Tag Archives: guns

White House petition asks for military permission to carry concealed firearms on government installations

Mass shootings on military bases illustrate the problems with gun control, perhaps more effectively than any other tragedy.  Military personnel, highly trained in the safe and effective use of firearms, shouldn’t be disarmed and left helpless enough that they can’t even protect themselves on military bases.  After the second such incident since 2009, a White House petition is asking for such rules to be eliminated.

military petition - conceal - open carry

See Petition here.

The petition starts “Military service members must be allowed to carry concealed firearms on all Federal and State installations when they are in possession of a current valid concealed weapon permit issued by the state.”  Indeed, armed, trained military personnel would be able to carry concealed weapons at places like school and state capitol buildings as well, both of which are very vulnerable to attack.

It goes on to say that, “had concealed carry been permitted, service members could have potentially stopped the shooters at Fort Hood and the Washington Naval Yard.”  Concealed carry was forbidden at the locations of both the Fort Hood and Washington Naval Yard, though they were both military installations.  Had military members been able to carry their weapons, the shooter in both cases would only have been able to kill one or two people before being killed himself, if he had even attempted the shooting.

When James Holmes carried out the Aurora Theater shooting in 2012, he passed multiple, bigger theaters and went to the nearest location which forbade concealed weapons.  A couple days later, another person attempted a shooting at a movie theater in San Antonio and was stopped before he was able to fire a single round.

The person who stopped him was an off-duty policewoman.  Similarly, a couple days after Sandy Hook, a would-be mass shooter at a mall in Oregon was stopped by someone with a concealed weapon.  Stories like this are more common than those of mass shootings, though they don’t gain as much media attention because they simply don’t impact as many people’s lives.  The main counterargument to these statistics by gun control advocates is that more guns in society will allow more gun-related accidents.

That is not an issue in allowing well trained military professionals to carry concealed weapons.  There are many such people in society, and they could make a difference in combating mass shootings while avoiding the arguments used by the left.  There is simply no justification for leaving military service members helpless on their own bases, but the benefit of this petition could extend far beyond that simple truth.

Obama launched the “We the People” petition platform in September 2011, initially stating that he would respond to every petition with 25,000 or more signatures.  The first petition was for the White House beer recipe.  After the 2012 elections, the petitions became a popular outlet to draw attention and demand the president’s response to popular concerns and discontentment, and soon the number of signatures requires for a response increased to 100,000.  This petition, though, is just over 2,000 signatures so far  after only three days.

Exclusive: School Teaches Students it’s Constitutional for Cops to Confiscate Guns

Update By Ben Swann:  Parents Retract Story About School Teaching Cops Can Confiscate Guns At Traffic Stop

The parents of a South Carolina 8th grade student now say their daughter lied to them over a classroom discussion regarding the confiscation of guns.

On Wednesday September 18, concerned parents Braden and Andrea Gammon from South Carolina contacted Joshua Cook who writes for Benswann.com to express their concern regarding “Constitution Day” curriculum taught in their daughter’s history class.

The Gammons became concerned when their daughter showed them what she learned in school. Below is the quiz, including question #10 pertaining to the U.S. Constitution:

Specifically, question #10 caused controversy because it asked if police have the right to confiscate a legally owned, permitted firearm at a traffic stop.  On the worksheet, the Gammon’s daughter had marked “No” but that answer was scratched out and replaced with the word “Yes”.

I talked personally with Andrea Gammon by telephone Saturday and she tells me, “We sat down for two and half hours to talk about the whole issue.  My husband is an 8 year veteran and we both fully believe in the Constitution.  When we got to the question we said ‘what about this, what happened?’”

According to Gammon, her daughter explained that she had originally answered the question “No” but that “the teacher said for me to cross it out because it is constitutional.”

Gammon tells me that she contacted the school’s principal but was told he didn’t know what was on the worksheet.  That was when she contacted Joshua Cook.

The story written by Cook for Benswann.com went viral and garnered attention from across the nation.  But even as the story grew, the Gammons found what they had been told by their daughter was falling apart.

