Does Crime Go up or down When Guns are More Controlled?

Following the shooting on December 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut, the pandemonium regarding gun control seems to be on the increase. Also, the increasing uproar is being directed to the Second Amendment. From every part of the country, citizens are exercising strong opinions on gun rights, the possibility of a gun control policy and what its impact would be.

Many Citizens Still Advocate for Gun Ownership Rights

The argument for and against gun control is quite heated. While a lot of people are clamoring for gun control in the United States, many citizens still maintain their stand and support on the need for a well-armed citizen. According to these people who advocate gun ownership rights, “well-armed citizenry is valuable in keeping all individuals and the entire country better protected and safer at all times.”

The media has also witnessed an increase in gun violence topics, especially after the mass shooting and other serious gun-related crimes that followed. Obviously, the topics on gun violence are discussed side by side gun control policy in America. Particularly, the gun control topic has provoked an outcry from many US citizens and even concerned individuals from other parts of the world who are bent on their rights to defend and protect themselves as well as the people around them.

In the heat of these arguments, some of which are live discussions with the United States’ president himself, one argument stands out: It is the argument about preventing gun control in the Second Amendment particularly and the United States Constitution as a whole. The argument in favor of not restricting gun ownership rights seems to be gaining the upper hand as the citizens involved are presenting strong reasons to have their own weapons as directed by the 2nd  Amendment.

According to the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being essential to the security of a free State, the right of the citizens to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So, those who are opposing the proposal to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms are strongly pointing to this portion of the second amendment. They strongly advocate for the right to purchase a handgun of their choice – one you can conceal easily in your pocket and use for self-defense when the need arises.

The Argument in Favor of Gun Control

Those clamoring for gun control are also presenting their strong points. Some of those strong points are based on the record of violent crimes accomplished with various gun types and weapons.

One such records are the one curled from the FBI program data; according to the data, throughout the country, the use of firearms for violent crimes was more than any other weapon. The data revealed that approximately 72% of all murder cases and manslaughter were committed with firearms.

In addition, those in favor of gun control are of the opinion that;

  • Increased guns in circulation will lead to increased violent crime
  • Making it difficult for criminals to access guns prevent violent crime
  • Gun ownership increases the risk of suicide or being killed by others

Supporters of Gun Ownership Rights Insist Gun Control is not an Answer to Crime Reduction

Despite the strong reasons and statistics presented by those who support gun control, people who are clamoring for the sustenance of gun ownership rights insist that the nation won’t reduce crime by restricting ownership and use of guns by individuals.

According to NRA (National Rifle Association), those who think that gun control is the answer to crime reduction should ponder on the following;

  • People kill, and not guns. Therefore, violent crimes will decrease if more people use guns to defend and protect themselves.
  • The Brady Bill is an example of waiting period laws that should precede a police state
  • Since they are contrary to the 2nd Amendment, gun control laws do not conform to the constitution. According to the Second Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.”
  • In fact, crime rate reduction is not contingent on gun control.

Instead, the government and those concerned should focus on more viable alternatives – people who engage firearms to commit crimes should be subjected to mandatory sentences. This is the solution to increased crime reduction rate – it will yield better results than gun control laws.”

Now, back to the Major Question – Does Gun Control Laws Reduce Crime or Not?

The major question here is whether or not crime goes up or down with gun control. So far, bans on handguns have not met desired expectation in terms of significant impact on crime rates, including murder. Besides, prior to the ban, the amount of handguns out there is huge.

All the efforts to beat the importation and manufacture of handguns with laws have not produced the envisaged result. Why? Such laws end up promoting the existence of the black market for guns.

Laws that attempt to prevent juveniles, criminals and mentally ill people from accessing handguns have not succeeded in accomplishing crime reduction. This is because many of these people already possess guns or would find a way to own one illegally.

A More Viable Solution?

Experts suggest proactive arrests by officers of the law. Particularly, police officers should engage field interrogations and traffic enforcement while on patrol to make proactive arrests in gun-crime spots – and should take away guns from criminals right there and then. A typical example is what happened during the mid-90s in Kansas City; Proactive arrests made by police on crime spots for concealed weapons carry was able to cut back crimes substantially in this city.

In conclusion, it would also be helpful to take a cue from John Lott’s book titled “More Guns, Less Crime“. According to the book, “the rates of violent crime reduce when state pass “shall issue” concealed carry laws.”

In this book, More Guns Less Crime, Lott presents the outcome of the analysis he carried out on crime data involving every county. The analysis covered 29 years period – 1997 to 2005. The University of Chicago Press refereed the different editions of the book.

Michael Bloomberg’s Ready-Made Network of Cities in Support of His Open Borders Agenda

In 2010, the forward-thinking mayor of New York created the National Partnership for a New American Economy.  I say forward-thinking because now 9 years later, he has what amounts to a local government network of cities that favor more immigration as he launches his bid to defeat Donald Trump in 2020.

He and his cohorts have been awarding prizes, including grants and cataloging cities by their willingness to welcome an ever increasing number of immigrants with his special desire to legalize more of the illegals.

Co-Chairs of the Partnership for a New American Economy
Name Affiliation
Mark Hurd Co-CEO Oracle
Robert Iger Chairman and CEO, Walt Disney Co.
J.W. Marriott, Jr. Chairman and CEO of Marriott International, Inc.
Jim McNerney Chairman of Boeing
Rupert Murdoch Chairman, CEO and Founder of News Corporation
Julián Castro Former Mayor of San Antonio
Michael Bloomberg Former Mayor of New York City
Michael Nutter Former Mayor of Philadelphia
Antonio Villaraigosa Former Mayor of Los Angeles

Really what you see here is a list of (bipartisan) corporations that say they can’t live without immigrant laborers.

In between your turkey and stuffing and parade watching, take a look at the extensive website and operation Bloomberg has put in place.

I don’t see anything like this kind of organization anywhere in the immigration control movement.  Well, maybe NumbersUSA could come close on the other side of the argument about workers.

It really is a no-brainer, too many foreign workers depress wages of Americans including African Americans, but for moneybags like Bloomberg there is no such thing as too many low skilled and low wage immigrants!

Here, earlier this month, Bloomberg’s gang is chortling about bringing Midwestern cities into the light of their understanding.

New ranking of top 100 cities shows Midwestern cities are becoming more welcoming to immigrants. (You can read it yourself).

And, since we are talking about mayors and city leaders falling in line, don’t miss RRW today and see if your mayor is one of 88 telling the President that they want 100,000 refugees and want the feds (with their taxpayer funded contractors) to continue to decide which lucky cities will welcome the stranger.

RELATED ARTICLE: ICE Catches Alleged Child Sexual Predator Repeatedly Released by Philadelphia Police

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Bloomberg Bought Virginia Legislators Introduce Confiscatory Gun Ban

Michael Bloomberg’s bought and paid for Virginia legislators have wasted no time introducing legislation that would make the Old Dominion’s gun laws worse than those of the billionaire’s home state of New York.

SB 16, introduced by Sen. Richard L. Saslaw, would create a total ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, like the AR-15. Even worse, the ban would even extend to common firearm parts. The restrictions included in the proposed legislation does not grandfather current owners. The legislation is clearly designed to be firearms confiscation, as current owners would be forced to dispossess themselves of their property or face a felony conviction.

Saslaw’s legislation provides,

It is unlawful for any person to import, sell, transfer, manufacture, purchase, possess, or transport an assault firearm.

Otherwise law-abiding gun owners found in possession of an “assault firearm,” even one they purchased prior to the ban, could be convicted of a Class 6 felony. A Class 6 felony is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment.

The legislation lays out several criteria by which a firearm would be defined as an “assault firearm.” This includes,

  • A semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.
  • A semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine that has one of the following characteristics:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle; (iii) a thumbhole stock; (iv) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (v) a bayonet mount; (vi) a grenade launcher; (vii) a flare launcher; (viii) a silencer; (ix) a flash suppressor; (x) a muzzle brake; (xi) a muzzle compensator; (xii) a threaded barrel… or (xiii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (xii)

  • A semi-automatic centerfire pistol with a fixed magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds.
  • A semi-automatic centerfire pistol with a detachable magazine that has one of the following characteristics:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a thumbhole stock; (iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iv) the capacity to accept a magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (v) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the pistol with the non-trigger hand without being burned; (vi) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; (vii) a threaded barrel… or (viii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (vii);

  • A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
  • A semi-automatic shotgun with one of the following characteristics:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a thumbhole stock, (iii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the shotgun, (iv) the ability to accept a detachable magazine, (v) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds, or (vi) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (v).

With this definition, SB 16 would outlaw America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15, along with countless other rifles, pistols, and shotguns that Virginians use for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense.

A knowledgeable firearms owner will take a look at the ridiculous definition and realize that such ham-handed legislation must be born out of petty vindictiveness or a complete ignorance of firearm technology, as there is no logical public safety rationale.

For example, the legislation is so broad that it would ban hunting guns like the Mossberg 935 Turkey shotgun for its “pistol grip.”

The ban would prohibit the possession of guns like this Model SP-10 Magnum Thumbhole Camo due to its thumbhole stock.

The ban would also capture guns such as this version of the Browning BAR Mark II Safari hunting rifle, as it has a detachable box magazine and a muzzle brake.

Moreover, the “any characteristic of like kind” language that appears after each list of prohibited features introduces an unacceptable vagueness into the definition of what does or does not constitute an “assault firearm.” Law-abiding gun owners would be forced to prophesy just how a court might interpret those unclear provisions.

