Wednesday, April 14, 2021

Staying powered up during blackouts or brownouts-


One way of keeping things powered is by a car battery in the cargo box, allowing one to have lights inside and power devices such as a phone, laptop, etc.

However, don't use a regular, cheap car battery to get this power.

Instead, use the Optima Yellow Top batteries.

These are AGM (absorbent glass mat) batteries.

These batteries are spillproof and will last a lot longer than your average car battery. (As much as three times longer.)

Of course, since they are higher quality batteries, they are not cheap.

For example, you can go to AutoZone and buy a car battery now for around $75 if you wanted to.

But, the Optima Yellow Top batteries run about $280.

The hefty price difference, but worth it to invest in quality, in most expert's opinion.

Mainly because they have used Optima Yellow Top batteries for all sorts of things such as-

-powering your RV

-hooked up to my winch to tow cars onto my trailer

-used as my battery bank to get power for devices during a blackout

And more.

If one decides to get the Optima Yellow Top batteries, consider buying a quality battery charger.

Try a Schumacher battery charger.


Train Safe- Train Honestly 

Source: Jason Hanson 

Tuesday, April 13, 2021

Today's Hero's defending the Homeland


After spotting a lone man washing his vehicle at a St. Louis-area car wash, two armed men reportedly attempted to carjack and rob him at gunpoint. As one man entered the victim’s car and stole a cell phone, his 18-year-old accomplice and the car’s owner started to fight. At that point, the citizen drew his own firearm and managed to shoot the attacker with what would prove to be a mortal blow. Following a subsequent gunfire exchange, the remaining man fled to a getaway car and then was driven to a hospital for treatment of a bullet wound. Police later tracked down the alleged armed robber and a woman suspected of serving as his driver and found them in possession of the victim’s phone and multiple firearms. Both suspects were taken into custody under a new Missouri anti-carjacking law charging them with second-degree murder, assault, robbery, and several additional counts. (, Mehlville, Mo., 9/2/20)

One day at 4:45 a.m., a 74-year-old Mayfield, Ky., resident was forced to protect himself and his home when a man kicked in his door for the second time the very same night. The interloper, armed with a shotgun, fled the scene when confronted during the first encounter. In response to the repeat robbery attempt, the senior citizen grabbed his own shotgun and fired when the intruder entered the home, sending him fleeing on foot. Minutes later, the police found the suspect near the roadway with a severe wound to his arm. Sheriff’s deputies recovered the suspect’s gun and arrested him for first-degree burglary and other related crimes. Graves County Sheriff Jon Hayden later said the homeowner was not facing criminal charges. (, Mayfield, Ky., 7/30/20)

Source: The Armed Citizen

An intoxicated 45-year-old motorist crashed through a fence before ditching his pickup in a grove of trees in a Lakeland, Fla., neighborhood. He then tried to board a school bus right after a child had been picked up, but the driver quickly locked the door and drove off, keeping all the children on the bus safe. The suspect then jumped onto two different cars, breaking the windshield of the second one. One driver noticed blood on the suspect and called the police, while the other said the man was “growling” before jumping off his car and running away. The agitated man reportedly went on to break through the front door of a nearby home, where a family of five was relaxing. He appeared to be “wild and out of control upon entering their living room,” according to a family member. When the suspect threatened them with a large piece of broken glass, the homeowner retrieved his firearm, then fired as the intruder threthe glass at him. Upon arrival, deputies attempted first aid and then transported the crazed man to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead. During an investigation, it was confirmed the culprit had been in the area to find drugs. No charges are being brought against the homeowner. (, Lakeland, Fla., 8/28/20)

While camping near Nederland, Colo., a man was forced to kill a 260-lb. black bear. A couple of days before the incident, a bear had broken into the man’s truck, presumably looking for food. The morning of the attack, the man was alerted by his barking dog. Emerging from his camper, he saw a bear in hot pursuit of his animal, so he called his pet to come to him. This action apparently caused the aggressive bear to charge both the man and the dog. The man shot and killed the bear from a distance of approximately 10 to 15 yds., after which Colorado Parks and Wildlife authorities said no charges were being filed, as the shooting was justified in defense of human life. (, Colorado Springs, Colo., 7/8/20)

In Dalton, Ga., a truck driver was approached by four men wanting to buy or sell tires in the back parking lot of a Pilot Travel Center. However, three men reportedly attempted to restrain the driver, while the fourth tried to grab money from inside the truck. During the struggle, the driver could draw his own concealed firearm and subsequently fired at the assailants. Three of the accomplices fled on foot while their partner drove off in a minivan. The Georgia Department of Public Safety Motor Carrier Compliance Division soon spotted and stopped the minivan and arrested the driver without incident. The other three suspects remained at large. (daily citizen. news, Dalton, Ga., 7/28/20)

Source: The Armed Citizens 

Monday, April 12, 2021




BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state’s restrictive gun laws, alleging in a 28-page complaint that “New Jersey laws…unconstitutionally restrict the acquisition of firearms.”

