[3/9/17]  DANIEL LANG– There are people in our government who are determined to chip away at our Second Amendment rights, and they are an insidious bunch. Rarely do they make blatant gun grabbing attempts. Typically they push for policies that quietly set back gun rights. They like laws that merely set precedents without alarming the public, and they’ve been doing it successfully for decades.

The latest of these attempts comes from Illinois, one of the least gun friendly states in America. State Senator Julie Morrison has proposed a bill titled SB 1291, which would allow the government to confiscate firearms from citizens without any due process. According to Breitbart:

SB 1291 would create a “Lethal Order of Protection” whereby the firearms of Illinois residents could be confiscated if a family member or “law officer” files a petition stating the gun owner “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having … [a firearm] in his or her custody or control.”

SB 1291’s summary states:

[The bill] provides that the petition shall also describe the type, and location of any firearm or firearms presently believed by the petitioner to be possessed or controlled by the respondent. Provides that the petitioner may be a family member of the respondent or a law enforcement officer, who files a petition alleging that the respondent poses a danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. Establishes factors that the court must consider before issuing a lethal violence order of protection. Provides for the issuance of ex parte orders and one year orders.

Basically if this bill passes, then a resident of Illinois could have his or her firearms confiscated if a family member alleges that the person in question is an immediate threat to himself or others. All they have to do is file a petition and report that allegation to the government. I say allegation, because under this bill, no real proof is required to take away someone’s firearms.

Moreover, the input and presence of the person who is targeted is not required during this process. If this happened to you, it wouldn’t even be your word against theirs. You wouldn’t be able to defend yourself in court at all.

However, what may be more alarming about this bill, is it that states that a “law enforcement officer” can file one of these petitions. Does that mean that the cops could have your weapons confiscated on a whim?

The gun grabbers in our society have tried to set a lot of bad legal precedents over the years. Let’s pray that this doesn’t become one of them.


[3/6/17]  Are those lamps on your local streets detecting when guns are fired? American cities are being upgraded to pinpoint shooters and help police fight gun violence.

Like something out of the futuristic policing TV show “APB,” new tech can locate the exact position where a gun is fired and report it immediately to law enforcement.

Called ShotSpotter, this is a tool that can be used by officials to respond even faster to the aid of gun violence victims — minutes can be the difference between life and death. And it provides police with far more information in advance.

Before arriving on the scene, the tech tells police the exact location of the shooter or shooters, the type of weapon, and number of shots fired. This sort of data can help law enforcement respond more effectively and reduce the risk to the officers responding.

Militaries use a similar technology to defeat enemy snipers. In war zones, these systems pinpoint the location of a hidden sniper, using the sound of the gunshot.

The ShotSpotter tech uses a similar acoustic approach, but in a system designed to protect civilian neighborhoods. It can also be used to protect locations that can be attractive for terrorists to strike, like power plants and tourist sites such as New York’s Times Square.


[2/24/17]  Residents of New Hampshire are enjoying a long-awaited expansion of their Second Amendment rights with the signing into law on Wednesday of a bill allowing them to carry a firearm without first obtaining government permission. The third time “is a charm,” it is said, and this bill passed on the third attempt. The previous two attempts passed both state houses but were vetoed by previous Democrat governors.

Said Republican Governor Chris Sununu:

SB12 ensures New Hampshire citizens are guaranteed the fundamental right to carry a firearm in defense of themselves and their families, as prescribed by Article 2a of our state constitution. This common sense legislation aligns our concealed carry laws with that of our neighboring states of Vermont and Maine and states across the country.

This is about safety. This is about making sure that the laws on our books are keeping people safe while remaining true to the Live Free or Die spirit that makes New Hampshire the great state that it is. This is a commitment I made to the people of New Hampshire and I am proud today to fulfill that commitment, signing SB12 into law.

Republican Party Chairman Jeanie Forrester added, “This new law secures our constitutional rights, catches us up with our neighbor states and makes it easier for people to defend their lives and property.”

New Hampshire has allowed “open carry,” but required anyone carrying a firearm concealed to apply for a permit to do so. It needed to be renewed every four years, and was issued by law enforcement officials only if they deemed it to be “suitable” to do so. Now, New Hampshire joins Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming in allowing their citizens to carry unrestricted.


[2/23/17]  A federal court in Maryland ruled Tuesday that assault rifles and other so-called “weapons of war” are not protected under the Second Amendment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a previous decision that created the original assault rifles ban in Maryland.

“We are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are ‘like’ M-16 rifles — ‘weapons that are most useful in military service’ — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach,” Judge Robert King wrote for the 10-4 decision.

“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.”

Citing the Heller case, King wrote that assault rifles are “devastating weapons of war whose only legitimate purpose is to lay waste to a battlefield full of combatants.”

“The majority concludes that the semiautomatic rifles banned by Maryland law are most useful in military service, even though they are not in regular use by any military force, including the United States Army,” the decision said.

It noted that such weapons have also been used for recent mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., San Bernardino, Calif., and Orlando, Fla. — making those cities “synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there.” – More


[2/21/17]  With about two dozen gun-related bills being filed ahead of next month’s 60-day legislative session scheduled to begin in Florida, the state continues to earn its nickname “The Gunshine State.” Most people would likely anticipate that those bills contain restrictions on gun ownership in light of the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando last June, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. Instead, most of them promote increased gun freedom, with many likely to pass the Republican-controlled legislature and then move on to Republican Governor Rick Scott’s desk for signing.

Bills filed by Republicans would

Allow licensed handgun owners to carry their sidearms openly;

Allow concealed weapons permit holders to carry in non-secure areas of airports;

Allow permit holders to carry at any state legislative or committee meeting;

Allow them to carry on state university campuses;

Allow them to carry at county and municipal government meetings;

Allow them to carry at career centers;

Allow members of the state Cabinet to carry anywhere not prohibited by federal law; and

• Expand the state’s present “stand your ground” law.

On the other hand, bills filed by the outnumbered Democrats would

Ban semi-automatic rifles and their detachable magazines;

Ban guns of any type at performance art centers and theatres; and

Tighten the existing law requiring guns in homes occupied by minors to be stored in locked boxes, or rendered inoperable with trigger locks.

Legislators are acting because of grassroots pressure, and the driving force for the past 30-odd years behind the grassroots education effort has been led by Marion Hammer, a 4-foot-11 dynamo who has created the groundswell of support for the Second Amendment almost singlehandedly. Working as a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association (NRA) since the late 1970s, she focused the attention of gun owners on changing the state’s concealed carry permitting process from “may issue” to “shall issue.” Today one in every 14 Floridians has a concealed carry permit.

She built and then rallied grassroots support for the state’s “stand your ground” law, that has become a model for the majority of the states that have adopted such a law.


[2/20/17]  The U.S. federal bureaucracy doesn’t often admit wrongdoing. This time it took a change in the political landscape, many businesses threatening legal action and a congressman with a background in banking to force the bureaucracy to admit to misconduct and to stop financial attacks on legal businesses that the Obama administration deems to be politically incorrect.

This week the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) published a statement saying they are instituting changes to stop Operation Choke Point’s discriminatory practices against legal businesses. The U.S. Justice Department still contends that Operation Choke Point is an initiative designed to reduce unlawful fraud by “choking” illegal players out of U.S. financial institutions. However, under direction of the FDIC, Operation Choke Point also affected the banking relationships of many legal businesses, including those of gun stores and other firearms-related companies. Some law-abiding businesses had their long-standing banking relationships terminated as a result of threats from the FDIC to censure financial institutions that do business with gun stores and other firearms-related businesses. Some examples of legal businesses being harmed were included in a report by the House Oversight Committee; still more examples were documented in research done by The Heritage Foundation’s The Daily Signal.

The letter from the FDIC says, “The FDIC is aware that some institutions may be hesitant to provide certain types of banking services due to concerns that they will be unable to comply with the associated requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)….” As a result, the FDIC says it is now “encourage[ing] institutions to take a risk-based approach in assessing individual customer relationships rather than declining to provide banking services to entire categories of customers….”

U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.), who was once a bank regulator for the state of Missouri and who now is a member of the House Financial Services Committee, released a statement after a meeting with FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg and Vice Chairman Tom Hoenig, that said in part: “After a year of mounting pressure from Congress and outside organizations like the National Shooting Sports Foundation, top officials from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation finally acknowledged their involvement and wrongdoing in Operation Choke Point. While I am very pleased the FDIC will put in place new polices and change the culture at the agency, there is still work to be done, specifically with the Department of Justice. I am pleased the National Shooting Sports Foundation supports my legislation, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act, and I have no doubt the foundation will remain steadfast in educating its members and continuing the fight in ending Operation Choke Point once and for all.”


[2/13/17]  NRA ILA–  Senate Docket 1884, legislation combining several egregious anti-gun measures, was recently introduced in the General Court.  Sponsored by state Senator Cynthia Creem (D-First Middlesex and Norfolk), SD 1884 would not only impose a higher tax on firearms and ammunition sales but also ban .50 caliber firearms and make restrictions on personal firearm sales.  Please contact your state legislators and urge them to oppose SD 1884!  Please click the “Take Action” button below to contact your state legislators!

SD 1884 would impose an increased firearm sales tax to fund a grant program for municipal violence prevention programs.  The bill would create a 4.75 percent increase to an already imposed 6.25 percent state sales tax on firearms and ammunition.  This added tax gives lawful gun owners the distasteful image that they are responsible for all gun violence in the state of Massachusetts.  Law-abiding gun owners should not have to pay for a violence prevention program when they are not problem.

Additionally, this legislation would make it illegal to purchase, sell or possess .50 caliber firearms and .50 caliber cartridges in the state of Massachusetts.  Violating this ban would result in a fine between $1,000 to $10,000 and imprisonment between one to ten years.  Banning .50 caliber firearms would do nothing to stop crime in Massachusetts.  This arbitrary ban would limit the options to lawful sportsmen, as .50 caliber rifles are commonly and safely used for big game hunting and target shooting.  The ban would simply be a solution in search of a problem.

SD 1884 also includes restrictions on private sales.  This legislation would make common firearm transfers illegal unless conducted through a federally licensed firearms dealer for an unnecessary fee.  Lastly, SD 1884 calls for adoption of personalized technology to prevent unauthorized users from using a firearm.

This bill infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of gun owners and sportsmen across the state by putting unnecessary restrictions and excessive burdens on law-abiding citizens trying to exercise their constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  Please contact your state legislators and urge them to oppose SD 1884!


[2/13/17]  A measure challenging gun regulations is popping up around the state. Since 2015, four counties have passed a measure known as the Second Amendment Preservation ordinance, and commissioners in Malheur, Union and Lake counties have heard the same measure in the past few weeks.

The ordinance is a reaction to the Oregon Firearms Safety Act, passed by the state Legislature in 2015, which requires background checks for transfers of firearms between private parties. These county ordinances allow sheriffs to ignore this law – which gun advocates see as unconstitutional.

But Ceasefire Oregon Executive Director Penny Okamoto said there’s a fatal flaw in the measure.

“There’s an Oregon firearms pre-emption law that states that counties, municipalities, cities actually can’t make certain laws regarding certain aspects of firearm sales, ownership, storage,” Okamoto said. “So these ordinances or resolutions really are largely very symbolic.”

The legality of this ordinance is still in question.

Rob Taylor of Coos County is one of the chief petitioners for the Second Amendment Preservation ordinance. He said he wants Oregon to have what he called “sanctuary counties” for the Second Amendment.

“The same way Oregon has become a sanctuary state for immigration,” he said.


[2/8/17]  Ammunition sales in California have exploded ahead of the state’s rigid new gun control laws – and they won’t take effect for at least a year.

“In the last quarter, we saw a 33 percent [rise] in our ammunition sales and that’s projected to go up,” Monique Hall of Poway Weapons and Gear Range told San Diego’s CW6 TV.

On Jan. 1, 2018, a new law will take effect that restricts online ammunition purchases by requiring that all ammo sales or transfers be shipped through a licensed dealer. Ammunition purchased from out-of-state companies also will have to go through a California dealer.

Then, on July 1, 2019, a new law will take effect requiring background checks for all ammunition purchases.

The concern among gun owners: Ammo will be scarce and more expensive, as people stockpile it and stores get out of the ammo business.

“We’re selling a lot more ammunition right now,” Patrick Jones, owner of Jones’ Fort gun store in Redding, told The Sacramento Bee. “And we will continue to do so up until the time the registration kicks in.”

All total, about a dozen new gun-related laws are taking effect in California, either this year or in 2018 or 2019. Confusion over which law takes effect when has impacted sales.


[2/8/17]  Photographs show that a Wichita State University rally against campus carry drew 15 people on Tuesday, counting the speaker.

The rally was in support of proposed legislation that would undo campus carry for law-abiding citizens, forcing said citizens to wander the campus defenseless like everybody else.

According to KMUW, “a small group” of students and staff rallied the Rhatigan Student Center. Their motto was “Carry Minds, Not Guns.”

Freshman Ian Englebright said campus carry “creates more problems than solutions.” He said lawmakers who supported guns for self-defense “think that by having concealed carry on this campus they’re making it safer, when in fact, I feel more uncomfortable because I don’t know if the person next to me has a gun or not.”

The 15 person rally at Wichita State was designed to pressure lawmakers into adopting a revision of the state’s campus carry law. That revision would allow colleges and universities to opt out of campus carry, creating a situation like we currently see in Ohio, where campus carry is legal at the state level but barred by every college and university because some students get nervous when law-abiding citizens are armed for self-defense.


