FL Gun Owner Shoots, Kills Multiple Armed Intruders

H/T Bearing Arms.

This story would have had a different ending had this man been unarmed.

A Pasco County, Florida man who believes he was targeted after posting pictures of his gun collection online shot three men who broke into his home early Friday morning, killing two and injuring a third. Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco told reporters Friday afternoon that the victim was awake and alone in his home playing video games when he heard the sound of glass breaking coming from the rear of the home.

Grabbing his firearm, the homeowner went to check out the noise. As he was walking down a narrow hallway towards the rear of the home, he spotted an intruder armed with a gun of his own.

The homeowner shot and killed the first intruder and then took out the second one, who was right behind the first.

At some point, one of the three intruders managed to fire a gun. But, the homeowner was able to shoot him, too, before his gun jammed.

When the homeowner’s gun jammed, he went to grab another one. At that moment, the third intruder managed to get up and run away.  But, a neighbor stopped him in his tracks and held him at gunpoint outside until Pasco County deputies arrived.

Authorities say the 19-year-old surviving intruder was taken to the hospital and is expected to survive. He is being charged with two counts of second-degree homicide and one count of home invasion robbery.

I love the fact that the intruder was able to run outside, only to be stopped by another armed homeowner before he could get away. That’s some 2A teamwork right there.

According to WTSP-TV, the homeowner told authorities that he regularly shows off some of his firearms on his social media accounts, and authorities say they believe that this was “not a totally random situation,” though they haven’t confirmed if the homeowner was targeted due to his online presence.

As for the suspects, Sheriff Nocco says all three of them have lengthy criminal histories. 19-year old Jeremiah Tramel, the surviving suspect, has at least one battery charge on his record, and Nocco described the two deceased home invaders as having “very violent” criminal charges in the past.

Nocco also made clear that, “the victim in this case exercised his Second Amendment right to protect himself inside his home,” and said that under Florida law, the victim’s name would not be released to the public, in part because of concerns that he could be targeted for another attack by associates of the three home invaders. Heck, at this point you could even have a social justice mob try to come after this guy, though I think that would be a bad idea for reasons that should be self-evident.

I hope that Jeremiah Tramel is ultimately able to explain to investigators why the three men decided to arm up and rob the home of a self-described “gun enthusiast.” Did they simply think that because it was three against one they’d automatically come out on top? If so they were woefully mistaken. Sheriff Nocco described in his press briefing how the homeowner encountered the three men as he walked down a narrow hallway. All three were basically stacked in a row, and only one of them even got a shot off against the homeowner.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, and this home invasion was a stupid idea from the get-go. I’m glad to see the homeowner is alive and unharmed, though I imagine his social media presence may be undergoing some major renovations in the future.


Shooting Over Mask Refusal Result In Murder Charge

H/T Bearing Arms.

Both Umeir Hawkins and his wife Sabrina Carter are convicted felons which means they should not have had a gun yet they did.

Commiefornia has strict gun control laws yet two convicted felons had a gun.

Look, I get why some people outright refuse to wear a mask. I’m a fairly contrary individual, really. If the masses demand I do something, my standard protocol is to refuse out of general principle. So, when you’re going to demand that I wear a mask, even if it’s not an N95 mask, due to COVID-19, I’m going to raise an eyebrow, at a minimum.

And I’m someone who lives in a town that was one of the hardest hit in the world at one point.

Yet because of that experience, I also get why some people get really irate about others not wearing masks. However, some people apparently take it way too far.

California security guard was charged with murder Wednesday after prosecutors say he shot a 50-year-old man at a supermarket because he was not wearing a mask.

The incident occurred at the Gardena market in South California on Sunday, when the customer, Jerry Lewis, reportedly entered the store without a mask and got into an argument with the guard, Umeir Hawkins.

Lewis reportedly left the story, only to return a short time later and renew his argument with Hawkins. However, it doesn’t appear that Lewis made any threatening comments or anything that could have been considered to have instigated such a reaction. In fact, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office argues that Lewis was walking away.

