Friday, July 29, 2022

Live Nation Concert Woes In Georgia © 2022 Phillip Evans

Update: In my interview recorded at 6:00pm Aug. 8th, 2022 with Peter Biello of GBP, I mentioned Live Nation's "unforeseen circumstances" statement, and Mr. Biello stated they didn't say that, but instead said "circumstances beyond our control". Afterwards, I thought about it and clearly recalled seeing their first statement, also in this report: 

Mr. Biello acknowledged my email to him regarding this change of statement from Live Nation.


I just learned right after 3:00pm today (Friday, July 29th, 2022), in a phone call with independent journalist George Chidi of Fox 5 News, a 3rd party told him that Atlanta Mayor Dinkins Office * has confirmed that Live Nation will soon announce they are cancelling their September Music Midtown concerts at the City of Atlanta's Piedmont Park.

According to rumors, some performers may have a contract rider that does not allow them to perform in venues where firearms are permitted under state law, but that hasn't been verified. Live Nation's policy banning weapons at the concert wouldn't be sufficient to comply with that clause if it exists, as it would run contrary to state law. John Ruch at Saporta Report has been hearing it might be due to insurance issues - whether or not related to our state's gun laws, he didn't specify.

If the insurance issue was related to our gun laws, then Live Nation had even MORE of an incentive in the last almost three years they've known about this, to obtain a private venue. 

Live Nation scrambled at the last minute to find a private property venue, instead of a publicly owned park, but was not successful.

Last May 9th, I emailed Live Nation President, Peter Conlon and his assistant, explaining state law in Georgia with regard to lawful weapons carry on public property, that he had no authority to ban legally carried weapons at Piedmont Park, but received no reply, as I suspected would be the case.

Around three weeks ago, I also posted the following on the Music Midtown Atlanta Facebook page, also with no response from Live Nation:

"If you'd like to attend the festival (and have a ticket) while legally armed (Live Nation does NOT have the authority to ban legally carried firearms or other weapons at any public park in Georgia, per state law), you can file suit against Live Nation for their stated intent to infringe upon your rights. A good gun-rights attorney to contact would be John R. Monroe. Disclaimer: Atty. Monroe did not ask me to post this, but he has been my attorney and is the best in my opinion."

Live Nation has actually had since October 2019 to get their act together, for that was when the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that firearms cannot be banned on public property unless the entity leasing that property has a lease which grants an "estate for years" (some ownership rights). Live Nation merely had a City Permit to conduct their concerts in the park, much less any sort of lease.

Also, from Feb. 18, 2020, here's a screenshot of me informing Live Nation on their Midtown Music Facebook page:

Live Nation holds concerts at other publicly owned venues in Georgia, such as at Cadence Bank Amphitheatre at Chastain Park, a public City of Atlanta Park. 

One wonders if the fallout from this will affect those other concerts as well, as more out of state performers become aware of our weapons carry laws.

Lest anyone think our guns laws should be a problem for these concert promoters, there are performers who have no issue with good citizens legally carrying their firearms to their concerts in Georgia. One example pertains to Mable House Barnes Amphitheatre. On their website they only ban "Illegal Weapons", and that did not prevent singer Taylor Dayne from performing there last June 25th. I've attended their amphitheater twice in the past for other events, and wore my holstered sidearm openly with no issues at all from either police, the performers, or my fellow attendees.

Live Nation may try to blame Georgia Carry (now GA2A) *** or me for their woes, but as mentioned before, the law was passed in 2014 and clarified in 2019, so crying about state law in 2022 would look rather childish if they did so. But queue the violins!

Also look for blame to be placed on the new permitless carry law, which allows citizens who already qualify for a license, to carry a pistol openly or concealed without a license. This has no direct bearing on Live Nation's self-inflicted problems, it just means a government permission slip is not needed to protect yourself, if you're a law-abiding citizen. Criminals will carry regardless.

The Live Nation fiasco may have cost them and/or any insurance policy they might hold, millions of dollars. When that much is at stake, you'd think they would have planned better and obtained a privately owned venue from the start, where they could lawfully ban weapons, or at least have been prepared to follow state law when hosting concerts on public property. Live Nation has other problems as well.

* The City of Atlanta was happy to provide a permit to Live Nation even after I had emailed their law department last May 13th to inform officials of Live Nation's stated plan to ban weapons at Piedmont Park in violation of state law. But that's Democrats for you with their disregard for our state's gun laws, and our right of self-protection in public.

*** I did not pursue the issue of Live Nation's weapons bans at venues in Georgia on GA2A's behalf. I did so personally on my own as a private citizen advocating for our well established self-defense carry rights in my birth and home state of Georgia. If we little folks have to follow state law, the big wigs with the big pockets have to follow it also - particularly in a city with as much crime as Atlanta, which clearly warrants being armed at all times for your protection from criminals.

