Wyoming Bill Repealing Gun Free Zones Passes Without Governor’s Signature

How “Safe” Are You? The House of Cards That is Gun Free Zones, iStock-490657417

On February 27, 2025, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon allowed Wyoming Bill 172, the “Wyoming Repeal Gun Free Zones Act”, to become law without his signature. Governor Gordon objected to the bill but said it would become law.

The Wyoming Repeal Gun Free Zones Act does essentially what the name implies. It repeals most of the areas where the legislature has allowed local political entities to infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment. From a previous AmmoLand article:

Section 1 W.S. 6-8-105 is created to read:6-8-105. Exceptions for state issued concealed carry permits; penalty. 

(a)This section shall be known as and may be cited as the “Wyoming Repeal Gun Free Zones Act.” 

(b) Persons lawfully carrying concealed weapons in Wyoming under W.S. 6‑8-104(a)(ii) through (iv) may carry a concealed weapon in the following places: 

(i) Any meeting of a governmental entity;

(ii) Any meeting of the legislature or a committee thereof;

(iii) Any public building not otherwise prohibited under W.S. 6-8-104(t) or regulated under this section.

(c) Persons lawfully carrying concealed weapons in Wyoming with a permit issued under W.S. 6-8-104(a)(ii) may carry a concealed weapon in the following places: 

(i) Any public school, public college or university athletic event taking place on public property that does not sell alcoholic beverages;

(ii) Any public elementary or secondary school facility;

(iii) Any public college or university facility.

Wyoming’s proposed bill explains how a local board of trustees in a school district may adopt rules for employees to carry concealed weapons in schools. The bill leaves certain restrictions in place. It only applies to concealed carry, not open carry.

Over the last century, local governmental units have been allowed to flaunt unconstitutional laws that infringe on the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Local governments are not sovereign entities inside state borders. State governments create them, allowing them to have certain powers derived from state law.

With the landmark Second Amendment cases in Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court of the United States, started the process to bring these unconstitutional infringements to an end. There is no constitutional power granted to state and local governments to infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment.

Following the clear direction of the US Supreme Court, the Wyoming legislature has restricted the ability of local governmental entities to infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Wyoming legislature is also doing its job to follow the limitations enshrined in the Wyoming State Constitution. From the Wyoming Constitution:

 The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon objected to the bill, claiming it infringed on the powers of local governments.  Governor Gordon is exactly correct about what the bill does. Local governments only have power within legitimate bounds. The US Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution create those bounds. Neither local governments or State governments can legitimately violated the limits on governments protected by the Bill of Rights, specifically, in this case, the Second Amendment.

Bill HB 172 will take effect on July 1, 2025.

Variations of this bill have been in the Wyoming legislature for the past ten years. In 2024, Governor Gordon vetoed a nearly identical bill.

Several states continue to defy the Supreme Court’s clear guidance on the Second Amendment, including Hawaii, California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island. Numerous court cases are in progress as a few courts of appeal join in the defiance.

---

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/ba0X9V6
via IFTTT

Rep. Massie Reintroduces Bill to Lower the Age to Buy a Handgun to 18

Gun Counter Sale Store Shop shutterstock_Nomad_Soul 1686855574.jpg

On Thursday, Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced the Second Amendment for Every Registrable (SAFER) Voter Act, which would lower the age to purchase a handgun from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) to 18 from 21.

The HR 1643 bill looks to roll back a federal law requiring a person to be 21 or older to transfer any handgun through an FFL. This law covers the sale of handguns and all other handgun transfers through an FFL. A transferee must be 21 before they can legally be processed through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for a transfer of a handgun. That prevents young adults from buying handguns from gun dealers.

“Why should a 20-year-old single mom be denied the right to defend herself and her children?” asks Representative Massie. “18, 19, and 20-year-olds are considered adults and can vote on important public policy issues. They can also form business contracts, get married, and serve in the military. As adults, these Americans should not be deprived of basic constitutional rights.”

The Second Amendment doesn’t limit the age for firearms. It simply states, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts consider “the people” as members of the political class. In other words, “the people” are those that have reached the age of majority, in the United States, that is considered to be 18. This terminology was recently affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Lara v. Paris. Lara v. Paris challenged a Pennsylvania law that banned the carrying of firearms by those between the ages of 18 and 20 during a stated emergency.

According to the Supreme Court case McDonald v. The City of Chicago, The right to keep and bear arms also includes the right to acquire guns because, without a means to get firearms, you can not keep and bear them. Anti-gun politicians have long claimed that the current regulation was constitutional because the law didn’t ban those under 21 from acquiring handguns. These politicians argue that those under 21 can still buy handguns through private sales. What these anti-gun politicians never mention is that many states have universal background checks (UBC), and the only way to get a gun legally is through an FFL.

Those state-level background check laws mean that those who can legally own a handgun cannot acquire them. A lawsuit in Virginia over universal background checks caused a carve-out that allowed the private transfer of handguns to those under the age of 21 without a background check. Other states have no such carve-out. Rep. Massie’s bill would bring federal law closer to compliance with the United States Constitution, although much work would need to be done to bring federal gun laws to total compliance.

The law is tied to voting. Democrats have long sought to lower the voting age to 16. Although many different reasons have been given for the desire to lower the voting age, many say that Democrats believe that the new voters created would overwhelmingly vote for them, thus expanding their voter base. Equating the right to buy a handgun to voting could head off such plans to lower the voting age because Democrats wouldn’t be open to lowering the age to purchase a handgun to 16.

Gun rights groups, in large part, support the bill. Rep Massie highlighted the support of both Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR). Both organizations issued statements about the introduction of the proposed change to federal regulations.

