Gun Fearing Wussies

CBS News freaks over armed teachers in Texas By Tom Knighton

AP Photo/ Rick Bowmer
The state of Texas has a reputation for guns. That’s clearly a holdover from the Old West reputation that permeates so much of the state.

So, it’s unsurprising that it’s a state that allows school districts to permit armed teachers in the classroom.

And it seems CBS News finds that something worthy of concern.

Since January, 50 people have been killed and 122 injured in at least 152 incidents of gunfire on school grounds across the U.S. To respond to the threat of such attacks, some districts — in at least 29 states that allow it — have taken the controversial step of authorizing school staff, other than security guards, to carry firearms on campus. Texas is one of those states.


In the aftermath of the shooting in Uvalde that killed 19 children and two teachers, Texas Republicans have urged schools to arm up and “harden the target.” But Texas state laws regulating armed staff are sparing, allowing school districts to decide for themselves the type, and amount, of training school staff need to carry guns on campus.

According to the Texas Association of School Boards, “school districts can grant written permission for anyone, including designated employees, to carry firearms on campus” under Texas Penal Code 46.03, but the law does not lay out standards for training.

The only thing a school employee needs in order to carry a firearm on campus is a license to carry, which requires a background check and a proficiency demonstration. Otherwise, individual districts determine the amount and type of additional requirements, which can include active-shooter training courses and psychological evaluations.

And it seems that the fact that Texas doesn’t have a lot of regulations over how this works is a problem.

Which is hilarious because the people who tend to think that also have an issue with preemption, claiming that local communities know their own needs better than the state and should be permitted to handle those issues as they see fit.

Apparently, that doesn’t apply to the school boards.

That’s what gets me about this. Well, that and the fact that this breathless concern revolves around a non-issue.

We don’t know how many armed teachers there are in Texas, but what we don’t hear about are incidents with them. For all the fearmongering among activists and the media about armed teachers, they’re remarkably lacking in hard evidence of this being a problem.

Oh, they try, mind you:

Despite these efforts to arm teachers, Sonali Rajan, a school violence researcher at Columbia University, says there’s no evidence that it makes schools safer.

“There is no science available at the moment, absolutely none, that shows that arming teachers would either deter gun violence from happening to begin with, nor would it deter or reduce the lethality of a shooting once it was occurring,” said Rajan. “There is evidence that shows very clearly and very definitively that the increased presence of firearms leads to increased firearm violence and firearm related harms.”

The fact that there’s “no science available” is a pretty good indicator, at least to me, that it works. We’ve seen how the science on this stuff is so heavily slanted it’s not even funny.

That also goes to the vague argument that “the increased presence of firearms leads to increase firearm violence.”

See, if this were a legitimate problem, we’d have countless anecdotes of teachers flipping out and shooting people or something, only we don’t. What we do have are the occasional incident where no one gets hurt but do indicate a cause for concern, but are so scattered and rare that they represent a non-issue overall.

So, they just make claims about guns in general and assume that this applies to teachers as well.

That’s simply not the case.

Armed teachers can and will save lives. Just their mere presence is something a would-be shooter has to take into account.

It’s only a matter of time before we’re writing about one that didn’t and got himself killed by an armed educator, whether it be in Texas or elsewhere, and that will be a good day to see these people contort themselves trying to explain it away.

——————————————————————————–           Out here in the Peoples Republic of California. I was amazed by the fact of how many of my fellow teachers have a good knowledge of guns. That and how many of them had one or two in their cars. I of course would never do such a thing myself. (Coughs Bullshit!) Grumpy

