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.

VIDEO: Where the House Judiciary Actually Got Things Right

While there was plenty wrong with Wednesday’s House Judiciary Hearing on H.R. 1296, the proposed ban on semi-automatic firearms introduced by Representative David Cicilline (D-R.I.), there were some shining moments for those who still support the Second Amendment.

First, there were the two women who testified in opposition to the latest attempt at banning America’s most popular rifles.

Amy Swearer, the Senior Legal Policy Analyst for the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, used an effective combination of statistics, research, analytical thinking, and anecdotal evidence in her testimony [below] to point out the massive flaws with enacting a revised version of the failed 1994 Clinton gun ban.

From a statistical standpoint, Amy explained that the firearms targeted by H.R. 1296 are used in a fraction of all firearm-related crime. She explained that Americans are four-times more likely to be stabbed to death than to be killed by a criminal wielding one of these firearms.

And while many in the gun-ban community continually ask why anyone “needs” a semi-automatic rifle, Ms. Swearer pointed out that these so-called “assault weapons” are particularly suited for civilians to use for personal protection, especially at times when the government is “unable or unwilling to defend entire communities from large-scale civil unrest.” Amy stated that in 1982, during the Los Angeles riots, many business owners and private citizens used such firearm to protect their lives and their property from rampant looters when the police were nowhere to be found. Similarly, during the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, these firearms were again utilized by law-abiding citizens for lawful, defensive purposes.

Amy drove home her point about the suitability of guns like the AR-15 for personal protection by relating the story of taking her mother, who was not familiar with firearms, to the range to teach her how to safely use a gun. Ms. Swearer related that her mother, like many handling firearms for the first time, had difficulty with using a handgun accurately and effectively. When she switched to an AR-15, however, Amy said her mother was able to control the firearm far more easily than a handgun, and her accuracy improved vastly.

“That is why law-abiding citizens buy millions of these firearms,” Amy said. “When accuracy and stopping power matter, they are simply better.”

Pointing out that firearms are used by law-abiding citizens for personal protection between 500,000 and 2,000,000 times a year, Ms. Swearer closed by hoping politicians do not strip her mother of the ability to use the most effective firearm possible for ending threats to her safety.

Dianna Muller, a retired 22-year police veteran, spoke next [below]. A professional competitive shooter who has represented the United States in competition, Mrs. Muller also works with The DC Project, a nonpartisan educational initiative that seeks to bring 50 women, one from each state, to the nation’s capital to promote gun rights.

Mrs. Muller pointed out that gun rights are women’s rights. She stated that she is particularly vulnerable to violent criminal attack because she is likely smaller and “less equipped for violence” than someone who may seek to do her harm, especially if she is outnumbered. “My firearm is the great equalizer,” Dianna testified, “and levels the playing field.”

Also addressing the question of why someone “needs” an AR-15, she stated hers is her preferred firearm for home defense, and that her husband also uses one for hunting. Mrs. Muller also pointed out that if legislators want to look at reducing firearm-related fatalities, rather than demonizing gun owners, they should look at promoting several programs she mentioned that have already had an impact, and would be more effective than adding restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. Among the programs she highlighted were NRA’s Eddie Eagle and School Shield.

Outnumbered by five anti-gun panelists, and facing a hostile majority in the House Judiciary Committee, Amy Swearer and Dianna Muller did an outstanding job representing the views of those opposed to banning guns.

Several staunch defenders of the Second Amendment who serve on the House Judiciary Committee also exhibited their strong support of law-abiding gun owners.

U.S. Representative Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, reminded people that calling semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 “assault weapon” is designed to confuse those unfamiliar with firearms. He pointed out that some attribute the creation of the term to anti-gun extremist Josh Sugarmann, the founder and Director the Violence Policy Center. Sugarmann, Collins pointed out, stated, “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.”

Collins also pointed out the hypocrisy of those who promote banning guns like the AR-15 in order to allegedly save lives. While those opposed to these firearms keep trying to tie them to an “epidemic of gun violence,” the ranking member pointed out that rifles of ANY kind were used in 403 murders in 2017. Semi-automatic rifles that fall under the restrictions of H.R. 1296 would be only a fraction of those homicides.