Superintendent Ron Garner contacted the family about the issue.  A meeting was set up between the Gammons and the school’s principal and the teacher in question.  After the meeting, Andrea Gammon says that she and her husband now believe their daughter did not tell the truth about what happened in class last week.

“We sat down with this man and I believe him.  My husband and I did look up the answer key online to make sure that the answer key was correct and it was.”

Further, Andrea says that her daughter has now changed her story, claiming it was another student who stated that an officer can confiscate the weapon and that the teacher actually disagreed.

“We reacted emotionally because this is something important to us and we never thought that she would lie to us about it and we shouldn’t have reacted, we should have backed it up first.  I feel terrible about what this man and his reputation have gone through.” says Gammon.



South Carolina parents were furious this week after seeing questions regarding the Constitution – in particular the Second Amendment – as taught in their daughter’s 8th grade history class.  The daughter’s teacher had given the class a pop quiz regarding the Constitution.  Question 10 asked, “Mr. Jones’ gun was confiscated at a police traffic stop, even though he had the proper permit and license of ownership of the gun. Is this Constitutional?”  The student originally answered “no,” but the teacher told daughter to change her answer to “yes.” See picture below.

Gun Confiscation

This is not a unique event.  Just this week, another report emerged in Texas of an Advanced Placement (AP) textbook presenting a modified version of the Second Amendment.  The textbook’s wording indicated that only police and military were allowed to have guns with the wording “The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.”


AP textbooks and exams are created by the College Board, an organization which has participated in the implementation of Common Core, the already-invasive and controversial set of education “standards” organized for the Federal Government and pushed on states with financial incentives and a lack of transparency.  People have already found disturbing lessons in the program, such as teaching children to argue on an emotional level to manipulate people into accepting social change.

This educational push for the modification of the Second Amendment comes at the time of an intense and multifaceted, nationwide battle over gun rights.  This battle, prompted by the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Connecticut, has been fought in both the legislative and cultural spheres.  Attorney General Eric Holder, however, was the first to indicate it should be brought into the educational sphere when he said people should be “brainwashed” about guns.

“I’ve also asked the school board to make a part of every day some kind of anti-violence, anti-gun message,” he said in a video released in March 2012.  He went on to say “It’s not enough to have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday.  We need to do this every day of the week and really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”


Bias in education has been in the spotlight multiple times since 2008.  It’s clear that there is a nationwide push to change the understanding of the Second Amendment in the next generation. Now parents are concerned that the school systems are being used to push a leftist agenda instead of educating students with the skills needed to excel in their careers.


Editor’s note: The pop quiz was given to Benswann.com as a tip. The parents and student live in Campobello, S.C. and wanted to remain anonymous.

Navy Shooter Taking “Mass Murder Suicide Pills”?

The story is a long way from coming into focus. The little we do know about Monday’s tragic mass shooting at a Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. is stirring a national debate.

First, here’s the back-story. It was September 16th, around 8:20 A.M. when 34 year-old Aaron Alexis opened fire inside a Navy facility. According to the FBI, he was a contract employee who had legitimate access to the Navy Yard and used a valid pass.

Alexis reportedly killed 12 people ranging in age from 46 to 73. Alexis was killed by police in a gun battle. He reportedly entered the facility with a shotgun purchased legally at a local gun shop.

This shooting is the worst at a U.S. military installation since the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Texas in which Major Nadal Hasan opened fire, killing 13 people and wounding 39 others. The shooting in the Ft. Hood case was religiously motivated.

Navy Shooting Gunman

Religion, however, does not seem to be a motivating factor in the Navy Yard shooting. As we are learning more about Alexis, reports indicate that he was a Buddhist and according to Bloomberg News, had been discharged from the Navy Reserves.

“Alexis was discharged from the Navy Reserves because of a ‘pattern of misconduct’ during his service years that included the 2010 Texas arrest, even though the charges were later dropped, according to a Navy official who asked not to be identified discussing personnel matters.”

Almost predictably, the national debate has turned to gun control once again. But are the media and the public missing something crucial here? Story after story being written about Aaron Alexis indicate there were mental issues.