Now, someone is dead.

Of course, it would be easy to lash out about the mask mandate and blame it for this. To be fair, there’s certainly a case to be made for it. Yet part of the problem–a huge part–is that Hawkins never should have been an armed security guard, apparently.

Hawkins and his wife Sabrina Carter were each charged with one count of possession of a handgun by a felon, stemming from a prior conviction in 2013 for assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, according to a press release by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.

Oh, if you’re less than clear who is the felon, it appears that both of them are, which means no guns in that household.

And yet, Hawkins worked as armed security?

How could he have gotten a gun in such a gun controlled state?

We know the answer, of course, because felons have had zero trouble getting guns in California for ages.

A better question, however, is how the hell did Hawkins get hired as armed security with a felony conviction? Did the company not know how to do a background check? Are those forbidden in California or something?

Look, I believe that we need to give convicted felons a chance when they get out, otherwise we shouldn’t be surprised by recidivism. However, there are certain jobs we should probably not let them do. For example, ones they’re not legally allowed to fill, like armed freaking security at a grocery store.

Someone going to get sued by Lewis’s family. We all know it, and I can’t say that I’ll be overly shocked to see it happen. They’re going to get sued, they’re going to either lose or settle out of court, and there’s no two ways about it.

Meanwhile, Lewis is dead and Hawkins is probably going to prison for it.

Both he and his wife have entered not guilty pleas, for whatever good that will do them.

Subway’s New Open Carry Policy Not A Ban, Despite Anti-Gun Claims

H/T Bearing Arms.

Will Subway eventually bow to pressure from the anti-gun crowd and ban open carry?

Gun control advocates are still out self-congratulatory press releases and tweets patting themselves on the backs for getting fast food chain Subway to “do something” about the open carrying of firearms in the company’s restaurants, but as it turns out, rumors of an outright ban on open carry haven’t come to pass. Instead, a couple of months after several Second Amendment activists openly carrying in a Raleigh Subway store became fodder for the national news media and anti-gun activists, the chain has revised its policy and is “respectfully requesting” customers to conceal their firearms if they’re eating while armed.

Many news outlets originally reported that the chain had banned the practice, but apparently that information from the Raleigh-Apex NAACP wasn’t correct, but WRAL-TV in Raleigh has been one of the few media outlets to acknowledge that the company’s new policy doesn’t amount to a ban.

Subway restaurants will ask customers to refrain from open carry of weapons at all restaurants, even in states where open carry is allowed.

The announcement came the same day a Subway store on Fayetteville Street celebrated its grand reopening. The store was destroyed in late May when George Floyd protests in downtown Raleigh turned into riots and looting.

Store owner Rashid Salahat and Raleigh Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown were in attendance along with the NAACP and the Islamic Association.

The groups talked about how the community came together to clean up Salahat’s restaurant and the more than 175 other businesses that were vandalized in Raleigh.

Salahat thanked the volunteers that cleaned up his store and offered to feed everyone who attended the event for free.

“We can make the money later,” he said. “I am just overwhelmed with the support I get from our community.”

Salahat said his store sustained about $80,000 worth of damages in May when rioters broke windows, stole his TV and vandalized the restaurant.

It’s important to note that the Second Amendment activists had nothing to do with the damage done to the Subway store. In fact, their lunch stop happened several weeks before rioters in downtown Raleigh trashed dozens of businesses in late May. In fact, had there been a few individuals exercising their right to keep and bear arms at the sandwich shop, it likely wouldn’t have been trashed to begin with.

Gun control groups and anti-gun politicians have been pushing for Subway to ban open carry ever since the gunowners, dubbed “Meal Team Six” by some online wags, dined in back in early May. In fact, The Hill reported just a few days ago that Connecticut senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy penned an open letter to Subway’s CEO demanding that such a ban be enacted faster than you can say “five dollar foot long.”

