Gaming the National Firearms Act

Last Friday, everyone rose up in arms when Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate Parliamentarian, yanked the Hearing Protection Act and the SHORT Act from the Big Beautiful Bill. MacDonough announced the proposed laws exceeded the limitations of the Byrd Rule and couldn’t be included.

MacDonough said removal of suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and AOWs was policy and would have to be passed by the usual channels, facing a Senate filibuster without the 60 votes needed to overcome it.

What could be considered in the reconciliation bill was the amount of the excise tax on transfers of suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs.  The result would look suspiciously like the version of the Hearing Protection Act the House sent to the Senate. RINOs in the House ditched the SHORT Act and watered down the HPA by reducing the tax to zero but keeping all the other requirements.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was and is a tax measure: It has never been held to be anything else. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this in 1937 in Sonzinsky v. U.S. and again two years later in United States v. Miller. It was never considered to be a Second Amendment issue at all.

In fact, in Miller, the court specifically said the NFA did not violate the Second Amendment nor did it impact the police powers of a state.

Actual common sense (as opposed to “commonsense” as used by gun control fans) says reducing a tax to zero means it’s no longer a tax. However, common sense and the law seldom cross paths. A zero tax is still a tax, and the compliance requirements stand.

But here’s the thing: Other than the transferee’s name, photograph, and fingerprints, the National Firearms Act doesn’t specify those requirements. Under the original law, those were left up to the Treasury Secretary and the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. With all the changes in the federal bureaucracy, I would assume those duties are now vested in the Attorney General and whoever is the head honcho at the ATF.

With a zero tax rate, there would be no revenue coming to Uncle Sam for suppressors, SBRs, etc., but there would still be all the costs. How many taxpayer dollars could be saved by eliminating all the hoops and hurdles for the most commonly owned NFA firearms?

According to the Congressional Sportsman Foundation, there are roughly 4.86 million suppressors in civilian hands. In 2021, the ATF said there were more than 532,000 registered short-barreled rifles and when the agency reclassified pistols with stabilizing braces as SBRs, there were more than 255,000 new registrations during the tax-free grace period.

The savings could amount to millions of dollars if all you needed to do was send in a form with the information required by the actual law and get a stamp by return mail: Pass the dealer’s NICS check and you’re good to go.

It’s not perfect, but there are no changes required to the National Firearms Act and, under the law itself, procedural changes are within the executive powers of the President.

There is also the argument that the remaining requirements for registration violate the Firearm Owners Protection Act, signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1986. It includes a blanket prohibition on the creation of a federal registry of guns or gun owners. The NFA has survived this prohibition only because it is a tax.

We may not have gotten what we wanted in the Big Beautiful Bill, but that doesn’t mean we can’t get it by gaming the system so it works in our favor.

[Note: This article is based on the situation as of midnight Sunday, June 29. The Big Beautiful Bill is now headed to the Senate floor for debate.]

Republicans Change Text of HPA and SHORT Act to Satisfy an Unelected Bureaucrat

Senate Parliamentarian Removes HPA and SHORT Act from Reconciliation Bill

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

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

If Zohran Mamdani Becomes NYC Mayor, Get Ready for 3rd-World Craphole Gaza & ‘No-Go Zones’ Inside America

Opinion
By Wayne Allyn Root

We need to ban all guns.

— Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@ZohranKMamdani) May 24, 2022

I was born and raised a Jewish New Yorker. I graduated from New York’s Columbia University. I spent my 20s in Manhattan. I loved New York City.

But now the unthinkable has happened. A politician with a combination that I’d never thought possible in America is in position to run New York City. Here’s the unthinkable combination:

A radical communist AND radical Muslim, pro-Hamas, Jew-hater has won the Democrat primary for mayor of New York.

Zohan Mamdani.

Zohran Mamdani offical Photo IMG Zohranfornyc

There is still hope. He hasn’t won yet. He still needs to win the general election. There are two decent candidates for NYC mayor in the general — Mayor Eric Adams running as an independent, and founder of the Guardian Angels Curtis Sliwa running as a Republican. Remember, New York City is the place where both Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg were elected multiple times as Republican mayors of New York.

So, I’d like to think “lightning in a bottle can strike again.”

But this time is much harder. This isn’t your father’s Democrat Party, nor is this your father’s New York City.

First, there are very few reasonable Democrat voters left — certainly not in NYC. Today’s breed of Democrat is a mix of radical, extreme, un-American, communist traitor — mixed with pro-Hamas, Jew-hating, modern-day Nazis. There is no coming back from this brand of Democrat.

Secondly, the New York City that I grew up in and around no longer exists. Because of open borders and unchecked illegal immigration, New York City is now like a foreign nation.

Nowadays, an American-born citizen on the streets of NYC is just a rumor!

And many of today’s foreign-born New Yorkers are radical Muslims who hate Jews and preach “global intifada,” which means the destruction of America and Israel and Islamic world domination, which includes replacing our U.S. Constitution with Sharia law.

You know, people like Zohran Mamdani.

Thirdly, Democrats rig and steal elections nowadays. Between mail-in ballots, and no voter ID, and illegal aliens given driver’s licenses and automatically registered at the DMV, elections in New York are won with voter fraud and noncitizen votes.

Lastly, if Adams and Sliwa both stay in the race, they will split the vote of normal people and elect Mamdani.

So, the odds are stacked against us.

Our best hope is Andrew Cuomo dropping out of the race (he’s on an independent ballot) and President Donald Trump giving a major government job to either Adams or Sliwa, thereby leaving only one normal, non-insane candidate to beat Mamdani, so the vote isn’t split.

Other than that, the odds are very high that “The Big Apple” will soon be rotten to the core — literally infested with worms and fungus.

A Mamdani victory will be the death of New York City in so many ways.

