home security Archives - Page 12 of 28 - In-Gauge of Polk County

Joe Biden Admits He Wants 9mm Pistols Banned

‘I’m Continuing To Push To Eliminate The Sale Of’ Things Like ‘9mm Pistol,’

CNN Town Hall: Joe Biden Suggests a 9mm Pistol Ban

https://newsbinding.com/news/cnn-town-hall-joe-biden-suggests-a-9mm-pistol-ban/

07-21-2021
During his Wednesday night CNN town hall, President Joe Biden talked about a “push to eliminate” 9mm pistols that have an ammunition capacity beyond that of which the left approves.

Biden said, “The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon, whether it’s a 9mm pistol or whether it’s a rifle, is ridiculous. I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things.”

Up until now, Biden has pushed “assault weapons” ban legislation and moved executively to have the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) take regulatory action against AR-pistols with stabilizer braces.

On June 7, 2021, Breitbart News reported the DOJ moved to place certain AR-pistols under the purview of the National Firearms Act. But those AR-pistols are chambered in 5.56 or .223, not 9mm. Biden’s mention of going after 9mm pistols opens the door to regulating wildly popular Glock, Heckler & Koch, Smith & Wesson, Sig Sauer, Kahr, Taurus, and Springfield Armory pistols, among many others.

Biden: ‘I’m Continuing To Push To Eliminate The Sale Of’ Things Like ‘9mm Pistol,’ ‘Rifle’

https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-biden-indicates-he-wants-to-ban-the-sale-of-handguns

Jul 22, 2021 DailyWire.com

President Joe Biden suggested during a CNN town hall on Wednesday night that he is pushing to eliminate the sale of high-capacity pistols and rifles.

“I’m the only guy that ever got — passed legislation when I was a senator to make sure we eliminated assault weapons,” Biden said. “The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon, whether it’s a, whether it’s a 9mm pistol or whether it’s a rifle, is ridiculous.”

“I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things, but I’m not likely to get that done in the near term,” Biden added.

TRANSCRIPT:

QUESTION: So how will you address gun violence from a federal point of view to actually bring about change and make our local cities safer?

BIDEN: Now, I’m not being a wise guy, there’s no reason you [inaudible], have you seen my gun violence legislation I’ve introduced? As you know, because you’re so involved, actually, crime is down. Gun violence and murder rates are up. Guns. I’m the only guy that ever got passed, legislation when I was a senator, to make sure we eliminated assault weapons. The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon, whether it’s a, whether it’s a 9mm pistol, or whether it’s a rifle, is ridiculous. I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things. But I’m not likely to get that done in the near term. So, here’s what I’ve done. The people who, in fact, are using those weapons are acquiring them illegally, illegally. And so what happens is, I’ve gotten ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, I have them increase their budget and increase their capacity along with the Justice Department to go after the gun shops that are not abiding by the law of doing background checks. For real, that’s number one. Number two, number two, we are in a position where you, most of the cities, and I don’t know enough, I think you’ve had a lot of gun violence here in Cincinnati, I think it was up to what, how many, how many dead? 500 over a period? Don’t hold me to the number, whatever it was. But my point is all across the country. And it’s not because the gun shops in the cities are selling these guns. They are either shadow gun dealers and or gun shops that are not abiding by the law. So we’re going to do major investigations and shut those guys down and put some of them in jail and for what they’re doing, selling these weapons. There’s also a thing called ghost guns that are being sold now and being used. And so but in addition to that, what we have to do is we have to deal with a larger problem of the whole issue of law enforcement generally, we’re in a situation where as much as we need to pass the Floyd Act and all that, but here’s the deal. Cops are having real trouble. They’re not all bad guys, there are a lot of good guys. We need more policemen, not fewer policemen. But we need them involved in community policing, community policing. And when we did that, violent crime went down, all the criticism about the original crime, but guess what, crime went down until we stopped doing community policing. So it’s about getting, we have availability now, of over, billion, lots of money, for cops to be able to hire psychologists, psychiatrists, as well as social workers to be engaged in the process.
DailyWire.com – Jul 22, 2021

