Category: Second Amendment

Two Wolves and a Sheep

If you wish to understand how democracy ended in the United States and the European Union… [More]

I wish it would.

Why don’t these prominent influencers?

As for the military trying to take over, it would be the biggest mistake the rulers ever made.

Unless we’re talking Blue zones like NYC and Philly because Democrats, who demand to rule us, can’t rule themselves.

[Via bondmen]

ATF Given an Inch, Takes a Mile

NSSF Complains There’s Not Enough ‘Gun Control’

Simply put, “gun control” doesn’t work, and it’s astounding that the head of the firearms manufacturer trade association is publicly insisting that it does. [More]

Industry CYA at the expense of our rights is unacceptable.

The Right of Invaders to Victimize Citizens Shall Not Be Infringed

Reggie & Co. tell us they’re useful idiots without telling us they’re useful idiots.

Migrants Convicted of Violent Crimes Get Free Lawyer Under California Bill [More]

It’s been pulled — for now.

And yes, of course Reggie Jones-Sawyer wants to use force to disarm you, and uses flat-out gaslighting lies to do it:

“Poll after poll shows a majority of Americans want action taken to have gun safety laws in place,” Jones-Sawyer said. “A Right to Safety Amendment to the U.S. Constitution will do exactly that without impeding on the Second Amendment.”

Tell us again how a con-con is just the ticket to restore freedom…

News in Brief

GOA Petition to SCOTUS for Writ of Certiorari Against Illinois Categorical Ban on AR-15s… Friends of The Captain’s Journal Stephen Stamboulieh and Oliver Krawczyk wrote this brief, along with Rob Olson. A better constructed and more direct and honest one you will never find. [More]

This covers some essential points that can’t be raised enough. I intend to write an article soon explaining why.

Your ‘Gun Sense’ Judge

The AWCA is constitutional because either: (1) assault rifles are dangerous and unusual and, therefore, not protected by the Second Amendment at all; (2) assault rifles may be banned in accordance with this nation’s regulatory tradition of placing severe restrictions on dangerous and unusual weaponry, including a tradition of outright possession bans that proliferated during Reconstruction when states first became subject to the Second Amendment; or (3) mass shootings with assault rifles pose such an unprecedented societal concern, engendered by dramatic technological development, that California is constitutionally permitted to use a slightly different regulatory method that is still consistent with a general tradition of limiting offensive and unlawful use of dangerous and unusual weapons. [More]

A+ rated by Giffords and Moms Demand!

An Obama nominee…

[Via Jess]

The Tip of the Iceberg

But Bellows, who was elected in 2022, cited a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that there is a “strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”… Bellows also ruled the prosecutors did not present evidence of a historical tradition of disarming felons after the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. [More]

There oughta be a law!

Bruen terrifies the Deep State Swamp. What other areas of “law” would fail its test?

[Via Jesse J]

Swiss Shooting Culture ‘Documentary’ Reinforces False Narrative to Justify ‘Gun Control’

It would help if he didn’t automatically buy into prohibitionist propaganda, but by doing so he relieves us of the obligation to take him as an impartial and objective observer. [More]

Why is there such a difference in the numbers and rates of violent crimes betweeen two armed cultures? Hint: It ain’t because of “gun control” laws.

There’s a Storm Coming

We are at War! What are We Going to DO? [More]

So posting memes and anonymous griping comments aren’t going to do the trick?

The only thing I don’t see is the local level American traitor political and enforcement collaborators, who will act at the direction of their new masters to convince the helpless, the unprepared, and the cowardly that surrender will buy survival. For just long enough to close the trap.

Who thinks the scenario envisioned here is over-the-top impossible? A ridiculous screen fantasy…?

Why?

[Via Allen K]

Warning Shot

A Clark County man was entitled to argue self-defense when he intentionally shot toward a person, and was not required to show he intended to kill or harm the man who threatened him, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today. [More]

While I don’t recommend warning shots, there’s no one-size-fits-all, it worked, and no one was hurt or killed. If history, text, and tradition are the new standards, there’s gotta be a place for “shot across the bow.”

Inducing someone you don’t know to “back off” seems a perfectly legitimate reason for self defense, especially considering what could have happened.

It’s interesting that the three judges against the self-defense claim were Republicans, with three Democrats and one Republican ruling in the citizen’s favor.

[Via JG]

Bait and Switch

Guns now deadlier due to tiny attachments made by 3-D printer [Watch]

They say that like it’s a bad thing…

And like the Founders didn’t consider “every terrible implement of the soldier” to be “the birthright of an American,” and “necessary to the security of a free State.”

See, here’s the thing– I know I can be trusted not to abuse my right to arms, and so can everyone I’m friends with.

So what do we do about those who can’t?

The answer certainly isn’t controlling you and me.

And the genie is out.

[Via 1Gat]

Long Walks On the Beach and TROs

Restraining Order Based on Unwanted Online Contact Upheld, but Weapons Restriction Struck Down [More]

Since when is any conflict not made better by adding “Only Ones” into the mix?

It actually sounds like they both deserve each other, but the legal hurdles, penalties, and expenses raise a question as to just how far “the law” could go, depending on the jurisdiction.

Verified by MonsterInsights