Gun Sales Soar With 1st-Timers, Women Buying: 'I Feel Empowered'

Lisa Finn Patch•November 9, 2020

SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY — During the same week that the United States held its presidential election, Robin Mazzocca of Wading River took her first shooting lesson at a target range in Riverhead.

Mazzocca, who took the lesson at Baits & Barrels, is the new face of gun ownership during a time when research and anecdotal accounts indicate that sales of firearms and ammunition are skyrocketing.

The pandemic, coupled with the threat of civil unrest and a possible tightening of gun control legislation under a new administration, sent clients lining up for hours at gun shops across Long Island and the nation. And the customer base isn't comprised of those who fit the former demographic. Instead, there's been a significant uptick in first-time gun buyers and women, experts say.

For Mazzocca, the desire to protect herself first took deep root about nine years ago, when she was home alone with her daughter, then just a year old, at their home in East Quogue — and three men broke in and entered the house…

"It was so scary," she said. "It was terrified — it was traumatizing. I had such nightmares afterward."

Mazzocca hit the panic alarm and ran into the closet; the men fled the house. Now, years later, Mazzocca and her husband and daughter have moved to Wading River, where she has security cameras, an alarm system and a dog.

"But I still was feeling that we needed something else," she said. While she was licensed three ago, it wasn't until recently that Mazzocca decided to go for lessons.

And with the election looming, Mazzocca said the need to know how to defend herself and her daughter intensified.

Her husband has known Tom Newman, owner of Baits & Barrels, for years. She decided to stop procrastinating and signed up, Mazzocca said.

"I had my first lesson last week, right after the election. I felt so concerned, no matter who becomes president. Also, it’s our Second Amendment right to bear arms. I don’t want to have this taken away from me. I want to own a gun and be able to know how to use it."

During her first lesson, which lasted just under two hours, Mazzocca said her hands were shaking. "It's scary. But after you shoot 20 rounds, knowing you are in control, that you have to be strong, lean into it— suddenly, I was like it was the Wild West. I felt so much better."

Mazzocca added: "With what's going on in the world, I felt it was time for me to really start learning how to defend myself."

She has horses and a farm on a cul-de-sac, Mazzocca said. "It's dark. Anyone can come down that road," she said.

With gun ownership came the discussion she had to have with her daughter about gun safety; all firearms in their home are secured in safes, she said.

She wasn't the only woman taking lessons in Riverhead; another woman in her late 50s who is often home alone while her husband works was also signed up, she said.

Armed with knowledge gives security to Mazzocca who has a concealed carry permit, due to having to make drops at the bank for her husband's business. "One place where it's strange to say I feel better knowing I can carry my gun is church. Your back is to the door. I get nervous," she said.

Mazzocca has a small handgun as well as a larger shotgun, she said.

"People who think women who own guns are big, burly hunters are totally wrong," she said. "I go from heels to cowgirl boots."

When she had a gun but didn't know how to use it, she said, "I was nervous. But after only one lesson I felt more empowered. I walked a little taller back to my car. When I left that indoor range, my adrenalin was pumping. I felt stronger. I thought, 'Wow, I know how to use a gun.'"

A self-professed animal activist, Mazzocca said the gun was to be used for protection only. "To shoot an animal, but not that kind of animal," she said.

Mazzocca said that during the lesson, simulators showed someone running toward her at 30 feet, then 20, then less. "As the person got closer, I missed almost every time. But my instructor told me, 'You have to know this person is aiming to hurt you or your daughter.' And I told myself, 'You have to protect your family.'"

Mazzocca isn't the only one who feels that way. According to Small Arms Analytics & Forecasting, research consultants, U.S. firearms unit sales in October were estimated at 1.9 million units, a year-over-year increase of 65 percent from October 2019. Single handgun sales increased year-over-year by 81 percent, and single long-gun sales increased by 48 percent from the past year, the report said.

And the demographics of gun buyers shifted this year. According to Reuters, the number of first-time buyers soared in 2020. Reuters cited industry analysts, trade groups and the CEO of Smith & Wesson Brands Inc., Mark Peter Smith, stating that Smith said sales of firearms to new gun owners totaled about 40 percent of sales.

Reuters also quoted Sportsman’s Warehouse Holdings Inc. CEO Jon Barker, who said the company estimated that 5 million people purchased firearms for the first time in 2020.

Locally, gun shop owners agreed. Newman, one of the owners of Baits & Barrels in Riverhead, said he's seen an increase in people who live in New York City and have established residency locally coming into purchase long guns legally. Also, he said, the permitting system for handguns in Suffolk County and other jurisdictions is "so inundated" that the wait is "extremely long."

Most people, Newman said, "really want a handgun. They're more ideal for home defense."

And, he added: "People who are coming in aren't looking to take the guns and riot or do anything nefarious with them. They're looking to have them in their homes in case all the rumors, speculation and rhetoric out there comes true."

A large segment of those purchasing firearms now "normally wouldn't fit the profile prior" to the current uncertain times. "They're coming in and saying, 'I never shot a gun in my life, ever,'" he said.

Women buying guns

One woman in her late 60s told him the last time she'd shot anything was a bow and arrow at Girl Scout Camp, Newman said.

Newman, whose on-site range was just approved by Riverhead Town two months ago, said education is critical and that the new crop of people purchasing firearms couldn't agree more.

"These are professional, responsible, good people who are asking for training. They've never shot a gun and are first-time gun owners. And the demand for training is astronomic. They're not thinking it's like a new TV, where they just have to open up the box and read the instructions," Newman said.

The largest percentage, about 70 percent, of new customers are women, Newman said. "Women are coming in in droves."

Election was a tipping point

The election was a tipping point for many. "At this point in the game, with the election, you have a lot of people who were on the fence and this heated political scene drove them through the doors," Newman said.

For women, the stigma of past days is gone, and many who are coming in to buy a firearm are doing so with the encouragement of their female friends. Other couples are coming in for the first time because their children are grown and out of the house, Newman said.

Education first

Newman said the business model at Baits & Barrels is centered on education. "Our goal was not to just retail firearms. It was retail and education," he said. Training involves an overall plan for what to do if a break-in is suspected at home; it's not about just picking up a gun and shooting, Newman said.

The range is high-tech, using laser simulation, and located in a bullet-proof trailer, Newman explained, adding that everyone who works at the shop is either a former member of the military or retired law enforcement.

The demand for guns has led to shortages at a time when production and supply are also down due to the coronavirus, Newman said.

But that demand has only escalated, with the numbers reported by the National Instant Criminal Background Check soaring, Newman said.

With the election, Newman said many just want guns as an insurance policy. "No one wants to have to use insurance," he said. "It's a matter of last resort, protection — but you want to be trained to use it and to have to have good acumen with the firearm so you're not nervous and know how to operate it properly."

Those buying guns are also stocking up in case rumors of defunding police come to be or heightened restrictions on gun laws materialize, Newman said. "Everyone is saying they are buying guns just in case," he said.

And they are racing to beat a ticking clock, he said. "People who remember the assault weapon ban know the lame duck period starts now. Right now is the time to buy, because laws can't change by executive order until inauguration day." Individuals are concerned about potential reform gun safety laws and what it may mean to their ability to purchase firearms, he said. "They're going to grab what they can get now out of fear of it being outlawed," Newman said.

There's also a shortage on ammunition, with some components from China difficult to secure; that means ammo has to be limited so there is enough for everyone who purchases a firearm, Newman said.

The pandemic and the election have created a huge uptick in sales, Newman said. "It's crazy," he added. "I haven't worked this many hours in a long time."

Alan Gordon, owner of The Suffolk Sportsman in Smithtown, said he has seen "an extreme increase in sales since the quarantine began in mid-March. Guns and ammunition have been more difficult to obtain from distributors with shortage of supply as well as longer shipping times."

