NJ Karen Freaks Over Grown-Ups With “Finger Guns”

H/T Bearing Arms.

Freaking out over finger guns is stupid.

This Karen needs to grow up and get a life.


I was disheartened, then aggravated, after seeing the above photo published in Morris Township’s August 2020 Municipal Messenger.

That’s how Heidi Raas started her opinion piece in the Morristown Green.

What was the photo? Was it taxpayer money being squandered? Was it a beloved landmark being destroyed for development purposes? Oh no, none of those.

You see, the problem is that the photo in question was graduates of the Citizens Police Academy posing…with finger guns.

She continues:

After my concerns and comments on this subject on the July Township Committee Zoom Meeting, after having seen the same photo in the July Municipal Messenger, promoting participation in the Citizen Police Academy program offered in the Township,  I would have thought that more deliberate content would have been selected for publication.

Clearly, I was mistaken!

I will say again, I think this photo selection is glamorizing the use of guns in our town and society. Having them in the hands of our citizens, and promotion of same as endorsed by this police program is unconscionable!

OK, Karen, chill the hell out. (And you should go look at the original photo for yourself.)

Yes, I know your name is Heidi, but we all know it really should be Karen.

You see, Karen, this thing about “guns in the hands of our citizens” is ridiculous when they’re freaking finger guns for crying out loud. The police department didn’t hand issued firearms to private citizens upon graduating a course that’s designed to give those citizens a glimpse at what it is the police do. Oh no, they did no such thing.

Instead, the graduates decided to have a cheeky bit of fun and held their fingers like firearms. It’s something most of them have done since they were children. Absolutely none of them had a firearm in their hands.

But, even if they did, so what?

These are law-abiding citizens who are under the direct supervision of certified law enforcement officers. They’re not remotely a danger to anyone or anything. Sure, some are pointing their finger guns at the camera, but that doesn’t mean jack. These aren’t actually guns!

Have we forgotten Newtown already?? And our own scare in 2016 at Frelinghuysen Middle School?

I remember Newtown actually involving a real firearm, not finger guns, Karen. Maybe you should brush up on your history a bit before you freak out about this one.

Reviewing a sampling of Citizen Police Academy programs on municipal websites across the country in both rural areas and cities, and after reviewing hundreds of online images of the program, again from all over the country, I found less than 10 photos of citizens with guns being shown in conjunction with this program.

Our town is one!

Except, it’s not.

They’re. Finger. Guns.

Quit pretending that these represent a real threat to anything. They’re not real firearms, for crying out loud.

Seriously, this is why I can’t take anti-gun hysterics seriously. Karen here is the kind of person who would call the police on a kid who ate his Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun and we all know it. She’s clearly not alone in this.

People like this want to push guns so far underground, so far out of the public consciousness, that they can pretend law-abiding citizens have no need of such things. They want to hide them so others won’t even think of them as a possibility.

Unfortunately for them, though, to do it they have to freak out about finger guns, apparently.

Well, at least we have something and someone to point and laugh at.


One Dead, 20 Injured In Shooting In Gun Controlled D.C.

H/T Bearing Arms.

Proving once more gun control does not work.

The District of Columbia is a pretty gun controlled city. Sure, they may be a shall-issue jurisdiction when it comes to permits, but that was the result of a court decision they opted not to take to the Supreme Court. It was an artifact of their support for gun control. After all, they didn’t want to kill may issue laws in other places.

In fact, right now, local officials are doing everything they can to hamstring people trying to lawfully obtain firearms.

Despite all those gun control efforts in the city, though, it still didn’t seem to stop this from happening.

One person was killed and at least another 20, including an off-duty cop, were injured in a shooting shortly after midnight Sunday at a gathering with hundreds of people in Southeast D.C., according to police.

Police responded to the 3300 block of Dubois Place SE around 12:20 a.m., Chief Peter Newsham told reporters at the scene later Sunday morning.

A 17-year-old, Christopher Brown, died at the hospital, Newsham said. An off-duty 1st District police officer was seriously injured and was “struggling for her life,” he said.

Newsham did not believe the other injuries were life-threatening. He said police are looking for multiple shooters, noting that gunfire broke out from three different directions after a dispute.

The crime scene spanned several blocks and police found 172 bullets, according to the Washington Post.

However, it seems that this spot is a common gathering place.

Perhaps more tellingly, though, it’s a gathering place with a history that seems relevant.

Patricia Howard-Chittams is on 7B’s Advisory Neighborhood Commission and lives a half-mile away from where the shootings took place. “I’m honestly just floored,” Howard-Chittams tells DCist.

However, she says this is nothing new. She’s complained about large gatherings of this nature for years, which has resulted in threats and having her tires slashed — it happened this morning, too, Howard-Chittams says.

So these aren’t good, clean-cut, all-American kids just hanging out and not causing trouble. At least some of these are little hoodlums who aren’t above destroying private property to try and intimidate people who don’t approve of what they’re doing.

