<![CDATA[Gun Rights]]>

Gun violence group to hold rally in San Diego

May 17, 2022 by Tom Knighton Leave a Comment

In the wake of Buffalo, it’s unsurprising that people are pushing for gun control. It’s unfortunate and stupid, but not unsurprising.

In San Diego, it seems a gun violence group is planning a rally.

Gun violence prevention advocates will hold a rally on Monday in Balboa Park to raise awareness about the need for greater gun safety.
“We live in a different context and times today, and we need to apply the laws appropriately, and that’s what’s sorely missing,” says Ron Marcus, the President of San Diegans for Gun Violence Prevention.
Marcus says enough is enough as the number of gun violence incidents continues to rise across the country.
According to the gun violence archive database, this year alone, more than 16,000 people in the US have died because of gun violence.
“We try to attack this on so many levels legislative is a part of it, but we’re trying to prevent it,” Marcus said. “We’re trying to help them find alternatives to be in a happier place, so they don’t pick up a gun and do something.
On the legislative level, these advocates are pushing for stricter gun laws, such as raising the age requirement to purchase guns.

In other words, these people don’t think lawful adults should get to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

Screw that.

Look, I get that people are looking for answers. That’s normal. Yet restricting rights for millions of Americans isn’t what you’re looking for.

First, let’s understand that he chose to carry out the shooting where he did because of New York state’s draconian gun laws. Why are we going to try and address this issue by doing more of what clearly failed?

Of course, I’m sure they’ll claim the problem are all the other shootings going on, but we need to remember there was no appreciable change in the gun control laws in this nation. We’re seeing an upswing in violent crime all over the nation, in pro-gun states and anti-gun states.

It seems to me that if the issue was truly about the lack of gun laws, that simply wouldn’t be the case.

So passing more gun control–gun control that fails over and over again–to combat gun violence doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

But, as Marcus said, “We live in a different context and times today.” a sentiment shared by many in the gun-control camp. I reject that argument simply because while it’s true, it’s also irrelevant. Yes, we live in a different time. We also live in a different time than the giant printing presses that were common when the First Amendment was scribed.

Our rights don’t change because the date on the calendar did.

The reason our right to keep and bear arms is enshrined is that our Founding Fathers didn’t want us to have to accept tyranny. They wanted us to resist.

That includes what I call the Tyranny of the Thug.

So folks like Marcus can hold their anti-gun violence rally and call for new gun control. The rest of us will be over here making sure no one takes our right to keep and bear arms so that their right to protest remains intact.

UK student booted from school for giving toy gun to a friend

May 16, 2022 by Tom Knighton Leave a Comment

There will always be a segment of the population that thinks we should adopt policies around firearms like the United Kingdom has. They don’t think anyone needs a gun for self-defense and so why shouldn’t we make people keep guns locked up at private clubs?

Who cares if that means poor people can’t exercise a fundamental right?

Well, I do and so do most, if not all of you.

So yeah, I’m not interested in the UK’s laws. Especially when it’s a country that punishes a kid over a toy gun.

A boy has been permanently excluded from school after he took a toy gun into a McDonald’s restaurant and gave it to another pupil, his mother says.
Pauline Pollard, 53, said her son, Mitchell, was expelled from Christ Church in Yardley Wood, Birmingham, after bringing the black and gold toy gun to the fast food chain and giving it to a friend, who she said later “shot a couple of pellets at two pupils”.
The Church of England academy school, which just opened last September, stood by its decision, but Ms Pollard insisted her son is not a “wayward” child.
Headteacher Mark Bowman Dalton said: “Any exclusion is not made lightly and will follow the statutory guidance set by the Department for Education.
“Each case is treated fairly and will be reviewed by a panel of governors.

So, just to be clear, Pollard didn’t shoot anyone. He didn’t even bring the gun to school. He gave it to his friend in a McDonald’s that was open to the public.

For that, he’s now been kicked out of school permanently.

And these people want that kind of insanity here?

Keep in mind that these are governmental guidelines that the school claims they were following. That’s the same government that makes it virtually impossible for anyone to own a real gun and is now trying to do the same thing to knives.

It’s. A. Toy.

In particular, it was an airsoft gun, which is still legal in the UK, but still a toy gun. It was also pretty clearly a toy gun.