• Forget that NYC with Mamdani as mayor will become the magnet for every illegal alien in America. Millions will come.
• Forget that NYC will become a third-world craphole just like Gaza.
• Forget that the city will become infested with “no-go zones” like those Muslim neighborhoods seen throughout Europe — so dangerous that even police won’t dare go in.
• Forget that the health care system will be overwhelmed and destroyed.
• Forget that Mamdani wants to defund the police and ban all guns. Quite a combination to leave the citizens helpless.
• Forget that Mamdani wants to spend taxpayer money on Soviet-style government grocery stores and transgender surgeries for young boys and girls.

But the really big question is, who will be left to pay all the bills?

• What happens to New York City’s tax base when many of the decent people with families to protect, and jobs, and assets, decide to leave?
• What happens to New York City’s tax base when many of the businesses leave?
• What happens to New York City’s tax base when most of Wall Street relocates to Florida and Texas? It’s already happening. It will explode if Mamdani is elected.

And here’s the big one: What happens when most of the Jews in New York leave?

New York City has the largest Jewish population of any place in the world besides Israel. There are more Jews in New York City than Tel Aviv and Jerusalem combined. And they’re all going to run for their lives.

Jews are the lawyers, doctors, accountants, stockbrokers, financial executives and business owners of New York. If they leave, they take New York’s tax base with them.

And leaving New York is easy to do. They’re not leaving a country. They’re not crossing a border. It’s easy to relocate to a new state. I did it. I left New York for Las Vegas. It’s the best decision I ever made.

It’s easy to escape New York for Florida. Jews have been doing it for 50 years!

And this won’t be a trickle of Jews escaping from NYC …

This will be like the EXODUS out of Egypt.

All these people escaping from New York will take billions in income and assets with them. So, who will pay the bills?

There will be no one left to pay the police, fire, teachers, welfare, the huge bills for illegal aliens or the huge hospital bills for the uninsured. Heck, without Jews, hospitals will close, because there won’t be enough doctors left in NYC.

Without tax money to run the NYC government, and to pay for all the freebies Mamdani has promised to give out …

NYC will look like a cross between Gaza and “Mad Max.”

And places like Miami, Palm Beach, Dallas, Houston, Austin, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Nashville, Atlanta and Charlotte will gain billions of dollars in income and assets.

Also, understand the tourists from red America will never come back. Billions more in sales taxes and hotel taxes will be gone.

If Mamdani wins in November, God help New York City. Get ready for third-world craphole Gaza and “no-go zones” inside America.

Boy, have New Yorkers forgotten the lessons of 9/11.

The Fight for Armed Self-Defense in New York: A System Rigged Against Citizens

A Locked Rifle is a Useless Rifle: Israel’s Tragedy is a Warning to Us All

---

Watch Wayne’s nightly TV show, “The ROOT Reaction” every weekday night at 10 p.m. EST/7 p.m. PST on Real America’s Voice TV, and Wayne’s weekend “America’s Top Ten Countdown” on Saturdays at noon EST/9 a.m. PST on Real America’s Voice TV. Watch at RealAmericasVoice.com, or at Rumble, Roku, Pluto, Apple, Dish TV Ch 219, or go to RootforAmerica.com to watch. Read Wayne’s latest fun book, “How Democrats Have Made America Great.” It’s 140 blank pages! The joke is on Democrats!

from https://ift.tt/gGmb7ko
via IFTTT

Urge the U.S. Senate to Pass the One Big Beautiful Bill – Contact Your U.S. Senators Today!

Opinion

iStock-Stock Dealer 1139107355

The U.S. Senate has cleared a number of procedural hurdles and is preparing to vote on the One Big Beautiful Bill. This vote will likely come within the next day. The One Big Beautiful Billincludes a provision that would, among other things, eliminate the unconstitutional $200 tax imposed on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA).

While this provision does not completely remove these constitutionally protected arms from the NFA, this is a step in the right direction for NRA members and law-abiding gun owners nationwide.

Please contact your U.S. Senators and urge them to vote YES on the One Big Beautiful Bill! You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121! And remember that you have two Senators so be sure to call them both!

Weekend Status:

Overnight, the U.S. Senate added pro-gun tax relief language back into the Reconciliation bill after the Senate Parliamentarian struck out an earlier provision. While this new provision is not as expansive as the language we advocated for which would have removed suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBR), short-barreled shotguns (SBS), and “any other weapons” (AOW) from the National Firearms Act (NFA), it does remove the $200 dollar unconstitutional and punitive tax on these items.

While this is far from what is needed, it is still a step in the right direction to eliminate the unconstitutional tax imposed on these NFA items. Please call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to reduce the NFA tax on suppressors, SBR’s, SBS’s, and AOW’s to $0 today!

How did we get here and why didn’t we get the items removed from the NFA?

The removal language, which we advocated for, was deemed to violate the “Byrd Rule” by the Harry Reid appointed Senate Parliamentarian. The “Byrd Rule” is a process that is used when considering reconciliation measures by the U.S. Senate. This process allows measures that would typically require a 60-vote threshold in the U.S. Senate to only require a simple majority. The “Byrd Rule” determination is made by the Senate Parliamentarian based upon a number of factors including whether the provision would increase or decrease revenues, and whether the change in revenue would be “merely incidental” to the other alterations that the provision would make to public law.

Once a provision is deemed to be violative of the “Byrd Rule,” that same language cannot be reintroduced to the bill. And while we strongly disagree with the ruling of the Senate Parliamentarian, we worked to include provisions that would pass the “Byrd Rule” and benefit NRA members and law-abiding gun owners.

Your NRA-ILA will continue to update you on the Reconciliation Bill as it moves its way through Congress.

Republicans Change Text of HPA and SHORT Act to Satisfy an Unelected Bureaucrat

Senate Parliamentarian Removes HPA and SHORT Act from Reconciliation Bill

---

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/MOlL9XJ
via IFTTT

Republicans Change Text of HPA and SHORT Act to Satisfy an Unelected Bureaucrat

Rugged Razor 556 Rifle Silencer IMG Rugged MFG

Late Friday night, Republicans introduced new text to the reconciliation bill, trying to satisfy the Senate Parliamentarian’s view on the Byrd Rule. The new text will keep short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), any other weapons (AOW), and suppressors under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), but would reduce the tax stamp fee to $0. Machineguns and destructive devices tax stamp fee will remain $200.

