California Gun Activists File SCOTUS Cert Petition To Protect Gun Shows ~ VIDEO

California’s petty attempt to undercut “gun culture” by eliminating gun shows ignores serious conflicts with both the First and Second Amendments, justified by phantom claims of “protecting public safety”. California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) has fought these bans every step of the way. Today, we bring the case to the highest court in the land.

“Our Crossroads of the West and CRPA plaintiffs had no choice but to ask the Supreme Court to correct the Ninth Circuit’s misguided decision to ignore the law of what speech is constitutionally protected and completely ignore the Supreme Court’s directive in Bruen,” stated CRPA President & General Counsel Chuck Michel. “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will see the merit of our positions and grant cert to protect the rights of tens of thousands of lawful gun owners in California to assemble and enjoy the comradery and benefits of gun shows.”

Attorney Anna Barvir stopped in to chat with CRPA TV host Kevin Small to provide some perspective on the filing. Watch CRPA TV above!

B&L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom Background

This case, B&L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom, revolves around California’s legislative efforts to prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition on state-owned properties, effectively banning gun shows at these venues. The laws were enacted out of apparent legislative animus toward the “gun culture,” targeting lawful commerce and speech related to firearms. Petitioners, including B&L Productions, which organizes gun shows, argue that these laws violate their First Amendment rights (freedom of speech), Second Amendment rights (commerce necessary for exercising the right to keep and bear arms), and Fourteenth Amendment rights (Equal Protection Clause due to discriminatory animus).

Key background points:

1. California’s Ban on Gun Sales at Public Venues: The state enacted laws banning firearm and ammunition sales on state-owned properties, such as fairgrounds. These laws do not outright prohibit gun shows but aim to dismantle their financial viability by forbidding sales.
2. Strict Regulation Compliance: Gun shows in California are already subject to rigorous state laws, including background checks, waiting periods, and strict compliance with all firearm sale regulations.
3. Litigation History: Petitioners filed suits claiming violations of constitutional rights. The district courts issued conflicting rulings, with one granting a preliminary injunction and the other dismissing the case. The Ninth Circuit reversed the injunction and upheld the dismissal, claiming that sales-related speech is not protected and that the Second Amendment claims did not meet a “meaningful constraint” test.
4. Constitutional Conflicts: The case challenges:
   • The First Amendment’s protection of commercial and expressive speech.
   • The Second Amendment’s protections of ancillary rights necessary for lawful commerce in firearms.
   • The Equal Protection Clause, given the discriminatory targeting of gun shows based on ideological hostility.

The Ninth Circuit’s rulings have been criticized for deviating from Supreme Court precedents and undermining constitutional protections. Petitioners seek review from the Supreme Court to restore the preliminary injunction and invalidate California’s laws.

CRPA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court requesting their consideration of the case of B&L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom. The lead plaintiff in the case, more commonly known as Crossroads of the West, has been barred from producing shows on state-owned lands such as fairgrounds for several years. The state falsely claimed firearms acquired at gun shows were disproportionately used in crimes as the motivation for the ban.

CRPA immediately challenged the law in court and the case has followed a circuitous, and often confusing, path ever since. In June a ruling by the Ninth Circuit upholding the ban employed some curious logic to skirt right around the fact that the law even confronted the First and Second Amendments. They held that an offer to sell a firearm was an “expressive” act covered by the First Amendment, but that the act of agreeing to purchase it was NOT an expressive act.

“We are at a point where California has essentially ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2022 that eliminated the use of ‘judicial balancing tests’ when deciding Second Amendment claims,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “while trampling on the First Amendment protections of speech which is necessary for the commerce of lawful products.”

“California’s laws and policies are being used to prevent gun owners, who are honest and peaceable citizens, from congregating and conducting lawful commerce on public property,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “If the state is allowed to continue, neither the First nor Second Amendments are safe from California’s legal choke hold. We are hopeful the Court will grant certiorari.”

The Ninth Circuit court went on to dismiss the Second Amendment challenge by, ironically, quoting the Bruen decision as requiring a finding that the law in question relates to conduct covered by the Second Amendment. The court then explains that while the Constitution conveys the right to “keep and bear arms”, it does not speak to protecting one’s right to actually purchase them. And with that, the first two articles of the Bill of Rights are dispensed with and a law prohibiting the exercise of fundamental rights was upheld.

The California Rifle & Pistol Association has worked alongside the Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, Second Amendment Law Center, and Second Amendment Foundation in this case. As we’ve noted many times, cases that impact the manner in which Bruen is applied, regardless of where they begin, are critical to all corners of the country.

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

Briefs Filed in 3rd Circuit in Pennsylvania Age-Based Gun Ban Case

iStock-VasilevKirill

PHILADELPHIA – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it has filed a supplemental brief with the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in its Paris v. Lara case. Last month, the Supreme Court remanded the case following the Court’s Rahimi decision. The brief can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/lara.

Paris v. Lara Case Background

The case of Paris v. Lara, currently under review, revolves around the rights of 18-to-20-year-old adults to carry firearms for self-defense under the Second Amendment. Originating in Pennsylvania, the case challenges a law barring individuals in this age group from carrying firearms during declared states of emergency unless they have a license, which they are categorically ineligible for under Pennsylvania law.

This case began in 2020 when individual plaintiffs, backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation, argued that Pennsylvania’s law unconstitutionally infringes on the Second Amendment rights of young adults. Although the case was initially dismissed under pre-Bruen judicial standards favoring interest balancing, the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision—emphasizing text, history, and tradition as the basis for Second Amendment interpretation—shifted the legal framework and resulted in a favorable ruling for the plaintiffs at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Key points of contention in this case include:

1. Age-Based Restrictions: The plaintiffs argue that historical records from the Founding Era show no tradition of restricting the firearm rights of 18-to-20-year-olds, who were commonly part of state militias and required to bear arms. They assert that the Pennsylvania law arbitrarily disarms a class of adults who fall within the Second Amendment’s protection.
2. Rahimi’s Impact: After the Supreme Court’s decision in Rahimi, which clarified the methodology for analyzing firearm regulations under the Bruen framework, the case was remanded. However, the plaintiffs maintain that Rahimi only reinforces the Third Circuit’s decision, as no Founding-era analogues support the contested restrictions.
3. Historical Evidence: While the Pennsylvania law is defended using post-Civil War regulations, the plaintiffs emphasize that those laws were applied to minors, not adults, and were enacted too late to define the original public understanding of the Second Amendment.
4. Practical Implications: The case’s outcome could influence broader challenges to age-based firearm regulations nationwide, including similar cases pending in other circuits.

