Liz Cheney US House Office of Photography, Public domain
United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Second Amendment supporters have a lot to learn from Liz Cheney. Loyal AmmoLand News readers may wonder why Liz Cheney should be someone to draw lessons from, and that is very understandable.
Simple: Sometimes, the lessons learned are what not to do, and the vast majority of the lessons to learn from Liz Cheney are in this category.
Many may wonder why we should spend time on a defeated incumbent who lost spectacularly. It’s better to learn from the mistakes of others, particularly when they are on the other side (and yes, Liz Cheney had functionally gone to the other side), rather than to have to digest the lessons learned after our side suffers a defeat.
Perhaps the biggest lesson learned is not openly and blatantly side with people who have previously shown that they hate our guts. It is an instant credibility-killer, for starters. The other thing that it that selling out does is you start surrendering on every issue that matters. She began to back gun control measures she previously opposed and has announced her intent to target Second Amendment champions in 2022 and 2024.
Liz Cheney Turns to Famous ‘Gun Control’ Supporter to Help Her Stay in Power
This will not win her points when everyone knows the anti-Second Amendment extremists she would empower via her actions seek to pack the Supreme Court and eliminate the filibuster. It will only secure well-deserved distrust in the future from those she purported to represent and lead. Cheney forgot that she worked for the people of Wyoming.
Cheney’s tone has also been a turnoff. I’ve discussed this multiple times, but it now bears repeating.
How we come across to our fellow Americans matters. The approach we take when we are making our case matters. Liz Cheney’s shrill tone, her scolding and virtue-signaling, and her refusal to acknowledge the valid concerns of her new opponents are things that Second Amendment supporters must not replicate. She deserved to lose her primary election and good riddance.
But the one major takeaway that readers need to think about – and learn from – Liz Cheney’s actions over the last 19+ months: Know that you cannot compromise on our RKBA.
Second Amendment supporters need to consider what limits we must personally set concerning those who we back and our right to keep and bear arms. This was touched on a little with the situations involving Madison Cawthorn and Eric Greitens, who displayed some questionable judgment, to put it mildly.
The fact that Greitens was subjected to an abuse of power by a Soros-backed prosecutor doesn’t change the flawed judgment and poor choices that opened him to that abuse. Cawthorn also displayed poor judgment and clearly lacked some basic maturity.
In some cases, the time to draw that line and insist on an exit will be easy – see the case of Jason Ravnsborg, the now-former attorney general of South Dakota, impeached after he killed a pedestrian – and there won’t be much pushback. Other times, it might not be easy, and there will be a cost in doing so.
The ease – or difficulty – of drawing that line could depend on the individual Second Amendment supporter and the exact circumstances of the case. But this is something Second Amendment supporters will need to work out as they seek to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics, and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
Details of .22 Pistol Defense Failure against Polar Bear in Norway; iStock-940461304
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– Detailed, official information has surfaced about the defensive use of a pistol failure involving a .22 pistol and a polar bear in the Svalbard archipelago of Norway.
One of the three documented cases where a pistol was fired to defend from a bear and failed was the sad tale of crew passengers from the tour/expedition ship Origo in the summer of 1995. The event, as related in a travel guide, was documented on AmmoLand. There were several other sources that corroborated the event; the details were from the travel guide.
As part of ongoing research to discover documented cases where pistols were fired in defense against bears, AmmoLand filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for polar bear incidents for this correspondent.
The released data contained a redacted, English translation of the narrative of the official Svalbard report on the Origo incident.
The official version is far more detailed and considerably more believable than the skeleton version in the travel guide book. They overlap closely; the details in the official version explain a great deal which seemed almost farcical in the travel guide version.
Another five people of the crew set out separately with only a .22 pistol and a flare gun. After an hour’s march, the second party were met by a bear, 75m away and openly aggressive. The bear was distracted neither by warning shot nor flare and attacked one of the party. As he did so, he was shot, from a range of only 15m and turned against the man who had fired at him. This man tossed the gun to the first, who shot again. The process was repeated, with first one man being attacked and then the other. By the time the pistol was emptied and a knife drawn, one man was dead and another badly injured. The survivors retreated to the ship.
(snip)
On examination, three shots to the head were discovered, none of them piercing the cranium.
The victim had three years experience with the Origo, with many bear observations, and there were sufficient weapons on board to equip everybody.
The official version offers the depth, and details render the story credible. The idea of tossing a pistol back and forth from some distance while being attacked by a polar bear seemed bizarre, yet people are known to do bizarre things under stress.
The official version shows both complacency and heroic action. If only the shooter had a little more experience with pistols and knew a little more about bear anatomy!
The official version was received as a translation from Norwegian to English, with redacted names. It has been edited to make it more readable, with false names inserted to aid in understanding the action.
First, to set the stage and make some corrections. The ship was the Origo. In 1995, on August 31, a party went ashore sightseeing.
The shore party started with 13 people and had a high-powered rifle and the .22 pistol. They split into two groups. One group of eight contained the Captain and the high-powered rifle.
The five who were attacked by the bear were not all staff; there were two tourists, who will be referred to as Sue and Joan.
There were three crew. The tour leader had a .22 pistol, a radio, and a flare gun; other crew members had signal pen flares. The crew leader will be referred to as Harold. The other two crew members will be called Bill and Olaf.
The Official version from the Governor of Svalbard records:
Harold did not answer his radio when the captain of the ship, who was guiding the other group, called him up to tell him notto go far.
After 1-2km they saw bear tracks in the snow. Joan and some others had seen the tracks already from the boat. Joan asked Harold if his pistol was enough against a bear. Harold said he trusted it.
Right after they saw the tracks, they saw the bear. It was big but skinny, according to Olaf. It was at about 75m, standing still and looking at them.