According to the Associated Press: “(Alexis) had been suffering a host of serious mental issues, including paranoia and a sleep disorder. He also had been hearing voices in his head, the officials said.”

In addition, CBS in Washington D.C. is reporting that since August, Alexis had been treated by the Veterans Administration for his mental problems.

The question therefore must be asked… HOW was Aaron Alexis being treated for those problems? In January, when radio host Alex Jones had his blowup with CNN’s Piers Morgan after the Sandy Hook school shooting, Jones shouted about something called “mass murder suicide pills.” The next day, that term was one of the top trending terms on Google.

The reality is that the national media has their preconceived outcome of these kinds of tragic events.

On the left, politicians and media immediately turn to the narrative that stricter gun controls are the answer; that the tragedy is only possible because of the availability of so called “assault weapons”. Immediately after initial reports indicated that perhaps an AR-15 rifle was used, Sen. Dianne Feinstein released a statement saying “When will enough be enough?”

According to CNN, “The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect. It is believed that Alexis had rented an AR-15, but returned it before Monday morning’s shootings. Authorities are still investigating precisely how many weapons Alexis had access to and when.”

On the left their narrative didn’t fit.

On the right, the usual narrative is that these shootings are the work of radical religious beliefs. The early thought from the right was that Aaron Alexis, like Major Nadal Hasan, must be a radicalized Muslim. An early warning on Drudge Report linked back to a September 13 article that Al Qaeda had “warned of small scale attacks on the U.S.”

That narrative also fell apart when we learned that Aaron Alexis was a Buddhist and not a Muslim.

But what about that “mass murder suicide pills”? The one area media avoids and politicians won’t touch is whether or not there is a correlation between “mental health treatment” in the form of medication and the psychosis that leads to these kinds of shootings. Reports indicate that Alexis had claimed at times that he suffered from PTSD. Was he being treated for that? What kind of treatment did he receive from the V.A.? Was he being medicated? If so, what kind of drug was he taking? These are questions that have not only not been answered, they aren’t even being asked.

There is a growing body of evidence that many of the drugs Americans are regularly taking have powerful mental effects. Clearly, we don’t know if that was the case here and it would be irresponsible to claim mental health treatment through drugs was the cause of this shooting. It would be equally irresponsible not question that possibility.

2nd Amendment advocates “Open Carry” their AR-15s & AK-47s

The “open carry” movement is growing throughout the U.S.

Oklahoma recently passed their open carry  law, but states like Texas and South Carolina are still fighting for their citizen’s rights to constitutionally carry firearms openly in public places. Open Carry Texas is a grassroots organization that seeks to educate the public about open carry in order to get public support for the next legislative session.

open carry girlOpen Carry Texas spokeswoman Victoria Montgomery told Fox44 that “An armed society is a polite society.”

This T.X. group is attracting interest by educating the public regarding the 2nd Amendment and their membership is growing.

Montgomery says by wearing her rifle proudly, she’s helping to educate the community about guns, in hopes of erasing fears. So, she and other open carry members travel around town with their guns strapped to their backs.

Montgomery says open carry support has been tremendous, with many people connecting through Facebook and the web.

In the state of Texas, it’s legal to carry a rifle or a shotgun in public but not handguns. Open Carry Texas members hope by peacefully carrying rifles, they can convince lawmakers to allow open carry of pistols during the next legislative session.

“A right not exercised is a right that’s soon to be lost,” said Michael Montgomery.

Open Carry is controversial for the six states that don’t have open carry laws. Earlier this year a woman spoke to a subcommittee hearing in S.C. and voiced her concern that open carry would deter S.C. tourism, but the majority of South Carolinians support open carry. Lee Bright’s constitutional carry bill, S.115, passed the subcommittee but died in full committee. The bill be reintroduced next legislative session.

Recently the Mississippi Supreme Court unanimously upheld the state’s open carry-gun law. Earlier this year, legislators passed and Gov. Phil Bryant signed the bill that says adults don’t need a permit to carry a gun that’s not concealed.

open carry txLt. Brian Myers of the Ridgeland Police Department in Miss. said “I personally do not have any reservations about the (open carry) law. We handle the situation no differently whether or not they are openly carrying a weapon … for officers on the scene, knowing what the weapon is, where it is, and who is carrying it, is simply a bonus.”

