Tombstone, Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- The Second Amendment is crystal clear.

There’s nothing ambiguous or convoluted about it, and it hasn’t been re-written or redefined by “the gun lobby” in recent years, as our opponents like to suggest. Writers going all the way back to the founding have supported our interpretation that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” means what it says and is enforceable against the states as a fundamental right.

I think we can all agree on this, so where’s the problem?

Just because we agree on the basics, doesn’t mean we all agree on the details. Some will loudly proclaim that the right to arms is absolute and limitless. They advocate for no limits whatsoever on any sort of armament whatsoever, from machine guns to missiles, to nukes. If it’s an armament, they say, then it’s covered by the Second Amendment. Others draw a line at typical, man-portable arms commonly found in an Infantry squad, while others draw a wavering line at the typical arms of an average, individual Infantry soldier, sometimes excluding “crew-served” weapons systems or man-portable missiles.

It used to be pretty common to run into “gunnies” who would argue against civilian possession of any full-auto or other NFA items, and some who would defend laws against those “ugly, black guns.” Thankfully most of those folks have now realized their error, but there are still folks who see themselves as on our side, who draw lines and/or limits that you and I would strongly disagree with.

That doesn’t make them evil. It just makes them wrong, misinformed, ignorant, or even possibly, more thoughtful and better educated than you and me. We can’t rule out that possibility until we’ve thoroughly studied their position and their rationale for holding that position. Then there’s the Supreme Court’s tortured definition of the right applying only to arms that are “in common use” among the populace while failing to account for future innovations and the decades of restrictions that kept certain arms and accessories out of “common use.”

Beyond the debate over how far, or not, the Second Amendment extends, there are debates within the community over whether certain, specific policy proposals are justifiable under the Second Amendment, or whether the “obvious good” (as some people see things) of certain policies might outweigh the constraints of the amendment. Then there’s the issue of incrementalism. Some among us will argue that repealing or reforming a portion of a bad law, is still supporting the erroneous foundation the law was originally based upon. For example, under this argument, support for legislation to remove suppressors from the NFA and treat them as firearms under the GCA, would be a traitorous compromise, because, they say, it is unconstitutional to regulate suppressors at all. This sort of “principled opposition” represents a minority, but it’s enough to throw a monkey wrench into efforts to undo restrictions piece-by-piece, the way most of those restrictions came about.

The point is, there are a wide variety of beliefs and opinions among, even very dedicated Second Amendment advocates, and disagreements are unavoidable.

The critical question though, is how do we handle those disagreements?

It’s a question of how we treat each other as we try to advance our rights agenda. Anyone who’s read much of my writing, knows that I’m not shy about calling out colleagues in the rights movement when they say or do something that I consider to be wrong or counterproductive. I’ve famously gotten into public disputes with several groups and prominent individuals for advocating in favor of various policies, or espousing certain positions that I think harm the movement. I’m particularly known for public criticism of NRA “leaders” for taking unprincipled positions. But you’ll never see me calling these folks traitors or suggesting that they are evil.

Unless a person – or group – goes fully over to the “dark side,” publicly advocating for oppressive gun control laws, as a few former lobbyists and industry executives have done over the years, then we’re generally dealing with a strategic or philosophical difference, not a total betrayal. Labeling a rights advocate as a charlatan or a traitor, is a big deal, and should only be done in an extreme circumstance. In most cases, a strong objection to their position and a call for them to explain or retract their statement or position, is what’s appropriate.

Going beyond that – assigning motives, questioning their character, etc. – is counterproductive, and should be avoided, especially by people who have a platform and are respected within the movement.

Creating unnecessary divisions and animosity in our own ranks benefits no one except the opposition. Again, I’m not talking about having public disagreements over policy, strategy, or tactics. What I’m talking about is personal attacks that paint fellow rights advocates as traitors, evil, and the enemy, based on what are often relatively minor policy disagreements, dividing our ranks and reducing our effectiveness.

My father often referred to leading the rights movement as an exercise akin to herding cats. It’s a demonstrable fact that GunVoters are an independent-minded bunch, and most of our folks see the Second Amendment and the fight for rights in clear, unequivocal terms. They also tend to have their own ideas as to how to fight and win the battles. The problem is that those clear, unequivocal terms and thoughtful ideas on how to fight and win, often deviate from the clear, unequivocal terms and thoughtful ideas held by the guy standing next to them in the trenches, much less the “generals” tasked with devising official strategy and mobilizing the troops.

In our army, almost everyone is sure they have “the answer,” and they are just as sure that anyone who disagrees with them is either misguided, ill-informed, or a mole secretly fighting for the other side. This dynamic can be powerful, but it is also destructive.

Let’s not fall into the “cancel culture” habits of our opponents. Let’s listen to each other, sharpen one another, and work toward our common goals without rancor and condemnation. Let’s do our best to educate and elect the best politicians, and replace those who fall short – but only with someone better, never simply handing a seat to true enemies, on the basis that the other guy wasn’t a good enough friend.

Together we can restore and protect our rights. I urge you to be cautious and judicious in your words and actions regarding allies and potential allies. Burning bridges is much easier than building them, and rebuilding a burned bridge is one of the hardest things to do. So let’s move forward together, respecting (and debating) our differences, working toward our common goals, and always focusing on the big picture.

