J.B. Kasper Outdoors

The Battle for the Second Amendment







AMMUNITION BUYER REGISTRATION BILL DEFEATED!!!
CSI, September 9, 2014

 Ammunition: purchase permits – would have mandated that ammunition purchases of any kind, including hunting ammunition, be registered with the state which would then check to see whether the buyer could legally possess ammunition. It would have also required that ammunition buyers give their personal information to the ammunition seller, including a thumbprint and a signature, and that the seller forward the information to the Department of Justice. Ammunition offered for sale could not be on display in a location that is accessible to customers without the assistance of the vendor or a vendor employee.
Ammunition vendors would have to obtain an ammunition vendor license from the Department of Justice.
SCI members had a major impact in stopping the passage of SB 53. Their contacts with members of the legislature were very effective in convincing them that the registration of ammunition purchases would not have a significant impact in preventing crime, but would be a major detriment to hunters and other lawful users of firearms.
Responsible Gun Ownership
Outdoor Wire, September 8, 2014

Some 30-plus years ago, my Dad gave me my first gun as a Christmas present. I can still remember it: I was eight years old and the gun, which I still own and enjoy shooting, was a lever-action Marlin 39A chambered in .22LR. I had been to the range and on hunting trips with my Dad since I was four years old but this was my first gun, a gun that I could actually call my own; a gun that I could show to my friends, my dad's friends or anybody who would listen while I showed them the finer points of the rifle.
The one thing that I did not immediately understand, however, was the tremendous responsibility that comes with gun ownership. But I was lucky because my Dad was (shall we say) "very persuasive" when it came to teaching the rules of responsible gun ownership. I learned from an early age that these rules were not to be broken, nor bent and (most importantly) never forgotten.
"Responsible gun ownership" can mean different things to many different people, but it probably should not. Not only do we as gun owners have a duty to ensure that firearms are handled safely at all times, we also have a duty to ensure that firearms do not end up in the wrong hands. "Without a doubt," said Patrick McDonald, vice-president of sales and marketing at Winchester Safes, "burglary protection should be the main feature one looks at when buying a safe."
Most people reading this are already familiar with the basic rules of gun safety:
1. Treat all firearms as if they are loaded.
2. Never point a firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
4. Keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction at all times.
5. Be sure of your target and your backstop.
6. Never store a firearm loaded.
These rules were also part of Dad's rules, but his No.1 rule was that the gun (actually, all the guns save his personal protection firearm, which was secured in an alternate fashion) was to stay locked in the gun cabinet and were not to be taken out without his knowledge and direct supervision.
My Dad enrolled me in a hunter safety course after becoming a gun owner and for the next several nights he sat in the class with me as I listened and learned a number of important things. But none seemed as important as Dad's No. 1 rule.
I began my career in law enforcement 15 years later and it did not take long to realize that far too many people do not follow Dad's No. 1 rule. I cannot begin to recount the numerous burglary reports I've taken or read where guns were stolen. The most difficult part for me to accept was how the stolen guns had been "stored" by the victims. The answers varied: the closet, over in the corner, under the bed, in the dresser drawer, etc. The one place that never seemed to have guns or other valuables taken from it was a safe. Now, I am not saying that it hasn't happened because I know of at least one person who had guns taken from a safe, but that safe was not locked so they might have well been in the closet or under the bed.
It is difficult to say how many guns are stolen every year in the United States, largely because many thefts go unreported to police. A recent ATF report said 190,000 firearms had been reported lost or stolen in 2012. Another report from the Bureau of Justice states that from 2005 to 2010 an average of 232,400 firearms were stolen each year. The Bureau of Justice report also indicated the majority of those firearms were taken in burglaries.
It is difficult to determine how many stolen guns are used in crimes. But if I learned anything in my law enforcement career it was that it is a rare occasion when a criminal will go to the store to buy a gun. Criminals know where to get stolen guns on the street.
A Department of Justice survey of more than 1,000 convicted criminals found that nearly 90 percent of respondents got their guns through unlawful means that included theft, straw purchases, family, friends and the black market.
Once a firearm is stolen it is unlikely to be recovered. There can be many reasons for this. Maybe the gun was tossed into a lake or a ditch. Maybe the gun unknowingly ended up into the hands of a law-abiding citizen who has never been contacted by police. Maybe the serial number on the gun had been obliterated.
During my law enforcement career I learned that one of the biggest factors that limits the recovery of stolen guns is that people do not keep an accurate record of their firearms. Not only should we lock up our guns we should keep an accurate record of the serial numbers, the exact makes and models and any other distinguishing characteristics on the firearm. All of these can be utilized by the police and entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). All of that information will aid in the recovery of the firearm if it is ever encountered by law enforcement.
There are also independent web sites that allow an individual to check a serial number to see if the gun has ever been reported to that web site as stolen.
The experts at Winchester Safes provided some very important information as well. McDonald said that every 13 seconds a home intrusion is committed somewhere in the United States. McDonald added a home burglary is 100 times more likely to occur than a house fire, and non-professional burglars, who are typically considered more desperate and dangerous, commit 85 percent of home burglaries.
McDonald added that home security statistics show that the burglary tools utilized during break-ins are usually simple: screwdrivers, pliers, pry bars and small hammers. Typically burglars are looking for small, expensive items that can be easily converted into cash such as jewelry, guns, cameras and small electronics.
"There is no doubt that the likelihood of future tragedies can and will be significantly lessened by simply securing firearms where unauthorized people cannot get access to them" said McDonald. "By securing your firearm in a safe you can instantly eliminate at least two of the avenues a criminal obtains guns. Keeping an accurate record of your firearms can dramatically increase the chances that your firearm will be recovered, in the unlikely event that your gun safe is breeched."
--Jeff Puckett
Jeff Puckett's distinguished law-enforcement career included 13 years in the Norman (Okla.) Police Department's special investigative division where he participated in more than 200 tactical entries, executed complex criminal investigations and operated in an undercover capacity. Upon his retirement from the force in 2013, Puckett joined Blue Heron Communications where he applies the knowledge he gained as an officer, lifelong outdoorsman and avid firearms collector to represent industry-leading outdoor brands.
NRA boss LaPierre: Americans fear their country off the rails under Obama
Washington Times - Thursday, September 4, 2014

The National Rifle Association has unleashed a multimillion-dollar TV advertising campaign that its longtime leader says is aimed at messaging beyond gun rights and reaching middle-class mothers, minorities and other Americans "who believe our country is off the rails."
The gun lobby's campaign, launched in the last 10 days, uncharacteristically delves into issues far beyond the Second Amendment to explore the IRS scandal, media elitism and security vulnerabilities, with a call to return "good guys" to power.
"This campaign is a gathering of shared values that gives a sense of right and wrong," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told The Washington Times in an interview. The collection of issues the ads confront are representative of the conversations Mr. LaPierre said he has had throughout the country with NRA members and concerned citizens.
In Mr. LaPierre's 36-year career as a policy activist, he feels the American public has never been more worried about this country's future.
"They're worried the character of the country is at risk. It's all collapsing," Mr. LaPierre said. "They care about their Second Amendment freedoms but understand that all freedoms are connected."
The first ad in a 16-ad series lays out a simple question to the American public: "Do you still believe in the good guys?"
It continues: "It takes courage to be free — a special kind of backbone to reject the world that surrounds you, to sign your name where everyone can see it, to believe that there is always a right choice and an honest consequence," three narrators ” an African-American man, a white man and a woman, who are all NRA members” explain.
"That's what it means to believe in America," the narration continues. "It's time to believe in the good guys again. We are the 5 million men and women of the National Rifle Association of America," the ad concludes, much like the others in the series. "Join us today."
The campaign has been rolled out nationally in a seven-figure cable buy preceding this year's congressional elections. Mr. LaPierre wouldn't give the funding specifics but said it has been so well received he aims to air the series in every state. The NRA started televising the series Aug. 25.
"It's been 90 percent positive," Mr. LaPierre said. "We've received emails, letters, voicemails, all from people saying thank you, thank you for speaking up and giving us a voice."
Those voices extend beyond the gun lobby's traditional issues to energize the populace. The campaign targets moms and dads, teachers and coaches, who may or may not own a firearm but do share what the association considers to be universal values and concerns. Not one of the 16 ads mentions a firearm or references gun policy.
"We put it together to defend the comprehensive freedoms, values and heritage this country was founded on and are worth holding onto," Mr. LaPierre explained. "If you listen to the American public, there's a sense of vulnerability they see for the country” that no one is fighting back and that our freedoms are being diminished."
The campaign series takes on the IRS tax scandal, the National Security Agency's intelligence-gathering revelations and questions political cronyism and the elite media.
"What kind of a country turns its tax collectors into secret police?" one NRA ad asks, concluding with: "Speak out. No government agency has the right to attack its citizens with fear."
Another leads with the NSA's spying charges by questioning: "What kind of government spies on its own people?" The ad wraps up with: "The right to a private life is one of freedom's greatest blessings. That's what the good guys believe."
The campaign also calls out lawmakers for what it views as selective law enforcement, with a narrator asking in one ad: "We say we're a nation of laws, not a nation of men, but do you still believe it? Too often the law doesn't seem written honestly and enforced fairly, and we watch lawmakers escape their own rules with loopholes and vague language."
In addition to politics, the NRA is taking on American pop culture, describing how many celebrities are put on pedestals by America's youth, whereas an honest day's work in a blue-collar field is often overlooked and underestimated.
"Our most valued citizens are entertainers," a woman narrator laments in another ad. "School kids can name a hundred of them for every philanthropist, small business owner or soldier a thousand for every average parent on an assembly line or construction site.
"But there are still hundreds of millions of Americans working as hard as ever. Good guys who don't seek the spotlight but deserve it. And for the future of our country, we should demand it," the woman concludes.
The campaign is aimed to speak to the so-called silent majority, an unspecified large majority of people who may be afraid to express their opinions publicly for fear of condemnation or political correctness.
"Do you still believe in speaking your mind?" the narrator in one ad questions. "Because those who do are growing fewer and fewer, while too many people act as if disagreement means disrespect."
Police ‘Request’ Records From NY Gun Shop
Conservative Byte,  September 4, 2014 

Liberals don’t understand laws or protecting ourselves.
Check it out:
The owner of a New York gun shop says he was given 24 hours to comply with a “request” from the New York State Police to turn over records of all customers who have purchased “bullet button” AR-15 rifles since the passage of the hastily-passed SAFE Act in 2013.
Joseph F. Palumbo, owner of the Albion Gun Shop in Albion, New York, told TheBlaze on Wednesday he had no choice but to turn over roughly 165 customer records last week. Now, both he and his customers are concerned that “door-to-door confiscation” or “warrantless searches” could come next.
An AR-15 with a “bullet button” modification makes it so the rifle’s magazine is not detachable without a special tool. Though the legality of bullet button semi-automatic rifles appears to murky under the SAFE Act’s unclear definition of a “detachable” magazine, Palumbo said he was only recently informed in “vague” terms that the weapons he sold are not compliant under the law.
It is illegal to purchase or sell semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines in New York following the passage of the SAFE Act. Rifles obtained before the gun control law was passed are required to be registered with the state government. The law also limits all magazine capacity to 10 rounds, regardless of when they were made or purchased
Why the "Smart Gun" Is a Dumb Idea
Eagle Rising,  4 September 2014

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” --Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
A New Way to Disarm Victims
Gun grabbers want to use the “smart gun” as a way to institute new victim-disarmament policies. They want to require all new guns be “smart.” So, what is a “smart gun” anyway?
The “smart gun” is a gun usable only by its purchaser. Upon purchase, the new gun owner must have a dominant-hand palm-print made, so the grip of the gun might be personalized, allowing only the person with that palm-print to use that firearm.
Some Dumb Scenarios, Courtesy of the “Smart Gun”
But let us contemplate a few scenarios, first, before we undertake the task of evaluating such a gun:
Scenario #1: A burglar breaks into your home carrying black-market firearm that is not a smart gun. You hear the break-in and respond by taking your smart-gun from a drawer in your nightstand, pulling back and releasing the slide to chamber a round. As your eyes begin to adjust to the darkness and you begin to move stealthily in the direction of the home-invader, you see him pull back the slide of his own gun and release it. Knowing that he now has a round chambered, and probably intends to use his weapon, you take aim at the hoodlum and fire. Due to a technology failure, nothing happens. You change hands with the weapon briefly to wipe your shooting hand on your housecoat and change hands back again. The weapon still fails to discharge. The home-invader, by this time, has caught on to the situation. He closes in and begins to discharge his firearm! You are doomed.
Scenario #2: An armed home-invader breaks into your house. You are sick in bed, incapacitated by illness. You are helpless to access, let alone fire, the new “smart gun” you have recently purchased. Your spouse, also an expert shooter, does not yet have a “smart gun” of her or his own, due to the expense of the new technology and the budgeting challenge that buying a second one presents. Your spouse gets out of bed, grabbing your gun anyway, hoping and praying that it will work, regardless of the fact it was designed for your hand only. No luck. The gun works as intended. You and your spouse discover this the moment your bedroom door is kicked in. For this is when your spouse attempts to shoot. The criminal appears insulted at this attempt at self-defense and opens fire! You are doomed.
"Scenario #3: You hear a noise and take your “smart gun” with you as you exit your bedroom. You are surprise-attacked by an intruder with a large knife. Your shooting arm is incapacitated by a severe gash, so you switch your gun to your off-hand. At such close proximity, you could easily disable your attacker with a shot from your other hand. You need only point and shoot. But the gun is useless in your off-hand! You are doomed.
Scenario #4: A police officer responds to a robbery along with his partner. Upon exiting their police car, the first officer immediately falls from a gunshot wound. His partner takes aim at the active shooter, but his gun jams. The downed partner’s gun, having flown out of his hand when he was shot, is available at the feet of the second officer. The second officer drops his jammed weapon and goes for his partner’s handgun, successfully recovering the weapon. He is quick to get the enemy in his sights. He fires his weapon before the bad guy can get off a shot, but nothing happens. It is then that he recalls his partner just received a new “smart gun” a few days earlier. Then a bullet strikes him fully in the chest! He is doomed.
Scenarios #5: Any number of wicked mishaps could occur, if gun owners become saddled with “smart guns” as their only alternative for self-defense weapons. I am certain that even a child could come up with any number of possible nightmares that might occur.
Helping Bad Guys
So, here is the truth: Criminals will never find themselves limited to “smart guns” as a weapon. Common criminals will have enough common sense to avoid such weapons. The rate of safe, successful discharge of a standard firearm, unencumbered by the complexities of “smart” technology, will be higher than that of a “smart gun,” which means that requiring smart guns, in place of consumer-preferred alternatives, will only create better working conditions for criminals.
In the last quarter century, with the increase in the number of concealed-weapon permits across the country, deaths by handgun have dropped 39%, according to the U.S. government’s own statistics. The reason for this drop has been the fact that the increase in legal gun owners, who do not want to shoot people, has outpaced gun ownership by criminals, who have no qualms with shooting people. This makes the working conditions for criminals more difficult in states with more permit-holders, bringing down the national average.
The gun-grabbing crowd, who wants to mandate “smart guns” as the only guns allowed, can only end up handicapping lawful gun owners while abetting unlawful gun owners. Added to the reliability concerns would also be the following worries: 1) guns will become more expensive, thus harder to come by for poor people in crime-ridden areas; and 2) guns will become more expensive to repair, thus harder to maintain.
You have only to use your imagination to discover more dilemmas, if these potentially-unsafe weapons were the only ones allowed in use. Let us hope that the Democrats do not succeed in making life hard for civil society by disempowering the good people, in favor of empowering the bad.
New Restaurant Trend: Guns Welcome Signs
Political Outcast, September 3, 2014

The Guns Welcome signs springing up are a sign of the real power of the people.
Despite groups like Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety with lots of money to give to anti-gun campaigns, the Second Amendment enjoys broad grassroots support. This means that, without spending much money, virtually any pro-gun forces can push back hard.
For example, according to the Washington Times, restaurants are putting up signs that tell customers they have no problem with armed patrons. This may not always be because they are natural supporters of the Second Amendment. Sometimes the restaurant owners just don’t want to lose the business.
" When Republican Gov. Nathan Deal signed into law one of the most comprehensive pro-gun bills in the country this April, which allowed firearms into the state’s bars and restaurants.
The eatery hung up a “No Guns” sign on its front door.
Its customer backlash was so harsh and quick that the steakhouse immediately took down the sign and then posted a mea culpa on its Facebook page.
“The sign that was put up regarding firearms has been removed,” TBonz said in its Facebook posting this May. “It was our intention to get the attention of IRRESPONSIBLE gun owners. But then we realized that irresponsible gun owners do not pay attention to signs.”
That was a nice save, but TBonz realization probably was a direct result of the threat of losing business.
No hard feelings. I’m glad he saw the light.
[See also, “Second Amendment Victory against Michael Bloomberg’s Cash!”]
But this shows you the power of the gun owners in the United States. There are many restaurant owners who believe in the Second Amendment and there are many restaurant customers who also believe in the Second Amendment. The ancient principle that “the customer is always right” really helps promote the Second Amendment.
None of this seems to cost that much money. The Washington Times mentions an organization with the website, www.2amendment.org, that lists pro-gun businesses. 57,000 businesses have registered with them nationally.
That is grassroots advocacy that is far more powerful than Bloomberg’s money.
Gun Shop Owner Starts Facebook Page Listing Businesses That Ban Guns
Conservative Byte, September 3, 2014

You shouldn’t feel safe in these places as they are targets for lawbreakers.
Check it out: Owner says businesses should be completely boycotted.
As some gun control advocates are pushing for businesses to ban guns in their establishments, one Indiana gun shop owner is pushing back by compiling a list of businesses who have banned guns, essentially helping like-minded consumers to tell these establishments, “No Guns = No Money.”
Steve Ellis, owner of Top Guns in Terre Haute, started No Guns = No Money last week, a Facebook page dedicated to listing businesses that ban guns. The page quickly gained popularity and more than 1,200 “likes” in just over a week.
“What we are hoping to see is that gun enthusiasts will ban together and say look this is a location that doesn’t want our business, and we are going to oblige them and not give them our business,” Ellis told local media.
Tweet of the Day: Dem running for Congress wishes Ebola on NRA members
By Howard Portnoy on September 2, 2014  

It’s hard to know what part of Mike Dickinson’s Twitter message is the most disturbing. Is it that wishes a deadly disease on people who share a view of firearm ownership that is different from his own, or is that he couches his curse in the form of a fervent prayer to God.Here is the message posted by the Democratic candidate for Congress from Virginia.Apparently Dickinson is too arrogant or stupid to have scrubbed the tweet, though I suppose he deserves style points for sticking to his guns (as it were). According to Rare, he responded to some of the backlash from other Twitter users in a Daily Beast interview in which he said:It’s probably not the nice thing to do. It’s probably not the moral thing to do. But look at all of the stuff that the right wing and the NRA has done that shows no class.Dickinson knows a lot about showing no class. In July, he made headlines in July for offering money for nude photos of 19-year-old amateur hunter Kendall Jones.
Top 30 Counties in the U.S. that are Most Heavily Armed – One State is Surprisingly Absent in Gun Rights
Conservative Byte, August 31, 2014

A map that was posted to Reddit on Saturday by user Ramesses Deux shows U.S. counties with the highest rates of gun ownership, and some of the states might just surprise you.
The poster notes that the data on the map
 is based off of the City Data list of the top 101 counties
 by firearm ownership. However, the site doesn’t say where the information comes from.
According to City Data, Louisiana seems to have the most gun-loving counties out of all the states with six parishes out of the top 30, which is what the map posted by Ramesses Deux shows.
Here’s the list as it appears on Reddit:
1.    Fairbanks borough, AK – 59.1%    
2.    Tooele County, UT – 59.1%    
3.    Nez Perce County, ID – 59.0%    
4.    Armstrong County, PA – 57.6%    
5.    Rapides Parish, LA – 52.8%    
6.    Teller County, CO – 52.3%    
7.    Darlington County, SC – 52.1%    
8.    Franklin County, VT – 51.7%    
9.    Randolph County, NC – 51.1%    
10.    Canyon County, ID – 50.9%    
11.    Anchorage Municipality, AK – 50.0%    
12.    Laramie County, WY – 49.6%    
13.    Davis County, UT – 48.8%    
14.    Yellowstone County, MT – 48.7%    
15.    Franklin County, PA – 48.5%    
16.    Pennington County, SD – 48.5%    
17.    Terrebonne Parish, LA – 47.9%    
18.    Ouachita Parish, LA – 47.6%    
19.    Florence County, SC – 47.6%    
20.    Orange County, VT – 47.0%    
21.    Calcasieu Parish, LA – 46.4%    
22.    Weber County, UT – 46.3%    
23.    Kanawha County, WV – 45.2%    
24.    Ada County, ID – 45.0%    
25.    Pulaski County, AR – 44.7%    
26.    Minnehaha County, SD – 44.7%    
27.    Westmoreland County, PA – 44.0%    
28.    Pinal County, AZ – 43.6%    
29.    St. Tammany Parish, LA – 42.5%    
30.    Caddo Parish, LA – 42.2%    
As you can see, Idaho, Utah and Vermont all have quite a bit of Second Amendment supports. Surprisingly, Texas doesn’t appear anywhere which one Reddit user was quick to note.
“Texas doesn’t appear anywhere on the list, that’s surprising,” a user commented.
City Data shows the first Texas county that appears on the list is at number 73. Harris County boasts just over 30% firearm ownership amongst its population.
A different user made a comment that might offer some insight as to why Louisiana seems to be the most well-armed state in the Union.
“Louisiana has a 2nd Amendment sales tax holiday, a weekend in which firearms, ammunition and, I believe, hunting supplies are tax free,” the user wrote. “As a former resident of Louisiana and gun owner I’m not surprised by the numbers, though I figured northern Louisiana would be better armed than the southern half of the state.”
What do you think, are you surprised or is this along the lines of what you would have thought?
Check out City Data’s full list here
. It’s important to note that this list is likely to only include registered firearms. The list would look much different if it included ALL firearm ownership. The less the government knows about our private lives, the better
Maryland Sheriff to Feds: Try and Take Our Guns, and You’ll Get a Civil War
Patriot Update, August 30,2014

 "Early last year, as Americans feared that the federal government would enact unconstitutional anti-gun measures via executive edict, support for the Constitution came from some unlikely places. Even in Oregon, a Democrat stronghold in elections, Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller flat-out declared that he and his office would refuse to enforce any such unconstitutional federal laws or regulations.
Mueller wrote, “We are Americans. We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.”
Mueller later stated, “We’re restricted and prohibited from enforcing all types of federal laws, including immigration laws. It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that I would enforce a federal firearms law.”
Since then, anti-gun crusaders have slowed down amidst fierce push-back from patriots. Still, patriotic law enforcers are willing to speak out.
Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis, a sheriff in the state of Maryland, recently reminded the citizens of his county that he will not violate the Constitution and warned the federal government that any attempt to disarm Americans will result in an all-out Civil War.
“I made a vow and a commitment,” Lewis said. “As long as I am sheriff of this county, I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my citizens of the right to bear arms.”
Sheriff Lewis is mindful of keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous felons, but also explained, “[W]e do not need to strip law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. That I get upset over. I really do.”
Sheriff Lewis also added a stern warning to the federal government about what will happen if they try to disarm the law-abiding populace:
“I can tell you this,” Lewis said, “if they attempt to do that, it will be an all-out civil war. No question about it.”
It’s encouraging to see that even as federal lawmakers and supposed federal law enforcers forget their duty to preserve liberty on behalf of the American people, rampant tyranny is bound to be checked by local authorities and the will of a fierce American population that is armed and unwilling to acquiesce to tyrants.
GUNS AND THE GOOD LORD: Pastor Shoots At Criminals Trying to Burglarize Church
Clasdaily, August 29, 2014

This is the type of headline we should see more often, instead of someone coming in and terrorizing a church. Check it out…
A New Orleans pastor shot a burglar in the head Wednesday when two criminals reportedly tried to burglarize his church.
Pastor W.L.T. Littleton hit one suspect in the head and fired at another outside his Greater morning Star Baptist Church around 5 p.m., The Times-Picayune reports.
The investigation is ongoing, but according to church members, Littleton fired in self defense. Micquell Dillon, 25, said she heard eight gunshots, then saw Littleton in his Lincoln Navigator pursue two men in a pickup truck.
Police took possession of the bullet-riddled truck. It’s back window was shattered and there was a large dent in the truck bed, the Times reports. The wounded suspect, 50, was reported in stable condition at a nearby hospital. The other, 34, was arrested on charges of copper theft.
Sen. Sessions Calls on Americans to Melt Down Senators’ Phone Lines-- Oppose Obama’s efforts to create 5 million new anti-gun voters
  GOA, August 27, 2014

What if Barack Obama could create 5,000,000 new anti-gun voters ... in a tyrannical act of unconstitutional usurpation ... all by the stroke of his pen?
And what if Obama justified his tyranny by acknowledging, effectively, that he controlled the police and that there was nothing anyone could do about it?
Would that alarm you?
Well, that is apparently what is about to happen, as Barack Obama moves to illegally legalize 5,000,000 people unlawfully in the United States. And don’t be fooled into thinking the 5 million work permits are not a superhighway to the 5 million-plus new anti-gun voters that Obama craves.
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus gave Obama a “wish list of executive actions and urged Obama to legalize all of the illegal immigrants that would have qualified under the Senate's amnesty bill.”
A Pew poll from last year indicated that if illegal immigrants were eventually given citizenship, they would vote for liberal, anti-gun candidates by an 8-to-1 margin.
This is why Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is calling on all Americans to melt down the Senate phone lines and demand that they oppose the President’s planned executive amnesty. According to one media report:
“Recent developments suggest the President’s planned executive amnesty could be increasingly imminent and broad in scope,” Sessions said, citing how Pelosi has called on the President to give the “broadest possible” executive amnesty to perhaps as many as ten million illegal aliens. (Breitbart.com, Aug. 12, 2014)
We’ve seen this game before: As recently as 1980’s, California was represented by a conservative Republican: S.I. Hayakawa.
After President Reagan signed Simpson-Mazzoli, legalizing 3,000,000 illegal immigrants concentrated in California, the state couldn’t destroy the Second Amendment fast enough. Now, California has authorized $24,000,000 to send SWAT teams around the state to seize people’s guns.
Incidentally, the fact that the chief sponsor of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Amnesty -- and the President who signed the bill into law -- were both Republicans made no difference in swaying the newly legalized voters from supporting liberal, anti-gun candidates.
We cannot afford to have California’s de-gun-ization extended to the whole country. And we can even less afford for that to happen by a tyrannical seizure of power which even liberals concede is illegal and unconstitutional.
So the question is this: With control of the Senate up for grabs, how many senators support Obama’s tyrannical power-grab -- a power-grab that could set the Second Amendment on the course of total destruction?
In early August, the House voted to end Obama’s efforts to unilaterally extend amnesty to illegal aliens. Now, says Sen. Sessions, it’s time for the Senate to act.
“The American people have the power to stop [this],” Sessions said. “That begins with asking a simple question: where do your Senators stand?”
N.J. girl in Arizona Uzi accident not 9-year-old competitive shooter, father says
South Jersey Times, August 27, 2014  

There's nothing inherently wrong with a 9-year-old shooting [a fully automatic weapon]
Dan Roberts has been fielding calls all morning from people concerned his daughter Shyanne was the 9-year-old New Jersey girl who killed a firearms instructor with a fully-automatic weapon at an Arizona shooting range Monday.
Shyanne “a highly trained competitive shooter who turns 10 on Thursday” was not the girl in the Arizona accident, Roberts said, but whoever the girl is, she should not be held at fault, he added.
"[The instructor] never should have been off to one side or the other. It's called the 180-degree rule," said Roberts, a weapons instructor from Franklin Township, Gloucester County.
"There's nothing inherently wrong with a 9-year-old shooting [fully automatic weapon]," Roberts said. "It just has to be done under very strictly controlled circumstances."
Charles Vacca, 39, of Lake Havasu City, Arizona, died Monday, a short time after being airlifted to a hospital in Las Vegas, authorities said.
Vacca was standing beside the girl, whose name was not released, at the Last Stop outdoor shooting range when she pulled the trigger of the Uzi. The recoil sent the gun over her head and a round hit the instructor.
The girl reportedly was at the White Hills range, called "Bullets and Burgers," with her parents.
Mohave County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Trish Carter told the Las Vegas Review-Journal the family was vacationing from New Jersey, but there was no mention of their home town.
Carter did not immediately return the South Jersey Times request for additional details Tuesday morning.
While Roberts said he didn't want to criticize the deceased instructor, he said there are a number of precautions instructors can take to prevent such an accident.
First, he said, the instructor should have been standing behind the girl, not to the side, as purportedly shown in a YouTube video of the moments right before the accident.
His hands also should have been physically overtop of hers, and if not, at least hovering right above.
"What that would've done, as soon as she started to lose control, he could've immediately directed that weapon in a safe direction," said Roberts.
He also said the automatic weapon, reported to be an Uzi, should not have been fully loaded with a 30-round magazine. Whenever he starts out a student on a platform they're new to handling, he starts out with one round, and then moves to two.
"You progress as you add rounds in increments," said Roberts, noting if the girl in the accident had only three rounds, the magazine would've been empty before any could reach the instructor. "Absolutely no way would I ever allow, 'Oh here's a 30-round magazine, have fun. Especially with a novice, you have no idea what they're capable of."
It had nothing to do with the fact it's a "machine gun," said Roberts, adding Shyanne has been bugging him to go to the Knobb Creek Machine Gun Shoot for more than a year.
"[Monday's accident] is no different than giving a 9-year-old an ATV or go-cart and not putting a throttle restrictor on it," he said.
Shyanne, who has been competing in shooting competitions since age 7, made headlines in March when she testified at the Statehouse against proposed legislation that would have lowered the legal magazine limit from 15 to 10 rounds.
It was eventually vetoed by Governor Chris Christie, but Shyanne has continued gaining more and more corporate sponsorships and invitations to compete. She's made more than two dozen radio, television, print and other media appearances this year alone, and will be the youngest amateur competitor at the lady 3-gun Pro Am in Georgia later this year.
Roberts said that as a father, his heart goes out to the girl in the Arizona accident, and that he hopes mental health professionals can help her realize it was not her fault.
"She's going to be dealing with this for a long time, I hope her parents get her the counseling she's absolutely going to need," said Roberts. "I hope the counselor makes it perfectly clear she has absolutely no responsibility for this at all. It's a tragic accident."
Political Correctness Runs Amok as Student Arrested For Writing About Shooting a DINOSAUR
Posted by Tony Oliva on Aug 25, 2014 in 1st Amendment

Oh, South Carolina…I expect better from you.
On the other hand, this incident takes place in a public school, and those have long been known to be bastions of liberal asininity so I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised.
Summerville High School Freshman Alex Stone was given a creative writing assignment for his English class.
That short assignment written in “facebook-like update form” (don’t get me started on why students don’t seem to actually write papers anymore) would lead the school administrators to calling the police and Alex Stone getting arrested.
What threats and dangerous writings did Stone put into his work of fiction? He wrote a story about shooting his neighbors pet dinosaur with a dinosaur hunting gun “he purchased to take care of the business.”
Now…I guess PETEA is getting involved. You know, People for the Ethical Treatment of EXTINCT Animals.
What if Stone wrote about being attacked by gum drop people and had to eat them to survive…would they police be called in on fears he was a cannibal?
As for Stone he put it pretty well in saying:
“I regret it because they put it on my record, but I don’t see the harm in it. I think there might have been a better way of putting it, but I think me writing like that, it shouldn’t matter unless I put it out toward a person.”
Alex can’t see the harm in it because he isn’t blinded by liberal gun hating rage. Unlike those with common sense and open mindedness, school officials couldn’t see that Stone’s story is a non-story about a kid with a writing assignment about a dinosaur.
But the idiots who run Summerville High apparently have a common sense shortage on their hands as administrators called in the police to search Stone’s bag, person and locker.
Upon finding nothing threatening or incriminating they couldn’t go away empty handed and so they arrested Stone on the catch all contempt of cop charge. Basically they said he was being disruptive in school, which apparently is something children can get arrested for.
You know what is disruptive in schools? Sniveling, gun hating bureaucrats who bring in jackbooted thugs because someone wrote the word “gun” in a creative writing assignment about dinosaurs.
Of course, as soon as the story got out the police have been trying to paint a different picture. A Summerville Police Department report states that Stone continued to be disruptive and was placed in handcuffs, and was told that he was being detained for disturbing schools.
What of the parents of this 16 year old menace to the Mesozoic era? They were never contacted.
Stone’s mother, Karen Gray, is fuming over the way the school handled the entire situation stating:
“If the school would have called me and told me about the paper and asked me to come down and discussed everything and, at least, get his point-of-view on the way he meant it. I never heard from the school, never. They never called me.”
No call until after her son was all ready arrested and that call was by the police. Knee jerk reactionaries of public education with zero tolerance polices that make Nazi’s look like an accepting and gracious bunch, once again try to ruin a young persons life because of their own deep seeded hate and vitriol. Their message is clear; You can’t even write the word “gun” in fiction anymore without being bound and chained and dragged off like a criminal.
The powers that be at Summerville High School are trying to indoctrinate their own fear and hatred of firearms into the minds of their students in any manner they can.
Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated incident. Last school year an 8th grader was arrested and suspended for wearing an NRA T-shirt to school. His arrest was for not taking his shirt off.
Then you have three students from Virginia Beach Public Schools who had police called on them and received year long suspensions for playing with toy guns AT HOME.
Not to mention the numerous elementary school kids around the country being suspended and threatened with expulsion by the Imagination Nazi’
s for having finger guns.
All in all these, as well as Alex Stone’s case, are just the examples of the out of touch lunacy that the administrators at public schools are pushing onto their students.
And that is even BEFORE we get to the rewriting of history and the 2nd Amendment with the Common Core Curriculum.
Perhaps we all should be paying better attention to our local school board elections because this madness has to end somehow.
Chicago Crime Rate Goes Down After Illinois Gun Bill Passed...Coincidence?
Last Resistence, August 26, 2014