[2/4/17]  The United Nations (UN) is offering lesson plans for teaching American and Canadian children about the benefits of civilian disarmament and to familarize them with “the process by which the international community, regional organizations, and the UN encourage the practice of disarmament.”

Over the course of six lessons, teachers using the “Disarmament Education Programme” prepared by the United Nations Association in Canada will indoctrinate students to accept the UN as a global government and an engine of peace with the goal of creating a “world without weapons.”

The lesson titles should be enough to enrage every person who recognizes that the first act of any would-be autocrat is to disarm the people they intend to command.

Lesson One serves as an introduction to the topic, informing North American schoolchildren that weapons lead to violence and that this gun-related violence leads to “human and environmental destruction” (there they go again surreptitiously packaging the Agenda 21 agenda into another program), and this destruction “affects everyone regardless of race, age, nationality, or gender.”

During the second class period devoted to Lesson One, kids are instructed that in order to end the violence, they must cooperate in “creating a culture of change at local, national, and global levels.” They must begin immediately to “analyze cultural messages and the prevalence of armament in our society” so that they may begin to identify allies who will join them in “working toward disarmament.”

In Lesson Two, the drilling on the glory of disarmament gets so much worse.

The lesson plan for this section challenges the students to “analyze the rationale for gun ownership.” Once they’ve investigated this issue, they are to identify “successes and challenges in the campaign to ban small arms and light weapons.”

Yes, it really says that, and that’s not nearly the end.

Next, the kids are tasked with learning their nation’s gun control laws and proposing ways that “individuals, groups, and institutions” can change those laws in ways that advance the aim of complete civilian disarmament.

Students are told that “one person dies per minute” as a victim of gun violence.

The types of weapons that must be seized in order to secure global peace are then listed for the students: revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles, and light machine guns.

Why, the UN asks the students, must the listed weapons be outlawed for civilian ownership?

“Guns wound and kill individuals and serve as devices to frighten and terrorize; it is very difficult to build and sustain progress when people are fearful for their lives. As a result, countries that suffer from gun violence are often stunted in development.”

Students, instructed as to the urgent need of ending the ability of individuals to own small arms, are then informed as to “the reason[s] for a person’s desire to own small arms”:


[2/3/17]  On Thursday the U.S. House passed H.J. Res. 40, a joint resolution to revoke the Social Security gun ban enacted by the Obama administration on December 19.

USA Today reports that the vote to revoke the ban was 253-180, and was “largely along party lines.

Breitbart News previously reported:

The Social Security gun ban began to be fashioned behind closed doors in the summer of 2015 and was finalized just before Christmas 2016. It allows the Social Security Administration (SSA) to bar certain beneficiaries from buying guns based on a need for help in managing their finances.

Beneficiaries catch the SSA’s attention by having their checks sent to a third party for management and this results in an investigation into the mental status of the Social Security recipient. That investigation can result in a SSA ruling that certain beneficiaries are mentally defunct, thereby barring them from from firearm purchases. 

Last last week House Republicans made known that the ban was in their crosshairs. Reuters quoted House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s spokesman saying, “The Republican-dominated House will bypass the committee process and go directly to a vote by the entire chamber on a half-dozen resolutions.” The GOP is able to do this via the Congressional Review Act, by which “Congress can use simple majority votes to stop recent regulations in their tracks.”


[2/2/17]  The House on Thursday struck down an Obama-era regulation that sought to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

The House voted 235-180 to roll back an attempt by the Social Security Administration to block disability recipients with mental disorders like schizophrenia and severe anxiety from owning guns.

The rule required reporting people who receive disability benefits and have a mental health condition to the FBI’s background check system. But critics said the restrictions would have also applied to disability recipients who needed financial help managing their benefits.

The National Rifle Association has long opposed the rule, arguing that those who receive disability benefits should not have their Second Amendment rights taken away until they are given due process in court.


[2/2/17] offers the following list of firearms-related bills filed for the 2017 Florida legislative session. They expect Gunshine State pols will file more pro-gun bills to be filed before the session starts on March 7.


SB-128 Restoring Self-defense Immunity – by Sen. Rob Bradley (Republican) – Restores the self-defense immunity provision of the stand your ground law to the original intent of the Legislature. Restores the presumption of innocence, of a person who exercises self-defense, until proven guilty by the state. (SB-128 currently has the following sponsors. In addition to Sen. Rob Bradley, Senators Dennis Baxley, Aaron Bean and Wilton Simpson have cosponsored the bill so far)


SB-140 Open Carry of a Handgun – by Sen. Greg Steube (Republican) – Allows persons licensed to carry a Concealed Weapon or Firearm (CW) to carry openly; removes the restriction against CW license holders carrying on college and university campuses; removes the restriction against CW license holders carrying firearms inside the passenger terminal of an airport (outside the secure area) ; removes the restriction against CW carrying in courthouses under certain conditions;


SB-142 Storage of Firearms – by Sen. Gary Farmer (Democrat) – Removes exceptions in the safe storage of firearms law and makes the gun owner a criminal if a person under 16 years of age breaks into a home or vehicle and steals a firearm.


SB-170 Adding Prohibited Places for Weapons and Firearms – by Sen. Oscar Braynon (Democrat) – Prohibits Concealed Weapons and Firearms license holders from carrying firearms into any performing arts center or legitimate theater.


SB-254 “Assault Weapons” ban – by Sen. Linda Stewart (Democrat) – Bans the sale and possession of semiautomatic handguns, rifles and shotguns that use a detachable magazine or tubular magazine (almost all semiautomatic firearms). Provides for firearms to be surrendered to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE).


HB-167 “Assault Weapons” ban – by Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith (Democrat) – Bans the sale and possession of semiautomatic handguns, rifles and shotguns that use a detachable magazine or tubular magazine (almost all semiautomatic firearms). Provides for firearms to be surrendered to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE).


[2/2/17]  Wednesday morning was a big day for gun legislation in the Wyoming House of Representatives.

Following the passage of a bill that would allow those with a concealed and carry permit over the age of 21 on the state’s college campuses, the Wyoming House of Representatives passed a bill that would remove restrictions on where you can take a gun assuming you have a concealed weapons permit.

The bill passed on a vote of 47-13.

House Bill 137 would repeal gun free zones in government meetings, such as the Wyoming Legislature or any other meeting of a governmental entity.

The bill goes on to state that no person with a concealed weapon will be allowed to carry a concealed firearm into private property where the owner of the property or the owners’ representative provides notice by written or oral communication that the person is carrying a concealed weapon is forbidden on the property.

HB194, named “The School Safety and Security Act,” was also passed by the House on Wednesday.

The bill would allow possession of firearms by school district employees on school property giving rule making authority to school districts.

In order to carry the weapon, the employee would be required to hold a conceal and carry license.


[2/1/17]  A bill that would have made public university and community college campuses in Kansas permanent “gun-free” zones failed on Tuesday in committee. Only two Democrats on the committee voted to send the bill on to the State Senate.

Under a law passed in 2013, public colleges and universities in Kansas will have to allow the concealed carry of firearms on their campuses starting in July. That law also opened public buildings to concealed carriers, but provided a four-year exemption for campuses.

Gun-rights people were ecstatic. The Kansas State Rifle Association said it “is thrilled to see Kansas Senators fighting to defend self-defense rights of responsible adults on our campuses,” adding that “Kansans overwhelmingly support the Second Amendment, as written, so it’s exciting to see that position defended by the Kansas Senate today.”


[2/1/17]  –  Today, the Montana House passed a bill that would authorize a person to carry a handgun on U.S. Postal Service property in the state and set the foundation to nullify in effect an unconstitutional federal firearms regulation.

Rep. Randy Brodehl (R-Kalispell) introduced House Bill 246 (HB246) on Jan. 13. The legislation would allow handguns in U.S. Post Office buildings and on their property.

(1) A person may carry a lawfully possessed firearm on any portion of property open to the public and owned or leased by the United States postal service, including within postal service stores or mailrooms or on adjacent sidewalks, streets, and parking lots.

(2) A person may store a firearm, rifle, or shotgun in a vehicle temporarily parked on postal service property while the person is conducting postal service business.

HB246’s effectiveness lies in the refusal to cooperate with enforcement of federal law. The bill would prohibit state or local law enforcement from enforcing federal regulations prohibiting firearms on U.S. Postal Service Property.

A federal law or regulation making it unlawful for a person to carry a firearm on postal service property or to store a firearm, rifle, or shotgun in a vehicle temporarily parked on postal service property is not effective in this state and may not be enforced by a peace officer or other official with the authority to enforce a law or regulation concerning the carrying or possession of firearms in this state.

Montana Shooting Sports Association noted:

This bill would prohibit enforcement by state and local officers of federal laws making it a crime to have a firearm in a vehicle in a U.S. Post Office parking lot, or inside a Post Office building.

Federal law currently bans persons from possessing or carrying firearms on USPS property.

The House passed HB246 by a 60-39 vote.

The Covert Guide to Concealed Carry (Ad)


While passage of HB246 would not physically stop the federal government from prosecuting a person arrested on USPS property with a firearm, it would remove the most important layer of enforcement. Without state or local police cooperation, who would make the arrests? Without such assistance, the federal government would have a difficult time enforcing its law. The post office would have to rely on federal law enforcement agencies to patrol Montana USPS facilities and make arrests under federal law. It simply does not have the resources to do this effectively. Passage of HB246 would nullify in effect the federal law.

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effectively method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun laws. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control schemes, the states can effectively bring them down.”


Although the Constitution delegates power to the federal government “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States,” the Second Amendment prohibits any law that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. The regulations prohibiting firearms on USPS property violates the Second Amendment.

Provisions withdrawing state and local enforcement of federal law in HB246 rest on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.

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. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.


HB246 will now move to the Montana Senate for further consideration.


[2/1/17]  A bill recently introduced into the state legislature in Tennessee would see the state no longer volunteer to cooperate with federal and international gun control regulations.

Specifically, Senate Bill 146 introduced by State Senator Mae Beavers “prohibits the allocation of state or local funds, property, or personnel for the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule, regulation, international law, or treaty regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories” even if state or local agents attempt to justify enforcement by pointing to provisions in a state law or the state constitution.

Earlier this year, Senator Beavers received the highest rating for her votes adhering to conservative principles from the American Conservative Union Foundation (ACU). While the group recognizes lawmakers who score above 80 percent in each state with awards for their commitment to conservative principles, Beavers met the criteria of the highest tier reserved for legislators who score 90 percent or above, earning her the Award for Conservative Excellence.

The purpose of the proposal is not to introduce new nullification statutes into the Tennessee Code; rather it is designed to force the state to execute two previously passed bills.

As reported by weapons ownership advocates

Passage of SB146 would help effectuate two foundational laws recently passed in Tennessee. In May 2015, Gov. Bill Haslam signed a bill setting the foundation to prohibit the state from implementing or enforcing federal gun laws, rules, regulations and orders that are “contrary to the Tennessee state constitution.” A similar measure relating to gun control imposed by international law or treaty was signed into law last year. Both laws require additional action to be put into practical effect.

Beavers and her co-sponsors understand that there is nothing in the Second Amendment that excludes ownership of certain weapons from within its protection. In fact, the text of the Second Amendment is quite clear regarding the government’s ability to qualify this most basic liberty: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”


[1/31/17]  The surge in shootings that marked the early weeks of the new year continued, resulting in more than 300 people shot in the first 30 days of 2017.

The Chicago Tribune reports the number of shooting victims January 1 through January 30 is 302; this includes fatal and non-fatal shootings. The number of homicides alone is 54, which means the city has averaged 1.8 killings a day every day this year.

On January 23, Breitbart News reported that shootings and murders for January 1 through January 22, 2017, were up markedly over the number of shootings and murders for the same period in 2016. According to the Tribune, “At least 228 people were shot in Chicago [January 1 through January 22, 2017].” That was an increase of 16 victims above the number shot during the same period in 2016. There were “at least 42 homicides,” marking a “23.5 percent … [increase from] the 34 homicides from the same period in 2016.”



[1/31/17]  For eight long years the National Rifle Association (NRA) has, along with similar groups such as the Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), largely been playing defense. The anti-gun executive orders spewing from the pen of former President Barack Obama, the anti-gun media seizing upon opportunities to promote its agenda thanks to crazed killers committing atrocities, the push to ratify the UN small arms treaty, and more have kept pro-Second Amendment groups such as these back on their heels.

No longer. Jennifer Baker, the NRA’s national spokeswoman, told The Hill on Monday: “For the first time in almost a decade, the NRA is shifting from a defensive stance to a pro-active stance. Now, we have a pro-Second Amendment Congress and a pro-Second Amendment president who will sign pro-Second Amendment legislation. That’s a huge shift.”

Even former Arizona Democrat Representative Gabrielle “Gabby” Giffords, head of the anti-Second Amendment group Americans for Responsible Solutions, sees what’s coming. In speaking to her supporters on Monday, Giffords said, “The gun lobby was one of the first to support Donald Trump, and now that he won and their friends control Congress, they are going to expect a return on that investment.”

The NRA’s investment was $30 million in the last election, and their expectations are substantial. Near the top of the list is the repeal of the Gun-Free Zones Act of 1996, which prohibits possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of schools.

They seek passage of the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, which would protect veterans from having their Second Amendment-protected rights removed by the VA arbitrarily deeming them “mentally defective” without a court hearing and putting their names into the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). The NRA will work to repeal similar administrative law changes that the Social Security Administration just finalized in December.

