mass shooting Archives - Rally for our Rights

Questions Everyone Should Be Asking About Red Flag Emergency Risk Protection ERPO Gun Laws : Rally for our Rights Colorado

Fast Tracked Gun Control Bills In Colorado Make FIVE For 2021 Legislative Session

Posted on May 3, 2021May 18, 2021 by Lesley Hollywood

Want the Tl;dr version of the three gun control bills Colorado just introduced? Scroll down to below the graph.

Colorado tends to fly fairly under the radar when it comes to national chatter about gun control. A very libertarian state where guns and weed are common topics of conversation, the last time a major push for gun control took place was in 2013 when expanded background checks and a ban on so-called high capacity magazines passed. That legislation triggered a recall effort that unseated three Democrat legislators and flipped the majority to Republican control in the 2014 general election.

Since that time the only major piece of gun control legislation that has ended up with the governor’s signature was the passage of a Red Flag Extreme Risk Protection Order law in 2019 after similar legislation failed the year prior. The 2020 legislative session was a total meltdown due to COVID and the blessing out of that was gun control was dropped from the agenda. Enter 2021 and the gun control extremists are more motivated than ever to pass more ineffective laws that will do nothing to reduce firearm crime and suicide. Note the chart below shows exactly how the laws Colorado has already passed have had the exact opposite effect than promised. The longer they continue to misdiagnose and mistreat this problem, the longer it will persist.

Already in the first 60 days of the 2021 legislative session, the governor has signed two pieces of gun control: SB21-078 Mandatory Reporting of Lost and Stolen Firearms, and HB21-1106 Mandatory Safe Storage of Firearms. Both of these bills are so poorly written it’s glaringly obvious no one who knows anything about guns even helped to write them as they are full of loopholes. And now, on the tail of the Boulder King Soopers shooting, virtue signaling Democrats have wasted no time exploiting the horrific murders of innocent people by pushing for new laws that they even admit would have done nothing to stop the shooter, but without a doubt make sure it’s harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the evil we continue to face.

Three Gun Control Bills Introduced

On April 29, 2021 a package of three gun control bills were introduced. These bills are being fast tracked, going from committee to debate in the House Chamber on the same day. Ideas so “good” they have to try to hide to proceedings from the public. Here’s the run down of each:

HB21-1298 Expand Firearm Transfer Background Check Requirements

The 2013 background check law already extended the current federal background check requirements to private sales and transfers as well as expanded prohibition to include mental health disqualifiers, dating partners who commit domestic violence, and more. To purchase a firearm in Colorado, the buyer must pass both a NICS background check and a CBI background check.

This new bill would expand upon that even more to include what they consider “Violent Misdemeanors”, with those convicted becoming a prohibited person for 5 years. Of course they always have to go big and include simple harassment (say you caught someone sleeping with your wife and you yelled at them – that’s harassment in Colorado) with more heinous crimes like sexual assault and child abuse. But here’s the kicker – of the list of new 11 qualifying misdemeanors, all but two are a Misdemeanor 3. Why does this matter? Because when form 4473 is completed to submit to a background check, question 21(c) is asked: “Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?” A yes answer on this question is an automatic disqualifier. And both Misdemeanors 1 and 2 carry a maximum penalty of 12 month or more in prison. Misdemeanor 3 carries a maximum of 6 months.

For all my researchers, here are the crimes they are adding, followed by their Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) number, and what level misdemeanor they fall into:

• Assault Third Degree: 18-3-204 – M1
• Menacing: 18-3-206 – M3
• Sexual Assault: 18-3-402 (1)(e) – M1
• Child Abuse: 18-6-401 – M1 7a(V); M2 7b(VI); M2 7b(I); M3 7b(II)
• Violation of Protection Order: 18-6-803.5 – M2 with no prior violations, M1 with prior violations
• Crime Against At Risk Person: 18-6.5-103 – M1
• Harassment: 18-9-111 (1)(a) – M3; M1 if pursuant to 18-9-121(5)(a)&(b)
• Bias Motivated Crime: 18-9-121 – M1
• Cruelty to Animals: 18-9-202 – M1
• Possession of an Illegal Weapon: 18-12-102 – M1
• Unlawfully providing a firearm, other than a handgun, to a juvenile: 18-12-108.7 (3) – M1

This is the only law they claim would have stopped the Boulder shooter, as he bought his firearm legally several days before committing his massacre AND two years prior had been convicted of Third Degree Assault, a M1 that carried up to 18 months in prison. But as I previously mentioned…wouldn’t he already be prohibited based on question 21(c) of his 4473? Why isn’t the Boulder County DA charging him with lying on that form? But it also points to another issue that is never addressed – these background checks systems are only as good as the data put into them.

HB21-1298 also closes what the gun control extremists like to call “The Charleston Loophole”. This so-called loophole allows a FFL to transfer the firearm to the new owner without a background check if the background check is formally delayed for more than 3 days. First, they love to call it the Charleston Loophole so they can exploit more tragedy and ignore the fact the police and FBI knew the Charleston Church Shooter had obtained a firearm when he was prohibited and they did absolutely nothing about it. 6 months later it was used to take lives of innocent people. But giving those same agencies more authority is supposed to fix the problem. And second, FFLs in Colorado don’t transfer guns to those who don’t pass background checks. Call around and ask. There is no shortage of customers who will pass background checks to buy that gun. Additionally, this bill extends the time agencies have to review a background check denial from 30 days to 60 days, and allows for indefinite denial without disposition in certain instances.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE HOUSE REPS AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL!

If you would like to go a step further and email every member of the Colorado House of Representatives (like the gun grabbers do), we’ve divided them up so you can easily send three emails by clicking the links below and connect with every House Rep across the state. Remember, this includes every State House Rep and some are on your side, but they still need to hear from you so they know how strong the opposition is to these bills!