And now it’s on the police to do something. That’s something Howard-Chittams doesn’t think will happen.

However, in the present climate, she believes that there’s very little the police can do about it.

“The politicians are not supporting them. Our mayor is not supporting them,” says Howard-Chittams. “If [the police] are aggressive with how they treat the small stuff, they are accused of over-policing… their hands are tied.”

She’s not wrong.

The truth is, there’s reason to believe that hitting folks over the small stuff actually reduces the chances of big stuff happening, big stuff like this. What didn’t reduce the likelihood of this happening, however, is gun control.

The District of Columbia has plenty of it, and yet multiple shooters were able to get guns and open fire on a crowd in our nation’s capital. One person is dead, at least 20 others wounded.

If gun control works like anti-gunners claim, this shouldn’t have happened, but it did.

Kind of like how pro-Second Amendment folks have been saying it would all along.

New Hampshire: Governor Sununu Vetoes Firearm Seizure Bill

H/T AmmoLand.

 New Hampshirites need to say Thank you to Governor Sununu for his veto.


U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, Governor Chris Sununu vetoed legislation that sought to allow the suspension of your Second Amendment rights without due process.  Thanks to the Governor’s actions, House Bill 687 will be unable to erode our Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  Please contact Governor Sununu and thank him for vetoing firearm seizure legislation, House Bill 687.

Constitutional rights should only be restricted with sufficient due process of law. Due process limits restrictions on constitutional rights to only serious convictions and adjudications that provide procedural protections to the accused, which results in more reliable proceedings. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms should not be treated as a second-class right and should only be restricted when sufficient protections are in place.

NRA would like to thank Governor Sununu for standing against House Bill 687’s attempt to damage the Second Amendment rights of New Hampshirites.  Also, thank you to those NRA Members and Second Amendment supporters who contacted their legislators and the Governor in opposition to House Bill 687.  Your calls and emails made all the difference. Again, please contact Governor Chris Sununu and thank him for vetoing House Bill 687.

California: Anti-Gun and Anti-Hunting Bills Continue to Move!

H/T AmmoLand.

Californians make your voices heard.


U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)-This week, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 118, the budget trailer bill that includes an expansion of California’s “Assault Weapons Control Act” and expedites the effective date on firearm parts checks from 2024 to 2022. Additionally, various policy committees continued to push anti-gun and anti-hunting legislation through the process. Below, are bills scheduled to be considered next week. Use the “Take Action” buttons below to contact members of the committees to oppose these measures. 

Tuesday August 11:

Assembly Appropriations Committee 1:00 p.m.

SB 914, sponsored by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), limits when those under 21 can purchase a long gun by requiring their hunting license to be currently valid. This means an individual who has purchased a license for an upcoming season will not satisfy the requirements of the bill. Additionally, SB 914 narrows the exemptions of loans of long-guns to minors and raises the fees the California Department of Justice can charge for eligibility checks on certain ammunition purchases and precursor parts.  SB 914 passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on August 6.

SB 1175, sponsored by Senator Henry Stern (D-27), prohibits the possession of certain African species of wildlife.  The true goal of the bill is to ensure that individuals are not allowed to bring home lawful hunting trophies—even with the approval of the U.S. Government. SB 1175 passed the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee on August 4.   ​​

Click this button to oppose SB 914 and SB 1175. 


Wednesday August 12:

Senate Natural Resources Committee 9:00 a.m.

AB 3030, sponsored by Ash Kalra (D-27), seeks to preserve 30% of California’s land areas, waters within the state and oceans off the coast by 2030. NRA joins a broad coalition of conservation minded groups in opposing this legislation as it fails to clearly protect hunting and angling opportunities. AB 3030 was rescheduled from the August 5 hearing date to August 12, due to committee time constraints.

Click this button to oppose AB 3030.


Thursday August 13:

Senate Appropriations Committee time TBD 

AB 2847, sponsored by Assembly Member David Chiu (D-17), revises the criteria for handguns to be certified for sale by requiring a microstamp in one place on the interior of the handgun (current law requires two imprinting locations). The bill also requires the removal of three certified handguns from the roster for each new handgun added.​ It should be noted that no new semi-automatic handguns have been added to the handgun roster since microstamping was certified in 2013. This legislation is nothing more than a means to reduce the options you have to protect yourself and your family. To read more about California’s microstamping law click here.​ AB 2847 passed the Senate Public Committee on August 1.

Click this button to oppose AB 2847.


Continue to check your inbox and http://www.nraila.org for updates concerning your Second Amendment Rights and hunting heritage. 

Details of Political Pressure to Persecute McCloskeys in St. Louis, Gate Details

H/T AmmoLand.

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner needs to be removed from office for official misconduct.   