Virginia – –(Ammoland.com)- It’s election time at NRA again, and this year I’m bullet voting for Frank Tait. I hope you’ll do the same.

Frank is the only person on the ballot who has consistently called for and worked toward, full accountability on the part of the executives, staff, and Board. He introduced a resolution at the 2019 Members’ Meeting, calling for a vote of “No Confidence” in Wayne La’Pierre and his enablers on the Board, and he has introduced a similar resolution at each Members’ Meeting since.

While there are a few other candidates on the ballot that I like and think might do the right thing, given the right circumstances, Frank Tait is the only one that I’m sure will take a leading role in working for reform.

Bullet Vote Frank Tait

By casting a ballot with only Frank Tait’s name marked, it leverages that vote, improving the odds of Frank’s election, and reducing the chances that any votes I might cast for other candidates might help push Frank down in the overall rankings, costing him a seat.

Realistically, all but 2 of the candidates on the ballot this year will get seats. There are 30 candidates for 25 seats, but two additional seats have opened up recently, with the passing of long-time Director John Cushman of New York, and the resignation of Todd Rathner. Both of those seats will be filled from this slate of candidates, based on vote totals. Then at the Members’ Meeting in Houston in May, there will be an election for the 76th Director, from among the three candidates remaining.

The 25 regular seats being filled, are for 3-year terms. Cushman’s seat has, I believe, 2 years remaining on it, and Rathner’s seat comes back up next year. The 76th Director seat is a 1-year term, so it too will be up again next year.

Of course, all of this assumes that there will still be an NRA to have Board of Director elections after this year, which is not guaranteed by any means. New York Attorney General Letitia James has put together a very strong case against Wayne LaPierre and the Board that keeps reelecting him. She is pushing for the total dissolution of the Association, and that outcome is a real possibility. The case will be heard in a New York court, with a New York judge, because NRA was originally incorporated in New York, and despite some Directors over the years, pushing for the Association to move its charter to a more gun-friendly state, that has never been done.

The trial has been delayed, but is expected to take place toward the end of this year.

Some members of the Board of Directors have publicly declared that there’s “nothing to” the AG’s claims. They say this is just a politically-motivated hatchet job, by a gun-hating, NRA-hating political extremist, and that the NRA is going to skate through the trial with no trouble at all.

That’s a flat-out lie.

While it’s true that AG James is an NRA-hating, political extremist, and it is her hatred of guns and the NRA that motivated this suit, it’s also true that there have been serious problems at the top of the NRA.

Wayne LaPierre and his closest allies and advisors have been engaging in very shady and self-serving business practices, lining their own pockets at the expense of the NRA, its members, and its associated organizations, particularly the NRA Foundation.

Wayne LaPierre has admitted under oath, to at least a half-dozen actions that should have cost him his job, yet not only has the Board renewed his contract over and over again, in spite of full knowledge of these transgressions, the Executive Compensation Committee (comprised of the President and the two Board vice presidents) has increased his base salary and compensation package, and given him bonuses of $300,000 to $500,000 each year, for the past several years. And they’ve done this while major NRA programs have folded, NRA revenue has collapsed, and the majority of NRA staff has been laid off, while the remaining staff has had their pay cut drastically.

Anyone who tells you that there’s nothing to the allegations is either woefully misinformed and extremely gullible, or they’re intentionally lying to you. Those are the only two possibilities.

There are a much higher number of new candidates on the ballot this year. Typically there are at least 23 or 24 incumbents running for the 25 seats, but so many Directors have resigned, declined to run again, or were not renominated by the Nominating Committee, that this year, only 19 of the 30 candidates appear to be incumbents, and several of those are people who initially failed to be elected, but were later appointed to a seat as other Directors resigned from the Board. In fact, of the 25 Directors who were elected to 3-year seats in 2019, with terms expiring in 2022, only 15 are on the ballot this year, while 10 of 25 either resigned or were not renominated.

It’s unlikely that Frank Tait will be able to affect real change on the Board, but better to have him there fighting on the inside, along with Judge Phil Journey, the only current member of the Board willing to publicly criticize LaPierre and the current regime.

There is supposed to be a Members’ Meeting in Houston on May 28, 2022, so we’re gearing up to get as many angry and frustrated members there as possible, to try and wake the majority of this Board from their current comatose state. I hope to see you there – if they don’t figure out a way to cancel and reschedule it again, as they did in ‘20 and ‘21.

Until then, please vote for Frank Tait, and urge your friends to do likewise.

And whatever you do, don’t give any votes to the LaPierre loyalists who keep defending him, especially past Presidents and current officers like Willes Lee, Marion Hammer, Ron Schmeits, Sandy Froman, and Jim Porter. They’re all almost certainly going to win seats, but having them come out low in the polling might send a message.

Tombstone, AZ -(Ammoland.com)- The police killing of Amir Locke while executing a warrant in Minneapolis, has once again drawn attention to the dangerous and often deadly use of violent surprise tactics in the service of search and arrest warrants. While the common refrain is a call-to-end use of “no-knock” warrants, those are not the only warrants that are a problem. Some warrants authorize police to breach the door directly after knocking or announcing. Too often a warrant that authorizes “dynamic entry” creates more problems than it solves – for both police and the public.

