J.B. Kasper Outdoors

The Battle for the Second Amendment









Deranged Bloomberg: “I’ve Earned my Place in Heaven” for Trying to Ban Guns
Last Resistence,  Apr 17, 2014

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thinks the way to heaven is by pushing gun control as much as possible. That and placing government mandates and regulations on people’s dietary choices. Bloomberg said that he’s already reserved his spot in heaven for all his good works, and that his best efforts in gun control are yet to come.
The New York Times
reported:
Mr. Bloomberg was introspective as he spoke, and seemed both restless and wistful. When he sat down for the interview, it was a few days before his 50th college reunion. His mortality has started dawning on him, at 72. And he admitted he was a bit taken aback by how many of his former classmates had been appearing in the “in memoriam” pages of his school newsletter.
But if he senses that he may not have as much time left as he would like, he has little doubt about what would await him at a Judgment Day. Pointing to his work on gun safety, obesity and smoking cessation, he said with a grin: “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.”
Bloomberg’s planning on spending some $50 million on gun control efforts this year and reorganizing the groups that he funds into one umbrella organization called Everytown for Gun Safety.
He didn’t seem to care about the image that he projects as one of a super rich guy who’s known for trying to ban sugary drinks. He told the Times reporter that everywhere he goes, he feels like a rock star. “People yelling out of cabs, ‘Hey, way to go!’”
First of all, I’m sure he’d get the same reception if he ever visited Kennesaw, Georgia. But what he doesn’t mention, of course, is that while “all these people” are shouting their approval of him and patting him on the back (actually they wouldn’t be allowed to be that near him), he’s surrounded by armed security. Yes, armed with guns, objects that he’s trying to get banned for everyone else.
The NRA reportedly spends about $20 million annually, and groups affiliated with the evil Koch brothers spent about $30 million over the past 6 months. To liberals, those amounts are an abomination. They’re the reason we need to get rid of “money and politics.” But when it’s Bloomberg’s money being used to influence politics, it’s great. It’s for a good cause. It’s so great, Bloomberg’s already reserved his space in heaven.
I like what Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America had to say: “He’s got the money to waste. So I guess he’s free to do so. But frankly, I think he’s going to find out why his side keeps losing.”


Milford man who shot squirrel had unregistered assault rifle, high-capacity magazines, cops say
Clash Daily, April 17, 2014

A 65-year-old man faces an array of charges after shooting a squirrel in his yard Monday morning, police said in a press release.
James Toigo, 258 Housatonic Dr., was charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm, cruelty to an animal, first-degree reckless endangerment, second-degree breach of peace, failure to register an assault rifle and three counts of possessing large-capacity magazines, according to a police press release from Officer Jeffrey Nielsen.
Police officers were directing traffic in the area of Housatonic Drive when they heard a gunshot nearby, according to the release.
Upon investigation, Toigo was taken into custody after police said he shot the squirrel.
Police said they also found an unregistered assault rifle, as well as three large-capacity magazines, in Toigo’s home. Both the firearms and the magazines were taken, the release said.
Nielsen said the assault riffle was not the gun Toigo shot the squirrel with.
“As the investigation progressed the officers seized several firearms from the home for safe keeping,” Nielsen said. “That included the assault rifle and the three high capacity magazine he did not have registered.”
Nielsen said he believes the majority of the seized firearms were registered. Those weapons will remain in police custody until Toigo’s case is heard, Nielsen said. Depending on the outcome, Toigo will need to petition the police department to have his guns returned.
Toigo was released on a promise to appear May 13 in court.


Report: FBI Visiting Gun Shops to Investigate “People Talking About Big Government
Infowars.com April 16, 2014

Author Brandon Turbeville  says he was approached by an individual who works in a Columbia, South Carolina gun shop to relate the story of how an FBI agent entered the store on Monday, showed his credentials, before proceeding to ask a series of stunning questions.
Telling the gun store worker he was tasked with visiting all the firearms outlets in the local area to check on “suspicious purchases” for counterterrorism purposes, the agent then began discussing what in actual fact were “completely normal transactions,” such as, “paying with cash, purchasing long guns, and other similarly innocuous behavior.”
The FBI agent then reportedly made a shocking remark that almost seems too chilling to believe.
“If you see some Middle Eastern guy come in, you don’t have to be so worried about that. What we’re really looking for are people talking about being sovereign such as sovereign citizens or people talking about big government,” the agent reportedly stated.
Before the agent left the store, he handed the employee a flyer which lists paying with cash, buying in bulk, along with other seemingly innocuous behavior as suspicious activity.
While there’s little chance of verifying the story since the FBI would almost certainly deny the claim, the notion of FBI agents charactering innocuous activity as a potential indication of terrorism is firmly established in the federal agency’s own literature and training procedures.
The FBI has also repeatedly labeled those who identify as “sovereign citizens” to be domestic terrorists
.
In 2012, we reported
 on how the FBI’s Communities Against Terrorism (CAT) program was instructing businesses that banal activities conducted by millions of Americans on a daily basis were potential indications of terrorist activity.
Flyers for the program being handed out to businesses such as Internet cafes even listed paying for a cup of coffee with cash as a suspicious activity.
A flyer aimed at Military Surplus stores
 also encourages owners to report people who “make bulk purchases of items to include….meals ready to eat”.
In total, there are 25 different CAT flyers
 aimed at businesses from across the spectrum – everything from hobby shops to tattoo parlors.
The flyer pictured above which was reportedly handed to the gun store worker by the FBI agent contains very similar language to that used in flyers produced for the FBI’s Communities Against Terrorism program

Phila. Gun Club sues SHARK over campaign of harassment stemming from live pigeon protests
NJOA, April 9, 2014


A Pennsylvania sportsman's organization has filed a federal complaint against an animal welfare group over allegations that the defendant and its members have unleashed a pattern of harassment and intimidation against the plaintiff and its members.
Philadelphia Gun Club Inc. and eight of its members filed suit in U.S. District Court last week against Showing Animals Respect and Kindness, or SHARK, and five of its members over an alleged campaign of "harassment, hounding, intimidation, trespass, invasion of privacy and intrusion" against the plaintiffs as well as club staff and members' relatives, friends and businesses associates.
The defendants are accused of taking the measures against the plaintiffs in part because the gun club conducts live pigeon shoots, an act the defendants deem unacceptable and barbaric.
Pennsylvania is believed to be the only state left in the nation in which shooting pigeons strictly for sport is still legal.
The lawsuit says that while SHARK claims a creed of physical non-violence, it openly advocates engaging in acts of "emotional violence," and it further maintains internet postings on the website of the Animal Liberation Front, which the FBI has identified as a domestic terror threat.
The complaint says that while SHARK's tactics to date have not included violence, it does specialize in taking its video and photos and using them for an advanced form of "cyber bullying," which "fails to qualify as outright hate speech only by virtue of its absence of race or ethnicity."
"SHARK's diatribes however are a 21st century, internet-based version of incitement to riot and commit acts of violence against the PGC and its members," the complaint reads. "They fall outside the bounds of protected speech and should be enjoined."
The Philadelphia Gun Club, which has been in existence since 1877, says that the defendants' harassment actions relate to its live pigeon shoots, which it holds about 12 days out of the year.
Among other things, the lawsuit accuses the individual defendants of violating the Driver's Privacy Protection Act for following and conducting surveillance on each of the plaintiffs listed.
The suit even links to one web video in which SHARK president Steven Omar Hindi, who lives in Illinois, followed a man believed to be a gun club member and then got into a confrontation with the man, which ended with the victim pulling a gun on Hindi and his passenger.
The video, posted online by SHARK, says that the man, who the lawsuit says was not a gun club member, never faced any criminal charges for pulling out his gun and pointing it at the SHARK members.
The incident apparently took place in Bucks County, Pa., home to the gun club.
The complaint says the defendants also violated federal law when they stalked and harassed the plaintiffs and then created Internet videos of the encounters.
The harassment acts took place against the plaintiffs within the past two years, the suit says, although the plaintiffs are not able to provide specific dates of the defendants' DPPA violations because of the "clandestine manner in which defendants conduct this criminal activity."
The defendants are also accused of defiant trespass since, as the plaintiffs contend, many of the incidents of harassment apparently took place on a portion of the gun club's property.
"Despite requests and instructions, defendants have defiantly refused to remove themselves from the PGC property, causing PGC members to lose the use of said property as a result of defendants' tortious acts," the complaint reads.
The lawsuit contains additional counts of libel, defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with prospective economic relations and tortious interference with existing contractual relations.
The plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $150,000.
The individual plaintiffs named in the complaint are Leo Holt, Edward Bruce DiDonato, Jordan Irving, Clark Travers, Karl Natriello, William Comly, Carl Badenhausen and John Ross.
Aside from Hindi, SHARK's president, the additional defendants named are Brandon Bohn, Stuart Chaifetz, Michael David Kobliska and Janet Enoch.
The suit was filed by attorney Sean M. Corr of the Warminster, Pa. firm Corr Mitchell LLC.

Answers That Raise Questions
Jim Sheperd, Outdoor Wire, April 11, 2014

After the ATF's raid on a pair of California gun companies, many in the firearms industry -myself included- wondered just what changed the ATF's collective mind what morphed unfinished polymer AR-style rifle lowers into finished-and unregistered "guns". It was a matter of no small amount of speculation.
The speculation wasn't unfounded. It wouldn't be the first time the BATFE had suffered a reversal of opinion when it came to parts for AR-style rifles. Several items that were sold with ATF letters stating they were legal for civilian use have gone from favored to forbidden. The predecessor to the Slide Fire rifle stock is one that comes to mind. Owners found themselves recipients of letters from the ATF demanding they surrender their illegal parts- or be able to explain why they couldn't.
With the change of opinion regarding the polymer lowers manufactured by EP Armory, ten thousand- or more- purchasers may find the part they were told was legal suddenly...isn't.
Now, a letter circulating through the news media - and around the internet- from Earl Griffith, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch of the ATF sheds some light on the "why" behind the raids on EP Armory and Aires Armor
The reason? If you'll look at the photo showing a pair of the now-apparently illegal polymer blanks, you can see where anyone wanting to convert the "blank" into a functional lower would be required to machine out the black plastic that fills the fire-control cavity. With that space filled, it's not a firearm. Unfilled; however, it is a "firearm".
The point of contention centers around the plastic filling that fire control cavity. The gun companies say the blank is created the same way as aluminum blanks - and the purchasers must be capable of machining them to make a functional lower- the only serialized part of an AR-style rifle.
The ATF, however, accuses them of splitting hairs -or biscuits, to be more exact. The ATF says that during the manufacturing process the "biscuit" is put into the mold and the plastic injected around it. When that's the process, the "blank" is never really a blank-even with the "biscuit" filling the fire control group's space.
With this explanation, the ATF's case is, according to industry observers, gets stronger and the California companies have been moved from an offensive to a defensive position.
It's still not settled, but it seems the latest twist favors the ATF contention.
Sig Sauer's SB15 Pistol Stabilizing brace. It's legal for adaptive shooting as shown (above), but the brace certainly looks a lot like a shoulder stock. (below) Would using it that way turn it into an illegal SBR (Short Barreled Rifle)
Which brings into question the ruling on Sig Sauer's SB15 Pistol Stabilizing Brace. It's a brace designed for buffer-tube equipped AR-style rifles. It is designed to fit over the buffer, then around an impaired shooter's arm. A velcro band then secures it to the user's forearm, improving the one-handed grip and making the AR a viable option for shooters with physical problems.
But it does look a whole lot like a shoulder stock slapped onto the end of an AR-style pistol. And a friend testing his first AR-pistol used a photo showing him using the buffer tube as a pseudo-stock. Boy that kicked off the questions- and concerns that he had violated the law.
Seems, however, that's not the case. A member of the Greenwood, Colorado police department sent an email to the ATF asking if shooting the pistol from the shoulder made it into an SBR.
The ATF -again in the person of Earl Griffith of the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) sent back a response my friend had to find comforting. The fact that someone misused the pistol did not change its intended purpose or physical design characteristics.
Mr. Griffith's response even referenced the Sig Sauer SB15 Pistol Stabilizing brace, saying "certain firearms accessories such as the SIG Stability Brace have not been classified by FTB as shoulder stocks" - in other words, misuse doesn't change their intended purpose-or its classification under federal law.
That response came with a qualifier we'd all do well to remember: "However, FTB cannot recommend using a weapon (or weapon accessory) in a manner not intended by the manufacturer."
And there's a simple fact that remains - at this point it seems the ATF has a lot of latitude in interpretations of their rulings. In school, we used to call that the "rubber band ruler" - it couldn't really be trusted because it was subject to modification by the user.


Family of Gun Owners Stop Persistent Home Intruder
Last Resistence, April 11, 2014

The Penas are a family of gun owners who live in Florida. Luis Pena, the dad, awoke one morning to investigate noises he heard. He saw a man trying to break in through the french doors that led do his back deck. Luis fired a warning shot to get the guy to leave, but the intruder was determined to break in.
By the time he made his way in through the doors and into their kitchen around 7 a.m., Luis’s wife and son had armed themselves, and all three of them were standing there, waiting to greet him.
The intruder, an apparently unarmed man, decided that it would be a good idea to charge at Luis, and when he did, Luis shot him in the torso and killed him.
I think this is a pretty clear cut case of self-defense. They even gave him a chance to run away by firing a warning shot. And since the guy was dumb enough to pursue three armed citizens in their own house, he got what he deserved. If they had had no guns and had to resort to calling the police, who knows what would have happened to this family in the time it took the police to show up?

Quote of the day by Dianne Feinstein........
Dianne Feinstein: "All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms."
Yep, - she really said it on Thursday in a meeting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee... and the quote below from the LA Times is priceless. Sometimes even the L.A. Times gets it right.
Kurt Nimmo: "Senator Feinstein insults all U.S. Veterans as she flays about in a vain attempt to save her anti-firearms bill."
Quote of the Day from the Los Angeles Times:
"Frankly, I don't know what it is about California , but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine , even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington , we're Number One. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on 'Macbeth'. The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words."
Columnist Burt Prelutsky,
Los Angeles Times

Holder: We want to explore gun tracking bracelets
Fox News, April 8, 2014

Attorney General Eric Holder said gun tracking bracelets are something the Justice Department (DOJ) wants to "explore" as part of its gun control efforts.
When discussing gun violence prevention programs within the DOJ, Holder told a House appropriations subcommittee on Friday that his agency is looking into technological innovations.
"I think that one of the things that we learned when we were trying to get passed those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and we talked about how guns can be made more safe," he said.
"By making them either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon."
"It's those kinds of things that I think we want to try to explore so that we can make sure that people have the ability to enjoy their Second Amendment rights, but at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things that we see on a daily basis," Holder said.
The Justice Department has requested $382.1 million in increased spending for its fiscal year 2014 budget for "gun safety."
Included in the proposal is $2 million for "Gun Safety Technology" grants, which would award prizes for technologies that are "proven to be reliable and effective."
Thousands of New Yorkers Protest Gun Registration and the Safe Act
Liberty Alliance, April 7, 2014
The final deadline to register firearms under the New York SAFE Act is just a couple of weeks away…
As the deadline approaches, citizens are coming out in droves to stand against the law.
On Monday, it is estimated over 3 thousand people rallied outside New York’s state capitol in Albany in protest.
I remember speaking at a similar rally in New York last year… It was incredible to look across at the massive crowd and speak about their battle ahead.
Unfortunately for New Yorkers, they waited too late to get involved in the gun rights issue. Its very difficult to come in during the final quarter and try to turn an entire game around.
I am praying for success on the gun rights front in that state, but am not confident at this point that the people will beat the anti-gun machine that is well established and heavily supported….
It’s going to take a lot of work and boots on the ground educational effort to turn that state around on the gun rights front.
The citizens need to remove some legislators as well.
By April 15, all semi-automatic so called “assault” weapons must be registered, or the owners risk being charged with a misdemeanor.


New York assault weapons ban circumvented with simple modification
The Safe Act was billed as the nation's toughest, but a surprisingly easy loophole makes the weapons legal to sell
Mae Ryan in Rochester, New York and Adam Gabbatt the guardian, 4/1/14
One month after the Newtown school shootings, the governor of New York state, Andrew Cuomo, signed into law a ban on the sale of assault weapons, hailing it the "nation's toughest".
The Safe Act, signed in January 2013, introduced stricter background checks while banning high-capacity magazines and so-called assault weapons like the AR-15-style gun Adam Lanza used to kill 27 people in Newtown in December 2012.
But while pro-gun campaigners continue to argue that the law is too strict – and are due to protest outside New York's statehouse in Albany on Tuesday – gunmakers, gun shops and gun owners have found a remarkably simple way to make their assault weapons legal.
As well as banning the sale of assault weapons in New York state, the Safe Act required all those who already own such a weapon to register them with the state by 15 April 2014. The law also introduced a stricter definition of assault weapon: a semi-automatic rifle that takes a detachable magazine and has one of 10 features, such as a "bayonet mount" and a "grenade launcher" but also a "protruding pistol grip".
But many gun shops in New York are offering to replace the grip on a banned weapon to make it compliant with the law. The modified gun still fires at the same rate and with the same power; the shooter just holds it slightly differently. These modified weapons do not have to be registered with the state.
Just Right Carbines, a gun manufacturer in Rochester, has gone one step further. It builds modified semi-automatic rifles specifically for the New York market – and specifically to comply with the New York gun law. The general manager, Anthony Testa, says the company has had verbal assurances from New York authorities that the guns are legal for sale.
State police told the Guardian it "cannot release" information about how many people had registered assault weapons in New York. A spokesman said as long as the modifications are permanent, owners do not need to register.


Complying vs. Circumventing NY SAFE ACT
Friday, April 4 2014, NY Daily News
Canandaigua, N.Y. --- Some would say a local gun manufacturer is circumventing the NY SAFE ACT. But Anthony Testa of Just Right Carbines insists his company is taking every step possible to comply with the state's new gun law.
"The term circumvent makes it sound like we're doing some sort of backroom deal which is very aggravating to me, we're complying with the law," explained Testa. "The term circumvention implies something negative and we're not trying to do anything behind anybody's back we're trying to comply with the law (and) essentially when they passed the SAFE ACT (they) left some of the portions as vague as they did."
The specific issue comes down to the grip on a firearm that Just Right Carbines has manufactured for years. When the NY SAFE ACT was passed in January 2013 the gun's "protruding pistol grip" classified it as an assault rifle and thus illegal unless registered with New York State Police by April 15, 2014.
For months that impacted business until Just Right Carbines figured out that a slight modification to the firearm's grip and stock would allow it to come into compliance and no longer be classified as an assault rifle.
"It was not an assault weapon to begin with it got lumped in because of its physical characteristics because of a cosmetic issue it got lumped into the assault weapons category," said Testa. "So we've had to jump through a bunch of hoops to try to make it compliant."
Compliance still remains a bit of a question for Just Right Carbines. The company sought out members of the New York State Police, local sheriffs, judges, and lawyers in an effort to determine its compliance. Testa said every one the company spoke to indicated the modification should, as the law is written, make it compliant with the NY SAFE ACT.
But nobody was willing to put that in writing.
"There is still some hesitancy because we don't have the signed in place letter from Uncle Andy (Governor Andrew Cuomo) saying you know, SAFE ACT Approved, it would be a hell of a marketing campaign if we could get somebody to put that in writing for us," joked Testa while conceding he wasn't going to hold his breath waiting for that letter. "No, I expect Santa Claus to walk through (my door) arm and arm with the Easter Bunny before we get something from Albany stating this is going to be legal."

Another Senseless Debate
Jim Sheperd, Outdoor Wire, April 4, 2014

In the past five years, 30 people have died on military bases in the United States. Not in training accidents, in murders. They've been murdered in the course of going through their daily duties by whacked-out shooters.
Twice, Fort Hood, Texas has experienced that horror. And soldiers -and frustration- of being inside the equivalent of a fair-sized city, full of trained -and unarmed -warriors when an angry nut job has decided to ignore the prohibition against weapons on the base and switch into the relentless killer more.
The first time, the administration wrung its collective hands, expressed its "deepest regret at the losses" and ignored the fact that Maj. Nidal Hassan wasn't a crazed shooter. Instead, he fancied himself an Islamic warrior, waging jihad against the same army to which he'd pledged his allegiance before discovering his "inner jihadist".
This time, no one's certain what pulled the pin for Ivan Lopez.
There a fixation with the postmortem following one of these events. But does that really matter? To me, there's very little "sense" that can be applied to the "senseless".
If you think I'm being overly-simplistic, one of the initial sessions an incoming President has with the White House Secret Service detail focuses on a truth that applies to all of us, including the POTUS: a single person intent on killing you who is willing to die in the process is the hardest threat to stop. The Secret Service tells their new boss, point-blank, they can handle plots, sniff out conspiracies and coups, but the lone crazy can't be countered until after he or she is encountered.
Crazy always gets the first move.
What seems ridiculous is that they are allowed more than that first move in any gun-free zone. They have time on their side. And that time in an unarmed situation makes you- even if you're a trained warrior- a potential victim. Being crazy only helps maximize the simple fact that an armed person, surrounded by unarmed people isn't in immediate danger. Instead, they're in a "target rich environment."
Words can't disguise my disgust at the gyrations of logic it must require for officials to require soldiers be armed 24/7 when they're "deployed" -but leave them unarmed at the place where their families are the front line. To me, that seems like acquiescence, not interdiction.
Willfully ignoring that harsh reality may be fine for politicians, but it has put all military members serving inside the United States in the worst form of harm's way. You can't plan for crazy, remember?
Unfortunately, dedicated anti-gun pols like Senator Dianne Feinstein or Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi aren't faced with the same option. If they were, I don't believe they'd be so adamant that shootings prove the need to disarm average citizens.
In 1982, I agreed with the residents of Kennesaw, Georgia when they passed a law requiring the head of every household to own and maintain a firearm. OK, it was never enforced, but Kennesaw's never led any Georgia crime statistic.
Since 1982, we've seen a lot change when it comes to guns. The "Assault Weapon Ban" came and went, and in 1993 the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act brought us the NICS system. Unfortunately, there have still been horrible acts committed against the defenseless by the crazy. Fortunately, average people have begun to realize that disarming themselves isn't the answer. Despite intense pressure to the contrary, the American public has managed to make the point that more gun regulations are not only unnecessary, they're unwanted by the majority.
The only people still dead-set on eliminating private ownership of firearms seem to be those traveling with security details.
So we have a divided house (and Senate).
On one side, Texas Congressman Michael McCaul, who wants to arm the military on military bases. His logic? "If they are trained in warfare and can carry weapons there, it seems to me there is some logic to allowing them to carry weapons on a military base so they can defend themselves."
On the opposite side, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. "I doubt there's going to be much support in Congress to allow military personnel to carry weapons on base," he says.
But this isn't a North/South issue. It was another Texas, then-president George H. W. Bush - who instituted the blanket prohibition. Prior to 1993, it was a base commander's call. Today, soldiers are supposed to register their private arms with their base commanders.
Good soldiers, it seems have complied. And they've paid the price.
So why disarm soldiers? It's not because soldiers aren't trained to use weapons. That argument was used by anti-gun groups to counter the NRA's assertion that "the only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" after the school massacre in Newton, Connecticut in 2012.
That soap, however, won't wash on our military bases.
Two of the very thin arguments for disarmament focus on "accidental discharges" and escalation of fights between personnel into "serious violence".
Two quick responses, there are no such things as "accidental discharges" if you're trained - they're either "negligent" or "willful".
And I've known some violent types, but not even the most violent was inclined to intentionally escalate violence when they knew the other party wasn't just armed, but capable of using their weapon.
The old saw that "an armed society is a civil society" isn't wrong, just time-work.
Is there another reason? I'd offer "willful ignorance" - like elected officials who say "there's no evidence that putting more guns into a community or a workplace leads to less violence. All the evidence tells us that the more guns you put into a location, the more likely there is to be gun violence."
That's playing fast and loose with language and facts.
If you define "gun violence" as a store owner applying the "hammer drill" he learned in a personal defense course to a thug attempting to rob him at gun point, you might be able to define that as "gun violence" - but you're rigging the game.
There might be a stronger case - if considered fairly - that the "fact of the matter" was that given the ability to defend themselves, would-be prey when forced, frequently turned the tables on the predators. And it discounts entirely the fact that many criminals won't consider taking on someone potentially capable of self-defense.
Will the military be given the ability to defend themselves and their families at home the same way we expect them to defend our families when they're overseas?
Anti-gun politicians say the prospects are "dim". The descriptor "dim" might be applied -accurately - to another noun in that same sentence.

Lawless Obama Shreds More Constitutional Protections for Steel Core 5.45x39 Ammo
GOA, April 2, 2014


America was already pretty close to reaching a Kenya-style Third World tinpot dictatorship.
First, it was the VA's efforts to disarm law-abiding military veterans for supposedly being “mental defectives,” even though 18 U.S.C. 922(g) requires “adjudications” and there were none.
Then, it was the ATF's actions to copy 4473's and compile a gun registry, even though 18 U.S.C. 923(g) and other provisions of McClure-Volkmer prohibited that.
Then, it was Obama's moves to illegally require reporting of multiple gun sales ... and feed gun information into a national health database ... and repeal federal privacy laws (HIPAA) ... and try to ban the importation of shotguns.
All without any statutory authority whatsoever.
Now, within the last week, according to the Military Arms Channel Blog, the ATF may be on the verge of banning the importation of steel core 5.45x39 ammunition by regulatory fiat.
According to the website, the rumor stems from an importer who had filed a Form 6 to bring a shipment of 7N6 surplus ammo from Russia. The form approval went well past 2 weeks, which is the normal time frame for a Form 6 to be approved by the ATF.
The importer emailed the ATF to find out what was going on, and received this email response back: "A handgun has now been manufactured that chambers a 5.45x39 round. That now makes steel core 5.45x39 armor piercing under our definition..."
This will not be the first time legal ammunition has been deemed by the ATF to have become mysteriously illegal because a new gun has been created.
Nevertheless, this is certainly a strained and perverted reading of what "armor piercing ammunition" is -- a definition which looks to the metallic content and/or the intended use of the ammunition -- not to all possible uses.
A couple of points need to be made:
(1) First, the heavily-abused "armor piercing ammunition" ban was yet another gun control measure slammed through by Senator Bob Dole with the acquiescence of certain "pro-gun groups."
(2) Second, if anyone wondered why we have fought for almost thirty years to oppose efforts to make the definition of "armor piercing ammunition" much broader, malleable, and subject to abuse, this recent ATF action is their answer.
We have defeated Obama's efforts to rewrite this definition by statute. But it is clear that, if the Obama administration can't get Congress to pass an ammunition ban, it will ban ammunition on its own accord.
ATF will do what ATF will do -- or not.
But it is time for Congress to use the "power of the purse" to stop these repeated exercises to turn both the Constitution and the laws into a roll of toilet paper.

ATF Agent Attempts to Illegally Scan Gun Owner Forms of Pac N Arms Multiple Times – Threatens Owner
Freedom Outpost, April 2, 2014

Last year,
Gun Owners of America
warned that the "ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) is going from dealer to dealer, copying the information on these forms (4473), and feeding it into a database." We've seen in recent weeks how this unconstitutional agency is illegally terrorizing small business owners, such as
Ares Armor, and
raiding their establishments to
gather information on their customers, in what many people believe is part of the plan to create a national gun registry database. Now comes another story out of Maine.
According to Phil Chabot, owner of Pac N Arms, the ATF also used illegal tactics to attempt to scan information on his customers as well.
Chabot has worked with the general public and various law enforcement agencies over the past twenty-two years and has many federal agents, including DEA, FBI, Homeland Security, ATF and US Marshals as customers.
Though Chabot acknowledges that ATF conducts Industry Operations Inspections (IOI - an audit that all firearms dealers [FFLs] may be subject to, during which the ATF verifies our inventory and is supposed to verify all paperwork and record-keeping is being done correctly and is properly maintained) every five years, I have pointed out that any and all federal gun laws are unconstitutional since the states never gave any authority to the federal government when it comes to restricting arms of US citizens. Therefore the agency, in its existence, is a violation of the federal constitution.
Chabot has engaged in numerous IOIs with the ATF that, according to him, are usually "completed within a week." However, he said the most recent audit, which took place in August of 2013, "went on over two months, and it appeared to be little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to create a registry of my clientele."
Under 18 USC § 926, anyone in the Justice Department, including members of the ATF are categorically prohibited from seizing any records or documents other than those constituting material evidence of a violation of law.
Specifically, the law reads:
"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation."
While the first day of the audit produced no problems, except some corrections that needed to be made on ATF's end, Chabot said that ATF employee Wayne Bettencourt produced a handheld scanner, approximately the size and shape of a large marker, and began to go through the bound book of ATF 4473 forms and attempted to scan all the pages of the documents, which contain over 1700 forms from gun sales and transfers.
Chabot confronted Bettencourt about his illegal procedure and Bettencourt said he has the authority to do it. Chabot said he did not and told the agent that if he were willing to give him a written statement that he had that authority, he would not stop him from scanning. This was an attempt to hold the agent accountable.
According to Chabot, "Bettencourt vehemently refused to provide me with anything signed by him or other ATF authorities, and made the ridiculous claim that the records were the property of the ATF and he could do with them what he liked, and that if I kept refusing him, he would be back with an administrative warrant so that he could just take the records that I am bound by federal law to father and maintain. I again refused to allow Bettencourt to illegally copy my records, at which point he told me that I should be careful not to make the investigation about me, and that 'my license depended on how well I worked with him.' This was clearly a threat intended to let me know that if I did not allow him to perform the illegal activity of copying my bound books, he would retaliate and that my Federal Firearms License was at risk."
In other words, Bettencourt seems to have been extorting Chabot in order to illegally seize customer information, ie. create a national gun registration database.
Mr. Chabot went on to say, that after he continued to refuse Bettencourt's illegal actions, Bettencourt said he had legal investigations to conduct and didn't want to be interfered with. However, since no warrant had been produced, Chabot stood his ground, noticing "that Bettencourt seemed to be scanning chiefly the A&D pages and especially concentrating on every woman and on every person who had purchased more than one firearm in a week."
At that point, Chabot told the agent to stop using his scanner and told the agent to provide him with a list of the criminal cases he was alleging to be investigating. Bettencourt was unable to produce a list.
Bettencourt became angry and belligerent, angrily repeating his previous statements about taking the records through administrative warrants and threatening Chabot's licenses. To the best of Chabot's knowledge, Bettencourt does not have investigative authority to even allow for any type of criminal investigation, as his job encompasses records keeping compliance, not criminal investigation.
Following that issue, the audit seemed to go well. However, when Bettencourt returned on August 16, 2013 to follow up, he demanded Chabot exit his shop, told him to get a good lawyer because, in Chabot's word, "he was going to see to it that there was an administrative warrant taken out on my business ASAP, and that he would be taking my records."
While Bettencourt couldn't understand his own illegal actions and that fact that Chabot was standing up for his customers and the law, he was apparently threatening Chabot's livelihood for not allowing him to break the law and scan any records he wanted to.
Bettencourt returned again on August 29, 2013 and attempted to scan documents once again, and once again Chabot stopped him from doing so.
On October 9, 2013, Bettencourt returned once more and attempted the same illegal action. Chabot said, "I told him that not only was it illegal, but that I felt I was personally liable and ran the risk of being sued by my customers if their personal information, including social security numbers, got out. I told Bettencourt that I would allow the scanning only with a warrant or a signed statement attesting to the legality of the scanning. Bettencourt finally told me that the audit was finished and once again angrily responded that he would not be signing anything and yelled at me that he would be working toward revoking my current FFL's and making sure the application for the FFL for my new location was denied."
Chabot contacted Bettencourt's supervisor in Boston, Agent Linda Champagne, who told him that if the agent didn't get to copy or scan his records, the ATF would pursue the revocation of his current license and deny his application for the new shop he was working on. This is in clear violation of the law.
Chabot says that he has spoken to numerous agents in various federal agencies and they have all expressed concern over the cavalier attitude of the ATF. And why shouldn't they? Anyone remember Waco? How about Ruby Ridge? Fast and Furious? Yes, all of those were the product of the ATF, an illegal and unconstitutional federal agency.
In speaking to Mr. Chabot to confirm the situation, his attorney Penny Dean told us to postpone an interview for a couple of weeks until they have obtained certain witnesses in the matter, which we agreed to do. Our desire is not to make it more difficult for justice to be brought to bear in the matter. However, Ms. Dean did encourage us to report on Mr. Chabot's letter to his Senator, Susan Collins, which is where the bulk of this article comes from. Perhaps you would like to contact Agent Linda Champagne and ask her why she would extort Pac N Arms in such a fashion to illegally obtain customer's gun records. Her number is 617-557-1200. While you are at it, maybe you would like to contact Senator Susan Collins and find out why she is not standing for her constituents against a rogue federal agency that is engaging in illegal activity against US citizens.



Firearms Trade Association, Manufacturers' Institute Seek Injunction to Stop Unworkable Microstamping Law
USSA, April 1, 2014
NEWTOWN, Conn. - The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on behalf of their members against the State of California in Fresno Superior Court to prevent enforcement of the state's microstamping law. The state statute enacted in 2007, but not made effective until May 2013, requires that all semiautomatic handguns sold in the state not already on the California approved handgun roster incorporate unproven and unreliable microstamping technology.(Read the injunction here: http://nssf.org/share/PDF/032814_NSSF-SAAMI-v-Cali.pdf).
Under this law, firearms manufacturers would have to micro laser-engrave a gun's make, model and serial number on two distinct parts of each handgun, including the firing pin so that, in theory, this information would be imprinted on the cartridge casing when the pistol is fired.
"There is no existing microstamping technology that meets the requirement of this ill-considered law. It is not technologically possible to microstamp two locations in the gun and have the required information imprint onto the cartridge casing. In addition, the current state of the technology cannot reliably, consistently and legibly imprint on the cartridge primer the required identifying information from the tip of the firing pin, the only possible location where it is possible to micro-laser engrave the information, said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.
"The holder of the patent for this technology himself has written that there are problems with it and that further study is warranted before it is mandated. A National Academy of Science review, forensic firearms examiners and a University of California at Davis study reached the same conclusion and the technical experts in the firearms industry agree," Keane said. "Manufacturers cannot comply with a law the provisions of which are invalid, that cannot be enforced and that will not contribute to improving public safety. Today, we are seeking injunctive relief against this back-door attempt to prevent the sale of new or upgraded semiautomatic handguns to law-abiding citizens in California."
In 2007, California Assembly Bill 1471 was passed and signed into law requiring microstamping on internal parts of new semiautomatic pistols. The legislation provided that this requirement would only became effective if the California Department of Justice certified that the microstamping technology is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by patent restrictions. The California legislature subsequently reorganized certain statutes concerning the regulation of firearms, including the microstamping law in 2010. On May 17, 2013, Attorney General Kamala D. Harris provided such certification.
Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger have separately announced that they would no longer be selling new or improved semiautomatic handgun models in California because of the impossibility of complying with the new law.
See additional Fast Facts backgrounder on Microstamping from NSSF at: http://nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/Microstamping.pdf)


 USA Brass Ammunition Company Raided by Obama's EPA - Alleges "Environmental Violations"

Freedom Outpost, March 29, 2014



Environmental Protection Agency and FBI agents raided the ammunition company USA Brass over alleged “environmental violations” early Thursday morning.
NBC Montana was tipped off by witnesses that federal investigators were there until at least 4 a.m. on Thursday. Federal agents could be seen going through the company’s building and taking items to a truck parked outside. EPA lead criminal investigator Bert Marsden said that the agency was looking into alleged “environmental violations” by USA Brass.
“We are investigating alleged violations of environmental law,” Marsden said on Thursday. “An investigation takes as long as it takes, and I can’t provide any details as it relates to that.”
“I can make a statement that there is no immediate threat to the public or the community at this time,” said Marsden.
It’s unclear exactly what the environmental violations were, but USA Brass has come under fire from federal agencies before for lead exposure. USA Brass cleans and resells used ammunition casings, and NBC Montana reports that local health officials found elevated levels of lead in the blood of 22 current and former employees.
Last September, the company was fined more than $45,000 by the U.S. Labor Department for 10 serious violations. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also found that USA Brass has overexposed workers to lead and failed to “provide basic safeguards to reduce lead exposure, including breathing protection and protective clothing,” reports NBC Montana.
“The toxic effects of occupational exposure to lead have been well known for a long time, but this employer did not have basic safeguards to protect workers against this hazard,” Jeff Funke, OSHA’s area director in Billings, said last September.
It’s still unclear whether or not EPA and FBI agents were also looking into lead exposure issues. An OSHA inspection in March actually found that the company complied with federal requirements for several months, apparently learning from its mistake last year.

D.C. Businessman Found Guilty of Possessing Inert Muzzleloader Bullets
Last Resistence, Mar 28, 2014

There was a case we reported on a while back involving a D.C. businessman who was arrested and charged with possession of unregistered ammo.
Apparently, they think it would “promote public safety” to order 30 officers decked out in full tactical gear to the house of D.C. businessman Mark Witaschek, raid his house, use a battering ram to break down the door to the bathroom where his 16-year-old son was taking a shower, pull him out of the bathroom naked, hold the businessman and his girlfriend in their room at gunpoint after having handcuffed them, all while they tear his house apart to the tune of $10,000 in damages, looking for guns. And no, according to Emily Miller’s article in the Washington Times, they didn’t find any.
But guess what they did find? Police documented their findings:
“One live round of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition”
“One handgun holster”
“One expended round of .270 caliber ammunition”
“One box of Knight bullets for reloading”
Miller stated that the 12-gauge shotgun round was actually misfired years earlier on one of his hunting trips. He kept it as a souvenir. She also notes that the handgun holster is not illegal, even in D.C. And apparently, the Knight bullets are in fact not for reloading, but are used in “antique-replica, single-shot, muzzle-loading rifles.”
So, they didn’t find any guns. But they still charged him with possession of unregistered ammunition and a brass casing. He faced two years in jail and a hefty fine.
He was offered a deal where he could plead guilty to one charge of possession of unregistered ammo, pay a $500 dollar fine, make a contribution to a victim’s fund and spend a year on probation, but he turned it down. He told Miller, “It’s the principle.”
They’ll let Feinstein perform her little gun circus act on TV, and they’ll let Gregory do his high-capacity magazine bit, but when it comes to ordinary citizens, they get the Nazi treatment.
Witaschek’s case was brought before the judge, and after a rigamarole of technicalities, he found Witaschek guilty of “attempted possession of unlawful ammunition.” Here’s Emily Miller with the Washington Times:
Until the final hours of the trial, both the defense and government focused the case on whether the single 12 gauge shotgun shell that was found in Mr. Witaschek’s D.C. home was operable. The judge, however, never ruled on it.
In the afternoon on Wednesday, Judge Morin shook the plastic shell and tried to listen to something inside. He said he could not hear any gunpowder. He then asked the lawyers to open the shell to see if there was powder inside.
(This seemed like a bizarre request since the lack of primer — not gunpowder — would be relevant to the interoperability of the misfired shell.)
Assistant Attorney General Peter Saba said that the government wanted to open the shell but that, “It is dangerous to do outside a lab.”
The prosecutors and police officers left the courtroom to try to find a lab that was open in the afternoon to bring the judge to cut the plastic off the section that holds the pellets. When that proved not possible in the same day, the judge decided to just rule on the bullets.
The 25 conical-shaped, .45 caliber bullets, made by Knight out of lead and copper, sat on the judge’s desk. They do not have primer or gunpowder so cannot be propelled. The matching .50 caliber plastic sabots were also in the box.
There was much debate over whether the bullets were legal since D.C. residents are allowed to buy antique replica firearms without registering.
The judge seemed inclined to throw out this charge since he repeatedly asked how the bullets could be illegal if the gun that they go in was not.
During lunch, the government came up with a list from ATF of types of muzzleloader rifles that could be converted to use rimfire ammunition. Not that Mr. Witaschek owned one of these nor was modern ammo at issue in the trial.
Nevertheless Judge Morin said, “I’m persuaded these are bullets. They look like bullets. They are hollow point. They are not musket balls.” He then ruled that Mr. Witaschek had possessed “beyond a reasonable doubt” the metal pieces in D.C.
The judge “sentenced him to time served, a $50 fine, and required him to enroll with the Metropolitan Police Department’s firearm offenders’ registry within 48 hours.”In addition to the judge’s sentencing, Mr. Witaschek could lose his license to run his financial management company, all because he had inert “bullets” in his home.
If they’re that adamant about enforcing these asinine laws on innocent people like Mr. Witaschek, why did they not care about Diane Feinstein’s “assault weapon” publicity stunt or David Gregory’s on-air “high-capacity” magazine stunt?


Anti-Gun Liberal Wants to Murder NRA Board Members
Conservative Bye, March 28, 2014


An anti-gun liberal talk-show host apparently wants to shoot NRA board members. But, before we talk about the precarious possibility of some imbalanced leftist abusing Second Amendment rights (that he fights against) we should get some background information. Georgia has recently passed some legislation (awaiting approval from the Governor) that would
expand the state’s Concealed Carry law.
In short, the bill would broaden the locations that lawful concealed carry is permitted. Acceptable locations would be expanded to include churches, schools (Adam Lanza would not only be unwelcome – he’d probably be shot), airports (federal restrictions would still apply), bars (no drinking while carrying, “duh”), and some government offices. The Left has dubbed the bill as the “
guns everywhere” bill… Which I really don’t see as a pejorative. In fact, I’m kinda jealous that people in Georgia will have the protected right to defend their life anywhere they go. I’m currently at the mercy of California implants calling themselves “Denver residents” (ugh).
Guns everywhere? (What are the home values like in Georgia?) We should rename this bill to the “Michael Schaus is welcome in Georgia” bill of 2014. The Left’s main objection appears to be that concealed-carry-permit-holders will be allowed in establishments that serve liquor. But, c’mon… We let people leave bars without first confiscating their car keys. It’s still going to be illegal to carry while drinking (again: “duh”), and being intoxicated with a firearm will continue to be a serious crime (not to mention that such actions are the definition of irresponsibility.)
I mean, really: If a designated driver feels like carrying a gun (because they will be sober, and responsible for everyone’s safety), why should they be forced to stand outside smoking cigarettes while their friends are enjoying one of the few perks of adulthood? I know I’d feel safer with a sober concealed carry holder around. In fact, I never go drinking without a designated driver and a concealed carry permit holder. After all: The point is to be safe.


New York State Police Advises Officers to Not Enforce SAFE Act Magazine Limit

Outdoor Hub,  March 28, 2014


New York State Police will not be enforcing the SAFE Act's controversial magazine limit.
The New York State Police recently updated its SAFE Act field guide to instruct its members to not enforce a seven-round magazine limit that was part of the law. According to The Journal News, this change cements a policy put in place by the State Police after a federal court judge ruled the provision unconstitutional last year. The decision is being appealed.
“While the federal district court upheld most of its provisions, the court held that this section, ‘Unlawful Possession of Certain Ammunition Feeding Devices,’ was unconstitutional,” the updated field guide states. “As a result of the court’s decision members are instructed not to enforce PL 265.37 at this time.”
The announcement is a minor victory for pro-Second Amendment groups working to overturn the SAFE Act.
“The New York State Police have followed the same sensible path taken by the New York Sheriffs’ Association and many local law-enforcement agencies in not enforcing a capricious, ill-conceived and unconstitutional portion of the NY SAFE Act,” stated Thomas King, president of the New York State & Rifle Association (NYSRPA). “To date, NYSRPA has spent over $500,000 in litigation and we are prepared to fight the NY SAFE Act all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where we are confident that many provisions of the law will ultimately be overturned.”
The NY SAFE Act was passed early in 2013 following the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Fast-tracked by Governor Andrew Cuomo, the Act contained a number of gun control measures including expanding the list of banned “assault weapons,” and putting a seven-round cap on magazines. The “high-capacity” magazine cap was originally slated to go into effect on April 15 of last year, but was postponed indefinitely due to the fact that manufacturers do not produce seven-round magazines for many guns.
Although law enforcement officials say there is no practical method of enforcing the ban, the law still required that gun owners load only seven rounds into magazines designed for more. Last December, Chief US District Judge William M. Skretny upheld the majority of the SAFE Act except for the magazine cap. In an opinion, Skretny called it “tenuous, strained and unsupported.”
“Lawmakers, mental health professionals, and New York’s gun owners were essentially ignored in the rush to enact this law,” King said. “As a result, careful judicial scrutiny is uncovering some of the law’s flaws and unenforceability. New York’s legal gun owners are among the most law-abiding citizens of this state and ultimately their civil rights will be upheld.”
NYSRPA and the NRA are among the plaintiffs on the case that challenges the SAFE Act.
Other provisions of the SAFE Act, such as the creation of a database for background checks on ammunition purchases and a statewide gun registry, are still in the process of being implemented.

Will New Jersey Governor Sign a Gun Control Bill?
GOA, March 28, 2014


New Jersey Governor Chris Christie might soon face a monumental decision over a gun control bill that could land on his desk -- and this comes as he ponders whether to throw his hat into the ring for a presidential run.
A bill to limit magazine capacity from 15 rounds to 10 rounds -- and to instantly turn hundreds of thousands of Garden State citizens into criminals -- is currently working its way through the state legislature.
It has already passed the House and is expected to pass the Senate, as well. More on this story below, along with information on the GOA Poll Question
 that will generate results from you all -- results which GOA will send to Gov. Christie.
But first, there is monumental news from a state that borders New Jersey, and it has many observers wondering if the oncoming electoral tsunami in November might take out sitting Democrats and Republicans all across the country.

New Jersey Governor Christie facing big choice over gun control

An anti-gun bill is working its way through the New Jersey legislature and may soon be sent to Republican Governor Chris Christie for his consideration.
Assembly Bill 2006 passed the Assembly by a 46-31 vote last week and is now expected to pass the Democrat-controlled legislature in upcoming days.
This would put Governor Christie in a quandary, as he is seen as eyeing the GOP nomination for President, but within a Party that leans heavily to the right on gun issues.
A.B. 2006 would change the definition of a “large capacity ammunition magazine” from the allowable 15 rounds to 10 rounds.
How Gov. Christie acts on this legislation could have a huge bearing on his viability in a Republican presidential primary.
Given that Gov. Christie is, most likely, considering a presidential run, gun owners all across the country have a legitimate stake in communicating with him on this issue.
And that is why Gun Owners of America is requesting the following two action items.
(1) ACTION for citizens outside of NJ:
 GOA has set up a Poll Question
 which simply asks:  Should Governor Chris Christie veto A.B. 2006 -- a bill that will limit magazine capacity from 15 rounds to 10 rounds, and instantly turn hundreds of thousands of New Jersey citizens into criminals?
No matter where you live, GOA would encourage you to distribute this alert and then to cast your vote -- as we will make the poll results available for the Governor and his staff.
(2) ACTION for NJ citizens:
 In addition to taking the poll, please use the pre-written letter below to help direct your comments to Governor Chris Christie. You can use his webform at: http://www.state.nj.us/governor/contact/
Or, you can call him at: 609-292-6000.


Senator Feinstein Fights 2nd Amendment by Any Means Necessary
Eaglerising  28 March 2014
 
California Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) is at it again. She's got America's gun in her sights. After a devastating blow from the pro-Second Amendment population in America against her major gun grab last year, Feinstein has determined to dig a little deeper. In fact, a letter that she has been circulating in Washington that cites a 45 year old law, which basically allows certain guns to be stopped from import, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives interpretation of "sporting purposes."
Feinstein claims that importers are attempting to go around the guidelines of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (an act based on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938), in which the importation of firearms that are not "generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes."
Feinstein and other gun confiscators want to attempt to portray that ordinary citizens shouldn't own guns unless they are for sport or hunting (something never mentioned in the Second Amendment). According to Feinstein, "Many semiautomatic firearms on the market today do not have a military origin but are modeled closely after military firearms."
The California senator cited a study by the Center for Public Integrity and wrote, "700 Romanian AK-47 variant rifles were identified in 134 federal gun trafficking prosecutions involving illegal smuggling from the United States to Mexico and other Latin American countries."
Can you believe this hypocrisy? Smuggling AK-47 variants from the US to Mexico and other Latin American countries?
Before I go further, let's point out that it is not ordinary American citizens doing this.


CA Democrat's Alleged Arms Trafficking Scheme Linked to Islamist Rebels
Conservative Byte, March 27, 2014

Beyond the widely reported stories of alleged wire fraud, money laundering, corruption, and bribery, the affidavit contains tales of alleged murder-for-hire plots involving a political consultant close to Yee, as well as large international weapons trafficking operations.
Indeed, while the media have fixated on the hypocrisy of a gun-control advocate--Yee sponsored legislation against detachable magazines, for example--alleged involvement in gun smuggling, few reports delve into the kind of weapons with which Yee was allegedly involved.
The FBI affidavit describes conversations about shipments of automatic weapons and talk of heavier weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and artillery.
One arms trafficker Yee allegedly discussed sourced weapons from Russia. Another trafficker, in an alleged meeting with Sen. Yee, political consultant Keith Jackson, and the FBI informant on March 11, 2014, allegedly discussed arms to be obtained from the Philippines. The affidavit claims the arms trafficker claimed personal relationships with Islamic rebels in the Philippines, though the weapons were supposedly to be obtained from sources inside the Philippine military.
Throughout the document, a portrait emerges of a politician who is not only allegedly cavalier about campaign finance limits but who allegedly associates with violent criminals and drug traffickers.
And it is a rather sad picture: at one stage Yee allegedly confides that he does not enjoy his life and wants to live in anonymity in the Philippines.
The Los Angeles Times notes that the persona that emerges in the affidavit is a very different figure than the one Sen. Yee presented to the public: a local community leader and steadfast advocate for gun control whose efforts were nationally recognized.
The sworn testimony by FBI Special Agent Emmanuel Pascua paints Yee as a man who allegedly used corrupt relationships to finance his various campaigns and campaign debts.
Another theme throughout the affidavit is the skillful way in which the FBI manipulated the greed of some of the alleged criminals, who push each other into alleged conspiracies for fear of missing out on their own independent opportunities for self-enrichment.
Though the presumption of innocence must hold for now, the sheer scale and detail of the FBI's work is impressive.


State Criminalizes 300,000 Gun Owners
Minuteman News, March 27, 2014

The scene isn’t from a foreign country. It’s happening right here in America.
Law-abiding gun owners in Connecticut were recently forced to line up and register their firearms with the state government by January 1 of this year.
Now, citizens who either missed the deadline, or simply refused to submit to the blatantly unconstitutional law, are facing felony charges and up to five years in prison.
In fact, anti-gun groups and their allies in the state media are outright campaigning for authorities to “use the background check database” to round up an estimated 300,000 gun owners, fine them $5,000, and put them behind bars.
“If this can happen anywhere in America, it can happen everywhere,” warns Chris Cox, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).
“And right now, Barack Obama and his gun control allies in Congress are plotting new ways to bring Connecticut’s freedom-crushing policies to every corner of America.”


What A Surprise
GOA, March 27, 2014

Gun rights groups are jumping on the federal corruption charges leveled at California Democratic State Senator Leland Yee of San Francisco, saying he represents a hypocritical gun safety advocate who appears to be have been involved in trafficking in firearms.
But they also rejoice that if hes found guilty, he’ll be ending up in one of the biggest gun-free zones anywhere.
Here’s the full release from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Bear and Keep Arms:
BELLEVUE, WA“
Criminal charges announced in San Francisco federal court Wednesday afternoon against anti-gun California State Sen. Leland Yee and several others shows the contemptible nature of the gun prohibition movement, because among the allegations is one that he was involved in a conspiracy to traffic firearms, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
If these allegations are true, said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, Sen. Yee is easily the biggest hypocrite on gun control to walk the halls of the capitol in Sacramento, if not the entire United States.
The complaint alleges that Sen. Lee conspired with two other men, identified as Keith Jackson, a political consultant, and Dr. Wilson Sy Lim, to traffic in firearms. The 137-page complaint is simply staggering, Gottlieb added. Here’s a prominent anti-gun Democrat state senator allegedly involved in a gun trafficking scheme, among other alleged crimes that include wire fraud and dealing firearms without a license. And this guy has spent a considerable amount of energy in the California legislature trying to deny law-abiding Californians of their gun rights.
The gun trafficking scheme allegedly involved activities in the Philippines, with the cash to be broken up into “legitimate campaign donations,
according to the court documents.
It is hard to fathom this kind of activity on a scale as massive as these court documents allege, Gottlieb said. If Sen. Yee and his fellow defendants are convicted, they’
re going to wind up in one of the biggest gun-free zones in the country, a federal prison

Judge Rules ATF "Jumped the Gun
"
Shooting Wire, March 26, 2014

The ATF's methods, management, and merit appear to all be under close scrutiny by just about everyone these days.
In Washington, the House Oversight Committee is again demanding facts related to numerous botched investigations. Those well-known "investigations" have cost lives, "lost" thousands of dollars in cash and resulted in hundreds of illegally-obtained weapons going to Mexican drug lords. Along the way, ATF agents also lost some of their issued firearms- including fully-automatic rifles.
In California, both Ares Armor and EP Armory seem willing to fight following ATF raids on both companies. Those raids apparently came after the companies refused to turn over customer records and some inventory. The "inventory" was only brought into question after the ATF's seemingly abrupt reversal of the classification of 80% complete MSR lowers of polymer. At some undetermined point, those polymer lowers became instead of "blanks"-the classification both the ATF and the firearms industry consider those same parts when made of metal.
NEWS UPDATE: Yesterday, Ares Armor announced it was enacting a new secure encryption system to protect its customer information. Citing a pair of court decisions saying that computers and software could be included in an investigation, the Fifth Amendment protects the encryption key under the right against self-incrimination.
A U.S. District Judge in Washington has now joined the growing ranks of critics.
U.S. District Judge John Bates has issued a ruling that says ATF "jumped the gun" in classifying a device as a "firearms silencer" without sufficient review. Bates is blistering in his criticism of the agency and its decision-making processes."In any agency review case, a reviewing court is generally obligated to uphold a reasonable agency decision that is the product of a rational agency process," U.S. District Judge John Bates writes.
"This is not a high bar," he continues, "But in this case, ATF fails to clear it."
Ouch.
The ruling comes after the ATF's classification of the Stabilizer Brake from Innovator Enterprises as a "suppressor" rather than its intended purpose as a "muzzle brake".
If you've fired a rifle with a muzzle brake, or been next to someone firing one on the range, you're painfully aware of two undesirable characteristics-increased muzzle flash and a significant, sometimes painful, increase in noise levels.
Innovator Enterprises felt they'd addressed both problems. Noise wasn't diminished, but some gases were redirected forward-away from the shooter. They were careful to stipulate the goal was not to diminish the sound, just redirect a portion of it away from the shooter.
Innovator Enterprises requested an opinion letter from the ATF classifying their device as a muzzle brake, not a silencer. With the muzzle brake classification, the device could be offered as an unregulated part. Without it, the process wouldn't be worth it.
Six weeks later, Innovator got a letter from the ATF- and a surprise: the ATF had classified the Stabilizer Brake a suppressor. In response, Inovator sued in federal court in Washington, hoping to have the ATF determination overturned.
After examining the case, Judge Bates agreed with Innovator and overturned the Classification Letter. His dissection of why he overturned the ATF is merciless.
This letter, he wrote, "contains hardly any reasoning, and makes no reference to prior agency regulations or interpretations that support its conclusion." Instead, Judge Bates called the ATF letter a brief and informal document and "a non-binding statement of the agency's position on whether the Stabilizer Brake is a silencer."
As such, he wrote, it "will not bear the force of law as applied in future classifications of different devices."
He then took particular exception with how the ATF made their decision, especially with their failure to use state-of-the-art sound measurement devices to make their determination, despite stating clearly in their letter that they had that capability. Instead, he wrote, they based their ruling "solely on the physical characteristics of the device."
Judge Bates then bites - deeply- into the ATF and its decision-making process.For example, there was his examination of the characteristics test applied by the ATF:
"Even if this general approach of relying 'solely' on physical characteristics were sound, the agency did not perform a scientific or rigorous comparison of physical characteristics. Instead, it consulted a list of six characteristics that are allegedly common to 'known silencers,' and then, if the submitted device has some (unstated) number of those characteristics (here, three out of six was enough), it is a 'firearm silencer.'
"But where did that list of six characteristics come from? The agency never explains whether those six characteristics are present in all (or most?) silencers. The agency never explains whether there are other common characteristics that do not appear on its list. And the agency never explains how many characteristics in common are necessary to be classified as a 'firearm silencer.' What if a device has an 'encapsulator' and an 'end cap; - is it a silencer? What about a device that is attached to the muzzle of a rifle, and is full of "sound dampening material," but has none of the other five physical characteristics-is it a silencer? The agency's approach leaves Innovator (as well as other regulated parties, and reviewing courts) guessing."
(NOTE: The parentheses are the judge's, not our interpretation of his remarks.)The ruling went on to remind the ATF that having "a tail, grey skin and four legs" didn't make an animal an "elephant" or a child's bicycle a motorcycle because it had "three characteristics of motorcycles: two rubber tires, handlebars and a leather seat."
He didn't stop there. He went on to point out that a Bud Light is not a Single-Malt Scotch because it is "frequently served in a glass container, contains alcohol and is served in a tavern" any more than a hockey puck is a "rubber bullet" because it has "rounded sides, is made of vulcanized rubber, and is capable of causing injury when launched at high speeds."
"Learning that one object has three characteristics in common with some category," he wrote, "may not be very helpful in determining whether the object in question belongs in that category."
"Put another way, ATF argues that knowing whether the device actually diminishes the report of a portable firearm is irrelevant to determining whether the device is "for diminishing the report of a portable firearm." 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24). It marshals an example in support of this "purpose" interpretation: a pillow might have some mild success at "diminishing the report" of a firearm, and "[b]ecause it could be an effective silencer, then Plaintiff's interpretation would lead to the absurd conclusion that pillows were silencers . . . thus requiring a special NFA license to manufacture or possess them and requiring the payment of a tax."
And Judge Bates wasn't finished. "To make matters worse," he wrote, "other agency guidance uses a different set of characteristics- the six characteristics in the Classification letter appear not to be an exhaustive definitive list."
He then sent the matter back to the ATF for further review-and granted Innovator a summary judgement on its claim because the ATF had failed to "articulate a satisfactory explanation" and "examine the relevant data" in classifying the muzzle brake a "firearm silencer."Using Judge Bates' comparative critique of the flawed-logic used by the agency in its decision, you could draw the conclusion that possessing three characteristics of a competent police officer (a badge, gun, and arrest powers) wouldn't qualify an individual (or group of similar individuals) to mount complicated investigations where a scrupulous attention to detail, an adherence to the rule of law, or an unswerving dedication to public safety during those investigations were essentials.
Maybe it's just me, but this ruling makes another compelling argument that ATF is an agency in need of a top-to-bottom overhaul.


Gun Control Resistance Done Right: Let Rulers Know They Had Better Have an Appetite for Enforcement
Political Outcast, March 25, 2014

The old "New Left" slogan was "What if they had a war and nobody came?" The new Right question should be: What if they passed a law and no one complied?
In Vermont, the legislature voted on three new laws about firearms. They banned concealed carry in bars and restaurants, authorized police to confiscate all guns any time they are called to a domestic dispute, and mandated that guns at home be locked up.
Of the three, authorizing the police to confiscate the guns is the most evil. As far as I know, a domestic dispute can be reported anonymously. This seems to be a way to get the police to confiscate the weapons of any couple’s home. Keep in mind: until someone is convicted in court, no one is guilty of any crime. So how can a penalty be legally inflicted on a couple on the basis of a mere complaint?
I also don’t see any point in turning every restaurant and bar into a gun free zone. Aren’t school shootings bad enough? And what is the point of keeping a firearm for home defense if you are required to lock it up? Is Vermont trying to make it safer for SWAT team members during no-knock raids on innocent residents?
But the good news here is that people don’t think they are obligated to submit to illegal laws. According to Fox News:
The head of a nationwide sheriffs’ coalition is calling on Vermont's law enforcement officers to defy three controversial gun control measures passed by Burlington voters three weeks ago.
"Sheriffs have a constitutional duty to refuse to comply with such ordinances," said Richard Mack, president of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. "We're seeing sheriffs in New York oppose the Safe Act and Gov. Cuomo. If we have sheriffs in New York doing this, how much more should we have sheriffs doing it in Vermont?"
We will see if the sheriffs do their constitutional duty in Vermont, but there have been other instances of resistance besides the sheriffs in New York:
The thought that Vermont's top law officers might publicly oppose gun restrictions isn't a novel idea. Sheriffs in Colorado are refusing to enforce that state's new background checks and ban on high-capacity magazines. In Connecticut, tens of thousands of residents are refusing to comply with a new state law that requires registration of guns and high-capacity magazines. In Saratoga Springs, N.Y., citizens publicly protested the state's new SAFE Act last week by burning a thousand gun registration forms.
Hopefully, legislatures will learn that the public is not simply clay in their hands to be shaped by threats as they like. People do not consider themselves slaves and will not submit to every unconstitutional order dreamed up by the state legislature.
Since legislators don’t like appearing impotent, hopefully this will teach them to back down.

Colorado Public School Teaches Real Gun Safety - Gun Grabbers Get Angry
Eagle Rising, March  25, 2014


One Colorado Public Middle School is
causing quite a stir with the anti-gun rights left. The Middle School decided to take a logical and proactive approach to actually teaching their students about guns and gun safety by taking them to a local shooting range. Using their brains and actually teaching their students is causing the anti-gun left to go a little crazy, as you can imagine. The anti-gunners would much rather the public school demagogue guns and tell their kids that guns are dangerous and deadly – instead of actually teaching them something!
A group of students in Pueblo County was firing live ammo and learning about gun safety.
"I'm very excited, today we're going to come out here on the gun range and shoot a little bit. The past week we've learned about the revolutionary war," said Jonah Statezny, a Craver middle school student.
"My favorite part is shooting guns. When I was little we used to go to the shooting range," said another student, Danielle Cooper.
"Often firearms and schools don't mix. There's a big fear there. So we are pushing the safety aspect and hopefully ease some people’s fears," said Timothy Baird, with the Craver Middle School
Appleseed is a nonprofit, dedicated to teaching American history and traditional marksmanship.
"We've never been allowed to bring actual real firearms into a school. Until this week. This is a very big deal. We had them touching fire arms, holding them and learning about how to handle them safely,” said Elizabeth Blackwood with Appleseed.
"I think everyone should learn how to use a gun but learn how to use it properly, and the precautions you’re supposed to take and how serious a gun really is," said Statezny.
"I think they should learn and it's actually pretty good advice," added Cooper.
It’s advice some teachers think needs to be in the hands of students in school.
“Personally I think it's a great step forward," said Baird.
The school got permission from the Pueblo County Sheriff's office and all the parents for gun lessons and the field trip.
Sadly, situations like this are becoming less frequent when they should be happening more often as our population grows and the number of firearms in our nation increases. Just fifty years ago firearms safety was a much more popular subject in public schools, where students as young as elementary age were taught the basics of gun safety.


Georgia’s Sweeping Pro-gun Bill Headed to Governor

Putdoor Hub, March 24, 2014

Georgia lawmakers approved a broad pro-gun bill that adds new protections for gun owners and expands the list of places where they are allowed to carry a firearm.
The fate of Georgia’s sweeping gun reform bill was decided in the last hour of the 2014 legislative season last Thursday. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, House Bill 60 received a final vote of 122-58 and is now headed to the desk of Governor Nathan Deal. Supporters are calling the pro-gun bill one of the largest gun reform bills in recent state history, but opponents worry that it might do more harm than good.
House Bill 60 would allow licensed gun owners to carry firearms into certain government buildings, schools, and parts of airports. This led opponents of the bill to dub it the “guns everywhere bill.” House Bill 60 originally also proposed removing the state’s blanket restriction on firearm carry in bars, but was later amended. Houses of worship can “opt in” to allow members to carry firearms inside their property. The bill would also legalize the use of suppressors for hunting.
“It re-establishes a lot of our freedoms that we should already have,” Jerry Henry, executive director of Georgia Carry, told MSNBC. “We just want to be able to protect ourselves no matter where we go.”
The bill also contains language that would prevent the creation of a gun owners database or suspension of the Second Amendment in a state of emergency. School teachers would be able to bring firearms into work to protect themselves as well.
Not everyone is happy to see the bill pass, especially gun control advocates that see the legislation as a step backwards for the state.
“We absolutely oppose it,” said Brian Malte, national policy director for the Brady Campagin to Prevent Gun Violence. “Our feeling is that the answer to gun violence is not more guns.”
Some religious leaders and organizations also oppose the bill, which they say is against the tradition of sanctuary offered by many churches across the state. Some pastors do support the bill, but say that the decision of allowing firearms must be made by each individual congregation. WDEF reported that the bill would mandate assessing a $100 fine to any person who brings a firearm into a church without permission.

Busy Week With Few Answered Questions

BY Jim Sheperd, Outdoor Wire, March 21, 2014

The first Friday of spring doesn't seem to have answered the prayers of many of us who are just sick-and-tired of winter. There are still plenty of areas that are doing pretty good imitations of iceboxes. At least we're not looking at a lot of severe weather to really welcome spring.
But there haven't been any questions answered for Second Amendment Supporters this week, either.
The week began with an escalation of the battle between Ares Armor, EP Armory and the ATF. After being threatened with a raid and confiscation of their customer records, Ares Armor went to court and won a preliminary injunction that many thought would protect the company until they could get back before a judge.But before you could say "80% receiver" the ATF found a second judge who issued a search warrant for Ares. And the ATF moved in, seizing several thousand of the contested 80% complete polyester AR-style rifle lowers along with the sales records for several thousand customers who had purchased those items in question.
Now, that case seems to be on hold. The raid on Ares' locations pretty much knocked the restraining order into a cocked hat, so it was vacated as moot by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
But there is one small change - and it's probably not going to be one for the better for our gun rights. The ATF is now re-examining their "80-percent" receiver finding. It's seldom that reviews go in favor of gun owners, despite the "open and transparent" promises of the administration and ATF's now-permanent head, B. Todd Jones.
In fact, the ATF is once again in the gunsite of Representative Darrel Issa (R-CA) and the House Oversight Committee that he chairs. Issa has issued yet another subpoena for records he says Jones and the ATF are still stonewalling.
This time, it's a series of storefront stings that Issa says were "dangerously mismanaged". When newspapers first broke the story of "Operation Fearless" it seemed to be another ATF misnomer. A better name might have been "Operation Clueless" -because the ATF seemed to bend or break any rule that stood in their way.And along that way they managed to lose three firearms. One a fully-automatic one that actually belonged to the ATF.
Issa's letter to Jones was another of those line in the sand notes that it seems Issa routinely sends -and the ATF routinely ignores. You'd think that after two years of foot-dragging and non-cooperation from the administration over Operations "Fast and Furious" and "Wide Receiver" Issa would have learned there's not much cooperation-or transparency- when it comes to exposing ATF operations that wind up looking more like jokes than serious criminal investigations.
In these storefront stings, however, Issa says the ATF reached new mismanagement standards. From losing $40,000 of merchandise along the way to using mentally handicapped individuals to "facilitate the sales of guns" -and then arresting them.Issa's new subpoena says the ATF must supply communications related to Operation Fearless Distributing and the ATF's Monitored Case Program, Operational plans and relevant Reports of Investigation for undercover storefront operations around the country, documents authorizing ATF agents' sales of arms, policies for conducting investigations and all relevant reports of investigations for investigations in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Portland, Oregon, Wichita, Kansas, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Pensacola, Florida and Atlanta, Georgia.Now, the clock's ticking down to the deadline (March 31) for Director Jones to comply with Congressman Issa's demands. Don't hold your breath looking for shipments of documents. We have a fairly consistent pattern of behavior that would indicate another deadline will pass without any light having been shed on much of anything.


Feds Now Taking Names of Gun-Parts Buyers
Conservative Byte, Posted on March 20, 2014


Probably just another example of the NSA collecting data about us. Wait til they confess to collecting our Wal-Mart receipts.
Check it out:
A federal raid by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on a San Diego gun-parts store chain has prompted criticism that the primary purpose of the operation was to collect the names and addresses of customers.
Despite a temporary restraining order, ATF agents obtained a search warrant and raided four Ares Armor stores over the weekend, according to San Diego’s KSWB-TV.
The ATF, which went to a judge privately to obtain the warrant, said it was investigating alleged violations of federal firearms laws that stemmed from the sale of a new plastic version of the 80 percent lowers of AR-15 rifles.
Get the word on a Christian’s duty to be armed: “Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense”
Building a rifle with specific versions of the 80 percent receivers is legal, the TV report explained. But the ATF said the polymer lower receiver appears to be manufactured differently with two parts, making them a firearm and illegal to sell.
Ares Executive Officer Dimitrios Karras said he was trying to get the federal definition explained when the raid was executed.

While Obama & the Democrats are Seeking Gun Confiscation, State Republicans Are Squashing Gun Owner’s Rights
Freedom Outpost, March 19, 2014

We have reported extensively on how the Obama administration and the Democrats in Washington, along with Republicans, have been pushing for an ultimate goal, which is gun confiscation. However, many people are under the impression that just because an elected official or candidate has an "R" behind his name, that person is all for gun owner's rights. Nothing could be further from the truth and here's the evidence.
The first example is my home state of South Carolina. Republicans in the State legislature killed a bill, sponsored by Republican Senator Lee Bright, that would allow for unrestricted rights to carry your gun lawfully. It's called Constitutional Carry. Only four Republicans voted for it! I thought these guys were the people always talking about our rights and personal responsibility, but no, in many cases they are wanting to coddle the people and treat them like children, just like Democrats.
SC State Republican Senator Larry Martin told one of his constituents who asked him to vote for the bill, "If the Second amendment has been as you interpret it, why hasn't SC law reflected that for the last 140 years? I'm sorry but you are describing an 'unlimited' right that has never been the case with the Second Amendment. My view of the 2nd Amendment has always been the right to own guns and keep them in our homes, business, and property and not to wear a gun whenever to wherever I pleased."
The problem is that nowhere in his statement does he address "bearing" those same arms. Why doesn't SC law reflect the Second Amendment? Because progressives like Martin have been making the laws for all that time since the time following Abraham Lincoln, and the War to Enslave the States. Why does he only stop at 140 years? Why doesn't he go back further, back to the founding or even prior to the founding of the United States? That should tell you something right there.
But it isn't just in South Carolina. Tennessee Republicans did the exact same thing. In January, I told you that State Senator Mae Beavers (R) introduced SB1607, 2014 Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act. On Tuesday the Senate committee voted to kill the bill.
While three Republicans (Campfield, Green and Bell) voted in favor of advancing the bill, three Republicans (Kelsey, Overby, and Stevens) joined Democrat Senator Finney against it. Senator Ford, a Democrat, abstained.
According to Michael Lotfi, "Those Republicans voting against the bill attempted to cite that federal law was supreme over state law, which would make Beavers' bill in violation of Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. This clause is often cited as the 'Supremacy Clause.'"
"However, these Republicans are misinterpreting the clause," he continued. "The clause reads: 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land… [emphasis added].' This means that only laws, which are passed in pursuance to the federal Constitution, can be considered supreme over state laws."
Before anyone goes off on me for pointing these things out and tells me "Please stop the infighting," let me suggest that this is not "infighting." This is tyranny versus liberty, and it doesn't matter if it comes from the Republicans or the Democrats, the issue is how they overreach their authority and how they fail to defend the liberty of the people.
Notice that not all Republicans were against these bills. In fact, it was Republicans who introduced them. However, it should be clear that there are enough infiltrators in the Republican Party to demonstrate that they do not believe the rhetoric they espouse during election season.
These are the Republicans in name only that must be removed and replaced with men who will honor their oath and protect the liberty of the people.
There will also be those that say, "No, they are merely looking for 'common sense gun control.'" Oh yeah? Where does that end? I'll tell you. It ends where tyranny's gun control always ends: gun confiscation. Once that has been accomplished, the next step is extermination. That is the pattern that was historically followed all throughout the bloodiest century in history, the twentieth century. The most common cause of unnatural death during that time? Democide: Death by government. It's resulted in nearly 300 million people being murdered at the hands of their own governments. That's not a fear tactic, it's just the facts.
We would do well to remember the words of Patrick Henry:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry- June 5, 1788
Let's stop begging government to exercise the liberty that is to be protected and start demanding they do only that which they have been authorized to do.

New York Gun Owners Burn Registration Cards
Eagle Rising, March 19, 2014

In an awesome act of Civil Disobedience, hundreds of New Yorkers gathered together to protest
 the NY SAFE Act by burning their gun registration forms.
Folks, it’s time to wake up.
The people of New York are undergoing a siege. Their state government (with the full support of the Obama Administration and Democrats) are stripping away the most basic inalienable rights of the people of New York. The Second Amendment clearly says that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Yet, the state government is clearly cracking down on the people’s right to own firearms.
Some good people in New York
 are willing to risk everything to stand up for the rights of their fellow citizens – and they proved it a couple of days ago when they gathered together to burn their gun registration cards.


NRA release:  March 19, 2014
New Jersey: Urgent Action Needed -- Stand and Fight!

Your immediate help is needed to combat anti-gun legislation in Trenton! Assembly Bill 2006, sponsored by Assemblyman Louis Greenwald (D-6), and Senate Bill 993, sponsored by state Senator Loretta Weinberg (D-37), both seek to restrict the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines from 15 to 10 rounds and ban many popular firearms. A.2006 could be voted on in the Assembly as early as this Thursday, March 20. S.993 could be heard in Senate committee as early as Monday, March 24 and then voted on in the state Senate. If left unchecked, S.993 could be sent to Governor Chris Christie’s desk, after passing the state Senate and Assembly, as early as next Thursday, March 27. Please contact your state Senator and Assemblymen now!
Last week, “amendments” to A.2006 passed in the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee. These amendments supposedly eliminate the bill’s unintended ban on dozens of popular firearms. However, don’t be fooled by false claims. These new amendments only twist the tangled web of New Jersey’s gun laws further. As amended, there is zero impact on the legislation’s ban on popular firearms and ammunition.
Please contact your state Senator, both of your Assemblymen and Governor Christie, and tell them to oppose A.2006/S.993. We also urge you to come to Trenton to testify before the Senate Law & Public Safety Committee on Monday, March 24. While there is no current confirmation on whether S.993 will be heard at this hearing, we expect this legislation to be heard very soon. This committee hearing is currently scheduled for 10:00 a.m. at the State House Annex at 125 West State Street in Trenton. Your NRA-ILA will continue to provide more information once the official committee agenda is released.

Sandy Hook, Gun Control & Time Stamped AP Photos - Serious Questions About What Really Happened
Freedom Outpost, March 17, 2014


Editor's Note: This article, which has been slightly modified for clarification, was posted to a conservative website. It got so much attention from the Daily Kos and MSN, that pressure came down on a representative in the Ohio House of Representatives, who is affiliated with the site, to pull the article. Fred, has graciously asked us to post this piece because he knows we don't cave to that kind of pressure and believes it is vitally important. Consider the significance of Sandy Hook in light of the "New Lexington Green" of Connecticut. Feel free to leave a comment.
Sandy Hook happened. It was, and remains, tragic. This article (though slightly modified from its original) had been originally published at another website. Leftists immediately began salivating at the erroneous thought that I was trying to say that Sandy Hook did not occur.
It got to the point where the left began accusing an elected official of actually authoring the article. To avoid further confusion, the article was taken down. Of course, that caused a loud "hurrah!" by the left, which simply proves that it doesn't take much for them to cheer even when they're wrong and don't know it.
It is amazing how no one on the left showed any semblance of real intelligence. Here's an example:
Again, all this because some on the left believed I (or an elected official) said that Sandy Hook did not happen. I never said it, and never implied it. I simply asked questions about things that have not been adequately answered, but that's too mundane for the left. They'd prefer to pick a fight about something that was not said. It's an offshoot of telling a lie so often that it becomes truth.
"Rev. Chuck Currie - above - is a solid leftist, believing in marriage "equality" for sodomites and lesbians. He's also an avid (read: nutcase) anti-gunner, falsely believing that removing guns from law-abiding citizens would reduce gun crime. As is usually the case, confused individuals such as Rev. Currie, while remonstrating against guns has nothing to say on his website (that I could find) against murdering over a million unborn babies each year. That's all good apparently, but not guns. At least he's consistent like the rest of the leftists with which he hangs out. I'm sure he thinks Jesus is proud of him.
But getting back to Sandy Hook, who can forget the images the world saw after Adam Lanza allegedly went to the Sandy Hook school location, forced his way into the school, and wound up killing many adults and children? By the way, I use the word “allegedly” only because in a court of law, it was never proven that Lanza was the perpetrator. Certainly, he was found at the scene and died there, according to news and police reports, from a self-inflicted gunshot.
On December 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Conn. became the site of one of America’s worst tragedies in recent times. America mourned. In fact, not only did the world mourn, but numerous countries (including China) called for an end to gun ownership in America. A total of 26 adults and young children died,
gunned down with 3 to 11 shots each. We are to believe Adam Lanza did that, a kid who had rarely held or shot a gun prior to that fateful day.
Over time, and as more information came to the forefront, things began to look strange.
Certain date stamps on images and posts on the Net referenced dates well before the tragedy occurred. Some said they were due to computer glitches. That's certainly possible, but for all of them? Other things were weird as well, like the
guide on how to talk to young people regarding Sandy Hook was published four days before the event had yet occurred (Editor's Note: Crisis Management Institute (CMI), the organization that produced the document, has it uploaded in October of 2012, at least a month before the shooting. This can be verified by
looking at the URL at this location). Another computer glitch?
By now, most of us have questions about our government – how it does things, why it avoids certain things, and why no one seems to be able to put a stop to President Obama’s illegal and constant overreach. These are all good questions, although the government doesn’t appreciate them. Leftists don’t like them either, but who cares? The constant push for more government-sponsored gun control, the eradication of our 4th Amendment rights as well as others is enough to cause rational people to wonder about these tragedies.
The question then comes down to could/would our government either help create an event like Sandy Hook? Would they know about the potential for such an event and let it happen? Would they add to an event to make it appear even worse than it was? Could our government act despicably enough to be the main perpetrator of such an act like Sandy Hook where 27 people died with Adam Lanza as the official dupe? Does our government want to confiscate guns so badly that they are willing to stoop to that level to make it happen? I hope not, but don't necessarily rule it out either.
Interestingly enough, when I asked these questions in the original article posted at another website, some accused me of saying/implying that the tragedy of Sandy Hook never occurred. I never said that, nor implied it.
Sandy Hook happened and left a tragedy in its wake, but the government had no problem in stepping all over the victims and displaying them in order to push for more gun control, as if any form of gun control would affect criminals and crazies. That was accepted by the left and leftist media, but when someone bothers to ask a question that may end up disagreeing with the official narrative, they are castigated.
Timothy Hunter managed to gain access to Sipa Press archives via his school computers and what he discovered staggered him. He found “that many of the photos the Associated Press (AP) supposedly had taken on the Sandy Hook massacre had dates-of-creation that predated December 14, 2012.”
Hunter also found a plethora of lies (computer glitches) that tended to bring one to the conclusion that computers glitched coincidentally on the Sandy Hook event, or maybe things were not as they seemed. While it’s possible that some cameras had the wrong date on them when taking photos, this would not account for all the wrongly dated information such as the creation of web pages. At the same time, the fact that AP photographers would take pictures without checking the date in the camera is a bit absurd to believe.
Wrongly dated AP photos include those of children allegedly killed in the event, and wrong date stamps for Google pages and searches. It also included photos of 26 young students at Devers Elementary School in York releasing balloons into the air in memory of the young children allegedly slain at Sandy Hook. Another photo shows a banner tied to a freeway overpass with the actual photo allegedly taken December 15, one day after the tragedy. But the actual photo appears to have been taken December 12th. It’s also interesting to note that the banner – while attached to the fence of a freeway overpass – cannot be seen by traffic because it is not on the outside of the fence facing traffic. It is on the inside of the fence on the opposite/far side of the road. Was it simply placed there for the photo and then taken down? It was also an AP photo.

New York high school student suspended for NRA pro-2nd Amendment T-shirt
Fox News.com, March 13, 2014

A high school student in upstate New York was suspended for wearing an NRA T-shirt that touted the second amendment after he refused to turn it inside out or cover the words with duct tape.
Shane Kinney, a 16-year-old sophomore from Grand Island, located between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, said he served a one-day, in-school suspension Monday after he refused last Friday to turn his T-shirt inside out at the request of the vice principal at Grand Island High School. The shirt was emblazoned with the NRA logo and the words, “2nd Amendment Shall not be Infringed” across the back.
“Mr. Lauria [the vice principal] told me I had to either turn the shirt inside out or put duct tape over the words,” Shane Kinney told FoxNews.com. “I told them that I wasn’t going to do it. I had to sit in the suspension room and eat lunch alone until my father brought me a new shirt to school.”
“There was pretty much nothing in the policy about guns.”
- Shane’s father Wayne Kinney
Kinney, a card-carrying member of the NRA along with his parents, said he had worn the shirt to school before, along with others that were similar, and had been asked to put duct tape over the writing. He said he complied because he didn’t want to make waves.
“I would never complain. I just wanted to get through the school year,” Kinney said. Officials at the school cited the dress code which prohibits any clothing that might incite or encourage “violent activities.”
“There was pretty much nothing in the policy about guns. We spoke to the principal about it,” Shane’s father, Wayne Kinney, told FoxNews.com. He added he discovered that he was also a member of the NRA. “We decided that it was best to let the whole thing drop since Shane already took his suspension.
“I don’t think they would have changed their minds anyway.”
In a copy of the letter sent to the Kinney home that was provided to FoxNews.com, Grand Island High School Vice Principal Michael Lauria stated:
“On Friday March 7th, 2014 prior to the start of school, Shane was seen wearing a sweatshirt with the logo of a firearm. Shane was asked to remove the shirt and turn it inside out, or place tape over the logo. Shane was also previously asked not to wear the shirt to school.
“Shane did not listen to the administrator and was later seen wearing a T-shirt with rifles displayed on the back,” the statement continues. “Shane’s actions are insubordinate and in violation of the GICSD Code of Conduct.”
On Thursday, Schools Superintendent Teresa Lawrence released a statement denying that Shane was disciplined "for wearing a shirt expressing a position on the NRA or gun control." Although she did not elaborate, she said the incident presented an opportunity to review policy.
"The Grand Island School District recognizes this matter as an opportunity to review its policies, procedures and actions to ensure that they are consistent with our commitment to provide a safe learning environment and protect students' Constitutional rights," Lawrence said.
Kinney’s father maintains that there is actually nothing in the student code that bans clothing with the imagery of guns.
While Kinney took his punishment like a good student, he says he’s still not happy with how everything went down.
“I don’t agree with it,” he said. “The NRA does great things and there was nothing wrong with that shirt.
Kinney, who is an avid hunter with a part-time job at the local gun club, says that he believes that he was asked to remove the shirt more for political beliefs than for inappropriateness.
“I’ve worn other shirts before with guns on them,” he said. “I was never asked to cover up. I think this happened because it was an NRA shirt.”
“That’s what I’m leaning towards


Chicago Pro-gun Billboard Draws Criticism
Outdoor Hub, March 17, 2014

Gun control supporters want a Chicago billboard to be taken down, but others say it is taking a stand for gun rights.
A billboard on the side of I-55 in Chicago is drawing both criticism and support due to its contents. Above the words “Pure American” are three objects: a baseball glove, apple pie, and a semiautomatic rifle. According to ABC7, the billboard was paid for by Texas-based firearm accessories manufacturer Slide Fire. The sign uses little in the way of words to link American patriotism with gun ownership, and in the corner a “2A” symbol stands next to the American flag. The abbreviation is, of course, for the Second Amendment.
Not everyone is happy with the sign and its message. The company purchased billboards in other parts of the country, but the greatest criticism seems to be coming from Chicago. The city has a long history of restrictive gun control policies and many restrictions are just now beginning to ease. Illinois recently became the last state to allow concealed carry after lawmakers agreed to pass the law last July. The first batch of Illinois gun owners received their concealed carry licenses last month, but the city of Chicago remains contentious for both gun control advocates and Second Amendment supporters.
“I think there is this great move by manufactures, NRA, and others to make guns part of America’s wardrobe; this is not what we define America by,” Reverend Michael Pfleger told ABC7.
Pfleger said that the billboard is offensive because of its proximity to the city’s West Side, where gun violence is high. The reverend is calling for the sign to be removed, and he is joined by the activist group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.
“As a mom, I’m shocked and offended that I would be replaced in an idiom with an assault rifle,” Nicole Chen, president of the group’s Illinois chapter, told The Chicago Tribune.
Efforts to remove the billboard, however, seem to be gaining little ground. The sign had already been up for weeks before the criticism began, and the billboard company that owns the sign, Lamar, asserts that nothing on the billboard is illegal.
“We feel like it’s a legal product, and the advertiser has a First Amendment right to try to sell this product,” said Hal Kilshaw, Lamar’s vice president of governmental relations. “If a group wanted to run a billboard that says, ‘We think semi-automatic rifles should be banned,’ we would run that.”
Slide Fire is perhaps best known for their patented “slide stock” design, which allows certain semiautomatic rifle platforms to fire rapidly, a practice referred to as “bump firing” by gun enthusiasts.
Since the criticism started, the company received support from its fans and pro-gun activists.
“Love your sign on I-55 in Chicago,” wrote one person on Slide Fire’s Facebook page.
“I strongly support the ‘all American as apple pie’ billboard depicting the modern sporting rifle, if we fail to protect the Second Amendment, then all other rights will be lost as well,” wrote another.
Slide Fire recognized the media coverage of its billboard in Chicago and other areas, but has not commented further.


ATF v. ARES Armor More Than A War of Words
Outdoor Wire, March 17, 2014

Around noon on Saturday, the ATF escalated what had to that point been a war of words with Oceanside, California-based Ares Armor.That's when ATF agents raided Ares' Oceanside location and seized what we've been told was as many as 6,000 of the Ares/EP Armory lowers that are at the heart of the matter. No Ares employees were arrested in the raid.
A YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gsmlJSpWvk) shows ATF Agents examining a computer on a sales counter while an irate female asks "would you want me bursting into your home?"
Following the raid, CalGuns issued a Facebook alert that said "We have confirmed that the ATF has searched multiple properties in the Ares Armor/EP ;owers matter and have seized customer lists." The notice went on to offer advice should the ATF come calling "Exercise your right to remain silent; Never consent to a search; Demand and attorney; Contact the Calgun Foundation's Help Hotline."
Since the Saturday raid, both outraged gun owners and gun rights groups have been asking how the ATF could possibly raid Ares after a temporary restraining order from Judge Janis Lynn Sammartino. That TRO, issued on Friday, supposedly stopped the ATF's actions against Ares.
Closer reading of the TRO, however, shows that Judge Sammartino's order "does not enjoin lawful criminal proceedings, including the application for or lawfully executed seizure of evidence and contraband pursuant to a search warrant issued by a United States Magistrate Judge."
The ATF has apparently acted on a legally issued warrant. That would be specifically permitted under the TRO.
But the plot has thickened as reports by both David Codrea and Dave Workmen over the weekend indicate Ares/EP may actually be caught up in what is a larger investigation of brothers Luiz Cortez-Garcia and Emiliano Cortez-Garcia.
The duo (both illegal aliens) have been charged with "unlawful manufacturing and sales of firearms, conspiracy to unlawfully manufacture and sell firearms, and several counts each related to the unlawful possession, manufacturing, and sale of short-barreled rifles, machine guns, and silencers."
According to Associate Press reports, the duo purchased components and assembled "hundreds" of illegal firearms. In none of the reports, however, does the ATF ever imply that either Ares or EP were involved in that criminal enterprise.
But Ares Armor is best known for its sale of what the industry calls "80% lowers". Those lowers are unfinished in the manufacturing process, needing approximately 20% more milling and machining before they're ready-to-use lowers for AR-15 pattern rifles. Under a long series of ATF rulings, the "80% lowers" are considered "raw" parts or "blanks" -an incomplete component not requiring serialization and a manufacturer's mark.After the completion of that process, however, sale of those same lowers without a manufacturer's serial number would constitute an illegal arms sale.
Ares specializes in the sale of those lowers along with parts kits, milling jigs, and both component and finished upper assemblies. EP Armory
None of the other parts require serialization, and are not considered firearms. Only AR-15 pattern lowers-which contain the fire controls- are considered firearms -with or without the other completing component - if they are ready to accept installation of the completing fire control components.
The ATF, in a response to the restraining order, asserts that since Lycurgan, Inc. (the company that does business as Ares Armor) is not a federal firearms licensee, "it cannot legally engage in the business of dealing firearms, let alone ones that do not bear the required manufacturer's mark and serial number."That only makes the disagreement even harder to comprehend because of the argument over what constitutes a "firearm".
Ares, says it is not a firearms dealer. Instead, the company maintains it is a parts and accessories supplier. Since 80% lowers are considered "in the raw" they are not firearms and are legal merchandise to be offered by Ares.
Now, it seems the ATF disagrees. Not only with Ares' assertion, but with longstanding rulings regarding 80% lowers.
Ares Armor makes it fairly obvious that complete firearms can be manufactured by individuals. That's not scored points with the ATF. Image from Ares Armor website.
Further complicating the question, the ATF isn't contending that all of the 80% lowers offered by Ares are, in fact, illegal. More on that below.
The fight came to a head last week when owner Demetrios Karras asked the federal courts for the temporary restraining order preventing the ATF from "raiding" his facilities.
According to Karras' statement to the court, he asked for protection under the law because the ATF had offered not to seek a warrant against Ares if Ares would:
a. Hand over all of EP Armory's 80% Lowers.b. Turn over Ares Armor customer's private information to the BATFE.
"In exchange for turning over our customer's private information the BATFE said they would not 'raid' Ares Armor's facilities and would not pursue 'criminal' charges," the statement continues, "This made me feel as if I was being extorted."
The judge apparently agreed -at least to the point of issuing the TRO. It, however, didn't prevent the ATF from acting on suspicions of criminal activity. Since the ATF had implied it considered Ares to be selling firearms illegally, it proceeded with the raid on Saturday.
Additionally, the ATF contends Karras was wrong in going to the court because he had an "agreement...in place for the voluntary (surrender of the firearms,)." That, the ATF, contends, was while he was preparing a lawsuit and temporary restraining order "preventing ATF from taking possession of this contraband."
Karras makes no bones about the fact he did agree, but his statement characterizes the action as the only relief he had in order to "delay an impending and unjust raid against Ares Armor long enough to obtain legal protection under the law."
The ATF further contends that it "received no notice of either the complaint or the application for a temporary restraining order."
This isn't a simple case-because the ATF isn't really contending all 80% receivers are illegal. Instead, it is focusing on the polymer receivers manufactured by EP Armory. Although EP was raided last week the company's website makes no mention of the raid. All their categories of incomplete lowers, however, are now showing as "Out of Stock."
To better understand one portion of the ATF argument, you need to see one of EP Armory's 80% polymer receivers (below).
The argument isn't over the polymer, per se, it's over the fact there are two colors of polymer. The ATF says that proves the receivers were complete, then the second color inserted to get around the serialization rule.
As you can see, the polymer receiver has two colors. One, the ATF contends, was created as a complete injection- and therefore in need of serialization and manufacturer's marks- receiver. The second color was added into a complete receiver to offer give purchasers with limited machining skills the ability to simply drill out all of the second color and return the 80% receiver to its actual finished condition.
Looking at one of the receivers in question, it would seem the ATF's two color argument has some merit. EP officials disagree, saying the two-color process is achieved in a single step.
It might look like a pretty childish disagreement between a manufacturer, a retailer and the ATF - until you look at the fact the ATF initially only went after polymer lowers. Going after the aluminum blanks might upset the entire firearms industry.
At that point, there are some decidedly unresolved questions: Is the ATF moving against EP/Ares because:
a) is the BATFE moving against EP/Ares because they legitimately believe the manufacturing process argument, or,
b) are they moving on the two companies as part of a larger criminal investigation involving purchases of components and their illegal assembly into firearms, or,
c) is the ATF concerned that polymer lowers allow thousands of people without the tools and expertise to machine aluminum a means to purchase an 80% lower that requires only simple power tools (a dremel style tool and a power drill might finish the machining)- and complete a gun that does not appear in ATF records?
Not all Second Amendment advocates are speaking out on the matter- yet- but some very vocal gun rights advocates aren't keeping their positions secret. They believe the government to once again be moving against gun owners, even if there is a legitimate criminal investigation underway.
The privacy concern isn't without its merit. Should the ATF prevail in its argument and the judge lift her restraining order without condition would thousands of individuals who have purchased the polymer lowers, whatever their reason, suddenly find themselves subject of ATF scrutiny, and facing possible felony charges for possession of an unregistered firearm.
Ares has until noon pacific time tomorrow (Tuesday, March 18) to respond to the ATF's arguments against her restraining order.
It's a story that hasn't been on the radar long, but has the potential to impact-significantly- thousands of otherwise legal gun owners.
When I first reported on this story last Friday on NRA News Cam & Company, I made those listeners/viewers the same promise we've made- and kept- with our readers from our very beginning: we'll keep you posted.


