"....Because the Criminals Do bad Things With Them......"

 The DOJ is suing California and their communist AG, "Bolshevik" Bob Bonta, to overturn their ban on Glock pistols. A federal judge has granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the enforcement of said ban, but Bolshevik Bob has responded by claiming Glock pistols and their ilk are not protected by "the plain text of the 2nd Amendment". 

Yep, the Stupid is strong in this one. Tune in and share!

Link to Sarah "Superbad" Adams podcast, former CIA target analyst who worked with the Benghazi boys in that capacity: The Watch Floor - YouTube

Freedom Guns
Firearms, Ammunition, Accessories, Training classes

The Gun Site
9-Lane 25 yard indoor Shooting Range, Gun Store, Training classes

WJS Guns
Gun and Outdoor Shop, ammo, accessories, fishing tackle, more

Sicarios Gun Shop
Firearms, Accessories, Ammo, Safes, and more!

SHOOTINGCLASSES.COM
Online business operations platform for firearms instructors, trainees, and Shooting Ranges

Glover Orndorf and Flanagan Wealth Mgmt.
Wealth management services

Counter Strike Tactical
Best Little Gun Store in Melbourne, Florida! Veteran Owned and Operated 321-499-4949

Go2 Weapons
Manufacturers of AR platform rifles for military and civilian. Veteran Owned and Operated

Ear Care of Melbourne
Need hearing aids? Go to the audiologists that gave Royce his hearing back!

Quantified Performance
Quantified Performance, LLC is focused on building safe, high performing keepers and bearers.