Monday, July 18, 2022

Good Guy Stops Bad Guy In "Gun-Free" Zone © 2022 Phillip Evans

The mall is owned by Simon Property Group, a company whose corporate policy prohibits the carrying of weapons in their malls by anyone other than law enforcement.

On the Blue Lives Matter Facebook page, I posted the following question:

"Simon Malls has a gun-free policy. Had the good guy followed it, more would have been killed by the bad guy. Will Simon Malls thank the good guy for breaking their policy?"

A Greenwood Mall Spokesperson stated the following: "We are grateful for the strong response of the first responders, including the heroic actions of the Good Samaritan who stopped the suspect."

In Indiana, it is not a state law weapons violation if a lawfully armed person ignores a gun-free sign on private property, as this young rescuer had done. He likely saw one of their gun buster signs, but carried on anyway. His probable reasoning was that signs don't save lives, and he should not render himself incapable of defending himself or others just because he was in a mall. Not to mention leaving his gun in his vehicle would place it at risk for theft, you know, by a bad guy.

His actions very likely saved many lives that day, as the gunman had several ammo magazines, with plenty still loaded when he was taken out, having fired 24 rounds. No innocent bystanders were hurt, no police (or anyone else armed) confused the good guy for a bad guy. 

Imagine that, a young private weapons carrier with no badge, and no "special ones only" training saved multiple lives, using a pistol against a rifle, within 15 seconds of the start of the attack, from 40 yards away, with 8 out of 10 shots hitting the perp! He showed more courage against a mass murderer than the entire Uvalde police force did at Robb Elementary School.

No one needed to dial 911, no one had to wait several minutes or longer for help to arrive. A First Responder was ALREADY ON THE SCENE, in a supposed "gun-free" zone. Thank goodness for that rascal hero who disobeyed a "No Weapons" sign!

More often though, it's police (on or off duty) and armed private security that stops active mass shooters, tragically after many victims have died. When a regular guy or gal stops one, it does highlight the value of being armed in the critical moment when it's needed. I recall reading somewhere years ago that even licensed carriers do not consistently carry their firearms as they go about their daily business; perhaps 10-15% of them do. Don't pin me on those numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was still true today. People just don't want to bother with the inconvenience or extra weight of a gun on their hip. 

I've heard that a gun doesn't have to be comfortable to carry; comforting should be good enough. Elisjsha Dicken, the hero in the mall, certainly could relate, especially now that he has gone through this experience.

We regular folks are far greater in number than public or private hired guns. Imagine the additional lives that could be saved every year if we all carried our weapons wherever we need to be all the time, wherever carry is legal?

It's ironic that now with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the NYSRPA vs. Bruen case forcing states to issue a license to carry a firearm to everyone who applies and qualifies, that Democrats are moving with light speed to devalue their carry license with making as making places off-limits to carry as possible. This is far worse than walking past a gun buster sign on private property in a state that doesn't prosecute that. 

Violating these laws would mean spending years in a concrete and steel box, being vulnerable to being raped, maimed, or murdered by actual criminals. In my opinion, the politicians who pass these anti-liberty laws should be the ones in prison for treason.

Republican majority states also still have their share of off-limits places for licensed carry of firearms. After 2017, with the passage of limited college campus carry, my home state of Georgia has done nothing further to remove additional off-limits places from the books. Why should I have to disarm in a K-12 school, polling place when voting, certain state and local government buildings, and churches? Mass shooters don't disarm in those places. 

Why do Republicans, who claim to support our carry rights, drag their feet in either slowly opening up more places to carry, or simply stop the progress altogether?

These same Republican state politicians also repeat the statement that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Why are they then keeping these prohibitive laws on the books, that were placed there when Democrats had control? Be sure to ask them, and demand your right of armed self-defense.

Thursday, July 14, 2022

Government Mandated Victim Zones = High Body Count © 2022 Phillip Evans

Two unspeakable horrors occurred at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas on May 24th, 2022. One was the murder of 19 innocent children and 2 adults. The other was that at least some of those lives could have been saved had police not cowardly stood in the hallway for about an hour allowing the gunman to commit as many murders as he wanted, before finally rushing into an unlocked classroom to kill him at last.

Would it have been different if the victims had been children of the officers?

Think about that a bit, and you can probably answer correctly. But that's the downside of depending on others to save you and your own. The daily focus and motto of police is to "go home safe" at the end of their shift.

A much better solution would have been voluntarily armed teachers and staff able to shoot back immediately on the spot with their own pistols. That would have turned the gunman's attention from the children to the armed adults, and bought time until police arrived, if not put the gunman down.

Even under the best circumstances, police response is measured in minutes, and even one minute is far too long to wait when you're being shot at. Look at a clock with a second hand and watch it make a full rotation. Imagine you are being attacked by an armed killer while you do.

