ATF’s new appointment?

We must speak out to President Trump and our state representatives about the appointment of the new head of the ATF.

The ATF doesn’t need another police officer to lead it—we need a true firearms specialist who is highly knowledgeable and fluent in all aspects of firearms.

Instead of continuing down the path of misguided policy-making, the ATF should return to its original mission: collecting taxes, not creating firearm-related regulations they clearly don’t fully understand. This was made evident in an interview where an ATF official struggled to perform a basic task—disassembling a Glock pistol.

(Watch here: https://youtu.be/VJFlgwTRYLE)


Let’s stand together to protect our freedoms!

Call 202-224-3121 to find your representative.


Contact Me: [email protected]

About anything, comments to articles, questions you may have, etc.


Florida House Bill 1087 Storage of Firearms in Motor Vehicles or Vessels

An act relating to storage of firearms in motor 3 vehicles or vessels; creating s. 790.176, F.S.; 4 providing definitions; providing requirements for 5 storage of firearms and ammunition in motor vehicles 6 or vessels; providing criminal penalties; providing an effective date. 

Florida Bill 1087 (PDF)

Where might these individuals be seeking firearms? My initial guess would be areas displaying signs such as:

Signs for “Gun-Free Zones” often include variations of the following wording:

  1. “Gun-Free Zone”
  2. “No Firearms Allowed”
  3. “Weapons Are Prohibited on These Premises”
  4. “No Guns Allowed Beyond This Point”
  5. “The Possession of Firearms or Weapons Is Prohibited”
  6. “Pursuant to [State Code/Ordinance], Firearms Are Not Allowed Here”

These signs may also include:

  • A red circle with a diagonal slash over a gun icon.
  • Specific legal references (e.g., a state law or local ordinance).
  • Language clarifying exceptions (e.g., “Law Enforcement Personnel Exempt”).

When these signs are displayed, they signal to criminals that they face no immediate danger at this location. Additionally, they create an environment where many firearms must be stored in vehicles, providing criminals with an easy opportunity to steal weapons and act without resistance.

How many firearms are in Florida?

Registered Firearms: As of 2021, Florida had 518,725 registered firearms, ranking second in the nation behind Texas.
statista.com

Household Gun Ownership: Approximately 35.3% of adults in Florida reside in homes with guns.

How many CCW licenses are there in Florida?

As of December 31, 2024, Florida has issued approximately 2.64 million concealed weapon or firearm licenses. [fdacs.gov

This figure includes both resident and non-resident permits. Notably, Florida was the first state to surpass 2 million concealed carry permits. (usconcealedcarry.com)

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of women obtaining concealed weapons licenses in Florida. As of February 28, 2023, one-third of the license holders are women. (wusf.org)

It’s important to note that Florida enacted a permitless carry law in 2023, allowing legal residents to carry concealed firearms without a permit. Despite this, many residents continue to obtain permits, often to carry in other states with reciprocity agreements. (foxnews.com)


In my opinion, we should take the following actions:

  1. Remove gun-free zone signage: These signs effectively create open arenas for criminals, signaling where firearms are likely to be present and leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless.
  2. Reduce restrictions for CCW permit holders: Individuals who have been vetted and issued a concealed carry license should face minimal restrictions on where they can carry their firearms. By allowing them to keep their firearms on their person rather than storing them in vehicles or vessels, we could drastically reduce the number of firearms stolen from these locations.

Criminals, by definition, do not abide by our state laws. Restrictive policies do not stop them but instead hinder law-abiding citizens’ constitutional right to bear arms and their ability to protect themselves.


Let’s stand together to protect our freedoms!

Call 202-224-3121 to find your representative.


Contact Me: [email protected]

About anything, comments to articles, questions you may h


Immigrants had lower conviction rates for crimes, including violent offenses, than native-born Americans

 BULLSHIT!

Texas-Specific Data: Texas is unique in tracking criminal arrests and convictions by immigration status. Research focusing on Texas found that undocumented immigrants had lower conviction rates for crimes, including violent offenses, than native-born Americans.
cato.org

Somebody forgot how to add and subtract

“When comparing immigrants (both legal and illegal) to native-born Americans, the data is as follows:

Native-born Americans: 2,980

Immigrants (Illegal+ Legal): 1,671 + 1,440 = 3,111

Conclusion:

When comparing crime rates, it is essential to combine legal and undocumented immigrants to ensure an accurate comparison with native-born Americans. The aggregated data reveals a difference of 131 per 100,000 residents, indicating that immigrants (legal and undocumented combined) have a higher overall rate of crimes and violent offenses compared to native-born Americans.