The police department is claiming that the reason crime has gone down since their gun bill was passed is simple. It’s that they’ve been doing great police work in getting guns off the streets and out of the wrong hands.
But is that really all there is to it? Here’
s The Blaze:
Robberies are down 20 percent this year, according to Chicago Police Department statistics. Burglaries are also down 20 percent, while motor vehicle thefts are down 26 percent.
Chicago Police Department Superintendent Garry McCarthy attributed the decrease to “intelligent policing strategies” and said cops confiscated more than 1,300 illegal guns in the first quarter of the year.
But Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said it’s clear to him what’s driving the decrease — and it’s not the police. He said the department “hasn’t changed a single tactic.”
"" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border: 0px currentColor; border-image: none; vertical-align: bottom;"
“It isn’t any coincidence crime rates started to go down when concealed carry was permitted. Just the idea that the criminals don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t has a deterrence effect,” Pearson told the Times.
By July 29, Illinois had 83,183 applications for concealed carry and had issued 68,549 licenses, the Times reported. Pearson predicted that 100,000 Illinois citizens will have concealed carry permits by the end of 2014.
Whenever a city or locality experiences a drop in crime following the enactment of a law that loosens government restrictions on guns, the police always give themselves the credit. Whatever they were doing didn’t do anything before the gun law, but all of a sudden it has an effect after the gun law.
We’ve seen the same thing in Detroit. Except that that the police chief there James Craig doesn’t try to take all the credit. He was a staunch gun control proponent until he worked in Maine, a gun-friendly state compared to California, which is where he came from. When he saw how safe Maine was compared to Los Angeles, and how many Mainers owned guns, he decided that there might be something to citizens owning guns. Then, when he came to Detroit, he openly encouraged citizens to keep and bear arms for their own protection. Since then, crime has gone down.
It looks like a similar thing is happening in Chicago. As difficult and expensive as it is to obtain a concealed carry permit there, it’s had an effect on the crime rate. Criminals aren’t as safe as they used to be.
Some Inconvenient Crime Statistics for Gun Control Advocates
The Blaze, August 25, 2014

Washington Times reported.
A marksman sights in on a target during a class to qualify for an Illinois concealed carry permit on Feb. 14, 2014 in Posen, Illinois. Illinois became the final state to allow residents to carry a concealed weapon after they complete a 16-hour course. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Robberies are down 20 percent this year, according to Chicago Police Department statistics. Burglaries are also down 20 percent, while motor vehicle thefts are down 26 percent.
Chicago Police Department Superintendent Garry McCarthy attributed the decrease to “intelligent policing strategies” and said cops confiscated more than 1,300 illegal guns in the first quarter of the year.
But Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said it’s clear to him what’s driving the decrease — and it’s not the police. He said the department “hasn’t changed a single tactic.”
“It isn’t any coincidence crime rates started to go down when concealed carry was permitted. Just the idea that the criminals don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t has a deterrence effect,” Pearson told the Times.
By July 29, Illinois had 83,183 applications for concealed carry and had issued 68,549 licenses, the Times reported. Pearson predicted that 100,000 Illinois citizens will have concealed carry permits by the end of 2014.
Individual permits cost about $600 with 16 hours of classes required. Despite the hurdles, Pearson expects that about 300,000 state residents will ultimately have permits before the increase levels off.
Cook County, which includes Chicago, has the state’s largest number of concealed carry applications, with 28,552 requests, but per capita population, fewer than 1 percent in the county have permits.
The Crime Prevention Research Center found in a July study that 11.1 million Americans have permits to carry concealed weapons, a 147 percent increase from 4.5 million seven years ago. The center estimated that after concealed carry laws were passed, homicide and other violent crime decreased by 22 percent.
Florida has the most concealed carry permits, at nearly 1.3 million, according to the Times. Texas is second, with more than 708,000. Hawaii has the least, at just 183.
If Pearson’s projection of 300,000 concealed carry permits proves correct, Illinois would be comparable to Virginia, which has 363,274 permits, and Alabama, which has 379,917 permits
Crimes Dropping Year after Detroit Police Chief Tells Citizens to Arm Themselves
Last Resistence , August 22, 2014

Liberal anti-gun advocates like Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg would have you believe that the more law abiding people that have guns, the higher the crime rates. They fail to realize that many gun related crimes are committed with illegally obtained and owned firearms, not the legally owned guns by law abiding citizens.
Obama has been trying to push Congress to pass strict gun control laws that will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase and own guns and easier for criminals to use their illegal guns against others. Bloomberg has spent millions of his own money in states like Colorado to help them pass strict anti-gun laws. The only thing his money accomplished was to force firearm companies to move out of state, the Outdoor Channel cancelled 4 programs filmed in Colorado and two state legislators were recalled and lost their jobs. Now Bloomberg has stated that he’s willing to invest $100 million into the campaigns of liberal anti-gun Democrats in 7 states.
So which works? Disarming the arming the people or arming them?
According to Detroit Police Chief James Craig, arming the people is one of the best ways to deter crime.
Last July, Craig was named as the new police chief of one of the most crime infested cities in the nation. Detroit is also experiencing severe financial problems and does not have the money to invest in training and putting more police on the streets. Shortly after taking over the police force in Detroit, Chief Craig told the citizens of Detroit to arm themselves and learn how to use their guns.
There has been a number of Detroit citizens who have applied for and received conceal carry permits, even though Michigan law does allow open carry also. In December, Craig went on a popular Detroit radio show and praised the citizenry of Detroit for arming themselves. He told the people:
“There’s a number of (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.”
A year after Craig began telling Detroit citizens to arm themselves, the city is reporting a reduction in robberies of 37% over the same time period as last year. Break-ins have decreased by 22% and there’s been a 30% drop in carjackings.
Whether the reduction of crime is due solely to people arming themselves is hard to say, but you can’t argue the results. One Detroit citizen, Al Woods admits that he is a reformed criminal told the local paper:
“If I was out there now robbing people these days, knowing there are a lot more people with guns, I know I’d have to rethink my game plan.”
I know there are the naysayers on the subject, so for them I ask them to consider the fact that some of the highest crime and murder rates occur in cities with the strictest gun control laws in the nation. What good does it do a person to have to keep their guns unloaded and locked in a gun safe when someone breaks into their home? Are they supposed to ask the intruder to wait while they unlock their gun safe and load their gun?
The more home owners there are that start shooting intruders, the less apt criminals are going to be to break into homes. The rate in Detroit has already seen a significant decrease and other cities like Washington DC need to wake up to the facts and let people start arming themselves.
High School Kid Writes About Shooting A Dinosaur, Gets Arrested
Conservative Byte, August 21, 2014

Really? Is there absolutely no common sense in our schools? Another reason to avoid government schools.
Check it out:
It’s only August, but an overzealous teacher and some overzealous cops have already landed a high school student in serious trouble for having — or, in this case, merely imagining — something that represents a weapon, but isn’t actually anything remotely like a real weapon.
The student, 16-year-old Alex Stone, was busted after he wrote about using a gun to kill a dinosaur earlier this week.
Stone, who attends Summerville High School in a distant suburb of Charleston, S.C., found himself both suspended and arrested after he completed a required class assignment, Charleston CBS affiliate WCSC reports.
California Pro-Gunners Win A Big One
Outdor Wire, Auugust 26, 2014

It's not often that good news- very good news- comes out of California, especially if you're one of the embattled Second Amendment supporters there. But there's good news today after a federal court judge upheld a challenge to the state's 10-day waiting period for gun purchases brought by California gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, along with the Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation.
In a decision released yesterday, California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii (a Clinton appointee) found that the "10-day waiting periods of Penal Code [Sections 2861(a) and Sections 27540 (a)] violate the Second Amendment" as applied to members of certain classifications, like Silvester and Combs, and "burdens the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs".
Jeff Silvester called the decision "a great win for the Second Amendment civil rights and common sense," adding, he "couldn't be happier with how this case turned out."
The court order mandates the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change its systems to accommodate the "unobstructed release" of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a Department of Justice-issued Certificate of Eligibility and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.
Lead plaintiff attorney Donald Kilmer expressed his happiness for the protection of the Second Amendment and acknowledgement of that right by the court, calling the case "one more example of how our judicial branch brings balance to government in order to insure our liberty."
Combs, who is also director of the executive director of the Calguns Foundation, says the decision by Senior Judge Ishii proves "California gun owners are not second-class citizens and the Second Amendment isn't a second-class right."Combs says the decision is a valuable step in "restoring fundamental individual liberties in the Golden State."
He says the decision lays the strong foundation from which "other irrational and unconstitutional gun control laws" will be challenged. And, he says, "We look forward to doing just that."
Alan Gottlieb, Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President, says he's "delighted with the outcome" saying it "clearly addressed the issue we put before the court."
Senior Judge Ishii's decision can be read in its entirety at http://bit.ly/silvester-v-harris-decision.
Sen. Sessions Calls on Americans to Melt Down Senators’ Phone Lines -- Oppose Obama’s efforts to create 5 million new anti-gun voters
GOA, August 27, 2014

What if Barack Obama could create 5,000,000 new anti-gun voters ... in a tyrannical act of unconstitutional usurpation ... all by the stroke of his pen?
And what if Obama justified his tyranny by acknowledging, effectively, that he controlled the police and that there was nothing anyone could do about it?
Would that alarm you?
Well, that is apparently what is about to happen, as Barack Obama moves to illegally legalize 5,000,000 people unlawfully in the United States. And don’t be fooled into thinking the 5 million work permits are not a superhighway to the 5 million-plus new anti-gun voters that Obama craves.
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus gave Obama a “wish list of executive actions and urged Obama to legalize all of the illegal immigrants that would have qualified under the Senate's amnesty bill.”
A Pew poll from last year indicated that if illegal immigrants were eventually given citizenship, they would vote for liberal, anti-gun candidates by an 8-to-1 margin.
This is why Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is calling on all Americans to melt down the Senate phone lines and demand that they oppose the President’s planned executive amnesty. According to one media report:
“Recent developments suggest the President’s planned executive amnesty could be increasingly imminent and broad in scope,” Sessions said, citing how Pelosi has called on the President to give the “broadest possible” executive amnesty to perhaps as many as ten million illegal aliens. (Breitbart.com, Aug. 12, 2014)
We’ve seen this game before: As recently as 1980’s, California was represented by a conservative Republican: S.I. Hayakawa.
After President Reagan signed Simpson-Mazzoli, legalizing 3,000,000 illegal immigrants concentrated in California, the state couldn’t destroy the Second Amendment fast enough. Now, California has authorized $24,000,000 to send SWAT teams around the state to seize people’s guns.
Incidentally, the fact that the chief sponsor of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Amnesty -- and the President who signed the bill into law -- were both Republicans made no difference in swaying the newly legalized voters from supporting liberal, anti-gun candidates.
We cannot afford to have California’s de-gun-ization extended to the whole country. And we can even less afford for that to happen by a tyrannical seizure of power which even liberals concede is illegal and unconstitutional.
So the question is this: With control of the Senate up for grabs, how many senators support Obama’s tyrannical power-grab -- a power-grab that could set the Second Amendment on the course of total destruction?
In early August, the House voted to end Obama’s efforts to unilaterally extend amnesty to illegal aliens. Now, says Sen. Sessions, it’s time for the Senate to act.
“The American people have the power to stop [this],” Sessions said. “That begins with asking a simple question: where do your Senators stand?”
N.J. girl in Arizona Uzi accident not 9-year-old competitive shooter, father says
South Jersey Times, August 27, 2014  

There's nothing inherently wrong with a 9-year-old shooting [a fully automatic weapon]
Dan Roberts has been fielding calls all morning from people concerned his daughter Shyanne was the 9-year-old New Jersey girl who killed a firearms instructor with a fully-automatic weapon at an Arizona shooting range Monday.
Shyanne “a highly trained competitive shooter who turns 10 on Thursday” was not the girl in the Arizona accident, Roberts said, but whoever the girl is, she should not be held at fault, he added.
"[The instructor] never should have been off to one side or the other. It's called the 180-degree rule," said Roberts, a weapons instructor from Franklin Township, Gloucester County.
"There's nothing inherently wrong with a 9-year-old shooting [fully automatic weapon]," Roberts said. "It just has to be done under very strictly controlled circumstances."
Charles Vacca, 39, of Lake Havasu City, Arizona, died Monday, a short time after being airlifted to a hospital in Las Vegas, authorities said.
Vacca was standing beside the girl, whose name was not released, at the Last Stop outdoor shooting range when she pulled the trigger of the Uzi. The recoil sent the gun over her head and a round hit the instructor.
The girl reportedly was at the White Hills range, called "Bullets and Burgers," with her parents.
Mohave County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Trish Carter told the Las Vegas Review-Journal the family was vacationing from New Jersey, but there was no mention of their home town.
Carter did not immediately return the South Jersey Times request for additional details Tuesday morning.
While Roberts said he didn't want to criticize the deceased instructor, he said there are a number of precautions instructors can take to prevent such an accident.
First, he said, the instructor should have been standing behind the girl, not to the side, as purportedly shown in a YouTube video of the moments right before the accident.
His hands also should have been physically overtop of hers, and if not, at least hovering right above.
"What that would've done, as soon as she started to lose control, he could've immediately directed that weapon in a safe direction," said Roberts.
He also said the automatic weapon, reported to be an Uzi, should not have been fully loaded with a 30-round magazine. Whenever he starts out a student on a platform they're new to handling, he starts out with one round, and then moves to two.
"You progress as you add rounds in increments," said Roberts, noting if the girl in the accident had only three rounds, the magazine would've been empty before any could reach the instructor. "Absolutely no way would I ever allow, 'Oh here's a 30-round magazine, have fun. Especially with a novice, you have no idea what they're capable of."
It had nothing to do with the fact it's a "machine gun," said Roberts, adding Shyanne has been bugging him to go to the Knobb Creek Machine Gun Shoot for more than a year.
"[Monday's accident] is no different than giving a 9-year-old an ATV or go-cart and not putting a throttle restrictor on it," he said.
Shyanne, who has been competing in shooting competitions since age 7, made headlines in March when she testified at the Statehouse against proposed legislation that would have lowered the legal magazine limit from 15 to 10 rounds.
It was eventually vetoed by Governor Chris Christie, but Shyanne has continued gaining more and more corporate sponsorships and invitations to compete. She's made more than two dozen radio, television, print and other media appearances this year alone, and will be the youngest amateur competitor at the lady 3-gun Pro Am in Georgia later this year.
Roberts said that as a father, his heart goes out to the girl in the Arizona accident, and that he hopes mental health professionals can help her realize it was not her fault.
"She's going to be dealing with this for a long time, I hope her parents get her the counseling she's absolutely going to need," said Roberts. "I hope the counselor makes it perfectly clear she has absolutely no responsibility for this at all. It's a tragic accident."
Political Correctness Runs Amok as Student Arrested For Writing About Shooting a DINOSAUR
Posted by Tony Oliva on Aug 25, 2014 in 1st Amendment

Oh, South Carolina…I expect better from you.
On the other hand, this incident takes place in a public school, and those have long been known to be bastions of liberal asininity so I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised.
Summerville High School Freshman Alex Stone was given a creative writing assignment for his English class.
"" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border: 0px currentColor; border-image: none; vertical-align: bottom;"
That short assignment written in “facebook-like update form” (don’t get me started on why students don’t seem to actually write papers anymore) would lead the school administrators to calling the police and Alex Stone getting arrested.
What threats and dangerous writings did Stone put into his work of fiction? He wrote a story about shooting his neighbors pet dinosaur with a dinosaur hunting gun “he purchased to take care of the business.”
Now…I guess PETEA is getting involved. You know, People for the Ethical Treatment of EXTINCT Animals.
What if Stone wrote about being attacked by gum drop people and had to eat them to survive…would they police be called in on fears he was a cannibal?
As for Stone he put it pretty well in saying:
“I regret it because they put it on my record, but I don’t see the harm in it. I think there might have been a better way of putting it, but I think me writing like that, it shouldn’t matter unless I put it out toward a person.”
Alex can’t see the harm in it because he isn’t blinded by liberal gun hating rage. Unlike those with common sense and open mindedness, school officials couldn’t see that Stone’s story is a non-story about a kid with a writing assignment about a dinosaur.
But the idiots who run Summerville High apparently have a common sense shortage on their hands as administrators called in the police to search Stone’s bag, person and locker.
Upon finding nothing threatening or incriminating they couldn’t go away empty handed and so they arrested Stone on the catch all contempt of cop charge. Basically they said he was being disruptive in school, which apparently is something children can get arrested for.
You know what is disruptive in schools? Sniveling, gun hating bureaucrats who bring in jackbooted thugs because someone wrote the word “gun” in a creative writing assignment about dinosaurs.
Of course, as soon as the story got out the police have been trying to paint a different picture. A Summerville Police Department report states that Stone continued to be disruptive and was placed in handcuffs, and was told that he was being detained for disturbing schools.
What of the parents of this 16 year old menace to the Mesozoic era? They were never contacted.
Stone’s mother, Karen Gray, is fuming over the way the school handled the entire situation stating:
“If the school would have called me and told me about the paper and asked me to come down and discussed everything and, at least, get his point-of-view on the way he meant it. I never heard from the school, never. They never called me.”
No call until after her son was all ready arrested and that call was by the police. Knee jerk reactionaries of public education with zero tolerance polices that make Nazi’s look like an accepting and gracious bunch, once again try to ruin a young persons life because of their own deep seeded hate and vitriol. Their message is clear; You can’t even write the word “gun” in fiction anymore without being bound and chained and dragged off like a criminal.
The powers that be at Summerville High School are trying to indoctrinate their own fear and hatred of firearms into the minds of their students in any manner they can.
Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated incident. Last school year an 8th grader was arrested and suspended for wearing an NRA T-shirt to school. His arrest was for not taking his shirt off.
Then you have three students from Virginia Beach Public Schools who had police called on them and received year long suspensions for playing with toy guns AT HOME.
Not to mention the numerous elementary school kids around the country being suspended and threatened with expulsion by the Imagination Nazi’
s for having finger guns.
All in all these, as well as Alex Stone’s case, are just the examples of the out of touch lunacy that the administrators at public schools are pushing onto their students.
And that is even BEFORE we get to the rewriting of history and the 2nd Amendment with the Common Core Curriculum.
Perhaps we all should be paying better attention to our local school board elections because this madness has to end somehow.
Chicago Crime Rate Goes Down After Illinois Gun Bill Passed...Coincidence?
Last Resistence, August 26, 2014

The police department is claiming that the reason crime has gone down since their gun bill was passed is simple. It’s that they’ve been doing great police work in getting guns off the streets and out of the wrong hands.
But is that really all there is to it? Here’
s The Blaze:
Robberies are down 20 percent this year, according to Chicago Police Department statistics. Burglaries are also down 20 percent, while motor vehicle thefts are down 26 percent.
Chicago Police Department Superintendent Garry McCarthy attributed the decrease to “intelligent policing strategies” and said cops confiscated more than 1,300 illegal guns in the first quarter of the year.
But Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said it’s clear to him what’s driving the decrease — and it’s not the police. He said the department “hasn’t changed a single tactic.”
"" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border: 0px currentColor; border-image: none; vertical-align: bottom;"
“It isn’t any coincidence crime rates started to go down when concealed carry was permitted. Just the idea that the criminals don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t has a deterrence effect,” Pearson told the Times.
By July 29, Illinois had 83,183 applications for concealed carry and had issued 68,549 licenses, the Times reported. Pearson predicted that 100,000 Illinois citizens will have concealed carry permits by the end of 2014.
Whenever a city or locality experiences a drop in crime following the enactment of a law that loosens government restrictions on guns, the police always give themselves the credit. Whatever they were doing didn’t do anything before the gun law, but all of a sudden it has an effect after the gun law.
We’ve seen the same thing in Detroit. Except that that the police chief there James Craig doesn’t try to take all the credit. He was a staunch gun control proponent until he worked in Maine, a gun-friendly state compared to California, which is where he came from. When he saw how safe Maine was compared to Los Angeles, and how many Mainers owned guns, he decided that there might be something to citizens owning guns. Then, when he came to Detroit, he openly encouraged citizens to keep and bear arms for their own protection. Since then, crime has gone down.
It looks like a similar thing is happening in Chicago. As difficult and expensive as it is to obtain a concealed carry permit there, it’s had an effect on the crime rate. Criminals aren’t as safe as they used to be.
Some Inconvenient Crime Statistics for Gun Control Advocates
The Blaze, August 25, 2014

Washington Times reported.
A marksman sights in on a target during a class to qualify for an Illinois concealed carry permit on Feb. 14, 2014 in Posen, Illinois. Illinois became the final state to allow residents to carry a concealed weapon after they complete a 16-hour course. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Robberies are down 20 percent this year, according to Chicago Police Department statistics. Burglaries are also down 20 percent, while motor vehicle thefts are down 26 percent.
Chicago Police Department Superintendent Garry McCarthy attributed the decrease to “intelligent policing strategies” and said cops confiscated more than 1,300 illegal guns in the first quarter of the year.
But Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said it’s clear to him what’s driving the decrease — and it’s not the police. He said the department “hasn’t changed a single tactic.”
“It isn’t any coincidence crime rates started to go down when concealed carry was permitted. Just the idea that the criminals don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t has a deterrence effect,” Pearson told the Times.
By July 29, Illinois had 83,183 applications for concealed carry and had issued 68,549 licenses, the Times reported. Pearson predicted that 100,000 Illinois citizens will have concealed carry permits by the end of 2014.
Individual permits cost about $600 with 16 hours of classes required. Despite the hurdles, Pearson expects that about 300,000 state residents will ultimately have permits before the increase levels off.
Cook County, which includes Chicago, has the state’s largest number of concealed carry applications, with 28,552 requests, but per capita population, fewer than 1 percent in the county have permits.
The Crime Prevention Research Center found in a July study that 11.1 million Americans have permits to carry concealed weapons, a 147 percent increase from 4.5 million seven years ago. The center estimated that after concealed carry laws were passed, homicide and other violent crime decreased by 22 percent.
Florida has the most concealed carry permits, at nearly 1.3 million, according to the Times. Texas is second, with more than 708,000. Hawaii has the least, at just 183.
If Pearson’s projection of 300,000 concealed carry permits proves correct, Illinois would be comparable to Virginia, which has 363,274 permits, and Alabama, which has 379,917 permits
Crimes Dropping Year after Detroit Police Chief Tells Citizens to Arm Themselves
Last Resistence , August 22, 2014

Liberal anti-gun advocates like Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg would have you believe that the more law abiding people that have guns, the higher the crime rates. They fail to realize that many gun related crimes are committed with illegally obtained and owned firearms, not the legally owned guns by law abiding citizens.
Obama has been trying to push Congress to pass strict gun control laws that will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase and own guns and easier for criminals to use their illegal guns against others. Bloomberg has spent millions of his own money in states like Colorado to help them pass strict anti-gun laws. The only thing his money accomplished was to force firearm companies to move out of state, the Outdoor Channel cancelled 4 programs filmed in Colorado and two state legislators were recalled and lost their jobs. Now Bloomberg has stated that he’s willing to invest $100 million into the campaigns of liberal anti-gun Democrats in 7 states.
So which works? Disarming the arming the people or arming them?
According to Detroit Police Chief James Craig, arming the people is one of the best ways to deter crime.
Last July, Craig was named as the new police chief of one of the most crime infested cities in the nation. Detroit is also experiencing severe financial problems and does not have the money to invest in training and putting more police on the streets. Shortly after taking over the police force in Detroit, Chief Craig told the citizens of Detroit to arm themselves and learn how to use their guns.
There has been a number of Detroit citizens who have applied for and received conceal carry permits, even though Michigan law does allow open carry also. In December, Craig went on a popular Detroit radio show and praised the citizenry of Detroit for arming themselves. He told the people:
“There’s a number of (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.”
A year after Craig began telling Detroit citizens to arm themselves, the city is reporting a reduction in robberies of 37% over the same time period as last year. Break-ins have decreased by 22% and there’s been a 30% drop in carjackings.
Whether the reduction of crime is due solely to people arming themselves is hard to say, but you can’t argue the results. One Detroit citizen, Al Woods admits that he is a reformed criminal told the local paper:
“If I was out there now robbing people these days, knowing there are a lot more people with guns, I know I’d have to rethink my game plan.”
I know there are the naysayers on the subject, so for them I ask them to consider the fact that some of the highest crime and murder rates occur in cities with the strictest gun control laws in the nation. What good does it do a person to have to keep their guns unloaded and locked in a gun safe when someone breaks into their home? Are they supposed to ask the intruder to wait while they unlock their gun safe and load their gun?
The more home owners there are that start shooting intruders, the less apt criminals are going to be to break into homes. The rate in Detroit has already seen a significant decrease and other cities like Washington DC need to wake up to the facts and let people start arming themselves.
High School Kid Writes About Shooting A Dinosaur, Gets Arrested
Conservative Byte, August 21, 2014

Really? Is there absolutely no common sense in our schools? Another reason to avoid government schools.
Check it out:
It’s only August, but an overzealous teacher and some overzealous cops have already landed a high school student in serious trouble for having — or, in this case, merely imagining — something that represents a weapon, but isn’t actually anything remotely like a real weapon.
The student, 16-year-old Alex Stone, was busted after he wrote about using a gun to kill a dinosaur earlier this week.
Stone, who attends Summerville High School in a distant suburb of Charleston, S.C., found himself both suspended and arrested after he completed a required class assignment, Charleston CBS affiliate WCSC reports.
California Pro-Gunners Win A Big One
Outdor Wire, Auugust 26, 2014

It's not often that good news- very good news- comes out of California, especially if you're one of the embattled Second Amendment supporters there. But there's good news today after a federal court judge upheld a challenge to the state's 10-day waiting period for gun purchases brought by California gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, along with the Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation.
In a decision released yesterday, California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii (a Clinton appointee) found that the "10-day waiting periods of Penal Code [Sections 2861(a) and Sections 27540 (a)] violate the Second Amendment" as applied to members of certain classifications, like Silvester and Combs, and "burdens the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs".
Jeff Silvester called the decision "a great win for the Second Amendment civil rights and common sense," adding, he "couldn't be happier with how this case turned out."
The court order mandates the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change its systems to accommodate the "unobstructed release" of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a Department of Justice-issued Certificate of Eligibility and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.
Lead plaintiff attorney Donald Kilmer expressed his happiness for the protection of the Second Amendment and acknowledgement of that right by the court, calling the case "one more example of how our judicial branch brings balance to government in order to insure our liberty."
Combs, who is also director of the executive director of the Calguns Foundation, says the decision by Senior Judge Ishii proves "California gun owners are not second-class citizens and the Second Amendment isn't a second-class right."
Combs says the decision is a valuable step in "restoring fundamental individual liberties in the Golden State."
He says the decision lays the strong foundation from which "other irrational and unconstitutional gun control laws" will be challenged. And, he says, "We look forward to doing just that."
Alan Gottlieb, Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President, says he's "delighted with the outcome" saying it "clearly addressed the issue we put before the court."
Senior Judge Ishii's decision can be read in its entirety at http://bit.ly/silvester-v-harris-decision. 
Owning A Gun In N.J. Is Worse Than Beating Your Wife
Conservative Byte, August 16, 2014
Lberals have a funny way of doing their laws.
Check it out:
Earlier today, Katie wrote about Shaneen Allen, a firearm owner from Pennsylvania who ventured into New Jersey, got caught, and now faces up to ten years in prison. She’s a single mother with two sons. Allen bought a handgun after she was robbed twice; she also has a concealed carry permit. Before this incident, she was a law-abiding citizen. Yet, one must wonder why New Jersey courts think owning a gun is worse than beating your wife (via Glenn Reynolds/ USA Today):
When Ray Rice beat his wife unconscious in an elevator, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Michael Donio and New Jersey District Attorney Jim McClain agreed to put him in a diversion program for 1st-time offenders to keep him out of jail. But when Pennsylvania single mom Shaneen Allen was pulled over for a traffic violation and volunteered to a New Jersey police officer that she was carrying a legally-owned handgun with a Pennsylvania permit, the response of Donis and McClain was to deny her the same opportunity as Rice.
Massachusetts Governor Signs Bill Overhauling State Gun Laws
Outdoor Wire, August 13, 2014

On Wednesday, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed into law a bill—H. 4376—meant to update the state’s gun laws. The new law will bring sweeping changes to how the gun crimes are penalized, how the state handles background checks, and the power of local police to deny “licenses to carry.” The law will also empower the state police to create a firearms tracking unit and increase security in schools.
“Our communities and our families are safer when irresponsible gun sales and use are reduced,” Patrick said in a press release. “This legislation moves us in that direction.”
The most controversial portion of the law gives police chiefs the right to petition the district court when denying firearms identification cards, which are needed to buy rifles and shotguns. Any application that is denied will have to be followed by a written statement, and can be appealed. Although gun control advocates have widely praised this provision, gun owners have also criticized it for what they see as its arbitrary nature. The NRA spoke out against the bill on Tuesday through its Institute for Legislative Action website.
“The National Rifle Association opposed the bill prior to its passage, telling lawmakers ‘it isn’t difficult to imagine’ways for government officials to abuse discretionary licensing powers granted under the legislation,” read the statement.
A large portion of the bill covered stricter penalties for violators of gun laws, especially carrying a weapon on school grounds. H. 4376 will also require officials to assign a school resource officer to each school district as well. The push for more secure schools began after the 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut where a gunman shot 20 children and six adults in an elementary school.
“This legislation takes the necessary steps to ensure a safer Commonwealth,” said Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth). “Through this legislation we are supporting tighter regulations, enhanced penalties and increased protections for our schools, children and families in an overall effort to reduce the impact and prevalence of gun violence in our communities.”
Nearly half of N.J. residents back Christie's controversial gun bill veto, poll shows
The Star-Ledger, August 19, 2014  

TRENTON  A plurality of New Jerseyans agree with Gov. Chris Christie’S controversial decision to veto a gun control bill that would have reduced the size of ammunition magazines from 15 to 10 rounds in the state, according to a poll released early this morning.
The Rutgers-Eagleton survey shows 49 percent of residents in the Garden State which traditionally leans Democratic support the Republican governor’s move, while 42 percent say he should have signed the measure and 9 percent are unsure.
"Most gun control measures we have asked about in the past garner large majorities in support," said David Redlawsk, the polls director and a political science professor at Rutgers University. "This one is different, with residents slightly more in favor of the veto than opposed, perhaps because the change seems only incremental and did not strike gun opponents as significant."
Still, the poll also shows 66 percent of residents believe Christie made the wrong call in declining to meet with parents of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, who traveled to Trenton to speak with him the day he vetoed the bill. Twenty-four percent agree with Christie that it would have been hypocritical to see them.
"Agree or disagree with the actual veto, people believe the governor should have taken the time to listen," Redlawsk said.
Democratic lawmakers in New Jersey introduced the bill in the wake of the December 2012 shooting at the elementary school in Newtown, Conn., in which a shooter opened fire and killed 20 children and six adults.
Advocates said reducing the size of magazines would cause a shooter to reload more often and allow potential victims more time to escape. A pair of Sandy Hook parents visited Christie’s office in July to urge the Republican governor to sign the legislation.
But Christie conditionally vetoed the measure that day, saying it "simply defies common sense to believe that imposing a new and entirely arbitrary number of bullets that can be lawfully loaded into a firearm will somehow eradicate, or even reduce, future instances of mass violence." Instead, the governor suggested a series of changes to New Jersey’s mental health system to help prevent future shootings.
Christie said he had "extraordinary sympathy" for the victims families but added that he declined to meet with the parents that day because he had already signed the veto.
"It would have been really hypocritical for me to sit down and act like I was listening to their arguments, again, when in fact I already signed the conditional veto," he explained at the time.
Christie’s office also noted that the governor had met with parents last year.
Christie’s actions drew sharp rebukes from the Sandy Hook parents and gun control advocates who protested his appearance in Connecticut as he raised money for the Republican gubernatorial candidate there.
Today’s poll shows a majority of New Jersey residents are worried about gun violence. Sixty-eight percent say they are "very concerned" in general  though that is a 9-point drop from a December 2012 poll taken immediately after the Sandy Hook shooting. Twenty-four percent say they are "somewhat concerned."
At the same time, 64 percent believe controlling gun ownership is more important than protecting the right to own guns, while 31 percent feel the opposite. But this is also down from the 2012 poll, in which the split was 72 to 20 percent.
This survey was conducted over the phone with 871 New Jersey residents from July 28 to Aug. 5. The margin of error was plus-or-minus 3.9 percentage points.
The survey was taken before the controversial shooting in Ferguson, Mo.
Remington Cuts 100 Jobs in New York
Daily Dispatch, August 17, 2014