People in the other group then heard two shots and called Harold on the radio. He informs them there is a bear.
The first shot was from the flare gun, and the bear didn’t react at once.
He stood still for a while, then started loping towards them.
Harold fired 2 more shots from the flare gun (crackers) but the bear only came closer. At the last cracker shot from the flare gun, the bear was about 20-30m away.
Harold then grabbed his .22 pistol and fired 2 shots at the bear. When the bear was 10-15m away it accelerated to full charge and hit Harold, knocking him down. As he went down, he threw the pistol toward Olaf.
Bill had run off at the first sign of the bear.
Sue and Joan had been watching. When Harold was attacked, they ran.
The bear was now lying on top of Harold and biting his neck. Olaf ran to the pistol, and retrieved it.
Olaf fired four shots at the bear’s head from three to four feet away. Some of the shots hit the bear. Blood showed on the white bear’s head. The bear then attacked Olaf, who threw himself down on the ground on his belly and put his hands over his head to protect it.
The bear bit his arm, neck and almost bit off his left ear. The pistol fell to the ground.
Harold was now back on his feet and the bear switched attention to him.
Olaf knew Harold had a knife and shouted at him to use it, but Harold was unable to draw it.
The bear bit Harold in the neck and threw him in the air a few times.
Olaf found the pistol.
Harold, earlier, had yelled that there were 7 or 8 rounds in it. Olaf fired one more shot at the bears head, but the bear did not react.
Olaf realized he was severely injured. Harold appeared to be dead. Olaf had nothing left to fight with. He retreated toward the boat.
Two members of the other group, one armed with a rifle, met the retreating survivors. They were informed a polar bear took Harold.
Olaf was taken to the ship for treatment; two crew attempted a rescue mission for Harold.
They see the very bloody bear at 55 yards. The rifle man is afraid to shoot because the bear is walking among rocks, and he might miss.
He fires four shots from a flare gun instead. The bear walks slowly away. The follow the bear, in visual contact. The bear slowly walks past Harold’s body, and disappears. Harold is clearly dead. They turn over the body and put a jacket over it.
Later, police track the bear and kill it.
End of the official version
Analysis
After the first two pistol shots, at about 50 feet, Harold, the owner of the pistol, never fired it again. The two shots may have hit the head or elsewhere on the bear. They may have missed it.
It appears the bear broke into a flat-out charge just as or after the first two shots were fired, from about 40 to 50 feet. The bear was already moving. The time to cover the distance was probably less than a second.
No mention was made of any other wounds from a .22 than the three head wounds.
It appears Olaf had never fired the pistol before. He had no idea how many cartridges it held before Harold yelled out the information.
Olaf may not have fired any pistol before the polar bear attack.
While it seems difficult to miss a bear’s brain from 4 feet away, he may not have known where the brain was located in the polar bear’s head. Stress makes everything more complicated.
The brain is about the size of a pint jar. It sits inside a head of about 2.5-gallon volume. Firing an unfamiliar pistol at a possibly moving head of a bear at close range, Olaf managed to completely miss at least two of five shots. It is likely none of the other three shots which hit the head hit in direct line with the bear’s brain. If they had, they likely would have killed it. One of the problems with a soft lead .22 bullet is they can be deflected by heavy bone, especially if they strike at an angle less than about 23 degrees from the bone’s surface. If they strike a bear’s cranium at close to 90 degrees, they are likely to penetrate it.
A .22 can kill large animals, such as polar bears, quickly, but there is little room for error. No one recommends a .22 for self-defense against bears if there is a more powerful choice.
As it was, the four .22 shots fired by Olaf got the bear’s attention. When the bear was hit, he stopped mauling Harold and turned on Olaf.
We do not know if he was hit with the last shot fired, as Olaf had been seriously wounded by that time.
The bear was probably very hungry. This was a predatory attack.
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.
Joe Biden is doubling down on his threat to ban so-called “assault weapons” if Democrats retain control of Congress. IMG NRA
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Joe Biden is doubling down on his threat to ban so-called “assault weapons”—a term even the Associated Press advises against using—and the key to getting this done, according to a weekend tweet, is to “elect more Democrats to the Senate and keep the House Democratic.”
Biden was at a Democratic National Committee grassroots rally in Maryland, where he told the audience, “We just passed the first significant gun safety legislation in 30 years in this country. And I promise you, we’re not stopping here. I’m determined to ban assault weapons in this country.”
However, according to a report in American Military News, when Biden led the effort in 1994 to pass a ten-year ban on semi-auto rifles and standard capacity magazines, the results were inconclusive as to whether the ten-year prohibition actually accomplished anything. The story referred to a 2004 report in the Washington Times, which had obtained a then-unreleased copy of a report by the Department of Justice National Institute of Justice. That report stated, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”
And according to a 2021 report by FactCheck.org, “President Joe Biden claims the 10-year assault weapons ban that he helped shepherd through the Senate as part of the 1994 crime bill ‘brought down these mass killings.’ But the raw numbers, when adjusted for population and other factors, aren’t so clear on that.”
In Maryland, Biden pledged, “Will we be a nation of unity, of hope, of optimism, not a nation of violence, anger, hatred, and division.”
Yet he immediately promised to make political war on essentially one-third of the population because they are gun owners. Millions of them own modern semi-auto rifles, which Biden has vowed to ban during his presidency. He has never backed away from that position, and he is making it clear if Democrats retain control of Capitol Hill, he intends to make that one of his legacy accomplishments.
If we elect more Democrats to the Senate and keep the House Democratic, imagine the possibilities.
We’ll codify Roe v. Wade, protecting a woman’s right to choose.
We’ll ban assault weapons, saving countless lives.
