/r/progun

Photograph via snooOG

This is a place for discussion and debate of Second Amendment related topics, with a Pro-2A emphasis.

Civil debate is welcome and encouraged. Even if you're completely opposed to 2A, you're welcome to share your thoughts here, as long as you maintain civility.

Announcement: Get Yourself Flair!


Wiki Page

Reddit Gun Network Subreddit List

Second Amendment Foundation Amazon Link


Rules:

1: Debate and civil discussion is allowed and encouraged. Insults, trolling, and brigading will be removed and may result in a ban at moderator discretion.

2: It shouldn't have to be said, but racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, etc of any kind is not allowed.

3: No Memes. No low quality image/meme submission that don't contribute in a meaningful/intellectual way towards gun politics. Do not post screenshots of tweets, Facebook, instagram, articles - post the actual link.

4: This is a pro gun subreddit. All posts must related to gun politics, and civil discussion is encouraged.

5: Any threats or intimations of violence will result in an immediate and permanent ban.

6: No discussing of the private sales of firearms or any other reddit banned items.

7: No reposts within 1 year. No crossposting.

8: Follow all Reddit-wide rules (i.e. DO NOT post personal information of any user, obscure usernames, etc.). We actively discourage linking to reddit threads, but if you do - please be sure to utilize the "np." prefix to discourage participation in the linked thread. Brigading will be answered with bans.


All rules subject to moderator discretion


See also:

State/regional subreddits

     
/r/ALGuns /r/KYGuns /r/NCGuns
/r/AKGuns /r/LAGuns /r/NDGuns
/r/AZGuns /r/ArizonaGuns /r/MEGuns /r/OHGuns
/r/ARGuns /r/MDGuns /r/OKShooters
/r/CAGuns /r/MAGuns /r/OregonGuns
/r/COGuns /r/MIGuns /r/PAGuns
/r/CTGuns /r/MNGuns /r/RIGuns
/r/DEGuns /r/MSGuns /r/SCGuns
/r/DCGuns /r/MOGuns /r/SDGuns
/r/FLGuns /r/MTGuns /r/TNGuns
/r/GAGuns /r/NEGuns /r/TexasGuns
/r/HIGuns /r/NJGuns /r/UTGuns
/r/IDGuns /r/NVGuns /r/VAGuns
/r/ILGuns /r/NHGuns /r/VTGuns
/r/INGuns /r/NJGuns /r/WA_Guns /r/WAGuns
/r/IAGuns /r/NMGuns /r/WVGuns
/r/KSGuns /r/NYGuns /r/WIGuns
/r/WYGuns

Other regional/international gun subreddits

   
/r/pdxgunnuts (OR) /r/PhillyGuns (PA)
/r/TxGuns (TX) /r/austinguns (TX)
/r/DFWGuns (TX) /r/HoustonGuns (TX)
/r/SanAntonioGuns (TX) /r/BayAreaGunMeetups (CA)
/r/northeastguns /r/CanadaGuns
/r/SwissGuns /r/aussieshooters
/r/gunmeetups

/r/progun

182,238 Subscribers

3

America’s Stolen Guns: A Silent Contributor to Gun Crimes in the U.S. (2024)

The issue of guns in America mainly arises from stolen firearms, as it’s uncommon for lawful gun owners to commit crimes. However, in America, being a victim of gun theft is unique because victims are often blamed for making themselves vulnerable to criminals.

Key Points:

  • 1,074,022 firearms were reported stolen in the U.S. between 2017 and 2021, which equates to an average of 200,000 per year.
  • There were more guns stolen in 2017 than in 2021, despite an increase in gun sales nationwide in 2021.
  • 85.9% of those possessing a firearm, when they committed their crimes, purchased or obtained the firearm from somewhere other than a licensed dealer.
  • Firearm-related homicides are largely related to socioeconomic disadvantages and poor upbringings.

The data provided offers a thorough understanding of stolen guns in the U.S. and suggests ways to enhance crime prevention through sensible measures. For a detailed list of our sources, please refer to the comprehensive list provided here.

