By Peter B. Elias and Theresa Inacker
The Supreme Court of the United States recently released some landmark rulings in its just-concluded session. For those of us who live in states that systematically violate the Second Amendment, the SCOTUS ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen, handed down on June 23, 2022, (henceforth a national holiday for the Second Amendment) has been life-altering.
For those of you who live in the 43 states that allow concealed carry, this ruling will further solidify your rights. But for the states that persist in living in a petulant “blue hive” petulant anti-gun rights mentality, Bruen is a huge blow to them and a historic win for civil rights.
That said, neither classification of state should rest on any laurels. As politicians’ statements and actions have made perfectly clear, the fight will continue. To that end, we must use the Bruen ruling as a “hammer” to build, restore, and maintain our Second Amendment freedoms.
The Bruen “hammer” will be needed to pound out wins in areas such as . . .
- Magazine limits and bans
- Red flag laws
- “Assault weapons” bans
- Accessory bans
- Concealed carry “sensitive area” prohibitions
- 80%/home built firearm bans
- .50 caliber rifle bans
Questions abound from people in states like New Jersey, New York, Hawaii–people who are now exercising this fundamental freedom for the first time in their lives. This is a new and an exciting time. But like a scoundrel in a novel, blue state anti-gunners are already playing the part of the villain.
New Jersey, Governor Phil Murphy and his acting Attorney General Matt Platkin have made it clear that they want to thwart the Bruen decision, and make lawful carry as difficult as possible. Like New York, Murphy proposes making all businesses excluded zones from concealed carry unless businesses “opt in” to allow it.
Murphy also wants to exclude anywhere police might be, such as stadiums or other events. These types of restrictions violate the spirit of the Bruen holding, and will likely be the basis for court challenges.
As Murphy and his implementing administrative entities craft their legislative response to Bruen, they leave us wondering about the following in their permitting scheme . . .
- Qualifying and Training requirements
- Ammo types? (Please call it “defensive ammo” and not the much demonized “hollow point”.)
- Frequency of required training
- Locations for training and qualification
- When, where, how to apply
In the end, we know that we now have the Bruen “hammer” that’s been given to us, and the fight will have to continue.
In New Jersey, local range owner/operators, instructors, and prominent names in the 2A fight have been getting a massive number of calls and emails with questions from the public since the Supreme Court ruled. Some inquiries come from frequent contacts and others from the “never heard of them” or “haven’t heard from them in years” types.
Industry folks may be getting frustrated and overwhelmed. We need to remember that the ruling has sparked interest here in New Jersey and in other “blue hive” states, and so a flurry of activity is likely. That’s a good thing.
This is an awesome time, especially for people in the formerly may-issue states. Don’t let your impatience or frustrations get in the way. There’s still a long way to go and a lot of battles to fight, but we will partner with Second Amendment advocacy organizations and unify as we navigate these uncharted waters together.
Peter B. Elias, a lifelong firearms enthusiast and career Firefighter/EMT, has been involved in Second Amendment advocacy in New Jersey for decades.
Theresa Inacker is an attorney and Second Amendment advocate, a member of the US Supreme Court bar, the New Jersey delegate to The DC Project, and serves as the Communications Director for the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners.
Hang in there slave states! It got a whole lot better in ILL annoy which still sux but is leagues better than it was.
Following Bruen, CA just introduced AB918, which will literally (no exaggeration) make nearly every public place “sensitive” and therefore GFZs. The only places you’ll be able to CC is your vehicle. Seriously.
As far as the author’s congratulatory shout to “former may issue states”, CA is not yet formally shall issue. Our Penal Code needs to be updated, and Sheriffs across all 58 Counties need to comply, but that isn’t happening.
Alameda County (super anti-gun) has just canceled all pending applications, with the statement that they are waiting for updated instructions from CADOJ. That could easily take a year…just to start over again.
Here in L.A. County, we haven’t received any word whatsoever from our Sheriff. Same as it ever was.
Alameda already got updated instructions from the DOG. Drop “good cause” and hammer applicants on “good moral character.” They are probably just waiting for the new laws that are pending in the Legislature to be passed a month from now that will entirely change the landscape. To cancel pending applications was punitive and unnecessary.
With the proposal to ban all carry outside your car or walking down the street, I don’t see any point in renewing until that law gets struck down. Which it should be and eventually will be, but this being the Ninth Circuit, it will be years before that happens and maybe a trip to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, I am happy I live in a safe town, and if everything goes to Hell, I will just carry knowing that no one will care.
Mark, it seems to me what we will see is a landscape similar as when desegregation was announced in the 1954 ‘Brown v. Board of Education’ ruling.
The ignorant states fought and fought and fought, then grudging accepted it.
We need to call out their blatant racism in their resistance to accepting of the civil right that the 2A actually is…
New York has done the same thing as California. Instead of easing up on the requirements to obtain a carry license, they have made it even harder than before. And if you do manage to jump through all the hoops and get issued a license, there is no placed left for you to carry.
It’s looking grim in behind the blue curtain in a lot of places, but I think many of these states are badly overplaying their hand. In the short term (defined in months or a couple of years), things in those states for gun owners are going to be bad – really bad. I lived in NY most of my life, and I’m thanking God I moved away last year for this reason. BUT: the vast majority of these new and obviously unconstitutional restrictions are, I think, going to get stayed and then slapped down.
