It didn’t take long for the anti-self-defense crowd to capitalize on the horrific tragedy of the mentally ill transgender person who killed two children and wounded three adults and 14 more children at the elementary school in Minneapolis August 27^th (Gaston Gazette, 9/7/25).

They’re demanding the government “do something”—by which they mean ban semiautomatic rifles.  But why stop there?  Bolt action rifles can fire fairly quickly, and let’s not forget pump shotguns, revolvers and semi-automatic pistols!  

Well, a disarmed society is a society in prison!  We need MORE firearms in the hands of people so they can defend themselves (or as is the case in the Minneapolis shooting, defend the children for whom those adults had responsibility).  It’s axiomatic that when seconds count, police are only minutes away!

Thinking back to the racist Dylann Roof’s murder of nine people in an African American church in Charleston a decade ago, if any one of those parishioners had had a sweet little Ruger .380 semi-auto in her purse, the death toll could’ve been significantly decreased.

Check your premises, woke liberals!  You could be the next target of some madman!  If you are packing heat, will you have a better or worse chance of survival as you defend yourself and your loved ones?

David Hoesly

Member, Libertarian Party of Gaston County

Copy and paste the form letter below into your email, and fill in the brackets. Modify the text if you choose, but remember to be cordial and respectful. The five Republican NC House members who are currently either expected to not vote to override, or are not strong "yes" votes, are listed below, along with their email address. We will update this list if anything changes.

Dear Representative [Representative's Last Name],

I am writing as a concerned citizen from [Your District, County, City, and/or State] to urge you to vote in favor of overriding Governor Josh Stein's veto of the constitutional carry legislation. >

As a Republican lawmaker, your support for Second Amendment rights is crucial to protecting the freedoms of law-abiding North Carolinians. Constitutional carry would affirm our right to self-defense without unnecessary government barriers, aligning with conservative values of individual liberty and personal responsibility. Overriding this veto would send a strong message in defense of our constitutional protections.

Please stand with your constituents and vote yes to override the veto. I look forward to your leadership on this important issue.

Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]

by: Andy Stevens, LPNC

Let’s cut to the chase:

As of today, August 1^st, 2025, 29 states have some form of permitless carry, commonly called “Constitutional” Carry. North Carolina does not; and it now appears, once again, that the current legislature will fail to enact it.

“What”? you ask?  How can this be?

The North Carolina legislature is controlled by Republicans in both chambers. In the Senate, a veto-proof supermajority exists, and in the House, a veto-proof supermajority lacks but one vote. You might think the odds of enacting Constitutional Carry favored success, but you’d be wrong.

Let’s Get in the Trenches:

Earlier this week the legislature convened for two days of veto overrides. On Tuesday both the House and Senate met to consider their respective bills that Governor Stein had previously vetoed. There were a total of 7 House Bills and 7 Senate Bills. The Senate, with an absolute supermajority of thirty Republicans made quick work of dispatching the Governor’s vetoes, voting in unison on each one, including our bill of the day, SB50 (Permitless Carry).

Over in the House, every elected Democrat showed up to vote.  This meant that for any bill to be a successful override, ALL 71 Republicans and at least ONE Democrat had to vote in favor of the override.  Speaker Destin Hall was able to secure the necessary minimum of 72 or more votes on 5 of the 7 vetoed bills that originated in the House, leaving two bills in the veto “bull pen” for subsequent action.

Each chamber then sent their overridden bills to the other.  The Senate, again, made quick work and cast the necessary 30 votes for each of the 5 bills the House sent them, making a total of 12 successful Senate overrides for the day.

The House Republicans, without the necessary 72 votes to include at least one Democrat vote could muster only three additional overrides, bringing the total of successful (both chamber) overrides to eight for the day.

Not bad, right? And the best was yet to come as the second day of veto overrides would take place on Wednesday.

Well, this did not turn out as well as perhaps Speaker Destin Hall had planned. First, once again, ALL 48 House Democrats showed up, eager to participate in voting. This, of course, meant that no overrides in the House would be successful unless at least one Democrat would vote with the Republicans. Not a chance of that on these remaining 6 bills, including our SB50. Worse, 4 House Republicans were absent or non-voting on this second important voting day. Now, to be kind, perhaps they knew in advance all the Democrats would be present, and, knowing that, knew no bill requiring overrides could succeed. I’m not partial to being kind. Clearly, the Republicans did not have the discipline shown by the Democrats to see the job done.

There are only a few scheduled legislative days remaining in the current year as official the session ended July 31. The next scheduled session day will be August 26. The tentative plan is to have just one per month through the end of the year.  In other words, not many opportunities to get the job done.

Now For Some History:

Let’s go back to the 2023-2024 session where Constitutional Carry did not fare even as well as now. If you recall, the House ran a bill that was not as popular as this year’s version in SB50. The House bill did NOT include 18–21-year-old concealed carry and, worse in the eyes of many, contained an unpopular “training” requirement. The Senate did not run a version of Constitutional Carry at all, so everything depended upon the House bill meeting the crossover deadline in May 0f 2023. Well, lo and behold, the House J2 Committee and the House Rules Committee approved the bill on the afternoon of crossover itself and set it up for a floor vote when the House went into session. The session dragged on well into the evening and House Speaker Moore called dinnertime recess.  Sometime during that recess, a decision was made to pull the bill from its floor vote and as a result constitutional carry was DOA for the remainder of the 23-24 session.

