Second Amendment Issues

Victory for Gun Owners in California!

Thank You for Your Hard Work and Support!

Yesterday, Tuesday, August 31, lawmakers in the Golden State heard loud and clear the voices of pro-gun advocates when they defeated three dangerous pieces of anti-gun legislation.

Assembly Bill 1810 would have established a registration system, similar to the one currently in place for handguns, for all newly-acquired long guns. Under AB1810, the make, model and serial number of the firearm as well as the identifying information of the purchaser would have been recorded and kept on file by the California Attorney General’s office.

If AB1810 were enacted, violent criminals would have continued doing what they do now – obtain firearms through illegal means. This bill would not have decreased crime but would have rather had disastrous effects on the already financially unstable Golden State. AB1810 would have imposed additional burdens on California’s taxpayers to maintain the registration system as well as on the state’s licensed firearms dealers, small businesses who already deal with extensive business requirements.

Assembly Bill 1934 was a blatant attack on the self-defense rights of law-abiding Californians. This legislation sought to outlaw the open carrying of a handgun for self-defense.

AB1934 was a knee-jerk reaction by anti-gun legislators to punish citizens for engaging in the legal act of openly carrying an unloaded handgun. In reality, the open carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens is forced by California’s unfair concealed carry law, which allows some citizens from some counties to receive a permit to carry, while their neighbors in the next county are denied that basic right for political, not public safety, reasons.

Assembly Bill 2358 was intended to “clean-up” and address problems encountered with the passage of AB962 in 2009. Make no mistake about it; this bill did nothing to improve AB962 for California’s gun owners. In fact, it would have made things far worse. AB2358 was even recently amended to include common rifle ammunition like .223 and 7.62 x 39.

AB2358 would have forced licensed state ammunition retailers to obtain a special local license to operate in municipalities. These retailers would also have been required to notify local law enforcement before conducting business within their jurisdiction.

Moreover, this bill mandated that ammunition retailers submit sales records to local law enforcement agencies and allowed them to maintain those records indefinitely. It did not require the same privacy and destruction requirements mandated for state ammunition vendors.

Passage of AB2358 would have made it difficult for ammunition retailers to sell ammunition at sporting events and gun shows. It would also have left law abiding Californian gun owners vulnerable to identity theft and political persecution by local, anti-gun politicians.

Thank you to all of the NRA members who answered the call to oppose these bills. Without you, success in these battles would not have been possible. While this is certainly a momentous occasion for California’s gun owners, anti-gun forces are sure to continue their offensive against our rights. Please be sure to check your email and www.NRAILA.org for updates on Second Amendment issues in California.

WHY CARRY A GUN?

My old grandpappy said to me, ‘Son, there

comes a time in every man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps, and usually it’s when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin.’

I don’t carry a gun to kill people.

I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people.

I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid.

I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil.

I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government.

I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry.

I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life

hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.

I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed,

and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy.

I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven,

I want to be a cowboy.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man.

I carry a gun because free men know how to take care of themselves

and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate.

I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs,

I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it.

I carry a gun because I love life and

the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.

Free citizens must protect themselves.

Police do not protect you from crime,

they usually just investigate the crime after it happens

and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin’.

**********************************************

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.

From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves,

were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.

From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves,

were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945,

a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves,

were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

China established gun control in 1935.

From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,

were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.

From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves,

were rounded up and exterminated.

—- ————- ————-

Uganda established gun control in 1970.

From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves,

were rounded up and exterminated.

——————————

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.

From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves,

were rounded up and exterminated.

—————————–

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated

in the 20th Century because of gun control:

56 million.

——————————

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and

gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,

please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are ‘citizens.’

Without them, we are ‘subjects.’

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America

because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun – control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win.

There is no possible victory in defense.

The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.

The final weapon is the brain.

All else is supplemental.

Switzerland issues every household a gun!

Switzerland ‘s government trains every adult to whom they issue a rifle.

Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world!!!

IT’S A NO BRAINER!

Don’t let our government waste millions of our tax dollars in an effort

to make all law abiding citizens an easy target.

I’m a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

SAF SUES CHICAGO OVER GUN RANGE
PROHIBITION ON 1A, 2A GROUNDS

CHICAGO, IL – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today filed a lawsuit in federal court against the City of Chicago’s new gun ordinance, asserting that “by banning gun ranges open to the public… under color of law,” the city is depriving citizens of their right to keep and bear arms in violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Joining SAF in this lawsuit are the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), Action Target, Inc., and three individual plaintiffs including a retired Chicago police detective. They are represented by attorneys Alan Gura of Virginia and David Sigale of Chicago, who teamed up with SAF and ISRA on the landmark case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, effectively striking down Chicago’s 28-year-old handgun ban.

“While the city has adopted new regulations that make it legal to own handguns,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “they have crafted this new ordinance to make it virtually impossible for prospective gun owners to meet all legal requirements unless they travel outside the city for mandatory training. The new ordinance prohibits public gun ranges inside the city yet the city demands that handgun owners get at least one hour of range training time.

“This is a Catch-22′ scenario,” he continued, “that seems deliberately designed to discourage Chicago residents from exercising their firearm civil rights barely two months after those rights were restored by the Supreme Court.”

Individual plaintiffs are Rhonda Ezell, a victim of three attempted burglaries who has disabilities making it difficult for her to travel outside the city; Joseph Brown, a WWII U.S. Army veteran who was among the liberators of the infamous Dachau concentration camp, and William Hespen, a retired police detective, all of whom must qualify for Chicago Firearms Permits.

Action Target, a Utah-based company, builds shooting ranges and manufactures gun range equipment and supplies. It has a long history of providing gun safety equipment and training, and has previously built law enforcement shooting ranges in Chicago. However, Action Target is prohibited from building a public target range within the city’s limits under the restrictions of the new gun ordinance.

Randy Graham, vice president of Action Target, said, “We believe that citizens have a constitutional right to use and train with firearms in a safe and controlled environment. As a leader in the firearms training industry, Action Target is committed to standing up for these rights.”

“By banning public gun ranges,” Gottlieb said, “and by banning the loan and rental of firearms at such ranges, Chicago is acting under color of law to deprive citizens of their right to keep and bear arms, and to conveniently receive the education required under the ordinance that is necessary to obtain a Chicago Firearms Permit. The city is violating both the Second and First amendments, and we are asking the court to put an end to this nonsense.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

July 31, 2010

John Stossel Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime

The myth of gun control is busted by John Stossel, buy, using the governments OWN statistics and number. A must see.

Read the entire article!

Post your comment

ANOTHER LAWSUIT FILED CHALLENGING BAN ON SHIPPING AMMUNITION INTO CALIFORNIA
Alleges AB-962 Pre-empted by Federal Laws that Regulate Interstate
Shipping
The National Rifle Association (NRA) today joined the Calguns
Foundation, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (the
largest trucker’s trade association), the Folsom Shooting Club, and two
individual truckers in a lawsuit challenging California’s
soon-to-be-implemented law banning most shipments of handgun ammunition
into California. The case is OOIDA v. Lindley. A copy of the Complaint
is available at www.calgunlaws.com
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103589812214&s=518&e=001cCT2GH_WJM6Ih_wxD\
Z2MNmS2x_Eoojs4gQ5AQOeBSWZI0EccRq1M40FfMWyN7PHkexNygwuXhP2t4VFoMYOf4dxL4\
KNmcfNQTNjeP4nQtbXdudWFlE6GFSgOIK2K9RKZuWsX_SAyGvsHDEe8Cjgmm7KmLou9pFO3S\
kVcnIwljfjUHGvDl-_1IyUtp_BqNMrgySBpQ9HjK08=> .
Assembly Bill 962 was signed into law last year. Starting in February
2011, the law will criminalize the delivery and transfer of handgun
ammunition not done in face-to-face transactions. The law provides only
a few exceptions to this shipping ban, and requires shipping companies
to bear the burden of determining whether the recipient of a package
containing handgun ammunition is covered by one of the exceptions before
delivering the package. This will make shipping ammunition to
California much more difficult, complicated, and expensive.
California firearm retailers, ranges, clubs, and owners, as well as
hunters, depend on the efficient and inexpensive movement of ammunition
by carrier into California. In February 2008, a unanimous United States
Supreme Court struck down Maine’s directly analogous law regarding the
delivery of cigarettes to Maine in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor
Transport. Rowe made clear that a state cannot interfere with a
carrier’s rates, routes, or services, because Congress made an important
decision to protect common carriers from a patchwork of state and local
regulations burdening interstate commerce when it enacted the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). The FAAAA
specifically prohibits state and local governments from interfering with
common carriers’ rates, routes, or services.
The new lawsuit, filed today in Sacramento’s United States District
Court, Eastern District of California, alleges that the ammo shipment
ban is similarly burdensome and preempted by the FAAAA. Plaintiffs will
soon be seeking an injunction to block the shipping portions of the law
from taking effect. This lawsuit follows a separate suit brought by
Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker and the California Rifle and Pistol
Association (CRPA).
NRA’s involvement in the lawsuit is part of a California litigation
strategy being implemented by the NRA and CRPA Foundation through their
Legal Action Project (LAP). LAP is a joint venture between the NRA and
CRPA Foundation to advance the rights of firearms owners in California.
CRPA Foundation has pledged amicus support to the OOIDA suit.
Through LAP, NRA/CRPA attorneys fight against ill-conceived gun control
laws and ordinances, and educate state and local officials about
available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence
without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. To see a
partial list of the Legal Action Project’s recent lawsuits and
accomplishments, visit www.crpafoundation.org
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103589812214&s=518&e=001cCT2GH_WJM5Ugdqja\
PL5gJL4dPm8t5ZRDXvG0b8gDiTCrBiTaReJKylwx8EECsOurUml3QaDwmir4iea9haoAIvTO\
Yb_PciIDy1heQOPc4Pi4S80MyC5KQ==> . To contribute to the NRA/CRPAF Legal
Action Project, visit www.nraila.org
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103589812214&s=518&e=001cCT2GH_WJM6qAQVWf\
aAM2eNYnA5cHeVu-asgWM1y3-cE3mzpref75lRFmiTjYsa1kmRZynzwfCZWAyDWAojJgqWR6\
-yz1Snhcyj8pclbixk=> or www.crpafoundation.org
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103589812214&s=518&e=001cCT2GH_WJM6ORZS27\
kZX-gMLU__sZfi3iWFcsV1wQEBzKm5lv3k4ls71Lj2yz9FjCUakN5OGa8ZBqh-x5LoOGmu0M\
FEr75Y6rQmm063p7YIxZStuer4A_s7r0tM_TnQOuEooUkd5H7mAYuBrkbusNQ==> . And
please register at www.calgunlaws.com
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103589812214&s=518&e=001cCT2GH_WJM4H_jaFR\
ATjkNxCmZg_wAwPG9Eex0EnEQv-bdSLhfzxrEfVRZ2bCiUYt_cSK6wh9-9F9hol2vAr8B-DP\
w-RXSmMLNAoMRKrzFi61UJHUg7v7Q==> and www.crpa.org
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103589812214&s=518&e=001cCT2GH_WJM7k7sLxE\
_vMfj8te-dUszKo5ayN-WZNY8K5BFmPRD2vfHEsQSDOD_V5s7b2AgIxbIvo1fY0g6rjl_pKn\
MOauqYlLxMIGIvjqFI=> to receive updates on this and other California
litigation as it is made available.
The California Rifle and Pistol Association “CRPA,” founded in 1875, is
dedicated to defending the rights of law-abiding citizens to responsibly
use firearms for self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, for
sport, and for all other legal activities. CRPA is the official state
association of the National Rifle Association. A California non-profit
association, CRPA is independently directed by its own Board of
Directors. CRPA’s members include law enforcement officers, prosecutors,
professionals, firearm experts, the general public, and loving parents.
CRPA has always worked to reduce the criminal misuse of firearms and
firearms accidents, while actively promoting and organizing the
competitive shooting sports and Olympic training programs in California.
We are proud to say that many CRPA competitors are among the best in the
world.

SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER
HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and a Baltimore County, MD man today sued Maryland authorities in federal court because the man’s handgun permit renewal was turned down on the grounds that he could not demonstrate “a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.”

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Joining SAF in the lawsuit is Raymond Woollard, who was originally issued a carry permit after a man broke into his home during a family gathering in 2002. Woollard’s permit was renewed in 2005, after the man was released from prison. That man now lives about three miles from Woollard. Defendants in the case are Terrence B. Sheridan is the Secretary and Superintendent of the Maryland State Police, and three members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board, Denis Gallagher, Seymour Goldstein and Charles M. Thomas, Jr.

SAF and Woollard are represented by attorneys Alan Gura of Virginia and Cary J. Hansel of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake of Greenbelt, MD.

The lawsuit alleges that “Individuals cannot be required to demonstrate that carrying a handgun is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger’ as a prerequisite for exercising their Second Amendment rights.” Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Maryland provision that requires permit applicants to “demonstrate cause” for the issuance of a carry permit.

“Laws that empower bureaucrats to deny the exercise of a fundamental civil right because they cannot show good cause to exercise that right can’t possibly stand up under constitutional scrutiny,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are supporting Mr. Woollard in this action because constitutional rights trump bureaucratic whims.”

SAF REPORT LIVE FROM THE UN
The Following is an up to the minute report from Julianne Versnel, Director of Operations

for the Second Amendment Foundation who is representing SAF as an NGO delegate at the United Nations ATT meeting.

The Arms Trade Treaty Prep Committee began on July 12, 2010 and will conclude on July 23, 2010. Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan of Argentina is the Chair. On Friday, July 19, Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) representatives were told that the majority of the meetings would be closed to them. The critical discussions on the scope of the treaty will have no input from any non-governmental entity. Scope is critical in the Arms Trade Treaty process. In North America, some Pan Asian Countries and in some other parts of the world, the arms that we expect to have covered in this treaty are nuclear weapons. In much of Europe and most all of Africa, the delegates anticipate that the ATT will cover rifles, shotguns, handguns and ammunition as well.

There appears little doubt that some sort of treaty will be adopted by 2014, if not by 2012. It is anticipated that the final treaty will attempt to register all firearms, require micro-stamping, destruction of surplus ammunition on a very set schedule, registration of all firearms and restriction on any transfer of arms including between private individuals and many other restrictions. If the United States is a signatory and this is ratified by the U.S. Senate, this UN treaty would be the law. On October 30, 2009, UN members voted in favor of an ATT. The United States voted in favor of an ATT.

The UN has an aggressive schedule of meetings planned to push for these restrictions and we will be there representing you in every way we can. We will be at the CTOP/COP meeting in Vienna the week of October 18 and a General Assembly meeting at the end of October. In January, the five permanent members of the Security Council will meet and this is on the agenda. There will be another ATT Preparatory meeting at the end of February in New York. The regional UNIDIR meeting sponsored by the EU will start in March. We will come full circle with the Programme of Action Experts Meeting in May 2011 and the July 17-21 ATT Preparatory meeting that is expected to offer the final draft to the treaty.

From gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com

The UN anti gun treaty started being discussed on July 12 to end July 23. News from SAF

Posted: 21 Jul 2010 01:25 PM PDT

The UN has an aggressive schedule of meetings planned to push for these restrictions and we will be there representing you in every way we can. We will be at the CTOP/COP meeting in Vienna the week of October 18 and a General Assembly meeting at the end of October. In January, the five permanent members of the Security Council will meet and this is on the agenda. There will be another ATT Preparatory meeting at the end of February in New York. The regional UNIDIR meeting sponsored by the EU will start in March. We will come full circle with the Programme of Action Experts Meeting in May 2011 and the July 17-21 ATT Preparatory meeting that is expected to offer the final draft to the treaty.

The Battle of Athens, Tennessee in 1946

As Recently As 1946, American Citizens Were
Forced To Take Up Arms As A Last Resort
Against Corrupt Government Officials.

Published in Guns & Ammo October 1995, pp. 50-51

On August 1-2, 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force as a last resort to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest open elections. For years they had asked for state or federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud (forged ballots, secret ballot counts and intimidation by armed sheriff’s deputies) by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans’ absolute refusal to knuckle under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government.

These Americans had a choice. Their state’s Constitution — Article 1, Section 26 — recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few “gun control” laws had been enacted.

These Americans were residents of McMinn County, which is located between Chattanooga and Knoxville in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah. McMinn County residents had long been independent political thinkers. For a long time they also had: accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the sheriff to overlook illicit whiskey-making and gambling; financed the sheriff’s department from fines-usually for speeding or public drunkenness which promoted false arrests; and put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and Republicans.

The wealthy Cantrell family, of Etowah, backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, hoping New Deal programs would revive the local economy and help Democrats to replace Republicans in the county government. So it proved.

Paul Cantrell was elected sheriff in the 1936,1938 and 1940 elections, but by slim margins. The sheriff was the key county official. Cantrell was elected to the state senate in 1942 and 1944; his chief deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff. In 1946 Paul Cantrell again sought the sheriff’s office.

At the end of 1945, some 3,000 battle-hardened veterans returned to McMinn County; the GIs held Cantrell politically responsible for Mansfield’s doings. Early in 1946, some newly returned ex-GIs decided to challenge Cantrell politically by offering an all-ex-GI, non-partisan ticket. They promised a fraud-free election, stating in ads and speeches that there would be an honest ballot count and reform of county government.

At a rally, a GI speaker said, “The principles that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county” (Daily Post-Athenian, 17 June 1946, p.1 ). At the end of July 1946, 159 McMinn County GIs petitioned the FBI to send election monitors. There was no response. The Department of Justice had not responded to McMinn County residents’ complaints of election fraud in 1940, 1942 and 1944.

FROM BALLOTS TO BULLETS

The primary election was held on August 1. To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed “deputies.” GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African- American voter was told by a sheriff’s deputy that he could not vote. Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted. The enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been shot in the back; he later recovered (C. Stephen Byrum, The Battle of Athens, Paidia Productions, Chattanooga, TN, 1987; pp. 155-57).

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot counting “Public” A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, “his gun raised high…shouted: ‘If you sons of bitches cross this street I’ll kill you!’” (Byrum, p.165).

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack by the “people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history” (Byrum, pp. 168-69).

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war’s end. By 8 p.m. a group of GIs and “local boys” headed for the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail’s defenders an easy way out.

Three GIs alerting passersby to danger were fired on from the jail. Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire.

Firing subsided after 30 minutes; ammunition ran low and night had fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent radios, the GIs’ rifle fire was uncoordinated. “From the hillside fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply shooting at the jail” (Byrum, p.189).

Several who ventured into the street in front of the jail were wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered. Most sheriff’s deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs.

At about 2 a.m. on August 2, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs County threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail’s porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, having almost been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield’s deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned. The GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sunup.

THE AFTERMATH: RESTORING DEMOCRACY

In five precincts free of vote fraud, the GI candidate for sheriff, Knox Henry, won 1,168 votes to Cantrell’s 789. Other GI candidates won by similar margins.

The GI’s did not hate Cantrell. They only wanted honest government. On August 2, a town meeting set up a three-man governing committee. The regular police having fled, six men were chosen to police Etowah. In addition, “Individual citizens were called upon to form patrols or guard groups, often led by a GI… To their credit, however, there is not a single mention of an abuse of power on their behalf” (Byrum, p. 220).

Once the GI candidates’ victory had been certified, they cleaned up county government, the jail was fixed, newly elected officials accepted a $5,000 pay limit and Mansfield supporters who resigned were replaced.

The general election on November 5 passed quietly. McMinn County residents, having restored the rule of law, returned to their daily lives. Pat Mansfield moved back to Georgia. Paul Cantrell set up an auto dealership in Etowah. “Almost everyone who knew Cantrell in the years after the Battle’ agree that he was not bitter about what had happened” (Byrum pp. 232-33; see also New York Times, 9 August 1946, p. 8).

The 79th Congress adjourned on August 2, 1946, when the Battle of Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings Jr. from Tennessee decried McMinn County’s sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield and the Justice Department’s repeated failures to help the McMinn County residents. Jennings was delighted that “…at long last, decency and honesty, liberty and law have returned to the fine county of McMinn.. ” (Congressional Record, House; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946; Appendix, Volume 92, Part 13, p. A4870).

THE LESSONS OF ATHENS

Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee, wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our constitutional order. They had repeatedly tried to get federal or state election monitors and had used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers, showing little malice to the defeated law-breakers. They restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force and also shows why the rule of law requires unrestricted access to firearms and how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of government gone bad.

Dictators believe that public order is more important than the rule of law. However, Americans reject this idea. Brutal political repression is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.

Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by “gun control ” They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.

NRA Openly Floats A Harry Reid Endorsement

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

Tuesday, July 13th at 12:47PM EDT

39 Comments

The NRA is now openly floating, or at least allowing to be floated, its endorsement of Harry Reid, a man who voted for the Brady Gun Bill. In a New York Times puff piece on the NRA that largely gives the NRA credit for things it tried to undermine (more on that later), there is this:

A point of contention on both the left and the right is the N.R.A.’s close working relationship with Mr. Reid, the Senate leader who helped get a number of pro-gun rights measures included in broader bills.

That relationship has led some gun rights supporters to lobby against the idea that the N.R.A. might endorse Mr. Reid in his tough re-election campaign this November in Nevada.

The N.R.A. is not tamping down speculation.

The NRA’s lobbyist, Chris Cox, claims that Chuck Schumer would be Majority Leader were Harry Reid gone (note the NRA’s implicit expectation of a Democratic Senate majority). But here’s the thing — Chuck Schumer could not get anti-gun legislation through the Senate and what’s more, Schumer, when head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, recognized the damage to the Democrats being anti-gun was having. Many of the Democrats in the Senate the NRA loves were people supported by Chuck Schumer.

So they have gone from denying they would endorse Harry Reid to “not tamping down speculation.”

Shocking Emails Show National Rifle Association Worked to Prohibit Rifles From National Parks

What will they change their middle initial to now?

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

Tuesday, July 13th at 2:35PM EDT

40 Comments

You know things are bad for the National Rifle Association when it has to get the New York Times to run a puff piece on it.

But in their zeal to get a puff piece out there as well as their collaboration with the left on the DISCLOSE Act, the NRA has angered a number of people on Capitol Hill.

Shocking new e-mails obtained by RedState show that the National Rifle Association actively opposed and sought to undermine gun-rights legislation offered in the Senate by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).

The New York Times article contains this paragraph:

With a push from the N.R.A., a popular bill last year restricting credit card lenders came with an odd add-on: It also allowed people to carry loaded guns in national parks.

This is referring to legislation by Senator Tom Coburn, which would have allowed rifles and pistols into national parks — legislation the NRA actively tried to undermine. In other words, in getting their puff piece written by the New York Times, the NRA is taking credit for things the NRA actively tried to stop. That is not the whole story.

A congressional aide tells me, “You’re absolutely right that many conservatives view the NRA as an organization that represents itself rather than the 2nd amendment. For instance, the NRA was livid when Senator Coburn introduced the guns in the park amendment without their permission. The NRA worked to undermine the amendment.”

Specifically, the NRA tried to weaken the guns in parks language working with House Democratic leadership (after it passed the Senate overwhelmingly). The Coburn language returned to the states complete authority to determine firearm possession laws in national parks and refuges. This change mirrored similar regulations governing firearm possession for the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. In some instances, this would result in park and refuge visitors being allowed to carry handguns and rifles in national parks. Ironically, the National “RIFLE” Association wanted to change it so that Coburn’s legislation did not include “rifles” or other long firearms.

Another source familiar with the behind the scenes machinations on the DC voting rights bill tells me that despite the claims in the New York Times article, “the NRA had nothing to do with the addition of the DC Gun language to the DC voting rights bill. Senator Ensign did not give the NRA a heads-up for fear that Reid would block the Amendment, because the NRA would have ratted Ensign out to Reid. They may have helped in the House to make sure the DC voting rights bill include gun rights language, yet they were not part of any pre-Amendment offering strategy sessions.”

Why? For fear that they would rat out the Republican effort to Harry Reid.

RedState has obtained a series of emails between the NRA and congressional aides wherein the NRA is clearly pushing for a Nancy Pelosi backed language to undermine Tom Coburn backed language. In the chain of emails, the NRA says it wants a House version because Senator Coburn’s would have unintended consequences. What were those unintended consequences?

From: NRA
To: Congressional Aide
Sent: Mon May 18, 2009
Subject: Re: Congress Poised to Restore Common Sense Second Amendment Rights

The Coburn amendment to H.R. 627 is open to criticism and potential problems since it is not limited to concealed firearms, or even concealable firearms. Rifles, shotguns, legally possessed machineguns or destructive devices, could all be carried if the person is not prohibited and the person complies with state law.

Two very important points to consider on the language:

1. Limiting to concealed handguns squares with the motive for the federal rule change to legalize self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges – i.e. the growth of right to carry states.

2. Concealed (and therefore concealable) handguns are less likely than rifles or shotguns to be used for poaching – unlike in national forests and BLM lands where hunting is frequent and legal.

Note the NRA uses the words “destructive devices.”

Let’s ignore the fact that the inability to conceal a rifle might actually be of benefit to park rangers should poaching happen. Instead, let’s focus on the National Rifle Association trying to prohibit rifles from national parks.

What. The. Heck?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. State Department Celebrates U.N. Gun Destruction Event

Posted: 09 Jul 2010 06:19 PM PDT

Gun owners hold onto your firearms. This may come to a city near you.

Today, the U.S. State Department announced its support for the United Nations’ “International Small Arms Destruction Day.” The State Department, under the leadership of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, calls this ridiculous event part of the United States’ ongoing efforts to support the “rule of law around the world” and boasts of spending more than $130 million to destroy “1.4 million small arms and light weapons.” A press release from the State Department says this money was spent at the behest of the anti-gun United Nations to reduce the impact of “illicit flows of small arms and light weapons.”

NRA Opposed To Kagan Nomination To U.S. Supreme Court

Friday, July 02, 2010

Joint Statement By Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President,

And Chris Cox, Executive Director Of NRA’s Institute For Legislative Action

There may be no vote a United States Senator casts that is more important than a vote to confirm a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now that the Court has clearly stated that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that applies to all law-abiding Americans, NRA members and gun owners expect a nominee to the Court to fully support, defend and preserve that freedom.

We have carefully examined the career, written documents and public statements of nominee Elena Kagan and have found nothing to indicate any support for the Second Amendment. On the contrary, the facts reveal a nominee who opposes Second Amendment rights and is clearly out of step with mainstream Americans.

Therefore, the NRA is strongly opposed to Kagan’s confirmation to the Court.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she refused to declare support for the Second Amendment, saying only that the matter was “settled law.”

This was eerily similar to the scripted testimony of Justice Sonia Sotomayor last year, prior to her confirmation to the Court. When pressed on the Second Amendment then, Sotomayor also referred to the issue as “settled law.”

But in the recently decided case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, Sotomayor ignored the “settled law” of the Heller decision and signed a dissenting opinion that declared, “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

It has become obvious that “settled law” is the scripted code of an anti-gun nominee’s confirmation effort. The NRA is not fooled. No member of the U.S. Senate should be either.

With no judicial record, only Kagan’s political career can be reviewed. And this provides no reason to trust her with Americans’ firearms freedom. Throughout her career, she has repeatedly demonstrated a clear hostility to the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution.

As a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan said she was “not sympathetic” to a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s ban on firearms. As a domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, a colleague described her as “immersed” in Clinton’s aggressive assaults on the Second Amendment. She was involved in Clinton’s scheme to ban more than 50 types of commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms – an effort described as “…taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”

As U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan chose not to file a brief last year in the landmark McDonald case, thus taking the position that incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it to the states was of no interest to the Obama Administration or the federal government.

These are not the positions of a person who supports the Second Amendment and, in fact, represent a clear and present danger to the right to keep and bear arms.

Kagan’s record clearly reveals that she does not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right. In her recent testimony, she refused to acknowledge respect for the God-given right of self-defense.

She should not serve on any court, let alone be confirmed to a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land.

The NRA is strongly opposed to the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. This vote matters and will be a part of future candidate evaluations.

To read NRA’s letter of opposition to Solicitor General Kagan’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, please click here: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/Kagan.pdf

This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683

Media Matters Continues Debunked Claim that Kagan is Not Hostile to 2nd Amendment

Posted by Brian Darling (Profile)

Saturday, July 3rd at 7:00AM EDT

16 Comments

Media Matters for America is pulling out all the stops to support the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. I dared to write a blog post criticizing Elena Kagan’s lifetime of anti-gun activism as evidence of the way Kagan would act and vote as Supreme Court justice. Media Matters targeted a few of my claims to criticize, yet they ignored the meat of my blog post. Media Matters wants Americans to think that Elena Kagan is not hostile to the 2nd Amendment — that claim does not pass the laugh test no matter how many times they write it. Liberals need to be honest and say that they don’t believe that the Second Amendment should be an individual right incorporated against the states, therefore they support a nominee who believes the same.

Media Matters for America argued in a blog post the following:

Writing on RedState.com, the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Darling rehashed a variety of debunked myths to claim that Elena Kaganis “anti-Second Amendment” (criticizing Media Matters by name in the process). We’ve debunked most of these claims multiple times before, and we stand by those responses.

They claim to have “debunked” most of the claims against Kagan numerous times, yet they have no response for the argument that Kagan’s anti-gun activism during her time with the Clinton Administration is evidence of the way she will vote on the Supreme Court. I wrote for Red State the following:

When Kagan served the Clinton Administration, she showed a strong hostility to gun rights. The L.A. Times reported on may 11th of this year that Kagan“drafted an executiveorder restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic assault rifles.” Kagan’s political activism in implementing a gun control agenda was a political act, yet this nominee has yet to explain her constitutional justification for that executive order. The L.A. Times further reported that “gun-control efforts were a hallmark of the Clinton Administration.” Many conservatives would argue that an individual who works diligently on gun control efforts evidences a hostility to the right of all Americans to defend themselves with a firearm. Another gun control initiative by Kaganwas her drafting of ”an executive order that required all federal law enforcement officers to install locks on their weapons.” This is further evidence of an individual who has no sympathy for Second Amendment rights.

Media Matters has no response to the claim that Kagan’s extensive efforts to restrict access to guns during her time in the Clinton Administration is evidence of hostility to the Second Amendment. In all probability, they agree with Kagan’s restrictive view of gun rights.

They also had no response to the argument that her testimony proved to be disturbing to those who believe in the 2nd Amendment. During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this week, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and General Kagan had the following exchange.

Grassley: So whether you personally believethat Heller’s — or the right to bear arms is a collective or an individual right will have no bearing in the future, but you — you don’t want to tell us what your own personal belief is. That’s kind of what I’m asking.

Kagan: Well, my approach in these hearings has been not to grade cases, even if I thought I had the wherewithal to grade them, which I am not sure I do in Heller, just because the case is based so much on history which I’venever had an occasion to look at. I know that the — the scholarship in this area has suggested that there’s a very strong view that — that there is an individual right under the Second Amendment. And certainly, Justice Scalia’s opinion, which is a very thorough opinion for the court, is entitled to all the weight that any precedent has going forward.

If we accept the argument that Kagan will act on the Court like Sotomayor, then we can make a credible claim that Kagan will vote to overturn the Heller case and vote in a manner to gut limit the McDonald Case. Not surpisingly, Sotomayor signed onto an opinion in a recent case, McDonald v Chicago, where she argued that the history did not support the holding in the landmark Second Amendment case DC v Heller. The Heller case held that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The McDonald case held that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States. Justice Sotomayor, after testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she recognized Heller as precedent (much like Kagan did this week), signed an opinion arguing to overturn Heller. That is merely one argument to add to a long list of arguments and facts that indicate the conclusion — Elena Kagan is hostile to the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

David Kopel wrote in the Washington Times that Sotomayor voted with members of the court to vacate the holding in Heller:

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the Supreme Court opinions in McDonald v. Chicago was the dissenters’ assault on District of Columbia v. Heller. Not only did Justice Stephen G. Breyer vote against extending the Second Amendment to state and local governments, he also argued forcefully and at length for overturning Heller and, therefore, for turning the Second Amendment into a practical nullity. Ominously, Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the Breyer dissent – contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.

Media Matters does not dispute the view that Kagan will vote like Sotomayor. Maybe they agree with Sotomayor that Heller is precedent based on faulty reasoning and an incorrect read of the historical record of the 2nd Amendment. Conservatives believe that Americans have a natural right to own a firearm and the Constitution recognizes that natural right in the 2nd Amendment. Does Media Matters subscribe to that view? I doubt it. They are attempting to redefine the 2nd Amendment in a manner that allows individuals like Elena Kagan to qualify as pro-Second Amendment. They believe that the 2nd Amendment recognizes the right of states to raise a milita and no more. If liberals interpretation of the Second Amendment was the law of the land, there would be no right for individuals to have a firearm for self-protection. If Elena Kagan is elevated to the Supremes, is there any doubt that she would vote for a restrictive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? There is no evidence to believe otherwise.

If you study the below give and take between Senator Grassley and Elena Kagan, there is further evidence that she is unwilling to discuss her personal views of the 2nd Amendment.

Grassley: The court said in Heller, quote, “It has always been” — and I guess I would put emphasis upon the word “always” — “It’s always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth, codified a pre-existing right.” Do you believe that the Second Amendment codified a pre-existing right? Or was it a right created by the Constitution.

Kagan: Senator Grassley, I’ve — I’venever really considered that question, as to whether the Second Amendment right…

Grassley: Well, it’s basic to our Declaration of Independence that says we’re endowed by our creator with certain — certain individual rights, among them, you know, what it says, and we aren’t endowed by our government. So the question here is, are we endowed by our Constitution with this right or did it exist before the Constitution existed?

Kagan: Well, Senator Grassley, I do think that my responsibility would be to apply the Constitution as understood and previously applied by the court, and that means as understood and — and interpreted by the court in Heller, and that’s what I would do. So I think that the — the fundamental legal question would be whether — that a case would present would be whether the Constitution guarantees an individual right to bear arms, and Heller held that it did, and that’s good precedent going forward.

Kagan claimed that she had never considered the debate as to whether the freedom to posses a firearm is a right granted by the Founders or a pre-existing natural right. How is this possible, when she had written memos to Justice Thurgood Marshall dealing withthe Second Amendment, she had drafted executive orders for President Clinton dealing with the Second Amendment and met with attorneys in the McDonald case dealing withthe Second Amendment? Kagan should take some time to consider this question and provide answers to Senators in writing after she has time to consider the two views. It is likely that this is the last we will hear from Elena Kagan on this issue until she sides with Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor for the proposition that Heller and McDonald were wrongly decided.

Media Matters takes aim at my claim that Kagan not taking a position in the McDonald case is further evidence of anti-gun sentiment that will come to fruition on the High Court.

But there’s one claim Darling made that we haven’t dealt with for more than a month because it was proven to be so utterly false that almost no one has bothered to even raise it again until now: The claim that Kagan’s decision not to file a brief in the Supreme Court case regarding Chicago’s gun rights shows an anti-Second Amendment bias.

As I argued in my piece:

If Elena Kagan does believe that the constitution protects 2nd Amendment rights, then why did she not file a brief in the McDonald case? This is evidence that Kagan was seeking to hide her views on the Second Amendment in anticipation of a potential nomination for the next opening on the Supreme Court. The holding in the McDonald case opens up judicial attacks on many federal and state gun laws as applied to the residents of the different states, yet Kagan found no federal interest compelling the federal government to file a brief. Kagan’s inaction on that case is further evidence of a hostility to the right to “keep and bear Arms.” In three jobs where Kagan had a responsibility to respect the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans, Kagan chose to work against those constitutional protections.

Media Matters argues the following:

First, how in the world does not filing a brief in the case establish Kagan’ssupposed “hostility to Second Amendment rights”?

Clearly, it is possible that as Solicitor General Elena Kagan thought it prudent not to file a brief that may inhibit her ascention to the U.S. Supreme Court. The lack of filing a brief is evidence that she did not want to show her views on the Second Amendment. If she had filed a brief, she would havehad to defend those views if an opening ever occurred on the Court. An opening did occur.

It is my understanding that Kagan met with attorneys representing harmed parties in the McDonald case and decided not to file a brief. If the Solicitor General had no interest in the case, why did the Solicitor General’s office meet with counsel? We don’t have documents indicating why the the Solicitor General’s office failed to file a brief, but clearly it was something within the purview of the office.