The broader implications of Paris v. Lara extend beyond Pennsylvania, potentially setting a precedent for interpreting the Second Amendment’s application to young adults across the United States. As part of its mission, the FPC has positioned this litigation as pivotal in eliminating what it views as unconstitutional laws, aiming to establish a freer framework for firearm rights.

“The Supreme Court’s decision” in Rahimi “does not in the least undermine this Court’s prior judgment in this case,” FPC and its co-plaintiffs argued in the brief. “While Rahimi is instructive as an example of how to apply the framework that was first applied in [D.C. v. Heller], and made more explicit in [NYSRPA v. Bruen], unlike those cases, Rahimi did not purport to be anything more than an application of existing precedent. This Court faithfully applied that same precedent when it decided this case, so Rahimi does not require changing anything in the prior decision.”

The Lara case is part of FPC’s high-impact strategic litigation program, FPC Law, aimed at eliminating immoral laws and creating a world of maximal liberty. FPC was joined in the litigation by individual FPC members and the Second Amendment Foundation. FPC thanks FPC Action Foundation for its strategic support of this FPC Law case.

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit membership organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. We work to achieve our strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs. Our FPC Law program (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s preeminent legal action initiative focused on restoring the right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States. Individuals who want to support FPC’s work to eliminate unconstitutional laws can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org or make a donation at firearmspolicy.org/donate. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, X (Twitter), Facebook, and YouTube.

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

Holiday Warning: Secure Your Gun, Don’t Leave it in Vehicle

Thousands of guns are stolen out of cars, says the U.S. Attorney’s office in San Antonio. Keep your sidearm where it belongs: With you.

A bulletin from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Antonio, Texas, might serve as a reminder—or even a warning—to gun owners not to leave their defensive sidearm in the car, truck or SUV, whether it’s at home, at a shopping mall or even supermarket; anywhere thieves might break in.

Unintentionally, it’s a condemnation of so-called “gun-free zones” which literally force legally-armed citizens to leave their hardware in their parked vehicle rather than carry it securely whether they are shopping, going to a movie, attending a sports event, going to church or even doing business at a government office.

By no small coincidence, the city council in Newport News, VA voted this week to ban guns in city-owned buildings and in portions of buildings not owned, but used by, city employees, according to the Virginian-Pilot. Only Councilman John Eley cast a “No” vote. He explained, “I want to be able to defend myself.”

WVEC News is reporting that at least a dozen citizens spoke in opposition to the measure, but the council adopted the ban anyway.

Here are some cold, hard facts posted in an August 19 report in the Legal Reader:

• 1,074,022 firearms were reported stolen in the U.S. between 2017 and 2021, which equates to an average of 200,000 per year.
• There were more guns stolen in 2017 than in 2021, despite an increase in gun sales nationwide in 2021.
• Only 10% of stolen guns are used in crimes annually, but 43.2% of criminals who used a firearm in the commission of a crime purchased it from an “underground dealer.”

But here’s some information one doesn’t usually get from the gun prohibition crowd since it doesn’t fit their narrative:

• Despite rhetoric about gun shows, firearms purchased from gun shows are the least likely to be used in crimes (0.8%), and those purchased from an FFL dealer by the offender are used in only 1.3% of crimes.
• The overwhelming majority (85.9%) of criminals possessing a firearm when they committed their crimes, purchased or obtained the firearm from somewhere other than a licensed dealer.
• Contrary to some assumptions, the rate of legal firearm owners, state and federal legislation, and the number of legal guns do not increase homicide rates. However, there is a clear correlation between the prevalence of stolen guns and increased homicide rates.

Alarmingly, according to the USA in San Antonio, “Nearly 2,300 firearms have been stolen from vehicles in San Antonio this year.” That’s just in one Texas city. It translates to tens of thousands of guns nationwide, and that’s a lot of contraband hardware which can wind up being used in crimes for which law-abiding gun owners are penalized by “gun safety legislation.”

Underscoring this situation is a report out of Seattle, Washington involving the arrest of a four-time felon from whom police took a stolen pistol linked to nine different shootings in the city since early October, according to a report at KOMO, the local ABC News affiliate. The 26-year-old suspect was not named because he has not yet been formally charged.

But here’s an interesting tidbit, thanks to an online KOMO reader/viewer survey. Washington voters just elected anti-gun Democrat Attorney General Bob Ferguson to be the state’s next governor. Democrats hold the majority in the state capital of Olympia. But they may have to shift priorities when dealing with crime in the upcoming session, starting in January.

According to the KOMO poll, respondents believe the most important issue facing the Legislature is dealing with repeat offenders (77%), the drug trade (12%), stolen cars used in crimes/auto theft (4%) and gun control (4%). Where Democrat lawmakers habitually push gun control to make it appear they’re doing something about crime, they’ve been weak on addressing crime and punishment. January could provide some surprises in the Evergreen State.

Where are the gun theft hotspots? According to the San Antonio bulletin, “Retail parking lots frequently serve as hot spots for burglaries, and thieves are capable of breaking into a vehicle, stealing a gun, and fleeing, all within 15 seconds or less. Furthermore, statistics show that car burglars target trucks and vehicles that display stickers, insignia, and license plates indicating military or law enforcement affiliation, as well as firearm ownership.”

Who’s got a bumper sticker declaring “Insured by Smith & Wesson?” Who’s got an NRA decal in their truck/SUV window?

Twenty-nine states now allow “constitutional” carry without a permit or license. The remaining states, all run by Democrats, still require licenses, and some do not recognize out-of-state licenses.