Federal Appellate Court Rules: Age Ban On Purchasing Handguns “Unconstitutional”

Judges say they won’t relegate ‘the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status’

By Todd Ruger – July 13, 2021

https://www.rollcall.com/2021/07/13/appeals-court-finds-aged-based-handgun-purchase-ban-unconstitutional/

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the long-standing federal ban on sales of handguns from licensed dealers to 18- to 20-year-olds is unconstitutional, because Congress in the 1960s did not demonstrate a good enough reason for the law.

In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, Va., found that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is no different from other constitutional rights that start at age 18, so the government must have a justification to restrict that right.

“Despite the weighty interest in reducing crime and violence, we refuse to relegate either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status,” Judge Julius Richardson wrote for the majority.

Richardson, a President Donald Trump appointee, was joined in the majority opinion by Judge G. Stephen Agee, a President George W. Bush appointee.

Judge James Wynn Jr., a President Barack Obama appointee, wrote a dissent that said the panel had overstepped its role as a court, and that “the majority’s decision to grant the gun lobby a victory in a fight it lost on Capitol Hill more than 50 years ago is not compelled by law.”

The Justice Department will almost certainly appeal the decision, which comes during an incendiary national debate over gun control laws prompted by everyday shootings as well as a series of mass shootings over the years at concerts, schools and other public spaces.

The Supreme Court, with a newly expanded 6-3 conservative majority, has teed up a major case about state concealed carry laws for the term that starts in October that will be a test of how far the justices might extend constitutional gun rights outside the home.

Meanwhile, Congress stands at a partisan deadlock over numerous gun control proposals backed mostly by Democrats, and President Joe Biden has issued executive orders and taken other actions to combat what he calls an “epidemic” of gun violence.

The decision recounts how in 1964, Congress, concerned about increasing gun violence, began a “field investigation and public hearings” and concluded among other things that juveniles getting handguns without consent of parents “is a significant factor in the prevalence of lawlessness and violent crime in the United States.”

In 1968, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which prohibited licensed dealers from selling handguns to anyone under age 21 but permitted the sale of shotguns and rifles to those individuals, the decision states.

Later that year, Congress changed that law through the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibited licensed dealers from selling any firearm to those under 18 and maintained the ban on the sale of handguns for 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds

The 4th Circuit majority found that Congress, when banning the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to that age group, used “disproportionate crime rates to craft over-inclusive laws that restrict the rights of overwhelmingly law-abiding citizens.”

“And in doing so, Congress focused on purchases from licensed dealers without establishing those dealers as the source of the guns 18- to 20-year-olds use to commit crimes,” Richardson wrote for the majority.

The law restricts the rights of more than 99 percent of that age group because “a fraction of 1% commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime,” the majority wrote, and it is already illegal for felons, fugitives, drug users and immigrants who entered the country illegally to buy firearms from licensed dealers.

“So the laws at issue by their nature prevent a more law-abiding, less dangerous subset of 18- to 20-year-olds from purchasing from a more regulated market,” the majority wrote.

“The irony does not escape us that, under the government’s reasoning, the same 18- to 20-year-old men and women we depend on to protect us in the armed forces and who have since our Founding been trusted with the most sophisticated weaponry should nonetheless be prevented from purchasing a handgun from a federally licensed dealer for their own protection at home,” the majority wrote.

There is no ban against 18- to 20-year-olds owning, possessing or using a gun, the opinion states. Dealers can sell guns to parents or guardians who can gift them to minor children, but not when the children provide the money.

If it stands, the decision would mean 18- to 20-year-olds could buy a handgun from a licensed dealer but not cigarettes or alcohol.

The majority also wrote that it’s unclear whether the ban has been effective, something Wynn cautioned against in the dissent.

Wynn wrote that “doing so will place the nation and its lawmakers in a formidable catch-22: pass too onerous a regulation and see it struck down for violating the Second Amendment; pass too permissive a measure and suffer the same result.”

