J. B. Kasper-Outdoors

The Second Amendment

Gotham ‘gun shop’ appears as ruse to preach anti-firearm message
Conservative Byte, March 23, 2015

Conservatives can easily make a counter video with all the lives saved because someone carried.
Check it out:
A “gun shop” that suddenly appeared in the heart of Manhattan last week only to close its doors after two days was actually an elaborate ruse by a pro-gun control group that sought to lure potential customers in order to make their anti-firearms case.
States United to Prevent Gun Violence set up the “Guns with History Gun Shop” on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, and pretended to offer for sale guns used in high-profile crimes. The phony sales pitches were really part of a “social experiment” — pretexts for telling customers about the dangers of gun proliferation in unconsummated transactions recorded by hidden cameras, according to the group. In one such conversation, the bogus clerk shows a replica Bushmaster assault rifle like the one Connecticut State Police said Adam Lanza used in the Sandy Hook school massacre.
“Collectors love this one,” the actor states in a video the anti-gun group posted on YouTube. “Adam Lanza’s mom had this in her collection, too, until he took this and several other guns and killed her and then went down to Sandy Hook and killed 6 teachers and 20 innocent children. Twenty little kids…Gone like that.”
ATF Change Welcomed, But Will It Make A Difference?
Shooting Wire, March 23, 2015

The news that BATFE head B. Todd Jones was resigning didn't come from a media outlet citing "reliable sources inside the ATF" - although that's exactly where the news originated. It came from industry compliance and legal protection firm FFLGuard in the form of a Thursday-night advisory to its clients. That advisory said Jones was resigning - soon- to "enter the private sector". Normally that's the governmental euphemism for "he got quit" in the private sector, but FFLGuard seems to have been two-for-two on this one. I'm told that Jones will be leaving the ATF for another set of initials: the N-F-L. Yep, the National Football League.
For those of you who are already getting cold sweats at the thoughts of an ATF official making a split-second judgement call, he's not going to officiate, we're told he's going to join their legal department. With the infamous run-ins professional athletes seem to have involving firearms, the NFL is probably smart to add Jones.
The celebration of Jones' departure had already begun among his most vocal critics. Website CleanUpATF had already posted that "Word's starting to swirl that B Todd is haulin' ass soon," wrote Vince Cefalu in a "Grapevine" column. "We told you his lack of investment in ATF would be apparent," he wrote, Jones, according to Cefalu, "came in to tank the agency and leaves when Holder can't protect him anymore."
Won't comment on the accuracy of the "tank the agency" comment, but it's obvious that despite the praise heaped on Jones by the also-departing Attorney General Eric Holder, he has done an abysmal job. Throughout his tenure, the already-embattled agency - with headquarters now referred to as "Fort Fumble"- has shown the only real talent it has is a heavy-handed disregard for due process and the rule of law.
While the industry has been kicking the announcement around with glee, it's obvious that not everyone shares the optimistic viewpoint that with this latest bureaucrat out of the way, something positive in the way of changes in the operations of the ATF will be in store.
"This gives AT another change to clean up its act," said the Citizens Coalition for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) Chairman Alan Gottlieb, but, "based on their past behavior, I still don't have confidence they will now -suddenly- improve their performance."
However, Gottlieb believes this is an opportunity for "Congress to keep the agency on a tight leash."
Why the negativity? Jones, if you'll remember, was named "acting" director in 2011 with a charge that included cleaning up the ATF after Fast & Furious and other agency blunders. None of the hoped for housecleaning happened and the industry began to feel Jones was put into the agency by an administration that had already demonstrated a disdain for firearms owners. That viewpoint was confirmed to many when the agency let word slip they were planning on banning military surplus ammunition for modern sporting rifles.
The latest display of ineptitude and deceit -despite the ATF's attempt to brush the whole firestorm off as a "typographical error" brought more than 80,000 (to date) responses to the proposal and the shaky pronouncement that the ATF was "delaying" their action.
And "delay" in this instance means exactly that. It is decidedly not off the shelf. Nor are other measures designed to impede -or prevent- legal firearms ownership. Already U.S. Representative Eliot Engel (D-NY) has introduced H.R. 1358, a bill designed to ban civilian use of the same M855 ammunition. It will be dueling bills in the House as Representative Patrick McHenry (R-NC) has introduced H.R. 1365, the "Ammunition and Firearms Protection Act" to prevent the BATFE from ever revisiting their "delayed" M855 reclassification.
What all this means is there's another big battle brewing on Capitol Hill- and it will more than likely focus on the administration's nominee for Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The NRA and other pro-gun organizations have gone on record as opposing her, and conservatives are pointing to what will doubtless be a very close vote as a determining point for Senators facing reelection in the next cycle.
It's clear that a pattern of end-running normal procedures when possible is the norm and not the exception, so it's no wonder that all pro-gun groups are on high alert when it comes to any administrative actions that can be used to make gun ownership tougher.
Later this week, I'll have a report on two items that have been overlooked by gun owners and the industry as a whole that can have a huge impact on both travel with firearms (especially internationally) and the manufacturing of any component parts of firearms.
Yesterday, my great friend Tom Gresham celebrated the twentieth anniversary of GunTalk Radio. His commemorative broadcast included what I'd technically classify as "a bunch" of industry heavy-hitters: Wayne LaPierre, Alan Gottlieb, Ted Nugent, Rob Leatham and others. In two decades, Gresham's never hesitated to take stands against what he considers egregious or unreasonable encroachments on our rights. From his "Truth Squads" with a simple motto: "No lie left unchallenged" to his billboard campaign against ridiculous prosecutions of legitimate gun owners, he's made his program into a force for the Second Amendment.
Now, he's doing something for Alzheimer's research that isn't just professional. Tom lost his dad, Grits, to the disease a few years ago, and he's determined to help advance research into the insidious disease. This year, the Alzheimer's Association's "Longest Day" fundraiser happens to fall on June 21- his dad's birthday. The "Longest Day" refers to the day with the most hours of daylight for that year.
Comic Jay Leo didn't appear at the State of the Industry Dinner, but we've learned some of his cash has appeared in the funds designated to the NSSF's Operation ChildSafe.
Tom's asking shooters to join him in what he calls "the Million Round March" -donating a penny a round (or more) for the AA. In other words, he's using "rounds fired" to raise money for Alzheimer's research. I've contributed, and know many of you would like to take part. Here's the signup page
And finally...news you won't hear anywhere else. Like many of you, I was outraged when entertainer Jay Leno reneged on his scheduled engagement as the headliner at this year's State of the Industry Dinner at SHOT Show. Leno cited concerns from his friends, a significant backlash on Facebook and social media and his own "personal convictions" for his abrupt departure. So..
Raped Woman Asks Why She is Forbidden to Carry a Firearm in Maryland
Political Outcast March 21, 2015

A raped woman speaks directly to the Maryland legislator about why they have disarmed her and all other woman, leaving them vulnerable to stalkers and others.
Thanks go to the Daily Mail for posting the video, under the headline, “Moment rape survivor stood up in Maryland state Senate hearing to demand the right to carry a concealed weapon.”
Jacqueline Kahn was speaking in support of a measure that would allow residents in Maryland to carry concealed weapons for self-defense.
The state is currently one of just a handful in the nation that doesn’t allow residents to carry firearms on the basis of protection alone.
Kahn was raped because she is an avid hiker and camper. Thanks to Maryland’s barbaric and unconstitutional disarmament policy, she can only do these things unarmed. Her NRA certifications and the weapons in her house are no use to her unless she wants to risk criminal prosecution (in both senses of the term!) and jail time. So she had nothing but her hand-to-hand abilities to use when a man invaded her tent. That wasn’t enough. The equalizing power of a firearm was denied her by Liberals in power.
Liberals need to be removed from power everywhere.
A few quotations from this raped woman:
    I need you to know this is so incredibly difficult for me, but I feel like if I don’t humanize this, if I don’t make it clear how this legislation actually affects your daughters, your mothers, the women of this state, then it’s all just a bunch of numbers
    I wish I could tell you that’s the only time I’ve been stalked, or that’s the only man who has stalked anyone in the state of Maryland. But there’s a huge number of women, who like me have been raped, who like me have been sexually assaulted — and we want the right to be able to do what we would be allowed to do throughout the majority of the rest of the United States,
    When I’m in my house, I’m allowed to protect myself. But walking along the sidewalk, I’m not. So you make me into a criminal. You force me to decide, do I want to be judged by 12 or carried by six.
Watch the video if you have not done so already!
Share with your friends.
Remember, a couple of years ago the governor was trying to make sure that people could not even purchase a gun for their homes without a license.
And Maryland has become notorious for arresting and charging out-of-state drivers who have a gun in their vehicle because they don’t know that the state is a Second-Amendment-free zone.
Why do we have people in government more concerned about removing our ability to protect ourselves than they are with actually protecting us?
Access, Denied: More Gun Sellers Blocked From Financial Sector
Patriot Update, Saturday, March 21, 2015

After serving multiple deployments overseas with the U.S. Army Special Forces, Josh Burns began building his own rifles at home.
In Sept. 2013, he and his wife Felicia, who also served in the military, decided they would make a business out of selling guns.
“This is his hobby that [Josh] masks as a business so he can play with guns,” Felicia told The Daily Signal recently while setting up their stand at the New Orleans Area Gun and Knife Show.
But starting their small business, Apocalypse Sports in Ponchatoula, La., wasn’t so easy.
What they found, is that because they sell guns, payment processors did not want to do business with them.
Problems With Processors
Felicia was in charge of finding a payment processor, which is a third-party outlet that handles credit card transactions between merchants and banks. In a world where credit cards are a primary method of payment, it’s one of the first things a start-up must do.
Felicia told The Daily Signal she was declined from three different payment processor companies—one of which, PayPal, froze their account.
For awhile, she only blamed herself.
“I just thought the whole payment [and] gateway system was a difficult thing to get around if you’re not a computer geek,” Felicia said, laughing.
Since this is my first start-up business, I didn’t realize that there were any different barriers to me selling guns than versus someone selling mascara or lipstick at a stand.
Felicia then came across TransNational, one of the few payment processors that does business with firearms and ammunition vendors.
From then on, she didn’t give the issue much thought.
“I’m not personally outraged,” Felicia said of her original dealings with payment processors. “It was frustrating—I just think it’s their loss.”
Anti-Gun Group Makes Fake Gun Shop to Shame Gun Buyers
Last REsistence, March 20, 2015

The anti-gun group States United to Prevent Gun Violence set up a fake gun shop in New York City in order to make buyers feel guilty and think twice about buying a gun. Jude Abeler with the Daily Caller wrote:
First-time gun buyers looking for protection were shamed into changing their minds after going into a mock gun shop in New York set up by the gun-control organization States United to Prevent Gun Violence.
“It is one of our rights, but my opinion has definitely changed,” said one female customer. “I don’t feel safe with a gun.”
The front of the store read: “First time gun buyer? We’re here to help you.” Inside, it had on display only certain types of guns that had been used in high-profile tragedies like Sandy Hook and others.
When showing off a .22 revolver to an unsuspecting “pro-2nd amendment” couple, the store clerk described it as “the easiest gun we have to use. It’s our most popular one… It’s also a gun that a 5-year-old found in his parents bedroom, went down and shot his 9-month-old baby brother with it.”
And on it went.
If this group and all other anti-gun groups were successful in eradicating “gun violence” by banning guns (which would never happen), then they’d have to change their focus to ending “knife violence” and “fist violence.” The murders would continue. The violence would escalate as it has in the UK. Who cares about the tools used to commit violent crimes? How about dealing with the criminals themselves?
Trying to put a guilt trip on gun buyers by saying that a particular AR-15 is the same type of gun Adam Lanza used to kill a bunch of people in Newtown doesn’t make the gun itself look bad. It only makes the criminal himself look evil for committing such a heinous crime. So what that he used an AR-15. Or a Glock. He could have used a machete if he wanted to.
Perhaps saying that it’s the same gun that Lanza used would make a buyer want a similar firearm all the more. After all, if there had been someone there at Sandy Hook Elementary School who had a firearm who was able to take out Lanza before any carnage resulted, there’d have been no tragedy.
Guns might be used to cause a tragedy. But they can just as easily and more frequently be used to prevent tragedies. That happens all the time. We don’t hear about them, because the media only focus on the tragedies. It’s like they only want the bad news, because that’s what gets the viewers watching, which helps their ratings and increases payouts from their advertisers.
If most people truly understood guns and their history, there would be no anti-gun lobby.
Fact-checker takes Obama to task for gun claims
Foxnews.com March 16, 2015

WASHINGTON –  President Obama is under fire from The Washington Post’s fact-checker over a series of recent far-fetched gun claims, including suggesting the country’s homicide rate is higher than that of other industrialized nations “by like a mile.”
The comments, made during a stop in South Carolina last week, earned the president three out of four "Pinocchios" -- the fact-checker's scale for measuring inaccuracy.
The first fact-check involved a comment Obama made -- at a town hall at South Carolina's Benedict College -- where he said, “What we have to recognize is, is that our homicide rates are so much higher than other industrial countries. I mean by like a mile.”
The president seemed to be telling students the U.S. had the highest homicide rate in the industrialized world, which isn’t true, according to the newspaper. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the average homicide rate among the 36 countries is 4.1 per 100,000 people. Brazil tops the list with a homicide rate of 25.5. The U.S. and Chile tie for fourth. Both have a homicide rate of 5.2.
The president also told those attending the South Carolina event that “it’s easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable.”
“This is just a very strange comment that appears to have no statistical basis,” the Washington Post wrote. The paper added that some of its readers suggested Obama was talking about the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “food desert” locator, which identifies areas in the country where fresh vegetables are hard to buy.
The columnist acknowledged that some of the analysis in the fact-check "turns on what the listener believes the president was trying to say."
Finally, the fact-check took the president to task after he told students he was “not exaggerating “when he claimed lawmakers are backing plans that would allow firearms in kindergarten and machine guns in bars.
While some states like Georgia allow firearms to be carried into bars and restaurants, they do not allow machine guns in bars. And while there have been proposals floated to allow guns in schools – mainly college campuses – none of the proposals specifically address kindergarten.
Gun Ownership Declining? Don’t Believe It
By Steve Sanetti, National Shooting Sports Foundation 3/12/14

An Associated Press story receiving considerable attention cites the latest General Social Survey finding that gun ownership has declined in recent years, though other research—from Gallup polls to FBI background checks to NSSF-commissioned studies—provides evidence that Americans are embracing gun ownership at a much higher rate than the suspect GSS indicates.
The GSS finds that 32 percent of Americans own firearms or live with someone who owns one, a decrease when compared to GSS ownership rates from the 1970s and 1980s.
But who would argue that these are very different times? In this era of government mistrust and information breaches, would you tell a stranger whether you own firearms or not—or freely offer other personal or family information you deem private?
The GSS isn’t actually counting the number of firearms in each household. Rather it is counting the number of individuals willing to disclose to a stranger at their front door how many firearms they own.
There should be no surprise that despite an unprecedented eight-year increase in federal background checks to purchase guns, the increased number of carry permits, and rising trends in firearm safety courses and hunting participation, this survey shows a decrease in the number of firearms.
While some may argue that respondents are selling or otherwise disposing of their firearms and not buying new guns, it is far more likely that the political climate is driving down self-reporting. The Obama administration and gun control supporters in Congress and state capitals have worked hard over the past several years to foster a climate of uncertainty and anxiety among law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment right and to stigmatize firearms ownership.
One criminologist, Gary Kleck of Florida State University, has pointed to higher ownership rates cited in Gallup surveys.
He notes that these results are closer to the truth since they are based on anonymous phone surveys rather than an in-person poll.
In the latest Gallup survey conducted in October 2014, 42 percent of Americans reported having a gun in their household, a fairly consistent figure since 2004. An even greater share, 63 percent, agrees that having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be.
And support for additional gun control has become a minority opinion in the latest Pew research poll.
These findings reflect the increased number of Americans purchasing firearms, particularly handguns, for personal and home protection, and the increased number of carry permits being issued across the country.
An NSSF survey of firearms retailers indicates nearly 25 percent of gun owners are first-time buyers—that is, they have purchased their first firearm within the last five years.
Additionally, research shows these new enthusiasts are younger, female and urban/suburban based—all welcome trends for target shooting, hunting and firearm ownership—trends we think are not captured or quantified by GSS takers who come knocking at your door.
The ATF’s Ammo Ban Is Back…in the Form of a New Bill From Democrats
Patriot Update, Mar. 16, 2015

