Yes, you do need standard capacity magazines and not artificially low limits (like those shown above). You cannot count on only needing five or ten rounds. If you watched the news last week, two stories should provide all of the proof you need to slap back the anti-self-defense dangerous quacks.
First out of Aurora, Colorado is a video of armed Venezuelan gang members taking over multiple apartment complexes. This is exactly why Americans need modern sporting rifles:
And, there is this incredible video out of Staten Island, for years considered the safest Borough in New York City. The video illustrates why you need a pistol with at least 15 rounds in its magazine.
I’ll cite two experts for you, with advice on these attacks. The first is Massad Ayoob who I have studied under multiple times. Under the doctrine of disparate force as explained by Mass here, when you’re outnumbered or facing younger, stronger, and violent felons, lethal force is a legal option.
John Farnam over at AmmoLand.com cites these three lessons:
1) The “illusion of safety”
THE ILLUSION OF SAFETY
This vicious, unprovoked attack took place in the middle of a sunny day, in a “gun-free” school zone, and within a quiet residential area.
Reputation and symbolism (e.g., “safety zones”) protect no one!
2) “When you leave them alone, they’ll leave you alone” represents a self-deceptive fantasy!
These vicious, murderous [possibly illegal-alien] gangs know no limits, do not fear the “authorities,” have no compunction about randomly maiming/murdering anyone they choose, and respect no boundaries (particularly symbolic ones).
Too many honest, decent, productive citizens believe their personal respectability should, and does, magically protect them from harm.
Nonsense, as we see!
3) “Retreat, and they’ll let you go.”
More nonsense!
This victim did his best to disengage and run away. The gang overtook him, chased him down, and physically attacked him, in unison.
Unless you want to be totally defenseless like many in the blue states currently are, we need to boot out the Obama/Biden/Harris regime. We, as 2A advocates, need to fight like hell this election season to ensure “Heels-Up” Harris and valor-stealing Walz do not get elected to the White House come November.
Please stay Ready at All Times, and help us defend all of Iowa’s rights by donating to IFC-PAC today. Those small recurring monthly donations of $10, $25, or $100 make a huge difference in our ability to get the message of freedom out there.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
Dave Funk Member, Board of Directors Iowa Firearms Coalition
Are knives “Arms” under the Second Amendment? The Massachusetts Supreme Court just ruled that they are which is no surprise since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment applies to all bearable arms. In the case of Commonwealth v. David E. Canjura the court held that the state’s law prohibiting carrying of “switchblade” knives is an unconstitutional violation of the right to keep and bear arms, which is protected by the Second Amendment.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts had argued that “knives categorically are not protected by the Second Amendment because the definition of arms is limited to firearms.” The court refuted that nonsense, stating that “… the Second Amendment extends to all bearable arms and is not limited to firearms”, referring back to Heller.
Interestingly, the Massachusetts Court pointed out that the law (and similar laws elsewhere) was passed in response to “sensationalized portrayals (in plays, films, etc.) of switchblades as weapons solely intended for criminality.” The court noted that the government did not provide evidence that “switchblades are…more likely to be used for criminal purposes”. But even had it done so, the Bruen decision (2022) by SCOTUS “expressly” prohibits weighing the right to keep and bear arms against any perceived public benefit of a law infringing upon that right. This is an exactly correct application of the Heller/Bruen methodology for deciding Second Amendment cases. I believe the outcome of this case strongly foreshadows forthcoming rulings on similar bans or restrictions on so-called “assault weapons”.
On The Other Hand…California
In contrast to the Massachusetts decision, a federal district court judge ruled last week that California’s ban on possession of switchblade knives is constitutional. In that case, the judge declared that those knives are not protected under the Second Amendment as they are “dangerous and unusual”. The ruling is quite obviously flawed in several respects. An article in the San Diego Tribune, makes clear that the fight is not over:
Doug Ritter, the CEO and founder of Knife Rights, an Arizona-based organization that’s the lead plaintiff in the case, called Simmons’ ruling “ludicrous and irrational” and promised to appeal the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
RKBA is a natural and fundamental right that is protected from government infringement by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Sixteen years after the full-throated recognition of those facts by the Supreme Court in Heller, the state of American jurisprudence is finally coming around to acceptance of that reality.
BRUEN is the gift that keeps on giving! You may have already seen IFC’s coverage about the ruling by the U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes out of Wichita that dismissed machine gun charges in US v Tamori Morgan. This is a monster case using Bruen, Rahimi, and nowMorgan, regarding the NFA. Our fellow BOD member and past Chairman Michael Ware covers it in a detailed video here.
