New York is pushing dangerous anti-gun legislation that could affect us ALL. State Senator Zellnor Myrie is leading a bill to ban certain Glock pistols by labeling them “convertible firearms”—a made-up term meant to scare the public and chip away at our Second Amendment rights.
🔹 The truth? Glock switches are already ILLEGAL under federal law. 🔹 The result? Law-abiding gun owners and trusted manufacturers are being targeted instead of criminals. 🔹 The goal? To open the door to lawsuits against gun companies for crimes they didn’t commit.
Even if you don’t live in New York or California, this is part of a growing national movement to erode our gun rights one state at a time. If we stay silent now, this wave could hit your state next.
💥 Stand up. Speak out. Contact your local, state, and federal lawmakers and demand they protect your rights.
🔁 Share this post with every gun owner, every freedom lover, and every patriot you know. The time to act is NOW. 🇺🇸
My Final Thought:
The Second Amendment isn’t negotiable. When politicians invent terms like “convertible firearms” to push fear instead of facts, they aren’t protecting people—they’re targeting freedom. 🇺🇸 Speak now, or lose your rights one bill at a time.
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!
Here is a letter I sent to Donald Trump and Pam Bondi and each and everyone of us need to do the same to let them know we are not happy.
Dear President Trump,
I hope this message finds you well.
It appears that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) are not fully implementing or adhering to the mandates you have issued regarding the protection of Second Amendment rights. Despite your administration’s clear stance on safeguarding lawful gun ownership, we continue to see concerning actions that suggest overreach and inconsistent application of federal firearms regulations.
Below is a letter I recently sent to Pam Boni regarding this matter. I believe it reflects the growing concern among law-abiding citizens who value their constitutional rights and look to your leadership for continued defense of our freedoms.
I am writing to express serious concern over the recurring emergence of legal cases that appear to challenge established Second Amendment rights—particularly those involving suppressors, “pin and weld” methods, and other firearms-related issues. These cases often seem to originate from what appear to be overly aggressive or ideologically motivated U.S. attorneys, raising questions about oversight and accountability within the Department of Justice.
Why are these cases repeatedly being brought forward despite long-standing legal precedents and administrative guidance? Who is responsible for reviewing and approving such cases before they proceed, and why aren’t questionable filings being dismissed at the outset? The public deserves transparency and assurance that prosecutorial discretion is being exercised fairly and within constitutional bounds.
It has been stated that a specialized office or department exists within the DOJ to evaluate legal matters that may affect Second Amendment rights. If that is the case, its role in reviewing and potentially halting these prosecutions is unclear. From a citizen’s perspective, it appears that this oversight function is either ineffective or not being utilized as intended.
If any U.S. attorneys are acting outside of their proper authority or pursuing cases that lack constitutional merit, we urge immediate disciplinary action, including termination if warranted. Furthermore, a thorough investigation should be conducted to determine how such cases were allowed to proceed.
We the People expect our constitutional rights to be upheld, not undermined by those entrusted with enforcing the law. The DOJ must restore public confidence by ensuring that rogue prosecutions are promptly addressed and prevented from recurring.
Thank you for your continued commitment to the Constitution and to protecting the rights of responsible American gun owners.
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.; ↩︎