Category Archives: Gun Rights

Socialist’s Unquenchable Thirst for Power

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

This is a painful lesson that a lot of us in the Palestine solidarity movement have been learning is that we don’t have power… what we don’t have is power… the question I’m asking myself, and I’m asking you to ask yourself, ‘is where can I actually build power?”

Eman Abdelhadi
Associate Professor of the University of Chicago’s Department of Comparative Human Development
At Socialism 2025, July 5, 2025
Far-left University of Chicago professor charged with violent felonies during anti-ICE riots in Broadview

As if you didn’t already know, socialists have an unquenchable thirst for power. And, of course, all Marxists know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

I leave the remainder of this lesson as an exercise for the reader.

Please prepare appropriately.

Annoying

Posted on by

Win the case, but no relief:

What the court has done here is say that this law is unconstitutional, but in order for an 18-year-old to avoid having their constitutional rights trounced by it today they must live in one of only three states in the nation and have been the member of SAF at age 13,” Kraut said. He added that the requirement to disclose membership lists to the government raises serious concerns about the right to free association and privacy.

Neither Side is Really Serious

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

To get rid of those guns requires confiscation. That requires a lot of law enforcement. If you like the War on Drugs or ICE’s immigration raids, you will love a War on Guns. To collect those hundreds of millions of guns will require many more cops, many more home searches by armed cops that could result in shootings, many more stops and frisks on the streets, and a great many more prison sentences for gun possession — a crime that is often under-enforced by blue-city and blue-state prosecutors because sentencing those offenders tends to lead disproportionately to jailing young black men. But if the guns are the problem and removing them is the solution, you need to act as if you believe those things.

…

What are you prepared to do? And then what are you prepared to do? If you’re not prepared for the dramatic escalation of heavy-handed law enforcement that a War on Guns would entail, then you’re not serious about one.

Dan Zimmerman
October 2, 2025
The Gun Control Industry Has Never Been Serious About What They’re Prepared to Do to Wage Their War on Guns – Shooting News Weekly

One can make the argument that Democrats originally just wanted to ban guns for blacks to enable the KKK. Then after the party was no longer dependent on the KKK to win elections they kept the gun issue because it would be inconsistent to switch talking points. Ultimately, they convinced their base that guns were the cause of crime. At that point they could continue to get votes by promising to “do something.” If they had actually been able to deliver it would have eliminated a reason to vote for them.

And, of course, a case can be made that the Republican party never wanted to actually eliminate all the repressive gun laws for similar reasons. If the repressive gun laws were eliminated, then their base would have less reason to vote for them.

Hence, for at the last ~60 years (since congress started debating what became GCA68), both sides used gun control to get votes and money from the common people. Yeah, I’m somewhat cynical at times.

Ironically, I think either side winning in a big way would have resolved it to my eventual satisfaction. A civil war over gun ownership probably would have resulted in a new government with private gun ownership a central point of the foundation of government. The pro-gun legislative rollback of GCA68 and all the state and local laws would be preferable, but the issue would probably fester for 100 years or more.

This is part of the reason I have been saying for years that I have given up on the legislative branch. It is only through the courts that we have a chance to get this mess cleaned up without bloodshed or a long fester. Neither major party is really serious about resolving the issue. It is their gravy train of votes and money.

The courts are glacially slow, but it does reduce the bloodshed and put a foreseeable end to the lingering political fester.

Good News From SCOTUS

Posted on by

Curated by Copilot:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a Hawaii law that restricts concealed carry permit holders from bringing firearms onto private property without explicit permission from the property owner. This case, which follows a 2022 landmark ruling on gun rights, could have significant implications for Second Amendment interpretations and public safety measures. The decision may also affect similar laws in California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York.

This what is commonly known as the Vampire Rule. I wish SCOTUS were willing to take on more than one or two gun rights cases every year. There is so much stuff to be cleaned up. I really want the normal capacity magazine and semi-automatic rifle restrictions slapped down hard. But it seems those cans keep getting kicked down the road.

