Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. This Buffalo massacre dominated gun news this week as you might expect. The horrific attack sent waves through the political world. President Joe Biden visited the city to memorialize the victims. At the same time, he used his speech to call for a new "assault weapons" ban. Of course, New York has such a ban in place already so it wouldn't have prevented this shooting. And Congress, even the House, hasn't brought an assault weapons ban up for a vote let alone passed one. So, the call is likely to fall on deaf ears. But there is something that could have been done to stop the Buffalo shooting. Something that should have been done. Something that was possible under the laws already in place. I take a look at why the shooter should not have been able to buy his gun in a piece for members. Of course, Buffalo was not the only news this week. We also saw top ammo brands donating six figures to humanitarian efforts in Ukraine after a successful fundraising campaign. And a new ATF report shows the industry has grown tremendously over the past several decades. I also examine the leaked ruling in the Supreme Court abortion case to see how it might impact the Court's gun case. Plus, Allen West joined the podcast for an exclusive interview on his plan to challenge Wayne LaPierre for control of the NRA. file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/msohtmlclip/clip_image001.png Biden Pushes ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban in Buffalo Massacre Speech By Stephen Gutowski President Joe Biden (D.) renewed his call to ban AR-15s and other popular firearms in response to the murder of 10 Black Americans at a grocery store in Buffalo. During his speech to the victims’ families and other community members on Tuesday, the President mourned the loss of life and denounced the racist motivations of the attacker. He also called on Congress to pass a new “assault weapons” ban in response to the attack. He argued reviving the ban, which was in place between 1994 and 2004, would help prevent similar shootings. “We have to refuse to live in a country where Black people going about a weekly grocery shopping can be gunned down by weapons of war employed in a racist cause,” Biden said. Click here to continue reading. file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/msohtmlclip/clip_image001.png Analysis: Buffalo Massacre Was Another Shooting That Should Have Been Prevented Under Current Law [Member Exclusive] By Stephen Gutowski The Buffalo shooter should not have been able to buy the gun he used. Somebody should have stepped in to stop him be it his parents, school administrators, or the police. The signs were there. The flags were bright red. The laws were in place. Nobody took the steps that would have made it illegal for him to buy or own guns. And he isn’t alone. This story has been repeated over and over again. The accused Buffalo shooter, who is 18-years-old, told a teacher he wanted to commit suicide and murder when asked what he planned to do after school ended, according to New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D.). The threat was considered serious enough that he was taken by police for a psychological evaluation. Had he been involuntarily committed over the threats, he would have become prohibited from buying or owning guns under federal law. That didn’t happen. Had somebody filed a red flag order, he could have been prevented from legally buying or owning guns for up to a year under current New York law. His family, police, or school officials could have done it. That didn’t happen either. If you're already a member, click here to read the full piece. Otherwise, you should consider joining today to get access to hundreds of exclusive posts and other perks! file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/msohtmlclip/clip_image001.png ATF Report Shows Massive Increase in Gun Industry Since 2000 By Ben Marquis Firearms commerce has substantially increased over the past two decades as the number of licensed firearms manufacturers and firearms sold to the general public have soared. That is according to a lengthy report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) released on Tuesday. The report, which covers the period from 2000 through 2020, revealed that domestically manufactured firearms have increased by 187 percent, firearms exported from U.S. manufacturers by 240 percent, and firearms imported into the U.S. from foreign manufacturers by 350 percent. The ATF reported that approximately 3.9 million new firearms were manufactured in 2000, a number that climbed to 11.3 million in 2020. That equated to roughly 1,397 new guns per 100,000 persons in 2000 but jumped to around 3,410 per 100,000 in 2020. Read more by clicking here. file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/msohtmlclip/clip_image001.png Top American Ammo Makers to Send Ukraine Six-Figure Donation By Jake Fogleman Major American ammunition brands are continuing to support victims of the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. Remington and Federal Ammunition announced that they would be donating $100,000 toward humanitarian aid efforts in Ukraine on Monday. Proceeds generated from the sales of a special T-shirt with a Ukrainian flag and the famous call for ammunition of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky provided the funding for the donation. “This campaign and the tremendous response exceeded our expectations, forcing several re-orders of the t-shirts,” Jason Vanderbrink, President of Remington and Federal as well as CCI and Speer Ammunition, said in a statement. “I’m so proud of our loyal customers for being willing to pitch in and support the people of Ukraine who are suffering because of the horrors of war. Our ammo brands are proud to do our part.” Click here to read more. file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/msohtmlclip/clip_image001.png Podcast: Allen West Explains Why He’s Running Against Wayne LaPierre By Stephen Gutowski We have an exclusive interview with Allen West for you this week. He announced on Monday he would accept the call of current and former board members to challenge Wayne LaPierre for the control of the NRA. He will be pitted against the long-time head of the organization in a fight for the group’s future. The results will determine how the NRA moves forward after years of controversy coupled with financial