Illegal immigrants exhibit higher rates compared to legal immigrants.

This is an example of how the Left attempts to manipulate the data.

2A Rights at need to be handled in 2025

Fellow Patriot,

As we enter 2025, it is absolutely vital for Second Amendment supporters to maintain our momentum.

We must:

  • Block any Congressional gun control “deals,”
  • Go on the offense with bold pro-gun rights legislation, and
  • Keep fighting in the courts to eliminate all so-called “Assault Weapons” bans once and for all.

We must remain vigilant and actively engage with both the Senate and the House of Representatives to ensure our voices are heard loud and clear. It’s our responsibility as American citizens to communicate exactly what we expect from our elected officials—to urge them to support and prioritize the policies and actions that align with the will of the people.

This requires each and every one of us to take initiative. We need to articulate our concerns, goals, and expectations directly to our representatives. Whether it’s through phone calls, emails, letters, or town hall meetings, consistent and unified communication is the key to holding them accountable and driving the action we want to see.

Our collective efforts can make a significant impact, but only if we work together and make our voices impossible to ignore. It’s not just about advocacy—it’s about shaping the future we want for our country.


Check out the latest list of 119th Congress bills impacting the Second Amendment community by visiting this link: https://gunrights.org/bill-watch/ (FREE)


EXAMPLE EMAIL

Dear {Representative},

These bills pose significant challenges and opportunities for the Second Amendment community. I urge you to oppose any measures that threaten our rights and to support legislation that upholds and strengthens our constitutional freedoms.

Visit the website to view the list of bills and our recommended actions for each one.

https://gunrights.org/bill-watch/

Thank you for standing with us in support of our constitutional right to bear arms.

Be sure to sign it and include any personal comments or thoughts you’d like to share.


Let’s stand together to protect our freedoms!

Call 202-224-3121 to find your representative.


Contact Me: [email protected]

About anything, comments to articles, questions you may have, etc.


Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Loading

New HR645 National Constitutional Carry

Wayne Thorn

I just saw on the Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News YouTube channel (Link to Podcast) that Rep. Thomas Massie [R-KY-4] has introduced H.R.645.

This bill is a game-changer—it aims to eliminate most federal and state firearm regulations, allowing every law-abiding citizen the freedom to carry firearms across all states.

I encourage you to read the bill yourself and reach out to your representatives to voice your support. H.R.645 has the potential to fully restore our Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights, honoring the original intent of our Constitution’s Founding Fathers.

Let’s stand together to protect our freedoms!

Call 202-224-3121 to find your representative.


Contact Me: [email protected]

About anything, comments to articles, questions you may have, etc.


Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Loading

Where can I find current 2ndA bills in Congress?

Wayne Thorn

I just discovered a website that makes it easier to stay informed about current bills in Congress related to Second Amendment rights:

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR)

The NAGR has been a leading force in opposing radical anti-gun agendas nationwide. Their uncompromising stance on gun rights drives their mission to hold politicians accountable and protect the Second Amendment. Their efforts have made significant strides in preserving our freedoms, but their success relies heavily on the support of dedicated gun rights advocates like you.

One of the valuable tools they offer is a Bill Watch List, which allows you to track gun-related legislation in Congress. The list includes the bill number (with links), sponsors, subject, location, introduction date, and NAGR’s position on each bill.

For someone like me who has been trying to keep up with these bills, this tool has been a game changer. It helps me understand which bills I want my representatives to support and which ones I oppose.

The best part? You don’t have to be a member of NAGR to access their Bill Watch List.


It’s vital, that we encourage our legislators to actively support and advocate for these important pieces of legislation. Take a moment to contact your representative and let them know exactly how you want them to vote on these bills. Your voice can make a difference!

Call 202-224-3121 to find your representative.


Contact Me: [email protected]

About anything, comments to articles, questions you may have, etc.


SUBSCRIBE

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Loading

Revoke Gun Free Zones

Wayne Thorn

The 2025 Wyoming House Bill HB0172 is currently progressing toward approval, and if it passes, it has the potential to spark a ripple effect across the nation.

While there are certain aspects of the bill that I believe could be improved or adjusted, its overall objective is a step in the right direction. The bill aims to reduce restrictions on law-abiding Americans with concealed carry permits, ensuring they are not unfairly limited by the numerous locations currently designated as gun-free zones.

I strongly encourage everyone to reach out to their state government representatives and advocate for similar legislation in our own states. By doing so, we can work toward creating policies that respect the rights of responsible gun owners while promoting public safety.