Failing permission from a school board, most state governments make it a crime punishable by imprisonment if even licensed-to-carry teachers and staff wear their self-defense firearms on school property.

Think about it, even states who are big on firearm preemption, like my own state of Georgia, still require a licensed carrier (teacher or not) to have permission from a school board or their duly authorized official to generally carry in a "school safety zone" when outside a vehicle - such permission that the politicians KNOW won't be granted in virtually all cases. One exception is Florida, which initiated their Guardian Program after the 2018 Parkland school massacre *, with about 2/3 of their school districts participating. 

Someone please tell me - what is SAFE about being forced under threat of jail by politicians to be unarmed and helpless to deal with an armed threat in schools? All states that are majority Democrat in their state legislatures or general assemblies have this self-defense prohibition, and most Republican majority states do as well.

Tell me, why do Republicans want to be just like Democrats on the issue of self-defense prohibition in K-12 school zones? Are they that fearful of the teachers unions, whose members don't usually vote for them anyway? 

A few states have Republicans with real backbones. These states allow any qualified citizen to carry a firearm in K-12 schools:

1. Alabama - If licensed. However, a school can trespass an armed carrier if they are discovered to be carrying. This liberty loophole needs to be closed.

2. Mississippi - If a citizen has obtained an "enhanced license" - a class is required. This was something some of us licensed carriers have begged the Georgia General Assembly for, that has fallen on deaf ears, with no good reason.

3. Utah - If licensed.

4. New Hampshire - No license needed, as long as the person's criminal background does not disqualify them.

I wish my Peach State's (and all other) gun laws were like New Hampshire's, but I'm willing to take a special class to get an extra-special, cherry on top "enhanced" license to show that I can be trusted to carry at my son's school whenever I have business to be there. 

Self-protection is a natural, God-given right, and politicians have no business denying that right, while at the same time failing to secure schools from armed threats. That is unconscionable, and they know it.

* Florida Republicans finally opened their eyes a little and defied their teachers union, but only after the Parkland school murders. Imagine if they had their Guardian Program from the start, or at least before 2018. Our "gun-rights friendly" politicians should be proactive rather than reactive. They need to take measures NOW to ensure that victims have better options than dialing 911 and waiting. Hold them accountable for it.

Tuesday, July 5, 2022

Places Too "Sensitive" For Self-Defense © 2022 Phillip Evans

However, the opinion of the Court left an open window for governments to ban the carrying of firearms by un-badged or "not professional enough" citizens in "Sensitive Places", to be hammered out by other courts as to what qualifies as such and whether the decision is constitutional, eventually making it back up to the U.S. Supreme Court after another decade or two.

Of course, leftist governments bent on citizen disarmament will view this window as wide as the Grand Canyon.

It's obvious that a quick solution to this problem of continuing infringements will not lie with the Federal Courts, as Democrats are now moving with high velocity in a multi-salvo assault on our Second Amendment Rights by passing new bills greatly increasing the number of off-limits places, increasing the cost to obtain a license via additional training requirements, and other added infringements, as the state of New York has just done.

Perhaps the best short-term course of action is to focus on our state representatives, to demand the free exercise of liberty to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe from criminals. 

At no charge to any government or anyone else, I will provide the correct and logical, even moral definition of what a "Sensitive Place" is that could qualify for a constitutional weapons ban, in my opinion.

When government declares a particular place to be off limits to peacefully armed citizens, it is making a very clear and understood life and death contract with them:

This contract is a PROMISE that the government will provide protection against criminal acts equal to or greater than what the citizens can provide for themselves. It's really that simple. Anything less is unacceptable to those who value human life.

Perhaps it's reasonable to believe such places are potential targets primarily because the government mandates that the general citizenry is not permitted to possess the means of armed defense via threat of imprisonment if they disobey this edict.

Tragically too often, the government's idea of exchanging it's "protection" of you for your disarmament at their command, is to merely let you have the option of dialing 911, wait for police to arrive, and wait for them to assess the situation to determine what they will do next, all the while you are under armed attack with no real way to fight back.

This government plan of "protection" was exactly all the victims had in the school shootings of Parkland, FL and Uvalde, TX (among several others), and that didn't work out well for them. The politicians who keep armed self-defense illegal for them in schools were all safe and snug with their armed security in place.

Some might argue that government should always prohibit armed citizens in K-12 schools, but in all school mass shootings, the shooters have ignored the weapons prohibition laws for school zones, as well as the laws against murder and attempted murder.

Licensed, legal carriers have never been a problem in schools, and a few states permit carry in schools even without a license. 

The problem has been the government tying our hands, as criminals ignore the law and bring their guns in to do damage to innocents. Why handicap the good guys/gals with a self-defense prohibition?

Good people outnumber criminals, so let our guns outnumber criminals' guns when they attack. Even criminals have a certain amount of self-preservation in them, and knowing that citizens are not sitting ducks would be a strong deterrent.