SAF is joined by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc., the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearms Owners, the Firearms Policy Coalition, Bob’s Little Sport Shop, Inc., and three private citizens. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and Joseph O. Masterman at Cooper & Kirk, PLLC in Washington, D.C., Daniel L. Schmutter at Hartman & Winnicki, P.C. in Ridgewood, N.J. and David D. Jensen at David Jensen & Associates, Beacon, N.Y.

The lawsuit is known as Kendrick v. Grewal.

Named as defendants in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey are New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal, State Police Supt. Patrick J. Callahan, Bridgeton Police Chief Michael Giamari, Harrison Township Police Chief Ronald A. Cundey, and Glassboro Police Chief John Polillo, in their official capacities.

“This legal action has been a long time coming, ever since Carol Bowne of Berlin Township was murdered in her own driveway in 2015 while waiting for her firearm permit to be processed,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The hoops one must go through and waits one must endure, plus the fees attached has resulted in a complicated process that delays approval far beyond what existing state law allows.

“As we note in our lawsuit,” he continued, “such restrictions on firearm acquisition are unconstitutional on their face. No Garden State resident should be subjected to this kind of bureaucratic harassment. The idea that a law-abiding citizen must first obtain government permission before exercising a constitutionally-enumerated fundamental right is simply hostile to the right to keep and bear arms.”

SAF and its partners ask the court to declare the provisions of current New Jersey statutes requiring citizens to obtain an identification card or permit to acquire a firearm are unconstitutional. They want an injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing those provisions and any related laws or regulations.

Sunday, April 11, 2021

Did Biden's Two Trillion Dollar Infrastructure plan leave out life sustaining water?


Recently, prosecutors indicted a man who tampered with his former employer's computer system.

But this wasn't just any computer system-

Wyatt T. of Kansas was an employee at the Post Rock Water District.

The utility company provides water to more the 1,500 customers in eight Kansas counties.

Part of Wyatt's job was to log into the water district's computer system to monitor the utility after hours.

A few months after he left, the company experienced a remote intrusion into their system.

The person accessing the system shut down the company's process for ensuring water is safe.

Then, he took action that shut down operations at the facility-

including the steps that affect cleaning and disinfecting procedures.

He allegedly did this with the intent to harm the water.

And prosecutors claim the intruder that logged into the system was none other than Wyatt.

Now he faces one count of tampering with a public water system and one count of reckless damage to a protected computer.

The punishment is up to 25 years in prison and a $500,000 fine.

When it comes to infrastructure, people usually focus on the power grid.

And people worry about the power going out because it's something that everyone has experienced.

Most people know how to deal with and survive without power. - for a few days at least.

But folks don't think enough about water like they do power.

And they are typically not aware of these three main issues with our water infrastructure.

No money:

According to the intelligence company Intel 471:

"Adversaries see that critical infrastructure is underfunded and undermanaged from a security perspective."

The problem comes down to paying for security upgrades.

The President recently introduced a $2 trillion infrastructure bill.

Yet, there is no mention of cybersecurity in the breakdown of priorities, which should be a key point of updating infrastructure.

Water utility companies remain neglected for too long.

These companies need more staff, more money, more tools, and more intelligence.

Small utility companies:

Local municipalities handle most water utilities which means small towns often manage water systems with few employees and small budgets.

The operations are different from other utilities, such as electricity or gas.

For example, if you live in Nevada, chances are your power comes from NV Energy.

NV Energy's owner is Berkshire Hathaway, whose CEO is Warren Buffet. You get my point.

NV Energy has plenty of money to spend on security.

But small-town utility companies may only have one employee.

That person does everything, including IT security.

They may not even have a separate security employee on staff.

If you get your water from a small utility company, consider going to their next public meeting and asking questions about security.

