FBI Altered Homicide Data for the Last Two Decades

An embarrassing report at RealClear Investigations has revealed the FBI has had to “quietly” revise its violent crime report for 2022 upward. iStock-1481901203

The FBI has quietly changed 20 years of homicide data from 2004 to 2023. Professor John Lott has published an article showing the FBI’s revised homicide data for 2022 and 2023. The previous numbers fed Biden/Harris administration talking points.

A close look at the data shows the FBI “adjusted” the homicide data from the last two decades, not just the last two years. The largest adjustment outside of 2021 and 2022 happened to the data from 2005. As of 2006, the total number of homicides reported by the FBI for 2005 was 16,740 for 2005 and 17,034 for 2006. In 2019, the numbers were reported as 16,740 and 17,309.  As of 2024, the numbers were adjusted to 17,750 (added 1,010) for 2005 and 17,241 (dropped 68) for 2006.

What happened with the numbers in 2005? How do they hold steady for 13 years, then suddenly expand by over a thousand murders for the year? It is an increase of 6%.

It is reasonable for homicide numbers to be adjusted upwards for a few years after the initial reporting. Some reports may come in late. Some investigations may show a crime was a homicide instead of a suicide. People who were severely wounded may die. It is harder to see how the number of homicides decreases. Perhaps dates were misreported. The increase of over a thousand homicides in one year should be explained.

FBI UCR data are not simply raw numbers that are arithmetically added. National FBI data includes several estimates. From the 2019 Crime in the United States Table 1 data declaration:

Offense estimation

These tables contain statistics for the entire United States. Because not all law enforcement agencies provide data for complete reporting periods, the FBI includes estimated crime numbers in these presentations. The FBI computes estimates for participating agencies that do not provide 12 months of complete data. For agencies supplying 3 to 11 months of data, the national UCR Program estimates for the missing data by following a standard estimation procedure using the data provided by the agency. If an agency has supplied less than 3 months of data, the FBI computes estimates by using the known crime figures of similar areas within a state and assigning the same proportion of crime volumes to nonreporting agencies. The estimation process considers the following: population size covered by the agency; type of jurisdiction, e.g., police department versus sheriff’s office; and geographic location.

Much analysis has been done using the UCR numbers. A change of a thousand murders in one year might easily change a policy recommendation or the results of a paper using a model based on the first reported data.

It seems likely that computer models are used to calculate and adjust previous data years. In the interest of public trust, the processes used to create the numbers should be open and transparent. If people do not know how the numbers are changed, there is no reason to trust them.

The philosophy of “experts” creating policies for the public good rests on the “experts” having access to reliable data, the “experts” understanding the processes sufficiently to craft policies to improve the public good; and the “experts” placing the public good ahead of their own selfish or political interests.

Experience has shown data is often unreliable. The “public good” is often hotly disputed. Experts seldom place the “public good” ahead of their personal or political interests.

To expect all three conditions to be satisfied inside an administrative state is naive and unrealistic. 

Transparency, limits on governmental power, and enforcing the independence of three separate branches of government can do much to limit the damage done by powerful administrators.

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

from https://ift.tt/MDdrqm1
via IFTTT

The Money Battle in the Gun Debate – What Election Fundraising Means for Gun Rights & Gun Control in 2024 ~ VIDEO

The Weekly Reload Podcast examines how gun control groups are out-fundraising the NRA ahead of the 2024 election, as Ed Morrissey of Hot Air weighs in on what this financial edge might mean for Second Amendment supporters.

As we enter the final stretch before the historic 2024 election, the fight for financial backing between gun rights and gun control groups is heating up, highlighting more profound questions about the role of money in shaping political influence.

Gun Control Funding Outpaces NRA

This year, gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords, and the Brady Campaign have gained a financial edge over the NRA and its allies. Ed Morrissey, managing editor at Hot Air, notes that these groups now have a massive fundraising advantage, primarily thanks to a few wealthy and desperate donors like Michael Bloomberg and the backing of larger progressive dark money networks.

With this financial support, gun control groups have secured significant spending power, allowing them to push their agenda in various states and local races across the country.

However, Morrissey questions whether this funding surge will truly translate into a significant advantage on Election Day. Although gun control groups have a clear funding lead, Morrissey believes the results of the highest-profile races may not be heavily swayed by money alone. Instead, the deeply rooted values held by voters on both sides of the gun debate might play a more decisive role.

The NRA’s Targeted Strategy

In contrast, the NRA and other gun rights groups have taken a more focused approach, targeting key races like those of Senators Jon Tester in Montana and Jared Golden in Maine. Morrissey points out that this strategic spending aligns with the core supporters of the gun rights movement, aiming to make impactful investments where possible rather than trying to match gun control groups dollar-for-dollar.

The NRA’s approach reflects a more cautious stance following recent struggles. After years of financial and internal management issues, former NRA donors may be hesitant to contribute to large organizations and instead shift their support to smaller, more effective, hardline groups like The Second Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America (GOA). While these groups advocate fiercely for gun rights, they lack the NRA’s historical reach, creating a gap that the pro-gun side has yet to bridge fully.

Ad Messaging & “Coalition Spending”

As for how each side is spending, a notable trend this election is what Morrissey calls “coalition spending” by groups like Everytown. With a well-funded coalition, gun control groups are expanding their spending beyond traditional races, even putting resources into school board elections. Everytown and Giffords are also running ads that combine gun control with other high-profile issues, like abortion, aiming to capture voters focused on multiple issues at once. The NRA, meanwhile, has linked gun rights with crime control, arguing that the two are closely related.

Both sides recognize that tying their cause to broader social concerns could strengthen their appeal. For gun control advocates, highlighting gun policy alongside abortion rights could resonate with left-leaning voters who prioritize judicial decisions and a progressive court system. Meanwhile, the NRA’s focus on crime and self-defense speaks directly to its core supporters, emphasizing how Second Amendment rights protect personal safety.

Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump: A Contrast in Gun Policy

Both major party candidates have approached gun policy in unique ways. While Kamala Harris claims to own a handgun for self-defense, her past support for gun control policies and “mandatory buybacks” has led many gun rights supporters to view her stance with skepticism. Morrissey argues that her recent statements may not be enough to convince voters who remember her more restrictive views from earlier campaigns.