Few details are available in the case of Amir Locke beyond the badge cam videos, but the basics are clear. Using a key from management, police quietly entered the apartment of Locke’s cousin to serve a warrant in a homicide case. The cousin was absent, but Locke, who was visiting, was asleep on the couch.

As officers entered, they began yelling their typical litany of contradictory commands:

• “Police – Warrant!”
• “Get on the Ground!”
• “Show your hands!”
• “Don’t move!”

…and so on, and kicked the couch where Locke was sleeping, the 22-year old emerged from beneath a blanket with a pistol in his right hand. At this point, an officer fired several shots, killing him.

The shooting was probably justifiable from the officer’s viewpoint, as he perceived the threat of a gun, but Locke was probably startled and confused, and also justified in grabbing a gun at the violent invasion.

Had Locke been in a less helpless position and somehow been able to fire at masked men coming into the apartment and rousting him from his sleep, there is ample precedent for a finding of self-defense. A dynamic entry puts the rights of the officers and the right of occupants of a home in direct conflict resulting in a situation where both sides can claim a justifiable use of deadly force.

In other words, a raid can create a free-fire zone. Also, for the record, it is not at all uncommon for criminal home invaders and drug rip-off crews to impersonate police as they are assaulting a home.

As mentioned, Locke was not a resident of the apartment, nor was he named in the warrant. Conflicting statements have come out regarding his possession of the pistol, but the consensus is that it was legally owned by Locke and that he might have had a concealed carry permit. Regardless of other details, unless Locke was a “prohibited person” under federal or state law – which it appears he was not – then his possession of a handgun in a home would be completely legal.

The police request for a “no-knock” warrant has not been published, and the reasoning for the alleged demand for one has not been made clear. A 17-year old cousin, brother to the tenant of the apartment where Locke was killed, was later arrested in connection with a January 10 homicide. That cousin lived in a different apartment in the same building but was known to frequent his older brother’s apartment, so police had warrants for both apartments.

The teen cousin is on probation for a previous shooting, raising questions about the efficacy of the Minneapolis justice system?

Protests calling for a ban on the use of “no-knock” warrants, erupted in Minneapolis as news of the killing spread. Of course, Minneapolis was the epicenter of the 2020 protests and riots after the death of George Floyd. During those protests, which went international, another name was frequently mentioned, that of Breonna Taylor, who, like Amir Locke, was killed by police serving a warrant regarding someone else.

Locke and Taylor are just the most prominent, recent examples among many around the country, several of which I have written about in the past. At about the same time that Breonna Taylor was killed, a 21-year old man named Duncan Lemp was also killed by police executing a “no-knock” warrant in Maryland. Lemp was the target of the warrant, based on suspicion that he might possess an illegal rifle. Not that there was any indication that he had, or intended to use the rifle in a crime, just that he was thought to be in possession of one that has been banned in Maryland.

Unlike the Amir Locke case, there is no body-cam footage of the incident, apparently because the police union demanded exemption from body-cam requirements during SWAT raids. Officials said this policy would be revised. They have also never released the name or record of the officer who actually pulled the trigger. A subsequent investigation (by the police) cleared the police of any wrongdoing.

The main difference between the killing of Breonna Taylor and Duncan Lemp, is that Lemp was a Caucasian from an upper-middle-class family, and an outspoken constitutionalist, while Taylor was Black and working class. Police killing a “rich White kid” did not feed the current narrative, so coverage of Lemp’s case never gained traction outside of “right-wing” circles. Had Duncan Lemp been a Black man, you can bet that his killing would have been headline news, and protests would have ensued. But that’s a discussion for a different time.

The key takeaway right now from these tragedies is not about race. It’s about critically flawed police procedures, and the lack of accountability, both for police who carry out the flawed raids, and the judges who authorize them.

It needs to be said that my default position is to support the police. Members of my family and several close friends have served and currently serve in law enforcement ranging from patrol officer to county sheriff to federal agent. No small part of my opposition to reckless warrant service stems from a concern for officer safety. As pointed out above, under Castle Doctrine rules, an officer serving a warrant in a dynamic entry can face an armed homeowner who can justify use of deadly force. Until a homeowner can verify that the people attacking him are law enforcement officers with a duly sworn warrant, he is under no obligation to allow them entry into his home.

Unfortunately, the number of “dynamic entries” is rising. According to Professor Peter Kraska, of Eastern Kentucky University, the number of “no-knock” and “quick-knock,” SWAT-style raids for serving warrants nationwide, soared from around 3,000 per year in 1981, to over 60,000 per year today.

While I believe there are some very limited circumstances where a “no-knock” or “announce and enter,” or similar “dynamic entry” type of warrant can be justified, those circumstances should be limited to situations where speed is essential because innocent lives are at risk. The risk of destruction of evidence is a specious argument. Commercial quantities of drugs or other contraband won’t flush, and smaller quantities aren’t worth the trouble or the risk.

Tightening rules around dynamic entry warrants is not the best solution. History shows that police can be very creative at working around such restrictions, while still obeying the letter – if not the spirit – of the law. I believe that a better solution is to inject a healthy helping of accountability into the mix. Those requesting, authorizing, and executing warrants in a high-risk manner need to take on a share of the civil risk.