However, there may be political and judicial storm clouds on his horizon. In late June, a week after handing down the landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court granted certiorari (review) to four significant Second Amendment cases including a case from Maryland known as Dominic Bianchi et al. v. Brian E. Frosh et al., led by the Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The case challenges the Maryland ban on so-called “assault weapons.”
The court vacated the original ruling by the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded it back for reconsideration “with instructions that it apply the justices’ broad interpretation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” according to the Maryland Daily Record. Because the Supreme Court granted certiorari, it’s a certainty that if the case comes back, the court will hear arguments and then hand down an opinion whether such firearms are protected by the Second Amendment.
It would be impossible to ban a type of firearm protected by the Second Amendment.
In Maryland, Biden told his audience, “This November, we have to ask every candidate, ‘are you for banning assault weapons or not?’ and If you’re not, we’re not going to vote for you. Period.”
Grassroots gun rights activists look at the issue differently. Candidates who do support a ban on semi-auto rifles are the ones to vote against in November. One good way to identify those individuals is whether they are identified as “gun sense candidates” by the various lobbying groups, as noted in GUNS Magazine.
Biden and other anti-gunners are pulling out all the stops.
On Sept. 15, according to The Guardian, Biden is hosting a White House “summit…aimed at combating hate-fueled violence.” High on the agenda of this “United We Stand” event is so-called “gun violence.”
The Guardian report says Biden “will deliver a keynote speech at the gathering, which the White House says will include civil rights groups, faith leaders, business executives, law enforcement, gun violence prevention advocates, former members of violent hate groups, the victims of extremist violence and cultural figures.” Noticeably absent from that list are representatives from the firearms industry and gun rights organizations.
The Federalist reports two new studies suggesting white people own guns and oppose gun control legislation because they are racists.
The political rhetoric is clearly ramping up in preparation for what is likely to be a bare-knuckles battle over control of Congress, which will be the only way to derail Biden’s gun control agenda. If Democrats are still in charge after November, Biden evidently figures there will be nothing stopping him.
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.
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-— New billboards have sprouted in San Francisco and Los Angeles, according to several online sources, including Twitter, Reddit, and the New York Post.
Mysterious new billboards are warning California residents not to move to Texas, as record numbers of residents flee the soft-on-crime Golden State for better quality of life in red states.
“The Texas Miracle died in Uvalde. Don’t move to Texas,” the billboards read, alongside a hooded figure and a crossed-out “Don’t mess with Texas” slogan.
The billboard seems to follow the trend of the anti-gun media and those who wish the population disarmed, of using mass murder to scare people into doing what the politicians want.
While mass school murders, such as those in Uvalde, Texas, are exceedingly rare, the media attempt to make them appear to be everyday occurrences.
Those who wish the population disarmed then try to tie the unpopular policy of disarming the public to safety, as if such a policy would stop mass murder incentivized by the Media.
It is unclear who is paying for the billboards, and just as unclear is what the purpose of the billboard’s message is.
According to SFGate, one billboard is on the corner of Folsom and 7th in San Francisco.
Some claim the purpose is to demonize Texas and stop the rampant flow of productive people and assets from California to Texas. Tesla and Oracle are two recent examples. People who find freedom attractive might decide the billboard sends them a message of freedom. Others claim the purpose is to keep people who favor gun control from moving to Texas. People who had guns might be deterred from moving to Texas.
Newsweek found a professor who said the billboard was designed by an amateur because of its conflicting messages.
“This is the lowest of the low. It’s bizarre. It’s amateurish,” he said.Cabot added that typically a billboard should be understood by the reader in three seconds. He said the anti-Texas billboards are confusing and people can’t understand them quickly.
Foxpoint Media, an advertising company out of Chicago, put up the billboard. If the billboards were meant to drive traffic to and awareness of the advertising company, they are doing an excellent job.
Opinion:
This correspondent has seen plenty of billboards with a “made you look!” message designed to sell advertising on the billboards. Perhaps this is a clever way to bring attention to Foxpoint Media. Then, again, it appears to be a win-win for both sides in the political debate.
If the billboard deters Leftists from moving to Texas and keeps them in California, then that appears effective.
The billboard uses a common theme used by those who wish the population disarmed. It seems unlikely Second Amendment supporters put it up. One of the ways to make advertising effective is to keep it simple and repetitive. Putting up billboards praising Texas Open Carry, Constitutional Carry, and support for the Second Amendment and self-defense would be simpler and more effective.
It would not repeat a common anti-Second Amendment theme.
Those who hate guns would be less likely to move to Texas. The message would not be ambiguous.
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 meteorology and mining engineering degrees and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- According to the gun grabbers, 18 to 20-year-olds shouldn’t be carrying a gun. Unless, of course, those young adults are protecting the freedom of the “rights for me but not for thee” crowd. Then they don’t mind.
In other words, young adults can go to war and risk their lives, but when they come home, the political left would prefer they remain unarmed and helpless. According to the left, 16-year-olds should be able to vote, and five-year-olds are responsible enough to change their gender, as if that’s even possible, but a 20-year-old adult is not responsible enough to carry a gun. Somehow that’s the twisted logic that they’re able to conjure up in their collective thought process.
Judge Clarence Thomas’s reference to “historical tradition” in his recent Bruen case decision appears to be paying dividends to Second Amendment advocates.
In this latest ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Mark T. Pittman, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote, “The issue is whether prohibiting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a handgun in public for self-defense is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Based on the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by Founding-Era history and tradition, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects against this prohibition. Texas’s statutory scheme must therefore be enjoined to the extent that law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds are prohibited from applying for a license to carry a handgun.”
Although gun grabber David Pucino, the Chief Deputy Counsel at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, is having a meltdown over the decision, Cody J. Wisniewski, an attorney for Constitutional Litigation with the Firearms Policy Coalition, sees this decision as a success.
