Eight Facts That Will Keep Gun Grabbers Up At Night

H/T Bearing Arms.

The gun grabbers will lose much sleep trying to debunk these facts.

Gun rights activists are in the fight of their lives. While there have been some wins in the last year or so, there have been a whole lot of setbacks. Perhaps the worst is that Democrats are once again emboldened to pursue anti-gun legislation, something they’d learned was a losing cause a while back. Now, we’re back at it.

Those who want to restrict gun ownership, however, aren’t getting an easy fight. Nor should they.

You see, there are some facts about violence in the United States–the reason typically cited for why we need gun control–that will keep anti-gunners awake at night.

As emotions morph from grief to anger to resolve, it is vitally important to supply facts so that policymakers and professionals can fashion solutions based on objective data rather than well-intended but misguided emotional fixes.

Are there ways to reduce gun violence and school shootings? Yes, but only after objectively assessing the facts and working collaboratively to fashion commonsense solutions.

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

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

  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. Here’s a deeper look.

It’s also worth noting that the trend for violent crime decreasing tends to correspond to the liberalization of gun laws throughout the nation. While correlation doesn’t equal causation, if the claims of gun control activists had any merit, we’d see the opposite.

We don’t.

The fact of the matter is that violence is a complicated problem. Trying to separate gun violence from other forms of violence is pointless. No one feels better that their loved one was stabbed to death. Focusing on a tool used does nothing to combat the underlying issues, issues we only barely understand.

Every solution proposed by anti-gunners is the simple idea that if we somehow restrict law-abiding citizens from owning guns, we’ll somehow make the problem go away.

That’s not how it works.

If any of these people want to combat violent crime, then they’d at least be willing to talk about other potential solutions. After all, those eight facts show that the problem isn’t guns.

Yet practically none of them do. It’s like they want violence to continue or something.


Man Gets 33 Months For Stealing 55 Firearms

H/T Bearing Arms.

The thief only 33 months for stealing 55 handguns is a sweetheart deal.

If there’s one legitimate gun problem in this country, it’s stolen firearms.

Regardless of who they stole them from, gun thieves turn around and sell firearms to some of the worst people imaginable. They don’t care about what comes next, unlike legitimate gun dealers who will refuse a sale to anyone who appears suspicious. They’re arming other criminals, and they know it.

When a thief robs a gun store, he often has access to all the firearms he can carry.

Recently, a man was sentenced for a theft where he took off with 55 firearms.

A man was sentenced to 33 months imprisonment after admitting to stealing 55 handguns from a popular outdoor adventure sporting goods store along the Northern California coast.

According to a plea agreement before a U.S. Senior Court judge, the man admitted he cut the power lines to disable the store alarm in the early morning hours of Aug. 8, 2015.

“He then climbed on the roof and broke through a skylight to gain access to the firearms.  He broke into a cabinet containing firearms and then carried 55 handguns out of the store in a backpack, forcing open a roll up door to exit the store.”

The man stored the guns for an undisclosed amount of time before he began selling the firearms.

The stolen firearms have been recovered in places as far as Oregon and Georgia. At least one was used in a murder.

For all that, he got less than three years in prison.

Folks, this is how criminals get guns. They buy them on the black market. We know this for a fact. They get them from people who either stole them directly or obtained them from thieves for later sale. Stolen guns are the tools generally used for crimes throughout this country.

I’m sorry, but I think 33 months amounts to a slap on the damn wrist. I’m guessing we’re looking at $22,000 worth of merchandise at least, and I’m pretty sure he’d have gotten the same sentence if he stole a couple of laptops.

Of course, laptops aren’t used to rob, murder, or otherwise terrorize the population as a whole. They’re not sold to people who commit acts that are then used to justify disarming the rest of us.

Maybe it’s just me, but I think this scumbag deserves a whole lot more than 33 months.

“Oh, but he cut a deal.”

Yeah, he did. He cut a deal. Unless he gave up some serious heavyweights in the criminal world, I honestly don’t care.

