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
“You’d never know it from watching television, but civilians stop more active shooters than police and do so with fewer mistakes, according to new research from the Crime Prevention Research Center, where I serve as president. In non-gun-free zones, where civilians are legally able to carry guns, concealed carry permit holders stopped 51.5 percent of active shootings, compared to 44.6 percent stopped by police, CPRC found in a deep dive into active shooter scenarios between 2014 and 2023.
Not only do permit holders succeed in stopping active shooters at a higher rate, but law enforcement officers face significantly greater risks when intervening. Our research found police were nearly six times more likely to be killed and 17 percent more likely to be wounded than armed civilians.”
We need to eliminate gun-free zones because they leave innocent people defenseless. Police cannot always respond immediately, and tragedies could have been prevented if law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits were present. Many of the worst mass shootings, especially in schools, have occurred in these so-called “gun-free” areas.
The report highlights how armed, responsible citizens have stepped in when no police officers were available, stopping shootings or even preventing them before they begin. States like Wyoming have taken the right approach by removing gun-free zones, ensuring that criminals no longer have guaranteed targets. These zones have become safe havens for those looking to cause harm, knowing there is no one there to fight back. It’s time we follow the example of other states and allow responsible citizens to protect themselves and others.
Contact your local, federal representatives as well as President Trump to remove the Gun-Free-Zones
Contact me below about anything, comments on articles, questions you may have, etc.
I wanted to bring to your attention Wyoming’s recent move to eliminate gun-free zones statewide—a bold step in restoring Second Amendment rights and ensuring the safety of law-abiding citizens.
Gun-free zones have consistently proven to be ineffective deterrents to crime, often leaving law-abiding citizens vulnerable while criminals ignore these restrictions. Wyoming’s decision to crush gun-free zones recognizes the fundamental right of self-defense and empowers individuals to protect themselves and others.
I strongly believe we should take similar action in Florida and push for legislation that removes these ineffective and dangerous restrictions. Protecting our constitutional rights and ensuring the safety of our communities should be a priority. I urge you to consider advocating for something like this measure and working toward making our entire state a no gun-free zone state.
Now, I do not agree with everything in the bill, but it may help us in Florida to make us a no-gun-free zone state as well.
“Your voice matters! Reach out to your representatives and stand for a safer future—let them know where you stand on the idea of a no-gun-free zone state.”
I am writing to urge all of us to oppose the Keep Americans Safe Act. While I understand the intent behind this legislation, history and research show that restricting magazine capacity does not reduce crime and only infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens.
The Urban Institute’s 2004 report, which examined the impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (in effect from 1994 to 2004), found no measurable reduction in violent crime as a result of magazine capacity restrictions. The report concluded that “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” This study, along with crime data from 1990 to 2001, provides clear evidence that limiting magazine size does not deter criminals but does place unnecessary burdens on responsible gun owners.
Restricting law-abiding citizens’ access to standard-capacity magazines puts them at a disadvantage for self-defense, especially in rural areas where law enforcement response times can be significant. Criminals do not adhere to magazine restrictions, leaving responsible Americans more vulnerable to attack.
What we don’t need is passing ineffective legislation that restricts constitutional rights, what we do need is to focus on enforcing existing laws, addressing mental health issues, and targeting violent offenders. Contact your representative to please vote NO on the Keep Americans Safe Act and stand up for the Second Amendment.
Call 202-224-3121 to find your Congressional representative.
Contact me below about anything, comments on articles, questions you may have, etc.
The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 1041) is a crucial piece of legislation that protects the constitutional rights of those who have served our country. If you are a veteran or a supporter of the Second Amendment, now is the time to take action and contact your representative to demand support for this bill.
What is H.R. 1041?
Currently, thousands of veterans are unjustly stripped of their gun rights simply because they have a fiduciary trustee managing their VA benefits. Under current law, if the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) appoints someone to help a veteran manage their finances, that veteran can be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as mentally incompetent—without due process. This means that veterans, who have honorably served our country, can lose their Second Amendment rights without ever being deemed a danger to themselves or others by a judge.
The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 1041) seeks to correct this injustice by ensuring that no veteran is automatically placed in NICS unless a judge determines they pose a danger to themselves or others. This bill restores fairness and prevents bureaucratic overreach from unjustly infringing on veterans’ rights.
Why This Matters
Protects Due Process: Veterans should not lose their constitutional rights without a fair legal process.
Prevents Bureaucratic Overreach: The VA should not have the power to decide who can or cannot own a firearm without a judicial ruling.
Respects Those Who Served: Veterans fought to defend our freedoms; they should not have to fight their own government to keep their rights.
How You Can Help
H.R. 1041 needs strong support from both veterans and Second Amendment advocates. Here’s what you can do:
Contact Your Representative – Call, email, or write to your congressional representative and urge them to support H.R. 1041.
Spread the Word – Share this information with fellow veterans, gun rights supporters, and your community.
Join Advocacy Groups – Organizations like the NRA, GOA, and VFW are fighting for veterans’ rights—consider joining them in their efforts.
Time to Act
The rights of our veterans are on the line. No veteran should be denied their Second Amendment freedoms without due process. H.R. 1041 is a common-sense bill that ensures fairness and protects the very people who fought for our freedoms.
📢 Contact your representative today and demand they support H.R. 1041!
Let’s stand up for those who stood up for us.
Call 202-224-3121 to find your Congressional representative.
Contact Me: About anything, comments on articles, questions you may have, etc.
The UN Small Arms Treaty 2024 is back in the spotlight, and this time, our U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield to the UN helped draft it. This is a direct threat to American gun owners and the Second Amendment, and you need to act now!