The good side is that this should be a pretty easy win, and it becomes another “brick in the wall”.

Also listen to what Mark Smith has to say about it:

She isn’t Wrong

Posted on by

Via Leftists Aren’t People @joquinn12345678

Via jackiefbr @jackiefbr:

Someday, I’m going to visit Auschwitz and take some pictures to share.

Prepare appropriately.

Excellent Point

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

It’s not death they like, because everyone dies. It’s killing they like.

X — Formerly IB_Joe
September 22, 2025
Comment to Instapundit » Blog Archive » FOR THE LEFT VIOLENCE IS BAKED IN:  Death is the Solution to all Problems.

Prepare appropriately.

Timely

Posted on by

That is good timing. Amazon says Liberal Tears out of stock.

Via Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy, who also said:

They’ll keep crying.

We’ll keep carrying.

Concealed Carry now Legal in Fifth Circuit Post Offices

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Our Nation has grappled with threats to mail carriers and post offices since the Founding. In 1792, Congress enacted a law which proscribed punishment by death to “any person [who] shall rob the mail . . . or shall steal and take . . . from or out of any post- office, any letter or packet.” A few years later, in 1799, Congress sought to protect postal employees by punishing robbery of a postal employee in which a dangerous weapon was used with death if the robbery was successful, or if it was unsuccessful, with public whipping or imprisonment. That the Founders were acutely aware of threats to post offices and postal employees, yet chose to criminalize the offending behavior rather than banning firearms outright, is telling.

Reed O’Connor
Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas Fort Worth Division
Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, Et Al. v. Pamela Bondi (backup here)

See also what the FPC and SAF has to say about this case. Most importantly, the ruling does not protect all people from prosecution for carrying in the Fifth Circuit. Only the two individuals and the members of the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition.

That last point is something I have written about many times before. One could make a good case that our ideological opponents do not recognize the individual. There is only the mass of humans each interchangeable with the other unless they are blessed with a government issued metal identification token, aka a badge. Or as I sometimes describe it, they desire to treat us like cattle.

It is nice to have a judge explicitly call out the government for failing to recognize, what I think to be, the obvious.

But there is another hypothesis which merits consideration. It could be our opponents merely act stupid and/or naive. They are just making things up to justify the banning of all guns for their own evil purposes. The truth would not go over well so they make up reasons why can and should be deprived of our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arm.

A Good First Step

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has systematically denied thousands of law-abiding Californians their fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home—not through outright refusal, but through a deliberate pattern of unconscionable delay that renders this constitutional right meaningless in practice.

The scope of this constitutional violation is staggering. Between January
2024 and March 2025, Defendants received 3,982 applications for new concealed carry licenses. Of these, they approved exactly two—a mere 0.05% approval rate that cannot be explained by legitimate disqualifying factors alone. This is not bureaucratic inefficiency; it is systematic obstruction of constitutional rights.

The mechanics of this obstruction are equally damning. Defendants force
applicants to wait an average of 281 days—over nine months—just to begin processing their applications, with some waiting as long as 1,030 days (nearly three years). The median delay is 372 days. These delays far exceed California’s own statutory
requirement that licensing authorities provide initial determinations within 90 days, demonstrating Defendants’ flagrant disregard for both state law and constitutional obligations.

The human cost is profound. As of May 2025, approximately 2,768
applications for new licenses remain pending, with interviews scheduled as late as November 2026—more than two years after some applications were first submitted. Numerous applicants simply gave up and withdrew their applications, often after waiting months in Defendants’ deliberately stalled process. These are not abstract statistics; they represent thousands of law-abiding citizens who have been stripped of their constitutional right to self-defense outside their homes.

U.S. Department of Justice
September 30, 2025
United States of America v. Los Angels County Sheriffs Department, and Robert Luna, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Los Angeles County (backup here)

According to numerous sources, and Copilot:

until the LA County concealed carry case, DOJ had never used § 12601 for Second Amendment violations. That makes this lawsuit a historic first—a signal that DOJ now considers systemic denial of gun rights a civil rights issue.

