Attending Seminars and Workshops at NRA Annual Meeting 2025

Major John L. Plaster discusses use of suppressed firearms during SOG operations

The seminars and workshops offered at the NRA Annual Meetings are an often overlooked and valuable resource.  The seminars and workshops are held in smaller spaces in the same venue as the annual meeting. The seminars and workshops are usually held in meeting rooms. The rooms typically hold a couple of hundred people. They fill up at popular times and have plenty of extra space when people are leaving the event.

This correspondent attended a seminar conducted by Major John L. Plaster, the well-known author and expert on Vietnam and the SOG secret wars in Laos and Cambodia. Behind Enemy Lines: The Men and Guns of SOG, by Major Plaster, was offered only once.

 

The level of expertise was world-class. The seminar lasted two hours and was free to NRA Meeting attendees.  This correspondent learned a great deal about the scope of the conflict, the techniques and tactics used, in the two hours than from years of occasional contact with veterans. Considerable misinformation that was widely spread by the old media was dispelled.

More than two dozen seminars and workshops were available during the NRA Annual Meeting over a three-day period. Many of the seminars were offered several times during the three days of the event. Here are a few of the offerings that were available:

• The 26TH NATIONAL  FIREARMS LAW SEMINAR
• ARMED CITIZEN: HOW TO INTERACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
• GUNS OF IWO JIMA
• RELOAD LIKE A CHAMPION

There were over twenty others. Noted researcher and author John Lott gave several seminars over the three days. These seminars offer rare opportunities to interact with top authorities in their field, such as John Lott and Major Plaster. The seminars offer information and insights nearly impossible to obtain elsewhere. Most of the 70,000-plus attendees ignore the free seminars and workshops. In this correspondent’s experience, this is a mistake.

The seminars and workshops were all listed at the NRA Annual Meeting website.  They were all listed in the printed program and were available to attendees when they registered.

It is impossible for one person to attend all the incredible content available. There is top-of-the-line content available for a wide variety of interests. This correspondent suggests attendees look over what is available and prioritize what is most important to them. During the three days of the Annual Meeting, this correspondent was able to attend most of the three seminars.

This correspondent would like to see all of these seminars recorded and posted online by the NRA. It is a shame to see the exposure limited to the few hundred people who may see it during the event. There are serious issues about copyright and content that would have to be worked out.  The technology is there. Perhaps, it could be done on a voluntary basis by the people giving the seminars.  These seminars offer world-class information that deserves a wider audience.

Most of the struggle to restore the rights protected by the Second Amendment, indeed, most of the struggle to retain and keep our constitutional republic, is a struggle over information. As more people are exposed to more and better information, more winning will happen.

---

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/9nEph6z
via IFTTT

Israeli Nat’l Security Minister Gets It Right About Self-Defense

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has it right on firearms and self-defense. (Dave Workman)

OPINION: Buried several paragraphs into a Fox News story about Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir headlined “Controversial Israeli official says his country can learn from America’s gun laws,” is a quote suggesting anti-gun Democrats in this country could learn something from him.

“We need to allow as many citizens as possible to be armed. It gives people a sense of security—when someone has a weapon in their pocket, they feel safer,” the far-right Ben-Gvir told Fox News Digital.

Ben-Gvir recently visited the U.S. and reportedly stopped at a gun store and shooting range. A settler in the West Bank, Fox News said he has been a longtime advocate “for wider distribution of firearms in Israel.” This became especially keen in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack.

However, the controversial Israeli politician could use a little research on our Second Amendment. According to Fox News, he observed, “I believe we need to learn from the Americans. One of the important lessons is their policy on weapons…I’m not sure I would distribute arms to the same extent, but I definitely believe in expanding access because citizens have the right to defend themselves.”

Our “policy on weapons” is pretty simple: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s right there in the Second Amendment, which anti-gun Democrats and even some Republicans have been trying to erode for decades.

More than 40 state constitutions also contain right-to-bear-arms provisions, which organizations including the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, have been defending, even while the attorneys general in some states have not.

According to a biography of Ben-Gvir published by Wikipedia, he was born in May 1976 and his political background “lies in Kahanism – a…movement that supports the expulsion of Palestinians from their lands.” His alleged personal politics notwithstanding, Ben-Gvir appears to have it right about self-defense, and he evidently understands how important firearms are to that principle, especially in his particular part of the world.

This isn’t the first time Fox News has focused on how people of Jewish heritage have taken up gun ownership. Back in 2023, following the Hamas attack, the network put a spotlight on Rabbi Yossi Eilfort in Los Angeles, California. At the time, he was appearing in an NRA-produced video discussing the mission of a group he founded called Magen Am USA, described as “the only Jewish, nonprofit organization licensed on the West Coast to provide armed security services.”

The story related how, in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 attack, here in the U.S., protests were “sparked” and there was a noticeable increase in “antisemitic rhetoric… as pro-Palestinian supporters took to the streets of cities such as New York and Los Angeles.” 

In that report, Fox News Digital “spoke with the owner of Beverly Hills Guns, Russell Stuart, who has known Eilfort for years and said there has been an explosion of California Jews rushing to purchase firearms for self-defense as the war in Israel continues and instances of antisemitism increase stateside.”

Stuart said at the time there had been a sharp increase in gun sales, and he had heard fears from people about a “second Holocaust.”

While there is no Second Amendment in Israel—or anywhere else outside the United States, for that matter—this unique feature in the U.S. Constitution, while constantly under assault from anti-gunners, invariably becomes the “fallback” for people who suddenly realize their personal safety is really in their own hands. We may not have Hamas attacks in this country, but common American criminals don’t play favorites. They do not make appointments, and they’re not concerned about who they hurt.

All of this underscores the importance of the Trump administration’s heightened interest in protecting Second Amendment rights. During the past month, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s launch of the Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force raised a lot of eyebrows.

Then Assistant A.G. Harmeet Dhillon told conservative commentator Glenn Beck she will direct the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division to pursue Second Amendment protection.

CCRKBA’s late April launch of an online petition, allowing gun owners across the country to call on Bondi to turn her new 2A Task Force loose on 12 specific states where restrictive gun control policies have dramatically impaired Second Amendment and state constitutional gun rights has added to the momentum. The petition is still open for signing.