It will work for passage of the Hearing Protection Act to allow hunters to use silencers. That act was proposed by Representative Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), who explained, “The hunter needs to be able to hear a deer walking in the woods, or a turkey gobbling. You can’t always wear headphones or earplugs when you’re hunting.”


[1/30/17]  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) ruled last week that an individual carrying concealed gives up essential Fourth Amendment rights under the presumption that since he is armed, he is also dangerous.

The ruling issued on Monday, January 23, United States v. Robinson, reversed an earlier decision by the court’s three-judge panel, claiming that the Supreme Court, in two relevant decisions, concluded that “armed and dangerous” meant “armed and therefore dangerous” rather than “armed” as a fact and “dangerous” based on reasonable judgments surrounding the case.

A tip received by Ransom, West Virginia, police on March 24, 2014 that a man was seen in a parking lot in an area well-known for drug-trafficking had just loaded a pistol and then put it into his pants pocket sent two police cruisers to the area. A lawful traffic stop ensued when officers noted that an individual matching the tipster’s description was riding as a passenger without his seatbelt fastened. When asked to step out of the car the passenger, Shaquille Montel Robinson, complied without resistance. When asked if he was armed Robinson didn’t answer but gave what the office described as a “weird look.” The officer took this to mean: “I don’t want to lie to you, but I’m not going to tell you anything [either].”

The officer then performed a “Terry frisk” and found a firearm in his pants pocket. The other officer on the scene then recognized Robinson as a convicted felon and arrested him for illegal possession of a firearm.

Robinson moved to have the evidence suppressed, claiming that the frisk violated his Fourth Amendment rights [to wit: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be infringed.”] as the two officers “had no articulable facts demonstrating that he was dangerous since, as far as the officers knew, the state [of Virginia] could have issued him a permit to carry a concealed firearm.”

The three-judge panel ruled for Robinson, with Judge Panela Harris explaining:

Reasonable suspicion that a person is armed does not by itself give rise to reasonable suspicion that the person is dangerous … [and therefore] we may not make the contrary assumption that those firearms inherently pose a danger justifying their seizure by law enforcement officers without consent….

Nor will we adopt a rule that would effectively eliminate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed persons.

The Justice Department under the Obama administration demanded that the court reconsider the three-panel’s decision, and last week the full court reversed. The 58-page ruling is based upon a single, and fatal, assumption, as articulated early in the ruling: “We reject Robinson’s argument [and Harris’ ruling] and affirm, concluding that an officer who makes a lawful traffic stop and who has a reasonable suspicion that one of the automobile’s occupants is armed may frisk that individual for the officer’s protection and the safety of everyone on the scene.” It added confirmation that the mere existence of a firearm is enough to allow a Terry frisk:


[1/28/17]  North Cow Creek Elementary School District board members agreed to allow staff with permits to bring conceal carry guns on campus.

Superintendent and Principal Kevin Kurtz said the decision is all about safety.

“If we were to have someone on campus or a shooter on campus or something along those lines, it’s probably 15 to 20 minutes before we would see any kind of assistance from the Sheriff’s Department just because of our location,” Kurtz said.

School Board President Eileen Travis said she was on the fence about the decision at first.

“Initially I was thinking there’s no need for guns on campus, and it’s somewhat safer for everybody if they’re not here. Then there isn’t a chance that somebody could get ahold of it by mistake,” Travis said.

However, she changed her mind after attending a presentation held by law enforcement.

“You have that feeling well you’re a little school out here in the country and who’s going to come here and shoot up the school, but I’m sure that all those other schools at one point said the same thing,” Travis said.


[1/27/17]  Congress is poised to unravel one of the Obama administration’s midnight regulations that could prevent certain Social Security disability beneficiaries from buying guns.

The Social Security Administration finalized a rule just before Christmas 2016 in which it would send information of recipients of disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income to the Justice Department’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.

This is triggered if the agency determines someone else is managing a recipient’s finances because the recipient isn’t mentally fit to manage their own affairs.

Rep. Ralph Abraham, R-La., helped advocate possible elimination of the gun control rule under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn regulations imposed in the last six months of an outgoing administration.

“This issue really can be boiled down to one point: No American should be denied their constitutional rights because someone else handles their finances,” Abraham told The Daily Signal in a statement.

“Allowing bureaucrats at the Social Security Administration to determine whether or not beneficiaries are fit to exercise their Second Amendment rights is a clear violation of due process, and I’m pleased the Congressional Review Act will give us the opportunity to right this wrong with passage of this joint resolution,” Abraham added.


[1/26/17]  Six people, including a 12-year-old girl, were shot Wednesday night on Chicago’s South Side during a memorial for a victim of a previous act of gun violence, police said.

The shootings occurred about 8:16 p.m. in the city’s Greater Grand Crossing community in a “business establishment” on the 500 block of East 75th Street, Chicago police said.

Community activist Jedidiah Brown told reporters that “the opposition” to those attending the memorial came through an alley before opening fire on the group of mourners. He added that the mother of the person being memorialized was also among the victims, though police have not confirmed that information.

A 12-year-old girl suffered a graze wound to the head from a bullet, police said, and was taken to Comer Children’s Hospital, where her condition had stabilized.

A 20-year-old woman shot in the right leg was taken to Stroger Hospital, where her condition had stabilized, police said.

A 43-year-old who was shot in the hand was also taken to Stroger Hospital, where her condition had stabilized, police said.


[1/25/17]  Congressional lawmakers will review a final rule issued by President Obama in December that stomps on the Second Amendment rights of Social Security beneficiaries.

According to the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, Obama’s Social Security rule qualifies SSI and disability insurance recipients as “mental defectives,” and therefore incapable of legally owning firearms.

The rule allows those affected to file a petition for “restoration” of their Second Amendment rights, yet tens of thousands of legal gun owners must now prove “their possession of firearms would not harm public safety or the public interest, even though the government never established, or tried to establish, the contrary,” NRA-ILA added.


[1/24/17]  Enterprising gunsmiths already have figured out how to get around California’s new gun control law that bans “bullet button” rifles.

When the law was signed last year, Darin Prince, the inventor of the original bullet button, said he had come up with a workaround he called the Patriot Mag Release, Vice reported. He also called it “bullet button reloaded.” Others quickly copied Prince’s idea and their inventions are now sold online.

The new workaround became necessary when California Gov. Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 1664, which banned so-called assault weapons that have bullet buttons.


[1/24/17]  In its final attack on gun owners, the Obama administration moved to ban traditional lead ammo on federal grounds and waterways on its last full day in office.

The ban, which includes cheap bullets and common fishing tackle, can be repealed by the Trump administration and was immediately condemned as an attack on outdoors people and rural life.

“This directive is irresponsible and driven not out of sound science but unchecked politics,” said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

“The timing alone is suspect. This directive was published without dialogue with industry, sportsmen and conservationists. The next director should immediately rescind this, and instead create policy based upon scientific evidence of population impacts with regard to the use of traditional ammunition.”

The National Rifle Association’s lobby shop predicted that the ban will be “short lived.”

In a statement, it said, “Like so much of what Barack Obama claimed as ‘accomplishments,’ it will hopefully amount to little more than a symbolic act of defiance by a president with little of substance to show for his eight years in office.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service ban is aimed at protecting birds, animals and fish from lead poisoning. It is to begin now and cover all federal lands by 2022 unless revised.


[1/23/17]  The day before the completion of his appointment last week, the head of the federal agency dedicated to wildlife conservation issued an order ending the use of lead ammo on service lands within five years.

Director Dan Ashe, a second-generation career employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, issued the directive Thursday on the last full day of the Obama Administration. It would require the use of “nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle to the fullest extent practicable” on lands and waters controlled by the agency by January 2022.

“Exposure to lead ammunition and fishing tackle has resulted in harmful effects to fish and wildlife species,” contends the directive, noting that the mandate to end the use of lead shot in duck and goose hunting in 1991 has resulted in thriving waterfowl populations.

The Ashe order directs regional USFWS managers to work with local, state and tribal agencies towards implementing a wider ban over the next several years.

Few states currently have bans on lead ammo in place, with most of those mandating non-toxic shot only in some state wildlife management areas or for the taking of some non-waterfowl game birds. Only California has a pending complete ban on the use of lead ammunition for any hunting in the state, scheduled to be implemented in stages by 2019.

The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies blasted the directive from Washington as “unacceptable federal overreach into the states’ authority to regulate the methods of take for sport fish as well as complete disregard for the states’ concurrent jurisdiction with the Service for the management of migratory birds,” contending it stood to affect rural sportsmen without redress.

Gun rights groups and the trade association for the firearms and hunting industry questioned the timing of the order.

“This directive is irresponsible and driven not out of sound science but unchecked politics,” said Lawrence Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation senior vice president and general counsel, in a statement. “This directive was published without dialogue with industry, sportsmen and conservationists. The next director should immediately rescind this, and instead create policy based upon scientific evidence of population impacts with regard to the use of traditional ammunition.”


[1/23/17]  NRAILA-Gun owners knew that Barack Obama would not leave quietly. The only question was what else was coming.

An answer came late in the day on January 19. With his successor’s inauguration only hours away, he completed his final assault on gun owners’ and sportsmen’s rights, this time in the form of Director’s Order No. 219 of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The order seeks to expand “the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle on Service lands, waters and facilities and for certain types of hunting and fishing regulated by the Service” outside of those areas.

The order states that FWS policy will be to “[r]equire the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle to the fullest extent practicable for all activities on Service lands, waters, and facilities by January 2022, except as needed for law enforcement or health and safety uses.” It also calls for collaboration with state and fish wildlife agencies in implementing this policy.

The order goes on to outline a series of steps the FWS will take to implement the policy, first and foremost of which is the favored gun control tactic of using “science” to re-enforce pre-existing policy goals, rather than to guide those goals in the first place. Rather humorously, the order states, “The Service will continue to support targeted research to understand the human, fish, and wildlife health benefits of using nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle.”

And if science were to discover lead wasn’t so bad or non-lead ammunition and fishing tackle could actually lead to adverse health effects of their own? Well, that wouldn’t be “targeted.”

The order also requires that “over the next 24 months, each Regional Director, in coordination with relevant Assistant Directors, should work with individual states, regional state fish and wildlife associations, and tribes to identify opportunities to expand existing state, Federal, or tribal requirements for use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle on Service lands, waters and facilities.”

It goes on to state that FWS Regions should enact and enforce on their own lands, wasters, and facilities requirements for non-lead ammunition and fishing tackle that have already been enacted by states, tribes, and other federal agencies.

The FWS additionally plans to use “available information” on the negative impacts of lead ammunition or fishing tackle on “sensitive, vulnerable or Service trust resources” to justify “steps to expeditiously require” non-lead alternatives “to the fullest extent practical [sic]… to benefit such species or resources.”

And, finally, “[t]he Assistant Director, Migratory Birds, in consultation with National Flyway Councils and individual states, will establish a process to phase in a requirement for the use of nontoxic ammunition for recreational hunting of mourning doves and other upland game birds.”

The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which represents the state agencies that manage these resources,had harsh words for the FWS order. Association president Nick Wiley stated, “this action flies squarely in the face of a long and constructive tradition of states working in partnership with the Service to effectively manage fish and wildlife resources.” He also characterized the order as “a breach of trust and deeply disappointing given that it was a complete surprise and there was no current dialogue or input from state fish and wildlife agencies prior to issuance.”

To be sure, this latest development further demonstrates the petty, partisan tendencies of the former president and is as aggravating as it was predictable.

But it should do little to dampen the high spirits of sportsmen and sportswomen as Donald J. Trump takes the oath of office, for it sharpens the contrast between the outgoing and incoming administrations. Like so much of what Barack Obama claimed as “accomplishments,” it will hopefully amount to little more than a symbolic act of defiance by a president with little of substance to show for his eight years in office.

In the meantime, it is yet another reminder that a long, trying epoch for America’s gun owners is finally at an end, and a new day with a new outlook is at hand.


[1/23/17]  A concealed carry permit holder stopped an armed robber Sunday at a San Antonio, Texas mall after the perpetrator shot and killed an unarmed man.

According to News 4 San Antonio, two armed men tried to rob Kay Jewelers at the Rolling Oaks Mall just after 3:30 p.m. local time.

An unarmed Good Samaritan attempted to intervene to stop the robbery but was shot and killed by one of the suspects. Another man with a firearm shot and injured the suspect who allegedly killed the unarmed man. According to News 4, the second suspect fled and is still at large.

“It’s absolutely senseless. Absolutely senseless. This is the second time that a Good Samaritan was killed trying to intervene in a crime to help the victim,” said San Antonio Police Chief Willaim McManus. “It’s absolutely senseless.”


[1/19/17]  The state of California “accidentally” released the private information of nearly 3,500 firearms instructors in October 2016.

The information was released as part of the response to a Southern California Public Radio (KPCC) reporter’s Freedom of Information Act request. The reporter was seeking information on state Firearms Safety Certifications.

Fox News reports that information on “3,424 firearms instructors” was inadvertently released. That information contained “dates of birth, driver’s license numbers and California identification numbers.” On December 28, 2016 — over two months after the release of information was discovered — “the California Department of Justice sent out a letter to all of the Golden State’s instructors letting them know their personal information had been compromised.”


[1/15/17]  Cameras that can spot guns through layers of clothing — using infrared or similar technologies — may be included in sweeping new security measures for Bourbon Street to be proposed soon by Mayor Mitch Landrieu, according to several people familiar with the plan.