Why was the bill pulled?  No one will say with certainty.  Some will say it was because Senate Leader Berger previously made a statement to the effect that, after successfully repealing the Pistol Purchase Permit regimen, no additional 2^nd Amendment legislation was necessary. Some will say, internal Senate research found “Constitutional Carry did not poll well”.  However, the REAL answer was there was significant opposition in both the Republican House and Senate Caucuses to taking a recorded vote on Constitutional Carry.

Who is this guy telling you all this?

A fair question to ask. Those of you who get this Libertarian Pary of North Carolina publication know I’ve written an article every now and then when asked by Rob Yates to do so. Today is one of those times. For years, I was part of the GRNC (Grass Roots North Carolina) Leadership team and Board of Directors. My working Titles were Director of Legislative Affairs and Vice-President, Operations. Some might say I was GRNC President Paul Valone’s right-hand man. So, I’ve been involved in the thick of the 2A activist movement here in NC for well over a decade. I’ve done rallies and protests and regularly attended legislative committee meetings on 2A matters throughout this time. Additionally, for several years I was also the GOA (Gunowners of America) North Carolina State Representative. In January 2024 I chose to voluntarily step down from both organizations and resigned (ask me why that happened – hint: the Governor’s race). However, I’ve remained active in monitoring what goes on in North Carolina regarding 2A matters.

Why can’t we pass Constitutional Carry?

Simple, straight answer:  We do not have the Republican votes in the NC House to pass it.

At the present time, there may be up to 5 individual House members who will not vote for SB50 in its current form.  There is one member, dead certain, who will not vote for it. In fact, he, Rep. Ted Davis, Jr, already VOTED AGAINST IT twice.  He was joined by Rep. William Brisson, who also VOTED AGAINST IT twice.

What are their objections?

There are three objections to this bill by legislators: 

Objection Number 1 was the inclusion of 18-21-year-olds:

Some elected Republicans believe 18-21-year-olds are not privileged to participate in constitutional rights.

Objection Number 2 was the deletion of a mandatory training component:

Some elected Republicans believe one must be thoroughly trained to THEIR satisfaction to exercise a constitutional right.

Objection Number 3 was best defined by Democrat Representative Laura Budd during the override debate:

You can watch and listen to her here.  And yes, sadly, some of those Republicans were secretly applauding her remarks.

https://x.com/i/status/1950189257269637418

What can we do now to change the course we’re on?

The good news is the 2026 elections are right around the corner. There is no better time than now to consider seeking political office as a constitution-centered Libertarian and drive these entitled Republican incumbents out of office. Filing for House and Senate District office will occur in December. Consider filing and challenging them. Let them know, enough is enough. I can tell you; some are already sweating the thoughts of Libertarian opposition on “their” ballot for “their” seat.

In the meantime, get active with your legislators. Call them, email them, visit their office in Raleigh, or catch them at an event locally. Let them know you demand they pass a constitutional carry bill. Yes, SB50 is not the “perfect” bill, but it is as good a bill as we can expect to get with the current crop of legislators. Once the statute is in place, it can always be incrementally improved.

Again, the next potential voting session will be August 26.  If there’s an interest, I’ll be happy to provide more specific names, numbers, and emails to pester legislators until they do the right thing

Finally, hope springs eternal. To the many emails I’ve personally sent to legislators on this matter, one recent reply I’ll leave unnamed for now was this:

That, Ladies and Gentlemen, will happen only if you pester them enough between now and then. The Primary is March 2026, and the Legislative Short Session will begin April 21, 2026.

Thanks for reading!

If you wish to critique or comment, my email is:

[email protected]

-Andy Stevens

by: Ryan Brown, LPNC Chair

NC House Republicans failed in 2021, they failed in 2023, and they’ve seemingly failed in 2025. 

North Carolina House Republicans’ Failure to Deliver Constitutional Carry

Despite holding a legislative majority and an effective supermajority the North Carolina House Republicans have repeatedly failed to pass constitutional carry legislation. Over multiple sessions, bills such as HB 197 (2021–2022), HB 189 (2023–2024), and SB 50 (2025–2026) have either stalled, been vetoed, or failed to overcome opposition, even when Republicans had the political leverage to enact them. The failure was not due to Democrats obstructing from a position of power, but rather because Republican leadership could not unite their own caucus or prioritize the bill when it mattered.

During the 2023–2024 term, the GOP controlled both chambers and had the numbers to override vetoes, which they did for several controversial bills. However, when it came to HB 189, the House failed to even bring the bill to a floor vote after it passed committee. The official excuse was timing and legislative overload, but the real reason was political caution. Republican leadership appeared unwilling to force the issue, despite overwhelming grassroots support for permitless carry. This pattern repeated in 2025, when SB 50 was vetoed by Governor Stein. Although the Senate overrode the veto, the House fell just short—not due to Democratic obstruction, but because two Republican members voted against the bill and leadership failed to whip the votes.

