Some people feel more secure just knowing a gun is within reach. But having a weapon nearby doesn’t guarantee protection – in fact, it often increases the chances of injury or death. Research shows that homes with guns have higher rates of accidental shootings and suicides. Even trained gun owners can make split-second mistakes in high-stress situations.
Do you know anyone who claims, “having a weapon nearby guarantees protection?” The “17 Gun Myths” are filled with crap like this. It is anti-gun ownership clickbait.
I find simple minded half-truths, straw man arguments, and lies to be extremely irritating. I don’t think they are this stupid. I think they are deliberately crafting a narrative to influence people into accepting their lies.
In 2019, a gunman shot and killed 12 people in a Virginia Beach municipal building. His semiautomatic weapon was fitted with a silencer, making the gunshots sound, to one survivor, “like a nail gun.”
If the shots had been louder — if the people inside had been given even 30 more seconds of warning — lives could have perhaps been saved. But muffled sounds from the silencer created confusion and, ultimately, death.
Silencers are dangerous. Now, they’re more accessible than ever.
It is very telling that Ms. Young can only cite one instance of a suppressor being used in a crime. Even though there are millions of them in the possession of U.S. citizens suppressors are almost never used it a crime. Even more telling is that even though she is studying “public policy” it apparently does not occur to her that specific enumerated rights are not evaluated on the basis of how they are abused. They are protected and the people who abuse them are punished.
After reading a little bit about what a “public policy” major is, I see the problem. Public policy majors are taught to see the world through the lens of what government can do to improve society. I cannot say for certain, but it looks to me like a “public policy” of limited government powers is not in their playbook. The solution to all problems is always more government control. In other words, socialism and tyranny.
No, thank you. Ms. Young, you may not have my guns or suppressors. Your move Ms. Young. Please choose wisely.
A federal appeals court this week struck down California’s landmark law requiring background checks and in-person transactions for ammunition purchases, the latest in a string of judicial wins that have gun rights advocates celebrating.
… the opinion by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals follows closely on a separate panel’s ruling against a California law aimed at regulating the marketing of firearms to minors earlier this month, and on a federal court ruling Wednesday allowing gun rights advocates to continue a lawsuit against concealed carry rules in Los Angeles County.
“We’re on a roll,” said Southern California attorney and gun rights advocate Chuck Michel, who was involved in all three cases.
In its 2-1 ruling against the ammunition background checks, the appellate panel said Thursday that by limiting purchases, California’s law effectively limited the rights of gun owners to have functioning firearms.
Today is a great day for freedom and the American people. The dismissal of this appeal should be the final nail in the coffin of this unconstitutional Biden ATF assault on gun owners. As we explained in the case filings, braced pistols are not ‘short-barreled rifles’. But either way, they are unquestionably arms protected under the Second Amendment. We are thrilled to have secured this important win for liberty and excited to take on even more unconstitutional laws so you can exercise your rights when, where, and how you choose.
A year ago, I could not have imagined seeing this sort of thing happen. I sometimes think I must be dreaming about how well things are going in the fight for the rights of gun owners. We lived the nightmare for so many decades it is nice to have things turn our way.
The really big thorns in our paws are now:
Restrictions on semi-automatic rifles.
Restrictions on standard capacity magazines.
Permitting of all types.
Waiting periods.
I think these are all relatively easy wins if we can just get them before SCOTUS.
For too long, countless Americans with criminal histories have been permanently disenfranchised from exercising the right to keep and bear arms—a right every bit as constitutionally enshrined as the right to vote, the right to free speech, and the right to free exercise of religion—irrespective of whether they actually pose a threat. No longer.
This has been a sore point for a lot of people. Technically, there was a process for doing this (18 U.S.C. 925(c)) but congress defunded it in the 1990s. It was challenged in court, and we lost.
The worst story I have heard about this is an elderly black guy who had a felony conviction from many decades ago for having a deck of cards with semi-nude pictures of white women on them. No other brushes with the law, and he was denied the right of effective self-defense.
There are probably thousands of other stories with non-violent convictions of people who led a good and productive life for decades and were never able to own or handle a gun.
