The Shot Heard ‘Round The World.

On a cool Massachusetts morning, April 19, 1775, a group of farmers, tradesmen, and other “Minutemen” led by Captain John Parker, gathered on Lexington Commons to…express umbrage at the British Crown’s illegal attempt to confiscate Colonial Weapons.

“Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here,” declared Parker.

No one knows who fired the first shot, but at the end of the battle, eight Americans lay dead and as many wounded. This came to be known as the “shot heard ‘round the World” and the de facto beginning of the American Revolution.

Fast forward to today—current Vice President and Democrat nominee for President, Kamala Harris again voices a desire to violate an enumerated constitutional right.

The Second Amendment, arguably written with Lexington in mind, is still the only one we need “permission” to exercise and is still under constant attack by the left. That’s generating backlash among popularly elected local Sheriffs, reports The Wall Street Journal. From the article.

The “Second Amendment sanctuary” movement has taken hold in more than 100 counties in several states, including New Mexico and Illinois, where local law-enforcement and county leaders are saying they won’t enforce new legislation that infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms.

This isn’t a “one-of,” issue—we’re talking about over 100 counties across several states. This indicates widespread popular support, support that is galvanizing locally elected Law Enforcement Officials to take notice—and take action. //

Predictably, there has been the mandatory hue and cry from the left, declaring those Sheriffs to be lawless rogues. Strangely enough, this from locales that support sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. Of course, their screeching is without basis. First of all, the local Sheriffs are on pretty solid Constitutional ground.

The “sanctuary” term has most often been applied to immigration. But there are several different types of sanctuary cities – one of which is related to protecting Second Amendment rights. Indeed, over 61 percent of counties in America have declared themselves sanctuaries for gun rights. This means sheriffs and other local law enforcement would refuse to enforce unconstitutional restrictions on firearms coming from state and local governments.

An example would be what happened in Illinois when its government passed an assault weapons ban. Over half of the state’s sheriffs announced they would refuse to enforce the measure. While these counties did not necessarily declare themselves to be sanctuaries, the nullification principle was in action. //

Trump’s vow to end sanctuary cities will have more ramifications than he likely intends. Sure, it would make it easier to track down illegal immigrants – perhaps dangerous ones. But what is to keep a Democratic president from using this as a precedent to crack down on Second Amendment sanctuaries? //

This is why all politics is local. The governments that are closest to us should have the most say over what rules we choose to live under – not politicians in Washington, D.C. The last thing we want is for the federal government to be empowered to go after cities whose elected leaders uphold the Second Amendment – or other natural rights guaranteed in the Constitution. //

Anna DM
8 hours ago
I respectfully disagree. Illegal aliens are, well, illegal and so cutting off the funding to localities that endorse and support illegal activities is perfectly sane and rational. Gun ownership in the US is protected by the 2A. If some localities decide to disobey the 2A (placing unconstitutional prohibitions on the right to keep and bear arms) and then subunits within that locality decide to disobey the disobeying entity, that's not a sanctuary situation. That's a (very constitutional) middle finger to the entity that is disobeying the constitution. In the end, the courts generally overrule such unlawful incursions against the 2A. The two examples are not the same thing, IMO.

I say defund the sanctuary cities as regards illegal aliens. //

Terrible System
8 hours ago
2nd Amendment sanctuary cities are set up to protect clear 2nd Amendment rights. Immigration sanctuary cities are set up t0 abet violations of federal immigration law, which is clearly within the purview of the federal government to enforce.

There is no legitimate comparison here.

Reports have since emerged that Hezbollah was planning an "October 7-like" attack on Israel codenamed "Conquer the Galilee." October 7, 2023, was, of course, the day that Hamas terrorists from Gaza conducted a merciless assault on Israel, resulting in the barbarous murders of thousands of Israelis and the kidnappings of hundreds more — many of whom are still being held hostage nearly a year later.

Following the latest action by Israel, the IDF revealed what they believe Hezbollah was planning:

'Hezbollah intended to infiltrate Israeli communities and kidnap and murder innocent civilians in a similar manner to the October 7 Massacre,' the IDF said.

'The IDF will continue to remove the threat of Hezbollah's capabilities and will continue to operate in all arenas to protect Israeli civilians.' //

Alpinealan
8 hours ago edited
If the Israelis "crossed all lines", why is the Iranian Embassy in Beirut still standing??

