We have another example of how Gun Control and Gun Free Zones do not protect people with the Mall of America shooting. Here is what we know so far:
The Mall of America under Minnesota state law is a gun free zone. The Mall of America posts these signs:
At least 6 gang members were carrying firearms despite the law and involved in shooting and killing a 19-year old. 5 have been arrested so far. 2 are 18 years old and 3 are 17 years old. Minnesota does not issue CCW permits to anybody under 21, so they were carrying illegally. It was illegal for them to carry in the Mall. One of them is believed to be the shooter who killed the 19 year old. It is possible another of them also fired a firearm, but all are suspects involved according to police.
There were 16 police officers on duty in the Mall. Despite that all of the suspects left the Mall without being arrested, and went to White Castle to eat.
Compare that the the Greenwood Mall shooting. Where state law does not give the No Weapons signs legal force, and an attempted mass shooting was stopped by a concealed carry holder.
The Greenwood Park Mall shooting occurred in the state of Indiana. Specifically, at the Greenwood Park Mall in Greenwood, Indiana, a suburb located just south of Indianapolis .(Wikipedia)
During the incident, a gunman opened fire in the mall’s food court, resulting in the deaths of three individuals and injuries to two others. The shooter was subsequently fatally shot by Elisjsha Dicken, a 22-year-old legally armed civilian who was present at the scene .(Axios, Wikipedia)
The swift intervention by Dicken was widely recognized and praised by local and state officials for preventing further casualties .
My Thoughts
“These incidents make one thing clear: gun-free zones and restrictive carry laws may disarm the law-abiding, but they do little to stop those with criminal intent. Real safety comes not from signs and statutes alone, but from empowering responsible citizens to protect themselves and others when seconds count.”
In areas where civilians were legally permitted to carry firearms, the intervention rate by armed citizens was even higher. The CPRC found that in such locations, armed civilians stopped 51.5% of active shooter incidents, compared to 44.6% stopped by police.
The Republican-led Ways and Means Committee has undermined our efforts to repeal the Hearing Protection Act by gutting it—reducing the stamp tax from $200 to $5, but keeping all the bureaucratic red tape, including the paperwork, extra background checks, and fingerprinting. On top of that, they completely threw out the SHORT Act.
We have one last chance to make our voices heard. Tell every member of the Ways and Means Committee to reverse course: restore both bills to their original language and pass them forward, as intended. Contact them now and remind them who they work for—the people.
Let them know that we are paying attention. If they fail to act, come the midterm elections, we will do everything in our power to vote them out and replace them with true Republicans—those who actually represent our values and priorities.
Below is the list of all current members of the Ways and Means Committee. We have until 5/13/25 at 2:30 PM to make our demands clear. Let’s stand together and ensure our voices cannot be ignored.
As a pro-gun American, I urge you to use reconciliation to repeal the NFA and completely deregulate suppressors, along with pushing through the Short Act as well.
We are watching you, and we will remove anyone in the mid-term elections who did not stand with the wishes of the Republican people.
Let our voices be heard
Feel free to reach out with any questions, feedback on articles, or anything else you’d like to discuss—I’m always happy to connect!
They constantly point to us and say, “If you don’t want to confiscate guns or significantly infringe on Second Amendment rights, it must be because you’re a bad person or you just don’t care.”
Our typical response is something like, “No, no—we do care. We’re good people too. We just don’t believe that’s the right approach.”
But my new approach is this: Hold on a second—I’ve got a question.
If you’re going to question my integrity, when are you going to learn the lessons of history? What happens to innocent, defenseless, vulnerable people when they suddenly have no means of protecting themselves from crime, from acts of terror, or from a government that has clearly overstepped its boundaries?
The same people who constantly talk about oppression seem to instantly forget all of that when it comes to stripping away the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about how often people assume that if you support the Second Amendment, you must not care.
That couldn’t be further from the truth. I do care—about my family, my community, and about people who’ve been left defenseless throughout history.
This isn’t about politics for me. It’s about what happens when people lose the ability to protect themselves—from crime, from violence, even from governments that go too far.
I’m tired of feeling like I have to prove I’m a “good person” just because I believe in the right to self-defense.
If you’re going to question my beliefs, at least be willing to remember the hard lessons history has already taught us.
John Cornyn Has Sold Out the Second Amendment — It’s Time to Hold Him Accountable
You deserve to know the full truth about Texas U.S. Senator John Cornyn and the damage he’s done to our Second Amendment rights.
As we approach the high-stakes 2026 Republican primary, gun owners and constitutional conservatives have a clear mission: Fire John Cornyn and replace him with a Republican who will fight—not compromise—for our God-given right to keep and bear arms.