It is a bit ironic, and I’m not going to say who it is, but there is a very well-known gun rights professional who had a felony conviction for income tax evasion. They were able to get their gun rights restored before the process was defunded. Very few people were as fortunate as this person was.
It is just another small brick in the wall, but this probable change is very pleasing to me.
Unsympathetic defendants make for bad precedents. This is what happened in the Rahimi case, where the Supreme Court opened the door a crack, allowing judges to believe they can create more exceptions to Second Amendment rights. Rahimi is cited as the reason for the upholding of the Gun Free School Zone Act in the Fifth Circuit.
This is why we have to be as aggressive as we can in the courts. We need to flood the courts with sympathetic plaintiffs in infringing areas that are relatively obvious wins. Please consider donating to the gun rights organization who are active in the courts.
I’m not anti-gun at all. I’m just for some gun safe common sense. I’m challenged by large-capacity clips in urban centers, weapons of war sometimes outgunning the police. But otherwise, man, people have the right to bear arms. I got no ideological opposition to that at all.
The 28th Amendment will permanently enshrine four broadly supported gun safety principles into the U.S. Constitution:
Raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21;
Mandating universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime;
Instituting a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases; and
Barring civilian purchase of assault weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time – weapons of war our nation’s founders never foresaw.
Additionally, the 28th Amendment will affirm Congress, states, and local governments can enact additional common-sense gun safety regulations that save lives.
Emphasis added.
Or the multitude of oppressive gun laws he has signed into law?
Zohran Mamdani’s run for mayor of New York City is a clear and present danger to the stability, economic health, and democratic foundation of both the city and the nation.
His platform is rooted in a radical socialist ideology that has, time and time again, led to failure, repression, and suffering wherever it has been tried.
And thanks to a clip surfacing on social media today, we see that Mamdani is not hiding this. In fact, he has been strikingly open about what he believes and what he plans to do. You can listen to his comments for yourself here.
Speaking in 2021 at the Young Democratic Socialists of America Organizing Conference, Mamdani said his goal is to “continue to elect more socialists” and to be “unapologetic about our socialism.”
He followed that with two key objectives: boycotting Israel and “seizing the means of production.”
The phrase “seizing the means of production” is not some vague slogan—it is the core tenet of Marxist revolutionary ideology. It means that private property, businesses, and industries are taken from their owners and turned over to collective or state control.
In addition, the bill contains funding for a “buyback program”—which, of course, is a euphemism for the government using the American people’s money to disarm them. To anyone paying attention, this ought not to be a surprise, for, despite its fluffy name and aw-shucks marketing campaign, the GOSAFE Act represents just another attempt at the mass-disarmament of the American people—and an exceedingly brazen one at that.
That these anti-gun members of Congress likely don’t have the votes to get this done now is heartening, but it is also a warning, as they are telling us precisely what they’d like to do if they regain power.
I have no doubt that if they get the votes and control of the Presidency they will pass and sign the bill into law. Constitutional issue protests will be ignored. It would only be via the courts we could get legal relief. And that could take years.
The only way I see this cycle being broken is to create a strong disincentive for these obvious rights violations. The best way I see to accomplish this is to start prosecutions of the politicians presently violating our rights. To let bygones be bygones now is to invite oppression in the future.
This important judgment means that people must maintain their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms when they cross California’s border. Just as people are free to speak or worship in states they don’t reside in, this win makes clear they are likewise free to bear arms for lawful purposes throughout the United States. Unlike Louisiana, which recently repealed their unconstitutional residency requirement following an FPC legal challenge, California’s commitment to tyranny forced us to take this case to a final judgment. FPC will continue to eliminate unconstitutional residency requirements and other bans so that people can exercise their rights when, where, and how they choose.
At the end of April, I posted about the preliminary injunction in the case. This is the final judgement. Of course, the state may appeal it. Historically, the odds of the 9th circuit siding with the 2nd Amendment are almost exactly zero.
California has 14 days to file a notice of appeal in the case. Today is the 14th day. Check here to see what they decide.
I am still undecided, but I am leaning towards abolishing them one at a time rather than combining them then trying to abolish the conglomerate. The reason being that while there are votes to be had from across the aisle for the abolishment of the DEA, I think there are more votes to be lost by people strongly opposed to legalized recreational drugs. Abolish what we can, when we can, then look for an opportunity to get rid of other agencies when the time is right.
