“We can either live in a paranoid politically correct world frantically trying not to offend the Hitlers and Mohammeds, and blaming their victims when they kill, or we can be free men and women who have chosen to take the power to defend our rights into our own hands.

While a thousand organizations use the Holocaust as a platform for speeches about tolerance, Children Of Jewish Holocaust Survivors [Jews Can Shoot] is conducting firearms training… Freedom is not defended with empty idealism easily perverted into appeasement of evil, but with the force of arms.”

Daniel Greenfield / Sultan Knish blog

All too many of the other great tragedies of history - Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few - were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece... If a few hundred Jewish fighter in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Silveira v. Lockyer, 2003

Habah l'hargecha hashkem l'hargo -- "If someone is coming to kill you, rise against him and kill him first."

Commentary/Second Amendment

Decision Released on Federal Judge’s Rejection of Proposed California Restrictions

by Jews Can Shoot on July 13, 2017

I, for one, enjoy reading through the formal legal decisions penned by judges. While it has the term “decision” the documents are actually the logical and legal rationale for the court’s decision – the basis of which various appeals will be based on. So when the decision was released from the recent preliminary injunction keeping the latest California restrictions from going into effect, I was naturally curious to understand the rationale for the decision.

For those wanting to read for themselves, you can find the full decision here.

For those wanting the cliff notes, the judge found that the potential for harm and damage to the plaintiffs due to the proposed regulations were likely unconstitutional based on the framework provided by “Simple Test” the Heller Supreme Court decision. Further, the judge took the time to go through the “intermediate scrutiny” used by the various Federal Appeals Courts and found that the State of California was unable to provide the burden of proof showing how the restrictions would protect the public, despite passing the first test of the governmental interest of trying to protect the public.

by TheFirearmBlog.com

Paypal, Stripe and Square Sued by Firearms and Ammunition Store

Oregon Cracks Down on Gun Rights in the Name of Suicide Prevention

"All too many of the other great tragedies of history—Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. ... If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars." — Silveira v Lockyer, (9th Cir. 2003) (Kozinski, J. dissenting.)