Court Rules: Armed Self-Defense a Right NOT a Privilege Needing Permission

Second Amdnment Gun Permision Slip



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

New York – -( The Supreme Court Has Spoken on This and In the Clearest Language yet seen to date.

The long-awaited and highly anticipated Bruen case decision is out! It is better—much better—than we had anticipated.

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the Opinion. Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joined him. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett also filed concurring opinions.

Justice Breyer, who filed an extensive dissenting opinion in Heller, filed a dissenting opinion in Bruen. The two other liberal wing Justices, Sotomayor and Kagan, joined him.

So that there would be no mistake, Justice Thomas provided, for the Nation, the Bruen Holding upfront in the first paragraph of the detailed majority opinion. He said,

“In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense.”

“We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

How Important Is Bruen——

Bruen now joins, in the clearest language possible, the distinguished pantheon of seminal Second Amendment cases that, together, make categorically clear that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It is much more concerning and disconcerting to the Nation’s Destructors than a High Court decision in the Dobbs abortion case—a leaked version of which created a furor among the Nation’s Neo-Marxist and Anarchist malcontents.

Bruen is at the apex of critically important High Court cases defending our Country as a free Constitutional Republic and establishing our people as Sole Sovereign over Government.

Unrestrained exercise of this Fundamental God-Given Right by the people goes to the heart of our Nation’s history, heritage, traditions, ethos, culture, and ethical and legal foundation.

The Nation’s enemies, both inside it and outside it, detest America’s armed citizenry. They hate the Nation’s freedoms and liberties. They disdain the Nation’s belief and faith in Divine Natural Law.

The Bruen decision won’t change the attitudes of the would-be killers of the one, true free Republic on the face of the Earth. The naysayers will become only more hardened, more entrenched. But, in that fact, even the most naïve of Americans must now come to know the danger that the treacherous creatures among us pose to the preservation of a free Republic and to the continued sovereignty of the American people, over their Government.

The abhorrence of this Nation’s Obstructors and Destructors toward our Armed Citizenry isn’t grounded on more than mere aesthetics or even on ethical concerns.

It is based on frustration, rage, and fear. After all, the Bill of Rights prevents America’s domestic and foreign enemies from taking control over the Nation and its people. And, at least one branch of our Government, the U.S. Supreme Court—it is now clear—is intent on defending, rather than denigrating and revoking, our most cherished and sacred Rights and Liberties, without which, a powerful Nation-State and a Sovereign People cannot continue to exist.

An armed citizenry of 100 million people or more can never be vanquished; the Republic can never be undone; the sovereignty of the American people can never be effectively usurped, and the will of the American people can never be undermined. Americans can now gain further encouragement from the fact that the Third Branch of Government has its back.

The fundamental Right of Armed Self-Defense is our Birthright. The Court’s Majority knows that and they asserted that now in no uncertain terms.

Armed Self-Defense As A Fundamental Right Cannot Be Rationally Denied

The fundamental right of Armed Self-Defense is subsumed in the more general natural law right of Self-Survival which is itself subsumed in the supernal Right of one’s Self-hood: The sanctity and inviolability of one’s immortal Soul, Spirit, and Psyche. It is Man’s greatest gift—an eternal gift—bestowed on and in Man by the Divine Creator. It is that gift which the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists deny and abhor and therefore intend to destroy, but which they cannot touch as long as Americans remain armed—and armed to the hilt.

Yet, when speaking of this elemental, immutable, illimitable, and eternal natural law Right, the publishers, editors, reporters, and commentators of the seditious New York Times, cannot even bring themselves to mention the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a Right at all, whether fundamental and unalienable or not.

A Fundamental Right is Not to be Mistaken for Mere Privilege Contrary to What Malefactors and Imbeciles Maintain!

To the Disrupters and Destroyers of a free Republic, the Right of armed self-defense is nothing more than a privilege—a privilege that, from the Times’ perspective, too many Americans cherish and endorse and too many exercise.

In colorful language, The NYTimes explains its frustration, rage, and fear over armed self-defense—frustration, rage, and fear borne of Americans’ insistent adoration for its Bill of Rights, and especially for the fundamental right of armed self-defense.

A few weeks ago, the Times said this about “‘the privilege’ of the people to keep and bear arms”:

“Most Republicans in the Senate represent deeply conservative states where gun ownership is treated as a sacred privilege enshrined in the Constitution, a privilege not to be infringed upon no matter how much blood is spilled in classrooms and school hallways around the country.” ~ from an article in The New York Times, May 26, 2022, by Carl Hulse, Chief D.C. correspondent for the NYTimes.

This substitution of words here is no small thing. It isn’t a careless misuse of words. It isn’t a benign, innocuous, trivial slip-up.

It is no accident at all that the people at the Times would use the word, ‘privilege,’ in lieu of ‘right’ when referencing the language of the Second Amendment. Buts this word choice is one the author of the article, Carl Hulse, didn’t even come up with.

An attorney, Warren Freedman, an outspoken critic of the Second Amendment wrote a reference book titled, “The Privilege to Keep and Bear Arms: The Second Amendment and Its Interpretation,” in 1989, nineteen years before Heller; thirty-three years before the publication of the Times/Hulse article and the Bruen case decision.

A critique of the Freedman book, written by William Walker, appeared as a law review article published by the University of Michigan Law School, in 1990.

The writer of the afore-referenced NYTimes Article, Carl Hulse, must have known this. Yet he never credited Freedman; odd that!

The Framers of the Constitution, no less than, and probably a good deal more astute than Hulse, Freedman, and Walker, were meticulous in their choice of words when drafting the Constitution, especially when drafting the words to the Bill of Rights. Nowhere in the BOR does the term, ‘privilege,’ appear.

Yet the Destroyers of our Nation don’t deign to call gun possession a Basic Right—the most basic of Rights: one grounded on personal survival, be it from a predatory creature, predatory man, or predatory Government. Rather, they prefer to utilize the word, ‘privilege,’ in lieu of ‘right,’ to describe those who seek to exercise it.

Tacit in the word, ‘privilege,’ is the idea of something beneficial that some people obtain by dint of special birth, advantage, or by connection whether made or acquired—and that, by implication, most do not.

The words, ‘right’ and ‘privilege,’ are often conflated. And that is dangerous. For, once the public adopts language that the propagandists intentionally and diabolically propagate through the media, that verbiage becomes a viral meme. As a viral meme, the verbiage lodges in one’s mind. It infuses one’s speech. It suffuses and litters one’s thought processes, embedding itself inextricably in the public’s psyche, replicating itself a million-fold into every corner of one’s being and outward to every individual in the Country.

One must always be vigilant to avoid being misled by terminology utilized by nefarious forces to control one’s thought processes, one’s belief systems, and one’s actions.