Giffords’ Pucino seems to be desperately clinging to a fifth Circuit decision from 2013 that prevented the purchase of guns by anyone under 21 in the hope that it be recognized as precedence, overruling the Second Amendment.
While FPC’s Wisniewski said, “This decision is a significant victory for the rights of young adults in Texas and demonstrates for the rest of the nation that similar bans cannot withstand constitutional challenges grounded in history.”
Judge Pittman’s ruling explained that other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, including the First and Fourth amendments, which refer to “the people,” do not exclude young adults ages 18-20. Therefore, he said, “the Court declines to read an implicit age restriction into the Second Amendment.”
According to the Texas Tribune, the order is stayed for 30 days, pending an almost certain appeal. Thanks to President Obama for leaving an abundance of open court seats, President Trump was able to fill 300 of those vacancies with Justices who recognize the validity of the 2nd Amendment. Another decision now paying dividends. So let the gun grabbers kick and scream. Real Americans are winning the ideological battle. The tides are turning, and it would appear that this case will add to the momentum that was started by heller and continued with the McDonald and Bruen cases.
Sorry, Karen, your irrational gun fear doesn’t override the rights of “we the people,” even if we don’t meet your fabricated age requirement.
The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.
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 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.
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- For a few hours Friday, the leadership of the Civilian Marksmanship Program, or CMP, appeared to have lost their minds. It’s either that or the storied nonprofit – which can trace its lineage back to 1903 when Teddy Roosevelt created the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice – had been taken over by anti-gun Californians.
At around 11 a.m., the CMP sent the following email to its thousands of subscribers and customers:
“Due to a new Bill in California, CMP cannot send out email communications to our subscribers without having your full address and birthday in our email database. Please click on the ‘Update Profile’ link in the footer of this email to update your contact details. CMP will continue to send out emails to only those subscribers that have completed their profile. We will also post updates on our Facebook page and our website,” the email said.
As you can imagine, the mere suggestion that their names, dates of birth, addresses and other personal information could end up in the inboxes of anti-gun bureaucrats in California did not sit well with CMP’s customer base.
The reaction was swift, especially on CMP’s Facebook page.
“Take your government bootlicker spy network and shove it. Gun grabbing California lefturds don’t dictate to me,” one man wrote.
“I would not have been the least bit surprised at such idiocy coming from Kalifornia, but I will say that any competent IT department would only need to know that level of information for subscribers IN Kalifornia,” wrote another.
One subscriber speculated that someone at CMP may have been confused by a bill making its way through the California legislature, AB2273, which would require websites to verify the age of every user before allowing them access. However, the bill has not yet been signed into law.
CMP’s subscribers had a legitimate reason to be concerned about the security of their personal information since just two months earlier, California’s Attorney General accidentally and on purpose leaked the data of thousands of CCW permittees living in the Golden State.
Who’s to say if he got similar information from folks in other states he wouldn’t accidentally and on purpose leak that too?
Never mind
A few hours after the first email was sent, Mark Johnson, CMP’s Director of Civilian Marksmanship, sent another message, which retracts the first:
“CMP made a mistake. We do not need our customer phone numbers, addresses or dates of birth. My sincere apologies, Mark Johnson, DCM,” the email states.
Johnson offered no explanation or statement about the incident, other than acknowledging that CMP had made a mistake.
Johnson did not immediately return calls or emails seeking his comments for this story.
Takeaways
The CMP is a good organization. Through its stores, scholarships, clinics and matches, it accomplishes its mission of teaching riflery – especially to our youth – while promoting safety and target practice.
However, what separates a good organization from a great one is how its leadership comport themselves during a crisis, and for a few hours Friday, the CMP was hip-deep in a crisis of its own making.
Johnson and/or the CMP board need to let us know exactly what happened and what steps they’re taking to make sure it never, ever happens again.
They also need to tell their customers what they plan to do with any personal information they received after the first email was sent.
This is a time for the CMP to become fully transparent. It’s the right thing to do. It’s what Teddy would expect.
This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.
About Lee Williams
Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.
USA –-(AmmoLand.com)- Nowadays, during what historians will likely call Obama’s third term, Joe, Kamala, and the rest of the White House commissars have targeted every link of the firearm chain: from the manufacturers who produce the weapons to the credit card processors who facilitate the transactions, to the carriers who ship the guns to the dealers – and man, have they ever targeted our gun dealers.
Few outside the gun-rights community are aware of these assaults on our constitutionally protected freedoms because the legacy media has not covered any of it, which is certainly nothing new.
Today’s traditional media pays scant attention to the Second Amendment or gun rights, and when they do, their stories are so inaccurate and biased that they’re unreadable. Thousands of reporters and editors make up the legacy media, backed by multi-billion-dollar corporations, hedge-fund owners, and high-dollar advertisers.
We have less than 100 good folks reporting about issues that affect us. Most have day jobs and report part-time.
That, friends, needs to change!
We need more pro-gun reporters – watchdogs who can hold their public officials accountable at the local, state, and federal levels – brave souls who can help get the word out when they spot an infringement.
It’s not difficult to do since smartphone technology and social media can make anyone a journalist.
It doesn’t matter what platform you use to publish a story – social media, a website, a podcast or a YouTube channel – because a hard-hitting pro-gun story generates buzz, and buzz generates action. Public officials don’t like their switchboards overwhelmed with irate callers or their inboxes overflowing with angry emails.
If you want to help – if you want to write pro-gun stories, here are some tips you may find helpful.
Report Don’t Rewrite
There is nothing stopping anyone from reporting their own pro-gun stories – period.
Some folks will rewrite a story from the legacy media and sprinkle in a dash of pro-gun perspective. While this can work, there’s an inherent problem with this practice. It allows the legacy media to set our editorial agenda. In other words, it allows anti-gun media to determine what we read online or watch on a podcast or YouTube channel. That friends, we must not allow.
