3 of the Most Common Prejudices About Gun Owners in America

H/T The Truth About Guns.

Other than Christians gun owners are the second most group of people discriminated against.

There was a time in the United States when owning a gun wasn’t considered an indicator of what sort of person you were. Owning a gun didn’t mean anything more than owning a wrench did. They’re both tools. And they were regarded as such.

Unfortunately, legal gun ownership and use carries much more social and political baggage than it used to. People have formed prejudices against legal gun use that can make guns an uncomfortable topic for gun owners.

Some of these prejudices are manufactured to push a political agenda. Some have occurred more organically. However, they’re all problematic for the same reason: they’re wrong.

And, these prejudices are especially damaging because they not only stigmatize legal gun owners, they scare potential new gun owners away from purchasing firearms—even when they may have a completely legitimate reason for getting a gun, such as personal defense.

Unfortunately, the most common prejudices are repeated often on social media, and are even “verified” by certain news outlets.

These are the common prejudices that get favorable treatment in a lot of circles.

1) All Gun Owners are Extreme Conservatives

First, yes, it’s true that many conservatives own guns. But there are also a lot of liberals who own guns, too. There’s even a Liberal Gun Club.

Unfortunately, the politics of gun rights and the Second Amendment have been painted as a partisan issue. Maybe it’s a strategic move to fracture support for the Second Amendment and reduce coordinated resistance to gun control regulation.

Either way, the fact remains that nobody can discern who you voted for, or even which party you might affiliate with, just based on whether or not you own a gun.

Additionally, owning a gun doesn’t indicate any malice or hatred for the government. Opposing regulation that you don’t agree with isn’t resistance or belligerence. People should have input in the formation of new laws and regulations that affect them. Whether or not you support new regulations isn’t an indicator of a desire to start a rebellion or insurgency.

2) Possessing a Gun Indicates Violent Behavior

This opinion gets touted a lot by biased news media. People claim that the only reason to carry a gun is if you’re looking for a fight. Or maybe you’ve had someone ask you why you have a firearm ready for home defense as if you’d be crazy to have a gun in your house.

The idea that the only reason you’d have a gun is because you’re actively looking to engage in violence is a fallacy. The mere possession of a tool does is not an adequate indicator of intent.

Guns are tools. And, just like other tools, there are multiple uses and various needs, for guns. Simply having a gun does not indicate which of those uses you intend to use the gun for.

Furthermore, the total number of firearm homicides in the U.S. each year is far less than one hundredth of one percent of the total population. Even the total number of violent crimes reported in 2017 was only 5.3 million, which would be just under two percent of the population. So the actual data reveals that owning a gun is not a good predictor of violent behavior.

Anyone who believes that mere possession of a gun proves a certain intent has made a predetermined decision, without enough information to accurately reach that conclusion. It’s textbook prejudice.

3) Gun Owners Are More Likely to Be Racist than Those Who Do Not Own Guns

This one comes and goes in terms of popularity. In 2013, the Huffington Post published an article which cited a study that “showed” this. However, the study used something called “symbolic racism” to evaluate people’s biases, and more recent articles mostly cite anecdotal evidence.

So this assertion is another predetermined judgement based on inadequate information.

Is it true that racists own guns? Sure. But people who aren’t racists also own guns. Even though the numbers are somewhat tougher to work out on this one, with over 100 million gun owners in the US — about half of all American households — the number of upstanding gun owners far outnumbers the number of racists who happen to own guns.

Just addressing this issue requires a lot of assumption and inference, because it’s so hard to get any good information here. That means there’s not enough information to make a dependable judgement as the the racial beliefs and biases of gun owners. So this assumption about gun owners is certainly painting everyone who owns a firearm with a very broad, inaccurate brush.

Let the Prejudices Lie

Although these prejudices can make things uncomfortable, especially in conversations about guns rights and gun ownership, they’re most deeply held by people who occupy the extremes of the political spectrum. People with their own deeply held prejudices.

Chances are that the majority of people don’t buy these ideas wholesale. We gun owners, from various walks of life, can work against these prejudices by clearly articulating why we own guns and how to make gun ownership safe and useful for everyone.