Consider the subtle distinction between the two words in a common dictionary definition.

In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one sees——

“A privilege is a right or advantage gained by birth, social position, effort, or concession.”

Note, in that definition, the word, ‘right’ qua ‘privilege’ denotes a thing with parameters. The term ‘right,’ in the colloquial definition, clearly means something less than a ‘fundamental right.’

A “Right” qua “Fundamental God-Bestowed Right” is something beyond mere “Privilege.” It is a thing intrinsic to a person—derived from natural law and it has no limit or boundary. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy elaborates on this:

  • “To have a right is to have a ‘valid claim.’”
  • “‘In the strictest sense’ all rights are claims.”
  • “A right, in the most important sense, is the conjunction of a [privilege] and a claim-right.”
  • “All rights are essentially property rights.”
  • “Rights are themselves property, things we own.”

A critical distinction in meaning between ‘fundamental right’ and ‘privilege’ rests at the heart of Bruen, whether one knows this or not.

The Bruen case has more impact on the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic than many Americans can appreciate or that the legacy Press and Government will let on.

In its Brief supporting the writ for certiorari, filed on December 17, 2020, the Petitioners presented the issue thus:

“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”

The issue as stated goes to the heart of the import of the Second Amendment. Do Americans have a fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, or not? Petitioners meant to bring that salient issue front and center for High Court review.

Heller ruled that a person has the inalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of hearth and home. But the underlying basis for that ruling and the substructure of it is this—

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Bruen emphatically reasserts this.

This means, by logical implication, that the right doesn’t reside only within the confines of one’s home, stopping at the doorstep once one ventures outside his home. It exists everywhere. Bruen now, correctly interpreting the language of the Second Amendment, explicitly asserts this.

And the tacit implication of that pronouncement is this: the exercise of that right is grounded on natural law, and beyond the power of the State to meddle in it, i.e., the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is God-bestowed, and, therefore, Absolute. The Bruen Court has issued a warning to the First and Second Branches of Government and to the State Governments as well: Don’t meddle with the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

Roberts And the Liberal Wing Of The Court Had Hoped To Lessen The Impact Of An Expected Strong Ruling In Bruen By Reconfiguring The Issue, But, Fortunately, To No Avail.

To lessen the impact of a ruling expected to favor the Petitioners, the Roberts’ Court limited the issue on review to consideration of the Constitutionality of the NYPD’s procedures for issuing concealed handgun carry licenses. The High Court redrafted the issue on review to this:

“Whether the state of New York’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court attempted, through reconfiguration, to chop the legs of Bruen off at the knee, to reduce the reviewable issue to one merely looking at the propriety of NYPD procedures for issuing concealed handgun carry licenses. The aim was to prevent the Court from reviewing the basic constitutionality of Government licensing of/meddling in the exercise of a fundamental, God-Given Right.

Justices Thomas and Alito would have none of that. They stuck by their guns.

The New York City Gun Transport case fiasco was in their mind.

Rather than be caught on the losing side of one of the most important case decisions in our Nation’s history, which would diminish his influence as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Roberts joined the Court’s majority, however, apparently reluctantly.

Chief Justice Roberts had to accept the majority’s holding and tacit reasoning that the God-Given right of armed self-defense is the most important Right that any human can exercise if he is to retain his sacred and inviolate Right of Selfhood and Free Will against the tyranny of Government.

Thus, despite the drastic whittling down of the Bruen issue for review, the arch concern we originally had, that concern is fortunately laid to rest.

The Bruen case holding isn’t lame and feeble. Justice Thomas and the Court’s majority responded to those lunatics that sought to intimidate them, in the furor made over Dobbs.

The U.S. Supreme Court, unlike the First Two Branches, is not, in its present arrangement will not be intimidated, and that frustrates the Biden Administration and the Democrat Party-Controlled Congress.

Unlike the first Two Branches of Government, the Third Branch is determined to do its duty to defend God, Constitution, the Country, and the Sovereign American People.

How will the Malcontents and Miscreants Respond to the Bruen Decision?

The High Court has thrown down the Gauntlet to the Obstructors and Destructors intent on dismantling our Republic and subjugating our people.

How will the corrupt, seditious legacy media respond? How will New York State Governor Hochul and New York City Mayor Adams respond? How will their counterparts in other affected jurisdictions respond?

Also, how will the corrupt Biden Administration respond? How will the poisonous vipers in the Democrat Party in Congress respond? And last, how will the effete Eunuchs in the Republican Party respond?

We will discuss these questions and issues and analyze Bruen and its impact on Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist influences and responses to Bruen in upcoming Arbalest Quarrel articles.

For the moment, at least, the Nation can breathe a shared sigh of relief, and the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia can smile down upon both our Nation and its people from Heaven above and lay serenely at rest.

Here is the recent court opinion in full for your reading pleasure.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit:

Arbalest Quarrel


Radical Left pushes INSURRECTION: Calls to demolish U.S. Supreme Court after landmark pro-2A decision affirming individual right to self-defense

Image: Radical Left pushes INSURRECTION: Calls to demolish U.S. Supreme Court after landmark pro-2A decision affirming individual right to self-defense



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) The Supreme Court has struck down a longtime gun control law that barred most people from carrying a firearm concealed. And MSNBC talking-head Keith Olbermann is enraged.

On Twitter, Olbermann called for an insurrection against the Supreme Court, including its total abolishment. If that does not work, then Olbermann wants people to just ignore the court entirely and pretend as though it does not exist.

“It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States,” Olbermann declared on Twitter with about 2,700 “likes,” as of this writing. “The first step is for a state the ‘court’ has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling.”

In other words, Olbermann wants law enforcement to continue prosecuting anyone in New York who is caught with a concealed firearm, even though the Supreme Court has decided that carrying concealed in New York is fully constitutional and in alignment with the Second Amendment.

“Great. You’re a court? Why and how do you think you can enforce your rulings?” Olbermann further added, along with the hashtag #IgnoreTheCourt.

Olbermann curses every Supreme Court justice who ruled in favor of the Second Amendment

Olbermann did not stop there, though. In two additional tweets, he taunted SCOTUS over the decision, mocking the court’s apparent inability, according to him, to actually enforce the new ruling.

“Hey SCOTUS, send the SCOTUS army here to enforce your ruling, you House of Lords radicals pretending to be a court,” Olbermann jested, unable to see the irony in his own statement.

The irony, in case you missed it too, is that it will be much harder to continue enforcing the concealed carry ban than it will be to just let it go. Perhaps Olbermann is planning to walk around the Big Apple strip-searching people himself in pursuit of hidden guns?

In a third tweet, Olbermann resorted to a foul-mouthed curse on Supreme Court Justices Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, “and the paralegal Coney Barrett” for voting to restore New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights.