The parallel to Brown v. Board of Education is apt, but I’m not sure even far left states like NY and CA want to play that game. After all, despite the squealing, they ARE all removing “proper cause” requirements from their permitting regimes as SCOTUS instructed. If these states were less cowardly and (even) more openly defiant, they would just tell SCOTUS to shove it and refuse to obey the decision. This would create a constitutional crisis, which they seem not to want to do. I anticipate these states losing in court and grudgingly complying, more out of cowardice than acceptance.
OR, I suppose, we could shift to an “eastern-western empire” model for the US, a la Rome in its decline. This would effectively split us into two countries, one governed by the constitution as written, the other by a warped “living” document that grants total power to the state, steals citizen rights, encourages the murder of children, and turns free individuals into tax slaves for eternity.
Most Americans, especially those living behind the blue curtain, wouldn’t accept this option, and leftist states know it.
Gary, that is a hell of a lot of assumptions a week after a SCOTUS ruling! Are you out of high school? Changes take years, not hours. TX finally passed “shall issue” around 1994 after dethroning a Dem governor to do it, and finally got to Constitutional Carry just a year ago.
“New Jersey … made it clear that they want to thwart the Bruen decision, and make lawful carry as difficult as possible.”
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we must insist that we be able to exercise our inalienable rights without government-mandated lists of things that we must do and satisfy before we can “legally” exercise our inalienable rights.
Anything less empowers nefarious government actors to punish us for exercising our rights.
The Won’t-Issue states WILL over-reach. And their rhetoric will betray their motivations. And, these two factors will work in our favor.
Look at the Jim Crow era. Politicians worked hard to word their discriminatory laws that appeared – facially – race-neutral. Nevertheless, the rhetoric and circumstances left it clear that their intent was to racially discriminate. The courts tolerated such legal tactics for decades; but, since the Civil Rights movements, the tactic is disparaged.
It will be hard – I think – for the courts to be convinced that a law requiring a business to post a “guns welcome” sign is “neutral”.
The legislature might have been neutral by adopting no law one way or the other. Or, by requiring a business to post a GFZ sign in order that it retains the privilege of asserting a violation to the government. By requiring the “guns welcome” sign the impression is not one of a facially neutral law. It smells to high heaven that they are trying to discourage the exercise of a Constitutional right.
Imagine if a legislature passed a law allowing women or 18-year-olds to vote in a polling place only if the judges of the election posted a sign: “Women and 18 year olds welcome”. Arguably, the Constitution gives state legislatures wide discretion as to how to conduct elections.
What is “special” about the right to bear arms that is distinct from any other right? Yes, arms shoot bullets while women voters (usually) don’t. But there is nothing in Constitutional rights laws that makes any such distinction. Even if we agree that gun-carrying, 18-year-old-males and women are relatively more/less dangerous in that order, there is nothing in Constitutional rights law that allows more stringent regulation of 18-year-old-male voting vs less stringent for women voting. And likewise, no reason to recognize a substantive distinction for considering carrying a gun to be more stringently regulated than the regulation applying to 18-year-old-males.
The court cases will arise long after the states have sealed their fates with their own rhetoric. The motivations behind newly crafted (post-Bruen) laws will be clear. The laws will be crafted “too clever by far” toward the ends of the authors: to discriminate against the exercise of an enumerated right.
We shall see.
On a totally unrelated note, we just came back from brief vacation in rural north-cental Pennsylvania where we saw some sights and indulged in day-hikes. That is beautiful country.
Oh, and on our way back, we paid our respects at the Flight 93 National Memorial.
MarkPA, I agree completely. I think they have already over-reached and will probably regret passing these bad laws. They are inviting a raft of solid 2A rulings that cement Bruen with precedent. They are handing us new wins that they didn’t have to.
Women and 18 year old voters do not shoot bullets in the process of voting, but a vote can do far more damage than a gun, since ultimately it elects politicians who are then in charge of a multitude of people who carry guns for a living. Hopefully, thanks to some wording in Bruen and the 2 step becoming a one step, judges should short-circuit these attempts to circumvent the SCOTUS decision.
Do keep in mind also that many “Jim Crow” laws designed to discourage blacks from voting or holding public office also applied to ‘po (poor) whites. The post-Reconstruction South was still, in many ways, as much of an aristocracy, with the “landed gentry”, even though they’d suffered huge losses in wake of the War of Confederate Independence (what you Yankees mistakenly term the “Civil” War), still effectively in control of state and local politics. Only those that had means really wielded any political power; the rest, were excluded as much on economic grounds, although one can well argue that even relatively wealthy blacks were likewise excluded…and in their case, they had every incentive to not “rock the boat”, less they lose what they had.
It took a combination of things, including the participation of blacks in the Armed Forces in huge numbers in WWII, as well as the advent of movies, radio, and TV, along with greater movement, especially as the Interstate highways began to be built, that got the South up with the times with the rest of the country, insofar as race relations were concerned. Things didn’t always go smoothly, of course, but the South of 2000 was drastically changed from that of 1950, for certain, more so that the one of 1950 differed from 1900.
Any court ruling that ends in ” under certain circumstances ” will encourage and enable our communists in charge to put up roadblocks against the Bill of Rights. The ruling should have said “no exceptions”.