By comparison, he pointed out that in 2017, knives were used in 1,591 murders, and hands and feet in 696. The “epidemic” would seem to be far worse in areas unrelated to semi-automatic rifles.

Ranking Member Collins also pointed out that speeding was the stated cause in 9,717 fatalities in 2017, and further pointed out that nobody is seeking to limit automobiles to a maximum top speed of 70 MPH.

During the period when committee members could question the panelists, Collins asked Dianna Muller—who was on the police force before, during, and after the Clinton gun ban—if the ’94 ban had any discernible effect on her as a law enforcement officer. She said it had zero effect.

When Representative Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) had a chance to speak, Amy Swearer related that the official report on the effectiveness of the 1994 gun ban found that renewing it would likely have no measurable effect on violent crime.

When it was time for Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) to speak, he pointed out that the discussion of banning so-called “assault weapons” focused on cosmetic features, rather than how a firearm functions. After stating that hunting with a semi-automatic rifle is legal in most states, he asked the panelists if hunting rifles should be banned. Only Amy Swearer and Dianna Muller stated they should not.

Representative Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) used part of his time to point out that, when President Barrack Obama asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to look at existing research on gun violence, they found that “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,” and that “semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 are commonly used in self-defense, especially in the homes of law-abiding citizens because they’re easier to control than handguns.”

It was during Representative Biggs’ questioning that Dianna Muller made what was possibly the most widely reported comment during the hearing. When speaking about the proposed ban on semi-automatics being discussed, Mrs. Muller stated, “I will not comply with the ‘assault weapons’ ban.” Ohio Representative Jim Jordan (R) was the next Second Amendment supporter to speak, and he succinctly summed up what the legislation would ban, stating, “Semi-automatic weapons, with a magazine capacity of ten rounds or more, with scary features….”

During his questioning of Amy Swearer, the two discussed the fact that the “scary features” don’t have any impact on how the firearms function, and would not benefit criminals intent on doing harm. Both seemed to agree that those law-abiding citizens who follow the law will be less able to effectively defend themselves or their loved ones from violent criminals.

In fact, Ms. Swearer expressed concern that, should the bill become law, “You’ll see millions of law-abiding citizens become felons overnight for having scary looking features on firearms.”

As the two discussed the commonly understood fact that criminals try to avoid armed victims, and that the bill would only disarm law-abiding citizens, Rep. Jordan made another simple, but powerful point.

“Bad guys aren’t stupid, they’re just bad,” he said.  “They’re just evil. They’re not going to follow the law. What this legislation will do is make it more difficult for law-abiding people like you, like all kinds of folks, to protect themselves when some bad guy is bent on doing something wrong.”

Florida Representative Greg Steube (R) pointed out that those promoting the ban on modern sporting rifles like the AR-15, if successful, will eventually look to banning other guns until they are all banned. He also attempted to ask Charlottesville Police Chief RaShall Brackney to clarify an earlier remark about banning all firearms. Chief Brackney seemed unwilling to either clarify or walk back her earlier statement.

Other Republican committee members also spoke out in defense of the Second Amendment and in opposition to the bill, including Representatives Ken Buck (Colo.), Ben Cline (Va.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), and Tom McClintock (Cal.).

Our thanks go out to all of those who spoke in support of law-abiding gun owners and our right to keep and bear arms, especially considering they were in a hostile committee where pro-gun panelists were outnumbered 5-2.

RELATED VIDEO: Lauren Boebert/Dudley Brown speak on 2A Rights

RELATED ARTICLES:

Violent Crime Drops As Concealed Carry Numbers Increase

No, 158 House Districts Haven’t Had Mass Shootings This Year

Virginia Police Chief Advocates Ban on All Guns at U.S. House “Assault Weapons” Hearing

Anti-gun AGs Push So-called “Universal” Background Checks for Ammunition

NRA Supports Supreme Court Petition Against Massachusetts Semi-Auto Ban

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

VIDEO: Establishment Catholic Media Pushing Gun Control

by Jesse Russell  •  ChurchMilitant.com

Responding to CNA’s Mary Farrow

“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:16).