Lack of cybersecurity:

Water utility systems are complex.

You don't just push a button and get clean water.

One mistake - such as mixing the wrong chemical - can have deadly consequences.

And a former employee, such as Wyatt, would know exactly how to mess something up.

He no longer worked for the utility company but still had computer access is scary.

There was an oversight in IT security.

And these days, outside hackers are targeting water treatment facilities.

In 2015, 25 cybersecurity incidents were targeting the water utility sector.

These cyberattacks ranged from crypto-jacking to ransomware.

And just last year, an Iranian hacker offered to sell network access to a Florida water treatment facility.

There is no doubt that hackers will focus on water utility companies because they're soft, easy targets with lax security.

And the incident with Wyatt T. demonstrates how weak most facility cybersecurity is.

But a safe water supply is critical to survival.

We can survive without power a lot longer than we can without water.

And the bad guys know this.

If you don't have a stockpile of water and a quality water filter, don't wait another day before starting your stash.

Source: Jason Hanson



Friday, April 9, 2021

Beyond Black Letter Law from The Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, Inc


An Interview with Attorney Rob KeatingKeating R

In our January Attorney Question of the Month, Texas attorney Rob Keating concluded his comments by observing, “Even with good laws, it is important to understand how those statutes are interpreted by the courts.” I responded that he’d really hit the nail on the head, which led to a conversation about how appellate court decisions affect statutory law enforcement. We switch to Q&A format to share his explanations about case law with members who will likely find it as interesting as I did.

eJournal: Can we start by establishing definitions? What is case law?

Keating: When the courts interpret the law and determine how it should be applied in certain situations, they create case law. 

eJournal: Is that the same thing as common law?

Keating: Common law is case law. The term common law refers to precedents set by prior court decisions. The system originated in England and is primarily used to resolve ambiguities in the statutes or codes.

eJournal: I have also read the term “judge-made law.” What does that mean?

Keating: Yes, it is also called judge-made law, although I haven’t heard that term used much since I left law school. That’s probably because it sounds a lot like “legislating from the bench,” which negatively connotates. I know that over the past few years, I’ve heard many people complain about activist judges not following the law and creating their own spin on things.

eJournal: I hadn’t picked up on that nuance in my reading, so I am glad you put it in context. Is there anything else about definitions that we should establish before exploring the effect of case law on our everyday lives?

Keating: There are additional factors like stare decisis that will help you understand.

eJournal: Interestingly, you mention that term because I recently read an article that stated, “Common law systems follow the doctrine of stare decisis, by which most courts are bound by their own previous decisions in similar cases. According to stare decisis, all lower courts should make decisions consistent with the previous decisions of higher courts…” Why is that?

Keating: Consistency is the reason courts are bound to follow their own decisions and courts' decisions that are directly above them. If you have judges interpreting the law and saying, “This is what the law really means,” then you should be able to count on that and not worry that maybe a different judge is going to look at it differently.

eJournal: I can see how essential that would be when you go to trial…

Keating: It’s important not just for me to take things to trial, but it is also important for people who are just out there living their lives. Often, the difference between something being legal or not is based on some of the court decisions that have been made.

eJournal: Exactly as you say, and that is why we are having this conversation. With state statutes easily accessible by the Internet, it is easy to read the current black letter law. Still, I think the difficulty arises in how those words have been interpreted and applied by the courts.

Keating: I do this all day, every day, and it is difficult for me to keep up with all the developments in case law. For someone without legal education and without doing it all the time, keeping up with case law is a pretty daunting task.

eJournal: How far-reaching are these court decisions we’re calling case law?

Keating: Case law is binding on all the courts, which fall beneath the court that made the case law. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is the overall federal district court in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Any federal district court in those states is bound to follow case law from the Fifth Circuit. However, a federal district court in Kentucky would be under the Sixth Circuit and does not have to follow the Fifth Circuit's holdings. Of course, they all have to follow the holdings from the US Supreme Court.

eJournal: Is there any influence from one circuit court to another? For example, my home area is served by the Ninth. Do I also need to pay attention to decisions by other circuit courts?

Keating: Using your example, a lot of times if the Ninth Circuit has not dealt with an issue, but the Fifth Circuit has, then the first time that issue comes up in the Ninth, many times they will look at what other circuits have done, and may say, “Well, this circuit did this.” Now, they do not have to follow that. It has what we would call “persuasive authority,” not “mandatory authority.” A circuit court’s decision can be relevant, but another circuit court does not have to follow it.

eJournal: How important are courts' decisions below the circuit court of appeals to your work as a defense attorney – and for that matter, how much attention do trial judges pay to lower courts of appeal?