NJ AG Opposes Supreme Court Review of NJ Carry Law
Outdoor Wire, March 17, 2014

1.Today, the New Jersey Attorney General filed a brief in the Drake right to carry case, urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to take the case. Drake is the pending federal challenge to New Jersey's unconstitutional carry law, brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), who have asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.
At the heart of the lawsuit is the idea that citizens should not have to prove "need" to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right. New Jersey's "justifiable need" standard requires the applicant to provide evidence of prior attacks or threats before a carry permit is issued by a judge - a virtually impossible standard for most people to meet.
Though less extreme in its rhetoric than in earlier phases of the case, the Attorney General in the brief essentially defends New Jersey's carry law and tells the Supreme Court there is no reason for it to hear the case:
"[T]he Second Amendment does not prohibit New Jersey from requiring applicants to demonstrate a justifiable need before granting a permit to publicly carry a handgun. The justifiable need standard in New Jersey's Handgun Permit Law qualifies as a presumptively lawful, longstanding regulation that does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment's guarantee... Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the Third Circuit's decision here presents a question that warrants this Court's discretionary review."
While it is not unusual for an attorney general to defend state law, it is unfortunate to see such a blatant violation of fundamental rights be given legitimacy by bureaucrats.
"The right to defend yourself with a firearm outside the home, otherwise known as right to carry, has long been disparaged and denied in the Garden State," said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. "We intend to change that with this lawsuit."
"This case is extremely important because it may have a national impact on gun rights in all 50 states," said SAF Executive Vice President and founder Alan Gottlieb. "This suit is part of our effort to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time."
The Supreme Court will likely decide whether it will take the Drake case between April and June. We will spare no effort or expense to restore right to carry in the Garden State and protect that right all across America.
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.                     

CT Governor Dannel Malloy to Gun Owners: “Your Side Lost,” Get Over It
Freedom Outpost, March 15, 2014


As Connecticut is in the midst of a very serious situation regarding
guns and gun registration, Governor Dannel Malloy attended a town meeting this week to address constituents at John Barry Elementary School in Meriden, Connecticut. During that event, a pro-gun citizen, who has opposed the legislation signed into law by Malloy, which requires gun owners to register their semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines or be considered felons, asked how Malloy could push legislation that is against law abiding gun owners while abolishing the death penalty and offered early release for violent criminals. Malloy's answer was not to point to the State Constitution, but to point to the people's desire to "feel safe." In that respect, he told the questioner that the legislation regarding gun registration had gone through each branch of government and "your side lost." In essence, Malloy said, "Get over it."
Malloy told a constituent who asked about the constitutionality of the gun registration law, "One court has already decided… courts are where the constitutionality of these things are decided."
"You've thrown that term around," Malloy said with a smirk, speaking of the term "constitutional." "It's gone to the court, and guess what? You lost."
Video provided courtesy of Palin Smith
The governor attempted to equate driver's licenses, background checks to get on an airplane, and background checks to obtain a gun with the right to keep and bear arms, which is explicit in the Connecticut State Constitution (Article 1, Section 15) and the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
However, there are no caveats here. The Connecticut constitution is clear that people have that right and that nothing has to be done, as far as government is concerned, to exercise that right. Would that not include mandatory gun registration?
He then spoke about the people acting in a republican form of government decided the matter. While the people most definitely determined their elected officials, those officials are not to go against what is clear in their own constitution, and they are not to create ex post facto laws, such as the gun registration legislation which is at the heart of the debate. The fact that Malloy claims, "the legislature decided you could keep it" ought to be just as disturbing in this matter. Since when does the government in the United States determine whether or not you can keep your property? Do you get the implications? Malloy thinks the state grants you your rights, not God.
While the claim is true that those who purchased a weapon that was identified in the new legislation could keep their guns, the additional measure of registering it becomes a point of controversy. As I pointed out in a prior article, Branford Police Officer Joseph Peterson made it clear why registration was necessary: "So they know who's got them (sic) that's what the purpose is (sic)."
The only reason to want to know who owns those particular guns, is for later confiscation, nothing more.
Malloy then puts the blame for the law on the citizens, stating that they thought it best to make them safe. The question should be asked of Malloy, how does gun registration make anyone safe, seeing that no criminal will register their guns? Just how does that work? The truth is, it doesn't.
The questions posed were, "Since you've been governor, how could you abolish the death sentence in Connecticut, making it a 'killer's paradise," create a program that allows violent offenders the ability to get out of prison early, letting them run free on the streets with citizens before their time; cutting funding by hundreds of millions of dollars, with at least $25 million of that being taken away from mental health programs; such programs could identify and prevent another Sandy Hook and Adam Lanza? So by coddling and rewarding prisoners, you have turned around your wrath to the legal gun owners of the state, not realizing that legal gun owners could be the ones that could actually stop the next mass murder, since no one commits a serious crime with a police officer standing there. So how do you respond to this total turn around, as well as unconstitutional laws against law abiding gun owners while skirting around the real issues of the heinous crimes that were committed in this state?"
Malloy, attempting to belittle the man posing the questions, said, "I think you have a view," and added that sometimes those views "don't reflect reality."
He then erected a strawman, by claiming that the man's question and statement indicated that Connecticut's crime rate is higher in 2014 than it was in 2010. Of course, that was not the point of the man's question to Governor Malloy.
However, Malloy did toss out some "statistics" regarding his claim. He then made the bold proclamation, "Connecticut is safer today than it has been in 46 years. We've had fewer crimes committed in Connecticut in 2013 than we did going back 46 years, but actually when you adjust it for rate of crime, it goes back even further than that."
Malloy claims the state population was 600,000 46 years ago. OK, stop right there. This is the first lie from Malloy. He isn't even in the ballpark on this one. According to CensusScope, the total population for Connecticut in 1960, eight years prior to Malloy's claim, was 2,535,234. In 1970, just two years following Malloy's claim, the population had grown to 3,032,217.
Malloy continues to mischaracterize the man's question by stating that if he believed his statement, there "must be a plethora of murders taking place in our state."
The governor then goes on to claim, "Murders, for only the fourth time in forty years, were below 100 people."
According to murder statistics for the "Constitution State," Connecticut has seen murders under 100 on three occasions from 1974 to 2012. I don't have 2013 statistics to verify, but the Courant agrees with Malloy's claim that 2013 saw the number of murders under 100 (they cite 97). That would make this claim true.
However, that is the only year in the Malloy administration that has taken place. In fact, when you look at national average of violent crime and murder, you can see a drop almost across the board, but the question must be asked, "What are those declining rates attributed to? Are they attributed to legislation or more citizens being armed?" That is another topic for sure, so I suggest reading the real numbers on the issue here.
When taking into account Malloy's claim about 2013, keep in mind that the prior year saw what took place at Sandy Hook. The total number of murders was 146, up 17 from 2011 when Malloy took office. Now keep in mind that immediately following Sandy Hook, there was a run on guns and ammunition, so much so that shelves were emptied. This was brought on by the Obama administration pushing for more unconstitutional restrictions on guns and the State of Connecticut doing the same, even amidst opposition, including parents of those that attended Sandy Hook. If you are a thinking person in this, you would have to come to the conclusion that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens were what brought the murder rate down, not legislation and not Governor Malloy.
Malloy erected the strawman that if he believed the questions posed to him, it would lead him to believe violent offenders are doing less time in prison. That isn't even the issue. He makes comparisons to other administrations and how they have dealt with sentencing. The question posed was how could he do it? How could he release violent criminals onto the streets before their time was up?
What Malloy doesn't address is the fact that New Haven, Connecticut is listed as number 8 on a 2012 FBI report describing violent crime, murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. And the state's capital city of Hartford is consistently above the national average in regards to violent crime. In 2012 it was three times higher than the national average.
Yet, Malloy claims that the people are "safer" under his administration and says the statistics back that up. Again, why are they safer? Is it because of his administration or the people arming themselves? I'll let you be the judge.
Instead of actually answering the questions posed to him, Malloy seems to be doing nothing more than a song and dance, deflecting from the real questions and honest answers that should have been given. His answers, in my opinion, are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
Governor Malloy attempted to claim that suicide attempts were more likely to be successful in a home that had guns. I don't doubt that, but it is irrelevant to the issue. Will Governor Malloy be giving up his guns or the guns of those that provide security to him at his home, because one day he might get suicidal? I'm guessing not.
Malloy's claim about strengthening laws about keeping guns under lock and key are worthless as well. I don't mind the sentiment that if you have multiple weapons that they are stored properly, especially if little ones are in your home. However, for it to be mandated by the state, does not then make it a reality. Second, a locked up gun is of no use when you are in need of it.
Finally, the issue of mental health came up. I've told you from day one, when conservatives came out pushing the entire "mental health" issue regarding guns, that it was a mistake, and they fell right in the trap that was laid for them. You are now giving government the ability to define who is and who is not mentally healthy enough to possess a gun. Many of our veterans, who fought to preserve liberty, the same liberty we speak of to keep and bear arms, are having their guns taken from them due to the ridiculous push for government to interject itself into the issue of mental health.
Malloy is right about one thing, when it comes to this law, the side of liberty lost. Now, it appears liberty lovers are demanding a best 2 out of 3. We'll see what happens in 2014 as a floundering Malloy will be going up against gubernatorial candidate Joe Visconti.


9-year-old N.J. girl takes aim at gun law
 March 14, 2014, The bergen Record   
                 

Amid the fearful talk of home invaders, Nazis and school shooters that has become routine in New Jersey’s gun control debates this past year, one voice stood out at an Assembly hearing Thursday: that of a 9-year-old competitive shooter.
I am an example to others that kids and guns don’t always lead to bad things happening, Shyanne Roberts told the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee.
I am not a gangbanger or domestic terrorist, Shyanne testified, speaking to the eight-member committee from a prepared text. It was unclear if she wrote the speech herself.
Shyanne, a fourth-grader whose feet barely reached the floor as she sat in front of the committee, was joined by her father. She began her testimony by apologizing if she sounded nervous, telling the legislators it was her first time speaking at a committee hearing.
The chamber was quiet as she spoke without the usual background chatter of attendees and lawmakers and the largely pro-gun crowd gave her a standing ovation when she finished.
Shyanne and her father, who live in Gloucester County, came to Trenton to speak against a bill that would limit the magazine capacity of firearms to 10 rounds, down from the current 15-round maximum. They and other opponents of the measure said legislation should target criminals without affecting legal gun owners. Similar arguments were made against several other gun-control bills the Legislature passed last year, most of which were ultimately vetoed by Governor Christie.
The bill passed the committee along party lines, 5-3, after more than three hours of testimony.Shyanne, who has won several national sponsorships, has placed highly in several shooting competitions, including a second-place finish at the New Jersey State Ruger Rimfire Challenge. Her father said she entertains hopes of someday competing in the Olympics.
She is awaiting a custom AR-15 rifle, worth $3,000, from a sponsor, she said, which could become illegal if the magazine limit becomes law.
Shyanne’s appearance drew a sharp contrast with the child victims often cited by supporters of stricter firearm restrictions.
New Jersey’s debate over gun control picked up last year after 20 children and six adults were killed in the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in late 2012 by a man who had earlier fatally shot his mother in the home they shared. The gunman killed himself at the school.
Parents of Sandy Hook victims have taken two trips to Trenton to push for tighter gun laws, and smaller magazine limits, in particular.
Shyanne’s speech also diverged from the arguments made by several other opponents of the bill. But as the Assembly committee’s hearing on Thursday wore on, the discussion increasingly turned from competitive shooting to fears about totalitarianism and home invasion.
If you tried to tell the Marine Corps how many rounds they can carry in their magazines, said Tony DeSantis, a veteran of the Marines, you’d be speaking Japanese and German right now.Supporters of stricter gun control, though, said that smaller magazines would keep New Jerseyans safe by forcing shooters to take more time reloading.
Limiting magazines to 10 rounds is an act that will make New Jersey safer for ourselves and our families, said Kristin Wald, of the New Jersey chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Magazines with fewer bullets mean fewer deaths, period.The 10-round limit has been one of the most contentious proposals since new gun control measures began moving through the Legislature in January 2013, weeks after the shooting at Sandy Hook. The Assembly approved a 10-round restriction in February 2013, but Senate President Stephen Sweeney, D-Gloucester, did not post it for a vote in his chamber.
Now, after winning reelection in his South Jersey district by a comfortable margin in November, Sweeney is pushing for the magazine restriction.
I’m proud to be standing here today supporting this, he said at a news conference last month with the parents of Sandy Hook victims. I’m still pro-Second Amendment, I believe in the Constitution. But I also believe things happen in life, and you can’t ignore them.
The debate at Thursday’s committee mostly featured the same arguments presented at hours of hearings last year.
It is when the individual goes to reload their magazine clip that brave individuals are able to stand up and apprehend those individuals, said the bills sponsor, Assemblyman Lou Greenwald, D-Camden. And it was in that time at Sandy Hook that children were able to flee and escape. This is not about legal gun owners. This is not about taking guns away from legal gun owners.
But the restriction would make gun owners less safe, the bills opponents argued, because they, too, would have fewer bullets at their disposal.
Let’s not kid ourselves about this bill: It’s based on the fantasy that we could somehow wave a magic wand and be safer by removing a tool, said Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs. No one will be any safer under this feel-good legislation because madmen will ignore it or find another tool.
Gun owners also argued that they shouldn’t have to face new restrictions because of the actions of criminals. Shyanne, the 9-year-old competitive shooter, made the point using her 4-year-old brother.I do not understand why the state wants to punish people like me who have done nothing wrong because of the people who have, she said. I do not get in trouble or get punished at home because of something my little brother did.
At a town hall event in Mount Laurel on Thursday, Governor Christie declined to take a position on the magazine limit.
If they pass a bill like that and it comes to my desk, I have 45 days to read the fine print and talk to experts, he said in response to a question.
Heres my view on this: It is a very emotional issue on both sides. Gun control and the Second Amendment are enormously emotional, combustible issues, the Republican governor said. My job as governor is to be the adult in the room.
Christie vetoed many of the bills aimed at reducing gun violence that passed the Legislature last year, including the Democrats centerpiece legislation that would have overhauled the background check process for prospective gun buyers. He also rejected a ban on .50-caliber weapons  a measure that he had proposed only months earlier, but which he said went beyond the ban that he had called for.

House Judiciary Committee to Hear Second Amendment Legislation Next Week
PFSC, March 15, 2014

 Tuesday, March 18, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 60 East Wing, the House Judiciary Committee will be considering two pro-gun pieces of legislation which need your support:                    
House Bill 921, sponsored by state Representative Tim Krieger (R-57), would transfer background checks for firearms purchases from the Pennsylvania instant check system to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
House Bill 2011, sponsored by state Representative Mark Keller (R-86), would strengthen Pennsylvania's firearms preemption law to further ensure firearm and ammunition laws are consistent throughout the state and provide for the recovery of legal expenses incurred when municipalities enact ordinances, or continue to maintain them, in violation of PA Preemption Law.
HB 921 would replace the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) with the National Instant Check System (NICS) saving more than $6 million annually for the Commonwealth and millions in fees for citizens as well as unburdening the firearms retailers from unnecessary complications in the firearms purchase process. PICS has cost Pennsylvania at least $100 million since 1998 and a move to NICS would incur NO cost to gun owners, while the state police could no longer use PICS to maintain a database of gun owners.
There may be an attempt to amend HB 921 with anti-gun language that would mandate "universal" background checks.
The NRA and all 2nd Amendment groups strongly oppose this amendment. Currently, Pennsylvania requires background checks on the private sale and transfer of handguns. This amendment would expand the required background check to include the private sale of ALL firearms, including rifles and shotguns.
"Universal" background checks do nothing to reduce crime, and only punish law-abiding gun owners by creating cumbersome mandates and restrictions on the lawful purchase and possession of firearms. It is already illegal to knowingly sell or transfer a firearm to someone classified as a prohibited person, and is a felony for a prohibited person to buy, own or possess a firearm.
Mandating background checks on the private transfer of long guns would make drastic and unnecessary changes to current state firearm laws and will impose unduly restrictions on law-abiding citizens and lead to gun registration lists, rather than addressing the true problems associated with illegal straw purchases - lack of enforcement of current law.
Criminals, by definition, violate laws, especially gun control laws. They don't register their firearms, purchase firearms through licensed dealers or subject themselves to any gun control schemes that only penalize law-abiding citizens.
Please call and e-mail members of the House Judiciary Committee MONDAY in support of HB 921 and HB 2011 WITHOUT any anti-gun amendments

Will Connecticut Jail 350,000 Once Lawful Gun Owners?
Last Resistence, March 14, 2014This past year,

Connecticut passed sweeping gun laws that required the registration of all guns that the state defines as being an assault weapon. This includes all semi-automatic rifles, many of which are used for hunting, as well as all high capacity magazines. The deadline for registration was December 31, 2013.
When I sold guns, one of the most popular hunting rifles was a Remington Model 750 semi-automatic 30.06. It was used for hunting deer, elk, bear, javelina, moose, antelope, buffalo and more. My dad used a Remington 750 for deer, bear and javelina hunting and with a clip, it only held five rounds of ammo. Any hunter in Connecticut using a Remington 750 or any other semi-automatic hunting rifle is now required to register it with the state.
Just prior to the deadlines, lines of gun owners, many of them just ordinary people who like to hunt, formed at registration locations. One photo of a line of gun owners has gone viral on the internet and many are comparing it to the 1928 and 1938 German firearm laws, where lines of gun owners formed to register their weapons.
Now that the registration deadline has passed, it is estimated that as many as 350,000 residents did not register their guns or high capacity magazines. According to the Connecticut law, they are now guilty of a Class D felony which could mean up to 5 years in prison and up to a fine of $5,000. Conviction of a felony also means that they are no longer allowed to own or even handle a firearm, cannot vote and cannot obtain a number of professional licenses or enter certain professional careers.
It seems that a growing number of Connecticut citizens are willing to face the penalties for not registering their firearms or high capacity magazines because they are making a stand for their Second Amendment rights. One of those citizens is John Cinque of Branford who told a public meeting:
“I tell everybody I’m not complying. I can’t – you have to be willing to stand up and say no. And there are a lot of us who are going to say no.”
He told them that he was a 30 year public servant including being a Navy veteran and 20 year firefighter now retired. He has never been in trouble with the law and that now with just the stroke of a pen, he is a Class D felon just for standing up for his Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Cinque quoted recent Supreme Court ruling in the Heller case which stated:
“Conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.”
“It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.”
Cinque went on to tell the meeting that state officials had stated that this was just the first step in accomplishing their agenda. He asked those conducting the meeting what was next, a Chinese type ruling that they are only allowed 1 child and if so, which of his two sons did they want him to kill.
As I wrote in January, the Connecticut laws are eerily similar to those of pre-World War 2 Germany. The photos of Connecticut citizens that lined up to register their weapons were identical to those of 1928 Germany. We know what happened in Germany and many, like John Cinque, fear that the same thing is about to happen here in the US under the tyranny we are now facing.
History shows us that those registration lists were used to strip many Germans of their guns under the tyrannical rule of Adolf Hitler. When you take a close look at Obama’s tyrannical rule, it isn’t that different from that of Hitler which leads many people to believe that like Hitler, Obama will use these registration lists to confiscate guns from law abiding Americans. Once that begins, the end of freedom will be upon us.
So what is Connecticut going to do to the 350,000 people who failed or refused to register their guns? That is 20 times the amount of prisoners currently in the state prisons. Is the state willing to turn that many law abiding citizens into hardened felons? State officials haven’t said what they are going to do yet, but they definitely have a dilemma on their hands.

Gun Confiscation: 110,000 Citizens in Maryland Targeted
Freedom outpost, March 13, 2014

While things continue to escalate in Connecticut as the state has called for gun owners who have not registered their guns to surrender them, just a few states away, new laws in Maryland are doing something similar: Targeting citizens for gun confiscation.
According to the new law, the state's gun registry would be linked to its criminal database.
The Associated Press reports:
State law requires gun owners to surrender their weapons if they're convicted of felonies or any violent crimes, but Del. Luiz Simmons, D-Montgomery, said Maryland State Police lack a systematic way of enforcing this. They can't use their databases to identify gun owners convicted of crimes.
State Police estimate that if they linked the databases, they would find 10 percent of registered gun owners — about 110,000 people — would be disqualified. They estimate a rate of 1 percent each year thereafter.
The Department of Legislative Services believes it would cost about $300,000 to create the database. The department also anticipates a need for seven new full-time troopers to investigate findings from the new database, with a cost of more than $1 million a year for salaries and equipment.
You may say that this is good because it targets criminals. While that does seem to be the initial thrust of the legislation, there should be the consideration of gun registration, which government should not be a party to. Paul Joseph Watson makes the following observation:
While the law is ostensibly aimed at disarming criminals, we have seen a steady expansion of reasons that are being applied to bar Americans from owning firearms. The law also creates a chilling effect on the second amendment by implying that gun owners are all guilty until proven innocent.
"This smacks of a police state mentality," said Maryland resident Ronald Smith in written testimony before a hearing on Tuesday.
Maryland delegate Mike Smigiel spoke to Freedom Outpost about the legislation and says that his greatest fear is that it looks to put an ex post facto law in place. He said, "It appears that the bill would take things that, 20 year ago or 30 years ago, would not be considered to be… associated with having a loss of your Second Amendment rights…then take the current day and say that you had a misdemeanor, a fight in a bar…that you shouldn't own a firearm. Yet, for the last 20 years you've had the ability to purchase and own a gun."
"The ex post facto application is a real serious concern." Smiegel said. "We continually attempt to make law abiding citizens into criminals. They want to take away the fact that you can have a PBJ (Probation before judgment), but only if you get it with regards to firearms. They don't take away your probation before judgment with any other…you could be a murderer, you could be an arsonist, you could be a drug dealer and you still keep your PBJ and you're not convicted of the crime."
Delegate Smiegel wants to see two avenues pursued. He would like to see mental health dealt with. In that matter, he wants people to actually get help so that they don't injure themselves or others whether with a gun or another object. Second, he wants to see those who engage in violent crime with a firearm dealt with severely, not being released back out into society. In this manner, Smiegel says we can deal with criminals completely different than we can law abiding citizens.
Smiegel's ten-year-old son gets it. After seeing a picture on television of a person, who had been booked for a crime (you know the mug shot with the numbers beneath), his son asked, "Daddy, why didn't they just keep him in jail when they had him there to take his picture?"
Delegate Smiegel has been on the front lines fighting anti-gun legislation and has remained true to his oath.
I think this is the issue. The solution to problems is not to make criminals out of law abiding citizens. It is rather to enforce the existing laws against those that break them.
At the same time, ex post facto laws are what is creating the stir up in Connecticut regarding the registration of semi-automatic guns and high capacity magazines. During my interviews with Navy veteran John Cinque, this was something he pointed out as well, and part of the reason he told lawmakers that he would not comply with such laws.
The irony in both situations is that Connecticut, "the Constitution State," and Maryland, "The Free State," are both targets of the progressive agenda that has only one goal: complete and total gun confiscation.
Connectictut citizens are taking a stand. Will Maryland citizens do the same?

On March 12th Idaho Governor C.L. 'Butch" Otter (R) signed campus carry bill SB 1254 into law.

It takes effect July 1st.

As Breitbart News reported on March 8th, the measure allows retired law enforcement and those with an
"enhanced concealed-carry permit" to "carry firearms on campus except in such places as residence halls and public entertainment facilities like football stadiums."
Twin Falls' KMVT News reports Governor Otter "wrote in a statement he backed the bill to protect Second Amendment rights." The bill also had the backing of the NRA.
By signing SB1254, Otter made Idaho the seventh state in the union to allow guns to be carried on campus for self defense.


ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE PASSESGUN BAN / MAG BAN!
Unmodified Transportation Bill PassedOver Gun Owner Objections

A2006 Now Moves to Full Assembly -
Begin Contacting Your Assembly Members Immediately!
In a partisan vote of 5-3, the New Jersey Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee today passed A2006 out of committee after hearing impassioned testimony from nearly 100 gun owners and Second Amendment leaders who were in attendance. The legislation now moves to the full Assembly for a vote, which could come as soon as March 20th.
Please immediately begin contacting both of your Assembly Members and tell them to oppose A2006 (gun ban / magazine ban) and to modify A2777 with a single word change to restore judicial discretion on reasonable deviations in firearms transportation.
This is going to be a protracted fight in the legislature and it is imperative that gun owners do not let up and in fact increasetheir efforts as this process unfolds. We will be repeating this call to action several times in the next month - please answer the call with more vigor each time we do, even if it does not immediately appear like it is having effect.


Lawmaker: Why NJ should crack down on high-capacity magazines (Opinion)
Assemblyman Lou Greenwald wants to limit magazines to 10 rounds, from 15, in New Jersey. The Camden County Democrat says lower-capacity magazines give victims time to flee a mass shooting because shooters must stop to reload more often. (Patti Sapone/The Star-Ledger)
Star-Ledger March 13, 2014  
Its a moment you dont forget. Each of us remembers hearing the news: a gunman had stormed a Connecticut elementary school, killing 20 6- and 7-year-olds and six courageous adults who tried to protect them. As a nation, the tragedy of Newtown broke our hearts. But it should also strengthen our resolve to protect our communities from senseless gun violence.
Several times, I have met with parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary. These visits are among the most profoundly moving experiences in my 18 years of public service.
These families told me how they used to see stories about shootings on the evening news. They told me their hearts would go out to the families of the victims. They told me they would say prayers, then return to the normal business of their lives. But in the blink of an eye, their families were ripped apart.
This story could happen to any of us. Any of our families could so easily be devastated the way the victims of gun violence are devastated every day.
We can no longer afford to be a society that sees gun violence on the news and thinks nothing can be done. Thats why I have proposed reducing the capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds. This reasonable proposal will promote public safety while respecting the Second Amendment.
Recent tragedies show that a 10-round limit can save lives. In Newtown, the shooter used 30-round magazines to commit heinous murders. As he reloaded in one classroom, 11 children escaped. With a 10-round limit requiring more frequent reloading, more lives might have been saved.
In Tucson, a shooter used a 33-round magazine to kill six people and wound others, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. He was tackled as he tried to reload. Yet bullet No. 13 killed a 9-year-old girl. With a 10-round limit, she might be alive today.
Requiring shooters to reload more often provides more time for innocent people to escape or disarm the shooter.
According to James Johnson, Baltimore police chief and chair of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, magazine capacity matters. Johnson explains that while expert shooters, like law enforcement officers, can quickly reload, shooters who are nervous, scared or adrenaline-ridden take longer. Requiring shooters to reload more often provides more time for innocent people to escape or disarm the shooter.
In addition, data from President Clintonâs 1994 assault weapons ban suggest a 10-round limit worked. Crime data from Virginia show that high-capacity magazines recovered by police declined to a low of 9 percent of all weapons recovered during the laws existence. Once the law expired, this number spiked to 22 percent. These data suggest that, over time, the ten-round limit reduced criminals use of high-capacity magazines.
Furthermore, limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds respects the Second Amendment. No constitutional freedom is unlimited. For example, the First Amendment does not protect citizens who falsely shout, Fire! in a crowded theater.
Even Justice Antonin Scalia ” widely regarded as the Supreme Courts most conservative member agrees: reasonable gun laws are constitutional.
My bill strikes that reasonable balance. By reducing the number of high-capacity magazines in criminal hands and limiting the damage violent individuals can inflict, we will save lives and reduce gun violence. Meanwhile, hunters and sportsmen will not be impacted; competitive shooters will still be able to compete; citizens will still be able to effectively defend themselves, their homes and families.
Standing idle cannot be an option when a sensible bill like this one can promote public safety. The Assembly approved it last session, but it failed to advance further. Now, we all know we must do the right thing, and we are headed in the right direction  toward a safer New Jersey.
Too many families have been ripped apart by gun violence. Nothing we do can fill the empty chairs at dinner tables in Newtown or New Jersey. But what we can do is apply the lessons of past tragedies to prevent future gun violence.

NY Man Charged With Manslaughter For Shooting Armed Home Invader
Conservative Byte, March 9, 2014
 
It has come to this…
Surveillance footage shows a burglar opening fire into the home of a Long Island man, but that hasn’t stopped prosecutors from indicting the homeowner for returning fire and killing one of the intruders.
Via Long Island News:
A Huntington Station man has been indicted on manslaughter charges for shooting an alleged home burglar who later died, but his attorney says it’s a clear case of self-defense.
Youssef Abdel-Gawad says a man with a gun was attempting to break into his Huntington Station home back in August. His family shared surveillance video of the incident with News 12 Long Island, and in it, the alleged burglar is seen trying to enter a door. The burglar then pulls out a gun, and a flash is seen that appears to be the burglar firing a shot into the home.
Youssef Abdel-Gawad’s attorney says he came to the door with a rifle and returned fire at the burglar and his alleged accomplices, striking one of them. The accomplice later died.
You can see the surveillance footage which clearly shows one of the burglars brandishing a weapon, accompanied by a flash which indicates the gun was fired into the home.
Bearing Arms writes:
The prosecution is claiming that they couldn’t find a bullet embedded anywhere in the home to match the criminal’s apparent shot. Frankly, it’s irrelevant. As soon as the criminal displayed a weapon as he was attempting to break into the home, he justified the use of deadly force to repel his attack. It does not matter if the firearm fired a shot, or if the gun was even an airsoft gun.
Abdel-Gawad was forced into a situation where he had to defend his family with firearms by the actions of the criminal.
If anyone should be charged with manslaughter, it should be the criminal that displayed the firearm while attempting the home invasion, and no one else.
A separate report has authorities stating that Abdel-Gawad chased after the would-be burglars and shot them from behind as they were fleeing. If somebody shoots at your family first, chasing after them should not be held against you. This isn’t our trained military men and women being asked to show “courageous restraint.” It is a civilian in his home protecting his family

CT Cop Who Wants to Kick in Doors & Confiscate Guns Suspended – Not Before Spilling the Beans on
What Gun Registration is all About
Freedom Outpost, March 10, 2014
On Saturday, I informed you of a Connecticut police officer who said he wanted to bust through one patriot's door and take his guns. This morning I spoke with John Cinque via telephone and he provided me with screenshots of the conversation that he mentioned in the video. Many people wanted to see the evidence of what John referenced in the video. Some thought it was nothing more than ploy since he was in the video with Connecticut gubernatorial candidate Joe Visconti. I won't attempt to judge Visconti's motives. However, the evidence is clear of what Officer Joseph Peterson of the Branford Police Department said, and in the course of the conversation actually spilled the beans on what gun registration is all about: Taking your guns, which every red-blooded, American gun owner knows already. Take a Look for yourself:


Gun store owner refuses to give feds customer list
Conservative Byte,  March 14, 2014

I make sure that all my weapons can’t be traced back. No need for the feds to know.
Check it out:
The owner of an Oceanside store that sells various gun parts to build a rifle from scratch refused to turn over his customer list to federal agents.
Dimitrios Karras, owner of Ares Armor, said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents were investigating their business, not for what they sell, but for the people who purchase their products.
80 percent lower receiverKarras said the ATF threatened to shutter their business if they didn’t hand over the names of 5,000 customers who have purchased an 80 percent lower receiver (the base) for building an AR-15.
It is legal to build a rifle from scratch without serial numbers only if the base is manufactured to ATF specifications. The base is not considered a firearm if it’s sold separately.
A manufacturer made an 80 percent receiver in plastic with a different material and colors which show exactly where the customer can drill making it easier and cheaper to build. The ATF said it is illegal.
The ATF sent stores, including Ares Armor, letters demanding they turn over the products and names of customers who purchased them.

NRA Declares Victory over Facebook Response to Gun Control Group
Daily Clash, March 6, 2014


After almost a month of pressure by Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) and Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America (MDA) to get Facebook to "prohibit the private selling or trading of guns on its platforms," Facebook announced "new educational and enforcement measures for commercial activities" that essentially restate what a company spokesperson said a week ago when they announced Facebook is not an online retailer and does not sell anything--including guns.
Facebook's March 5th announcement thanks "New York Attorney General Schneiderman, Americans for Responsible Solutions, Sandy Hook Promise, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action" for all their input. But in the end, Facebook merely announced it "will not permit people to post offers to sell regulated items that indicate a willingness to evade or help others evade the law."
This makes three straight losses for Moms Demand Action stretching from Starbucks to Staples to Facebook.
NRA-ILA executive director Chris Cox responded to Facebook's announcement thus:
The NRA enjoys 150 times more support on Facebook than Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns. That's why Bloomberg and the gun control groups he funds tried to pressure Facebook into shutting down discussion of Second Amendment issues on its social media platforms. Bloomberg failed. NRA members and our supporters will continue to have a platform on which to exercise rights in support of their Second Amendment freedoms.
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.



Showdown: Maryland to Target 110,000 Citizens With Gun Confiscation
New law would link gun registry with criminal database
Paul Joseph Watson
, Infowars.com, March 5, 2014

Authorities in Maryland are set to target 110,000 citizens with gun confiscation under a new law that would link the state’s gun registry with its criminal database, with new troopers set to be hired to enforce door to door visits of illegal gun owners.
Maryland State Police complain that there is no way for them to identify gun owners who have been convicted of felonies, meaning they can’t check if weapons have been relinquished in accordance with state law.
New legislation being considered by the Maryland House of Delegates would allow police to run checks of the state’s gun registry against its criminal database at least twice a year at a cost of $300,000 dollars to create the new system.
“State Police estimate that if they linked the databases, they would find 10 percent of registered gun owners — about 110,000 people — would be disqualified. They estimate a rate of 1 percent each year thereafter,” reports the Associated Press
, adding that “seven new full-time troopers to investigate findings from the new database,” would be hired, “with a cost of more than $1 million a year for salaries and equipment.”
In other words, more armed police would be needed to conduct dangerous door to door gun confiscations of the thousands of people that would be snagged under the new law.
“This smacks of a police state mentality,” said Maryland resident Ronald Smith in written testimony before a hearing on Tuesday.
While the law is ostensibly aimed at disarming criminals, we have seen a steady expansion of reasons that are being applied to bar Americans from owning firearms. The law also creates a chilling effect on the second amendment by implying that gun owners are all guilty until proven innocent.
Last year we reported
 on how US Navy Veteran David A Schmecker had his guns confiscated by police after a forced “psychiatric evaluation” despite him having no criminal or psychiatric history.
In August 2012, we reported
 on how a veteran in Ohio had his guns taken because he was adjudged to be mentally incompetent, despite the fact that his previous VA psychiatric evaluations were all clear, he was not on medication, and he had no criminal record.
In February 2012
, David Sarti, one of the stars of National Geographic’s Doomsday Preppers
 show, visited his doctor complaining of chest pains, only to have the doctor later commit him to a psychiatric ward and alert authorities, before Sarti was declared “mentally defective” and put on an FBI list that stripped him of his second amendment rights.
Maryland’s preparations for gun confiscation arrive on the back of a similar showdown in Connecticut
, where a vast majority of residents refused to register their assault rifles and high capacity magazines in accordance with a new law that took effect on January 1. Gun groups are now challenging authorities to either proceed with mass gun confiscation or repeal the law in full.


Facebook to Gun Control Groups: We're Not Selling Anything
Daily Clash, March 4, 2014

Amid reports that talks between Facebook, Instagram, and gun control groups are "progressing," a Facebook spokesman says the social media site is not an online retailer and does not sell anything--including guns.
On February 25th, Breitbart News reported that Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA) were pressuring Facebook and Instagram to "prohibit the private selling or trading of guns on [their] platforms."
MAIG and MDA said the social media sites "[enable] people to sell weapons, often with no questions asked and no background checks required."
But during the last week of February, a Facebook spokesperson told Venture Beat News (VB) that Facebook "is not an e-commerce site and doesn't sell anything," as paraphrased by VB.
The spokesperson protested, "You can't buy things on Instagram and Facebook, nor can you promote the sale or use of weapons in advertising. We encourage people who come across any illegal activity to report it to us."

Gun Groups Score Big Win in California
Outdoor Wire, March 6, 2014


BELLEVUE, WA, and ROSEVILLE, CA - The Second Amendment Foundation and The Calguns Foundation earned a significant victory today when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case of Richards v. Prieto, challenging the handgun carry license issuing policy of Yolo County, California, Sheriff Ed Prieto.
"Today's ruling reinforces the Second Amendment's application to state and local governments, and will help clear the way for more California citizens to exercise their right to bear arms," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "California officials have been put on notice that they can no longer treat the Second Amendment as a heavily-regulated government privilege."The case was originally filed in 2009 as Sykes v. McGinness, and challenged not only Yolo County's policies, but Sacramento County's then-restrictive practices as well. SAF, Calguns and two private citizens, Adam Richards and Brett Stewart, continued pursuing the case against Yolo County after Sacramento County agreed to relax its policy. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Alan Gura and Don Kilmer.
"We are confident that the win today will stand the test of time," said Calguns Foundation Chairman Gene Hoffman.The Richards case was argued at the same time, and to the same panel, that earlier decided Peruta v. County of San Diego, a similar case challenging overly-restrictive carry license policies. Yolo County and Sheriff Prieto argued that their policies were distinguishable from those struck down in Peruta, but apparently, the three-judge panel unanimously disagreed.
"The Ninth Circuit's decision moves our Carry License Compliance Initiative forward," explained CGF Executive Director Brandon Combs. "We're already preparing the next phase of litigation to ensure that all law-abiding Californians can exercise their right to bear arms."
Gottlieb noted that the battle over right-to-carry laws is far from over, but today's Ninth Circuit decision reaffirms that court's earlier ruling in the Peruta case and "moves the ball another step forward."
"We will pursue Second Amendment affirmation wherever and whenever such cases are possible as SAF fights to win back gun rights one lawsuit at a time," Gottlieb stated.
California carry license applicants can download state-standard application forms, legal information, and report unconstitutional policies or process issues at https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/carry.
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to defend and advance Second Amendment and related civil rights. 

NJ considering bill that would ban many rifles

Washington Times (DC) March 3, 2014

On Monday, the New Jersey Assembly's Law and Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hold a public hearing about a bill that reduces the maximum magazine from capacity from 15 to 10, but in effect goes even further.
Since the legislation covers both detachable and fixed magazines, it has the effect of banning popular, low-caliber rifles.
The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs gave the draft legislation to top firearms experts in the country to determine what guns would fall under the expanded ban.
They discovered that the bill would affect tube-fed, semi- automatic rifles because the magazine cannot be separated from the gun.
Thus, the experts found that at least 43 common rifles would suddenly be considered a prohibited "assault firearm," such as the .22 caliber Marlin Model 60, Remington Nylon 66 and Winchester 190.
Just having one such gun would turn a law-abiding owner into a felon overnight.
Possession of an "assault firearm" is a second-degree crime in New Jersey. The penalty is up to 10 years in jail and a mandatory minimum sentence of three to five years, with no chance of parole.
"This bill is a gun ban, there's no question about that," Scott Bach, the executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, told me in an interview.
"If it becomes law, it would have zero impact on crime because criminals don't follow bans. It would only affect legal gun owners by essentially tying their hands when they need to defend their lives."
Even worse, the bill has no grandfather clause and no amnesty period. So as soon as this legislation becomes law, everyone in possession of these rifles is automatically a felon and the guns are subject to seizure by the government.
Remember just last May, these same legislators were caught on a hot microphone saying, "We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate."
Mr. Bach said, "For years anti-gun Democrats have claimed that they have no agenda to ban and confiscate guns. But last year their true agenda was revealed on that hot mic. This bill is another step in that process."
The timing of this drastic legislation is not by accident. New Jersey Democrats are determined to make Gov. Chris Christie squirm. Their objective is to make the potential Republican presidential candidate choose between local emotional pleas and national pro-gun voters.
State Senate President Steve Sweeney has had families of Newtown, Conn., school shooting at public events over the past few weeks to encourage passage.
It's most likely that this radical bill will pass the Assembly and the Senate in the next few months. So, Mr. Christie's veto power is the only thing that can stop the outright attack on gun owners and the Second Amendment.

MAG BAN IS REALLY A GUN BAN!
Association NJ Rifle and Pistol Clubs, March 3, 2014


Direct Attack On Gun Owners, Hunters and Sportsmen
Would Ban Popular American .22 Rifles! Would Turn Current Owners Into Felons - Up to TEN YEARS in Prison
No Grandfathering, No Amnesty "Confiscate, Confiscate, Confiscate"

A2006 = GUN BAN

Anti-gun legislators' attempt to ban ammunition magazines over 10 rounds (A2006) is a lot more than "just" a magazine ban. It's also a gun ban that would outlaw some of the most popular .22 rifles in the United States, turn their owners into felons, and force them to abandon their property or go to jail for as long as ten years - essentially a confiscation.
Whether by stealth or stupidity, A2006 (scheduled to be heard in Assembly committee on Monday, March 3), would make the following change to existing law: "'Assault Firearm' means...A semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 15 10 rounds."
This change would flat-out ban many common and popular tube-fed .22 rifles, including the partial list of guns that would be banned at the bottom of this alert.
Those in possession of these popular guns would be turned into felons overnight for possession of so-called "assault" firearms - a second degree crime in New Jersey carrying up to ten years in prison, with a minimum mandatory sentence of 3-5 years, with no chance of parole.
A2006 contains no grandfathering to protect current owners, and no amnesty period or procedure for current owners who wish to comply (in ironic contradiction to the legislature's creation of a limited "assault" firearms amnesty period in 2013, which has since expired). Existing owners would be thrown to the wolves - forced to abandon their property or go to prison - a form of confiscation.
Although NJ's anti-gun legislators have long denied any intention to confiscate firearms, their true intentions were exposed last year in shocking "hot mic" comments between legislators after a gun control hearing, in which they stated their wish to "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate" firearms.
A2006 MAGAZINE BAN
Less hidden in A2006 than the gun ban, is its stated purpose: to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. This is based on the naïve and false assumption that removing a particular type of tool from society will somehow make everyone safer.
Those bent on doing evil will not be stopped or deterred just because a particular tool becomes less available or unavailable. If box cutters could bring down the World Trade Center, does anyone really believe that banning box cutters will stop the next terrorist attack? The same is true of firearms - banning a particular tool will not deter someone who is determined to do evil.
Also, criminals and madmen don't follow magazine bans, or any other type of ban for that matter. Criminals laugh at laws that target hardware. Only law-abiding citizens are affected by hardware bans, because they're the only ones that follow them. The net effect is that the law-abiding are put at a disadvantage against the lawless. The only thing that criminals understand is severe punishment.
Even if a magic wand could be waved in the land of anti-gun fantasy and remove all 10+ round magazines from the planet, no one would be made any safer, because magazines can be changed very quickly. The theory that a magazine change provides an opportunity to "tackle" an assailant is unsound and unsupported by the weight of the evidence.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that police owe no duty to protect individual citizens from harm, which means that citizens are on their own in an emergency and cannot rely on 911. Yet rather than enhance the ability of citizens to defend themselves when an emergency or home invasion strikes, A2006 would instead tie their hands and put them at a disadvantage against criminals who will ignore the magazine ban.
Magazine bans are also completely arbitrary and their logic, if followed, have the potential to lead to a complete ban on all rounds. The idea that an eleventh round is somehow more lethal than the tenth is absurd, and the exact same logic could be applied to a second round in relation to the first, or even the first round itself.
The Constitutional right of self-defense is sacrosanct, and a magazine ban directly and significantly interferes with that right.
NOTE: A2777 (reasonable deviations in firearms transportation) has still not been posted online. We will have comment on that legislation when it becomes available.

THE BAN LIST
FOLLOWING IS A PARTIAL LIST OF THE SEMI-AUTO .22 RIFLES*
THAT WOULD BE BANNED BY A2006:
Browning Auto .22 Rifles
Browning Auto-22 Rifle
Browning Auto-22 Grade VI
Browning BAR .22 Auto Rifle
Browning SA-22 Semi-Auto 22 Rifle
CBC N66 Auto rifle
Glenfield Model 40 rifle
Lakefield Arms Model 64B Auto Rifle
Marlin Glenfield 60 rifle
Marlin 552 BDL rifle
Marlin Model 60 Self Loading Rifles
Marlin Model 60C
Marlin Model 60SB
Marlin Model 60S-CF
Marlin Model 60SN
Marlin Model 60ss Self-Loading Rifle
Marlin Model 60 SSK rifle
Marlin Model 60 DLX rifle
Marlin Glenfield 75C rifle
Marlin Model 795
Marlin Model 795SS
Marlin Model 922 Magnum Self-Loading Rifle
Marlin 990 rifle
Marlin Model 990l Self-Loading Rifle
Marlin Model 995 Self-Loading Rifle
Mossberg 377 Plinkster rifle
Mossberg 702 Plinkster
Mossberg - Other Variants
Norinco Model 22 ATD Rifle
Remington 552 rifle
Remington 552A rifle
Remington 552BDL Speedmaster Rifle
Remington Model 522 Viper Autoloading Rifle
Remington Nylon 66 rifle
Remington Nylon 66AB rifle
Remington Nylon 66
Savage 990DL rifle
Stevens 987-T rifle
Taurus Model 63 rifle
Weatherby Mark XXII Tubular rifle
Winchester 190
Winchester 290
Winchester- Other Variants



REASONABLE DEVIATIONS "FIX" NEEDS TO BE FIXED!

Association NJ Rifle and Pistol Clubs, March 3, 2014

Latest Version Written With Zero Input
From Second Amendment Leaders
Would Remove Court Discretion to Determine
What a "Reasonable Deviation" Is
Would Limit What is "Reasonable" To
A Tiny, Stingy, Poorly-Crafted List
A Single Word Change Would Change The Bill
From Worse Than Current Law
To An Incremental Improvement Over Current Law
Late Friday, A2777 was finally posted to the New Jersey legislative website in advance of Monday's committee hearing (see weather note below).
The legislation was recently touted as part of a deal among democrats to pacify gun owners in light of the impending mag ban / gun ban (A2006). The legislation was supposed to fix the longstanding problem of what constitutes "reasonable deviations" from the direct transportation of firearms required by New Jersey law. Legal gun owners face prison sentences of up to ten years if they stop while properly transporting unloaded, locked firearms, unless they meet certain technical requirements and the stop is deemed a "reasonable deviation" in transportation.
Unfortunately, A2777 as written does not actually fix the problem, and makes the situation worse than under current law. The "fix" needs to be fixed.
Under current law, judges have discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a particular set of circumstances constitutes a reasonable deviation. While that is a double-edged sword, and current law provides no guidance as to what a reasonable deviation is, at least gun owners caught within New Jersey's tangled web of hyper-technical regulations have a chance at demonstrating to a judge that their particular transportation deviation was reasonable, and judges have the flexibility to prevent outrageous, absurd prison sentences where someone stops briefly and innocently while in lawful transit with firearms.
While the current proposal does contain a short list of circumstances that would be deemed reasonable, the wording of that proposal would limit reasonable deviations to just the items on that list, and prevent judges from finding that any other circumstance was a reasonable deviation. Judges would lose the discretion that they currently have to determine whether any other deviation is reasonable, and gun owners would still be facing jeopardy of potential 10-year prison sentences for common, innocent stops while en route to the range, because of deep flaws and omissions in the articulated list.
The list of acceptable deviations in A2777 is tiny, stingy, and poorly crafted, without meaningful insight into real-world occurrences that affect most gun owners. While that list contains some beneficial circumstances, it also omits numerous foreseeable circumstances and creates more questions and ambiguities than it resolves. It limits reasonable deviations to only what is in that list, and removes judicial discretion to resolve other circumstances, which means law-abiding gun owners will go to prison if their stop does not fit into the poorly-crafted list.
The list could represent a small, incremental improvement over current law if judicial discretion to resolve additional unforseen circumstances were retained. Until it does, it cannot be regarded as an improvement and it should be opposed if it is not amended - and the following simple, single word change would restore judicial discretion in unforeseen circumstances:
For the purposes of this section, "deviations as are reasonably necessary" means includes collecting and discharging passengers whose transportation is permitted under paragraph (2) of subsection b., subsection e., or paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection f. of this section, purchasing fuel, using a restroom, and contending with an emergency situation. A person transporting a weapon pursuant to this subsection shall comply with all other applicable State laws relating to weapons.
ANJRPC has now provided this input to legislative leaders but has not received any assurance that the legislation will be amended before it is heard in the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee meeting scheduled for Monday, March 3 (see weather note below).
A2777 was introduced this session without seeking any input from Second Amendment leaders. That is a slap in the face to gun owners, who worked for months on a comprehensive, effective deviations bill last year and were promised that it would be passed last June. That proposal was agreed and accepted by legislative leadership until it was scuttled by a rabidly anti-gun-rights legislator, and the promise from legislative leaders was broken.
A2777 bears little resemblance to last year's proposal, though it does retain some elements of it. Based on the dynamics of the current legislative session, it does not appear likely that last year's comprehensive proposal will be considered, which is why we have confined our input on this legislation to the single, simple word change highlighted above, to which there can be no reasonable objection, and which should be attainable -- who can possibly object to retaining judicial discretion to address circumstances not contemplated by legislators?
Accordingly, ANJRPC opposes A2777 in its current form, because it makes the current reasonable deviations law even worse by removing judicial discretion to address circumstances not contemplated in the short, stingy list it presents.
However, if amended as highlighted above, ANJRPC would view A2777 as a small, incremental improvement over current law, and would remove its opposition.
BUT - deal or no deal among anti-gun democrats, ANJRPC remains vehemently opposed to the impending gun ban / ammo ban of A2006, and gun owners will never be pacified by the simultaneous presentation of a potentially positive bill like A2777.
Please immediately contact the members of the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee and tell them to MAKE A ONE-WORD AMENDMENT TO A2777 TO RESTORE JUDICIAL DISCRETION ON REASONABLE DEVIATIONS!
Please also continue to tell them to OPPOSE THE A2006 GUN BAN / MAG BAN!
WEATHER NOTE: ANJRPC is monitoring the potential impact of the impending winter storm on Monday's scheduled hearing and will issue an additional alert if we learn that the hearing is being rescheduled (which is a possibility).



“Surrender Your Firearms,” Connecticut Tells Unregistered Gun Owners
Infor Wars, March 1, 2014

The State of Connecticut is now demanding that gun owners across the state turn in all newly-banned, unregistered firearms and magazines or face felony arrest.
Connecticut is sending out this letter demanding that gun owners surrender their arms. Click to enlarge. Credit: capitalisminstitute.org
The State Police Special Licensing & Firearms Unit began mailing out notices to gun owners who attempted to register
their firearms and accessories with the state but did not do so in time for the Jan. 1 deadline of Connecticut’s newly enacted gun control law.
The law bans the sale of magazines holding over 10 rounds and “assault rifles” manufactured after 1994 and requires that residents who possessed either before the ban to register them with the state.
“We are returning your application for [an] assault rifle certificate and/or [a] large capacity magazine declaration because it was not received or postmarked prior to January 1, 2014 as required by law,” the notice states.
The letter breaks down the gun owner’s “options,” including surrendering their firearms and magazines to the police, selling them to a gun dealer, removing them from the state or rendering them inoperable.
Because these owners attempted to register their guns and accessories, the state can now prosecute them at will because they know exactly who they are.
But when it comes to the vast majority of gun owners who did not register at all, Connecticut lacks clout.
Last month it was revealed that out of the over 2.4 million high-capacity magazines in Connecticut, only 38,000 have been registered.
“So, where did these millions of magazines go?” reporter Warner Todd Huston asked. “All that can be said is that it appears that gun owners in Connecticut are not quite the sheep that jackbooted government officials may have imagined they were.”
“After all, if there really were millions of high capacity magazines in the state – and it is very likely that there are – and they have now gone unregistered, that means that thousands of gun owners have refused to bow to this unconstitutional, anti-Second Amendment law.”
Likewise, only 50,000 semiautomatic rifles were also registered, further proof that Connecticut’s gun owners are revolting through civil disobedience.
These gun owners correctly realize that registration only leads to confiscation and that the overall agenda of gun control is to completely ban private gun ownership.
Last year, the New York Police Department began confiscating guns which were previously registered but are now banned under New York’s newest gun control law.
The NYPD knew exactly which gun owners to target by using the city’s centralized firearms registry which was already in place.
Connecticut’s anti-gun politicians want their own registry so they can eventually confiscate firearms in the exact same manner.

Connecticut Patriot Forewarned Lawmakers about Gun Registration: “I Will Not Comply”
Freedom Outpost, March 2, 2014

With the current situation in Connecticut, where state lawmakers have legislated gun registration, tens of thousands have determined not to register their weapons and the state has threatened to confiscate them and arrest individuals if they do not register or turn them in, I thought a word from patriot John S. Cinque was in order. His words echo the founding fathers and Mike Vanderboegh of Connecticut's Sipsey Street Irregulars, and were a foreshadowing of what is taking place now.
Mr. Cinque appeared in North Haven, Connecticut on April 22, 2013 and asked if there was anything in the bill that was signed into law that would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.
While there is obvious stuttering from those he addressed, he confidently replied "I know the answer," but he wanted to hear it from those supporting the bill.
"Maybe not," came the reply from Connecticut Republican State Representative David Yaccarino. "But what this bill does is it says that if you are a gun owner and you have someone in your house that is ineligible to have a permit for a gun there is strict liability on you, if you don't properly lock up the gun. So if you have someone in your household who has mental health issues or a felon…."
"So it's not going to prevent the next shooting," Cinque interrupted.
The point is clear: Adam Lanza is reported to have committed a crime, namely killing his mother and then stealing her guns in order to facilitate mass murder (at least according to the official story). This bill would do nothing to stop another incident like this one. Some may claim that had the guns been locked up, it wouldn't have occurred, but that is merely speculation. That would depend on what type of gun safe they were in. Should they have been in one of the cheaper, almost tin-like safes, then they would have been easily accessible.
Cinque rightly points out that this is an unconstitutional law. He then goes down the list: "You register your AR, you register your magazines and you say we can keep everything we have, but it's not going to prevent the next Sandy Hook, correct? It's a simple 'Yes' or 'No.'"
"We don't know that definitively," Yaccarino said.
"You absolutely know that," Cinque retorted.
Then came Cinque's ultimate question, "What are you going to do about those of us who will not comply with this law?"
Without really answering the question, the politician he addressed responded, "As far as Sandy Hook, we don't know what….but we also have an obligation to do our best to protect public safety."
Actually elected officials' obligation is to protect the liberties of their people and bring justice on evil doers, not "protect public safety."
Cinque responded, "So I'm a thirty year public servant, twenty year fireman, OK? United States Navy veteran, upstanding citizen all my life with three children, and with the stroke of a pen from the ivory tower, with the gold top, you've decided to create me to be a felon; a Class D felony, for doing absolutely nothing wrong."
Thunderous applause erupted from the crowd gathered in New Haven.
"It's wrong," Cinque continued.
Apparently the lawmaker couldn't understand how Cinque would become a felon. However, Mr. Cinque said he would choose not to comply with the law. "That's your right," responded the representative.
Wait a minute, what about Cinque's right to not have government restrict or regulate his guns? To keep and bear arms? Nothing is said about registration, which we all know leads to confiscation.
The politician attempted to justify the consequences that Cinque laid out by saying it was "his choice."
"OK, so since we're going down the course of China, why don't we pass a law from the ivory tower up there that we can only have one child, so that I have to choose which one of my two children I have to kill because I can only have one child now," Cinque said, obviously frustrated. "That wasn't our intent," responded the representative.
Ah, yes, the road to Hell is paved with those, aren't they?
"It's exactly your intent," Cinque retorted.
Cinque continued by pointing out how the lawmakers have called such legislation a "good first step," but he pointed out that they will never stop and the insinuation was until they take the guns from the citizenry. "I'm telling you right now, I will never vote for any of you again. I'm done, and you've lost everyone's vote in this place."
"You think you've saved us by this 'great thing,'" Cinque continued. "Let 'em pass all this. Let 'em do it, because people it's unconstitutional."
Of course, the legislator said it wasn't unconstitutional, but Cinque asked him to provide the definition of the Second Amendment and Section 1, Article 15.
Connecticut Democrat State Senator Len Fasano came up and attempted to basically say that Cinque's concerns really were unfounded because he "knows what goes on at the Capitol" and citizens don't. He even claimed that they would not be passing new gun legislation next year, which would be 2014. How did that work out for you Connecticut? Cinque called it and the politicians apparently don't know jack when it comes to how things are done…., or do they?
Fasano then appealed to the fact that Obamacare was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. Do you understand how twisted that is?
Cinque countered, "Yeah, but the Second Amendment is in the Constitution. It's a right. It's not a driver's license or a privilege. Health care is not a right either. We are talking about a right that 'shall not be infringed.'"
Senator Fasano then attempted to state that permits and the like are "reasonable restrictions" on guns and appealed to the Heller case, though Cinque was clear to point out the cherrypicking that was being done by the lawmakers to make their point.
He also pointed out that Justice Scalia did say that the citizens had the right to be equally armed as the police or the military.
"Let's have the whole thing," said Cinque. Obviously he didn't want just "cherrypicking" of the court's ruling.
"And you can, in your house," came the reply from Fasano.
Cinque takes his stand in a final statement, "I'm not speaking for anyone else here, but I'm telling you right now: I will not comply."
When the lawmakers asks Mr. Cinque if he has been fingerprinted before, Cinque answers "Yes, but I also took an oath to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic. I got domestic enemies now that show their hands every day."
While some have said that gun owners in Connecticut just didn't know about the law and that is why they didn't register, I think this video from last year is telling. Many did know and told lawmakers that they would not comply.
People of Connecticut, now you understand that you cannot trust your lawmakers. They do not have your best interest at heart. They have their political aspirations in mind, not the protection of your civil liberties in mind. As a result, they claim that they can protect you and offer "public safety" at the expense of your liberty, knowing full well that they are providing neither liberty nor public safety. In fact, your legislators are making you the criminal for not complying with the laws they write, which by their own admission will not prevent further mass shootings. How's that working out for you?

NFOA Offers to Privately Subsidize Handgun Training for Teachers

Outdoor wire, March 3, 2014

Lincoln, NE --This morning Senator Mark Christensen and the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association (NFOA) held a press conference announcing a bold plan that will save thousands of tax dollars if the Unicameral passes Christensen's LB879 bill. The bill would create a more advanced, second tier in Nebraska's concealed handgun permit program and allow individual school districts to authorize the concealed carry of firearms by teachers or staff who have completed both Level I and Level II training.
Senator Christensen explained that small rural school districts don't have the budget to pay police officers to work as school resource officers like some of the better funded, larger urban school districts. He continued to explain that there are rural Nebraska communities like his with limited local law enforcement personnel spread over large areas and some of them have response times of up to half an hour or longer. He explained the purpose of his bill is to protect our school children by filling in that gap.
CNN reported [LINK to http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/us/colorado-school-shooting/] last December's Arapahoe High School shooting in Centennial, CO resulting in the death of one student was ended in less than 80 seconds. Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson noted that the rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of an armed school resource officer at the school. In contrast, The Columbine High School Massacre in 1999 had an impressive police response time of less than 5 minutes to arrive at the school, yet the killing continued for nearly 50 minutes leaving 13 murdered and 24 injured.
"This bill isn't suggesting issuing every school employee a firearm like many anti-gun opponents will claim," Christensen continued. "My bill merely allows individual school districts to evaluate their threat response times and consider authorizing their teachers or staff to carry concealed if they decide that would protect their students. Having the ability to arm teachers or staff to protect students may not be necessary for urban school districts near Omaha or Lincoln that have multiple, large law enforcement departments, but this first line of defense could save children's lives in Nebraska's many rural communities, like mine."
Christensen emphasized that this school safety program and Level II concealed handgun training would be on a volunteer basis for school employees, and would require the approval by the local school boards before being authorized to carry concealed on school property. Having armed teachers or staff would not only provide a quicker response to stop an active shooter, but they would also serve as a deterrent to a criminal considering breaking into a school to harm our children.
"As a country, we've mourned the loss of too many of our children in school shootings," added NFOA President Rodney Moeller, "Now is the time to take steps to prevent these tragedies from happening and immediately stop them if they do happen. If we examine recent public shootings, both in schools and other so-called 'gun free zones', the rampages are generally stopped in one of two ways: when a trained good guy with a gun shoots the armed bad guy or the armed bad guy gives up and commits suicide once he runs into the trained good guy with a gun. The sooner we can have well-trained good guys with guns respond to stop the armed bad guys, the more children we will save. It's that simple. So, the responsible firearms owners of the NFOA have offered to privately subsidize the training of school employees authorized by their local school district to take the Level II concealed handgun training. This private funding by the NFOA and its members could save Nebraska taxpayers thousands of dollars in instructing school teachers and staff to be the 'well-trained good guys'."

Gun Grabber: “Nobody Needs a 15-Round Magazine Unless They are a Destic Terrorist or a Gangster”
Last Resistence, February 24, 2014

In other words, the only people afforded the right to carry whatever type of weapon they want are criminals. And government officials. But, in order to keep everyone safe, no other person is allowed those same rights.
It makes perfect sense, according to the head of a New Jersey gun control organization inappropriately called Heeding God’s Call. You may have heard of pro-life groups holding prayer vigils outside abortion clinics. Well, these people with Heeding God’s Call hold prayer vigils outside gun stores.
The gun control lobby in New Jersey is pushing for more stringent magazine capacity limits. They currently allow no more than 15 rounds in ammunition magazines, but want to bring the legal threshold down to 10. So, the head of Heeding God’s Call Bryan Miller had this to say to NJ.com about their gun control efforts:
“Our top priority is a 10-round limit on magazine size… Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster.”
I seriously doubt they’d be satisfied with a 10-round limit. Once they get their way, they’ll lobby to bring the limit down to 5. “No one needs 5 bullets to kill a deer!” And then 3, and then 2, and then 1, and then 0. “No one needs bullets to kill a deer!” And they’ll get their way all the while trumpeting the 2nd Amendment. You’ll still be able to have certain types of guns, just no ammo. So, see? They respect the 2nd Amendment to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say anything about ammo.
The obvious question here is if the only people who will have “high-capacity” magazines are high-profile criminals inside and outside the government, how will the rest of us protect ourselves from them? Well, we can’t. I think that’s the point. The gun control lobby, partnering with the government, don’t want us to be able to defend ourselves. We’ll be defenseless and easily controllable. And if we don’t cooperate? You hear about the roughly 100 Ukrainian protesters shot down by police and military recently? I think that’s what the gun-grabbers have in mind.

Man Booted Out of Voting Booth for Wearing 2nd Amendment T-Shirt
Last Resistence, February 24, 2014

Liberals claim that voter ID laws disenfranchise voters. Particularly Blacks and Latinos. I mean, how else are illegal aliens going to vote Democrat? How else are Blacks supposed to vote four times if they have to show their ID in order to vote? How racist.
Well, who needs voter ID law disenfranchisement when you’ve got poll workers booting voters out the door for wearing the wrong kind of t-shirt?
They already have laws in place that prohibit people from campaigning for or placing signs for some candidate within 100 feet of the polling location. You can’t even wear shirts that advertise for a particular candidate. I think that’s silly, but it’s the law. At least in many states.
Here’s a guy in Texas who came in to the polling location wearing a shirt advertising not for his favorite candidate, but for the 2nd Amendment, according to InfoWars:
Chris Driskill was prevented from voting at the Waller County Courthouse on Tuesday after officials claimed he was violating Texas Election Code section 85.036, which states that “a person may not electioneer for or against any candidate, measure, or political party” in or within 100 feet of a voting location.
“I heard a gentleman’s voice over my shoulder say ‘he can’t vote with that shirt on. You’ll have to either turn it inside out our you’ll have to leave,’” Driskill told KVUE
.
The officials used the election law to throw Driskill out of the voting booth even though the shirt simply stated “Second Amendment – 1789 – America’s Original Homeland Security” on the front without any mention of a political candidate or proposition.
This is Texas after all, and I’m sure most people there are acquainted with the 2nd Amendment. I guess the poll workers would argue that the 2nd Amendment is a “measure,” and Driskill was “electioneering” for it.
Either that, or they surmised that he must be a Republican, because Democrats don’t support the 2nd Amendment. Or the rest of the Constitution for that matter. So, he was advertising a political party, which violates Texas Election Code.
But the 2nd Amendment is nothing new. It’s not like it’s up for a vote. It’s been cemented into place for centuries. Those candidates in the running who win, no matter which party, will more than likely have to swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment.
Liberals want Blacks and Latinos to be able to vote without their IDs. But if you dare come in wearing a pro-Constitution t-shirt, you’re outta here!




Record U.S. Gun Production as Obama ‘Demonized’ on Issue
 Del Quentin Wilber Feb 20, 2014  

U.S. gun makers led by Sturm Ruger & Co. and Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. (SWHC) churned out a record number of firearms in 2012, government data show, continuing a trend of robust production during Democratic presidencies.
More than 8.57 million guns were produced in 2012, up 31 percent from 6.54 million in 2011, according to data released this week by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which has been tracking the statistics since 1986.
Almost as many guns -- 26.1 million -- were produced during Democrat Barack Obama’s first term as president as during the entire eight-year presidency of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the ATF data show.
Advocates on both sides of the gun-control debate said manufacturers were meeting demand fueled by concerns among gun owners that Democratic presidents are more willing to limit firearms sales than Republicans. After years of steering clear of the issue, Obama pressed unsuccessfully last year for stricter gun measures in the wake of the 2012 massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.
The production boom has resulted in strong sales and profits for gun companies, including Sturm & Ruger and Smith & Wesson.
“Barack Obama is the stimulus package for the firearms industry,” said Dave Workman, senior editor of Gun Mag, a print and online publication of the 2nd Amendment Foundation, a gun-ownership rights group. “The greatest irony of the Obama administration is that the one industry that he may not have really liked to see healthy has become the healthiest industry in the United States.”
Expanding Collections
Brian Malte, senior policy director of the Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said gun-rights groups “demonized” Obama during the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, leading many gun owners to buy more firearms.
“We see the percentage of households owning guns declining,” he said, “and that indicates that those who already own guns are buying more of them.”
Other factors may also be driving gun demand, including Supreme Court decisions striking down gun restrictions, a spread of laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons and the increasingly popularity of sport shooting, said Mike Bazinet, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade organization that represents gun and ammunition manufacturers.
“It defies any simple characterization,” he said.
A White House spokesman, Matt Lehrich, declined to comment.
The 2012 manufacturing figures were the most recent ones released by ATF as part of its annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report. Just 3.4 percent of the firearms covered in the 2012 data were exported.
Democratic Presidents
Obama isn’t the only Democratic president to see a spike in gun production. More than 33 million firearms were manufactured during Democrat Bill Clinton’s two terms, which was more than the 28 million produced during Bush’s presidency. Just over 16 million firearms were manufactured during Republican George H.W. Bush’s single term.
Clinton antagonized gun-rights groups by pressing for stricter gun control. He signed legislation mandating background checks on firearm purchases and a ban on assault weapons. The ban expired in 2004.
Obama largely avoided the debate during his first term and campaigns. He decided to back tougher firearms restrictions after 20 children and six adults were slain at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012 by a gunman wielding a semiautomatic rifle.
FBI Data
Those proposals, which would have blocked the sale and possession of more than 100 types of assault weapons and expanded background checks, stalled in Congress in April. Since then, the gun-buying fever has somewhat ebbed, according to FBI data on background checks.
Background checks for gun sales dipped in December and January versus the same months from a year earlier. Even so, the number of background checks conducted during those months were the second most for any December or January on record.
The FBI data, a proxy for sales figures, also indicate that the firearms industry enjoyed a solid 2013. More than 21 million background checks were conducted last year, up 7 percent from the 19.6 million in 2012, according to the FBI. Those figures are records and represent increases of at least 19 percent over the 16.45 million checks performed in 2011. Not every background check leads to a gun sale, and a single background check may be used for multiple purchases.
Strong Sales
Smith & Wesson, based in Springfield, Massachusetts, reported record sales of $588 million for the fiscal year that ended April 30, up 43 percent over 2012. Shares reached $14.99 on Jan. 10, the highest close since 2007. According to the ATF data, the company produced more than 1.1 million firearms in 2012, a 32 percent increase over 2011.
Sturm Ruger, the largest publicly traded gun maker, reported net sales of $506.4 million during the first nine months of 2013, a 45 percent jump from the same period in 2012. The company, based in Southport, Connecticut, said its profit was up 67 percent. It manufactured more than 1.6 million guns in 2012, nearly a 50 percent increase over 2011, according to ATF data.
Shares of Sturm Ruger rose 31 percent in the past year as of yesterday, compared with a 19 percent gain for the Standard & Poor’
s 500 index. Spokesmen for both firearms makers did not respond to phone messages seeking comment.
During a conference call in November to discuss the third-quarter company’s results, Chief Executive Officer Michael Fifer pointed to the 2014 mid-term elections as a possible fresh catalyst for demand.
‘I’m sure the politicians will go at it on both sides and they’ll talk about guns and that’ll spur gun sales again,’’ Fifer said.


Who's Really Paying for Anti-Gun Legislation?
Shooting Wire, February 21, 2014

Beretta -Moving to Tennessee from Maryland
Colt- "Expanding" manufacturing operations in Florida
Ruger- "Expanding" manufacturing in Arizona
Magpul-Moving from Colorado to Wyoming and TexasHiViz- Moving from Colorado to WyomingShield Tactical- Moving from California to Texas
Kahr- Moving from New York to Pike County, Pennsylvania
American Tactical Imports- Moving from New York to South Carolina
Stag Arms- Moving from Connecticut to Texas or South Carolina
PTR Industries (H&K)-Moving from Connecticut to South Carolina
Ithaca Gun Company- Moving "expansion" from Ithaca, New York to South Carolina
Remington Outdoor -Expansion into Huntsville, Alabama
With Remington Outdoor's announcement that they will be opening a "major expansion" facility in Huntsville, Alabama in the next 18 months, a question that's been rolling around in the back of my mind popped up again.
The question? Who's paying for all the anti-gun legislation that's causing gun companies to leave long-standing corporate facilities for new locations?
There are real costs associated with everything, despite lawmakers' apparent oblivious condition when it comes to spending "government money."
Once you consider assigning costs, you'll find yourself facing a minimum of two correct answers. I don't say "right" because I don't think anything associated with cram-down legislation is ever "right". It's force-fed, not willingly accepted.
Look at Colorado.
Legislators rushed through anti-gun legislation that has cost Colorado jobs (Magpul and others have announced their relocations), tax revenues (the companies and all their employees paid state and local taxes), and although it's harder to track, it has resulted in hunters, anglers and gun-related groups taking their business elsewhere. Personally, I'd always thought those "impact of a convention" numbers were high-until I started looking at what I pay to attend SHOT Show and other industry shows.
Other costs may have been overlooked.
Consider the cost in manpower and state resources to draft and pass laws through the legislature. Those numbers are undoubtedly significant, although tough to pin down. But they exist somewhere, although it might take an MBA or forensic accountant to ferret them out of the General and Administrative costs of doing business (legislating).
It may be my small business guy's over-simplification, but I'd make the case those numbers are really only part of the actual costs. Time spent on that legislation was time not spent dealing with real problems.
Then there are the costs associated with the special elections in which former Colorado State Senators Angela Giron and John Morse were recalled. All elections are expensive, but special elections are especially costly.
And I'm not going to assign the money contributed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to try and defeat those recalls. Or the money contributed by the NRA and average people supporting the recall initiative. That money was contributed- willingly- by both sides.
But we're talking about costs in the millions of dollars on the legislative side and hundreds of millions when we start looking at the costs of disrupting manufacturing, packing and shipping sophisticated equipment, the new construction or renovation of existing facilities, and the cost of reassembly of the manufacturing processes.
And there are significant costs associated with the workforce. If you're relocating workers, those costs include moving, home searches, and time off the job. If you're hiring a new workforce, recruitment and training isn't inexpensive-even with your new legislative bodies helping with those costs.So who pays?The only way a government raises revenues is through...taxes. And if tax revenues slip, the government mindset isn't shrink costs, it's normally to create new areas to tax.
And who pays taxes? You guessed it-the citizens.
If a company has significant increases in operating costs, they have two possible ways to cover those increases. One is cutting costs. The other is raising prices.
Who pays the price increases? Right again. We do.
Ultimately, average citizens -that's us-wind up footing the bill for the entire unnecessary exercise.
When companies relocate- whatever their reason- the prospects for gainful employment diminish in their former homes. That's unless the government is able to lure a quick replacement for those lost jobs into the area. Of course, there are costs associated with that process as well. In today's economic climate companies just don't relocate without incentive packages.
As jobs shrink, the entire economy suffers. That's not economics voodo, it's simple fact. Less money into an economy means less money to spend.
If a company moves into an area, things are exactly the opposite. New jobs are created, new money pours into the economy and the outlook brightens.
In the Civil War, a major reason for the South's defeat was the lack of manufacturing capabilities. Theirs was primarily an agrarian society. The Union was a bustling manufacturing climate with the means to either make, grow, or acquire whatever it needed.
There's no inference a civil war's ahead. But it would be unrealistic not to recognize a new economic reality: the south of today is the center of high-tech manufacturing and is still blessed with the ability to feed its citizens.
Or, as one businessman whispered during the Remington press conference in Huntsville earlier this week: "pretty soon we won't have to worry about New York, Washington, Chicago or any other liberal place where they can outvote everyone else. We'll stop selling them our guns, and we'll keep our cars, our equipment and our food at home."
As an astute political observer wrote: "It's the economy, stupid."


Texas Law Trumps NFL Policy Prohibiting Armed Off Duty Officers In Stadiums
Clashdaily, October 10, 2013

The National Football League has implemented a new stadium policy that would ban off-duty police officers from carrying guns into games…except in the state of Texas.
According to the NFL memo, “off-duty officers who attempt to bring firearms into an NFL facility will be denied entry.”
But a Texas state law overrides the NFL policy. As long as officers attending the game check in at a specific gate and inform Security where they are sitting – they can have their gun.
Ron Pinkston of the Dallas Police Association says that the Texas law is sensible.
“Our officers are 24/7, on or off duty, and if they run into a critical incident – they are required to take action” says Pinkston. “Our officers will be allowed to carry their weapon into AT&T Stadium and other football stadiums in the State of Texas due to Texas law.”
Police officers often carry their firearms around the clock because of their oath to protect and serve the public on or off duty.
Texas Police Association president Mac Tristan understands why stadium security would want to know where cops with hidden guns are sitting. “I want a specific plan to know where all of my officers are.” says Tristan.
In other parts of the country, the NFL policy only allows law enforcement officers “specifically assigned to work security at the games, or private security officers contracted for stadium protection” to carry a gun.
The NFL says there are enough security personnel at stadiums to handle problems without needing armed off-duty police.


Bloomberg's latest stats on school gun violence ignore reality
John Lott February 17, 2014 FoxNews.com

Are schools and colleges dangerous places, with lots of gun violence?
Some groups paint a picture of these places being particularly unsafe. Supposedly both murders and firearm suicides are very common at educational institutions.
Last Wednesday, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s two groups, Moms Demand Gun Sense in America and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, jointly released a report that received massive uncritical news coverage.
They claimed that 44 shootings occurred in schools and colleges nationwide since the Newtown, Conn. massacre on Dec. 14, 2012 and Feb. 10 of this year. Out of the 44 shootings, a total of 28 died. To dramatize their numbers, Bloombergs groups emphasized that one of these attacks occurred every 10 days.
But their statistics are not what they seem. Included in the numbers are suicides. Also included are late night shootings taking place in school parking lots, on their grounds or even off school property, often involving gangs. As shootings, they also include any incident where shots were fired, even when nobody was injured.
Look at some of the cases included in their misleading statistics:
A student at Eastern Florida State College retrieved his gun from his car when two men attacked him. One of the men was striking the student with a pool cue, and the student fired his gun wounding him. The gun was legally stored in the students car and the police found that he had acted in self-defense.
A 19-year-old was killed at 9pm in a field near the Hillside Elementary School in San Leandro, California.
A professor at the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology committed suicide in an empty classroom.
A 23-year-old man committed suicide late at night on school grounds when no one was around the Algona High/Middle School in Iowa.
 A 38-year-old man was shot to death at 2am on the grounds of the Clarksville, Tennessee High School.
A 19-year-old man committed suicide in the parking lot of a Portland, Maine high school. No one at the school was threatened.
The list goes on and on. Overall,
 About 40 percent of the deaths (11 out of 28) were suicides.
Out of the 28 K-12 school shootings, at least four, possibly as many as eight, were gang shootings. Several of the college cases probably also involved gangs.
Indeed, gangs are a major problem. But they arent just a threat off school campuses. And some schools just happen to be located near dangerous areas, so the gang activity spills over to school grounds. Linking such violence to the Newtown tragedy is highly misleading.
Also, some perspective is needed. Contrary to what many people believe, high school shootings have actually been falling over the last two decades. To illustrate this lets compare the five school years 1992-93 to 1996-97 with the five school years from 2008-09 to 2012-13. During the first period, the number of non-gang, non-suicide shooting deaths averaged 25 a year. During the recent five-year period, it averaged less than half that, 10 per year – and that figure does include the horrific Newtown massacre.
To put these numbers in perspective, there are about 50 million young people between the ages of 6 and 17. Another 21 million people are enrolled in colleges.
One of the motivations behind the report put out by the gun control groups was that the media was ignoring these so-called mini-Newtowns. Yet, all of these cases received extensive coverage. A gun at a school (or even near a school) is considered newsworthy. For example, USA Today ran at least one story on 24 of these cases.
Scaring Americans may be Bloombergs only tool for drumming up support for gun control laws. But it ultimately shows how little faith that gun control advocates have in their case.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a columnist for
FoxNews.com. He is an economist and was formerly chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. Lott is also a leading expert on guns and op-eds on that issue are done in conjunction with the
Crime Prevention Research Center. He is the author of eight books including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is
"Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench" Bascom Hill Publishing Group (September 17, 2013). Follow him on
Twitter@johnrlottjr.


Criminologist: 'More Youngsters Killed in Bicycle Accidents' Than with Guns
Brietbart News,  17 Feb 2014

Responding to a recent report that Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA) and Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) conducted about the dangers of guns in public schools, Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox said the annual risk of gun-related death in school is "well below one in two million," and "many times more youngsters are killed annually in bicycle accidents."
Because of this, Fox said he "trusts [MDA and MAIG] would support a national helmet law as quickly as a gun restriction."
According to USA Today, the report by MDA and MAIG claims "44 shootings" took place in schools since the heinous crime at Sandy Hook Elementary in December 2012. Rather than argue with that figure, Fox shows that it is "lower than two decades ago when gang violence was especially problematic at school settings."
In other words, there is a downward trend.
And because of this trend, Fox warned that coating schools with cameras and metal detectors and practicing lockdown drills "not only fail to prevent some teenager or adult determined to wreak havoc on innocent children and their dedicated teachers, but they send the wrong and excessively scary message concerning the risk."
As Breitbart News reported on December 17, 2012, Fox has been studying "mass shootings" since the 1980s. Following Sandy Hook, he said, "There is no pattern, there is no increase." He said such attacks seem prevalent because of the amount of media attention given them


Gun Companies Continue to Abandon North for Pro-Gun South
Brietbart News,  17 Feb 2014

What started as a slow trickle when American Tactical Imports (ATI) and PTR moved from the northeast to South Carolina, has now become an all out surge with Magpul Industries leaving Colorado, Beretta leaving Maryland for Tennessee, and Remington acquiring a 500,000 square ft. facility in Alabama.
As Breitbart News previously reported, Governor Andrew Cuomo's (D) SAFE Act drove ATI from New York in October while Governor Dannel Malloy's (D) draconian gun control drove PTR from Connecticut in June.
In early 2013 Magpul made it clear they were leaving Colorado if the state's Democrat legislators passed a ban on "high capacity" magazines. The legislators passed the ban anyway, and on January 2, 2014 Breitbart News reported that Magpul was moving manufacturing to Wyoming and its corporate headquarters to Texas.
Magpul's Duane Liptak, Jr., told Breitbart News that Texas and Wyoming both had something his company craved--"strong cultures of personal responsibility, self reliance and individual liberty."
Beretta was looking intently at Virginia until Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) was elected on promises of more gun control. They quickly marked the Old Dominion off their short list and chose Tennessee instead, where Governor Bill Haslam (R) greeted them with open arms.
Beretta Executive Vice President Franco Gussalli Beretta went out of his way to explain how "Haslam and his economic team did an excellent job of demonstrating the benefits of doing business in Tennessee."
And then came Remington, the arms maker that has been making firearms in Ilion, NY since 1816. After Governor Cuomo's SAFE Act made a number of their guns illegal to sell (or own) within NY state, it was well known that Remington was looking for a more gun friendly atmosphere.
On February 17 Breitbart News reported Remington found it in Huntsville, Alabama, where they purchased a new facility that is expected to be up and running in 2015.
Remington CEO George Kollitides summed up the move by pointing to Alabama's motto--"We Dare Defend Our Rights." He said that motto "says it all" when it comes to what drew Remington to Alabama.
The best part about these companies moving south is that they represent the beginning, rather than the end of such a migration. Like any other business, gun manufacturers want to operate in states that do not over regulate their product or their businesses--and right now, the south gives them very little regulation in either area.

Gun Owners Spank Bloomberg, Schumer, IRS & Governor “Moonbeam” Brown
GOA, February 26, 2014

And GOA submits new brief before the U.S. Supreme Court. Click here to help.
“[New Jersey has] subordinated the People’s right to keep and bear arms to the state’s alleged interest in promoting public safety. It is not, however, within the authority of courts to override the Constitution as ratified by the People.” -- Gun Owners of America’s legal brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in Drake v. Jerejian, February 12, 2014
Pro-gun victories are coming so fast and furiously (no pun intended) that it's difficult to keep up with them.
Here is a sample of good news.

GOA CHALLENGING NJ LAW BEFORE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN WAKE OF HUGE LEGAL VICTORY
GOA, February 19, 2014


On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that California's requirement that applicants for concealed carry permits show "good cause" were unconstitutional under the Heller decision.
"The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense," said Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain.
Gun Owners of America is pursuing an almost identical challenge to New Jersey's onerous and restrictive concealed carry law. GOA (and its foundation) filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court just one day prior to last week’s Ninth Circuit decision, challenging the New Jersey control scheme that was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In several instances, the Ninth Circuit opinion critiques the Third Circuit’s opinion by using arguments very similar to the ones GOA presented in our amicus brief. Overall the opinion is a refreshing change from most lower federal court decisions, which have refused to engage in the textual and historical analysis required by Heller and McDonald.
As we see it, the Ninth Circuit decision should add weight in favor of the Supreme Court hearing one of these cases to resolve the circuit split. And hopefully the five justice majority from Heller will seize on these two cases because of the Ninth Circuit's detailed and careful review of the history that supports public carry of weapons for self-defense.
Go here to read more about this case -- including the GOA/GOF brief.
Go here to make a tax deductible contribution in assisting Gun Owners Foundation to continue bringing legal challenges like this.
BLOOMBERG DEFEATED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg had intended to turn New Hampshire into his most recent "victory for gun control" -- joining a handful of states that enacted stricter gun control laws in the wake of the Newton school yard tragedy.
Bloomberg figured that New Hampshire would be easy pickings. After all, the "Granite State" had a Democratic House of Representatives and a Democratic anti-gun governor.
Gun Owners of America countered Bloomberg’s muscle by aiding several local gun groups in the state to rally grassroots gun owners in opposition to the bill.
Well, the final shootout occurred last Wednesday. And after the smoke cleared, Bloomberg and his "human props" were sent packing, with their tails between their legs. After a series of votes -- and an hour and a half of parliamentary wrangling -- the Democratic House declared that a Manchin-Toomey-type universal gun registry bill was "inexpedient to legislate."
Having failed to buy Congress with his billions of anti-gun dollars, Bloomberg has attempted to buy the legislatures of states like New Hampshire. But, with the exception of seven states with legislatures dominated by anti-gun legislators and governors, Bloomberg has been humiliated.
And "red state Democrats" running for reelection in the Senate are running from Bloomberg even faster than they're running from Obama.
As a result, Bloomberg has now modified his strategy to turn the country blue by legalizing millions of anti-gun voters who broke the law to get here. And to that end, Bloomberg has announced that he will use his billions to support "red state Democrats" who opposed the Manchin-Toomey amendment -- language imposing universal background checks around the nation -- so long as such Senators agree to support the anti-gun immigration amnesty bill.
SCHUMER REELS AFTER AMNESTY BILL IS SHELVED
Three weeks ago, it looked like an immigration amnesty bill to create 8,000,000 new anti-gun voters was on the "fast track" in the U.S. House.
That was before you burned up the telephone lines and internet accounts of House Republicans. At a Republican "retreat," dozens of congressmen lined up to oppose the bill. And Speaker John Boehner was forced to concede that Republicans could not "trust" Obama to implement the enforcement provisions of the bill.
Now, reeling from another defeat, New York Senator Charles Schumer has threatened to file a "discharge petition" to force the House to consider the anti-gun bill, over Republican objections.
The problem is that Schumer, to be successful, would have to convince over a dozen Republicans to openly betray their colleagues, in order to garner the necessary 217 or 218 signatures (depending on the number of House vacancies). For this reason, discharge petitions almost never succeed.
THE IRS BACKS OFF FROM ANTI-GUN REGS
Fresh from a scandal in which it tried to harass conservatives applying for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, the IRS has spent the last several months trying to put GOA out of business.
It did this by threatening regulations which would define a broad range of policy activities (including voting guides) as political activities.
But, in its arrogance, the IRS overstepped its bounds. So many policy-related activities would be limited under the IRS rules that a broad range of both conservative and liberal 501(c)(4)'s blasted the proposals. In addition, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee introduced legislation (H.R. 3865) which would prohibit the IRS regs from being issued. Given the broad support from both ends of the political spectrum, the Camp bill would surely be passed overwhelmingly.
As a result, the IRS has now meekly testified that it will not push its proposals in 2014.
Record U.S. Gun Production as Obama ‘Demonized’ on Issue
 Del Quentin Wilber Feb 20, 2014  

U.S. gun makers led by Sturm Ruger & Co. and Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. (SWHC) churned out a record number of firearms in 2012, government data show, continuing a trend of robust production during Democratic presidencies.
More than 8.57 million guns were produced in 2012, up 31 percent from 6.54 million in 2011, according to data released this week by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which has been tracking the statistics since 1986.
Almost as many guns -- 26.1 million -- were produced during Democrat Barack Obama’s first term as president as during the entire eight-year presidency of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the ATF data show.
Advocates on both sides of the gun-control debate said manufacturers were meeting demand fueled by concerns among gun owners that Democratic presidents are more willing to limit firearms sales than Republicans. After years of steering clear of the issue, Obama pressed unsuccessfully last year for stricter gun measures in the wake of the 2012 massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.
The production boom has resulted in strong sales and profits for gun companies, including Sturm & Ruger and Smith & Wesson.
“Barack Obama is the stimulus package for the firearms industry,” said Dave Workman, senior editor of Gun Mag, a print and online publication of the 2nd Amendment Foundation, a gun-ownership rights group. “The greatest irony of the Obama administration is that the one industry that he may not have really liked to see healthy has become the healthiest industry in the United States.”
Expanding Collections
Brian Malte, senior policy director of the Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said gun-rights groups “demonized” Obama during the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, leading many gun owners to buy more firearms.
“We see the percentage of households owning guns declining,” he said, “and that indicates that those who already own guns are buying more of them.”
Other factors may also be driving gun demand, including Supreme Court decisions striking down gun restrictions, a spread of laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons and the increasingly popularity of sport shooting, said Mike Bazinet, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade organization that represents gun and ammunition manufacturers.
“It defies any simple characterization,” he said.
A White House spokesman, Matt Lehrich, declined to comment.
The 2012 manufacturing figures were the most recent ones released by ATF as part of its annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report. Just 3.4 percent of the firearms covered in the 2012 data were exported.
Democratic Presidents
Obama isn’t the only Democratic president to see a spike in gun production. More than 33 million firearms were manufactured during Democrat Bill Clinton’s two terms, which was more than the 28 million produced during Bush’s presidency. Just over 16 million firearms were manufactured during Republican George H.W. Bush’s single term.
Clinton antagonized gun-rights groups by pressing for stricter gun control. He signed legislation mandating background checks on firearm purchases and a ban on assault weapons. The ban expired in 2004.
Obama largely avoided the debate during his first term and campaigns. He decided to back tougher firearms restrictions after 20 children and six adults were slain at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012 by a gunman wielding a semiautomatic rifle.
FBI Data
Those proposals, which would have blocked the sale and possession of more than 100 types of assault weapons and expanded background checks, stalled in Congress in April. Since then, the gun-buying fever has somewhat ebbed, according to FBI data on background checks.
Background checks for gun sales dipped in December and January versus the same months from a year earlier. Even so, the number of background checks conducted during those months were the second most for any December or January on record.
The FBI data, a proxy for sales figures, also indicate that the firearms industry enjoyed a solid 2013. More than 21 million background checks were conducted last year, up 7 percent from the 19.6 million in 2012, according to the FBI. Those figures are records and represent increases of at least 19 percent over the 16.45 million checks performed in 2011. Not every background check leads to a gun sale, and a single background check may be used for multiple purchases.
Strong Sales
Smith & Wesson, based in Springfield, Massachusetts, reported record sales of $588 million for the fiscal year that ended April 30, up 43 percent over 2012. Shares reached $14.99 on Jan. 10, the highest close since 2007. According to the ATF data, the company produced more than 1.1 million firearms in 2012, a 32 percent increase over 2011.
Sturm Ruger, the largest publicly traded gun maker, reported net sales of $506.4 million during the first nine months of 2013, a 45 percent jump from the same period in 2012. The company, based in Southport, Connecticut, said its profit was up 67 percent. It manufactured more than 1.6 million guns in 2012, nearly a 50 percent increase over 2011, according to ATF data.
Shares of Sturm Ruger rose 31 percent in the past year as of yesterday, compared with a 19 percent gain for the Standard & Poor’
s 500 index. Spokesmen for both firearms makers did not respond to phone messages seeking comment.
During a conference call in November to discuss the third-quarter company’s results, Chief Executive Officer Michael Fifer pointed to the 2014 mid-term elections as a possible fresh catalyst for demand.
‘I’m sure the politicians will go at it on both sides and they’ll talk about guns and that’ll spur gun sales again,’’ Fifer said.


