Breaking911 @Breaking911
·
NEW: After latest mass shooting, Pres. Trump is asked if he would support any new gun control legislation

"The gun doesn't do the shooting, the people do," Trump said. "I have an obligation to protect the Second Amendment."

5:47 PM · Apr 17, 2025 //

SESummers
13 hours ago
A better answer: "Yes, the gun control laws in this country need to change. 'Gun Free Zones' need to be made illegal, and constitutional carry implemented nationwide. That way, these crazy leftist monsters doing most of these mass shootings will get their birth certificates revoked before they can pull the trigger a second time, long before the cops would get there."

Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. from the Crime Prevention Research Center and Dr. Carlisle E. Moody, Professor of Economics, Emeritus from College of William and Mary, aggregated the data. Their paper, “Do Armed Civilians Stop Active Shooters More Effectively Than Uniformed Police?” was released on April 3. //

“The first takeaway is, assuming our count is complete, that armed citizens have stopped more active shooter incidents than the police have, although the difference is not significantly different from zero,” Lott and Moody noted. “Also, armed citizens do not appear to interfere with the police or blunder so badly as to get their weapon taken away by the shooter or kill the wrong person.” //

This study by Lott and Moody has uncovered several important developments. Holistically, they found that a civilian response is more effective than uniformed police officers when it comes to stopping mass shooting events. That being said, the pair is quick to point out that the “result isn’t a criticism of law enforcement, it simply reflects the tactical realities they face.” They cite the high visibility of uniformed officers making them more of a target.

https://download.ssrn.com/2025/4/4/5205768.pdf.

Larry Arnold
19 hours ago

“The first takeaway is, assuming our count is complete, that armed citizens have stopped more active shooter incidents than the police have, although the difference is not significantly different from zero,”

Unless the study corrected for anti-gun laws, given that most mass shootings happen in "Gun-Free Zones" where civilians are prohibited from being armed, the finding is significant. Civilians are stopping as many mass shootings in the small subset of places where they are allowed to carry as the police are everywhere. //

SecondOpinionz Frontierjeanne
11 hours ago
A shooter is ready to attack the prey or the uniformed 'enemy'.
A shooter falls apart (psychologically) when the prey defend themselves.

In George Orwell’s prescient novel, 1984, the slogan of the Party is

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

The idea is both simple and profound. By eradicating and reinventing history, it is possible to completely reframe reality for future generations. This is routinely done by leftwing academics searching for penumbras and emanations of the US Constitution. //

Salon runs one of these epic falsehoods titled Sorry, NRA: The U.S. was actually founded on gun control. //

This is simply nutbaggery. Madison’s draft amendment is only intended to protect Quakers and Mennonites from being compelled to provide military service. It’s pretty simple.

Ed-squared also turn the logic of the Second Amendment upon its head. If the Founders had, indeed, harbored fear of an armed populace then they went to great lengths to hide it. Take a look at the militia laws extant in the colonies at the signing of the Constitution.

Connecticut required every male over sixteen to keep a musket, powder and shot.
Virginia declared that all free men were required to possess a musket, four pounds of lead and one pound of powder. If a free man was not financially able to afford a weapon, the county had to provide one.
New York dictated a fine of five shillings to any male, sixteen to sixty, who could not arm himself.

Similar statutes are in all colonies. The clear intent of these laws is not that they link firearms ownership to militia membership, rather they are aimed at people who don’t have firearms in order to ensure the colony has a militia. Think of these laws in the same way that you’s think of laws requiring kids to be immunized before they can go to school. The laws aren’t aimed at people who voluntarily immunize and the purpose isn’t to further public education. Rather mandatory immunizations are on the books as a way of coercing people who would not immunize voluntarily. //

A free and an independent people are a direct threat to the progressive experiment. The only way they will achieve that goal is to lie and lie relentlessly and shamelessly until they control the past. We can’t allow that to happen.