The 6-3 decision will also reportedly allow more people in other states to legally carry guns on the streets, including in larger cities such as Los Angeles and Boston where similar gun control measures were enacted.

“The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” said Justice Thomas about the decision.

Olbermann obviously disagrees and wants a full insurrection on the highest court in the land in order to remedy the situation to his liking. Remember, this is the same guy who repeatedly condemned the “insurrectionists” for entering the Capitol building through the velvet ropes and wide-open doors on Jan. 6, 2021.

“I think it’s time for the dissolution of Keith Olbermann!” joked one commenter.

“This sounds kind of … seditious?” wrote another.

Someone else pointed out that at no point has the Supreme Court decided to “force guns” onto anyone, as Olbermann falsely suggested in his deranged rant.

“Holy howitzers and bazookas, Batman!” this person wrote.

“As for Twitter, it’s revealing about the people who have been thrown off of the platform, including President Trump. But it’s even MORE revealing about those whom Twitter has allowed to remain on it, in good standing.”

Others pointed out the hypocrisy of the Left in simultaneously demanding the “right” to murder unborn and even newborn children while also demanding an end to the Second Amendment because think of the children!

“Look at all the stories with the same bu****it talking point: ‘Supreme Court expands gun rights’ … more like restored a constitutional right,” added another.

More related news coverage about the war on guns can be found at

Sources for this article include:


DR. STEVE TURLEY: I’ve HAD IT with Feckless RINOs!!!!


We’re going to look at the out-and-out betrayal of Republican voters by 14 feckless RINOs, we’re going to see what patriots are saying about it, and make sure to stick with me to the very end of this video when I’ll reveal what we need to do to finally rid ourselves of these vile Republicans in Name Only once and for all; you are NOT going to want to miss this!

Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling Expanding Gun Rights~MANY STATES AFFECTED~New York’s “proper cause” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry license violated the Constitution because it “prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”

US Supreme Court expands gun rights despite plague of mass shootings

Supreme Court CRUSHES Gun Control Across the Nation!!!!


DR. STEVE TURLEY: A HUGE win for the 2nd Amendment! The Supreme Court rules in favor of constitutional carry and in effect crushes gun control across the nation! We’re going to look at the ruling, we’re going to see how it has all but killed the absurd plans for gun control among Republicans, and stick with me to the very end of this video when we’ll see how this Second Amendment revolution that’s sweeping the nation is also going to sweep these feckless Republicans out of office; you are NOT going to want to miss this!

Huge Win For 2a!!

SCOTUS strikes down NY concealed carry restrictions in gun rights case

Supreme Court Expands Gun Rights, Striking New York Limits



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, expanding gun rights for the first time in more than a decade.The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, held that New York’s “proper cause” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry license violated the Constitution because it “prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”New York’s restrictions, enacted more than a hundred years ago, required those who wish to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense to show “proper cause” rather than have a presumption of the right to carry. Similar laws exist in Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, Maryland, and California, where this ruling will have a huge ripple effect.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority, with Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissenting.

“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,'” Thomas wrote in the opinion. “The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

Related: The Real Reason the Left Won’t Sign Effective Gun Safety Measures

In a footnote, Thomas added that “nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ ‘shall-issue’ licensing regimes, under which ‘a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].'”

“Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry,” he explained. “Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.'”

Thomas pointed out that “because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote: “Many states have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence… by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds. The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so.” He went on to list pages and pages of statistics on gun violence.

Justice Alito rebuked the court’s liberal justices in his scathing concurrence:

Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?

The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?…

…The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.

Alito added, “And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.”

That may be the most common-sense comment on guns we’ve heard in a very long time.

Today is a very good day for the rights of citizens to protect themselves.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen by PJ Media on Scribd

Gas Just Ran Out~2A Red Flagged~GUN CONTROL!~Ukraine Losing Badly

In this episode of The Silent War: Zelensky Says Russian Attacks To Intensify During EU Summit As Moscow Claims Kalibr Strike Killed '50 Officers & Generals.'

Bidenomics: East Coast Truckers Are Stalled Out on the Highway Waiting for Gas – The Gas Stations Are Out of Diesel.

After Having His Own Flight Cancelled, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg Finally Decides to do Something About Cancelled Flights.

Protesters chant ‘stop NATO’ at massive rally in heart of EU.

Senate Releases Text Of Gun Bill That Would Mark 'Biggest Change In Decades.'


New Metro DC Police Report Confirms Plainclothes “Electronic Surveillance Unit” Operatives Were Embedded in the Crowd on Jan. 6 to Record Protesters – Used Rainbow Color Wristbands to Identify Each Other.

Elon Musk’s teen offspring reveals name & gender change .

Meet the 14 GOP Senators Who Voted to Advance ‘Gun Safety’ Bill



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

On Tuesday night, the Senate voted to advance a “gun safety” bill in response to shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y. (the media has conveniently forgotten the shooting at a church in Laguna Woods, Calif., that took place between the other two shootings but didn’t fit The Narrative™ for the gun-control crowd).

The Hill framed the vote as the moment when the Senate “broke through nearly 30 years of stalemate on gun control legislation.”

I won’t rehash the bill here; instead, I’ll refer to my colleague Stephen Kruiser, who pointed out the worst features of the 80-page legislation:

There are two HUGE problems with this legislation, especially for conservatives: it legitimizes both federal intervention in state matters and “red flag” laws. The latter is particularly problematic because implementation is rife with gray areas, no matter how many stipulations are in place. As I have been fond of saying, once red-flag laws are on the books, we’re on the most slippery of slippery slopes. One day people are raising legitimate concerns, the next we have people reporting the neighbor who just rubs them the wrong way.

Those facts didn’t stop the measure from passing by a vote of 64-34. Every single one of the Democrats voted in favor of advancing the bill, which means that 14 Republicans went along with it. Here they are:

Some of those names are the usual suspects, the ones who are going to “go rogue” and vote with the Dems on other issues too.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the guy whose constituents booed him over his support for compromise legislation, ran point on the negotiations with Democrats at the behest of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The Hill reports the negotiations in a way that makes them sound just as sinister as compromising with Democrats to violate the Second Amendment should: “McConnell tapped Cornyn to lead the negotiations for Republicans shortly after a bipartisan group of senators met in Murphy’s basement to begin talks in hopes of finding a way to respond to the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings.”

One of the most remarkable things about this list is that, while the usual squishes (Collins, Murkowski, Romney) appear on it, none of them have a low rating with the National Rifle Association. In fact, Collins rates a B with the NRA, while the rest have an A (Portman, Romney, Blunt, Cassidy, Graham, Tillis, Capito, Ernst, Murkowski) or an A+ (Cornyn, McConnell, Burr, Young) rating from the NRA.