Who's Really Paying for Anti-Gun Legislation?
Shooting Wire, February 21, 2014

Beretta -Moving to Tennessee from Maryland
Colt- "Expanding" manufacturing operations in Florida
Ruger- "Expanding" manufacturing in Arizona
Magpul-Moving from Colorado to Wyoming and Texas
HiViz- Moving from Colorado to Wyoming
Shield Tactical- Moving from California to Texas
Kahr- Moving from New York to Pike County, Pennsylvania
American Tactical Imports- Moving from New York to South Carolina
Stag Arms- Moving from Connecticut to Texas or South Carolina
PTR Industries (H&K)-Moving from Connecticut to South Carolina
Ithaca Gun Company- Moving "expansion" from Ithaca, New York to South Carolina
Remington Outdoor -Expansion into Huntsville, Alabama
With Remington Outdoor's announcement that they will be opening a "major expansion" facility in Huntsville, Alabama in the next 18 months, a question that's been rolling around in the back of my mind popped up again.
The question? Who's paying for all the anti-gun legislation that's causing gun companies to leave long-standing corporate facilities for new locations?
There are real costs associated with everything, despite lawmakers' apparent oblivious condition when it comes to spending "government money."
Once you consider assigning costs, you'll find yourself facing a minimum of two correct answers. I don't say "right" because I don't think anything associated with cram-down legislation is ever "right". It's force-fed, not willingly accepted.
Look at Colorado.
Legislators rushed through anti-gun legislation that has cost Colorado jobs (Magpul and others have announced their relocations), tax revenues (the companies and all their employees paid state and local taxes), and although it's harder to track, it has resulted in hunters, anglers and gun-related groups taking their business elsewhere. Personally, I'd always thought those "impact of a convention" numbers were high-until I started looking at what I pay to attend SHOT Show and other industry shows.
Other costs may have been overlooked.
Consider the cost in manpower and state resources to draft and pass laws through the legislature. Those numbers are undoubtedly significant, although tough to pin down. But they exist somewhere, although it might take an MBA or forensic accountant to ferret them out of the General and Administrative costs of doing business (legislating).
It may be my small business guy's over-simplification, but I'd make the case those numbers are really only part of the actual costs. Time spent on that legislation was time not spent dealing with real problems.
Then there are the costs associated with the special elections in which former Colorado State Senators Angela Giron and John Morse were recalled. All elections are expensive, but special elections are especially costly.
And I'm not going to assign the money contributed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to try and defeat those recalls. Or the money contributed by the NRA and average people supporting the recall initiative. That money was contributed- willingly- by both sides.
But we're talking about costs in the millions of dollars on the legislative side and hundreds of millions when we start looking at the costs of disrupting manufacturing, packing and shipping sophisticated equipment, the new construction or renovation of existing facilities, and the cost of reassembly of the manufacturing processes.
And there are significant costs associated with the workforce. If you're relocating workers, those costs include moving, home searches, and time off the job. If you're hiring a new workforce, recruitment and training isn't inexpensive-even with your new legislative bodies helping with those costs.
So who pays?
The only way a government raises revenues is through...taxes. And if tax revenues slip, the government mindset isn't shrink costs, it's normally to create new areas to tax.
And who pays taxes? You guessed it-the citizens.
If a company has significant increases in operating costs, they have two possible ways to cover those increases. One is cutting costs. The other is raising prices.
Who pays the price increases? Right again. We do.
Ultimately, average citizens -that's us-wind up footing the bill for the entire unnecessary exercise.
When companies relocate- whatever their reason- the prospects for gainful employment diminish in their former homes. That's unless the government is able to lure a quick replacement for those lost jobs into the area. Of course, there are costs associated with that process as well. In today's economic climate companies just don't relocate without incentive packages.
As jobs shrink, the entire economy suffers. That's not economics voodo, it's simple fact. Less money into an economy means less money to spend.
If a company moves into an area, things are exactly the opposite. New jobs are created, new money pours into the economy and the outlook brightens.
In the Civil War, a major reason for the South's defeat was the lack of manufacturing capabilities. Theirs was primarily an agrarian society. The Union was a bustling manufacturing climate with the means to either make, grow, or acquire whatever it needed.
There's no inference a civil war's ahead. But it would be unrealistic not to recognize a new economic reality: the south of today is the center of high-tech manufacturing and is still blessed with the ability to feed its citizens.
Or, as one businessman whispered during the Remington press conference in Huntsville earlier this week: "pretty soon we won't have to worry about New York, Washington, Chicago or any other liberal place where they can outvote everyone else. We'll stop selling them our guns, and we'll keep our cars, our equipment and our food at home."
As an astute political observer wrote: "It's the economy, stupid."


Texas Law Trumps NFL Policy Prohibiting Armed Off Duty Officers In Stadiums

Clashdaily, October 10, 2013

MDALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) - The National Football League has implemented a new stadium policy that would ban off-duty police officers from carrying guns into games…except in the state of Texas.
According to the NFL memo, “off-duty officers who attempt to bring firearms into an NFL facility will be denied entry.”
But a Texas state law overrides the NFL policy. As long as officers attending the game check in at a specific gate and inform Security where they are sitting – they can have their gun.
Ron Pinkston of the Dallas Police Association says that the Texas law is sensible.
“Our officers are 24/7, on or off duty, and if they run into a critical incident – they are required to take action” says Pinkston. “Our officers will be allowed to carry their weapon into AT&T Stadium and other football stadiums in the State of Texas due to Texas law.”
Police officers often carry their firearms around the clock because of their oath to protect and serve the public on or off duty.
Texas Police Association president Mac Tristan understands why stadium security would want to know where cops with hidden guns are sitting. “I want a specific plan to know where all of my officers are.” says Tristan.
In other parts of the country, the NFL policy only allows law enforcement officers “specifically assigned to work security at the games, or private security officers contracted for stadium protection” to carry a gun.
The NFL says there are enough security personnel at stadiums to handle problems without needing armed off-duty police.


Bloomberg's latest stats on school gun violence ignore reality
John Lott February 17, 2014 FoxNews.com

Are schools and colleges dangerous places, with lots of gun violence?
Some groups paint a picture of these places being particularly unsafe. Supposedly both murders and firearm suicides are very common at educational institutions.
Last Wednesday, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s two groups, Moms Demand Gun Sense in America and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, jointly released a report that received massive uncritical news coverage.
They claimed that 44 shootings occurred in schools and colleges nationwide since the Newtown, Conn. massacre on Dec. 14, 2012 and Feb. 10 of this year. Out of the 44 shootings, a total of 28 died. To dramatize their numbers, Bloombergs groups emphasized that one of these attacks occurred every 10 days.
But their statistics are not what they seem. Included in the numbers are suicides. Also included are late night shootings taking place in school parking lots, on their grounds or even off school property, often involving gangs. As shootings, they also include any incident where shots were fired, even when nobody was injured.
Look at some of the cases included in their misleading statistics:
A student at Eastern Florida State College retrieved his gun from his car when two men attacked him. One of the men was striking the student with a pool cue, and the student fired his gun wounding him. The gun was legally stored in the students car and the police found that he had acted in self-defense.
A 19-year-old was killed at 9pm in a field near the Hillside Elementary School in San Leandro, California.
A professor at the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology committed suicide in an empty classroom.
A 23-year-old man committed suicide late at night on school grounds when no one was around the Algona High/Middle School in Iowa.
 A 38-year-old man was shot to death at 2am on the grounds of the Clarksville, Tennessee High School.
A 19-year-old man committed suicide in the parking lot of a Portland, Maine high school. No one at the school was threatened.
The list goes on and on. Overall,
 About 40 percent of the deaths (11 out of 28) were suicides.
Out of the 28 K-12 school shootings, at least four, possibly as many as eight, were gang shootings. Several of the college cases probably also involved gangs.
Indeed, gangs are a major problem. But they arent just a threat off school campuses. And some schools just happen to be located near dangerous areas, so the gang activity spills over to school grounds. Linking such violence to the Newtown tragedy is highly misleading.
Also, some perspective is needed. Contrary to what many people believe, high school shootings have actually been falling over the last two decades. To illustrate this lets compare the five school years 1992-93 to 1996-97 with the five school years from 2008-09 to 2012-13. During the first period, the number of non-gang, non-suicide shooting deaths averaged 25 a year. During the recent five-year period, it averaged less than half that, 10 per year – and that figure does include the horrific Newtown massacre.
To put these numbers in perspective, there are about 50 million young people between the ages of 6 and 17. Another 21 million people are enrolled in colleges.
One of the motivations behind the report put out by the gun control groups was that the media was ignoring these so-called mini-Newtowns. Yet, all of these cases received extensive coverage. A gun at a school (or even near a school) is considered newsworthy. For example, USA Today ran at least one story on 24 of these cases.
Scaring Americans may be Bloombergs only tool for drumming up support for gun control laws. But it ultimately shows how little faith that gun control advocates have in their case.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a columnist for
FoxNews.com. He is an economist and was formerly chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. Lott is also a leading expert on guns and op-eds on that issue are done in conjunction with the
Crime Prevention Research Center. He is the author of eight books including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is
"Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench" Bascom Hill Publishing Group (September 17, 2013). Follow him on
Twitter@johnrlottjr.

Criminologist: 'More Youngsters Killed in Bicycle Accidents' Than with Guns
Brietbart News,  17 Feb 2014

Responding to a recent report that Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA) and Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) conducted about the dangers of guns in public schools, Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox said the annual risk of gun-related death in school is "well below one in two million," and "many times more youngsters are killed annually in bicycle accidents."
Because of this, Fox said he "trusts [MDA and MAIG] would support a national helmet law as quickly as a gun restriction."
According to USA Today, the report by MDA and MAIG claims "44 shootings" took place in schools since the heinous crime at Sandy Hook Elementary in December 2012. Rather than argue with that figure, Fox shows that it is "lower than two decades ago when gang violence was especially problematic at school settings."
In other words, there is a downward trend.
And because of this trend, Fox warned that coating schools with cameras and metal detectors and practicing lockdown drills "not only fail to prevent some teenager or adult determined to wreak havoc on innocent children and their dedicated teachers, but they send the wrong and excessively scary message concerning the risk."
As Breitbart News reported on December 17, 2012, Fox has been studying "mass shootings" since the 1980s. Following Sandy Hook, he said, "There is no pattern, there is no increase." He said such attacks seem prevalent because of the amount of media attention given them

Gun Companies Continue to Abandon North for Pro-Gun South
Brietbart News,  17 Feb 2014

What started as a slow trickle when American Tactical Imports (ATI) and PTR moved from the northeast to South Carolina, has now become an all out surge with Magpul Industries leaving Colorado, Beretta leaving Maryland for Tennessee, and Remington acquiring a 500,000 square ft. facility in Alabama.
As Breitbart News previously reported, Governor Andrew Cuomo's (D) SAFE Act drove ATI from New York in October while Governor Dannel Malloy's (D) draconian gun control drove PTR from Connecticut in June.
In early 2013 Magpul made it clear they were leaving Colorado if the state's Democrat legislators passed a ban on "high capacity" magazines. The legislators passed the ban anyway, and on January 2, 2014 Breitbart News reported that Magpul was moving manufacturing to Wyoming and its corporate headquarters to Texas.
Magpul's Duane Liptak, Jr., told Breitbart News that Texas and Wyoming both had something his company craved--"strong cultures of personal responsibility, self reliance and individual liberty."
Beretta was looking intently at Virginia until Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) was elected on promises of more gun control. They quickly marked the Old Dominion off their short list and chose Tennessee instead, where Governor Bill Haslam (R) greeted them with open arms.
Beretta Executive Vice President Franco Gussalli Beretta went out of his way to explain how "Haslam and his economic team did an excellent job of demonstrating the benefits of doing business in Tennessee."
And then came Remington, the arms maker that has been making firearms in Ilion, NY since 1816. After Governor Cuomo's SAFE Act made a number of their guns illegal to sell (or own) within NY state, it was well known that Remington was looking for a more gun friendly atmosphere.
On February 17 Breitbart News reported Remington found it in Huntsville, Alabama, where they purchased a new facility that is expected to be up and running in 2015.
Remington CEO George Kollitides summed up the move by pointing to Alabama's motto--"We Dare Defend Our Rights." He said that motto "says it all" when it comes to what drew Remington to Alabama.
The best part about these companies moving south is that they represent the beginning, rather than the end of such a migration. Like any other business, gun manufacturers want to operate in states that do not over regulate their product or their businesses--and right now, the south gives them very little regulation in either area.

Gun Owners Spank Bloomberg, Schumer, IRS & Governor “Moonbeam” Brown
GOA, February 20, 2014

And GOA submits new brief before the U.S. Supreme Court. Click here to help.
“[New Jersey has] subordinated the People’s right to keep and bear arms to the state’s alleged interest in promoting public safety. It is not, however, within the authority of courts to override the Constitution as ratified by the People.” -- Gun Owners of America’s legal brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in Drake v. Jerejian, February 12, 2014
Pro-gun victories are coming so fast and furiously (no pun intended) that it's difficult to keep up with them.
Here is a sample of good news.

GOA CHALLENGING NJ LAW BEFORE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN WAKE OF HUGE LEGAL VICTORY
GOA, February 19, 2014


On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that California's requirement that applicants for concealed carry permits show "good cause" were unconstitutional under the Heller decision.
"The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense," said Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain.
Gun Owners of America is pursuing an almost identical challenge to New Jersey's onerous and restrictive concealed carry law. GOA (and its foundation) filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court just one day prior to last week’s Ninth Circuit decision, challenging the New Jersey control scheme that was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In several instances, the Ninth Circuit opinion critiques the Third Circuit’s opinion by using arguments very similar to the ones GOA presented in our amicus brief. Overall the opinion is a refreshing change from most lower federal court decisions, which have refused to engage in the textual and historical analysis required by Heller and McDonald.
As we see it, the Ninth Circuit decision should add weight in favor of the Supreme Court hearing one of these cases to resolve the circuit split. And hopefully the five justice majority from Heller will seize on these two cases because of the Ninth Circuit's detailed and careful review of the history that supports public carry of weapons for self-defense.
Go here to read more about this case -- including the GOA/GOF brief.
Go here to make a tax deductible contribution in assisting Gun Owners Foundation to continue bringing legal challenges like this.
BLOOMBERG DEFEATED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg had intended to turn New Hampshire into his most recent "victory for gun control" -- joining a handful of states that enacted stricter gun control laws in the wake of the Newton school yard tragedy.
Bloomberg figured that New Hampshire would be easy pickings. After all, the "Granite State" had a Democratic House of Representatives and a Democratic anti-gun governor.
Gun Owners of America countered Bloomberg’s muscle by aiding several local gun groups in the state to rally grassroots gun owners in opposition to the bill.
Well, the final shootout occurred last Wednesday. And after the smoke cleared, Bloomberg and his "human props" were sent packing, with their tails between their legs. After a series of votes -- and an hour and a half of parliamentary wrangling -- the Democratic House declared that a Manchin-Toomey-type universal gun registry bill was "inexpedient to legislate."
Having failed to buy Congress with his billions of anti-gun dollars, Bloomberg has attempted to buy the legislatures of states like New Hampshire. But, with the exception of seven states with legislatures dominated by anti-gun legislators and governors, Bloomberg has been humiliated.
And "red state Democrats" running for reelection in the Senate are running from Bloomberg even faster than they're running from Obama.
As a result, Bloomberg has now modified his strategy to turn the country blue by legalizing millions of anti-gun voters who broke the law to get here. And to that end, Bloomberg has announced that he will use his billions to support "red state Democrats" who opposed the Manchin-Toomey amendment -- language imposing universal background checks around the nation -- so long as such Senators agree to support the anti-gun immigration amnesty bill.
SCHUMER REELS AFTER AMNESTY BILL IS SHELVED
Three weeks ago, it looked like an immigration amnesty bill to create 8,000,000 new anti-gun voters was on the "fast track" in the U.S. House.
That was before you burned up the telephone lines and internet accounts of House Republicans. At a Republican "retreat," dozens of congressmen lined up to oppose the bill. And Speaker John Boehner was forced to concede that Republicans could not "trust" Obama to implement the enforcement provisions of the bill.
Now, reeling from another defeat, New York Senator Charles Schumer has threatened to file a "discharge petition" to force the House to consider the anti-gun bill, over Republican objections.
The problem is that Schumer, to be successful, would have to convince over a dozen Republicans to openly betray their colleagues, in order to garner the necessary 217 or 218 signatures (depending on the number of House vacancies). For this reason, discharge petitions almost never succeed.
THE IRS BACKS OFF FROM ANTI-GUN REGS
Fresh from a scandal in which it tried to harass conservatives applying for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, the IRS has spent the last several months trying to put GOA out of business.
It did this by threatening regulations which would define a broad range of policy activities (including voting guides) as political activities.
But, in its arrogance, the IRS overstepped its bounds. So many policy-related activities would be limited under the IRS rules that a broad range of both conservative and liberal 501(c)(4)'s blasted the proposals. In addition, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee introduced legislation (H.R. 3865) which would prohibit the IRS regs from being issued. Given the broad support from both ends of the political spectrum, the Camp bill would surely be passed overwhelmingly.
As a result, the IRS has now meekly testified that it will not push its proposals in 2014.


8th Court Hearing for DC Man Arrested for Having Shotgun Shell in Home

Last Resistence, Fdebruary 17, 2014

Mark Witaschek enjoys hunting, but since he lives in Washington DC which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, he keeps his guns at his sister’s house in Virginia. On one of his hunting trips, his shotgun had a misfire, meaning the firing pin struck the primer on a shell, but the shell didn’t fire. He kept the misfired shotgun shell as a souvenir of his hunting trip.

In 2012, Witaschek’s ex-wife created a nightmare for him as she told police that he had threatened her with a gun. She had previously obtained a restraining order against him, so 30 armed police officers raided his DC home. His 16 year old son was taking a shower at the time of the raid so police used a battering ram to break down the door and then they hauled the teen out of the bathroom, still naked and dripping wet. They handcuffed Witaschek and his girlfriend and put them in one room and the kids in a separate room.
The police literally ransacked the house like a group of burglars racking up over $10,000 worth of damage. All the police found was the misfired shotgun shell, an empty handgun holster, the brass casing from a fired .270 round and a box of Knight bullets for reloading a black powder gun. Witaschek was arrested for having an unregistered shotgun shell, making him the first to be charged under a new DC law on registering ammunition. It didn’t matter that the shotgun shell can’t be fired. If found guilty, the DC businessman could face up to 2 years in jail and a large fine.
The police did not find any gun in the house, but that was not going to deter them as they ended up searching the house a second time, trying to find a gun or more evidence to justify their arrest. They also searched Witaschek’s sister’s home in Virginia, but after all of the searches, all they have is the misfired shotgun shell. Witaschek continues to ask law enforcement for the justification of the raid, treatment of his family and the destruction done to his home, but no one has ever offered a valid explanation.
But the ordeal has been dragging on and on. Each time a court hearing has been scheduled for him, for one reason or another, it gets delayed at the last minute. He is now facing his 8th schedule court hearing where he hopes to clear his name.
Authorities have offered Witaschek a plea deal of a year’s probation, $500 fine and make a contribution to a victim’s fund if he pleads guilty to a charge of possession of unregistered ammunition. He has refused the plea deal saying that he is innocent and intends to prove it in court.
Americans are guaranteed due process and speedy trial, but Witaschek is being denied a speedy trial of a ridiculous trumped up charge. I wonder if all of the delays on the part of the prosecution has been caused because they know they don’t have a case and rather than face the embarrassment of admitting they were wrong and dismiss the charges, they keep hoping that Witaschek will give in and accept the plea deal. Hopefully, Witaschek stands his ground and the charges against him are dropped and that the city is forced to pay for the damages done to his home along with the humiliation his family suffered during the raid.
Take this as a warning to what will be happening more and more across the country if we don’t remove the liberal anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment Democrats from office. They will continue to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens and force their socialist policies on us. We all need to pray for our nation, for the elections this November and we need to do whatever we can to defeat the Democrats in our areas.

Obama Nominates Radical Gun Grabber for Surgeon General
Washington Times, February 13, 2014  

President Obama is using every executive power in his arsenal to infringe on Second Amendment rights.
His latest maneuver is to nominate a rabidly anti-gun doctor to be the next U.S. surgeon general. Dr. Vivek Murthy is facing Senate approval in upcoming weeks.
Dr. Murthy is the 36-year-old president and co-founder of Doctors for America, a group that advocates for Obamacare and gun control laws.
The group calls gun violence "a public health crisis." It pushes for Congress to ban "assault weapons" and "high-capacity" magazines and calls for spending tax dollars for more gun-control research.
The organization also lobbies for doctors to be allowed to ask patients, including minors, whether they have legal guns in the home. If the patient admits to having guns, Dr. Murthy wants doctors to "counsel them appropriately about safety measures."
Gun rights advocates and many families view this policy as a violation of privacy.
At a hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week, Sen. Lamar Alexander asked Dr. Murthy about public comments on firearms, such as a tweet from before the 2012 president election that said, "Tired of politicians playing politics w/ guns, putting lives at risk b/c they're scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue."
Mr. Alexander, the ranking Republican on the committee, told Dr. Murthy that "Americans have a First Amendment right to advocate the Second Amendment -- or any other amendment. And the Second Amendment is not a special interest group, it's part of our Constitution."
The Tennessee senator added that, "If your goal is to make guns the bully pulpit of your advocacy in the surgeon general's office, that would concern me."
Dr. Murthy sidestepped the questions about his gun-control agenda from committee members throughout the hearing.
However, Mr. Murthy's Twitter timeline is chock full of his anti- firearm screed.
"NRA press conference disappointing but predictable - blame everything in the world except guns for the Newtown tragedy.
That same month, he tweeted that, his group had "launched doctor- nurse campaign demanding gun safety legislation from Congress."
His spin on Mr. Obama's failed effort to pass gun control in the Senate last April was to say: "Signs of progress-we got 20 votes in the senate in favor of gun violence legislation that we wouldn't have had 1 year ago. Have faith."
Mr. Obama's pick for the next "nation's doctor" is purely political.
Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona wrote a letter to the president in December to protest nominating Dr. Murthy because he is not qualified. Dr. Carmona said that Dr. Murthy appeared to have "no significant related leadership experience and no formal public health training or experience."
Unfortunately, Dr. Murthy is almost assuredly going to be confirmed -- especially since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the rules so only 51 votes are required for nominees.
The surgeon general oversees the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and three national health councils. It is a role for the most seasoned and knowledgeable doctor available for the position, not a political lackey who will use the public profile to push a leftist political agenda.

WHAT THE – - – -?: National Guard Training Against American 2nd Amendment Supporters
 Clash Daily / 13 February 2014  

Documents from an Ohio National Guard (ONG) training drill conducted last January reveal the details of a mock disaster where Second Amendment supporters with “anti-government” opinions were portrayed as domestic terrorists.
The ONG 52nd Civil Support Team training scenario involved a plot from local school district employees to use biological weapons in order to advance their beliefs about “protecting Gun Rights and Second Amendment rights.”
Portsmouth Fire Chief Bill Raison told NBC 3 WSAZ-TV in Huntington, West Virginia that the drill accurately represented “the reality of the world we live in,” adding that such training “helps us all be prepared.”


Fire Breaks Out at Winchester Ammunition Plant, Building Destroyed
Outdoor Hub, February 11, 2014

Seven fire departments responded to a fire at Olin Corporation's East Alton plant on Sunday, which ended with one building destroyed and others damaged.
Firefighters responded on Sunday to a fire at Olin Corporation’s Winchester Division ammunition plant in East Alton, Illinois. According to KMOV, seven fire departments were called in to put out the blaze, which was complicated when a number of propane cylinders exploded. The East Alton Fire Department recorded no injuries.
The fire reportedly started in a carpenter’s shop just before 3:15 a.m. and alarms at the site quickly alerted the authorities. Due to the nature of the materials stored at the plant, firefighters had to take special precautions and prevent the fire from reaching adjacent buildings. East Alton Fire Chief Randy Nelson told The Telegraph that this required extensive manpower and a large water supply.
“We had almost 2,000 feet of five-inch hose as part of our water supply efforts; at one point we were working on establishing water supply from three different hydrants,” he said, adding that the Sunday blaze was the largest response he had seen in almost 20 years.
The carpenter’s shop was completely destroyed in the blaze and some damage was reported on the surrounding buildings. Luckily, the shop was at a distance from the buildings where the actual ammunition was made. Responders were careful, however, to keep the fire from the 55-gallon drums of flammable liquid near and inside the buildings where the fire was raging.
The cause of the fire is yet to be determined, but Nelson stated that it appears to be accidental. The fire chief said that by 6 a.m. the fire was fully contained.
It is not currently known how the loss of the carpenter’s shop and damage to the surrounding buildings will affect production. Nelson observed that the plant has other carpenter’s shops and should not be too hampered in day-to-day production. OutdoorHub has contacted Olin Corporation representatives and is waiting for their response.
Winchester ammunition is owned by the Missouri-based Olin Corporation, which makes ammunition along with chlorine and sodium hydroxide products.


Gun Prohibition Activist Dwayne Ferguson Takes Gun into Grade School - Claims He Forgot
Freedom Outpost, February 10, 2014

Dwayne Ferguson is the President of a local Buffalo chapter of MAD DADS (Men Against Destruction-Defending Against Drugs and Social-Disorder) and also sits on the National Board of Directors. MAD DADS is not just an anti-gun organization but gun control is a major part of their national platform. Among other things, the group organizes and supports gun buy-back programs.
Mr. Ferguson is someone who should know better than to carry a handgun into a school.
On Thursday afternoon he proved that he does not know better. WIVB4 reports:
BUFFALO, N.Y.(WIVB)- More than a dozen cop cars, the SWAT team, K9 units and the Erie County Sheriff's Air One helicopter swarmed Harvey Austin Elementary School in Buffalo on Thursday after reports of a man with a gun near the school or on the grounds. Dwayne Ferguson, head of the Buffalo chapter of MAD DADS, was taken into custody. He will be arraigned Friday.
An anonymous call came into 911 around 4:15 p.m. that a man with a gun was seen inside the Sycamore Street school. The building was placed in lockdown and around 60 students who were in the building for after school programs were herded into the cafeteria as officers from every district in the city went room-to-room in twos and threes looking for a possible gunman. A portion of Sycamore Street and Walden Avenue were closed and parents were kept from the scene until a preliminary sweep of the school was complete.
In the preliminary sweep, no gunman was found, and school buses arrived at the school around 5:30 p.m. to take the children to School 91. But it took until at least 7 p.m. before the students began to arrive to be released to their parents.
School officials say students were checked for weapons as they boarded the buses to be transported to School 91, and all were safe and accounted for. Afterwards, staff began placing calls to parents to inform them of what was taking place.
Meanwhile, the SWAT team conducted a more thorough secondary search of the school. It was during the secondary search that police found Ferguson with a gun.
To fully understand the complete hypocrisy of the situation, please consider that Ferguson was previously interviewed by WIVB in regard to the New York SAFE Act:
News 4 interviewed Ferguson in March of 2013 at a rally in support of the NY SAFE Act. At the time, Ferguson stated the law did not go far enough.
"Our kids are not buying assault weapons, they're buying pistols and they're buying them right out of community stores and back here in the school. So this is serious. It needs to go further than what it is," he said.
It needs to go further indeed. This is a felony offense and it will be interesting to see how Ferguson fares in this situation. He claims he forgot he was carrying the handgun.
The Daily Caller reports:
Among much else, the 2013 law, deemed New York's SAFE Act, made it a felony to carry a gun on school property, according to The Buffalo News.
While it was always illegal to carry a gun on school grounds, the new law bumped the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
The community activist has claimed that he forgot he was carrying his gun in a felony gun-free zone he helped create.
Rev. James E. Giles, Ferguson's friend and the president of Buffalo's Back to Basics Outreach Ministries, vouched for this claim.
"I'm sure Dwayne went into the school not thinking he had the gun on him," Giles told The Buffalo News.
Giles said Ferguson even asked police on the scene what was going on.
"Dwayne's reaction was to get his kids — he had about 50 of them — and make sure they were safe," Giles explained.
Liberals like to use the argument that guns kill people. So forgetting about a gun is not an excuse. That gun could have killed someone while Ferguson was in the school.
Absurd? Of course it is.
But it's no more absurd than a man who has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar and claims that he forgot he was carrying a gun. I don't doubt that Ferguson might get a slap on the wrist but the law is the law and I would throw the book at this guy who, of all people, should know better.

Pop-Tart Bill’ Would Ban Suspensions For Gun-Shaped Pastries In Schools
Patriot Up Date, February 8, 2014

How ridiculous is it that this bill is even necessary?
Check it out:
Legislators here are working to keep students from getting in serious trouble for simulating a weapon with harmless objects like their fingers, Pop-Tarts or Legos.
Rep. Dennis Baxley, a Republican from Ocala, Fla., said his bill is designed to bar overreactions under zero-tolerance policies designed to keep weapons out of public schools.
The bill cleared a state House panel Wednesday and would bar school districts from suspending students for “brandishing a partially consumed pastry or other food item” bitten into the shape of a weapon or “possessing a toy firearm or weapon made of plastic snap-together building blocks.”
Baxley dubbed the measure the Pop-Tart bill, a moniker that refers to a Maryland student who chewed a toaster pastry into the shape of a pistol and was suspended, inspiring similar legislation in that state that has not become law. The boy later received a lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association as Republicans in the area rallied around his cause.


Texas Jury Refuses to Indict Homeowner Henry Goedrich Magee After Cop Killed During No-Knock Raid
Freedom Outpost, February 8, 2014

What would you do if you were soundly sleeping at home, with your pregnant girlfriend and your young children in the house, and then, just before 6 o'clock in the morning, your front door was violently forced open, and a bunch of shouting men waving guns burst in?
If you said "pick up your firearm and defend your family against a home invasion," you aren't alone.
In a clear victory against the police state, a grand jury in central Texas refused to press capital murder charges against a homeowner who shot and killed a police officer after a SWAT team unexpectedly burst into his home to execute a no-knock raid.
Henry Goedrich Magee believed he was the target of a home invasion (which, technically, he was). He responded like many of us would. Magee grabbed his gun (which he owns legally) and opened fire on the intruders. Burleson County Sgt. Adam Sowders, age 31, was killed.
The defendant's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, said that Magee acted in defense of his family.
'This was a terrible tragedy that a deputy sheriff was killed, but Hank Magee believed that he and his pregnant girlfriend were being robbed,' DeGuerin said in an interview Thursday.
'He did what a lot of people would have done,' DeGuerin added. 'He defended himself and his girlfriend and his home.' (source)
His attorney acknowledged Magee had a small number of marijuana plants and seedlings.
The grand jury refused to indict Magee for capital murder charges, which carried the possibility of life in prison without parole or death by lethal injection. They cited a lack of evidence that Magee was aware that the invaders were actually police officers.
Magee was indicted on the lesser charge of possession of marijuana while in possession of a deadly weapon, which is a third-degree felony.
Just last week in Iowa, a similar tragedy was narrowly averted when a gang of thugs in uniform burst into a family's home over possible credit card fraud. The person with a legal firearm realized at the last possible moment that the invaders were police officers.
During the incident in Iowa, honorably discharged veteran Justin Ross was in the bathroom when cops burst in (after disabling the security cameras so their actions could not be documented). Ross already had his weapon unholstered in order to defend his mother and there had been one kick to the bathroom door, when he heard them shout, "Police."
At the time, we predicted that one of these days, no-knock raids on unsuspecting homeowners were not going to end well for police. It looks like in Texas, the right to defend your home and family is alive and well, even when the thugs you're defending them against wear a uniform and a badge.


School Objects to Pictures of Guns … in Gun-Free Zone Signs
Last Resistence,  Feb 7, 2014


Sometimes the soft-headed absurdity of the effete left leaves me wondering how so many people came to appear so much like parodies of themselves. Apparently administrators at a school in Chicago
are up in “arms” about gun-free zone signs they are being asked to post on their property. They are angry because the signs contain pictures of guns.
Comments from the principal of this school concerning the signs basically beggar belief. They must be read in a timorous and shaking voice that cracks from stress occasionally and sounds constantly on the verge of tears:
It is bothersome to have to post a sticker of a gun that says, “Hey, folks, leave your guns at home.” . . . I think the general public will be alarmed by it and wonder if people have been allowed to bring guns to school in the past. . . . You can’t look at this and not think about Sandy Hook.
I don’t think I’ve read social commentary this blistering outside the Onion. In fact, I think the Onion would have a hard time topping this story. The only difference is that this isn’t satire apparently. It’s real. These people really exist. They are in charge of our schools. They are filling the minds of future generations with this same degree of mindless fear.
The new gun-free zone signs must go up in Chicago because of a gun-carry law change that has recently gone into effect in Illinois. Illinois was the last of fifty states that prohibited all concealed-carrying of firearms. A federal judge struck that law down (correctly) as unconstitutional. So now, schools in Illinois have to put up these signs so that potential legal carriers of guns know that schools are still off-limits.
I imagine that, as in every other state, a loosening of gun laws in Illinois will mean an increase of saftey. But don’t tell anyone at this Chicago school that. Even mentioning the word gun could send them into a neurotic tailspin of fear. “He said ‘gun.’ It’s disturbing. It makes me wonder if he has a gun on him. You can’t hear a word like gun without remembering Sandy Hook.” Give me a break.

MSM silent after Dem lawmaker’s gun accidentally discharges
Conservative Byte,  February 6, 2014

If a Ruger LCP semi-automatic is accidentally fired inside the office of a Kentucky state representative, will it make a sound? Not in the mainstream media — and especially not if the gun’s owner is a Democrat.
The story of Rep. Leslie Combs’s accidental discharge on Jan. 8 was picked up by The Blaze, a conservative outlet, and did find its way on to the Associated Press wire. But it escaped the attention of ABC, CBS, and NBC despite the fact Combs thought the gun was empty when she fired it — a detail that would ordinarily have the three major TV networks positively salivating.
The story was picked up by the New York Times, albeit a week late, and even then relegated to the back pages.
Somehow, you get the distinct sense that the MSM’s silence was selective — that if the incident had had happened in the office of a GOP lawmaker, the moral indignation would be palpable.

Arizona Advances Nullification of Federal Gun Laws
Freedom Outpost, February 3, 2014

Following in a long line of states that are advancing the Tenth Amendment rights of their respective states, Arizona is now advancing nullification of federal gun laws and stop state enforcement of them. Arizona State Senator Kelli Ward, along with eight co-sponsors, introduced the Second Amendment Preservation Act in the Grand Canyon State.
According to the bill, SB1294, all federal regulations which violate the Second Amendment (that would be any federal gun law) would be recognized as "invalid and void in this state." The legislation also prohibits the state from enforcing "any federal act, law, order, rule or regulation that relates to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition within the limits of this state."
"We've sat back and allowed the federal government to trample the Constitution long enough," Senator Ward said. "We're going to pass this bill and stop the state of Arizona from helping the feds violate your rights."
According to the Tenth Amendment Center,
"The legislation rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force or coerce states into implementing or enforcing federal acts or regulations - constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.
"The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program…such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."
"The federal government depends on state cooperation for almost everything it does," Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey said. "This bill rips the rug out from under it. If Arizona passes the Second Amendment Preservation Act, it will make it very difficult for the feds to violate your right to keep and bear arms. And if multiple states pass this bill, it will effectively nullify federal violations of the Second Amendment. It's quite simple; you cannot say you support the Second Amendment and oppose this bill."
Arizona Tenth Amendment state chapter coordinator Adam Henriksen agrees with Maharrey.
"Guns and Ammo magazine ranked Arizona number one for gun rights, giving our state a score of 49 out of a possible 50 points. Our legislators know that we won't let our rights be trampled on," he said.
Last week, Rep. Dan Eagle of Florida, introduced similar legislation in HB733 in the Sunshine State's House.
Like the Florida legislation, the Arizona bill does not allow for criminalizing federal agents that might attempt to enforce the law in the state. This is the one thing that appears to be missing in many of the nullification laws we are seeing today. However, removal of state resources to aid the feds in enforcement of unconstitutional laws is a step in the right direction.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, speaking about the nullification legislation of Obamacare in South Carolina, said "If the President wants Obamacare in South Carolina, the feds will have to pay for it, and the feds will have to establish it."
"If enough states do this, it will gut Obamacare," he added.
The same thing applies to the federal gun law nullification legislation. No longer would state resources be used to aid the federal government in overstepping their bounds and usurping the Constitution, and thus they would be unable to fund federal enforcement of those laws.
Within the past year, Tennessee, West Virginia, Texas, Alabama, Florida and Missouri have all pushed to nullify federal gun laws. Our own Publius Huldah has communicated quite clearly why any and all federal gun laws are unconstitutional.
One has to think of the irony of this legislation, considering that Arizona was the state where the Obama administration was running guns from into the hands of Mexican drug cartels in the Fast and Furious operation. 

School Objects to Pictures of Guns … in Gun-Free Zone Signs
Last Resistance,  Feb 7, 2014


Sometimes the soft-headed absurdity of the effete left leaves me wondering how so many people came to appear so much like parodies of themselves. Apparently administrators at a school in Chicago
are up in “arms” about gun-free zone signs they are being asked to post on their property. They are angry because the signs contain pictures of guns.
Comments from the principal of this school concerning the signs basically beggar belief. They must be read in a timorous and shaking voice that cracks from stress occasionally and sounds constantly on the verge of tears:
It is bothersome to have to post a sticker of a gun that says, “Hey, folks, leave your guns at home.” . . . I think the general public will be alarmed by it and wonder if people have been allowed to bring guns to school in the past. . . . You can’t look at this and not think about Sandy Hook.
I don’t think I’ve read social commentary this blistering outside the Onion. In fact, I think the Onion would have a hard time topping this story. The only difference is that this isn’t satire apparently. It’s real. These people really exist. They are in charge of our schools. They are filling the minds of future generations with this same degree of mindless fear.
The new gun-free zone signs must go up in Chicago because of a gun-carry law change that has recently gone into effect in Illinois. Illinois was the last of fifty states that prohibited all concealed-carrying of firearms. A federal judge struck that law down (correctly) as unconstitutional. So now, schools in Illinois have to put up these signs so that potential legal carriers of guns know that schools are still off-limits.
I imagine that, as in every other state, a loosening of gun laws in Illinois will mean an increase of saftey. But don’t tell anyone at this Chicago school that. Even mentioning the word gun could send them into a neurotic tailspin of fear. “He said ‘gun.’ It’s disturbing. It makes me wonder if he has a gun on him. You can’t hear a word like gun without remembering Sandy Hook.” Give me a break.



MSM silent after Dem lawmaker’s gun accidentally discharges
Conservative Byte,  February 6, 2014

If a Ruger LCP semi-automatic is accidentally fired inside the office of a Kentucky state representative, will it make a sound? Not in the mainstream media — and especially not if the gun’s owner is a Democrat.
The story of Rep. Leslie Combs’s accidental discharge on Jan. 8 was picked up by The Blaze, a conservative outlet, and did find its way on to the Associated Press wire. But it escaped the attention of ABC, CBS, and NBC despite the fact Combs thought the gun was empty when she fired it — a detail that would ordinarily have the three major TV networks positively salivating.
The story was picked up by the New York Times, albeit a week late, and even then relegated to the back pages.
Somehow, you get the distinct sense that the MSM’s silence was selective — that if the incident had had happened in the office of a GOP lawmaker, the moral indignation would be palpable.

Arizona Advances Nullification of Federal Gun Laws
Freedom Outpost, February 3, 2014

Following in a long line of states that are advancing the Tenth Amendment rights of their respective states, Arizona is now advancing nullification of federal gun laws and stop state enforcement of them. Arizona State Senator Kelli Ward, along with eight co-sponsors, introduced the Second Amendment Preservation Act in the Grand Canyon State.
According to the bill, SB1294, all federal regulations which violate the Second Amendment (that would be any federal gun law) would be recognized as "invalid and void in this state." The legislation also prohibits the state from enforcing "any federal act, law, order, rule or regulation that relates to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition within the limits of this state."
"We've sat back and allowed the federal government to trample the Constitution long enough," Senator Ward said. "We're going to pass this bill and stop the state of Arizona from helping the feds violate your rights."
According to the Tenth Amendment Center,
"The legislation rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force or coerce states into implementing or enforcing federal acts or regulations - constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.
"The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program…such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."
"The federal government depends on state cooperation for almost everything it does," Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey said. "This bill rips the rug out from under it. If Arizona passes the Second Amendment Preservation Act, it will make it very difficult for the feds to violate your right to keep and bear arms. And if multiple states pass this bill, it will effectively nullify federal violations of the Second Amendment. It's quite simple; you cannot say you support the Second Amendment and oppose this bill."
Arizona Tenth Amendment state chapter coordinator Adam Henriksen agrees with Maharrey.
"Guns and Ammo magazine ranked Arizona number one for gun rights, giving our state a score of 49 out of a possible 50 points. Our legislators know that we won't let our rights be trampled on," he said.
Last week, Rep. Dan Eagle of Florida, introduced similar legislation in HB733 in the Sunshine State's House.
Like the Florida legislation, the Arizona bill does not allow for criminalizing federal agents that might attempt to enforce the law in the state. This is the one thing that appears to be missing in many of the nullification laws we are seeing today. However, removal of state resources to aid the feds in enforcement of unconstitutional laws is a step in the right direction.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, speaking about the nullification legislation of Obamacare in South Carolina, said "If the President wants Obamacare in South Carolina, the feds will have to pay for it, and the feds will have to establish it."
"If enough states do this, it will gut Obamacare," he added.
The same thing applies to the federal gun law nullification legislation. No longer would state resources be used to aid the federal government in overstepping their bounds and usurping the Constitution, and thus they would be unable to fund federal enforcement of those laws.
Within the past year, Tennessee, West Virginia, Texas, Alabama, Florida and Missouri have all pushed to nullify federal gun laws. Our own Publius Huldah has communicated quite clearly why any and all federal gun laws are unconstitutional.
One has to think of the irony of this legislation, considering that Arizona was the state where the Obama administration was running guns from into the hands of Mexican drug cartels in the Fast and Furious operation. 

Judge reduces bail for Tennessee man charged with having gun in Bedminster without state permit
The Star-Ledger, February 3, 2014

 Saying he doesn’t pose a danger to the community, a Superior Court judge today reduced the bail for a Tennessee man accused of having an unloaded handgun last month in Bedminster without first obtaining a New Jersey permit.
Superior Court Judge Robert Reed reduced the bail for Jamie Pitts, 27, from $100,000 to $25,000 with the 10 percent option, meaning he could be released from custody by posting $2,500. Pitts has been held at the Somerset County Jail.
The judge noted that Pitts, a native of Ohio, voluntarily turned over the unloaded firearm and said that while the state of New Jersey is at one end of the anti-gun spectrum, Tennessee is at the other end.
But Reed also warned Pitts that if he failed to appear in court when he is required, the judge would revoke his bail and return him to the county jail. The judge said that whether you’re in Tennessee or Ohio or New Jersey, eventually we find you.
Pitts was driving a purple Dodge Intrepid at about 1:30 p.m. on Jan. 18 along Interstate 78 East when he was stopped by state troopers for driving an unregistered vehicle, according to an affidavit filed in Superior Court in Somerville.
The troopers informed Pitts and his passenger that the vehicle would be towed and asked if they would like to take any small belongings with them, the affidavit states.
After Pitts said he had a weapon in the vehicle, a trooper secured the unloaded handgun from the driver’s side door and removed Pitts from the car, the affidavit states. Authorities said Pitts had not obtained a New Jersey permit to carry the handgun.
A loaded magazine with six rounds also was removed from the vehicle, the affidavit states. Pitts has been charged with unlawful possession of a weapon.
In arguing for a bail reduction, Pitts attorney, Matthew Katzenbach, noted his clients lack of a criminal history, and said he would appear in court.
But Somerset County Assistant Prosecutor William Guhl said the $100,000 bail was appropriate to ensure Pitts appearance in court, because he is an out-of-state resident with no ties to New Jersey and he is facing a possible state prison term.

Poll: More Americans Dissatisfied with Gun Laws
Outdoor Hub, February 3, 2014

Results of a new 2014 Gallup poll show that Americans are increasingly disappointed in the nation’s gun laws. Gallup reports that 55 percent of participants stated they were not satisfied with current firearms laws, almost matching 2001's figure of 57 percent.
According to the National Journal, the number of Americans who are not happy with gun laws increased four percent from 2013, and a striking 13 percent from 2012. The majority of the change came from participants that believe gun laws are too strict, a group that has more than tripled in size since last year.
“Those who are dissatisfied have historically leaned heavily in the direction of wanting stricter rather than less strict laws,” Gallup’s Rebecca Riffkin wrote. “But this year, the gap between those wanting stricter gun laws and those wanting less strict laws narrowed as a result of a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who want less strict laws, now at 16% up from 5% a year ago.”
For comparison, the number of people polled who wanted stricter gun control laws fell from 38 percent in 2013 to 31 percent this year. Additionally, Gallup notes that more people have reported being “very” dissatisfied as opposed to “somewhat” dissatisfied with firearm regulations. It is speculated that these changes may be due to the timing of the polls. Last year Gallup conducted the telephone survey shortly after the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. It may be that the politically and socially charged environment at the time affected results.
These numbers are the the result of Gallup’s telephone survey of 1,019 adults across all 50 states. The poll has also been adjusted to match national demographics for gender, race, age, education, and other factors. Americans’ satisfaction with gun laws is only one of 19 issues measured by Gallup in its Mood of the Nation survey. Of those topics, satisfaction with gun laws placed near the middle while public opinion of the military and America’s efforts to combat terrorism ranked highly.

CCRKBA: Pair of Pro-Gun Bills Up in Florida Committees Today
February 2, 2014

From our friend Marion Hammer Unified Sportsman of Florida Executive Director and NRA Past President
THE FIRST BILL: SB-424 By Senator Tom Lee (R-Brandon) is scheduled for its 2nd hearing. It will be heard in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee on Monday, February 2, 2014, at 4:00pm.
SB-424 is a bill to stop insurance companies from discriminating against gun owners. Click here to view bill text SB-424
THE SECOND BILL: SB:544 By Senator Wilton Simpson (R-New Port Richey) is scheduled for its 1st hearing in the same committee -- Senate Criminal Justice Committee on Monday, February 2, 2014, at 4:00pm
SB-544 is a bill to allow the Division of Licensing to designate qualified Tax Collectors to conduct the "Fast-Track" concealed weapons licensing application process in their respective counties. This brings the process closer to the people and makes it more convenient for applicants.
Tax collectors are NOT going to ISSUE licenses. They are only going to handle the PAPERWORK for the Division of Licensing. They will only be performing a clerical function. They have no decision making power. They will only help people complete the application, fingerprint applicants, photograph applicants, collect their money and their training certificates then send it all off -- electronically -- to the Division of Licensing.

Just Say No To Gun Ignorance
Freedom Outpost, February 2, 2014

I live in Michigan. I live on the shores of Lake Michigan in an area with a lot of inland lakes. Every year, we experience some drownings in our area. But this year in particular, we've had quite a few drownings. At the beginning of the summer, a local high school student drowned in shallow water in one of the inland lakes. As you might expect, the tragedy rocked our small town. According to his friends and family, he was not a strong swimmer.
After the drowning, our local press and politicians repeatedly called for better water safety and swimming education in our town. This is not a new initiative; we are currently building a YMCA facility with a swimming pool for just that reason. In response to the community outcry, several organizations have donated money for swim lesson scholarships at the new Y. As a community, we realized that our swimming education opportunities were lacking. We were not giving our children the tools they needed to be safe in the water.
Through this recent tragedy and in all of the other drownings in our area, no one has ever suggested that we ban water sports or close down the Great Lakes. We haven't formed community action groups to create swim free zones. Instead, we've done the responsible thing. We've invested time, money and energy into equipping our children to safely handle the water. And, why not? Water sports can be great fun, swimming is great exercise, and our abundance of water in Michigan is one of the things that makes our state great.
What baffles me, what I struggle to fully comprehend is why, as a community, our response to accidental gun deaths is so different from our response to accidental drownings. We seem to agree that as a nation, we have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable among us. When drowning is the threat, we equip children with the tools to be safe and protect themselves—even children who don't have pools or live on lakes. As a community, we believe it is our responsibility to make sure all children learn to swim.
On the other hand, when gun accidents are the threat, we call for gun free zones and we teach our children to fear guns rather than handle them safely.
What disturbs me even more is that swimming isn't a constitutionally protected right. Communities everywhere work to protect children's access to recreation, but don't work equally hard to protect our citizens' right to bear arms?
You may think this analogy is simplistic. I assure you it's not. We hear all the time that we have a gun problem, that guns threaten our children's safety. That we have to agree to limitations on our rights in order to protect our children. According to the most recent CDC stats, in 2010, 62 children under the age of 15 died in accidental gun deaths. In that same year, 726 children under the age of 15 died in accidental drownings. 726 children accidentally drown and our communities call for better education; 1/12th of that number die in accidental gun deaths and our communities call for restrictions, limitations and outright bans. Where is the disconnect?
All children deserve to be protected. All children should be given every possible tool to live a happy, healthy life. This is true when it comes to pools and lakes, and it's equally true when it comes to firearms.



Police: Gunman shoved gun in waistband, shot himself in the testicles
ClashDaily, January 31, 2014

A man police said is responsible for a shooting in a downtown parking lot ran from the scene, but shot himself in the testicles as he shoved the gun into his waistband Tuesday night.
Joseph Johnson, 40, has been released from the hospital and booked into the Multnomah County Jail on charges of first-degree robbery, second-degree assault and felon in possession of a firearm.
Robbery detectives said Johnson and the victim, 32-year-old Jordan Merrell, knew each other well and lived in the same apartment building near Southwest 10th Avenue and Columbia Street.
Johnson apparently confronted Merrell in the parking lot behind the building, demanded he hand over his property and then shot Merrell in the leg, police said.
While Johnson was making his getaway, he shoved the gun into the front of his pants and shot himself in the groin.
Transit police eventually found Johnson trying to get into a woman's car at Southwest Sixth Avenue and Mill Street.
He tried to run, but fell down and officers took him into custody. They recovered the gun, which had been stolen during a car prowl in the Rose Quarter in November 2013.
Johnson and Merrell were both taken to the hospital after the shootings. They both survived.

Canadian News Anchor Warns Americans about Gun Registration
Eagle Rising, January 31, 2014

Canadian news anchor Brian Lilley offers a heartfelt and much needed warning to the American people. The Democrats and the anti-gun crowd are really after gun confiscation… and registration is just the first step.
To prove his point, he starts with the story of Ian Thomson, a Canadian man who defended himself when his home was attacked by four men who were “fire-bombing” his home[
 Mr. Thomson says that he knew the moment he chose to defend himself with his gun that the government would try to charge him with a crime. Canada does not want its citizens to defend themselves if that means using a firearm.
It’s a disgusting story of the uncaring attitude of the Canadian government and an example of where America may be headed if the American people don’t wake up and rid ourselves of the liberal scourge.
“We are at a state in Canada where they don’t want you using firearms for anything. Ever,” Lilley said. “That’s the push. And as we look at what’s happening in the United States, that’s what’s happening. So I’ve got a warning to my American friends: Registration will lead to confiscation. And if you don’t believe me, just look at what’s happened here.”
We need to pay attention and listen to our Canadian friends when they warn us of the dangers of liberalism. The liberals there have destroyed Canadian 

Miles of Guns: A bright spot in the US economy
Shooting Wire, January 31, 2014

Editor's Note: Occasionally, we find a piece that does such a good job of summing up a current situation that we feel it appropriate to share it with you. Today, Jeff Knox of the Firearms Coalition has a look at how the boom in gun sales points out the total hypocrisy of the anti-gun movement.

It has been suggested that Barack Obama is the greatest firearm salesman in history, and with good reason. Gun sales have boomed under Obama's watch. Gun companies have reported record sales, and, contrary to the claims of the anti-rights crowd, surveys indicate that the growth isn't just due to existing gun owners building bigger collections, but to many new, first-time gun buyers.
Of course Obama doesn't deserve all of the credit; he had lots of help from fellow politicians, gun control organizations, and the media. They place the "blame" for record gun sales on rights groups whipping gun buyers into a feeding frenzy of panic buying by making exaggerated claims of impending gun bans and restrictions. And, while there's no doubt that pro-gun groups do sound the alarm at the slightest provocation, you'd think the anti-rights folks would figure out that it's their provocation that instigates the alarms and the resultant buying - and voting - response. As prominent rights leader, Alan Gottlieb, recently pointed out, if the real objective of the anti-rights crowd was to reduce the number of guns on the street, they have not only failed miserably, they are the root cause of their own failure. Tens of thousands of Americans have bought guns - especially threatened "assault-style" guns - due to threats created by gun control proponents.
What is most important to note however, is that there has been no corresponding rise in gun crime to go along with the tremendous rise in gun ownership. Two decades of steady increases in gun sales, including five years of record growth, have corresponded with steady declines in criminal misuse of firearms. While economists and statisticians can argue about whether the increase in guns was a factor in the falling crime rates, there can be no argument about whether more guns in civilian hands caused increases in firearms abuse. Clearly it did not.
But politics aside, in the midst of the worst economy since the Great Depression (as it was called during the Bush administration), the firearms and ammunition industries are among the only businesses that have been thriving, and there's no greater proof of the health of these industries than the annual Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade Show. The SHOT Show is the largest firearms trade show in the world, with over 1600 exhibitors filling over 630,000 square feet of space, drawing over 62,000 industry professionals from all 50 states and over 100 countries. And while manufacturers from all over the world are represented, the major success stories are made in the USA.
Companies like Patriot Ordinance Factory, a Phoenix-based manufacturer of innovative, high-end, AR15-style rifles, wouldn't have it any other way. POF founder and CEO Frank Desomma not only makes it a point to use US made parts, he insists on US sourced steel and other raw materials for everything his company manufactures. Desomma takes the "Patriot" part of the company's name very seriously, and that, along with an uncompromising commitment to quality, and a genius for innovative designs - such as his new E2 Extraction Technology - has positioned this small company as a premier AR maker that stands out in a crowded field.
A similar story has played out at Kahr Arms. Where Justin Moon has taken designs he started sketching during his college days and turned them into one of the most popular and respected brands in the market. With the success of those innovative designs, he is building a small empire in the gun industry. In recent years Kahr has acquired established arms makers Thompson Auto Ordinance and Magnum Research. Moon has upgraded and expanded both of those companies and continues to grow Kahr as a leader in the area of compact and sub-compact personal defense firearms with reputations for reliability, accuracy, and shooting comfort.
The excellence of Moon's design innovations is proven by the frequency with which his competitors infringe on his patents. And even though he manages several family businesses in Korea, Moon keeps his firearms businesses solidly planted in the USA. He recently announced that Kahr's headquarters would be moving from New York to the more gun-friendly state of Pennsylvania.
At the pinnacle of US firearms manufacturing is Sturm Ruger, a publicly held company that has made its shareholders a tidy profit in the past several years. Like POF and Kahr, Sturm Ruger was built on the genius of an individual who had a better idea. Bill Ruger wasn't only a design wizard - for both guns and manufacturing processes - he also had an eye for what the buyers wanted. Starting with a solid, stylish, and accurate .22 pistol, he built an industry leader that sold over 1,000,000 guns last year. And every one of those guns was made in the USA.
With the critical mid-term elections coming up this November, it's important to understand that firearms manufacturers aren't just providing Americans with the tools of liberty, they are providing them with jobs, manufacturing infrastructure, an economic base, and an incubator for America's entrepreneurial spirit. Hopefully in this election, the anti-rights crowd will be taught again that threats of gun control don't just accelerate gun sales, they shorten politicians' careers.
                            

Beretta Announces Relocation to Tennessee
Outdoor Wire, January 30, 2014

"The Beretta family has manufactured products and done business from the same town in northern Italy for almost 500 years.... when Beretta chooses a location for its business, we plan not just in terms of a return on investment within the next few years. We also start with the possibility that we will be in that location for decades, if not hundreds of years, to come."
Beretta general counsel Jeff Reh tells of the process used to decide the new location for Beretta USA's manufacturing facilities. Screen shot via News Channel 5/WTVF-TV)Yesterday Beretta's Jeff Reh used those words as a preamble to the company's decision to relocate its 35-year old U.S. manufacturing facilities from Accokeek, Maryland to Gallatin, Tennessee.
That announcement means distinctly different things to the governors of Tennessee and Maryland.
If you're Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam, it means you've brought 300 new jobs to your state. If you're Maryland's Martin O'Malley, you're looking for a way to explain that the state's anti-gun position will cost state residents jobs with one of the world's most stable companies.
Beretta officials joined Haslam and Tennessee Economic and Community Development Commissioner Bill Hagerty in Nashville yesterday to announce the move- and the construction of a $45 million dollar state-of-the-art manufacturing and research and development facility in the Gallatin Industrial Park. That construction, according to Beretta officials, will be finished this year.
"Beretta is one of the world's greatest companies, and their decision to expand into Tennessee speaks to the standards of craftsmanship and quality our state's workforce embraces every day," Haslam said. "Attracting a legendary company like Beretta reinforces our goal of becoming the No. 1 location in the Southeast for high-quality jobs. I want to thank the Beretta family for their substantial investment in Tennessee and the 300 jobs they'll create in Sumner County."
"Today's significant announcement by Beretta USA is a historic moment for the state of Tennessee, the Haslam Administration and ECD," Hagerty said. "Beretta is one of the best brands in the world. Tennessee's global reputation for manufacturing in an artisan tradition means we are able to attract companies like Beretta, with a proven commitment to excellence. Tennessee continues to earn global accolades for our business climate, and we boast the best balance sheet in the nation. I appreciate Beretta's decision to locate in Tennessee, and we look forward to a partnership that will last centuries."
Seems there's an attraction between the top-tier international company and a state known more for music than manufacturing.
"From the moment when we started to consider a location outside of the State of Maryland for our manufacturing expansion, Governor Haslam and his economic development team did an excellent job demonstrating the benefits of doing business in Tennessee," said Franco Gussalli Beretta, executive vice president and director of Beretta Holding, S.p.A., "..we could find no better place than Tennessee to establish our new manufacturing enterprise. We look forward to building operations here and being part of your community for many years to come."
Tennessee and Beretta officials gathered in Nashville yesterday to announce the company's decision to relocate its manufacturing facilities from Accokeek, Maryland to Gallatin, Tennessee. Photo with permission.So how did Beretta come to choose Tennessee? According to Reh, it was a very exacting process begun from one strong position- a consistent history of support for, and a likely continuance of that support in the future. That, apparently, was the called third strike on Maryland.
At that point, business factors like tax rates, cost of living, cost of doing business, the availability of both blue and white-collar workers, and other factors, including a tradition of high-level manufacturing, quality educational institutions, availability of job recruitment, screening and training narrowed the field down to seven possible states.
Over five months, Beretta officials visited 80 potential sites in those seven states. That list was cut down to six sites -they got second and third visits.
Rae says 20 grading criteria were applied to those six sites and Gallatin, Tennessee came up the winner. But the decision wasn't final until a personal visit from Beretta patriarch Ugo Beretta on December 30, 2013 affirmed the recommendation.
Now, as Rae says, "we move forward with confidence, knowing Tennessee is a great place to do business."
Maryland, on the other hand, is seeing more demonstrable evidence that anti-gun legislation does nothing to impact crime -or criminals. But it can impact law-abiding citizens.
Although the announcement was a closely-kept secret, it was no secret that Beretta wasn't happy with the anti-gun stance pushed by Governor O'Malley.
Last year, while Beretta was talking of expansion, Maryland was introducing laws that would make Beretta guns -manufactured in Maryland- illegal for residents. Jeff Rea responded with a simple question: "Why expand in a place where the people who build the gun can't buy it?"
As the O'Malley administration very publicly pushed their legislation forward, the company quietly began seeking a new home. For Beretta, the company , enough was enough. Or as Ugo Beretta put it to Jeff Rae last year, "There always seems to be a problem with Maryland."For Beretta, that problem will only be visible in the rear view mirrors of their moving vans later this year. For a company that's been in business more than five hundred years, the 35 years in Maryland will quickly fade from their collective memory.

Three Shot And Killed In Maryland Gun-Free Zone        
Last Resistence, January 27, 2014

News reports are still coming in at the time of this writing, but as of now, we don’t know what kind of gun the shooter had. Apparently, by the time the police showed up on the scene, there were
three people dead, one of whom was believed to be the shooter:
Police in Maryland say three people died Saturday in a shooting at a mall in suburban Baltimore, including the presumed gunman.
Howard County police said via Twitter that a shooting had taken place at the Mall in Columbia, a suburb of both Baltimore and Washington.
Authorities received a call to 911 at around 11:15 a.m. to report that shots had been fired. Police responded to the scene and found three people dead, including one person who was found near gun and ammunition.
Police said they believed that one of the people who was found dead was the shooter. There was no other information available about the two other people.
The scene was “believed to be secure” police said in a tweet issued at about 12:36 p.m.
The mall is at the center of the town, a suburb of both Baltimore and Washington.
The mall typically opens at 10 a.m. on Saturdays and it was not known how many shoppers or workers might have been present at the time of the shooting.
Maryland’s new gun law took effect last October. According to WJLA:
On Oct. 1, gun buyers won’t be able to purchase 45 different types of assault weapons or a magazine exceeding 10 rounds. Handgun buyers will need a Handgun Qualification License, which includes four hours of training and a shooting component among other standards. Anyone who has applied for a gun before the deadline will be grandfathered in under the old laws.
Nevertheless, the new gun laws didn’t do anything to stop the shooting. I’m assuming there were signs posted at entrances indicating that no guns were allowed on mall premises. Those didn’t stop the shooter either. In fact, they may have encouraged him.


11 Year Old Writes Heart Wrenching Letter: “Why Gun Free Zones Violate My Right To Be Protected”
Freedom Outpost, January 27, 2014

While politicians are consistently attacking Americans second amendment rights through propaganda and lies children’s lives hang in the balance. To push their political agenda they claim “they are doing it for the children” or “want to make America safer.” As adults fight it out in the political arena, trying to push through “illegal” gun control laws, the most innocent of America have become “defenseless targets”; all for the sake of “political correctness.” Their voices have been stifled by those claiming to know what is best for them while they have never walked in these children’s shoes.
I do wonder how they would respond to this amazing, heart wrenching letter from an eleven year old little girl. She asked that I share her story and her plea to do away with gun free zones while keeping her name out of the “public eye”. As you read her story you will understand why.

January 22, 2014
“Why gun free zones violate my right to be protected”

“When I was six with my biological mother I was medically neglected, I had no education; I weighed 40 lbs and was beaten with rose bush switches. I slept in the back of a van and was starved. I didn’t even own one outfit. Have you ever been whipped with a rose bush switch until your legs bled and you had no one to protect you? Have you ever gone days without food while your so called parent ate in front of you? Have you ever had to sleep in the trunk of a van hidden by blankets and pillows so the police couldn’t see that was where you slept? Have you ever been forced to stay with a sex offender wondering when you would be hurt again? If not then you can’t possibly know what it is like to be helpless, scared for your life, and unprotected. But I do.
When I got with (the lady who is my guardian) my real mom she educated me, fed me, took care of all my medical needs including surgeries, clothed me and protected me. I was still very scared because of what my biological mother had done, had allowed, and her threat and promise to kidnap me and take me to California never to be seen again. The court finally terminated my biological mother’s parental rights and she is ordered by the court no contact with me.
After she told me she was going to come and kidnap me and take me to California, I had a school dance and I didn’t want to go. I thought she would be there waiting for me.
My mom (guardian) promised me that I would be safe, she would be right there with me, and she would never allow my biological mother to hurt me or get near me again. That is when my mom (guardian) went and got a weapon to protect me. She got her CCW permit and has carried it ever sense. I have felt safe knowing that my mom could and would protect me if I was in danger, and my biological mother has never threatened me again.
When my mom and I go to a store that has a “no guns allowed” sign my mom has to leave her weapon in the vehicle, or go to a different store. This places ME in danger because my biological mother could snatch me up; she could kill me, or injure my mom and get away with me. If my mom (guardian) was allowed to have her weapon on her in the “gun free zone” I would be protected at all times and my biological mother would not have the opportunity to hurt me or my mom. The most important thing of all is that my mom could protect me if that were to happen.
Will you be there to protect me at that time?
Will the police?
Do you feel you have the right to place my life in danger with your gun free zones?
The second amendment says you don’t have that right. Is it not my God given right to feel and be safe “The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? Why would you take that right from me? Do you not want me to be safe?
I should not have to fear for my protection or my life because politicians and law makers “decide” my God given right is subject to their “permission” or “illegal interpretation” of the Second Amendment. Shall not means just that, SHALL NOT.
I fear not the guns themselves, but the politicians with pens that believe they are my master and not my servant. If you truly want America safe again go back to our foundation and nullify ALL gun laws and especially gun free zones. Gun free zones are kill zones and place me in great personal danger. America has had enough of the gun free zones that only help criminals feel safe. My biological mother loves “gun free zones”.
May God grant you wisdom, honor, and truth to be what you were meant to be “the defenders of freedom” and not the destroyers of it


NJ Second Amendment Society To Host Book-signing With Emily Miller
Outdoor Wire, January 24, 2014

When: Wednesday, 12 February 2014 - 7:00 PM - 10:00 PM
Where: South Jersey Shooting Club, 840 Piney Hollow Road, Winslow, NJ 08043
Cost: FREE and Open to the Public
The New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS) is pleased to announce it is hosting a book signing with author and columnist, Emily Miller on Wednesday, February 12, 2014, 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm at South Jersey Shooting Club, 840 Piney Hollow Road, Winslow, New Jersey 08043.
This is open to the public and free of charge. This is an opportunity to meet Emily Miller, take photographs with her and purchase her hardcover book, "Emily Gets Her Gun." You will have the opportunity to obtain her autograph.
Emily Miller is the author of the book "Emily Gets Her Gun," and the Senior Editor of the opinion pages of The Washington Times. She won the prestigious Clark Mollenhoff award for investigative journalism from the Institute on Political Journalism for her series "Emily Gets Her Gun" about Second Amendment rights. Ms. Miller may be seen regularly on national TV, including appearances on Fox News, CNBC and CNN.
According to her biography, "Miller served as deputy press secretary at the U.S. Department of State for Secretaries of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Prior to her appointment, she was the communications director to then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay and press secretary for Rep. Rick Lazio.
"Emily Gets Her Gun" hardcover books will be available for purchase, as well as NJ2AS merchandise and NJ2AS membership information.

Ruger CEO Mike Fifer on Microstamping Law: We’re Being Forced Out of the State by California DOJ
Fredom Outpost, January 24, 2014

According to Ruger CEO Mike Fifer, despite the State of California imposing microstamping laws, Ruger is going to keep fighting to protect Second Amendment rights.
According to guns.com, who spoke to Fifer at a SHOT Show 2014, he said, “We’re being forced out of the state by the California Department of Justice,” explained Fifer. “This insistence on microstamping, which doesn’t work, is denying you your rights to have access to these guns. We’re not abandoning the [California] market at all, we are trying our hardest to stay in the market. We’re committed to California and we’re fighting this every inch of the way,” he added.
Under the law, which was signed by former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007, new guns sold in California have to have microstamping capabilities. The law is now just taking effect because “the private patents that precluded the law from taking effect have expired,” reported guns.com.
“Microstamping” means that information like the make, model and serial number of the gun is stamped on the tip of the gun’s firing pin, so when it is fired, the etching is transferred to both the cartridge casing and the run, allowing the potential for law enforcement to trace the spent casing and fired cartridges. According to guns.com, however, the microstamping technology can be circumvented, rendering it useless.
The NRA sent out an email this week saying, “Gun owners outside California should anticipate “microstamping” efforts in their states. Do what it takes to elect pro-Second Amendment governors and state legislators to deny the anti-gunners additional victories.” 
 
Ruger, S&W First to Stop California Sales
Outdoor Wire, January 23, 2014

"Dear California,
Since you insist on passing laws that are not only unenforceable, but technically impossible with which to comply, we have decided to do the inevitable and just write off your state as a marketplace for our products."
OK, that was not a real note, but it's a message any number of industries would probably like to deliver to the nanny-statists in Sacramento. The rules, regulations and rigamarole companies have to endure to do business there would drive anyone except a liquor company to drink. The liquor people are too-busy filling out paperwork to have a belt.
Now, California has decided to move ahead with its ridiculous microstamping requirement for all new firearms.
Consequently, Sturm, Ruger & Company (NYSE: RGR) and Smith & Wesson (NYSE:SWHC) have confirmed the fact they're going to allow many of their semiautomatic handguns to "fall off" the state's approved firearms list.
While the companies aren't "firing" California as a customer, they are clearly delivering a message: microstamping is beyond the reasonable and they're done trying to comply unenforceable laws.
While other California requirements such as their mandated "bullet button" are unnecessary, microstamping is a different critter. The primary difference is simple: microstamping doesn't work. Not now, and certainly for the immediate future.
There's currently no way a device capable of microstamping can't either be defaced or removed. An emery board is more than capable of removing markings from an original firing pin. Changing the firing pin yields the same outcome.
And striker fired handguns are another complete nightmare.
So, the two gun company it seems, have had enough.
In a statement sent to The Outdoor Wire, Ruger says it remains "...committed to our customers in California".
"Unfortunately, the ill-conceived law requiring the incorporation of microstamping technology into semi-automatic pistols is forcing Ruger pistols off the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale in California."
Ruger says their pistols have met all the requirements previously required for being on the "Certified for Sale" list "with the exception of microstamping."
The California Department of Justice, however, says it will not consider any guns unless they satisfy the microstamping regulations. That, says Ruger, is a requirement "which numerous studies have found unworkable."
Long story short, Ruger says "Until microstamping is repealed, we expect that Ruger pistols - some of the safest available- will continue to be forced off the Roster."
And Smith & Wesson's M&P series will also be disappearing from that Roster - and California retailers' shelves barring a sudden outbreak of common sense in Sacramento.
A statement from Smith & Wesson says although the company "continually seeks ways to refine and improve its firearms so consumers have access to the best possible products, the State of California is making it impossible when it comes to California residents."
Editor's Note: you can read the entire Smith & Wesson statement here.
Although the company does manufacture some pistols that remain California compliant, all M&P pistols with the exception of their Shield will fall off the Roster by August.
The reason? Performance enhancements and other improvements.
Under California's "Unsafe Handgun Act" all new pistols must include microstamping. Likewise, anything other than a cosmetic change means that gun falls off the Roster and must be retested.
In the late-night release, there wasn't much doubt where the Springfield, Massachusetts manufacturer stands on the question of microstamping.
"Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms" the statement says, adding that studies indicate the procedure is "unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes."
Smith & Wesson President and CEO James Debney says the company will "do our best to support our customers in California with state-compliant products, enabling them to at least a portion of the firearms to which we believe all citizens are entitled."
He also said the company would continue to work with the NRA and NSSF to oppose the law.
For years I have said the firearms industry should simply "write off" California as a place not worth the business requirements. Today, I realize I was wrong for more than one reason.
The primary reason is simple: California is still part of the United States. Citizens of the United States are constitutionally guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. If that right is worth defending anywhere, it must be defended everywhere in the country where politicians and anti-gun groups are trying to legislate gun control through restrictions, regulations and unattainable standards.
Yes, it costs time, money and general aggravation, but there really is no other option.
Privately, I'm told many other gun companies are considering "falling off" the Approved Firearms Roster. As the list grows -and firearms inventory and selection shrinks, it seems the law will either be repealed by the Assembly, or tossed by the federal court system.
In the meantime, the gun haters in Sacramento are using a bad law based upon an unworkable technological premise to achieve their ultimate goal: disarmament of their citizens.    As a technology, microstamping is a non-starter.
As the catalyst for another protracted legal battle with gun owners and the firearms industry aligned against anti-gun groups and their like-minded legislators, it seems microstamping as grounds for a fight is the equivalent of an open flame in a propane tank.
    

Clueless Anti-Gun Politician Warns: “30 Magazine Clip In Half a Second
Last Resistence, January 22, 2014

A conservative makes some comment about “legitimate rape,” and that’s enough for him not only to be excoriated by the media, but for his candidacy to be completely sunk, and for his own party to turn on him.
Oh, that that would happen to liberals every time they made stupid comments. Gun control politicians come to mind.
Remember Diana DeGette, the Democrat Colorado Representative? She was the lead sponsor on a piece of gun control legislation that would ban high-capacity magazines. But she didn’t even know what a gun magazine was. Here was her response to a question about how banning such guns would reduce violence:
“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them. So if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time, because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”
Your guess is as good as mine.
Now, a California State Senator is channeling the spirit of Diana DeGette. Kevin de Leon, a Democrat from LA, is sponsoring a bill that would require homemade gun manufacturers to undergo background checks.
At a press conference, de Leon held up a rifle, what he called a “ghost gun,” presumably a gun that had no serial number. He stated:
“This is a ghost gun. This right here has ability with a .30 caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.”
It would have made about as much sense had he said something like this: “This assault clip has the high capacity to fire 30 round calibers per half-second.”
It’s really OK if you don’t know anything about guns. I generally consider myself not very knowledgeable at all about guns, but even I knew this guy had no idea what he was talking about.
If you’re going to sponsor a bill that has to do with guns, especially banning certain types, you’d better know what you’re talking about. Otherwise, you’ll just come across like every other gun-grabbing fanatic who only cares about getting that campaign contribution from Bloomberg.


All Heck is Breaking Loose!
GOA, January 15, 2014

“The real agenda of the gun-hating Obama administration is to strip gun rights from law-abiding Americans ....” -- GOA’s Legislative Counsel Michael Hammond, The Washington Times (1/7/14)
Four issues in which you have been heavily involved have come or are coming to a head this week.
We are putting out this emergency alert to keep you apprised of the fast-moving legislative landscape.
HHS REGULATIONS: See a Shrink, Lose your Guns
GOA's campaign against Obama's war on individual privacy is beginning to really catch fire. Our article in The Washington Times is being widely circulated by other pro-gun groups.
And, although we will probably not have a vehicle for defunding this Executive Action -- until the individual appropriations bills begin to move in May -- we are optimistic that a majority of senators and House members will oppose this effort to partially repeal federal privacy laws, called HIPAA.
As you probably know, the proposed regulations would repeal HIPAA insofar as necessary to allow psychiatrists to turn their patients into the FBI's NICS list -- all as a result of personal information, communicated in private.
This would massively expand the ability of the federal government to impose federal gun bans on otherwise law-abiding Americans.
Or as we at GOA have said: These regulations would result in a situation where if you “see a shrink, you lose your guns." But now a wide variety of others are beginning to take notice.
THE UN ARMS TRADE TREATY
For a year now, we have told you that we easily have the 34 votes necessary to defeat ratification of the UN Arms Trade Treaty. That treaty would set the stage for far-ranging gun and magazine bans, gun registration, and gun microstamping requirements.
We have told you that the next task would be to pass an appropriations bill amendment which would defund any Obama effort to implement the ATT by executive fiat. And we have drafted such an amendment and made it available to Congress.
That amendment to defund the UN ATT is about to happen.
Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) has announced that he has amended the must-pass omnibus appropriations bill to ban funding for the implementation of the ATT.
That big appropriations bill has pluses and minuses, and it probably is not the bill we would have drafted. But the win on the Arms Trade Treaty is huge.
ANTI-GUN JUDGES
We have told you that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's corrupt and fraudulent invocation of the "nuclear option" had the potential for packing the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, with anti-gun judges.
On Monday, Senator Reid used this corrupt procedure to force the confirmation of Robert Wilkins to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. As a district court judge, Wilkins has held that an American living in Canada could constitutionally be stripped by the 1968 Gun Control Act of the right to purchase any firearm in the United States. In other words, according to Wilkins, the Second Amendment does not guarantee Americans the right to purchase or acquire a firearm.
ANTI-GUN OBAMACARE MANDATE
Senate Republicans have thus far followed a strategy which GOA has publicly pushed -- which would insist on votes to defund ObamaCare as a condition of moving Democratic priorities such as the unemployment bill.
Thus far, the strategy has worked pretty well.
The Senate has been tied in knots for the past week, unable to move Barack Obama's liberal legislative agenda. This, despite the fact that Harry Reid could remove the roadblock at any time by simply allowing the Senate to vote on ObamaCare. We've been particularly eager to get votes on two amendments: (1) whether to delay the unpopular anti-gun ObamaCare mandate; and (2) whether to defund a bailout of insurance companies totaling tens of billions of dollars. Either of these amendments, if adopted, would effectively bring an end to the anti-gun ObamaCare mandate.
As you know, the ObamaCare program sets the stage for compiling a national health database which could be trolled by the FBI and could strip tens of millions of Americans of their Second Amendment rights.


Cop Shoots And Kills Man Holding Orange-Tipped Airsoft Gun
Last Resistence,  Jan 14, 2014


It was about 3 o’clock in the morning in Yakima, Washington when Officer Casey Gilette was on patrol and noticed a car parked outside a car wash. Apparently, the car had been parked there for an hour. So, Officer Gilette approached the vehicle on foot and opened the passenger side door and saw a man holding a gun. The gun turned out to be a plastic, orange-tipped Airsoft gun, but before that detail was confirmed, the patrolling officer fired four shots and eventually hit the man in the car Rocendo Arias in the head, killing him.
Thanks to the police union contract that covers this department, officers involved in shootings like this have 48 hours to come up with their side of the story. Since the shooting about a week ago, Officer Gilette has been on administrative leave pending the department’s investigation of him. As it stands now, however, his department is backing him up and saying that he acted appropriately.
This case is similar to what happened to a young teenager in California who was walking around with a toy rifle. Police shot and killed him, because they believed the gun to be real, and the kid apparently didn’t put the gun down when commanded to by the police.
We can argue all day about whether it was a wise thing to do for this teenager in California or this individual in Washington to be carrying toy guns in public. The greater point here is why being in possession of a gun, real or not, is automatically assumed to be something only a criminal would do, and therefore deserving instant execution.
There are some obvious details left out of the report of this incident in Washington. Did the officer order Arias to drop his weapon? Or did he just overreact and start shooting? Was Arias pointing his toy weapon at the officer? Was Arias threatening the officer? We don’t know yet. But apparently, Arias was assembling the toy gun, as later, investigators found discarded packaging for various toy gun accessories in the car. So, he was holding it, but it wasn’t even completely assembled. As for what he was doing with this toy gun while parked at a car wash at 3am we’ll perhaps never know, since he’s not alive to tell us about it.
People will respond that Yakima is a crime-ridden city, and that that’s enough reason to defend the policeman who shot Arias prematurely.
But would people defend a non-cop if a similar situation unfolded? What if the car wash owner were there at his own establishment and noticed this man on his property? What if this owner went to investigate and also acted prematurely and shot and killed the man in the car? Would people rush to defend the car wash owner on the basis that it’s a crime-ridden city? I highly doubt it. I think the incident would be used to talk about how much we need gun control. “If that owner had not been able to purchase a weapon, an innocent man would still be alive today.” Or perhaps they’d bring up how the Zimmerman verdict has emboldened people across the country to become hardened vigilantes.
Of course, those who are defending the Yakima cop bring up Arias’s less-than-stellar history. He apparently had a DUI in 2012 and a pending third-degree theft charge stemming from an incident last October.
But see, all these cases do, especially if the shooting officer is ultimately found to have acted appropriately and according to protocol, is make it so that anyone carrying objects that look like guns are fair game to be shot at by police, regardless of whether the carrier has a criminal record or not.
We already know that carrying real weapons is sufficient reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed (though it shouldn’t be). Now, we’re just waiting for a court ruling that states that carrying toy weapons is not only reasonable suspicion of a crime, but also grounds for immediate execution.

Firearms Trade Association, Manufacturers' Institute Seek to Invalidate Unworkable Microstamping Law
NSSF, January 10, 2014

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) today filed a lawsuit on behalf of their members against the State of California in Fresno Superior Court challenging the state's microstamping law. NSSF and SAAMI seek to invalidate and enjoin enforcement of provisions of state law enacted in 2007, but not made effective until May 2013, requiring that all semiautomatic pistols sold in the state not already on the California approved handgun roster contain unproven and unreliable microstamping technology.
Under this law, firearms manufacturers would have to micro laser-engrave a gun's make, model and serial number on two distinct parts of each gun, including the firing pin so that, in theory, this information would be imprinted on the cartridge casing when the pistol is fired.
"There is no existing microstamping technology that will reliably, consistently and legibly imprint the required identifying information by a semiautomatic handgun on the ammunition it fires. The holder of the patent for this technology himself has written that there are problems with it and that further study is warranted before it is mandated. A National Academy of Science review, forensic firearms examiners and a University of California at Davis study reached the same conclusion and the technical experts in the firearms industry agree," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. "Manufacturers can not comply with a law the provisions of which are invalid, that cannot be enforced and that will not contribute to improving public safety. As a result, we are seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief against this back-door attempt to prevent the sale of new semiautomatic handguns to law-abiding citizens in California."
In 2007, California Assembly Bill 1471 was passed and signed into law requiring microstamping on internal parts of new semiautomatic pistols. The legislation provided that this requirement would only became effective if the California Department of Justice certified that the microstamping technology is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by patent restrictions. The California legislature subsequently reorganized certain statutes concerning the regulation of firearms, including the microstamping law in 2010. On May 17, 2013, Attorney General Kamala D. Harris provided such certification.

Federal Court Decision Affirms Both Citizens’ Right to Buy
Firearms and Lawful Commerce, Notes Trade Association
NSSF, January 8, 2014
NEWTOWN, Conn. – In striking down the City of Chicago’s 2010 ordinance banning the sales of firearms within city limits, U.S. District Court Judge Edmond E. Chang in his ruling released Monday provided important recognition that the right of Americans to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment also necessitates that they have the right to acquire those firearms through lawful commerce.
“Even as this ordinance was doing nothing to reduce criminal activity, it was clearly infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens to have firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes, as was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald decisions,” said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). “This federal court has not only recognized another aspect of constitutional protection for citizens, but in a sense it also recognized that lawful commerce itself is protected, which is an important determination for our industry.”
“As an industry organization, we are greatly appreciative of the Court’s ruling,” said Whitney O’Daniel, executive director, Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers. “The Court has made the rightful determination that lawful commerce of firearms should be allowed to happen in the City of Chicago, just as it happens elsewhere in the state of Illinois”.
NSSF is the national trade association for the firearms industry, including federally-licensed retailers, and helped establish ILAFR, the lead plaintiff in the case.


Breaking News: Federal Judge Strikes Down Chicago Ban on Firearms Sales
Outdoor Wire, January 7, 2014

The National Shooting Sports Foundation broke the news last night that a federal court judge in Chicago <HREF=HTTP: 238%20-%20Opinion%20(3).pdf PDF share www.nssf.orghas struck down the City's ban on the sale of firearms within the city limits as a violation of the Second Amendment.
The lawsuit, filed by Illinois firearms dealers and gun owners, challenged the constitutionality of City ordinances that ban virtually all sales and transfers of firearms inside the City's limits. The judge said that the Second Amendment includes "the right to acquire a firearm, although that acquisition right is far from absolute . . . But Chicago's ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms. . ." Said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. "This is an important decision because the court recognized that the lawful commerce in firearms, in which NSSF members are engaged, is protected by the Second Amendment."



Magpul Industries Announces Relocation Company Is Moving Operations to Wyoming and Texas
Outdoor Wire, January 7, 2014


Magpul Industries announced today that it is relocating its operations to Wyoming and Texas. The company is relocating manufacturing, distribution and shipping operations to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Magpul is leasing a 58,000 square foot manufacturing and distribution facility during the construction of a 100,000 square foot build-to-suit facility in the Cheyenne Business Parkway. The Wyoming relocation is being completed with support from Governor Matt Mead, the Wyoming Business Council and Cheyenne LEADS.
Magpul is moving its corporate headquarters to Texas. Three North Central Texas sites are under final consideration, and the transition to the Texas headquarters will begin as soon as the facility is selected. The Texas relocation is being accomplished with support from Governor Rick Perry and the Texas Economic Development Corporation.
- See more at: http://www.thetacticalwire.com/story/307831#sthash.3AXilJT9.dpuf


Detroit police chief: Legal gun owners can deter crime
Detroit Times, January 2, 2013

Detroit— If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said Thursday.
Urban police chiefs are typically in favor of gun control or reluctant to discuss the issue, but Craig on Thursday was candid about how he’s changed his mind.
“When we look at the good community members who have concealed weapons permits, the likelihood they’ll shoot is based on a lack of confidence in this Police Department,” Craig said at a press conference at police headquarters, adding that he thinks more Detroit citizens feel safer, thanks in part to a 7 percent drop in violent crime in 2013.
Craig said he started believing that legal gun owners can deter crime when he became police chief in Portland, Maine, in 2009.
“Coming from California (Craig was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years), where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation.
“I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.”
Craig’s statements Thursday echoed those he made Dec. 19 on “The Paul W. Smith Show” on WJR (760 AM), when he said: “There’s a number of CPL (concealed pistol license) holders running around the city of Detroit. I think it acts as a deterrent. Good Americans with CPLs translates into crime reduction. I learned that real quick in the state of Maine.”
Robyn Thomas, director of the the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco, disagreed.
“I think at its core, his position is an emotional one, based on the idea that people feel safer when they have guns. But studies have shown more guns don’t deter crime,” Thomas said. “There’s no research that shows guns make anyone safer, and it does show that, the more guns in any situation, the higher the likelihood of them harming either the owner, or people who have access to them.”
Rick Ector of the Firearm Academy of Detroit, which teaches gun safety classes, said Craig’s comments are unusual for a police official.
“It’s a huge, radical departure for the police chief to say good people should have access to firearms,” said Ector. “I’m not ready to say he’s pro-gun just yet, but it’s vastly different from what police chiefs have said in the past.”
Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police director Robert Stevenson agreed.
“A lot of police officers have no problem at all with law-abiding citizens having guns,” Stevenson said.
“I think it’s probably like the citizenry: Some are for it, some are against it. But most police chiefs don’t want to talk about the subject.
“It’s a divisive issue, and a lot of times chiefs are reluctant to get in the middle of those debates. Gun control, the death penalty — most chiefs try to stay out of those discussions. Craig speaks his mind; you’ve got to give him credit for that.”
According to a March 2013 anonymous poll of 15,000 officers by the law enforcement website policeone.com., almost 90 percent of the respondents believed casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present during shooting incidents, while more than 80 percent supported arming teachers who were trained with firearms.
Although Craig said more responsible gun owners would likely lower crime, in the past he also has called for a ban on assault weapons, regulating high-capacity magazines, tighter restrictions on Internet ammunition sales and more stringent background checks for merchants who sell firearms at gun shows.
Detroit police have reported 73 justifiable homicides in the city since 2011. The number in 2013 was 15, down from 25 the previous year.
Most of those cases involved citizens who defended themselves by killing criminals. Among them: 77-year-old Willie White, who in March 2012, fatally shot a man who’d broken into his northwest Detroit home.
Prior to the incident, White’s home had been broken into several times. The break-ins stopped after he killed the 18-year-old intruder, he said.
“I think these criminals would definitely think twice if they knew more citizens were armed,” White said. “I know it stopped them from breaking into my place.”

New Study Demolishes Almost Every Gun Control Myth
Clashdaily, January 4, 2014


A study published in the latest issue of the academic journal Applied Economics Letters took on many of the claims made regularly by advocates of stricter gun laws. The study determined that nearly every claim made in support of stronger restrictions on gun ownership is not supported by an exhaustive analysis of crime statistics.
The study, “An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates,” conducted by Quinnipiac University economist Mark Gius, examined nearly 30 years of statistics and concluded that stricter gun laws do not result in a reduction in gun violence. In fact, Gius found the opposite – that a proliferation of concealed carry permits can actually reduce incidents of gun crime.
“Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states,” the study’s abstract reads. “It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level.”
“These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level,” the abstract concludes.
Gius notes that his findings are consistent with those of John R. Lott and David B. Mustard, two researchers who authored a controversial 1997 study which found that right-to-carry concealed gun provisions both “deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.”


Obama administration proposes new executive actions on gun background checks
FoxNews.com, January 03, 2014


U.S. Vice President Joe Biden speaks during a meeting on curbing gun violence at the White House in Washington January 10, 2013.(Reuters)
The Obama administration on Friday proposed two new executive actions to make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national background check system, wading back into the gun control debate after a months-long hiatus.
Vice President Biden's office announced the proposals Friday afternoon. Both pertain to the ability of states to provide information about the mentally ill and those seeking mental health treatment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit "the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands," without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA.
"The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm," the statement said. "Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules."
The other proposal would clarify that those who are involuntarily committed to a mental institution -- both inpatient and outpatient -- count under the law as "committed to a mental institution." According to the administration, this change will help clarify for states what information to provide to the background check system, as well as who is barred from having guns.   
The statement from Biden's office claimed these changes would help ensure that "better and more reliable information" makes its way into the system.
Over the past year, the administration has been trying to get states to offer up more data for that system, after failing to pass legislation to expand the background check infrastructure.
The administration made a robust effort to pass gun control legislation after the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., but the bills, which included new bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, failed to gain enough support in Congress.
In the Friday statement, President Obama and Biden renewed their call for Congress to pass "common-sense gun safety legislation" -- including by expanding the background check system and making gun trafficking a federal crime.