“No person should have to fear gun violence while visiting or working in Subway restaurants,” the senators wrote. “Photographs of these demonstrators published by the News & Observer are as striking as they are intimidating, and, regrettably, reflect more than this one incident.”

“The public health challenges that we face, as a nation, due to this global pandemic are great, but neither excuse nor absolve us of our obligation to respond to the related and mounting public safety crisis—posed by the tremendous proliferation of firearms sales—in the making,” they wrote.

Here’s the language from Subway’s website:

For the consideration and comfort of restaurant employees and guests, Subway respectfully requests that guests (other than authorized law enforcement) refrain from openly displaying firearms inside restaurants — even in states where “open carry” is permitted.

So, no ban on the carrying of firearms, and a request not to open carry. Considering the amount of corporate wokeness we’ve seen lately, this almost counts as a courageous stand in support of the Second Amendment by the corporation. Almost.

Really, this is just Subway paying lip service to the idea of banning open carry, while recognizing that it’s really not worth the hassle or trouble to actually enforce a prohibition on the practice. They just want the issue to go away, and the language of their policy allows gun control advocates to claim victory without the company having to enact a real ban.

As far as I’m concerned, if the company doesn’t want me open-carrying in their restaurant, I’ll try to abide by their wishes to the best of my ability. After all, their property rights are equally as valid as my Second Amendment rights, and the company could legally ban firearms from their stores entirely (though again, I don’t think they have any desire to try to enforce that policy). I don’t eat at Subway that often, and I doubt that changes, but I’m not going to launch some sort of boycott the store simply because they’re requesting people not open carry.

Would I have preferred to see Subway tell gun control advocates to pound sand? Of course. But given the corporate cowardice displayed on a daily basis in order to avoid the angry online mob, I do think it’s worth noting that Subway didn’t give the gun control crowd what they wanted.

Oh… wait a minute.

Actually, it looks like Subway gave the gun control activists exactly what they wanted, and what Igor Volsky wanted was the ability to claim a victory. Actually achieving one was secondary. In fact, it’s better not just for gun owners but for gun control advocates that Subway didn’t actually enact a ban. Enforcement would be a nightmare, and it wouldn’t be long before there would be claims that the ban was being subjectively enforced, perhaps even caught on camera. That would be a PR nightmare for the company, and put gun control advocates in the awkward position of lobbying for policies that call for a police response to a misdemeanor non-violent firearms offense.

The Left is all about de-policing right now, but Volsky’s push for a gun ban at Subway is another reminder that gun control not only relies on policing for enforcement, it actually creates gun crimes out of legal behavior. It increases the opportunity for conflict between law enforcement and gun owners, and according to many police reform advocates, puts black and brown gun owners at the greatest risk. Gun control and the defund police movement can only comfortably exist together on the Left as long as both groups are willing to ignore the fact that by criminalizing the Second Amendment in a system that they say is systemically racist, they are automatically consigning more black and brown men to prison for non-violent crimes.

If systemic racism is real, then until it is eliminated the only way to ensure that black Americans have the same Second Amendment rights as white Americans is for there to be fewer opportunities for the criminal justice system to target black men for exercising their rights. Discretionary-issue gun licensing laws create illegal gun possession. Magazine bans create sentence enhancements. Gun-free zones create jail sentences.

Thankfully, Subway’s request to gun owners does not, and that’s a good thing, even if it’s allowed gun control advocates to claim a victory lap without actually winning anything at all.


Charges Expected After Two Allegedly Pulled Guns, Used Racist Langauge

H/T Bearing Arms.

It is idiots like these two men in North Carolina that gives all gun owners a black eye.

There’s a right way and a wrong way to be a gun owner. For the most part, the majority of gun owners do it right. They don’t pull their guns over stupid stuff and mostly just live their lives.

Yet from time to time, we hear of cases where some people are just outright idiots.

Based on the accusations against two North Carolina men, some go beyond that.

