Evidence-Free Hackery: Another Highly Respected ‘Expert’ On the Alleged Conflict of Guns and Public Safety

Crucial Concealment Covert IWB holster open carry Dan Z. for SNW

Oh look…a Robert Spitzer op-ed. Let’s take a look and see what kind of brilliant insights this very respected expert has for us. He is, after all, an academic that antigun courts take super-seriously. The article’s headline itself — What Happens When the Second Amendment Collides With Public Safety? — is based on a false premise. The reality is, the Second Amendment right to carry need not ever collide with “public safety.”

Especially in the context of the Pretti shooting, Spitzer seems to implicitly accept the argument made by some administration officials (and Trump himself) that the mere act of carrying at a protest means you are asking to be shot by police.

This fraught political moment has thus found the Trump administration in the uncomfortable position of taking criticism from both liberals who blame heavy-handed federal agent tactics and conservatives who bristle at the administration’s seeming abandonment of public gun carry rights.

On the one hand, civilian gun carry is indeed a right under the Second Amendment according to the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in the Bruen case where the high court said that individuals have a “right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” The court proposed no exception for doing so in a public gathering.

Spitzer says carry is indeed a right “according to the Supreme Court.” Interesting. I thought it was because the plain text of the Second Amendment says we have a right to bear arms, which all relevant historical sources confirm is a reference to public carry.

If you ever wondered why an “expert” like Spitzer (and the other usual suspects) always takes the side of the government in gun rights litigation, you can start with the fact that they clearly don’t believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right at all.

On the other hand, the consequences of such action are clear. Public gun carrying, especially in the context of a public demonstration or similar gathering is, no matter the intentions of the carrier, a terrible idea.

I should have included the very next paragraph. He basically concedes carry is a right (because SCOTUS said so), but then says it’s a terrible idea to exercise that right.

Continue reading “”

Missouri? Well, yes.

As West Virginia Machine Gun Sales Bill Makes Waves, Who Else Might Pass Similar Measure?

As we noted on Monday, a bill from Gun Owners of America introduced in West Virginia would allow political entities to sell machine guns to the public. There’s nothing I can think of that would be illegal in this measure, and it would do a whole lot to increase the number of full-auto weapons in the market, thus potentially driving down prices.

But my question is, just who else might go down this road?

I’m sure a lot of pro-gun legislators may look at this and think about introducing it in their states, but introducing bills is the easy part. Getting them passed is where it gets tricky.

So, assuming that it’ll pass in West Virginia–and looking at their makeup, that’s a strong possibility–where else might it pass?

At the top of the list would have to be Missouri. They’ve tried nullifying all gun control laws from the federal government, which would include the National Firearms Act. Clearly, they don’t mind lawful citizens owning machine guns.

Because this doesn’t violate federal law, at least so far as I can see, I could see an enterprising Missouri lawmaker introducing a version of this bill and it actually passing. It’s not like they’re not looking for more ways to be pro-gun, and this is a great way to make that happen.

Wyoming seems to be doing all it can to follow in similar footsteps, so I could see them passing this as well. The same is true of both Dakotas, which seem to be pretty pro-gun.

Montana would be another possibility.

An interesting prospect would be New Hampshire. Its “live free or die” motto is often reflected in its gun laws. It’s one of the best in the nation as things currently stand, so I couldn’t rule out this one making the cut there. However, I also see it being a much tougher fight than we’re likely to see in West Virginia.

Then, of course, let’s look at some ostensibly pro-gun states where there’s not a snowball’s chance in Lucifer’s living room of it passing.

One is, unfortunately, my home state of Georgia.

While we’ve gotten some pro-gun measures passed of late, the tide may well be shifting on that. Plus, we have a lot of Republican lawmakers who are way too squishy on gun rights. They might not want to pass gun control, but they’re not interested in upsetting the status quo, either, and selling machine guns to Georgia residents is probably enough to give them an aneurysm.

Let’s not even talk about Florida. “The Gunshine State” won’t even let legal adults under 21 buy a shotgun for home defense, so there’s no way they’ll sell machine guns to law-abiding citizens.

I can also see it not quite making the cut in Alabama, which recently passed a law that mirrored the feds on illegal machine guns. It’s likely untenable for those lawmakers to decry machine guns one year, then a couple of years later, start selling them to people. It’s a different matter entirely, of course, but politics is often more about perception than reality.

So I’m going to be watching what happens in West Virginia going forward, and it’ll be interesting to see who else jumps to follow.