Thanks to the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association for breaking this news:
Let me start off with an apology to those new subscribers from today; I'm sorry to say your first edition of the Daily Dispatch brings bad news to bear for you... For those of you whom don't already know: Remington Arms here in Ilion, New York just announced about four hours ago that roughly 100+ workers are to be laid off. To those of you who were affected, I wish so much that there was something I could say or do to console you and your loved ones. You are what defines the American worker of today, and to see you get laid off tears my heart in two. For those of you new to the Dispatch, my family has a long history with Remington, all the way back to the grandson of the founder. From my Grandfather repairing their typewriters, to my Grandmother taking care of company documentation and traveling on business for the Remington family, to Remington's support of the Boy Scout range I worked at in the 80's, to the donations they made to us when I was in the service, to watching the workers pour out of the factory in the 70's as a kid and not being able to move anywhere downtown for at least 45 minutes during shift change, Remington is part and parcel of my family. Many a good friend of mine works there, or has retired from there. Every last shotgun I own is a Remington 870; almost every rifle I own is a Remington, from a 581, to the 700... My favorite ammunition: Remington Core-Lokt. You could say, we bleed Big Green...
I'll keep you posted as I can. For the those of you still at the Arms, God Bless each and every one of you. Know that there are good people and great organizations out here, fighting tooth and nail, for all of you. Please don't lose the faith; we're doing all we can to ensure another 198 years of the best firearms manufacturing on the planet, right here in the Mohawk Valley, by the best craftsmen and women to be found anywhere. For you legislators... You better get on the ball; November is coming fast.
Enough of my rambling, see the attachment for the latest news across the state and nation on the Arms layoffs.
Demand for Russian-made Guns Increases Following Sanctions
August 11, 2014

Russian-made firearms are becoming both scarce and expensive in the United States after July's sanctions. According to some retailers, prices have jumped up as much as 40 percent.
Collectors of Russian-made firearms may be finding their favorite products harder to come by”not to mention more expensive”after the Obama administration introduced another round of sanctions against Russian companies last month that included Kalashnikov Concern.
The corporation owns the major Russian factories that manufacture the ever-popular Kalashnikov series of rifles, alongside Saiga shotguns and other firearms. July’s sanctions, which were part of the United States embargo against Russia over the latter’s support of anti-government separatists in Ukraine, have effectively banned the further import of any Kalashnikov Concern firearms. Retailers are now reporting a surge in demand for Russian-made guns, as well as a dwindling supply.
If they don’t get it now, they’re not going to get it, Jerry McCall, an owner of two gun shops in Texas, told theSan Francisco Chronicle.
It’s called supply and demand, McCall added. When something like this happens, guns get bought up immediately.
Fox News reported that distributors like K-Var and Atlantic Firearms are having trouble keeping certain firearms in stock, and many gun stores have already sold out of AK-type rifles and shotguns. The impact is being felt in Russia as well, and spokespeople with the Kalashnikov Concern have criticized the sanctions.
For Kalashnikov, which is a subsidiary of the Rostecnologies state corporation, the US is an important market for selling arms, a company spokesman told ITAR-TASS News Agency. It should be noted that the Kalashnikov products are very popular in the US, and the amount of prepaid orders for arms there is three times as big as the annual supplies volume.
According to Kalashnikov spokesperson Vasily Brovko, sales to US consumers make up 90 percent of the company’s civilian firearms sales.
Since the sanctions only affect new supply contracts, Kalashnikov firearms paid for in full can still be transferred to their new owners or distributors.
The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) stated last month that the sanctions stand to benefit gun control groups and their efforts in the United States.
While the United States government blames the Ukrainian conflict for this latest move, gun control advocates will no doubt applaud the ban on importation of some of the very types of firearms at the center of recent domestic attempts to ban so-called ˜assault weapons, the NRA-ILA stated on its website.
Seven other Russian manufacturers were also named in the sanctions last month, along with government officials and leaders of the separatist groups in Eastern Ukraine.
Federal Judge Rules AR-Style Rifles Not Covered by 2A?
Shooting Wire, August 13, 2014

U.S. Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake has released a lengthy opinion (http://www.scribd.com/doc/236628112/Baltimore-District-Court-gun-ruling) which essentially says guns regulated by Maryland last year, including the AR-15 and the AK-style rifle-along with other magazine fed, semi-automatics fall outside Second Amendment protections, calling them "dangerous and unusual arms". The opinion comes in a case brought by the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) brought challenging the constitutionality of Maryland's new law. Among her arguments, Judge Blake wrote that "the court was not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Blake went on to write that, even accepting the 8.2 million "assault weapons" in civilian hands, they represented no more than three percent of the current civilian gun stock with ownership "highly concentrated" into less than one-percent of the U.S. population.
LETTER: Gun penalty in NJ case needlessly harsh
By Glenn Harlan Reynolds12:03 a.m. EDT August 12, 2014

Daily Record, Courier Record,other gannett newspapers
When Ray Rice beat his wife unconscious in an elevator, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Michael Donio and New Jersey District Attorney Jim McClain agreed to put him in a diversion program for 1st-time offenders to keep him out of jail.
But when Pennsylvania single mom Shaneen Allen was pulled over for a traffic violation and volunteered to a New Jersey police officer that she was carrying a legally owned handgun with a Pennsylvania permit, the response of Donis and McClain was to deny her the same opportunity as Ric.
Allen lives in Philadelphia, right across the river from New Jersey. She has a Pennsylvania permit to carry a handgun. She thought it was recognized in New Jersey, just as it is recognized in over 30 other states. She was wrong. When she told the officer that she had the gun, she was arrested.
Now she faces a felony conviction and a mandatory 42 months in prison. Both Donio and McClain have been unwilling to dismiss the charges, or send Allen to a pretrial diversion program. They seem to want to make an example of her.
The problem is, she’s being punished for something the Constitution says” and the Supreme Court has agreed ”is a constitutional right. And the super-stiff penalties and abusive prosecution she’s experiencing are pretty clearly intended to chill people from exercising that right. The Washington Post’s Radley Balko quotes anti-gun activist Bryan Miller gloating over this result: Fortunately, the notoriety of this case will make it less likely Pennsylvanians will carry concealed and loaded handguns in New Jersey, thereby making them and the Garden State safer from gun violence,
Well, no. Shaneen Allen wasn’t committing gun violence, and civilians with gun permits are a very law-abiding bunch, who have passed a background check and undergone training; no sensible state would want to discourage them from visiting.
But Miller is right that the New Jersey law in question is clearly intended to have a chilling effect. In First Amendment law, statutes that are intended to chill people’s free expression are often struck down by courts. Now that the Supreme Court, along with lower courts, has made clear that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms, it seems as if laws designed to treat gun-ownership and gun-carrying as, well, deviant and suitable for discouragement, will get the same treatment as laws that chill speech (I argue for that in a recent article in the Southern California Law Review.)
Perhaps, as the national outcry grows, the New Jersey justice system will do right by Allen. But the larger problem remains: While the courts have recognized that gun ownership is a normal, protected American activity, gun owners face a patchwork of laws that in many states impose Draconian penalties on people if, like Allen, they make an honest, harmless mistake. Allen is just the latest to be victimized by New Jersey officials. Travelers Brian Aitken and Greg Revell, suffered the same fate as Allen.
Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to protect civil rights via legislation, and this seems like a good subject for action. I would suggest a law providing that when people who may legally own guns under federal law are charged with possessing or carrying them in violation of state law, the maximum penalty should be a fine of no more than $500. This would allow states a reasonable degree of regulation, without subjecting individuals to life-ruining consequences just because some politico wants to make a point.
How about it, Congress? Isn’t one Shaneen Allen case enough?
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, is the author ofThe New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself.
NSSF President: Gun Industry Sales Reflect a "New Normal"
Outdoor Wire, August 12, 2014

NEWTOWN, Conn. - Last year was an extraordinary one for firearm sales, a year unlike any other in the industry's history. That's a fact to be mindful of when comparing estimated sales through the first seven months of 2014 with those of the previous year, notes Steve Sanetti, President and CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry.
Remove the extraordinary 2013 from the rear-view mirror and sales of firearms in America still show an almost uninterrupted rise over the past 10 years, according to national background check figures adjusted by NSSF to reflect market activity. For the first seven months of 2014, total firearm sales rank as the highest in the last decade, with the one big exception of 2013 (see chart).
(A background check is mandatory for retail purchases of firearms. NSSF adjusts background check data from the FBI's National Instant Background Check System to remove non-sales activity such as checks conducted for concealed carry permits. This results in NSSF-adjusted NICS data being a better indicator of market conditions than overall NICS data, though NSSF-adjusted NICS figures do not correlate one to one with firearm sales.)
From January through July 2014, NSSF-adjusted NICS figures total 6.95 million background checks against 6.85 million for 2012 and 5.64 million in 2011. In 2013, the seven-month figure was 8.81 million and the annual total was a record 14.8 million. Multiple factors account for last year's sales surge, including a fear of additional firearms-ownership restrictions, which came to pass in states such as New York, Connecticut and Maryland, as well as increasing interest in owning firearms by women and former servicemen and women.
"Those who are hostile to firearms ownership are trying to suggest sales are off in 2014 because people are no longer interested in owning guns, which is contradicted when you consider sales have risen for ten years, that last year was the highest year ever and that studies show increases in first-time gun owners and women buying guns," said NSSF President and CEO Steve Sanetti."The sky certainly is not falling," Sanetti added. "To me, firearm sales data through the first seven months is saying our industry is experiencing a 'new normal.' Like a rocket ship, we've returned to Earth, but we haven't gone back in time. With 2014 on track to be one of the highest sales years in a decade, I call that a sign of a healthy industry serving a passionate, growing customer base."
Sanetti said he's not surprised at the current sales market. "People in our business know it is hugely difficult to match a historic, unprecedented surge in customers buying all types of firearms," he said. He pointed out that during conversations last January with representatives of exhibiting firearms companies at the industry's annual trade show, the SHOT Show, hardly anyone was expecting sales to match the numbers those from 2013. "They were realistic in expecting and planning for a normalization," Sanetti said.
The industry's most active sales months-October, November and December-lie ahead, a period when purchases are made for hunting season and holiday gifts.
Said Sanetti, "Over the last decade, the market has spoken: Citizens around the country have exercised their constitutional right to purchase a great variety of firearms for target shooting, hunting and personal and home protection. I'm optimistic we'll see a strong finish to this year. And contrary to the naysayers, both the violent crime rate and fatal accidents with firearms have decreased about 19 percent and 22 percent during the past decade which saw these great increases in the number of firearms being purchased by more Americans. That's the most gratifying news of all."
A police dispatcher in Florida told an 80-year-old woman to put down her gun during a home invasion.
Last Resistence, August 7, 2014

One night, N. J. Logan, an 80-year-old woman who had just undergone hip replacement, was at her house alone. Her husband was out playing bridge when Logan heard a commotion on the first floor of her house. Burglars had broken a window with a rock, cut the screen of the window, and were inside Logan’s house.
When she realized what was going on, she grabbed her gun, called 911, and went down the stairs calling out warnings to the burglars. Probably fearing for their lives because of Logan’s gun, the burglars retreated from the house. But during the 911 call, the police dispatcher kept telling Logan to put the gun down. Which is just crazy.
Logan had the presence of mind and coolness under pressure to tell the dispatcher: “I’ll put my gun down when the police show up.” Exactly.
This story just emphasizes what should already be a self-evident truth. Criminals target the vulnerable and the weak, and guns can even the scales. Why do you think these burglars were targeting a retirement community? They knew they would be attacking older people. They probably assumed their victims would be less likely to be able to resist.
In this particular case, the burglars were wrong. Why? Guns. Not the police. They wouldn’t have been able to help a great deal by the time they got there.
And that’s the real problem with what the dispatcher told Logan. What if she had followed the dispatchers advice? She would have been vulnerable. What will it take for gun control advocates to get it? Putting a gun in the hands of the otherwise defenseless innocents of this country is the best possible way to make this country a better, safer place for everyone. No brainer.
Ebola Outbreak Can Lead To Gun Confiscations, Martial Law
Conservative byte, August 5, 2014

Is this part of Obama’s grand plan?
Check it out:
Gun confiscations and martial law are both plausible government responses to an Ebola outbreak in America considering recent policies by the Obama administration and the fact that the military has been preparing for domestic deployment for the past several years.
Back in 2009, CNN reported that U.S. Northern Command (Northcom) wanted to “establish regional teams of military personnel to assist civilian authorities” in the event of a severe outbreak in America.
“The plan calls for military task forces to work in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency,” wrote CNN correspondent Barbara Starr. “There is no final decision on how the military effort would be manned, but one source said it would likely include personnel from all branches of the military.”
A few months prior, Air Force General Victor Renuart said Northcom would provide “assistance in support of civil authorities” during an epidemic, adding “when requested and approved by the Secretary of Defense or directed by the President, federal military forces will contribute to federal support.”
But Renuart also said that “U.S. Northcom does not wait for that call to action.”
Since then, the federal government created a new domestic command structure in which, during a government-declared emergency, the military police would work under FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security for domestic operations with the National Guard.
Busy Weekend Means.....Weekend Update
Shooting Wire, August 4, 2014
It seems the decisions that go in favor of firearms ownership seldom get released during the hours considered "peak" for assuring news carriage around the country. Instead, the courts -or staffers therein- seem to release favorable gun decisions late Friday evening on on Saturday. Those have traditionally been the times when unfavorable news about the current administration was sent out to the majors. Reasoning? The mainline "beat" reporters -especially in the summer- had "beaten" it out of town for their weekends, leaving the second-stringers running the news operations.
Not as true today as it once was, but it's still true that weekend news seldom makes it through the 2-3 news cycles necessary to get in front of viewers, readers or listeners who had no specific interest in the unfavorable news. Those with positions on the matter were regarded as insignificant in changing outcomes -or swaying opinion.
The end of the week and this past weekend certainly had its share of news:
A federal judge, for example, has ordered the release of the index of all documents in relation to the ATF's ill-conceived and even more poorly executed Operation Fast and Furious by October 1. Yes, I know they've been protected under President Obama's claim of Executive Privilege, but U.S. Federal Judge John D. Bates of the District of Columbia ruled that the Justice Department release what's known as the "Vaughn Index" of "all requested Operation Fast and Furious materials" that had been sought under a Freedom of Information Act request in June and again in September 2012. The group that requested those documents? That would be the House Government Oversight Committee chaired by California Republican Representative Darrell Issa.
A Vaughn Index must identify each document withheld, state the statutory exemption claimed, and explain how disclosure would damage the interests protected by the claim of exemption.
I don't believe "because I said so" is acceptable in any of those requirements- even if the note is signed by a top administration official - or the Attorney General.
And the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) Government Relations Update on Friday says that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) is reporting that firearms retailers are no longer on their "watch list" of businesses classified as "high risk". That comes after the FDIC's original list -part of the Department of Justice's "Operation Choke Point" - included firearms retailers among those that were potential places for criminal activity. The Justice Department was not-so-quietly encouraging banks to stop doing business with industry groups on that list. After several firearms-related companies reported their longstanding banking relationships had either been severed or threatened with termination because of "Operation Choke Point" - the FDIC backpedaled, saying there were "misunderstandings" and "misinterpretations" in their list and they never meant to prevent banks from conducting transactions or providing services to the types of businesses on its list.
That "explanation" begs a semi-serious question: if that wasn't the purpose of the list, then why bother putting a list together (and distributing it) in the first place?
Seems to me the government's already achieved one of their goals in the whole "Choke Point" operation- showing companies (especially gun companies) that regardless of their success, the feds can close down their banking relationships - if they want to.
There's this concept called "un-ringing a bell" that suggests the banking industry had already received the message - as loud and clearly as, well, you know.NSSF also reported that a New Mexico state appellate court had struck down a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Savage Arms. The suit sought to hold Savage responsible for a college student's death after she was shot by her neighbor during a home invasion. The court found against the family's lawsuit, saying their suit focused on the fact the supplied gun lock was pried off the gun before she was shot. Instead of the lock's removal being the cause, the court ruled the cause of death was the criminal act of the neighbor, not the gun lock. That protected Savage Arms under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Further, the lock was not a "qualified product" under the PLCAA. The death was tragic, but the ruling correctly placed blame for the act on the person using the gun- not the other way around.
And finally, a personal note.....like many around the country, I was disappointed at former wrestler/governor Jesse Ventura's lawsuit against the estate of late SEAL Sniper Chris Kyle. Likewise, I was shocked at the verdict, with Ventura being awarded $1.8 million dollars in damages.
Over the weekend, the guys at Tactical T-Shirts decided they weren't just going to be angry at the verdict, they were going to do something about it. In case you don't already know about these guys, they raised tens of thousands of dollars for the families of Christ Kyle and Chad Littlefield after they were killed by a veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder through the sale of their Kyle-Littlefield memorial shirt.
Their new campaign is called "Replace the One Eight" - and they're releasing a revised version of their commemorative shirt with the stated goal of helping replace as much of the money awarded to Ventura as possible through their efforts.
Again, I'm told the money will be split evenly among the two families, because the shirt commemorates both their sacrifices. But... Marky and Freeze have a spot on their pre- sale page where you can go to donate directly to either of the two families.
Like those guys, we're getting involved because we don't think it right that Chris Kyle's family face this kind of loss. And like my friend Marky, "I am also a private citizen in a country of 360 million freedom-loving Americans. Freedom that wasn't free."
"The Kyle family," the note to me read, "has paid enough."
I agree. And I want to encourage you to join to "Replace the One Eight".
Ebola Outbreak Can Lead To Gun Confiscations, Martial Law
Conservative byte, August 5, 2014

Isthis part of Obama’s grand plan?
Check it out:
Gun confiscations and martial law are both plausible government responses to an Ebola outbreak in America considering recent policies by the Obama administration and the fact that the military has been preparing for domestic deployment for the past several years.
Back in 2009, CNN reported that U.S. Northern Command (Northcom) wanted to “establish regional teams of military personnel to assist civilian authorities” in the event of a severe outbreak in America.
“The plan calls for military task forces to work in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency,” wrote CNN correspondent Barbara Starr. “There is no final decision on how the military effort would be manned, but one source said it would likely include personnel from all branches of the military.”
A few months prior, Air Force General Victor Renuart said Northcom would provide “assistance in support of civil authorities” during an epidemic, adding “when requested and approved by the Secretary of Defense or directed by the President, federal military forces will contribute to federal support.”
But Renuart also said that “U.S. Northcom does not wait for that call to action.”
Since then, the federal government created a new domestic command structure in which, during a government-declared emergency, the military police would work under FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security for domestic operations with the National Guard.
Busy Weekend Means.....Weekend Update
Shooting Wire, August 4, 2014

It seems the decisions that go in favor of firearms ownership seldom get released during the hours considered "peak" for assuring news carriage around the country. Instead, the courts -or staffers therein- seem to release favorable gun decisions late Friday evening on on Saturday. Those have traditionally been the times when unfavorable news about the current administration was sent out to the majors. Reasoning? The mainline "beat" reporters -especially in the summer- had "beaten" it out of town for their weekends, leaving the second-stringers running the news operations.
Not as true today as it once was, but it's still true that weekend news seldom makes it through the 2-3 news cycles necessary to get in front of viewers, readers or listeners who had no specific interest in the unfavorable news. Those with positions on the matter were regarded as insignificant in changing outcomes -or swaying opinion.
The end of the week and this past weekend certainly had its share of news:
A federal judge, for example, has ordered the release of the index of all documents in relation to the ATF's ill-conceived and even more poorly executed Operation Fast and Furious by October 1. Yes, I know they've been protected under President Obama's claim of Executive Privilege, but U.S. Federal Judge John D. Bates of the District of Columbia ruled that the Justice Department release what's known as the "Vaughn Index" of "all requested Operation Fast and Furious materials" that had been sought under a Freedom of Information Act request in June and again in September 2012. The group that requested those documents? That would be the House Government Oversight Committee chaired by California Republican Representative Darrell Issa.
A Vaughn Index must identify each document withheld, state the statutory exemption claimed, and explain how disclosure would damage the interests protected by the claim of exemption.
I don't believe "because I said so" is acceptable in any of those requirements- even if the note is signed by a top administration official - or the Attorney General.
And the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) Government Relations Update on Friday says that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) is reporting that firearms retailers are no longer on their "watch list" of businesses classified as "high risk". That comes after the FDIC's original list -part of the Department of Justice's "Operation Choke Point" - included firearms retailers among those that were potential places for criminal activity. The Justice Department was not-so-quietly encouraging banks to stop doing business with industry groups on that list. After several firearms-related companies reported their longstanding banking relationships had either been severed or threatened with termination because of "Operation Choke Point" - the FDIC backpedaled, saying there were "misunderstandings" and "misinterpretations" in their list and they never meant to prevent banks from conducting transactions or providing services to the types of businesses on its list.
That "explanation" begs a semi-serious question: if that wasn't the purpose of the list, then why bother putting a list together (and distributing it) in the first place?
Seems to me the government's already achieved one of their goals in the whole "Choke Point" operation- showing companies (especially gun companies) that regardless of their success, the feds can close down their banking relationships - if they want to.
There's this concept called "un-ringing a bell" that suggests the banking industry had already received the message - as loud and clearly as, well, you know.NSSF also reported that a New Mexico state appellate court had struck down a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Savage Arms. The suit sought to hold Savage responsible for a college student's death after she was shot by her neighbor during a home invasion. The court found against the family's lawsuit, saying their suit focused on the fact the supplied gun lock was pried off the gun before she was shot. Instead of the lock's removal being the cause, the court ruled the cause of death was the criminal act of the neighbor, not the gun lock. That protected Savage Arms under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Further, the lock was not a "qualified product" under the PLCAA. The death was tragic, but the ruling correctly placed blame for the act on the person using the gun- not the other way around.
And finally, a personal note.....like many around the country, I was disappointed at former wrestler/governor Jesse Ventura's lawsuit against the estate of late SEAL Sniper Chris Kyle. Likewise, I was shocked at the verdict, with Ventura being awarded $1.8 million dollars in damages.
Over the weekend, the guys at Tactical T-Shirts decided they weren't just going to be angry at the verdict, they were going to do something about it. In case you don't already know about these guys, they raised tens of thousands of dollars for the families of Christ Kyle and Chad Littlefield after they were killed by a veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder through the sale of their Kyle-Littlefield memorial shirt.
Their new campaign is called "Replace the One Eight" - and they're releasing a revised version of their commemorative shirt with the stated goal of helping replace as much of the money awarded to Ventura as possible through their efforts.
Again, I'm told the money will be split evenly among the two families, because the shirt commemorates both their sacrifices. But... Marky and Freeze have a spot on their pre- sale page where you can go to donate directly to either of the two families.
Like those guys, we're getting involved because we don't think it right that Chris Kyle's family face this kind of loss. And like my friend Marky, "I am also a private citizen in a country of 360 million freedom-loving Americans. Freedom that wasn't free."
"The Kyle family," the note to me read, "has paid enough."
I agree. And I want to encourage you to join to "Replace the One Eight".
Senate Democrats Gear up to Push More Gun Control -- Even after a CCW holder averts a mass shooting in Pennsylvania!
GOA, July 29, 2014

“More people are carrying concealed in this country, and yet the gun homicide rate has been dropping precipitously. We are safer today with more guns ‘on the street’ being carried in good people’s hands.”
-- GOA Communications Director Erich Pratt on WPFL, Florida (July 28, 2014).
There has been incredible news in the 2nd Amendment community over the past several days.
You may have heard that a DC federal judge struck down Washington, DC’
s ban on carrying firearms in public on Saturday. Judge Frederick Scullen’s decision referenced the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) -- arguing that the carry ban violates the U.S. Constitution.
And last week, a concealed carry holder in Darby, Pennsylvania, saved countless lives when he used his firearm to stop a killer who was bent on taking down even more innocent lives.
Police said the armed doctor “saved lives” and prevented a disgruntled patient from walking down the hall and gunning down people “until he ran out of ammunition.”
See more good stories like this in real time by getting Facebook updates from GOA. Go to the GOA Facebook site and LIKE our page!
One would like to think that such good news would serve as an object lesson for our elected leaders. But not for Harry Reid and his cohorts.
Senate Democrats to Hold More Hearings on Gun Control
Even though the nation just witnessed a perfect example of how guns save lives in Pennsylvania, Senate Democrats are gearing up for another push to restrict 2nd Amendment rights.
It’s an amazing thing, really, especially considering that several D and F-rated Democrats are in tough reelection fights this fall. We are talking about Senators Mark Begich (D-AK), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Mark Udall (D-CO), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Al Franken (D-MN) and Mark Warner (D-VA).
So, what would you think Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are working on in order to aid their campaigns?
Answer: GUN CONTROL.
And the gun control which is being pushed on these Senators’ behalf is a particularly nasty piece of work.
TOPLESS & CLUELESS: Anti-Gun Protesters Bare Their Stupidity At Open-Carry Rally
Clashdaily, July 28, 2014

Leave it to Austin to keep it weird. These women took to the streets of Austin to protest an open carry walk through with a strange technique. See below…
Earlier this afternoon, CATI (Come and Take It) conducted a walk through downtown Austin to raise awareness for the current restrictions on gun rights in Texas. This walk is done monthly, and today’s walk was led by Thomas Jefferson from their Austin Chapter. Anti-gun protestors decided to arrive though, and they conducted their protest TOPLESS!
The walk began on Congress in downtown Austin near the Capitol, and the ladies followed CATI’s members throughout of the day.
These women mentioned “Moms Demand Action” (MDA) petitions according to CATI Austin’s leader Tom Jefferson, and continually discussed the requests made by Target and Chipotle to leave guns outside their establishments, which of course Moms Demand Action was solely responsible for.
But, I remain perplexed as to what the correlation is between gun rights and topless women. If these women want to run around topless in Austin, yes technically it’s legal. But I fail to see the logic or correlation between “bullets and boobs.”
PROTECTOR AND HERO: 19-Yr-Old Shoots Home Intruders With Shotgun And Saves His Girlfriend
Clashdaily, July 26, 2014

These are the type of headlines we should be seeing more of, instead of the tragedies that happen when someone’s house gets broken into. Check it out…
On July 22, a 19-year-old Carrick, Pennsylvania, tenant grabbed a shotgun and fired three shots at two home invaders to save his girlfriend’s life. One home invader was killed, and one was critically injured.
According to TribLive.News, 31-year-old David Calhoun and 27-year-old Christopher A. Thomas allegedly broke into a Carrick apartment. Once inside, the intruders “shoved [the] 19-year-old [resident], who lives there with his 17-year-old girlfriend, into a bedroom and asked for ‘his stuff.’”
The 19-year-old retrieved “a shotgun and fired three times, hitting both men.”
Gun Regulations In Colorado Completely Fail Expectations
FREEDOM Outpost, July 27, 2014

A year into the addition of legislation increasing background checks for the sale of firearms, data compiled by the Associated Press has shown that the legislation didn't accomplish all that much, the Aurora Sentinal
reports.
A devastating string of shootings last year lead Democratic lawmakers in Colorado to introduce gun restrictions meant to deter future tragedies, but questions have been raised about its effectiveness.
A non-partisan Colorado Legislative Council review estimated that background checks for the purpose of keeping guns away from those with a criminal past would result in 420,000 reviews over a two-year period. Instead, only 13,600 reviews have been conducted in the first year, leading to accusations of poor fiscal management in the form of a wasted $3 million dollar budget. It is not yet clear how much of the budget has gone unspent.
The figures were projected based on a 1997 report conducted by the National Institute of Justice.
Despite incredibly poor performance on the background checks for private sellers, state Democratic Rep. Rhonda Fields, the main sponsor of the legislation, was optimistic although she did admit of the possibility of fiscal mismanagement.
"I'm not discouraged by the lower number. I think that it's a good number, because it shows me that people are complying with the law," she said. "I'm going to be asking some questions because I want to be a good steward of our tax dollars."
However, Republican lawmakers view the dramatic under-performance of background check legislation as a vindication of their original concerns, noting that what they regard as clear infringement of rights has not lead to better outcomes. Current laws extend background checks to online sales, as well.
"Nothing good came of the passage of the law, except we found out just how anti-gun Democrats in Colorado are," said GOP state Sen. Greg Brophy.
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.
UNREPORTED HISTORY: The Greatness of Guns
Clashdaily, Posted on July 25, 2014

“[What has] been used to implement both the highest and basest goals of humanity – to put food on the table, to provide personal protection, to enforce or defy the law, to defend or acquire territory and treasure, and to liberate or to enslave.” ? (Source: http://www.nramuseum.org/gun-info-research/a-brief-history-of-firearms.aspx )
Guns, my fellow Americans. Precision engineering and fine art, harmonized as one to empower people around the world — even women.
Yes, Clashmates, I meant that last part for the Left. Tweaking them has become good fun.
A quick history:
The origin of gunpowder is unknown, and may have occurred in China, Turkey, or Europe. The first record describing the combination of charcoal, sulphur, and saltpeter, to produce a rapidly burning or exploding powder is a coded writing by Franciscan monk Roger Bacon shortly before 1250 A.D.
Within 50 years, early cannon had been developed. A large thick metal tube with one closed end (the breech) and an open end (the muzzle) was loaded first with gunpowder and then with a projectile. The powder was ignited with a torch or smoldering ember through a small hole in the rear (the touchhole). The rapidly expanding gases from the exploding gunpowder would throw the projectile from the barrel. This basic principle still applies today.
It took another half-century for this concept to be applied to individual hand-held weapons. The first firearms, ca. 1350, called “hand cannons” or “hand gonnes,” were essentially miniature cannons designed to be held by hand or attached to a pole for use by individual soldiers. They were loaded and fired in the same manner as the full-size cannons.
Seven hundred fifty-eight years later, outside Sadr City, Iraq, Navy SEAL Chris Kyle shot a .338 Lapua bullet (almost half an inch in diameter) out of his McMillan TAC-338 to make his longest shot, 2,100 yards. Almost a mile and half. That record shot saved an entire Army convoy from a rocket-propelled grenade.
What a glorious history. Despite the endurance of the basic science of firearms, we’ve come a long way. Rifling, powders, bullets, auto-loading, scopes, lasers, and so on. Imagine if we had no firearms. What we experience as reality today would be markedly different, and immeasurably more dangerous.
This is why the Left can’t stand firearms. They always hate what empowers the individual. It’s one of the pinnacles of hypocrisy because celebrities and those in government leadership positions have no objection to being protected by guns. But like the SUV which provides fun, function, and freedom, guns are fun, functional, and full of freedom.
Have you fired one? If not, do it. Find your local range here (http://wheretoshoot.org/Find_Range/). Shooting is a blast. Mrs. Cummings didn’t have much experience with guns before she qualified for her conceal carry permit. I wish you could have seen the look on her face shooting even a 22LR pistol, and doing very well at 25 yards (I think she beat me with my 9mm and 45 but let’s not get into that). Ear-to-ear grin, and a sense of power and accomplishment.
The Left claims a monopoly on empowering women but the only tools they clearly want women to have at their immediate disposal are taxpayer-supported contraception and abortions. If they truly wanted to empower women, they would support any and all education and training efforts. Not only would crime rates plummet against women, but you would silence the morons in government who have the unmitigated temerity to advise a woman to vomit, urinate and claim they are menstruating to avoid rape.
You didn’t hear that one? That’s your Democrat party.
Sadly, accidents happen with firearms, and people get hurt and die. Evil people with and without criminal records can and do get their hands on a gun and do harm to others. Since not a single law in this world will eliminate guns, why would anyone disarm ourselves?
The answer is we won’t, ever. In fact, we need more guns in the hands of more people. If good fences make good neighbors, good gun people make us into Mayberry.
Empower yourselves and your families by getting a gun. Get several if your budget allows. Learn how to use, maintain, and store them properly. And never let anyone tell you guns are bad, for as most Americans know: We can’t blame the spoon for making us fat.
BOOM: Beretta Moving To Tennessee Over Maryland’s Crap Gun Laws
Clashdaily, July 23, 2014