“The current 18 to 20-year-oldhandgun ban says that the Second Amendment is a second-class right, relegated to the backwaters of the Constitution,” said Aidan Johnston, GOA’s Director of Federal Affairs. “Gun-grabbers believe that if they can disarm young people in the years prior to turning 21, they can discourage and depress gun ownership for a new generation of Americans. That’s why Rep. Thomas Massie’s SAFER Voter Act is so important because it restores the right of young adults to purchase handguns for self-defense.”

“The right to keep and bear arms is non-negotiable for all law-abiding adults. Denying 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds the ability to purchase a handgun based solely on age is blatant discrimination and an outright attack on their constitutional rights,” said Hunter King, NAGR’s Director of Political Affairs. “Any Member of Congress who truly supports the Second Amendment must immediately co-sponsor the SAFER Voter Act—no excuses.”

The bill will struggle to be passed through the House of Representatives. The Republicans have a slim majority, but not all Republicans would be willing to vote for the bill.

One standout who almost assuredly would vote against the bill would be Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA). Rep. Fitzpatrick has backed gun control during his time in Congress, including calling for bans on so-called “assault weapons” such as the AR-15 and AK pattern rifles. Insiders believe that all Democrats in the House would oppose the bill. Even if it does make it through the House, it will face certain death in the Senate, where a super-majority is needed to pass a bill. Seven Democrats would have to cross the aisle and break with their party line, and it is unlikely that even one would support it.

The SAFER Voter Act’s original co-sponsors include Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA), Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA), Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY), Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN), and Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX).

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

from https://ift.tt/UyvR76l
via IFTTT

Will the Supreme Court Finally Defend the 2nd Amendment? The Fate of Snope & Antonyuk Hangs in the Balance

Opinion

IMG iStock

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hold its upcoming conference, all eyes are once again on two of the most critical Second Amendment cases in recent history: Snope v. Brown and Antonyuk v. James.

For advocates of gun rights, the anticipation is palpable. These cases represent a decisive moment—one that could either fortify the High Court’s previous rulings in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, or allow state governments to continue their relentless assault on the right to keep and bear arms.

The Stakes: Will the Court Take Up Snope?

For the sixth time, Snope v. Brown, a challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” has been scheduled for conference. Meanwhile, Ocean State Tactical v. Neronha, a challenge to Rhode Island’s ban on “large-capacity” magazines, enters its seventh round of deliberations. Despite repeated opportunities, the Court has yet to grant certiorari.

The question posed in the Snope case is straightforward: Does the Constitution permit a state to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America?

This is not a trivial matter. It strikes at the heart of the Second Amendment’s protections. If the Court rules decisively in favor of petitioners, Snope could become the fourth landmark case affirming the constitutional right of Americans to own semiautomatic firearms. However, if the Court declines to hear the case or—worse—rules against the petitioners, the damage to Second Amendment jurisprudence could be profound and lasting.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA PA15 Complete Classic EPT A2 Lower Receiver - 7781023	Palmetto State Armory	$ 389.99 $ 179.99
	PSA PA15 Complete Classic EPT A2 Lower Receiver - 7781023	Palmetto State Armory	$ 389.99 $ 179.99
	FX6500 6.5 Grendel Complete Rifle	Faxon Firearms	$ 1899.00
	Mk1 Mod 2-M Complete Rifle Lower Receiver	Brownells.com	$ 570.99

The Politics of the Court’s Decision

The Court needs only four votes to grant certiorari, yet as history has shown, Justices will not take up a case unless they are reasonably certain they can secure a favorable ruling. The true conservative wing of the Court—Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—will likely not vote to hear the case unless they believe they have the full backing of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

The risk of an adverse ruling that weakens Heller, McDonald, and Bruen is simply too great.

Chief Justice John Roberts, ever the institutionalist, remains a wild card. While he has historically sided with the conservative wing on Second Amendment cases, his reluctance to embrace strong, unequivocal rulings on contentious issues is well-documented. If he senses division within the Court, he may be inclined to deny certiorari to avoid a ruling that could further polarize the nation.

Antonyuk v. James: A Defiance of Supreme Court Authority

While Snope concerns the categorization of firearms under the Second Amendment, Antonyuk v. James deals with an even more immediate threat: state defiance of Supreme Court authority.

New York’s open resistance to the Bruen ruling through its amended handgun laws, deviously titled the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), is nothing short of an affront to the Court itself. The state has blatantly ignored Bruen, enacting restrictive laws that directly contradict its precedent.

If the Court refuses to hear Antonyuk, it would send a dangerous message: states are free to disregard Supreme Court rulings they do not like.

This is a moment of truth for the judiciary. The Court must not only affirm its authority but also reinforce the integrity of its rulings. If Antonyuk is denied certiorari, the floodgates will open for other anti-gun states to follow New York’s lead, rendering Bruen meaningless in practice.

The Bumpy Road Ahead

Both Snope and Antonyuk test the Court’s commitment to upholding the Second Amendment as a fundamental, individual right. The legal battles that have followed Heller, McDonald, and Bruen illustrate the ongoing struggle between those who seek to preserve constitutional liberties and those who wish to erode them through judicial inaction and legislative maneuvering.

The coming days will reveal whether the Supreme Court is willing to take a firm stand. A decision to hear these cases could solidify the Second Amendment’s place as an enduring safeguard against government overreach. A refusal to do so would embolden the forces that seek to undermine our natural right to self-defense. The stakes could not be higher.

For a more detailed analysis, read the full article at Arbalest Quarrel.