Officer Myers states that “criminals do tend to target more vulnerable people.”

The simple truth is criminals won’t target their victims in a burger joint with patrons strapped with semi-automatics—it’s one of the safest places in T.X.


Obama Says He Will Use “Executive Action” On Gun Control

During a private meeting with some of America’s major mayors on Tuesday, President Obama said he would use executive action to promote his gun control agenda.

President Obama

As you may remember, Obama failed to pass gun control measures through the Senate last spring. Most notably, the president was pushing for background checks for gun purchases.

A White House press release said that during Tuesday’s meeting Obama “vowed to continue doing everything in his power to combat gun violence through executive action and to press Congress to pass common-sense reforms like expanding the background check system and cracking down on gun trafficking.”

Attorney General Eric Holder was also present at the meeting; he spoke about “strategies to reduce youth violence,” according to the press release.

It continued, “The president reiterated that government alone can never fill the void that causes a child to turn to violence, but that we all have a responsibility to do our part to create safe communities and save lives. The president applauded the mayors for their local efforts to combat violence, solicited their input about proven methods, and pledged his Administration’s partnership.”

According to the Washington Post, those present at the meeting included “Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, N.J., a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate; Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter; Washington, D.C., Mayor Vincent Gray; New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu; Mayor Jean Quan of Oakland, Calif.; Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Mayor Sly James of Kansas City, Mo.; Mayor Molly Ward of Hampton, Va., and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed.”

The Post pointed out, however, that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was not at the meeting. This comes as a surprise, since Emanuel represents a city that struggles with gun violence.

What are your thoughts on this? Would bypassing the Senate to push gun control be a proper use of executive order? And would it represent what the American people want?

More Gun Laws Do Not Mean Less Crime

Since the Sandy Hook shootings, we frequently hear that we need more and stricter gun legislation. Surely, stricter gun laws will help to lower gun violence in America. Right?



The incident in Connecticut was devastating, of course, but stricter gun laws are not the magic solution to preventing future tragedies. Emotion must be put aside to objectively assess the effectiveness of strict gun laws. The data overwhelmingly demonstrates that stricter gun control does not yield lower crime.

If gun control were effective, Chicago would be the safest city in the country. Prior to 2013, Illinois was the only state where carrying a concealed weapon was illegal. In December, federal judges struck down the ban, ruling it unconstitutional. But now Illinois lawmakers are working to pass other gun regulations, like an assault weapons ban. Despite a history of strict gun policies, Chicago is one of the nation’s most violent and deadly cities. In 2012, there were over 500 gun-related deaths in Chicago. That is up over 10 percent from the rate in 2005. Gun control is clearly not working in the Windy City.

Houston is similar to Chicago in socioeconomic factors like population, density, and racial segregation. Both cities are plagued with drugs and human trafficking. Chicago and Houston are America’s third and fourth most populous cities, respectively, each with between 2 and 3 million residents. Non-whites make up 50-60 percent of the population in both places, and the poverty levels in each city are almost identical at just under 30 percent. Yet in 2012, there were only 217 murders in Houston — less than half of Chicago’s death toll. A major difference between the two cities: Houston has very few gun laws. Criminals there know that many citizens are well armed for self-protection.

Gun control advocates have good intentions, But good intentions do not always yield positive results. Strict gun laws do not work because they take guns out of the hands of only law-abiding citizens. These civilians are then left with few ways to defend themselves against armed criminals, who do not follow laws. It is absurd to think that banning guns would stop a criminal from possessing them. If that argument worked, no one in America would posses or use illegal drugs. Banning something does not make it go away.

Despite the obvious evidence that goes against their appeals for gun laws, politicians frequently exploit the gun issue to enact more government regulations and control. Many politicians use emotional appeals to push aggressive laws. During his State of the Union address, President Obama used the massacre in Newtown to vehemently demand stricter gun control.