A woman said that two men pulled a gun on her and her daughter and used racist language near a shopping center in Raleigh on Monday night.

Zariel Balogun said as she was leaving BJ’s with her daughter, she noticed a black truck in her rear view mirror as she waited at the four-way stop.

“It didn’t seem like he was going to stop at the stop sign, so I honked my horn,” she said.

The driver got into the passing lane, but then approached her on the left hand side and started using racial epithets at her and her teenage daughter, she explained.

Balogun told WRAL News two men were inside the truck and one of the men pulled out a gun.

“When he pulled his gun out, I informed him, ‘Put your gun away because you’re not going to do anything with it,’” she said.

She said that the man was wearing a “Make American Great Again” hat, reversed his car, drove up beside her and said, “You guys are the very reason why we have to make America Great Again.” Then, he continued to use racist and sexist language.

Very troubling.

If, of course, it actually happened.

I’m skeptical that it did, though. The reason is that this just feels too damn convenient. One just happened to be wearing a MAGA hat at the moment he starts slinging racial slurs and using sexist language?

Sorry, but we’ve seen too many of these supposed “hate crimes” come up as hoaxes for me to take her at her word. We’ll have to wait and see.

However, if it turns out these claims are legit, it’s imperative that we all denounce this kind of thing. I’m not ready to just take the accusations at face value, but I’m willing to acknowledge the possibility that this is accurate. Not everyone on any side is a saint, after all. No cause is so noble that it won’t attract fuggheads and all that jazz.

Yet if you’re someone who might do something like this, don’t. You’re not helping anyone.

Eventually, Balogun claims the men left her alone. She added:

“If he wanted to shoot, there’s nothing that I could have done,” she said, “He pointed the gun at me and my child.”

Sounds like a hell of a reason to get your own firearm, if you ask me. I mean, if someone pulled a gun on me, it might induce me to pick up a firearm and get a permit so I could carry it. I’d be damned if I risked my life or my child’s life by not being able to meet such a threat.

Especially if racism is as much of a problem as some people argue.

Below The Radar: Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act

H/T AmmoLand.

I have mixed feelings about this act both pro and con. 

There is a link at the end of this article to contact your member of Congress.

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Many Second Amendment supporters don’t follow the debate over the legalization of marijuana. For many, it doesn’t seem to register. But right now, some of the effects of that debate could impact people’s Second Amendment rights.

Put it this way – while some states have decriminalized even the recreational use of marijuana, the federal government has not. 21 USC 802(16) lists marijuana (spelled marihuana in the law) as a controlled substance, and it is listed among such substances that can get a person a felony drug conviction. Such a conviction means good-bye to your Second Amendment rights.

Under 18 USC 922, though, one doesn’t need to be convicted on a drug charge to get hit with a 10-year federal sentence. All one has to be is an unlawful user of a controlled substance. This can include marijuana, as this case in Iowa illustrates. The United States Concealed Carry Association has outlined a lot of that on its site.

Here, a number of normal Second Amendment champions have not really been moving on this issue. But Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) has introduced HR 420, the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act. This legislation takes marijuana and puts it on the same tier as alcohol with regards to federal regulation. The most important feature is that marijuana no longer becomes a controlled substance, which ends a lot of legal jeopardy for those who exercise their Second Amendment rights while using marijuana.

There will be a secondary bit of impact – the law renames the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms, and Explosives. There is no indication that extra funds would be given to this agency to handle the extra workload that would result from adding pot to its jurisdiction. That is a mixed blessing.

On the one hand, the additional workload might mean that there would be less chance of harassment of Americans who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Simply put, if ATF has to also regulate marijuana on the same basis as alcohol, they will be a lot busier, especially in the months and years as marijuana is transitioned from “controlled substance” status.

But there is a flip side: There may be fewer agents available to prosecute some real cases that involve the misuse of firearms. Put it this way, depending on a presidential administration’s priorities, we could see some gun laws that should be enforced not get enforced.