We have the facts and the pride to fight these prejudices. We just need to do it.




Appeal Planned In Lawsuit Over 21 To Buy Handgun Law

H/T Bearing Arms.

You can buy a long gun at 18. 

So why not being able to buy a handgun at 18?

If you’re 18-years-old in this country, you can do damn near anything you want. You can get married, enlist in the military, buy a car, get a credit card, take on debt, just about anything and all without asking a parent’s permission. After all, at 18, you’re an adult.

One thing you can’t do, however, is purchase a handgun.

A while back, a lawsuit was filed in an effort to overturn that back in October of last year.

The federal district court ruled against them, but the plaintiffs aren’t giving up.

Two University of Virginia students plan to appeal after the dismissal of their lawsuit against the U.S. government that claimed a federal law restricting sales of handguns to people younger than 21 is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, filed in October 2018 on behalf of then-20-year old Tanner Hirschfeld and then-18-year-old Natalia Marshall, asked the Western District Court of Virginia to declare the gun act unconstitutional and to stop enforcement of handgun and ammunition age restrictions.

Last week, Senior U.S. District Judge Glen E. Conrad ruled that the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights weren’t violated by a 1968 law that makes it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase a handgun.

Elliott Harding, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said in a written statement that the students were disappointed but not surprised by the court’s ruling. The challenged laws have been in effect for a long time and there was little previous precedent for a challenge, he wrote.

“We plan on appealing this decision to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and hope it will reverse course in favor of these young adults’ fundamental liberties,” he wrote.

Both plaintiffs have tried to purchase handguns from licensed gun dealers and were turned down due to their age.

This is interesting because, in much of the country, 18-year-olds and older are permitted to purchase long guns. That includes the much-demonized AR-15 as well as things like shotguns and hunting rifles. Yet a handful of states have made it so you have to be 21 to purchase a long gun as well. These regulations, coupled with the federal law barring anyone under 21 from buying a handgun, and you have a situation where law-abiding legal adults are prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Of course, Virginia isn’t one of those states, but it’s still a topic worthy of discussion and consideration by the courts.

Frankly, I don’t think anyone should be surprised this one got kicked up the chain to the Court of Appeals. In fact, it probably needs to be decided at this level, and not just in Virginia. My hope is that we can get some conflicting rulings so this ends up on the Supreme Court’s desk and they agree to hear it.

The fact is that we currently treat 18-year-olds as second-class citizens. They deserve to have all of their civil liberties, not just the ones popular with the anti-gun crowd.

With luck, they’ll get that sooner or later. Not just for the sake of these two folks, but for the sake of everyone between age 18 and 21…including my son who also can’t buy a handgun if he wanted.

Feds Dropping Weapons Charges To Keep Regulations On The Books

H/T Bearing Arms.

The ATF is using some underhanded tricks to save face.

U.S. Attorneys have quietly dropped at least two cases against individuals charged with illegally possessing a lower receiver after two different federal judges ruled that the lower receivers do not meet the federal definition of a firearm, according to a new CNN story. The first case was back in 2016, and involved a convicted felon named Alejandro Jimenez who bought a lower receiver in an ATF sting operation. After a judge ruled that the receiver wasn’t an actual firearm under federal law, the case against Jimenez was dropped.

Earlier this year, according to CNN, federal prosecutors also dropped similar charges against a California man named Joseph Roh, who was accused of running an illegal gun factory outside of Los Angeles. While the judge in the case ruled that Roh was guilty of selling finished firearms without a license, the judge also decided that the ATF had improperly ruled that 80% finished receivers as well as the finished receivers themselves were firearms.