The Byrd rule is named after former U.S. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a member of the Democratic Party. The Byrd Rule states that only budgetary and tax items can be passed through the reconciliation process. A reconciliation bill differs from a standard bill as only 50 votes are needed to pass it through the Senate. In contrast, any other bill requires a supermajority of 60 votes to pass due to the filibuster. Republicans argued that since the NFA is a tax law, as confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 1937, it could be changed through reconciliation. Democrats argued that it was a policy issue, not a tax issue, and therefore off-limits to reconciliation.

The Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, a Democrat, ruled that the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act violated the Byrd Rule.

She surmised that the tax was intended to help enforce the NFA, rather than the NFA being established to implement the tax, which is an entirely different stance than the Supreme Court took in 1937. Ms. MacDonough has gutted much of Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” including cutting benefits for illegal immigrants, leading many to call her a partisan hack.

The Senate Parliamentarian serves at the pleasure of the Senate majority leader, who is currently Republican John Thune of South Dakota. Democratic Senator Harry Reid appointed Ms. MacDonough to the position during the Obama administration in 2012. The role is to advise the Senate, and her advice is not binding. Yet, Thune has vowed to follow it. He could choose to ignore her advice or fire her, but neither is likely.

Republicans claim they don’t want to set a precedent of overruling the Parliamentarian, but Democrats have done just that in the past. Judicial appointees used to be able to be blocked using the filibuster, but in 2013, the Democrats changed the rule.

The Parliamentarian said they could not, but then the Majority Leader, Harry Reid, chose to disregard her advice, which was his right to do. Many in the gun world look to Democrats, ignoring the will of the Parliamentarian, in contrast to Republicans giving in to the will of an unelected Democrat, as proof that Republicans lack a backbone.

On Friday, after the Parliamentarian rejected both the SHORT Act and the HPA, gun owners flooded John Thune’s email and office phone lines demanding that the Republican fire MacDonough or ignore her advice. By Friday evening, Thune’s office voicemail was full, and gun owners reported that they were receiving busy signals when attempting to call. Calls placed by AmmoLand to Sen. Thune’s cell phone went directly to voicemail.

Gun Owners of America (GOA), the American Suppressor Association (ASA, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the National Rifle Association (NRA), National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers (NASGW), and the Firearms and Ammunition Import/Export Roundtable (F.A.I.R.) Trade Group issued a joint letter condemning what they see as the Parliamentarian’s anti-gun partisan actions.

The gun rights groups called MacDonough’s actions “egregious” and said that if the Senate is not willing to overrule the Parliamentarian, it should at least reduce the tax to zero, which appears to be happening.

Sen Thune could still act to fire MacDonough and choose to ignore her advice. Gun owners should know for sure by 2 P.M. Eastern, Saturday, when the Senate will be in session working on the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Democrats have vowed to fight the reduction of the tax stamp, claiming that it still violates the Byrd Rule, despite having used the reconciliation process to create the Affordable Care Act. In the end, Republicans might leave it up to an unelected Democratic bureaucrat to decide if they will protect gun rights.

Senate Parliamentarian Removes HPA and SHORT Act from Reconciliation Bill

DOJ Files Amicus Brief Opposing Illinois’ “Assault Weapons” Ban

---

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/JeDOt58
via IFTTT

Senate Parliamentarian Removes HPA and SHORT Act from Reconciliation Bill

Gemtech Abyss 7.62 Suppressor

The Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, has struck the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act from President Trump’s Reconciliation bill.

The HPA would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), and the SHORT Act would remove short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs) from the NFA. This latest setback has frustrated gun owners who pushed to have both provisions included in the President’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Ms. MacDonough has taken what some consider a political chainsaw to the Reconciliation bill, gutting much of Trump’s agenda from the bill, claiming that it violates the Byrd Rule.

The Byrd Rule states that only budgetary and tax issues can be addressed through the Reconciliation. The rule is named after former Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). Many Republicans believed that changes to the NFA should be included in the bill, as the NFA is a tax law, as confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 1937. Other provisions that MacDonough struck down included cuts to benefits for illegal immigrants.

---

“Let’s not mince words – the Senate Parliamentarian got this wrong,” said Knox Williams President and Executive Director of the American Suppressor Association. “Removing suppressors and short-barreled firearms from the NFA tax scheme directly impacts revenues and is unquestionably compliant with the rules of reconciliation. This seemingly politically motivated decision was undoubtedly influenced by fearmongering and disinformation by radical liberals and anti-gun activists. In stripping these provisions from the One Big Beautiful Bill, the parliamentarian has unilaterally overruled the majority of lawmakers in both chambers of Congress who would have voted to remove these critical hearing protection devices from this unconstitutional tax regime.

“The American Suppressor Association, alongside our Congressional allies and NGO partners, are exploring every available option and will provide updates as they happen.”

---

The Parliamentarian’s role is to advise the Senate. Republicans can choose to ignore her advice if they wish. Still, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has already stated that they are not willing to do that, claiming that would be akin to killing the filibuster. If Republicans do choose to ignore her advice, it wouldn’t be the first time the Senate has bypassed the Parliamentarian.

In 2013, under President Barack Obama, Senate Democrats disregarded the Parliamentarian’s advice and eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominations, except for those to the United States Supreme Court. The Senate would then expand on the issue, once again disregarding the Parliamentarian, by broadening the elimination of the filibuster to Supreme Court Justices.

Ms. MacDonough has held the position since 2012, when then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) appointed the Democrat to oversee the Senate.

The Parliamentarian serves at the pleasure of the Majority Leader and can be replaced at any time. Some Republicans have called for McDonough to be fired due to what they consider her overly political stance on the Reconciliation bill.

“How is it that an unelected swamp bureaucrat, who was appointed by Harry Reid over a decade ago, gets to decide what can and cannot go in President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill?” wrote Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) on X.