This failure to pass constitutional carry has real political consequences. As the Libertarian candidate for House District 32 in 2024, I ran a visible and principled campaign heavily focused on Constitutional Carry, which likely cost Republicans a competitive seat. I took heat from Republican activists and party operatives who claimed I was undermining “gun rights.” This was the term they were going to pass Constitutional Carry except I ruined it. Yet when SB 50 came up in 2025, it wasn’t a Libertarian who killed the bill. It was the two Republican House members. Even if Republicans had flipped my race, they still would not have had the votes to override Stein’s veto unless they could manage their own caucus. The failure wasn’t mine; it was theirs.

The inability of Republican leadership to secure two or more votes in their own caucus is telling. In a legislature that successfully pushed through veto overrides on a range of social and education policy along with another gun bill, it is striking that constitutional carry, which is supposedly a top GOP priority, was left hanging. This suggests that the support for gun rights within the caucus is either weaker than advertised, or that leadership lacked the will to spend political capital to see it through. Either way, the result is the same: despite repeated opportunities, constitutional carry failed not because of divided government, but because of internal Republican divisions and lack of coordination.

In conclusion, the Republican-controlled North Carolina House has had multiple chances to deliver constitutional carry and failed each time. These failures have occurred even during periods of GOP supermajority, and even while Republicans succeeded in overriding vetoes on other issues. The cause is not third-party candidates, nor Democratic obstruction—but the House Republicans’ inability to marshal their own votes and follow through on their stated priorities. If constitutional carry is a Republican value, then their repeated failure to pass it raises serious questions about whether they actually intend to see it enacted.

As the House Speaker, Destin Hall, said during the veto override day, July 29th, "If you want to come down here and debate, go run for public office." That is what I am encouraging you all to do now. Because the House won’t even hold a roll call vote on the override, we can’t know who really believes in Constitutional Carry.

There were 59 House members on the record supporting gun rights this term, as far as I’m concerned, the others are fair game.

https://ncleg.gov/Legislation/Votes/RollCallVoteTranscript/2025/H/426

by: Justin Hinckley, 2A Issues Coordinator

I was inspired to write this article in response to the constant bleating during, but even after, the election around Tim Walz, his supposed masculinity, and his “support” for gun rights. The Harris campaign attempted to prop up this lie with an embarrassing hunting trip in which Walz had to learn how to load a shotgun, apparently for the first time. Tim Walz is an excellent manifestation of the archetype of the fudd. Fudds such as Walz love variations of the phrase “I support the 2nd Amendment but…” Walz has said some version of this phrase many times, usually with some mention of him being good at shooting a shotgun. It's like he's going for some super fudd title or something.

The fudd is one of the most dangerous avatars in the gun rights debate. They always have been and this era is no different than when I first found myself entering the gun community 20ish years ago, with one notable exception. The fudd is no longer the standard-bearer for the pro-gun side. In fact, the modern fudd is currently relegated almost to a point of cultural irrelevance. A potent example of this is the hemorrhaging of members the NRA has seen since its peak of just over 5 million members around 2013. The NRA has long been known in the gun community as fudd central and in past eras was also the flagship gun rights organization. Yet under their leadership, we saw the creation and passage of major firearms restrictions such as the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act. To their credit, the NRA has spent considerable resources to temper such legislation and reduce the damage it causes. But this is a key component of fuddism as we will discuss below. They oversee only the shrinking of rights, and their victories are exclusively in slowing the wheel that grinds us to dust. They never break the wheel.

To understand why the fudd is dangerous, we must first attempt to define him. Since the fudd is more of an archetype than a specific behavior or issue, the definition I'll give should be considered a flexible one. There are two basic criteria for being a fudd. First, fudds are gun owners. Second, fudds do not have a strong belief in the natural right of self-preservation. From here, the other things we note about fudds flow naturally. Fudds are often ok with restricting gun rights, as long as they think it won’t affect them. The fudd often rejects magazines holding more than 10 or 15 rounds, suppressors, AR-15s, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, night vision, body armor, automatic guns, optics on handguns, lights on handguns, and all sorts of other things. Sometimes this results in supporting legislation against such things, but it always CAN lead to supporting bans on such items because fudds are often only supportive of guns from a self-centered perspective. If I have no use for this thing, why does anyone need it?

The primary issue with the fudd is not that they don't like guns, it's that their support for gun rights is based primarily on a hobbyist view and not based in a deeper philosophy about human rights. The fudd enjoying gun ownership as a neat hobby or means of providing food for their family is perfectly acceptable, but if your primary reason for owning a gun is cause it's neat or to avoid grocery stores, the restrictions on guns are actually perfectly acceptable. Alas, these reasons are distant considerations compared to the true purpose of gun ownership, or the bearing of arms. I am, of course, talking about the natural right of self preservation. This sacred right springs out of the idea that each person has inherent value as an agent of divinity itself. If we are created in the image of God, each of us is a sovereign being simply from our human nature. We are representatives of something higher, thus meaning our life has a value worth preserving. The firearm is an extension of the deeper philosophy of self-preservation, which is itself built on the idea of the human being with inherent value, rights, and responsibilities.