It should be noted Representative Blumenauer doesn’t have the best record on our rights. That said, HR 420 marks a marginal improvement in advancing our Second Amendment freedoms on the margins. As was the case with another law that we covered, Second Amendment supporters should read the text, think it over, and if they feel strongly about it, contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to act.

Emotional Blackmail Behind Gun Control

H/T Bearing Arms.

The anti-gun crowd only has emotional blackmail to use because they lack any facts.

Every time there’s a mass shooting at a school, some nimrod is going to go on about how people who oppose gun control just don’t care about murdered children. They say the same thing when it’s some kid caught in the crossfire between two warring gangs in inner-city Chicago or Baltimore. The fact that we won’t roll over for their solution means we don’t want any solutions.

Of course, it’s not just when there’s a shooting that this will pop up.

On July 4th, NBC ran a so-called “think piece” about just when patriotism became about selfishness. It’s unsurprising that a member of the media would think patriotism automatically means adhering to left-leaning ideology. However, I wasn’t really worried about the stupidity until I got to this little tidbit:

But I guess a country that values access to guns over children’s lives so often that the response to what was, pre-pandemic, near-daily mass shootings is “thoughts and prayers” instead of gun control doesn’t really have any pride left in itself.

At this point, the writer has given up any pretense of intellectual honesty.

After all, this comment supposes that the only possible solution to mass shootings–and the only way there are “near-daily mass shootings” is if you count gang shootings, which the average person doesn’t consider the same thing–is to enact gun control. Nevermind that most mass shootings are carried out with handguns, not so-called assault rifles, and thus won’t actually be curtailed by that particular bit of gun control. Nevermind that most mass shooters haven’t been convicted of anything that would prohibit them from buying a gun. Let’s also ignore those like the Sandy Hook shooter who murdered his own mother to get a gun he could use for his atrocities.

No, the only possible answer in the writer’s mind is gun control.

Worse, though, is that if you don’t bend over to support her position on the matter, you don’t actually care about the lives of children.

What I’d like to say to the author of this fertilizer pile masquerading as an opinion piece isn’t fit for publication on a site read by people of all ages. However, as someone who has actually lost someone he cared about in a mass shooting, I take personal offense at the implication. I’ve taken offense at it ever time it comes up.

The author acts as if those who oppose gun control just don’t care, but ignores the fact that many of us simply don’t think it will work.

Instead, we advocate for things we believe will actually make a real impact using the existing laws that are already on the books. For example, the Parkland shooter should never have been able to buy an AR-15, but not because of the weapon. Instead, he shouldn’t have because of his long history of domestic abuse toward his mother, abuse the Broward County Sheriff’s Department knew about yet failed to act on.

Let’s plug that loophole somehow.

After all, there’s evidence to suggest that most mass shooters have also committed domestic violence at some point in the past. Stepping up enforcement of those laws might well lay the groundwork for preventing many mass shooters from buying their firearms in the first place. Of course, that won’t stop mass shootings, especially the “near-daily mass shootings” that are actually gang warfare carried out with stolen guns.

But no, some people would much rather pretend that we just don’t give a damn and I’m sick of it.

Court Rules University of Wyoming CAN Ban Guns On Campus

H/T Bearing Arms.

Hopefully, the ruling by judge Tori Kricken will be overturned like her previous ruling was overturned.

I am not surprised by her ruling as she is an Obama appointee.

Many states have preemption laws in place. The purpose of those laws is to prevent an unwieldy patchwork of gun control laws within a given state, making it virtually impossible for regular folks to be clear on what’s legal and what isn’t from place to place.

The idea is that such laws should be passed by the legislature to minimize the confusion.

However, a court in Wyoming, however, has found that the University of Wyoming isn’t really covered by the state’s preemption law.

The University of Wyoming has the power to regulate and prohibit firearms on its campus, and its gun policy does not violate the Second Amendment, Tori Kricken, the district court judge in Albany County, ruled Thursday.

