Archive for the ‘Fire Arms’ Category

Wasserman Schultz Pushing for More Restrictions on Firearms

In the wake of the January 6 shooting in the Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport gun-free zone, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL-23) makes clear that the federal government may no longer allow passengers to check a gun in their baggage.

According to NBC 6, Wasserman Schultz indicated that she wants to see the federal government do something. She said, “We certainly need to revisit and review whether or not you should be allowed to check firearms in your checked baggage and travel with them.”

She also floated the option of creating a secure area where people who check guns have to go to pick up their firearm. And her third option was a ban on checking ammunition.

Lost on Wasserman Schultz is the fact that Florida is one of only six states where it is illegal for concealed carry permit holders to carry a gun in unsecured areas for self-defense. So large groups of unarmed innocents stand together in areas of the airport that lack security; it is a mass public attacker’s dream come true. Banning guns in checked baggage would do nothing to stop further attacks, as a criminal or terrorist with a gun can walk into the unsecured areas from the pickup curb and kill easily.

The solution here is clear: eradicate the law that mandates that concealed carry permit holders be disarmed in baggage claim areas. This is a state-level action, rather than a federal one, and Representative Jake Raburn (R-57) has already introduced legislation to repeal the gun-free requirements.

Under Raburn’s plan, criminals and terrorists will have to deal with the fact that law-abiding citizens can shoot back.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of “Bullets with AWR Hawkins,” a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at

From Jews for the Preservation of Firearms…

Popcorn: The New York Times Had A Total Meltdown Over Missouri Constitutional Carry Law

It’s now law. In Missouri, you no longer need a license to carry a firearm in public. They’re the 12th state to adopt such a law known as constitutional carry; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) represents a state with such a law. To those who love freedom and the Second Amendment, it’s a great day for the expansion of constitutional rights. For anti-gun liberals, it’s a day for hysterics, which was perfectly captured by the editorial board of The New York Times:

The measure has drawn no great national attention, but it certainly provides further evidence that gun safety cannot be left to state lawmakers beholden to the gun lobby. Democrats opposed to the Missouri bill called it a “perfect storm” of lowered standards for the use of deadly force and an invitation for people to be armed without responsible controls. The measure was enacted by the Republicans, despite strong public opposition and warnings about the threat to public safety from the state Police Chiefs Association. Everytown for Gun Safety, one of the groups fighting the gun lobby, noted that stand your ground laws result in disproportionate harm to communities of color.[…]

In the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has called for extensive gun safety measures, including a ban on the assault weapons favored by mass shooters, closing background-check loopholes, ending the gun industry’s outrageous protection from civil damage suits and denying guns to risky suspects on the government’s no-fly lists. Donald Trump, endorsed by the National Rifle Association, favors more armed civilians ready to engage in what he calls a defensive “shootout.” This is one of the most pathetic measures yet of his pandering, when he should be leading, on an issue of vital importance to the public.

First, if there’s any measure endorsed by Everytown, it’s bad—and pro-gun rights advocates should pour everything they got into defeating whatever policy proposal that Everytown leeches itself onto in the future. Second, it’s the same old story with these people. An expansion of gun rights would lead to more gun deaths. Nope. That’s just not the case. Gun homicides have gone down precipitously since 1993. In fact, they’ve been cut in half. Violent crime is still down, safe for a few pockets in urban areas that are run by Democrats.

Support for gun rights has reached a 25-year high, more than 100 million have been sold since Obama took the oath of office, there are a record number of Americans carrying concealed carry permits. Yet, America is not a shooting gallery. Anti-gun liberals certainly want that since dead people increase media attention, email lists, and fill their war chests, but somehow we on the Right always beat them—and beat them badly. Moreover, the Times’ notion that gun owners are somehow more inclined to shoot people is baseless, irresponsible, and totally in keeping with smug left wing attitudes of urban-based elites. That’s fine. Again, just take comfort that our side is winning, whereas their side can’t get anything passed because all of their ideas are terrible. At the same time, at the local level, we need to make sure their anti-gun proposals don’t spread to other parts of the country. Looking at you, Hawaii.

Oh, and Vermont is a deep-blue state, with constitutional carry and a population where 70-75 percent of its residents own guns. I don’t hear any tales of mass bloodshed from there.

I don’t know what happened in Orlando, but a lot of things look very strange. Seems the only way to know the truth about a situation is if you were actually present. Here is an article that you may find interesting. Link is in the title below:

Judge: FBI Transcript Shows Nobody Died in Orlando Shooting Until SWAT Teams entered the Building

What should have been front page news everywhere, somehow got buried amid the official narrative we were given about the Orlando shooting. Judge Andrew Napolitano told FOX News that an FBI transcript indicated that no one died until 05:13am Sunday morning when the police SWAT teams entered the building.