On Thursday, Gov. Jared Polis signed a law that bans the production and most sales of semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines. That means the gun control measure not only covers semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 (which would be bad enough on its own) but also makes essentially all modern-day handguns illegal as well. //

To say this is blatantly unconstitutional is an understatement. The Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia vs. Heller that firearms in common use are protected under the Second Amendment for "traditionally lawful purposes." That includes self-defense. Semi-automatic handguns and rifles with detachable magazines are the most commonly used guns in the United States. It's not even a question that this gun control law runs afoul of Supreme Court precedent. That means that Polis signed something that he has to know is illegal, making this move all the more insidious.

The stakes here could not be higher. If Colorado gets away with this, you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye. If a state gets away with largely banning semi-automatic handguns, it can get away with banning any type of firearm. This is the most radical gun control legislation to ever be signed, and it must be fiercely opposed. //

FortCourage
2 hours ago edited
This would be a perfect case for AG Bondi’s DOJ to show us they’re serious about the 2nd Amendment. File a federal lawsuit against the State of Colorado for violating of the 2nd Amendment. And push it up the chain until it gets to SCOTUS.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited ruling in Bondi v. Vanderstok, upholding the Biden administration’s 2022 rule that allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to regulate so-called “ghost guns.” But while headlines may frame this as a Second Amendment loss, that’s not the real story here.

The real story is this: the administrative state just scored another narrow, but important, win—and once again, it did so not through an act of Congress, but through bureaucratic interpretation.

Let’s walk through what actually happened. //

This case was a challenge to the ATF’s rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)—a law meant to prevent executive agencies from exceeding their statutory authority. //

This may sound reasonable on paper—especially given concerns over untraceable firearms—but it opens the door to something much more troubling: the broadening of executive power through regulation rather than legislation.

Congress never passed a law banning or regulating ghost guns. Instead, the ATF reinterpreted existing law to give itself that authority. And the Supreme Court just signed off on that approach.

That’s the real concern here. Not the regulation itself, but the process. //

In a blistering dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas warned that the Court was effectively rewriting the statute to allow the executive branch to regulate products Congress never intended to regulate. He pointed out that the Gun Control Act only allows the ATF to regulate certain gun parts, not any part or unfinished frame that might one day become part of a gun.

He also noted that the logic behind the majority’s ruling could eventually be used to justify classifying AR-15 receivers as “machineguns” under the National Firearms Act—an outcome that would have massive legal implications for millions of gun owners nationwide.

More than a dozen law enforcement agencies have stopped reselling their used guns or pledged to reconsider the practice after an investigation by The Trace, CBS News, and Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting.

The investigation, published last year, revealed that more than 52,000 former police guns had resurfaced in robberies, domestic violence incidents, homicides, and other crimes between 2006 and 2022. Many of those guns found their way into civilian hands after agencies traded them to retailers for discounts on new equipment or resold them to their own officers. //

Let's understand that more than 52,000 incidents sounds like a lot, but when you look at it over that timeframe, you're looking at roughly 3,200 firearms per year--and this is assuming these are actually crime guns, because departments trace a lot of guns that aren't used in crimes.

When you think of the fact that each year there are nearly 20,000 murders involving a firearm, 222,000 or so armed robberies, 76,000 non-fatal shootings, and so many more cases where a shot isn't fired but some other crime is committed with a firearm, you can see that we're looking at hundreds of thousands of incidents annually.

Those don't come close to touching the number of defensive gun uses, of course, but that's not what this is about. This is about that out of more than 300,000 incidents--and we don't really know how many more than that--incidents, roughly 3,200 involved a firearm that previously belonged to law enforcement. That's about 1 percent at most.

You’d never know it from watching television, but civilians stop more active shooters than police and do so with fewer mistakes, according to new research from the Crime Prevention Research Center, where I serve as president. In non-gun-free zones, where civilians are legally able to carry guns, concealed carry permit holders stopped 51.5 percent of active shootings, compared to 44.6 percent stopped by police, CPRC found in a deep dive into active shooter scenarios between 2014 and 2023.