Itamar Ben-Gvir may have a far different outlook on Mideast politics than most Americans, but he lives in the middle of a war zone, where bloodshed seems more a matter of “when” rather than “if.” His perspective has been shaped by the environment in which he lives. His recognition that an armed citizen has a far better chance of fighting back and surviving, rather than being taken hostage and maybe not surviving, if they have the right tools—guns and the right to own them—makes a lot of sense, whether one lives in Jerusalem or Jersey City.

Trump DOJ Stuns Nation: Sides with Gun Owners in Supreme Court 2A Showdown

Media Bashes Dhillon, Ignores Her Civil Rights Div. 2A Focus

---

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/3Yn6Np9
via IFTTT

House Bill Aims to Shield Tenants’ Gun Rights in Federally Funded Housing

Under H.R. 2930, property managers receiving federal dollars would be barred from banning firearms, offering new Second Amendment protections.

A proposed law in Congress would make it illegal for landlords to deny tenants the right to keep and bear arms in their homes if the property receives federal funding.

On April 17, 2025, Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-IA) reintroduced the “Preserving Rights of Tenants by Ensuring Compliance to the Second Amendment Act” (PROTECT the Second Amendment Act), designated as H.R. 2930.

This legislation aims to prevent landlords and property managers operating federally assisted rental housing from restricting tenants’ lawful possession of firearms within their residences or common areas.

Feenstra’s bill explicitly states that no landlord or property manager receiving federal financial assistance may implement lease agreements or policies that ban the lawful possession, transportation, or storage of firearms by tenants,  provided that the firearms are being carried or transported while the resident is entering or exiting their home.

The legislation defines “covered federally assisted rental housing” as properties supported by federal programs managed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Agriculture. These include public housing, Section 8 rental assistance, the HOME Investment Partnerships program, the Housing Trust Fund, and supportive housing for persons with disabilities.

Additionally, it covers housing programs for Native Americans, natives of Hawaii, and rural rental housing. By covering these wide array of programs, the legislation ensures that Second Amendment rights are respected for a broad spectrum of residents nationwide that use federally-funded housing.

As long as a resident is legally permitted to own a firearm, their housing status cannot be used to limit this right. To ensure compliance, the bill requires housing providers that receive federal funding to align their policies with these new protections. If enacted, housing agencies will need to review and revise their regulations to allow for the lawful possession of firearms by tenants, ensuring that federal funds are not used to infringe on tenants’ right to bear arms.

Feenstra’s bill received strong backing from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and several Republican lawmakers. “The right of law-abiding Americans to keep firearms in their homes for self-defense has been a fundamental freedom since our nation’s founding and has been reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court,” declared John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “No one should be forced to give up this right, especially when a landlord or property manager is receiving federal tax dollars. The NRA applauds Representative Feenstra for introducing this important legislation that protects the right to keep and bear arms.”

The Iowa congressman said the following about his legislation:

The right of Iowans to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution and shall not be infringed. These constitutional protections must be strongly defended and certainly do not cease to exist for gun owners living in rental properties. My PROTECT the Second Amendment Act ensures that landlords or rental property managers who receive federal financial assistance at taxpayer expense cannot unlawfully restrict Americans from exercising their constitutional rights. As a strong advocate of the Second amendment, I will always defend the right of Iowans to keep and bear arms and support law-abiding gun owners.

Thus far, H.R. 2930 has nine co-sponsors in the United States House, with outspoken national populist Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) being one of its most prominent backers.

If passed, H.R. 2930 could have far-reaching implications for millions of Americans living in federally funded rental properties and open the door for further expansions of gun rights in other federally-funded institutions.

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

from https://ift.tt/FoCq2Zv
via IFTTT

Who is Responsible for the Illegal Gun Registry in Florida?

Gun Control in Florida Costs Lives, iStock-884197090

The search is on to find the person responsible for creating an illegal firearm registry in the city of Jacksonville, Florida.

Since July 2023, it has been legal to carry concealed in government buildings in the State of Florida. The same month that the law took effect, Mayor Donna Deegan took office in the city of Jacksonville. Council member Nick Howland has said publicly that although the state restricts localities from prohibiting the carrying of firearms in government buildings, the same month Deegan took office, private security guards started compiling a list of all those who enter the Jacksonville City Hall with firearms.

Howland says he has confirmed the list with the office of General Council and now an investigation by the state attorney’s office has been opened to look further into the matter. If true, this is obviously a clear violation of state law and constitutional rights.

Howland said those entering with firearms were asked to give their first name, last name, and other contact information along with the type of firearm they were carrying concealed.

“In those notebooks, for two years that information has been gathered. Florida is a no-registry State. So that is a clear violation of state law,” Howland said.

Upon being confronted about this alleged violation of state rights and the investigation, a spokesperson for the city of Jacksonville said, “Out of respect and in full cooperation with their review, we won’t be commenting further at this time.”

Attorney General James Uthmeier said in an X post, “If true, this is a serious breach of Florida law by the City of Jacksonville.”

If true, this is a serious breach of Florida law by the City of Jacksonville.

Government gun registries are antithetical to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. My office is looking into this allegation, and we will be in contact with local officials to ensure those… https://t.co/pZlPdj54Ix

— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) May 1, 2025

The Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records clearly states, “A state governmental agency or local government, special district, or other political subdivision or official, agent, or employee of the state or other governmental entity or any other person, public or private, may not knowingly and willfully keep or cause to be kept any list, record, or registry of privately owned firearms or any list, record, or registry of the owners of those firearms.”

The violation of this law is a 3rd degree felony, and the investigation will likely uncover the person or persons who directed private security to compile this alleged list of gun owners and their firearms. Punishment for this crime could bring up to a $5 million penalty, and the Attorney General may bring a civil cause of action to enforce the fines.

According to Howland, the city of Jacksonville has retained counsel for this matter. If it is found that a private individual directed this egregious violation, public funds will not be available to that person for their defense in this case. It appears that the individual responsible for this illegal policy will be responsible for their own legal fees.

Could this lawsuit be a precursor to investigations of other states violating the privacy of gun owners with policies like state ammunition background check registries, and other compiled lists of gun owners and their personal information?