On the other hand, Trump’s messaging has centered on the importance of protecting gun rights, often reminding voters to head to the polls and painting Harris as a threat to the Second Amendment. Morrissey suggests that, despite Trump’s occasional controversial statements on gun policy (such as his past support for “red flag” laws and the political maneuvering around bump stock ban), he has built a level of trust among gun owners, largely due to his record of Supreme Court appointments that led to major pro-gun rulings.

The Real Question: Does Money Make the Difference?

For both sides, the bottom line remains: how much does funding actually sway voter decisions, especially on such a deeply personal and value-driven issue as gun rights? According to Morrissey, while significant funding certainly allows gun control groups to extend their reach, it’s uncertain whether this financial edge will result in an electoral advantage. For many gun rights voters, the choice is clear, and no amount of money is likely to change their stance.

As we careen toward Election Day, the divide over gun rights and gun control funding is a microcosm of the broader American political landscape—where funding, ideology, and voter turnout are tightly interwoven. Regardless of where the money flows, it’s the voters, driven by their deeply held beliefs, who will ultimately determine the outcome.

Read Related:

Who Is Really To Blame For The ATF Bump Stock Ban Rule?

Social Media Message Contains Kamala Harris Quotes on Gun Bans

from https://ift.tt/nb8m0iO
via IFTTT

Dingell’s Rant on Trump Internment Camps Highlights Evil of Citizen Disarmament

Say her fevered dream came true and a tyrannical government did come to put Debbie & pals in internment camps: With their insistence on a disarmed populace, what would any of them be able to do about it? (Rep. Debbie Dingell/Facebook)

“Michigan Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell surprised CNN’s Jake Tapper by insisting that former President Trump has shared plans to put people into internment camps if he’s re-elected,” Fox News reported Tuesday. “”Yes. He has talked internment camps. You know what, Jake, you may have to visit me in one. I get worried enough when he talks about what he’s going to do to his political enemies, but he has talked about them in this with different groups of people.”

Dingell is but another in a long line of prominent Democrats, notably led by Kamala Harris, who out of one side of her mouth preaches insincere “unity” and out of the other compares Trump to Hitler. In light of two recent attempts on the former president’s life, Sen. Mike Lee is correct when he says such comparisons are tantamount to “trolling for assassins.” Noting how Democrats are pursuing Trump with allegations that his rhetoric inspired Jan. 6 Capitol protestors to “insurrection,” it’s fair to wonder how the same does not apply to Harris adopting rhetoric identical to Antifa’s and criminally ginning up the unstable to come after her opponent’s head.

And it’s not just his head. We’ve known for some time that people who hate Trump also hate his followers, and that he is, in fact, an avatar for all who identify as supporters of the MAGA movement. That’s something we’ve just seen reinforced with Dotard in Chief Joe Biden’s “garbage” outburst.

Then again, it only makes sense if Trump IS Hitler. After all, the dictator would have been powerless if he did not have Nazi supporters to carry out his orders. And that leads to a question this correspondent posed to Harris after her Hitler “tweet”:

“Who in their right mind wouldn’t want the citizenry armed to stop Hitler?”

To stop a Hitler, who wouldn’t need not just the semiautomatics Democrats are trying to ban, but real “weapons of war”?  Just like the Founders intended…?

Harris’ position on that is clear, and it’s shared by Dingell, which is curious in itself considering her late husband John,  whose seat she ascended to, was a phony “pro-gun Democrat” (is there any other kind?) and an NRA Board member husband who voted for the Clinton gun ban.  Everybody knows he was the guy Wayne LaPierre stole “jackbooted thugs” from, right?

In a way, it’s good that the left is bringing up fears of real tyranny, something they’ve always ridiculed as paranoia when cited by Second Amendment supporters who promote an armed citizenry as being a powerful deterrent against.

To anyone foolish enough to believe the Second Amendment is outdated and we’re past the danger of real, old-school tyranny, I’m going to borrow from an old essay (feel free to read the whole thing) and ask: What about human nature has changed?

Has humanity truly demonstrated a benevolence and maturity that distinguishes our era from those that preceded us? In a culture that breeds gang warfare, rampant violence, city-crippling riots and national murders measured in the tens of thousands, how can anyone credibly claim that the need for individual defense is a relic of the past?

Where in history is any civilization guaranteed stasis? Has not despotism and mass destruction plagued every civilization that preceded ours? Is it not, in fact, still commonplace throughout the globe? By what suspension of reality, by what denial of the observable and the probable, by what art, device or magic are we sheltered few immune from catastrophe? Are we certain, from our brief and privileged vantage point, that such things will ever remain headline curiosities? Is it not just plain stupid to proclaim that our familiar way of life will forever be the norm, when everything that has gone before us shows we are, instead, the extremely lucky beneficiaries of a rare and fortunate convergence of circumstances; and one, by the way, that has only been preserved under force of arms?

Debbie Dingell worries she’s destined for a concentration camp…? Kamala Harris declares “Donald Trump is out for unchecked power … and given a second term, there would be no one to stop him from pursuing his worst impulses…”?

There is someone to stop a dictator, any dictator, and lots of them. That’s what they’re afraid of. And that’s curious if you compare that attitude to all the Democrats’ phony posturing about “equity.” If they really believed that they wouldn’t be against the most egalitarian power-sharing arrangement ever conceived, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

They are the ones, with their prior restraints, confiscations, and bans, who are doing a tyrannical end run around due process. It’s almost like all this talk about internment camps is projection…

---

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.

from https://ift.tt/U0HGV41
via IFTTT

Kamala’s Big Problem: She’s Already Shown Us Who She Is ~ VIDEO

Opinion

At a town hall event on October 21 in Royal Oak, Michigan, Democrat presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris was asked how she would make “impactful and immediate progress around gun violence” if she was elected with a Republican majority in Congress.

In her by-now classic “word salad” style, Harris responded that she thinks of the issue “through the lens of many experiences,” then touched upon the “direct trauma for those who have been directly affected by gun violence,” and ended up at “the macropoint” – namely, the “false choice” between thinking that one is either in favor of the Second Amendment or that “you want to take everyone’s guns away.” She offered herself as living proof of this “macropoint” because she’s not only a gun owner “in favor of the Second Amendment,” but believes in “assault weapons bans, red flag laws, universal background checks” and other “common sense gun safety laws.”