“Here’s what is news in the summary – nobody died until 05:13 in the morning, when the SWAT team entered. Prior to that no one had been killed. The 53 that were injured, and the 49 that were murdered all met their fates at the time of, and during, the police entry into the building,” Judge Napolitano said.

Consider that the narrative we have been given was that Omar Mateen entered the club around 02:00am on Sunday morning to begin his killing spree, so why was no one actually killed until 05:13am, over three hours later?

Here’s the official transcript.



So, this makes one question why the 911 call transcripts are being redacted and why the people are not being told the truth across the media about what really took place.

We have been told that 5 to 6 police officers were already in the club for 15 to 20 minutes or more prior to the SWAT teams’ entering.

So, what is the truth here?  Some claim that 05:13am is the time of death, but how is that when that suspect was not even down until 05:15am?  Could it be that some of the people in the club were shot by the SWAT team or by Mateen?  With nearly50 people dead and more wounded, how was Mateen able to get off that many shots?  I’m really curious.

Take a listen to the entrance of the SWAT team into the club.

If that was not enough, police officers have even admitted that they may have killed some of the people. WFAA reports:

Monday, Orlando Police Chief John Mina and other law enforcement officers offered new details about the shooting, including the possibility that some victims may have been killed by officers trying to save them.

“I will say this, that’s all part of the investigation,” Mina said. “But I will say when our SWAT officers, about eight or nine officers, opened fire, the backdrop was a concrete wall, and they were being fired upon.”

A law enforcement source close to the investigation who asked not to be named said a crowd of up to 300 people and the complex layout of the dance club may have resulted in some patrons being struck by gunfire from officers.

We’ll Keep Our Guns, Thanks

Posted: June 15, 2016 in Fire Arms

Good article below. Let us know if you agree or disagree.

We’ll Keep the 2nd Amendment and Our Guns

An article at CounterPunch titled “Eliminate the Second Amendment and Keep Your Guns” by Tom H. Hastings offers more of the same flawed gun-control arguments we’ve come to expect from the opposition. Here, we’ll refute them, point by point.

Hasting writes:

OK, I confess I fail to see the thrill or need associated with gun ownership and use…

If there were no police, you might have a change of heart.

but we live in a free country—sort of—and I get why those who hunt need long guns.

Except the Second Amendment wasn’t written for hunters. George Mason wasn’t worried about the feds taking away people’s right to a well-dressed deer.

But I teach, write, and live trying to practice nonviolence between and among humans at least.

I suppose that’s admirable. What happens when Person A practices nonviolence but Person B doesn’t and uses violence to violate Person A’s rights?

I’m sure there are people who prefer not to talk or write, but their personal preferences shouldn’t have any bearing on other people’s right to do either of those two.

I’ve had guns pulled on me and fired at me twice and have never ever wanted to shoot anyone. That direct violence is beyond my understanding so I fully acknowledge my bias against guns, especially handguns.

So you’ve met Person B, it seems. One can understand why you don’t want to shoot somebody, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re trying to hurt you. Wouldn’t it have been nice to have had a gun to defend yourself? Why advocate disarming more people like yourself? And if you have no desire to fight back, that’s your decision. But what exactly authorizes you to make that decision for somebody else? Person C might like to have the option to defend herself against person B.

I believe in regulating those things that prove they harm others. No one should be free to harm others—that is not freedom, it is unwarranted arrogated license. The freedom of your hands stops where my nose begins, as they say.

The problem is criminals don’t care about regulations. On a side note, they also tend to prefer their victims are unarmed.

My real point on the Second Amendment is that it effectively blocks sane control of weaponry.

“Sane” control of weaponry always involves restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens (which is what Hastings is advocating). It never involves restrictions on government no matter how many innocent people it hurts. This is why we duly appreciate the efforts of Founding Fathers like George Mason to prevent “sane” controls from happening.

Repealing the Second Amendment would not affect anything that most gun owners feel is desirable.

Aside from indiscriminate weapons, any weapon the U.S. military has or will have I feel is desirable. I also feel most gun owners feel the same.

Glad we got that clarified.

But the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supremes does make it possible for the gun industry, through its most powerful lobbyist–the NRA–to claim that laws restricting anything to do with guns are odious and part of an unconstitutional slippery slope.

It seems the Supreme Court is somewhat literate, because the amendment says the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

The track record is so clear. The Second Amendment protects the gun manufacturers and sellers at the expense of a lot of lives every year.