Related: How (and Why) the Media Deliberately Inflates the Numbers on School Shootings

Of the “GOP Gun Control 14,” as Off the Press calls them, only Murkowski and Young are facing re-election in 2022. Blunt, Burr, and Portman aren’t running for another term, so the vast majority of these senators have nothing to lose this election cycle.

Gun rights groups aren’t happy, needless to say.

“Once again, so-called ‘conservative’ Senators are making clear they believe that the rights of American citizens can be compromised away,” Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America said in a statement. “Let me be clear, they have NO AUTHORITY to compromise with our rights, and we will not tolerate legislators who are willing to turn gun owners into second-class citizens.”

“We will oppose this gun control legislation because it falls short at every level,” read a statement from the NRA. “It does little to truly address violent crime while opening the door to unnecessary burdens on the exercise of Second Amendment freedom by law-abiding gun owners. This bill leaves too much discretion in the hands of government officials and also contains undefined and overbroad provisions – inviting interference with our constitutional freedoms.”

Stephen Gutowski reports at The Reload:

“Since the shooting, my office has received tens of thousands of calls, letters, and emails with a singular message: Do something,” Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas), a negotiator from the Republican side, said in a floor speech. “Not do nothing. But do something. I think we’ve found some areas where there is some space for compromise”

“Today, we finalized bipartisan, commonsense legislation to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country,” Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.), a key coalition member from the Democratic side, said in a statement. “Our legislation will save lives and will not infringe on any law-abiding American’s Second Amendment rights.”

Gutowski also points out that the vote to advance the bill suggests that the votes are there to pass the bill before Congress goes on its Independence Day break.

Biden Pressuring Delaware for Gun Control to Score a Political Victory



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A.-( In terms of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, Delaware has never been as bad as some of its neighbors, especially New Jersey. Delawareans can own Modern Sporting Rifles with standard-capacity magazines. They can apply for concealed-carry permits, and most are granted even though it’s a may-issue state. Delaware is small – only three counties. Were it not for its most populous and liberal city, Wilmington, Delaware would likely be a red state. Southern Delaware, which is more conservative, has always had a vibrant gun culture and is a haven for hunters, collectors, and target shooters. Unfortunately, all of this may soon change.

The Delaware General Assembly, which like the Governor’s mansion is controlled by the Democrats, is fast-tracking a trio of strict anti-gun bills the likes of which have never been seen before in The First State. The legislation has the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association – the state’s NRA affiliate – scrambling. But it is the origin of the bills and how they’ll impact gun owners in all 50 states that are causing the most concern.

The DSSA has learned of a teleconference that took place just days after the mass murder in Uvalde, Texas. On the call were the leaders of the Delaware House, and Senate as well as Gov. John Carney. “That’s where the scheme was hatched. Almost immediately, we got word that we would see the bills filed at the same time. It was intended to be done as a blitzkrieg,” said John Sigler, a former president of both the DSSA and the National Rifle Association and a current NRA board member.

The DSSA, Sigler said, received leaked copies of the bills that coincided with Biden’s post-Uvalde speeches. They have also learned that Biden will be meeting with Gov. Carney next week. “We suspect it’s for a bill signing. We suspect the whole thing is being run out of the White House to give Biden a victory when he can’t get a victory anywhere else.”

The Bills

The three bills are flying through Delaware’s General Assembly. It’s become apparent the Democrats are under tremendous pressure to get them passed. The bills will likely clear the House this week and the Senate next week. In the House, public comment was limited to one minute per person. A Republican state representative tried to argue that since the bills raise serious constitutional issues, they should be given more time. He was ignored.

HB 450 is an “assault weapon” ban.

According to the legislation: “The Delaware Lethal Firearms Safety Act of 2022 prohibits the manufacture, sale, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, receipt, possession, or transport of assault weapons in Delaware, subject to certain exceptions. One exception is that the Act does not prohibit the possession and transport of firearms that were lawfully possessed or purchased before the effective date of this Act; although for these firearms there are certain restrictions relating to their possession and transport after the effective date of this Act. There are also exceptions for law-enforcement and military personnel in the course of their official duties, and a limited exception for retired law-enforcement personnel. Finally, a person lawfully in possession of an assault weapon prior to the passage of this Act may lawfully transfer the weapon to a member of their family, through inheritance or otherwise. The Act directs the Department of Safety and Homeland Security to develop a procedure for issuance of a voluntary certificate of possession to show lawful possession of an assault weapon prior to the effective date of the Act. A gun owner is not required to apply for the certificate, but a certificate provides a conclusive means of proving lawful possession prior to the passage of this Act. The Department is not permitted to retain copies of issued certificates or identifying information of any applicant. The Act also adds a violation of this Act to the list of predicate crimes for possession of a weapon in a school zone.”

According to Sigler, the bill lists 63 separate firearms by name and includes rifles, pistols, and shotguns. It contains a “voluntary” provision, which would allow anyone who currently owns a restricted firearm to obtain a certificate from the state, which attests that the firearm was owned pre-ban.

“This shifts the burden from the state to a potential defendant to prove they owned it before the ban,” Sigler said. “This shifting of the burden is unconstitutional and flies in the face of case law.”

The bill also criminalizes the sale of restricted firearms, which essentially makes them worthless.

“Let’s assume someone has been collecting firearms and the purpose of their collection is to increase in value as part of their estate planning. If this bill is signed into law, their collection is now worth nothing. One collector who contacted us has a collection valued at $1 million. Now, it will be worthless because the bill prohibits him from selling it.”

The legislation also prohibits anyone from transporting a prohibited firearm through the state.

“There’s a Commerce Clause problem here,” Sigler said. “You can’t get to New York City from Baltimore without going through Delaware. This will impact interstate commerce. This isn’t just Delaware.”

HB 451 prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing firearms or ammunition. According to the legislation:

“This bill makes a person under the age of 21 prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm or ammunition of a firearm except under limited circumstances. Those circumstances are if the person is 18 years of age or older and an active member of the Armed Forces, a qualified law-enforcement officer, or has a license to carry a concealed deadly weapon. The Act does not apply to shotguns and shotgun ammunition, muzzle-loading rifles, and deadly weapons other than firearms, thus allowing those persons who are 18 to 21 years of age to purchase, own, control or possess such deadly weapons. Persons under the age of 21 may possess or control a firearm for the purpose of engaging in lawful hunting, instruction, sporting, or recreational activity while under the direct supervision of a person 21 year of age or older. This bill also makes changes to § 1445 of Title 11—Unlawfully dealing with a dangerous weapon to be consistent with the changes made to § 1448 of Title 11. In addition, the bill only criminalizes the control of a weapon which by compressed air or by spring discharges or projects a pellet, slug, or bullet by a person who is not a qualified law enforcement officer if such pellet, slug, or bullet is larger than .177 caliber shot.”