The police officer who swears out the warrant, the senior officer who signs off on it, the judge who issues the warrant, and the officers who execute it, all need to lose some or all of their qualified immunity if the raid goes sideways. Everyone in the legal chain trail of a warrant authorizing high-risk tactics should bear personal, legal liability for anything that goes wrong. If an innocent or a police officer is killed or injured, if the wrong house is hit, the wrong door kicked, or a dog killed unnecessarily, there must be a personal price to pay by everyone involved. If each individual involved has his own skin in the game it might focus minds more on the possible dangers and risks involved in kicking in doors in the middle of the night.

This isn’t a Black thing, a White thing, or a Blue thing. It’s a right and wrong thing. It’s also a Constitution thing.

The Fourth Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

While an argument can be made that these warrants are issued “upon probable cause, supported by Oath,” it’s a safe bet that the framers wouldn’t consider battering rams and flash-bang grenades as “reasonable.” The vast majority of the time, there’s a better way, and police, judges, and prosecutors need to be motivated to find that better way, and stop these tragedies. The time has come for less adrenaline-charged tactics. What’s so urgent? Set a perimeter. Order pizza.

USA –  -(Ammoland.com)- Over the past several years, there has been much reporting and speculation over the lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Leticia James calling for the dissolution of the National Rifle Association.

The New York suit is just one in a blizzard of lawsuits filed by or against the nation’s largest firearms organization. It has been perceived as the most significant, posing the greatest threat to the Association, but when all the cards are laid out, it may not be the most significant.

District of Columbia vs NRA Foundation Inc

Concurrent with the NYAG’s suit against NRA and four of its former and current officers, the Attorney General of Washington, DC filed suit against the NRA Foundation, a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation created by the NRA to raise money and fund various educational projects and programs.

The suit claims that the Foundation’s board of directors – which consists primarily of members of the NRA Board of Directors – has been too subservient to NRA leadership, allowing funds from the Foundation to be inappropriately diverted from qualified, charitable purposes, into the general coffers of the NRA and the NRA’s political activities. Unlike the NY suit, the DC suit does not call for the dissolution of the Foundation, but rather calls for the Foundation’s board to be revamped and supervised to ensure monies are used only for qualified purposes, and that improperly disbursed funds be recouped.

Reading the DC suit, it doesn’t seem to be nearly as outrageous or unreasonable as the New York suit, but there’s a really big catch in that call for funds to be recouped. The DC suit claims that something in excess of $400 million dollars has been diverted from the Foundation to the NRA in recent years. If the DC suit is successful, and the court agrees with the DC AG’s assessment as to how much money has been improperly diverted to the NRA, it is quite likely that the Foundation would be forced to sue the NRA to recoup those funds.

If that happens, a win for the Foundation would bankrupt the NRA. And we’re not talking about a bogus, “We’re financially sound, but want to move to Texas” sort of bankruptcy, but a full-blown dissolution – empty the bank accounts, sell the building, auction off the furniture and fixtures, bankruptcy.

Perhaps the Foundation would be able to take over the building and the museum, then, over time, re-create the NRA and NRA-ILA as new organizations under the Foundation’s umbrella, but there are a lot of complications that would come into play, and the whole mess would take years, if not decades, to resolve.

There’s no telling how this might end up, but the potential clearly exists for the NRA Foundation to be forced to sue the NRA out of existence.

Both the New York suit and the DC suit have been delayed, and they’re both likely to be delayed even further in the coming months. The New York suit was supposed to enter the Discovery phase beginning next month, with a trial expected by May, but the judge recently granted NY a 90-day delay in prepping for discovery, so instead of that happening in February, March, and April, it is now scheduled for April, May, and June. The trial isn’t likely to start until November or December, and if it’s that late, might be pushed back to next year.

That’s assuming it happens at all. Some legal analysts we’ve spoken to suggest that, if NRA’s attorney, Bill Brewer, sticks with his standard game plan, the trial will be delayed as long as possible, while Brewer collects huge payments, and then he’ll tell them that they must try to negotiate a settlement. Given Letitia James’ visceral hatred of the NRA, the terms of a settlement are too scary to even contemplate.

Meanwhile, the DC suit has been muddling forward, with NRA winning a minor victory in December when the judge, in that case, dismissed two counts that specifically named the NRA as a co-defendant in the suit. How that impacts the overall case remains to be seen, and the victory could be short-lived since DC is fighting that ruling and a new judge has since been assigned to the case. The original judge was a G.H.W. Bush appointee who seemed relatively reasonable, but the new judge is a Barack Obama appointee who came up through the “social justice” ranks and is much more likely to have a chip on her shoulder regarding the NRA.

This case is also facing delays in the discovery phase, with the latest argument being over the protection of “proprietary” information that might come out in discovery. It appears that NRA and Foundation attorneys might have screwed up and failed to get an agreement to shield and protect the identities and personal information of Foundation donors. DC has filed a motion to have the agreement certified, which they and the NRA attorneys worked out, without the inclusion of a last-minute “donor protection” footnote that NRA attorneys tacked on after the negotiations were closed. If that doesn’t get settled in NRA’s favor, there could be some upset donors soon.