Not only do permit holders succeed in stopping active shooters at a higher rate, but law enforcement officers face significantly greater risks when intervening. Our research found police were nearly six times more likely to be killed and 17 percent more likely to be wounded than armed civilians.

Those numbers paint a fuller picture than the FBI’s crime statistics, which fail to include many of the defensive gun uses my organization has cataloged. But the problem with the FBI’s crime statistics isn’t just the errors in their reported data — they also fail to address useful questions, like how concealed handgun permit holders compare to law enforcement. Kash Patel and Dan Bongino face a major challenge in reforming how the data is collected and reported at the FBI. //

These findings highlight a reality that is often ignored: responsible gun owners save lives. Concealed handgun permit holders aren’t reckless vigilantes, but they are law-abiding citizens who step up in moments of crisis when seconds matter and police are minutes away.

I’d like to add that obstacles making silencer ownership difficult and more arduous are also an assault on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). //

cite case studies demonstrating that tinnitus has been found to increase the risk of suicide as it causes emotional stress that can be extreme, bringing on anxiety, depression, or sleep disorders.

Every year, I would get some ATF agent with an IQ barely equivalent to his shoe size to grin as if about to profoundly put me in my place before saying, “Well, you don’t have to shoot guns,” to which I would always respond, “Neither does anyone need to be able to dine in at every restaurant in the city, but they still need to provide ramps and wheelchair access.” //

“Suppressors are a vital tool for responsible gun owners that protect hearing, enhance safety, and reduce firearm noise—but thanks to Hollywood and federal overreach, they’ve been unfairly vilified… Law-abiding Americans shouldn’t have to endure months of red tape and pay an additional tax just to access a safety accessory. The SHUSH Act puts an end to this unnecessary bureaucratic red tape, eliminates the federal tax, and prevents state overreach by treating suppressors like any other firearm accessory,” says Congressman Cloud. //

First, even if it could make the shot itself perfectly silent, most ammunition is supersonic. It's going to break the sound barrier as it flies through the air. Sonic booms are a real thing, folks, and you can't just make that go away in something that fast with no throttle control. Subsonic ammo does exist, of course, but that means giving up power in many cases unless you use some particular rounds. Most of them, however, aren't subsonic as designed. //

But as a safety device, it works. It works well.

It reduces the sound of the shot enough that you're not going to have quite as much issue. In many cases, you still need hearing protection, but not universally so. Even when you do need it, though, the sound is still lessened to such a degree that others in the general area of your range or your property won't have their own peace and quiet disturbed. //

Pat Hines
2 days ago
It's bill number H.R. 850.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/850/text

Data from PEW Research shows that rifles of all kinds–including those Democrats label “assault weapons”–accounted for only four percent of U.S. gun murders in 2023.

PEW gathered data via FBI and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, which showed there were 17,927 gun murders in the United States in 2023. Of those murders, 13,529, or 53 percent, were committed with handguns.

Four percent of the U.S. gun murders were committed with rifles and one percent were committed with shotguns. //

knives are used twice as often to kill as rifles in 2021 and 3.5 times more in 2020. //

These kinds of weapons aren't the threat many like to claim. They're not even essential for mass killers to rack up high body counts, as the Virginia Tech killing amply demonstrates.

But they are useful for enabling a population to fight back against a tyrannical government or a foreign invader, which is the whole point of the Second Amendment in the first place.

