Illinois AG wants yet more time to decide on how to restrict armed self-defense

Madigan's stall tactics are a transparent attempt to inflict the most restrictive, intrusive and unworkable defensive firearm carry law possible on the people of Illinois. At the same time, while she stalls, Illinoisans are being forced to choose between "law abiding" (and thus defenseless against predatory muggers, rapists and murderers), and prepared to defend themselves (and thus "gun criminals," as per a law already ruled to be unconstitutional, but still enforced in 99 of the state's 102 counties). The Supreme Court has no business helping her in that endeavor. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

8th grader who wore NRA shirt faces year in jail--for talking

It seems worth pointing out here that a police officer who can be thwarted from doing his job by a 14-year-old's talking would seem to be an officer from whom it would be wise not to expect much useful work.

More importantly, if one can face a year in jail for talking when an armed agent of the government has ordered one to be quiet, the First Amendment has effectively ceased to exist. There is no free speech when speaking against the government's wishes is a "crime," that can lead to a child spending a year in a cage. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Santa Monica college shooting may provoke push to regulate '80% receivers'

In the meantime, though, if one without extensive gunsmithing and metalworking skills wants to acquire truly effective firepower that has never been "on the grid" with regard to the government's knowledge of it, starting from an incomplete receiver might be the most sensible way to go about it.

The "gun control" zealots in government may try very hard to change that, but can they? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Government sues employers for background checks; wants to expand checks for guns

There is, admittedly, one argument one could make for banning excessive reliance on criminal background checks as a condition of employment (except, of course, for employment in a gun store), while simultaneously requiring such checks for gun purchases. One could argue, after all, that the fundamental human right to defend one's life and liberty against criminal assault and government tyranny is not quite as fundamental as the right to work at Dollar General.

It would be a decidedly odd position to take, but that's apparently not much of a deterrent for "gun control" zealots. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Maryland background check delays: Another danger of universal background checks

There were already plenty of reasons to oppose expanded background checks with everything we have, chief among them being that the entire concept of "prohibited persons" with regard to gun ownership--and thus the entire justification for any background check requirement--is fundamentally flawed. As National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea says, "anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian."

The likelihood of an expanded background check system shutting down NICS, and thus strangling all legal gun sales, is just one more reason to fight this proposed infringement on that which shall not be infringed. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

CSGV characterizes oath to obey Constitution as 'treason'

There is no denying that there are subversives in this debate. They're the ones trying to demonize those who have vowed not to obey an unconstitutional order. The only logical reason to object to the Oath Keepers is a desire that such orders be carried out. So who are the "traitors," again? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner humbly accepts CSGV's highest honor

As Patricia Stoneking, President of the Kansas State Rifle Association (and fellow resident of the "Insurrectionism Timeline") says, CSGV had might as well add an amendment to every entry on their "enemies list": "Charges of Patriotism Pending . . . . "

This is indeed a group that bestows honor in direct proportion to the extent that it tries to dispense opprobrium. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Perhaps 'modest invasion of privacy' should be met with a 'modest regime change'

When, as Thomas Jefferson said, “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry," why should we tolerate an administration that demands to know about every email sent and received by we the people, when that same administration illegally refuses to comply with a valid subpoena of its own communications, pursuant to a bona fide investigation into yet another atrocity perpetrated by the same administration?

And now, we are asked to tolerate a "modest encroachment on our privacy." Here's a question for you, Mr. President. How would you like the American people to engage in some "modest" application of our "regime change rifles"? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.