---

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

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

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

Dan Wos

from https://ift.tt/6qD84pA
via IFTTT

‘Study’ on School Shooters Really an Innuendo-Based Hit Piece on Gun Owners

We can take steps to discourage and stop school shooters or we can listen to junk “science” that blames the people who can. iStock-490657417

“Most school shooters grew up with guns as key part of social life, study suggests,” Phys.org claimed on MSN. “A new analysis of school shootings in the U.S. suggests that most shooters had a social background in which guns were a key leisure item, with attached meanings of bonding and affection, which also translated into easy access to firearms.”

That certainly sounds like the study’s author, sociologist Anne Nassauer of the University of Erfurt, believes she’s exploring a new area of inquiry that can yield valuable insights in understanding school shootings, which will be necessary knowledge if society ever hopes to effectively deter them.

Too bad she starts her “Abstract” with a false assertion that absolves us of any responsibility to take the rest of what she says seriously:

“Firearms are the leading cause of death for minors in the United States and US gun culture is often discussed as a reason behind the prevalence of school shootings.”

“The first question is: What is a child?” economist, author, and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center,  John Lott writes, noting:

Guns Are Not the Leading Cause of Children’s Deaths…The bottom line is that about a third of the firearm deaths for those under 20 involve homicide, where the victims are 18 and 19 years old. Approximately 20% involve homicides for 15, 16, and 17-year-olds. These deaths are largely gang-related, and even banning guns is unlikely to stop drug gangs from obtaining guns to protect their extremely valuable drugs.

It’s not just “What is a child?” As the National Association for Gun Rights demonstrates, it’s also appropriate to ask, “What is a school shooting?”

“Not only are they fluffing up those numbers, but they also use NDs to make the claim that there were 349 school shootings in 2023. Friend of NAGR Brandon Herrera did a great job dismantling this argument when he testified alongside us against the Colorado ‘assault weapons’ ban and was asked why ‘the United States has had 57 times as many school shootings as every other G7 country,’ answering  ‘Because of the way you track your statistics. That statistic is a sham. I’ve seen it a negligent discharge in a parking lot that injures nobody is counted as a school shooting.’”

As for Nassauer’s assertion that “US gun culture is often discussed as a reason behind the prevalence of school shootings,” left unaddressed is who is “often discussing it,” and the answer, of course, is those with vested interests in poisoning the well, the gun prohibitionist lobby, Democrat politicians, and the anti-gun media.

Look at how far into this review we are, and we’re just getting done addressing her opening sentence. What about the rest of this “study”?

I’ll stipulate that I’m going to keep things at surface level and let qualified statistical analysts address her methodologies and conclusions, except to note that she really presents none of the latter. You’ll note after it’s all said and done, the strongest statement of validation those promulgating this paper can make is “study suggests…”

Nassauer can suggest a lot of things, and does, with the hyperbolic title to her exercise in innuendo, “The only friend I had was my gun.” That worked—it was, if nothing else, brilliant SEO, as a quick look at Google search results shows that’s the talking point everybody is parroting.

“For some shooters, firearms were their ‘only friend’, the ‘love of [their] life’, or their ‘whole life’,” she writes, cherry-picking a handful of damning anecdotes to apply to the whole. “For others they were ‘therapeutic’, or the only topic that got an otherwise quiet and asocial shooter to passionately engage in a conversation.”

Who talks like that except confused and angry nutcases?

This just feeds another narrative being put forth by such “studies.” See for yourself with some titles designed to “inform” the debate that are being promoted over at Academia.edu:

• Mass Shootings and Misogyny: Broken Males are Pulling the Trigger
• A Conversation between Jackson Katz and Douglas Kellner on Guns, Masculinities, and School Shootings
• Mass Shootings and Masculinity
• GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS: Hegemonic Masculinity and Concealed Handguns
• Sexed Pistols: The Gendered Impacts of Prolific Small Arms

Need I go on? Because I could.

These are fodder allowing leftist  trolls (that is, narcissists, psychopaths and sadists) to perpetuate  agitator Saul Alinsky’s Rule 5 ridicule  with ad hominem logical fallacies like calling gun owners “ammosexuals,” and repeating inadequate “penis” insults (whjile believing themselves to be both witty and original).

We’re supposed be influenced by a statistically insignificant sample of losers and apply that judgment to young people, such as those involved in NRA Youth Interests programs, who are as “law-abiding” as their member parents, arguably the most heavily-armed and peaceable population on the planet…?

News flash: Americans own guns. A lot of guns. And that includes people from all backgrounds (even ones who vote stupidly). Most of us have “a social background” dealing with guns and, aside from some violent criminal outliers that no amount of citizen disarmament will ever contain, we’re not the ones who need to be controlled.

Tarring all with that brush ignores what  the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, had to say back in 1994 about boys who lawfully own guns with the approval of responsible parents:

“Boys who own legal firearms, however, have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns… The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal gunowners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gunowners, socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gunowners, it appears to take place “on the street.””

Conspicuously absent from the “gun cuilture” finger-pointing is what other factors might have more of an effect, such as effects of psychotropic drugs, or gender dysphoria, and the all-around K-12 mind f–ng by Democrat teachers and administrators bullying collectivist nonsense, hoplophobia, and racial/sexual self-loathing into young, vulnerable minds. Also absent from the discussion is the observable phenomenon that school shootings take place in “gun-free zones,” where armed authorities don‘t show up until after the body count has started racking up, and then all too often hesitate and delay before engaging and stopping the attacker. And it’s an inconvenient truth for those who ridicule arming teachers that there have been no mass shootings at schools where politicians have gotten out of the way and Faculty/Administrator Safety Training & Emergency Response (FASTER) programs are in effect.

Instead, we see “More insights are needed whether those who contemplate committing a shooting but do not have easy access to firearms decide against a shooting, or if easy access gives shooters the idea to commit a shooting.”

Right. Because without being able to come right out and prove it, with the right amount of innuendo masked as research and with media complicity masked as “news,” the low-information segment of the public can be led to a conclusion the “scientists” can’t back up, even though it’s their central thesis: It’s the guns.