This is Kricken’s second ruling in the years-long case of Lyle Williams, of Uinta County, who has sought to overturn the university’s gun policy through the courts. Her previous ruling was overturned by the Wyoming Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

Kricken ruled upon a number of separate points related to the university’s firearms policy: The law that pre-empts most governments below the state level from enacting their own firearms regulations only applies to firearms made in Wyoming, Kricken ruled.

UW acts as an arm of the state, so it is not included in the law that prevents most local or subsidiary elements of government in Wyoming from regulating firearms, Kricken ruled.

The university’s regulations do not violate the provisions in the United States and Wyoming constitutions that protect gun rights, either facially or as applied to Williams, Kricken ruled.

This ruling is expected to be appealed back to the Wyoming Supreme Court. Particularly controversial is Kricken’s claim that the Wyoming law blocking the local regulation of firearms only applies to guns made in Wyoming.

Which is good, because most of that ruling is absolutely nuts.

The only part I can see from a legalistic standpoint is that the university, as a state entity, isn’t covered by the preemption law. That’s a bit that the legislature can address easily enough.

As for the rest? It’s insane. Especially claiming that preemption only applies to firearms made within the state. Honestly, that’s got to be some weapons-grade stupidity there.

Of course, with this going to the Wyoming Supreme Court, there’s still a good chance that all of this insanity will be overturned. At least, let’s hope so, because if this stands, there’s a problem.

You see, claiming that preemption only applies to weapons made in Wyoming opens up the door for communities to enact gun control measures by specifically excluding any firearm made within the state. Since most guns are made elsewhere, that opens up a whole lot of doors.

Luckily, I don’t see how that bit can withstand a legal challenge. After all, here’s the text of the state’s preemption law:

(c) The sale, transfer, purchase, delivery, taxation, manufacture, ownership, transportation, storage, use and possession of firearms, weapons and ammunition shall be authorized, regulated and prohibited by the state, and regulation thereof is preempted by the state. Except as authorized by W.S. 15-1-103(a)(xviii), no city, town, county, political subdivision or any other entity shall authorize, regulate or prohibit the sale, transfer, purchase, delivery, taxation, manufacture, ownership, transportation, storage, use, carrying or possession of firearms, weapons, accessories, components or ammunition except as specifically provided by this chapter. This section shall not affect zoning or other ordinances which encompass firearms businesses along with other businesses. Zoning and other ordinances which are designed for the purpose of restricting or prohibiting the sale, purchase, transfer or manufacture of firearms or ammunition as a method of regulating firearms or ammunition are in conflict with this section and are prohibited.

There is absolutely nothing in there to even hint that it only applies to guns made in the state. Nothing at all.

Frankly, I’d be hardpressed to see how a university qualifies as “the state” when that’s generally understood to be the legislature, but that’s the only part of the ruling the least bit reasonable. Not much, mind you, just a teensy bit. If you look at it and squint, that is.


Regardless, let’s hope this idiotic decision is overturned quickly. This is the last thing anyone in Wyoming needs.

Gun Owner Reports on Wisconsin Open Carry and Walmart Request


I am going to see if this is on the sign at my local Walmart.

You might want to check your local Walmart.

By Dean Weingarten. July 7, 2020
Article Source

A Wisconsin Walmart manager recently followed store policy in Northern Wisconsin. They interacted with a long term friend of mine.

He is an accomplished world traveler, due to his vocation as a missionary. He has traveled extensively in Europe, Asia, and Australia. He has often remarked about how little freedom most of the world has, compared to the United States.

He is a brave man. I marvel at the dangers he considers routine. When in the United States, he openly carrys a sidearm, most commonly a Glock .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol. He says liberty, unclaimed and unused, is easier to lose.