As bad and senseless as the prohibition on certain firearms is, the proposed ban on firearm parts truly shows how Michael Bloomberg is cashing in on his political investment.

The legislation provides,

“Assault firearm” includes any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert, modify, or otherwise alter a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts that may be readily assembled into an assault firearm.

This passage would appear to make all of the firearm parts listed under the various feature tests in and of themselves “assault firearms” and therefore prohibited. As the individual part is treated as an “assault firearm,” possession of such a part would be punishable in the same manner as a prohibited firearm, as a Class 6 felony.

Many firearms are modular. For instance, the same muzzle brake or flash suppressor could be used to turn a semi-automatic firearm into an “assault firearm” under the bill’s definition, or it could be used by a hunter or precision rifle shooter on their bolt-action rifle.

In recent years the popularity of the AR-15 platform has led to the adoption of AR-15 parts in other types of firearms. An example of this trend is the Ruger Precision Rimfire rifle. The firearm is a bolt-action rimfire rifle that accepts an AR-15 pistol grip. As the pistol grip part is a prohibited feature on a semi-automatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and is designed for use on a prohibited AR-15, the mere grip itself could be banned under this legislation.

SB 16 also bans the importation, sale, and transfer of standard capacity firearm magazines that are designed to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Many handguns commonly-owned by law-abiding citizens for concealed carry come standard with magazines that would be banned. Otherwise law-abiding gun owners who violate the magazine provision could be found guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A Class 1 misdemeanor is punishable by up to a year in jail.

All Virginia gun owners must organize to fight against Bloomberg-backed gun confiscation in the Old Dominion. In the coming days NRA will keep gun owners apprised of the latest developments in Richmond and the actions necessary to defend the right to keep and bear arms. In the meantime, please sign up to volunteer to help defeat this and other terrible legislation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sheriffs Group Urges Supreme Court To Strike Down New York City Gun Rules

Joe Biden Wants to Ban 9mm Pistols

Gun Confiscation: The Exit-Strategy for Failing Campaigns?

Professor Elizabeth Warren Offers Class in Political Linguistics

Member Spotlight: Meet an NRA Virginia mom who is telling voters to ‘watch out’ for Bloomberg’s tricks in 2020

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Sanders Burns the 2020 Democratic Primary Gun Control Agenda

As anti-gun as the 2020 Democratic presidential contenders have exposed themselves to be, much of the field still gives lip-service to the Second Amendment and the Constitution. Take for instance Joe Biden. The leading candidate’s campaign has said that Biden will seek to “respect the Second Amendment” and that “as president, Biden will pursue constitutional, common-sense gun safety policies.” However, take a critical look at the vast majority of the Democratic field for any limiting principle that would preclude even the most severe forms of gun control (like gun confiscation) and you will come up wanting.

To his credit, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has once again injected some much-needed sanity into a Democratic presidential primary. Speaking at a November 10 campaign rally in Charles City, Iowa, the candidate was asked about his opinion on a “mandatory buyback” (properly understood as confiscation) of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms like AR-15s. Sanders responded by stating, “I don’t support, a mandatory buyback is essentially confiscation, which I think is unconstitutional.” The senator went on to add, “It means that I am going to walk into your house and take something whether you like it or not. I don’t think that stands up to constitutional scrutiny.”

Unfortunately, Sanders’s moment of lucidity was brief. The candidate went on to express his support for the criminalization of private firearms transfers and a ban on the sale of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.

The senator also provided unwitting attendees with a misimpression of current law by suggesting an individual could “buy a dozen guns legally” and sell them to criminals without facing legal repercussions. Of course, 18 U.S.C. 922(d) makes it unlawful for “any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person” is prohibited from possessing firearms. A violation of this provision is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

However wrong Sanders might be about a slew of gun control measures, he is right about the confiscation of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.

In the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court concluded that the Second Amendment protected ownership of the type of firearms “in common use at the time” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.” The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that there are more than 16 million commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms possessed by law-abiding Americans. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America, and therefore is in “common use.” Gun control advocates seem to agree that such semi-automatic rifles are common, considering they routinely complain about the “proliferation” of these firearms.

Heller opinion author Justice Antonin Scalia later reiterated the fact that the decision precluded bans on commonly-owned semi-automatics when he signed onto a dissent from denial of certiorari in the case of Friedman v. Highland Park. The dissent, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, couldn’t have been clearer:

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

Further, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted during his time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller, U.S. Supreme Court precedent required gun control measures to be scrutinized in the context of the Second Amendment’s “text, history, and tradition.” A confiscation effort the likes of which has been backed by several of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates has no validity when examined under this framework.

This wasn’t the first time Sanders has brought a measure of reason to a Democratic presidential primary. During a 2016 Democratic primary debate, Sanders was challenged on his vote for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The PLCAA was enacted to protect the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits resulting from a third party’s criminal misuse of a firearm. The act codified long-standing principles of tort law.

During the debate, Sanders stated,

Well, this is what I say, if I understand it — and correct me if I’m wrong. If you go to a gun store and you legally purchase a gun, and then, three days later, if you go out and start killing people, is the point of this lawsuit to hold the gun shop owner or the manufacturer of that gun liable? If that is the point, I have to tell you I disagree…. what you’re really talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America. I don’t agree with that.

According to USA Today, the Senator later told reporters that permitting frivolous suits against the gun industry could result in “shutting down the entire industry.” Sanders added, “If Secretary Clinton’s position is that there should not be any more guns in America, fine… She should be honest and say that, because that is really what that means.”

Sanders is not a champion of gun rights. The senator merely appears to understand that there is some limit to the government’s power to trample upon the Constitutional rights of the American people. The fact that his comment stands out in the 2020 Democratic race is more a testament to his deranged opponents than his love of liberty. It’s a bizarre season when the “Democratic Socialist” is the most centrist Democratic presidential candidate on guns.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Joe Biden and His Gift for Gaffes

No Protection for the Law that Protects the Firearm Industry: Supreme Court Passes on PLCAA Case

Trading Freedom for Safety

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

A New Candidate for Confiscator-in-Chief

Former Texas Congressman Robert Francis O’Rourke abandoned his run for President last week, once again leaving a void for the most strident anti-gun candidate seeking the Democrat nomination. Even before declaring his candidacy for President, California Representative Eric Swalwell raised the specter of banning AR-15s and similar firearms, forcing Americans to turn them in through a confiscation scheme mislabeled as a “mandatory buyback,” then “go[ing] after” resisters. He even famously “joked” about using nukes to enforce his scheme.

After Swalwell became the first candidate to bow out of the race when he failed to generate any noticeable poll numbers, O’Rourke stepped up to push the confiscation message.

Clearly, every Democrat that wants to run against Trump is anti-gun. The main difference among them, when it comes to semi-automatics, seems to be whether they want to ban their future production, ban them completely and confiscate them, or ban their future production and register those currently owned (presumably to make future confiscation easier).

Candidate O’Rourke staked out his strident position during the third Democrat Debate when he infamously declared, “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15, your AK47….” The former Congressman even seemed to double-down on his ban and confiscate scheme. He said during the fourth debate that if a gun owner doesn’t turn in a lawfully acquired firearm, “…then that weapon will be taken from them,” as well as suggesting they may face “other consequences from law enforcement.” He also told Joe Scarborough during an interview the day after the fourth debate that if someone did not turn over a banned semi-auto, “there would be a visit by law enforcement.”

Last week, an Iowa high school student confronted O’Rourke about his plan to ban AR-15s, the rifle the teen uses for hunting deer. The candidate feigned ignorance over the notion that people use the rifle for hunting deer, even though it is commonly used for taking such game.

Later in the week, at an event in Newtown, Conn., that was closed to the public and organized by groups promoting gun control, O’Rourke was again confronted. This time, a Newtown resident accused the candidate of trying to exploit the tragedy her town experienced to promote his anti-gun agenda.

O’Rourke must have finally seen the writing on the wall. He faced harsh criticism over his anti-gun extremism, even in what he may have thought would be “friendly” environments. He burned through an estimated $14 million in campaign funds, while poll after poll saw him stagnating in the low-to-mid single digits. And don’t forget he spent around $80 million last year to lose his U.S. Senate race against Senator Ted Cruz.

If he could not win a statewide race with that kind of money, what hope did he have of winning a national election?

Last Friday, the Texan answered that question when he pulled the plug on his latest campaign. But with O’Rourke now out of the race, will any Democrat candidate don the mantle of wannabe Confiscator in Chief?

On Monday’s episode of The View, while the cast was doing a postmortem on O’Rourke’s failed campaign, host Joy Behar chastised the former Texas Representative for revealing exactly what NRA has been saying for years is the ultimate goal of anti-gun extremists.

Perhaps as a warning to the remaining Democrat candidates, Behar stated, “They should not tell everything they’re going to do. If you are going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected and then take them away. Don’t tell them ahead of time.”

For a party that claims to support transparency, it seems odd to hear a Democrat like Behar offer such advice. Perhaps more concerning, however, would be to consider what else Democrat candidates for President might have in store for law-abiding gun owners that they do not want to publicly reveal until after next year’s election.

Of course, it is likely Behar’s advice will be followed. The top three candidates seeking the Democrat nomination seem to be set at Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and former Vice President Joe Biden, while South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has been showing signs of gaining some traction. All have rejected O’Rourke’s call for confiscation, at least openly, and at least for now.