He rejected the prosecution’s argument that the ATF’s interpretation of the regulation describing a receiver could reasonably be applied to the device at issue in Roh’s case.
“There is a disconnect,” the judge wrote.
Selna added that the combination of the federal law and regulation governing the manufacturing of receivers is “unconstitutionally vague” as applied in the case against Roh.
“No reasonable person would understand that a part constitutes a receiver where it lacks the components specified in the regulation,” Selna wrote.
Therefore, the judge determined, “Roh did not violate the law by manufacturing receivers.”
Instead of accepting the judge’s ruling, the U.S. Attorney handling the case ended up offering Roh a plea bargain that would keep him out of prison, and keep the judge’s ruling from being used as an argument in future cases.
Following Selna’s tentative order, the prosecution and defense agreed to a deal in which Roh would plead guilty to the charge against him, but would be allowed to withdraw that plea if he stayed out of trouble for a year. Prosecutors would then dismiss the case. If Roh abides by the deal, he will have no criminal conviction and serve no time behind bars.
Sources familiar with the agreement said prosecutors wanted to strike a deal in order to prevent Selna’s order from becoming permanent, drawing publicity, and creating case law that could hamper ATF enforcement efforts.
Roh accepted the deal to avoid a permanent conviction — and possible prison time — for dealing firearms without a license.
This is not only going to be an issue for the ATF and U.S. Attorneys around the country going forward, but gun control groups could see some of their preferred policies stymied as well. If, in fact, lower receivers don’t meet the federal definition of a firearm, what does that mean for New York Attorney General Letitia James’ recent order to more than a dozen companies to stop selling unfinished receivers to New York residents. Under the existing definition of a “firearm” in federal code, not only are the unfinished lower receivers not firearms, finished lower receivers aren’t guns either. Can James really ban the sale of a block of metal to New York residents? I’m not an attorney, but it seems beyond a 2nd Amendment challenge there’s a Commerce Clause challenge waiting to be made.
In the meantime, it seems as if the DOJ is continuing to prosecute these types of cases, but will back off if a judge issues a ruling that puts their interpretation of the ATF regulations in jeopardy. Rather than change their regulations to comply with the federal definition of a firearm, it seems like they’re taking this on a case-by-case basis and hoping to avoid any “problematic” rulings in the future.

California’s New Red Flag Law Is So Extreme, Even the ACLU Is Ringing the Alarm

H/T Western Journal.

This law must really be bad with the ACLU sounding a warning alarm about it.

California now has the widest-reaching red flag rules in the country thanks to a bill signed into law by that state’s governor on Friday.

But the tyrannical move has caused one surprising group to step forward in protest.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom made California even less gun-friendly than it already is by signing a bill that allows co-workers, teachers and employers to file complaints that could potentially allow courts to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Assembly Bill 61 was one of 15 pieces of anti-gun legislation signed into law by Newsom on Friday, The Associated Press reported.

Even Newsom’s predecessor, former California Gov. Jerry Brown, thought this bill and its wording were unneeded, since the state already had similar red flag measures in place, according to a statement from his office.

Brown, an indisputably liberal politician, vetoed the bill twice.

The new law was quickly decried by gun rights groups, who must feel like they are fighting an uphill battle in California.

Surprisingly, though, the American Civil Liberties Union also weighed in on the new red flag law.

The ACLU, often known for its liberal stances on social issues, said the law “poses a significant threat to civil liberties” because those affected by it might not be able to dispute restraining order requests before the state takes action.

Some of the people who can flag gun owners under the new law “lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment,” the ACLU said, according to AP.

Red flag laws are a constant target of criticism from gun owners and others who see the inherent problems with this sort of legislation.

Although checks to ensure bad actors don’t have access to guns need to exist, red flag laws often put that power in the hands of unaccountable people.

Anything from a workplace dispute to an offensive comment can spark a retaliatory report filed against the perceived offender. With little chance to speak for themselves, the victim is often stripped of their legally obtained firearms and forced to go through the bureaucracy to get them back.

Reports of everyday Americans being “red flagged” over satirical memes they post to social media are becoming increasingly common.

This shocking potential abuse of the law didn’t seem to be a problem for Newsom, who also signed other restrictive laws as part of what appears to be an all-out assault on the Second Amendment.

Along with living with the fear of expanded red flag laws, residents of California can now only buy a single semi-automatic centerfire rifle every 30 days.

Residents under the age of 21 will no longer be able to purchase one at all.

An additional regulation approved by the governor will limit how many firearms a non-licensed individual can sell each year.