and legal struggles. West says the gun-rights group is in desperate need of reform. He pledged to bring transparency to how the group handles its finances. He accused a “cabal” of top NRA leaders of blocking reform efforts and putting the group in legal limbo. He said the recent downturn in membership even as gun ownership has grown is a symptom of LaPierre’s mismanagement. He argued leadership had lost the trust of members and that was the core of their problem. He said restoring trust is his top priority. West attacked New York Attorney General Letitia James (D.) for being biased against the NRA, but said LaPierre had given her the ammunition she is now using to try and capture control of the group. You can read more about the interview and listen to it by clicking here. It's also available on our YouTube channel. file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/msohtmlclip/clip_image001.png Analysis: What the Supreme Court Draft Striking Down Roe v Wade Could Mean for its Gun Case [Member Exclusive] By Stephen Gutowski The recently leaked draft of the majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s abortion case may provide insight into what’s coming in its gun case. Last week, Politico published the first draft of a proposed majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The rare leak shows at least five justices had sided with Mississippi in upholding the state’s ban on abortions during preliminary deliberations. The first draft, written by Justice Samuel Alito, explicitly overturns the Roe v. Wade precedent. The Dobbs opinion discusses how the Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate Second Amendment protections to the states. But Alito goes out of his way to say the decision impacts no other issues. “We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” Alito writes. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” However, the reasoning Alito relies on in Dobbs is one that the Court could also use to strike down New York’s restrictive gun-carry law in NYSRPA v. Bruen. His underlying argument for why abortion is not a constitutionally-protected right is one that activists have long said proves keeping and bearing arms is. If you’re a Reload member, click here to read full analysis. If you're not yet a member, please consider joining today to get access to this and hundreds of other exclusive posts!
  2. North Carolina gun owners know that anti-gun Sheriffs have been slow walking the process to obtain Pistol Purchase and Concealed Handgun Permits. But GOA and Grass Roots North Carolina have fought for you, and we achieved a big win for gun owners! Our litigation against the unreasonable delays and excuses fabricated by Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden to create backlogs of thousands of unissued Pistol Purchase and Concealed Handgun Permits to lawful applicants in Mecklenburg County resulted in the issuance of a preliminary injunction by Superior Court Judge Eady-Williams. In a nutshell, this decision says, “…the Court concludes as a matter of law Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits and are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief…” You can learn more about the case here. The order itself enjoins Sheriff McFadden from: Failing to process pistol purchase permit applications within the 14 days required by North Carolina statute; Failing to process concealed handgun permit applications within the 45 days required by statute; Failing to request mental health records to process concealed handgun permit applications within 10 days as required by statute; and Failing to process fingerprints for concealed handgun permits within 5 business days. You can see the full order of injunctive relief by clicking here. This decision sets a performance bar not only for Mecklenburg County but for any and ALL County Sheriffs who may flaunt the “Shall Issue” nature of Pistol Permit and Concealed Handgun Permit issues. To that end, we encourage any North Carolinians who see their application(s) for Pistol Purchase or Concealed Handgun permit issues unduly delayed to contact us with details by email here. While successful in our endeavor, it has not come without a cost. This litigation is expensive and time consuming. And as this case proceeds, our costs continue to go up. Please consider making a contribution to GOA to help further this battle. Gun Owners of America will use your support efficiently and effectively in defending your gun rights in North Carolina.
  3. CHICAGO (May 16, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) have filed an important brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Miller v. Smith, urging the Court to reverse a misguided decision of the trial court that upheld Illinois law and regulations that bans firearm possession in child care facilities, including home day care facilities and foster family homes, and prevents an Illinois couple from exercising their fundamental right to keep and bear arms in their home. The brief, authored by FPCAF director of constitutional studies and Second Amendment scholar Joseph Greenlee, can be found at FPCLaw.org. The brief makes clear that by prohibiting Jennifer and Darren Miller from possessing operable firearms within the home where they live and work, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services is in clear violation of the Constitution. The brief argues that the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision requires that courts place Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in defense of hearth and home above all governmental interests, that Heller’s “sensitive places” dictum is limited to carrying arms in public locations, that there is no historical justification for classifying a private home as a “sensitive place,” and that the law is poorly tailored because substantially less burdensome alternatives exist. “The Second Amendment explicitly protects the right of the people to keep arms,” said Greenlee. “Forbidding people like the Millers to keep operable firearms in the home merely because they are foster parents or provide daycare is a clear violation of this fundamental right. We hope that the Seventh Circuit will reverse the wrongly decided lower court opinion.” The filing of this important brief is made possible by FPC’s members and donors. Individuals who would like to join the FPC Grassroots Army can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.