What’s Happening?
For years, the United Nations has been pushing for global gun control through international treaties aimed at restricting civilian firearm ownership. The latest version of the UN Small Arms Treaty, set for discussion in 2024, has direct U.S. involvement in its drafting—a dangerous shift that could put American gun rights at risk.
Even more concerning, USAID has been funneling money to anti-gun groups, effectively using taxpayer dollars to undermine the rights of American citizens. These funds are helping foreign and domestic organizations push anti-gun legislation that could lead to registration, restrictions, and even confiscation.
New evidence obtained by your National Association for Gun Rights suggests that American taxpayer dollars have been quietly funneled from USAID, the Tides Foundation, and other public funding sources…
…to “Control Arms” via their associated organization “Nonviolence International” – both of whom have LONG been the world’s loudest cheerleaders for the UN “Small Arms Treaty.”
It is my hope that we can BLOW the lid off of this funding scheme and get to the bottom of it now, and convince Congress, President Trump, and the DOGE team to act.
Why This is Dangerous
International Oversight: The treaty pushes for more global oversight of civilian firearms, opening the door for international influence over U.S. gun laws.
Backdoor Gun Control: While it claims to target arms trafficking, past treaties have included provisions that limit private firearm ownership.
Taxpayer-Funded Anti-Gun Agendas: Your own money is being sent to groups actively working to strip away your rights.
How You Can Fight Back
Contact Your Representatives – Demand they oppose any attempt to sign onto the UN Small Arms Treaty.
Expose USAID’s Anti-Gun Funding – Call for transparency and accountability in where our tax dollars are going.
Spread the Word – The media won’t cover this, so share this with fellow gun owners, veterans, and Second Amendment advocates.
Time is Running Out
The Biden administration could have used this treaty to bypass Congress, implementing new gun control measures without legislative approval. If we don’t stop this now, we could see an international framework used to restrict American gun ownership.
🚨 Call your representatives today and demand they reject the UN Small Arms Treaty! This time, our U.S. representative to the UN helped draft it. This is a direct threat to American gun owners and the Second Amendment, and you need to act now!🚨
Let’s stand up for those who stood up for us.
Call 202-224-3121 to find your Congressional Representative.
Contact Me Below: About anything, comments on articles, questions you, may have, etc.
House Bill 491 (HB 491) Senate Bill 562 (SB 562) for the 2025 Florida legislative session, filed on February 10, 2025, proposes prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence to detect firearms in public areas, with specified exceptions.
Use of Artificial Intelligence to Detect Firearms; Prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence to detect firearms in public areas; providing criminal penalties, etc.
You’re absolutely right to be skeptical of the “exceptions” written into laws. Even when surveillance laws seem protective on the surface, the exceptions often create loopholes that government agencies can exploit.
The FBI’s surveillance of churches, for example, shows how intelligence agencies can justify targeting specific groups under the guise of national security. Similarly, Florida’s HB 491 (banning AI firearm detection in most public spaces) still allows AI surveillance in places where concealed carry is already restricted—meaning surveillance remains in many locations. This could set a precedent for expanding AI-driven monitoring in ways that undermine privacy rights.
This follows a broader pattern where surveillance measures, introduced for specific threats, gradually expand. Consider:
FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) was meant for foreign threats but was later used to spy on U.S. citizens.
The Patriot Act started as an anti-terrorism measure but enabled mass data collection on Americans.
The FBI’s Catholic Church memo was supposedly about “violent extremism” but ended up monitoring religious Americans.
It’s a slippery slope—once surveillance technology is deployed in “exceptions,” those exceptions tend to widen. Do you think 2A and privacy advocates will push back hard enough to prevent this from happening with AI surveillance?
Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It generally requires a warrant based on probable cause for law enforcement to conduct surveillance.
Text: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Florida Statute § 790.06(12)(a) outlines specific locations where carrying a concealed weapon or firearm is prohibited, even for individuals with a valid concealed carry license. These locations include:
Any place of nuisance as defined in § 823.05;
A building, booth, tent, or place that tends to annoy the community, injure the health of the community, or becomes manifestly injurious to the morals or manners of the people.
A house or place of prostitution, assignation, or lewdness.
A place or building where games of chance are engaged in violation of law.
A place where any law of the state is violated.
Any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station;
Any detention facility, prison, or jail;
Any courthouse;
Any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom;
Any polling place;
Any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district;
Any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof;
Any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms;
Any elementary or secondary school facility or administration building;
Any career center;
Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;
Any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile;
The inside of the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or
Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.
Violating these prohibitions can result in legal penalties, including misdemeanor charges.
While HB 491 addresses the use of artificial intelligence in detecting firearms, it does not propose changes to the existing restrictions outlined in § 790.06(12)(a). Therefore, the current prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons in specific locations remain unaffected by this bill.
Related Information
Crime Rates of CCW Permit Holders
Florida: Revocation rates for CCW permits due to crimes hover around 0.01%-0.02% annually.
In 2016, CCW permit holders were reportedly responsible for about 0.007% of all murders nationwide.
Also, U.S. citizens who use firearms in self-defense around 2.5 million times per year
We should take the following actions:
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.
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.
Last Thought
We cannot afford to set a precedent for mass surveillance using AI. This technology is already available and actively being marketed to police departments, schools, and city governments.
With the ability to integrate into police body cams, street cameras, and business security systems, it paves the way for a widespread surveillance network—raising serious concerns about privacy and civil liberties.
Let’s stand together to protect our freedoms!
Call 202-224-3121 to find your Congressional representative.
Contact Me Below: About anything, comments on articles, questions you, may have, etc.