But, with multiple sources now reporting that anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg is once again considering throwing his name into the already crowded Democrat field, it’s likely that anti-gun extremists won’t have to wait long for a new champion of confiscation. After all, he’ll be the only candidate who can tout his experience as a firearm confiscator.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Hampshire: Firearm Seizure Bill Headed to House Floor

Wisconsin: Gov. Evers Calls for Firearm Confiscation & Criminalizing Private Transfers

Bloomberg’s Gun Control Apparatus Lies to Virginia’s Firearm Owners in Election Mailing

Strong Firearms Preemption Laws are More Important Than Ever

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Firearm Suppressors: 5 Reasons To Get One

I have to admit: Being slapped with a $200 tax stamp and a couple months wait-time to get a suppressor sucks ass (pardon my language). However, it’s worth it.

It’ll upgrade your shooting game to whole another level — just like if you were to upgrade a standard AR-10 rifle with the best AR-10 optic on the market.

The question is: Why should I use a suppressor? Well, you’re in for a treat because today I’m going to give you five reasons why you should shoot suppressed.

Let’s dive right in.

Reduces Hearing Damage

A helicopter flying at 500 feet. A police siren zapping right past you. A rock concert playing at full blast. A jackhammer piercing through a boulder. A jet taking off at full blast. What do all of these things have in common?

They’re quieter than the sound of a gun being fired. Seriously. For example, firing the most popular rifle in America — the AR-15 — is about 165 decibels (dB) whereas a jet’s engine is approximately 130 dB. The problem?

Exposure to noise greater than 140 dB can permanently damage your hearing, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). And get this: most firearms produce noise that is over 140 dB. For example, a small .22 caliber firearm can produce noise around 140 decibels (dB); a .223 Remington rifle 155 dB; .44 Magnum revolver 164 dB. You get the idea — unsuppressed firearms are dangerously loud.

The solution?

Use a suppressor (and wear appropriate hearing protective devices). Here’s why: Suppressors significantly reduce the sound level of supersonic firearms by 15 to 45 decibels, depending on the setup. How?

By redirecting the flow of high-pressurized gases through a system of chambers and baffles to slow and cool down the pressure. So if you equip an AR-15 with a suppressor, it could reduce the firing sound by 30 to 35 dB. As a result, the AR-15’s firing sound will turn from a deafening 165 dB gunshot into a quieter 135 dB gunshot.

That’s below the dangerous hearing threshold (140 dB). And that’s exactly why you should use a suppressor, especially on home defense firearms like the AR-15. But suppressors don’t only reduce the sound of the shot at the muzzle. It also…

Reduces Recoil

Let me ask you this:

Why do most people shoot a .223 Remington better than a .338 Winchester Magnum? Because it has lighter recoil. And guess what? Suppressors reduce recoil.

I could go into the full technical explanation of how suppressors reduce recoil through countering the gas pressure. But that shouldn’t be needed. All you need to know is that suppressors lessen the kick of a firearm.

Some recommend using a muzzle brake to reduce recoil. And you should use one if your sole intent is to reduce recoil. However, muzzle brakes dramatically increase muzzle blast. Suppressors don’t. Which brings me to my next point…

Reduces Muzzle Flash

Muzzle flash is the visible light of a muzzle blast.

The problem? Muzzle flash can temporarily blind the shooter or give away the shooter’s position — especially in low-light conditions. In addition, the flash signature could ruin night vision, obscure the sights, and make follow-up shots more difficult.

Now, you could use a flash hider which eliminates muzzle flash. Or, you could use a suppressor, which does the same thing: eliminate muzzle flash and prevent “blooming” of night vision equipment.

With those three ancillary advantages — noise reduction, recoil reduction, and flash suppression — you’ll begin to notice that a suppressor…

Enhances Accuracy

Unless the suppressor is improperly installed or mounted, suppressors do enhance accuracy.

Although some suppressors change the point of impact (POI), it’ll be by a very small amount. And despite the change in POI, it’s consistent with the pair. Stack that with less muzzle rise, less concussive effect, and less noise, and you’ll be left with nothing less than enhanced accuracy.

As a result, you’ll be happier with your shots. You’ll also have…

Happier Neighbors

“Happy Neighbor, Happy Life.”

I totally made that quote up. But I just want to make a point:

If you reduce the sound level of a gunshot (by using a suppressor), your neighbors will be happier. And since your neighbors aren’t filing noise complaints, you’ll be happier since you’ll be able to shoot more.

 

This also applies to shooters at gun ranges. People that live around a gun range simply don’t want to hear loud firework sounds go off every day. So, they’ll file a noise complaint and (sometimes) a petition to shut down the range. And in some cases, they actually win.

That’s why firearms equipped with suppressors will make everyone happy, including neighbors and shooters alike. So if you’re interested in buying a suppressor, here are the…

Requirements to Legally Purchase a Suppressor

  • Be at least 21 years of age to purchase a suppressor from a dealer;
  • Be at least 18 years of age to purchase a suppressor from an individual on a Form 4 to Form 4 transfer (contingent on state laws);
  • Be at least 18 years of age to possess a suppressor as a beneficiary of a trust or as a member of a corporation (contingent on state laws);
  • Be a resident of the United States;
  • Be legally eligible to purchase a firearm;
  • Pass a BATFE background check with a processing time of four to ten months;
  • Pay a $200 transfer tax; and
  • Reside in one of the 42 states that currently allows civilian ownership of suppressors.

If you pass all the requirements, you’ll need to find an authorized dealer near you. The dealer will help you fill out a Form 4. You’ll be sending this form to ATF along with the following:

  • ATF Form 4 (duplicate)
  • FBI Form FD-258s in black ink
  • $200 Check to BATFE-NFA
  • Passport Photos
  • ATF Form 5320.23 (if using a trust)

Alternatively, you can do this all online by following Silencer’s Shop guide on how to buy a silencer. That said…

Will You Use a Suppressor?

I absolutely love using a suppressor. It protects my ears, reduces recoil and muzzle flash, enhances accuracy, and harbors good neighbors.

And I’m sure a lot of people would agree with me if suppressors were easier to acquire. That said, I’d like to turn it over to you:

Are you going to buy a suppressor? Or maybe you already have one and would like to share your thoughts.

Either way, let me know by leaving a quick comment down below.

Like this post? Don’t Forget to Pin It on Pinterest!

© All rights reserved.

The Complete Guide to Home Self Defense Guns: Our Top 5

Would a standard shotgun do? What about a basic revolver? We break down the types of firearms you should consider.

This is the complete guide to home defense guns. In this in-depth guide, you’ll learn:

  • What to look for in a home defense gun
  • The pros/cons with each firearm type
  • What’s the best home defense gun for you
  • And much more

So if you’re trying to look for the best home defense weapon that’ll protect you and your family, this guide is for you. Let’s dive right in.

There’s no such thing as a one size fits all for home defense.

It depends on you and your needs. More specifically, it boils down to your proficiency (or comfort) with your firearm. For example, if all you do is practice with a pistol, then that’s the right gun for you. Likewise, if you only practice with a rifle, then that’s your best home defense weapon. Why is that so?

Stress. When the stressful home invasion occurs, you won’t have time to think. You’ll only have time to act. So choosing a gun that you’re proficient with will help you respond faster, saving you and your families’ life.

That said, here’s the complete breakdown of each firearm type with pros, cons, best use, and even recommendations.

Rifles

Rifles are a great home defense choice. Why? Rifles are insanely accurate, fast, and have the largest magazine. This is great for multi-intruder home defense scenarios. But is it the right choice for you? Here the complete breakdown:

Pros

  • Lethal
  • Very accurate (longer sight radius)
  • Low recoil (depending on your caliber)
  • Large magazine (30 rounds)
  • Highly modifiable
  • Designed to engage multiple targets

Cons

  • Expensive
  • Heavier (reduces handling speed)
  • Easier to disarm (due to barrel size)
  • Over-penetration (hits more than the intended target)
  • Decreased maneuverability (can’t easily be moved in small spaces)

Best Uses

If you want an edge over your intruders, then get a rifle.

It has a larger magazine, more accurate, and incapacitates quickly. You can take an army with a rifle. In fact, that’s how a veteran took out a three-man armed robbery. That’s why I highly recommend a rifle (if you can afford one). It gives you the firepower necessary to overpower your intruder(s).

Recommendation

Smith & Wesson M&P15 Sport II: A very popular 30 round AR-15. It’s an affordable, close-quarters AR-15 that’s designed for home defense. Bonus tip: throw on some game-changing accessories like an AR-15 optic, light and an adjustable stock, and you’ll be ready-to-go.

Shotguns

Shotguns are usually recommended for home defense. It’s great at short-range, scary, and very reliable. Here’s the breakdown:

Pros

  • Affordable
  • Doesn’t jam
  • Doesn’t over-penetrate (depending on gauge)
  • Racking sound scares intruders
  • Works great in low light
  • Weapon-of-choice for wild animals and zombies (just kidding)

Cons

  • Heavier
  • Strong recoil
  • Shorter magazine (5-6 rounds)
  • Slow reloads
  • Short-range use only
  • Not precise (can hit friendlies due to spread)
  • Needs to be aimed (at home defense ranges)
  • Weak stopping power (may not incapacitate targets immediately)

Best Use

If you potentially deal with wild animals or you want to intimidate your intruder, then choose a shotgun. Otherwise, opt-in for another firearm type.

Why? The spread. Let’s say the bad guy’s got your wife in a headlock. Will a shotgun be able to accurately (and safely) take down the bad guy without hitting your wife? No, it wouldn’t.