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

Supreme Court Showdown Looms in New York Antonyuk Case

---

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

from https://ift.tt/iME1Vxr
via IFTTT

California Gun Owners Beware: ‘Duty to Retreat’ Required in New Bill

California Flag Guns Gun Control iStock 884191010

The California gun prohibition lobby is hailing a new Assembly bill that includes a duty to retreat “When the person was outside of their residence and knew that using force likely to cause death or great bodily injury could have been avoided with complete safety by retreating,” but the measure is drawing a barrage of criticism from Republicans.

According to a synopsis of Assembly Bill 1333, introduced by Democrat State Rep. Rick Chavez Zbur (51^st District), “This bill would eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property.”

In a statement released by Everytown for Gun Safety on behalf of the California chapters of Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, Everytown Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Monisha Henley asserted, “This legislation builds on California’s gun safety legacy and lays the blueprint for the rest of the nation. White supremacists and other extremists have hidden behind self-defense laws to fire a gun and turn any conflict into a death sentence. Now, lawmakers have an opportunity to help stop that and save lives. We thank Assemblymember Zbur for his commitment to gun safety and listening to advocates and experts on ways to keep Californians safe from gun violence.”

Translation: Shoot a thug in self-defense and risk being smeared as a right-wing racist, and probably prosecuted.

But the San Joaquin Valley Sun is reporting that Zbur, faced with massive criticism, is apparently re-thinking his bill, and he has “promised to amend the proposal to not take away self-defense rights after Republicans came out against it in force.”

The California Globe is quoting Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is also a Republican candidate for governor in 2026.

“Sacramento Democrats have spent the last 15 years tying the hands of law enforcement and coddling criminals, using and abusing ordinary Californians in their attempt to make criminals the real victims,” Bianco reportedly said. “Now, they’re actively trying to tie the hands of our residents, who have had to defend themselves against re-released career criminals far too often. Prop 36 should have been a wake-up call – Californians are sick and tired of crime, and they are demanding that leaders in Sacramento do something about it. Unfortunately for us, Legislative Democrats can’t put aside their backwards ideology. It’s time for a change.”

Likewise, the San Joaquin Valley Sun is reporting statements from a couple of Zbur’s colleagues, both Republicans.

“If you thought California Democrats couldn’t be more out of touch, here’s another example,” Assemblyman David Tangipa of Clovis said. “Where do you retreat if you can’t defend yourself in your own home?”

Assemblyman Tom Lackey of Palmdale called AB 1333 “a complete assault on self-defense.”

“The misguided energy behind this proposal is beyond comprehension,” Lackey said in a post on “X.”

Here is the language in AB 1333 which is raising the ire of Golden State gun owners and even the Riverside County Sheriff.

“Homicide is not justifiable when committed by a person in all of the following cases:

(1) When the person was outside of their residence and knew that using force likely to cause death or great bodily injury could have been avoided with complete safety by retreating.

(2) When the person used more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against a danger.

(3) When the person was the assailant, engaged in mutual combat, or knowingly engaged in conduct reasonably likely to provoke a person to commit a felony or do some great bodily injury, except if either of the following circumstances apply:

(A) The person reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury, and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

(B) In good faith, the person withdrew from the encounter with the other assailant or assailants and indicated clearly to the other assailant or assailants that the person desired to withdraw and terminated the use of any force, but the other assailant or assailants continued or resumed the use of force.”

The Globe story also noted, “the huge limitation of self-defense outraged many over the past weekend.”

“While initially submitted under the radar, AB 1333 became one of the most talked about bills within days of being introduced,” the Globe acknowledged.

An unscientific, online survey by KMPH News shows the bill getting an overwhelming negative reaction from respondents. Asked if they agree “with making self-defense against criminals illegal,” a whopping 97 percent were saying “No.”

Under AB 1333, homicide would still be justifiable under these circumstances:

“(1) When resisting any attempt to murder any person or to do some great bodily injury upon any person.

“(2) When committed in defense of a person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein.

“(3) When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a spouse, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.”

While Democrats dominate the Assembly in Sacramento, the reaction so far to AB 1333 is sending a clear message that Zbur’s proposal has crossed way over the line.

---

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/Q9qTNvE
via IFTTT

NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to NYs “Concealed Carry Improvement Act”

Opinion

U.S. Supreme Court Image NRA-ILA

Today, the National Rifle Association filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge to New York’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act.”

In response to the NRA’s landmark victory in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022—which confirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms in public—New York passed the so-called “Concealed Carry Improvement Act,” which severely restricts the right to carry firearms throughout the state.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld many of the CCIA’s restrictions in 2023. But…

…the Supreme Court vacated that opinion and sent the case back to the Second Circuit for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s U.S. v. Rahimi decision in 2024. After reconsidering the case, the Second Circuit issued another decision upholding the CCIA’s restrictions.

Today, the NRA filed its second amicus brief in this case urging the Supreme Court to hear the case. The NRA’s brief highlights the split among the federal circuit courts over whether the understanding of the right to keep and bear arms in 1791 (when the Second Amendment was ratified) or 1868 (when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified) controls. The brief then argues that the Supreme Court’s precedents clearly demonstrate that the original 1791 understanding controls, and that the Court should hear the case to resolve the dispute explicitly.

This case is named Antonyuk v. James. The NRA is also challenging the CCIA in a case named New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. James, currently before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Supreme Court Showdown Looms in New York Antonyuk Case

SCOTUS Must Step In: The Antonyuk Case & the Fight for 2nd Amendment Rights ~ VIDEO

---

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/y5Q1q6r
via IFTTT

Pennsylvania’s Petition for an En Banc Hearing in Gun Rights Case Denied

Lawsuit Gavel Judge Court iStock-Mark Youso 1455889577

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied Pennsylvania’s petition for an en banc hearing over a challenge to a Commonwealth law banning the carrying of firearms by 18 to 20-year-old residents of the Key Stone State during a declared emergency.