The Office of the Solicitor General’s web site states:

The task of the Office of the Solicitor General is to supervise and conduct government litigation in the United States Supreme Court. Virtually all such litigation is channeled through the Office of the Solicitor General and is actively conducted by the Office. The United States is involved in approximately two-thirds of all the cases the U.S. Supreme Court decides on the merits each year. The Solicitor General determines the cases in which Supreme Court review will be sought by the government and the positions the government will take before the Court. The Office’s staff attorneys, Deputy Solicitors General and Assistants to the Solicitor General, participate in preparing the petitions, briefs, and other papers filed by the government in the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General conducts the oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Those cases not argued by the Solicitor General personally are assigned either to an Assistant to the Solicitor General or to another government attorney. The vast majority of government cases are argued by the Solicitor General or one of the office attorneys.

In the McDonald case the Solicitor General could have filed a brief in the matter. There was a federal interest involved in a case that incorporated the federal constitutional guarantee of the right to “keep and bear Arms” against a state.

Media Matters further argues that

In fact, as the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Dough Kendall has noted, the Solicitor General’s brief in Benton v. Maryland did not even mention the incorporation issue. Kendall also noted that, contrary to Blackwell and Klukowski’s assertion, the Solicitor General actually “has a tradition of not weighing in on incorporation cases at all, regardless of where it may stand on the merits of the case.”

Kendall qualified that statement by pointing to a case when the Solicitor General did file a brief in an incorporation case:

I don’t want to overstate this. We did find one brief filed by George W. Bush Solicitor General Paul Clement in a case called Cutter v. Wilkinsonthat argued for incorporation in defending the constitutionality of a federal statute, and I think the federal government does havea very important interest in making sure that constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment, apply against the states in the same manner that they apply against the federal government.

Kendall’s piece shows that the Solicitor General can and has filed a brief in cases dealing with incorporation. In the light of General Kagans nomination to the Supreme Court, I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that political motivations may have been considered. If you take Kagan’s lack of filing in the abstract, then maybe you could conclude no ill will toward the 2nd Amendment, yet Kagan’s long history of anti-gun activism leads this analyst to conclude the contrary. Taking into consideration Kagan’s memo to Justice Thurgood Marshall stating to personal “sympathy” for a litigant in a Second Amendment claim and her long list of anti-gun activities during the Clinton Administration, it is reasonable to attribute Kagan’s lack of filing a brief in McDonald case as further evidence of hostility to the 2nd Amendment.

Media Matters ends with this claim:

Moreover, the claim in Darling’s post that the Supreme Court was considering “whether Chicago’s restrictive gun ban is constitutional” is also wrong. The plaintiffs in the case asked the Supreme Court to answer one question: “Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses.” And the Court’s holding answers that one question: saying that the right to keep and bear arms does apply to state and local governments. The Court never dealt with the question of whether Chicago’s ban is constitutional. Rather, the Court remanded the case to the lower courts to determine that issue.

The holding in McDonald caused the City of Chicago to repeal the statute in question and replace with a new statute this week. I stipulate to the point that the holding in the case answers the question of “whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms is incorporated as against the States by the Foureenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses.” This case has been remanded for a disposition on the application of the statute to the 2nd Amendment. The Petitioner’s Brief in the McDonald case cites the following record of the case:

On June 26, 2008, Petitioners filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois challenging Chicago’s handgun ban, reregistration and pre-acquisition registration requirements, and non-registrability penalty, as violating their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Media Matters is correct in the statement of the holding of the case, but the case has now been mooted by the City of Chicago changing the law. This new statute will be the subject of new litigation and Elena Kagan may be on the Supreme Court to help decide the constitutionality of this new Chicago law. The error does not mitigate the fact that Media Matters is attempting to fool the American people when they claim that Kagan is not hostile to the 2nd Amendment. My challenge to Media Matters is to cite one instance of Elena Kagan supporting an expansive view of the 2nd Amendment. Cite one piece of evidence that she would not agree with Justice Sotomayor that Heller was wrongly decided. Show me where Kagan defended the right of an American to own a firearm. I bet Media Matters will respond with the same response they havehad to all of the substantive claims of my blog post – with this.

Judges, Guns and Money: Part I

by Josie Wales

I’m the innocent bystander…not anymore!

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

And so, our 2nd Amendment right to firearms settles into its proper place among our pantheon of fundamental rights. The truth of the matter is that we always retained that right, but the law had been interpreted contrary to the Constitution.

2nd Amendment

Two arguments were the focus of McDonald v. Chicago: (1) the narrow interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s “privileges and immunities” clause adopted in the Slaughter-House Cases should be rejected; and (2) the 14th Amendment’s “due process” clause incorporates the 2nd Amendment right. Justice Thomas addressed the first argument in a concurring opinion (arguably the bigger precedent), but we will turn to that topic in Part II. Justice Scalia skewered Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion in another concurring opinion, but that will be the topic of Part III. First let us examine Justice Alito’s plurality opinion concerning the second argument, and the dissent of Justice Breyer.

Alito ducks the “privileges and immunities” argument for lack of consensus, instead focusing on the Supreme Court’s history of incorporating the Bill of Rights. “Incorporation” is the process by which fundamental rights protected from the national government apply to the states via the 14th Amendment. Alito notes Justice Cardozo’s standard for this process in Palko v. Connecticut:

And in Palko, the Court famously said that due process protects those rights that are “the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty” and essential to “a fair and enlightened system of justice.”

Cardozo’s process of incorporation required a measured examination of fundamental rights on a case-by-case basis, and not all rights identified by the Constitution have been incorporated, including the 5th Amendment requirement for grand jury indictments.

Alito gets straight to the point on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment from DC v. Heller:

Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,^{[ 15 ]} and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right.

Scalia recounted much of the history surrounding the 2nd Amendment in Heller, but Alito expanded upon Scalia’s analysis by adding a lesson from history regarding the right to self-defense. The first Civil Rights Acts enacted after the Civil War addressed the issue of self-defense, especially in light of attempts to disarm former slaves in the South. The reign of terror perpetrated against blacks in the South follows a common historical theme that begins with disarming a population. Fortunately, the American experience did not end in genocide, largely because the right to self-defense was protected.

Not only did the attorneys for Chicago ignore the long tradition of self-defense through the right to bear arms, they introduced a skewed outlook on the process of incorporation. Chicago argued that incorporation should only apply to rights recognized by all civilized legal systems. Alito quickly points out the flaw in this line of reasoning:

For example, many of the rights that our Bill of Rights provides for persons accused of criminal offenses are virtually unique to this country. If our understanding of the right to a jury trial, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel were necessary attributes of any civilized country, it would follow that the United States is the only civilized Nation in the world.

Not to mention the fact that if we followed this logic we would have to consider countries like China and Russia when determining fundamental rights. Another argument warped the idea that states should be left to find solutions to problems as independent laboratories of freedom as justification for experimenting with gun control. When we parallel that line of argument to speech control the flaw in the reasoning is magnified. In yet another novel argument, Chicago complained of an increase of litigation should the Supreme Court extend Heller. Just imagine the Court failing to incorporate the 1st Amendment for the same reasoning.

After Alito swatted down each of the asinine arguments presented by Chicago’s attorneys, he turned his attention to the dissent. He notes that Breyer’s dissent rests on four points: (1)the lack of popular consensus regarding the 2nd Amendment; (2) the right does not protect political minorities; (3) incorporation of the 2nd Amendment intrudes upon the balance of federalism; and (4) judges will be forced to make difficult decisions outside their area of expertise.

The first argument is rather ridiculous. Rights do not exist as a result of popular consensus. Our rights exist outside of government, as I have argued time and again, and the evidence of this comes from the 9th Amendment. Alito further ridicules this argument by proving consensus. A majority of States, Senators and Representatives supported incorporation. Alito addresses the second argument from the facts of the case. The current powers that be in Chicago were unable to protect those in high-crime areas despite a firearm ban. There were as many victims in Chicago in the last year as American soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Furthermore, a vast majority of those victims were racial minorities. The third argument is laughable coming from the liberal wing of the court. Since when do progressives care about federalism. And the fourth argument lacks merit when judges must unequivocally recognize one’s 2nd Amendment rights as a result of the present decision. There is no case-by-case approach when dealing with recognized fundamental rights.

Another line of legal argument that Breyer addresses is the idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias. The first problem with this argument is that militias do not exist as they did 200 years ago. The national government controls the National Guard. What good is it to recognize a right in the National Guard to protect the citizens from the national government when the national government controls the Guard? Secondly, rights are not communal, they are personal. Even the right to assemble does not belong to the group, but rather to the individuals that comprise the group. Either way, this legal reasoning is flawed.

Breyer ends his dissent with an accounting of history that would make Howard Zinn proud. Not only does he ignore the relevant history of the 2nd Amendment and self-defense in America, he pulls a nice little bait-and-switch. None of the history that Breyer recounts involves outright bans, as is the issue in McDonald, but rather it recounts a history of regulation. McDonald did not eliminate all regulations on firearms, but it did bring those regulations under greater scrutiny. Breyer’s dissent fails.

Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment Rights

Monday, June 28, 2010

The United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling today that the Second Amendment does, in fact, mean what it says — even in Chicago — and guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The case at hand was McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the plaintiff sought to overturn Chicago’s blanket ban on handguns.

The Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Chicago ban clearly infringed on that right.

That didn’t stop the Chicago Tribune from spinning in its headline, “Supreme Court extends gun rights.” The Tribune lamented that the Court’s decision had “extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection.” Such language, of course, suggests that the Court invented the right out of thin air — sort of like abortion on demand. Unlike abortion, however, the right to keep and bear arms is actually written down in the Constitution, in plain view for all to see.

Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation summed up the case:

In 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court for the first time held that the right to bear arms was an individual right. But that decision, which struck down a virtual ban on handguns and a requirement that rifles and shotguns had to be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” in the District of Columbia, applied only to the federal government because the District is a federal enclave. What had never been decided before today’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago was whether the protection of the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to apply to state and local governments.

The Associated Press reports, “Monday’s decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.”

Predictably, the split was along ideological lines. Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Sam Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were in the majority; Steven Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and John Paul Stevens, who served his last day on the court Monday, dissented.

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito observed, “It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” Alito also wrote, “The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.”

Justice Thomas, in a separate opinion, argued a different constitutional rationale, saying, “[The] Due Process Clause, which speaks only to ‘process,’ cannot impose the type of substantive restraint on state legislation that the Court asserts. Rather, the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’”

Out in left field, Justice Breyer displayed his bullheaded ignorance, writing, “[N]othing in 18th-, 19th-, 20th-, or 21st-century history shows a consensus that the right to private armed self-defense … is ‘deeply rooted in this nation’s history or tradition’ or is otherwise ‘fundamental.’” Justice Stevens dissented separately, and suddenly became a proponent of federalism: “[T]his is a quintessential area in which federalism ought to be allowed to flourish without this court’s meddling.” Where was this fair-weather federalist with any number of other heavy handed rulings that took away states’ rights?

As for Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Stevens on the Court, she pleaded the Fifth. In a monumental case involving the Bill of Rights, she chose not to file so much as a brief in the case. In the past, however, she stated that she was “not sympathetic” to a District resident with a complaint similar to that eventually upheld by the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Put another way, Kagan is hostile to the Second Amendment.

The courts likely will now face numerous cases on other state and local gun restrictions. The Supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is an individual right, but it left open many questions regarding who, what and where. This is yet another way in which elections have consequences. For at least two and a half more years, an anti-gun leftist occupies the White House and wields the power to nominate like-minded individuals to the courts.

52 SHOT, 8 DEAD AND MAYOR DALEY
STILL RESISTS SELF-DEFENSE

BELLEVUE, WA – Fifty-two people shot, eight of them fatally in a single Chicago weekend, yet Mayor Richard Daley appears poised to go down screaming in his opposition to the Second Amendment Foundation’s lawsuit to overturn his city’s handgun ban.

The U.S. Supreme Court could rule any day on the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, filed by SAF, the Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago residents. That ruling will likely strike down the handgun ban, thus opening the door to legal self-defense by Windy City residents.

“Chicago has become a slaughterhouse,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “where defenseless victims are terrorized by armed thugs who have taken full advantage of an unarmed populace. Daley and his predecessors who perpetuated this ban are wading knee-deep in the blood of hundreds of crime victims who should have had the means to defend themselves.

“Year after year the statistics have piled up,” he continued, “yet Mayor Daley has stubbornly defended the city’s ban. While he has luxuriated at his vacation home with the safety of armed bodyguards, the bodies of Chicago crime victims have stacked up like cordwood.

“Within days,” Gottlieb observed, “we should have a ruling from the Supreme Court that puts an end to this insanity, and gives the citizens of Chicago back their right to defend themselves. Daley thinks his constituents should be content to call 911 and wait for help to arrive while they’re being shot, stabbed, raped, robbed or beaten. Those crimes happen fast, and when seconds count, Chicago police are minutes away.

“We took Daley to court because we trust his citizens more than he does with their self-defense rights,” Gottlieb concluded. “Chicago residents have endured the terror of public disarmament for almost three decades, and all they have to show for it is a body count. Mayor Daley should be ashamed.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Statement From NRA-ILA Executive Director
Chris W. Cox On H.R. 5175, The “DISCLOSE Act”

I appreciate the concerns that some NRA members have raised regarding our position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act.” Regrettably, our position has been misstated by some and intentionally misrepresented by others. I hope you’ll allow me to provide the proper context.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision was a significant victory for free speech and the Constitution. The NRA filed a strong brief in that case, which the Court specifically cited several times in its opinion. The DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to reverse that victory and that’s why we told Congress we oppose it.

The NRA has never supported — nor would we ever support — any version of this bill. Those who suggest otherwise are wrong.

The restrictions in this bill should not apply to anyone or to any organization. My job is to ensure they don’t apply to the NRA and our members. Without the NRA, the Second Amendment will be lost and I will do everything in my power to prevent that.

We believe that any restriction on political speech is repugnant. But some of our critics believe we should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle to protect other organizations. That’s easy to say — unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as I do.

The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. Nor do all groups fight all issues together. For example, we didn’t support the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when it backed amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens and we did not join the Chamber in its support of President Obama’s stimulus bill. And we’ve been in direct opposition when the Chamber has tried to restrict Second Amendment rights in publicly accessible parking lots.

Rather than focusing on opposing this bill, some have encouraged people to blame the NRA for this Congress’s unconstitutional attack on free speech. That’s a shame. If you oppose this bill, I hope you will contact your Member of Congress and Senators so they can hear from you.

Statement From David Keene, NRA First
Vice-President On H.R. 5175, The “DISCLOSE Act”

I have been an NRA Board member for some years and currently serve as NRA’s First Vice-President — that you may know. What you may not know is that I have been in the forefront of the fight against liberal attempts to tilt the political playing field their way for decades through what they like to call campaign finance reform. This is a battle that began in the seventies when I put together the case that went to the United States Supreme Court known as Buckley v. Valeo. I was a vocal opponent of the so-called McCain-Feingold “reforms” that shackled groups like the NRA in recent years, and I have served as a First Amendment Fellow at Vanderbilt University’s Freedom Forum.

I can assure you that I would never countenance a “deal” of the sort you think the NRA made with Congress to further Democratic attempts to restrict political speech. I consider such restrictions to be not only repugnant, but blatantly unconstitutional, an opinion shared by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris Cox.

The so-called “DISCLOSE ACT” is a horrible piece of legislation designed to do exactly what you suggest. It would require advocacy groups to run a regulatory gauntlet designed to make it very difficult for many of them to play the role for which they were formed and is both bad policy and flies in the face of recent Supreme Court decisions.

But I’m afraid there’s more . particularly how it would affect the NRA. When you think of the NRA you no doubt think mostly about the NRA’s advocacy on Second Amendment issues, but the NRA also provides training to its members, law enforcement and military personnel, works with states, counties and private organizations to build ranges and runs competitive events such as those at Camp Perry in Ohio. Since Camp Perry is a military base, public monies go into range development and federal funds go to training military and police personnel, the NRA would be classed with government contractors and TARP recipients under the DISCLOSE ACT as originally written and effectively prohibited from engaging in any meaningful political activity.

In other words, this act as originally written by anti-gun legislators like New York Senator Chuck Schumer would have silenced the NRA .which would have been the death knell for the Second Amendment.

NRA has one major mission . to defend the right of its members and all Americans to Keep & Bear Arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Therefore, the NRA served notice on Congress that since the act threatened our very existence, we were prepared to do anything and everything that might be required to defeat it unless it was changed so that we could continue to represent the views of our members in the public arena. The letter, sent on May 26, was public. The NRA did not engage in back room shenanigans, but told Congressional leaders quite clearly that we would do whatever we needed to do to protect the rights of our members and our ability to defend the Second Amendment.

Last week Democratic leadership in the House capitulated by agreeing to exempt the NRA from the act — not in return for NRA support, but to avoid a political war that might cost them even more seats this fall.

I have to tell you that I never thought the Democrats would agree to this — not because they have much regard for constitutional rights — because I didn’t believe their left wing would allow it. The events since their capitulation convince me that their fear of NRA retaliation forced them to take steps that split their coalition and could easily doom the whole bill.

Consider this: on Thursday night, California Senator Diane Feinstein, one of the most anti-Second Amendment members of the Senate, announced that she wouldn’t support the DISCLOSE ACT if it exempted the NRA. By Friday some two-dozen left wing activist groups that had previously been pressing Congress to pass the bill announced that now they wanted it defeated.

The bottom line is that in refusing to risk its members’ rights and the very survival of the Second Amendment, the NRA has also made it less rather than more likely that support for this terrible legislation will collapse and the free speech rights of every one of us will benefit.

Setting The Record Straight On The “DISCLOSE Act”

We appreciate the concerns some NRA members have raised about our position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act.” Unfortunately, the mainstream media and other critics of NRA’s role in this process have misstated or misunderstood the facts. We’d like to set the record straight.

We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).

Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members’ right to privacy and freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings — even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.

The introduced version of the bill would also have prohibited political speech by all federal government contractors. The NRA has contracts to provide critical firearm training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The bill would have forced us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refused to let this Congress force us to make that choice.

We told Congress we opposed the bill. Consequently, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on political speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in final consideration of this bill in the House. If it doesn’t, we will strongly oppose the bill.

Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn’t happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.

There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That’s easy to say — unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.

The NRA is a non-partisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That’s their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.

Today, the fate of the bill remains in doubt. The House floor debate has repeatedly been postponed. Lawmakers and outside groups who once supported the bill, or took no position — including the Brady Campaign — have now come out against it because of the announcement regarding NRA. The outcome in the Senate is even murkier, as anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has announced her strong opposition to the proposed change.

No matter what may happen now, NRA members can be assured that protection of gun owners’ interests will remain NRA’s top priority. Please check in regularly at www.NRAILA.org for the latest news on this issue.

GUNS AND AMMO ENTHUSIAST BLOG

http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com

16 Jun 10

Be first!

The NRA should be ashamed of itself

Maybe it’s petty jealously or pure greed, but we do not see another option with the NRA supporting H.R. 5175. It is very apparent that the NRA is trying to put all other gun rights groups out of business. A monopoly case could be made. However the government will not bring a case against themselves for a monopoly they create. This bill H.R. 5175 could shut down all other groups like GOA, SAF, and others. Is the NRA upset that not only lawsuits got filed but got to the supreme court by another organization specifically the SAF? (Second Amendment Foundation). All members of the nra need to contact the nra and tell them it is absolutely not a good idea to sell out all the other firearm and second amendment groups. This verges on the side of criminal. It is at the VERY LEAST unethical. If the nra gets in then ALL OTHER groups need to be in as well. All or nothing you petty nra. Deal with the fact that others are doing the same job or get out of the business all together.

June 9, 2010

Supporters of gun control are RACISTS!

Posted: 08 Jun 2010 08:51 AM PDT

The historical racist roots of gun control by JPFO

We here at Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog first heard of this from Kenn Blanchard. The host of The Urban Shooter Podcast. Now the JPFO yhas done a video about it as well.

The liberal social engineers, and their political shills, have fed their lapdogs in the Mainstream Media the “gun control” party line. For generations it has poisoned the American consciousness.

Without the sophisticated brainwashing agenda of NBC, CBS, ABC, and the “educational” PBS, the socialist proponents of citizen disarmament would have long ago been crushed and defeated.

To aid in the goal of destroying “gun control”, JPFO has prepared three versions of a placard (and handbill) that are aimed directly at the soft underbelly of the media. These are purposely designed to be used at gun shows, Tea Party rallies, or any form of demonstration that seeks to send a hard core rebuttal to those who smear gun owners as racists.

During rallies, make sure you shove the placard in the face of everyone holding a camera. We never know when that image might turn up on the news or go viral. Go here for free pdf files of the placards and handbills –

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/freebies.htm#latest

Many print shops can expand these files up to size 18″ x 24″.

The goal? To bring millions of eyes and ears to the irrefutable historical facts presented in the landmark documentary made possible by JPFO supporters.

Go here to view a free download of “No Guns for Negroes” –

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ngn-download-view.htm

Do your part today to destroy “gun control”.

GUNS AND AMMO ENTHUSIAST BLOG

http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com

Big mother government grabbing more power over the second amendment, business, and firearm rights

Posted: 04 Jun 2010 08:27 AM PDT

In a recent ruling regarding the “transfer” of firearms, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATFE) has reversed policies that have been in place for more than 40 years.

In the ruling, BATFE declared that a temporary shipment of a firearm by a federal firearms licensee to a non-employee for business reasons (such as a manufacturer’s shipment to a gun writer or engineering consultant for a technical evaluation), will now be considered a “transfer” and require completion of a Form 4473 and background check.

This reverses a ruling issued in 1969, right after the passage of the Gun Control Act, although BATFE provided no explanation of the need for the change. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, BATFE hasn’t been able to name a single case in which a gun temporarily shipped under the old rule has been used in crime.

The short-term impact may be limited, because many major manufacturers already require firearms sent to non-employees to go through the transfer process. But manufacturers who didn’t follow that practice will now have to ship guns to licensed dealers to complete these “transfers.”

Furthermore, the ruling only applies to temporary shipments by federal firearms licensees to carry out those licensees’ business operations. Given that limitation, the new ruling won’t affect private individuals who ship guns to themselves when traveling to shoot or hunt, or who ship firearms to a manufacturer or gunsmith for repair or customization.

However, this new ruling may have broader implications for future issues. For example, some have suggested that although the ruling doesn’t relate directly to rental of guns for use on commercial shooting ranges, its reasoning might require rentals to be treated as “transfers” subject to recordkeeping and background check requirements.

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast

http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com.

The current USA government is terrified of firearm ownership. This report show why

Posted: 01 Jun 2010 08:15 AM PDT

Executive Summary – It seems like the Fed spends a major portion of its time, energy and resources dreaming up ways to try to convince the gun owners that they need to not have guns. This is generally done using the salami theory. The salami represents gun rights. They cut off a slice each time until there is nothing left.

The way they are treating soldiers is even more illustrative of the extreme fear the fed has of gun ownership. They even tried getting Mexico President Calderon to ask for a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. The NRA should call for a boycott of any Mexico tourism until Calderon renounces this statement and he would renounce it to stop a boycott. If he closed his border no guns would get in, Duhhh. Do they think we are as stupid as they are?

Fort Riley Kansas – Overzealous base commanders can impose their will on the soldiers and their privately owned firearms. For example see what the base commander did at Fort Riley:

They require the registration, with Fort Riley administration, of its soldiers’ privately-owned firearms kept off-base, and those of the soldiers’ family members residing anywhere in Kansas. This violates the rights of the family members big time. The family members are having their rights violated in that they are not in the military and thus not under the constitution. It gets worse:

The Fort riley base administration prohibits their soldiers who have firearm-carrying permits from carrying firearms for protection off-base. Absurd. They are also allowed to to set arbitrary limits on the caliber of firearms and ammunition their troops may privately own. So if a soldier transfers from one base to another he may have to sell his guns and ammo.

Analysis of this Action – The government is scared to death of an overthrow of their administration. They are guilty of many violations of the constitution and in fact their administration is repugnant to the constitution and everyone knows what the laws say to do with a government repugnant to the constitution. They know that and the informed citizens know that. The military is also acutely aware of the gross violations of law being advocated and enforced by the administration. Obama is now giving speeches minus the American flag. He would not go to Arlington for memorial day being the first president to not go there. Well he is also the first non qualified Kenyan Muslim President too.

The controlling of private firearms reassures the government that the soldiers will have a harder time uprising. The military weapons are under serious lockdown on the bases. If the soldiers have personal weapons they can over run the base and get the military weapons. Of course the flaw with this thinking is that those guarding the base can become involved in the overthrow as well. The government is of course not thinking straight these days. They have fears of standing trial for treason sedition, theft of government property and resources, fraud, falsification of documents, violating numerous laws and who knows what else will turn up when the secret files and bank accounts get opened up. Those mutual legal assistance treaties will bite them in the butt when used against them to get their money from foreign banks.

This of course makes one wonder why Saudi Arabia a member of the G-10 did not sign any tax treaties. Kuwait also did not sign any treaties. Is this where they plan on keeping their wealth when the egg hits the fan and they have to hit the helicopter to the submarine or jet? Images of Sadamm Hussein being hung with reporters present goes through their minds. They know they are guilty and are trying to hang on. They cannot just let go because that means imminent doom for them in a trail of their peers. As more and more people become educated to the evils and violations of law their situation becomes more and more precarious. By now the paranoia has sunk in big time and they will behave more and more irrationally.

The stunt with Calderon appearing before both houses illustrates the lack of logic they are operating under. Using a leader from another nation to call for USA gun control, come on what idiots. A good question is how many of their employees who are not Muslim or communist are actually loyal to the administration. Sure they are being bought off with large salaries disproportionately large considering the state of the economy but this is just a real cheap superficial form of loyalty that anyone who ever lived in the third world will recognize clearly.

The Nazis gave extreme exemptions from law and accountability to their people yet many tried numerous times to kill Hitler. They did come close too. Hitler and the Nazis even had their own army (SS) to protect them from the soldiers and people. Then they had a secret police the Gestapo as well. In spite of this he came close to getting killed a few times. So far Obama has not raised his own army to protect him from the regular army and the people. He does have the secret police thing down as good as Hitler right down to the secret prisons, torture and no courts involved.

Of course the Obama youth corps is the groundwork for a special army. They use these camps as a recruiting forum for those easily brainwashed and corrupted into being tyrannical. This Obama will fail. He takes the shortcuts, is lazy, likes to lie about who and what he is and cannot keep his story straight. People are getting madder and madder daily. Do not expect him to back off he does not wan to stand trail for his frauds and treason. Obama has painted himself into a corner being the jerk he is and has no way out except to place the country under dictatorial powers thus ensuring his freedom from prosecution.

I wonder how much of these slaps in the face the government workers and military are going to put up with. How can you have a two bit lying street punk muslim like that as your boss and look yourself in the mirror every day?

Hillary Clinton And The UN Arms Trade Treaty Rumor

Friday, May 28, 2010

We continue to receive numerous inquiries regarding UN international treaties, and their impact on our Second Amendment rights. The latest rumor making its way around the Internet claims that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually signed a UN small arms treaty.

Contrary to this widely circulated e-mail, Hillary Clinton has not signed any small arms treaty. She could not have done so, in fact, because no such treaty has yet been negotiated.

As we noted in an update from last November, the UN Arms Trade Treaty will be drafted between now and 2012, and even if signed, would not take effect in the U.S. until it was ratified by the Senate.

Please rest assured that, as we said in November, NRA will be actively involved in this process and will oppose any treaty that would attempt to impose limits on our Second Amendment rights. In the meantime, we urge gun owners to follow this issue in NRA’s magazines and NRA-ILA’s Grassroots Alerts. We also urge gun owners not to circulate misinformation on this issue.

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com

Hay gun grabbers you are on the wrong side of the facts; FBI Data Again Shows More Guns = Less Crime

Posted: 28 May 2010 02:38 PM PDT

Anyone needing proof that fanaticism for gun control hasn’t waned on Capitol Hill, that anti-gunners are—as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) put it last year—only waiting to “pick the time,” should watch the video of Mexican president Felipe Calderon’s speech to Congress last week, versions of which have been posted on youtube.com. When Calderon asked that the federal “assault weapon” ban be re-imposed, a very large number of U.S. Representatives and Senators present gave him a standing ovation.

However, on Monday the FBI released crime statistics that should cause the applauding anti-gunners to sit on their hands. The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. That amounts to about an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation’s legal and illegal population is taken into account. And it translates into about a 10.5 percent decrease in the murder rate between 2004, when the ban expired, and the end of 2009. And finally, it means that in 2009 our nation’s murder rate fell to a 45-year low.

The FBI’s report was also bad news for anti-gunners elected to other offices. With the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago no more than a few weeks away, Mayors Bloomberg, of New York City, and Daley, of Chicago—who fear that it will require them to respect the Second Amendment for the first time—have continued to beat their drums for gun control. As we have noted, Bloomberg recently encouraged a Senate committee to support the Lautenberg-King terrorist watchlist bills. And last week Daley told a Chicago Reader reporter, who expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of Chicago’s handgun ban, “It’s been very effective.” Holding a bayonet-equipped rifle, Daley added, “If I put this up your butt, you find out how effective it is.”

But, murders in big cities declined over 11 percent between 2008 and 2009, translating to over a 12 percent decrease in the big city murder per capita rate. We hope, but don’t expect, that the indisputable fact that an increase in gun ownership does not necessarily correspond to an increase in crime, will reduce the frequency of Bloomberg’s stunts aimed at gun shows, and Daley’s periodic rants against the firearm industry.

Guns And Ammo Enthusiast Blog

http://www.gunsandenthusiastblog.com

‘MORNING SHOOTING UNDERSCORES WHY WE SUED CHICAGO,’ SAYS SAF

Posted: 26 May 2010 05:43 PM PDT

This brought to you by the SAF

BELLEVUE, WA – This morning’s fatal shooting of a home invasion suspect by an 80-year-old retired Army veteran in Chicago’s East Garfield Park neighborhood underscores why we filed a lawsuit to overturn the city’s gun ban, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

That case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, is about to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Joining SAF in that lawsuit are the Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago residents including Otis McDonald, for whom the case is named.

Today’s shooting of an armed home invader with a lengthy criminal record is still under investigation by police, noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, but it appears to be a clear-cut case of self-defense. Local newspaper reports show strong support from the older man’s neighbors. The Chicago Sun Times quoted next door neighbor Curtis Thompson, who observed, “It’s a good thing they had a gun, or they might be dead.” Another neighbor, identified as Audrey Williams, told the newspaper “I’d have done the same thing. They say we’ve got to give up our guns, but that’s crazy.”

The newspaper is also quoting the man’s 57-year-old son, who put it bluntly: “If homeowners can’t have guns to defend themselves and their families, there’s going to be more home invasions. My father’s glad he had a weapon. He did what he had to do.”

“We filed our lawsuit two years ago to protect the self-defense rights of Chicago citizens just like this man,” Gottlieb said. “We have taken the McDonald case to the Supreme Court because far too many people in Chicago are not been able to defend themselves. They have been unconscionably disarmed, and left in as much fear of being arrested and jailed for having a gun as they are afraid of being robbed and murdered by armed thugs who have ignored the gun ban.

“Chicago’s ban did not stop this violent criminal,” he added, “a homeowner with a gun did. The ban also did not stop the recent murder of off-duty police officer Thomas Wortham IV. It is time for this insidious ban to be nullified, and we are hopeful that’s exactly what the Supreme Court is about to do.”

Guns And Ammo Enthusiast Blog

http://gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com

Why is the Second Amendment discounted?

Posted: 24 May 2010 08:27 AM PDT

Why do some people scream for one right guaranteed by the constitution and the bill of rights, but, those same people would scream to deny a right to another person guaranteed by that same document to someone else? What am I talking about? Well let me explain. Some people would literally fight if necessary for an artist to show a painting of something that denigrates Christians and he Christian religion. They would (and have) said that this painting is that artists individuals right to freedom of speech. While personally I think that kind of “art” is crap and don’t think art is speech. About half of Americans think it is.

If art is speech and protected to the indivigual under the constitution and the bill of rights. Then why do some people say that my right to own a gun is not only NOT a personal right protected by the constitution, but, not even protected under the second amendment? The second amendment states as follows “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” At the time of the addition of the bill of the rights the term militia meant: either defense activity or those who engage in it, whether as individuals or in concert with others. So the term militia basically meant the people of the United States of America. And how those people who dislike firearm ownership by the average citizen get the phrase “Shall NOT be infringed” absolutely blows my mind. They would through a screaming fit if someone or the political class tried to infringe on the “artist’s” right to free “speech”, but, would applaud my right to bear arms being taken away.

Weather or not art is speech is a topic for another day and another place. What I am sick of is some of the people who say it is also turning around and saying I do not or should not have the right to own a firearm. As I have stated in other posts, that I know for a fact that I am a better shooter then most police in the country today, and probably better then most military. The only difference is I am not paid by the tax payers of this nation. I have an will now again take the same oath that our founding fathers took when they signed the Declaration of Independence. I pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor to the defense of this nation, whatever free state I happen to be in, and my fellow American. In my opinion that is the civilian (or none military/police) oath to protect my community.

So in conclusion, if you can find fault with my point of view please keep it polite and post it here at Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog.

Brady Campaign’s slipping relevancy underscored by NRA convention
Op-Ed By Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman
Adhering to a pattern of behavior that has developed over the years, a tiny contingent of gun prohibitionists paraded outside of the Charlotte Convention Center while the National Rifle Association was hosting its record-breaking members’ meeting, but they remained only long enough to get some camera time with local news crews.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, came to that North Carolina city in order to grab some face time and get his name in the local newspapers. Where the NRA can pull more than 70,000 members, the Brady bunch could barely muster two dozen protesters to parade around for perhaps an hour, probably less, and then leave satisfied that the 5 o’clock news would carry their images.

For several years, right up to the devastating 1994 mid-term elections that turned dozens of Congressional anti-gunners out of office, the Brady Campaign and other gun control groups enjoyed media and public support. But when gun rights organizations began fighting back with facts, and developed a strategy of education through legal journals, their influence began to wane. That influence continued to erode as time tested their rhetoric and found it not simply wanting, but totally preposterous.

Their dire predictions in state after state that concealed carry reform and state preemption statutes would spawn Wild West gunfights at fender benders, bloody shootouts in restaurants and cocktail lounges, and skyrocketing murder rates in which perpetrators would be citizens who were licensed to carry all were false. Influential people, including prosecutors and county sheriffs, recognized this and went on the record to say so.

These days, Brady’s Helmke is reduced to spouting platitudes on the steps of the Supreme Court, verbally bashing important civil rights cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and the Second Amendment Foundation’s pending McDonald v. City of Chicago.

His organization has desperately resorted to attacking Starbucks Coffee to gin up support while pandering paranoia; an effort that anti-gunners have developed into an art form, albeit a lousy one.

They have attacked the most anti-gun president in the nation’s history, giving Barack Obama an “F” grade because he is not anti-gun enough to suit their extremist philosophy.

The Brady Campaign has not managed to push through a single piece of federal legislation in more than 15 years. Their attempt to sue the gun industry into bankruptcy using anti-gun mayors as their puppet proxies failed on legal merit and in the court of public opinion.

If it weren’t for the fact that pro-gun rights groups are so active, the Brady bunch would not even have events to attend. In short, gun prohibitionists have become irrelevant, and in their desperation for attention, they appear to be in a state of denial, reaching out to a shrinking audience that still believes in public safety through demagoguery and surrender to the criminal element.

Just like some politicians, Helmke and the Brady Campaign do not know when it is time to retire.

Alan Gottlieb is the Founder of Second Amendment Foundation. Dave Workman is senior editor of Gun Week. They are co-authors of Assault on Weapons: The Campaign to Eliminate Your Guns.

Calderon urges U.S. to reinstate assault

weapons ban

Thu, May 20 2010

By Deborah Charles

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Mexican President Felipe Calderon urged the U.S. Congress on Thursday to reinstate a ban on assault weapons to help cut cross-border gun smuggling and reduce drug gang violence for its southern neighbor.

In a speech to a joint session of Congress, Calderon described efforts to fight organized crime in Mexico, where 23,000 people have been killed in drug violence since he came to power in late 2006 and launched an army offensive.

Washington is also aiding Mexico’s battle against drug gangs with a 2007 pledge of $1.4 billion for equipment and police training to help fight the cartels that ship some $40 billion worth of illegal drugs north each year.

The drug violence has become a major political test for Calderon and a growing worry for Washington and foreign investors as violence has spread across the southwest border.