Savvy gun owners have concluded they will not patronize businesses which post their premises off-limits to firearms. Criminals don’t obey such prohibitions, so why should honest citizens? These “good guys with guns” have concluded the most effective form of gun control is to keep it with you.

---

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.

from https://ift.tt/EX9fuNT
via IFTTT

Firearms Commerce Report Discontinued by Biden’s ATF

Firearms Report Discontinued by Biden Administration

The Biden administration, with their takeover of the ATF, discontinued the publication of Firearms Commerce in the United States without announcement.  Firearms Commerce of the United States was last published in May of 2021, shortly after the Biden Administration took residence in the White House.

Many journalists and researchers, including myself, used the annual report as the basis of numerous articles about what was happening in the firearms industry. In January of 2023, at the SHOT SHOW in Las Vegas, I asked ATF representatives when the latest version of Firearms Commerce in the United States would be published. None had been published since 2021. This correspondent was assured the next version would be published in May 2023. None was forthcoming.

As far as this correspondent has been able to determine, no official notice of the report’s discontinuance was ever made. It appears even people inside the ATF did not know the report was discontinued, as they told this correspondent it would be forthcoming shortly.

One of the important statistics published in Firearms Commerce of the United States was the number of National Firearms Act (NFA) tax stamps issued and the number of various application forms approved. The numbers were published in detail by state, and the total was for the United States. A particularly important number is the number of silencers and other NFA items. The report showed the number of approved applications for Form 1 (to make an NFA item) and approved applications to purchase and transfer NFA items.

These numbers tell us how many officially approved silencers and other NFA items were recognized as legally existing.  The number is important. There are several cases in federal courts challenging bans on the possession or ownership of silencers and the constitutionality of the statutory framework on which the federal regulations are based. Occasionally, fragmentary information would be revealed. The number of legal NFA items in the United States is important as part of the argument to determine if silencers, short barreled rifles or shotguns, or machine guns are “in common use” in the United States for lawful purposes.

This correspondent attempted to find out numbers from sources which had excellent contacts with the ATF. Definitive numbers were hard to obtain and very limited.

Other entities were encountering the same problem. The National Shooting Sports Federation (NSSF) and others filed Freedom of Information Act requests in an attempt to force the ATF to divulge what should have been public information. NSSF mentioned in October of 2024, the report of Firearms Commerce in the United States had been discontinued. From NSSF, bold and italics added:

The now discontinued ATF Firearms Commerce in the United States report displayed the number of silencers that were registered in each state. The May 2021 edition reported 2,664,774 silencers in the U.S., more than doubling the 1.3 million silencers disclosed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2017.

This correspondent co-hosts the Russ Clark radio show from Yuma on most Wednesday mornings. Russ is another person who routinely commented on how information which had previously been easy to obtain on the Internet, was now shrouded in web sites and procedures which made desired information difficult to find. It appeared the government was making it difficult to find data they did not want reported, or they wanted only their interpretation of the data reported.

The Biden administration has been one of the least transparent presidencies in the history of the United States of America. The Biden administration has been one of the most corrupt in the history of the United States of America. When the history of the Biden years is written, it will be noted the discontinuance of the ATF Firearms Commerce in the United States was one of many ways in which the administration managed, twisted, hid, and manipulated data in an attempt to use control of the information flow as a political weapon, against the people of the United States.

---

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/F9QzjZ0
via IFTTT

Supreme Court to Decide the Fate of Maryland’s AR15 Ban in Landmark 2A Case ~ VIDEO

In a landmark move, the United States Supreme Court has received the final brief from David Snope’s legal team in the pivotal Snope v. Brown case. This case challenges Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban, specifically targeting restrictions on commonly owned firearms like the AR-15. For those who champion Second Amendment rights, this is a defining moment, offering the potential to clarify legal protections for semi-automatic rifles nationwide.

The Heart of the Issue

At its core, Snope v. Brown questions whether the government can ban firearms commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The petitioners argue that such bans directly contradict precedents set by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and reaffirmed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Both cases emphasized that firearms in “common use” are constitutionally protected.

Maryland’s defense hinges on the claim that the legal implications of these rulings are still evolving, asserting the need for more time to assess the application of Bruen. However, the plaintiffs counter that these debates are neither new nor unresolved—they demand immediate resolution to halt ongoing infringements of fundamental rights.

Why This Case Matters

The AR-15, dubbed “America’s Rifle,” is one of the most popular firearms in the country. It’s used by millions for self-defense, sport shooting, and hunting. The brief submitted by Snope’s attorneys underscores the simplicity of the case: banning such a widely owned firearm blatantly violates the Second Amendment.

The stakes are high. Anti-gun states argue that these firearms are excessively dangerous, citing their potential military utility. However, as Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner astutely points out, such reasoning ignores the foundational purpose of the Second Amendment—to ensure citizens have access to arms suitable for defense against tyranny.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Colt AR15A4 5.56mm NATO Patrol Rifle - 20"	Rainier Arms	$ 1099.00
	Enhanced Patrol 5.56 Nato/223 Remington 16in Bbl Blk Rifle - Enhanced Patrol 5.56mm Nato/223 Remington 16'''' Bbl Blk Rifle	Brownells.com	$ 1349.99
	Lantac LA-SF15 Patrol 5.56mm NATO 16in Black Nitride Semi Automatic Modern Sporting Rifle - 30+1 Rounds - Black	Sportsman's Warehouse	$ 1768.99
	Colt M4 Carbine Federal Patrol 5.56mm NATO 16in Matte Black Semi Automatic Modern Sporting Rifle - 30+1 - Black	Sportsman's Warehouse	$ 1659.99

The Legal Battle Ahead

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the implications could be transformative. A decision in favor of Snope would solidify the precedent that “common use” firearms are beyond the reach of state bans. This would strike a significant blow to anti-gun legislation in states like New York, California, and Maryland, where restrictive laws persist.

The plaintiffs’ brief meticulously dismantles the flawed logic of lower courts that have upheld such bans. It highlights how some judges have disregarded Heller and Bruen, introducing subjective tests to justify restrictions. These judicial maneuvers erode trust in the rule of law and undermine constitutional guarantees.

The Snope reply brief is in. This concludes the briefing for the cert petition (aside from any amicus briefs coming in support of the state).