The order denying the request reads: “The petition for rehearing filed by appellant in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the judges of the circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court en banc, is denied. Judge Restrepo, Judge Shwartz, Judge Krause, Judge Montgomery-Reeves, and Judge Chung voted to grant the petition for rehearing. Judge Krause would have granted rehearing and files the attached dissent sur denial of rehearing en banc.”

The Commonwealth sought an en banc review of Lara v. Paris. An en banc review means the three-judge panel’s decision would be vacated, and the whole bench would hear the case. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) brought the case to challenge the Keystone State’s gun law that tried to deprive those under 21 of their Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms during a declared state of emergency. Pennsylvania tried to argue that “the people” referred to those over 21 and those under that age do not have gun rights.

Most court courts believe that “the people” are members of the political class. The political class consists of those who have reached the age of majority. Pennsylvania tried to argue that the age of majority during the founding era was 21. This accusation is technically true, but the militia laws from around the nation at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment set the age to own a gun at 18 or below. Also, the judges acknowledged that the age of majority changes over time, and even if it were 21 at the founding, it wouldn’t impact their findings. The three-judge panel from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law was unconstitutional and struck it down.

Pennsylvania’s Attorney General’s Office filed the request for an en banc hearing, led by Republican Dave Sunday. Some claim that Mr. Sunday could not have known that an en banc request was being filed since he just took office last month, but Sunday could have withdrawn the request, but he chose not to. The choice could hurt his future political ambitions since he ran on a platform of protecting gun rights.

As of now, the law is dead. The panel’s decision will stand. The only step for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will be to ask the Supreme Court to review the case or let the law stay dead. If Dave Sunday is truly pro-gun and just didn’t have time to withdraw the request for an en banc hearing, then he should have no issue with not filing the petition with SCOTUS. It will be telling if the AG’s office files for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. Dave Sunday’s political career might hang in the balance of whether to go to SCOTUS or not.

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

from https://ift.tt/L3TvMgf
via IFTTT

OPINION: ATF ‘Overhaul’ Will Probably Require Gun Law Changes, Repeals

Kashyap Kash P. Patel Official Photo DOJ

OPINION: The appointment of FBI Director Kash Patel as acting head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is bringing calls for an overhaul of the embattled federal gun agency, but in order to bring about real change, gun control laws must be altered or even repealed as well.

This would constitute genuine “gun reform,” a term which has been corrupted by the gun prohibition lobby as camo-speak for gun control.

The prospect has anti-gunners fearful and furious at the same time, as illustrated by a remark from Democrat Congresswoman Robin Kelly of Illinois, quoted by Fox News, calling Patel “a gun lobby puppet who has no business leading the FBI or the ATF.” Translation: ATF and FBI is exactly where Patel belongs, at least for the time being.

Where to begin with gun law reform? Congressional Republicans must be all aboard, and they have only two years to really get this done, prior to the mid-term elections of 2026.

One key might be in the results of Gallup polling over the past couple of years. According to Gallup, “In 2024, 56% of Americans think gun laws should be made more strict, 10% think they should be less strict, and 33% think they should be kept as they are now. This is consistent with the data from 2023, where 56% also thought gun laws should be more strict, 12% thought they should be less strict, and 31% thought they should be kept as they are now.”

However, Gallup added this observation: “Over the long-term trend, there has been a significant decrease in the percentage of Americans who think gun laws should be made more strict.”

Last fall, Gallup polling revealed an increase in the number of people who personally have guns in their homes. Gallup said 48 percent of survey respondents now answer “yes” to that question, whereas in October 2023, 42 percent had guns in their homes and in October 2022, it was 45 percent. In October 2021, the number was back at 42 percent.

Just as significantly, the percentage of people saying there is no gun in the home fell markedly, from 55 percent in October 2023 to 47 percent in October 2024.

Another Gallup revelation: “In 2025, 10% of Americans are very satisfied with the nation’s gun laws, 27% are somewhat satisfied, 21% are somewhat dissatisfied, 37% are very dissatisfied, and 3% have no opinion.”

What does this mean? The number of people dissatisfied with the nation’s gun control laws far outnumber those who are very satisfied. However, 40 percent say gun laws should be stricter, while only 12 percent want the laws relaxed. Thirty-seven percent are satisfied with gun laws as they are right now.

The numbers signal a change. Last year, 46 percent wanted stricter gun control laws, suggesting an increasing number of people think we’ve reached a limit on gun control restrictions.

Lastly, Gallup noted in its Fall 2024 poll that 34 percent of Americans say they personally own a gun and 15 percent say they live in a house where another person owns a gun.

“This shows an increase in personal gun ownership compared to 2023, where 30% reported personally owning a gun, 13% reported that another household member owns a gun, 54% reported no gun ownership,” Gallup said at the time.

For the gun prohibition movement, Donald Trump literally put the writing on the wall with his Feb. 7 Executive Order on guns and the Second Amendment.

“Section 1.  Purpose.  The Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty.  It has preserved the right of the American people to protect ourselves, our families, and our freedoms since the founding of our great Nation.  Because it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.

