as every lawful firearm purchase. Criminals already possess full-auto capability through illegal conversions, 3D-printed parts, and black-market imports, the very devices HB 299 futilely targets. Law-abiding Kentuckians, however, have been priced out of modern defensive arms by federal overreach.
A well-armed populace is the ultimate deterrent: studies from constitutional carry states show violent crime rates dropping as lawful gun ownership surges. Historical precedent is overwhelming, from the minutemen at Concord who carried the era’s most advanced arms, to the Swiss citizen-soldiers who keep military select-fire rifles in their homes today.
The Second Amendment was never about hunting ducks or plinking at the range; it was written to ensure that the people could meet government force with equivalent firepower if tyranny ever threatened.
Economically, HB 749 is pure gold for Kentucky. Affordable machine guns will drive demand, spurring investment in local manufacturers, gunsmiths, and ranges. Freedom-minded Americans from restrictive states will travel here for training and purchases, boosting tourism and hospitality. Revenue from the Public Defense Fund strengthens public safety infrastructure without new taxes. And unlike the elitist pre-1986 market that reserves full-auto ownership for millionaires and celebrities, this program democratizes access exactly as the Founders intended when they rejected standing armies in favor of an armed citizenry.
Rep. Roberts’ consistency shines through. His opposition to HB 299 wasn’t about protecting criminals; it was about rejecting feel-good infringements that fail to disarm the bad guys while burdening the good. By introducing HB 749 immediately after that vote, he sends an unmistakable message: Kentucky will not erode the Second Amendment; it will expand and restore it. The bill’s findings implicitly echo the state constitution’s robust protection of the right to keep and bear arms “for the defense of themselves and the state.”
Passage of HB 749 would mark Kentucky as the second state in a rapidly growing freedom movement. Texas, Idaho, Montana, and others are watching. GOA and grassroots patriots across the Commonwealth are already mobilizing in support. Contact your state representative. Testify at committee hearings. The window is open now, while Republicans control the legislature, and Governor Beshear’s veto can be overridden.
The tree of liberty is watered not just with the blood of patriots, but with the resolute action of legislators willing to hand citizens the modern tools of self-defense and resistance. Kentucky’s HB 749 does precisely that. By following West Virginia’s courageous example in SB 1701, the Bluegrass State is declaring: American citizens are not subjects to be disarmed by federal fiat. We are sovereign people, entrusted by the Constitution with the arms necessary to remain free.
This is the fight for the Republic. Kentucky is answering the call. The rest of America should take note and follow.
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.
Michigan gun owners were insulted by Grand Rapids Masyor David LaGrand, who thinks they should be ashamed for owning firearms. IMG iStock-676327038
One day after Grand Rapids, Michigan Mayor David LaGrand initially ran for cover after stating during a public meeting Monday evening that gun owners should be ashamed—initially telling a reporter through a spokesperson that he “respectfully declines to be interviewed” about the controversy—he issued a lengthy statement in an effort to justify his remarks.
A video of LaGrand making the comments has gone viral across social media. The Democrat mayor was not reserved about his feelings toward gun owners.
In the video, Mayor LaGrand stated, “Nobody gardens with a gun, right? Nobody changes their tire with a gun. What they’re for is killing human beings and so it’s really hard. I think as a community we have to start having some shaming around gun possession. I think if you’ve got a gun, you should be ashamed of yourself. I really do.”
“Now, I’m sorry, that’s gonna be the soundbite of the night,” he continued, “and the NRA, the NRA is gonna be mad at me, but like, you know, I, I get that we got a Second Amendment, I get it. But, you know, you also should be ashamed of yourself if you smoke. That’s not against the law. I think if you own a gun, you should be ashamed of yourself, and you should really do some self-reflection. And I think that’s, I, I just see so much more harm just like cigarettes. I see so much harm, more harm done than benefit.”
NEW: The video of Grand Rapids Mayor David LaGrand blasting gun owners has surfaced.
When asked if law enforcement should be disarmed following an officer-involved shooting, he stated: “I think if you’ve got a gun you should be ashamed of yourself. I really do.”