“This heads-I-win, tails-you-lose approach is a recipe for national inaction on gun violence,” Wynn wrote.

The plaintiff in the case is a 19-year-old woman who got a protective order against her abusive ex-boyfriend who, after that order, had been arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm and controlled substances, the decision states.

She also works as an equestrian trainer and often finds herself in remote rural areas where she interacts with unfamiliar people, and she considers a handgun as the most effective tool for protection from those risks, the decision states.

Pandemic gun violence surge was not linked to rise in gun sales, study finds

New Study Delivers a Kill Shot to Another Anti-Gun Narrative

Research suggests looking at role of job loss, economic change, closure of schools and community organizations and civil unrest

The Guardian – 2021-07-09

Gun homicides surged across the United States during the coronavirus pandemic, in the same year that Americans bought a record-breaking number of guns.

But some of America’s leading gun violence researchers have concluded that what might seem like an obvious cause-and-effect – a surge in gun buying leads to a surge in gun violence – is not supported by the data.

Through July of last year, there was no clear association between the increase in firearm purchases and the increase in most interpersonal gun violence at the state level, according to a new study published in Injury Epidemiology, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

A peace march 6 March 2020 in Oakland to showcase the impact of Oakland’s lifesaving gun violence reduction programs.

The findings suggest that “we need to be looking at other factors, like job loss, economic change, the closure of schools and community organizations and nonprofits, and civil unrest,” in order to understand last year’s increase in gun violence, Julia Schleimer, the lead author of the new study, said.

There did appear to be some association between the increase in gun purchasing and an increase in domestic violence gun injuries in April and May, but that correlation might also be explained by other factors, including increased substance abuse or the decreased access to domestic violence support services during the early months of lockdown, Schleimer said.

The results of the new study are an unexpected addition to the fierce political battle over how to explain last year’s estimated 25% increase in homicides, which experts say they expect will be the worst single-year increase in killings since the 1960s. While official government data is not yet available, experts are projecting that the US saw an additional 4,000 to 5,000 homicides nationwide in 2020, and the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive recorded nearly 4,000 additional gun homicides last year compared with 2019.

Even though the homicide rate across big cities remains close to half of what it was in the 1990s, some politicians have used the single-year jump in killings to paint Democrats and the Biden administration as soft on crime, using an old political playbook of stoking anxiety over crime and violence in order to win elections.

Joe Biden has responded by focusing on firearms access and calling for new gun control laws, as well as supporting increased funding for police and community violence intervention programs.

The findings of the new study from the state-funded Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, do not fit tidily into either of these partisan political narratives. While the new study raises doubts about a correlation between last year’s spike in gun purchases and the increases in shootings, it doesn’t address the underlying risk of easy access to guns in the US, Schleimer said.

While official government crime data is not yet available for 2020, roughly three-quarters of US homicides annually are committed with guns, and experts estimate nonfatal shootings injure 100,000 people a year, often leaving survivors with serious, life-altering injuries.

There is a large body of research demonstrating the correlation between gun access and increased risk of gun injury, Schleimer said, an association that is particularly clear when it comes to the risk of gun suicide. The increase in shootings during 2020 may have been driven by Americans who already owned guns before the pandemic, not by the people who bought guns for the first time last year – but that does not mean that gun access is irrelevant, she said.

At the same time, the lack of any clear correlation between what the researchers estimated as 4.3m additional firearm purchases nationally from March through July 2020, and a 27% increase in firearm injuries over that time, suggests that other factors besides gun access and gun control laws deserve more attention, and more research, Schleimer said.Advertisement

“There are a lot of strategies that can address some of the more social determinants of violence,” Schleimer said, including supporting violence interrupters and other community-based violence intervention programs, and focusing on economic policies that might help reduce gun violence, which is deeply correlated with poverty and concentrated disadvantage. “There’s some good evidence on youth summer job programs and young people’s risk for violence.”