There were long lines back in March and then again in late May and early June when the rallies broke out, he said.

But, Gordon said, while there is still a high demand and the store is busy, there are no longer wraparound lines or business as heavy as earlier in the year.

Gordon said customers have come in with a similar refrain: "Due to the uncertain and troubling times, people feel the need to and want the ability to protect themselves should harm come their way."

Cliff Pfleger from the Long Island Gun Source in Medford said he has seen an uptick in sales, both for guns and ammunition.

That follows an "unprecedented surge" in March when the pandemic incited fear and a rush to gun shops.

According to ammo.com, while some people were scrambling for hand sanitizer and TP, others were also looking to stockpile guns and ammunition.

The site reported that it noticed "an unprecedented 276 percent sales surge" on March 10. Statistics reported by ammo.com from Feb. 23 to March 15 indicated a 309 percent increase in revenue, a 222 percent increase in transactions, a 77 percent increase in site traffic and a 27 percent increase in the average order.

And that's led to the current shortages, gun shop owners said.

"The most popular firearms and ammunition are still hard to come by since COVID and the riots," Pflegler said. "The mood is of a worried and concerned feeling now," due to the projected win of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, he said.

"They have made it clear that they intend on going after firearms with more laws and more restrictions. Expect gun and ammo sales to soar for the next four years if this happens," Pflegler said. "They said the best firearm salesman was President Obama, but this ticket will take the cake!"

This article originally appeared on the Riverhead Patch

The Biden-Harris Gun-Ban Agenda

Mark Chesnut - October 16, 2020

As Election 2020 approaches, it’s not hard to see where Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris stand on gun control and gun bans. In fact, both have been bragging about their gun-control credentials since they first entered the public limelight years back.

Biden has been bragging about the role he played in the failed (and unconstitutional) Clinton semi-auto ban of the 1990s since that ban was passed. And he continues to do so, even though Congress let the law sunset when government research showed it didn’t have an effect on mass shootings.

Central to the Biden plan is so-called “universal” background checks and another so-called “assault weapons” ban. As most Firearms News readers know, “universal” background checks are far from universal, as criminals don’t abide by America’s gun laws. Consequently, passage of such laws make life more difficult for the law-abiding while having no effect on whether violent criminals are able to get a gun or not.

Along the same lines, assault weapons bans generally hamper the ownership of popular semi-auto rifles that are used by many law-abiding Americans for sport shooting, competition, hunting, and home defense. Even the FBI has reported that less than 5 percent of murders are committed with rifles of any kind, meaning AR-15-type rifles are used in even fewer shootings than that.

Other low points of Biden’s agenda include wanting to wipe out decades-old legal protection for gun makers and sellers when criminals use their safe, legal products to commit crimes, limiting the number of guns a person could purchase each month, passing safe storage laws that hamper armed self-defense and giving money to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to do anti-gun research on the taxpayers’ dime.

Of course, Biden would be a disaster for gun owners when selecting federal judges and appointing justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, his potential selections are so bad he has refused to release a short list of candidates, even though his opponent proudly did so.

Biden’s refusal prompted Carrie Severino, Crisis Network president and former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to speculate on why he won’t name names.

“The liberals he is trying to appease ... are trying to pack the courts and they want judges who will rewrite those laws to a liberal end,” Severino said on Fox & Friends late last week.

"It's no wonder he doesn't want to release his list because I think that list would be so radical the American people would be frightened. Joe, what are you hiding here?"

As for Harris, she was arguably the most anti-gun of the potential running mates Biden considered. In fact, during her short run for the presidency (she barely made it past the first Democrat debate), she vowed to confiscate privately-owned firearms through executive action.

A former California attorney general, as a presidential candidate Harris promised her supporters she’d make sweeping gun reforms through executive action. Toward the end of her campaign, Harris even embraced gun confiscation through what she called “mandatory buybacks”—a nonsensical term since the government can’t “buy back” something it never owned.

Harris’ anti-gun activism goes back decades to her seven-year stint as San Francisco’s district attorney. And while she talks a good game about supporting the Second Amendment for hunting, the list of anti-gun schemes she advocates is a long one indeed.

During her presidential campaign, she declared that as president she’d give congress 100 days to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which shields legal gun makers from being sued into oblivion for criminals misusing their legally made and legally sold firearms, before doing it herself through executive action.

Harris also supports an executive action to impose new restrictions on the lawful transfer of firearms. Under her plan, anyone who sells five or more guns a year would be considered a “dealer” and would have to conduct a background check on all sales, even though there is no system in place for conducting such checks. Harris has also promised to revoke the licenses of gun dealers who sell guns that are later used by criminals to commit violent crimes.

And don’t think it is just Biden and Harris who hold these views. The 2020 Democrat Party Platform, the latest document laying out the party’s agenda, speaks of gun control in a very direct way, proving the national party as a whole sees guns in private hands as a problem.

“Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition, close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check system,” the document reads.

Freelance writer and editor Mark Chesnut is the owner/editorial director at Red Setter Communications LLC. An avid hunter, shooter and political observer, he has been covering Second Amendment issues and politics on a near-daily basis for the past 20 years.

Original Post - www.FirearmsNews.com

Gun Control Puts Your Life At Risk

In the 20th century, far more people were murdered by genocidal governments than by armed criminals.

DAVID B. KOPEL | FROM THE OCTOBER 2020 ISSUE

According to gun prohibitionists, Europe is much safer than the United States, because Europe has stricter gun control. In fact, the historical record shows that excessive gun control (as in Europe) is about a hundred times more deadly than "insufficient" gun control (as, supposedly, in the U.S.). While a lone criminal with a gun can be very dangerous, a criminal government with a disarmed population is the deadliest thing on Earth.

Let's start with the data. If U.S. gun homicide rates had been as low as European rates in the 20th century, how many lives might have been saved? According to a 2018 article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, in 1990—a bad year for violent crime in the United States—the age-adjusted U.S. firearms homicide rate was 5.57 per 100,000 population. That same year, the rate in Western Europe was 0.53 and the rate in Eastern Europe was 1.31, giving us a European average of 0.92.

The difference between the European rate and the American rate is 4.65 per 100,000. Since the U.S. population in 1990 was nearly 249 million, these data indicate that the U.S. had 11,785 more firearms homicides that year than it would have had if the rate had been as low as it was in Europe. If we apply the estimate of 4.65 additional gun homicides per 100,000 population to every year of the 20th century, taking into account changes in the U.S. population, we find that the United States had 745,162 more firearms homicides than it would have had under the European average.

For the sake of argument, we'll assume that every excess American gun homicide would not have been a homicide if the United States had adopted European-style gun control. That is, we'll assume that other lethal means would not have been substituted for firearms. We also won't consider that many American gun homicides are justifiable self-defense. In other words, when a would-be killer is shot by a law enforcement officer or a citizen, we'll consider the criminal's death to be just as bad as the death of an innocent victim.

Finally, we'll ignore the extensive evidence that nonfatal defensive firearm use often prevents homicides and other crimes.

With the above assumptions, the failure to adopt European-style gun control would be responsible for almost three-quarters of a million excess deaths in the United States in the last century. That is a very large number. It is, however, two orders of magnitude smaller than the number of Europeans killed by governments during the same period.

International homicide statistics usually only count murders by individuals or small groups. A serial killer may murder two dozen people over the course of many years. A mass shooter may murder dozens at once. Those who use explosives or arson sometimes kill even more. But even in the aggregate, individual criminals or criminal gangs perpetrate vastly less homicide than do criminal governments.