The video was posted to Facebook, where it had gotten some 77,000 views at the time this story was filed.
But late Wednesday, LaGrand’s office provided this statement to Ammoland News:
“I want to clarify my recent remarks regarding gun ownership to ensure my intent and perspective are clearly understood by the community. We must be willing to confront the reality of gun violence in our city, and I hope we can move forward together to find solutions that keep our families safe. As a former prosecutor, I saw firsthand that handguns are used disproportionately in the commission of crimes, domestic disputes and suicides, leading to devastating injuries and the tragic loss of life. Now, as Mayor, I continue to bear witness to the aftermath of that violence. I see the pain it causes families and the damage it inflicts on the fabric of our neighborhoods. I am fully aware that the Second Amendment and state law limit the policy options available to a municipal leader. I cannot legislate this pain away. Therefore, my comments were not a signal of impending policy, but an expression of personal frustration and deep sorrow. My goal was to shift our community conversation away from the status quo and toward a serious, honest dialogue and provide an opportunity for all of us to reflect on what truly responsible gun ownership looks like.”
It is not an apology, nor does he back away from his initial comments about gun owners being ashamed.
The event was described as a regular forum called “Mayor Monday,” during which LaGrand apparently also declined to talk about the recent fatal shooting of a black man by Grand Rapids police. When AmmoLand reached out to the mayor’s office both by telephone and email, there was not an immediate response.
A subsequent call from city spokesman Steve Guitar lasted less than a minute. After delivering the mayor’s message, he added, “That’s all I’m going to say.” Later, Guitar notified a reporter that the statement would be forthcoming.
LaGrand’s “shame” comments have apparently generated a lot of heat, and not just within the state. His remarks about “shaming” gun owners hit a nerve with gun owners across the country. Whether his subsequent statement will make any difference remains to be seen.
There is no telling what full impact LaGrand’s comments might have on Grand Rapids or the entire Wolverine State. In an email sent to LaGrand, these questions were asked:
Why do you believe gun owners should be ashamed for owning firearms?
What is your interpretation of the Second Amendment?
Article 1, Section 6 of the Michigan state Constitution says, “Every person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.” Why should Michigan residents, or anyone else, be ashamed for exercising a constitutionally enumerated right?
This year, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources will receive $23,914,949, its annual share of the federal Pittman-Robertson federal aid to wildlife conservation program, funded by a special excise tax on firearms and ammunition. Hunting and shooting contribute millions of dollars to the Michigan economy each year. Why should all of those outdoorsmen and women feel ashamed over that?
Nothing in LaGrand’s statement responds to any of these questions. Here are some facts dug up by Ammoland: Michigan fields about 550,000 to 600,000 hunters annually, and according to the Lansing State Journal, last year saw a lower deer harvest than during the 2024 season, based on data from the Department of Natural Resources. The harvest last year was about 129,000 deer, while hunter numbers over the past two decades appear to have declined about 30 percent, according to published reports.
Still, that’s a lot of Michiganders who own guns.
According to the annual concealed pistol license report from the Michigan State Police (MSP), for 2024-2025, the total revenue from fees paid for CPL applications came to $16,460,062.00, which is above the five-year average of $12,009,968.00. According to an email from the MSP, there are currently 845,237 approved CPLs in the state. The Crime Prevention Research Center’s most recent annual report on concealed carry shows between 10 and 15 percent of eligible Michigan adults are licensed to carry.
Translation: Firearms-related activities contribute considerable amounts of money to the Michigan economy, while Mayor LaGrand thinks all of those people who own guns should be subject to shaming by their friends and neighbors.
At the same time, gun ownership and concealed carry appear to be healthy in the state, Michigan homicides have declined. Last year, according to the Detroit News, homicides in the Motor City fell to their lowest point in several decades, with 165 slayings logged last year.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
They don’t just want our guns, they want our names, and are willing to destroy anyone who won’t surrender them. Judge-Court-Law-Gun-Rights-iStock-2180021491
“David, this article is the first article I have read that mentions the GiveSendGo account for DeStefano and I’m pretty sure I read everything posted here or emailed to me by Lee The Gun Writer Williams,” AmmoLand comment poster DIYinSTL noted. “I’m sure it will grow as word spreads. Currently at $650. I’d like to know more about … who will receive the funds.”