“More than 58,220 Americans were killed in Vietnam. Of that number, more than 61% killed were under 21 years of age,” Sigler pointed out.

SS 1 for SB 6 bans magazines capable of holding more than 17 rounds.

According to the legislation: “This Act creates the Delaware Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition Act of 2021. The Act includes clear definitions for the term “large-capacity magazine,” as an ammunition feeding device with a capacity to accept more than 17 rounds of ammunition. After enactment, possession of large-capacity magazine will be a class B misdemeanor for a first offense and a class E felony for any subsequent offense. Those who possess a prohibited large-capacity magazine when this Act takes effect must, by June 30, 2022, relinquish the large-capacity magazine to a law-enforcement agency in this State. This Act establishes a buyback program for large-capacity magazines, to be overseen by the Department of Safety and Homeland Security.”

There is no grandfather clause in this bill. Anyone who owns a magazine capable of holding more than 17 rounds must surrender it to police for a “buy back” or risk misdemeanor charges for the first offense and felony charges the second time they’re caught with a 17+ magazine.

The DSSA has learned the state will pay the owner $10 per magazine, but they have only allocated $45,000 for the “buy back,” which will only pay for 4,500 magazines.

“This would cover about a quarter of the magazines in one county, and it covers retail, wholesale and private ownership,” Sigler said. “This is an unconstitutional taking as defined by the Fifth Amendment.

National Impact

Magpul, one of the most popular manufacturers of AR-15 magazines and accessories, has a production facility in Georgetown, Delaware. It employs more than 90 workers. A Republican state senator added an amendment to the magazine ban bill that would have allowed Magpul to continue manufacturing standard-capacity magazines at their Delaware facility, even though the magazines would be prohibited in the state. The Democrats rejected the amendment. Another Senator, a Democrat, said he did not want Magpul shipping their magazines to states where people can purchase magazines that are prohibited in Delaware.

“In other words, the Democrats are telling businesses what they are allowed to produce here in Delaware,” Sigler said. “If they don’t like the product, if it doesn’t fit their political agenda, they don’t want them here.”

The DSSA has learned that Magpul will likely move its production facility if the bill is signed into law, which will reduce the number of standard-capacity magazines available nationwide and impact millions of gun owners.

Officials at Magpul did not immediately return calls or emails seeking comment for this story.

The Front Lines

In a press release, Gov. Carney promised to sign the three bills.

“We have an obligation to do everything we can to prevent tragedies like we’ve seen across the country from happening here in Delaware,” Carney said. “This is a historic, meaningful package of legislation and I look forward to seeing these bills on my desk this session.”

The legislation is strongly supported by the Delaware Coalition Against Gun Violence, an affiliate of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun groups.

“Delaware must question what kinds of deadly weapons we allow to be sold, and to whom, in our state. To that end, we applaud the General Assembly for filing both a ban on the sale of assault-style weapons and a bill raising the minimum age for purchase,” said Delaware Coalition Against Gun Violence Executive Director Traci Murphy.

For Sigler and the DSSA, the content of the bills and the speed at which they’re being fast-tracked through the General Assembly is unprecedented.

“This is the most egregious attack on the rights of law-abiding individuals I have ever seen, and I’ve been a Second Amendment Advocate most of my life,” Sigler said. “It is an organized multi-faceted, multi-front attack. It’s an attack by the Democratic party not just on the Second Amendment but on the entire Bill of Rights. This is an organized conspiracy.”

The DSSA has retained counsel, who have already started preparing lawsuits. However, it will be hard-pressed to find the financial means to pay its lawyers. The group is seeking help from all quarters. Click here for the DSSA’s donation page.

“We are going to fight this even if everyone I know has to sell their houses to pay for it,” Sigler said. “If we lose this fight, Delaware will become just another New Jersey, California or New York. In terms of our gun rights, we are not behind enemy lines, not yet, but we are definitely on the front lines.”

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.

About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

Lee Williams

“I’m Not Even Sure We Can Make It To November” Says Wayne Allyn Root

MUST SEE: National Talk Show Host Sir Wayne Allyn Root Joins Ben Armstrong in a discussion about the future of America.

GRUESOME: MSNBC says we “desperately need” to display images of dead children to promote gun control



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) The far-left media is having trouble convincing viewers that abolishing the Second Amendment is the solution to alleged school shootings. And MSNBC‘s proposed solution is to display more gruesome imagery of dead children.

John Heilemann, the substitute host of Nicole Wallace’s Deadline: White House program, argues that forcing Americans to view pictures of dead children and babies is the only way to effectively steamroll the country’s constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms.

After offering resounding approval for The Atlantic‘s proposal that public school children not be allowed to return this fall unless Congress passes more gun control laws, Heilemann offered his own “dramatic proposal” that he claims he has been hearing “a lot” lately from people he knows.

“We need the American people to see what these children’s bodies look like when they’ve been hit, when they’ve been hit by these bullets, and make them face the ugliness of it,” Heilemann said.

“It’ll be a shocking moment, but the only kind of thing that might shock the system enough to get action.”

Shock and awe, in other words, is Heilemann’s proposal for eliminating Americans’ gun rights, calling them “fresh tactics that we’re desperately in need of.”

Don’t let either side of the political aisle manipulate you with shock and awe fear tactics

Guest Dave Cullen, a gun-grab advocate, and author who also appeared on the segment offered his agreement with Heilemann’s proposal.

“I think we desperately need some new, fresh tactics and creative thinking,” Cullen said. “And, I like this!”

Everyone who appeared on the segment was in full agreement with MSNBC‘s

extreme proposal, even though doing this would violate the privacy rights of said children and their families.

Ironically enough, Heilemann and Cullen’s proposal is actually not new or fresh at all. Back in the day during the war in Iraq, Walter Cronkite made a similar proposal that images of the dead bodies of American soldiers needed to be plastered all over the television in order to turn more people against the war.

Both sides of the political aisle, it turns out, love to use gruesome imagery of death as a means to push an agenda. The right was seen doing this most recently by blaming the Uvalde mass shooting on cannabis.

The MSNBC segment pushing more dead child imagery as a means to erase the Second Amendment was sponsored in part by Amazon, Xfinity, GlaxoSmithKline, which manufactures Flonase, and Servpro.

A full transcript of what was said during the MSNBC segment is available at Newsbusters.

“Our ‘government’ kills kids,” wrote someone at Natural News about the mass deception taking place.

“This is just like how all the world’s resources were put into keeping us ‘safe’ from some bat virus from Wuhan to the point that the solution caused greater suffering than the disease,” wrote another about how gun control would do nothing to stop shootings regardless.

“I expect we will all have to forever put up with a new solution to the shootings that will make normal life impossible.”

Many others pointed out that the Second Amendment is non-negotiable, regardless of how many dead children the corrupt media decides to show during its barely watched “news” segments.

