Tag: gun grabbers

Rhode Island Bill Could Turn Gun Owners Into Criminals for Keeping the Firearms They Legally Bought

Two new bills introduced in the Rhode Island legislature are taking aim at legal gun owners, and one of them could easily turn lawful gun owners into criminals overnight, simply for maintaining possession of the firearms they legally purchased. 

Each of these bills, by themselves, represent a major infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, but taken together they pose an existential threat to the Second Amendment rights of Rhode Island residents. 

Any gun or magazine ban that allows existing owners to maintain possession of their arms can be amended in the future to remove those protections, and that’s exactly what H8073 does with so-called assault weapons. The state’s ban on the sale and transfer of modern sporting rifles, which was only adopted a year ago, would be expanded to prohibit the possession of those arms beginning July 1 of this year. Simply keeping the gun you lawfully purchased could result in a ten-year prison sentence and/or a fine of up to $10,000.

Then there’s H7755, which would expand the state’s “Responsible Firearm Purchasing Act.” Under the current law, anyone purchasing a handgun must provide the seller with a valid “training certificate” issued by the Rhode Island Attorney General, and after the sale has been approved they’re subjected to a 7-day waiting period before they can take possession of their handgun. 

H7755 would expand that requirement (and waiting period) to all gun sales in the state. In order to simply purchase a gun to keep in the home you’d have to take an 8-hour training course complete with a live-fire requirement, and then pass a written test developed by the Attorney General’s office. 

Keep reading

Hawaii Residents Should Be Terrified to Find Out What Will Happen If These Bills Pass

Remember that scene in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith when the Galactic Senate votes to give all-encompassing emergency powers to Emperor Palpatine?

That’s basically what will happen in Hawaii if a pair of emergency powers bills are passed. State lawmakers have advanced two bills that would empower the governor to declare an emergency and then order quarantines, enter private property, suspend existing statutes, regulate and seize firearms, and completely exterminate the Jedi order.

Okay, I made that last one up, but the fact remains: These bills are some of the scariest I’ve seen at any level of government lately.

House Bill 2236 and Senate Bill 2151 are moving through the state legislature at the same time that Gov. Josh Green is still ruling under a longstanding housing emergency proclamation that suspended land-use and transparency rules to fast-track home construction, Hawaii Public Radio reported.

The bill would grant the governor the authority to “require the quarantine or segregation of persons who are affected with or believed to have been exposed to any infectious, communicable, or other disease” and to “authorize without the permission of the owners or occupants, entry on private premises for any of these purposes.”

The state would also be empowered to “authorize that public nuisances be summarily abated and, if need be, that the property be destroyed by any police officer or authorized person.”

Those opposing the measures point out the impact it will have on constitutional rights. Advocacy group Hawaii Capitol Watch warned that the bills “would ensure that executive branch leaders do not arbitrarily call long-standing and complex societal challenges, such as unaffordable housing or illegal activity, as ‘emergencies’ in order to suspend our environmental, cultural protection, good governance, procurement, and labor laws indefinitely – as the Governor attempted to do with his emergency proclamation on (un)affordable housing.”

Keep reading

Hawaii Bills Would Allow Gov’t To Quarantine People, Enter Property, Seize Firearms, & Suspend Laws

The Hawaii Legislature is advancing companion legislation that would formally codify sweeping emergency powers for the governor and county officials—including authority to quarantine individuals, enter private property without consent, suspend laws, and seize control of infrastructure—under the justification of preparing for future disasters and disease outbreaks.

House Bill 2236 and Senate Bill 2151, both titled “Relating to Emergency Management,” were introduced in January and February 2026 and are now moving forward through both chambers.

Legislative records show the bills are formally linked, with each designated as “Same As/Similar To” the other, confirming that Hawaii’s full legislature—not just one chamber—is advancing the emergency powers framework.

The legislation explicitly cites COVID-19 as justification for strengthening emergency authority, stating:

“The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance of clear legal frameworks for state and county emergency management to ensure that the State and counties are ready for any type of emergency.”

You can see which state legislators are backing these bills further down in this article.

Keep reading

Everytown’s Defense of ‘Vampire Rule’ Renders the Second Amendment Meaningless

In less than a month from now, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, the challenge to Hawaii’s default ban on concealed carry on all private property (also known as the “vampire rule”, thanks to FPC’s Rob Romano) unless property owners specifically allow it. Amicus briefs in support of both the plaintiffs and defendants have now been filed with the Court, and over the next couple of days we’ll be taking a closer look at some of the arguments raised in defense of the gun control law… starting with the amicus brief filed by Everytown for Gun Safety. 

What makes this brief noteworthy is the audacity of the gun control group’s arguments, which fly in the face of the Court’s decisions in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen and would essentially turn the Second Amendment into a dead letter if adopted by the justices. 

The first argument raised by Everytown is that laws that are specifically designed to frustrate Second Amendment rights are presumptively constitutional, and that an “improper purpose” for a gun control statute is not reason enough for the courts to strike it down. 