Citing Maryland’s recently enacted firearm laws and the prospect of more restrictions, the U.S. arm of legendary Italian gunmaker Beretta announced Tuesday that it would move its manufacturing operations to Tennessee next year.
The move makes Beretta the latest maker of guns or ammunition to move all or part of its operations to another state because of tightened gun control laws.
General Manager Jeff Cooper said an early version of a statute passed last year by the Maryland state Senate would have prohibited the company from manufacturing or storing products in the state.
“While we were able in the Maryland House of Delegates to reverse some of those obstructive provisions, the possibility that such restrictions might be reinstated in the future leaves us very worried about the wisdom of maintaining a firearm manufacturing factory in the state,” Mr. Cooper said.
A number of states, especially those that are conservative and gun-friendly, approached the Italian company last year after officials expressed concern about strict gun laws in liberal-leaning Maryland.
Landlord Caves to Pressure, Terminates Lease for 70-year-old Range
|Outdoor Hub,  July 22, 2014

Residents of a New York town have found themselves in the middle of a fight to keep a local range open, or to close it forever.
The Westchester County Police Revolver and Rifle League (WCPRRL) has been a fixture of Greenburgh, New York since the 1940s. The small range was built into an unused rock quarry in what is now the neighborhood of Ardsley Chase, but the gun club was there before the homes—and their residents—moved in. Now some of those residents want the shooting range gone, and it seems they might get their wish. After weeks of controversy surrounding the gun club after a local resident said she was hit by a bullet fragment from the range, the WCPRRL’s landlord, Con Ed, has decided to terminate their lease.
According to News Westchester 12, Con Ed has given the WCPRRL 30 days to vacate the premises. The gun club has already been closed for the past several weeks pending investigation, but supporters of the range are anything but resigned to the gun club’s closing. WCPRRL members from Greenburgh say that the move to put the range out of business is purely political, and the league’s attorney agrees.
“The range has a 73-year record of safety. If this truly was a public safety issue, it’s one we could have easily resolved,” Robert Berkowitz, who is representing the range, told CBS 2.
The incident at the heart of the controversy occurred in mid-June when a woman living in Ardsey Chase, an affluent neighborhood with homes routinely priced well over a million dollars, told police that she was hit with a object that she thought was a bullet fragment. Police are currently investigating whether that is the case. The WCPRRL, which is not affiliated with law enforcement, claims that it was impossible for a stray bullet to escape the range, especially considering its construction inside a stone quarry and the angle of the shooting range. Regardless, some residents started pushing for the gun club’s permanent closure due to safety concerns.
“We are not talking about golf balls; we are talking about bullets and bullets can kill,” resident Pam Epstein said.
The fight over the range eventually spilled over into Town Hall last week as residents found themselves taking sides over whether the WCPRRL should be closed down. Some insist that the range is a fundamental part of Greensburgh and has a longstanding history of safety. For gun owners, it is also one of the few outdoor shooting ranges in the area. Opponents of the range argue that the facility is loud and potentially hazardous.
The WCPRRL’s treasurer, Scott Palmer, announced recently that the league is working with legal consultants from groups such as the NRA and National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). In addition, the gun club has requested that a NRA Range Technical Team review the facility for safety. It is not currently known whether the club will fight the termination of its lease, or what options are available for it to do so.
Gun Buyers Scoop Up AK-47 Rifles After New Sanctions
 Conserative Byte, July 23, 2014

It is amazing how easily liberals violate our 2nd amendment rights.
Check it out:
Following another round of sanctions, demand for Russian-made firearms like the AK-47 rifle has picked up in recent days.
The U.S. and European nations have imposed economic sanctions targeting Russian companies over the country’s role in backing separatists that are fighting the Ukraine government. Additional penalties could be handed down in response to the downing of a Malaysia Airlines flight late last week. Federal officials believe the jet was shot down by a surface-to-air missile fired by rebels in eastern Ukraine.
The sanctions unveiled on Wednesday include Kalashnikov Concern, the maker of AK-47s and Saiga firearms. American companies are now prohibited from having Kalashnikov products imported into the U.S.
According to the Treasury Department, new transactions with Kalashnikov would violate the sanction, while current AK-47 owners can keep or resell Kalashnikov products. The Treasury also said distributors with an inventory of Kalashnikov firearms that aren’t fully paid for should contact the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/07/gun-buyers-scoop-ak-47-rifles-new-sanctions/#COYHCSKjgupezJr6.99
Thousands of Gun Owners Stand and Say “I’m Larry Pratt”-- Groundswell movement blasts Rep. Maloney for attacking Gun Owners of America
GOA, July 22, 2104

In case you missed it, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) attacked your Gun Owners of America late last week.
In doing so, Maloney called for Capitol Hill law enforcement to investigate GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt for saying that the Second Amendment is “for restraining tyrannical tendencies in governmentpecially those in the liberal, tyrannical end of the spectrum.”
In turn, author David Codrea of the Gun Rights Examiner blasted Maloney for her ignorance of the Constitution and for spurning our founding documents. He even went so far as to say that if Maloney is going to investigate Pratt, then she’d better start investigating other gun owners, to
“Remember the ‘I’m Spartacus!’ scene from the Kubrick movie?” asked Codrea. “In this case I’m Larry Pratt.
“If the Capitol Police are going to investigate him, they’re going to have to investigate me, too because I agree with everything he said about the Second Amendment being a last-resort protection against tyranny,” Codrea said.
Over the weekend, thousands upon thousands of gun owners joined Codrea in saying “I’m Larry Pratt,” and they called on Maloney to stop playing partisan politics.
Here are just some of the comments that were posted on GOA’s Facebook page:
* “It’s a pretty pathetic government that wants someone investigated for believing in and standing up for the Constitution!”
* “Why doesn't Rep. Maloney have the Capitol Hill police investigate the myriad of Democrat scandals? Unless... she’s culpable.”
* “That’s the progressive left mentality for ya... ‘Hey, he believes in rights and doesn’t agree with our views -- let's send in the Gestapo to harass him.’”
* “They should also investigate George Washington, Thomas Paine, and many of the other Founding Fathers!”
Educating Rep. Maloney on the Constitution
In its official response to Rep. Maloney, GOA stated that what the Founding Fathers believed -- and what they printed in the Federalist Papers -- is that our freedoms which are protected by the Second Amendment are the final guarantee against a tyrannical government:
* “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted ....” -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
* “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -- James Madison, Federalist No. 46
Gun owners know that there are many other similar type comments that were made by our Founding Fathers -- from Thomas Jefferson to George Mason to Patrick Henry. Apparently, Mrs. Maloney must have skipped that civics class during high school.
The hypocrisy of Maloney and the anti-gun Left
GOA also noted that there is tremendous hypocrisy in Maloney’s latest attack against Larry Pratt, given that she completely ignores REAL examples of threatened violence by the anti-gun Left.
Can you imagine the outrage if anyone on the Right even joked about shooting the President … or ripping out the Vice-President’s heart (or his hair plugs for that matter) … or slitting a female Representative’s wrists … or putting an anti-gun Governor against the wall to face a firing squad?
All these threats were made against politicians on the Right, but after each vile utterance, Rep. Carolyn Maloney stayed silent. She uttered not a peep.
The silence is deafening!
Bill Introduced to Limit "Marketing of Firearms" Toward Children
|Outdoor Hub, July 21, 2014

Representative Robin Kelly (D-IL) introduced a bill to Congress last Monday that would place strict rules on the “marketing of firearms to children.” The bill, known as HR 5093 or the “Children’s Firearm Marketing Safety Act,” would allow the Federal Trade Commission to “prescribe rules prohibiting the marketing of firearms to children.”
The bill includes a number of specific restrictions, including prohibitions on “the use of cartoon characters to promote firearms and firearm products,” “firearm brand name merchandise marketed for children,” and “the manufacturing of a gun with colors or designs that are specifically designed with the purpose to appeal to children,” among other stipulations. It also mandates that guns “intended for use by children” be clearly labeled with “Real gun, not a toy,” “Actual firearm the use of which may result in death or serious bodily injury,” ”Dangerous weapon,” or other language approved by the Federal Trade Commission.
Kelly appeared alongside Illinois Governor Pat Quinn recently when the governor announced his support for tougher gun laws in his state. At the press conference, Kelly reiterated her desire to see more gun control legislation passed on a federal level, despite heavy opposition to previous attempts at national gun control laws.
The bill has also been widely been criticized by gun rights advocates for what they see as ambiguous wording and broad reach. Popular political commentator and law professor Eugene Volokh even commented that the bill may be unconstitutional in several parts. Writing for The Washington Post, Volokh further stated that the labeling requirement in HR 5093 can in fact be dangerous.
“Most guns would still not be labeled. The more children learn ‘oh, there’s no ‘real gun’ label, this must be a toy,’ the more they will be at risk when they come across a normal gun,” Volokh wrote.
HR 5093 is currently under consideration by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Christie was right to veto the gun bill: Opinion
By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist July 19, 2014

More important, bad guys don’t worry about laws limiting magazine size.
By John R. Lott Jr.
Gun control advocates just can’t let go of Gov. Chris Christie vetoing of a bill limiting gun magazines to 10 bullets. Christie’s warning that the bill wouldn’t save lives might not be politically popular, but it was scientifically accurate.
Obviously, politicians aren’t supposed to question whether gun control works, especially not so bluntly. But Christie wasn’t going to support new laws just for the sake of doing something.
This is the very embodiment of reform in name only, Christie noted in his veto. It simply defies common sense to believe that imposing a new and entirely arbitrary number of bullets that can be lawfully loaded into a firearm will somehow eradicate, or even reduce, future instances of mass violence.
Christie’s reasoning has driven many critics crazy. Former Republican congressman and current MSNBC host Joe Scarborough slammed Christie as making one of the stupidest arguments he’s ever heard. In Sunday’s Star-Ledger One Gov. to another: A missed opportunity, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy took the unusual step of unloading on him in an opinion piece, calling the decision appalling and callous, accusing Christie of doing it for personal political aspirations, and that the decision defied common sense.
But there is a reason that gun control supporters, such as Malloy, don’t provide evidence that Christie is factually in the wrong. There have been plenty of studies on assault weapon bans by criminologists and economists alike, but there isn’t any evidence that limiting magazine size helps fight crime.
Take the work of two criminology professors, Chris Koper and Jeff Roth. They were hired by the Clinton administration to evaluate the original assault weapons ban, which limited magazines to 10 bullets. They found: the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).
At the time, Koper and Roth suggested that after the ban had been in effect for more years, it might be possible to find a benefit. Seven years later, in 2004, they published a follow-up study for the National Institute of Justice with fellow criminologist Dan Woods that concluded, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.
My own work with University of Chicago professor Bill Landes looked at mass shootings and the federal and state assault weapon magazine limits had no impact on either the number or lethality of mass shootings.
Malloy justifies the 10-bullet limit saying: a shooter must pause to reload three times more than a shooter with a 30-round magazine. ... We’ve seen time and time again how those precious few seconds with an empty magazine have the potential to save lives. But he is clearly wrong. Ironically, his first example illustrates the opposite is true.
Large magazines such as that used in the Tucson, Ariz., shooting often jam” large magazines require very strong springs and, over time, the pressure from the bullets in the magazine cause the metal spring to suffer fatigue. When the spring loses its ability to push bullets into the chamber properly, you get jams. Such jamming also occurred in the Aurora, Colo., Batman movie theater attack.
But more important, bad guys don’t worry about laws limiting magazine size. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is trivially easy to make. With the advent of cheap plastic 3D printers, people who are willing to break the law can make whatever size magazine they want.
Limits on magazine size are more likely to affect law-abiding citizens. People who legally carry concealed for self-defense are unlikely to lug around extra magazines just on the chance that they will need them. In contrast, mass shooters know when their attack will take place and come well prepared with extra magazines.
Finally, it is not uncommon for would-be victims when faced with multiple home invaders to fire more than 10 bullets.
Christie made the tough decision, but he has science on his side.
Obama Outlaws AK-47 Rifles With Stroke Of His Unconstitutional Pen
Info Wars, July 17, 2014

Obama will see if he can get away with this and continue with others.
Check it out:
Obama exploited the conflict in Ukraine to target the importation of the popular AK line of firearms manufactured by Kalashnikov Concern in Izhmash, Russia. The unconstitutional ban includes the Saiga line of rifles and shotguns.
The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) attempted to soften the blow by stating the executive order does not outlaw Kalashnikov firearms legally purchased in the United States prior to the ban.
The OFAC, according to its website, “administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”
The criminalization of an entire line of foreign manufactured firearms is possible under “national emergency powers” and there is no appeal process.
“Many of the sanctions are based on United Nations and other international mandates, are multilateral in scope, and involve close cooperation with allied governments,” according to the Treasury Department.
Naked, Armed Homeowner Scares Off Would-Be Burglar
Last Resistence,  July 15, 2014
It’s not clear what exactly scared the guy off. It could have been the homeowner’s 9mm handgun or the fact that there was a lot more than just his arms that were bare. (You know, right to ‘bare arms’ instead of ‘bear arms?’… Never mind.)
The guy apparently likes to sleep in the buff. He was awoken one night in his Texas home by a flashlight outside his bedroom door. After he saw that his wife was still asleep beside him, he grabbed his handgun from his nightstand and investigated the light. The Atlanta-Journal Constitution reported:
“I have a tattoo of the grim reaper, my hair is sticking up all crazy and I’m naked,” said the homeowner, who asked that his name be withheld for safety reasons. “I’m not sure if (the burglar) was more afraid of me or the gun.”
Upon confronting the homeowner, the burglar screamed “I’m so sorry, sir” twice before he ran and jumped out of the first-floor window he had apparently used to get into the house. The next morning, the homeowner said he saw the indentations of where the man’s body hit the dirt.
“He probably went out that window head first,” he said. “It’s all pretty absurd.”
Police confirmed that they received a report about the break-in, but no suspect was arrested.
It’s everyday occurrences like this that show the importance of firearm ownership in keeping people safe. An ordinary gun-free liberal would have had to call the police, and they would have arrived after the burglar had already taken what he wanted and fled and perhaps hurt or even killed anyone in the house.
I don’t think the police have been able to nab this particular burglar yet, but at least the homeowner and his wife were safe. And the guy who broke in probably won’t be coming back to that house again.
Gun Control Is Just One Of The Many Problems With Chris Christie
Conservative Byte, July 14, 2014

There’s some talk about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie becoming a viable contender for the 2016 Republican nomination. That is until you look at his record on Second Amendment rights. Yes, many in the base know Gov. Christie is a squish on gun rights. And, that might be why his candidacy could end before it begins.
We already nominated a moderate, Northeastern Republican in 2012. Let’s not make the same mistake twice.
Like defending life, support for the Second Amendment makes up one off the cornerstones of American conservatism. Earlier this month, Gov. Christie vetoed a magazine reduction bill, which is a good thing.
But, last week the Daily Beast published a piece that showed how Mr. Christie really feels about gun rights:
Christie’s first two campaigns were run on his support of New Jersey’s assault weapons ban, in place since 1990, which includes the 15-round magazine cap.
In April 1993, the future governor (then just a lawyer) announced he would run for the State Senate. He told the Star-Ledger, “The issue which has motivated me to get into this race is the recent attempt by certain Republican legislators to repeal New Jersey’s ban on assault weapons...In today’s society no one needs a semiautomatic assault weapon...We already have too many firearms in our communities.” Christie said that while he absolutely supported the right to bear arms, he would prevent any “weakening” of existing gun laws. The campaign only lasted a week.
In 1995, Christie, while serving as a county Freeholder, mounted a campaign for the State Assembly. He teamed up with Richard Merkt, then a legislative aide, to give running on assault weapons another go. Today, Merkt says that he just “went along” with Christie on the issue. Team Christie, he told The Daily Beast, “took control of that whole process.” The process including distributing mailers attacking the duo’s two main opponents, the vulnerable incumbent, Anthony Bucco, and a prominent conservative voice in the district, Michael Patrick Carroll. The mailers deemed repealing the ban on automatic assault weapons “dangerous,” “crazy,” and “radical.”
“He was basically kind of mocking the Second Amendment people,” Merkt said. “I think he thought the Second Amendment issue was kind of a joke, and was not significant.”
Christie and Merkt lost, with Christie coming in fourth place.
On top his abysmal record on the Second Amendment, there’s the fact that New Jersey is one of the worst states for business; its property taxes have continued to rise; and its tax projections left the state budget with a $800 million dollar shortfall. These are hardly accomplishments to be running on a national ticket.
So, it seems that while being for gun control, which is anathema to the base (and rightfully so) could derail Christie’s presidential ambitions; his economic record isn’t much to write home about either.
Gun Confiscation Begins
Conservative Byte, July 10, 2014

Liberals will start in the cites and keep expanding this out.
Check it out:
Second amendment activists are expressing concern that authorities in New York state have begun moving towards mass gun confiscation after a man had all his firearms seized by police over a 15-year-old misdemeanor charge.
In a post on the nyfirearms.com forum entitled, “NY State Police Just Came to My Home and Took Everything,” a Nassau County man describes how he received a visit from State Police who wanted to inspect the serial number of a semi-automatic rifle he had just purchased.
“I brought him to my safe, opened it and the 2nd officer went in and took out my cx4, Remington 70 sps and Remington 870 shotgun. Then he says that I had a misdemeanor possession charge 15 years ago and all the guns will be taken,” the man wrote, adding that he was put through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System when he purchased the guns with no issues.
The post elicited a huge response from other forum members who encouraged the man to get a lawyer while advising them that he shouldn’t have allowed cops to enter his home without a warrant. Others said the case highlighted how “registration leads to confiscation.”
Pro-2nd Amendment Statement: Boycott Google
Clashdaily, July 13, 2014

You know I am tired of Google. Every time I turn around I hear another story of Google acting like an Obama lackey.
They are no longer going to allow guns and ammo to be advertised on their products. You know they have the right as a business to run it any way they choose (unless the business is a Christian business and doesn’t want to violate its conscience, then the government steps in). Anyway, if they don’t want to allow those types of things on their site that is their right –however, it is also our right to step up and if we believe that they should allow them, then we should no longer give them any of our hard-earned dollars that do believe in the 2nd amendment.
I know I may sound flippant but Google is taking more and more of the internet share, and if all 2nd amendment supporters quit using their products we would send them a message that it is okay for them to do what they want, but we will withdraw our support of them.
The problem is that most 2nd amendment supporters will not stop using Google products even for a few days.
But, FYI, I have stopped using any Google products and will not allow my browsers to search on Google or anything owned by Google. No Google play on a phone, etc. I don’t own anything that hasn’t already had all Google products removed.
Round One of the Fight over S. 2363 -- the Harry Reid Preservation Act
GOA, July 8, 2014

The Senate floor battle has now opened on the fake “pro-gun” bill designed to reelect endangered anti-gun Democrats up in 2014 in pro-gun states.
That bill is S. 2363, sponsored by anti-gun crazy Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC), with the chief cosponsors being endangered anti-gunners who are Mark Begich (D-AK), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Udall (D-CO), Mark Warner (D-VA) and Al Franken (D-MN).
By now, even the dumbest Senators realize that this "sportmen's" bill is nothing but a political ploy to keep Harry Reid (D-NV) and Obama’s cronies in power in the Senate. An article in The Hill newspaper made this clear yesterday:
“The legislation is meant to help several red-state Democrats in tough reelection races this year. Co-sponsors include four other Dems who, like Hagan, are facing difficult reelection races this year: Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Mark Udall (Colo.).”
The Senate yesterday overcame the first hurdle in moving to consider the bill. But thankfully, there are several Senators who wanted to offer good, pro-gun amendments to the bill.
Senators John Cornyn (R-TX), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Rand Paul (R-KY), Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) are all heeding GOA’s call to threaten dozens of tough pro-gun amendments to the bill.
Senator Cornyn is prepared to offer a GOA-supported amendment to allow national concealed carry reciprocity.
Senator Wicker has told us he wants to allow guns on the Army Corps of Engineers’ land.
Senator Lee has told GOA he wants to change the Senate rules to prohibit any anti-gun amendments in the Senate.
And Senators Cruz and Paul have “tons of amendments,” including reciprocity, a restoration of gun rights for 175,000 veterans, and a shutdown of Eric Holder’s Operation Choke Point program (that is designed to close gun stores by cutting off their credit).
This is exactly what GOA (and you, our activists) have been encouraging pro-gun Senators to do over the past week. But we believe that Reid will now “tree” the bill -- a process used to block any amendments from being offered.
And we believe that, when they are shut out of offering amendments, many (if not all) Republicans will vote against cloture on the bill.
So ultimately, we still stand a good chance of success. Thank you all for your activism!

Christie vetoes gun control bill to reduce size of ammunition magazines
The Star-Ledger July 02, 2014

Gov. Chris Christie today vetoed a gun control bill that would have reduced the permitted size of ammunition magazines, saying it would do nothing to reduce gun violence.
This is the very embodiment of reform in name only. It simply defies common sense to believe that imposing a new and entirely arbitrary number of bullets that can be lawfully loaded into a firearm will somehow eradicate, or even reduce, future instances of mass violence, Christie said. Nor is it sufficient to claim that a ten-round capacity might spare an eleventh victim.
The move came less than an hour after gun control advocates ” including parents of two children killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting ” dropped off at Christie's office 55,000 signatures of people from around the country, including 10,000 from New Jersey, urging him to sign the measure.
Christie conditionally vetoed the legislation (A2006), but he did more than propose changes. He completely rewrote it, eliminating the ammunition capacity reduction and suggesting in its place several changes to the state’s mental health system.
I will not support such a trivial approach to the sanctity of human life, because this is not governing. Governing is confronting problems, Christie said in his veto message.
The bill, which was passed by the Legislature mostly along party lines in May, would have reduced the permitted size of ammunition magazines from 15 rounds to 10.
We want him to know that we are watching, we are aware and we are engaged,  Mark Barden, whose son Daniel was killed in the shooting, said at a Statehouse news conference this afternoon. Governor Christie, these 55,000 people are asking you. The State of New Jersey is asking you. We are asking you and I am asking you as a father to a father, please sign A2006.
But instead of a magazine size reduction, Christie proposed a new standard for involuntary commitment of patients who are not necessarily deemed dangerous but whose mental illness, if untreated, could deteriorate to the point of harm.
Christie also proposed new standards for recommending patients for involuntary outpatient treatment, treamlining  patient transfers between inpatient and outpatient programs, new training programs for first responders likely to encounter unstable people with modern techniques for de-escalation, nand to require people forced to undergo mental health treatment to demonstrate adequate medical evidence of suitability if they want to get a firearms purchase identification card.
Christie said Democrats who pushed the gun control legislation took the easier path.
Although Christie signed some gun-related bills pushed by Democrats last year in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, he either vetoed or significantly altered more far-reaching bills, including a ban on .50 caliber rifles that he had previously called for himself.
Christie, who is considered a likely contender for president in 2016, has faced pressure from gun rights organizations, including one in New Hampshire that warned last year that he would have a hard time winning the state’s first-in-the-nation Republican presidential primary if he signed gun control bills.
The bill was the last major piece of gun control legislation Democrats pushed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre. Originally, Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester), who represents a competitive legislative district, refused to move it even though it had passed the Assembly. But after he won a new four-year term in November, he agreed to put it up for a vote in the upper house, saying lobbying from Sandy Hook families had changed his mind.
Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald (D-Camden), the bill's sponsor, called the veto a "cowardly decision that lacks leadership."
"I would imagine this is a very uncomfortable topic to have with conservative voters in Iowa and New Hampshire," Greenwald said.
Scott Bach, executive director of the New Jersey Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs, applauded Christie’s veto.
"After months of intense battle over this misguided legislation that won't stop another crime or prevent another tragedy, we are grateful that Governor Christie has heard the voice of the outdoor community and ended the discussion, Bach said in a statement. The governor clearly recognizes the difference between legislation that punishes violent criminals vs. legislation that targets the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Gun control advocates were not happy.
The very day that grieving parents of children slain in Sandy Hook Elementary School brought 55,000 petitions asking the governor to do the right thing for public safety, he did exactly the wrong thing, said Bryan Miller, executive director of Heeding God’s Call, a faith-based group that pushes for more gun control measures. "The governor failed in his opportunity to do something simple, effective and instant for the safety of New Jersey's homes, schools and communities."
New Jersey has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, and is one of just eight states that limits the size of ammunition magazines. Most of those states, including New York, limit them to 10 rounds.
Phillip Lubitz, associate director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness in New Jersey, said the governor's proposal is good news, and hopes the legislature will act and change the law soon.
The existing involuntary outpatient commitment law gives judges the authority to order people with severe mental illness into outpatient therapy with close supervision if they pose a danger to themselves or others in the "foreseeable future." If the patient does not participate in therapy, the judge can hold a hearing and decide whether to involuntarily commit the person to an inpatient psychiatric facility.
Lubitz said the state's law is confusing to psychiatrists because the standard for ordering someone into treatment ” whether it is for outpatient or inpatient care ” is basically the same. So psychiatrists and clinical professors play it safe and order people to hospital care rather than take a chance the patient acts out while on an outpatient status.
The law was intended to keep people out of hospitals, and it's not being used that way, he said.
"It's a disservice to wait until someone deteriorates before (the courts) can take action. This is going to allow them to intervene because they need treatment, not because they are dangerous. It's using a standard that looks at someone with mental illness as someone who is gravely disabled," Lubitz said.
Still, Lubitz said aid he didn't think the change would address the rash of mass shootings, most often by young men.
"There's still another discussion that has to take place about the subset of individuals who have never really received any treatment or adequate treatment, who are primarily young males that have managed to barely exist on the fringe of society without being hospitalized or getting thorough treatment," he said.
State Sen. Richard Codey (D-Essex), who sponsored the 2009 legislation that created New Jersey's involuntary outpatient commitment law, said some of Christie's proposed changes "sound good" but deserve a "thorough vetting of that apart from the issue" of gun control.
"I’m not stupid. It’s clearly done to distract attention away from the fact that he’s against meaningful gun control at a time when our country needs it," Codey said. Im not surprised that he did it late in the afternoon, close to a holiday weekend.
Not a Gun-Free Zone: Colorado Restaurant Encourages Guns on Premises
Last Resistence, Posted on July 1, 2014

The sign at the entrance to the restaurant reads:
“Guns are welcome on premises. Please keep all weapons holstered, unless the need arises. In such cases, judicious marksmanship is appreciated.”
The restaurant, located in Rifle, Colorado is called Shooters Grill. Waiters, waitresses, other staff members, and customers are all encouraged to carry their weapons inside. Here’s CBS’s Denver affiliate:
“We encourage it, and the customers love that they can come here and express their rights,” Lauren Boebert told the paper. “This country was founded on our freedom. People can come in carrying their gun, and they can pray over their food.”
Even the staff is armed, with waitresses taking orders while carrying handguns in holsters strapped to their legs.
And if you don’t have a gun permit? No problem. The 55-seat restaurant also offers regular classes to qualify for concealed carry permits for Colorado and Utah. The $75 price tag includes dinner.
Shooters offers American and Mexican fare but does not serve alcohol. The decor has a strong Old West flavor, with guns and cowboy art on the walls.
And customers seem to like it.
Wayne and Martha Greenwald are from a small town in Michigan. They fully support allowing people to carry guns in the restaurant.
“We think it’s just fine, we’re very positive about it,” Wayne Greenwald told the paper. “We carry guns ourselves and own a rifle, shotgun and handguns. We live in a very small town and we take care of our own crime problems. No one comes to Grand Marais to break into someone’s house.”
Owner Boebert says some have asked if the guns the workers carry are real or part of a costume. “No, they’re real and they’re loaded, and we know what we’re doing,” she said. “I fear for anyone who tries to rob us.”
For whatever reason, some restaurants like the idea of getting robbed, so they post signs letting armed robbers know that they’re welcome. And liberals have the audacity to claim that a restaurant like Shooters Grill in Colorado will inevitably lead to blood baths. It’s not those types of establishments that end up getting robbed or where people get hurt or killed by armed criminals. It’s those stupid gun-free zones that get robbed at gunpoint.
Next time you’re in Colorado, show your support for the 2nd Amendment and this restaurant’s common sense gun policy. 
Hillary Clinton Sees Terrorizing Ideas in Gun Owners Convictions
June 24, 2014 By Larry Keane

Unless you have been living under a rock, you probably know that Hillary Clinton has been relentlessly promoting her new book that chronicles her tenure as U.S. Secretary of State.
Despite her claims to the contrary, she is using her book as a platform and its tour as a shadow campaign for her 2016 presidential run. A New York Times reporter even likened
the book to a 600-page State of the Union address, in which every constituency and every issue receives due mention. With every interview that Hillary does, she is foreshadowing what her presidency will be like, including her apparent plans to limit our freedom even further than President Obama has already tried.
Last week, Secretary Clinton participated
in a live CNN Town Hall hosted by Christiane Amanpour. She was asked by an audience member whether she believed that implementing bans on assault weapons and restricting standard sized magazines would be effective gun control measures.
As expected, Clinton explained that she thought it would be helpful, which is ironic considering the Democratic Governor of Colorado John Hickenlooper admitted
earlier that same week that he regretted passing a very similar gun control measure into law last year because it had been ineffective. Of course we already know that research has proven that her husband, former president Bill Clinton's ban on modern sporting rifles and magazine restrictions did nothing to reduce crime.
However, her remarks did not stop there. She went on to declare
that supporters of the Second Amendment are in the minority and that we cannot let a minority of people, and that's what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.That's right “ a likely presidential candidate has now labeled law-abiding citizens guilty of what she sees as terrorist-like thinking, simply for supporting our Constitutional rights.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation understands the serious threat that Secretary Clinton, and other politicians just like her, pose to our Second Amendment rights, which is why it started GunVote. The NSSF voter education program helps industry members and Second Amendment supporters make informed decisions at the ballot box by providing information and news about all of the key elections that could affect the future of our Second Amendment rights and the lawful commerce in firearms. It also has tools for users to register to vote and find polling locations.
With candidates like Hillary Clinton continually attacking our freedom, every vote counts.
Let's be clear here. Although she came close, the woman who wants to be the next President of the United States did not say, exactly, that gun owners are terrorists. Accused of saying that, she could deny it and she would be right. After all, she's become a perfectionist at parsing words.
But what Hilary Clinton did say was actually just as revealing and equally disturbing “ that gun owners viewpoint(s) themselves are terrorizing.This shows disdain not just for actions, but for the convictions held by a large number of her fellow citizens because they are different from hers and that of the liberal establishment that would empower her.
The 2014 election is important in itself, but even more so as our opportunity to begin building a Hillary-proof, pro-gun majority in Congress. If you value your freedom, it is now more important than ever to exercise your right to vote.
A New Jersey Law That's Kept Smart Guns Off Shelves Nationwide
By: Joel Rose, national public radio, June 24, 2014