Control Jiu-Jitsu/MMA
Jiu-Jitsu/MMA Training in Melbourne, FL

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Transcript

Freedom Guns is your local gun store for the Rockledge Cocoa area in Brevard County,
Florida. Stop in and meet Mike and the gang and see the great deals they have on long guns,
handguns, accessories, ammunition, AR build kits, and Liberty Safes that come with free delivery
and installation. They're located at 1255 Florida Avenue, just north of Rockledge High School.
For more information, check them out at freedom-guns.com. Tell them you heard about them on the
Shooting Straight Radio podcast.
The Gun Sight in Merritt Island is your one-stop shop for all of your Second Amendment needs.
Stop out there and see my friend, Steve Kennedy, and check out his nine-lane, 25-yard indoor
shooting range. He's got handgun rentals galore out there. If you want to try it before you buy it,
the Gun Sight in Merritt Island is where you need to go. Also, we've got a great selection of
ammunition, accessories, range bags. You name it, you'll find it out there at 125 South Banana
River. Drive in Merritt Island. Check him out at gunsightrange.com.
Make sure you tell Steve Kennedy that Royce Bartlett sent you.
And
we're
locked, loaded, and loud on the Shooting Straight radio podcast. This is all about firearms with a
heavy, heavy emphasis on the Second Amendment and all things pertaining thereto. I am Royce,
your cute, cuddly, huggable, lovable, squeezable host, and I like my coffee black and my tea in the
harbor, and we've got a lot to talk about today. I want to remind you, you can hit me up for some
Shooting Straight Radio podcast decals, shootingstraightradiopodcast at gmail.com,
and I'll send them on out to you. Just shoot me your address. And I'll get, I'll get you out there
or get, get them out there to you. I should say, I've got more coming and I've got them on order.
They should be here any day. So go ahead and reach out to me and I'll get them out there to you.
Thank you, Keith Marone. I really appreciate you and the kind words you said on the,
on Facebook about the program and everything. And I really appreciate you being in the audience, my
man. All right, let's get her done. Let's just touch briefly on Virginia for a moment,
just by way of introduction. A Virginia judge now has said that the injunction against enforcement
of the assault firearm ban does indeed apply statewide.
So stick that in your pipe and smoke it there, J2 Bullets Jones, because you were trying to get
other agencies. besides the state police, to start enforcing your little communist disarmament ban.
And now it ain't going your way, you poor little communist thing, you. But Jay Jones,
like I said, he had tried to get local law enforcement to enforce that, but the judges said,
nope, that ain't going to wash. But weirdly, The judge set July 21st as the effective date of the
injunction in order to, quote, allow adequate time for the delivery of the injunction to all law
enforcement.
What? Have y'all never heard of email or certified mail? Anything like that?
Really? I have a hard time believing that you are required to use some sort of snail mail in order
to deliver this information in a timely manner to all the departments statewide.
But maybe there's things I don't know. Speaking of Virginia, June gun sales there.
not just in Virginia, but also in Rhode Island, are up over 200%.
They've done more to arm the people of Virginia than disarm them.
And I really love the irony there. Virginia gun sales were up over 241% over June of last year,
and Rhode Island were at 201% compared to June of 2005.
Yeah, baby. I love it. I like when a plan comes together. I'm not even sure it was planned,
but I love it when things like this backfire in the faces of these filthy,
godless Marxists who are trying to disarm this nation one state at a time. And that's exactly what
they're trying to do. Now, let's deal with Glocks in California.
This is going to be the main theme of the show today, because the Justice Department is now suing
California and Rob Bonta out there over their Glock Band and their handgun roster.
And the Justice Department is basically saying that the state is blocking access to modern handguns
that are indeed protected by the Second Amendment. And here's an article I'm going to be
referencing by Duncan Johnson, who is an editor out of Ammo Land. And here's the article.
The Trump Justice Department has sued California to stop the state's new Glock ban and major parts
of its restrictive handgun roster, arguing that California is violating the Second Amendment rights
of law-abiding gun owners. The lawsuit, United States v. California and Robert Bonta,
he's their attorney general, was filed July 1st, 2026 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. This is not just another private gun rights
lawsuit. This is the United States government suing California and saying,
in plain terms, that enforcing these handgun restrictions amounts to a civil rights violation.
Okay, great. I'll tell you what you need to do now. I know I've referenced heavily 18 U.S.C.
241 and 242, but those people, including Rob Bonta and all the other godless communists who are in
charge out there in California, did indeed to conspire to commit these civil rights violations,
and they need to go to prison, preferably for life. Back to the article.
At issue are two California schemes. Penal code section. 27595,
commonly called the Glock Band, and the state's Unsafe Handgun Act,
which controls what handguns may be sold through California's handgun roster.
They do make life tough for people to be able to defend themselves out there. And there's a note of
interest here. You know, the standard patrol officers And most California departments rely heavily
on Glock. I just didn't know if you might understand that. The California Highway Patrol. uses the
Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0 because they said, well, we don't want to use off-roster guns.
So they switched over to the Smith & Wesson 2.0. They still get to use 15-round magazines in