Obama proposed background checks, magazine limits, and banning assault weapons (which he inaccurately refers to as “weapons of war”). “Assault weapons” are defined by cosmetic features only, like folding stocks and barrel shrouds. Assault rifles, on the other hand, are produced for military purposes.

The propositions made by the President would not have prevented the Newtown shootings. Adam Lanza might not have passed a background check, but this is irrelevant since he stole the gun from his mother. A magazine limit would have likely been ineffective as well, since reload time takes a mere 3-5 seconds. Similarly, a ban on semiautomatic rifles would have been a moot point. Connecticut already had such a law, and it did not stop Lanza from gunning down over twenty innocent schoolchildren.

The president’s emotion-based rhetoric uses the Sandy Hook victims to try and convince people to support policies that would not have prevented this event in the first place.

If Obama and other gun control advocates were serious about “protecting our children,” they would discuss public swimming pool safety (drowning is the number one cause of death among young children). Gun related murders are far down on the list of causes of child mortality. Even the National Public Radio, hardly a fan of the National Rifle Association, acknowledges that school violence has decreased considerably in the last two decades. In fact, the violent crime rate in general has dropped significantly over the past 20 years, while firearms sales have risen.

Since the incident in Connecticut, gun control has been a hot topic and many states have moved to create stricter gun legislation.

Advocates of gun control need to start thinking with their heads, not just their hearts. Such horrific violence and its causes should be studied intelligently to discover effective solutions. Having an honest discussion about violence in our society is healthy. But enacting new, kneejerk laws after each tragedy is not the answer.

Colorado Citizens Seek to Nullify Unconstitutional Gun Control Laws


The nullification movement is sweeping across the nation and people are fighting for their Constitutional rights.  Nowhere is this truer than in Colorado.  After the controversial redistricting led to Democrats taking over both the State House and Senate in November 2012, an extreme liberal agenda was pushed at unprecedented speeds.


This included gun control, with laws such as universal background checks, which Ted Cruz has called a “pathway to a national gun registry.”  In addition, concealed carry training must now be done face-to-face rather than online, and anyone who has even been accused of domestic violence or is under a restraining order is now banned from using guns, whether guilty or not.

Unable to affect the outcome of traditional legislative battles, conservatives and liberty activists statewide started to look to alternative solutions.  While Weld County spearheaded a surprisingly popular initiative to split from Colorado, the first two recall elections in the state’s history were organized against Democrat Senators John Morse and Angela Giron.

Even on the small scale, citizens are taking actions to try to make a difference.  One of these is “Put it to the People,” founded by Tim LeVier and JT Davis.  This organization is circulating petitions to get a Constitutional Amendment on next fall’s ballot.  The amendment is intended to nullify one of the many gun control laws passed in the State Legislature in 2013.

House Bill 13-1224 limits the capacity of gun magazines to 15 rounds.  It also bans all magazines which are “readily convertible” to hold more than 15 rounds – such as any magazine with a detachable floor plate – meaning that nearly all magazines would be.  The bill also requires “continuous possession” of the magazines, meaning that selling, borrowing, giving or bequeathing such magazines is illegal.

A youtube video demonstrates how this law essentially includes most if not all magazines that are made in the U.S.

The same law prompted a lawsuit by most of the state’s sheriffs.  In response, Colorado-based magazine manufacturer Magpul also left the state, but not before it had organized a “Colorado Airlift,” in which it distributed thousands of high capacity magazines to Colorado residents in the months before the ban went into effect, meaning that those magazines would be grandfathered in.

LeVier and Davis’ proposed amendment reads “No law, except a law enacted by a vote of the people, shall restrict or limit the right of the people to purchase or possess ammunition storage and feeding devices of any capacity.”

The proposed initiative is a constitutional amendment because this would prevent the state legislature from simply re-passing the bill.  Both the U.S. Constitution and Colorado’s State Constitution contain stronger pro-gun rights language, though.

In addition to the Second Amendment, which reads that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” Colorado Constitution Article II Section 14 reads “that the right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herin contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.”