  4. Researchers in California have published the results of a study evaluating the effectiveness of so-called “gun violence restraining orders” (a.k.a. “extreme risk protection orders” or “red flag” orders). Assembly Bill 1014, was enacted in California in 2014, and since then, 19 states and the District of Columbia have adopted similar laws. Authors of the study, Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law, include Garen Wintemute, the director of the University of California Firearm Violence Research Center and a “key contributor” who helped draft AB 1014. Very briefly, these laws create a mechanism that allows a family member, police officer, or some other third party (in California, this includes coworkers, school employees, and teachers) to file a petition in court, supported by allegations that the person named in the petition, at some point in the future, poses a danger to themselves or others by possessing or having access to a firearm. If the court is satisfied that there is some potential of future harm, it issues an order authorizing police to take away all firearms the person owns or controls, and prohibiting the person from possessing or acquiring firearms while the order is in effect. The initial court process may be “ex parte” (without any notice to, or an opportunity to respond by, the affected person) or a full hearing on notice. In California, the ex parte order has a minimum duration of 21 days. Once confirmed in a full hearing, the “temporary” order is in effect for up to five years, although orders may be renewed indefinitely. The researchers examined whether implementation of the California gun violence restraining order (GVRO) law was associated with decreased rates of “firearm assault” or firearm self-harm between 2016 (when AB 1014 took effect) and 2019. They compared the post-GVRO rate of firearm violence in San Diego County (chosen because it had a “high GVRO uptake” or incidence of GVROs) with the estimated outcome in a synthetic control unit (a combination of California control counties weighted to match the firearm violence trend in San Diego, 2005-2015, as closely as possible). The researchers “hypothesized that the GVRO law would be associated with a reduction in firearm violence.” The results, though, showed that the GVRO law had no impact – “we found no evidence that GVRO implementation was associated with decreased firearm assault or firearm self-harm at the population level in San Diego.” The researchers sought to qualify this result by noting that the findings could be “partially explained by access to firearms through the underground market,” or “could reflect a true absence of association or limitations of our study; further research is needed to determine which of these is the case.” A 2,000 word editorial authored by another set of researchers, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concurrently with the Wintemute study, repeated this “telling caveat” and sought to downplay the findings, expressing the hope that “this will deter gun industry lobbyists from spinning the study’s results as definitive evidence that ‘gun laws do not work’…” “Spin” is a remarkable word to use here. The editorial authors are self-described “collaborators” in another, ongoing study on GVROs, “funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research, which includes [the 2022 study researchers] Dr's Pear and Wintemute.” One of the editorial authors is a “founding member” and serves on the Executive Steering Committee of a consortium that was “influential in developing the Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) law in California,” the very law under review. The palpable spin – and spin it surely is – is the attempt to diminish, or dismiss entirely, the findings as “premature,” or affected by “unobserved contextual factors specific to San Diego County,” or due to the small number of GVROs compared to the “theoretical pool” of “suicide-planners in gun-owning households and angry gun-carriers in San Diego County,” resulting in “too small a pebble to make much of a ripple in such a big pond.” Would these same elaborate justifications and qualifications be advanced as forcefully or at all had the study results reflected the promises that this legislation was predicated on? The Wintemute study established that rates of firearm injury and death had (to use the words of the editorial’s authors) “no statistically significant association with GVRO implementation.” The results are based on data from a jurisdiction that has had a GVRO law in place for several years. The study used similar methodology to much social science research, that these researchers are normally happy to draw conclusions from, assuming that they’re the “right” conclusions. But, when this “evidence” points to the conclusion that gun control doesn’t work, these same researchers will downplay their own results. The NRA and other organizations have opposed GVRO-type laws for many reasons, notably because they deprive citizens of their fundamental rights and property without due process safeguards and a clear evidentiary basis. Orders may issue unchallenged, without notice or the opportunity to respond, on flimsy grounds and without any evidence of actual wrongdoing. The ACLU of Rhode Island expressed “great concern” about a “red flag” law because the “standard for seeking and issuing an order is so broad it could routinely be used against people who engage in ‘overblown political rhetoric’ on social media” or based on a person’s “mere possession of firearms,” and because the process sets a precedent “for the use of coercive measures against individuals not because they are alleged to have committed any crime, but because somebody believes they might, someday, commit one.” In one troubling indicator that appears to bear out these concerns, an early analysis showed that the vast majority of California GVROs that were issued “ex parte” (without notice) were later not confirmed or extended by a court in a full hearing. The flip side of “gun industry lobbyists … spinning the study’s results” to show gun laws don’t work is gun control proponents continuing to maintain that that GVROs are an effective way of addressing suicide and gun crime despite their own study results being incompatible with that notion. The researchers here maintain that “[d]espite our null findings, the state of the evidence overall supports GVROs and related legislation as tools that may be useful in preventing firearm injury and death,” and the editorial collaborators dismiss the study as simply an “early report” with new studies and more work needed. As it happens, the unintended consequence of this gratuitous and excessive spin – the over-rationalizing and minimizing of the results – is to undermine the reliability and credibility of any further research endeavors and trivialize future findings.