The cameras would be able to pick up on differences in the temperature between guns and human bodies, allowing officers to then focus on those carrying weapons.

The idea is part of a broader effort to prevent the type of shootout that killed one person and wounded nine others on Bourbon Street in November, as well as to avert potential terrorist attacks. But stepped-up surveillance of that kind will inevitably raise questions about privacy and constitutional rights.

Details about the overall security plan have not been released by Landrieu’s administration, and it is unclear whether the high-tech scanners will end up in the final version of the proposal, which also calls for making much of Bourbon Street a pedestrian mall.

But several people briefed on the ideas being discussed said infrared-type cameras are on the table.

Bob Simms, who runs the private police details known as the French Quarter Task Force, said administration officials had discussed using the new cameras as they laid out the security plan and likened them to installing metal detectors. But Simms said the cameras would likely involve fewer logistical challenges than trying to corral revelers through security gates and might seem less intimidating.

“A lot of the businesses don’t like (metal detectors); they think it gives the wrong impression,” he said. “I think people are looking at whether there is other technology that would achieve the same objective.”

Various research papers have been written about the possibility of using infrared and other imaging technologies for just such a purpose. Several companies also market cameras claiming to detect any kind of contraband through clothing.

But it is not clear whether any city has tried to deploy the cameras on a widespread basis or along a public street.

Several media outlets reported in 2013 that the New York City Police Department was testing the technology, though it does not appear it was ever put to use. An NYPD spokesman said the department “does not have cameras that would be able to detect concealed weapons.”


[1/12/17]  Nearly nine years after mocking “bitter” Americans who “cling to guns or religion,” President Obama used a column in the Harvard Law Review to assert that prayer in America is insufficient; America needs gun control.

Politico reports it was April 5, 2008, when Obama spoke to Democrat Party donors in San Francisco, saying:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

On January 5, 2017, he wrote in the Harvard Law Review:

But as I’ve said many times: “[O]ur thoughts and prayers are not enough.” They alone won’t “capture the heartache and grief and anger we should feel,” and they do “nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America.” We have a responsibility to act.

Obama went on to make clear that his emphasis on acting–on doing something–was an emphasis on passing more gun control:


[1/11/17]  With Republicans in control of Congress, and GOP legislators at the helm in statehouses throughout the nation, 2nd Amendment advocates are confident that the anti-firearm push led by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in recent years has stalled.

National Rifle Association head Wayne LaPierre contends that now is the time for 2nd Amendment supporters to “go on the offense” in promoting firearm legislation that would help cement Americans’ right to bear arms.

To that end, support from lawmakers throughout the nation is certainly not insignificant.

At present, the NRA reports that about 54 percent of all lawmakers throughout the nation enjoy an “A” rating with regard to support for the 2nd Amendment.

The Trace, an organization which supports stricter gun control laws, recently lamented: “There are now 32 states where more than half of the legislature has received at least an A- from the gun group. In 14 states, that majority is two thirds or greater, making pro-gun bills virtually veto-proof. In Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, Idaho, and Missouri, the number is 70 percent or higher. In Kentucky, the figure is just shy of 90 percent.”

In other words, Democrats in a growing number of U.S. simply do not have the votes to block incoming pro-2nd Amendment legislation.

But gun control supporters are counting on Republican lawmakers who are less favorable to the 2nd Amendment joining Democrats in blocking efforts to expand firearm rights.

GOP lawmakers are already pushing two legislative proposals which give anti-firearm Democrats heartburn.

One effort being considered in a number of U.S. statehouses would make it easier for college administrators to permit students to carry firearms for self-defense on campus.


[1/10/17]  Gun lobbyists are backing new legislation to make silencers easier to buy. Contrary to expectations the bill, which has the backing of Donald Trump, Jr, wouldn’t be fought as a Second Amendment issue but one of public safety.

The bill, Hearing Protection Act, HR 367 argues that silencers safeguard the eardrums of the nation’s 55 million gun owners. It would remove restrictions on the purchase of silencers for firearms under the National Firearms Act, and eliminate a $200 tax, lengthy paperwork and a nine-month approval process.

The bill was reintroduced in the House by Representative Jeff Duncan (R, South Carolina) and Representative John Carter (R, Texas).

“I’ve been shooting since I was a young child – beginning with plinking with a .22 rifle and dove hunting with my Dad,” said Duncan in a statement, acknowledging his hearing has been damaged because of gun noise over the years. “Had I had access to a suppressor, it may have protected me, as well as millions of other Americans, from this sort of hearing loss.”

Silencers lower but do not silence the sound of a gunshot and are now being presented as safety devices in the new bill. Gun rights groups cite studies that show the silencers reduce the decibel level of a gunshot from a dangerous 165 to about 135, the sound of a jackhammer, and they are rarely used in crimes.

“It’s about safety,” Donald Trump, Jr, an avid hunter and backer of the bill said in September in a video with the founder of SilencerCo, a Utah silencer manufacturer, according to the Washington Post. “It’s a health issue, frankly.”


[1/9/17]  Gun-rights groups have high hopes for a new bill looking to grant “national reciprocity” for Americans with concealed firearm permits, introduced just as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office.

The bill, put forward in the new Congress last week by Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., would allow gun owners with a state-issued concealed-carry license to have that license recognized in any other state that allows concealed carry. This also would apply to states that recognize so-called “constitutional carry” where a license is not required for a concealed handgun.

The goal, Hudson says, is to prevent gun owners from getting caught in a patchwork of state-by-state laws.

“Your driver’s license works in every state, so why doesn’t your concealed-carry permit?” Hudson’s office said in an accompanying fact sheet.

The perils that concealed-carry permit holders can face recently were brought to national attention in 2014 when Shaneen Allen, a Philadelphia mother of two, was arrested and faced three years in prison after mistakenly entering New Jersey in possession of a loaded handgun.

When Allen was stopped by an officer for a traffic violation, she told the officer she had the gun and a permit for Pennsylvania, but was unaware her permit was not transferable. She was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon and hollow-point bullets. Allen was pardoned in 2015 by Gov. Chris Christie.

The bill has picked up the approval of a number of gun-rights groups.

“Law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while traveling across state lines,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “This is an extremely important issue to our members and we thank Congressman Hudson for leading the fight to protect our rights.”

While the bill likely would sail through the Republican-dominated House, it may struggle to attract 60 votes in the Senate, which would require some Democratic support. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told The Wall Street Journal in December that any version of a national reciprocity bill would be “dead on arrival” in the chamber. However, the Journal also reported that other Democrats believe some form of national reciprocity is likely to become law in this Congress.



[1/9/17]  Five people were killed and six more suffered gunshot wounds on Friday at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport when Esteban Santiago took out a gun he had checked from Anchorage, Alaska, loaded it in the baggage claim area’s restroom, and began shooting.

When Florida State Representative Jake Raburn (R-Lithia) learned of Friday’s shooting, he told the Sun-Sentinel, “I do personally feel like had this bill been in place already, there could have been the potential for people to protect themselves in that situation.”

Raburn was referring to a bill, HB 6001, that he filed on November 23 that would have allowed those carrying concealed to do so in any part of the airport terminal that is outside of a “secure” area protected by metal detectors.

Raburn told the Miami Herald, “There’s always the potential — if it were allowed and there were someone in that area that had a concealed weapon — that it could have gone differently. I’m not going to say that it would have, because my understanding is we’re talking about a span of time that’s less than a minute. It may not have changed anything. But had I been there waiting to pick up my family from the airport and had it happened near me, I would have been prepared to defend myself and my family.”

State Senator Greg Steube (R-Sarasota) filed a similar bill (SB 140) on December 9, but his would also open up “gun free” zones currently in place at government meetings, schools, and colleges. Said Raburn: “While I have supported other bills that are rolled into Senator Steube’s package, this was the one that was most important to me. I carry my weapon wherever I go, but I travel a lot and it’s something I’ve thought about a lot as I have to comply with the law.”


[1/7/17]  LILLY DANE– On December 8, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) announced that he will be chair of a new Congressional Second Amendment Caucus.

In a press release, Massie said:

“The recent election results present us with a new opportunity to advance pro-gun legislation and reverse the erosion of the Second Amendment that’s occurred over the last few decades. I look forward to working with the new President and this determined group of conservatives to promote a pro-gun agenda.”

Members of the Second Amendment Caucus will draft and sponsor pro-gun legislation, and will invite firearm experts, constitutional scholars, and pro-gun groups to speak to the caucus.

The group is already taking action: on Monday, Rep. Massie introduced legislation to repeal the law that banned possession of firearms in school zones across the United States.

Titled H.R. 34, the Safe Students Act, the bill was originally introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2007. It repeals the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) of 1990, which makes it “unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” In 1995, the Supreme Court held the GFSZA unconstitutional, which prompted Congress to amend the bill in 1996. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the amended Act.

Gun-free zones are ideal locations for wannabe mass shooters to implement their nefarious plans – criminals are more likely to choose settings where they are not likely to be confronted with an armed person who may stop them.

While the Gun-Free School Zones Act may have been well-intended, take a look at what has happened since its implementation:


Image credit: Bearing Arms

In a press release posted on January 5, Massie said:

“Gun-free school zones are ineffective. They make people less safe by inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments. Gun-free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by criminals.”

“A bigger federal government can’t solve this problem. Weapons bans and gun-free zones are unconstitutional. They do not and cannot prevent criminals or the mentally ill from committing acts of violence. But they often prevent victims of such violence from protecting themselves.”

We dodged a bullet (pun intended) with Hillary Clinton’s loss of the presidential election. Her gun control agenda was exposed in leaked emails published WikiLeaks, and there’s no doubt she would have worked hard to stop this common-sense legislation from passing.

Clinton, and other gun-control advocates fail to understand two undeniable facts: 1) there are far too many guns in circulation to ever round them all up, and 2) criminals don’t care about laws.

The sad reality is that shootings do happen in schools, and likely will continue to happen.

Arming teachers and school staff or having armed guards on school grounds has prevented mass tragedies in many cases.

Here are three examples.

At Arapahoe High School in Colorado in 2013, an armed deputy sheriff on site stopped a heavily armed student from causing more deaths and injuries. Unfortunately, the gunman – Karl Halverson Pierson – did kill one person, a 17-year old student named Claire Esther Davis. When confronted with the armed officer, Pierson turned his gun on himself and took his own life. The entire ordeal was over in 80 seconds.

A 14-year old student opened fire at Price Middle School in Georgia in 2013. One boy was shot (and thankfully survived). The shooting was stopped when an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away from the student.

In 1997, Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned his mother to death at home before opening fire at Pearl High School in Mississippi. Woodham killed two students and injured seven others, and was headed to the middle school across the street when he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had retrieved his .45 caliber handgun from his truck. Myrick confronted Woodham and detained him until police arrived.

According to Bearing Arms:

Eric Dietz, Ph.D., former director of Homeland Security for the state of Indiana and a 22-year Army veteran, now a professor at Purdue University, researched mass shootings from the 1950s on. He discovered that only two of them occurred where guns are legal to be carried. Think about that: every mass shooting in the United States since the 1950’s except two have occurred in gun-free zones.

In 2016, an analysis of mass shootings since 2002 in the US also found that most shooters prefer gun-free zones. The Heritage Foundationcompiled the findings of that research, which was conducted by Stanford University Libraries, into this graphic.


The Daily Signal provided further explanation of the findings:

The dataset includes 153 incidents going back to the beginning of 2002.

Research done at the Heritage Foundation found that fifty-four of the 153 incidents (35 percent) involved a shooter targeting people at random who were not relatives or adversaries of the attempted murderer.

Of the 54 incidents that fit these criteria, the shooter chose locations where guns were banned 37 times (69 percent). Alternatively, the shooting occurred where guns were legally allowed only 17 times (31 percent). See graphic.

Of the 17 shootings that occurred where citizens could legally carry firearms, 5(29 percent) were ended when the gunman was stopped or slowed by a gun permit holder’s intervention.

As I wrote in 2013 in Why More Gun Control Won’t Prevent Mass Shootings:

More gun control, especially in the form of enhanced background checks, is never going to prevent mass shootings (or any shooting) from happening if the will is there. Enacting more stringent background checks is a feel-good measure designed to appease the public and make it appear as if officials are taking action.

Criminals will always have guns. More gun control regulation will only hinder law-abiding citizens from being able to protect their lives and those of their families – and perhaps, from protecting your life as well.

While some schools are focusing on teaching students to hide and lock classroom doors in the event of a mass shooter event, others – like some in Arkansas, OregonIdaho, and Oklahoma – are arming teachers and school staff, and are training them in how to actively stop such incidents and protect themselves and their students.

Rep. Massie’s bill is a step in the right direction. Let’s hope it passes. Either way, teaching children what to do if they find themselves in an active shooting situation is crucial to their survival. For more on that, please read Teaching Your Kids How to React to an Active Shooter.


[1/5/17]  SHAUN BRADLEY–  Bureaucrats in California are ringing in the new year by doubling down on their failed policies to stop gun violence. As of January 1st, six new bills are being phased in that close the so-called ‘bullet-button’ loophole and require background checks to buy ammunition. Another policy would have banned magazines that hold over ten rounds, but in a surprise move, the magazine restriction was repealed on December 29th, just ahead of the deadline. Although California has always been a poster child for the progressive agenda, support for these extreme measures seems to have faded — especially since the result of the presidential election.