We’re fighting an uphill battle to preserve our Second Amendment rights, desperately trying to block every single anti-gun measure being crammed down someone’s throat, and it’s been justified by the acts of the type of people this jackwagon provides guns to. There are probably people pushing for anti-gun measures right now because of acts carried out with the guns this moron stole.

Yes, I’m taking it as a personal affront. I take every gun theft as a personal affront.

I want the book thrown at these people. They deserve it.

Medical Marijuana Patient Fights To Restore Gun Rights

H/T Bearing Arms.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts.

AP Photo/Carlos Osorio File

Medical marijuana is legal in several states. People can obtain it and use it and not worry about the cops busting down their door. They’re complying with local and state laws, after all.

However, marijuana is still illegal at a federal level. This can create some…complications.

One Minnesota medical marijuana patient is trying to deal with one of those complications right now. In particular, he’s trying to get his right to keep and bear arms restored.

Patrick McClellan was on the front lines in the fight to make medical cannabis legal in Minnesota. He was one of the first to be issued a medical card to use marijuana. He says it helps him live with a rare form of muscular dystrophy.

McClellan is fighting mad. After years of fighting for Minnesota to legalize medical cannabis, he was surprised to learn his effort made it illegal for him to own a gun.

“When I wanted to sign up for the class, the instructor told me that I could not take the class when I revealed I’m a medical cannabis patient,” McClellan said.

Federal law prohibits any person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance from shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition. Marijuana is listed in the Controlled Substance Act as a Schedule I controlled substance, and there is no exception in federal law when used for medical purposes.

I’m sympathetic, but I also have to point out that the prohibition isn’t anything new. It’s been there for a while, and there’s been a number of other cases where people had their Second Amendment rights taken when they took on the role of medical marijuana patient.

However, the effort now appears to be something that would make a difference and not just for McClellan but medical marijuana patients throughout the nation.

They’re hoping to get marijuana downgraded from a Schedule I controlled substance–which means it has no legal medical use–to a Schedule II. As a Schedule II, it would technically be legal to be prescribed at the federal level, even if individual states still ban it. That would mean patients in states that have legalized it would then be able to maintain their Second Amendment rights.

This solves a ton of issues, especially for people in rabidly anti-gun states who love to use this as a pretext for gun confiscation. It will rob those states of their pretext, which is enough reason alone to want to see this change made.

Medical marijuana patients are obeying the laws of their communities but are being denied their constitutionally-protected rights. While few support the idea of drug addicts buying guns, the laws designed to prevent this are also keeping law-abiding citizens–and they are–from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

That needs to change. I get the law, and I get the court rulings upholding governments acting against medical marijuana patients, but this is getting ridiculous.


The Second Amendment Saved These Gun Owners’ Lives in April


Firearms saving lives is something the drive-by media will avoid telling the public.

From Dean Weingarten. May 15th, 2019
Original Source

The right to keep and bear arms is based on the natural, immutable right to defend oneself and one’s liberties from crime and tyranny.

Unfortunately, too many well-intentioned people today advocate severely restricting the ability of law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and others with the most effective firearms.

Their desire for strict gun control laws is based largely on misperceptions. They believe that Americans rarely use firearms to protect their rights and liberties, and they think commonly proposed gun control laws will meaningfully address gun-related violence.

But the reality is quite different.

Measures like universal background checks, depriving young adults of their Second Amendment rights, and banning commonly owned semi-automatic firearms or magazines impose huge burdens on law-abiding gun owners, and they fail to address the underlying realities of suicidal and criminal behavior.

Moreover, it is undeniable that Americans use guns in self-defense on far more occasions than criminals use them to commit crimes. Yet those defensive gun uses rarely receive the amount of attention given to criminal gun uses.

Every month so far this year, we’ve highlighted just a few of the tens of thousands of Americans who exercised their right to keep and bear arms for self-defense purposes. As with January, February, and March, April was full of underreportedabout good guys using a gun.

April 1, Mullan, Idaho. A domestic violence incident ended badly for the male attacker after his female victim defended herself by shooting him in the face. The man survived and is facing charges of domestic battery and attempted strangulation. The woman was hospitalized with her own injuries from the altercation, but escaped with her life.