Here is his report of open carry experiences in Wisconsin over the last six months:

I open carry in Wisconsin on a very regular basis, rarely do I have someone say anything to me about it, but every now and then…

Last fall I was standing in line to pay for a coffee at our local Kwik Trip convenience store. I was openly carrying my Glock 22. I noticed a man look at me and then go about his business. As I went out to my truck he came outside.

He said, “sir, is it legal to carry a pistol like that in public?”

I replied yes it is, both our American constitution as well as our Wisconsin constitution protect the right to keep and carry arms.

“He then said oh, you have a permit to carry.”

I replied, no permit is required to carry openly in the State of Wisconsin.

This man was both shocked and excited. He thought he must have a permit to carry, and confided that he was wanting to do that, but was afraid the process would be long and expensive. I informed him it is not; while waiting, he should study up on our gun laws and carry. He was very thankful.

Several weeks ago I walked into an Aldis grocery store. Several people took note I was openly carrying, but did not say anything.

As I walked out of the store, a car was approaching. I waited for it to pass and then proceeded to cross the parking lot.

The driver of the vehicle got out of his car and crossed the parking lot and said, “sir, I want to thank you.”

I asked him “What for?”

He replied, “I want to thank you for carrying your sidearm in plain view. It does my heart good when I see people doing that. I feel safe and comforted in knowing if a wacko walks into an establishment with malicious intent, and sees someone who is armed, most likely he will change his mind, as he is looking to hurt, not be shot. Thank you for using your rights.”

As we talked he thanked me again for open carrying and said that I had given that push he needed to start carrying himself. I told him, more people need to be using their liberty. Liberty unclaimed, unused, is easier to lose.

Today, a buddy and I walked into Wal-Mart.

I go into Wal-Mart several times a week open carrying.

I have never had anyone say anything to me, but today was different.

I was carrying my Glock 22. Today was a two mag day.

My buddy was carrying his nickle plated .45 Long Colt on a western style gun belt. It is a very flashy pistol.

We did our shopping. Upon entering the checkout line, a look of panic appeared on the face of a cashier standing near by. She called the manager.

The manager came over and said, “men, I expect you, but we have a policy that you not carry openly in our store. So, I respectfully ask you to conceal your pistols.”

We pulled shirts out of pants and covered up the guns. I said, “concealed”.

I asked why there was no sign. She said there is a sign on the door.

I had never seen such a sign on the door. I asked her to point it out.

It was a 2 inch phrase in the corner of a general sign. I had never seen it before.

The lady was very respectful, as were we. She said she has a concealed carry permit and frequently carries.

She said, she understands our desire to carry. She thanked us for exercising that right, but apologized and referred to store policy. I told her I believe their sign does not meet the legal requirements. We talked some more and parted ways.

Open carrying a sidearm is a wonderful way to educate the public on liberty and our God given rights. Brush up on talking points and Carry on.

Not everyone is as brave as my friend. As the exercise of Second Amendment rights becomes more common, less courage is required.

A pleasant conversation with a friendly store manager is nothing compared to being locked in a Russian jail, or using a knife to fight off attacking dogs.

The fight for liberty in America is still at the talking, writing, and voting stage. It is better and easier to win at those stages, than to go through the horrors of war our forefathers experienced.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch


Chicago Mayor Blames Guns As Shootings Spike Over July 4th Weekend

H/T Bearing Arms.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lighthead(foot) would never blame the out of control gang bangers in Chicago for shootings and murder.

It is easier to blame guns than criminals using guns.

With 79 people shot over the July 4th weekend, fifteen of them fatally, the city of Chicago is nearing a grim milestone. As of Monday morning, the city has seen 344 homicides this year, and is on pace to exceed the 490 homicides reported by the Chicago Police Department in 2019.

Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot had big plans for this weekend; police were going to sweep up drug dealers and street corner criminals before the holiday, keeping them in jail and away from the public in an attempt to stop the increasing violence. Lightfoot declared that many of the low-level gang members would be safer behind bars, and are being exploited by older, more senior gang members, though not everyone was on board with the idea, as the Chicago Sun-Times pointed out last week.