If your support for gun rights is built on the above ideas, then knee-jerk, poorly planned gun restrictions get no support from you. The reason for this is simple; gun restrictions are barriers to the most effective means of self-preservation and ought to be rejected outright as an attack on the individual sovereignty of each of us. Even though a restriction may not affect you, it ought to be rejected in recognition of its effect it will have on others who are endowed with all the same rights as you. Even in this role as a gun rights supporter borne naturally out of being a human rights supporter, the philosophical gun owner, there is room for interpretation and individual variance. The difference is the philosophical gun owner will have certain restrictions they will not entertain. There is such a thing as too far for them. For those restrictions which could have merit, there is a starting point of rejecting proposed restrictions until such time that overwhelming evidence is brought to bear in support of their restrictions. And no, multitudes of biased, weak data making vast claims of causal certainty based on tenuous correlation is not overwhelming evidence.

Fudds can be convinced of anything because they have no coherent moral reasoning around gun ownership. If you ask them about what they support, or ask them why they reject a new restriction, their justifications will be timid and shallow. As one makes the case for new restrictions, the fudd, considering the social factors of holding controversial views while also standing on no strong moral foundation, is likely to bend to the whims of the mob. This is the reason why fudds can be convinced to support anything, as long as enough people tell them they’re wrong. They won’t even have to present strong arguments to do so, just get a large group together.

Which brings us to the threat posed by fudds. At best, fudds can be relied upon to be suspicious of new gun regulations. This is where the NRA and its resistance to new laws benefits the pro-gun movement. These people will slow roll and water down new gun laws as much as possible. The problem is this is as far as they will go. The NRA oversaw a century of increasing encroachment on our liberties and their fudd base was all too happy to celebrate their various pyrrhic victories. Today, with the gun rights banner being carried by the likes of the Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America, and half a dozen smaller groups, we have actually increased gun rights. But even now, with huge strides being made in freedom, fudds continue to embrace concepts like universal background checks and red flag laws. Fudds like Walz continue to give anti-gun advocates someone to point to as the “good gun owner” who support “common sense” regulations. This obviously has no effect on philosophical gun owners, but it can convince the public at large. This is why we must neve let fudds carry the banner of gun rights ever again. We must also continue to convert fudds to be philosophical gun owners, we must teach them why self-preservation is an important concept and how guns fit into the overall morality of humanity.

The AR-15 IS a Weapon of War: Which is Why It is Perfect for You

by: Justin Hinckley, 2A Issues Coordinator

For some reason, the AR-15 finds itself a constant target of the anti-gun crowd. The AR-15 is now the single most popular model of privately owned firearm in the US, according to the National Sports Shooting Foundation (1). For those of us who want Americans to have the best tools available to defend themselves, their home, and their families, this is fantastic news. For those who want to ban the AR-15, this is awful news. After all, why do we want to have access to “weapons of war?” This may be a difficult question to answer if you are presented with it for the first time, as the framing of this question is meant to imply that if you support AR-15 ownership, you must be wanting to turn America’s streets into a war zone. Or maybe just to imply that mass AR-15 ownership will or, perhaps already has, turn those streets into a war zone. The AR-15 may be a weapon of war (irrelevant); it is also the best tool for your protection, particularly in your home.

Whether or not the AR-15 is a weapon of war is a largely pointless question with a mainly semantic answer. Anti-gunners largely answer the question with a resounding yes, pointing out that the military uses AR-15s everyday. Follow this answer up with a question seeking any additional depth and you will quickly find out that “weapon of war” is purely a propaganda term meant to demonize an inanimate object. That said, the term is factually correct, if we take it purely to mean a weapon currently used in warfare. Nevermind the refrain about how many handguns, bolt-action rifles, shotguns, or even knives are also weapons of war by that loose definition. AR-15 variations are used in war all around the globe and are the favored firearm of the most effective killing machine in the modern era: The US military.

The US military, despite being a corrupt back-scratching and palm-greasing cabal, does still factor in utility and effectiveness into decision-making. The AR-15 is used often in war because it combines many of the best features of other firearms into one package, while doing many of those things better than others. It is lightweight, accurate, fires an effective round out to intermediate distances, has a high ammo capacity, low recoil, good ergonomics, and great modularity. A new shooter can learn basic operations and hit targets out to 100 yards in about 1 day. A week of instruction can have the shooter performing intermediate skills and completing complex shooting drills in a matter of seconds.

Perhaps the most compelling question around the weapon of war discussion is; do these benefits confer any advantages to private citizens? After all, if we decide to define weapon of war as a weapon that is ONLY useful in war then it might just be a useful term. A Patriot missile could largely be considered a weapon only useful in a war. The same could be said for Javelin anti-tank missiles, anti-personnel mines, M1 Abrams tanks, and Apache attack helicopters. All of these weapons have relatively narrow uses outside of warfare, if they were to be used in their traditional military configuration and armament. In contrast, the military M-4s can generally be taken off the rack of the armory and handed to a US homeowner with no modifications and be a useful tool for home defense. In fact, the government of Ukraine was doing that with AR-15s and their Russian equivalent, the AK-47, at the beginning of the Russian invasion (2).

