GOA:
WV: Setting the Record Straight on SB 1071

In recent days, West Virginia Senate President Randy Smith released a public statement regarding SB 1071, the Public Defense and Provisioning Act. His comments have created confusion about the bill’s drafting, legality, and level of expert review.

It is essential that West Virginians have the full and accurate factual record. Many of the claims made about SB 1071 do not reflect the truth, and the following information provides a clear, fact-driven response based on verifiable legal authorities and documented expert analysis.

A Bill with Momentum — and an Unexpected Intervention

The fight for modern firearms equality began in early February. West Virginia made national history when it became the first state in America to introduce legislation authorizing the lawful sale of post-1986 machine guns under the federal carve-out in 18 U.S.C.922(o)(2)(A).

SB 1071 immediately ignited excitement among legislators, industry leaders, and grassroots supporters. Other states quickly took notice—several have already copied West Virginia’s language, and more are preparing to introduce their own versions.

A flash poll conducted by Gun Owners of America showed overwhelming enthusiasm among West Virginians, with 94 percent saying their out-of-state family and friends would be more likely to move to West Virginia if this bill became law. The momentum was real, and the nation was watching.

SB 1071 was introduced by Senator Chris Rose, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the committee advanced the bill with overwhelming support. But immediately after that vote, the bill seemed to vanish.

Chairman Tom Willis, who had reported the bill out of Judiciary, was himself confused about why it had not moved to the Finance Committee as expected. This unusual stall prompted West Virginians across the state to begin calling their Senators, demanding Sen. Chris Rose (left), sponsor of SB 1071, stands with Senate President Randy Smith.
answers about what had happened to a bill that had just passed committee with overwhelming support.

In response to the growing public concern, Senate President Randy Smith publicly stated that he personally made the decision to halt SB 1071, clarifying that the choice did not come from Chairman Willis or the Judiciary Committee. This admission dramatically shifted the understanding of events. What many initially believed to be procedural delay within Judiciary now appeared to be a direct intervention from Senate leadership.

Additionally, several advocates and legal experts have raised serious concerns that President Smith may have been relying on information provided by an outside individual who strongly opposed SB 1071 and may have misrepresented key legal facts about the bill.

According to these observers, this misinformation appears to have played a significant role in shaping the Senate President’s decision—ultimately stopping a bill that had strong public support, clear legislative interest, and validation from some of the most respected constitutional attorneys in the country.

This context is essential for understanding how SB 1071 was derailed and why an accurate factual record matters as West Virginians evaluate what happened and determine the path forward.

Continue reading “”

If you developed Polymyalgia Rheumatica (PMR) sometime after getting the COVID19 vaccination, there is strong evidence that the latter is related to the former. Symptoms of PMR are aching joints, especially in the shoulders and pelvis, which can be debilitating

BREAKING STUDY: COVID-19 “Vaccination” Linked to 6,800% Higher Odds of Debilitating Autoimmune Muscle Disease
CDC/FDA data reveal a massive safety signal for polymyalgia rheumatica—an autoimmune inflammatory disease causing severe muscle pain and debilitating stiffness.

by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

A new study titled “Association Between COVID-19 Vaccination and Polymyalgia Rheumatica: A Review and Case Series Report” reports a powerful safety signal linking COVID-19 vaccination to polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR)—a debilitating autoimmune inflammatory disorder characterized by severe muscle pain and systemic inflammation.

The paper was authored by Dr. Erik Nilssen, Dr. James Thorp, Claire Rogers, Kirstin Cosgrove, Dr. Steven Hatfill, Dr. Drew Pinsky, Dr. Kelly Victory, Dr. Alejandro Diaz-Villalobos, Nicolas Hulscher (myself), and Dr. Peter A. McCullough.

In our analysis, we examined reports from the CDC/FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and detected a striking disproportionate increase in PMR cases following COVID-19 vaccination compared with other vaccines. We also report three clinical cases of polymyalgia rheumatica observed in recent medical practice following COVID-19 vaccination or spike protein exposure.

Polymyalgia rheumatica primarily affects adults over age 50 and can leave patients with crippling shoulder, neck, and hip pain, profound morning stiffness, fatigue, and elevated inflammatory markers. Many patients require long-term corticosteroid therapy to control symptoms.

Massive Safety Signal Detected in U.S. Vaccine Database

We analyzed reports from the CDC/FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) spanning 1990–2026 and identified:

  • 2,227 cases of polymyalgia rheumatica reported after COVID-19 vaccination
  • 233 cases after influenza vaccination
  • 526 cases after all other vaccines combined

After adjusting for the duration of vaccine availability, the safety signal became striking.

The odds ratio over time (ORt) for PMR following COVID-19 vaccination compared with influenza vaccination was:

69.4 (95% CI: 51.4–93.6, p < 0.0001, Z = 27.7)

When COVID-19 vaccination was compared with all other vaccines combined, a similarly strong signal persisted:

30.7 (95% CI: 23.1–40.8, p < 0.0001, Z = 23.6)

For context, regulators define a vaccine safety signal as a disproportionality measure of ≥2.

These findings exceed that threshold by more than an order of magnitude, indicating an unusually strong association between COVID-19 vaccination and reports of polymyalgia rheumatica.