The dispute originated in Mexico's suing seven major U.S. gun makers and one gun wholesaler for billions of dollars in damages caused by the gun violence in Mexico's drug trade. Mexico is also demanding changes in the way guns are sold in the United States so Mexican narcotrafficantes can't acquire them. None of this is to say that Mexico doesn't have a gun violence, or more accurately, a rule-of-law problem. Mexico has one gun store but has a firearm homicide rate of 16.87 per 100,000. The US has nearly 78,000 licensed gun sellers and a firearm homicide rate of 5.9 per 100,000. So the problem isn't access to guns. //

The case was very significant for two reasons. It is the first major test of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that largely indemnifies gun manufacturers and resellers from lawsuits as long as they follow applicable laws and regulations. If the Supreme Court doesn't uphold the immunity claims in this case, American gun rights will disappear because manufacturers and firearms dealers will be sued into oblivion. The second reason the case is important is that Mexico's theory could be applied to any product that has the potential to be misused. Liquor distillers could be held liable for drunk-driving deaths.

Loki
4 hours ago edited
I learned these from a self-defense legal protection group (Right to Bear):

• Call 911, do not admit to anything, when the operator tells you to hold the line, hang up and do not answer: you are being recorded.
• Immediately call your lawyer
• Do not answer any questions without a lawyer present

Example: I am a victim of a home invasion, the intruder has been subdued - do NOT say anything about your actions.

The money quote is: You have a right to remain silent, but very few are capable of doing so.

Nick Sortor @nicksortor
·
🚨 #BREAKING: President Trump is expected to appoint Kash Patel to Acting Director of the ATF in addition to his role as FBI Director, per ABC

The ATF’s days are NUMBERED 🔥
11:46 PM · Feb 22, 2025. //

Gun Owners of America @GunOwners
·
🚨BREAKING🚨

President Trump has asked Kash Patel to be acting director of the ATF. Kash is a true constitutionalist and is fiercely pro-gun. 🇺🇸 🔫
2:24 AM · Feb 23, 2025. //

anon-8ry7
6 hours ago
Maybe Kash won't be as busy as we thought because maybe he was told to shut the ATF monstrosity down.

A decades-old U.S. government ban on federally licensed firearms dealers selling handguns to adults under the age of 21 is unconstitutional, a U.S. appeals court held on Thursday, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings expanding gun rights.

The ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marked the first time a federal appeals court has held that the prohibition violated the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. //

U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones, writing for Thursday's three-judge panel, said that decision was wrong, as the statutes were "unconstitutional in light of our Nation's historic tradition of firearm regulation."

The U.S. Department of Justice during Democratic former President Joe Biden's tenure had defended the ban. But Jones said it put forth "scant" evidence to show that the gun rights of adults ages 18 to 20 were similarly restricted during the nation's founding era in the 1700s. //

This case, in addition to being a win for the Second Amendment, could well remove one of these restrictions on people who are legally adults and should be expected to be treated as such. And if a person who is 18, 19, or 20 years old is not deemed responsible enough to buy a gun or a beer, why do we let them vote?

Imagine if a woman lost her right to vote, protected by the 19th Amendment, simply because she crossed into a state with different historical views on sex roles. Or consider if a journalist’s First Amendment protections were recognized in one state but ignored in another. Such infringements are unthinkable — and rightly so.

Yet this is precisely the reality facing law-abiding gun owners who travel with concealed-carry permits. Their constitutional right to self-defense, which has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is undermined by a patchwork of state laws.

Like other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment exists to protect individuals from government overreach. Allowing states to restrict concealed-carry permits undermines the universality of these protections.

In states with left-leaning legislatures, such as New York and Illinois, gun rights are subjected to restrictions that would never be tolerated if applied to other constitutional rights. This double standard is deliberate. Unlike other amendments, the Second Amendment has been politicized to the point it is often treated as a second-class right. //

National reciprocity streamlines these inconsistencies by requiring states to honor permits other states have issued, similar to how driver’s licenses are universally recognized. Importantly, this legislation would not force states to change their permitting standards. It would simply ensure that permits granted in one state are respected in another, preserving the rights of permit holders while respecting state sovereignty.