Reporting is actually pretty easy. If I can do it, anyone can. It’s all about listening to people. The best reporters I know are also the best listeners. They also get out of their chairs.
You have the same access to press conferences and other public events as any so-called “credentialed” reporter since reporters have no special access or special accreditation, for that matter. Legally, they’re members of the public, too. If a public official tries to bar you from attending a press conference, which are by design open to the public, they’ve screwed up, and that’s newsworthy.
Similarly, no local government can require media credentials or press passes and then bar you from an event for not having them. That’s a First Amendment violation, and it is also newsworthy.
Good reporting begins with thorough planning and preparation. Good reporters will become subject-matter experts long before they set their first word into type by researching their topic online, talking to experts in the field, and researching in the library.
Ask Good Questions
I write out my questions in advance of a lengthy interview. It helps keep me organized, and I don’t waste time trying to come up with my next question.
I use the DQT – the Direct Questioning Technique. Direct questions are designed to elicit a narrative response rather than a yes/no answer. After all, your goal is to get the subject talking so you can quote them.
Throughout the interview, I will use control questions – questions I know the answer to – and repeat questions – questions I’ve asked before but rephrased – to ensure the subject is truthful.
I try to avoid compound questions – What is your name and what is your favorite color? – and overly complex questions, as they tend to confuse the subject.
Don’t forget to question the target of your story, or at least make an attempt. I have yet to have a conversation with any ATF spokesperson, but fairness dictates I still make the attempt every time.
Public Records
I try to use official documents as a basis for my stories after I’ve verified their authenticity. Documents don’t lie, and they don’t need attribution. In other words, you don’t need to tell anyone how you obtained the documents.
Documents can’t be taken out of context and are very difficult to refute.
Become familiar with your local open records and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) laws. Each state has different laws. Some, especially Florida, have penalties if the public official refuses to produce the documents promptly.
Keep in mind that the type of official records that can be obtained through a FOIA request are not always paper documents. I’ve had tremendous fun requesting a public official’s text messages, their daily calendar, and the GPS records from their official vehicles.
Most states allow citizens to request an official’s social media posts too, and they penalize the official if they delete their posts. If you suspect an official is anti-gun, get their social media history. Anti-gunners always put themselves on their social media. They can’t help it.
Libel & Offers of Anonymity
I strongly recommend researching libel law until you thoroughly understand what you can and cannot publish. The truth has always been the best defense against libel claims, but nowadays, anyone can be sued for even the most trivial of reasons. While the target of your story may not like what’s published, if it’s true, legally, there’s little they can do.
Also, be careful offering anonymity. It can bite you if you’re sued and have to defend yourself in court. The sole purpose of some libel lawsuits is to determine who leaked the information. If a judge orders you to divulge the name of a source whom you granted anonymity, and you refuse, you can be held in jail on contempt charges until you give up the name.
Edit Your Work
There’s an old journalism saying: Everyone needs an editor. It’s certainly true, especially for me. It’s always difficult to edit your own work. Find someone who can read your stories and make suggestions. You can always send them to me if you can’t find anyone. I’m happy to help.
Publish on Multiple Platforms
If you launch a website and post a story, few outside your circle of friends will ever see it. The best way to get more views is by publishing on multiple platforms. I recommend posting a story on a website and then adding links on multiple social media channels. I’d also tag pro-gun websites on your social media and email them links to your story.
The more you share, the more people will read your story. I recommend creating a list of websites and social media accounts that you use every time you publish a story.
Monitor Responses
Once a story is published, you should monitor the response – especially from the target of your story. They may hold a press conference or issue a statement. There may be resignations or firings, or they may refute your story and point out alleged inaccuracies.
If you made a mistake, own it. We’re all human. Mistakes happen. When you admit a mistake, it builds credibility with your readers. Generally, I’ll fix the error in the story and then add a note at the top indicating that there was an error in the story that was fixed.
Follow-Up Stories
I believe that when you publish a major story, you’re only half done.
A hard-hitting story gets people’s attention. Then, it’s time for the follow-up stories. Don’t stop writing until the issue you revealed is resolved.
Public officials are accustomed to legacy media’s “one and done” tactic. Once they see your follow-up stories – once they realize you’re not going to stop – they’re more likely to take action. So don’t think of writing a story. Think of writing a series of stories.
This is the best way to hold public officials accountable.
Investigative Reporting
I was an investigative reporter at four newspapers, and I still have trouble defining the term. Generally, an investigative reporter has the luxury of time. That is the major difference. Some stories can take weeks. Some can take months or even years.
The payoff is worth it. Laws can be changed. Civil rights can be restored. Bad officials can be outed and held accountable.
The one commonality of investigative stories is that they all start at the local level when someone discovers a problem and starts digging.
Support
If this is a path you want to venture down, thank you. Our community certainly needs more eyes and ears out there.
The legacy media faces massive cuts and layoffs, so the politicians believe no one is watching. They need scrutiny now more than ever, especially the anti-gun pols. If I can help in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me. My cell is (941) 284-8553 or you can send me an email me at lee@saf.org
Good luck! Lee
This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.
About Lee Williams
Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.
This New York politician says he can’t understand why anyone would be against bank card companies reporting gun store purchases to law enforcement. (NYS Senator Zellnor Y. Myrie )
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Dozens of NY lawmakers want Mastercard, American Express to flag suspicious gun store purchases,” Gothamist reported Sunday. “There are unique [merchant category] codes for tent and awning shops, wig and toupee stores — even separate categories for antique shops, secondhand stores and pawn shops. But there are no codes just for gun retailers.”
“People buying guns legally with no intent to harm people … would have ‘absolutely nothing to worry about,’” State Senator Zellnor Myrie assures anyone dumb enough to believe him. “And frankly, I’m not sure why anyone would be opposed to this, outside of trying to avoid controversy or the politics.”