And, again, Pollard isn’t the one who shot anyone and he never brought the toy on campus. In other words, he did absolutely nothing to warrant being kicked out of school.

Yet this is where the UK’s hysteria around firearms eventually leads. You’ll have students getting kicked out of school for what someone else has done because it involved a gun-shaped object.

Sorry, but that’s a hard pass for me.

I value people’s rights. That includes the right of a kid to hand a toy to someone else, even if that other person eventually misuses that toy. It’s not Pollard’s fault.

It’s really the fault of the nation that has demonized gun ownership to such a degree, making the toy gun something they simply have to have.

We don’t need that in our country. Hell, they don’t need that in the UK, but they got it. They got in and will keep getting it good and hard.

But there’s no reason we should go down that path as well.

MN gubernatorial candidate offers mea culpa on gun control

May 16, 2022 by Tom Knighton Leave a Comment

There are a number of candidates who have offered support for gun control in the past. They either claim they didn’t mean what their words actually said or they blame co-authors. They rarely ever admit they may have supported a bad idea in the distant past.

Yet in Minnesota, one candidate did just that.

One of the main issues in statewide and local races this fall will be violent crime and gun violence.
Saturday night, newly-nominated Republican candidate for governor Dr. Scott Jensen apologized to delegates for once being on the wrong side of the gun control issue.
…
“My effort in 2018 was klutzy,” he said. “It was born of a rookie’s, non-veteran understanding of how things work, and so I apologized to the group. I put them in a place that made them uncomfortable and it was a mistake. I wish, if I had a mulligan I would have done it over.”

Unfortunately, some are taking issue with Jensen for “flip-flopping” on the issue, including some Republicans.

However, I think that’s the wrong strategy to take.

The truth is, Jensen supported gun control in the past and now he’s saying he doesn’t. The difference between someone like him and Dr. Oz is that he’s not trying to gaslight people into believing he didn’t support stuff he clearly did.

Instead, he’s saying he was wrong and has learned from that mistake.

To blast Jensen for owning up to the inescapable truth and offering a mea culpa is to discourage honesty from politicians. You’re going to get candidates telling you that they didn’t support red flag laws despite their words to the contrary because they can get away with that easier than they can for admitting their mistake.

If the GOP does down this road and gives Jensen so much crap that he cannot win over his own admitted mistakes will simply discourage others from admitting their mistakes.

This may well to people refusing to change their minds because it’s politically untenable to do so. When it comes to our gun rights, I’d much rather have people see the light than be afraid of worse issues later if they don’t double down on bad positions.

Gun control is an issue and yeah, I’d much rather see support go to a candidate who has been supportive of gun rights the whole time.

Yet Jensen is the nominee and he’s coming right out and admitting his past mistakes with gun control were just that, mistakes. Ones he wouldn’t repeat.

That’s behavior that should be encouraged and celebrated. Jensen is a freaking hero–in the political sense, anyway–for owning up to his past. It should be far more preferable to see this than the previous examples of gaslighting we’ve had from GOP hopefuls.

People change their minds. They do it all the time. You’ve changed your mind on something or other, so why does Jensen get denied the right to do just that?

It’s not flip-flopping if it’s not a case of his mind changing every time the wind blows.

Lawmakers issue court-packing threat again

May 15, 2022 by Tom Knighton Leave a Comment

From the moment the Supreme Court ostensibly became 6-3, Democrats have been pushing the idea of court-packing.

Their thinking is that if the Court’s makeup isn’t to their liking, they can just expand it until it they get a makeup they like.

It’s an idiotic idea that completely ignores the fact that if they can do it, so can their opponents, but they’ve still floated it more than once.

Now, the idea is back, as Larry Keane notes over at The Truth About Guns.

The unauthorized leak of a draft abortion opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court has Democrats up in arms (again) about packing the U.S. Supreme Court. This isn’t a new argument and one gun control advocates publicly pitched before.
Senators are openly calling for court-packing again and that’s before the Supreme Court has rendered a final opinion on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen or finalized the opinion of the leaked abortion draft decision. Even before the nine justices heard arguments on the New York case challenging the states arbitrary and restrictive “may issue” concealed carry permit criteria, there were calls for court-packing.
U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) filed an amicus brief in NYSRPA v. New York supporting restrictive gun control but took arguments beyond supporting the law with threats to upend the court’s structure. That case was ultimately declared “moot” by the Supreme Court after New York City altered the law to avoid the Court striking down the law.
“Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal,” Sen. Whitehouse wrote.