Keating: In addition to the Supreme Court and the Federal Fifth Circuit, I also pay attention to all of the decisions that come out of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the highest court in Texas for criminal cases. Underneath the Court of Criminal Appeals, there are 14 appellate districts in Texas. I practice primarily in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, so I need to pay attention to the districts that cover my area because, as we have said, the trial courts are bound to follow those decisions. I also try to keep up with decisions from the farther away districts and are only persuasive authority, like Houston or Austin … but there’s only so much time in the day.

Fortunately, I am a member of various bar associations that publish summaries of court cases periodically, which is a big help.

You asked how much attention judges pay – I think trial court judges pay attention, too, because they don’t like to get overturned on appeal. They want to make decisions that are in line with what the appellate courts have said, so I think they pay pretty close attention, as well.

eJournal: How do decisions from higher courts trickle down to trials at the grassroots level?

Keating: Here’s an example: the Fourth Amendment provides a great illustration of the role of case law in the United States. The Fourth Amendment provides that, “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.” But what does that really mean? And what happens if the police violate that right? That’s where case law comes into play. 

In 1914, the US Supreme Court decided the case of Weeks v. the United States. This was a case in federal court in which police officers and a US Marshal searched Mr. Weeks’ home without first obtaining a warrant. The court held that if illegally obtained evidence is used against a defendant at his trial in federal court and convicted, the conviction must be overturned. This created what we now call the exclusionary rule.

It is important to understand that the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights are federal in nature. In other words, the federal government cannot infringe on your right to free speech or free exercise of religion. But the protections provided by those amendments don’t automatically apply to the states. 

In 1949, the US Supreme Court heard the case of Wolf v. Colorado. Like the Weeks case, law enforcement officials obtained evidence illegally, used it at trial, and Wolf was convicted. The big difference here is that Wolf was on trial in state court. Wolf appealed his conviction and said that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment meant that the Weeks case's exclusionary rule should also apply to the states. The Supreme Court flatly rejected his argument and refused to extend the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure to the states.

It wasn’t until 1961 that the US Supreme Court reversed its stance and incorporated the Fourth Amendment to apply to the states. In the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the court overturned its decision in Wolf. It held that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court.

Most of the Bill of Rights's protections have now been incorporated under the 14th Amendment through various Supreme Court decisions and apply to the states as well as the federal government, but not all of them.

eJournal: Does case law remain in effect forever?

Keating: Cases don’t ever expire unless the law changes. Obviously, the cases that dealt with the old law will now need to be looked at again. It will be a new case. Here in Texas, we have some cases from way back, like 1888, and they are still good. They have never been overturned.

The more recent a case is, the more the doctrine of stare decisis is going to apply. If the court just decided something two years ago, it is less likely that they will reverse course and issue a different decision. If it is a case from 100 years ago, they are going to be more willing to say, “Well, things have changed, and the reasoning that was behind that decision no longer applies.”

eJournal: If an appellate court makes one bold, groundbreaking decision, does that single redirection affect verdicts from there on out?

Keating: It does. If a court reverses a previous decision, they are generally pretty clear about it and might say, “This is why we are reversing that decision.” They are typically pretty specific if they get rid of an old rule and replace it with a new one. What you will see a lot more frequently is courts saying, for example, “Well, the Blockburger case is still relevant here, but these facts are a little bit different, so it is not the same situation. Therefore the analysis is a little bit different.” They can fine-tune a very general rule and have some follow-on cases that flesh out a few different subsets of that rule. Does that make sense?

eJournal: Yes, it does, and the example gives context to how the courts use previous decisions while acknowledging that no two sets of circumstances are identical. In all fairness, how can people in 2021 be held to rules that were fair in 1890? There are a few stories in the history books about some pretty bizarre appellate decisions.

Keating: Right, and that is how cases sometimes get overturned. Sometimes they look back, and they say, “We made a bad decision in that one.” Other times they say, “Things have changed, and it is time for a new rule on that.”

eJournal: When a court says, “We made a bad decision,” does that ever come from a lower court taking a courageous stand against a decision made by a higher court?