It was made obvious at the start of the October 21 event that it was tightly scripted. Moderator Maria Shriver told an audience member that only questions that had been “predetermined” would be permitted, with no spontaneous questions from the floor. Even within this forced and stilted setup, Harris fell flat. It took her until the last few seconds of the over five-minute exchange to actually deal with the question. “We need common sense gun safety laws and I will continue, I’ve done it throughout my career, work with all of our colleagues across the aisle and I know that we can make progress,” she said, “but I’m not trying to take anyone’s guns away from them.”

The explanation for Harris’ emphatic new identity as a gun enthusiast and supporter of constitutional freedoms is that she is struggling to put her past under wraps, a past in which she wholeheartedly embraced extreme gun bans and confiscation, and which has now come back to haunt her.

A recent news article alleges that Kamala Harris circa 2006 suggested it would be “great” to ban all gun ownership. Harris, then the district attorney of San Francisco, was speaking at an event where she was asked about guns, carrying guns and gun bans: “Is there any justification for anyone to carry a gun, except for law enforcement? And why not ban them completely in the city?” Harris appeared to agree: “yeah, and it would be great to end world hunger and a couple of other things, too. Are we going to really be able to get rid of people owning and possessing guns? I don’t know. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to that right now. So I would not put all my effort into that as being the solution, because I think it’s a long way off.” Notably, this earlier version of Harris didn’t mention her staunch support of the Second Amendment or completely disclaim the idea of gun confiscation – as she does now – but instead, responded that getting rid of people owning guns was not immediately feasible.

In case there’s any doubt as to what Harris meant, it is worth remembering that she was listed as a sponsor of a 2005 ballot measure that banned possessing, distributing or manufacturing handguns in San Francisco, with a mandatory confiscation provision (residents who possessed guns were required to surrender their guns to law enforcement within 90 days of the law’s effective date or face criminal penalties). The measure was invalidated after the NRA and other gun rights groups succeeded in a court challenge.

One could argue that Harris has since evolved in her beliefs and now views the issue through the lens of many experiences. However, as a candidate for the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination, Harris repeatedly voiced her support for outlawing and confiscating commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. A CNN article from that time (Democrats have spent years denying they’ll take people’s guns. Not anymore) noted that until then, Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had made a point of expressing support for the Second Amendment and repudiating the idea of gun confiscation, even as they demanded more gun control. By 2019, with three candidates, including Harris, openly in favor of mandatory gun confiscation, it was “a turning point for Democrats.”

In truth, Harris, like at least one other failed competitor in that race, has now found it expedient to refashion her progressive policies into a more mainstream-friendly “what can be, unburdened by what has been.” In 2019, Democrat presidential candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke famously announced, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47…!,” and then, like Harris, did a complete about-face when his gun-grabbing backfired and proved to be a political liability. In his subsequent run as a gubernatorial candidate in pro-gun Texas, “Hell Yes” Beto dialed it all the way back to, “I’m not interested in taking anything from anyone. What I want to make sure that we do is defend the Second Amendment. ” As it happens, Beto’s attempt to rebrand on guns at the expense of his credibility bombed with voters, and by late 2022, having lost three races in four years, a Texas newspaper speculated that O’Rourke’s political career was over.

As Harris strives to convince America that yep, she’s really okay with people owning and possessing guns, she faces the possibility that even voters who may not find her gun control policies (new or old) a total deal-breaker will nonetheless view her flip-flopping, bet-hedging, question-dodging, and incomprehensible homilies as phoniness, a neglect to master the election issues, and a lack of integrity. A Democratic strategist summarized the problem as no record, no transparent agenda and “no sense of character about her.” There isn’t “anything about her record that is particularly impressive, and … more generally, what we are seeing in the polls is that voters are beginning to understand that there is really no there there with Kamala Harris,” he said;

“There doesn’t appear to be any overarching argument she can make other than… ‘whatever positions I have taken that are unpopular, I am only too happy to alter to fit the political climate.’”

---

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

from https://ift.tt/7KYGuNm
via IFTTT

Kamala’s Closing Argument: Vote For Me ~ “I’m Obviously Not Joe Biden”

IMG NRA-ILA

Late-night comedian Stephen Colbert to Vice President Kamala Harris:

“Polling shows a lot of people, especially independent voters, really want this to be a change election. And that they tend to break for you in terms of thinking about change. You are a member of the present administration. Under a Harris administration, what would the major changes be? And what would stay the same?”

Harris: “Sure. Well, I mean, I’m obviously not Joe Biden.”

Colbert: “I noticed.”

Harris: “And so that would be one change. Also, I think it’s important to say, with 28 days to go, I’m not Donald Trump. And so, when we think about the significance of what this next generation of leadership looks like were I to be elected president, it is about — frankly, I love the American people and I believe in our country. I love that it is our character and nature to be an ambitious people. You know, we have aspirations, we have dreams, we are — we have incredible work ethic.”

Not exactly music to the ears of the 79% of likely voters who according to a recent Marquette University poll think the country is on the “wrong track.”

When it comes to trust, voters give the edge to Harris over former President Donald Trump. This is why Harris’ alleged summer job at McDonald’s becomes relevant. Will she not only renounce previous positions on things like fracking, Medicare for all, promising to sign a reparations bill, and mandating the ending of the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035, but to make herself more relatable, will she fabricate a job at a burger joint?

Harris said nothing about working at McDonald’s when she ran for district attorney, attorney general of California, the U.S Senate or when she ran for president. She wrote nothing about this experience in her books (more about this later). But suddenly, she remembers she once tossed fries at McDonald’s.

But, with apologies to Wendy’s, where’s the beef? Trump, “without evidence,” wrote The New York Times, accuses Harris of lying. Trump, who staged a clever photo op by cooking fries and working the drive-through window at a Pennsylvania McDonald’s, said:

“It was a big part of her resume that she worked at McDonald’s — how tough a job it was. She … made the french fries, and she talked about the heat: ‘It was so tough.’ She’s never worked at McDonald’s.”

If Trump said he fed pigeons in Central Park, The New York Times would demand proof and assign a battery of reporters to debunk his story. But when it comes to Harris’ McDonald’s tale, the burden of proof switches to Trump. Where’s her evidence? She offers none, other than her suddenly and conveniently rediscovered fond memories. McDonald’s offered no corroboration: “… (W)e and our franchisees don’t have records for all positions dating back to the early ’80s …”

What next? Will Democrats demand Trump be indicted for working at McDonald’s without a hairnet and pressure President Joe Biden into appointing a special prosecutor?