Let’s examine the specific features I listed above to determine how they offer advantages to US civilians. The feature I consider of utmost importance for the AR-15 as a defensive tool is the modularity of it. Not only can I decide between 30, 40, 60, or more rounds in my gun at one time, I can also easily change aiming optics, barrel lengths, grips, flashlights, and so many more. One of the difficulties in defining an AR-15 is also what makes it so popular; each one can be modified to suit the specific needs of each individual owner. Next we turn to the actual employment of the gun; ammunition capacity and ease of shooting. Ammunition capacity is great for the individual because most people don’t keep a stack of extra magazines with their defensive guns, meaning if you only have one magazine, you want as many rounds as possible. Ease of shooting breaks into recoil and ergonomics; the recoil is light enough that even non-gun people can tolerate it and gun people can put a full 30 round magazine on a single target in a matter of 3-5 seconds, depending on range. The ergonomics enable the shooter to operate the gun smoothly under pressure, such as operating the safety as part of your trigger pull (increasing safety overall), reloading the gun quickly due to the proximity of the bolt release to the hand as it inserts a new magazine, and finally the ability to do all basic gun operations without the firing hand ever leaving the gun, enabling quicker overall employment.

The propaganda term weapon of war is not generally used to stir up engaging discussion. That said, if one decides to really engage with someone using the term, you may be able to demonstrate to observers just how shallow a thought is usually attached to it. Sure, the AR-15 is a weapon used in war but it is not a tool whose only use is in war. The same things that make it useful to the infantryman on the battlefield also makes it useful to the private citizen wishing to defend himself against aggressors. So, the next time someone decides to ruin Thanksgiving with their weapon of war rhetoric, ask them to explain what makes the AR-15 a weapon of war, and why those features disqualify it from civilian use.

1. National Sports Shooting Foundation. “MSRs In Circulation.” https://www.nssf.org/articles/commonly-owned-nssf-announces-over-24-million-msrs-in-circulation/
2. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-invasion-kyiv-civilians-volunteer-get-guns-help-defend-city/

by: Justin Hinckley
LPNC 2A Issues Coordinator

There is a veneration for tradition in the gun community. Perhaps a result of the historically conservative bent to the community overall, this love of tradition often manifests as a kneejerk rejection of new technology and shifting training doctrine. Now, the gun community is not immune to its share of fads and trends that catch on quickly, burn hot and bright for their 15 minutes, then die out once said thing has been tested by those the community relies on to sanity check new stuff. Because of this, a healthy degree of skepticism is needed in browsing the latest endorsements from your favorite gunfluencers (trademark pending). But this goes both ways. "That’s how we've always done it" or "that's how I was taught 20 years ago" are no better than "it's new so it must be better." This article is not meant as an attack on tradition, per se, but is meant to overtly challenge the dogma and relics held within that tradition simply for their own sake. Let's burn our sacred cows and make shiny veal out of our golden calves.

I recently watched a video of one of these aforementioned gunfluencers discussing the trend of concealed carriers putting lights on their guns and condemning the action based on the fallacious refrain loved by the anti-gun crowd to defame concealed carry in general: when's the last time you needed it? Certainly, needing your gun is a statistical rarity, more-so if you need to activate your light while doing so. Glossing over the obvious and weak argument normally reserved for the gun haters, perhaps we can evaluate such ideas and the reactions to them with less outright dismissal. And what else is the statement "you’ll never need it" meant to do besides dismiss an argument? You can’t prove that statement false, there is no open curiosity implicit in it, and it does not offer the opportunity for clarification of the person being addressed. Why do you feel you need a light? Let us accept that perhaps our view of the world is not the only rational one. Indeed, step one may simply be to restrain our desire to ridicule until we ask enough probing questions to find out if our peer is full of crap and deserving of said ridicule.

While at the range recently I was listening as a vintage shooter told me about how red dot optics were a useless gimmick since you're not gonna have time to use your sights in a real fight anyway. What data, personal experience, or testing did this gentleman cite to back up his argument? "Trust me, sonny."

Curiously, this gentleman embraced certain technological development, showing me his 9mm Staccato 2011 he uses for home defense. I guess those were acceptable upgrades to the 1911, the fabled pistol first discussed in some translations of the book of Genesis. In all seriousness, it seems an axiom in some circles that useful technological developments on firearms ended sometime around the turn of the century... the 20th century that is. This is the school of thought that says things like "if it's good enough to win two world wars, it's good enough for me" as justification for why they carry variants of the capable, but rustic, Colt 1911. They tout shot placement and "stopping power" over gimmicks like polymer frames, striker-fire systems, double-stack magazines, defensive ammunition, lights, optics, or kydex holsters.