Four House Democrats have taken the Obama administration’s idea of a regulation to ban a widely used kind of ammunition — one it had to pull back because it was so unpopular — and turned it into legislation.
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) introduced the Armor Piercing Bullets Act, which he said would ban the sale of “.223-dervied, 5.56x45mm NATO ‘green tip’ rounds” that are commonly used on the AR-15 rifle. That’s the same ban that the ATF proposed in February, through the adoption of a “framework” that would justify a ban on all bullets that can pierce police body armor.
The ATF’s framework prompted the submission of almost 90,000 comments, most of which opposed the plan as one that would ban a popular round used in a popular rifle. For years, these green tip rounds have enjoyed an exception from a ban on armor-piercing bullets, because they are generally used for sporting purposes.
But even when announcing that this framework would be indefinitely delayed, the ATF indicated it would continue to work on the issue and see if there’s a way to implement its framework. At a hearing last week, ATF Director B. Todd Jones said his agency was “figuring out how we do this rationally.”
Engel was more direct, and said the ATF had it right, and that it’s framework should now be implemented via legislation.
“As the ATF rightly pointed out, these rounds can easily be loaded into concealed pistols and other short guns, making them particularly dangerous to police officers,” Engel noted. “The well-being of the men and women who protect us should not, and need not, be a partisan issue. I encourage all of my colleagues in Congress to support this obvious measure that will, if enacted, save lives.”
Engel blamed the gun industry for promoting the use of armor-piercing bullets.
“There is absolutely no compelling argument to be made for anyone else to have access to them,” he said. “But the out of touch gun industry lobby is fighting tooth and nail to keep cop-killing ammunition on the streets.”
Republican senators opposed to the ATF’s proposal said last week that the real issue is how banning a popular cartridge makes it harder for people to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
“If law-abiding gun owners cannot obtain rifle ammunition, or face substantial difficulty in finding ammunition available and at reasonable prices because government entities are banning such ammunition, then the Second Amendment is at risk,” dozens of senators wrote in a letter to the ATF.
Other Democrats supporting Engel’s bill are Reps. Yvette Clarke (N.Y.), Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.).
States Pass Bills Stopping Federal Gun Control after Obama's Threats of "Executive Action"
Eagle Rising, 16 March 2015  
Earlier this week, two states passed bills that would block enforcement of future federal gun control measures. Montana and Arizona passed similar measures to nullify federal gun laws and prohibit state agencies and employees from assisting federal agencies from enforcing unlawful and unconstitutional gun laws.
In Montana, Rep. Art Wittich introduced House Bill 203 (HB203) which would prohibit the state "from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of a federal act enacted on or after Jan. 1, 2015 that "prohibits, restricts, or requires individual licensure for ownership, possession, transfer, or use of any firearm or any magazine or other ammunition feeding device."
Wittich's bill passed the House last month by a vote of 58-42. This week it passed the Senate with a vote of 27-22. The bill now heads to the governor's desk for his signature. If he fails to either sign or veto the bill within 10 days, it becomes law.
Rep. Wittich said that the bill was needed in light of the Obama administration's usurpation of power and recent threats of unconstitutional executive orders.
Montana is also looking at Senate Bill 143, introduced by Senator Cary Smith, which will also allow concealed firearms to be carried on college campuses in Montana. Should they adopt the bill, Montana would join seven other states that allow concealed carry on college campuses.
Additionally, Senator Kelli Ward introduced Senate Bill 1330 (SB1330) that would do virtually the same thing as the Montana.
image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/guncontrol-300x224.jpg
guncontrol"All federal act, laws, orders, rules and regulations that are in violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, that are unauthorized by the Constitution and that violate the Second Amendment's true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers of the United States Constitution are invalid and void in this state," the bill reads.
The bill passed the Arizona Senate on Wednesday with a vote of 17-12.
The Tenth Amendment Center says that these types of bills are "based on James Madison's advice for states and individuals in Federalist 46, a 'refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union' serves as an extremely effectively method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership in the states.
These bills are also based on the anti-commandeering doctrine. The anti-commandeering doctrine, resting on four Supreme Court Cases dating back to as early as 1842, should be considered in this matter.
Printz v. US is the cornerstone in this doctrine. The ruling states in part:
    "We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States' officers directly. 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 Tenth Amendment Center also points out this little nugget:
    Finally, the Court ruled that the federal government cannot force the states to act against their will by withholding funds in a coercive manner. In Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the Court held that the federal government cannot compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs already in place. Justice Roberts argued that allowing Congress to essentially punish states that refused to go along violates constitutional separation of powers.
        The legitimacy of Congress's exercise of the spending power "thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the 'contract.'" Pennhurst, supra, at 17. Respecting this limitation is critical to ensuring that Spending Clause legislation does not undermine the status of the States as independent sovereigns in our federal system. That system "rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that 'freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.' " Bond, 564 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8) (quoting Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999) ). For this reason, "the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress' instructions." New York, supra, at 162. Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.
Did Yesterday's Senate Appropriations Committee Testimony Shed Light on ATF Endgame?
Shooting Wire, March 15, 2015

What would normally have been a routine Senate Appropriations Committee on Commerce- Justice- Science (CJS) session yesterday may have given gun owners another insight into just how dedicated the BATFE is when it comes to tightening their access to 5.56 ammunition.
In his opening remarks, Alabama Senator Richard Shelby praised the work of those scheduled to testify- until he got to B. Todd Jones, Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).
There, Shelby summarized the BATFE's 2016 $1.3 billion budget request as a $60 million dollar increase over 2015, then flatly remarked: "I am interested in how the agency would use this increased funding, particularly in light of recent complaints from hunters and sportsmen who believe that ATF overstepped its authority by attempting to ban certain ammunition from recreational use."
"I look forward to hearing the views and explanations of our four witnesses (heads of the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, DEA and BATFE) regarding the details of their 2016 funding goals, and working with our subcommittee members to prioritize necessary funding for federal law enforcement agencies in the 2016 bill."
As expected, the perfunctory answers from the remainder of the "witnesses" (the heads of the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service and the DEA) outlined the priorities of their missions, challenges, and detailed the uses for their requested budget hikes.
When Jones was questioned on what Shelby characterized as an "overreach" of authority by ATF earlier this week, he didn't retreat. Instead, Jones used the opportunity to tell Sen. Shelby's subcommittee that, because of the growth of AR-style pistols, he now considered "Any 5.56 round to be a challenge to officer safety."
He then asked lawmakers to help in a review of the 1986 bill written to protect officers from armor-piercing ("cop killer") rounds. That measure largely exempted 5.56 and a variety of other ammunition because it was used by target shooters and not in weapons readily used by criminals. Jones disagreed with the exemption because of the growth of the AR-style pistol.
He did not say an AR-style pistol had even been used against law enforcement, but he made it very clear that the matter of military surplus ammunition in 5.56 was far from closed. In fact, the characterized the status as "suspended" not withdrawn. There is a big difference.
During a White House press briefing, WH Press Secretary Josh Earnest declined to comment on a characterization that the President had "caved" on the ban. Instead, Earnest said the administration "deferred to the decision by the ATF to suspend action on the proposal".
Their comments should not cause gun owners concern, not give any confidence.
The administration, according to my sources, was both embarrassed and infuriated at the fact the proposed "framework" was outed by online news media.
After all, the ATF employed a longstanding tactic used releasing potentially controversial proposals: it was part of a "news dump" late on a Friday afternoon - preceding a federal holiday weekend. In Washington's mainstream media, that's the time when their "A-teams" are heading out for long weekends. And more often than not historically, it's worked. Even if discovered, it's difficult-if not impossible- to reach high-ranking officials for comment before the Tuesday news cycle. And nothing cools "hot news" faster than time.
If you're a follower of such practices, you'll remember it was the same tactic used when the White House released subpoenaed documents relating to the ATF's botched "Fast and Furious" and "Wide Receiver" investigations.
But the words of ATF's Jones and White House Press Secretary Earnest after their acknowledgement of the "suspension" are the the ones that should keep gun owners vigilant. As I wrote earlier, Jones candidly stated that - especially with the sales popularity of the AR-style pistol, he considered all 5.56 ammo a threat.
And Earnest refused to characterize the move as President Obama's "caving" on the issue of gun control, adding "the President remains committed to protecting Second Amendment Rights and seeing 'common sense' action taken."
That reiteration of the commitment to "common sense action" is where the true test really lies- and I've been told by sources in the administration that next test won't be long in coming.
While the administration backed off due to the objections of 90,000+ citizens, 52 Senators and 238 members of Congress, there's still no intent to let the matter rest.
The lesson learned from this latest defeat may be the administration's reaffirmation of the problems of allowing public comment instead of simply riding out the protests afterward.
And this administration has shown little reluctance to take unilateral action-especially if it meant being able to make life even more difficult for law-abiding gun owners.
Where the next anti-gun initiative will focus is anyone's guess at this point. That it is coming is a virtual certainty.
Gun rights groups flex muscle in new GOP-controlled Congress
Patriot Update, March 14, 2015

The gun lobby is back on offense under the new GOP-controlled Congress.
The National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups are teaming with majority Republicans in efforts to loosen firearm restrictions, block background check legislation, and have already forced the Obama administration to back down from a controversial ammunition regulations.
The aggressive push follows years in which gun rights advocates have fought tooth and nail to beat back gun control legislation bills in the divided Congress, including a flurry of bills proposed following the 2012 Newtown, Conn. elementary school massacre.
“Make no mistake about it, the American people do not want more gun control and now we have a more pro-Second Amendment Congress,” NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker told The Hill.
The NRA flexed its muscle this week, pressuring the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to shelve a plan that would have prohibited certain types of armor-piercing bullets used in high-powered AR-15 rifles.
The ATF proposed the bullet ban last month, but pulled it back Tuesday after being overwhelmed with nearly 90,000 public comments, the “vast majority” of which were negative, the agency said.
The move angered congressional Democrats and gun control advocates, who responded with appeals urging the agency urging it to revive the proposal.
?“The question remains, ‘Why would a civilian need to walk the streets with a handgun chambered with military-grade, armor-piercing ammunition?’” asked Jonathan Hutson, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
The bullet ban was aimed at armor-piercing legislation that has traditionally been used in AR-15 hunting rifles, but can be used in handguns.
Not Today! Wheelchair-Bound Man Shoots Home Invaders
By Casey Harper, Freedom Force, March 13, 2015

A wheelchair-bound man in Tulsa, Okla., opened fire on three alleged home invaders Thursday morning, killing two and sending one fleeing out a bedroom window, KJRH reported. The third man is still on the loose.
Police say that after a dispute broke out outside the resident’s apartment, the three men broke down the door and began assaulting a friend of the wheelchair-bound man inside.
Protecting his home and his friend, the man fired on the alleged armed intruders.
Police found Kejuan Shields and Demario Harris dead in the resident’s apartment.
The resident’s mother, Anita Penn, said he was paralyzed in 2011 after he was shot seven times.
“The first time the guy kicked in the door, he was in the bed, asleep and they shot him seven times,” Penn told KTUL. “That’s why he’s in a wheelchair today.”
Tulsa residents have been defending themselves at impressive rates this year, taking advantage of Oklahoma’s broad protections for defending yourself against intruders.
Anti-Gun Group Epically Fails At Mocking Second Amendment
Conservative Byte, March 13, 2015

Why is it that these places that are tough on guns have some of the worst gun violence? That’s easy, because it is only the criminals who have guns.
Check it out:
An anti-gun group released a video yesterday mocking the Second Amendment, but the video is so bad, it’s hilarious to watch.
The video, produced by the Brady Campaign, features two “criminals” who promote “crimadvisor.com,” a web site that tells them “which states have loose gun laws.”
“I have some violent friends; we all wear leather jackets and scream at women, and we want to find out which states we can buy and sell guns easy,” one of the “criminals” says, to which the other responds with “Crimadvisor.com, that’s the site to find out where it’s easiest for felons and fugitives to buy, carry and even traffic guns.”
Of course, in real life violent criminals couldn’t care less about laws; otherwise they wouldn’t be robbing and killing.
Seriously, do you think the drug cartels that overran Mexico and left it a failed state gave a crap that the country has some of the strongest gun control laws in the western hemisphere? No, because they were too busy gunning down tourists in Cancún who were left defenseless by gun control.
“More than 70,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since 2007,” Reuters reported back in 2013, and the number has only skyrocketed since then.
Mexico’s only hope is from the armed militias who have defied the country’s gun laws to defend their communities from the cartels.
Couple Can't Be Foster Parents Because Gun Permits?
Last Resistence, March 16, 2015

Apparently, current Nevada law stipulates that a gun-owning couple can be foster parents for a child as long as the ammo is stored in a completely separate container from the firearm, which also has to be stored in a separate and secure container. Basically, you can have guns, as long as they’re completely useless.
One Nevada couple own guns and have owned them for years ever since they were the victims of an attempted home invasion up in New York. Obviously, in New York, guns are basically banned, so in order for them to be able to adequately defend themselves in the future, they had to move to a place that didn’t criminalize the 2nd Amendment. So, they moved to Nevada.
Which is a pretty good state to live in for gun rights. But their stipulations on foster parents essentially require that only non-gun owners can be foster parents. Fox News reported on the case:
A Nevada couple were denied their request to serve as foster parents because they have permits to carry guns.
Brian and Valerie Wilson, of Las Vegas, told “Fox & Friends” Sunday that they have always planned to become foster parents and eventually adopt, but have been denied permission to do so because of a state regulation that prohibits the carrying of loaded weapons with foster children.
“I really want a family,” said Valerie Wilson. “It really is heartbreaking because these kids are in institutionalized homes; they aren’t getting the families that they deserve,” she told “Fox & Friends.”
“It’s heartbreaking that they’re not getting the home they deserve,” she said.
“It just doesn’t make sense,” Brian Wilson added. “We’re talking about law-abiding people, people who have had background checks.
“We’re not talking about leaving a firearm around the house,” he said.
The Wilsons said they got the gun permits years ago after they were victims of an attempted home invasion. “We realized that bad things can happen to good people at any time and we need to be responsible,” Brian Wilson said.
Now the Wilsons are fighting to get the law in Nevada changed.
They testified last week before the state Assembly Judiciary Committee to ask lawmakers to approve Assembly Bill 167, which would allow residents to carry loaded weapons on their person or in a car and still serve as foster parents, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.
Current rules reportedly require guns and ammunition to be stored separately in secure containers in homes with foster children. The Wilsons’ request for a variance to the current law was denied.
Assemblywoman Olivia Diaz, a Democrat, said foster children are often traumatized. She asked if having them exposed to weapons would be appropriate.
Jill Marano, deputy administrator of the state Division of Child and Family Services, said the agency has fears about the possibility that a child could gain access to a loaded weapon. She opposed the bill in its current form.
It’s always a concern that a child might access a loaded gun. That concern is not limited to foster children. Gun-owning parents do have to teach their kids about firearms, so that their kids understand that guns are not toys. They have to learn to respect them.
And I understand that foster children are often traumatized from their abusive biological parents. But where would you draw the line? How about kitchen knives? Baseball bats? Hammers? Axes? All those can be used as dangerous weapons. Guns aren’t the only things that can be used as dangerous weapons.
What if a traumatized, adopted child gained access to a large kitchen knife and killed his foster parent or parents in the middle of the night? Would the state then make it a law that foster parents could only own large kitchen knives as long as they were dull and made of state-approved cardboard?
I would think that the state would want responsible gun owners to be foster parents. They’re the ones who would not be afraid to defend their adopted child in the event that they had a home invasion. It would actually be safer for the child to live with gun owners than with those who have rendered themselves and their family defenseless.
ATF to Not Move Forward with 5.56 M855 Ammo Ban at This Time
NSSF, March 10, 2015

Will Review Record Number of Comments
Submitted on Its 'Framework' Proposal
ATF announced today that it will not move forward with its proposed framework to ban commonplace 5.56 M855 "green tip" ammunition at this time while it reviews the record number (more than 80,000) comments it has received so far. ATF will continue to accept comments through March 16. NSSF, as the trade association for the firearms industry, looks forward to engaging in a dialogue with ATF to address this issue that led to the now withdrawn proposal. Our industry members hope to meet consumer demand in bringing alternative ammunition products to the market and to continue to sell the popular M855 rifle target ammunition. NSSF continues to strongly urge ATF to grant 32 long-pending petitions to exempt alternative rifle ammunition designed and intended for the hunting market.
Obama: ‘Important’ Second Amendment Responsible for High Homicide Rates
Brightbart News, March 9, 2015

Speaking at Benedict College in South Carolina on March 6, President Obama said the “Second Amendment … is important,” that it is “part of our culture” and “part of who were are.” Then he quickly added, “But what we also have to recognize is, is that our homicide rates are so much higher than other industrialized countries–by like a mile.”
So, the Second Amendment is important but…
Moreover, Obama hinted that the individual right to bear arms–the very right protected by the Second Amendment–is the result of a Supreme Court interpretation. On June 22, Breitbart News reported that The Washington Post espoused this same liberal talking point, claiming that the Supreme Court created an individual right to keep and bear arms via the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision.
In other words, prior to 2008, there was no individual right to keep and bear arms. It wasn’t what our Founding Fathers intended and it wasn’t what generation upon generation of Americans from 1791 to 2008 believed and lived by. It’s all based on a decision by a group of justices.
In his speech, aired on C-SPAN, Obama said:
    We have a long tradition of gun rights and gun ownership in this country. The Second Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean the people have the right to bear arms. There are a lot of law-abiding, responsible gun owners who use it for protection or sport. They handle their weapons properly. There are traditions of families passing down [hunting] from father to son, or daughter … and that is important; that’s part of who we are. But what we also have to recognize is, is that our homicide rates are so much higher than other industrialized nations–by like a mile.
    And most of that is attributable to the easy, ready, availability of firearms, particularly handguns.
However, the gun control lobby’s relentless claim that America’s homicide rate is so much higher than other industrialized countries breaks down under scrutiny.
For example, in August 2013, Breitbart News reported on a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy which showed that the murder rate in heavily gun-controlled Russia was approximately 20.52 per 100,000 people in 2002. A high point for America was 6.6 per 100,000 people in 1993, and that rate fell to 3.2 per 100,000 by 2011, after the number of privately owned guns in America went from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009.
So, 20.52 per 100,000 people are murdered in Russia versus America’s 6.6 per 100,000–later to be 3.2 per 100,000–yet, according to President Obama, America’s murder rate is, “like a mile” higher than that of other industrialized countries.
Bullets But Plenty of Brass, Too
Shooting Wire, March 9, 2015