“The WOKE Senate Parliamentarian, who was appointed by Harry Reid and advised Al Gore, just STRUCK DOWN a provision BANNING illegals from stealing Medicaid from American citizens,” added Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), also on X. “This is a perfect example of why Americans hate THE SWAMP.”

Others in the Senate, including the mastermind of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), John Cornyn, have vowed to rewrite the section dealing with the HPA and SHORT Act to match the original text that would have been more closely aligned with the House of Representatives version. That version would keep suppressors on the NFA but remove the $200 tax stamp. The Senate would need to add AOWs, SBRs, and SBSs to the bill, which were absent from the House version.

The Democrats in the Senate have already vowed to fight the reduction of the tax stamp fee. It might fall to the Parliamentarian again to see if that satisfies the Byrd Rule.

---

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/ClwP0Zh
via IFTTT

Armed Intervention: ‘You Are Your Own First Responder,’ Says MI Church Volunteer

Many places of worship have armed volunteer security teams these days. It paid off Sunday in Wayne, Michigan, where a would-be mass shooter was stopped by one such volunteer. iStock-1354934183

An armed private citizen and member of a volunteer security team at the CrossPointe Community Church in Wayne, Mich., is credited with fatally shooting a would-be mass killer Sunday, telling a local television reporter, “You are your own first responder. You are the first person on scene. It doesn’t matter if it’s someone trying to hurt you, an injury, something- you are your first responder.”

In an interview with WXYZ News, church member Jay Trombley reflected on the events of Sunday morning. He is on a safety team consisting of “average citizens with no police or military experience, have undergone extensive training in the event they encounter an active shooter,” according to the report.

The gunman was first deliberately struck by another church member, using his truck to knock down the suspect. This apparently gave Trombley time to engage.

Trombley’s intervention saved lives, and is reminiscent of the Dec. 29, 2019 shooting at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas. In that incident, a lone gunman opened fire during a service which was being live-streamed, fatally shooting Anton Wallace, 64, and Richard White, 67, before another legally-armed citizen, Jack Wilson, who headed that church’s security team, fired a shot across the church sanctuary, striking 43-year-old Keith Thomas Kinnunen, killing him.

Armed volunteer security teams are not new to American places of worship. While they are seldom discussed in proverbial “polite company,” such teams are apparently becoming something of a necessity in response to violent criminal acts which might qualify as domestic terrorism.

As far back as 2007, armed private citizens have intervened when seconds count and police are minutes away, as the saying goes. On Dec. 9, 2007, in Colorado Springs, a lone gunman identified as Matthew John Murray was shot by Jeanne Assam, a member of the New Life Church and, coincidentally, a former police officer from Minneapolis. Murray was being sought after gunning down two people and wounding two others at the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, just northwest from Denver.

Twelve hours later, at about 1 p.m., according to published accounts, Murray showed up at the church in Colorado Springs, a distance of about 80 miles. There, he opened fire in the church parking lot, killing two teenage sisters and wounding their father. He then moved into the church where he encountered Assam, who promptly shot him twice. Murray then took his own life with a pistol.

In February 2024, the Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas, was the scene of another shooting. This time, according to Wikipedia, the perpetrator—36-year-old Genesse Moreno—reportedly claimed to have a bomb in her backpack, though it was later discovered no such device existed. She did have a gun, however, with which she shot one man in the leg, and then fired multiple rounds.

Moreno, who had brought her 7-year-old son to the rampage, then made the fatal mistake of aiming her gun at two other people who happened to be off-duty police officers, also serving as church security. They shot her dead, and the child was wounded in the exchange.

People attending the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pa., on Oct. 27, 2018, were not so lucky. A gunman identified as Robert Gregory Bowers entered the synagogue during morning Shabbat services and opened fire. He killed 11 people and wounded six others. Nobody was there to stop Bowers, but he was apprehended and later convicted in 2023 on 63 different federal counts and sentenced to death by lethal injection.

There apparently were no armed security people at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas on Nov. 5, 2017, which allowed a man identified as Devin Kelley, using guns he was able to buy despite his military conviction of domestic violence while serving in the U.S. Air Force. The USAF didn’t report the conviction so it could be logged with the National Instant Check System (NICS).

Kelley entered the Texas church with a semi-auto rifle and opened fire, “methodically shooting the victims, pausing only to reload,” according to the Wikipedia account. He killed 26 people and wounded 22 others.

Had there been an armed citizen inside the church, it might have turned out differently. It was not until Kelley went outside that he was confronted and shot twice by a neighbor, Stephen Willeford, who used an AR15 in the exchange.

Kelley was hit twice, once in the leg and once in the upper chest. He fled with Willeford and another man in pursuit, crashing his vehicle into a field, where he committed suicide.

Not surprisingly, although Willeford was hailed for his actions, the media seemed to bury the fact he used a modern semi-auto rifle to engage the killer.

Having an armed volunteer team that trains regularly and has a plan to follow in then event of a shooting is a phenomenon many churches seem to avoid while others, as is the case in Michigan, have reluctantly embraced the notion. Churches which form such teams do not make a habit of making it public knowledge for any number of reasons.

But as the incident in Wayne, Michigan demonstrated, legally-armed citizens can provide a first line of defense against an attack, whether the perpetrator(s) happen to be deranged or domestic terrorists, or a little of both.

---

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/79Mzm0w
via IFTTT

GOA Applaud Court Ruling Holding Philadelphia Open Carry Ban Unconstitutional

Lawsuit Gavel Judge Court iStock-Mark Youso 1455889577

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is celebrating a major legal victory for Second Amendment rights following a ruling by the Pennsylvania Superior Court that declared the state law creating the City of Philadelphia’s open carry licensing requirement unconstitutional, in at least some applications, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a decision issued on June 23, 2025, the court vacated the conviction of Riyadh Sumpter, who was arrested in Philadelphia for openly carrying a firearm without a license—an act that is otherwise legal for individuals over 18 years-of-age throughout the rest of the Commonwealth. The court found that Pennsylvania’s law (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108), which uniquely applies only in Philadelphia, creates a discriminatory standard that unfairly burdens the rights of citizens living in the state’s largest city.