He’s referring to a GiveSendGo Account established to “Help Lawrence DeStefano Fight Unjust Charges,” one trying to raise a substantial amount of money for the extradited IndieGuns owner who is essentially alone defending himself against the unlimited power of a vindictive New York State looking to make an example of him. As a brief synopsis, DeStefano is facing 521 years in prison for shipping gun kits to New York customers. Unlike the other companies targeted by State Attorney General Letitia James, DeStefano has refused to turn over customer lists, and thus has been singled out for total destruction as an example to any who might defy the orders of the violence monopolists.
Attorney General Letitia James sued 10 national gun distributors for violating state and local laws by selling, trafficking, and shipping illegal ghost gun parts into New York, marking a major use of state public nuisance laws. Indieguns is still the only company that refused blanket customer data
The point of this article is not to go through those reports again (or to broach why “pro-gun” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis did not fight the extradition, something that merits investigation) but to assist in the fundraising, especially since of the substantial amount being sought, only a mere fraction has been collected to date. Some of this is no doubt due to gun owner apathy, a phenomenon this correspondent has been decrying for years, but the posted comment reflects another concern: Why send our hard-earned money to an unknown quantity?
To address that, AmmoLand has reached out to friends of DeStefano, who must remain anonymous due to legal considerations. New York is going after everyone associated with the man they think they can tack a charge on to, and there is a gag order on the case constraining what everyone can say that raise criminal liability issues. Behind-the-scenes colleagues are not beyond the reach of Letitia James to pursue for any on-the-record comments they make. As with the Operation Fast and Furious whistleblowers who provided information to Mike Vanderboegh and myself, which made breaking the story possible, such reasoning has valid precedent and I have committed to protecting my sources. The bottom line is I know who I’m dealing with, have confidence in the integrity of this effort, and will not break faith with them in the face of legal demands.
What follows are questions and answers relevant to the fundraiser:
DC: How did you arrive at the $620,000 goal? How do you envision the money being disbursed and spent, and what oversight can you provide to assure contributors that their donations and your expenses will be properly accounted for?
We are offering full transparency of this fundraiser and will post updates for every dollar spent; honestly the goal amount is severely understated for what we wish to do for Lawrence to have a fighting chance at this case. We arrived at this figure when Lawrence told us he vows to repay each and every donator’s dollar figure amount upon his release and he had approximately $620,000 seized in cash/gold alone, not including the unfathomable value of stock seized.
DC: You’d initially tried to set the fundraiser up on GoFundMe. What happened?
It was shut down by GoFundMe, for violations of supporting a “violent criminal.”
DC: Have you applied for assistance from any of the national gun groups? If so, have any shown interest or promised to help?
Yes, we have sought out resolves from multiple groups to little assistances as most are currently scared of the case and losing major donators.
DC: This next question doesn’t really deal with fundraising, but I think it’s necessary to put the importance of this in perspective: What, in your opinion, makes this significant and deserving of support from not just gun kit customers, but from all gun owners?
The reason this case is so important is this will set president for future cases in disarming the populace. Even though they have done nothing wrong federally in the arms of state overreach.
I just can’t give readers more than that because I am convinced the reluctance to of my contacts to come forward is well-founded. There’s also an issue of personal liability for refusing to disclose sources.
My longstanding position is that I never ask readers to do anything I’m not already doing myself. I donated $10 early on—it doesn’t have to be much, but if every reader here did the same—and went the important extra mile of spreading the word and sharing the link to this article along with your personal thoughts to those within your spheres of influence, it would go a long way toward helping a man who will not be broken to save himself by selling others out.
There is an object lesson that should not be lost on any of us: If the government can destroy us for not surrendering our rights and bending a knee when ordered, and turn the screws when we don’t betray our countrymen, how confident are we, when it’s our turn in the barrel, that we can count on our brothers in arms to come to our aid?
If you’d like to help, start here, where regular updates show how money collected is being expended, and then go the extra mile and tell your friends.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