Fortunately for gun owners, bureaucrats haven't totally grasped the implications of today's instantaneous communications between common interest groups. If they did, we would have been wondering what to do about the quantities of suddenly verboten "green tip" 5.56/2.23 ammunition in our possession.
While we've all been exhorting all our friends to write the BATFE and express their opposition to a "proposed ban on the suddenly reclassified 'armor piercing' green tip ammo" the ATF was - if you believe what the publish rather than what they say- quietly getting ready to ban the ammo by their fiat. The hell with Congressional protections, they had already reclassified the ammo in their revised Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide (2014 edition).
But they neglected to account for the fact that reporting in the virtual world never stops, and there's no "B-team" taking over on the weekends. Katie Pavlich first reported on their bold-as-brass release of a revision in Town Hall (link).
Pavlich, having read their proposed regs discovered they had already proclaimed the SS109 and M855 ammo "identified by a green coating on the projectile tip" as Armor Piercing. And the blamestorming began.
The B. Todd Jones administration, when confronted with the regulations, dismissed it as a simple editing error. As the ATF HQ Twitter account explained: "Nothing to analyze here, folks, just a publishing mistake. No AP ammo exceptions revoked @NRA@NSSF. See ow.ly/K2vj9"
Today, you can go to the online version of their latest Reference Guide (link) and on page 190 the exemption has, indeed, re-appeared.
That's not to say the thousands of opposition comments made-even with an abbreviated comment period - will ultimately amount to spit. Their law-enforcement skills may be questionable, but no one has ever doubted their desire to control gun owners.
Although they would love to have you believe they're invulnerable, the BATFE came close to being dismantled in the 1980s- as a direct result of their enforcement of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Despite the fact I was in and out of Washington at that time, I wasn't part of that fight. But I know how much things have changed since then. At this point, despite what you may be told to the contrary, gun owners are in a far stronger position than in the 1980s.
That's why I'm yielding the remainder of this morning space to the February 5, 2015 column by Jeff Knox, director of the Firearms Policy Coalition (www.FirearmsCoalition.org). His father, Neil, was the leader of the fight against the ATF and the 1968 Act. Jeff offers a solid backgrounder on what was nearly done to solve the "ATF problem" then. It may well be time we push to finish the job begun by his dad.
ATF & DOJ: Corruption In ActionAs I was graduating from high school in Prescott, Arizona, My father, Neal Knox, was in Washington, DC making war plans as the head of NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. By the following year, Dad had publicly declared war on the BATF and the Gun Control of 1968. From Dad's perspective, BATF had been actively waging war on gun owners for years, and he had left his dream job as editor and publisher of Rifle and Handloader magazines, with the specific objective of destroying the BATF and reforming GCA'68.
By the mid-1970s, the BATF had earned a reputation for being excessively aggressive, nit-picky, vindictive, and often unscrupulous. Dozens of stories emerged of ATF abuses, and analysis of their arrest and prosecution records showed that a majority of their cases didn't involve malevolent criminal activity, but instead targeted ordinary gun owners who were tripped up by confusing regulations and federal red tape.
When Dad began waging the war on BATF, he exposed the horror stories, published the records, and showed the ruined lives of regular citizens that littered BATF's wake. In 1979, Dad convinced Senators Jim McClure (R-ID) and Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) to hold hearings on the BATF's enforcement practices and abuses. In the hearings, Dad made it clear that, while the BATF's actions were atrocious, the real culprit in the sad saga was the GCA. As Dad said in his Senate testimony, any agency tasked with enforcing such poorly written laws would be hard pressed not to fall into a similar pattern of abuse.
As a direct result of this process of sanitation through sunlight, the ATF received harsh rebukes from Congress, and had millions of dollars pulled from their annual budget. President Reagan was actually on the verge of dissolving the agency entirely, and turning their enforcement responsibilities over to the FBI. Dad opposed that move on the grounds that a crippled and closely scrutinized BATF would be easier to keep in check than the more powerful and respected FBI enforcing the same bad laws.
There has been a lot of second-guessing and criticism over that call, but by keeping the focus on BATF as a symptom resulting from bad laws, rather than allowing the agency to be used as a scapegoat, Dad was able to more effectively treat the symptoms, while still going after the underlying disease – the GCA.
Dad's primary objective in accepting the leadership position at NRA-ILA was to reform the GCA, removing from the law as many booby-traps and nonsensical restrictions as he could. With this in mind, he and the ILA staff worked closely with the staffs of Senator McClure and Representative Harold Volkmer (D-MO) on a sweeping "gun de-control" bill. The bill became known as the Firearm Owner Protection Act, and a somewhat watered-down version of it was finally passed in 1986.
Almost 30 years after passage of the McClure-Volkmer Bill, the BATF remains plagued with scandals and accusations of abuse of authority. In 2002, as part of the 9-11 restructuring, BATF's enforcement branch was placed under the Department of Justice alongside the FBI and DEA. The move, which was supposed to help restore the BATF's sullied reputation, did nothing to slow the chronic mismanagement and abuse. What it has done however, is highlight the role of DOJ prosecutors in BATF's misdeeds.
Like any law enforcement agency, BATF relies on fear and results to justify its budget requests. While it's easy to paint pictures of all sorts of potential threats with which to scare Congress into throwing more money at them, BATF must rely on DOJ prosecutors to garner actual results. Elaborate operations and large arrest numbers fall flat when accompanied by very low conviction rates, and that's exactly what BATF has been producing for decades. But it's often the prosecutors who drive these cases, telling enforcers what types of cases they want pursued, and what types of evidence they need for convictions.
In a number of cases, it's clear that prosecutors encouraged ATF to "bend" evidence, intentionally misrepresented laws and regulations, and conspired with BATF to suppress evidence that could be harmful to the prosecution. They did it to Albert Kwan, David Olofson, the Reese family, and others we've reported on over the years. They were active coconspirators in Operation Fast & Furious. And recently, in a lawsuit from former agent, Jay Dobyns, accusing BATF of defamation of character and breach of contract, the judge was so incensed by the actions of government lawyers that he barred 17 DOJ lawyers from his court and suggested that, along with BATF acting in a vindictive and "Kafkaesque" manner toward their own agent, prosecutors and BATF might have engaged in perjury and fraud upon the court.
The pattern is symptomatic of government spiraling out of control with bad laws being enforced and prosecuted by rogue agencies operating without adequate supervision or accountability. If we don't fix the laws and hold the enforcers and prosecutors accountable, this problem is just going to keep getting worse.
Guns On The Set: The Image of Firearms On TV and In Films
March 10, 2015

It's estimated that there are somewhere between 270 million and 310 million guns in the United States, about one per person. However, for the nation as a whole, only about 35% of the homes have at least one gun. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states People who own firearms are a minority of the population, and many people may have never fired a gun or even seen a real gun in person. How then do non-owners develop their opinions of guns?
Many non-gun owners develop attitudes about firearms through news media, which tend to focus on violence, which results in a very consistent message that guns are used for committing crimes and killing people. Very little is ever said about uses of guns for sports, except perhaps on the outdoor page.
A second way that non-owners of guns develop their attitudes about guns is through their portrayal in TV and films. According to one study, 90% of movies, 68% of video games, and 60% of TV shows show some depictions of violence. http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/21/living/parenting-kids- violence-media/
Many people form their opinions about guns based on watching actors. An actor in a film or on TV can choose to not perform in certain scenes on camera because they decide they are too dangerous. This is part of the union contract. Click here
If an actor decides an action is too dangerous, another actor will take their place. This person is either a stunt performer, or someone with special skills for this scene, who is known as a Special Ability Performer. In either case, the person should be similar in size and shape to the original actor and be proficient in the actions required for the screen.
If the scene is shot with real actors, as opposed to computer graphics, what an actor or stunt actor does on camera is directed by a stunt coordinator, such as Diamond Farnsworth, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0267889/ the Stunt Coordinator for "NCIS," one of the most popular dramatic crime procedural shows currently on TV. http://www.ranker.com/list/the-best- current-procedural-dramas/ranker Diamond grew up learning about guns first-hand from his father, Richard Farnsworth, who was a stuntman and actor. Diamond, today is a stuntman and coordinator who choreographs fights and falls, and he's also a 2nd Unit Director. He has been nominated for 2 primetime Emmys, and serves on board of the Stuntmen's Association.
I was able to ask Diamond some questions about the use of guns on the set of "NCIS" during a break in filming.
1) When an actor is going to use a firearm on camera, what instruction do they receive and from who?
"When an actor is required to use a firearm or archery on camera he normally receives instruction from a technical adviser brought to the set specifically for this purpose. Weapons on the set are supervised by a prop man who is usually an armorer and who will assist in instruction. The armorer or weapons wrangler is also required to have a federal weaponry license."
2) When guns are fired on set, what kinds of loads are used? "When guns are fired on set, blanks are used. A full load (blanks) would normally be used if the shot is outside or if the weapon is an automatic. An automatic weapon will not discharge a half load. Half loads can be used indoors if an automatic weapon is not needed. The sound levels of guns can be controlled by the sound mixer."3) Is live ammunition ever used? "Live ammunition is never allowed on set." (In other words, when we see things like someone shooting at a tin can, and it explodes, this is done by an explosive in the can, not by a bullet.)
4) What classifies as a stunt? "Stunts are actions that involve some level of danger. They are classified as action requiring either a stunt double or supervision by a stunt coordinator."
5) Suppose someone wants to become a stuntman, what should they do -- education, training, and how to qualify?
"People who'd like to become professional stunt actors should be previously trained in fields that are currently in demand in the film industry. A few of these examples would be gymnastics, driving or martial arts. Stunt people are members of the Screen Actors Guild. There are classes and workshops for stunt performers, but people should have basics of safe physical acting down first."
6) Are there are any workshops, classes, etc. that are held for actors on firearms use? "There are many workshops available for firearms use however I'm not familiar with any held specifically for actors."
7) If a manufacturer would like to see their gear used on camera, what should they do? "Gear manufacturers who are interested in their products being shown on screen should contact the marketing or advertising department of a studio. This type of thing is called "Product Placement."
Stunts have changed over the years, due to computer graphics that can mean that actors can be shot on stages with greenscreen behind them and then transposed into different surroundings, and they can even be given weapons with computer graphics. One example of how things have changed is that before computer graphics, for westerns or films involving archery, stuntmen could have arrows placed so they look like they have been shot with help from editing, but in rare cases some actors actually let other stuntmen actually shoot real arrows at a person that actually hit another person, striking a pad on their body. The only stunt people who were regularly trusted to shoot others, Diamond says, were Howard Hill, and Diamond's father, Richard.
The image of guns in films and TV begins with the writers, who create the story, but how they are seen on camera is also heavily influenced by directors. If you have complaints about how guns get used in movies and or on TV, don't blame the actors. If all procedures are followed correctly, the actors should know how to use firearms on camera, and they should feel safe about using them. Actors working in a scene, especially stunt performers, have a tough job. You might like to see more positive images and stories about guns on camera, but if you don't like what you see, don't blame the stunt actors. How about inviting a writer or director to a range to learn some good things about firearms?
Brownells Joins Industry Partners To Support Gunsmith
Brownells, March 5, 2015

Montezuma, Iowa – Brownells is proud to contribute to a custom 1911 package being raffled by Guns For A Cause, to help accomplished gunsmith Dave Berryhill in his fight against cancer.
Valued at over $6,500, the 1911 package includes parts from both Elite Warrior Armament and Harrison Design, a sharkskin holster, mag pouch and magazines from Wilson Combat, a year’s free subscription to American Handgunner, ancient mammoth stocks from Brian Challis, and a T3 knife from Nighthawk Custom. Brownells donated a 1911 Critical Tools kit, containing everything needed to disassemble and assemble the pistol.
Proceeds from ticket sales will help Dave Berryhill with medical expenses during his battle against the disease. Raffle tickets and contest rules can be found at this link.
“Helping gunsmiths has always been at the heart of what we do,” said Frank Brownell, Chairman of Brownells. “We encourage all of our customers and everybody in the industry to get involved and buy some raffle tickets to help Dave.”
“I’ve known Dave for a good many years and know him to be a good smith and good person,” said John Harrison, President of Harrison Design and Consulting. “Any of us could be laid up sick, unable to work and earn for our families. We decided we wanted to do something to help Dave with his medical and living expenses.”
Raffle tickets are on sale through March 30, and limited to only 5,000 tickets. The drawing for the custom 1911 package will happen April 1, 2015.
N.J. man's fight to carry gun because of death threats financed by powerful gun-rights group
NJ Advance Media, March 04, 2015

 An Andover man is the latest New Jersey resident to wage a legal battle to carry a gun, and now has a powerful Second-Amendment group financing his fight.
Israel Albert Almeida, a building manager who collects rents in Newark, said he has received multiple death threats from a man he evicted for non-payment. Almeida is now undertaking a court challenge to get his handgun-carry permit to carry his .45-caliber Springfield pistol, he said.
"I'm terrified. As long as I live in the state of New Jersey, I'm not safe," Almeida said in a Monday interview. "It's going to happen eventually."
At least one gun-rights group is backing his play: the Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation is financially backing Almeida's challenge.
Almeida is a building manager for nearly 100 properties in Newark and surrounding areas, he said. It was at one such property in June 2013 in the North Ward of Newark that a tenant threatened to "pop a cap" in Almeida's head if the manager tried to collect the overdue rent. Almeida filed a police report, but no arrest was made. The Newark Police Department report shows he lodged his complaint the day the threats were made.
The next day, Almeida applied to his local police department to carry his Springfield .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol. But that application was rejected by the Andover Township police chief four months later. Almeida appealed the decision in Superior Court in Sussex County -- but that was rejected last year.
Now his case is before the state appellate court -- and his attorney is hoping that it could strike down a slew of New Jersey's gun laws -- foremost among them the "justifiable need" that needs to be demonstrated to carry around a gun.
"We're dealing with an actual situation that my client continues to face. All this time, he's in danger," said Evan Nappen, Almeida's attorney. "The basis for justifiable need is too narrow to be considered constitutional."
Almeida's case is similar -- but also different -- to one brought by another Sussex County man, John Drake. The Fredon man contested the rejection of his carry permit for four years, contending that as a businessowner who carries a lot of cash he needed a firearm to protect himself in case of a robbery attempt. But his case essentially ended when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his case in May 2014.
Nappen said the Almeida case differs in two fundamental ways: Almeida already has a specific threat made against him, and the new argument asks that the court consider non-lethal self-defense, which includes just possessing the gun, or just pointing it, Nappen said.
"If you don't discharge it, it is considered non-deadly force," said the attorney. "Justifiable need is constitutionally flawed, because it doesn't consider the whole scope of self defense."
The court found, in the Sussex County ruling, that Almeida could either find another way to collect the rents -- or hire a personal security detail. The judge also opined that having a gun might even increase the danger.
"If anything, the presence of a handgun can in certain sense cause the -- an increase in terms of -- of bodily harm," the court found. "If individuals became aware ... that he's carrying a handgun there is the potential for an increase in violence in that context."
The man who threatened Almeida was eventually evicted -- but moved a few doors down from another building the Andover man manages. The two still see each other, and the threats still stand, Almeida said. He contends the current law is endangering his life.
"They do not want the public to carry handguns," said Almeida. "But why does one person -- a judge -- get to say what is justifiable?"
Charges Dismissed
Outdoor Wire, February 27, 2015

Cumberland County Prosecutor Jennifer Webb McRae has indicating she was dismissing the charges against 72 year old retired teacher and military academy graduate Gordon Van Gilder. Van Gilder made international news after being arrested and charged by Cumberland County Sheriff Robert Austino for possession of a flintlock pistol dating back to the 1700's   a "crime" carrying up to 10 years in prison under the Garden State's nonsensical gun laws.
The prosecutor's press release undoubtedly came in reaction to intense public outcry as Van Gilder's story went viral. While the press release warns gun owners generally not to possess firearms in a vehicle, it states "upon careful review of the circumstances in this case, I am exercising prosecutorial discretion to dismiss the...charges in the interest of justice..."
Van Gilder was stopped in November (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiI 2RD19q0) by a Cumberland County sheriff's deputy for a minor traffic violation. When he volunteered that he had a nearly 300 year old flintlock pistol with him, he was initially released but then arrested the next morning at his home and charged with unlawful possession of a handgun, a felony.
Federal Agents Arrest Man for Exercising 2nd Amendment
Last Resistance, February 27, 2015

Yes, the 2nd Amendment even applies to Federal grounds.
Anthony Bosworth was apparently on federal property outside a government building. He had attended a states rights’ rally in Spokane, Washington, and he was carrying his rifle slung around his shoulder.
He was approached by half a dozen federal agents, some from Homeland Security, who informed him that he was in violation of federal law, since he was on federal grounds with a firearm. According to one of the officers, the exact law that he was in violation of was 18 U.S. § 930. Here’s video of the encounter:
So, what does 18 U.S. § 930 say? You can read the entire thing here. Here’s subsection (a):
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
In short, it prohibits civilians from carrying firearms in a federal building. It doesn’t say anything about carrying firearms on federal property. Think I’m splitting hairs? Well, this is legalese. If they wanted to make it clear that guns were prohibited on federal grounds and not just federal buildings, they should have said so. There is a distinction.
In addition, there’s even an exception to the rule, referenced in subsection (a):
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
 So, if anything, this man was in direct compliance with U.S. Code, even if he were to enter the federal building with his rifle. It could easily be argued that his carrying his rifle inside the federal building constituted “other lawful purposes” referenced in the exception above.
But he didn’t go inside the building. This wasn’t a stunt. He went to a states rights’ rally carrying his gun. Nothing illegal. If it were illegal, they would have charged him something. But they arrested him and then released him with no charges.
Challenge of Being “Vigilant” Without Our Guns...
USCCA, February 27, 2015

A video released earlier this week has mallgoers across the country on edge—and rightfully so, considering the video purportedly includes a call for attacks on several noted shopping centers, including Minnesota’s Mall of America.
The Bloomington, MN landmark—along with the West Edmonton Mall in Canada and the Oxford Street shopping center in London—was specifically named as a target in the video released by Al Shabaab, the Somali militant group with ties to al-Qaeda. (You’ll recall that Al Shabaab claimed responsibility for carrying out the September 2013 terrorist attack at the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya.)
Al Shabaab is calling on local militants in select areas to carry out their violent agenda against specific targets. Because of the large population of Somali Muslims located in the Minneapolis area (many of whom have since spoken out to condemn this specific threat of violence), it’s not overly surprising to see the Mall of America named as one of them.
The threat itself isn’t all that surprising, either. We’ve all read stories in the news recently about the increased probability of “lone wolf” attacks and the dangers of homegrown terrorism. But the threat of violence is not what concerns me in this particular case.
If you had a chance to read through my comments in last week’s Concealed Carry Report, you’ll know that I’ve been thinking a lot about gun-free zones...and I don’t think I can stress enough what you and I already know—that not only does banning guns on premises NOT keep out the bad guys...it likely attracts them. After all, what’s more appealing to a criminal than a place filled with easy, unarmed targets?
Let’s be honest: When is the last time you’ve heard about a mass shooting in a place that ALLOWS guns? The reason I bring this up is simple.
The Mall of America doesn’t believe in allowing responsibly armed Americans to carry guns on their premises. According to the Star Tribune, Minnesota Representative Tony Cornish is particularly critical of this stance on guns, claiming “the signs create a ‘killing zone’ at the Mall of America.”
And yet...Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, in response to the threat against the mall, has urged the public to be “vigilant.”
And so I have a problem.
How can there be acknowledgement of a credible threat and acknowledgment of an individual’s need to be on alert...but no acknowledgment of an individual’s right to protect himself against that credible threat?
Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee Executive Director Bryan Strawser clearly agrees, noting that “the current threat environment makes it unconscionable to seek to prohibit self-defense by the mall's customers." [Star Tribune] Because Minnesota law prohibits a landlord (in this case, the Mall of America) from restricting the “lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests,” it’s clear, as Strawser told the Star Tribune, that "carrying at the Mall of America does not violate the law, only the mall's wishes.”
I don’t live in Minnesota, so I won’t be visiting the Mall of America anytime soon. But it doesn’t matter where I am: when it comes to the safety of my family, no one’s unnecessary and unreasonable “wishes” will stop me from protecting them with a gun.
71 Year Old Man Kills Home Intruder with One Shot
The Last ResistencePosted on March 2, 2015

