THE OUTDOOR WIRE Stories worth reading about. Check them out !

I also happen to be a gun owner.

Those two things are not contradictory. In my experience, they go hand in hand because both reflect a culture that values personal responsibility, self-reliance, and individual liberty.

The author, and his wife, Wendy, vigorously enjoy their Second Amendment rights in their home state of Virginia.

When Virginia’s lawmakers debated new restrictions on lawful firearm ownership, supporters believed they were taking meaningful steps to reduce gun violence.

Many of us who own firearms believed something else would happen:

We believed thousands of otherwise hesitant Virginians would decide it was time to exercise a constitutional right before it became more difficult to do so.

That is exactly what happened.

Gun stores filled up. Background checks surged. First-time buyers became gun owners, and longtime shooters decided not to wait any longer. FBI background check data, widely used as the best available indicator of firearm purchasing activity, showed just how dramatic the response was. Virginia’s background checks climbed roughly 70 percent in March compared with the previous year, nearly 80 percent in April, more than doubled in May and exceeded three times the previous June’s total as the July 1 deadline approached. While background checks are not the same as firearm sales, the trend is unmistakable. Thousands of Virginians decided they would rather lawfully exercise a constitutional right today than wonder tomorrow whether they still could.

Whether someone supported the legislation or opposed it, the outcome should give all of us something to think about. An effort intended to discourage lawful firearm ownership encouraged many Virginians to become lawful firearm owners instead. Often many times over.

I don’t think that was the metric anti gunners were aiming for (pun intended).

When government signals that it may restrict a constitutional right, people often become more determined to exercise it. Virginia became the latest example, and to be clear I’m damned proud to be a Virginian because of it. “Sic semper tyrannic” indeed .

Thousands of law-abiding citizens completed the paperwork, passed the background checks and legally purchased firearms. They followed every law the Commonwealth required.

That distinction matters because we were not criminals exploiting loopholes. We were citizens willingly participating in the legal process. Too often, our public debate blurs the line between violent criminals and responsible gun owners even though they have very little in common.

The Virginia gun owners I know are veterans, law enforcement officers, teachers, nurses, mechanics, farmers, pastors, small-business owners and parents. We hunt because we love the outdoors. We shoot competitively because they enjoy mastering a skill. Some carry a firearm because they believe protecting their family is one of life’s most important responsibilities. What we share is not fear or anger. We share a commitment to doing things the right way.

As a Virginian and a gun owner, I do not celebrate increased firearm sales because I believe more guns automatically make us safer. I see something different. I see thousands of citizens choosing to exercise a constitutional right through the legal process. More importantly, I see no reason to believe law-abiding Virginians suddenly became the source of the violent crime that concerns us all. We exercised our rights legally, just as the Constitution intended. Rights remain meaningful only when responsible people are willing to exercise them.

That also means accepting the responsibility that comes with those rights.

If we ask our fellow Virginians to trust us with our freedoms, we should earn that trust every day. We should pursue quality training, practice safe storage, mentor new shooters, hunt ethically, and conduct ourselves in a way that reflects well on every responsible gun owner in the Commonwealth.

I also want to extend an olive branch to Virginians who support stricter gun laws.

I do not believe most of you dislike gun owners, nor do I believe you wake up looking for ways to take away anyone’s freedoms. I believe many of you are responding to the same heartbreaking tragedies that affect all of us. When children are murdered, when families lose loved ones, or when violence tears apart a community, my heart breaks just as yours does. We may disagree about the solutions, but I do not believe we disagree about the value of human life.

If your goal is to reduce violent crime, then it is my goal, too.

Let us work together where we can. Let us improve access to mental health care. Let us support law enforcement as they target violent repeat offenders. Let us invest in mentoring young people before gangs and violence recruit them. Let us encourage every gun owner to seek training, practice safe handling, and store firearms responsibly.

At the same time, I ask that those who advocate for additional restrictions recognize something Virginia has demonstrated. Law-abiding citizens value this constitutional right deeply. When many believed that right might become more difficult to exercise, they exercised it through the legal process. They did exactly what responsible citizens are supposed to do.