In Europe in the 20th century, governments killed about 87.1 million victims, according to research by the late University of Hawaii political scientist R.J. Rummel. That figure does not include combat deaths, such as in World War I or II. It includes only the murder of civilians, from 61.9 million killed by the Soviet Union to 20.9 million killed by Germany. Over the long run, one's risk of being murdered is much lower in the United States than in Europe. It's no surprise that migration between the two has always been very heavily in one direction!

I am alive to write this article because my Jewish German and Lithuanian ancestors migrated to the United States in the 19th century. By doing so, they increased their risk of being shot by an individual criminal but drastically reduced their risk of being murdered by a criminal government. As we all well know, those risks did materialize in Germany (under the Nazis and the Communists) and in Lithuania (under the czars, the Nazis, and the Communists). Because governments are so much more effective at killing than are individual criminals—even looking at all individual criminals combined—the United States was much safer than Europe in the 20th century.

Rummel found that the less free the government, the more likely it is to perpetrate domestic mass murder. Totalitarian regimes perpetrate by far the most; authoritarian regimes less so; and democratic ones least of all. Indeed, no democratic government has committed large-scale murder against a population that was able to vote.

If you could be sure that a given government would forever be democratic, there would be no need for arms to resist a possible domestic dictatorship. Unfortunately, certainty on that score is impossible. The list of nations to have maintained both independence and free government at all times since 1900 is short: Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. That's just seven nations out of 196 worldwide.

Only a foolish version of American exceptionalism would imagine that the United States has been granted permanent immunity from the dangers of tyranny. Democracy was founded in Greece, yet that country has succumbed to dictatorship many times. Germany in 1900 was a progressive democracy and one of the most tolerant places in the world for Jews; a lot can change in a few decades.

According to gun prohibitionists, armed victims cannot meaningfully resist a murderous dictatorship with weapons of war at its disposal. The dictators who do the murdering think just the opposite.

In 1942, Adolf Hitler explained the necessity of disarming his victims: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police."

Tyrants past and present have come from virtually every continent and ethnic background. Their ideologies have varied, but they are united by a number of common practices. They do not allow freedom of the press or an independent court system. They attempt to bring religion under state control. And they claim for themselves a monopoly of force. Search the history of the world, from ancient times to the present, and you will not find many tyrants who deviated from the principle that the state must be stronger than the people.

Mass shootings by criminal governments occur predominantly in gun-free zones—places where the population has been disarmed. As soon as the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union began on June 22, 1941, special S.S. units called Einsatzgruppen began assembling all the Jews or Gypsies from a village and marching them out of town. The victims could then be easily machine-gunned at once. Within a year, just 3,000 Einsatzgruppen, aided by a few thousand helpers from the German police and military, had murdered about 1 million people.

Regime change is difficult once a tyrant has taken power, as today's China and Cuba illustrate. So as an anti-tyranny tool, widespread citizen arms ownership works most effectively when it deters tyranny in the first place. Among the reasons there was no Holocaust in Switzerland was that the people there were heavily armed and organized in a very well-regulated militia. The German military almost certainly could have conquered its uncooperative neighbor to the south. Yet because of the costs that the Swiss militia would inflict on the Wehrmacht, Hitler never had the nerve to mount an invasion.

Even after mass murders have already begun, victims who obtain guns can save lives. During the Holocaust, armed Jews caused the Nazis much trouble—in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during Passover 1943 as well as in many lesser-known actions. The Nazi extermination camps of Sobibor and Treblinka were shut down forever because prisoners stole guns from the guards and led mass revolts. The Bielski commando unit in the forests of Belarus grew to 149 armed fighters and saved a thousand more Jews.

During World War I, when the government of the Ottoman Empire began murdering Christians, hundreds of thousands of lives were saved by armed resistance—which relied on guns that the Christians had secreted in defiance of confiscation orders.

"The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person," observed then–California Gov. Ronald Reagan in a 1975 article for Guns and Ammo, "but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It ensures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed."

As the last century demonstrates, the short-term risks of a well-armed civilian population are far less than the long-term risks of a government that is stronger than the people.

Original Article

Gun Control Means People Control

Written by: James I. Ausman, Department of Neurosurgery: UCLA, Los Angeles, CA and Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, USA, 09/09/2019

ABSTRACT: The Second Amendment of the USA Constitution states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today around the USA and the world some people are advocating the removal of guns from the citizens, called “Gun Control,” as the solution to violent crime that they associate with guns in the hands of the public, contrary to what the Second Amendment states. This review provides a factual background to the debate about the issues surrounding the arguments for and against “Gun Control.”

The paper documents many factors that lead to violent crimes committed by people. The means used to cause violent crimes cover the history of human civilization. They include weapons of all types, bombs, toxic substances, vehicles of many kinds, and planes, all to cause the death of others. Some who commit or threaten violent crime against others are emotionally disturbed and in many cases are known to the police through screening systems.

Family dysfunction, alcohol and drug abuse, an incessant stream of media and entertainment featuring gun violence, and an educational system that does not equip the young with the proper civic and ethical principles to deal with life’s challenges all contribute to violent behavior using guns and other lethal means. With this background of multiple factors leading to the commission of violent crimes against others, the focus has been concentrated on banning firearms from public ownership rather than understanding the reasons for this criminal behavior.

Why? There is the overwhelming evidence that disarming the public from using firearms will not reduce violent crimes and will render people defenseless. Other facts indicate that allowing citizens to carry arms will prevent or reduce violent crimes. The debate over Gun Control has become politicized and emotionally based, because the real goal is not stated. In respected scientific journals and in the Media, factual information about the causes and prevention of violent deaths has been misrepresented or is blatantly false.

Using censorship, the medical press and the mass media have refused to publish articles or print opposing opinions such as those supporting the rights of citizens to bear arms. There is evidence that tax-exempt foundations and wealthy individuals are financially supporting Gun Control efforts with the goal of disarming the public to establish a centrally controlled government and to eliminate the US Constitution. It is obvious that in the rapidly changing world we need to find answers to the many factors behind Violent Crime in which guns are used.

That will take time and patience. In the meantime, is there a gray area for compromise in the Guns and Violence issue? Yes, logically, from all the evidence presented in this review, citizens should be encouraged to carry arms for self, family, and fellow citizen protection, and as a check on government, a right guaranteed by the constitution and endowed by our God-given natural right. The challenges facing us are multifaceted. Is Gun Control really about People Control?

Read full published article.

Young v. Hawaii Could Be the Next Heller

Young v. Hawaii En Banc Could Be the Next Monumental Gun Rights Case

George Young is a Vietnam War Green Beret Veteran who sued the state of Hawaii three times on his own without a lawyer for the right to open carry a handgun in public, and lost each time.

Young became passionate about the issue while teaching his late daughter Tim, about the Constitution. Tim died in a car accident in 2004 at age 21. Young was quoted in a 2018 Reuters article stating:

“I made the promise that they cannot take your Second Amendment away.”

“So to prove it to her, that’s when I started.” 

Young’s argument is straightforward: he asserts that the county of his residence has violated the Second Amendment by enforcing against him the State’s limitations in section 134-9 on the open carry of firearms to those “engaged in the protection of life and property” and on the concealed carry of firearms to those who can demonstrate an “exceptional case.”

“I went around the state of Hawaii and contacted about 17 attorneys and all of them turned me down. They said I would only lose.”

“I want to see it through to the end, which is the U.S. Supreme Court.” Said Young. 

Cue in Alan Beck, an independent attorney with extensive knowledge and experience in second amendment law. 

Beck took Young’s appeal for free.

With Young’s unrelenting passion to exercise his second amendment rights, and Beck’s comprehensive knowledge of the law, the powerhouse won the appeal. 

“The 9th Circuit looked at the history and the history demonstrates that the 2nd Amendment right applies to self-defense outside the home.”

Said Attorney Alan Beck.