Well, no one is trying to ban or confiscate tents, awnings, and toupees, are they? And while we’re told the reporting is based on “patterns” and doesn’t go down to the SKU level, just wait for this to be established. The grabbers always take what they can get under the “common sense” ploy and then come back for more. Does anyone really think the next demand won’t be for a “weapon of war” code?
And since we’re being frank, how about we take a look at Myrie’s record of trying to do just that, as well as his being “honored” as “lawmaker of the year” by the Bloomberg gun-grab groups for trying to destroy manufacturers and dealers through lawsuits?
I’ll give Myrie credit for not being stupid, senator, which leaves only one alternative explanation for his claim that he’s “not sure why anyone would be opposed to this.” I’ll explain for those this is new to by referring to “Proposed Banking Merchant Category Codes Latest Backdoor Ploy to ID Gun Owners,” my August 1 article for Firearms News.
“Banks can use the data to help mass shootings [!] and purchases in advance without infringing on Second Amendment rights. There’s no infringement here,” CNBC apparatchik Andrew Ross Sorkin gushes following his interview with Priscilla Sims Brown, president & CEO of Amalgamated Bank (see the embedded video, below).
Really? So banks spying on purchase patterns and reporting them to law enforcement is no cause for concern? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends upon what the meaning of the word “infringing” is. Perhaps Sorkin is unaware of recent warrantless fishing expeditions by ATF trying to intimidate gun owners to show them their guns? Or of going after forced reset trigger owners?
He probably is and doesn’t care. A transcript of the full interview shows they were there to establish that Visa and Mastercard “have been against creating a merchant category code for gun stores.”
“Well, they’ve given several reasons,” Brown replied. “We think every one of those reasons would be something that could be managed.”
Putting public pressure on major “mainstream” banks to get on board with Amalgamated Bank’s agenda is one way it’s being “managed.”
Its “agenda”?
Per The New York Times, Amalgamated, majority owned by Workers United, “has aggressively carved out a position as the left’s private banker, leveraging deep connections with the Democratic establishment.”
Workers United, in turn, is a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) affiliate, which, per The Washington Free Beacon, “rakes in millions from Dem campaigns, liberal orgs.”
And the SEIU, in turn, has organized rallies and marched in solidarity with communists. Just in case anyone’s wondering who the “mainstream” Democrat leadership is in financial bed with.
Now, using “time tested” techniques of assigning “social credits” to those who promote the Party line combined with the threat of public “struggle sessions” for those to be humiliated and purged, the mainstream card companies have been put on notice: Start snitching on gun owners or be “canceled.”
Think of it as a “public/private partnership.” Actually, think of it as economic fascism.
Just as with “social media” being able to impose censorship benefiting the regime without the courts considering it a First Amendment violation, so, too will private financial actors be able to initiate Second Amendment infringements that work in favor of government violence monopolist goals – not to mention amass quite the database there.
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.
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-— A United States District Court for the District of Colorado has issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the Town of Superior to prevent enforcement of their recent “assault weapon” and magazine ban, based on the Supreme Court ruling in NYSR&PA v. Bruen. This appears to be the first of many pending cases likely to knock down laws which infringe on the exercise of Second Amendment rights under the Bruen decision.
The lawsuit was filed on July 7, 2022. The TRO was issued on July 22, 2022.
Superior, Colorado, is a town of about 13 thousand located on highway 36 between Denver and Boulder, Colorado. The outskirts of Boulder are about three miles northwest, beyond the outskirts of Superior. Superior appears to be a trendy, upscale bedroom community serving Boulder and Denver. The average home price is said to be $570k.
Judge Moore was appointed by President Obama in 2013 unanimously. The judge took the challenge by the Plaintiffs (the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, National Association for Gun Rights, and Charles Bradly Walker) to apply to three provisions of the ordinance enacted by the Town of Superior, sections 10-9-40, 10-9-240, and 10-9-260.
In its effort to rule on the Motion, the Court has faced two significant challenges. It is not entirely clear to the Court, based on Plaintiffs’ Motion, which precise provisions of the Amended Code they wish to challenge. The Court also notes, however, that the Amended Code is not, itself, a model of clarity. Nevertheless, based on the Motion, it appears to the Court that Plaintiffs primarily challenge three of the Amended Code’s provisions—section 10-9-40, section 10-9-240, and section 10-9-260.
The ordinance contains a laundry list of leftist talking points and dubious statistical arguments put forward by opponents of the Second Amendment.
They are, essentially, policy balancing arguments ruled inapplicable to the Second Amendment by the Constitution, specifically in the Bruen decision. Bruen states the policy balancing arguments were decided by the people at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. Judge Moore, instead, uses the historical and cultural approach demanded by Bruen. From the TRO:
The Court is sympathetic to the Town’s stated reasoning. However, the Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public.
The Court also notes that the Town’s justifications are somewhat undermined by the other subsections of this very provision. Specifically, subsection (b)(1) provides that “[a]ny person holding a valid federal firearms license from possession of any firearm authorized pursuant to such license” will not be subject to the prohibition of 10-9-40. The following subsection, (b)(2) likewise exempts any “firearm for which the U.S. Government has issued a stamp or permit pursuant to the National Firearms Act.” The National Firearms Act, referenced in the latter subsection, provides for permitting such firearms as short-barreled shotguns and rifles, machineguns, and silencers. Each of those weapons is arguably even more deadly than the semi-automatic weapons that the Town of Superior seeks to ban, yet these provisions would permit individuals to possess, sell, or otherwise transfer them.
