Tag: gun grabbers

James Talarico: ‘Common Sense’ to Lock Up Guns in the Home, Criminalize Private Sales

During an appearance on the Unity Over Division podcast, U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico (D) suggested it was “common sense” to mandate how guns are stored in homes and to ban private sales.

Talarico said, “I am a believer in the Second Amendment. I don’t pick and choose between the Bill of Rights, I believe in the Second Amendment just as much as I believe in the first.”

He went on to state his conviction that you need to get a permit to exercise the First Amendment right to assemble, then outlined gun controls that he described as “common sense.”

Talarico said, “We’ve got to make sure that we’ve got safe storage laws and background checks so that we’re keeping everybody safe.”

On May 29, 2026, Breitbart News reported that on Talarico’s campaign website, under the heading Public Safety & Justice, it is clear that securing universal background checks is one of Talarico’s “priorities.” Such checks criminalize the private gun sales Americans have enjoyed since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, and while doing so, they do not prevent determined attackers from getting their hands on guns.

Case in point: California has had universal background checks since the 1990s but they led the nation in “active shooter incidents” from 2020-2024.

Talarico’s campaign website also makes clear that another gun control he plans to pursue is raising the minimum purchase age for AR-15s and other wildly popular semiautomatic rifles.

Keep reading

Government unable to say if criminals are participating in gun confiscation program

The federal government says it cannot provide basic information about who is participating in its firearm confiscation compensation scheme, including whether any participants have criminal records or how many are members of the military, RCMP, federal public service or Indigenous communities.

The admission came in response to an Order Paper Question submitted by Conservative MP Alex Ruff, who asked for a breakdown of participants in the federal government’s so-called Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program.

Ruff sought information on how many registered participants had criminal records, how many held restricted firearms licences, how many were first-time versus renewed licence holders, and how many participants were members of the Canadian Armed Forces, RCMP, veterans or federal public servants. He also asked how many participants were Indigenous and licensed under the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptations Regulations.

In its response, Public Safety Canada said the information is “not systematically tracked in a centralized database” and that producing a comprehensive answer would require a manual review that could not be completed within the time allotted for responding to parliamentary questions. Officials warned that attempting to do so could result in “incomplete and misleading information.”

The department used the same explanation when asked whether any participants in the compensation program had criminal records and when asked how many participants were members of the military, RCMP, veterans or federal public service.

The RCMP provided a similar response, stating that the information requested is split between Public Safety Canada’s compensation program and the Canadian Firearms Program’s licensing records. The force said producing a complete answer would require collecting data from Public Safety Canada and cross-referencing it with the Canadian Firearms Information System, a process it said could not be completed within the allotted time.

The RCMP also said it could not provide figures on how many participants were Indigenous firearm owners because the required information is not maintained in a single centralized database and would require extensive cross-referencing of records.

The response raises questions about the government’s ability to track who is participating in a program that is expected to cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Despite requiring participants to register firearms for compensation, federal officials say they are unable to readily determine whether participants have criminal records, belong to law enforcement agencies, serve in the military, are veterans, or qualify under Indigenous firearms licensing provisions.

The government’s response was tabled on May 29 by the Public Safety Minister’s office through Parliamentary Secretary Jacques Ramsay.

Keep reading

Lawsuits Challenging Spanberger’s Virginia ‘Assault Firearms’ Gun Grab Pour In

Multiple Second Amendment rights advocates are suing Virginia’s police superintendent after Gov. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., signed into law legislation banning many semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines.

The new law, effective July 1, “criminalizes the purchase, sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of a wide range of commonly owned semiautomatic handguns, shotguns, and rifles — including the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America,” said the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the plaintiffs suing Virginia. It also “prohibits the purchase, barter, transfer, and importation” of any magazine that holds more than 15 rounds, the organization noted.

Democrat state Sen. Saddam Azlan Salim, a politician from Bangladesh who is a driving force behind efforts to strip constitutional rights away from Americans, authored the bill.

The NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and two NRA members filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the law; the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed a lawsuit in a Virginia county court; multiple firearm retailers, gun ranges, and other organizations filed a lawsuit in state court, and U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon promised the Department of Justice would file one as well.

All lawsuits name Jeffrey S. Katz, superintendent of the Virginia State Police, as the defendant. The NRA lawsuit also names Goochland County Commonwealth Attorney John L. Lumpkins Jr. and Sheriff Steven Creasey, along with Prince William County Commonwealth Attorney Amy Ashworth and Sheriff Glendell Hill. Justin McDonald and Anthony Groeneveld, plaintiffs in the NRA suit, are residents of Goochland and Prince William, respectively, and are also members of the NRA, FPC, and SAF.