At this moment, the DC suit looks like it’s running about two months ahead of the New York suit. All of that could easily change as the cases move forward, but it creates the potential for the NRA Foundation to be filing suit against the NRA, right before the NRA goes to trial in the NY case. At best, that would be pretty poor optics for the Association, and at worst, it could potentially pull the financial rug right out from under the mother organization, just before the trial.

It’s all a complicated mess that is difficult to unravel, but the potential for total disaster is abundantly clear, even to a layman such as myself. And, of course, the saddest part of the whole mess is that it could have been completely avoided, had it not been for the greed and arrogance of NRA’s “leaders,” and the blind obedience of its docile Board.

Tombstone, Arizona – -(AmmoLand.com)-  Kyle Rittenhouse, the young man who was attacked by rioters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and fought back, has been found Not Guilty on 5 counts of Murder and Attempted Murder. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that he was charged at all, and, most importantly, that so few people understand the significance of the case.

Most don’t understand why virtually all of the corporate media and all of the Twitter “blue check-mark” people continue to lie about the case and push a narrative that has already been proven to be patently false.

Many, including Kyle himself, have said that it wasn’t just Kyle Rittenhouse that was on trial, but the whole concept of self-defense. While that might be right to a degree, it falls far short of explaining why so many have gone so far in their efforts to paint Kyle as a “white supremacist vigilante bent on killing BLM protesters”, in spite of the overwhelming video and eyewitness evidence that he was the victim of an attack by multiple assailants, who was forced to defend himself, and who showed remarkable control and situational awareness as he did so.

The big reason for the continuing barrage of attacks and lies against Kyle Rittenhouse is that Kyle stepped out of the safe place, and challenged the officially-sanctioned chaos around him. By stepping up, he set an example of what is right, and what is worth doing.

Kyle’s example is directly opposed to the message that Kyle’s critics want to spread. They want it to be known in no uncertain terms, that anyone who stands up against their mobs or their agenda will be trampled underfoot and destroyed, whether by the mob, the “justice” system or by the media pundits and the court of “popular opinion.” Their hope was to manipulate or intimidate a jury into returning the verdict that they and their mobs demanded, but falling short of that, [although they came close] they will continue declaring lies about Kyle and his actions. In a continued effort to make his life as miserable as possible, and make others think again before stepping into the fray.

We’re in the midst of a revolution, and we’re losing.

We are at war. Leftist, socialist/communist operatives have taken control of trade and employee unions, the education system, the administrative state, the Democratic Party, and virtually all of corporate media.

The overriding message is that the U.S. is vile, corrupt, and beyond redemption, and anyone who does not agree with that assessment is a racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, neanderthal moron who deserves to be destroyed in every earthly dimension – legally, physically, emotionally, and financially. An important part of their message is that those who stand in support of their agenda, can act with virtual impunity to smash, destroy, burn, loot, and generally cause mayhem and destruction in the name of “social justice,” but anyone who dares oppose them, even a little, must be made to pay a heavy toll for their sins.

The reason I say that we’re losing, is because too many Americans have given in and been cowed by threats and social repercussions. We’ve learned to “keep our heads down,” “mind our own business,” and not to “stick our necks out.” In short, we’ve let our good manners, be used against us and allowed political correctness to nullify our basic rights.

Wake Up America!

The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse wasn’t about him, nor was it about self-defense. It was about not breaking the new social norms of allowing rioters to riot, allowing looters to loot, and standing idly by as a violent revolution unfolds around us – all while being told and meekly accepting that we’re the problem.

The prosecution and persecution of January 6th rioters and participants in the invasion of the Capitol, is another example. Kamala Harris and her staff, along with numerous members of the establishment media, politicians, and “woke,” urban “liberals,” donated bail money and moral support to rioters and looters who were arrested for violent acts during the “George Floyd Summer of Love,” and few of those rioters and looters faced any serious charges or jail time – this despite billions of dollars worth of property damage and more than 25 lives lost in those riots.

Compare that to the treatment of the people arrested in the wake of the January 6 invasion of the Capitol. There are people who were arrested in that bit of stupidity, who are still being held in jail, in solitary confinement, and in horrible conditions that are still awaiting trial. Political prisoners! Most of the charges against them are misdemeanor trespass and/or interfering with government operations, yet there these American citizens sit, in some of the worst conditions imaginable, denied bail as they one by one are allowed to offer contrite apologies along with their guilty pleas, and pay minor fines.

The point isn’t the violation of the law. The point is the refusal to go along with the establishment’s agenda. Refusal to obey the unwritten laws that have been adopted by the elitists in academia, politics, and most importantly, the establishment media.

A young man volunteering to help guard community businesses from destructive vandals, naively offering first-aide assistance to anyone who needed it, and putting out fires as they popped up, was painted as a white supremacist, a domestic terrorist, a racist murderer, etc. Not because any of that was true, but because he stood up and said “No” to the chaos and carnage, and when he was attacked, he fought back.

The new establishment will not tolerate that kind of resistance. Those who stand against the approved narrative must be punished to send a warning to anyone else who might dare to get in the way.