I would recommend civil disobedience and simply ignore those rules that are unconstitutional.
The Bruen decision was pretty clear and everyone should support local and national gun organizations so they can sue any state or local government not complying with the law. If they don’t need to obey the Supreme Court we don’t need to obey them. Also vote them out of office and lets get elected representatives who have some respect for the law and don’t make up their own set of rules.
I agree with the spirit of the Civil Rights Movement’s commitment to non-violent civil disobedience.
What will count here is how each GFZ law crafts its penalty provision. The possibilities range across:
0 – No penalty, it’s merely GFS-if-you-please
1 – nominal penalty, small fine
2 – significant penalty, but short of 1-year misdemeanor
3 – felony or otherwise disqualifying (for 2A, work, etc)
4 – outrageous (long mandatory prison term)
If a law adopts 0 – 2 then civil disobedience will be an open door. If a law adopts 4 then we would best go to court.
If the law adopts 3 then civil disobedience will be hard to fight. We will need to find a tactic.
How about this: LEOSA makes (qualified) cops IMMUNE from state laws. As that stands, cops will walk-right-by state laws that constrain citizens from which they are immunized.
Suppose (this will take some imagination) that Congress amended LEOSA to provide immunity only to the extent that they would not otherwise be covered by a state’s permitted carriers.
So, then, if the state allows permitted gun carriers to carry in a restaurant then LEOSA cops are immune from laws forbidding carry in a restaurant notwithstanding that the cop doesn’t have a permit in that state. Fair; right? Puts LEOSA cops on the same level playing field as permitted citizens. LEOSA cops don’t NEED to carry in restaurants. Only active-duty cops NEED to carry everywhere they have cop authority.
Congress is not likely to act as I’ve suggested any time soon. Nevertheless, such a law is a possibility. Moreover, nothing stops us from lobbying in state legislatures to word GFZ legislation in such a way that it applies to LEOSA cops, active-duty cops, armored-car drivers, and bodyguards.
Look at the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act. We could tell vested-interest groups (e.g., LEOSA cops, active-duty cops, armored-car companies, bodyguard agencies) that the new GFZ laws jeopardize their ability to carry where they need to be. (Men of means need to eat in restaurants; and, they need to bring their bodyguards with them – armed.)
Would these vested interests like to deal with negotiating with each state legislature individually? (Eight major states to begin with, others to follow). Or, would they like to negotiate lots of new laws like the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act? And, how will these laws look to the public?
“If you are a hired bodyguard you are exempt/immune from GFZ laws in some cases – but not others.”
“A bank is a GFZ to permitted citizens but armored-car drivers can carry in a bank.” The armored-car driver may carry in a bank only when on-duty, NOT while OFF-duty.
These vested interests are apt to do us more good than any other influence in tying state legislatures’ hands in drafting ostensibly neutral GFZ laws that strive to constrain citizens while not impacting vested interests.
E.g., these interests might push for just a small fine which they would regard as a cost of doing business. Cops and prosecutors would usually look the other way. When we PotG complain about armored car drivers in banks we will be ignored. And soon the ostensible GFZ laws will be seen to be un-enforced or enforced only on ordinary citizens and not on vested interests.
Mark – you have a very incorrect idea of what LEOSA does. Under LEOSA I can legally carry a firearm in all 50 states and the US Territories, however I am still required to follow the laws of that state with regards to concealed carry. That includes magazine size limits and restrictions on where I can carry. It is not a free pass. Think of it as having reciprocity everywhere, but you still have to follow the rules of the state you’re in.
Also, Maybe it is illegal to carry in a bank in your state, but any legal concealed permit holder can carry a concealed weapon in a bank in Oregon.
I’m actually not certain whether CC in a bank in TX is illegal or not, haven’t ever cared enough to ask. I have carried in my bank every time I’ve been in it since before the new building was constructed around 25 years ago. Just don’t ask! OTOH, I seriously doubt it’s illegal, remember that visitors to the state Capitol building can skip the security line if they have a carry license and just carry their guns right on in.
For the best example of this just look at what NYS did on Friday. The onerous restrictions include a final face to face meeting with an official who will determine if you deserve the permit. Guess what? It’s the Sullivan act re-written.
Nothing new in NYC. Meeting the police is often exactly where the subject offers NYPD the bribe required to be granted the permit.
So, basically CA’s longstanding policy. Interview and subjective final decision by some person behind the curtain.
Which is precisely the reason this element violates Bruen: it hands back o the issuing agency the discretion that Bruen said it was taking away.
When I got my NY permit, I had an interview with local PD, but not the issuing authority (in NY, a judge). The new law seems to change that, making it more of a violation, not less – why an interview with a judge if the judge isn’t supposed to be evaluating “proper cause?” What is the judge evaluating? How does this evaluation possibly pass constitutional muster?
Other issues: evaluating social media posts, which has clear 1A implications and also appears to be a “secret” proper cause requirement. The business signage is also likely to be a violation of the 1A among other things. Not to mention that all of these new restrictions plus many old ones fall afoul of Bruen’s clearly stated history and tradition test, and so are unconstitutional on their face.
Just ask to whom at Tammany Hall do you need to write the bribe cheque to.