Approached as a short-term solution to the problem, Put it to the People makes sense.  It would repeal one of the multiple heinous gun control laws passed in 2013 – though perhaps not the worst – and make it somewhat more difficult for such laws to pass in the future.  Instead of simply repealing the ban, the amendment contains some safeguards for the future.  With the rapid influx of people changing Colorado’s political landscape, though, this is unlikely to remain a deterrent to further legislation.

States throughout the nation are passing legislation that nullifies federal laws like N.D.A.A, voter ID laws, and other laws that states deem unconstitutional.

Tom Woods  says that the word “nullification” was introduced by Thomas Jefferson who stated that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers.”

Americans throughout the nation are using this legal mechanism and the principles of nullification to fight back government overreach.

Thumbnail 1
One of the largest gun rights group, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO), is encouraging its members and citizens to wear T-shirts that read, “I WILL NOT COMPLY,” in protest to the magazine ban.


They state on their website, “Stand in opposition to the draconian magazine ban in Colorado by sporting our “I Will Not Comply” t-shirt … this shirt lets anti-gun politicians know that you won’t forget their vote on this bill.”


This attempt to nullify the magazine ban is purely a grassroots initiative. From pro-gun groups like RMGO and two working fathers Tim LeVier and JT Davis in a Denver suburb, the movement is picking up support from people who care about their Constitutional rights.

To get on the ballot, the initiative needs 100,000 signatures by December 9th.  About 15% of those needed have already been collected as of this publication. See their website here.

One thing is clear, the nullification movement is alive and well in America today. And the 2nd Amendment is not something Americans are willing to give up without a fight. Colorado is going to have a hard time enforcing this ban if the People of the state feel differently.



Retired Vet Threatened By Police After Legally Carrying His Gun

A 64-year-old retired US veteran was targeted and threatened by a police officer for legally carrying his handgun. The incident happened in a park in Bellingham, Washington.

The vet, John Laigaie, is a gun owner and Second Amendment supporter. On December 19, 2011 he was carrying his 9 mm handgun in the local park as he walked his dog. The gun was exposed, but this is legal in Washington.

Laigaie, an avid gun enthusiast, knows his rights.

That is why the vet fought back when an officer approached and challenged him.

The officer aggressively told Laigaie that it is illegal to carry a gun in public. The vet politely corrected him, but the policeman refused to listen.

As reported by KiroTV, “Laigaie knew that Washington is an ‘open carry’ state where it is allowed. He even offered the officer, Allen Bass, a copy of that law when Bass asked for his identification. When Laigaie refused to hand over his ID, he said the officer pulled out his own weapon and pointed it at him.”

The officer allegedly pointed the gun at Laigaie’s chest from a mere three feet away.

Although the vet saw his life flash before his eyes, he never thought to point his own gun at the officer.

Laigaie said, “A couple of times, he had it right in my chest and that was 6, 7 inches from muzzle to flesh. I wasn’t breaking the law, I was well within the law and he had no right to do that. I don’t like being bullied.”

Finally, two other officers came on the scene and told Bass that it is indeed legal to open carry in Washington.

After the incident, Laigaie filed a civil rights complaint.

Now Bellingham has agreed to pay Laigaie $15,000 for violating his rights.

As a result of this situation, all police officers in Bellingham will be thoroughly trained in gun rights specific to Washington.

One can’t help but wonder, however, why the officers were not receiving this training in the first place.

What are your thoughts on this situation? Was the officer being overzealous, or was this an isolated case of ignorance for the law? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

Apartment Complex Tells Residents: Get Rid Of Your Guns, Or Get Out!

Residents of an apartment building in Castle Rock, Colorado, were given a harsh choice: get rid of all your guns — or get out.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Castle Rock’s Oakwood apartment buildings have told their residents they will be kicked out unless all of their firearms are taken off the property. Residents have until October 1st to comply. The apartment building made a choice to ban all firearms, and sent a notice to its tenants shortly thereafter.

Art Dorsh is a longtime resident of the Oakwood apartments. He is a 77-year-old veteran, and a legal gun owner. He feels that his Second Amendment rights are being violated by the new rule.