April 3, Duquesne, Pennsylvania. An elderly taxi driver picked up a passenger who, during the ride, proceeded to pull out a gun and demand money from him. The passenger didn’t know that the driver had a concealed carry permit and was armed with his own handgun. The driver shot and killed the passenger in self-defense.

April 5, Tallahassee. Police responded to calls about a shooting, but arrived to find that the injured man was actually a would-be armed robber who had demanded money from his two victims while threatening to shoot them and their dog. One of the victims, fearing for his life, used his own gun to shoot the man in self-defense. The man was treated for his injuries, then charged with several felonies, including armed robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

April 7, Largo, Florida. Two good Samaritans stopped to help the victim of an apparent hit-and-run driver, only to have the man pull out a box cutter and threaten them. One of the good Samaritans was a concealed carry permit holder and shot the man in the leg in defense of himself and the other individual with him. Incredibly, the armed good Samaritan then used his belt as a tourniquet to treat the man’s wounds until medical personnel arrived. Local police said the good Samaritan acted in lawful self-defense.

April 8, Chicago. A 78-year-old homeowner found three men using a crowbar to break into his house. When one of the robbers raised the crowbar to smash the glass door, the homeowner—who has a valid Illinois firearms permits—shot him, sending all three scattering. The homeowner told reporters that shooting another human being was a hard decision: “I didn’t feel good about doing that, but he would have gotten me with the crowbar. If I get hit with something like a baseball bat, or a crowbar, [I] ain’t gonna make it.”

April 10, Shasta County, California. After his brother brandished a firearm and threatened their mother by firing a round into the air, Jeffrey Snyder confronted him in their garage. When the brother advanced toward Jeffrey and pointed the gun at him, Jeffrey drew his own gun and fired several rounds, striking and wounding his brother. Deputies interviewed several family members and determined that Jeffrey acted in lawful self-defense, indicating that the brother will face criminal charges.

April 14, Louisville, Kentucky. Tina Burton’s neighbor broke into her home, entered her 12-year-old daughter’s room, and stripped down to his underwear. Burton alerted her boyfriend, who then yelled at the man to leave and began hitting him with a broom. The man was undaunted and reportedly growled at the boyfriend before getting into a physical altercation. At that point, Burton handed her boyfriend a firearm, and he shot the nearly-naked intruder, who fled and was later arrested by police.

April 16, Hampton, South Carolina. Despite living less than a block away from the local police department, a homeowner was forced to rely on his Second Amendment rights to defend himself against a home invasion after two men broke into his house. The homeowner shot both of his attackers, one of whom died at the scene while the second was captured by police a mile away.

April 22, White Center, Washington. A homeowner shot and killed a man who broke into his house in the early morning hours. Police released the 911 recording, in which the terrified homeowner whispers information to the dispatcher while the intruder can be heard smashing items in the background. The dispatcher—later praised for her calm demeanor and precise instructions—talked the homeowner through a harrowing 12-minute call. After shooting one intruder who attacked him, the homeowner hid in the closet for another 7 minutes until police arrived because he heard other intruders and feared he was outnumbered.

April 26, Chicago. A 41-year-old concealed carry permit holder shot and killed an armed carjacker. The carjacker intentionally rear-ended the permit holder, then threatened him with a gun and demanded his keys when the permit holder got out of his car to check the damage. That’s when the permit holder used his own firearm in self-defense.

April 28, Ashwaubenon, Wisconsin. After store security systems alerted a small business owner that someone was inside the building after hours, the owner and an employee—a concealed carry permit holder who happened to be armed that night—went to investigate. The armed employee, using his handgun, was able to successfully detain the would-be thief until law enforcement arrived.

April 30, Bradenton, Florida. A young homeowner saw two men walk onto his property, and then split to approach his front and back door at the same time. As the two would-be burglars attempted to use screwdrivers to break into the home, the homeowner saw that one of them was armed. He then procured his own firearm and fired several rounds at the men, who immediately took off running.

Like the Chicago homeowner referenced above, most lawful gun owners understand the gravity of taking another human life, even in lawful self-defense. They pray the day never comes when they must rely on their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves or others, because it will likely be the hardest moment of their lives.