Copilot has this to say about my assertion the infringement will continue until criminal charges are pursued against the perpetrators:

Will Infringements Stop Without Criminal Charges?

Not likely. Civil suits can force policy changes, but they don’t carry the deterrent weight of personal accountability. Officials can stall, delay, or reinterpret rulings without fear of jail time. That’s why your call for criminal enforcement resonates—it’s about consequences, not just corrections.

Copilot offered to draft a model indictment. I accepted the offer:

United States District Court

Criminal Indictment United States of America v. [Defendants]

Count One – Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241)

The Grand Jury charges:

  1. Beginning on or about January 1, 2022, and continuing through the present, in the County of [X], State of [Y], the defendants [Name 1], [Name 2], and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly and willfully conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate citizens in the free exercise and enjoyment of rights secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States, namely, the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
  2. The object of the conspiracy was to obstruct and delay the issuance of concealed carry permits to qualified applicants, through intentional administrative backlog, arbitrary denials, and the imposition of unlawful requirements not authorized by state law.
  3. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendants:
    • Directed staff to ignore or delay processing of applications.
    • Required applicants to submit additional documentation not required by law.
    • Denied permits without cause or explanation.
    • Maintained internal communications expressing intent to “slow-walk” approvals to discourage lawful carry.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 241.

Count Two – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 U.S.C. § 242)

The Grand Jury further charges:

  1. On or about [specific date], in the County of [X], State of [Y], defendant [Name] acting under color of law as [Title/Position], did willfully deprive [Victim Name], a citizen of the United States, of rights secured by the Constitution, namely the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
  2. The deprivation occurred when [Name], acting in his official capacity, denied [Victim] a concealed carry permit despite full legal eligibility, and did so based on personal bias against firearm ownership and in furtherance of the conspiracy described in Count One.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.

Notice of Special Findings

The Grand Jury finds that the offenses charged:

  • Were committed under color of law.
  • Involved multiple victims.
  • Were part of a pattern or practice of rights violations.

Here is what others are saying:

This is a good start. But I won’t be popping the cork on the champagne until the first perp goes to jail with all their appeals exhausted.

Mass Shooting Deterrence

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

People complain that we shouldn’t need to have armed security everywhere. But we simply need to break the mass shooter fever. Make it undesirable to the nutcases.

If a series of these losers find not infamy, but rather a quick and humiliating end by armed guards or private citizens, they will stop trying and this dark “trend” will end.

Not unlike how serial killing isn’t much of a thing anymore due to improved strategies to counter them.

Kostas Moros @MorosKostas
Posted on X, September 28, 2025

I think there is another component required to “break the mass shooter fever.” If a person intent on committing a mass shooting (or mass murder by any means) is stopped after the first or second victim there isn’t much publicity and almost certainly no national or international reporting of the failed attempt. Hence, the “humiliating end by armed guards or private citizens” does not get the attention required to deter future criminal acts of similar nature.

I’m not sure what the solution to the restricted reporting is. Sure, there is some bias in the reporting. Major media outlets have a strong anti-gun bias and don’t want to “encourage more gun violence” by reporting death or injury by gun in a positive manner.

My guess is that just as big a component is that a story about 10 innocent people being murdered is more of a news event than one innocent murdered and one criminal put down. The first story gets more clicks/attention than the second. And that means more revenue when the first type of story is reported on than when the second type of story is reported on. The successful defensive gun use story has to compete for resources with other stories of wider interest such as “climate crisis”, “orange man bad”, and “defending democracy.”

My best stab at remediating the problem are the following ideas:

  • Work at increasing the successful defensive gun use cases so that the total number is decreased. This results in fewer “heroes” for the copycats to emulate.
  • Report successful defensive gun use events in social media.
  • Encourage media outlets to report on successful defensive gun use. And to use the keywords “mass shooter” appropriately like, “probable mass shooter.” Even if the larger media outlets don’t respond appropriately the placement of the stories on the Internet will show up in search results and enable the copycats to find large numbers of alternate endings for their quests of notoriety.
  • Encourage the justice system to treat mass murders in humiliating ways while respecting their rights. I’m thinking of pictures of suspects brought to trial in cuffs, chains, shackled, wearing clothes too big for them, hair messed up, and surrounding by extremely tall, muscular, law officers. This makes the suspect appear small and weak.