Let's take a look at what they argued in response to Maryland's opposition. pic.twitter.com/Y8CDoYgpMF

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) November 26, 2024

What Comes Next?

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to grant certiorari (review the case) is expected soon. If they take up the case, oral arguments could begin as early as spring, with a decision likely in mid-2025. Success would represent a major victory for gun owners and reinforce the Second Amendment’s protections against overreach by anti-gun states.

For the pro-gun community, this case represents a stand for constitutional rights.

As Mark Smith aptly puts it, “This is the final piece of the puzzle in restoring the Second Amendment to its rightful place in American law.”

Stay informed and ready to act. The fight for your rights depends on your awareness and advocacy.

Snope v. Brown Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Commonly Owned: Over 24 Million AR15 & AK Rifles In Circulation

“In Common Use” Encompasses a Broad Range of Lawful Activities Beyond Firing a Gun ~ VIDEO

from https://ift.tt/5oKXhm0
via IFTTT

BOO HOO! Anti-Gunners Lament Trump Election, Brace for Impact

JUST IN: MSNBC guest melts down over Trump picking Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General, says they should “fear” her because she’s competent.

Liberal political scientist Jason Johnson said Bondi is an “effective pick” who is “worse” than Matt Gaetz.

“We should all fear [her]… pic.twitter.com/PUaGWVqEeR

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 21, 2024

A recent report at ABC News summed up the post-election trauma of America’s gun prohibitionists: The story was headlined “Gun violence prevention groups brace for Trump to keep promise of ‘concealed carry reciprocity.”

It’s not the least of their worries, as explained in an article published by The Trace, which had this headline: “The Power Trump’s Cabinet Will Have Over Gun Policy.”

To suggest the gun control crowd is in a panic might be an understatement, as they worry about all of the gun laws which have been adopted, especially in blue states, that may fall under constitutional scrutiny. The Trace article notes, “Those laws and regulations are being challenged in court now more than ever before.”

And instead of Matt Gaetz being the next attorney general, incoming President-elect Donald Trump, who obviously learned a lot during his first term, quickly turned to former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Despite AMMOLAND Editor-in-Chief Fredy Riehl’s thoughtful look at her “mixed record” on gun rights, Bondi scares Democrats and the hard left, as acknowledged recently by political scientist Jason Johnson, appearing on MSNBC.

“We should all fear (her) because she’s competent,” Johnson said. “She is a dangerous and effective pick…”

More evidence of the fear now ramping up among Democrats was the creation of “Governors Safeguarding Democracy,” an alleged bipartisan group of state chief executives created by Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, both hard left Democrats. The group doesn’t tell who their members are, but despite claims of bipartisanship, one might easily presume the membership roster is decidedly Democrat.

For example, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who will be sworn in as governor in January, has vowed to fight the new Trump administration. Democrat Ferguson filed scores of lawsuits against the first Trump administration and many of his Evergreen State critics have suggested he suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

The ”party  of gun prohibition” is continuing to live in denial after their loss of Congress and the White House back on Nov. 5. According to a recent Rasmussen survey, “57% of Democratic voters believe their party did a good or excellent job during this year’s election.”

“Not surprisingly,” Rasmussen reported with only a hint of sarcasm, “that opinion is shared by only 16% of Republicans and 23% of voters not affiliated with either major party (Independents).”

If Trump follows through on his promise to sign a national concealed carry reciprocity bill—it would have to be passed by Congress first—it would be a major setback for the anti-gun movement, which has some powerful players, including the billionaire-backed Everytown for Gun Safety and its subsidiary Moms Demand Action and the Alliance for Gun Responsibility. Don‘t overlook the Brady Campaign or Giffords, which also have some big-buck donors.

However, with Trump returning to the White House and the Senate under GOP control, expect the new president to pick up where he left off, appointing conservative judges to fill federal court vacancies. This is perhaps more fearful to gun prohibitionists than having Bondi reverse the Biden-Harris administration’s weaponization of the FBI and ATF against gun owners and retailers.

With all of this facing Democrats, it may be no wonder why it appears to many observers that in his final two months in office, Joe Biden is determined to ramp up the war in the Ukraine, leaving Trump with an international crisis, since nothing else they’ve tried over the past four years has derailed him.

Important to the ABC report about concealed carry reciprocity is the roster of states that do not honor non-resident carry permits and licenses: “Nine states — including California, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey and New York — and Washington D.C.” Add Oregon, Rhode Island, Maryland and Massachusetts to the mix. What do they all have in common? They’re run by Democrats.

The second Trump term may be the closest thing to a “worst nightmare” for the gun control crowd, at least for the first two years. The midseason election could shift things for Trump, so he must get a lot done over the next 24 months. If he is successful, it could at least level the legal playing field for gun owners and Second Amendment activists in the judiciary. Reforms at the Department of Justice, to include the ATF, would have the greatest impact.

Expect a fight because recent history has demonstrated that die-hard gun prohibitionists will not go quietly into the night.

---

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.

from https://ift.tt/pJ6PrnQ
via IFTTT

Knife Owners’ Protection Act Reintroduced to Congress

Knife Rights’ Knife Owners’ Protection Act Reintroduced

Originally conceived and authored by Knife Rights in 2010 and introduced in 2013 as the first proactive pro-knife federal legislation in the nation’s history, Knife Rights’ Knife Owners’ Protection Act of 2024, H.R. 10178 and S. 5358. (KOPA), has been introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs and Sen. Mike Lee with co-sponsors Reps. Jeff Duncan and Andy Ogles.

KOPA would protect law-abiding knife owners traveling throughout the U.S. from the vagaries of restrictive state and local laws. If possession of the knife is legal where the journey starts and ends, and provided the knife is secured in accordance with KOPA, a knife owner would no longer be threatened with arrest simply for traveling from one place to another, even if passing through a jurisdiction where the knife is illegal. Click for KOPA FAQ.

This represents the first step in this latest effort to work towards passage of this important legislation, an example of Knife Rights’ perseverance that’s required to get bills passed. With the election of Donald Trump and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress next session, 2025 may be the year to get this done. These bills tee up KOPA for next year.

