CHINA Our Great Friend: Sure They Are

I get asked this a lot …If someone who already owns a 9mm handgun, is it worth getting a budget AR-style rifle for home defense, or should they consider a 12 Guage shot gun? Gregg Kielma Let’s Take a LOOK. If you have the money and patience, the best home defense setup from a functional standpoint is going to be a carbine with a red dot, flashlight, and suppressor firing subsonic ammunition. The reasons for this is because: • Carbines, with three points of contact, is more accurate and easier to handle than pistols with 1 point of contact. • Lights are required to be able to correctly identify what you are shooting at. • Red dots are the fastest form of sighting system for short range shooting. Suppressors and subsonic ammunition help reduce noise levels, which can prevent hearing damage during firearm use. However, is having a kitted-out AR, in either 9mm or 5.55/.223, going to look worse to a jury if you end up in front of one. It is important to be familiar with both the policies of your local District Attorney and the office culture, as you may encounter varying approaches from different prosecutors. If you use a weapon for self-defense, the police may confiscate it as evidence, possibly for weeks or even permanently, depending on local policies. Pump action shotguns typically have a smaller magazine capacity and require additional training to operate effectively. New shooters often short stroke the pump by not fully pushing it forward, which can prevent the trigger from resetting or cause out-of-battery detonation. If you don't have the money and patience for a suppressor, either a rifle or pistol round carbine isn't really going to matter. My choice for home defense a good tactical 12g shot gun. Make sure it cycles a full magazine reliably, your magazines work properly, and it has a red dot and flashlight.

Can people carry a gun in a bank with a license? From Jeff and Avid reader of the BLOG I carry concealed all the time. Banks, stores with no guns allowed signs, etc. The only thing they can do IF they see the gun (since it’s concealed, they can’t) is ask me to leave. The only places I don’t carry are courts and federal buildings (post office, etc.). I’m 78 so I need a way to defend myself. In the thirty years I’ve been carrying, I’ve never had to pull my weapon, and I hope I never do. It’s like having a fire extinguisher, you never want to have to use it but you have it available just in case. Thank you Jeff for your "plan"

What to know about Florida’s open-carry law TODAY Keep Checking The Laws Florida's ban on open carry firearms has been ruled or Has IT? Florida's open carry ban for guns ruled unconstitutional. What does that mean for gun owners? Florida’s open carry ruling, which expands gun rights in public, took effect Sept. 25 — but Sarasota and Manatee businesses can still bar firearms. On Sept. 10, Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that the state’s long-standing ban on visibly carrying firearms in public is unconstitutional. The decision comes despite research linking looser gun laws to higher rates of violent crime, suicides, firearm thefts and law enforcement shootings. She questions whether people who carry guns openly will be more apt to use them during road rage or a fight. “Floridians have not had guns out in the open, and it's kind of a terrifying thought for a lot of people,” Resigno said. “When you consider how many people nowadays have had someone either get shot or been in a shooting situation, it’s going to be triggering.” Matthew Binkley, SCSO Community Affairs Manager, shared that all SCSO personnel have received legal updates from the agency's general counsel’s office. Moving forward, continued training and education on open carry will be implemented for deputies. “Deputies should expect that members of the public will express concern, confusion or even alarm as they adjust to the sight of firearms in places where they were not previously accustomed to seeing them,” Binkley said. "Our responsibility to the community has not changed. We remain committed to protecting both the rights and the safety of all citizens.” Open carry of firearms is now legal in Florida as of September 25, 2025, though notable restrictions and exceptions still apply. Where Open Carry is Allowed: • Public areas generally open to citizens: Open carry is permitted on government property and in public spaces not restricted by federal or state law • Private property: Property owners, businesses, and residences can still prohibit publicly carried firearms, and ignoring these restrictions may result in armed trespass, classified as a third-degree felony Where Open Carry is Not Allowed Certain locations remain off-limits due to state or federal restrictions or safety concerns: • Police, sheriff, and highway patrol stations • Detention facilities, jails, or prisons • Courthouses (judges may allow exceptions in courtrooms) • Polling places • Meetings of governing bodies at county, city, or school district levels • Schools, colleges, or professional athletic events not related to firearms • Any property where federal law prohibits firearms • Properties deemed a public nuisance under Florida statute §823.05, such as illegal gambling halls or locations facilitating criminal gang activity Interaction With Other Laws Florida’s red-flag laws and risk protection orders remain in effect. Firearms can be temporarily removed from individuals: • Taken into custody for involuntary mental health examination under the Baker Act • Adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution • Identified as high-risk by law enforcement for harming themselves or others