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

From Splendid Isolation – Some Insanity from Texas

  • House Bill 22House Bill 106House Bill 284 & House Bill 324 requiring the REPORTING OF LAWFUL SALES of certain firearms and magazines to state and/or local law enforcement — not gonna happen
  • House Bill 76 CRIMINALIZING the failure of a victim of gun theft to report having his or her firearms stolen — are you kidding me?
  • House Bill 88 & House Bill 447 further TAXING the sale of firearms and/or ammunition and firearm accessories — higher taxes?  in Texas?
  • House Bill 110House Bill 146 & House Bill 308 BANNING private firearm transfers at gun shows — LOL no
  • House Bill 123 & House Bill 136 red flag GUN CONFISCATION legislation requiring surrender of firearms without due process — nope
  • House Bill 129 & House Bill 565 RAISING THE MINIMUM AGE for purchase of semi-automatic rifles — not a chance
  • House Bill 155 & House Bill 236 BANNING private firearm transfers between certain family members and friends, requiring FFLs to process these transactions that would include federal paperwork for government approval at an undetermined fee — stomach’s starting to hurt, here
  • House Bill 197 BANNING the sale or transfer and possession of standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds — was that a unicorn I just saw?
  • House Bill 179House Bill 216 & House Bill 244 RESTRICTING long gun open carry, with limited exceptions — maybe in hospitals… nah, not even
  • House Bill 298 establishes a 3-day WAITING PERIOD for firearm sales — like in California?
  • Senate Bill 32 BANNING the sale or possession of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms — we do not live on the Planet Manhattan.
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

Why indeed!

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

Turn ‘Em In or Become a Felon! Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Starting In This State by S.H. BLANNELBERRY

Schmeisser 60-round AK mags. (Photo: Schmeisser)

Gun owners in Delaware are now being forced to turn in their “large-capacity” magazines to law enforcement following the passage of the “Delaware Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition Act of 2022” in June of this year.

The new law broadly prohibits the production, sale, purchase, receipt, transfer, and possession of magazines with a capacity of over 17 rounds.

The Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security (DSHS) issued guidelines late last month along with dates, locations, and compensation for the mandatory “buyback” program.

The DSHS said that “residents are eligible to receive fair market compensation for” their LCM or large capacity magazine.

Delawareans providing valid identification for proof of residency may receive:

  • LCM 18 to 30 Rounds – $15
  • LCM 31 or greater round – $25
  • LCM Drums – $80

“This buyback program is for Delaware residents only,” states the DSHS. “The program is only intended for individuals and does not apply to wholesale, retail, manufacturers, and distributor business entities. Anonymous relinquishments will be permitted. However, no compensation will be provided.”

Violators face a misdemeanor charge for their first offense and a class E felony for subsequent offenses.

A felony conviction for the possession of an LCM would result in the permanent loss of one’s 2A rights.

There are some key exemptions. Active and retired law enforcement, members of the U.S. military, and licensed concealed carriers are excluded from the ban.

The NRA-ILA is actively suing Delaware over its magazine ban and its 2022 ban on modern sporting rifles, known as the Delaware Lethal Firearms Safety Act of 2022.

However, while gun-owning Delawareans await the outcome of the lawsuits, state officials are hoping to complete the “buyback” program by June 30, 2023 — the end of the fiscal year, according to WHYY.

Mark Oliva, the managing director of public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, lamented the present situation in Delaware.

“There was a time when Delaware was respected for standing for freedom and against restricting God-given rights. Now, the state is literally financing magazine seizures with taxpayer funds,” he told GunsAmerica via email.

“The state cannot buy back something it never owned. As a matter of intellectual honesty, state officials should call it what it is. This is a state-sanctioned seizure of magazines done to bolster President Joe Biden’s gun control agenda,” he continued.

Oliva spoke about the legal challenges the magazine ban is currently facing, especially in light of the landmark Bruen decision.

“The audacity of Delaware lawmakers to move forward with this plan is astounding. The U.S.Supreme Court ordered the U.S. Court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit to revisit its ruling upholding California’s magazine restriction law in light of Bruen,” he said.

“It’s clear that Delaware lawmakers are determined to cause as much damage as possible to the Second Amendment rights of their fellow citizens and it will be the taxpayers that find it and potentially compensate those harmed by this effort,” Oliva concluded.

All About Guns California Gun Fearing Wussies

Federal Judge Upholds California ‘Ghost Gun’ Ban, Rules Gun-Making Not Protected by Second Amendment Stephen Gutowski

California’s attempt to stop people from building their own firearms can move forward.