Second Amendment to the US Constitution text on parchment paper
SCOTUS ruled in the Bruen Case that all courts are now required to follow the historical analog that use historical precedents from the time of our nation’s founding, and not some made-up needs balancing test. That’s exactly what Judge Broomes did in the Morgan. I’ll summarize it here directly from his ruling:
“Under the Second Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. “[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582 (2008). To keep arms means, simply, to possess arms. Id. at 583. If the plain text of the Second Amendment applies to a defendant’s conduct, the government has the burden to show that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical firearm regulation tradition. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022). This standard requires a “historical analogue” between the modern regulation and historical regulations, not a “historical twin.” United States v. Rahimi,”
Judge Broomes concludes with this:
“To summarize, in this case, the government has not met its burden under Bruen and Rahimi to demonstrate through historical analogs that regulation of the weapons at issue in this case are consistent with the nation’s history of firearms regulation. Indeed, the government has barely tried to meet that burden. And the Supreme Court has indicated that the Bruen analysis is not merely a suggestion. In Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir. 2023), the Tenth Circuit side-stepped the Bruen analysis in a challenge to the prohibition against felons possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), concluding that Bruen did not abrogate the Tenth Circuit’s prior decision, United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (10 th Cir. 2009), which upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in the face of a Second Amendment challenge.. Vincent, 80 F.4th at 1202.
Nevertheless, just last month the Supreme Court vacated Vincent and remanded it for further consideration in light of Rahimi. Vincent v. Garland, No. 23-683, 2024 WL 3259668 (U.S. July 2, 2024). The court interprets that as indicating that the Supreme Court means what it says: “The constitutionality of laws regulating the possession of firearms under the Second Amendment must be evaluated under the Bruen framework.”
REACTIONS
I love what Jeff Charles pointed out in his RedState.com column on August 24, 2024. This ruling set off the anti-gun dangerous quacks in an amazing fashion;
Janet Carter, senior director of issues and appeals at Everytown Law, a leading anti-gun organization, criticized Broomes’ decision, saying it is “appalling that the District Court would so brazenly put the deadly agenda of the gun lobby over the safety of Kansans.”
“Machine guns – guns capable of automatic firing – have been tightly regulated under federal law since the 1930s. The laws banning them are not only constitutional but crucial to public safety. These weapons of war, capable of causing irreparable harm to countless innocent people, have no place in our communities,” she added.
Of course, Ms. Carter could not explain a reasoned legal objection to the ruling, only an emotional response.
VOTE!
If you want to keep racking up these court victories we need to boot out the Obama/Biden/Harris regime. We as 2A advocates need to fight like hell this election season to ensure “Heels-Up” Harris and valor-stealing Walz do not get elected to the White House come November. Are you registered to vote?
Please stay Ready at All Times, and help us defend all of Iowa’s rights by donating to IFC-PAC today. Those small recurring monthly donations of $10, $25, or $100 make a huge difference in our ability to get the message of freedom out there.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
Dave Funk Member, Board of Directors Iowa Firearms Coalition
New court decision out of the District Court in KS! US v Tamori Morgan is a monster case with using Bruen and Rahimi, things are heating up around the NFA. Megan Hilbish of the Kansas State Rifle Association weighs in!
NRA CEO Doug Hamlin calls out Governor Walz as an opportunist on 2A. Hamlin has called out Vice President wannabe Tim Walz in a recent Washington Times opinion letter published on August 15th. In that article, Hamlin issues a scathing rebuke of just what a political opportunist Walz is.
To Quote Hamlin:
In a political landscape full of dishonesty, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has distinguished himself as an egregious political opportunist when it comes to gun rights.
“A camouflage hat and some hunting pictures cannot hide the fact that Mr. Walz’s policies would eviscerate our Second Amendment rights. His actions betray the principles he once claimed to uphold. In their introductory political rally, Mr. Walz and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, made it clear that they plan to continue their assault on the Second Amendment. Mr. Walz’s hypocrisy and extremism are a danger to our fundamental freedoms.
When running for Congress in a rural southern Minnesota district, Mr. Walz touted his support for the right to bear arms and its importance in personal protection. At the time, his stance earned him positive marks from the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund. Mr. Walz’s record included votes against an assault weapons ban and support for concealed carry in national parks.”
In Hamlin’s closing statement:
We must not allow our rights to be stripped away by politicians who flip-flop on our freedoms to suit their ambitions. We must remain vigilant and vocal, ensuring that the Second Amendment is upheld and our rights are preserved for future generations. Tim Walz’s betrayal is a call to action for all freedom-loving Americans to defend our constitutional rights with unwavering resolve.
We as 2A advocates need to fight like hell this election season to ensure
“Heels-Up” Harris and valor-stealing Walz
do not get elected to the White House come November.
Please stay Ready at All Times, and help us defend all of Iowa’s rights by donating to IFC-PAC today. Those small recurring monthly donations of $10, $25, or $100 do make a huge difference in our ability to get the message of freedom out there.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
Dave Funk Member, Board of Directors Iowa Firearms Coalition
Sign up now for our e-mail alert list to stay plugged into what's going on with your 2A rights here in Iowa.
IFC will never sell, rent or share your personal information, including your e-mail address, with any third parties for any purposes without your express permission. IFC may share your personal information for the purpose of delivering our e-mail to you or as required by law.
Democratic presidential nominee, made it clear that they plan to continue their assault on the Second Amendment. Mr. Walz’s hypocrisy and extremism are a danger to our fundamental freedoms.
Recent Comments