With the post-John Paul II Church in America split between two rival camps of traditionalist and leftwing Catholics (a.k.a. “Left Cats”), one of the oddest media outlets is Catholic News Agency (CNA).

On one hand, during the Francis era, CNA has been an invaluable resource for Catholics, providing detailed analysis of the infiltration of the Catholic Church in America by George Soros-tier NGOs and Democratic Party operatives.

On the other hand, CNA will regularly publish pieces that sound like a whitewashed and toned-down version of something penned by one of the many Left Cat writers, many of whom are literally funded by George Soros.

In addition to a steady stream of cringe-worthy, “just a few million more” pieces arguing for the right of the entire world to enter the West via illegal and legal immigration, a recent gem on CNA’s website is a piece arguing for the classic Democratic Party “middle ground” approach to gun control in which Americans will be slowly stripped of their firearms via a dialectical series of compromises.

In “What the Church does — and does not — teach about gun control,” CNA’s Mary Farrow presents the argument that although the Catholic Church teaches that humans have a right to defend themselves, the Church also teaches that the state has a right to protect the common good by regulating gun ownership.

While such an argument seems perfectly reasonable on the surface, Farrow’s piece is a masterpiece of gaslighting worthy of a CNN-tier fake news segment argument for “common sense gun control.”

In fact, the lead photo of the piece is of two serious-looking teenage girls, one of whom is holding a sign with a crossed out AR-15 crudely drawn on it and accompanied with the (all caps, of course) words “COMMON SENSE” and “WE NEED GUN REFORM NOW.”

The message, of course, is that while our country along the entire West is rapidly becoming a violent, God-less hellscape, it would be only common sense to disarm the American population and leave them at the mercy of criminals who have no concern for gun laws.

Farrow begins her piece with a narrative of the recent El Paso and Dayton shootings along with a body count of those killed and some pleading words from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Luring the reader into assurance that her piece is not going to be a screed arguing for immediately taking away any and all guns from Americans, Farrow presents an argument from the Dominican Fr. Thomas Petri about the right Catholics have for self-defense.

However, with her gun-owning reader relaxed, Farrow then opens up her bag of tricks.

Taking aim at the iconic AR-15 and other high-capacity rifles, Farrow paraphrases Fr. Petri as saying, “A claim that does not seem to be morally or reasonably supported by Church teaching is the supposed right of citizens to protect themselves against their government.”

With respect to Fr. Petri, such a claim is, in fact, made by another Dominican, St. Thomas Aquinas himself, who, in  Chapter 7 of , allows for legitimate resistance against a tyranny, writing in paragraph 49: 

If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power. It must not be thought that such a multitude is acting unfaithfully in deposing the tyrant, even though it had previously subjected itself to him in perpetuity, because he himself has deserved that the covenant with his subjects should not be kept, since, in ruling the multitude, he did not act faithfully as the office of a king demands.

Farrow finally gets to the heart of the matter by quoting Fr. Petri’s apparent argument, in the key of the radical Left itself, that the state needs to intervene with increased regulation and monitoring of Americans who own serious weapons:

A semiautomatic weapon is used for firing a lot of bullets very quickly, and what’s the reason for that? Well, it’s to do maximum damage to multiple targets at one time. So yes, I think Catholic moral principles would dictate that the state does have not only a right but a responsibility to monitor who has such means, and that they’re in good mental condition and are able to use them properly.

Like the innumerable pieces produced by CNA cheering on the now rapid death of the West via mass immigration, “What the Church does — and does not — teach about gun control” buries its subversive message within a deluge of noble and pious verbiage and a few  Teddy Ruxpin – level tear-jerking stories.

Contrary to CNA’s arguments, the worst thing imaginable would be to grant a judicial system and law enforcement apparatus under President Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren to disarm and humiliate those guilty of the crime of “wrong think.”