You’d probably end up hitting your wife because of the spread. Not to mention, most shotguns have a 5-6 shot magazine, so you’ll be out of ammo very fast. That said, I have nothing against shotguns. A lot of people prefer them for home defense with wonderful results. I’m just breaking it down on paper.

If you like a shotgun and you’re proficient with it, then go with one! I agree: it’s an intimidating gun and can save you a firefight when you rack the gun. Yet, it does have its flaws (as mentioned above).

Recommendations

Remington 870: A reliable (and popular) pump-action shotgun. It’s lightweight, intimidating, and affordable.

Benelli M2: A semi-automatic shotgun that doesn’t require you to pump the handle. Just aim and fire.

Revolvers

A revolver (or a “hand cannon”) is a simple and reliable handgun. It’s small, deadly, and affordable. It’s also terrifying. That’s why some prefer a revolver for home defense. But is it any good?

Let’s break it down:

Pros

  • Reliable
  • Easy-to-operate (aim and pull)
  • Scary

Cons

  • Troublesome recoil
  • Requires more skill to fire
  • Fires slower (due to trigger)
  • Reloads slower (due to revolver’s cylinder)
  • Smaller Magazine (6 rounds)

Best Uses

If you’re a “revolver” kind of guy, then go for a revolver. But be warned: it’s not very effective.

It has a small magazine, a bit of a kick, takes longer to reload, and requires more skill to shoot accurately. That’s why law enforcement (minus old cops) stopped using revolvers. They replaced it with a semi-automatic pistol (I’ll cover why below).

That said, if you’re a revolver man, you don’t need a recommendation. But if you do, here it is.

Recommendation

Smith & Wesson Model 66: A 6-shot, .357 Magnum revolver. It’s got an adjustable sight and concealable.

Semi-Automatic Pistol

A semi-automatic pistol is the most common home defense weapon. It’s lightweight, accurate, easy to use, and concealable. It also fits in cramped locations like hallways and doorways. That’s why Law Enforcement and FBI prefer it. But is it the right choice for home defense? Here’s the full breakdown:

Pros

  • -Inexpensive
  • Lightweight
  • Accurate
  • Concealable
  • Fast Target Acquisition
  • Requires only one hand
  • Maneuverable in tight spaces (like small rooms)

Cons

  • Short-range
  • Shorter Mag (potential ammo shortages)
  • Less control (smaller grip surface)
  • Can over-penetrate (depending on caliber)

Best Uses

If you’re looking for a fast and accessible firearm, then go for a semi-automatic pistol. In many gun experts’ opinions, it’s the best firearm type for home defense. It’s cheap, concealable, accurate, and very fast. It’ll be ready whenever you need it.

Recommendation

S&W M&P9c: A polymer-frame, striker-fired double-stack 9mm pistol. It’s affordable, accurate, ergonomic and very concealable.

What’s The Best Gun For Home Defense?

The truth is, it doesn’t matter what weapon you choose. You can choose a shotgun, pistol, revolver, or rifle. They all do the same job—incapacitate whomever it’s pointed at.

Sure, some guns do it better than others. But honestly, it doesn’t matter. What matters is you choose a weapon and practice with it. Because let’s face it:

In a stressful home defense situation, you’re not going to have time to “remember” how to use a gun. You’ll be relying on your training instincts. The better trained you are, the better instincts you’ll have at your disposal.

So keep it simple. First, choose a weapon you like. Then, take it out to the range. And continuously practice. The more you practice, the better the gun (and you) become at home defense. But that’s enough from me.

What’s Your Favorite Home Defense Weapon?

Maybe you like a shotgun? Or an AR-15 equipped with an optic? Either way, let me know what you think in the comments below.

© All rights reserved.

Debunking the Myth of ‘Concealed-Carry Killers’

The Violence Policy Center—a gun control advocacy group—released a study last month it wrongly claims shows that “too many concealed-carry permit holders are a direct threat to public safety.”

That claim rests on an analysis of a database documenting “non-self-defense incidents,” which the organization says proves that “allowing random people to carry guns endangers public safety.”

On its face, that claim is contrary to the wealth of data indicating that concealed-carry permit holders are one of the most law-abiding populations in the nation.

Moreover, concealed-carry permit holders are not “random people,” but individuals with the government’s affirmative approval to carry a concealed firearm in public places after having completed a series of steps required by the government.


The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>


It’s hardly surprising, then, that the Violence Policy Center claim falls apart when even the slightest bit of scrutiny is applied to it.

Not only is the claim based on a grossly misleading characterization of what the database actually captures, but the numbers from the database flatly contradict the Violence Policy Center’s claim that America’s 18 million concealed-carry permit holders represent a serious risk to public safety.

That’s particularly true in light of the role permit holders play in actively protecting themselves and the public from violent crime.

The Study Grossly Mischaracterizes the Data

Beyond the immediately suspect nature of the Violence Policy Center’s claims, the database erroneously includes many deaths that are not attributable to the misuse of a concealed-carry permit.

The anti-gun group defines “non-self-defense incident” to include virtually any fatality involving a concealed-carry permit holder, including ones that do not remotely resemble the type of intentional homicide evoked by the Violence Policy Center’s strong claims about public safety.

For example, roughly 40% of the deaths (534 of 1,335) are suicides. While tragic, firearm suicides are not what a term like “concealed-carry killer” brings to mind.

Moreover, analysis of the remaining “non-self-defense” deaths also belies the group’s use of the term.

The Violence Policy Center includes many fatalities where the shooter’s concealed-carry permit was irrelevant because he or she did not carry a concealed weapon in public while perpetrating the crime.

For example, the database includes a Nov. 11, 2008, death where a permit holder fatally shot her husband in their own backyard, and a June 12, 2012, death where the permit holder fatally shot his wife while she slept in their own bedroom.

Had their respective states never issued a concealed-carry permit to a single person, these shooters still would have been in lawful possession of these firearms inside their own homes.

Also of dubious inclusion are at least 10 cases that involve someone other than the permit holder using the permit holder’s firearm, and a number of cases where the individual’s permit either should have been suspended or was actually suspended under state law at the time of the death.

Finally, despite the Violence Policy Center’s claim that it only analyzed non-self-defense shootings, in 72 of the 801 homicide deaths included in the database, the shooter’s claim of self-defense is still pending in court.

In other words, the anti-gun group has preemptively convicted those parties before a jury has had the opportunity to determine whether they acted in lawful self-defense.

The Data Paints a Different Picture

As a result of the report, the Violence Policy Center’s legislative director stated that “concealed-carry killers continue to claim innocent lives at a shocking pace.”

The only shocking thing about the pace of crimes committed by concealed-carry permit holders is just how slow it is compared with the statistical expectation.

According to the data, America’s 18 million concealed-carry permit holders accounted for 801 firearm-related homicides over a 15-year span, which amounts to roughly 0.7% of all firearm-related homicides during that time.

That percentage drops even lower if any of the defendants in the 72 cases still pending in court are determined to have acted in lawful self-defense.

Since 2007, when the Violence Policy Center started tracking these concealed-carry permit holder deaths, there has been a 304% increase in the number of Americans with a concealed-carry permit.

At the same time, the national violent crime and homicide rates in 2018 were actually lower than they were in 2007, and substantially lower than their historical highs in the early 1990s, when far fewer Americans had concealed-carry permits.

Similarly, despite the anti-gun group’s claim that concealed-carry permit holders represent a severe danger to law enforcement officers, the data indicates that they are accountable for a disproportionately small number of law enforcement deaths.

The FBI recorded 608 law enforcement officers who were killed in “felonious acts” between 2007 and 2018. According to the Violence Policy Center, 18 concealed-carry permit holders killed 23 law enforcement officers during that time.

That accounts for roughly 3.7% of law enforcement officer felonious deaths, even though concealed-carry permit holders account for 5.5% of the population.

Just as with non-law enforcement deaths, many of the cases the Violence Policy Center includes as law enforcement officer deaths involve scenarios where the killer’s status as a permit holder played no role in the crime.

In fact, by our count, only 10 of the 24 law enforcement officer deaths between 2007 and the time of publication involved permit holders actually carrying concealable firearms in public places.

For example, the database includes the case of Ryan Schlesinger, who in November 2018 used a rifle from inside his own home to kill an officer in Tucson, Arizona, serving him with an arrest warrant.

The concealed-carry permit was not only completely irrelevant in that situation—one does not need a concealed-carry permit to lawfully possess a rifle inside one’s home, nor is a rifle a “concealed carry” weapon—but Schlesinger was prohibited under state law from possessing firearms.

Even if his permit was, through some technicality, still “valid” under state law, the permit would have been automatically suspended upon his arrest for a felony.

Concealed-Carry Permit Holders Regularly Save Lives

As we have often noted, Americans defend themselves with their firearms between 500,000 and 3 million times every year.

It’s unclear how many of these defensive gun uses involve concealed-carry permit holders carrying in public places, but our own records show that concealed-carry permit holders can and do save lives.