And this strategy is effective, at least initially, because there are only a limited number of people who are inclined to jump up and run into the conflict. Just as the most effective method for reducing violent crime, is to lock up those who are caught engaging in those types of crimes, the most effective way to reduce resistance to the regime, is to take out the people who actively resist. But this only works for a time, and only if the regime doesn’t push too hard.

When violent rioters under the banner of “Antifa” or “BLM”, began trashing college campuses and attacking conservatives – while the police were ordered to sit on their hands – it served as an invitation for angry conservatives to turn out to meet violence with violence. Those opposition forces were immediately painted as white supremacists and “right-wing extremists,” and undoubtedly some of them fit those labels. But most of the people who showed up at free speech rallies – designed and intended to invite counter-protests from Antifa-types – were just good Americans, tired of seeing thuggery and brutality excused and tolerated by politicians, police, and the establishment media.

As the protests and counter-protests became more violent, and racist and anti-American groups became more prominent in those events, (or so it appeared in the reporting of the establishment media), fewer regular Americans participated. They didn’t want to be associated with racists and anti-government groups, leaving the protests, and the participating organizations, to be more dominated by the more extreme members, eventually making the accusations of the media, less false than they were initially.

This is not an accident or a coincidence. This is intentional and coordinated.

A reporter can stand in front of a burning building, with gunshots going off all around him, and earnestly declare that the riot surrounding him is a “mostly peaceful protest,” with just a few people getting carried away or taking advantage of the situation to engage in violent or criminal behavior. Then a few months later, that same reporter and his fellow talking heads can just as earnestly declare that every one of the tens of thousands of people who attended the Trump rally or the protest at the Capitol on January 6th, is a rioter and violent insurrectionist.

There is not just a two-tiered legal system, where a Navy officer who inadvertently carries classified materials out of a secure building, is sentenced to prison and loses his job and pension, while Hillary Clinton diverts boatloads of classified materials to an unsecured, private email server and faces no legal sanctions at all. Or the acting President’s son lying on a firearm purchase form, but isn’t prosecuted.

There’s also a “Right Side – Wrong Side” aspect to the legal system. People on the right side of the political spectrum, with the “right side” being the far left, face little likelihood of prosecution, and minimal penalties, for heinous crimes, while persons on the wrong side of the political spectrum can expect to be hounded by the system, with the heaviest possible charges leveled against them, and the harshest possible penalties imposed.

This is part of the “shadow government” that aims to destroy our country. It’s not necessarily a vast, coordinated conspiracy. It’s more likely to just be a bunch of ideologues “living their truth” and believing that their noble ends justify any means necessary.

Don’t let them shut you down or back you up, because that’s their objective. The more people who publicly refuse to play their game, refuse to kowtow to their demands, refuse to remain silent to their abuses, the less control they have, and the more freedom we share.

They’ve been winning this secret fight for decades. Donald Trump disrupted it for 4 years, but also inadvertently accelerated it. Today it’s operating in full swing, but the leftists are overplaying their hand, and conservatives and constitutionalists are catching on and fighting back.

To be clear I am NOT advocating violence, [violence is what they want us to resort too] but I am calling out all digital warriors and truely peacfully protestors. Now is the time to rally.

Be part of the solution. Call out the double-standard. Point out the lies and distortions. Don’t be on any “side” except the side of liberty. And stand behind anyone who is persecuted for speaking the truth or standing up for what’s right.

We’re in the midst of a revolution, and we’ve been losing. Now is the time to turn that around.

Join with The Firearms Coalition as we fight to educate the public and our elected servants about their rights and their responsibilities. Subscribe to our newsletter, “The Hard Corps Report,” and share our articles and other media. Join us as we fight the lies and disinformation that’s destroying our nation. We can’t promise we’ll win, but we can promise that we’ll keep fighting, as we’ve been doing for almost 40 years.

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In his final, answering brief submitted to the US Supreme Court (embedded below, must-read) in the case of NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, attorney for the NYSRPA, Paul Clement makes a statement which I believe undermines his position and perpetuates the problematic attitudes that keep us fighting for our rights decade after decade.

It all boils down to the improper application of the word “allow.”

Regular readers of my columns already know what comes next, as this is a pet peeve of mine, which I come back to fairly frequently. Some will say I’m just arguing semantics or being too nit-picky, but words matter, and if we, defenders of rights, use the terminology of our opponents, the invaders of rights, we are ceding ground in advance of the fight.

In his scathing brief, [some say thorough takedown of New York] Clement answers the arguments put forward by New York State and the various “friends of the court” who have weighed in on New York’s behalf. He very effectively and systematically takes apart their arguments, exposing the hypocrisy, double-speak, and evasion of history and legal precedents in those arguments and the laws they defend.

But then Clement says this: “The state takes its revisionism so far as to claim there is no example in all Anglo American history of the carry rights petitioners seek. In fact, at least 43 states allow just that, while, as in Heller, only a few jurisdictions follow New York’s lead of presumptively denying a right that the Constitution guarantees to all…”

My complaint is that, if indeed “the Constitution guarantees to all,” this right, (which should be acknowledged to preexist the Constitution), then exercise of the right is not something which any state does, or can, “allow.” Those 43 states do not “allow” the exercise of the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. They recognize the right. They honor the right. They have laws that specifically avoid infringing on the right. But they most certainly don’t “allow” the exercise of the right.