Anyone and I mean Anyone who has a problem with an armed citizenry is without doubt a closet pervert. A closet pervert wanting to be in total control, it is “guns” that stand in their way.
Frankly when it comes to control there is no difference between murderers, rapists, kidnappers, child molesters, tyrants and the aforementioned Gun Control perverts.
“(Please call it “defensive ammo” and not the much demonized “hollow point”.)”
Minor point, yet still worth making. I do think we should watch our language and see to it that we are pushing the war over terminology-implying-semantic effectively.
A good illustration is firearm silencers/mufflers. The NFA`34 called them silencers or mufflers because the inventor first used and preferred “silencer” (probably to market his product. His company – still in business – is called https://maximsilencers.com/. Muffler was a synonym which stuck for auto internal combustion engine quieting.
We (the PotG) should have adopted “muffler” (not “suppressor”) because that would associate the product with a familiar and useful product. We made a mistake in choosing “suppressor” which brought with it no positive quality; it might even suggest some negative quality.
“Hollow point” is descriptive and not intrinsically negative. By now, the term has acquired a negative connotation. And as a purely descriptive term it doesn’t have much opportunity to acquire a positive spin. So, I agree that this is a bad choice.
“Defensive ammo” provides a positive spin. But, it’s superficial. Easily defeated. Criminals use “Defensive ammo” to defend themselves against the noble cops that try to arrest them. Gangs use “Defensive ammo” to shoot each other.
I dare to suggest: “Urban safe ammo”. It is to be distinguished from solid bullets which are only safe in environments where we don’t have to worry about over-penetration or fragmenting. In a debate, we can defend the choice of this term as properly conveying the purpose and usefulness of the artifact’s design.
I don’t think HP is really an important issue. What I think is important here is to be strategic in our efforts to utilize language. It is NOT strategic to use a term like “suppressor”. It’s merely habitual and stubbornness; a desire to control the language (i.e., to get everyone to use our term rather than the opponent’s term) without adding anything to the listener’s/reader’s understanding of the issue debated.
I meant to say ricocheting above, not “fragmenting”.
Just this morning, a family relative gave me the classic “nobody needs an assault weapon” line. This person has owned a personal handgun for 20+ years but has gone to range perhaps only five times ever in his entire life. He also exclaimed he can’t imagine why anyone needs a semi-auto rifle.
Mrs Haz patiently awaited my response, and knew what it would be.
I disassembled the term “assault weapon” and explained the proper meaning and usage of several terms, then segued into the USC, BOR, 2A, NFA, GCA, etc. I was very specific to use the proper terms, avoiding soft alternates such as “modern sporting rifle” some recommend to placate angry Leftists. In the end, my FUDD relative had a better understanding, and actually agreed with much of my argument.
I use “hollow point”. On more than one ocassion, it has served to open the door to a full explanation of exactly what it is and why it’s preferable over FMJ for a DGU. We should be aware of our audience, but also not afraid to speak truth.
The left likes changing the meaning of words (man and woman, for example, but also lots and lots of gun terms). I don’t think we should give up perfectly good names for things just because the left has waged a semi-successful PR campaign against them. Rather, we should push back and explain the real meaning, not the manufactured one. “Hollow point” is a good, descriptive name for a specific kind of ammunition. “Defensive ammunition” could mean a lot of things which could change based on context. It is less precise and less clear.
We will forever end up in a race with antigun advocates who control the media to come up with terms that seem positive rather than negative, while they will immediately work on countering that. What is needed is a culture change, not a new vocabulary. The question is really how to do that while we have none of the cultural institutions on our side.
“The question is really how to do that while we have none of the cultural institutions on our side.”
“…have been gotten a massive number of calls and emails …”
Its …have been getting a massive number of calls and emails … ” – or – “have gotten a massive number of calls and emails … ”
Not “… been gotten …”
And it’s is the proper contraction of it is. 🙂
Not if you have big fingers and type it on a phone keyboard with crazy correction with a mind of its own and not able to edit when you realize some was wrong.
Imo the Best thing we can do is promote as much concealed carry and sport shooting and overall gun culture stuff as possible. These lower courts are going to slow walk every challenge and probably defy your he supreme court just like they did with Heller. Use this victory to bring more people into the gun culture. Hopefully the Supreme Court will settle the question of “assault weapons” and magazines if the lower courts defy them. It was 14 years between Heller and Bruen…
Stateisevil, will you finally admit that Trump vastly expanded gun rights with the 3 Supreme Court justices he managed to seat that got us that ruling?
And, if memory serves, you also whined incessantly the the SCotUS would never grant cert. to a 2A case…
“Like New York, Murphy proposes making all businesses excluded zones from concealed carry unless businesses “opt in” to allow it.”
If it were my business, I would put a big sign up in the window with big white letters saying ‘Anti-Gun’ in a red circle with a line across it (like the ‘gun prohibition’ signs). There ya go ‘opted in’.
More people into the gun culture?? You sure? The only reason to suggest that is to validate youselves. Whether you like it or not the undoubted fact is that the MORE guns in circulation, legal or otherwise the MORE gun crime and resulting death and injury there will be.
No matter what the more legally held firearms there are in circulation the more that will find their way into illegal hands. That is a fact so bloody on bvious I do not know why it even needs stating.