These new standards were signed by Governor Jerry Brown in the wake of the San Bernardino attacklast December, and in many ways, they mimic the registry created in Connecticut after Sandy Hook. Even though the changes solidify California’s status as the most draconian state when it comes to gun rights, public opinion may be at a turning point.

The reality of a Trump administration has shocked many Californians into a newfound appreciation for the 2nd Amendment. Since November, there has been a record number firearms sold in the Golden State — and many of those buying them are liberals. Hopefully, instead of being blinded by identity politics, this can be a moment for both parties to realize gun ownership is a necessary check on centralized power. The 2nd Amendment has long been a point of contention between the left and the right, but perhaps a year like 2016 is what was needed to find some common ground.

Regardless of one’s beliefs, when the president has far-reaching, violative power, concerns of authoritarianism will inevitably come from both sides of the political spectrum. An armed populace, though, has much less to fear from the whims of a dictator, whether they are a fascist or a socialist.

Yet if the original magazine ban hadn’t been repealed, thousands of innocent people would have been turned into felons overnight. Those who don’t comply with the numerous other new stipulations are still at risk.

For this reason, those who oppose the drug war should empathize with gun owners who find themselves in the crosshairs of the State. People who have experimented safely with marijuana or psychedelics understand that when used responsibly, they can be important tools in improving quality of life. That’s why it’s infuriating to see politicians who have never experienced the benefits of these substances make laws that put people in jail for simply possessing a plant.

But why isn’t there the same anger when politicians who have never been in a fight or shot a gun (yet are protected by armed bodyguards) create laws criminalizing individuals’ choices on how they defend themselves? The drug war uses law enforcement on non-violent people to enforce arbitrary victimless crimes, but it is just as immoral when law-abiding gun owners are targeted by the State at the behest of a fearful public.

This targeting amounts to the collectivization of millions of people, the vast majority of whom will never harm anyone. In the same way, the majority of cannabis or psychedelic users do not harm others — let alone themselves — proving blanket bans unreasonably violate the rights of non-violent individuals.

Further, instances where firearms are used in self-defense are almost never covered by the press —  but lives saved by guns should carry significant weight in the discussion. Taking away legal firearms only limits options for those who become victims when the police aren’t close enough to intervene. Obviously, not everyone has the desire to carry a firearm, just as there are many people who have no interest in using drugs, but entrusting government as the mediator of what is reasonable and ethical is a fatal mistake that has been highlighted throughout history.

The well-known tactics of doublespeak and problem-reaction-solution have been deployed on the public to link society’s perception of gun ownership to criminality. Terms like bullet-button, high-capacityautomatic rifle, and ghost gun are all manipulative words that have been used to confuse those who aren’t assimilated into American gun culture. With little personal experience on which to base their opinions, many liberals unquestionably accept the State’s assertions that guns are to blame — accusations that inevitably follow these tragic scenarios.

Unfortunately, the government has a poor track record of addressing the root cause of the issue and not just a symptom of the disease. There is no amount of laws that can be written to solve the underlying societal problems driving the violence, and like it or not, the weapons of millions of Americans are here to stay. When crucial information from the media is being intentionally omitted, the result can be just as deceptive as an outright lie.

Even the infamous false claim that there were 355 mass shootings in 2015 made its rounds and was regurgitated on major networks. But deliberate wording was used to skew the data and guide the public’s reaction. Out of those 355 incidents, only a handful resulted in any loss of life, even though the audience associated mass shootings with the few mass murders they had seen broadcast non-stop.

The source of the data is a site called Mass Shooting Tracker, and their calculations are vastly different than most would assume. The organization clearly states how they define mass shootings on their web page:

The current FBI definition of mass murder, commonly accepted by the media as a proxy for ‘mass gun violence,’ is three or more people murdered in one event. We believe this does not capture the whole picture. Many people may survive a shooting based on luck alone…Our definition is this: a mass shooting is an incident where four or more people are shot in a single shooting spree. This may include the gunman himself, or police shootings of civilians around the gunman.

The statistics echoed throughout the mainstream media to convince the public that we’re in the midst of a mass shooting epidemic — and that assault rifles are largely to blame — has been a spectacle. Even something as simple as the number of gun deaths is consistently inflated by the rate of suicides, which are often included in tallies. The gun control position would at least have some integrity if they went after the weapons that are used in 68% of all murders — handguns. But instead of standing on the values they preach, gun control advocates turn to emotional manipulation that undermines logic to target rifles, which account for only 3% of all murders. FBI reports have consistently shown an overall decrease in violent crime, but only cities that have instituted the strictest gun control, like Chicago, have fallen victim to unprecedented turmoil — turmoil that, if state gun laws worked, would be avoided.

The democratic nature of the United States is only valuable if it remains representative of all opinions without marginalizing the rights of the minority. The rise of the Calexit movement has created a unique opportunity to open up the debate on the issue of state rights, which until now has mostly been associated with right-wing parts of the country.

RELATED: CBD Hemp Oil – Proven Benefits and Uses

Hopefully, the perfect storm of political upheaval and government overreach can bring people together behind individual freedom. The new laws being implemented in California exemplify a failed solution to a complex problem. If 2016 did one thing, it highlighted the differences in values and vision that separate the ideologies of the nation. In the pursuit of diversity, the differences in ideas have been placed on the back burner, but if progress that is more than skin deep is going to be made, then all views — even the unpleasant ones — need to be heard.


[1/4/17]  The Czech Republic has resisted calls by the European Union’s executive Commission to tighten gun controls in response to terror attacks, forcing the E.C. to alter its proposals, allowing for the private ownership of semi-automatic weapons.

The Czech interior ministry now wants to loosen its own laws a step further, proposing a constitutional amendment on Monday that would allow its citizens to bear legally-held firearms against the perpetrators of terrorist attacks, such as those in Nice or Berlin, the Czech news agency ctk reported.

The government says that putting weapons into the hands of citizens is the best defense against terror.

The move comes despite the European Commission’s ongoing advocacy for stricter gun control laws in Europe.

The Czech parliament blocked the E.C.’s earlier attempt to introduce tighter European gun laws, after the attack in Nice.

While the E.U. Firearms Directive and Czech laws already prohibited private ownership of fully automatic weapons, the commission’s initial campaign aimed to further narrow the E.U. regulations to rule out semi-automatic and self-loading weapons – which make up about half of firearm ownership in the Czech Republic – and limit magazine sizes to ten rounds.

The Czech parliament rejected the proposal, arguing that such tougher gun laws would not be the solution as terror attackers only use illegally-held weapons. The government derided the E.C.’s plans as “legally ambiguous and in some cases excessive.”

The E.C. was last month finally able to reach agreement by all member states, including the Czechs, after allowing exceptions for hunters and gun collectors and only banning a select few semi-automatic weapons.

“Mass shootings and terrorist attacks in Europe have highlighted the dangers posed by certain firearms circulating across the E.U.,” it said in a statement, but also expressed regret at the concessions it had to make, such as not banning all semi-automatic weapons or limiting magazines to ten rounds.

Despite the E.U.’s concerns, the latest Czech proposal argues that armed citizens would be the best defense against terror attacks.

In a statement on Monday, Interior Minister Milan Chovanec said that amending the constitution would reduce the chances of attacks by enabling “active and rapid defense.”

Citizens should be given the right to use firearms to defend their “life, health and property” and contribute to “ensuring the internal order, security and territorial integrity” of the country, he said.

As December’s truck attack in Berlin demonstrated, security forces have not been able to guarantee the full prevention of attacks. In light of the threat, the Czech ministry argued that the proposed amendment would help to prevent the loss of lives by allowing civilians to contribute to “internal order and security.”

The proposal is scheduled to be considered in March. To pass, it must be agreed upon by at least three-fifths of all deputies and three-fifths of all senators present.

The exact details of the interior ministry’s proposal are still to be worked out, and for now simply indicates that it is subject to “terms and details prescribed by law.”

However, it appears likely to expand the range of “genuine reasons” for possession of a firearm to include those of “national security” – and thus, theoretically, allow anyone to own a gun.


[1/3/17]  The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has been chipping away at the Second Amendment for years, but when he takes office, President Donald Trump can limit the ramifications of their decisions–actually reversing them in some instances–by appointing the pro-Second Amendment, pro-Constitution justice he pledged to appoint while running for office.

The Ninth Circuit ruled on December 14 that it is constitutional for a state to require residents who pass a background check to then wait ten days before being allowed to take possession of the gun they wish to purchase. The court suggested this ten-day waiting period provides a “cooling-off period,” a theory that is moot in light of the fact that the ten-day wait applies to California residents who already own guns, too. That is, Californians who already own guns and are simply seeking a new one have to wait ten days as if it were the first gun they ever purchased.

On June 9, the Ninth Circuit had taken an even more egregious swipe at the Second Amendment by ruling that Americans have no right to carry a concealed gun outside the home for self-defense. Judge Williams Fletcher wrote, “We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” This ruling not only undercut concealed carry as a right, but also upheld California’s “good cause” requirement, which was challenged in Peruta v. San Diego County. It means Californians cannot simply carry a gun because they have a God-given right to keep and bear arms. Rather, they are allowed to carry only if they show their state government “good cause” for so doing and the state government approves.


Sales of semiautomatic rifles have doubled and sales of handguns have spiked 40 percent in the Golden State ahead of a strict gun control law that will take effect Jan. 1.

Californians will not be able to buy certain weapons, including popular styles of the AR-15, after Dec. 31. The new state law will bans rifles with “bullet buttons.”

Another law that will go into effect bans magazines with more than 10 rounds. It also requires background checks for ammunition purchases.

The last day someone can buy an AR-15 because of California’s 10-day waiting period is Dec. 21, according to a memo from the state’s Bureau of Firearms.


[12/22/16]  The death toll from Chicago gun violence is so high that it is skewing national murder figures, making violence appear more ubiquitous than it actually is.

Breitbart News reported that the death toll in Chicago had already passed 730 for the year by December 6. And the Chicago Tribune reports that the number of murders in Chicago reached 755 by December 21. When these numbers are added to the murder figures of other cities, they raise the overall perception of violence considerably — particularly when it comes to the number of homicides.

According to The Washington Post, the Brennan Center of Justice expects “the homicide rate for the country’s 30 biggest cities… to go up by 14 percent this year.” But that increase does not tell the whole story; namely, that “the killings in Chicago account for an astounding 43.7 percent of this overall increase in [homicides].”

In other words, if year-end numbers do in fact show the anticipated “14 percent” jump in homicides nationally, the deaths in Chicago alone will account for nearly half of that increase.


[12/21/16]  CLIFFORD CUNNINGHAM–  The 28 member states of the European Union have reached a preliminary agreement to implement a near-total ban on semi-automatic firearms, claiming it is a necessary step to reduce the likelihood of terror attacks.

The European Commission announced a political agreement between the European Parliament and the 28 member states of the European Union to tighten already stringent gun control laws by banning “high-capacity firearms.”

The debate on additional gun control measures began in 2015 following the terrorist attacks in Paris that left 130 people dead.

“After a year of discussions, the European Parliament and Council have reached a provisional political agreement on the Firearms Directive,” the EU Commission said in a statement.

The agreement includes “a ban on automatic firearms transformed into semi-automatic firearms, the inclusion of collectors and museums in the scope of the directive, the regulation of alarm and acoustic weapons, the regulation of Internet sales, the regulation of deactivated weapons and more exchange of information between Member States.”

Bowing to pressure from European firearms manufacturers and several EU member states with less restrictive gun control policies, the proposal does not ban private ownership of AR-15 and AK-47 semi-automatic rifles.

“The Commission had proposed a greater level of ambition with a complete ban of the most dangerous semi-automatic firearms, including all semi-automatic firearms of the AK47 or AR15 families and a ban of assault weapons for private collectors,” the statement continued. “The Commission also regrets that the magazine size was not limited to 10 rounds for all semi-automatic firearms.”

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said they “fought hard for an ambitious deal that reduces the risk of shootings in schools, summer camps or terrorist attacks with legally held firearms,” but expressed regret that the proposal did not go far enough.

“Of course we would have liked to go further, but I am confident that the current agreement represents a milestone in gun control in the EU.”

“This agreement provides for tighter controls which will help prevent the acquisition of firearms by terrorist and criminal organizations,” said Slovak Interior Minister Robert Kalinak, whose country currently holds the EU presidency.

Finland, which has a policy of universal male conscription, strongly opposed the initial gun control proposal, arguing it would have harmed the readiness of its volunteer reserve organizations.

Despite their initial opposition, Finland has said it supports the revised proposal.

“I am very pleased with the outcome,” Finnish Interior Minister Paula Risikko said.

The bureaucrats at the European Union have not indicated if they plan to prevent terror attacks similar to those carried out in Nice, France and Berlin, Germany, by banning private ownership of trucks.

“If a radicalized fanatic decides to use a truck as a weapon, you don’t stand a chance, unless you know about him and his plans in advance and arrest him before he can act,” said expert Rolf Tophoven. “It’s impossible to check all vehicles in the EU or to seal off all Christmas markets to protect them from any danger.”



[12/5/16]  A recent update to the regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) could surreptitiously strip millions of law-abiding Americans of their right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.

The newly amended Form 4473 — the form one must fill out in order to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed dealer — includes the following question: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

Following the question, the ATF form declares, in bold type:

The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

What’s the problem? We don’t want drug heads owning guns, do we?

Some might argue that convicted criminals should be prohibited from purchasing weapons, but what of the millions of Americans who live in states where possession of marijuana is legal and the millions more who live in states where, although recreational use of cannabis is criminalized, the use of the drug as medicine is perfectly lawful?