This Court’s decisions in Bruen and Rahimi set forth the operative analytical framework for Second Amendment challenges. When a contemporary law regulates conduct that falls within the Amendment’s text, this framework points courts to historical evidence to determine whether the law is consistent with tradition. The United States and petitioners now ask the Court to distort that methodology by arguing for per se invalidation of any regulations that “restrict[] firearms simply to frustrate the exercise of Second Amendment rights”—a description they incorrectly ascribe to Hawai‘i’s statutory scheme. And they incorrectly claim that their freefloating improper-purpose test is grounded in the textual and historical understanding of the Second Amendment. Because neither precedent, text, nor history supports that novel test, the Court should reject it.

Now, it’s true that the Supreme Court has said that courts need to look to the text of the Second Amendment as well as the national tradition of gun ownership to determine if a modern gun control law is 2A-compliant, but there’s a good reason why the justices have never explicitly said that laws meant to chill the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional: it’s self-evident. 

Rights exist for a reason, and any laws that are put in place with an eye towards curtailing that right are, by their very nature, constitutionally unsound. And despite Everytown’s claim to the contrary, Hawaii’s “vampire rule” is absolutely meant to stop people from exercising their right to bear arms. If it’s illegal to carry a gun in the vast majority of publicly accessible places, even with a concealed carry permit, then most people aren’t going to bother getting one… and those that do will be unable to carry except in a very limited number of locations. 

Keep reading

Alberta invokes Sovereignty Act motion to stop federal gun confiscation

Alberta is launching its toughest fight yet against the Liberal government’s gun confiscation program, invoking the Sovereignty Act to legally order provincial police, including the RCMP, to refuse to enforce Ottawa’s firearm seizure scheme.

While Tuesday’s news release highlighted the motion defending law-abiding firearms owners, it also focused on Alberta’s new castle law. The motion must still be debated and passed by the legislature before taking effect.

“It’s time for Ottawa to stop targeting the wrong people. Albertans have the right to protect their homes and their families. No one should hesitate to defend themselves when faced with a threat at their own doorway,” said Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. “Law-abiding citizens, hunters, farmers and sport shooters are not the source of violent crime, yet the federal government wants to confiscate their property while illegal guns pour across our borders. Alberta will not stand by while responsible gun owners are treated like criminals.”

Alberta’s Justice Minister Mickey Amery similarly connected the rights of legal gun ownership and self-defence.

“When someone breaks into your home, the law recognizes that you have enhanced rights to protect yourself and your family. Alberta is making that principle unmistakably clear: lawful, reasonable self-defence will be respected, not criminalized,” he said.

Public Safety Minister Mike Ellis highlighted a fact that police organizations have been emphasizing for years: law-abiding gun owners are not the ones committing crimes.

Keep reading

Giffords: Increase in Defensive Gun Uses ‘Must Be Stopped’

When I covered the WSJ’s hit piece on Stand Your Ground laws on Wednesday, I wondered if the reporters had any behind-the-scenes help from gun control activists. 

It’s not proof of anything, but since the story appeared online only one gun control group has promoted the story on X or Bluesk

The premise of the WSJ story is that Stand Your Ground laws have led to a 59% increase in the number of justifiable homicides in some states between 2019 and 2024, and that the law is allowing some folks to literally get away with murder. 

As we discussed yesterday, though, none of the anecdotal cases cited by WSJ in support of that premise are slam dunk examples of murders that were deemed justified as a result of SYG laws. The data set used by the paper is also suspect, since it did not include the significant number of states where Stand Your Ground exists in common law but not specifically in statute. 

There are only 11 states that impose a general duty to retreat before acting in self-defense. The vast majority of states don’t require you to present your back as a target to your attacker while you try to run away; instead, they allow you to act in self-defense so long as you have a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm. 

Stand Your Ground laws also aren’t really a new thing. Florida’s statute, for instance, has been in place for two decades. If the law automatically led to more unjustified shootings being deemed justifiable homicides by the courts, we would have expected to see that phenomenon occur long before 2020, but there’s no evidence that’s the case. 

We saw a huge spike in violent crime in 2020, along with a big spike in new gun owners. That’s the most likely reason for an increase in justifiable homicides since then; with more crimes being committed and more people carrying for self-defense, there are more occasions when legally armed citizens will use a firearm to defend themselves. That doesn’t mean, however, that people are getting away with murder just because they tell police that they were in fear for their lives. Every time a life is taken a police investigation is going to take place, and charges may very well be filed even when there’s evidence of self-defense. 

Even using the WSJ’s own flawed dataset, the percentage of homicides deemed justified in SYG states has climbed from about 2.8% in 2019 to 3.8% in 2024. We don’t know how many self-defense claims were raised in the 96.2% of homicides that were deemed murder, but we know the number isn’t “zero.” Stand Your Ground laws aren’t a “get-out-of-jail free” card for armed citizens, despite the slanted reporting from the WSJ and Gifffords’ wild suggestion that many or all of these justifiable homicides are actually murder.

Keep reading

CNN Panelist Jonah Goldberg Floats Gun Confiscation Fantasy: Democrats Could Deploy Military to Seize Guns from Law-Abiding Americans

Jonah Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and longtime Never-Trumper, suggested that the Democrats could send the military to confiscate firearms from law-abiding Americans.