“Sec. 2.  Plan of Action.  (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

(b)  In developing such proposed plan of action, the Attorney General shall review, at a minimum:

(i)    All Presidential and agencies’ actions from January 2021 through January 2025 that purport to promote safety but may have impinged on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens;

(ii)   Rules promulgated by the Department of Justice, including by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, from January 2021 through January 2025 pertaining to firearms and/or Federal firearms licensees;

(iii)  Agencies’ plans, orders, and actions regarding the so-called “enhanced regulatory enforcement policy” pertaining to firearms and/or Federal firearms licensees;

(iv)   Reports and related documents issued by the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention;

(v)    The positions taken by the United States in any and all ongoing and potential litigation that affects or could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights;

(vi)   Agencies’ classifications of firearms and ammunition; and

(vii)  The processing of applications to make, manufacture, transfer, or export firearms.

“Sec. 3.  Implementation.  Upon submission of the proposed plan of action described in section 2 of this order, the Attorney General shall work with the Domestic Policy Advisor to finalize the plan of action and establish a process for implementation.”

It is Section 2(b)(ii) which has the gun control crowd quaking. Even before the November election, the Brady United gun ban group was in hysterics, declaring that Trump’s pro-Second Amendment agenda would include “arming teachers, cutting community violence intervention funding, and increasing police violence.”

Brady didn’t stop there, instead trying to bring race and gender politics into the battle.

“The language used in the writing he stands by,” Brady asserted, “will harm Black and Brown Americans and members of the LGBTQ+ community – people who are already disproportionately affected by gun violence.”

To accomplish all of what the president and gun owners appear to want—including an overhaul at ATF, if not an outright shutdown of the agency followed by a complete restructuring—will likely require amending or repealing at least some existing gun control laws.

Here are some suggestions:

• Ban waiting periods for gun purchases and require all states to be tied in with the FBI’s National Instant Check System, to avoid fiascos such as happened in Washington state last year, when the state system shut down for more than two weeks. (*If the waiting period cannot be entirely scrapped, it should at least allow for same-day transfers for anyone possessing an active concealed carry permit or license, since they have already gone through a background check to get the permit/license).
• Prohibit purchase limits on firearms and ammunition which may restrict citizens to one gun per month and remove limits on the amount of ammunition someone can buy in bulk.
• Outlaw “permit-to-purchase” statutes anywhere they now exist. This is the United States, not a Police State. Law-abiding citizens do not need permission from the police in order to exercise a right protected by the constitution.

One final thought, which seems to appeal to gun owners in states such as Washington, Oregon, California, New York and other places with increasingly restrictive gun laws, is that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division should target state laws which deprive citizens of their constitutional rights under color of such laws.

As the NRA posted on “X” the other day, “For far too long, ATF has focused on how it can manipulate federal statutes to restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans. We look forward to working with Acting Director Patel to protect and expand Second Amendment freedoms.”

The appointment of FBI Director @Kash_Patel as Acting Director of the ATF is a great first step by President Trump to reform this deeply troubled agency.

For far too long, ATF has focused on how it can manipulate federal statutes to restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans.… pic.twitter.com/T3ILQNrheD

— NRA (@NRA) February 24, 2025

RELATED:

• Kash Patel Should Clean House at the ATF

---

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/6TPvH73
via IFTTT

We Caught the FBI Targeting Gun Owners ~ VIDEO

Gun Owners of America (GOA) has once again uncovered proof that the FBI has been coercing Americans into signing away their Second Amendment rights—without due process and under duress.

Thanks to a FOIA request, new documents reveal that the FBI was systematically using a so-called “NICS Indices Self-Submission Form” to strip individuals of their right to own firearms, often using intimidation tactics. This alarming revelation further solidifies concerns that federal agencies have been weaponized against gun owners.

But with new leadership at the FBI and ATF, there’s hope for reform.

The FBI’s Secret Gun Grab Scheme

The FBI’s NICS Indices program, first exposed in 2019, allowed federal agents to pressure law-abiding Americans into signing a form that voluntarily classified them as permanently prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. Shockingly, this action bypassed any legal adjudication or due process—meaning no court ruling, no judge, and no ability to appeal.

The recently obtained records show that armed FBI agents visited people’s homes and workplaces, presenting them with these forms and coercing them into signing away their rights. The forms targeted individuals by labeling them as mentally unfit despite the fact that many had no official diagnosis or court ruling against them. In one disturbing case, even a high schooler was forced to sign.

GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt described the program as “just the latest example of the FBI going rogue in abusing their authority to the detriment of Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed rights.”

AmmoLand News Has Been Reporting on This Since 2019

While GOA’s latest FOIA request has shed new light on the FBI’s misconduct, this is not the first time the NICS Indices Self-Submission Form has been exposed. AmmoLand News broke the story in December 2019, revealing that the FBI was distributing these forms in secret. Further reporting in 2022 and 2023 uncovered even more disturbing details, including evidence that the FBI had been using the form in medical facilities since 2011.

According to John Crump’s investigative reports for AmmoLand, the FBI partnered with hospitals in New Hampshire, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma to pressure patients into signing away their gun rights. Many of these individuals sought mental health treatment but were unaware that they were permanently forfeiting their Second Amendment rights by signing the forms.

“Any time you have evidence of private entities coordinating with federal agents to strip Americans of their rights, the public should be alarmed and demanding answers and action,” said Aidan Johnston, federal affairs director for GOA.

At least five cases were confirmed in FOIA responses, but the true scale of this operation remains unknown. The FBI claimed to have discontinued the practice in 2019, but new evidence suggests that the forms had already been used for at least eight years prior to their supposed termination.

Congress Responds – But Will It Be Enough?

Following GOA’s exposure of the NICS Indices program, a group of lawmakers led by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene demanded that the FBI purge all records obtained through this unconstitutional practice. They also called for a full investigation into how many Americans had been affected and whether any efforts were made to restore their rights.

However, previous attempts to force Attorney General Merrick Garland to release additional FBI records were blocked by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee. While some steps have been taken to hold the FBI accountable, the federal agencies’ lack of full cooperation remains a major concern.