Moreover, those at CNA and their pals at the USCCB who think they can appease the power structure ruling our country and much of the world by selling globalist ideas to confused conservative Catholics must realize that they are only useful idiots whose shelf life will eventually wear out and who will someday find themselves red-flagged for their own all too conservative Catholicism.

RELATED VIDEO: Lauren Boebert/Dudley Brown speak on 2A Rights

RELATED ARTICLES:

Violent Crime Drops As Concealed Carry Numbers Increase

No, 158 House Districts Haven’t Had Mass Shootings This Year

Virginia Police Chief Advocates Ban on All Guns at U.S. House “Assault Weapons” Hearing

Anti-gun AGs Push So-called “Universal” Background Checks for Ammunition

NRA Supports Supreme Court Petition Against Massachusetts Semi-Auto Ban

Priest Tells Joe Biden: You Can’t Be Catholic and Support Abortion

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Beto’s Confiscation Plan Shows Why Gun Owners Must Reject Appeasement

Gun confiscation is the goal. Gun confiscation has always been the goal. Thanks to a recent outburst by 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Robert (Beto) Francis O’Rourke, potentially millions more Americans are now aware of this fact.

On September 12, a visibly deranged Beto told the viewers of an ABC News Democratic primary debate, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” As has become custom among the more frivolous candidates, the Beto campaign was selling a t-shirt with the intemperate statement later that evening. According to the Associated Press, on September 19 Beto stated that he is open to broadening his plan to include all semi-automatic firearms.

Beto’s comments have drawn criticism from some Democrats. However, it is instructive that the Democratic criticism appeared to be more about the former congressman’s strategy than the substance of his plan; they prefer confiscation that is well-cooked instead of raw.

Sad that Beto’s candor might foil his more subtle approach to identical gun control efforts, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told CNN, “I frankly think that that clip will be played for years at Second Amendment rallies with organizations that try to scare people by saying Democrats are coming for your guns,” adding, “We need to focus on what we can get done.” CNN quoted a “Democratic aide” as saying that Beto’s debate statement “only feeds into the NRA’s narrative that Democrats are going to take away your guns.”

In other words: Stop it Beto. You’re spoiling the ending.

Beto’s bombastic delivery of their confiscation agenda even shamed the legacy media, who have long been complicit in obfuscating gun control advocates’ political aims. In response, the media was forced shine unwanted light upon the gun controllers’ confiscatory plans. As the editors of the National Review noticed, “For years, advocates of the right to keep and bear arms have suspected that confiscation was the endgame but have been rebuffed as paranoiacs in the press. Such a rebuffing is no longer possible.”

The National Review editors appreciated what NRA members already know: confiscation has long been apparent to those paying sufficient attention. The only surprise for Democrats was Beto’s failure to follow their long-standing script. Others seem to be slipping in kind:

In May, former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) did something similar while writing an op-ed for USA Today in which he described his plan to confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Making clear that he would imprison those who did not comply, Swalwell wrote, “we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”

Later that month, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) called for gun confiscation during an interview with CNN. When asked by anchor Poppy Harlow if that meant that otherwise law-abiding Americans would be imprisoned for failing to comply with his confiscation plan, Booker merely responded, “[w]e should have a law that bans these weapons and we should have a reasonable period in which people can turn in these weapons.”

In September, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) expressed her support for gun confiscation. At an appearance on “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” Harris called confiscation “a good idea” and told the audience that “we need to do it the right way.”

The gun controllers’ refrain is international. In reaction to the March 15 terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern took unilateral measures to restrict firearms and Kiwi lawmakers enacted legislation to ban possession of semi-automatic centerfire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. The country’s gun control scheme provided for the confiscation of lawfully-possessed firearms.

U.S. anti-gun politicians cheered Ardern’s confiscation effort. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) stated via Twitter, “This is what real action to stop gun violence looks like. We must follow New Zealand’s lead, take on the NRA and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons in the United States.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted, “Christchurch happened, and within days New Zealand acted to get weapons of war out of the consumer market. This is what leadership looks like.”