Cornyn has repeatedly caved to the radical anti-gun left, helping push so-called “bipartisan” gun control that threatens the freedoms of every law-abiding American. Red flag laws. Expanded background checks. Deals made behind closed doors. That’s not leadership—it’s betrayal.
The attached reprint from the National Association for Gun Rights lays it all out—chapter and verse. Every vote. Every deal. Every attack on your rights.
The Second Amendment is not vague. It’s not open to interpretation. It doesn’t ask for permission or beg for compromise. It says:
“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.”
The key words here are loud and clear: “Shall not be infringed.”
That means no bans, no overreach, no loopholes, no bureaucratic red tape. Our right to bear arms is not a privilege handed down by the government — it is a fundamental right meant to protect us from government overreach.
And yet, day by day, we’ve watched those rights chipped away by endless regulations, executive orders, and unconstitutional enforcement tactics. From restrictions on pistol braces and forced reset triggers to backdoor registry efforts, the Second Amendment is under attack — not in theory, but in real, measurable ways.
Enough is enough.
Every one of us who values freedom and understands the responsibility that comes with it needs to speak up. Contact your state and federal representatives. Show up. Write. Call. Vote. Push back. Let them know that we see the infringement — and we won’t stay silent about it.
This isn’t just about guns. It’s about liberty, accountability, and preserving the balance of power that keeps a free state free.
Stand up now — or risk standing by as your rights continue to disappear.
Here is my message I sent to President Trump and Pam Bondi
The 2A Rights Gun Owners Are Keeping a Close Eye On
This is where things currently stand regarding the promises made about restoring our Second Amendment rights. While we recognize that Pam Bondi has established a task force to address 2A issues, it’s clear that not every action requires a task force. Many of these items could — and should — be addressed immediately with decisive leadership.
Below is your updated 2A Scorecard as of 04/18/25, tracking key issues that gun owners across the country are watching closely:
The Constitution doesn’t grant us our rights — it protects the ones we already have. The Second Amendment is not negotiable, and it’s time we remind those in power that “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. Stand firm. Speak out. Stay vigilant.
Published: 8:15 ET, Feb 18 2025 | Updated: 14:12 ET, Feb 18 2025
On February 17, 2025, a tragic shooting occurred at the Harris Teeter grocery store located at 545 Radford Lane in Crozet, Virginia. The incident resulted in the deaths of two individuals: 43-year-old Peter L. Martin of Crozet, who was pronounced dead at the scene, and 68-year-old Diane G. Spangler of Afton, who succumbed to her injuries after being transported to UVA Medical Center.
The shooter, identified as 28-year-old Justin M. Barbour of Crozet, arrived at the store’s parking lot around 1:33 p.m. Within approximately one minute, he began firing, discharging 28 rounds in 20 seconds. The killer, Justin Barbour, 28, whipped out a gun and opened fire in the parking lot before being stopped by the good Samaritan, who was exiting the store and heard the gunfire, engaged Barbour with their personal weapon, resulting in Barbour’s death at the scene.
Investigations revealed that Barbour had no prior connection to either victim or to the location of the shooting. He did not have a criminal history but had previous interactions with law enforcement between 2014 and 2025, including a mental health-related call in December 2024 and a response from Albemarle County’s Human Services Alternative Response Team in January 2025. During these interactions, Barbour exhibited a calm demeanor, and there were no indications of violence or self-harm reported to police.
The community has been deeply affected by this event. In response, Peter Martin’s family has initiated efforts to support his surviving daughters, emphasizing the profound personal impact of the tragedy.
Colion Noir interview with Morgan, an Army Veteran: He Was Unarmed During A Mass Shooting Because Of A Gun Free Zone
I recently had written to my U.S. Congressman about the upcoming HR 38 Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and HR 645 National Constitutional Carry Act, telling him how I would want him to vote on these two bills on the HR 645 he sent me a letter stating that he thought that it should be handled by the State’s not by the Federal Government.
March 26, 2025
Dear Mr. Thorn,
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 645, the National Constitutional Carry Act. This bill was introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) on January 23, 2025. It has since been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for further review.
The National Constitutional Carry Act ensures the protection of Americans’ Second Amendment right by prohibiting any state or local government from imposing civil or criminal penalties on an individual eligible to possess a firearm in a public setting. The bill also invalidates any standing state or local statute, regulation, or law that prohibits an individual from carrying a firearm in public.