So, what else is new

SCOTUS Kicks 2A Can Down Road Again

By Dave Workman

Editor-in-Chief

Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has kicked the proverbial can down the road when it comes to important Second Amendment cases which have been submitted for high court review, leaving another conference session this coming Friday, Feb. 27, to possibly take up one or more of these cases.

As noted by SCOTUSBlog, several high-profile cases are waiting for a decision, one way or the other, on whether they will be accepted. This delay has become a familiar problem with the John Roberts Court, which seems content to not take some cases dealing with semi-auto rifles, original capacity magazines and restoration of rights for years-old non-violent felony convictions.

Continue reading “”

CCRKBA DEMANDS BLOOMBERG ‘COME CLEAN’ ABOUT EPSTEIN RELATIONSHIP

BELLEVUE, WA – Following revelations that billionaire gun control advocate Michael Bloomberg was “part of the circle of powerful men” that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell “traveled in,” the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is demanding that Everytown for Gun Safety take no more money from him pending full disclosure of the relationship.

A revealing report at The Reload, based on an analysis of newly released Epstein files, shows Bloomberg’s name is “mentioned repeatedly.” As reported by editor Stephen Gutowski, “While most mentions of his name are references to his news company’s reporting or other non-personal contexts, many of the emails that discuss him reveal a more personal connection to both Epstein and…Maxwell.”

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said Bloomberg, the former New York mayor who co-founded Everytown and has contributed millions of dollars to gun prohibition efforts, must tell all. He noted The Reload’s acknowledgement that “emails (in the released files) don’t reveal evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Bloomberg or confirm how often he actually attended events with Epstein or Maxwell.”

“Here’s a man who has spent millions of dollars supporting efforts to erode Second Amendment rights,” Gottlieb observed. “He needs to be completely transparent regarding his relationship with Epstein and Maxwell, and in the meantime, Everytown should not take a penny from him, even though he is one of the group’s founders.

“It is alarming to learn Bloomberg’s name shows up at all in the released files,” he continued, “and that’s enough to warrant an explanation from Bloomberg. If there’s nothing to hide, Bloomberg shouldn’t be worried about clearing the air. The time to do that is right now. After all, he has advocated for so-called ‘expanded background checks’ on gun buyers for years. Maybe he’s the one who should face a thorough background check.

“Stephen Gutowski has done a remarkable bit of investigative journalism,” Gottlieb added, “justifiably raising questions which deserve answers. You can be certain that if the names of prominent gun rights advocates showed up in Epstein’s files, the legacy media would be all over that story. Come clean, Mr. Bloomberg.”

What to do about Mexican Drug Cartels: Letters of Marque

By Lee Williams

SAF Investigative Journalism Project

Special to Liberty Park Press

The United States Congress still retains full authority to issue Letters of Marque, although none have been issued for more than a hundred years.

A Letter of Marque was actually a simple concept. They allowed private citizens in private warships to attack enemy vessels during wartime. These privateers could then take ownership of whatever plunder they seized—gold, weapons or the captured ships—after an admiralty court ruled in their favor and took a percentage of the profits.

Letters of Marque were used for hundreds of years across the globe, because they allowed a country to enlarge the size of their navy very quickly and cheaply.

The authority to issue Letters of Marque can still be found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power … to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Congressman Tim Burchett, a Republican from Tennessee, and Senator Mike Lee, a Republican of Utah, who both have extremely solid Second-Amendment credentials, have drafted bills that would revitalize the Letters of Marque, in order to target Mexican drug cartels.

Congressman Burchett described the bill in a phone call Monday morning:

“It allows the president to contract out to privateers and go after the cartels,” he said. “These would be top-tier operators, SEALs, Special Forces, Marine Raiders and commando types. Some are still working as private operators. It allows private citizens to act against the cartels. In President Trump’s first term, when he got [Former Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem] Soleimani, the Democrats just berated our military leaders because they didn’t ask for their permission. If the Democrats still want us to ask for their permission, we got some real problems. This is constitutionally provided and has been done before. We went after the Barbary pirates. It’s constitutionally provided and within the law. In this day and age, we need it. The constitution grants congress the power to grant these letters.”

Senator Lee’s bill is titled “S. 3567: Cartel Marque and Reprisal Authorization Act of 2025.”

It is described as: “A bill to authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to acts of aggression against the United States by a member of a cartel, or a member of a cartel-linked organization, or any conspirator associated with a cartel, and for other purposes.”