Study: Murder Rates Lower Where Concealed Weapons Allowed            
News Max, 02 Jan 2014


A recent study showing a reverse correlation between concealed weapons and murder rates has renewed the contentious national debate about the effect of gun controls on violent crime.
Reason magazine reported last week on economist Mark Gius' study of gun controls, published in the journal Applied Economics Letters showing states with restrictions on concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.
The study looked at the effects on murder rates of both state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons restrictions from 1980 to 2009.
Assault weapons bans, it found, didn't significantly affect murder rates at the state level.
The findings come as A 2007 study has been also getting a new look from those who dispute gun control efforts aimed at stemming gun violence, Boston magazine reported last summer.
In research first published in Harvard’s Journal of Public Law and Policy, criminologists Don Kates and Gary Mauser looked at the correlation between gun laws and death rates.
“International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths," the pair wrote in their introduction. "Unfortunately, such discussions [have] all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative."
The pair found "correlations that nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow guns.”
Many Americans appear to believe just that, Reason noted, citing a Dec. 12, 2013, poll showing 63 percent of Americans were unconvinced tighter restrictions on buying and owning guns will be effective.

10 Day Waiting Period Burdens 2nd Amendment Says Judge
Last ReThe New Year: Prospects for the Second Amendment
GOA, January 3, 2014

“Gun Owners of America, another gun rights organization, also showed the power of mobilization.... Back in April, Gun Owners of America showed with one email alert that it could help flood the phone lines on Capitol Hill days before the Senate vote.” -- National Public Radio, December 26, 2013
We told you we wouldn't ruin your Christmas holidays or New Year’s celebration for you. And we didn’t. And so there is no "action item" to this alert.
But, in case you're getting just a little bit restless for the next political fight with anti-gun zealots, we thought we might lay out our thoughts about the prospective gun-related battles in 2014.
(1) THE ELECTIONS.
(2) THE ELECTIONS.
(3) THE ELECTIONS.
As a result of Harry Reid's invocation of the "nuclear option," the Senate now has no rules. Sure, Reid claims that his little fraud scheme doesn't apply to legislation or to Supreme Court nominees. But, once you make fraud the "coin of the realm," you're no longer in a position to say that the only "acceptable" fraud is this type of fraud -- or that type of fraud.
When a Supreme Court vacancy comes up, it will be decided, if necessary, by a majority vote. And if that nominee is to replace swing vote Anthony Kennedy, the pro-Second Amendment Heller and McDonald cases will be reversed and, at least as far as the courts are concerned, the Second Amendment will be read out of the Constitution.
So the central objective for 2014 will be to insure that "Dirty Harry" Reid is no longer Senate Majority Leader after the beginning of 2015.
We believe 2014 will be a "tsunami year" for Republicans, as a result of the waves of catastrophic news which we predicted for the anti-gun ObamaCare law. Plus, the President will fall far short of his target of enrolling 7,000,000 people, because young folks are not being successfully suckered into buying overpriced insurance which does nothing but subsidize wealthier people's health care.
As many as 80-100 million people may lose their health insurance, as the "employer mandate" kicks in. Millions more will lose their jobs. And a large swath of the middle class will end the year with the prospect of penalties far above the $95 floor.
We expect Obama will waive all penalties for 2014. But this won't help the anti-gun senators who, during the shutdown, were forced to reaffirm their support for every word of ObamaCare.
There will be open seats in West Virginia and South Dakota, in which anti-gun Democrats are expected to be replaced with more pro-gun Republicans.
In Montana, the anti-gun governor is going to try to play a "slime game" with the seat of ObamaCare architect Max Baucus, but we don't expect it will ultimately succeed.
Among the other anti-gun senators who could be driven from office are (in rough order of vulnerability): Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Mark Begich (Alaska), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Kay Hagan (North Carolina), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), Mark Udall (Colorado), Al Franken (Minnesota), Jeff Merkley (Oregon), Mark Warner (Virginia), Tom Udall (New Mexico), and two open seats in Iowa and Michigan.
As the two recall elections in Colorado showed, Obama has awakened a sleeping giant -- the Second Amendment community. And states previously thought to be "blue" are hardly blue anymore.
This is priority number one for 2014. Pro-gunners MUST take the Senate away from Harry Reid before the Supreme Court comes up for grabs. And we must do that before a Pelosi-controlled House can rubber-stamp Obama gun ban proposals that could outlaw over 50% of existing handguns and long guns.
(4) OBAMACARE.
We told them so. GOA predicted every catastrophe which is currently facing ObamaCare, starting out with the flawed grandfather clause that would cause millions to lose the coverage "they currently have."
We alone predicted the anti-gun consequences, which are now coming to pass, as Obama uses "executive actions" to get doctors to question their patients about the guns they own -- and enter that information into a federal database. One of our members even told us that a doctor refused to accept patients who did not want to give him all the information about the guns they own.
Will House Speaker John Boehner use the tools at his disposal, including the debt limit, to force Democrats to either "own" or repudiate ObamaCare?
We will have to wait and see.
(5) PLASTIC GUNS.
Many so-called pro-gunners thought that, by reauthorizing the poorly drafted 1986 plastic gun ban for ten additional years, they would protect themselves from Schumer's efforts to massively expand the scope of the statute to ban a lot more guns. Under Schumer's proposed changes, for example, it would be even easier to ban guns with wooden stocks and removable metal plates.
But within minutes of giving the anti-gun statute a ten-year lease on life, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley seemed to endorse the quick consideration and passage of the Schumer changes.
The good news is that, by fighting even a reauthorization, we forced some tepid supporters of the Second Amendment to take a harder stance against broadening the statute than they were otherwise inclined to do. But this may be a fight that we will have to wage early in the year.
(6) IMMIGRATION.
Liberals continue to use phony polls to argue for amnesty changes that would potentially add a net 8,000,000 anti-gun voters to the rolls. If this were to happen, all of America would turn blue like California.
Speaker Boehner is reportedly thinking of moving amnesty after the primary filings have closed -- and, supposedly, conservatives can't do anything about it. This is almost certainly a seminal battle which we will have to fight.
(7) APPROPRIATIONS.
Because the Ryan-Murray deal removed pro-gun provisions which were contained in the Budget Resolution, we will now have to work to add pro-gun provisions to the individual appropriations bills.
Here are just three of the many issues we will face:

* Ryan-Murray failed to lay the groundwork for defunding the implementation (piece-by-piece) of the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) by "executive action." We need to make sure that this bipartisan provision is reinserted.
* For many years, a "boilerplate" Schumer amendment has blocked any federal felon from regaining his or her guns rights -- ever -- even with an ATF sign-off. Schumer needs to be challenged for once.
* ATF attempts to ban shot-gun imports and require reporting of multiple sales of guns have, in the past, been blocked by appropriations riders. We need to reenact and expand the prohibitions on ATF abuses.
THE GOOD NEWS
The good news is that God -- and our wonderful members -- have granted us the strength to score a series of unpredicted victories against unimaginable odds in 2014. Barack Obama and the anti-gun Democrats up for reelection are not going to take you for granted in the next ten months.
But it is important that we use that grace period to protect and expand Second amendment rights while the other side is on the run. With God's grace, and your help, we will do just that.

Gun Confiscation – Obama’s New Year’s Resolution
Conservative Byte, January 1, 2014

Obama needs to disarm his serfs so that he can take complete control.
Check it out:
For many Americans, 2013 was the year “gun confiscation” became an undeniable reality, but it has merely set the precedent for what’s to come in 2014.
The Second Amendment represents the biggest obstacle blocking the elimination of individual sovereignty and private property, and is one of the only things preventing a total Homeland Security dictatorship.
However, in states like California and New York, laws restricting firearms have already been passed, and gun confiscation from private citizens is already being forcibly carried out.
As Infowars has furiously documented, numerous federal, state and local law enforcement agencies have divulged they are being trained to confiscate Americans’ firearms. One Austin politician even flat-out stated this is the ultimate goal behind “gun control”.sistence, December 16, 2103
If I were to ask you what state has the most liberal judges of any state, how would you answer?  If I were asked that question, I would immediately, without hesitation, answer California.  Various California judges have repeatedly ruled for homosexuals, against Christians, against families and against the constitutional rights of the people.
That’s why I was so pleasantly surprised when I heard about the ruling of a federal judge in California.  Several groups have filed legal action against California’s mandatory 10 day waiting period for gun purchases.  The waiting period states that even though a person has already obtained a License to Carry or a Certificate of Eligibility, they must wait ten days from when they purchase a gun to the time they are allowed to physically take possession of the gun.
California State Attorney General Kamala Harris filed for a dismissal in the lawsuit on behalf of the state.  The case is being heard by the US District Court for the Eastern District of California.  In response to Harris’s request for the dismissal, Senior Judge Anthony Ishii issued an 11 page decision in which he wrote:
    “[Harris] argues that the WPL (Waiting Period Law) is a minor burden on the Second Amendment, [but] plaintiffs are correct that this is a tacit acknowledgement that a protected Second Amendment right is burdened.”
    “The court concludes that the WPL burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”
    “[There] has been no showing that the Second Amendment, as historically understood, did not apply for a period of time between the purchase/attempted purchase of a firearm and possession of the firearm.”
Ishii’s ruling was greeted with joy by the organizations filing the lawsuit.  Gene Hoffman, Chairman of Calguns, a pro-firearms organization commented:
    “[It is] refreshing to see lower federal courts taking the burden of intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny seriously.”
    “California has such a byzantine scheme of gun control that it can’t justify making people who already own firearms registered with the state of California wait 10 days to buy a new gun after they complete a background check.  We look forward to bringing some common sense back to how the law-abiding buy and sell registered guns in California.”
Alan Gottlieb, Executive Vice President of Second Amendment Foundation, saw Ishii’s ruling as an important step towards gun rights, saying:
    “Judge Ishii’s comparison of the waiting period to a prior restraint is significant.  He further stated that Harris, in her motion to dismiss the case, had not shown that the waiting period law is effective in reducing gun-related violent crime, or in keeping guns out of the wrong hands where the government has already issued that purchaser a License To Carry or a Certificate Of Eligibility.”
This means the case challenging the legality of the 10 day waiting period will move forward.  If Judge Ishii’s early ruling to dismiss the dismissal request is any indication, the burden of proof squarely lands on the shoulders of Attorney General Harris to prove that there is any benefit to the 10 day waiting period.  Without any proof, which there doesn’t seem to be any at this time, the court should rule that it is a burden to the Second Amendment, thus making it unconstitutional.


Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control
Conservative Byte, December 16, 2013


GREELEY, Colo. — When Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County explains in speeches why he is not enforcing the state’s new gun laws, he holds up two 30-round magazines. One, he says, he had before July 1, when the law banning the possession, sale or transfer of the large-capacity magazines went into effect. The other, he “maybe” obtained afterward.
He shuffles the magazines, which look identical, and then challenges the audience to tell the difference.
“How is a deputy or an officer supposed to know which is which?” he asks.
Colorado’s package of gun laws, enacted this year after mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., has been hailed as a victory by advocates of gun control. But if Sheriff Cooke and a majority of the other county sheriffs in Colorado offer any indication, the new laws — which mandate background checks for private gun transfers and outlaw magazines over 15 rounds — may prove nearly irrelevant across much of the state’s rural regions.
Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws, saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights. Many more say that enforcement will be “a very low priority,” as several sheriffs put it. All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.
The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states, raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions is high.
In New York State, where Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed one of the toughest gun law packages in the nation last January, two sheriffs have said publicly they would not enforce the laws — inaction that Mr. Cuomo said would set “a dangerous and frightening precedent.” The sheriffs’ refusal is unlikely to have much effect in the state: According to the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services, since 2010 sheriffs have filed less than 2 percent of the two most common felony gun charges. The vast majority of charges are filed by the state or local police.
In Liberty County, Fla., a jury in October acquitted a sheriff who had been suspended and charged with misconduct after he released a man arrested by a deputy on charges of carrying a concealed firearm. The sheriff, who was immediately reinstated by the governor, said he was protecting the man’s Second Amendment rights.
And in California, a delegation of sheriffs met with Gov. Jerry Brown this fall to try to persuade him to veto gun bills passed by the Legislature, including measures banning semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and lead ammunition for hunting (Mr. Brown signed the ammunition bill but vetoed the bill outlawing the rifles).
“Our way of life means nothing to these politicians, and our interests are not being promoted in the legislative halls of Sacramento or Washington, D.C.,” said Jon E. Lopey, the sheriff of Siskiyou County, Calif., one of those who met with Governor Brown. He said enforcing gun laws was not a priority for him, and he added that residents of his rural region near the Oregon border are equally frustrated by regulations imposed by the federal Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency.
This year, the new gun laws in Colorado have become political flash points. Two state senators who supported the legislation were recalled in elections in September; a third resigned last month rather than face a recall. Efforts to repeal the statutes are already in the works.
Countering the elected sheriffs are some police chiefs, especially in urban areas, and state officials who say that the laws are not only enforceable but that they are already having an effect. Most gun stores have stopped selling the high-capacity magazines for personal use, although one sheriff acknowledged that some stores continued to sell them illegally. Some people who are selling or otherwise transferring guns privately are seeking background checks.
Eric Brown, a spokesman for Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, said, “Particularly on background checks, the numbers show the law is working.” The Colorado Bureau of Investigation has run 3,445 checks on private sales since the law went into effect, he said, and has denied gun sales to 70 people.


Missouri State University Considers Banning Nerf Guns
Last Resistence, December 16, 2013

Elementary, middle and high schools have already banned Nerf guns. And anything else that could arguably resemble the vague shape of a self-defense tool like a gun or a knife. They catch you with an imaginary bow and arrow, and you could get suspended for “making threats of violence.” Your school record could be tainted permanently with your “criminal history.”
We’re talking about a university here. You know, where young adults go. And yes, we are also talking about Nerf guns. I guess some kids, namely boys, never really grow up.
Apparently, a group of college kids at Missouri State University get together and play “Humans vs. Zombies,” where people “turn into” zombies when they’re tagged, and the “humans” can defend themselves from the zombies with Nerf guns. News-Leader reported:
While Humans. vs. Zombies isn’t played inside, it is played at all hours of the day. Experienced humans know that even short walks between buildings — even at midnight — shouldn’t be undertaken without the protection of bright-colored foam-based weaponry. (Or socks, but who would choose socks?)
“You could be going from late night (dining) to your dorm, and there could be zombies,” said Chris Marfoglio, a junior theater major and the society’s logistics officer.
In October, they had about 500 students participate. For the spring game that they’re planning, they’re expecting about 1,000 participants.
During their October game, one “concerned” professor called 911 about a Nerf gun that he claims he thought was a real gun. As a result of that call, a classroom lockdown was ordered.
Now the campus Department of Safety and Transportation is considering banning or at least regulating the Nerf guns. Yes, Nerf gun control. “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do they not understand?”
The group that organizes these events already have restrictions and regulations in place. According to the St. Louis CBS affiliate:
Chad Holmes, faculty adviser for Live Action Society, an organization that organizes the game, said participants are required to sign safety waivers and are not allowed to paint Nerf guns, which are usually orange or lime green, to make them look like real guns. Holmes acknowledged that the game can sometimes look suspicious and suggested a campus-wide email could reduce the number of concerned callers. “The biggest solution to that is just awareness,” he said.
Clark said he is most concerned with averting a conflict between an armed police officer and a participant. “That can end in disaster, and that’s ultimately what we’re trying to prevent,” he said.
Yes, that certainly could end in disaster, as it already has before.
Is this really a safety concern, or is this just more of the same brainwashing stuff that’s occurring at the grade-school level? After they’ve successfully banned toy guns from college campuses, are they headed for the rest of us?
It sort of makes sense from their perspective. If their end game is a complete ban on guns, they have to start young. They’ve got to succeed in purging young kids’ minds of guns. So, they go after kids’ playthings. Once those are gone, it will make the idea of real guns much scarier, to the point that they wouldn’t ever want one for themselves. They’ll grow up brainwashed about guns and calling for more and more gun control, at which point the government would gladly oblige.

Piers Morgan: “Angry, Belligerent, Threatening Gun Nuts” To Blame for School Shootings
Last Resistence, Dec 16, 2013

I don’t get the idea of commemorating a day which saw the slaughtering of a bunch of kids and teachers. But, then again, we’re talking about liberals here. Gun-grabbers had been waiting for something like Sandy Hook for a long time. Aurora had happened the previous summer, but having a bunch of dead children was a much more effective emotional springboard for gutting the 2nd Amendment.
Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro once accused Piers Morgan of standing on the graves of the Sandy Hook victims. I think gun-grabbers were not just standing on their graves, but were dancing on them. It was the perfect crisis, which liberals would not have dared let go to waste.
And yet, for all their propaganda efforts, their appeals to emotion, their using of children and the victims’ families, they still weren’t able to accomplish what they had intended. Their gun control marketing efforts backfired into a nationwide slew of pro-gun legislation in the midst of relatively few gun control laws. It would have been better for them had they not oversensationalized Sandy Hook and Aurora. But they couldn’t help themselves. And they needed the ratings. (Their ratings had already been suffering a slow decline, and they still are.)
On the eve of the Sandy Hook shooting “anniversary,” Piers Morgan took to Twitter to voice his outrage over the latest school shooting in Colorado and for the fact that we haven’t “done anything” about guns in this country. He tweeted the following (taken from The Blaze):
    BREAKING NEWS: On the eve of Sandy Hook massacre – another school shooting, in Colorado. Several students reported injured.
    Why is anyone surprised by more school shootings in America? Absolutely nothing has been done to prevent them since Sandy Hook.
    Colorado is, of course, where they’ve spent the last few months throwing out politicians who had the audacity to advocate gun control.
    Gun nuts out in force on here again tonight. Angry, belligerent, threatening – the very people, ironically, who should never have guns.
    The 1st priority of any country should be to protect its children. America’s refusal to do anything about guns since Newtown is shameful.
    As usual, the only suggestion put forward by the gun lobby to counter school shootings is…MORE GUNS  Ker-ching.
    No, I’m not ‘anti-American’ re guns. The opposite in fact.. I want more Americans to stay alive.
I know I’ll be beating a dead horse here, but banning “assault weapons,” mandating universal background checks, prohibiting “high-capacity” magazines, or outlawing gun shows, don’t keep criminals from being criminals. In general, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.



Bang! Payday for man suing cops over guns
Conservative Byte, December 13, 2013
Colorado Springs Police arrest James Sorensen in July 2012 for openly carrying a gun, despite the fact it's legal.
A man who sued police in Colorado Springs, Colo., for violating his Second Amendment rights has reportedly won more than $23,000 from the city, as local officers apparently did not know it was legal to “open carry” firearms at public parks.
The saga of James Sorensen began in July 2012 at a homosexual-pride festival, just one day after the shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., that left 12 people dead and 70 others injured.
He was openly sporting a handgun on his hip, which prompted police to take him into custody.
Sorensen’s arrest was caught on camera by his partner, who documented the discussion with officers who at one point threatened Sorensen with violence. (Watch raw video of the arrest below:)
“Put your hands in the air,” an officer ordered Sorensen.
“Negative, sergeant,” he replied.
“Put your hands in the air,” the officer again stated.
“Negative, sergeant,” repeated Sorensen.
“You’re about to get the sh– kicked out of you,” the officer warned.
Over the course of his encounter with police, Sorensen can be seen on the video asserting his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
“This is against the law! This is against … my Second Amendment rights, sergeant,” he exclaimed.
“Then hire an attorney when you get done with it,” was the officer’s response.
At one point, Sorensen actually phoned police headquarters, hoping to find an officer who knew it was legal to carry a gun in public.
“I need a real officer,” he said on the phone.
He later added: “This is bogus. I can’t wait to get this into court. This is bullsh–.”
KUSA-TV in Denver reported the four sergeants and three officers involved were simply unaware it’s legal to open carry in city parks and has been since gun laws changed statewide in 2003.
Authorities blamed the mistake on the criminal manual or “cheat sheet” that officers carry which, at the time of the incident, said it was still illegal in Colorado Springs to open carry in a city park.
The station found the city’s settlement of $23,500 with Sorensen through an open-records request, but Sorensen said a confidentiality clause precluded his further comment.
That clause read in part:
“Plaintiff recognizes and agrees that this confidentiality provision was a significant inducement for City Defendants to enter into this Agreement. … Any violation of this section shall be considered a material breach of this Agreement, and Plaintiff will be subject to repayment to City Defendants of the consideration set forth herein without restatement of the claims.”
In previous interviews with local news stations, Sorensen said, “They had the gall to say, ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse,’ and yet they are the ones that are ignorant of the law.”
“We decided to file suit because we want to better protect our rights,” he explained, “and make sure everyone knows they can’t just treat citizens like crap.”
He told KRDO-TV: “I just hope people will do more to protect their rights instead of letting people just walk all over them.”
In the wake of the settlement, KUSA spoke with Joseph Sandoval, a professor of criminal justice at Metro State University and a former police officer, who noted Sorensen is very fortunate to be alive.
“A situation like this could turn very grave,” Sandoval told the station.
“If James would have resisted to the point of pulling his weapon on a police officer, there may have been a fatal mistake.”



BB gun control: In New Jersey, kids’ rite of passage could mean felony
FoxNews.com, December 10, 2013
Not only could you "shoot your eye out, kid," you might also go to jail for owning that BB gun in certain states.
New Jersey and other jurisdictions make little or no distinction between Daisy's classic Red Ryder BB gun immortalized in the film "A Christmas Story," and real guns. They must be registered and are subject to the same laws as any firearms.
“In all honesty, kids who are charged are looking at mandatory jail time,” said New Jersey attorney William Proetta, adding that under the state’s Graves Act, a conviction could lead to prison time. “The only defense is to request a waiver but if that’s not granted, young kids can get a felony charge and their lives are basically over.”
    “In all honesty, kids who are charged are looking at mandatory jail time.”
- William Proetta, New Jersey attorney
Virginia, which treats the rite-of-passage toys as firearms if they are used during criminal conduct, and other municipalities also heavily regulate BB guns. But New Jersey goes the farthest, according to Proetta.
New Jersey's strict Graves Act gun law covers possession of a BB gun right alongside serious gun control measures outlawing sawed-off shotguns, filing serial numbers off of guns or using firearms to commit crimes. Violating the act can bring a minimum three-year prison term and steep fines.
And the law is enforced. As recently as October, a man was arrested in New Jersey for shooting an airsoft gun at a rubber duck for target practice, in his own yard. Idyriss Thomas, 22, was arrested in Glassboro, N.J., after police responded to multiple 911 calls from neighbors who reported seeing a man with a gun. Once police determined the gun was unlicensed, Thomas was taken to jail and charged with unlawful possession of a weapon. His family posted a $2,500 bond.
"I didn't realize that what I had in my hand would cause the events that happened today,” Thomas told Philadelphia's WPVI. “I had the airsoft gun in my hand, playing with it, taking shots at a rubber ducky - not harming anybody."
Proetta said that depending which county in New Jersey a hearing is held in, a judge will issue a waiver on the Graves Act, or allow charges to be downgraded. But they don't have to.
“Courts will work closely on each case,” Proetta said. “But in a few counties like you could face some serious charges.”
A spokesperson for Rogers, Ark.,-based Daisy, told FoxNews.com that while the company disagrees with BB gun regulations like that seen in New Jersey, the company makes every effort to uphold the law.
"In our opinion and the federal government's, our products are not firearms as there is no combustion in the chamber," Daisy spokesman Joe Murfin said. "While we disagree, we respect a state's law for whatever reason they may have one."


Assessing Gun-Control Legislation in New Jersey: A Moving Target
Star Ledger, December 10, 2013
How are the governor and state Legislature doing in their efforts to curb gun violence?
Gun-control advocates will likely say that Gov. Chris Christie has failed to address a potentially deadly problem, and that the state’s already strong laws need to be tightened to better protect New Jerseyans against the kinds of mass shootings that seem to occur with some frequency, most recently in Washington D.C. and Chicago.
Gun-rights groups may not mention the governor at all, while harshly criticizing Sen. President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester), whom they accuse of attacking their rights.
The polls are no more definitive.
In a Monmouth University poll released September 17, 9 percent of respondents gave Christie an A on gun issues; 21 percent gave him a B; 27 percent, a C; 21 percent, a D; and 19 percent, an F (12 percent did not grade him).
And a Rutgers-Eagleton poll released September 18 found that about seven in 10 New Jerseyans are “very concerned” about gun violence, with another 22 percent saying they are “somewhat concerned.”
But here's where it gets tricky.
David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll, said those numbers have to be measured against the relatively small number of New Jerseyans who view crime and drugs as significant issues.
“From the voters' standpoint, this is an important issue only when it rears its ugly head,” he said. “When we hear about these mass shootings, people become more focused but for a briefer and briefer amount of time these days.
“Most people don’t vote on the issue,” he added. “To a great extent people who have voted because they care about this issue are the people who care more about gun owners’ rights than gun control.”
Gun violence grabbed the nation's attention (again) in the wake of the December 14 mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, which took the lives of 20 children and six adults. The shooter, 20-year-old Adam Lanz, also killed his mother before the attack. Lanza, who killed himself after the shooting, used a Bushmaster rifle and at least one handgun during the attack.
Connecticut, New York, Maryland and Colorado all passed stricter gun laws in reaction to the shooting, while several states, including Texas, Iowa, and Missouri have moved to loosen state gun laws and exempt themselves from federal provisions. Also, Colorado voters earlier this month recalled two state legislators who backed the stronger gun provisions.
In New Jersey, Assembly Democrats moved quickly to pass new gun control legislation, with more than two dozen bills being introduced in January and 12 passing the full Assembly on February 21.
See the table for a complete breakdown of gun-control bills, passed and pending.
Those bills included a .50-caliber ban, several that were combined with the Senate ID and background checks bill, and a reduction in the maximum size of automatic weapon magazines from 15 rounds to 10.
The Senate moved more deliberately, not acting until May on its own slate of bills.
Overall, 16 bills were passed by both houses and sent to the governor, with 13 becoming law. They include a bans on the transfer of guns to those under 18 and possession by those on the terrorist watch list; the creation of panels to study school security and violence as a mental health issue; and several enhancing penalties for illegal gun possession and the possession of firearms during the commission of a crime.
Most of the bills that passed were consistent with the antiviolence plan the governor unveiled in April. The plan, which was issued a week after a Christie-appointed task force released a report on guns and violence in the state, included harsher sentencing for gun crime, tighter bail rules, the inclusion of mental health records in background checks, a photo identification requirement for firearms purchases, and the banning of .50-caliber weapons.
He also proposed changes in mental-health commitment procedures and more oversight of violent video games. Nothing has been introduced in the Legislature on the mental-health proposals; Assembly Republicans Sean T. Kean (Monmouth) and Holly Schepisi introduced bills (A-3987 and A-3988) on April 4, two weeks before the governor announced his antiviolence plan, that would require parental consent for minors to purchase games labeled Adult or Mature. The bills were referred to the Assembly Consumer Affairs Committee.
The governor’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment on this story, but in an August 8 press release following the signing of 10 gun-related bills, he said the “commonsense measures will both strengthen New Jersey’s already tough gun laws and upgrade penalties for those who commit gun crimes and violate gun trafficking laws.”
In a separate release on August 16, he said he vetoed the .50-caliber ban because it was too broad.
“The bill passed by the legislature seeks to ban a firearm that has reportedly never been used in a crime in New Jersey,” he said. “It imposes criminal liabilities on all current owners of these firearms, including those who believed that they had properly registered their guns with law enforcement. This bill purports to curb gun violence, when in reality the overly broad classification of firearms it calls for banning are lawfully used by competitive marksmen for long-range precision shooting and are not used by criminal interests because of their size and cost, which averages over $10,000 per firearm.”
The Assembly has not scheduled a vote on an override of the .50-caliber ban, and it does not appear an override would be successful. The original bill passed with just 41 votes in the Assembly and 23 in the Senate; 54 Assembly and 27 Senate votes are needed for an override. Sweeney, in an email released through the Senate Democrats’ office, said he would not allow a vote on the rewritten ID bill and does not anticipate an override vote. The final bill passed the Senate with 23 votes and the Assembly with 43 votes.
 I really thought my centerpiece bill to reduce gun violence by overhauling the way New Jersey issues firearms ID cards, was a good bill,” Sweeney said. “The legislation, as written, had real substance and solutions but the governor’s conditional veto eliminated all the value.
“Because of the way it’s been chopped up, I’m not going to agree with the conditional veto. I know I’m not getting the votes for an override. I didn’t even have all the votes from my side. Unless I can craft a bill that he’ll sign, there’s no sense in pursuing an override.”
Gun-rights groups praised the governor and criticized the Senate president.
 After seven months of intense battle over misguided legislation that won't stop another crime or prevent another tragedy, we are grateful that Gov. Christie finally ended the discussion on the worst of the bills by tossing them onto the scrap heap where they belong,” Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, said in an email. “The vetoes put gun-banning politicians on notice that exploiting tragedy to advance an agenda against legal gun owners, instead of punishing violent criminals, will not be entertained.
Frank Jack Fiamingo, president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, said New Jersey laws already were too strict and that they turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals.
“There is actually no ability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms in the state of New Jersey,” he said in an email. “Anyone who tells you differently is misinformed. The Second Amendment to the Constitution protects the rights of individuals to both keep and bear arms, yet in NJ here is no ability to exercise the right to bear arms at all. The exercise of that right is banned. Therefore, New Jersey is not in compliance with the highest law of the land -- the United States Constitution.”
The registration process, he said, is already very detailed and lengthy and that applying for permit to carry requires you to prove “justifiable need,” which he says is too high of a standard.
”In the courts of New Jersey, justifiable need has been misinterpreted as requiring an imminent threat to your life,” he said. “Self-defense, or protection of your family while traveling is not sufficient reason. A family traveling through cities like Newark, Trenton, Camden, Elizabeth, Linden, and so on, have no protection against carjacking or kidnapping except for dialing 911 on the cellphone the criminals just stole.”
His organization is committed to removing Sweeney from office and to replacing him “with a leader who understands basic human rights.”
Gun-control groups said the bills that have been signed are good bills, for the most part, but they say the three most important bills remain in limbo: The .50-caliber ban, the omnibus ID bill and the lower cap on magazine rounds.
“The governor, himself, proposed the .50-caliber ban in his plan in April, It is extraordinary weapon that is incredibly lethal,” said Nicola Bosour, director of Ceasefire NJ. “To me it is an unconscionable choice to allow those to be bought and sold in New Jersey.”
She called the lower cap on magazine “vitally important,” and said Ceasefire was “disappointed that the Senate did not act on that one.”
The magazine cap -- Assembly bill A-1329 -- passed the Assembly 45-30. The Senate version, S-2475, sponsored by Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) and Nia Gill (D-Essex), was referred to the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee and has not been considered because it is opposed by Sweeney, who as Senate president controls the flow of legislation in the upper house.
A similar bill, S-2630, introduced in the Senate by then-Democratic gubernatorial candidate Sen. Barbara Buono (D-Middlesex) and Joseph Vitale (D-Woodbridge), also was referred to the Law and Public Safety Committee.
Bocour said the governor’s vetoes show that he is looking ahead to the 2016 presidential race and focusing on “the gun industry’s money.”
Redlawsk of Eagleton said he thought the governor’s political team, if not the governor himself, is probably looking ahead to a potential presidential run. That is why the governor has tried to straddle the line on the gun issue. He has to consider the national Republican base, which is very much pro-gun rights, while also acknowledging that New Jersey has been a heavily Democratic state in recent years.
“In Christie’s case, in particular, when think of a Republican governor in New Jersey, he has to be careful not to be viewed as right wing,” he said. “But the folks who are most concerned about gun control are not voting for Christie anyway. It is a smaller group on the gun control side that is voting because of that. It frees him up to take positions with little risk and he can placate the base that he absolutely needs.”
Christie, for his part, describes his efforts as the responsible approach to gun violence, as he did in a September 20 press release announcing the signing of bill A-3797. The bill, which he conditionally vetoed in August, codifies reporting requirements for recovered firearms.
“I’m glad the Legislature acted swiftly to incorporate my commonsense changes so that I can sign this bill and responsibly strengthen New Jersey’s already-tough gun laws,” he said. “This new law will help state and federal law enforcement officials stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals, and help maintain public safety.”



Firearms Industry Trade Association Files Lawsuit Against Sunnyvale, Calif. Gun-control Ordinance
NSSF, December 10, 2013


NEWTOWN, Conn. -- the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms industry, has filed a lawsuit against the City of Sunnyvale, Calif. and the Sunnyvale City Council to prevent an ordinance passed in November from being enforced that is detrimental to responsible and law-abiding firearms retailers doing business within city limits.
In the complaint, NSSF and U.S. Firearms Company LLC, a local retailer, are challenging portions of the city's newly enacted gun-control ordinance that violates and is preempted by state and federal law and that imposes an onerous regulatory burden on firearms retailers including requirements that they keep ammunition sales logs and personal information on their customers and that expands and duplicates an existing reporting requirement for lost or stolen guns.
 Retailers in Sunnyvale must be federally licensed and already comply with a myriad of state and federal laws in operating their businesses. These businesses should be entitled to operate under the same rules, not a patchwork of different and conflicting local laws across California,  said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.  It is unjust to ask retailers within the Sunnyvale city limits to collect sensitive personal information from customers who easily can drive a few miles to a store in another city where such information is not required. Surely, no demonstrable public safety benefit is achieved and only law-abiding businesses are penalized.  

The lawsuit seeks to enjoin enforcement of the Sunnyvale ordinance.

Daniel Defense Gun Super Bowl Ad Rejected by NFL
Freedom Outpost, December 5, 2013

For those of you who may have missed it, there is a very tasteful Super Bowl ad from Daniel Defense that has been banned from airing on this year's broadcast.
I like the Super Bowl ad. I think it is done tastefully and gets the point across without making the man sound like a pro-gun extremist.
Wait a second… I am a pro-gun extremist. What is wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong with that. I am entitled to my beliefs. I just happen to be quite a bit right of people who claim that they are the right.
In fact, Alex Jones recently took an impassioned stand for people like me who love our country and our Constitution.
What do you think? Is Jones correct? Has the NFL become just another tool used in the dumbing down of America?
He might be right in that assessment but I don't think that any kind of boycott is in order here. In fact I kind of respect the NFL for saying "no" to this ad.
What? How can I say that?
It's because the NFL has a right to remain neutral and if you look at a previous story you might see that this is exactly what they are trying to do.
A lot of people will remember the story about the Baltimore Ravens accepting money to push Obamacare to the American people. What people probably forget is that the NFL said "no" to promoting Obamacare and that was a decision made solely by the Baltimore Ravens organization.
So if the NFL wants to steer clear of promoting the causes of the left then I have no problem with them not endorsing the causes of the right either. I think it is OK for them to remain as politically neutral as possible and I respect their attempt to do that.
The truth is that they know that running this ad, no matter how subtle it is, would enrage the left. The NFL just wants our money. Left-handed dollars spend the same as right-handed dollars.
Would I like to see that commercial run on Super Bowl Sunday? I surely would. I think people need to see it, but boycotting the NFL because they don't take up our cause is silly.
If the entire NFL, and not just the Ravens, was actively promoting liberal issues then I might feel different. That does not appear to be the case.
superbowl_sunday__kneel_downI respect Alex Jones immensely because I think he has the guts to take on issues that very few will. I just happen to disagree with him quite often. The NFL may not be entirely healthy as an entertainment choice, but I don't think they have knowingly and willingly grabbed hold of any leftist agenda.
I am a consistent supporter of the Second Amendment, but that doesn't mean that when someone doesn't see things my way that I should cry about it and act like a child. If I boycotted everything I was told to boycott I'd be one miserable guy.
Pick your battles my friends. Some things are worth getting upset about, but I personally don't think this is one of them.
The only way I am boycotting the Super Bowl is if the mainstream media continues to misreport my team's scores. I promise you we are undefeated no matter what you are hearing in the media.
What do you think? Disagree?
State your case. This is America and this site still respects your freedom of speech.


Backdoor Gun Control: Obama to use Executive Order to Ban Lead Ammo Imports?

Freedom Outpost, December 4, 2013
    U.S. Congressman Jeff Duncan's communications director told Joshua Cook,  we're very concerned and extensively looking into the lead issue.
After Congress defeated the Democrat led anti-gun bill this year, President Obama said he would use executive action to promote his gun control agenda. One of the executive orders signed by Obama prevents military-grade weapons from being imported into the U.S.
If the President can bypass Congress by using agencies like the EPA to shut down lead ammunition smelters, and stop lead ammunition imports by executive order, then you essentially have backdoor gun control.
AmmunitionAccording to the National Rifle Association (NRA), the only lead smelter in the U.S. is located in Herculaneum, Missouri, and owned and operated by the Doe Run Company. It has existed in the same location since 1892.
The Environmental Protection Agency is forcing the company to close due to the excessively emissions restrictions placed on the facility.
According to the NRA, Doe Run made significant efforts to reduce lead emissions from the smelter, but in 2008 the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead that were 10 times tighter than the previous standard.  Given the new lead air quality standard, Doe Run made the decision to close the smelter.
Allen West wrote that this closure is basically backdoor gun control because a gun without ammo is useless. TheBlaze.com questions West's main thesis that the smelter plant closure will effect lead ammunition, but for the NRA it's a big concern.
According to the NRA website,  At this time, it's unclear if Doe Run or another company will open a new lead smelter in the United States that can meet the more stringent lead air quality standards by using more modern smelting methods.   What is clear is that after the Herculaneum smelter closes its doors in December, entirely domestic manufacture of conventional ammunition, from raw ore to finished cartridge, will be impossible.
It's a big concern for Congressman Jeff Duncan's office too. U.S. Congressman Jeff Duncan communications director told Joshua Cook,  We're very concerned and extensively looking into the lead issue.
Earlier this year gun owners experienced ammo shortages that sent ammo prices soaring. Duncan's office said that his investigation into the shortages is almost complete.
A shortage of lead used to make conventional ammunition is a big concern not only for gun owners, but also for law enforcement. While visiting a local gun shop in Greenville, S.C., Joshua Cook was told by the owner that local law enforcement was trying to acquire 9000 rounds, but couldn't because of ammo shortages.
For most Americans, cutting off the ammunition supply chain is not only a national security threat, but a serious threat to the 2nd Amendment and liberty itself.
We will investigate further into this issue and report new information as it develops.


Background Checks Down

NSSF, December 3, 2013

The November 2013 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 1,308,100 is a decrease of 14.2 percent compared to the NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,525,177 in November 2012. For comparison, the unadjusted November 2013 NICS figure of 1,805,759 reflects a 9.6 percent decrease from the unadjusted NICS figure of 1,997,703 in November 2012. NSSF-adjusted NICS for November 2013 is the second highest on record - an 18.8% increase over November 2011.
The adjusted NICS data were derived by subtracting out NICS purpose code permit checks used by several states such as Connecticut, Illinois, and Utah for CCW permit application checks as well as checks on active CCW permit databases.
Though not a direct correlation to firearms sales, the NSSF-adjusted NICS data provide a more accurate picture of current market conditions. In addition to other purposes, NICS is used to check transactions of firearms sales and transfers on new and used handguns and long guns.
For additional information on NICS or to view a complete set of the current monthly reports, please visit the NICS website.
Questions concerning NSSF-adjusted NICS data should be directed to NSSF at 203-426-1320 or research@nssf.org. Additional research is available at www.nssf.org/research. NSSF members are able to access historical monthly NICS data by logging in and clicking on  NSSF Industry Research  then  Monthly updates of NICS data.

New York Gun-Owners Getting Letters Instructing Them To Turn In Their Weapons
Last Resistence, Dec 2, 2013
Thanks to New York’s gun registry, officials know exactly what kinds of guns residents have and where these people live. Due to changes in New York’s gun laws with the passage of the misnamed SAFE Act, many residents are now in possession of certain “unlawful” firearms which were previously legal.
Kit Daniels of Infowars writes:
The notice provides gun owners, who possess firearms now prohibited under New York’s unconstitutional SAFE Act, the “options” to either surrender their firearms to the police, remove them from the city limits or otherwise render them inoperable…
The SAFE Act, which was passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor on the same day in January, has numerous, draconian provisions including, but not limited to:
- Outright ban of magazines holding over 10 rounds?
- Restriction on more than seven rounds being loaded into a magazine; the limited exceptions do not include home defense?
- Mandatory background checks for ammunition?
- The creation of a firearms registry for what the state considers “assault weapons”?
- A requirement for firearm permit holders to fill out a form to keep the state from publicly identifying them
We always warned that gun registration would lead to confiscation. But the registration part was always touted as a safety measure. They just wanted to make sure that no guns ended up in the wrong hands. So, government officials had to know who had what guns and to whom they were transferred. They needed to be able to track them. If you were a law-abiding gun-owner, then there was no reason for you to worry. They were only looking out for criminals. “No one’s coming for your guns,” they’d say with a wry smile.
Well, yes, they are. Albeit incrementally. They’re coming for them, one law at a time.


Col Jon Lopey: Retired Policeman, Combat Vet, Sheriff with Top Secret Clearance - Denied Firearm Purchase
Freedom Outpost, December 2, 2013
I was informed by a friend a few weeks ago that Jon Lopey was having a hard time with getting a permit for a firearm, I had to laugh. This man is one of the highest caliber men I have ever known. Colonel Lopey is what I call him. He served in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam era. Then served thirty three years as a California Highway Patrolman as Captain and Assistant Chief. In his spare time he attended college and served in the Army Reserves as an Officer. Colonel Lopey was deployed several times during the duration of the War. He was awarded two Bronze Stars and one with Valor. After all of this, Colonel Lopey was recently denied a permit to purchase a firearm from the very government he has served faithfully during his career.
I read an article awhile back where some pin-head from the Huffington Post was running him down. It seems this patriot lawman has been spotted and flagged by the very Federal government he has sworn to protect.
When Colonel Lopey applied for a permit to own a M1 Garand he was denied with no explanation. He filed an appeal and is waiting for a response. He also holds a Top Secret Clearance and has attended the F.B.I. National Academy. With accomplishments such as these, in the military and law enforcement, it seems he has crossed the federal government one too many times. It sure seems pretty blatant and evident what is going on to me. Just imagine what they are doing to the regular Joes out there  Keep up the Good fight Colonel Lopey
Editor's Note: An interview with Col. Lopey regarding the fumbled firearms purchase.
After I was wounded in Iraq I spent eighteen months in a medical hold company going through surgeries and therapy. During one of my surgeries I came home for thirty days of convalescent leave to heal up. One day my daughter comes into my room and says, “Dad the Cops are outside taking your pick-up ”  So, I got up and went outside to ask them why they were taking my truck and why they didn't come to my door first? About that time, I heard the pawl gear in the transmission break as they yarded the truck up onto a flatbed. There was several law enforcement agencies present; County Sheriff's Deputies, California Highway Patrolmen and California Department of Fish & Game Warden. They said it was too close to the county road. I said  I was born and raised here, people have been parking here for forty years   It didn't make any sense.
I followed the tow truck to town where I had to pay the tow fees, get a battery and a permit to drive the truck home.  It was my younger brother's truck, and he'd died while I was deployed, so I hadn't had time to register it yet.  I busted the staples out of my arm while working on the truck. I did manage to get the truck home and went back for another surgery. I felt betrayed and insulted and lost a lot of respect for the law that day  I wrote the county Sheriff, the Yreka California Highway Patrol and the local newspaper about what had happened to me. I didn't get a response from anyone.
A couple of weeks later I get a phone call from a Commander Jon Lopey. The new commander of the Yreka CHP office. He said he had just been assigned to the new post and had seen my letter on the desk. He asked if there was anyway he could help with anything at all. Commander Lopey did everything he possibly could to make things right. I was impressed and grateful.
A few months later I was discharged and sent home. The General of the California National Guard phoned and said the Pentagon was getting caught up on Purple Heart recipients.  He said mine was grated and sent out to General Wade. He told me that I would be sent a plane ticket to come down to San Diego and receive the Medal in a proper military ceremony. I asked if he could just drop it in the mail and I would have a local military Commander present me the award. He didn't care for the idea, but agreed nonetheless.
The mail came in just before Veterans Day and I asked Colonel Lopey if he would present the Purple Heart to me where my friends and family would be able to attend. He said it would be an honor. That Veterans Day my friends, my family, brothers in arms, Veterans and the community all gathered at The Living Memorial Sculpture Garden, Hot LZ Memorial, near Weed, California.  Colonel Jon Lopey and First Sergeant Jerry Shoemaker awarded me the  Purple Heart.
A few weeks later he phoned and asked if I would care to visit Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger with him. I went to Redding, California where Colonel Lopey and I boarded the Governor's bus and talked for an hour. I was coined by the Terminator. (beat that one supply sergeant ) Then I was coined by Colonel Lopey  I was one of those guys who never seemed to get coined. So that was awesome, and I will never forget the day Colonel Lopey and I spent with the Governor.
I was and still remain amazed by the accomplishments, the stand and the integrity of Colonel Jon Lopey. He means what he says and says what he means. I was proud to help when he decided to run for Siskiyou County Sheriff. He stands for our constitution and is an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment. He has been active and vocal with regards to his stand on these matters.

Anti-gun ‘Moms’ rooted in inexcusably irresponsible ignorance

Patriote Update, November 30, 2013

One of the more unpleasant tasks of gun rights advocacy is keeping up with what the other side is saying. It’s a necessary evil because knowing what they are planning is key to mounting an effective defense. That said, immersing in the stupidity and lies is not easy on the soul, and it doesn’t wash off.
Keeping apprised can be accomplished in many ways, from visiting anti-gun group websites, to following such groups on social media, to signing up for their email alerts, and by reading what citizen disarmament promoters are writing on “progressive” sites like The Huffington Post, Media Matters, Think Progress and the like, as well as in mainstream press editorials and purportedly “straight news” stories.
Another source is books, and an old one recently came to my attention that I’d missed, one that shows the profound ignorance and arrogance of those who would impose their silly and unschooled demands on the rest of us under force of law. That book is “Looking for a Few Good Moms: How One Mother Rallied a Million Others Against the Gun Lobby,” by Donna Dees-Thomases, with a foreword by Dianne Feinstein.
Dees-Thomases was founder of the Million Mom March, now merged with the Brady Campaign. She actually provided the template for the Mayors Against Illegal Guns-affiliated Moms Demand Action by purporting to be just a grassroots housewife who’d finally had enough, but who was then revealed to be a politically-connected CBS publicist, a Democrat donor, a former press flack for two prominent Democrats, and the sister-in-law of one of Hillary Clinton’s confidantes. Likewise, Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts is hardly your typical homemaker.
And as with Watts, known to make such brain-dead claims as “An assault weapon enables humans to shoot 10 rounds in one minute,” and  We understand about the Second Amendment, but it was written in 1791, before AK47s [Perhaps she’s been talking to Piers Morgan?],  Dees-Thomases set the bar for leadership ignorance, particularly as it relates to founding intent.
“We the mothers know that life is the first pursuit promised by our Constitution,” the Original Mission Statement to the Million Mom March (Chapter 1, “Fertility,” pages 21-22) declared.
“My mother-in-law, a former teacher, had to point out that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee life,” Thomases had to admit. “That would be the Declaration of Independence. Oops.”
“Oops”? She was presuming to mobilize a nationwide effort to undermine one of the fundamental limits on government enshrined in the Bill of Rights, she was this uneducated, and that's how trivially she treats such grade school-level ignorance?
“We believe that it is only common sense for individuals who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights to submit to a sensible waiting period and background checks before they are permitted to purchase a gun from any person or place,” she declared senselessly.
“We had to change this after a supporter wrote to our Web site and very gently suggested that we read the Second Amendment,” she then added. Think of what Thomases was admitting. She and her group had not even read the Second Amendment yet they were attempting to eviscerate it under force of state arms.
“We did and oops again,” she continued. “The Second Amendment doesn’t actually guarantee individual rights. This would be corrected in the next edition.”
Presumably they corrected it once more after the Heller decision? Oops?
Again, consider the profound ignorance and irresponsibility of Thomases having not even read the Second Amendment, and then, after being chided into doing so, presuming to be an instant authority on founding era intent. Then consider this was someone with national reach and access to the highest levels of government and the press, whose opinions were widely amplified by  legitimate media  and exploited by opportunistic office holders.
This is political malpractice on all levels, and outrageously, it’s the norm, and represents the totality of what many Americans are exposed to of the so-called “gun debate.”
“Oops,” indeed.
Good people have had their lives destroyed, some have been killed, over “violations” of any number of infringements they may have run afoul of -- edicts that have been demanded by clueless useful idiots who are more suited for being interviewed in a Mark Dice video than participating in an informed and rational discussion on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.



899 Guns Exchanged for Gift Cards
Patriot Update, December 1, 2013
This holiday exchange was a far cry from the typical cookie or white elephant gift swap.
Instead, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department swapped guns for gift cards Saturday outside the Mira Costa Community College in Cardiff.
People turned over 899 handguns, shotguns, rifles and one live hand grenade in exchange for Wal-Mart gift cards, no questions asked. Handguns earned $100 each, while long guns were handed in for $150 gift cards.
For Dep. James Steinmeyer, the event holds personal significance. On Feb. 20 of this year, he was shot in the head as he tried to arrest a man suspected of stealing a vehicle.
That suspect had gotten the gun illegally.
“I think that is an event in my life that makes this relevant,” said Steinmeyer. “Like I mentioned -- the gun being illegally obtained -- any time there’s a gun in a household where they don’t know what to do with it, they don’t really want it around, there’s a potential that that could fall into the wrong hands, and that’s what we’re trying to prevent here today.”
Steinmeyer said he still has several birdshot pellets lodged in his head, and his partner, Dep. Colin Snodgrass, is still recovering from buckshot wounds to his knee from the same shooting.
Gun owner Joyce Saria came to the event because she felt uncomfortable keeping an unneeded gun around her home.
“I don’t know how to use the gun, so that’s why it’s better for us to just give it away and have a peace of mind that I don’t have anything in my house,” said Saria.
The sheriff’s department paid for $15,000 worth of gift cards through asset forfeiture funds, and the San Diego District Attorney’s Office donated $5,000 in forfeiture funds to the cause as well.
All the collected firearms will now be destroyed.
Lt. Mario Zermeno with the San Diego Sheriff’s Department said the gun buyback attracted roughly three times more gun owners than they expected.
If any gun owners missed the event Saturday but still want to get rid of their firearms, Zermeno said they can always turn them into any sheriff’s station or police department during business hours. However, they will not receive a gift card.
The sheriff's department partnered with the Carlsbad, Oceanside and San Diego police departments to host the event.
The last sheriff’s gun buyback was held last May in San Marcos. There, people turned in 208 guns, including two assault-style rifles and a military smoke grenade. Two of the firearms had been stolen, and the sheriff’s department handed them over to the appropriate agency.

By Joseph Spector poughkeepsie Journal Albany bureau, 11/30/123
ALBANY
 — New York State Police are refusing to release statistical information about the number of new pistol permits in New York or how many assault weapons have been registered under a controversial gun-control law adopted in January.
The SAFE Act approved in January forbids the disclosure of gun owners’ names who want to keep the information private andalso doesn’t allow a new gun database created by the law to be released publicly.
But the state is citing the law as a reason to not release any numbers about pistol permits or assault weapons in New York.
Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, said the position by state police is inconsistent with the law.
“If we’re talking about statistics only, not the actual records that were assembled or collected, in my opinion they’re public,” Freeman said.
“I don’t know why they would be reluctant,” he said.
The Journal Albany bureau appealed a September ruling under the state’s Freedom of Information Law by state police that rejected a request for data on how many pistol permits had been issued by county in 2012 and this year.
The appeal was denied. In a Nov. 15 letter, state police said: “Because the records you sought would be derived from documents that were assembled or collected for purposes of inclusion in the state police’s database, they are not subject to disclosure under FOIL.”
The Times Union in Albany reported Nov. 8 that it received a similar response when it sought details on how many assault-weapons owners registered with the state.
The SAFE Act has pitted gun-control groups against gun-rights advocates. Both sides agreed that the data should be released.
Assemblyman Bill Nojay, R-Pittsford, Monroe County, said that Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration doesn’t want to release the data because it would show little compliance with the new gun law.
The law expanded New York’s ban on assault weapons and requires those who already owned the weapons before the law took effect to register them by April 15.
“Compliance numbers with any law should be a matter of public record,” Nojay said.
The Journal Albany bureau reported in February that the number of pistol permits in New York increased 14 percent between 2011 and 2012 before a gun law’s passage. The data hasn’t been released since.
The records then showed that residents obtained nearly 20,000 pistol permits in 2012, up about 2,500 since 2011.
Tom King, president of the state’s Rifle & Pistol Association, said statistics about gun registrations should be public. The group is suing to have the gun law deemed unconstitutional.
He agreed with Nojay that the state probably hasn’t had much success with gun registrations and therefore doesn’t want to release the information.
“I really think that’s what the story is — not many people have done it, and they, I think, are kind of embarrassed to let people know,” King said.
Cuomo’s office referred questions to state police. State police said it would provide no further comment.
The Journal News, a sister Gannett Co. Inc. publication of the Poughkeepsie Journal, was criticized for publishing a map last December of handgun-permit holders’ addresses in Westchester and Rockland counties. The map was later removed when the SAFE Act included a provision that allows gun owners to opt out of having their information public.
The state police database is aimed at keeping track of gun sales and ownership, and specific details about individuals are not public under the law. But Freeman said that doesn’t mean that statistical information should also be kept private.
The database would be used, for example, to determine if a mentally ill person has a gun and also checked to ensure people who have criminal convictions or orders of protections do not possess guns.
The law requires that all firearm licenses be renewed every five years.
The database has had a rocky start.
Part of the database that would require background checks for ammunition buyers won’t be operational in mid-January, as first indicated.
Leah Barrett, executive director for New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, said the state should release statistical details about pistol permits and assault-weapon registrations.
“We just think that there is no harm in letting the people know about the numbers,” she said. “Transparency would be a good thing.”
--------------------------------
NY SAFE Act still generates firestorm
Demand remains high for ammo, handguns
ny daily news, 11/30/13
It’s almost December and ammunition is still a
hot commodity at Barrett’s Batavia Marine & Sporting Goods.

Like other area firearms dealers, the business experienced a rush on purchases earlier this year, as the state passed the highly-controversial N.Y. SAFE Act.

Demand for handguns has increased.

“They have gone up,” said Manager Mike Barrett Friday. “Usually we have highs and lows as sales go, but they’ve been consistent right along.”The influx is evident at local county clerk offices, which were nearly overwhelmed as the law was approved and enacted.
The initial flood of pistol permit applications and amendments from January onward may have
slowed down, but local offices are showing record numbers as 2013 approaches its end.It’s made for a hectic year.
“We have noticed in general that the tremendous rush we’ve had earlier in the year has died down somewhat,” said Genesee County Clerk Don Read. “It hasn’t totally disappeared. We are still processing many more than we normally would.”The highly-controversial SAFE Act enacted strict new regulations involving semi-automatic
firearms, pistol permits and ammunition purchases, among other factors. Gun sales increased dramatically immediately before, and in the days and weeks afterward.
Figures from Genesee and Wyoming counties illustrate the upswing. Information from Orleans
County was not immediately available Friday morning.
Statistics include:
— As far back as 2002, less than 100 pistol permits were issued annually in Genesee County,
Read said. But the numbers started climbing in 2010.
A total of 124 were issued that year, increasing to 208 in 2011, and 286 in 2012.
“This year so far, we have already issued 464, not including another class that’s scheduled (to
complete the application process) next month,” Read said.
Pistol permit amendments are in some ways more-significant, he said. The changes are made
when a person adds or deletes a handgun from their permit, or records a change of address.
Genesee County recorded 537 amendments in 2002, and the numbers began climbing afterward. The total jumped to 1,029 in 2009; reached 1,160 in 2001; and hit 2,410 in 2012.
“This year we’ve already issued just shy of 3,000 amendments,” Read said. “And if anything, we have to press people to change their address, because they tend to forget that part. The vast majority are people adding handguns, or perhaps deleting them from their permits.”
Many include women seeking pistol permits, often to coincide with their husbands.
“That’s becoming fairly standard, and our permit classes reflect the increase in spouses getting
permits,” Read said. “The number of females has climbed.”
— A total of 218 permits were issued in 2012, said County Clerk Rhonda Pierce.
That number’s nearly tripled to 601 issued so far
this year, she said. Amendments have likewise increased from 1,357 to 1,713.
Although permit applications don’t show much change — increasing from 897 last year to 969 as of this week — the people who commit themselves to completing the process has ramped up.
“I think what it is, is people would pick up (applications) at the office and not do anything
with them,” Pierce said. “This year they’re actually going through the process getting their
fingerprints done and going through the process to get the permits.”
It’s added up to a lot of work for county clerk offices, and not just for handing out applications and permits.“I can say with the SAFE Act that the county clerk’s office is really doing a great deal of the work involved with the new law,” Pierce said. “We’ve had the increase in the first-time
applicants, and the amendments that are being done, because of the people who are requesting
guns. Then they’ll ask to have their pistol permits updated, and we’re helping correct them also.”
Area permit holders, she said, are also more likely to call the county clerk’s office if they
have questions about the process. Add to that people filing “opt-out” forms to keep their personal information confidential.Pistol permits will now need to be renewed periodically under the new law, which is expected
to increase the workload at the offices.
Read has been asked to serve on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s commission for addressing the
recertification issue. It includes other county clerks, along with New York Sheriff’s Association members, state police, governor’s representatives and others to determine how the process will work.
“The whole recertification process is designed to be done online, so they’ ll send letters out, and
they’re going to begin a trial run next February,” Read said. “That will include some pilot counties that will be in that initial sequence, and Genesee is one of those counties.”The others include Ontario, Albany, Cortland, Saratoga and Schenectady counties.
“We’re trying to work with it to make it as smooth as possible, and the least intrusive for
the handgun owners as the SAFE Act permits,” Read said.
The SAFE Act has been described by state officials as a law including “commonsense gun
safety measures” banning assault weapons, and implementing safeguards to keep guns out of the
hands of criminals, and people who are dangerously mentally ill.
Although a Siena poll in March showed 61 percent of state residents supported the law, it’s
garnered strident objections, often from rural residents.
In the meantime, Barrett’s still has a waiting list for some kinds of ammunition and ammunition
magazines. But Barrett said overall gun sales in the location might be down, because there’s
certain items — including handguns — the business can’t sell anymore.
That includes anything qualifying as an “assault weapon” under state statutes, along with certain
kinds of handguns, such as high-capacity semi-automatics, or those with threaded barrels.
“Very strong,” he said of the ammunition sales. “Very strong. We’re getting people we’ve never
seen before. All they’re doing is looking for ammo to feed their guns — especially now with
hunting season, because there are so many calibers out there.
“We do our damnedest here to try to keep the shelves full, and it’s almost a full-time job.
We’re getting people from all over the place looking for ammo. Sometimes we have ammo and it doesn’t even last 10 minutes and it’s gone. It’s still strong.”


Anti-gun ‘Moms’ rooted in inexcusably irresponsible ignorance

Patriote Update, November 30, 2013

One of the more unpleasant tasks of gun rights advocacy is keeping up with what the other side is saying. It’s a necessary evil because knowing what they are planning is key to mounting an effective defense. That said, immersing in the stupidity and lies is not easy on the soul, and it doesn’t wash off.
Keeping apprised can be accomplished in many ways, from visiting anti-gun group websites, to following such groups on social media, to signing up for their email alerts, and by reading what citizen disarmament promoters are writing on “progressive” sites like The Huffington Post, Media Matters, Think Progress and the like, as well as in mainstream press editorials and purportedly “straight news” stories.
Another source is books, and an old one recently came to my attention that I’d missed, one that shows the profound ignorance and arrogance of those who would impose their silly and unschooled demands on the rest of us under force of law. That book is “Looking for a Few Good Moms: How One Mother Rallied a Million Others Against the Gun Lobby,” by Donna Dees-Thomases, with a foreword by Dianne Feinstein.
Dees-Thomases was founder of the Million Mom March, now merged with the Brady Campaign. She actually provided the template for the Mayors Against Illegal Guns-affiliated Moms Demand Action by purporting to be just a grassroots housewife who’d finally had enough, but who was then revealed to be a politically-connected CBS publicist, a Democrat donor, a former press flack for two prominent Democrats, and the sister-in-law of one of Hillary Clinton’s confidantes. Likewise, Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts is hardly your typical homemaker.
And as with Watts, known to make such brain-dead claims as “An assault weapon enables humans to shoot 10 rounds in one minute,” and  We understand about the Second Amendment, but it was written in 1791, before AK47s [Perhaps she’s been talking to Piers Morgan?],  Dees-Thomases set the bar for leadership ignorance, particularly as it relates to founding intent.
“We the mothers know that life is the first pursuit promised by our Constitution,” the Original Mission Statement to the Million Mom March (Chapter 1, “Fertility,” pages 21-22) declared.
“My mother-in-law, a former teacher, had to point out that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee life,” Thomases had to admit. “That would be the Declaration of Independence. Oops.”
“Oops”? She was presuming to mobilize a nationwide effort to undermine one of the fundamental limits on government enshrined in the Bill of Rights, she was this uneducated, and that's how trivially she treats such grade school-level ignorance?
“We believe that it is only common sense for individuals who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights to submit to a sensible waiting period and background checks before they are permitted to purchase a gun from any person or place,” she declared senselessly.
“We had to change this after a supporter wrote to our Web site and very gently suggested that we read the Second Amendment,” she then added. Think of what Thomases was admitting. She and her group had not even read the Second Amendment yet they were attempting to eviscerate it under force of state arms.
“We did and oops again,” she continued. “The Second Amendment doesn’t actually guarantee individual rights. This would be corrected in the next edition.”
Presumably they corrected it once more after the Heller decision? Oops?
Again, consider the profound ignorance and irresponsibility of Thomases having not even read the Second Amendment, and then, after being chided into doing so, presuming to be an instant authority on founding era intent. Then consider this was someone with national reach and access to the highest levels of government and the press, whose opinions were widely amplified by  legitimate media  and exploited by opportunistic office holders.
This is political malpractice on all levels, and outrageously, it’s the norm, and represents the totality of what many Americans are exposed to of the so-called “gun debate.”
“Oops,” indeed.
Good people have had their lives destroyed, some have been killed, over “violations” of any number of infringements they may have run afoul of -- edicts that have been demanded by clueless useful idiots who are more suited for being interviewed in a Mark Dice video than participating in an informed and rational discussion on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.




899 Guns Exchanged for Gift Cards
Patriot Update, December 1, 2013
This holiday exchange was a far cry from the typical cookie or white elephant gift swap.
Instead, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department swapped guns for gift cards Saturday outside the Mira Costa Community College in Cardiff.
People turned over 899 handguns, shotguns, rifles and one live hand grenade in exchange for Wal-Mart gift cards, no questions asked. Handguns earned $100 each, while long guns were handed in for $150 gift cards.
For Dep. James Steinmeyer, the event holds personal significance. On Feb. 20 of this year, he was shot in the head as he tried to arrest a man suspected of stealing a vehicle.
That suspect had gotten the gun illegally.
“I think that is an event in my life that makes this relevant,” said Steinmeyer. “Like I mentioned -- the gun being illegally obtained -- any time there’s a gun in a household where they don’t know what to do with it, they don’t really want it around, there’s a potential that that could fall into the wrong hands, and that’s what we’re trying to prevent here today.”
Steinmeyer said he still has several birdshot pellets lodged in his head, and his partner, Dep. Colin Snodgrass, is still recovering from buckshot wounds to his knee from the same shooting.
Gun owner Joyce Saria came to the event because she felt uncomfortable keeping an unneeded gun around her home.
“I don’t know how to use the gun, so that’s why it’s better for us to just give it away and have a peace of mind that I don’t have anything in my house,” said Saria.
The sheriff’s department paid for $15,000 worth of gift cards through asset forfeiture funds, and the San Diego District Attorney’s Office donated $5,000 in forfeiture funds to the cause as well.
All the collected firearms will now be destroyed.
Lt. Mario Zermeno with the San Diego Sheriff’s Department said the gun buyback attracted roughly three times more gun owners than they expected.
If any gun owners missed the event Saturday but still want to get rid of their firearms, Zermeno said they can always turn them into any sheriff’s station or police department during business hours. However, they will not receive a gift card.
The sheriff's department partnered with the Carlsbad, Oceanside and San Diego police departments to host the event.
The last sheriff’s gun buyback was held last May in San Marcos. There, people turned in 208 guns, including two assault-style rifles and a military smoke grenade. Two of the firearms had been stolen, and the sheriff’s department handed them over to the appropriate agency.



By Joseph Spector poughkeepsie Journal Albany bureau, 11/30/123

ALBANY
 — New York State Police are refusing to release statistical information about the number of new pistol permits in New York or how many assault weapons have been registered under a controversial gun-control law adopted in January.
The SAFE Act approved in January forbids the disclosure of gun owners’ names who want to keep the information private andalso doesn’t allow a new gun database created by the law to be released publicly.
But the state is citing the law as a reason to not release any numbers about pistol permits or assault weapons in New York.
Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, said the position by state police is inconsistent with the law.
“If we’re talking about statistics only, not the actual records that were assembled or collected, in my opinion they’re public,” Freeman said.
“I don’t know why they would be reluctant,” he said.
The Journal Albany bureau appealed a September ruling under the state’s Freedom of Information Law by state police that rejected a request for data on how many pistol permits had been issued by county in 2012 and this year.
The appeal was denied. In a Nov. 15 letter, state police said: “Because the records you sought would be derived from documents that were assembled or collected for purposes of inclusion in the state police’s database, they are not subject to disclosure under FOIL.”
The Times Union in Albany reported Nov. 8 that it received a similar response when it sought details on how many assault-weapons owners registered with the state.
The SAFE Act has pitted gun-control groups against gun-rights advocates. Both sides agreed that the data should be released.
Assemblyman Bill Nojay, R-Pittsford, Monroe County, said that Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration doesn’t want to release the data because it would show little compliance with the new gun law.
The law expanded New York’s ban on assault weapons and requires those who already owned the weapons before the law took effect to register them by April 15.
“Compliance numbers with any law should be a matter of public record,” Nojay said.
The Journal Albany bureau reported in February that the number of pistol permits in New York increased 14 percent between 2011 and 2012 before a gun law’s passage. The data hasn’t been released since.
The records then showed that residents obtained nearly 20,000 pistol permits in 2012, up about 2,500 since 2011.
Tom King, president of the state’s Rifle & Pistol Association, said statistics about gun registrations should be public. The group is suing to have the gun law deemed unconstitutional.
He agreed with Nojay that the state probably hasn’t had much success with gun registrations and therefore doesn’t want to release the information.
“I really think that’s what the story is — not many people have done it, and they, I think, are kind of embarrassed to let people know,” King said.
Cuomo’s office referred questions to state police. State police said it would provide no further comment.
The Journal News, a sister Gannett Co. Inc. publication of the Poughkeepsie Journal, was criticized for publishing a map last December of handgun-permit holders’ addresses in Westchester and Rockland counties. The map was later removed when the SAFE Act included a provision that allows gun owners to opt out of having their information public.
The state police database is aimed at keeping track of gun sales and ownership, and specific details about individuals are not public under the law. But Freeman said that doesn’t mean that statistical information should also be kept private.
The database would be used, for example, to determine if a mentally ill person has a gun and also checked to ensure people who have criminal convictions or orders of protections do not possess guns.
The law requires that all firearm licenses be renewed every five years.
The database has had a rocky start.
Part of the database that would require background checks for ammunition buyers won’t be operational in mid-January, as first indicated.
Leah Barrett, executive director for New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, said the state should release statistical details about pistol permits and assault-weapon registrations.
“We just think that there is no harm in letting the people know about the numbers,” she said. “Transparency would be a good thing.”


NY SAFE Act still generates firestorm Demand remains high for ammo, handguns
ny daily news, 11/30/13
It’s almost December and ammunition is still a hot commodity at Barrett’s Batavia Marine & Sporting Goods.
Like other area firearms dealers, the business experienced a rush on purchases earlier this year, as the state passed the highly-controversial N.Y. SAFE Act.

“They have gone up,” said Manager Mike Barrett Friday. “Usually we have highs and lows as sales go, but they’ve been consistent right along.”
The influx is evident at local county clerk offices, which were nearly overwhelmed as the law was approved and enacted.
The initial flood of pistol permit applications and amendments from January onward may have
slowed down, but local offices are showing record numbers as 2013 approaches its end.
It’s made for a hectic year.
“We have noticed in general that the tremendous rush we’ve had earlier in the year has died down somewhat,” said Genesee County Clerk Don Read. “It hasn’t totally disappeared. We are still processing many more than we normally would.”
The highly-controversial SAFE Act enacted strict new regulations involving semi-automatic
firearms, pistol permits and ammunition purchases, among other factors. Gun sales increased dramatically immediately before, and in the days and weeks afterward.
Figures from Genesee and Wyoming counties illustrate the upswing. Information from Orleans
County was not immediately available Friday morning.
Statistics include:
— As far back as 2002, less than 100 pistol permits were issued annually in Genesee County,
Read said. But the numbers started climbing in 2010.
A total of 124 were issued that year, increasing to 208 in 2011, and 286 in 2012.
“This year so far, we have already issued 464, not including another class that’s scheduled (to
complete the application process) next month,” Read said.
Pistol permit amendments are in some ways more-significant, he said. The changes are made
when a person adds or deletes a handgun from their permit, or records a change of address.
Genesee County recorded 537 amendments in 2002, and the numbers began climbing afterward. The total jumped to 1,029 in 2009; reached 1,160 in 2001; and hit 2,410 in 2012.
“This year we’ve already issued just shy of 3,000 amendments,” Read said. “And if anything, we have to press people to change their address, because they tend to forget that part. The vast majority are people adding handguns, or perhaps deleting them from their permits.”
Many include women seeking pistol permits, often to coincide with their husbands.
“That’s becoming fairly standard, and our permit classes reflect the increase in spouses getting
permits,” Read said. “The number of females has climbed.”
— A total of 218 permits were issued in 2012, said County Clerk Rhonda Pierce.
That number’s nearly tripled to 601 issued so far
this year, she said. Amendments have likewise increased from 1,357 to 1,713.
Although permit applications don’t show much change — increasing from 897 last year to 969 as of this week — the people who commit themselves to completing the process has ramped up.
“I think what it is, is people would pick up (applications) at the office and not do anything
with them,” Pierce said. “This year they’re actually going through the process getting their
fingerprints done and going through the process to get the permits.”
It’s added up to a lot of work for county clerk offices, and not just for handing out applications and permits.“I can say with the SAFE Act that the county clerk’s office is really doing a great deal of the work involved with the new law,” Pierce said. “We’ve had the increase in the first-time
applicants, and the amendments that are being done, because of the people who are requesting
guns. Then they’ll ask to have their pistol permits updated, and we’re helping correct them also.”
Area permit holders, she said, are also more likely to call the county clerk’s office if they
have questions about the process. Add to that people filing “opt-out” forms to keep their personal information confidential.
Pistol permits will now need to be renewed periodically under the new law, which is expected
to increase the workload at the offices.
Read has been asked to serve on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s commission for addressing the
recertification issue. It includes other county clerks, along with New York Sheriff’s Association
members, state police, governor’s representatives and others to determine how the process will work.
“The whole recertification process is designed to be done online, so they’ ll send letters out, and
they’re going to begin a trial run next February,” Read said. “That will include some pilot counties that will be in that initial sequence, and Genesee is one of those counties.”
The others include Ontario, Albany, Cortland, Saratoga and Schenectady counties.
“We’re trying to work with it to make it as smooth as possible, and the least intrusive for
the handgun owners as the SAFE Act permits,” Read said.
The SAFE Act has been described by state officials as a law including “commonsense gun
safety measures” banning assault weapons, and implementing safeguards to keep guns out of the
hands of criminals, and people who are dangerously mentally ill.
Although a Siena poll in March showed 61 percent of state residents supported the law, it’s
garnered strident objections, often from rural residents.
In the meantime, Barrett’s still has a waiting list for some kinds of ammunition and ammunition
magazines. But Barrett said overall gun sales in the location might be down, because there’s
certain items — including handguns — the business can’t sell anymore.
That includes anything qualifying as an “assault weapon” under state statutes, along with certain
kinds of handguns, such as high-capacity semi-automatics, or those with threaded barrels.
“Very strong,” he said of the ammunition sales. “Very strong. We’re getting people we’ve never
seen before. All they’re doing is looking for ammo to feed their guns — especially now with
hunting season, because there are so many calibers out there.
“We do our damnedest here to try to keep the shelves full, and it’s almost a full-time job.
We’re getting people from all over the place looking for ammo. Sometimes we have ammo and it doesn’t even last 10 minutes and it’s gone. It’s still strong.”



Bloomberg Group Releases Thanksgiving Conversation Guide for Gun Control

Minute Man News, 25 November 2013
Forget about giving thanks, relaxing while watching football and catching up with loved ones. According to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Thanksgiving is the time to set the record straight on gun control, because who doesn’t want to chat about firearm legislation while enjoying some turkey and cranberry sauce?
The group, backed by notorious former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, released a conversation guide gun control proponents can whip out at the table to educate the misguided gun lovers of the family. A product of the campaign “Demand Action to End Gun Violence,” part of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the talking points encourage its supporters to ‘talk turkey’ about guns.
“Everyone has friends and relatives with strong opinions and shaky facts,” the guide states. “You can help set the table straight — all you need is this simple guide to Talking Turkey about guns ”


More Gun Control Equals Lower Firearm Fatality Rates?

Patriot Update, November 22, 2013
An article on the PolicyMic website, written by Brian Frydenborg, who identified himself as a former  Peace Operations  student in college, makes a number of scholarly-sounding claims.  First, it says that  studies  show that  [s]tates with more gun regulations had lower rates of gun deaths, and states with less gun laws had higher gun death rates, both in terms of suicide and homicide.   It also asserts that the  10 states with the weakest gun laws had over twice the rate of gun violence as the 10 states with the strongest gun laws,  and that  the presence of gun laws in states had a strong correlation with less gun violence.   It even goes on to insist that  the number one determining factor in gun suicide rates by state was not mental health issues, but gun ownership. What counts as  strong laws,  of course, was defined by gun control supporters.
Frydenborg concludes,  If you think I’m wrong, the burden of proof is on you to provide counter-evidence.
On the latter point, we have to say  not really.  In this country, the burden of proof is not upon those who wish to exercise rights, it is upon those who wish to restrict them.
As to the claims made in those various  studies,  even the most casual reader can recognize their common flaw right off the bat. Even if a gun control law reduced firearm-related murders and suicides, it would mean nothing if people intent on committing murder and suicide achieved their objectives by other means.
And that is precisely what many of them do.
According to the most recent data from the FBI (2012), states that have relatively higher firearm murder rates generally also have relatively higher non-firearm murder rates. Of the 12 states that had firearm murder rates higher than the national rate, seven were among the 12 states that had the highest non-firearm murder rates. Of the 10 states with the lowest firearm murder rates, eight were among the states with the lowest non-firearm murder rates.
Similarly, according to the most recent data (2010) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of the 20 states that had firearm homicide rates that were higher than the national rate, 16 were among the 20 states that had the highest non-firearm homicide rates. The 10 states that had the highest firearm murder rates all had non-firearm murder rates higher than the national rate. Eight of the 10 states with the lowest firearm murder rates were among the 10 states that had the lowest non-firearm murder rates.
Of the 10 states with the highest firearm suicide rates, five were among the 10 states with the highest non-firearm suicide rates. Illustrating how people who are intent on committing suicide will do so by whatever means are available, Hawaii, which has perhaps the lowest firearm ownership rate among the states, had the highest non-firearm suicide rate in the country, 4.6 times higher than its firearm suicide rate.
What’s next? A study pretending to show that the first murders and suicides took place only after the invention of firearms in the 13th century?


Gun Owner’s Property Stolen By Police Returned After Federal Lawsuit Settled
Patriot Update, Nov 20, 2013     
In a case rife with police corruption and officers acting with vindictive immorality, the city of Cleveland faced losing BIG in a 5th Amendment case brought by Derrick Washington who had his property stolen by police.
The case stemmed back to an incident in the morning of February 10th, 2013.  Washington called the police at 2:09 in the morning to report a shooting in the 2800 block of East 116th Street.  When officers arrived on scene Washington informed them that he had a valid concealed carry permit and that his firearm was in his car.
In lieu of doing any real police work that might involve looking for the actual shooter, the police officers involved at this point decided to arrest Washington.  The report they filed reported that he told them that he had been drinking.  Washington was arrested and charged with using eapons while intoxicated and illegally carrying a concealed weapon.
This is when that corruption and jackbooted immorality I spoke to comes into play.
The report the police filed states that Washington told them he had 2 vodka drinks, a claim he denies.  Yet he is arrested in part due to the trumped up charge with using weapons while intoxicated.  You would think that the officers would back up this charge with something like…oh i don’t know…a BREATHALYZER   But no, all we have to go on is that they said he was intoxicated.
n the second charge, how could Washington be charged with illegally carrying a concealed weapon when A) he didn’t have it on him and B) had a concealed carry permit?
Because the officers claim that Washington didn’t IMMEDIATELY inform them that he had a gun in his car.
That speaks as loudly to the idiocy of the law as it does to the corruption of the cops who just used the law to slap another baseless charge against Washington.  What was Washington to do when the police arrived, run up to them and before saying anything else just start shouting that he had a gun?  I’m sure that would have worked out well for him.
For Washington’s part he maintains that he told the officers of his firearm as soon as he could.
Considering the evidence (Washington was the one who called the cops), and lack thereof on behalf of the police (no breathalyzer, no video etc) I am inclined to think that Washington was both sober and told the officers about his firearm as soon as he was able.  And since the firearm was in his car, the police had no reasonable suspicion to enter the car and take the gun in the first place.
Unfortunately, because of the actions of the officers Washington was brought to jail, had his property seized and stayed there for 3 days while they tried to convince the DA to move forward with prosecution.  The DA, seeing that the charges had no merit refused to prosecute.
At this point, you would think that Washington, without being charged would be released and his property would be returned to him.  You’re only half right.
Because Cleveland has a city law that mandates that the police can legally steal and keep your firearm until a court ORDERS THEM to give it back.
Here is the city ordinance:
    Section 627.11 “in any situation where a deadly weapon is present and a person has been drinking or disturbing the peace, threatening bodily harm or causing or threatening a disturbance or violence and there is reasonable cause for the investigating police officer to believe that such deadly weapon may be used to cause bodily harm, such deadly weapon may be seized by the police and kept in the custody of the chief of police until released by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.’‘
So much for being innocent until proven guilty and forget about the 5th Amendment’s “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law“.  Having to SUE in order to have your property returned is NOT due process.  We live in a country of checks and balances and the word of crooked cops should not be a free pass to invalidate the 5th Amendment.
It took Derrick Washington 9 months of legal costs with 3 months of court battles to get his firearm back.  He spent much more in those costs than the $500 that the gun was worth.
And THERE it is.
That Cleveland has made a mockery of the Constitution is not in question.  The “why” may be.  But it is plain to see that the powers that be in Cleveland feel that instead of actually fighting for their rights, most people will just bend over and let the “Mistake By The Lake” have its way with them.
But Derrick Washington wasn’t going to let Cleveland get away with this injustice.  He would fight for principle, a sentiment expressed by his attorney J Gary Seewald:   ”He could have bought a new gun for $500. But he wanted to go through with this. He wanted his gun.”
Last week the case was settled and Washington will be getting his gun back.  Whether or not Cleveland will also pay for Washington’s legal bills was not made public.
While I am happy that Washington got what he wanted, I am unhappy about the fact that this case was settled.  Since there is no binding court ruling stating how unconstitutional ordinance 627.11 is, Cleveland does not have to remove it from the books.  As such, they can just keep stealing peoples property and put more people through this ordeal.
This injustice runs the gambit of infringement.  The 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment violations in Cleveland are a trifecta of tyranny.  And like all tyrants in America…it has got to go.


Ohio House Passes Concealed Carry
Tactical Wire, November 21, 2013
COLUMBUS, OH - HB 203, a bill that seeks to update Ohio's concealed carry program, has passed the Ohio House with a 62 to 27 vote, and will now be forwarded to the Ohio Senate for consideration.
HB 203 has significant support as shown by the overwhelming House vote. Buckeye Firearms Association and the NRA have both endorsed the legislation, which seeks to make many improvements to Ohio's concealed carry laws.
The bill would strengthen the background checks required to obtain an Ohio Concealed Handgun License (CHL). Under the bill, Ohio CHL applicants would need to pass a NICS-compliant background check (National Instant Check System), making it compatible with more states. This improvement will also help prevent people with mental health disqualifiers who have been entered into the federal database from obtaining a CHL.
The bill would also move Ohio to an automatic reciprocity system, relieving the Attorney General from the requirement to sign agreements with every state for reciprocity. The Attorney General would still be permitted to sign agreements if needed, but the bill seeks to streamline the process and open up agreements with states such as Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Georgia with which Ohio does not currently have agreements.
 Reciprocity remains a critical issue for people with a CHL,  said Jim Irvine, President of Buckeye Firearms Association.  Background checks have been a hot topic since the Newtown killings, and ours has some issues that should be addressed. This bill makes sure people with disqualifying offenses are not issued CHL's. This is something everyone should be happy about.
The bill would also update the requirements and disqualifications to obtain an CHL. Currently there are different standards to possess a gun under federal and state law, and different still to obtain a CHL. HB 203 harmonizes Ohio law with federal law so that someone who is prohibited under federal law from possessing a firearm will not be issued a CHL. Ohio would also be able to issue licenses to out-of-state residents, something many other states already do.
Under the bill, required topics for Ohio CHL training would remain the same, but the arbitrary mandate that requires instructors to spend 12 hours covering those topics would be reduced to four hours. Most experienced instructors agree that the same training can be covered in less time.
 Ohio has one of the nation's most egregious CHL training requirements,  said Irvine.  Other states have seen that more people get training when the time requirement is reduced. We are strong advocates of training and want to see more people become trained in the safe use of firearms. But padding the classes to fill 12 hours when the same information can be effectively covered in less time makes no sense.
 People are exhausted at the end of a long 12-hour day or at the end of two 6-hour days. They lose their concentration and stop learning at some point. By covering the same material in less time, we think applicants will learn and retain more information.
Finally, HB 203 seeks to modify the state's self-defense law. Current law specifically states that a person has no duty to retreat before using deadly force if that person is in he or her own home or automobile. HB 203 would expand that to anyplace that a person lawfully has the right to be.
 The law should not impose specific 'duties' on people whose lives are in jeopardy,  observed Sean Maloney, a Cincinnati-area attorney specializing in self defense and firearm law.  It should protect the innocent and their right to defend their own life from criminal attack. The bill would not otherwise change the threshold to legally use lethal force in defending one's life.
Buckeye Firearms Association is dedicated to defending and advancing the right of Ohio citizens to own and use firearms for all legal activities, including self-defense, hunting, competition, and recreation.



Getting The “Lead” Out

November 18, 2013 Common Constitutionalist

It seems virtually every federal government agency, at least under this president, is a rogue agency.
That’s not quite accurate. You see, when one hears the word rogue, it conjures up thoughts of abandoning one’s directive. “Oh him – he went rogue. We can no longer control him”. That type of thing.
So that’s not really accurate, for it appears that this administration’s prime directive is to allow these agencies to go rogue, from our point of view. Just look at the evidence of department after departments’ involvement in one scandal after another.
Yet there is one agency that is head and shoulders above all in the “rogue” department. The EPA. This is the agency that, if left unchecked, can literally mean the end of our country.
Not that the IRS, or Homeland Security, or other federal departments aren’t also dangerous; they are. But none more than the EPA. It’s not even close.
What other single entity is capable of shutting down entire industries. They are in charge of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land on which we walk. That’s pretty much everything.
The latest industry to be quite literally driven into extinction by the EPA is the lead refining industry. The last lead refiner in America will close its doors forever on December 31, 2013. All do to stricter and stricter “regulation”. And gee, what is lead used in… why bullets of course. And is this the administrations way around legislation to disarm the people? Yeah it is! And without bullets, are guns pretty much useless? Yeah they are! Get it!
See, that’s what the EPA does. It tells industries that they are welcome to stay in business if they just adhere to these new standards. These standards are for our own good, you know.
“What do you mean adherence will bankrupt your company? What do you mean the new standards are ridiculous, unnecessary and can’t be met? Oh well, I guess you’ll just have to close down.” And that’s how it works, every time. And the consequences to this country will continue to mount as more and more industries are driven into extinction or at least out of the country.
Now, if the EPA were really concerned with curbing pollution in the air and water, shouldn’t it take a more worldly view? After all, we do share the air and water with the rest of the earth. It’s not just ours. And isn’t that the left’s mantra, to “save the planet”, not just save our country?
And knowing this, why wouldn’t EPA prefer to keep industries in this country where they can be reasonably regulated, rather than driving them to China or some third world hole with little to no air or water quality standards?
Well silly, that’s not the EPA’s job. The EPA is an agency full of looney environmentalist wackos and Communists whose mission is to rid us of the evil capitalist free market system. It’s that simple.
America’s industries are cleaner than they’ve ever been and certainly cleaner than the rest of the world, yet still, that’s not good enough. And why? Because they still exist in this country.
The leftists at the EPA won’t be satisfied until all the “dirty” industries have been driven out and replaced with windmills and unicorns.


 Where Gun Control Gets You: “Terrifying New Game”
Political Outcast, November 16, 2013     
Here’s the hysteria (and it is probably justified) from a local Washington DC CBS station: “Potentially Fatal ‘Knockout’ Game Targeting Strangers May be Spreading.”
A terrifying new ‘game’ that’s already caused deaths in Syracuse, St. Louis and New Jersey is sweeping the nation, and it preys upon unsuspecting people walking the streets, anywhere.
A recent report from New York-based CBS 2 shed light on the growing trend, displaying unsettling footage of teens participating in this game – which goes by the name ‘Knockout’ – and involves randomly targeting passersby, with the ultimate goal being to knock them out with one punch as they walk by.
One victim shown in the footage was 46-year-old Ralph Santiago of Hoboken, N.J., who was found dead with his neck broken and head lodged between iron fence posts, according to NJ.com.
Video surveillance shows Santiago walking in an alleyway in broad daylight, and just as he’s about to pass a pack of teenagers, one launches the fatal, knockout blow.
And what’s the point?
“For the fun of it,” one teen said in the video.
“They just want to see if you got enough strength to knock somebody out,” said another.
The story goes on to warn that the game might be coming to Washington DC. A woman was attacked in a way that seems consistent with this game.
But why is this game so “terrifying”? What makes it possible for this game to even exist?
I can’t promise a simple way to create a society in which no one ever indulges in thrill crimes. Sin and evil happen.
But the fact that there is sin and evil in the world doesn’t explain how it can become a fun game spreading throughout the country. For such activity to become popular requires certain conditions.
It has be an activity that is safe for the perpetrator. They need a reason to believe that they won’t suffer any consequences.
Someone tried to play a variation of this game in Lansing, Michigan, using a stun gun instead of fists.
The assailants had scouted the site, the victim and even practiced firing the taser. But then it all went wrong. Or right.
When Marvell Weaver jammed the taser into the ribs of the still unidentified man and pulled the trigger, it jammed. The target pulled out his .40 caliber Smith and Wesson and shot Weaver as he tried to escape to the getaway van where two of his accomplices waited.
“Weaver ran, sat down across the street, his leg going numb, bleeding. Pleading.
“‘I’m sorry, please don’t kill me, I don’t know why I did that, I’m high you know, I just wanna go home,’” the teen told the man who had just shot him.
He lived. This happened in May, while the intended victim was picking up his child at a school bus stop.
The problem is that the above story, for most major cities, is a fluke. It is certainly not going to happen in Washington DC. Maybe there is a slight chance of accidentally targeting an undercover cop, but that is so unlikely that no punk can really feel scared about it.
People make games of violent attacks when they find themselves in a great playing field. By successfully encouraging a culture of disarmament, young guys find themselves in a happy hunting ground.
They know they can get away with it because very few people will be armed.



Texas A&M Law Professor: Time 'to Repeal and Replace Second Amendment'

 by AWR Hawkins 15 Nov 2013
Speaking in a gun violence symposium at University of Connecticut's School of Law, Texas A&M law professor Mary Margaret Penrose said it's time  to repeal and replace [the] Second Amendment.
Penrose said this after expressing her frustration with the fact that President Obama has failed to pass more gun control in the eleven months since the heinous crime at Sandy Hook Elementary.
According to a Connecticut news blog, Penrose said gun laws should be decided on a per-state basis, versus the overarching rules and laws that result from the current amendment:  The beauty of a states' rights model solution is it allows those of you who want to live in a state with very loose restrictions to do so.  
As Breitbart News reported on December 15, 2012, a repeal of the Second Amendment is possible and can begin as soon as the majority of the populations in the 50 states vote for the repeal of the amendment. After that, the repeal has to receive two/thirds vote in the House of Representatives and two/thirds vote in the Senate, and two/thirds of all state legislatures.
Penrose said her problems with the Constitution are not limited to the Second Amendment. She  advocates redrafting the entire U.S. Constitution  in her law courses at Texas A&M.