OPPOSE HB21-1298: (even more) Expanded Firearm Background Checks

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #1
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #2
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #3

HB21-1299 Office Of Gun Violence Prevention

This bill creates a new entity within Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDHPE) called the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Yes, these are the same unelected bureaucrats who have handled COVID in Colorado for the past year. This new entity would have a director and at minimum two full time employees. The responsibilities of this office will be to “…increase the awareness of, and educate the general public about, state and federal laws and existing resources relating to gun-violence prevention.” That includes how to safely store guns, how to report a lost or stolen weapon, how to access mental health care and how to utilize Colorado’s Red Flag Law. This would be done via campaigns using television, radio, internet, direct mail, etc. The office will also be tasked with collecting “evidence based” gun violence data and providing grants to those wishing to promote gun safety in the community – but again, only those with “evidence based” solutions. The office will also track and publish what local firearm laws are in place across the state, as they assume SB21-256 will pass (read below about this atrocious bill). They are requesting $3 million dollars for fiscal year 2021-2022.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE HOUSE REPS AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL!

OPPOSE HB21-1299: Creates Office of Gun Violence

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #1
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #2
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #3

A few other states have similar offices of gun violence prevention. Three of the most prominent such efforts are New York City Office of Gun Violence Prevention, Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, and Illinois Gun Violence Prevention Coalition.

What have been the results?

New York City: Since the creation of the New York City Office of Gun Violence Prevention, the city has gone from being one of the safest urban centers in the country to a return of the Death Wish years. In 2020, shootings increased 97% percent and homicides 44%

Maryland: Baltimore remains one of the most dangerous cities in America. In 2020, compared to Denver which documented 60 gun homicides, Baltimore recorded 298. More people in Baltimore were murdered with guns than in the entire state of Colorado.

Illinois: In 2020, Chicago documented 719 gun homicides, an increase of 55% from 2019. Chicago is the murder capital of the US.

SB21-256 Local Regulation Of Firearms

This bill would essentially repeal and replace the Firearm Preemption Law that has been a cornerstone of gun rights here in Colorado since 2003. It’s what got Boulder’s assault weapon ban overturned – although even the sponsors of this bill have said their ban wouldn’t have stopped the Boulder shooter (and newsflash for them, bans don’t stop murderers). Currently localities and municipalities are barred from creating their own gun laws that are more strict (or less strict) than what is current state law. This is because it is unreasonable to expect firearm owners to know hundreds of different laws as they travel over imaginary county and city lines across Colorado, and anything otherwise would create a whole new class of innocent criminals.

SB21-256 repeals that and replaces it with language allowing localities and municipalities to create their own gun laws BUT only if they are more strict than current state law, “…local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law governing or prohibiting the sale, purchase, transfer or possession of a firearm, ammunition, or firearm component or accessory that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, transfer, or possess under state or federal law.”

It also gives counties, municipalities, special districts and colleges the ability for their governing bodies to prohibit conceal carry, “…a local government, including a special district, or the governing board of an institution of higher education many enact an ordinance, resolution, rule, or other regulation that prohibits a permittee from carrying a concealed handgun in a building or specific area within the local government’s or governing board’s jurisdiction.”

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE HOUSE REPS AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL!

If you would like to go a step further and email every member of the Colorado State Senate (like the gun grabbers do), we’ve provided a link below. By clicking the link below you can connect with every State Senator across the Colorado. Remember, this includes every State Senator and some are on your side, but they still need to hear from you so they know how strong the opposition is to these bills!

OPPOSE SB21-256: Local Regulation of Firearms

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL EVERY STATE SENATOR

Two other bills we were expecting to see seem to have received the ax this year. Those would be an Assault Weapons Ban and Mandatory Waiting Periods. You can follow all Colorado gun bills as they make their way through both the house and senate chambers on our Legislative Watch page.

HAVE YOU VISITED OUR STORE LATELY?

California: 21 Shot, 11 Fatally, and 1 School Bomb Attempt During Week of Widespread Violence

Posted on November 21, 2019November 21, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

The state with the most strict gun control in the nation, California, is giving Chicago a run for their money. In the past seven days, they have seen three horrific shootings taking 11 lives and injuring 21 as well as a school bombing attempt that was foiled by the groundskeeper.

On Thursday, Nov 14, 2019 a 16 year old boy used a .45 semi-automatic handgun to open fire at his Santa Clarita, CA high school. He murdered two students and wounded three others before taking his own life. The shooter’s father had died in 2016 and had a history of domestic violence in the home prior to his death. It has been reported that at one time law enforcement legally confiscated six firearms from the father based on their ability to track the serial numbers to him through California’s “this-is-not-a-registry” program. It is now being reported that the firearm used in the school shooting was a privately manufactured firearm that did not have a serial number. It is not known where he obtained it.

Another horrific incident took place in San Diego, CA on Saturday, Nov 16, 2019. During this massacre, a father used a handgun to kill his wife, three of their children, and then himself. Another child survived and was last reported to be in critical condition. In this tragic incident, the mother had filed for a restraining order just days before but it is unclear if it was ever served, although a restraining order is nothing more than a piece of paper.

Only one day later in Fresno, CA on Sunday, Nov 17, 2019 a family was gathered in a backyard watching a football game when two unknown suspects entered the yard through the back fence and opened fire in to the group. Four people were killed and six others wounded. It is reported that the family was part of the Hmong community, and possibly the attack was related to a violent Hmong gang. The perpetrators are still at large.

To finish off the violent week, on Wednesday, Nov 20, 2019 a homemade bomb was found and defused at a San Jose, CA high school. A groundskeeper found the device in the bushes right next to the school. The school was placed in lockdown, administrative offices were evacuated, and a bomb squad was called in. After some time the bomb was rendered safe and evacuations of the entire campus began. Bomb dogs were brought in and area was cleared. There are no suspects at this time.