You doubt me?? So take a look where gun ownership is minimal as in Europe. Canada, Australia or indeed most of the civilised worled and then considder the 20,000 and counting death by gun crime in the USA year-on-year and the problem is getting worse.
THere may well be a case for gun ownership as regards self defence in the minds of some people. However the satistics tell us that bthe POSSESSION of a handgun if faced with a self defence situation is as much as TEN TIMES as likely to end up in the death of the person supposedly ‘defending themselves’ that it is to save their lives.
Nobody actually NEEDS as opposed to merely wanting, anything other than a SINGLE half decent 9mm or .38 calbre handgun for any DEFENSIVE purpose.
Then there are SEMI-AUTOMATIC HIGH CAPACITY RIFLES. These rifles have only ONE purpose TO KILL PEOPLE and not only to KILL PEOPLE but to kill those people before they can KILL you- in other words for Military Type ASSAULT purpose !! [ fully automatic fire is NOT a military requirement for 99% of military action – indeed probably THE BEST trained Infantry in the world the BRITISH ROYAL MARINES do NOT use fully automatic fire] Nobody actually needs anything other than a Five Shot BOLT ACTION RIFLE of a suitable calibre for any legitimate purpose and certainly nobody with any pretense at being an even reasonabbly COMPENTENT HUNTER of any sort. And though I might make an exception of .22Long Rimfire nobody actually need more than ONE of each at any one time
“..Canada, Australia or indeed most of the civilised worled..”
There’s your mistake. None of those countries, especially the UK, are civilized.
And as PM Trudeau recently affirmed while pushing his proposed handgun ban, in Canada you do not have a right to use a firearm in self defense. There is o right to keep and bear arms, there is a right to self defense, but the amount of force used cannot exceed the amount of force being used against you.
“…the undoubted fact…”
I doubt it.
“You doubt me??”
“These rifles have only ONE purpose TO KILL PEOPLE and not only to KILL PEOPLE but to kill those people before they can KILL you- in other words for Military Type ASSAULT purpose !!”
So the only type of people trying to kill innocent people are militaries? Sounds like a pretty good reason to arm the populace. Would you also disarm those in countries “uncivilized”? Like Afghanistan? Surely the Taliban will treat the innocents fairly? Why would they ever need to fight back? Lets also disarm the innocents in South America while we are at it. Also, why is it that every “statistic” showing site using “gun deaths” (beit including suicide, homicide, crime etc etc or individually) are NEVER the same? Per year? None of them are anywhere close to the same.
Albert the P***y Subject,
Already busted your chops about this twice, you wanking poofter. Semi-automatic rifles are, in many areas, the “go to” weapon for dealing with predators and varmints. Being a scrote-less Subject, lining on your tiny island of misfit toys, you would be unaware of this, but (i) coyotes hunt in packs. Coyotes can, and often do, take down pets, dogs (occasionally, large dogs), and smaller livestock. Coyotes are found in suburbs of MAJOR cities (my daughters lost pet dogs and cats to coyotes in a suburb a mere five miles from one of LAs busiest beaches), (ii) any IDIOT that hunts wild or feral hogs (common in MANY parts of the US, including Hawaii) with a single shot or bolt-action rifle will deserve the death or severe goring the idiot is likely to receive, ((iv) EFFECTIVE hunting of ground squirrels or prairie dogs that have become pests REQUIRES fast follow-up shots. The AR-15 is, in fact, IDEAL for all of these uses (and I, personally, have used that platform for all three).
So, ONCE AGAIN, Albert the Scrote-less Subject, you literally don’t know f***-all about what you’re talking about. You are too stupid, ignorant, indocrinated, and subjugated to be entitled to an opinion (and since y’all don’t have a First Amendment, I guess you’re just shit outta luck).
Go f*** yourself, Albert the Ignorant Subject, you are simply too stupid to insult.
“..on your tiny island of misfit toys..”
I also enjoyed that one
Lamp, watch your feral hog references, a relative took on a 350-lb one and his AR jammed, and he’d left his 1911 at home. As the wounded hog attacked him, his brother stopped it with a bolt action -’06. Action ain’t everything.
Oh, trust me, I’ve shot lotsa hogs with a bolt action – but I also saw guys who couldn’t get that follow up shot off fast enough with their bolt action, too. Now, even with the AR platform, I prefer a slightly more “robust” caliber than the 5.56 poodleshooter for hogs, but . . . 30 in the mag is usually enough. My .300Blackout works just fine.
And, while rare, bolt-actions can misfire/jam/misfeed/fail to eject, too. Between the two, for hunting hogs? I’ll take the semi-auto. Again, preferably in something a little more authoritative than 5.56.
Collectively, over 62% of Americans either legally personally own a firearm, legally borrow a firearm, or live in a home where there is a legal firearm, for home or self defense. A little over 48% of them have had to use the firearm for home or self defense or defense of family/others (DGU) at least once in the past two years, 2% were not successful in the defensive use and were killed or seriouly injured by the bad guy.
Yeah… more gun owners needed so more law abiding live.
I love the thought, but I doubt your numbers, looks like you’re asserting that 30% of the country have had a DGU within the past 2 years, which leaves me no real chance of carrying continuously for the past 25 years without one. But I have.