Plant City Drug Dealer Who Imported Glock Switches From China Convicted Of Drug Distribution, Possessing Machinegun, And Other Firearms Offenses U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida Tampa, Florida – United States Attorney Gregory W. Kehoe announces that a federal jury has found Phillip Michael Valeriani (42, Plant City) guilty of possessing cocaine and marijuana with the intent to distribute it. Valeriani was also adjudicated guilty prior to trial for possessing a machinegun, a silencer, and a firearm as a convicted felon. He faces a maximum penalty on all counts of 75 years in federal prison. His sentencing hearing is scheduled for December 10, 2025. According to testimony and evidence presented at trial, Valeriani used a fictitious name to order 63 Glock Switch components from China concealed inside a toy car box, which were seized at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. A search of Valeriani’s Plant City residence revealed a machinegun, a silencer, a rifle, and dozens of firearms components. Also found inside the house were distribution quantities of marijuana and crack cocaine as well as FBI and DEA raid jackets. Testimony at trial also revealed that Valeriani was a prolific marijuana and cocaine trafficker. In February 2024, at the same Plant City residence, drug traffickers robbed Valeriani and stole distribution quantities of marijuana, $4,000 in cash, and firearms. On May 12, 2024, Valeriani flew into the Tampa International Airport from Medford, Oregon with 64 pounds of marijuana inside three suitcases. Authorities also seized 112 grams of cocaine during a prior traffic stop for which Valeriani took responsibility. This case was investigated by Homeland Security Investigations, the Plant City Police Department, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Tampa International Airport Police Department, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys David W.A. Chee and Adam W. McCall. This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results.

SAF Files Appellate Brief In 3rd Circuit Medical Marijuana Gun Ban Challenge Federal law prohibits firearm possession by individuals who use illegal drugs, a provision that has come under increased scrutiny as more states legalize medicinal and recreational marijuana. This has led to several recent court cases concerning marijuana and firearms. In a previous report, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that medical marijuana users may retain their Second Amendment rights, noting an absence of evidence indicating that marijuana use alone increases dangerousness. Recently, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the federal law conflicted with the Second Amendment, although it referred the case back to the district court for further proceedings. Another relevant case is scheduled before the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. In Greene v. Bondi, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) submitted its opening brief challenging the federal prohibition on gun ownership for medical marijuana users. The SAF's case includes two private citizens: Warren County, Pa., District Attorney Robert Greene, who holds a Pennsylvania-issued medical marijuana ID card and wishes to possess firearms and ammunition; and James Irey, a disabled veteran seeking a medical marijuana ID to manage service-related injuries but concerned about losing his Second Amendment rights. According to an SAF news release, Executive Director Adam Kraut stated that marijuana is federally classified as a Schedule 1 narcotic, regardless of state-level legalization for medical purposes. Kraut described the situation facing medical marijuana users as a choice between accessing treatment and exercising Second Amendment rights, contrasting this with regulations allowing prescription painkiller users to purchase firearms. A Delaware court recently invalidated the state’s 2022 law banning firearm possession. The SAF brief asserts: “Prohibiting Greene, Irey, and similarly situated SAF members from purchasing, possessing, or using firearms and state-authorized medical marijuana constitutes a violation of the Second Amendment, as there is no analogous historical tradition of such firearms regulation in the United States.” The plaintiffs are seeking the repeal of the law so that individuals legally using medical marijuana can also exercise their Second Amendment rights. The brief concludes by requesting that the Third Circuit consider the matter en banc, apply the categorical approach to Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g), reverse the district court’s judgment, and find the challenged laws unconstitutional, either facially or as applied to the plaintiffs. Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, observed that as additional states legalize medical marijuana, the interplay between cannabis use and firearm rights creates added complexity for residents. Gottlieb stated that legal use of medical marijuana should not automatically result in the loss of Second Amendment rights, and indicated SAF’s intent to contest these restrictions in court.