Wayne LaPierre: Obama’s obsession with our gun rights
Daily Caller, 11/15/2013

By Wayne LaPierre, NRA

Barack Obama, the candidate who promised Americans in 2008 that “I will not take your guns away,” now, as President of the United States in 2013, has embraced the universal firearm confiscation of Australia and England—schemes that saw the destruction of hundreds of thousands of registered, legal firearms that had been outlawed and taken under threat of force from licensed gun owners by their governments.
Obama revealed his gun control endgame in a Sept. 22, 2013, political speech at a solemn memorial for the 12 Washington Navy Yard victims murdered by a deranged killer on Sept. 16, 2013.
Obama coldly used the madness of a delusional lone mass-murderer to claim that the rampage “ought to lead to some sort of transformation … it ought to obsess us.”
In the same breath, Obama defined his personal “obsession” and his notion of “transformation” for ordinary American gun owners:
“That’s what happened in other countries when they experienced similar tragedies. In the United Kingdom, in Australia … they mobilized and they changed.”
The Washington Post praised Obama’s demand for “transformation” to an Australia-style gun roundup and destruction as “commonsense.”
While the U.S. media either ignored or glossed over Obama’s embrace of the Aussie model for gun bans, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) on Sept. 23, 2013, led its coverage with this:
“The U.S. president, Barack Obama, says it’s time for America to follow the example of countries like Australia when it comes to gun control.”
With a Sept. 23, 2013, headline, “Obama hails Australian gun laws,” Sky News led its coverage with: “President Barack Obama has used Australia as a positive example of a country that tightened gun laws after a mass shooting.”
Virtually no U.S. media outlet was honest enough to describe what actually happened to our formerly free English speaking cousins as a direct result of mass murders committed by lone, criminally insane killers.
In reaction to the murder of 16 people in Hungerford in 1987 by an insane killer, registered semi-automatic rifles in Great Britain were banned and confiscated from all licensed owners. Then, following the 1996 massacre of school children in Dunblane, Scotland, most registered handguns were declared contraband, taken and destroyed. Owners of .22-cal. handguns had been allowed to keep them at government approved facilities, but they, too, were outlawed, collected and destroyed—because of the actions of two criminal lunatics.
On the heels of the Dunblane killings in 1996, an insane murderer in Australia, who obtained one of his semi-automatic rifles by killing its owner and his wife, slaughtered 34 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania.
As a result, all semi-automatic rifles, including .22s, and all semi-automatic shotguns and pump shotguns were banned, and licensed owners were required to turn them in for destruction under what the government, as in England, called a “buyback.”
In reality, the “buybacks” were theft—made possible by using pre-existing government lists of licensed owners and registered guns.
All of this explains Obama’s obsessive call for “universal background checks”—a scheme easily morphed into gun-owner registration.
The president’s notion of crafting a U.S. version of the Australian/British tyranny has not come in a vacuum. It has been preceded by a spate of articles designed to introduce the public to the concept.
Key to this propaganda push was a Jan. 16, 2013, New York Times op-ed by former Aussie Prime Minister John Howard, titled “I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.” In it, Howard touted his politics of forcibly disarming licensed law-abiding Australians:
“City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia. Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them … felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.”
And Howard boasted, “Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed—the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States.” (Emphasis added)
Understand that Australia is perhaps the most urbanized nation in the world where coastal, non-gun-owning city dwellers dwarf rural populations who have a long firearm tradition.
But today it is those urbanites in places like Sydney who are reaping the real consequences of John Howard’s multiple “buybacks.” Criminal violence with illegal firearms in those urban centers is soaring.
Try these headlines from one month before the U.S. Washington Navy Yard murders:
From the Ballina Shire Advocate, Aug. 21, 2013, “New plan unveiled to tackle out-of-control gun violence.”
Or this from News Limited Network Aug. 2, 2013, “Is Australia staring down the barrel of a gun crisis?”
“There is a gun battle going on in Australia. As bike gang members and drug dealers gun each other down on a regular basis, sending fear through the community, authorities seem to be fighting a losing battle to keep firearms out of their hands.”
As for mass murders, Howard, who once summed up his optic on freedom saying, “I hate guns,” wrote in his New York Times op-ed:
“The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing.”
The confiscatory bans were a hysterical response to the insanity of one person. One crazy person in Port Arthur. One crazy person in Hungerford. One crazy person in Dunblane. One crazy person in Aurora, Colo. One crazy person in Sandy Hook, Conn. And one crazy person at the Washington Navy Yard.
All of these killers had one thing in common: all were totally and recognizably deranged. And nobody reacted to their insanity. Nobody interceded.
In the case of the Navy Yard killer—a contract IT worker—police had warned the Navy he was a violent schizophrenic hearing voices and tormented by “extremely low frequency electromagnetic waves.” And he had a record of firearm abuse. Yet, he held a “secret” security clearance and carried a valid Navy ID that allowed him free access to military installations.
And, as I said on “Meet the Press,” equally important in the Navy Yard killings was the lax base security in what amounts to a gun-free zone: “That can’t stand. We need to look at letting men and women who know firearms and are trained in them to do what they do best, which is protect and survive.”
Yet Obama and his gun-ban cabal demand that millions of sane, ordinary peaceable Americans—you and me—pay the price for lone sociopaths with the loss of our rights.
USA Today reported that Obama plans to bring his Australia/UK “transformation” and “obsession” to bear on the 2014 congressional elections. All I can say is “Bring it on, because Americans—by the millions upon millions—will fight to defend our freedom.”




Two College Seniors Threatened With Expulsion For Pulling A Gun On A Six-Time Felon
Last Resistence, November 12,2013

They didn’t even have to use the gun except to brandish it. That’s all it took for the guy to take off running. And as it turned out, the man who came to their off-campus house door was a six-time felon and was later arrested on an unrelated charge.
But because they had a gun (actually two) in their house, that violated university housing “no tolerance” policies. Campus police had to confiscate their weapons following this incident.
The Spokesman-Review summarized what happened to these two seniors at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington:
At 10:15 p.m. on Oct. 24, [Erik] Fagan, 21, and [Daniel] McIntosh, 23, were settling in for the evening, having just said goodbye to a departing friend.
Then there was a knock on the door. Fagan, believing it was his friend again, opened the door to see an apparently homeless man demanding money.
Fagan offered the man a blanket and a can of food but refused to hand over any cash, he said. The man became agitated and combative, showing Fagan what appeared to be an ankle bracelet around his foot.
“He told me, ‘You don’t want to do this,’ ” Fagan said.
The man kept coming toward him, shouting at him, Fagan said. The narrow entryway prevented him from shutting the door without injuring himself. He shouted for McIntosh, who came running downstairs holding a loaded 10 mm Glock pistol.
“I come down with the gun at a low ready, as per how I’ve been trained,” McIntosh said, pointing his hands at the ground.
McIntosh saw his roommate and the man standing there, he said. The stranger’s hand was behind his back. McIntosh didn’t know what the man was doing, but he didn’t take any risks.
“I draw on him,” McIntosh said, lifting his arms into the air to demonstrate. “As soon as he sees me, he decides he doesn’t want to deal with me. So he takes off.”
The men called police and campus security; both arrived within minutes. McIntosh told the police officer he’d chased the man off with the pistol, for which he has a concealed weapons permit, he said.
The police officer was pleased with what the two seniors had done, telling them that they used the appropriate amount of force considering the situation.
But later that night, around 2 in the morning, campus security came, banged on their door and then let themselves in, since no one responded. They went upstairs to the bedrooms and banged on those doors, yelling for the two seniors to give up their weapons. The students complied and handed over their Glock and shotgun.
The students were threatened with expulsion for their policy violation. However, it appears that they won’t be expelled, but that they will remain on probation for the rest of their stay at the university.


The War on Fun: Missouri State wants to ban nerf guns
Daily Caller, 11/07/2013

 Toy nerf guns — the weapon of choice for students participating in Missouri State University’s semi-annual “Humans vs. Zombies” live-action game — may be the latest casualty of irrational anti-gun hysteria at American universities.
Humans vs. Zombies, a once-per-semester tradition at the Springfield campus, involves students using toy nerf guns to shoot foam bullets at each other. Almost 500 students played the most recent iteration of the game last month.
“I get really excited for it,” said Chad Holmes, a faculty advisor for Live Action Society, the group that hosts the game, in a statement to Ozarks First. “It’s my favorite game we play.”
Unfortunately, it involves guns. Toy guns that are incapable of harming anyone, and are enjoyed by small children around the country, but guns nonetheless.
Don Clark, director of public safety at MSU, told a public radio station that the nerf guns are a serious disruption, because other students seem them and report them.
“We cannot tell people that ‘if you see someone with a gun, it might be a Nerf gun, so just disregard it,’” said Clark.



What the Heck Were Republicans Thinking?
GOP pulled the plug on a die-hard gun rights advocate
GOA, November 8, 2013

Well, the results from Tuesday’s high-profile gubernatorial elections are in.
A moderate-to-liberal gun control advocate (Chris Christie) won in New Jersey, while a die-hard pro-gun advocate (Ken Cuccinelli) barely lost in Virginia.
Cuccinelli lost a squeaker (48.0 to 45.5 percent), even though he was outspent 4-1 by his anti-gun Democrat opponent, Terry McAuliffe, who was able to blast $15 million more dollars into the state for advertising.
Gun-grabbing advocate, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, also pumped in more than a million dollars into the race.
So how did the national GOP counter? Well, according to The Washington Times, “The Republican National Committee spent six million dollars less this year than it did in 2009 [for Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell]. Cuccinelli was outspent three to one during most of the campaign and as much as ten to one in the closing days.”
During the last two weeks of the race, the Cuccinelli ad campaign went “dark,” as they were unable to answer the vicious lies and attack ads that were filling the northern Virginia airwaves.
Conservatives in Virginia are furious. Says The Washington Post: “The election loss [in Virginia] reignited anger among conservative Republicans who believe that the party’s moderate wing ... had not backed up their candidate with money or support.”
Indeed, gun owners wonder if the additional $6 million -- that was spent on Bob McDonnell four years ago -- would have helped get an additional three percent of the vote for Cuccinelli.
Sadly, while Republicans were holding back in their support of their candidate, the Democrats were funding a third party candidate to take votes away from Cuccinelli.
Libertarian Robert Sarvis received immense help from an Obama-fundraiser, Joe Liemandt, who helped Sarvis get on the ballot.
According to a report in The Blaze on the day of the election, “A major Democratic Party benefactor and Obama campaign bundler helped pay for professional petition circulators responsible for getting Virginia Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Robert C. Sarvis on the ballot -- a move that could split conservative votes in a tight race.”
This Obama benefactor was the BIGGEST contributor to the Libertarian Booster Pac, and the Sarvis candidacy had the desired result -- as Cuccinelli fell short of McAuliffe by less than three percent. (Sarvis took six percent of the vote.)
Why didn’t Republicans adopt the same strategy? If a Green candidate had drawn votes away from McAuliffe -- the way Sarvis did for Cuccinelli -- then it would be the Republican candidate who would be the governor-elect today.
Bottom line: It appears that the national GOP, by sitting on its collective hands, views the enemy to be conservatives and Tea Party activists. They would rather have a Clinton fundraiser like Terry McAuliffe be governor of Virginia, rather than an accomplished public servant who brilliantly articulates Republican goals.
This is truly a travesty. It’s important that gun rights supporters ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY contact the Republican National Committee and voice their displeasure. Otherwise, we’ll see these same types of sellouts occurring everywhere in 2014.

Americans Skeptical of 'Smart Guns'; Oppose Their Legislative Mandate, National Poll Finds
NSSF, November 13, 2013

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- By a wide majority, Americans are skeptical of the reliability of technology intended to prevent all but authorized users of a firearm from being able to fire it. They also say overwhelmingly that they would not be likely to buy such a so-called “smart gun” and overwhelmingly oppose any government mandate requiring the use of this technology should it become available.
These findings were the among the results of a national scientific poll of more than 1,200 Americans conducted in October by McKeon & Associates and released today by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry. Although attempts to develop and market firearms equipped with authorized user recognition technology have been discussed for many years, the topic has been revived in recent months by some gun control advocates, remarks by President Obama and by the depiction of a smart gun in the latest James Bond movie.
Asked “How familiar are you with efforts to develop a firearm that will only fire for a specific authorized person(s)?”, only 20 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat familiar with the concept of “smart gun” technology. When told that such firearms would incorporate biometric or radio frequency identification (RFID) with an activation system that would rely on battery power, 74 percent of respondents said that these firearms would not be reliable at all or very reliable. Only 16 percent thought “smart guns” would be very or somewhat reliable. Some 10 percent responded “don’t know.” Gun owners overwhelmingly (84%) believed a smart gun would not be reliable, while a clear majority (60%) of non-gun owners also believed they would not be reliable.
To the question, “How likely would you be to purchase a gun with smart gun technology that prevented it from firing except for specific authorized users?” an overwhelming 74 percent of respondents overall said that they would not buy or would not very likely buy such a firearm. Only 14 percent of those polled said that they were very or somewhat likely to purchase a “smart gun.”
Some 70 percent of the survey sample also said that did not believe that government should mandate that all firearms produced incorporate “smart gun” technology should it become commercially available. Only 17 percent approved of a mandate, while 13 percent didn’t know.
The poll conducted Oct. 7-8 has a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percent. Respondents self-identified as 25 percent Democrat, 23 percent Republican and 52 percent independent. As to ethnicity, 70 percent of respondents said they were Caucasian, 14 percent African-American, 9 percent Hispanic; and 7 percent, other. As to age, 17 percent of respondents said they were 18-30; 28 percent, 31-45; 33 percent 46-60; and 21 percent, 60 or older.
“The National Shooting Sports Foundation does not oppose the development of owner authorized technology for firearms and, should such products come to market, individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to purchase them. However, we do oppose legislative mandates that would require manufacturers to produce only such firearms,” said Larry G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel. “We commissioned this poll to help determine where Americans stood on this issue. We are not surprised, frankly, to find that the majority of those polled were skeptical of this technology, although the margins were perhaps higher than even those of us familiar with the arguments would have expected. We are encouraged by the fact that seven out of ten of those surveyed did not believe the government should mandate the “one-size-fits-all” approach of so-called “smart gun” technology.


Guns & Ammo Fires Dick Metcalf for 2A Betrayal

By Nick Leghorn, November 6, 2013

Our friend at the Military Arms Channel broke the story, but it looks like the anti-gun diatribe penned by Guns & Ammo editor Dick Metcalf [dissected by RF here] earned him a one way trip to the unemployment line. Editor Jim Bequette wrote a statement on the issue, and MAC got the scoop. You can see the original image at the link, or make the jump for the transcribed version.
From Jim Bequette, Editor Guns & Ammo Magazine:
As editor of Guns & Ammo, I owe each and every reader a personal apology.
No excuses, no backtracking.
Dick Metcalf’s Backstop column in the December issue has aroused unprecedented controversy. Readers are hopping mad about it, and some are questioning Guns & Ammo‘s commitment to the Second Amendment, and I understand why.
Let me be clear: our commitment to the Second Amendment is unwavering. It has been so since the beginning. Historically, our tradition in supporting the Second Amendment is unflinching. No strings attached. It is no accident that when others in the gun culture counseled compromise in the past, hard-core thinkers like Harlon Carter, Don Kates and Neal Knox found a place and voice in these pages. When large firearms advocacy groups were going soft in the 1970s, they were prodded in the right direction from the pages of Guns & Ammo.
In publishing Metcalf’s column, I was untrue to that tradition, and for that I apologize. His views do not represent mine — and, most importantly, Guns & Ammo’s. It is very clear to me that they didn’t reflect the views of our readership, either.
 Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter, but his association with Guns & Ammo has officially ended.
I once again offer my personal apology. I understand what our valued readers want. I understand what you believe in when it comes to gun rights, and I believe the same thing.
I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and ask your forgiveness.
 Plans were already in place for a new editor to take the reins of Guns & Ammo Jan 1. These recent events have convinced me I should advance that schedule immediately.
 Your new Guns & Ammo editor will be Eric Poole, who has so effectively been running our special interest publications like Book of the AR-15 and Trigger. You will be hearing much more about this talented editor soon.
Guns & Ammo will never fail to vigorously lead in the struggle for our Second Amendment rights and with vigorous young editorial leadership, will do it even better in the future.
It’s yet to be seen whether this will have any impact on G&A’s advertisers, but if RECOIL’s similar issues are any indication then this may very well turn out to be a relatively minor speed bump (a roughly Dick Metcalf sized speed bump at that) in the grand scheme of things.

California Begins Confiscating Legally-Purchased Guns

It is not surprising that the first police raids to take legally-purchased firearms from citizens are in California. Until recently, the state had the strictest gun control laws and the liberal run state government has always looked unfavorably on the Second Amendment.
Earlier this year, the state legislature expanded the list of what they call “prohibited persons” – people who have legally registered a firearm but, for various reasons, are no longer allowed their Second Amendment rights. These reasons were expanded to include people who are behind on state taxes, did not pay toll fees in a “timely” manner and a wide range of other minor misdemeanors or reported mental health concerns.
In preparation for the crackdown, the state authorized $24 million to hire additional officers to track down 20,000 people on the list. One person on this list was Joe Mendez.
A police officer came to the door and lured Mendez out of his house with a story of a hit and run report. Once outside, he had M16s pointed within inches of his face, was taken into custody and had all weapons removed from his house.
It is important to remember that these were legally- purchased and registered firearms. That gets to the other issue about this initiative.
This case demonstrates what registration lists really are. They are tools to allow police to confiscate weapons. And, all they have to do in California is come up with a reason you should be on the prohibited persons list; a list that is continuously expanding in its scope and definition.
California gun owners beware: your firearms and rights are being confiscated by your liberal politicians.


Guns & Ammo Editor Shocks With Gun Control Support
News Max,Tuesday, November 5, 2013

The editor of Guns & Ammo, a popular national magazine for firearm enthusiasts, announced in an editorial published in his December issue that he supports gun control regulations, a position that is bound to shock plenty of his readers.
Dick Metcalf, in his opinion column, draws a distinction between regulation and infringement of civil rights.
 I bring this up because way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to continue to keep and bear arms is an infringement,  Metcalf writes.  The fact is that all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.
 Freedom of speech is regulated. You cannot falsely and deliberately shout 'Fire ' in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is regulated. A church cannot practice human sacrifice.
 Many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, an infringement. If that were true, then the authors of the Second Amendment themselves should not have specified 'well-regulated.' The question is, when does regulation become infringement.
Metcalf pointed out that the Second Amendment already has some regulation:  It's illegal for convicted felons or the clinically insane to keep and bear arms.
Metcalf's comments, which surprised many in the blogosphere, are certain to outrage gun-rights supporters, many of whom argue that those rights are absolute. Some postings on the website freepatriot.org called Metcalf a liberal and a  traitor.
Others simply opposed his opinion, saying it ran counter to what is outlined in the Constitution. They said his was a misinterpretation of the Second Amendment's protections, noting that Metcalf should be fired or that they would cancel subscriptions.
Revolver specialist Grant Cunningham, writing on his website, also called Metcalf out over what he called a misreading of the law's provisions.
 Metcalf's article buys into the idea that regulated means legislated, and then — inexplicably for someone who calls himself an expert on constitutional law — uses his misunderstanding to say, in essence, that all legislated infringements are perfectly acceptable because they're just the regulations that the amendment allows,  Cunningham wrote.  This is, obviously, nonsense.
 This lack of understanding of the language and historical background of the Second Amendment,  Cunningham wrote,  leads Metcalf to regurgitate a number of prohibitionist talking points, including the ridiculous comparisons to automobiles and driver's licenses.



 
Senate Judiciary Committee to Vote on Anti-Gun Judge for Nation's Second-Highest Court
Ask your Senator to oppose the gun-hating nominee, Robert Wilkins
GOA, October 29, 2013
The Senate Judiciary Committee will soon begin the first step in taking anti-gun judges and “court-packing” them into what is widely regarded as the nation’s second-most-important court -- the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
And, unlike anti-gun judges with no “paper trail,” the nominee, Robert Wilkins, has a particularly virulent anti-gun record.
Wilkins was the D.C. District Court judge who decided, last year, that non-resident U.S. citizens do not have the Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm [Dearth v. Holder, 893 F.Supp. 59 (2012)].
Dearth had contended that federal firearms laws and regulations made it effectively impossible for a U.S. citizen residing in Canada to purchase a firearm in the United States.
Wilkins responded, in his opinion on “Second Amendment Claims,” that it didn’t matter if a U.S. citizen was legally barred from purchasing a firearm in the United States, because he already owned a gun in Canada and was free to bring it into the country.
What? So if you already own a gun, the Second Amendment doesn’t prohibit the government from preventing you from purchasing another one? This comes perilously close to saying that the Second Amendment protects only possession of firearms, and not sales. Hence, this “pre-existing gun argument” could just as easily be used to ban all purchases and sales of firearms by U.S. citizens in the U.S.
This is made even worse by the context in which Wilkins’ nomination is being pushed. Currently, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is not exactly a conservative bastion. Although it overturned the District of Columbia’s “Banana Republic” anti-gun laws in the Heller case -- as did the Supreme Court on appeal -- it upheld ObamaCare and perhaps provided momentum for the Supreme Court to do the same.
Nevertheless, the Obama administration would like to turn the critical D.C. circuit into a liberal stronghold like California’s Ninth Circuit -- and it is threatening to blow up the Senate rules in order to do so.
ACTION: Please Click here to contact your Senators and demand that they oppose the nomination of anti-gun zealot Robert Wilkins to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Please note that the vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee is JUST THE FIRST STEP. If Wilkins is voted out of the committee, then the full Senate will vote on him soon afterwards. The committee vote is expected on Thursday.


Bass Pro Shops will sell guns at its Atlantic City store
JENNIFER BOGDAN, Staff Writer: Friday, October 25, 2013  

When Bass Pro Shops opens in Atlantic City — as soon as next year — the sporting goods giant will also likely become the city’s first firearms retailer.
That fact has drawn concern from some city officials who say the guns issue wasn’t vetted with the city before the state authority running the Atlantic City Tourism District agreed to finance the project.
The Casino Reinvestment Development Authority first announced the project in August 2012, and later agreed to provide a $12.3 million construction loan to the retailer. The land on which the store is being built is owned by the CRDA; for years it has been set aside for the final phase of the city’s outlet development built by Baltimore-based Cordish Co. An additional $11 million over 11 years is expected to be returned to the company as part of a tax abatement plan.
City Council President William “Speedy” Marsh said the fact that the store would sell guns wasn’t discussed with the city and should have been.
“I don’t think the CRDA did their due diligence,” Marsh said. “I’m very concerned. I think (Bass Pro Shops) will be an outstanding addition to Atlantic City, but about selling guns, it’s a problem.”
CRDA Executive Director John Palmieri rejected the idea that the authority hadn’t been forthcoming with the plans, saying city officials, including Mayor Lorenzo Langford, who is a member of the CRDA’s board, had plenty of time to raise questions. In addition to financing the project, the CRDA provided land use approvals for the store through a hearing process last month.
“Bass Pro coming to Atlantic City has been a widely publicized development for more than a year,” Palmieri said. “There were presentations at public board meetings as well as opportunities to raise issues at the public land use hearing more recently. … Representatives from the city were present at the land use hearing, and no issues related to this were raised.”
Langford said he had no comment on the issue.
What merchandise would be sold in the store wasn’t brought up during the public portion of any CRDA board meetings where financing was discussed. During a CRDA land use hearing last month, guns were mentioned once in describing the layout of the store, according to meeting minutes.
During that meeting, Nick Talvacchia, an attorney representing Bass Pro, said a “huge hunting counter” will be located on the second floor of the store. An area marked on architectural renderings as an “archery range” will likely be a shooting range, he said.
“Mostly it’s for people to try out guns that they’re purchasing. It’s not a recreational kind of thing,” Talvacchia said, according to the minutes.
Tammy Sapp, a spokeswoman for Bass Pro Shops, confirmed that not all Bass Pro Shops sell firearms and ammunition, but the Atlantic City store will. The company sells rifles, shotguns and pistols, but what mix of firearms will be sold in the resort hasn’t yet been decided, she said. The store caters to selling merchandise specific to each region, and in New Jersey that would include firearms for shooting deer and turkeys, Sapp said.
Bass Pro’s website and catalogs advertise a wide variety of firearms.
“Whether shopping for hunting, self-defense, or competitive shooting sports, Bass Pro offers a full selection of high performance guns from top manufacturers,” the website states. “With everything from high-powered waterfowl shotguns, compact conceal-and-carry handguns and ever-advanced AR predator rifles, Bass Pro has the gun for you.”
Third Ward Councilman Stephen Moore, who comes out to shooting scenes in the city, said he was disturbed to learn that Bass Pro would sell guns. He said he wasn’t yet sure whether he was more concerned about the potential for guns to be legally purchased and brought into the community or the potential for break-ins at the store.
“Given the level of crime in our community, especially crime involving guns, I’m absolutely, unequivocally not in favor of having guns sold in the city,” Moore said. “It’s a serious issue. It’s not like you’re selling tubing to go float down the Delaware.”
Sapp said the company uses state-of-the-art intrusion and surveillance systems to protect its inventory. The store will be monitored through cameras in locations both on-site and off-site, and Bass Pro seeks to develop strong relationships with local law enforcement, she said.
Still, Bass Pro Shops have seen break-ins to their firearms departments. Last month, 17 semiautomatic rifles were stolen from a Bass Pro Shops in Macon, Ga., after four men broke in and used a crowbar to pry open a case, according to published reports.
Deputy Police Chief Henry White said the Police Department “has zero concerns” with the store, noting that if a city resident purchases a rifle or handgun, local police would be notified. Anything purchased by a nonresident would be reported to police in their municipality.
In New Jersey, a firearms purchaser identification card is required to purchase a rifle or shotgun. Handguns require a more vigorous process. A permit to purchase a handgun must be completed for each handgun transferred in the state, according to State Police. Individuals must be fingerprinted when applying for a firearms purchaser identification card or a permit to purchase a handgun.
White pointed out that Bass Pro has to maintain records and police would be able to look at those records when deemed necessary.
Councilman-at-large George Tibbitt said he had relatively few concerns about the store, saying he always anticipated that a hunting and fishing store would sell guns. Ensuring that a proper plan would be in place to secure the store in the case of an event such as a hurricane that could lead to looting was Tibbitt’s only concern.
“New Jersey has some of the toughest gun laws in the country,” Tibbitt said. “I don’t know what kind of system they have for locking down their guns, but it’s no different than locking down a leather coat in Macy’s. There are ways to do it.”


New York's SAFE Act provision on background checks for bullet buyers to be delayed
1. Background checks won’t begin on Jan. 15
 Buffalo News Albany Bureau, 10/26/13
ALBANY – Checking the backgrounds and recording detailed information about anyone buying ammunition, a key component of New York’s gun-control law, will not begin as expected Jan. 15, State Police officials confirmed Friday evening.
Several days after The Buffalo News first inquired about delays in the ammunition provisions, the State Police said Friday the agency needs more time to develop a system that will check the backgrounds of individuals before they purchase ammunition.
Additionally, a requirement that ammunition sellers compile and maintain an assortment of information – from the buyer’s name and occupation to the type and amount of bullets bought – also will not be kicking in on Jan. 15 as permitted under the gun-control law.
Officials did not say when the ammunition background checks might start.
“The State Police is working on technology solutions to be able to carry out this section of the SAFE Act so that the public, buyers and sellers are not inconvenienced or delayed in any way when they purchase ammunition,’’ the State Police said in a statement.
The New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, or NY SAFE Act, was quickly approved in January following the shootings at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut. Besides its new definitions on what constitutes a banned assault weapon and limits on number of rounds permitted in a weapon’s magazine, the law also targeted ammunition purchases by dealers and gun owners.
The law requires ammunition sellers to register with the State Police and to also run the purchaser’s name through a state-created database to see if they can buy ammunition. Only commercial dealers capable of running a background check, which must include a photo identification procedure in a face-to-face transaction, can sell ammunition under the new law.
Further, ammunition dealers must keep a written log – noting the date of purchase and the name, age, occupation and residency of ammunition buyers – for each sale that police can later inspect “at all reasonable hours.’’ That could have begun, under the law, on Jan. 15.
The SAFE Act was pushed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who has seen his poll numbers decline upstate, in part, since the controversial law was approved in January without going through the normal three-day process. The News first asked about the ammunition registration provisions Monday, the same day the governor was in Manhattan being honored by New Yorkers Against Gun Violence.
Parts of the law took effect immediately, but other provisions, including the ammunition registration and background portions, were delayed to give time to agencies to prepare for changes in the SAFE Act.
Officials said a provision of the law requiring sellers of ammunition to be registered is still being implemented Jan. 15. Most are already federally registered anyway, but the new state law is expected to cover a larger range of sellers, including small stores that might sell ammunition as just a small part of their business.
Sources said that the state was hoping to use the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check system as part of the mandate that ammunition sellers check the backgrounds of ammunition buyers. But that background check system is only for purchase of weapons, a limitation that state officials said they knew of when the SAFE Act was being crafted.
The law envisioned that the system to check the backgrounds of ammunition buyers, as well as for dealers to record personal information about purchasers, could take effect in the middle of January – one year after the SAFE Act was approved. But the law gave discretion to the superintendent of the State Police to begin the ammunition program when a suitable system was in place.
The ammunition provisions have been among the most controversial of a law that still has gun owners fuming and is the subject of Second Amendment court challenges.
The delay on implementing parts of the ammunition program on Jan. 15 means sellers will not have to start recording the date, name, age, occupation and residence of ammunition buyers. In addition, dealers also were going to be required in January to record the amount, serial numbers, manufacturer’s name and caliber of ammunition they sold. That information then could be inspected by police.
Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, which has fought the SAFE Act, was not immediately available to comment.
The Cuomo administration has found that the controversy surrounding the SAFE Act has not gone away, especially in more conservative upstate areas. Anti-SAFE Act signs are still a common sight on lawns throughout many upstate communities, and many upstate sheriffs have suggested they will not enforce certain components of the law. County legislative bodies throughout the state have gone on record opposing the law.
While there is nothing to indicate there is any motive beyond getting a workable system in place to begin tracking ammunition purchases, the delay of the controversial ammunition provisions does put off a sticky public relations problem for Cuomo.
In the middle of January, Cuomo will still be trying to sell his State of the State proposals to voters statewide in advance of the release of his 2014 budget plan in a year in which he is seeking re-election; having the much-debated ammunition provisions take place at the same time would give critics another reason to protest Cuomo on his expected statewide tours to promote his 2014 agenda.




New Report: UK Crime Statistics Fudged to Justify Gun Ban
Last Resistence, October 22, 2013

How many times have we heard Piers Morgan rant and rave about crime rates in his home country? He claims gun violence is virtually nonexistent thanks to the Brits doing the “responsible” thing and taking everyone’s guns away in 1997. Sure, there was an acknowledged, initial spike in crime shortly thereafter, but then it began to fall and has since plummeted. Or so they say.
According to a new report published by AmmoLand.com and authored by Dr. Paul Gallant, Dr. Joanne Eisen, Alan J. Chwick and Sherry Gallant, the UK has an entire bureaucracy over there devoted not to fighting crime, but fighting crime statistics. Their job is to determine which crimes get recorded as crimes and which get categorized as something else, which ends up not affecting the overall crime rate.
In other words, according to the findings in their report, if there is an attempted burglary, it might get reported initially by a victim or a witness, but it also might end up being categorized as “criminal damage” instead of burglary. The report goes on to say that if there’s an instance of what they call “Grievous Bodily Harm,” it might get categorized as “common assault.” When they downgrade the category, it affects how crime statistics are eventually reported in the media, and those numbers are the ones that find their way to Piers Morgan, who then trumpets them from his TV show so that everyone knows how effective gun control is.
The report stated:
The Brits are vigorously and openly beating their statistics to a bloody pulp, as they have created a stunningly large bureaucracy to deal with crime figures.
The created bureaucracy helps make decisions about how a crime will ultimately be reported—or not reported. The Home Office acknowledged the situation and the existence of crime reduction targets:  “The police do an excellent job but the rise in bureaucracy, targets and paperwork under the last Government turned the police into form-writers instead of crime-fighters…Increasing government interference in recent years has changed the focus of the police. They have become responsive to targets and bureaucracy rather than to people.” Note here that the Home Office is admitting to the existence of “targets.” These targets are guides used to reduce the number of crimes reported, and the severity of those crimes. It is openly acknowledged that police are under pressure to reduce the crime statistics, and that they have goals that they must meet. One can notice that the Constable who described exactly how these “targets” work did not face the camera.
Their report noted that the data are so manipulated that no one really knows for sure what the truth is about UK violent crime. Those in positions of authority who might know about true crime statistics face disciplinary measures if they decide to blow the whistle. So everyone keeps quiet. And liberals in the US go on believing that UK gun control has been a resounding success.

Ammo-Again
Outdoor Wire, October 24, 2013

After reading a lengthy email exchange between a group of friends that includes competition shooters, writers, law enforcement and instructors, on "what's causing the ammunition shortage" yesterday, it seemed high time to wander out and some decidedly un-scientific research for myself.
My first stop was the closest Walmart. I wandered into the sporting goods section and there on the shelves was ammunition-including .22 LR in boxes (no bricks) and virtually any handgun caliber ammunition I wanted, so long as I didn't want the "premium" ammo lines. No dice there.
There was also a decent selection of rifle calibers for hunting (including .223 and .308) although there a two box limit was still in effect.
It was a similar story at two local gun shops, although inventory and product selection was considerably reduced. Lacking the buying power of big box retailers, many local shops are offering lesser-known brands of accessories.
If they didn't, one owner told me, he still wouldn't have much to sell. Since he took a month off last spring because he had nothing to sell, he felt the situation was improving- slowly- but said he would still be looking -hard- at the numbers before renewing his lease.
Plenty has been written about ammunition shortages over the past year, but having physically driven across the country, I've been enough different places to say the shortages are not the same everywhere.
They appear to be centered in areas sharing two vitally important things: a concentration of shooters (existing and new) and easy access to places to shoot.
Where I spend much of my time when not on the road, there are only three handgun and/or rifle ranges in a hundred-mile circle. There's only one shotgun club, and it's only open three or four days a week.
People don't have lots of places to shoot, so they're not using ammunition. Because they're not diminishing their supplies so rapidly, they're not so concerned about replenishment. So they're not panic buying everything on the shelves. I spoke with two guys buying ammunition and they told me they were only buying ammo because they'd noticed they had "a box or two" less hunting ammo than normal at their hunting camp.
Neither had shot anything except .22s since last hunting season, but both owned more than one rifle and handgun. Those, they said, were around "just in case."
Speaking with managers at bog boxes in the area, I asked if they'd increased their ammo orders over the past few months. Their responses didn't surprise me, but did help explain why some stores across the country have inventory while others don't.
It seems Walmart's guidelines for increasing restocking quantities aren't discretionary at the store level. Those are based on turn times on inventory. If your location didn't sell inventory faster, it wasn't getting an increase. Quick sellouts, however, reallocated inventory- including portions earmarked for the slower-selling store. That helped in high-demand areas, but eventually led some short-term availability at slower-demand stores.
In that retail model, less demand did mean diminished supplies - eventually, and not the suddenly bare shelves of high demand areas.
That helped me understand why I was unable to buy .380 ACP ammunition anywhere in Birmingham, Alabama - an area with several public/private ranges and shooting clubs, but walked into an east Tennessee Walmart and left with two boxes of premium defensive loads.
So where is all the ammo going?
If you buy the supply/demand model, it's going where it has always gone - where demand is the highest.
But only in the quantities dictated by manufacturing capacities. Walmart would ship more -if it had more. Ditto other big box retailers.
If that's the case, at least some portion of the ammo shortage would actually be the result of the shooting community's self-fulfilling prophecy.
After all, we talk - incessantly- among ourselves about ammo supplies and shortages. It's vitally important to every one of us.
That stokes a feeding frenzy whenever ammo hits the shelves. The resupply is snapped up, and the conversation returns to the shortages. As the shampoo instructions read: Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
But I'm not saying there isn't also the "new normal" when it comes to shooting. There are lots of new gun owners -and they're buying more ammo than new buyers of old.
They add to the shortages- again primarily in areas where they have ready access to places to shoot.
That assertion isn't so difficult to accept if you think of it as anything other than the visceral issue of firearms and their ownership.
If there are no bowling alleys in your area, you have a tough time finding bowling supplies or other bowlers.
What makes firearms different is the constant pressure of a government trying to outlaw an activity Constitutionally- guaranteed to every citizen. Bowling doesn't have dedicated "anti-bowlers" constantly campaigning to have alleys closed down and balls outlawed because of artificial weight and/or color concerns.
So here's my unscientific observation on the ammo question: ammunition is not as widely available as it was a couple of years ago. But not due to a government conspiracy or manufacturers artificially creating demand.
The most acute shortages are concentrated around areas where there are the largest numbers of a) gun owners/shooters and b) ranges.
Ammunition makers are still going as fast as two key factors allow: component supplies and equipment capacities.
Coponent manufacturers are constrained by raw material issues. There is a higher global demand for brass, copper, lead and other raw goods because there are more consumers worldwide. Industries in China, India and other "developing countries" are competing for the same raw goods- and driving up both demand and price. Ultimately, whatever the cause, price increases wind up being paid by consumers. That's another reason we're seeing higher prices for most ammunition across the board.
Finally, as my friend Michael Bane points out, shooters have finally used-up most of the surplus ammunition for those surplus foreign guns we used to consider cheap to own -and shoot.
Those "exotic" calibers aren't being made in the United States because ammo makers can't reduce output of bread-and-butter calibers. Foreign ammo makers aren't shipping huge quantities of that formerly-affordable ammo here because their domestic demand gets priority. And in case you haven't noticed (and thanks, Michael for pointing this out), today's world isn't a terrifically stable place.
But ammunition wasn't the only section where I saw more product selection. Shooting accessories seem to be creeping back onto retailers' shelves.
That's encouraging news for consumers, because product supply may have finally caught up with demand. Not such good news for manufacturers who find themselves way ahead of orders and are still cranking out product.
Again, rising supplies are good news for gun shoppers- for a couple of reasons.
First, it means you may have choices when you're shopping.
Maybe more importanly, some companies are telling me- quietly- that they're preparing to actually launch new product.
With NASGW coming up next week, wholesalers and distributors may see the first new products from some companies in more than a year.
Demand for existing product forced some manufacturers to delay new introductions. Now, as orders slow, they're able to offer new stuff. And new stuff always catches the attention of existing - and potential- shooters.



MILLER: D.C. businessman faces two years in jail for unregistered ammunition, brass casing
The Washington Times, October 23, 2013

Mark Witaschek, a successful financial adviser with no criminal record, is facing two years in prison for possession of unregistered ammunition after D.C. police raided his house looking for guns.
Mr. Witaschek has never had a firearm in the city, but he is being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The trial starts on Nov. 4.
The police banged on the front door of Mr. Witaschek's Georgetown home at 8:20 p.m. on July 7, 2012, to execute a search warrant for "firearms and ammunition ... gun cleaning equipment, holsters, bullet holders and ammunition receipts."
Mr. Witaschek's 14-year-old daughter let inside some 30 armed officers in full tactical gear.
D.C. law requires residents to register every firearm with the police, and only registered gun owners can possess ammunition, which includes spent shells and casings. The maximum penalty for violating these laws is a $1,000 fine and a year in jail.
Police based their search on a charge made by Mr. Witaschek's estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with a gun, although a judge later found the charge to be without merit.
After entering the house, the police immediately went upstairs, pointed guns at the heads of Mr. Witaschek and his girlfriend, Bonnie Harris, and demanded they surrender, facedown and be handcuffed.
In recalling what followed, Mr. Witaschek became visibly emotional in describing how the police treated him, Ms. Harris and the four children in the house.
His 16-year-old son was in the shower when the police arrived. "They used a battering ram to bash down the bathroom door and pull him out of the shower, naked," said his father. "The police put all the children together in a room, while we were handcuffed upstairs. I could hear them crying, not knowing what was happening."
Police spokesman Gwendolyn Crump would not provide further information on the events in this case.
The police shut down the streets for blocks and spent more than two hours going over every inch of his house. "They tossed the place," said Mr. Witaschek. He provided photos that he took of his home after the raid to document the damage, which he estimated at $10,000.
The police found no guns in the house, but did write on the warrant that four items were discovered: "One live round of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition," which was an inoperable shell that misfired during a hunt years earlier. Mr. Witaschek had kept it as a souvenir. "One handgun holster" was found, which is perfectly legal.
"One expended round of .270 caliber ammunition," which was a spent brass casing. The police uncovered "one box of Knight bullets for reloading." These are actually not for reloading, but are used in antique-replica, single-shot, muzzle-loading rifles.
This was the second police search of his home. Exactly one month earlier, Mr. Witaschek allowed members of the "Gun Recovery Unit" access to search without a warrant because he thought he had nothing to hide.
After about an hour and a half, the police found one box of Winchester .40 caliber ammunition, one gun-cleaning kit (fully legal) and a Civil War-era Colt antique revolver that Mr. Witaschek kept on his office desk. The police seized the Colt even though antique firearms are legal and do not have to be registered.
Mr. Witaschek is a gun owner and an avid hunter. However, he stores his firearms at the home of his sister, Sylvia Witaschek, in suburban Arlington, Va.
Two weeks after the June raid, D.C. police investigators went to his sister's house — unaccompanied by Virginia police and without a warrant — and asked to "view" the firearms, according to a police report. She refused. The next day, the D.C. police returned to her house with the Arlington County police and served her with a criminal subpoena.
The Office of Attorney General of the District of Columbia Irvin Nathan signed an affidavit on Aug. 21, 2012, in support of a warrant to arrest Mr. Witaschek. A spokesman for Mr. Nathan would not comment on a pending case.
Mr. Witaschek went to the police station on Aug. 24 at 5:30 a.m. to turn himself in, but was not transferred to central booking until 11:30 a.m., at which time he was told it was too late to be arraigned that day. He spent the night in jail and was released the next day at 10 a.m.
Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier reserves such harsh tactics for ordinary citizens. When NBC News anchor David Gregory violated the gun-registration law last year by wielding an illegal 30-round magazine on live television, he was not arrested.
Mr. Nathan also gave Mr. Gregory a pass, writing that prosecuting him "would not promote public safety."
Mr. Nathan, who is unelected, showed no such leniency to Mr. Witaschek. In September 2012, the attorney general offered Mr. Witaschek a deal to plead guilty to one charge of unlawful possession of ammunition with a penalty of a year of probation, a $500 fine and a contribution to a victims' fund.
Mr. Witaschek turned down the offer. "It's the principle," he told me.
To increase the pressure a year later, Mr. Nathan tacked on an additional charge in August of illegal ammunition from the first, warrantless search. Mr. Witaschek chose to accept the risk of prison time by going to trial instead of pleading guilty.
The firearms laws in places such as the District of Columbia, Chicago, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey do nothing to reduce violence, but merely infringe on the Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding.
However, if these laws are going to be enforced, the police and government must treat everyone equally.
The charges against Mr. Witaschek should be dropped.


Cops Shoot Thirteen-Year-Old Because Second Amendment Is Dead Letter
Political Outcast, October 24, 2013

The cops have been put on administrative leave pending an investigation, because we all know that, if a non-cop shot a kid he wouldn’t be arrested or anything like that.
The boy's mother, Sujey Annel Cruz Cazarez, was grief-stricken in the living room.
“Why did they kill him? Why?” she said.
At 3 p.m., two sheriff's deputies patrolling in the area of Moorland and West Robles avenues observed Lopez walking with what sheriff's officials said appeared to be some type of rifle.
The deputies called for backup and repeatedly ordered the boy to drop the rifle, Sheriff's Lt. Dennis O'Leary said in a news release.
At some point after the deputies told Lopez to drop the rifle, they fired several rounds from their handguns at the boy, who was hit multiple times, O'Leary said.
After telling Lopez to move away from the rifle, deputies approached the unresponsive teen as he lay on the ground and handcuffed him before administering first aid and calling for medical assistance, O'Leary said.
Lopez was later pronounced dead at the scene. Neither deputy was injured…
The cops were never shot at (not even by airsoft pellets). No one else was in the area being seemingly threatened by the “replica rifle.” The cops pointed their weapons at the boy, shouted orders, and then opened fire.
We can talk about how police are trained and whether this could possibly be a reasonable response. But I’ll skip that and turn to a slightly different issue.
This kid was killed because the Second Amendment is a dead letter in California and many other states.

He was carrying an apparent “assault rifle.” The police believed that, because he was carrying this weapon (or so they thought), they had a right to draw their weapons and aim at him.
He wasn’t threatening anyone.
He wasn’t shooting the gun.
He was just carrying a firearm.
He was bearing arms.
We live in a country where a boy can be stopped by the police, with their weapons drawn and aimed at him, just because he is carrying a rifle.
The Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. Shooting someone for carrying a gun is about as serious an infringement of the right to bear arms as can be imagined.
Yet, even the way this story is being reported, it is assumed that, if the boy had been carrying a real rifle, then it would have been OK to order him at gunpoint to drop his firearm.
If our country had never had a second amendment in its Constitution, then the behavior of the police would make sense.
Society’s disregard for the Second Amendment gave those cops license to kill. Everyone who supports taking away the right to keep and bear arms is advocating that cops be permitted to behave in this way toward thirteen-year-old children.




Rally at the Alamo Will Call on Texans to Raise Their Rifles High

October 15, 2013 the new york times

HOUSTON — Hundreds of armed demonstrators are planning to converge at the Alamo in San Antonio on Saturday to test the limits of the gun laws in one of the most gun-friendly states in the country, by openly carrying their shotguns, assault weapons and other types of rifles in public.
A flier urging gun advocates to gather at the Alamo, in San Antonio, on Saturday. The carrying of rifles is largely unregulated in Texas, a point to be made by hundreds expected, with loaded weapons, at the event.
Organizers of the rally — a flier declares “Get your guns & Head to San Antonio” — said they were planning a peaceful event.
But the demonstration, intended to both celebrate the state’s gun culture and challenge it, has concerned officials. Amid a heavy police presence, more than 1,000 men and women carrying loaded rifles over their shoulders are expected to assemble at the site of the historic gun battle in one of the busiest sections of downtown.
Gun advocates say they have a simple goal — to remind ordinary citizens and law enforcement officials that they are allowed in Texas to legally and openly carry what are known as “long guns,” including shotguns and assault rifles.
In the world of Texas gun rights, size counts.
The carrying of handguns is regulated in Texas: many residents are allowed to carry a concealed pistol if they receive a state-issued permit, but they are forbidden from carrying that weapon openly and unconcealed in public. The carrying of rifles, however, is largely unregulated. Texans can walk down the street with a loaded rifle slung over their shoulder so long as they are not intentionally carrying the weapon in a public place in a manner, according to state law, “calculated to alarm.”
Hunters in rural Texas have quietly enjoyed and exercised the right to openly carry rifles for decades. But in recent months, as gun advocates have pushed for the passage of open-carry legislation that would allow those with concealed-carry permits to wear their handguns unconcealed on their hips, pro-gun Texans have sought to put the freedom to carry long guns to the test in Austin and other cities.
“A right that goes unexercised is a right that will be in jeopardy in the future,” said Jerry Patterson, the state land commissioner and a former state senator who wrote the concealed handgun law. “It used to be that everyone drove around Texas with a shotgun or rifle in a pickup visible for all to see. It’s normal. It’s routine. It’s lawful. We want to demonstrate that there’s no reason to call up the National Guard. Somebody might be offended, but that’s just too bad.”
Mr. Patterson, 66, who is scheduled to speak at the rally, used to carry a pistol in his boot on the floor of the Senate chamber when he was a legislator in Austin. But he will not have a rifle at the event on Saturday, because doing so, he said, would be too cumbersome.
When asked if he was bringing a rifle to the Alamo, the Rev. Terry Holcomb, a rally organizer and a pastor at a Baptist church near Huntsville, Tex., replied, “No sir, but my wife is.”
“She’ll be bringing an AR-15 Bushmaster .223,” he said.
Mr. Holcomb, 45, has carried that weapon as well as his Civil War-era replica revolver — certain antique guns and replicas that do not fire modern ammunition can be carried unconcealed — in public dozens of times during individual and group demonstrations, including on walks around his neighborhood in Coldspring, Tex.
“We get actually very little negative reaction,” said Mr. Holcomb, the executive director of the gun rights group Texas Carry, one of the rally’s sponsors. “We do not have a problem with police engagement at all. We appreciate those encounters.”
One such encounter, however, angered gun advocates, and prompted the idea for the rally. Three members of another gun group, Open Carry Texas, were cited for disorderly conduct with a firearm as they sat outside a Starbucks in San Antonio with their rifles in August. Mr. Holcomb and other gun advocates have said the three men were cited illegally.
The rally has put San Antonio officials in a difficult position. A city ordinance prohibits any person other than a police or security officer from carrying a firearm within the city limits at a political rally or at other public sites and events. Mr. Patterson, the state land commissioner, said that Chief William McManus of the San Antonio Police Department told him that the city was suspending enforcement of that ordinance for the rally on Saturday.
Gun advocates believe that the ordinance is unlawful, pointing to sections of local government code that prohibit municipalities and counties from passing laws regulating firearms.
Chief McManus did not address suspending the ordinance in a statement. But he said police officials were “expecting it to be a peaceful gathering and within the limits of the law.”
The rally’s organizers have made full symbolic use of the site of their protest, which will be on the grounds of the Alamo on state-owned property that Mr. Patterson’s office is in charge of overseeing. Fliers for the event feature a Texas flag emblazoned with an assault rifle and the words, “Come and Take It, San Antonio!”
But amid such bluster, the organizers have also sought to give the event a family-friendly tone. Mr. Holcomb said they would be conducting “chamber checks” to prevent accidental discharges. Such checks, which will be done by organizers to ensure that bullets remain in the clips rather than loaded into the chamber, will be mandatory.
They have also asked those participating to observe “proper muzzle etiquette” and to carry their weapons with a sling, a long strap that allows the gun to be slung over the shoulder, to “promote a nonaggressive manner of carry.”



Man Imprisoned for Legally Purchased Guns
Freedom Outpost, October 13,2013


The story of Brian Aitken, a man who moved from Colorado to New Jersey in 2009 to be closer to his son, should be a wakeup call any conservative or liberty minded person who is thinking of moving to New Jersey. Aitken was found with legally purchased, locked and unloaded handguns in the trunk of his car. As a result, he was arrested, imprisoned and denied access to his son. He was sentenced to seven years. That's the minimum sentence for armed robbery of a bank!
According to Aitken, he was convicted under the Graves Act. Alissa D. Hascup writes, "The 'Graves Act,' N.J.S.A. 43-6(c), requires the imposition of a minimum term of imprisonment and parole ineligibility for certain firearm-related offenses.  Until 2008, the 'Graves Act' only applied when a person was convicted of possessing or using a firearm while in the course of committing certain crimes, or possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)."
Now, however, additional offenses have been added to the Graves Act and an increased minimum sentence, but that was four months ago. Enter Governor Chris Christie.
Christie signed S2804 into law. Among the provisions of the legislation was this little section on handguns:
    Handguns.  (1) Any person who knowingly has in his possession any handgun, including any antique handgun, without first having obtained a permit to carry the same as provided in N.J.S.2C:58-4, is guilty of a crime of the [third] second degree. [if] (2) If the handgun is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person [.  Otherwise] it is a crime of the [second] third degree.
Under this law, the minimum sentence goes from 36 months to 42 months. Aitken got seven years!
So he is carrying legally purchased firearms, that are in his trunk and unloaded. Obviously he has no intention of using them to do anyone any harm or commit a crime, and yet because of overreaching, tyrannical laws, he was sentenced to seven years in prison. For goodness sakes, if someone has a paintball gun or airsoft gun they can be guilty of a crime!
Thankfully, Aitken had his sentence commuted by Governor Christie after four months (though Christie signed S2804 into law two months ago), but a lot of good that has done as it has left his life in shambles. He is labeled a felon. Do you know what all that implies? He can't own guns legally. He is barred from voting. He is barred from traveling internationally because his passport is revoked. Finally, in the most devastating blow, because of the firearms charges faced over legally purchased guns, he is also barred from seeing his son.
As a side note, anyone still think Chris Christie is a conservative? If so, then I'm afraid you are hopeless.
Aitken tells his story at Vice.com. He writes:
    Three years ago this month, thanks mostly to poorly written laws and a vindictive judge, I turned 27 while incarcerated in Mid-State Correctional Facility in Fort Dix, New Jersey.
    I got sentenced to seven years in prison for legally owning guns. I had purchased them in Colorado and brought them with me to New Jersey, home to some of the harshest gun laws in the country, where I moved to be closer to my young son. I complied with all of the regulations, but one day the police searched my car and charged me with unlawful possession of a weapon—even though my handguns were locked, unloaded, and in my trunk. The court said it was on me to prove that I wasn't breaking any laws, which obviously was very difficult. When Reason magazine covered my case, it wrote, "Even the jurors who convicted him seem to have been looking for a reason to acquit him. But the judge gave them little choice."
    Thanks to my status as a convicted felon, I was no longer free to travel to other countries.
    It's also impossible for me to pass a background check. That means no apartments for me.
    S2804 was a bill that amended the Graves Act, the law I was convicted of breaking. It changes the mandatory minimum sentence for offenders from 36 months to 42 months—an extra six months in prison for gun owners who haven't been convicted of any crime other than owning a gun, which isn't even technically illegal. (You need a piece of paper in order to buy a gun and another piece of paper to carry one around on your person, but it's technically legal to own one.) Without a concealed carry permit, which is extraordinarily difficult to get, many innocent gun owners wind up being labeled as criminals. Even retired cops have a hard time meeting the "justifiable need" standard the state requires for anyone looking to get a concealed carry license. In 2011, a pet store owner who was kidnapped and feared being attacked again by the same men was denied a permit to carry a handgun.
    This bill also changed possession of a handgun to a first-degree felony under certain conditions. If I owned guns in New Jersey right now I'd risk getting sentenced to ten to 20 prison, which is a hell of a lot of time to get for a "crime" that doesn't involve hurting or threatening anyone.
Of course, the judge in the case would not allow jury members to consider exemptions which would have shown that Aitken broke no laws. ABC News reported this same exemption for a residential move in December 2010.
Mr. Aitken is currently "petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States to hear his case and overturn his status as a felon so he can once again see his son."


The Arrogant Left & Their Gun Prohibition Agenda

Freedom Outpost, October 14, 2013

Known officially as the Volstead Act, Prohibition was one of the worst laws ever passed in this country. To make matters worse, this law came out of a false and shrunken pietism which surfaced in the 19th century and spread to the Christian Church.
I will grant that most people who supported Prohibition did it out of concern for their fellow man. Once prohibition was enacted, the divorce rate and child abuse cases declined.
gun-controlHowever, the unintended consequence of Volstead turned formally law abiding citizens into criminals simply because they choose to exercise their God-given right to have a beer. (Contrary to popular belief, consumption of alcohol is not a sin, ie. a transgression of God's law).
Further, the proliferation of organized crime during this era only went to prove that when the selling and buying of alcohol became illegal, only the outlaws sold and bought the hooch. Chicago, New York and countless other areas of the country became war zones as powerful gangs rose up and battle in the streets to protect their turf. Thousands were killed and hundreds of innocent bystanders were caught in the crossfire.
One would be hard stretched to find those who want to return to the days of prohibition, with the exception of the aforementioned gangs. Just about everyone who has studied the period and loves freedom would agree the Volstead Act was a colossal failure.
However, it would appear the lesson was lost on some because now the leftist elite want to do it again. This time, the target is guns. Multitudes have deluded themselves into believing they can succeed where others have failed.
It begs the question, why? Why are the American people unable to comprehend that every time a law is passed good folks lose freedom? When the people lose freedom, the Government becomes larger, more powerful and intrusive; and the criminals simply move into an underworld.
Is there really a rational person out there who really believes that gun prohibition will keep weapons out of the hands of criminals? Does anyone really believe that if the United States Government made owning a gun illegal or put tighter restrictions on gun ownership that murderers, gangs, and those who basically have a disregard for human life will throw them away or willingly turn them in?
Isn't it possible that all these laws would do is disarm law-biding citizens, who would never take a human life except when defending their wife, children or home, leaving them defenseless?
As previously stated, alcohol prohibition did not work in Chicago, New York and countless other areas of the country in the 1920's. Yet, the arrogance of certain lawmakers seems to cause them to believe they are wiser than those of the past, and they can make gun prohibition work in the 21st century.
As George Santayana famously observed, "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." When, if ever, will we learn?

Another Colorado Recall Effort Targets A Third Anti-Gun Politician
Last Resistence, October 9, 2013

State Senator Evie Hudak is the target of the most recent recall effort underway in Colorado. If you remember, back when Colorado gun control hysteria was at its peak, Hudak was the one who scolded rape victim Amanda Collins, telling her that a gun actually would not have helped her in her situation:
“I just want to say, statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experience in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large and was able to overcome you even with your skills, and chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you…”
She then quoted a statistic from the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence (I’m sure a very reputable source) that claimed that for every woman who used a gun to kill an attacker in self-defense, 83 women were murdered by them. Never mind these stats here:
    In the vast majority of those [annual 2.1 million] self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.
    In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen even wound his attacker.
    Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
    As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.
    Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.
The most recent Colorado recall effort resulted in Senate President John Morse and rookie Senator Angela Giron both losing their seats. Hudak is already concerned that she will meet the same fate:
“A small group is seeking to undo the will of voters, who re-elected me to the Senate last November. Unable to defeat me then, they are now attempting a political power grab using a low-voter-turnout, no-mail-ballot recall election strategy.”
If the voters succeed again in booting this gun-grabber out of office, I’m sure she’ll blame her defeat on “voter suppression.” The truth of the matter is, these gun-grabbing politicians aren’t representing the opinions of Coloradans. They’re on Mayor Bloomberg’s payroll.

NRA to File Lawsuit if California’s New “Assault Weapons” Bill is Passed
Outdoor Hub,| October 4, 2013|

California's SB 374, awaiting Governor Jerry Brown's signature, could ban many hunting rifles with detachable magazines or the ability to accept more than 10 rounds.
California's SB 374, awaiting Governor Jerry Brown's signature, could ban many hunting rifles with detachable magazines or the ability to accept more than 10 rounds.
The National Rifle Association announced on Tuesday that the organization will be filing a legal challenge if California Governor Jerry Brown signs controversial gun control bill SB 374 into law. If passed, SB 374 would classify most semiautomatic rifles that accept a detachable magazine as “assault weapons,” thus banning their sale and limiting possession of these weapons to current owners with proper registration. Also headed to the governor’s desk are bills that would make improper gun storage a crime, limit handgun transactions, and ban the use of lead ammunition. The NRA called SB 374 the “worst of the lot” in a statement on their legislative issues site.
“[SB 374] would make unprecedented changes to California’s already unjust and byzantine ‘assault weapon’ law,” the organization wrote.
The bill is supported by gun control advocates to combat what are seen as “loopholes” in California’s current assault weapon laws. One of these is the popular “bullet button,” a device placed on a rifle releases the magazine only through the use of a tool. Previously, this meant that the firearm no longer qualified as a rifle with a detachable magazine. SB 374 was drafted with specific language to ban these types of devices.
Supporters of the gun control bills say that these types of restrictions will lower gun violence and crime. Opponents, however, say that not only will the new bills not make California safer, it will violate gun owners’ constitutional rights by banning a multitude of firearms.
“By banning millions of the most common hunting, sporting, and self-defense rifles in existence, SB 374 is in direct conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision,” the NRA release read. “In Heller, the Court made it clear that arms ‘typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes’ or those ‘in common use’ are constitutionally protected.”
Hunters are especially concerned with SB 374 and AB 711, the bill that mandates the use of non-lead ammo. If both bills are passed, not only would a large number of hunting rifles be banned from sale, but hunters will also be required to use nonlead ammunition. Many gun owners say this adds up to a de facto gun ban in California.

California Gun Group Delivers 65,000 Letters to Governor Brown Urging Gun Control Vetoes
Outdoor wire, October 4, 2013

Brandon Combs, managing director of the Firearms Policy Coalition, left, and Craig DeLuz, legislative advocate for California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, deliver about 65,000 petitions urging the governor's veto of 14 gun bills. Credit: The Sacramento Bee/Christopher Cadelago.
SACRAMENTO, CA -- Earlier this morning, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) Managing Director Brandon Combs, joined by California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL) Legislative Advocate Craig DeLuz, delivered 65,000 letters from individuals urging California Governor Jerry Brown to veto the 14 gun control bills currently on his desk.
The gun bills include SB 374, a massive new ban on common semi-automatic rifles authored by Senate President Darrell Steinberg, as well as laws that would ban firearm repair parts, handgun sales, lead ammunition for hunting, and exempt the City of Oakland from longstanding state laws that preempt dangerous localized gun registration schemes, among others.
"We sincerely appreciate the thousands of people who have voiced their concerns to the governor on these anti-gun measures. 65,000 letters sends a very loud-and-clear message: Californians just don't want these horrible new laws," said CAL-FFL's DeLuz of the tremendous turnout by California gun owners.
FPC's Brandon Combs said that that the fight is far from over and noted that people should keep calling and writing the Governor's office every day. "We encourage all gun owners and Second Amendment supporters to send Governor Brown a letter through our fast, easy, and free gun rights activism tools at www.DemandRights.com."
"We will keep printing, faxing, and emailing letters to Governor Brown until the very end," continued Combs. "Gun owners simply must keep up the pressure for these final few days."
Governor Brown has until October 14, 2013 to sign or veto the bills. Bills that are not vetoed will become state law. Governor Brown's State Capitol office phone number is (916) 445-2841.
Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a partnership of leading Second Amendment civil rights groups across the nation including California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL), The Calguns Foundation (CGF), New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS), Florida Carry, Inc. (FCI), West Virginia Citizens Defense League (WVCDL), Hawaii Defense Foundation (HDF), Illinois Carry (IC), and many others, working together to defend and advance our American heritage of lawful gun ownership. Visit www.firearmspolicy.org/donate to donate online and support FPC's gun rights advocacy programs.
California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL) is California's premier non-profit industry association of, by, and for firearms manufacturers, dealers, collectors, training professionals, shooting ranges, consumers, and others, advancing the interests of its members and the general public through strategic litigation, legislative efforts, education, and outreach. To join or donate to CAL-FFL, please visit www.calffl.org/jo


Treaty Really Does Open the Door to a National Gun Registry
Freedom Outpost, October 2, 2013

There are several problems encountered when representatives of the United States sign any (and I mean any) treaty with the United Nations. Treaties can only be signed (and then ratified, or not) with other sovereign states (or countries). This immediately exempts the UN because it is not a sovereign state, though it is treated as if it is one. The reality is that the UN is in no way a sovereign state at all. Pretending it is does not make it so, unless you're a  progressive.
Next, according to the Constitution, the Senate (and only the Senate) has the ability to ratify a treaty that the US enters into with another (or group of) sovereign state. Because Secretary of State John Kerry signed the document, it will simply go to the Senate for ratification, instead of being rejected out of hand since the UN is not a viable sovereign state.
Once the treaty arrives to the Senate, it could be ratified. If it is ratified, then we move the more difficult part of the equation. What does this mean for Americans? It could mean several things.
First, let's say the Senate ratifies this counterfeit treaty. What then? Our federal government would then begin spending millions of dollars to create another department within the federal government that would be designed to oversee and ensure that this treaty is implemented within the United States so that we are compliant with the tenets of the Small Arms Trade Treaty.
You can see the entire text of the Small Arms Trade Treaty and decide for yourself what it is saying. It is 122 pages in length, but the English version of the treaty starts on page 22 and concludes on page 38.
a_history_of_un_intervention_966075One of the first things it would begin doing would be to essentially, create a national gun registry. If ratified by the Senate, it will be argued that this treaty trumps the 2nd Amendment and the US must abide by it. In essence, we will be told (first) that this treaty has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Eventually, when more people realize what the treaty means, the federal government will simply point out that we are beholden to uphold the treaty since it was ratified by Senate (if that occurs). Nonetheless, the treaty really does open the door for the federal government to create a national gun registry.
If you don’t believe me, then take a gander at Article 11 – Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency. There are no less than five sections dealing with how to record, the type of record keeping each state should keep, what type of report to produce and when it needs to be turned into the powers that be over at the UN. Another boondoggle for the Federal government at the expense of the taxpayer.  There are other problems with it as well, if for no reason other than its ambiguous language.
Small Arms & Light Weapons?
The only real part of it that might apply to civilian weapons is Article 2, Section H, referring to Small Arms and Light Weapons. It’s not defined that I could determine from the text.
All of the weaponry mentioned in the treaty is referred to as Conventional Arms. All of it essentially references international trade and shipments of conventional arms.
In one of the earlier drafts of the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty, the following text was included in the Preamble:
     Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
That text has been changed in the treaty that John Kerry signed to reflect what is shown here:
     Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, and historical activities, where such trade, ownership and use are protected by law
Here is the seeming reality. According to the treaty itself, no changes can be made in the treaty for six years. After that, individual states can offer amendments that would be voted on by those member states that signed onto the treaty. Changes would be made based on the voting of those individual members.
As far as I can tell - at this point - the treaty does not necessarily go after citizens' guns. If the Senate ratifies this treaty though, six years later someone could offer an amendment that would go after arms owned by citizens. Our Senate would have nothing to say about it at that point.
The other problem of course is that the Obama administration is not known for following the law. Obama pretty much does what he wants and even when courts rule against him, he tends not to notice.
I'm thinking that even if our Senate fails to ratify this treaty, it would not at all surprise me if Obama simply went ahead with it anyway. He would use Executive Orders to make this treaty effective for America in spite of what the people and the Senate had to say about it.

Credit Card Processor Drops Gun Shop for Selling Guns
Political Outcast, October 2, 2013
The credit card processor Authorize.
net, a subsidiary of Visa, has decided to drop one of its clients for being in violation of their service agreement. What was their “violation?” They sell guns. Something that could never be known just by looking at the name of the company:  Hyatt Gun Shop. Apparently, it’s the nation’s largest gun shop.
So, Authorize.net claims that Hyatt Gun Shop is in violation of their service agreement, which both parties signed over four years ago, by being a purveyor of firearms. Did the Authorize.net representatives just not know how to read back when they initially signed and agreed to the contract? What did they think the Hyatt Gun Shop sold? I wonder if they’d also have trouble figuring out what color Paul Revere’s brown horse was, or who lies in Grant’s tomb.
Here’s Authorize.net’s e-mail to the gun store:
Dear Hyatt Gun Shop Inc,
Authorize.Net LLC (“Authorize.Net”) has determined that the nature of your business constitutes a violation of Section 2.xiv of the Authorize.Net Acceptable Use Guidelines and Sections 3.3 and 11.3 of the Authorize.Net Service Agreement (the “Agreement”). These sections include, but are not limited to, the sale of firearms or any similar product. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4 of the Acceptable Use Guidelines, your ability to access and use the Authorize.Net Services will be terminated on September 30, 2013.
Why are they just now deciding after all this time that Hyatt Gun Shop is in violation of their service agreement? The Washington Examiner reports:
The brushoff of Hyatt's business has sparked a national boycott effort against Authorize.net and parent company CyberSource organized by the website Grass Roots North Carolina. “It looks like the small but noisy anti-gun crowd has gotten to what must be a jelly-spined PR department at CyberSource and Authorize.Net. Either that, or leadership at these companies have simply become anti-gun all on their own,” said the website in announcing the boycott. Anderson suspects that the company, purchased by Visa in 2010, got cold feet dealing with a leading gun seller and he said that he's heard of other gun stores being dropped. The company had no immediate comment.
Every time a shooting occurs, some gun shop ends up getting shafted or some TV network decides to drop all gun and ammo advertisers. I guess they’re just doing their part to end “gun violence.”

SAF Sues New York Over SAFE Act
Shooting Wire, September 30, 2013

BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation filed suit Friday in federal court seeking to enjoin the State of New York from enforcing provisions of the so-called  SAFE Act  that limit the use of gun magazines containing more than seven cartridges.
SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Shooters Committee for Political Education (SCOPE) and Long Island Firearms LLC. They are represented by New York attorneys David Jensen and Robert P. Firriolo.
Named as defendants in the lawsuit are New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Joseph D'Amico, superintendent of the Division of State Police.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, asserts that the seven-round loading restriction violates the Second Amendment because it  substantially interferes with the right of law abiding citizens to defend themselves and is not sufficiently related to any compelling or otherwise adequate government interest.
 The cartridge limit is arbitrary and serves no useful purpose other than to frustrate, and perhaps entrap, law abiding citizens who own firearms with standard capacity magazines that were designed to hold more than seven rounds,  said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.  Several top law enforcement officials have already publicly stated they will not enforce provisions of this law, yet Gov. Cuomo and Supt. D'Amico are pushing ahead.
 The law is contradictory, in that it is legal in New York to possess magazines that hold up to ten cartridges,  he added.  But the SAFE Act limits people to seven rounds, with some narrow exceptions. This amounts to virtual entrapment for anyone who loads more than seven rounds in a magazine for self-defense purposes.
 Magazines that hold ten or more rounds are in common use all over the country,  Gottlieb concluded.  This arbitrary limit essentially penalizes law abiding citizens for exercising their right of self-defense, and that cannot be allowed to stand.
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

California Lead Ban Awaiting Governor’s Action
USSF, Posted on September 26, 2013

Earlier this month, the California legislature passed a statewide ban on traditional lead ammunition for hunting.  Now that bill—Assembly Bill 711, sponsored by Assemblyman Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood)–is sitting on the desk of Governor Jerry Brown awaiting his decision.
If Governor Brown signs AB 711 into law, the current prohibition on using lead ammunition in the Condor range would be expanded to cover the entire state.  This move would make California the first in the nation to ban lead ammunition statewide.
“This bill is being pushed under the guise of protecting the California condor, but sportsmen know better” said Evan Heusinkveld, USSA Vice President of Government Affairs.  “Lead ammo has already been banned in the Condor range.  This bill is not about the future of Condors.  It is an effort to limit the availability of ammunition and drive up the already rising prices all in an attempt to drive down participation.”
Take Action   California sportsmen must speak out in opposition to this statewide lead ban today.  Contact Governor Brown at (916) 445-2841 and ask him to veto AB 711.

Senate Website Says Second Amendment Unclear: Rights May Be “Collective”…

The Supreme Court begs to differ.
Patriot Update, September 26, 2013
Washington Times.
    The Senate’s official website page on the Constitution says the Second Amendment right to bear arms could be a collective right, not an individual freedom.
    The website explains the Second Amendment this way: “Whether this provision protects the individual’s right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.”
    The Bill of Rights, however, was the Founding Father’s way of guaranteeing each and every individual their “unalienable rights,” as “endowed” by God. On top of that, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled — at least twice in the past five years — that the Second Amendment is an individual right, Breitbart reported.
    In 2008, the court ruled on District of Columbia v. Heller and found that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

U.N. Arms Treaty Everything Obama Wanted… Except Being Law
Patroit Uppdate, September 26, 2013

The old adage goes that if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. With set-backs at the state and federal levels, it is not surprising that the Obama administration would dejectedly turn to an international treaty to push its gun control agenda. In a speech following the recent Washington Navy Yard Shooting, President Obama castigated Republicans for opposing his agenda. “As long as there are those who fight to make it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun,” the President proclaimed, “then we’ve got to work as hard as possible for the sake of our children.” It is unfortunate to hear such hateful rhetoric, usually reserved to pundits, coming out of the Commander-in-Chief’s mouth. This quote is especially important in the context of the administration signing of the United Nations Arms Treaty.
The United States’ Constitution was deliberately designed to spread governmental power across the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to limit the capacity for tyranny. While a strong executive was recognized as essential, this authority was to be balanced by the judiciary and legislature. Even though the president was to be elected through the Electoral College, the importance of popular opinion was not lost on our nation’s founders. James Madison wrote that for liberty, “it is particularly essential that the [Congress] should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with the People.” That is why, even with all the enumerated executive powers, the Congress is still given authority over issues like declarations of war, taxation, and the ratification of treaties.
The Constitution is the first document of its kind to recognize that governmental power is derived from the consent of the governed. Rather than impose restrictions on the populace, the United States Constitution deliberately limits what the government is authorized to do. This focus on enumerated powers is uniquely American and evolved from the Eighteenth Century American experience. It is the same document that specifically outlaws the quartering of soldiers in private homes, something that in any other country would probably go without saying.
Despite being a self-proclaimed “constitutional scholar,” President Obama has proven to possess ignorance and antipathy towards Congress’s enumerated oversight capacity. From his executive orders on Gun Control, to his rewriting of the employer mandate within Affordable Care Act, to him pledging to wage war on Syria without Congressional approval, the last five years provide a plethora of examples of the President’s contempt for Congress.
This track record, however, pales in comparison to the administration’s signing of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
Article II, Section 2 of the constitution holds that the President “shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” In Federalist #64, John Jay writes that it is important “not only that the power of making treaties should be committed to able and honest men, but also that they should continue in place a sufficient time to become perfectly acquainted with our national concerns.” While the House of Representatives may better read the pulse of popular opinion, the founders chose to give the power of treaty ratification to the longer-tenured Senate in order to “obviate the inconvenience of periodically transferring those great affairs entirely to new men.”
On March 23, 2013, the U.S. Senate voted 53-46 to oppose ratifying the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. This marked just another set-back in the Obama administration’s push for gun control. The treaty still has a zero percent chance of gaining the two-thirds vote necessary to become law. To borrow a phrase used so often by Democratic leadership, the treaty is “dead on arrival” when it reaches the Senate. Any attempt to enforce it domestically without the Senate’s approval would be a violation of the oath of office and an impeachable offense.
On face value, it would seem this fight would be over. Without a super-majority in the Senate, this arms treaty cannot legally become U.S. law. But the administration signing it anyway proves a hatred of the constitution that has long been suspected ever since Obama chastised Pennsylvania voters in 2008 for ‘clinging to their guns and religion.’
In addition to outlawing the illicit transfer of battle tanks and combat aircraft, the treaty also prohibits the sale of small arms if there is any belief that they could be used in “attacks directed against civilian objects.” While the stated goal is to prevent genocide and war crimes, it also explicitly prohibits the export of firearms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals. There is no doubt that the United States has suffered recently from a string of shootings against schools and other soft targets. Based on the language of the U.N. Arms Treaty, that could give foreign governments enough cause to cease exporting weapons and ammunition to the United States. Who knows, maybe some international actor would attempt to impose gun control on the United States for our own good. When examined alongside Obama’s recent executive order to restrict the re-importation of antique firearms, it is clear that the President’s solution to gun violence is to simply reduce the number of firearms available.
In the President’s own words, anyone who opposes this strategy is deliberately trying to arm dangerous individuals. But the administration is not just trying to disarm dangerous individuals. The Democrats’ dragnet gun control strategy is to disarm everyone, because according to them all armed citizens are potentially dangerous. Every criminal is a law-abiding citizen until he or she chooses not to be.  Universal background checks are not about targeting criminals. Even the strictest background check cannot stop criminals from using straw purchasers. New proposed gun control regulations are about expanding the number of disqualifiers in order to disarm ‘potential criminals’ (read: everyone). Gun control advocates are pushing for new mental health checks for gun ownership, yet no one is mentioning the utter objectivity of labeling someone mentally deficient. Navy Yard Shooter Aaron Alexis’ history of firearm arrests, but no convictions, has led gun control advocates to propose that people are guilty until proven innocent and that the mere suspicion of a crime should result in a loss of liberty. And on a global level, we are being told that the capacity of a firearm to forcefully discharge a projectile makes gun owners potential genocidaires.
Let that sink in. If you own a firearm, not only are you apparently a threat to our nation’s innocent children, but you also pose a grave threat to the world’s ethno-religious minority communities.

Before the ink dried....
Outdoor Wire, September 26, 2013

When Secretary of State John Kerry signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in New York yesterday, no one in the industry was really surprised. The administration had made it abundantly clear that with reelection no longer a concern, they were no longer concerned with hiding their pro-UN, anti-gun stance.
Kerry's signing came after - and despite- a letter from Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) yesterday promised Kerry this treaty would "collect dust alongside the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Kyoto Protocol, to name a few, which have all been rejected by the U.S. Senate and the American people."
Now the fifty-two other United States Senators who have joined Inhofe in promising to prevent ratification of the treaty will have to stand their ground against an administration that's no stranger to using strong arm tactics or federal funds (or both) to buy votes.
The National Rifle Association wasted no time going on the offensive. "The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "This treaty threatens individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme. The NRA will continue working with the United States Senate to oppose ratification of the ATT."
So what in the Arms Trade Treaty causes such a furor? Plenty. In its general scope and broadly-written terms, it covers firearms owned by every law-abiding citizen. It also "urges" recordkeeping of end users, directing countries to provide information to an exporting company regarding arms transfers including "end use or end user documentation" for a minimum of ten years. If that sounds like mandated firearms registration, you're starting to get the picture.
If you read further into the document, you'll see the strong implication that the treaty would require these national registries to be made available to foreign governments.
Cox summed it up well, "These are blatant attacks on the constitutional rights and liberties of every law-abiding American."
Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) was even more direct: "If Secretary Kerry and President Barack Obama pursue this farce," he warned, "the full fury of American firearms owners could come back to haunt them. Second Amendment sovereignty is not up for grabs, and we will encourage our members and supporters to contact their senators about this treaty."
"If this was all theatrics by the Obama administration," Gottlieb observed, "the president and Secretary Kerry need better script writers. And we will remind the administration of the warning it received Wednesday morning from Sen. Bob Corker, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Senate has not given its advice or consent on this treaty, so 'the Executive branch is not authorized to take any steps to implement the treaty.' How does that look to the world when an administration can't get one of its pet projects approved on Capitol Hill?
"We know that anti-gunners have this 'thing' about symbolic victories," he concluded, "but just how much of a symbol is it if the treaty is filed in the dust bin? After Fast and Furious, Benghazi and Syria, that's just what the Obama administration needs, another symbol of international ineptitude."
The administration is apparently dead-set on pursuing this re-alignment of U.S. laws with the United Nation's idea of how the world should operate.
But what if this latest action is designed to keep our attention diverted from other issues? As the push for anti-gun regulations has continued to move from Washington to the state and local levels, money from New York's Michael Bloomberg has started to funnel out as well.
The recall vote in Colorado was a clear rejection of that "interference" in the local government by unwanted outside elements. But that was only in those highly-publicized districts. Not all areas of the country are so well covered by the pro-gun media-or the local pro-gun organizations so organized that they can counter professional campaigns from their grassroots base.
And the battle for dwindling federal funding might make some local politicians ripe targets for scaled-down versions of the administration's "Louisiana Purchase" of Senator Mary Landreau's critical vote on the healthcare plan that takes effect next week.
The battle over the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty will be fought at the highest levels in Washington. There, the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, NSSF and plethora of state organizations have the boots on the ground - and bucks in the bank- to influence any vote that could compromise our collective Second Amendment rights.
But it is incumbent on each of us to keep our eyes and ears open for local initiatives and to reach out to others when/if something comes up.


Obama and Kerry at the UN
By Mark Alexander · September 26, 2013

"The experience of treaties being broken with impunity provide an afflicting lesson to mankind how little dependence is to be placed on treaties which have no other sanction than the obligations of good faith; and which oppose general considerations of peace and justice to the impulse of any immediate interest and passion." --Federalist No. 15 (1787)
While most of America was focused on the ongoing ObamaCare and DemoDebt Debate, there was no shortage of mischief, malfeasance and mendacity at the United Nations confab this week, with Barack Hussein Obama and his left-hand man, John Kerry, leading the cast.
First up, Kerry made our nation a signatory to the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty, ostensibly regulating small arms trade between nations.
At the signing ceremony, Kerry claimed, "Make no mistake, we would never think about supporting a treaty that is inconsistent with the rights of Americans, the rights of American citizens to be able to exercise their guaranteed rights under our Constitution. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong. This treaty will not diminish anyone's freedom."
Make no mistake, the ATT is a Trojan Horse.
Obama and Kerry assure us that the treaty exempts any regulations of domestic gun sales and ownership in the U.S., but with the stroke of a pen, it could implement severe gun restrictions and even confiscations -- an end run around the Second Amendment that would provide political cover for gun control Leftists in the Senate and House.
Comment | Share
Indeed, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) warned that if this treaty was ratified, "Make no mistake, they will ultimately register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens. Not long ago, Obama told Sarah Brady from the anti-gun Brady Campaign, 'I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.'"
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) rightly put Kerry on written notice, informing him that the ATT is "dead in the water," concluding, "The administration is wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected UN bureaucrats."
But, in what amounts to another end run around our Constitution, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), fully aware that he can't possibly win the necessary two-thirds majority of votes in the Senate to ratify this treaty, may not allow any vote at all. If that happens, Obama might just sign the treaty and ignore the constitutional mandate, as he habitually does when Rule of Law interferes with his political agenda.
Then what?
Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, in a letter to Obama, expressed his concern about this issue, and demanded he not take any further action on the ATT without the consent of the Senate, because the treaty raises "fundamental issues" concerning "individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution."
To be clear, the Constitution specifies in Article II, Section 2: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."
As John Jay elucidated this specification in Federalist No. 64: "The convention have done well, therefore, in so disposing of the power of making treaties, that although the President must, in forming them, act by the advice and consent of the Senate..."
Article VI specifies: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In other words, the Constitution specifies that duly ratified treaties are "the supreme Law of the Land," with the exception that such treaty may not violate provisions of the Constitution.
Let's see who abides by their Oath to Support and Defend our Constitution regarding this treaty...
Comment | Share
Second up, the funniest line delivered at the UN this week, or the biggest lie (take your pick), was the following assertion by Obama: "The world is more stable than it was five years ago," since his first election. Well, except for the meltdown in the Middle East and Central and North Africa. Oh, and except for the fact that al-Qa'ida and other jihadi groups are thriving.
He'll be here all week, folks. Try the pork.
Obama's shameful pandering to Iran, insisting, "the diplomatic path must be tested," set a new benchmark low for his foreign policy ineptitude. (This is quite an achievement, given that he turned his red line on Syrian WMD over to the Russians three weeks ago.
Obama was lectured by Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani, who was previously Iran's nuclear negotiation chief in charge of covering up his country's nuclear weapons program -- a program he claimed Iran does not have. As you may recall, back in 2006 Rouhani was caught on tape, bragging about how he had duped the West by insisting that Iran had no nuke program, which bought his nation enough time to complete the installation of equipment for the enrichment of uranium yellowcake at its Isfahan plant.
Rouhani completed his schooling of Obama with a snub for the entire world to see -- a refusal to meet the U.S. president for a photo-op handshake. However, Kerry is meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif to discuss Iran's nuclear program, perhaps to see if he can also outsource our Iranian policy to Russia.Obama's taking Rouhani's bait, but Republicans on the Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees are not. They warned Obama about "Iran's track record of obfuscation and delay."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not playing along either: "[Rouhani's] speech gave no practical plan to stop the Iranian military nuclear program and there was no commitment in it to follow UN Security Council resolutions. This is exactly the Iranian plan -- to talk and stall so they can advance Iranian capability to get [a] nuclear weapon."
No doubt Obama will allow Rouhani to continue the charade and take no action because, as he told the UN, "The United States has a hard-earned humility when it comes to our ability to determine events inside other countries," a dig at his predecessor, George W. Bush, regarding the WMD that was not found in Iraq -- even though it was.
Comment | Share
For the record, not only was there plenty of evidence of Iraq's WMD programs, but more than 550 metric tons of uranium yellowcake ore was airlifted out of Iraq in 2008 and taken to Canada where it was processed for the production of energy, instead of nukes. The cleanup of radioactive waste around Saddam's nuclear weapons enrichment site at Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility is ongoing.
The reason no "stockpiles" were found in Iraq was because the UN delay provided plenty of time for Saddam to move his WMD. As I wrote back in 2003, "There is a substantial body of intelligence supporting our position that Saddam shipped Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear WMD stores and components to Syria and into Lebanon's heavily fortified Bekaa Valley, for points beyond."
Wait, Saddam's WMD went to Syria?
In 2002, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asserted that Israeli intelligence confirmed "chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria."
Lt. Gen. James Clapper, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and current Director of National Intelligence, confirmed the export in 2003, noting, "By the time that we got to a lot of these facilities ... there wasn't that much there to look at. There was clearly an effort to disperse, bury and conceal certain equipment prior to inspections." Clapper added that there was ample evidence in satellite imagery of convoys of trucks moving Saddam's WMD out of the country.
This was reconfirmed by Saddam's own air force general, Georges Sada in 2006. Sada, second in command of Saddam's defeated air force, confirmed that additional WMD were put on 56 civilian aircraft, which had had all the seats removed, and taken into Syria: "Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming. They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians. ... There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands. I am confident they were taken over." (Sada is a Christian who was not a member of Saddam's Baath Party and now manages Iraqi operations for a Christian humanitarian organization, World Compassion.)
Yes, Syria has WMDs that were produced in Iraq, including thousands of tons of chemical toxins.
But Obama perpetuates the "hard-earned humility" myth about "our ability to determine events inside other countries," and that GWB lied about Iraq's WMD.
The price of hiring a Leftist "community organizer" to serve as spokesperson for the Free World is going to prove catastrophically high one day when Islamist terrorist succeed in detonating a nuclear weapon in one or more U.S. urban centers.Pro Deo et Constitutione -- Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis


Kerry signs UN arms treaty, senators threaten to block it
Fox News.com September 25, 2013

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a "significant step" in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.
"This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong," he said. "This treaty will not diminish anyone's freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes."
U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. They note the U.S. Senate has final say on whether to approve the agreement.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., in a letter to President Obama, urged his administration not to take any action to implement the treaty without the consent of the Senate.
He claimed the treaty raises "fundamental issues" concerning "individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution."
The National Rifle Association blasted the plan, claiming it would impose an "invasive registration scheme" by requiring importing countries to give exporting countries information on "end users."
"The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. "These are blatant attacks on the constitutional rights and liberties of every law-abiding American. The NRA will continue to fight this assault on our fundamental freedom."
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty, also sent a letter to Kerry declaring the treaty "dead in the water," since a majority of senators has gone on record against the agreement.
"The administration is wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats," he wrote.
Kerry, who is in New York attending the U.N. General Assembly session, announced earlier this year that the administration planned to sign the treaty.
The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.
Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.
Over the summer, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to President Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons.
The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify.
What impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don't, and how stringently it is implemented.
The Control Arms Coalition, which includes hundreds of non-governmental organizations in more than 100 countries that promoted an Arms Trade Treaty, has said it expects many of the world's top arms exporters -- including Britain, Germany and France -- to sign alongside emerging exporters such as Brazil and Mexico. It said the United States is expected to sign later this year.
The coalition notes that more than 500,000 people are killed by armed violence every year and predicted that "history will be made" when many U.N. members sign the treaty, which it says is designed "to protect millions living in daily fear of armed violence and at risk of rape, assault, displacement and death."
Many violence-wracked countries, including Congo and South Sudan, are also expected to sign. The coalition said their signature -- and ratification -- will make it more difficult for illicit arms to cross borders.
The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.
It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.

Gun-control advocates lose ground
The Washington Post, 9/22/13

Gun-control advocates had hoped to pass new legislation in states where Democrats control the legislature and governor’s office. But only a handful of blue states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland and New York — advanced substantive laws.
In New York, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation that would ban the sale of assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition clips and close the “gun show” loophole. Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, signed a bill in May to require people to provide fingerprints and take training courses to obtain a license to buy a gun.
This month, California passed legislation limiting sales of semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and expanding the list of crimes that would prevent someone from owning a gun for 10 years. Connecticut added 100 weapons to its list of banned firearms and restricted high-capacity magazines.
In Delaware and Illinois, new rules requiring background checks for private gun sales went into effect this year. And a handful of Republican-led states passed laws this year to expand bans on gun possession by the mentally ill or by those convicted of drug-related crimes.
“What every successful effort has in common is the voice of the American public is heard, and elected officials are acting with accountability to the people that put them in office,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
But gun-rights advocates have pushed new laws in about half the states to relax restrictions on concealed-carry laws. Legislators in Kansas and Missouri passed laws that would nullify federal gun legislation, although Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed his state’s version.
And in Illinois, the only state that didn’t allow residents to carry concealed weapons, legislators overrode Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn’s veto of a new concealed-carry law.
A new Alaska law prohibits state and municipal agencies from implementing laws that would infringe on the Second Amendment and exempts some firearms from federal regulation. Several Arkansas laws expanded concealed-carry rules for liquor stores and churches (North Dakota concealed-carry permit holders may now also possess a gun in church).
In Missouri, Nixon signed a bill to allow state employees to keep firearms in their vehicles on state property. Mississippi enacted a law that would extend concealed-carry permits to people ages 18 to 21.
And several states — including Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia — passed laws that loosen restrictions on guns carried by school safety officials, steps similar to those advocated by National Rifle Association officials after the shooting in Newtown.
On the local level, more than three dozen county and city governments have revised bans on guns in certain public places at the behest of the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun-rights organization based in Washington state.
This year, the city of Oak Harbor, Wash., overturned a ban on guns in city parks. Carroll County, Md., overturned a ban on carrying a firearm at county landfills. Other jurisdictions have backed off gun bans in public places that don’t conform to pre-existing state rules.
“In the last several years, we’ve had a lot of state legislatures take a position that we think is pretty bright, that firearms legislation belongs in the hands of state legislatures so that you have uniform firearms laws from one end of the state to the other,” said Dave Workman, a senior editor of TheGunMag.com and communications director at the Second Amendment Foundation.
“I think there have been more wins for firearms rights than for the gun-control crowd,” Workman said.
Following the massacre in Newtown, President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats used national outrage to push a measure to tighten background checks at gun shows and in private sales.
But the measure couldn’t overcome a filibuster in the Senate, even with overwhelming public support, and even if it had, Republican control of the House would have stymied any gun-control bill that passed without the backing of the NRA.
In lieu of legislative action, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday that the administration has implemented executive actions “that were part of the president’s plan to take action to reduce gun violence.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading proponent of the background check legislation, said Monday’s shooting should lead to a renewed debate.
“Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life,” she said in a statement Monday.
But gun-rights advocates are promising consequences at the ballot box if gun-control measures make it through state legislatures. This month, two Colorado state senators who had voted for new gun-control measures lost recall elections funded in part by the NRA.
If gun-control advocates could see any silver lining in their losses in Colorado, it’s that a new set of allies with deep pockets is beginning to engage. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a political independent, and Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad both sent six-figure checks to help the two Democratic candidates.
“Clearly, there are significant new resources that are coming to this issue,” said Gross, of the Brady Campaign. He cited Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Bloomberg’s group, and Americans for Responsible Solutions, a gun-control organization spearheaded by shooting victim and former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz. “We’re all working towards the main goals and creating a synergy among our organizations, and that does start to shift the balance around TV political advertisements, which the NRA previously had cornered the market on.”

 Pres. Obama  Fired Up  and Ready to Repeal Second Amendment
Minuteman News, September 22, 2013

On behalf of your children, President Obama plans to take the guns you own and make it harder for you to buy them.
During a speech September 21 at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s Phoenix Awards dinner, the president promised he was turning his attention back to his gun control agenda.
Referring to his failed efforts to irreparably infringe on the right to keep and bear arms begun after the massacre of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama declared:
We fought a good fight earlier this year, but we came up short. And that means we've got to get back up and go back at it. Because as long as there are those who fight to make it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun, then we've got to work as hard as possible for the sake of our children. We've got to be ones who are willing to do more work to make it harder.
There could hardly be a more receptive crowd, and the president’s remarks were met with cheers and applause.
Admitting that although there was so much to be done and the repeal of the Second Amendment would be a tall order, President Obama promised supporters that he was “still fired up.”
Given his penchant not only for ignoring the Constitution, but for zealously pursuing the permanent, piecemeal destruction of the roster of fundamental rights it protects, there is little doubt that this will be one promise that President Obama keeps.
Gun owners — the “dangerous people” being targeted by the president — have legitimate reasons to fear the federal government’s assault on the Second Amendment.
After the recent murders at the Navy Yard in D.C., White House spokesman Jay Carney reported that the president is committed to redoubling his efforts to enforce the score of executive orders he signed in the wake of the Newtown tragedy. “The president supports, as do an overwhelming majority of Americans, common-sense measures to reduce gun violence,” Carney said.
Prior to the shootings at the Navy Yard, Vice President Joe Biden announced that through “executive authority,” the president was closing two so-called loopholes in federal gun restrictions. First, corporations purchasing guns will be subject to a background check. Second, the re-importation of almost all surplus military weapons to private individuals will be banned.
His water carriers in Congress were no less anxious to use tragedy as a pretext for tyranny.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) lamented the “litany of massacres,” asking, “When will enough be enough? Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”
Ironically, that is the same question Americans are asking themselves about the federal government and its daily demolition of the Bill of Rights.
While many Republicans have so far successfully resisted wholesale gun grabs, the compromises by conservatives are stacking up and that which was once a right is become little more than a privilege.
It is undeniable that the requirement that one recur to the government for permission to do something that the Constitution protects as an inherent right of all men is an outright obliteration of the bedrock liberties upon which this Republic was founded.
Remarkably, there are many Republicans and other self-described “pro Second Amendment” politicians who accede to the notion that the government should be permitted to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the owning, buying, selling, and trading of weapons.
True constitutionalists recognize such unconstitutional concessions for what they are: reductions of rights protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, they understand that if we are to remain a free people, we must enforce every provision of the Constitution on every issue without exception; that includes those rights that may be politically unpopular or misunderstood en masse.
The hour is late, but there is still time to ride to the defense of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Constitutionalists can let the president and their elected representatives in Washington know that they will hold them accountable for each and every attempt to curtail rights that are not theirs to dispose of.
Also, state lawmakers must be aware that voters will likewise hold their feet to the fire and demand that they unqualifiedly reject any effort by the federal government to enforce any act — be it congressional bill, executive order, or regulation — that exceeds the constitutional limits on its power.
As the applause faded at the banquet Saturday night, President Obama undoubtedly rode back to the White House determined to get rid of the guns and increase the surveillance of the “dangerous people” who currently own them.
Were he honest, however, President Obama would admit that the elimination of guns from the world is not the goal of the gun grabbers. Their hidden agenda, the one shared by the president and his fellow internationalists at the United Nations, is the consolidation of monopolistic control over firearms by the plutocrats on the Potomac and Turtle Bay.
Constitutionalists should now be on the lookout for the imminent announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry or by President Obama himself that the United States has signed the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty. That act will be a bellwether of the coming acceleration of the disarmament of the civilian population of the United States.