New Leadership at the FBI & ATF: A Turning Point?

With the FBI’s reputation in free fall, President Donald Trump has appointed two strong Second Amendment advocates to take the reins: Kash Patel as the new FBI Director and Dan Bongino as Deputy Director. Both have made it clear that reforming the agency and stopping unconstitutional overreach is a top priority.

Bongino, a former Secret Service agent and outspoken defender of gun rights, has criticized the FBI’s politicization and vowed to return the agency to its crime-fighting roots.

“How amazing would it be in four years to look back at a high-quality, reformed FBI, free of woke culture and DEI nonsense, making big arrests of real bad guys destroying your community?” he said recently.

Meanwhile, Patel, who has also been named acting ATF Director, is expected to clean house at an agency long accused of targeting gun owners. One of his first moves was the firing of ATF General Counsel Pamela Hicks, a known advocate of aggressive firearm regulations. Calls are now growing for Patel to remove other anti-gun bureaucrats from the ATF, including Deputy Director Marvin Richardson and Assistant Director Megan Bennett, both of whom were instrumental in pushing unconstitutional firearm restrictions under the Biden administration.

What Comes Next?

The exposure of the FBI’s secret gun grab is a chilling reminder of what happens when government agencies are allowed to operate without Congressional oversight. But for the first time in years, the tide may be turning.

With Patel and Bongino leading the charge, gun owners have reason to hope that these abuses will be rooted out. GOA is calling for the following actions:

1. A full public disclosure of all records related to the FBI’s NICS Indices program.
2. Immediate expungement of all names wrongfully entered into the NICS database.
3. Restoration of rights for individuals who were coerced into signing away their Second Amendment protections.
4. Accountability for those responsible within the FBI and ATF.

The fight is far from over, but with gun rights advocates in key leadership positions, the days of unchecked government overreach may be coming to an end. The question now is: will Patel and Bongino deliver on their promises and truly clean house?

Stay tuned as AmmoLand News, in partnership with GOA, continues to expose the truth and hold government agencies accountable. If you want to take action, contact your representatives and demand that Congress end these unconstitutional abuses once and for all.

Leaked FBI Document Shows How People Can Self Identify As Prohibited In NICS

Kash Patel Should Clean House at the ATF

 

from https://ift.tt/arLfbS2
via IFTTT

WA Commerce Dept. Has Previously Provided Funds to Gun Control Group

The Washington State Dept. of Commerce has apparently been providing public funding support to a wealthy private gun control lobbying group. iStock-884168778

Over the past two bienniums (2021-2023 and 2023-2025) the Washington State Department of Commerce has apparently provided more than $350,000 to the Seattle-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility, a billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying group which hardly needs taxpayer support, Ammoland has learned.

Public documents available online for both bienniums show the Commerce Department provided $263,750 to the Alliance during the 2021-2023 biennium for “Grants, Benefits & Client Services” and “Goods and Services,” In the 2023-2025 biennium, Commerce provided $102,102 in public funding to the Alliance, again for “Grants, Benefits & Client Services” and in July of last year, $30,000 for “Personal Service Contracts.”

The grand total for taxpayer money—including Evergreen State gun owners who pay taxes—over the past two bienniums comes to $365,852, and that does not include the proposed expenditure of another $100,000 this year for what is being labeled by Second Amendment activists as a ‘gun control conference” in Seattle. Checking back further, there does not appear to have been earlier allocation of state funds to the Alliance.

As explained by attorney Bill Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, in a recent YouTube video, “They are using your tax dollars to disarm you.”

TheGunMag.com, an online firearms news publication owned by the Second Amendment Foundation—which does not receive funding from the Washington Commerce Department—has been probing state support for the Alliance, since the agency’s solicitation of proposals from individuals or groups to support an early June event called “Together We End Gun Violence (TWEGV).”

Up to $100,000 is available for this project, according to the solicitation, which is called a “Request for Qualifications and Quotes” (RFQQ), Ammoland reported recently.

In total, if the full amount is spent, the Commerce Department will have provided nearly a half-million dollars of public funds to a private organization whose goal is to severely restrict the public ownership of firearms, which is constitutionally protected.

Source: Washington Dept. of Commerce

In an email to the Commerce Department, TGM and Ammoland asked the following:

• “Why would a private gun control organization, which is supported by wealthy donors, need state/public money for grants, benefits and client services?
• “Why would the state Commerce Department provide such funding to a private group which lobbies heavily to restrict the rights of law-abiding Washington state residents guaranteed and protected by Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution and the Second Amendment of the U.S. constitution?
• “Would such public funding allocations be available to groups such as the Washington State Rifle & Pistol Association, Washington Arms Collectors and the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?”

Source: Washington Dept. of Commerce

There was no immediate response, other than a referral to a different individual within the agency, who did not immediately respond.

Attorney Kirk, in his video, had these observations:

“When you live in a state like Washington, and they start talking about ending gun violence, what they are actually talking about is ending gun ownership.”

“What this really is, is taxpayer funded propaganda on behalf of the Washington State Democratic Party.”

“Understand this, Washington. We probably do need our own DOGE program because, right now, the Department of Commerce is about to waste $100,000 of your taxpayer money so that they can put on a propaganda event in downtown Seattle and espouse the virtues of civilian disarmament.”

As Kirk and others have repeatedly pointed out, in the Evergreen State, gun control has become a top priority of the majority Democrats in the Legislature, along with former Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee and current Governor Bob Ferguson, who was state attorney general during Inslee’s 12 years in office. Ferguson has been a close ally of the Alliance and has appeared at several events.