Senior Judge O’Scannlain wrote for the majority:

“We must decide whether the Second Amendment encompasses the right of a responsible law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm openly for self-defense outside of the home…

Our interpretation of the Second Amendment is guided by the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)…

Indeed, the fact that the Second Amendment protects bearing as well as keeping arms implies some level of public carry in case of confrontation…

In short, the text of the Amendment, as interpreted by Heller and McDonald, points toward the conclusion that “bear” implies a right to carry firearms publicly for self-defense…

…we remain unpersuaded by the County’s and the State’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home. Once identified as an individual right focused on self-defense, the right to bear arms must guarantee some right to self-defense in public…we are satisfied that the Second Amendment encompasses a right to carry a firearm openly in public for self-defense. Because section 134-9 restricts Young in exercising such right to carry a firearm openly, it burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment.” 

A victory at last so it would seem until Hawaii brought in President Obama’s previous Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, who requested an En Banc (full court) ruling on Young v. Hawaii. 

“Yes the Court just accepted our request to go en banc (meaning the original decision striking down Hawaii’s gun control law is now gone, and the case will be decided by a larger complement of judges).”

- Katyal, Twitter, Feb 8, 2019. 

This was a rare move for the court, due to the fact that in 2018 the court only accepted 8 of 955 En Banc case requests (roughly .8%)

According to Beck, oral arguments for Young v. Hawaii are set for September 21, 2020, in San Francisco, California. 

When asked by the Second Amendment Institute for his thoughts on what was to come, Beck replied:

“I am excited to have the Ninth Circuit hear Mr. Young's case en banc. The County of Hawaii has never issued a handgun carry permit and like the carry ban, which was struck down in Illinois, I believe that this ban will be struck down as well. We have one final round of briefing due on June 4. It is my hope that the various gun rights organization will support Mr. Young's case with amicus curiae briefs at that time to ensure the State of Hawaii's unconstitutional law is struck down.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals encompasses Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington State.

For questions, please reach out to contact@sainational.org  

Tyler Yzaguirre, May 7, 2020, Second Amendment Institute

Biden set to head most anti-gun ticket ever

The leading firearms industry trade group is warning that likely Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, a gun ban advocate, is eyeing running mates who favor stricter gun control, likely making the ticket the most anti-gun ever and one that will seek to confiscate weapons.

“That’s the one area Biden doesn’t need help. Biden already has a gun control history a mile long that could prove problematic,” said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

In an alert to the industry, he also noted that several Michael Bloomberg-backed anti-gun groups backing Biden are hosting meetings to vet potential vice presidential picks.

“Law-abiding Americans who value the Second Amendment, including those who recently jumped off the fence to legally purchase their first firearm, understand any of these potential vice presidential nominees are problematic when paired with Biden on the 2020 ticket,” said Keane.

Biden is expected to push gun control in the general election, a move that challenges the surge in gun buying. Since the coronavirus crisis struck, gun sales have hit a record, and industry officials said that new gun buyers include women, minorities, and Democrats.

Biden backed the assault weapons ban and recently suggested he would make former 2020 candidate Beto O'Rourke, who declared, "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15," his gun czar.

Keane's note focused on the top four potential Biden picks, Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. He wrote:

Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams worked as a state legislator to pass policies that would turn law-abiding Georgians into felons by forcing them to either turn in modern sporting rifles or destroy them. At 17.7 million MSRs in circulation today, that’s a lot of confiscation if her gun control ideas for Georgia are tried out on the national stage.

Failed 2020 presidential candidate U.S Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) would likely impose new taxes on American sportsmen and women and supports reinstating the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which did not reduce crime. That’s not the only thing. She’s got lots of plans, including a catalog for gun control which she touted on the campaign trail.

Biden is also said to be considering his former 2020 presidential rival Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Uncle Dick might need to hang out in the deer stand a little longer. Her laundry list gun control platform includes repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, as well as supporting “red flag” laws that deny the accused due process under the law.

Failed 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) is the last announced participant in Everytown’s gun control virtual townhall series. The senator from the Golden State would wave the magic wand of “Executive Action” to enact sweeping gun control policies if she could, including limiting the number of firearms a licensed retailer could sell each year and removing existing legal protections for firearm manufacturers.

Originally published via Washington Examiner, 4/30/2020

Virginia Gun-Control Activist Reveals 2021 Plan

On April 19, podcast Transition Virginia, which describes itself as "an edgy, political news-commentary podcast on the transition of power in Virginia from a red to blue​," released an episode featuring Secretary of Public Safety Brian Moran and Lori Haas of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV). Virginia gun rights advocates may remember Haas as a vocal cheerleader for Attorney General Mark Herring's 2015 attempt to remove reciprocity for 25 states Right-to-Carry permits. Haas opposed the compromise legislation with then-Governor Terry McAuliffe that reversed Herring's maneuver by granting reciprocity to all state Right-to-Carry permits. Longtime gun rights supporters will know that CSGV is the handgun prohibition organization that until 1990 was known as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

On the podcast, Haas laid out gun control activists' plans for the 2021 legislative session. Haas told the interviewer, "We'll be back... a couple people joked with me [Secretary Moran] one of them, 'Lori we've got seven bills what are we going to do next year?' Oh I've got a big list for you secretary." Haas made clear that a renewed push to ban commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and their magazines was at the top of gun control advocates' agenda, claiming that such items "have no place in civil society." Haas also noted that her group is already working with legislators to pass a ban next year.

For his part, Moran claimed that commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms are not protected under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The secretary also approvingly pointed to Maryland's ban on commonly-owned firearms. 

Banning commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms or their magazines is unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that governments cannot ban these firearms as they are “in common use” for lawful purposes. 

Taken alone, Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Heller is enough to dispose of Moran’s comments. In the decision, Justice Scalia made clear that the types of firearms protected by the Second Amendment include those “in common use at the time” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.”

The firearms industry has estimated that Americans own more than 17.5 million semi-automatic rifles. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. and therefore indisputably “in common use” and protected by the Second Amendment.

All doubt as to whether the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald preclude bans on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was settled in 2015. That year, Justice Scalia joined Justice Thomas in a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, a case concerning a local ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. 

Justice Thomas explained,

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

A sweeping gun ban isn't all Haas and her gun prohibitionist allies are seeking to accomplish in 2021. Haas also told the podcast that gun control advocates are working on measures to restrict both concealed and open carry, so-called "safe storage" legislation, and a bill to enact an onerous firearm permit to purchase regime. In a decidedly regressive move, Haas even shared her interest in attacking Virginia's restoration of rights procedure, whereby former criminals who have paid their debt to society are able to regain their civil rights.

Moran and Haas's interview makes clear that the enemies of freedom are not satisfied with the gun controls enacted in Virginia this year. Therefore, the commonwealth's gun rights activists must remain vigilant in order to combat this perpetual threat to freedom. Virginians should start by informing their friends, loved ones, and other like-minded individuals of the continuing threat gun owners face in the commonwealth. This year gun owners proved that a determined grassroots effort can preserve freedom. Virginian gun rights supporters must continue to exhibit the same tenacity and determination in the years to come.

Originally published by the NRA on 4/27/2020

Pandemic Exposes Dangers of Severe Gun Controls in Connecticut and D.C.

MONDAY, APRIL 13, 2020 via NRA-ILA

Gun owner licensing and registration, "universal" background checks, and restrictions on the sale of ammunition. Gun owners have been told again and again that these are sensible measures that empower the government to ensure that firearms don't end up in the wrong hands. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear that when governments are incapable or unwilling to perform the gun control measures for which they have been tasked, law-abiding citizens end up being denied their Second Amendment rights in total.

More than a decade after the Second Amendment rights of District of Columbia residents were secured in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller, the federal enclave has once again foreclosed access to protected arms.  