That’s the decision federal district judge George H. Wu, a George W. Bush appointee, delivered late last week. Wu determined the Second Amendment’s text does not cover the building of firearms, ruling against gun-mill maker Defense Distributed (DD) in its challenge of AB 1621. The judge argued California’s law banning the possession of unserialized firearms, as well as parts or specific tools used to make them, does not run afoul of gun-rights protections under the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision.

“Though it leads with a recognition of the primacy of Bruen’s ‘plain text’ point, DD seeks in its opening brief to jump ahead in the analysis to a historical/tradition assessment (and to jump ahead in Bruen to that decision’s discussion of how to conduct such an assessment),” Judge Wu wrote in his ruling rejecting a request for a preliminary injunction against the law. “But it has effectively attempted to avoid the necessary threshold consideration – does the ‘Second Amendment’s plain text’ cover the issue here? No, it plainly does not. AB 1621 has nothing to do with ‘keep[ing]’ or ‘bear[ing]’ arms.”

The decision presents a novel interpretation of the standard for reviewing gun laws set in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires judges to strike down laws that implicate Second Amendment rights unless they match a historical analogue from the founding era. Wu is among the first federal judges to grapple with the new test and possibly the first to determine the text of the amendment only covers owning and carrying guns, not making or selling them. If his approach to reading the scope of what activities are protected by the Second Amendment as relatively limited becomes influential among other judges, it could result in them upholding many modern restrictions.

Judge Wu argued Defense Distributed skipped passed the textual analysis of what the Second Amendment protects and, ultimately, undermined its case.

“Under DD’s own characterization of the Penal Code provisions introduced via AB 1621, what is at issue here is a ban on ‘self-manufacture of firearms’ and a prohibition on ‘the sale of the tools and parts necessary to complete the self-manufacturing process,’” he wrote. “Try as you might, you will not find a discussion of those concerns (or any such ‘right(s)’) in the ‘plain text’ of the Second Amendment.”

However, Defense Distributed disputed Judge Wu’s contention. Cody Wilson, the company’s founder, described the judge’s conduct in the case as “unprofessional” and “cynical.” He noted California’s law does directly implicate owning guns, not just building them.

“What’s crazy is AB 1621 in California is about keeping and bearing arms,” Wilson told The Reload. “Literally, it defines a number of things as firearms under California Penal Code, and it restricts if you can possess and transfer them.”

He said there might be more to argue about when it comes to how far Second Amendment protections extend to gun making. But he accused Judge Wu of side-stepping the core issues at play in the company’s case against California, which he said were identical to those in Bruen.

“We’ve challenged a number of sections 1621 that defined things as firearms,” Wilson said. “I didn’t choose to do it that way; the California legislature decided to say everything which can become a gun in California is a firearm that you can’t have unless it has a serial number. Well, I don’t know what else to say. There’s clearly a second amendment application to be made here and a historical inquiry to make. Maybe the secondary questions about CNC machines and the right to manufacture are more interesting at the outer bounds of Bruen or something. But a lot of what we challenge is obviously firearm regulation of the same type in Bruen.”

Judge Wu is among the only federal court judges to uphold a 21st Century gun regulation in the wake of Bruen. His ruling is in stark contrast with U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika, who blocked Delaware’s “ghost gun” ban earlier this year. Judge Wu appeared to acknowledge that his approach to Bruen differs from how other federal judges have approached the issue. However, he accused his piers of cherry-picking from Bruen to reach preferred outcomes.

“DD – and apparently certain other courts – would like to treat the Supreme Court’s Bruen opinion as a ‘word salad,’ choosing an ingredient from one side of the ‘plate’ and an entirely-separate ingredient from the other, until there is nothing left whatsoever other than an entirely-bulletproof and unrestrained Second Amendment,” Wu wrote. “That is not how precedent works; it is not even how language works (let alone salad, in most instances).”