Tell that to the men and women who have been able to defend themselves and their loved ones because they were able to purchase weapons from gun sellers and made by gun manufacturers. I’m sure they will disagree.

Suicide is possible without guns, clearly. What if greatly limiting handguns, or using available technology so only the registered owner could fire it, could save just 1000 of the estimated 21,175 firearm suicides or just 100,000 of the estimated 836,000 ER visits from self-inflicted gun wounds in the most recent CDC data? Would rational Americans perhaps think about that and fix at least part of the gun problem?

As you’ve already noted, people don’t commit suicide because they got a gun. They commit suicide because they have major underlying issues that drive them to kill themselves. If they can’t get a gun they’ll use something else. There is a reason San Francisco is building a net to prevent suicidal people from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge.

Instead of trying to take the means away from them perhaps we should be more interested in figuring out what drives people to kill themselves. Taking the bottle away from the alcoholic doesn’t cure them of the problems that make them want to drink in the first place.

By the way, Hastings is (perhaps unwittingly) arguing from a social utility perspective in which rights are contingent on their overall social benefit. Under this same logic I could argue that putting certain groups of people in jail without due process or trail would be acceptable if it resulted in a lower crime rate. Once you allow for social utility to determine rights anything is up for discussion.

Finally, some serious brave NRA members are challenging the wingnut level of gun lobbying by the NRA, including some who flat out quit the group publicly when NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre said the two terrorists who shot up San Bernadino, California, killing 14 and wounding 21, should not have been stopped from purchasing their assault rifles.

This is misconstruing the issue at hand. It’s not about whether those two specific individuals should have been prevented from obtaining guns. It’s about whether or not innocent people should have their rights taken away or restricted after the fact because other people broke the law. It’s about whether gun control laws would have prevented two criminals from obtaining firearms.

Clearly the two killers didn’t care about our laws against murder. Why would they let gun laws stop them?

Perhaps that’s why the California State Legislature just voted to exempt itself from the gun-control laws that apply to ordinary people in the state.

But the politicians who take on the NRA are open to serious retributive electoral pressure and the ones who toe the line for the NRA are richly rewarded by an annual NRA lobbying expenditure of at least $735,000, possibly as much as $3 million. That is a lot of junkets, TV ads, and fat honoraria.

But more Americans are rejecting the politicians who accept big NRA donations—their success rate is falling, and no wonder. Every new mass shooting brings out the most twisted defense of “gun rights” and the most warped disregard for the right to life imaginable by the NRA leadership.

Every new massing shooting demonstrates why it’s important for people to exercise their right to bear arms so they can shoot back. This tends to deter mass shooters and terrorists who want unarmed, defenseless prey.

How many shootings have taken place at gun shows compared to gun-free zones?

However we get there, we need to stop the massive flow of weaponry into our streets and we need to do it on a large scale.

My memory fails me but I think we tried that with alcohol and weed and it didn’t work out well.

Strict gun laws in one town are nice but when we have a 50-state open border country, guns flow into places like Chicago despite good local efforts to stop the murders and suicides.

If that’s the case, why is it that cities with strong gun control laws like Chicago have higher levels of gun violence than those with fewer gun control laws? Also, why is it that countries like Switzerland have a high gun ownership rate yet also a low crime rate?

There are almost 400 million guns out there so it will take a long time to bring down the numbers but we can do it if we get sane and serious about it.

So it’s not about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It’s about reducing the numbers of privately-owned guns. Got it.

I know no gun opponent who favors disarming the rural hunter putting provender on his or her family table.

Can we drop the whole hunting issue already? It’s a distraction, nothing more. The Second Amendment says a “well-regulated militia” is the necessity of a “free state,” not a “well-armed hunter is the necessity of a well-fed state.”

The Founders wanted us to have guns so we could be sufficiently armed to overthrow a tyrannical government just as they had done. You don’t have to like that, but it is why they were so adamant about ensuring we could have guns.

I can hope that those, in fact, will be some of the voices calling for far greater sensible gun control so they can take a trip into a city and make it back alive—or so they can send their child to college in some town and not fear so much.

Hastings’ proposal to abolish the Second Amendment falls under the same misunderstanding as so many other gun control advocates. The amendment doesn’t give us our right to have guns. It merely acknowledges that right so government can’t later claim ignorance when it tries to restrict it.

Abolishing the Second Amendment removes that right just as much as eliminating the First Amendment denies me the right to free speech.

Even so, we should keep the Second Amendment as a reminder to the federal government we’re going to keep our guns with it or without it.