Wow, what a terrible week for a state who continues to add more gun control laws on top of more gun control laws. A state that has had a “Red Flag” law in place since 2014 and just recently passed legislation making that particular law so extreme even the ACLU opposed it. In fact, California just added seven new anti-gun laws to their already extensive roster.

These atrocities are not supposed to happen in California. They have “the laws”, ya know!

As expected, national gun control advocates are already screaming for an assault weapons ban and expanded background checks because of the incidents I listed above. Never mind California requires background checks on everything right down to ammo. And each of these incidents used handguns, not so-called “assault weapons”, well, except for the homemade bomb.

Although honestly, I think this week of violence tells a much more important story, one that gun rights activists such as myself have been trying to help people understand. Until we get to the root of the violence, it will not stop.

And it’s even bigger than that. Lawmakers need to stop grouping together violent crimes under the umbrella of “gun violence” or “mass shootings”. It does a disservice to the victims. It derails meaningful conversation and real solution seeking.

Let’s look at school shootings for example. When will we start asking the hard questions about what is happening in schools that makes these children want to execute their classmates and teachers? Why have suicide rates among children, teens, and young adults skyrocketed? Why are our children choosing death? These are questions those seeking gun control don’t ask. They can’t, because it distracts from their heartless goal of disarming citizens. When I talk with gun grabbers or law makers pushing for more gun control, I often start with the premise that we all agree on the problem, and I mean that. The problem: school shootings are horrific and heartbreaking and we want to see them end. We just disagree on the solutions. The fact that we now have to worry about homemade bombs showing up at schools is a example of why it’s so critical we get to the root cause rather than simply making laws requiring the locking up of guns (which hasn’t stopped school shooters in the past) or making Red Flag laws that clearly have done nothing to prevent tragedy in California.

What about domestic violence? The motives behind domestic violence murder and murder-suicide are extremely different than school shootings, or public mass shootings, or gang or drug related shootings. Once again, grouping them in some ambiguous term called “gun violence” and assuming just another gun control law will help is downright dangerous. Domestic violence is incredibly tricky because the victims are often afraid to leave, and when they do, they are sometimes in extreme danger. This is why many victims have chosen firearm ownership and training when deciding to leave. But it also poses yet another potential dangerous aspect to poorly written Red Flag laws because domestic violence perpetrators can actually use these laws to disarm their victims.

As for gang related shootings, tackling this epidemic is troubling as these people thrive on crime. No law will stop them. And again the solution to gang violence is very different than the solution to school shootings or domestic violence.

So, let’s start talking about solutions. What do you think the solutions are? Leave them in the comments.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

Debunking CBS “60 Minutes” Segment On Colorado’s Red Flag ERPO Law

Posted on November 20, 2019November 20, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

It seems a day doesn’t go by that we’re not debunking more lies and half truths coming from the mainstream media. The latest is a 60 Minutes segment that aired Sunday. This segment titled “A look at Red Flag laws and the battle over one in Colorado” is chock full of inaccurate facts, omissions, and misinformation. We go over those below.

To watch the full segment, you will have to visit the CBS website and view it there. It is 14 minutes long and free to watch.

You can watch a quick preview of the segment here:

Our take:

1.) There have not been 366 mass shootings this year (learn more: www.rallyforourrights.com/we-are-being-lied-to-about-mass-shootings-again)

2.) California passed their Red Flag law in 2014, not 2016. Now this is a minor discrepancy, but something 60 Minutes absolutely should have gotten correct. If they are going to flub on such a simple fact, what else will they get wrong? Do they not know how to use Google?

3.) Connecticut had a Red Flag law in place when Sandy Hook happened. Theirs was enacted in 1999. Sandy Hook happened in 2012 and was NOT the catalyst to write the law as the segment implies.

4.) Law enforcement is not the only entity who can petition the courts. Spouses, ex-spouses, roommates, former roommates, any relative or step-relative, a Tinder date gone wrong, or someone you had an affair with are all also people who can petition the courts for a Red Flag ERPO. If you don’t fall in to the insanely broad range of people the law defines as “family members”, you can then simply go to a law enforcement officer and have them file the petition for you.

5.) The temporary orders are granted based on a preponderance of evidence – even when law enforcement files the petition. Preponderance quite literally means the more convincing evidence, yet the person being accused is not present at the hearing and doesn’t know it’s taking place, therefore cannot present any evidence at all. The accuser will ALWAYS present the more convincing evidence. How will any of these ever be denied?

5.) It’s despicable how Sheriff Tony Spurlock said “this is a tool to take away guns” then turns around and says “this isn’t about taking away guns, it’s about getting people the help they need” when there is absolutely NO mental health component to the Colorado law.

6.) Watching the Zackari Parrish footage has us wondering how that is any different than serving a Red Flag warrant? How would the outcome change? Also, if they just left him alone that night, what would have happened? Why did Spurlock send his deputies into what he knew could be a gun fight with soft body armor?

7.) Sheriff Steve Reams was thoughtful, reasonable and great in pointing out that we need to be helping people, not simply removing the tool that could do harm. We are thankful for him.

8.) They omit the fact that more than 50 of Colorado’s 64 sheriffs oppose the law as written, as does the Denver Police Union and the Aurora Police Union.

Learn all about Colorado’s Red Flag law here.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

Sandy Hook Promise Glamorizes School Shootings With New Back-To-School PSA

Posted on September 19, 2019September 19, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

In a back-to-school PSA so disturbing you’d think it was made by the school shooters themselves, Sandy Hook Promise shows how the anti-gun community capitalizes off of fear and does not care about unintended consequences. The TV ad was premiered Wednesday on the TODAY show.