Continue reading America’s Stolen Guns: A Silent Contributor to Gun Crimes in the U.S. (2024) on Ammo.com

24 Comments
2024/06/25
06:01 UTC

53

Garland asked SCOTUS to grant the 18 USC 922(g) cert petitions!

I am rarely surprised when it comes to #2A cert petitions but the Federal attorney general has surprised me in the case of Garland v. Range. He asked #SCOTUS to grant the cert petition in Range and the other 18 USC 922(g) petitions!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/23-374.html

8 Comments
2024/06/25
01:33 UTC

2

US v. Rahimi Opinion Discussion

The holding says:

When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.

Personal take: the case not only involved nasty and sketchy facts, but in my opinion poorly set up its angle of attack and consequently didn't convince all but Justice Thomas.

Let's look at the cert petition question:

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) says the following:

It shall be unlawful for any person who is subject to a court order that—

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Let's have a look at § 922(g)(8)(C), which is a disjunctive subsection. § 922(g)(8)(C)(i) says that there must be a finding, but doesn't specify the standard (e.g. beyond reasonable doubt, which is typically required to strip one's rights including enumerated ones like 2A). For this one, I wonder if that one in particular can be challenged under vagueness grounds (or some other grounds).

For §§ 922(g)(8)(A), (B), & (C)(ii), I can see that these subsections are more vulnerable to due process grounds (I think this also applies for (C)(i) as well), as if (C)(i) didn't exist, someone would be unknowingly disarmed when he or she gets temporarily restrained for domestic violence.

Here are some takeaways:

  1. Criminal cases can cause huge setbacks, especially if we aren't vigilant enough in especially hardware-related laws like the NFA.
  2. One major factor in criminal cases being huge setbacks is how the constitutional challenges are set up. Here, Rahimi solely challenged § 922(g)(8) on 2A grounds. All but Thomas were very unconvinced given the facts, which includes Rahimi admitting the domestic violence to his girlfriend, which hereby waives his due process challenge (I think!) as well as the no self-incrimination challenge.
  3. Another major factor is the lawyer. Public Defender J. Matthew Wright poorly communicated his reasoning in front of SCOTUS, partly because of how he set up the challenge in the lower courts. That caused Kagan to call him out for "running away from his arguments." On a side note, in a 5th Circuit criminal suppressor case US v. Peterson, the defending lawyer relies on interest balancing from district to appellate court.

Overall, the Rahimi opinion is just another US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The Miller opinion analyzed 2A solely under the militia grounds and didn't even look at the individual grounds, and without briefing from the Defendant. The Rahimi opinion in my honest opinion is pointing in the right direction, but just needs refurbishing. In other words, people can be stripped of 2A rights for the time being (e.g. for the duration of the prison sentence, commitment, etc.), but only after due process (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt), and not forever (unless it's a life or death sentence). Stripping one's 2A rights after finishing his or her time in commitment or sentence for a period of time (or up to his or her death), on the other hand, is unconstitutional, as it makes 2A a de facto second class right.

Let me know what you think, especially on what other grounds § 922(g)(8) is vulnerable to!

5 Comments
2024/06/24
22:31 UTC

2

how strict/lax should gun laws be in your opinion?

if you could rewrite the gun laws right now, how would you (if at all)? Would you keep them the same? make them a little less restrictive, or for some weird reason would you try and reduce personal liberty more by making them stricter?

View Poll

14 Comments
2024/06/24
18:38 UTC

100

If media and anti gun people are going to use people who are hurt fleeing a shooting as part of the stats, shouldn't we use the number of people hurt during other activities for comparative stats?

We all see the media headlines of X people killed and Z people injured in a shooting. But, they lump in those people who twisted an ankle while fleeing. If that's the case, then we shouldn't just compare gun deaths and injuries to other deadly weapons, we should include things like athletics.

The National Library of Health states that an estimated 1.2 million athletes sustain football related injuries every year. That's just one sport.