Rep. Biggs said, “The government must not discourage interstate travel and commerce by subjecting law-abiding knife owners to the fear of prosecution under the myriad patchwork of state and local knife laws. Americans are guaranteed the right to protect themselves, their families, and their businesses by the Second Amendment, and we must ensure that those rights are protected. I’m thankful for Senator Lee’s leadership on this issue in the Senate and for the support of my colleagues as we work to move this bill through Congress.”

Knife Rights Chairman Doug Ritter said, “Those who travel this country with knives for work, recreation and self-defense are presently subject to arrest and prosecution under a confusing patchwork of inconsistent state and local laws. What is perfectly legal in one place may be a serious crime in another, resulting in forfeiture of the knife and carrying significant penalties including jail time. Enforcement is not uniform even within jurisdictions and is too often subject to the vagaries of political expediency.”

Knife Rights developed the Knife Owners’ Protection Act to address this absurd situation in a commonsense manner that is fair and equitable and is based on established legislative and legal precedent.

We’ve fought hard to repeal bans on knife possession and carry in the individual states, cities and towns, but despite 49 bills repealing knife bans in 31 states and over 200 cities and towns, as well as a number of court victories, that fight is hardly finished. KOPA represents a key initiative to protect law-abiding knife owners simply passing through areas where possessing a commonly owned knife may result in arrest and prosecution.

The current situation with knives is similar to the circumstances with guns that existed prior to the passage of the Firearms Owner Protection Act (FOPA -18 USC 926A) in 1986 when Congress acted to protect law-abiding gun owners from a similar inconsistent patchwork of laws. FOPA insulated their travels if firearms possession was lawful at both the origin and destination of travel.

Ritter noted “FOPA provides no protection whatsoever to knife owners, so they are defenseless from the same perils. It is entirely possible that a sportsman or woman traveling with both firearms and knives weho follows FOPA’s requirements to the letter and also locks up their knives in an abundance of caution, could be insulated against prosecution for firearms possession, yet be arrested and prosecuted for knife possession. That is a ridiculous situation. KOPA simply aims to protect knife owners in a similar manner as KOPA protects firearm owners.”

However, hard lessons learned after years of abuse of FOPA by some courts means that unlike FOPA, KOPA has teeth to defend those who travel under its protection. KOPA provides penalties for law enforcement, prosecutors and others who ignore the protections provided. A falsely arrested person can be compensated for the expense of defending themselves from an unwarranted violation of the rights that Congress has protected in KOPA.

KOPA also closes the many holes punched in FOPA by some anti-2A Federal circuits that coincidentally include states and cities with some of the nation’s most restrictive knife laws. Without these improvements, KOPA would not be worth the paper it is printed on in these vexatious states and cities.

No protections would be afforded to anyone involved in criminal activity. KOPA also does not override TSA regulations; knives must be in checked baggage.

Knife Rights continues to lead the way with proactive legislative action to defend and protect knife owners’ rights. KOPA is another example of our efforts to forge a Sharper Future for all Americans.

---

About Knife Rights

Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans. Knife Rights efforts have resulted in 49 bills passed repealing knife bans in 31 states and over 200 cities and towns since 2010.

from https://ift.tt/LRCk34X
via IFTTT

Gallup Poll on Guns Reflects Manipulation, Ignorance, and Denial

A string of victories over public housing gun bans removes any doubt the Second Amendment does not stop at the front door.

“Majorities Still Back Stricter Gun Laws, Assault Weapons Ban,” Gallup claimed Monday in a synopsis of its Oct. 1-12 Crime poll. “Support for a ban on handguns in the U.S. has dropped to a near-record low.”

56% want more gun control. 52% want an “assault weapon” ban. But only 20% want a handgun ban.

That last bit sounds like a bright spot, and we’ll get back to it. But before we do, we ought to look at who the respondents were and what they were being asked — and also examine if the questions were fair ones that considered what those polled actually knew as opposed to what they believed because it’s what they’ve been told by political, media, and activist influencers with a vested interest.

To begin that process, there’s a “View complete question responses and trends” link at the end of the article where readers can download a pdf of the poll.

“Results are based on telephone interviews … with a random sample of –1,023—adults, ages 18+, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia,” we are told. Results are based on a sample of 930 registered voters and 367 gun owners, with sampling error margins of +4% and + 6% respectively. They’re “weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cell phone-only/landline only/both and cell phone mostly),” and include “interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking.” Not mentioned in the abstract is political party affiliation, although that is tabulated in the detailed data breakdowns.

What’s unclear is how many people had to be called before Gallup found the people willing to submit to its survey, and, importantly, how many are willing to truthfully admit to a stranger that they have a gun, especially if living in a state that threatens gun owners. Also not factored into the poll – and never mentioned when such results are used to influence public policy – is respondent knowledge and qualifications to provide informed answers. That makes using resulting data to “inform” legislation demonstrably irresponsible and dangerous.

Let’s look at the questions.

“In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict or kept as they are now?”

What does that respondent know about laws that already exist at federal, state, and local levels? Has that person considered arguments for and against the laws, including whether or not they will produce the results proponents claim, and if they’re consistent with the Second Amendment and with settled law?

“Do you think there should or should not be a ban on the manufacture, possession and sale of semiautomatic guns, known as assault rifles?”

The flawed question presupposes that “semiautomatic guns” are “assault rifles.” Does the respondent even know what either is? Does he or she know that according to the government’s own statistics, more people are killed with fists and feet than with all rifles, of which semiautos with politically disfavored features are but a fraction?

“Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?”

Yes, some still buy into the “Only Ones” fallacy. One can only wonder at the 20% who answered in the affirmative, and if it’s safe to assume that no amount of warnings about the futility of prohibition at doing anything but incentivizing crime, and the greater danger of a state that has the power to impose this, would make a dent in their “thinking.”