It made sense that politicians and other public figures would point to the increase in gun buying in 2020 as a potential reason shootings had increased last year, Schleimer said.

But, she said, “Our findings, from this current study, in this particular context, are not supporting that.”

The new study has several limitations, including the complexity of factors that might have influenced gun violence during 2020, and the lack of official data on both gun sales and gun injuries. The researchers estimated gun sales using federal background check data, and relied on shooting incident data collected from media reports by the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive.

Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy, said the study followed “rigorous statistical methods,” and that it raised interesting questions about whether the increase in gun violence might be more closely connected to some Americans’ willingness to carry their previously purchased guns during the pandemic, rather than a spike in first-time gun purchases.

It was possible that in some states, many of the additional gun sales in 2020 went to people who had already owned multiple firearms – meaning that the surge in sales did not necessarily contribute to an increase in the overall prevalence of gun ownership, Webster said in an email.

“Data from Chicago and some other cities suggest that we have seen a sharp increase in illegal gun carrying,” he wrote. “The role that guns are playing in the increased levels of homicides may have more to do with increases in illegal gun carrying than with the number of incidents in which people buy guns legally, especially in the short-term.”

In general, Webster wrote, the relationship between gun ownership and the increased likelihood of a shooting depended a lot on who was acquiring the gun. “In places and among individuals who are particularly low risk, more guns may have little impact on rates of lethal violence, but in places and among individuals of high risk, gun ownership can greatly increase risks of lethal violence,” he wrote.

Schleimer also cautioned that it’s possible that there might be some connection between gun purchasing and gun violence in 2020 that was masked by other factors the researchers were not able to measure or control for.

“Last year was such a unique year in many ways, and the context was continually evolving, and there were a lot of factors changing all at once, both locally and at the state level and nationally in the context of the pandemic and social and civil unrest,” Schleimer said. “That really complicated what we were able to do analytically.”

To examine the possible link between gun sales and shootings, the UC Davis researchers looked at trends in gun purchasing, and gun injuries, across 48 states, and then examined whether there was a correlation between the number of additional guns purchased and the number of additional gun injuries during the spring and summer. They controlled for a range of state-level factors that might influence the number of gun injuries, including stay-at-home orders, coronavirus cases and deaths, unemployment, measures of racial tension and civil unrest and seasonal variations in rates of gun injury.

While an early analysis from the same researchers, looking only at March through May, had found a correlation between increased gun purchases and gun injuries, their final analysis did not find any clear pattern between how many additional guns were purchased in a state through July 2020 and how much of an increase the state saw in non-domestic violence firearms injuries. The study did not analyze gun suicides or suicide attempts.

… we have a small favour to ask. Tens of millions have placed their trust in the Guardian’s high-impact journalism since we started publishing 200 years ago, turning to us in moments of crisis, uncertainty, solidarity and hope. More than 1.5 million readers, from 180 countries, have recently taken the step to support us financially – keeping us open to all, and fiercely independent.
With no shareholders or billionaire owner, we can set our own agenda and provide trustworthy journalism that’s free from commercial and political influence, offering a counterweight to the spread of misinformation. When it’s never mattered more, we can investigate and challenge without fear or favour.
Unlike many others, Guardian journalism is available for everyone to read, regardless of what they can afford to pay. We do this because we believe in information equality. Greater numbers of people can keep track of global events, understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action.

We aim to offer readers a comprehensive, international perspective on critical events shaping our world – from the Black Lives Matter movement, to the new American administration, Brexit, and the world’s slow emergence from a global pandemic. We are committed to upholding our reputation for urgent, powerful reporting on the climate emergency, and made the decision to reject advertising from fossil fuel companies, divest from the oil and gas industries, and set a course to achieve net zero emissions by 2030.

AMMUNITION RECALL – Serious Risk of Firearm Damage and Personal Injury

Always be alert for the occurrence of a squib load and the possibility of a barrel obstruction.