“It upsets me very much,” he said.

He fears that if he does not get rid of the guns in his home, he will be kicked out onto the streets.

Dorsh is also an avid hunter.


As reported by The Blaze, “Dorsch, who’s living on a fixed income, said managers told him he has three options: get rid of his guns and stay, keep his guns and move out voluntarily, or keep his guns and be forced out. He said he keeps his guns secured in a safe and that having them makes him feel secure in his home.”

Currently, landlords in Colorado are typically allowed to use their own discretion to set “reasonable” rules, regulations, and boundaries.

But is a straight-up ban of all legal firearms really “reasonable?”

In a truly free market, landlords can make whatever rules they want for their property. That’s just the way it works.

But is this going too far? Where does it all end?

It seems like legal gun owners who happen to live in the Oakwood apartment buildings are being unfairly targeted in this situation.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments section below.

Man Arrested & Detained For LEGALLY Carrying A Firearm

Police in Rutland, Vermont arrested 26-year-old Joshua Severance for walking around town with a registered handgun clipped to his belt.

What Severance was doing was perfectly legal. But apparently, Rutland police forgot the law.

Severance, a veteran of the National Guard, was walking to his father’s house when police approached him. He said he feels his personal rights were violated and that he is disturbed by the incident.

As he should be.

Rutland Police

He said, “There was a cruiser sitting there parked, and it saw me. I had my firearm on my side, had my shirt off because I was hot, minding my own business just walking along, cops saw me. I can see pulling somebody over and asking them to look at the firearm or check the serial number to see if it comes back stolen but putting somebody in handcuffs and throwing them in a cruiser and treating them like a criminal from square one– I don’t agree with.”

After discovering that Severance’s possession of the gun was in fact legal, police continued to justify their actions. They played down the arrest by explaining their response was due to recent shootings in the neighborhood (unrelated to this incident).

Police Sgt. John Sly of Rutland said, “In this particular neighborhood it is not commonplace to have people walking down the street with firearms, either rifles, shotguns or handguns. It was suspicious; it was out of the ordinary.”

So what?

Severance did nothing to break the law. Just because something is uncommon doesn’t mean it is illegal.

Although Sly claimed it is “uncommon” to see someone walking with firearms, he also said these types of stops are “not out of the ordinary and are routinely conducted.”

The reasoning is laughable.

This incident in Vermont is just another example of an absurd police power-grab.

Do you think such police stops trample on the spirit of the Second Amendment? Or is it acceptable to stop someone carrying a gun out in the open?

Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

Arkansas Public Schoolteachers Armed With Handguns

The tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut last year sparked a heated, nation-wide debate surrounding gun control. Many on the left vehemently demand more gun control while many on the right demand less of it.

In the aftermath of the devastating shooting, some schools have decided to take action.

Clarksville High, a public school in Arkansas, concluded that the best way to keep its staff and students safe is to arm teachers with 9mm handguns.

9mm Gun

It is one of the only public schools to arm its teachers as a result of the Newtown massacre.

Although Clarksville has a relatively low crime rate, Superintendent David Hopkins got countless calls from concerned parents after the Sandy Hook incident. Most of them said they would feel safer if the students’ teachers were armed. Hopkins think teachers should be able to protect their students — even if it comes to using a gun.

Hopkins said, “We’re not tying our money up in a guard 24/7 that we won’t have to have unless something happens. We’ve got these people who are already hired and using them in other areas. Hopefully we’ll never have to use them as a security guard.”

Each armed teacher will be given a stipend to purchase their firearm. They will then receive training through the Nighthawk Custom Training Academy.

Not surprisingly, the school’s decision has been met with a great amount of opposition. Tom Kimbrell, the Arkansas Education Commissioner, said possessing a hand gun is too much responsibility for a teacher.


Teachers should be able to defend their students through any means necessary.

Simply pronouncing a school a “gun free zone” does not work. This only leaves teachers with few ways to defend students against armed criminals, who do not follow laws to begin with.

Do you think arming teachers is an effective way to keep our students safe? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.