KBA: Chicago Should Ban Gangs, Not Guns
Septembr, 22, 2013

BELLEVUE, WA - A call for banning so-called "assault weapons" in the wake of Thursday night's shooting in a Chicago park, believed to be part of an ongoing war between two rival gangs, shows the Windy City needs to concentrate on banning gangs, not guns, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
Police Supt. Garry McCarthy was quoted by Chicago reporters insisting that the shooting, which seriously wounded a 3-year-old boy, is ample proof that "assault weapons" should be banned.
But when the Chicago Tribune noted that police think the shooting was the latest episode of violence between the Gangster Disciples and the Black P. Stones, CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said this puts the real problem in perspective.
"When you have street thugs opening fire on groups of people in a gang war," he observed, "that suggests the city has not advanced much since the days of Al Capone and Bugs Moran. Law-abiding Chicago residents continue to face bureaucratic obstacles, wade through red tape and jump through hoops before they can legally own a gun, while criminals obviously don't bother with any of that, and just drive around shooting people.
"If Superintendent McCarthy and his boss, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, want to make the streets safer," he continued, "they should concentrate their efforts on ridding the city of its criminal element rather than push for bans on the kinds of firearms that are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans. Those citizens haven't hurt anyone, and neither have their guns.
"McCarthy and his department could pull a little 'Shock and Awe' operation, one neighborhood at a time, rousting these thugs, arresting those who have outstanding warrants, jailing those found to be illegally carrying guns and sending a message to straighten up or you're going down," Gottlieb suggested. "It's time for Chicago authorities to face the fact that they're not going to get rid of their crime problem until they start getting rid of their criminals."

Professor Calls for Murder of NRA Members' Children
Political Outcast, September 22, 2013

We’ve seen this one before. Remember the professor of history at the University of Rhode Island who tweeted that he wanted the NRA president’s “head on a stick?” After people accused Professor Erik Loomis of wanting to assassinate LePierre, the head of the NRA, he clarified, saying that it was only a metaphor.
He tweeted:  “Dear right-wing morons, saying you ‘want someone's head on a stick’ is a metaphor. I know metaphor is hard for you to understand.— Erik Loomis.” In another tweet, he added, “Dear rightwingers, to be clear, I don’t want to see Wayne LaPierre dead. I want to see him in prison for the rest of his life.” He called upon the Obama administration to repeal the Second Amendment and labeled the NRA a terrorist organization.
Or how about another professor in West Virginia who called for NRA members to be executed before a firing squad?
“Here it is. The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That’s treason, and it’s worthy of the firing squad… We put the president in the White House. To support the new NRA president’s agenda of arming the populace for confrontation with the government is bloody treason. And many invite it gladly as if the African-American president we voted for is somehow infringing on their Constitutional rights.”
That was a “journalism” professor. He’s tasked with molding American media’s future talking heads. Granted, he did later offer an apology for his angry comments.
And here’s David Guth, another “journalism” professor, from the University of Kansas (what’s with these journalism professors?), spouting off last week what he wants to happen to the evil gun lobby (via Twitter):
“#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.”
Apparently, Professor Guth was placed on administrative leave following his social media invective. And he didn’t apologize. In fact, he confirmed it. When asked if he regretted the tweet, he responded, “Hell no, hell no; I do not regret that tweet. I don’t take it back one bit.”
They don’t just want gun-owners to be disarmed. They want them to be murder victims of “gun violence,” the very thing the anti-gun lobby says they're fighting against.
 

  Obama ridicules Republicans at Congressional Black Caucus dinner
    Washington Tom, September 22, 2013
Once again, President Obama is exploiting the tra
gic deaths from a mass shooting to push his political agenda to control guns. This time, he escalates the rhetoric by blaming Second Amendment advocates for criminals’ acts.
After spending the day on the golf course Saturday, Mr. Obama spoke to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation dinner about his priorities.
Referring to Monday’s tragic shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, along with the mass murders in Newtown and Aurora in 2012, Tucson in 2011 and shootings in Chicago, he said: “As long as there are those who fight to make it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun, then we’ve got to work as hard as possible for the sake of our children. We’ve got to be ones who are willing to do more work to make it harder.”
So who is fighting to make it easy for criminals to get guns?
Of course he is referring to the 5 million members of the National Rifle Association. He did the same thing in April after his gun control agenda failed to get 60 votes in the Senate. In the Rose Garden, he blamed the lack of support on the “gun lobby” lying about the legislation, which “intimidated a lot of senators.”
Contrary to the president’s accusations, the NRA long has lobbied for better mental health treatment and strengthening the background check system.
Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president and chief executive officer, said Sunday on NBC: “I’ll tell you what the NRA’s for: interdicting violent criminals, get them off the street; interdict people who are having mental problems, get them into treatment; enforce the federal gun laws. … Fix the mental health system, and let’s get our fiscal house in order so that we can stop releasing the bad guys back to the street.”
Mr. LaPierre also said of the Navy Yard killer: “Aaron Alexis goes through the federal and state check and gets cleared because the mental health system makes this person completely unrecognizable.”
SEE ALSO: Saturday Night Live: Obama ridicules Republicans at black caucus gala
Mr. Obama is pandering to his left-wing base. A Rasmussen poll on Thursday showed that only 33 percent of Americans think more gun control laws would have prevented the tragedy at the Navy Yard.
The president should be a uniter, not a divider. Mr. Obama should stop blaming the good guys for the actions of the bad guys just to score political points.

 Chicago Gun-Laws So Effective Governor Considering Sending In National Guard To Stop Violence
Political Outcast, September 22, 2013

Chicago has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the nation.  They have their own ban on assault or assault-style weapons or high capacity magazines.  Guns have to be registered and they are now banned from any establishment that serves alcohol.  The city bans the sale of any firearm within city limits.  If a gun is stolen, the owner is required to report the theft immediately or face a fine.
On top of this, the state of Illinois requires a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card before they can obtain a permit and license to purchase and own a firearm anywhere in the state.  Anyone convicted of a felony, domestic violence, assault and battery, subject to a protection order or been a mental patient within the past five years are eligible for a FOID card.  If they have one, the police are instructed to revoke the FOID card immediately.  Any buying a gun within the state must first have a FOID card.  If a gun is given as a gift, say father gives one of his guns to a son, the son must first obtain a FOID card.  In order to obtain a FOID card, a background check is made.
Despite all of the gun restrictions, FOID cards and the tough gun laws in the Windy City, Chicago has recently become the murder capital of the country.  The situation has become so severe that Gov. Pat Quinn said last week that he is seriously considering using the state’s National Guard troops to help stop the rampant violence.  Quinn is already using state police to help police in East St. Louis, another city experiencing a high rate of gun violence.
When asked about using state police or National Guard in Chicago, Quinn responded:
    “It has to be done in a coordinated fashion with the local law enforcement, with their full cooperation.”
    “I think anyone who saw what happened in Cornell Park the other night was horrified by the violence. I live on the West Side of Chicago. It is an area that has been inflicted with violence, and we’ve got to protect the people.”
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is not saying much about the governor’s plans to send in National Guard troops.  Speaking at a basketball ‘Peace Tournament’ last week, Emanuel refused to respond to reporter’s questions and left the area almost immediately.
President Obama and his Democrat puppets are once again calling for more gun control in the wake of recent mass shootings.  They keep regurgitating the same old argument that stricter gun laws will reduce gun violence.  If that were true, Chicago, New York City and Washington DC should be among the safest cities in the nation, but they aren’t.  They all rank among America’s most dangerous cities because of the gun violence.  In fact, these cities prove the opposite is true.  The stricter the gun laws, the higher the gun violence, because criminals know that the citizens aren’t armed or their guns are locked in safes and not easily accessible when needed.
As many conservatives like me point out, Obama’s push for gun control laws has nothing to do with reducing gun violence and has everything to do with disarming Americans.  Hitler did not gain full control over the German people until they forced them to register their guns.  Once registered, the Nazis knew where the guns were and they systematically confiscated them from the people.  After the German people were stripped of their guns, Hitler’s fascist regime was able to place an entire nation under their tyrannical rule.  The same thing has happened in a number of communist countries over the past sixty years.
This is the reason behind Obama’s push for more gun control.  He will not rest until he has successfully forced Americans to register all of their guns.  Once they know where all the guns are, his agents will know where to go to confiscate them.  Once enough guns have been confiscated, he can establish his tyrannical socialist regime and place the American people under his dictatorial rule.

Obama Says Fight for Gun Laws 'Ought to Obsess Us'
News Max, Sunday, 22 Sep 2013

President Barack Obama on Sunday memorialized the victims of the Washington Navy Yard shooting by calling for a transformation in the nation's gun laws to address an epidemic of gun violence, saying, "There's nothing inevitable about it."
Reprising his role of the nation's consoler in chief after yet another mass shooting, Obama said Americans should honor the victims of last Monday's shooting by insisting on a change in gun laws. "It ought to obsess us," Obama said.
"Sometimes I fear there is a creeping resignation that these tragedies are just somehow the way it is, that this is somehow the new normal. We cannot accept this," Obama said.
He said no other advanced nation endures the kind of gun violence seen in the United States, and blamed mass shootings in America on laws that fail "to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people."
"What's different in America is it's easy to get your hands on a gun," he said. He acknowledged "the politics are difficult," a lesson he learned after failing to get expanded background checks for gun buyers through the Democratic-controlled Senate this spring.
"And that's sometimes where the resignation comes from: the sense that our politics are frozen and that nothing will change. Well, I cannot accept that," Obama said. "By now, though, it should be clear that the change we need will not come from Washington, even when tragedy strikes Washington. Change will come the only way it ever has come, and that's from the American people."
Obama joined military leaders in eulogizing the 12 victims killed in last Monday's shooting, speaking from the parade grounds at the Marine Barracks, a site personally selected by Thomas Jefferson because of its close marching distance to the Navy Yard. The memorial service came on the first day of fall, which shone brightly in Washington, with sun sparkling off the instruments being played by the Navy Band and the gold dress uniform buttons worn by so many in the crowd.
The invitation-only crowd included around 4,000 mourners, with the victims' tearful, black-clad family members directly in front of the speakers' stage. The president and first lady met privately with the families before the service, White House officials said.
Authorities say their loved ones' lives were taken Monday by shotgun-wielding Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old former Navy reservist and information technology contractor who struggled with mental illness. Police killed Alexis in a gun battle.
By the end of the day, the Senate's chief gun control proponent, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, was calling on her colleagues to restart the debate on gun control and "do more to stop this endless loss of life." Obama didn't speak out on the issue until Saturday night, when he urged a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation dinner "to get back up and go back at it" to push gun control legislation that stalled in the Senate earlier this year. Obama proposed the legislation in the aftermath of the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that killed 20 first graders and six staff.
Obama said it's clear from the Navy Yard shooting that the country needs to do a better job to secure its military facilities and improve mental health services, but also address gun laws.
"Our tears are not enough," Obama said Sunday. "Our words and our prayers are not enough. If we really want to honor these 12 men and women, if we really want to be a country where we can go to work and go to school and walk our streets free from senseless violence without so many lives being stolen by a bullet from a gun, then we're going to have to change."
The military leaders who spoke before Obama at the memorial service, including Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, avoided any mention of gun control. But Washington Mayor Vincent Gray spoke forcefully for action, mentioning that one of the Navy Yard victims, Arthur Daniels, had already lost his 14-year-old son to gun violence and citing a string of mass public shootings in recent years.
"Why is it that these tragic consequences and these tragic occurrences never seem to move us any closer to ensuring that guns don't get into the hands of criminals or mentally unstable people?" Gray asked. "I don't know the answer. But I do know this — that this time it happened within the view of our Capitol dome, and I for one will not be silenced about the fact the time has come for action."
The service ended with a bugler playing taps and singing of the Navy hymn after a reading of the names of the fallen, who ranged in age from 46 to 73 and included civilian employees and contractors. Eight people were also hurt, including a police officer and two others who suffered gunshot wounds.
Obama also mentioned each victim, and said memories of them will go on, along with "the sense that this has happened before."
"What wears on us, what troubles us so deeply as we gather here today, is how this senseless violence that took place in the Navy Yard echoes other recent tragedies," he said. "As president, I have now grieved with five American communities ripped apart by mass violence: Fort Hood, Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook and now the Washington Navy Yard. These mass shootings occur against a backdrop of daily tragedies as an epidemic of gun violence tears apart communities across America, from the streets of Chicago to neighborhoods not far from here."

Crimes Involving Guns Up in NYC Since Judge Banned Stop and Frisk
Patriot Update, Friday, September 20, 2013

Back in August, Federal Judge Shira Scheindli ruled New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy was unconstitutional. Her reason? She argued the policy unfairly discriminated against minorities in the city with “indirect racial profiling.” At the time of the ruling, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly expressed disappointment, said policies like stop-and-frisk are the reason crime in New York is down and warned the ruling prevents the police from doing their job properly. Now, just one month later, crimes that involve guns are up in New York City. From the New York Post: The recent ruling against stop-and-frisk has emboldened the city’s pistol-packing perps. In the month after federal judge Shira Scheindlin’s decision that the police procedure is unconstitutional, shootings spiked nearly 13 percent — and gun seizures plummeted more than 17 percent, The Post has learned.

Time for Offense in Gun Control Debate
Patriot Update, Friday, September 20, 2013

I agree with our Liberal friends – it is time America had a serious debate on guns. I also agree with them when they say if action saves just ONE life then it will be worthwhile. As Conservatives we have to realise one very important thing – facts are on our side, NOT THEIRS    It is time for us all to go on the offensive not only in the gun control debate but on every issue. The End of AmericaThe End of AmericaStocks soar -- but some wealthy citizens prepare for  End of America.  Mother Turns Skinny in 4 WeeksMother Turns Skinny in 4 WeeksMorrisville: Mom cut fat in thighs, face.. using this 1 weird trick Worst Republican? Cast Your Vote Today Worst Republican? Cast Your Vote Today Time is running out to vote for the Worst Republican. The End of AmericaThe End of AmericaStocks soar -- but some wealthy citizens prepare for  End of America.  Mother Turns Skinny in 4 WeeksMother Turns Skinny in 4 WeeksMorrisville: Mom cut fat in thighs, face.. using this 1 weird trick This week America witnessed yet another senseless shooting, this time in Washington DC. How many of these shootings do Americans need to witness before they wake up and do something? It is an extremely sad day anytime an innocent person is murdered, however the shooting in the Navy Yard was even more disturbing and here’s why. Every politician in Washington including Barack Obama acknowledges the members of the US military are heroes. For the last month, POTUS has been pushing for war with Syria and is going to trust military men and women with war ships, aircraft and bombs that are capable of inflicting incredible damage. Despite election promises, POTUS still has troops on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan where US troops are trusted with hand guns, rifles and grenades. Despite trust with all these weapons, US troops are not trusted and allowed to conceal and carry guns on their bases in America. What type of mixed message is that sending? Imagine if troops were allowed to conceal and carry in the Washington Navy Yard? Chances are there would have been fewer casualties… As the tragedy unfolded Monday Evening (Irish time), I spoke with my mother about it. My mother has very little interest in politics and would not be a huge Second Amendment supporter but when I told her about US troops not being able to conceal and carry on base, her reaction was spot on: She said: “Wow, but they could be a target for terrorists. How are they supposed to defend themselves?” With all the dangers America faces right now, it is time to repeal the law signed by President Clinton forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms. But that is only half the story. We all know the left believe in the saying “never let a good tragedy go to waste” and this will be used to push for more gun control. I know many have said this but it needs to be said as much as possible. Criminals BREAK THE LAW. You can create all the laws in the world. Criminals DON’T CARE and will continue to do as they see fit. Any gun control measure(s) will only take guns from the law abiding citizen. I would like to use Ireland and England as an example of what happens in places guns are banned. I was born and raised in Ireland where guns are illegal and did not grow up around them. I have shot several guns on visits to the states and I am a huge supporter of the Second Amendment. However I am always amazed at the fear of guns from not only the left in America but around the world. They seem to think that if there were no guns, there would be no murder and/or crime… WRONG. There is gun crime in Ireland and people are murdered every couple of days. The big difference between Ireland and America seems to be the amount of people killed in one incident. When gun violence happens in Ireland it is rarely more than one or two people whereas in America it can be significantly more like Mondays 13. There is a reason mass shootings like Monday get national attention and the murders that happen on a near daily basis in places like Chicago don’t. The simple truth is that all gun control in Ireland and other countries has made the average law abiding citizen hope they are not targeted by criminals because if they are… chances are it’s hopeless. The left seem to think that bad guys think the following way: I am a bad person and I really want to commit a crime, but DAMN I don’t have a gun so I cannot commit a crime…. WRONG     There is a city called Limerick in Ireland and guess what one of its nicknames is? STAB CITY – Guns are illegal but criminals still find a way to commit crime and hurt people. In fact violence got so bad in Limerick a few years ago, the police could not cope and had to call in the military. Guess gun control really works then  I really hate making a political point when an innocent victim is lying in hospital (but he is in a stable condition), but this issue is too important. I would like to highlight a story from England (http://news.sky.com/story/1143244/grand-theft-auto-v-robbery-teens-arrested) where a young man was stabbed and then robbed. Now some liberals might be tempted to say well then we gotta ban knives and we all can use plastic cutlery to eat – you know it makes us all safer. I would like to point out this young man was also hit with a brick – would liberals like to ban that to? I am sure there are some liberals would say yes and might suggest we live in a straw house. This story highlights the simple truth. There is no law that any government can pass to stop crime. Bad people who want to do bad things will not let something like more gun laws to stop them and if they cannot get a gun, they will just use something else. However I believe gun control is not a special issue to the left. I believe it is just another part of the left’s attack on individualism in the hope of government gaining CONTROL. There is a famous parable from the bible which I believe is the battle we are fighting today, “give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him how to fish and he lives forever” or in other words Liberty versus Tyranny. The world needs to have a debate on this parable. The left wants the government to cater to your every need, to give you the fish, and make you dependent on the government which is tyranny. The right (The Tea Party is a huge help but the GOP always fights our creditability) needs to unite behind a message including – we will teach you how to fish, we will empower you as an individual and help you become self-sufficient which is liberty Which side are you on? The choice is yours. As for me, Patrick Henry summed it up perfectly “Give me liberty or give me death”.

Starbucks Backpedals On Allowing Gun-Carrying Customers

Political Outcast, September 20, 2013

 Posted on September 19, 2013 by Philip Hodges filed under Business, Gun Control, Second Amendment 0 Comments Share21 Tweet15 0 Share44 Starbucks apparently didn’t appreciate “Starbucks Appreciation Day,” where open gun-carrying customers would come in to their local Starbucks to support the coffee purveyor for their alleged support for the 2nd Amendment. In Newtown, Connecticut, the Starbucks there actually closed down the day that a Starbucks Appreciation Day event was planned, because the company thought that all the gun-toting coffee-imbibers would make all the unarmed customers uncomfortable. Now, Starbucks is making it clear that open gun-carriers are no longer welcome. They’re not banning guns outright; they’ll just frown upon them. If you come into a Starbucks with a Glock on your hip, they won’t tell you to leave, and they’ll go ahead and make your double tall, two raw sugar latte as they would for anyone else. But, please no more Starbucks Appreciation Days. As a letter that Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz plans to put in several major newspapers states, “To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores.” I don’t think they’re necessarily taking an ideological stand on guns one way or the other. They’re a business, and they’re trying to get the best of both worlds. They don’t want to completely cater to the gun crowd, because then their gun control patrons would be outraged and would boycott the company. Like what CNS News reported: "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which was formed the day after the Newtown, Conn., school shooting, has been organizing 'Skip Starbucks Saturdays' to urge the coffee company to ban guns at its stores. Participants take photos of themselves at competitors such as Peet's that do not allow guns and post them online." Likewise, they don’t want to completely cater to the gun control crowd, because they know that that would make the 2nd Amendment people want to boycott them. They want to be able to make everyone happy and keep as many customers as possible. This is why I think it’s best to carry concealed. If no one can see it, paranoid people won’t call the cops, employees won’t be scared, other customers would be none the wiser. If something were to happen, you could take the criminal by surprise and take him out. I think sometimes making armed criminals think that you’re unarmed when you actually are is better than being open about it.
Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/09/starbucks-backpedals-allowing-gun-carrying-customers/#lJKT5q3gducKMBFg.99

CalGuns Foundation Files Federal Lawsuit Against State AG Karris, DOJ Firearms Chief
Shooting Wire, September 20, 2013

SAN CARLOS, CA - The Calguns Foundation filed a new federal civil rights lawsuit this morning on behalf of three California residents, naming Attorney General Kamala Harris and DOJ Bureau of Firearms Chief Stephen Lindley as defendants. The case challenges the California Department of Justice's practice of denying individuals' fundamental rights protected under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The Department, through defendants Harris and Lindley, have been and continue to enforce a policy of forbidding many gun purchasers from taking possession of their lawfully-obtained firearms through what are commonly referred to as "DROS delays", sometimes for over a year or indefinitely.
One plaintiff in the case, Darren Owen of Taft, California, has been denied his firearm for over 18 months.
"It's the government's responsibility to timely prove that someone has already been adjudicated and their Constitutional right to purchase and possess guns taken away through due process," explained Gene Hoffman, the Foundation's Chairman. "It's not the individual's job to prove that they have fundamental rights."
"By shifting the burden to the individual, the DOJ is blatantly violating the Constitution and thumbing its nose at the U.S. Supreme Court's D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago decisions."
Victor Otten, an attorney for the plaintiffs, agrees. "Our clients are not prohibited from owning guns under state and federal law," noted Otten. "The bottom line is that if the DOJ cannot determine that someone is ineligible to possess firearms in a timely manner with all of the databases and law enforcement resources it has at its disposal, then they have no choice but to allow our clients and other similarly-situated gun owners to take possession of their firearms."
Under current California law, the DOJ must permit a firearm purchaser to receive their firearm at the end of the 10-day DROS background check period unless it determines that the purchaser is not eligible to possess or purchase firearms. Earlier this year, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D - San Francisco) amended his bill AB 500 to allow the Department of Justice to deny the release of firearms for up to 30 days. AB 500 is presently awaiting California Governor Jerry Brown's action.
"We've received hundreds of reports like those at issue in this case and it's a virtual certainty that there are thousands of others like the individual plaintiffs out there," said the Foundation's Executive Director, Brandon Combs. "The DOJ's policy is nothing short of outrageous."
Continued Combs, "It's time for the DOJ to respect the Second Amendment. If the Attorney General and her staff refuse to do it voluntarily, we will not hesitate to force it in the courts. In filing this case, we seek to ensure that the Constitutionally-enshrined fundamental rights of Californians to buy and possess firearms are respected no matter how far Ms. Harris or Assemblymember Ammiano might wish the DOJ's powers extended."
The new federal lawsuit is entitled Darrin Owen, et. al. vs. Kamala Harris, et. al. and may be viewed or downloaded athttp://ia601002.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.caed.259271/gov.uscourts.caed.259271.docket.html.
The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to defend and advance Second Amendment and related civil rights. Supporters may visit http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/donateto join or donate to CGF.
The deadly shooting in Washington is the latest in a string of gun crimes to plague the US. Is it finally time to take a serious look at gun control?
Yes, Congress needs to stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence(Your vote)
19%
49 votes  ?
What the government has done is not working; we need a different, more direct approach(Your vote)
8%
22 votes  ?
No, I don't believe stricter gun ownership laws will stop a person from committing a crime with a gun(Your vote)
61%
158 votes  ?
Organizations like the National Rifle Association are too strong a lobbying force in Washington. Maybe we should start by limiting their power(Your vote)
10%
28 votes  ?
View poll
257 votes


Sweeney says 'centerpiece' gun control bill is dead after conditional veto
The Star-Ledger, September 18, 2013

Senate President Stephen Sweeney said today that his bill to overhaul the way the state issues firearms ID cards, which he considered the centerpiece of the gun control package, is effectively dead after Gov. Chris Christie last month gutted it and sent it back to the Legislature.
“I really thought it was a good bill,” Sweeney (D-Gloucester) said. “The bill the way it was written had value. The (conditional veto) took all the value.”
When the governor conditionally vetoes a bill, lawmakers can vote to concur with the changes and return it to his desk. Sweeney, who decides which bills get voted on, does not plan to do that.
The measure (S2723) would have encoded firearms permits on driver’s licenses or separate photo ID cards, required gun buyers to show they’ve undergone safety training, and made background checks instant and expanded to private sales, among other things.
Christie struck those provisions, but left several smaller ones intact. In the immediate aftermath, Sweeney said he hoped to salvage the legislation. Today, he said it can’t be saved because of “the way it’s chopped up.”
“I’m not going to agree with the (conditional veto),” Sweeney said. “I know I’m not getting the votes. I didn’t even have all the votes from my side. Unless I can craft a bill that he’ll sign, there’s no sense.”


Two Colorado Anti-Gun State Senators Go Down in Recall Election
Political Outcast, September 11, 2013

The Colorado recall election was successful. The president of the Senate in Colorado is John Morse. I should say, was the president of the state senate. He was the main push behind restricting gun freedoms for the people of Colorado. He is a Democrat. The people of Colorado wanted their Second Amendment freedom backs, so they mounted a recall election effort. The vast majority of the people in Colorado didn’t kill anybody. They aren’t murderers. Why should their freedoms be restricted because of the evil acts of others? The "sickness" is with those who use guns in an unlawful way. That's where the focus should be. The freedom-loving people of Colorado took charge and were successful in getting a recall election scheduled. John Morse is now the first-ever senator in Colorado to be successfully recalled. Not only did Morse push anti-gun legislation in the state, he “openly ignored emails and messages from his constituents." He ticked off the voters. He thought he was safe because he was a Democrat in a Democrat-controlled state. He was wrong. That was the cake. Here’s the icing. State Sen. Angela Giron was also recalled. Two Republicans will replace their leadership in Democrat strongholds: “Coloradans ... sent a clear message that politicians who blatantly ignore their constituents will be held accountable,” said Dustin Zvonek, state director of Americans for Prosperity. “Perhaps this will serve as a lesson that one-party rule in Denver doesn't give the majority license to take things to extremes or run roughshod over the values and rights of Coloradans who just happen, for the moment, to be in the minority.” “Tonight is a victory for the people of the state of Colorado, who have been subject to the overreach of a Democrat agenda on guns, taxes and accountability to the people," said Tim Knight, Founder of the Basic Freedom Defense Fund and the "father" of the recalls. "Since day one, they said it couldn't be done. Tonight, this is a victory for the people of Colorado, and we share this victory with them." But even with the two state senate ousters, the Democrats rule the state, although with only a one-seat majority in the Senate because of the recall. Let's hope the GOP doesn't blow it. As usual, there were some weak-kneed Republicans who didn’t like the recall effort: “I think this is the wrong way to settle differences,” said Dorothy Carr, 79, as she waited in line to vote in Morse's district. How is an election the wrong way to settle political differences? The recall effort has energized the conservative base in Colorado. 2014 is an off-year election. There’s a good chance that more Democrats can be ousted. If this is the condition of liberal politics in Blue-State Colorado and conservative voting action, maybe there will be further progress next year. The problem is, there are too many Dorothy Carrs in the Republican party.

Re-definition as a tool for banning airguns,
Outdoor Wire, September 10, 2013

Seems the New Jersey State Police has quietly put another category of firearms on their list of  banned assault weapons  - the common air rifle. OK, not the very common types, but the types that include the Gamo Whisper .177, .22., DX and other similar models that have noise reduction technology incorporated into them.
Seems Lt. Joseph Genova of the NJSP Firearms Investigation Unit sent a letter to New Jersey firearms retailers regarding the legality of air rifles with internal or barrel mounted baffles designed to reduce noise. In his letter of August 23, the air rifles are classifed as firearms under NJ regulations because any form of  firearm silencer  is illegal in the state.
New Jersey has considered air and spring-loaded rifles firearms for what the New Jersey Second Amendment Society's Frank Fiamingo says is a long time. But this would be the first time the noise-reduction technology has been used to qualify them as illegal due to that noise reduction capability.
This wouldn't have been noticed had the New Jersey Division of Fish and Game not allowed air rifles legal for hunting squirrel and rabbit. And prior to this letter, the Gamo rifles and other brands had been sold for recreational shooting.
Fortunately, this decision, called  overreaching  by the NJ2AS, isn't one that can't be reversed. So....the NJ2AS is asking that gun owners ask for the letter to be reconsidered. As Fiamingon says,   A reasonable person would understand this noise reduction capability is not incorporated for some nefarious purpose, but to enhance the user experience.
We're watching this one, as well as a report we've gotten that another solid company in the firearms business has been told by their longtime banking  partner  that their business is no longer wanted. Reason? The bank is afraid that being associated with a gun company -should there be another horrible shooting- would  sully the bank's reputation.  
Before you send me a nasty-gram demanding that I stop being a coward and  name names  in this one, take a deep breath. The National Shooting Sports Foundation - and others- are aware of the situation and have asked that we hold off until they have the opportunity to more fully explore the situation. As was pointed out to me- reasonably- it is not unprecedented for a zealous anti-gun (or anti-anything) bank officer to expand definitions to keep him from having to do business with categories he doesn't like.
If that's not the case, you can count on hearing names, dates and specifics on the national bank. And should that be the case, it's not unreasonable to consider that this retrenchment may have been  encouraged  by an increasingly less gun-friendly administration.
In case you're thinking I'm being over the top on this one, consider the recent announcement that the ATF is  revisiting  the legality of firearms trusts because they have allegedly been used to allow disqualified individuals to owning machine guns. Really? And all along I'd thought firearms trusts were created to allow ownership of firearms - including Class III - to pass from generation to generation without creating a transfer nightmare.

Maryland gun applications soar as stricter control law looms
Fox News, September 06, 2013

Applications for gun purchases in Maryland are soaring ahead of the start of a tough new firearms law that sets new magazine capacity limits and bans the sale of certain types of assault weapons.
The Washington Times reported that state police received 85,141 gun-purchase applications this year through Aug. 31. That’s compared with 70,099 applications in all of 2012 and 46,339 applications in 2011. Maryland State Police have increased staffing to cope.
In August 2012, 38 employees were assigned to conduct background checks, but this year 73 employees are doing that work, according to Sgt. Marc Black. Black said 60 temporary staffers are also rotating hours.
“We’re looking at unprecedented numbers,” Maryland State Police Sgt. Marc Black told the newspaper. “We saw this coming.”
So far, officials have processed 46,942 of this year’s applications.
Meanwhile gun dealers say they have been overwhelmed ahead of the law’s Oct. 1 effective date.
“Because of the gun ban, business has been booming,” said Al Koch, store manager at Bart’s Sports World, a Glen Burnie-based gun shop. “It’s been busy like crazy with people making last-minute decisions.”
Tammy Sager, an employee at Angus MacGregor’s Trading Post in Waldorf, told The Washington Times that her firearms shop recently received an approved application from police that was submitted in May.
 This person passed all the requirements — gun safety training, no criminal background — but that’s five months to get a background check,  Sager said.  I don’t mind doing a background check, but what’s the holdup? I understand they’re getting a lot of applications, but why is it taking so long?
The new gun law Maryland lawmakers passed earlier this year bans 45 types of assault weapons, but people who own them now will be able to keep them. The law also limits handgun magazines to 10 rounds and requires people to submit fingerprints to the state police to get a license to buy a handgun.
In addition, Maryland State Police will be able to suspend the licenses of gun dealers who fail to comply with new record-keeping obligations. The provision will allow the state police to supplement enforcement efforts of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The measure also requires mandatory reporting to law enforcement of lost or stolen firearms.
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, proposed the bill in January in response to the December shooting in Newtown, Conn., where a gunman killed 20 children and six adults.


Georgia charter schools to bring AR-15 rifles on campus
Patroit Update,5 September 2013    

Gainesville City Schools (Georgia) are considering whether to allow armed security guards on campus to store police-provided AR-15s in locked gun safes on campus to defend schools against active shooter situations.
You can hear clueless anti-gunners freaking out already, can’t you?
Get ready for the fireworks:
    Gainesville City Schools is looking into letting campus police officers at three of its eight schools use assault rifles.
    The charter schools are considering allowing officers to bring a semi-automatic police assault rifle into the school and keep in a locked safe while they are there.
    Right now officers only have pistols.  The rifle has twice as much ammo, fires three times farther and is more accurate.
    By having it in the school, their reasoning is the officer can react more quickly and effectively to a heavily armed intruder.
    The three schools are charter schools and their governance councils plan on discussing and voting separately.
We can expect Moms Demanding Denial and Avoiding Common Sense and their parent group, Mayors Against All Guns, to flip out over this proposal to bring “evil black rifles” into these schools, because their positions are those of fear-driven neophytes.
That’s a shame, for the kids.
Quite frankly, the author of this article doesn’t do nearly enough in describing how much more advantageous an average AR-15-style rifle is in the hands of an average school guard (or any average shooter). Rifles are not just easier to shoot accurately under stress than handguns, but when paired with the right sort of ammunition and optics, can be both much more effective in stopping a threat with an accurate shot, and pose less of an over penetration threat, both vital considerations in a crowded school environment.
An average 9mm or .40 S & W service pistol carried by police and armed security guards generally feature open sights and magazines of about 15 rounds (give or take a few each way depending on model). The same officer/guard then carries two spare magazines on his/her belt, for a grand total of roughly 45 rounds of ammunition.
Most shooters are only going to be reasonably accurate with these firearms under stress to a distance of just 7-10 yards. This is why so many shootings (regardless of who is involved) end up with the target being fired upon missed repeatedly, or only suffering perimeter wounds, while those downrange suffer the brunt of the damage. This is compounded by the fact that service pistol ammunition designed for police use (which security forces and concealed carriers alike tend to adopt for legal liability reasons we don’t have time for here) also tends to be designed for penetration; there is the distinct possibility that bullets fired into a suspect will continue on through entirely or in fragments to hit students and staff downrange.
A situation that illustrates what happens as a result of these factors was a shooting in New York City just over a year ago: police fired at a armed suspect 16 times, hit him ten times, and wounded nine innocent bystanders, many with bullets and bullet fragments that exited the suspect.
If the Gainesville schools use quality hollowpoint or frangible ammunition, their AR-15s will have more effect on what they shoot than a pistol bullet (more energy to transfer, more efficiently transferred), while at the same time, tending to fragment more and over-penetrate less than a typical hollowpoint pistol bullet, which doesn’t reliably gain the velocity out of pistol-length barrels needed to reliably fragment.
Any of various “red-dot” sights (along with proper training, it must be said) on a AR-15 is going to enable these guards to accurately engage threats to 200 yards, far beyond the effective range of their pistols.
If the armed guard at Columbine who engaged Eric Harris had an AR-15 instead of just a pistol…
Sadly, it isn’t hard to anticipate the visceral response of anti-gun activists and those parents who simply don’t understand the capabilities of the platform.  Let’s hope that they have experts from the Gainesville Police on hand who are capable of explaining these advantages to concerned parents.
If they do a good enough job of explaining these advantages, expect for a few folks who were fearful of AR-15s from biased media coverage to revise their opinions.
After all, the AR-15 isn’t the most popular centerfire rifle in the United States without reason.

Colorado Dem: Citizens Don't Need Guns; We Have the Police
Last Resistence, September 6, 2013
Representative Dickey Lee Hullinghorst swears that she supports the 2nd Amendment. You know, she’s all for hunting and skeet-shooting and all that. But she’s also in favor of “common sense” gun control legislation like universal background checks and prohibiting gun magazines with more than a 15-round capacity. How ironic that she lives in the town of Gunbarrel, Colorado. Like any good politician, she champions the 2nd Amendment while mocking the idea of concealed carry. Here’s what she said in an interview on the Tim Caffrey Show: “As a woman I have the right not to carry a gun and to feel safe on the streets, and that’s what we provide for in the state legislature is for all of us in the state of Colorado — to feel safe on the streets without having to carry a gun. There is nothing better than law and order for public safety. The thought that the only way we can protect ourselves is to wield our own weapon is completely absurd and an argument that I absolutely discount as frivolous.” Look, Mrs. Hullinghorst, don’t carry a gun if you don’t want to. I suppose you do have a right not to, just like people have an equal right to carry a weapon to protect themselves and their families if they choose. Some would argue that we have a duty to carry appropriate defense weapons in case we’re ever attacked. But it seems you’d rather have a police state than a free state where citizens are encouraged to possess arms for their own protection. And a police state is expensive. It requires even more taxes that will go to fund a larger and more invasive police force. Does she really want a policeman on every corner, checking everyone’s papers, stopping and frisking citizens for guns, all in the name of “security” and so that Mrs. Hullinghorst doesn’t have to carry a gun? Not only is that a call for confiscatory taxes, it’s also a huge tax on people’s freedoms. Hullinghorst needs to be recalled just like every other gun grabber in Colorado (and in the country for that matter). Bloomberg’s got them all wrapped around his finger ever since he realized the federal war on guns was a lost cause. Recalling these representatives would send a message to Bloomberg that buying off state reps is also a lost cause.

Chicago Gun Laws Get Gutted by City Council
Freedom Outpost, September 11, 2013
It appears as if the move by a Chicago City Council Committee as the tentatively approved a rewriting of the city's gun laws that were passed following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in McDonald v. Chicago has resulted in effectively overturning the city's ban on handguns. The official vote by the City Council occurs Wednesday. "Mayor Daley's pinnacle handgun ordinance after the loss in the McDonald decision is now, for all intents and purposes, gutted," NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde said. According to CBS Chicago: The number of Chicago gun laws will be cut in half. The action was needed to bring the city in line with the rest of Illinois, as a result of the recently passed statewide concealed carry gun law. Chicago had the toughest gun laws in Illinois. Today's action is a victory "for the little guy who wants to keep a lawful gun in his home or a concealed handgun for protection," said Vandermyde, who tangled with powerful Ald. Ed Burke during the brief hearing. Several of Burke's signature gun safety bills will go away if the full Council votes yes. "The Chicago firearms permit requirements are gone," said Vandermyde. "The registration of all firearms, for the first time in my lifetime, are gone. Those are some significant developments." During the proceedings, there was some arguments between Burke and Vandermyde, the city mandate that requires gun owners to secure their weapons with trigger locks or in safes if the firearm is "not on their person" and they have someone under the age of 18 in the home. "Do you think a 75-year-old woman should be forced to carry her .38 around on her hip in her home every minute she's in her home because the grandkids are there?" Vandermyde asked. "So you're against an ordinance that mandates, if you have a gun in your house, it ought to be secure. …You oppose an ordinance that tries to increase safety in the homes in Chicago?" Burke, the author and sponsor of the trigger-lock ordinance, asked. Vandermyde shot back, "We don't oppose safety measures by and large. But we see these as being impediments to the lawful use of self-defense. For 30 years your city did not allow somebody to have a handgun in their own home for self-defense." "It's common sense that you have a trigger lock on a weapon that's in your house where you have minors," said Public Safety Committee Chairman Jim Balcer, as reported by the Chicago Sun-Times. "That minor can pick up that weapon, hurt themselves, hurt someone else." My opinion is that it's more "common sense" to teach kids gun safety and to effectively use firearms from an early age. This takes foolish curiosity out of the child and helps them to understand how they are to be used and that they are not toys. How can I say this? I've done it with each one of my kids when they are young, and I have no problems of them going around and trying to get guns. My children treat each firearm as if it's loaded, because it is, and they come to me and ask to go and shoot them. So, while the anti-gun crowd wants you to be armed with a gun that has a trigger lock or no gun at all, I suggest education. That is the real common sense approach. If the City Council agrees, here are items that will be wiped from the city's books: The registration of an owner's guns Required 5 hours of training Transporting legal firearms can be prosecuted, vehicle impounded. Using a legal firearm for protection only within the four corners of your home Requiring trigger locks on guns in the home Ban on laser sights Ban on use of real firearms on stage or movie set The city still bans laser sights, metal-piercing bullets, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammo and certain semiautomatic rifles with distinctive cosmetic characteristics or so-called "assault weapons." We "have some more work to do, we'll get to that, but this is a good first step," noted Vandermyde. Mayor Rahm Emanuel said, in a statement, that he wants more (non) 'Safe Zones' on and around buses and trains: "As a city, we have a responsibility to protect riders of buses and trains, especially the many students who rely on the CTA as a key mode of transportation, from the dangers of gun violence. I am very pleased the Public Safety Committee has taken the next step in creating new Public Transportation Safety Zones and increasing penalties for serious weapon and gun-related offenses near bus stops, bus shelters and El stations and on buses and trains." Of course, Emanuel wants to extend soft target zones. That is what socialists do. They endanger others in order to feel good about "doing something." The reality is feelings don't stop criminals.



Ruger Announces Purchase of North Carolina Manufacturing Facility
Shooting Wire, September 5, 2013

Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. (NYSE: RGR) announced yesterday that it has finalized the purchase of a 220,000 square foot facility in Mayodan, North Carolina. This is the Company's first major expansion in over 25 years, and production at the new facility is expected to begin during the first quarter of 2014.
About Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.
Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. is one of the nation's leading manufacturers of rugged, reliable firearms for the commercial sporting market. The only full-line manufacturer of American-made firearms, Ruger offers consumers over 400 variations of more than 30 product lines. For more than 60 years, Ruger has been a model of corporate and community responsibility. Our motto,  Arms Makers for Responsible Citizens,  echoes the importance of these principles as we work hard to deliver quality and innovative firearms.
The Company may, from time to time, make forward-looking statements and projections concerning future expectations. Such statements are based on current expectations and are subject to certain qualifying risks and uncertainties, such as market demand, sales levels of firearms, anticipated castings sales and earnings, the need for external financing for operations or capital expenditures, the results of pending litigation against the Company, the impact of future firearms control and environmental legislation, and accounting estimates, any one or more of which could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. The Company undertakes no obligation to publish revised forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date such forward-looking statements are made or to reflect the occurrence of subsequent unanticipated events.
- See more at: http://www.thetacticalwire.com/story/297989#sthash.PLlGAsny.dpuf

Gun-Grabbers Go Full Femme-a-Gogue in Colorado

Michelle Malkin  Sep 04, 2013

COLORADO SPRINGS -- Out: The boy who cried wolf. In: The girl who cried birth control. Desperate Democrats are imposing false-alarm feminist politics on a high-stakes recall election in Colorado this month. It's a golden opportunity for independent-minded women to reject empty femme-a-goguery and tear up the Sandra Fluke card.
On September 10, Colorado Springs and Pueblo will decide whether to boot two top state Democrats (state Senate Majority Leader John Morse and state Sen. Angela Giron) over their support for radical gun- and ammo-control measures spearheaded by outside special interests. Left-wing billionaires Michael Bloomberg of New York City and Eli Broad of Detroit have poured $700,000 between them into defending the endangered Colorado Democrats.
A whiff of elitist progressive panic is polluting the Rocky Mountain air. Polls show  moderate  Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, who was against anti-Second Amendment gesture theater before he was for it, losing favor here. The libs' gun-control laws (including more intrusive background checks and ammo mag limits) have driven manufacturing jobs away, made it more difficult for law-abiding gun-owners to conduct business, and done little to increase public safety. No wonder Hickenlooper has barely lifted one of his wavering, wet fingers in the wind to assist the recall targets.
Extremist liberal groups are filling the vacuum. They're trotting out ridiculous fear-mongers to demonize Morse's GOP challenger Bernie Herpin and Giron's challenger George Rivera as misogynistic zealots hell-bent on confiscating every condom, morning-after pill and key to an abortion clinic in the Pikes Peak region. Exhale. Consider the newly formed 527 political action group  We Can Do Better, Colorado,  which put out ominous mailers and TV ads created by a Chicago-based firm. The spots are narrated by an angst-filled female who asks:
 What would you call someone who supports a ban on common forms of birth control? Interferes with our personal decisions?  ...  Someone who supports a plan that could even allow police to investigate miscarriages and question the grieving woman like a criminal?
The narrator frets that if birth control warriors don't rise up against the Neanderthals, they might soon be calling Herpin and Rivera  state senators.  Gasp  The Republican challengers appear in the ads as shadowy threats in black-and-white photos. All that's missing are the wire hangers.
Locals here also report that their college-age children are receiving push calls zeroing in on GOP opposition to taxpayer-subsidized birth control, abortion and the so-called Personhood amendment -- none of which sparked the recall in the first place and are not at issue in the special elections.
The reality? Both Herpin and Rivera are pro-life, mainstream Republicans focused on increasing economic opportunity and government accountability. Their recall campaigns have zeroed in on the control freak Democrats' underhanded subversion of transparency and the deliberative process during their gun-control hearings.
The true misogynists are Morse, Giron and their Bloomberg-bolstered gang who shut out Colorado citizens, disparaged Second Amendment-supporting rape victims and female concealed-carry permit holders, and cut off the testimony of countless sheriffs who opposed the sovereignty-infringing gun-control measures. Women voters here and across the country should not forget that these Nanny Staters told grandmothers, mothers and daughters last spring that they don't need handguns to defend themselves, because  rape whistles,   call boxes  and  ballpoint pens  are sufficient.
The gun-grabbing femme-a-gogues think they can do what they did to Colorado U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck in 2010: hammer the GOP into submission and defeat over their phony  reproductive rights  agenda. Enough.  Our bodies, our choice  does not just apply to abortion and birth control. It applies to every woman's right to defend herself as she sees fit.
The Dems' presumptuous paternalism aims to keep independent women both physically and intellectually disarmed. I say: Think and act with your lady smarts, not your lady parts.

2nd Amendment Contrast: Leftist Gun Grabbers Win; Iowa Gun Owners Gather
By S.C. Sherman, 31 August 2013

The Obama regime has proven once again who they really are. As if we didn’t know. Recently, the President used the Executive Order pen to bypass Congress and the will of the people to come after guns in America, again. The guns that they came after this time are mostly collector’s items and memorabilia-type weapons. So why do it? Why come after some gun guy out there collecting old WWII era guns? Getting rid of those weapons does nothing to fix the supposed problem of guns on the street and violence in the ‘hood. I haven’t seen too many gang members with an M1 from the 1940’s slung over their shoulders. Have you? The truth is the gun-grabbers want them all. Seriously, no matter what they say to the contrary, the anti-gun liberals really do want them all. That pesky Congress has really stood in the way of our President and his dreams of a gun-free-utopia. Joe Biden, threatened, “If Congress won’t act, we’ll fight for a new Congress,” Biden said in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. “It’s that simple. But we’re going to get this done.” Old Joe sounds pretty determined to git-r-done. Limited power and checks and balances and all that, sure is annoying. Thank you Founding Fathers. Our current group of leaders working in concert with the lap-dog-propaganda-laden media will do anything they can to spread a narrative. That theme is that all guns are evil. It doesn’t matter if they are seventy-year-old antiques. Also, it’s not just that guns are evil, but the pro-gun people in Congress are evil, and gun loving citizens are an evil fringe of society. The more they can indoctrinate the mindless of our society, the better for the maniacal plans of disarmament. They just don’t see the America that I see. I recently attended one of the coolest gun events ever. The Iowa Firearms Coalition put it on at the Brownell’s Big Springs Range in the heart of Iowa. I was humbled to be allowed to share the stage and promote my upcoming book with US Congressmen, State Legislators, and Radio Personalities. An estimated 1200 people attended and roughly 80% of them were open carrying. We’ve been so indoctrinated to fear weapons that it takes a little getting used to when everyone is openly packing. About half of the speakers, politicians included, had a pistol on their hip as they gave their speech from the podium. US Congressman King quoted the Concord Hymn by Ralph Waldo Emerson. (Look it up) It almost brought tears to my eyes. Despite a thousand people being armed with deadly weapons, shockingly, no one was killed. Don’t guns kill people? I guess not. One guy was injured tough; he caught his finger in the action of his pistol at the range. A little blood, no big deal. The rat-a-tat-tat-tat sound of machine guns and the boom of the 50 cal. echoed over the hills as Cowboy Action people strolled by in old west garb. It was awesome; if you’re in Iowa next year in the heat of the summer, don’t miss it. You would think there would be protestors or something at an event like this, but none showed. Maybe they are smarter than I think. I wonder what it would be like if we had some liberals attend this rally. Would they wander around in total fear? Would they begin to see the good-hearted patriots that gun lovers are? Or would they snap photos to mock us all to their friends on Facebook? The lines are getting clearer every day. Liberals want all of our guns. Conservatives and freedom-loving patriots are going to have to speak up against the incremental loss of our 2A rights or they really will disappear. This abusive government stepping around Congress and taking away antique rifles is just another step in the master plan of our opponents. Wake up, American Patriots. I implore you to attend gun rallies, support gun-friendly candidates, join your favorite gun group, tell your friends and neighbors what’s going on. That’s how we fight, before it’s too late, and it really turns into Molon Labe.



Chicago Police: If You Carry a Gun, We're Trained to Shoot You
 Last Resistence, September 4, 2013

The Chicago Police Superintendent isn’t too happy with it. He thinks that more guns equals more crime. He also warned that the new law will create more incidents of cop-on-civilian shootings. He made his warning known in a radio interview: “You put more guns on the street expect more shootings. I don’t care if they’re licensed legal firearms, people who are not highly trained… putting guns in their hands is a recipe for disaster. So I’ll train our officers that there is a concealed carry law, but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire and we’re going to have tragedies as a result of that. I’m telling you right up front.” He acknowledged that unfortunately there are many cases of police shooting innocent and unarmed citizens, but having concealed carriers around will only make that problem worse. “You say concealed carry, I say Trayvon Martin. Police officers make mistakes all the time. We spend six months in the police academy, six months of field training and ongoing training on a regular basis and the fact is once in a while we’re going to shoot someone with a cellphone; we’re going to shoot somebody with a flashlight and none of that is okay. But now you take John Q. Civilian, you give them six weeks or 10 weeks of training and you say ‘have at it?’ The fact is more guns are not the solution to the firearm gun violence problem in this country. Less guns and reasonable gun laws are. And just because it’s 49 states to one doesn’t mean the state of Illinois is wrong on that one.” GunsNFreedom.com pointed out the not-so-subtle irony in the police chief’s warnings and criticisms. On one hand, he doesn’t want civilians carrying guns, because they’re not trained like police officers are, yet he acknowledges that highly trained police officers will shoot an innocent person with a cellphone or flashlight. And now his highly trained officers will shoot at someone carrying a gun, regardless of whether or not that person has done anything wrong. Police are trained to shoot to kill when they feel their lives are being threatened. So now, all a police officer in Illinois needs in order to feel like his life is being threatened is witness a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun. He’s sending a message to gun-owners in Illinois: If you have the audacity to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, don’t be surprised if you end up dead as a result. Sponsored From Around the Web


Democrat Controlled States Involved in Gun Confiscation
Freedom Outpost, August 30,2013

 Gun Confiscation  is a term that should strike fear into the hearts of criminals, not law abiding citizens. But that is exactly what certain states like New York, Colorado and California are attempting to do with  tough new gun control legislation laws.  It is no secret that the Obama Administration really, really wants to do the same thing on a national level. Imagine what could happen if that were to take place? That means only  government  would have any guns. Australia did exactly that, and crime actually rose. The research institute known as the Australian Institute of Criminology presents these statistics: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent. During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women. In England, they have extremely strict gun laws, and they seem to be experiencing a rise in violent crime, as well. California is already starting to confiscate legally purchased firearms. FreedomOutpost.comSimply put, this is how it starts. This is how a government becomes tyrannical, and the sad part about this is that you won't be any safer because only the criminals and police will be the only people that are  armed.  This is just another example of how Democrats think the Constitution is just to wipe your backside with. Back in 2010 my mother was dying of cancer. I had to sell all of my guns to be able to travel from Washington State where I live to Southern California, so I could be with her before she died. It wasn't even a concern because I had to be with her. Now here it is 3 years later, and I can't afford to purchase any more firearms because unlike our politicians in Washington D.C., my wife and I live on a tight budget. For the first time in my adult life, I am un-armed, and this is the one time in history where I wish I wasn't. In Seattle, Mayor Mike McGinn is trying to do something similar but is restrained by the courts, we have open carry laws in Washington State. So what he is doing is, he is trying to convince business owners in Seattle to join his  Gun Free Zone  campaign. Thereby prohibiting patrons of businesses to carry firearms in stores where  Gun Free Zone  stickers are in the windows. Well, what can one expect from this idiot? He's a Democrat from New York. It is really quite frightening to me to see all these end-runs around the Constitution, but when only  Government  has the guns...that is tyranny.

Gun Control Rally Quickly Turns into Pro-Gun Rally Posted
Political Oiutcast, September 2, 2013

It must be embarrassing when you plan a rally, and the only people that really end up showing up are your opposition. That's what happened when Blanche Luczyk and about six other members of Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns hosted a rally in Ohio in support of background checks for gun purchasers:  'As a gun owner, I'm a responsible person and I think it's responsible to ask to have all gun owners have a background check,' said Luczyk. 'It's just common sense. Any responsible person who is willing to take the ownership of a gun should be willing to have that background check.'  But these seven gun control activists were slightly outnumbered by gun-toting 2nd Amendment supporters. There were about 50 gun rights people there to counteract Luczyk’s gun control rally cries. It wasn’t long before Buckeye Firearms Foundation and NRA members took over the rally: “‘There's no reason for Mayors Against Illegal Guns to be in Ohio,’ said Linda Walker of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation. ‘Ohioans stand up for our constitutional rights and that's the way it's going to be.’ After Luczyk addressed the crowd to some jeers and boos, Walker, with the crowd on her side, replaced her as a speaker. ‘People are fired up, people are concerned,’ said Walker. ‘It’s overwhelming this many people show up on a Friday afternoon because our constitutional rights are that important.’” There might be polls that suggest that a majority of people are in favor of background checks or certain gun control measures. But the people that want gun control don’t believe in anything that’s worth it to them to fight for. Those that are in favor of defending Constitutional rights are willing to fight for them and die if necessary. What really counts is not the majority, but rather as Samuel Adams described, the “irate, tireless minority.”

California Rounding Up Legally Purchased Guns
Patriot Update, August 27, 2013

It looks like California is once again leading the nation in the destruction of the United States Constitution. New Rule in Pennsylvania:New Rule in Pennsylvania:(AUG 2013): If You Pay For Car Insurance You Better Read This... The End of AmericaThe End of AmericaStocks soar -- but some wealthy citizens prepare for "End of America." Cast Your Vote Today!Cast Your Vote Today!Who do you think should win the title of Worst Republican? Cast Your Vote Today!Cast Your Vote Today!Who do you think should win the title of Worst Republican? New Rule in Pennsylvania:New Rule in Pennsylvania:(AUG 2013): If You Pay For Car Insurance You Better Read This... The End of AmericaThe End of AmericaStocks soar -- but some wealthy citizens prepare for "End of America." Alex Jones’ InfoWars and several other conservative websites are reporting that with a “minor” rule change, the state has greatly expanded its list of “armed prohibited persons” — people who for some reason no longer have their Second Amendment rights, according to the state. Like all such tyrannical power plays, this one sounded reasonable at the time. It was advertised as only affecting those who had felony records, mental health problems and domestic restraining orders that make allowing them to have guns unwise. Since then, the state has pumped an additional $24 million into the program, and the list has quickly expanded to include people who are delinquent in paying taxes, who owe toll duties or who have committed a variety of misdemeanors. Former DOJ Special Agent Greg Cameron said the program has become “gun confiscation under the guise of safety.” NPR recently ran an enthusiastic story on the roundup efforts. The guns being taken by authorities are legally purchased and registered, according to gun rights advocates, and are only being taken because the owners have landed somehow on the ever-expanding “prohibited” list. One case cited by the NRA involves a man named Joe Mendez, who is not otherwise identified. Mendez said that a police officer came to his door and asked him to come outside, using a story about a hit-and-run car crash. Once outside, Mendez claims, he was held at gunpoint and handcuffed while authorities ransacked his home looking for weapons and ammo that he had purchased legally. See more of his story here. The incident bears out the contention of gun rights advocates that registration lists are not for the safety of the public, but for use by the state in targeting law abiding gun owners. Our constitution is in crisis, put there by Marxists in federal and state governments. A Department of Defense training manual recently became public that once again paints people who believe in personal liberty and the Constitution as some sort of terrorist threat. The manual uses the Founding Fathers as an example of an extremist group. Why not? They all owned guns, after all. Conservatives generally don’t advocate violence except in self-defense. Raids against lawful gun owners obviously are being planned with the intention of provoking a response. If, during one of these raids, some gun owner rightly decides that he doesn’t lawfully have to give up his guns and the shooting starts, it will be just the excuse the government is looking for. Share229 Tweet29 2 Share4 Share349 Print Friendly and PDF This entry was posted in Email, Email Exclusive and tagged California, featured, guns, second amendment. Bookmark the permalink. Posting Policy We have no tolerance for comments containing v

Firearms Company Leaving NY Due To Anti-Gun Laws
Political Outcast, August 10, 2013

Earlier this year, New York and Colorado were among the states to pass a number of anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment laws. In Colorado, at least three firearms companies are in the process of moving their business out of the state. The Outdoor Channel cancelled four programs that were being produced in the state and advised a boycott against all outdoor recreation, which is a large part of the economy of the state. Additionally, a number of recall drives are underway aimed at the four main politicians responsible for the anti-gun and green energy laws. Fifty-four of the states 62 elected county sheriffs are suing the state over the new anti-gun laws. A coalition of counties in the northeast corner of the state is seriously looking into the possibility of secession from the rest of the state. Shortly after New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed their anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment laws into effect, Texas State Attorney General Greg Abbott ran a series of ads in New York inviting people and businesses to move to gun friendly Texas. I never heard if any New Yorkers took him up on his invite, but thought it was a pretty good idea. Whether prompted by Abbott’s invite or the examples from Colorado, at least one New York based firearms company has announced that they are leaving the state because of the new laws. Kahr Firearms, currently located in Rockland County, New York (home of the infamous interactive map of legal gun permit holders), has announced that they have purchased land in Blooming Grove Township, Pennsylvania and will be moving their corporate offices there as soon as possible. Frank Harris, Vice President of Sales and Marketing stated: “We are grateful for the warm welcome and the business opportunity extended by the Pike County Industrial Park Development Group/Business Development Corporation to expand our company and relocate its headquarters office. The Pennsylvania group has demonstrated tremendous support of our operations and Kahr looks to move forward with the project without delay. It's good for our business and also for other businesses in the area as we build a long-term mutually beneficial relationship with the community. We anticipate generating significant numbers of revenue and jobs for the local Northeastern Pennsylvania economy with the construction of facilities, expansion of manufacturing, and need for local vendors.” Connecticut is another state with strict anti-gun laws and they are home to a number of firearms or firearm related manufacturers. Now if only they will do the right thing and move away from their state that has legislated against their businesses. After all, why would any company want to do business in a state that passes laws against their customers and hurts their business? There are a number of gun friendly states like Texas and Arizona that would love to have them relocate there. I continue to pray that more will.


CRKBA: Obama's Ban on Surplus Relics Reveals Anti-Gun Extremism
Outdoor Wire4, August 30, 2013


BELLEVUE, WA - Barack Obama's new strategy for attacking gun owners specifically targets collectors and competitors by blocking returns of surplus military rifles over six decades old, and reveals his extremist anti-gun attitude, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
The president's new gun control measures, announced today by Vice President Joe Biden, will prevent the recovery of thousands of military-surplus M-1 Garand rifles that are valued by collectors, competitors and historic reenactors. These firearms were loaned or donated to South Korea decades ago.
"This is an outrage," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, "and the only people being hurt are law-abiding citizens. If there were any doubt about the level of anti-gun extremism in the Obama administration, this announcement just put those doubts to rest."
There is pending legislation, H.R. 2247, the "Collectible Firearms Protection Act" sponsored by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) that would prevent this, he noted.
This new prohibition will have far-reaching effects on all kinds of curio and relic firearms. Such firearms have considerable historic significance and value to American firearms aficionados, and there is no evidence that such firearms have ever been favored by criminals.
"American gun owners can kiss goodbye any notions that they might see some moderate, reasonable movement on gun issues from this administration," Gottlieb stated. "And Joe Biden is likely to have real trouble pandering himself as a reasonable gun owner when he decides to run for president in 2016, because gun owners will not forget his involvement in this prohibition.
    "This ruling also sends a message to the firearms industry, and particularly importers, that this administration cannot be trusted," he added. "The president is taking out his frustration for being unable to pass his gun control agenda, and the only people who will suffer are citizens who would never break the law with any of these firearms. Punishing innocent people may be the Chicago way, but it's not the American way, or the way an American president ought to lead."


America's New Shooters: Younger, Female and Urban

Outdoor Wire, August 30, 2013

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The face of America's target shooters is changing. New target shooters--those who have taken up the sport in the last five years--are younger, female and urban when compared to established target shooters, or those participating for more than five years, according to a survey commissioned by the National Shooting Sports Foundation®.
Just how this new segment of target shooters varies from established target shooters can be found in the Analysis of Sport Shooting Participation in the U.S. 2008-2012, the findings of which are based on a survey conducted by Responsive Management, a public opinion research firm specializing in outdoor recreation issues. The report is available free to NSSF members as a member benefit.
The demographics of new shooters show they are . . .
    Younger: 66 percent of new shooters fall into the 18-to-34-year-old category compared to 31 percent in the same age category for established shooters.
    Female: 37 percent of new target shooters are female compared to 22 percent of established target shooters.
    Urban: 47 percent of new target shooters live in urban/suburban settings versus 34 percent of established target shooters.
The report shows that one-fifth of target shooters in America first started participating in the shooting sports between 2008 and 2012. That means 20 percent of all target shooters began participating in the past five years.
"The landscape of target shooters has shifted," said Jim Curcuruto, NSSF's director of research and analysis. "This is data that everyone doing business in our industry should be aware of."
Mark Damian Duda, executive director of Response Management, pointed out, "While mentoring by family members in a generally rural setting is the traditional pathway for newcomers to participating in target shooting and hunting, the research shows that new shooters today include many who did not follow or have access to the traditional pathway."
he expansion of younger, female and urban-based participants coincides with the surge in firearms sales that occurred over the same 2008-2012 period.
The report also covers factors related to why new and established target shooters participate, as well as the types of activities they are participating in.
NSSF members may access the Analysis of Sport Shooting Participation in the U.S. 2008-2012 by logging in to the Member's section and selecting NSSF Industry Research.

That Guns Make Us Safer
Michael Snyder,  August 11, 2013, JPFO(Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership)  
The American people deserve to know the truth about gun control. Passing strict gun control laws will not make us all safer. In fact, as you will read about below, even a study conducted at Harvard found that the more guns a nation has the less crime it tends to have. In other words, there is a very strong positive correlation between more guns and less crime. This is the exact opposite of what the mainstream media would have us believe, but it makes sense. You see, the reality is that criminals really, really, really don't want to get shot.
When you pass strict gun control laws, you take the fear of getting shot away and criminals tend to flourish. Just look at what is going on in America today. The places with the highest crime rates are the major cities where strict gun control laws have been passed. In some of those cities the police are so overwhelmed that they have announced that they simply won't even bother responding to certain kinds of crime anymore.
The truth is that the government cannot protect us adequately, and that is one reason why millions of preppers are arming themselves and gun sales have been setting new records year after year. Unfortunately, the mainstream media and many of our politicians seem absolutely obsessed with trying to restrict our constitutional right to own guns. They are waging a relentless campaign to try to convince the American people that guns are bad. But is that actually the case? Of course not. The following are 18 little-known gun facts that prove that guns make us safer…
#1 Over the past 20 years, gun sales have absolutely exploded, but homicides with firearms are down 39 percent during that time and "other crimes with firearms" are down 69 percent.
#2 A study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy discovered that nations that have more guns tend to have less crime.
#3 The nine European nations with the lowest rate of gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times greater than the nine European nations with the highest rate of gun ownership.
#4 Almost every mass shooting that has occurred in the United States since 1950 has taken place in a state with strict gun control laws…
With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings.
#5 The United States is #1 in the world in gun ownership, and yet it is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people.
#6 The violent crime rate in the United States actually fell from 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992 to 386.3 per 100,000 in 2011. During that same time period, the murder rate fell from 9.3 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000.
#7 Approximately 200,000 women in the United States use guns to protect themselves against sexual crime every single year.
#8 Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime than they are to take lives.
#9 The number of unintentional fatalities due to firearms declined by 58 percent between 1991 and 2011.
#10 Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States. In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year. Do we really want to be more like the UK?
#11 The UK has approximately 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.
#12 The UK has approximately 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.
#13 The UK has the fourth highest burglary rate in the EU.
#14 The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
#15 Down in Australia, gun murders increased by about 19 percent and armed robberies increased by about 69 percent after a gun ban was instituted.
#16 The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. So has this reduced crime? Of course not. As I wrote about recently, the murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011, and Chicago is now considered to be "the deadliest global city". If you can believe it, there were about as many murders in Chicago during 2012 as there was in the entire nation of Japan.
#17 After the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years and there was an 89% decline in burglaries.
#18 According to Gun Owners of America, the governments of the world slaughtered more than 170 million of their own people during the 20th century. The vast majority of those people had been disarmed by their own governments prior to being slaughtered.
Sadly, you rarely hear any facts like these on the mainstream news networks. Instead, they give countless amounts of air time to the radicals that are obsessed with gun control.
And did you know that there is now an official propaganda manual that has been put out for gun control advocates? This manual actually encourages gun control advocates to emotionally exploit major shooting incidents to advance the cause of gun control…
Democratic strategists have drafted a how-to manual on manipulating the public's emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.
"A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence," asserts the guide. "We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence."
The 80-page document titled "Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging," also urges gun-control advocates use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.
"The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak," the guide insists. "The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts."
You can read the rest of that manual right here.
So will those pushing gun control win, or will the American people be able to see through the propaganda and insist on keeping their constitutional right to bear arms?

New Jersey Second Amendment Society Comments on Christie's Veto of Gun Control Legislation
Shooting Wire, August 19, 2013

Yesterday afternoon, Governor Christie vetoed the three most offensive gun ownership restrictions passed by the New Jersey Senate and Assembly this year. These bills were deemed the "centerpiece" of what Senate President Steve Sweeney referred to as his "National Model". The Governor's veto of these bills is a monumental victory for law-abiding firearms owners in the State of New Jersey. Thankfully, Governor Christie realized this type of legislation is not appropriate for New Jersey or as a model for the rest of the country.
The Governor was correct in ignoring the pleas of gun-grabbing organizations based out of state, like "Ceasefire New Jersey" and "Heeding God's Call". These organizations lobbied to further oppress the law-abiding New Jersey firearms owner, but have no standing whatsoever in our state. The project director of Ceasefire New Jersey lives in New York and the organization has no status as a New Jersey Corporation. Heeding God's Call is a Pennsylvania-based 501(c)3 that has no business lobbying anywhere, let alone in New Jersey. These gun-grabbing groups are not interest in the welfare of New Jersey's citizens. Like the prohibitionists of old, they want to come here and destroy something they don't personally like.
The Constitution doesn't work like that, and it is time they learned that lesson.
The members and supporters of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society worked long and hard to send a message to the Governor about these bills. We are grateful that he took the time to review our concerns and to agree with our position. We would also like to recognize the other organizations that played a part in this victory to defeat this "national model" legislation. The California-based Firearms Policy Coalition hosted a contest that encouraged citizens throughout the country to take part in the campaign to convince Governor Christie to veto these bills. We would also like to recognize our friends at Pro-Gun New Hampshire who voiced their opposition to these onerous provisions proclaimed a "national model" by NJ Senate President Sweeney.
To everyone that participated in this campaign to prevent the further progress of these bills, we thank you and we give you our promise that we will continue to fight for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in New Jersey and throughout the Nation. You can be certain the New Jersey Second Amendment Society will be there when it counts.


Store owner pulls gun on thieves, may lose lease
Conservative Byte, August 10, 2013

Liberals would rather he gotten robbed and shot.
A Memphis, Tenn., business owner is under fire and may lose his lease after he chased three robbers from his store with a 9 mm handgun – all because his cookie shop is located in a mall with a “no firearms” policy.
Police are still looking for the thieves who stole $45 from a cash register in the Southland Mall Cookie Bakery on Aug. 7. After the men made off with the money, the store owner chased them into the parking lot and fired three warning shots.
According to reports, the gun was legally owned and there were no injuries.
Thirteen security guards work at the mall and the Memphis Police Department’s South Precinct is located nearby. However, in 2010, one security guard – a former Marine – was shot and killed by a gang member at the mall as he tried to break up a fight. State prosecutor Ray Lepone said he “was brutally murdered in cold blood in broad daylight in front of women and children.”
After the shooting, the mall instituted a strict no firearms policy, even for security guards. The mall posts warnings on its doors indicating no guns are allowed on the premises.
Memphis City Council member Harold Collins told WHBQ-TV even though the store owner has the right to protect his property, he didn’t exercise good judgment.



Texas Pro-Gun Group Seeks To “Condition Texans to Feel Safe” Around Guns
Last Resistence, August 20,2013

I’m sure you’ve seen all those YouTube videos of people filming themselves legally open carrying somewhere and then recording their encounters with police. In every instance, the police stop and interrogate the gun owner because they got calls from “concerned citizens.” These gun owners aren’t doing anything illegal, but people get freaked out by a guy walking down the street with a gun across his shoulder. So, police are called, and they stop by the open carrier and ask him a series of questions like, “What are you doing walking around with a gun? Don’t you know that that’s scaring people?” The open carrier might respond with something like, “It’s my 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. I am doing nothing illegal.” The encounter might conclude with an arrest for “obstruction,” or a flustered cop leaving the guy alone. The former happens a lot more than the latter. It’s true that in most states, you can open carry a firearm. Legally. But there are always going to be people who get scared and call the police. That’s because they’ve been conditioned to be scared of anyone carrying a gun, unless that person wears a police uniform. This is mostly thanks to the media for the way they report crimes involving guns. They rarely report on the times that gun owners have stopped crimes or defended themselves and their families from armed intruders. They focus on the crimes committed by deranged (allegedly) individuals with semi-automatic weapons. The bigger and bloodier the crime is, the better it is for media coverage. This is all that faithful news viewers get, and it makes them scared to even go outside. There might be a guy with a gun, and guns are bad. This conditioning is what was talked about by Eric Holder when he was the U.S. Attorney for D.C. He said that in order to win the gun control fight, we have to brainwash people about guns. We have to condition them to be frightened of them. And once they’re frightened, gun control will be effortless. Well, there’s at least one group that trying to counteract that brainwashing. They’re trying to condition people not to be scared of guns. And they’re in Texas. It was news to me that Texas doesn’t allow open carry for pistols. They do however allow open carry for rifles. Over the weekend, this pro-gun group walked down the streets of downtown Arlington, Texas carrying rifles across their shoulders. The group is called Come and Take it Houston, and they’re part of a much larger group called Open Carry Texas (OCT). From OCT’s website, their purpose is the following: To educate all Texans about their right to openly carry rifles and shotguns in a safe manner. To condition Texans to feel safe around law-abiding citizens that choose to carry them. To encourage our elected officials to pass less restrictive open carry legislation. To foster a cooperative relationship with local law enforcement in the furtherance of these goals with an eye towards preventing negative encounters. I think this is a good idea. If one person is open carrying, he’ll likely have to deal with the police, who might confiscate his weapon, arrest him or at least harass him, even if he’s done nothing wrong. But if a large group of people do this, all the police can do is sit by and watch. And it has the added benefit of showing people that guns aren’t bad. In fact, they’re good. What we want is for people to be unconditioned with respect to guns. We want them to be unbrainwashed. Apparently, there were about 16 activists in the streets in Arlington open carrying over the weekend. I’m sure the media was sorry that no deaths or injuries occurred as a result of the plethora of firearms.

Fast and Furious Guns Show Up in Three More Crimes
Freedom Outpost, August 15, 2013    

Remember Fast and Furious? With all of the recent scandals we sometimes forget about our government putting guns in the hands of Mexican drug lords. We learned on Wednesday that some of those guns were involved with 3 more crimes in Mexico.
CBS reports:
    Three more weapons from Fast and Furious have turned up at crime scenes in Mexico, CBS News has learned, as the toll from the controversial federal operation grows. According to Justice Department tracing documents obtained by CBS News, all three guns are WASR-10 762-caliber Romanian rifles. Two were purchased by Fast and Furious suspect Uriel Patino in May and July of 2010. Sean Steward, who was convicted on gun charges in July 2012, purchased a third. The rifles were traced yesterday to the Lone Wolf gun shop in Glendale, Ariz. During Fast and Furious and similar operations, federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) encouraged the Lone Wolf and other gun stores to sell massive amounts of weapons to questionable purchasers who allegedly trafficked them Mexican drug cartels. Patino is said to have purchased 700 guns while under ATF’s watch. Ever since, a steady stream of the guns have been recovered at crime scenes in Mexico and the U.S. But the Justice Department has refused repeated requests from Congress and CBS News to provide a full accounting. An estimated 1,400 guns are still on the street or unaccounted for.
1400 guns in the hands of criminals thanks to our federal government. It’s mind numbing.
Tim Brown reported last month that Fast & Furious guns were used in the murder of a police chief. The body count continues to rise. CBS did not comment on the nature of the three recent crimes so hopefully no more lives have been lost.

GOVERNOR CHRISTIE
VETOES FINAL GUN BILLS!
FIFTY CALIBER BAN - DEAD!
SWEENEY F.I.D. BILL - DEAD!
TRACE DATA BREACH - DEAD!
Sweeney and Trace Data Bills Conditionally Vetoed


In a huge blow to anti-gun politicians and the gun ban lobby, today Governor Christie flat-out vetoed the fifty caliber ban (A3659) and conditionally vetoed two other bills - Senate President Stephen Sweeney's "kitchen sink" F.I.D. card bill (S2723), and a bill that that would have forced the State Police to breach confidentiality of protected gun trace data in violation of federal law (A3797). A fourth bill creating a task force to study school security issues was signed by the Governor (A3583).
A "conditional veto" means that the legislation is dead, unless the legislature reconvenes to resurrect it through amendments that meet strict conditions imposed by the Governor. Whether anti-gun Democrats have the stomach to swallow those conditions (see details below) remains to be seen. Alternatively, the legislature could try to override any veto (conditional or otherwise) by a 2/3 vote of both houses, which is highly unlikely given the current composition of the legislature.
"After 7 months of intense battle over misguided legislation that won't stop another crime or prevent another tragedy, we are grateful that Governor Christie has finally ended the discussion on the worst of the bills by tossing them onto the scrap heap where they belong," said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. "These vetoes put gun-banning politicians on notice that exploiting tragedy to advance an agenda against legal gun owners, instead of punishing violent criminals, will not be entertained."
Today's actions come in the wake of last week's signing of ten gun bills by Governor Christie (two helped gun owners, two were opposed by gun owners, and six were neutralized based on gun owner input but are appropriately very tough on violent criminals). New Jersey already has some of the strictest and most extreme gun laws in the nation.
The bill flat-out vetoed by Governor Christie today was:
A3659 - the fifty caliber gun ban that would have: prohibited high muzzle-energy guns of any caliber; blocked heirlooms from family members; held grandfathered owners civilly liable for damages if their firearms were ever used in a crime; and forfeited the pending purchase orders of licensed gun owners for these $10,000+ firearms.
The notion that banning any particular tool makes society safer is demonstrably false, and ignores the obvious reality that someone intent on doing evil will not be stopped or deterred if one particular tool becomes unavailable. "If box cutters could take down the World Trade Center, does anyone really believe that banning box cutters will stop the next terrorist?" commented Bach. "The same is true of firearms - banning the fifty caliber or any other firearm will not stop someone bent on doing evil."
The Governor's statement on A3659 criticizes the scope of the ban, notes drafting errors that would defeat grandfathering, and observes that rather than combating crime and terror, the bill only serves to threaten law-abiding gun owners with imprisonment for lawful recreation.
The two bills conditionally vetoed by Governor Christie today are:
S2723 - Senate President Stephen Sweeney's "kitchen sink" FID card bill, a 42-page monstrosity universally despised by gun owners and sportsmen. The bill, touted by Democrats as the "centerpiece" of their gun bill package and a "national model," would have: thrown out existing FID cards and replaced them with a privacy-invading driver license endorsement or other form of ID; suspended Second Amendment rights without proof of firearms training; ended firearms sales directly between background-checked licensed gun owners; and had numerous other impacts.
Under Governor Christie's conditional veto, S2723 could only be resurrected if both houses of the legislature agreed to the following conditions:
- Remove all provisions that would have created a new electronic FID card (keeps the existing permitting system in place);
- Remove all provisions that would have suspended Second Amendment rights without proof of firearms training;
- Remove all provisions that would have ended firearms sales directly between background-checked licensed gun owners; and
- Add a provision requiring the State Police to develop and promulgate literature regarding safe firearms storage and ownership.
It is unknown whether Democratic legislative leadership would accept these conditions. While doing so would salvage what is left of their "centerpiece," the final bill would be a gutted version, stripped of the most blatant attacks on legal gun owners, and very likely an embarrassment to Democrats.
If Democrats decided to swallow that bitter pill, other key provisions of the Sweeney bill that would be retained would include: requiring an FID card or other permit for all ammunition purchases; limiting shipment of online ammunition purchases to the address on the FID card; making it a 4th degree crime if injury or death results from the failure to properly secure firearms; making it a 4th degree crime for someone prohibited from possessing firearms to possess ammunition; requiring mental health screeners to inquire about firearms ownership of those being considered for involuntary commitment for mental health reasons; and revocation of NJ concealed carry permits upon conviction of a crime of the 4th degree or higher.
The Governor's statement accompanying his conditional veto expressed support in principle for some of these provisions, yet also criticized the legislature as "shortsighted" for focusing on gun control instead of comprehensive violence solutions. The statement also noted the bill's failure "to directly combat violence," and the current unavailability of the technology that would be required to implement the digitized FID card.
A3797 - conditionally vetoed because of one section that required the State Police to breach confidentiality of federal gun trace data in direct violation of federal law that limits the data to law enforcement only. This was an attempt by frustrated gun banners to circumvent that federal law, so that idiosyncrasies of the ATF's trace system could be exploited and manipulated to falsely suggest that law abiding citizens are a source of "crime guns." ATF has opposed similar efforts to circumvent confidentiality, which could compromise ongoing investigations. If the legislature amends the bill to remove this illegal provision, the amended bill would then return to the Governor's desk.



New Bill Would Ban AR-15 Receivers, Barrels, and any Necessary Parts to Assemble a Semi-automatic Firearm
Freedom Outpost, August 16, 2013

Henry Waxman (D-CA) has proposed a federal gun bill in the United States House of Representatives that would ban the sale and possession of 80% Ar-15 receivers. However, the way the legislation reads, it actually bans much more than receivers. It appears to include virtually any part used to build a semi-automatic weapon. H.R. 2910 was introduced on August 1, 2013. The particular lower that is referenced is one that is not considered a firearm because it still requires some basic machine work before it is ready to be used in building a firearm. The benefit to purchasing an 80% lower versus a completed lower is that you can complete the work yourself. Once you have done that, there is no need for the gun to have a serial number or be registered as long as it remains in your possession for personal use. AR-15 receiver AR-15receiver Obviously, this is a loophole in federal gun legislation, which should not have even been law in the first place. Thus, anti-gunners such as Henry Waxman are only too happy to attempt to plug the hole in the law and prevent you or me from building our own gun without having to register it. However, it is the scope of the bill that is shocking. The text of the bill reads in part: EC. 101. DO-IT-YOURSELF ASSAULT WEAPON BAN. (b) Prohibited Acts- It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, offer for sale, manufacture for sale, or import into the United States for sale, to a consumer– (1) an assault weapon parts kit; or SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS. (a) Terms- For purposes of this title– (1) the term ‘assault weapon parts kit’ means any part or combination of parts not designed and intended for repair or replacement but designed and intended to enable a consumer who possesses all such necessary parts to assemble a semiautomatic assault weapon; Notice the mix of language. An assault weapon has legally been recognized as a fully automatic firearm, not a semi-automatic weapon. However, when referencing an “assault weapon parts kit” the legislation defines it as “any part or combination of parts not designed and intended for repair or replacement.” Basically, this ends up targeting any rifle part that can be used to build a firearm. Think about it. Should one want to change out the lower on an existing AR-15, this legislation could be interpreted that the new lower purchased falls under the restriction. Furthermore, assume one wants to change the barrel. Doesn’t that also fall under the text of the legislation, since it is also used in the building of a firearm? In theory, any parts on a firearm are essentially covered with this legislation. Currently the bill is in committee and has 6 Democrat sponsors. One would hope it dies in the committee, but just to be sure, perhaps you want to contact your representative to make them aware of this sweeping gun control bill and voice your opposition to it. You can do so by clicking here. Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/new-bill-would-ban-ar-15-receivers-barrels-and-any-necessary-parts-to-assemble-a-semi-automatic-firearm/#ixzz2cBAvxJ9p


California Lawmakers Advance Nation’s Toughest Gun Control Bills
Outdoor Hub, August 15, 2013
If passed, California's new gun control laws will allow it to regain the title of the state with the nation's strictest gun control laws.
A package of strict gun control laws were passed by California’s Assembly Committee on Public Safety earlier this week, which have already approved by the state’s Senate.
According to the San Jose Mercury News, the package includes bills that would add all semiautomatic rifles with a detachable magazine to California’s list of banned weapons, a ban on all magazines holding more than 10 rounds, require long gun purchasers to take and pass a written test, and add to the list of offenses that would prohibit a person from owning firearms. The package also included several proposals to fix “loop holes” in California’s already strict gun policies. The foremost of these is a ban on the so-called “bullet buttons” or devices which allow magazine removal though the use of a tool, therefore no longer qualifying as a firearm with a detachable magazine.
“This entire package is not focused on trying to prohibit or limit law-abiding citizens from having guns,” said California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento). “It seeks to close loopholes that were never supposed to exist.”
Passing the Assembly Committee will move the bills closer to a signature by California Governor Jerry Brown. Governor Brown’s stance on gun control is a mixed one, having signed several gun control bills into law previously, yet vetoing others and supporting the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2009 during his tenure as attorney general to challenge Chicago’s handgun ban in the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The governor in the past has demonstrated independence,” said Larry Keane, Senior Vice President for the NRA. “He is not reflexively anti-gun and will listen to sound policy arguments.”
The bills are also receiving widespread criticism from gun rights advocates, especially concerning Senate Bill 374, the ban on semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines.
“My gun owners are blowing up my phones, saying ‘You can’t let this happen,’” recalled the Comittee’s vice chair Melissa Melendez (R-Lake Elsinore). “We can’t ban everything. This is about personal responsibility of human beings … not the weapons they are using.”
If passed into law SB 374 could have wide-ranging consequences for hunters and shooting enthusiasts who own modern sporting rifles.
“You’re looking at literally millions of guns,” Gerald Upholt, a lobbyist for the California Association of Firearms Retailers, told the San Jose Mercury News.
Hunters are also concerned over a bill that could ban traditional lead ammunition, a measure intended to safeguard the California condor. Some other states, such as Utah or Arizona, provide hunters with incentives to use non-lead ammo. An outright ban of traditional ammo is being viewed by many hunters as a ban on hunting itself.


New Jersey Anti Gun Laws Signed By Christe
JOHNSON BILL TO RAISE PUBLIC AWARENESS CONCERNING
GUN RECORDS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC NOW LAW
(TRENTON) -- Legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Gordon Johnson (D-Bergen) to make the public better aware that certain firearms records are available to them under the state's open public records law has been signed into law.
"Providing the public with information is always a good thing. There are many opinions concerning gun violence and ways to prevent it. This allows residents to access valuable information about the total number of gun permits and firearms identification cards in the state without jeopardizing anyone's privacy. The better informed the public is, the better able they will be to make their own determinations about this and other divisive issues that affect us all," said Johnson.
The law (S2720 / A4181) clarifies that the public has access to aggregate information concerning the total number of firearms purchaser identification cards or handgun purchase permits, without any personal identifying information, that have been issued by the Superintendent of State Police or the chief of police of a municipality. Formerly, personal firearms records were confidential pursuant to administrative regulations of the state Department of Law and Public Safety.
"Regardless of where you stand on the debate over gun violence, it is essential that people have access to information that can help them form informed decisions," said Johnson. "Ignorance is not always bliss, especially when dealing with issues that impact us deeply as a state and country."


WILSON & JOHNSON BILL CRACKING DOWN ON UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM NOW LAW
Law Toughens Penalties for Unlawful Possession of Firearms and Allow Authorities to
Impound Vehicles Found With Illegal Guns
(TRENTON) -- Legislation sponsored by Assembly Democrats Gilbert "Whip" Wilson and Gordon Johnson to toughen the penalties for anyone convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm has been signed into law.
"We need to send the strongest message possible that gun crimes will not be tolerated," said Wilson (D-Camden, Gloucester). "This protects the rights of law-abiding gun owners while going after criminals."
The law (A4152) upgrades the unlawful possession of a firearm to a crime of the first degree in certain circumstances and amends various other penalty provisions for firearms convictions.
"Legal gun owners who adhere to the law would be further protected under this bill," said Johnson (D-Bergen). "Essentially, we're saying, 'We are taking back our streets and we're not going to tolerate senseless gun violence in our communities anymore.'"
Specifically, the law will make it a crime of the first degree for a person to unlawfully possess a machine gun, handgun, rifle or shotgun, or an assault firearm following a conviction for a crime under the No Early Release Act.
Additionally, the bill would increase the mandatory minimum period of parole ineligibility under the Graves Act from three years to 42 months. The Graves Act provides that a person convicted of unlawful possession of a machine gun, handgun, rifle or shotgun is subject to a mandatory minimum period of parole ineligibility. In addition, the law adds the unlawful possession of an assault firearm to the list of crimes that are subject to Graves Act sentencing.
"STENDER, FUENTES & QUIJANO BILL TO PROHIBIT GUN

LICENSES / PERMITS FOR PERSONS LISTED ON FBI
TERRORIST WATCHLIST SIGNED INTO LAW
(Trenton) -- Legislation (A3687) sponsored by Assembly Democrats Linda Stender, Angel Fuentes and Annette Quijano to deny any person on the FBI Terrorist Watchlist a firearms identification card or permit was signed into law today. The new law is one of numerous measures included in a sweeping Assembly Democratic gun violence prevention bill package.
The new statute would disqualify a person named on the consolidated Terrorist Watchlist maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Terrorist Screening Center from being issued either a firearm's identification card or a permit to purchase a handgun. The law is effective immediately.
"Terrorists are on the Watchlist because their intentions to harm people and property are well known," said Stender (D-Middlesex, Somerset and Union.) "It's reasonable protection that terrorists are denied access to NJ gun permits and licenses.
"It's simple common sense."
The sponsors note that in recent law it provided the issuance of a firearms identification card or a permit to purchase a handgun to be denied for any person if it "would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare." However, the sponsors said the intention of their legislation was to strengthen New Jersey law and provide a separate statutory provision for a person on the Terrorist Watchlist given the seriousness and mass-threatening nature of their criminal activity.
"The individuals on this list are wanted for plotting, attempting or carrying through life-changing criminal acts against humanity," said Fuentes (D-Camden, Gloucester). "The state would be made aware that any person on this Watchlist would be immediately denied.
"By specifically establishing this provision, we are ensuring the people of this state greater protection down the line."
"We have seen what these individuals on the Watchlist are and could be capable of," said Quijano (D-Union). "New Jersey must conduct thorough and highly efficient backgrounds checks on every person that applies for a gun permit or licensure.
"This new law would expand searches to include the persons listed on this Watchlist and also their aliases. "
The Assembly Democratic gun violence prevention package was proposed in response to the national call for impactful legislative action that will help curb the long-standing issue of gun violence occurring in New Jersey's communities.
The bill passed the Assembly in February 63-3-10. It was approved in the Senate 35-0 on March 30.


WILSON BILL TO ALLOW AUTHORITIES TO IMPOUND
VEHICLES FOUND WITH ILLEGAL GUNS NOW LAW
(TRENTON) -- Legislation (A4180) sponsored by Assemblyman Gilbert "Whip" Wilson that would allow law enforcement agencies to impound motor vehicles for certain crimes and offenses, including unlawful possession of a weapon has been signed into law.
"This new law will send the strongest message possible that gun crimes will not be tolerated," said Wilson (D-Camden, Gloucester). "The law will protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners while going after the real criminals."
Under the new statute, a law enforcement agency may impound a motor vehicle if: 1) a weapon was unlawfully possessed in the motor vehicle; 2) the motor vehicle was used in the commission of prostitution; or 3) the vehicle was used in the commission of buying or selling a controlled dangerous substance.
The new law also provides that a law enforcement agency may impose a reasonable administrative fee for a violation, which would be in addition to the costs for towing and storage of the vehicle. The fees would be imposed on the registered owner of the vehicle and a law enforcement agency may retain custody of the vehicle until the fees are paid.
In addition, the registered owner is entitled to a hearing, upon request. The registered owner of the vehicle will be notified of the impoundment and of their right to a hearing. The new law also directs the vehicle to be sold at auction if the owner does not claim the vehicle within 30 days of impoundment and establishes a procedure for this process.