On March 24, 2020, Mayor Muriel Bowser issued Mayor's Order 2020-053, which ordered all non-essential businesses to close. The order did not designate federal firearms licensees (FFLs) as essential.

D.C. does not typically have firearms dealers that keep an inventory of firearms for sale. Further, federal law prohibits interstate handgun sales. Therefore, in order for a District resident to acquire a handgun, they must purchase the handgun in another jurisdiction and have it sent to a D.C. FFL. The FFL will then process the transfer and complete the paperwork necessary to comply with the District's firearm registration regime (which also acts as a licensing and background check system). Private transfers of handguns must also take place through an FFL.

Without access to the services of D.C.-based FFLs, District residents are unable to acquire the very handguns that were at issue in the Heller case.

The problem facing Connecticut residents is different, but no less problematic. 

On March 20, Governor Ned Lamont issued Executive Order 7h. The order permitted firearms and ammunition retailers to stay open during the ongoing pandemic. On March 26, the governor issued Executive Order 7N , which limited firearms transactions to appointment only. 

Under Connecticut state law an individual seeking to acquire a firearm must obtain a permit to carry pistols and revolvers, an eligibility certificate to purchase a pistol or revolver, or an eligibility certificate to purchase long guns. Worse, such a permit or certificate is required to purchase ammunition in the state.

The permitting process in Connecticut is arduous and time-consuming. During normal times, the process for obtaining a permit to carry can take 8 weeks. For a pistol eligibility certificate, the issuing authority has 90 days to review an application. The average processing time for the permit and eligibility certificates has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and effectively cut off prospective gun buyers' access to firearms and ammunition during this time of uncertainty.

The permit to carry a pistol or revolver process is particularly byzantine. A person's permit must first be approved by their local law enforcement (the part that can take up to 8 weeks). If approved, the individual is granted a temporary pistol permit that is good for 60 days. Within that 60 days, the person must then take the temporary permit and other paperwork to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection​ Division of the State Police for review in order to obtain their state permit to carry a pistol or revolver.

Citing COVID-19, the state has suspended the DESPP's pistol permit service. The governor extended the period of time for which a temporary permit is valid to 150 days. However, a temporary pistol permit cannot be used to purchase a firearm.

Barriers to the peaceful exercise of a constitutional right are always bad policy. During a time of crisis in which governments cannot be counted upon to carry out their duties, such policies leave law-abiding citizens defenseless.​

Originally posted on NRA-ILA. Link.

Pregnant Florida mom uses AR-15 to kill home intruder

A pregnant woman is credited with saving the lives of her husband and daughter after she used an AR-15 to fatally gun down a home intruder, a report said.

The hero mom sprung into action when two intruders entered the family’s Lithia, Fla. home last week and pistol whipped her husband while violently grabbing their daughter, according to the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office.

“They came in heavily hooded and masked,” the husband, Jeremy King, told Bay News 9.

“As soon as they had got the back door opened, they had a pistol on me and was grabbing my 11-year-old daughter.”

The robbers then pistol-whipped King and kicked him while the man’s wife, who is eight months pregnant, retreated into the bedroom.

“When he came toward the back door in her line of sight, she clipped him,” King told the outlet. “He made it from my back door to roughly 200 feet out in the front ditch before the AR did its thing.”

Police said in a press conference that they found the man’s dead body lying in the ditch nearby. The second suspect was on the loose.

The homeowner said he took a “severe beating,” but credited his wife for saving him.

“I’ve got a fractured eye socket, a fractured sinus cavity, a concussion, 20 stitches and three staples in my head,” said King.

“Them guys came in with two normal pistols and my AR stopped it. [My wife] evened the playing field and kept them from killing me.”

The sheriff’s office added that the firearm was in the home legally.

—

Originally posted on NYPost.com By Joe Tacopino

November 4, 2019 | 12:05am | Updated 

Senate "Assault Weapons" Ban Would Outlaw 205 Guns

A bill in the Senate would outlaw “assault weapons,” 205 guns, high-capacity magazines holding 11 or more rounds and already-illegal bump stocks.

Sponsored by Democrat Diane Feinstein of California, the bill also includes a universal background check requirement for any future transfer of firearms covered by the ban, Breitbart reported.

Feinstein cited a 1994-2004 “assault weapons” ban, claiming it resulted in fewer gun deaths, in an attempt to increase the chances the new legislation passes.

“The data is clear: there were fewer mass shootings while the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect and significantly more after it expired,” Feinstein said.

However, a report from the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) report showed that the 1994-2004 ban was not responsible for the decrease, the Washington Times reported.

“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence,” said University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper, author of the NIJ report.

“The ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” the report added.

Additionally, while the aim of the legislation is to decrease the number of people killed every year, the latest FBI statistics released this week show that individuals are five times more likely to be murdered with knives than with a rifle of any type.

The legislation doesn’t address either blunt objects nor handguns, except peripherally through magazine capacity limits.

In addition to banning certain types of firearms, Democrats aim to pass legislation referred to as “red flag” laws, which would give law enforcement the ability to confiscate firearms and prevent gun owners from possessing firearms once the protective order is in place, simply because a concerned neighbor or former roommate believes that person isn’t fit to handle those types of weapons, without any other legal conditions.

The bill, recently passed by the House, incentivize states to pass their laws by creating a federal grant program to award funding to states that pass them.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) offered vocal opponent criticism of the bill, arguing it would violate an individual’s right to be considered innocent until proven guilty under the law.

“If we pass this bill today, we are going to invert the standard and say, ‘you are guilty until proven innocent, and you will be guilty without doing anything wrong.’ Under this bill, you are guilty without doing anything wrong simply because someone thinks you might do something wrong,” Jordan said.

Originally posted on American Military News, 10/2/2019.

Why Concealed Carry for Women Is Both Necessary and Important

STRAIGHT 8 PHOTO

CULTURE AND SOCIETY, ALONG WITH FEARS AND STEREOTYPES, FACTOR IN, BUT CONCEALED CARRY FOR WOMEN IS ABOUT SAFETY, WINNING THE FIGHT AND MUCH, MUCH MORE.

By

CAT CABRERA

First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt said, “A woman is like a tea bag. You can’t tell how strong she is until you put her in hot water.” In today’s society, we have a bad habit of encouraging the inner John Wick in men, boosting the lifestyle and culture of all things “tactical,” and supporting the Second Amendment through our bearded loved ones. Civilizations all throughout history, all over the world, encouraged women to embrace their inner warrior, too. So why have we strayed from that?

Fears & Stereotypes

I asked several women, “Why do you carry a gun, or choose not to?” Those who carry had one thing in mind: protection. Those who don’t carry said they didn’t feel safe, didn’t know anything about guns, or simply didn’t see themselves with a gun. But why? Why don’t they feel safe? Why don’t they see themselves shooting?

When it comes to firearms safety, I noticed a pattern that has nothing to do with what’s been broadcasted on the TV or internet, but the gun itself. Most women who said they don’t feel safe around guns stated that it was because of the noise and power they hold. This is understandable. The noise itself can make anyone jump, no matter how often you surround yourself with it. The power of a gun should be respected and not taken lightly.

Concealed Carry for Women

Those who own a gun can testify that it’s not as easy as walking in to your local gun shop and picking one up. You have to do a few things beforehand, like taking a class to become more familiar with the types of guns, the parts of a gun and safety when using a gun.

Then the most common practice is to go to a shooting range and become associated with the gun and practicing the safety behind shooting it. If you’re new to the concept, I suggest taking an introductory class at your local shooting range and learning your state laws to help you determine if owning a firearm is meant for you.