The NRA lawsuit appeals to U.S. Supreme Court precedent in both New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and District of Columbia v. Heller (as applied to the states through McDonald v. City of Chicago) to argue the gun and magazine bans are unconstitutional. “By prohibiting Plaintiffs from acquiring common semiautomatic firearms and ammunition magazines,” the suit argues, “Virginia has prevented them from ‘keeping and bearing Arms’ within the meaning of the Amendment’s text. As a result, ‘[t]o justify its regulation, the government … must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’”

Because ownership of the kinds of firearms and magazines banned by the new bill is widespread in Virginia, the new legislation necessarily cannot meet the standards set by historical practice, which, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, requires that the banned weapon be “both dangerous and unusual,” according to the lawsuit (emphasis original).

Keep reading

Top DOJ official predicts Supreme Court will declare AR-15 rifles legal everywhere in America

The Justice Department’s top civil rights lawyer believes the Trump administration’s lawsuit this week against the city of Denver’s gun ban will one day soon lead to a Supreme Court decision legalizing the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle – revered by gun owners and reviled by liberals – in every jurisdiction in America.

“We intend to make sure they do that,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in an interview set to be aired Wednesday night on the Just the News, No Noise television show.

Dhillon spoke just hours after her office filed a lawsuit against the city of Denver over its ban on “assault rifles,” arguing the ban violates residents’ Second Amendment rights. 

The ban covers AR-15-style rifles, which the complaint argues are owned by “tens of millions” of Americans, 

The complaint also describes the use of the term “assault rifle” in the Denver law’s language as a “rhetorically politically charged” term used by “anti-gun publicists.” 

In addition, the suit cites the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to possess weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes.

Keep reading

West Palm Police CONFISCATE ALL of James O’Keefe’s Firearms in Shocking Escalation

The war on the First Amendment has just turned into an all-out assault on the Second.

Legendary investigative journalist James O’Keefe announced on Thursday night that police stormed his O’Keefe Media Group office and seized EVERY SINGLE ONE of his firearms.

“The police just came to my office and confiscated all my firearms. Just happened,” O’Keefe posted on X.

This is the direct result of a Miami-Dade family court “domestic violence stalking” temporary restraining order pushed by none other than Matthew Tyrmand, a former Project Veritas board member.

Earlier this month, James was served with a restraining order while livestreaming from his West Palm Beach, Florida, headquarters on Tuesday.

“Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Department just served me with a domestic violence restraining order from Matthew Tyrmand. The former board member from Project Veritas who said he wants to murder me,” James O’Keefe said.

“Despite admitting multiple times on hidden camera wanting me dead, Matthew Tyrmand filed a restraining order against ME in Miami Dade County,” O’Keefe said.

“Saying such things as: “I would kill him [O’Keefe]. Because he is one of the most evil people I’ve ever known,” he said.

“He even shot up my book with rifle bullets through my heart on the cover. The audacity of evil has no bounds,” O’Keefe said.

It can be recalled that the Project Veritas board conducted a coup and removed founder James O’Keefe as its Chairman in February 2023.

This was after James turned Project Veritas into a multi-million-dollar company through one of the most successful undercover operations in history.

Since 2023, James has been fighting to gain control over his Project Veritas. In the meantime, James started a new business, O’Keefe Media Group, and it has quickly grown into another successful media venture.

Since 2023, James has been fighting to gain control over his Project Veritas. In the meantime, James started a new business, O’Keefe Media Group, and it has quickly grown into another successful media venture.

Then, in February, James O’Keefe honey-trapped Matthew Tyrmand at a restaurant.

Keep reading

Gun Control Activist Calling on Fellow Travelers to Say Quiet Part Out Loud

We all know it’s gun control, even if they use phrases like “gun safety” or “gun violence prevention.” We know because their solutions are always about restricting the right to keep and bear arms. Always.

Oh, they might offer some kind of education, but even that generally boils down to, “You’re too incompetent to be trusted with a gun, so you really shouldn’t get one, and if you do, the only way to be safe with it is to make it useless for self-defense, so here’s how.”

It’s stupid.

But Po Murray, co-founder and chairwoman of Newtown Action Alliance, thinks it’s time to take the euphemisms and toss them.

In the years that followed, I embraced the language many in our movement adopted. I spoke about “gun safety” and “gun violence prevention” because we were told these terms would resonate more broadly, reduce polarization, and help us reach people who might otherwise shut down when they heard “gun control”. That strategy had value. It opened doors and helped grow the movement, but it did not change the fundamental political reality we are up against, and it has not been enough to meet the scale of this crisis. I strongly believed in that approach, and for many years, I used that language intentionally. I even castigated my husband for using “gun control” during the first year of my advocacy journey.

But as I reflect on where we are today, I no longer believe this is a choice between one set of words or another. I believe we need all of them, and we need to use them more intentionally.