In recent years, gun control rallies have been littered with signs calling for firearms confiscation and the repeal of the Second Amendment. The great and good have written countless thought pieces calling for gun confiscation or an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate recognition of the right to keep and bear arms. The New York Times used a frontpage editorial to call for gun confiscation.

Of course, the gun confiscation agenda didn’t start with the 2020 election cycle.

In 2015, failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton expressed her support for Australia-style gun confiscation. When asked about Australia’s confiscation scheme at a town hall in Keene, N.H., Clinton noted, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.” Clinton added, “I don’t know enough details to tell you … how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.”

In 2013, President Barack Obama pointed to Australia and the UK’s confiscatory gun control regimes in calling for a “transformation” of American gun laws. In 2014, Obama again pointed to Australia as an example for America during a Tumblr Q&A session. After describing his failure to enact gun control as the “biggest frustration” of his presidency, Obama stated, “A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting… And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not seeing that again. And basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.”

Decades ago, gun control advocates were just as explicit about their confiscation goals as many of the Democratic presidential candidates are today. They refuse to accept the benefits of gun ownership, and yet they’re the ones attacking the stubbornness of the Second Amendment?

In a 1995 interview with 60 Minutes, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) expressed her support for gun confiscation. While discussing the 1994 Clinton semi-automatic ban, Feinstein stated, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them—‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.”

In the 1970s, groups like National Council to Control Handguns (later named Handgun Control, Inc. then Brady) openly called for a ban on the civilian possession of handguns. NCCH Chairman Pete Shields went so far as to explain how gun control advocates would bring about confiscation. In a 1976 interview with the New Yorker, Shields stated,

I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily—given the political realities—going to be very modest… So then we’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal—total control of handguns in the United States—is going to take time.

An understanding that gun control advocates seek firearms confiscation must inform the entire gun control debate. As Shields pointed out, gun control measures build upon each other and facilitate the more extreme controls that anti-gun advocates have admitted they seek to enact.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pointed this out during a recent appearance on ABC’s This Week while explaining why gun rights supporters oppose so-called “universal” background check legislation. Cruz stated,

As soon as you have every person private to private transaction. If you have a grandfather giving his grandson a shotgun to go bird hunting. If you have a federal government background check for that, what you will see the next step to be is the only way to enforce that is a federal gun registry, and a gun registry is the step you need for gun confiscation… you know we now have three of the ten Democratic presidential candidates actively advocating for gun confiscation. They are saying the federal government is going to come forcibly take your gun.

Cruz’s analysis of the situation was spot on. Gun control legislation that requires all private firearms transfers to take place pursuant to federal government interference is a necessary component for facilitating anti-gun politicians’ confiscation plans.

Gun control advocates have made themselves clear. Their efforts are not about “background checks,” or keeping guns away from “dangerous” individuals, or any other so-called “commonsense gun safety” measures.

They are not operating in good faith.

The gun control movement is about civilian disarmament through firearms confiscation. Beto simply let their cat out of the bag.

RELATED VIDEO: Lauren Boebert/Dudley Brown speak on 2A Rights

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Supreme Court Schedules NRA-Supported Second Amendment Case for Argument

Establishment Catholic Media Pushing Gun Control

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

The Hopkins Hypocrite: Michael Bloomberg Touts Free Speech While Another Bloomberg Entity Degrades It

Andrew Who?

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

OPEN LETTER: Bite me, Beto

Earlier this week in Atlanta, three minority males in their mid-teens were shot dead while attempting a violent armed robbers of a homeowner. This type of incident is why I bought AR-15s for my sons five years ago.

Below is what I emailed to a Democrat friend who thinks no one has any business owning a gun with more firepower than a 5-shot revolver.

Dear Susan –

I think it’s fitting that I give this email a title.

If it’s okay, I’ll call it Bite me, Beto.