The purported goal of the PSA video is to encourage people to learn the signs of would-be school shooters so they can help stop them before they start, a noble goal. But digging deeper into their website, it is clear they are simply another anti-gun nonprofit as they parrot similar claims that have been called out by even NPR when citing the number of school shootings that happen each year, and they are pushing for dangerous Red Flag ERPO laws like was recently passed here in Colorado. Nowhere is it mentioned that Connecticut already HAD a Red Flag law in place when Sandy Hook happened.

The perverse video, which begins with students showing off their newest back to school essentials, quickly turns dark when a school shooting begins and suddenly those back to school essentials are used to defend and save lives by soon-to-be victims. It ends by simply telling viewers to visit the Sandy Hook Promise website, but undoubtedly triggers a deep and unnecessary fear in parents, teachers, and especially students. I personally would never let my children watch it, and would be furious if they saw it elsewhere.

WATCH IT HERE

School shootings are unusual, horrifying and dramatic – which is exactly why they get so much media attention. According to FactCheck.org there have been 64 deaths from school shootings between the Sandy Hook tragedy in December 2012 and the end of 2018. This includes not just mass school shootings, but “students who died after being shot on school grounds, during school hours or after, being shot on college campuses—or at student housing—where they were enrolled for classes.”

Students are 370 times more likely to die in a car accident travelling to or from school than they are to die by firearm at school.

In addition to the unnecessary and distressing emotion this video aims to evoke, I must question if it would have the opposite effect on a could-be-school shooter who will undoubtedly be the first to watch it over and over and over, enjoying every moment, fantasizing about what “could be”. The video portrays exactly what drives certain students to commit such atrocious acts. They get off on the fear instilled in their fellow classmates and teachers. It depicts the emotion potential school shooters are wanting to elicit from their victims. So does glorifying it in a $100,000+ production video do more harm than good? What happened to “no notoriety”?

Evan Todd, a Columbine High School shooting survivor and spokesman for Bullets Both Ways, had this to say in response to the PSA video:

“Policies and security protocols that leave gaps in protection are not acceptable any longer. Ignorance nor apathy will protect our schools. There are ways to prevent and there are ways to defend. We should demand both.”

There are evidence based solutions that prevent and stop school shootings. There are policies that fuel potential shooters while leaving our kids and teachers defenseless. And then there is crap like this which serves to do nothing good. It breeds unreasonable paranoia, re-traumatizes victims, and acts as school shooter porn. It is completely irresponsible.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

We Are Being Lied To About Mass Shootings AGAIN – And Everyone Should Care

Posted on September 9, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

On the heels of three shocking mass shootings in the United States in the past month, we’re once again bombarded with stories from mainstream media with headlines like “There have been more mass shootings than days in 2019” or “The El Paso shooting is the 249th mass shooting of 2019”. The media loves to make evil people famous. These stories quickly go viral and concerned citizens start calling for more gun control, as if almost on cue. I can’t say I blame them. If I thought what happened in at the El Paso, Texas Walmart had happened every single day in this country over the past nine months, I’d be pretty freaked out too!

On September 1st, 2019 – the day after the heartbreaking Odessa, Texas shooting rampage – CBS News, Insider News, KUNC, and several other mainstream news outlets released articles claiming that there have been anywhere from 283 to 313 mass shootings in the United States during 2019. I decided to look into this and what was found surprised even me. The American people are being grossly lied to – and they should care.

Society Is Being Lied To About Mass Shootings - And Everyone Should Care

In order to determine how many mass shootings there are, we need to know the definition of a mass shooting. Finding that definition seems easy enough, right? Think again. There are actually many definitions of “mass shooting” and most seem to be arbitrarily made up to fit the narrative an organization or publication wishes to push.

Mother Jones defines mass shooting as: “Indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker, excluding the death of the attacker.”

The Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as: “Four or more shot or killed, not including the shooter. They also do not remove any subcategory of shooting – meaning they don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot – including crime, gang activity, and domestic/familial incidents.”

The “experts” at Reddit have decided to make up their own definition, therefore Reddit defines a mass shooting as: “Four plus people injured or killed by firearm, including the gunman.”

Finally we come to the Congressional Research Service’s definition: “The incident takes place in a public area involving four or more deaths—not including the gunman, the shooter selects victims indiscriminately, the violence in these incidents are not a means to an end.” It should be noted that CRS breaks up shootings involving four or more individuals as public, familial, and felony (robbery, gang activity, etc). This is because the motives behind each vary greatly.

To make matters even more confusing, the FBI has separate definitions for “mass murder” and “active shooter”.

There are several inconsistencies between each of these definitions. For such a severe issue that allegedly only occurs in the United States, why do we not have a universal definition for this type of event? And why is it the government can agree on the definition, but the gun grabbers won’t use it?

For the sake of this investigation, we used the definition put forth by the Congressional Research Service. The CRS’s website explains that it “works exclusively for the United States congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and members of both members of the house and senate, regardless of party affiliation.” The website further explains that the CRS is a “shared staff to congressional committees and members of congress. CRS experts assist at every stage of the legislative process.” To put it simply, congress uses the CRS’s research to develop policy and create laws.

THE LIE

Now that we’re “armed” with the facts we need, lets dissect the statistics being pushed by the media.

The stats used in the news sources cited above stating there have been 283 mass shootings thus far in 2019 are from the Gun Violence Archive. Okay, let’s look a little deeper into the GVA. The mission statement on their website states it is a “non-profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun related violence in the United States.” It should be noted this organization is tied to the Gun Violence Memorial, who includes perpetrators and even most recently the Odessa, Texas and Dayton, OH mass shooters, as gun violence victims because they were killed by firearm, even though justified.