The overwhelming majority of those new gun owners are not the source of the violence that concerns us all. They are your neighbors, your coworkers, your fellow church members, and the parents sitting beside you at Friday night football games. They are not the people terrorizing neighborhoods or preying on innocent victims. They are ordinary Virginians exercising a constitutional freedom responsibly.

To my fellow Virginia gun owners, I have a simple challenge.

Do not let this moment end with the purchase of a firearm. Let it begin there. Invite a curious neighbor to the range. Teach a first-time shooter with patience and humility. Be the safest person on the firing line and the most ethical hunter in the woods. Listen before you argue. Answer honest questions with respect instead of frustration.

The Second Amendment does not simply need defenders. It needs ambassadors.

If we truly believe this right matters, then let us become the kind of people who make that case without raising our voices. Let our character speak louder than our politics. Let our conduct make it impossible to confuse responsible gun owners with violent criminals.

Virginia’s recent experience should teach us more than a lesson about firearm sales. It should remind us that constitutional rights matter to millions of ordinary citizens. It should also remind us that every right carries a responsibility to strengthen the community around us.

The best argument for the Second Amendment will never be made in Richmond or Washington. It will be made every day by responsible Virginians who live with humility, integrity and respect for both their neighbors and the Constitution they cherish.

– Jay Pinsky

jay@theoutdoorwire.com

Next week..more potential “real news”  following the slow week that always follows a long federal holiday weekend. The continuing saga of peace talks are scheduled to resume next week, NATO continues the post-mortem of this week’s summit in Turkey, Russia and the Ukraine will exchange drones, missiles and invectives, while Maine Democrats look for a non-Nazi, non-predator type to replace their now-withdrawn candidate who was their hope to defeat Republican Susan Collins…and Major League Baseball will hold their All-Star game in Philadelphia. And Wall Street? Your guess is as good as mine.

As always, we’ll keep you posted.

– Jim Shepherd

First, I was downright giddy. Then, with a sigh, I thought, “It’s about time.”

In fact, NSSF used the word “elated” in our statement upon hearing that Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins will be heard by the Supreme Court in the next session. These petitions were relisted several times before the Supreme Court ultimately decided to grant cert. Viramontes and Grant challenge Cook County, Illinois and Connecticut’s respective bans on MSR possession, the most-commonly sold centerfire rifle in America, of which there are over 32 million in circulation. Heller and Bruen clearly hold that firearms in common use are protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned unless the government can prove the ban fits with our nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation — which they plainly cannot do.

Why a Supreme Court MSR Ban Ruling is Long Overdue

This day at the Supreme Court has been decades in the making. Last year, we got close with Snope v. Brown and the NSSF-funded Ocean State Tactical Rhode Island petitions. NSSF submitted amicus briefs supporting both petitions. In the amicus for Snope, NSSF argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred when it held that the MSR — or AR-15-style rifle — isn’t even an arm. In 2024, NSSF asked the Supreme Court to hear our appeal in Barnett v. Raoul challenging the Illinois ban on MSRs and standard magazines. Like in Snope, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a preliminary injunction that brazenly ignored Supreme Court precedent and held MSRs are not “Arms.”

It was disappointing, even frustrating, that the Supreme Court didn’t agree to the petitions then. NSSF agreed with Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent of the denial of cert in Snope, when he wrote that he “would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country. [The Supreme Court has] avoided deciding it for a full decade. And, further percolation is of little value when lower courts in the jurisdictions that ban AR–15s appear bent on distorting this Court’s Second Amendment precedents. I doubt we would sit idly by if lower courts were to so subvert our precedents involving any other constitutional right. Until we are vigilant in enforcing it, the right to bear arms will remain ‘a second-class right.’”

Now, however, the clouds have parted. Gloom gave way to sunshine. The day at the Supreme Court is arriving. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s prediction that the Supreme Court should answer the question of whether banning the most popular-selling centerfire rifle in America violates the U.S. Constitution is coming. The firearm industry, gun owners, Second Amendment supporters and constitutional watchdogs are just as excited as the industry.

Gun Control Doom

Gun control groups, on the other hand, are wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth. If you read their statements, the sky is falling. They’re again making unmoored hyperbolic predictions of carnage.

Just a warning before you check these links out for yourself. You’ll be peppered with solicitations to donate money to their antigun and unconstitutional causes. Ignore them. We do. Just like almost everything else they say.