I adamantly oppose any regulations or laws that would make firearms or ammunition less accessible or more difficult to obtain for all law-abiding Americans. For this reason, I have co-sponsored several pieces of legislation relating to the protection of our Second Amendment rights. I’ve previously co-introduced the Stopping Unconstitutional Background Checks Act, which prohibits federal funds from being used to expand the licensing requirements for individuals attempting to obtain a firearm. Regulating a legal hobby the same as a federally licensed gun store is extreme government overreach and infringes on the rights of law-abiding Americans. I also cosponsored H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which amends federal law to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed firearm across state lines. A qualified individual must be eligible to possess a firearm under federal law, carry a government-issued photo ID, and carry a valid concealed carry permit.
Safe and responsible firearms ownership is part of America’s foundational document, the Constitution, and continues to contribute to individual and public safety. While I am a supporter of constitutional carry and have advocated for laws that protect and strengthen this right, constitutional carry is largely a matter of state law and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Florida Legislature. I am an opponent of the federal government infringing on state rights and taking matters out of the hands of our duly elected state legislators. Should you want to discuss the matter of constitutional carry further, I encourage you to contact your state legislators by visiting www.myfloridahouse.gov and http://www.flsenate.gov. Meanwhile, I have and will continue to vote to defend the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. The longtime head of the Florida NRA, Marion Hammer, said “The NRA has no better friend than Daniel Webster.”
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. To stay updated on what’s happening in Washington, sign up for my weekly Webster Wire. Thank you for allowing me to serve as your U.S. Representative.
Your servant,
Daniel Webster Member of Congress
I thought that maybe he could be right, so I researched the Constitutional Carry law for each of the states and sent him my investigation on this topic. What I found was very surprising.
This 19-page document examines state Constitutional Carry laws and provides an in-depth comparison of firearm purchase and concealed carry permit requirements in three selected states. I then conducted the same analysis for states without Constitutional Carry laws.
Despite the existence of Constitutional Carry in some states, many still impose their own regulations on purchasing, carrying, and using firearms—some even stricter than federal laws.
Meanwhile, states without Constitutional Carry laws often have even more restrictive policies, making firearm ownership and carry rights significantly more burdensome.
The Second Amendment states: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed1.” and the states are infringing on our Constitutional Rights.
I asked him whether this was truly what the people wanted or if he simply believed it was the better option. I also requested any poll data he had on his constituents’ opinions.
In the context of the Second Amendment, “Shall not be infringed” means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be violated or diminished, ensuring that this fundamental right remains protected.; ↩︎
This year’s 2025 Legislative session, Florida state lawmakers have been busy filing hundreds of different bills.
Among these, several are aimed at changing up state laws involving gun ownership, pushed by Republicans and Democrats alike. These bills involve topics like age limits, storage requirements, and harsh crackdowns on gun sales.
To become law, these bills require the approval of both the state Senate and House, as well as a signature from Gov. Ron DeSantis.
We must all make our voices heard and help shape Florida’s government based on the will of its constituents. One way to do this is by sharing your message, just as I have done below.
Here is my letter about how I want our Governor and my Representative to vote on these issues
To Governor Ron DeSantis and my State Representative Josie Tomkow,
This is how I want you to vote on the following Gun bills.
HB15 – Vote NO
I would want a better option of not restricting CCW/P citizens to be able to carry anywhere. This way the criminals would be stopped getting firearms from vehicles, because of the restriction this is like saying you want a gun. All you have to do is go to a parking lot, there is plenty available in the vehicles.
I sent you a letter earlier that we should do the same thing Wyoming is doing removing gun-free zones. Also, concealed carry permit holders stopped 51.5 percent of active shootings, compared to 44.6 percent stopped by police.
See the report: https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/11/study-concealed-carriers-do-a-better-job-of-stopping-active-shooters-than-police/
HB53 – Vote NO
You will be placing an unnecessary burden on law-abiding citizens by requiring an additional background check and its associated fee for every ammunition purchase.
This legislation is a reaction to a single tragic incident. While the event was terrible, it should not be used as justification to impose broad restrictions that unfairly impact all responsible citizens.
HB491 Vote YES if not NO- with the below changes
I agree with this bill, if it removed the exceptions – I go back to my statement about removing gun-free zones altogether for CCW/P citizens
HB759 Vote YES
Young men as young as 18 have been called to serve in the military, bearing arms to defend our country since before the ratification of the Constitution. Yet, they are deemed incompetent to purchase a firearm for personal defense. If they are truly incapable of responsible firearm ownership, then by the same logic, no one under 21 should be allowed to enlist in the Armed Forces.
HB1019 Vote NO
That would mean that if I wanted to pass down a firearm to a family member in my will, there would be no way to conduct a background check on both parties. Private transfers or sales would no longer be possible, despite the fact that such transactions have historically been allowed without issue.
Gun manufacturers have been providing gun locks with their firearms for years, even without a legal mandate.
Home gun manufacturing has been practiced since before the Constitution was written. There were no licensing requirements for building firearms, nor any mandates for serial numbers to be engraved on them.