I have read–on this site in fact–that Australia has more guns in circulation now than it did before the big “gun buy back” of years past.There are lots of dangerous critters in Australia, some of them on four legs, some on their bellies, and some on two legs, and some with no legs at all.
“Whether you like it or not the undoubted fact is that the MORE guns in circulation, legal or otherwise the MORE gun crime and resulting death and injury there will be.”
Explain why in the US ‘gun violence’ is roughly one-half today than it was about 25 years ago?
Even more damming is the fact that back then there were nearly 100 million fewer guns than there is today?
You cant, because you have been so totally brainwashed by the actual fascists that lead the ‘Progressive’ political parties.
Shocking, isn’t it, when someone gets the proof presented to them? 🙂
Serf. That’s what you are and all you’ll ever be. Free men ignore such as yourself Albert. You wouldn’t know freedom if it slapped you in the face.
Okay , scenario this.
Your out fishing and a pissed off grizzley bear decides it dont want you fishing anymore.
Dragging a rifle around is inconvenient and maybe a little to slow to unsling, I dont think yanking out a 9mm or .38 is going to stop that bear quick enough.
.357 at a minimum.
Albert we got all kinda bad nasty’s over here, coyotes n wolves, n bears, n mountain lions, venomous snakes, and the worst of all diseased Beavers.
Now you might think a Skunk on your piano is bad, but that’s nothing compared to a diseased Beaver on your organ.
Shoot it before it gets close, shoot it with something big, and shoot to kill.
A diseased beaver is DEFINITELY worse than a possum. Just look at Hillary Clintoon.
What have you against diseased beavers?
You keep trying to argue the same crap. It does not work. And will not work in Truly free nations. America is not the only nation where you can buy and own many different types of firearms. Those nations are much more free then the U.K or Australia, Or Canada. Especially after Canada’s recent restrictions. You are just another Anti gun bot aint ya? Sweet jesus. You repeat the same nonsense like its going to actually make anyone change their mindset.
Albert L J Hall, For your edification your are full of donkey dust. It seems that states that have shall issue concealed carry laws have far less crime than states that don’t. i suggest you get your head out of your posterior. As usual, you and your idiot buds don’t have a clue about the subject.
“Albert L J Hall, For your edification your are full of donkey dust. It seems that states that have shall issue concealed carry laws have far less crime than states that don’t”
Walter, Walter, you simply do not understand. Disarming the law abiding can only lead to encouraging, and finally resulting in, the elimination of firearms among the criminal element. It is settled science that all the firearms in the hands of gangs and criminals are obtained through theft from law abiding gun owners (and “straw purchases”). Dry up the supply of guns in the hands of legal gun owners, and gun crime is eradicated.
Ok, if gun crime isn’t actually eradicated, so long as it becomes unknown in places good people congregate, crime among gangs and criminals is a small price for society to pay.
Sam, I sincerely hope that was sarcasm. One has to wonder if these anti-gun radicals are actually pro criminal.
it’s the Bill of Rights…not the bill of needs…can’t say that enough….
This is like shooting fish in a barrel, Albert…
1) Why should I give a damn what Canada, Australia, or the UK do? Never mind that a great deal of their purported “achievements” re: gun violence simply don’t exist. We AMERICANS fought a Revolutionary War to break free of the British monarchy, REMEMBER? Does not so much of the Bill of Rights come from experiences in the late Colonial period that led to the sentiment for Independence? So our simply having a common language (which the late George Bernard Shaw said we’re “divided” by) and some common culture does NOT mean we need to follow their example, particularly in abandoning the cherish rights we’d fought for in the Revolutionary War.
2) Your states re: likelihood of injury and/or death (10X? BS!) due to firearms being wielding or possessed for purposes of self-defense are PHONY, and you KNOW it.
3) You’ve decided for ALL Americans, for whatever faulty reason, that a 9 mm (Parabellum?) or a .38 caliber (Special?) should “suffice” for self-defense. Funny, I see no wording in the Second Amendment as to the caliber of round, or grain weight, or barrel length of the firearm. Nay, I see NOTHING with respect to the technology of firearms at all! Who is to say what “suffices”, as a common maxim of sizing a sidearm intended for self-defense is, “use no caliber that doesn’t start with at least a ‘4’ “. There is such a thing as BODY ARMOR, Albert, and CRIMINALS also wear it, despite many states having laws forbidding felons to possess any. FWIW, NYS and CA already are considering laws to outlaw body armor to LAW_ABIDING citizens as well, save for law enforcement, or those who “Demonstrate a Need”…something that Bruen specifically strikes down.
4) The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of RIGHTS, not a “Bill of Needs”. What’s next, I’ll have to justify a “need” to have Internet access or a cell phone? I’ll have to have some bureaucrat or judge review my publications or media production(s) to ensure no one is “offended”? Be assured that the tyrants that are anxious to disarm Americans would NOT stop at that! As attributed to “Uncle Joe” Stalin…”Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don’t allow our people to have guns. Why should we allow them to have ideas?”