In section 10-90-240, the town requires a certificate for possession of already owned weapons and restrictions on the carry and use of such weapons. The Court issued a TRO against this provision as well:
As previously discussed, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment encompasses the conduct addressed by this provision. And, also as previously discussed, the Court is unaware of a historical precedent that would permit the Town of Superior to impose such a regulation that would, in reality, eventually ban all assault weapons. Therefore, despite the Town of Superior’s substantial and legitimate concerns, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim as to this provision.
The Court refused to issue a TRO against the part of the ordinance which prohibits the open carry of firearms. In part, the court reasoned the bearing of arms is not banned if the person has a concealed carry permit. The court did not address the problems with banning open carry of arms that are difficult to conceal, such as rifles and shotguns, nor did it discuss the large number of places where the town bans any carry of firearms.
Several provisions of the Town of Superior ordinance were not addressed in the TRO filed against the town. They may be addressed when the case goes to appeal or trial. The items listed below were not specifically addressed in the lawsuit. They may be included in later filings.
The carry of firearms at “demonstrations” is prohibited. A demonstration is defined as one or more persons whose conduct is intended to draw a crowd of onlookers. This violates First Amendment rights, as open carry is symbolic, strong, protected, and political speech.
Waiting period: The town imposes a 10-day waiting period for the transfer of firearms.
Ban on homemade firearms unless a serial number is on record with a Federal Firearms License holder. Section 10-9-290 includes this noxious bit eliminating the right to make firearms without government records:
No person shall possess any firearms that have not been identified with a serial number by a federal licensee.
There are exceptions for firearms made before 1968, but none for homemade firearms.
This TRO is a good start to rescinding the multitudes of laws infringing on Second Amendment rights which are enforced in scattered jurisdictions covered by the United States Constitution.
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.
Facebook Suspending Gun Dealers Who Follow Their Rules. iStock-1186520428
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Facebook has never been friendly to gun owners. Most have done a stretch or two in Facebook jail for one ridiculous reason or another, or had their posts secretly shadow-banned so no one could see them, or had them straight-up disappear the instant they’re posted.
Surprisingly, federally licensed firearm dealers have had more freedom on the social media giant, at least in theory. Long before the Biden-Harris administration declared war on gun dealers, Facebook gave them more latitude than regular folks without an FFL.
According to Facebook’s terms of service, users were prohibited from posting “attempts to buy, sell, or trade, firearms, firearm parts, ammunition, explosives, or lethal enhancements except when posted by a Page, Group or Instagram profile representing legitimate brick-and-mortar entities, including retail businesses, websites, brands or government agencies (e.g. police department, fire department) or a private individual sharing content on behalf of legitimate brick-and-mortar entities.”
In other words, if you had a “legitimate brick-and-mortar” gun shop or sold firearms online, you were good to go. Licensed dealers could post guns, gun parts, ammo and accessories along with their prices.
Now, all of that has changed.
Corey Schnagl, owner of The Cliffs Sporting Goods in Bolivar, Missouri, said Facebook’s harassment has been nonstop.
“Even though I follow their rules for a licensed gun shop, Facebook still blocks my stuff,” Schnagl said. “I’ve been blocked from posting for seven days. For 30 days I couldn’t invite people to my page, and all my posts in groups are knocked to the bottom so no one sees them.”
In addition, members of Schnagl’s group cannot invite their friends to like his page, and there have been other restrictions. Posts containing gun photos, which used to be seen by thousands of people, now might reach hundreds, if he’s lucky.
“I only have 140 followers because they can’t share it anywhere,” he said. “No one is reporting my posts. It’s Facebook ‘catching’ me, but I’m following their terms of service and doing nothing wrong.”
Schnagl is a member of a private group comprised of other FFLs, where Facebook’s harassment is a constant topic of discussion. He estimates he is losing thousands of dollars each month.
“The biggest thing from my perspective that I find frustrating – and I can work around their rules or whatever regulations they want – is that they’re not enforcing the rules as they appear in writing,” Courmlich said. “They pick and choose and change the rules. They are extremely inconsistent.”
Croumlich said he will post a picture of a firearm, and the post will receive good interaction. Just a day or two later, a similar post will earn him a seven-day ban.
“I don’t know what I’m allowed to post and not post,” he said. “There’s no real appeal. I’ll try and all I get is an automated response saying Facebook investigated and determined they acted properly.”
Croumlich and every other dealer interviewed for this story, suspects there are other reasons for Facebook’s recent increase in harassment.
“I see today that Zuckerberg admitted to censoring information at the request of the government,” Courmlich said. “I think it’s certainly possible he might be doing this on his own or at the request of the administration. Facebook is left leaning. I definitely think there is bias there.”
Pushback
“It’s straight-up censorship,” said Lane Elkins, owner of CheapGunClub.Com in Sarasota, Florida.
When he experienced harassment similar to Schnagl’s, Elkins contacted Facebook’s oversight board, which supposedly conducts an independent review outside of Facebook.
“I am a federally licensed firearm dealer (FFL) advertising my products on Facebook. I am not selling the products or the service, just promoting them to be sold in person or online,” he wrote.
The oversight board took no action, and the harassment continues.
He posted a picture of ammunition Friday without mentioning its price, and the post quickly disappeared.
A previous post cost Elkins a 30-day suspension, even though it did not violate Facebook’s terms of service for a licensed gun dealer.
Like, Schnagl and Croumlich, Elkins estimates Facebook is costing him thousands of dollars each month.
“Facebook is definitely important for any business that wants a good social media presence,” Elkins said. “I don’t get a ton of business from Facebook but having that social media presence is extremely important.”
The dealers understand that when Facebook began it was a private company with its own rules and terms of service. Today, Facebook has nearly 3 billion members.
“It’s much bigger now – like a public utility,” Elkins said. “It needs to be treated as such. It needs more scrutiny.”
This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.
About Lee Williams
Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.