I think the statistics need to be granular in defining gunshot injuries and other injuries. If it's about saving lives and preventing injuries, then we have a lot of other activities that cause more injuries.

52 Comments
2024/06/24
17:48 UTC

253

Anti gun echo chamber

r/guncontrol is a subreddit focused on scientific sources, open conversation... And mods removing anything they don't personally agree with. Thank God that it's only a fraction of the size of this sub.

123 Comments
2024/06/23
19:01 UTC

91

Why are'nt persecutors and judges in cities like Chicago and New York not doing their jobs on criminals?

Sure, they may think that the justice system tends to affect individuals of color. But please, can those guys/girls/whatever pronouns they choose to identify themselves do their jobs properly rather than create 'feel good' laws on gun control. There's a reason why the job of persecutors exist. It's to persecute criminals and find/cross examine evidence to send them to jail if they're found guilty or exonnerate them if innocent.

Activism has it's place, but not in the courtroom.

79 Comments
2024/06/23
11:45 UTC

406

Stop being anti open carry.

I’ve been browsing various state gun subs and I inevitably run into someone making a post along the lines of that they can’t conceal carry because they are not old enough but they can open carry.

But practically everyone comments that the poster should not open carry.

Seriously? People in this community are telling others not to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms in public because they would be doing it openly. That’s wrong, it’s no one’s business how someone else practices their constitutional right. If they are legally and safely doing it then mind your business.

Im not saying open carry is ideal but if that’s your only option to carry then it’s better to do that than not to.

233 Comments
2024/06/23
00:44 UTC

35

Are all the Rahimi comments copium? (How does this affect Bruen?)

I am not trolling. I am genuinely confused/alarm bells ringing.

The majority of comments on the Rahimi decision across gun subs are the meme "here's why it's a good thing". I am NOT referring to the decision to disallow domestic abusers from having guns. I am referring to Roberts, etc. calling out how 1791 standards don't apply, regulations past that are just fine, etc.

Did this decision not just reset us to pre-Bruen. Judges were already ignoring Bruen but doesn't this just basically make it incredibly watered down?

AWB's/Magazine Bans/Registration/Sensitive Areas are the biggest issues we have. They already fumbled sensitive areas in Bruen, I don't see the recovery.

Thomas seems to be the only one who cares - the rest of the "majority" judges care about Fox News culture/non-gun "wins" for boomers.

Edit: Would LOVE to be proven wrong.

75 Comments
2024/06/22
01:08 UTC

19

US v. Rahimi Opinion is here!

Opinion here.

TLDR: Reversed and remanded 8-1.

Majority: Roberts, joined by Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson.

Surety laws and "going armed" are relevantly similar to 18 USC § 922(g)(8), so it survives facial challenge (truth be told, facial challenges are really hard to successfully make).

Some key points:

For its part, the Fifth Circuit made two errors. First, like the dissent, it read Bruen to require a “historical twin” rather than a “historical analogue.” Ibid. (emphasis deleted). Second, it did not correctly apply our precedents governing facial challenges. 61 F. 4th, at 453. As we have said in other contexts, “[w]hen legislation and the Constitution brush up against each other, [a court’s] task is to seek harmony, not to manufacture conflict.” United States v. Hansen, 599 U. S. 762, 781 (2023). Rather than consider the circumstances in which Section 922(g)(8) was most likely to be constitutional, the panel instead focused on hypothetical scenarios where Section 922(g)(8) might raise constitutional concerns. See 61 F. 4th, at 459; id., at 465–467 (Ho, J., concurring). That error left the panel slaying a straw man^(2).

Finally, in holding that Section 922(g)(8) is constitutional as applied to Rahimi, we reject the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not “responsible.” Brief for United States 6; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 8–11. “Responsible” is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail. Nor does such a line derive from our case law. In Heller and Bruen, we used the term “responsible” to describe the class of ordinary citizens who undoubtedly enjoy the Second Amendment right. See, e.g., Heller, 554 U. S., at 635; Bruen, 597 U. S., at 70. But those decisions did not define the term and said nothing about the status of citizens who were not “responsible.” The question was simply not presented.