MAINOR LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH 180-DAY PENALTY-FREE
PERIOD FOR TURNING IN FIREARMS NOW LAW
Law Allows Residents to Voluntarily Surrender Unlicensed or Unregistered Firearms Including Assault Firearms
(TRENTON) - Legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Charles Mainor to establish a 180-day period for a person who unlawfully possesses an unlicensed and unregistered firearm to dispose of it by transferring it or turning it over to the police or rendering it inoperable is now law.
State law prohibits the manufacture, sale, or possession of assault firearms and large capacity ammunition magazines except under certain circumstances. Any persons who possessed an assault firearm on that law's effective date were given one year to obtain a license for the firearm, render it permanently inoperable, sell it or turn it over to the police or dispose of it in some other legal manner.
The sponsor notes that the intent of this law is to once again allow people who possess illegal firearms and / or ammunition to get rid of it without penalty.
"New Jersey once provided an opportunity for residents to do the right thing and turn over assault weapons," said Mainor (D-Hudson). "We can provide that same encouragement again free of judgment, punishment, and penalty.
"We re-open that window of opportunity for a longer period of time to get as many firearms as we can out of the hands of the public for the safety of the community. These can be firearms inherited from family members and that have no use or purpose. Turning firearms like these over to the authorities would create safer homes and communities."
Under the law's (A3796) provisions, a person who unlawfully possesses a handgun, rifle, or shotgun will be required either transfer that firearm to a person who may lawfully possess it or voluntarily surrender that firearm to the appropriate law enforcement agency or officer. The law excludes unlawfully possessed high capacity ammunition magazines and ammunition. This will be effective immediately and shall expire on the 181st day after enactment.
In the case of an assault firearm, any person who has in his possession an unlicensed or unregistered assault firearm will be required, within 180 days of the bill's effective date, to: (1) transfer the assault firearm to any person or firm lawfully entitled to own or possess the firearm; (2) render the assault firearm inoperable; or (3) voluntarily surrender the assault firearm. If the person elects to render the firearm inoperable, he or she is required to file a certification on a form prescribed by the Superintendent of the State Police indicating the date on which the firearm was rendered inoperable.
MAINOR, SINGLETON & JOHNSON BILL TO TOUGHEN PENALTIES FOR

THOSE WHO UNLAWFULLY LET A CHILD POSSESS A FIREARM NOW LAW
Law is Part of Assembly Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Initiative
Legislation Assembly Democrats Charles Mainor, Troy Singleton and Gordon Johnson sponsored to upgrade the penalty for unlawfully selling, giving or transferring a firearm to an underage person is now law.
The law is part of the ongoing Assembly Democratic gun violence prevention initiative.
"Here in New Jersey we've seen, so tragically, and sadly more than once, what can happen when a child gets hold of a firearm," said Mainor (D-Hudson). "If someone is careless with their firearm and lets a child have it, then they deserve a severe punishment. It's that simple, really."
Formerly, a person who unlawfully sold, gave or transferred a firearm to an underage person was guilty of a crime of the third degree with a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of three years. A crime of the third degree is punishable by a fine of up to $15,000; imprisonment for a term of three to five years; or both.
Under this law (A4179), a person who unlawfully sells, gives or transfers a firearm to an underage person will be guilty of a crime of the second degree with a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years. A crime of the second degree is punishable by a fine of up to $150,000; imprisonment for a term of five to 10 years; or both.
"Tough penalties are needed for those who recklessly let a gun get into the hands of a child," said Singleton (D-Burlington). "We need to do more to send a message that people better do the right thing with their firearms. Allowing an underage person to unlawfully get a firearm it is unacceptable."
"Gun safety is a priority," said Johnson (D-Bergen). "We've seen the tragedies. Let's put a stop to them."

LAMPITT, SINGLETON, EUSTACE & GUSCIORA MEASURE TO TIGHTEN MENTAL HEALTH OVERSIGHT FOR GUN OWNERS SIGNED INTO LAW
Legislation is Part of Assembly's Comprehensive Anti-Gun Violence Initiative
(TRENTON) -- Legislation sponsored by Assembly Democrats Pamela Lampitt, Troy Singleton, Tim Eustace and Reed Gusciora to tighten mental health oversight for gun owners has been signed into law.
The law (A3717) makes it mandatory for the state to submit certain mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
"A crucial mental health reporting failure is what allowed the Virginia Tech shooter to purchase weapons despite being adjudicated mentally ill. Clearly, there needs to be greater coordination in incorporating mental health records into the background check process," said Lampitt (D-Camden, Burlington). "The NICS relies on states to submit this information. If states fail to do so, the database will have incomplete or inaccurate records, allowing some individuals to purchase guns who should be prohibited. The goal of this law is to avoid that at all costs."
The U.S. Department of Justice established the NICS for federally licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks on prospective gun purchasers. The NICS attains or accesses records from state police, local police and other agencies to determine if the prospective gun purchaser is prohibited from owning a firearm."These days it's harder in some states to buy cold medicine than it is to buy a gun," said Singleton (D-Burlington). "A clean bill of mental health is a crucial component to building a safer gun culture."
New Jersey has begun the process of implementing an electronic system to submit mental health records to the NICS, however submission of these records was not mandatory under former state law. The provisions of this law make the submission mandatory.
"A comprehensive and coordinated approach to mental health background checks is the most effective way to reduce the possibility of guns ending up in the wrong hands," said Eustace (D-Bergen, Passaic). "This is a smart approach to dealing with any correlation between gun violence and mental illness."
"In the more recent mass tragedies we've witnessed, mental illness appears to be a common thread shared by the alleged shooters," said Gusciora (D-Mercer, Middlesex). "Tightening mental health oversight is one component, but a very important one."


Newest gun bill scorecard: Track New Jersey's gun control legislation
The Star-Ledger The Star-Ledger,  August 08, 2013 
TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie signed 10 gun-related bills into law today, but activists on both sides of the firearms debate are awaiting his action on five other measures — including the most controversial ones.
So far, Christie has acted on 11 of 17 bills the Legislature sent him, signing 10 and vetoing one. There are also many bills that have not yet made their way through both houses of the Legislature.
The governor has said he plans to act on the remaining bills in the near future.
Here’s a list of where each gun bill stands that has made it through at least one house of the Legislature.
Signed by Christie
A3687: Bans those on the federal terrorist watch list from buying guns
A3717: Requires state to submit data on those who should be barred from owning guns to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
A3796: Gives those who possess illegal guns 180 days to dispose of them
A3788: Turns state regulation that firearms owner info is not public information into a state law
S2430: Declares violence a public health crisis and establishes "Study Commission on Violence"
S2468: Allows impounding motor vehicles if driver unlawfully has a gun
S2719: Enhances penalties for gun trafficking firearms offenses
S2720: Clarifies that information concerning the total number of firearms purchaser identification cards and permits to purchase a handgun issued in a municipality are public records
S2804: Makes unlawful possession of firearms a first-degree crime; increases mandatory minimum sentences under the "Graves Act"
S1279: Upgrades penalty for unlawfully transferring a firearm to an underage person; permits transfer for instruction and training
Vetoed by Christie
A3668: Bars state pension fund from investing in companies that manufacture or sell assault firearms for civilian use
Passed by both houses and awaiting action by the governor
S2723: Senate President Stephen Sweeney’s bill on gun permits that would would encode firearm purchase permits on a driver's license or a photo ID card, create a system for instant background checks, require gun buyers to show they completed a safety training course and stiffen penalties for letting guns slip into the hands of minors. Four bills passed by the Assembly (A3510, A1683, A3645 and A3748) have been incorporated into this bill
A3797: Requires New Jersey enforcement agencies to report information on lost, stolen and discarded guns to federal databases
A3583/1613: Establishes a school security task force
S2715: Requires Department of Education to prepare and distribute pamphlets on how parents can limit a child’s exposure to media violence
A3659: Bans the .50-caliber rifle — the most powerful weapon available to civilians
Passed Senate but not Assembly
S1133: Requires presumption that any bail paid by defendant charged with certain weapons offenses be paid in the form of full cash
S2725: Makes it a third-degree crime to possess air or spring gun for an unlawful purpose
S2801: Increases statute of limitations for prosecution of theft of firearm from five to 10 years
Passed Assembly but not Senate*
A1329: Reduces maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds
A588: Bans possession of ammunition capable of penetrating body armor
A1116: Establishes 180-day prohibition on purchase of handgun for those convicted of failing to report loss or theft of firearm
A1387: Permits municipalities to establish weapons-free zones around schools and public facilities
A3754: Requires firearms seizure when mental health professional determines patient poses threat of harm to self or others
ACR180: Urges president and Congress to enact legislation on stricter firearms control measures
AR143: Expresses support for attorney general’s gun buyback program
A2692 ("Christopher’s Law"): Provides court with option of ordering juvenile delinquents to receive interactive instruction in preventing gang involvement and gang and youth violence
*Does not include bills incorporated into S2723.
Source: Office of Legislative Services

Millions Of People Will Suddenly Find Themselves Eligible To Buy Guns

Patriot Update, August 05, 2013

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- Immigration reform being debated in Congress will have a major unintended consequence on gun rights in America.
Neither political party has anticipated the effect. With the stroke of a pen, millions of people will suddenly find themselves eligible to buy guns.
The law that currently bans them from gun ownership or possession only affects them as illegal aliens. With citizenship that disability evaporates. The freedom to keep and bear arms, which the Bill of Rights guarantees the rest of us, will instantly be theirs. This will cause a reordering of the political landscape beyond anything Congress has imagined.
When the Minutemen brought the illegal-alien problem to our attention in 2004, we were led to believe their numbers exceeded 20 million. They were members of a class, one of nine groups of federally prohibited possessors, banned under 18 USC §922(g) from owning or using firearms.
    Illegal aliens are the largest single class of people banned from exercising the Second Amendment right to arms, with mental cases and convicted felons in second and third place.
The 20 million illegal aliens somehow became 11 million as fluidly as the “news” media changed watermelon juice (what Trayvon Martin bought one fateful night last year) into ice tea, a politically correct beverage that had absolutely nothing to do with that case. The media has become unapologetic and unconstrained by reality when dealing with facts.
Whatever the actual number, democrats, with media in tow, presume the illegals are theirs, and are salivating at the prospect of acquiring this massive voting bloc. That would deliver an impenetrable hold on Congress for, well, forever. Have they jumped the gun?
Republicans are stressed out, awash in fear that democrats have locked up the Hispanic newcomers’ loyalties, as champions of amnesty, which is a main reason republicans can’t get behind immigration reform — their base won’t stand for it. But the hidden hole card is this gun thing. Democrats can’t lay a hand on that deadly third rail without alienating their essentially anti-gun-rights base.
Suddenly, these teeming masses yearning to be free will discover the awesome power of personal sovereignty and with it, the ability to enter licensed dealerships and purchase liberty’s teeth.
Whatever postures politicians and the media take, free markets will be sprouting signs in Spanish to encourage… shopping. The NRA — and every local gun-rights group – will suddenly discover a need for entire Spanish-language divisions.
Gun ownership and the shooting sports are decidedly conservative right-of-center pursuits, anathema to the left and democrats, generally speaking of course. When voting on gun issues, party-line votes are the norm, that’s just a fact. Republicans will discover a driver’s seat they didn’t know they had.
How far these newcomers to American liberty will be swayed by the physical artifact of freedom in hand remains to be seen. After all, while gun ownership is a horrible ugly thing to many on the left -- just ask the Sharpton-Jackson cheerleaders – the opposite is true for the gun-owning public.
Basically its, game on. Illegal aliens come largely from a culture where gun ownership is controlled by two privileged elites, the ruling government class and the lawless criminal class, sort of what our own left wing (unknowingly perhaps) seeks here. Those are not groups most illegals hold in high esteem, or to be blunt, they are reviled. Now emancipated, 20 million newly freed citizens may turn away from those in power who counsel them against the freedoms the Second Amendment represents. Certainly, some of them will. A strong gun culture is not unknown south of the border, or for Latinos up north for that matter. At American shooting ranges, Hispanics share the lanes with a rainbow of citizens, and while we may not be singing Kumbaya (pretty hard with hearing protectors on), we don’t shoot each other either, and marksmen are famous for sharing guns, ammo and knowledge in a cooperative spirit that is a decidedly beautiful multicultural lesson that the hoplophobic (gun fearing) don’t get to see.
Steel Target Shooting
Steel-silhouette target shooting, one of the most demanding and thrilling sports, actually has Mexican roots, and siluetas metalicas competition uses Spanish commands: Listo! (ready) Fuego! (fire) Alto! (cease fire). The anti-gunners have their work cut out for them.
This may encourage democrats and amnesty supporters to suggest some form of limitation on gun rights for new citizens, preventing these amnestizos full access to all the guns and ammo their hearts desire, in an effort to (canard alert!) protect the children and increase public safety. It’s only reasonable, we will hear, since they are unaccustomed to the dangers of so-called assault weapons and the madness we crazy Americans pursue, defying the rest of the civilized world.
But this is a dreadful Dred Scott solution, granting partial citizenship to newly freed Americans. Making them three-fifths of a person, with only some of the Bill of Rights “for their own good” is not a position even the Sharpton-Jackson takings coalitions can successfully defend.
These people have already been virtual slaves in their home countries. They walked across miles and miles of blazing snake-infested desert seeking freedom to get here. They deserve better.

Mayor Bloomberg: New York Gun Crimes are Virginia’s Fault
Political Outcast, August 5, 2013
Gun grabbers always blame gun crime on the guns themselves. Or global warming. Anything but the criminals. Like Sheila Jackson Lee said earlier this year: “Don’t blame the gangbangers.” They need rehabilitation, not punishment, and we just need to get rid of all the guns. Chicago and Detroit violence isn’t blamed on draconian gun control laws, but the fact that surrounding states have fewer restrictions on guns. And those guns end up being smuggled into the metropolitan areas of Illinois and Michigan. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is peddling that same excuse for his own city’s gun crimes. New York City is number three in number of gun murders committed between 2009 and 2010, after Los Angeles and Chicago. They had 1,101 murders committed with guns during that time period. And he can’t blame gun control. He can’t take any responsibility. He’s got to find someone or something else to blame: “Despite all we do to keep our city safe, we’re increasingly at the mercy of weak national gun laws and weak gun laws in other states. We have been attacking this problem from every angle, but we cannot do it alone.” And Bloomberg’s chief policy adviser John Feinblatt stated that more guns from Virginia were recovered from New York City crime scenes than from any other state, and it’s been that way for a long time: “Take Virginia. That state requires no background checks for private sales, and the legislature in that state even recently rolled back their state laws by stripping their one-gun-a-month purchase limit.” Did it ever occur to Bloomberg or Feinblatt that criminals are attracted to “gun-free zones?” Did it ever occur to them that maybe, just maybe, if New York adopted a more gun-friendly culture (which won’t happen), there would be a lot less desire for criminals to smuggle guns in from other states into New York, and a lot less desire to commit crimes at all? It’s not that other states are too gun-friendly. It’s that New York City, Detroit and Chicago have bought into the idea that gun-free zones are the answers to violence. If every state repealed their respective gun control laws, then there would be no safe place for criminals. Violent crime would be rare. Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/08/mayor-bloomberg-new-york-gun-crimes-are-virginias-fault/#ixzz2b8mHeCDX

2nd appeals court backs Obama border gun rule

Freedom Outpost, July 11, 2013

A second federal appeals court has endorsed the legality of a rule the Obama Administration issued requiring that licensed gun dealers notify the federal government about multiple sales of certain types of semi-automatic rifles in the four states that share a border with Mexico.
The New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Thursday upheld the dismissal of a gun dealer's challenge to the reporting requirement, which went into effect in 2011 and was billed as an effort to curb the flow of U.S. weapons to drug gangs in Mexico.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the court rejected arguments that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives exceeded its authority in issuing the rule, violated Congressional prohibitions against a national gun registry and imposed an unreasonable burden on gun dealers.
The decision, authored by Judge Patrick Higginbotham and joined by Judges Carolyn King and Edith Clement, tracks with and explicitly endorses a decision issued in May by a unanimous D.C. Circuit panel. That trio of judges also upheld the ATF rule against a similar challenge.
"We disagree with the Court’s decision and will be considering all of our options, legal and legislative, moving forward," National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said in response to the 5th Circuit ruling, which is posted here.

Virginia gun crime drops again as firearm sales soar

As surge in firearm sales continues, groups debate significance, conclusions
Sunday, August 4, 2013  Richmond Times-Dispatch

Gun-related violent crime continues to drop in Virginia as the sales of firearms continue to soar, a pattern that one local criminologist finds interesting “given the current rhetoric about strengthening gun laws.”
Major gun crime collectively dropped for a fourth consecutive year statewide, while firearms sales climbed to a new record in 2012 with 490,119 guns purchased in 444,844 transactions — a 16 percent rise over 2011, according to federally licensed gun dealer sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
The proliferation of guns occurred as the total number of major reported crimes committed with all types of firearms in Virginia dropped 5 percent, from 4,618 offenses in 2011 to 4,378 last year, according to Virginia State Police data.
Looking back over seven years, total firearm sales in Virginia have risen a staggering 101 percent from 2006 to 2012, while gun-related crime has dropped 28 percent during that period.
“This appears to be additional evidence that more guns don’t necessarily lead to more crime,” said Thomas R. Baker, an assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth University’s L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs who specializes in research methods and criminology theory.
“It’s a quite interesting trend given the current rhetoric about strengthening gun laws and the presumed effect it would have on violent crimes,” Baker added. “While you can’t conclude from this that tougher laws wouldn’t reduce crime even more, it really makes you question if making it harder for law-abiding people to buy a gun would have any effect on crime.”
But Josh Horwitz, the leader of a national gun-control group, does not find the comparison of gun crime to legal gun sales particularly significant, and views any perceived correlation between the two sets of data as essentially meaningless.
“Guns sold incident to a background check are less likely to be involved in crimes than guns sold without a background check,” said Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “So the real question — which I don’t think we really know — is what’s the level of gun sales without a background check?
“In other words, if people who buy those guns and have a background check, and keep those guns and don’t sell them, then you would not expect that those guns would affect the crime rate,” Horwitz said. “The important analysis is not the total number of guns sold with a background check, but rather the number of guns sold without a background check.”
Virginia State Police conduct instant background checks on everyone seeking to purchase a gun through a federally licensed firearms dealer in Virginia. The state had 1,605 registered gun dealers in 2012, up from 1,435 in 2011. But many of those are what the gun industry describes as “kitchen table” dealers, small-time operators who sell relatively few guns from their homes.
Several bills proposed during the last session of the General Assembly that would have required background checks for private sales or transactions, including at gun shows, were defeated.
At the request of The Times-Dispatch, Baker last year examined six years of data compiled by Virginia State Police through the Virginia Firearms Transaction Center that detailed the number of gun transactions for every federally licensed firearms dealer in the state. It included the number and types of guns they sought to sell based on requested background checks of the purchasers.
Baker then compared the data with state crime figures for those years.
The newspaper recently obtained updated firearm transaction figures and gun crime data for 2012 to compare them with the years originally reviewed by Baker. The new figures show a continuation of a pattern of increased gun sales not contributing to an increase in gun-related crime.
But Baker cautioned against drawing any conclusions that more guns in the hands of Virginians are causing a corresponding drop in gun crime, as some academics and gun-rights supporters have argued.
“To substantiate (that) argument, you would need to eliminate a number of other factors that could potentially explain away the relationship of more guns, less crime in Virginia,” Baker said. “Only if the relationship remained after controlling for additional factors could a researcher be more comfortable making the claim that more guns lead to less crime. But what the data does show is that the ‘more guns, less crime argument’ is certainly possible.”
The total gun purchases cover all types of firearms, including pistols, revolvers, shotguns and rifles. Pistol sales, excluding revolvers, jumped 19.9 percent last year — the most of any firearm category — from 175,717 in 2011 to 210,789 last year. Rifle sales were close behind, rising 19.8 percent from 135,495 in 2011 to 162,391 in 2012.
Total gun-related crime includes offenses committed with all types of firearms, including guns whose type was unknown. Handgun-related offenses account for the majority of violent gun crimes committed in Virginia.
Although overall gun-related crime dropped 5 percent last year, murders and non-negligent manslaughter deaths committed with firearms rose 6 percent from 190 in 2011 to 201 last year. But killings with handguns dropped 3 percent. Killings involving firearms of unknown type increased 42 percent, from 62 in 2011 to 88 in 2012.
Robberies accounted for the largest drop in gun-related crime, falling 11 percent from 2,935 offenses in 2011 to 2,508 last year. Robberies involving handguns dropped 7 percent from year to year.
In his earlier analysis, Baker said that because rifles and shotguns are used far less often to commit violent crimes, one could argue that the purchase of those types of weapons is falsely inflating the total gun purchases in relation to total gun crime.
So Baker examined the relationship between handgun purchases and handgun-related crime, and found handgun purchases increased 112 percent from 2006 to 2011, but violent crimes committed with handguns fell by nearly 22 percent.
That trend continued last year. Total handgun purchases in Virginia (pistols and revolvers) increased 17 percent from 221,720 in 2011 to 259,814 last year. But violent crimes committed with handguns fell 2.3 percent, from 3,154 offenses in 2011 to 3,080 in 2012.
The same general pattern holds true even if all crimes reported to police where the gun type was unknown are assumed to be handguns.
The total number of gun crimes involving handguns and firearms of unknown type combined dropped 3 percent in 2012, from 4,055 offenses in 2011 to 3,927 in 2012. From 2006 to 2011, crimes involving handguns and unknown firearms dropped 24 percent.
Baker said stricter gun-control measures recently enacted in New York and elsewhere to ban certain types of firearms based on their design characteristics, prohibit the sale of magazines over 10 rounds, limit to seven the number of bullets that can be carried in those magazines and require owners of so-called assault-style firearms to register them with the state “will make things more difficult for the law-abiding.”
“Background checks are the only law that could make it harder for criminals to acquire guns,” Baker said. “All the other laws, given effective background checks, will likely do little to actually reduce crime.”
New York expanded the state’s mandatory background checks for firearm purchases to include all private sales or transfers, except those to and between certain family members.
Although expansion of background checks is the main goal of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Horwitz said his group supports the tighter controls on firearms that were enacted into law in Colorado and New York after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut that killed 26.
He acknowledged that those measures — aside from the background checks — will not affect the gun-related crime rate.
“It won’t reduce crime,” Horwitz said. “The point is that it decreases the lethality of crime.”
He was referring to so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
“Look, people will commit crimes,” Horwitz said of some gun owners who buy weapons legally. “It’s not like people won’t, right? And I think the point being is that when that happens, the lethality is reduced. Of course, some of those guns (bought legally) are going to get transferred to the illegal market. Not all of them, but some of them.”
VCU’s Baker views gun violence as a societal problem that goes much deeper than the instrument used to carry it out. “I think if we truly want to reduce crime and gun violence, we need to focus on the root causes of crime, as opposed to the tools occasionally used by criminals.”
Philip Van Cleave, one of Virginia’s most outspoken gun-rights supporters, said the Virginia data show that the growing number of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens is “irrelevant to crime” and may actually help to lower it.
“We had a big spike in guns, and the vast majority of those extra guns are going to decent people,” said Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. “That’s not going to affect crime and, in fact, all those extra guns can actually work to lower crime because those are going into the hands of (concealed) permit holders or people using them to defend their homes.”
Although some guns are still ending up in the wrong hands, Van Cleave believes the decrease in gun-related crime could be related to police doing a better job of getting gun-toting criminals off the streets and an increased fear among criminals that those they victimize could be legally armed.
“Criminals don’t want to get shot by law-abiding citizens that they don’t know has a gun when they try to attack them,” Van Cleave said.
“It’s a very tricky situation for a criminal, because if you attack somebody with a gun, that’s a very personal thing you’ve done to them. So the criminal not knowing how the person is going to react actually works in our favor.”
Virginia's top 10 gun dealers in 2012
Estimated firearm sales data based on background checks of purchasers. Most gun buyers pass the background checks but about 1 percent of the checks result in denials. Exact sales of firearms are neither reported nor recorded.
    Dealer and ranking        2012 sales        2011 sales        Change    

    1        Green Top Hanover County        26,015        18,387        +41%    
    2        Superior Pawn Virginia Beach        12,778        6,780        +88%    
    3        Trader Jerry's Cedar Bluff        10,769        8,179        +32%    
    4        Virginia Arms Manassas        9,206        6,398        +44%    
    5        Bob's Gun & Tackle Norfolk        7,708        5,307        +45%    
    6        Dance's Sporting Goods Colonial Heights        7,368        5,971        +23%    
    7        SSG Tactical Spotsylvania        6,917        2,430        +184%    
    8        Dark Sun Surplus Chesterfield        6,798        4,706        +44%    
    9        Gander Mountain Roanoke        6,039        3,493        +73%    
    10        Gander Mountain Fredericksburg        5,996        4,637        +29%    

Virginia Firearm Transaction Center.

WORLD MURDER STATISTICS
From the World Health Organization:
The latest Murder Statistics for the world:
Murders per 100,000 citizens.
Honduras 91.6
El Salvador 69.2
Cote d'lvoire 56.9
Jamaica 52.2
Venezuela 45.1
Belize 41.4
US Virgin Islands 39.2
Guatemala 38.5
Saint Kits and Nevis 38.2
Zambia 38.0
Uganda 36.3
Malawi 36.0
Lesotho 35.2
Trinidad and Tobago 35.2
Colombia 33.4
South Africa 31.8
Congo 30.8
Central African Republic 29.3
Bahamas 27.4
Puerto Rico 26.2
Saint Lucia 25.2
Dominican Republic 25.0
Tanzania 24.5
Sudan 24.2
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9
Ethiopia 22.5
Guinea 22.5
Dominica 22.1
Burundi 21.7
Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7
Panama 21.6
Brazil 21.0
Equatorial Guinea 20.7
Guinea-Bissau 20.2
Kenya 20.1
Kyrgyzstan 20.1
Cameroon 19.7
Montserrat 19.7
Greenland 19.2
Angola 19.0
Guyana 18.6
Burkina Faso 18.0
Eritrea 17.8
Namibia 17.2
Rwanda 17.1
Mexico 16.9
Chad 15.8
Ghana 15.7
Ecuador 15.2
North Korea 15.2
Benin 15.1
Sierra Leone 14.9
Mauritania 14.7
Botswana 14.5
Zimbabwe 14.3
Gabon 13.8
Nicaragua 13.6
French Guiana 13.3
Papua New Guinea 13.0
Swaziland 12.9
Bermuda 12.3
Comoros 12.2
Nigeria 12.2
Cape Verde 11.6
Grenada 11.5
Paraguay 11.5
Barbados 11.3
Togo 10.9
Gambia 10.8
Peru 10.8
Myanmar 10.2
Russia 10.2
Liberia 10.1
Costa Rica 10.0
Nauru 9.8
Bolivia 8.9
Mozambique 8.8
Kazakhstan 8.8
Senegal 8.7
Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7
Mongolia 8.7
British Virgin Islands 8.6
Cayman Islands 8.4
Seychelles 8.3
Madagascar 8.1
Indonesia 8.1
Mali 8.0
Pakistan 7.8
Moldova 7.5
Kiribati 7.3
Guadeloupe 7.0
Haiti 6.9
Timor-Leste 6.9
Anguilla 6.8
Antigua and Barbuda 6.8
Lithuania 6.6
Uruguay 5.9
Philippines 5.4
Ukraine 5.2
Estonia 5.2
Cuba 5.0
Belarus 4.9
Thailand 4.8
Suriname .6
Laos 4.6
Georgia 4.3
Martinique 4.2
And ...................
The United States 4.2 !!!!!!!!!!!!
ALL the countries (109) above America have 100% gun bans.
It might be of interest to note that SWITZERLAND (not shown on this list)
has NO MURDER OCCURRENCE!
However, SWITZERLAND'S law requires that EVERYONE....
1. Own a Gun
2. Maintain Marksman qualifications....regularly
3. "Carry"........a Weapon.
We never hear about this?
No surprise, because this does not advance the Liberals' Agenda.


Chris Christie Nudged By Gun Rights Group In Key Primary State
SAYREVILLE, NJ - JULY 08: Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie attends the Hurricane Sandy New Jersey Relief Fund Press Conference at Sayreville Borough Hall on July 8, 2013 in Sayreville, New Jersey. (Photo by Bobby Bank/WireImage)
NEWARK, N.J., Aug 3 (Reuters) - A gun-rights group in the bellwether presidential primary state of New Hampshire has warned New Jersey Governor Chris Christie that signing gun control bills passed by his state's Legislature could have consequences if he runs for president in 2016.
The Pro-Gun New Hampshire coalition urged its members this week to call and email Christie to ask him to veto the proposed laws, posing a political dilemma for Christie as he seeks re-election in November in the Democratic-leaning state while also eyeing the national stage.
Christie has a September deadline to sign a number of firearm-related bills seen by their supporters as necessary for tackling gun violence, and the gun rights group is targeting four of those measures.
One bill would ban .50 caliber rifles, another would require police to report lost and stolen firearms to a federal database, a third would create a system for instant background checks during gun purchases and a fourth bill would ban gun sales to anyone on a watch list of militants.
"This is an acid test," said Sam Cohen, executive vice president of Pro-Gun New Hampshire, which describes itself as the state's largest gun rights group.
"If he decides to support these horrible bills, then we in New Hampshire are going to do everything we can to tell our voters not to vote for him in the New Hampshire primary," Cohen said.
Christie, a rising star in the Republican Party who rejected appeals from fellow Republicans to run for president in 2012, said in a television interview in January that he would be "more ready" to campaign for the White House in 2016 after finishing his work as the governor of New Jersey.
New Hampshire, which has played a significant role in past elections by holding the nation's first presidential primary, is known to have a strong libertarian streak. The state allows nearly every resident to obtain a concealed weapons permit unless he or she is a convicted felon.
A spokesman for Christie did not return calls.
Brigid Harrison, a professor of political science at Montclair State University in New Jersey said Christie had been careful about tipping his hand on gun control, because he is running for re-election in heavily Democratic New Jersey but understands the pro-gun values of anticipated Republican primary voters in the 2016 race.
"What we've seen is him walk a fine line by delaying decision-making," Harrison said.
State Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in this month's special election to replace the late Frank Lautenberg, said Christie had been carefully weighing his political future with regard to his position on gun control.
"Yes, he is going to pay attention to the threats that are being issued by the gun rights groups," she said.
Oliver added that severe gun violence in New Jersey cities like Newark, Trenton, Camden and other urban areas made gun control a serious issue in the state.
"If he could take politics out of the equation, I do believe Governor Christie would sign some of those bills," she said.
Christie in June vetoed a bill that would ban state pension fund investments in firms that sell or make assault weapons. (Editing by Alex Dobuzinskis; and Jackie Frank)



N.J. handgun law heads to state's top court
Newark Start Ledger, August 2, 2013
The state Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to New Jersey's toughest gun law, which says people must prove an urgent threat of violence before getting permits to carry handguns. (John O'Boyle/The Star-Ledger)
By Salvador Rizzo/The Star-Ledger The Star-Ledger, updated August 02, 2013 at 6:17 AM
TRENTON — For the first time in nearly half a century, the state Supreme Court will hear a landmark case that could redefine gun rights in New Jersey.
The state’s highest court has agreed to consider a challenge to the toughest gun-control law in New Jersey, first passed in 1924, which says people must show "justifiable need" if they want permits to carry handguns.
Thursday, a federal appeals court upheld the same New Jersey law in a separate case, saying states can require residents seeking the right to carry handguns to prove they have an "urgent necessity for self-protection."
But experts say the state Supreme Court’s ruling could have a more sweeping impact because the court has wider reach to interpret state law and could choose to change its last major decision on gun rights: a 1968 ruling saying only citizen militias — not individuals — have Second Amendment rights in New Jersey.
"The bottom line is this is a very important if not the most important case yet on the Second Amendment and New Jersey gun laws," said Evan Nappen, the lawyer representing a Bergen County man challenging the law.
The state justices, whose new session begins next month, will take another stab at how the court defined Second Amendment rights to see whether it holds up 45 years later.
The issue has sparked a heated debate.
Gun-rights supporters say ordinary citizens almost never get permits to carry handguns because the law is one of the most restrictive in the country and state judges rarely find that applicants need to be armed.
Advocates for gun control describe the law as a huge success, curbing violent crime for decades.
Like dozens of New Jerseyans before him, Richard Pantano didn’t get a permit when he applied in 2011.
A landscape-supply business owner from Hasbrouck Heights, Pantano argued he needed a gun to defend himself while carrying large bundles of cash in the evenings. Lower courts denied his request, saying he had never been assaulted and hadn’t proved a "justifiable need" to carry a gun, a phrase state courts have interpreted to mean urgent threats of violence.
Pantano now argues that New Jersey’s law violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In an order last week, the state Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal.
"Mr. Pantano carries thousands of dollars in cash and needs a gun to protect himself — and he was recommended (for a permit) by a chief of police," said Nappen, who is a board member of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs. "If he can’t get a permit, what are we talking about when it comes to justifiable need?"
Gov. Chris Christie’s administration is defending the gun law in court. A spokesman for acting Attorney General John Hoffman declined to comment.
In the federal 3rd Circuit case, four New Jersey residents who were denied concealed-carry permits — as well as two gun-rights groups, including Nappen’s — also argued that the state’s handgun law was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently expanded Americans’ gun rights under the Second Amendment, ruling in 2008 that individuals can keep guns at home and in 2010 that every state must observe that right.
But those court decisions stopped short of telling states how to police firearms outside the home or what they should do about handgun-carrying permits, said Bryan Miller, executive director of Heeding God’s Call, a faith-based gun-control group.
QUESTIONS 'UNSETTLED'
The federal appeals court, sitting in Philadelphia, agreed Thursday. "It remains unsettled whether the individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends beyond the home," the panel wrote.
Miller said the public "is less safe when people are allowed to walk around with loaded handguns in their pockets. The six states with the lowest per capita rates of gun deaths all are strong gun-law states like New Jersey."
Nappen said he doubted those numbers and that "plainly, the Second Amendment is talking about the ability to have guns outside the home. The American Revolution wasn’t won by fighting inside the patriots’ homes."
Neither side expects the state Supreme Court, historically one of the toughest on gun control, to allow wider use of handguns. The case is expected to be argued as early as this fall.
"New Jersey is not a very pro-gun state, and I doubt the Supreme Court is willing to take that step and open up the gun permits for carrying in public," said Frank Askin, a constitutional law professor at Rutgers University in Newark. He said the issue could end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nappen conceded Pantano faces an uphill battle at the state Supreme Court. The state constitution doesn’t guarantee any gun rights, so Pantano can only make his case under the federal Second Amendment.
The state Supreme Court said in 1968 that the Second Amendment only applies to militias. In 1971, the justices upheld the "justifiable need" law, ruling that the Legislature could pass gun-control measures in the interest of public safety. And in 1990, the state court reinforced that decision, denying handgun-carrying permits to two private detectives.
Justice Nathan Jacobs wrote in 1971 that "widespread handgun possession in the streets, somewhat reminiscent of frontier days, would not be at all in the public interest."
The seven-member high court was split on taking the current case: Only three members — Justices Jaynee LaVecchia and Barry Albin; and Judge Ariel Rodriguez, who is temporarily filling a vacancy — the minimum needed, voted to hear it.



Mobile Payment Company Says No to Guns
USSA, August 1, 2013

The popular mobile payment company, Square, Inc., has recently changed their terms of use and will no longer allow the use of their product for firearm sales, ammunition, firearm parts, and any other associated materials which they say are “designed to cause physical injury”.
Sportsmen and other gun owners are being urged to contact Square to voice their disapproval and to urge them to change their anti-gun policy.
Square, a small credit card swiping device that plugs into IPhones, Android and IPad’s for easy credit or debit card transactions, changed their terms of use in late spring, adding the amendment as #23 to their Prohibited Goods and Service list. A Square spokesman denied the accusation that the change was related to the gun debate sparked by the Sandy Hook shooting.
As a non-profit organization that fights for the rights of hunting, fishing and trapping across the U.S., the USSA fully supports the use and sales of firearms.  USSA has in the past used the Square device for company events but has since halted its use in the wake of the change to their “Prohibited Goods and Service list”.
Take Action!  All sportsmen and other gun owners are urged to contact Square CEO Jack Dorsey and explain how his company’s anti-gun stance is misguided.  Tell him that over 90 million gun owners – many of which are either his customers or potential customers – support the right to keep and bear arms.


NSSF Urges Members to Go On the Offensive
Tell House Committee to Approve H.R. 1818 & H.R. 2463!
Contact Your LegislatorsIt's time to go on offense. On Wednesday the House Natural Resources Committee will mark up two of our priorities. The National Shooting Sports Foundation strongly supports:
The "Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act," H.R. 2463, to amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to facilitate the establishment of additional or expanded public target ranges in certain States.
The "Polar Bear Conservation and Fairness Act of 2013," H.R. 1818, to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to allow importation of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada before the date the polar bear was determined to be a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
These two bills are vital to protecting America's sporting heritage. Call members of the Natural Resources Committee and tell them to approve H.R. 1818 and H.R. 2463.
Reach the committee members now by calling: 202-225-2761


The 2nd Amendment: A Free Pass to Arrest
The Last Resistence, July 1, 2013
The 2nd Amendment is not usually a touchy subject for those of us on the right. In fact, most conservative Republicans would argue that there shouldn’t be much of a debate over our right to bear arms.
While we often engage in debate with the liberal anti-gun left, amongst ourselves, we generally find the solace of like-minded brotherhood.
However, that kinship can be strained when we discuss what can be perceived as overbearing law enforcement.
In our high tech digital age, cameras are a ubiquitous part of our daily lives, and we all have had to learn to get used to their intrusion. As a former teacher, I was daily on edge, waiting for the sneaky student with the cell phone camera looking to catch me make a mistake or embarrass myself. Police Officers are learning the same kinds of lessons from “citizen journalists” all over the country, keeping their cellphones at the ready in case something needs to be recorded.
The newly omnipresent nature of video recording technology has turned the Internet into a wellspring of “police overreach” videos. I won’t use the term “brutality” (though we have seen that as well) but “overreach” seems fair.
Recently in Temple, Texas just such a case was uncovered. An active duty veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, by the name of CJ Grisham, was on a hike with his teenage son. The teenager was attempting to earn his scout hiking badge. They were hiking in a rural area of Texas, so the father had his rifle strapped to his chest, just in case they ran in to any large predators that he would need to defend them from. (Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, proved the value of packing heat in the great Texas outdoors just a few years ago.)
Just a few miles into their hike, a Temple police officer stopped the pair and asked them to move toward him. The father and son complied. After they neared each other, the officer asked,why Grisham had a rifle – to which he replied, “Does it matter officer? Am I breaking the law?” At this point, the officer grabbed the rifle, which surprised him, and he instinctively pulled back. Next, the officer pulled his weapon and demanded that Grisham move to the police car. Again, the soldier complied. The following video was recording because his son needed to document his hike — it turned out the video would instead document his father’s arrest.
I want to step in here, before editorializing. I completely understand an officer’s concern when confronting an armed man. However, his seeming lack of knowledge of Texas (and many other states’) laws dealing with open and concealed carry is maddening. In my home state of Georgia, it is lawful for a citizen to open carry, but few do so because of the probability of being harassed by well meaning police officers. Seemingly, that is also what happened here.
While I could argue it would have likely gone better for Grisham had he remained calmer, I’m not sure I could have remained as calm as he did. Remember, he was accosted without being told why. He had a gun aimed at him, was slammed on the hood of a car, then handcuffed on the side of the road like a criminal… all while his son was watching. Would you have been able to keep your voice to a dull roar? More importantly, should it even matter? He’d done nothing wrong and should not have been confronted, detained or arrested.
The real problem has nothing to do with Grisham being arrested, but with the apparent disregard for the law that the officers had. Once they realized that he was doing nothing wrong and was completely within his right to carry his firearm – they should have released him with an apology for the inconvenience. Instead, they were embarrassed that he was willing to speak to them in the way he had and decided to arrest him for “resisting arrest.”
rightsarenotgiftsThe events here happened over a year ago, and while the Temple police department has since reduced the charges to “interference with public duties” (a Class B misdemeanor), they have yet to return Sergeant Grisham’s rifle or handgun.
Our police officers have a tough job to do, but if they cannot obey and abide by the laws they are sworn to uphold, perhaps they should look for a different line of work. Our right to bear arms is inscribed as securely as it can be within our legal system; even a nervous officer cannot infringe it. We must support cases like these when they arise because you never know when it could be your weapon the police are confiscating or your body they are illegally searching.

 Chicago Gun Confiscation Underway
Political outcast, July 30, 2013

Gun control advocates think only a conspiracy theorist would believe that confiscation of firearms follows gun registration. “No one’s coming for your guns,” they say with a wry smile. As we know, registration is simply a way for the authorities to keep track of all “law-abiding” gun-owners so that when the time comes, they know where to go to take away people’s self-defense weapons. Criminals, by their very definition, are exempt from such rules.
As you may recall, Illinois just enacted a court-ordered concealed carry law. But that’s not stopping Cook County, in which Chicago resides, to follow through with gun confiscation orders:
“A new Cook County Sheriff’s team is crisscrossing the suburbs to seize guns from thousands of people whose Firearm Owner’s Identification Cards have been revoked. More than 3,000 people in Cook County have failed to surrender their revoked FOID cards to the state. Sheriff Tom Dart said he thinks many of them continue to possess firearms… Every week, the [Illinois] State Police alert the sheriff’s gun team of about 10 to 20 new revocations in Cook County. The investigators conduct a basic inquiry into the gun purchasing histories of the people they intend to contact. Then they knock on their doors.”
This is what happens when people fall for the gun control mantra of “keeping guns out of the wrong hands.” That sounds good and reasonable at face value, but we have to take into consideration what is meant by “wrong hands.”
A drug crime could get your FOID card revoked. But seeing a mental health professional could also nullify your 2nd Amendment rights, because they would consider that having a “history of mental illness.” And a restraining order placed against you, whether justified or not, is enough to have your license to own a gun invalidated.
So, if any of those things happen, it revokes the person’s FOID card, and police are alerted to go find out if that person has any guns to confiscate. And once that person’s guns are confiscated, that’s it. That individual will never again be allowed to own guns, unless he takes up his case through the court system, and a judge miraculously rules in his favor.
This is one of the ways gun control proponents will try to move forward with gun confiscation. It’s an incremental approach, and the boiling frog metaphor comes to mind.




Sheriff’s team working to seize guns from thousands in Illinois
Fox News,  July 28, 2013
An Illinois sheriff’s team is crisscrossing the Chicago suburbs in an effort to seize guns from thousands of people whose right to own a firearm has been revoked, the Chicago Sun-Times reports.
According to the paper, more than 3,000 people in Cook County have failed to surrender their revoked Firearm Owners Identification Card, or FOID, which is required to legally buy guns or ammunition.
Sheriff Tom Dart said he thinks many of the 3,000 continue to possess firearms.
The Chicago Police Department regularly conducts missions to recover revoked FOID cards and take guns from the owners, but there wasn’t a big push to do the same thing in the suburbs until now, Dart reportedly told the paper.
“The system is broken,” the sheriff said. “The system revokes cards, but the guns are of no consequence. . . . Our strong hope is that we will eliminate tragedies.”
FOID cards are meant to protect the public from gun owners who suffer from mental illness; felonies and protection orders also are grounds for the state to revoke the holders’ FOID cards.  It’s illegal to buy guns or ammunition without one, the Sun-Times reports.
In one case, the team recovered more than 35 firearms, including four AR-15 assault rifles, from a suicidal man whose card was revoked. Many times, the team gets the FOID card, but not the gun.
The State Police alert the sheriff’s gun team every week to about 10 to 20 new FOID revocations in Cook County. The investigators then conduct a basic probe into the gun purchasing histories of the people they intend to contact. Then they knock on their doors


Gun Owners of America
GOA, July 29, 2013
Senator Lee Puts Wheels in Motion to Stop Anti-gun, Anti-freedom ObamaCare
“[ObamaCare] should be a serious concern to gun owners.” -- GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt, IdahoReporter.com, March 21, 2013
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yesterday on behalf of 11 other Republican colleagues, stating that they will not support a continuing resolution that funds the implementation of the anti-gun ObamaCare law.
“We view the Obama Administration’s recent decision to delay ObamaCare's employer mandate and eligibility verification for the individual exchanges as further proof the law is a failure that will inevitably hurt businesses, American families, and the economy,” Lee’s letter states.
To be sure, there are many reasons to dislike ObamaCare. And if you’re reading this alert, you are probably part of the majority in this country that wants to see this law overturned.
But gun owners should be especially concerned.
You may remember that because of the health care law that was enacted in 2010, the ATF will eventually be able to troll ObamaCare’s federal health database for people who could be stripped of their guns because of PTSD and other similar medical maladies.
In fact, more than 150,000 military veterans -- perhaps as many as 165,000 -- have already lost their gun rights because of the “see a VA shrink, lose your gun rights” precedent from the Clinton-Bush era.
But what started with veterans is now spreading to the private sector, such as in places like New York. According to gun rights reporter, Dan Roberts, firearms are now being confiscated from gun owners in the Empire State because of their mental health information. For example:
[John Doe] received a letter from the Pistol Permit Department informing him that his license was immediately revoked upon information that he was seeing a therapist for anxiety and had been prescribed an anxiety drug. He was never suicidal, never violent, and has no criminal history.
So now taking anxiety pills can result in one’s forfeiting their Second Amendment rights! This is happening pursuant to New York’s recent gun control law, but this is exactly the type of thing that gun owners can expect nationwide after ObamaCare is fully implemented.
We don’t need to see this occurring at the national level!
ACTION: Click here to contact your Senators and urge them to cosign Senator Lee’s letter, expressing opposition to funding the anti-gun ObamaCare law.
SENATORS COSIGNING THE LEE LETTER: Rubio (R-FL), Grassley (R-IA), Risch (R-ID), Paul (R-KY), Vitter (R-LA), Fischer (R-NE), Chiesa (R-NJ), Inhofe (R-OK), Thune (R-SD), Cruz (R-TX) and Enzi (R-WY).
SENATORS WHO HAVE PULLED THEIR NAMES OFF THE LETTER. Three Senators had originally told Lee they would cosign the letter, but then subsequently were pressured -- perhaps by leadership -- to withdraw their names. These three Senators need special attention.
They are: Senators Mark Kirk (R-IL), Roger Wicker (R-MS) and John Cornyn (R-TX).
A fourth Senator, Richard Burr (R-NC), told the Hill newspaper that the strategy to block a government funding bill over Obamacare is “the dumbest idea I've ever heard.” Burr should definitely hear from those constituents who don’t think this is a “dumb” idea.



NJ Gun Groups Urge Christie to Act on Legislation
Outdoor Wire, July 29, 2013
As we close in on the end of July, 15 gun bills remain on the Governor's desk awaiting action. Of those, two are positive for gun owners, 8 are neutral or neutralized through amendments resulting from gun owner input, and five are blatant attacks on gun rights.
It is critical that the Governor's office continue to hear from gun owners on a sustained basis. Please do your part and keep urging the Governor to veto the five anti-gun bills and sign the two positive bills (see bill descriptions below). Please call the Governor's office ASAP at 609-292-6000, write him at P.O. Box 001, Trenton, N.J. 08625, or send an email using the online contact form. ( http://nj.gov/governor/contact/?utm_source=Copy+of+KEEP+URGING+Christie+&utm_campaign=press+alert+june+24+night&utm_medium=email )
The Governor generally has 45 days to act on legislation delivered to his desk. His options are to sign the legislation, veto or conditional veto it, or do nothing (in which case the legislation automatically becomes law). During periods of legislative recess (like the current summer recess), the 45-day deadline to act is extended until the house that originated the legislation comes back into session - but the Governor could still act independently during a recess. The fact that the Governor has not yet taken action has fueled speculation about the Governor's intentions, making it all the more important for gun owners to make their voice heard with the Governor on an ongoing basis.
As a reminder, the five bills the governor should be urged to veto are:
S2723 (VETO) - the awful Sweeney "omnibus" bill, which throws out existing FID cards and replaces them with either a privacy-invading driver license endorsement or other form of ID; suspends Second Amendment rights without proof of firearms training; ends private sales between background-checked licensed gun owners; effectively creates a registry of ammunition purchases and long gun sales; and imposes a 7-day waiting period for handgun purchases.
A3659 (VETO) - the fifty caliber gun ban, which in its final version bans firearms that shoot centerfire cartridges of any caliber that attain a muzzle energy of 12,000 ft-lbs. or greater. Though limited grandfathering has been added in response to gun owner concerns, the firearms must be registered, cannot be passed down to heirs, and owners will be civilly liable for damages if the firearm is used in a crime. Additionally, the bill has been amended specifically to prevent anyone with a pending order for these firearms from taking possession of them.
A3687 (VETO) - Suspends Second Amendment rights without due process, based on a secret government list compiled by bureaucrats with no published standards, no identified procedure to correct errors, and potential for enormous abuse by those in power.
A3797 (CONDITIONAL VETO) - Mandates that the State Police publicly disclose confidential ATF gun trace data in violation of explicit federal law limiting that data to law enforcement use only. This is an attempt by frustrated gun banners to circumvent the federal Tiarht Amendment, ( http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/tiahrt.aspx )so that idiosyncrasies of the ATF's trace system can be exploited and manipulated to falsely suggest that law abiding citizens are a source of "crime guns." ATF has opposed similar efforts to circumvent confidentiality, which could compromise ongoing investigations. Note: a conditional veto by the Governor removing just the offending parts of A3797 would be sufficient.
A3717 (CONDITIONAL VETO) - Requires submission of certain mental health records to NICS without an explicit, stated requirement of due process within the legislation itself. ANJRPC has no objection to the core purpose of this legislation, but believes that the legislation needs to explicitly state that only records of persons who have had judicial due process (with a right of appeal) should be submitted to NICS. Note: a conditional veto by the Governor requiring that due process be explicitly included would be sufficient.
The two bills the Governor should be urged to sign are:
A3788 (SIGN) - Prevents public disclosure of personal information of licensed firearms owners, including name, address, and phone number. The legislation would prevent a repeat of what happened in New York State in January, when several newspapers obtained personal information of Empire State gun owners via freedom of information requests and then published that information both in print and on the internet. Publishing personal information of gun owners jeopardizes their safety and makes them targets for gun theft, in addition to raising significant privacy concerns.
A3796 (SIGN)- Addresses an anomaly in New Jersey's "assault" firearms statute that prevents those still in possession of banned firearms from lawfully disposing of them. This bill would reopen a compliance window for a short time during which banned firearms could be lawfully disposed of. Although the compliance window is too short, and the bill fails to allow for lawful disposition of banned magazines and ammunition, it nonetheless offers a limited compliance opportunity that is a temporary improvement over current law.


Nikki Haley: This South Carolina Governor Loves Her Guns

Patriot Update, July 25, 2013  by Sonya Sasser

Gov.-Nikki-Haley-Shooting-GunsThere are some governors who support rigid gun control. But Nikki Haley is certainly NOT one of them. In fact, when it comes to gun control, Governor Haley has stated:
    “Few things are as clearly defined as the right of individual Americans to own and use firearms. The right to bear arms was deemed so critical by our Founders that they spelled it out in absolute terms, and any governmental action that undermines that right is in turn undermining the very freedoms that built our great nation.
    As governor, I will continue to fight against any government infringement on the 2nd Amendment.”
Haley also said she wants to make concealed weapons permits easier to obtain. She explained, “I hold a Concealed Weapons Permit myself, and in this state makes it difficult for CWP holders to rightfully carry–we need to make the rules that govern carrying far more simple.”
Governor Haley recently enjoyed visiting FN Manufacturing in Columbia, SC. FN Manufacturing makes small arms, specializing in military and law enforcement weapons. Here’s a video of her tour:
For the SC governor, the visit was rather personal because her husband Michael (currently serving in Afghanistan) and his unit are equipped with M4s, M240s, and M249s — firearms made right here in South Carolina!
Governor Haley said, “The fact that we have a lot of different manufacturers looking at South Carolina whether they are gun-related or not–continues to speak highly for our state.”
South Carolina’s first female governor also admitted to firing quite a few weapons while visiting FN Manufacturing. And she even admitted to firing them while wearing heels…


ATF’s latest confiscation program
Patriot Update, Friday, July 26, 2013

Agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF, have begun confiscating gun parts known as drop-in auto sears, or DIAS. A DIAS is a simple toggle device which, when installed in an AR-type rifle, along with several other critical fire-control parts, can convert a semi-auto AR into a full-auto assault rifle. The devices were originally unregulated, but in 1981 ATF declared them to be machine guns if possessed in conjunction with the other parts needed to make a conversion, but the agency made their new determination apply only to DIASes manufactured after Nov. 1, 1981. Now ATF is apparently using the records of a man who openly sold the devices for decades to track down purchasers and take their property as contraband – with the real possibility of then prosecuting those people.
One of the reasons gun owners tend to be completely opposed to the passage of any new gun laws – no matter how innocuous or reasonable seeming – is the erratic history of interpretation and enforcement of the current gun laws. This is also why I cringe every time I hear someone who supposedly supports gun rights – from politicians to the head of the NRA – calling for the feds to “enforce the laws already on the books.” The fact is, the gun laws that are already on the books are a labyrinth of confusion and booby-traps full of open-ended mandates, ambiguous definitions and unbridled bureaucratic discretion. Many innocent people have had their lives and livelihoods completely destroyed when federal agencies have decided to “enforce the laws already on the books.”
The law that was on the books up until 1981 said that a DIAS was just a chunk of metal unless it, along with at least three other “full-auto” parts, was actually installed in a gun without prior ATF approval. Then in 1981, ATF bureaucrats, at their own discretion and under their own authority, redefined them as machine guns, but in their decree, they included the following exception:
“With respect to the machine gun classification of the auto sear under the National Firearms Act, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7805(b), this ruling will not be applied to auto sears manufactured before November 1, 1981. Accordingly, auto sears manufactured on or after November 1, 1981, will be subject to all the provisions of the National Firearms Act, and 27 C.F.R. Part 179.”
For the following 30-plus years, it was widely understood that any DIAS manufactured prior to Nov. 1, 1981, was “grandfathered” and not subject to the rules regulating machine guns, and that it could be legally possessed so long as the possessor did not also possess either an AR15 rifle into which the auto sear could be installed or the other necessary M16 conversion parts. The belief in the legality of DIAS possession was so prevalent that a variety of sources continued publicly selling drop-in auto sears that they claimed were manufactured before ATF’s arbitrary cutoff date. Such DIASes were widely known as “Pre-81 Drop-In Auto Sears” and were routinely advertised in various firearms publications and online auction sites.
In 1986, the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act was passed with an amendment forbidding the future civilian transfer of any machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986. There was also a provision strengthening the definition of machine gun to include any part designed or intended exclusively for the purpose of converting a gun into a machine gun. These two provisions meant that possession of a DIAS – even without a gun to put it in or the other needed parts – was a felony, and that a DIAS could only be legally registered by someone specially licensed to manufacture machine guns for the military and law enforcement – and then could only be possessed by a military or law enforcement agency.
The belief that pre-81 DIASes were exempt continued in spite of a ruling in 1998 from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which declared that the ATF did not have the authority to “grandfather” or exempt pre-81 DIASes. That determination was not widely reported, nor was there any apparent effort on the part of ATF to enforce the ruling. In May of this year, the determination of the 7th Circuit was echoed, and expanded upon by judges in the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. I wrote a column at the time warning that not only DIASes but a variety of other firearms and devices that have long been understood to be fully legal are actually completely illegal (at least in those Circuits) and that the owners of these devices everywhere are in jeopardy.
The fact that the same conclusion has been reached in two different Circuits means that it is very likely that the other Circuit Courts will follow the same line of reasoning and reject any claims of exemptions based on prior ATF determinations. It appears that ATF might be endeavoring to expedite that process, as I am aware of attempts by the agency to locate and confiscate pre-81 DIAS devices in the jurisdictions of both the 1st Circuit and the 3rd Circuit. Thousands of people are now at extreme risk for possessing items ATF has explicitly told them it is legal for them to have. Confiscations of drop-in auto sears could be just the tip of the iceberg, as ATF could start going after other “grandfathered” items such as open-bolt MAC and KG type pistols, Browning “G Series” Light Rifles, and certain other guns and devices. Anyone who owns one of these devices should seek qualified legal counsel immediately. Anyone who is contacted by ATF inquiring about such devices should refer them to counsel and also contact the Firearms Coalition to let us know about it.
As I have said before, while the rhetoric surrounding gun control always talks about targeting criminals and public safety, the reality is that enforcement of these laws is always aimed at regular gun owners whose only crime is believing that they are committing no crime.
The target of gun control isn’t criminals, it’s us. The objective of these laws is to make us criminals and make lawful gun ownership too difficult and dangerous to attempt.

Fail: Colorado Gun Buyback Canceled Because Of New Gun Control Laws

Political Outcast, July 25, 2013

They had it all planned out. Together Colorado, an organization which bills itself as a non-partisan, “multi-faith” group had an August 4th gun buyback event planned where people could turn in their weapons in exchange for store gift cards and tickets for sporting events. They had raised $8,000 to buy these incentives. Then they were going to turn all the turned-in firearms over to the Boulder County Sheriff’s Department who would in turn destroy the guns, making Colorado streets a little bit safer.
Then, the destroyed guns were going to go to a local artist named Jessica Adams who had planned to make a piece of “art” out of the metal gun fragments with the express purpose of “raising awareness” of gun violence. [Gag me.]
But all their dreams and aspirations were for naught. Thanks to Colorado’s new gun control laws, such a gun buyback scenario would be completely unfeasible, as Boulder County’s Sheriff Joe Pelle admitted. They had to cancel the event:
“‘The bottom line is what we anticipated doing would still be legal -- but procedurally we can’t follow through with it at this time,’ Pelle said Tuesday. A stricter law that went into effect July 1 requires buyers to go to a licensed firearms dealer and undergo a background check. The InstaCheck systems used in the checks are not mobile, which means they couldn’t be used at the sheriff’s compound where the buyback was planned. ‘It’s not a portable system,’ Pelle said. ‘It can’t be done at the site.’ Essentially, for the event to work, Pelle said the group would have to find a licensed firearms dealer to host the event and then pay the dealer per transaction, ‘which becomes very unproductive,’ he said.”
Gun buybacks are favorites among gun control proponents. They don’t actually do anything, but they look good to low information voters who want a false sense of security. And here they are in Colorado, and they can’t even do their silly gun buybacks anymore because of their own laws that make it too difficult to be worth it. Even if they were able to perform the background checks on every single person “buying back” people’s firearms, they’d still have to pay $10 per transaction.
Not surprisingly, Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle is not one of the many sheriffs suing Colorado for passing this background check law and the high-capacity magazine ban. He may be disappointed that this group couldn’t go through with their gun buyback plans, but he said it’s all about the “larger good,” which he said is accomplished through the background check system. Go figure.


Citizen Flagged After Application to Discharge BB Gun

Tactical Wire, July 25, 2013

James Shults requested a Discharge Permit to use a 30-year old Daisy BB gun to rid his area of an officially recognized invasive species, the Eurasian Dove. The gun was to be used in his residence area and from neighbor's areas with their permission in Grand Junction, CO. The State of Colorado allows hunting of that species with no bag limit. After his permission was denied, he found out that the denial was forwarded to the Deputy Chief of Police, Grand Junction's police Patrol Commanders and the city's new high-tech 911 Center. Shults checked with his many law enforcement friends and contacts around the country and they confirmed he had indeed been targeted and flagged by the police and 911 center. According to Shults some LEOs (law enforcement officers) humorously chided him saying-- "That's what you get for trying to do the right thing."
He has notified the Grand Junction City Council to modify this policy so that law abiding average non-threatening citizens do not get flagged for attempts to comply with the law. Shults said, "Am I now a terrorist to be watched by the full command of the Grand Junction police to include a flag on my residence by the 911 Center?"


Fu** All You Libtards Out There’: Vulgar YouTube Rants by a Local Police Chief…and the Mayor Who’s Standing Behind Him
Jul. 24, 2013 10:21am Mike Opelka the blaze
*WARNING: All of the videos in this story contain graphic, profane, and offensive language.*
The chief of police in Gilberton Borough, Pennsylvania (population 834), is under fire after posting a series of profanity-laced videos that insult liberals, Secretary of State John Kerry and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. And he is in no way apologetic for any of them.
Chief Mark Kessler’s 14-year career as police chief is certainly being brought into question as complaints are piling up on both his YouTube account and the city’s website. What are so many complaining about?
The video that sparked an investigation into Chief Kessler is a brief one but manages to pack in plenty of comments that many have found offensive. In the clip, Kesseler drops the f-word numerous times and uses the derogatory term “libtards” while wearing a t-shirt with an offensive comment on it:
Chief Kessler followed up that video with another that was titled “Chief Mark Kessler, I’m Sorry For Hurt Feelings”:
The police leader is also on record expressing his dislike of the U.N. and Secretary of State John Kerry. In this clip, he is upset about Kerry’s stated intent to sign the UN arms treaty:
In another video, Chief Kessler (in uniform) is teaching a class on pistol safety. He uses a target with a clown image on it and refers to the image as “Nancy Pelosi with her gavel”:
The entire 10 minute video can be seen here:
As of Wednesday morning, Gilberton Mayor Mary Lou Hannon is apparently standing by the chief.
In a phone call with TheBlaze on Wednesday morning, Mayor Hannon said she still considers this to be a “free speech” issue. In a ringing endorsement, Hannon said, “If you were in trouble, he’s the kind of guy you would want by your side, protecting you. He’s a no-nonsense police officer.”
Still, the mayor said she will raise the issue of Kessler’s conduct at the next council meeting. An open meeting is slated for 7pm Thursday night (July 25). A local TV station reports that Mayor Hannon said, ”He did not do it on borough time, or in uniform. We have no conduct rules for what anyone does outside the borough.”
When confronted regarding Kessler’s above video that does show him in uniform, Hannon told us she was not familiar with it but would be reviewing it before Thursday night’s council meeting.
TheBlaze contacted the chief’s office, but Kessler is reportedly on vacation until Monday, July 29.
According to local media, Kessler also sits on the school board and has formed his own “militia.” We did check out Kessler’s personal website that promotes his own Constitutional Security Force (CSF). Anyone interested in becoming a member must pledge a loyalty oath. It reads:
CSF OATH
I WILL NEVER BETRAY OUR COUNTRY, OUR INTEGRITY, OUR CHARACTER, OUR HONOR
I WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE COURAGE TO HOLD MYSELF AND OTHERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ACTIONS,
I WILL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR COUNTRY IN WHICH WE SERVE, I WILL NEVER SPEAK ILL OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, I WILL NEVER DISARM AMERICAN CITIZENS, I WILL NEVER UNLAWFULLY DETAIN AMERICAN CITIZEN, I WILL RESPOND TO THE CALL IF I AM EVER NEEDED TO RESIST TYRANNY THAT SEEKS TO DESTROY OUR REPUBLIC
Gilberton is a borough in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, four miles (7 km) west by south of Mahanoy City. Extensive deposits of coal are in the region, and coal-mining had been practiced by many of the 4,373 people who lived there in 1900. The coal-mining industry was thriving in 1910, and 5,401 people lived in Gilberton. The population was 867 at the 2000 census.


Ohio Group Raises Thousands to Buy Zimmerman New Gun
Outdoor Wire, July 24, 2013

DELAWARE, OH - When the U.S. Department of Justice ordered the Sanford, Florida police department to keep possession George Zimmerman's personal property after he was found not guilty, including his firearm, Buckeye Firearms Foundation started a fund to replace the gun.
"We consider this an outrageous abuse of power to score political points at the expense of an American citizen," said Jim Irvine, President of Buckeye Firearms Foundation.
"Mr. Zimmerman was tried in a court of law and found not guilty. And now all evidence should be returned to the rightful owner, including his firearm."
The Foundation announced the Zimmerman Second Amendment Fund on Friday, July 19, 2013, expecting to bring in one or two thousand dollars. "We didn't need that much," said Irvine, "just enough to buy a quality firearm, holster, flashlight, ammo, and any accessories Mr. Zimmerman may need. But the story went national and we raised far more than we expected."
Buckeye Firearms Foundation closed the fund to donations on Tuesday morning, July 23, 2013, with a total of $12,657.48 (after Paypal transaction fees, net $12,150.37).
Dean Rieck, Communications Director for the organization, said he was overwhelmed with the outpouring of support. "We received 774 donations from 48 states, plus Australia, Lithuania, New South Wales, and Switzerland. Donations ranged from $1 to $100, with the average being $16.35.
"For privacy and security reasons," continued Rieck, "we've decided to send Mr. Zimmerman a check rather than try to arrange a meeting or transfer gear directly. We spoke with his attorney, Mark O'Mara, who agreed to provide evidence that Mr. Zimmerman receives the check.
"We also agreed to provide evidence that we were passing along 100% of the donations received. O'Mara was thrilled that we were being so transparent. He told us 'lots of cranks' are raising money in Zimmerman's name and not sending the funds to him."
This isn't the first time Buckeye Firearms Foundation has helped someone after authorities refused to return a firearm.
In 2007, Cleveland resident Damon Wells legally defended himself against two teens who were on probation for aggravated robbery. The attackers got convicted, but Mr. Wells couldn't get his gun back. The organization worked behind the scenes and, months later, authorities finally returned his firearm.
Fast forward a few more months and Mr. Wells was riding as a passenger in a car that got pulled over. Police charged him with possession of an "unregistered" handgun even after the Ohio Supreme Court told the City of Cleveland that they could not enforce this sort of gun control law.
The Foundation's legal counsel appeared in Cleveland Municipal Court to go to bat for Mr. Wells and have his charges dismissed and went on to file suit against the City of Cleveland, winning the case and setting a legal precedent for cities throughout Ohio.


Gun Control Group Sues Small Town for Requiring Gun Ownership
OutdoorHub, July 16, 2013
The city of Nelson, Georgia has 1,300 inhabitants, one police officer, and one controversial city ordinance.
The city of Nelson, Georgia has 1,300 inhabitants, one police officer, and one controversial city ordinance.
Crime in the sleepy town of Nelson, Georgia is relatively low, yet an unusual city ordnance is now drawing national attention.
As interest in gun control intensified over the early months of 2013, several cities considered going in the opposite direction and requiring their residents to own firearms rather than restricting them. With a population of only 1,300, Nelson was one of a few that were able to get such a measure approved. It is a largely symbolic move to show support for the town’s gun owners and the Second Amendment. Called the Family Protection Ordinance, it mandated every household to maintain a firearm and ammunition, but makes an exception for those who cannot afford, legally own, or objected to the ownership of guns. According to the Associated Press, the ordinance was also never enforced and the only police officer in town, also the police chief, had no plans to enforce it in the future. The city council approved of the ordinance in April but did not expect the lawsuit that followed in May.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed the federal suit two months ago, but now both sides speak about the possibility of a settlement. The Brady Center is part of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, an organization that works to promote gun control laws both at a federal and state level. Upon the discovery that Nelson has passed a “gun requirement” ordinance, the Brady Center decided to take legal action.
“We definitely think this law is misguided and unconstitutional in Nelson and anywhere else where it’s passed,” said Brady Center lawyer Jonathan Lowy. “But it’s also important to send a message to other jurisdictions around the country that might be inclined to pass similar misguided, unconstitutional laws.”
However, Nelson was not the first town to enact such an ordinance. In 1982, nearby Kennesaw, Georgia passed a similar ordinance and like Nelson, never enforced it. Since then, several other towns have passed their own firearm requirement laws. Just as the Nelson city council was directly inspired by Kennesaw, so was the town of Nucla, Colorado. Law enforcement in Nucla also have no intentions on enforcing their ordinance, which local officials hope will deter crime.
Gun rights advocay group Georgiacarry.org plans on joining the lawsuit in support of Nelson, but the city’s lawyers hope the issue can be settled amicably.
“I think if it is clarified that it was never intended to be enforced, I’m thinking that might move toward some possible resolution of the case,” said David Archer, a lawyer hired to defend Nelson in court.
The AP reports that many of the town’s residents are still in support of the ordinance, where it is viewed as a public message of opposition to gun control. It had been approved unanimously in a 5-0 vote by the city council in April.

Missouri gov. signs gun-safety course for first-graders
Fox News, July 13, 2013

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. –  Missouri schools will be encouraged to teach first-graders a gun safety course sponsored by the National Rifle Association as a result of legislation signed Friday by Gov. Jay Nixon.
The new law stops short of requiring schools to teach the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program. But by putting it in state law, Missouri is providing one of the stronger state-sanctioned endorsements of the NRA-sponsored firearms safety course, which the group says is taught to about 1 million children annually.
The legislation also requires school personnel to participate in an “active shooter and intruder” drill led by law enforcement officers.
Both the staff and student training initially were proposed as mandates when the legislation was filed on Dec. 13, which was the day before a gunman massacred 26 people in a Connecticut elementary school, including 20 first-graders. The provision about the first-grade gun-safety course was amended to make it optional during Senate debate.
The legislation also transfers the responsibility for issuing identification cards for concealed gun permits from driver’s license clerks to local sheriffs. That change was prompted by concerns that the state licensing agency’s procedures had infringed on people’s privacy rights.
Nixon noted the change in concealed carry permits — not the school gun-safety programs — while announcing he was signing the legislation. Asked if he supported the NRA’s gun safety course for first-graders, Nixon merely noted that it was optional.
“Allowing the local school districts to make those choices is appropriate,” he said.
The legislation was one of several pro-gun measures passed this year by Missouri’s Republican-led Legislature.
Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed a bill last week that would have allowed federal agents to be charged with state crimes for trying to enforce various federal gun control laws. The vetoed bill also could have landed Missouri journalists in jail for publishing the names of gun owners and would have let specially trained teachers and administrators carry concealed guns into schools.
But Nixon signed a less aggressive gun-rights bill last week, which allows state employees to keep firearms in their vehicles and fire chiefs to get local approval to carry concealed guns.
According to the NRA, more than 20 state legislatures have passed measures encouraging the use of its Eddie Eagle course in schools since the gun safety program began in 1988. Ohio became the first state to provide financing for it about a decade ago. But Missouri is among just a few states — including North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia — to endorse the program with state laws.
The program includes a video in which an eagle character teaches children four basic rules if they see a gun: “STOP! Don’t touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult.”
“It’s teaching a great safety message to children that could possibly save their life,” said Eric Lipp the NRA’s national manager of community outreach.
In many cases, Lipp said, the course is taught by police serving as school resources offices and the materials are provided for free by the NRA. He estimated that the program has been used in thousands of schools.
Some of Missouri’s school teacher and administrator groups took no position on the legislation, largely because it’s merely optional. It was unclear how many Missouri schools already are using the program, or whether the official allowance for it in state law will encourage more to do so.
“How many districts will do this is anyone’s guess,” said Brent Ghan, a spokesman for the Missouri School Boards’ Association.






SAF Sues Seattle Over Withheld January Gun Buyback Documents
Outdoor Wire, July 20, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA - Yesterday, the Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit in King County, Washington, Superior Court alleging that the City of Seattle violated the Public Records Act by withholding documents sought by SAF under a public records request relating to the city's controversial gun buyback in January.
SAF is alleging that the city did not provide all requested documents, and also heavily redacted many documents that were not protected under attorney-client privilege. SAF further alleges that the city provided some of the documents it sought to a reporter for the Seattle P-I.com and SAF only learned of the existence of these documents by reading a story on the news agency's website in June.
In addition, SAF contends that fees should not have been charged for the mere electronic reproduction of e-mails, and that the city limited its disclosures to e-mails between five city employees, and did not provide any notes, agendas or other documents relating to the buyback.
"Our request to the city for communications and documents was clear and unambiguous," said SAF Special Projects Director Philip Watson. "When I read about some communications between the staff, which were not provided to us under the PRA request, it was stunning and disappointing. I should not have to read about something we asked for, and were denied, in a newspaper article months after our request."
"Mayor Mike McGinn's staff appears to have been playing games," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "This is not a game. Government, regardless what level, needs to be accountable and transparent. If the McGinn administration believes it is above meeting the requirements of the law, they need to re-think that position."
SAF is represented by the Tempski Law Firm, PS of Bellevue.

Gun Control through Mind Control
Patriot Update, July 18, 2013
The issue of gun control hasn’t gotten a lot of attention in the past few weeks, not with the Zimmerman case hogging the spotlight.  I predict that said case will inevitably raise that question again, but in the meantime I’d like to take a look at another walk of American life where guns are not the most popular objects: schools.
Now I’m not suggesting anything as absurd as public school curriculum including courses on marksmanship aimed at five-year-olds, but I have noticed an interesting pattern when it comes to schools and guns.  Have you noticed that every once in a while the news talks about a kid bringing a toy gun to school or pointing a chicken finger in similar fashion to a firearm?  Have you then noticed that the respective school’s administration reacts like the kid hid an IED in his jeans and admitted having ties to Al Qaida?
Let’s look at a couple of examples of how public schools are cracking down on guns.  First there was Hunter Spanjer.  This story has been circulating on a lot of Conservative blogs lately even though it happened about a year ago.  For those of you who don’t know, a deaf three-year-old student in Grand Islands, Nebraska was asked to change the sign for his name because the hand gesture looked too much like a gun.  Although the school did eventually back off, the fact that it would put Hunter and his parents through such idiocy is appalling, no?
How about seven-year-old Christopher Marshall in Suffolk, Virginia back in May?  He was suspended  for pointing a pencil and imitating machine gun noises with his mouth.  According to Spokeswoman Bethanne Bradshaw, the infamous “zero tolerance” policy dictates that “a pencil is a weapon when it is pointed at someone in a threatening way and gun noises are made.”
One more, and then my point, I promise: in Palmer, Massachusetts a six-year-old (last name Crane, first name withheld) was threatened with suspension for bringing a Lego gun, a toy literally smaller than a quarter, onto his school bus.  Again, the school backed off (presumably because they had no way to justify such stupidity), but again they put the family through all sorts of undue stress.
I have more, like the kid who was interrogated by police until he wet himself over a plastic cowboy revolver, or the fact that a school in Hayward, California held a toy gun buy-back program to entice kids to hand in their toy guns 1984 style, but I’ll skip ahead to my point.
Why all this insanity?  Why the rabid dog reactions to fingers and tiny hunks of plastic and pencils?  Most Conservative blogs ring with cries of “insanity” and “stupidity,” but I don’t buy that.  Maybe that’s true for the average teacher or librarian that would enforce such nonsense, but what about this absurdly overbearing “zero tolerance” garbage?  That came from the brass, the higher ups, and I suspect their motives (considering they are more or less overpaid politicians) are much better thought out.
You see, “zero tolerance” isn’t stupid; it’s brilliant.  It’s nefarious and sick, to be sure, but brilliant nonetheless.
Here’s what’s happening: your kids are having the idea forced into their heads that whenever someone so much as holds a pencil like a gun, so much as points his fingers in a manner resembling a gun or even just mentions a gun in some cases, bad things happen.  The police come, you get suspended, in the worst cases there’s a big media fiasco, but the point that’s being driven home is this: anything to do with guns = bad things happen.
Do you see what’s happening?  They’re creating a subconscious fear of guns in your children in a manner that would put Pavlov to shame.  They’re creating a phobia of guns as objects, and by doing so they are breeding an entire generation of zealous anti-gun voters.  What better to serve the socialistic tyranny that the political Left dreams of than a generation of voters that literally fears firearms?
I know some of you might be thinking that such an engineered fear can be easily fixed with facts and data, and while that might be true in some cases, the thing to remember is that a phobia is, by definition, an emotion-based irrational fear, meaning that facts and rationale don’t play a role.
At the end of the day, I can’t stress enough to American parents just how important it is to talk to your kids about what they’re hearing and seeing in school.  Just last year my father told me that I once came home from elementary school and told him that my teacher had taught me that the story of the light bulb was a lie, and that it was actually invented by one of Thomas Edison’s slaves.
So please, talk to your kids, because given the chance the socialists will turn them into their drones and they won’t lose a wink of sleep over it.

 Man Cites Joe Biden After Arrest for Firing Shotgun into Air
 Conservative Byte, 17 Jul 2013
 Vancouver, Washington man has cited advice from Vice President Joe Biden in his defense for allegedly illegally firing his shotgun to dispel suspected car thieves.
“Jeffery Barton, 52, pleaded not guilty to one count of illegal aiming or discharging a firearm at his arraignment in Clark County Court,” according to KOIN.com. “Barton reportedly admitted to deputies that he fired his weapon while chasing away people who he thought were breaking into his vehicles,” they added.
Barton told KOIN, "I did what Joe Biden told me to do."
The advice from Vice President Biden came in February 2013 at a meeting. He stated that gun owners need only fire warning shots to ward off intruders:
    I said, "Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here ... walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house." … You don't need an AR-15 — it's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!
Law enforcement officials responded to KOIN that it is against the law to fire a weapon without "a self-defense component, along with a life-threatening situation."
The woman whom Vice President Biden gave the advice to later criticized the comments as "sexist," stating: “I think it was poor advice and it comes off a little sexist, Like, ‘let me tell you what you need’ versus, you know, ‘arm yourself or protect yourself in a way that you feel necessary.'”


Private Gun Buyback Program Redistributes Guns To The Poor And Unarmed
Political Outcast, July 18, 2013
Here’s a buyback program we could all support. It’s actually less of a gun buyback and more of a gun giveaway. The organization is called the Armed Citizen Project. They’re working on becoming a 501(c)(3) organization, but that could take a while since they’re a conservative, gun-rights group. We know how the IRS likes to take their time with those types of people.
The ACP takes monetary donations as well as firearm donations. But instead of being a way to get guns off the streets like in typical police gun buybacks, they’re turning around and giving these donated guns as well as training to unarmed Americans (after performing background checks). As the director Kyle Caplen said, “We’ve combined Joe Biden’s love of shotguns with Obama’s love of redistribution.” So, ACP is calling this giveaway their “Redistribution of Firepower Program.”
They’ve been in the news several times before for arming particularly vulnerable citizens like single mothers and the urban poor. They’re in the news again, because they’ve announced they’re expanding their Redistribution of Firepower Program to Texas and Florida. Their press release stated, in part:
“The group’s founder, Kyle Coplen said, ‘We see this as a buyback we can believe in, one that removes old and unused firearms from homes of existing gun owners, and uses them to create new responsible gun owners in our own communities. Residents of Texas and Florida can now donate their unused firearms to ACP, and will receive a number of gifts, including one raffle ticket to win a custom painted AR-15 with custom made, 3-D printed 30-round magazine.  More importantly, donors will receive one transferable ‘Empowerment Scholarship,’ giving them the opportunity to ensure that ACP trains and arms members of their own community. ‘We all know a single mom or widow, or retiree who would benefit from being trained and armed with a free pump action shotgun.’”
They plan on training about 500 single mothers and other women nationally on August 10th, a day they’re calling National Empowerment Day. Their effort in training and arming these women is their response to the liberal “war on women” that leaves women defenseless from violent crimes because of the gun control culture. I look forward to seeing if this Redistribution of Firepower Program has any effect on crime rates in the neighborhoods that benefit from the ACP’s free shotguns and training.

GOA Fights to Preserve Stand Your Ground Laws, Pro-gun Majority on Court
GOA, July 21, 2013
1“Mr. Holder's comments rankled gun-rights groups and other supporters of [Stand Your Ground] laws.... Erich Pratt, spokesman for the Gun Owners of America, said the attorney general ‘wants to take us back to the days where those who are under attack are forced to retreat.’” -- Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2013
GOA Standing our Ground against assaults
by the Obama Administration
It was a good week for gun owners in many respects.
First, unless you were living in a cave the past few days, you have surely heard about the acquittal of George Zimmerman in Florida.
While this was certainly a tragic case, the jury followed the law and acquitted Zimmerman of second degree murder -- in the case which has now become internationally famous.
Predictably, the Obama administration is using this case to demonize gun owners and attack Stand Your Ground laws around the country -- laws which remove a person’s duty to retreat prior to using deadly force when facing “death or great bodily harm.”
GOA has fought to get these laws enacted in the past, and we will continue lobbying to keep them from being weakened or watered down.
As an aside, the Zimmerman defense team NEVER invoked “Stand Your Ground” as a defense. So all these attacks on Florida’s SYG law are simply disingenuous attempts to use a manufactured “crisis” to advance their left-wing agenda.
Nevertheless, Attorney General Eric Holder announced this week that he wants us to return to the dangerous doctrine that requires citizens to retreat before they can protect themselves.
This thinking comes from the same school of thought where college students in Colorado were recently told they must urinate or vomit on themselves to prevent rapists from attacking them.
In other words, people should think of every way possible to NOT use force in protecting themselves. Never mind that George Zimmerman couldn’t retreat because Trayvon Martin had him pinned down while beating his head into the cement.
GOA has called on Eric Holder to issue an apology to George Zimmerman and his family. The Justice Department used taxpayer dollars last year to organize protests against George Zimmerman -- long before the trial ever occurred.
“We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and Lady Justice is supposed to be blind," GOA’s Erich Pratt was quoted as saying in the Wall Street Journal.
Yes, justice is SUPPOSED to be blind. Sadly, the DOJ had its hand on the scales long before the Zimmerman trial even started.
Every new person you encourage to sign up for our free email alerts or for a new GOA membership gives us a louder voice in Washington and in states across the country!
Senate victory preserves
Gun Owners’ ability to defeat anti-gun judges
Gun Owners achieved another victory this week and can report that our ability to filibuster anti-gun Supreme Court Justices -- and preserve the Supreme Court’s Heller decision -- remains intact.
Granted, this victory has come at a price, and many conservatives in Washington are saying that Senate Republicans “caved” in their dealings with Senator Harry Reid.
While there may be truth to that assertion, the facts are this:
* The time-honored right of Senators to filibuster has come under increasing attack, especially since pro-gun forces have used the Senate filibuster to defeat anti-gun judges (like Caitlin Halligan) and anti-gun legislation (like the Toomey-Manchin registration amendment).
* GOA worked with pro-gun Senators in January to beat back attempts by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to blow-up the filibuster rules, via the so-called “nuclear option.”
* Recently, Senator Harry Reid engaged in another all-out assault on the filibuster, but he settled for an agreement where certain appointments would get confirmed and others would be taken off the table -- but, most importantly, where the filibuster would remain untouched!
By reaching the deal, Republicans have averted a parliamentary precedent that would have allowed:
1) A swing anti-gun Supreme Court justice to be approved by a 50-vote (plus Biden) margin -- instead of garnering 60 votes;
2) A precedent that would allow gun control to be approved by 50 votes (plus Biden) margin -- instead of garnering 60 votes; and,
3) An anti-gun ATF Director by a 50-vote (plus Biden) margin -- instead of garnering 60 votes.
The downside is that Harry Reid has now demonstrated that he can get what he wants by threatening to use the “nuclear option” to blow up the Senate as an institution. We expect him to drag out this threat again and again and again.

Gun Geo Marker” App Outrages Gun Owners
OutdoorHub  July 11, 2013
A new Android app that allows users to mark the homes of gun owners is receiving heavy criticism from firearms enthusiasts.
A new Android app that allows users to mark the homes of gun owners is receiving heavy criticism from firearms enthusiasts.
A new app for Android users on Google’s Play Store is causing controversy mere days after its release. Called Gun Geo Marker, the app aspires to create a crowd-sourced database of “dangerous guns and gun owners” that allows users of the app to locate “risks” in their neighborhood.
“The Gun Geo Marker operates very simply, letting parents and community members mark, or geolocate, sites associated with potentially unsafe guns and gun owners,” says the app’s product description on Google Play. “These locations are typically the homes or businesses of suspected unsafe gun owners, but might also be public lands or other locations where guns are not handled safely, or situations where proper rights to own or use any particular type of firearm may not exist.”
Users who download the app could potentially list any location or home as unsafe, a feature that has many gun owners worried that they may be the target of crime or persecution.
“Users can anonymously mark addresses and the owner can’t update or refute the allegation,” commented one of the app’s users in a review.
“This is a direct invasion of privacy,” wrote another reviewer.
Since the app first appeared in the Google Play Store on July 7, it has garnered well over 1,000 downloads and an equal amount of user comments. Of the roughly 1,200 reviews of the app, 1,170 gave it a one-star rating out of five possible stars. Many of the comments call for the app to be removed entirely from the Store.
Gun Geo Marker is the brainchild of developer Brett Stalbaum, who created the app to “address a social problem that is specific to his own country, political culture and constitution.” According to Gun Geo Marker’s website, the app is not designed for discrimination against law-abiding, safe gun owners, or for personal grudges. Users are guided to list only carelessly stored weapons, dangerous and untrained gun owners, and gun owners who violate the law. However, the site also warns that “there is no way for anyone to check the veracity of marked sites beyond living in and understanding your own neighborhood, and using your experience there to determine if a mark makes sense or not.”
Earlier this year, New York newspaper the Journal News caused a similar uproar when the paper published the names and addresses of thousands of gun owners. Using an interactive map not unlike the one utilized by Gun Geo Marker, the details of permit holders in New York’s Westchester and Rockland Counties were released online. The resulting flood of negative comments caused a stir in the state’s legislature. When the NY SAFE Act was passed into law, it included a provision which allows the state’s pistol permit holders to keep their information private. Previously, this information was available to the public under certain limitations.
As for the Gun Geo Marker, it is still available for download on Google Play for Android users at time of publication.


Ace Ventura Alert! About that Jim Carrey Apology to Gun Owners … ?
Clash Daily, 11 July 2013    
Jim_Carrey_2008Anyone that lives in NYC will attest to the fact that the liberal indoctrination here runs deep. From a very young age we are taught that guns are very bad. Teachers constantly preach things like, “Only bad guys and the police have guns”, over and over and over and over again! These are the things we are taught to believe from a very young age growing up here in NYC. To reinforce these lessons we have these “gun free zones”, places where many of us fall victim to gun violence, despite these “gun free zone” signs. As a young man I was robbed at gun point, pistol whipped, used as a human shield in shootouts, and lost a few friends to gun violence. All in “gun free zones” and all reinforcing the “guns are bad” message that we are taught as children.
When registering to vote, as young, uninformed voters we will often wonder “What party should we support and why?” The answer is something like “Dude, you are from NYC, everyone here is a Democrat! You may not know it, but you are a Democrat, too”. Well, I guess they are right, my family is on welfare, we get section 8, we get the government cheese, so yeah, I guess we are Democrats. What do we know? This is what we are taught by our leaders from a very young age, so what are we to do? We just follow the herd, we vote Democrat.
Thank God for people like my friends over at www.boldrightstuff.com. These guys saw how my views were based simply on indoctrinated brainwashing, they took time out of their day and challenged my liberal views and my stance as a Democrat. Through respectful debate and intelligent dialogue with these folks here and there, I slowly realized that, though I have been voting Democrat my entire life, that my views are in fact leaning towards the right. Now here we are today, look at who I am writing for.
Enter the main topic of today’s discussion, Jim “I’m a buffoon” Carrey. I will admit I was a fan of Jim Carrey’s for a long time. I used to watch the show In Living Color when I was a kid. I’ve known of Jim Carrey since the old days of “Fire Marshall Bill”, but unless you grew up in the 80?s and lived in NYC then these names will not mean much to you. To us though, this was channel 5 prime time entertainment!
Point being that I was a fan and followed his career from a very young age. Not to mention that these shows also influenced my views back then. As a grown man with different views now, I’m sure you can imagine my frustration when Mr. Carrey decided to come out and start insulting gun owners. My reaction was something along the lines of “DUDE! What are you doing? I watched Ace Ventura. I’m a fan, but I also own a gun, bro. What gives?”
Recently our friends over at www.theblaze.com shared a post informing us that Carrey “apologized” for his comments. He says his views have not changed, but that he is sorry about his statements. I question the sincerity of that apology, in fact I think it is only a matter of time before he pops a gasket and goes nuts on one of the commenters mocking him for his so called “apology”.

Obama Commits to Signing UN Arms Trade Treaty While Congress at Summer Recess
Political Outcast, July 10, 2013
The number one goal of the United Nations is to become the political entity that rules all nations or in other words, the one world government.  To accomplish that goal, they have to continue to exert their authority and power over individual countries and they have been quite successful at doing this in recent years.
One of the key pieces of international law that needs to be in place before the UN can take over the world is to control all weapons, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic and automatic weapons and ammunition.  Over the past few years, the UN has been pushing one treaty that will help to accomplish that goal.  It is the UN Arms Trade Treaty.
The UN Arms Trade Treaty is a treaty that would regulate the international sale and transfer of all conventional weapons throughout the world.  Conventional weapons are sea and land mines, rockets, missiles, cluster munitions, non-nuclear bombs, shells, small arms and light weapons.  By small arms, they mean handguns, rifles and shotguns of all kinds, regardless of their use or design.
A number of Second Amendment supporters and gun rights advocates believe that this treaty could be used to further regulate guns in the US and infringe on the rights of Americans to bear arms.  One hundred and thirty members of Congress jointly signed a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, insisting that they reject the UN Arms Trade Treaty, saying:
    "As your review of the treaty continues, we strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country's constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty."
However, Kerry released a statement about the treaty, saying:
    "We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily.  [The treaty is] an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights."
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has indicated that President Obama intends to sign the treaty by the end of August.  Speaking on behalf of Obama, Carney said:
    “We believe it’s in the interest of the United States.  While we look forward to signing the treaty, there are remaining translation issues that need to be resolved.”
Notice that the time frame that Obama has given for his signature of the UN Arms Trade Treat just happens to coincide with Congress’s summer recess, which makes me wonder if he is going to try to pull something like a recess appointment to push it through without congressional approval.  But legally, he can’t because in order for an international treaty of any kind to become binding to the United States, it must be passed by a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate.  At this time, it does not appear that there is enough support in the Senate to muster up 67 out of 100 votes.
Ratified or not, it’s clear that the Democratic Party continues to do their part in turning over US sovereignty to a radically liberal organization that is against everything America stands for.  The UN is against capitalism and the American way of government.  They have been actively undermining the Christian religion, traditional family values, parental authority and free speech.  The UN passed a massive hate crimes bill that makes any form of language against homosexuality to be a hate crime.  Preaching the Bible is a hate crime according to the UN.
So is it any wonder that Kerry and Obama want to just join the UN efforts to undermine and destroy America?  I, for one, believe that the United Nations is a terrorist organization that is actively trying to overthrow the US and subvert our way of life.  They need to be kicked out of our country.  Let them build a towering office building in a nation that really cares.  Leaving the UN would also save us hundreds of billions of dollars that could go a long way to putting American back on our financial feet.


Thanks, Texas: Gun Rights Mean Mom Could Protect Her Children
Cash daily, July 10, 2013    

My parents asked me to housesit/dogsit for them the week of Independence Day. They live in a small, East Texas, Mayberry-type community where the police department seems to almost be an afterthought and a crime spree means too many people were caught speeding that weekend. The locals complain about the water bills and how long the line is at the snow cone stand.
Their neighborhood is a new neighborhood where, in keeping with East Texas tradition, everyone knows everyone else and everyone checks up on each other. When Mom and Dad left, Mom said that due to the construction crews in and out of the neighborhood and the amount of door-to-door solicitors they’d been having recently, would I please make sure the alarm was kept set? Which I agreed to, of course, and then promptly forgot about.
Two solicitors came to the house within the first three weekdays. When I left to go watch the fireworks Independence Day, I had the weirdest feeling, so I set the alarm. I came home to find our neighbors in the street, setting their own fireworks, and felt foolish for my previous feelings. Nothing ever happens here, I reminded myself with a laugh. I got my kids ready for bed and turned in for the night.
Friday night came. I made the kids a pizza and put them to bed right at dark. I had the lights off at the front of the house and was typing up one last email to my husband before I got in the shower when I distinctly heard someone try to unlock the front screen door. Two things happened simultaneously then: first, my two dogs — one of which is a breed commonly used by military police — went nuts; and secondly, because the only people who have a key to the screen door are myself, my husband, my parents, my sister and brother-in-law, I called my sister’s name loudly and said, “Is that you? Because if it isn’t, I’m getting the gun.”
I did go get my pistol, which my husband insists I keep, and as I put the magazine in, I prayed I wouldn’t have to use it, but if I did, that my aim would be good; and then I said a second prayer of thanks for the Texas Legislature and their gun laws. My three-year old daughter stood in her bedroom door, watching me, and said, “Mommy, what is it?”
“Nothing,” I promised her, “go back to your bed and don’t come out of there unless I come get you.”
I crept back up to the front door and loudly chambered a round. And waited. I heard nothing, so I looked through the peephole to see that if anyone had been there, they were long gone. I sent a text to my sister to ask if she or her husband had stopped by the house, only to get a negative reply. I let my neighbors know what had happened, just to see if one of their kids had come by, needing something, only to hear that, no, their kids were all in (it was after dark!) but that some strange people had been around the night before during the fireworks that the men had run off by threatening to call the police.