For gun enthusiasts in California, this shouldn’t come as a shock. The writing on the wall has been there for a while, and pretty soon gun “rights” in the state will be a mockery of what our Founding Fathers intended.

Although there will likely never be one single ban that makes all firearms in the state illegal, it now looks like the rights of gun owners in California will suffer death by a thousand cuts.

WTF? Good Guy With A Gun Shoots Armed Robber Dead… Now Robber’s Family Are PO’d

H/T Clash Daily.

I guess the dead thug was collecting for the Red Cross and was carrying the gun to protect his collection money.

After collecting for the Red Cross he was going to choir practice and then to work in a soup kitchen.

Oh sure. They admit he was sticking up a store, but they’re whining about what the story employee did.

Roosevelt Rappley (23) was, as the saying goes, ‘known to police’.

He had a weapons charge from late August that was ‘waiting to move forward’. But all of that is moot now that he no longer walks among us.

He was shot dead in the process of trying to rob a Dollar General in Dayton.

Trending: HEY NBA: This Republican Senator Had The Guts To Visit & Stand With Hong Kong

Witnesses at the Dollar General told investigators that a person entered the store, revealed a handgun and then demanded money from the cash register, Hall said.

A worker, who was not working at the cash register, was armed and confronted Rappley.

Witnesses said that he pointed the gun at employees, Hall said.

In a 911 call, a man told dispatchers that a man with a gun attempted to rob him at the store.

“He pointed a gun at me,” the caller said. “I had a firearm on me. I pulled my firearm and I shot him in self defense.”

The caller also said that the suspect “shot back,” but it is not clear how many shots were fire during the incident.

Hall said that detectives are still examining evidence and ballistics from the scene to determine how many shots were fire and what weapon fired them.
Source: WHIO

What are the family members upset about? They’re upset that the guy whose face they waved a gun in front of was carrying a firearm at work, and had a ready alternative to being a victim to some dumb punk with a gun and a sense of entitlement.

Mindy Robinson 🇺🇸


Imagine how exceptionally ignorant you have to be, to be upset that your brother who was committing ARMED ROBBERY got shot by the clerk defending themself.

Embedded video

8,790 people are talking about this

What’s that? She’s upset that he had the ability to DEFEND himself from someone like Rappley?


Because Dollar General is considered private property, the employee did not need a CCW, said Hall.

…“As far the as the employee at Dollar General, he was legally possessing a weapon,” he said. “He was on private property at his place of employment.”

…Sgt. Schloss said that Dollar General stores have been hit hard these last few months, but he wasn’t aware of an uptick in crime.

Police said that the Gettysburg store has been robbed four times this year.
Source: WHIO

Tragic Shooting In Milwaukee Shows Need For Education, Not Gun Control

H/T Bearing Arms.

Had Marvin Patterson been better educated about firearms Kiara Brown would be alive today.

This is such a tragic story A young woman named Kiara Brown was killed by her boyfriend in what he says was accidental shooting that, if true, involved a great deal of both negligence and ignorance.

Marvin Patterson says he bought a gun for protection against street violence, but as happens all too often, it inflicted more violence instead.

Kiara Brown, a senior at Vincent High School, had dated Patterson, 20, off and on for years. In March 2018, he picked her up to show her the Audi he purchased after saving money from his two jobs.

As they drove, he says, she asked about the gun, which he had mentioned days earlier. Patterson says he took it from the glove box and put it in the cupholder. Brown then picked it up and was trying to take a photo when, Patterson says, he tried to grab it away and it went off. Kiara, 18, died instantly from a single gunshot to her head.

Patterson was in court this week and pleaded down to a charge of homicide by reckless discharge of a firearm. He was sentenced to the maximum term of five years in prison, in part because the judge says there was still doubt about what actually happened the night Kiara Brown was killed. After Brown was shot, Patterson fled the scene, leaving his car and his dead girlfriend behind. He ended up surrendering to police the next day.

We’ll never know what happened in that car, but let’s assume that Patterson was telling the truth and this was a tragic accident. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel uses this story to engage in some editorializing about guns, but while the paper would demand more gun control to prevent tragedies like this, the answer is really the re-establishment of a culture of responsible gun ownership in the city’s most violent neighborhoods.