If you do not know what a SQUIB LOAD is and how to recognize it, it is strongly suggested you learn ASAP.

Technically defined, a squib load is an underpowered charge. That underpowered charge could result in a barrel obstruction.

A squib load is most notably recognized by an odd sound. While shooting, should you hear an odd sound, a sound different from the big bang, kaboom or crack, you normally hear or only heard when firing that last volley of shoots, CEASE FIRE immediately, following safe gun handling practices, inspect the gun for a barrel obstruction.

Firing another round, following a squib load, that resulted in a barrel obstruction, could result in the firearm blowing up in your hand and you loosing parts of your hand as a result.

Number 1 . . .

Number 2 . . .

The recalls above are the most recent (June 21, 2021) of two known ones. At the pace manufactures are turning out ammunition, in an attempt to catch up with backorders, quality control has diminished. Always be alert for the occurrence of a squib load and the possibility of a barrel obstruction. It can happen with any ammunition domestic or imported. Be vigilant, be alert, be safe.

Gun Tax – Pay or Have Your Guns Confiscated

Gun owners in San Jose, California, will soon face a yearly tax and be required to carry additional insurance after their city council voted unanimously Tuesday evening to impose the new measures.

San Jose to tax gun owners, will confiscate firearms for noncompliance

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/san-jose-tax-gun-owners-city-confiscate-firearms-noncompliance

By Breck Dumas FOXBusiness – July 1, 2021

Gun owners in San Jose, California, will soon face a yearly tax and be required to carry additional insurance after their city council voted unanimously Tuesday evening to impose the new measures.

The forthcoming fee for gun ownership in the city has not yet been determined, but officials said that anyone found to be in noncompliance will have their weapons confiscated.

The city council’s aim is to try to recoup the cost of responding to gun incidents such as shootings and deaths. According to the Pacific Council on Research and Evaluation, which studied the issue and sent a representative to testify before the panel, gun-related incidents cost the city roughly $63 million every year in the way of paying for police officers, medics and other expenses, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The new measures come just weeks after a disgruntled Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority employee gunned down and killed nine colleagues at a San Jose railyard.

San Jose-based FOX 2 reported that citizens weighed in on the proposal, with some praising the council for the measure and others condemning the move as unconstitutional.

“I strongly oppose more taxation on legal gun owners,” San Jose resident Sasha Sherman told the council. “Each time a gun owner buys ammunition, they pay an 11% tax, plus a background check fee.”

Another speaker argued, “It puts a financial burden on a constitutional right, which is the right to bear arms.”

While the council directed staffers to draft up the law for a final September vote, the dollar amount on the new tax for gun owners has not yet been determined. San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo suggested the new annual fine will likely be “a couple dozen dollars,” and claimed insurers assured the city that firearms owners adding gun liability coverage to existing policies would cost the affected citizens little or nothing.

But with no official registry of gun owners either locally or federally, officials recognized that enforcement of the forthcoming taxes and insurance requirements could be difficult if not impossible. So, they said they would authorize any law enforcement officers to confiscate the firearms of any gun owner they stumble upon who does not provide proof that they have complied.

“Crooks aren’t going to follow this law,” Liccardo told reporters. “When those crooks are confronted by police and a gun is identified, and if they haven’t paid the fee or insurance, it’s a lawful basis for seizure of that gun.”

Texas Supreme Court Rules Gun Store Can’t Be Sued for Selling Gun Under Law Biden Wants To Eliminate

Friday’s ruling was a major victory for gun-rights advocates. It’s also a dire warning: If the Biden administration is allowed to repeal the PLCAA, it doesn’t need to change the Constitution or overturn landmark Second Amendment rulings like District of Columbia v. Heller to implement the kind of gun control it wants.

C. Douglas Golden, The Western Journal
June 27, 2021

On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the San Antonio-area store couldn’t be sued by victims of the 2017 Sutherland Springs, Texas mass shooting because the store was protected by the PLCAA when it sold a Ruger AR-556 rifle, an additional 30-round magazine and ammunition to a Colorado man who allegedly killed 26 individuals at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. The shooter later killed himself during a police chase.