When someone’s trying to break into your house, you don’t have to wait for the intruder to make his intentions clear to you. For all you know, he’s there to kill you and steal your valuables. You have a right to defend yourself, your family and your home.
This 71 year old Columbus, Ohio man heard someone kick in the door to his house. Since he didn’t want to take any chances, the homeowner shot the man, killing him with just one shot. The Blaze reported:
A homeowner in Columbus, Ohio, told police a man kicked in his door, leaving him with no choice but to defend himself and his home. The 71 year old retired man fired just one accurate and deadly shot at the suspect.
When police arrived, they found a man dead with a single gunshot wound on the elderly man’s porch. Officers also found what they said was a clear indication that someone tried to forcefully break into the home.
“Some guy broke into my house, and I shot him,” the man reportedly told a 911 operator after the scary incident.
Columbus Police Sergeant Rich Weiner told WBNS TV, “Somebody kicks in your door and they’re coming in your house, you don’t have to wait for them to come in your house.”
Police spoke with the homeowner after the shooting and then allowed him to go home. However, the case will still be referred to a grand jury, police said.
Police did not release the identity of the alleged home intruder.
Why would something as clear cut as this self defense case be referred to a grand jury? They found evidence of a break in, the door was kicked in, the homeowner shot and killed the guy, and the homeowner called it in to 911. There’s no reason to believe that this homeowner committed a crime. All the evidence points to home and self defense. Perhaps the intruder was a black man, and the homeowner was a white man? Maybe the grand jury will decide that’s reason enough to prosecute the older man for a hate crime. Who knows?
Anti Gun Advocate Sean Penn Stars in 'The Gunman'
Gary DeMar, March 2, 2015

Sean Penn, lover of all things Communist except when getting paid the big bucks for the films he stars in, used to be a gun collector. Then he met a girl:
“Sean Penn, one of Hollywood’s most liberal voices who also happens to be an avid gun collector, has changed his Second Amendment mind and now vows to melt down all his firearms.
“The reason?
“A girl – specifically, his new anti gun girlfriend, fellow Hollywood notable Charlize Theron, Breitbart reported. The two have been recently linked as a romantic couple.
“Mr. Penn said during a recent Help Haiti Home benefit that was well attended by other celebrities: ‘A strong woman who happens to be from South Africa’ persuaded me to relinquish my guns, E! Online reported.”
Penn donated his gun collection, 65 in all, to be turned into a piece of anti gun art. "The highest bidder gets every single one of my guns put in the hands” of artist and sculptor Jeff Koons. Koons “will decommission [and] render inactive all of my cowardly killing machines.”
Anderson Cooper outbid Piers Morgan by donating $1.4 for the gun collection.
That was so a year ago. But all that rhetoric about “cowardly killing machines” has not stopped him from doing films with a gun theme.
In January of this year he told E! Online that he did not miss his gun collection. Of course he doesn’t since he can play with guns in his latest film The Gunman. Here are a few pictures from the gun violence film where there are lots of guns with big bullets:
This from a man who said he was going to melt down his gun collection. Let me follow the Left’s anti gun argument. Penn’s gun collection, which was probably under lock and key, was more of a threat than a hyper violent gunman film that might encourage young people to buy more guns and use them.
The film makes guns look exciting. The typical gun owner never shoots his guns. Turning his gun collection into a piece of art won[t stop a single gun crime. Penn should be commended for his charity work but not his hypocrisy.
I'm going to guess that Penn will say that the film is really an anti gun film because he wants out of the hit man business. Who wouldn't? The Gunman is a Taken 1, 2, 3 rip off. It's the use of guns in the revenge film that will put movie goers in the theater seats, not some faux hidden anti gun message.
There really isn’t any need for consistency among Hollywood types as long as what they do is "art” (and a big paycheck) for their craft.
ATF and EPA quietly working on gun control with ammunition bans
Liberty Alliance, February 20, 2015

About a year and a half ago, we wrote a story about the closing of the Doe Run lead smelting facility, the last primary lead smelter in the U.S. and whether this was a “backdoor effort” to control guns. After all, no lead means no ammunition, which means your gun becomes about as lethal as a ball-peen hammer.
Naturally, we were roundly attacked by leftists who said that was ridiculous, because most ammunition comes from secondary lead, and there’s still plenty of that around.
Unless of course lead is banned.
On a related theme, we wrote yesterday about how the FCC and FEC are preparing a noose to tighten around our First Amendment rights.
Now we find out the EPA and FTA may be doing the same on the Second.
Writing for the National Review, Kevin Williamson provides a detailed explanation of how that might occur.
It all starts in 1986, when “Congress revised the Gun Control Act, inserting prohibitions against the manufacture and import of “armor-piercing ammunition.” Armor-piercing ammunition does not mean ammunition designed to defeat body armor — that would be too simple. It means, most broadly, ammunition that could defeat the soft body armor of the sort that was cutting edge in the 1980s.”
This ammunition was made of certain materials (tungsten alloys, steel, etc.) that could also be fired from a handgun.
The aim (pun intended) was to ban ammunition for the much-maligned AR-15 (mainly the .223 caliber) to therefore control the AR-15. However, the ATF provided exemptions for “single shot handguns” (which can accept certain rifle cartridges) and certain other “sporting exemptions.”
At the same time, environmentally-minded hunters and manufacturers have been looking for alternatives to lead-based bullets because they can poison animals who may ingest them – such as the California Condor. Williamson writes, “these non-lead bullets made of steel or alloys are not designed to pierce body armor; they’re designed to keep unnecessary lead out of the environment and out of the alimentary canals of wild animals. But their composition means that they can be classified as armor-piercing rounds, if the feds can find an excuse to do so.”
And they can.
You see, many people prefer a short-barreled rifle for home defense, and are using the AR-15 for that purpose. But they get around additional taxation and required permits for short-barreled rifles by removing the shoulder stock. Voila! It’s a multi-shot handgun. But that’s also verboten.
So the ATF is intending to revoke the sporting exemption for certain kinds of non-lead .223 ammunition, allowing it to be classified as armor-piercing.
Does that mean everyone can just go back to using lead ammo? Nope!
Williamson says “environmental groups have been pressuring the EPA to begin regulating — or to ban outright — lead ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act. They lost their most recent round when the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA lacks statutory authority to regulate lead ammunition, but when has statutory authority stopped the Obama administration? The FCC has no statutory authority to enact net-neutrality rules — that’s why it has reached back to a 1930s, New Deal–era law for justification. You can be sure that the campaign to use the EPA or other federal agencies to ban lead ammunition is far from over. The U.S. Humane Society already is petitioning the Interior Department to ban lead ammunition on public lands.”
So there you are. The ATF will ban non-lead ammunition as “armor-piercing” and a threat to police officers, and the EPA will ban lead ammunition as a toxin.
Better stock up folks (like you haven’t been already).
BAD IDEA: Mall Doubles Down on Gun Ban, In Spite of Terror Threat
Clashdaily, February 25, 2015

Gun free zone with terrorist threats? I think online shopping is sounding like a really good idea. Todd Starnes talks about the ridiculous gun ban despite the terrorist threats facing the Mall of America.
Read the transcript below:
Hello, I’m Todd Starnes.
There may or may not be a terrorist attack at the Mall of America. But the Obama Administration says don’t let that stop you from heading on down to the Pottery Barn.
The warning comes after the terror group Al Shabaab released an online video calling for attacks on western shopping centers. These are the same Islamic Radicals responsible for a deadly attack on a Kenyan mall in 2013.
So what better time for the Mall of America to remind shoppers about their gun ban? Because the last thing you want when the bad guys start blowing stuff up is a pistol-packing clerk at the Shoe Carnival.
Here’s what Minnesota State Representative Tony Cornish had to say about the gun policy:
“The situation with the mall of America is completely ridiculous. It is just the opposite of what they should be doing. If we’re threatened with an attack of any kind, the last thing you ever  want to do is disarm citizens.”
Industry Happenings
Outdoor Wire, February 22, 2015

With the announcement that the dockworkers on the west coast have reached a tentative agreement between their union and their bosses, there's a sigh of relief being heaved across the manufacturing sector.
Despite campaigns to the contrary, a large number of products everyone presumes to have been made in the U.S.A. aren't. They're assembled in the U.S.A. but a portion of their internal components may have come from almost anywhere. And many of "anywhere's" component parts have apparently either been bobbing offshore in idled container ships or sitting idled in shipping containers caught in the "slowdown" in this latest battle between union and management.
I've been told that somewhere between the coast of California and the horizon, there are also millions of rounds of ammunition that were caught up in that labor dispute. But the question of how much they may help alleviate continuing shortages in the supply of several popular calibers like 5.56/.223 still remains to be seen.
Should the ATF reclassify surplus -and widely used- M855 and SS109 ammunition as armor-piercing - it would then be illegal for consumer consumption. Ditto the manufacture, distribution or resale of that ammunition. In other words, it might as well stay offshore permanently if the ATF is allowed to make the change.
This weekend, we received word that apparently many gun owners didn't find this to be a compelling reason to record their objections with the federal government. With only a few days remaining in the ATF's solicitation of comments, fewer than 6,000 shooters have registered their displeasure with the proposal.
That, as one of my least-favorite instructors used to say, is simply unacceptable. So, too, is the ATF's description of criminals as one of the "consumer groups" that is a prime consumer of the ammunition they seek to ban. Since we've rolled out the answers to those ridiculous claims before, I won't keep beating up on that straw argument. Criminals still don't care about the rules; it's why their called "criminals".And we received a note over the weekend seeking to clarify what appears to be misperception regarding the brace built by Sig Sauer for shooters who would have a difficult time grasping one of today's AR-style pistols.
Rather than paraphrase their position, here's the verbatim info:
SIG SAUER, Inc. has issued the following statement relative to the January 2015 open opinion letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regarding the SB15 and SBX Pistol Stabilizing Braces.
BATFE Technical Branch issued an open opinion letter dated January 16, 2015 regarding the Pistol Stabilizing Brace (SB15 and SBX) which is marketed by SIG SAUER®. Contrary to several statements subsequently made in social media, this opinion letter did not make or otherwise declare that the SB15 product is illegal. The BATFE letter stated that the SB15 is a product "which is legal to own, legal to purchase and legal to install on a pistol." SIG SAUER believes that the PSB enhances the shooter's experience and offers the products as an accessory and pre-installed on a number of pistols. In all of its opinions, BATFE has consistently stated that a pistol with a stabilizing brace attached remains a pistol under the Gun Control Act when used as designed.
So there you have it on that one- it's still legal-until you decide to use it as a pseudo-stock. At that point, you apparently have created two things: 1) a Short-Barreled Rifle (SBR) as defined by ATF regulations and, 2) the potential for a huge problem between yourself and the ATF over said mis-usage.
Now you know where the ATF stands on a couple of things...it's time for you to let them know where you stand on their proposed changes regarding their "reclassification" of the affordable -and currently attainable - "green tip" ammo.
Until March 16, 2015, the ATF's still accepting public comments on their proposed reclassification. And you still have time to make your opposition known. If you're unable to use anything but email (Washington puts a much higher emphasis on faxed or mailed comments) you can use APAcomments@atf.gov.

Oppose 5.56 M855 Ball Ammunition Ban
NSSF, February 17, 2015

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has announced it is seeking to ban commonplace 5.56 M855 ball ammunition as "armor piercing ammunition." ATF is seeking public comment on the proposal, so all industry employees, target shooters and gun owners should contact ATF to oppose this unnecessary ban, which is truly a solution in search of a problem and that raises serious questions about executive agency attitude and overreach. Stopped cold on Capitol Hill, this action appears to be the Obama administration's attempt to pursue gun control by other means.
Commonly available steel-core, "green tip" M855 and SS109 rifle ammunition that is primarily intended and regularly used for "sporting purposes," like target shooting, has been exempt from federal law banning armor piercing ammunition for decades. There is no question that the 5.56 ball ammo has been in wide use by law abiding American citizens for sporting purposes.
It is with the increasing prevalence of handgun versions of rifle platforms, that ATF now apparently sees an opening to now ban the widely used M855 and SS109 ammunition.
It would be legally permissible to continue to possess and use so-defined "armor piercing" ammunition currently possessed. However, rescinding the decades-old exemption will have a major impact. It will become illegal to manufacture, import, distribute or sell at retail this very popular rifle target ammunition.
ATF's proposed "framework" for applying the "sporting purpose" exemption test rewrites the law passed by Congress to disregard the manufacturer's intention that a projectile or cartridge is "primarily intended for a supporting purpose." ATF inappropriately places the focus on how criminals might misuse sporting ammunition in a handgun.
Just as disturbing, language used by ATF in its long white paper refers to criminals as a "consumer group." The implication that the industry purposely sells firearms and ammunition to criminals is misleading and echoes the shopworn charges of the gun control lobby.
Manufacturers will face serious limitations in their ability to develop and market alternative ammunition in other popular hunting rounds, such as .308 rifle hunting ammunition, if ATF's so-called "framework" is adopted. This will have a detrimental effect on hunting nationwide, especially in California where a total ban on traditional ammunition for hunting is being phased in now.
ATF is soliciting comments on how it can best implement withdrawal of this exemption while "minimizing disruption to the ammunition and firearm industry and maximizing officer safety". Under the proposed framework, 30-06 M2AP cartridges would continue to be exempt because there are no multi-shot handguns generally available that accept such ammunition.
The proposal is useless since standard lead-only 5.56 ammunition is "armor piercing" simply due to the round's velocity. Rifles in this caliber, or any caliber for that matter, are rarely used in crimes.
ATF will accept comments on this proposal until March 16, 2015. Email or write ATF today and tell them you oppose this unnecessary, misguided and damaging ban on commonly used ammunition for America's most popular sporting rifles.
Ammo Ban - the New Liberal Plan to Push Gun Control
Eagle Rising, 17 February 2015 
So the Obama administration can't get what it wants in place by taking things head on, as demonstrated in the delicious defeat it faced following the Sandy Hook incident and subsequent pretended legislation that fell flat on its face. Now, the administration's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, under B. Todd Jones, is unconstitutionally considering a ban on the M855 AR-15 round by categorizing it as "armor piercing."
According to the ATF:
To protect the lives and safety of law enforcement officers from the threat posed by ammunition capable of penetrating a protective vest when fired from a handgun, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of "armor piercing ammunition" as defined by the statute. The GCA, however, allows for the exemption of ammunition that would otherwise be considered armor piercing if the Attorney General determines that the specific ammunition at issue is "primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes." Interpreting the meaning of this statutory language, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has developed a framework that will apply to requests seeking a determination that certain projectiles qualify for this "sporting purpose" exemption. The framework is intended to uphold the requirements of the statute and its goal of protecting law enforcement while respecting the interests of sportsmen and the industry. This notice is provided to ensure that the regulated industry and members of the public understand the statute and relevant legislative history, and have an opportunity to review and provide comments or suggestions on the proposed framework. It is important to note that only projectiles that meet the statutory definition of "armor piercing" – i.e., those made out of the specific listed materials that may be used in a handgun – are subject to the statutory restrictions. As a result, manufacturers are, and will continue to be, free to manufacture projectiles from non-restricted materials, completely independent of the application of this framework or any exemptions. ATF will accept comments for 30 days from the date this notification, which will be considered prior to finalizing the framework.
Hmmm, interpretation, eh? How about interpreting the Second Amendment's "Shall not be infringed" statement. For any federal official that is reading this, it simply means you have been given no authority in the area of arms by the people you serve. That would include any and all ammunition to be used by those arms. The ATF, however, goes to great lengths citing history and legislation, but never once do they deal with the specific restriction of infringement cited in the Second Amendment.
Take a look at what the ATF is proposing. Sadly, the agency thinks it has the constitutional authority to determine what ammunition is to be used by the military and what is to be deemed for "sporting." Notice that the Second Amendment says nothing about "sporting," but it speaks of militia, the ability to keep a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In fact, our Constitution gives no authority to even have an ATF! They are unelected bureaucrats seeking to impose non-law upon America citizens.
If the Obama administration can't come for your guns directly, they'll target your high-capacity magazines and ammo.
The National Rifle Association spoke out on this move by the ATF on Friday. The NRA's Institute for Legislative Action wrote:
image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ammo-300x169.jpg
ammoIn a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as "armor piercing ammunition." The decision continues Obama's use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.
It isn't even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated "manufacturing" of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered "pistol." Now, BATFE has released a "Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are 'Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes' Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)", which would eliminate M855's exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.
By way of background, federal law imposed in 1986 prohibits the manufacture, importation, and sale by licensed manufacturers or importers, but not possession, of "a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely . . . from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium." Because there are handguns capable of firing M855, it "may be used in a handgun." It does not, however, have a core made of the metals listed in the law; rather, it has a traditional lead core with a steel tip, and therefore should never have been considered "armor piercing." Nonetheless, BATFE previously declared M855 to be "armor piercing ammunition," but granted it an exemption as a projectile "primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes."
However, the benevolent dictators in the ATF added:
Category I: .22 Caliber Projectiles
A .22 caliber projectile that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) will be considered to be "primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes" under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a rimfire cartridge.
Category II: All Other Caliber Projectiles
guncontrolliarExcept as provided in Category I (.22 caliber rimfire), projectiles that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition will be presumed to be "primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes" under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun. ATF nevertheless retains the discretion to deny any application for a "sporting purposes" exemption if substantial evidence exists that the ammunition is not primarily intended for such purposes.
Consider that this is the same agency that threatened whistleblowers, trafficked weapons across the US/Mexico border to aid Mexican drug cartels and subsequently use the move to impose more gun control legislation, which would lead to more gun confiscation in the US.
Katie Pavlich comments with some questions I had:
A few questions come to mind as this new proposal gets more attention. 1) Why now? 2) Is "armor piercing" .223 ammunition really being used at epidemic rates against our law enforcement officers? The answer is no.
Over the years, pro-gun control, big city police chiefs have argued that "assault weapons" are the main firearm being faced by law enforcement officers everyday. That just isn't true. In fact, when Baltimore County Police Chief James Johnson testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee back in 2013, he grossly misled the country when he said his officers were regularly facing this type of firepower in the streets. As I reported at the time:
image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/gunviolent-300x190.jpg
gunviolentAfter the hearing Johnson told reporters, "Police officers face these weapons either in seizure cases or crimes of violence everyday. Dozens of police officers have lost their lives due to an assault weapon and a criminal adversary."
According to a Baltimore County Police Department report obtained and requested by Townhall, Johnson misled the public with his statement about assault weapons seizures. Townhall requested detailed documentation of weapons retrieved by Baltimore County Police Officers between October 1, 2012 and January 30, 2013, the day of Johnson's testimony. The department provided data from September 28, 2012 through February 5, 2013. The report not only shows that firearms aren't being seized on the streets "everyday" in Baltimore County, but that assault weapons in particular are hardly ever found in criminal seizures.
Out of approximately 600 guns seized only 26 of them were assault weapons under the Clinton era definition, of which included AR-15s, a few AKs/SKSs and a TEC-22. Less than 5 percent of guns seized in Baltimore County are assault weapons, despite Chief Johnson's statement to the press and implied statements before Congress.
So, now the ATF is "considering" things for 30 days before imposing their illegal ban, something that is not part of law. Remember, only Congress has legislative power, not the Executive Branch, and the Federal Congress has been given no authority in this matter. Want to let your voice be heard in this matter? Here's your opportunity and the contact information:
ATF email: APAComments@atf.gov
Fax: (202) 648-9741.
Mail: Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202)
Realistic Gun T-Shirts Have Good Intentions but Dangerous Risks
Last Resistence, February 16, 2015