Here’s another news flash, one that shouldn’t have to be pointed out to “researchers” about yet another logical fallacy: Correlation is not causation.

---

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/f0ulzdb
via IFTTT

Congress Moves to Protect Veterans’ Gun Rights from VA’s Automatic Gun Bans

Soldier Celebrating Victory Armed Forces American Flag AdobeStock_Tomasz Zajda 111122294

A decades-old United States Department of Veterans Affairs policy is under fire for stripping veterans of their right to own firearms without due process, sparking a bipartisan legislative response.

The VA fiduciary program was established to assist veterans who, due to physical or mental health conditions, are deemed unable to manage their VA benefits independently. 

A fiduciary — often a family member or trusted individual— is appointed to oversee the veteran’s finances, ensuring bills are paid and benefits are used appropriately. However, since 1993, the VA has interpreted federal law to require reporting these veterans to NICS under the category of “adjudicated as a mental defective,” a classification that triggers an automatic firearm prohibition.  

Critics argue that this practice violates veterans’ due process and Second Amendment rights. Unlike civilians, who typically lose firearm privileges only after a judicial determination of danger to themselves or others, veterans lose these rights administratively, without a court hearing or medical evaluation. Jim Whaley, CEO of Mission Roll Call, emphasizes that this creates a “stigma” that discourages veterans from seeking mental health care or financial assistance, fearing loss of their constitutional rights.  

In response to this VA policy, lawmakers in both chambers of Congress have introduced bills to protect the civil liberties of veterans. The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act has a bill in the House (H.R. 1041) and a companion bill in the Senate (S. 478). The bill is sponsored by Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL) and Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), respectively. 

The legislation aims to do the following: 

1. Prohibit Automatic NICS Reporting: Bars the VA from sending veterans’ names to NICS solely due to fiduciary assignment.  
2. Require Judicial Determination: Mandate that firearm restrictions apply only if a court or judicial authority finds the veteran dangerous.  

H.R. 1041, introduced on February 6, 2025, has garnered over 60 Republican co-sponsors, including House Veterans’ Affairs Committee members Morgan Luttrell (R-TX) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA). Its Senate counterpart, S. 478, introduced shortly thereafter, has 18 co-sponsors, with Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, among its key supporters. 

Both bills were introduced following a February 25 hearing where Chairman Bost highlighted the need to codify due process protections: “Veterans should never be forced to choose between receiving VA assistance and their fundamental rights.” 

By linking firearm restrictions to judicial findings as opposed to administrative decisions, the bills aim to harmonize veterans’ rights with those of civilians. Rep. Bost underscored that this adjustment is not about expanding gun access but correcting a procedural injustice. 

No compromise gun organizations have largely celebrated the introduction of this legislation. 

“The National Association for Gun Rights fully supports the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act because no bureaucrat should have the power to strip a veteran of their gun rights without due process. The VA has no business sending names to the NICS list without a court ruling, and this bill stops that blatant infringement. Our veterans fought for our freedoms—it’s disgraceful that they must fight their own government to keep theirs. We commend Senators Kennedy and Moran, along with Chairman Bost, for taking action to end this unconstitutional abuse,” declared Hunter King, the Director of Political Affairs for The National Association for Gun Rights.

“Gun Owners of America is thankful to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs for its focus on the lost gun rights of a quarter of a million veterans. GOA proudly supported the provision in Public Law 118-42 blocking the VA from disarming veterans and we hope to see this provision made permanent law through H.R. 472, the Veterans’ 2nd Amendment Protection Act, and to have all veterans’ lost gun rights restored in full,” said Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs, Gun Owners of America (GOA). “Veterans who have risked life and limb and now suffer from the psychological consequences related to their service should receive the best mental health care our nation has to offer. But VA gun control measures, such as this “fiduciary rule” to arbitrarily report veterans to the NICS database, pose major barriers to care for gun owning veterans who may need life-saving mental health treatment.”

As lawmakers move toward reform, the hope is that no veteran will ever again be stripped of their rights for simply asking for a helping hand.

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

from https://ift.tt/x3y6WQY
via IFTTT

Colorado: Gov. Jared Polis & Democrats’ Newest Gun Law is a Constitutional Disaster

Opinion

iStock-MariuszBlach

Colorado’s controversial new law, Assault Weapons Ban SB25-003, is sparking significant concern among pro-Second Amendment advocates. Signed into law by Governor Jared Polis in April and set to take effect on August 1, 2026, the legislation imposes extensive new restrictions on the purchase, sale, and ownership of various semiautomatic firearms.

SB25-003 prohibits commercial sales of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns equipped with detachable magazines and gas-operated handguns that accept detachable magazines. Firearms exempted include .22 caliber rimfire rifles with tubular magazines and bolt—or lever-action rifles, which are seen as posing lower safety risks.

Under the law, individuals who wish to purchase these restricted firearms must navigate a complex new “permission” process.

Requirements include completing a state-approved firearm safety course [which doesn’t exist yet], passing an extensive background check, and receiving approval from local sheriffs. Sheriffs can deny permits based on totally subjective assessments of applicants, though denied individuals have the option to appeal.

Jon Kelly, chairman of the Pitkin County Republicans, strongly opposes the law. “It’s insane,” Kelly stated. “This essentially bans almost all semiautomatic firearms, putting heavy burdens on responsible gun owners who now face recurring training mandates and increased government oversight.”

Jonathan Melnick, owner of Basalt Firearms, questioned the bill’s effectiveness, criticizing it as an emotional rather than logical response to tragedies such as the Aurora theater shooting. “Would banning SUVs stop incidents of drivers attacking pedestrians?” he remarked, emphasizing the failure of the bill to address the root causes of violence.

Additionally, concerning to gun owners, is the creation of a government-controlled registry via the permitting system, raising fears of future misuse or confiscation efforts.

Paying To Ban Yourself

Funding for this restrictive program controversially comes from Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Outdoor Parks and Recreation Fund, supported by hunting licenses, fishing permits, and state park fees. Critics highlight this as an irony, stating that Colorado sportsmen’s own contributions will finance their disarmament.