The overwhelming majority rejecting the idea is encouraging, especially considering that banning handguns was the ultimate goal of the modern “gun control” movement. Per Nelson “Pete” Shields, back when Brady was still called Handgun Control, Inc.:

“The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”

“A majority of Americans have an appetite for stricter gun laws in the U.S., and that includes an assault weapons ban — but not a ban on handguns,” Gallup concludes it its “Botton Line,” and even that simple summation is false. Nowhere in the poll is it indicated if all of the respondents are citizens, an issue exemplified by the last census including foreign nationals and affecting the assignment of Congressional districts and the political power shift that arises from that.

“For now, gun policy does not rank highly among the most important problems on Americans’ minds,” the summary concludes, disregarding that the topic won’t show up in polls where such questions aren’t asked, that none measure the intensity of gun owner commitment, and ignoring what the world has just seen in Donald Trump’s landslide electoral victory rejecting the Harris/Walz disarmament agenda.

Democrat prognosticators whose careers are based on “lies, damned lies, and statistics,” are now licking their wounds, making excuses, and doubling down on further alienating Americans who rejected their intolerant identity politics and undisguised lust for control.

While much of this latest poll can be seen as equivalent to one of YouTuber Mark Dice’s comedic Man on the Street interviews highlighting the stunning (conditioned) ignorance of random Americans, it’s nonetheless useful in showing gun owners where we have work to do.

We need to continue our efforts in educating our countrymen on why THEIR right to keep and bear arms is important, and why attempts to infringe on it via political choices, laws, and lawfare threatens them and their children. We can do this as individuals, by sharing information to those within our spheres of influence, and by supporting “gun rights” groups with outreach efforts. And there’s one other thing we can do:

Let politicians who we supported know we expect them to use their bully pulpits to promote the Second Amendment, that it’s not just something to campaign on and then put back on the shelf until next time. And that includes Donald Trump. (I have a Firearms News article coming out soon that expands on that idea and I’ll update this column with a link when it is posted.)

---

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/TiswLBn
via IFTTT

Make Crime Illegal Again

Opinion

iStock

While less prominent than the red sweep of the nation’s electoral map and the triumph of President Donald Trump, another telling development following the 2024 elections was the number of Californians in ultra-progressive strongholds who showed that they had had enough, finally, of the far left’s worse-than-useless criminal justice agenda and the havoc it wreaks on public safety.

In Oakland, California, for example, crime has surged since the COVID-19 pandemic. “Oakland’s overall 2023 crime rate was higher than at any time in the past two decades, … up 65 percent since 2020;” the 2023 violent crime rate was up 33 percent since 2020, and the 2023 property crime rate increased by 74 percent since 2020. Unhappy residents reacted with separate recall petitions to get rid of Oakland’s mayor and the Alameda County District Attorney, Pamela Price, whose district includes Oakland.

The crime spike was a major motivator in the movement to recall Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, described on the city’s website as “one of the Bay Area’s strongest and most effective progressive leaders.” Proponents of the recall claimed that Thao had created a “public safety crisis” by “systematically dismantling the Oakland Police Department, leading to the city’s reputation as one of the most dangerous in America,” “unjust terminat[ed]” police chief LeRonne Armstrong, resulting “in a surge of serious and violent crimes,” admitted to missing the deadline to apply for millions of dollars in state grants to combat retail theft, and “failed to implement Oakland’s Encampment Management Policy, leading to open-air drug markets and chop shops, making Oakland a national leader in stolen cars.”

The same resentment likely fueled the recall of District Attorney Pamela Price, just two years into her term. Shortly after taking office in 2023, Price had implemented new sentencing and case disposition guidelines for prosecutors, pursuant to which the presumptive sentencing offer would be probation for all cases that were probation-eligible; otherwise, the sentencing offer would be the low term. Almost all felonies, including those that were serious or violent, would be probation-eligible.

In short, “[b]arring ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and approval by District Attorney Pamela Price herself, the penalty for most crimes in Alameda County [would] be restricted to probation or the lowest-level prison term.”

Price’s recall, supported by the Alameda County Prosecutors’ Association and all the police unions in the county, was the first ever of a District Attorney to appear on the ballot in Alameda County, while Thao’s removal was historic, too, reportedly being the County’s first successful mayoral recall. The election results currently show overwhelming support, with almost 65% of the electorate sending the progressive duo the message,

“You’re fired!”

Across the bay in San Francisco, Mayor London Breed was voted out of office, defeated by a challenger with no previous political experience but who pledged to “bring accountability back to public safety.” During Breed’s six years in office, San Francisco became a byword for urban decay, with homeless encampments, abandoned storefronts, open-air drug use, and rampant retail theft and other crimes. In a precursor of the electorate’s changing mood, two years ago a sizeable majority of voters approved the recall of the “poster child for the progressive prosecutors’ movement,” San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin.

Significantly, half of the new mayor-elect’s 13-point campaign plan focused on addressing crime in San Francisco – to “get serious about public safety” by increasing police staffing, improve 911 response times, “take action to stop smash and grabs, car break-ins, and retail theft,” “shut down open-air drug markets,” and “prevent crime from happening” through mental health and substance abuse treatment. “It is time to end the perception that lawlessness is an acceptable part of life in San Francisco,” he said, as “criminals must know that they will be caught and there will be consequences.”

Elsewhere in the Golden State, another eminent progressive also failed to hang onto his job. Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón – “one of the most progressive in the nation” – lost his bid for re-election after withstanding two previous attempts to recall him.

Gascón had co-authored California’s controversial Proposition 47, a 2014 ballot measure that, among other things, reclassified certain property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, triggering endemic shoplifting and organized theft crimes. As the L.A. County D.A., Gascón “barred prosecutors in his office from seeking the death penalty and various sentencing enhancements, stopped the prosecution of juveniles as adults and ended cash bail for misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies.” His successful challenger, Nathan Hochman, had campaigned on Gascón’s public safety failures and promised to end his soft-on-crime policies. “George Gascón has miserably failed to protect our residents, leading to a spiral of lawlessness … It’s time to stop playing politics with people’s lives. It’s time we had a DA who fights for victims—not criminals.”