Gun enthusiasts have been creating 3D-printed firearms as a way to test their skills and refine their gunsmithing abilities. While many early attempts result in failure, they continue learning and improving their techniques.
H6003 Vote NO
This would grant local governments the authority to establish their own gun-related regulations, covering aspects such as sales, ownership, possession, storage, and taxation.
HB6025 Vote NO
Just look at California it became a looter haven – until law abiding citizen (with Arms) took actions to protect what they had left for themselves and others, there was not enough police to go around to protect them- and the citizens deterred looter.
SB188 Vote NO
If a person has a CCW/P permit, there should be no need to further restrict them, as they have already undergone thorough vetting. Restricting them only creates unnecessary complications, such as forcing them to temporarily leave their firearm in a vehicle, where it becomes vulnerable to theft.
Gun-free zones essentially signal to criminals that no one present can stop them. If certain locations must prohibit firearms, CCW permit holders should be treated similarly to law enforcement—security could temporarily hold their weapon and return it upon departure, ensuring that no firearms are left unattended. However, even this approach risks creating another location with no deterrent for criminals.
SB814 Vote NO
The policy bans individuals from storing firearms—rather than merely possessing them—at school-sponsored events or on school property. This includes storing them in a vehicle, effectively requiring attendees to leave their firearms at home. As a result, law-abiding citizens are left vulnerable to potential threats from the moment they leave their homes until they return.
SB 1338 Vote NO
This policy infringes on our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, restricting firearm possession to our homes or designated storage facilities like shooting ranges.
By this logic, it also limits our ability to transport firearms altogether. Millions of civilian versions AR-15s—often mislabeled as “assault weapons”—are commonly used for competition shooting, recreational target practice, and hunting.
A true “assault weapon” is a firearm capable of firing multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger—also known as a “machine gun.” In contrast, civilian versions of the AR-15 are semi-automatic, meaning they fire one round per trigger pull.
Thank you for your time,
Dr. Cecil W Thorn
Below is the link to find your state representative and the link to Governor DeSantis
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 3-judge panel ruled that suppressors are not firearms but an accessory and are not protected by the 2nd Amendment and the Department of Justice (DOJ) responded the same that a suppressor is not a firearm but an accessory.
Yet the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA) says A suppressor is legally defined as a “firearm” under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA).
Key Legal Definitions
26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(7) – Classifies a suppressor as a “firearm” under the NFA.
26 U.S.C. § 5845(f) – Defines a suppressor as “any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm.”
The National Firearms Act (NFA) was signed into law on June 26, 1934, in response to violent crime during Prohibition.
Suppressors were classified as “firearms” under the NFA in 1934, meaning they required registration, a tax stamp, and ATF approval to own.
The original tax stamp was $200 (the same cost today, but in 1934, it was meant to be a prohibitive cost).
Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24)) (which defines suppressor parts as “firearms”) – Includes all parts intended for suppressor assembly.
he Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 was signed into law on October 22, 1968, following the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
This law expanded the definition of “firearm” to include any combination of parts that can be assembled into a suppressor, effectively making individual suppressor components subject to regulation.
These existing laws clearly define suppressors as “firearms,” as stated and recorded in the National Firearms Act (NFA) and other legal frameworks. Given that no legislation has been passed to reclassify them as accessories, how can the Court and the Department of Justice suddenly assert that suppressors are accessories?
Hearing Protection Act (HPA) in 2017 and 2025
Objective:To remove suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA), reclassifying them under the Gun Control Act (GCA)
Status: As of March 2025, the HPA has been introduced but has not passed into law. continuing the effort to pass the bill after it failed to progress in prior sessions.
Summary
While there have been attempts through both the courts and legislation to reclassify suppressors as accessories, these efforts have not resulted in a change in their classification to date. Suppressors remain regulated under the NFA, requiring registration and a tax stamp for legal ownership.
If we allow the government to arbitrarily reclassify items as mere accessories, where does it end? Today, it’s suppressors—tomorrow, it could be scopes, red dots, and magazines. Do you see where this is headed?
Write to the President and the Attorney General to express our dissatisfaction with the direction this is heading. Let them know we expect them to take action to stop this and uphold our Second Amendment rights.
With everything happening in the United States—immigration issues, government corruption, attacks on our Second Amendment rights, and a struggling economy—it’s more important than ever for We the People to take a stand. We can no longer sit back and believe that there’s nothing we can do. It’s time for us to actively voice our concerns and make our desires known to those in power. Our involvement and engagement are crucial for shaping the future of our country.
Find and contact elected officials
Get the names and contact information for the people who represent you on the federal, state, and local levels.
