Charlie T Waite

December 4, 2019 Have you been screened positive for the presence of firearms in the home? Under legislation filed by State Representative Jon Santiago of Boston, the Department of Public Health will create a program for “firearm screening and counseling”. For many years the anti-civil rights crowd has tried to make gun violence a public health crisis. Now it appears that they want to treat simple gun ownership as a disease! The bill itself is rather vague as it does not state what kind of patients would be “screened”. Would it be every patient seen, no matter the reason? The language used in the bill is very concerning and degrading. Mandating that people are screened for gun ownership as if we have a communicable disease is outrageous. The bill also mandates that we receive some sort of counseling if we are “screened positive” for firearms. The bill does use the term “safety counseling”, but why the word counseling? When GOAL provides firearms safety education, we don’t refer to it as counseling. Simply put, not only the bill, but the terminology used shows the disdain for simply exercising our civil rights in the Commonwealth. H.2005 An Act to Prevent Gun Violence Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 111 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 236 the following section:-Section 237. The director shall establish a program for firearm screening and counseling. Such program shall systematically screen all patients for the presence of firearms in the home. The director shall, after consultation with recognized professional medical groups and such other sources as the director deems appropriate, promulgate regulations establishing (1) the means by which and the intervals at which patients shall be screened for the presence of firearms in the home and (2) guidelines for safety counseling for individuals that screen positive for the presence of firearms in the home.SECTION 2. This section shall take effect 6 months after its passage.

Correct

New York State Rifle & Pistol - Will the city succeed in avoiding review? Major Businesses Under Fire From Gun-Free Zone Advocates, FBI Failed to Complete Hundreds of Thousands of Background Checks, Philly asks parents to sweep kids’ rooms for guns. Matthew Larosiere is the Director of Legal Policy at Firearms Policy Coalition. You can connect with him on Twitter @MattLaAtLaw. New York State Rifle & Pistol - Will the city succeed in avoiding review? Monday saw the Supreme Court hear oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. The City of New York, a case we’ve been discussing almost ad nauseum for the last year or so. As we’ve also been covering, the city engaged in what Justice Gorsuch called a “herculean, late-breaking effort[] to moot the case.” That characterization is pretty apt. We’ve been unsure whether the City’s attempt to get out of review would work. This puts the justices between a rock and a hard place. The Constitution is pretty clear about the requirements for federal courts to have jurisdiction over a case in Article III. There’s a reason for strict standing requirements, but the ones in our constitution enable situations like this. If the City has really “mooted” the case, the Court has no legal jurisdiction to decide the case. There are doctrines designed to prevent abuses of mootness. Things like voluntary cessation, where the government stops doing an abuse to avoid being set straight, then continues the conduct later on. The City planned ahead for this, working closely with the State of New York to pre-empt its conduct. This is all in an obvious, desperate attempt to prevent the Court from clarifying the Second Amendment and enabling lower courts to decide cases in a more rational way. The focus of the argument was pretty squarely on mootness. The liberal wing of the Court have bought the mootness argument, with Kavanaugh and Roberts being the possible “swing” on the mootness question. Nothing we can do now but watch and see. Even if this case fails on mootness, there are more solid cases in the pipeline the Court could just as easily take up. Check out FPC’s amicus brief in Medina and Worman for some examples of cases waiting in the wings. Major Businesses Under Fire From Gun-Free Zone Advocates The holidays are finally here and what better way to celebrate than to read score cards on... retail store gun policies? Various anti-gun organizations have formed a loose confederation called Business Must Act, which assigned grades to 29 companies ranging from “A” (read: most oppressive policies) to “F” (we presume this stands for Freedom) based on three standards: prohibiting customers from bearing arms, donating to Congressional recipients of NRA dollars, “demanding action on gun reform,” and also granting bonus points for ending gun sales. This isn’t the first time private businesses have tried to enforce their political views on legitimate businesses, and it certainly won’t be the last. These measures have nothing to do with gun safety. Of the above factors, only prohibiting customers from carry can be even remotely considered related to safety, and even still, such policies are largely unenforceable. The rest of the metrics are obvious attempts at accruing passive support for defeating political candidates and policies that their group considers undesirable. In addition to being unrelated to safety, the scores are at times bizarre. The group gave Kroger, a grocery store chain, five bonus points for no longer selling guns. The silver lining is that you are always free to shop at and support Second Amendment-friendly businesses, and the “Freedom” rank might be helpful for that. Fidelity, Bravery, Incompetence - The FBI Failed to Complete Hundreds of Thousands of Background Checks Over the Last Six Years On Wednesday, Roll Call reported that data they had obtained indicates that the Federal Bureau of Investigation purged 1,115,630 unresolved NICS transactions from the beginning of 2014 through September 30, 2019. Out of an average 8.2 million background checks per year, these purges constitute an average of 2.3% of all applications. This is nearly double the percent of denied applications, which is only 1.2%, and pales in comparison to the number of background checks delayed longer than 72 hours which rang in at an average of 10.7%. So what can we glean from this? The federal government is massively inefficient at regulating the sale of firearms, despite substantial funding and Congressional support. Rampant erroneous actions on the part of the government here is also consistent with our position that universal background checks won’t have a significant impact on public safety, especially not enough to justify the costs to Americans. Philly asks parents to sweep kids’ rooms for guns In a fantastically bizarre twist on the typical tactic to “get guns off streets” through buybacks, the Philadelphia City Council, police commissioner, and others urged parents this week to search their children’s rooms for weapons, and to hand in any discovered derringers or hidden holsters at four churches on Saturday. This whole charade is just weird. It makes one wonder how many underage kids managed to get hold of guns in Philly for the city to even conceive of this. Also, asking others to turn in someone else’s property with “no questions asked” is a pretty dubious position for the government to put itself in. Does this mean the city doesn’t care if parents of legal adults are empowered to dispose of a lawfully owned gun? Clinging to an absurd conception that a specific firearm has any relevance to a criminal, acting Commissioner Christine Coulter rationalized the move with “if we get one turn-in from a gun buyback, odds are that gun will never be used in violence.” In similar fashion, if I feed my keyboard to a trash compactor, it will not likely be used to write about gun rights again. This, of course, has nothing to do with my propensity to do the same.