Unfortunately, and confusingly, because the decision was an as-applied ruling, the Court’s decision only clearly extends to Mr. Sumpter. However, because the ruling hinges on straightforward facts, it provides extremely strong persuasive evidence that the law is unconstitutional in every other application as well.

“This ruling is a historic affirmation of what we’ve said all along—gun rights don’t end at the Philadelphia city line,” said Dr. Val Finnell, Pennsylvania Director for Gun Owners of America.

“The court rightly recognized that the state’s open carry ban in Philadelphia violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by creating a two-tiered system where the fundamental right to bear arms depends on your zip code.”

In its opinion, the court held that because the Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home is a fundamental right, any law that imposes restrictions on that right must be subject to strict scrutiny when viewed through an equal protection analysis. The court found that the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest for the disparate treatment of Philadelphia residents, concluding that Section 6108 does not pass constitutional muster.

The opinion makes clear that although public safety is important, it cannot come at the expense of individual liberty. The court wrote:

“Section 6108 places persons within the City of Philadelphia at a special disadvantage in the exercise of their Second Amendment right… Section 6108 fails to pass strict scrutiny and is therefore unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to Appellant.”

Dr. Finnell continued: “This is a huge win for the people of Philadelphia, who have been unjustly stripped of their rights under an unconstitutional city-specific law. GOA will continue to stand with Pennsylvanians in all 67 counties to protect and restore the right to keep and bear arms.”

Gun Owners of America urges state lawmakers to repeal Section 6108 entirely, thus avoiding future legal challenges and confusion, and ensuring uniformity to firearm laws across Pennsylvania.

---

About Gun Owners of America

Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

from https://ift.tt/DMgvc2f
via IFTTT

Nevada Governor Blocks New Gun Control Restrictions in Landmark Veto

Nevada Governor Blocks New Gun Control Restrictions in Landmark Veto

Earlier this month, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo vetoed Assembly Bill 245, a contentious piece of legislation that would have barred individuals under 21 from possessing semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. The bill, passed by the Democratic-controlled Nevada Legislature, was one of the most high-profile gun control measures of the 2025 session.

AB 245 advanced through the Nevada Legislature on largely party-line votes. In the Assembly, the bill passed 27-15, with all Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed. A similar partisan dynamic took place in the Nevada Senate, where the measure was approved by a margin of 12-8, with one senator excused from the vote. 

AB 245 was sweeping in scope and included several provisions that alarmed gun owners and advocates of gun rights.

The bill would have raised the minimum age for possessing semiautomatic shotguns and semiautomatic centerfire rifles to 21 years old. Many gun rights advocates view this as an infringement on the Second Amendment rights of young adults, who are legally considered adults at 18. In addition to the age restriction, the bill would have imposed expanded criminal penalties, including felonies, for anyone aiding or knowingly permitting individuals under 21 to possess these restricted firearms.

Further, the legislation prohibited children under 18 from handling or possessing semiautomatic shotguns or semiautomatic centerfire rifles, even if they held a valid hunting license. The bill also mandated secure storage of firearms to prevent access by individuals under 21 or minors under 18, introducing new requirements for how firearms must be kept in homes.

Sales of semiautomatic shotguns or semiautomatic centerfire rifles to individuals under 21 would have been classified as a felony under the proposed law.

Gun rights activists expressed concern that such measures could set a precedent for further age-based or categorical restrictions on firearm ownership, potentially paving the way for more expansive government control over firearms.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other pro-gun groups were naturally opposed to AB 245 from the outset. The NRA called on its members and Second Amendment supporters to submit opinions against the bill, labeling it discriminatory and an infringement on constitutional rights. After Governor Lombardo’s veto, the NRA publicly praised his decision, stating:

“NRA applauds Governor Lombardo for defending the Second Amendment rights of Nevada’s law-abiding adults, and for protecting hunting and recreational shooting opportunities for youth across the Silver State!”

In his veto message, Lombardo cited concerns that the bill was “facially overbroad” and would even prohibit the most commonly used firearms for activities like waterfowl hunting among young people. He noted that the measure went further than previous bills he had vetoed, such as AB 355 from the 2023 session, and reaffirmed his commitment to protecting Nevadans’ gun rights.

Lombardo’s veto represents a notable blow to the anti-gun momentum that has gathered steam over the last decade. 

Since 2010, Nevada has enacted a series of gun control measures. In 2017, Nevada voters approved Ballot Question 1, which required background checks for virtually all private firearm sales and transfers.

However, due to administrative and legal challenges, the law initially went unenforced. In 2019, the legislature passed Senate Bill 143, which corrected the earlier initiative’s flaws and established a state-run system for conducting background checks on private sales through the Central Repository of Nevada Records of Criminal History. 

Another significant set of reforms came in the wake of the 2017 Route 91 Harvest music festival shooting in Las Vegas, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. In response, Nevada lawmakers enacted Assembly Bill 291 in 2019, which included a ban on bump stocks as well as the establishment of a “red flag” gun confiscation order. The red flag law allows family members or law enforcement to petition a court to confiscate firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others. AB 291 also implemented a storage requirement, mandating that firearms be stored securely to prevent access by children or unauthorized individuals, and included provisions for child access prevention.

In addition to these major measures, Nevada has taken several other steps to strengthen its gun control framework. On top of that, the state prohibited the manufacture, sale, and possession of “ghost guns”—homemade firearms assembled from kits.

With the fate of Assembly Bill 245 sealed, Nevada’s gun laws remain unchanged for now, but the controversy is likely to fuel future legislative battles.

---

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/mah8sWB
via IFTTT

DOJ Files Amicus Brief Opposing Illinois’ “Assault Weapons” Ban

PSA PA-15 Classic AR-15 5.56 M4 Carbine

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, has filed an Amicus brief in support of Second Amendment rights in Barnett v. Raoul.