Does anyone else have other ideas?

Mindset of Another Socialist

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Our accelerating cavalcade of bloodshed rests on three pillars:

First, the massive tech media platforms, which feed us a daily diet of misinformation and tribal distrust. Sex sells. But Big Tech — 40% of the S&P 500 — has found something even better: rage. Eisenhower rightly warned us about the military industrial complex. In the decades after he left office, weapons manufacturers, think tanks, and politicians — the violence entrepreneurs of their era — conspired to make foreign wars and proxy conflicts into billion-dollar businesses. Today, Meta dwarves Lockheed Martin. “Make Memes Not War” is the trillion-dollar strategy.

My argument is not that politics is unrelated to the violence. (Or that there isn’t actual organized political violence, mostly from the far right, as has been well documented.) On the contrary, the ever more violent and inflammatory rhetoric and misinformation and the relentless demonization of every available scapegoat have left their marks all over the lives of the perpetrators. But demagoguery, dog whistles, and tribalism aren’t new. The dangerous novelty of our time is the fusing of capitalism and technology to make rage, and violence, profitable.

We’d go a long way toward dismantling the rage machine if we exposed its makers to liability, as we do with every other corporation. Reforming Section 230, which insulates online platforms from the externalities of the conspiracy theories and Chinese misinformation schemes they peddle, would be a massive first step. Age-gating social media would be a good follow-up.
And online media is an accelerant to our problem. As I often say, (including in my next book), the fire it fuels is disconnected rage. Rarely has a cohort fallen further, faster than young men. Most angry young men find peace. Some grasp a gun instead.

My friend Richard Reeves wrote a book, Of Boys and Men, that’s replete with good ideas: recruit more male teachers, invest in vocational training, destigmatize mental health problems. We should raise the minimum wage and create tax breaks for people paying off student debt and saving for home ownership. Implement national service to get young people off their devices and into their communities. Use tax credits that unleash the private building sector and anti-Nimby laws, to help us build 8 million new homes in 10 years. Enforce retirement ages and term limits so older people make room for the rising generation.

The third leg of this stool is the most obvious, but also the most politicized. This post comes nine days after Kirk was killed. In those nine days, 1,125 other Americans died from gun violence. Fifty were children. Two more people have been shot and killed since you began reading this post.

The U.K., where I’ve been living for the past three years, has much in common with the U.S. The problems are familiar: racial division, arguments over immigration, declining opportunity for young people. Yet one difference stands out. It will take more than a year for the U.K. to see as many gun deaths (per capita) as the U.S. experienced in the nine days since Kirk’s murder. Private handguns are outlawed here, and hunting firearms are tightly controlled.

This isn’t complicated: break Big Tech’s immunity, invest in boys, rein in guns. The hard part isn’t policy — it’s courage. The violence entrepreneurs aren’t selling solutions, they’re selling rage. And business is booming.

Scott Galloway
September 29, 2025
Violence Entrepreneurs | No Mercy / No Malice

Interesting… There probably is some truth in what he says about the problem. But what jumps out at me is the mindset of the proposed solutions. Or perhaps it would be better expressed as the lack of proposed solution types.

The concept of individual responsibility apparently does not occur to Galloway. All the solutions suggested are of the type one might use to control a herd of cattle. Individuals which are well behaved are treated the same as troublemakers. Group restrictions rather than individual punishment, treatment, and/or isolation. It is the mindset of a socialist with more government control of corporations, schools, wages, housing, forced labor, forced non-labor, and, of course, no guns.