Defense Distributed’s attempt to block SB 1327, a law that allows California to seek legal fees from plaintiffs in gun cases even when those plaintiffs prevail on some of their claims, was denied by Judge Wu. He did not examine the merits of the law, though, instead relying on California’s word they would not pursue legal fees in the DD case.

“Defendants have made clear that they ‘have informed [DD] that they will not seek attorneys’ fees or costs from [DD] or its attorneys pursuant to [Section 2 of SB 1327] in connection with this action,’” Judge Wu said. “Given Defendants’ statements in documents filed with the Court, it is almost certain that any later court considering a contrary plan would hold Defendants to their word under principles of judicial estoppel.”

Wilson believes the way California wrote the bill opens it up to broad legal scrutiny. He said he’s just concerned about finding a judge in the Ninth Circuit who will, in his view, abide by the standard set down by the Supreme Court.

“California has multiplied the number of things that are firearms that they regulate the possession and transfer of,” he said. “So, they’ve actually expanded the scope of the Second Amendment themselves. Historical analysis can now be applied to components of firearms because of California. I just can’t find, you know, an actual judge to actually apply the law right.”

Wilson said Defense Distributed is exploring an appeal against the decision.

All About Guns Allies California Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

California sheriff forced to disclose names of concealed carry holders to media By Cam Edwards

(AP Photo/Al Behrman, File)
California gun owners have already suffered a loss of their privacy thanks to the massive leak of information from Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office earlier this year, but now those who possess a concealed carry license in one California county have been told that the media also has access to their information.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco recently sent out a notification to concealed carry holders in the county alerting them to a public records request from Viacom-CBS for “the names of all people with concealed carry permits.” Bianco says that after the request was received, the department reached out to attorneys to “determine if their were any valid exceptions the department could use” in order to prevent handing over those names to the media. According to Bianco, an “outside legal analysis” determined that the California Supreme Court ruled all the way back in 1986 that if media outlets request this information, “public agencies must disclose the full names of concealed weapons permit holders.”

Bianco says he had no choice but to release the names of all those Riverside County residents who possess a valid concealed carry license, and in his alert to permit holders told them that he doesn’t take this matter lightly. Still, the sheriff says that because of “court precedent and a lack of protections” within the state’s legal code he was forced to hand over the information, and encouraged those “seeking a change” to state law to contact their local legislators.

I’m actually somewhat torn here. If California were a true “shall issue” state, then I don’t think there is any compelling public interest in knowing the names of those who possess a concealed carry license. In “may issue” states, however, I think the argument can be made that the subjective and arbitrary issuance of carry license is deserving of public scrutiny. Look at what’s going on in Santa Clara County, California right now, where Sheriff Laurie Smith is currently on trial in civil court on charges of corruption after allegations that deep-pocketed donors to her re-election campaign were given rarely-issued concealed carry permits in exchange for their “support”. While the powerful and well-connected were handed permits, those who didn’t have that same special relationship with the sheriff’s office were often left twisting in the wind without even a formal denial.

A former manager for a Silicon Valley security business testified at a sheriff’s civil corruption trial that he and the company’s CEO agreed to provide political donations in exchange for concealed-weapons permits.

Martin Nielsen, who implicated a Santa Clara County sheriff’s captain and others in the alleged bribery scheme, testified publicly for the first time Monday at Sheriff Laurie Smith’s trial.

He detailed how he was tasked with finding a way to get concealed-carry permits for AS Solutions security agents who were assigned to high-profile clients, the Mercury News reported. The effort followed a 2018 shooting at the YouTube campus in San Bruno in which a woman wounded three people before killing herself.


The now-defunct security company’s high-profile clients included Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Nielsen testified that he and AS Solution’s then-head Christian West agreed to financially support Smith’s 2018 reelection bid in exchange for the permits for security agents assigned to protect executives for the company then known as Facebook.


… Nielsen, testifying under a grant of immunity from criminal prosecution, said he and West arranged to donate a large sum to an independent expenditure committee backing Smith’s reelection.