The self-perception thing is a bit more complicated. Our “gun culture” is a real thing—it’s not just some lingo marketers came up with to get you to buy more guns. The U.S. was founded on this lifestyle, with hunters, soldiers and protectors.

Proud Americans have owned guns for hundreds of years. But the world is changing, and it seems that some are intent on stripping us of our Second Amendment rights. These anti-gunners associate firearms with malice and evil, as a disruption to life, instead of what they really are: protectors of life.

Gun Owners & Culture

Here in the U.S., gun owners are just as diverse as the rest of the country. There are both urban and rural shooters, even though it’s typically harder to carry a gun in some cities. In these locales, you might find people asking, “Why would you need a gun?” But those of us raised in rural households know that guns are common household items. Their purpose varies among shooters, but home security will always be a top priority.

Culture and society play a large role in a woman’s choice to own a gun. If you weren’t raised around guns, it might not be easy to associate yourself with one. You might not know much about them, or know people who do.

We’ve also done a disservice to women everywhere by making “everyday women” feel like they aren’t worthy enough to own firearms. Think of all the women showing up in superhero films: Black Widow, Wonder Woman, The Wasp, Captain Marvel.

They’re all women we admire but cannot compete with or become. They have their leather jackets and bad-girl struts—something most women can’t relate to. But I have some news for you: If I, a Lois Lane in the gun world, can be part of this lifestyle, then so can you.

Concealed Carry for Women: Protecting Yourself

Of the women I spoke to who carry firearms, one commonality became apparent: They are driven not to protect themselves, but those they love and care for. That alone is one heck of a reason to own a gun, but your own personal protection should be a key reason in making the final purchase.

I was raised by a dad who shot his first gun when he was nine, has taken martial arts courses since he was 13 and designs blades for a living. I am no stranger to the self-defense world, obviously. My parents highly encouraged this pursuit. But this influence is what drives me to write this, as your personal protection should be your top priority.

Taking a step toward creating a safer household, and a safer environment for yourself, is nothing to be ashamed of. It’s an honor and a privilege.

If you’re a woman, owning and carrying a gun is unexpected. If you happen to find yourself in a compromising situation, I guarantee the antagonist of your story will be shocked to find you pulling your weapon of choice out of your purse.

You’ll immediately win that fight or at least level the playing field. But think about the same threatening situation without a handgun by your side. Do you still think the odds are in your favor? I doubt it, but you must always fight back. Never allow yourself to lose voluntarily.

Concealed Carry for Women: Making the Choice

So if you’re interested in becoming a part of the “gun culture” but aren’t quite sure where to start, head to your state’s website and begin to acquaint yourself with your local laws and regulations. Become familiar with your rights and the process of becoming a proud gun owner.

I highly suggest looking for a local shooting range or self-defense and training facility near you that will equip you with the proper knowledge and power to confidently carry. Invite some of your girlfriends for a girls’ night at the range. Encourage those around you to join you on this journey.

Cat manages DoubleStar Corp. and is an expert in firearm mechanics.

The Myth of the Mass Shooting Epidemic

The myth of the mass shooting epidemic

by Brad Polumbo. Originally posted on the Washington Examiner.

September 03, 2019 01:11 PM

As Beto O’Rourke put it: “This is f—ked up.”

The Texas Democrat and mediocre presidential candidate offered these wise words in an effort to capitalize on tragedy this weekend to try and once again reboot his failing campaign. O’Rourke was responding to the tragic news of another mass shooting in Odessa, Texas, over the weekend that left at least seven dead and 25 injured. 

But although O’Rourke’s sentiment is completely understandable, it’s also completely unfounded. Despite the liberal media’s profit-motivated mass coverage of these tragic events, and despite frequent exploitation by gun-control activists, actual mass shootings remain a statistical rarity and a much-exaggerated threat.

The liberal media just doesn’t cover car crashes, heart disease, or suicide with the same fervor it does mass shootings — perhaps because these far more common causes of death advance no political agenda and fail to get that gut reaction that makes people tune in. 

By nearly a factor of four, more people in America die from the flu and pneumonia than by homicide (all homicides, including non-gun homicides).

But people aren’t running out to get a flu shot with nearly the same fervor with which they’re clamoring for gun control. Much of the population has been scared into radically over-estimating the prevalence of mass shootings and gun violence in general. 

The CDC estimates that 4.5 people out of 100,000 die each year from various forms of firearm homicide. Mass shootings, in turn, account for less than 1% of homicides. 

Another way of looking at it is to consider rifle homicides specifically, because the topic always turns to "assault weapons." There are only 300 to 400 deaths in a given year from all rifles, including the ones someone might call "assault weapons." You are 50% more likely to be killed by a blunt object. 

Contrast mass shootings with the 12.4 out of 100,000 people who die in car accidents every year, or the 20 out of 100,000 who die from accidental poisoning. If these tragic deaths were covered with the same frequency and fervor as shootings, Americans might start wearing their seat belts and take greater care with potential toxins. Yet notably, there’s still no call to ban cars, or to require people to fly from New York to Boston rather than take the much-more-lethal drive up I-95. 

It’s also unclear, despite what media coverage and some dubiously-generated statistics would suggest, that mass shootings are even getting more frequent. Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox found that “the number of mass shooting victims, perpetrators, and incidents didn’t change much from 1980 to 2014.” 

We need to take a deep breath, and view this violence as the serious but statistically infrequent threat it truly is. Smart policy decisions are rarely made by a population steeped in misinformation and fear.

And that’s exactly where we’re at right now. 

In a 2018 Washington Post op-ed, Harvard instructor David Ropeik explained that according to his calculations, “the statistical likelihood of any given public school student being killed by a gun, in school, on any given day since 1999 was roughly 1 in 614,000,000.” That’s right: one in 614 million. Your odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 300 million. 

Ropeik aptly points out that the risk of dying in a school shooting is extremely low, and “far lower than many people assume.” As well, this risk is “far lower than almost any other mortality risk a kid faces, including traveling to and from school, catching a potentially deadly disease while in school or suffering a life-threatening injury playing interscholastic sports.”

According to Pew Research, 57% of teenagers fear school shootings, even though there is essentially a 0% chance it will happen to them. And parents share their unfounded anxiety: 63% similarly worry about their child’s safety in school due to mass shootings. It's understandable that something as awful as a mass shooting would inspire fear, but again, consider the odds relative to all those other, much more common dangers.

It’s unhealthy for us as a nation to have such disproportionate fear of a threat that the facts show is actually quite remote. Raw emotion is understandable, but when making policy it’s no substitute for fact. The media, meanwhile, are going out of their way to cause needless fear and stress just to get a few extra views and clicks — if it bleeds, it leads. And that, as O’Rourke might put it, is just f—ked up.

Realtor Stops Attacker With Her Firearm

'If I didn't have a firearm, I wouldn't be here to talk to you': Realtor describes attack at open house

Realtor Dawna Hetzler has a concealed carry permit, and said she was attacked by a man wielding a knife and bear spray during an open house.

Author: Allison Sylte
Originally published on 9News.com

Published: 1:44 PM MDT August 7, 2019

Updated: 8:29 PM MDT August 8, 2019

COMMERCE CITY, Colo. — What happened Sunday morning was a moment Dawna Hetzler said she had trained for, but never believed would actually happen.

“I like to believe the best in people,” the longtime realtor said three days after calling Commerce City Police to report she was threatened at knifepoint by a man during an open house.

Hetzler, who said she has a concealed carry permit, fired gunshots in his direction, scaring him away. 

“My life was in danger, and if I did not have my firearm, I would not be here to talk to you,” Hetzler said.

According to the Commerce City Police Department, the incident happened in broad daylight – at 11:30 a.m. Sunday – in a home near East 104th Avenue and Chambers Road.