Consider the following recent examples:

  • Sept. 27, Redding, California: A concealed-carry permit holder helped stop a kidnapping after it became clear to him that another customer at a gas station was holding a woman against her will. The man had kidnapped the woman earlier in the evening, and the permit holder, noticing the woman’s clear distress, confronted the man and held him at gunpoint until police arrived.
  • Sept. 19, Miami-Dade County, Florida: An armed good Samaritan with a handgun concealed in her purse intervened to stop a brutal robbery and assault occurring outside a Popeyes restaurant. The woman drew her weapon and fired at a man who was pummeling a helpless victim lying on the concrete, sending the attacker fleeing.
  • Sept. 3, Coshocton County, Ohio: A concealed-carry permit holder stopped a knife-wielding man who was threatening customers and employees at a McDonald’s fast-food restaurant. The Coshocton County Sheriff’s Office later posted on Facebook: “Due to the heroic actions of [the permit holder], deputies were able to take the suspect into custody without injury or loss of life.”

Moreover, concealed-carry permit holders have intervened to stop many scenarios that likely would have turned into mass killings but for their actions.

For example, on Feb. 13, a permit holder in Colonial Heights, Tennessee, was deemed a “hero” by local police after he prevented a deadly encounter at a dentist’s office from turning much worse.

In the end, the Violence Policy Center’s database does nothing more than confirm that concealed-carry permit holders are, on the whole, incredibly law-abiding, and that allowing more Americans to exercise their constitutional right in more places does not result in a serious threat to public safety.

COMMENTARY BY

Amy Swearer is a senior legal policy analyst at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

Cooper Conway is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Virginia governor vows to reintroduce gun control measures after Democrats win control of legislature

Media Fail: CNN Labels the AR-15 as an ‘Automatic Rifle’

Pregnant Mother Uses AR-15 to Defend Against Thugs, Saves Her Husband

Horror: Brutal Cartels Massacre American Mothers and Children in Northern Mexico


A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Gun Grabbers Mislead Us

Gun control did not become politically acceptable until the Gun Control Act of 1968 signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

The law’s primary focus was to regulate commerce in firearms by prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers.

Today’s gun control advocates have gone much further, calling for an outright ban of what they call assault rifles such as the AR-15.

By the way, AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, which is manufactured by Colt Manufacturing Co. As for being a military assault weapon, our soldiers would be laughed off the battlefield carrying AR-15s.


The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>


Let’s look at some FBI statistics on homicide and then you can decide how many homicides would be prevented by a ban on rifles. The FBI lists murder victims by weapon from 2014 to 2018 in its 2018 report on crime in the United States. It turns out that slightly over 2% (297) out of a total of 14,123 homicides were committed with rifles.

A total of 1,515 or 11% of homicides were committed by knives. Four hundred and forty-three people were murdered with a hammer, club, or some other bludgeoning instrument. Six hundred and seventy-two people were murdered by a hand, foot, or fist. Handguns accounted for the most murders—6,603.

What these statistics point out clearly is that the so-called assault weapons ban and mandatory buy-back plan, which Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke and others call for, will do little or nothing to bring down homicides. More homicides could be prevented by advocating knife control, hammer control, and feet and fist control.

Gun controllers’ belief that “easy” gun availability is our problem ignores U.S. history. Guns were far more readily available yesteryear. One could mail order a gun from Sears or walk into a hardware store or a pawnshop to make a purchase.

With truly easy gun availability throughout our history, there was nowhere near the mayhem and mass murder that we see today. Here’s my question to all those who want restrictions placed on gun sales: Were the firearms of yesteryear better behaved than those same firearms are today?

That’s really a silly question; guns are inanimate objects and have no capacity to act. Our problem is a widespread decline in moral values that has nothing to do with guns. That decline includes disrespect for those in authority, disrespect for oneself, little accountability for anti-social behavior, and a scuttling of religious teachings that reinforce moral values.

Let’s examine some elements of this decline.

If any American who passed away before 1960 were to return to today’s America, they would not believe the kind of personal behavior acceptable today. They wouldn’t believe that youngsters could get away with cursing at and assaulting teachers. They wouldn’t believe that cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, and Baltimore hire hundreds of school police officers and that in some schools, students must go through metal detectors.

During my own primary and secondary schooling in Philadelphia, from 1942 to 1954, the only time we saw a policeman in school was during an assembly period where we had to listen to a boring lecture from Officer Friendly on safety. Our ancestors also wouldn’t believe that we’re now debating whether teachers should be armed.

Americans who call for stricter and stricter gun control know that getting rid of rifles will do little or nothing for the nation’s homicide rate. Their calls for more restrictive gun laws are part of a larger strategy to outlaw gun ownership altogether. You have to wonder what these people have in store for us when they’ve eliminated our means to defend ourselves.

Venezuela dictator Nicolas Maduro banned private gun ownership in 2012. The result is that Venezuelans had no way to protect themselves from criminals and government troops who preyed upon them.

After Fidel Castro’s demand for gun confiscation, he said, “Armas para que?” (“Guns, for what?”) Cubans later found out.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Walter E. Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and a professor of economics at George Mason University. Twitter: .


A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

NRA & Gun Owners Win. Bloomberg / Everytown Lose.

Montana Supreme Court finds localities cannot go rogue and enact extreme gun control

FAIRFAX, Va.–  The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today applauded a decision by the Montana state Supreme Court protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners in that state. In an NRA-backed case, the justices held, in a 5-0 decision, that the City of Missoula’s attempt to impose extreme gun control measures was a clear violation of state law.

“This is a huge victory for Montana gun owners and everyone who cherishes freedom in Big Sky Country,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The unanimous ruling from Montana’s Supreme Court confirms that politicians cannot usurp a constitutional framework by contemptuously enacting gun control at the local level.”

Montana, like more than 40 other states, has a preemption law restricting local governments from passing gun control measures that are more restrictive than state law. Preemption laws protect law-abiding gun owners from dealing with a confusing patchwork of laws that can make it nearly impossible to carry a firearm for home and self-defense.

The City of Missoula’s gun control ordinance would have criminalized virtually all private firearms transfers in the city, even between relatives, friends, and co-workers.

Earlier this month, in an NRA-backed case, a Washington court similarly ruled that the state preemption law prohibits local governments from regulating the storage of firearms.

The NRA has led the fight to enact state preemption laws across the country to ensure uniformity in state gun laws.

“These cases underscore the peoples’ need for judges who will faithfully interpret the law in defense of their freedom,” Ouimet concluded.

RELATED ARTICLES:

NRA Member spotlight: Meet the Man Who Helped Turn an Anti-Gun Townhall into a Pro-gun Rally

Washington: Court Upholds State Preemption in Legal Victory for NRA & SAF

Veteran Criticizes Police Practices, Gets Guns and Firearm License Seized by Chief of Police

Of Course Shannon Watts and Everytown are Anti-gun and Hate the Second Amendment

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Dick’s Spends Big on Gun-Chopping, Virtue-Signaling Bonanza (But It Will Still Sell You a Firearm)

Ed Stack, the CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods, wants you to know he’s committed to keeping AR-15s “off the street.” But he’s also committed (for the time being) to selling other types of firearms.

That’s the genius of Ed Stack. He’s perfectly capable of holding two contradictory opinions at the same time. He’ll take one sort of gun buyer’s money and then lecture another on the evils of firearms.

We call that being a hypocrite.

But for Ed Stack, it’s just being Dick’s.

Recently, Ed took to the airwaves to explain in an interview with CBS News how he made his decision upon finding out that the criminal responsible for the Parkland attack had previously purchased a shotgun from Dick’s. If you tried to follow the “reasoning” of the conversation (if not the words actually spoken), it went something like this:

Ed: We sold the bad guy a shotgun. And I said, “We’re done.’”

Reporter: But that wasn’t the gun he used.

Ed: But it could have been.

Reporter: So you were done with shotguns.

Ed: No, we were done with AR-15s.

Reporter: So you sold the bad guy an AR-15, too?

Ed: No, but we could have.

Reporter: So you’re not selling AR-15s or shotguns.

Ed: No, we’re just not selling AR-15s.

Reporter: But you said he could have used a shotgun.

Ed: That’s right.

Reporter: But you’re still selling shotguns.

Ed: That’s right. But we’re not selling AR-15s.

Ed went on to say that he figured at the time his voluntary gun control policies would cost the company about a “quarter of a billion dollars” in losses. He turned out to be right, or pretty close, he noted.

And he continued by explaining that after removing $5 million worth of perfectly good, perfectly lawful semi-automatic rifles from Dick’s inventory, he turned them into scrap metal.

Why?

Because, according to Ed Stack, “If we really think these things should be off the street, we need to destroy them.”

We don’t think Dick’s ever considered just leaving the guns out on the street.

But even if Ed believed that the federally-mandated background check process was an inadequate safeguard to keep the semi-automatic rifles “off of the street,” he had options other than destroying valuable company property at company expense.

He could have, for example, donated the guns to cash-strapped law enforcement agencies across the country. Then they could have been used to help round up real crime guns from real criminals on the street and elsewhere. Maybe Dick’s could have even qualified for a tax deduction.

Instead, for all Ed knows, the scrap metal might just be melted down and repurposed into new semi-automatic rifles for sale by a competitor who defers to the choices of its law-abiding customers, not to the choices of gun control advocates who don’t shop at firearm retailers.

Ed Stack told CBS News the future of gun sales at Dick’s is under “strategic review.” So far, he’s removed all firearms from more than 100 of the company’s 720 stores.

Meanwhile, many gun buyers and Second Amendment supporters have removed all of their business from all of the company’s stores. As Hot Air reports, “Three years ago the company’s stock was trading at sixty bucks per share. This week it’s hovering around 38 dollars.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Number of Concealed Carry Permit Holders Increased Again

Virginia’s Anti-gun Politicians Put Politics Before Fighting Gun Crime

Grassroots Spotlight: NRA-ILA Fighting the Bloomberg Money In Virginia 2019 Elections

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

These Gun Owners Were Able to Confront Criminals in September

When the Virginia State Crime Commission and the House Judiciary Committee held hearings earlier this fall regarding firearm policies, it was striking how little many gun control advocates and policymakers know about basic facts related to guns and gun violence.