Will these people, these law-abiding Americans, now be denied the right to buy a weapon because they participate in an activity of which the ATF does not approve?

We all know how that worked out in Waco, Texas, don’t we?

In a blog post published on November 30, Reason reported the following statements on the subject:

We were concerned that some buyers who use marijuana may read the 2012 language asking if they were an ‘unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana’ and erroneously say no because in that particular state, marijuana has been legalized,” an ATF spokeswoman told The Denver Post last week. “Most dealers recognize that marijuana use prohibits people from purchasing firearms under federal law, but many members of the general public may not be as familiar with the Gun Control Act.

Let’s examine the relationship between the Gun Control Act and the denial to “drug users” of their right to keep and bear arms.

According to an online textbook in the section on the Second Amendment:

Following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and the handgun related assassinations of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968, Congress enacts the Gun Control Act. The act regulates imported guns, expands licensing and record keeping requirements, bans mail-order sales of guns and ammunition, raises the age at which one can legally buy a gun, and prevents convicted felons, mentally ill people, and illegal drug users from buying guns.

This was, incidentally, the same year the ATF itself was created. As described in the textbook mentioned above:

Displeased with the lack of vigorous enforcement of federal gun control laws, Congress separates the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) (since renamed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) from the Internal Revenue Service and forms it as a separate law enforcement organization within the U.S. Department of Justice.

The ATF (part of the executive branch) is not the only arm of the federal government working to abolish the protections provided by Second Amendment for any American lawfully using marijuana, however.




[11/11/16]  Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump — who said he has a concealed carry permit — called for the expansion of gun rights Friday, including making those permits applicable nationwide.

In a position paper published on his website Friday afternoon, Trump called for the elimination of gun and magazine bans, labeling them a “total failure.”

“Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own,” Trump wrote.

It’s not a departure from what he’s said on the trail this year, though it does mark a shift from a position he took in his 2000 book “The America We Deserve,” where Trump stated that he generally opposes gun control but that he supported a ban on assault weapons and a longer waiting period to get a gun.

“Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like ‘assault weapons’, ‘military-style weapons’ and ‘high capacity magazines’ to confuse people,” Trump wrote Friday. “What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans.”

Trump said in the paper he has a concealed carry permit. The permits, which are issued by states, should be valid nationwide like a driver’s license, Trump said.

“If we can do that for driving — which is a privilege, not a right — then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege,” Trump said.



Hillary-Clinton-Health-Failing-Photo-by-Nathania-Johnson (1)

[11/3/16]  The fear of an Election Day win by Democrat Hillary Clinton has sparked a rush to gun stores around the country, and one shop in Arizona says he has seen a 550 percent increase in sales on one particular rifle.

Veerchart Murphy, the owner of Ammo AZ in Phoenix, told that sales of AR-15s are “outpacing every other thing in my store right now.”

“There are people coming in, buying three, five, six at a time. I had a pregnant mother in here bringing her three little toddlers with her,” Murphy said. “She bought six AR-15s with the premise that she was going to keep a few for her own family, but the fact that after Nov. 8, rifles are gonna be a lot more valuable.”

He sold three times more AR-15s in October than September and said he’s seen a 550 percent increase in sales over last year, the TV station reported.

Meanwhile, a survey by the supply chain analysts at Elementum indicates that fears of a Clinton victory are driving Americans to the gun store. Although Republican Donald Trump has surged in the past week, Clinton still leads in the national average by nearly 2 points.

“The top item Americans say they are likely to buy because of the election is a gun,” an Elementum press release obtained by The Washington Examiner states.




[11/1/16]  The FBI’s background check system for gun sales processed more than 2.3 million checks in October, setting an all-time record for the month.

There were 2,333,539 gun-related checks processed through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS, last month, according to FBI documents posted on Monday. That represents an increase of more than 350,000 checks over the previous October, itself a record. It’s also the 18th month in a row to set a record.

With two months to go, 2016 has already seen 22,206,233 NICS checks, making it the second highest year for checks in the history of NICS with only 2015 seeing more.

NICS checks are considered to be one of the most accurate indicators for gun sales because nearly all sales made through federally licensed firearm dealers require a check by law. The number of NICS checks in a month do not represent an exact count of gun sales for a number of reasons. For instance, many states require a NICS checks for those applying for gun carry permits, and many states do not require NICS checks for sales between private parties.

“These statistics represent the number of firearm background checks initiated through the NICS,” the FBI said. “They do not represent the number of firearms sold. Based on varying state laws and purchase scenarios, a one-to-one correlation cannot be made between a firearm background check and a firearm sale.”



GUN Confiscation

[10/31/16]  With just days left before Americans will go to the polls to elect a new president, voters committed to continuing to live under the protections of personal liberty in the Constitution must examine positions taken by the candidates on key issues.

In this article, we’ll look at Hillary Clinton’s call for civilian disarmament and what Americans could do to prevent this policy from coming to pass, even if Clinton is sworn in as the 45th president of the United States.

On her campaign website, Clinton makes several unconstitutional promises that would have the effect of disarming millions of Americans and threatening the enjoyment of the right to keep and bear arms of millions more. Here’s a sample from her list of presidential promises:

As president, Hillary will:

Expand background checks to more gun sales — including by closing the gun show and internet sales loopholes — and strengthen the background check system by getting rid of the so-called “Charleston Loophole.”

Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.

Keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill by supporting laws that stop domestic abusers from buying and owning guns, making it a federal crime for someone to intentionally buy a gun for a person prohibited from owning one, and closing the loopholes that allow people suffering from severe mental illness to purchase and own guns. She will also support work to keep military-style weapons off our streets.

There are so many constitutionally repugnant statements in these three paragraphs.

First, there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. Here’s the truth as explained by the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute:

If the voters learn the facts about gun shows, they will discover that there is no gun show loophole, no gun show crime problem and no reason to adopt federal legislation whose main effect would be to infringe on First and Second Amendment rights.

Despite what some media commentators have claimed, existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold. Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. If a dealer sells a gun from a storefront, from a room in his home or from a table at a gun show, the rules are exactly the same: he can get authorization from the FBI for the sale only after the FBI runs its “instant” background check (which often takes days to complete). As a result, firearms are the most severely regulated consumer product in the United States — the only product for which FBI permission is required for every single sale.

Surely Clinton and her advisors are aware of this fact and that they are misrepresenting the situation to uninformed voters, thus their insistence on “closing the gun show loophole” becomes nothing less than another attempt to demand the surrender of natural rights in exchange for a “safer world.”

Next, with regard to the creation of “universal background checks,” here’s more from Cato:

Gun-control advocates often claim that 40 percent of annual firearms sales take place today without background checks. TheWashington Post “fact-checker” has debunked that claim, giving it “Three Pinocchios.” The Post noted that the survey data used for the study on which the 40 percent claim is based are more than two decades old, which means they were collected prior to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System becoming operational in 1998. The survey only polled 251 people, and, upon asking whether their gun transfer involved a federally licensed dealer — that is, a federal firearms licensee (FFL) — gave respondents the choice of saying “probably” or “probably not” in addition to “yes” and “no.”




[10/27/16]  It’s a fact that without ammunition, your guns will be little more than metal and plastic clubs. But it’s also a fact that if your ammunition has been stored in poor conditions, it not only won’t last as long as it should, but it also could potentially become dangerous to shoot if it is corroded or deteriorated.

This is why you need to store your ammo the same way you store your firearms. After all, you store your firearms in a secure and environmentally safe location, so why wouldn’t you do the same with your ammunition in which you may have invested even more money?

All ammo has a definitive shelf life. Eventually, it will go bad. But if you use proper storage techniques, you can make your ammo last on the shelf for year and years. Ammunition that has been taken care of properly and stored in the right conditions should last for 12 to 15 years before you begin to notice signs of discoloration or corrosion.

Let’s learn about some basic and yet effective storage tips you can use to ensure that you get the most out of your ammo:

1. Store in metal ammo cans.

Regardless of whether you like to keep your ammo in the boxes it came in or store it loosely, you will need to place it in metal ammo cans for storage purposes. Green metal ammo cans can be found at virtually any sporting goods store, in the $10-$20 dollar range, depending on the size of the can.

The reason why you should store your ammo in these metal cans is not just for ease of organization, but also because the cans are airtight and waterproof. They are sealed around the edges, which means you could even dunk them underwater and they would keep the water out.

2. Store in a dry place.

Humidity and moisture in general will be the biggest contributor to corrosion and discoloration. Since corroded ammo is not safe to fire, it’s imperative that you select a storage location where the moisture is kept to a minimum.

Yes, storing your ammunition in the green metal ammo cans will do a lot to resist moisture, but it never hurts to be extra careful. Keep in mind that ammunition is not cheap, so you want to take extra good care of your investment. Store it in a dry place with low moisture levels, and you can sleep knowing your ammo should remain in good condition several years down the road.




[10/24/16]  The tens of thousands of e-mails released by WikiLeaks over the last month have removed all doubts, if any still existed, that Hillary Clinton and her campaign will go to any lengths to erase the Second Amendment’s protection of the right of individual citizens to keep and bear firearms. That includes, but is not limited to, using executive orders to undermine the Second Amendment. One e-mail in particular showed how closely Clinton’s campaign staff works with a compliant media and what Clinton intends to do if she is elected president. Wrote a Clinton staffer in the e-mail:

Circling back around on guns as a follow up to the Friday morning discussion: the Today show has indicated they definitely plan to ask about guns, and so to have the discussion be more of a news event than her previous times discussing guns, we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President — universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.

Clinton has both a “public” and a “private” viewpoint on the Second Amendment. As revealed in another WikiLeaks e-mail disclosing part of a speech Clinton made in 2013 to the National Multi-Media Housing Council, she said, “If anyone’s watching … you know … all of the back room discussions and the deals … you know … then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position [on issues].”

Apparently, neither position needs to be backed up with facts, and if the facts are not available to support it, they can be manufactured to fit the occasion. That was evident during the third and final presidential debate last Wednesday night when Clinton said, “I support the Second Amendment…. I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case because what the District of Columbia [v. Heller ruling] was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns. And so they wanted people with guns to safely store them.”

But that was a far cry from what the court actually ruled in the case. Responded John Lott, the founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center: If the ruling contributed to the problem that Clinton describes, one would think that there would have been a lot of accidental gun deaths involving toddlers. But there doesn’t appear to have been a single accidental gun death of any kind in the District, let alone for toddlers, during the eight years since the Heller decision was announced.



Hillary-Clinton-Health-Failing-Photo-by-Nathania-Johnson (1)

[10/24/16]  NRAILAMore emails from Hillary Clinton campaign staffers were made public by WikiLeaks this week, granting insight into the campaign’s deceptive attacks on your rights and the extent to which Clinton is in league with the country’s most powerful anti-gun forces. Further, the emails provide more information about Clinton’s insistence on pursuing gun control by executive order. purports to be “a community of readers and writers offering unique perspectives on ideas large and small.” However, there’s nothing unique about the perspective of a January 12 item purportedly authored by a gun control advocate who was the victim of domestic violence. In fact, according to leaked emails, the piece was authored by Clinton campaign consultants and planted on by campaign staff.

On January 8, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta forwarded an email titled, “Draft medium post on guns.” The author of the original email is not clear from the WikiLeaks archive. The email states, in part:        

Hey everyone –

Ron Klain wrote a riff for HRC and sent it to Teddy on guns. We thought it could make a strong Medium post from someone who could really speak to this issue (not HRC and not someone on our campaign).

Here’s the draft, which I edited and can personalize depending on who we want to use as an author. A survivor of gun violence? An advocate or family member?

If we can find someone, and if folks want, we could get this posted today to Medium in someone’s name (not us). Here it is, let me know your thoughts!

The email goes on to provide a draft of the commentary.

Ronald Klain is a prominent Democratic operative who served as the chief of staff to both Vice President Al Gore and Vice President Joe Biden. Most recently, Klain has consulted on the Clinton campaign.

From the email, it appears Klain developed an anti-gun commentary intended to be used by Clinton herself. However, the campaign seemed to have thought the item would carry more weight if it appeared under the name of someone outside the campaign who had a history with the issue.

The plan outlined in this email was carried out, as on January 12 a piece titled “I’m With Hillary” was posted to with Clai Lasher listed as its author. Lasher was shot by her stepfather in 1970 and is a survivor engagement lead at Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. Just as the email suggested, portions of the piece were personalized for Lasher. The majority of Klain’s commentary was not altered.

This incident should prompt the public to question just how much of the pro-Clinton content appearing in the media has been directly orchestrated by the Clinton campaign itself.

Recently released emails also give more insight into the unsavory nature of the Clinton campaign’s attacks on Democratic rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The emails show that Clinton’s anti-Sanders messaging was tailored to the racial background of the target audience. In a February 7 email exchange between Democratic consultant Mandy Grunwald and Clinton campaign staff, potential attacks on Sanders were discussed. Specifically, the emails contemplated using the gun issue to attack Sanders’ support among African Americans. In one email, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook wrote, “We may need to use guns tactically in the AA community–just like we’ll have tactical skirmishes on crime bill, etc.”

During the Democratic primaries, Sanders called on Clinton to produce the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. Clinton refused, but WikiLeaks obtained the transcripts and has made them available to the public. While much of the speeches address financial and foreign policy, during a June 4, 2013 question and answer session with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Clinton used the forum to take a swipe at NRA.