We dug into Gun Violence Archive website’s “mass shooting” report for 2019. We filtered the list by lowest deaths to highest. Immediately 10 out of the 12 pages were disqualified, as there were between 0 and 3 deaths per incident. That means right away, 272 incidents out of 294 do not qualify as a mass shooting by definition. In fact, 148 of these incidents resulted in zero deaths.

That leaves only two pages to dig through. The most common theme with the remaining list of incidents is that they were primarily either family or domestic violence related, or drug/gang related. Using the definition used by the CRS, that removes all but nine shootings that actually count as a public mass shooting. Yes folks, there have only been NINE mass shootings this year in the United States – not 283.

Nine mass shootings compared to 283 is a substantial difference. The media easily plays off the ignorance of the public, taking advantage of the fact that there is not a universal definition of “mass shooting”, and blowing up an issue that desperately needs cured, but solutions are not found with half truths and intentionally misleading information.

Here are those nine:

Sebring, Florida – January 23
Palm Spring, California – February 3
Aurora, Illinois – February 15
Virginia Beach, Virginia – May 31
White Swan, Washington – June 8
Gilroy, California – July 28
El Paso, Texas – August 3
Dayton, Ohio – August 4
Odessa, Texas – August 31

(In an effort to not publish the shooters names, we are not including that information. But a quick search by date and location here will provide more details into these events.)

WHY THIS MATTERS

This clearly shows that the media has a blatant disregard for the truth. They either have an ulterior motive in what they report, or they are too lazy to verify what is being given to them. It’s likely a bit of both, but the former is rather frightening. They are manipulating the general populace by creating hysteria through a skewed mass shooter narrative. This in turn will influence public opinion, and ultimately public policy. Additionally, combining domestic violence and gang/drugs into public mass shootings is irresponsible. Each of these need addressed, but the motives are so different, which means the answers are too. Grouping it all into one term is as much an injustice to the victims and potential victims as grouping suicide into “gun violence.”

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

Gun Violence Website Honors Odessa, TX Shooter As “Gun Violence” Victim

Posted on September 1, 2019September 1, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

I’ve started making it a habit to check the “Gun Violence Memorial” website anytime I hear of a justified death by firearm. These gun grabbers waste no time adding evil perpetrators who were killed in self defense to their website. Gotta pump those numbers up, right? Today I checked for the murderer from Saturday’s Odessa, TX shooting spree and as expected, they’ve set up a page for him, even allowing people to light virtual candles in his honor.

I’ve written about this disturbing “Gun Violence Memorial” website before, most recently when they honored the Dayton, OH shooter as well. They claim to be about honoring victims of gun violence, keeping daily stats, and allowing people to light candles for lost loved ones. On the surface it sounds genuine, until you start digging deeper and realize they also “honor” perpetrators who are killed justifiably, whether by their victims or by law enforcement. If a gun is used, they’re honored.

This website gets their information from the “Gun Violence Archive” another website which on the surface sounds honest, but again, they also count perpetrators as gun violence victims to pump up their numbers, as well as create their own definitions of “mass shooting” to drive hysteria and instill fear. Did you hear the recent mass shooting number for 2019 as 283? Yeah, they got that from them. We’ve debunked the Gun Violence Archive’s mass shooting numbers before (and I’ll be doing it again soon). Click here to read more on that.

I wrote last year about the memorializing of a 60 year old man who was killed in self defense by a 23 year old woman while he was bashing her head into the guardrail during a Washington road rage incident. In that instance, eventually the push back to the “Gun Memorial” site was so massive they removed him. Good. They should remove Seth Ator too. In fact, they should remove anyone who was justifiably killed by firearm. Guns also save lives. They did for that young woman in Washington, and they did this past weekend in Odessa, TX.

Real, honest conversations need to be had about these tragedies, but when those wishing to disarm us use such dishonest tactics to sway public opinion, they can’t be taken seriously. And I must ask the question: does memorializing mass shooters lead to more mass shooters?

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more. Other designs available.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

Arming Teachers In Colorado: Everything You Need To Know

Posted on August 27, 2019August 28, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

Arming Teachers In Colorado: Everything You Need To Know - Rally for our Rights

Since the recent remarks made by the Douglas County, CO School District Superintendent, Dr. Thomas Tucker, vowing to remove any school, even a charter school, from his district if they wanted armed school staff to be part of a security plan, the amount of misinformation I’ve seen about “armed teachers” has been astonishing. The idea that people like myself, who support school and community autonomy over school security, wants to see every teacher in every school “packin’ heat, gun slingin’ like the old west” is downright ridiculous. Hell, some of the stuff I’ve heard you’d think we wanted to arm kids (we do not, trust me)! So let’s look at the facts…

Colorado is one of dozens of states that legally allows individuals to carry a concealed firearm on school grounds during school hours with specific conditions. The laws in each state vary to some degree.

Here is exactly what Colorado’s CRS 18-12-214 (3) (b) states: “A permittee who is employed or retained by contract by a school district or charter school as a school security officer may carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvement erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school while the permittee is on duty;”

So, what does that mean?

It means that school district boards or charter school boards can authorize individual school staff members to conceal carry a firearm on school grounds, even if that person does not work for a security company. When a decision is made to allow a school staff member to carry, the district will contract with the employee to add the “school security officer” designation to their primary job duties.

Do these staff members have to be insured? Are there training requirements?

In most cases when a staff member is designated on their contract to be a school security officer, a “rider” is added to their insurance. This insurance rider requires 24 hours of firearm training over the past year, four hours of classroom instruction on firearms safety and use of deadly force, 14 hours of live fire range training exercises, six hours of school active shooter training, and the shooting range test police officers need to pass, among some other things.

Where do they receive the training?