“Did you come away with the understanding you would get 10 to 15 permits?” prosecutor Gabriel Markoff asked.

“Yes,” Nielsen replied.


… Nielson did not state the precise donation amount in his testimony because San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Nancy Fineman had limited what details Nielsen could give in front of the jury.

However, in past testimony, Nielsen said $90,000 was the agreed amount, though only $45,000 was ever donated. The other half was scuttled after the bribery and corruption probe got underway in 2019.


Nielsen also testified that he was unilaterally exempted by a sheriff’s captain from having to qualify under a legally required firearms proficiency test, and was instructed to obscure their association with the security company to avoid negative optics.

“They could not all be AS Solution,” he said. “Something about the fact it was a security company and it didn’t look good.”

If the powerful and well-connected are afforded access to their right of armed self-defense while the vast majority of applicants are denied, that’s a legitimate news story. Having said that, the scandal in the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department wasn’t uncovered by local media, but by the Santa Clara County D.A.’s office. While the publicly available information could have been used by news outlets to uncover the alleged shady situation in the sheriff’s office, it looks instead like it was campaign finance disclosures that actually raised suspicions of prosecutors, with the media only picking up on the scandalous allegations after a search warrant was served on the sheriff’s office.

While there’s a theoretical benefit to publicly disclosing the names of concealed carry holders in “may issue” states, in practice this leads to responsible gun owners being put at risk of burglary and theft, and may even help aid stalkers learn whether their potential victims are armed or not. Unfortunately, for now this policy is the law of the land in California, and concealed carry holders can be outed by their local media. Whether that law would withstand constitutional scrutiny in light of the test laid out by the Supreme Court in Bruen is another question entirely, however, and I hope that one or more of the 2A groups operating in the state will challenge that 1986 California court decision by using the Bruen test in the very near future.


Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

Financial Deplatforming Raises Its Head Again


Revolver gun money iStock-1060256694
Second Amendment supporters already see court rulings strike down laws that violate the Second Amendment across the country – it’s a good start. IMG iStock-1060256694

USA -( Second Amendment supporters already see court rulings strike down laws that violate the Second Amendment across the country – it’s a good start. But they also swing good reasons to make addressing financial deplatforming a priority.

With JP Morgan Chase deciding to close Kanye West’s business accounts and Bank of America going after conservative social media commentator Catturd, the alarm is buzzing again – and Second Amendment supporters cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button with regards to financial deplatforming.

The stakes aren’t just whether or not buying guns becomes a case of using cash. It also has the potential to cripple our ability to exercise the First Amendment to protect the Second Amendment. This is right out of a playbook long run by anti-Second Amendment extremists.

They tried and failed with McCain-Feingold, especially in the wake of Citizens United. They’ve been unable to pass other legislation that would expose donors. Letitia James and Andrew Cuomo’s jihad against the NRA ran into a First Amendment brick wall regarding their desire to dissolve the group.

However, the CEOs and top executives of big financial services corporations – be it banks, credit cards, or insurance companies – can act independently (or after prodding from anti-Second Amendment extremists in office), and there are not many Second Amendment supporters can do. Sure, some smaller banks might be safe havens for the short-to-medium term, but the only long-term security is the passage of strong legislation to address financial deplatforming in as many Second Amendment-friendly states as possible.

Think it won’t happen? There are two likely scenarios for a massive surge of financial deplatforming of the Second Amendment community – the first would be a SCOTUS ruling explicitly striking down bans on modern multi-purpose semi-automatic long guns. In that case, anti-Second Amendment extremists would likely push for corporate gun control due to a lack of other options.

The second scenario would be repeated school shootings like those in Uvalde or Sandy Hook. This time, we could see financial services companies cite “reputational risk,” with or without pressure from government officials (again, see Andrew Cuomo and Letitia James) or lawmakers.

The financial deplatforming can be halted firmly with strong legislation in the form of state-level versions of the Freedom Financing Act as a bare minimum. The fact of the matter is that Second Amendment supporters have to defeat the ability of banks to financially deplatform them in order to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post,, and other national websites.