Hetzler said the man, who police later identified as Ernest Robert Chrisman, 43, arrived shortly after she started setting up for the open house. At the time, she said she thought nothing of it.

“He asked the right questions,” Hetzler said. “We talked about loans, what he had to qualify for.”

She said he picked up a brochure for the property and asked to see the upstairs. While they were in the master bedroom, Hetzler said he took a knife out as well as a small, six-inch piece of rope that apparently had bear spray tethered to it.

“He said, ‘This is a knife, this is bear spray.’ After he said, 'This is bear spray,’ he asked me to take out off my ring and get into the closet,” Hetzler said.

This was when Hetzler said she began to fear for her life. She said she drew her gun, and the man responded by dousing her with bear spray.

“I couldn’t see,” she said. “My skin was burning, my eyes were on fire, I couldn’t see, so I fired.”

After Chrisman ran away, Hetzler said she went downstairs and tried to find her phone, her vision obscured by bear spray. She called 911 and was later taken to the hospital. Days later, Hetzler said the residue from the bear spray still burns.

“Our men and women in blue helped me tremendously that day, and I am so grateful for their service,” Hetzler said.

She said she shared her story with the media on Wednesday morning in hopes that it will help police find the man who attacked her. 

Police on Thursday afternoon arrested Chrisman on charges of 1st Degree Burglary, Aggravated Robbery and 2nd Degree Assault. He was booked into the Adams County Detention Facility. 

A published author and blogger, Hetzler said her other goal is for her story to inspire women.

“It’s still very surreal,” Hetzler said. “You train for something like that but you pray you never have to do it.”

The Newest and Most Dangerous Red Flag Law

By Brent Johnson | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

A significant new gun control law will take effect in New Jersey on Sunday, allowing you to ask a judge to bar a family member or loved one who is deemed to be mentally unstable and a threat from buying or possessing a gun.

Here’s what you need to know:

1. What does the law actually do?

The law (A1217) is officially called the “Extreme Risk Protective Order Act of 2018."

It allows family members or those who live in the same household to submit an application to state Superior Court showing why a judge should issue an “extreme risk protective order" to keep guns away from someone “who poses a danger of causing bodily injury” to themselves or others by purchasing or possessing a gun or ammunition.

It also allows law enforcement to petition the court.

People who are neither family or a law enforcement officer can ask a law enforcement agency to file a petition.

The judge can then issue the order if they find the person “poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself or others by possessing a firearm.” That will bar the person from owning, buying, possessing, or receiving any firearms during the period the order is in effect.

The law also allows the judge to issue a warrant to seize a person’s firearms if they’ve been issued an order.

“It’s really based around a mental health concern,” state Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald, D-Camden — a main sponsor of the law — told NJ Advance Media.

“In a lot of cases, you’ll hear that a family member will say their child was struggling with depression or suicidal tendencies,” Greenwald aid. “They can now ask a judge to intercede and remove the gun until that individual can be tested and be determined to be safe to themselves and others.”

2. Can a neighbor or someone who is not family or a friend also seek such an order?

If you’re not a family member or don’t live in the same household, you can ask a law enforcement agency to file a petition on your behalf. But Greenwald said the law is designed primarily for family members and loved ones who are concerned.

“They would be considered closer to the situation,” the lawmaker said.

3. How can the person get their guns back? 

A person has 45 days to file an appeal once an order is granted. They can also seek to have the order terminated at any time after the order goes into effect.

If a law enforcement agency has “probable cause” to believe that a person continues to pose “a significant risk" after one year, the agency may request another order. A judge may also issue another order.

4. How did this become law? 

This was one of several gun control measures New Jersey’s Democratic-controlled Legislature passed after Democrat Phil Murphysucceeding Republican Chris Christie as governor in January 2018. Murphy vowed on the campaign trail to make the state’s already strict gun laws even tougher.

The bill passed the state Senate by a vote of 32-5 in the Senate and 56-11 in the Assembly in June 2018. Some Republicans joined Democrats in the vote.

Murphy signed the measure into law just days later — one of six gun laws he approved that day.

“We are going to be a leader in the fight for common-sense gun safety,” the governor said at the time. “New Jersey will lead.”

This particular law wasn’t slated to take effect until Sept. 1 — this Sunday — so the state’s courts could prepare.

Alexandra Altman, a spokeswoman for Murphy, said the governor “proudly” signed this law to "ensure that individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others do not have access to a gun.”

5. What do opponents say? 

Gun-rights advocates say this is another example of New Jersey instituting harsh gun laws.

Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, said the law “allows confiscation of legally owned property without advance due process, based on false claims of third parties, and‎ with no penalty for making false allegations against someone.”

“It is a tyrant’s dream, and a citizen’s nightmare,” Bach added.

He also said it’s “ripe for abuse."

6. So how tough are New Jersey’s gun laws?

They are the second toughest in the nation, after only California, according to rankings by the Gifford Law Center

Meanwhile, the Garden State ranks 45th among the 50 states in the number of per capita gun deaths per year, according the center. Only Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts have fewer.

Brent Johnson may be reached at bjohnson@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @johnsb01.

Guns Can Be Confiscated, but Killers Are Still Going to Kill

AUGUST 23, 2019

A Park Ridge man charged in the stabbing death of his mother last month had illegal firearms, including at least two that he made himself from parts he got online, confiscated from his home twice in the last two years, the most recent instance taking place just two weeks before the murder, reports from the Park Ridge Police Department allege. 

David Krystyniak, 47, of the 1900 block of Courtland Avenue, was charged with first degree murder on July 29 after a police officer found the body of David’s mother, Judith Krystyniak, inside a garbage container in the living room of their Courtland Avenue home, Kaminski said during a July 31 press conference. 

Police reports say, however, that police had twice taken illegal guns from Krystyniak’s home, once in late 2017 and once weeks before the killing.

According to a July 14 police report, David Krystyniak voluntarily gave police an AR-15 rifle and a Glock 22 handgun when officers made a visit on an unrelated matter to the home he shared with his mother.

According to the report, Krystyniak had called 911 on the morning of July 14 because he believed his mother had overdosed on medication, but responding officers found her alert, coherent and showing no signs of being medicated.

While speaking with Krystyniak, one of the officers asked him about guns that police had confiscated from his home on a previous occasion in 2017, and Krystyniak replied that he had made his own guns after his other firearms were taken, the police report said 

According to the report, Krystyniak said he had built the AR-15 and Glock 22 from parts he had purchased online and had delivered to his house through the mail. Both guns were unloaded, the report said.

In the police report, the responding officer noted that the AR-15 “appeared to be fully functional” but Park Ridge Police Chief Frank Kaminski later, after more analysis, described both firearms as non-functional.

Two boxes of AR-15 parts were also confiscated by police, and three airgun pistols that resembled actual handguns were found in the home as well, police said.

A year and a half earlier, in December 2017, police seized two AR-15s and a Glock 9mm handgun from Krystyniak after he showed officers the contents of a gun safe in his bedroom, a police report said. Police also confiscated the magazines from the AR-15s and “other weapons" that were not identified in the report.

Krystyniak is scheduled to be arraigned next month on the July first degree murder charge. He will plead not guilty, said his public defender Wendy Schilling. 

When asked about the police reports that police twice seized guns from Krystyniak, Schilling said, “We have not yet received any discovery in this case. Therefore, we have no knowledge of these allegations of David possessing any guns.”

The reason for the officers’ visit to the home in 2017 is not clear. The police department redacted a portion of the police report. The report does note that the police department’s social worker was present.

According to police, the guns and gun parts were confiscated during both visits to Krystyniak’s home because he did not have a valid Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card. No charges were filed against Krystyniak in either case, according to police.