As more schools are looking into this option, almost all are working with FASTER Colorado. FASTER stands for Faculty/Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response. They are dedicated to training school staff with an all of the above approach. Their training goes far beyond what insurance requires, adding in a trauma class and a psychological portion. The trauma skills ensure they’re equipped to not only stop a shooting, but save lives as well. In some of the most tragic school shootings, it is apparent had someone in the school been equipped to stop the bleed, the fatality rate would have dropped – often times substantially. The psychological portion discusses how to interact with a school shooter and asks the question “Can you handle what you may one day have to do?” To graduate from the FASTER training, tactical skills must exceed that of law enforcement. You can watch a 90 minute FASTER presentation here.

Who knows which staff members are armed?

This is entirely up to the school district, but in most cases it is only a select few within the school and local law enforcement. It is critical armed staff works with local law enforcement to develop a strong communication plan should an active shooter situation occur.

Won’t kids get a hold of the guns?

Part of the training is deep concealment techniques. This means authorized staff does not simply carry a handgun holstered to their hip or in a conceal carry purse. It means they have learned and practiced using concealment techniques that are “on-body” 100% of the time, and invisible to even a trained eye.

Isn’t this expensive to the schools?

The insurance rider does increase cost, but it is only a fraction compared to the expense of hiring a SRO or private security. In addition, there are private grant programs available to schools who cannot afford it. The FASTER Colorado training is offered at low or no cost when needed.

Are any schools in Colorado already doing this?

Yes, over 30 school districts in Colorado have authorized personnel. Many of these districts are rural. For example, Hanover, a small community southeast of Colorado Springs has authorized staff because in the case of a school shooting, it would take at minimum 30 minutes for law enforcement to arrive. But more suburban schools are also adding this as part of their security plan. It is a decision that should be made by parents, teachers, and community members. It may not be for every school, but for many it’s a great fit and requested by parents.

Many teachers say they don’t want this responsibility. Will they be forced to carry a firearm if their district does this?

Absolutely not. This is 100% volunteer. No one is forced to do it, and no school is either. But it’s also important to remember some staff members DO want this responsibility, many of them individuals who already conceal carry on a daily basis outside their regular job and train on their own time as a hobby. We have seen again and again a teacher, or a coach, die while trying to protect their students with their body. That same individual could save not only their life, but the lives of others, if they are given a fighting chance.

Teachers need to focus on students, not security. Wouldn’t this affect student education?

First, “school staff” does not mean “teachers”. It means janitors, cafeteria workers, school counselors, coaches, and/or teachers, etc. Admin makes up a large contingent of staff. Many of them are volunteering to take on this role.

Second, there is nothing as distracting as a school shooting. It leaves life long trauma. Children don’t survive. Their safety should be a #1 priority.

Final thoughts…

I’m a single mother of three. One of my biggest fears is that my children will be in class when a depraved student chooses to create a Columbine copycat – but what I fear even more is that there will be no one there to protect them. There is no one-size-fits all security plan. It’s important that school boards and superintendents listen to what parents and the community want. As parents, we have every right to be critical of our schools and to ask they do a better job protecting our students. If you want your child’s school to consider allowing well trained and authorized armed staff, the best place to start is the school board. Email them. Call them. Attend their meetings. Find out where they stand. And if you need direction, contact us.

You can help Rally for our Rights continue to be at the forefront of defending gun rights while advocating for a safer society by making a contribution today. Your support is greatly appreciated. DONATE HERE.

Parkland One Year Later: The Government Has Blood On Their Hands

Posted on February 14, 2019February 14, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

Parkland One Year Later: The Government Has Blood On Their Hands Rally for our Rights Colorado
Today marks one year since the United States saw a school massacre that broke the hearts of a nation, ignited a fire in new activists, and if you’re paying attention – shattered your trust in government. That massacre being the Parkland, Florida school shooting where 19 year old Nikolas Cruz took the lives of 14 classmates and three teachers.

On February 14th, 2018 Nikolas Cruz took an Uber with a backpack equipped with an AR-15, grenades, and ammo to his old school. He walked past the school security monitor, Andrew Medina, who knew he wasn’t allowed on school grounds and found his presence “suspicious”, although did nothing. Cruz walked past the building where school resource officer, Scot Peterson, was talking with another student. Peterson was employed as a sheriff’s deputy with the Broward County Sheriff’s Department, but his charge was to protect the students at Parkland High School. It should also be noted that Peterson was the only armed person permitted to be on school grounds. Cruz walked through the unsecured school doors into his former high school from which he’d been expelled. In this gun free zone not one person attempted to stop him, nor was there any security measures in place. At 2:21 pm he opened fire. It was a rampage that would last at least 20 minutes before Cruz simply walked out of the school and into a nearby neighborhood, where he was eventually captured and confessed.

Heartbreaking. How can this kind of tragedy happen? It shouldn’t have. And it wouldn’t have if the government had done their job.

The Parkland High School Shooting spurred a gun control movement this country hasn’t seen in decades. March for our Lives formed under umbrella groups Moms Demand Action and Everytown For Gun Safety, all which are funded by Michael Bloomberg, have taken to the streets and the halls of congress. Frantic and misguided students, parents, teachers and individuals have exploited the Parkland tragedy calling for massive gun control across the nation – from city ordinances to federal laws. What they should be acknowledging instead is the complete and utter government failure that allowed Parkland to happen in the first place. More laws were not needed. The current laws simply needed to be enforced.

The government has blood on their hands, and as a mother I say that unapologetically.

• Nikolas Cruz was not a stranger to Broward County law enforcement. In fact, police had been called to his home at least 37 times over the course of only a few years. 37 TIMES! The reasons ranged from harming animals (shooting chickens with a pellet gun), assault on his mother, assault on his siblings, harming himself, threatening to harm himself, threatening to harm others, and more. Not once was he charged. Not once did the police take any action, even though action on almost all of these would have required his name to be entered into the NICS database preventing him from legally being able to purchase a firearm.