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Christine Byers of KSDK in Missouri has uncovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s office. Kim is one of the radical prosecutors who has been elected with money from George Soros linked radical leftist “Justice & Public Safety” political action committee.

Gardner has drawn national attention with her decision to prosecute a St Louis couple for defending their home against an angry mob of Black Lives Matter agitators.

The document obtained by 5 On Your Side (KDSK) show pressure was applied by Gardner’s office to structure the police report, so as to alter the evidence to justify a warrant, and then, criminal charges.

Gardner’s Assistant Circuit Attorney, Chis Hinckley, had pushed the lead investigator, Sgt. Curtis Burgdorf, into signing a charging document that Hinckley wrote.

Burgdorf was unwilling to sign onto a document he disagreed with, but finally signed off, after revisions, under the political pressure from Hinckley. Here are the findings by KDSK:

Hinckley also wrote the document the lead detective did sign, known as the probable cause statement.
But it went through at least two revisions after Burgdorf outlined 14 concerns he had about the document, 5 On Your Side has learned.
Among those concerns:

  • Hinckley characterized the protest as “peaceful and organized” and that it was “calling attention to racial inequities in the criminal justice system.” Burgdorf wrote that the evidence he gathered showed the protest was to call for the resignation of Mayor Lyda Krewson. The final document called it “a protest march.”
  • Hinckley wrote that Patricia McCloskey’s was “armed with a semi-automatic handgun.” Burgdorf wrote the phrase should read, “What appears to be a semi-automatic handgun.” Hinckley responded, in part, “You cannot be serious with this one. Again, this is really problematic.” Ultimately, the document read: “What was later determined to be a semi-automatic handgun.”
  • Hinckley called Mark McCloskey’s gun an “assault” rifle. Burgdorf called the word “assault” a propaganda term. Hinckley disagreed, but it was left out of the final document. Hinckley wrote that the protesters passed through an “open gate” onto private property. Burgdorf said he didn’t know whether the gate guarding the private street was open when protesters went through it, but that, at some point, it was damaged. Hinckley responded: “Your points here are really problematic. It seems to go beyond oversight and into purposeful ignorance. I suggest you very quickly re-assess this evidence.” Ultimately the document Burgdorf signed reads, “protesters walked through a gate.”
  • Hinckley wrote that Mark McCloskey’s gun was “visibly loaded with an ammunition clip.” Burgdorf wrote that he would have to verify that detail because it wasn’t mentioned in his report or interviews with them. Hinckley wrote back “Seriously??!!” Ultimately, the document did not include the phrase Hinckley wrote.
  • Hinckley wrote that both victims, identified only by their initials, “feared that the defendant might fire her weapon due to her finger being on the trigger and her highly agitated demeanor.” Burgdorf wrote that the term “angrily” was subjective and he didn’t like it. Hinckley wrote, “It’s a fact and an element of the offense.” The final document did not include the word “angrily”.

Hinckley is reportedly the official who, when the pistol brandished by Patricia McCloskey was found to be non-functional by the forensic lab, ordered the pistol to be made functional when it was put back together, by the lab.

Detective Sgt. Burgdorf has continued to investigate the case. He was able to discover recorded evidence of threats by people in the mob of agitators, toward the McCloskeys.

“You own a business. Your business is gone.”
“We coming back baby.”
“You ain’t the only (expletive) with a gun.”
“They coming back to your house.”

Sgt Burgdorf discovered additional significant evidence. On a recording from the event, one of the leaders of the mob makes this disclosure:

In another livestream video, Burgdorf wrote a man was heard saying, “I was in front so I was the one who opened the gate. The gate was broken after they pulled a gun. What law did we break? We keep guns there but not for show though. Not to look a certain way, but for use. If they would’ve shot then they would’ve been put down.”

Both the threat and the information is damning. The man admits the gate was closed. There is video of the gate showing it was closed.

Screenshot from Youtube video. The gate has just been opened. The left side is now open about a foot. Cropped, scaled and lettering by Dean Weingarten

In the video, you can see a masked agitator going up to the gate. It appears he has some sort of tool, perhaps a jimmy bar of some kind. He is partially obscured by the crowd. Someone to the left of the gate is working with him, and pulls open the left side of the gate, shortly after he arrives.

It seems the gate was spring loaded, probably with a spring latch that could not be legitimately opened from the street side. The easiest way to jimmy it would be from the right side. Only the left side of the gate was opened.

The person who pulled the left side of the gate open after the latch was defeated, held the gate open for others to enter. This implies the gate was spring loaded with a bias toward closure.

Link to video

The first person through the gate and the person in the sport coat appear to be members of the leadership. The mob would probably not have gone through the gate, without their lead. They appear to have a plan, and execute the plan.

Image of gate being held open, showing what is likely a spring latch and the guard plate, where the thumb of the person holding it open is. Spring latches are the easiest to jimmy.  Screen shot from video, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

On the recording, the agitator leader asks, rhetorically “What law did we break?”