Everytown for Gun Safety’s Janet Carter, the managing director of Second Amendment litigation at Everytown Law, said in a press release, “Assault weapons cause massive devastation. They are the weapons of choice for mass shooters.”

That’s not unhinged at all.

Brady United was a little more circumspect but resorted to the warnings that law-abiding citizens, who lawfully possess and lawfully use MSRs are, in their estimation, a menace to society.

“The Court’s decision to take up these cases is just that – a decision to consider these cases. Its [sic] doing so does not overrule any state or local gun safety law,” said Kris Brown, President of Brady, in a press release. “Local and state regulations of assault weapons prevent harm and death in our communities, our schools, and our country.”

GIFFORDS Violence Prevention & Advocacy either hadn’t gotten around to posting anything about their thoughts or was busy screaming in their offices about the announcement. They did, however, post their endorsement of gun grabber U.S. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) for reelection. That could be considered something, since Sen. Coons has supported banning MSRs for years.

Reason for Confidence

But why so sullen? Predicting what the U.S. Supreme Court will decide prior to the decision actually being published is a fool’s errand. That’s not what I’m attempting to do. Rather, my confidence of prevailing in these combined cases and finally settling the matter that state laws banning the sale of these firearms violate the U.S. Constitution comes from, well … the U.S. Constitution.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

It’s also backed up by Supreme Court precedent. The landmark Heller decision clarified that individuals have the right to possess firearms for lawful purposes and the government couldn’t ban entire classes of firearms in common use. The Supreme Court later held in McDonald that the right to keep and bear arms is fully applicable to the states. The Bruen decision not only struck down New York’s “proper cause” concealed carry permitting scheme, it also made clear that Heller, in rejecting Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent, did away with the unconstitutional “interest-balancing” test that lower courts were applying after Heller. Bruen reinforced Heller by making the test for deciding Second Amendment cases eminently clear.

Under Bruen, the first question is whether the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the individual’s conduct prohibited by the law. If it does, e.g., possession of a semiautomatic rifle, then the conduct is presumptively protected. The burden then shifts to the government to show (step two) that the regulation, e.g., banning commonly owned rifles, is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. If the government cannot meet its burden, then the regulation violates the Second Amendment.

History and tradition show there were no restrictions on commonly-owned and commonly-used arms in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, or even in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified. That was consequential in the recent Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani decisions.

There’s even more reason to be confident going into the Viramontes argument. In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Mexico’s unfounded $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. firearm manufacturers. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the Court, said AR-15s are “widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers” and the AR-15 “is the most popular rifle in the country.”

The question of whether states are violating the rights of their citizens by banning the sale of MSRs is long overdue. It should have been answered years ago because the answer is apparent. MSR bans violate constitutionally protected rights.

No one is getting cocky. Everyone is getting ready for this momentous day at the Supreme Court. We’re just confident that the law and the facts are on our side. Maybe that’s why gun control groups are so glum.

– Larry Keane

Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Somehow, an unapologetic American President, one who deigned to tell NATO member nations to meet their defense spending requirement, had soured relations with America’s fellow NATO members.

During Biden’s term as President—his first, and Jimmy Carter’s second if inflation and malaise are the measuring stick—the message to Europe was clear, and something along the lines of “The U.S. has a sacred obligation to defend you, regardless of whether or not you decide to invest in your own defense.”

That’s not a direct quote, but a fairly accurate paraphrasing.

Biden, of course, was lauded by the mainstream media for repairing relations with NATO, after Trump had so callously damaged those relationships.

As soon as Trump’s second term began, the handwringing of mainstream media pundits returned. This time with near breathless reports of how Trump was severing relations with long-time NATO allies.

For 10 or so years now we’ve heard nothing but stories about Europe’s growing disdain for the U.S., to the point that maybe some of those allies might seek a new alliance partnership.

The  reports of anti-American sentiment of European nationals and leaders has become so loud that the average American would not be faulted for thinking Europe hates us. That the countries that relied on our wealth and military might to get them through two world wars and the Cold War now want little to do with us.

Or so it would seem.

Enter Futbol

Like many, I suspect, I had at most only a passing interest in the FIFA World Cup being hosted here in the U.S., as well as in Canada and Mexico.