Rather, we conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.

Footnote 2:

Many of the potential faults that the Fifth Circuit identifies in Section 922(g)(8) appear to sound in due process rather than the Second Amendment. E.g., 61 F. 4th, at 459; id., at 465–467 (Ho, J., concurring). As we have explained, unless these hypothetical faults occur in every case, they do not justify invalidating Section 922(g)(8) on its face. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987) (a facial challenge fails if the law is constitutional in at least some of its applications). In any event, we need not address any due process concern here because this challenge was not litigated as a due process challenge and there is no such claim before us. See this Court’s Rule 14.1(a).

Concurrence: Sotomayor, joined by Kagan. While the former says that it's a concurring opinion, it's effectively that in judgment. Sotomayor believes that Bruen is wrongly decided and means-end scrutiny is the way to go, but the conclusion is right.

Concurrence: Gorsuch. He emphasizes on the facial challenges:

To prevail, [the Plaintiff(s)] must show “no set of circumstances” exists in which that law can be applied without violating the Second Amendment. Salerno, 481 U. S., at 745. I agree with the Court that he has failed to make that showing. Ante, at 8.

Concurrence: Kavanaugh. He emphasizes that history > policy is the way to go when looking at constitutional text that can be vague and apply it to particular circumstances. One sentence I have to point out, though:

Read literally, those Amendments might seem to grant absolute protection, meaning that the government could never regulate speech or guns in any way. But American law has long recognized, as a matter of original understanding and original meaning, that constitutional rights generally come with exceptions.

Lol, the anti-gunners are going to latch onto this.

Anyway, he talks about pre-ratification and post-ratification history. Regarding pre-ratification history:

When interpreting vague constitutional text, the Court typically scrutinizes the stated intentions and understandings of the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution (or, as relevant, the Amendments). The Court also looks to the understandings of the American people from the pertinent ratification era. Those intentions and understandings do not necessarily determine meaning, but they may be strong evidence of meaning.

But in using pre-ratification history, courts must exercise care to rely only on the history that the Constitution actually incorporated and not on the history that the Constitution left behind [i.e. some pre-ratification history can be probative of what the Constitution does not mean].

As for post-ratification (i.e. "tradition" as Scalia called it), that can be used if the pre-ratification history is elusive or inconclusive. He also criticizes the policy approach (e.g. balancing test), despite having been ubiquitously used in speech cases.

Concurrence: Barrett. She emphasizes and questions the originalist and "history" approach (more on, the "how").

Despite its unqualified text, the Second Amendment is not absolute.

Well well well, people say that it's absolute, but in reality, I would agree with the anti-gunners (in part, though). Those exceptions must be historically justified.

It bears emphasis, however, that my questions were about the time period relevant to discerning the Second Amendment’s original meaning—for instance, what is the post-1791 cutoff for discerning how the Second Amendment was originally understood? ... As I have explained elsewhere, evidence of “tradition” unmoored from original meaning is not binding law.

She also questions on "distinctly similar" vs. "relevantly similar" in looking at generality problems.

Concurrence: Jackson. She would have dissented in Bruen. She also points out the perceived difficulty and inconsistent results from applying Bruen.

Dissent: Thomas.

A firearm regulation that falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text is unconstitutional unless it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Based. He also points out that 18 USC § 922(g)(8) is triggered without due process, despite not being the issue along with the Commerce Clause challenge in front of the court.

He says that the "dangerous" laws proffered by the US were meant to prevent insurrection and armed rebellion, not to solve the more localized issue like this. He also says that the proposals regarding "peaceable" citizens that otherwise didn't get ratified are irrelevant (in fact, they suggest that 2A is more expansive than those proposals). He also says that 18 USC § 922(g)(8) is an absolute ban on exercising 2A related conduct despite it being temporal, and hence surety laws do not suffice. He also points out the problems of civil proceedings.