3 Gun-Rights Groups Voice Opposition To Reported Trans Firearm Ban Proposal Media reports that the Trump Administration might be considering a move to ban gun ownership for trans Americans following the August 27 shooting at a Catholic school and church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, have some gun-rights groups speaking out. The attack at Church of the Annunciation, committed by a young man who had legally changed his name to a woman’s name, left two elementary-age children dead and 17 other people injured. In the aftermath, several media outlets, including CNN, reported that senior Justice Department officials are “weighing proposals” to limit gun ownership rights of trans individuals. That proposal has drawn the ire of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the National Rifle Association. All three groups say such a move would violate the Second Amendment. “Prohibiting whole groups of people from owning and using firearms because a sick individual misused a gun to harm and kill children is as reprehensible as restricting the rights of all law-abiding citizens because some people have committed crimes,” Alan Gottlieb, CCRKBA chairman, said in a news release addressing the issue. “That anyone in the Trump administration would consider such nonsense is alarming.” As Gottlieb further pointed out, such a blanket prohibition, which would affect an unknown number of people who haven’t harmed anyone, is simply wrong. “Gun owners already know what it’s like for the government to penalize them for crimes they did not commit,” Gottlieb said. “We shouldn’t even consider such an extreme response to a heinous act committed by one disturbed individual, much less implement it, no matter how horrible the crime. The deranged Minneapolis killer is no longer a threat to anybody, and we needn’t make scapegoats of others who had nothing to do with that outrage, just to create the impression something is being done.” Gottlieb said the ironic part of the whole situation is that some in the so-called “mainstream” media are suddenly supporting gun rights because somebody in the Trump administration is talking about restricting transgender individuals from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Jasmine Crockett Texas Democrat insists her language is ‘accurate’ and a reflection of the president’s ‘playbook,’ while also taking aim at late activist Charlie Kirk . Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) stood by her previous statements comparing President Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler during a recent appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.” The Texas Democrat, in an interview with anchor Dana Bash, defended her use of the term “wannabe Hitler,” arguing that it is “accurate language” to describe the president’s actions and policies. The discussion came after Crockett had used similar rhetoric in a prior interview on MSNBC in July, following two assassination attempts on the president. When asked by Bash whether she felt a responsibility to moderate her language, Crockett responded that her primary responsibility is to be “transparent and to be honest.” "The reality is that we are living in a time in which this administration and this regime is not interested in making sure that people understand history,” Crockett said. “We need to understand why they are so problematic.” She continued, asserting that the president’s policies constitute a “playbook out of Hitler.” The interview also saw Crockett takes aim at the late Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk , whose memorial service was taking place at the same time as the interview. Crockett claimed without providing evidence that Charlie Kirk had said “things about who should live and who should die.” This is not the first time Crockett has made such claims about Charlie Kirk. Following his assassination on September 10, Crockett justified her “wannabe Hitler” comments on “The Breakfast Club” by distinguishing between her rhetoric and what she characterized as the president's promotion of a “culture of violence.” In a previous May interview on “American Fever Dream,” Crockett also stated that Republicans were “inherently… violent” and attracted “violent actors.” She dismissed the violence associated with groups like Black Lives Matter, claiming, “they try to pretend like that.” This is in contrast with a statement from Utah Governor Spencer Cox, who at a September 12 press conference stated that authorities found anti-fascist messages on ammunition recovered near Charlie Kirk’s assassination site.