Gun control recall efforts worry liberals
Los Angeles Times July 9, 2013
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- Snug against the Rockies, this conservative bastion is home to the U.S. Air Force Academy, Pikes Peak, scores of evangelical churches and soon, perhaps, the most significant gun control fight in the country.
Unless a judge steps in, John Morse, the Democratic president of the Colorado Senate, faces an unprecedented recall attempt arising from the sweeping gun laws passed after the school massacre in Newtown, Conn. Morse, a former police chief, calls the legislation an act of sublime leadership and said that being tossed from office, if it happens, is worth the price.
"Tell me that you get 20 6-year-olds shot in the face with a semiautomatic assault rifle ... and that your elected officials should say, 'Hmm'" -- he clucked his tongue -- '"I'm really sorry that happened. I'm not going to do anything about it.' I mean, if you're not going to lead in those kinds of moments, why are you in this role?"
Critics say the laws, which raised gun fees, banned the sale of high-capacity magazines and established universal background checks, were an assault on fundamental freedoms that Morse rammed through in a flagrant show of government arrogance. The bills were signed by Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, who faces reelection next year but is in far better shape politically than Morse, who barely won a second term.
With the gun control debate at a seeming impasse in Congress, both sides agree the ouster of the Democratic leader would resonate far beyond this 6,000-foot-high metropolis, about an hour's drive south of the Capitol in Denver. The election, if challenges are surmounted, would occur between late August and early November.
"If you can take out the Senate president in Colorado," Morse said, seated in his small office just off the chamber, "then, arguably, you can take out any legislator anywhere in the country. And so I do think it would have a chilling effect."
Laura Carno, whose organization helped bankroll the petition drive against Morse, agreed, saying a recall would serve notice to any wavering lawmaker nationwide who doubts the power and resolve of the gun rights movement. "What's at stake in this recall election is the definition of the relationship between citizens and their government officials," Carno said. "We hire you. We can fire you."
Originally, opponents took after four Democratic backers of the gun laws, but efforts against two of them fizzled. Activists have also qualified petitions to recall state Sen. Angela Giron, a freshman from Pueblo; Morse, though, is by far the bigger target.
Colorado, where the mountains meet the plains, has long been at the center of the national debate over guns, gun violence and gun safety.
State lawmakers passed a number of restrictions after the 1999 killings at Columbine High School. But firearms remain a much-revered part of Colorado culture, and the restrictions, including a crackdown on gun show sales, went only so far.
The issue remained largely dormant until the mass shooting last summer at an Aurora, Colo., movie theater and the December killings of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Polls afterward showed strong support for tougher gun laws, and Democrats, who won control of the statehouse in November, were eager to act.
They met fierce resistance. Republicans were nearly unanimous in opposition. Hundreds of protesters swarmed the Capitol; others drove in circles around the building, car horns blaring. Overhead, a small plane pulled a banner: "Hick," it addressed the governor, "Do Not Take Our Guns."
Opponents quickly focused on Morse, even though term limits mean he can't run again in 2014. His leadership role was one reason. Also, just 7,178 valid signatures were required to force a recall, or 25% of the votes cast in his district in 2010, the fewest signatures needed for the four lawmakers targeted.
Organizers took up sentry outside grocery stores and retail shops and established roadside "drive and sign" events to collect signatures. Backers gave away a 9-millimeter pistol, ammunition and other gun-related prizes to reward volunteers. The National Rifle Assn. helped out with email, phone banks and a mailer. Perhaps most important, organizers hired a professional signature-gathering firm to supplement the grass-roots effort. The extent of involvement by outside interests is a subject of dispute; contributors to Carno's campaign organization remain anonymous under tax law.
Among those approached with a recall petition was Morse, during a quick stop at a supermarket. "Devil incarnate, but couldn't pick him out of a lineup," he scoffed. (He did not sign.)
Morse, 58, is compactly built with a hank of white hair and a penchant to give voice, literally, to both sides of the gun debate, quoting his critics then responding in a tone of sweet reason. He is blunt-spoken, calling his opponents idiots who lied, cheated and stole to force a recall.
"If I have to get in a slugfest, I get in a slugfest. I'm going to do the best I can not to," he said of attempts to disqualify the recall petitions and block the effort in court. "If I've exhausted all my other options, then slugfest it is."
His directness is part of his appeal, supporters say, even if it does not always serve him well. Morse is not a career politician or, in the words of one ally, "some pinko professor from Colorado College." He is a relative centrist whose law enforcement background helped with an electorate split roughly three ways among Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters.
His district, taking in less affluent parts of Colorado Springs and the liberal enclave of Manitou Springs, was drawn expressly to give Democrats a shot at winning in staunchly conservative El Paso County. Even then it's been a fight; Morse, who has worked as an accountant and paramedic as well as police chief in a nearby community, won reelection by a mere 340 votes.
Most political calculations go out the window, however, in the recall effort, the first against a state legislator to qualify since Colorado adopted the procedure more than a century ago. No one is certain who's a likely voter, though the intensity level, long a hallmark of the gun rights movement, would appear to favor Morse's opponents.
National groups are closely watching developments -- quietly, lest they provoke a backlash -- and will probably invest considerable sums if the recall makes the ballot.
Strategists for the two major parties also view the election as a referendum of sorts, as Colorado, once part of the Republican Party's Rocky Mountains stronghold, has turned increasingly competitive and, lately, friendlier to Democrats.
"Gun control ... is the catalyst for interests who believe Democrats have overreached," said Mike Stratton, a veteran Democratic campaign consultant, who is watching from the sidelines. "If voters say, 'Enough's enough, you've gone too far,' that's going to be a marker where the state is at.


Firearms Industry Files Suit Alleging Process Used to Pass Gun Regulations Violated Connecticut Statutes and Constitution
NSSF, July 8, 2013
NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, today filed suit in federal court for the District of Connecticut alleging that Governor Dannel Malloy and the leadership of the Connecticut General Assembly misused the so-called "emergency certification" exception to circumvent the safeguards of the normal legislative process and in violation of Connecticut statutory law in order to pass Senate Bill 1160, a package of strict gun control regulations.
The suit further alleges that enactment of the new law violates fundamental due process rights guaranteed by both the Connecticut and United States Constitutions. NSSF is asking the court to declare the law invalid and issue an injunction prohibiting its enforcement.
"A 139-page bill was assembled behind closed doors, bypassing both the public hearing and committee processes, and quickly sent to floor votes on the same day in both the House and Senate where legislators did not have adequate time to even read the bill. The governor then signed the package into law the next day. All of this is in violation of guarantees citizens are supposed to have under Connecticut State Statutes and protections in our State and U.S. Constitutions for which our forefathers fought," said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel, NSSF. "Our suit focuses on this abuse of process that has resulted in enacted law that does nothing to improve public safety, while resulting in adverse effects on law-abiding citizens, manufacturers, retailers and sportsmen's organizations."



Illinois Governor Unilaterally Changes State Concealed Carry Bill
OutdoorHub, July 3, 2013
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, whose state has been locked in a legislative limbo over the concealed possession of firearms for the past several months.
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, whose state has been locked in a legislative limbo over the concealed possession of firearms for the past several months.
For many, concealed carry in the state of Illinois was once just a far-off fantasy. Illinois was the only state in the nation with an outright de jure ban on concealed weapons, and it had looked to continue that way until a federal court struck down the ban late last year.
The federal appeals court that made the ruling gave Illinois legislators 180 days to create a new, constitutionally acceptable law. After compromises and setbacks, the state Senate and House of Representatives forwarded a bill, House Bill 183, to the governor’s desk.
The legislation was sent to Governor Pat Quinn just days before the end of the 180-day deadline on June 9. That deadline was then extended by an additional 30 days after a request made by Attorney General Lisa Madigan. On July 2, seven days before the new deadline, Governor Quinn took an “amendatory veto” action on the bill that included several important revisions. Quinn had previously opposed the bill and the ruling by the federal court.
“My foremost duty as Governor is to keep the people of Illinois safe,” Quinn said in a press release. “This is a flawed bill with serious safety problems that must be addressed. There are too many provisions in this bill that are inspired by the National Rifle Association, not the common good. Public safety should never be compromised or negotiated away, and I urge members to uphold the common sense changes I propose today.”
ed in the governor’s press release, included:
        Alcohol: HB 183 allows people to carry guns into establishments serving alcohol, including most family restaurants and other places where large amounts of alcohol are consumed. Mixing alcohol with guns is irresponsible and dangerous. Illinois must keep guns out of any establishment where alcohol is consumed.
        Home-Rule: HB183 strips the authority of home-rule governments to enact future laws on assault weapons to protect their local communities. This NRA-inspired provision is not in the interest of public safety or local communities. In fact, these provisions have nothing to do with the right to carry a concealed gun and have no place in this bill. Local governments should always have the right to strengthen their own ordinances to protect the public safety of their communities.
        Signage: Under the bill, loaded guns would be allowed in stores, restaurants, churches, children’s entertainment venues, movie theaters and other private properties, unless the owner visibly displays a sign prohibiting guns. As a matter of property rights, the legal presumption should always be that a person is not allowed to carry a concealed, loaded gun onto private property unless given express permission.
        Employer’s Rights: As currently drafted, this bill infringes on an employer’s ability to enact policies that ensure a safe and secure work environment. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, shootings are the most frequent cause of workplace fatalities. To best ensure a safe work environment, employers should have the right to enact policies that prohibit employees from carrying guns in the workplace and in the course of performing employment-related duties.
        Number of Guns and Ammunition: The bill provides no cap on the number of guns, or on the size or number of ammunition clips that may be carried. Instead, it allows individuals to legally carry multiple guns with unlimited rounds of ammunition, which is a public safety hazard. In the interest of common sense and the common good, it should be clarified so that a license will permit an individual to carry one concealed gun and one ammunition clip that can hold no more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
        Mental Health Reporting: While HB 183 appropriately seeks to improve mental health reporting, as Governor Quinn called for during his State of the State address in February, the positive impact of these measures is limited by the lack of clarity in the notification process. Clarification is necessary to ensure these enhancements to mental health reporting prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.
        Clarification of “Concealed”: As written, the definition for “concealed firearm” includes the phrase “mostly concealed,” which would allow a licensee to walk around in public with a portion of his or her gun exposed. This is an irresponsible step towards open carry in Illinois. This insufficient provision must be clarified to ensure that when guns are carried, they are completely concealed from public view.
        Open Meetings Act: Under the current bill, the meetings and records of the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board are entirely exempt from the Open Meetings and Freedom of Information Acts, providing zero transparency of the meetings, budget, personnel and other aspects of this government board. Similar to the Prisoner Review Board and the Emergency Medical Services Disciplinary Review Board, the meetings and records of this board – unless otherwise exempt – should be announced, open, and available to the public.
        Law Enforcement: As written, the bill does not require an individual to immediately disclose to a public safety officer that he or she is in possession of a concealed firearm. In order to protect the safety of our public safety officers in the line of duty, an individual’s response to questions from law enforcement about whether they are carrying a gun should always be immediate.
The changes, which once again came down days before the federal deadline, have angered many lawmakers in support of the bill and the residents they represent. The bill now returns to the state legislature where the amendments are expected to be heavily opposed. One of the bill’s key sponsors, House Representative Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg), filed a motion to override the amendatory veto on the same day Quinn made the changes.
 

Obama’s Executive Ordered Study Report On Gun Violence Slaps Him In The Face
Fredom Outpost, July 5, 2013

If you recall, back on January 16, 2013, standing with little children, Barack Hussein Obama tried to pull a fast one on the American people and issued 23 executive orders pertaining to gun control. Among those was number 14: Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. Well friends, that study did happen and it destroyed Obama’s position on guns and gun violence.
Well like all things in government, the people tasked with the study simply directed the study to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. However, many people have not heard about the report. Could it be that much of the information in the report didn’t quite “jive” with Obama and the anti-gun crowd?
Actually, that’s exactly what it did. In fact, not only did they not hold any water for Obama’s claims regarding gun violence, it poured it on him, pretty much backing every Second Amendment lover’s argument that has been made.
The report, titled Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence, which identifies the particular topics of gun violence to be researched over the next few years, made the point that the majority of deaths that take place annually by the use of a firearm are not related to crime, but to suicide.
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States,” reads the study.
That’s obviously not a good thing. However, it indicates that many Americans suffer from both a spiritual and mental health issue. With that said, let’s not then run to government to deal with mental health issues. I’ve warned before and I’ll warn you now: That would be a very bad move.
Here’s the great news in the report though. It points out that virtually every study which “assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns” discovered the same thing. Those using their guns for self-defense “consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
Oh and remember how we’ve been told by the Obama administration and the socialist gun grabbers that guns aren’t used that often in self-defense? Well, the report shows that isn’t true either.
    “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a),” the study reads. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).”
Yeah, not as uncommon as the propagandists would have us believe.
In all fairness, the report does point out that “some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997).”
While the report does maintain that this will always be a controversy in the field, the study does state that “the estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys,” while the “estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”
“A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim,” reads the report.
The report does have a downside. It indicates that we have the most firearm related deaths of any western nation. However, the good news is that the study claims that is rapidly declining.
    “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years.” However, “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.”
    Additionally, the report goes on to inform about other declines. “Firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009,” the report continues, adding that accidental shootings were declining as well.
The report also states that “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
While everyone recognizes that there will always be crime and violence and yes, even gun violence, the fact of the matter is that gun control is not the answer, except to make sure you control your own gun and hit your target. For sure there will be more data added as the study continues, but already what they do have from the past indicates something that is completely opposite from what this administration has presented and there is no doubt that any information that comes out of the study will be thoroughly scrutinized.
The report also referenced video game violence to see how it might contribute to gun violence, but said that more research would need to be done and no research to the present has been conclusive.
Anyone wondering why Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein aren’t running to the state run media to air out this little report? It’s because they have egg on their face.
One last question that is on my mind is, how much did will this study end up costing the American taxpayer?



Missouri governor vetoes bill that nullified federal gun laws
Associated Press, July 05, 2013

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. –  Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed legislation Friday that would have made it a Missouri crime for federal agents to attempt to enforce federal gun laws in the state and could have landed journalists in jail for publishing the names of gun owners.
The Democratic governor said the bill passed by the Republican-led Legislature violated the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which generally gives preference to federal laws over conflicting state ones. He said it also infringed in the First Amendment rights of free speech and press.
Some supporters of the legislation had proclaimed it one of the most gun-friendly bills ever passed by a state legislature. Nixon, however, said it could have had extreme consequences.
"Under this bill, newspaper editors around the state that annually publish photos of proud young Missourians who harvest their first turkey or deer could be charged with a crime," the governor said in a written statement announcing the veto.
Legislators would need a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to override Nixon's veto when they return to session in September.
The legislation would have made it a misdemeanor crime for federal agents to attempt to enforce any federal gun regulations that "infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms." It also sought to invalidate some specific federal laws, including a 1934 law that imposed on tax on transferring machine guns or silencers.
The measure would have made it a misdemeanor to publish the names of gun owners.
Other provisions in the bill would have allowed school teachers and administrators with concealed-gun permits and special training to be designated as a "school protection officer" capable of carrying hidden guns into schools.
Missouri's age to obtain a conceal-carry permit would have been lowered to 19 instead of the current 21, and the bill would have allowed people with concealed gun permits to openly carry firearms up to 16 inches long -- even in jurisdictions that have ordinances against the open display of guns.


Governor Quinn Shoots Down Illinois Gun Laws
Last Resistence, July 4, 2013

When it comes to gun rights, Illinois has been one of (if not the most) backwards state in the country for some time. In fact, Illinois was the only state in the country that did not allow its citizens to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the state. Finally, in December of last year, the Supreme Court put Illinois on notice that they could not wholesale prohibit concealed carry and would have six months to pass a law freeing their citizens of the burdensome gun laws.
It took the entire six-month period, but on the final day possible, the Illinois legislature passed measures that would allow their citizens to carry concealed weapons. While the legislature is heavily Democrat, it is also highly fractured when it comes to gun rights issues. While Illinois may be most famous for being home to “the Second City” of Chicago, the state is largely rural and the people living in rural areas value their right to bear arms. So the legislature is generally split between gun rights supporters from more rural areas and gun grabbers from the urban areas. The fractured groups were finally able to cobble together an agreement that gained an overwhelming majority in the legislature, and sent the legislation to the Governor to sign off on.
Governor Quinn, a very liberal Democrat, chose instead to veto nine different measures within the legislation, effectively sending it back to the legislature. Now the legislature will meet to debate the Governor’s vetoes and to discuss whether or not they will override the veto or enact the measure as the Governor has rewritten it.
The overwhelmingly Democrat legislature is not happy with the Governor for his amending of their bill, which some see as a simple election ploy to appeal to the elite liberal class in Chicago.  One NRA lobbyist put it plainly: “He’s essentially telling Downstate ‘you don’t matter.’ He’s going to try to win off the liberal lakefront because that’s the constituency he’s playing to. That’s really it.”
quinnandemanuel
Dumb and Dumber
Quinn’s attempt at locking up the Chicago vote for his upcoming reelection bid may be all for naught. A spokesperson for Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) predicts, “I do expect an override… I think President Cullerton thinks there are some valid, leftover concerns and some implementation issues that need discussed with the caucus, but I’m quite sure the votes are there for an override.”
The legislature will pick up the issue of the veto override on July 9th, which is the day that the Supreme Court had designated as the deadline for Illinois to draw up a law that would allow their citizens to begin carrying concealed weapons, if they so choose. Either way, the two most likely candidates to win the Governor’s mansion in 2014, Governor Quinn and Chicago Mayor William Daley, will both continue to look for ways to make it more difficult for Illinois citizens to defend themselves. Chicago has the worst gun violence in the nation, and they also happen to have the toughest gun control laws in the nation. Gun control is not working, but Chicago politicians just never learn.


Bloomberg Administration Bans Hunting Rifles, Could New York State be next?

The Bloomberg Administration is currently forcing those with long gun licenses to get rid of hunting rifles such as lever action 30/30s claiming they are assault weapons.
Attached is the information on the NYC law that says any gun that holds over 5 rounds is an Assault Weapon and illegal in NYC. The head Officer in this area of the police force says the law the above and their lawyers have verified it.
If NYC has the law wrong it would be great if someone could tell them and change this policy of taking away normal hunting guns.
A copy of the law is attached, The letter telling someone to get rid of a 30/30 style gun, the renewal form that says it is illegal to possess any gun that holds over 5, and a letter from some hunters.
Happy to provide any and all information. We can put you in touch with the dealers who has been seeing these letters upstate from city guys.
It is important that NYC license owners are aware of this as the letter demanding they get rid of their guns has just been sent.
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT ALL HUNTERS ARE AWARE OF WHAT BLOOMBERG IS DOING TO THE LICENSED GUN OWNERS IN NY AND WHAT IS VISION IS FOR THE NATION AND ITS EFFECT ON HUNTERS.




SAF Stinging Bloomberg?
Editor's Note: As the battle between New York Second Amendment advocates and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has escalated, it has appeared that Mr. Bloomberg, with his wealth and position pretty much had carte blanche to do what he pleased as he campaigned against guns in the hands of private citizens. But has Mr. Bloomberg used public funds or resources to augment his private efforts? That's a question the Second Amendment Foundation and our friend Tom Gresham have decided to use the Freedom of Information Law to answer.
With the Mayor's bus tour coming under increased criticism, this FOIL request may mean additional scrutiny of Mr. Bloomberg and his organizations.


SAF ASKS FOR ALL BLOOMBERG-MAIG RECORDS FROM NYC AFTER REVELATIONS
Outdoor Wire, June 27, 2013

BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request with the City of New York for all records relating to Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns, after newspaper allegations that city resources have been used for MAIG's gun control efforts.
SAF is being joined in the request by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and Tom Gresham, host of the nationally-syndicated "Gun Talk."
"It was bad enough to learn via CBS News that the MAIG website was being hosted on a city-owned server, and administered by city employees," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, "but it also appears that a special counselor in the mayor's office was sent to lobby in Nevada on behalf of MAIG's gun control agenda."
The New York Post and Politico both published reports that Mayor Bloomberg sent Christopher Kocher to Nevada, and that in an apparent attempt to conceal who he worked for, Kocher "scrubbed his City Hall e-mail address from the state of Nevada lobbying-registration Web site early this month."
"The public has a right to know what's been going on between Bloomberg, the city and MAIG," Gottlieb explained. "Gun control is Bloomberg's pet peeve, and he's been pushing an anti-gun agenda since sending so-called private investigators on a sting operation to gun shops all over the country, which got him in trouble with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."
"There certainly appears to be a serious problem in Bloomberg's administration," Gresham added. "Evidently, the mayor and his staff have a gross misunderstanding of how the taxpayers' money should be spent, and that should not include sending New York employees around the country to lobby for Bloomberg's pet projects."
The request was filed by SAF Special Projects Director Philip Watson, for the following information:
1. All electronic records related to Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the website MayorsAgainstIllegalGuns.org, including, but not limited to:
a. All electronic files saved on city servers
b. All Emails to or from users at the domain MayorsAgainstIllegalGuns.org
c. All current and former employees, officials, outside contractors, and volunteers with access to the website MayorsAgainstIllegalGuns.org
d. All current and former Email users and usernames that have had access to send or receive Email from @MayorsAgainstIllegalGuns.org
2. Any and all records related to Mayors Against Illegal Guns electronic files, including, but not limited to:
a. Emails
b. Any written documents
c. Any records describing processes for cooperation with this group
d. Any records describing how received communications with this group are processed
e. All employee pay or overtime related to cooperation or time spent with this group
f. Official names, titles, and contact information of all employees, officials, outside contractors, and volunteers involved with domain hosting, creation, maintenance, and communication for MayorsAgainstIllegalGuns.org
g. All costs incurred by the City of New York for creation, maintenance, domain hosting, and communication for MayorsAgainstIllegalGuns.org
3. Any and all records of communication since January 1, 2002 between any city official, employee, or volunteer and any gun control advocacy organization, including, but not limited to:
a. Mayors Against Illegal Guns
b. Demand A Plan
c. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
d. Center for Gun Policy and Research
e. Ceasefire
f. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
g. Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
h. Joyce Foundation
i. Violence Policy Center
j. Legal Community Against Violence
k. Million Mom March
"The man is obsessed," Gottlieb continued, "and if he's spent so much as a dime of public money on what amounts to a private crusade, Mayor Bloomberg needs to be held accountable for that."
Gottlieb has called on New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to launch a full-scale investigation into the mayor's potential misuse of public resources for his own private war on gun owners. He renewed that call today.
"If Eric Schneiderman won't investigate Bloomberg for possible misuse of public funds," Gottlieb said, "we will. The mayor has been acting increasingly like a self-appointed monarch, but this still the United States, not Bloomberg's personal fiefdom."
About the Second Amendment Foundation
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.


Police Take Guns From Gun Buy-Backs And Sell Them Back To The Public
Political Outcast, June 25, 2013

City and County police departments will sometimes host gun buy-back programs where residents will voluntarily and anonymously turn in their firearms. In exchange, the police will give each participant something like a certain amount of free gas or a gift certificate to a local grocery store. Anything to serve as an incentive to get people to turn in their weapons.
If you ask the average gun-grabber why local police departments host these buy-back programs, they’ll tell you that it’s to keep guns off the streets. They might qualify their statement, saying that guns need to be kept out of the wrong hands, and this is a good way to contribute to a reduction in gun violence.
For most police departments around the country, the guns that are yielded in these buy-backs are destroyed. This prompts a lot of conservatives to point out that many of these guns are stolen or were used in the commission of a crime. And since criminals can turn in their “murder weapon” anonymously, they can effectively get away with their crime. In this life anyway.
It’s also pointed out that enticing a relatively small number of gun-owning residents to turn in their guns does not have any measurable effect on the crime rate. It’s all a sham to make citizens feel safer. And it makes gun control advocates feel better, because at least they’re “doing something” to curb gun violence in getting these guns off the streets.
Not too long ago, the Chicago Tribune reported that St. Charles, a suburb of Chicago, was planning a gun sell-back:
 “Most of St. Charles' weapons…are guns seized by the courts or turned in to police. They will be sold to a St. Charles gun manufacturer-dealer, Alpha Armament Co. While the dealer primarily works with police departments, it would have the right to sell the guns to anyone with a valid firearm owner's identification card, [St. Charles Police Chief] Lamkin said, including any weapon that was once connected to a crime.”
 The Police Chief there in St. Charles said it’s mostly about money and budgetary concerns. "There's value in these guns," he said. "They're not illegal guns. Quite honestly, it's a bottom line for us." The City Council voted to allow this “sell-back,” which will earn the St. Charles Police Department about $6,000 in store credit from those manufacturer-dealers.
Chicago isn’t the only place where police departments are selling guns that are either turned in through buy-backs or seized from criminals. Iowa’s doing a similar thing on an annual basis:
 “The DCI (Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation] has transferred or is waiting to transfer 183 guns to law enforcement agencies in Iowa and in other states. Last year, 585 guns were destroyed. These guns, mostly handguns, are shredded by a private company in Des Moines. The remainder of the seized guns — about 600 rifles and shotguns — was transferred to the DNR [Division of Natural Resources] for the auction. ‘We have over 700 items at the auction this year,’ said DNR conservation officer Jeff Swearngin. ‘That’s over 500 guns, maybe 20 bows and various traps.’ The auction brought in $82,700 last year. More than $55,000 went to the DNR’s Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund, which pays for fish stocking, habitat restoration, wildlife surveys and game wardens. Another $27,200 went to the state’s general fund. The DNR is expecting an even larger turnout for this year’s auction because of fears gun-control legislation will make it tougher to buy firearms in the future.”
 I actually don’t have any problem with police selling the guns back again to make a little money for their department. I’d rather those guns be in the hands of law-abiding citizens than destroyed or stored somewhere indefinitely by a police department.
My problem with them is the overall inconsistency of their message. On one hand, they host these buy-backs to get as many guns off the streets as possible to “protect the children.” On the other hand, if they’ve got budget concerns, they’ll sell some or most of the guns to dealers or auction them off to citizens in order to raise money. They need to make up their mind.


CCRKBA: "Bloomberg's Use of City Computer Server Needs Investigation"
Outdoor Wire, June 25, 2013

BELLEVUE, WA - The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is calling on New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman to investigate whether any laws have been violated by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for apparently operating a website for Mayors Against Illegal Guns that is reportedly registered to a New York City government server, and apparently administered by city employees.
"On top of everything else that has been revealed in recent days about Bloomberg's MAIG group padding lists of so-called 'gun victims' with the names of criminals and a terrorist bombing suspect, this new discovery is an outrage that demands a criminal investigation," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "He's spending millions of his own dollars on anti-gun politicking around the country, but apparently to offset his expenses, he's letting taxpayers - many of whom oppose his restrictive gun policies - help foot the bill."
CBS News picked up the story from various other sources and began reporting about it over the weekend. Politico also has reported on the discovery.
"With each day there appears to be something else questionable about the mayor and his anti-gun organization," Gottlieb observed. "It's no wonder that Rockford, Illinois Mayor Larry Morrissey dropped out of the MAIG over the weekend."
Gottlieb was referring to a story that Politico reported about Mayor Morrissey. The Illinois mayor quit Bloomberg's group, telling an audience at a Saturday meeting that - according to Politico - the group "strayed from its original mission and became too focused" on pushing for ban on so-called "assault weapons."
"While it was deceptive to include the names of criminals killed by police and law-abiding citizens on a list of alleged 'gun victims'," Gottlieb said, "that's just being politically dishonest. But operating an anti-gun political website on the city server, apparently with city employees doing the work; if that's true, that may be a crime and it should be investigated."

Updated gun bill scorecard: Track New Jersey's gun control legislation
Star-Ledger, June 25, 2013  
The state Assembly on Monday gave final approval to three more gun-related bills, sending them on to Gov. Chris Christie’s desk.
That leaves 12 bills waiting to be acted on by Christie, and many more that have not made it all the way through the legislative process.
Here’s a list of where each gun bill that has made it through at least one house of the Legislature stands.
Passed by both houses and on governor’
s desk
A3668: Bars state pension fund from investing in companies that manufacture or sell assault firearms for civilian use
A3687: Bans those on the federal terrorist watch list from buying guns
A3717: Requires state to submit data on those who should be barred from owning guns to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
A3796: Gives those who possess illegal guns 180 days to dispose of them
A3797: Requires New Jersey enforcement agencies to report information on lost, stolen and discarded guns to federal databases
A3583/1613: Establishes School Security Task Force
A3788: Turns state regulation that firearms owner info is not public information into a state law
A3659: Bans the .50-caliber rifle — the most powerful weapon available to civilians
S1279: Upgrades penalty for unlawfully transferring a firearm to an underage person; permits transfer for instruction and training
S2715: Requires Department of Education to prepare and distribute pamphlets on how parents can limit a child’s exposure to media violence
S2720: Clarifies that information concerning the total number of firearms purchaser identification cards and permits to purchase a handgun issued in a municipality are public records
S2804: Makes unlawful possession of firearms a first-degree crime; increases mandatory minimum sentences under the "Graves Act"
Passed by both houses but changed slightly; needs new vote in Senate
S2723: Sweeney’s "centerpiece" bill on gun permits that would embed firearm purchase permit information on driver’s licenses instead of separate paper permits, create a system for instant background checks, require gun buyers to show they completed a safety training course and stiffen penalties for letting guns slip into the hands of minors. Four bills passed by the Assembly (A3510, A1683, A3645 and A3748) have been incorporated into this bill
S2430: Declares violence a public health crisis and establishes "Study Commission on Violence"
S2468: Allows impounding motor vehicles if driver unlawfully has a gun
S2719: Enhances penalties for gun trafficking firearms offenses
Passed Senate but not Assembly
S1133: Requires presumption that any bail paid by defendant charged with certain weapons offenses be paid in the form of full cash
S2725: Makes it a third-degree crime to possess air or spring gun for an unlawful purpose
S2801: Increases statute of limitations for prosecution of theft of firearm from five to 10 years
Passed Assembly but not Senate *
A1329: Reduces maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds
A588: Bans possession of ammunition capable of penetrating body armor
A1116: Establishes 180-day prohibition on purchase of handgun for those convicted of failing to report loss or theft of firearm
A1387: Permits municipalities to establish weapons-free zones around schools and public facilities
A3754: Requires firearms seizure when mental health professional determines patient poses threat of harm to self or others
ACR180: Urges president and Congress to enact legislation on stricter firearms control measures
AR143: Expresses support for attorney general’s gun buyback program
A2692 ("Christopher’s Law"): Provides court with option of ordering juvenile delinquents to receive interactive instruction in preventing gang involvement and gang and youth violence
* Does not include bills incorporated into S2723.
Source: Office of Legislative Services

Gun Owners Score Big in the Senate
Sell-out amendment falls three votes short of Schumer’s goal of 70
GOA, June 24, 2013
Sometimes victory is relative. But that doesn't make it any less definitive.
Today, beginning at 5:30 pm (EST), only 67 Senators -- three short of Chuck Schumer’s 70-vote target -- voted to shut off debate on the anti-gun Hoeven-Corker-Leahy amnesty amendment. It is noteworthy that only 15 Republicans voted for cloture (to end debate), while an overwhelming majority of GOP Senators voted against it (that is, most Republicans wanted to keep the filibuster in place).
The Chuck Schumers of the world did everything in their power to get the 70-vote threshold which they had predicted -- and which became a floor for the number of votes necessary in order for anti-gunners to avoid embarrassment. They gave Nevada Senators an unending open-ended sky's-the-limit program to tout tourism in Las Vegas.
They gave Vermont Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders $1.5 billion in social spending in order to buy his vote.
And so it went. One Senator after another after another secured irrelevant buy-out amendments as the price for selling out. It was ObamaCare 2.0.
But that wasn't enough.
By falling short of their 70-vote goal, Schumer & Co. in effect admitted that the bill would limp out of the Senate without any momentum going into the House. Coupled with our successful efforts to revitalize the Hastert Rule in the House, anti-gun immigration reform is on track to being dead for the year because House Speaker Boehner has said he will not pass it with largely Democratic support.
Does that mean we can declare victory and go home? No. As usual, you don't pop the cork until they bang the gavel. You keep fighting.
And to that end, gun owners should express their dissatisfaction with Senators who voted for the amendment. You can go here to see how your Senators voted.
As sweet as the 67-27 vote was, it means that our job is not over.
Schumer was unable to break through his 70-vote target because he was so intent upon slamming this bill down our throats that he scheduled his vote when many of his supporters could not make it. If we REALLY want to continue raining on Schumer's parade, we're going to have to repeat our achievement on Wednesday, when the Senate votes on cloture on the substitute which contains the sell-out provisions -- and on cloture on the whole bill itself.
This means we need to flip a couple of votes, and Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Roger Wicker (R-MS) -- both of whom both voted for the sell-out -- are the most obvious potential pick-ups.


First-Time Buyers Bolster Gun Makers, Retailers
By Matthew Rocco Published June 14, 2013 Fox Business
Firearms have been flying off shelves across the country amid calls from some lawmakers to increase gun control, and manufacturers are benefiting from the surge in demand.
But retailers and makers of firearms aren’t simply relying on returning gun owners looking to make another purchase. They’re also getting a boost from first-time buyers, thanks to an increasing number of people interested in firearms.
Firearms sales have soared recently amid concerns over increased regulations. Some states, including New York and Connecticut, have passed stricter laws that ban certain firearms and cap magazine capacities in the wake of last year’s school shooting in Newtown, Conn. The U.S. Senate struck down an effort to pass gun-control legislation related to background checks and a ban on some semi-automatic rifles.
On Thursday, Smith & Wesson (SWHC) said it expects fourth-quarter results to surpass previous expectations, now calling for a 38% increase in sales compared to the year-ago period. Sturm, Ruger & Co. (RGR) reported first-quarter earnings in April, saying its profit raced 53% higher and sales were up 39%.
Popular hunting and outdoor retailer Cabela’s (CAB) has also reported a significant benefit from firearm sales. Same-store sales climbed 24% in the first quarter but were up 9% excluding firearm sales.
KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst Scott Hamann said Thursday in a research note to clients that despite Smith & Wesson’s rosier outlook, “we believe the results are not entirely surprising given the heightened level of political rhetoric during the quarter (culminating with a failed Senate vote on gun control on April 17) combined with significant restocking requirements in the depleted retail channel.”
For now, manufacturers and retailers are enjoying the extra business, especially from those who are new to firearms.
In its annual Firearms Retailer Survey Report, the National Shooting Sports Foundation said there is an upward trend in the number of first-time buyers purchasing firearms, while more women are frequenting gun shops and ranges.
“There’s no question that the number of people becoming interested in owning firearms for personal protection or shooting sports is growing,” said Mike Bazinet, Director of Public Affairs at the NSSF.
Retailers surveyed by the NSSF, a trade association for the firearms industry, reported that 25.8% of their customers were first-time firearm buyers in 2012. That reflects a slight improvement over the prior year’s 25% but a large jump from 20.8% in 2010.
And it hasn’t been a recent phenomenon, although recent sales show acceleration in the number of newcomers. Bazinet noted that background checks through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System—the industry’s best gauge of overall demand—have been on the upswing for more than a decade.
Background checks have soared in recent years, and this year is on pace to be the strongest. January set a monthly record with nearly 2.5 million background checks, while checks eased a bit in April and May. Over the first five months of the year, more than 10.1 million background checks have gone through the system, compared to 19.5 million in all of 2012.
“A lot of people have said that fewer people are buying more guns. That’s certainly not the experience our retailers are reporting or what we see in the NICS checks,” Bazinet said, adding that gun ranges are busier than ever.
Mark Malkowski, President and CEO of Connecticut-based Stag Arms, said his company has seen a “big increase in first-time buyers” during the last five years or so. He added that AR-15 rifles, which Stag Arms manufactures, are “turning into a staple” for those starting a collection of firearms.
“It’s one of those rifles that you have to have,” he said.
And next week, Stag Arms expects to begin shipping a rimfire version of its AR-15 in Connecticut, after the state passed a ban on semi-automatic rifles that covered centerfire rifles.
Bazinet also noted that retailers are doing more to expand their services, such as holding training programs and events for female shooters. Social media has also given firearms enthusiasts an easy way to share their experiences at the range or purchasing a firearm.
The NSSF survey show that, for the third year in a row, the number of female customers continued to rise. For 2012, 78.6% of retailers said more women came to their stores versus the prior year, compared to 72.8% in 2011 and just 61.1% in 2010.
According to Malkowski, after seeing traditionally low participation from the demographic, the company is “seeing a swing” to the upside.
Bazinet said the NSSF has found that women, right from the start, are better shots than men who are new to firearms. Women are less likely to have preconceived notions about shooting technique, while men may be tempted to do their best imitation of Michael Westen from “Burn Notice.”
“They don’t make the same mistakes men do just because they saw someone shoot in a movie,” he said.

Rible-Dancer-Bucco-McHose-Webber Bill Banning Release of Gun Owner Info Approved in Assembly
April, 23, 2013
Legislation prohibiting the public release of the identities of firearms purchaser identification card holders and handgun purchaser permit holders was unanimously approved by the General Assembly today. Currently, access to such personal information is prohibited by regulation, but could be obtained under New Jersey’s Open Public Records Law (OPRA).
If enacted, the Rible-Dancer-Bucco-McHose-Webber bill, A-3788, would prohibit such access as it codifies the regulation established by the state Attorney General.
“Releasing personal information about those who have firearms permits or licenses puts law enforcement officers and law-abiding citizens in harm’s way,” said Rible, R-Monmouth and Ocean, who is a retired police officer. “This legislation will put into law that obtaining such information is restricted to those in law enforcement or the courts. The current regulation addressing permit-holder information can be changed without legislative approval. This bill is an important step in safeguarding a person’s right to privacy and protecting them from potential predators.”
“This legislation has nothing to do with gun control, but with protecting law-abiding citizens and ensuring their safety,” said Dancer, R-Ocean, Burlington, Middlesex and Monmouth. “It is quite possible that citizens can be targeted by thieves, as could victims of domestic violence who possess a firearm to defend themselves. This bill will legally remove the ambiguity in the current regulation and respect that releasing such information must have a legitimate purpose.”
The bill also exempts personal identifying information submitted to obtain a license to hunt with a firearm from the Open Public Records Act.
“The bipartisan and overwhelming legislative support for this bill recognizes the value we place on personal and privileged information,” said Bucco, R-Morris and Somerset. “Law-abiding citizens, especially victims of domestic violence or abuse, will now be afforded the safeguards they deserve. They should not be exposed to the risk of further danger or harassment by their abusers. Protecting the public should always be our number one goal.”
The Senate unanimously passed this legislation on May 30, specifying the restricted confidential information as a person’s name, address and Social Security number.
“Citizens who have legally obtained a permit to own a gun should have their right to privacy respected,” said McHose, R- Sussex, Warren and Morris. “Releasing this kind of information without a legitimate purpose has the real possibility of putting innocent, law-abiding people in harms way and makes them vulnerable. Making this personal information accessible to anyone besides those involved in law enforcement is an invitation to those with a criminal intent.”
“Citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights deserve to be protected from harassment and snooping,” said Webber, R-Morris, Essex and Passaic. “Just because gun owners take affirmative steps to ensure their own safety and security doesn’t mean they give up their right to privacy. This bill protects that privacy, and I am proud to support it.”
In the aftermath of December’s tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, a Rockland County newspaper published a story that included a map listing the names and addresses of people who have pistol permits. The information was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. A week after the story ran, the Rockland County sheriff held a news conference to discuss how inmates were approaching law enforcement officers telling them they knew where they lived.


NJ GUN GROUPS WARN ASSEMBLY DEMOCRATS ON ILLEGAL VOTE-RIGGING
Association of NJ Rifle & Pistol Clubs, April, 24, 2013
A coalition of Garden State gun owner and sportsmen's groups today served legal notice on Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, warning that impending action on several gun bills would be invalid and subject to legal challenge as a result of illegal vote-rigging in an Assembly committee earlier this month.
The warning cites a serious violation of legislative rules by the Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee at a June 6th hearing. When the Democrats' self-described "centerpiece" of their gun bill package (A4182) failed during a roll-call vote, the committee chairman aborted the roll-call after 9 of 11 votes had been cast, in violation of rules requiring that voting must be completed once it has started before any further action can be taken.
Rather than completing the vote as required, the chairman simply left the roll-call unfinished and instead announced he was holding the bill, and Republican committee members objected. In further violation of Assembly Rules, the bill was then transferred to a different committee (the Assembly Budget Committee) where the outcome could be better controlled by Democrats. The Budget Committee voted to release the bill 11 days later. A YouTube video of the unlawfully aborted June 6th roll-call vote is available here.
In a joint statement by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, and the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, the groups said "Vote-rigging doesn't get any more blatant than this. These legislators ignored their own rules when they couldn't get their way in one committee, obstructing the bill's defeat and relocating it to another committee for a "do-over" vote where the fix was in. This outrageous abuse of power will result in the ultimate demise of this legislation." The three groups collectively represent over one million gun owners and sportsmen.
New Jersey Assembly Rule 12:3 provides that once a roll-call vote begins, no further action can be taken until the results are announced. Rule 10:6 requires that committees follow this mandate. Rule 10:22 states that any bills passed by a committee in violation of the rules are forbidden from being considered for third reading or final action, which would invalidate any action taken on this legislation today by the full Assembly.
The legislation at issue (A4182) is a 42-page omnibus gun bill that restricts only law-abiding citizens and has no impact on criminals. It throws out existing firearms ID cards and replaces them with either a privacy-invading driver license endorsement or other form of ID; suspends Second Amendment rights without proof of firearms training; imposes a 7-day waiting period for handgun purchases by licensed gun owners; ends private sales between licensed gun owners; and effectively creates a registry of ammunition purchases and long gun sales by licensed gun owners.
Although Democratic leaders have described the bill as a "national model," legislators from both parties have questioned the purpose of the bill and expressed serious concerns about it. Gun owners have universally condemned the legislation.
TEXT OF APPLICABLE ASSEMBLY RULES
Assembly Rule 12:3: After a roll call vote has commenced, no motion is in order until the results are announced by the Speaker.
Assembly Rule 10:6: Each committee may adopt rules for its operation and conduct of business, including rules governing the operation and conduct of any subcommittee, provided the rules are consistent with these rules.
Assembly Rule 10:22. Bills and resolutions reported by any committee in violation of these rules shall not be considered for third reading or final action.

A Word of Advice for Reloaders
Shooting Wire, June 24, 2013
Editor's Note: Shooters are a conversational group. We regularly share "insider tips" or insights among our groups of friends and/or associates. Today, we're sharing an insider tip from one of the guys we consider a go-to when we need the "skinny" on shooting topics, Ed Head. Here's Ed's insight on an incident in which no one (fortunately) was injured- but led to his discovery of something anyone who reloads handgun ammo should know.
Insight From Ed Head
Recently, an incident where a primer tube on a Dillon progressive reloader blew up was brought to my attention. The tube contained the blast and the indicator rod shot straight up and was embedded in the ceiling. No one was hurt.
Subsequent investigation revealed that a mixed lot of .45ACP brass was being loaded with the usual large pistol primers being used. However, mixed into this brass - range salvage I believe - were a number of .45ACP cases with small pistol primers.
Apparently, attempting to prime a small pistol primer pocket .45ACP case with a large pistol primer caused the detonation of the primer tube. I was surprised to hear about this - after all, .45ACP cases have large pistol primer pockets, right?
Wrong.
A little investigation revealed that Federal, Winchester, CCI, and perhaps others, are making brass cased value line .45ACP ammo with with small primers. One industry source told me:
"Federal Champion is currently manufacturing value-priced .45 ACP with small pistol primers. This ammunition is non-catalog items and sold to retail outlets who request a less-expensive option (such as Walmart).
The smaller pistol primers meet this valued-priced requirement in both material and manufacturing savings. But the usage of these smaller primers do not change the ballistics by much.
The bottom line is that these small pistol primer Federal Champion .45 ACP are loaded for promotional, value-priced purposes.
However, the brass manufactured to our quality standards. It's great brass, when loaded with the correct-sized primer that it's intended for.
Please note, Federal Premium .45 ACP and the many other Federal .45 ACP products are all still loaded with the typical large pistol primers."
Obviously, all safety precautions should be taken when reloading. My source added:
"BE SAFE BY KNOWING YOUR COMPONENTS AND RECIPES.
1. Sort your brass! Don't mix!
2. Load larger primers in large primers pocketed .45 ACP Brass.
3. Load small primers in small primer pocketed .45 ACP Brass.
4. Do not resize primer pockets."
As always, be alert, pay attention to what you are doing and don't assume anything.
These days, with ammo and brass being hard to come by, it's more important than ever to check the origin and quality of components. If someone gives you a bag of brass, you find brass on the ground, or purchase it in a plastic bag from the local gun shop, I would advise you look at it very critically.


Gun owner targeted with 'no-knock' raid
Patriot Update, June, 23, 2013
 A Texas citizen is asking a state appeals court to decide whether police are justified in launching a no-knock raid on a home they want to search simply because they believe there is a gun inside.
“Whatever the issue might be, whether it’s mass surveillance, no-knock raids, or the right to freely express one’s views about the government, we’ve moved into a new age in which the rights of the citizenry are being treated as a secondary concern by the White House, Congress, the courts and their vast holding of employees, including law enforcement officials,” said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, which is defending John Gerard Quinn.
The controversy arose after police officers in Texas executed a no-knock raid on Quinn’s home, based on their belief there was an AK-47 rifle inside.
In its appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the Rutherford Institute pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a no-knock entry is justified only with a specific warrant or if officers believe someone might be hurt or evidence might be lost.
“Here, the police based their no-knock entry solely upon their suspicion that the occupants of the residence may have been in possession of a rifle,” the appeal explains. “That the suspected possession of weapons was the only ‘justification’ for use of a no-knock entry in this case is undisputed.”
The petition asks that the court establish that an individual’s exercise of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm in his residence does not deprive him of his Fourth Amendment protection against “no-knock” searches.
Quinn’s home had been “stormed by a SWAT team that failed to knock and announce its entry in keeping with police protocol for non-violent situations,” Rutherford said.
“Although the SWAT team had been granted a search warrant on the basis of leads provided by informants that Quinn’s son may have been involved in drug activity, the warrant did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry.”
The SWAT team forcibly broke into Quinn’s home after he had gone to bed and proceeded to carry out a search of the premises. The raid resulted in police finding less than one gram of cocaine, which Quinn was charged with possessing.
The appeal also raises other constitutional issues, including a defective answer from a judge to the jury deliberating the case and the inappropriate use of evidence that should have been suppressed.
But on the issue of the gun in the home, the brief argues that the Supreme Court never has held that suspected possession of firearms is sufficient cause, without more, to justify a no-knock entry.
The brief also criticizes earlier court comments about the AK-47.
“The [court] seems to think than an ‘AK-47? rifle is some sort of ‘exceptionally’ dangerous weapon. Actually, despite the faux mystique surrounding that particular type of rifle fostered by popular media, the AK-47 is not uniquely dangerous,” a footnote in the brief explains. “It is the most-used rifle in the world because there are 100 million of them, it is cheap to make and easy to repair, and because it can be chambered for a wide variety of calibers.
“When chambered for .223 caliber … it is no more dangerous than any other .223 caliber rifle such as the AR-15 – the most widely used hunting rifle in the U.S. today,” the footnote says.
“As a gun collector who prudently kept his legally owned collection safely secured in gun vaults, it was altogether possible that Mr. Quinn could have had a large number of guns in his home and no ammunition. The point here is not to argue that ‘possession’ of guns does not roughly or usually equate to possession of ‘working’ guns. The point is: an AK-47 is no more powerful – and is indeed less powerful – than many common hunting rifles.
“The police, being weapons experts, obviously knew this – but testified about the ‘dangerous’ nature of this particular gun because they knew the jury would have heard of it in the media and would know about its mystique as the weapon of choice for terrorists around the world. Clever, but misleading.”


Crisis for Youth Shooting, California Controversy Continues, Contempt in Connecticut
Outdoor Wire, June 21, 2013

Today, there's just no way to cleverly seque between three important news items. Having said that, here we go with three stories you may find of concern. We did.
First, has New York Governor Cuomo's SAFE Act killed youth shooting? We've heard from a couple of youth programs that the regulation forbidding the transfer of ammunition by anything other than a direct transfer has, essentially, killed their shooting programs. That's because one of the ways youth shooting programs can keep things affordable is the purchase and direct shipping of ammunition. Putting this additional layer of regulation on ammunition means already cash-strapped programs simply can't operate.
But it doesn't seem all is lost for youth programs-yet. I talked with Steve Miller, the Executive Director of the Youth Sports Shooting Alliance (YSSA) about the problem in New York. While Miller agreed it posed a serious threat, he told me there may still be a way to get youth shooting exempted, along with other organized events.
"Had a conversation with Kevin Bruen, Assistant Counsel of the New York State Police about this very topic on Monday," Miller told me, "the provision of the NY SAFE ACT which prohibits direct shipment of ammunition to private citizens, groups or organizations does not come into effect until January, 2014."
Prior to that, Miller told me, there is a "rule writing component" to the law which MAY exlude youth programs -and others- from requiring ammo to be shipped through a licensed dealer.
So what's Miller's take on the chances? "Based on my conversation, I'd think that supportive comments of this proposed exclusion would be effective in allowing youth programs to take full advantage of industry offers for special pricing."
Hope so. One of the key requirements of those deals is usually - you guessed it- direct shipment of deeply-discounted ammunition.
We'll keep watching this one.
And in California, our friends at Western Outdoor News are keeping their eyes open, but not "keeping their countenance" when it comes to governmental moves that look positive, but when examined more closely may have more downside that benefit-especially when it comes to public access to public lands.
WON's Bill Karr told me about the use of portions of the Endangered Species Act to do "land planning" for those species in trouble. There's one small problem according to Karr when it comes to the plans for California: the plans to list the Sierra Nevada yellow legged frog and the Yosemite toad would encompass a "critical habitat" of nearly two million acres of California lands now used for fishing, hunting, timber harvest, livestock and, yes, public recreation.
"Some of the areas include Rock Creek Lake, Mt. Tom, the Bishop Creek drainage and Onion Valley. Other areas are in major recreation areas on the west slope of the Sierra," Karr wrote. "Already, they have killed trout in high elevation lakes and stopped trout plants in many other waters as so-called 'protection' for frogs, when every single scientific paper and report shows that the decline of frogs is worldwide, caused by Chytrid disease. According to Wikipedia, Chytridiomycosis has impacted 30 percent of the amphibians around the world, and has led to dramatic population declines and even extinction in North/Central/South America, Australia, Dominica and Montserrat in the Carribbean. Trout are not to blame!"As you can see, Karr's working to rally California sportsmen -again- in an attempt to stop the proceedings.
Again, we're watching this one as well.
And in Connecticut, National Shooting Sports Foundation's Larry Keane has taken on the governor and supporters of their onerous anti-gun legislation. He's taken an in-depth look at Connecticut's business outlook, and it wasn't sunny -outside the "hundreds of jobs" produced by the state's now apparently unwelcome gun companies since 2011.
Keane penned a scorching evaluation of the economic situation and Governor Dannel Malloy's apparent disregard for the contributions of the state's gun companies that bears reading.
So here you go....
As Connecticut's Economy Languishes and its Firearms Makers are Lambasted, Texas Gov. Perry Comes A-Courting
The economic report card for the State of Connecticut is in and the results are not good.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that Connecticut was last in the nation in economic growth in 2012, the only state where the combined value of goods and services produced (GDP) was lower than in 2011. In fact, total state GDP fell a quarter of a billion dollars last year, the same amount it fell in 2011.
On the heels of that report, the Manufacturing Alliance of Connecticut released the results of a survey that revealed Connecticut manufacturers predict a bleak outlook for the state's economy and the health of their industries. The survey reported that a majority of the state's manufacturers have been recruited to expand or relocate to another state and that they would consider doing so, most citing "government attitude" as the reason.
We see a direct connection between the state's nation-trailing GDP performance and the attitude of state government. So does Texas Gov. Rick Perry. He is coming to Connecticut to see if he can recruit Connecticut companies to relocate to the Lone Star State - our firearms manufacturers based here foremost among them.
Connecticut's firearms and components manufacturers have been the rare exception to the state's dismal economic performance in recent years. Colt, Mossberg, Stag Arms, Ammunition Storage Components, to name four such companies, have added hundreds of jobs in recent years and, as a result, have contributed more in local and state taxes, even as other industries have cut back and moved facilities and jobs out of state.
So, as Gov. Dannel Malloy and the leadership of the Connecticut General Assembly earlier this year considered new gun-control legislation in the wake of the tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, we expected that we would have the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution and to lend our expertise to the proceedings. In the end, we were dismissed and locked out. A secretly and hastily-assembled package of new restrictions was passed - not a single provision of which would have done anything to prevent the murderous actions of that mentally disturbed and socially isolated young man. We are sorry to say that, but it is true.
Emotions ran high. We understand. But underpinning these actions was the same attitude toward business that the state's manufacturers reported in the survey. The Governor took the opportunity to further show his disdain for our industry by vilifying us in the national media. Given the opportunity to explain or apologize, he doubled down.
Gov. Perry understands all this. So he is coming to Connecticut. So too, is South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard, who next week will also be recruiting these same manufacturers for his state.
Gov. Malloy is said to be livid at this effrontery. He will deny it, or again go on the offensive, but the situation is of Gov. Malloy's own making and the majority of the General Assembly from both political parties is equally responsible. Gov. Perry sees an opportunity to bring good-paying jobs to a state with a proven record of economic growth. Our manufacturers will conduct the required due diligence and make their own decisions - but they are listening and are very interested.

CCRKBA Blasts Bloomberg Bus Campaign for Calling Alleged Boston Bomber "Gun Violence Victim"
Outdoor Wire, June 19, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA - Naming an alleged Boston Marathon bomber as a victim of gun violence because he was shot dead by police shows just how morally bankrupt Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun "No More Names" bus tour really is, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
At a Tuesday rally in Concord, N.H., event organizers read the names of shooting victims since the Sandy Hook attack last Dec. 14. Among the names of the dead was Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the marathon bombing suspect. When his name was read, people in the audience declared, "He's a terrorist," according to published reports.
"This is so far beyond insulting, I'm not sure there's a word in the dictionary to describe it," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "It clearly demonstrates that Michael Bloomberg's gun prohibition effort will exploit even the names of dead terror suspects to further his anti-gun agenda. That's a new low that I didn't think was possible."
Tsarnaev was fatally shot by police a few nights after the marathon bombing. His brother was wounded and is now in police custody.
"If Bloomberg and his Mayors Against Illegal Guns are willing to make a martyr of a terror suspect to push their agenda," Gottlieb observed, "it raises questions about the legitimacy of their campaign to disarm America, one legislative step at a time. Next thing you know, they'll be calling Osama bin Laden a victim of gun violence, too.
"Bloomberg is spending millions of dollars to push his vision of America onto the backs of every other citizen," he stated. "For some reason, he thinks his billions give him the right to dictate how much soda you can drink, what you do with your garbage and how you exercise your Second Amendment rights. Now it's clear the gun prohibition lobby, with Bloomberg in the lead, has no conscience and no shame. And these people want to dictate morality to us?"



14 Year Old Arrested For Wearing NRA Shirt May Go To Jail
Freedom Outpost, June 16, 2013

What kind of a system puts a 14 year old kid in jail for a t-shirt? This has to be one of the most bizarre cases of the year. Jared Marcum was arrested at Logan Middle School back in April. His only apparent crime seems to be in his choice of wardrobe for the day. Fox News reported on April 23rd:
The teen’s lawyer, Ben White, says school administrators maintain that Marcum disrupted the educational process. He says Marcum was exercising his right to free speech and wasn’t disruptive.
Logan police arrested Marcum at the school last Thursday after he refused a teacher’s order to remove the shirt. White says prosecutors are reviewing the case to determine whether to file charges.
Marcum has said that he was arrested on charges of disrupting an educational process and obstructing an officer, though White said Monday that the Logan County prosecutor’s office is reviewing the case to decide whether to proceed.
Marcum wore the same shirt to school Monday. It displays the NRA logo and a hunting rifle.
Other students across Logan County wore similar shirts, which display the NRA logo and a hunting rifle, to school in a show of support for 14-year-old Jared Marcum, said his lawyer Ben White.
WOWK 13 Charleston, Huntington WV News, Weather, Sports
Whatissoterriblywrongwiththisshirt?Itisnotviolent.Therearenoskullsbeingimploded.Thereisnoblood.Itissimplyashirtthatspeakstruthaboutthe2ndAmendment.WakeupAmerica."
What is so terribly wrong with this shirt? It is not violent. There are no skulls being imploded. There is no blood. It is simply a shirt that speaks truth about the 2nd Amendment. Wake up America.
This is one of those cases where you would think that common sense would eventually prevail. You would think that arresting officers, their superiors and prosecutors would have eventually come to the conclusion that this was a mistake. Oh no. Not in Logan County West Virginia. They not only arrested this juvenile, they now intend to prosecute him. Local CBS affiliate WTRF reports:
Suspended and arrested after refusing to change his NRA shirt. Today, 14-year-old Jared Marcum appeared before a judge and was officially charged with obstructing an officer.
A $500 fine and up to a year in jail, that’s the penalty that Jared could face, now that a judge has allowed the prosecution to move forward with its obstructing an officer charge against him.
“Me, I’m more of a fighter and so is Jared and eventually we’re going to get through this,” Jared’s father Allen Lardieri said. ”I don’t think it should have ever gotten this far.”
The Logan County Police Department initially claimed that the at-the-time 8th grade Logan Middle School student was arrested for disturbing the education process, obstructing an officer and Lardieri says that officers even went as far as threatening to charge Jared with making terroristic threats.
“In my view of the facts, Jared didn’t do anything wrong,” Ben White, Jared’s attorney said. ”I think Officer Adkins could have done something differently.”
Do you think he could have done something differently sir? I’d say that is an understatement. This is an 8th grade kid and Logan County, WV is making this out to be something that it isn’t.
We now live in a country where our children are being made examples of in order to destroy the concept of the 2nd Amendment and paint it evil. Has anyone else picked up on a pattern here?
Kids are getting suspended for cap guns, pop tarts and pencils and it’s all in the spirit of zero tolerance policies. Anyone who does not think that the leftist agenda has infected this country is probably a leftist themselves, or at least a useful idiot.
Whether they actually send a 14 year old kid away for a year, or not, remains to be seen. I would hope that it does not go that far.
But the problem is that it has already gone way too far. A 14 year old gets arrested for proudly wearing a Pro-2nd-Amendment shirt. Meanwhile some of his peers are busy making babies through unprotected sex, lining up to join the boy scouts to take part in massive gay orgies on camping trips, doing whatever the hot designer drug is this week and stealing cars that they are not old enough to drive.
This is the land of the free of course. This country has 5% of the world population and boasts 25% of the world prison population. It’s absolute fact. Look it up.
I will be a little surprised but not totally shocked if they send this kid to juvenile detention or some sort of boot camp.
What the **** is wrong with this country? And why the **** isn’t anyone rallying to stick up for this kid? Pardon my asterisks.
How far do they have to push us until we finally start to push back? None of us wants this but they have crossed so many lines that they are about to officially back us into a corner.
If that happens there is only one direction that we can go.


Cops even taking muskets Illinois veteran had to fight for return of antiques
Patriot Update, June 15, 2013

Gun control enthusiasts have frequently mocked Second Amendment supporters by saying they only have the right to a musket, which was the weapon of choice at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted.
However, now lawmakers have taken to even confiscating these weapons.
The Daily Herald reports Arthur Lovi, a resident of Arlington Heights, Ill., who is also an Air Force veteran, was speaking to a VA psychiatrist about tragedies in his life, including the loss of his wife of 33 years.
Although she had died nine years before, Lovi said the wound from her death was still raw. Even to this day, he remained somewhat bitter after a doctor incorrectly diagnosed her as having a cold after she complained of being tired and bruising easily. The following day another doctor informed her she had leukemia, and she died a few weeks later.
“I’ll have hard feelings about it until the day I die,” Lovi told the Daily Herald. “Not that a day would make a difference, but maybe it would have. I’ll never know.”
Followings his appointment with the psychiatrist, the therapist contacted the police to tell them Lovi had made a threat against the doctor who made the first diagnosis. However, she went on to tell them she did not consider him to be a threat, but simply did so because it was part of her job.
Th report resulted in several officers showing up at his house later that night and confiscating his three antique firearms, which included a musket that was over 100 years old.
According to Lovi, two days later he asked about his firearms, and an officer came to his house to talk about it. He said after the officer turned the conversation to his wife, he became upset. The officer demanded Lovi undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Following the evaluation, it was determined he was not a danger to himself or others.
In spite of the clean bill of health, it was only after Lovi obtained a lawyer two months later that his firearms were returned. Lovi has since filed a lawsuit against the Arlington Heights Police Department alleging one of the weapons was damaged and citing emotional damages as well as violations of his Second and Fourth Amendment rights.
Lovi’s case is just the latest of a disturbing trend of government officials using mental health claims as an excuse to strip law-abiding citizens of the Second Amendment rights.
After the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Democrats attempted to pass a series of federal gun laws that critics say would have done nothing to prevent the shooting.
In both the Sandy Hook shooting as well as other mass shootings, including the Aurora theater shooting in Colorado and Virginia Tech, the shooters had a history of mental illness. However, in each of these instances health care officials did not think the individuals displayed sufficient signs of violence to report their patients to authorities.
This prompted calls from lawmakers, including Republicans who are normally opposed to gun control, to call for an examination over how to prevent the mentally ill from having access to firearms.
At face value, the issue resonates with the American people, primarily because for many the face of Jack Nicholson in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” comes to mind when they think of the mentally ill.
However, the problem is government officials often have a far different definition of who is mentally ill and should not have access to firearms than that of the average American.
“I think the gun control crowd, including legislators, are going to keep pushing on that area because they have successfully confused a lot of people as to whether it is a valid issue or not and whether it is useful for law enforcement,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. “As long as they can flummox people I think they’ll continue pushing. They’re very opportunistic and will do whatever it takes to move the ball forward for them. They’re pretty good about that.”
WND recently reported that under Operation Vigilant Eagle, the Obama administration has performed surveillance on military veterans who express views critical of the government.
Attorney John Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute, said the NSA is using its snooping authority to gather data on Americans, including posts to various website to provide a pretext for a later diagnosis of mental illness against veterans.
“The FBI and the Secret Service are showing up to request an interview to question specific Internet posts the veteran has placed on websites such as Facebook,” Whitehead explained, noting that the agencies are looking for “anti-Obama views that can be interpreted to reflect psychological problems of sufficient seriousness to disqualify the veteran from ever owning a firearm.”
The Veteran’s Administration has also begun taking action to declare returning veterans mentally incompetent and threatened to remove their decision-making authority.
In February, Investors.com reported a complaint by Michael Connelly, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation, over veterans getting letters from the Veterans Administration informing them they have been declared mentally incompetent.
The vet must provide evidence to the contrary within 60 days. If the vet desires a hearing, he or she must inform the Veterans Administration within 30 days.
“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2),” the letter reads.
Gun confiscation using a broad definition of mental illness is not just a federal tactic; several states have also done so for mental conditions that most Americans would not consider to be a dangerous threat.
In New York, following the passage of the gun control legislation in response to the Sandy Hook shooting, the legislature passed a law prohibiting the mentally ill from owning firearms.
Under the state’s mental health provisions, law-enforcement officials confiscated the guns of David Lewis after they discovered he was on anti-anxiety medication. Following widespread media attention, local officials returned Lewis’ firearms an announced they had made a “mistake.”
Earlier this year California passed a bill allocating $24 million for officials to confiscate firearms from those who legally are not allowed to have them, including those who have received intensive treatment for a mental disorder.
The situation is even more alarming when considering exactly who is defined as being mentally ill.
The American Psychiatric Association’s new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has just expanded the list of mental disorders by declaring normal human actions and emotions as mental illness.
For instance, a child throwing a temper tantrum is now considered to be suffering from “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.” If a person is suffering grief over the death of a loved one he now has a “major depressive disorder,” while a person who eats more than he needs at a buffet restaurant now suffers from “binge eating disorder.”
Pratt said Republican lawmakers seem to believe that by calling for restricting the mentally ill from owning firearms they are standing for Second Amendment rights while also promoting public safety. However, he says they are sadly mistaken if they think they deflect the issue from the ultimate goal of leftists, which is gun confiscation.
“If they think this is going to deflect from the front of gun control they are actually walking right into a trap,” Pratt said. “It is as if they were the fly listening to the spider inviting them to come into his parlor.”
He said the media hypes the mental health issue.
“I don’t think it is an issue, I think it’s phony. Psychiatry is not an exact science,” Pratt explained. “It cannot predict with any certainty if someone is going off to do something violent. The people who have committed these mass murders generally don’t have any kind of a record of prior violent acts.
“It’s an extremely irrelevant issue, and conservatives make a big mistake by jumping on the mental health bandwagon. It’s not the first time we have used the enemy’s weapons and we pay for it every time.”

Texas Gov. Perry to court gun manufacturers in Connecticut, New York
Fox News,  June 16, 2013
Texas Gov. Rick Perry will travel to Connecticut and New York this week to meet with gun manufacturers in concerted effort to convince them to set up shop in the Lone Star State.
Perry will tour gun manufacturer facilities and other businesses, including Connecticut's Mossberg & Sons and Colt's Manufacturing, one of the nation's oldest gun manufacturers, the Hartford Courant reported.
A number of gun makers in Connecticut have said they are looking into leaving after the state passed some of the toughest gun laws in the country, a response to last year’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in which 20 children and six educators were gunned down.
Perry spokeswoman Lucy Nashed told the Connecticut Post the governor plans to court gun manufacturers and other businesses by pitching Texas as a business-friendly environment.
"There are some firearm companies that are looking to make a move since the Connecticut Legislature passed some more regulations on the industry," Nashed told the paper. "We've been reaching out to them via letters and the governor's talked on the phone to some of them. This is something he's been doing for a long time -- talking to companies in different states."
Dennis Veilleux, CEO and president of Colt's Manufacturing Company, said he welcomes Perry’s visit Monday morning.
“While we have been proud to call Connecticut home for 175 years, as we look to future growth we have a responsibility to consider all options that ensure we remain competitive and meet the needs and expectations of our customers,” Veilleux said.
In March, Veilleux closed down his Connecticut factory for a day and bused 400 of his workers to the state Capitol in Hartford so they could personally urge lawmakers not to pass gun control legislation that they say could risk their livelihoods.
Ahead of Perry's trip, TexasOne, a private-public partnership that provides marketing services for the state, launched an ad campaign in Connecticut and New York radio and television markets that touts Texas' job creation climate.
In a radio ad that will play in New York City and Albany, Perry encourages business owners to consider Texas because the state has "no state income tax, fair and predictable regulations, and lawsuit reforms that keep trial lawyers out of your pockets."

Stunning victory for gun rights in Nevada!
GOA, June 14, 2013
You guys did a tremendous job bombarding Governor Brian Sandoval’s office with phone calls, and he has listened to your appeals.
Governor Sandoval vetoed the Universal Background Check bill yesterday, and now, the anti-gun Left is in full-mourning.
The Associated Press reports that, “It is a significant defeat for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun control advocacy group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns [MAIG]. The organization spent hundreds of thousands of dollars working to get the bill passed through to the governor.”
Despite Bloomberg’s fortune, his anti-gun MAIG simply doesn’t have the grassroots behind it.
GOA was joined by other groups on Tuesday, June 4, in asking Nevada gun owners to urge Sandoval to veto the legislation.
The next day, reports the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “2,200 people called his office between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.... Four out of five calls [were] for the veto.”
According to the Journal, this onslaught was one of the chief reasons that the Governor set up a hotline number. His office simply couldn’t get work done as they were being “bombarded by calls from people who want the governor to veto the gun control bill passed by the Legislature.”
Once the Governor set up a hotline number -- and Bloomberg started running ads urging people nationwide to call it -- GOA urged gun owners nationwide (last Friday) to call Sandoval’s office.
As of this past Tuesday, more than 100,000 calls had already been placed to the Governor. And this just underscores how important it is for gun owners to join GOA’s email service.
Every new person you encourage to sign up for our free email alerts or for a new GOA membership gives us a louder voice in Washington and in states across the country!
The Governor was inclined to veto the gun control bill all along, but gun owners can be sure that -- had the poll results gone the other way -- he could have been easily persuaded to bow to Bloomberg’s pressure.
Nevada is a key state as it is home to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) and to “swing vote” Senator Dean Heller (R). Defeating Universal Background Checks in the Silver State -- with overwhelming numbers of callers opposing it -- sends a powerful message from a Purple State, that Americans do NOT want additional gun control!
Thanks to everyone who emailed our alerts ... who made phone calls ... and who registered their opinion with the Governor’s office.
Your activism makes a difference ... and your continued support helps keep us in the fight.
Double-barrel Joe Biden set to jumpstart push for gun control
Meanwhile, at the national level, the Vice President is planning an event where he will push gun control next week.
While he’s keeping the details of the event hush-hush, Biden said, “I personally haven’t given up [efforts at gun control], nor has the President.”
GOA will keep you posted on all the latest news and efforts in Washington to restrict our gun rights.

SWEENEY FID BILL MOVED TO NEW COMMITTEE
Legislation to be considered (yet again) on Monday Morning
NJOA, June 14, 2013
Embarrassed by last week's failure of Senate President Stephen Sweeney's "centerpiece" gun legislation to pass out of the Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee, Democrats have brazenly rigged the system by moving the legislation to a completely different committee -- where they can control the outcome and ensure the bill's passage.
S2723/A4182 is now scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Budget Committee on Monday, June 17 at 10:00 a.m. in Committee Room 11 on the 4th floor of the State House Annex. The committee consists of 8 Democrats and 4 Republicans. Please immediately contact the members of the Assembly Budget Committee listed below and urge them to oppose all anti-gun bills, including this legislation.
The Sweeney FID bill throws out existing FID cards and replaces them with either a privacy-invading driver license endorsement or other form of ID; suspends Second Amendment rights without proof of firearms training; imposes a 7-day waiting period for handgun purchases; ends all private sales; and effectively creates a registry of ammunition purchases and long gun sales. Democrats have touted the bill as a "national model."
In a stunning display of disregard for the rule of law, on June 6th Democrats halted a roll call vote-in-progress on this bill in the Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee, when it became apparent that they did not have enough votes to pass the bill. Rather than complete the roll call as required by legislative rules, chaos and confusion ensued as the committee chairman and staffers simply stopped the vote and huddled in an adjacent room before announcing that they would ignore the vote and "hold" the bill. Republican members of the committee protested the unlawful procedure and argued with the chairman.
The upcoming vote on Monday is proof positive that the game is completely rigged in Trenton . If a vote doesn't go well in one committee, the majority feels at liberty to stop the vote in progress, pretend it never happened, and proceed with a "do-over" in a different committee.


National Rifle Association Highlights Gun Safety Rules
Outdoor Wire, June 13, 2013

FAIRFAX, Va. - In recognition of National Safety Month's goal to educate and influence behaviors on preventable injuries, the National Rifle Association is highlighting its three principal Gun Safety Rules. Whether you own a firearm or not, these fundamental rules of safe gun handling may be applied in any situation where one is present.
Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
This primary rule of gun safety ensures a firearm will not harm you or others if it goes off. Use common sense to dictate the safest direction. When outdoors, point the gun toward the ground or towards the target. If you are indoors, be mindful that a bullet can penetrate ceilings, floors, walls, windows, and doors.
Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
When holding a gun, rest your finger on the trigger guard or along the side of the gun. Do not touch the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Immediately engage the safety device, remove the magazine, open the action and check the chamber(s) when you pick up a gun. If you do not know how to open the action or inspect the chamber(s), leave the gun alone and get help from someone who does.
"Our Gun Safety Rules have been honed over 140 years to be easy to understand and remember, ensuring the highest possible level of firearm safety," said Bill Poole, Managing Director of NRA's Education and Training Division. "They are the first and most crucial step to being a responsible gun owner."

Thompson/Center Arms Issues Safety Recall Notice
Shooting Wire, June 14, 2013
Thompson/Center Arms™ has identified a condition that may cause the safety lever on certain ICON®, VENTURE™ and DIMENSION® rifles to bind, preventing the safety from becoming fully engaged. In this situation, closing the bolt may move the safety to the fire position. The rifle will not fire unless the trigger is pulled. However, a recall has been issued for all ICON, VENTURE and DIMENSION rifles manufactured by Thompson/Center Arms prior to June 13, 2013.

Post Newtown Gun Hysteria Reaches New Height
Minute Man Mews, Jun 10, 2013

The lunacy of the gun grabbers never ceases to amaze me.  Their tendency to completely overreact to even the most innocuous things that could possibly, maybe, kinda-sorta represent a gun is unparalleled by any other group that comes to mind.
If you have been paying any attention to the news since the horrific events at Sandy Hook Elementary, you have seen the stories:
   8 year old boy suspended over pop tart gun
    5 year old girl suspended for talking about her Hello Kitty bubble gun
    two 7 year old boys suspended for pointing pencils at each other pretending they were guns
    6 year old boy gets detention and forced to apologize for bringing Lego character’s tiny toy gun (1? long) on the bus a school board wanting a deaf child to change how he signs his name, Hunter, because it looks similar to a finger gun (actually an older incident, but ridiculous nonetheless) and sadly, there are many more examples which have occurred in just the last six months
Not to be outdone, a California school had to up the ante on the anti-gun propaganda!  On Saturday, June 8, 2013, a public school in Hayward, CA held a “Toy Gun Buyback”.  Yes, you read that right.  Strobridge Elementary School held a toy gun buyback, and in return for their toy guns, they received books.
Why would they do something so ridiculously stupid you ask?  Despite any evidence to support his stance, and actual evidence to the contrary, “Strobridge Elementary Principal Charles Hill said he decided to host the exchange because he thinks playing with toy guns desensitizes children to firearms and increases the chance they’ll use the real ones when they grow up.”
Yes, you heard me right, there is abundant evidence showing there is no link between toy guns and violence. Here is one article on Web MD discussing that.
The bigger problem here is not the seemingly well intentioned, although completely misguided efforts of the principal and those who share the mindset.  The problem is that those people are the ones educating our children and they are instilling them with a completely irrational fear of inanimate objects.  Children have played with toy weapons longer than recorded history.  The difference is that in the past they were also taught to value human life, something sadly lacking in today’s liberal pro-choice dominated public education system.


House Votes To Stop DHS From New Ammo Purchase Contracts
Freedom Outpost, June 10, 2013

Over the past year and a half, the Department of Homeland Security has put forth solicitations for nearly 2 billion rounds of various ammunition over the next few years. Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted to stop DHS from entering into new contracts for purchases of millions more rounds of ammunition until they provide reports to the Congress on the cost and need for ammunition.
“Given this large purchase, the American people and members of Congress rightfully had concerns and questions,” said Representative Mark Meadows (R-NC), who proposed an amendment to the DHS spending bill for 2014 that would require that they submit a report to Congress before following through with their plans to purchase 1.1 billion rounds of ammunition.
“This is a responsible amendment which ensures that Congress and the American people are aware of the necessity and the cost of ammunition prior to entering into new contracts for procurement,” he said.
The Hill reports,
    Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) said the amendment was unnecessary based on his talks with DHS officials. Carter said the department has since admitted that its ammunition needs are not as great as first reported, and said the department is pursuing a bulk purchase to keep the costs down.
    Carter also rejected speculation by some that there are ammunition shortages around the country because DHS is buying it all, and said the Meadows’s language would interrupt the regular procurement process at DHS. But Meadows pointed out that his amendment would not interrupt current Homeland Security contracts to buy ammunition.
    The Meadows language passed late Wednesday night in a 234-192 vote.
Though the measure passed, it will still have to be approved as an amendment to the larger DHS related bill. Once that happens, it would have to be approved by the Senate and then signed by Barack Obama.
In the U.S. Senate, Jim Inhofe (R-OK), introduced a measure called the AMMO (Ammunition Management for More Obtainability) Act. The Ammo Act would make the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on what he believes is a strategic ammunition hoarding by the Obama administration.
The Ammo Act would place limits on purchases.
Inhofe believes the Obama administration will do anything to push its gun control agenda and back in April, he told Laura Ingraham “We just denied everything that this president and the vice president are trying to do. So what are they going to do if they want to, if they want to violate our Second Amendment rights? Do it with ammo.”
Obviously there should be some oversight by the Congress on these kinds of purchases and they should hold the Executive Branch accountable. After all, that’s why there is a balance of powers.



Elementary School Beginning Toy Gun Turn-In Program
Patriot Update, 10 June 2013
Strobridge Elementary Principal Charles Hill has a brilliant idea: he’s holding a toy gun exchange next Saturday in which students of the Hayward, CA school can turn in a toy gun to receive a book and a raffle ticket to win one of four bicycles.
Hill believes that children who play with toy guns may not think real guns are dangerous. “Playing with toy guns, saying ‘I’m going to shoot you,’ desensitizes them, so as they get older, it’s easier for them to use a real gun,” he claims.
Hill was inspired by a school photographer, Horace Gibson, who was upset about the number of police shootings of young people in Oakland.
At Strobridge Elementary Safety Day, a local policeman will demonstrate bicycle and gun safety, (does he get to use a real gun?), while the Alameda County Fire Department will speak about fire safety. Just to show that local governments can do surveillance too, there will be opportunities for the children to be fingerprinted and photographed, with that information transferred to CD’s if it is ever needed for a missing child case.
Hill, defending his take-away program, asserted that police are justifiably afraid when they face armed suspects, and toy guns have been mistaken for real ones.
But Yih-Chau Chang, spokesman for Responsible Citizens of California, said, ”Having a group of children playing cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians is a normal part of growing up.”

Why "Gun Free Zones" Actually Endanger Our Lives
Last Resistence, April 10, 2013

Martin Luther King Jr. said: “Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.”
We live in a world of easy solutions; nobody wants to think for longer than they have to. Over the last several decades, we have had numerous shootings in malls, schools, universities, and places of worship. There has been an extraordinary debate as to what we can do to prevent further mass-shootings.
Those on the Right believe that increasing concealed-carry laws would help to put a stop to future shootings. Liberals want to ban guns altogether. That is not what this article is about, however. This article is about the absurdity of “Gun Free Zones.”
First enacted as a law in the early 1990?s, the “Gun Free Zone” is meant to designate a location as—you guessed it—free of guns. Every day, we see schools, stores, restaurants, universities, and numerous other establishments with ”Gun Free Zone” stickers in their windows. Apparently—and I didn’t know this before—a “Gun Free Zone” sign completely protects you and your business from gun crime. Who knew a piece of paper could do so much?
The apparent intent of the sign is to inform people that there are legal and financial consequences for bringing a gun into a “gun free” establishment. That’s a great idea if everyone who enters your business or school is a good, sane citizen, who is void of malice, and criminal ambitions. However, being that we don’t live in Pleasantville, the idea of established “Gun Free Zones” is idiotic.
Think about it logically:
1. A “Gun Free Zone” sign will generally prevent law-abiding citizens from bringing guns of any kind into the area that has been designated as the zone. So, regular folks will be unarmed.
2. A criminal will not hesitate to bring a gun into a “Gun Free Zone,” because criminals—by definition—have no reason to obey the law.
3. Those intent on committing mass-murder will most likely seek out “Gun Free Zones” as their target destinations, because they know that none of the law-abiding citizens there will be carrying firearms.
4. The death toll in these shootings becomes much worse because those being attacked have no means by which they can defend themselves.
According to John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime:
“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”
Most schools and universities are “Gun Free Zones.” This label does absolutely nothing to protect students and teachers from harm. More likely, it puts students and teachers at a higher risk of injury and death, because they have nothing with which to protect themselves against a shooter. Yet we have Liberals crying out for campus gun control on a regular basis. They have not put an ounce of critical thought into what they are saying.
In reality, “Gun Free Zones” do more harm than good. It is a half-baked and ultimately dangerous solution to a much more complex problem. We might as well blow fairy dust out of our hands, and chant in tongues. It would have the same effect—scratch that—we’d probably be safer.

Thanks Sens. Pryor, Boozman for Supporting Second Amendment
Senators stood up for rights of Arkansans, protected thousands of Arkansas jobs

NSSF, June 10, 2013

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, is airing a radio ad thanking Arkansas Sens. Mark Pryor and John Boozman for voting to protect the Second Amendment rights of Arkansans.
Titled "Standing Strong," the ad is now airing on stations throughout Arkansas. The ad comes on the heels of New York City's anti-gun, billionaire mayor, Michael Bloomberg, running ads attacking Sen. Pryor. The Bloomberg ads have already been the target of widespread criticism from state political leaders, and NSSF is adding its voice to help counter Bloomberg by pointing out that Pryor and Boozman not only protected Arkansans' Second Amendment rights, but also protected thousands of firearms and ammunition industry jobs held by Arkansans. Approximately 1,100 people in the state are directly employed by firearms and ammunition manufacturers.
"Sens. Pryor and Boozman stood up to protect the rights of Arkansas gun owners and the enormous contribution our industry makes to the Arkansas economy," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. "While big money, out-of-state special interests are attacking Sen. Pryor, it is important he knows that the law-abiding gun owners, firearms retailers and manufacturers of Arkansas have his back."
Listen to the ad here.
The text of the ad follows:
Our Senators Mark Pryor and John Boozman have been standing strong for Arkansas. They both recently voted to protect our Second Amendment rights. But now, New York City's billionaire Mayor Mike Bloomberg is paying for ads that attack Mark Pryor because he stood up for the rights of gun owners in the Razorback State.
He's under attack from gun-control groups, but he knows that we need to fix the National Instant Background Check System. Mark Pryor knows that the Senate bill would not have prevented the Newtown tragedy, or any others. He knows we can do better for our kids and he knows to listen to us, not Bloomberg.
We are the 1,100 employees of Arkansas' gun industry, from companies like Remington, Walther Arms and Bresser. We thank Senators Pryor and Boozman for listening to us, and not the out of state protesters and their attack ads.
Thank you, Senators Pryor and Boozman. Call them at 202-224-3121 to say thanks yourself.



Sheriff Arrested For Defending Citizen’s 2nd Amendment Rights
Political Outcast, June 10, 2013

Recently, there have been groups of sheriffs from around the country banding together in their opposition to federal and state gun control efforts. They’re coming together and announcing that they won’t be enforcing any unconstitutional laws that pertain to people’s 2nd Amendment rights.
CNS News had asked Jay Carney what he thought of sheriffs not complying with unconstitutional gun laws. He said that they’d better follow the law. Besides, there’s nothing unconstitutional about any proposed gun laws thus far. So there shouldn’t be anything for sheriffs to complain about.
Well, one Florida sheriff is learning the hard way what happens when a person in a position of authority such as himself stands up for the 2nd Amendment rights of a citizen. Governor Rick Scott had him removed from office, suspended without pay and arrested on trumped up charges relating to “altering and destroying official court documents.”
The New American summarized the situation:
“[T]he case against Sheriff Finch began when Floyd Eugene Parrish was arrested on March 8 for carrying a concealed weapon. Sergeant James Hoagland of the Liberty County Sheriff’s office arrested Parrish after pulling him over and finding a loaded pistol in his pocket. Parrish was booked into a holding cell while administrative officers began working up the processing documents. The court records released to The New American also reveal that after Sergeant Hoagland left the county jail, Sheriff Finch arrived with a member of Parrish’s family and was present while the family member visited with Parrish while the latter was still in the holding cell. Sheriff Finch then allegedly seized the arrest documents, released Parrish, and informed him that no charges would be filed against him.”
Parrish’s arresting officer apparently talked to Sheriff Finch after the (non)incident, and Finch said that he “believed in 2nd Amendment rights.” What exactly was criminal about Parrish carrying a concealed pistol? As far as I know, that’s not even a violation of Florida’s concealed carry laws. But even if it were, the county sheriff can overrule that unconstitutional law.
As soon as Governor Scott found out about this, he replaced Sheriff Finch with Carl Causey, an agent in charge of the Pensacola region of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Causey will be interim sheriff for Liberty County.
So, I guess this is what happens when sheriffs try to protect people’s 2nd Amendment rights. If the arrest was really over the fact that the individual had a concealed gun on him and that’s it, then the arrest was a false one. Sheriff Finch was simply trying to right a wrong, and he gets thrown in jail



PRESS RELEASE FROM NRA-ILA
 NJOA, June 7, 2013
Only weeks after some anti-gun state Senators were caught on a live microphone discussing the need for "confiscation" of firearms after a Senate Budget Committee hearing, their Assembly colleagues fumbled through an embarrassing hearing this week on Senate Bill 2723/Assembly Bill 4182. The New Jersey Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee failed to garner enough votes to pass the centerpiece gun control bill offered by Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-3).
The legislation eliminates current FID cards and replaces them with either a privacy-invading driver license endorsement or other form of ID, suspends Second Amendment rights without proof of firearms training, imposes a 7-day waiting period for handgun purchases, ends all private sales, and effectively creates a registry of ammunition purchases and long gun sales. Anti-gun legislators have touted the bill as a national model - a claim that seems to have little basis in fact given that New Jersey has the second toughest gun laws in the country, while being plagued by some of the most dangerous cities in America, such as Newark and Camden.
Shockingly, the Committee Chairman halted the roll call vote, already half-complete, when the math wasn't adding up for the deeply flawed anti-gun proposal. The Chairman uncomfortably scrambled to remedy the flouting of legislative rules by announcing that the bill was being held for further amendments. The bill will likely be resurrected at another committee hearing later this month. Leadership in the Assembly will most likely stack the deck this time to ensure their preferred outcome. It's expected they will simply alter the makeup of the committee or assign the bill to a more favorable committee to guarantee passage.
These damaging gun control bills and embarrassing gaffes are far from a "national model." This process has only hurt the law-abiding citizens of New Jersey, and this legislative package will do nothing to address the state's crime problem. Please continue to contact your Assemblymen and Senators and respectfully ask them to oppose all gun control bills.
Contact information for your state Legislators can be foundOnly weeks after some anti-gun state Senators were caught on a live microphone discussing the need for "confiscation" of firearms after a Senate Budget Committee hearing, their Assembly colleagues fumbled through an embarrassing hearing this week on Senate Bill 2723/Assembly Bill 4182. The New Jersey Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee failed to garner enough votes to pass the centerpiece gun control bill offered by Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-3).
The legislation eliminates current FID cards and replaces them with either a privacy-invading driver license endorsement or other form of ID, suspends Second Amendment rights without proof of firearms training, imposes a 7-day waiting period for handgun purchases, ends all private sales, and effectively creates a registry of ammunition purchases and long gun sales. Anti-gun legislators have touted the bill as a national model - a claim that seems to have little basis in fact given that New Jersey has the second toughest gun laws in the country, while being plagued by some of the most dangerous cities in America, such as Newark and Camden.
Shockingly, the Committee Chairman halted the roll call vote, already half-complete, when the math wasn't adding up for the deeply flawed anti-gun proposal. The Chairman uncomfortably scrambled to remedy the flouting of legislative rules by announcing that the bill was being held for further amendments. The bill will likely be resurrected at another committee hearing later this month. Leadership in the Assembly will most likely stack the deck this time to ensure their preferred outcome. It's expected they will simply alter the makeup of the committee or assign the bill to a more favorable committee to guarantee passage.These damaging gun control bills and embarrassing gaffes are far from a "national model." This process has only hurt the law-abiding citizens of New Jersey, and this legislative package will do nothing to address the state's crime problem. Please continue to contact your Assemblymen and Senators and respectfully ask them to oppose all gun control bills.
Contact information for your state Legislators can be found, by municipality, at the link that follows. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/districts/municipalities.asp



CA Ban on Traditional Ammo May Lead to Ban on All Hunting Ammo
US Sportsmen’s Alliance, June 7, 2013
The California Assembly recently passed a ban on traditional ammunition containing lead that may result in a complete ban on all hunting ammunition.
Assembly Bill 711, which would outlaw the use of lead for hunting in California, passed the State Assembly on May 22nd by a vote of 44-21.  In a twist that presents a threat to all hunting, passage of AB 771 by the California Senate could stop all hunting with rifles as the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) may consider alternative rifle ammunition as “cop killer bullets” triggering a ban on those as well.
Now the bill is in the hands of the State Senate.  It’s already illegal to use traditional ammunition in Condor Range. If the Senate passes the bill, California would be the first state in the U.S. to take such action.
When coupled with the ban on hunting bears with hounds, passed in 2012, California is undisputed in its claim as the most unfriendly state to hunters in the country.  California sportsmen and women should not let this happen without a fight.  Senators need to know that there is no justification for a blanket ban on traditional ammunition, and they need to know about the potential ban on all ammo as a result of the actions of the legislature and ATF.
Take Action!  California sportsmen and women must contact their State Senators today.  Tell them to vote NO on AB 711.  To find your Senator’s contact information visit the USSA Legislative Action Center


Sweeney's gun bill stalls in committee amid Democratic infighting
Star-Ledger,  June 06, 2013
Senate President Stephen Sweeney’s enterpiece bill to overhaul the way the state issues firearms IDs and conducts background checks stalled in the Assembly Law and Public Safety committee today after Sweeney’s political adversary, Assemblyman Joseph Cryan (D-Union), abstained on it.
Cryan’s support was crucial to advancing the bill (S2723). Every Republican on the committee opposed it, as did Assemblyman Nelson Albano (D-Cumberland) – who represents a rural South Jersey district and typically votes against gun control legislation. That left Democrats short one vote.
Realizing the bill did not have the votes to advance, the committee’s chairman, Charles Mainor (D-Hudson), stopped the vote and called a recess. When the committee started back up, they moved on to another bill.
“It didn’t have the votes,” Cryan said after the meeting. “I abstained based on cost concerns ... I along with many other thousands of New Jerseyans have lost a motor vehicle office in our district we had some real cost concerns about the bill.”
Sweeney (D-Gloucester) is particularly proud of the bill, calling it a “national model.” The legislation, which passed the Senate last week, would encode firearms IDs onto driver’s licenses, create a system for instant background checks and require gun buyers to show they’ve gone through proof of firearms training.
But Cryan and Sweeney, never close, are fighting over who should be the nex