Sgt. Jacqueline Cepeda, a spokeswoman for the Illinois State Police, said the department could not discuss whether Krystyniak had ever applied for a FOID card. A person must have a valid FOID card to possess any home-manufactured guns that meet the definition of a firearm under the FOID act, she said.

A police officer and social worker, driving by the Krystyniak home on July 29, noticed groceries strewn about the driveway and asked David Krystyniak if they could come in, police said. They discovered the woman’s body inside, according to police.

Judith Krystyniak had been stabbed multiple times in the chest, Kaminski said, and the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office ruled her death a homicide. The murder weapon was identified as a samurai sword, according to Cook County Circuit Court documents.

Kaminski said the sword was the only weapon investigators found in the home following Judith Krystyniak’s death. A hammer was also found, but police do not believe it was used in the killing, the police chief said.

Police have not determined whether the murder of Judith Krystyniak was premeditated and a motive has not been established, Kaminski said.

David Krystyniak is currently being held in Cook County Jail without bail.

David Krystyniak was known to the police department and department’s social worker “due to his mental health illness,” police said in a press release issued shortly after his arrest. Kaminski said a social worker had been working with the family for several years and offering them services.

“There were connections between our social worker and the family,” he said, declining to speak more about that aspect of the case, citing the state’s Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act.

According to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, those with mental health conditions who pose “a clear and present danger to self, others or the community” can be prohibited from obtaining an Illinois FOID card.

Kaminski said there was no indication at the time police visited the Krystyniak home that David Krystyniak was planning to use the firearms inside to commit violent acts, or that he was planning to harm his mother.

“Nobody’s got a crystal ball for this stuff; you wish you could prevent everything,” the police chief said. “We still don’t have a motive, we don’t know what happened that night or in the days before to trigger this. We don’t know. But there were no indications of any violence prior to this.”

 But police reports show that others in the community had reported problems with Krystyniak over the years.

 In December 2017, shortly before the first batch of guns were removed from Krystyniak’s home, a representative of a car dealership contacted police to say that employees had received “a series of disturbing emails,” from Krystyniak, some of which “bordered on threatening,” a police report said. Krystyniak also was accused of calling the business after he had been told not to, police said.

The dealership did not want to file a criminal complaint, police said, and no arrest was made, though the police department social worker was reportedly notified.

 In a 2015 police report, a neighbor of the Krystyniaks alleged that David “had always caused disturbances in the area” and the man also reported that his elderly mother was fearful of Krystyniak.

In 2005, Krystyniak, then 33, was charged with battery after he allegedly attacked a 17-year-old boy in the street a few blocks from his home, according to police.

 According to the police report, the teen said he was driving south on Courtland Avenue at Granville when his car was struck from behind. The teen told police that the driver of the other car, whom police identified as Krystyniak, got out, charged him, pulled open the driver’s side door and began punching him. A witness helped to hold Krystyniak down until officers arrived, police said.

Originally posted on Chicago Tribune, August 23, 2019. Written by Jennifer Johnson.

New York Red Flag Law Goes Into Full Effect

ALBANY, NEW YORK — Governor Cuomo recently signed the now fully enacted New York Red Flag Law.

The Red Flag Law will allow certain people to report a person as a danger to themselves or others, and create a temporary removal of that person’s firearms.

The request would need to be presented to a judge to sign off on.

Red Flag Laws are unconstitutional, lead to more danger, and don’t stop crime.

New York is one of 17 states with a Red Flag Law.

RED FLAG LAWS KILL

There will always be one resinating truth about red flag laws: They kill. SAI President Tyler Yzaguirre discuss the dangers of red flag laws on the BlazeTV with Jon Miller.

RED FLAG LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

SAI President Tyler Yzaguirre discusses the unconstitutionality of Red Flag Laws on the Daily Caller with Stephanie Hamill and Anna Paulina.

Don’t like guns? Your opinion is not my problem

People in this country have a constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” and if you don’t like people owning guns, there’s nothing you can do about it. It’s time that people understand the simple concept that constitutional rights will always outweigh personal feelings.

When I attended the University of Delaware and ran Students for the Second Amendment, one of the most common complaints I heard from other students was that they felt “uncomfortable” knowing that other students owned and carried firearms. It wasn’t statistics or facts that backed their argument. It was simply the feeling of unrest.

First, the University of Delaware prohibits the possession of firearms on campus property for students and the public. This means that students 21 or older can only conceal carry off campus with a license from the state. Still, students were not put at ease.

Second, the process to obtain a concealed carry license in Delaware is extremely strenuous. There are many steps one must take in order to obtain their license. Some of these steps include publishing one’s private information in the newspaper and successfully completing a firearms training course. Concealed carry holders have practiced shooting at the range and have learned firearm laws. After completing the strenuous training, firearm owners are well educated on and have a strong respect for gun safety.

Despite all these precautions and restrictions to the Second Amendment, a constitutional right that is not to be infringed, students were still uncomfortable. To them I say, “too bad, that’s not my problem.”

This example can be used to address all of those who think that their feelings outweigh constitutional rights. If someone is offended by their fellow law-abiding citizens owning or carrying firearms, then that’s their problem. Now more than ever law-abiding citizens must come together and stand strong in the face of the emotionally irrational snowflakes who think that their feelings outweigh your constitutional rights.

After all, you would think that with criminals becoming bolder and killing more innocent people, everyone would want more law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional rights and carry firearms… but that would be logical.

Originally posted in Red Alert Politics, October, 2017. Written by SAI President Tyler Yzaguirre.

What is the right age for children to start shooting guns?

Children are taught basic life lessons starting at an early age: look both ways before you cross the street, don’t touch the stove, don’t play with matches, don’t talk to strangers, etc. These introductory life lessons keep children out of trouble. One important lesson that many children, unfortunately, do not learn is respect for firearms. With more than 300 million legal firearms in circulation amongst Americans, teaching firearm safety and handling knowledge is imperative.

A policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics bluntly states that guns shouldn’t be kept in homes that have children. But what good is this anti-firearms policy? The American Academy of Pediatrics would like you to think that by keeping firearms out of children’s’ lives, gun culture will wane and the topic will be ignored altogether.

Law-abiding gun owners should not sell or hide their guns when they have children. Instead, they should teach basic safety, respect, and handling of firearms to them. This way children will be more accustomed to firearms, they’ll have a better understanding that firearms are not a toy, and they’ll learn not to goof-off or play with them. 

The best way to accomplish this is by teaching firearm safety, which involves learning to shoot – not by making the topic of guns taboo. With this, the question arises, what is the best age for children to learn how to shoot? 

There are many resources in public circulation that answer questions for parents regarding how to talk about firearms with their children. Organizations like Aegis Academy suggest that children shouldn’t be allowed to shoot .22 caliber firearm until they are at least 8 years old. Meanwhile, more prominent national organizations like the National Rifle Association suggest that the right time is when the child “expresses interest” in shooting.

Firearm experts Dick Heller, from the United States Supreme Court case DC v. Heller (2008), and Myah Baeza, PFC US Army, agree that the right time to teach a child how to shoot depends upon their cognitive development.

Heller explains that “their developmental and responsibility-awareness levels” determine the right time for children to shoot. Baeza concurs with Heller stating that “There’s no magic number. It’s when you (the parent) feel they are developed enough to understand the concept of muzzle/trigger awareness and what it means to own, hold, carry, and shoot a firearm.”

A large part of raising a child is helping them mature and grow into adulthood. Being able to understand and respect firearms is a part of that maturing and, certainly, includes learning how to shoot a gun. As for the right age, firearm experts agree that there is no magic number or set time-frame for learning how to shoot. Rather, the point at which a child is mentally capable of understanding and respecting firearms is the time in which parents should bring that child to the range.

Originally published on Red Alert Politics November, 2017. Written by SAI President, Tyler Yzaguirre.