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.
Supreme Court Gives the NRA and Freedom a Big Win Over Government Censorship and Bullying – RedState
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
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
The call, as I guess Mom suspected, was because her father died.
One of his possessions we inherited was a beautiful silver .38 revolver. Firearms of many kinds were all over rural Ohio in those days. Autumn was a dangerous time to be a deer or pheasant there or a little kid playing frontiersman in the bushes.
Dad’s childhood came on a dairy farm in rural western Canada in the years before electricity. “You need to know about guns,” Dad had said. So, we took a thick board out back and leaned it against a tree.
Dad pulled out this shiny pistol. “Here,” he said. “It’s not loaded.”
I reached for the gun. With no warning, the thing went off with a huge bang and blasted a large hole in the board. I may have yelled an unpleasant word. Dad was just standing there, all calm and fatherly.
“You said the gun wasn’t loaded!” I screamed.
“Everyone says the gun’s not loaded,” Dad replied.
That’s another thing my father said.
Schools would benefit from an injection of morality and responsibility. Christianity and guns can teach those two things. Let people have these clubs.
U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman ruled on March 8 that a federal law prohibiting illegal immigrants from owning guns is unconstitutional, arguing the law did not adhere to the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen that stipulated gun control laws must fit historical tradition. //
But someone who broke the laws of the land and is illegally residing here is not entitled to the same rights that the Constitution secures for U.S. citizens. Foreign citizens instead must have their rights secured by their own governments.
The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v. Heller that “the people” refers to “all members of the political community.” Foreign citizens are by definition members of a different political community. Writing for the majority, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. “the people” “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” //
The topic was also argued more than a decade ago in a different case, with a panel of the Fourth Circuit ruling in U.S. v. Carpio-Leon that “illegal aliens are not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance.”
One interesting twist is that in the Harrel v. Raoul case, the National Association of Police has filed an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief supporting the Harrel Petitioners. This brief, available for review here, argues that the “Seventh Circuit’s legal standard eviscerates the Second Amendment, that the Illinois law’s “restrictions [approved by the Seventh Circuit] threaten to leave American citizens without effective means to utilize the sort of weapons employed by criminals throughout the country—and employed by nearly all police departments to fight them.”
And in a key paragraph:
In the world far removed from courtrooms, judge’s chambers and lawyers’ offices, Americans are using guns to defend themselves and others at extremely high rates—up to 2.8 million times a year. More than half of the incidents of self-defense involve more than one assailant, in which the ability to fire more defensive rounds obviously assumes more importance. Indeed, 3.2% of incidents involve five or more attackers, where the ability to shoot more than ten rounds is obviously critical. There are, of course, numerous reported incidents of citizens defending themselves who have been required to use more than ten shots to do so—or failing to defend themselves when only ten rounds were available. //
henrybowman | March 17, 2024 at 2:23 pm
“The panel did so after ruling that “large capacity magazines” (LCMs) are rarely used in self-defense…
…owners of the affected magazines, which come standard with most modern firearms.”
And the second observation proves that the first must indeed have been not a finding of fact, but an arbitrary ruling. //
oldvet50 | March 17, 2024 at 2:37 pm
This amendment was explained to our class in junior high school American History when I attended in 1962. A well regulated (trained) militia is necessary to protect our country. A standing army did not exist at the time, but could be formed when needed out of the citizenry (males). They would need to supply their own weapons and be proficient in their use. It has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with fighting our enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. How we even got to this point in banning certain weapons is beyond my comprehension. //
SHV | March 17, 2024 at 2:58 pm
This one is interesting. A 2A ruling from far left judge.
“District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional”
“The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense.”
The bill is headed to Governor Henry McMaster, who is expected to sign the bill.
Few things make Leviathan more terrified than free people.