It also was clear how devastating many of their policy proposals would be for law-abiding Americans who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

These legislators and advocates, like most of us, genuinely want to create safer communities and protect innocent people from violence. But the reality is the overwhelming majority of lawful gun owners never will be a threat to themselves or others, nor would imposing substantial barriers to lawful gun ownership make anyone safer.

Not only do Americans use their firearms for lawful purposes far more often than they use them to commit crimes, but studies routinely show that a very small number of repeat criminal offenders are responsible for the majority of gun-related crimes, even though they’re already prohibited from possessing firearms.


Congress is trying to ramrod through increased gun laws upon the American people. But will that really stop the rise of gun violence? Find out more now >>


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded in 2013 that “almost all major studies” on defensive gun uses have found that Americans defend themselves with their firearms between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. This makes lawful gun owners an important factor in overall public safety.

Every month this year, we’ve highlighted in The Daily Signal just some of the many times that law-abiding citizens used their firearms to defend themselves or others from threats to their lives or livelihoods. (Take a look at JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJuly, and August.)

September was no different, according to police reports in the news:

Sept. 1, San Antonio, Texas: A young woman shot and injured a man who was trying to break into her home through a back window at 2 a.m., police said. The man later was determined to be the woman’s ex-boyfriend, though she did not know who the intruder was at the time she fired.

Sept. 3, Houston: After a woman parked her vehicle outside her home in the early hours of the morning, two men approached the driver’s side window and attempted to rob her. The woman drew her firearm from her purse and fired two rounds at the men, who ran away, police said. One would-be robber was wounded in the process and later was charged with aggravated robbery. The woman told local reporters: “I got the gun for that purpose, but I never thought I would really have to use it. . . . I saved my own life.”

Sept. 8, Virginia Beach, Virginia: A Florida man was shot and paralyzed by his stepdaughter after he broke into his estranged wife’s Virginia home and assaulted both the wife and stepdaughter with a wrench. Investigators said they later found garbage bags, zip ties, duct tape, and various weapons in the man’s car, along with a journal detailing his plans to kill his wife.

Sept. 9, Sisters, Oregon: When an unknown man broke into the back door of a residence, the homeowner grabbed his rifle and confronted the intruder, forcing him to flee without firing a single round, police said. The intruder then went to a neighboring home, where that homeowner called 911 and told the intruder to leave. The intruder returned to the first home and this time, the homeowner held him at gunpoint until police arrived.

Sept. 11, Cherokee County, Georgia: A homeowner used her firearm to defend herself against a man who started banging on her doors and windows. The homeowner did not know the man and yelled at him to leave, and he temporarily retreated. The man returned and became even more aggressive, threatening to kill the homeowner, who had armed herself with a firearm. When the man began to approach the homeowner, she shot and killed him, police said.

Sept. 16, Providence, Rhode Island: A man was smoking outside his home when someone approached, held a gun to the man’s head, and demanded everything in his pockets. The robber then forced the man into the apartment, where they fought. The man was able to reach his own gun and shoot the robber, who later was arrested after seeking treatment for his wounds, police said. Despite the state’s strict gun laws (it has a “B+” rating from the Giffords gun control group), a neighbor told reporters that these types of crimes were common in the area and that his family had been victimized several times as well.

Sept. 19, Atlanta: Three masked teens approached residents outside their home before one teen opened fire on the residents with a handgun. One resident used his AR-15 to return fire in self-defense, firing numerous rounds and killing all three assailants, police said. The residents were unharmed.

Sept. 19, Miami-Dade County, Florida: A lunch break for an armed Good Samaritan took a heroic turn when she intervened to stop a brutal robbery and assault occurring outside a Popeyes restaurant. The woman fired her handgun at an assailant as he pummeled a bleeding and helpless victim lying on the concrete, police said. The rounds missed the assailant, but the shots were enough to make him run away. The woman told reporters this was the first time she had fired her gun outside a gun range, and that although it was “an intense moment,” she just “had to stop” the assailant. “I just had to save the guy’s life,” she said. “That’s all I did was try to save someone’s life.” Police later arrested the assailant.

Sept. 22, Salina, Kansas: father and daughter held a man at gunpoint after he kicked in their door in a home invasion. The man initially told the father that he was running away from someone, but the father yelled for his daughter to bring his gun after it became clear the man was trying to lock them all in the house, police said. The family had prepared for emergency situations like this one and were able to detain the man until police could take him into custody.

Sept. 26, Redding, California: A holder of a concealed carry permit helped intervene in a kidnapping after it became clear to him that another customer at a gas station was holding a woman against her will. Earlier in the evening, the man had assaulted the woman’s sister before forcing the woman into his car and driving off, police said. The permit holder noticed the woman was in distress, confronted the man, and held him at gunpoint until law enforcement arrived.

As these examples show, the first line of defense against crime are those on the scene when crime occurs. Despite our deep respect for law enforcement, police officers are not always there when crimes occur. They respond to calls of those who are already in peril, or to a crime scene after the offense has occurred.

Government exists to protect the inalienable natural rights of its citizens, but unfortunately, sometimes the government is unwilling or unable to do so in a timely and effective manner.

We don’t make the public safer by depriving law-abiding citizens of the best means of self-defense, or by imposing heavy and arbitrary burdens on the exercise of constitutional rights. We simply make those law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to crime and tyranny.

COMMENTARY BY

Cooper Conway is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

Amy Swearer is a senior legal policy analyst at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Utah: Robbery Victim Pulls Gun Fires after Departing Thieves

Members of Previous Generations Now Seem Like Giants


A Note for our Readers:

In the wake of every tragic mass shooting or high-profile incident involving gun violence, we hear the same narrative: To stop these horrible atrocities from happening, we must crack down on gun laws.

But is the answer really to create more laws around gun control, or is this just an opportunity to limit your Constitutional right to bear arms?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you better understand the 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Growing Number of Women Taking Concealed Carry Classes

Women can be just as interested in guns as men. After all, there is no label on guns that says they are only suitable for men. Lately, there has been an increase in the number of women taking concealed carry classes. Although these classes are mainly dominated by men, women are getting more and more interested in them.

This doesn’t really come off as a surprise, given that many times, women feel unsafe while on the street, and don’t know how to protect themselves by force. This is one reason why the number of women obtaining concealed carry permits has surpassed the number of men getting the same permits.

Why Do Women Take Concealed Carry Classes?

Women are mainly interested in concealed carry classes because they want to learn how to protect themselves when facing a dangerous situation. Since people have the right to own a gun in the U.S., many want to use this right – women included. Owning the gun itself is not enough, though, as guns require careful maneuvering, and if you haven’t used a gun before, the chances are that you’re unaware of how to use it properly.

So, the number of women who want to use guns is increasing because they want to learn how to protect themselves, without having to depend on someone else for their safety. Many females feel that a gun offers them a sense of safety, especially after certain events that have been occurring in the U.S.

Many times, people tend to wait until the last minute to take steps for protecting themselves. Until a tragedy happens, some people don’t even think they will ever need to use that kind of protection. So, tragedies have been a steer in the right direction.

Also, women who want to learn how to shoot should have the proper mental capability of doing it. If you don’t think you should use the gun and hesitate for a moment, you risk having the gun used against you by a potential attacker. This is why so many shooters say that you need to be ready to shoot whenever you aim the gun, or otherwise you shouldn’t do it.

Conversely, there are women who want to learn more about gun laws, and a gun instructor is the best person to learn from. Concealed carry classes will lead to the woman being able to apply for a concealed carry permit, and thus carry a gun with her when needed.

The Increase in the Number of Concealed Carry Permits

Over the years, more and more people have decided to use their right to own a gun. Basically, over a period of 10 years, the number of permits for handguns has had an increase of 256%. Therefore, more than 16.36 million permits have been granted.

This led to the study reporting the amount of concealed carry permits by gender in 2016, and thus it revealed that 36% of permit holders were women, in 14 of the states. Also, in 8 states, the number of permits increased by 22% for men and 93% for women.

According to studies, the number of women who obtained permits has grown due to shooting events taking place. Of course, people put themselves in the victims’ shoes, so they think they may one day be unsafe themselves.

Because of that, statistics show that more concealed carry courses have been taken ever since the Parkland, Florida shooting. The number went up by 24% after the incident occurred, being the highest increase since July/August of 2016.

So, the chances are that more women will consider applying for concealed carry permits as time goes by and they feel the need to protect themselves.

The Response of the Firearm Industry

Since they saw how many women decided to pick up guns, the firearm industry worked to adapt firearms for women. Basically, since 2005, there has been an increase in the number of high caliber guns with greater lethality. Also, since 0.380 guns have had a production boost too, they opened the door towards more-concealable weapons – perfect for women.

With this in mind, the firearm production has started working on stronger, yet more concealable weapons. Given that women want something that can be easily used while hidden properly, this is an amazing thing. Now, women have access to a series of handguns meant for them, and they aren’t too big or heavy to carry.

Also, the public relations director for the NSSF (the National Shooting Sports Foundation), Michael Bazinet, has made a confirmation regarding SHOT Show. It seems that more exhibitors at this show are making guns for women. So, things are looking bright for women who want to get a concealed carry.