So, what to do to make us, as a community, advance with useful, safe technology and avoid the litany of gimmicks and unsafe practices out there? For starters, I would encourage all of us to start asking the question "why" to ourselves about everything we do. Why do I carry the gun, caliber, and ammunition that I do? Is there a good reason to change any of these? If so, why is that a good reason and is it a good enough reason to make the change? Why do I shoot the targets I do at the range? Why do I shoot at the distance I do? Why do I shoot the drills I do (or don’t)? Once we have answered a personally sufficient number of these questions for ourselves and our actions, it may be time to look at others. I think most of us can agree that approaching things with genuine curiosity and a desire to learn is better than approaching things close-mindedly and with pre-conceived judgment. Certainly, if someone were to ask me why I carry appendix instead of telling me I’ll shoot my crotch doing so, that person is more likely to have a pleasant if not engaging conversation, instead of me turning and ignoring him or her.

Several training groups I follow on social media have rules related to people challenging others on a topic. The rule is usually something like: if you want to criticize someone who posts videos of themselves training, you better have posted some of your own videos in the group for people to see from what authority you speak. AKA if you want to act like the expert, you better post yourself doing some expert stuff first. Armchair quarterbacks not welcome. There is a reason most people are much more polite and humble at your local shooting match than they are on the internet. It's the same reason all your gun friends talk big but get real quiet once it's time to put rounds downrange in public. It's easy to talk crap until you're the one in the spotlight.

by Justin Hinckley, LPNC 2A Issues Coordinator

Read this article, and then check out Justin's site, Port City Firearms. Support your fellow Libertarians and protect yourself at the same time!

"The Nazis loosened gun laws right before the Holocaust"

This is a refrain I've encountered from the anti-gun crowd a few times. Mostly uttered by the slightly more experienced, but no more informed, types it seems this phrase has mostly arisen as a debate tactic. The assumption being the pro-gun person debating with them is not familiar enough with Nazi gun laws to deny the “citation.” So far no one I have seen utter such nonsense is actually able to cite the law they're supposedly referencing. In this article we will go over the gun laws of the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich to arm you with the facts to debunk the above quote. Luckily, there is a succinct book written by Stephen Halbrook, Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and "Enemies of the State", which is where all dates and details are taken from for this article.

First, we should acknowledge that, like most misinformation, there is a grain of truth to the idea that the Nazis loosened gun laws before the Holocaust. This notion is so vague as to be useless but let's talk details. The gun law I assume most people refer to when they cite loosened gun laws would be the 1938 German Weapons Act. This law was designed to aid the suffering German firearms manufacturing industry and to loosen regulations for Nazi Party members and regime officials. One specific loosened regulation was that a license was no longer required to acquire shotguns or rifles. In these very narrow manners, Nazi gun laws could be said to be loosened.

Licenses to obtain a handgun still existed for non-party members, permits to carry a firearm were still required and could be denied by local police for any reason, and police still maintained a registration of every firearms transaction and owner. Perhaps most egregious in the new law was the prohibition of Jews from holding ownership stake in any companies dealing in the trade or manufacture of guns and the prohibition of Gypsies from being issued permits to carry.

In order to understand the hollowness of this “loosening,” we should look at the myriad activity from German authorities both before and after the passing of the 1938 law. For instance, in 1935, Werner Best, chief legal advisor of the Gestapo, issued a decree titled “Issuance of Weapons Permits to Jews,” which resulted in the countrywide denial of issuing new gun permits to Jews. The day after Kristallnacht, Nov 10, 1938, Heinrich Himmler, leader of the SS, declared possession of a firearm by a Jew to be a crime punishable by up to 20 years in a Concentration Camp. The following day, Interior Minister Heinrich Frick issued the “Regulation Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons” which prohibited acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms and ammunition by Jews.

With all of this groundwork laid, it was a small but catastrophic step to begin the disarming of the Jewish population in earnest. This began with a series of declarations by local police throughout Germany requiring Jews to surrender weapons in the weeks prior to Kristallnacht. Confiscations at people’s homes and at police stations began immediately after the declarations. This is perhaps the climax of the evidence which disproves the spirit of the “loosened access to firearms” which continued seizures and arrests into, during, and after Kristallnacht, sometimes considered the start of the Holocaust. By the end of 1938, the German Jewish population was essentially entirely disarmed after years of piecemeal confiscations ending in the pogroms which seized en masse the remaining Jewish arms.

Some may attempt to distract from the reality of registration, confiscation, disarmament, detention, and finally extermination by claiming the gun control laws did not cause the Holocaust or that the Jews never had enough arms to put up significant resistance to the Wehrmacht. Do not be distracted by such attempts, as the primary concern with the reference to Nazi gun control is to demonstrate that registration has led to confiscation, which has followed further atrocity. Diving down the rabbit hole of what-if surrounding ownership rates, effective resistance, or whether all gun registration leads to confiscation and atrocity is pointless and often frustrating since those realities do not exist and cannot be proven or disproven. What is vital to point out is that, irrespective of whether registration leads inexorably to atrocity, what we know for sure beyond any doubt is that this atrocity was preceded by registration and confiscation.

by Justin Hinckley, LPNC 2A Issues Coordinator

Read this article, and then check out Justin's site, Port City Firearms. Support your fellow Libertarians and protect yourself at the same time!