5) Although I enjoy shooting the “old school” bolt-action rifles like the Lee-Enfield SMLE, the Mauser K98, the Mosin-Nagant, and the Arisaka Type 38 and Type 97, give me a decent “Bushmaster” AR-15 pattern weapon with a 100-round drum mag, with a .357 Colt Python and the Ruger SR40 for backup, if I can’t avoid a firefight. I WOULD prefer to have an M4 carbine, even with the 3-round burst, as well as an IMI Tavor, but one fight for my 2A rights at a time, please. Even the famed “Chicago Typewriter” would be fine, as an ad from the Auto-Ordnance company of 1921 shows a rancher defending his homestead against would-be rustlers. If George Washington were to come back to our time, he’d wonder what the hell the “debate “was all about, as not only would he question why the average law-abiding citizen was prohibited from owning the standard issue small arm of the US military (or why it was so damned large in the first place!), but also why the military didn’t readily permit discharged soldiers to take their issued arms home, and, furthermore, why schoolchildren weren’t likewise drilled regularly with the same arms, as even the typical middle-school girl can easily handle an M4 carbine, let alone an M16.
A “hammer” is an offensive tool, not defensive. Continually being on the defensive is a poor means to progress, especially now that the anti-gun mafia is incentivized to create as many infringements as possible, in the shortest time.
Filing a lawsuit to block an action is defense, not offense. But what can be effectively termed offensive action? What does it look like? Who sponsors it? Who funds it?
So the question is how to organize an offensive front.
well, it may only take one lawsuit to get rid of a lot of this. It depends on case, the scope applied in the courts, and eventually maybe SCOTUS.
The problem with going on the offensive legally is the way the legal system works in this country. You need to be injured by the law, having your rights taken away, before you can bring suit in most cases. This means waiting until they make their move and you can prove that your rights are being infringed on, then filing lawsuit after lawsuit to shut them down.
Lawsuits aren’t the only tool for taking the offense. Lobbying is another (it’s what got the NRA such prominence). Endorsing, and publicizing 2A candidates in local elections.
The anti-gun mafia was content with gun control laws they considered to be righteous. Now, the sleeping giant is awake, and anti-gun states can create devastation faster than can be fought by lawsuits. The anti-gun mob was arrogant; now, they are angry. “The ride is the punishment”, and that includes decades in the court systems pipeline, where the anti-gun tyrants win simply by delay.
Akron police release footage of fatal shooting of 25-year-old Jayland Walker during traffic stop > https://www.yahoo.com/video/akron-police-release-footage-fatal-211300819.html
get ready for the riots
Would have been neat if his name was Jaywalk Walker.
I found out if you dont want to get shot by the poleecce dont run from them.
Good story, Possum, runs pretty much how I felt until I heard the description of the encounter, that he was stopped for a traffic infraction except no one recalls just what the infraction was (translates to “driving while black”), someone claims to have seen a flash while a bunch of police cars were chasing him for an unknown infraction, and everyone then was advised he was firing at them so an unspecified number of officers dumped 90 rounds of ammo on his ass, just as fast as they could pull numerous triggers. Whole thing stinks to high heaven, guy drove for “uber eats” or some such, think I’ll wait for more conclusive data/evidence before any conclusions, sounds like he needed a faster car so he could get away!
…and don’t shoot at them..
The state deciding to make all private businesses illegal for carry (a class E felony) by presumption is what is going to hang them in the courts. They might have gotten ‘away’ with a lot of regulations but for trying that one. I think, thanks to it, they’re going to face a lot more adverse caselaw and probably an injunction.
My country and my states constitution both say I have the right to be armed.
Anyone trying to change that are traitors.
Remember that one time in 2018 where GOVENOR northam threatened to make firearms illegal…and 90k + armed people from all over the country showed up to make him understand this was unacceptable and would not stand?…
Yea that …that was kinda awesome!…
I have a conundrum dealing with this article, and more importantly, its subject matter. On the one hand, I am an “individual rights” absolutist – we are, ALL OF US, born with inherent, personal rights, and NO government, state, federal or local, has the right to infringe them. Period.
On the other hand . . . while I am HIGHLY sympathetic to the (few) rational people still living in the most insane “blue” states, like CA, NY, NJ, MA, HI, etc., at a certain point, as H.L. Mencken observed, the people have the right to the government they vote for, and they deserve to get it . . . good and hard. Having myself been a hostage in an absurdly blue state (the People’s Democratic Socialist Republic of KKKalifornia), I “feel your pain”, and I agree that their socialist regimes are inherently unconstitutional. But at a certain point, y’all need to grow some stones. If you cannot (as I couldn’t, in KKKalifornia) any longer influence elections or public policy, and the policies continue to get more autocratic, fascist, and Leftist, you have two choices: the cartridge box, or the moving box. Either resist their Leftist tyranny (with open eyes; you’re picking a difficult fight), or GTFO (like I did).
Sorry, those options suck, I agree, but . . . T. Jefferson told us: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ” Particularly apropos, today.
The idiot blue states will collapse under the weight of their own fascism. It will take a while, of course, but it will happen. When there are no people remaining in KKKalifornia OTHER than idiots that enthusiastically voted for Gavin “Hair Gel” Newsom (a condition FAST approaching; all rational people are leaving that s***hole state in droves), California will be left with useless open land (that USED to be one of the largest agricultural states in the nation – but now has no water to grow crops), a bunch of idiot white liberals, and a bunch of illegal aliens, none of whom can feed themselves.