There are four obvious ones:

  • Trespassing.
  • Disturbing the peace.
  • Private peace disturbance
  • Criminal threats of violence.

Other laws that seem likely to have been violated:

  • Criminal conspiracy
  • Deprivation of Constitutional rights

The gate was severely damaged as the mob left.

Screenshot of damaged gate in St. Louis from Fox, Tucker Carlson show. Cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

Why was the gate damaged on the way out? Looking at the gate, notice the side which was opened has been pulled inward ( on the right from the inside). It is meant to open outward. The broken side was never opened at all. It was just broken and bent inward.

Some informed speculation:

It seems likely, when the mob had all gone inside, the springs on the gate closed the left hand side (viewed from the street) and the lock latched. The inside appears to be keyed. It may not have a lever to open it.

When the McCloskeys defended their property, the mob rapidly retreated back the way they had come.

The last in were the first out. They found themselves trapped by the locked gate. The man with the jimmy was probably not there to open it, so the mob just broke it, with many hands pulling on it.

We have not seen any video of the gate being broken.

Testimony about this is important. It would show the gate was locked when the mob arrived. The latch did not lock itself, after the mob was let into the private street by the ringleaders.

The evidence is likely to show the gate was locked. There is video evidence it was closed when the mob arrived. That contradicts assistant prosecutor Hinckley’s assertion the gate was open.

If the gate was locked, it becomes clear the mob were trespassers, not “peaceful protestors”. Most of the mob were being used by the leadership. The gate lock was defeated very quickly, shielded for the most part from the mob, as it was done. With a little practice, such a jimmy is faster than using a key.

Investigators in St. Louis can easily confirm if the gate is/was spring-loaded, and if it was locked with a spring latch.

It is unlikely any but a few of the leadership knew the route which was planned for the event.

Mobs are easy to lead around. Everyone follows those in front. A small cadre of activists direct the mob on where to go.

The leadership knew radical prosecutor Kim Gardner could be counted on not to prosecute them.

She prosecuted the McCloskeys, no matter what the facts.

Prosecutors are shielded from nearly all lawsuits by absolute immunity created by the Supreme Court in 1983.

There are means to remove prosecutors who abuse their power. It is very difficult to remove an elected prosecutor by anyone but the voters.

Prosecutors have enormous power and absolute immunity. It is a weak point in the system of ordered liberty in the United States.

The far left is exploiting that vulnerability. The Supreme Court removed many checks and balances when they gave prosecutors absolute immunity. The left is using that power against the democratic system. They don’t have a further plan.

Their plan has devolved into one goal: tear down the system.

Gov. Whitmer Proudly Wipes Out Wolverine State Gun Stores

H/T AmmoLand.

Gov.Whitmer(Delusional-MI)is making her bones as a petty tyrant.


U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Everytown for Gun Safety continued its Veepstakes auditions as Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer joined Shannon Watts to talk about her gun control credentials.

Gov. Whitmer’s highlight of the event was boasting about putting 6,600 Michiganders in the firearm and ammunition industry out of work by deeming them “non-essential” during the coronavirus pandemic. Most of their industry peers across the United States could remain on the job. Gov. Whitmer, though, shuttered gun businesses in her state and was proud of it on her Everytown Veepstakes tryout with Shannon Watts.

“I would do it again. I absolutely stand by the decision that I made,” Gov. Whitmer said. “I’m not going to apologize. And I’m not going to be bullied into doing things differently…It was very clear, the purchase of a gun does not fall in that [life-sustaining] criteria.”

Should she be 2020 presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s running mate, Gov. Whitmer would fit the ticket. Former Vice President Biden’s antigun track record is well-known and he’s had his own run-in with Michigan gun owners, scolding one Detroit Second Amendment supporter, saying “You’re full of sh*t!” Together the two would make for the most antigun presidential ticket in modern history.

For Safety and Security

Watts dismissed concerns Michiganders have for their personal safety. She went as far as labeling the more than 2.5 million Americans who bought a gun for the first time as just “the gun extremist community.” Gov. Whitmer blamed President Donald Trump.

“That is just the kind of dog-whistle that always makes me fearful that we’ll have more violence break out across the country.” She glossed over the numerous examples of law-abiding Americans protecting themselves, their families, their businesses, and their neighbors.

For her part, Gov. Whitmer supports reinstating the failed 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and gun control grab bag favorites like “red flag” laws that deny due process to the accused, closing loopholes that are in fact just the Second Amendment and more. There’s just one problem keeping her from getting her way – voters.

“I can’t just change these laws on my own,” Gov. Whitmer said. “I need a legislature to work with me. I don’t have a legislature that is very friendly when it comes to working on this issue.”

Gov. Whitmer is correct, though she did not make the point she thought she was making.