those Smith & Wesson 2.0s, but that might be a feather in their cap.
I don't know. But the California's Glock ban took effect July 1st.
The law prohibits licensed firearms dealers from selling, offering for sale, transferring,
or delivering what the state calls semi-automatic machine gun convertible pistols.
Wow, the statute does not use the word Glock. But DOJ says the target is obvious.
According to the complaint, the law is commonly known as the Glock ban because it bans the sale of
virtually all Glock and Glock-style pistols. DOJ said the restriction reaches not only Glock
-branded pistols, but also popular Glock pattern handguns, such as Palmetto State Armory Dagger,
Ruger RXM Shadow Systems, and I might add Zev, and other things like that,
too. California claims these pistols are dangerous. Why? Because criminals.
They're dangerous because criminals. Okay, just let that simmer for just a second there.
Because criminals can illegally install conversion devices,
often called Glock switches, that turn some semi-automatic pistols into machine guns.
Let me translate that for you. The free exercise of the rights of Californians is predicated
largely on the misdeeds of criminals and not the specifically enumerated right to keep and bear
arms within the supreme law. See, California thinks they're above that, and they can willfully
trounce all over the rights of their citizenry simply because they declare something to be
exceedingly dangerous because criminals... Yes. Because criminals,
not the people who are lawfully buying them from licensed dealers, because criminals who are
stealing them are also buying these cheap Chinese-made Glock switches,
which are available in most of the communist-occupied territories, and that's by design.
It's because the criminals do bad things, and therefore they presume they can squelch the rights of
the rest of society because criminals. do bad things. Back to the article.
DOJ's answer is simple. Conversion devices are already illegal. That's first chapter in the book of
Duh. California cannot ban ordinary lawful handguns because a criminal might illegally modify one.
The complaint uses a comparison every gun owner understands. A legal shotgun can be turned into an
illegal short-barreled shotgun with a hacksaw. But that does not give the state the power to ban
shotguns. A semi-automatic rifle can be illegally converted into a machine gun,
but that does not make ordinary semi-automatic rifles illegal. And they're exactly right.
Once the gun has been illegally modified, that gun is illegal. Of course,
that's in light of an illegal law. Anyway, but in DOJ's words, California's ban on the sale of the
most popular handgun in America obviously violates the Second Amendment. Amen and amen.
Now, they're also challenging the handgun roster, because California has a roster of guns that they
say you may have, and then anything off-roster you may not have,
okay? The lawsuit goes beyond the Glock ban. DOJ also attacks California's handgun roster
requirements, including the chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism,
and microstamping rules that have blocked many modern handguns from the California market.
DOJ leans heavily on the case known as Boland v.
Bonta, where a federal judge previously said Californians have a constitutional right to acquire
and use quote-unquote state-of-the-art handguns for self-defense and should not be forced to
settle for decades-old models. And unfortunately, they have to settle for only 10 rounds.
That is the heart of the roster problem. California does not merely regulate handguns.
It decides which handguns ordinary citizens may buy, while carving out exceptions for law
enforcement and other favored groups. Let me give a little throwback to the last episode where I
read CMMG's statement about not selling any of their products to any state that has special carve
-outs for law enforcement while banning citizens from owning those same things. The most important
part of the lawsuit may be the legal vehicle DOJ is using. The United States brought the case under
34 U.S.C. Statute 12601, a federal civil rights statute usually associated with,
get this, pattern or practice of misconduct by government agencies and law enforcement officers.
Good. That's exactly what needs to be happening here, and there needs to be penalties,
because we're sick and tired of watching these people trample all over the rights of law-abiding,
peaceable citizens and getting away with it. Nothing happening, ever. DOJ's theory is direct.
California DOJ Bureau of Firearms agents... and other state law enforcement officers enforce the
state's firearms laws. If those laws violate the Second Amendment, then their enforcement creates a
pattern or practice of depriving citizens of constitutional rights.
I love that. There needs to be people going to jail,
not just paying paltry fines. People need to see the inside of a jail cell for years on end.
Second Amendment rights are civil rights. The article continues, when a state criminalizes access
to commonly owned arms, it is not merely making quote-unquote gun policy.
It is violating rights protected by the Constitution. Now,
the... Bonta, the AG there, being a defiant little jerk, and we're going to talk more about him in
the second half of the program, but this filing, according to this article, came after Assistant
Attorney General Harmeet Dillon warned California on June 24th that DOJ was prepared to sue if the
state refused to stop enforcing the challenged laws. On June 30,
Bonta rejected the demand. These guys are so defiant. You know,
they are absolutely audacious in their defiance of the Constitution and established law.
In a response letter, he said the California Department of Justice, quote-unquote, will not agree
to cease enforcement, to acknowledge the laws are unconstitutional, or even consent decree,
or even a consent decree, I'm sorry. Bonta... defended the Unsafe Handgun Act in Penal Code Section
27595 as, quote, common sense handgun design safety laws.
There's nothing commonsensical about it, jackass. He also pointed to a pending Ninth Circuit roster