“These so-called elites think they will live forever, but I’ve got news for them: their time is coming,” wrote another about the tyrants trying to take away everyone’s guns.

“There will be a reset for certain, but not the reset these maggots want.”

More related news about the deep state’s efforts to take away Americans’ gun rights can be found at

Sources for this article include:

BIDEN’S GUN CONTROL FAKE HYSTERIA: ‘How Much More Carnage Are We Willing to Accept?’ Asks President of Party That Unleashed Crime Wave



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Two sets of statistics that Biden’s teleprompter, his party, and their media don’t want to talk about.

“In 2020, one out of every 1,000 young Black males (15–34) was shot and killed.”

Even though young black males only make up “2% of the total population”, they account for  “38% of all gun homicide fatalities” with a gun homicide rate “almost 21 times higher than white males of the same age group.”

“More than half of all black teens (15–19) who died in 2020—a staggering 52%—were killed by gun violence,” it shockingly observes.

And another set.

3,595 black people were murdered in 2019. But in 2020, 5,839 black people were murdered.

That’s an additional 2,244 black people killed.

56% of the murder victims of 2020 were black.

The Democrats, with the aid of some Republican useful idiots who signed on to “criminal justice reform,” did this. Black Lives Matter did this. The entire cultural moment did this. 

Since no Democrat will talk about that, beyond timidly critiquing “defund police” as a bad slogan, here’s some more hollow posturing about guns.

“How much more carnage are we willing to accept?” Biden asked, demanding Republicans in particular end their blockade of gun control votes.

Yes, if only government gets the power to eliminate legal guns, all the drug dealers won’t be able to get hold of them. Just like they’re not able to get hold of guns.

The good news, such as it is, is no one gives a damn. With inflation out of control, people’s savings being wiped out, and the price of basic staples moving out of reach, the old issues have little zing. If Roe v. Wade getting aborted couldn’t shake things up, another “give us your guns so we can wait around for an hour during a shoot” ain’t gonna do it. Meanwhile, the Democrat criminal justice reform crime wave is destroying cities and killing thousands.

PATRIOT NURSE: Weapons for the World, but Disarm US?

When the Biden administration takes a play out of the Communist Manifesto, we can hardly be surprised. Total disarmament of the American people has been long in the sights of the Democrat party, as well as Marxist elements internationally. While this Federal government spends our tax dollars arming Marxist terror organizations worldwide, at home this same vehicle of government is being used to threaten good people and oppress their rights.


As Biden Rails Against Second Amendment, Congress Negotiating Radical Gun-control Schemes



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

As Biden railed against self-defense rights in a Thursday speech, Democrat and Republican members of Congress are teaming up to enact new federal gun-control laws, moving our nation closer to achieving the Left’s goal of full civilian disarmament.

The tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, on May 24 has given leftists another excuse to push their predetermined goal of more gun control. Many Republican politicians are also joining their effort to incrementally make it impossible for civilians to defend themselves.

Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) asked Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) to work with Democrats on negotiating new gun-control measures. That same day, Cornyn and other Republican and Democrat senators formed a working group that is currently holding meetings.

The group’s membership includes Republican Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). Collins and Toomey previously voted in favor of legislation to impose “universal” background checks. Democrats in the working group include Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).

The Senate negotiators are considering “red flag” laws and expanded background checks, though participants have claimed the talks are focusing on mental health and school safety. On Wednesday, Senator Murphy, a vocal gun-control proponent, claimed, “There is growing momentum to get something done and we agreed on a plan to keep working.”

“Red flag” laws, which multiple Republican politicians have supported, are particularly dangerous as they allow the government to confiscate law-abiding Americans’ firearms — without due process or even an accusation of a crime — merely because they are labeled as “dangerous.” This violates both the Second and Fourth Amendments.

Meanwhile, expanded background checks will result in citizens needing the government’s permission to own or purchase a firearm — violating the Second Amendment — and it also would inevitably result in a national gun registry.

The House of Representatives is pushing its own gun-control schemes. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that next week, the chamber will vote on a major gun-control package, H.R. 7910. This bill’s provisions include expanded background checks, restrictions on how individuals can store their firearms, and a statutory ban on so-called bump stocks. Pelosi also announced the House will soon consider legislation to ban so-called assault rifles. None of these proposals would have stopped the shooting in Uvalde.

Republicans Surrender

Just in the past two weeks, many Republican politicians have caved to the Left’s gun-control demands. Multiple Republicans in the Senate, including Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), and Mitt Romney (R-Utah), expressed support for either “red flag” laws or federal background checks.

Republican congressmen Chris Jacobs of New York and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois both endorsed banning so-called assault rifles and raising the minimum age for firearm purchases to 21, joining representatives Brian Mast (R-Fla.), Mike Turner (R-Ohio), and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), previously expressed support for similar restrictions.

Separately, Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson endorsed raising the minimum age for firearm purchases to 21. Appearing on CNN to express his support for gun control, the governor claimed that there might be “bipartisan” support for such a policy. This is despite the fact that making 21 the minimum age to purchase or own a firearm would deny Second Amendment rights to millions of American adults.

Biden Rails Against Guns

Not to be outdone, Joe Biden delivered a primetime address Thursday evening in which he pushed for radical gun-control policies. Throughout his speech, he called on Congress to “do something” to address mass shootings such as in Uvalde. “Doing something,” based on the policies Biden advocated for in his speech, includes:

  • banning so-called assault rifles;
  • banning “high-capacity” magazines;
  • raising the minimum purchase age for rifles, assuming a full ban is not possible;
  • expanding federal background checks;
  • a federal “safe storage law”;
  • a federal “red flag” law; and
  • repealing liability immunity for firearm manufacturers.

During his speech, Biden illustrated his low regard for the Bill of Rights by claiming, “the Second Amendment, like all other rights, is not absolute.” He also falsely claimed that mass shootings tripled following the 2004 expiration of Congress’ assault-rifle ban.

Finally, Biden predicted that if Congress did not pass his extremist policies, Americans would “act to turn your outrage into making this issue central to your vote.”

Each gun-control policy Biden announced is unconstitutional and only amounts to advancing the Left’s civilian-disarmament agenda. For an illustration of its ultimate goal, one only needs to look at Canada, which is in the process of totally outlawing firearms. Because of the robust constitutional protections in the United States — which Canada and other countries do not have — the Left has been far less successful here. If the American electorate is educated and informed and takes concerted action against such schemes, the forces of liberty will win this battle.

To urge your U.S. representative and senators to completely oppose gun control, visit The John Birch Society’s legislative alert here.