According to The Associated Press, Devin Kelley purchased the rifle with a Colorado ID from Academy Sports and Outdoors in 2016. While he should have been precluded from buying the gun after a bad conduct discharge from the U.S. Air Force in 2014 after he was court-martialed in 2012 for abusing his wife and stepson and served 12 months confinement, the AP reported, the Air Force failed to notify the FBI of the conviction.

Trending: Biden on Chauvin Sentence: ‘Seems To Be Appropriate’
However, the plaintiffs in four lawsuits against the store claimed Academy Sports and Outdoors wasn’t protected under the PLCAA because Kelley provided the store with a Colorado ID, the AP reported. Under the federal Gun Control Act, they alleged that meant Academy had to comply with both Colorado and Texas gun laws — and in Colorado, magazines that hold more than 14 rounds are banned.

Two lower courts allowed the lawsuits to go ahead. However, the Texas Supreme Court ruled unanimously that PLCAA protections applied to Academy since the Gun Control Act narrowly applies to the sale of firearms only.

“Indeed, although the transaction between Academy and Kelley on April 7, 2016, encompassed the sale of two Magpul large-capacity magazines — one packaged as a stand-alone product and one packaged with the Ruger AR-556 rifle — the plaintiffs do not contend that the sale of the stand-alone magazine along with the rifle rendered the transaction unlawful even though it could not have taken place legally in Colorado,” wrote Texas Supreme Court Justice Debra Lehrmann in her opinion.

“And the statutory text does not allow us to treat the magazine packaged with the rifle any differently. Plaintiffs essentially seek to rewrite [the law] to apply to ‘the sale or delivery of any rifle and any bundled component parts.’ This we cannot do.

“In sum, the sale of the Ruger AR-556 rifle to Kelley complied with the legal conditions of sale in both Texas and Colorado. Because the Gun Control Act did not regulate the sale of the magazines, the Colorado law prohibiting their sale was immaterial.”

Lehrmann also noted that “[l]itigation against the Air Force for failing to collect, handle, and report the required information is ongoing in federal court.”

Academy’s lawyers called it a “landmark” decision, according to The Texas Tribune.

“Our thoughts and prayers continue for the victims of this tragedy,” the lawyers said. “We feel the entire Supreme Court opinion applied the law carefully and thoughtfully in this situation.”

Back in February, on the third anniversary of the Parkland, Florida, high school shooting, President Joe Biden announced three major gun control initiatives he wanted to pursue, including “eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.”

That empurpled language was code for repealing the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields firearm manufacturers and retailers for gun crimes committed with weapons that were legally produced or purchased. Of the three legislative proposals he floated, this was the one that raised the least alarm among gun rights advocates, with universal background checks and bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” getting a lot more play.

And yet, repealing the PLCAA would be the most pernicious of the three. If you don’t believe me, just ask the owners of Academy Sports and Outdoors.

In terms of setting precedent that the maze of regulations blue states continue to impose on magazines, ammunition and other firearm accessories aren’t covered under the reciprocity provisions of the Gun Control Act, yes, the decision the decision Friday could end up being more important inasmuch as it illustrates what would happen if Democrats were to repeal the PLCAA.

During an April 8 speech on his gun control executive orders, Biden claimed “the only industry in America, a billion-dollar industry, that can’t be sued, has exempt from being sued, are gun manufacturers.”

“Imagine how different it would be had that same exemption been available to tobacco companies, who knew and lied about the danger they were causing, the cancer caused and the like,” the president said, according to a Rev.com transcript.

“Imagine where we’d be. But this is the only outfit that is exempt from being sued. If I get one thing on my list, the Lord came down and said, ‘Joe, you get one of these.’ Give me that one, because I tell you what, there would be a come-to-the-Lord moment these folks would have real quickly. But they’re not, they’re not, they’re exempt.”