I heard yesterday that Peter Kinder has indeed thrown his hat in the ring for Missouri Governor. Over a year ago, he and I had a conversation about it, and I told him that I would indeed support him for that position. Speaking for myself, Doreen Hannes, I am wholeheartedly in support of Peter Kinder for Governor. He has done a superb job of stepping up to protect the rights of Missourian’s and has proven that, while he is not a perfect person, he will do the right thing for the citizens of Missouri over and over again. That, my friends, is a rare thing.

In the current climate, the position which holds the best possible promise of right action is the Executive branch. Kinder has demonstrated that he understands the duty that comes with high level elected positions and that he will do the right thing in support of our rights and in defense of principles of freedom and self determination. I cannot think of a better person to be at the helm for Missourians at this time.

Dana Loesch wrote the following piece in support of Kinder for Governor. She gives a lot of background and says it quite well. The link to the article is in the title.

Why I’m Supporting Peter Kinder For Missouri Governor

I’m a fan of people who had the people’s back before they needed the people’s vote.

I’ve been in politics long enough to know that politicians get George Thorogood-landlady lovey dovey when there is a race they need to win. They appear out of the ether at grassroots rallies, they’re suddenly on the airwaves talking about issues that predate their advocacy but not their immeasurable concern. They’ll leverage anything they have to add a dimension to their personality.


In the modern era of politics there is B.T. and A.T., or, before tea party and after tea party. B.T. was a difficult time for pols as most were too afraid to legitimize the concerns of millions of Americans. The sort of limited government they espoused threatened to erode the influence special interests cosmetically extended to them. Some pols were quiet. Some were downright hostile towards grassroots. Some offered support in exchange for using the grassroot momentum to boost their own chances. Some said to hell with grassroots and co-opted entire groups in attempts to capture elected office. I’ve witnessed every scenario, even the rare occurrence of someone who has the fortitude of character and shares the interests of the electorate. I’m witnessing it in my homestate of Missouri, where I was born and raised, and lived until just a year ago, where I return to as often as I can to see family that, somewhat facetiously, populate most of the Ozarks.

Peter Kinder is Missouri’s Lieutenant Governor and the best conservative hope for the governor’s office.


Of all the candidates, only one has a proven conservative record and a documented track record of having grassroots’s back every single time. Kinder is the only candidate in the Missouri governor’s race that has been the most constant, vocal supporter of the tea party movement (I say this as a founder of the movement in St. Louis), yet never once has he ever demanded favors or campaign support in return as some Missouri pols have done. He was the first to file suit against Obamacare. He is the only candidate in the race that rang the alarm over DOR and DHS’s secret attempt to push Missourians into a backdoor firearm registry. He was made aware of the case by Stoddard County Prosecuting Attorney Russ Oliver and Kinder promptly pushed the MO GOP into action, noted Oliver on my radio program. Kinder helped publicize the case of the DOR saving biometric data against state law. Kinder is the only gubernatorial candidate that took Eric Holder’s DOJ to task for playing St. Louis by refusing to release the findings of their investigation last year. He fielded calls from helpless mayors who went ignored by Missouri’s Governor as their cities burned in the Ferguson riots. Kinder challenged the Missouri Governor for holding back the National Guard. He is also the only one on record who personally responded and visited Ferguson in an attempt to stand in for the absence of the Missouri Governor and various elected congressional officials. Kinder blasted the establishment in his own party when they began wobbling on Prop E. Kinder is staunchly against Common Core, is solidly pro-2A, is pro-life, and advocates for the tenets that motivate limited-government supporters.

I don’t need to criticize the other names in the gubernatorial race as Kinder’s record speaks for itself. In my entire political life, I have endorsed but maybe five or six candidates. I am not a fan of politicians. The last eight years has made me nearly hate the entire lot of them with a tiny few exceptions. I am not a fan of party mentality or going along to get along. I’m not a fan of panderers. I am a fan of people who keep their word and politicians who don’t use their influence to co-opt. I’m a fan of knowing where candidates come from beyond vague campaign platitudes and hazy political associations from a decade ago. I’m a fan of people who can keep it real in southern and western Missouri just as much as they can in a municipality north of St. Louis.

I’m a fan of people who had the people’s back before they needed the people’s vote.

This is why I’m proud to endorse Peter Kinder in the Missouri Republican primary.

*All photos courtesy JDWilson

In today’s most ridiculous and disgusting news, a 72 year old retired teacher faces felony charges and 10 years in prison for a flintlock pistol. Read the story below, linked in the headline:

Man, 72, faces ‘life sentence’ for unloaded, antique gun

‘It’s the world turned upside-down. Beware of New Jersey. Don’t come here’Gordon Van Gilder New Jersey flintlock

In a situation reminiscent of the Shaneen Allen case, a 72-year-old retired school teacher in New Jersey faces a 10-year felony sentence (a likely life sentence) and the jeopardization of his pension for possession of an unloaded 300-year-old flintlock pistol.