“There is one issue where Mexico needs your cooperation. And that is stopping the flow of assault weapons and other deadly arms across the border,” Calderon said to a standing ovation from U.S. lawmakers.

Calderon said the increase in violence in Mexico had coincided with the 2004 lifting of a U.S. assault weapons ban.

The 10-year ban on the sale of assault weapons to civilians expired without being extended by Congress. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the administration favors reinstituting the ban, though guns rights groups oppose it.

Calderon said he respects Americans’ Second Amendment right to bear arms but said many of the guns are getting into the hands of criminals.

SEIZING GUNS

Mexico has seized around 75,000 guns and assault weapons in the last three years, Calderon said. He said more than 80 percent of them came from the United States and noted there were more than 7,000 gun shops along the border.

“I would ask Congress to help us, with respect, and to understand how important it is for us that you enforce current laws to stem the supply of these weapons to criminals and consider reinstating the assault weapons ban,” he said.

Though Calderon’s request received applause and a standing ovation from mainly Democratic lawmakers, Republicans criticized the Mexican leader for discussing U.S. laws.

“It was inappropriate for President Calderon to lecture Americans on our own state and federal laws,” said Senator John Cornyn, a member of the Republican leadership. “Moreover, the Second Amendment is not a subject open for diplomatic negotiation, with Mexico or any other nation.”

On immigration — a common theme during his visit to Washington — Calderon said his country was trying to improve economic conditions so Mexicans would not feel the need to leave their country in order to succeed.

He said Mexico expected more than 4 percent growth this year, even though data released on Thursday showed the economy shrank quarter-on-quarter in the first quarter of this year.

Millions of people are still crossing the U.S. border illegally to seek work. An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants live in the United States, most of them from Mexico and Central America.

Calderon repeated his opposition to a new Arizona law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.

“We must find together a better way to face and fix this common problem,” he said.

(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

15 May 10

Be first!

Forget the NRA and their clams to provide legal help if need be. These guys will do it

Read the entire article!

Post your comment

Great gun news from the Hawaii front! Your second amendment rights are now protected.

Posted: 12 May 2010 07:32 PM PDT

2nd Amendment Rights Protected During Emergency In Hawaii; “Castle Doctrine” Enacted As Governor Signs Laws

Governor Linda Lingle today signed into law two important bills preserving 2nd Amendment rights passed by the recently adjourned 25th Hawaii State Legislature.

SB 358, SD1, HD2 introduced by State Senator Sam Slom (R-8th O’ahu – Hawaii Kai to Diamondhead) (Act 96) establishes provisions relating to prohibition against seizure of firearms or ammunition during emergency or disaster, suspension of permit or license. Prohibits any person or government entity to seize or confiscate, under any civil defense, emergency, or disaster relief powers or functions conferred, or during any civil defense emergency period, or during any time of national emergency or crisis, any firearm or ammunition and permit or license of any individual who is lawfully permitted to carry or possess the firearm or ammunition and who carries, possesses, or uses the firearm or ammunition in a lawful manner and in accordance with the criminal laws of this State. — Amends provisions relating to civil defense powers, in general. Section Affected: 134- (1 SECTION), 128-6.

Slom, a Trustee and Secretary of the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation said he introduced the legislation in part as a result of Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath in New Orleans when law enforcement officials went door-to-door and seized legal firearms from legally registered owners. The court subsequently overturned the state’s actions. He said he also had worried constituents call this year during the Hawaii Tidal Wave alert. Citizens were concerned that the police would not be able to protect everyone and their property during a major emergency.

Slom added, ” I emphasize this law applies to legally owned and registered firearms. This is a good bill and Governor Linda Lingle should be thanked for her prompt attention to this important legislation which passed the Senate unanimously. Hawaii now joins 30 other states with similar legislation.”

The other bill signed today (Act 97) is SB0532 SD1 HD1 CD1 RELATING TO LIMITING CIVIL LIABILITY. Also known as the “CASTLE DOCTRINE”, and originally introduced by Slom, the version that passed was sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Brian Taniguchi (D-Manoa), By Request. Current Hawaii law requires a homeowner to “retreat” from his or her own home when invaded by a criminal engaging in a felony. The new law establishes provisions relating to owner to felon; limited liability. Provides that any owner of any other interest in real property shall not be liable to any perpetrator for any injury or death that occurs upon the real property during the course or after the commission of certain felony offenses. –
Section Affected: 663- (1 SECTION) OWNER TO FELON.

Slom said of this bill, “It represents common sense and confirms in Hawaii the old adage, “A man’s (or woman’s) home is his (her) castle.” It should put potential criminals on notice that they no longer can break in, commit a felony, threaten the owner and escape with no risk of personal harm. Both laws are about taking back our individual, Constitutional rights”

“National Security” will stop Firearm sales, see the news and the bill here

http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com

Posted: 06 May 2010 08:21 AM PDT

A little publicized hearing for 5/5/10:

In February 2004, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Policy (OLP) to form a working group to review federal firearms and explosives laws*particularly in regard to NICS background checks*to determine whether additional authority should be sought from Congress to prevent firearms and explosives transfers to known and suspected terrorists. In the 111th Congress, Senator Frank Lautenberg and Representative Peter King have reintroduced a bill (S. 1317/H.R. 2159) that would authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected terrorists. This bill reportedly reflects a legislative proposal developed by DOJ.

In general, this bill would amend the Gun Control Act (GCA) to grant the Attorney General the discretionary authority to deny a firearm transfer or state-issued firearms permit to any prospective transferee or permittee through Brady background checks, if the Attorney General determines that the prospective transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or to have been engaged in conduct constituting, preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism, and has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use the firearm in connection with terrorism (proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The bill would make similar amendments to the provisions of the GCA governing the processes by which federal firearms dealer licenses are issued and revoked (18 U.S.C. §§ 923(d) and (e)).

The bill would also amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) that enumerates several classes of persons who are prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition, so that it would include persons who were the subject of terrorism-related determinations (described above). The bill would amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(d)) that prohibits any person from transferring a firearm to any prohibited person to include any person who was the subject of a terrorism-related determination as well. In addition, the bill would amend the NICS background check provisions (18 U.S.C. § 922(t)) to reflect that the Attorney General would have this new discretionary authority under the proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B.

With regard to NICS denials of firearms transfers or state-issued firearms permits based upon terrorist watch list hits and subsequent determinations by the Attorney General, the bill would amend the Brady Act (P.L. 103-159) to allow a denied prospective transferee to request from the Attorney General the reasons for the denial, but it would also give the Attorney General the authority to withhold those reasons if he determines that such a disclosure would compromise national security. The bill would make a similar amendment to the Brady Act in regard to correction of erroneous information.

Furthermore, the bill would amend the GCA provision that addresses erroneous denials (18 U.S.C. § 925A), to allow any person denied a firearms-related transfer or permit to challenge that determination in U.S. court within 60 days of that determination. This proposed amendment would require the court to sustain the Attorney General’s determination upon a showing by the U.S. Government a preponderance of evidence standard that the determination satisfied the proposed provisions described above (18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The proposed amendment would also allow the court to rely upon summaries or redacted versions of documents underlying those determinations, if those documents contained information that could compromise national security, but it would also allow a court to review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera at the court’s option or on the motion of the petitioner (denied person). The proposed amendment would also allow the court to determine whether the summaries or redacted versions of the documents were fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents; however, it would not allow the court to overturn the Attorney General’s determination based on the full and un-redacted documents.

Why are you so bent on disarming the law-abiding American public?

http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com

Posted: 05 May 2010 01:15 AM PDT

First, why are you so bent on disarming the law-abiding American public? You have made many statements which I find disturbing and anti-gun.

You stated on 60 Minutes after the 1994 gun ban was passed, and I quote, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them (firearms), (having) Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.”

Recently you stated that you will pick the time and place with the new anti-gun administration in power to push your anti-gun agenda. The Second Amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

What part of “shall not be infringed” do you politicians not understand? The definition of “infringed” is to break or violate an agreement or law.

There is a document on 8.5 by 11 inch paper, printed on both sides, two inches thick published by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATFE) that are laws and regulations of federal and state government that are infringements on the Second Amendment.

Yes, I have heard the argument that the militia is now the National Guard, or military reserves, however, the definition of a militia is a group of armed men between the age of 15 and 50 years to be used for the security of the state, who do not belong to a regular military unit.

The last I heard the National Guard and military reserves are regular military units.

In California, you can’t buy a semiautomatic rifle with a detachable high capacity magazine and pistol grip and, God forbid, a flash hider and bayonet lug. What is the difference between the described rifle and a semiautomatic Winchester Hunting Rifle with a 10-round, detachable magazine? They both can fire the same caliber cartridge, with the same muzzle velocity, with the same rate of fire.

You anti-gun people have infringed on my Constitutional right, just on appearance, nothing else. Yes, I have heard the argument that if the magazine is detachable and high capacity it has so-called increased firepower, but I fail to see the difference between firing 30 rounds from one magazine or three 10-round magazines, or three rifles with 10-round magazines.

There is an anti-gun myth printed that a home with a firearm is more likely to have a shooting than a home without a firearm. Using the same logic, a home with a private backyard swimming pool is more likely to have a drowning than a home without a private swimming pool, but I know of no anti-swimming pool groups.

What you anti-gun people fail to accept is that for every crime committed with a firearm, there are four to five crimes prevented because the intended victim had access to a firearm in the home, business or vehicle, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

If the anti-gun people’s logic is correct, a place that has the most severe gun regulations and laws, a place where it is almost impossible to own a gun legally, would be the safest place to live.

Washington D.C. has the most severe gun regulations and laws in the U.S., however, Washington D.C. has the highest violent crime rate in the nation year after year. States with the least restrictive gun regulations and laws, such as North and South Dakota and Texas, have the lowest crime rates.

So I ask again, why do you want to disarm the law-abiding American public?

If you are so bent on taking the legally-owned guns from the American public, why did you request and receive a gun permit in California in 1974? Yes, you returned your permit, but you now have armed protection paid for by my tax dollars, that I and others do not have excess to.

Finally, why is your protection more important than the protection of my family and me?

Gary Brown, military arms historian, lives in Nevada City.

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

SATIRE!~

Funny bit about some bad ammo

Be aware this is JUST humor. Not a real story. With all the attacks on gun owners we thought you might like this. It is a bit tongue and cheek.

Manufacturer Recalls Hollow Point Bullets That Fail To Explode Inside Targets

McCain, Tester, Childers, and Souder Introduce Bills To Reform D.C.’s Gun Laws

Friday, April 30, 2010

This week, Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jon. Tester (D-Mont.), and Reps. Travis Childers (D-Miss.) and Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), introduced the “Second Amendment Enforcement Act.” The Senate and House bills (S. 3265, with 14 Senate cosponsors and H.R. 5162, with 64 House co-sponsors, respectively) would eliminate several of the District’s most restrictive gun control laws passed in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

“We believe that residents across this country should be able to exercise their constitutional right to have access to firearms to protect themselves,” Sen. McCain said. Sen. Tester added, “This legislation sends a clear message: Washington, D.C., isn’t an exception when it comes to law-abiding folks and their Second Amendment rights.” Rep. Childers noted, “Today’s legislation seeks to secure for District residents the rights reinforced by the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller.”

Since the mid-1970s, D.C.’s gun control regimen has been similar to laws imposed in countries where—as Second Amendment author James Madison put it in The Federalist—“governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

The D.C. gun reform bills will move the District’s gun laws away from their European (and worse) model and closer to the mainstream laws that are in place in most of America. The bills would abolish the District’s deliberately difficult and costly firearm registration requirement, its restrictions on carrying a firearm for protection on private property, its post-Heller ban on hundreds of types of semi-automatic firearms denigrated as “assault weapons,” its ban on standard defensive magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and its California-style “microstamping” law and handgun “roster” system.

Anticipating continuing efforts by the D.C. Council to suppress gun ownership by preventing dealers from conducting business in the District, the bills also provide for D.C. residents to legally buy handguns from FFLs in Maryland and Virginia, and they prescribe reasonable conditions for the lawful transportation of firearms within the District.

Furthermore, because the city’s elected officials have demonstrated hostility toward the Second Amendment—imposing its “microstamping” law, “assault weapon” ban, ban on magazines holding over 10 rounds, and “unsafe handgun” ban (which the city modified after the ban was challenged in court)—the Childers and McCain bills prohibit the city from enacting new laws designed to thwart the exercise of the right to arms.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox declared NRA’s support for the Childers-Souder and McCain-Tester bills, noting that NRA “remains committed to restoring the right to self-defense for law-abiding citizens in Washington, D.C., by whatever legal or legislative means necessary.”

Not everyone views the new legislation so favorably, however. In a press release, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) derided the “new and more dangerous National Rifle Association gun amendment” (sic) because it would allow the city to regulate, but not prohibit, the carrying of firearms. (In Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”)

Norton repeatedly mischaracterized the potential effect of the bills. For example, she claimed that they would stop the city from prohibiting guns within schools that do not have metal detectors–ignoring the fact that the bill would retain the District’s general ban on carrying firearms outside the home. The city’s mayor, Adrian M. Fenty (D), said that to “permit more guns in the District would be a major step backward for public safety,” but didn’t explain the basis for his prediction. Nor did he explain how, to date, D.C.’s draconian gun laws have enhanced public safety in D.C.

We encourage all NRA members to contact their U.S. Senators and Representative and ask them to cosponsor this important legislation. You can find contact information for your legislators by using the “Write Your Representatives” tool at www.NRAILA.org, or you can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.

Looks like Pklahoma is the state to live for FREE Americans

Posted: 24 Apr 2010 06:02 PM PDT

An update from Oklahoma :

Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values…! HB 1330

Guess what………. Oklahoma did it anyway.

Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. Hope we didn’t send any of them to your state This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake.

Guess what………. Oklahoma did it anyway.

Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegals to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional. SB 1102

Guess what…….. Oklahoma did it anyway.

Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas, Montana and Utah as the only states to do so. More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolina’s, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003

The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I’m sure that was a set back for the criminals (and Obamaites). Liberals didn’t like it — But ……..

Guess what……….. Oklahoma did it anyway.

Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL driver’s license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma , you must read and write English. Really simple.

By the way, Obama does not like any of this.

Guess what….who cares… Oklahoma is doing it anyway.

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

17 Apr 10

Be first!

Federal government, BATFE, congress, president, and even the Supreme Court, you laws and rulings, violate the 9th and 10th amendment of the constitution. So thus unconstitutional and thus unenforceable. So says Alaska. Great news for gun rights and second amendment supporters.

Our legislators have come up with the statutory equivalent of my favorite lines from “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.”

“Badges? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges!”

In approving Rep. Mike Kelly’s HB 186, the Legislature is officially on record declaring that we don’t need no stinkin’ badges from the Federales to make and sell guns or ammo in Alaska.

Fifty of our 60 lawmakers agree that the U.S. Supreme Court, the Congress and the president have been wrong for a long time about what the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution mean regarding the powers of the federal government.

With Gov. Sean Parnell’s signature, it will soon be official state policy that in-state gun makers selling guns in Alaska are not subject to federal laws, federal regulations or federal registration, despite what the federal government says.

The message to the future firearms industry in Alaska is to not worry about federal prosecution or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The bill is almost the same as a measure approved in Montana and a half-dozen other states. One difference is that Alaska lawmakers did not include the comment by Idaho lawmakers that they “are declaring their intention of Idaho becoming the freest state in the Union.”

Perhaps the biggest difference, however, is that lawmakers in those other states, including Montana, Idaho, Arizona and Utah, placed limits on the size of weapons that are free from federal regulation.

In the other states, people still have to follow federal laws if the guns “cannot be carried and used by one person.”

Under the Alaska measure, however, the guns can be bigger than something one person can carry.

In the other states, the laws say that firearms with a bore diameter of more than 1.5 inches that use smokeless powder as a propellant and those that fire two or more projectiles with one pull of the trigger are not free of federal laws. Again, the Alaska measure has no comparable limits.

It is possible that after the Alaska firearms plan becomes law, the BATF will send a letter to federal firearms licensees similar to that which was sent last year to gun dealers in other states. Those letters said that federal law requires a federal license to manufacture firearms or ammo for sale, even if the products remain in state.

But if the feds come knocking on your door for violations of those firearms laws, don’t worry. The Alaska attorney general will defend you with both guns blazing.

No wait, I take that back.

Hold the celebratory gunfire.

The original version of Kelly’s bill said that the Alaska attorney general will ride to the defense of Alaska firearms makers with a posse of lawyers.

But the new state policy now says that the attorney general’s office “may” come to your defense. And you may find $1 million between the cushions on your couch tonight or you may wake up tomorrow as a member of Mensa.

If lawmakers really believe they are right to encourage people to ignore a federal law, they should not have been so wishy-washy with the pledge for free government legal aid.

Read the entire article!

Post your comment

16 Apr 10

Be first!

Congratulations Arizona citizens. Your state has joined the growing list of states with a Constitutional Cary type law. Great job Gov. Jan Brewer

Gov. Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1108 into law Friday afternoon. It eliminates the requirement for a concealed-carry weapons permit, but does require gun owners to accurately answer if an officer asks them if they are carrying weapon concealed. It also allows officers to temporarily confiscate a weapon while they are talking to an individual, including during a traffic stop.

“I believe strongly in the individual rights and responsibilities of a free society, and as governor I have pledged a solemn and important oath to protect and defend the Constitution,” Brewer said in a news release. “I believe this legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well.”

The law goes into effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns for this session, which could happen in the next couple of weeks.

Arizona joins Vermont and Alaska in not requiring such permits.

“If you want to carry concealed, and you have no criminal history, you are a good guy, you can do it,” bill sponsor Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, has said of his bill. “It’s a freedom that poses no threat to the public.”

National Rifle Association lobbyist Matt Dogali said the new state law would not violate any current federal requirements.

“There is no federal requirement for a permit or lack thereof,” Dogali said.

The federal government oversees the background-check program required to purchase a weapon, which will still be required in Arizona in most cases.

Brewer last week did sign a separate law that exempts guns made and kept in Arizona from federal regulation, including background checks.

Arizona had 154,279 active permits as of April 4. Permit holders are spread across all ages, races and counties, but White males older than 30 in Maricopa and Pima counties hold the majority, according to the Arizona Department of Public Safety data.

The permits generated $1.8 million in revenue last fiscal year, according to DPS. The money is used to help cover costs for enforcing laws related to the Highway Patrol, operating the concealed-carry weapon-licensing program and impounding vehicles.

Arizona’s permit process will remain in place, and many gun owners may still choose to get a permit. Permits would still be needed in order to carry a weapon into a restaurant or bar that serves alcohol. They would also be needed if an Arizonan wants to carry his or her gun concealed in most other states.

For those who do choose to get a permit, the education requirements do change under the new law. Classes are no longer required to be a set number of hours or include any hands-on use of the weapon. Those who don’t get a permit would not be required to get any training or education.

Retired Mesa police officer Dan Furbee runs a business teaching permit and other gun safety classes. He said if most people choose not to get a permit, it will put several hundred Arizona firearms instructors out of business.

“It’s going to hurt,” he said.

But he said what really concerns him is that the new law will allow people who have had no education about Arizona’s laws and no training on the shooting range to carry a concealed gun. The eight-hour class currently required to get a permit includes information on state law and gun safety, as well as requires students to be able to hit a target 14 out of 20 times. Furbee said his class at Mesa-based Ultimate Accessories costs $79, plus $60 for the five-year permit.

“I fully agree that we have a right to keep and bear arms,” Furbee said. “But if you are not responsible enough to take a class and learn the laws, you are worse than part of the problem.”

He said it’s not uncommon for students to walk into his classroom and pull a new gun out of a box with no idea how to hold it and no understanding of the laws surrounding it.

“If you are going to carry a concealed weapon, you should have some kind of training and show that you are at least competent to know how the gun works and be able to hit a target,” he said. “You owe the people around you a measure of responsibility.”

This new law is the latest of several that have passed over the past year since Brewer took over the office from former Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat.

Napolitano vetoed at least a dozen weapons bills that crossed her desk during her seven years in office, all of which would have loosened gun restrictions. In 2005, Napolitano rejected a bill that would have allowed patrons to carry loaded guns into bars and restaurants. In 2008, she also vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to have a hidden gun in vehicles without a concealed-carry permit.

In January 2009, Napolitano resigned to become U.S. Homeland Security secretary and Republican Secretary of State Brewer became governor.

During her first year in office, Brewer signed a bill allowing loaded guns in bars and restaurants, as well as another that prohibits property owners from banning guns from parking areas, so long as the weapons are kept locked in vehicles.

Arizona to allow concealed weapons without permit

AP – An Arizona made AR-15 is pulled from the display at Caswells Shooting Range Tuesday, April 6, 2010 in …

By PAUL DAVENPORT and JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press Writers Paul Davenport And Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writers – Fri Apr 16, 7:39 pm ET

PHOENIX – Favoring the constitutional right to bear arms over others’ concerns about gun safety, Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill making Arizona the third state allowing people to carry a concealed weapon without requiring a permit.

The measure takes effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends, which likely puts the effective date in July or August.

“I believe this legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well,” Brewer, a Republican, said in a statement.

Alaska and Vermont now do not require permits to carry concealed weapons.

By eliminating the permit requirement, the Arizona legislation will allow people 21 or older to forego background checks and classes that are now required.

Supporters say the bill promotes constitutional rights and allows people to protect themselves from criminals, while critics worry it will lead to more shootings as people with less training have fewer restrictions on carrying weapons.

Some police officials are concerned the law will lead to more accidental gun discharges from people untrained in firearm safety, or that shooters in stressful situations will accidentally strike innocent bystanders with stray bullets.

“I know a lot of 21-year-olds; the maturity level is gravely concerning sometimes,” said El Mirage Police Chief Mike Frazier, an Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police board member. “If you’re going to be carrying a weapon you should know what the law is and how to use it.”

However, the measure was supported by police unions representing rank-and-file officers, who said their best friend on the streets is a law-abiding citizen equipped to protect themselves or others.

The police chiefs group initially opposed the bill but then took a neutral stance after some provisions were changed at their request. Brewer’s office also participated in negotiations on changes to the bill.

A Democratic leader, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, of Phoenix, said the bill deprives law enforcement of a tool “to separate good guys from the bad guys.” With a permit requirement, police encountering a person with a concealed gun but no permit had reason to suspect that person was not a law-abiding citizen, she said.

The Arizona Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group that lobbied for passage of the “constitutional carry” bill, said gun owners foregoing permits still should get training. “The heaviest thing about wearing a firearm is the responsibility that comes with it,” the group said.

Arizona’s permissive gun laws gained national attention last year when a man openly carried a semiautomatic rifle to a Phoenix protest outside a speech by President Barack Obama.

Nearly all adults can already carry a weapon openly in Arizona, and supporters of looser laws argue that gun owners shouldn’t face additional restrictions just because they want to hide the weapon.

Currently, carrying a hidden firearm without a permit is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.

Forty-five other states require permits for hidden guns, and two states — Illinois and Wisconsin — prohibit them altogether.

Federal law requires anyone buying a gun from a licensed dealer to undergo a background check, but that requirement does not apply to sales by individuals who aren’t dealers. Arizona’s law won’t change that.

Under the Arizona legislation, people carrying a concealed weapon will be required to tell a police officer that if asked, and the officer can temporarily take the weapon while communicating with the person.

More than 154,000 people have permits to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona.

The bill acted on by Brewer was the first attempt to lift the permit requirement to reach an Arizona governor’s desk.

Brewer’s predecessor, Democrat Janet Napolitano, in 2007 vetoed two related bills. One would have reduced penalties for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. The other would have allowed a person without a permit to carry a gun largely concealed as long as any part of it or its holster was visible.

Brewer in 2008 signed into law a bill allowing a person with a permit to take a gun into a restaurant or bar serving alcohol as long as the establishment doesn’t prohibit it and the person isn’t drinking alcohol. Napolitano vetoed a similar bill in 2005.

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

Innocent until proven guilty? Not in Colorado and not when it comes to your constitutional second amendment rights!

09 Apr 2010

This bigoted, hateful, and mean spirited mesure has to be stopped in Colorado or it is possible that it could spead even further. This is a ken to the civil rights movement of the 1900’s and beyond. If they can do this firearm owners and purchasers who will be next?

The Colorado House of Representatives is currently considering legislation that would that would solidify an unconstitutional provision in the state’s background check system.

House Bill 1391, sponsored by State Representative Joe Rice (D-38), would extend a provision in state law that was due to sunset in July 2010. The provision the bill extends would deny gun purchases to those with an arrest on their record, even if they were never convicted. This deny-on-arrest provision would remove a constitutional right to own a firearm based on an arrest (an accusation), NOT a conviction. It directly conflicts with the fundamental American doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Because the disposition of an arrest record isn’t always available, the burden of proof falls on gun buyers to prove they are eligible to purchase a firearm. In many cases, this costs these individuals thousands of dollars of their own money to prove their innocense.

The bill has been scheduled for a hearing on Monday, April 12, in the House Judiciary Committee. Please call members of the committee and respectfully urge them to vote against HB 1391 and this unconstitutional attack on the Second Amendment rights of Colorado citizens. Contact information can be found below.

State Representative Claire Levy (D-13), Chair

Phone: (303) 866-2578

Email: claire.levy.house@state.co.us

State Representative Beth McCann (D-8), Vice Chair

Phone: (303) 866-2959

Email: beth.mccann.house@state.co.us

State Representative Lois Court (D-6)

Phone: (303) 866-2967

Email: lois.court.house@state.co.us

State Representative Bob Gardner (R-21)

Phone: (303) 866-2191

Email: bob.gardner.house@state.co.us

State Representative Daniel Kagan (D-3)

Phone: (303) 866-2921

Email: repkagan@gmail.com

State Representative Steve King (R-54)

Phone: (303) 866-3068

Email: steve.king.house@state.co.us

State Representative Joe Miklosi (D-9)

Phone: (303) 866-2910

Email: joe@joemiklosi.com

State Representative B.J. Nikkel (R-49)

Phone: (303) 866-2907

Email: rep.nikkel@gmail.com

State Representative Sal Pace (D-46)

Phone: (303) 866-2968

Email: sal.pace.house@state.co.us

State Representative Su Ryden (D-36)

Phone: (303) 866-2942

Email: sy.ryden.house@state.co.us

State Representative Mark Waller (R-15)

Phone: (303) 866-5525

Email: mark.waller.house@state.co.us

April 4, 2010

Heavily-Armed Cartel Attacks Mexican Army;

Weapons Used Show U.S. Gun Laws Not To Blame

Friday, April 02, 2010

At the end of March, troops of a major drug cartel launched a series of attacks on military personnel and installations in a half dozen cities in the northern Mexican states of Nueva Leon and Tamaulipas. Fortunately, things did not work out as the narco-thugs had hoped. At least 18 of them are now taking the kind of siesta from which there is no awakening and, at last count, only one Mexican soldier was injured.

Contrary to the notion that the cartels depend on semi-automatic rifles bought illegally in the United States, the cartel conducted its attacks with a variety of weapons that cannot be legally bought anywhere in our country. As the Los Angeles Times reported, “In coordinated attacks, gunmen in armored cars and equipped with grenade launchers fought army troops this week. . . . The army said it confiscated armored cars, grenade launchers, about 100 military-grade grenades, [and] explosive devices” in addition to a large quantity of ammunition.

Contrast that reality with the fiction perpetuated by politicians on both sides of the border. NRA members certainly recall that soon after President Obama took office last year, Attorney General Eric Holder stated his support for an “assault weapon” ban as the solution to Mexico’s drug violence. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.), the sponsor of the federal “assault weapon” ban in 1993, soon called upon President Obama to support the Inter-American Convention Against Illegal Arms Trafficking, claiming, “According to the Mexican government, about 90 percent of the weapons they seize from Mexican drug cartels came into the country illegally from the United States.” Newspapers around the country fell for the ruse hook, line and sinker, parroting the 90 percent claim, as well as the utterly absurd, mathematically impossible claim that 2,000 guns cross from the U.S. into Mexico each day.

Apoplectic anti-gun members of Congress held dozens of hearings on the Mexico situation, including field hearings along the border. At one dog and pony show in El Paso, former Democrat Party presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) obligatorily called for a ban on the importation of “assault weapons,” a ban already imposed in 1989 by the BATF (as it was then known), apparently without Sen. Kerry’s knowledge. In fact, at a hearing on Capitol Hill, Sen. Feinstein nearly burst a blood vessel when a witness refused to support her belief that 2,000 guns crossed the border every day.

U.S. politicians have since maintained a low profile on the issue, fearful of the potential for a backlash at the polls in November. Last month, however, Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon, complained that “there are more than 10,000 gun stores along the American border with Mexico. . . . So, the United States must stop the flow of assault weapons to Mexico.”

The claim is no more true today than when it was first floated a year ago. As we have noted, most of the guns that Mexico has seized from the cartels and asked the BATFE to trace (because markings on those particular firearms indicated that they came from the U.S.) represent only a small percentage of guns that Mexico has seized.

This was stated, though not clearly, in a Government Accountability Office report last summer (see document pages 14-15). However, lest anyone be misled by GAO’s lack of thoroughness on this point, the Department of Homeland Security, in an appendix to the GAO’s report (see page 69), set the record straight.

“DHS officials separately question the statistic involving the origination of weapons as currently presented by GAO,” DHS said. “GAO asserts that, ‘Available evidence suggests most firearms recovered in Mexico come from U.S. gun dealers, and many support Drug Trafficking Organizations.’ and fuel Mexican drug violence. Using the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) eTrace data, GAO determined that about 87 percent of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced from fiscal years 2004 to 2008 originated in the United States. DHS officials believe that the 87 percent statistic is misleading as the reference should include the number of weapons that could not be traced (i.e., out of approximately 30,000 weapons seized in Mexico, approximately 4,000 could be traced and 87 percent of those—3,480—originated in the United States.) Numerous problems with the data collection and sample population render this assertion as unreliable.”

In the early part of the 20th century, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” That is certainly the case in this story. As the vast scope of the Mexican drug cartels’ multi-million dollar arsenals is incrementally uncovered, the attempt by opponents of the right to arms to use Mexico’s problem as the excuse for restricting Second Amendment rights has fallen flat.

And to Mexico’s soldiers who obliterated the cartels’ punks and thugs last week, we say “buen tiro” (translation: “Good shooting”).

March 30, 2010

NRA National Riffle Association cares more about their own political victories then the second amendment of the US Constitution we have proof.

Posted: 29 Mar 2010 03:45 PM PDT

The NRA is reportedly threatening to campaign against a pro-gun Iowa legislator because he is pushing a bill that is too pro-gun.

Rep. Kent Sorenson is an outspoken gun advocate and one of the leading voices for 2nd Amendment rights in the Iowa legislature. He introduced and pushed for a right-to-carry bill that would have given people the right to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise, without having to obtain a permit. The bill did not pass because of a tie vote. Other compromise bills have also been introduced. Sorenson is against these “watered down” bills, saying they don’t provide true gun rights.

The NRA is involved in crafting one of these compromise bills that was introduced last week by two traditionally anti-gun politicians. The bill was written in such a way that moderates could support it, giving it a better chance of passing.

Sorenson came out against the NRA bill. So according to a report on Ammoland.com, a lobbyist working for the NRA went to Sorenson and told him if he didn’t support the bill, the NRA would work to get his opponent elected in an upcoming election — an anti-gun candidate at that.

The NRA has not commented on the accusation.

Over the weekend the Iowa Senate approved a bill that overhauls the system for issuing permits to carry concealed weapons. It requires that sheriffs give a reason if they deny a permit and make such decisions based on consistent state guidelines.

March 25, 2010

REPORT CONFIRMS MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME;
NO PUBLIC SAFETY THREAT, SAYS SAF

BELLEVUE, WA – A report published by MSNBC.com confirms “everything gun rights groups have been saying for years, that more armed citizens does not equate to increased violence, and actually coincides with a reduction in homicides,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

The on-line news agency this morning released an investigative report that record numbers of American citizens are now legally carrying firearms for personal protection. Yet, the report also reveals that homicide rates have declined dramatically during a period when gun sales have skyrocketed. Further, the report noted that Washington, DC with its extreme gun control has the highest murder rate in the nation, while Utah, with very liberal gun laws, has the lowest rate.

“This is further evidence that everything the gun prohibitionists have been claiming and predicting over the past two decades has been fundamentally fraudulent,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “They have repeatedly argued that more guns will equate to more crime and more firearms deaths, and MSNBC.com just let the air out of their sails with this exhaustive and well-balanced report.”

Gottlieb said the public “has gradually, but steadily come to the realization that the gun ban lobby has built its campaign of citizen disarmament on a mountain of falsehoods, one heaped on top of another.”

“This is why,” he said, “anti-gun groups have lost their momentum and their credibility. They failed to gain traction even with a Democrat-controlled Congress and an anti-gun White House. They are so desperate for attention that they have now declared war on private businesses just to generate publicity. Their high-profile campaign of hysteria against Starbucks for complying with state laws that allow concealed and open carry in their coffee shops is based on an issue they fabricated just to grab headlines and television face time, and the public knows it.

“Every restrictive gun law, every ban, every gun-free-zone they have advocated and defended have one thing in common,” Gottlieb concluded. “They gave us a body count. The MSNBC.com report suggests America has had enough.”

Guns and Ammo Blog

24 Mar 10

Be first!

Arizona Senate has given preliminary approval to legislation that would make Arizona the third state allowing people to carry concealed weapons without a permit

The Arizona Senate on Tuesday gave preliminary approval to legislation that would make Arizona the third state allowing people to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
The Senate approved the measure in a voice vote, setting the stage for a formal vote. Passage would send it to the House.
The measure would make it legal for any U.S. citizen 21 or older to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona without the permit now required. Currently, carrying a hidden firearm without a permit is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.
If the legislation is enacted, Arizona would join Alaska and Vermont in not requiring permits to carry concealed weapons.
The Wyoming House in February approved a bill to allow residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit, but the measure died in the Senate after gun-rights groups angered lawmakers with a massive e-mail campaign that clogged their inboxes.
By eliminating the permit requirement, Arizonans no longer would have to undergo background checks and take training classes to carry hidden guns. They would still be subject to background checks required under federal law when buying a gun from a store.
People carrying a concealed weapon would be required to tell a police officer if asked, and the officer could temporarily take the weapon while communicating with the gun carrier.
Mesa Republican Sen. Russell Pearce sponsored the legislation. Pearce said lawmakers removed a provision that would have allowed concealed weapons in some public buildings and events, following a request by Gov. Jan Brewer’s office. And they added a provision making it illegal to carry a hidden firearm while committing a felony.
The changes prompted the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police to drop its opposition to the bill. The organization’s president, Sahuarita Police Chief John Harris, said the chiefs saw the bill was going to pass anyway so they wanted to ensure it was as favorable as possible.
Supporters have said criminals don’t honor current laws, so the permitting requirements only burden law-abiding citizens who just want to protect themselves.
John Wentling, vice president of gun-rights lobbying group Arizona Citizens Defense League, said nearly all adults are allowed to carry a gun openly in Arizona and shouldn’t face extra restrictions just to hide the gun.
“To have them jump through all these hoops just to untuck their shirt just seems unconscionable,” Wentling said.
Opponents have said eliminating the permit requirement would pose risks to police officers and the public, partly through accidental gun discharges by people not adequately trained in firearms safety.
Under the legislation, permits still could be obtained on an optional basis so Arizonans could carry concealed weapons in states with reciprocity agreements. Permits also would be required to carry weapons in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.
Senators beat back an attempt to add an amendment requiring sellers at gun shows to verify buyers’ citizenship.
Arizona in 2009 loosened its gun laws to lift a ban on guns in establishments that serve alcohol, although gun-bearers still cannot drink alcohol and establishments can ban firearms.
Brewer, a Republican who took office in January 2009, signed that measure into law. Her predecessor, Democrat Janet Napolitano, vetoed several measures pushed by gun-rights supporters.

Read the entire article!

Post your comment

Bill to Repeal Ammunition Registration to be Heard Next Week!
Please Contact the Members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety!

On Tuesday, March 23, the Assembly Committee on Public Safety will consider Assembly Bill 1663.

If passed, AB1663 would repeal the onerous ammunition sales registration requirements put in place by Assembly Bill 962. As you will recall, AB962 requires individuals purchasing ammunition be fingerprinted and registered at the time of sale and outlaws mail order ammunition purchases. AB962 also requires dealers to maintain these records indefinitely and make them available for inspection by the California Department of Justice. As an additional burden, ammunition retailers are also required to store ammunition away from purchasers. AB962 failed to garner support from Attorney General Brown, and any law enforcement organization. In fact, 15 sheriffs wrote letters of opposition to this legislation.