Paul Liebe has started selling realistic gun T-shirts from his Colorado business, Nitelife Billiards. The T-shirts, with realistic prints of guns in holsters, are designed to be conversation-starters about the second amendment:
    “Freedom of speech, it’s your right, and it just has a little kick on the side,” Liebe said.
    Among the cue balls and pool sticks are open carry custom shirts sporting a realistic gun in holster and shoulder strap that make it appear the person wearing it is carrying openly.
    Liebe says the shirts started as friendly gifts around town, but soon orders started coming in from all over the country. Now they have gone global with boxes of orders stacking up.
They also come with a warning about how to wear the realistic gun T-shirts. Police, according to the warning, are likely to overreact to the T-shirts. You think? The warning mentions the obvious: Don’t reach for the printed gun or put your hand near it when confronted by police, and listen to and comply with all police orders.
These seem like no-brainers. And they bring up the obvious question: Are these realistic gun T-shirts even worth the risk? Sure, they’re cute. And they’re not illegal, yet. But why not just actually carry a weapon? And is it even a terribly good idea to open carry? It makes people unnecessarily uncomfortable around you in many cases. It puts police on super high alert. And it could make you a target for gang violence and the like.
This is especially the case since most open carry laws prohibit having a loaded firearm unless the carrier also has a concealed carry permit. If you already have a concealed carry permit, it seems like a better idea to just conceal your loaded weapon.
So, at the end of the day, these realistic gun T-shirts seem to have all the controversy and risks of open carrying without any of the benefits. They may make a statement, but it’s not one that seems terribly prudent given the risks.
Blumenauer’s Gun Confiscation Con Seeks to Make Doctors Expert Gun Advisers
Patriot Update, February 16, 2015

The circus never ends in Washington, DC. Ringling Brothers/Barnum and Bailey missed a golden opportunity to tap into the “clown” show of the elected officials that make up the House and Senate. Case in point is the “clown” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). Blumenauer has introduced his “Enough is Enough” plan that calls for “‘more research on the health effects of guns.'”
According to CNSnews.com:
Blumenauer’s “Enough is Enough” plan looks back to how the U. S. government addressed tobacco use and automobile safety in years past and calls for a similar approach to guns.
“The Surgeon General’s report on tobacco was a major catalyst for the efforts to reduce tobacco use. Ralph Nader’s research captured headlines and focused public attention on automobile safety. Similarly, we need more research on the health effects of guns. We can start by improving the ability of researchers and the federal government to study and share information about guns,” according to the plan.
First of all, many in America could save the “researchers and the federal government” millions of dollars when it comes to the “health effects of guns.” Guns have no bearing on the health of the millions of law-abiding gun owners in this country. Gun owners are not eating bullets or ingesting any part of a gun. So, in comparing guns to tobacco, that should answer that question.
‘Beware of New Jersey’: 72-Year-Old Man Facing 10 Years in Prison Over a Gun — but Not Just Any Gun
Patriot Update, Feb. 16, 2015

He had an unloaded antique 300-year-old flintlock pistol in his glove compartment, and he told a sheriff’s deputy about it.
That was his undoing.
Gordon van Gilder admits he may have run afoul of the law — but, “as a wise man once said, if that’s the law, the law is an ass.”
The retired teacher is facing a possible 10 years in prison — and the jeopardization of his pension — all because New Jersey state law classifies antique firearms the same way it classifies regular guns, meaning the state views van Gilder’s possession of an antique on par with him possessing a .44 Magnum.
The day after van Gilder told a deputy during a routine traffic stop about his antique gun, four law enforcement officers showed up at his house to arrest him.
Van Gilder said he’s fighting the felony gun possession charges, but the whole experience has soured his impression of the Garden State.
“Beware of New Jersey,” he told the National Rifle Association. “Don’t come here. Don’t live here.
Oregon Democrat Wants Research on “Health Effect of Guns”
Last Resistence, February 17, 2015

Oregon Democrat Representative Earl Blumenauer thinks guns are a health risk like tobacco. In the same way that doctors would encourage their patients to stop smoking, doctors should be able to question their patients about guns and make “appropriate” recommendations. CNS News reported:
Blumenauer’s “Enough is Enough” plan looks back to how the U.S. government addressed tobacco use and automobile safety in years past and calls for a similar approach to guns.
“The Surgeon General’s report on tobacco was a major catalyst for the efforts to reduce tobacco use. Ralph Nader’s research captured headlines and focused public attention on automobile safety. Similarly, we need more research on the health effects of guns. We can start by improving the ability of researchers and the federal government to study and share information about guns,” according to the plan.
The plan also increases the role of doctors and nurses in the debate on guns. “Our doctors and nurses should be part of the efforts to increase gun safety. Just as your physician would encourage you to stop smoking, or to put your child in a car seat, they should be able to ask questions and give advice about guns. People know and trust their doctors; when doctors encourage safe gun practices, people listen,” the plan says.
His plan also uses Australia as the bright, shining example of what gun bans can do to curb “gun violence.” Watch this 6 ½ minute video to see what happened in the “land down under” when law-abiding citizens were forced to give up their guns. Here are some highlights:
    Armed robberies up by 69%
    Assaults with guns up by 28%
    Gun murders up by 19%
    Home invasions up by 21%
ATF To Ban AR-15 Ammo
Conservative Byte, February 15, 2015

Outrageous. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The federal government is violating the constitution and must be stopped.
Check it out:
In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.
It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.     
By way of background, federal law imposed in 1986 prohibits the manufacture, importation, and sale by licensed manufacturers or importers, but not possession, of “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely . . . from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.” Because there are handguns capable of firing M855, it “may be used in a handgun.” It does not, however, have a core made of the metals listed in the law; rather, it has a traditional lead core with a steel tip, and therefore should never have been considered “armor piercing.” Nonetheless, BATFE previously declared M855 to be “armor piercing ammunition,” but granted it an exemption as a projectile “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”
Pennsylvania Town Signs:  This is Not a Gun-Free Zone
Last Resistence, February 12, 2015

What do you think would be more likely to deter a criminal: a sign that reads “This is a gun-free zone,” or one that reads, “This is not a gun-free zone”?
I think it’s pretty obvious that if a criminal is given the option, he’d much rather go to a place where there aren’t people who can defend themselves. He’d rather go to a “gun-free zone.”
Whether this sign will help the crime rate go down (or stay down) in this Pennsylvania Township remains to be seen. But I think if they’re going to post any signs about guns, this is the one to use. Breitbart reported:
Pennsylvania’s Conoy Township has posted anti-gun control signs throughout the township that read, “Welcome To Conoy Township: This Is Not A Gun Free Zone.”
The goal is to let criminals know they will not find a township full of empty homes or sitting ducks.
According to Ammoland.com, “Police in the township aren’t taking a position on the signs themselves, but say they’re for anything that deters crime.”
Undergirding the decision to post the signs is the observation that “whenever criminals are made aware of the possibility of resistance, they tend to look for easier targets.”
Dave Kopel has explained this in scholarship that shows the lengths to which burglars will go to avoid contact with homeowners in America. In “Lawyers, Cops, and Burglars” he writes:
It is axiomatic in the United States that burglars avoid occupied homes. As an introductory criminology text book explains, “Burglars do not want contact with occupants; they depend on stealth for success.” Only thirteen percent of U.S. residential burglaries are attempted against occupied homes. But this happy fact, so taken for granted in the U.S., is not universal.
The overall Canadian burglary rate is higher than the American one, and a Canadian burglary is four times more likely to take place when the victims are home.
In the U.S., would-be victims are likely armed, but that’s not so in Canada. That’s a contributor to the differing crime rates.
Conoy Township hopes criminals will take note.
This goes for businesses, schools, movie theaters, etc. If these places had signs posted stating that they’re not gun-free establishments, I think that would have an effect on how often they’re targeted by armed robbers or murderers.
Bill Would Let Legal Gun Owners Carry Weapons Around Country
Patriotupdate, February 13, 2015

Have gun will travel, Check it out:
Gun owners with legal permits would be allowed to carry concealed weapons around the country under a bill introduced in the Senate — a measure that previously came just three votes shy of passage in a Democratic-controlled chamber.
The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act “operates more or less like a driver’s license,” Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn told The Hill about the measure introduced Thursday.
“So, for example, if you have a driver’s license in Texas, you can drive in New York, in Utah and other places, subject to the laws of those states.”

NRA: Gabby Giffords’ Gun Control Group is “Just Making Stuff Up”
 Patriot Update, February 7, 2015

Former congresswoman and gun control poster girl Gabby Giffords’ gun control group has been caught doing what all gun control groups do: Lying.
Americans for Responsible Solutions, the organization operated by Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly, recently made some absolutely ridiculous claims. ARS made the knowingly deceptive claim that “2015 will be the first year young Americans are more likely to die from gun violence than from car accidents.”
According to the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action:
The gun control supporters at Americans for Responsible Solutions ought to rename their group Anti-Gunners for Irresponsible Statistics after the bogus claim they made this week about the number of firearm and car accident deaths among young people each year. The group claimed that there are more than 30,000 firearm-related deaths, plus more than 30,000 car accident deaths among young people each year.

Racist Bloomberg and Crony Come Out and Say Guns Are Only For Whites
Tony Oliva. Feb 9, 2015

In a couple of the more incredibly honest moments from gun controllers, Former Mayor of NYC Michael Bloomberg and his ally, former Allentown city council member Michael Donovan have stated rather succinctly their views on race and gun control.
At the Aspen Institute last week Michael Bloomberg was asked about education and spun the question directly into promoting gun control.
    Bloomberg claimed that 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25. Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive.
So…even if you are of legal age, area  law abiding citizen but live in a city and happen to be black or hispanic or something that Bloomberg views as a minority, he thinks the government should deny you your 2nd Amendment rights.  A right that might actually SAVE your life against some criminal with ill intent.
There was someone else who felt almost EXACTLY the same way some 80 years ago.  Ironically THAT dictator would have a problem with someone named BLOOMBERG having a gun.
Not to be outdone, in Pennsylvania, radical gun control zealot, Bloomberg supporter and apparent racist Michael Donovan echoes Bloomberg’s sentiment.  Donovan was a former city council member of Allentown who supported the illegal city ordinance requiring residents to report their lost or stolen firearm within 24 hours or face prison time.
Now that the state has taken the steps to reign in these rogue cities, Donovan has voiced his opinion about to whom gun control is REALLY directed:
    “Allentown is the third largest city in the state. It is claiming a renaissance for wealthy, white individuals who wish to be safe. I believe the mayor has a responsibility to join the fight against this law.”
First off, if Donovan wasn’t a Democrat and said that we need gun rights to protect wealthy, white individuals the lamestream media would have made this a national story and would have made calls to have him burned at the stake.
Alas, apparently its socially acceptable to be racist so long as you are a Democrat and in favor of gun control.
I mean seriously, on one hand you have Bloomberg saying that the government should seize firearms out of the hands of minorities in cities and on the other you have Donovan stating that we need more gun control to protect the wealthy whites.
Gun control has finally grown out of its dye job and its racist roots are showing.

GUNS SAVE LIVES: 11-Year Old Girl Fends Off Home Invaders With Her Shotgun
Clash Daily, Posted on February 3, 2015

The Left would prefer she was unarmed and vulnerable to her attackers.
    LAPEER COUNTY, MI — An 11-year-old girl was able to scare off a suspect — later taken into custody — during a home invasion in Lapeer County’s North Branch Township.
    Deputies from the Lapeer County Sheriff’s Department responded around 3:45 p.m. Friday, Jan. 30 to a Five Lakes Road home where the girl was home alone when a vehicle pulled into the driveway.
    A Lapeer County Sheriff’s Office news release states one person knocked on all the doors and forced their way inside the home when there was no response. The girl locked herself inside a bathroom and hid in a closet with a shotgun.
    The suspect eventually opened the bathroom door and closet where the child was hiding with the weapon. The girl aimed the shotgun at the suspect, who then fled from the home.
    Police said the girl was not harmed during the encounter.

2nd Amendment threatened in Obama's trade plans
 http://www.wnd.com, January 30, 2015

UNITED NATIONS – Giving President Obama fast-track authority to conclude an international trade agreement is like playing Russian roulette with six bullets in the chamber, says one of America’s leading gun rights organizations.
Gun Owners of America is blasting a congressional proposal that empowers Obama to unilaterally negotiate international agreements as “a ‘bait and switch’ scheme that could seriously impact the Second Amendment.”
House and Senate committees are currently preparing to hand Obama so-called “fast-track” trade promotion authority. It would enable the president to unilaterally negotiate the TransPacific Partnership, a trade and global governance agreement with the U.S. and 11 other nations bordering the Pacific Ocean.
Under fast-track rules, Congress would not be able to amend or even vet the completed agreement. It could only approve everything that Obama has included, including anything tucked away in the 99th page that no one really wants to talk about, or kill it.
Gun Owners of America warns fast track “delegates to Barack Obama the legislative authority to do anything he wants – absolutely anything – so long as he includes it in a ‘trade agreement.’”
Second Amendment defenders worry, for example, anti-gun measures such as gun or ammunition import bans could be relegated to the bowels of the so-called “trade agreement.” They say Congress would be unable to stop it “when every Establishment interest in Washington starts pushing Congress to immediately approve this ‘up-or-down’ deal.”
They point to the experience with the recently approved trillion-dollar “Cromnibus” spending bill, which included the largest funding increase in history for the federal gun database, empowered states to impose gun bans based on doctor’s orders and increased the budget for the ATF.
Fast track “is the same dynamic as the Cromnibus, and if we hadn’t just gone through that we wouldn’t see what will happen if they give him fast track,” Michael Hammond, legislative counsel with Gun Owners of America, told WND.
“Republicans whine about Obama usurping legislative authority, so why in heaven’s name are they thinking of giving him unlimited legislative authority to do anything he can put into a trade agreement?” Hammond asked
Supporters of fast track, including Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, say it allows Congress to set goals for an agreement the Obama administration will negotiate.
But Hammond points out the TransPacific Partnership agreement “has already largely been negotiated and is being kept secret only for the sole purpose of getting us to give it a rubber stamp.”
“What kind of idiot would bite on that deal?”
The Obama administration has been negotiating the TransPacific Partnership without congressional input for the past six years and acknowledges the deal is near completion.
“I don’t think it’s wise to allow Obama to promulgate any law he wants as long as he succeeds in sticking it in this agreement and then gets Congress’ assent on an up or down vote without any possibility for amendment,” Hammond said.
“It’s playing Russian Roulette with a gun with six bullets in the chamber,” he said.
Gun Owners of America is urging everyone to contact their senators and representative and ask them to oppose giving fast-track authority to Barack Obama.
WND has reported extensively on the TPP, including when Obama traveled to Asia to promote it last year.
TPP has been described as the largest-ever economic treaty, encompassing 12 participating nations representing more than 40 percent of the world’s gross domestic product. It’s the frontrunner to the equally under-the-radar Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TIPP, between the U.S. and the European Union.
WND reported that the White House, without much fanfare, wrapped Mexico and Canada into the TPP negotiations as a continuation of an effort regarded by critics as a move toward a European Union-style integration of North America.