Concealed-carry permit holders are statistically among the most law-abiding groups in the country. They commit crimes at rates significantly lower than the general population, including police officers. Allowing them to carry across state lines would not lead to chaos or increased crime. Instead, it would affirm their right to protect themselves and their families wherever they go.
A Matter of Equality and Justice

At its core, national concealed-carry reciprocity is about equality under the law. The current system effectively creates a two-tiered structure of Second Amendment rights, where citizens in some states enjoy full protections while others are without. This disparity is fundamentally at odds with the principles of equality before the law enshrined in the Constitution.

Leftists argue that national reciprocity would infringe on states’ rights. However, states’ rights cannot justify violating individual constitutional freedoms. Just as states cannot override the First or 14th Amendments, they should not be allowed to undermine the Second. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and its protections must apply equally to all Americans.

All of Manley’s 70 plus firearms were unerringly compliant with federal law and the strict firearms laws of Maryland.

When all was said and done, no arrests were made and no firearms or ammunition were seized. The only item taken was Manley’s cell phone.

The family’s home, however, was left in a shambles: front and rear doors shattered, windows broken, floors ruined from flashbang grenades, and dog excrement the family was left to clean up themselves.

Manley told Williams they had only lived in the house for three months when the raid occurred.

To date, the ATF has not issued an explanation for why the raid was conducted, much less publicly apologized for terrorizing the family. Mrs. Manley said the search warrant indicated her husband was a felon in possession of firearms. Manley, however, said he does not have a felony record, he does not sell guns, he does not have any machine guns, and he is still in the dark as to why he was targeted. “To this day we just don’t know,” he told Williams.

If, however, the government truly believed Manley was a felon (hardly a difficult matter for a federal law enforcement agency to investigate and substantiate), he presumably would have been arrested the moment he disclosed his possession of firearms to the agents. That obviously did not happen.

Did the government conduct its due diligence before conducting the raid? What evidence supposedly substantiated the sworn application for the raid? So far, ATF officials have had nothing to say on their own behalf.

The ATF’s actions extracted a heavy toll on the Manley family, who have been left with home repairs, legal bills, and the cost of therapy for their traumatized kids.

Just how restrictive are Mexico's gun control laws? While the reporter notes about 1,000 guns a month are sold legally in the country, around 1.3 million are sold a month in the United States. That's an astronomically higher figure, yet the murder rate in Mexico is well over twice that of the United States.

"60 Minutes" doesn't care about those numbers, though, because the point of their report is to blame the United States for the flow of guns into Mexico. As their narrative goes, because Mexico has such strict gun laws, it must be America's fault that the cartels have fully automatic rifles and machine guns. Of course, those two things are largely outlawed within the United States as well, with only heavily vetted individuals allowed to own them. That's really beside the point, though. //

At the end of the day, nothing is gained by restricting law-abiding citizens from owning firearms. Criminals do not follow gun laws. They don't kill simply because they have access to certain types of weapons. If it wasn't an "assault rifle," it'd be a sawed-off shotgun or a car bomb. The root of the violence in Mexico is not the importation of American-made firearms, however many guns that may add up to. It's the corruption and fecklessness of the government that has allowed the cartels to flourish.

Until that changes, Mexicans and the rest of the world will continue to suffer. If "60 Minutes" weren't such a joke of a news program, they'd have focused on that instead of trying to blame normal Americans for something they have no part in. //

trapper
14 minutes ago
"More guns, less crime". Because guns in the hands of normal law abiding citizens deter crime. This has been demonstrated by John Lott and others again and again.

The bottom line here is that the gun control crowd seems okay with murder if it's murder the mob approves of.

And that, my friends, is something that torpedoes any reason to take the gun control crowd seriously at all. They detest gun violence unless said violence is done on targets that they don't mind seeing gone, or at the very least, are targets politically expedient to ignore. Insurance CEOs, black on black shootings, and border violence to name a few.