State Rep. Elizabeth Velasco (D-Glenwood Springs) defended the bill, framing it as necessary for public safety, but emphasized that it does not apply retroactively. Individuals who currently own restricted firearms are permitted to retain them, but future sales or transfers face stringent limitations.

Despite assurances, Second Amendment supporters argue this law infringes on constitutional rights established in landmark Supreme Court rulings such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). Advocacy groups are preparing for legal battles to challenge the law’s constitutionality, and political repercussions are expected to surface in upcoming elections.

“The passage of this bill won’t prevent mass shootings,” noted Lesley Hollywood, a gun rights advocate. It merely burdens law-abiding citizens without addressing real problems.

With significant pushback from Colorado’s rural communities and responsible gun owners, SB25-003’s future remains uncertain, pending legal challenges and potential voter backlash in 2026.

Colorado’s Assault Weapons Ban: Controversial SB25-003 Heads to Governor’s Desk

c

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

Democrat Arrested in Child Sex Sting Who Called for Trump to Be Shot Was a ‘Gun Sense Voter’ Candidate

Use the Second Amendment to assasinate Trump? That’s quite the “gun sense” Democrat! (Muscogee County Sheriff’s Office)

“Georgia Former Democrat … Candidate Who Called for Trump’s Assassination ARRESTED in Multi-State Child Sex Trafficking Sting,” Gateway Pundit reported Thursday. “Carl Sprayberry — a former Democrat candidate for Georgia’s 139th House District … called for the assassination of President Donald Trump in a social media post…”

What’s curious is how he justified his call for lethal insurrectionary violence.

“Donald Trump has committed an act of High Treason. Should Congress refuse to take action, he will be killed by the people, as per the Second Amendment’s existence,” he advocated in a post on X. “It’s time to kill him. This moment is why the Second Amendment exist,” he declared in another.”

A search for more quotes produced scant results because his Facebook shows “content isn’t available” and his Twitter/X account shows “Account suspended – X suspends accounts which violate the X Rules.” Exploring for more yielded a (relevant to this discussion) reply to a Canadian leftist:

“Bomb Mar-a-Lago”

Keep in mind that Donald Trump is an avatar for his supporters, and the level of hateful savagery some display is ISIS-level. Such people don’t want our guns for “public safety,” but for their own, so they can do whatever they want.

So, what we have is a wannabe politician caught up in a child sex trafficking scheme who ardently advocates for politically motivated murder and uses the Second Amendment to justify bloodthirsty lawlessness. That he’s a Democrat, the party with citizen disarmament baked into its platform, makes his homicidal rantings insanely hypocritical enough.

But wait, as the infomercial urges, there’s more!

From “Meet Carl Sprayberry”  on his (not yet deleted) campaign website:

Carl is the only candidate in the State House 139 race recognized by Moms Demand Action, an organization dedicated to reducing gun violence founded following the tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 20 children (ages six to seven) and six adult school staff dead

And he’s featured on BlueVoterGuide.org’s “Gun Sense Voter Geortgia Endorsements” page, which notes:

Campaign of Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund and Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund, along with the volunteer grassroots networks Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action. We’re a non-partisan grassroots movement of people organizing to elect candidates who support common-sense gun safety laws at every level of government.

Never mind that every one of Carl’s “non-partisan” Everytown colleagues appears to be a Democrat—since when has telling things like they really are been a gun-grabber priority? And why is it so many Democrat “gun sense” candidates turn out to be criminal hypocrites, and sexual exploiters of the young (archive link may load slowly)?  What’s that line about being known by the company they keep?

Why is it so many of these ambition-obsessed creatures who can’t – or more likely won’t – control themselves, are fixated on controlling you and me?

---

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/N5m40ut
via IFTTT

Oregon: James Manning & His Anti Militia Bill ~ Are Both Just Plain Stupid

Opinion

James Manning & His Anti Militia Bill ~ Are Both Just Plain Stupid – Oregon Democrat James Manning IMG Official Headshot votejamesmanningcom

Oregon – Last week in the “House Committee On Emergency Management, General Government and Veterans” held a public hearing on SB 947A. This 34-page absurdity is the fever dream of the dumbest and most openly racist member of the Oregon Senate, James Manning.

We told you about this bill here. If you missed it, here is a short recap;

“Senator James Manning’s attempt to erase the term “unorganized militia” from state law as a pointless, delusional crusade. The bill, branded as a tribute to the National Guard, is exposed as a wasteful distraction built on unfounded racial paranoia, with zero public or military support and unanimous opposition from those who’ve weighed in. While Manning’s incoherent justifications border on satire, the real disgrace lies in Republican senators letting this absurdity pass the Senate unchallenged.”

The purpose of the bill is to remove any mention of the “unorganized militia” from Oregon’s statute.

“Why?” you might ask. Well, don’t ask Manning unless you are prepared for an utterly incoherent, rambling, and nonsensical response.

While Manning insists his bill is about granting the proper respect to the National Guard (we are unaware of any systemic disrespect they are facing) what it actually is, is a very expensive and time wasting manifestation of Manning’s weird delusion that hordes of white “militiamen” are roaming the state attacking black people.

This would be humorous if it were happening in some tiny Caribbean dictatorship. But it’s happening here and it’s costing Oregon taxpayers a pant load in lawyers, legislators, and staff time. And of course, that’s your money going straight down the crapper.

When the bill passed on the Senate floor, Manning’s explanations for its purpose bordered on the surreal. The man is incapable of forming complete sentences. Today’s hearing was no different. (Oddly, Manning said the bill passed the Senate and was “bipartisan”. Apparently, Manning is unfamiliar with the word. There was not a single Republican vote for this bill.)

We defy anyone to listen to Manning and leave saying, “Sure. I understand that.”

While he continues to slip up and reveal his real intentions, Manning insists this is only about respect for our men and women in uniform.

So it’s interesting to note that not a single member of the military or any agency representing any branch of the military has submitted a single word in support of Manning’s buffoonery. In fact, no one has offered a word of support.

Manning has managed to draft a bill that has exactly NO support from anyone except imbecile Democrat legislators. 100% of submitted testimony is in opposition to this nonsense. That’s quite an accomplishment.

Manning is an idiot. That is beyond dispute. However, there is a real lesson here.