Picture this. You’re at home in the yard with two other people, possibly your husband and one of your grandchildren.

Suddenly, three masked intruders—one firing shots—appear out of the dark in a nighttime robbery attempt.

What would you do to protect yourself and your loved ones?

According to multiple news reports, the scenario described above happened in an Atlanta suburb two days ago.

The homeowner and the two people with him, presumably family members, were not hurt.

The three teen lawbreakers were shot dead by the homeowner.

They were taken out by what is believed to be a semi-automatic rifle, far and away the best defense against multiple home invaders, according to no less an authority than Navy SEAL veteran Dom Raso – WATCH

Without adequate weaponry, the homeowner and the two people with him might be the ones whose funerals are now being arranged.

Bottom line: That homeowner was prepared to defend himself, and did, a moral responsibility every homeowner has, especially those who have family living with them.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Growing Government Tyranny – Democrats Empower it. Republicans Are Clueless.

RELATED VIDEO: Goodbye, America. How is America to be defined? By its failures or its triumphs? Today, there seems to be an obsession with the former and a dismissal of the latter. Is this dark vision of the freest and most prosperous nation on earth an accurate narrative or a cynical distortion? James Robbins, columnist for USA Today and author of “Erasing America,” considers that question in this video. How we view America’s past will very much shape America’s future.

8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America

The Heritage Foundation has published a booklet titled “8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America.” Heritage Foundation’s John Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government,  and Amy Swearer, visiting Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, did a column after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida in March 14, 2018 using the same title.

Both the booklet and column found that politicians are willing to rush to judgement about mass shootings without knowing all of the facts. In the case of the Parkland shooting, every level of government, from the Broward County School District, to the Broward County Sheriff to the Federal Bureau of Investigation knew that Nickolas Cruz was a threat and clear and present danger to his fellow students. Yet, at each level, government failed. Why?

John Malcolm and Amy Swearer note:

Here are eight stubborn facts to keep in mind about gun violence in America:

  1. Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.
  2. The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings.
  3. A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.
  4. Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.
  5. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
  6. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
  7. Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
  8. Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.

Each of these facts is firmly based on empirical data.

Malcolm and Swearer state, “Murders in the United States are very concentrated. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, over 50 percent of murders occur in 2 percent of the nation’s 3,142 counties. Moreover, gun-related homicides are heavily concentrated in certain neighborhoods within those counties: 54 percent of U.S. counties had zero murders in 2014.” [Emphasis added]

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC):

Murders actually used to be even more concentrated.  From 1977 to 2000, on average 73 percent of counties in any given year had zero murders. Possibly, this change is a result of the opioid epidemic’s spread to more rural areas. But that question is beyond the scope of this study.  Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime” showed how dramatically counties within states vary dramatically with respect to murder and other violent crime rates. [Emphasis added]

John R. Lott, Jr. in the third edition of his book “More Guns, Less Crime” states,

There are certain points that are beyond dispute.

1. By any measure, concealed- handgun permit holders are extremely law abiding.
2. Even the number of anecdotal news stories of defensive gun uses completely dwarfs any possible bad actions by permit holders with their concealed handguns.
3. No refereed academic articles by economists or criminologists claim that right- to- carry laws have a significant bad effect on crime rates.

Lott concludes, “At some point the risk of gun- free zones is going to have to be seriously discussed. Whether one looks at city or country gun bans or even smaller gun bans involving malls or schools, bans increase violence and murder. The gun- control debate has changed dramatically over the last decade.”

CPRC notes, “According to a 2013 PEW Research Center survey, the household gun ownership rate in rural areas was 2.11 times greater than in urban areas (“Why Own a Gun? Protection is Now Top Reason,” PEW Research Center, March 12, 2013).   Suburban households are 28.6% more likely to own guns than urban households. Despite lower gun ownership, urban areas experience much higher murder rates. One should not put much weight on this purely “cross-sectional” evidence over one point in time and many factors determine murder rates, but it is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders.”