A gun that fires only in the hands of its owner isn't science fiction anymore. A so-called smart gun is already on sale in Europe. But you won't find it on store shelves in this country — in part because of an obscure New Jersey law that's had unintended consequences for the rest of the nation.
Basically, the Childproof Handgun Law of 2002 says that once "personalized handguns are available" anywhere in the country, all handguns sold in New Jersey must be smart guns within 30 months.
The goal of the law was to spur "research, development and manufacture" of smart guns, according to its sponsor, New Jersey state Sen. Loretta Weinberg. But in practice, supporters and critics of the law now agree, that has not been the case.
"It actually doesn't matter if the gun has been sold," says David Kopel, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute. "If there's just one available for sale anywhere in the United States, then that triggers the handgun ban. So who would want to sell a smart gun knowing that, by doing so, they'd be imposing a handgun ban on New Jersey?"
A few gun retailers have tried. Recently, one shop in California and another in Maryland announced they would stock the Armatix iP1, a German-made gun that only fires if the owner is wearing a special watch.
In an unusually personal video message that he posted on Facebook in May, Andy Raymond, the co-owner of Engage Armament in Maryland, explained why he wanted to sell the gun. "I thought that if you got people who never wanted [a gun] or didn't want one in their house because of their kids ... getting at it," Raymond said, "that if they bought a gun, that that's a good thing."
The response was quick and intense. Both Engage Armament and the California store were flooded with angry calls and messages from people who consider the New Jersey law an infringement of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. Raymond says he received multiple death threats. Both stores quickly backed down on their plans to sell the Armatix gun.
"I don't think the reaction was at all surprising, because it's viewed as being a gun control push," says Lawrence Keane, vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry's trade group. Keane says his organization opposes New Jersey's mandate to sell only smart guns, but he says the foundation is not opposed to the technology itself.
"If people think there's a market for these products, then the market should work," Keane says. "People should be allowed to build what they think is a better mousetrap. The firearms industry has never been opposed to the research and development of this technology."
Second Thoughts
In Newark, a lab at the New Jersey Institute of Technology is trying to build a gun that will read the grip of its owner.
"I know, had it been readily available for me back in the day, I would've been using it," says William Marshall, a former police officer and brigadier general in the National Guard. Today, Marshall, now an assistant vice president at NJIT, is holding a normal handgun that's been specially fitted with dozens of tiny sensors in the grip.
NJIT officials hope this research will eventually lead to a gun that fires only for authorized users, and not for their children. But researchers concede this is not as simple as adding a few electronic sensors to the grip of an existing gun, because guns present unique engineering challenges.
"The pressure shock, the buildup of heat — all these things can be difficult, but not insurmountable," says Donald Sebastian, senior vice president for research and development at NJIT. If all goes well, Sebastian thinks NJIT can solve those engineering problems within two years.
The political obstacles may be harder to overcome.
Even the main sponsor of New Jersey's smart gun law is now having second thoughts. Loretta Weinberg concedes that the law's mandate has become an impediment to the development of smart guns.
"That's the exact opposite of what we really intended to do," Weinberg says. "If I'm willing to say, well, maybe we made a mistake here; we need to remove this — then I would expect that those who think we made a mistake will join in to say, hey, you're right, and now let's see the marketplace move ahead."
Weinberg is offering to repeal New Jersey's smart gun mandate if the National Rifle Association will publicly agree not to stand in the way of the technology. Weinberg says she's gotten no reply from the NRA. The group didn't respond to NPR's request for comment, either.
Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation says he's still worried that all of the smart gun technologies under development depend on batteries and other electronics that can fail.
"People use firearms for self-defense, and it's very, very important they operate when it's a time of need, and a highly stressful situation," Keane says.
Reliability concerns will go away once smart guns are on the market, says NJIT's Sebastian. "If we get law enforcement and military and other respected professionals to have experience with it, to show that it doesn't break and that it performs when it's supposed to, that's the way you start to break the logjam," Sebastian says.
But so far, no law enforcement agency has signed on to use smart guns. And there are plenty of consumers far beyond New Jersey who equate smart guns with gun control.
Google Declares War on the Firearm Industry
Patriot Update, Sunday, June 29, 2014

Google wants to keep you safe.
Google is taking a Bloomberg inspired step toward “curbing gun violence”. Once again demonstrating the level of ignorance that is prevalent in liberal corporate settings, the software company has decided to expand their ban on firearm-related content. Breitbart reported:
According to Google Support’s “Dangerous Products or Services” page, the company “[wants] to keep people safe both online and offline, so [they] won’t allow the promotion of some products or services that cause damage, harm, or injury.”
Right. Google (ya know, the company that tracks your every move online) is trying to keep us safe. God bless those left coast liberals who are suddenly embracing the manipulative power of big business. Of course Google seems woefully ignorant of the fact that such “dangerous” items, actually keep many people safe every day. . I understand it could be chalked up to a difference in corporate culture, but I would encourage Google to promote safety and concealed carry classes if they are serious about keeping people safe offline.
Anti-Gun? Usually It’s Safe, White People
Clashdaily, June 29, 2014

Most anti-gun whites live in bastions of delusional liberal white utopias, where their only struggle is bantering back and forth in a civilized discussion of what restaurant will get their business Friday evening for dinner. Can you picture them?…the husband, idly standing by in the yellow polo shirt and coordinating stupid sweater tied around his neck that wifey bought. If only the rest of us Americans didn’t screw up their holier-than-thou isolated lives.
These gun hating whities are robotic mouth pieces, regurgitating the manufactured gun horror stories abounding nightly on the anti-gun propaganda news stations. Such types usually have equally surrendered their souls to a life of earth worship, aka tree hugging, only organic products, hemp admiring, and oil industry hating lives. The rest of us insignificant humans are a reminder to them, the chosen, of a gun-loving American history that they, in their utopian communities of an advanced society, have no need for, which leaves such a bad taste in one’s mouth.
After all, they are much too pious and sophisticated to see a need for g.u.n.s. They hide away in upper income sometimes gated communities, where even their part of town has an invisible gate to keep out big city bad guys (blacks). Affording such isolated-from-crime lives, they are smug and self-righteous with their noses up in the air for any beliefs other than their own anti-American thinking.
Yes, anti-American — hating guns and gun control are as anti-America as one can get. Centuries ago men gave up their fortunes, and their lives pledging their sacred honor to defending our right to possess and bear guns. Yet the brain dead whities have no need for guns, only for the fact that their circle of life excludes the dangerous individuals so common and present where most of Americans have to tread.
I say, hey walk in my shoes, and see if you don’t feel the need for cold hard steel, and a full metal jacket! Every night on the news where I live the Democrats’ favorite poster children –whom they love to fawn over– are out committing grievous crimes against the everyday Joes who are just going about their everyday lives.
This type also rationalizes that the government is their friend and everything is just fine.
These purposely ignorant, head-in-the-sand folks, are the same people who think if you are nice to Muslims that they will play fair and won’t cut heads off. In fact they agree, Islam is a religion of peace
Big Win for Gun Owners in Colorado -- Bloomberg Money Helps Cochran Squeak By
GOA, June 25, 2014
Gun owners achieved a big win in Colorado during Tuesday’s elections, but also suffered a narrow loss in Mississippi.
In Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, GOA-endorsed candidate Ken Buck won his primary by an astounding 20 points.
This is great news for gun owners across the country.
Gun Owners of America doesn't look for candidates who will merely vote right, but do nothing else. We look for strong leadership qualities and the willingness to stand up to the powerful elite in Washington D.C., and Ken Buck is that type of person.
In Mississippi, we suffered a narrow defeat in the race for U.S. Senate, with incumbent Thad Cochran garnering 50.8% of the vote to GOA-supported Chris McDaniel’s 49.2%.
Anti-gun billionaire activist Michael Bloomberg dumped $250,000 into the state to defeat McDaniel. Bloomberg has pledged to spend $50 million to push his radical gun control agenda, and GOA will continue to fight him at every turn.
Across the country, GOA supports candidates who stand 100% for your Second Amendment rights, and we thank the members and supporters who helped make Tuesday’s win possible.    
Supreme Court Thoughts The Day After
Outdoor Wire, June 22, 2014

It seems there are several logic disconnects in the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday on the question: "are you required to make it clear on a Federal Form 4473 if you will keep - or sell- a firearm?"
Apparently the answer is yes - or no. And it depends on whether you look at Justice Kagan's majority opinion - which clearly says stating on a 4473 that you're the ultimate buyer when you're not. And that comes into a conflict with the ATF's regulations on the 4473. In the Notices, Instructions and Definitions (page four) it clearly states you are "the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the gun as a gift."
On the surface, former police officer Bruce Abramski, Jr. didn't appear to do anything wrong -if you believe the 4473's instructions. Under Justice Kagan's interpretation, his having received the money for the Glock 19s purchase in advance made him -clearly- a straw purchaser. There's also the question of a police officer using his law enforcement status to buy a gun for a "civilian" but I'm not going near that question. That's entirely up to his departmental regulations. That's a matter that is bitterly disputed, evidenced by the lawsuits still ongoing between Glock and a former distributor over the alleged abuse of government-pricing differences.
But here's a simple question causing a lot of consternation: had Bruce Abramski, Jr. said he was going to give the gun to his uncle, would he have been in violation?
Not if you read the 4473 - or the dissenting opinion from Justice Antonin Scalia.
That's the point where many pro-gun observers say Justice Kagan's opinion jumps the rails. She gives no consideration to that little distinction, despite the fact it is clearly stated on the Form 4473 that a gift is not a straw purchase. And despite the fact she draws her on exception for raffles and fundraisers.
She writes, "No piece of information is more important under federal firearms law than the identity of a gun's purchaser- the person who acquires the gun as a result of a transaction with a licensed dealer."
But Justice Kagan's "no piece of information is more important" comment seems to point out something critical to that argument: 4473s aren't supposed to be retained in perpetuity by the government - they stay with the dealer. Along with the dealer's "bound book" - they are the starting points for law enforcement investigations. That information is not to be retained by the ATF.
The formal paper trail on a firearm - if you follow the system - begins with the manufacturer and ends at the legitimate sale of the firearm by a dealer to an individual . Those records are required to help police in the beginnings of an investigation. From that point forward, it's police work, not a federal firearms records search, that tracks the firearm in question.
And in many cases the police are back-tracking the gun in an attempt to determine where it came into the hands of a criminal, not to determine if it was purchased by a legitimate, qualified, buyer.
As usual, the majority and dissenting minority opinion show the division of thought in the court. Not just in regards to guns, but in the idea that the government should be able to have any information it desires - and the court's duty interpret the law according to that goal.
Justice Kagan specifically says the law "looks through the straw to the actual buyer" and argues that not following that position "effectively guts the purpose of the law and creates a worthless bureaucratic function."
In the dissent, Justice Scalia disagrees: "Ensuring that the person taking possession of a firearm from the dealer is eligible to receive and possess a firearm, and recording information about that person for future reference, are by no means worthless functions," he writes. "On the contrary, they indisputably advance the purpose of crime prevention by making it harder for ineligible persons to acquire guns and easier for the government to locate those guns in the future; they simply do not advance that purpose to the same degree as an exacting law might have done."
Justice Scalia's comment on "an exacting law" would seem to point out a common feeling among the members of the high court - laws are inexact and poorly considered. Or as Justice Kagan wrote in her opinion, laws "(like pretty much everything Congress does) was surely a result of compromise".
I'd thought that was the problem the judicial branch was supposed to address by dispassionately clarifying the unclear rather than making the murky even murkier.
On the Occasion of McDonald
Tactical Wire, June 25,2014

(Scene: A New York City bedroom at night. Cops have "busted in" to the sounds of a disturbance and took a man into custody. The homeowners, Nick and Nora Charles are being questioned.)
Lieutenant John Guild: You got a pistol permit?
Nick Charles: No.
Lieutenant John Guild: Ever heard of the Sullivan Act?
Nora Charles: Oh, that's all right, we're married!
(The Thin Man, 1934, MGM)
Timothy Daniel Sullivan was an active member of the Tammany Hall political machine. Gifted in the ways of constituent service, political patronage, and a believer in women's suffrage, he owned some or total interest in certain saloons and ran prostitution, gaming and extortion rackets in his base districts. He worked with other ethnic groups in, among other things, perpetrating elections frauds in New York City --while he personally distrusted "dark eyed strangers who didn't speak English."
Still, he served a term in the U.S. House and two terms as a New York State Senator. He made sure the poor had shoes at the time of his mother's birthday and had community feeds for Thanksgiving, among other occasions.
Nora's take on the Sullivan Act, while humorous, is accurate. Someone was getting a screwing.
Big Tim Sullivan wrote the Sullivan Law and it made possession or carry of a firearm illegal without a permit. In the City of New York, the only way to get a permit was to go to the infamously corrupt NYPD of the day with $3. While you can't get a latte for $3 now, in 1911 it was a lot of money. It's said that one opponent of the machine got tossed so much by the constabulary, he took to getting his suit pockets sewed shut so a public servant couldn't provide a roscoe during the inevitable frisk!
Sullivan made sure his mugs got their permits and carried their guns. One source referred to his body guards having guns, though there is a thread that "it was so easy to get a gun and do something stupid, (Big Tim) decided to do something about it." The reference from that bit of information is suspect. It's more likely he wanted his people to have the heaters and he wanted a lever to use against the opposition criminal gangs.
Of course, the Sullivan Law is still in place. The cost is a lot greater. The only stamp they can find for your application is "DENIED," unless you are Don Imus or another highly connected individual.
It's reminiscent of the Soviet Union. Or turn of the (previous) century New York.
Mayor Bloomberg currently bellows about the "iron river of (illegal) guns" flowing into Manhattan . . . as if they didn't drive the demand with their law.
What ever happened to Big Tim Sullivan?
Some speculate that he suffered from tertiary syphilis in his waning years - he died at age 51. In 1913, the New York State Supreme Court reported the findings of an "Incompetency Hearing." He gave evidence of paranoid delusions, a symptom that would seem to be the hallmark of the typical gun control proponent.
Depending on who we believe, he got away from his brother's house one night a year later. His body was found on the tracks in the Eastchester area of the Bronx. No one knew who he was, though the coroner who worked the case had been appointed to this political patronage gig by Tim Sullivan and there was no facial or head trauma noted. Apparently the monogrammed cufflinks, "TDS," rang no bells. After two weeks, this hero of the statists was declared vagrant and was scheduled to be deposited in a potter's field. A police officer on morgue detail recognized him and a more dignified send off was arranged.
McDonald v. City of Chicago isn't the end. Gun control fanatics will be with us forever. Keep up your memberships, be vigilant, let your elected officials know who you are and what you think.
New Jersey Ivory Ban Slips Through Legislature - Awaits Governor's Signature
Outdoor Wire, June 21, 2014

1. Editor's Note: With the unexpected passage of a total ban on the possession of ivory, the New Jersey legislature has approved a bill that, if signed into law by Governor Christie, would criminalize thousands of state residents. This bill points out what could become a worst-case scenario for demonizing hunters and collectors. Today, Rob Mitchell of the Elephant Protection Association gives us his perspective as an attorney. It's important to realize this is a textbook example of a bill that not only fails to do anything to combat elephant poaching- the stated goal of the ivory ban- it fails to address it entirely.
Animal Rights Groups get the Most Poorly Constructed Ivory Ban through NJ Assembly and Senate - Only Governor Christie Can Stop It
There is nothing good to say about New Jersey's pending Ivory Ban, S.2012/A.3128. It starts by citing every exaggeration and misrepresentation that the federal government and NGOs have spread about poaching and the US ivory market for months. It was introduced on May 8th and flew through both legislative houses before anyone who owns or works with ivory had a chance to react. Its key provisions are:
Bans all ivory from any animal (elephant, hippo, mammoth, narwhal, walrus, whale, etc.)
Makes it unlawful to import, sell, offer for sale, purchase, barter or possess with intent to sell any ivory or ivory product
No exception for antiques
Only allows conveyance to a legal beneficiary of an estate after death or in anticipation of death
Reserves discretionary authority to New Jersey to allow ivory to change hands for "educational or scientific purposes"
First Offense penalty - minimum $1000 fine or 2x total value of ivory, whichever is greater
Second Offense penalty - minimum $5000 fine or 2x total value of ivory, whichever is greater
Upon any conviction, the court shall order the seizure of all ivory, ivory products . . . involved in the violation for basing the value of the penalty. After sentencing, the court shall order the seized ivory transferred to the Department of Environmental Protection for proper disposition. The DEP, at its discretion, may destroy the ivory or donate it to a museum, university or research group.
This bill is all about criminalizing ivory without doing anything to fight ivory smuggling or stop elephant poaching. This ban has already passed the NJ Assembly and the NJ Senate. Only Governor Christie's signature is needed to make this law.
The Elephant Protection Association has already written to Governor Christie imploring him to stop the New Jersey Ivory Ban. If you have ANY connection to New Jersey, it is imperative that you contact Governor Christie immediately to prevent this from becoming law.
You can contact Governor Christie in any or all of the following ways:
Send a message online at http://www.state.nj.us/governor/contact/
Call him at 609-292-5000
Write to Office of the Governor, PO Box 001, Trenton, NJ 08625
E-mail him at Constituent.Relations@gov.state.nj.us
It is especially important to contact the Governor if you live, work, or have a significant contact in New Jersey. Please let us know if the Governor or his staff responds to any of your contacts.

NUTTIER THAN A SQUIRREL TURD: Hillary Compares Gun Owners To Terrorists
Clashdaily, June 18, 2014

I’m sure she believes that because in the Topsy-turvy world of Hillary-land, up is down and down is up. Check this wombat out from a recent CNN interview…
During a televised town hall, Hillary Clinton was asked about guns, and said that the viewpoint held by gun-rights advocates “terrorizes” the majority of Americans.
The town hall, broadcast live on CNN on Tuesday, closely resembled a commercial for Clinton’s new memoir, “Hard Choices.”
“I was disappointed that the Congress did not pass universal background checks after the horrors of the shootings at Sandy Hook and now we’ve had more,” said Clinton in response to a question from a Maryland teacher named Gloria Santa Maria.
“Seventy-four more,” Santa Maria interjected, seemingly referencing a now-debunked claim made last week by the pro-gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety.
“We cannot let a minority of people – and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people – hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” said Clinton.
SCOTUS Swings Against Gun Owners
Outdoor Wire, June 17,2014

It seems the most powerful justice on the Supreme Court of the United States today isn't Chief Justice John Roberts, it's Justice Anthony Kennedy. With Kennedy's vote in hand, Justices Sandra Sotomeyer, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan issued a majority opinion that the federal ban on gun purchases for another person - even if that person is legally allowed to own a gun- is illegal.
The 5-4 ruling went against a former Virginia police officer who bought a pistol with the intention of transferring it to a relative in Pennsylvania. That relative was not prohibited from purchasing a handgun. The decision to make the purchase, it seems, was based on the fact the now-straw purchaser Bruce James Abramski, Jr. bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Virginia -using a police discount.
Later, he transferred that pistol to his uncle in Easton, Pennsylvania. In the Virginia purchase, Abramski signed the Form 4473 saying that he was the "actual buyer" of the gun, despite the fact he was actually buying the gun for his uncle using his police discount
When Abramski was arrested for something entirely different, officials then charged him with making false statements about the purchase of the gun.
The federal district rejected his argument that he was not a straw purchaser because his uncle was eligible to buy firearms. The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then affirmed that decision and the case was appealed to the SCOTUS. Now, it seems, that decision is firmly on the side of the administration and contrary to the position taken by the NRA and others.The NRA and other pro-gun groups had argued that the government wrongly interpreted the law and had, in fact, improperly expanded the scope of gun regulations. Their position is that the goal of the 4473 was simple: to prevent guns from falling into the hands of convicted felons and others barred from owning firearms, not to prevent transferral of firearms between citizens with no disqualification from gun ownership.
Twenty-six states also submitted briefs supporting that position. Nine states and the District of Columbia filed briefs supporting the administration position.
The minority dissent, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, argues the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined that position.
In contrast, the administration argued that accepting Adamski's defense would impair law enforcement officials trying to trace firearms involved in crimes while keeping them away from ineligible potential purchasers.
It seems Justice Kennedy agreed with that position.
As the "swing" voter, Kennedy is the one person it appears can take the Court in the direction he feels it should go. With the remainder of the Justices divided evenly across liberal/conservative tendencies, Kennedy's particular disposition on an issue seems to be the one with the potential to most frequently commit what should be a crime, but isn't: legislating from the bench.
The announcement of the ruling yesterday is already being trumpeted as a "sign of a change of opinion in America" regarding the rights of gun by anti-gun groups. As you can imagine, pro-gun groups aren't happy with the ruling, calling it everything from wrong-headed to a major setback for legal firearms owners. In examiner.com, gun rights reporter Dave Workman quotes constitutional scholar and Second Amendment expert Nelson Lund of the George Mason School of Law: "Five members of the Supreme Court have decided to make it a federal crime for a lawful gun owner to buy a firearm for another lawful gun owner. No federal statute says any such thing."
"The Justices are once again legislating from the bench, which violates the Constitution, and enacting a retroactive criminal law, whiich is even worse."
Source: examiner.com/article/scotus-ruling-does-kagan-opinion-smack-of-gun-registration.
Workman also observes that the "spirited" dissent from Scalia points out the fact that, using the majority opinion, being asked your favorite color on a 4473 and then saying "blue" when you actually mean "green" would be a "false response" - a federal crime.
Another question about the rigidity of the form concerns the question of recreational usage of marijuana - legal in Washington and Colorado- answering the question about the use of controlled substances in the negative -in the belief that you had some sort of loophole due to state law- would also constitute a false response -and serious trouble.
In her majority opinion, Justice Kagan says the "twin goals of this comprehensive scheme (4473s) is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who should not have them, and to assist law enforcement authorities in investigating serious crimes....no part of that scheme would work if the statute turned a blind eye to straw purchases- if, in other words, the law addressed not the substance of a transaction, but only empty formalities."
That's a solid sounding argument, until you take into consideration the fact that criminals are seldom known to fill out a Form 4473. And the worst abusers of the straw purchase were known to the federal authorities at the time they were purchasing guns for illicit purposes. They were allowed to make the purchases under the now-infamous gunwalking disasters created by the ATF.
AN AUSTRALIAN’S OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
Joe For America, June 15, 2015

Dear Mr. President,
You recently hailed “Australian gun laws”.
In doing so:
you praised a government for forcefully removing all semi-automatic firearms from its populace, you admired the banning and confiscation of guns.
We expect to hear that from a European leader. But not you.
You’re the leader of America:
the world’s first free country,
the nation that has inspired many to be free,
that has protected the freedom of others,
that has spread more freedom than any other.
I am an Australian and I must set the record straight.
The “success” of the 1996 Australian gun reform is a myth.
The only thing achieved was to take away the guns of the law-abiding, leaving only the criminals armed. Is this what you wish for America?
In Australia, if a citizen has firearms, the police have a right to search their property without a warrant any time. Does that sound like America?
The laws you praise outlawed the Daisy Red Ryder BB Gun that my father played with as a child. Now you need a special permit, gun safe and serial number.
For what?
There are just as many guns on the street today. Gun crime is no lower. In Australia, mass shootings have been a rare event. If strict gun laws mean no massacres, explain Britain’s
Cumbria shootings, Monkseaton and Dunblane. Or Anders Breivik of Norway?
Gun laws achieve very little.
Mass shootings are about illness, not guns. Any other so-called “gun issue”, if there are any, is related to the breakdown of the family, cultural decline and the age of entitlement.
The Second Amendment defines American exceptionalism. It speaks to the character of America, and reflects why America is America.
Civilian disarmament is based on the assumption that people are irresponsible (unless they work for the government). America was founded on the opposite premise.
Don’t make America a namby-pamby society.
The right to bear arms is not wrong nor unnecessary. It is:
the greatest test of genuine freedom,
the best protection of you, your family and your property,
the ultimate deterrent against government overreach.
The Constitutional right to bear arms is pivotal. The American idea is a value system. If you take away the guns of America, you take away America.
Mr. President, your country is the one the world relies on. Right now, it is at a tipping point.
Forget guns.
Focus on: ending the waste, paying back the debt, limiting the government and axing political correctness. That’s how you’ll get America to boomerang.
Your country is the greatest in the world, and respectfully, Sir, you should stop apologizing for it. Keep it up, and America will be just another European state. And that’s not good for anyone.
Yours Sincerely,
Nick Adams
Nick Adams is the author of the brand new book: The American Boomerang- How The World’s Greatest Turnaround Nation Will Do It Again. The foreword is written by Lt. Col. Allen West. It is released on July 1, but is now available for pre-order. The book has been endorsed by the Heritage Foundation, National Review, The Washington Examiner, and Breitbart.com, among many others. All press inquiries should be directed to Tamara Colbert at
tamara@addracing.com or 626-244-5571. His website is
www.nickadamsinamerica.com.
Washington Post: ‘No Place Is Safe’ in America Without More Gun Control
Minutemen News, June 15,2014

On June 12, the Washington Post ran a column by their editorial board claiming “no place is safe” in America without more gun control.
They justified this claim by citing six gun-free zones–Troutdale, Newtown, Columbine, Blacksburg, Seattle, and the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard–in which guns were used to commit crimes.
They cited three other crimes that happened in areas other than gun-free zones–Tucson, Las Vegas, Santa Barbara–but dismissed the obvious mental health problems associated with those crimes by citing President Obama’s statement that America “does not have a monopoly on crazy people.”
OH, SHUT UP: Anti-Gun Punks Flip Out Over Jessa Duggar Holding Pink AR-15
Clash Daily, 11 June 2014

After Ben Seewald posted a picture of Jessa Duggar holding a pink semi-automatic rifle on Facebook, a social media storm has started up. See below via the Daily Mail:
Jessa Duggar, the 21-year-old star of TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting, has sparked a social media storm after she was snapped posing boldly with a pink-trimmed high-capacity semi-automatic assault rifle.
The photo was posted on Facebook by Jessa’s boyfriend, 19-year-old Ben Seewald; a staunch Christian conservative who is highly vocal about his support for guns and his commendation of abortion.
‘My AWESOME girlfriend. #DontmesswithJessa’, reads the caption.
The photo seems to have been taken in a gun store, and has attracted a predictable wash of debate, with users taking to the comments section to vent their views.
Anti-Gunner Dianne Feinstein & Barbara Boxer Push Gun Confiscation through The Pause for Safety Act
Freedom Outpost, June 8, 2014

Like clockwork, just a couple of weeks after 22-year-old
La Isla Shooter Elliot Rodger — who had been taking the psychotropic mediation Xanax for at least six months prior —
reportedly killed seven people and injured another 13 —
vehement anti-gun Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein joined fellow Dem. California Senator Barbara Boxer and Dem. Representative Lois Capps to introduce “The Pause for Safety Act”.
The legislation would limit a person’s ability to purchase or possess a gun if that person’s family member(s) or “others” believe him or her to pose a threat to him/herself or others should he/she purchase or
have a gun.
According to the press release on Sen. Barbara Boxer’s website, The Pause for Safety Act would “empower families to prevent gun violence” three ways:
One, ensure that families and others can go to court to seek a gun violence prevention order to temporarily stop someone close to them who poses a threat to himself, herself or others from purchasing a firearm.
Two, ensure that a court can issue a gun violence prevention warrant that would allow law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that are in an individual’s possession if the court determines that the individual poses a threat to himself, herself or others.
Three, ensure that law enforcement makes full use of all existing state and local gun databases when assessing a tip, warning or request from a concerned family member or other close associate. [emphasis added]
“It is haunting that the family of the gunman who committed this massacre in Isla Vista was desperate to stop a tragedy, and yet they lacked the tools to do so,” Senator Boxer said in her statement. “My bill would give families and associates who fear someone close to them could commit violence new tools to help prevent these tragedies.”
Her statement goes on to say the bill would essentially bribe states via a grant program:
The measure would create a new grant program – the Pause for Safety Grant Program – to help support these efforts. States that take action to enact these preventive measures would be eligible for the grants to provide resources for courts and law enforcement as they implement these measures.
Clearly you can see where this act would (quite easily) lead to potential abuse and outright subversion of a person’s 2nd Amendment rights.
If anyone who is a family member or claims to be a “close associate” can submit a tip that someone else poses a potential threat (whatever that criteria is), that person’s gun purchasing and ownership rights can apparently be (at least temporarily, if not longer) stripped.
Every time someone hopped up on psych meds kills a bunch of people, our supposed public servants use it as an excuse to go after the general public at large’s Constitutional rights.
Gun Violence Plummets, But You’d Never Know it From Listening to Politicians and the Media
Last Resistence,  Jun 9, 2014

Liberal politicians and talking heads like (former host) Piers Morgan ask the same sanctimonious question after a media-publicized shooting. “How many more have to die in order for us to do something about gun violence?”
What they won’t tell you of course is that “gun violence” has been going down for decades. The media might be reporting on incidents of gun violence a lot more than they ever have, but in reality, there have been far fewer occurrences in recent years of homicides involving guns compared to 20 or 30 years ago.
And not surprisingly, because of the media’s fixation on these incidents, Americans falsely believe that gun violence must be on the rise. KLTV in Texas brought to light a recent study highlighting these statistics:
More than half of Americans believe gun violence has increased over the past two decades, but what you’re watching on the news, may be skewing your view.
That recent study said compared to 1993, the peak of US gun homicide, the rate was 49 percent lower in 2010, even though the population had grown. In other words, fewer people are dying by guns.
Assaults, robberies, and sex crimes also went down by 75 percent in 2011 [compared to 1993]. Perhaps images from shooting crime scenes seem all too familiar, but perhaps the attention to gun violence in recent months has caused more Americans to be unaware that gun crimes are actually markedly lower than they were two decades ago.
There have been about two mass shootings per month in the US over the past five years, according to another report. A mass shooting is constituted as four deaths or more, but this study said each year less than one percent of gun homicides are from mass shootings. Between 1983 and 2012 there were 547 deaths from mass shootings. These shootings are highly publicized and the public is paying close attention.
The study also noted more than half of gun-related deaths are suicides. Researchers aren’t sure why gun violence has gone down so drastically, but the study did note that the decline has slowed over the past decade compared to the rapid reduction in the 90’s.
Market Slowdown & M&Ms Meltdown?
Outdoor Wire, June 6, 2014

A sales report sent to me earlier this week seems to confirm that the gun business is slowing down after three of the highest demand years on record. The word most commonly used to describe the past 36 months has been "superheated". Now, I'm hearing the phrase used for May 2014 was "margin compression".
Seems inventories have started getting "heavy" and dealers are selling them down rather than risk tying capital up in unsold goods.
There's always some "normal" slowing during the summer, and dealers who have yet to see that margin compression tell me they know it's coming.
Others, including ranges, training facilities and competitions, are seeing decreases in their business as well. There the culprit is the continuing ammo shortages in much of the country -across most popular calibers.
For May, most states were seeing only single-digit drops in their NICS numbers, but a few report severe drops, some approaching thirty percent. They're the states seeing that margin compression.
The long-term threat isn't the drop in firearms sales, it's the indication that ranges demand is slowing. One frightening possibility is new shooters have abandoned their newfound sport because of the ammo shortages.
We've heard reports that some local and regional shooting competitions are seeing commensurate drops in entries. Again, competition officials attribute that drop to the continued shortages of ammunition for practice and competition.
In other news, M&M's decision not to fulfill a Business to Business order from Knife Rights (www.kniferights.org) because the word "knife" didn't fit their "family friendly" standards, continues to generate negative feedback with Second Amendment supporters.
Despite that, the company is sticking with its decision. Having seen a number of notes written to the company, each has received the same "canned" response
Here, for example, is one of the shorter exchanges:The Protesting Email:
I was recently made aware of YOUR decision to cancel an order from the Knife Rights organization because the word "knife" is not "family friendly". What exactly is family friendly? Is spoon family friendly? What about fork? What about if the order had come from the Wounded Warriors Project and included the word "Warriors"? or from MADD and included the word "Drunk", are those words family friendly? What a ridiculous position to take. MMs are one of my favorite candies, as are other MARS products, but I will have to stop buying them based on your current actions.
Here's The M&M's Response:
Dear Consumer,
Thank you for your email.
MY M&M's® made the decision to not print the customized order because it contained the word "knife," which is not in keeping with the fun, celebratory nature of our brand.
Sincerely,Your friends at MY M&M'S® Chocolate Candies
OK, it's their right to turn down business, But it only seems fair I mention the company's ad from the Super Bowl. You may watch it for yourself here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3Z4TQKGXbE.
OK, it's funny, but it to me seems a little "dark chocolate" from the outset. Not overly-concerned about being "fun" or "celebratory" or even family-friendly. But there's little doubt about their view of knives, is there? Knives bad. M&M's -dumb- but good.M&M's may have underestimated the level of rancor Second Amendment advocates are capable of generating, or they might just believe the whole thing will blow over because, after all, there can't be that many people who still believe we are so uncivilized as to need knives, right?
This weekend in Atlanta is the annual celebration of all things knife-related: The Blade Show. It will feature the latest in knives, knife-making techniques and is a fun event for all concerned. It's also a chance to see Knife Rights' Doug Ritter and the SAF's Alan Gottlieb together. We'll be asking about the state of the Second Amendment and more, so watch Monday's edition for that.
Finally, it would be wrong not to recognize the significance of this date in world history. On June 6, 1944, 150,000 Allied forces landed across a 50 mile stretch of heavily-fortified French coastline to fight Nazi Germany on the beaches at Normandy. It was the largest military undertaking ever at the time with 5,000 ships and 11,000 aircraft supporting the effort to get a toehold in France.
By the day's end, 9,000 Allied troops would lose their lives, but General Dwight D. Eisenhower's admonition to his commanders was simple: "Total victory. Nothing less."
Seventy years later, many of the heroes from that generation have passed, and we are diminished as a nation by their loss. To those who we're fortunate enough to still have in our midst, our heartfelt thanks. We will never remember your sacrifices and endeavor to live up to your standards from today forward.
God bless you for your sacrifice
CCRKBA: Obama Rewards Terrorists, Punishes Gun Companies
CCRKBA, June 6, 2014