The extremely large Z-scores—23 to 27 standard deviations above expected values—indicate that the probability of this signal occurring by chance is extraordinarily small.

BLUF
Mexico’s attempt to sway U.S. courts with an opinion from IACHR runs into the problems that, unfortunately, have plagued Mexico. NSSF is sympathetic to the victims in Mexico who have suffered under the criminal violence wrought by narco-terrorist drug cartels. However, until Mexico addresses corruption and crime on their side of the border, this won’t be resolved.
The problem isn’t from U.S. firearm manufacturers or retailers

Mexico Tries to Use International Courts to Attack American Gun Makers and It Doesn’t Go Well.

Mexico’s hope to appropriate a human rights court to bolster its chances in frivolous lawsuits against U.S. firearm manufacturers and retailers is disappearing like a vapor in breeze.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights published an advisory opinion at the request of Mexico’s government. NSSF filed an amicus brief with the IACHR arguing that Mexico was attempting to improperly influence sovereign U.S. courts by co-opting an international human rights court that has no jurisdiction on pending decisions. Predictably, the IACHR leaned into the opinion anyway.

But if this was the boost for which Mexico was searching in its pending lawsuits, authorities there will be disappointed. They got platform shoes, not a platform with which they can walk in when they press their claims.

There are a couple reasons for that. First, U.S. courts are sovereign. Courts in the United States answer to the U.S. Constitution, from which all U.S. law stems. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court already dismissed one of their flagship and erroneous claims that U.S. firearm manufacturers are somehow responsible for the criminal violence and harms caused by narco-terrorists in Mexico. Lastly, there are growing and continuing reports of widespread corruption and arms smuggling within Mexico.

What the IACHR Said

The IACHR wrote in its opinion that companies have an obligation to supervise distribution of firearms to avoid “human rights violations,” but it didn’t name specific companies. In fact, it didn’t list U.S. firearm manufacturers at all. The IACHR also held that governments must guarantee effective judicial remedies for violations of human rights but, despite Mexico’s demand that the IACHR reject laws like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the IACHR did not even criticize, much less reject, these sensible procedural protections for the firearms industry.

The most egregious portion of the opinion noted that the IACHR takes pains to observe that human rights obligations are “transnational.” That means that companies in one country should be responsible for human rights violations that occur further down the chain. That can’t be interpreted as anything other than a swipe at U.S. companies.  However, here again, no companies are named.

The IACHR’s opinion will obviously have no bearing on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. In that case the Court held that the PLCAA bars Mexico’s claims that firearm manufacturers “aided and abetted” illegal firearms trafficking to narco-terrorist drug cartels in Mexico. NSSF filed an amicus brief supporting U.S. firearm manufacturers in that case. The Supreme Court rejected Mexico’s theory of liability in a 9-0 decision written by Justice Elena Kagan. It explained that the lawsuit is barred by the PLCAA because “Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.”

Continue reading “”

Breakthrough to Strengthen Bones Could Reverse Osteoporosis.

esearch points to a key bone-strengthening mechanism at work in the body, which could be targeted to treat the bone-weakening disease, osteoporosis.

Led by scientists from the University of Leipzig in Germany and Shandong University in China, the 2025 study identified the cell receptor GPR133 (also known as ADGRD1) as being crucial to bone density, via bone-building cells called osteoblasts.

Variations in the GPR133 gene had previously been linked to bone density, leading researchers to turn their attention to the protein it encoded.

The team ran tests on mice in which the gene was either absent or could be activated using a chemical called AP503.

In the absence of the GPR133 gene, the mice grew up with weak bones, resembling the symptoms of osteoporosis. However, when the receptor was present and activated by AP503, bone production and strength improved.

Watch the video below for a summary of the findings:

New Court Split Could Force Supreme Court to Decide Magazine and AR-15 Ban Cases

The legal fight over so-called “large capacity” magazine bans and semi-automatic rifle restrictions may be heading straight toward the U.S. Supreme Court. A new round of filings from some of the nation’s most experienced constitutional litigators has added serious momentum to that possibility.

Constitutional attorney Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner explains the significance of newly filed supplemental briefs in two major Second Amendment cases. Those filings argue that a fresh appellate court ruling has created the kind of legal conflict the Supreme Court typically requires before stepping in.

Attorneys representing gun owners in Duncan v. Bonta and Gator’s Custom Guns v. Wentz have now filed supplemental briefs at the Supreme Court pointing to a critical development.

The filings cite the recent decision in Benson v. United States, where the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that the District’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment.

That decision directly conflicts with rulings from other courts that have upheld similar bans. In particular, the federal Ninth Circuit previously allowed California’s magazine ban to stand in Duncan v. Bonta, while the Washington Supreme Court upheld its state’s restrictions in Gator’s Custom Guns v. Wentz.

This disagreement between courts is known as a “split of authority,” and it is one of the primary triggers that pushes the Supreme Court to grant review. When different courts interpret the Constitution in conflicting ways, the justices often step in to settle the matter once and for all.

According to the new briefs, that moment may have arrived.

The ruling in Benson did more than simply strike down Washington D.C.’s magazine restrictions. The court issued a detailed opinion explaining that magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are commonly owned and widely used for lawful purposes.

Under the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The D.C. court concluded that bans on commonly owned magazines do not meet that test.

In other words, the court found that these magazines fall squarely within the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”