Keating: I cannot think of any cases in which a lower court has simply rejected mandatory authority from a higher court and said that they would not follow it. Usually, you see courts overturning their own decisions. For example, you might see the Supreme Court saying we are overturning our decision, but you would not see the Fifth Circuit Court rejecting a Supreme Court decision or saying, “We think the Supreme Court is wrong, so we are going to rule in this guy’s favor.”

eJournal: If new legislation changes statutory law, what happens to previous case law?

Keating: Starting at the trial court, where they are dealing with the issue in the first place, if it comes up, then they may say, “Well, under the old statute, the case law said we would have to do this. The new statute is essentially the same, so we think that rule still applies,” or they might say, “The new statute removes this element of the offense, which was really what that case law was all about, so that rule no longer applies.” A lot of times, it is an entirely new question, and there is no case law to rely on. Sometimes that happens when a statute changes; other times, a statute is close enough that you can directly apply the old case law, or you can start your analysis with, “This is how the old case law would have handled it, but because of this difference, we think the new rule should be this.”

eJournal: How many appellate court decisions are needed to make strong case law? I ask because I’ve read that case law is defined as “The collection of past legal decisions [plural] written by the course of deciding cases, in which the law was analyzed using these cases to resolve ambiguities...” Would you rely on a single appellate decision, or does it take a series of decisions before you’d cite a previous decision when you’re defending someone?

Keating: If it is a case that is good for us, we jump on it right away. We pay close attention to cases that we know are going up on appeal, and we wait for those decisions, and sometimes we start citing a decision days after it comes out because we have watched it and waited for it to come out. We have many kinds of decisions here in Texas about warrants and blood draws for DWIs from the search and seizure aspect. There has been a lot of new case law in the past several years in Texas, so it has been interesting to follow and see the new case law come out.

I mentioned that in TX, the court of criminal appeals is the gold standard. Still, if I am in a case in Tarrant County and the Fort Worth Court of Appeals, which is one of our 14 appellate courts, has made a decision, the judges in Tarrant County do have to follow that even though it is only from the first level of appeals courts.

You asked if case law starts getting applied right away. There was a case called Martinez that came out, and in Dallas County, we were relying on it to show that the warrants the officers were using were not valid under that decision. We got a lot of blood cases thrown out.

If I had made exactly the same argument with very similar facts in Tarrant and Parker County, in which I also practice, those judges would say, “Are you crazy? We are not throwing out these cases for that.” They would say, “We don’t think that case means what you are saying it means.” That is how judges will disagree with case law. They won’t say, “We disagree with it,” instead they will say, “We don’t think the case means what you say it means,” and in that respect, sometimes you do have to get a couple of cases in which the court comes back and says, “Yes, that is actually what we did mean in Martinez.”

eJournal: What a useful perspective, as well as a fascinating, peek into the world in which defense attorneys work! What resources can ordinary men or women access to be better informed about case law and how it changes?

Keating: One of the reasons I think the Network is so valuable is because you put out information about questions like that.

eJournal: Thank you, but the compliment is coming right back to you because you and I would not have explored this topic were it not for your commentary in a recent Network online journal’s Attorney Question of the Month column. What other resources should we access for current information on case law?

Keating: Take classes with trainers like Massad Ayoob. When he teaches, he is telling people about case law and how laws are interpreted. It is really, really valuable to take classes like that. Before I was in law school, I attended a MAG 40, and I learned more from him about the use of force than I did from my criminal law professors. People should take advantage of training.

A lot of lawyers will sit down with you for 30 minutes, and you pay them a certain fee, and then you can ask them questions like, “What do I need to know?” You can do that kind of consultation, and the lawyer can give you advice.

Legal blogs are another resource for keeping up with some of the case law. Do a Google search for legal blogs about the laws in your state or search for a blog about the defensive use of force. Follow that blog, and that way, you will find out about important decisions coming up.

eJournal: What is the bottom line? What do you hope our members will take away from this interesting and educational conversation?

Keating: I’d like to emphasize just how simple a thing can become a matter of case law. There are some restrictions on where you can carry a knife with a blade over 5 ½ inches in Texas. There was a case in which the issue was what constituted the blade. Is it only the sharpened portion, or does the blade also include any non-sharpened portion before the handle starts – in other words, do you measure the ricasso?