As the Nation’s oldest civil rights organization, we recognize civic engagement as a virtue not a vice. Liberty is reliant upon the participation of free people, and this includes the vast number of citizens and communities who are lawfully exercising their rights under the First Amendment to defend their freedoms under the Second. It is the tyrannical nature of politicians that triggers sanctuary, not the other way around. The NRA has steadfastly defended freedom for nearly 150 years, and we have no intention of suppressing virtuous voices against governmental oppression—censoring is what our opponents do.

On December 10th, the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Health will hear House Bill 2005 to impose a mandatory requirement for doctors to ask patients about firearms in their homes and for the type of “counseling” they would have to provide for those who have firearms. This would essentially deputize health care professionals to spread whatever anti-gun propaganda the state wishes. Please contact committee members and urge them to OPPOSE H.2005. House Bill 2005, sponsored by Representative Jon Santiago (D-9th Suffolk), would direct state authorities to create a program for doctors to “screen all patients for the presence of firearms in the home” and would vaguely call for “guidelines for safety counseling for individuals that screen positive for the presence of firearms.” The government would inject itself into the vital doctor-patient relationship. Injecting politics and ideology into this relationship will sow distrust and resentment that could lead to adverse healthcare outcomes for the patient. Again, please contact committee members and urge them to OPPOSE H.2005. In addition, NRA members and Second Amendment supporters are encouraged to attend the public hearing. Details may be found here and below: December 10th, 2019, from 1:00PM-5:00PM Hearing Room A-2 24 Beacon St. Boston, MA 02133

Bloomberg-Bought Virginia Legislature Seeks to Ban Private Firearms Transfers

Dana Loesch is a nationally syndicated talk radio host, television personality, and best-selling author.