More than 30 percent of American gun owners say they have used a gun in self-defense.
U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- You probably didn’t see these stories covered by the mainstream news media, but again last week, responsible gun owners defended themselves and the people they love. Self-defense instructor Tony Simon joins the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast to look at four new examples. Were these gun owners lucky, or did they have a plan?
You are getting ready for work. You are in the shower when you hear your two teenagers scream. They are afraid so you are afraid. You run to your bedroom and grab your gun. You run into the house and see a stranger in the living room. You shout for him to get out. Your two pitbulls are biting him. He moves toward you in the hallway. You shoot him until he stops. He falls down. You check on your kids. They are upset but uninjured. You call 911 and back up to your bedroom. You set your gun down and then put on some clothes. When they arrive, you give a statement to the police. Your attacker was in his mid-30s and didn’t respond when you shouted for him to stop.
The police detain you and take you downtown to talk to the detectives. EMS removes the body from your home. You’re released to go back home to take care of your 12-year-old and your 14-year-old. The news story doesn’t say if the police interviewed your teenagers, but they are frightened. A neighbor helps you clean up the mess on your floor. You talk to a reporter but don’t want your face, or your name used because you are afraid of retaliation. The neighbors won’t speak on camera either.
You are not charged with a crime. You bought a gun after someone broke into your home last year. Now you’re looking for a new place to live.
Your husband is arguing with you. It is almost 10 at night. Now your husband hits you. You retreat to your bedroom and grab your gun. Your husband chases you. He threatens you. You tell him to stop. You shoot him when he gets close to you. Now he stops. You run from your home and 911 and for help. Police arrive and you meet them back at your house.
EMS takes your husband to a trauma care center with a gunshot wound to the chest. Police arrest him for False Imprisonment, Battery, Criminal Damage to Property, Theft by Taking, and Interference with a 911 Call. These offenses are charged as enhancements under the Family Violence Act. He also is arrested for outstanding warrants for Failure to Appear and Probation Violations in two other counties.
You are a 45-year-old man. It is about 1:30 in the morning. You’re sitting in your car. The story doesn’t say whether you just parked or if you were getting in your car to leave. A stranger runs up to the door of your car. He has a gun in his hand. You own a gun. You have your Illinois concealed carry permit. You’re armed and carrying concealed this morning. You get out of your car, and your attacker shoots at you. You shoot back and hit your attacker one time in the upper center chest. Your attacker drops his gun, so you stop shooting.
You call 911. Police reports don’t mention if your attacker stayed at the scene or if he ran away. Emergency Medical Services transport your attacker to a local hospital in critical condition. You give a statement to the police. They recover your attacker’s firearm at the scene of the crime. Police investigate your attack as an attempted carjacking.
There have been over 2,300 shootings in Chicago so far this year. You are not charged with a crime.
You and your friend see someone walking around on your property. You ask the stranger if he’s lost. He doesn’t make sense, so you ask him to leave. You call 911 to get the sheriff involved. Your friend tries to talk to the man, but the stranger attacks your friend. You’re armed. You present your firearm and tell the attacker to stop. He moves toward you and you back away. He moves closer, and you shoot him one time. Now he stops. You call 911 again and ask for Emergency Medical Services.
You put your gun away when the police arrive. EMS takes your attacker to the local big city hospital with a gunshot wound to the pelvis. You and your friend give statements to the police. EMS says your attacker was on illegal drugs. He is charged with assault and trespassing.
The Sheriff said, quote,
The property owner and his friend were presented with a stranger acting erratically and the man eventually became violent by physically assaulting someone. ..I wholeheartedly believe people have a right to protect themselves.. and in this case, it appears to be a justified self-defense situation.
Some Belated Accountability For Broward County, Florida, iStock-884197090
Florida – -(AmmoLand.com)- Second Amendment supporters may not have noticed, but Governor Ron DeSantis recently suspended four members of the Broward County School Board for incompetence. This is something long overdue.
The fact is that these school board members had much more moral culpability for the 2018 shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland than Second Amendment supporters did – not that you’ll hear anything about it in the media. These people had multiple chances to start the ball rolling to stop the shooter – and failed.
This shooting led to the setbacks Second Amendment supporters dealt with in 2018, 2019, and 2020, as it was the pretext Andrew Cuomo needed to launch his attack on the NRA via weaponizing financial regulations. Jon Tester and Joe Manchin are sitting in Senate seats that were very winnable in 2018 because of Cuomo. We also don’t need to discuss two seats Georgia or a couple of Senate elections that were close.
Then there is the fact that Parkland minted a number of activists pushing anti-Second Amendment extremism. David Hogg, Fred Guttenberg, Emma Gonzalez, and others lost people they cared about, and have decided in the midst of grief – for some at an unimaginable level – that the millions of people who objected to being punished for past horrific acts of malice or madness over the years and decades prior to Parkland through their activism for the Second Amendment were somehow accessories to the actions of a lone shooter.
It’s bullshit, and we need to make sure that our fellow Americans know it is bullshit. We need to lay out the case as to who was really responsible. The media will spin it as us picking on the bereaved, but we have the right to protect our reputations and our rights, and we need to exercise it in a prudent manner, bearing in mind that how we come across will be as important as making the case.
That is why Second Amendment supporters should use these findings when discussing the issues with our fellow Americans. First of all, the incompetence that leads to these shootings is a threat to our rights – and we need to make it clear that if not for that incompetence, February 14, 2018, would have been just another day at Parkland.
It wasn’t just the failures of the school board at Parkland. The cowards of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office also failed. So did prosecutors, and not just at the state level. There is a need for some form of Project Exile to address places where Soros-backed prosecutors let bad guys walk.
Second Amendment supporters need to study and examine the state grand jury report that led to these suspensions, because it will help defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