Biden’s USDA pushes transgender agenda or no school lunches

USDA: Biden Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack

Featured Image



Forces schools to let boys use girls’ bathrooms or lose federal lunch funding


USDA leverages School Lunches

Vilsack to Deliver Address Announcing USDA Framework to Transform the Food System

USDA is announcing details of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s framework to transform the nation’s food system. The address will underscore USDA’s commitment under the Biden-Harris Administration to increase competition, bolster access to healthy, affordable food, ensure growers and workers receive a greater share of the food dollar and advance equity as well as climate resilience and mitigation.

President Joe Biden's USDA is now saying schools that receive Food and Nutrition Service funding will have to update their non-discrimination policies to include gender identity or lose funding for school lunches. One America's Stella Escobedo spoke about this issue with Deputy Director of Investigation with America First Legal, John Zadrozny.

Biden Starves Poor Kids to Push Trans Agenda



Congress Targets 2nd Amendment with Mega Gun Control Wish List

Ban Everything

Ban Everything



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -( Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel once said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” And gun-grabbing politicians have latched on to his words.

Since the senseless acts of violence in Buffalo, NY, and Uvalde, TX, Democrats have smelled fresh blood in the water and have pounced. They are exploiting the tragedies to attempt to pass a dream list of gun control packages through Congress. Moreover, some Republicans are on board with some of these proposed draconian laws.

The Democrats believe that they can get legislation passed that we as a community have successfully prevented from becoming law in the past by exploiting the actions of two madmen. This article will break down anti-gun bills that I envision coming down the pipeline. I will give some background on each proposal and discuss how likely they are to pass in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Red or Yellow (it's all the same) Flag Gun Confiscation

The most likely item to pass both chambers of Congress is a bill on red flag laws or extreme risk protection orders (ERPO). Sidney Blumenthal and Lindsey Graham have been working on a proposal in the background. The proposal ranges from so-called yellow flag laws to grants to states to enact red flag laws. They might call it a yellow flag law, but it will still be a red flag gun confiscation bill.

The threat of some kind of red flag legislation reaching the President’s desk is extremely high. These laws violate an individual’s right to due process as guaranteed under the US Constitution. The extreme risk protection order (ERPO) target doesn’t have the opportunity to defend themselves in court before their door is kicked down by the police and their property is stripped from their possession. Sell-out Republican Senator Susan Collins supports this type of bill.

21 to Buy Guns

Raising the age to buy a semi-automatic rifle to 21 is also likely to pass out of the House, although it will not be a slam dunk in the Senate. The bill has some support from weak-kneed RINO Republicans in Congress. Overcoming the filibuster will be hard, although Democrats might be willing to drop other legislation as a “compromise” to get this bill passed.

Unenforceable Safe Storage Laws

Safe storage laws are another measure that has some out-of-touch Republicans' support. I wouldn’t call it a sure thing for a bill to be passed, but I see some type of safe storage law making it out of the House only to be blocked in the Senate. But there will be immense pressure put on Republicans by Democrats in the Senate and special interest groups to back this bill.

Bump Stock Ban Redo

A bump stock ban is also in the works. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has already banned the controversial item by changing the definition of a machine gun, but that is on shaky ground legally. If the Supreme Court takes up the case brought by Gun Owners of America (GOA) out of the Sixth Circuit of Appeals, that ban could be knocked down.

Rob Olson, Chief Legal Counsel for GOA, claims that the ATF abused Chevron deference when changing the definition of a machine gun. Some Justices on the high court have shown skepticism that Chevron can apply to a criminal statute. Many gun rights activists believe GOA will get a victory if it is taken up by SCOTUS, and apparently, so do the anti-gunners in Congress. Any proposed law like this will fight a tough uphill battle because the language will likely include expanding the ban past just bump stocks to other types of trigger devices such as binary triggers. Are belt loops next!?

Serialize Everything

Another proposal on the table would require serializing all unfinished firearm frames and 3D printed guns. These are known colloquially as 80% frame and receivers. A bill will probably pass the House in some form, but I believe this will be stopped in the Senate. Once again, there will be a lot of pressure to pass something. Even if a bill does pass, it will be unenforceable.

Now let’s get to the proposal that Democrats will almost assuredly introduce, but I believe it does not have a great chance of passing out of Congress. Although you never know since most Republicans in Congress seem not to have a backbone.

Standard Magazine Ban

A magazine ban has been batted around that would ban magazines holding more than ten rounds. I don’t believe that a proposal like this can make it through the Senate and might be a sacrificial lamb to pass other less extreme bills. Republicans tend to play defense and are happy just not to give up everything. Democrats, ask for the world, then settle for half.

Assault Weapons Ban… the Sequel

The second sacrificial lamb proposal is a 1994-style “assault weapons ban.” The original ban did not affect the crime rate. This piece of legislation has been a wet dream of Democrats for years. Dianne Feinstein has introduced this bill multiple times, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has also thrown weight behind a ban. Biden wants this legislation on his desk, but I don’t see Republicans letting a bill pass in the Senate. I see this as a negotiation piece of legislation. But you never know if the anti-gun politicians will be able to dig up the votes to pass a bill.

Everything Gets a Background Check

The final piece of legislation I can see being introduced is universal background checks. This proposed law has been a goal of Democrats for a very long time. The anti-gun side will be sure to bring this proposed law up, but the chances of it passing in the Senate is slim, although it could pass the House.

We need to pressure our legislators not to bend a knee to the anti-freedom coalition. Here are a few names we need to put extra pressure on to keep the line on gun rights. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, and Senator Susan Collins of Maine are the weakest links on the Republican’s side. We need to let ALL members of Congress know where we stand.

I sign off all my YouTube videos by saying, “Stay ever vigilant; stay ever free.” What I mean by that is that freedom requires constant vigilance. If you are vigilant, you can take action to prevent our freedoms from being stripped. Our political apathy has led to many of our rights being stripped away. It is time that all gun owners wake up and get at least as politically involved as the anti-gun side.

All gun owners should voice their concerns about overall gun control measures to their Senators. Senator’s offices can be reached through the Senate switchboard at 202-224-3121 or online here.

Here are links to some of the worst of these anti-freedom bills:

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at

John Crump


Uvalde, TEXAS Police chief Arredondo gave money to campaign of anti-gun Robert ‘Beto’ O’Rourke who now promises to confiscate AR-15s

Uvalde Police Department refusing to cooperate with the investigation

Uvalde PD refusing to cooperate with the investigation is a knife in the back to the loved ones of the 21 killed. The police should not get special treatment. There were colossal failures that must be investigated thoroughly to ensure accountability & save lives in the future

Image: Uvalde Police chief Arredondo gave money to campaign of anti-gun Robert ‘Beto’ O’Rourke who now promises to confiscate AR-15s

Mayor delays swearing in of Uvalde School District Police Chief to City ...



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) The outrages following the mass murders of 19 school children and two adults in Uvalde, Texas last week continue to emerge as we learn more about the tragedy, including a little detail about the city’s police chief.