The Government, for its part, tries to rewrite the Second Amendment to salvage its case. It argues that the Second Amendment allows Congress to disarm anyone who is not

“responsible” and “law-abiding.” Not a single Member of the Court adopts the Government’s theory. Indeed, the Court disposes of it in half a page—and for good reason. Ante, at 17. The Government’s argument lacks any basis in our precedents and would eviscerate the Second Amendment altogether.

Good.

Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one subset of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more. I respectfully dissent.

Well, shit.

10 Comments
2024/06/21
14:22 UTC

15

Central Bank

I don't think it's said enough that any body who cares about self defense, guns should hate The Central Banks.

Why? Not only do they create inflation but The Central Banks are partnering up governments around the world in order to remove self defense rights.

I think the right thing to do is start becoming your own bank so you and or others don't become the next victim.

We've seen Banks freeze accounts, alert the feds of suspicious activity and soon they'll be taken your assets if you try to be a vigilant.

Final Word: Buy commodities, leave Banks

21 Comments
2024/06/21
09:34 UTC

17

23-15016 Mark Baird v. Rob Bonta - California handgun Open Carry Appeal

The three-judge panel from the preliminary injunction retained jurisdiction for the appeal of the final judgment by the district court.

Video of preliminary injunction oral argument -> https://youtu.be/Z3nJeZlWEE4

Published opinion -> https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/09/07/23-15016.pdf

1 Comment
2024/06/21
01:59 UTC

112

California’s Cautionary Tale and 2A

Today, the California Supreme Court unanimously undermined the Californians’ power to vote. It said that the Taxpayer Protection Act cannot appear on this year’s ballot. By doing so, California has crossed the Rubicon. On a side note, the author, Goodwin Liu, upheld the microstamping law in California.

We must not forget former 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski’s words:

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d at 570 (Kozinski, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc)

The likelihood of rebellion is increasing, unless the people peacefully vote to change course.

4 Comments
2024/06/20
23:20 UTC

55

New Lawsuits Filed This Week

Armored Republic Holdings, LLC v. Mosley: NY’s body armor ban

FPC v. Garland: Gun ban at USPO and its properties

Benton v. Platkin: NJ’s purchase permits for long guns and handguns. It also includes the 1 handgun purchase a month (and allegedly an extra day in Pennsauken; this will require discovery as that is a factual element).

12 Comments
2024/06/19
03:19 UTC

24

US v. King: Appellant’s Opening Brief

I must note that opening brief got filed on 6/18, when the due date was 6/17. If anything, the government will move to dismiss this appeal as the brief was untimely filed.

Questions involved:

  1. Does the First, Second and Fifth Amendment permit criminally prosecuting a farmer for selling a gun to a neighbor without a federal firearms license, when no such history and tradition exists under the Second Amendment, and especially when that farmer’s Amish faith prohibits him from obtaining a license requiring photo identification and the ever-shifting definition of who must obtain a federal firearms license even confuses the government?
  2. Does the Second Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Eighth Amendment permit complete forfeiture of a lifetime gun collection based on a single charge of offering to sell a few guns without a federal firearms license, as applied to Mr. King?

Reuben King, an Amish farmer currently serving 36 months of probation, points out that no federal law restricting gun purchases or sales (let alone private sales) existed until the 20th century.

Textual inquiry: King says that “[a]n inescapable pre-condition of keeping and bearing arms is purchasing [or acquiring] those arms, making the implicit right to buy and sell firearms a necessary complement protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment.” It also says that “the purchase of a firearm is the only constitutionally regulated activity to require photo identification.”

Historical inquiry: the first federal firearms dealing license was first passed under the FFA in 1938.

It also raises other grounds like 5A (rule of lenity), 1A (Amish faith), and 8A (excessive fines). The “fine” here is King’s forfeiture of 609 privately owned firearms, which King claims to be “excessive” because he offered to sell a few guns without a license. His other 3 guns were left untouched by the forfeiture order.

3 Comments
2024/06/19
02:34 UTC

39

10 day waiting period under 21

Hey everyone,

I'm 20 and recently bought an AR-15. I was told the background check would take 10 days, but today (the 10th day) I found out it's still delayed and could take up to 30 days.