Biden and Beyond in November

Gov. Whitmer praised Biden’s candidacy and what it could mean for stricter gun control.

“With Joe Biden in the White House we’re going to have a leader who makes decisions based on the best information there is, so that we have higher odds of achieving all the goals that he’s running on,” Gov. Whitmer told Watts. “He’s the perfect candidate at this time.”

Former Vice President Biden’s gun control “goals” also include appointing former U.S. Congressman Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-Texas) as his chief gun-grabbing sheriff to confiscate 18 million of the most popular selling centerfire semiautomatic rifles in America. His ‘leadership’ includes telling his wife to blindly fire a shotgun into the air without knowing the target and suggesting police try their best to shoot threatening armed attackers in the leg. He called the firearm industry “the enemy” and wants to dismantle it.

Not everyone agrees with Biden or Gov. Whitmer on these extremist ideas. An NSSF survey of likely voters in 18 battleground states, including Michigan, showed that enforcing existing gun laws and protecting lawful firearm sales are at the top of their minds heading into November. NSSF regularly updates the #GUNVOTE online resource so voters don’t risk their rights in the ballot box.

The Government Cannot Protect You! You Must Protect Yourself!

H/T AmmoLand.

Your safety is in your hands and not the governments.

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- As a NYPD veteran police officer, and Adjunct Professor/Lecturer of Police Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, National Rifle Association Certified Firearms Instructor (pistol, rifle, and shotgun), and Training Counselor, and active member of the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, and lifetime resident of New York City, I have dedicated my life to the preservation and strengthening of our cherished Second Amendment. This is no easy task, especially today, as we see constant, concerted, vigorous attacks on the fundamental right of personal defense with firearms.

So, it was with more than a little interest I read Stephen Halbrook’s article, “How Does New York City Get Away With This,” published in the August 2020 edition of NRA’s publication, “America’s 1st Freedom.”

Stephen Halbrook is a Second Amendment Constitutional law expert and a prolific writer and author who has argued and won several important Second Amendment cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his article, he provides a brief history of restrictive handgun licensing in New York City. He correctly observes that “[i]t all started with the Sullivan Act of 1911, the first law in any state (other than the slave codes) to require a license for mere possession of a pistol even in the home.” Toward the end of the article, he makes the point that:

“Nothing has changed since 1911 when [an Italian-American] Mario Rossi carried a pistol for protection against the Black Hand, for which he was sentenced to a year in prison.”

It is of course disturbingly, depressingly, frustratingly true that “nothing has changed in New York City since 1911, insofar as the City continues to require a valid license to lawfully possess a handgun.

Still, in a few important respects, much has changed, and for the worse, since the enactment of the unconscionable and unconstitutional Sullivan Act.

In the 109 years since handgun licensing began, New York City’s laws have become more extensive, more oppressive and repressive, and confoundingly difficult to understand. These laws are a labyrinthine maze of ambiguity and vagueness, and they are singularly bizarre.

Unlike many other States that wisely preempt the field of gun regulation, as failure to do so invariably promotes and leads to confusion and inconsistencies across a State, the New York State Government, in Albany, has not preempted the field. The New York Legislature gives local governments wide discretion in establishing their own firearms rules as long as local government enactments don’t conflict with basic State law mandates.

Albany traditionally allows, and even encourages, local governments to devise their own, often numerous and extremely stringent, firearms rules. New York City has done so, and with glee, devising an extraordinarily complex and confusing array of rules directed to the ownership and possession of all firearms: rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

New York State law, NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (1) sets forth the basic handgun licensing scheme, applicable to all New York jurisdictions, making clear that possession of handguns falls within the province of the police and that,

“No license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to this section except by the licensing officer, and then only after investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application for a license are true.”

NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (3)(a) provides that,

Applications shall be made and renewed, in the case of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, to the licensing officer in the city or county, as the case may be, where the applicant resides, is principally employed or has his or her principal place of business as merchant or storekeeper.

New York City builds upon State Statute, establishing a mind-numbing set of tiers of handgun licensing, mandating the extent to which New York residents may exercise the privilege, not the right, to possess a handgun for self-defense.

The Rules of the City of New York, specifically 38 RCNY 5-01, has established, at the moment, at least, no less than 6 different categories of handgun licenses:

  • Premises License—Residence or Business
  • Carry Business License
  • Limited Carry Business License
  • Carry Guard License/Gun Custodian License
  • Special Carry Business License
  • Special Carry Guard License/Gun Custodian License

New York City’s tiered handgun licensing scheme is not only inconsistent with the Second Amendment, it promotes unlawful discrimination under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and invites both abuse by and corruption in the City’s Licensing Division. In fact, the City’s insufferable and puzzling handgun licensing scheme is, from a purely logical standpoint, apart from a legal standpoint, internally inconsistent and incoherent.