What Whitehouse meant was that the restructuring would make sure only the right kind of politics influenced the court. God knows he wouldn’t want a Supreme Court that took the Second Amendment literally or anything.

Moving on…

It’s a fool’s errand to predict a Supreme Court ruling, but the justices’ questions offered insight that they appeared to be wary of New York’s subjective qualifications to obtain concealed carry permits. The decision will be the most significant on gun rights since the 2010 McDonald decision.
That’s got gun control groups acting like spoiled school children. They’re throwing fits. They too want to change the court’s structure. Several of these groups joined together for a discussion on how to change the rules and rig the system against law-abiding Americans and their God-given right to self-defense.

First, go read the whole thing. Second, understand that most of what we’re seeing with regard to court-packing is because of Roe v. Wade. They’re furious that this happened.

While anti-gun zealots are talking about court-packing, most leftists are focused on abortion at the moment and aren’t thinking of NYSRPA vs. Bruen.

That will change, though.

If they get their way right now, the Second Amendment will really be little more than collateral damage. Happily so for pretty much all of them, but collateral damage nonetheless.

That will change when the Bruen decision comes out–though whether it will come out as it normally does or if this, too, will be leaked remains to be seen–and then it’ll be on.

However, for the same reason President Joe Biden can’t ram through whatever nominee he wants to head the ATF will actually put this in check.

In other words, there just aren’t enough votes in the Senate.

Further, with most experts foreseeing a bloodbath for Democrats in the midterms, it’s unlikely those votes will materialize.

So while this is a real threat, we shouldn’t get too worked up about it just yet.

A candid chat with NJ GOP Congressional candidate Philip Rizzo

May 13, 2022 by John Petrolino Leave a Comment

If the name Philip Rizzo rings a bell, that’s because in the last gubernatorial race, Rizzo faced off in the primaries with other GOP members; Jack Ciattarelli, Brian D. Levine, and Hirsh V. Singh. Ciattarelli ended up snagging the nomination to run against Governor Phil Murphy, however, Rizzo ran one heck of a campaign considering he entered the race as late as he did. Rizzo’s popularity could be noted in the massive amount of funds he raised in just four months. According to Rizzo, his campaign raised $650,000.00 in that timeframe. Philip Rizzo is on the campaign trail again, and this time he’s eyeing the GOP nomination for Congressman in NJ’s 7th legislative district.

The New Jersey Congressional Primaries are scheduled to be held on June 7, 2022. Rizzo’s competition for the GOP nomination is former NJ Assemblyman and Senator Thomas Kean Jr. Kean had the nomination for the 2020 House election, however lost the race to incumbent Democrat Tom Malinowski by 1.2% of the votes. Whoever takes the GOP nomination, in my opinion, will have a solid shot at taking down Malinowski in the general election.

During Rizzo’s run for Governor of New Jersey in 2021, I had a couple of chances to chat with him, and was able to get his stance on many things Second Amendment. One interview is chronicled over at AmmoLand News and offers insight on Rizzo’s stance on many of the hot topics. I also did coverage of the NJ GOP debate question on concealed carry in New Jersey here at Bearing Arms, and recorded Rizzo’s response. Rizzo was kind enough to give me some time the other day and we played some catchup.

Most of the heavy lifting on Rizzo was already just done (I urge readers to check out the hyperlinked articles mentioned above), so our chat was more of a conversation about things going on federally, as his general positions are well recorded. Previously I noted:

I don’t personally know Phil Rizzo. I had the opportunity to chat with him earlier in the year the day after he announced he was throwing his hat in the race. Our off-the-record conversation was enough for me to want to follow up with him. After talking with him again today, I feel he is a Second Amendment friendly. One of the benefits of Rizzo running is that [he] is not a politician. But since he does not have any type of policy or voting record, there is no way to confirm what he has to say. If New Jersey gun owners are looking for some sort of a rating on firearms, Rizzo would get an A? in my book. Rizzo self-identified as a “Constitutionalist” in our chat. He certainly is talking the talk when it comes to Second Amendment freedoms and was willing to be put on record.