All of California’s firearms owners, dealers, shooters, hunters, collectors, clubs/organizations, and ammunition vendors, should join in this effort to repeal AB962. This will not be an easy fight, but it is possible to win if we all stick together and act in an organized manner.

Please contact the members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety TODAY and respectfully urge them to support AB1663. Contact information can be found below.

Assembly Member Tom Ammiano (D-13) – Chair
(916) 319-2013
Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Curt Hagman (R-60) – Vice Chair
(916) 319-2060
Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Warren T. Furutani (D-55)
(916) 319-2055
Assemblymember.Furutani@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Danny D. Gilmore (R-30)
(916) 319-2030
Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Jerry Hill (D-19)
(916) 319-2019
Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Fiona Ma (D-12)
(916) 319-2012
Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Nancy Skinner (D-14)
(916) 319-2014
Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

Experts talk about what happens to Chicago’s 28-year-old gun ban

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid30292882001?bctid=72135756001

http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com

Indiana Senate has set the standard for Second Amendment rights we all should live by and be a federal law at that

In a world where the average citizen’s Second Amendment rights are constantly being undermined, we need all the help we can get. For the time being, we’re safe — at least in Indiana.

Well, as long as you leave your firearm in your car at work or the government declares a state of emergency that leaves law enforcement and military resources stretched thin.

On Feb. 22, the Indiana Senate voted 41-9 to pass House Bill 1065, also known as the Indiana Emergency Powers Bill. The bill prevents law enforcement and military personnel from confiscating legally owned firearms and ammunition from law-abiding citizens in a declared state of emergency, such as during a natural disaster or attack.

Another provision in the bill allows employees the right to keep firearms stored and locked in their vehicles while they are at their place of employment, guaranteeing that they won’t get fired as a result.

Let me say that I cannot adequately convey how important this is to the pro-firearms movement. It takes into consideration the safety of the average citizen in the event of a national emergency, where sometimes the only protection one has is one’s self.

A law like this certainly would have been useful in post-Katrina New Orleans, where police confiscated firearms — at gunpoint — and left city dwellers defenseless from looters, animals and politicians.

I can see the reasoning behind the decision to confiscate handguns, shotguns and rifles when trying to forcibly evacuate people from their own homes in the wake of the worst tragedy that has befallen a city. It’s like removing a goalie from a soccer game, which is the one thing that keeps you from getting the ball where it needs to go. Law enforcement is likely stretched thin enough that dealing with firearm-toting citizens who may potentially be criminals is one thing it doesn’t need on its plate when trying to force people from their homes.

But what about those who decided to stay? When law enforcement is stretched thin, so is protection. The police aren’t going to be everywhere at once in the event of a national emergency. Police aren’t even obligated to protect us in the first place.

Seriously. The Supreme Court decided in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez in 2005 that police have no constitutionally mandated duty to protect and serve. This basically leaves us at the mercy of local law enforcement’s code of ethics and guidelines.

With that decision, this law gains even more ground. A significant natural disaster that would put Indiana in a declared state of emergency is not likely anytime in the near future. It is still nice, however, to have some reassurance that when things go to hell in a hand basket, we’ll still have the ability to defend ourselves.

The Katrina example is a bit dated. Since then, former Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed into law a National Rifle Association-backed Emergency Powers Protection Act, similar to the bill passed in Indiana. Also, to its credit, the New Orleans Police Department is returning confiscated firearms to their rightful owners through a form that can be submitted to the police department in person.

As for the other provision of the new Indiana bill, employers will no longer be allowed to punish employees for keeping legally owned firearms in their vehicles. It reinforces that Second Amendment rights don’t fall through when driving to and from work.

I’ll argue the other side before giving some examples. Opponents of keeping firearms locked in cars on company property posit that it may lead to another massacre such as the factory shooting in January at ABB Power in Missouri, which left three dead and five others wounded. The gunman arrived at the facility with several firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

That’s bad. Take it into consideration, however, that no trifling corporate policy on storing guns in one’s vehicle is going to stop a guy from shooting up his workplace if he really sets his mind to it. The only people that this policy affects are those who use their firearms for self-defense or who just haven’t gotten around to removing them from their vehicle after a hunting excursion or a trip to the range.

I’ll admit that if my place of employment knew what heat I was packing in my car at any given time before this law passed, I’d be out on the street playing bongos for cash. I keep a loaded pistol-grip shotgun in my car wherever I go (save for school, naturally). I’m not fooling around.

Neither should you. Exercise your right while you still have it because there are people who would take it away from you as soon as they get the chance.

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com

——————————————————————————–

POLL say MOST AMERICANS SAY CITIES HAVE NO RIGHT TO BAN HANDGUNS

Posted: 06 Mar 2010 07:21 AM PST

BELLEVUE, WA – A new Rasmussen poll has revealed that an overwhelming majority of Americans reject the notion that cities have a right to ban handguns, siding with the Second Amendment Foundation’s position in its lawsuit to overturn the Chicago ban.

Oral arguments in the SAF case were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. Court observers predict the high court will overturn the Chicago ban, thus incorporating the Second Amendment to state and local governments through provisions in the 14th Amendment. Results from Rasmussen’s national telephone survey found that 69 percent of the respondents say cities have no right to ban legal handgun ownership, while 25 percent believe cities can ban guns.

“The Rasmussen survey clearly shows that Americans have grown weary of anti-gun municipal demagoguery,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “A victory in our case before the Supreme Court should send a clear signal to gun prohibitionists like Chicago Mayor Richard Daley that arbitrarily disarming law-abiding citizens under the guise of fighting crime is an idea that has no place in this country.”

SAF is joined in its case by the Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago residents, including Otis McDonald, for whom the Supreme Court case is named.

The Rasmussen poll also found very little difference between current public sentiment and earlier surveys that noted 70 percent of American adults believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees the individual right to own a firearm.

“For years,” Gottlieb said, “the anti-gun lobby has been claiming majority support for its Draconian agenda, but polling data like this new information from Rasmussen shows that the public is not about to surrender a significant civil right. We believe the Supreme Court is on the verge of expanding the scope of that right by applying the Second Amendment to the states.”

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com

Another one bits the dust feds and ATFE, South Dakota Legislature Passes Firearms Freedom Bill! Good News for all

Posted: 04 Mar 2010 07:33 AM PST

Well good news to second amendment, guns, ammo, and hunting fans. Looks like South Dakota may be joining the ranks of states that pass a firearm Freedom Bill.

A bill that declares “exempt from federal regulation any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in South Dakota” passed in the South Dakota House of Representatives today.

SB 89 was approved by a 49-19 vote. The bill had already passed the state Senate on Feb. 18 with a 29-4 vote.

The bill states it would “exempt from federal regulation any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in South Dakota.” The spirit of the bill hearkens to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, but the firearms and ammunition covered by this bill would not be involved in interstate commerce; it specifies guns and ammo that are manufactured and kept within the state of South Dakota.

A number of states across the country have been working on “Firearms Freedom Acts” which seek to rein in our out-of-control federal government. South Dakota is joining this effort to restore federalism and strengthen our American freedoms.

Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Newsletter

Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Project is based at the Independence Institute,
a free-market think tank in Golden, Colorado.
http://www.independenceinstitute.org

Please visit Dave Kopel’s website, containing articles on the Second Amendment and other freedom topics.
http://www.davekopel.org

To subscribe to this free e-mail newsletter, please send a request to:
kopelnewsletter@liberty.seanet.com

New by Kopel: Law Review Articles: State Court Standards, ‘Living Constitution,’ Pennsylvania Quakers, Zimbabwe; Short Articles: South Africa’s Disaster, Chicago; Audio: Privileges or Immunities, Miller’s Meaning, IHEA, Pfaff interviews Dave; Bloggery: Armed and Overcoming, Clinton Connection to ‘Birthers,’ Gao Zisheng, Roscoe Pound, Interpol, Nemerov, Ginsberg.
International: The Bahamas; Balkans; Finland; Mexico; Call for South African ban
Industry: NSSF’s Government Relations Blog; SHOT Show
Anti-Gun Movement: Brady Center Leans on Starbucks; O’Reilly favors Crisis Gun-Grabs; Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors; California Detective Calls for Shootings
Media: CNN’s Smuggling Network: Scoop or Spin?
Federal: Guns in National Parks
States: California Microstamping; Colorado Campus Concealed Carry; Delaware Public Housing; Tennessee Bowhunters
Cases: Supreme Court to define ‘Machinegun;’ Shoot, Don’t Brandish; Washington Supremes Apply 2nd via 14th; Seattle Parks Ban Pre-empted
Research & Scholarship: Halbrook, Halbrook, Halbrook; Incidental Charges Defense; New Tendentious VPC Study; Mens Rea; 19th Century Incorporation; Time, place, and manner standard; Slaughter-House Three

New by Kopel

Law Review Articles

State Standards for the Right to Arms

David Kopel with Clayton Cramer
Santa Clara Law Review
2010
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1542544

“Cases on the right to arms in state constitutions can provide useful guidance for courts addressing Second Amendment issues. Although some people have claimed that state courts always use a highly deferential version of “reasonableness,” this article shows that many courts have employed rigorous standards, including the tools of strict scrutiny, such as overbreadth, narrow tailoring, and less restrictive means.”

The Right to Arms in the Living Constitution

Dave Kopel
Cardozo Law Review de Novo 99
2010
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Second-Amendment-in-the-Living-Constitution.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

This article presents a brief history of the Second Amendment as part of the living Constitution. From the Early Republic through the present, the American public has always understood the Second Amendment as guaranteeing a right to own firearms for self-defense. That view has been in accordance with élite legal opinion, except for a period in part of the twentieth century.

The Keystone of the Second Amendment: Quakers, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Flawed Scholarship of Nathan Kozuskanich

Dave Kopel with Clayton Cramer
19 Widener Law Journal
2010
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1502925

Kopel and Cramer examine the historical underpinnings of historian Nathan Kozuskanich’s claim that the right to arms in the 1776 Pennsylvania constitution only guaranteed a right to serve in the commonwealth’s militia.

The Arms Trade Treaty: Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Prospects for Arms Embargoes on Human Rights Violators.

Dave Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne T. Eisen
114 Penn State Law Review No. 3, 2010, Forthcoming
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1437204

“Advocates of the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) promise that it will prevent the flow of arms to human rights violators. This Article first examines the ATT, and observes that the ATT, if implemented as promised, would require dozens of additional arms embargoes, including embargoes on much of Africa. The Article then provides case studies of the current supply of arms to the dictatorship in Zimbabwe and to the warlords in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The Article argues that the ATT would do nothing to remediate the conditions which have allowed so many arms to be acquired by human rights violators. The ATT would have no more effective force than the embargoes that are already imposed by the UN Security Council; therefore states, including China, which violate current Security Council embargoes could just as well violate ATT embargoes. Accordingly, the ATT is a distraction, and human rights activists should instead examine alternative methods of addressing the problem of arms in the hands of human rights violators.” What’s up now is the near-final version.

Short Articles

South Africa’s Deadly Disaster

Dave Kopel
America‘s 1st Freedom
March, 2010
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/South-Africas-Deadly-Disaster.htm

“When not banning guns outright, the gun prohibition lobbies—both in the United States and abroad—promote gun owner licensing as a ‘reasonable’ and ‘sensible’ regulation. Yet, the terrible experience of South African gun owners shows how purportedly ‘reasonable’ licensing can be used to devastate a culture of responsible gun ownership.”

The Next Supreme Decision: Showdown Over Chicago

Dave Kopel
America‘s 1st Freedom
February, 2019
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/next-supreme-decision.htm

“The NRA files a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago, making a powerful argument in defense of the Second Amendment.”

Podcasts and Audio

The Privileges or Immunities Clause and What it Means for the Second Amendment

David Kopel with Ilya Shapiro
Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Podcast
February 16, 2010
http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast376.mp3

Kopel interviews the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro about his new law review article. 29 minutes.

What Miller Meant

David Kopel with Michael O’Shea
Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Podcast
February 16, 2010
http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast377.mp3

Kopel interviews Michael O’Shea about the history and multiple meanings of United States v. Miller. 65 minutes.

The International Hunter Education Association

David Kopel with Wayne East
Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Podcast
February 16, 2010
http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast378.mp3

Kopel interviews the International Hunter Education Association’s Wayne East, about IHEA’s good works in teaching safety and responsibility. 26 minutes.

David Kopel: Aiming for Liberty, The Future of Freedom and Self-Defense

Jim Pfaff with Dave Kopel
The Jim Pfaff Show
January 21, 2010
http://www.opiniontimes.com/podcast/20100121-JPS-Dave-Kopel.mp3

Jim Pfaff interviews Kopel about Aiming for Liberty, Dave’s new book. 24 minutes.

Kopel’s Bloggery

The Story of the Armed Community Organizers

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
February 22, 2010
http://volokh.com/2010/02/22/the-story-of-the-armed-community-organizers/

One of the reasons that as many figures in the Civil Rights movement of the 60′s fared as well as they did is that a considerable number of them were armed with things besides faith and virtue.

“Birther” claim about Obama and the Bush National Guard Hoax: Fruit of the same Poisonous Tree?

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
February 9, 2010
http://volokh.com/2010/02/09/birther-claim-about-obama-and-the-bush-national-guard-hoax-fruit-of-the-same-poisonous-tree/

“So suggests John Avalon, in a Daily Beast column ‘The Secret History of the Birthers.’ He traces birtherism to a Texas woman named Linda Starr, who was a Hillary Clinton delegate to the 2008 Texas state Democratic Convention. Avalon writes that Starr ‘was also cited as a key source for CBS’s discredited election year investigation into George W. Bush’s National Guard records that led to Dan Rather’s replacement after 24 years as the evening news anchor.’”

State Court Standards of Review for the Right to Arms

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
February 18, 2010
http://volokh.com/2010/02/09/birther-claim-about-obama-and-the-bush-national-guard-hoax-fruit-of-the-same-poisonous-tree/

“That’s that title of a forthcoming article in a Santa Clara Law Review symposium, by Clayton Cramer and me. We examine, in detail, scores of important cases, from Bliss v. Commonwealth in 1822 up to the present. We explain which cases can provide useful guidance to modern courts which must interpret the Second Amendment (and which cases use an approach is plainly inapplicable to Second Amendment analysis, post–Heller).”

How the Right to Arms Saved the Non-violent Civil Rights Protesters

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
February 8, 2010
http://volokh.com/2010/02/08/how-the-right-to-arms-saved-the-non-violent-civil-rights-protesters/

“As the history of the Civil Rights Movement demonstrates, the denial of the constitutional right to own a handgun could endanger other constitutional rights, particularly the rights of community organizers.”

Where is Gao Zisheng?

The Volokh Conspiracy
February 4, 2010
http://volokh.com/2010/02/04/where-is-gao-zisheng/

“There is no writ of habeas corpus in China, nor are there most of the other civil rights guarantees which are characteristic of a civilized nation with a free government. And so Gao Zisheng’s writ of habeas corpus will not be issued by a Chinese court, but its moral equivalent can be issued by the free people of the world: commanding that the body of Gao Zisheng, in the Chinese government’s custody detained, as it is said, together with the day and cause of his caption and detention, be safely brought forth.”

Roscoe Pound on the Second Amendment

The Volokh Conspiracy
February 2, 2010
http://volokh.com/2010/02/02/roscoe-pound-on-the-second-amendment/

“As David Bernstein has explained, Pound argued on a broad front that judges should ignore the text and original meaning of the Constitution, so as not to impede (supposedly) beneficial expansions of government power to restrict personal freedom. Pound was no friend of the Constitution.”

Interpol Realism

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
January 15, 2010
http://volokh.com/2010/01/15/interpol-realism/

“Over the past few weeks, there has been a lot of concern in some quarters about President Obama’s Executive Order extending certain legal immunities to Interpol. These concerns are misplaced. I am currently writing a research paper on Interpol, which will cover the immunities, and many other issues.”

Best unknown gun rights writer? Howard Nemerov

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
January 8, 2010
http://volokh.com/2010/01/08/best-unknown-gun-right-writer-howard-nemerov/

“The Examiner on-line newspapers have provided forum for a bevy of authors who write on Second Amendment and firearms policy issues. There are plenty of good writers among them, but my favorite is Howard Nemerov, who writes for the Austin Examiner. Howard´s columns are often data-rich (such as his latest piece, on the failures of police protection in Chicago). He is no mere commentator, but instead works hard to research the facts and advance the story.” Mr. Nemerov’s work can be found here: http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner

Justice Ginsburg: Supreme Court may Eventually Overrule Heller

David Kopel
The Volokh Conspiracy
December 20, 2009
http://volokh.com/2009/12/20/justice-ginsburg-supreme-court-may-eventually-overrule-heller/

“On Thursday, Dec. 17, Justice Ginsburg spoke at a luncheon of the Harvard Club of Washington, D.C. I was not present at the luncheon, but I have heard, third-hand, that she spoke on the value of dissenting opinions. She said that sometimes a dissent can become the majority of a ‘future, wiser court.’ As an example, she pointed to the dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller.”

International

The Bahamas

Gun License Holders Requested to Renew or Face Possible Charges

Loretta Mackey
Bahama Islands Info
February 10, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/y8grwxp

“Please know that the deadline for renewal ended on 31st December, 2009. Furthermore, the ‘grace’ period of fourteen after the deadline has also expired. Therefore, gun license holders, should make a special effort to renew their licenses immediately. You are all reminded that if you have not renewed your licenses, you are now in ‘possession of an unlicensed firearm/ammunitions’ which are criminal charges.”

The Balkans

Hunting surges in Southeast Europe

Phil Cain
Global Post
February 16, 2009
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/100209/balkans-hunting-conservation

“After the fall of communism, hunting became an economic imperative in the Balkans, worrying conservationists.”

Egypt

Firearms, and another Friday night in Cairo

Ingrid Wassmann
Dubai Business Journal
February 19, 2010
http://www.kippreport.com/2010/02/firearms-and-another-friday-night-in-cairo/

“Egyptians are confronting a violent crime wave with a decidedly American approach: buying guns and taking the law into their own hands.”

Finland

Finns propose ban on handguns after shootings

Matti Huuhtanen
The Associated Press (Finland)
February 17, 2010
http://www.chicoer.com/news/national/ci_14417391

“A Finnish government commission on Wednesday proposed a ban on semiautomatic handguns after two school shootings in recent years left 20 people dead.”

Mexico

Mexican Gun Control: The Bitter Irony

Howard O. Ness
The Las Cruces Sun (New Mexico)
February 11, 2010
http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_14380633

“We read with horror about yet another mass slaughter in our Mexican border city, Juarez, on the last day of January when 18 young persons were killed in cold blood at a festive event. This story is now being repeated all over Mexico, particularly in the northern tier of states. There is a terrible irony about the current wave of deaths occurring from out-of-control shootings, many with fully automatic weapons. The principle irony is this. To my knowledge, Mexico has the toughest gun control laws in the Western Hemisphere.”

South Africa

Gun Free SA Wants Gun Ownership Illegal

Regan Thaw
Eyewitness News (South Africa)
February 13, 2009
http://www.eyewitnessnews.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=32456

An organization called Gun Free South Africa is urging the South African Government to expand aggressive new restrictions on civilian firearms ownership into a total ban.

Industry

Introducing ‘Keane Insights,’ NSSF’s Government Relations Blog

Press Release
The National Shooting Sports Foundation
February 15, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/yb38f25

“NSSF has launched a new blog focusing on public policy, legislation, regulation and legal issues affecting the firearms industry. Titled ‘Keane Insights’ after its author, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane, the blog is a direct response to member requests for more government-relations-based communications.”

2010 SHOT Show

Boge Quinn
Guns Magazine’s ‘Web Blast’
January 21, 2010
http://www.gunblast.com/SHOT_Show_2010.htm

Here’s coverage of the entirety of the Firearms Industry’s 2010 SHOT show, held January 18th through the 21st in Las Vegas.

Anti-gun movement

Contact Starbucks And Protect The Right-To-Carry

Press Release
The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action
February 12, 2010
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5399

The Brady Campaign is launching an effort to convince Starbucks to forbid concealed carry by licensees at its establishments.

NRA: Brady Campaign’s Contradiction on Concealed Guns

Wayne LaPierre
Opposiing Views
November 16, 2009
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/nra-brady-campaign-s-contradiction-on-concealed-guns

Having previously acknowledged the obvious fact that civilian concealed carry has posed no problem, the Brady Campaign’s effort to pressure Starbucks into forbidding it is a clear contradiction of their stated view.

‘Conservative’ Bill O’Reilly Supports Gun Confiscation in Emergencies

David Codrea
The Examiner
February 19,2010
http://tinyurl.com/yf35m7x

Citing the need of authorities to regain control of a city in crisis, Fox’s Bill O’Reilly supported disarming the population in the aftermath of an upheaval. Codrea points out that at such a time the population would be in the most need of their arms.

Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors

Informational Web Page
2010
http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/

This organization has done a thorough job of amassing considerable evidence that NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ organization contains enough convicted or alleged felons to justify its investigation as a criminal conspiracy.

Gun Rights Advocates Target California Detective Following Facebook Posts

Joshua Rhett Miller
Fox News
February 15, 2010
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585807,00.html

“Gun rights advocates have a California police detective in their crosshairs after he apparently posted comments on Facebook advocating that ‘open carry’ supporters should be shot.”

Media

Smuggled Guns used in Cartel Hits

Ed Lavandera
CNN
February 18, 2010
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/17/cartel.guns/

A network of straw purchasers has been illegally obtaining weapons in Texas for use by the Mexican drug cartels.

The One Thing That’s Missing…

David Codrea
The War on Guns Blogspot
February 17, 2010
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2010/02/one-thing-thats-missing.html

Codrea succinctly points out that the objectives of ‘Lost and Stolen’ laws will not be met unless criminals comply with the legislation by reporting themselves and surrendering the purloined weapons.

CNN’s Lavandera Misrepresents Illegal ‘Lost & Stolen’ Gun Ordinances

Matthew Balan
Newsbusters
February 17, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/ygcb8rq

“CNN’s Ed Lavandera [author of the article above] misrepresented ‘lost and stolen’ gun ordinances passed by municipalities in Pennsylvania as ‘straw purchase ordinances’ on Wednesday’s American Morning, and hinted that gun rights supporters were somehow extreme.”

Is CNN Report on “Legal Guns that Go Bad” Misleading?

Mark Berman
Opposing Views
February 17, 2010
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/is-cnn-report-on-legal-guns-that-go-bad-misleading

Here is a summary of Newsbusters’ ongoing criticism of CNN’s efforts to claim that a large, organized network of illegal gun traffickers is funneling large amounts of weapons from the U.S. into the wars of the Mexican drug cartels.

Federal

National ‘Take a Gun Hiking’ Day

Howard Nemerov
The Examiner
February 22, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/yf9md6j

Howard Nemerov offers his useful perspective and insights on the Federal law now allowing legal concealed carry, subject to state law, in the National Parks.

National Parks are Safer with Concealed Carry Law

Howard Nemerov
Pajamas Media
February 20, 2010
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/national-parks-are-safer-with-right-to-carry-law/

“Thanks to a new federal law beginning February 22, people who can legally carry concealed handguns according to state law can also carry within national parks and forests in that state, too. While this may help protect visitors from the parks’ burgeoning crime problem, the story of this law’s journey through Congress provides a lesson in campaign contributions and anti-liberty special interests.”

States

California

Concealed Weapons Permit Violations Rare, Police Say

C. D. Michel
California Gun laws
February 15, 2010
http://calgunlaws.com/index.php/california-law/83/858.html

“The lack of available micro-stamping technology has not deterred the Department of Justice from proceeding with promulgating regulations for the law’s implementation. In other words, these proposed regulations are completely unnecessary at this time. It is on this basis, among others, that the NRA is objecting to the DOJ commencing with the rulemaking process on this matter.” The text of the NRA’s letter is here: http://tinyurl.com/y8gkh4b

Colorado

Colorado Senate News: Republicans back CSU Students in Struggle to Preserve On-Campus Concealed Carry Policy

ColoradoSenateNews.com
The Denver Daily News
February 12, 2010
http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=7285

“A Republican lawmaker is outraged that Democrats killed a bill that would have declared that any firearms made and retained in Colorado are beyond the control of Congress.”

CSU Approves Separate Concealed-weapons Policies for Two Campuses

Monte Whaley
The Denver Post
February 24, 2010
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_14458517

“Rocky Mountain Gun Owners has threatened to lead the legal charge against the gun policy, which bans people from carrying licensed concealed weapons on both campuses.”

Delaware

House Bill 357 Introduced to Overturn Public Housing Gun Bans

Lee Williams
Caesar Rodney Institute Blog
February 18, 2010
http://criblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/house-bill-357-introduced-to-overturn-public-housing-gun-bans/

“A bill that would stop the state’s public housing authorities from banning guns was introduced today, co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of more than two-dozen state lawmakers.”

Maryland

Assault Weapons Ban Bill Dropped

Douglas Tallman
The Gazette (Gaithersburg, MD)
February 19, 2009
http://www.gazette.net/stories/02192010/polinew200653_32551.php

“The sponsor of a proposal to ban assault weapons withdrew his bill from the Maryland Senate this week, acknowledging the measure lacked enough support to get the legislation out of committee.”

Tennessee

Bill Would OK Handguns while Bowhunting in Tenn.

The Associated Press(TN)
February 22, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/yzwghst

“Handgun permit holders in Tennessee would be able to carry their weapons while big game bowhunting under a measure approved by the House. The bill sponsored by House Democratic Caucus Chairman Mike Turner of Nashville passed 85-3 on Monday. The companion bill is waiting to be scheduled for a vote on the Senate floor.”

Cases

Mandatory Minimums and Automatic Weapons: United States v. O’Brien and Burgess

Anna Christensen
SCOTUS blog
February 19, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/y8kmwfb

“In United States v. O’Brien and Burgess, the Court will once again enter the tangled field of sentencing law, this time to interpret 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which criminalizes the use or carrying of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence or drug trafficking and which has been the subject of several decisions since it was amended in 1998 to clarify that it extended to ‘mere’ possession of a firearm. The case involves the sentence enhancement for the use of a ‘machinegun’…”

If You Brandish a Gun in Self-Defense in Kansas, You’d Best Shoot It

Eugene Volokh
The Volokh Conspiracy
February 12, 2010
http://volokh.com/2010/02/12/if-you-brandish-a-gun-in-self-defense-in-kansas-youd-best-shoot-it/

The Kansas State Supreme court has held, under its 2009 Hendrix decision, that a man who merely brandished a firearm in what he believed was a dangerous situation was unable to use the self-defense defense he could have used had he fired the weapon.

State of Washington v. Christopher William Sieyes

Justice Richard B. Sanders
Supreme Court of the State of Washington
February 18, 2010
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/821542.opn.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

The Washington State Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans are applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Judge’s Ruling Ends Seattle Parks Gun Ban

Erik Lacitis
The Seattle Times
February 12, 2010
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011061469_parksgun13m.html

“The rule banning firearms in Seattle parks was tossed out Friday by King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer, who said the city cannot pre-empt state law.”

Research & Scholarship

Securing Civil Rights

Stephen P. Halbrook
The Independent Institute
April, 2010
http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=85

Now with the urgency of the McDonald case, the Independent Institute is making copies of Securing Civil Rights available in a new, inexpensive, reader-friendly edition.”

Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876

Stephen P. Halbrook
The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action
February, 2010
http://www.nraila.org/ActionCenter/GrassRootsActivism.aspx?id=96

“Now, you can donate to NRA-ILA and get the top source on the subject: Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876, by Stephen P. Halbrook. This hardcover, 230-page book has been a key source of primary materials for scholars and attorneys challenging the Chicago handgun ban. Now out of print, copies cost $75 or more online, but you can receive your copy, with no shipping charge, for a $25 donation to NRA-ILA.”

Heller, the Second Amendment, and Reconstruction: Protecting All Freedmen or Only Militiamen?

Stephen P. Halbrook
Santa Clara Law Review
Forthcoming
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1544924##

Halbrook responds to the District of Columbia’s use of his scholarship in their Heller brief about the efforts of the Southern states to disarm former slaves in the aftermath of Emancipation. Halbrook further enlarges upon his explanation of his conclusion that on the Federal level the civil rights of the Freedmen very much included the right to keep and bear arms.

Bans on Discharging Firearms, Without a Self-Defense Exception

Eugene Volokh
The Volokh Conspiracy
February 12, 2010
http://volokh.com/2010/02/12/bans-on-discharging-firearms-without-a-self-defense-exception/

Volokh here discusses how a claim of self-defense can offer an explicit or implicit defense against other legal violations incidental to the action defended by a claim of self-defense.

A Shot at Mens Rea in Aiding and Abetting Illegal Firearms Possession Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(G)

Stephen R. Klein
Ave Maria Law Review
Vol. 7, No. 639, 2009
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1543547

This Note explains the current circuit split regarding aiding and abetting illegal firearm possession and argues that the split should be resolved legislatively by restricting § 922(g) charges via § 2(a). Possible judicial remedies are also discussed. Considerations include how the U.S. Supreme Court would resolve the current circuit split: the Court could either apply its reasoning in Staples v. United States 9 to § 922(g), or adopt its formulation of aiding and abetting in Nye & Nissen v. United States, or it could do both. Ultimately, the current disparity is best resolved by Congress, for it does not appear that aiding and abetting will ever find uniform judicial application within criminal law.

Target: Law Enforcement

Tom Diaz, VPC Senior Policy Analyst
The Violence Policy Center
December 4, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/yz7yzr2

More than one out of four assault weapon incidents involve police, says a study by the Violence Policy Center (VPC). Based on reports in the news of assault weapons incidents over two years the group said the study is a snapshot of the effect of Americas laissez- faire policy toward these deadly military-style weapons. The study found that the percentage of assault weapons incidents involving police rose significantly between the two periods studied: March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2006, and March 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007. Police were involved in 29 of 117 incidents (24.8 percent) in the first period and 35 of 118 incidents (29.7 percent) in the second period’s increase of 20.7 percent. The study also found that shots were fired from assault weapons (other than police weapons) in three out of every four reported incidents involving police, and that gangs were reported to be involved in one out of five of the reported incidents involving assault weapons. At least one victim was killed in 86 out of 235 reported incidents (36.6 percent). A total of 115 deaths were reported for the 86 incidents.

Ducking the Bullet: District Of Columbia v. Heller and The Stevens Dissent

David T. Hardy
Cardozo Law Review de Novo 99
2010
http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/denovo/HARDY_2010_61.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

Hardy here offers a critique of Justice Steven’s dissent in Heller.

The Potentially Expansive Reach of McDonald V. Chicago: Enabling the Privileges or Immunities Clause

Michael Anthony Lawrence
Cardozo Law Review de Novo 99
2010
http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/denovo/LAWRENCE_2010_139.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

Lewis makes a proposal that all restrictions on liberty be judged according to a “reasonable time, place, and manner” standard.

Why Did the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Fail in the Late Nineteenth Century?

Gerard N. Magliocca
The Minnesota Law Review 94
2009
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/sites/default/files/Magliocca_MLR.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

Today, the conventional wisdom is that the Slaughter-House cases asserted that the Privileges or Immunities clause does not protect the Bill of Rights. But until 1900, the conventional reading—including in Supreme Court opinions—was that the case only rejected application of procedural rights to the states. The idea that SH rejects the application of substantive rights (e.g., freedom of speech, right to keep and bear arms) came during the progressive era, as the Court and the rest of the legal elites panicked about labor unrest, and decided that states should have wide latitude to suppress dissent. The historical evidence supports using PI to make the Second Amendment apply to the states.

Privileges, Immunities, and Substantive Due Process

Timothy Sandefur
NYU Journal of Law & Liberty Vol. 5, No. 1
2010
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1516667##

Slaughter-House’s most egregious error was in nullifying the principle of “paramount national citizenship” which lay at the heart of the ideology of the 14th Amendment’s advocates. Revitalizing the Privileges and Immunities clause should not lead to the abandonment of “substantive due process.” This article provides the best collection of citations and sources in defense of the theory that, long before the 14th Amendment was written, it was widely understood that the principle of “due process” substantively prohibited certain arbitrary acts by legislatures (e.g., giving A’s property to B) even if the proper procedures were followed.

Citizen Gun Rights: Incorporating the Second Amendment through the Privileges or Immunities Clause

Kenneth A. Klukowski
New Mexico Law Review 39
November, 2009
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1290584

Klukowski argues that Slaughter-House should be affirmed, and that the Second Amendment can be protected against state/local infringement by the Privileges and Immunities clause, because the Amendment fits under Slaughter-House‘s restrictive definition of rights of national citizenship which are created by the Constitution. Makes policy arguments that PI is superior to Due Process for protection of Second Amendment rights, since the former applies only to citizens. He goes on to warn that overruling Slaughter-House could provide a future Court with too many opportunities to fabricate novel “rights” out of the Privileges and Immunities clause.

Keeping Pandora’s Box Sealed: Privileges or Immunities, the Constitution in 2020, and Properly Extending the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the States

Ilya Shapiro & Josh Blackman
Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 8, number 1 Winter, 2010
http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/ilya-shapiro-keeping-pandoras-box-sealed.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.

These authors discuss a hypothetical future reflecting the repeal of the Slaughter-House decision, which they argue at length would re-affirm the protections of the Constitution from abuses by the States as well as the Federal government.

This newsletter is compiled with help from Dr. Rob S. Rice. For more on this inferential, yet illative individual, see here: http://robricebooks.com. Samples of Dr. Rice’s photography off that page might serve to explain his emphasis on writing as his means of livelihood.

Al Qaeda delenda est!

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

March 1, 2010

http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com

——————————————————————————–

Utah joins the growing list of state telling feds hands off our guns and ammo

Posted: 28 Feb 2010 07:51 PM PST

On Friday, Utah Governor Gary Herbert finally signed into law SB11, the Utah State-Made Firearms Protection Act. The bill passed both the House and the Senate, then sat on Herbert’s desk for 10 days while the governor debated whether he would sign or veto the bill. Had the governor neither signed nor vetoed the bill by Saturday, it would have automatically gone into effect as law. Herbert said the decision to sign came after careful review of the potential fallout from the controversial legislation.

“There are times when the state needs to push back against continued encroachment from the federal government. Sending the message that we will stand up for a proper balance between the state and federal government is a good thing,” the governor said. “But in these challenging economic times, when Utah families continue to struggle and our Legislature must account for every dollar it spends, we must also be thoughtful about the cost of that message.”

SB11 creates statute that allows guns and ammunition manufactured and sold in Utah to be regulated by the state of Utah, not by the federal government. At its heart, SB11 is a states’ rights bill, not a weapons bill. It lashes out at the federal government and attempts to regain some of the control and power the federal government has usurped from the states through overreaching use of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Senator Margaret Dayton, the bill’s sponsor, said the bill is all about control. But asserting control will likely come with a constitutional challenge. The bill was modeled after Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act, which passed last year, and has since gone into litigation. Litigation was brought against the federal government by a private group who asserts that current interpretation of constitutional law, as it regards to the Interstate Commerce Clause, is incorrect. The federal government has filed a motion to dismiss the matter, which is awaiting a hearing. Tennessee is the only other state that has adopted a similar law.

Governor Herbert has consulted with the state Attorney General and other legal advisers, who assured him that the state can take a stand on this issue of controlling intrastate commerce without incurring onerous legal expenses.

“The attorney general has assured me that, should a legal challenge be filed against the state, his office can take a variety of actions to ensure the defense of this legislation will have a minimal cost to the people of Utah,” said Herbert. “I am satisfied that Utah can stand confidently with other states that are taking a stand against the federal government’s overreach in this area.”

Second Amendment Issues

February 28, 2010

Folks,

From the Knox Fire Arms Coalition.

“Get the News to Protect Your Freedom” at www.gunnewsdaily.com

To join this alert list,
send an email to sdrra-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Thank You!
Jim – San Diego Rifle and Revolver Association

*Welcome to another Knox e-Update*

Please repost and share this with your friends and invite them to
subscribe — it’s free!

If you do not wish to receive these updates and Alerts, there is opt-out
information at the end.

*In this issue:*

* 1. **Iowa** Saga Continues*

* 2. Constitutional Carry in Trouble in AZ*

* 3. NRA Board of Directors Election*

* 4. The Importance of Strategic Planning*

* 5. Swing for the Fences: Time to Push for the Best*

* 6. Work to Do: Hoplophobia is Pervasive*

* 7. Join Us on Facebook*

I tried to get an e-Update out right before I left for the SHOT Show,
but had a computer problem that kept it from going out. That was
followed by two weeks on the road to return just in time for the “Storm
of the Century” here in Virginia. Having dug out from the snow, power
outage, and downed phone service, I am still struggling to dig out from
under the backlogs in my businesses.