Also, the US Concealed Carry Association Expo of the NRA Show is offering quite a nice sight too. More and more weapons for women have been presented in 2018, showing the increase in demand for women.

Women who want to learn more about guns and see the newer handguns created for them can attend SHOT Show and interact with professional female shooters. There will be many great lessons to learn from them, as well as a confidence boost when you see you are not alone in this game.

Final Thoughts

If you want to assert your right and take concealed carry classes as a woman, you have the chance to pick the best handgun. For instance, a Smith & Wesson M&P9 Shield 2.0 is perfect for concealed carry and is only suitable to use under most female clothing. Having a short grip and slim profile, you cannot go wrong with a handgun like this.

Women have decided to take the initiative and go to concealed carry classes either to learn more about gun laws or protection or to learn how to shoot and protect themselves. So, if you’re a lady who wants to go to such classes, you aren’t alone – therefore, there’s no need to hesitate.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Number of Concealed Carry Permit Holders Increased Again

MSNBC’s Las Vegas Anti-Gun Rally

On Wednesday, anti-gun news outlet MSNBC, along with their partner organizations Giffords and March for Our Lives, hosted nine Democrat candidates for President for what was billed as a “Gun Safety Forum.”  Most of the time was spent by candidates and anti-gun activists railing against guns, NRA, and occasionally, President Donald Trump.

As one can imagine, there really wasn’t much new discussed, as candidates continued to try to convince Democrat voters that each is the most anti-gun choice.  At times, it seemed like a fight might break out over who had the most outrageous scheme to disarm law-abiding Americans.

Everyone seemed to agree on “universal” background checks, “red flag” laws, and that there is an “epidemic” of gun violence in our country.  But as each candidate took the stage for their individual allotted time, most tried to separate themselves from the others.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, one of the higher polling lower tier candidates, started things off, trying to draw a connection between passing new gun laws and combatting “white nationalism.”

Buttigieg also promoted gun licensing, as well as “red flag” laws and “universal” background checks.  Attacking NRA, he made the patently false allegation that our association represents the interests of gun manufacturers, rather than our 5 million dues-paying members.

Mayor Buttigieg also talked about banning semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, making the confusing statement that such things should not be sold “anywhere near an American school or neighborhood.”  He seemed to clarify later that he was not talking about limiting where gun stores could operate, but meant he wanted to ban these popular rifles.

While trying to sell the constitutionality of banning some of the most commonly owned firearms in America, he made two bizarre comparisons.  First, he said that people can own slingshots, but not nuclear weapons, followed by stating that water balloons are legal, but predator drones are not.  It’s hard to imagine a more ridiculous comparison than one between children’s toys and actual weapons of war while discussing the Second Amendment.

His support of banning AR-15s, however, did not, at this time, include support for the type of confiscation scheme that has been promoted by one of the other candidates.  More on that later.

Former HUD Secretary and San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro was next. He promoted increasing the tax on ammunition to further drive up its cost and supported the banning of so-called “assault weapons,” but fell short of calling for their confiscation.  Instead, he promoted a voluntary “buy-back” scheme, followed by registering those not turned in and tracking their future transfer, similar to the way fully-automatic firearms are currently regulated.  While he did not mention fully incorporating them into the National Firearms Act (NFA) protocols, that seemed to be where he was heading.

Next was New Jersey Senator Cory Booker.  He stated support for banning and confiscating semi-automatic firearms, pushed so-called “safe” storage laws, and promoted his scheme to implement a federal licensing program for gun owners.  He went so far as to call out all of his opponents that don’t support his position, claiming anyone who does not support licensing “should not be a nominee from our party.”  He then went on to pat himself on the back for pushing “the most ambitious” gun plan.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has been leading the pack in some polls, then spoke.  She promoted the idea of limiting firearm purchases to one-a-month, and also suggesting a 7-day waiting period before a law-abiding citizen could take possession of a lawfully purchased firearm.  She also threatened a federal investigation of NRA—a clear attempt to quash our right to free speech, and that of our more than 5 million members.

Following Warren was former Vice President Joe Biden. While Biden had been the favorite in the race, at one point commanding a lead of more than 25-points over his closest rival, his advantage has all but disappeared.  Biden again raised his make-believe idea on gun control—mandating guns that can only operate utilizing “biometric markers.”  He also pushed a ban on the manufacture of AR-15s and similar rifles, coupled with regulating those that are currently owned under the NFA.  This scheme has been promoted by representatives of Giffords, one of the sponsors of the event, so Biden was clearly playing to the audience.

His presentation was marked by the usual rambling, odd tangents, and self-promoting hyperbole to which we’ve grown accustomed.  At one point he stopped in the middle of praising those behind March for Our Lives to clumsily transition to talking about the federal restrictions on hunting migratory waterfowl; pointing out that there is a limit of three shells in your shotgun when in the field.  That brought him to discussing putting limits on the number of rounds one can have in other firearms.  Biden seems to be struggling with determining an arbitrarily acceptable limit on ammunition capacity, so maybe he’s now testing out the idea of using three.

Former Texas Representative Robert Francis O’Rourke, who self-identifies as “Beto,” took the stage after Biden.  He specifically called out Mayor Buttigieg for not supporting his gun confiscation idea, all but calling him a coward.  He seemed to imply the same about Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.) and Senator Chris Coons (D-Del) for their questioning the level of support for the disarmament scheme.

O’Rourke also pushed the popular lie among the anti-gun crowd that AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles are “weapons of war.”  He even made the outrageously false claim that such firearms are “sold to the militaries of the world.”  Of course, this is just an evolution of what gun-ban advocate Josh Sugarmann began promoting in the late ‘80s, when he wrote about so-called “assault weapons”:

“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Of course, millions of law-abiding Americans own semi-automatic rifles, while fully-automatic firearms are strictly regulated under the NFA, and are what is actually “sold to the militaries of the world.”

He also claimed that, when the Second Amendment was ratified, it took “three minutes to reload a musket.”  In fact, someone in the 18th century who was familiar with their musket could fire and reload it two- to three-times a minute.  While that fact has little to do with the debate over gun control, what O’Rourke ignores is the more relevant fact that those privately owned muskets were no different than the muskets used by those in “the militaries of the world.”

The bottom-tier candidate waited until near the end of his time to break out two of the shticks for which he has become somewhat famous; profanity and high school-level Spanish.

Another bottom-tier candidate, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, was next, although she didn’t really bring anything new to the discussion.  She mostly echoed the same, tired gun-control ideas promoted by those who came before her.  Perhaps that is why she has been struggling throughout most of her campaign to generate more than 1% support in the polls.

Businessman Andrew Yang, who can’t seem to achieve much more than mid-single digit support in spite of promising to give people “free” money, had some curious ideas.  He appeared to support Biden’s “biometric markers” idea, and mentioned expanding on the Booker notion of licensing by promoting a multi-tiered licensing program, although he didn’t offer real details on that while on stage, other than there would be different licenses for different guns.

Yang also mentioned wanting to keep track of people who own multiple firearms, but also offered no details on accomplishing this to the audience.

Two particularly odd ideas stood out.  First, in order to counter the impact of organizations like NRA, he suggested giving every American $100.00 of what he referred to as “Democracy Dollars.”  People could give this money to lawmakers and candidates to help influence their votes, which sounds a bit like buying votes.  While we do not support the notion of buying votes, perhaps Mr. Yang did not consider the fact that NRA has five million members.  Does he really want to add more than half-a-billion dollars that could be used to support the campaigns of candidates that support the Second Amendment?

His other odd idea, which may be better described as troubling, was the suggestion that gun manufacturers be fined every time one of their lawful products is used by a criminal.  One presumes he is not suggesting the same penalties for the makers of any other lawful products commonly used by criminals.  If he did, then he would likely be accused of trying to bankrupt the entire manufacturing industry, rather than just those that manufacture firearms.

One other odd statement he made, but also didn’t go into any real details about, was implying that criminals who use firearms to kill others are somehow victims.  This line of thought deserves no additional commentary.

Finally, California Senator Kamala Harris spoke, offering nothing substantively new.  She reiterated her desire to use executive action to implement many of her schemes.  Perhaps hoping to avoid the ire of O’Rourke, she made clear that she supports his approach to banning and confiscating AR-15s and similar semi-automatic firearms.  Some of the candidates who took the stage mentioned their version of supporting the Second Amendment included, at least to some extent, the right of self-defense.  Harris, however, spoke only of respecting the Second Amendment as it relates, in her mind, to the tradition of hunting.

Ultimately, this anti-gun rally produced what would be expected of an event run by an anti-gun news outlet and anti-gun organizations.  The same gun control ideas that have been promoted ad nauseum by radical extremists for years, or even decades.  It was at least slightly interesting to see at what lengths candidates will go to try and out-anti-gun one another, especially considering the controlled environment where there was no chance of facing any sort of push-back.  Especially from citizens who still respect the Constitution, individual freedom and our right to keep and bear arms.

RELATED ARTICLES:

San Francisco Mayor Waffles on NRA “Terrorist” Group Designation

Federal Court Entertains Bizarre Legal Theories That Threaten Gun Owners, Rule of Law

Violent Crime Dropped in 2018

NRA’s Adaptive Shooting Program Aids Disabled Hunters

Member Spotlight: Meet the Police Officer Who Told Congress She ‘Would Not Comply’ with a Gun Ban

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Citizens Speak Out Against Florida’s ‘Red Flag Law’ and ‘Risk Protection Orders’

I want to thank and congratulate the 12 members of WH 912 (3 of which are also LARC Members & 4 of which are Members of Polk REC) who came to the annual FL Congressional Delegation forum open to the public on October 7, 2019 at the Polk State Campus in the PCSO complex.