Premise residence and business handgun licenses place considerable restraints on a licensee’s right of self-defense. Unrestricted handgun carry licenses, on the other hand, are issued only to a select few people who satisfy arbitrary “proper cause,” requirements. Of course, powerful, wealthy, politically-connected elites are exceptions, routinely obtaining rare and coveted unrestricted handgun carry licenses, unavailable to the average citizen, residing in the City.

Criminals don’t obey handgun licensing rules or any other State law or City code, rule, or regulation pertaining to firearms, so they don’t care what the laws say. This hasn’t changed.

It is deeply troubling, indeed mind-boggling, to believe New York City’s harsh, brutal, even despotic handgun licensing scheme continues to escape Constitutional scrutiny, a point Stephen Halbrook makes at the outset of his August 2020 NRA article, in which he says,

“‘Under New York law, it is a crime to possess a firearm’, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in U.S. vs. Sanchez-Villar (2004). This ruling was based on the state’s ban on the possession of an unlicensed handgun. This prohibition did not offend the Second Amendment, said this ruling, because ‘the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.’ Later rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court—D.C v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010—begged to differ. . . . But the Second Circuit must not have gotten the memo. . . .”

Stephen Halbrook makes clear that the New York licensing scheme is unlawful on its face because the very concept of licensing is grounded on the erroneous idea that gun possession is a privilege and not a fundamental right, a notion that is completely at odds with the Second Amendment and with High Court rulings. I agree with Stephen Halbrook’s assessment.

The Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out the Constitutional flaws inherent in gun licensing schemes over and over again, through the years, commencing with our first series of articles on Governor Andrew Cuomo’s draconian and inane New York Safe Act of 2013.

We called the Governor out on New York’s unconstitutional licensing scheme. See, e.g., our April 30, 2014 article where we concluded with this: “To suffer bad law is unfortunate. But, forced submission to State law that infringes a fundamental right is sinful.”

New York City residents have been forced to submit to unconstitutional firearms laws since 1911. New York’s gun control laws were and continue to be enacted to disarm the honest citizen and to discourage personal self-defense.

If a person insists on possessing a handgun for self-defense, New York insists on one’s first obtaining permission from the police department to do so, through acquisition of a license, issued by the police.

The imposition of stringent handgun license requirements is inconsistent with the import of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Redress is necessary. It’s about time.

Anti-Second Amendment proponents and zealots interject that every State requires that a motorist obtain an operator’s license to lawfully operate a motor vehicle on public streets, and they ask, “Why should gun possession be any different?” But in posing the question, these Anti-Second Amendment activists demonstrate an intention to reduce the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms to the status of mere privilege, which, in fact, is what a motorist’s license is; merely a privilege to drive an automobile on public roadways. It is logically and legally wrong to view and to treat a fundamental right as a mere privilege.

New York attempts to skirt addressing the inherent unconstitutionality of the entire firearms’ licensing scheme through pompous, imbecilic assurances that a person doesn’t need a handgun to defend him or herself because Government, protects a person. That is patently false and, in any event, it is wholly beside the point, as the Arbalest Quarrel made clear in an article posted on our site on November 21, 2019, http://arbalestquarrel.com/can-we-as-individuals-rely-on-the-police-to-protect-us-reprise/. That article was reprinted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News on November 26, 2019, although in a different format with some editing. https://www.ammoland.com/2019/11/can-we-rely-on-the-police-to-protect-us/

As we said, under the ‘doctrine of sovereign immunity’ the police are not, as a general rule, legally obligated to protect and guarantee the life and safety of any individual, and they cannot be held legally liable for failing to do so. Courts have routinely so held, including New York Courts. But many Americans fail to realize this because the seditious Press and politicians routinely lie to them.

The purpose of a community police department is to protect the society-at-large, nothing more. I had pointed this out 30 years ago, in an article I co-authored with Second Amendment scholar, David Kopel. That basic doctrine has not changed since.

But, very recently, something has changed and drastically.

Radical Left State and local governments are no longer even allowing their police departments to provide a modicum of protection for their community. This follows from the unrestrained actions and antics of volatile Marxist and Anarchist groups to whom they kowtow. They have called for the defunding of, and disbanding of, community police departments across the Country, and some jurisdictions have done so. In New York City the Radical Left Mayor, Bill de Blasio, has slashed $1 Billion from the NYPD budget. This comes at a critical time when soaring crime and daily riots demand more funding for police, not less.

This is a major change because the average American can, now, no longer depend on the police to provide even general protection to the community.

It must be noted, too, that there are attempts by Marxists and Anarchists to rewrite the laws on sovereign immunity, so as to hold police accountable for harming citizens. This is not for the purpose of securing more police protection, or to make the police more accountable to the law-abiding public at large.

On the contrary, the purpose of overturning police sovereign immunity rulings is to provide the public with less protection and, at the same time, to allow lawless rioters, looters, arsonists, and assailants to engage in attacks on the police and on innocent people without having to fear justifiable retribution for their lawless acts.