Did Patterson legally acquire the handgun? Has he ever been to a range? Has he ever had any formal instruction with a firearm? The answers to those questions are likely “no”, and gun control advocates would argue that the answer is to require these things before you can own a gun. Then they’d turn around and make it as hard as possible to get the training and education they’d mandate before someone could legally own a firearm. “Gun safety” advocates don’t really care much about access to firearms education and training. Their idea of gun safety is “don’t own a gun.”

Instead of engaging in fruitless efforts to ban firearms, why not try to educate people who own guns, even illicitly, on the basic rules of gun handling? Of course that would mean welcoming gun ranges into communities, as well as firearms instructors and 2nd Amendment supporters. And then people might start to get the idea that they’ve got a right to own a gun or something like that, and who knows what chaos would ensue?

No gun control law was going to stop Marvin Patterson from getting a gun to protect himself in a bad neighborhood. And look, it’s entirely possible that Marvin Patterson could have had hours of instruction and training, and still have been stupid enough to try to take a loaded gun from someone while he was driving. I just highly doubt that he ever got that instruction and training in the first place.

Milwaukee supposedly has a “Gun Court” to deal with the mostly young men caught illegally possessing a gun. Wouldn’t it be great if the city adopted the mentality of preventing those men from ever having to show up in court to begin with, because they were legal gun owners? Making guns taboo hasn’t worked. Inculcating a culture of responsible gun ownership might.

Beauty Store Shootout: Owner Fights Back Against Armed Robbers

H/T Bearing Arms.

The owner of C&C Beauty Supply saved the lives of everyone in the shop by being armed.

Image from C&C Beauty Supply

Police in Birmingham, Alabama are looking for two suspects who tried to rob a beauty store while armed and wearing masks earlier this week. Meanwhile, the store owner is alive and well, thanks to the fact that he was able to protect himself and customers inside.

The brief encounter between the two suspects and the store owner was caught on tape, and you can see how quickly everything unfolded.



The two suspects, who both appear to be in their teens or early 20’s, storm into the store and immediately head to the cash register, even pushing an older woman out of the way and on to the floor. As one suspect climbs up on top of the counter to get better access to the register, the owner of the store draws his one firearm and begins shooting.

That’s when the suspects frantically scramble for the front door. As they’re sliding and scooting their way towards the exit, one suspect turns back and fires several shots towards the owner, who is out of view from the surveillance cameras. The pair burst through the doorway and run off in separate directions into the night.

So far, no suspects have been identified in this case. Thankfully the owner and the customer inside the store are okay, though understandably shaken up.

When an arrest is made, it’s likely that the two suspects will be facing attempted murder charges in addition to the armed robbery charges, thanks to the suspect in the pink shirt firing indiscriminately towards the owner and the customer as he tried to flee the scene.

You’d think criminals in Birmingham would have gotten the message by now that if you try to rob a store, there’s a pretty good chance you’re going to encounter an armed employee. Earlier this year an attempted robbery of a Family Dollar store was thwarted when a clerk drew his gun and sent the sword-wielding robbers running. Store employee Precious Spencer told WBRC that her manager was carrying his gun in violation of store policy, which turned out to be a good thing.

“He got to the end of the aisle and said they’re robbing us they’re robbing us. So, he’s holding his gun and he says when they seen me take my gun out then they ran. But they came here with swords and that kind of threw us for a loop because no one really got robbed with swords before,” Spencer reflected. “What were they going to do, chop our heads off and get the stuff?”

Spencer said associates aren’t allowed to carry guns on the job. “He said they rob us too much and that’s why I have my gun and I understand why he feels the way he feels. He’s trying to secure himself and protect the people that are in here. He said Precious, if I wasn’t here ain’t no telling what they would have done to y’all.”

I’ve not been able to find any news about the sword-carrying robbers being arrested, unfortunately. Let’s hope that Birmingham police have better luck identifying the suspects in this week’s beauty store robbery, and perhaps more managers, owners, and clerks in the area will be inspired to get their concealed carry license and start carrying after learning about the actions of this store owner.