Harsh, I know, but . . . let them go to hell their own way. If you are sane (Haz, I’m lookin’ at you, my man) GTFO!! We can’t fight (or win) this battle for them. They either do it themselves, or we just wait and watch it all burn.
Other than that gloomy note, hope y’all have a GREAT Independence Day!!! Happy Birthday, America!!!
“case by case…lawsuit by lawsuit…we’ll get there…”
That actually means each and every restriction must be adjudicated, individually. The authoritarian states are feverishly creating new restrictions by the basket.
In 10yrs, Thomas and Alito will retire. National elections will become hyper important. Hope I am around to watch it all unfold.
“case by case…lawsuit by lawsuit…we’ll get there” is the problem, Demtard states use Lawfare and the taxpayer’s dollars to deny the citizens their guaranteed rights while we on the other hand must donate to Pro-2nd Amendment organizations to litigate against the tyrants. For those in Blue States they, the citizens, are paying twice, once to deny them of their rights and next to secure/preserve/expand them. “The State” ie. NY, CA, NJ etc. effectively have unlimited funds at gheir disposal for such litigation (which typically goes on for decades with appeals), the citizens not so much, if there were a substancial financial penalty that could be visited upon “state actors” for their unconstitutional acts we might just come out ahead.
” “The State” ie. NY, CA, NJ etc. effectively have unlimited funds at gheir disposal for such litigation…”
The power to tax, is the power to destroy.
Sam, I can tell you right here and now that the State of New York has no intention of complying iwth NYSR&P v Breun I received a letter today from the Oneida County Pistol Licensing Office, stating that a) I did not submit the “proper paperwork” for removal based on a “directive” from Albany saying that you had to do the “required paperwork” and B) they were waiting from direction from Albany. Hell the proper paperwork is the Breun decision.
Not to mention the State Legislature has passed a number of restrictions on when and where you can carry.
“Sam, I can tell you right here and now that the State of New York has no intention of complying iwth NYSR&P v Breun”
I worked for the feds, once. Well familiar with the passive/aggressive nature of “the system”. An action delayed is an action complete. FOIA requests were of particular fun; not penalty for never actually acknowledging the request.
I suggest you write to the NYSR&PA and aske them as I have, what are they going to do about NY’s being in Contempt of the Supreme Court?
If the Loony Left doesn’t get impatient and they are murdered. If I were also a GOP congress critter in a “purple” Congressional district, especially with a Democrat governor, I’d watch my step too. With only about four or five seats to “flip”, who’s to say the same psychopaths won’t wait for the 2024 elections?
@Walter E Beverly III
“One has to wonder if these anti-gun radicals are actually pro criminal.”
Is that still a question?
Actually, a rhetorical question…
Thank you for taking the time and reading my article. I totally agree with you. Due to a career that will be completed in just under a year, I will be in the super duper fun factory of NJ. Sadly. Soon after my completion of my career I plan on my escape. No matter where I live, here or in a freedom state, I will always do my best to defend the 2A and freedom. Thank you again.
@Walter E Beverly III
“…write to the NYSR&PA and aske….what are they going to do about NY’s being in Contempt of the Supreme Court?”
Seems that first, a lawsuit that identifies an individual who suffered a loss due to NY action (simple posting/passing a regulation that might/may be defiance isn’t sufficient). The loss must be quantified, and the lawsuit ask for relief. IIRC, the mere existence of a law that, if enforced, will be a violation of some principle….but, can remain on the books until someone experiences a quantifiable “damage”. In such case, NY can pass a thousand likely-to-be violations of “Bruen”, but if never enforced, the courts are powerless.
The purpose of passing a law, but not enforcing would be to intimidate the fearful, yet the avenue for redress remains completely open.
In the end, we all pose a threat of doing something illegal, but, so far, cannot be criminally charged for being a threat. Thinking it is the same way with laws and regulations; until enforced, the laws can stand.
I disagree. NYSR&PA introduced the law suit which successfully challenged the “Sullivan Law”. The fact that the state is INFRINGING on the 2nd Amendment rights is as clear as the nose on my face.
“NYSR&PA introduced the law suit which successfully challenged the “Sullivan Law”.”
Note that there was an actual plaintiff. “Bruen” was not brought, or decided, as a general principle case with no actual “damage” or loss to an individual.
Sam, who is the plaintiff in NSR&PA v Breun? The damage was abridging the rights of all it’s members. The loss was the loss of the RIGHT to exercise a Constitutional RIGHT!
“Sam, who is the plaintiff in NSR&PA v Breun? The damage was abridging the rights of all it’s members.”
My understanding was/is that NSR&PA were suing on behalf of actual named members of the association, or of non-member plaintiffs who had been denied carry permits.
If it is permissible for organizations to sue on behalf on non-named membership lists, then that would answer my original question.
Sam, that is/was incorrect. This was a “class action” suit in which the tow people who were cited in the case had had their rights abridged by the State. It is permissible as if it were not, the case would have been dismissed and appeals would have gone no where.
If we had a Department of Justice worthy of the name, instead of the Partisan Products of Assholism currently running it, this Scheiße would be shut down, and arrests made.
Njfhsjdwkdjwfh jiwkdwidwhidjwi jiwkdowfiehgejikdoswfiw https://gehddijiwfugwdjaidheufeduhwdwhduhdwudw.com/fjhdjwksdehfjhejdsdefhe