December 5, 2019 Hearing a major Second Amendment case for the first time in a decade, the United States Supreme Court is showing little inclination to make a ruling on the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. V. City of New York. The case in question challenges the constitutionality of a New York City gun law that prevents law-abiding gun owners from transporting firearms outside of their residence. A pro-gun decision in this case would set a critical legal precedent against cities that attempt to restrict the rights of gun owners to travel with their legally owned firearms. Unfortunately, once the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the New York City law was quickly repealed, and although the end of this clearly unconstitutional law is good news for gun owners in New York, it may have also killed any chance for the high court to declare such a law unconstitutional. On Monday, Justice Sotomayor summed up the position of the liberal wing of the Court saying, "You're asking us to take a case in which the other side has thrown in the towel and opine on a law that's not on the books anymore." 1 With the liberal Justices and the council for the City of New York arguing that the case is no longer valid, Justices Alito and Gorsuch challenged the mootness argument and pushed for a decision. Fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh abstained from asking any questions pertaining to the case. Unfortunately, for pro-gun Americans, the efforts of Justices Alito and Gorsuch appear inadequate to push discussion further and the opportunity to set a monumental precedent against unconstitutional gun control may have been missed. The National Association for Gun Rights will continue to monitor this case and all events that pertain to the preservation of the Second Amendment. 1 = Williams Pete. Supreme Court appears unlikely to hand victory to gun rights backers in 2nd Amendment case. NBC News. Dec 2nd, 2019

If you watch the news and listen to politicians, they’ll gleefully tell you that you need “less” gun for defensive purposes; in fact, as we all know, the opposite is true. As the saying goes, if you’re in a fair fight with an attacker, then you need to reconsider your tactics. If the AR-15 is “too much gun” for a home defense rifle, be sure not to tell this particular 61-year-old Summerfield, Florida man. One night in July 2019, four men, two of whom were armed with a pistol and shotgun, burst through the front and back doors of his home simultaneously to commit armed robbery. Using an AR-15 by his bedside, the homeowner fired back, hitting two of the home invaders. One criminal died at the scene and the other later at the hospital. Police quickly captured the remaining two. The homeowner was hospitalized for a gunshot wound he sustained in the attack. So, yes, in the real world, there are some compelling reasons to consider America’s Rifle for home defense. Here are three. Less Penetration Did I say “less penetration?” Why yes, I did. Compared to standard hollow point (or FMJ) pistol rounds or buckshot, the standard and inexpensive .223 caliber, 55-grain full-metal jacket AR-15 projectile will penetrate fewer barriers. The high speed combined with these relatively lightweight projectiles will cause yawing and fragmentation. While such a bullet will still penetrate several layers of drywall, it won’t go through as many as a 9 mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP or buckshot load typically will. To cut penetration even more, use a fragmenting varmint load like Hornady’s V-Max. Adjustability That adjustable stock on the back end isn’t to shorten and lengthen scariness. It’s to fit different-sized people or those who change clothing. While a police officer may shorten the stock when wearing a bullet-resistant vest, we civilians of varying size may change it if we need a shorter length of pull owing to our physical size. We might also shorten the stock when wearing heavy clothing in the colder months. Whatever the reason, you’ll shoot better when using a gun that fits. Modularity Perhaps the most interesting consideration is that there’s no “standard” AR-15. As a platform with a variety of configurations and accessories, you can decide what you need for home defense and configure yours accordingly. Choose your barrel length, handguard types, grip styles, stock, trigger, bolt and virtually anything else. And we’re not even considering the vast array of compatible accessories like slings, lights, lasers, sights and optics. There are a number of compelling reasons to consider an AR-15 for home defense. In fairness, there are some drawbacks to consider, especially when comparing the rifle to a handgun. Maneuverability is a factor as the AR-15 is longer and bulkier. You’ll also want to consider that rifles require two hands to operate. While most of us shoot handguns better two-handed, one will do in a pinch, thereby freeing up the other for a cell phone or light.