Despite NRA being a nonpartisan organization that routinely supports candidates across the political spectrum, Clinton blamed NRA, in part, for what she perceived is an increase in partisanship that stymied her preferred agenda. In doing so, Clinton gave a ham-handed retelling of an instance where NRA pursued the best interests of our members by supporting the opponent of a Tennessee lawmaker that had obstructed the passage of important Right-to-Carry legislation. Clinton characterized NRA’s vigorous defense of the rights of the state’s gun owners as unreasonable.

With respect to selecting a running mate, the emails have a tale to tell here as well.  In Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Clinton chose a running-mate with a 20 year record of unwavering support for severe gun control. However, aMarch 17 email written by Podesta shows that several of the other candidates for the position were equally hostile to the Second Amendment.

Among those listed was former Attorney General Eric Holder, who called the Obama administration’s inability to convince Congress to enact new gun control measure, “my single failure.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who led an anti-gun filibuster on the Senate floor in June, was also considered.

Most disturbing, Podesta’s list included the gun control movement’s primary financier, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Worse, other emails suggest that Bloomberg could still hold a position in a potential Clinton administration. In a June 3, 2015 email, Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden asked Bloomberg adviser Howard Wolfson, “Is there something Mike Bloomberg would want to do in his life in an Admin?” Wolfson responded, “Secty of state.” Tanden then forwarded the email to Podesta, with the line, “Something to know for down the road.” The influence a potential Secretary of State Bloomberg could exert over U.S. policy pertaining to international efforts to restrict the private ownership of firearms is an obvious concern to law-abiding gun owners.

The new emails also further reveal Clinton’s resolve to illegitimately use executive authority to attack gun rights. Over the course of the 2016 presidential campaign, Clinton has shared her intent to flout federal law and the U.S. Constitution by unilaterally restricting the private transfer of firearms. More specifically, on October 5, 2015, Clinton formally proposed to restrict the private transfer of firearms at gun shows by executive action. As this journal noted last week, under current federal law the president cannot use their executive authority to curtail private transfers at gun shows, or anywhere else; as evidenced by the actions of the Obama administration.

Shortly after Clinton formally announced her proposal, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent authored a story titled, “Obama administration has doubts that key Hillary gun proposal can work,” that severely undercut Clinton’s plan. In it, Sargent cites “current and former senior administration officials,” who noted that the Obama administration had already explored Clinton’s private transfer proposal multiple times and determined that it was unworkable in practice and subject to legal challenge.

It seems that the Obama administration’s acknowledgement of federal law, and Sargent’s reporting, didn’t sit well with the Clinton campaign. On October 7, 2015, Tanden emailed Sargent’s article to Ann O’Leary, a senior policy advisor for the Clinton campaign, along with the sentence, “What is the White House doing?” O’Leary responded, “Being really annoying,” adding, “We should all check in with our folks there about it – health care (Robert Pear article); guns; and it is going to get worse…”

While the Clinton campaign might find the Obama administration’s public recognition of the limits of their own power to restrict firearms “annoying,” many Americans are sure to find Clinton’s plans to usurp the Congress’ legislative power downright obnoxious.

As more of the Clinton staff emails are made public, vigilant gun owners are provided with a greater understanding of the wide-ranging and sophisticated attack on their rights. It is vital that all gun owners are made to understand the scale of threat we face and the deception our opponents are willing to employ to achieve their goals.



[10/22/16]  A high school student was suspended and ordered to undergo a psychological exam because he made a video with the message “guns save lives” for a class project, his family says.

The student, Frank Harvey, received an “A” despite the controversy.

“What the response of the school tells me is that I’m allowed to do my schoolwork as long as it agrees with their point of view on an issue,” Harvey told, referencing administrators at Manville High School in New Jersey.

Harvey had created a short video that spotlighted examples of people who used guns to defend their homes. The video also showed anti-gun control political cartoons.

“I don’t understand why I’m being disciplined for following the instructions of my teacher and no one else is,” Harvey told

He said he was assigned the video by college and career readiness teacher Rachel Gottfried, although the teacher said she can’t recall doing so.

“She said my project would be perfectly fine,” Harvey said. “I presented the video to the class and took a few questions from my classmates. My presentation went over well. The whole idea of the assignment was to expose students to an idea they hadn’t considered before.”



Hillary-Clinton-Health-Failing-Photo-by-Nathania-Johnson (1)

[10/21/16]  NRAILA-Hillary Clinton is lying … again.

The candidate who claimed politicians “need both a public and a private position” on policy issues demonstrated that tendency Wednesday night in the final presidential debate in a desperate bid for damage control on a statement she made in a private meeting with wealthy donors.

That earlier statement was simple, uncomplicated, and utterly damning to anyone who believes in the Second Amendment. Hillary Clinton told the very people who she depends on to fund her political ambitions: “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

As a Yale-educated attorney, Clinton knew exactly what she was saying when she made that remark. But it doesn’t take a lawyer to understand the contempt it demonstrates for the right to keep and bear arms.

At the time Clinton made that statement in September 2015, the Supreme Court had decided only two cases under Second Amendment during the 21st Century.

The first was District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. That case concerned two aspects of D.C. law. One effectively banned the possession of handguns within private homes. The other effectively required all types of firearms to be kept in an unusable condition within a person’s own residence.

The Supreme Court held that both of the restrictions offended the Second Amendment. Along the way, it debunked the District’s argument that the Second Amendment protects only a “collective” right for states to maintain their own militias, rather than a right individuals can raise on their own behalf.

The very modest proposition to arise from Heller is that there is an individual right under the Second Amendment to keep handguns and other commonly-possessed firearms in their homes in a usable state for self-defense.

Two years later, the Supreme Court expanded upon the Heller decision in a case involving a handgun ban in Chicago. There, the court invalidated the Chicago ban and confirmed that the protection of the Second Amendment applies not only to federal restrictions, like the ones in D.C., but those passed by state and local governments as well.

Hillary Clinton was well aware of this when she declared the Supreme Court “wrong” on the Second Amendment. Her audience understood the significance of her remarks as well, cheering and applauding her promise to “take on the NRA.”

Later, Clinton doubled down on her rhetoric, describing Heller as a “terrible” decision. And as of June, she was still unable to bring herself to acknowledge the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Clinton has more recently been forced to walk an increasingly awkward line as her campaign has reached beyond her donors and primary supporters to the broader America public. Distancing herself from her privately expressed opinion, Clinton has since publicly asserted that she is “not looking to repeal the Second Amendment” and is “not looking to take people’s guns away.”

Nevertheless, her own campaign website continues to call for a ban on “military-style assault weapons,” which is simply her unflattering term for AR-15s and the like, America’s most popular rifles. In other words, even as she’s insisting she doesn’t want to take away Americans’ guns, she’s promoting a ban on the very types of rifles Americans choose over all others.

That’s what ordinary people – the kind Clinton refers to as “deplorable” and “irredeemable” – call a lie.

Yet Clinton’s performance at Wednesday’s debate was perhaps her most mind-bending and dishonest attempt yet to distort her position on the Second Amendment.

When directly confronted with her statement that the Supreme Court is “wrong on the Second Amendment,” Clinton created an entirely new storyline to explain the inexcusable.

An entirely new storyline. A routine Clinton tactic.

Clinton began her answer by disingenuously claiming to “support the Second Amendment.” She was, of course, unable to offer any evidence from her four decades in public life and government employment to support this comment. And, indeed, she then went on to recite a non-exhaustive litany of the gun controls she would pursue as president.

She continued:

You mentioned the Heller decision. And what I was saying that you referenced … was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case, because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them. And the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation, but they’ve accepted many others. So I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment.

Clinton’s answer was not only dishonest, it was inaccurate in almost all its particulars.

First, the District’s ban didn’t just require safe storage to prevent access by toddlers. It made possessing a loaded, usable firearm in the home – including for self-defense – a crime. The crime did not require proof of access by children or even proof that children were present in the home. Clinton’s answer also seemed suspiciously coincidental with a recent, dubious media blitz on firearm accidents among children.

D.C.’s requirement that firearms be kept unloaded and disabled, which Clinton now claims to endorse, was also far from “reasonable.” It made even lawfully-owned guns useless for what the Supreme Court identified as their “core” purpose under the Second Amendment: self-defense.

It’s simply incredible that Clinton can claim to “support” the Second Amendment, while at the same time insisting that the government should be able to make loading a gun a crime.

Finally, the Supreme Court has not “accepted many” forms of gun control. The Supreme Court has not upheldany form of gun control since Heller and McDonald were decided. It has yet, in fact, to hear another case on firearms regulation. And in the entirety of the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decided only one case under the Second Amendment, holding the defendant had failed to prove his claim that a short-barreled shotgun should receive Second Amendment protection.

Yet even taken at face value, Clinton’s comments should be enough to put gun owners on notice of what sort of Second Amendment “support” they could expect from a Clinton presidency. A gun the government requires to be unloaded is as useless as a Second Amendment that does not protect individuals.

The bottom line – whether you consider her “private” or “public” position – is that Hillary Clinton’s own words clearly establish that she is no friend to gun owners and dismisses the Second Amendment as any obstacle to gun control.


GUN Confiscation

[10/20/16]  Michigan Democrats have introduced a package of bills meant to reduce gun violence including one targeting assault weapons, according to a news release from the lawmakers.

State Representative Robert Wittenberg, D-Oak Park, and other caucus members, introduced the gun legislation Wednesday, Oct. 19.

The bill to prohibit and provide penalties for the manufacturing, purchasing, possessing, selling and transferring assault weapons was sponsored by Rep. Wittenberg and Rep. Jim Townsend, D-Royal Oak.

“The right to have a firearm is fundamental in our country, but that doesn’t mean we should have to accept unnecessary injuries and deaths because of them,” Wittenberg said. “I’m proud to be part of these proposals that will restore common sense to our firearms legislation and protect millions of Michiganders from gun violence.”

A draft version of the bill defines “assault weapon” as a semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine, that has at least one feature including a pistol grip behind the trigger on a rifle, a shoulder stock on a pistol, a barrel shroud, a muzzle break or compensator, or a protruding grip not held by the trigger hand.

State Representative Robert Wittenberg, D-Oak Park, and other caucus members, introduced the gun legislation Wednesday, Oct. 19.

The bill to prohibit and provide penalties for the manufacturing, purchasing, possessing, selling and transferring assault weapons was sponsored by Rep. Wittenberg and Rep. Jim Townsend, D-Royal Oak.

“The right to have a firearm is fundamental in our country, but that doesn’t mean we should have to accept unnecessary injuries and deaths because of them,” Wittenberg said. “I’m proud to be part of these proposals that will restore common sense to our firearms legislation and protect millions of Michiganders from gun violence.”

A draft version of the bill defines “assault weapon” as a semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine, that has at least one feature including a pistol grip behind the trigger on a rifle, a shoulder stock on a pistol, a barrel shroud, a muzzle break or compensator, or a protruding grip not held by the trigger hand.

The definition also includes a pistol capable of accepting a detachable magazine in a location outside of the pistol grip, a semiautomatic pistol or “center-fire rifle” with a fixed magazine that can carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

The bill would also make it illegal to posses at the same time a semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, or a semiautomatic pistol capable of accepting a detachable magazine, and a magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than 10 ammo rounds.




[10/17/16] NRAILA– It’s one thing to support gun control.

It’s another to make it the centerpiece of a floundering presidential primary campaign.

But Hillary Clinton wasn’t finished when she latched onto the idea of opposing the NRA as a means of diverting the nation from the humiliating scandals and poll results plaguing her own bid to succeed Barack Obama.

First, she announced to her wealthy supporters that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,” which demonstrates her opposition to the individual right to keep and bear firearms, including handguns, for self-defense.

Now, however, she’s gone even further and echoed President Obama’s references to Australian and British style gun control.

Today, at a town hall meeting in Keene, New Hampshire, Clinton was questioned by an audience member who noted that Australia “managed to … take away … millions of handguns, and in one year, they were all gone.” He then asked her, “Can we do that?”

She immediately responded that not just Australia but also the U.K. is “a good example” of a country responding to a “mass killing.”

 “The Australian example,” she said, “that was a buyback program.” She went on to explain that the Australian government “offered a good price” for “buying hundreds of thousands of guns, and then they basically clamped down going forward … .”  They were thus able, she explained, “to curtail the supply” of guns and “to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.”

Here in America, she went on, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.” She compared the Australian and U.K. regimes to local gun “buybacks” and to Obama’s own “cash for clunkers” program, in which Americans were offered tax credits for trading older, gas-guzzling vehicles for newer, fuel-efficient models. “So I think that’s worth considering,” Clinton said. “I don’t know enough details to tell you … how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.”

The more details you know about Australia and Great Britain, however, the more extreme Hillary’s views become.

The misnamed “buybacks” of Australia and Great Britain were nothing like the failed “cash for clunkers” program, which simply sought to update the cars Americans drove, not to ban them. They weren’t even comparable to local gun buybacks, which attempt to incentivize the voluntary surrender of guns that their owners are free in most cases to replace as they see fit.

No, the Australian and U.K. “buybacks” were merely an attempt to mollify firearm owners whose property had been declared contraband and subject to seizure. They were, to paraphrase Vito Corleone, an offer gun owners could not refuse. The owners had the “choice” to accept the money and turn the guns they had previously been forced to register (supposedly so they could keep them under grandfather provisions), or they could risk the government forcibly confiscating the guns and being sent to prison for possessing them (supposing, of course, that they survived the confiscation attempt itself).

