A Detroit, Mich., woman, who went the wrong way while driving to the salon, was trying to make a U-turn when three men approached her. After ordering her out of the vehicle, one of the men began shooting in her direction. The woman drew her own firearm, a SIG Sauer chambered in .357 SIG, and fired back, forcing her attackers to flee. “All of the residents of the city need to come together,” she said. “If you live in fear, you’ll never take this city back.”

Police temporarily confiscated the gun the woman used in the incident, but said that she legally defended herself. Fortunately, she still has her backup 9mm in the car.

In response to the Obama administration’s attempt to use BATFE to ban ammunition it claims isn’t used for “sporting purposes,” Congressional Republicans have introduced a funding bill amendment to prevent such abuses.

The amendment, introduced by Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., and passed by voice vote, would make funding of the Justice Department—and by extension, BATFE—contingent on restricting their abilities to ban so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, such as M855. 

Some Democrats claim the amendment would cause an upswing in gun violence. But as we have outlined before, not only is M855 indeed used for “sporting purposes,” it’s also rarely used in crimes and has never been used to murder a law-enforcement officer. What the amendment will do is send a strong message to this and future administrations that the president shouldn’t bypass Congress in an attempt to spend our tax dollars enforcing unnecessary legislation that infringes on our rights.

On Wednesday, CNN commentator Charles Blow denied that spiking urban murder rates might be attributed to police pullbacks: “It would be a strange twist of logic … because police are not the subject of the shootings.”

Continuing his own twisted logic, he accused guest Heather Mac Donald of racist comments and blamed current urban gun violence on poverty, despite the fact that gun homicide has dropped steadily during two decades of a roller coaster economy. 

Blow completed his bizarre tirade by equating police killings in the line of duty with criminal murder: “If they (police) take a life, yes, there should be blowback, and there should be outrage. If anyone’s life is taken, and no one is arrested, that is a big difference from when someone’s life is taken and they swoop in, arrest right away, charge with the most severe charges right away, which is what happens in every other case” when the killer is known.

While ham-handedly trying to discredit decades-running Gallup and Pew polls showing that gun bans have less support than ever, Washington Post writer Todd Frankel this week unquestioningly reported on “polls” conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (yes, that Bloomberg, who gave $1.1 billion to Johns Hopkins) that supposedly contradicted Gallup and Pew.

But in so doing, Frankel simply revealed his own ignorance and/or dishonesty on the issue. As Frankel reported, the Hopkins/Bloomberg polls asked respondents whether they supported policies such as “preventing a felon convicted of a serious crime from having a gun for 10 years.”

If Frankel had a clue—or if those pollsters had a smidgen of integrity—they would have admitted that: a) all felons are “convicted of serious crimes” by definition; and b) are already barred for life, under federal law, from ever even touching a gun. But the truth apparently didn’t fit into their schemes.

We have covered the infuriating case of Steffon Josey-Davis, a New Jersey security officer and police hopeful whose life was shattered when he was detained for accidentally carrying his legally owned firearm in the glove compartment of his car. He now has a felony conviction that makes it difficult to do something as simple as renting an apartment and bars him from his desired line of employment.

Josey-Davis, who is black, recently announced on an interview with Fox News that he reached out to the NAACP for help in filing an appeal, but they have refused to work with him. “They say ‘black lives matter,’ but obviously they really don’t, because I don’t fit their agenda …” he said. “I’m not getting shot by a police officer, so they’re not going to come out and defend me.” It is troubling, indeed, to see this tolerance of injustice from what once was a great civil rights organization.