• In addition to the 37 reports law enforcement did follow up on (although ultimately ignored in the end), in February 2016 a tipster called Broward Sheriff’s Office to say Cruz ‘could be a school shooter in the making’ and had been making threats on Instagram, but deputies did not write up a report on that warning, instead they forwarded it to School Resource Officer Scot Peterson. That report came just weeks after a relative called urging Broward Sheriff’s Office to investigate if he should have the weapons he had, and possibly seize them. In the end, both reports were ignored.

• Late in 2016 a “peer counselor” reported to School Resource Officer Scot Peterson that Cruz had possibly ingested gasoline in a suicide attempt, was cutting himself and wanted to buy a gun. A mental health counselor advised against involuntarily committing Cruz. In Florida, such action can be done under the Baker Act, which allows the state to involuntarily commit individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others. People committed under the Baker Act are legally barred from obtaining firearms. This event was followed up on by Florida Department of Children and Families, and even though he had fresh cuts from “cutting” and his mother shared her fear that he constantly talked of wanting to buy a firearm, he was deemed stable and, once again, ignored.

• In September 2017 a YouTube user named “nikolas cruz” postsed a comment stating he wanted to become a “professional school shooter.” The comment was reported to the FBI in Mississippi, but was not followed up on.

• In November 2017 a family member called Broward County Sheriff’s Office to report that Nikolas Cruz was dangerous, had made legitimate threats, and had weapons. Her concerns were ignored when Cruz told them he’d give the weapons to a family friend. This again would have been a legitimate use of the Baker Act.

• Also in November 2017, after Cruz’ mother died, he was taken in by a Palm Beach County family. They contacted the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office to report a fight between Cruz and their 22 year old son. A member of the family said that Cruz had threatened to “get his gun and come back” and that he had “put the gun to others’ heads in the past.” The family did not want him arrested, so the report was ignored.

• And again in November 2017 a caller from Massachusetts reported that Cruz is collecting guns and knives and was threatening to be a “school shooter in the making.” A Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy advised the caller to contact the Palm Beach sheriff. If the caller ever did contact Palm Beach, it’s not on record.

• In January 5, 2018 a report came in to the FBI’s tip line claiming that Cruz has “a desire to kill people” and could potentially conduct a school shooting. The information was never passed on to the FBI’s office in Miami. The FBI has even publicly acknowledged their failure.

And these are only the failures BEFORE the incident. Since the incident it has come to light that:

• The only other armed person on school grounds, resource officer Scot Peterson, hid behind a concrete wall during the rampage.

• School Security Monitor, Andrew Medina, had a long history of sexually harassing female students, all which was swept under the rug.

• Broward County Sheriff took 26 minutes to enter to the school.

• Nikolas Cruz was easily able to walk out of the school, blending in with other students and walked into a nearby neighborhood, where he was later arrested.

• After a lawsuit against the Broward County Sheriff’s Department, the school district, and Parkland High, a judge determined that NONE of these entities had a responsibility to protect the students.

You would think after all of this, those closest to the tragedy would be asking why – and how – this kind of failure is possible. You would think that in the change they wish to see, the government would be the last place they’d be seeking it. I mean, what makes them think anything will change? History shows it won’t and it doesn’t, and, in fact, nearly every mass shooting the US has seen government failure like this exist behind it.

Even last summer during a counter protest Rally for our Rights held while March for our Lives was staging a “March on the NRA”, a conversation afterward between myself and the organizers of the other event resulted in agreement that these failures exist, and that before we discuss new laws, we should be discussing why our current laws are failing.

What is the solution? We need to acknowledge our society has a violence problem and a suicide problem, but to call it a gun problem is disingenuous. To create gun control laws that disarm and effect only the law abiding is a false sense of security. Mental health is a strong component of this issue. Any individual who will walk into a school and execute students is mentally ill, even if not previously diagnosed.

We have soft targets in schools such as Parkland, where someone like Cruz can simply wander in with nothing in his way, and not one person inside the school is legally given the ability to defend the students they care for as their own. Programs such as FASTER Colorado provides no cost or low cost intensive training to school staff who voluntarily choose to be armed and is approved by their school board. They are also provided with deep concealment training, trauma training, and psychological training.

In the end, we will never eradicate evil, but we can defend ourselves from it.

Questions Everyone Should Be Asking About Red Flag Emergency Risk Protection Gun Laws

Posted on January 17, 2019January 17, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

If you’re not familiar with Red Flag Laws, also known as Emergency Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), you’re not paying enough attention. And if you know what Red Flag Laws are and support them, you’re probably also not paying enough attention.

Red Flag Laws allow an intimate partner, former intimate partner, or family member to make a report to the courts with claims that an individual is going to either hurt themselves or others with a firearm. Within 24 hours the court hears a preponderance of evidence and issues an order to have the persons gun confiscated.

To some people, this sounds good on the surface. I mean, who doesn’t want to save lives? But feel good laws like these do more harm than good, and this one is no exception. In fact, it may be one of the worst. These laws lack due process, they grossly violate our right to keep and bear arms, and they would have a chilling effect on free speech. Not to mention they would prevent people who truly need help from seeking it – especially those who are suicidal.

There are many questions we should be asking. Here are some that I’ve developed after reading through the language in these proposed bills in many states.

• How can lawmakers ensure a stalker or domestic abuser is prevented from using an ERPO to disarm their victims, potentially putting those in our society who need protection the most in harms way?

• Are there safeguards in place to prevent this from being used as a form of retaliation or as a hate crime – for example being used to disarm a transgender person, a person of color, or a certain religion?

• Why is all information such as accusers, allegations, accusations, etc sealed and require a court order for release?

• Many of these ERPO’s allow the accuser to report via telephone, as well as attend the initial hearing via telephone – making these easier to obtain than a Temporary Protection Order, opening the door to rampant abuse.