All About Guns Gun Fearing Wussies Some Red Hot Gospel there!


Behold the target of the bigot in modern American society.
There is little tolerance on the political Left for white male gun owners.


Tolerance is the new holy gospel in America. Bigotry is the unforgivable sin of the Information Age. It doesn’t matter what good you might have otherwise accomplished, in the 21st century, if you can be painted as intolerant, you are an irredeemable reprobate.

Given the purported pervasive prevalence of bigotry in our society, I propose that we explore the holy dicta of tolerance as they relate to the traditionally conservative American gun owner. This stuff is important. Microaggressions can evolve into macroaggressions. If we tolerate bigotry, then we begin flirting with fascism. The next thing you know some yahoo will be trying to clone Hitler from a tooth fragment. Literally, nobody wants that.


Start With The Basics


Bigotry is formally defined as “intolerance of those who hold different opinions from oneself.” In the modern age, bigotry is the manifestation of innate animosity toward an individual or people group based upon their unwillingness or inability to conform to the bigot’s expected norms of philosophy, worldview, or behavior. Now, how might we recognize bigotry when confronted by it?

For starters, the offending behavior that drives the bigot must be harmless. I think we can all agree that a little innate disdain for Nazi death camp guards or serial murderers is both warranted and healthy. However, if the target of the bigot’s ire causes no discernible harm, then we must question the underlying motivations. Is the bigot driven by the furtherance of the public good, or is he actually trying to impose his will unfairly upon others? Such imposition reeks of rank imperialism and is obviously a throwback to a darker, more misogynistic and institutionally oppressive age.


The Landscape


Crime rates have been demonstrably falling since the 1970s, whilst rates of private gun ownership have been skyrocketing. Cherry-picking statistics and fixation on isolated tragedy can indeed drive a false narrative. However, statistically speaking, the reality is that America has become steadily safer as we have become ever better armed. It is simply that egregious examples of violence are now pumped into our pockets via our phones where, in decades past, we lacked this capacity.

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, America saw a drastic rise in concealed carry. In 2017, there were 17,251,354 concealed carry permit holders in the United States. In a nation with a population of 328 million, that is roughly one in twelve adult Americans. Considering half of the 50 states also now allow some form of permitless carry the absolute number of Americans wandering about armed in public staggers the imagination.

In 1980, the rate of overall property crime in America was 5,400 incidents per 100,000 people. Today, the number is less than half that. These same trends hold true for burglary, larceny, auto theft, and murder. The media will not tell you that because a demonstrably safer world doesn’t earn clicks.


The Very Definition Of Bigotry


With the assistance of biased and complicit media, Leftists control the presidency as well as both houses of Congress. Among their published legislative priorities is the re-enactment of an assault weapons ban, a ban on standard-capacity magazines, and sweeping restrictions on gun ownership. All this is in the face of demonstrable reductions in crime rates since the 1980s.

Thirty-two percent of American adults admit to owning at least one firearm. It follows that 68% of American adults are, therefore, not gun owners. That makes gun owners in America a statistically significant minority. Of those 66,921,246 gun owners, at least 66,910,242 are not criminals. Why then should there be such abject animosity directed toward this one people group by those who do not share their worldview? Is that not the textbook definition of bigotry?




I once heard a CEO pontificate that the only thing she would not tolerate was intolerance. I came to appreciate later that what she actually meant was that the only thing she would not tolerate was anyone who did not conform to her standard of normality. Tolerance is a one-way street in America. You can sleep with road kill and be considered some sort of protected minority. However, in certain circles, if you admit to being a white hetero gun-owning Christian, you are viewed as some kind of malevolent leper. Ask me how I know this.

So the next time someone gives you a hard time about gun ownership, just politely state that you choose not to associate with bigots and move on. The oppression of law-abiding gun owners is the practical manifestation of institutional bigotry. Perhaps as a persecuted minority we could get some kind of special license plates or something. I’m not holding my breath.