Why should we take these people seriously when it comes to their "concerns" about gun violence? They're clearly not that concerned. In truth, many of them treat a wish for gun control like a fad they pick up and drop based on who the victims are.

I mean, these are the same people who threw tantrums when the guy who tried to shoot Trump missed.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: “But synthetic stocks are more durable!” Sure, if you’re planning to drop your rifle off a cliff or leave it in the rain for a week, plastic might hold up better. But durability isn’t the end-all, be-all of a rifle’s value. Wooden rifles weren’t designed to survive a zombie apocalypse; they were made to connect the shooter to something deeper—the land, the tradition, the story. If your only concern is having a rifle that’s “indestructible,” you’re not looking for a rifle. You’re looking for a shovel.

Let’s not forget the charm of modularity—the argument that a modern rifle can be Frankenstein-ed into whatever you want it to be. Adjustable stocks, interchangeable grips, tactical rails galore. But let me ask you: Does a Lego set stir your soul? Because that’s what these modern contraptions are—a mishmash of parts with no heart, no spirit, and no connection to anything but your wallet. A wooden-stocked rifle, on the other hand, is a piece of art. It’s a singular creation, made with purpose and integrity. It’s not a platform; it’s a rifle.

In the end, the difference is simple: a wooden-stocked rifle has a soul. It’s a rifle in the truest sense of the word—a tool, yes, but also a companion, a legacy, and a reminder of what matters. A rifle without wood? It’s just another tool in your toolbox, wedged between the cordless drill and the crowbar. And if that’s what you want, fine. But don’t call it a rifle. Call it what it is: a plastic imposter.

Before November 2020, when the hate speech clause was adopted, the code of ethics all related to how real estate agents and affiliates worked with clients, Fauber said. Now that has changed.

“The NAR has now given themselves permission to police real estate agents 24/7,” Fauber said. “It’s deeply troubling that an organization like the NAR can police my life, and complaints can be filed against me for reading a passage of scripture, even in church; that a person wouldn’t even have to be present to file a complaint about me. That’s far reaching.” //

In Virginia, phone calls of cases like Fauber’s come pouring in daily, Cobb said, regarding someone who has lost a job or suffered significant harm due to their faith. //

Christian realtor Hadassah Carter recently won her case against the Virginia Real Estate Board, citing harassment and discrimination for her beliefs. Carter included Bible verses and Christian phrases on her website and was subjected to monitoring and accused of violating Virginia’s fair housing statutes by the board due to her religious speech.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether the court should even be involved in addressing the policy in the first place, saying she was concerned about the court “taking over what Congress may have intended for the agency to do in this situation.”

"I think it can't be assumed that the agency exceeds its authority whenever it interprets a statutory term differently than we would such that all we have to do as a part of this claim here today is just decide what we think a firearm is." //

Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concerns that the regulation would criminalize ghost gun sellers who might not be aware that they are violating a law, CNN reported.

“This is an agency regulation that broadens a criminal statute beyond what it had been before,” Kavanaugh asked. “What about the seller, for example, who is truly not aware — truly not aware — that they are violating the law and gets criminally charged?”

Prelogar said prosecutors would have to prove that the seller was willfully violating the law. Kavanaugh described Prelogar’s answer as “helpful.” //

Twist Gamma
12 minutes ago
Kavanaugh nailed it at the end.

I was on board with the government's argument up until Kavanaugh made it clear that this was not a law but an interpretation of a law. Interpretations on something like this should absolutely go in the favor of the citizen, so that citizens do not become criminals without realizing it.

If guns are regulated, there is no problem with regulating, in the same way, a kit that has all of the ingredients + instructions to build a gun. It's the same thing, assuming the kit is complete. Any restriction on guns that passes Constitutional muster could equally be applied to a complete gun kit.

However, deciding that they are equivalent is the job of Congress, not the courts. And ESPECIALLY not the job of the bureaucracy.

Whether the restrictions themselves are Constitutional is a separate question, of course.