Goldberg framed his comments during a panel discussion on violent crime in major Democrat-run cities, comparing it to Donald Trump’s efforts to use federal resources to restore order in places like Chicago.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order last month, titled the “Protecting Chicago Initiative,” aimed at preventing the potential deployment of the National Guard by President Donald Trump to address the city’s rampant crime issues.

Johnson, a far-left Democrat, claims the order is necessary to defend residents’ constitutional rights amid fears of what he calls an “unconstitutional and illegal military occupation.”

The executive order comes as the Trump administration considers using Naval Station Great Lakes, a Navy base near Chicago, as a staging ground for immigration enforcement operations involving more than 200 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents.

Trump has been vocal about addressing Chicago’s crime woes, recently stating after deploying the National Guard to Washington, D.C., that his team would “straighten out” Chicago next, calling it “a mess” under an “incompetent mayor.”

During a CNN interview, Goldberg argued that if Republicans set certain precedents (like Trump’s use of power), then Democrats could use the same logic on issues they care about, such as guns.

He claimed if a Democratic governor like Pritzker (IL) or Newsom (CA) says “We have a gun crisis in America”, then under that precedent, they could justify sending in the National Guard to confiscate guns.

Keep reading

Gov. Tim Walz: America Has ‘More Guns’ and ‘The Wrong Types of Guns’

During a presser outside Eagan, Minnesota’s Deerwood Elementary Tuesday, Gov. Tim Walz (D) confirmed he will call an emergency gun control session and criticized the number of guns and “type of guns” in circulation in America.

FOX 9 quoted Walz saying, “The thing that makes America unique in terms of shootings is we just have more guns and the wrong types of guns are on the streets.”

He went on to admit that he is going to need some Republicans to cross the aisle and vote with Democrats in order to secure his gun control package.

Walz added, “If Minnesota lets this moment slide and we determine it’s OK for little ones to not be safe in a school or church environment, then shame on us.”

He did not mention that the man who shot and killed two children and wounded many more in Wednesday’s attack was a transgender who changed his name from “Robert” to “Robin” at aged 17. Nor did he mention that the man identified as a female after the name change.

Keep reading

Gun control activist fabricates story of surviving Dallas high school shooting that ‘never happened’

A former Texas student has been accused of fabricating a mass shooting during a speech advocating for stricter gun control measures at the Kentucky State Capitol earlier this year. Calvin Polacheck delivered a harrowing account of surviving a 2017 active shooter situation at Dallas High School that killed his brother, best friend, and nine others; however, authorities said it never happened and shamed Polacheck for his false claims.

“A week later, I had to go back to that school, and that was the worst part because you had to walk past that spot where I saw my best friend and pretend it was all normal. It was not normal,” Polacheck said in February at the Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America rally. “Folks, that’s been eight years, and I’ve been talking about this every single day since then for eight years. Eight years of talking about this, and there’s been nothing that’s changed.”

Kentucky local news networks quoted Polacheck’s remarks in their articles regarding the rally. After the falsehoods surfaced on Wednesday, several of the outlets, such as WDKY and Kentucky Lantern, removed the story from their websites, Citizens Voice reported.

The Dallas school district issued a statement on Wednesday refuting Polacheck’s allegations, saying, “Thankfully, that never happened.”

“The discussion on the clip about Dallas and school violence is not factually accurate. Our district solicitor is supporting an investigation and communication regarding the circulating clip,” the statement continued.

Polacheck’s comments also garnered the attention of the Dallas Township police chief and the Luzerne County district attorney.

“The widespread sharing of a fabricated tragedy is not only reckless, it is harmful. It fuels unnecessary fear, disrespects the experiences of real victims of school violence, and misleads the public with a narrative that has no basis in truth,” said police chief Doug Higgins, who noted that there has never been a shooting at Dallas High School. “The false claims,” he continued, “are deeply troubling. They undermine the integrity of our school district, erode public trust, and cause real harm to a community that takes great pride in protecting its residents, especially its children.”

Keep reading

U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly Introduces New “Assault Weapons” Ban

Dubbed the “GOSAFE Act,” this unconstitutional bill would regulate the sale, transfer and manufacture of “gas-operated semi-automatic firearms by establishing a list and prevent modifications of so-called “prohibited firearms.”

Similar legislation has been introduced in state legislatures and has even been signed into law by Colorado Governor Jared Polis in recent weeks.

According to a press release from the bill sponsor U.S. Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) the GOSAFE Act would:

Regulate the sale, transfer, and manufacture of gas-operated semi-automatic firearms by:

  • Establishing a list of prohibited firearms;
  • Preventing modifications of permissible firearms;
  • Mandating that future gas-operated designs are approved before manufacture;
  • Preventing firearm self-assembly and manufacturing;
  • Prohibiting machinegun conversion devices;
  • Limit high-capacity ammunition devices;

This legislation is certainly more restrictive than what even California and New York have on the books regarding semi-automatic firearms.

Keep reading