case, including Boland v. Bonta and Renna v. Bonta.
He's got two lawsuits going after him, and claimed hundreds of handgun models remain available for
sale in California. But... Constitution is not satisfied by a government-approved menu.
Amen, bingo, bango, bongo, baby. That's exactly it. The government doesn't get to violate the
Constitution and say, well, that's just common sense gun safety and you can't do anything about it,
and I refuse to even answer this. You don't have that right, Mr. Bonta. You don't have that kind of
authority. You don't have that kind of power, you filthy little Bolshevik. I think that's his new
nickname, Bonta the Bolshevik. The question is not whether California allows some had guns.
You know, that's the quintessential argument from these anti-rights people.
We let you have some of your guns, you just can't have these. You don't get to decide which guns we
can have. The Constitution does. The question is whether it can ban the commercial sale of common
modern handguns while pretending the Second Amendment remains intact.
Well, the DOJ says that it cannot, and that's just the bottom line. So this is a case to watch,
definitely, going forward. And when we come back from the break,
we're going to look at an article by John Crump where California... has responded to this lawsuit
and they're arguing that Glock handguns do not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's,
get this, plain text. Really? Yeah, we're going to have some fun with that right after this pre
-commercial timeout. Don't go anywhere. The listener retention squads are all on standby.
This is your humble host, and I am proud and honored to say that Sicario's Gun Shop is a sponsor of
the Shooting Straight Radio podcast. They're up on North Wickham Road in Melbourne. They are your
full-service gun store. They offer a wide range of firearms, including Class III and NFA weapons,
ammo and accessories, gunsmithing. If you want to buy or trade, head on down to Sicario's Gun Shop.
They also offer transfer service, custom builds. If you need a muzzle device pinned and welded, no
problem.
They also have a fine selection of gun safes to choose from. Check them out at Sicario'sGunShop
.com. Make sure you tell them you heard about them on Shooting Straight. Sicario's Gun Shop, where
you come first for your second.
Norm's Music Shop, producer and music creator for Shooting Straight Radio Podcast.
I can write and record a personalized music track for your audio or video projects. Do you want a
song for a special occasion? I can do that. For more information, contact Norm's Music Shop at
gmail.com.
Let's create your musical identity. Thank you. Welcome back to the program.
We've been hanging out in California on this episode, looking at the lawsuit being brought against
the state of California and Rob Bonta in particular. And the DOJ is suing them over their ban on
Glocks and other pistols that have the cruciform type trigger bar. And California has now responded
to the lawsuit against them that's challenging that ban. And they are arguing that Glock pistols
are not covered by the Second Amendment. How in the world do you get that crap? Especially because
they said it's not covered by the... text of the Second Amendment. Okay,
y'all listen to this quote of the Second Amendment and tell me anywhere in there where there's a
proviso in there that says, except Glocks, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, arms,
arms for war, shall not be infringed. Did y'all hear any proviso in there?
Any exceptions? Nope. Arms for warfare. That's just the bottom line.
I wish that the DOJ didn't have the NFA and the GCA impeding them,
and they could go after them for banning any, go after all states for banning any guns at all.
That would be great, but we don't live in a perfect world, unfortunately. Here's some more of the
article. The state recently, and this is an article by John Crump, by the way, the state recently
enacted a ban on all pistols with a cruciform trigger bar, classifying these firearms as,
quote, machine gun convertible pistols. Yeah, the translation for that,
California created a brand new classification of guns that they hate so they could presumptuously
ban them. That's what they did. Well, we're going to create this new category, and any gun that
falls within this category, you don't get to have it. Oh, our police officers can.
That's okay. We can trust them with guns. Even though they're not the most law-abiding demographic
of society, and peaceable gun owners are, we can't trust you peaceable citizens with these,
and you can only get 10 rounds, by the way. Yeah. California justifies the ban by arguing that such
pistols can be modified with a machine gun conversion device known as a switch,
which transforms a semi-automatic handgun into a fully automatic handgun. Yeah.
An illegal accessory not manufactured by Glock. Yeah. Because someone can get a hold of one of
those and modify it, therefore none of you can have it because it can be modified.
I can modify my pickup into a rolling tank of death if I wanted to.
Does that mean I don't get to keep it? You don't get to ban things based on your fear of what might
happen. If we did that, well, we'd be cutting everybody's tongues out so they couldn't scream fire
in a crowded theater. Yeah. So I guess it's now incumbent upon all manufacturers to outthink the
criminals. and the various ways they might possibly modify their products. Is that what they're
saying? That's exactly what they're saying. The article continues. Many believe California is
targeting Glock-style pistols because Glocks are the most popular handgun brand in the country.
Well, that's very true, and they're very plentiful, and they're relatively inexpensive compared to
other guns.
As we already said in the first half, DOJ fought a lawsuit back on July 1st challenging the
enactment of Assembly Bill AB-1127. In the lawsuit,
the DOJ claims that the law banning Glock-style pistols violates the Second Amendment,
but the government argues that Glocks are in common use, and I hate that in common use standard,