For much of the Twentieth Century, the U.S. was on a downward trajectory with respect to gun rights at both the national and state level. The National Firearms Act (1934), the Federal Firearms Act (1938), the Gun Control Act (1968), the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986), The Brady Act (1993), and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994) are the major 2A anti-freedom laws enacted during this time, but there are quite a few others. However, since the 1960s the scales have slowly tipped in favor of the 2nd Amendment and the rights of the people. Below is a short list of the major actions occurring over the last 40ish years. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but the major benchmarks by which we can measure where the country currently is with regards to gun rights. Please note, I have largely left the victories of 2023 off the list due to the current fluid nature of the many and conflicting rulings and laws throughout the US.

• (2023) SCOTUS, NYSRPA, Inc v Bruen – Affirmed the duty of governments passing restrictions on guns and the exercise thereof to justify their new restrictions by demonstrating a contextual “historic tradition of firearm regulation” relating to the proposed restriction. It also reinforces the idea of a right to carry a firearm outside one’s home.
• (2023) NC LAW, The North Carolina General Assembly overrides a veto from Governor Cooper to repeal the Pistol Purchase Permit and to legalize the carrying of firearms into churches attached to schools during worship service outside of school hours.
• (2014-2021) STATE LAW Maine (2015), Kansas (2015), Idaho (2016), Missouri (2016), Mississippi (2016), West Virigina (2016), North Dakota (2017), New Hampshire (2017), Oklahoma (2019), South Dakota (2019), Kentucky (2019), Iowa (2020), Montana (2020), Tennessee (2020), Texas (2020), Utah (2020) all passed Constitutional Carry laws.
• (2013) NC LAW, North Carolina passes major overhaul of their state gun laws, largely expanding the locations permit holders can carry including places that charge admission, parades, funerals, and places that serve alcohol. Pistol Purchase Permit repeal is defeated during this session.
• (2013) FEDERAL COURT, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down Illinois’ ban on carrying of firearms in public. Illinois passed a shall-issue carry law following this decision.
• (2011) STATE LAW, Wyoming passes Constitutional Carry for residents. Wisconsin finally enshrines licensed carry into law.
• (2010) SCOTUS, Mcdonald v City of Chicago – Extends the protections of the 2nd Amendment to state and local law.
• (2010) STATE LAW, Arizona passes Constitutional Carry.
• (2009) FEDERAL LAW, Obama signs “Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010” in which Republicans inserted a provision requiring Amtrack to allow firearms to be transported in checked baggage.
• (2009) FEDERAL LAW, Obama signs “Credit CARD Act of 2009”, in which Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK inserted a provision legalizing the carrying of firearms in national parks congruent with the state laws in which the park is located.
• (2008) SCOTUS, DC v Heller – Affirmed the individual right to own firearms, specifically for the purpose of self-defense. This was also the first pro-2a decision at the SCOTUS in 122 years and the first ever SCOTUS decision that was focused on the individual.
• (2003) STATE LAW, Alaska becomes the first state to go from a shall-issue permitting system, to a Constitutional Carry system (retaining an optional license for reciprocity and background check exemption). The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expires, legalizing AR-15s and many other previously banned rifles and shotguns.
• (1987-1996) STATE LAW, Florida (1987), Oregon (1989), Pennsylvania (1989), West Virginia (1989), Idaho (1990), Mississippi (1990), Montana (1991), Alaska (1994), Arizona (1994), Tennessee (1994), Wyoming (1994), Arkansas (1995), North Carolina (1995), Oklahoma (1995), Texas (1995), Nevada (1995), Utah (1995), Virginia (1995), Kentucky (1996), Louisiana (1996), and South Carolina (1996) all passed bills legalizing the open and/or concealed carrying of firearms in public.
• (1986) FEDERAL LAW, Reagan signs Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, limiting ATF powers, preventing the federal government from creating a central database of firearms transfers, and loosening restrictions on FFLs. This law is also listed as a negative above because it effectively banned automatic firearms.

Things are looking up for gun rights in the U.S.! We should celebrate these myriad victories and bring them up anytime pro-gun people try to say we are losing. We are winning, almost entirely because the culture accepts the fundamental truth that firearms are necessary for personal safety and protection. The fight continues to expand freedom and the place where we need to push the hardest is at the federal level, specifically the Executive and Legislative branches, who have done the least to expand and the most to restrict gun rights in the recent decades. Continue pushing, force politicians to take uncompromisingly pro-gun positions and actions.

by Justin Hinckley, LPNC 2A Issues Coordinator

Check this article out on Justin's site, and then put the guidance to use and make a purchase from his store, Port City Firearms. Some basic rules for a first-time firearms purchase:

Rule 1: Buy a Gun You Will Shoot

First and foremost, Rule 1 is dedicated to the idea that if you are buying your first gun, you will need to spend a lot of time training, shooting, and practicing with it. Your focus should be on that singular aspect and there are a variety of reasons why. The biggest reason to buy a gun you will actually shoot is the learning curve from "no experience shooting" to "competent enough to defend my life with this gun" is a steep one which takes thousands of trigger pulls and many range sessions. Buying the wrong gun can all but ensure you never train enough to be confident in a life-or-death scenario. Conversely, buying the right gun can send you down a path of consistent practice, eager planning and preparation for live-fire range days, and constant pursuit of better training and skills.