Rights are not something that states “allow.” Rights are either recognized and respected, or they are infringed, suppressed, and violated.

Saying that states “allow” the exercise of the right to arms, is like saying that states “allow” the free exercise of religion, or that they “allow” citizens to read books of their choice. Taking the argument farther, it’s like saying that 43 states “allow” their citizens to breathe.

The word “allow” simply has no place in any discussion of rights, except as described below. Using the word as Clement did, is inaccurate, lazy, and undermines our position. By using the word “allow,” Clement, along with a broad swath of rights advocates and our media, is making a huge and false concession.

No one – no person or entity of government can “allow” something over which they have no legal authority.

I can’t “allow” my neighbors to watch TV or change their furniture. The city government can’t “allow” me to vote. And no one, not my neighbor, the city, county, state, or federal government, can “allow” me to exercise my God-given rights, including the right to protect myself and my family, and my right to the means to effectively do so.

Suggesting that anyone does have the authority to “allow” the exercise of our rights, also suggests that they have the authority to disallow the exercise of those same rights.

They don’t.

Rights are rights. If the government has the authority to forbid or “allow” an activity, then that activity is not a right, it’s a privilege. And any time anyone uses language that shifts activities from being rights to being privileges, they are diminishing those rights and offering support to the extremists who want to infringe on them. The only place the word “allow” has in any discussion of rights, is in the context of what the Constitution and we, the people, will allow the government to do that might interfere with or encroach upon our rights.

With all due respect to Mr. Clement, who many readers might recognize as the former Solicitor General who represented the government in their unsuccessful defense of DC’s unconstitutional gun bans in the Heller case, using the word “allow” in the context he did in his brief, is simply inexcusable.

Since leaving the office of Solicitor General, Clement has been the go-to attorney for the National Rifle Association in Supreme Court cases. That makes sense, as there’s no question that Mr. Clement knows his way around the law and the Court. As any good attorney will tell you, the attorney’s job is to represent the client to the best of their ability, regardless of their own feelings or interpretations of the law. As attorney for the government, Clement argued for the preservation of DC’s repressive and unconstitutional laws. Just two years later, as attorney for the NRA, Clement argued successfully for the application of the Heller decision to all states, under the “incorporation doctrine” of the Court, under the Fourteenth Amendment, in the case McDonald v. Chicago.

I believe Clement received more credit in that case than was really due him though, as the case was built and brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, and argued by Alan Gura, who was also the lead attorney for Heller. In the eleventh hour, the NRA petitioned for and received permission to join the McDonald case, and the 30 minutes for oral arguments was divided down the middle. With Gura first arguing that the Court should apply the Second Amendment to the states under a proper reading of the 13th Amendment, correcting over a century of bad precedents going back to the post-Civil War Court. Clement, in his turn, argued the more conservative line, calling for the Court to apply the Second Amendment as a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Because the Court chose to go with Clement’s remedy, rather than Gura’s, Clement was the one who got much of the credit, with some claiming that he “rescued” the case from Gura. I think that’s too generous to Clement, and far too dismissive of Gura. McDonald, like Heller, was Gura’s case. He put it together, led it through the courts, and convinced the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and hear the case. His push for the Court to reverse precedents, which virtually all constitutional scholars agree are erroneous and flawed, was worth trying. Gura knew that it was a long shot, so he had always taken a dual-pronged approach, arguing that the Court could either apply the Second Amendment to the states via a correct reading of the Thirteenth Amendment. Or they could take the less drastic route of accomplishing the same thing via the “incorporation doctrine” and the Fourteenth Amendment. Had the NRA and Clement not joined the case, Gura would certainly have argued both options during oral arguments – as he did in his briefs – and the Court would have reached the same conclusion they eventually did, via the “incorporation doctrine.”

Soon, the Court will deliver a ruling on New York’s oppressive rules regarding the issuance of concealed carry permits. Of course, the whole idea of requiring a permit to exercise a right is ludicrous on its face, but the legislative and judicial systems, along with a majority of the populous, have been living in a state of cognitive dissonance for decades. And for decades, those of us who understand the difference between a right and a privilege, have been trying to shine a light on the glaring inconsistencies and pushing for actual adherence to the Constitution and the natural laws recognized by the founders.

But if we can only win a small sliver of reality and constitutionality at a time, we’ll take it.

Attorney Clement is clearly a smart guy, and good at what he does. I fully expect him to be victorious in NYSRPA v. Bruen (New York), though it will be interesting to see just how far backward some of the Justices will bend, trying to avoid a declaration that the Second Amendment actually means what it says. I believe it is worth noting that, smart as he is, Mr. Clement could be more effective, if he would avoid using language that cedes ground without even putting up a fight.

Let’s stop allowing our language to support false assumptions about the nature of our rights.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., v. Kevin P. Bruen, Reply Brief For Petitioners

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- As I watched my 7-year old grandson and his teammates fighting their way to another win in their “Coach Pitch” baseball league, my wife poked me for repeatedly yelling “The play’s at First,” or “Third,” or “Home,” depending on the loading of the bases at the moment. I guess this league has a strict rule against spectators “coaching” from the sidelines, and my wife was worried that I was going to be ejected from the game – again…

Well, there are no rules against coaching from the sidelines in US politics, so listen up GunVoters: The Play’s at First – Virginia!