First, consider what an admission that is. Democrats have wanted — yearned for — the return of a ban on so-called “assault weapons” since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004. They’ve been clamoring for universal background checks since time immemorial.

Yet, if divine intervention gave Joe Biden one of the things on his checklist, he’d ask for legislation that would allow people to sue firearms manufacturers — in other words, the repeal of the PLCAA. It’s not difficult to figure out why.

If the PLCAA were to be repealed, firearms dealers would also have to receive some protection from the Democrats who would, presumably, be the motive factor behind killing the law. You have a better chance of finding Jimmy Hoffa alive and well and and managing a Baltimore-area Quiznos.

In 2021, the easiest way to hollow out our Second Amendment rights is to repeal legal protections for everyone in the industry and subject gun manufacturers and firearms dealers to death by a thousand nuisance-lawsuit paper cuts.

All it needs is enough greedy lawyers and enough partisan juries.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Colorado: One Good Guy With A Gun Takes Out Cop Killer, Prevents Mass Shooting

He risked everything that he possibly could to go out there and for us and it’s the most selfless, bravest thing I’ve ever witnessed.”

“We want to thank and recognize John as we believe that his actions saved more lives from being taken. He needs to be recognized by Arvada and all the citizens of Colorado for his brave and selfless actions.”

John Hurley of Golden is being remembered as a hero for stopping gunman Ronald Troyke.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/06/24/brave-selfless-witnesses-describe-john-hurleys-heroic-actions-shooting-olde-town-arvada/

Hurley was apparently shopping at the Army Navy Surplus store, as he frequently did.

“John pulled into our parking lot around 1:30 and was contemplatively smoking a cigarette near his car,” wrote store owner Steven Cohen. “Within under a minute upon John entering the store, 10-15 shots of what sounded like a rifle or tactical shotgun were fired in the square 50 yards away.”

Codi Groszkiewicz, a waitress Schoolhouse Kitchen and Libations, watched out a kitchen window, saw Hurley, in a bright orange shirt, bolt out of the surplus store.
“And he was running straight towards where we heard those shots. Everyone else was running in the other direction,” Groszkiewicz said. “I just know that he was going out there into the middle of all the danger that I ever could have imagined in my life.”

“John and another unknown customer unrelated to John went out of the open door toward the square with clear intent to eliminate the threat,” wrote Cohen. “While the unknown customer turned left to assess the situation without pulling out a weapon, John ran quickly without hesitation straight toward the shooter.”

“John shouted at onlookers behind him to stay inside and hide because the gunman was coming back,” wrote Cohen. “John used this as an opportunity to run towards the library where the shooter was and hid behind a brick wall. Upon the shooter walking again back toward the square, John pulled out his concealed pistol and shot 5-6 rounds toward the suspect,” Cohen wrote.

Keeping the shooter at bay for any amount of time may have had an effect.

“That’s why he was more secured in an area where he couldn’t get away to do anything else because of where he was cornered, he was trapped,” said Groszkiewicz.

“There was no other police officers around at the time. There was no one else there to prevent this from happening. And this man ran,” she related.

As she watched from the window in the restaurant, she also realized they needed to get customers to safety.

“My first instinct was to try to get everybody that I could into the basement.”

They locked the doors. When they emerged, she saw first responders putting someone on a stretcher and taking them away.

Only later in the day did she learn the good Samaritan was dead.

Speaking about it was difficult for Codi.

“I wanted to do this because I wanted people to know what he did especially… his sister or anyone of his family members that it was the bravest, most selfless thing that I’ve ever witnessed in my life.”

Cohen also wants it made clear what he saw from a man he knew as a regular customer was heroic.

Groszkiewicz feels a bond with Hurley.
“He will forever be in my heart for what he did because, like I said, we don’t know what would have happened to any of us… He risked everything that he possibly could to go out there and for us and it’s the most selfless, bravest thing I’ve ever witnessed.”

Florida: Federal Judge Upholds Ban on Transferring Firearms to Young Adults

A federal judge upheld a Florida law that prevents law-abiding citizens between the ages of 18 and 20 from purchasing a firearm.

FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 2021

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210625/federal-judge-begrudgingly-upholds-florida-ban-on-transferring-firearms-to-young-adults

Yesterday (June 24, 2021), a federal district court judge in the United States District Court Northern District of Florida upheld a Florida law that prevents law-abiding citizens between the ages of 18 and 20 from purchasing a firearm.

The judge explained that “for better or worse,” he was bound by the Eleventh Circuit’s Second Amendment precedent and had to rule the way that he did. But in doing so, he expressed dismay at the unfortunate balance that this decision will create. Under the existing Florida law, 18-20-year-olds can legally acquire a firearm with the assistance of parents or other relatives. This creates a situation where individuals who do not have family members to assist them are unable to exercise their Second Amendment rights at all. The judge highlighted this disparity by asking, “why should the 20-year-old single mother living on her own be unable to obtain a firearm for self-defense when a 20-year-old living with their parents can easily obtain one?”

The judge also questioned the “Second Amendment framework that finds certain persons or activities either protected or entirely unprotected,” and stated that “this Court sees no reason why the Second Amendment, unlike other fundamental rights, should be an all or nothing affair.” Additionally, the judge stated that if the court “were writing on a ‘blankish’ slate … it would subject the Act to a more searching inquiry.”

While this decision is a setback, NRA-ILA remains dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens everywhere. NRA-ILA will examine this decision in the days to come and will decide the best method in which to pursue that goal.

The case is called NRA v. Swearingen.

CHURCH GUARDIAN TRAINING – Another Class Graduated

Our GUARDIAN TRAINING trains you to defend your life and the lives of others, and go home at the end of the day.

We continue to train and graduate more Church Guardians.

This week, we graduated another group of Church Guardians (June 25, 2021). These people will be protecting the members of their congregation. They will also have your back while you are shopping, filling your gas tank or dining and you will never know they are there.

They have more than a concealed carry license. They have been trained to carry a deadly weapon and protect the lives of the members of their congregation.

This group completed over 15 hours of ‘active shooter’ Church Guardian training that included: situational awareness, mental preparedness, the drawing from a holster, advanced live-fire handgun training, that included the use of cover and concealment, moving, shooting, reloading, moving between cover and concealment, managing firearm malfunctions, while engaging single and multiple assailants and Stop The Bleed emergency wound care training.

Below is an example of what their training looked like. If you or other members of your congregation would like to receive similar training, do not hesitate to contact us . . .

Regardless if you have already taken a concealed carry class or you have a Florida concealed carry license, contact us for official NRA firearms training that will prepare you to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones.

Our advanced CHURCH GUARDIAN TRAINING teaches more than just how to shoot little round holes in a piece of paper hanging from a string. Our GUARDIAN TRAINING trains you how to defend your life and the lives of others, and go home at the end of the day.

Having a concealed carry license is of no benefit if you do not know how to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones.

There is no substitute for official . . . .

Polk County, Lakeland, Winter Haven, self-defense, concealed carry, focused fire, shooting lessons, gun training, gun classes, concealed carry, conceal weapon, online class, lead feather, online permit, gun shop, gun show, gun permit

Another CHURCH GUARDIAN Class Graduated

Our GUARDIAN TRAINING trains you how to defend your life and the lives of others, and go home at the end of the day.

This week, we graduated another group of Church Guardians. These people will be protecting the members of their church. They will also have your back while you are shopping, filling your gas tank or dining and you will never know they are there.

They have more than a concealed carry license. They have been trained to carry a deadly weapon and protect the lives of the members of their congregation.

Below is an example of what their training looked like. If you or other members of your congregation would like to receive similar training, do not hesitate to contact us . . .

Having a concealed carry license is of no benefit if you do not know how to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones.

There is no substitute for official . . . .

In-Gauge of Polk County's advanced concealed carry training class — In-Gauge of Polk County Active Shooter Training