Harris describes her upbringing as “middle-class.” But according to The Daily Signal, this daughter of a tenured Stanford economics professor father and biochemist mother got admitted to law school under a program for students with “educational disadvantage, economic hardship, or disability.” What? And she wants student loan forgiveness on top of reparations?

As to Harris’ book and accusations of plagiarism, The Telegraph writes:

“Kamala Harris has become embroiled in a second plagiarism row after she was accused of copying a Republican’s congressional testimony. The vice-president was last week accused of taking more than a dozen sections of her book ‘Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer’ from other sources, including a story once told by Martin Luther King Jr.

“Now, fresh allegations have emerged that the former prosecutor lifted more than 1,000 words from the testimony of a Republican state attorney when called as a witness before Congress.”

Not good days before the election.

This brings us to Harris’ home state newspaper, the Los Angeles Times. After endorsing every Democratic presidential candidate since 2008, the paper has declined to endorse her. It made no endorsement.

But at least the Times did not call her “the black face of white supremacy.”

---

Larry Elder

Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an “Elderado,” visit www.LarryElder.com. Follow Larry on X @larryelder. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Larry Elder

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

SEED Firearms Program: Students Exposed Educated & Developed

National African American Gun Association: SEED Firearms Program, Students Exposed Educated & Developed

Atlanta, Georgia – The National African American Gun Association is pleased to announce the new membership program “SEED“.

In a few days, The National African American Gun Association will be launching a Free Membership Program for students ages 18 to 24 who are currently attending a Trade School, a College or University, or a postgraduate school.

This initiative is structured to attract younger members to our organization for years to come. . The “SEED” firearms program stands for Students, Exposed, Educated, and Developed within the 2A Community.

---

BackGround: The National African American Gun Association (NAAGA) was founded in 2015 by Philip Smith to provide a supportive community for African American firearm owners and outdoor enthusiasts. NAAGA’s mission emphasizes the importance of education on the historical legacy of African American gun ownership, training for safe firearm use, and advocacy for the right to self-defense. Through a nationwide network of members and gun clubs, NAAGA encourages safe gun practices for self-defense, sportsmanship, and community protection while welcoming people of all backgrounds.

---

The program will provide a positive learning opportunity where Firearms can be discussed and learned from a healthy, balanced, and contextualized perspective. A variety of events are scheduled, including—but not limited to—virtual Town Halls, Educational Seminars on Gun Laws, Special Guests, digital delivery of Gun News, and the opportunity to join our Online Community to connect.

“The youth of today are the leaders of tomorrow. “

---

About the National African American Gun Association

The National African American Gun Association is a 501c4 Non-Profit founded in 2015 and provides a network for firearm owners, gun clubs, and outdoor enthusiasts. The goal of the National African American Gun Association is to have everyone introduced to firearm use for home protection, competitive shooting, and outdoor recreational activities. We are a pro 2nd amendment organization focused on the preservation of our community through armed protection and community building. We welcome people of all religious, social, and racial perspectives. We especially welcome active and retired members of law enforcement and the military. For more information, visit www.naaga.co

from https://ift.tt/NE7F9S3
via IFTTT

Extreme-Risk Protection Orders Fail To Deliver: Analysis of Red Flag Laws & Their Consequences

iStock_000012995077

Since the implementation of Extreme-Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), or “red flag” laws, numerous studies and high-profile incidents have cast doubt on their effectiveness and raised concerns about potential abuses and deadly outcomes. While ERPOs are intended to prevent gun violence by temporarily removing firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others, evidence from recent studies and case examples demonstrates significant flaws in both effectiveness and due process.

FAIL: Extreme-Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) Don’t Deliver

Extreme-Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) Don’t Deliver, Chart Rand 2024

A comprehensive review by the RAND Corporation reveals that Extreme-Risk Protection Orders have had inconclusive results on various public safety outcomes, including violent crime, suicides, and unintentional injuries. While proponents argue that ERPOs could reduce gun violence by preemptively disarming high-risk individuals, RAND’s findings indicate that this objective remains largely unproven.

According to RAND’s 2024 update, only five studies met their inclusion criteria to assess ERPOs’ impact on suicide rates, and of those, only one showed any potential reduction, estimating a mere 4% to 6% decrease in suicides. Yet even this study faced criticism for significant methodological weaknesses, including its limited geographic focus and reliance on assumptions rather than direct causative evidence (Dalafave, 2021).

The RAND analysis highlights the disparity in outcomes across states implementing ERPOs. For instance, in states like Connecticut and Indiana, initial findings suggested minor reductions in firearm suicides, but when RAND revisited these findings, they found that results varied widely by location and that some states, like Connecticut, experienced inconclusive or even negligible impacts despite widespread ERPO implementation. The observed declines were not statistically significant in most cases, raising questions about ERPOs’ broader effectiveness. (RAND, 2024).

On other outcomes, such as violent crime and mass shootings, RAND’s report describes the evidence as “inconclusive or mixed,” with studies unable to demonstrate any consistent decrease in homicides or firearm-related assaults post-ERPO adoption. One study, analyzing data from Indiana and California, found no clear link between ERPO laws and declines in violent crime. In fact, the study cited “serious methodological concerns,” with one study noting that the “Extreme-risk protection orders have uncertain effects on total and firearm homicides. Evidence for this relationship is inconclusive”,” pointing to factors such as limited enforcement periods and variable criteria for ERPO petitions as possible explanations.

Similarly, RAND’s findings on unintentional firearm injuries reveal significant limitations, with only one study meeting their standards to evaluate this outcome. The study’s authors observed “uncertain associations” between ERPOs and unintentional firearm deaths, emphasizing that “available data do not allow for clear conclusions on ERPOs’ preventative capacity in this area” (RAND, 2024). In other words, although ERPOs are positioned as a preventative measure, evidence supporting their practical impact on enhancing public safety remains insufficient.

With these findings, RAND emphasizes that ERPOs, as currently implemented, “leave major gaps in their purported safety benefits,” potentially posing more questions than answers. These mixed results indicate the need for a critical examination of ERPO policies and underscore concerns raised by civil rights advocates about the laws’ effectiveness and constitutionality.

Citations:

1. RAND Corporation, “The Effects of Extreme-Risk Protection Orders,” July 16, 2024.
2. Dalafave, R. “An Empirical Assessment of Homicide and Suicide Outcomes with Red Flag Laws,” Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 2021.
3. Pear, V. et al., “Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law,” JAMA Network Open, 2022.