• What kind of proof is required that the accuser is or has been in an intimate relationship with the accused, or is a family member?

• What kind of punishment would be in a Red Flag Bill for false accusers?

• Will requiring police to confiscate the guns of people who could be innocent, put law enforcement officers in harms way?

• When these confiscation orders are being carried out, quite likely against someone who is innocent, will that put families and children at risk?

• Why are these laws being promoted as “mental health” laws when in fact they have no mental health components?

• Because the accused who would have their firearms confiscated has not been accused of a crime, they would not be eligible for a public defender to get their firearms back, leaving the poor in our society at a disadvantage.

Do you have other questions that I have missed? Drop them in the comments.

Here is how these laws would work:

Step 1: A petitioner (either a current or former intimate partner, or a family member, with no proof required) makes a report via telephone or in person that you have firearms, have bought firearms, or have bought ammunition – and that they have heard you make a threat that you may harm another or yourself.

Step 2: A court hearing is scheduled within 24 hours either over the phone or in person with the petitioner to determine if an Emergency Risk Protection Order (aka Red Flag Order) should be issued. The one most important person notably missing from this hearing is YOU. You are not even so much as informed that this hearing is taking place. During this hearing the judge will hear a “preponderance of evidence” from the petitioner, and only the petitioner, with the goal to convince the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true.

Step 3: An Emergency Risk Protection Order (ERPO) is issued. The sheriff’s department will visit your home and demand you turn over your firearms, and if you refuse to comply, they will be confiscated by force (placing everyone present in a dangerous situation). YOU will be left alone, without what may be your most important means of self defense – your firearm – because someone just had it confiscated. It doesn’t matter if you bought that firearm to protect yourself from a stalker, an abuser, or simply to walk home from work late at night. It also doesn’t matter if the person who requested your firearms be confiscated is that same abuser or stalker.

Step 4: Then, and only then, will you be given instructions as to how to defend yourself in court and get your firearms back.

You can read more about Colorado’s 2018 version of the Red Flag Bill here. A new bill has not yet been introduced for the 2019 legislative session, but it undoubtedly will be.

If you want to be part of the fight to defend your gun rights, please subscribe to our email list and/or make a donation.

60 YO Man Killed In Self Defense By 23 YO Woman Is Memorialized As “Gun Violence” Victim

Posted on December 11, 2018December 16, 2018 by Lesley Hollywood

60 YO Man Killed In Self Defense By 23 YO Woman Is Memorialized As “Gun Violence” Victim - Rally for our Rights - Bruce Jones Aubrey Bowlin

UPDATE: On Sunday evening, December 16th, the GunMemorial website quietly removed this perpetrator from their pages after receiving so much backlash from this article. Unfortunately, we have discovered thousands of other violent criminals who were killed in self defense on their site. We’ll be exposing some of the worst here soon.

On February 8, 2018 a young woman shot and killed her attacker during a public road rage incident. 23 year old Aubrey Bowlin, was riding her motorcycle along I-5 in Milton, Washington when an irate driver began to act recklessly.

According to witnesses, 60 year old Bruce Jones was distraught by the way Bowlin was driving her motorcycle. He boxed her into a location she could not drive away from. Jones exited his vehicle and physically attacked the young woman who was sitting on her bike. A fight followed, initiated by the much larger man. At one point, Bowlin head-butted Jones, who then drove Bowlin’s head into the jersey barrier before taking her to the ground. He hit her and shook her, she described, like a dog shaking a toy in its mouth. He violently tried to rip her helmet off and was choking her with the neck strap. She believed he was going to choke her to death. Bowlin shot Jones once in the chest when he attempted to climb on top of her. Jones died at the scene.

No charges were filed and Bowlin was exonerated by the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department, as this was a clear case of self defense. Bowlin was a permitted concealed pistol carrier. She called 911 after ending the attack with her fatal shot, and waited at the scene. She did everything right, although according to her, she still suffers from PTSD.

Seems like an open and shut case, right? Nope.

It’s been discovered that the website gunmemorial.org, which puts up photos of people whose lives have been “lost to gun violence,” is memorializing this perpetrator as a “gun violence victim”. In fact, 90 virtual candles have been lit for him at the time of this writing. This is a man who nearly pummeled a 23 year old woman to death on the side of the interstate for the public to see. And he is being held up as the victim by the anti-gun community.

60 YO Man Killed In Self Defense By 23 YO Woman Is Memorialized As “Gun Violence” Victim - Rally for our Rights - Bruce Jones Aubrey Bowlin

It begs the question of how many other of these so-called “victims” are actually perpetrators. The anti-gun movement has adopted the term “homicide” when speaking of stats. But did you know homicide and murder are not the same? Homicide is all death except suicide – even justified deaths, such as those killed in self defense, as is the example here, as well as law enforcement related deaths. Murder is a malicious act with the intent to cause death (or serious harm resulting in death). Aubrey Bowlin could have been a murder victim, but she was not because instead she made Bruce Jones a homicide case. See how that works? With the ability to sway public opinion so easily by simply using a different word, it’s no wonder those who wish to to take away an individual’s right to self defense with a firearm would use the term homicide in their argument as it carries a much higher number. A number that portrays perpetrators as victims.

It doesn’t take much digging into this Gun Memorial website to find their connection to the Gun Violence Archive – the website behind the widely spread number of 307 “mass shootings” in 2018 – a story we completely debunked after doing some serious research. (By the way, that real number is 6, not 307). Gun Violence Archive also makes a habit out of holding up violent criminals as victims – simply by using the word homicide.

Why is it the same people who claim to support women’s rights, want to take away a woman’s right to defend herself with a firearm? Help us get this billboard up by donating here: www.gofundme.com/gun-rights-billboards

Tag: mass shooting

Three Gun Control Bills Introduced