Here is a link to the Bill: Click Here


My Letter to the Governor of Florida

Dear Governor Ron DeSantis,

I would like you to review the 2025 Wyoming House Bill HB0172, which seeks to eliminate gun-free zones, and evaluate whether we could implement something similar here in Florida. It’s worth exploring how such legislation might enhance safety and whether it aligns with the needs and values of our state.

The concept of a “Gun-Free Zone” is intended to create safe spaces where firearms are prohibited, but in practice, it can often have unintended consequences. Many argue that posting such zones can inadvertently signal vulnerability to individuals intent on causing harm. Instead of deterring violent actions, these signs may be perceived as an invitation, suggesting a lack of immediate resistance.

For example, designating schools as gun-free zones has not prevented tragic mass shootings from occurring. These areas are often targeted because the likelihood of encountering armed opposition is significantly reduced. This has raised critical questions about whether such policies genuinely enhance safety or if they create environments that unintentionally attract those with malicious intent.

To address this issue, many advocate for alternative solutions, such as implementing stronger security measures, allowing trained personnel to carry firearms, and investing in mental health resources to address the root causes of violence. The debate is complex, but one thing is clear: simply declaring an area a gun-free zone is not enough to ensure the safety of those within it. A multifaceted approach is needed to protect vulnerable spaces effectively and to prevent future tragedies. 

Thank you for your consideration,

Dr. Cecil Wayne Thorn


My Thought

The only way to fully restore our firearm rights is to ensure that our state government representatives understand where we stand. We must demand the removal of unnecessary restrictions and advocate for the complete restoration of our Second Amendment rights. It’s time to take a firm stand and remind our leaders that these rights are fundamental to our freedom and security.


Write To Me: [email protected]


SUBSCRIBE

Loading

Right to Bear Arms

Wayne Thorn

The development of the Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, was rooted in the desire to safeguard individual liberties by affirming the people’s right to own and carry firearms free from government interference. The amendment’s language—“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—was crafted to protect this fundamental freedom, ensuring the ability to defend oneself and resist oppression. Given this intent, it raises an important question: Why do modern gun laws exist that impose restrictions on this constitutional right?

The Bruen case (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 2022) reinforced a historical approach to interpreting the Second Amendment, establishing that any laws or regulations infringing on the right to bear arms must align with the standards set in 1791, when the amendment was ratified. This decision emphasized that laws must be consistent with historical practices and traditions surrounding firearms during that period. When we look at the standards of 1791, we find that the founding era was characterized by minimal government regulation on firearm ownership. The prevailing norms were that citizens had the right to possess and carry arms for purposes of self-defense, militia service, and hunting, with few formal restrictions. The government did not impose licensing or registration requirements, and there were few, if any, bans on types of firearms. In fact, most able-bodied men were expected to own arms for the purpose of participating in local militias. These historical standards, therefore, suggest that many modern gun laws—particularly those involving bans on certain weapons or restrictions on where firearms can be carried—may not align with the original intent of the Second Amendment.


What were the firearm laws in 1791?

In 1791, when the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, firearm laws and regulations were minimal compared to modern standards. Here’s a summary of the context and practices of the time:

Key Points About Firearm Laws in 1791

  1. Second Amendment:
    • Ratified in 1791, it 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.”
    • This reflected the belief that citizens should be armed to ensure collective defense and safeguard against tyranny.
  2. State-Level Regulations:
    • Firearm regulations varied by state but were generally sparse. States prioritized arming militias and ensuring citizens could defend themselves.
    • Some states required able-bodied men to own firearms for militia duty and even mandated inspections of weapons to ensure they were functional.
  3. Federal Laws:
    • The federal government had almost no firearm laws in 1791. Regulation of arms was left largely to states and localities.
  4. Types of Firearms:
    • Firearms were limited to single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets, rifles, and pistols. These weapons were slow to load and less lethal than modern firearms.
  5. Cultural and Practical Norms:
    • Firearms were primarily used for hunting, self-defense, and militia service.
    • Ownership was widespread among men, particularly in rural areas, where firearms were tools for survival.
  6. Restrictions:
    • Although there were no federal restrictions, some communities placed informal or local restrictions on firearm use, such as laws against discharging firearms within town limits or prohibiting possession by certain groups (e.g., enslaved people and, in some cases, free Black individuals).
  7. Militia Acts:
    • The Federal Militia Act of 1792 required most free, white male citizens aged 18-45 to enroll in the militia and provide their own arms and ammunition. This effectively mandated firearm ownership for many.