But those hard moments come, and they come often. We do law-abiding citizens no favors by advocating statutes that make the right to keep and bear arms in self-defense more difficult to exercise. We simply tie one hand behind their backs and insist that they are safer for it.

The Second Amendment Saved These Gun Owners’ Lives in April

Posted by jonjayray on 5/15/2019

Joe Biden: Second Amendment Does Not Say You’re ‘Entitled’ to Own a Gun

H/T Breitbart.

Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden is partially correct the Second Amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear arms and it is not an entitlement.

The only way to keep our schools safe is by arming our teachers or getting ex-military to patrol our schools. 


Former Vice President Joe Biden admitted that the “Second Amendment exists” but stressed during his speech in New Hampshire on Tuesday that it does not say everyone is “entitled” to own a gun.

Biden, who was taking questions at a small outdoor venue, then added, “By the way, if one of you left the keys in your car down the street, and a kid comes along and jumps in it and takes off, you could be held liable civilly for that. So if you own a gun, put a damn trigger lock on it. Put it in a case. You have an obligation.”

Biden also spoke about past gun bans he supported. He specifically referenced the 1994 “assault weapons” ban and noted that it also “limited the number of bullets in a clip.” Additionally, he spoke about being former President Barack Obama’s point man for gun control following the December 14, 2012, attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School.

He said, “There are so many other things we can do to make schools safer, other than arming teachers.” He did not specify, however, what those other things are. Rather, he pivoted to the next question.


Department Of Justice Urges SCOTUS To Strike Down NYC Gun Rule

H/T Bearing Arms.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will strike down this unjust law.

New York City’s bizarre gun rule that prohibits gun owners from transporting their guns outside of the city is facing the ax via the Supreme Court. It’ll probably be struck down. The law makes no sense from a constitutional standpoint.

Then again, it makes no sense by any other criteria one can think of.

Now, the Department of Justice is joining in the chorus asking for the Court to overturn the law.

The Justice Department on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to overturn a New York City gun law that regulates where licensed handgun owners can take their firearms.

The justices are poised to hear the Second Amendment case next term, and it will be the first substantive gun rights cases the court has heard since Justice Antonin Scalia’s landmark opinion in 2008 holding that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep a gun at home and a follow up case in 2010.
Supporters of gun rights fear that the Supreme Court may have decided to weigh in now because Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation last year solidified a 5-4 conservative majority.
“New York City’s transport ban infringes the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd and 14th Amendments,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in a friend of the court brief Wednesday.

The law prohibits individuals with so-called “residential licenses” from taking their guns out of their home to transport anywhere other than a small handful of authorized gun ranges within the city.

The problem is that it bars people from taking them to a second home, to ranges outside of the city, or to shooting competitions not at those specific ranges.

Frankly, this law needs to be struck down and struck down hard. I’d argue gun control advocates should want this law struck down too.

You see, if you adhere to the belief that more guns somehow equal more crime, then the last thing you should want is a law that makes people keep guns in the city rather than taking them away from the city. This law prevents the number of guns within the city from dropping in some cases.

For a gun control advocate, that should be a deal breaker.

However, I think we all know that’s not how the gun control crowd thinks. For many, it appears to be less about combatting violence and more about controlling guns for the sake of controlling guns.

It doesn’t matter, though. The Supreme Court will hear this case. It’ll listen to arguments and likely overturn the law.

What I look forward to reading is what justification is used to defend this law in the dissenting opinion — assuming, of course, that there is one.

I can’t fathom a single constitutional argument that can rationally be used to defend a law like this for existing, yet here it is, and it’s been defended all the way to the highest court in the land. I’ll read the opinion from start to finish. I like good comedy as much as the next guy.

Former SCOTUS Justice Still Bitter About Heller Decision

H/T Bearing Arms.

John Paul Stevens is just a bitter old man that needs to STFU and go away.

He is just too senile to understand Shall not be infringed.


The Heller decision is one of the most important decisions the Supreme Court has reached in the last century, if not of all time. While it didn’t go as far as I’d have liked for it to go, it established that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, a fact that still rankles gun control activists to this very day.