The one final thing is probably the most mind boggling ignorant. He asserts, “The hard part isn’t policy.” He is certain to get a lot of pushbacks on the first two “pillars”. But regarding the third, he is an alternate reality if he is not aware of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Ultimately, the pushbacks there come in small copper jacketed packets traveling at supersonic speeds.

Evidence of His Real Goal

Posted on by

David Hogg Calls for Gun Control After Kirk’s Death.

Of course he does. Because he needs a wedge against possession of hunting rifles if his goal of the confiscating all guns is to be realized. This is just one more piece of evidence of his evil intent.

We Are Not the Same

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Perhaps the reason leftists and conservatives think so differently about guns, is because for conservatives it doesn’t even occur to us to shoot someone simply for disagreeing.

The response to Charlie’s assassination revealed that it occurs to the left all the time.

Nick Freitas @NickJFreitas
Posted on X, September 16, 2025

Via daughter Jaime.

And from the same thread we have this:

Her Cause is Hopeless

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The gun-friendly Court has made a near-impossible feat Sisyphean. We have a Republican Congress utterly unwilling to pass meaningful legislation to stem the scourge of gun violence, backstopped by a Supreme Court that sees the Second Amendment as untouchable.

…

Still, dropping the subject cedes significant ground to the right. The United States is not the only country with hyper-partisanship and an irresponsible, bloodlusty leader. It’s the guns.

Kate Riga
September 11, 2025
We Don’t Even Talk About the Guns Anymore

Riga is delusional and/or stupid if she really thinks it is the guns rather than the culture and/or people. But that may be giving her too much credit.

At this point I don’t much care. She has an opinion that is just so much dust being swept into the dustbin of history. I’m just happy to see the acknowledgement that her desire to enable tyranny anytime soon is hopeless.

Psychologists Will Disappoint You on This

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

As a reminder, the field of psychology cannot predict homicidal likelihood well at all. The base rate is so low, it is an extremely difficult prediction.

If you are looking to us to predict who should not be allowed to own a gun, you are going to be disappointed. I don’t know.

Nicole Prause @NicoleRPrause
Posted on X, September 12, 2025

Prause is a research psychologist. Although she seems to be generally opposed to private gun ownership, I believe her to be reasonable honest following where the data leads.

There are other reasons not to expect psychologists to do a good job on determining the fitness of someone to own a gun. It would be extremely generous to call it an inexact science. Hence, when confronted with the responsibility to make that type of decision they would probably error on the side of “public safety” and deny far more people the right of gun ownership than is appropriate.

The appropriate way to address this is to remove guns from the question. The appropriate question to ask is, “Is this person a threat to themselves or others?” And if so, the response should be involuntary confinement at state expense with appropriate, if any, treatment.

This Time the Biggest Legal Gun in the Nation is on Our Side

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

We have the United States Department of Justice not only filing an amici brief on behalf of the challenges to the Illinois gun ban, they have asked for time to come in and argue the government’s position.

Todd Vandermyde
September 12, 2025
DOJ arguing against Illinois’ gun ban ‘monumental,’ advocate says

It is rare but not unheard of for the Feds to support the 2nd Amendment. See the DOJ amicus brief: Office of the Solicitor General | District of Columbia v. Heller – Amicus (Merits) | United States Department of Justice.

Still, it is definitely a worth celebrating when you find that you have the biggest legal gun in the nation on your side.

Advocating for Personal Safety

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The first time I went to a shooting range I was shaking so bad I couldn’t even write my simple five letter name on the forms and I almost threw up in the waiting area.

Now I am a second amendment advocate.

I do not advocate for violence. It is never the answer. But evil exists and it is up to us to protect ourselves. In fact, one of the first things you learn in a gun safety class is that you never want to pull out the gun unless you absolutely have to. Your wallet, watch, jewelry, phone, car, whatever are not worth taking someone’s life. I want to make that clear.

I also want to make it clear that if you are not comfortable around guns or in using one, then make that a top priority now. Start small. Get comfortable. Get trained. This is especially directed at women! If you aren’t comfortable with a gun please consider other options for personal safety. I am a runner. I have MACE and even a taser that I carry whenever I’m running alone. I’ve heard too many stories.