So, in some ways, matters have changed. Radical Left Governments are leaving communities less safe by preventing the police from promoting law and order, while they are prevented from protecting themselves as lawlessness occurs all around them, rendering them powerless to engage lawbreakers.

The public sees the disturbing results: demoralized officers and less safe communities as police are not permitted to provide communities with even a modicum of safety. This obviously is not for the better.

Moreover, even as Radical Left Government leaders restrain and constrain the police, they continue to resist recognition of the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms for their own defense. These Marxist leaders demonstrate their contempt for the very sanctity of human life, even as they claim disingenuously to care about human life. They don’t care and they never did. Theirs is a recipe for disaster: for a complete breakdown of law and order in society.

But a breakdown of society is precisely what these Radical Left Governments want. They wish to tear down the Nation, so they can reconfigure it in a manner completely at odds with the preservation of the free Constitutional Republic that our founders gave us.

Despite the intentions of the Radical Left Collectivists, they can’t subvert the dictates of natural law. Natural law dictates that the right and responsibility of self-defense rests today, as it always did, on the individual.

Americans must not listen to the seditious Press and duplicitous politicians who claim that defunding or eliminating the police is necessary and, who claim, at one and the same time, the necessity for curbing the personal right of armed self-defense as well; and that taking these actions will improve society. That is not only false, it is absurd. The seditious Press and Radical Left politicians don’t have, and never did have, the best interests of the Nation or its people at heart. This is now transparent and, given the present state of affairs afflicting our Country. This fact is irrefutable.

Although I have always been a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, I never advocated that everyone should get a gun. I did support and continue to support freedom of choice in owning and possessing firearms. However, now it is time for every law-abiding American citizen to be armed. Learn how to properly use a gun and how to safeguard it.

Our Country is at a crossroads. We stand to lose everything near and dear to us if we don’t pay to heed to the threats directed against us, bearing down relentlessly on all of us.

It is the responsibility of all citizens to safeguard their own life and safety and that of their families, and to preserve our Republic as the founders intended; to protect it from the insinuation of tyranny that the Radical Left would dare impose on Americans.

Joe Biden Pledges Gun Controls That Already Failed

H/T Breitbart.

Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden wants to double down on failed gun control laws.

Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden cited the August 3, 2019, El Paso Walmart shooting and pushed for background checks on Tuesday, although the Walmart shooter reportedly passed a background check for his rifle.

Biden made this push in a Tuesday tweet, where he wrote, “One year ago, just hours after the massacre in El Paso, nine precious lives were cut short in Dayton. In the wake of the tragedies, Donald Trump promised the most modest of gun safety policies, then caved to the NRA and failed to deliver.”

He added, “As president, I’ll take on the powerful gun lobby to pass universal background checks, ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and close loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands. We can and will end our gun violence epidemic.”

The El Paso Walmart attacker used an AK-47 variant in his attack. The Texas Tribune reported that the Romanian-made gun was sent to a gun retailer in Allen, Texas, where the attacker faced requirements of passing a background check before taking possession of the gun.

El Paso police made clear the attacker’s gun was “bought legally.”

Yet Biden is pushing background checks.

Moreover, Biden is also pushing a ban on “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines.” The Chicago-area has an “assault weapons” ban via a Cook County ordinance, and that ban includes a prohibition against “high-capacity” magazines. These bans notwithstanding, Chicago witnessed a 139 percent surge in murder in July 2020, when compared to July 2019.

Chicago also has de facto universal background checks, via the state of Illinois’ Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card requirement, which mandates that would-be gun owners acquire a FOID card before being allowed to buy a gun. The process for getting a FOID card includes a background check.

Yet Biden is pushing an “assault weapons” ban, a ban on “high-capacity” magazines, and more background checks.


Black Gun Buyers Our Ancestors Died, For Us To Carry Guns

H/T Bearing Arms.

A lot of times we forget that just how many people have died for our rights especially the right to keep and bear arms.

Right now, millions of African-Americans are buying guns. They’re no different than people of other ethnicities buying guns, for the most part. In fact, there aren’t really as many differences between the races as the media would like for us to believe.

African-Americans buying guns tend to do so for the same reason anyone else does. They want to protect themselves and their families. That’s a universal concern we can all unite behind.

In fact, those concerns have driven black men and women to purchase guns at a faster rate than anyone else.

And while various demographic groups are buying guns in 2020, African-Americans account for the highest increase in gun purchases of any group.

“The highest overall firearm sales increase comes from Black men and women, who show a 58.2% increase in purchases during the first six months of 2020 versus the same period last year,” Jim Curcuruto, NSSF director of research and market development, wrote in his report. “Bottom line is that there has never been a sustained surge in firearm sales quite like what we are in the midst of.”

To be sure, the general unrest, particularly in predominantly black neighborhoods, is probably at least somewhat of a factor.