Gun Owners of America is alarmed, warning such a merger would enable even greater anti-liberty/gun mischief, such as:
*The combined agency would have three times the ATF budget *Four times current ATF tactical (SWAT-like) units *More than 10,000 new employees *Reduced oversight and accountability
The DOJ’s dangerous proposal would consolidate the ATF and DEA into an authoritarian “super-agency” with the combined powers to wage the failed war on drugs and enforce unconstitutional federal gun control laws against all Americans, not just violent criminals and drug cartels. By merging the ATF’s firearms enforcement authority into the DEA, the DOJ is effectively equating peaceable American gun owners with drug cartels, turning millions of law-abiding citizens—as well as their constitutionally protected weapons—into co-equal targets of a militarized federal enforcement regime.
It’s hard to know who is right in this case. There’s no question the ATF has all too often abused its power, serving as an anti-gun enforcer for anti-liberty/gunners rather than a professional, non-partisan law enforcement agency. Too often their enforcement targets have been gun dealers who made innocent paperwork errors, or Americans with no criminal intent charged with made-up crimes. Some in Congress continue to want to entirely abolish the ATF, an idea that could arguably strengthen individual liberty.
It’s also hard to imagine how the legally mandated tasks of both agencies might be combined in a way that would make either more efficient or less costly.
Guns being stolen from cars is a problem…one created by failed government policies and anti-gun corporate rules that coerce responsible gun owners into leaving firearms in vehicles.
The government creates the problem, complains about it, then demands more control.
The framed picture below was given to me a long time ago. I don’t even remember who gave it to me. It probably was one of my children. The packaging has suffered some damage, but the idea is still valid:
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) July 12, 2025
If you like the disrespect of anti-gun people and rough language follow the FPC on X and donate money. They do good work even if their public presence does not have the politeness and polish of the older pro-gun organizations. Or… perhaps because of it.
Congress should never have shifted responsibility to the courts to strike down the archaic National Firearms Act of 1934. Now GOA will do what Republicans would not: continue the fight to repeal the NFA.
I understand the sentiment. I don’t even disagree. But a court victory is more permanent than a legislative victory. It is more costly in both time and money. But it does have advantages.
There has been talk of combining the ATF into the DEA. Gun rights groups are opposed to this (see also here). I’m not entirely convinced it is a bad idea. But that could be a bias of mine.
You see, I am of the opinion that the DEA should be abolished. Where in the constitution does it say the Feds have the authority to regulate recreational drugs? How many billions have they spend on the failed war on drugs? And if you don’t think it has actually failed, here are some things to consider:
The DEA was established in 1973, and tracking heroin street prices over the decades reveals some fascinating—and troubling—trends. Here’s a summary of the data I found:
📈 Heroin Street Price Trends (1973–2011)
The DEA’s Heroin Domestic Monitor Program began collecting consistent data in 1979, focusing on price per milligram of pure heroin. Here’s a snapshot of key years:
Year
Avg. Price per mg Pure Heroin
Notes
1982
~$3.90
Very low purity (~7%)
1992
~$1.50
Purity increased to ~28%
2007
~$0.81
Mexican heroin purity ~33%
2011
~$1.35
Mexican heroin purity dropped to ~17%
These prices reflect retail-level purchases made by DEA agents in major U.S. cities.
🧪 Purity vs. Price
As purity increased, price per mg of pure heroin dropped—making heroin more potent and affordable.
By the 2000s, heroin from Mexico and South America dominated the U.S. market, with regional differences in purity and price.
📉 Long-Term Trend
From the early 1980s to the early 2000s:
Price per pure mg dropped significantly
Purity rose, peaking in some cities at over 60%
This made heroin more dangerous and accessible, contributing to rising overdose rates
Since its founding in 1973, the DEA’s budget has grown dramatically—from $75 million in its first year to over $3.4 billion in recent years2.