I applaud what the Israelis are now doing. With the feckless BribeMe Administration rendered even more impotent now that it is lame duck, it is a good time for settling scores.

However, the Israelis really need to come to terms with human nature and reality. The death penalty for heinous murderers such as Yahwa Sinwar would have prevented him being used as a pawn in ridiculous "hostage negotiations" trading a single soldier for approximately two infantry battalions of hardened criminals who certainly have added themselves to Hamas' order of battle. How many IDF soldiers have died in the past year because the feckless Israeli state put the life of that one hostage above that of soldiers who have to confront them once again on the battlefield? While loudmouthed hostage families pressure Bibi into committing national suicide to save their hostage son (who ended up with a bullet to the back of his head regardless...), Israelis soldiers are bleeding and dying fighting this criminal enterprise. Being serious about the death penalty...broadly supported in the Hebrew scriptures...would do much to staunch the dumbassery that is going on with hostages.

And if every citizen has mandatory military service, how the hell did the citizens face the Oct. 7th terrorists unarmed...discovering that when seconds count, the IDF is hours away? It isn't like citizens don't know how to safely handle weapons, is it? How incredibly stupid.

Liberal lunacy always gets mugged by reality. But then again, how many American Jews will vote for the Laughingstock?

On Wednesday, one of her prior statements went viral in a resurrected clip from a May 2007 press conference. It is more than a little concerning.

Trump War Room @TrumpWarRoom
·
Kamala: “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible.”

She’s an anti-gun RADICAL.

10:25 AM · Sep 18, 2024

She was talking about legislation she helped write that imposed penalties for gun owners who fail to store their firearms properly at home. //

Harris said the new measure was about legislating "our values" in an attempt to "encourage certain kinds of behavior."

"When we create laws, it's not only about creating an opportunity, if you will, to prosecute someone for committing a crime, but more importantly, when we legislate our values, it's about trying to encourage certain types of behavior," she said at the time.

Harris also once again placed January 6th above 9/11 and the OKC bombing as the “worst attack on our democracy.” //

henrybowman | September 17, 2024 at 8:30 pm
“(Please do not forget the OKC bombing. I get why 9/11 receives the most attention but do not forget the 1995 OKC bombing.)”

When I started out collecting data as a 2A activist in the late ’80s, the largest mass murder on US soil was the Happyland Social Club fire, an arsonist with a jar of gasoline.

Then came Waco.
Then came OKC.
Then came 9/11.
Then came COVID (much less qualifiable, but clearly the record-holder).

In a country with 250 years of history, all this escalation in just 30 years. My God.

You’ll notice that NONE of these mass murders were committed with guns… but at least two of them — the ones that involved housewives and children — were committed by our own government.
Government democide — entirely exclusive of wartime deaths — has killed more humans than all wars combined. //

TargaGTS in reply to henrybowman. | September 17, 2024 at 8:59 pm
I forgot about the Happyland fire…probably because no one in the media brings it up anymore. I would add that the worst school spree murder happened way back in the 1920 or early 1930, the Bath School Massacre, which was also perpetrated entirely by firebombing. Close to 40-dead (mostly children) and another 60(ish) injured. I’m always fearful firebombing might come back into vogue again.

If appealed, I think it is likely that the SCOTUS will deny certiorari. California and Hawaii will continue to restrict citizens from carrying in public and it seems likely that state legislatures, hostile to the 2nd Amendment will deem more areas “sensitive” making concealed carry permits almost useless in some states.

What has been constantly and conveniently ignored by state legislators and courts in California and Hawaii is that citizens who take the time and effort to get a concealed carry permit aren’t abusing it – or shooting people in public without good cause.

And criminals don’t apply for concealed carry permits because - they are criminals. //

Black Magic
an hour ago
Thank God I live in PA which has extremely good concealed carry regulations, though I still question why the other Constitutional Rights are not so encumbered, i.e., I don't think there should be such encumbrances on our Constitutional Rights.

Having said that, I am still anticipating when it is finally adjudicated and approved by the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to halt my concealed carry rights at the state line and I am still wondering why it is that, I believe it is the 14 Amendment (which ensures equal protection), insures interstate cooperation in licensing driving for instance, but stops my ability to defend myself when I leave my state.