So what does "buy a gun you will shoot" even mean, practically? We’ll break this down in several factors. In fact, there is really only one rule, buy a gun you will shoot. The rest are in service of this concept. As we go down this list, you may imagine a list of suitable guns in your mind getting shorter and shorter. This is intentional, since many guns are unsuitable for new shooters, and should help you make a decision by narrowing the options. These metrics are used for application to most people most of the time. There are always exceptions and if you walk into a gun store with the intent of following a rule but find yourself unable to find a gun that fits you and meets all the requirements here, adjust as necessary. 

Rule 2: Make it a Handgun

There are so many reasons to purchase a handgun over a rifle or shotgun. What it all comes down to is practical use. Handguns are simpler, easier, and faster. The logistics of shooting handguns are better. Handguns can be taken to the range in one briefcase-sized bag.  Additionally, the sights on handguns are generally fixed and pre-zeroed. No need for you to spend the time, ammunition, and frustration of trying to mount and zero sights correctly when you are brand new to all this stuff. Some may laugh this off, but the first time you spend an hour of your 90-minute range trip zeroing you will realize the truth here.

Lastly, handguns provide the joy of near-instant feedback due to the ranges at which most people train with them. You can see the target immediately after you shoot it. This cannot be overstated as a value for keeping new shooters interested and engaged while training. You also do not need to wait for the line to go cold, then walk 25, 50, or 100 yards downrange to assess your shots, repair targets, or post new targets. Awaiting "line cold" periods can easily turn what should be a 30-60 minute range trip into over two hours of waiting, boredom, and wasted ammunition.

Rule 3: Stick to Calibers of .22lr, .380acp, or 9mm

Calibers .22lr, .380acp/auto, and 9mm luger (9mm NATO, 9x19) are cheap, easy to find, and available in many options. They also happen to have very manageable recoil compared to other common handgun calibers, such as .45acp and .40S&W. These three calibers are also common enough in different handgun platforms that you can still shop numerous options to find something you like. It is important to note that .22 is fairly different from .380 and 9mm, categorically. While .380 and 9mm are true self-defense calibers with respectable terminal performance (and the moderate recoil to go with it), .22 is on this list because of how great it is for new shooters to learn on. Particularly of interest is the ability of .22 to be given to timid or fearful shooters and those same shooters being able to still learn and train, without the training scars imposed by larger recoil, muzzle flash, and noise. That said, .22 is not only for the less enthusiastic shooters, it happens to be cheaper and the guns lighter than .380 and 9mm, which makes for a good intro into the realm of training. A .22 can be shot all day and the shooter's hands and wallet will both be in good shape at the end of shooting.

Rule 4: Keep the Weight at Least 15 Ounces

This is a combination rule that considers recoil and size. Broadly speaking, a heavier gun means less recoil (unless all that weight is in the slide). When browsing, you will also notice most guns below 15 ounces are a subcompact or pocket pistol, which tend to be difficult guns to shoot, especially for new shooters. The smaller size usually indicates greater recoil and more difficult ergonomics than their larger and heavier counterparts. With a smaller size also comes less area on the gun to form a proper and stable grip. Being unable to form a proper grip easily provides an unwanted barrier to training as it makes it more difficult to train the fundamentals of shooting. This rule does not apply to .22s as the smaller round means barrels, slides, and recoil springs can all be much smaller, making them incredibly light, on average.

Rule 5: Start With a Barrel at Least 3 Inches Long

Your actual minimum should be 3.5 inches, but I put three inches because there are some good guns less than 3.5 inches in barrel length. This rule is another recoil consideration, but also factors practical accuracy. First, a longer barrel allows the powder from the cartridge to burn longer before exiting the barrel, creating less of an "explosion" at the muzzle, which is what actually causes recoil. When discussing practical accuracy, I am talking about what's called sight radius. This is the distance between the front sight and rear sight. This is not a function of the gun being objectively more accurate (although longer barrels do tend to do that as well), but of the ability for the shooter to be more accurate in his/her aim. The greater the sight radius, the more accurate you become. The longer sight radius provides some forgiveness for imperfect sight alignment.

Rule 6: Go Big on Your Grip Size

For your first gun, it is essential you find a gun big enough to be able to form a proper two-handed firing grip. While this is possible with most guns, focus on the guns that make it easy. When new to shooting, you do not want to spend your focus on how to achieve a good grip in spite of the size. Instead, just start with a gun large enough to have a grip which suits your hands. For some people, this means you can buy a pretty small gun and still be able to build that grip properly, easily, and quickly. For others, it means anything smaller than a full-sized handgun may feel small. Find what works for you and do not settle for cramped hands and floating fingers for your first gun.