The Oregon Republicans have been repeatedly reminding us that we “need to make our voices heard” and we need to “flood the Democrats’ inboxes with email.”

Of course, politicians on both sides of the aisle commonly set up filters so your emails are never seen, let alone read. But the point is, here we have a bill that is epically moronic and has received no shortage of responses from the public, all opposed. Yet the Oregon Republican Senators allowed it to pass the Senate, and now it is being considered in the House.

Maybe the Republicans should stop shifting the blame to the voters and step up for a change.

The bill has not yet been scheduled for a “work session,” but we assume that anything this stupid will move ahead. No point wasting time on the real issues Oregon faces.

You can support the work of the Oregon Firearms Federation here.

The Heritage of American Militias

Rediscovering the Second Amendment: A Call to Arms for Common Defense ~ DEEP DIVE

 

---

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/mBKaM6w
via IFTTT

Trump DOJ Stuns Nation: Sides with Gun Owners in Supreme Court 2A Showdown

Opinion

Istock

Gun rights attorneys are calling it “monumental” and “a huge deal,” and at least one national gun rights organization is hailing the Trump administration for turning the U.S. government’s position on the Second Amendment a full 180 degrees by submitting an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting petitioners in a case challenging the constitutionality of a state gun control law.

It appears to be the first time in history the government—in this case the Department of Justice—has taken the side of gun owners. The case, known as Wolford v. Lopez, challenges Hawaii’s Act 52, an extremely restrictive gun law adopted in response to the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling, which struck down New York’s unconstitutional concealed carry law.

Civil rights Attorney Mark W. Smith, host of the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube, declared, “This is a huge deal, a sea change in the way the Supreme Court will be functioning in the way the Department of Justice will be interacting with the United States Supreme Court when it comes to our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This is a big deal.”

He was referring to the government’s declaration in the amicus brief that, “The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment.”

Likewise, fellow civil rights attorney William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law and host of his own YouTube broadcast, asks his viewers, “Did you ever believe, especially during the last four years, that you would ever hear the Department of Justice have this as their official statement?”

Kirk referred to the DOJ’s Thursday brief filing as “a monumental day.”

The 29-page amicus bears some significant signatures: Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, Deputy Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris and Vivek Suri, assistant to the Solicitor General. Dhillon is also making headlines for expanding the mission of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to include a sharp focus on protecting and enforcing the Second Amendment.

As reported previously by AmmoLand News, the establishment media is attacking Dhillon on the contention that she is decimating the Civil Rights Division staff at the risk of abandoning the division’s traditional job of protecting voting rights and pursuing discrimination against minorities. By taking this approach, the media is literally—perhaps intentionally—ignoring the division’s expanded role of defending the Second Amendment.

The brief is a gold mine of quotable quotes.

“Hawaii’s novel default rule defies—indeed, effectively nullifies—the “general right to publicly carry arms” that Bruen recognized…” the brief states. “That is no accident. The structure and operation of Hawaii’s law reveal that the law serves no legitimate purpose and instead seeks only to inhibit the exercise of the right to bear arms.”

In another paragraph, the brief recalls, “Until NYSRPA v. Bruen…Hawaii maintained a may-issue regime for licenses to carry firearms. Individuals could apply for carry licenses only in narrow circumstances, and police chiefs retained broad discretion to deny applications. In practice, that may-issue regime operated more like a no-issue regime. In 2018, the Ninth Circuit noted that Hawaii had issued ‘only four concealed carry licenses’ to private citizens ‘in the past eighteen years’ and that, in one county, ‘not a single concealed carry license ha[d] ever been granted.’”

Later, the brief notes, “Under traditional property law, a person who enters private property open to the public does not need specific permission from the owner to carry a gun—or, for that matter, to carry anything else, or to engage in any other constitutionally protected con duct, such as prayer or speech…Hawaii’s singling out of firearms confirms that the default rule has nothing to do with protecting property rights. For everything but firearms, Hawaii presumes that owners welcome it on their property unless they affirmatively object.”

And then there is this: “The scope and operation of Hawaii’s default rule thus establish that the rule serves no legitimate objective and that it instead seeks simply to impede the carrying of firearms. That is plainly unconstitutional.”

Into this unprecedented legal drama steps the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which notes in a Friday statement that Hawaii is one of the 12 states it named in an online petition to Attorney General Pamela Bondi, calling on her Second Amendment Task Force to investigate for patterns of 2A infringements and impairments.

“We’re hoping the submission of this important amicus brief signals the beginning of the administration’s promised effort to defend the Second Amendment from infringements enacted over the years by various states,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “It is time to end these blatant and deliberate constitutional violations, and we finally have an administration willing to accomplish that task.”

The DOJ amicus brief identifies five states, including Hawaii, which “reacted to Bruen by enacting the type of default rule at issue here.”

By no small coincidence, all five states—Hawaii, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York—are on the“Dirty Dozen” list specified in the CCRKBA online petition, which is still gathering signatures.

As attorney Kirk acknowledges in his YouTube presentation, it’s always possible the high court may not take the Hawaii case. But at least now, for what appears to be the first time ever, the Justice Department has jumped into a legal battle on the side of individuals fighting to protect their Second Amendment rights.

While it would be conjecture to suggest this is really what the political left fears and finds so offensive about a second Trump administration, the notion also cannot simply be dismissed because of the political earthquake which would almost certainly result from an aggressive DOJ campaign to right what Second Amendment advocates contend have been decades of wrongs against a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights.

Media Bashes Dhillon, Ignores Her Civil Rights Div. 2A Focus

CCRKBA Launches Petition to Bondi for ‘Dirty Dozen’ Investigations

---

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/OeFsmNU
via IFTTT

Arresting a Judge? About Time Or a Mistake by the FED ~ VIDEO

Opinion Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Last week the FBI arrested a Wisconsin state judge as she was walking into the courthouse where she works. The feds had alerted the media — but not the judge — to this event, and they arrived and recorded the arrest.

The standard and preferred practice when arresting a nonviolent person who is a public official with deep roots in the community is to invite the person to surrender with counsel.

Instead, without notice, this judge was stopped on a public street, handcuffed behind her back — a technique reserved for the most dangerous or threatening individuals — and within minutes, the FBI Director himself had posted still photos of this event on his X account.