I call it “First” because Virginia is one of only two states holding major elections this November, and the other state is New Jersey, where GunVoters are unlikely to have a significant impact. In Virginia, however, GunVoters could make all the difference. Virginia has a lot of gun owners, and gun owner rights have been under extreme assault in recent years, under Democratic Party control. This year, Governor Ralph “Black-Face” Northam is term-limited out, but former Governor Terry McAuliffe is back vying for another turn in the gubernatorial barrel, running against Republican newcomer Glenn Youngkin.

Youngkin has not said or done a lot to excite GunVoters and get them to the polls. He made some pro-rights comments during the primary, but hasn’t talked much about guns or gun laws since, and he’s refused to fill out candidate questionnaires from the National Rifle Association or the Virginia Citizens Defense League, resulting in neither group offering him an endorsement. That lack of endorsements from gun groups, has been used as a talking point by McAuliffe supporters hoping to dampen enthusiasm for Youngkin in rural Virginia.

We’ve seen this sort of stupidity from Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidates before.

It seems that their high-dollar, campaign consultants think guns are a “divisive” issue that should be steered away from. This losing strategy has helped defeat at least three Republican gubernatorial candidates over the past 15 years or so, and in one case, offending GunVoters almost certainly cost Republicans the seat. Meanwhile, GunVoters need to remember that McAullife received over $1 million in support from Mike Bloomberg during his last campaign, and was a champion of gun control, blocked only by pro-rights majorities in the State Assembly.

But Youngkin vs. McAuliffe is just the tip of the Virginia electoral iceberg. Lt. Governor candidate Winsome Sears, who happens to be an African American woman, has embraced gun rights as a key issue and is working hard for GunVoter support. A photo of her holding an AR-15-style rifle is being widely used by her opponents to try and paint her as some sort of radical.

Meanwhile, her Democratic opponent, Hala Ayala, is an avid supporter of the most extreme gun control laws. Ayala advocates for a total ban on private possession of modern sporting rifles, wants to ban the sale of firearm parts and things that firearm parts can be made from, such as blocks of aluminum and supports laws that would make it illegal for anyone in a household to possess a firearm, if anyone else in the household is a prohibited person.

The position of Lt. Governor is critically important right now because, like the US Senate, the Virginia Senate – which is not up for election this cycle – is almost evenly divided, and just as the US Senate breaks ties by getting a vote from the Vice President, the Virginia Senate breaks ties by getting a vote from the Lt. Governor. So, the Lt. Governor could be the deciding vote on critical legislation in the coming year.

Also on the ballot is Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, going for a third term in that office, against Republican challenger Jason Miyares. Herring has been active in his support for gun control, and other expansions of government power over the people. Miyares is a former prosecutor and member of the Virginia House of Delegates, with a solid record of support for gun owner rights. He’s received the endorsement of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

The AG’s office has a significant impact on Virginia gun owners. During his two terms in that office, Herring has offered new and unfavorable interpretations of Virginia gun laws and has chosen to aggressively prosecute gun owners who have inadvertently gotten tangled in gun control red tape. At the same time, Herring has been more sympathetic to actual criminals, refusing to prosecute, opposing federal assistance, and offering liberal plea deals. While he’s not gone full-woke crazy, like some AG’s in super-woke areas, he has demonstrated a willingness to use his office as a cudgel to promote his personal political ideology.

Along with these high-profile offices, every seat in the Virginia House of Delegates is up for election this cycle. In the previous cycle, Democrats got a free ride in over 100 races, with no Republican candidate to challenge them. That’s not happening this year, as Republicans have fielded candidates for every seat. Now it’s up to GunVoters to wake up, get their friends and neighbors involved, and get to the polls (or Post Office, as the case may be).

Anti-rights Democrats hold a slim majority in the Virginia House, so flipping just a few seats could make a huge difference in the state going forward. GunVoters must get involved though, and they could use help from their friends and neighbors in other states. If you don’t live in Virginia, but want to help, there are several ways you can do so.

You can donate to the VCDL PAC, or directly to candidates, and just as important, you can reach out to friends and family in Virginia and urge them to get involved and vote. Share this article with them and let them know that their vote matters.

Turnout for off-year elections is always much lower than it is in presidential election years. This means that the key to victory is a matter of just getting people to the polls.

Virginians should remember the outrageous raft of radical gun control legislation that Governor Northam and his slim Democratic majority tried to ram through at their first opportunity. The worst of their proposals were blocked by a few members of their own party who weren’t willing to go quite that far, but they still managed to get some significant restrictions passed, and they’ve never paid a price for those betrayals.

Now is the time to declare loud and clear that gun rights are human rights, and any politician who doesn’t understand that, needs to be retired.

Your vote, your dollars, your encouragement, your involvement… You can make a difference!

Take a moment right now to share this article with Virginia friends and friends who might have Virginia friends. Go to the VCDL PAC website or to a particular candidate’s website, and make a contribution. Do what you can do to send Joe Biden-supporting, gun control-advocating politicians packing. Time’s running out. Do it Now!