"This is a permitless carry," Sen. Margie Bright Matthews said. "Why are we going to allow people to carry more guns, and this time without a [concealed weapons permit]? //
Weminuche45
7 hours ago edited
What a lot of people don't grasp is that freedom while great, isn't all sunshine and rainbows. Freedom also has a lot of really terrifying aspects to it too. Freedom includes the freedom to fail, the freedom to be poor, the freedom to die from our own mistakes, and the freedom to die from our own stupidity, our own incompetence, our own cowardice, and our own laziness.
It's much more comfortable for many people to abdicate responsibility for their own life and that of their family, to someone else or an entity like a government, than to feel the weight of that responsiblity on their own shoulders. This is why you see people begging to be disarmed and the desire to offer themselves up to be a slave, a child under the protection of Daddy, or Mommy, or the government. //
Random US Citizen Weminuche45
6 hours ago
Franklin's quote seems even more appropriate to our modern age than it was to his own. There are far too many citizens who'd give up liberty to obtain what isn't really isn't security.
The states that are now on the permitless carry bandwagon are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming. South Carolina is reportedly considering similar legislation, which would make the Palmetto State the 29th constitutional carry state.
Hawaii's Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision finding that Hawaii was subject to federal law and Supreme Court precedent, and found that the Supreme Court had erred in its New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Todd Eddins said, "We hold that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public." //
While they were declaring Heller and Bruen were wrongly decided and violated Hawaii's understanding of what the US Constitution means, the court took a swipe at the Dobbs decision that found infanticide was not a Constitutionally protected activity, accusing the Supreme Court of engaging in "historical fiction." //
As RedStater Bill Shipley noted on "X,"
The Hawaii Court could have written its entire opinion just the way it has, and added a single sentence/ paragraph at the end that began "Nevertheless" and explained the SCOTUS decisions in Breun and Heller required it to uphold the lower court decision dismissing the charges.
They could have had their diatribe for 50 pages while respected their place in the Constitutional order of things -- even if they didn't like it.
Instead, they just lit themselves on fire.
Wednesday, the grand jury "no billed" the shooter. //
Dieter Schultz
11 hours ago edited
I don't have a problem shooting a man's weight in lead at him to bring him down. In this case, I thought a solid, indestructible self-defense case was available for the first four rounds. The next four were decidedly in the "gray area" of legality. The ninth round, in my opinion, could, in the right lighting, be mistaken for an execution.
While I can see streiff's point, why is it OK to train cops to 'keep firing until the person is no longer a threat', and they won't get dinged for doing it, but we're willing to put a shot count on civilians that aren't trained like the police are?
I get the last shots may have been unnecessary and overkill, but with adrenaline flowing how do we place these, seemingly, higher standards on civilians? //
anon-608f Asurea
3 hours ago
I appreciate your testimony. However, I believe this philosophy is outdated. Why are we changing the responsibility from the thug to armed civilian? No. The thug was willing to kill them all for pennies. He forfeited his life the minute he began the encounter. The armed citizen should only be held to account their behavior before the encounter- once it starts all accountability should be transferred to the thug. No more armed citizens should be prosecuted for ending, however completely, deadly encounters they didn't begin. The way we're handling it now is cruel and unreasonable. You were just as likely to have shot a fleeing felon in the back and been imprisoned for it...after they invaded your home! It is a sick theory that only attorneys could come up with. //
We agonize over a thug who, milliseconds before, was preparing to kill a truly innocent person- they have no good will, their humanity is forfeit. And so they get shot.
Why are we ever going after the armed citizen for injuring or killing a worthless thug? Why are we holding them to standards even police are hard pressed to meet??!!
No. I say no. When certain situational and evidentiary thresholds are met (not hard in this age of digital recordings), we shouldn't care if a thug is shot in the face or in the back, or even if already fleeing in a car. They forfeited their humanity and the citizen had every right and responsibility to ensure that they weren't coming back. Because they do. They'll rob multiple places in a night so long as they meet no resistance. Letting them flee is NOT morally superior to shooting a feral thug while fleeing.