Trump has previously said he felt this should be addressed and corrected and I look forward to that.

The bottom line is that we don't know where Kamala stands in 2024 on mandatory gun buy-back schemes. What we do know is that she made that part of her platform in the 2020 race, and she has never disavowed that position. Though her "campaign" says she no longer supports it, one of her leading surrogates refuses to give a yes or no answer; in fact, he refuses to acknowledge the question.

All of this fits into Kamala's campaign of deception where she has minions tell the media what her positions are and she retains the ability to change them at whim by blaming an unnamed staffer. //

anon-x2cb
33 minutes ago
They CANNOT buy back something they DID NOT SELL ME!

The framers knew full well that many rights would face perpetual jeopardy, and by enshrining them in the Constitution and creating a system that divided power both between branches and between state and federal governments, they had crafted the surest check possible against future infringement.

While the separation of powers in the national government is often touted in civics and by politicians of all stripes, the federal system, with its two sovereigns — federal and state — is increasingly ignored or forgotten. States absolutely have the power to protect the people if the federal government is violating their rights. This is precisely what Missouri did in enacting SAPA.

Missouri’s law was a clear shot across the bow in the brewing debate over gun control at the federal level and how states could respond. These lawmakers, and leaders such as former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and current Attorney General Andrew Bailey, foresaw the danger of a Harris presidency before it was even conceived.

These leaders made clear to current and would-be federal tyrants that Missouri would protect the “promise of liberty” and fight to preserve the critical “tension between federal and state power.” It is a much-needed check against tyranny and abuse, as the U.S. Supreme Court has previously affirmed. Groups such as Gun Owners of America have aggressively supported SAPA and encourage Missouri to stick to their guns by seeking full review of this terrible decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

RACISM CREATED GUN CONTROL

The first law to prevent the carrying of concealed weapons appeared in Kentucky in 1813. Very few people owned handguns back then, but many had knives. And the large Bowie knife was becoming quite popular at that time. Whites in the South feared blacks, so they outlawed the concealed carrying of any weapon, including knives.

The Democrat Party, which owned the south for generations, were afraid of slaves, freed blacks and abolitionists (i.e. Republicans) carrying Bowie knives. To maintain power over these Americans, Democrat politicians, state by state, outlawed concealed-carry. By 1850 every Southern state had made it illegal to carry any kind of concealed weapon.

Today, Democrats are still afraid of the masses. They cannot gain complete power over us so long as we own weapons. Should Harris/Walz somehow cheat their way into power, Americans can expect them to accelerate the war on the Second Amendment that Democrats have waged for decades now.

The CDC, FBI, and legacy media are conspiring to “debunk” the truth that armed, law-abiding citizens prevent crime and stop mass shootings. //

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I run, has found many more missed cases and is keeping an updated list.

Overall, the CPRC estimates that law-abiding citizens with guns have stopped over 35 percent of active shootings over the last decade and 39.6 percent in the last five years. This figure is eight times higher than the four percent estimate made by the FBI. //

In places where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry firearms, we estimate that armed civilians stopped 51 percent of active shootings over the past decade. Over the last five years, that figure was 53.1 percent.

U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes in Wichita dismissed two machine gun charges against Tamori Morgan, who was indicted in 2023 for possessing a model AM-15 .300 caliber machine gun and a conversion device known as a “Glock switch” that can make a semi-automatic weapon fire at a similar rate to machine guns.

During trial, Morgan’s lawyers argued that these firearms are protected under the Second Amendment, a claim that Broomes upheld. He ruled that machine guns qualify as “bearable arms” under the Second Amendment and that the state failed to demonstrate a historical precedent that justifies the regulation of these weapons.

Gun sales have remained at over one million per month since 2019, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) reported. But they had leveled out before July 2024.

Historically high, gun sales had slowed month-over-month until the incident involving Trump and Harris' elevation to official Democratic presidential candidate, The Washington Examiner reported. //

The NSSF estimated that over the past five years, about 86,410,889 firearms have been sold. This is a significant increase since Biden took office. There appear to be indications that the attempt on Trump’s life may have contributed to the rise in gun purchases.