The feds were unhappy at the manner in which a criminal defendant before this judge was permitted to leave her courtroom. By leaving through a nonpublic exit, instead of through the doors where the feds were awaiting him, his departure frustrated the feds who apparently expected the judge to accommodate them. The technical charge against the judge is obstructing the administration of justice. The true charge was failing to aid the feds.

Here is the backstory.

The feds have grown accustomed to commandeering the states to provide assistance when needed — and many states routinely complied. They did so either out of a sense of common purpose or because the feds had bailed them out financially.

Two Supreme Court cases, with largely compatible results, tested this relationship. The first, South Dakota v. Dole (1987), addressed the strings attached to the grants of federal funds to the states. Congress wanted to lower speed limits on highways and decided to bribe the states in order to achieve that goal. It offered huge amounts of cash for paving state and federal highways in return for reducing speed limits to 55 miles per hour.

When South Dakota told the feds that it would take the cash but not the lower speed limits, the Supreme Court ruled that so long as the strings attached to the financial grants are rationally related to the purpose of the grants, the strings are lawful and enforceable. So, South Dakota then took the cash and reluctantly lowered its speed limits.

Ten years later, Congress enacted gun regulations and ordered the states to enforce them.

In a case called Printz v. United States (1997), the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Supreme Court that the states are still sovereign, they can reject federal cash and federal strings, and the feds cannot commandeer their officials. The federal government, the court held, is one of limited constitutional powers, and the power to commandeer state officials is not among them.

Both of these rulings unambiguously recognized the sovereignty of the states. The South Dakota case led to vastly more congressional bribery — the states today simply do not refuse federal cash. The Printz case led to federal frustration. That frustration boiled over outside a Wisconsin courthouse last week when the feds did what was surely unthinkable to Justice Scalia — arresting a sitting state judge who refused to be commandeered by the feds.

No one is above the law pic.twitter.com/TSrQ4GNMdA

— FBI Director Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash) April 26, 2025

Judge Hannah Dugan was presiding over an arraignment for a non-incarcerated defendant when her court officers told her that the feds were in the courthouse hallway seeking to arrest the defendant in her courtroom, and the feds were growing impatient. When she asked to see their arrest warrant, they had none. Instead of an arrest warrant issued by a judge, as the Fourth Amendment requires, they presented an administrative warrant in which one federal agent authorizes another to arrest a person in a public place.

Judge Dugan shares the view of your author that the Fourth Amendment means what it says and thus administrative warrants are blatantly unconstitutional, and she would not recognize it. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that only judges order arrests. When her business with the defendant in her courtroom was completed, she asked him to leave through the exit used by jurors, which was not accessible to the feds.

She did not inform the defendant that the feds were looking for him, but he apparently sensed that something was up; and when he left the courthouse and was met by feds who were waiting for him, he ran. A brief chase ensued, but the six feds captured the one defendant.

A week later, Judge Dugan was arrested for obstruction of justice.

Her arrest implicates not only the Supreme Court cases above — Wisconsin never agreed to have its officials assist the feds in immigration enforcement in return for federal cash, and the feds cannot commandeer state officials, judges or police, to assist them — as well as the recent Supreme Court decision on immunity. Though that case addresses presidential immunity, it is instructive on the nature of government in America. It teaches that government officials cannot be criminally prosecuted for the exercise of their core functions.

So, if the Secretary of Defense directs Air Force jets to attack a structure in a foreign country he mistakenly identifies as military but which turns out to be civilian, he cannot be prosecuted for homicide. If FBI agents raid and destroy the wrong house, they cannot be arrested for breaking and entering. And if a judge tells a defendant to leave her courtroom through door A and not door B, because behind B are folks with a phony warrant, she cannot be prosecuted.

This is bigger than Judge Dugan. We are witnessing an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers and the concept of federalism by a White House impatient with the constitutional process and largely indifferent to the role and function of the judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to be anti-democratic — to protect lives, liberties and properties from the other two branches.

If the feds succeed in intimidating judges and bending them to the presidential will, our liberties will have no protection.

What do you think about this case? Let us know in the comments below.

Federal District Judge Wimes Creates Novel Excuses to Rule 2A Protection Act Unconstitutional

Outrageous: Judge VanDyke Calls Out 9th Circuit’s Devious Maneuvers Against 2nd Amendment ~ VIDEO

---

To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit www.JudgeNap.com.

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

Hey, AG Bondi! What About Knife Owners’ 2A Rights?

Court Opines Feds Won’t Enforce the FSA and Dismisses Knife Rights’ Case…But That’s Not the End of It

In Knife Rights’ Second Amendment lawsuit against the Federal Switchblade Act we hoped that the Trump administration, through Attorney General Pam Bondi, would come through on the President’s executive order “Protecting Second Amendment Rights” and AG Bondi’s recent statement that, “the prior administration placed an undue burden on…law-abiding citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. The Department of Justice’s new 2nd Amendment Task Force will combine department-wide policy and litigation resources to advance President Trump’s pro-gun agenda and protect gun owners from overreach.”

Knife Rights Chairman Doug Ritter asked, “Did someone miss the memo that the Second Amendment says ‘arms,’ not ‘guns?’” Unfortunately, after Knife Rights agreed to two 30-day extensions to allow the AG and DOJ attorneys to consider the effect the change in administration would have on their final reply brief in this 2A case, the government continued to push forward with their defense of the unconstitutional Federal Switchblade Act, attempting to dismiss the case.

In the AG’s disappointing reply brief the Government continues to argue that Plaintiffs do not have standing to even challenge the Federal Switchblade Act. It doesn’t matter that the FSA prohibits plaintiffs and every other individual in the United States from acquiring common arms through interstate commerce. It doesn’t matter that the government continues to enforce these restrictions on the knife industry through the threat of prosecution. It doesn’t matter that Knife Rights has shown that the FSA has been actively enforced against Knife Rights members. According to the government, no one may challenge this unconstitutional law, even though it is undisputed the government could choose at any time to prosecute and convict any individual or company not adhering to the FSA’s prohibitions at any time.