As far as I'm concerned, you don't stop shooting at a predator attacking the flock just because it runs, and I respect coyotes and wolves far more than felons.
I just think our moral philosophy is outdated. I'm not saying this should be the "wild west" and people are shot dead with no account, but I do believe the threshold for "justifiable" and "reasonable" ought to be lowered in self defense.
"Let's see," Reason magazine associate editor Billy Binion posted on X. "Some recent stats: Mississippi's gun homicide rate: ~13 murders per 100,000 people; Louisiana's gun homicide rate: ~15 murders per 100,000 people; Missouri's gun homicide rate: ~11 murders per 100,000 people; Chicago's gun homicide rate: ~29 murders per 100,000 people."
"Why do you pick just a couple of states to compare?" John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, posted on X. "Is that how public health researchers do research? Why don't you look at local crime rates where policing policies are determined and where DAs and judges are almost always selected?"
If you remove the blue cities from the red states, such as New Orleans, the murder rates tend to fall.
Zack Smith @tzsmith
Nov 29
·
State-level murder rates are highly misleading. As my @Heritage colleagues and I explained in our Blue City Murder Problem paper, crime is a localized phenomenon.
https://heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-blue-city-murder-problem
And guess what? Remove the blue cities from the red states...and the murder rates fall.
Joe Scarborough @JoeNBC
Watch the Senator pretend that he didn’t just hear that his home state has higher death rates from firearms than Chicago. Then he blows past that reality and thinks that insulting a woman will make us forget…that his own state has higher death rates from guns than Chicago.
Zack Smith @tzsmith
·
As you can see from this table, take New Orleans' murder rate out, and Louisiana's murder rate falls by over 15%!
And take Chicago's murder rate out, and Illinois' falls by a shocking 55%!
3:24 PM · Nov 29, 2023 //
Clare Boothe Lucid
11 hours ago edited
Also note how gun control proponents often want to talk about the overall gun death rate which includes many suicides as well as some accidents along with homicides. Obviously suicides and accidents are important, too, but those are substantially different issues with different causes and potential solutions compared to homicides. One can see examples above…one person mentions death rates from firearms and another answers with homicide rates
It’s become virtually impossible to find reliable data or polling on gun violence these days. A new Kaiser Family Foundation report being shared by virtually every major media outlet this week offers us a good example of why. The headlines report that “1 in 5 adults” in the United States claim that a “family member” has been “killed” by a gun. And, let’s just say, that’s a highly dubious claim.
There are 333 million people living in the United States, and somewhere around 259 million of them are over the age of 18. Twenty percent of those adults equals nearly 52 million people. There were more than 40,000 gun deaths in 2022, and around 20,000 of them were homicides — a slight dip from a Covid-year historic high that followed decades of lows. So, according to Kaiser’s polling, every victim of gun violence in the past few years had hundreds, if not thousands, of “family members.”
Now, to be fair, we can’t really run the numbers because Kaiser doesn’t define its terms or parameters. For example, what constitutes a “family member”? Is your second cousin a family member? Because if so, that creates quite the nexus of people. What about your stepbrother’s second cousin? Or how about your uncle who died in Iraq? Or how about that grandfather you never met who committed suicide in 1968? Kaiser could have asked people about their “immediate” relatives. The opacity is the point.
Then again, you can always spot a misleading firearms study by checking if the authors conflate suicides and murders. Kaiser does. //
What Kaiser doesn’t mention in its press-friendly “key findings” — and no media piece I’ve read mentions — is that 82 percent of those polled feel “very” or “somewhat safe” from gun violence in their own neighborhoods. Only 18 percent of Americans say they worry about gun violence on a daily or almost daily basis, while 43 percent say they worry about it “rarely” or “never.” So, you’re telling me, half of American adults have personally experienced gun violence themselves or toward someone in their family, but less than 20 percent worry about it often?