FACT: ERPO Have Deadly Outcomes

In Maryland, however, tragic results from an ERPO enforcement in 2018 stand as a stark warning of the real-life dangers posed by red flag laws. Early one morning, Maryland police attempted to enforce a red flag order by removing a resident’s firearms without prior notice. A struggle ensued, leading to the homeowner’s death. This incident underscores concerns raised by Second Amendment advocates who argue that ERPOs can turn deadly when gun owners, often unaware of the order, are faced with unexpected armed confrontations on their own property.

FACT: ERPO Hurt Due Process

The lack of due process in these laws is also under scrutiny. In 2023, a New York court ruled that red flag orders must require supporting documentation from a medical professional, highlighting due process violations in previous ERPOs. Without such standards, red flag orders may be issued based on claims from family or friends without a medical basis, stripping gun owners of their rights without adequate justification. Judge Craig Steven Brown, citing the Constitution, stated that “Second Amendment rights are no less fundamental than… Fourth Amendment rights,” emphasizing the need for robust due process before depriving someone of these liberties.

FACT: Extreme-Risk Protection Orders Are Abused

Critics also note the ERPO system’s vulnerability to misuse, including situations where orders are reportedly used to harass former partners or as leverage in family disputes. For gun owners, fighting an ERPO can be costly, particularly for those with limited resources, effectively making it more difficult for lower-income individuals to reclaim their rights.

Just Say NO!

Organizations such as Gun Owners of America and the Firearms Policy Coalition have taken strong stances against red flag laws, arguing that no amount of due process can reconcile these laws with Constitutional rights. Meanwhile, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) states they could support red flag laws if due process is guaranteed. However, NSSF has emphasized that ex parte orders—those issued without notifying the gun owner beforehand—pose an unacceptable risk of abuse.

The mixed results from ERPOs on safety outcomes and the potential for rights abuses are significant. As more states consider ERPO laws, policymakers must grapple with the evidence and listen to communities concerned about both safety and constitutional rights.

The question remains whether the risks ERPOs present to individual liberties and potential misuse outweigh their uncertain benefits for public safety.

Read Related:

• Where Gun Groups Stand On Red Flag Laws ~ On The Record
• Home Resident Killed by Maryland Police Trying to Confiscate His Guns
• New York Court Rules Due Process Needed for ‘Red Flag’ Orders

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

ER Doctor’s Disarmament Diagnosis a Prescription for Tyranny

Any questions on the doctor’s “impartial” findings on guns? (Cedric Dark, MD, MPH, FACEP/X)

“An ER Doctor’s Cure for America’s Gun Epidemic,” the Wired headline reads. “Cedric Dark is a gun-owning emergency physician, a father, and the cousin of a man who was shot to death. This is what he—and the science—say needs to change.”

“I’m a gun-owning emergency physician, a father, and the cousin of a man who was shot to death,” Dark explains. “If it wasn’t for the National Rifle Association declaring in 2018 that physicians, like me, should ‘stay in their lane’ and keep quiet about the toll of this plague, I wouldn’t have written about this subject. Yet gun violence consumes my life. I see victims of gun violence from family tragedies—children, adolescents, and adults—almost every day.”

His assessment of the problem seems off—if it’s a plague, it’s peculiar that this one seems so locally confined in specific areas. As economist and author John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center demonstrates, “Murder isn’t a nationwide problem. It’s a problem in a small set of urban areas, and even in those counties, murders are concentrated in small areas inside them… 2% of counties had 56% of the murders in 2020, 52% of US counties had zero murders.”

Clearly, it’s not the guns, as millions of peaceable gun owners who belong to advocacy groups like the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, and others, including state “gun rights” groups, prove every day. They represent the most heavily armed civilian population on the planet, yet have effectively nonexistent violent crime rates.

So Dark starts off with a misdiagnosis. And his prescription to, if not cure the “plague,” at least treat it, seems equally unqualified, in spite of his claim that it’s supported by Rand Corporation “evidence” (which curiously, adts it’s “weal” and characterizes the vast majority of its effectiveness ratings as “inconclusive,” and none as “conclusive):

Despite that, Dark wants:

• Background checks through federal firearms licensed dealers for every firearms purchase – Except the National Institute of Justice has concluded “Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…” (No worries, Dark wants that too, he just hasn’t admitted it here)
• Licenses and permits for individuals who want to buy guns – To exercise a right. That would fly in the face of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision assessing gun laws based on history, text, and tradition.
• Raising the minimum age for all firearm purchases to 21 –  No Constitutional reason justifies doing that, and plenty of Constitutional reasons justify telling him to back off.
• Strong child access prevention laws – Yeah, lock up your safety under penalty of law, rendering it useless for defending against a home invasion.  An infringement addressed in the Heller decision, a requirement to keep guns “unloaded and either disassembled or secured by a trigger lock, gun safe, locked box, or other secure device” comes to mind, as do the Merced pitchfork murders.
• Brief waiting periods – Define “brief,” and if that can be imposed against a right, what’s to keep it from getting extended? Per Gun Owners of America “’The study ignores the fact that there are very real cases where waiting periods have actually facilitated homicide,’ Erich Pratt, executive … told CNN. He was referring to Carol Bowne, a New Jersey woman who was killed during the waiting to take home a gun she’d bought to protect her from the assailant.”
• Domestic violence restraining orders that require the relinquishing of existing firearms – Punishment without due process, or as the Queen of Hearts declared in Lewis Carroll’s purposefully absurdist classic, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, “Sentence first — verdict afterwards.”

These infringements, as they always do, will only burden “law-abiding” people, mind you. Criminals will still get all the guns they want the old-fashioned way as they keep sending Dr. Dark more patients.

But Dark’s not done:

“But I also believe there are two additional laws that should be repealed… Policy Prescription #1: Reverse Stand-Your-Ground Laws … Policy Prescription #2: Concealed Carry Laws Should Adhere to the ‘May-Issue’ Standard.”

“My research looked at all states that have enacted Stand Your Ground between 1977 and 2012, either through legislation or through court decisions,” John Lott concludes. “I consistently found subsequent drops in murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault rates. On average, murder rates fell by about 1.5 percent annually during the first 10 years that the law was in effect.”