In a broader strike against the radical left’s criminal justice reforms, citizens across the state appalled by the explosion in property and drug crimes overwhelmingly supported the passage of Proposition 36. This ballot measure would undo, in part, Proposition 47’s changes by increasing penalties for criminals who repeatedly engage in theft, and adding new laws to address “smash and grab” thefts that result in significant losses and damage or that are committed by organized theft gangs. It would add fentanyl to the existing laws that prohibit the possession of hard drugs while armed with a loaded firearm, and allow judges to sentence drug dealers to state prison instead of county jail in some cases.

Although Proposition 36 was supported by the California District Attorneys Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Republican Party, and major retailers like Target, Walmart, and Home Depot, it was opposed by the California Democratic Party and Governor Gavin Newsom. Regardless, the latest results show that millions of California’s voters supported the measure as well, with just a hair short of 70% ticking “yes” to Proposition 36 and the hope of safer communities.

The downfall of so many prominent anti-gun progressives signals a long-overdue day of reckoning over their disastrous, revisionist criminal justice experiment, marked by undermined law enforcement, lenient prosecution, reduced or no consequences for criminal behavior, and the escalating victimization of honest citizens. It is likely too soon to expect a similar enlightenment to occur with respect to the state’s gun laws, but it is a welcome indicator of what happens when residents demand public safety, political accountability, and law and order.

---

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/jxzUdb5
via IFTTT

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

The Iowa Supreme Court has upheld a state law restricting gun rights for individuals who were involuntarily committed for mental health treatment, marking a significant test of the state’s recently passed constitutional amendment protecting gun rights. In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that Iowa Code section 724.31, which outlines a process for restoring firearm rights, does not violate the strict scrutiny standard imposed by the 2022 amendment.

At the center of the case was “N.S.,” a man denied a concealed carry permit due to a 2006 mental health commitment.

As a teenager, N.S. was committed after family members reported threats to harm himself and others. Diagnosed with bipolar disorder and substance abuse issues, N.S. later sought to have his firearm rights restored under the state’s restoration process, which requires proving that the petitioner is no longer a threat to public safety.

The court ruled that the law serves a “compelling state interest” in preventing gun violence and suicides and is “narrowly tailored” to achieve that goal. Justice Thomas Waterman, writing for the majority, emphasized that the process allows individuals to petition every two years to regain their rights, ensuring the restrictions are not permanent for those who can demonstrate they are no longer a danger.

Opponents, including Justice Matthew McDermott in a dissent joined by two other justices, argued that the restoration process unfairly places the burden of proof on the petitioner rather than the state. McDermott contended that strict scrutiny requires the government to justify the restriction, not for the individual to prove their suitability.

Gun rights advocates had hoped the constitutional amendment, which demands the highest level of judicial review for gun laws, would lead to fewer restrictions. However, this decision underscores that even under strict scrutiny, courts may uphold measures aimed at public safety.

The ruling highlights ongoing tensions between individual rights and public safety in gun law debates. The Iowa Firearms Coalition noted that while it supports the restoration process, it will continue advocating for policies that reduce barriers for law-abiding gun owners.

For now, the court’s decision reinforces Iowa’s ability to regulate firearms for individuals with significant mental health histories.

from https://ift.tt/2M6knAe
via IFTTT

Nancy Pelosi Admits: Pro-Gun Voters Made an Impact

Opinion

Nancy Pelosi Video thumbnail for youtube video o9fsk2ar594

Congratulations NRA members and other pro-gun voters! Once again, our votes helped make the difference.

Don’t just take our word for it. Following President Donald Trump’s resounding victory, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) whined about gun rights voters to the New York Times.

In an interview with Times reporter Lulu Garcia-Navarro, Pelosi stated that cultural issues played an important role in the 2024 election. Garcia-Navarro asked the former House Speaker, “why did voters who earned less than $100,000 go for Trump in such large numbers?” Pelosi responded in part, “Well, there are cultural issues involved in elections as well… Guns, that’s an issue.”

Pelosi’s forthright acknowledgement of the gun vote is welcome public recognition of the powerful role gun owners play in American politics. However, astute observers of the 2024 presidential campaign will have seen earlier signs of this reality.

Try as they might, the Kamala Harris campaign couldn’t run far enough fast enough from the candidate’s decades-long anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment record. The Harris campaign claimed Harris no longer supported the type of firearm confiscation she repeatedly advocated in 2019. The handgun ban supporter touted how she supposedly owns a Glock pistol and how she would use it against a home invader.

The Harris campaign attempted to cast her anti-gun running mate, Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), as some sort of gun-toting Midwestern everyman. The vice presidential candidate took to a Minnesota field in an ill-fated hunting photo-op. And of course there were the dopey Harris-Walz camouflage hats.

Gun owners can add Pelosi’s comments to the long list of prominent acknowledgements of pro-gun political power in presidential elections.

In 2017, twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton released her book, “What Happened,” about the 2016 presidential election.

Clinton repeatedly acknowledged NRA’s influence on the 2016 election and the broad political landscape.

Pointing out the grassroots power of gun rights supporters, Clinton explained, “The politics of guns has been toxic for a long time… The vocal minority of voters against gun safety laws have historically been more organized, better funded, and more willing to be single-issue voters.”

Recounting her first policy speech of the 2016 campaign, where she attacked NRA, Clinton admitted, “Going after the NRA is dangerous for candidates…”

Discussing NRA’s contribution to her defeat, Clinton noted,

As for the NRA, it kept its promise to do everything it could to stop me. All told, the gun lobby spent more than $30 million supporting Trump, more money than any other outside group and more than double what it spent to support Mitt Romney in 2012. About two-thirds of that money paid for more than ten thousand negative ads attacking me in battleground states.

Following the 2000 presidential election, President Bill Clinton spoke with CBS News’ Dan Rather about Vice President Al Gore’s loss. Rather asked Clinton, “Do you agree or disagree that some of your failures — policy as well as personal failures in the White House — had an impact on Al Gore’s losing?” The president replied in part, “I don’t think there is — I don’t know if you’d call this a policy failure, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that, in at least five states I can think of, the NRA had a decisive influence…”

Later in the interview, Clinton described NRA as “an effective adversary” and said, “you’ve got to give it to them, they’ve done a good job. They’ve probably had more to do than anyone else in the fact we didn’t win the House this time. And they hurt Al Gore.”