Seven made 3 minute testimonies on the unconstitutional provisions of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS Public Safety Act (hereafter referred to as SB 7026) and five more supported us for a total of 12 activists in attendance.

Many thanks and kudos to our lineup of speakers – in order of appearance they were Patti Zelsman, Jack Zelsman, Danny Krueger (nominated for this years WH 912 Oscar), Royal Brown III, Glynnda White, Kay Mijou, and Manny Brito. All were well rehearsed and completed their presentations within 3 min limit or a few lines (seconds) past 3 minutes. We also appreciated those present to support us – Roy and Nancy Pearce, Linda Adams, Jane Thomas, and Dy Soldwedel-Krueger.

We spoke before five of the six members of the Polk County Congressional Delegation who were Senators Albritton and Lee and Representatives Burton, Tomkow and Bell. Sen. Stargel was not present, Her Legislative Asst. Chad Davis was the recorder for the Delegation.

Glynnda White wrote the narratives for each of our 7 speakers and submitted them to Chad Davis in advance so that we would be pre-scheduled in a sequence that built upon each other and reinforced all the major points we wanted to get across. Among important points made were as follows:

  1. MSDHSPSA (SB 7026) is unconstitutional and violates our 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendment Rights and, in certain circumstances may also violate our 1st and 5th Amendment Rights – each of the testimonies drove this point home with specific examples of how our rights are/can be violated.
  2. School Safety and Gun Control should have been considered in two separate bills/laws and not cobbled together in one rushed 3 week time frame after the Parkland shootings.
  3. The Risk Protection Order (RPO) codified within SB 7026 prescribes Ex Parte petitions resulting in seizures of firearms, ammo, accessories & permit without a Hearing which comes 14 days later at which time the respondent must prove he/she is not a threat. This is a clear violation of Due Process Rights and the Legal Precedent of “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” for law abiding citizens who might be served with an RPO. This and other provisions are not only troubling to law abiding gun owners (especially those who have undergone background checks, have no criminal record, received CCW training and issued carry permits) but are fraught with many dangers that can result in violations of our Constitutional Rights (see attachment which was given to all the Congressional Panel Members).
  4. Age restrictions on owning, possessing, purchasing long guns clearly violate the 2A rights of 18-20 year olds.
  5. Bottom line recommendation was to support, co-sponsor Rep Mike Hill’s HB 6003 or sponsor a companion Senate Bill to HB 6003 which will revoke the RPO and 2 A age restrictions. Reconsider a much different and constitutional Bill for potential emergency situations where firearm seizure procedures may be appropriate.

This is the kind of Grassroots effort we must all support if we want to retain our rights and not live in fear of the possibility of an unconstitutional seizure of our firearms, ammo, accessories and permit.

BACKGROUND: Risk Protection Order in SB 7026 Violates Many Rights

Stands Due Process on Its Head – RPO takes away our Due Process Rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments as well as the Fl Constitution Sec 1, Art 9 and infringed upon our 2nd Amendment (2A) rights including FL Constitution Sec 1, Art 8.

Ex parte seizure of firearms, accessories, ammo, permits (if issued), etc. before a hearing for the respondent

Triggered by False Allegations/Weak Investigations –   Allows possibility of being triggered by false accusations and possible less than thoroughly investigated information by very busy and often overworked law enforcement.

Reverses legal precedent of being innocent until proven guilty since the respondent must prove they are not a threat rather than the court proving they are in the “after the fact” (post seizure) final RPO hearing.

Premonition Not Fact – Judges making decisions to seize property based on premonition of what might happen in the future – to do so opens very dangerous avenues to ignore our rights – trading rights for safety

Impact on Innocent Respondent  – Current procedure could lead to law abiding gun owning citizens being put through the embarrassment of seizure, personal cost to hire an attorney, loss of the means to defend themselves and their families and bureaucratic nightmare of being placed on state & federal criminal data bases and the difficulties of clearing their names.

Civil Procedure Treated Like Criminal Law – Since the RPO is a civil procedure, Why then are respondents served an ex parte and Final RPO automatically reported for inclusion in the state and national criminal data bases ?  There are no provisions in the RPO section of the law to help the respondent remove their names from these lists thus setting up another potential bureaucratic nightmare for the respondent.  This is another level of punishment for the respondent as a part of the criminal system yet they were served with a civil order.

Weak Rules of Evidence  – An RPO based on a premonition should at least be supported with beyond reasonable doubt evidence not the nebulous clear and convincing evidence of a threat as stated in the law.

2A Privilege Not Right– Hearings being held after the fact of seizures has the effect of turning the 2A from a right to a privilege.

Legal Representation – During the final RPO Hearing the court is represented by prosecution/attorney(s) representing Law Enforcement (LE) petitioners whereas the respondent is not entitled to Public Defense.  If they want (and probably should retain) legal representation, the respondent must hire an attorney without reimbursement compensation should their case be vacated.

Vague language of the RPO is open to varying interpretations by different legal jurisdictions, Judges, LE.

Duty Judges – Reliable sources have reported where large numbers of RPOs are being issued, the load is too great for assigned judges to review petitions and hold hearings so case assignment can go to duty judges with little knowledge of the RPO procedures.

Contract Lawyers for LE are being hired to represent LE petitioners with an incentive for pay based on cases leading to issuing of Final RPOs.

Judges Removed  – In at least one Court Jurisdiction, the Judge assigned to RPO cases was replaced by the Chief Judge of that Jurisdiction because of complaints by LE petitioners that he was turning down too many LE petitions he judged to not be clear and convincing and did not issue an ex parte RPO.

Property Treatment – There are no specifics in the RPO process as to the condition of how the seized property of the respondent is to be handled, stored, maintained and returned nor are there stipulations within what timeframe to return property should the ex parte RPO or final RPO be overturned or vacated.  This can lead to damaged property being returned without compensation and bureaucratic delays in returning properties.

3rd Party Transfer – The time frame of the option whereby a respondent can transfer property to be held by a 3rd party is also not determined nor prescribed.  There are unanswered questions about the strict conditions (such as passing a background check) required of the 3rd party transferee.

  •     For example if the 3d party is a CCW permit holder is this enough proof that a background check has been performed or does a new check have to be made and by whom?  Transfer requires a  sworn statement that the 3rd party will not allow respondent access during RPO period – will the LE officer serving petition take this statement or does the 3rd party or if not who/where do they go?
  •     Based on the lack of specifics on the transfer process, it appears this transfer won’t happen before the seizure but afterwards/post seizure.  This then leads to more bureaucracy and time delays.  The transfer should be conducted before seizure so as to preempt the need for LE to take possession, store, maintain and return property e.g. this function should take place between respondent & 3rd party at the same time the petition is served to the respondent and LE conducts inventory.  This would save LE resources as well.

Unequal Penalties – The fact that an accuser found to have rendered a false statement can only be charged with a misdemeanor whereas a search warrant can be issued to determine if any of the prohibited items are in the respondent’s residence and if the respondent is found to possess any firearm or related item after the final RPO (including one firearm bullet), they can be charged with a 3rd Degree Felony. This is also absurd, amounts to a civil search and unbalances the scales of justice.

Other Rights in Jeapordy – We are concerned these violations of our 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendment rights by SB 7026 could lead to other violations such as our 1st and 4th Amendment rights.

  •   1st Amendment Rights – Sen. Galvano’s coordination with FDLE to identify hate groups and hate speech could lead to RPOs being issued to members of these groups even though no such correlation exists in past mass shootings.
  •   What will be the criteria/sources used to determine that a group is a terrorist group and that they are a threat?  Surely not the uber leftist SPLC who has placed most conservative groups on their list of terrorists?
  •   Who will determine what is hate speech ?  This is fraught with the possibility of politicizing hate speech and using it against political opponents and seems more like the tactics of the Communist KGB or Nazi Gestapo than USA law.
  •   There are leftist groups such as the SPLC who have falsely classified most conservative groups as hate groups.  Others have now stated the NRA is a terorist group and all members of the NRA are racists.  These types of action like the RPO run the risk of turning certain agencies of the FL Govt into “speech police” which could further jeopardize our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

Weakening Self Defense Laws: Then there are the intended or unintended consequences in RPOs weakening our Self Defense laws and Stand Your Ground rights – law abiding citizens will be concerned about using their firearms under lawful conditions for fear of then having an RPO issued against them while a determination of immunity from prosecution for shooting takes place.

  •   Acceptance of large donations from gun control groups like Everytown USA  to PACs helping Republican Senators get re-elected also smacks of a conflict of interest and definitely conflicts with Republican values.

Civil Law Process Treated Like Criminal Law.  Why then are respondents served an ex parte and Final RPO automatically reported for inclusion in the state and national criminal data bases ?  There are no provisions in the RPO section of the law to help the respondent remove their names from these lists thus setting up another potential bureaucratic nightmare for the respondent.  This is another level of punishment for the respondent as a part of the criminal system yet they were served with a civil order.

Conclusions – All of the above stacks the deck against the respondent in an RPO case especially if the respondent has no prior criminal record, is law abiding and is the target of someone’s vendetta, anger, political attack or other such lies and distortions to make LE petitioner and Judge wary that they might be a threat and then err on the side of perceived safety rather than individual liberty.