Recently gun owners, particularly member of the National Rifle Association, have become the targets of the Democratic Party and their candidates running for president. Taking away guns is their mantra. Democrats regurgitate this without understanding how government has failed each and every time there has been a mass shooting. Governments at every level fail to understand that gun violence depends on: where one lives, who is your intimate partner, if you are a gang member and if are you a male between the ages of 18-34. The victims are predominantly women and children.

Government, especially in the case of Parkland, failed to see the numerous “red flags” when it came to Nickolas Cruz. In every mass shooting someone saw something, and in many cases, said something to government officials. The tragedy is that government officials often fail to take action, which is the greatest threat which leads to gun violence. It’s the government stupid!

Government cannot regulation or legislate morality. The answer is simple: Thou shall not murder!

© All rights reserved.

RELATED:

When Democrats Push For Universal Background Checks, The Danger Of A National Gun Registry Looms

Father of Parkland Victim on What Could Have Stopped the Tragedy

Violate Your Oath And Turn On American Citizens At Your Legal Peril, Gun-Grabbers

Idea Sheet from WH and DOJ On Toomey-Manchin Background Checks by The Daily Caller

Report: White House, DOJ Floats Background Check Proposal Amongst Republicans

Beto Going All-In on Confiscation

Democrat Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke continues to struggle to gain any sort of traction for his campaign. With some polls putting him in 10th place, and his average sitting around 7th, some might say that it is desperation time for the candidate who was once a darling with the far left and the legacy media while he was running his losing campaign to unseat U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.).

recent tweet from O’Rourke is just one clue that the candidate is, indeed, becoming desperate.

The former U.S. Representative from Texas called on banks and credit card companies to help promote gun control by refusing to do business with companies that produce legal products, and refusing to process legal financial transactions.

As has often been the case with Beto’s campaign, he seems to try to be provocative by rehashing old ideas.

Some banking institutions, with the urging of anti-gun extremists, have already adjusted their practices to accommodate those, like O’Rourke, who stand opposed to the Second Amendment. While this subject has been part of the anti-gun crusade for some time, it has been met with strong opposition, and others have questioned how credit card companies could stop processing certain, specific transactions without actually ceasing doing any business with companies that allow the targeted transactions, as well as others not targeted.

Beto’s most puzzling demand is that banks and credit card companies “(s)top processing transactions for gun sales online & at gun shows without background checks.” As a presidential candidate, and former U.S. Representative, O’Rourke should be aware that ALL firearm transfers through licensed gun dealers—whether they be at a brick-and-mortar store, at a gun show, or over the Internet—are required, by law, to be run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Of course, he knows this, but his tweet is intended to create confusion on the issue, as well as create the impression that he is proposing to address specific problems, even though they simply do not exist.

Rehashing an old anti-gun campaign isn’t his only sign of desperation, though.

On September 12, during the third debate of Democrat Presidential candidates, he tried to be even more provocative.

When asked if he supported confiscation of certain semi-automatic firearms, Beto stated, “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15, your AK47….”

And just to prove he was serious, his campaign started selling t-shirts.

Thankfully, he didn’t go so far as one former candidate who also proposed confiscation, but also made what many considered to be a rather ominous threat.

So far, Beto has tried being folksy, posting videos of him at the dentist, getting his hair cut, flipping burgers, and changing a tire. That hasn’t been successful in getting his polling numbers out of the low single digits.

Now he’s selling profanity and trying to prove he’s the most anti-gun candidate in the field in trying to lure support from Democrats in his Quixotic quest to be President. A far cry from when he faced only the Texas electorate, and assured lawful gun owners they could keep their firearms. If these tactics don’t work, which they likely won’t, can we expect O’Rourke to dive even deeper into the anti-gun end of the pool, and start promoting the repeal of the Second Amendment? As we often say, stay tuned!

RELATED ARTICLES:

NASCAR Takes a Hard Left

Tell Your Lawmakers: No Semi-Auto and Magazine Ban!

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Declares NRA a “Domestic Terrorist Organization”

House Democrats Continue Unprecedented Push for More Gun Control

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