“Those gangs — they’re not out on the street. They’re reaping the bounty, but they’re putting these kids out on the street to do their dirty work. Kids who have a future. Kids who have a life,” the mayor said.

“We’ve got to stop that from happening. And that means going up the food chain and getting the adults responsible for these heinous crimes and putting them behind bars. That’s what the superintendent was talking about.”

Karen Sheley, director of the police practices project at the ACLU of Illinois, condemned the plans for preemptive sweeps as “more of the same” from a Chicago Police Department that missed 70 percent of the deadlines to comply with mandates in the consent decree triggered by the police shooting of Laquan McDonald.

“The plan to sweep up Black and Brown young men in their neighborhoods across the City could have been uttered by a number of his predecessors in leadership of the CPD. We have heard this all before — paternalistic claims that young men should be in jail for their own safety,” Sheley was quoted as saying in a statement.

The strategy doesn’t seem to have been too effective. with dozens of shootings reported across the city and several children killed in the crossfire of gang violence. Now the mayor is once again blaming the city’s horrible homicide rate on guns, not the gang members illegally using them. Over the weekend, Lightfoot said that there are simply too many guns on the streets, when the real issue seems to be that Chicago’s criminals believe that they can engage in gunfights, carjackings, and other violent crimes without any consequences.

As long as Mayor Lightfoot is content to blame the city’s spike in shootings on inanimate objects instead of the flesh-and-blood human beings pulling the triggers, the city is going to continue to struggle to get a handle on the violence. Lightfoot was closer to the target last week when she had tough words for gang leaders, but words are all she’s offering at a moment when the city needs to actually crack down on violent offenders instead of demanding yet another gun control law in Illinois.


Below The Radar: Firearm Safety Act of 2019

H/T AmmoLand.

There is a link at the bottom of this article to contact your member of Congress to voice your opposition.

Oppose Gun Control Take Action
Oppose Gun Control Take Action

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms safety is something Second Amendment supporters have backed for a long time. In fact, the National Rifle Association has been at the forefront of providing firearms safety and education since its founding in 1871.

So it is very frustrating and aggravating to see anti-Second Amendment extremists try to make any claim that they stand for firearms safety. Especially when you hear the advice that Vice President Biden has given in the past – advice that any rational person would discard as likely to land you in hot water.

But our anger over the efforts by anti-Second Amendment extremists to hijack the terms “firearms safety” or “gun safety” shouldn’t cloud our minds to the fact that this can be a very effective move for them. In fact, at least one anti-Second Amendment extremist is trying to hijack the concept of firearms safety to set up very massive infringements on our rights – infringements that Second Amendment supporters would be almost powerless to stop.

HR 1115, the Firearm Safety Act of 2019, has been introduced by Representative Robin Kelly (D-IL). We’ve covered some past legislation she has introduced that attacked our Second Amendment rights, but this bill is not like the Urban Progress Act that is a massive omnibus. HR 1115 is all of two pages when you look at the official text.

But that two-page bill becomes a game-changer. In essence, it repeals the prohibition on the Consumer Product Safety Commission regulating firearms, ammunition, and other items. If you like the notion of “stroke of the pen, law of the land,” you’d love letting the unelected bureaucrats at the CPSC have a say over your rights.

This should come as no surprise, given Kelly’s history of introducing legislation that attacked our rights. Notably, though, Kelly is hoping to sell people on this being a matter of improving firearms safety, not setting things up for back-door gun bans. Some anti-Second Amendment extremists have promoted the idea of regulating guns like other consumer products, up to and including the ability to have unelected and unaccountable government bureaucrats order a recall or to prevent a gun from being released to the general public in the first place.

Given Representative Kelly’s anti-Second Amendment track record, Second Amendment supporters can reasonably assume that this is an outcome the Representative desires. As such, they need to contact their Senators and Representative and politely urge them to oppose HR 1115.