DEA and ATF cooperated to record gun show attendee license plates
1/28/15 | by Chris Eger

According to emails obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, federal authorities planned to monitor gun show parking lots with automatic license plate readers.
The insight comes from a damning report released by the ACLU this week on a secretive program by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to build a massive database of license plates images collected by automated license plate reader devices. As part of this investigation, emails released through the Freedom of Information Act detailed a planned cooperation between the DEA’s National License Plate Recognition initiative and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to scan and record the plates and vehicle images of gun show attendees.
“DEA Phoenix Division Office is working closely with ATF on attacking the guns going to [redacted] and the gun shows, to include programs/operation with LPRs at the gun shows,” reads an April 2009 email.
The time and place mentioned in the email coincides with known information on the Justice Department’s Fast and Furious operation, a controversial “gunwalking” scandal that possibly transferred as many as 2,000 guns to drug traffickers in Mexico. That program was run out of the Phoenix ATF Field Division office, just two miles from the DEA office.
However, DOJ officials were quick to issue denials this week following the release of the story, advising that the ATF did not in fact engage in tracking gun show attendees.
“The proposal in the email was only a suggestion. It was never authorized by DEA, and the idea under discussion in the email was never launched,’’ according to DEA administrator Michele Leonhart, the Wall Street Journal reported.
While there may not have been any gun show surveillance, federal agencies have nonetheless built an immense database.
An undated DEA slideshow released to the ACLU mentions that, at the time, 100 plate readers were deployed in eight states to include California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, Florida, Georgia and New Jersey. These readers were a mixed of fixed, portable and mobile devices that could scan and record as many as ten images per vehicle.
The extensively redacted presentation states that the then-current database held some “343+ million” images and that cleared law enforcement personnel from other federal, state, local and tribal agencies could access the archives.
This information alone brought concern from the ACLU.
“Automatic license plate readers must not be used to collect information on lawful activity — whether it be peacefully assembling for lawful purposes, or driving on the nation’s highways,” the group stated in its report. “Without strong regulations and greater transparency, this new technology will only increase the threat of illegitimate government surveillance.”
Sheriff urges New Yorkers: 'Throw gun renewals in garbage'
Gun control advocates in New York State’s bureaucracy are requiring firearm owners to send in renewals for their gun registrations, but one Fulton County sheriff is advising state residents to throw them in the garbage.
Back in 2013, anti-gun establishment officials in New York successfully pushed for the adoption of statewide legislation called the SAFE Act, which concentrated on enforcing a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity clips. However, many didn’t realize that hidden within the new law was a lot of red tape and added requirements, making it that much more difficult for citizens to bear arms in compliance with state bureaucratic standards.
But a little-known provision of the bill requires every handgun owner to recertify their permit with the local sheriff or clerk’s office by 2018, reports WND’s Leo Hohmann. The counties are then required to upload the permit information to a statewide digital database that is being created. The process must be repeated every five years.
Now, in order to update its system in accordance with the SAFE Act, state officials are hitting up gun owners to renew their gun registrations in a number of counties throughout the state by issuing them 500 invitations, via an early pilot program. The state is asking these gun owners to participate by uploading their gun registration information online for every firearm they own.
In order to make a loud and clear statement to Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other bureaucrats at the state Capitol in Albany, Fulton County Sheriff Thomas Lorey volunteered his county to take part in the pilot program to bring its problems to light. He’s now asking gun owners to take a stand with him.
I’m asking everyone that gets those invitations to throw them in the garbage because that is where they belong, Lorey told conservative activists at a recent meeting. They go in the garbage because, for 100 years or more, ever since the inception of pistol permits, nobody has ever been required to renew them.
According to Lorey, the new online registration database is slated for a February launch.
I don’t think they’re going to be able to do it, Lorey argued. Let’s have everybody’s permit expire the same day and let em see what they’re going to do with it.
Lorey insisted to local residents within the county that his sheriff’s department will not hold them liable for any gun registration violations.
I want to assure you that everyone in Fulton County has nothing to fear from the sheriff’s office, Lorey promised. We’ve got real crime and real criminals to occupy our time with.
Gun control activists seizing a crisis for their cause
In January 2013, Cuomo signed the NY SAFE Act” an acrostic for New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act” into law to assuage the gun control movement at the time, which used the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, to garner popular support.
Jumping on the anti-gun rights bandwagon following the December 2012 Newtown massacre were Connecticut, Colorado and Maryland, which also passed similar legislation tightening firearm regulations.
Similar resistance to gun control laws has been witnessed in Connecticut, where thousands of firearm owners have stood together in noncompliance to the relatively new legislation.
The revolt is underway, Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt told WND. Tens of thousands of people in Connecticut have intentionally missed the deadline.
Pratt insists that gun control legislation has simply gone too far and Americans aren’t putting up with it.
They are not registering, Pratt continued. Some of them actually said they would not when they were at the hearing when the law was being considered in the legislature.
Sticking to their guns
Connecticut’s rebellion against heightened gun control regulations is being mirrored by Lorey’s call for resistance in New York. Getting all of the state’s counties to update the new online database has been more than challenging” with most reporting major delays, according to Albany’s Times Union.
It reported that clerks have not been informed by state officials about the cause of the delays in the pilot program, with many thinking that the slow rate has been caused by problems the state is having putting the database system together.
They didn’t anticipate the amount of time it was going to take to establish that digital database, Cortland County Clerk Elizabeth Larkin told the Albany paper.
Gun rights leaders are standing behind law enforcement that champions the Second Amendment rights of Americans.
Sheriff Lorey is a patriot, Sercond Amendment Foundation> President Alan Gottlieb told WND. His stand in defense of the Second Amendment is an example for all law enforcement.
The New York State Sheriffs Association and individual sheriffs have already taken a stand against gun control laws by filing a lawsuit against Gov. Cuomo to stop enforcement of the new Act, reports "Reason" magazine. They are in direct agreement with Lorey, who belongs to Oathkeepers” an organization of police officers and military personnel that vows to uphold the U.S. Constitution by refusing to bow down to unconstitutional orders given by the government.
Smooth or not-so-smooth sailing for the program?
Despite reports to the contrary, state officials maintain that the new gun control policy is moving forward according to plans, noting that they are merely finding better ways to streamline the state’s procedure for renewals. According to a spokeswoman for the New York State Police, they are working on ways to handle a greater amount of guns into the system. She insisted that pop-ups on the state’s website will make it easier for gun owners to renew their registrations.
However, a report from the Times Union (newspaper) indicates that the assembly of the expansive database system spanning the entire state of New York has been plagued with problems” as different components of the NY SAFE Act are being examined.
A system allowing background checks for all ammunition sales was originally supposed to be in place by Jan. 15, 2014, but its rollout was postponed amid reports the database isn’t ready, Hohmann reports. The county clerks were told in the spring-summer of 2014 that the pace of work on the beefed-up handgun registry would pick up at the end of 2014 and into 2015” strategically delayed until after the November elections.
According to Lorey, the intentions behind putting the new gun permit law in place throughout New York State were not to make owning a gun more difficult for residents. But after seeing the way the SAFE Act is being enforced, he recognizes that the new rules are vulnerable to being abused because they can be applied in such an arbitrary fashion.
The judges of the state of New York have gotten together and thought this up on their own, Lorey attests. It’s just a little device that helps them revoke your permit if they should suddenly get mad at you.
Lorey also asserts that the way the new law is being administered, it will most likely be manipulated by many county bureaucrats to bring in more money” citing a $15 recertification fee one county has already charged gun owners. The patriotic sheriff contends that the new law is being abused by the state so that citizens now have to pay for a right that the U.S. Constitution has already guaranteed them.
The state of New York now wants to charge you for a renewal permit, for a right you already have, Lorey points out.
The contrast between gun laws in Left-leaning states, such as New York, and more conservative states, such as Georgia, is briefly outlined by one gun rights leader who notes that the state officials in the Empire State and other blue states can deny residents gun permits for any reason. On the other hand, in the Peach State and other states that fully honor the right to bear arms, residents don’t need to have a permit to possess handguns in their homes, workplaces or vehicles. They just need permits to carry firearms on their person.
Georgia is a shall issue state which means if you pass a background check the probate court must issue a permit, GeorgiaCarry.org Executive Director Jerry Henry explains. New York is a may issue state, which means the state may issue you a permit if you pass a background check.

OPINION: Nazi gun laws a model for New Jersey
 January 30, 2015, daily record

The Jan. 27 letter, Resisting gun control is for the weak-minded, by Bill Thompson, is full of absurdities.
The letter writer failed to do any research or conduct any thought process in his anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment zeal to have national background checks on firearms.
There are already FBI background checks. Nothing further needs to be done. He then goes on and says background checks on everything else, including boarding a plane, buying a home, buying a car, has always been an integral part of our government system of protection. .
Really? No, it hasn’t. It’s always been about collecting taxes and fees. Government does nothing altruistically.
Governments, in the 20th century alone, killed over 200 million innocent people because of gun control and confiscation.
All one has to do is look at the 1938 Nazi Weapons law to see how background checks were used to confiscate all firearms from the people and then caused the deaths of 12 million, and compare them to New Jersey gun control laws taken verbatim from the Nazi law.
The 1938 Nazi Weapons law targeted ordinary citizen gun owners, manufacturers, and dealers, rather than criminals; required any private person to prove himself fine reliable before being allowed to own a firearm; presumed that gun ownership was a government-granted privilege, not a right; gave the government unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could or could not be owned by citizens; defined hunting weapon as a special class; forced all firearms manufacturers and dealers to obtain a government license; and required all firearms dealers to record all sales and to turn over those records if the business closes.
The Nazi law also allowed for police inspection of records; required all firearms to bear a serial number and maker’s or dealer’s mark; required all gun owners to identify where all firearms were in the house to allow for police or government officers to enter home and go right to the location of the firearms.
Current New Jersey legislation (A-3676) would require police/government inspection of gun owner’s residence and where firearms will be located.
Bruce Eden
Lifetime Member
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

Firearms enthusiasts crash gun buyback to hunt bargains
Fox News January 24, 2015

A recent gun buyback event in Oregon, aimed at curbing the number of weapons on the street, turned into a planned profit making opportunity for a group of firearms enthusiasts.
The Jan. 17 event was co-sponsored by Central Coast Ceasefire Oregon and the Newport Police Department, who offered gift cards to superstore Fred Meyer in return for guns, no questions asked. A sliding scale meant assault rifles fetched $175 gift cards each, and high capacity magazines were worth $25 credits at the store, which ironically sells firearms.
Second Amendment supporters took to OpenCarry.org’s forum to spread the word about the event, and to plan out their attendance to make maximum profit.
“A $25 gift card for "high capacity magazines - like the ones you can buy for $8?” questioned one forum member.
Another forum member, named "We-the-People," explained he would be attending the event to “make $200 profit off of the two junker pistols that I purchased for the purpose.”
Members also planned to intercept attendees bringing in valuable guns, offering them cash before they could go inside and accept the gift cards.
“I picked up five weapons including a Model 11 Remington SemiAuto 12-gauge from 1926, a Mossberg bolt-action 20-gauge from 1947-1950… AND a pre-1900, 12-gauge breech action with Damascus barrel......AND....... a couple of 22 pistols,” wrote the member.
Lauded by organizers as a way to “avoid an unexpected tragedy, and show support for victims of gun violence,” the event netted a total of 138 guns. Those that pass background checks will be melted.
A blogger named ‘Tom in Oregon’ took toTheTruthAboutGuns.com to discuss his experience at the turn-in event.  In a post titled “Who Says Gun ‘Buy Backs’ Are a Bad Thing,” he writes about how he gathered up his “jam-o-matics” to cash in.
“I walked up to the first table and handed a Newport P.D. officer my grocery sack with the three zip-tied pieces of pot metal disguised as pistols. He didn’t take a second look at them as he piled them on a cart that probably had 75-100 guns of all flavors of rust,” wrote the blogger.
"Tom in Oregon" wrote that the event was so popular, organizers actually ran out of gift cards. However, they promised to mail them to those who traded in guns and ammo.
“So I had a nice drive to the coast, spent about $25 in diesel, and in a couple weeks should have $375 in gift cards that I will turn into either ammo, or a subcompact carry piece of a more modern and reliable nature," he wrote. "I love it when a plan comes together.”
Julie Wheeler, president of Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation, acknowledged that a profit can be made through these events, but insists that is not always the case.
“The opposite is also possible," Wheeler told FoxNews.com in an e-mail. "Some firearms come in that are much more valuable than the awarded gift cards. The turn-in does not pretend to be a market value exchange.”
A 2004 study by the National Research Council cast doubt on whether the programs actually make Americans safer, finding the “guns that are typically surrendered in gun buy-backs are those that are least likely to be used in criminal activities,” explains the study
“In contrast, those who are either using guns to carry out crimes or as protection in the course of engaging in other illegal activities, such as drug selling, have actively acquired their guns and are unlikely to want to participate in such programs," the study said.
Government Wants Citizens Disarmored as Well as Disarmed.
Political Outcast, January 26, 2015

Politician makes new attempt to leave Americans disarmed — by banning body armor.
Back in the beginning of 2013, Gary DeMar wrote an astute post entitled, “It’s OK to Kill When You’re the Government.” Among other things, he said:
In 1992, the government went after Randy Weaver on trumped up charges. The story is long and involved. You can read a fair account of it here and here. In the end, Vicki Weaver was shot dead as was the Weaver’s son. Fourteen-year-old Sammy Weaver was shot in the back by a Deputy United States Marshall. Vicki was shot in the head while she was holding her infant daughter. “In the out-of-court settlement, the government did not admit any wrongdoing in the deaths of Sammy and Vicki Weaver.”
Only because of a public outcry did the government suffer any consequences of this tragedy.
Our government is daily emboldened. There is talk of President Obama issuing an Executive Order banning certain guns. The President has been in the Executive Order business with nary a peep from the Republicans.
I have several reasons for bringing this up in relation to a new bill that is being brought to the House. The main point I want you to think about is that the government is already more than capable of killing you no matter how well armed or armored you are. This is just math. The government leverages you as a taxpayer and uses a funny money debt system to spend trillions on building a foreign and domestic arsenal. You can’t beat that. Forget about it. The Weavers were better armed than many and they had no chance. The Branch Davidians in Waco had no chance.
The government already has you outgunned.
In order to really wield power, a government needs to increase the advantage of its agents over the people it wishes to dominate to an exponential degree. It is not enough to simply be able to win. It wants to be able to win easily, do what it wants, and never worry about the possibility that there could be any consequences.
The government’s dream for the future can be seen when it sends a SWAT team to point guns at workers in a guitar factory who have no arms and no armor. That’s its vision for the perfect future—a land where its jackbooted, armored, armed thugs can terrorize you without any kind of possible resistance. Even the option of deciding to die for a cause is too much freedom for you to possess; they must take that remote possibility away from you.
So while they continue to try to make weapons illegal, they are doing more.
According to Reason.com,
Rep. Mike Honda (D-YouGottaBeKiddingMe) offers up HR 378, The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act. Yes, it is in fact a bill intended to limit people’s ability to own gear that reduces injuries and death caused by bullets.
While the text of the bill isn’t yet available, it looks like a rehash of legislation introduced last year that would ban “body armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of Type III armor, determined using National Institute of Justice Standard-0101.06.”
Now, Type III armor isn’t standard stuff, nor is it cheap. Designed to stop rifle rounds, it carries a pretty price tag and is cumbersome as hell. But police locks, alarm systems, and related security equipment are pricey and cumbersome, too. When I lived in New York City’s East Village in the ’90s, I could pretty much smoke a cigarette in the hall while waiting for some of my friends to unlock their apartment doors. But if you perceive some danger in your environment, you just might want some protection. Even if that protection incidentally makes it more difficult for police officers to kill you if they feel the need.
And whatever the motivation of the user, this stuff is defensive. The only way to hurt another person with body armor is to take it off and beat them with it.
Of course, Rep. Honda isn’t satisfied with restricting body armor; he also want to ban gun components kits and require guns made on 3D printers, CNC machines and the like to have serial numbers. You didn’t think he liked armed civilians better than he liked them armored did you?
This is just sick and evil. The government wants you completely and totally at their mercy–even though it puts you at the mercy of criminals. Wrongful deaths occur at police hands all the time, but they want to make sure you don’t have the remote potential to be protected.
And just like gun laws, hardened cop-killing criminals will have no problem getting body armor. Evading the law will be part of the business model.
This is aimed at making the law-abiding populace more naked, more compliant, and more hopeless.
Hopefully the GOP Congress will kill this, thanks to pressure from the NRA. But I have no idea what to really be certain we can expect from this Congress.
Sandy Hook Commission says Screw the Constitution - Confiscate Guns!
Eagle Rising, January 27, 2015