That ended up being the case of an appeal because a guy had a knife where the sharpened portion was about 5 ¼ inches, but the whole blade measured 5 ¾ inches. If you read that statute one way, the knife was legal; if you read it the other way, it wasn’t, so just understand that we can still fight over it even if there is a definition in the statute. Those are the kind of things that get resolved in case law.

eJournal: If we ever wondered whether it is important for us to know our state’s case law, that pretty much answers that question. Thank you, Rob, for all the time you’ve spent with me today, for your answers, examples, and this interesting discussion. Please know, also, that I appreciate your services to members as a Network affiliated attorney.


The Network’s relationship with attorney Rob Keating is unusually varied. Many years ago, Rob joined the Network as a rank and file member. After he started a shooting school, he participated as a Network affiliated instructor until he quit that line of work to go to law school. After graduating and establishing his criminal defense practice, we were delighted to renew acquaintances when he became a Network affiliated attorney. Learn more about Rob at and

To read more of this month's journal, please click here.

Thursday, April 8, 2021


 This is fantastic news!

Court ruling: bump stocks are not machine guns

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with GOA on bump stocks.

That’s right. The appeals court reversed an earlier district court decision that had denied GOA’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

This means that for the first time … anywhere in the entire country … a court has sided with a pro-gun organization against the ATF on their bump stock ruling, which classified bump stocks as machine guns.

This occurred yesterday when an appeals court agreed with GOA.

Now the battle goes back to the district court. As you can well imagine, Biden’s ATF will be fighting against us every step of the way.

Our attorneys are prepared to fight this battle. But we need your help.

Please contribute to GOA’s Bump Stock Victory Fund to help us continue the work in defending our God-given liberties.

Contrary to what the ATF claims: bump stocks are not machine guns.

A semi-automatic firearm, even one with a bump stock attached, still requires the trigger to be pressed … then released … then pressed again to fire an additional cartridge. By comparison, a machine gun will keep firing as long as the trigger is depressed or until the ammunition supply is exhausted.

We were pleased to see that the judges in today’s ruling chided the ATF for their “frequent reversals on major policy issues.”

Indeed, for ten years, the ATF said that bump stocks are not machine guns under federal law.

They then reversed course and said that a piece of plastic with no moving parts is a machine gun. If the ATF can do that with a magic wave of the wand, they can say anything is a machine gun.

As of now, bump stocks are not yet legal. By sending this case back to the district court, the appeals court orders the lower court to impose an injunction against the ATF’s bump stock ruling.

In a best-case scenario, bump stocks could become legal in the four states within the Sixth Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) and might even apply to members of GOA and VCDL nationwide. Please stay tuned for further updates on this.

As you can see, this case is far from over — and it’s why we need your help!

This is our Gettysburg. It is here that we can win the battle against an overreaching agency that is hell-bent on infringing our rights.

Finally, GOA thanks the other plaintiffs in this case who joined GOA and its foundation (GOF): the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), GOA member Matt Watkins, Tim Harmsen of the Military Arms Channel, and GOA’s Texas Director, Rachel Malone.

I also want to thank all GOA members and donors whose generosity makes our important work possible.

Wednesday, April 7, 2021

Fleeing from the madness of crowds - in a hurry!


Ever have to flee from home?

From a mob attack, wildfire, or tornado-

Consider a small RV with plenty of room for gear and sleeping space for the family.

Most importantly, keep the small RV this pre-loaded so all gear is ready to go and a family can evacuate the house in mere minutes.

Do not let the simple look fool anyone.

The RV has the guns, food, water, bulletproofing needed to survive off the grid for several days.

A smaller RV is a much better idea than a massive RV or bus that will not do well on a back road, get stuck in tight places, and be more susceptible to mob attacks.

 Train Safe- Train Honestly 

Source: Jason Hanson



Tuesday, April 6, 2021

11 Cases of Defensive Gun Use as 2020 Came to a Close



The world has said “good riddance” to 2020 and ushered in a new year. Although 2020 was a year in which many people faced extraordinary challenges, it did come with a silver lining for advocates of a strong Second Amendment right—unprecedented growth in the number of Americans who embrace their right to keep and bear arms.

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Americans bought an estimated 21 million firearms in 2020, with 8.4 million Americans buying a gun for the first time last year.

Additionally, the number of Americans with concealed carry permits continued to grow, albeit at a slower rate than in past years. This likely was due to record-long delays in permit processing and shutdowns because of COVID-19.