And “May issue” means “may not and probably won’t unless you’re connected.” The Dodge City/ “blood in the streets over fender benders” lie has been used to spook the herd ever since Handgun Control, Inc. first disparaged Florida as “The Gunshine State,” and has been repeated ad nauseam against the 29 states now enjoying permitless carry. The dire predictions don’t come true, despite implied lies that they enable “prohibited persons” to bear arms. The evidence is indisputable: Armed citizens save lives. And criminals will carry regardless.

As for Dr. Dark “staying in his lane,” no one is presuming to tell him how to treat patients coming into his trauma center. But that doesn’t mean he is qualified to practice outside his area of certification and to imply that it does is a logical fallacy known as “false authority,” the assumption “that the opinions of a recognized expert in one area should be heeded in another area.”  Being a father and the cousin of someone shot to death don’t pad his resume, either.

What’s obvious from the political tone of his Twitter feed is he is hardly the unbiased presenter he’s posturing to be. If his faulty diagnosis and prescription for government ignoring the Constitution, assigning itself undelegated powerss, and enacting disarmament edicts against the citizenry are any indicators, a term that comes to mind is “gun quack.”

---

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.

from https://ift.tt/0GUYfhN
via IFTTT

U.S. Virgin Islands | Extreme Gun Control, Extreme Homicide Rate

Homicide Rate per 100K, 1999-2023 Virgin Islands vs. United States

The United States Virgin Islands exists as a United States territory. As an entity that is not a state, it has higher rates of homicide than any state. The homicide rates for the US Virgin Islands are about 7.8 times as high as the average homicide rate for the United States.  It has one of the highest illegal homicide rates in the world.

Extreme restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms in the US Virgin Islands are more restrictive than in any state since the implementation of the Bruen decision by the Supreme Court. The Bruen decision was published on June 22, 2022. Some states have resisted and passed very restrictive firearms laws. However, those states have a defined process.  From southerndefense.com:

The US Virgin Islands has extremely strict gun laws. A permit and waiting periods accompany all firearm transactions. Once in a person’s possession, it is almost always illegal to carry that firearm in public either openly or concealed, and as of this writing, there are no good, governmental sources for even begging a firearms permit application. Calling a local attorney for guidance will be a must given the long sentences the territorial laws have for violating its opaque firearms laws.

The territory is about 12.9% of the size of Rhode Island, with about 7.9% of the population of Rhode Island.

The United States Virgin Islands were purchased from the Dutch government in 1917 during the First World War. An act of Congress gave U.S. citizenship to the inhabitants in 1927.  The Danish legal code of the islands was retained. In 1970, self-government took effect, and a governor and lieutenant governor were elected for four-year terms. The Senate of the U.S. Virgin Islands consists of seven elected from St. Croix, seven from the district of St Thomas and St. John, and one at-large senator who must be a resident of St. John.  Senators are elected for two-year terms.

There are about 5,713 residents per Virgin Islands Senator. Senators receive an $85,000 a year salary. Senators are allocated many perks.

The number of homicides in the Virgin Islands in a given year was found in several sources, primarily stcroixsource.com and sthomasssource.com.  Population for the Virgin Islands was from the US census and worldometers.info.

The average homicide rate for the United States Virgin Islands from 1999 to 2023 is 40.6.

The average homicide rate for the United States from 1999 to 2023 is 5.21. The U.S. Virgin Islands rate is 7.79 times higher than the United States rate over the last 25 years, for which records could be found.

Hawaii has fairly similar firearms laws to those of the United States Virgin Islands. Homicide rates in Hawaii are considerably lower than the average in the United States. Hawaii homicide numbers were not found for 2022 and 2023. The average homicide rate from 1999 – 2021 was 2.16.  Puerto Rico is another island jurisdiction with strong firearms restrictions. Puerto Rico homicide rates are less than half of those in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

US Virgin Island Homicide rates are among the highest in the world. Firearms restrictions have no correlation to overall homicide rates.

If someone tells you firearm restrictions reduce murder rates in Hawaii, tell them about the US Virgin Islands. Similar firearms laws exist in both sets of Islands.  Homicide rates in the Virgin Islands are 19 times larger. 

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

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

OR: Store Owner Stops Armed Robbery in Self Defense Shooting

OR: Store Owner Stops Armed Robbery in Self Defense Shooting, iStock-1334890768

EUGENE, OR – An attempted armed robbery on Sunday evening at the Duck N Go convenience store in Eugene, Oregon, didn’t end the way the suspect expected. Instead of escaping with stolen goods, the criminal ended up in the hospital after the store owner, exercising his right to self-defense, shot him.

According to Eugene Police, the incident unfolded around 5 p.m. when the suspect pulled a gun on the store owner, trying to intimidate him. The owner, however, was prepared. With one swift move, he shot the armed robber, neutralizing the threat. The suspect was later transported to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, while the store owner was unharmed. Authorities have confirmed that there is no ongoing threat to the community.

Local residents, including those from the nearby Stadium Park Apartments, reported hearing a single gunshot followed by the suspect screaming, “I don’t want to die!” Police arrived shortly after, handcuffing the suspect and allowing EMTs to render medical aid.

Oct. 27, 2024: A convenience store owner in Eugene, OR, shot and wounded a would-be robber who was armed with a gun. https://t.co/cDH5e0r0r2

— Defensive Gun Use Tracker (@DailyDGU) October 28, 2024

Oregon’s Tightening Gun Laws Complicate Self-Defense

While this story highlights the importance of being armed and prepared, it also exposes how Oregon’s recent gun control measures have made it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

In recent years, Oregon has enacted stricter gun laws that raise significant barriers for responsible gun owners:

• Measure 114: Passed narrowly in 2022, this law requires gun owners to obtain a permit-to-purchase, undergo mandatory training, and pass background checks—adding unnecessary hurdles and delays for citizens looking to legally arm themselves.
• Magazine Capacity Limit: Measure 114 also bans the sale of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, a restriction that leaves citizens underpowered compared to armed criminals who don’t follow the law.
• Safe Storage Requirements: The state now mandates that firearms be securely stored or locked when not in use. While this might sound reasonable, in high-stress situations like the one at Duck N Go, such requirements could delay access to a firearm, costing precious seconds.
• Red Flag Laws: Oregon’s red flag law allows individuals’ firearms to be temporarily confiscated based on someone’s claim that they pose a risk, even if no crime has been committed—raising concerns about due process and the potential abuse of these orders against law-abiding gun owners.