All About Guns Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

CNN Sounds Alarm: SCOTUS May Wipe Out Gun Control ‘Nationwide’

U.S. Supreme Court building; inset-Tierney Sneed
J. Scott Applewhite, File/AP; JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

CNN sounded the alarm Sunday, warning that the pro-Second Amendment makeup of  the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) portends an end to gun control “nationwide.”

CNN’s Tierney Sneed pointed to the June 23, 2022, SCOTUS decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, noting that it not only struck down New York’s proper cause requirement but also set forward stringent rules for how lower courts must decide cases related to the Second Amendment.

On July 1 Breitbart News noted that SCOTUS remanded a number of cases, vacating the decisions and ordering them to be reconsidered in light of Bruen. The cases centered on an “assault weapons” ban in Maryland, a “high capacity” magazine ban in California, and carry restrictions in Hawaii, among other things.

Roughly two weeks later Breitbart News pointed to a Washington Times article suggesting the Bruen decision puts all types of gun control in the crosshairs of gun rights groups.

The Washington Times paraphrased Justice Clarence Thomas’s emphasis on the important of decisions like BruenMcDonald v. Chicago (2010), and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), saying, “The test courts must apply is whether a firearms restriction would have seemed reasonable to the founding generation that crafted and ratified the Second Amendment. If not, the law must give way to the Constitution.”

In light of this framework for testing restrictions, CNN warns that gun control in every state is in jeopardy:

Since the June ruling, federal judges in at least a half-dozen different cases have already cited the Bruen decision to rule against gun restrictions that have included local assault weapons bans, prohibitions on the manufacture of homemade firearms and bans on older teenagers publicly carrying handguns.

Several other laws now face new legal challenges under the precedent, among them zoning restrictions barring shooting ranges, licensing and training laws and the federal ban on certain misdemeanor offenders from possessing firearms.

CNN noted changes that have already occurred in jurisprudence in light of Bruen:

A federal district judge cited the ruling last month when halting Delaware restrictions on possessing and manufacturing untraceable firearms, saying that the law’s defenders failed to provide persuasive evidence that similar restrictions existed in the historical record. The precedent was also referenced when local assault weapon bans in two Colorado jurisdictions were put on hold this summer; the judges in both cases were each appointed by Democratic presidents.

CNN also noted a decision handed down on Thursday to “pause” new gun controls New York enacted in response to Bruen.

Breitbart News indicated the New York controls were paused via a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio and a Turning Point USA Ambassador. AWR Hawkins holds a PhD in Military History, with a focus on the Vietnam War (brown water navy), U.S. Navy since Inception, the Civil War, and Early Modern Europe. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. You can sign up to get Down Range at Reach him directly at

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Cops Gun Fearing Wussies

CRPA Files Suit To Stop The State’s “Chilling” Effect

Last summer, Governor Gavin Newsom expressed outrage over a Texas law he found objectionable.  In fact, Mr. Newsom was so incensed that he bought billboards outside California to air his frustrations (and annoy potential national political rivals).  Then, he decided to copy that law and aim it at something he found even more objectionable: gun culture.  He even tipped the scales to make sure those who object would be at a distinct disadvantage.

Last week, CRPA filed suit to roll back the most insidious aspect of Mr. Newsom’s gambit.  In the complaint, CRPA and a host of plaintiffs point out not only the logical fallacies behind the Governor’s ill-fated attack, but the many reasons that the law is patently unconstitutional.  Making those who challenge new Second Amendment restrictions pay all legal costs unless they win EVERY argument in their case while the state can recover their costs if they win ANY part of their case is, of course, in direct violation of the Constitution (not to mention all sense of fairness).

We know the fight we have on our hands in defending the Second Amendment here in California.  From outlawing youth shooting sports, to banning gun shows, to the endless attempts to tax and outright prohibit one’s fundamental right to self-defense, anti-2A advocates have shown no regard for the Constitution in an attempt to demonize lawful gun owners.

In this case, the Governor wants to use a law he himself views as outrageous to attack your rights.  The Constitution is not a vehicle for wannabe Presidential candidates to send messages to rivals.