One concern is that accidents can happen, and in rare cases a few walls or floors have been damaged by teachers or other staff carrying a firearm legally or not in schools, but logically ALL public places should be off limits to the carrying of guns in public by anyone not a member of law-enforcement if accidents is the primary problem. Not to mention, law-enforcement is not immune to accidents as well.

Unfortunately, we have something far more nefarious to fear than accidents.

We have people walking the streets that do not value human life. They will put a bullet into you or your child just for fun. We do not give up our right to save our lives and those under our care just because of a fear of accidents.

Liberty is not perfect because people aren't perfect, but tyrannical creation of soft targets by government is an abomination, for it guarantees a high body count when evil strikes.

The cure must not be worse than the disease.

Folks, not all the blame lies with politicians. Citizens voted in the very ones who deny our right of self-defense. Vote them out and vote in ones who will stop threatening to punish you just because you want to be able to shoot back at monsters, whether the place is a K-12 school, church, unsecured government building, or anywhere else you happen to be.

Saturday, July 2, 2022

New York Anti-Gun-Rights Hydra © 2022 Phillip Evans

For those who thought that Justice Clarence Thomas' great opinion in the Bruen decision was the Golden Sword that killed the Hydra, think again. For those not familiar with the mythical story, the Hydra* grew back two heads for each one chopped off, making it hard to kill. Much like the hard to kill infringements on our Second Amendment Rights.

As was predicted by more than one person (myself included) in a forum thread at, once New York was forced by the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a firearms carry license to all qualifying citizens, New York Democrats quickly moved to devalue that license to the point of making it almost worthless.

That's because the little people ("Let them eat cake!") are not worthy to have a carry license of any real value per the racketeering government officials in New York.

Gambling mobster Timothy Daniel Sullivan, who was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1903 to 1906 pushed the NY Legislature to pass the Sullivan Act in 1911. This law made firearms licenses "may issue", meaning that law-abiding citizens could be denied a license merely at the whim of their Democrat overlords, for failing to show "good cause" or "special need". 

These tyrannical NY politicians (both past and present) would make King George of England absolutely giggly.

For over 100 years NY and NYC has had quite the racket going where their corrupt politicians could receive money and other favors from the rich and politically connected, in exchange for the privilege of being armed for their self-protection in public. 

This has been especially true for New York City, which does not accept a state carry license, but requires its own issued license.

Now that the racket has been busted by a 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Gov. Hochul has taken the lead to get her revenge. If the common people think they will ever get what the elites had access to, they better think twice according to her. She gave their state legislature marching orders for a bill to add numerous off-limits places to carry even with a license, making virtually the entire City of New York and much of the state unpractical for carrying a concealed pistol in public.

Even more perverse in the bill is the new signage provision. If you have a carry license, and enter ANY private business, you automatically commit a FELONY unless that business has posted a sign stating that concealed firearms are permitted. You can count on one hand how many businesses would post such a sign.

These Democrats have gone into full idiot mode just because mere citizens dare to desire the right of self-protection when going about their daily business often in high crime areas. "How dare women wish to defend themselves against rapists!", whines female Gov. Hochul in her mind.

To even obtain a license you have to provide not only four references vouching for your moral character, in the new bill now signed into law, you will also have to provide all of your social media handles for the past three years, so that your Facebook and other Internet posts can be scrutinized by these same corrupt Democrats diligently looking for any possible excuse to not issue you a license to carry a firearm in public. 

Would my blog article here disqualify me from receiving a NY carry license? Saying "probably" would likely be an understatement. As well as any criticisms of Democrats you've made on social media.

You will also have to provide all the names and contact info of any adults living with you, including your adult children. Talk about a privacy invasion!

Additionally, you will be required to take a 16 hour government approved firearms course, making the expense out of reach for poor New Yorkers who live in areas where they have an even greater need of self-defense from armed criminals. Don't believe me? See the next sentence:

Many poor New Yorkers are Black citizens. Just like Democrats in the Jim Crow days of the old South, modern Democrats want to keep Blacks unarmed, especially in public.

I suspect Gov. Hochul's new law will have some backfire effect, as the elites there just received a healthy dose of her fangs' poison. Their ability to carry a gun with their license has just been greatly diminished.

Of course, New York will waste millions of dollars of tax-payer money to defend this new law in court, as challenges will soon be filed, if not already, by gun-rights organizations such as the NRA, GOA, and SAF.

You can help too, by joining your state's gun-rights organizations. And always VOTE for true Second Amendment Supporters! 

* Obviously, the Hydra I'm talking about is laws that infringe on our rights. I'm not saying that Gov. Hochul is literally a hydra. Her photo is on the hydra image because she is the face of these laws in NY. No advocacy of violence against any politician is stated or implied in my article here.