*Iowa** and NRA*

Things in Iowa are still running at a high boil and require more
attention from me and from activists — in Iowa and around the country.
I hope to have a more detailed report out soon.

Two new twists have been added since my last report (linked at the end
of this update):

Democrats have thrown out the NRA language for the concealed carry bill
leaving nothing but a hollow shell. They have tasked one of their
members, an attorney with a solid anti-gun voting record, with writing a
new bill. Expect that to have some serious problems, but also expect
NRA to, at worst support the bill, warts and all, or to back away from
it quietly. It is beginning to look like killing carry reform is the
best Iowans can hope for this year. Whatever happens, don’t expect to
see a bunch of “F” grades from NRA as a result of this fiasco. Many
anti-rights politicians will get credit for “trying” regardless of the
final language or passage, and the makeup of next year’s legislature
will not be significantly altered by angry GunVoters.

The other big twist is the introduction of a bill to codify the
“Lautenberg Amendment” into Iowa law. This effort is currently in the
Senate and has been delayed primarily by the efforts of Iowa Gun
Owners. At this time the NRA lobbyist in Iowa, Chris Rager, is listed
as “Undecided” in support or opposition to the bill. If Iowa adopts
their own Lautenberg bill, repeal of Lautenberg at the federal level
would not fix the problem.

*Constitutional Carry in **Arizona***

Constitutional Carry legislation was moving well in the Arizona
Legislature until an amendment was successfully attached (by just one
vote) on the House floor. The offending amendment requires private
sellers at “arms shows” to verify proof of citizenship whenever they
sell a gun. Aside from creating a statutory definition of “arms shows”
and drafting sellers into the service of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, the penalty for a seller making a mistake — or not being
able to prove he didn’t make a mistake — is a serious felony, on par
with rapists and drug-lords. If this amendment can not be removed,
principled activists in Arizona will kill the bill — and hold those who
supported the amendment accountable for their actions.

*Here are links to the latest Knox Update columns at
www.FirearmsCoaliti
on.org <http://www.firearmscoalition.org/
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/> >:*

*NRA Director Elections 2010
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=502:nra-board-elections-2010&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=502:nra-board-elections-2010&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144>
>*

It is time again to elect one third of the absurdly large Board of
Directors of NRA. Each year 25 seats come up for election for a 3-year
term and then one of the runner-ups is elected to a 1-year term at the
annual meetings. This year 24 of the current directors are running for
reelection and there are 7 non-incumbent nominees also running resulting
in 31 candidates for 25 seats… *(Read More)*
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=502:nra-board-elections-2010&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=502:nra-board-elections-2010&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144>
>

*Effective Activist Politics
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=506:strategic-planning&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=506:strategic-planning&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144> >*

*Lesson Six: Strategic Planning
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=506:strategic-planning&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=506:strategic-planning&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144> >*

It’s been awhile since I have written an installment of my Effective
Activist Politics series, but this is one of the most important topics
for activists and activist organizations to pay attention to so I’m
adding it to the series. If you’d like to read or re-read the other
articles in the series they are available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/ <http://www.firearmscoalition.org/> >
and also at www.GunVoter.org
<http://www.gunvoter.org/ <http://www.gunvoter.org/> >.

Every grass roots lobbying organization needs to schedule two strategic
planning sessions every year. The output of one is a legislative plan,
and the other is a political action plan… *(Read More)*
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=506:strategic-planning&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=506:strategic-planning&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144> >

*Swing for the Fences!
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=505:swing-for-the-fences&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=505:swing-for-the-fences&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144> >*

In politics, like baseball, there is a time to bunt and a time to swing
for the fence. This year is ripe for home runs. The political climate
this year offers a unique opportunity for rights advocates to make major
gains — both legislatively and politically. To make those gains we
need to pull out all of the stops and go big.

The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts was clear proof that voters
are unhappy. Politicians who were already concerned about disgruntled
voters are now terrified as they look toward the November elections.
Pundits and analysts can spin the Brown victory any way they wish but
the facts are clear. Voters are not happy with the way Democrats have
exercised control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. The
backlash won’t stop at congressional elections and the local politicians
know it. Many state legislators rode the wave of Democrat ascendancy to
gain control of their state legislatures and as they watch that wave
crashing on the rocks, they know they have a serious fight on the way
this November… *(Read More)*
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=505:swing-for-the-fences&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=505:swing-for-the-fences&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144> >

*A Lot of Work to Do
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=504:a-lot-of-work-to-do&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=504:a-lot-of-work-to-do&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144> >*

I recently wrote about the need for preaching to the choir — too many
of our own friends, family members, and fellow shooters are woefully
uninformed about the fight for liberty. A chance conversation in a
hardware store this week really brought home just how much work there is
to do beyond the choir room doors. At the hardware store I got into a
conversation with a fellow shopper. As conversations with me tend to
do, it wasn’t long before we were talking about guns and gun laws. The
fellow’s wife had joined the conversation by this time and while his
reaction was troubling, her reaction was down right scary… *(Read
More)*
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=504:a-lot-of-work-to-do&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=504:a-lot-of-work-to-do&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144> >

*The Iowa Controversy – Continued
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=500:iowa-continued&catid=50:reports
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=500:iowa-continued&catid=50:reports> >*

The Iowa Legislature started their brief 2010 election year session last
Monday and fortunately, as of Friday, January 15th, NRA had still not
filed their concealed carry reform bill. The NRA proposal first
surfaced last November as a revolting collection of sloppily worded
amendments to Iowa‘s atrocious weapons laws. Thanks to the efforts of
rights groups, including The Firearms Coalition and GunVoter.org, NRA
made several revisions, improving their first proposal, yet still
falling far short of a good bill. NRA’s current offering could be a
barely tolerable fallback, assuming a good bill wasn’t possible, but the
current political situation argues for stronger demands. While the
latest version has a number of very good provisions, it also contains
things that simply shouldn’t be there… *(Read More)
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=500:iowa-continued&catid=50:reports
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti\
cle&id=500:iowa-continued&catid=50:reports> >
*

*Neal Knox Associates on Facebook*

We have established a presence on Facebook. Please *Visit and become a
fan of: The Firearms Coalition
<http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#%21/pages/The-Firearms-Coalit\
ion/323815929674
<http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#%21/pages/The-Firearms-Coalit\
ion/323815929674> >,
GunVoter.org
<http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#%21/pages/GunVoterorg/1078248\
83170
<http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#%21/pages/GunVoterorg/1078248\
83170> >**,
and Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War
<http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#%21/pages/Neal-Knox-The-Gun-R\
ights-War/138725011180
<http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#%21/pages/Neal-Knox-The-Gun-R\
ights-War/138725011180> >.
*

*Help us spread the word!*

* The Knox e-Update is a free service of Neal Knox Associates
and The Firearms Coalition. We try to send it out a couple of times a
month, often less, and sometimes more depending on news and time
constraints.*

Please forward this e-Update to everyone who cares about rights on
your email list and invite them to sign up for a free subscription at
www.FirearmsCoalition.org <http://www.firearmscoalition.org/
<http://www.firearmscoalition.org/> >.

We never sell or share the list and we won’t abuse your trust. Thanks.

WA SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RICHARD SANDERS
AUTHORS SIGNIFICANT GUN RIGHTS RULING

By Alan M. Gottlieb

Executive Vice President

Second Amendment Foundation

The Washington State Supreme Court has issued a precedent-setting opinion in the case of State v. Christopher William Sieyes which holds that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights “applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment”

This outstanding opinion was authored by Justice Richard B. Sanders, a Supreme Court veteran who clearly understands the history of both the state and federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps what makes the Sanders opinion so remarkable is that it places the Washington Supreme Court ahead of the United States Supreme Court in recognition that the U.S. Constitution’s recognition of the right to keep and bear arms applies to all citizens, and should also place limits on state and local governments, as it does on Congress.

Quoting Justice Sanders, “Lower courts need not wait for the Supreme Court the Constitution is the rule of all courts both state and federal judiciaries wield power to strike down unconstitutional government acts.”

The Sanders opinion was issued February 18, 2010 and its significance quickly registered with gun rights organizations and activists across the map. For example, the National Shooting Sports Foundation hailed the ruling. NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane called it “a welcome development and victory for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.”

This state high court opinion, among other things, effectively “puts on notice” anti-gun groups in the Evergreen State that their continued efforts to impair the rights of legally-armed citizens will face not only growing legislative resistance, but intense legal scrutiny. Though not binding on other states, it clears a path for other state supreme courts to follow.

Despite its brevity at only 24 pages, Justice Sanders’ opinion – which was co-signed by five of his colleagues, including Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen – thoroughly and proactively debunks any suggestion that the authors of Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution did not mean specifically what they wrote: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

Perhaps Justice Sanders put it best when he noted, “This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice.”

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com

February 25, 2010

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

——————————————————————————–

If we can not have Switzerland style gun laws, why not Wyoming’s attempt at firearm law?

Posted: 24 Feb 2010 12:20 AM PST

One small step for Wyoming, one giant leap for gun rights

Wyoming is on the verge of passing two key pieces of gun rights legislation.

HB-95, The Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act, and HB-113 “Alaska-style” permit-less concealed carry, are facing an up-or-down vote before the Wyoming State House of Representatives.

On Tuesday, National Association for Gun Rights Director of Operations Luke O’Dell was on hand to testify before the Wyoming State House Judiciary Committee on behalf of both HB-95, the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act, and the HB-113, “Alaska-style” permit less carry.

You may be asking yourself, “Why do I care, I don’t live in Wyoming?”

It’s simple: The higher the bar is set, the more pro-gun pieces of legislation pass across the country, the stronger the gun rights movement gets.

Passage of permit-less “Alaska-style” concealed carry in Wyoming would be a huge step forward toward true firearms freedom. Only in Alaska and Vermont can law-abiding citizens carry concealed firearms for their own protection without getting Big Brother’s approval. Should Wyoming join their ranks, the right-to-carry will have taken a major step forward.

Additionally, Wyoming’s Firearms Freedom Act was written with much stronger language than similar legislation in other states. Wyoming’s bill included penalties for state law enforcement enforcing Federal laws which contradict Wyoming state law.

I’m happy to say that Wyoming Gun Owners, a partner of ours, has been leading the charge for both pieces of legislation.

Now it’s our turn to help out.

If you live in Wyoming, or know someone who does, please have them contact their Wyoming legislator and tell them to vote “Yes” on HB-95 and HB-113.

You can find contact information for Wyoming State Legislators here.

If you’re not from Wyoming, go ahead and drop them a line anyways. Tell them that you support their efforts to advance freedom in Wyoming.

And if you’d like to help Wyoming Gun Owners pass this legislation by making a donation, click here.

For Liberty,

Gun Owners of America Endorsement

February 22, 2010

GOA Endorsing J.D. Hayworth Over John McCain

McCain wrong for Arizona, wrong for America. Read More…

Subject: GOA-PVF: Replace McCain With A Real Pro-gun Legislator!
From: “Gun Owners of America”
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Endorses J.D. Hayworth for Congress
– John McCain Wrong for Arizona, Wrong for America

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Pl, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
http://www.goapvf.org

February 19, 2010

John McCain has gone out of his way to earn the ire of conservatives and gun owners in his 20-plus years as a U.S. Senator from Arizona.

Perhaps his crowning legislative achievement was so-called campaign finance reform, or the McCain-Feingold law. This law put the muzzle on organizations such as GOA, prohibiting any broadcast advertisements within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election that even mention the name of a candidate for federal office.

Not surprisingly, there is frequently a flurry of activity in Congress in the months right before an election, as politicians try to ram bills through at the end of a session. Forbidding criticism of sitting legislators during these crucial times (although media corporations were exempt) made McCain’s bill the perfect “Incumbent Protection” act.

McCain’s bill prohibited the most important form of speech the Founding Fathers meant to protect with the First Amendment — political speech — so it was welcome news when the Supreme Court recently repudiated much of the McCain bill as an assault on liberty.

But it should not come as a surprise that McCain does not want voters hear about what he’s up to in Washington, because the same person who holds the First Amendment in contempt would also like to run the Second Amendment through a shredder.

John McCain may have begun as a pro-gun legislator, but when he decided to become a gun control “maverick,” he went all out.

Since his conversion to a gun control advocate over the last ten years, McCain has favored a ban on small and inexpensive handguns and considered a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons).

In what was his boldest move against American gun owners, however, McCain authored a bill to that could only have been designed to close down gun shows. In addition to regulating all private sales at gun shows, his bill would have placed onerous licensing requirements on gun show promoters and would essentially have registered the millions of people who attend gun shows. Under the burdens of the McCain bill, no promoter in the country would put on a gun show and, if they did, gun owners would likely not attend.

Thanks to McCain, the inaccurate and misleading phrase “gun show loophole” became a part of the anti-Second Amendment crowd’s lexicon. The truth is, there is no gun show loophole; firearms transactions are conducted the same inside a gun show as they are anyplace else.

In 2000, McCain became a spokesman for a gun control organization (now defunct) called Americans for Gun Safety, a group that advocated licensing and registering all gun owners. The group ran radio and TV ads with McCain supporting ballot initiatives in Colorado and Oregon that would impose McCain’s favorite restrictions on gun shows.

These ads were a way for McCain to “stick it” to gun owners, after a gun show bill stalled in the Congress. “I think that if the Congress won’t act, the least I can do is support the initiative in states where it’s on the ballot,” McCain said in an interview.

In 2001, the group ran advertisements in movie theaters featuring McCain urging people to keep their guns locked up “for the sake of the children.” In the ads, he greatly exaggerated the risks of children gaining access to firearms in the home, and at the same time completely ignored the danger of having guns locked away if they are needed to thwart a criminal attack.

After the 2001 terror attacks, when Gun Owners of America and tens of thousands of commercial airline pilots were pushing legislation to arm pilots as a defense against terrorism, McCain prepared an amendment that would have replaced “firearms” with “stun guns.” GOA pointed out at the time how stun guns would not be effective against the type of attacks that could occur in a cockpit.

John McCain may pretend to be pro-gun (especially in election years) but he has plunged his dagger deep into the backs of gun rights supporters. He may fancy himself as a “maverick” in shining armor, riding to rescue the American people, but all the while he has trampled the Bill of Rights underfoot.

Thankfully, this year gun owners have a choice. Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, who was “A” rated by Gun Owners of America in his twelve years in the House of Representatives, is challenging McCain in the 2010 Republican primary.

J.D. respects the Constitution and understands that the Second Amendment was put there by the Founding Fathers to always ensure that the people would have the means to preserve their liberty.

During his time in the Congress, J.D. Hayworth did not vote one way in election years and another way when in nonelection years. J.D. consistently supported the Second Amendment, and that is just the type of leadership gun owners in Arizona will vote for in November.

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund is proud to endorse J.D. Hayworth for U.S. Senate and urges gun owners and sportsmen from across America to help defeat anti-gunner McCain.

Please visit J.D. on the web at http://www.jdforsenate.com to make the most generous contribution possible. Working together, we can win this fight and gain a Second Amendment ally in the U.S. Senate.

Sincerely,

Tim Macy
Vice Chairman

Paid for by Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund is a project of Gun Owners of America.

Join the discussion on AMG’s The Public Square

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

February 21, 2010

http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com

NRA national riffle association Lie of the year, and boy is it a whopper

Posted: 20 Feb 2010 07:27 AM PST

This from the NRA-ILA “NRA has always supported applying the Second Amendment to every American. All law-abiding Americans have the fundamental, individual right to self-protection no matter where they live.”

Lets start of by calling this what it is sour grapes. This particular ruling came down by NO effort by the NRA. In fact they had nothing to do with the case. This ruling was brought to us thanks to the SAF Second Amendment Foundation. So NRA nothing to do with it, SAF be praised for it.

Now on to ripping the statement apart. First of all they say “NRA has always supported applying the Second Amendment to every American.” Which is what it was intended for. Every single American no matter what. 200 years ago, every single person could and did own a firearm. Great however these hypocritical moron’s go on to add the final sentence. “All law-abiding Americans have the fundamental, individual right to self-protection no matter where they live.”

There was no intent from the founders to prevent “criminals” from owning firearms. Especially since they them selves were considered criminals by the king of England. Not to mention all the laws they have supported to take firearms out of the hands of the so called “law abiding”. National firearm acts of 1934, 1981, and so on. So lets just call them what they are lying hypocritical fools.

Did I ever mention I HATE being lied to, thought a fool, or considered ignorant?

Statement By NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox Regarding Washington State Supreme Court Decision:

Friday, February 19, 2010

“We are pleased with the Washington State Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Sieyes yesterday, which stated that the Second Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

“The Court rightly held that ‘the history, lineage, and pedigree of the Second Amendment right to bear arms [is] necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American Scheme of justice.’ The Court also stated that the Second Amendment’s protections satisfied the requirements for incorporation to the states.

“NRA has always supported applying the Second Amendment to every American. All law-abiding Americans have the fundamental, individual right to self-protection no matter where they live.”

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

——————————————————————————–

Washington State supreme court ruled on the side of reason visa vie gun rights and the second amendment

Posted: 19 Feb 2010 07:45 AM PST

Thursday the Washington State Supreme court rulled that the Second Amendment does actually incorporate to the states. Basically the founds of our great nation intended that the second amendment WAS intended for the states not only the federal government. So the second amendment was meant to apply to the to the people and the states. This ruling is thanks to the Second Amendment Foundation. Good job guys.

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com/

——————————————————————————–

an Idaho lawmaker wants Washington D.C. to keep its mitts – and its laws – off guns and ammunition manufactured in his state

Posted: 18 Feb 2010 04:04 PM PST

In yet another shot from Idaho over the federal government’s bow, an Idaho lawmaker wants Washington D.C. to keep its mitts – and its laws – off guns and ammunition manufactured in his state.

Rep. Dick Harwood, from St. Maries, introduced the “Idaho Firearms Freedom Act” Thursday in the House State Affairs Committee.

Montana passed a similar bill last year, saying guns made and kept within its borders are exempt from national gun laws. Gun advocates sued in federal court to validate the law, while U.S. attorneys want the case to be dismissed.

Meanwhile, Tennessee passed the same law and legislators in a couple dozen other states are considering following suit.

Harwood, who comes from rural northern Idaho where suspicions of federal agents runs high among some, called this a “sovereignty issue.”

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

February 17, 2010

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

Are police forshowding crimes to be commited against lawabiding firearm owners?

Posted: 16 Feb 2010 07:45 AM PST

You decide and post your thoughts.

Gun rights advocates have a California police detective in their crosshairs after he apparently posted comments on Facebook advocating that “open carry” supporters should be shot.

East Palo Alto Police Det. Rod Tuason apparently posted the remarks on his Facebook page in response to a friend’s status update, which suggested that gun advocates who carry unloaded weapons openly — which is legal in California — should do so in places like “Oakland, Richmond and East Palo Alto” and not just in “hoity toity” cities.
“Haha we had one guy last week try to do it!” Tuason replied. “He got proned out [laid face-down on the ground] and reminded where he was at and that turds will jack him for his gun in a heartbeat!”

Several comments later, the detective suggested shooting the gun rights advocates, some of whom have carried firearms openly in recent weeks in California’s Bay Area, particularly at Starbucks locations.
“Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night!” Tuason wrote. “Should’ve pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!” — referring to the modified duty, commonly known as desk duty, that typically follows any instance in which an officer is investigated for firing his weapon.

Those comments caught the attention of a California attorney and blogger, as well as a Virginia man who started a Facebook group calling for Tuason’s termination.
John Taylor, whose Facebook group had 54 members as of midday Friday, said the
Facebook thread confirmed gun owners’ worst fears.

“Any sworn officer who suggests shooting law-abiding citizens for exercising their most basic constitutional rights deserves the full wrath of America’s gun owners,” Taylor told FoxNews.com. “It’s an affront.”

California’s Penal Code makes it illegal to carry concealed weapons without a county-issued license. But it is legal to carry an unloaded weapon in plain view in a holster. In most cases, it is illegal for an unconcealed weapon to be loaded.
Taylor, of Arlington, Va., who has a concealed weapons permit in his home state, said he planned to write a letter to the East Palo Alto Police Department demanding that Tuason be fired.

“The targeting, harassment and intimidation of law-abiding citizens who are peacefully agitating for their rights by a police officer is an abomination to the Constitution, and is in fact the exact reason our Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment,” Taylor said. “Police officers who think they are going to get between law-abiding Americans and their Second Amendment rights are going to find themselves in the line of fire.”
Tuason’s comments were first noticed by California attorney Kevin Thomason, who posted a screen grab of the detective’s remarks on his Web site on Sunday.

“[Tuason] didn’t realize that actual PRO-GUN people also read Facebook,” Thomason wrote. “Amazingly, he posted the following comment about law abiding gun owners on a friend’s page. Basically, he’s saying ‘prone them out’ (face down on the ground), and if anyone moves, kill them. I don’t make this crap up.”

Thomason, a member of the National Rifle Association, wrote that Tuason’s comments were “worth a call” to the East Palo Alto City Council, as well as to his superior officers.
Tuason, who has since removed his Facebook profile, did not return messages seeking comment on Friday. He is reportedly being investigated by the police department’s professional standards division regarding the Facebook remarks.
East Palo Alto Police Sgt. Rod Norris said he was unable to comment on the matter, but Capt. Carl Estelle told the San Jose Mercury News that police officials must be careful not to violate Tuason’s First Amendment rights, since the comments appeared on his personal Web site.

“In no way are his personal comments reflective of any policies or procedures here at the department nor does he speak for the police department,” Estelle told the newspaper.

Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog

February 14, 2010

Isn’t this just a kick in the ass. The NRA has supported a ban on ammunition. Look here

Posted: 14 Feb 2010 01:20 PM PST

The NRA issued a release today saying that it supports a ban on ammunition sales in the U.S…”It’s a fact”, said a spokesman, “guns don’t kill people, bullets do”. The NRA has long been of the opinion that any restrictions on gun ownership would violate the constitutional right to bear arms. “Nowhere in the constitution does it give the right to bear ammo, so we’re fine with a ban on bullets”, said Arnold “Pop gun” Gunnarson, at an NRA conference.” We still get to keep our weapons, which is all we really wanted in the first place.” Some of the membership were a little reluctant to endorse the NRA’s stance. These are generally considered to be fringe elements. ” Those guys are kind of crazy anyway. Who would want a bunch of people running around with loaded guns? They might shoot somebody”, said Gunnarson.

VICTORY: COURT STRIKES
DOWN SEATTLE PARK GUN BAN

SEATTLE, WA – A King County Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association, striking down a ban on guns in city parks because it violates Washington State’s long-standing preemption statute.

Judge Catherine Shaffer ruled from the bench that the gun ban, adopted under former Mayor Greg Nickels, violates Washington’s law, which placed sole authority for regulating firearms in the hands of the State Legislature. That law was adopted in 1983 and amended in 1985, and has served as a model for similar laws across the country.

SAF and NRA were joined in the lawsuit by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Washington Arms Collectors and five individual plaintiffs.

“This is a great victory for the rule of law and Washington citizens,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Greg Nickels was so blinded by his personal hatred for firearms owners and his own arrogance that he imagined the city under his control could simply ignore state law. That arrogance cost Nickels his job last year. We repeatedly warned him not to push a gun ban, but he refused to listen.

“It is also a victory for the Legislature,” he observed, “because this case affirms the intent of lawmakers in 1983 to prevent cities like Seattle from creating a nightmare patchwork of conflicting and confusing firearms regulations. The ruling solidifies the legislature’s authority and sends a message to city and county governments to stop meddling with the rights of Washington citizens.”

Gottlieb suggested a review of local ordinances may now be in order, so that city and county governments can be compelled to remove old gun regulations or face legal consequences.

“This ruling puts anti-gun local officials on notice that legally-armed citizens have rights, too,” Gottlieb stated.

New Rule on Guns in Parks Takes Effect February 22

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

On February 22, a new law on guns in national parks takes effect. The law repeals a National Park Service rule that has long prohibited Americans from lawfully possessing firearms in national parks for self-defense.

The new law, passed last spring by an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the U.S. Senate, will allow people to possess, carry and transport firearms in national parks, in accordance with state law.

However, many details remain to be worked out. Reports indicate that National Park Service officials are debating issues such as the definition of “federal facilities,” where firearms will remain prohibited under a different federal law.

NPS officials are expected to issue further information as February 22 approaches, and some parks have already published information on their new policies. Because state laws vary greatly, before you visit a national park, you should check the park’s website or call the park headquarters for more information. NRA will also provide updates as they become available.

From Guns and Ammo Enthusiast blog

February 6, 2010

http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com/

The NRA couldn’t care less about gun rights

This is from our friends at JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP

One wonders if NRA members should be proud of their organization’s apparent newfound fiduciary conservatism. The so-called “premier” gun rights organization has now managed to finagle its way into the spotlight after someone else’s sweat and money rented the hall, built the stage, and set up the sound system.

NRA lawyers are now second guessing pro-gun lawyer Alan Gura’s expertise. And this, after Gura masterminded and navigated the vitally crucial landmark Heller case to a victorious decision in favor of the Second Amendment.

The NRA’s leadership must have looked at each other and realized that (coming so close on the coat tails of Heller) McDonald actually had a good chance at victory. I can just hear them clinking their drinks in toast and chuckling: “Gura will likely win this one too. Let’s get on board now!”

All that might not be so bad, but look who the NRA has hired as their head counsel in this wedge into McDonald: Paul Clement, the very attorney who advocated against our gun rights in Heller!

That’s right, Clement led the federal government’s charge to protect the Washington D.C. ban on handgun ownership!

Here are some of Paul Clements espousals during Heller. These are from Clement’s oral arguments to SCOTUS and from the written brief filed in the case. He penned or uttered these little nuggets of liberty loving patriotism.

“In our view it makes a world of difference, Justice Ginsburg, because we certainly take the position, as we have since consistently since 2001, that the Federal firearm statutes can be defended as constitutional, and that would be consistent with this kind of intermediate scrutiny standard that we propose.”

Oh yeah?

Now take a look at this one:

“The Second Amendment talks about “the right to bear arms”, not just “a right to bear arms”. And that preexisting always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.”

Don’t you love the word “reasonable”? It sound so…so reasonable! Unfortunately what Clement is talking about here is a ban on the possession of a handgun in your own home for your own self defense!

And here’s an intriguingly slippery one for you:

“Absolutely, Justice Ginsburg, and just… I mean, to give you a clear example, we would take the position that the kind of plastic guns or guns that are specifically designed to evade metal detectors that are prohibited by Federal law are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment and are not protected at all.”

Hmmm…. Very lawyerly. I’m not going to comment on that one. Just read it a couple of times for your own smell test.

And now a couple of tidbits from Paul Clement’s written brief in Heller:

“Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulations are permitted by the Second Amendment.”

How does “shall not be infringed” somehow sneak past this guy’s obviously impressive intellect?

Some icing on the cake:

“Nothing in the Second Amendment, properly understood — and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case — calls for invalidation of numerous federal laws regulating firearms.”

Oh boy…

Yes, friends, this is the man the NRA has hired to defend your gun rights in the unbelievably crucial McDonald vs. The City of Chicago case.

This is the same NRA that still believes the BATFE has a warm and fuzzy place in our lives. See: “NRA Letter”

This is also the same NRA that has not called for the completed destruction of “gun control” laws. And it’s the same NRA that does not appear to have a problem with Nazi “gun control” laws used as a basis for “The Gun Control Act of 1968”. See: In a recent JPFO alert article I speculated on what might knock McDonald off the rails. See: “ Cato @ Liberty article.

Paul Clement is like a shark who just tried to bite our legs off. And now the NRA has crashed the pool party and tossed him in with us! Is it “hire a crook to catch a crook” logic? How can Clement’s oral arguments in the upcoming McDonald case possibly be all that effective? Those nine Justices (four of whom are obviously anti-gun Liberals) might truly wonder to themselves: “Hey! This guy was here about a year ago and argued the exact opposite of what we’re hearing now!”

Hey NRA, do you call that good legal strategy? And more importantly: Do you really want a McDonald victory?

Washington State Senate Judiciary hearing on SB 6396 today report. I was there.

During the hearing today on SB 6396 a statistic was used. More people in the state of Washington have been killed by firearms in the last 10 years the every American soldier in all the wars in the 20th century. According to my calculations American soldiers killed from 1900 to just Vietnam is roughly 707,516. According to Google there were approximately 6,549,224. In 10 years that is a lot of Washington state residents. It is also roughly 3 times the amount of people killed in all of the USA in the same time period. How the hell is that possible? Can someone explain how that works? Got to love today’s democrats who just pull numbers and statistics out of their ass’ to fit their needs. To bad it doesn’t face up against reality, and the truth.

If we the people do not stop the tyranny NOW all freedom will be lost! SB 6396

How can I make this claim? It’s simply. The second amendment is the one that protects all other rights and freedoms. For without our rights to keep and bear arms by the citizenry, there is nothing to stop a tyrannical governing class from removing all other rights. So what is all this about? A slow movement to eliminate firearm rights is afoot.
It has happened in California to a lesser extent with their gun laws. In Washington state the state legislature is trying to make ALL semi automatic firearms a felony to own and posses. Almost all shotguns and riffles as well.

Every semiautomatic AND PUMP-ACTION rifle and shotgun that has a detachable magazine and has a pistol grip located rear of the trigger (yes, that is just about all of them) is defined as an “assault weapon” and is banned under SB 6396!

If you and your child/children are out in the woods plinking with his or her Ruger 10-22 and there are more than 10 rounds in the magazine, you are a FELON!

If you are a Concealed Pistol License holder and your semi-auto self-defense pistol contains more than 10 rounds, you are a FELON!

The use of firearms defined as “assault weapons” (see first bullet point) are banned for use in hunting!

Competitive shooters will be impacted as any semi-auto pistol that has a detachable magazine and is equipped with a muzzle brake or compensator is defined as an “assault weapon!”

If you own a firearm(s) defined as an “assault weapon” on the date this bill becomes law, you can keep it if you are willing to allow your Sheriff to come into your home once every year to ensure you store your firearm(s) appropriately!

Senate Bill 6396 is proof that the gun-ban groups and politicians are not interested in only banning semi-automatic firearms that happen to look like military firearms. This bill shows where they really want to go with their agenda! This gun ban scheme will only punish law-abiding citizens and will do nothing to curb crime or keep criminals from obtaining firearms illegally. This is not only another attack on our Second Amendment rights in Washington State, but an attack on your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches of your home!
Apparently it’s not the obama administration directly that we need to fear as far as our gun rights go. It’s their operatives in the states legislatures who will do the work for them. Here is the problem. Throughout history for a government to take full control of it’s people, the first thing they MUST do is to remove all weapons from public hands. Is that the plans of the democrat party? You decide. My opinion is yes. However, that is just my opinion. So where does that leave us? At the same place as we become at the start of the article. The fact is that no man or woman with good conscience living in the state of Washington should be for Senate Bill 6396. Seeing as we have decided no one in the state of Washington can be for the bill what’s left for you to do? Get outraged. With the outrage contact every state legislator and the governor of the state and tell them to vate against Senate Bill 6396. Get up in arms, e-mail, call, contact, go visit, send regular mail, tell them this bill can not go through. Not just for Washington state, but for America. Because if this bill pass’ in Washington it will not be soon before it comes to your state.

NRA

February 5, 2010

Maybe Brady Campaign Should Switch To Decaf

The hand-wringers at the Brady Campaign must have figured out what the rest of us have known for quite some time. Having been rendered all but entirely irrelevant, at least for the time being, the group is resorting to weird publicity stunts, in a vain attempt to again be taken seriously by its former not-so-secret admirers in the national anti-gun news media.

Last month, the group gave President Obama an “F” for “failed leadership” on gun control, accusing him of “squandering” the opportunity to push for tighter gun control laws. Now it’s attacking Starbucks for allowing people to carry firearms in its stores as provided for by state law.

Get this doozie: “It’s everyone’s right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns,” the Brady Campaign says, in its modern rendition of FDR’s famous “freedom from fear” quote.

Housing Authority Lifts Gun Ban, Restores Second Amendment Rights: Delaware gun owners and Second Amendment advocates earned a victory this week as the Newark Housing Authority (NHA) withdrew a gun ban that had prohibited its residents from legally possessing firearms in their homes.

The Caesar Rodney Institute (CRI), a research and education organization in Delaware, recently released a series of Special Reports drawing attention to the plight of public housing residents being stripped of their right to self-defense, which prompted swift action from NRA.

January 28, 2010

Dear fellow patriot,

With willing one-world accomplices in Washington, D.C., gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.

In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”

Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

Ultimately, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

That’s why it’s vital you sign the special petition I’ve made up for your signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty!”

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.

But looking at previous versions of the UN “Small Arms Treaty,” you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:

*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

So please click here to sign the petition to your U.S. Senators before it’s too late!

You see, this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.

Ever since its founding almost 65 years ago, the United Nations has been hell-bent on bringing the United States to its knees.

To the petty dictators and one-worlders who control the UN, the U.S. isn’t a “shining city on a hill” — it’s an affront to their grand totalitarian designs for the globe.

These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide oppressive power they crave.

And the UN’s apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip you and me of ALL our freedoms would be to DESTROY our gun rights.

That’s why it’s vital you act TODAY!

The truth is, there’s no time to waste.

You and I have to be prepared for this fight to move FAST.

The fact is, the last thing the gun-grabbers in the U.N. and in Washington, D.C. want is for you and me to have time to react and mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical legislation.

They’ve made that mistake before, and we’ve made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the “Treaty on Small Arms” into law since the mid-1990s.

But this time, time won’t be on our side.

In fact, we’re likely to only have a few days or weeks to defeat the treaty.

Worse, there’s no longer a pro-gun Republican Senate to kill ratification of the treaty.

There’s no longer any Republican in the White House who has stated opposition to the treaty.

And you and I know good and well how Germany, Great Britain, France, Communist China or the rest of the anti-gun members of the United Nations are going to vote.

So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE of stopping the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” is during the ratification process in the U.S. Senate.

As you know, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty.

With 40 Republicans, that should be easy, right?

Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth.

First, you know just as well as I do that not all the remaining Republicans in the Senate are “pro-gun” in any sense of the term.

Second, even with the partisan rancor in Washington, D.C., many GOP Senators get “queasy” about killing treaties for fear of “embarrassing” the President — especially with “international prestige” at stake.

They look at ratifying treaties much like approving Presidents’ Supreme Court nominees.

And remember, there were NINE Republicans who voted to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

A dozen more GOP Senators only voted against Sotomayor after receiving massive grassroots pressure from the folks back home.

So if we’re going to defeat the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” we have to turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it’s too late!

That’s exactly where this petition comes in.

So won’t you click here to sign IMMEDIATELY?

And also, if you can, I hope you’ll agree to make a generous contribution of $200, $150, $100 or even just $35.

With your generous contribution, I’ll immediately begin contacting Second Amendment supporters through mail, phones and e-mail to turn up the heat on targeted U.S. Senators.

Tops on the list are the “usual suspects” like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lindsay Graham and the rest of the weak-kneed Republicans in the Senate whose votes we can never count on.

I also want to begin contacting gun owners in states represented by key Democrats — like Senators John Tester and Max Baucus of Montana, Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

And finally, I’ve designed a “special” hard-hitting program especially for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to let Nevada gun owners know exactly what he and his anti-gun pals have planned for you and me.

Facing a tough reelection in 2010, Senator Reid knows he’s already skating on thin ice with Nevada voters.

So you and I could end up putting the final nail in his political coffin — if I can pull out all the stops.

Direct mail. Phones. E-mail. Blogs. Billboards. Guest editorials. Press conferences. Hard-hitting newspaper, radio and TV ads. The whole nine yards.

Of course, if I can raise enough resources, my goal is to expand this full program to ALL our target states.

But that’s not going to be cheap, and we may not have much time.

In fact, if we’re going to defeat the UN’s so-called “Small Arms Treaty,” we have to start NOW!

So please click here to sign the petition to your U.S. Senators.

And if you possibly can, please agree to make a contribution of $200, $150, $100, or even just $35.

Every petition and every dollar count in this fight.

So please sign the petition and include your most generous contribution of $200, $150, $100 or $35 TODAY.

In Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

P.S. The Obama Administration just announced they would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new GLOBAL, “Small Arms Treaty.”