The first thing I did was congratulate Rizzo on his successful campaign. While it might seem odd to congratulate someone that did not even make it into the primary, Rizzo did make plenty of waves during his short run. We talked a bit about the upcoming primary, him facing off against Kean, and he reiterated to me that the absentee mail in ballots are already out.

My first question was about our challenges on a federal level. Some of the questions and answers have been slightly altered for clarity, not content. The recording of our conversation will be in an embed at the end of this article and I suggest readers give it a look and a listen.

Petrolino: What are you seeing now on a federal level as our biggest challenges as gun owners and for the preservation of the Second Amendment?
Rizzo: Well, I believe that national reciprocity is eminent. Obviously I’d like to see constitutional carry. I think that’s a little bit of a more difficult legislation to get through, constitutional carry. I know that purple and blue areas would not necessarily be open to that. But national reciprocity…I mean, you get a driver’s license in New Jersey, and you get to drive everywhere in the country. So if you can get a concealed carry [permit] in any state, you should have national reciprocity to carry in any state.

Rizzo openly discussed in the past, and even in this conversation, that he was one of the few people in New Jersey to actually have a concealed carry permit. Carry is a topic that’s pretty contentious in New Jersey, and as such, Rizzo reiterated to me his circumstances later on in our conversation.

I asked Rizzo about his view on the cause celeb in 2022, so-called “ghost guns.” Rizzo reiterated his strong support for national reciprocity and gave me his view on home manufactured firearms.

Well, again, I feel like that’s why the national reciprocity is a clear path to have anybody who wants a concealed carry to be able to get it in a very red state, and then they get their reciprocity. As far as “ghost guns”, I mean, I am for the right to have guns, whether a manufacturer builds them or you build them yourself. I use the vehicle driver’s license as my example. You could buy a car, or you could build a car. I mean, come on, why does the manufacturer have to do it? I feel like it’s just a way to sort of keep tabs on the Second Amendment community, to know what they’re doing and to know where they are. And really, it’s an interesting position that the government’s taking, because that doesn’t really exist on any other level. – Philip Rizzo

Approaching the issues that we have in the United States, with the majority of the country mostly respecting the Second Amendment, I asked Rizzo about what he’d propose as a Congressman.

Petrolino: Should you be elected, and you do take a seat as Congressman, what kind of legislation do you see yourself putting out? And supporting, other than say, national reciprocity is obviously a good one…and I don’t know too many people in our camp that would disagree with that…so what else would you see yourself putting out?
Rizzo: I think it’s sort of a fine line, right? Because obviously, the Second Amendment, within the Bill of Rights is national right. But the argument from the other side would be state sovereignty. So living in New Jersey, we have the ten round magazine capacity. I would love to see legislation that says you cannot restrict the manufacturer’s magazine capacity. Now, there would be theoretically some pushback on that, saying “Well, you’re violating the state’s sovereignty, you’re violating states rights,” but I don’t think a state can violate the Second Amendment. So that would sort of be our argument, counter argument. And then back again, I would love to be able to see people be able to buy a firearm and the magazine that comes with it, that’s the one you can use, without having a state reach in and become overbearing. I don’t think a person’s right to the Second Amendment should be based on the state they live in.

Rizzo and I talked more about the other big topics we’re dealing with federally. Our conversation continued:

Petrolino: We touched on a couple of things that you and I spoke about last year, like, carry reciprocity, you obviously said you’re a fan of permitless carry or constitutional carry, where we shouldn’t have to have a permit to carry or magazine capacities as well. Just for my readers, what about any limitations on semi-automatic firearms, like AR’s, AR platforms, and states that are currently usurping people’s rights by putting restrictions on those firearms?
Rizzo: No, not at all. There’s nothing in the federal law that, within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that should have those restrictions. And again, I don’t think that there should be those things within individual states that take firearms of a particular platform away from the citizenry of that state. I’m speaking from the position of New Jersey, we are dealing with that on a regular basis under Phil Murphy. We have a liberal legislator, we have the worst governor in America. And we deal with this sort of oppression all the time. And my opinion is it’s unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights is there and as a former pastor, the First Amendment…listen, that’s why we dumped tea, right? In the harbor. Because we don’t believe that the preachers needed to pay their “preachers tax,” their license to preach. We weren’t going to pay that tax back to England. We were just going to preach. And so the First Amendment doesn’t have limitations on it. As a former pastor, I could speak confidently on that. As a gun enthusiast and supporter of the Bill of Rights, [the] Second Amendment, my position is exactly the same.
Petrolino: Absolutely. Is there anything that you would say, you know, to New Jersey? What would you say to Phil Murphy about the gun laws that we have, or the legislature as a whole?
Rizzo: I mean, I’d love to see the federal government take the reins on them. Again, I believe they are overreaching. I believe that they are violating…they’re restricting the constitutional rights that we have as American citizens. People say, “Well, it passed the legislator, and it was signed into law.” Well, they can’t pass illegal laws. I mean, I still, I feel that we are going to be able to rein them in this red wave of 2022. I personally believe is real. I believe it’s coming. And when it does, Phil Murphy and the New Jersey legislature, we’re going to take the rattle away from the baby, because they don’t know what they’re doing. It’s time the grown ups take control of the room.

Rizzo’s description of the baby having their rattle taken away from them made me snicker. I often talk about the day when progressives should throw up their arms and say “I need an adult.” We all know that’s not going to happen. In the same vein, I asked Rizzo about his speculation on what, if it’s ruled as such, a positive opinion for gun owners in NYSRPA might be like in progressive strongholds. How’s this going to go down when a big portion of the so-called “gun control” rattle is taken away?

They’re gonna do it kicking and screaming. We spoke [about this], I was issued a concealed carry in New Jersey. There’s not very many of them. And justifiable need, that’s just ridiculous. No, I was able to prove it. I’m not happy that I had to jump through the hoops of getting it, and it took almost a year. But within that year, I was always pastoring in an urban area, I was always having a cash business for our family. And I was an amputee since 1980. So why should it take a year, even though I was successful in proving justifiable need? I think that it’s an assault on our liberties to have to do that. I think New Jersey would be next. It’ll be the next domino to fall in the area of freedom. But they’re not going to be happy about it. They will do it kicking and screaming. – Philip Rizzo

I wanted Rizzo to get a chance to give me his pitch. I opened up the floor and asked him to tell me what he wanted my readers to know and the voters in his district.

Well, there’s a clear distinction in this Republican primary, no doubt about it. I am the conservative in the race, there is no other choice. Tom Kean has vote after vote after vote to take away our Second Amendment rights. We spent a lot of money researching his votes…researching votes in the New Jersey legislature. And we built an entire website to put out there for the voters, so that they understand who Tom Kean is when it comes to the Second Amendment. If you go to Real Tom Kean dot com, there’s a voting record. Drop down that drop down, go to the Second Amendment, and look at the votes that he has. He has voted “yes” to take away our rights as New Jersey citizens. If anybody is a Second Amendment enthusiast in the district, and they go to Real Tom Kean dot com, Phil Rizzo’s getting their vote. Make no mistake about it. – Philip Rizzo

As is customary, I wanted to give Rizzo a chance to tell people where to look to find more information about him and his campaign:

Petrolino: Phil, I really appreciate your time. Where can people find you? How can they reach out to you? How can they help you? How can they help your campaign?
Rizzo: We need some more money. And we need some more door knockers. I mean, that’s what campaigns are all about, dollars and doors, right? You gotta be able to knock doors, and you gotta get enough money to put mailers and digital ads on the doors you don’t knock. So dollars and doors. That’s what we need help with. People can reach out to our campaign through all social media platforms, Jersey Rizzo. And also our campaign website, Jersey Rizzo dot com.

This interview was the third time I got to talk with Philip Rizzo on his political views and potential plans should he take an office. Rizzo has no track record, so we don’t know how he’s voted on things in the past – it’s just not there. Given his strong vocal support of the Second Amendment, on gun issues he has an “A?” from me. I have not had a chance to interview any other candidates, but I am more than willing and happy to do so should the opportunity arise.

The entirety of and fully unedited version of my conversation with Philip Rizzo can be listened to in the embed below or by going HERE. I urge those who are interested in learning about Rizzo to do so, as this article does not cover everything we spoke about.