However, according to Michael Cargill, a black man and gun store owner in Texas, there’s more to it than that.

In the past few months, Cargill says he’s seen triple the amount of people coming into his store wanting to purchase firearms, and he’s noticed a surge in Black customers in particular. Cargill believes Black people are buying more guns because they are getting more educated on the history of gun control. “They’re understanding that gun control first started in the 1800s … so people are realizing that every time there’s a gun law that’s targeting a certain group of people, it’s usually the African-American group,” he said. “So they’re saying, with everything going on, we’ve got to make sure that we’re legal with this firearm. We’re going to make sure we know what the law is, we want to make sure we know where we can take it, where we can’t take it.”

History shows that gun control laws have always been unfavorable to Black Americans. Even before America was a country, Black people were banned from owning guns. “The first gun control law in the territory that is now the United States was passed in Virginia in 1640,” journalist Daniel Rivero noted in a 2016 Splinter article. “It explicitly banned black people from owning guns, even if they were not slaves.”

He’s not wrong, either.

Whitney Davis of Houston admits that learning more about Black history is the reason why she recently purchased two guns for herself. “I realize in this country a long time ago, Black people weren’t even allowed to own guns,” she said.

Davis’s dad grew up on a ranch in rural Texas, where over his lifetime he accrued a lot of guns, but it wasn’t until Davis learned more about her Black ancestors that she felt motivated to buy guns of her own. “So just like people promote that our ancestors died for us to vote, they also died for us to be able to carry guns as well,” she said. “So I wanted to fulfill what my ancestors weren’t able to do in the past.”

It’s the absolute truth, unfortunately.

Look, I’d like to say that race has never played a factor in how this country does things, but that’s simply not true. We have a flawed history, to say the least. Yet America is a country that continually strives to be better. Those past mistakes are over. They’re history.

Now, I personally embrace the new African-American gun owners. They have a right to keep and bear arms, same as anyone, and since they’re historically more likely to be targeted by racial violence as well as violent crime in general than I am, I applaud their decision.

My only hope is that while we’re trying to purge our society of anything that remotely smacks of racism, perhaps gun control can be thrown on the pyre as well.



Potential Biden VP Lets Real Anti-Gun Agenda Slip

H/T Bearing Arms.

I am very afraid of a Biden presidency.

The debate over firearms and gun rights isn’t going anywhere for the foreseeable future. While there are more gun owners today and there are reasons to believe that many are going to poke holes in the anti-gun narrative, the truth is that the gun control crowd isn’t going anywhere.

Further, we have an avowed anti-gunner set to officially be crowned as the Democratic nominee, which has set of debate over just who Biden’s running mate will be.

One potential candidate let her real agenda slip in a recent comment.

Congresswoman Karen Bass (D-Calif.) joined the Everytown for Gun Safety’s Veepstakes and just might have let slip what her gun control goals would be should she join presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on the ticket as his running mate. Speaking with Shannon Watts, Rep. Bass decried gun control’s slow progress in Congress.

“I mean we’ve passed universal registra… uh, universal background checks out of the House! It’s one of the 400 bills languishing in the Senate.”

Now, there are some who view universal background checks as some kind of de facto gun registration. I’m one of them. Even though it’s not a formal registry, paperwork would exist on every single firearm I buy and sell. After a time, it would serve the same purpose as a gun registry, especially if the government decided to confiscate firearms from people.

However, no one on the left has dared say that.

For most, they simply don’t see it that way. They don’t seem to realize that just because a thing isn’t meant to be used that way doesn’t mean it won’t.

But Bass’s slip suggests that she knows otherwise.

Oh, I’m sure that will be dismissed as a simple slip of the tongue, that she means no such thing. However, that’s kind of hard to swallow. Especially since slips like this usually come because something like that is on your mind in the first place. Bass wants gun registration on a federal level and she couldn’t hide it from us.

I’m sure the “fact-checkers” will make a big deal about how she didn’t say it and how people slip up from time to time and that’s all this is, but these are the same fact-checkers that label parody stories as false. I’m sorry, but I’m less than trusting of what they say when it comes to politics.

Bass screwed up. Anti-gunners aren’t supposed to acknowledge what they really want. They’re only supposed to push the Next Thing. It’s never supposed to be about the end game or even the things they want on down the road–things like gun registration.  They’re supposed to keep going on about the Next Thing simply so they can say, “No, we’re not trying to take your guns away or anything we only want this Next Thing.”

Of course, the Next Thing then becomes something else and so on until they’re precisely where they wanted to be and we’re completely disarmed.

What’s more, people like Bass think we can’t see it. They think we’re unable to see what they’re working toward. Instead, they just complain about how we won’t compromise with them.

Well, they’re right. We won’t.

But, in fairness, it’s hard to compromise with people who only want to take from you and won’t offer anything in return.