It is hardly surprising that law-abiding citizens flocked to exercise their Second Amendment rights last year. It was, after all, a year replete with widespread civil unrest and calls to strip resources from police departments already hamstrung by a global pandemic.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

But even during “normal” years, the right to keep and bear arms plays an important role in preserving public safety.

According to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on the issue found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times a year. We have good reason to believe that many of these defensive gun uses aren’t reported to police, much less make the local or national news. 

For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read accounts from 2019 and 2020 here.) 

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in December. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database.

  • Dec. 2, Yorkville, New York: Three or four armed intruders kicked in a residence door and forced a woman to the floor at gunpoint while burglarizing her home. Another resident heard the commotion from a bedroom, grabbed a “long gun,” and exchanged fire with the intruders, forcing them to flee, police said. The woman they had assaulted was wounded in the shootout, but her injuries were not life-threatening.
  • Dec. 4, Alexander City, Alabama: A driver recognized a wanted murder suspect walking along a rural road and held him at gunpoint until police arrived. A U.S. Marshals Fugitive Task Force and local police had been on a four-day manhunt for the suspect, alleged to have shot to death his girlfriend and her teenage son.
  • Dec. 6, Blountstown, Florida: A man used his AR-15 to defend himself against two armed, masked gunmen who approached his home, threatened the three residents, and demanded money. At one point, a robber pointed his gun at a resident’s head, which appears to have sparked a shootout, police said. Two residents were injured in the ensuing firefight, but the assailants fled, and the residents were expected to survive.
  • Dec. 8, Lacombe, Louisiana: Four armed intruders broke into a residence and assaulted the homeowner, police said. The homeowner was able to grab and shoot his own firearm, killing two attackers and wounding the others, who now face a plethora of felony charges. The homeowner’s 4-year-old daughter was injured in the crossfire but was expected to make a full recovery.
  • Dec. 11, Las Vegas, Nevada: An employee of a car dealership confronted a homeless man who was attempting to break into the business, police said. The intruder became physically aggressive and shoved the employee to the ground, where he injured his head. Police said the employee then drew a firearm and shot and killed his attacker in self-defense.
  • Dec. 14, Atlanta, Georgia: During an argument at an apartment complex, a man pulled a gun and shot another man several times in the back, wounding him. A woman who lived there drew her own firearm and fatally shot the gunman in self-defense, police said. She was not expected to face charges. 
  • Dec. 17, Pine Bluff, Arkansas:  A paramedic defended himself and his partner with his firearm after a call to a domestic dispute turned violent. The paramedics began to treat a woman who told them that her boyfriend had beaten her; the boyfriend angrily confronted them for treating her injuries. After a physical altercation, he took out a gun and opened fire on the paramedics, police said. One paramedic was armed and, though injured, shot back, killing the boyfriend. Both paramedics were treated for gunshot wounds, but they and the woman survived.
  • Dec. 22, Green Township, Pennsylvania: A man at a gun range inexplicably turned his firearm on his friend, shooting and wounding him, police said. Another gun owner saw the attack and came to the friend’s aid, fatally wounding the gunman and likely saving the friend’s life.
  • Dec. 25, Stockton, California: Upset by an ongoing dispute, a neighbor forced his way into a woman’s residence on Christmas Day, police said. A verbal confrontation soon turned into a physical assault, prompting the woman to shoot and wound the man in defense of herself and her family.
  • Dec. 26, Chicago, Illinois: An armed robber walked into a cell phone store and demanded store property at gunpoint from an employee. The employee, a concealed carry permit holder, drew his own handgun and fatally shot the robber, police said.
  • Dec. 27, Port Arthur, Texas: Several armed men forcibly followed a woman into her residence, holding her and her young children at gunpoint, police said. The homeowner, who heard what was happening from another room, armed himself with a rifle and shot at the men, killing one and sending the other two fleeings.   

Although we all hope that 2021 brings increased stability and lower crime rates, we also should hope that America’s new gun owners do not forget the lessons of 2020.

America’s civil society and “scheme of ordered liberty” are fragile things that can be severely disrupted with little warning.

Unfortunately, many gun control advocates still want to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in public or with the firearms of their choice, best suited to their situation, experience, or comfort levels. There is little doubt that these law-abiding Americans will benefit from 2021, where the nation returns to “normalcy,” and the chaos of 2020 begins to feel more like a fevered dream than a lived experience.

So say “good riddance” to 2020—but remember what it taught us about the right to keep and bear arms.

Source: The Daily Signal