Just a little over a week ago the Sandy Hook Commission presented its recommendations to Communist Governor Daniel Malloy (D-CT). Among those recommendations were to confiscate all guns that had the capacity to fire more than 10 bullets without reloading. They further showed their disregard for the law by stating that it wasn't their job to determine constitutionality.
Following the Sandy Hook shooting, in which it is alleged that 26 people lost their lives, people across the political spectrum sough to blame everything under the sun for the shooting except the shooter. Communists and socialists blamed guns (as though they had legs and arms and could get up on their own and kill people) while so-called "conservatives blamed anything from violent video games to music to mental health to anything in between. One thing is for sure, it wasn't the guns that were the problem and I won't say there isn't a certain influence of games of music, but those things are relative. The real reason, at least according to the reports we've been given, that Sandy Hook happened was a guy who had crime on his mind.
Though it is questionable about some of the things that are alleged to have happened surrounding Sandy Hook, one thing is clear, Socialists and Communists set their sights immediately on disarming the American people.
Connecticut, being Ground Zero, has felt the brunt of the knee jerk reaction of Communists in their state.
Governor Dan Malloy passed legislation that criminalized law-abiding citizens if they did not register their guns, something eerily reminiscent of the Weimar Republic and eventually the Nazis in Germany. When tens of thousands of Connecticut gun owners refused to comply with the law, it took some time, but now the commission has come up with new proposals.
First the commission decided to recommend a ban on "the sale and possession of any gun that can fire more than 10 rounds without reloading."
Though the Connecticut legislature decided to ban AR-15s and issue a 10 round limit on magazines that just doesn't seem to go far enough for these people. Remember, the only way these people will be happy is when the American people have absolutely no arms at all. The goal is complete and total gun confiscation and don't let anyone tell you different. If they do, ask them how much legislation would be enough?
Though the legislature allowed citizens (that sounds like they are issuing privileges rather than recognizing rights, doesn't it?) who had banned guns and magazines to keep them as long as they registered or declared them, the commission is out for those guns without any grandfathering. They want total confiscation of any gun that can fire more than ten round without reloading.
Commission members said it was parents' testimony that convinced them to recommend gun confiscation.
"In one of the classrooms, when the shooter stopped to remove a magazine and put another one in, children escaped from the classroom," said Norwalk Fire Chief Denis McCarthy, a commission member.
"The single biggest common denominator between them is not mental health, it's not the structure of the school, and school safety issues, it's access to, possession of, and use of these weapons of war," said Dr. Harold Schwartz, Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Hartford Hospital's Institute of Living.
The only problem for Dr. Schwartz is not one shooting, including Newtown involved "weapons of war." The Bushmaster AR-15 is not carried into battle by our soldiers and it isn't the state's place to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms… of any kind!
image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/confiscate-guns-300x201.jpg
confiscate gunsOne member of the commission, former Hartford Police Chief Bernard Sullivan, said, "Whether or not this law would stand the test of constitutionality is not for this commission to decide. The commission has expressed very strongly that this is a statement that is needed regarding the lethality of weapons."
It's worse than just what these people label "assault weapons," which are nothing more than semi-automatic rifles. They want handguns too.
"I believe that if we're serious about banning assault weapons, it shouldn't just cover long guns," former Hartford Chief of Police and member of the 16-member Sandy Hook Advisory Commission Bernard Sullivan recommended at a meeting in March 2014. "It should also cover handguns because the weapons of choice in the urban environment are primarily the 9-millimeter Berettas, Sig Sauer, whatever you want to call them, that have high-capacity magazines that can fire 17 or 18 bullets without reloading because of the magazine."
However, note their blatant hypocrisy in the fact that, according to the Connecticut Post, "Commission members stressed that the manufacture of such weapons in the state would not be banned."
Well, why not? Couldn't people like Lanza break in and obtain these weapons and cause the same damage? Isn't that what they are selling the people? It's because there is money involved. That's why! These people are hypocrites, nothing more.
It seems that the commission came together, determined that mass shootings always involve guns and that they should be confiscated and banned. They failed to address how those guns were obtained. For instance, Adam Lanza allegedly murdered his own mother to steal her guns. He didn't own any of his own. So all the hoops they have put up for law abiding citizens to jump through would not have stopped Lanza in any respect.
This commission completely ignores not only the US Constitution, but more specifically the State Constitution of Connecticut which reads:
    Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
That's more specific than the US Constitution! Yet, these tyrants claim it isn't their duty to determine whether they are recommending something lawful.
But apparently this commission believes it will not answer to the people and gave excuses for their claim that they aren't interested in determining whether their recommendations are lawful or not.
Commission chairman and Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson said, "We're not writing proposed legislation. We're writing end results."
Just keep in mind that though these people claimed to listen to parents testifying, they never mentioned the testimony of Mark Mattioli, who lost his six-year-old son at Sandy Hook, who said the problem wasn't guns, but "a lack of civility." They also ignored this testimony and this one.
This commission is not interested in the truth. It's interested in creating more victims and granting more power to an already tyrannical state. They are interested in good intentions, but it seems to me they are merely paving the road to Hell.

Politico Magazine: Idea of ‘Defensive Gun Ownership’ a ‘Tragic Myth
by AWR Hawkins 16 Jan 2015

On January 14, Politico Magazine (PM) ran a story suggesting the claim that guns are used for defense purposes more often than ill-intent is wrong, and the whole idea behind “defensive gun ownership” is a “tragic myth.”
PM defined the “tragic myth” as the belief “that millions of gun owners successfully use their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals.” They pointed to the dearth of academic support for defensive gun uses (DGUs) in “public health literature” and listed three instances in which a homeowner fired a gun in what they thought was a self-defense situation, but which later turned out otherwise. The gunshot wound was fatal in one of the three incidents.
PM also points to a 1992 study by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Mark Getz, the findings of which established an “estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million DGUs per year.” PM says that study is no good—that it has been been debunked, is “utterly false,” and “gun owners are more likely” to end up shooting someone who wasn’t really a criminal in the first place.
Here’s the kicker: Even if we set Kleck and Getz’s work aside—and that’s not the same thing as accepting the claim that it’s been debunked—but even if we set it aside for the sake of argument, PM does not say anything about other polls/studies/surveys suggesting 760,000 defensive gun uses a year. Breitbart News previously reported that this figure—drawn from the LA Times, Gallup, and Peter Hart Research Associates—equals 14,615 DGUs a week and slightly more than 2,082 a day.
Moreover, by opening their argument against DGUs with anecdotal examples from three gun owners who allegedly made a mistake, PM passed over an untold number of anecdotal examples were having the gun was the only thing that saved the homeowner or individual’s life and/or the life of his/her family.
Here are some examples of DGU stories that PM missed just over the past 6 weeks:
(Nov. 30) A Washington state mother shot an alleged home invader to save her children.
(Dec. 8) A veteran confined to walker used a gun to stop home invasion.
(Dec. 9) Antioch, California, homeowner opened fire on two home invaders.
(Dec. 19) A 14-year-old shot and killed an intruder to save grandparents.
(Dec. 20) A man used a handgun in self-defense when confronted by an armed robber outside an Ohio mall. He killed the would-be robber, ending the attack.
(Dec. 26) A Good Samaritan witnessed domestic attack, pulled pistol, and held the man at gunpoint until police arrived.
(Dec. 27) A home invader put a gun to a woman’s neck in Memphis. The invader was shot and killed by the homeowner.
(Dec. 28) A Bucks County, Pennsylvania, resident shot an intruder who broke through the glass door on her apartment.
(Dec. 29) A home invader was shot and killed after a pregnant woman helped fight him off.
(Dec. 30) A pastor shot a man who attacked him inside the church.
(Dec. 30) A Texas fireworks stand owner used a gun to shoot and stop armed robbers.
(Jan. 9) Four armed robbers stormed a women’s gun store in Shawnee, Kansas, and the co-owner’s life was spared when her husband intervened by opening fire on the suspects.
(Jan. 10) A California homeowner survived an initial attack by a home invader, retrieved gun, and held the suspect at gunpoint until police arrived.
(Jan. 11) A man put a gun to a Papa John’s Pizza delivery woman’s head; she pulled her own gun and shot him in the face.
(Jan. 12) An armed robber in a Milwaukee barber shop was shot and killed by a patron with a concealed carry license/handgun.
(Jan. 13) An armed Taco Bell robber ordered would-be victim to drop his pants, but the victim pulled his gun instead and shot the robber dead.
  1. these are but a fraction of the DGUs we could list from the last six weeks alone. These are all part of the “tragic myth” of gun owners “successfully using their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals.
National Rifle Association suing Pittsburgh and Philadelphia over gun laws
Pittsburg Post Gazette, January 14, 2015 11:29

NRA meetings handguns Pennsylvania has long barred its municipalities from approving ordinances that regulate the ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of guns or ammunition.
Let no one accuse the National Rifle Association of being slow on the draw: It is suing Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Lancaster, just days after a new state law allowed it to challenge local gun ordinances in court.
“These municipalities have known for years that their ordinances were illegal, but there were no consequences,” said Jonathan Goldstein, a Chester County attorney representing the NRA. “Now it’s about to get expensive.”
While state law has barred local officials from passing their own gun laws since 1974, many municipalities have rules that, for example, ban firearms from public property. But last year’s passage of Act 192 gave the NRA new firepower in overturning such measures.
The law, which went into effect Jan. 5, allows any Pennsylvanian eligible to own a gun, or a group with such a person as a member, to challenge any local gun ordinance in the state. If the suit is successful, the municipality must pay the plaintiff’s legal fees.
Mr. Goldstein said the complaint names a handful of ordinances. One prohibits carrying firearms in a vehicle or in person without a state permit to do so. Another prohibits discharging a firearm except at target ranges, or in cases permitted by state law. A third requires gun owners to report the loss or theft of firearms.
In a statement Wednesday, the NRA said “a patchwork of local gun-control ordinances creates confusion” for citizens and police. But Act 192 is itself the subject of a legal challenge now in Commonwealth Court joined by Pittsburgh, Lancaster and Philadelphia — the three municipalities the NRA is suing.
“The NRA are bullies, and they don’t like to be challenged,” said Shira Goodman, executive director of gun-control advocacy group CeaseFirePA. The lawsuit “is a way to punish and strike back.”
“The largest cities [are] the ones that take these actions, and they are the ones who receive these actions,” responded Mr. Goldstein of Berwyn, Pa. “If we get these three municipalities to yield, it will convince others to do the right thing.”
It’s unclear how the NRA lawsuits would be affected by the challenge to the law that made them possible. Bruce Ledewitz, Duquesne University law professor, said a judge could put the NRA’s case on hold until Act 192’s validity is decided by a higher court. Optionally, he said, a judge might reason that “if the legislature gave people rights against the government, you should allow those rights to be exercised.”
While the city couldn’t comment directly on the lawsuit, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto told reporters, “We will not be deterred, and we will keep our lawsuit going” against Act 192.
“We’re not taking away anyone’s right to own a gun,” he added. “What we’re saying is when a gun is lost or stolen, you’ve got to report it.”
Still, it’s unclear what impact such laws have had. The city has never charged anyone under the lost-and-stolen law. Spokesman Tim McNulty couldn’t provide information about whether anyone has been charged under the other ordinances at issue.
But Mr. Goldstein said that merely “the threat of being charged for exercising a lawful right is too much to take.”
Others seem to agree. Another gun-rights organization, U.S. Law Shield, sued the city of Harrisburg on Tuesday, while Kim Stolfer, founder of Firearm Owners Against Crime, said his group had sent letters warning other communities of potential legal action. He said 22 have responded either by saying they’d rescinded their ordinances or needed time to do so. But as many as 300 municipalities may have ordinances subject to challenge, he said.
“We don’t want to go to court,” Mr. Stolfer said. “We want them to do the right thing. But some of them aren’t.”
Mr. Goldstein also wouldn’t rule out future NRA suits against other Pennsylvania communities.
“I haven’t been given direction either way,” he said. “But it’s very tempting.”
Anti-gun group will teach journalists how to report on gun violence
Michael Dorstewitz  January 14, 2015

An anti-gun group, backed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is funding a workshop that purports to teach journalists how to report on guns and gun violence issues.
This is akin to Al Gore instructing meteorologists how they should report the weather.
The workshop, to be held in Phoenix on April 17-18, will be conducted by the Columbia Journalism School-affiliated Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, according to its website.
“The workshop, funded by Everytown for Gun Safety, will offer independent expert briefings and specialized reporting skills training to enhance the practical ability of journalists to report on guns and gun violence knowledgeably, ethically and effectively,” the Dart Center’s website posted Thursday.
It’s difficult to fathom how a workshop funded by Everytown can offer “independent expert briefings” on the issue of firearms, an item Everytown was expressly founded to combat.
As for teaching the journalists “specialized reporting skills,” the only skills they need are research techniques designed to uncover the truth. That’s the job of a reporter; mouthing the agenda of an anti-gun group is not.
And what is Everytown’s agenda? The Washington Times reports:
Everytown for Gun Safety is headed by John Feinblatt, a former top aide to Mr. Bloomberg. The group claims to have 2.5 million supporters and over 40,000 donors, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
The Bloomberg-backed group bills itself as “a movement of Americans working together to end gun violence and build safer communities.” Its website states “For too long, change has been thwarted by the Washington gun lobby and by leaders who refuse to take common-sense steps that will save lives.
Bloomberg’s push for stringent gun control measures has assumed the aura of a sacred quest, with an intention to “punish those politicians who fail to support their agenda — even Democrats whose positions otherwise align with his own,” The New York Times reported in April.
“We’ve got to make them afraid of us,” he said of pro-Second Amendment lawmakers.
So much for objective journalism.

Paris...A Lesson, But in What?
Shhooting Wire, January 13, 2015

Last week's terrorist attack on a magazine that specializes in insulting everyone, kicked off more pointless media pontification about the savagery of radical islam.
It was as if everyone was shocked at what happened. After all, this intellectual publication "only" insulted Islam's sacred leader. They'd already done far worse cartoons, multiple times, about Christians, too. Some of them represented the rankest form of blasphemy to even the most casual Christian.
What's my point? Our society's inability to differentiate a difference between the "appropriate responses" of two groups: the Islamic extremist and those of us who comprise the group those same groups of "saddened" journalists permit to be slandered as "desperate, bitter, gun-toting, Bible-clinging, right-wing extremist"-that group would be, of course, Christians.
Rather than sit at home and pounding out insults and idle threats under an internet pseudonym, the radical Islamics shaved, bathed and prayed (as they're apparently taught in martyr school), then rucked-up and headed out to hand-deliver their considered response.
In Christian circles, that's called putting "feet to their faith."
"Radical" islam, it seems, has considerably less difficulty spurring followers to action than "radical Christianity." And a very obvious difference in the definition of "appropriate response."
A similarity exists only in the fact that following their call makes them minorities. Failing to recognize their fundamental differences, especially when engaged in nearly incessant slander, can -and in this case, did- have fatal consequences.
Radical Christianity calls for giving yourself in the service and betterment of others.
Radical islam requires the willing sacrifice of self for the unconditional elimination or subjugation of all unbelievers.
That's not a religious call to action, that's an action plan for world domination. That's a gigantic difference.
One common belief for both true believers is that the best is yet to come. One group wants to serve while waiting; the other wants to serve you- and themselves if necessary- up in pieces as a sign of their dedication.
Their unshakable belief in that higher power encourages both to action -as unequal as their responses may be, they are inevitable.
Unfortunately, other members of society don't need anything except their unshakable belief that they're smarter than the rest of us. That's enough for them to work to impress their will on the rest of us.
Ultimately, that group includes many of our so-called "leaders" who feel (I intentionally didn't use the word "think") disarming everyone (everyone else, actually) removes danger for everyone.
Sound familiar? It should.
It's the faulty, but unshakable argument they use to create harvesting pens for the less-intelligent, but far more motivated killers in one of the other "extreme groups". The service-based "extremists" meanwhile, are barred from those "gun free zones" in a sign of religious "tolerance."
It's time someone recognizes that the people who champion "gun free zones" are driven by their ego, not their intelligence.
For years, I believed I could go shirtless in the summer sun with no consequence. Today, I know the consequence of my ignorance. But cancer wasn't the consequence of my ignorance- I was warned to wear sunscreen. It was belief that I knew better than everyone else what was best for me. In my case, ego caused cancer.
The world today isn't vastly different from the world since its beginning. There is no shortage of evil, nor of those who prey on the unaware.
Sure, some may be smart-mouthed mall rats or droopy-drawered "gangsters" who hang around in groups, insult shoppers and laugh at "mall security" but others are equally disenfranchised, but far more motivated terrorists, but they're everywhere.
If you believe your quiet little town with a "small" rather than a massive "mall" is any different, you're disconnected from reality.
Evil is. And it seeks the unaware.
As my friend Michael Bane wrote last week:
And yet, people die from lightning strikes every year."
(read his entire post at: www.Michaelbane.blogspot.com).
The capability of evil to act beyond any measure of "reasonableness" by the rest of us is what surprises and shocks "civilized" leaders.
After all, the Charlie Hebdo drawings were insignificant when measured in "real" terms. Those dead cartoonists had drawn things far more insulting to others with no response beyond than an occasional "tsk-tsk" from equally "sophisticated" fellow Parisians.
The shock is at the response to something "normal" people had allowed to slide many times before.
The outrage is the equivalent of the cartoonists having shoot an air rifle and received .500 nitro recoil in return.
Or was it?
What the shooters did was cold-blooded, barbarism. That's by any standard except their own. But isn't it realistic today to expect that response by motivated extremists to what was the equivalent of intellectual taunting?
The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo - safe to that point while using the camouflage of "wit" to insult others with impunity - appear to have underestimated the recoil of their pens.
Do some research on the magazine and you will find the ultimate consequences disproportionate, but really not considerably more shocking than a big kid finally slapping the crap out of a "smarter" kid who had been warned to stop his merciless taunting.
If it was a total shock to you after countless bombings, beheadings, executions and torture scenes, you may need to adjust your world view.
Mine adjusted -radically- after I found myself staring down the gun barrel of a home invader. I managed (largely through dumb luck) to survive. But "oblivious" stopped being my normal state of awareness. Fortunately, the experience didn't manage to transform me into a frightened victim or a knee-jerk reactionary.
In retrospect, it was the same kind eye-opening reality check I required as a kid; just amped up to an adult dosage.
Awareness is the same whether you're shopping, riding a horse, paddling a canoe or shooting on the range. It should be your constant state of mind -and it doesn't mean a gun-slinger's mentality. It means being aware of your surroundings.
Not sitting flat of your butt on the trail looking for your horse means you noticed the garter snake crossing in front of you and acted appropriately. Sitting in your canoe instead of floundering around under it after your passenger leaned over one side meant you notices and counter-balanced their movement.
In all situations, life requires awareness. Unless you want to find yourself standing in an open field during a lightning storm, at sea in a tropical storm, stranded on a mountainside at night or unarmed in a gunfight.
In all those situations, the correct answers are the same: if you're already not there-don't go. If you're there; leave.
Awareness may be conscious or subconscious (after enough training), but it had better be . Because unaware and dead exist, as they have since time began, in very close proximity.