Through the decades, gun owners have made clear that they are a force to be reckoned with. By continuing to organize, and demonstrating the power of the pro-gun vote at the ballot box, NRA members and other gun owners can preserve our Second Amendment rights for years to come.

---

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/l9aR17N
via IFTTT

Lawsuit Drops on New York to Strike Down Ban on Firearm Carry by Non-Residents

iStock Jonathan Barbour

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it has filed a new federal lawsuit challenging New York’s ban on firearm carry by residents of other states. The complaint in Shaffer v. Quattrone can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/shaffer.

Shaffer v. Quattrone Background:

The lawsuit, brought by several Pennsylvania residents and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), targets provisions of New York’s firearm licensing laws that exclude non-residents from obtaining permits to carry or possess firearms. This despite changes to New York’s laws following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen—which affirmed the right to carry firearms for self-defense publicly—the state retained residency requirements in its licensing framework. These restrictions prevent non-residents from applying for permits unless they have a principal place of employment in New York.

The plaintiffs argue that this “Non-Resident Ban” violates their rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution. They contend that law-abiding citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when crossing state lines and that New York’s policy unjustly discriminates against non-residents seeking to exercise their right to self-defense.

The case argues the broader legal question of whether states can impose residency-based restrictions on constitutionally protected rights like the right to bear arms. The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the residency requirement is unconstitutional and an injunction preventing its enforcement.

“Citizens do not lose protection of their rights under the First Amendment’s speech or religion clauses when they cross state lines,” states the complaint. “Nor do they lose their protections under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Likewise, they do not surrender their Second Amendment protected rights when they travel outside their home state.”

“We will continue to teach Governor Hochul that the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t end at New York’s borders,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We look forward to ending New York’s immoral ban on carry by non-residents and allowing millions of peaceable people to exercise their rights as they visit the Empire State.”

The Shaffer case is part of FPC’s high-impact strategic litigation program, FPC Law, aimed at eliminating immoral laws and creating a world of maximal liberty. FPC is joined in the litigation by four FPC members. FPC thanks FPC Action Foundation for its strategic support of this FPC Law case.

New York’s Body Armor Ban Challenged in Court

---

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit membership organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. We work to achieve our strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs. Our FPC Law program (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s preeminent legal action initiative focused on restoring the right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States. Individuals who want to support FPC’s work to eliminate unconstitutional laws can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org or make a donation at firearmspolicy.org/donate. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, X (Twitter), Facebook, and YouTube.

from https://ift.tt/XCmDM3E
via IFTTT

Manhattan Stabbing Spree Leaves 3 Dead, Highlights Hypocrisy of Gun Control

Ramon Rivera charged with three counts of murder.

In a horrifying series of events, a knife-wielding attacker went on a stabbing spree in Manhattan on Monday morning, leaving three people dead in what police have described as unprovoked assaults.

The suspect, 51-year-old Ramon Rivera, a homeless man with a history of mental health issues and eight prior arrests, has been charged with three counts of first-degree murder.

Timeline of Tragedy

The spree began at 8:22 a.m. on West 19th Street, where 36-year-old construction worker Angel Lata Landi was fatally stabbed in the abdomen as he worked near a construction site. About two hours later, Rivera struck again, attacking a 68-year-old man fishing near East 30th Street. The third and final victim, 36-year-old Wilma Augustin, was attacked just 25 minutes later near the United Nations. She suffered multiple stab wounds to her chest and arm and succumbed to her injuries at New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center.

Surveillance footage captured Rivera preparing for the attacks, donning gloves and wielding two bloody kitchen knives recovered upon his arrest. Witnesses describe him as a familiar face in the area, often shouting at passersby. The NYPD confirmed that no words or property exchanges preceded the attacks, underscoring their randomness.

Questions of Accountability

Mayor Eric Adams and NYPD officials expressed frustration over systemic failures that allowed Rivera, with a documented history of mental illness and violent tendencies, to remain on the streets.

“There’s a real question as to why he was still on the street,” Adams said, echoing the sentiments of many New Yorkers.

Rivera’s criminal history includes seven felony charges, a recent shoplifting case, and time served for burglary and attempted assault. Despite his history, he was released from custody just last month, a decision that has raised serious concerns about the city’s approach to public safety and mental health intervention.

The Deafening Silence of Gun Control Groups

In a city notorious for its restrictive gun laws and foot-dragging in response to carry permit requests, this deadly rampage underscores the grim reality that violence isn’t exclusive to firearms. Gun control advocates, typically quick to exploit high-profile crimes involving guns, have remained conspicuously silent on this case. Groups that advocate for measures like “assault weapon” bans and tougher firearm restrictions often ignore crimes involving other deadly weapons, a point critics have highlighted as hypocritical.

Pro-Second Amendment advocates argue that focusing solely on guns misses the larger issue of addressing mental health and enforcing laws against violent offenders. They contend that lawful gun owners are unfairly targeted while systemic failures—like those that allowed Rivera to remain free—continue unaddressed.

Policy Failures & Public Safety

The tragedy also casts a harsh light on New York’s criminal justice system. While law-abiding citizens face immense hurdles to exercising their right to self-defense, offenders like Rivera move through the system largely unchecked. With the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision demanding reforms to concealed carry laws, New York officials doubled down on gun restrictions, leaving many questioning whether their priorities truly align with public safety.

The Irony of Disarmament

If Rivera had used a firearm, the response from gun control groups would have been swift and predictable, likely calling for further erosion of Second Amendment rights. But in this case, their silence speaks volumes. The focus on disarming citizens instead of addressing root causes like mental health or repeat offenders reveals a glaring inconsistency in their narrative.

This tragedy is a blatant reminder that violence knows no bounds—and that protecting innocent lives requires confronting the failures of a system that allowed this to happen, not punishing those who respect the law.

For New Yorkers and Americans alike, it raises a pressing question: When will the focus shift from demonizing tools to addressing the real causes of violence?

Thug Life in NYC Is Looking Up, the Rest of Us Can Hurry Up & Wait

New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ “Blueprint To End Gun Violence” Is A Hoax

 

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