If you own a gun now, take heed. President Obama and now Hillary Clinton finally made clear what they’re really after – national gun confiscation.



[10/16/16]  A judge on Friday dismissed a wrongful-death lawsuit by Newtown families against the maker of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting massacre, citing an embattled federal law that shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products.

State Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion by Remington Arms to strike the lawsuit by the families of nine children and adults killed and a teacher who survived the Dec. 14, 2012, school attack, in which a gunman killed 20 first-graders and six educators with a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle made by Remington.

The families were seeking to hold Remington accountable for selling what their lawyers called a semi-automatic rifle that is too dangerous for the public because it was designed as a military killing machine. Their lawyer vowed an immediate appeal of Friday’s ruling.

The judge agreed with attorneys for Madison, North Carolina-based Remington that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed by Congress in 2005 and shields gun makers from liability when their firearms are used in crimes.

Advocates for gun control and against gun violence have criticized the law as special protection for gun makers. It became an issue in the presidential campaign this year when Hillary Clinton, now the Democratic nominee, criticized then-challenger Bernie Sanders for his support of the law in 2005. Sanders, a Vermont U.S. senator, is now backing a bill to repeal the law.

Lawyers for Remington said Congress passed the act after determining such lawsuits were an abuse of the legal system.

But the families’ attorneys argued the lawsuit was allowed under an exception in the federal law that allows litigation against companies that know, or should know, that their weapons are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others, and the judge disagreed.



[10/13/16]  Russ Feingold, the former Democratic senator from Wisconsin who is running again in an attempt to win back his old Senate seat, was recorded at a fundraiser saying that Hillary Clinton might issue an executive order on guns.

The video was captured by James O’ Keefe’s Project Veritas at an Aug. 17, $2,700 per-head fundraiser held at the Palo-Alto, Calif., home of Democratic donors Amy Rao and Harry Plant. Palo-Alto is located 10 minutes away from Stanford University, where Feingold taught after leaving his position as a special envoy at the U.S. State Department.

Feingold can be heard in the video discussing what Hillary Clinton could do in relation to guns if she were to be elected president.

“If there’s still Republican control in Congress, and if Hillary is elected, is there anything she can do to uhh…,” a person asks Feingold within the video. “Well, there might be an executive order,” Feingold responds.

“Oh, so she can, I know that Bara…” the questioner counters. Feingold then talks of President Obama’s executive orders throughout his two terms.




[10/9/16]  The batch of emails released by Wikileaks on October 7 includes one in which Hillary Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon explained that Clinton “would support…closing the gun show loophole by executive order.”

Fallon also highlighted Clinton’s support of universal background checks–which have already failed in California, Colorado, Washington state, and Paris–and her support for a scenario wherein victims of crime would be able to sue gun manufacturers.

In the email, dated October 4, 2015, Fallon mentions that Today had made clear they were going to ask Clinton about guns. At that time she was still locked in a tougher stance than expected primary opponent Bernie Sanders. Fallon wrote:

Circling back around on guns as a follow up to the Friday morning discussion: the Today show has indicated they definitely plan to ask bout guns, and so to have the discussion be more of a news event than her previous times discussing guns, we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President – universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.

Breitbart News has previously reported that Clinton pledged gun control by executive order. She began pushing executive gun control right after the shooting in the Umpqua Community College gun free zone. That incident occurred on October 1, 2015, three days before Fallon’s email that Clinton “would support…closing the gun show loophole by executive order.” This is in line with a Washington Post report that Clinton wants to use executive orders “to go further than Obama” went  on gun control.



[10/6/16]  Democratic mega-donor Alexander Soros has given $100,000 to support the “yes” campaign on a California ballot measure that would ban possession of large-capacity magazines, require the California Department of Justice to maintain a list of all residents authorized to purchase ammunition and would prohibit Californians from purchasing ammo without first obtaining the authorization of the California Department of Justice.

Even though he is a New York resident, Soros — the son of left-wing financier George Soros — is one of the top 10 biggest donors behind the “yes” campaign on Proposition 63, according to the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

If passed, the ballot would ban the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, regardless of when they were purchased. Current California law already bans the possession of such magazine but has an exemption for magazines purchased before the year 2000.

Prop. 63 would also require all ammo purchasers to first obtain a $50 permit from the California DOJ. The state government would also be required to keep tabs on who is or isn’t authorized to purchase ammunition.




[10/5/16]  Three weeks ago Missouri became the fourth state this year to allow “permitless” concealed carry of firearms by its citizens, its legislators voting to override Democrat Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of the bill. Missouri joins West Virginia, Mississippi, and Idaho in allowing its citizens this year to enjoy rights enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, bringing the total of such states to 12.

As Tim Schmidt, president of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association — which provides training and liability insurance coverage for its members — put it:

States that focus on freedom realize that if self-defense is a natural-born right, and the Second Amendment truly affirms that natural-born right, you shouldn’t have to ask the government for permission to exercise it. [It’s] kind of like you don’t have to ask the government to exercise the First Amendment [right to free speech].

Missouri’s move to permitless carry (although containing restrictions on places where its citizens cannot carry, such as churches, airports, sports arenas, courthouses, liquor stores, schools, hospitals and polling places on Election Day) reflects the continuing paradigm shift toward the Second Amendment taking place across the country.

For example, in September firearms sales hit their 17th consecutive monthly high, according to the FBI, with overall gun sales up a breathtaking 27 percent from September a year ago.

And, according to the latest study released by John Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center in July, concealed carry permit holders are approaching 15 million, nearly triple the 4.6 million citizens with permits in 2007, the year before President Obama was inaugurated for his first term. The study revealed the extent of that paradigm shift that has taken place:

• Six percent of the total adult population has a concealed carry permit;

• In 20 states more than 10 percent of adults have concealed handgun permits;

• Between 2012 and 2016 the number of women with permits has increased twice as quickly as the number of men with permits;

• Evidence suggests that permit-holding is increasing about 75 percent more quickly among minorities than among whites; and

• Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding — even more law-abiding than police!

Along with the increased ownership of firearms, and the commensurate surge in the issuance of concealed handgun permits, has come a predictable decrease in violent crime. Notwithstanding the recent increase in violent crime attributable to the Black Lives Matter attacks on local police, between 2007 and 2015 murder rates across the country fell from 5.6 per 100,000 population to 4.7 — a 16 percent drop. While the percentage of adults with permits soared by 190 percent in that period, overall violent crime fell by 18 percent…CONTINUE READING


[10/4/16]  Every gun in America should be destroyed – so says an Oregon judge with the power to sentence people to prison.

“If I could I would take all the guns in America, put them on big barges and go dump them in the ocean,” Judge Kenneth R. Walker said at a sentencing hearing September 28 of Marcell Lee Daniel Jr., who had shot and killed a pedestrian during a drive-by shooting. “Nobody would have a gun. Not police, not security, not anybody. We should eliminate all of them. We could save 33,000 people a year if we didn’t have guns in this country.”

He continued, referencing a 1990s incident: “Australia after a major shooting rounded up all the guns, and they haven’t had near the death that we do here in this country….CONTINUE READING


GUN Confiscation

[10/1/16]  The disarmament of American civilians is progressing at a breakneck pace and is being carried out by enemies of liberty across all bands of the political and social spectra, from the White House to the court house.

The anti-gun mindset in the judiciary is evident in this story reported by The Oregonian this week.

Kenneth Walker, a Multnomah County, Oregon, Circuit Court judge for nearly 10 years, looked at a man he was sentencing to prison for manslaughter and attempted murder and launched into an anti-gun rant that iwas as unhinged as it would be unconstitutional if actually implemented.

“If I could I would take all the guns in America, put them on big barges and go dump them in the ocean,” Walker declared to the defendant. “Nobody would have a gun. Not police, not security, not anybody. We should eliminate all of them. We could save 33,000 people a year if we didn’t have guns in this country.” Of course, that is not how “disarmament” works in the real world. Should the guns be confiscated, the government and the criminal element would still possess them, and the people would be defenseless.

Not content to descant in favor of absolute disarmament, the judge then added mistakes of fact to his disregard of the Constitution. “Australia after a major shooting rounded up all the guns, and they haven’t had near the death that we do here in this country,” he said.

But as this writer reported recently regarding the effectiveness of gun control Down Under:

“Melbourne is in the grip of an unprecedented wave of gun violence.”

Thus begins a report published [recently] in the Australian newspaper The Age of a “three-day investigative series that should concern every citizen of a metropolis that has repeatedly won the accolade of “world’s most livable city.”

The situation is critical according to the article. “Gun-related crime has surged,” the writers declare desperately, and “innocent people have been killed.”

What do the authors of the series suggest as a solution to the crescendo of crime? “Concerted action” [must be] taken by those who make laws and those who enforce them.”

Then, the paper presents the facts and figures that detail the depravity into which their once peaceful city has descended:

The facts are chilling and compelling. In as little as five years, gun crimes have more than doubled. Some very dangerous people are involved; in 2015 alone, more than 750 people with serious criminal convictions were caught carrying guns. That’s up a staggering five times since 2011. Shootings have literally become a weekly event.

Crimes related to firearm possession have more than doubled in the past five years. The number of young criminals has rocketed; almost 1500 people aged between 20 and 34 committed a gun offence [sic] last year, more than twice the number five years ago. A culture of carrying, and using, guns is becoming worryingly entrenched in criminal circles.

Not surprisingly, Judge Walker didn’t bother explaining to the court and the convicted how he would suggest that all the guns be confiscated or by whom.

Ironically, Walker offered his opinion while addressing a man whose actions evince the indisputable inability to make the purposefully lawless obey the law. Oregon Live published the following summary of the defendant’s deadly rampage…CONTINUE READING



[9/27/16]  California’s police chiefs are going against most of the state’s residents by opposing one of the nation’s strictest gun control proposals.

Proposition 63 would mandate background checks for ammo purchases and would make it a crime to own a magazine that contains more than 10 rounds.

“Proposition 63 reverses many of the exemptions that allow officers and police departments to continue purchasing ammunition freely for on-duty purposes, and creates a duplicative database that will be a costly and less effective way to monitor ammunition purchases,” Ken Corney, the president of the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA), wrote in a letter to the citizens of California.

The police chiefs think Prop 63 goes too far and does little to protect public safety. They also think it might violate the rights of gun owners and would force departments to waste money on unnecessary bureaucracy.

The California Police Chiefs Association is not against all gun control, and it supported a bill (SB 1235) that was signed into law this summer that did some of what Proposition 63 would do. Corney noted that if Prop 63 passes, it would take a two-thirds vote by the legislature – a near impossible hurdle – to fix any problems. By contrast, a legislatively enacted bill requires only a simple majority to tweak.

Prop 63 also would make it a crime if someone fails to report a lost or stolen weapon. CPCA opposes that part of the proposal, too…CONTINUE READING



[9/25/16]  Perhaps the most impressive display of marksmanship is true long-range shooting. Reaching out to a target at 1,000 yards or beyond requires skill, knowledge and lots of practice to do it right.

While some may deem it as impractical to hit a target at half a mile, the amount of research that goes into selection of the rifle, optics and ammunition — plus learning how to read wind, observe the effects of humidity, air pressure and elevation are all factors that will make you a better shooter in the long run.

Yes, it is true that long-range shots can be made with typical rifle calibers such as 308 Winchester, 30-06 Springfield and 7.62 X 54R, but these calibers were not designed with extreme ranges in mind.

Here are four long-range rifles you should consider:

1. 300 Winchester Magnum

Prized for its ability as a flat-shooting cartridge, the 300 Winchester Magnum is capable of 3,260 feet per second (fps) and 2,658 foot pounds of muzzle energy with a 150 grain bullet, and 3,000 fps and 4,223 foot pounds of muzzle energy with a 180 grain bullet. Unlike most rifle cartridges, the trajectory stays level out to about 300 yards.

Maximum effective range is out to 1,200 yards, and the round really comes into its own at 800 to 1,000. One of the advantages of the 300 Winchester Magnum is that it can be loaded in a long-rifle action rather than a more expensive Magnum receiver.

All of the big-name rifle companies manufacture a bolt-action, but two of our favorites are the Savage 110FP with Accutrigger and the Winchester Model 70 Extreme Weather SS. The Savage retails for under $900 and the Winchester can be had for closer to $1,100.

For working your way up into long-range shooting, we recommend the 300 Winchester Magnum as a good starting point, particularly if you want to step down to a 308 and really put those long-range skills to work in a smaller caliber.

2. 338 Lapua Magnum

In what was probably the first round designed from the ground up as a sniper cartridge, 338 Lapua is our personal favorite long-range round. Developed from the 416 Rigby case, the inventors of the round learned a critical factor in designing ammunition with regard to pressure: hardness of the brass was more important than its relative thickness.

The world record for the longest confirmed sniper shot at 2,707 yards (1.5 miles) was achieved with this round by a British Army sniper, Corporal Craig Harrison.

As for stats: you are launching a 200-grain bullet at 3,300 fps with a muzzle energy of 4,967 foot pounds.

If money is no problem, then check out the Sako TRG-42 at $4,000 — pricey, but one of the best in its class.

Personally, I have been running a Savage 110 BA Chasis rifle for the past 5 years with no complaints besides its weight. I bought mine secondhand for around $1,200. MSRP is a bit higher, but rifles such as these turn up used every now and then due to their specialized nature and ammunition costs, and sometimes people want to…CONTINUE READING