However, it wasn’t unanimous. Few decisions are, these days, but usually, those who come out on the losing side of a 5-4 decision let their written dissent be their final word on the issue.

For former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, though, he can’t let it lie.

Stevens was one of the dissenting justices on the Heller decision, and he’s been bitter about it ever since. He’s even gone so far as to suggest we should repeal the Second Amendment.

Now, he’s taking to the virtual pages of The Atlantic to describe how he was right, and five other Supreme Court justices were wrong.

District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to possess a firearm under the Constitution, is unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench.

The text of the Second Amendment unambiguously explains its purpose: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” When it was adopted, the country was concerned that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several states.

Which, of course, is bull.

Our Founding Fathers’ writings are clear. They viewed the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. That makes sense, especially when you consider that militia members provided their own arms for call outs.

Stevens pens a whole lot of words in his piece, but almost all of them boil down to one simple thing: Sour grapes.

He lost the vote, and he’s still upset about it.

Now, I get that. I understand that Stevens feels that he’s right about the issue–otherwise, why hold that position? However, he keeps pretending that there’s no possible way he was wrong, no way at all. The only possible failure he admits to is not doing more to change the minds of fellow justices.

It also represents my greatest disappointment as a member of the Court. After the oral argument and despite the narrow vote at our conference about the case, I continued to think it possible to persuade either Justice Anthony Kennedy or Justice Clarence Thomas to change his vote. During the drafting process, I had frequent conversations with Kennedy, as well as occasional discussions with Thomas, about historical issues, because I thought each of them had an open mind about the case. In those discussions—particularly those with Kennedy—I now realize that I failed to emphasize sufficiently the human aspects of the issue as providing unanswerable support for the stare decisis argument for affirmance. After all, Kennedy had been one of the three decisive votes that had saved Roe v. Wade from being overruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

The truth is that he lost and he’s mad. More importantly, he wants everyone to know he’s mad.

What he’s trying to do here is somewhat insidious if you think about it.

Gun rights supporters have the Heller decision to bolster our arguments that the Second Amendment is an individual right. After all, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Its word is, basically, law.

Yet Stevens continues to beat this drum because he’s the only one with enough legal standing to remotely refute the findings in Heller.He was on the Court at the time, after all. For all his flaws, Stevens isn’t stupid. He knows damn good and well he can’t change the past. Stevens can talk all he wants about how he might have been able to change the vote then, but even if that were possible–something I’m unconvinced of–he knows that time is gone.

So what he’s doing is trying to lay the groundwork for activists to try and fight back from a legal position. He’s giving them links to use in arguments to counter gun rights advocates citing Heller.

He knows he won’t change anything, but he’s trying to give his side ammunition.

However, through all of his screed, he fails to address one point.

Stevens maintains that the Second Amendment exists to protect states from federal encroachment on their ability to maintain militias. He argues that it was never about the individual.

The text would suggest otherwise. The Second Amendment [emphasis added]:

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The people’s right to keep and bear arms.

Now, keep in mind that Stevens maintains that the people in question are states. If so, how does he explain the wording of the Tenth Amendment?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Here, we see that the states and the people are listed as two separate entities. If “the people” means “the states,” then why would they phrase another amendment from the same era in such a way? They wouldn’t.

The people are referenced also in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does this refer to states? So far as I’m aware, no court has ever argued it did.

How about the Fourth Amendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Again, does this apply to an individual or the state? It’s always been interpreted as being an individual right, hasn’t it?

Then we have the Ninth Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Another Amendment, another case of where the Bill of Rights writers are talking about the people and not the state. These were all passed at the same time, meaning there isn’t a real chance of definitions having changed between their passage.

In every other case, the term “the people” refers to an individual’s rights. Every one.

Yet Stevens would argue that somehow, miraculously, the Founding Fathers had another definition in mind on just one amendment. He has yet to answer this argument in any way so far as I’ve seen. Instead, he keeps preaching anti-Second Amendment nonsense while pretending that he was right all along.

He wasn’t when Heller was decided, and he’s not now.