On its initial publication in 1998, John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime drew both lavish praise and heated criticism. More than a decade later, it continues to play a key role in ongoing arguments over gun-control laws: despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. For this third edition, Lott draws on an additional ten years of data—including provocative analysis of the effects of gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C—that brings the book fully up to date and further bolsters its central contention.

A unanimous Supreme Court found that the First Amendment exists even in New York, even when the government hates what you have to say. As unbelievable as it sounds, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion stating, "The critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries." //

The NRA appealed because if the Second Circuit's ruling prevailed, the First Amendment basically ceased to exist. Even the ACLU recognized the danger and represented the NRA.

This decision is a clear victory for the First Amendment and for the NRA. The case is headed back for trial in district court, and given this decision and Sotomayor's reasoning (yes, it's scary to write that), it will be difficult for Vullo to evade what happens next. The only rathole available to her is a claim of "qualified immunity." Sotomayor told the Second Circuit to determine if Vullo was eligible, but the original district court ruling and a footnote in Sotomayor's opinion cast a lot of doubt on that claim.

Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate it. Family, friends, and allies and foundationalists and honored adversaries, today we enter the next phase in the fight to protect our God-given rights from a government that wishes to take them from us and grant us mere privileges in return. To quote another patriot from another place and time, "This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. This is perhaps, the end of the beginning."

And so, as we enter this new phase, there should be no question in the mind of any patriotic American as to why we fight. After all, only slaves lack the right to arm self-defense and we are no slaves, but free citizens of a great republic and we contain multitudes each of us from builder, a healer, a teacher, a statesman, a soldier, a judge, an attorney at law, a sergeant at arms, and an image of God. So, we know why we fight.

The question before us is how we must fight. What kind of discipline we must bring with us into battle and what spirit we must show to our friends and adversaries alike and by way of answering, we refer to our core doctrines.

The foundationalist's manifesto calls us to listen closely and to speak clearly. To deny the self at the same time to defend the individual. To respect tradition and also to cultivate the future. In short, as foundationalists, we are called to embrace disciplines that seem to contradict each other but nonetheless, to embrace them with all of our strength.

So, it is in our current fight because this system as dysfunctional as it often is, as unjust as it often is, it is nonetheless, our system. It is a feature not a bug of our American civilization. Like any other structure built from man's crooked timber, it is not perfect. Judges and attorneys and trial courts and juries in the light of day are not perfect. Judges and attorneys and trial courts and juries in the light of day are merely what we have instead of the blood feud and the vendetta and the dagger in the dead of night.

Knowing this, we give challenge even as we give thanks. Knowing this, we prepare ourselves for battle in a spirit of profound dissatisfaction and profound gratitude in equal measure.
...
When I was a boy my grandfather told me that fire is a great servant, but a terrible master and so it is with Government. And to the extent that our own Government attempts to be our master, we must oppose it. We must fight to the utmost limits of our strength, but in that fight, our spirit must be one of restoration, not destruction. We must confront the enemy as the firefighter confronts his enemy and for the same reasons that the structure itself may yet, be saved.

God bless and keep you all and may God bless the United States of America. Thank you, Your Honor.

Dexter Taylor, a Brooklyn-based software engineer, has been sentenced to a decade in prison for building firearms in his home using parts purchased legally. He was arrested after a SWAT raid in 2022, and a jury convicted him of 13 counts last month. Now, he is set to spend up to ten years behind bars for what many perceive as an egregious violation of his Second Amendment rights.

The sentence was handed down on Monday by Judge Abena Darkeh, who presided over Taylor’s trial. The judge’s handling of the case has been criticized, especially her decision to prohibit mention of the Second Amendment in the courtroom during the trial. //

“She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.’” //

Taylor recalled that it “seemed like we had three prosecutors in the courtroom, the two [assistant district attorneys] and the judge working in concert.”

Indeed, in a previous interview, Varghese characterized Judge Darkeh as “the most aggressive prosecutor in the room.” //

Interestingly enough, Taylor said some of the officers who escorted him into the holding cell behind the courtroom after the verdict was read began discussing politics. “Literally, they were all talking about how this is nonsense. ‘Of course, you have a God-given right to keep and bear arms,’” he recalled the officers saying. He discussed his case with another sergeant who “thought it was a travesty.” //

When asked about the possibility that Taylor could get bail pending appeal so he could fight his case from outside of prison, the lawyer said, “It’s something that Dexter and I will have to discuss further. The chances are slim to none.”