That’s why its vital you and I fight back IMMEDIATELY.

Please click here to sign the special petition I’ve made up for your signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty.”

And if you can, please make a generous contribution of $250, $150, $100 or $35 right away!

January 26, 2010

Supreme Court Hands Down Key Campaign Finance Decision–

Repeals Unconstitutional Restrictions on Political Speech

Friday, January 22, 2010

NRA praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that removed unconstitutional restrictions on NRA’s ability to speak freely at election time.

The late Sen. Paul Wellstone had said during the original debate over this legislation that it was his intention to silence groups like NRA. While the author of this measure had singled out NRA, this law delivered a clear message to all American citizens: “Keep your mouths shut and stay out of our political debates.”

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, said, “This ruling is a victory for anyone who believes that the First Amendment applies to each and every one of us. The majesty of free speech is that any American can roll out of bed and speak as freely as The New York Times, NBC or politicians. This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us; and for those who believed that speech had a dollar value and should be treated and regulated like currency, and not a freedom. Today’s decision reaffirms that the Bill of Rights was written for every American and it will amplify the voice of average citizens who want their voices heard.”

The case originally centered on the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) denial of Citizens United’s attempt to broadcast a film about Hillary Clinton through on-demand cable services in January 2008, but had broader implications in protecting the First Amendment rights of organizations like NRA during elections.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox, said, “This decision today returns sanity to our political system. The First Amendment does not allow Congress to make laws denying Americans the right to speak out on issues, the right to assemble or organize on public policy issues, or the right to petition our government for redress of grievances.”

NRA-ILA has been in the forefront of defending the First Amendment so we can protect the Second Amendment. This ruling is clearly a victory for our continuing efforts to educate voters on where politicians stand on our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683

FEDS RESPOND TO FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT LAWSUIT MOTION TO DISMISS “EXPECTED”

January 22, 2010.

MISSOULA – The United States has made its first response to a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Missoula to test the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), passed by the 2009 Legislature and signed into law by Governor Schweitzer.

The MFFA declares that any firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to federal regulation under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate commerce “among the several states.” The MFFA is a states’ rights challenge on Tenth Amendment grounds, with firearms serving as the vehicle for the challenge.

This lawsuit to validate the MFFA was brought by the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The suit names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as defendant, and is referred to as MSSA v. Holder.

The first response to the lawsuit by the United States is a Motion to Dismiss, submitted January 19th and considered to be a standard procedural maneuver in lawsuits against the U.S government . This motion seeks to avoid the legal merits by asserting that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that a justiciable controversy does not exist, and that prevailing case law is against Plaintiffs.

MSSA President Gary Marbut, also a Plaintiff in the lawsuit explained, “The first import of this response is that the legal game is now on. There was some concern that the defendants would forfeit the game with no response in an effort to prevent this important issue from being adjudicated properly. We are now beyond that hurdle.” However, the Motion to Dismiss by Washington also seeks to sidestep proper adjudication.

SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb said, “We are disappointed but not surprised that the government would try to kill this suit on standing, rather than arguing about the merits of the case.”

The MFFA concept has gained traction across the Nation since its passage in Montana. Tennessee has enacted a clone of the MFFA, and other clones have been introduced in the state legislatures of 19 other states, including: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. . Ten or more additional states are expected to introduce yet more MFFA clones in the next few weeks. (See: http://www.FirearmsFreedomAct.com)

The U.S.’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support are viewable at: http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/montana-lawsuit-updates/

MSSA and SAF have assembled a litigation team for this effort consisting of three attorneys from Montana, one from New York, one from Florida and one from Arizona. Lead attorney for the Plaintiffs is Quentin Rhoades, partner the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci and Rhoades. Other interested parties from both in and out of Montana are preparing to weigh in on this issue of national interest and national importance as amicus curiae (friends of the court).

Marbut commented, “The FFA concept has created a firestorm of interest nationwide. Lots of people and other states are watching carefully to see how Montana fares in this challenge to overbearing federal authority and to Washington’s attempt to control every detail of commerce in the Nation, especially including activity wholly confined within an individual state. That level of micro management certainly was not the intent of our founders when they gave Congress limited power in the Constitution to regulate commerce ‘among the states’.” (See: http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com/what-is-the-commerce-clause/)

MSSA is the primary political advocate for gun owners and hunters in Montana, having gotten 54 pro-gun and pro-hunting bills through the Montana Legislature in the past 25 years. SAF is a pro-gun foundation in Bellevue, Washington, established to press the rights of gun owners primarily in judicial fora. SAF has been a party to numerous lawsuits to assert the rights of gun owners across the Nation.

Folks,

Please fire up those fax machines, send snail mail, call and send emails to stop this bill.

“Get the News to Protect Your Freedom” at www.gunnewsdaily.com

To join this alert list,
send an email to sdrra-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Thank You!
Jim – San Diego Rifle and Revolver Association

From: Gun Owners of America
Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 6:28:26 AM
Subject: Don’t “Fix” ObamaCare — Kill It!

Anti-gun ObamaCare on Life Support!
– ObamaCare needs one final stake through its heart

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners. org

Friday, January 22, 2010

Congratulations on a tremendous victory on Tuesday! And thank you all
for your help in getting Scott Brown elected to the U.S. Senate in
Massachusetts.

Gun Owners of America was the first national gun lobby to endorse
Brown, and with your aid, he was receiving more than one million
dollars a day in his comeback win over anti-gun Martha Coakley.

With your help, Massachusetts — the bluest of blue states — has sent
a message to Washington: take your ObamaCare bill and shove it!

By a vote of 52% to 47%, Massachusetts voters sent anti-ObamaCare
candidate Scott Brown to the Senate — defeating liberal icon Martha
Coakley. And D.C. Democrats are beginning to understand that GOP
victories in New Jersey and Massachusetts are merely a precursor to the electoral bloodbath still to come in November.

Obama-Pelosi still committed to passing socialized health care

But has the prospect of losing two hundred congressional seats caused
Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi to back off of their efforts to shove
this bill down the throats of the American people?

Amazingly, no.

It”s like you stepped in something. And, as much as you scrape
and scrape the bottom of your shoe, you just can”t get rid of the
smell.

At first, Pelosi’s strategy was to get the House to pass the Senate
version of ObamaCare — verbatim — so that the bill goes straight to
the Oval Office, without having to break another filibuster in the
Senate (which no longer has a filibuster-proof majority).

Thankfully, there are SO MANY rank-and-file Democrats who have revolted against this strategy (Democrats who are scared to death of losing their seats) that Rep. Pelosi yesterday said the Senate bill is not viable… WITHOUT CHANGES.

“I don’t see the votes for [the Senate bill] at this time,”
Pelosi said. But note the words “at this time.”

Despite huge obstacles, Pelosi trying to resurrect ObamaCare

Pelosi did say there’s a “foundation in that bill” they can
work with. So Pelosi may just try to pass one big fix-up bill — using
a “reconciliation” bill that will only need 51 votes when it
goes to the Senate — or simply break up the Senate bill into smaller
pieces and send those parts to the President.

But remember that the Senate health care bill which Pelosi now seeks to fix contains the following problems:

* It will allow BATFE to troll a health/gun database in order to take
away firearms from tens of millions of Americans;

* It is jam-packed with billions of dollars of bribes paid to buy the
votes of sleazy senators;

* It will impose a host of new taxes, force Americans to buy expensive
insurance which they can’t afford, and increase insurance premiums in
the individual market by 10 to 13%; and,

* It will continue the bankrupting of our country by increasing the
deficit by half a trillion dollars, when the underhanded accounting
tricks are discounted.

You can be sure that most, if not all, of these problems will be left
untouched.

ACTION: So please contact your Representative. Tell him or her to vote
against the bribe-filled Senate ObamaCare bill, and that no amount of
“fixing” will make this bill acceptable. The Senate already
tried to fix the gun problems in the bill but failed miserably.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowner s.org/activism. htm to send a pre-written message to
your Representative.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Representative:

You are being urged by Nancy Pelosi to dive into the Senate’s moral
cesspool and pass its ObamaCare bill — either cut up in pieces or, as
a whole, accompanied by a “fix up” reconciliation bill.

If you do this, the Massachusetts results are just the faintest of
forebodings of the electoral bloodbath which will erupt in November.

The American people have made it clear they do not want Nancy Pelosi
and Harry Reid to cram this bill down our throats. And yet, Pelosi
delusionally concludes that the path to electoral success is to keep
cramming and cramming and cramming and cramming.

In case you have forgotten, the Senate ObamaCare bill:

* Will allow BATFE to troll a health/gun database in order to take away firearms from tens of millions of Americans;

* Is jam-packed with billions of dollars of bribes paid to buy the
votes of sleazy senators;

* Will impose a host of new taxes, force Americans to buy expensive
insurance which they can’t afford, and increase insurance premiums in
the individual market by 10 to 13%; and,

* Will continue the bankrupting of our country by increasing the
deficit by half a trillion dollars, when the accounting tricks are
discounted.

Please tell me now that you oppose this bill and that no amount of
“fix up” will make it acceptable. The Senate already tried
to fix the gun problems in the bill but failed miserably. It’s time to
pull the plug on ObamaCare.

Sincerely,

************ ********* ********* ****

Second Amendment March

Check out the Second Amendment March speakers lineup. In addition to
GOA’s Larry Pratt, confirmed speakers include: Former Texas state
Representative Suzanna Hupp (a survivor of the Luby’s massacre),
Sheriff Richard Mack, Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers and many others.
Find out more at: http://www.secondam endmentmarch. com

NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS ALERT
Vol. 17, No. 2 01/15/10

11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ·800-392-8683

Sleep Easy, America – Feds’ Terrorist Watchlist Nabs Cub Scout

Friday, January 15, 2010

As we’ve reported before, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), encouraged by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, wants to prohibit anyone on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist from possessing a firearm. Yet, the list and its criteria are secret, and Lautenberg’s bill would criminalize the exercise of a constitutionally protected right while denying a person the opportunity to clear himself of accusations in a fair and open hearing before a court of law. Even today, thousands of people who aren’t terrorists cannot prevent the list from misidentifying them, causing them delays and embarrassment when trying to board commercial aircraft.

It’s one thing when an adult gets the run-around at an airport, because he or she has a name identical or similar to someone the FBI is watching. As the American Civil Liberties Union has pointed out, the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) “automatic selectee” list — its list of people who are not permitted to board an aircraft without being given the once-over by the agency’s machines and uniformed, latex-gloved personnel — is based on people’s names, not on physical factors like age.

But when the system is so unorganized that it cannot distinguish a kid from a terrorist, what’s going on here? Yesterday, the New York Times reported that for the last six or seven years, one of Lautenberg’s constituents — eight-year-old New Jersey Cub Scout Michael “Mikey” Hicks — hasn’t been able to get on a plane without being patted down like your average neighborhood hubcap thief with his palms on the hood of a police cruiser and a nightstick between his legs. Repeatedly mistaken for someone on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist since he was two years old, Mikey’s encounters with the federal government have consisted of, as his mother puts it, “Up your arms, down your arms, up your crotch, someone is patting your 8-year-old down like he’s a criminal.”

To say that the situation is ironic is a gross understatement. The government can’t or won’t get Mikey’s situation straightened out. And he isn’t alone. The Times says that of nearly 82,000 travelers who have applied through the Department of Homeland Security to get their names cleared from the watchlist during the last three years, 25,000 are still waiting.

Yet, the government failed to add to the TSA’s “no-fly list” the self-proclaimed al Qaeda-trained Nigerian Islamist fanatic who allegedly smuggled military high explosives aboard a plane bound for Detroit on Christmas Day last year and almost blew the plane to kingdom come. As the White House report on the incident concluded, there was enough information to have placed him on the “no-fly list;” he was already in the government’s international terrorist identities database (the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE). But, the government failed to recognize that he had a U.S. travel visa (which it could have revoked) because it had misspelled his name.

TSA can spell “Mikey,” however. Despite efforts by the boy’s parents and their congressman to get TSA to straighten out the error, the delays and pat-downs continue. Meanwhile, other non-terrorists tired of their airport delays have been able to get off TSA’s radar screen by changing their names or deliberately misspelling their names when purchasing a ticket.

Irrespective of how this relates to Second Amendment issues, we think — and more and more people are likely to agree — that while our fellow Americans in federal service have prevented virtually all terrorist attacks in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks, numerous problems with the watchlist apparatus remain and it is long past the time that these problems should have been corrected.

Mikey’s case, however, serves to remind us of the potential ramifications for the Second Amendment, if the watchlist is used by the likes of Lautenberg and Bloomberg to their nefarious ends.

Find this item at: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5302

January 13, 2010

Folks,

From GOA. Obamacare is unhealthy for gun owners, see below. We need to stand up and be counted now!

“Get the News to Protect Your Freedom” at www.gunnewsdaily.com

To join this alert list, send an email to sdrra-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Thank You!
Jim – San Diego Rifle and Revolver Association

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund Alert:
Does Massachusetts Hold the Key to Stopping ObamaCare?

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Pl, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
http://www.goapvf.org <http://www.goapvf.org/>

January 12, 2010

The best opportunity to defeat ObamaCare may come from, ironically,
Massachusetts.

In the race to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Republican State
Senator Scott Brown could become the key vote to stop nationalized
health care.

With Senate Democrats controlling 60 votes, Republicans were unable to
muster the 41 votes needed to block the anti-gun health care bill when
it passed the Senate on Christmas Eve. But the bill must still be voted
on by both the House and Senate, and the Senate is scheduled to
reconvene on January 19 — the same day as the special election in
Massachusetts.

How big of an issue is health care in this election?

Scott Brown told Politico: “If you feel that Washington and the health
care bill that they’re proposing is systemic of the problems in
Washington and the failure to understand average people anymore, then
you vote for me because as the 41st senator. I can stop a lot of this
stuff in its tracks. I can actually force them to go back to the
drawing board.”

Ordinarily, a Massachusetts Senate race is a cinch for Democrats, who
dominate state politics. But a recent Public Policy Polling poll shows
Brown up one point against his opponent, anti-gun State Attorney General
Martha Coakley!

Should Scott Brown pull off a win, the ObamaCare legislation would die
instantly as Democrats will have lost their 60th vote.

As state Senator, Brown is considered one of the most conservative
Republicans in the Bay State — supporting issues like concealed carry
of firearms and earning an “A+” rating from the state pro-gun group, Gun
Owners Action League.

His opponent is the type of radical anti-gunner people have come to
expect from Massachusetts. Late last year, Attorney General Coakley
filed a brief urging the state Supreme Court to uphold a law requiring
firearms to be kept under lock and key when not in use.

The choice for gun owners in this race could not be more clear — and
the stakes could not be higher.

After telling gun owners for a year that they had nothing to fear from
the national health care bill, Democrats in Washington finally admitted
that that was a bald-faced lie. So they stuck a bunch of language in
the most recent version of the bill supposedly addressing the gun
problems (which they claimed for so long did not exist!)

But the new language does not prohibit the FBI or the BATFE from
trolling the ObamaCare medical database in search of medical reasons to
disqualify citizens from owning firearms.

Already, the Department of Veterans Affairs — which operates its own
nationalized health care system — has denied around 150,000 veterans
their Second Amendment rights based on the opinions of doctors, and not
on the basis of any criminal conviction. And that is just the tip of
the iceberg should the health care bill pass for the rest of the
population.

So you can see how important this Massachusetts special election on
January 19 is for the nation.

It is also clear that concerned citizens from all over the country
should do all they can to get Scott Brown over the finish line.

This is a very expensive race, and Scott’s opponent has so far
out-raised him significantly, as she’s raked in millions of dollars from
ObamaCare supporters.

And, even though Scott is carrying the Republican message that will
likely dominate the 2010 Congressional elections, news reports indicate
that the Republican national committees have shown only token support.
That must change, and change quickly.

Sure, Massachusetts is normally a safe Democrat state — but these are
not normal times. This race is winnable. Scott Brown was down by 31
percentage points in November, but he is now effectively tied in the
latest poll.

There are several action items that can be taken by people from every
state:

1. Visit Scott Brown on the web at http://www.brownforussenate.com
<http://www.brownforussenate.com/> and make a generous contribution.
And, please make sure all your contacts know about the importance of
this race.

2. Contact National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn
at info@nrsc.org <mailto:info@nrsc.org> and urge him to pull out all
the stops to elect Scott Brown.

3. Email Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele at
info@gop.com <mailto:info@gop.com> and deliver the same message.

4. Of course, if you live in Massachusetts, vote for Scott Brown on
Tuesday, January 19.

Together, we can strike a blow to anti-gun national health care — and
send a powerful message to Washington — by scoring a win in liberal
Massachusetts.

Sincerely,

Tim Macy
Vice Chairman

January 12, 2010

OK Here we go again. The NRA (National Riffle Association) is supporting a law that is NOT only unconstitutional in a major way, but completely discriminatory. The basic run down of NRA supported H.R.3752 is this: It will allow for ALL former and active duty Police (including “current and retired law enforcement officers of the Amtrak Police Department, the Federal Reserve System, the executive branch, and the Armed Forces”) Here is my first problem. It makes all of the rest of us second class citizens. That’s right I said SECOND CLASS CITIZENS. And of course we have NEVER heard of police going bad, have we? (L.A. Rampart division). Also when said officers are off duty, they are that OFF DUTY. Meaning they are now citizens, not police officers. However that doesn’t seem to mater. That is a bunch of junk. Also when a police officer retires, they are no longer part of the police department. Why are they special? I know for a fact there are a lot of cops out there that can not shoot as well as I can. So it can not be because they are “trained” to shoot. This is the major part of the discrimination charge put forth earlier. There is another issue with this. The same damn issue I had with the thune amendment. It’s called state’s rights and that pesky 10th amendment of the constitution. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Oops canceled carry is not directly mention in the constitution. That “bill of negative rights” as obama called it. That alone stops all this crap.

Another issue, the military factor. Ever hear of The Posse Comitatus Act? If not then this is generally what it’s all about. “The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act during peacetime.” Basically the military is not allowed to act as law enforcement here in The USA. Unless the president waves The Posse Comitatus Act short term.”

By now you are probably asking what the hell is he talking about. Well here is the bill: To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes. Introduced Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2009 – Amends the federal criminal code to:

(1) expand the definition of “law enforcement officers,” for purposes of provisions authorizing such officers to carry concealed weapons, to include current and retired law enforcement officers of the Amtrak Police Department, the Federal Reserve System, the executive branch, and the Armed Forces;

(2) allow law enforcement officers who are retired or who separated in good standing after at least ten years of service to carry a concealed weapon; and

(3) expand the categories of law enforcement officers authorized to possess a fireman in a school zone to include retired law enforcement officers.”

There you go the holy crap act of 2009-2010. Basically if you are not one of the above you and your second amendment rights do not matter. Call me paranoid, but, I can see this act passing and it being used as sledge hammer to take away our rights to keep and bare arms. Am I anti military. HELL no. My brother is active duty Army. And I am very pro military. Tell your elected official to vote against the BS bill.

Frank.

January 6, 2010

Right-to-Carry Bill Scheduled to be Heard Next Week!
Please Contact the Members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee Today!

Assembly Bill 357 is scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety on Tuesday, January 12.
AB357, sponsored by Assembly Member Steve Knight (R-36), would create a “shall issue” concealed handgun permit system in California. Under current law, an applicant must show cause as to why they should be issued a permit to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense. AB357 would remove that stipulation and require sheriffs to issue the license if all other mandated criteria are satisfied.

Please contact the members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety TODAY and respectfully urge them to support AB357. Contact information can be found below.

Assembly Member Jose Solorio (D-69) – Chair

(916) 319-2069

Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Curt Hagman (R-60) – Vice Chair

(916) 319-2060

Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Warren T. Furutani (D-55)

(916) 319-2055

Assemblymember.Furutani@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Danny D. Gilmore (R-30)

(916) 319-2030

Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Jerry Hill (D-19)

(916) 319-2019

Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Fiona Ma (D-12)

(916) 319-2012

Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov

Assembly Member Nancy Skinner (D-14)

(916) 319-2014

Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

MURDER DOWN, GUN SALES UP; PROOF THAT GUNS DON’T CAUSE CRIME: SAF

BELLEVUE, WA – A ten percent drop in murders during the first six months of this year at a time when gun sales were up dramatically is more proof that there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

The FBI released data Monday that shows murders dropped by 10 percent from the same period in 2008. Meanwhile, according to data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) shows that during the first six months of this year, gun sales were up. January 2009 background checks rose 28.8 percent over the same month in 2008, February’s NICS checks were up 23.3 percent and in March they were up 29.9 percent over March 2008. The trend continued in April, with NICS checks up 30.3 percent, while May showed a slowdown, up only 15.5 percent, and in June they were up 18.1 percent.

“What this shows,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “is that gun prohibitionists are all wrong when they argue that more guns result in more crime. Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens are no threat to anyone. Perhaps violent criminals were actually discouraged by all of those gun sales earlier this year, because the media made a point of reporting the booming gun market.

“Anti-gunners,” he continued, “have lost another one of their baseless arguments. Millions of Americans bought guns during the first six months of this year, many of them for the first time. Yet with all of those new guns in circulation, coupled with an increased demand for concealed carry licenses around the country, the streets have not been awash in blood, as gun banners repeatedly predict.

“Hard facts trump hot air,” Gottlieb concluded. “These people are consistently wrong about our rights. Millions of people bought guns, especially semiautomatic sport-utility rifles that gun grabbers want to ban because they say people aren’t safe with all of those guns in private hands. Well, the people disagree, and so does the data.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

——————————————————————————–

< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >

Second Amendment Foundation

James Madison Building

12500 N.E. Tenth Place

Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-7012

Toll Free: 800-426-4302

FAX: 425-451-3959

email: InformationRequest@saf.org

A Gun owner’s Ode to Christmas

By S.E. Cupp in Townhall Magazine

What do firearms and this blessed holiday have in common? Well, for one, liberals don’t like to talk about either.

Christmas is coming. And for many Americans, that means opening gifts around the tree, big family dinners and Midnight Mass. No disrespect to Norman Rockwell – but Christmas always reminds me of shooting. Sure, I love seeing my family, gorging on the kind of food and drink that are usually impermissible during the other 11 months of the year and finding some fabulous little trinket under the tree. And every year I bring a batch of ‘Cupp-cakes’ to my local police and fire precincts. But enough of Capra. If I’m honest, it’s also about the gun. Almost a decade ago, my friends and I had a lovely Christmas brunch at Les Halles in New York City-a superb French brasserie where, rightly so, nearly everything on the menu once had parents. After enough pork belly, crispy duck and rabbit ragout to swell our ankles and give us heart palpitations, we exchanged gifts. In a small, unmarked envelope addressed to me was a gift certificate for a shooting lesson. I was thrilled. I went down to the West Side Rifle and Pistol Range, in the dank and gritty basement of a building on 20th Street, to cash in my gift. After the lesson, we took to the targets. I squeezed the trigger of the .22 at the paper bull’s eyes in front of me, and I was officially hooked. Over the years that followed, I took up skeet shooting and hunting, and eventually bought my own 12-gauge shotgun. In recent years, the month between Thanksgiving and Christmas has been marked by a trip upstate for deer hunting, and (hopefully) a freezer full of venison follows. And every Christmas, I go back to the West Side range for an hour to shoot that .22, which always feels a little smaller and lighter in my hands. It’s a simple Christmas pleasure, a total escape and my annual gift to myself.

And I’m not alone. For many Americans, the holidays wouldn’t be the same without their guns. Maybe they’re putting a turkey, a rabbit or some venison on the table for their families, or they’re gathering the old gang together for the annual winter hunt. Or maybe they’re donating a deer to one of the country’s countless collection and processing centers that feed hundreds of thousands of homeless and hungry every year. In New York State alone, since 1999 the Venison Donation Coalition has processed 337.51 tons of venison, or the equivalent of 2,700,800 meals served.

That’s evidenced not only by his frightening legislative promises to make it nearly impossible to own a gun or even buy ammunition, but also by his nomination of anti-gun public health advocate David Michaels to the OSHA post and his appointment of Cass Sunstein, who thinks deer should be able to sue you, as regulatory czar. And with the economy down, the Obama administration is looking to squeeze some much-needed cash out of hunters and gun owners, via sweeping fines, taxes and fees. But it won’t work.

In Idaho, lawmakers hiked the fee on out-of-state hunting licenses this year to raise money for the Fish and Game Department. As of October, revenue from tag sales was down 9 percent. States that want to raise revenue should be making it easier and cheaper for hunters, not harder and more expensive.

‘The Obama administration’s elitist antagonism of American gun owners and hunters is just bad socio-economics. And it feels particularly mean-spirited as Christmas approaches.’

Between land conservation, deer population control and feeding the hungry, hunters are some of our most important humanitarians. And shooters, too. Studies prove that right-to-carry states have less crime, not more. According to the American Rifleman’s celebrated ‘Armed Citizen’ column, gun owners use firearms for protection as frequently as 2.5 million times a year, saving lives. And all of this is in jeopardy. President Obama is no friend to gun owners and hunters. The Obama administration’s elitist antagonism of American gun owners and hunters is just bad socio-economics. And it feels particularly mean-spirited as Christmas approaches. But good luck telling the grinches and scrooges of the liberal Left that, for many of us, Christmas just isn’t Christmas without our guns. After all, Christmas, like the great American pastimes of shooting and hunting, is something you whisper about under your breath in liberal circles. On that note, I’m off to the range.

The Year In Review

Here are some of the top stories we brought you in the NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert in 2009. With what will no doubt be a very busy 2010, we must redouble our efforts to ensure we are prepared to meet the opportunities and challenges we will face next year. We will continue to provide you with information in future Alerts to ensure our mutual success.

(NOTE: The next regular Grassroots Alert will be transmitted on Friday, January 8.)

JANUARY:

A federal lawsuit filed by NRA to challenge a San Francisco Housing Authority ban on firearms in public housing is settled. Under the settlement, the agency will no longer enforce a 2005 rule that prohibited the otherwise legal possession of guns and ammunition in public housing units. The City of San Francisco later pays NRA $380,000 as reimbursement for legal fees.
U.S. Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), introduce H.R. 197– the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009″–a bill that would provide national recognition for valid state Right-to-Carry licensees.

FEBRUARY:

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upholds an Oklahoma law allowing employees to store legally owned firearms in locked, private motor vehicles while parked in employer parking lots. This decision upholds NRA-backed legislation passed in 2004.
Just over five weeks after Inauguration Day, Attorney General Eric Holder announces that the Obama Administration will seek to reinstate the expired federal “assault weapon” ban and impose additional restrictions. Holder said that new gun control laws are needed because in Mexico, a country with a history of corruption and disregard for individual rights, there’s a shooting war going on between drug gangs and government troops, and some of the gangsters’ guns have been illegally purchased in the United States.
The United States votes to adopt an amendment offered by Nevada Senator John Ensign (R), that seeks to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. The amendment, attached to S.160, the “D.C. Voting Rights Act,” seeks to repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia’s (D.C.) city council in defiance of the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was 62-36.

MARCH:

A federal district court in Washington, D.C. grants anti-gun plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against implementation of the new rule allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves by carrying a concealed firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges. NRA files an appeal.
In a letter to Attorney General Holder, 65 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Congressman Mike Ross (D-Ark.), express their opposition to the reinstatement of the failed 1994 ban on semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines. These congressmen cite numerous studies that proved the 1994 ban was ineffective, and they strongly urge Attorney General Holder to stop his effort and instead focus on the enforcement of existing gun laws.
NRA files a second amended complaint in Dick Anthony Heller et al v. District of Columbia in U.S. District Court, asking the court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent the D.C. Council from implementing laws that violate the Second Amendment and from enforcing its prohibitions on the possession of commonly owned firearms.

APRIL:

U.S. Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Bob Bennett (R-Utah), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) introduce legislation (S.816) to restore the Second Amendment rights of visitors in national parks and wildlife refuges (its companion bill, H.R. 1684 was introduced previously Congressman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.)).
On ABC’s “Good Morning America,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says, “we [members of Congress] have to find some level of compromise” on guns. She notes that the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to guns. But, she said, “We want them registered.” Pelosi also uses the word “draconian” to describe legislation before Congress to reform D.C.’s gun laws. This is followed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the Senate sponsor of the now-expired federal “assault weapons” ban, saying on a CBS “60 Minutes” program that she is only temporarily holding off on introducing legislation to reinstate the ban. “I’ll pick the time and place. No question about it,” Feinstein says.
During an official visit to Mexico, President Obama announces his support for Senate ratification of an inter-American treaty on firearms trafficking. In response, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox note, “ .NRA knows that anti-gun advocates will still try to use this treaty to attack gun ownership in the U.S. Therefore, the NRA will continue to vigorously oppose any international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners.”
Anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduces S. 843, calling for massive new government powers to register gun show customers, register gun owners, retain information on people who pass criminal records checks when buying firearms, heavily tax both gun collectors and gun sales, and require gun show promoters to police gun show customers, as if they were agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

MAY:

Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduce S. 941- the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act,” representing the first time such BATFE reform legislation has been introduced in the Senate. Representatives Steve King (R-Iowa) and Zack Space (D-Ohio), introduce its House companion–H.R. 2296.
375 staunch, pro-gun patriots attend the standing room only NRA-ILA Grassroots Workshop, held in conjunction with NRA’s Annual Meetings & Exhibits in Phoenix–double the attendance from last year’s workshop in Louisville.
U.S. Reps Peter King (R-N.Y.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Mike Castle (R-Del.), Jim Moran (D-Va.), Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Mark Kirk (D-Ill.), and Chris Smith (R-N.J.)introduce H.R. 2159, which would give “the Attorney General the authority to deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit to dangerous terrorists. . . . if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.” The legislation disregards traditional ideas of due process, as well as the well-documented problems with the government’s “terrorist watchlists.”
NRA-backed legislation to restore the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in national parks and wildlife refuges passes in the U.S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 279-147, and is signed into law. The legislation will take effect on February 22, 2010.

JUNE:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issues a proposed rule change that directly targets the importation of “assisted opening” folding knives. (Read the proposed rule here.) The proposed regulations would designate all these knives as “switchblades” (despite the fact they do not fall under the federal definition of “switchblades”), and would make them illegal for import into the United States. The proposed change could affect all knives that can be opened with one hand.
American gun owners celebrate the anniversary of the landmark D.C. v. Heller case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

JULY:

Two-thirds of the nation’s attorneys general file a “friend of the court” brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of NRA v. Chicago and hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. This bipartisan group of 33 attorneys general agrees with the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the home for self-defense, disagreeing with the decision recently issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The Senate unanimously passes an amendment to the Federal Switchblade Act as part of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. The amendment, authored by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), changes the federal law under which CBP tried to redefine many common knives as switchblades.
Gun owners and Second Amendment advocates earn a victory as the House Financial Services Committee considers and adopts an amendment offered by Representative Tom Price (R-Ga.) to protect the Second Amendment rights of public housing residents.
NRA EVP Wayne LaPierre and ILA Executive Director Chris Cox announce NRA opposition to Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court, noting, “We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.”
A bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate votes in favor of an amendment offered by Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-La.) to provide interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry permits. The amendment to S.1390–the National Defense Authorization Act–would acknowledge that the right to self-defense extends across state lines. Under this provision, an individual with a carry permit from his or her home state, or who is otherwise allowed to carry firearm in his home state, could carry in any other state that issues permits.

AUGUST:

On an appearance on “Meet the Press,” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announces that he will raise money to counter the influence of the NRA. Bloomberg trumpets the meager 39 votes he was able to muster to squeak out a defeat of national Right-to-Carry reciprocity.
Yet another mayor, Village of Walton Hills, Ohio Mayor Marlene Anielski (R), resigns her membership from Bloomberg’s mis-named Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) coalition. Mayor Anielski informs the Buckeye Firearms Association of her decision, reporting that she had not realized the real agenda of MAIG. In fact, she reported, she and her husband are NRA Life Members!
On August 6, by a vote of 68-31, the full Senate votes to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

SEPTEMBER:

Garen Wintemute, of the University of California (Davis), releases another of his “studies” in favor of gun control. His new piece is called “Inside Gun Shows: What Goes On When Everybody Thinks Nobody’s Watching.” “Gun shows” are just the hook, however. While repeating gun control supporters’ mantra about the need to run instant background checks on people who buy guns from private parties at gun shows, Wintemute admits important factors that undercut his goal. First, he notes that straw purchases – the very purpose of which is to thwart the background checks he pretends to be concerned about – “are a major source of crime guns.” Second, he admits that “The proportion of all gun sales nationwide that occurs at gun shows is relatively small” and that “most sales at gun shows involve licensed retailers,” who are already required to perform background checks.
During consideration of H.R. 3288 (the FY 2010 Transportation–Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill), the Wicker Amendment is adopted, to allow the transportation of firearms on Amtrak trains.

Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns has lost over 50 members because gun owners took action to tell their mayors the truth about this organization. Many of the mayors who have resigned from MAIG have indicated they were unaware of the full extent of their anti-gun agenda. They now know they were mislead by MAIG’s claims that it was only concerned with “illegal” guns

OCTOBER:

The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), join forces with U.S. Representatives Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and Mike Ross (D-Ark.), in filing a joint, pro-Second Amendment amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief before the Supreme Court in the McDonald v. Chicago case.
The so-called Bi-National Task Force on Rethinking the United States-Mexico Border produces a report, which, among other things, calls for re-imposition of the federal “assault weapon” ban of 1994-2004, saying it would improve security in both countries. The “border-rethinking” group has been put together by the Pacific Council on International Policy and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. The group consists mostly of former U.S. and Mexican officials and journalists, none of them currently elected by the people of the U.S. or Mexico to make policy on these issues.
The U.S. Senate and House pass crucial legislation that will protect pocketknives used by tens of millions of Americans. The amendment will block CBP’s earlier proposed policy change and keep pocketknives from being classified as illegal switchblades.

NRA files a complaint in the Superior Court of Washington State against the City of Seattle, asking the court to enjoin and declare invalid a recently enacted parks and recreation administrative policy that prohibits firearms in parks, community centers and other city-owned buildings. Other plaintiffs in the case include state correctional officers and private citizens, as well as the Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation.

NOVEMBER:

The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund’s (NRA-PVF) endorsed candidates for statewide office in Virginia–Bob McDonnell (R) for governor, Ken Cuccinelli (R) for attorney general, and Bill Bolling (R) for lieutenant governor–win handily in the November 3rd general election. Additionally, 98 percent (58 out of 59) of NRA-PVF-endorsed candidates for the Virginia House of Delegates win their respective races.
On November 16, the NRA files its brief with the U.S. Supreme Court as Respondent in Support of Petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The NRA brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

In another transparent attempt to undercut the Second Amendment, Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, alleges that the multiple murders that took place on Ft. Hood recently could have been prevented by changes in federal gun laws.

DECEMBER:

The U.S. Supreme Court schedules oral arguments in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case for Tuesday, March 2, 2010.
New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s MAIG releases the findings of a “poll” conducted by a political consulting firm called “The Word Doctors,” whose slogan is “It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear.” The pollster claims the results of his misleadingly worded questions show that NRA members and gun owners support restrictive gun laws; he fails to highlight results that show strong opposition to other measures, and serious concern about the Obama administration’s future plans on the issue.
The U.S. House of Representatives approves an NRA-backed amendment, introduced by U.S. Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), to allow Amtrak travelers to transport firearms in checked baggage where checked baggage service is available. The Wicker amendment isincluded along with several government agencies’ appropriations bills in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010.

U.S. House of Representatives passes H.R. 3326-the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010. NRA’s efforts on the huge spending bill were rewarded with the restoration of a longstanding rider to protect M-1 carbines, M-1 Garands, M-14s, .22 caliber rifles, and others from being destroyed. The language also included a prohibition on the destruction of small arms ammunition and components, passed in response to the short-lived concern over destruction of spent brass casings earlier this year.

NRA will be closing at noon on Thursday, December 31,
and will be closed on Friday, January 1.

Please have a safe and happy Holiday weekend!