Gordon Van Gilder taught school for 34 years and is a collector of 18th-century memorabilia. He acquired an antique flintlock pistol from that era and had it unloaded and wrapped in a cloth in his glove compartment when he was pulled over for an alleged minor traffic violation.

Van Gilder consented to a requested search of his vehicle.

“When asked by the officer if there was anything in the car the officer should be worried about,” wrote Andrew Branca on Legal Insurrection, “Van Gilder informed him about the flintlock in the glove box. Although not arrested that day, the next morning several patrol cars woke him at his home and placed him under arrest.”

New Jersey has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and it classifies antique firearms the same way it classifies regular guns. Attorney Evan Nappen, who specializes in gun law cases, said despite the antique nature of the flintlock pistol, Van Gilder is “facing the same draconian penalty as if he had a .44 magnum loaded on his person … There’s no distinction.”

In a videotaped interview, Nappen said, “You name it, New Jersey regulates it, and they just don’t make it into misdemeanors. Every one of them is a felony. Every one. You have a slingshot in New Jersey, you face a felony charge.”

Nappen, who is representing Van Gilder, successfully represented Philadelphia nurse Shaneen Allen when she was charged with unlawful possession of her Pennsylvania-licensed handgun in New Jersey. Allen faced five years of prison time but was able to accept pre-trial intervention, a kind of probation which would allow her to avoid jail time, since she met a new set of criteria for out-of-state gun owners to get leniency.

Branca notes, “Van Gilder will be fortunate indeed if Nappen can win him a similar arrangement [as Allen]. Even a plea agreement that avoids jail time but convicts Van Gilder of a felony would likely jeopardize the teacher’s pension he spent 34 years earning.”

“It’s the world turned upside-down,” said Van Gilder in a videotaped interview. “Beware of New Jersey. Don’t come here. Don’t live here.”

Every now and again, there is a good story that makes the news. Usually when people use firearms in  defense of life, liberty and property, there isn’t a lot of media play…This time, it’s getting good coverage!

Anthony Hernandez's grandfather, George Wyant, says he began teaching his grandchildren self-defense after Anthony's father was murdered six years ago.

Anthony Hernandez’s grandfather, George Wyant, says he began teaching his grandchildren self-defense after Anthony’s father was murdered six years ago. more >

– The Washington Times – Thursday, December 18, 2014

A 14-year-old boy whose father was murdered six years ago says he was protecting his grandmother Tuesday after he fatally shot a man who was trying to break into his grandparents’ home in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Anthony Hernandez was visiting his grandparents, George and Anna Marie Wyant, when he said he heard a loud bang at the back of the house around 5:15 p.m. The suspect, 18-year-old Isai Delcid, was allegedly trying to break into a back window.

“Then I went and I got the gun,” Anthony told a local CBS affiliate. “I told the guy — and I said who is that, and the person hit [the window] again.”

“Then I said I have a gun, and they hit it another time. And they hit it again. I said stop and the guy broke through. And that’s when I shot,” he told WBT Radio in a telephone interview.

A few minutes later, Mrs. Wyant told a 911 operator what had happened.

“The man was breaking into the window,” she said in the call, the Charlotte Observer reported. “He was halfway in the window. My grandson told him to stop and get out of here, and he didn’t so my grandson shot him. … Somebody just broke in the house, and we shot him.”

Police found Delcid shot to death on the Wyants’ back deck. Police said they believe the fatal shooting was justified and have not charged the teen with a crime.

Delcid’s older brother, Carlos Delcid, who was reportedly in charge of operating the getaway car, was later arrested for 1st degree burglary.

The shooting comes six years after Anthony’s father, Gregorio Hernandez, 35, was shot to death while working on a car at the auto shop he owned. Victor Vasquez was later found guilty of first-degree murder in that killing.

“[Hernandez] was a mechanic,” Mr. Wyant told the Observer. “It was his garage. Someone came in and shot him to death.”

Hernandez’s death motivated the Wyants to begin teaching their grandchildren self-defense.

“I took [Anthony] to a shooting range,” Mr. Wyant said. “All the boys, I wanted them to learn gun safety. That’s what all of us should have for protection. These are different ages, and you have to protect yourself.”

Mrs. Wyant said the teen is “his grandmother’s hero.”

“If I was by myself, God knows what they would have done to me,” she told the Observer.