Notable Omissions:

  • No registration or licensing systems.
  • No restrictions on the type of firearms owned.
  • No background checks or waiting periods.

Conclusion:

Firearm laws in 1791 reflected the era’s priorities—ensuring public defense and individual preparedness for survival. Regulations were minimal and focused on maintaining armed militias rather than restricting individual ownership.


My Thoughts

If we interpret the Second Amendment as it was originally intended, without compromise or modification, then all current firearm laws—whether federal, state, or local—would be unconstitutional. The phrase “shall not be infringed” in the amendment clearly indicates that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted or limited by the government in any way. This understanding challenges modern gun control laws that impose restrictions like background checks, licensing, or weapon bans. Such laws, from this viewpoint, violate the very essence of the Second Amendment and should therefore be struck down to restore the full rights of citizens to bear arms without any governmental interference.

The Second Amendment recognizes the right to own and carry firearms as an inherent right, not a privilege that can be granted or revoked by the government. This distinction is critical—rights are fundamental and unalienable, whereas privileges can be regulated or taken away. By framing the right to bear arms as a constitutional right, the founders intended to empower individuals to protect themselves and ensure a balance of power between the people and the government. As such, any law that infringes upon this right, no matter the justification, runs counter to the Constitution’s clear intent and should be invalidated, ensuring that the full freedom to keep and bear arms is restored to every American citizen.

U.S. Birthrights Citizenship

This topic has become a heated debate in our country, particularly concerning the birthright citizenship of children born to undocumented immigrants. Many people argue that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen, often overlooking the crucial phrase in the 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

The key controversy lies in the interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction thereof. This was a central point of discussion during the drafting and ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1866.

In this article, we will explore what the framers of the amendment intended during the debates on this topic and how it has shaped modern interpretations of citizenship.


Historical Debate documents

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Birthright Citizenship

The debate surrounding Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is one of the most significant in U.S. constitutional history. This section, known as the cornerstone of the Reconstruction Amendments, has sparked debates over citizenship, equal protection, due process, and the limits of federal and state power. Below is an overview of key areas of contention and interpretation:


1. Birthright Citizenship

  • Proponents:
    Supporters of birthright citizenship argue that it is essential to uphold the idea that anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ status, is a citizen. This interpretation emphasizes inclusion and ensures that no one is left stateless. This principle was primarily aimed at granting citizenship to freed slaves and their descendants following the Civil War.
  • Opponents:
    Critics often argue that birthright citizenship should exclude children of undocumented immigrants or non-citizens. They claim that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not apply to individuals who owe allegiance to another nation. This debate continues today, particularly regarding immigration policy.

Debate over birthright citizenship

The debate over birthright citizenship in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was a key point of discussion during the drafting and ratification of the amendment in 1866. This issue revolved around the meaning of the phrase “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and whether it granted citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, particularly Native Americans, children of foreign nationals, and freed slaves. Below is a detailed account of the Congressional debates surrounding this issue.


Key Participants in the Debate

  • Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI): A strong advocate for birthright citizenship who introduced the citizenship clause and supported its broad application.
  • Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL): Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who clarified the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
  • Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA): A critic who raised concerns about granting citizenship to children of foreigners, especially non-white immigrants.

1. Clarifying “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof”

One of the most contentious points was the interpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

  • Proponents’ View (Howard and Trumbull):
    Howard clarified that the clause was intended to ensure that all individuals born in the U.S. who owe allegiance to the country are citizens. This explicitly included:
    • Freed slaves.
    • Children of foreigners who were lawfully residing in the U.S.
      Trumbull elaborated that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant subject to U.S. laws, thus excluding certain groups, such as:
    • Diplomats and their children (as they were under the jurisdiction of their home countries).
    • Members of sovereign Native American tribes, as they were under tribal governance and not fully subject to U.S. laws.
  • Opponents’ Concerns (Cowan):
    Cowan objected, fearing that birthright citizenship would lead to an influx of immigrants—particularly Chinese laborers and Gypsies (a term used at the time)—whose children would automatically become citizens. He argued that this could dilute American identity and overwhelm local communities.

2. Freed Slaves and Racial Equality

  • Focus on African Americans:
    A primary motivation behind the citizenship clause was to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, which held that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, could never be U.S. citizens. The framers of the amendment wanted to guarantee that all freed slaves and their descendants would have citizenship, thereby securing their civil rights.
  • Racial Prejudice in Opposition:
    Critics like Cowan raised objections rooted in racial and cultural bias, arguing that extending citizenship to all children born in the U.S., regardless of parentage, could lead to societal disruption. This concern was particularly directed at non-European immigrant groups.