FBI Reports Huge Decrease In Murders As Firearm, Ammunition And “Large” Magazine Sales Soar
Tuesday, December 29, 2009Last week, the FBI issued its preliminary 2009 crime report, showing that the number of murders in the first half of 2009 decreased 10 percent compared to the first half of 2008. If the trend holds for the remainder of 2009, it will be the single greatest one-year decrease in the number of murders since at least 1960, the earliest year for which national data are available through the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Also, the per capita murder rate for 2009 will be 51 percent lower than the all-time high recorded in 1991, and it will be the lowest rate since 1963—a 46-year low. Final figures for 2009 will be released by the FBI next year.According to gun control supporter dogma—“more guns means more crime”—the number of privately owned firearms must have decreased 10 percent in 2009. To the contrary, however, the number rose between 1.5 and 2 percent, to an all-time high. For the better part of the last 15 months, firearms, ammunition, and “large” ammunition magazines have been sold in what appear to be record quantities. And, the firearms that were most commonly purchased in 2009 are those that gun control supporters most want to be banned—AR-15s, similar semi-automatic rifles, and handguns designed for defense. The National Shooting Sports Foundation already estimates record ammunition sales in 2009, dominated by .223 Remington, 7.62x39mm, 9mm and other calibers widely favored for defensive purposes.Also indicative of the upward trend in firearm sales, the number of national instant check transactions rose 24.5 percent in the first six months of 2009 compared to the first six months in 2008, the greatest increase since NICS’ inception in 1998. Through the end of October, NICS transactions rose18 percent, compared to the same period in 2008.More Guns Means More Crime? Hardly. In 2009, more guns meant less crime, in a very, very big way.

NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS ALERT
Vol. 16, No. 43 10/30/09

NRA Sues Seattle Over Illegal Gun Ban

On October 28, NRA filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Washington State against the City of Seattle, asking the court to enjoin and declare invalid a recently enacted parks and recreation administrative policy that prohibits firearms in parks, community centers and other city-owned buildings. Other plaintiffs in the case include state correctional officers and private citizens.

“NRA members are outraged that the City of Seattle has ignored and defied state law and an opinion of Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “The NRA will continue to fight this senseless infringement on the rights of law-abiding Seattle gun owners.”

Outrage Of The Week: Over the past few years, we have reported on numerous, outrageous cases of “zero-tolerance” enforcement defying logic and rational thought. There seems to be no shortage of this kind of miscarriage of not only justice, but of common sense. So here we go again: This week’s “Outrage” comes to us from Des Moines, Iowa, where a school recently suspended an 11-year-old girl for bringing a handful of empty shotgun shells to school.

During a family trip to a ranch in South Dakota, the blank rounds were fired as part of a show, and the sixth-grade student gathered the harmless, empty shells as souvenirs. Once again, these were harmless, empty shell casings from fired, blank rounds!

.But We’re Not Through: This week’s second outrage comes to us via Tennessee Attorney General Bob Cooper (D), who recently issued an official opinion that landlords can prohibit law-abiding tenants from possessing their legally-owned firearms within the leased premises of their rented apartments, even if the tenants have a valid carry permit!

According to an October 28^th article on Knoxnews.com, the opinion is in response to a request from state Representative Tony Shipley (R-2), who said he had thought the answer would have been different.

Can’t Spell “Freedom’s Voice” Without Free! As the days wind down to Election Day in Virginia-November 3^rd-once again, Grassroots staff is on the road-where we belong and where we thrive! We will be traveling across the state, working with our members and supporters to elect pro-gun candidates.

Another Way To Get Involved: Online Social Networking: Internet social networking has exploded in recent years. Websites such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter attract millions of users. These on-line communities foster a connection between their users, and allow distribution of user-generated content (like pictures, profiles, music, video, and text).

NRA has been a part of this social technology for some time now, with a presence on each of these sites. By actively participating in these new media, we are able to reach out to more potential members and supporters than ever before.

Clearing Up the Rumors: The Truth About The “Gun Tax Bill” Over the past few months, NRA-ILA has received hundreds of e-mails warning us about “SB-2099,” a bill that would supposedly require you to report all your guns on your income tax return every April 15.

Like many rumors, there’s just a grain of truth to this one. Someone is recycling an old alert, which wasn’t even very accurate when it was new.

Help Defend Your Gun Rights One Click At A Time: We have a revolutionary yet simple tool that will allow you to stay connected to NRA-ILA and raise valuable contributions to defend our Second Amendment rights without spending a dime! It’s the NRA-ILA Toolbar, and you can make a difference by downloading and using it.

STATE ROUNDUP (Please note the only items listed below are those that have had recent action. For other updates on state legislation, please go to the state legislation section at www.NRAILA.org, and check each week’s issue of the Grassroots Alert.”)

MICHIGAN: Parking Lot Legislation Headed to the House Floor!
On Tuesday, October 27 the House Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources Committee approved House Bill 5302 and House Bill 5303 by a 9 to 1 vote. HB5302, introduced by State Representative Paul Opsommer (R-93), and HB5303, introduced by State Representative Joel Sheltrown (D-103), would prohibit employers from firing employees who safely and lawfully store their firearms in locked vehicles while at work. The bill now moves to the full Michigan House of Representatives where a vote may be taken any day. Please contact your Representative TODAY and respectfully ask them to support this important Second Amendment legislation. To find your representative and contact information please click here.

NEW JERSEY: Tuesday, November 3 is Election Day! Be sure to “Vote Freedom First!” If you have questions about candidate grades and endorsements, please call our Grassroots Division at (800) 392-VOTE (8683) or visit www.NRAPVF.org. For more information about voting in New Jersey, please visit http://www.njelections.org/.

NORTH CAROLINA: Tar Heel State to Start Producing NRA License Plates! In 2005, North Carolina established an NRA license plate, but we needed 300 North Carolinians to commit to purchasing them before they could be issued. We have finally reached the magic number! The applications, along with the necessary payments, have been submitted to the North Carolina DMV, and we thank everyone who has been patiently waiting for their chance to show support for NRA on their vehicle-especially those who applied in the beginning. It has been a long road, but your patience will soon pay off. We will be sure to post further updates as soon as we can, to let you know when to expect your NRA license plate. Our special thanks go out to NRA Western North Carolina Field Representative Doug Merrill, who has been handling all of the submitted applications, and fielding anxious calls looking for updates. Again, thank you for your patience!

SOUTH CAROLINA: Volunteers Needed to Assist with Range Clean-Up and Maintenance The Twin Ponds Rifle Range in the Francis Marion National Forest is in need of clean-up and repairs after it was closed in September because of vandalism over the last 12 months. The Forest is hosting a volunteer clean-up and repair day in order to get the range reopened by Sunday, November 1. Already, a number of shooter-volunteers, along with a troop of Cub Scouts, have pledged their help that day. The Forest can always use additional volunteers for that day and in the future to keep the range safe and clean. For more information, please click here.

TENNESSEE: Clay County to Address Repeal of Ban on Firearms within State Parks On Monday, November 2 at 6:30 p.m. the Clay County Commission will consider an ordinance that would repeal an earlier vote that bans the possession of firearms within County parks. The meeting will be held at the Clay County Community Center, located at 145 Cordell Hull Drive in Celina. The meeting will be open for public debate so be sure to arrive early if you would like the option to speak. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please contact County Mayor Dale Reagan and the County Commissioners at 931-243-2161 and respectfully urge them to support the removal of the existing gun ban. To contact the Mayor and County Commissioners, please click here.

Ordinance Banning Firearms in Parks Dealt a Blow in Bartlett An ordinance which would have outlawed the possession of firearms in local parks, even by those who possess Right-to-Carry permits, failed to pass on Tuesday, October 27. Thank you to all of the NRA members who made their voices heard. Please continue to visit www.nraila.org for up-to-date legislative alerts on this issue.

TEXAS: Attention NRA Members in Henderson & Kaufman Counties! Please make plans to attend upcoming town hall meetings for your State Representative and strong Second Amendment supporter, Betty Brown (R-4). The events are being hosted by the Texas Conservative Coalition — the conservative caucus of the Texas Legislature. The first meeting will take place on Tuesday, November 3 at 6:00 p.m.in the Trinity Valley Community College cafeteria, located at 100 Cardinal Drive, in Athens. The second will be held on Wednesday, November 4 at 7:30 AM at Covenant Generations Church, located at 10342 W. Highway 80 in Forney. Two key NRA-backed bills did not pass during the 2009 legislative session: a proposal prohibiting employers from enforcing policies against hard-working Texans who store their lawfully-owned firearms in their locked motor vehicles while parked at work, and a measure allowing concealed handgun licensees to protect themselves on college and university campuses. Rep. Brown co-sponsored both bills, but House leaders failed to set either of them for a timely vote by the full House. This is your chance to thank Rep. Brown for her support and to urge her to push House leaders for a floor vote on both issues next session!

VIRGINIA: Remember to Vote Freedom First on Election Day! Tuesday, November 3 is Election Day in the Old Dominion. Be sure to “Vote Freedom First!” If you have questions about candidate grades and endorsements, please visit www.NRAPVF.org, or call our Grassroots Division at (800) 392-VOTE (8683). For more information about voting in Virginia, please visit http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Election_Information/Index.html.

With the Virginia elections now merely days away, we need you to increase your volunteer activism in support of our candidates. To find out how you can assist with our final push, please contact your NRA-ILA Campaign Field Representatives (CFRs). For CFR contact information, please click here.

WASHINGTON: NRA Sues Seattle Over Illegal Gun Ban On Wednesday, October 28, the National Rifle Association filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Washington State against the City of Seattle, asking the court to enjoin and declare invalid a recently enacted parks and recreation administrative policy that prohibits firearms in parks, community centers and other city-owned buildings. Other plaintiffs in the case include state correctional officers and private citizens, as well as the Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Washington Arms Collectors, Inc. The city is in violation of Washington’s preemption statute, which forbids localities from enacting this type of ban. In October 2008, Attorney General Rob McKenna issued an opinion that put the City of Seattle and Mayor Nickels on notice that Washington cities may not enact local laws prohibiting possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities.

FULL ALERT – FEDERAL – Anti-Gun “Health” Bill

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners. org/ordergoamem. htm

Friday, October 23, 2009

Congratulations!

You have stymied the shady tactics used by Barack Obama, Harry Reid,
and Nancy Pelosi to try to pass the ObamaCare bill and — in the
opening salvo of the battle — you blew them out of the water.

Gun Owners won a huge vote Wednesday in the Senate.

As you remember, the ObamaCare bill would dump your gun-related health
data into a federal database. It would also put your (government
mandated) insurance at risk if you keep a loaded gun for self-defense.

But there was a problem: The anti-gun health bills cost too much, and
Obama had promised to pass a bill which would not raise the deficit by
“one penny.”

So what Obama, Reid, and Pelosi did was to try to pass a separate bill
(S. 1776) which would fund the anti-gun ObamaCare bill by raising the
deficit another $247 billion dollars.

But, they would argue, because S. 1776 was a “separate bill,”
the ObamaCare bill itself would not raise the deficit.

In a Senate not known for morality, this rose to a level of sleaze and
corruption that embarrassed many Democrats, in addition to all
Republicans.

With gun owners responding vigorously to our alerts on this issue, the
motion to invoke “cloture” (or shut off debate) on the bill
failed by a 47-53 vote — 13 votes short of the 60 votes the anti-gun
socialists needed.

The victory on S. 1776 means that it will be much harder for Obama,
Reid and Pelosi to pick up the somewhat fiscally-minded Blue Dog
Democrats they so desperately need to get their anti-gun ObamaCare
legislation passed.

So congratulations! It is true that this is only the first battle…
but, if we continue battering Congress as we have, it will be the first of many victories.

To see the official listing of how each Senator voted, you can go to
http://tinyurl. com/ykb6kjb.

But in the meantime, pat yourself on the back for a job well done…
and have a great weekend!

Join NRA-ILA’s New Online Community

You read NRA-ILA’s alerts. You call your elected officials on important Second Amendment issues. You talk to your friends, family and others about protecting the right to keep and bear arms. In short, you are at the heart of NRA-ILA’s efforts.

Now you have an opportunity to help the NRA by sharing your thoughts on policy, politics, corporate partnerships, and more.

We are excited to announce the launch of the NRA-ILA Online Advisory Panel, a community of our most active and loyal supporters. As a part of the Advisory Panel, you will have the opportunity to engage with other NRA members, take weekly polls and surveys, compare your Members of Congress, track federal legislation, and more. This is your chance to make your voice count. NRA-ILA wants to know what you think and what gun owners are concerned-or excited-about in your part of the country.

Which issues are you most concerned about? What programs do you think work? Which ones don’t? As a part of the NRA-ILA Online Advisory Panel, you will have an opportunity to weigh in on these questions, and your voice will help target our activities and frame the Second Amendment debate.

To find out more and to sign up to become a member of the NRA-ILA Online Advisory Panel, go to: http://nra.civicscience.com.

“Task Force” Using Crime And Corruption In Mexico As Premise For Gun Control In U.S.

Friday, October 16, 2009

On October 13, the Associated Press reported that the so-called Bi-National Task Force on Rethinking the United States-Mexico Border has produced a report, which, among other things, calls for re-imposition of the federal “assault weapon” ban of 1994-2004, saying it would improve security in both countries.

The “border-rethinking” group has been put together by the Pacific Council on International Policy and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. The group consists mostly of former U.S. and Mexican officials and journalists, none of them currently elected by the people of the U.S. or Mexico to make policy on these issues.

According to the Pacific Council, the report is being released under the auspices of the Mexican CFR on November 13th and is absolutely unavailable until that time. The Brady Campaign, naturally, has a copy of the report anyway, and quotes its executive summary as saying “The United States should intensify efforts to curtail the smuggling of firearms, ammunition, and bulk cash into Mexico by aggressively investigating gun sellers, regulating gun shows, [and] reinstituting the Clinton-era ban on assault weapons.”

Congress finished its hearings on the Mexico situation several months ago, and many members of Congress have declared their line-in-the-sand opposition to re-imposition of the ban. So given that Brady Campaign seems to be the only outfit that has a copy of the embargoed report, it’s safe to conclude that the “task force” is trying to keep the public primed for the next attack on the ownership of firearms like the AR-15 and Remington 11-87, and ammunition magazines designed for defensive purposes.

Whatever the opinions of those who sip tea and nibble biscuits while musing about how to restrict the rest of us, re-imposing the ban would have no effect on Mexico’s historic problem of crime and corruption, for at least three reasons.

First, as has been amply demonstrated, the cartels are not limited to semi-automatic AR-15s and AK-47s. They have hand-held and tripod-mounted, belt-fed machine guns; grenade launchers and grenades; and a variety of other high-end firearms, explosives, and special-purpose optics and communication gear acquired from countries other than the United States. Thanks to some Americans’ insatiable appetite for mind-altering drugs, they have enough money to buy the “task force” 10 times over, along with any weapon that can be found among any infantry platoon on Earth, no matter what kind of gun law gets imposed.

Second, most of the firearms seized from the cartels do not come from the United States. The claim that “90 percent” of Mexican “crime guns” originate in the U.S. is false. It does not relate to all firearms the Mexicans have seized from the cartels, but only to guns that the Mexicans have asked the BATFE to trace. As the Government Accountability Office has explained, “In 2008, of the almost 30,000 firearms that the Mexican Attorney General’s office said were seized, only around 7,200, or approximately a quarter, were submitted to [BATFE] for tracing.” The 6,700 guns that BATFE traced to the U.S. accounted for about 90 percent of the 7,200 guns that BATFE traced, but only 22 percent of all firearms seized by the Mexican government

Third, the ban did not stop the production and sale of any guns, it merely put a one-attachment limit on new guns. For example, before the ban, AR-15s had a pistol-type grip, flash suppressor and bayonet mount. The 750,000 AR-15s made during the ban had only the grip. If the “task force” thinks the fate of Mexico hinges on whether a relatively small number of semi-automatic rifles have flash suppressors and bayonet mounts, its members ought to switch to decaffeinated tea and sugar-free cookies during their get-togethers.

Make no mistake, however. Even if the “task force” doesn’t understand the finer details of the old “assault weapon” ban, leading gun ban advocates like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, the Joyce Foundation, and the Legal Community Against Violence do. If they have their way, they will eventually drag us into a much larger battle over the right to keep and bear semi-automatic shotguns, M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, and Ruger Mini-14s, in addition to the AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-47s, and other commonly owned firearms that were at issue during the 1994-2004 ban.

This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683

Alert: 75% Of America Rejects
Lautenberg Gun Ban

Rasmussen Poll Says A Majority of Democrats and Repulicans Believe The Constitution Guarantees The Right To Own A Gun.

Only days after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to one of the nation’s most egregious gun laws, a new Rasmussen poll shows waning support for stricter gun laws.

Among Americans polled, 75% said the Constitution guaranteed the right to own a gun. The percentage of “yes” answers was higher among Republicans (92%) and lower among Democrats (64%). Among others, 71% answered yes. And, 57% of those polled cited fear of increased government restrictions as the reason for a spike in gun sales.

Gun Hater Lautenberg Proposes “Extraordinary Powers” Be Given To the U.S. Attorney General To Limit Gun Sales.

Obama and the White House are looking the other way as Lautenberg seeks to ban guns from 1,000,000 US citizens on a secret FBI terrorist watch list. Obama has deliberately and repeatedly lied to America’s 90 million gun owners across the country when he insisted that he would not try to take away anyone’s firearms. Now Obama’s silence endorses Lautenberg’s latest attempt at banning guns.

Lautenberg has now been introduced bill S.1317 that would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. We must defeat this bill from giving extraordinary powers to limit gun sales to the Attorney General.

Fax NOW – Get Your Name Off The List
STOP Lautenberg’s Attorney General Gun Grab
Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

Lautenberg To Reveal Names on Secret List

The names of the people on the watch list are secret, and Lautenberg said he was frustrated by the F.B.I.’s refusal to disclose to investigators details and specific cases of gun purchases beyond the aggregate data.

Gun hater Lautenberg requested the gun grab study from the Government Accountability Office. He is using statistics, compiled in the report that is scheduled for public release next week to invade US citizen’s privacy and put more restrictions on the Second Amendment.

Lautenberg said he wanted a better understanding of who is being allowed to buy guns.

How you ask? Trial by innuendo and misinformation that has put 1,000,000 Americans and maybe even you on a terrorist watch list without your knowledge by saying: people placed on this government’s terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, and will also be stopped from buying a gun.

Lautenberg wants gun purchases stopped for just being on the list. Current law states federal officials must find some other disqualification of a would-be gun buyer, like being a felon, an illegal alien or a drug addict.

Is your name on the list and can you get it removed?

The government’s consolidated watch list, used to identify people suspected of links to terrorists, has grown to more than one million names since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It also has drawn widespread criticism over the prevalence of mistaken identities and unclear links to terrorism.

A CNN story raises questions about mistaken identities on the list – James Robinson is a retired Air National Guard brigadier general and a commercial pilot for a major airline who flies passenger planes around the country.

James Robinson is a retired brigadier general and a commercial pilot. His name is on the terrorist “watch list.”

He has even been certified by the Transportation Security Administration to carry a weapon into the cockpit as part of the government’s defense program should a terrorist try to commandeer a plane.

But there’s one problem: James Robinson, the pilot, has difficulty even getting to his plane because his name is on the government’s terrorist “watch list.”

That means he can’t use an airport kiosk to check in; he can’t do it online; he can’t do it curbside. Instead, like thousands of Americans whose names match a name or alias used by a suspected terrorist on the list, he must go to the ticket counter and have an agent verify that he is James Robinson, the pilot, and not James Robinson, the terrorist.

“Shocking’s a good word; frustrating,” Robinson — the pilot — said. “I’m carrying a weapon, flying a multimillion-dollar jet with passengers, but I’m still screened as, you know, on the terrorist watch list.”

Fax NOW – Get Your Name Off The List
STOP Lautenberg’s Attorney General Gun Grab
Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

History Repeating Itself?

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.”

Lautenberg Must be Stopped

Recently Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have joined Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and victims and family members of the Virginia Tech tragedy, to introduce legislation to eliminate the private transfers of firearms and close the nation’s “gun show loophole.”

This Senate bill is in the Judiciary Committee, chaired by anti-gun liberal Democrat Leahy. Lautenberg’s gun hate is well documented and he says you are irrational if you support private gun sales.

“There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole. The reason it’s still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington” Sen. Lautenberg said ignoring the Constitution.

Fax NOW – Get Your Name Off The List
STOP Lautenberg’s Attorney General Gun Grab
Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

Lautenberg and the Gun Grabbers in the Senate are now tying to use the GAO to justify putting Americans on a secret gun ban list.

LAUTENBERG’S MOTIVES

Motives for his latest gun ban to are twofold:

First, he is taking small steps to enact gun control legislation this is just one step.
Second, eradicate the gun culture altogether.

All that seems to be on the minds of the Anti-Gun Senators and at the offices of gun control extremists is figuring out how to invade your privacy to erode and eventually destroy the right, and the means, of self-defense.

Now the Anti-Gun Coalitions are trying to use a self supporting GAO study to destroy the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms to protect themselves under the law. They are attacking and hiding behind an Anti-Terrorist Agenda while getting political and financial support from:

George Soros a Hungarian-born billionaire bank rolling efforts with his check book and spending more that $100 million to destroy the Constitution.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) admitted that “guns would be banned and confiscated” if she could have her way.

The United Nations actively pushes globalism seeking to disarm all Americans.

We must Stop the Anti-Gun Coalition and get ready for the biggest gun control fight of the year from coast to coast. We can not do that without your support.

Stand up against this attack! Stand up for the right to not only defend yourself, but to defend your family, your children, your friends, and your classmates!

Fax NOW – Get Your Name Off The List
STOP Lautenberg’s Attorney General Gun Grab
Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

Like all other threats against our freedoms, we must rise and defeat this bill from giving extraordinary powers to limit gun sales to the Attorney General.

In order to stop Lautenberg and his fellow gun-grabbers-we need to let the Congress know with thousands of faxes telling them to leave guns alone.

Americans like you who understand what our Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation…and who are willing to fight to defend our Constitution and for what it stands.

So please, help the Citizens Committee and me defeat those who wish to gut and trash the United States Constitution.

Help me flood the U.S. Senate with a sea of FAXES big enough to drown each and every Senator willing to vote away the Second Amendment.

Please, send your Donation and FAX TODAY!

Fax NOW – Get Your Name Off The List
STOP Lautenberg’s Attorney General Gun Grab
Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOU’RE OUTRAGE at ongoing efforts to take guns away!

CALL PRESIDENT Obama, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of all GUN BANS.

DO NOT BE SILENCED – MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to ALL Senators right away!

For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care.

Your contribution of $20 or $25 is urgently needed today.

Your donation for just $10 will help so much. If you can afford to send $50 or $100 or more it would truly be a godsend.

Remember, protecting our freedom is not inexpensive.

But then, it’s impossible to put a price tag on freedom.

SELECT HERE to DONATE NOW.
The rights you save may be your own!

https://secure.responseenterprises.com/saf/?a=3081

Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.

For more information about CCRKBA go to http://www.ccrkba.org/

Thank you. I know I can count on you.

Sincerely,

Alan Gottlieb
Chairman
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

CAL-ERT 10/13/09 — 9:00 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE ALERT – http://www.calnra.com/calerts/calert101309.shtml
This information is accurate at the time this CAL-ERT was written and originally distributed. The NRA Members’ Councils of California will keep you informed as issues affect your gun-rights in California.

NRA SPONSORS LEGISLATION TO REPEAL AB962!

Earlier this year, Assemblyman Curt Hagman introduced Assembly Bill 373 related to the sales of handguns. AB373 was sponsored by the National Rifle Association in order to streamline the ability for law-abiding Californians to purchase handguns.

Now that Governor Schwarzenegger has signed AB962 into law, people are already becoming aware of the damage that it will do to California and it’s citizens. Therefore, the NRA and Assemblyman Hagman have agreed to amend AB373 into legislation that would repeal AB962. The newly amended AB373 will be heard in the State Legislature in January of 2010 so we must be ready for these hearings.

All of California’s firearms owners, dealers, shooters, hunters, collectors, clubs/organizations, and ammunition vendors, should be prepared to join in this effort to repeal AB962. This will not be an easy fight, but it is possible to win if we all stick together and act in an organized manner.

We, the NRA, will have specific activities that everyone can participate in during this important effort. Please stand-by and be prepared to help. There is no good reason not to be part of the team.

Read the NRA-ILA News Release regarding Governor Schwarzenegger’s counter-productive signing of AB962 at http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12998 .

As a first-step in this process; please contact Assemblyman Curt Hagman and thank him for demonstrating his leadership by using his legislation (AB373) for this very important effort to repeal AB962. His office phone number is 916-319-2060 and you can email him at http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/60/default.aspx?p=email .

More to come……………..

Find this item at: http://www.calnra.com/calerts/calert101309.shtml

Continue to monitor the latest legislative updates at: http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/legs.shtml

Archived CAL-ERTs can be found at: http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/calerts/archives/index.shtml

NRA Members’ Councils of California http://NRAMembersCouncils.com

Due to some duplication of efforts, some people might get more than one copy of this message. We apologize if this causes any inconvenience.

To subscribe, unsubscribe, or update your subscription information to CAL-ERTs, CLICK HERE and enter your email address.

CAL-ERTs are provided as a free service to all gun owners and Pro-2nd Amendment organizations by the NRA Members’ Councils of California. Please work together with the NRA and help once again defeat the misguided efforts of the anti-gun legislators and fringe groups by cross-posting this CAL-ERT via the Internet, newsletters/publications and hand-outs. The CALifornia-alERT system is operated by NRA staff and volunteers operating within the NRA Members’ Councils Program. NRA Members’ Council Office Phone Number (951) 683-4NRA

NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS ALERT

Governor Schwarzenegger/California Lawmakers Squander Limited Financial Resources on Firearm Owner Registration Scheme

Fairfax, Va. – Governor Schwarzenegger has signed a severe yet impotent gun control measure into law. Assembly Bill 962, taking effect on February 1, 2011, mandates individuals purchasing ammunition to be fingerprinted and registered at the time of sale and outlaws mail order ammunition purchases. AB 962 also requires dealers to maintain these records indefinitely and make them available for inspection by the California Department of Justice. As an additional burden, ammunition retailers are also required to store ammunition away from purchasers. AB 692 also failed to garner support from Attorney General Brown, and any law enforcement organization. In fact, 15 sheriffs wrote letters of opposition to this legislation.

“This law presents intrusive and unnecessary burdens that will only affect law-abiding firearm retailers and gun-owners…not criminals,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “At a time when California is facing dire budget problems, California has squandered valuable resources in policing law-abiding Californians instead of investing in substantive measures that target criminals. More than two decades ago, Congress abolished similar requirements to U.S. federal law because ammunition sales records were found to be ineffective for solving crimes. It is indeed regrettable that foolish minds and bogus arguments prevailed over common sense and empirical evidence.”

Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed Senate Bill 585, a bill that would have prohibited the sale of firearms and ammunition on the property or inside the buildings that comprise the Cow Palace in Daly City, just outside of San Francisco. He also signed Senate Bill 175, which will exempt gunsmiths from a vague California law. This exemption will now allow for the exchange of a firearm to or from a gunsmith for purposes of service or repair.

“Governor Schwarzenegger acted in the interest of good public policy with his actions to SB 585 and SB 175. But, in signing AB 962, he has paved the way for one of the most intrusive and ineffective gun control laws that California has seen in recent years,” said Cox.

The National Rifle Association will review all possible options to remove this draconian, requirement from California statute, and will assess legislative and legal remedies to do so.

Alert: 75% Of America Rejects
Lautenberg Gun Ban

Rasmussen Poll Says A Majority of Democrats and Repulicans Believe The Constitution Guarantees The Right To Own A Gun.

Only days after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to one of the nation’s most egregious gun laws, a new Rasmussen poll shows waning support for stricter gun laws.

Gun Hater Lautenberg Proposes “Extraordinary Powers” Be Given To the U.S. Attorney General To Limit Gun Sales.

Fax NOW – Get Your Name Off The List
STOP Lautenberg’s Attorney General Gun Grab
Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

Lautenberg To Reveal Names on Secret List

Lautenberg said he wanted a better understanding of who is being allowed to buy guns.

Is your name on the list and can you get it removed?

James Robinson is a retired brigadier general and a commercial pilot. His name is on the terrorist “watch list.”

He has even been certified by the Transportation Security Administration to carry a weapon into the cockpit as part of the government’s defense program should a terrorist try to commandeer a plane.

But there’s one problem: James Robinson, the pilot, has difficulty even getting to his plane because his name is on the government’s terrorist “watch list.”

Fax NOW – Get Your Name Off The List
STOP Lautenberg’s Attorney General Gun Grab
Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

History Repeating Itself?

Lautenberg Must be Stopped

This Senate bill is in the Judiciary Committee, chaired by anti-gun liberal Democrat Leahy. Lautenberg’s gun hate is well documented and he says you are irrational if you support private gun sales.

Fax NOW – Get Your Name Off The List
STOP Lautenberg’s Attorney General Gun Grab
Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

Lautenberg and the Gun Grabbers in the Senate are now tying to use the GAO to justify putting Americans on a secret gun ban list.

LAUTENBERG’S MOTIVES

Motives for his latest gun ban to are twofold:

First, he is taking small steps to enact gun control legislation this is just one step.
Second, eradicate the gun culture altogether.

George Soros a Hungarian-born billionaire bank rolling efforts with his check book and spending more that $100 million to destroy the Constitution.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) admitted that “guns would be banned and confiscated” if she could have her way.

The United Nations actively pushes globalism seeking to disarm all Americans.

We must Stop the Anti-Gun Coalition and get ready for the biggest gun control fight of the year from coast to coast. We can not do that without your support.

Stand up against this attack! Stand up for the right to not only defend yourself, but to defend your family, your children, your friends, and your classmates!

Fax NOW – Get Your Name Off The List
STOP Lautenberg’s Attorney General Gun Grab
Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

Like all other threats against our freedoms, we must rise and defeat this bill from giving extraordinary powers to limit gun sales to the Attorney General.

In order to stop Lautenberg and his fellow gun-grabbers-we need to let the Congress know with thousands of faxes telling them to leave guns alone.

Americans like you who understand what our Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation…and who are willing to fight to defend our Constitution and for what it stands.

So please, help the Citizens Committee and me defeat those who wish to gut and trash the United States Constitution.

Help me flood the U.S. Senate with a sea of FAXES big enough to drown each and every Senator willing to vote away the Second Amendment.

Please, send your Donation and FAX TODAY!

Fax NOW – Get Your Name Off The List
STOP Lautenberg’s Attorney General Gun Grab
Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOU’RE OUTRAGE at ongoing efforts to take guns away!

CALL PRESIDENT Obama, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of all GUN BANS.

DO NOT BE SILENCED – MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to ALL Senators right away!

For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care.

Your contribution of $20 or $25 is urgently needed today.

Your donation for just $10 will help so much. If you can afford to send $50 or $100 or more it would truly be a godsend.

Remember, protecting our freedom is not inexpensive.

But then, it’s impossible to put a price tag on freedom.

SELECT HERE to DONATE NOW.
The rights you save may be your own!

https://secure.responseenterprises.com/saf/?a=3081

Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.

For more information about CCRKBA go to http://www.ccrkba.org/

Thank you. I know I can count on you.

Sincerely,

Alan Gottlieb
Chairman
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Fron the Second Ammendment Foundation

Obama’s Anti-Gun Agenda Heads To

Supreme Court

Chicago Gun Ban Case to Determine Gun Rights For All States

The U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, and decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from overreaching state and local governments.

The Supreme Court case is of paramount importance to American citizens, to see that their constitutional rights are respected not only by the Congress, but by state and local governments.

Obama made public his clear anti-gun agenda in March 2004 in Chicago. Obama voted against Illinois Senate Bill 2165 allowing citizens the right to protect themselves and for local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20 without Obama’s vote. STOP Obama’s Anti-Gun Agenda now before he can appoint any anti-gun judges.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is delighted to bring this case in cooperation with the Illinois State Rifle Association and the four local plaintiffs. We are in this fight because a gun ban is no less onerous to civil rights in Chicago than it was in the District of Columbia. Such a law cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.

Protecting our gun rights is expensive and it’s impossible to put a price tag on. This time freedom will cost $250,000 to defend your Second Amendment rights in this challenge to the Chicago gun ban. SAF stands firmly committed to defend these rights and we are asking you to stand with us and we need your help to stop the anti-freedom extremists now!

We urgently need you to demand that all State Attorneys General file an Amicus Brief stating they agree that the individual right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and applies to all 50 states.

FAX All 50 State Attorney Generals Now and Donate The $250,000 Needed
For SAF To Defend Second Amendment Rights At The Supreme Court!

https://secure.responseenterprises.com/saf_faxag/?a=3068

At issue is a 27-year-old Chicago law banning handguns, requiring the annual taxation of firearms, and otherwise interfering with the right of law-abiding individuals to keep guns at home for self-defense. The case was brought on behalf of four Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

Last year, in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, as that case concerned the actions of the District of Columbia government, a federal entity, the high court was not called upon to decide whether the right bound states and local governments. Over the years, almost the entire Bill of Rights has been held to apply to state and local governments by incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“The freedoms we enjoy as Americans are secured to us against violation by all levels of government,” noted Alan Gura, of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, lead counsel for the McDonald plaintiffs. “State and local politicians should be on notice: the Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights, and it is coming to your town.”

Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident since 1952 who led the fight to integrate his union local in the 1960s and is a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the news.

“I am grateful the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case,” McDonald said. “I now pray that the Court secures me and all other law-abiding citizens the right to defend ourselves and our families.”

FAX All 50 State Attorney Generals Now and Donate The $250,000 Needed
For SAF To Defend Second Amendment Rights At The Supreme Court!

https://secure.responseenterprises.com/saf_faxag/?a=3068

Chicago attorney David Sigale commented, “The City of Chicago cannot take from millions of Americans the fundamental freedom of self-defense in one’s own home. We are confident the Court will stand on the side of the law-abiding citizens and the Bill of Rights.”

“We’re pleased to hear that the Supreme Court has decided to take a look at Chicago’s gun laws,” added ISRA President Don Moran. “In this time of economic uncertainty and increasing lawlessness, the good people of Chicago ought not have to choose between violating Chicago’s gun ban, and protecting themselves and their loved ones.”

The Chicago gun ban challenge will likely be among the most closely watched constitutional law cases in decades. At stake is not just the question of whether the Second Amendment secures the right to arms against state and local governments, but also the extent to which the Supreme Court preserves individual liberty against encroachment by state and local governments.

Oral argument will possibly be scheduled early this coming winter, with a decision expected by June 2010. Gura will argue the case on behalf of the McDonald plaintiffs.

DO NOT BE SILENCED – MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care.

As I write this, the anti-freedom extremists are raising tens of thousands of dollars to defeat us at the Supreme Court …maybe even more! We need your financial support today to ensure we have the resources to beat back anti-gunners who will stop at nothing to take away our right and ability to defend ourselves and our families.

Please give your most generous contribution today. Help me defend your individual right to bear arms in this important Supreme Court case, today!

Your contribution of $20 or $25 is urgently needed today.

Your donation for just $10 will help so much. If you can afford to send $50 or $100 or more it would truly be a godsend.

Remember, protecting our freedom is not inexpensive.

But then, it’s impossible to put a price tag on freedom.

FAX All 50 State Attorney Generals Now and Donate The $250,000 Needed
For SAF To Defend Second Amendment Rights At The Supreme Court!

https://secure.responseenterprises.com/saf_faxag/?a=3068

Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.

For more information about SAF go to http://www.saf.org/

Thank you. I know I can count on you.

Sincerely yours,

Alan M. Gottlieb
Founder
Second Amendment Foundation

Gun Rights Conference Wraps Up In St. Louis

September 29, 2009 by Personal Liberty News Desk

Gun rights conference wraps up in St. Louis Despite the Obama administration’s anti-Second Amendment efforts, gun rights leaders from across the country gathered in St. Louis, Missouri, last weekend to network, exchange strategies and hear from experts on major issues relating to firearms litigation and politics.

The 24th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference was hosted by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA). Among the speakers were CCRKBA chairman Alan Gottlieb, SAF President Joseph Tartaro as well as attorney Alan Gura, winner of the landmark Second Amendment Heller case.

On the agenda this year were panel discussions on the UN threat to gun rights, federal and state legislative updates, media bias, self-defense and right-to-carry, open carry, guns and the 10th Amendment as well as the campus concealed carry issue.

According to Daniel White, writing for Examiner.com, ammunition control was also in the spotlight as a new threat posed by the gun control movement.

“These people realize that the most effective way to kill off a species is to cut off its food source, and ammunition is food for guns,” White wrote in his column.

Under particular scrutiny came California’s bill AB 962 that would require retailers to keep ammunition where customers cannot access it, check buyers’ IDs, record names and addresses and to take thumbprints, according to the news source.