New York Vet Has Guns Confiscated by Police Because He Had Trouble Sleeping
Last Resistence, January 6, 2015
A man had his guns confiscated on a crazy pretext.
This is supposedly New York’s attempt at keeping guns out of the “wrong hands.” Under New York’s SAFE Act, medical professionals have to report to police if they believe one of their patients poses harm to himself or others. This particular guy U.S. Navy veteran and retired police officer Donald Montgomery saw his primary doctor voluntarily for insomnia. Not long after, the Suffolk County police were at his door, ready to take his firearms away. Now, he’s suing them. The Blaze reported:
It all started after Montgomery visited his primary care physician on May 6 and complained about trouble sleeping, the Daily Caller reported. He claimed to have been suffering from insomnia since moving from a different state. Montgomery then returned to the hospital again days later for the same problems, except this time he was diagnosed with “Depression; Insomnia” by hospital staff.
On May 23, Montgomery returned to the hospital yet again with the same symptoms. He reportedly stayed at the hospital for 48 hours voluntarily for treatment.
In the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York earlier this month, Montgomery alleges that his visit was wrongly recorded as an involuntary stay.
Under New York’s SAFE Act, mental health professionals are required to report patients who are determined to be threats to themselves or others. Regardless, the lawsuit claims the veteran was cleared.
“Patient has no thoughts of hurting himself. Patient has no thoughts of hurting others. Patient is not having suicidal thoughts. Patient is not having homicidal thoughts,” the hospital notes from the visit allegedly said.
Montgomery was said to be “mildly depressed” by hospital officials, but they found “no evidence of any psychotic processes, mania, or OCD symptoms.” The notes also asserted, “Insight, judgment, and impulse control are good.”
Still, Montgomery’s records were forwarded to Mental Hygiene Legal Service for further review.
Four days after leaving the hospital that last time, the state police sent notice to the Suffolk County PD, telling them that Montgomery “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution,” even though everything was voluntary, and having trouble sleeping hardly constitutes being a “mental defective.” But I’d guess they’d argue that’s “splitting hairs.” They’re only concerned with finding any excuse necessary to take a person’s guns away from him.
The next day, Montgomery received a call from the Suffolk County PD, informing him that his guns would have to be confiscated. And on May 30th, they showed up and took his weapons. The Daily Caller reported that his firearms included the following:  a Colt .38 revolver, Derringer .38, Glock 26 9mm, and a Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 380.
Kerry Lied: National Gun Registration Is Part of the UN Small Arms Treaty
Freedom Outpost, December 6. 2015

Ever since September 2013, the day Secretary of State John Kerry signed the United Nations Small Arms Treaty, I have been bothered by the complete disingenuous concern he presented and outright lies he told to those gathered to witness the signing, and the American people. Here's the video of the signing and his remarks.
The first thing I thought of was that this is a former senator who is signing a three inch document, which I'm sure he has never read. This is the disingenuous part of what he is doing.
Second, in discussing what the treaty is not, he declares "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. Make no mistake, we would never think about supporting a treaty that is inconsistent with the rights of Americans … to be able to exercise their guaranteed rights under our constitution."
I would have to ask him for the specific citation on the specific page for how he can claim these things. I'm sure he wouldn't be able to do it.
However, in January, William F. Jasper wrote at The New American:
    The UN Arms Trade Treaty was written in secret by the Obama/Hillary Clinton State Department, along with Russia, China, France and Britain. Not exactly a lineup of champions of liberty. What does it actually say?
    Article 2 defines the conventional arms covered, which include battle tanks, artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles — and "small arms and light weapons."
    Article 3 of the treaty places UN prohibitions on "ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2."
    Article 4 puts all "parts and components" of weapons within the scheme.
    Several places in the treaty text, including Article 5, require all countries to "establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list." Moreover, it declares, "Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms."
    Article 5, Section 4 says each State Party "shall provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties." Which means our federal government will provide the guns and ammo registration list to the UN, which will provide it to Russia, China, Cuba — any and every State Party that wants it.
Do you get that? There's a national control list. We might reference it as a national gun registration list. This will not only be provided to the federal government, something they have been given no authority over, but will also be provided to our enemies abroad, including the United Nations (Yes, friends, I do not consider the UN to be the friend of the United States).
Kerry has insisted that this treaty 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," Kerry added. "This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong. And this is about promoting international peace and global security."
Ask yourself this question, "Do you believe John Kerry?" Furthermore, do you believe Barack Obama after all his lies? How about Hillary Clinton?
If you are among those who want to support the Obama administration at every turn, I ask you, if this is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors, why has the Obama administration funneled money and weapons to our enemies abroad? Let me ask you an even more disturbing question, in the Obama administration, who is considered terrorists? Who are the rogue actors? Any answers will have to deal with the documentation that this administration has put out and the results are that the terrorists are patriotic Americans, which can only mean one thing: They are after your guns.
Finally, don't forget that the push is on for microstamping of ammunition (recall Article 3 above). Despite their claims, they are looking to control the flow of ammunition.
For more on what this has looked like in history, I highly recommend Stephen P. Halbrook's excellent work Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and "Enemies of the State."
Gun Control Group Targets Alan Jackson, Jeff Foxworthy For Agreeing To Speak At NRA Conference
Patriot Update, January 2, 2014

More people can fit in a telephone booth than are in ‘Mom’s Demand Action.
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America is targeting country music star Alan Jackson and comedian Jeff Foxworthy for agreeing to appear at the 2015 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibitions, April 11 in Nashville.
In response, Moms Demand Action posted an announcement to Facebook saying: “Alan Jackson and Jeff Foxworthy agreed to open [the 2015] NRA convention after the NRA pushed to arm convicted criminals, blocked federal gun violence research, and [their] board members promoted armed insurrection.”
They then called on gun control supporters to “educate these celebrities on the dangerous and irresponsible policies of the [NRA].”
Moms Demand Action attached a second page where gun control supporters can gather talking points to use against Jackson and Foxworthy. Among these are claims that the “NRA fights to arm terrorists,” the “NRA fights to arm criminals,” and suggestions that the NRA “[scares] people just to boost gun sales.”
Tickets for Jackson and Foxworthy go on sale January 15.
Gun Rights Group Names 2014's Top 10 'Anti-Gunners'
Town Hall, Dec 29, 2014

From being an advocate of the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty to pouring money into Washington state’s victorious I-594 gun control campaign, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has come up with a list of the top 10 ‘anti-gunners’ for 2014.
Not surprisingly, former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg took the top spot this year for dumping millions into creating Everytown for Gun Safety and also helping to finance the I-594 effort in Washington.
The other nine are:
    Paul Allen– The billionaire co-founder of Microsoft and principle owner of the Seattle Seahawks and Portland Trailblazers, he dumped a half-million dollars into the I-594 gun control campaign inWashington State.
    Steve Ballmer– Another Microsoft alumni and owner of the L.A. Clippers who added more than$1 millionto the I-594 effort to criminalize perfectly legal activities in theEvergreen State.
    Hillary Clinton– The former First Lady and Secretary of State suggested earlier this year that gun owners "terrorize" people by vigorously defending the Second Amendment. She also supported the unratified UN Arms Trade Treaty.
    Andrew Cuomo– TheNew York governor who championed that state's Draconian SAFE (for Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act, which is responsible for job losses in addition to penalizing every gun owner in the state.
    Rahm Emanuel– The vehemently anti-gun mayor of Chicago whose administration has stubbornly resisted adoption of rational gun policies that would allow citizens to defend themselves against out-of-control violence in the Windy City.
    Bill Gates– This billionaire Microsoft co-founder and his wife contributed more than$1 millionto the I-594 gun control effort, thus helping to pay for one of the most insidious political campaigns inthe United States.
    Nick Hanauer– Another elitistSeattle-area billionaire who launched the I-594 gun control campaign and poured more than$1 millioninto the effort. His deplorable effort to exploit the Pilchuck High School tragedy by sarcastically suggesting that, "We need more school shootings" was an offensive new low in anti-gun politics.
  Eric Holder– The outgoing U.S. attorney general fought to stall release of thousands of documents related to the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, final losing his battle in federal court this past fall.
    Shannon Watts– As founder of the Bloomberg-supported Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Watts has spread disinformation about gun crime and campaigned against laws that bolster personal protection outside the home.
And the ‘dishonorable mentions’ go to:
    Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe for wanting to resurrect one-gun-a-month legislation in his state, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, who both have pressed their gun control agendas, driving businesses and jobs out of their states; California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who has steadfastly defended arbitrary and discretionary concealed carry permits; former CNN commentator Piers Morgan for continuing his anti-gun
rhetoric even though it forced his program's cancellation. Also on the list, Gerald Ensley, the Tallahassee Democrat columnist who wrote in November that handguns and semiautomatic modern sporting rifles should be banned, and that the Second Amendment should be repealed; and former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote earlier this year that he would like to see the Second Amendment changed to confine the right to keep and bear arms to people serving in the military and state militia.
"The people on this list have worked very hard to undermine the civil rights of every American citizen who owns a firearm, or may one day want to, and they deserve vilification," CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said in a statement.
Homeowner Shoots Home Invader Holding Gun To Woman’s Neck
Conservatve byte, December 27, 2014

Great story! There is one part I didn’t like though. Check out the “cleared of wrong-doing” part of the story. I’m probably getting caught up in semantics here, but what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Being cleared makes it sound like you were guilty until proven innocent.
Check it out:
A suspect in an armed home invasion is dead after he was confronted by an armed homeowner.
Two men began knocking on the front door of a North Memphis, Tenn. home on Tuesday. When a woman answered, the men barged in, and one of them — identified as 22-year-old Nico Carlisle — held a gun to the woman’s neck.
A male homeowner also inside the house heard the commotion, retrieved his own handgun, and fired several shots at the two men, hitting and killing Carlisle.
Carlisle’s accomplice left the scene and has not been found. Police said Carlisle had an extensive rap sheet that includes charges for burglary and assault. Police also cleared the homeowner of wrong-doing.

GUN CONTROLLERS: They Promised Us Peace

Clashdaily, by Rob Morse on December 26, 2014
They promised us peace if we would accept a little regulation. We barely paid attention, but we said “Sure, that sounds good. Where do I sign?” The latest promise was that armed assault would stop in Washington State if we only had “universal firearms background checks”. Unless you’re a stupid Washington voter, it shouldn’t surprise you that armed robbery didn’t stop. Crime continued as if the new law didn’t exist.
It was a Washington fantasy to think criminals would obey the next gun law after they ignored the thousands of gun laws that came before. But, it is easy to sell fantasies at the Washington ballot box when you have tens of millions of dollars on your side. Are stupid Washington voters surprised or embarrassed that criminals don’t obey the newest gun laws? That still leaves honest gun owners as the victim of another insane firearms restriction.
That was the plan all along. We were sold peace if only we would accept one more firearms regulation. Criminals would stop using firearms if we only had better firearms registration. There would be fewer victims of violent crime if we had stricter licensing of firearms. We were promised peace with every new law.
And now, 20 thousand gun laws later, there is no peace. Instead, it is harder than ever to be an honest firearms owner. It is harder than ever for the peaceable to protect themselves. Disarming honest men and women only makes it easier for criminals. Even an idiot could understand that.. if they try.
With 20 thousand gun laws in the books, it is easy for the police to say a non-violent gun owner might have violated one of their many regulations. Oh, the horror, he might have an unregistered empty shell casing.
Most police don’t even know intricacies of firearms laws. Instead, the cops take the easy way out. They perform a “no-knock” raid and then let you sort the problem out with a judge.. if you survive the raid.. and after you get out of jail.
Since the last 20 thousand gun laws have not brought us peace, then let’s repeal a few thousand of these laws that criminalize non-violent behavior. Let’s try a little more freedom before we pass another gun-control law that is sure to fail. We really don’t need a gun owner strangled because he had an unregistered shell casing.
Let’s be clear. Gun owners are extremely law abiding and moral. They have never been the source of public violence. Anti-gun groups keep selling the next gun law as if that law will stop crime.. and, unfortunately, the casual voters believes it time after time. Our rights of self-defense are being strangled. If you don’t believe me, try to buy a gun and learn to shoot in Washington State. Just don’t touch a gun as you do.
Will Our Scofflaw President Try to Enforce an Unratified Arms Trade Treaty?
Eagle Rising, December 26, 2014

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.  It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”  —William Pitt, the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
On the One Hand . . .
Obama has sold guns to Central American gangs and Mexican drug cartels—courtesy of Operation Fast & Furious—and has opened our southern border to ingress by these very criminals as well as Muslim terrorists and others. Obama also works daily to give the worst kinds of weapons to the Muslim fanatics running the nation of Iran.  Nuclear weapons!
On the Other Hand . . .
When it comes to the American people, Obama has signed executive orders and presidential memoranda aimed at infringing the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.  Obama plans to use medical doctors as his agents, under the aegis of Obamacare, to create a national registry of gun owners.  And he also plans to use medical reasons to disqualify Americans, under un-Constitutional Obamacare rules, from gun ownership, creating the conditions for an unprecedented federal gun-grab.  (See my article concerning this issue at http://eaglerising.com/12893/obama-use-obamacare-doctors-infringe-right-bear-arms/).
The Pattern
UN GunThe disturbing pattern that emerges, from Obama’s policies and practices, indicates a president who wishes to empower those who break US laws and constrain those who follow the laws and want others to follow them as well.  This goes for everything from immigration laws to drug laws, and even extends to free-speech and self-defense rights under the US Bill of Rights.
How Our Scofflaw President Might Attempt to Enforce an Unratified Treaty
The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs has announced that the Arms Trade Treaty, which regulates the international trade in conventional weapons from small arms to aircraft carriers, officially takes effect on December 24, 2014.  Secretary of State John Kerry signed the treaty on Obama’s behalf in September of 2013, but 54 US Senators immediately released a statement at that time urging the Obama Administration not to try implementing the treaty without first getting Senate approval to do so.  But the fact is that, while Obama has paid lip-service to the Constitution on occasion, he has actually never let the Constitution restrain him in practice.
Treaty Provisions
Article Two of the UN treaty delineates the treaty’s prohibitions, which includes a prohibition, to civilians, of the right to purchase, own, sell, trade, or transfer every kind of weapon that could be utilized for armed resistance—which means handguns, among other things.  This would leave all American citizens at the mercy of criminals and, potentially, a tyrannical government.
Article Three puts the “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article Two” under the auspices of the treaty, as well, allowing their importation and sales to be regulated, or even banned.
Article Four places all “parts and components” of weapons under the same-style regulation of the state.
Article Five has a “General Implementation” section that orders all countries signing onto the treaty to “establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.”  This registry would exist to “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”
Article Twelve of the treaty adds the record-keeping requirement that the list indicate “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms,” as well as the names of their ultimate recipients, referred to as “end users.”
hands off gunAnd, ultimately, the treaty demands that national governments enact “appropriate measures” to enforce the treaty, including civilian disarmament.  If these countries cannot get this done on their own, however, Article Sixteen of the treaty provides for UN assistance, specifically including help with the enforcement of “stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.”  UN peacekeeping forces could help signatories of the treaty to disarm their citizenry.
A Possible Role for INTERPOL
Although the US Senate has not ratified the treaty, President Obama has signed Executive Order 13524 to give INTERPOL full authority to conduct law enforcement activities inside the United States with full immunity from US laws and with complete independence from American oversight.  This means that INTERPOL is to be allowed to enforce international law (possibly to include UN treaties, with INTERPOL agents deputized as UN peacekeepers) on US soil, without any check on its activities by US authorities who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.  This is a possible work-around in President Obama’s efforts to enforce an illegal treaty through the use of a cleverly-designed executive order that will certainly require court rulings to overturn.  The order was issued by President Obama on December 16, 2009, as an amendment to Executive Order 12425.
Obama’s use of this executive order in this fashion would create a Constitutional crisis.  This would be a clear violation of the Constitution, but, while the American people wait for the courts to clarify it as such, they could easily be subjected to a process of mass gun confiscation in the meantime.  The loss of self-protection capabilities, due to the victim-disarmament that would ensue, would certainly result in significant losses of life to criminal elements, during the time that all of this is playing out on the national level.  And the upshot of all this could well be that many Americans will never see the return of their self-defense weapons, due to overhasty destruction of them by the state, actual loss or theft of the weapons while in custody of the state, or even corrupt pushback from state authorities claiming that they never took the weapons in the first place.
Chipping Away at Freedom
In the end, Obama will have created more instability and increased the incentives for Americans to divest themselves of self-defense weapons.  This would achieve Obama’s goal of increasing the dependence of Americans on the state for everything from relief money to police help (even though police help from a 9-1-1 call has less than a one-in-twenty chance of saving the life of the victim).  A gain in dependency and a loss in self-sufficiency among members of the citizenry would be assured.
To prevent Obama from fully exercising his propensity for executive overreach, the Senate and the House of Representatives should hold hearings, once the new Congress is called into session, to make it clear that this UN treaty will have no effect on US policy, domestically or internationally, unless the treaty is properly ratified by a 2/3 vote of the US Senate.  Unfortunately, Barack Obama is becoming perhaps the greatest teacher to Americans of a very important life-lesson: For the US Constitution to work properly, the president and Congressional leaders must act with integrity, according to the rule of law; the election of a fully-vetted chief executive is required, and he must have a reputation for trustworthiness.
Gun Control PSA Encourages Kids to Steal Guns
Last Resistence,  December 23, 2014

A controversial gun control PSA depicts a glum-faced child stealing his parents’ hand-gun, taking it to school, and slamming it down on his teacher’s desk crying, “Can you take this away? I don’t feel safe with a gun in my house!”
As you might expect, this gun control PSA has not been lightly received on either side of the gun control debate. Numerous laws are being broken in the video, as one commenter pointed out:
    Weapons theft, unlawful possession of a weapon by a minor, illegal concealed carry of a weapon, carrying a weapon onto school property, assault, and brandishing.
It’s hard to determine what the gun control PSA is actually lobbying for. Surely it doesn’t want all children to steal guns from parents and bring them to school? That would be madness. And it has the faint flavor of an Orwellian call to children to rat out their parents for “crimes” against the State.
The anti-gun lobby has lost its mind if this is the best they can come up with. The production company that produced the gun control PSA is trying its best to pick up the pieces after the intense backlash against the video. The video’s director is still telling people to share the video, even implying that it is cowardly not to. I fail to see why it is brave to share the video. Gun control is in itself rather cowardly—refusing to take responsibility for your own safety and cowering behind the skirt tails of an increasingly ineffective and tyrannical law enforcement bureacracy.
No thanks. Those of us who still retain our sanity will do what we have been doing. Protecting ourselves by exercising our 2nd Amendment rights, teaching our children how to view and use guns responsibly, and denouncing the idiocy of gun control propaganda.
Website Builder