Evil unmasked: How Charlie Kirk's murder exposed a diabolical spiritual war Billy Hallowell Is this the America we want? Millions of Americans are still desperately trying to scrub their hearts and minds of the infernal videos and images that emerged after conservative commentator Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Far from a typical social or political event, this murder has reverberated throughout America, igniting everything from fury to depression and opening a chasm filled with uncomfortable questions about the state of the nation and where we go from here. Today, too many people are now fully embracing and emulating Satan’s nature. There’s an alarm sounding among many faith and political leaders who believe America is at a dire crossroads — a point where we must carefully choose our destiny. "We have crossed the Rubicon," Pastor Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, told me last week. "We're no longer what we used to be. The age of civility is officially over, and we've entered into the proverbial dark, slippery slope where rhetorical violence becomes physical violence." He’s not wrong. The disturbing reality is that a sizable proportion of the public is now OK with political violence. In fact, a YouGov survey recently asked, “Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals?” Shockingly, 11% answered, “Yes, violence can sometimes be justified,” with an additional 11% stating they were unsure and another 5% preferring not to respond. Thus, while 72% rejected political violence, 27% either weren’t sure, wouldn’t respond — or seemed to back it. True evil This willingness to entertain political violence is so alarming and otherworldly that it can only come from one source: true evil. And sadly, wickedness has, in some circles, become increasingly pervasive. James 4:7 in the Bible is monumentally clear that each person must “resist the devil” and, when we do, “he will flee.” But today, too many people are now fully embracing and emulating Satan’s nature. The Bible tells us the “devil has been sinning from the beginning” (1 John 3:8) and is filled with ghastliness and lies. “He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him,” Jesus proclaims of Satan in John 8:44. “When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” Scripture also makes it clear that the devil prowls around seeking to “steal, and kill, and destroy” (John 10:10), hoping to so confuse human hearts and minds that people reflect his nature and reject the biblical command to love God and love others. We see these elements permeating society and playing out not only in the brutal killing of Kirk, but also among the slew of people who have bizarrely and fiendishly excused or even celebrated the conservative commentator’s death. Make no mistake: The only humane and sane reaction to an assassination like this is sheer horror. There’s no need to add a “but,” no warrant for a “well, his tone wasn’t always the best” — and certainly no excuse for debasing Kirk’s humanity as to gleefully react to his death. Luciferian delight Such insanity, though not the majority response, exposes the extent to which some have willfully chosen to baste in the bowels of Luciferianism. Relishing in death has become a newfound passion for those who have given themselves over to such evil. Just consider that YouGov also found that 9% of Americans believe it’s acceptable to celebrate a public figure’s death. Sure, 78% said it’s inappropriate, but the fact that one out of every 10 Americans said it’s perfectly permissible “for a person to be happy about the death of a public figure they oppose” should send a literal shiver down our spines. As it turns out, Democrats (11%) are more likely than Republicans (6%) to say it’s either “always” or “usually” acceptable to celebrate public figures’ deaths. Republicans are also far more likely (89%) to oppose this than are Democrats (71%). These statistics reveal a disturbing level of moral corruption within the American populace, with human hearts taking on the nature of the devil in such a merciless way. Rather than showing honor and decency, many in recent days have opted for full-blown hatred — a satanic level of bile that says much more about them than it does Kirk or anyone else. One of the problems fueling the dysfunction in our politics has become an unhealthy rhetoric that dominates our discourse. Trump, Kirk, and others have been labeled as "racist," "homophobic," and other dishonest slurs. Some, like former President Joe Biden, warned Trump would “sacrifice our democracy.” Former Vice President Kamala Harris also seized on this rhetoric as did other Democrats. For his part, Trump has often returned fiery rhetoric. Tragically, there’s a cost to such proclamations. The choice is ours I recently spoke with Dallas Jenkins, creator of the hit TV show “The Chosen,” about Kirk’s death and the chaos in our nation. "We are in a time where people demonize the opposition — the political or spiritual opposition, so much that their death is a logical conclusion," Jenkins said. "If you tell enough people that someone or a group of people are Nazis, are a threat to your literal freedom and democracy, and in fact, your very life, I mean, why wouldn't you think that they should die, or at least be stopped in some dramatic way?" His point? We’ve allowed callousness and rhetoric to become so untethered from goodness that we have unwell people getting panicked, ginned up, and, in turn, radicalized. This is a dangerous path for our nation, with Kirk’s death, in particular, forcing both sides to decide: Is this the America we want — or are we willing to strive for something better? The Book of James warns that the tongue is a “world of evil,” can “corrupt the whole body," and is “set on fire by hell.” And Ephesians 6 delivers perhaps the most important context, explaining that the real battle is spiritual — not physical. “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms,” Ephesians 6:12 reads. We’d do well to pause, reflect, and ponder where we are and where we want to go. Will we choose God or Satan? Will we opt for good or devilish hatred? The decision is ours, and the very fate of our nation and the world depends on how we collectively answer.

Gregg Kielma, FFL, Firearms Instructor, First Aid Fundamentals Instructor and Gunsmith. I'm truly saddened by the University's stance on honoring Charlie Kirk . Can someone explain how this wonderful man of God, political person and advocate for good, who debated reasonably with people that differ with him can do this? Can someone tell me why he is so bad? Why? He stood for everything that was good, nothing more nothing less. He encouraged people of the opposite opinion to sit down with him and talk about it. And he's assassinated for it? Charlie Kirk was an angle walking among us. I rejoice knowing he is with now with God. Shame on Utah Valley University. The shame is immense on the board, facility and students that purpurate this narrative. Lastly Kielma says, please take a look below at how DEI effect our universities, culture and our young people. Community members are speaking out against a proposal to establish a Charlie Kirk memorial at Utah Valley University, saying it would glorify a divisive political figure whose views run counter to the school’s values of diversity and inclusivity. They’re calling on UVU and local leaders to reject the plan. If you agree no memorial should be built, sign the petition. In Utah Valley, as passionate members of the community, we're deeply troubled by any proposal to establish a memorial for Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University (UVU). Our concerns arise from profoundly disagreeing with his political views, which we believe do not represent the values of diversity, equity and inclusion. Charlie Kirk is a controversial political figure known for his divisive rhetoric. His organization, Turning Point USA, has been criticized for promoting messages that some consider homophobic, transphobic, and racist. Many in our community feel that glorifying such a figure with a memorial could send the wrong message to our students, staff, and residents. UVU prides itself on being a diverse and inclusive institution that fosters an environment of learning and growth for all students, regardless of their background. Erecting a memorial for Charlie Kirk would undermine these core values and might alienate students who represent different political, racial, and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, we urge the administration of UVU and the community of Orem, UT , to reconsider and reject any plans to honor Charlie Kirk with a memorial. We want to ensure that our university remains a welcoming space for everyone, and recognizing Charlie Kirk in such a way contradicts this mission. Let us stand together to maintain the integrity and dignity of our educational environment where all voices are heard and respected. Please sign this petition if you agree that no memorial should be erected for Charlie Kirk at UVU.