Next year’s conference is scheduled to be held in San Francisco

Premiere Radio Network, the radio home of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck – that champions conservative values, the Second Amendment, and free enterprise- has REFUSED to run radio ads for my Greatest Course, Gear and Gun Giveaway because the word GUN is used in the ad!

Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck’s Premiere Radio Network will allow the ad to say Free Gift, but not Free Gun!

It’s true. After I have already provided Front Sight’s world class Four Day Defensive Handgun Course and One Day 30 State Concealed Carry Permit Course for Pennies-on-the-Dollar and thrown in over 3,000 Springfield Armory XD Pistols at no charge to responsible Americans across the country, I decided to commit to deliver even more guns, but Premiere Radio Network, the radio home of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck REFUSED the ads.

This is the same Greatest Course, Gear and Gun offer that is endorsed by Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Joe Farah of WorldNetDaily.com, Alex Jones of InfoWars.com and has been advertised on the Michael Savage radio show and is currently airing on over 100 other radio stations across America, BUT Premiere Radio Network, the radio home of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck REFUSED it because I use the word GUN in it.

They will allow the word Gift, but not Gun!

Here is the actual radio ad Premiere Radio Network, the radio home of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck is so afraid of…

Click Here to play the Banned Front Sight Commercial.

And here is the banner ad that scares the hell out of Premiere Radio Network, the radio home of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck…

Can you believe this hypocrisy? Premiere Radio Network, makes a fortune off millions of listeners who believe the hosts they are listening to don’t just “talk the talk” of conservative values but also “walk the walk” and yet when I place the word “Gun” in an ad with a proven track record of delivering over 3,000 courses and guns to responsible American citizens across this country, Premiere Radio Network refuses it!

Look folks, I DON’T MIND providing an offer of five days of Front Sight’s world class training, that includes everything you need to secure non-resident concealed carry permits, allowing you to carry a gun in over 30 states, and throwing in a free gun and gear package, that when delivered MAKES ME NO MONEY.

Front Sight has always been my labor of love to help positively change the image of gun ownership in our lifetimes by training responsible citizens to levels that exceed law enforcement and military standards. I don’t mind providing such an amazing Course, Gun and Gear Offer to you, that gives me nothing in return (it actually costs me money) other than the satisfaction of knowing that the Front Sight Organization and all of the members and staff associated with it are making a positive difference for Americans who want the comfort of skill at arms to protect themselves and their families.

Honestly, I shouldn’t even have to advertise this offer! The NRA, GOA, JPFO, Second Amendment Foundation, and every other pro gun organization in America should be shouting this offer to all of their members.

Conservative Talk Show Hosts and Bloggers should be telling all of their viewers, listeners and readers about it!

After all, have you heard of ANYONE else in America giving away 5 days of training and a 30 state CCW for pennies-on-the-dollar and then throwing in FREE OF CHARGE, a brand new Springfield Armory XD pistol in the caliber of your choice plus all the tactical accessories you need for the course?

Well, have you?

The Second Amendment and my belief that Americans need to be armed and trained, now more than ever before, is so strong that EVEN AFTER ALREADY DELIVERING over 3,000 of these amazing offers, and not making any money on it, I decided to extend the offer and PAY $96,411 to Premiere Radio Network, so the millions of listeners of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck would find out about this life-changing offer over the next several days of radio, banner and e-mail ads.

That’s right! I was willing to pay $96,411 dollars to advertise an offer that takes money out of my own pocket to provide to you, and I went to the largest conservative radio network to spread the message, and they REFUSED it because of the word GUN was in the ad. They would allow the words Free Gift, but not Free Gun!

Do I sound pissed? Well I am, and you should be too!

I hope and pray that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck have no idea such hypocrisy is going on at their network and have nothing to do with such an asinine decision on the part of Premiere Radio Network.

I sincerely want to believe that this insult to conservative radio listeners is the direct result of some NITWIT at Premiere Radio Network who makes a his living on the backs of conservatives and patriots, but is covertly anti-gun and anti-American in his true beliefs!

I implore Rush, Sean, and Glenn to look into this outrage and straighten out the individual(s) responsible. After all, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck just lost nearly $100,000 in my advertising dollars for their shows, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, millions of their listeners will miss the opportunity to get 5 days of world class training, a 30 state CCW for pennies-on-the-dollar and a FREE Springfield Armory XD Pistol in the caliber of their choice.

With what the future may hold, this offer is just too important not to make available to all freedom loving Americans.

How can you help right this wrong?

Click here to forward this blog to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity and tell them what you think so we know they are aware of the anti-gun policies of their OWN Network!

Click here to forward this blog to everyone on your list and ask them to do the same.

And if you would like the mindset and skill at arms to protect yourself against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but do not yet have a 30 State Concealed Weapons Permit, the world class training that Front Sight provides, or a Springfield Armory XD Pistol, then take advantage of Front Sight’s Greatest Course, Gun and CCW Permit Offer Ever. (Also known as the Millionaire Patriot Offer.)

https://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp

I post a different article on this blog each Monday so I look forward to your visit every week.

If you have an interesting photo, story, or tip about a relevant topic of interest to gun ownership, firearms training or Second Amendment issues, please feel free to send it to me at:

info@frontsight.com or

Ignatius@frontsight.com

If you want to take advantage of the Greatest Course, Gun, and CCW Permit Offer in the firearms training industry see this link:

https://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp

See you next week.

Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director
Front Sight Firearms Training Institute

Dear Friend of Freedom,

This has been a great week. Over the weekend our 24^th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference was a huge success. More than 700 gun rights activists attended and heard over 50 speakers.

I hope that you got to see the positive news coverage the conference received nationally on CNN. If you missed it, please take a few minutes and go to this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNqyu5okXgo on YouTube to see it for yourself.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear our historic suit, McDonald v. Chicago, against the Chicago gun ban law. This case is most important because last year’s Supreme Court ruling overturning the Washington, D.C. gun ban only applied to the federal government and federal enclaves. This suit will incorporate Second Amendment protections against states and cities in all 50 states from banning firearms.

And if all this isn’t enough, yesterday, the Second Amendment Foundation along with the Montana Sport Shooting Association filed suit against Attorney General Eric Holder to stop the Obama Administration from violating the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. This Act says if a gun is made in Montana and stays in Montana then it is not the federal government’s business.

All of these important efforts are only made possible thanks to your help. So you deserve to share in the credit. On behalf of all of us at the Second Amendment Foundation, thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

If you wish to see more about the record number of legal actions that we have filed to protect and expand our gun rights and/or make a donation to keep us on the cutting edge, just go to www.saf.org and join in our fight for freedom.

Sincerely yours,

Alan Gottlieb

Founder

Legislation Still Under the Radar Would Devastate U.S. Gun Ownership Rights

September 30, 2009 by Bob Livingston

Legislation Still Under the Radar Would Devastate U.S. Gun Ownership Rights

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.–President Barack Obama in San Francisco at a 2008 fundraiser.

While high profile issues like passage of a healthcare reform bill and cap and trade energy tax are getting front page headlines and top billing by television talking heads, be very wary of stealth legislation slowly working its way through Congress to restrict gun ownership.

Passage of either of two bills, HR 45 (also known as Blair-Holt Firearm Licensing and Record Sale Act of 2009) and S 1317, would be a devastating blow to Second Amendment rights.

HR 45, introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush, would make it illegal to own a gun unless you are fingerprinted and can provide a driver’s license and Social Security number.

Additionally under HR 45, a person buying a gun would have to undergo both a physical and mental evaluation before making a firearm purchase. It also would require guns be secured from access by children under age 18, and would empower law enforcement officers to come into your home to check compliance.

S 1317, introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenburg, would give the attorney general the right to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. A third bill, HR 2647, contains a companion clause to S 1317 that gives the attorney general the authority to determine who belongs on terrorist watch lists.

And who are the terrorists? In Obamaworld it’s not the Islamo-fascists flying airliners into buildings, planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs) or strapping bombs to their waists and setting them off in crowded areas.

No, because in Obamaworld, the word terrorism no longer applies to those who were once called terrorists. And those who used to be considered terrorists no longer commit acts of terrorism. No they commit man-caused disasters. The word terrorist, at least in its past usage, has been dropped from the lexicon.

Today’s terrorists, according to those now in power in the United States, are people in flyover country who believe the Constitution is sacrosanct, and that the Second Amendment actually means that people are free to own guns without restriction.

Our own country’s Department of Homeland Security issued an assessment earlier this year warning law enforcement of a possible rise in home-grown terrorism from “right wing extremists.” And who are those rightwing extremists? The assessment tell us: “Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

As we’ve reported before in related stories here and here the current administration is no friend to gun owners.

And what does Eric Holder—attorney general for the United States and the person who would under S 1317 be granted the authority to determine who belongs on terrorist watch groups—think about guns?

Following are few of his quotes that have appeared in various newspapers over the last few years:

“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.”

“The second amendment does not protect firearms possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia.”

“To further strengthen the ability of law enforcement officials to track those suspected of terrorism or other criminal acts in this country, Congress should also pass legislation that would give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.”

Holder’s boss, the president, is equally unfriendly to gun owners. Writing for Gun Digest last October, gun lobbyist Richard A. Pearson called Obama an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. You can read his article here.

Some of Obama’s own quotes, as they have appeared in various publications, will back this up:

“I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.”

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

“The package (legislation passed in the Illinois Senate) closes the Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card loopholes which resulted in the shooting out in Melrose Park. We’re eliminating 17 specific assault weapons. There is no reason why anybody should need an assault weapon to protect themselves or their family. We’re limiting handgun sales to one a month. We’re calling for handgun registration. It’s very hard right now to track whether or not a felon has turned in his weapons or if he has a FOID card because we don’t know how many weapons he has purchased.”

Without a doubt, the current administration is the most anti-gun administration in our nation’s history. Don’t let the hullabaloo over healthcare and cap and trade cause you to let your guard down.

And be sure you cling to your guns and religion. They may soon be all you have.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR 2^ND AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO CHICAGO GUN BAN WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, and decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from overreaching state and local governments. At issue is a 27-year-old Chicago law banning handguns, requiring the annual taxation of firearms, and otherwise interfering with the right of law-abiding individuals to keep guns at home for self-defense. The case was brought on behalf of four Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association.Last year, in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, as that case concerned the actions of the District of Columbia government, a federal entity, the high court was not called upon to decide whether the right bound states and local governments. Over the years, almost the entire Bill of Rights has been held to apply to state and local governments by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.“The freedoms we enjoy as Americans are secured to us against violation by all levels of government,” noted Alan Gura, of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, lead counsel for the McDonald plaintiffs. “State and local politicians should be on notice: the Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights, and it is coming to your town.”Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident since 1952 who led the fight to integrate his union local in the 1960s and is a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the news.“I am grateful the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case,” McDonald said. “I now pray that the Court secures me and all other law-abiding citizens the right to defend ourselves and our families.”SAF founder Alan Gottlieb said the case is of paramount importance to American citizens, to see that their constitutional rights are respected not only by the Congress, but by state and local governments.“SAF was delighted to bring this case in cooperation with the Illinois State Rifle Association and the four local plaintiffs because a gun ban is no less onerous to civil rights in Chicago than it was in the District of Columbia,” Gottlieb observed. “Such a law cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.”

SAF ad 1

Oral argument will possibly be scheduled early this coming winter, with a decision expected by June 2010. Gura will argue the case on behalf of the McDonald plaintiffs.

2009 GUN RIGHTS POLICY CONFERENCE THIS WEEKEND IN ST. LOUIS, MO BELLEVUE, WA – More than 700 gun rights activists from across the country will gather with the nation’s leading Second Amendment advocates this weekend at the Airport Renaissance Hotel in St. Louis, MO for the 24^th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, is scheduled to deliver a special address Saturday morning. In addition, former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, will keynote Saturday’s awards luncheon. Hosted by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), this annual conference provides an opportunity for firearms owners to meet and discuss important issues pending at the local and national levels. Speakers will include CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, SAF President Joseph Tartaro, plus attorney Alan Gura, winner of the landmark Second Amendment Heller case; Charles Cunningham, director of federal affairs, NRA Institute for Legislative Action; Tim Oliver, vice president, Missouri Concealed Carry; Kansas State Sen. Phillip Journey, Tennessee State Sen. Doug Jackson; Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association; Jake McGuigan, director of governmental affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and many others. A buffet reception co-hosted by the NRA and CCRKBA is scheduled Friday evening, 7-10 p.m. Conference panels begin at 8:30 Saturday morning, and at 9 a.m. Sunday, with adjournment at 1 p.m. The conference is supported by NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and other groups and individuals.Attendance is free. Additional information is available at: www.saf.orgThe Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, the Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >Copyright © 2009 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.
Second Amendment Foundation James Madison Building 12500 N.E. Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005	Voice: 425-454-7012 Toll Free: 800-426-4302 FAX: 425-451-3959

NRA-Backed Wicker Amendment Adopted By Senate

During consideration of H.R. 3288 (FY 2010 Transportation–Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill), Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) offered NRA-backed Amendment 2366 to reform policies regarding the transportation of firearms on Amtrak trains. Currently, passengers who choose to travel by passenger rail in the United States cannot transport a firearm in checked baggage as they can on airlines.

Known as the Wicker Amendment, this measure was adopted by the Senate on Wednesday, September 16, by a vote of 68-30, and would allow law-abiding Amtrak passengers the ability to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage while traveling by Amtrak train.

Wicker offered a similar amendment to a budget resolution on April 2. That NRA-supported amendment was adopted by the Senate by a 63-35 vote. Unfortunately, the amendment did not survive the conference committee and was not included in the final budget resolution.

“Americans should not have their Second Amendment rights restricted for any reason, particularly if they choose to travel on America’s federally subsidized rail line,” said Wicker.

Wicker’s appropriations amendment would cut more than $1.5 billion in taxpayer funding to Amtrak if the railroad does not change its policy to allow passengers to securely transport firearms in checked baggage. The policy change would also broaden gun owners’ choices in choosing how to travel, and benefit Amtrak by encouraging more business from shooters and hunters.

“Sportsmen who would like to use an Amtrak train for hunting trips cannot do so because they are not allowed to bring a firearm in checked luggage, something that is done every day at airports across our country,” Wicker said during floor debate.

Many Mayors Hear Your Voice: Grassroots politics is alive and well in the United States, as gun owners have been making their voices heard to their mayors. In the past few weeks, gun owners have been contacting their mayors who joined New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG).

The result: MAIG has lost over 50 members because gun owners took action to tell their mayors the truth about this organization. Many of the mayors who have resigned from MAIG have indicated they were unaware of the full extent of their anti-gun agenda. They now know they were mislead by MAIG’s claims that it was only concerned with “illegal” guns.

In response to NRA-ILA’s efforts to inform voters and mayors regarding the truth about MAIG and its anti-gun agenda, Bloomberg’s group has contacted mayors repeating their claim that they are only concerned with “illegal” guns, claiming that NRA is misrepresenting their agenda. But the facts are clear.

MAIG has never taken any direct action regarding illegal guns. (Click here to read more about MAIG.) All of their priorities, from repealing the Tiahrt amendment, to opposing interstate Right-to-Carry reciprocity, have been targeted at law-abiding gun owners. Law enforcement groups, like the Fraternal Order of Police, have made their support for the Tiahrt amendment clear. The Tiahrt amendment protects not only ongoing criminal investigations, but also the lives and safety of law-enforcement officers. (To read what FOP President Chuck Canterbury wrote on the Tiahrt amendment click here.)

The real reason MAIG opposes the Tiahrt amendment is because it interferes with the efforts of anti-gun mayors like Bloomberg, Boston’s Thomas Menino (a MAIG co-founder), and Chicago’s Richard Daley to bring bogus lawsuits against lawful firearm manufacturers. These suits are designed to punish gun makers for the acts of criminals, and to use the courts to impose strict regulations on gun sales that legislatures have rejected; gun regulations that negatively impact law-abiding gun buyers, but have no impact on criminals.

MAIG opposition to Right-to-Carry reciprocity is a clear example of their opposition to legal gun ownership and self-defense. Reciprocity would only apply to those who have permits, and then only if all local laws are followed. Criminals and gunrunners do not undergo background checks, take training courses, and seek certification to obtain a carry permit–law-abiding gun owners do.

Gun owners must keep up the pressure on their mayors to ensure that their rights are respected. If your mayor is a member of MAIG, contact him and let him know the truth about this anti-gun group’s real agenda. (To find if your mayor is a member of MAIG, click here.) If your mayor is one of those who has resigned, call and thank him for his support.

Like many rumors, there’s just a grain of truth to this one. Someone is recycling an old alert, which wasn’t even very accurate when it was new.

There actually was a U.S. Senate bill with that number that would have taxed handguns¾nine years ago. It was introduced by anti-gun Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and it would have included handguns under the National Firearms Act’s tax and registration scheme. This has nothing to do with anyone’s Form 1040, of course.

Fortunately, S. 2099 disappeared without any action by the Senate, back when Bill Clinton was still in the White House. We reported about it back then, just as we report about new anti-gun bills every week. Now, it’s time for gun owners to drop this old distraction and focus on the real threats at hand.

To read a story by NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox on this and other rumors, please click here.

Triggering The Vote! With each election, Americans go to the polls and make decisions that affect-for better or worse-the future of freedom in America.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 72 percent (142 million) of the eligible voting age citizen population (197 million) were registered to vote in 2004. This means that as many as 55 million people were eligible to vote, but unregistered-and therefore did not participate in the November 2004 elections. Far too many gun owners and hunters are among them. TRIGGER

NRA has created a new affiliate, the NRA Freedom Action Foundation (NRA-FAF), which focuses on nonpartisan voter registration and citizen education. The NRA-FAF has been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a tax-exempt charity under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Donations are fully deductible.

The NRA Freedom Action Foundation, in turn, has launched a new campaign-Trigger the Vote. And to serve as Honorary Chairman, we brought on board one of America’s most persuasive action heroes-Chuck Norris. Visit www.TriggertheVote.org to hear his message.

You can be part of the campaign. Visit the website, recommend it to friends-and use it to persuade any unregistered gun owners, hunters or shooters you may know to get on board by registering to vote.

Visit www.TriggertheVote.org today-and Trigger the Vote in your community.

2009 Gun Rights Policy Conference: This year’s Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) will be held in St. Louis, Missouri, on September 25, 26, & 27, at the Airport Renaissance hotel. The theme of this year’s conference is “Challenges Ahead.”

Celebrating its 24th year, the conference is a great place to meet national gun rights leaders and your fellow grassroots activists. This year’s conference promises to be action-packed, with more than 50 notable speakers, including NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. Discussion topics will include city gun bans, youth violence, “smart” guns, concealed carry, federal legislation, legal actions, gun show regulation, and state and local activity. There will also be a preview of upcoming court cases and a review of the U.S. Supreme Court Heller Decision.

Registration, conference books and materials, receptions, and a Saturday luncheon, are free. Participants are required to pay for their own lodging, travel, and other meals. For more information, or to register for this year’s GRPC, please call (800) 426-4302, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., PDT, or visit www.saf.org/default.asp?p=GRPC, to register on-line.

Grassroots Minute Video:

CALIFORNIA: Two Anti-Gun Bills Head to Governor’s Desk in California On Friday, September 11, the California Assembly passed Assembly Bill 962 by a 44 to 31 vote. AB962 now joins Senate Bill 585 on the desk of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) where they await his consideration. Please contact the Governor immediately and respectfully urge him to veto these bills. AB962 would require individuals purchasing ammunition to be fingerprinted and registered at the time of sale, and mandates that dealers keep these records and make them available for inspection by the California Department of Justice. Ammunition retailers would also have to store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. Finally, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited under AB962. Over 20 years ago, Congress abolished similar requirements because ammunition sales records were found to be useless for solving crimes. AB962 is a dire threat to our Second Amendment rights in the Golden State. SB585 would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition on the property or inside the buildings that comprise the Cow Palace in Daly City, just outside of San Francisco. SB585 is a stepping-stone to banning gun shows on all publicly-owned property in California. Please contact Governor Schwarzenegger TODAY and respectfully urge him to veto AB962 and SB585. The Governor can be reached by phone at 916-445-2841 or via fax at 916-558-3160. To e-mail Governor Schwarzenegger, please visit http://gov.ca.gov/interact.

MICHIGAN: Workplace Protection and Campus Carry Introduced in Michigan! In an effort to strengthen workers’ rights in Michigan, a number of pro-gun bills (HB5302, HB5303, SB792, and SB793) were introduced that would protect workers’ rights to lawfully store their personally-owned firearms in their vehicles, while prohibiting an employer from retaliating against an employee who exercises his or her rights. Also introduced this past week was Senate Bill 747. This legislation would allow permit holders who are at least 21 years old to carry a concealed firearm on college and university campuses by removing these locations from the list of prohibited places. At this time no action is required.

MISSSISSIPPI: NRA License Plates Now Available! Support your NRA by purchasing a specialized tag today! NRA license plates are now available through your county tax collector’s office. The cost is $31, with $24 of that going to the NRA Foundation State Account to promote firearms training, youth hunter education, shooting range development and other programs specifically in Mississippi.
For a list of county tax collectors and office locations, please visit
http://www.mstc.state.ms.us/info/offices/mvlinfo.htm

MISSOURI: Warren County Commission to Consider New Outdoor Youth Shooting Range on Monday, September 21! On Monday, September 21, the Warren County Commissioners will consider allowing a new outdoor youth shooting facility to be constructed. If approved by the Commissioners, the new range will be located in the southern part of Warren County and will provide new opportunities for youth-oriented shooting sports in the area. This range will give young, novice shooters the opportunity to learn proper firearm safety, hone their skills, and exercise their Second Amendment freedoms in a safe, controlled environment. The vote will take place at 2 p.m. at 107 W. Walton St. in Warrenton. Gun control advocates are actively pressuring commissioners to oppose the proposed shooting range. The Warren County Commissioners need to hear from NRA members TODAY! Please contact Warren County Commissioners Arden Engelage, Hubert Kluesner, and Dan Hampson at (636) 456-3045 and respectfully voice your support for the youth shooting range. Email addresses can be found here. Also, please try to attend the Monday, September 21 meeting and show your support.

OREGON: Opportunity to Expand Hunting Programs in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced that it will begin to draft a plan for the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge that will guide refuge management for the next 15 years. The 187,000-acre refuge located geese

in Harney County is one of the largest freshwater marshes in the country. Waterfowl hunting is available on approximately half of Malheur Lake and upland bird hunting is available on approximately one quarter of the refuge. One of the issues that the Service will be addressing is the adequacy of access and facilities for all of the wildlife dependent uses, like hunting and fishing, and opportunities to expand these programs. The Service is inviting comments from the public to gather suggestions and information on the scope of the issues to consider during the planning process. Comments are due by October 15, and can be e-mailed to FW1PlanningComments@fws.gov. Include “Malheur CCP” in the subject line of the message. Public meetings will be held and announced on the refuge’s website at http://www.fws.gov/malheur. For further information you may call 541-493-2612. It is important that those who hunt and fish in the refuge become active participants in the planning process to ensure that sportsmen’s interests are well represented in the plan that will be drafted.

TENNESSEE: Knoxville to Consider Removing Firearm Ban in Parks! On Tuesday, September 22, at 7:00 p.m., the Knoxville City Council will finally vote on an ordinance that would remove the long-time ban on firearms within city parks. Please contact the Mayor and members of the City Council and urge them to support efforts to overturn the current gun ban in city parks. If you are able, please attend the City Council Meeting in support of our Second Amendment rights. Citizens will be given the opportunity to speak. Please get there early! Mayor Bill Haslam can be reached by calling (865) 215-2040 and Council Members can be reached at (865) 215-2075. The hearing will be held in the City Council Building, located on 400 Main Street.

Bartlett to Consider Opting out of New Park Carry law! On Tuesday, September 22 at 7:00 p.m., the Bartlett City Aldermen will meet to consider an anti-gun ordinance which would ban the possession of all firearms in local parks, even by those who possess Right-to-Carry permits. If passed, this ordinance would strip gun owners of their right to carry a firearm for self-defense in all Bartlett parks. The hearing will be held at Bartlett City Hall, located at 6400 Stage Road. It is vital that you not only make plans to attend this hearing but also contact Mayor Keith McDonald at (901) 385-6444, and the City Alderman at (901) 385-6444, and voice your opposition to this ordinance that would eliminate your right to self-defense in local parks.

Knox County Attempting to Opt Out of New Park Carry Law On Monday, September 28, at 2:00 P.M, .the Knox County Commissioners will be hearing a resolution to opt-out of carrying firearms in county parks. The meeting will be held at the City County Building located at 400 Main Street in Knoxville. Please call 865-215-2534 in advance to be placed on the list to speak at the meeting. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please contact County Mayor Mike Ragsdale at 865-215-2005 and the County Commission at 865-215-2534 to voice your opposition to the resolution. You can also e-mail the Commissioners at commission@knoxcounty.org.

TEXAS: State Representative Dan Flynn to Host Town Hall Meeting on Monday, September 28 NRA members in Hunt, Rains & Van Zandt counties are encouraged to attend an upcoming town hall meeting for State Representative and strong Second Amendment supporter, Dan Flynn (R-2). The event is being hosted by the Texas Conservative Coalition, a conservative caucus of members of the Texas Legislature, and will take place at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, September 28, at the Fletcher Warren Civic Center, 5501 South Business Highway 69, in Greenville. Two key NRA-backed bills did not pass during the 2009 legislative session: a proposal prohibiting employers from enforcing policies against hard-working Texans who store firearms in their locked motor vehicles while parked at work, and a measure allowing Concealed Handgun Licensees to protect themselves on college and university campuses. Rep. Flynn co-sponsored both bills, but House leaders failed to set either of them for a timely vote by the full House. This is your chance to personally thank Rep. Flynn for his support and to urge him to push House leaders for a floor vote on both issues next session! If you plan to attend the meeting, please RSVP to FlynnTownHall@txcc.org.

VIRGINIA: Please join your fellow Virginia freedom-lovers at “An American Event”, to be held on Saturday, September 26, at Ritchie Lake Pavilion in Bealton. Gates open at 11:00 a.m., with events commencing at 1:00 p.m. The event will include activities for all age groups, including Colonial and World War II military encampments, vintage military air show, pony rides, moon bounce, monster trucks, live music, free food, surprise speakers and more. If you are interested in donating food, time or energy, please contact the organizers at 703-537-5445 or info@anamericanevent.org. Monetary donations will be given to aid wounded soldiers. With Virginia being one of only two states holding elections this year, your NRA-ILA Campaign Field Representative, Greg Mortensen, will be in attendance working NRA-ILA’s voter registration kiosk and discussing how you can get more involved in our efforts to elect pro-gun candidates to office this year. Greg can be reached at: nranmh1@gmail.com or 571-292-4796.

Reloading Clinics: Are you looking for a way to beat the high prices of ammo or are you having trouble finding your favorite ammo in stock at your local gun shop? The Virginia Shooting Sports Association (VSSA), the Official State Affiliate Association of NRA, has the answer. VSSA will be hosting reloading clinics around the Commonwealth starting in September. There will be clinics for both metallic shell reloading and shotgun shell reloading. The courses are designed to enable shooters with little or no prior experience in reloading to acquire the necessary knowledge, skills, and ability to produce safe, consistent, and accurate reloaded ammunition. The clinics will be held at the Gander Mountain stores in Fredericksburg, Richmond, Roanoke, and Winchester. For more information on cost and dates, go to http://www.myvssa.org/reloading.htm, or e-mail Dave Myers at Dave.Myers@myvssa.org. Class sizes are limited so register today!

WISCONSIN: State Senate Scheduled to Vote on Hunting Reform Bill! On Tuesday, September 22, the Wisconsin State Senate will vote on Senate Bill 243, which would repeal the current requirement that bow hunters wait at least three days after buying their hunting license before they begin hunting. This important reform legislation would remove a burdensome hurdle that negatively affects local and visiting hunters alike in the Badger State. Please contact your State Senator and respectfully urge him or her to support SB 243. You can contact your Senator by phone at (608) 266-9960. To find out who your State Senator is and for more contact information click here.

MURRAY’S ANTI-GUN BIGOTRY SHOWS

IN AMTRAK DEBATE, SAYS CCRKBA

BELLEVUE, WA – Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) is once again demonstrating her disdain for gun owners and their rights by opposing an amendment to her Amtrak funding legislation that would allow firearms to be carried in baggage aboard trains, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today. “Patty Murray evidently has a short memory span,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Has she already forgotten what happened to her friend, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, in the primary because of his extremist anti-gun philosophy? Surely she knows about Tuesday’s primary election results in New York City, where anti-gunner Richard Aborn came in last in a three-way race for Manhattan prosecutor by running on his gun control record.” Murray is opposing an amendment, added to her Amtrak bill by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), that would allow train travelers to transport firearms in their luggage, provided the guns are declared at check-in and they are locked up for transport. This is no different than flying with firearms, Gottlieb noted, “and people do that every day.” “The amendment passed 68-30,” Gottlieb noted, “and Murray’s opposition shows she is way out of the mainstream on this issue. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid supports the measure. People used to take firearms on trains all the time. Someone should tell the senator that constitutional rights don’t end at the Amtrak boarding platform.” Murray argues that the amendment would be too costly and time-consuming, because Amtrak would have to create a process for checking and tracking guns.

“That’s a bogus argument,” Gottlieb countered, “and she knows it. The Transportation Security Administration already has that process down pat. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. That option has apparently not occurred to her, or maybe it has and she just can’t get beyond her narrow gun prohibitionist viewpoint.

“Amtrak has been losing money for years,” Gottlieb concluded. “Maybe it’s because American gun owners won’t travel with a carrier that treats them like outcasts. Maybe gun owners will return that sentiment when Murray runs for re-election next year.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

WHAT ELSE YOU CAN DO:

Join the NRA and CRPA now!
I
If you received this CALIFORNIA-ALERT SYSTEM (CAL-ERTs) message from sources other than your own personal subscription, we encourage you to subscribe to this free service at http://e-govmail.com/cgi-bin/subscribe.cgi?to=nramemberscouncils.com . We won’t send you messages very often, but when we do, something important is happening.
Circulate this alert to every firearms owner, shooter, hunter, club, and freedom-loving American that you know and ask them to help.
Read the “Open Letter to California’s Sportsmen” at http://www.calnra.com/caspecial/openletter.shtml
Subscribe to NRA-ILA alerts from NRA HQ — https://secure.nraila.org/EmailSignup.aspx
Subscribe to CRPA alerts at — http://www.crpa.org/lb_survey.asp

f you are not already a member of your local NRA Members’ Council, JOIN NOW at http://www.calnra.com/volunteer/ It costs you nothing but a little of your time – volunteering to help the NRA regain our Second Amendment rights in California.

By whois2811 September 17, 2009

33 Comments to “Second Amendment Issues”

By Wyoming Real Estate, December 27, 2009 @ 6:40 pm

It’s funny that you nevertheless spoke up! I have been waiting for someone to bring this out to the open! Anyway… nice post. I will be back.
By freeware spyware removal, December 30, 2009 @ 10:03 pm

I absolutely am loving this blog totally gonna have to remember to put this on my blogroll.
By Gene Igtanloc, January 9, 2010 @ 12:01 am

Thank you. Very helpful posting.
By Hipolito M. Wiseman, January 10, 2010 @ 3:07 am

A lot of useful information. Thank you!
By Self Esteem, January 10, 2010 @ 7:30 pm

Thank you so much, there aren’t enough posts on this… or at least i cant find them. I am turning into such a blog nut, I just cant get enough and this is such an important topic… i’ll be sure to write something about your site
By Self Esteem, January 13, 2010 @ 1:04 am

Thank you so much, there aren’t enough posts on this… keep up the good work
By Roderick Vandre, January 21, 2010 @ 11:22 am

Hey-o, just found your site on bing. You have a bunch of sweet posts!
By life insurance calculators, January 22, 2010 @ 7:45 pm

Nice blog and some interesting information, I found it really by mistake looking for something else. Have bookmarked it and will be back soon.
By Private Jet Ownership, January 27, 2010 @ 4:37 am

I would not have found this article if it were not for a blog who linked to it.
By LAPD Oral Exam, January 27, 2010 @ 7:40 am

Hello. This is kind of an “unconventional” question , but have other visitors asked you how get the menu bar to look like you’ve got it? I also have a blog and am really looking to alter around the theme, however am scared to death to mess with it for fear of the search engines punishing me. I am very new to all of this …so i am just not positive exactly how to try to to it all yet. I’ll just keep working on it one day at a time Thanks for any help you can offer here.
By Corina Handsom, January 29, 2010 @ 4:21 pm

Good Post. Can you email me back, please. Awaiting your Answer.
By Laramie River Ranch, February 1, 2010 @ 6:37 pm

I REALLY liked your post and blog! It took me a minute bit to stumble upon your site…but I book marked it. Would you mind if I placed a link back to your post? Well Wishes!I enjoyed reading your writing!
By Gregory Despain, February 8, 2010 @ 2:19 pm

Great post! I hardly ever comment on blogs, but your well reasoned and thoughtful analysis of the subject just required I give you a pat on the back.
By Mike Abbatiello, February 10, 2010 @ 12:04 pm

I will not debate with your decisions because I think you’re right on the money! You have put together a coherent case for your sentiments and now I know more about this special topic. Gives Thanks for this astonishing post and i will come back for more.
By John Meach, February 13, 2010 @ 5:00 am

I’m rather interested in this now. Please e-mail me more information
By Insurance, February 21, 2010 @ 5:37 am

Hi, I can
By Joeann Gulston, March 1, 2010 @ 11:10 am

You have some very interesting articles on here, I look forward to more posts
By medical insurance, March 5, 2010 @ 3:18 pm

“One out of three women in the United States has an abortion by the age of 45. Still the experience remains shrouded in silence, and for some women, shame. As if making the decision alone wasn’t hard enough.
By whois2811, March 5, 2010 @ 7:00 pm

Didn’t used to be that way, in fact it only became that way after welfare was brought in and people found it a way to increase their income without having to do it the old way. WORK FOR IT!
By kbone, March 9, 2010 @ 10:42 pm

You have really great taste on catch article titles, even when you are not interested in this topic you push to read it
By Pantry Moth, March 17, 2010 @ 8:59 am

Hi, You have some really Great articles on your blog. I also like the theme and the layout as well. excellent work!
By http://usinforeclosure.com/2010/02/09/mortgage-modification/, March 18, 2010 @ 9:55 am

Hi, Good content throughout the site. This page is probably where I got the most useful information for my research. Thanks for posting, maybe we can see more on this. Are you aware of any other websites on this subject
By Online Shopping, March 20, 2010 @ 4:55 am

Your blog is so informative … keep up the good work!!!!
By So Deblauw, March 22, 2010 @ 2:06 pm

Great post, very informative, thank you for sharing!
By jasmin live, April 2, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

Took me awhile to read all the comments, but I really love the article. It proved to be very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here! It’s always nice when you can not only be informed, but also engaged! I’m sure you had fun writing this article.
By Andrew A. Sailer, May 23, 2010 @ 2:13 am

I like your blog a lot. Well done!!! I ll come back here soon;) good luck and everything the best
By Yong Flinders, May 27, 2010 @ 9:59 pm

I’ve just subscribed to your RSS feed. I love your content.
By Hortencia Anselmi, June 6, 2010 @ 12:27 am

Hi there,I like your site and it looks very interesting and easy to read,really!. I came from Spain. I love the Soccer and cannot wait till 11th June, can you?.But there is a problem camming from FIFA. It is that doesn´t choose the best teams in this planet for the World Cup which it should otherwise don´t call the World Cup a final, if you want to play football for the soul of competition then go to the olympics games. this is basically what the World Cup is turning to, and it su…, ire needed to beat france to be in and is not, jap beat lowly teams as bahrain, qatar, kuwait, to be in, is this justice I dont think so, just because you are in the World Cup it doesn´t mean that you have the quality to be in like jap can attes. Any way, I desire to see a super final on 11th July and my favorite winner team is Corea,and my favorite player is Gerard Pique.Good blog and keep going.Cu!
By Dylan Daughton, June 6, 2010 @ 2:11 am

Good post. What other WP resources do you suggest?
By Orlando Ticket, June 15, 2010 @ 12:55 am

Excellent job.
By Cheap Web Hosting, June 27, 2010 @ 1:19 am

I am always searching online for articles that can help me. Thank you
By Breann Giannell, August 26, 2010 @ 11:43 am

Thanks for giving out your deep thoughts. I have got to acknowledge that I think you nailed it on this one.
By Burton Haynes, September 1, 2010 @ 4:07 pm

Very informative article… Looking forward for more articles on your blog