💰 Estimated Total DEA Spending (1973–2023)
Using historical budget data from DEA.gov, here’s a rough cumulative estimate:
1973–1980: ~$1.4 billion
1981–1990: ~$2.7 billion
1991–2000: ~$13.2 billion
2001–2010: ~$22.6 billion
2011–2020: ~$28.6 billion
2021–2023: ~$9.5 billion
🧮 Grand Total Estimate: ~$78 billion
These figures are approximations based on annual appropriations and may not include all supplemental or off-budget expenditures.
📊 Spending Highlights
The DEA’s budget has consistently increased, especially during periods of heightened drug enforcement focus (e.g., crack epidemic, opioid crisis).
In 2023, the DEA requested $3.1 billion, a 6.3% increase over the previous year.
The agency now operates in 93 foreign offices across 69 countries, reflecting its global reach.
So… if the war on drugs was effective you would think the price would go up and the purity would go down. That is pretty much a well-known economic law, right? But that is not what happened. It seems to me that either the war on drugs was ineffective and the price and purity changes were unrelated, or the DEA somehow contributed to the lower prices and increased purity.
Either way we are faced with the fact that the war on drugs has either failed or it is not about making it more difficult for people to obtain recreational drugs. Perhaps it is more about acquiring power as in the famous Ayn Rand quote from Atlas Shrugged.
In my mind, combing the ATF and DEA sort of makes sense because we might be able to get more support from those opposed to the war on drugs who might be opposed to reducing gun regulations.
NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, has confirmed with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that the Demand 2 Program is ending. That program, begun in February of 2000 during the antigun Clinton administration, required federal firearms licensees (FFLs) that have 25 or more firearms traced back to them subsequent to the recovery at a crime scene and the time from retail sale to trace is three years or less (what ATF calls “time-to-crime”). NSSF has been critical of the misuse of this protected firearm trace data to attempt to “name-and-shame” firearm retailers for crimes in which they had no involvement.
If you spend about three seconds thinking about this program, you realize that large retailers could have a very low rate of guns showing up at a crime scenes but frequently trip the threshold for getting a less than friendly visit from the ATF. And at the same time someone who sells eight guns a year and they all end up at crime scenes would not get “the visit.”
As is almost always the case with anti-gun advocates and politicians, it is never about crime reduction. It is about raising the cost, in money and time, of gun sales and ownership.
This infringement program has been in place for more than 25 years. It is long past the time the criminals involved should have been prosecuted. That probably will never happen in this case, but at least the program is winding down.
An initiative spearheaded by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) and the New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate (NJFOS), with the robust backing of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), has seen Englishtown, New Jersey, pass a resolution to refund the municipal portion of permit to carry fees to applicants.
This success marks the beginning of a concerted effort by the three organizations to replicate the refund resolution across the entire Garden State.
At the heart of this movement are New Jersey’s current permit-to-carry fees, which stand at $200. A significant $150 of this fee goes directly to the local municipality.
Critics argue that a negligible amount of these funds actually covers the administrative costs of issuing permits, strongly suggesting the fee is “strictly punitive in nature” and designed to discourage citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
The NFA is nothing more than a tax scheme which has imposed an unconstitutional burden on Americans since 1934. The registration of these items was only justified as the means to ensure taxes on them had been paid. With the One Big, Beautiful Bill zeroing out the tax for silencers and short barreled firearms, the registration scheme serves no other purpose than to create an unlawful barrier to keep people from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Our intention with this new lawsuit is to completely remove these barriers.
SAF has been fighting for more than 50 years to remove unnecessary burdens to our constitutional freedoms, and we welcome the opportunity to fight for the further dismantling of the NFA in court. The reforms in the One Big, Beautiful Bill represent the biggest blow to the NFA since its inception, and we fully support its complete repeal. Just like we’ve done for more than five decades, SAF will continue to fight so all Americans can have the freedom to exercise their Second Amendment rights for generations to come.
Celebrate and then do what you can to continue the fight for the freedom promised by the 2nd Amendment. I, with the help of my employer, donate thousands of dollars each year to FPC and SAF.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to dismantle one of the most abusive federal gun control laws on the books. With the tax struck down by Congress, the rest of the NFA is standing on air.
It was appropriate that the bill was signed on July 4th.
Once we get rid of the registration, fingerprints, and extended background check aspects for the suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns we will have created a very powerful legal weapon. The precedents established will make the elimination of restrictions on machine guns obvious and achievable.