Uvalde Schools Police Chief Peter Arredondo donated a total of $17 to Act Blue and $5 of it was “earmarked for Beto.” The $10 donation was earmarked, “Need to Impeach.” And while the amount donated was not much, it certainly shows his political affiliation and ideology: That citizens should not be able to own the most popular self-defense rifle in the country.

You may recall that year Robert “Beto” O’Rourke, formerly a Democratic member of Congress, was running for governor against current GOP Gov. Greg Abbott. After he lost that race, he decided to run for president and entered the Democratic primary sweepstakes. During a debate, he famously said, “Hell yes, we’re coming after your AR-15s.” Indeed, that ‘pledge’ inspired now-Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who owns a restaurant in Rifle, Colo., where wait staff are required to wear a sidearm, to run for Congress.

“The police chief of the Uvalde CISD Police donated money to ActBlue in December of 2017 that was earmarked for… Beto O’Rourke. Can’t make it up,” noted political commentator Pete D’Abrosca.

He then reminded his followers that Arrendondo was the one who stopped responding police officers from entering the Robb Elementary School as the shooter was inside killing people.

“To be clear: this is the same guy who stopped 19 LEOs from entering the school while 21 people were being murdered,” he wrote.

“A first responder unwilling to place the lives of the innocent above their own safety should consider another career field.”


— Mike Baker (@ByMikeBaker) May 28, 2022

Why the Democrats’ Latest Gun Grab Effort Will FAIL!!!

DR. STEVE TURLEY: Why the Democrats’ latest gun grab effort will fail! We’ll be looking at the latest in the political class’s attempt at blaming you, the law-abiding citizen, for the latest mass shooting, we’re going to see the REAL cause of violent crime, and make sure to stick with me to the very end of this video when I’ll reveal precisely why all of this is nothing more than sound and fury ultimately signifying nothing; you are NOT going to want to miss this!

Canada: Trudeau bans handgun sales in sweeping firearms control legislation



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

“The federal government is moving to freeze the sale of handguns in Canada as part of its latest effort to reform the country’s gun laws.” The reform plan is moving fast and could be implemented as soon as this fall.

The Trudeau government now has the advantage to ram through bills, given the anti-democratic Liberal-NDP pact that was signed to prop up Trudeau until 2025.

Trudeau brands his gun ban move as a safety issue: “Keeping Canadians safe is the Government of Canada’s top priority.”

That’s if you think he’s believable. His list of infractions includes ethics violations. Trudeau threw out a welcome mat for Islamic State jihadists and continues a lax immigration policy that provides a perfect opportunity for jihadists and the worst criminals to enter Canada while screaming “racism” (along with his useful idiots) at anyone who asks questions. Yet he touts his commitment to keeping Canadians “safe.”

Trudeau habitually works the emotions of the Canadian population. Many are not even aware of the extent of illegal guns in the country. If someone plans to carry out a mass murder, which many mass murderers discuss before it actually happens, if they didn’t have access to a legal firearm, they will likely turn to the illegal market.

According to the President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Adam Palmer:

“People can’t be naive to the realities of how it works with organized crime and smuggling….There will always be an influx of guns from the United States into Canada… Heroin is illegal in Canada, too, but we have heroin in Canada. 

Looking South of Canada, Washington, D.C. still has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet it is one of the most dangerous places in the country to live. People fire guns. Guns don’t fire themselves. Take, for example, knife crime. It hit a scary record high as a knife offense was “reported every 11 minutes.”

With regard to handguns, the new measures include a complete freeze on buying, selling, and transferring handguns within the country and preventing anyone from bringing newly acquired handguns into Canada. Anyone involved in acts of domestic violence or criminal harassment, such as stalking, will have their handguns taken away.

For a full report on what Trudeau is up to with handguns and a range of other firearms, see his government site HERE.

“Ottawa moves to ban handgun sales with sweeping new firearms control bill,” by Stephanie Levitz, Toronto Star, May 30, 2022:

OTTAWA—The federal government is moving to freeze the sale of handguns in Canada as part of its latest effort to reform the country’s gun laws.

The freeze could be implemented as early as this fall, and would prevent the purchase, sale, transfer or importation of handguns, though individuals who already legally own handguns could still use them.

“In other words, we’re capping the market for handguns,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Monday while announcing the new measures.

The freeze is part of Bill C-21, broad legislation tabled Monday that also revives elements of the government’s most recent legislative effort — also known as C-21 — to update gun laws.

That bill failed to pass before the 2021 election.

Provisions it included which were brought back in the new bill are red and yellow flags, which restrict access to firearms to those deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

Individuals subject to a protection order or involved in an act of domestic violence or stalking could also face having their licences revoked.

The bill will also formalize a mandatory buyback program for anyone owning any of the 1,500 “assault-style” weapons rendered illegal by the Liberals back in 2020.

Previously, the buyback program was to be voluntary. It has yet to be put in place.

But the end of the sale of handguns to almost all Canadians is a marked departure from the last bill.

The Liberals had previously said the government would work with the provinces and municipalities to allow them to enact bylaws to ban handguns in specific locations.

But gun control advocates had urged the government to implement a national prohibition, rather than allowing for a patchwork of rules that would depend on the willingness of individual jurisdictions to act. Meanwhile, some provinces and cities pushed back against the idea.

That approach simply wasn’t the right “fit,” Trudeau said Monday, so the freeze is the chosen approach.

“This is a concrete and real national measure that will go a long way toward keeping Canadians safe,” he said.

While the freeze is part of the bill, the government tabled regulations Monday that could see it implemented before the law itself receives royal assent.

Government officials said the regulations are to ensure the freeze can be implemented swiftly to curb any possible run on the market while the bill itself is wending its way through Parliament.

The number of registered handguns in Canada increased by 71 per cent between 2010 and 2020, reaching approximately 1.1 million, according to federal statistics.

The text of the regulations was not public by the time of Monday’s briefing with officials.

In the information accompanying the release of the bill, the government said the freeze could be implemented by fall 2022.

Handguns are currently restricted firearms in Canada, meaning to own or use one legally, a licence is required, and getting one of those normally requires background checks and a safety training course.

Those opposed to further restrictions to gun ownership in Canada in turn point out that as a result of Canada’s highly regulated firearms system, the vast majority of guns are acquired and used in accordance with the law.

Any new measures criminalize people who are actually following the law as opposed to those using guns illegally to commit crimes, they argue, and don’t curb violence…….


A Tale of 2 Tyrants: Biden & Trudeau Go After Guns

HOW TO Trigger Gun Haters In Canada! FLASHBACK-Canadians LOVE Their Enslavement! WE GRILL THEM

BREAKING: HUGE Gun Control Package Moves Forward

Ban On Parts Submitted!

Here Comes The Assault Weapons Ban!!


1 2 3 6