An Amicus brief is also known as a “friend of the court” filing. Interested individuals or organizations that are not named in a case can file these briefs to try to influence that court’s decision by supplying relevant information and case law. These briefs are standard from both sides of the issue, but the DOJ filing one on behalf of gun rights is something that we haven’t seen in the past.

The case was filed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Caleb Barnett, Brian Norman, and two gun shops. The plaintiffs are suing over Illinois’s “Protect Illinois Community Act” (PICA) law. The law banned some of the most common semi-automatic firearms in the country, including the AR-15. Illinois refers to these guns as “assault weapons” and claims that they can be banned because they are “weapons of war.”

The DOJ, in its amicus brief, maintains the stance that the AR-15 and similar rifles can not be banned.

The AR-15 is the most popular civilian rifle in America and is used by tens of millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful reasons.

Total bans on AR-15s are a flagrant violation of the Second Amendment.

Today, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief telling the Seventh…

— Chad Mizelle (@ChadMizelle47) June 14, 2025

The DOJ lawyers highlight that the Supreme Court stated in Heller that firearms in common use are protected under the Second Amendment. There are approximately 30 million AR-15s in the United States. The Civil Rights Division claims this is enough to constitute common use. The Justice Department is in good company with its analysis. SCOTUS has already determined that 250,000 stun guns are enough to constitute “common use,” and recently in Mexico. v. Smith & Wesson, liberal Associate Justice Elena Kagan admitted as much in her concurring opinion.

The brief reads: “Regrettably, not every State got the message. Just a few months after Bruen, Illinois outlawed some of the most commonly used rifles and magazines in America via a so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban. In doing so, Illinois violated the Supreme Court’s clear directive that States cannot prohibit arms that are ‘in common use’ by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

The DOJ’s brief also challenges the State’s claim that it can ban firearms that are “militaristic” in nature. The lawyers point out that the Second Amendment is about possessing weapons for common defense.

The DOJ highlights that the militias of the founding era would have been useless without “militaristic” firearms. At the time, the musket was a military weapon and was owned by most households during the ratification of the Second Amendment.

The brief states: “Two categories of Second Amendment-related precedent confirm that the Second Amendment contains no carveout for “militaristic” weapons. First, early Second Amendment-related precedent from the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries contains significant support for the view that possessing weapons for the common defense was a core aspect of the preexisting right to keep and bear arms that the Founders codified in the Second Amendment. Consistent with the extensive history discussed above, this early caselaw from federal and State courts uniformly viewed weapons that ‘ha[d] some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,’ that were ‘part of the ordinary military equipment,’ or the use of which ‘could contribute to the common defense’ as being the core weapons (if not the only ones) protected by the Second Amendment and state analogues.”

The brief also covers PICA’s magazine restrictions. The brief highlights that magazines are necessary for the operation of a firearm and, therefore, are protected by the Second Amendment as an “arm.” Currently, in the United States, there are over 100 million magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. That is one magazine for every man, woman, and child in the nation. The federal government cites this astronomical number as undeniable evidence of common use.

Since President Donald Trump’s executive order on the Second Amendment, the Department of Justice, led by the Civil Rights Division, has made significant strides to protect Americans’ gun rights.

---

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/WthOfH7
via IFTTT

Montana Gun Free School Zone Case: Oral Arguments in Ninth Circuit Appeal

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- In the Ninth Circuit appeals case of USA v. Metcalf, the oral arguments were held on June 12, 2025, in Portland, Oregon. The case centers around the federal prosecution of Gabriel Metcalf for possessing a firearm in a gun free school zone outside his home in Billings, Montana. Gabriel had no prior criminal history.

The attorneys arguing the case were the same as in Montana. The Federal defender arguing for Gabriel Metcalf was/is Russel Hart. The Federal prosecutor was/is Thomas Godfrey. The three-judge panel in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit consists of Judge Mary M. Schroeder (Carter appointee), Judge John B. Owens (Obama appointee), and Judge Lawrence Vandyke (Trump appointee).

The oral arguments lasted 38 minutes. The judges in the case were particularly interested in whether the case of Rehaif v. United States was a precedent that was binding in the Metcalf case.

In Rehaif, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution had to show the defendant knew he was in violation of the law. In the Metcalf case, Gabriel Metcalf had been repeatedly told he was not in violation of the law and had called the FBI to ask for assistance, believing he was being harassed by local law enforcement.

The prosecution claimed Metcalf had been told he was in violation of federal law. The defense countered that the day Metcalf was arrested, there was an article in the paper in which a local police chief said Metcalf had not done anything they could arrest him for, so the police were going to talk to federal officials.

Much of the oral arguments focused on whether Metcalf reasonably knew he was in violation of the federal gun free school zone law and whether he was required to know he was in violation in order to be found guilty under the law.

The judges applied the principle that if the case could be resolved without determining whether the law violated the Constitution, the case should be resolved at the lower level. There was considerable discussion as to whether the Montana law, which granted a license to all who were not prohibited from owning weapons, met the standard required for an exception in the federal law.

The prosecution claimed Metcalf had serious mental issues. The defense countered with facts about the order of protection violations by Metcalf’s neighbor. The defense made clear the neighbor was convicted of a felony violation. Metcalf and his mother complained of continuing violations. Billings police had instructed  Metcalf and his mother about the necessity of gathering video evidence of such order of protection violations.

At the end of oral arguments, the judges ordered the attorneys to submit briefs, of no more than 10 pages, addressing the impact, if any, of the Rahaif case. The briefs are due within 14 days.

The Gun Free School Zone Act was found to be unconstitutional in 1995, in US v. Lopez. Minor changes to the law were made in 1996-1997. The changing of twelve words has been found to be sufficient to make the act constitutional in six circuit courts of appeal, including the Ninth Circuit. Three circuit courts of appeal have found the change to have been insufficient. Those are the First, Third, and Eleventh Circuits.

Previous challenges have been under the interstate commerce clause. Two current challenges to the law under the Second Amendment are the Gabriel Metcalf case in the Ninth Circuit and the Ahmed Allam case in the Fifth Circuit.