For example, the Feds claim, “Plaintiffs have not established that the provision prevents them from acquiring switchblades via intrastate distribution.” Apparently, in the eyes of the Federal government, prohibiting all commerce across state lines of a common arm does not “infringe” on the Second Amendment. In modern times, such a claim is absurd.

Ritter said, “There is no question that Plaintiffs have standing. There is no question that the FSA is unconstitutional in every way. We’ll have to see how the District Court rules on the issue. Depending on the outcome, the DOJ could still facilitate a victory for the Second Amendment of which President Trump said, ‘because it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed,’ but now we’ll just have to wait and see. So far, actions have not delivered on the President’s words.”

---

About Knife Rights

Knife Rights (www.KnifeRights.org) is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization. Knife Rights efforts have resulted in 52 bills enacted repealing knife bans and protecting knife owners in 32 states and over 200 cities and towns since 2010.

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

Media Bashes Dhillon, Ignores Her Civil Rights Div. 2A Focus

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon is focusing on the Second Amendment, and the establishment media is trying to play it down. (DOJ Office of Public Affairs image)

After Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon acknowledged she is expanding the mission of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to include a sharp focus on protecting and enforcing the Second Amendment, as noted by the Daily Caller, the establishment media went on the attack.

Instead of even mentioning her interest in gun rights, major media news outlets portrayed her as endangering voting rights and protecting minorities from discrimination. For example, MSNBC’s spin was to report what appears to be a mass exodus of Civil Rights Division attorneys, blaming Dhillon’s political agenda and referring to her as a “MAGA lawyer.”.

“Rather than execute the Trump administration’s oppressive plans to weaponize the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division against political enemies, dozens of DOJ attorneys have chosen to walk off the job instead,” MSNBC reported.

“When MAGA lawyer Harmeet Dhillon, a key figure in Donald Trump’s bogus attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss, was nominated to lead the DOJ’s civil rights efforts, it seemed clear the division was poised to abandon — if not outright attack — the rights it has historically stood to protect,” the report added.

It is as though the networks decided if they ignore Dhillon’s comments about protecting gun rights, and concentrate their energy on smearing her unpopular politics, her Second Amendment remarks either never happened or the story will just go away.

Here’s what Dhillon said during an interview with conservative commentator Glenn Beck: “The new project I’ve got going in the civil rights division to the surprise of many people on both sides is the Second Amendment.” That interview is featured in a new YouTube post by attorney Mark W. Smith at the Four Boxes Diner.

“Who is protecting the Second Amendment in the federal government,” she asked rhetorically. “Prior Republican administrations haven’t paid a lot of attention to affirmatively doing that, but in the wake of clear guidance from the United States Supreme Court, to own and use firearms…city after city or state after state are eviscerating those rights. They are mocking the Supreme Court by passing laws that make it virtually impossible.”

But does this interest the Los Angeles Times? Evidently not, as the newspaper led its 1,241-word report with this: “California’s two U.S. senators have joined with Democratic colleagues to demand answers from the Trump loyalist and Californian now heading the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, amid reports that she and other officials have pushed out senior leaders and imposed hard-right policies at odds with the department’s mission.

“In a letter sent Friday to Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon,” the Times continued, “seven senators — including Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff of California — cited reports that Dhillon had emailed directives changing long-standing enforcement goals to employees, including in sections that are ‘meant to protect voting rights, prevent discrimination by federal funding recipients, investigate illegal bias in housing, prohibit discrimination in education, and defend the rights of those with disabilities.’”

Essentially, defending all rights except the Second Amendment seems to be the media’s mission.

CNN reported, “Approximately 70% of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is expected to accept a second offer to federal workers that allows them to resign from their positions and be paid through September, according to a source familiar with the situation.”

One paragraph later, CNN added, “The mass exodus comes as the division is being converted into a unit that prioritizes the Trump administration’s goals like dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, reversing policies on transgender rights, and combating antisemitism.”

Once again, not a word about Dhillon’s intent to protect the Second Amendment from state and local restrictions.

The Washington Examiner reported, “Dhillon’s sharp pivot toward curbing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and combating antisemitism and anti-Christian sentiments is driving what reports say will amount to a loss of around 70% of the Civil Rights Division’s roughly 340 employees.

“But Dhillon,” the Examiner continued, “a conservative attorney who has long focused on civil liberties, told the Washington Examiner she is unfazed by the exodus, which has largely involved employees accepting buyout offers to resign.”

In her interview with Beck, Dhillon criticized recent news that California agencies will now accept carry permit applications from non-state residents. “California is, wink-wink, nudge, nudge allowing you to apply for a concealed carry in multiple places and then they don’t staff the departments to do the interviews,” she said.

“I came here to DC,” she noted. “I have firearms, I’m a firearms owner. I inquired about the process. It’s months before I can get an appointment with the chief of the police or the department to even apply to exercise my Second Amendment rights. Well…I’m not happy about that, and I might be doing something about that.

“New York has a host of laws,” Dhillon observed, “that are different in upstate New York and different in New York City and they all violate the constitution, so we will be working together to make this a focus of the Civil Rights Division.”

Could this new focus be causing alarm in states where gun rights have been under relentless attack for years? Could that focus also be bothering the media, which has been traditionally unfriendly toward the Second Amendment?

When Attorney General Pam Bondi announced in early April that she was forming a “Second Amendment Task Force” to investigate possible 2A infringements, the establishment media also didn’t give it much attention. The Hill, the newspaper covering all things relating to Capitol Hill and government, headlined its story, “DOJ establishing task force to push Trump gun agenda.” The story’s lead paragraph read, “The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Tuesday created a Second Amendment Task Force to advance President Trump’s agenda on gun legislation while easing regulation on ownership laws.”

All of this amounts to increasing evidence that the Trump administration and the Bondi Justice Department are serious about protecting the Second Amendment and putting the heat on anti-gun states and politicians. It is a confrontation that has been decades in the making.

RELATED:

• Gun Owners in Embattled States Beg for Bondi’s ‘2A Task Force’ Attention
• Gun Rights Group to Bondi: Target 2A Violations in 12 Specific States
• CCRKBA Launches Petition to Bondi for ‘Dirty Dozen’ Investigations

---

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/PWySRtr
via IFTTT