These laws create a dangerous dynamic where criminals feel emboldened while responsible citizens are burdened by red tape. Had this store owner been caught without quick access to his firearm, the outcome could have been tragic. Incidents like this show that gun control laws only make it harder for the good guys to act when every second counts.

A Win for Self-Defense and a Warning for the Future

The store owner’s quick reaction is a prime example of how essential the right to self-defense is. In moments like this, the government can’t save you—it’s up to you to protect yourself. The owner’s firearm allowed him to neutralize the threat without waiting for police, and that decisive action made all the difference.

This incident sends a clear message: criminals don’t follow gun laws, but law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be punished for being prepared. With stricter regulations stacking up in Oregon, it’s more important than ever for gun owners to stay vigilant and fight for their rights.

Stay tuned for more updates on this developing story. As details continue to emerge, one thing is certain: self-defense works, and armed citizens are often the first and last line of defense.

from https://ift.tt/9C3TdIY
via IFTTT

Yo! Virginia AG Miyares, It Is Time To Step It Up!

Opinion

Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares

Jason Miyares has been Virginia’s Attorney General for three and a half years now, and for gun owners, his time in office has been somewhat disappointing.

Some Background on Jason Miyares:

Jason Miyares serves as Virginia’s Attorney General, having assumed office in January 2022. As the first Latino elected to this position in Virginia’s history, Miyares is known for his focus on public safety, supporting law enforcement, and advocating for transparency and accountability in government. Before becoming Attorney General, he represented Virginia Beach in the House of Delegates, where he built a reputation for conservative principles and strong support for criminal justice reform. Miyares, the son of a Cuban immigrant, often highlights his family’s story as inspiration for his commitment to individual freedoms and limited government. His tenure thus far reflects a dedication to these values, often emphasizing crime reduction and Second Amendment rights.

I’m not saying he is anti-gun.  He has done some things to protect the Second Amendment.  He has been part of some amicus briefs on gun-control issues outside of Virginia, including one dealing with homemade guns recently, and he issued an opinion this March that says a CHP holder who is renewing his permit doesn’t need to show any proof of in-person training.  Those things are good, and we thank him for them.

But, the Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision has been in place for around two of those years, yet General Miyares is still defending Virginia’s One Handgun a Month and Universal Background Check laws in court, both of which are clearly unconstitutional under Bruen.  He could issue an opinion that Virginia’s Red Flag law is unconstitutional under Bruen, too.  But so far, he’s done nothing.

Mr Miyares, we urge you to get more active in protecting our right to keep and bear arms in Virginia. You are under no obligation to defend unconstitutional laws. In fact, it is your sworn duty NOT to defend them!

Miyares has had the opportunity for over a year now to clarify exactly where the “No gun” boundary is for a church or business that has a daycare or preschool facility on the property or in a building.  Crickets….

His lack of an opinion clarifying those boundaries could get someone unreasonably charged with a felony!

TAKE ACTION ITEM

Click here to send a pre-written,  editable email to Attorney General Jason Miyares, urging him to step up his support of Virginia’s gun owners!

---

About Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL):

Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

For more information, visit: www.vcdl.org.

from https://ift.tt/rPn3lCJ
via IFTTT

No Place to Hide. No Place to Run. USA is the Last Best Hope

An I Voted sticker on an IWI X95 bullpup carbine in 5.56mm with an Elcan SpectreDR 1.5-6x optic on top. IMG Jim Grant

When you engage on the Internet, there are always people who do not want to do things, are unwilling to engage, and think they can hide from the government.  They say they do not want to (pick your action), get a carry permit, sign a petition, purchase ammunition from a store, join a state or local action group, buy a gun from a dealer, or others because:  

They Do Not Want to Be on a List.

The problem with this is:  

99.9% of us are on multiple lists, whether we want to be or not.

There are a few people who do not own telephones, who are not on the power grid, who do not subscribe to magazines, read things on the Internet, or buy goods with credit or debit cards. They are very, very few. They are ineffective politically or in a conflict. The digital shackles we have accepted or which have been placed on us are ubiquitous and encompassing. There is no place left to hide and no place left to run. Either we win this fight for limited government and the rule of law politically, we lose by becoming engaged in some sort of civil war, or we lose everywhere because there isn’t any place left to run.

Canada is becoming worse than the USA every day. Mexico is far worse already.

Nowhere in Europe is better than the USA is now, and everywhere in Europe is likely to get much worse if the USA stays on the path the Biden/Obama administration has put us on. Africa? You joke. Japan? They don’t take immigrants. Australia—it’s already worse than the USA. China? India? They are much worse.

Convert to Islam? Islamic countries are all worse than the USA if you value freedom and private property.

If you read AmmoLand or other forums about hunting or shooting or conservative politics, you are already on several lists. In authoritarian/totalitarian regimes, the government is concerned and very effective at finding and knowing who they can trust and who they cannot. Trusted people are a small number.  Nothing on the Internet is truly lost. Credit card purchases are forever. Phone conversations are recorded and stored. They are probably only listened to by machines, if at all, but they are kept and can be searched later.

At present, there are some protections in place that make it difficult to use these resources to divide the country into the enemies of the regime and everyone else. Those protections are rapidly being eroded by the current regime.

Even if you take gold coins on a sailboat and head out to sea, you are subject to officials in every port. You will be asked for bribes, subject to have your boat confiscated, with no serious rule of law. Carry a gun with you on the boat to protect your life and possessions?  Very difficult because most countries do not allow it. They will confiscate and prosecute if it is to their advantage. They have the power to search you in every port. Your voyage is tracked by satellite.

We are in a great political contest to force the power of the government back into the cage created for it by the Constitution. If we win, it may take decades to undo all the damage created by the administrative state. It cannot happen all at once. Such is the nature of the rule of law. If we lose, the deterioration we see will accelerate. More inflation, more lawless importation of multitudinous immigrants, more potential cheating at elections without any accountability. The middle class will continue to be attacked from all sides. We are on the slide to complete tyranny, as experienced in Venezuela. The Supreme Court would likely be placed under the influence of Progressives.

We can win. Our opponents do not have infinite resources available to cheat. Winning the election is the easiest fight we have available to win. Winning takes courage and the willingness to take small chances now to avoid terrible effects later.  Political victory is much easier than winning a civil war, as patriots are picked off piecemeal against a strengthened and growing entrenched administration.