This is in no way advocating for violence. What it is though is advocating for personal safety. It is us against evil and no one is coming to save us. It is your right to protect yourself and your family.

sarah @swkyhokie
Posted on X, September 11, 2025

This is about 1/3 of her post. Most of the rest is her Virginia Tech mass shooting story. She was unhurt but blamed guns for many years. Eventually she thought it through and realized she had it wrong.

Via a post from Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras.

Mistake or Intentional? Leftist Speech or False Flag?

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

we all deserve gun safety. Gun violence is too prevalent in America.

Washington State Democratic Party
September 10, 2025
Washington state elected officials react to fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk | The Daily Chronicle

This seemed a little off and I wanted to verify the exact details. As this was posted on Bluesk I had to create an account and search from probably close to an hour before I finally found it. The text searches did not find it because the words were in an image:

That is interesting. Do you see the difference? It still throws in the idea that the assassination is a gun problem rather than a people or rhetoric problem. But it is not the primary point.

The article was written by Paige Cornwell at the Seattle Times. But it was picked up and posted elsewhere:

No one, apparently, noticed the error in the quote.

If you haven’t noticed the difference, I’ll point it out for you. Ms. Cornwell substituted “we all deserve gun safety” for “we all deserve safety.”

Perhaps I am hypersensitive to the phrase “gun safety.” Or perhaps Ms. Cornwell mistyped the quote in a hurry to get the article finished. Or the Washington State Democrats changed their post after Cornwell grabbed the quote. But a case can be made she did this intentionally. Copilot could not find any history of reporting on gun ownership in any form and tends toward it being an inadvertent error.

I have sent Ms. Page an email about the error. If I get a response, I will edit this post.

In related news, there are both Democrats and the Republicans jumping to conclusions about the motive of the shooter without evidence to support their beliefs. Some Rs claim the Ds are terrorists and should be hunted down and held responsible. Some Ds claim it was a false flag operation to distract from Trump’s involvement with Epstein and/or to justify the creation of a fascist state.

Having just finished Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State” (a good book, BTW), I can easily see the parallels to Nazis using political assassinations as justification for extermination of minorities/political-opponents. And, of course, the political left has a tendency to view violence as just another form of speech.

I’m going to wait for evidence before expressing an opinion. However, it is full speed ahead on getting the underground bunker in Idaho livable.

Update: It has been almost 24 hours since I sent her an email asking if it was intentional or not. I have not received a response.

Draw your own conclusions.

A Magnet for Criminals

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Gun control doesn’t stop bad guys. It’s a magnet for criminals.

Erich Pratt
Senior Vice President
Gun Owners of America
September 9, 2025

I really admire the ability to succinctly express powerful ideas.

A Marxist Tell

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Gun makers are increasingly competing for a decreasing market share. That’s why you see this push for an aggressive deregulatory agenda … That’s what animates this attack on the NFA.

 Hudson Munoz
Executive director of Guns Down America
September 5, 2025
Inside the gun absolutists’ bold plot to repeal one of America’s strongest firearms laws

What you see is here is a very strong indicator of a Marxist. The attribution of something they see as bad in the world as due to “corporate greed”, “capitalism”, etc. You used to hear organizations like the Brady Campaign insist that gun manufactures were “flooding the streets” with guns.

It seems beyond their comprehension that markets drive the direction of corporations. Apparently, in their minds, people do not have free will or ability to decide for themselves what they want to spend their own money on. And that extends to people pushing legislators to pass, or repeal, laws that further the interests of individuals. Do they think corporations vote instead of individuals?

And if you doubt this organization has an evil agenda, check out this line from their website:

Gun violence can’t happen where there aren’t guns, and guns are not inevitable.

The organization is probably just one person, Igor Volsky, and is only of significance because it demonstrates the Marxist tell in how they frame the view of gun owners being allowed to purchase gun accessories with fewer restrictions.