---

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/vGgRfZc
via IFTTT

Ninth Circuit Panel: California’s One-Gun-a-Month Law Unconstitutional

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled California’s one-gun-per-month law is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment. iStock-697763642

A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that California’s one-gun-per-month restriction violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

The ruling was authored by Circuit Judge Danielle J. Forrest, a Donald Trump appointee. A concurring opinion was authored by Judge John B. Owens, a Barack Obama appointee. The third member of the panel was Judge Bridget S. Bade, another Trump appointee.

The case is known as Nguyen v. Bonta, and was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, PWGG, LP, Firearms Policy Coalition, North County Shooting Center and five private citizens, including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case is named.

In her 24-page ruling, Judge Forrest notes, “California’s law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”

Judge Forrest further observes, “California nonetheless argues that its law is constitutional because (1) the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to possess multiple firearms and (2) even if it did, restricting the frequency of purchase does not prevent someone from acquiring multiple firearms. Both arguments fail.”

Later in the ruling, Judge Forrest states, “By categorically prohibiting citizens from purchasing more than one firearm of any kind in a 30 day period, California is infringing on citizens’ exercise of their Second Amendment rights.”

This ruling is vital beyond California’s borders. Washington State is also in the Ninth Circuit, and a bill proposing the same limit of one gun purchase within a 30-day time period is still alive and could be, say some sources, revived for action in 2026. Washington has become a hotbed of extremist gun control politics, with majority Democrats in the Legislature essentially following the agenda of the billionaire-backed Alliance for Gun Responsibility, a Seattle-based gun prohibition lobbying group.

Washington’s Substitute House Bill 1132 contains this language:

“A dealer may not deliver more than one firearm to a purchaser or transferee within any 30-day period. (b) A dealer may not deliver more than 100 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition or more than 1,000 rounds of any other caliber of ammunition to a purchaser or transferee within any 30-day period.”

SHB 1132 stalled in the House Rules Committee earlier this year, but in the Evergreen State, legislation can be carried over from one session to the next.

In its fight to protect the one-gun law, which was enacted back in 1999 and gradually expanded, California argued that the Second Amendment only guarantees a right to possess a single firearm. The state contends that the one-gun law therefore does not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the amendment.

When the law was originally adopted, it only applied to concealable handguns. Over the course of time, the restriction was expanded until it ultimately applied to all firearms, as noted in Friday’s ruling.

“California’s interpretation would mean that the Second Amendment only protects possession of a single weapon of any kind,” Judge Forrest writes. “There is no basis for interpreting the constitutional text in that way.

“By categorically prohibiting citizens from purchasing more than one firearm of any kind in a 30 day period, California is infringing on citizens’ exercise of their Second Amendment rights,” Judge Forrest explains.

Concluding her opinion, Judge Forrest notes, “The Second Amendment expressly protects the right to possess multiple arms. It also protects against meaningful constraints on the right to acquire arms because otherwise the right to ‘keep and bear’ would be hollow.”

In his terse concurring opinion, Judge Owens bluntly states, “I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately to note that our opinion only concerns California’s ‘one gun-a-month’ law. It does not address other means of restricting bulk and straw purchasing of firearms, which our nation’s tradition of firearm regulation may support.”

Whether the state appeals or requests a full en banc hearing remains to be seen. Traditionally, with Second Amendment cases in the liberal Ninth Circuit, that’s what happens. But for the time being, Friday’s ruling amounts to a one-two punch because it affirms the District Court’s earlier ruling, and reversed a stay issued by the District Court while the appeal was in progress.

---

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/1AYRJ5X
via IFTTT

North Carolina Governor Stein Vetoes Constitutional Carry Bill

North Carolina Governor Stein Vetoes Constitutional Carry Bill, iStock-884214706

On June 20, 2025, North Carolina Governor Josh Stein vetoed a Constitutional Carry bill that would have allowed law-abiding adults over the age of 18 to carry concealed handguns without a permit. 

In his veto statement, Governor Stein expressed his justification for this move. “This bill makes North Carolinians less safe and undermines responsible gun ownership. Therefore, I am vetoing it,” Stein stated. “The bill eliminates training requirements associated with concealed carry permits and reduces the age to carry a concealed weapon from 21 to 18 years old. Authorizing teenagers to carry a concealed weapon with no training whatsoever is dangerous. The bill would also make the job of a law enforcement officer more difficult and less safe. We can and should protect the right to bear arms without recklessly endangering law enforcement officers and our people.”

Gun rights advocates and Republican leaders were quick to condemn the governor’s action. Senate Leader Phil Berger criticized the veto, stating, “Law-abiding North Carolinians shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to effectively exercise their Second Amendment rights. It’s past time for us to join the majority of states that recognize Constitutional Carry. I look forward to the Senate overriding Gov. Stein’s veto.”

To override a governor’s veto in North Carolina, the General Assembly requires a three-fifths majority vote in both chambers of the legislature. In other words, three-fifths of the members present and voting in each chamber must vote to override the veto for it to be successful.

72 votes are needed to override a veto (when all 120 members are present) in the North Carolina State House. There are currently 71 Republicans and 49 Democrats in the State House. 

In the North Carolina Senate, 30 votes are needed to override a veto (when all 50 members are present). At present, there are 30 Republicans and 20 Democrats in the Senate. A veto override will be a close call and will likely require a few Democrats to cross the aisle in the House for it to occur. 

Paul Valone, president of Grass Roots North Carolina, has previously argued that the permitting process is an unnecessary barrier for responsible gun owners and that Constitutional Carry would align North Carolina with the 29 other states that have adopted similar laws. “We want people to be free of the burden of having to deal with sheriffs who sometimes obstruct permits,” Valone has said, emphasizing the group’s belief that the right to bear arms should not be subject to government approval. 

North Carolina’s Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), known as the “Freedom to Carry NC” Act, would make North Carolina the 30th state to adopt Constitutional Carry.