TheGunMag has reached out to Republican State Rep. Jim Walsh, who also chairs the State Republican Party.

One thing is clear. Since Washington began pushing increasingly restrictive gun control measures starting in 2014, the number of homicides in the state has doubled. Yet, as reported last year, the Giffords gun control state scorecard gives Washington high marks for its restrictive gun laws. The state has banned so-called “large-capacity magazines” and “assault weapons.” Both bans are now being challenged in court. The state has imposed a 10-day waiting period on all firearms transfers, effectively creating a nightmare for gun show operators, which appears to have been the intention. There is now an education and training requirement, which opponents have likened to the long-unconstitutional “literacy test” for voting. And now Washington Democrats are pushing to adopt a permit-to-purchase requirement, which critics argue is wholly unconstitutional.

Perhaps the only conclusion to be reached is that restrictive gun control laws are important, but body counts are not.

RELATED:

• Fury as WA State Commerce Dept. Offers Funding for Gun Control Event
• Study Finds Opposite Facts of Anti-Gun Group’s State Crime Ratings!? Are They That Dishonest?

---

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/vV5O0tE
via IFTTT

Bureau of Land Management Ranges Near Phoenix Require Steel Targets for Safety?

Image public domain from BLM

On January 4, 2025, President Joe Biden signed H.R. 6492, also known as the Explore Act. The Act contains H.R. 1614, the previous Range Access Act. The act, as passed, requires bureaucrats in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) to consider the establishment of a target shooting range in each National Forest district or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) district. This is not a difficult requirement.

In Arizona, there are only four BLM districts. Each district is much larger than some of the smaller eastern states.  BLM recently constructed three shooting ranges north of Phoenix, Arizona. These ranges were constructed before the Explore Act. The current rules on these ranges are extremely restrictive.

The experience of long-term desert shooters with the building of three ranges on BLM land north of Phoenix is a cautionary tale.  A significant amount of money was spent to build well-designed ranges that have minimal utility.

The only shooting allowed at the ranges is shooting at steel targets at fixed distances, mostly at long ranges.  No shooters are allowed to go down range.  The only targets that may be used are the steel targets provided at the fixed ranges. The steel targets are painted once a week. This does not appear to be the original plan put forward by stakeholders when they met with BLM planners prior to the construction of the ranges.

Here is a slide show/video supplied by Tony Urso showing what experienced desert shooters expect of a range open to the public. The show is about 11 minutes long. It is very well done.

The use of steel targets in fixed positions, along with the prohibition against shooters from going down range in front of the firing line at any time, prevents many normal and expected uses of public ranges.  Chronographs are generally not usable because most need to be placed ahead of the firing line. Shooting at close targets under 25 yards is not possible. Testing ammunition/firearms for accuracy is extremely limited because a shooter cannot determine where they hit the target with precision.  Shooting to sight in a rifle or pistol is virtually impossible for the same reason.

Image courtesy Tony Urso

Steel targets were chosen as a method to prevent people from going downrange. From the blm.gov/blog:

Because the sites are operated as self-service shooting facilities, they need special management to ensure public and staff safety. Each of the sites has steel targets installed to prevent visitors from going  downrange to place their own targets.

Shooters are not allowed to paint the provided steel targets.

Here is a video presentation from the Bureau of Land Management showing how the targets are made. It shows a glimpse of the BLM ranges north of Phoenix.

Image public domain from BLM

Tony Urso noted that when these ranges were opened, about 4000 acres of land suitable for recreational shooting adjacent to the now official ranges were closed to the public as a “safety measure.” Local managers have the authority to regulate adjacent lands for safety reasons.

BLM states an estimated 71,000 visits were made in 2023 to the 4 BLM constructed ranges near Phoenix. There are three ranges to the north of Phoenix, west of Lake Pleasant, in a roughly north-south line about four miles long. The three sites are:

• Baldy Mountain Recreational Shooting Site
• Church Camp Road Recreational Shooting Site
• Saddleback Mountain Recreational Shooting Site

The Box Canyon Recreational Shooting Site is in Pinal County, southwest of the City of Maricopa. We would welcome reports from users of the Box Canyon site.

Sites are available six days a week, or about 312 days a year.  The average estimated usage would be 71,000 divided by 4 X 312, or approximately 57 people per site per day. Some sites will be more popular than others. Weekends are probably more crowded than weekdays.

The lack of suitable facilities for pistol shooters is obvious. Pistols are designed for close-range use. Steel targets should not be shot at from close range because of the danger of backsplatter, bounce-back, and ricochet. Pistols are the most popular firearms purchased by the public.

All four sites ban shooters from going down range or from bringing their own targets. Those are site-specific rules which were not published in the federal register.  The mandatory use of steel targets is a local rule that can be changed. It is a local prohibition arising from an over-abundance of caution, which precludes most traditional uses of ranges.  These are the only public ranges this correspondent is aware of, which limit use to steel targets only to prevent shooters from going downrange.

The limitation of using only steel targets is an overreaction to potential dangers. The enabling legislation foresaw shooters would bring, set up, and remove their own targets. From the BLM site, rule 6:

You must only use authorized stationary targets as specified in the operating plan for each site. These targets may be made of cardboard, paper, self-healing, steel, and biodegradable clay (clay targets). All other items, such as aluminum cans, glass bottles, bowling pins, plastic bottles and other items which may leave debris, are not authorized to be used as targets. Exploding targets are prohibited. All user-supplied steel targets must be specifically designed for use with firearms and must be used at a distance of 100 yards or greater. Target frames must be designed to be reusable. The use of wooden pallets and other items not specifically designed as target frames are not authorized. All user-supplied targets, target frames, and debris must be removed from the site and disposed of properly after use and before leaving the site.