but anyway, it works here, are in common use under the Supreme Court's decision in Heller.
The state cannot ban arms in common use. Well, they do it anyway. You can tell them they can't do
it. They'll do it anyway. They're very audacious little dorks. The DOJ also filed a temporary ex
parte restraining order or TRO. And that was issued,
of course, without inviting anybody to the hearing. So give them a taste of their own red flag
medicine. California. filed a motion opposing the ex parte TRO,
making several bold claims, including that the plaintiffs failed to meet the first step of the
Bruin analysis. Really? Wow, ain't that the pot calling the kettle black?
You guys aren't meeting the first step of the Bruin analysis. Okay,
explain to me how any of your gun control laws meet the first step of the Bruin analysis,
the plain text of the Second Amendment. 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.
But y'all missed that one, didn't you? Y'all missed the plain text in that. Funny how that works.
Especially considering the first step of the Bruin analysis to examine the plain text of the Second
Amendment, as the article states, too. to determine whether the conduct is protected. The first
question is whether the plaintiffs are members of the people, that is, members of the political
community, who have reached the age of majority. That's the age of 18,
by the way, in the U.S. And since the DOJ is representing all Americans, the answer is
unquestionably yes. The second question is whether the arm is bearable.
Well, yeah. First chapter in the Book of Duh. That's what I pretty much bear everywhere,
Glocks. The article says Glocks are bearable arms. In fact, Heller was a challenge to Washington,
D.C.'s handgun ban, while Heller erroneously, I might add, acknowledged that firearms that are
dangerous and unusual can be banned. No, they cannot. In United States v.
Walford, the Supreme Court held that courts cannot shoehorn additional restrictions into Step 1,
that is, the textual challenge. California appears to be doing just that. Its case relies on the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's rejection of a simplistic approach.
But California says that Glocks are not protected arms under the Second Amendment. Yeah. They claim
there's no constitutional right to factory settings. That's exactly what they're claiming,
if you think about it. These are factory-made Glocks designed one way and one way only,
but because criminals somehow get a hold of these switches and modify them, then therefore the rest
of the citizenry and the free exercise of their rights is contingent upon the misdeeds of
criminals. Yeah.
So the defendants claim there is no constitutional right to factory settings and that they are
merely banning a factory setting and not an arm. Really? What gives the government of California
the authority to ban factory settings and firearms? Where'd you guys claim you get that authority?
You don't have the right to ban something just because it's not explicitly covered by the Second
Amendment. You don't have that kind of right. especially factory settings that exist in the
handguns carried by countless police officers in California. They argue that companies can simply
redesign their firearms to make them less convertible. Okay, what about completely convertible?
I'm tripping over my tongue. What about make them impossible to convert?
Why wouldn't you go for that standard? Why just less convertible? We know the answer.
The defendants further contend that if the U.S. government wins, California's ban on machine guns
might be in danger of being ruled unconstitutional. Good, I hope so.
And so do all Californians. Matter of fact, so do all constitutionally sensible Americans.
We have every right to own machine guns and without having to get a freaking permission slip from
ATF. Because Glocks can be converted to machine guns by using one of those switches,
the state argues, that the most popular handgun in the world is dangerous and unusual.
No, it's only dangerous and unusual after it's been illegally converted.
How about y'all start cracking down on the... the criminal element there in your state rather than
infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms that they have every right to keep and
bear. They also claim that machine guns can fire more than a thousand rounds per minute.
I got news for you. Some of them fire even faster than that. Allowing a shooter to kill dozens of
people within a matter of seconds. Okay. So because criminals can do that,
that means the rest of us have to suffer. They also say Glocks are basically machine guns.
No, they're basically not. They were not designed as machine guns. They were not manufactured as
machine guns. They are not sold as machine guns. So who the blippity blank and blip and blap are
these people to say, well, we're going to redefine Glocks as machine guns. Because that's what
they're doing here. The state asserts that the ban does not meaningfully impair an individual's
ability to access firearms. You're not allowed to impair it at all, much less meaningfully,
or, oh, it's not so meaningful. It doesn't matter. You don't have any blippity-blanking right,
according to the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, to pass any gun control laws at
all. For these reasons, California holds that it does not need to proceed to step two of the Bruin
analysis and that Glocks are not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Well, the plain
text of the Second Amendment says we can own machine guns because it says arms for war.
Look up the word arms in any collegiate dictionary, especially in the 1828 Noah Webster's
Dictionary. You can find that online and look it up. See what it says. So the state.
California is leaning really heavily on that Ninth Circuit gun control ruling,
and they're arguing that even if the court does proceed to step two,
that they would prevail. They, the state, would prevail. They claim that AB-1127 is,
quote, consistent with the nation's historical traditions of firearms regulation and cite the Ninth