As mentioned before, citizens of the United States who are at least 18 years old would be allowed to carry a concealed handgun in North Carolina without a permit unless otherwise prohibited by law. ​The bill retains the option for individuals to obtain concealed handgun permits for reciprocity with other states or for convenience in firearm purchases. ​

Under Senate Bill 50, certain individuals, such as those under indictment for a felony, convicted of certain crimes, or deemed mentally ill, are barred from carrying concealed handguns. ​

The bill provides clear guidelines for carrying concealed handguns in locked vehicles and on private property, making it easier for lawful gun owners to understand and comply with the law. Additionally, certain employees residing on educational campuses are allowed to possess handguns under specific conditions, which expands the ability to carry firearms in areas previously restricted. ​

By eliminating the need for a permit for concealed carry, SB 50 reduces the administrative and financial burden on gun owners, which tends to disproportionately fall on Americans of humbler economic stature. 

The bill would go into effect on December 1, 2025, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date. ​

Whether the override effort succeeds or fails, Governor Stein’s veto has ensured that the debate over gun rights will remain front and center in North Carolina politics.

---

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/nQ53hcM
via IFTTT

Old Editorial Useful in Showing True Goal Behind ‘Commonsense Gun Safety’ Lie

Compare what the gun prohibitionists say they want now to what they were calling for then. (Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America/Facebook)

“[O]n a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building,” an Op-Ed column by retired diplomat and editorial board member Dan Simpson in the Toledo Blade titled “The disarming of America” demanded.  “All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.”

OK, but that’s from 2007. Why bring it up now?

I was actually searching the old version of my blog for key words to bolster arguments for a new post (something many of us with history in the fight do all the time) and came across a blistering criticism by ostensible Second Amendment/NRA “loyalist” bloggers that friend and colleague Mike Vanderboegh and I called “prags” (self-styled “pragmatists”). They were going ballistic on Mike for being a “principles freak” and “making us all look bad” because of his frank talk about unintended consequences from pushing die-hard gun owners too far (as opposed to employing their preferred tactic of writing polite letters to rabid gun-grabbers as a the most “effective” way to win support from fence-sitters).

So, while the prags were out there scolding us for First Amendment-protected predictions that never crossed the threshold of being actionable threats, this former armed government official (whom I dubbed “Homer Simpson’s dumber brother”) was using a major mainstream newspaper to issue a demand for the government to initiate a nationwide civil war against all citizens who would not surrender their Second Amendment-articulated right to keep and bear arms. Noting the death toll any attempt to do that would rack up, I leave it to the readers to decide if candid warnings are truly inappropriate.

Especially since the piece, written by a member of the paper’s editorial board as opposed to “written by members of the public … to ensure they present diverse opinions on topics of importance to readers,” was presented as an “op-ed.” The Blade is all about gun-grabbing, with editors wringing their hands and second-guessing successful DGUs (defensive gun uses) because:

“[W]e’re not sure that store owners and employees defending themselves with deadly force is an absolute good. [I]t must be remembered that robbery is not a capital crime, and it’s only by chance that no one other than the would-be robbers was injured. We fear the result might instead be that bad guys will get bigger guns and be quicker to pull the trigger.”

Back to Vanderboegh for a second, his acknowledgement of “Bill Clinton’s rules of engagement” might be something these DSM (Duranty/Streicher Media) cowards might want to consider before advocating that the government send troops to disarm the rest of us. No, the “prags” did not appreciate that one bit.

And back to Simpson, who also demanded, among other things:

• “Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license.” [Democrat Fudds who throw other gun owners under the bus take note. Your turn in the barrel will come if the swindlers you support have their way.]
• “All antique or interesting non-hunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard.”
• “Any gun sold would be delivered immediately by the dealer to the nearest arsenal or the museum, not to the buyer.”
• “[F]airly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms… On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for ‘carrying’.”

And oblivious to the (deliberately) open borders that allowed tens of millions of illegal aliens to embed themselves to the benefit of “pathway to citizenship” Democrats and cheap labor Republicans, Simpson asserted smuggling guns from Mexico and Canada “would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time.” That both countries impose draconian “gun control” edicts that don’t work was apparently not worth mentioning.

It’s important to note that Simpson’s creed was written in response to the Virginia Tech massacre, that is, killings enabled in a “gun-free zone”  that, according to university officials, was “a very sound policy.” How many more deaths he thought his delusional total disarmament policy would make inevitable was left unsaid.

The point of rehashing all this now is to remind younger gun owners that citizen disarmament and its resultant monopoly of violence, repackaged by the prohibitionists now as “commonsense gun safety laws,” has always been the goal.

Of course they’re talking about taking your guns, and any protestation to the contrary is simply a calculated lie crafted to give talking points to fanatics and keep the uninformed from looking at the documented history of the modern “gun control” movement, where its founders admitted they would do things in increments with the ultimate objective of total bans.

Mike is no longer with us, and Homer Simpson’s dumber brother (still taking shots at us years after his first plan didn’t work) has gone on to his reward. Those of us with long memories due to long involvement won’t be around forever.

You’ll note a lot of the links embedded in this article loaded slowly because the original websites have either taken them down or no longer exist and you can only access them via the Internet Archive/WaybackMachine. That’s a resource I publicize (and donate) to because it’s the only place where you can still read our original Operation Fast and Furious reporting.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” philosopher George Santayana wrote. Never forget the past, because given the opportunity, by force or by fraud, that’s exactly what the collectivist violence monopolists, emulating the worst tyrants in history, want us to do.

“Who controls the past, controls the future,” George Orwell observed in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. “Who controls the present, controls the past.”

“Commonsense gun safety” is a fraud, used by the evil to manipulate “useful idiots” and to hide their real plans. It’s important that Second Amendment promoters counter that lie by knowing the past, educating others, and never forgetting that text, history, and tradition supports an abused citizenry to remind would-be tyrants they will never surrender the power to respond in ways the “pragmatists” would not approve.

WE WILL NOT DISARM.

---

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/gT6jEam
via IFTTT