It was introduced before the latest outbreak of cartel violence, which has targeted American tourists in Mexico.

It specifies that cartels “present an unusual and extraordinary threat to national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

Senator Lee’s bill would allow “privately armed and equipped persons” to use “all means reasonably necessary” to operate outside our borders and seize any individual and their property who the President has determined to be a member of a drug cartel, or a member of a cartel-linked organization, “who is responsible for an act of aggression against the United States.”

Congressman Burchett was asked if he has discussed his bill with President Trump.

“I have not yet, but I put it out there,” he said. “It is constitutionally sound. We live in dangerous times, and we’ve got American people who need it.”

Gun control laws don’t work. What is worse, they act perversely. While legitimate users of firearms encounter intense regulation, scrutiny and bureaucratic control, illicit markets easily adapt to whatever difficulties a free society throws in their way. Also, efforts to curtail the supply of firearms inflict collateral damage on freedom and privacy interests that have long been considered central to American public life.
— Daniel Polsby

Hope Isn’t a Plan: Is Your Church a Sitting Duck?

Denial isn’t just stupid—it has no survival value. Acting as though the wolves only hunt other sheep in other pastures?  That’s not faith, that’s wishful thinking. So why then do many Christian churches (along with synagogues) opt not to have safety teams?

Are they counting on God’s divine protection? God helps those who help themselves and standing unprepared for evil to come knocking has real-world consequences for real people.

I’ve been to a handful of churches that have top notch safety teams and like many, I’ve been to churches that not only had multiple unlocked and unmonitored entrances — some dark by the way — that had no safety team at all. Unfortunately, unprepared or ill-prepared is still the norm.  Yes, even at events and major religious holidays that bring crowds.

These unprotected churches are sitting ducks.  At one Christmas Eve service I attended, no one had radios or earpieces. No one, save a dad or three who looked like hard-charging alphas, were anywhere to be seen or found. And those men clearly were on dad duty, not part of a safety and security team.

The greeters? Sweet smiles, zero comms. At that service a few years ago, many in the congregation joined me and slipped in through a shadowy lower-level door from the back parking lot…unmanned, unlocked, and unmonitored. It was a perfect back door through which to stage a nightmare. Before, during and after the service?  The pastor stood exposed like a trophy buck in an open field.

I run with security-minded folks, including some who have done it professionally. When I talked about this one particular church they simply shook their heads in disbelief. “They’re one bad incident from going under,” one said.  Indeed.

When one, with sarcasm in his voice, raised the possibility of a super-professional, Secret Service level team, we all laughed. With open side doors and zero visible presence? That’s not discreet, that’s delusional. Unmonitored, dark entrances and an utter lack of thought about congregants’ safety? That kind of negligence is wishful thinking and can turn peace on earth into last rites.

Why do so many religious institutions still play ostrich? Because facing evil means admitting it exists. As for admitting that guns might be necessary to protect people, that’s clearly too icky for the pearl-clutchers in the congregation who think psalms and lordly vibes are body armor enough. As if lunatics and criminals give a damn about holy water and hymnals.

The only thing that stops bad guys with evil in their hearts is a good guy or gal with a gun.

Continue reading “”

Minnesota Dems Push Bill Allowing Law Enforcement to Enter Homes to Check Gun Storage

Minnesota Democrats are pushing to allow law enforcement to enter homes to check compliance with semiautomatic gun storage requirements.

On February 20, 2026, Breitbart News reported that Democrats in the Minnesota House were pushing a ban on the ownership or transfer of AR-15s and numerous other semiautomatic rifles.

The legislation, HF 3433, bans the mere possession of a Colt AR-15 and at least 25 other specific semiautomatic rifles and pistols. It then goes beyond those specific guns to ban “any firearm that is another model made by the same manufacturer as one of the firearms listed…and has the same action design as one of the listed firearms, and is a redesigned, renamed, or renumbered version of one of the firearms listed.”

If passed and signed into law, HF 3433 would take effect January 1, 2027. It contains a grandfather clause allowing the current owner of what will be a prohibited firearm to obtain a “certificate of ownership” from law enforcement in order to keep the gun.

However, anyone keeping a prohibited gun must “safely and securely store the device pursuant to the regulations adopted by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.” And to be sure the gun is stored as mandated, owners of prohibited guns must “agree to allow the appropriate law enforcement agency to inspect the storage of the device to ensure compliance[.]”