Paraphrasing Patrick Henry: When will we be stronger? This is the time to use our political will and power, before our voices are silenced, before our rights become transgressions in the law, before our churches are only allowed to preach what the government wants them to preach.  As a Christian, I urge everyone to vote. In the USA, it is our duty to vote. It is how we have an impact on our means of government. This is a sea change election.

In the words of the words of Chinese military philosopher Sun Tsu, who lived centuries before Christ:

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

In the words of candidate Donald Trump: “Fight! Fight! Fight!” to elect President Trump and change the course of history. This election may be our last best chance to restore the Republic without internal war or, perhaps worse, the tyranny seen in places like Venezuela. It is worth the hour it takes to vote.

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

from https://ift.tt/8VvPx9O
via IFTTT

Israel Disarmed by Mark W. Smith | Book Review

Israel Disarmed by Mark Smith. Highly recommended read by AmmoLand

Mark Smith has written a thoughtful examination of how disarmament by the State of Israel enabled the most horrific massacre of Jews since World War II. At the 2024 Gun Rights Policy Conference in San Diego, Mark Smith was giving away copies of his latest book, Israel Disarmed: What the October 7 attack teaches Americans about the right to bear arms.

The book exceeded my expectations. Mark is a Constitutional Scholar and a member of the United States Supreme Court bar. I expected a scholarly work and was not disappointed. I was pleasantly surprised to find a page-turning and exciting prologue that kept me on the edge of my chair.

In the prologue, Mark documents the contrast between two Israeli kibbutzim. One kibbutz had no defensive firearms and about 750 residents. The other kibbutz had about 1500 residents and about a dozen men with firearms. Both kibbutzim came under attack by the Hamas Jihadis. In the first kibbutz, 60 residents were killed, 17 were taken as hostages, about 10 percent of the population. In the second kibbutz, the roughly dozen armed defenders held off the Jihadis, killing several and wounding several. Not one resident of the second kibbutz was killed. The detailed examples of armed defenders are graphic, detailed, and riveting.

In the chapters which follow, Mark builds a detailed case of how important the right to bear arms is, how the Israelis became disarmed, and how October 7th changed Israeli philosophy about armed citizens. He explains the importance of the Second Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights, and how it is important today as a protector of liberty as well as for personal safety.

Because of the extreme restrictions on firearms ownership and carry put in place by the Israeli government, only about 1.5% of the Israeli population were allowed to own firearms before October 7, 2024. There are about 6.7 private firearms for each 100 Israelis.  With even this extreme restriction on gun ownership, the organizers of the music festival declared the festival to be a “gun free zone”.

Hamas jihadis attacked the festival, killed over 360, and took at least 40 hostages. The dead included 17 police officers.  It is not clear if the police officers were armed. In a similar attack at the Bataclan Concert in Paris, France, about 100 were killed. Eight police officers who were at the Bataclan off-duty were all unarmed.

Mark explains how the Israelis believed they could count on their large police force and their superb military to protect them. It was and is a mistaken faith. When seconds counted in Israel, the police and military were many hours away. Mark explains how the same problem exists in the United States. Many Americans believe the police will be there to protect them. American police cannot be where they are needed when they are needed. In addition, the police have been under attack and there is a strong movement to defund them. For the first crucial minutes, you will be your own first responder.

Israel Disarmed, highly recommended, $16.99 paperback, $27 Hardcover, $9.99 on Kindle at Amazon.

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

from https://ift.tt/csaP7mE
via IFTTT

Oregon: Despite Another Disgraceful Sellout by Rep Kim Wallan ~ Patriots Still Support Dennis Linthicum

Opinion

Dennis Linthicum Oregon IMG Dennis Linthicum. Dennis Linthicum has been one of the most stalwart defenders of gun rights and liberty

By now you should have received your ballot in the mail. If you live in Clackamas County, you may have the added convenience of having your ballot return envelope already sealed for you by the county clerk.

But wherever you are, you will have to face the grim reality that what’s left of your rights is in serious danger, and not just from Democrats.

Tobias Read is the Democrat running for Secretary of State. Read is a far left, extremist, gun banner as can be seen by his list of endorsements. It reads like a who’s who of Neo-Marxist, anti-2nd Amendment radicals.

Running against him is Dennis Linthicum.

Dennis has been one of the most stalwart defenders of gun rights and liberty in general. As you probably know, Dennis gave up his right to seek re-election to his Senate seat when he refused to bow to the Democrats and walked out of the charade that is the Oregon Legislature. (His wife Diane is currently running for his Senate seat and is one of the very few candidates we can support.)

So it would seem like a no brainer that Republican legislators would be all in for Dennis. Not so fast.

House Rep Kim Wallan, Republican of Jackson County, has now endorsed…Tobias Read!?

Sell Out Oregon House Rep Kim Wallan, Republican of Jackson County, has now endorsed…Tobias Read.

Wallan, you may recall, chose to vote against Dacia Grayber’s anti-gun bill because, in Wallan’s view, it did not punish gun owners enough.

To make matters worse, Wallan is the person who the Republican Party of Jackson County has given the power to pick candidates in that county.

How can the county party or the state party continue to allow this kind of disgraceful behavior? Is it because the Democrats control the money? Is it because the leaders of the elected Republican caucus are determined to torpedo any candidate with principles and are happy to spend your money to do it?

The Republican establishment in Oregon has, for all intents and purposes, ceded all control to the far left.

The Republican’s choice for Attorney General, Will Lathrop, refuses to say whether he will continue to spend your money to defend the clearly unconstitutional MZ 114, which 2nd Amendment advocates have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat.

Lathrop’s website says “Oregon’s attorney general must enforce our laws justly and without a political lens” but he won’t say whether he will keep spending your money to take your gun rights away should he win.

Compromise, capitulation, and straight-up sellouts have become the hallmark of Oregon Republicans. Our choice for president is clear, but until the “leadership” of the Republican Party starts to call out people like Wallan, who is openly and unapologetically helping the people who are stealing our rights, Oregon gun owners are in serious trouble.

Read Related: Oregon: We Are Walking On A Tightrope with Your Human Rights

---

About Oregon Firearms Federation:

The Oregon Firearms Federation has proven itself to be Oregon’s only no-compromise lobbying group; OFF takes the same tough stands and serves as a vehicle for educating gun owners, promoting their rights, and, when necessary, fighting the freedom haters in court. Visit: www.oregonfirearms.org

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