At the same time, we need to be clear about what this work is ultimately about. It is about freedom. Not abstract freedom, but the freedom to live our daily lives without fear. The freedom to send our children to school, to gather in our communities, to worship, to work, and to simply exist without the constant threat of gun violence. When that fear shapes how we move through the world, our freedoms are no longer fully ours.

Of course, me being disarmed would mean I have to live in fear, which never seems to factor into their equations. It seems their fears are the only ones that matter. Strange, isn’t it?

I’m also trying to figure out how gun rights are “abstract freedom,” but freedom from someone that you’re probably never going to experience anyway isn’t abstract.

Anyway, I get that Murray wants to be safe. She even talks a bit about the benefits of “gun safety” and “gun violence prevention,” then she gets to the money shot, the one where it’s clear what this is all about, and it’s about how she doesn’t want gun control activists to keep the quiet part quiet.

Keep reading

RI State Rep: Banning AR-15s Not Enough; We Should Use ‘Police Power’ to Ensure Owners Dispose of Them

On Wednesday, Rhode Island state Rep. Teresa Tanzi (D) spoke in support of efforts to repeal a legislative grandfather clause and use “police power” to force AR-15 owners to dispose of their rifles.

Breitbart News noted in March that Democrats in Rhode Island’s state legislature were trying to remove the grandfather clause that was contained in the “assault weapons” ban passed last year. The grandfather clause allowed those who owned newly prohibited firearms to retain possession of them. But now, the Democrats are pushing to remove the grandfathered aspect of the ban and implement a prison sentence for merely possessing an AR-15. The legislation through which they are attempting this is H8073.

Tanzi spoke in favor of H8703 on Wednesday, saying, “Last year, we as a body, banned the sale, manufacture, and transfer, of certain ‘assault weapons’ as defined in that law. That was an important step, but it was only a partial one. We should be honest about that.”

She continued:

Right now our law draws an arbitrary line. We have said that these firearms cannot enter the market place going forward, but we continue to allow them to remain in circulation indefinitely. … If these weapons are too dangerous to be sold in Rhode Island then we really should have addressed possession at the same time. We didn’t, and this bill [H8073] corrects that.”

Tanzi explained that H8073 will force current AR-15 owners “to come into compliance by selling or transferring them lawfully.”

Keep reading

Gun Control’s Endgame: No Guns For Anyone

Gun control advocates do not just oppose civilian gun ownership; they also argue that guns in the hands of police make people less safe.

In January, a Border Patrol agent in Portland shot and wounded two Venezuelan nationals who belonged to the violent Tren de Aragua gang after they allegedly tried to run agents over with their vehicle. In response, Kris Brown, president of Brady United, tweeted the following:

“We don’t know the details behind the shootings of 2 people by a Border Patrol agent in Portland. But I know one thing for certain: whether in the hands of federal officers or everyday Americans, guns do not make us safer. Yet Trump is reshaping our country based on this lie.”

What were the Border Patrol agents supposed to do when an illegal alien with a criminal record tries to run over an agent? How are unarmed agents supposed to apprehend and detain violent gang members?

Currently on its website, Brady United explains: “Why Police violence is gun violence … As we work to tackle the gun violence epidemic in America, we cannot ignore police violence or its devastating effects.”

The same claim is made repeatedly by other gun control groups.

“Police violence is gun violence and that’s why our movement must be responsive as well,” declares Shannon Watts, president for Moms Demand Action.

“Police violence is gun violence,” proclaims Gabby Giffords, with the Giffords Law Center.

These last two statements are from 2021 and 2020, so their opposition to police having guns isn’t a new focus.

Gun control groups sometimes openly acknowledge their goal of banning all guns. In a 2023 interview with Time magazine, for example, Gabby Giffords – who heads the Giffords Law Center – answered a question about her goal by saying: “No more guns.” When the interviewer asked whether she meant no more gun violence, Giffords clarified: “No, no, no. Lord, no. Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”

Time magazine itself treated the remark as significant enough to place Giffords’ line – “No more guns, Gone” – in the headline.

If firearms are bad per se, it should be easy to find places where either all guns or all handguns have been banned and murder/homicide rates have gone down. One would think out of randomness there should be at least one place where murder rates have gone down or at least stayed the same, but every single time, even for island nations, murder rates have gone up immediately after the ban.

A simple logic is at play here: Who is most likely to obey the law? While such statutes may take a few guns from criminals, they primarily disarm the most law-abiding citizens, making it easier for criminals to commit crimes.

Similar problems exist for police. Taking away the guns that both civilians and police have doesn’t mean that criminals will readily forfeit their weapons. Criminals have strong incentives to keep and obtain weapons. Drug gangs can’t go to the police and ask for help to get their drugs back when another gang steals their drugs. The gangs have set up their own little paramilitaries to protect their valuable stash.

Keep reading

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