BELLEVUE, WA - Congress must "suck it up and act now" to rein in President Barack Obama and his administration, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today, because at the same time he turns loose five dangerous terrorists who want to hurt us, his administration has been trying to squeeze the economic life out of gun-related companies that have hurt nobody.
"President Obama has broken the law by releasing five Taliban terrorist leaders in exchange for one soldier without notifying Congress, " said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, "and his administration has been trying to financially strangle gun companies with 'Operation Choke Point, ' and they've done nothing wrong. This president's priorities are way off the grid, and only Congress can stop this nonsense. "
A furor has erupted over the trade of the five terrorists in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who went missing in late June 2009. A separate controversy erupted last week over Operation Choke Point, a Justice Department project that cuts off bank funds to allegedly questionable enterprises, but instead is also being used to restrict funds to companies it finds "objectionable. " Those companies sell firearms and ammunition.
"The Obama administration has happily been pressuring banks to cut off funds to firearms retailers, " Gottlieb said, "who serve law-abiding citizens interested in protecting their homes and families, while turning loose terrorists who pose a clear and present danger to those same American families.
"And there is something else, " he added. "Right now Mexico is holding a U. S. Marine who accidentally crossed the border with legally-owned firearms in his car, and Obama has done nothing to set that man free. Perhaps the president should deport some Mexican criminals now in American prisons in exchange for our Marine. If Obama is going to trade criminals for one serviceman, he better be ready to do it again.
"It is time for Congress to step in and do its job as an equal branch of government, " Gottlieb concluded. "This administration has created one scandal after another, from Fast and Furious through Obamacare and Benghazi, the IRS the Veterans Administration and now the Taliban release. Congress needs to play the adult and put some brakes on the White House before we all lose our constitutional rights. "
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org
Barbara Boxer Proposes Law to Allow Family Members to Confiscate Guns from “Unstable” People
Last Resistence,  Jun 5, 2014

She’s calling her bill the Pause for Safety Act. It will allow family members who are concerned for another family member’s mental health to petition the court for a “gun violence prevention” warrant. As long as the court finds the person in question to be a threat to himself or others, they will issue the warrant, and the police will confiscate any weapons the person has, and that person will not be allowed to own a weapon after that.
Not surprisingly, the bill was inspired by the Santa Barbara killer, and also not surprisingly, would have done nothing to prevent his actions.
Here’s what Boxer said in support of this legislation:
“We failed our children. Call it what you want, but we are failing our children because we have a basic task to keep them safe. We have a function here not to allow someone who is unstable or violent to get a weapon.”
This is merely an extension of what is already on the books. It just provides yet another avenue for gun confiscation.
The questions are the same. What is considered “unstable?” What is considered “mental illness?” Mental health officials often err on the side of calling someone mentally ill even if they’re not, because they don’t want to be held liable for that person’s actions just in case something does happen. It’s set up so that once you’re in the mental health system, there is very little you can do to get out and still have your 2nd Amendment rights. More than likely, if you’re there involuntarily, they’ll say that you’re not of sound mind to possess a weapon. Boxer’s bill just makes getting involuntarily committed easier.
So, if you’re a conservative in a family of liberals, this bill would allow them to petition the court to have your guns taken away on the basis of your “extremist” and “potentially violent” views
Between The Berms: Mr. Orwell? Mr. George Orwell?
Shooting Wire, June 4, 2014

You can't discriminate against a gay person just because you don't like the fact they're gay and in their being gay they make you uncomfortable.
You can't discriminate against a black person because you've seen black people on the evening news being arrested for committing some crime and therefore black people make you comfortable.
You can't discriminate against Jews because you don't like them and they don't share your same belief system.
But, if you don't like guns you're in for a treat because Democratic California Assembly Members Nancy Skinner of Berkeley and Das Williams of Santa Barbara have introduced Assembly Bill 1014 giving you the power to do something about your unease with and dislike of firearms.
According to CAL-FFL, Assembly Bill 1014 allows you to ask a court for a "Gun Violence Restraining Order" and subsequent "firearms seizure warrant" against California gun owners. And the best part is that you don't have to actually know the person or anything about them other than they own a firearm.
So what does that mean?
Well, you could find all the people in your local area that own guns - maybe with the aid of one of those helpful CCW maps newspapers are so fond of publishing - and start asking the courts for a "Gun Violence Restraining Order" against each of those individuals simply because you believe they, as CAL-FFL notes, "pose a significant risk of personal injury to himself, herself, or others by owning or possessing" guns.
We would never accept this kind of unwarranted harassment of other groups, such as gays, blacks or Jews, because we inherently understand that to be morally wrong. But when it comes to gun owners, that seems to be a whole other issue and people are completely fine and utterly unfazed by applying a standard they would never dream to apply to groups identified by their sexual preference, ethnicity or religious beliefs.
As gun owners though, we are simply fair game. We can be as law abiding as we want. We can be upstanding members of our communities. We can be philanthropists and generously volunteer our time for important causes.
But, if we own a firearm then we are a separate kind of citizen, a second-class citizen, and all our contributions to society are for naught and we are deemed undeserving of the same constitutional protections others are entitled to and enjoy.
All this is because somebody somewhere committed a crime with a gun.
In their zeal to pass legislation that reflects their doing "something, anything" to address gun violence, the California legislators reveal their true, horrifying nature. And that is the harboring of a casual indifference to gun owners as a group which perilously borders on dangerous because it serves to fuel the misdeeds of a governmental system that plays to public outcry by taking advantage of isolated tragedies, such as the recent Santa Barbara area shooting.
I could suggest parallels like the rounding up of Japanese Americans by the U.S. Government and placing them in internment camps during World War II, but they'd say "that's entirely different."
I could point to Russia's reported recent registration of Ukrainian Jews, which was met with global damnation, but that would again be "entirely different." In fact, I was told just that by a friend whose view on guns is that they are inherently dangerous and therefore registration of gun owners is perfectly justified, as opposed to the registration of Jews which is horrifying. I did not ask how they proposed handling registration of a gun owner that was Jewish.I could point to the systemic isolation and subjugation of blacks through past racist laws and societal norms, but that too would be "entirely different."
The fact is that we are being further marginalized as a group, but because we are not identifiable by sexual preference, ethnicity or religious beliefs it doesn't rise to the level of discrimination - regardless of how specifically and narrowly targeted their efforts are.
We are entering a climate increasingly reminiscent of something out of George Orwell's classic, 1984, where our fellow citizens are encouraged to report us to the authorities. Of course, we have already been through this with the fight against the red menace during the McCarthy era...but "that's entirely different."
The turning of citizens against citizens is exactly what Assembly Bill 1014 would implement. And the bill proves that the road to Hell is indeed paved with good intentions but they should at least be honest about their intentions and rename this Assembly Bill 1984.
Boxer moves legislation to let the government take guns away from virtually anyone
GOA, June 4. 2014

Not a GOA member yet? Click here to join Gun Owners of America! And click here to take action on this alert.
"What is wrong with the people here in this country?" asked anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer on the floor of the Senate Monday.
Boxer was questioning why even the anti-gun Senate had not heeded her call for more gun bans, and concluded that something was wrong with America.
Well, here's an idea, Senator Boxer: Nothing's wrong with America. But something is wrong with you.
Add, in particular, something's wrong with your state of California, which registers guns, bans many semi-automatics, has a $24 million gun confiscation program to send SWAT teams to people's homes, and is rated by the anti-gun Brady Campaign as having the strictest gun control laws in the nation -- and yet was unable to prevent another massacre of students on May 23.
It probably won't surprise you that Sen. Boxer doesn't blame this massacre on the fact that California left all of the victims as unarmed "sitting ducks."
Or that even the New York Times now realizes that its sensationalist coverage has created these copycat killings.
Or that it’s the CRIMINAL who is actually at fault!
No. Boxer instead concluded that this was another opportunity for her to exploit a tragedy for political gain. And that's exactly what she has done.
The text of Boxer's hilariously-named "Pause for Safety Act" was not available at press time. But, by her own definition, it would allow a universe of people which could include virtually anyone (for instance, "co-workers," according to Boxer) to sue to take your guns away.After the lawsuit is commenced, you would have to take thousands of dollars (which, presumably, you have lying around the house) and hire a lawyer to resist that petition. Of course, if you didn't have the money to hire a lawyer, your constitutional rights vanish in thin air.
Gun Owners of America has had lots of experience with the far-less-expansive restraining order gun ban added to the "prohibited persons list" in 18 U.S.C. 922(d) and (g).
Constantly -- and we mean constantly -- we receive e-mails from innocent law-abiding members who cannot afford the cost of resisting a petition to take their guns away. Constantly, we see the impact of "he-said she-said" reciprocal gun-ban petitions which are the inevitable outcome of failed relationships which are increasingly common in America.
So, yes, Senator Boxer: We understand what you're up to. If the Boxer bill were to become law, virtually anyone could lose their guns at any time because someone with "deep pockets" didn't like them.
But the good news is that Boxer's proposal is so transparently anti-gun and so odious that we can nip it in the bud if we act now.
Gun Control Group Admits: No Law Could Have Prevented Santa Barbara Shooting
Last Resistence Jun 4, 2014

That’s because laws don’t deter criminals. Laws should be punitive, not regulative. Politicians can try all they want to regulate people and their actions through legislation, and it won’t stop those for whom the laws are intended. Just look at the war on drugs. What an absolute failure. Or a success, depending on how you look at it.
Or look at gun control laws. Those who don’t want any trouble abide by the laws, often at their own peril. Criminals, by default, don’t care about regulative laws, and so any law prohibiting them from possessing a gun is irrelevant. In fact, much like drug dealers, violent criminals depend on those prohibitive gun laws to be able to act more efficiently on their criminal desires.
Even gun control proponents – in their more honest moments – admit this. Dave Workman, the senior editor over at The Gun Mag, reported:
The head of Washington State’s most vocal gun control organization admitted during a recent interview with Seattle’s KVI radio that the killing spree in Santa Barbara, Calif., couldn’t have been prevented by any gun control law.
Ralph Fascitelli, president of Washington CeaseFire, admitted to KVI’s John Carlson that, “California has some of the strictest laws in the country on gun violence. I don’t think that there’s any law that would have prevented the tragedy in Santa Barbara.”
Yet Fascitelli’s organization – while not sponsoring the measure – appears to be supporting Initiative 594 launched by the Seattle-based Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR), an 18-month-old, and well-financed group formed to press for so-called “universal background checks.”
I-594 is an 18-page gun control measure that is opposed by the National Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and several other gun rights groups. CCRKBA is part of a broad coalition pushing an alternative measure, Initiative 591, which requires any background checks done in the state to comply with a uniform national standard. It also prohibits government gun confiscation without due process.
California imposes a “universal background check” for all gun transactions. In the days following the Isla Vista slayings—in which three people were fatally stabbed and three others were gunned down by a 22-year-old man who then took his own life after trading shots with local sheriff’s deputies—gun rights activists in the Pacific Northwest have repeatedly noted that I-594’s proposal mirrors existing California law. It did not prevent the killings, as proponents have been intimating it might.
At least three times during the discussion on KVI, Fascitelli reaffirmed that, “I don’t think there are any laws that would have prevented the tragedy in Santa Barbara.”
So, if no law could have prevented what Elliot Rodger did, then why do these gun control groups continue to use that incident and every other mass shooting to lobby for more gun restrictions? Obviously, they’re not going to save lives. The push for more and more gun control has never been about saving lives. It’s been about disarming the American populace, bit by bit, until there’s nothing left to take.
Sonic Robbed Same Day Gun Ban Announced
Conservative byte  June 2, 2014

Breitbart News reported that Sonic restaurants asked law-abiding “customers [to] refrain from bringing guns” to their restaurants on May 30.
On that same day, according The Topeka Capital Journal, two individuals who may have realized law-abiding citizens were unarmed walked into a Topeka, Kansas Sonic and robbed it.
According to police, the suspects are two black males, both of whom were wearing hoodies and white pants.
This same thing happened to Jack in the Box once they asked law-abiding citizens to quit carrying guns in their restaurants.
On May 11 Breitbart News reported Jack in the Box told law abiding citizens they would “prefer” they not carry guns into the restaurants. On May 13 there was a shooting at a Nashville Jack in the Box and on May 18 and 20 there were armed robberies at Jack in the Box restaurants in Houston, TX.
Open Carry Group Fires Back at NRA: Just Paying ‘Lip Service’ to Gun Rights
Conservative Byte, June 3, 2014

Following a statement from the NRA’s legislative arm chastising the behavior of various open carry groups for being “downright weird” and potentially incurring harm to the cause, Open Carry Texas, a group specifically cited by the NRA, fought back against an “ignorant” and “unnecessary” statement.
“The NRA has refused to learn for themselves how Open Carry Texas (OCT) conducts itself other than what the liberal media and Bloomberg funded gun control extremists have falsely portrayed,” OCT wrote on its Facebook wall. “The real ignorance in their statement is that it was completely unnecessary. OCT – along with Come And Take It Texas, Texas Carry and Gun Rights Across America – has already changed its methods and the whole world is aware of that.”
They weren’t finished.
“The more the NRA continues to divide its members by attacking some aspects of gun rights instead of supporting all gun rights, the more support it will lose,” the group wrote. “Already, OCT members are posting pictures of themselves cutting up their life membership cards. If they do not retract their disgusting and disrespectful comments, OCT will have no choice but to withdraw its full support of the NRA and establish relationships with other gun rights organizations that fight for ALL gun rights, instead of just paying them lip service the way the NRA appears to be doing.”
Industry On Edge
Outdoor Wire, June 3, 2014

Yesterday, we reported that Knife Rights wasn't at all happy with M&M candies after the company accepted -then cancelled an order for candies the Second Amendment supporting organization had hoped to hand out at this weekend's upcoming Blade Show in Atanta, Georgia. Now, word's getting out around the country about the candy company finding the word knife to be "not family friendly" - and we're getting reports of the beginning of a little pushback.
The first word came from a range operator who told us "he'd never sell another M&M or Mars product again" after they decided to "go politically correct". There have been others who have echoed the sentiment, so we'll see what happens. And ace reporter Dave Workman of The Examiner did a little of his own leg work yesterday on the story. After speaking with the customer service rep who reportedly made the initial comment about knives, he was sent to the public relations department. Last we heard, he'd had no comment from them.
With the Blade Show, "the world's largest knife show" kicking off in Atlanta later this week, it may be that M&Ms may find themselves with a little 'splainin' to do if the story starts to gain traction. And Knife Rights will have their chance to get some attention with the Second Amendment Foundation's Alan Gottlieb set to be the keynote speaker at their Saturday morning Sharper Future awards breakfast. We're told his remarks will zero in on knives being protected by the right to keep and bear arms.
And the Second Amendment fight has never cooled in California, but it got a few degrees hotter yesterday when California Democrats proposed a new bill (Assembly Bill 1014) that would allow for anyone to request a court for a "Gun Violence Restraining Order" and "firearms seizure warrant" against California gun owners.
According to the bill's text, courts would be required to issue a restraining order if a person-who doesn't even have to know the target of the order-submits a form saying that a gun owner "poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself, herself, or others by owning or possessing" guns.
The response from the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL) was quick and direct.
"a gun control nightmare," is how Brandon Combs, president of CAL-FFL described AB1014. "California Democrats are taking their radical anti-gun agenda to an entirely new and horrifying level." Combssays that the bill "guts due process" and the presumption of innocence.
CAL-FFL warns that the broad language of the seizure warrant could lead to midnight "no-knock" raids against the subject of the restraining order-who may not even know that their gun rights have been stripped away and that they are now a "prohibited person"-but also the homes of their friends and family, and even places of employment.
Combs believes that the bill's language is ripe for abuse, especially by anti-gun groups frustrated with their lack of success at pushing through more strict legislation. "Cyber-bullies like Shannon Watts and her 'Moms Demand Action' extremists could simply go on Facebook or Twitter, grab a photo of you and your gun, and slap it on a restraining order request. There's no criminal or civil penalty for filing false or vexatious reports and no provision for the recovery of damages and someone's loss of rights. AB 1014 would make it open season on California gun owners."
Combs continued, "On mere hearsay, an anti-gun judge could instigate a life-ending terror campaign against a gun owner and everyone who knows them."
If that weren't enough, another bill introduced by State Senator Kevin de Leon would ammunition sales and purchase permits and ammunition registration.And yesterday afternoon's edition of "Bullet Points" from the NSSF reminds us that the crazy attacks on law-abiding firearms owners isn't the only challenge facing Californians. A California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) public workshop to discuss implementation of the state's ban on traditional lead ammunion will be held this evening (Tuesday, June 3) from 7-8:30 p.m. in Eureka. The location is the Humboldt Bay Aquatic Center, 921 Waterfront Drive.
The CDFW is under pressure to adopt regulations to ban lead ammunition for hunting no later than July 1, 2014 with full implementation no later than July 1, 2019. There's still time to comment on this proposal as the final recommendations to the Commission won't be made until September. Individuals and/or organizations that can't make tonight's meeting in Humboldt can email comments to wildlifemgmt@wildlife.ca.gov -and be certain to use "Non lead implementation" in your subject line. You can also send written correspondence to CDFW, Wildlife Branch, Attn: Non Lead Implementation, 1812 9th St., Sacramento, CA 95811.
I'm starting to get the impression some people don't want gun owners around -period. We'll keep you posted.
Congressman Proposes Cutting off Funding DOJ Program that’s Crushing Gun & Ammo Dealers
Freedom Outpost, June 1, 2014

By now we have all heard about Operation Choke Point. It is the latest program initiated by the lawless, criminal Department of "In"Justice where pressure is exerted on banking institutions to cease providing services to business considered "high risk." It has been reported these "high risk" businesses include gun and ammo dealers, coin dealers and payday lenders – all legal, legitimate businesses operating within the law. Earlier in the year, it was reported that banks were denying services to adult film stars because of their industry.
Missouri Republican Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer proposes to give the DOJ a dose of its own medicine by "choking" off the funding for this program. Luetkemeyer attached an amendment to the Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill that recently passed the House to stop the DOJ from using intimidation tactics to force banks to cease services to legitimate businesses.
Speaking about Operation Choke Point, Luetkemeyer stated, "What it does is go after an entire industry, whether it's obeying the law or not. And that's just wrong."
The amendment followed a report released by the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform that claimed "Operation Choke Point has forced banks to terminate relationships with a wide variety of entirely lawful and legitimate merchants."
According to The Daily Caller:
This happens because the anti-fraud initiative, which is operated by the Department of Justice which works in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, forces banks to more closely monitor their business relationships with companies in industries deemed "high risk."
Banks can suffer "reputational risk" by failing to spot fraudulent practices.
Luetkemeyer says this has a chilling effect in forcing banks to be over cautious.
"'They are operating legally, and yet Operation Choke Point is not there to go after the bad actors, which I support them doing,' he said, adding, 'the problem I have with Operation Choke Point is it goes one step further.'"
Businesses that have been wrongly ensnared by the DOJ's aggressive program include gun sellers, ammunition sellers, coin dealers, tobacco sellers, career repair service providers and many other legitimate businesses.
Last week, The Washington Times reported that the owner of Powderhorn Outfitters, a Hyannis, Massachusetts gun seller, claimed a line of credit would not be extended to him by his longtime banker, TD Bank, because he sold guns.
According to Luetkemeyer, the DOJ is using what amounts to intimidation tactics on banking institutions to force them into ceasing business relationships to long term customers in many cases, which Leutkemeyer states is wrong.
The amendment is simple, reading "none of the funds made available in the CJS appropriations bill may be used to carry out Operation Choke Point."
Leutkemeyer contends this is just a first attempt in curbing the problem he terms "the nonsense of government overreach." In speaking with the Daily Caller, Leutkemeyer said he has spoken with the DOJ about "providing a safe harbor for banks to continue doing business with legal and legitimate companies, but the agency has not listened." As a result of the department's deaf ear, Luetkemeyer stands firm in stating this program has to be stopped.
"'This is picking and choosing winners and losers," Luetkemeyer told the Daily Caller.'"
Everyone in America should know by now this program has nothing to do with targeting illegal, illegitimate "high risk" businesses. This entire program is the back door unilateral agenda of Obama in order to enact gun control. If gun and ammunition sellers do not have a financial institution with which to do business, these legal, legitimate businesses will go out of business, meaning that no citizen who is endowed with the God-given right to bear arms will be able to purchase arms and ammunition. Without ammunition, a firearm is useless.
This is the latest and greatest abuse of power exhibited by the DOJ headed by Eric Holder. While there has been no law passed, officially, by Congress curtailing Second Amendment rights, this is an end run around Congress to disarm the citizenry and part of the playbook used by Obama and his ilk toward a totalitarian, tyrannical dictatorship. Fortunately, some in Congress are paying attention; but, it may be too little, too late. The question is will this "amendment" even cause a skip in the step of the DOJ in their efforts. Based on the past behavior of how this administration views laws and amendments, one can assume Holder and the DOJ will spend their appropriations how they see fit with the robust approval of Obama himself.
Commenting on this abuse of power by the DOJ, committee Chairman Darrell Issa said, "If the administration believes some businesses should be out of business, they should prosecute them before a judge and jury. By forcibly conscripting banks to do their bidding, the Justice Department has avoided any review and any check on their power."
Issa's comments are noble. However, Americans know how Obama, his Department heads and their agencies feel about the law – it's a nuisance and hindrance to their agenda, unworthy of following except when it suits them in their favor. It is blatant inequity of the law which has somehow almost become accepted as standard operating procedure. At least, anyone seriously looking would believe so.
While Congressmen are raising objections now, where were those objections when the first blatant violations of the Constitution and the law under this administration started? Where was Congress when previous administration's violated the Constitution and the law? As the old saying goes, "give someone an inch and they'll take a mile." Precedents have been set and continue to be set.
Congress has ceased being a check on the presidential power to the point it is useless; rendered to nothing more than a bunch of talking heads spouting the sideshow advertisements during hearings that are dog and pony shows. Government officials refuse to cooperate with any oversight committee or provide requested documents resulting in these officials being held in contempt of Congress with impunity. Some, like Lois Lerner, are allowed to retire with benefits, I'm sure.
Welcome to the UDA – the United Dictatorship of America? How do you like your tyranny?
Schoolteacher Attempts to Ban Gun-Shaped Clouds
Last Resistence,  May 27, 2014

They might want to add a few states to the list of forbidden images. Florida, Oklahoma, and Idaho all look too much like guns. They should at least redact them from their schoolroom maps of the U.S., if they even have those anymore.
The assignment was for the kids to go outside, look up into the sky, and draw what they saw, using their imagination. An 8-year-old boy named Kody thinks he saw a gun in the clouds. Maybe he did. But when he drew a gun, he and the teacher took a walk to the principal’s office, where he got written up on a behavior report form. On the form, the teacher wrote that the boy’s behavior was disruptive to the entire learning community, according to KKT
The school district released a public statement on their decision to write up Kody:
“Our primary responsibility as a school district is to ensure safety of all staff, students and community. We exercised an age-appropriate reaction to an incident. The student’s education was never disrupted nor is this incident on the student’s permanent record. Our response was in line with routine procedures focused on school safety.”
So, at least they didn’t suspend the kid, and his “behavior problem” won’t make it to his permanent record. But what will likely be permanently implanted in his brain is the idea that guns are inherently evil and should be feared more than anything else in the world. His school-manufactured fear of guns will make gun control so much easier by the time he’s grown up.
NSSF Issues Statement on 'Operation Choke Point'
NSSF, May 29. 2014

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) today issued the following statement:
The National Shooting Sports Foundation has been investigating the possible role of the federal government in influencing banks in their lending and business banking relationship decisions regarding companies in our industry. We have heard from several industry members that they had banking relationships terminated by their lending institutions.
We respect the right of financial institutions to make business decisions based on objective criteria. It is unacceptable, however, to discriminate against businesses simply because they are engaged in the lawful commerce of firearms, an activity protected by the Second Amendment.
NSSF staff has met with members of the House Financial Services Committee and members of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee concerning several documents that have surfaced from the FDIC labeling companies in the firearms and ammunition industry as "high risk."
As a result, we have worked with U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) and expect that he will offer today an amendment to the FY15 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, which would prevent federal funds from being used as part of "Operation Choke Point" or in any effort targeting companies involved in the lawful commerce in firearms.
We will continue to investigate the extent of any improper government involvement and will update our members as more information becomes available.
Refuting the Lies of Gun-Control Liberals
Patriot Update, May 28, 2014

When it comes to the gun-control debate, liberals have a problem with cause and effect. They continue to blame gun violence on inanimate objects—guns—rather than the people who consciously choose to use these inanimate objects in malicious, violent, and destructive ways. Every time a mentally disturbed person uses a gun to express his anger and frustration with the world, liberals ramp up their never-ending campaign for new and more restrictive gun laws. To even suggest that the perpetrator’s mental condition might be the cause of the violence in question brings howls of protest from liberals who foolishly believe that laws actually prevent crime. To a gun-control liberal, criminals who use guns are somehow different. They will, according to the illogic of liberals, suddenly become law-abiding citizens who will never again pick up a gun if liberal legislators can just pass new laws.
But there is a problem with constantly advocating for new and more restrictive gun laws: there are already so many gun laws on the books that existing laws are not being enforced. Why enact new gun-control laws when those on the books are not being enforced? Why not simply enforce the laws that currently exist? These two questions are not popular in liberal circles. In fact, liberals carefully avoid discussions in which these questions come up. Writing in American Rifleman (May 2013), Wayne LaPierre—Executive Vice-President of the National Rifle Association—had this to say about the lack of enforcement of existing gun laws: “Everything real violent criminals do to acquire a firearm is already a serious federal felony. Under federal law, lying to a licensed dealer, lying on the form 4473, and straw sales are all federal felonies that are almost never prosecuted.” Yet these crimes are used by liberals to justify their demand for a national registration system for gun purchases. Again, why not enforce the laws that already exist?
LaPierre also cites several additional federal statutes that are already on the books, but are only sporadically enforced. Here is a summary of those statutes, what they proscribe, and the prison sentences associated with them:
18 U.S.C. 922(g): A felon, fugitive, or drug user may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for being in possession of a firearm or ammunition. In other words, the firearms that liberals want to ban are already banned for criminals, fugitives, and drug users. What is needed is better enforcement of this existing law—not new laws that will not be enforced. This reinforces a point often made by those of us who support the Second Amendment: gun laws will take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but will do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
18 U.S.C. 922(j): An individual may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for possessing a stolen firearm. Since criminals often use stolen firearms in committing the violent crimes liberals are constantly wringing their hands about, simply enforcing this law would cut down on gun violence. This being the case, one can only wonder who liberals are really aiming at with their campaign for new gun-control laws. The answer should be obvious: law-abiding citizens.
18 U.S.C. 924(b): An individual may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for shipping, transporting, or receipt of a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony.
18 U.S.C. 924(a): An individual may be sentenced to 5 to 30 years in prison for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a violent federal crime or in the act of drug trafficking.
18 U.S.C. 924(j): An individual may be sentenced to death for committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a violent crime or in the act of drug trafficking.
18 U.S.C. 924(g): An individual may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for interstate travel to acquire or effect the transfer of a firearm for the purpose of committing a crime.
Those summarized above are just a sampling of the gun-control laws that are already on the books and are readily available to law enforcement personnel and prosecutors. These laws cover every aspect of acquiring, possessing, transporting, and illegally using firearms. It is hard to see how new laws will do anything to curb gun violence that enforcing these existing laws would not do.
Yes, there is a problem with gun violence in the United States. But problems are solved by identifying the root cause and dealing with it. Guns are not the root cause of gun violence. Guns are just inanimate objects; as such they do nothing of their own accord. Violent acts using guns are perpetrated by people, most of whom are hardened criminals or mentally disturbed individuals. Lock up the criminals and provide for the proper treatment and confinement of the mentally disturbed and gun violence will no longer be a problem in the United States. Accept the illogic and hypocrisy of liberal gun-control advocates and gun violence will just continue.
The Real Reason Liberals Want Gun Control
Posted By Last resistence,  May 28, 2014

Ends are always preceded by means, though it can be difficult to understand the origin of something just by seeing its results. The paths taken to achieve political goals are often obscured by lies, and murky motives. What motivates a political ideology? What causes someone to do one thing, and not another? Behind every action, there is a motivating factor, and an internal reasoning. If you wish to know the “why,” you must seek out context, clues which point you in the right direction.
Liberal ideology is riddled with contradictions, and muddy motives. From the outside, liberal policy can seem confusing, and seemingly impossible to understand. That’s because it operates using a set of motivations to which we are not privy. However, if you look closely enough, you can begin to see how the gears turn in the liberal mind.
With the recent shooting in Santa Barbara, the leftist media is in a frenzy. The air is thick with condemnation for those who don’t support gun control. Media hysteria happens every time there’s a shooting, but there is an additional factor in this particular case that is being deliberately overlooked. In addition to killing three people with a firearm, the Santa Barbara maniac killed three others with a knife. While the gun deaths are being used to fuel gun control hysteria, the media is oddly silent on the knife deaths.
In 2010, 1,704 people were murdered with knives in the United States. True, that is a fraction of those who were murdered with firearms, but the number is still staggering. There are so many weapons used to kill, but only guns are the target of restrictive legislation. It’s also interesting that guns are the only weapons mentioned in the constitution, in terms of what we have the right to bear.
Given the widespread violence, why aren’t liberals targeting all forms of weapons? It seems to me that in terms of consistency, anyone who supports restrictions on firearms should also support restrictions on knives, and other instrument that could be used to harm and kill other human beings. So, why just guns? I believe there are two factors at work here. First, gun control is a tool that is being used to undermine the second amendment for a larger purpose. If the second amendment can be undermined, then all other amendments are up for review. If one amendment loses its integrity, the others become weaker, and vulnerable. Second—and more directly—targeting guns makes conservatives look like monsters for supporting the second amendment.
Shooting after shooting, conservatives stand up for gun rights (and rightfully so). We are given the right to bear arms in our constitution. There are numerous ways gun ownership can be made safer, and only a fringe few are the ones causing the problems. Many recent shootings occurred in states in which gun control is the most strict, such as California, and Washington D.C., and almost every shooting in the last 50 years has occurred in “gun free zones.” There is ample evidence to suggest that concealed carry (in other words, more guns on the streets, in the hands of law-abiding citizens) would drastically reduce mass-shootings. We are given the right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves from potential, and likely inevitable, government tyranny. It’s a sacred right, and I believe there are options outside of radical gun control that could reduce the instances of mass-shootings—one of which I mentioned above. If we disarm the populace, there will be no defense against a government tyranny.
The left has concocted their opposition to guns in order to make conservative supporters of the second amendment look like heartless psychopaths. Similar to how they use the theory of man-made global warming to get votes, the left tells Americans that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for the safety of our children, and the safety of all of us. They then demonize Republicans by labeling them as the heartless Party that doesn’t give a crap about kids, and couldn’t care less if they died, so long as they can have their guns. It’s a strategy to gain the votes of stupid people, of which there are many.
The left also has a beef with the constitution as a whole. They hate the second amendment, and there are a few others they’d like to take a run at with a sharpie. The left despises free speech if it contradicts their own beliefs. They have tried many times to silence conservatives with things like the Fairness Doctrine. The definition of hate speech has come dangerously close to the edge of what is tyrannical. In essence, the left wants a society in which they have free reign to say, and do whatever they want, while conservatives are silenced, and eliminated. Unfortunately for them, it is difficult to undermine our constitution. By proposing, and enacting extreme gun restrictions, the left is trying their hardest to create an environment that would allow them to take a pen to other parts of the constitution at will. It’s a strategy of precedent.
The reason the left isn’t targeting knives is because knife control does nothing to advance their extreme ideology, nor does it do anything to make conservatives look bad.
Handgun Carry for Bowhunters Expands into Maryland
Archery Wire, May 26, 2014