This correspondent’s experience as a bureaucrat leads to the question: was the decision to limit targets to provided steel targets primarily for the protection of the BLM decision makers? The idea seems to be that if you prohibit people from going down range, the liability of the decision-makers will be minimized.  This is a pernicious idea which greatly diminishes the utility of the ranges. Thousands of people have been shooting on BLM land for decades.  Accidents and injuries are minimal.

The idea of prohibiting people from safely going downrange to set up and remove targets is not a good innovation. The public BLM ranges should allow users to go downrange and use their own targets, especially for pistol shooting.  Shooters at public ranges normally self-regulate this conduct by calling for a cold range to retrieve targets. Volunteers at public ranges could do the same.

As a shooter, this correspondent would have preferred less money spent on the installation of expensive chain link fencing on rough terrain. The money could have been used to provide for shade structures on the firing line. Shade, in Arizona summers, has high utility.

---

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/qZ3N789
via IFTTT

Make Constitutional Carry the Law of the Land in North Carolina ~ Take Action

Glock Gun Flag

Senate Bill 50 (“Freedom to Carry NC”) and House Bill 5 (“NC Constitutional Carry”) are in the process of becoming North Carolina law. We are so thankful to Sen.Berger and Rep Kidwell for their sponsorship and support in this pursuit.

Grass Roots North Carolina has been pivotal in this endeavor. We presented a 7,000-signature petition to Berger in a press conference at his office, and GRNC supporters sent thousands of emails to legislators.

Additional sponsors for HB 5 are Reps. Jay Adams (R-Catawba, ****), Ben Moss (R-Moore, Richmond, ****) and freshman Brian Echevarria (R-Cabarrus, ****). Additional sponsors for SB 50 are Sens. Danny Britt (R-Hoke, Robeson, Scotland, GRNC ****), Warren Daniel (R-Buncombe, Burke, McDowell ****), and Eddie Settle (R-Alexander, Surry, Wilkes, Yadkin, ****). Both bills are currently in their respective Rules, Calendar, and Operations committees.

Immediate Action Required!

• IMMEDIATELY CONTACT REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP: Contact both Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger and Speaker Destin Hall to thank them for their support and urge them to give prompt committee hearings to HB 5 and SB 50. Use the links provided in the previous sentence for their contact information. Call and/or email the two leaders to thank them and to encourage them to advance these bills.
• IMMEDIATELY CONTACT ALL RULES COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS: Both Rules Committees (for House and Senate) need to hear loud and clear that you want a prompt committee hearing for HB 5 and SB 50. See the contact information below.

Please send two messages. Below, find two copy-paste email lists, one for the House and one for the Senate. Below that, find the copy-paste email message.

NC HOUSE Rules Committee (copy-paste email list):

Reece.Pyrtle@ncleg.gov; Blair.Eddins@ncleg.gov; Brenden.Jones@ncleg.gov; Charles.Miller@ncleg.gov; Donna.White@ncleg.gov; Erin.Pare@ncleg.gov; Jimmy.Dixon@ncleg.gov; John.Torbett@ncleg.gov; John.Bell@ncleg.gov; Karl.Gillespie@ncleg.gov; Kelly.Hastings@ncleg.gov; Kyle.Hall@ncleg.gov; Neal.Jackson@ncleg.gov; Sarah.Stevens@ncleg.gov; Steve.Tyson@ncleg.gov; Ted.Davis@ncleg.gov; Tricia.Cotham@ncleg.gov; William.Brisson@ncleg.gov

NC SENATE Rules Committee (copy-paste email list):

Amy.Galey@ncleg.gov; Benton.Sawrey@ncleg.gov; Bill.Rabon@ncleg.gov; Brent.Jackson@ncleg.gov; Danny.Britt@ncleg.gov; Lisa.Barnes@ncleg.gov; Michael.Lazzara@ncleg.gov; Michael.Lee@ncleg.gov; Norman.Sanderson@ncleg.gov; Paul.Newton@ncleg.gov; Ralph.Hise@ncleg.gov; Todd.Johnson@ncleg.gov; Tom.McInnis@ncleg.gov; Vickie.Sawyer@ncleg.gov; Warren.Daniel@ncleg.gov

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE

Suggested Subject: “Advance Constitutional Carry Bills HB 5 & SB 50”

Dear Rules Committee Members:

As a Grass Roots North Carolina member, I thank you for your support and strongly urge you to give a prompt committee hearing to permitless or “constitutional” carry bills HB 5 and SB 50.

Fully 29 states have already adopted constitutional carry, with none of its naysayers’ dire predictions coming true. In fact, the Crime Prevention Research Center finds a small but significant reduction in violent crime among states which adopt permitless carry.

North Carolina Republicans are now lagging their counterparts in other states. Accordingly, I strongly urge you to bring constitutional carry to a prompt committee hearing and floor vote.

I will be monitoring your actions through Grass Roots North Carolina legislative alerts.

Respectfully,

NC: Mecklenburg County Sheriff McFadden Settles in Losing Gun Permit Delay Lawsuit

NC: Constitutional Carry & Phony ‘Gun Groups’ ~ Opinion

---

About Paul Valone

Author F. Paul Valone has been kicking leftist tail for twenty-eight years. Alarmed by the U.S. House passage of the “assault weapon” ban in 1994, he decided to take action. Finding no suitable organization, he organized a rally leading to the creation of a 501(c)(4) organization, Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC), which remains North Carolina’s primary and most successful gun rights group to this day.

Paul Valone

from https://ift.tt/Urkwm6j
via IFTTT