Circuit's Bruin analysis in Duncan. There is no such historical tradition.
What does the word tradition mean? Here, right from the dictionary.
A tradition is a long-established custom, belief, or behavior passed down within a group or
society from one generation to the next. Such a thing, I say,
is literally non-existent throughout America's early history. Literally.
The state attempted to avoid using laws from the founding era by pointing to the Ninth Circuit's
claim. Yeah, you see, I've said before, they like to use precedents when the actual constitution
goes against them.
The state attempts to avoid using laws from the founding era by pointing to the Ninth Circuit's
claim that mass shootings are clearly a societal concern that arose only in the 20th century and
that firearms that existed at the founding fired much slower than the firing rate of a modern semi
-automatic firearm. So you're saying mass shootings, that they arose as a societal concern?
Only in the 20th century, in the 1900s. Is that what you're saying?
Then explain the mass shooting of the men, women, and children of the Lakota Sioux by U.S.
soldiers in 1891. Matter of fact, I did some research. There were over 50 mass shootings during the
1800s. And if you want a list of them, simply Google list of mass shootings or murders in the 19th
century. By the way, what does it matter? if the mass murder is by gun,
knife, whatever. What does it matter? Death is death. I mean,
let's look at it in sensible terms here. What about Bleeding Kansas?
Do a Google search on Bleeding Kansas. Matter of fact, there was a massacre of Kansas residents by
a bunch of filthy godless Democrats with guns. The article continues, even though California tries
to avoid citing specific laws from the founding era, it does highlight categories of laws.
One category is gunpowder storage laws. Now, I've talked about them on this program before. The
only reason they demanded that people not store large amounts of gunpowder in their homes...
They could keep enough with them to fire their weapons and use them, but large powder stores had to
be stored in powder magazines outside the city or in a designated place where if it did ignite it
wouldn't kill a bunch of people, because they did have some issues like that. But that had nothing
to do with restricting a type of firearm or the keeping and bearing of arms at all.
The state also points to trap gun laws. Now, if you don't know what a trap gun is, that's also
known as a set gun, where someone sets up a firearm to aim right at the door, so when the door
opens up, they catch a chest full of buckshot. Yeah, because most set guns were shotguns. Most of
them double barrel. But they cited those.
Well, there were laws against those. Well, yes, there were, and justifiably so. but it wasn't
against owning the gun that was used in the trap, okay? Now,
the third category that they tried to cite was restrictions on particular weapons,
quote, after their use by criminals exposed an exceptionally dangerous use of the weapon,
though the state provided no such specific examples. No kidding. Shocking.
The defendants state that, at a minimum, More time would be needed to compile historical analogs
for Bruin's Step 2 analysis. Given the time required, the state believes a TRO is inappropriate and
that the law should remain in place. Nope, you're getting a TRO. Uh-huh, temporary restraining
order. Now, Maryland also has a Glock ban, by the way, and there is a case going on there that adds
pressure to this case here in California.
This is a challenge to Maryland's Glock Band also and the Firearm Policy Coalition and the NRA and
the Second Amendment Foundation. I think they should be a member of the Firearm Policy Coalition
and the Second Amendment Foundation. are currently suing Maryland over its Glock ban,
too. So, and National Rifle Association is jumping in on that, too.
They've got a case called NRA versus Moore, M-O-O-R-E.
So, this is heating up, and I'm very, very pleased and impressed with the progress being made in a
pro-Second Amendment direction and course throughout the country, but also... in our national DOJ,
our federal DOJ. I like what they're doing. Does it go as far as I would like it to go?
Well, that remains to be seen. I kind of think it may not, but you never know.
In the meantime, you need to stay in contact with your reps and always let your voice be heard with
them. If you're a member of GOA, they make it so unbelievably easy to do that.
They will send you an alert. Sign up for the alerts. And you'll get an alert.
Hey, this is going on. Reach out to your congressman. There's a button in the email.
You click the button and it takes you right to a pre-written petition,
basically. Not a petition, but a statement. And you can either erase that and write your own.
Don't be threatening. Don't be anything like that. Or you can simply sign the one they sent.
And I will tell you right now. Those representatives on Capitol Hill will hear your voice because
of what GOA does. Eric Pratt, who is the vice president of GOA,
and a fine human being, by the way, I've had the honor of hanging out with him a couple of times.
And once in Tallahassee back in 2018, when we shared a stage giving speeches there on the Capitol
steps, actually. And he was walking out of the halls of Congress one day,
and one representative stopped him. And I don't remember the man's name. But he said,
so you're with GOA? He said, yes, sir, I am. He said, I will tell you this. Your people are loud.
Okay, you caught that, right? You know what that means? It means your voice does get heard up
there, even by the scumbags who don't want to hear it. So join GOA.
Sign up for the alerts. and get your voice heard. You don't have to waste stamps. You don't have to
do anything. You simply do it all electronically. It costs you nothing but a couple of minutes and
you get your voice heard. So make sure you stay in contact with your reps by joining GOA.
Stock up on beans, bullets, and bandages. As I always say, you stay strapped or you're going to get
clapped and never forget. Incoming rounds always have the right of way. Royce out.