Following several years of stalled legislation, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has signed into law a measure permitting bowhunters in western Maryland counties to carry handguns for personal protection.
Sponsored by state Senator George Edwards (R - Garrett, Allegany and Washington Counties), SB 231 permits bowhunters who are otherwise authorized to carry a handgun to carry for protection while hunting in Deer Management Region A. According to Edwards, bowhunters are vulnerable to outdoor crime and dangerous wildlife while afield, and should be allowed to carry a firearm for protection. Deer Management Region A sustains the state's highest concentration of black bears.
SB 231 passed in the state Senate by a 43 to 2 vote in February and subsequently breezed through the House 120 to 9. An identical bill introduced in the 2013 session failed to pass. In the previous two sessions (2011-2012), measures to permit handguns for authorized bowhunters statewide failed to gain traction.
Gov. O'Malley signed the bill into law May 15. It will be effective for the upcoming 2014 archery-hunting seasons.
State-by-state regulations vary, with most simply allowing those with valid state concealed handgun permits to carry while bowhunting. Others are more specific, like Arizona, which in 2006 revisited its long-standing restriction under pressure from bowhunters who were concerned about their safety in remote areas near the US border with Mexico.
As a result, the current Arizona bowhunter/handgun regulation reads: "Hunters participating in an archery-only hunt may carry a non-hunting handgun for personal protection and safety. As a guideline, a non-hunting handgun shall be defined as a handgun with a barrel length of 6 inches or less that does not have a scope or any type of electronic device. Handguns meeting this definition may be carried during an archery-only hunt for personal protection only. They may not be used to take any species of wildlife while participating in an archery-only hunt."
Still, at least 15 states continue to prohibit bowhunters from carrying a firearm for personal protection.
2013 marked the first hunting season in which Vermont hunting archers were permitted to legally carry a handgun while afield. House Bill 129, an NRA-supported bill introduced by state Representative Patrick Brennan (R-Chittenden-9-2), allowed bowhunters and dog trainers to carry a handgun for self-defense while engaged in those outdoor activities.
Because sportsmen of various pursuits are often in remote rural areas, lawmakers in a growing number of states understand they are left vulnerable by the prohibition on carrying a handgun for self-defense. In recent years, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has warned hunters and others that illegal marijuana cultivation on public land has grown to highly problematic levels in many areas. The operations are often run by Mexican drug cartels and guarded by heavily armed members of U.S.-based street gangs and illegal Mexican nationals.The ONDCP estimates that violent Mexican drug cartels construct, operate and manage 80 to 90 percent of all U.S.-based marijuana plantations - most of which are located in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington and West Virginia.
In 2011, Alabama bowhunters were permitted for the first time to carry handguns for personal protection during archery-only seasons. That same year, North Carolina regulations allowed archery hunters "to carry, but not hunt with, a concealed handgun with valid concealed carry permit or an open carry handgun, as long as it is not in conflict with any other regulations in that jurisdiction."
In addition, the 2011 archery season marked the first time bowhunters in Missouri were allowed to carry handguns for personal protection. In 2010, Tennessee and Kentucky each liberalized handgun-carry regulations for archery hunters.
The National Rifle Association has actively supported the expansion of handgun-carry privileges by bowhunters in state legislatures and continues to do so.
"For many years, the NRA has actively advocated for the right of bowhunters to carry firearms for self-defense while in the field," said Darren LaSorte, Manager of Hunting Policy for NRA-ILA. "We know that bad things can happen to good people anywhere, anytime. There is no reason that bowhunters should be forced to surrender their right to self-defense every time they enter the field."
Emanuel Wants To Require Videotaping Of All Gun Sales In Chicago
Clash Daily, May 26, 2014

CHICAGO (CBS) – The Emanuel administration has outlined a plan to impose strict regulations on gun shops that open within city limits, including a requirement to record every sale on video.
WBBM Newsradio Political Editor Craig Dellimore reports the Emanuel administration and Chicago Police have created a report with the help of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, envisioning a plan to require gun store employees to submit to criminal background checks, and receive training on identifying potential gun traffickers.
Under Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s proposed, gun shops in Chicago could not be located within 500 feet of a school or park – limiting them to very small pockets of the city covering less than .5 percent of Chicago.
The shops would have to install exterior lighting, surveillance cameras, and alarm systems, and provide secure storage of guns and ammunition. Police would have to approve a store’s security plan before it could open.
Cameras would have to record all sales of guns, and shops would not be allowed to sell more than one handgun per month to a single customer.
Ald. Walter Burnett Jr. (27th) said the regulations are a good start.
“This is just letting everyone know that we here in the city of Chicago are very serious about gun trafficking going on in the city of Chicago,” he said. “So we want to make sure if a person is proposing to do some gun trafficking here, we want to limit them as much as possible.”
Another alderman who had not seen the report said it sounds good to her so far.
The city really has no choice but to establish rules allowing gun shops to operate in the city. Earlier this year, a federal court struck down the city’s ban on gun sales by licensed dealers as unconstitutional. Rather than appeal the ruling, the city successfully asked for 180 days to enact “reasonable and comprehensive regulations” for gun sales. That deadline is looming in July.
“I’ve asked the [Corporation Counsel] to go to court, ask for six months period of time not to implement what the court just decided, and allow us to come up with a responsible way to implement – within their strictures – which is to put a gun shop, or allow gun shops in the city of Chicago, but in a way that doesn’t undermine the work that we are trying to do,” Emanuel said after the judge’s ruling in January.
A top aide to the mayor said New York City has required gun dealers to videotape the “point of sale” whenever someone buys a gun from a licensed dealer, after settling a 2006 lawsuit against 20 firearms dealers. Employees of New York gun stores also receive training from a retired federal agent on how to identify possible illegal gun traffickers.
Gun shops also would have to keep a log of all firearm sales in which a gun was later recovered in a crime, to help identify gun trafficking suspects if they later tried to buy more guns.
Peter A. Peterson, a Washington attorney for gun-rights advocates who sued the city over the store ban, said he could not comment until he sees the ordinance. Todd Vandermyde, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association in Illinois, also declined to comment.
Both men have previously said that the six-month time frame for coming up with regulations was too long.
(TM and © Copyright 2014 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS Radio and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2014 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. The Sun-Times Media Wire contributed to this report.)
Teacher Asks Second Graders To Draw What They See In Clouds, Boy Sees Gun, Teacher WRITES UP BOY
Conservative Byte, May 24, 2014 Another little boy has gotten in trouble at a taxpayer-funded public school for having something – or, in this case, drawing something – that represents a gun but isn’t actually anything remotely approaching a real gun.
This week, a second-grade teacher in Colorado filed a behavioral report on a boy after he drew a picture of a gun because she instructed him to go outside, look up at the clouds and draw what he saw.
The incident unfolded at Talbott Elementary in Colorado Springs, reports local CBS affiliate KKTV.
“Draw a picture of what you see in the clouds from your imagination,” 8-year-old Kody said, describing the teacher’s assignment.
“And that picture is a gun,” he added, proudly pointing to the gun he drew — based on the cloud he saw.
Kody’s cloud portrayal was deemed wrong by his unidentified teacher, who marched him into the office and then filed the behavior report.

Refuting the Lies of Gun-Control Liberals
Patriot Update, May 28, 2014

When it comes to the gun-control debate, liberals have a problem with cause and effect. They continue to blame gun violence on inanimate objects—guns—rather than the people who consciously choose to use these inanimate objects in malicious, violent, and destructive ways. Every time a mentally disturbed person uses a gun to express his anger and frustration with the world, liberals ramp up their never-ending campaign for new and more restrictive gun laws. To even suggest that the perpetrator’s mental condition might be the cause of the violence in question brings howls of protest from liberals who foolishly believe that laws actually prevent crime. To a gun-control liberal, criminals who use guns are somehow different. They will, according to the illogic of liberals, suddenly become law-abiding citizens who will never again pick up a gun if liberal legislators can just pass new laws.
But there is a problem with constantly advocating for new and more restrictive gun laws: there are already so many gun laws on the books that existing laws are not being enforced. Why enact new gun-control laws when those on the books are not being enforced? Why not simply enforce the laws that currently exist? These two questions are not popular in liberal circles. In fact, liberals carefully avoid discussions in which these questions come up. Writing in American Rifleman (May 2013), Wayne LaPierre—Executive Vice-President of the National Rifle Association—had this to say about the lack of enforcement of existing gun laws: “Everything real violent criminals do to acquire a firearm is already a serious federal felony. Under federal law, lying to a licensed dealer, lying on the form 4473, and straw sales are all federal felonies that are almost never prosecuted.” Yet these crimes are used by liberals to justify their demand for a national registration system for gun purchases. Again, why not enforce the laws that already exist?
LaPierre also cites several additional federal statutes that are already on the books, but are only sporadically enforced. Here is a summary of those statutes, what they proscribe, and the prison sentences associated with them:
18 U.S.C. 922(g): A felon, fugitive, or drug user may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for being in possession of a firearm or ammunition. In other words, the firearms that liberals want to ban are already banned for criminals, fugitives, and drug users. What is needed is better enforcement of this existing law—not new laws that will not be enforced. This reinforces a point often made by those of us who support the Second Amendment: gun laws will take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but will do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
18 U.S.C. 922(j): An individual may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for possessing a stolen firearm. Since criminals often use stolen firearms in committing the violent crimes liberals are constantly wringing their hands about, simply enforcing this law would cut down on gun violence. This being the case, one can only wonder who liberals are really aiming at with their campaign for new gun-control laws. The answer should be obvious: law-abiding citizens.
18 U.S.C. 924(b): An individual may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for shipping, transporting, or receipt of a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony.
18 U.S.C. 924(a): An individual may be sentenced to 5 to 30 years in prison for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a violent federal crime or in the act of drug trafficking.
18 U.S.C. 924(j): An individual may be sentenced to death for committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a violent crime or in the act of drug trafficking.
18 U.S.C. 924(g): An individual may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for interstate travel to acquire or effect the transfer of a firearm for the purpose of committing a crime.
Those summarized above are just a sampling of the gun-control laws that are already on the books and are readily available to law enforcement personnel and prosecutors. These laws cover every aspect of acquiring, possessing, transporting, and illegally using firearms. It is hard to see how new laws will do anything to curb gun violence that enforcing these existing laws would not do.
Yes, there is a problem with gun violence in the United States. But problems are solved by identifying the root cause and dealing with it. Guns are not the root cause of gun violence. Guns are just inanimate objects; as such they do nothing of their own accord. Violent acts using guns are perpetrated by people, most of whom are hardened criminals or mentally disturbed individuals. Lock up the criminals and provide for the proper treatment and confinement of the mentally disturbed and gun violence will no longer be a problem in the United States. Accept the illogic and hypocrisy of liberal gun-control advocates and gun violence will just continue.
The Real Reason Liberals Want Gun Control
Posted By Last resistence,  May 28,

Ends are always preceded by means, though it can be difficult to understand the origin of something just by seeing its results. The paths taken to achieve political goals are often obscured by lies, and murky motives. What motivates a political ideology? What causes someone to do one thing, and not another? Behind every action, there is a motivating factor, and an internal reasoning. If you wish to know the “why,” you must seek out context, clues which point you in the right direction.
Liberal ideology is riddled with contradictions, and muddy motives. From the outside, liberal policy can seem confusing, and seemingly impossible to understand. That’s because it operates using a set of motivations to which we are not privy. However, if you look closely enough, you can begin to see how the gears turn in the liberal mind.
With the recent shooting in Santa Barbara, the leftist media is in a frenzy. The air is thick with condemnation for those who don’t support gun control. Media hysteria happens every time there’s a shooting, but there is an additional factor in this particular case that is being deliberately overlooked. In addition to killing three people with a firearm, the Santa Barbara maniac killed three others with a knife. While the gun deaths are being used to fuel gun control hysteria, the media is oddly silent on the knife deaths.
In 2010, 1,704 people were murdered with knives in the United States. True, that is a fraction of those who were murdered with firearms, but the number is still staggering. There are so many weapons used to kill, but only guns are the target of restrictive legislation. It’s also interesting that guns are the only weapons mentioned in the constitution, in terms of what we have the right to bear.
Given the widespread violence, why aren’t liberals targeting all forms of weapons? It seems to me that in terms of consistency, anyone who supports restrictions on firearms should also support restrictions on knives, and other instrument that could be used to harm and kill other human beings. So, why just guns? I believe there are two factors at work here. First, gun control is a tool that is being used to undermine the second amendment for a larger purpose. If the second amendment can be undermined, then all other amendments are up for review. If one amendment loses its integrity, the others become weaker, and vulnerable. Second—and more directly—targeting guns makes conservatives look like monsters for supporting the second amendment.
Shooting after shooting, conservatives stand up for gun rights (and rightfully so). We are given the right to bear arms in our constitution. There are numerous ways gun ownership can be made safer, and only a fringe few are the ones causing the problems. Many recent shootings occurred in states in which gun control is the most strict, such as California, and Washington D.C., and almost every shooting in the last 50 years has occurred in “gun free zones.” There is ample evidence to suggest that concealed carry (in other words, more guns on the streets, in the hands of law-abiding citizens) would drastically reduce mass-shootings. We are given the right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves from potential, and likely inevitable, government tyranny. It’s a sacred right, and I believe there are options outside of radical gun control that could reduce the instances of mass-shootings—one of which I mentioned above. If we disarm the populace, there will be no defense against a government tyranny.
The left has concocted their opposition to guns in order to make conservative supporters of the second amendment look like heartless psychopaths. Similar to how they use the theory of man-made global warming to get votes, the left tells Americans that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for the safety of our children, and the safety of all of us. They then demonize Republicans by labeling them as the heartless Party that doesn’t give a crap about kids, and couldn’t care less if they died, so long as they can have their guns. It’s a strategy to gain the votes of stupid people, of which there are many.
The left also has a beef with the constitution as a whole. They hate the second amendment, and there are a few others they’d like to take a run at with a sharpie. The left despises free speech if it contradicts their own beliefs. They have tried many times to silence conservatives with things like the Fairness Doctrine. The definition of hate speech has come dangerously close to the edge of what is tyrannical. In essence, the left wants a society in which they have free reign to say, and do whatever they want, while conservatives are silenced, and eliminated. Unfortunately for them, it is difficult to undermine our constitution. By proposing, and enacting extreme gun restrictions, the left is trying their hardest to create an environment that would allow them to take a pen to other parts of the constitution at will. It’s a strategy of precedent.
The reason the left isn’t targeting knives is because knife control does nothing to advance their extreme ideology, nor does it do anything to make conservatives look bad.
Handgun Carry for Bowhunters Expands into Maryland
Archery Wire, May 26, 2014

Following several years of stalled legislation, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has signed into law a measure permitting bowhunters in western Maryland counties to carry handguns for personal protection.
Sponsored by state Senator George Edwards (R - Garrett, Allegany and Washington Counties), SB 231 permits bowhunters who are otherwise authorized to carry a handgun to carry for protection while hunting in Deer Management Region A. According to Edwards, bowhunters are vulnerable to outdoor crime and dangerous wildlife while afield, and should be allowed to carry a firearm for protection. Deer Management Region A sustains the state's highest concentration of black bears.
SB 231 passed in the state Senate by a 43 to 2 vote in February and subsequently breezed through the House 120 to 9. An identical bill introduced in the 2013 session failed to pass. In the previous two sessions (2011-2012), measures to permit handguns for authorized bowhunters statewide failed to gain traction.
Gov. O'Malley signed the bill into law May 15. It will be effective for the upcoming 2014 archery-hunting seasons.
State-by-state regulations vary, with most simply allowing those with valid state concealed handgun permits to carry while bowhunting. Others are more specific, like Arizona, which in 2006 revisited its long-standing restriction under pressure from bowhunters who were concerned about their safety in remote areas near the US border with Mexico.
As a result, the current Arizona bowhunter/handgun regulation reads: "Hunters participating in an archery-only hunt may carry a non-hunting handgun for personal protection and safety. As a guideline, a non-hunting handgun shall be defined as a handgun with a barrel length of 6 inches or less that does not have a scope or any type of electronic device. Handguns meeting this definition may be carried during an archery-only hunt for personal protection only. They may not be used to take any species of wildlife while participating in an archery-only hunt."
Still, at least 15 states continue to prohibit bowhunters from carrying a firearm for personal protection.
2013 marked the first hunting season in which Vermont hunting archers were permitted to legally carry a handgun while afield. House Bill 129, an NRA-supported bill introduced by state Representative Patrick Brennan (R-Chittenden-9-2), allowed bowhunters and dog trainers to carry a handgun for self-defense while engaged in those outdoor activities.
Because sportsmen of various pursuits are often in remote rural areas, lawmakers in a growing number of states understand they are left vulnerable by the prohibition on carrying a handgun for self-defense. In recent years, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has warned hunters and others that illegal marijuana cultivation on public land has grown to highly problematic levels in many areas. The operations are often run by Mexican drug cartels and guarded by heavily armed members of U.S.-based street gangs and illegal Mexican nationals.
The ONDCP estimates that violent Mexican drug cartels construct, operate and manage 80 to 90 percent of all U.S.-based marijuana plantations - most of which are located in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington and West Virginia.
In 2011, Alabama bowhunters were permitted for the first time to carry handguns for personal protection during archery-only seasons. That same year, North Carolina regulations allowed archery hunters "to carry, but not hunt with, a concealed handgun with valid concealed carry permit or an open carry handgun, as long as it is not in conflict with any other regulations in that jurisdiction."
In addition, the 2011 archery season marked the first time bowhunters in Missouri were allowed to carry handguns for personal protection. In 2010, Tennessee and Kentucky each liberalized handgun-carry regulations for archery hunters.
The National Rifle Association has actively supported the expansion of handgun-carry privileges by bowhunters in state legislatures and continues to do so.
"For many years, the NRA has actively advocated for the right of bowhunters to carry firearms for self-defense while in the field," said Darren LaSorte, Manager of Hunting Policy for NRA-ILA. "We know that bad things can happen to good people anywhere, anytime. There is no reason that bowhunters should be forced to surrender their right to self-defense every time they enter the field."
Emanuel Wants To Require Videotaping Of All Gun Sales In Chicago
Clash Daily, May 26, 2014

CHICAGO (CBS) – The Emanuel administration has outlined a plan to impose strict regulations on gun shops that open within city limits, including a requirement to record every sale on video.
WBBM Newsradio Political Editor Craig Dellimore reports the Emanuel administration and Chicago Police have created a report with the help of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, envisioning a plan to require gun store employees to submit to criminal background checks, and receive training on identifying potential gun traffickers.
Under Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s proposed, gun shops in Chicago could not be located within 500 feet of a school or park – limiting them to very small pockets of the city covering less than .5 percent of Chicago.
The shops would have to install exterior lighting, surveillance cameras, and alarm systems, and provide secure storage of guns and ammunition. Police would have to approve a store’s security plan before it could open.
Cameras would have to record all sales of guns, and shops would not be allowed to sell more than one handgun per month to a single customer.
Ald. Walter Burnett Jr. (27th) said the regulations are a good start.
“This is just letting everyone know that we here in the city of Chicago are very serious about gun trafficking going on in the city of Chicago,” he said. “So we want to make sure if a person is proposing to do some gun trafficking here, we want to limit them as much as possible.”
Another alderman who had not seen the report said it sounds good to her so far.
The city really has no choice but to establish rules allowing gun shops to operate in the city. Earlier this year, a federal court struck down the city’s ban on gun sales by licensed dealers as unconstitutional. Rather than appeal the ruling, the city successfully asked for 180 days to enact “reasonable and comprehensive regulations” for gun sales. That deadline is looming in July.
“I’ve asked the [Corporation Counsel] to go to court, ask for six months period of time not to implement what the court just decided, and allow us to come up with a responsible way to implement – within their strictures – which is to put a gun shop, or allow gun shops in the city of Chicago, but in a way that doesn’t undermine the work that we are trying to do,” Emanuel said after the judge’s ruling in January.
A top aide to the mayor said New York City has required gun dealers to videotape the “point of sale” whenever someone buys a gun from a licensed dealer, after settling a 2006 lawsuit against 20 firearms dealers. Employees of New York gun stores also receive training from a retired federal agent on how to identify possible illegal gun traffickers.
Gun shops also would have to keep a log of all firearm sales in which a gun was later recovered in a crime, to help identify gun trafficking suspects if they later tried to buy more guns.
Peter A. Peterson, a Washington attorney for gun-rights advocates who sued the city over the store ban, said he could not comment until he sees the ordinance. Todd Vandermyde, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association in Illinois, also declined to comment.
Both men have previously said that the six-month time frame for coming up with regulations was too long.
(TM and © Copyright 2014 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS Radio and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2014 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. The Sun-Times Media Wire contributed to this report.)
Teacher Asks Second Graders To Draw What They See In Clouds, Boy Sees Gun, Teacher WRITES UP BOY
Conservative Byte, May 24, 2014 Another little boy has gotten in trouble at a taxpayer-funded public school for having something – or, in this case, drawing something – that represents a gun but isn’t actually anything remotely approaching a real gun.
This week, a second-grade teacher in Colorado filed a behavioral report on a boy after he drew a picture of a gun because she instructed him to go outside, look up at the clouds and draw what he saw.
The incident unfolded at Talbott Elementary in Colorado Springs, reports local CBS affiliate KKTV.
“Draw a picture of what you see in the clouds from your imagination,” 8-year-old Kody said, describing the teacher’s assignment.
“And that picture is a gun,” he added, proudly pointing to the gun he drew — based on the cloud he saw.
Kody’s cloud portrayal was deemed wrong by his unidentified teacher, who marched him into the office and then filed the behavior report.
Fed. Court Ruling: Cops Can Kick In Your Door & Confiscate Guns Without Warrant or Charges
Freedom Outpost,  May 20, 201
4
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals may have just dealt a serious blow to the U.S. Constitution.
In a unanimous decision earlier this month the Court determined that law enforcement officers are not required to present a warrant or charges before forcibly entering a person’s home, searching it, and confiscating their firearms if they believe it is in the individual’s best interests.
The landmark suit was brought before the court by Krysta Sutterfield of Milwaukee, who had recently visited a psychiatrist for outpatient therapy resulting from some bad news that she had received. According to court records Sutterfield had expressed a suicidal thought during the visit, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, when she said “I guess I’ll go home and blow my brains out.” This prompted her doctor to contact police.
For several hours the police searched for Sutterfield, speaking with neighbors and awaiting her return home. They received an update from her psychiatrist who said that Sutterfield had contacted her and advised that she was not in need of assistance and to “call off” the search, which the doctor did not agree to. Police eventually left and Sutterfield returned home, only to be visited later that evening by the lead detective on the case:
Krysta Sutterfield vs. city of Milwaukee, et al.
Sutterfield answered Hewitt’s knock at the front door but would not engage with her, except to state repeatedly that she had “called off” the police and to keep shutting the door on Hewitt. Sutterfield would not admit Hewitt to the residence, and during the exchange kept the outer storm door closed and locked. Unable to gain admittance to the house, Hewitt concluded that the police would have to enter it forcibly.
Sutterfield called 911 in an effort to have the officers leave; as a result of that call, the ensuing events were recorded by the emergency call center. Sutterfield can be heard on the recording telling the officers that she was fine and that she did not want anyone to enter her residence.
After informing Sutterfield of his intention to open the storm door forcibly if she did not unlock it herself, Berken yanked the door open and entered the house with the other officers to take custody of Sutterfield pursuant to the statement of detention. A brief struggle ensued.
Sutterfield can be heard on the 911 recording demanding both that the officers let go of her and that they leave her home. (Sutterfield would later say that the officers tackled her.) Sutterfield was handcuffed and placed in the officers’ custody.
At that point the officers conducted a protective sweep of the home. In the kitchen, officer James Floriani observed a compact disc carrying case in plain view. He picked up the soft-sided case, which was locked, and surmised from the feel and weight of its contents that there might be a firearm inside. He then forced the case open and discovered a semi-automatic handgun inside; a yellow smiley-face sticker was affixed to the barrel of the gun, covering the muzzle. Also inside the case were concealed-carry firearm licenses from multiple jurisdictions other than Wisconsin. Elsewhere in the kitchen the officers discovered a BB gun made to realistically resemble a Glock 29 handgun.
The contents of the case were seized along with the BB gun and placed into police inventory for safekeeping.
Berken would later state that he authorized the seizure of the handgun in order to keep them out of the hands of a juvenile, should a juvenile enter the house unaccompanied by an adult while Sutterfield remained in the hospital.
Sutterfield subsequently filed a lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee with the district court, a case that was initially dismissed. She then filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th District claiming that her Second and Fourth Amendment rights were violated.
In a 75-page opinion the court, while pointing out that the intrusion against Sutterfield was profound, sided with the city of Milwaukee:
“The intrusions upon Sutterfield’s privacy were profound,” Judge Ilana Rovner wrote for three-judge panel.
“At the core of the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment is the right to be let alone in one’s home.”
But the court also found, that on the other hand, “There is no suggestion that (police) acted for any reason other than to protect Sutterfield from harm.”
“Even if the officers did exceed constitutional boundaries,” the court document states, “they are protected by qualified immunity.”
As noted by Police State USA, the court may have just created a legal loophole for law enforcement officials around the country, giving them immunity from Constitutional violations if they merely suggest that exigent circumstances exist and that they are acting in the best interests of the health and safety of an alleged suspect, regardless of Constitutional requirements:
In short, Sutterfield’s privacy (which was admittedly encroached upon) was left unprotected by the Bill of Rights because of the “exigent circumstances” in which police executed an emergency detention — with no warrant, no criminal charges, and no input from the judiciary. Similarly, the gun confiscation was also deemed as acceptable due to the so-called “emergency” which police claimed had been taking place for 9 consecutive hours.
The federal ruling affirms a legal loophole which allows targeted home invasions, warrantless searches, and gun confiscations that rest entirely in the hands of the Executive Branch. The emergency aid doctrine enables police to act without a search warrant, even if there is time to get one. When the government wants to check on someone, his or her rights are essentially suspended until the person’s sanity has been forcibly validated.
The implications of the courts legal decision are alarmingly broad. Though this particular case involved exigent circumstances in which an individual suggested she wanted to commit suicide, albeit tongue-in-cheek, the court’s opinion suggests that such tactics can be applied for any “emergency” wherein police subjectively determine that an individual may be a danger to themselves or others.
Under new statutes passed by the federal government these emergencies and dangers could potentially include any number of scenarios. Senator Rand Paul recently highlighted that there are laws on the books that categorize a number of different activities as having the potential for terrorism, including things like purchasing bulk ammunition. Last month, when a group of concerned citizens assembled at Bundy Ranch in Nevada to protest government overreach, Senator Harry Reid dubbed them “domestic terrorists.” Even paying with cash or complaining about chemicals in water can land an American on the terror watch list. Non-conformists who do not subscribe to the status quo can now be considered mentally insane according to psychiatrists’ Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders.
Law enforcement has an almost unlimited amount of circumstances they can cite to justify threats to one’s self or others, and thus, to ignore Constitutional requirements when serving at the behest of the local, state or federal government.
Has the Federal Court’s latest decision made it possible for these vaguely defined suspicious activities to be molded into exigent circumstances that give police the right to enter homes without due process, confiscate legally owned personal belongings, and detain residents without charge?
Delicious Irony At ‘No Guns Allowed’ Restaurants
Conservative Byte, May 22, 2014

When will liberals realize that creating safe zones just make targets for criminals?
Check it out:
The armed robber who shot and robbed a 20-year-old man outside this Houston Jack in the Box Sunday probably didn’t know the fast-food chain had only nine days earlier banned guns at their restaurants.
Or maybe he didn’t care.
Or maybe he realized his chances of encountering meaningful resistance were slim.
The shooting came on the heels of the chain capitulating to demands by the anti-gun activist group Mothers Demand Action that law-abiding gunowners be banned from bringing their weapons into the restaurants.
“Creating a warm and inviting environment for all of our guests and employees is a top priority for Jack in the Box,” read the corporation’s news release. “The presence of guns inside a restaurant could create an uncomfortable situation for our guests and employees and lead to unintended consequences. While we respect the rights of all our guests, we would prefer that guests not bring their guns inside our restaurants.”
Unfortunately, defenseless customers create a “warm and inviting environment” for the wrong people.
Obama finally moves to choke off American Firearms Manufacture and Sales
GOA, May 22,2014

Not a GOA member yet? Click here to join Gun Owners of America!
And click here to send pre-written letters to your Representative and Senators.
We've heard it all a thousand times: Barack Obama's dubious claims that he believes in the Second Amendment -- that he supports hunting and fishing -- that he only wants to make “reasonable, common sense” restrictions on your Second Amendment rights.
And we've told you a thousand times what you already knew: The man is a liar.
Obama's goal is nothing less than to crush the Second Amendment movement -- and outlaw the possession of firearms in America.
Now we have the "smoking gun" (so to speak). Obama has now moved to shut down every gun dealer and manufacturer in America by cutting off all credit from any financial institution -- in addition to eliminating any ability of an FFL to process payments through the banks.
In a front-page article Monday in The Washington Times, reporter Kelly Riddell described this concerted effort by the Obama administration to choke off gun manufacturing and sales in the United States by drying up credit to gun dealers and manufacturers.
Obama using the FDIC to restrict Second Amendment rights
The effort starts with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which has lumped gun dealers in the same “high risk” category as pornographers. Coupled with Eric Holder's Justice Department Operation Chokepoint, the FDIC's action has encouraged banks to destroy the gun industry by dropping dealers, freezing their assets, and refusing to process their on-line sales. Already, thousands of gun dealers report being victimized by this administration effort to destroy the Second
Amendment by regulatory fiat.
And, if the gun dealer near you has yet to feel the pinch, just wait awhile.
As Barack Obama no doubt understands, if American gun dealers and manufacturers can no longer get credit, the manufacture and sales of firearms in America come to a screeching halt.
As the owner of the gun manufacturer, the McMillan
Group, persuasively argued in the Riddell article, this is nothing more than an “attempt by the federal government to keep people from buying guns.”
In fact, it's becoming increasingly clear that the Obama administration feels it can destroy a major political opponent of theirs -- namely, gun owners -- by destroying and demoralizing the Second Amendment movement.
GOA working the “ground game”
Already, Gun Owners of America is encouraging Members of Congress to defund Obama's efforts to dry up funding for the firearms industry by regulatory fiat.
Congressman Steve Stockman put it this way: “It's pretty clear that, unless Congress uses the power of the purse to stop him, Barack Obama will use his ‘phone and his pen’ to ban guns by cutting off money for gun manufacturers and dealers.”
The Obama administration has done a lot of nibbling around the edges in its efforts to ban guns by the back door. But it has now taken us to the crucible of history. And Congress, by its actions, will show whether it is willing to take on the White House and the sycophant mainline press in order to save the Bill of Rights.
Legislators are proposing bills on a wide variety of fronts. Blaine Luetkemeyer, vice chairman of the House committee with jurisdiction, has called for legislation to block the FDIC's insidious scheme. And good for him! But, given that Obama will veto any free-standing legislation to save the gun industry, an appropriations rider is also necessary.
By the way, remember the Manchin-Toomey amendment from last year? It would have required private transactions to go through gun dealers. Now we know what that was about. If you have to go to a gun dealer to transfer any gun -- and Obama succeeds in shutting down every gun dealer in your state (or within 200 miles of your home) -- the Second Amendment, practically, ceases to exist.
Viva la Free Market
While we must work hard to defund Obama’s backdoor efforts to impose gun control, there is also a free market solution that has sprung up. One company that was hit hard by this FDIC policy has created an answer: McMillan Merchant Solutions.
The McMillan family is no newcomer to the Second Amendment community, as they have been manufacturing guns and accessories since 1973.
A victim of the Obama Administration’s policies, the McMillans recently invented and implemented Pistol Pay -- a product specifically designed to handle legal firearms transactions between two individuals in a safe and secure method.
Now, McMillan Merchant Solutions can have gun dealers processing credit card orders inside of 24 hours.
If a gun store you deal with has been squeezed due to the President's administrative pressure, here is where they can get relief: http://www.mmsllc.com/
Finally, GOA has just learned that there seem to be other similar solutions. As we check them out, we will let you know about them.
Is ATF Expanding its Multiple Sales Reporting Requirement Nationwide?
GOA, May 21, 2014

David Codrea of the Gun Rights Examiner has, once again, performed a major service for the movement by calling attention to a proposed ATF rule buried in the Federal Register without any fanfare or announcement, which may have far-reaching consequences.
The rule, numbered OMB Number 1140-0100, says, and we quote the sentence in its entirety:
The purpose of this information collection is to require Federal Firearms Licensees to report multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of two or more rifles within any five consecutive business days with the following characteristics: (1) Semi-automatic; (2) a caliber greater than .22; and (c) the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
18 U.S.C. 923(g) specifically forbids reporting requirements like this, unless they are specified in that section.
Some have suggested that ATF is simply extending the current illegal reporting requirement for four border states. And the notice specifically refers to this as “Extension without change of an existing collection.”
But, not to be conspiratorial, is it an extension of time -- or an extension to the other 46 states?
If we were dealing with an administration which did not turn pathological lying into an “art form,” we might be able to treat this notice as more benign. But the problem is that, at NOWHERE does the notice geographically limit its reporting requirement. And, for the time being, we have to assume that it means what it says.
We encourage members to contact ATF. But, given that, in the past, ATF has regarded our concerns with disdain, it is also important to block this illegal rule with legislation -- whether or not it applies to 4 states or 50 states.
ACTION:
 (1) Click here to read the ATF regs. If you wish to submit comments, you can do so to Natisha Taylor at fipb-informationcollection@atf.gov, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Firearms Industry Programs Branch, Washington, DC 20226. You must register your comments before June 16, 2014.
(2) Even more important, you should contact your House member and ask him or her to insure that the Science-Justice-Commerce Appropriations Bill contains language to block this illegal rule.
DEAR CHIPOTLE: I Won’t Bring Guns Or Money Into Your Crap Burrito Store
Clash Daily. 21 May 2014