Judge Roger T. Benitez wrote:

The United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller established a simple Second Amendment test: The right to keep and bear arms is a right enjoyed by law-abiding citizens to have arms that are not unusual ‘in common use’ ‘for lawful purposes like self-defense.’… It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are ‘yes,’ the test is over. The hardware is protected.

That "...not unusual 'in common use'" bit is important. A study released in April by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) examines precisely this issue. The Detachable Magazine Report, 1990-2021, has decisively debunked the claim that magazines holding over 10 rounds of ammunition are, somehow, "not usual in common use." //

The NSSF study concludes that the “national standard for magazine capacity for America’s gun owners is greater than 10 rounds.” //

• The overwhelming majority of these – approximately 74 percent, or 717 million magazines – have a capacity of eleven or more rounds, and almost half (about 46 percent) “are rifle magazines with 30+ round capacity.” More than half (about 55 percent) of total pistol magazines are detachable 11+ magazines. //

The "well-regulated" portion of that amendment, while being a subordinate clause (the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" being the operative clause) means that the militia must be properly trained and equipped. In modern parlance, that means having essentially the same capacities as a soldier; we probably aren't going to see the 1934 National Firearms Act repealed any time soon, but it seems clear that the "well-regulated" clause would imply that citizens should have similar equipment - including the 30-round magazine for the popular AR-15 platform, in which it is the standard, not a high capacity magazine. //

Mike Ford
6 hours ago
"The right to keep and bear arms is a right enjoyed by law-abiding citizens to have arms that are not unusual ‘in common use’ ‘for lawful purposes like self-defense.’…"

And that test is bogus. The test, if there is to be one, should center around what any U.S Infantry Soldier would carry....including automatic weapons....and crew served machine guns.

there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. The term itself is a canard invented by gun control advocates. Every sale at a gun show has to follow every law regarding firearms sales for the jurisdiction within which the show takes place. In Colorado, where the state requires a background check for a sale between private parties, gun shows have personnel on-site to carry out those checks, and the checks are required for any transaction at the show. Here in Alaska, the state makes no such requirement, and so private transactions do not require a background check--at a gun show or anywhere else.

Here's the thing: A 2022 report indicated that 42 percent of rejected firearms background checks were denied due to prior felony convictions. The report also indicated that in 2017, 12 of 12,000 people denied a gun purchase were prosecuted. It is a federal felony for a prohibited person, like a convicted felon, to attempt to purchase a firearm - and yet, in the most recent year for which data is available, the federal government prosecuted 0.1% of the attempts. That's a bad joke.

LILY TANG WILLIAMS: Hi, my name is Lily Tang Williams. Welcome to my live free or die state. Actually, I am a Chinese immigrant who survived communism. And under Mao, you know, 40 million people were starving to death after he sold communism to them. And 20 million people died... murdered during his cultural revolution. So my question to you, David, is that can you guarantee me, a gun owner tonight, that our government in the U.S., in D.C., will never become a tyrannical government? Can you guarantee that to me?

DAVID HOGG: There's no way I can ever guarantee that any government will not be tyrannical.

LILY TANG WILLIAMS: Well then the debate on gun control is over because I will never give up my guns. And you should go to China. Never. Never. And you should go to China to see how gun control works for the dictatorship of the CCP.

My Glock is an ugly little monument to the historic threat facing my family, my neighbors, and all of Israel. //

Comments --

As a former soldier who has been to war in your region, Matti, I call upon the notion of self defense; when your government fails to protect you as seen throughout the world, you need to defend yourself regardless of the weapon. The last thing rational People want to do is morph into a killer of others, but when another man puts a gun to your face you have two choices...

The Men Who Wanted to Be Left Alone

“The most terrifying force of death comes from the hands of Men who wanted to be left Alone. They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love. They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it. They know that the moment they fight back, their lives as they have lived them, are over. The moment the Men who wanted to be left alone are forced to fight back, it is a form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these Men who wanted to be left alone, fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives. They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror. True terror will arrive at these people’s door, and they will cry, scream, and beg for mercy… but it will fall upon the deaf ears of the Men who just wanted to be left alone.”

– Author Unknown