As the Pink Pistols motto says, “Armed gays don’t get bashed.” And whilst LGBT people are still victims of violence at a much higher rate than the general public, the community as a whole and notable members of it are beginning to fight back.

From training in self defense and carrying concealed to supporting LGBT-friendly gun stores and shooting ranges, there is a rise in gun-carrying LGBT people who are learning to protect themselves and those they love.

Alex of Ammo.com
Self Defense for LGBT: Self-Protection and Concealed Carry (CCW) for the LGBT Community
[It’s a good post. There was a lot of detailed history of LGBT rights, some of which I didn’t know about. And I thought I was pretty up to speed on that sort of thing. And the self-defense advice was good too, regardless of your sexual orientation.

A lesbian couple I know has been talking about going to the range with me to get some training. I keep saying that they just need to pick a day and time. I suspect it will happen before the summer is over. I wish there were more LGBT people getting on the pro self-defense side of the political aisle. Being a perpetual victim is not healthy for them or society.—Joe]

Even for those who fail to acknowledge that the existence of rights is not subject to public sentiment, making the issue a cornerstone of their campaigns it doesn’t seem to be working. Does that mean that Second Amendment supporters can call an early win? Certainly not. But perhaps we can take some comfort in knowing that gun control may not the slam-dunk that Democratic candidates – and much of the media – believe it to be.

NRA-ILA
July 8, 2019
Recent Poll Shows Gun Control Not as Popular as Some Would Like to Believe
[Gun control isn’t a slam dunk. Claims of “90% of people what background checks” and other outlandish claims are garbage. But it’s popular enough we have to put up some stiff resistance to hold our ground.

Do what you can. Donate money and/or time to pro Second Amendment groups. Come out of the closet as a gun owner. Take a new shooter to the range. Get people interested in the shooting sports. Contact your representatives and politely tell them what you think of restrictions on our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]

In 1986, Congress enacted the Firearm Owners Protection Act (“FOPA”), which includes a ban on the transfer or possession of a machinegun not lawfully possessed and registered by May 19, 1986. 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). But before § 992(o) came 26 U.S.C § 5861(d), which makes it unlawful “to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered” (emphasis added). After FOPA, the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”) no longer accepted the registration of and payment of taxes on new machineguns. In stripping § 5861(d) of all revenue-raising potential, § 922(o) mooted § 5861(d)’s constitutional warrant under Congress’s Taxing Power.

In addition, § 922(o) renders § 5861(d)’s application a violation of appellant’s right to due process. Because ATF will not accept the registration of new machineguns, compliance with § 5861(d) is impossible. Section 5861(d) is thus in irreconcilable conflict with § 922(o), and since Congress enacted the latter after the former, it controls.

Amici also caution against what we perceive to be a concerning departure from fundamental rights jurisprudence. By refusing to present an analysis of why the regulation of machineguns is beyond the scope of the Second Amendment, the courts are glazing over an important constitutional question. If a class of arms can be regulated nearly to the point of a categorical ban—which machineguns may well be—the American people deserve to at least know the constitutional justification.

Ilya Shapiro and Matthew Larosiere
June 20, 2019
BRIEF OF THE CATO INSTITUTE AND FIREARMS POLICY COALITION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
[My translation is as follows:

The original constitutional justification for the regulation of machine guns was that it was a transfer tax ($200) each time the gun changed ownership. Since congress had the constitutional power to tax they could require the registration of machine guns to enable them to collect the taxes.

In 1986 congress declared the ATF shall no longer accept registration and taxation of new machine guns. This removed the possibility of collecting taxes on new machine guns. This means that the original constitutional justification for the regulation of machine guns no longer exists.

Hence, we, the people, are entitled to either the ability to purchase new machine guns or a constitutional justification as to why not.

I did not expect a challenge to machine gun law for at least several more years. I hope it’s not too soon. I would have preferred it wait until Trump has appointed another SCOTUS justice or two and we had a ruling that said semiautomatic rifles were protected.

We live in interesting times.—Joe]

Los Angeles and San Francisco usually control most of what we get in the state of California. We don’t appreciate them dictating to us like they’ve been doing.

Jeff Williams
Mayor of Needles California
June 24, 2019
Needles declared itself a “2nd Amendment Sanctuary” city; wants exemption to some state gun laws
[You have to wonder what all the geniuses who thought of up the “sanctuary city/county/state” stuff for criminals think of sanctuary for people exercising their specific enumerated rights. I suspect we are soon going to find out.—Joe]