Chipotle is asking customers not to bring firearms into its stores after it says gun rights advocates brought military-style assault rifles into one of its restaurants in Texas.
The Denver-based company notes that it has traditionally complied with local laws regarding open and concealed firearms.
But in a statement Monday, the company said that “the display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers.”
The announcement came after a petition by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which has called on other companies to ban firearms in their stores as well. The group said its petition was in reaction to open-carry gun activists appearing at a Dallas-area Chipotle restaurant over the weekend.
CCRKBA: Brady Suit "Back Door Gun Ban"
CCRKBA, May 20. 2014

BELLEVUE, WA - A lawsuit filed today by the Brady Campaign to force the New Jersey Attorney General to "formally report" the availability of so-called "smart guns" smacks of a back-door gun ban, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in response.
The Brady Campaign is joined by the Mercer County chapter of the Million Mom March. If successful, the lawsuit would force the state attorney general to take the first step in the implementation of the Garden State's 2002 "smart gun" law. It could ultimately lead to an end of consumer choice in the purchase or sale of handguns unless they incorporate whatever "smart gun" technology exists, because the law says that three years after the attorney general makes his first report on the availability of "personalized handguns" for retail sale, no manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer can sell, assign or otherwise transfer any handgun unless it is a "personalized handgun."
"Gun prohibition fanaticism has hit a new low mark with this lawsuit," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "What the Brady Campaign wants is to force consumers to purchase a product that is, at best, unreliable, placing them at serious risk if they want a gun for personal protection. In the process, the gun control lobby is trying to strip away the right of personal choice, and ban the sale and transfer of current handguns."
Gottlieb noted that Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs has also blasted the lawsuit. In a statement, Bach called New Jersey's smart-gun law "as dumb as it gets."
"It forces you to use an unproven technology to defend your life," Bach stated, "and then exempts the state from liability when the gun goes 'click' instead of 'bang.' If it's such a great idea, then law enforcement shouldn't be exempt, and the free market should be able to determine its viability."
"For years," Gottlieb noted, "the Brady Campaign and other gun prohibition lobbying groups, have been trying to disarm law-abiding Americans. Now they want to force New Jersey gun owners to provide a national experiment that could have disastrous results. If police don't trust these firearms, why should American consumers?"
Gun makers moving to more Second Amendment friendly states
Montgomery Advertiser,  May 10, 2014

Some of the bluest of the blue bloods in the nation’s gun industry are looking at moving production from state’s that recently have passed stricter gun control laws, and the South is the hotspot.
As Remington Outdoors Co. considered 24 states for a new firearms production plant, support of the Second Amendment was high on its criteria list.
Remington announced in February it would build a $110 million plant in Huntsville. During the next decade, the plant is expected to create 2,000 jobs, company officials say.
We considered numerous factors in our decision-making process, said Teddy Novine, director of public affairs for Freedom Group Inc., the parent company of Remington. “These factors included, among others, labor quality, pro-business environment, strong existing infrastructure and pro-Second Amendment policies.
Remington Outdoors, headquartered in Madison, N.C., has facilities in 19 states. Its largest plant is in Ilion, N.Y., where the company has had a presence since 1816. Remington has seen tremendous growth in the past five years, going from 2,400 employees in 2008 to 4,200 in 2013.
New York’s passage of the Safe Firearms and Ammunition Enforcement (SAFE) Act in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings is the major reason those Remington jobs didn’t settle in Ilion and went to Alabama, a union official told syracuse.com.
The SAFE Act bans the ownership of AR-15 style rifle in the state. Remington makes AR-15 style rifles.
The SAFE Act has been a terrible thing from the beginning, said Fran Madore, president of United Mine Workers Local 717, which represents 1,180 of the 1,300 Remington employees in Ilion, N.Y. You’d think New York would be doing everything to keep us. Instead, it passes a law that cripples us.
Remington has no plans to move production from the Ilion plant, Novine said.
The Remington decision is not unique. Increasingly, gun makers with plants or headquarters in states that have passed more stringent gun control laws are looking to gun friendly states when it comes time to expand.
Beretta USA, headquartered in Accokeek, Md., announced in January that it will build a $45 million production plant in Gallatin, Tenn. The plant, which is the first U.S. Beretta production plant outside of Maryland, will employ 300 people.
Beretta USA manufactures the M-9, the standard .9 mm sidearm for the U.S. military, among other guns.
Finding a state that supported the Second Amendment did play a sizable role in our search, said Ryan Muety, spokesman for Beretta USA. There were several factors, one of which was a strong level of support for constitutional rights.
Beretta USA continues to have a significant impact in Maryland, said Nina Smith, spokesman for Gov. Martin O Malley.
We appreciate Beretta’s continued presence here in Maryland and their commitment to Prince George’s County and our state, she said. Private sector business is driving economic growth in Maryland. We have created over 36,000 jobs since December 2012. We’ll continue to work with members of our business community to create jobs and expand opportunity for more Marylanders.
Other firearms companies on the move include:
Ruger, headquartered in Southport, Conn., announced in July that it will build a production plant in Mayodan, N.C. The move marks the company’s first major expansion in 25 years.
Kahr Arms, headquartered in Pearl River, N.Y., has purchased 620 acres in Blooming Grove Township, Penn. It plans on moving its corporate headquarters and research and development arm to Pennsylvania in the first phase of expansion. The second phase will include building a production plant at the site.
PTR Industries, which makes semi-automatic rifles, announced last June that it will relocate all operations from Bristol, Conn., to Aynor, S.C. The move was completed in January, the company’s website says. The facility plans on producing 120 jobs by 2017.
Firearms economic impact
The firearms industry was responsible for about $38 billion in total economic activity in the United States in 2013, up 97 percent from 2008.
Economic impact of the firearms industry in 2013 in states that have passed more strict gun control laws:
New York: $2.1 billion
Connecticut: $1.9 billion
Massachusetts: $1.6 billion
Colorado: $825 million
Maryland: $511 million
Source: 2013 Firearms & Ammunition Industry Economic Impact report, compiled by the National Shooting Sports Foundation
Family of Gun Owners Stop Persistent Home Intruder
Last Resistence, Apr 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.
FOX 13 News
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?
Judge Pulls Trigger On Another Gun Limit
Conservative Byte, May 13, 2014

Liberal judges think that only big government should be able to defend themselves.
Check it out:
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in two landmark cases that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to possess firearms, the Second Amendment Foundation has been confronting in court state and local rules which appear to be unconstitutional.
The activist group already has opposed “vague” gun bans in California, a $340 fee for owning a handgun in New York, New Jersey’s arbitrary gun laws, District of Columbia bans, Maryland’s permit demands and more.
Its latest victory has come in Arkansas, where a federal judge ruled the state’s concealed carry licensing law that bans legal resident aliens from obtaining permits is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks, for the Western District of Arkansas, ordered the state to pay SAF $10,000 in attorney’s fees and court costs of $726.41. SAF and Martin Pot (pronounced Pote), a citizen of the Netherlands, were represented by attorney David Sigale of Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
The lawsuit, filed last November, challenged the Arkansas statute, because it “completely prohibits resident legal aliens from the concealed carry of guns, in public, for the purpose of self-defense.”
NJ's smart-gun law the wrong path to safety
Daily Record May 13, 2014 editorial

The smartest thing state lawmakers have done regarding New Jersey’s smart-gun law is to consider repealing it. But Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, says she wants to get something out of it a deal
with the National Rifle Association to stop fighting any free-market push to introduce the new technology.
Good luck with that. But regardless of whether the NRA wants to play ball, the state should follow through with tossing its smart-gun law to the curb. It was ill-conceived from the start.
The law, adopted back in 2002, was well-intentioned as a gun-control measure in its effort to focus less on restricting access to guns and more on limiting their use by criminals. Smart weapons would incorporate some form of personalized recognition so they could only be fired by their owners; the bad guys can steal them, but they can’t use them, the theory goes.
The big problem was that such technology didn’t yet exist in any meaningful, mainstream form. Nonetheless, the bill created an open-ended requirement for manufacturers to start selling only smart guns within three years after the first such gun came to market  regardless of the viability of the gun, and with no clear explanation of what level of availability would trigger the three-year clock.
The goal was to force manufacturers to make the switch when it was feasible, but why put such a mandate in place without knowing what smart-gun research might yield, and when?
Thanks to that law, we now have a strange and counterproductive battle in which a pair of gun dealers in other states have tried to begin selling the first supposedly marketable smart gun  a German-made .22 caliber pistol called the iP1 in hopes of starting the clock for New Jersey’s gun manufacturers. But the NRA and other gun-rights fanatics have resorted to typical thuggish tactics in pressuring the dealers not to put the guns on their shelves.
Meanwhile, it isn’t even clear whether out-of-state sales of the new gun or even the mere availability of it would trigger the NJ law. The gun itself links its firing mechanisms to a watch-based transmitter that the user would need to keep in close proximity to the gun. That doesn’t exactly sound like a credible technological tipping point in putting manufacturers on alert; critics warn that the transmitter could easily be disrupted by savvy criminals.
What if, for example, the iP1 proves to be an inefficient bust, and subsequent smart-gun advances still lag? New Jersey manufacturers would still be forced into exclusively selling smart guns three years from now?
More than a decade ago, the bill was referenced more often as a childproof gun bill, and frankly that moniker would have a greater chance of earning more support from outside the gun-rights lobby. Only the NRA could argue against a law requiring safety measures preventing children from firing weapons  and by extension potentially stopping thieves as well.
But the language is less important than the reality that there was little point then to craft a law based on unknown technology, and it doesn’t make any more sense now. Smart guns deserve to remain front and center in the gun-control conversation. But they need to be brought into the marketplace responsibly, not as a function of some political grandstanding more than a decade ago.

Two Victories for GOA Endorsed Candidates in Nebraska and West Virginia! -- Ben Sasse and Alex Mooney Win Primary Elections
GOA, May 14, 2014

Yesterday, two candidates endorsed by Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund secured vital primary wins in their pursuit of defending the Second Amendment in Washington, D.C.
Ben Sasse won his primary election for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska, and Alex Mooney won his primary fight for West Virginia’s Second Congressional District. Both candidates will now spend the summer preparing to win their general election contests this November.
We were proud to endorse both candidates early on because both men have displayed the skills and leadership that are required to fight the anti-gunners in Congress. Both the House and the Senate are in dire need of more pro-gun leaders like Ben and Alex.
Unfortunately, some groups have launched unjustified attacks against Ben Sasse for supposedly not being pro-gun
We take very seriously the process of interviewing and endorsing candidates. During the process, we make sure candidates have a solid understanding behind the original intent of the Second Amendment and why it is the right of all law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms without infringement from the federal government.
Ben Sasse is unequivocally a pro-gun candidate and he filled out our detailed candidate questionnaire with 100% accuracy. He affirmed unequivocally that gun free zones and legislation proposing mandatory background checks on the private sale of firearms are unconstitutional and violate the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Alex Mooney also holds the same positions and completed our questionnaire with a perfect score.
Because President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi will do whatever it takes to destroy the Second Amendment, it is essential that we support candidates from all over the nation who are committed to the cause of liberty and sound government.
We are confident that Ben Sasse and Alex Mooney will do an outstanding job of defending the Second Amendment while in Congress, and that gun owners from all 50 states can count on them to support pro-gun legislation in either chamber.
Now is the time to rally around the pro-gun candidates who can restore our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Please visit Ben Sasse and Alex Mooney online and support these candidate in their journey to restore liberty.
Judge Postpones Oral Arguments in NSSF, SAAMI Suit to Stop California Microstamping Law
NSSF, May 6, 2014

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Oral arguments, originally scheduled to be heard Wednesday in Fresno Superior Court, have been postponed until May 14 in the lawsuit brought by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) on behalf of their members against the State of California to prevent enforcement of the state's microstamping statute.
The state statute being challenged was 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.
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 so that required information imprints onto the cartridge casing. It is not even possible to consistently and legibly imprint on the cartridge primer the required identifying information from the tip of the firing pin, the only conceivable location for such micro-laser engraving, 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.
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.
Detroit Woman Glad She Had Just Bought a Gun After What Happened to Her
 Philip Hodges on May 5, 2014 A 50-year-old Detroit resident was advised by her brother to get a concealed carry permit and to buy a gun for her protection, as he advised all of his nine sisters to do. She was reluctant, because she didn’t ever want to have to use it to hurt or kill someone, but she took her brother’s advise. That was about a year ago.
Recently, that gun came in handy when someone was trying to break in her house with a crowbar. The intruder went all around the house until he found a window with no bars protecting it, and then he smashed in the window to get in.
The unnamed Detroit woman grabbed her gun and called 911. While she was on the phone with the dispatcher, she yelled at the guy, warning him that she was armed and that she would shoot if he didn’t leave. He didn’t care. He had nothing to fear, because he knew that Detroit was mostly a gun-free zone. At least that’s what he probably thought.
Seeing that the intruder had made his way in despite her warnings, the Detroit homeowner shot him once, wounding him in the arm. He was taken to the hospital after police arrived.
video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player
Hopefully, we’ll be seeing more of these types of incidents in Detroit. They vindicate what Detroit’s new police chief has been saying ever since he assumed that office. He actually encouraged homeowners to buy a gun for protection against criminals like the one in the story above, because the police won’t be able to come to everyone’s aid “when seconds count.” It’s no coincidence that ever since Police Chief James Craig came to Detroit, their self-defense shootings have gone up, and their criminal homicides and violent crime rates have gone down.
Hillary Clinton Attacks Anywhere, Anytime Gun Culture
Wall Street Journal May 6. 2014  

As Hillary Clinton mulls running for president in 2016, she has been careful to shy away from broad, sweeping policy declarations.
But not Tuesday, when she delivered harsh criticism of gun culture in America and denounced the idea that anybody can have a gun, anywhere, at any time.
Speaking at the National Council for Behavioral Health conference in Oxon Hill, Md., the former secretary of state didn’t dispute Americans right to own guns. But she said access to guns in the U.S. had grown way out of balance.
”We’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime, she said. And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.
Citing a number of shootings that arose from minor arguments over loud music or texting, she drew a comparison: That’s what happens in the countries I’ve visited where there is no rule of law and no self-control. She added: That is something that we cannot just let go without paying attention.
Gun rights groups have long considered Mrs. Clinton their foe. Her 2000 Senate campaign centered on a push to keep guns off the streets, and she was a forceful advocate of creating a national gun registry.
But eight years later, as she faced off against then-Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic primary, she positioned herself as more conservative than him on gun control.
She backed off the proposal for a national registry and publicly recounted how her father had taught her how to shoot as a little girl a story that prompted Mr. Obama to ask if she was seeking Annie Oakley comparisons. Gun control groups criticized her change in tune as hypocritical and politically motivated.
Tuesday’s strong statement comes as Mrs. Clinton already squarely in the public eye has sought not to make too much of a splash in the run-up to 2016, in an attempt to avoid making a controversial comment that could come back to haunt her during a presidential campaign.
She has for the most part succeeded, despite her steady stream of speaking engagements with the minor exception of last month, when she drew a flood of commentary for comparing the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin to those of Adolf Hitler.
Mrs. Clinton is easily the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, but the 2016 general election is another story. Her position on gun control puts her at odds with the staunchly pro-gun GOP, and the push for gun control laws at the federal level has been historically unsuccessful.
As president, Bill Clinton sought to tighten gun laws but was unable to achieve lasting effects. After the 2012 shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., the Obama administration pledged to act, but a bipartisan Senate resolution was ultimately defeated.
Last September, following another deadly shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, the president urged Americans to demand tighter gun restrictions again to no avail.
A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll taken last December showed just over half of Americans think laws governing the sale of firearms should be tightened. Some 8% think the laws should be loosened, and 38% think they should be kept the same.
At the conference, Mrs. Clinton didn’t offer any surprises on the question of whether she has made up her mind about 2016. Stay tuned, she said. When I know, you’ll know."
Att: Firearms Hunters
NOTE: Below is a press release from the NRA-ILA regarding legislation introduced into committee for hearing. NJOA has no affiliation with NRA-ILA. We are sending the release for informational purposes for those who have hunting rifles that may be impacted by the pending legislation.
The mission of the NJOA is conservation and environmental stewardship focused, with an emphisis on protecting and advancing our freedoms to access natural resources including; salthwater fishing, freshwater fishing, bowhunting, firearm hunting, trapping, diving, and more. For more information on the NJOA, and discussion on the pending bill please visit our FaceBook page http://www.facebook.com/njoutdooralliance
 New Jersey: Senate Committee to Hear Gun and Magazine Ban Legislation on Monday
NJOA, April 30, 214

On Monday, May 5, the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hear Senate Bill 993. Sponsored by state Senator Loretta Weinberg (D-37), S.993 seeks to restrict the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines from 15 to 10 rounds and ban many popular firearms. Under the guise of public safety, anti-gun politicians continue their efforts to erode the Second Amendment rights of New Jersey residents. New Jersey is one of only a few states which already has a magazine restriction, and another arbitrary limit will have no impact on crime or criminals. Instead, this legislation demonstrably favors criminals who prefer to prey on unarmed victims.
NRA members are urged to attend this Senate committee hearing and respectfully voice their opposition. Hearing information is provided below:
Monday, May 5, at 10:30 a.m.
Committee Room 10
State House Annex
125 West State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
Also, using the contact information provided below, please call committee members and Governor Chris Christie (R) and urge them to OPPOSE Senate Bill 993. You should also contact your state Senator and politely ask him or her to vote against S.993 if it comes up for a vote on the Senate floor. Contact information for state Senators can be found here.
Governor Chris Christie:
(609) 292-6000
Senate Law and Public Safety Committee:
Senator Donald Norcross (D-5), Chairman
(856) 547-4800Senator Linda R. Greenstein (D-14), Vice-Chairman
(609) 395-9911Senator Christopher Bateman (R-16)
(908) 526-3600
Senator James W. Holzapfel (R-10)
(732) 840-9028
Senator Nicholas J. Sacco (D-32)
(201) 295-0200
Breaking: Supreme Court Refuses to Respond to 2nd Amendment Case Again!
For the second time in two weeks, the Supreme Court has put off deciding whether to hear a New Jersey case challenging the state’s concealed carry permitting system. The Justices have been meeting in conference to decide which cases to hear and which to deny, and for the second time, this Second Amendment case is noticeably absent from their order list. The Court has released its list of decisions and the Drake vs. Jerejian
 case is nowhere to be found. Now I know what you’re thinking. What does a gun law in New Jersey have to do with me? The answer is everything!
Drake vs. Jerejian
 challenges the New Jersey law dictating that in order to receive a permit to carry a handgun, applicants must first show a justifiable need
 to do so. According to the law, a justifiable need is characterized by an urgent need for self-defense that cannot be met in any non-violent way. As you can see, this entire permitting system is completely ridiculous. The plaintiff, John Drake, owns a number of free-standing ATMs in New Jersey. Since he restocks the machines himself, he usually carries a lot of cash on his person which makes him a pretty obvious target for criminals. Even under New Jersey’s draconian gun laws, Mr. Drake seems like a perfect candidate for a carry license. However, a judge denied even his permit! The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads that the RIGHT of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed and is about time that we make sure our legislators understand that!
Our Second Amendment rights are under attack! Tell Congress it must protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans, regardless of where they live!
The reality in New Jersey is that the permitting scheme makes a handgun carry permit all but impossible to obtain. Unless you are well connected, an armored car driver, or you happen to be sleeping with a judge, you have a better chance of hitting the lottery than you would to receive a handgun carry permit in New Jersey. Out of a population of 8.865 million people, New Jersey’s permitting scheme only allows 0.02% of the population to carry a handgun for self-defense. That is because applications are reviewed by the local police chief and a state judge where they are almost always denied.
Whether this law is allowed to stand will have national implications. There is a reason that the NRA, 19 state Attorneys General, 30+ Congressmen, and the Cato Institute all filed court briefs in support of this case being heard. That is because it asks an obvious, yet unanswered question: Do Second Amendment rights apply outside the home?
Yes, that sounds ridiculous, but the Court has so far remained silent on this issue. In the landmark case of District of Columbia vs. Heller
, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment included within it a right for individuals to possess legal weapons for lawful purposes within their homes. It took over 220 years for the Supreme Court to clarify what we knew all along: the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens, not government organized militias (yes, that is what the Liberal Justices actually argued). Yet, for as big of a decision as this was, the Court limited the scope of its decision to gun rights within the home.
Now you understand why this is such an important case. It asks the fundamental question of whether the right to bear arms applies to the public sphere. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise, considering there is not a single other Constitutional right that you are forced to surrender once you cross the threshold. However, the fact that this question has yet to be answered worries other Conservative states that their carry laws might one day be pre-empted by some liberal federal law! The Supreme Court has once again pushed off making a decision of whether to review the case, which can either be good news or bad. Very few cases are ever relisted once and this case has been pushed off twice now.
We cannot afford to leave our constitutional rights up to the activist judges that currently occupy the courts. This is the same Court that upheld Obamacare as a tax, even though every supporter previously denied that it was a tax. For two weeks in a row, the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to grant a writ of certiorari to Drake vs. Jerejian and allow the case to be heard in court. No, the only way to protect Americans Second Amendment rights is to go through Congress!
Our Second Amendment rights are under attack! Tell Congress it must protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans, regardless of where they live!
New Jersey is not the only state that forces residents to prove why they need
the Second Amendment. In Maryland, residents are forced to show a good and substantial reason for why they need
 to exercise their rights. In New York, the standard is called the good cause test. California and Hawaii had similar laws, however the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that the states must issue permits to individuals who meet all other requirements. It’s called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs
! The fact remains that as long as liberal states are allowed to force people to show a need to exercise a right, then all of our rights are in jeopardy!
Drake vs. Jerejian
 represents the best case to restore Second Amendment rights once and for all to the 26% of Americans living in liberal states behind the gun control iron curtain. That’s right... more than 26% of the country lives under regimes that are illegally restricting residents. Second Amendment rights to bear arms. The pro-gun movement has been extremely smart in how it manages its court cases. Organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) bring forward cases where there is a pre-existing circuit split. This means that multiple circuit or district courts have arrived at different conclusions for the same general issue. The Supreme Court is known to want to resolve circuit splits in order to make sure that there aren’t areas of the country where constitutional rights are defined differently.
However, even a seemingly cut-and-dry case like Drake
 can easily have a wrench thrown in it by the court’s Liberal judges. The fact that the Supreme Court has refused to rule on this case for two consecutive weeks shows that there is something going on behind the scenes. The Supreme Court receives well over 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every year. Of those, the Court only decides to hear between 75-80 of them, so the odds of any one case being heard are astronomically low(less than 0.8%). However, in most cases, the Court just denies the petition outright.
There is something going on behind the scenes that should make any gun owner or freedom lover nervous. The Court was presented with two common sense questions: 1) Does the Second Amendment apply outside the home and 2) do states violate that right by forcing residents to show a justifiable need to exercise their rights? The answers are, quite obviously, yes and yes. In order for a case to receive a date before the Supreme Court, it takes just four Justices to vote to hear it. That’s it| four Justices. The fact that Drake vs Jerejian
 has come up for a vote during Court conferences TWICE and it couldn’t even compel four of the conservative judges to vote makes me nervous. This should put a chill down your spine because it shows just how fragile our rights are. The fact remains that Congress is the only body that can ensure that the Second Amendment applies to all citizens and we MUST force Congress to act and extend gun rights to ALL Americans, regardless of where they live!
Jersey City’s Extra Gun Forms Ruled Offensive to New Jersey Law
 Monday, April 28, 2014

Evan Nappen
Eatontown, NJ -
 -(Ammoland.com)- On April 28, 2014, a three-judge Appellate Division panel unanimously agreed that Jersey City Police wrongfully required resident Michael McGovern to complete questions on four added municipal forms and to provide other information beyond the scope of the firearm licensing statute, and that the Law Division erred in denying McGovern his permits based upon his refusal to provide such additional information. (See attached Decision below)
When McGovern applied for his firearm purchase permits, he provided all State-mandated forms and answered all questions required under the law. The State-mandated materials consist of only a State Police Application Form (S.T.S. 033), a Consent for Mental Health Records Search (S.T.S. 66), and completion of a criminal background check. Firearm permitting procedures are governed by State and Federal law, and McGovern stood by what he believed were his statutory and constitutional rights.
Jersey City Police, however, denied McGovern, alleging that he was a threat to public health, safety and welfare and had not demonstrated good repute within the community
 because he refused to complete Jersey City’s added forms or provide information regarding alleged, old out-of-state arrests that did not result in conviction.
McGovern is a licensed real estate broker and non-practicing attorney with no disqualifier to receiving a firearm permit. He has no felony or disorderly person convictions, no juvenile delinquency convictions, no mental health, drug or alcohol issues, no restraining order issues, etc.
Despite the fact that New Jersey’s State Police forms do not require disclosure of mere arrests, and mere arrests do not constitute a per se disqualifier to firearm possession, Hudson County Superior Court Judge Frederick J. Theemling, Jr., agreed with Jersey City, and denied the permit.
McGovern the hired the law firm of Evan F. Nappen Attorney at Law PC to appeal, and Louis P. Nappen, attorney of that firm, handled the appeal for McGovern.
The Appellate Division reversed and remanded the matter based upon Nappen’s arguments that: (1) Jersey City is expressly preempted by NJSA 2C:58-3 from demanding information from an applicant that is not required by that statue, and that (2) Jersey City and the court inappropriately shifted the burden of proof to McGovern to prove his entitlement to a handgun permit.
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(f) states: There shall be no conditions or requirements added to the form or content of the application, or required by the licensing authority for the issuance of a permit or identification card, other than those that are specifically set forth in this chapter.
Despite the above Jersey City demanded that applicants provide, among other things: Auto Plate Number, Previous Addresses, Previous Employer, names and ages of all people who reside in your household,
 household members present and previous domestic records, an Authorization Waiver to Release Information
 that would “authorize the release of any and all information
 to the police, a signed Release that would relieve all persons from liability that may result from furnishing information about the applicant, as well as other additional certifications and questions. (See attached forms: http://tiny.cc/t2k1ex )
The Court accordingly found: Thus, much of the information requested by Jersey City is neither required by the State Police application forms nor by any of the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3. Requiring that information is contrary to the directive of subsection (f) that the licensing municipality cannot impose conditions or requirements beyond those established by the Legislature or contained in the State Police Superintendent’s application forms. Jersey City was not authorized to expand the information McGovern was required to supply beyond that included in the statute and in the State Police application forms.
In response to the decision, Louis Nappen said, For years, we have been arguing that Jersey City’s and other municipalities added forms and additional conditions or requirements for a mere permit to purchase are illegal. Several times, in fact, I have personally argued this exact point before Judge Theemling in other Hudson County and Jersey City permit matters and he has consistently refused to require that the cities change their procedures. I am beyond glad that the Appellate Division has finally declared that Jersey City’s added questions, releases and burden shifting is offensive to the law and not a valid reason to deny this presumptively-issued permit.
The Appellate Division also noted, The judge repeatedly declined to allow [McGovern] to present evidence supporting his attempted legal argument that Jersey City had demanded unauthorized information as part of the application and would not allow McGovern to cross-examine Ret. Jersey City Police Capt. Andrew Brusgard (who appeared on behalf of the State) about his qualifications to determine who may receive a handgun permit or his knowledge of the law in that regard.
The Appellate Division found that the Court below appeared to wrongfully reverse the burden, and vindicated the applicant: We find no evidence of such a threat and bad character in McGovern’s expression of legal positions and arguments based on his understanding of constitutional and legal rights.
Nappen continued: Added municipal requirements squash civil rights the same way that some towns used to squelch blacks, gays, foreigners, or women from voting or getting governmental aid by implementing local writing requirements or poll taxes, or simply by denying certain folks civil respect by requiring that they ride in the back of a bus. Persons deserve equal treatment under the law. New Jerseyans should be treated the same across the state when it comes to exercising their Second Amendment and any statutory rights or privileges.
This decision comes hot on the heels of the Law Firm’s Perez decision, where the Appellate Division similarly found that Patterson wrongfully required applicants to supply an added form and Passport photo(s).
These decisions, said Nappen, put police departments and judges on notice that breaches of due process and wrongful denials based upon superfluous demands will not stand
.
The first arrest has now been made under the draconian Connecticut law
GOA, April 26, 2014

The first arrest has now been made under the draconian Connecticut law that was passed last year in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting.
Earlier this month, Connecticut police arrested James Toigo and confiscated his “assault rifle” after he allegedly shot a squirrel in his yard. Not only did police seize the rifle (and many magazines) from the 65-year old Toigo, they also confiscated several of his legally registered firearms.
James Toigo is not a murderer. He has committed no violent crime. He is a law-abiding citizen who has been victimized by the laws of his state.
But Mr. Toigo is not alone. As many as 300,000 law-abiding gun owners have failed to comply with Connecticut’s updated gun registration requirements. The new registry is an update of older registration requirements that were in place at the time of the tragic shooting.
The state’s largest newspaper, the Hartford Courant, has called for the arrest of the 300,000 non-complying gun owners.
“The bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law,” the paper opined back in February. “If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.”
And at least one top aide in the Governor’s administration, Michael P. Lawler, has indicated that the state will punish those who missed the registration deadline.
Rep. Stockman introduces bill to end registration and confiscation
Our great friend in Congress, Steve Stockman, has introduced H.R. 4380, a bill that would cut off federal Justice Department funds to any state which attempts to confiscate and register firearms.
H.R. 4380 would target any state that sets up a gun registry or establishes a system to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens. And any city, state or municipality that attempts such actions would suffer the loss of their federal Justice Department grants.
Will that be enough of a threat to make these gun-grabbing cities and states back off and respect the gun rights of their citizens? We believe so. Money is tight, and the loss of any federal funds has a dramatic impact on budgets.
Because this is a Congressional election year and because the recent special elections gave bloody noses to those who were on the side of gun control, we believe that many Congressmen who normally sit on the fence will see it makes good sense to support this very sensible and necessary legislation.
And, if we can get dozens of House members to cosponsor Stockman's bill, it will make it much easier to add H.R. 4380 as an amendment to a must-pass government funding bill which is scheduled to be considered in September.
Gun Owners has received a lot of mail from our members who are very worried about this new trend of municipal gun confiscations. We heard you, and we worked closely with Congressman Stockman’s office to develop this solution.
Now it is up to you to help us put the pressure directly on your Representative.
ACTION: Please Take Action and urge your Representative to cosponsor H.R. 4380, a bill that would cut off federal Justice Department funds to any state which attempts to confiscate and register firearms.
GOA's monthly membership mailings contain postcards that are a central strategy to putting the heat on elected officials in the nation's capital.
If you are not receiving these mailings, click here to become a member of GOA.
This month's mailing includes the latest newsletter - plus, postcards supporting H.R. 4380 (the Gun Confiscation and Registration Prevention Act).
Colorado Sheriff: “Even the federal courts can’t make me enforce [gun control] laws.”
Written By : Duane Lester, April 19, 2014

I have never witnessed a more embarrassing display than when Colorado Democrats set about to ban guns.  It was obvious they had no idea what they were talking about.  Remember this:“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.”
Rep. Diana DeGette doesn’t know the first thing about guns. Yet she wants to write laws about them.
Well, Colorado Sheriff John Cooke says they can’t make him enforce them:
“Most law-enforcement agencies in this state don’t really understand how to enforce this, and the people don’t know how to comply with this. So we actually filed a lawsuit. Fifty-five out of the 62 elected sheriffs filed a lawsuit in federal district court against these laws because we’re saying it violates people’s due process. If somebody doesn’t know that they’re violating the law, how can they be held accountable? And that’s a violation of due process,” he said.
“Even the federal courts can’t make me enforce the laws. So if we lose and the judge says, ‘No, these laws are constitutional,’ I still set the priorities and the resources for my agency. There’s no law in the state of Colorado that says I have to enforce the law, so I still won’t enforce them because in my belief and my opinion, it’s not my job to turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals,” Cooke said.
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