The U.S. is not a futbol country. We are a football nation. And as such, we don’t do real well when it comes to qualifying let alone competing in World Cup competition. We did qualify in 2022 and made it to the round of 16 before being knocked out by the Netherlands.

Our best performance recently was making it to the quarterfinals against Japan in 2002. Before that we placed third back in 1930. In the period from 1954 to 1986 the U.S. failed to qualify for nine straight World Cup tournaments.

Futbol—or as we like to call it, soccer—isn’t our strong suit.

However, this year there was a real sense of optimism, despite as a host nation getting the participation trophy equivalent for qualification. U.S. fans rallied around the team and the U.S. Men’s National Team’s win in the round of 32 over Bosnia-Herzegovina drew 33.5 million viewers in the U.S., making it the most-watched soccer broadcast in U.S. history.

That is until Monday night in Seattle when the U.S. versus Belgium match drew 36.8 million viewers.

Unfortunately, the USMNT did not have its best performance against Belgium. The 4-1 loss brought the legions of enthusiastic U.S. soccer fans back down to earth—and fast.

So, why all the popularity?

First, it’s the U.S. team and American sports fans are nothing if no patriotic when it comes to backing any U.S. team in any sport. The fact that we’re the underdog in the sport of futbol only further fuels that ‘us versus the world’ fanaticism.

Second, and maybe the most important, is the fact that when the world came to America to support their teams they fell in love with the United States.

Social media blew up with viral stories of the Tartan Army (Scotland) drinking Boston dry and putting traffic cones on the heads of statues. Then, out of appreciation and respect, the main Boston bar they frequented, The Dubliner, closed the day England faced Ghana at nearby Gillette Stadium.

When the Algerian national team selected Lawrence, Kansas, as its base camp during the World Cup, the town “adopted” the team. To make the team feel at home, and as a way to thank them for choosing Lawrence, the community studied Algerian culture and learned both Arabic and French phrases. They even packed viewing parties to support their international guests.

The Dutch flooded the streets of Dallas, Houston, and Kansas City in waves of bright orange, and the Orange Army mobilized whenever the Netherlands played a game.

The Vikings from Norway brought their Viking Row, a synchronized chant and rowing motion done in large groups, particularly in the stands after the Norway team won. Norwegian star Erling Haaland visited Wild Bill’s Western Store in downtown Dallas and single-handedly caused a run on “Y’all Can Kiss My Dallas” t-shirts.

Their website currently reads “Inventory on the way.”

Then there are the fans from various nations discovering Waffle House, Buc-ee’s, Bass Pro Shops, SEC stadiums, Texas barbecue, gun shops and ranges, and a myriad of other everyday experiences we take for granted. And Ranch dressing is about the be a thing overseas.

And, of course, there is the German soccer fan freddyLA7 (his social handle) known simply as Freddy. Entire social media accounts have overtaken the algorithm with their commentary on Freddy’s exploits as he travels across America and Canada.

The U.S. took on the role of World Cup Host seriously, and to heart. So many stories on social media feature foreign tourists being welcomed by the communities they visited. The TikTok and Instagram feeds are littered with visitors trying American foods for the first time only to have the cost of the meal picked up by the restaurant owner or another patron.

This level of hospitality shown foreign teams and their fans has been the single greatest public relations initiative America could ever have hoped for. And it’s one that flies in the face of the carefully constructed narrative of a Europe/NATO that is distancing itself from the United States.

The people of Europe that traveled to America have been received warmly and will leave the U.S. with vast numbers of new friends.

The drumbeat about strained relations with Europe/NATO that we’ve been hearing for the past 10 to 11 years is more about Europe’s leaders sharing their disappointment in a U.S. President that doesn’t care to write anymore blank checks.

Their snarky comments about America and its (Republican) leaders look more like the tantrums of petulant politicians—frustrated they no longer have Washington’s unconditional support (and money)—when juxtaposed to the comments, photos, and videos of their citizens enjoying their time in the Land of the Free.

We would do well to remember that the next time the mainstream media tells us otherwise.

– Paul Erhardt, Managing Editor, the Outdoor Wire Digital Network

Piedmont, SD