Has anyone else experienced this? Do I really have to wait up to 30 days??

26 Comments
2024/06/18
13:39 UTC

59

so wait - does "car control" even work?

TL;DR - The kind of pre-license drivers safety training programs gun control advocates evangelize don't seem to work for cars!

I know there's a whole host of problems with the "car control" argument grabbers like to make.

I just had a realization though that I've never actually seen any studies that say "yes, when comparing group X with training and group Y without the same training after controlling for other confounding variables we determined that training group X received did in fact reduce total accidents/fatalities."

I went looking and honestly I don't think the data backs up the comparison:

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753512001786 - Is there a case for driver training? A review of the efficacy of pre- and post-licence driver training

The results of the review indicate that some forms of training have been effective for procedural skill acquisition and other programs have been found to improve drivers’ hazard perception. Conversely, evidence suggests that traditional driver training programs* have not reduced young drivers’ crash risk. Caution is urged when interpreting this finding as major methodological flaws were identified in previous evaluation studies, including: no control group; non-random group assignment; failure to control or measure confounding variables; and poor program design. Further, the validity and usefulness of crash rates as an outcome measure is questionable. More robust research should be undertaken to evaluate driver training programs, using more sensitive measures to assess drivers’ onroad safety.

*i.e., classes before you get your license in the first place

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1765489/pdf/v008p00ii3.pdf - The safety value of driver education and training

Background: New drivers, especially young ones, have extremely high crash rates. Formal instruction, which includes in-class education and in-vehicle training, has been used as a means to address this problem.

Objectives: To summarize the evidence on the safety value of such programs and suggest improvements in program delivery and content that may produce safety benefits.

Methods: The empirical evidence was reviewed and summarized to determine if formal instruction has been shown to produce reductions in collisions, and to identify ways it might achieve this objective.

Results: The international literature provides little support for the hypothesis that formal driver instruction is an effective safety measure. It is argued that such an outcome is not entirely unexpected given that traditional programs fail to address adequately the age and experience related factors that render young drivers at increased risk of collision.

Conclusions: Education/training programs might prove to be effective in reducing collisions if they are more empirically based, addressing critical age and experience related factors. At the same time, more research into the behaviors and crash experiences of novice drivers is needed to refine our understanding of the problem

  1. https://trid.trb.org/View/1160556 - The effectiveness of driver training as a road safety measure: a review of the literature

The effectiveness of driver training as a road safety measure is a controversial issue within the professional and public arena. The worth of driver training for car drivers as a means of improving driver behaviour and reducing road crash involvement is continually debated in Australia and overseas. In an effort to inform road safety professionals, and the public at large, about the merits and effectiveness of such training as a crash countermeasure, RACV commissioned RCSC Services Pty Ltd to perform an extensive review of the international literature concerning driver training. In particular, the effectiveness of driver training programs for learner drivers, young/recently licensed drivers and experienced drivers was investigated. The review suggests that driver training cannot be considered an effective crash countermeasure and that other approaches such as increased supervision and graduated licensing for novice drivers are likely to make greater and more lasting contributions to road safety.

So, what's the takeaway?

The kind of "car control" that grabbers are demanding doesn't even work for cars! What we see from the literature is a consistent result that pre-driver safety training programs do not significantly alter the outcomes of crashes. The thing that makes a safer driver is experience.

The argument from cars should be introducing kids to guns at a young age and ensuring that they know how to handle them safely and that they respect them appropriately, not that we should have arbitrary barriers to entry (that historically are just used to disenfranchise minorities!).

30 Comments
2024/06/18
12:43 UTC

28

State's answering brief filed in Mark Baird v. Rob Bonta – California Handgun Open Carry Lawsuit

The State of California (AG Rob Bonta) has filed its Answering Brief. The briefs are linked at the top of this page on my website.

https://californiaopencarry.com/baird-et-al-v-becerra-california-handgun-open-carry-lawsuit/

1 Comment
2024/06/17
22:38 UTC

Back To Top