3. Concerns About Foreign Nationals

  • Opposition from Cowan and Others:
    Cowan argued that it was unjust to grant citizenship to the children of foreign nationals, especially those who might not fully integrate into American society. He raised concerns about Chinese laborers on the West Coast and other immigrant communities, portraying them as transient populations without allegiance to the U.S.
  • Proponents’ Counterarguments:
    Supporters like Trumbull rebutted these concerns, stating that anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its laws was inherently part of the nation’s social and legal fabric. They emphasized that allegiance was demonstrated through residency and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction, not by the nationality of one’s parents.

4. Native Americans

  • Exclusion from Citizenship:
    The drafters explicitly excluded most Native Americans because they were considered members of sovereign nations and not fully subject to U.S. laws. Howard and Trumbull argued that Native Americans who remained under tribal jurisdiction were outside the scope of the amendment.
    This exclusion was later addressed by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans.

5. The Outcome and Adoption

  • Strong Support for Inclusivity:
    Despite opposition, the framers overwhelmingly supported a broad interpretation of birthright citizenship to ensure that the U.S. would no longer exclude people based on race or heritage. The clause was adopted without major amendments, solidifying the principle that anyone born on U.S. soil (with exceptions like diplomats’ children) was a citizen.
  • Immediate Impact:
    • Guaranteed citizenship for millions of formerly enslaved individuals.
    • Laid the foundation for expanding civil rights through federal intervention.

Key Quotes from the Debate

  • Senator Jacob Howard:
    “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
  • Senator Edgar Cowan:
    “Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what allegiance does he owe? … Shall these persons, who owe no allegiance to the country, be permitted to make citizens?”
  • Senator Lyman Trumbull:
    “What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Legacy of the Debate

The framers ultimately upheld birthright citizenship as a key principle of equality and inclusion. While the debate reflected some of the racial and cultural prejudices of the time, it also demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that citizenship would not be denied based on ancestry, race, or social status. The principle remains central to American identity and law, though it continues to face challenges in modern immigration debates.


My Thoughts

It is clear from the debates surrounding the 14th Amendment that citizenship was not granted solely based on being born in the United States. The framers carefully considered the context, to whom they were speaking, and the far-reaching implications of their decisions. At the time, the amendment guaranteed citizenship to millions of formerly enslaved individuals and, later, to Native Americans through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Today, the issue of birthright citizenship has taken on new dimensions, as people from around the world enter the country illegally with the hope that giving birth to a child on U.S. soil will grant automatic citizenship—not only for the child but potentially as a pathway for themselves.

If this matter reaches the Supreme Court, the justices will revisit the original debates and intentions behind birthright citizenship to determine how it applies in today’s complex and evolving circumstances.

Introduced the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA)

Bill Would Repeal State Gun Bans!

The SAGA Act would prevent states across the nation from prohibiting or restricting rifles and shotguns that are legally permitted under federal law.

It’s crucial that we urge our legislators to support this important legislation.

Call 202-224-3121 to find your representative.


Congresswoman Tenney Introduces the Second Amendment Guarantee Act to Defend New Yorkers 2A Rights

January 15, 2025 

Press Release

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) today introduced the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) to ensure that states are prohibited from banning the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun that is lawfully permitted under federal law.

Additional cosponsors of this legislation include Representative Doug LaMalfa (CA-1) and Nick Langworthy (NY-23). 

 New York’s SAFE Act, signed into law under disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo, prohibits law-abiding New Yorkers from purchasing, transferring, and owning certain firearms. If signed into law, this SAGA Act would nullify the SAFE Act and prevent New York and other states from passing unconstitutional gun bans.

 “The Constitution clearly established our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The SAGA Act nullifies New York’s unconstitutional SAFE Act and prevents other states from enacting laws that violate the Second Amendment. This legislation upholds our country’s founding principle of protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans, even from liberal states with anti-gun policies,” said Congresswoman Tenney.

“No matter how hard radical Democrats in Albany attempt to limit lawful gun ownership, the New York Congressional delegation will stand firm to protect law-abiding New Yorkers and manufacturers in protecting their constitutional rights. I am proud to join Rep. Tenney and my New York colleagues in Congress to ensure these rights ‘shall not be infringed, and I will never back down in my fight to protect the Second Amendment,” said Congressman Langworthy.  
 

###