  5. Yesterday, the Oklahoma House passed pro-gun, firearm discrimination prevention legislation, House Bill 3144. House Bill 3144 hinges on one final Senate vote before heading to Governor Stitt’s desk! Please contact your State Senator and ask them to SUPPORT House Bill 3144. House Bill 3144 expands free enterprise by prohibiting companies that discriminate in the provision of their financial services against the firearm and ammunition industry, from entering into contracts with government entities in the state. Some companies believe they are morally superior to the good people of Oklahoma, and HB 3144 ensures that they are prevented from benefitting from discriminatory practices. According to industry surveys, nearly 75% of firearm industry members have been denied financial services solely because of their affiliation with the firearm industry. These practices also extend to businesses that sell hunting equipment, teach firearm safety courses, make gun safes, etc. Again, please contact your State Senator and ask them to SUPPORT House Bill 3144.
  6. For anyone who ever needed proof of how crucial gun rights are to our survival and our safety, I have just two words of advice: Remember Ukraine! You saw the pictures and video from that war zone. Thousands of men and women from every walk of life lined up to get the firearms they needed to defend themselves and their country from Russian invaders. Let’s be clear: The highest purpose of your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is to protect innocent life from any and every aggressor. The simple fact is that invading armies, foreign dictators, domestic tyrants, angry mobs and would-be rapists and killers all share one Achilles’ heel: The possibility that their victims might be armed. It’s the one thing they fear the most. Because it’s the one thing that can stop them. Even some longtime anti-gun media pundits have seen the light, admitting that for the helpless citizens of Ukraine, firearms are the one thing that can give them a fighting chance. Yet even as Ukraine restores the gun rights of its citizens, President Joe Biden and his anti-gun allies seek to diminish that life-saving freedom right here at home. Last year, Biden ridiculed the idea of armed citizens using small arms to defeat tyranny. “You need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons,” he said. But Ukrainian civilians didn’t need “F-15s and nuclear weapons” to bog down the Russian army in March. As London’s The Sunday Times headline put it, “Ukraine’s citizen warriors with hunting rifles beat 40 Russian tanks,” by blowing up a bridge, and then pouring fire down upon the column. Sure, the U.S. and other countries have provided shoulder-fired anti-armor/anti-aircraft weapons to Ukraine. But rifles, handguns and shotguns in the hands of Ukrainian citizens have also played a critical role in protecting their country, themselves and their loved ones. The Russian army might be one of the strongest in the world. But when the Americans defeated King George in the late 1700s, Great Britain was one of the strongest military superpowers in the world. Attacking guerrilla forces in their own back yards is no walk in the park. As Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto reportedly said during World War II, “You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Some dispute that quotation, claiming it’s unsubstantiated. But that doesn’t mean the proposition isn’t true. It is. The specter of tyranny is one reason why we have the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It’s why England’s King George sent Gen. Gage to seize the colonists’ firearms at Lexington and Concord in 1775, sparking the American Revolution. It’s why the Nazis, when they invaded France in 1940, warned that anyone who didn’t hand over their firearms within 24 hours would be executed. And it’s why, during the August 1991 coup attempt in the Soviet Union, the first decree of the communist insurrectionists’ State of Emergency Committee demanded that “Citizens shall hand in without delay all types of firearms.” The right to keep and bear arms makes attackers think twice. When evil strikes, whether in geopolitical situations or walking down the street, you can’t always count on others—the police, your government, your national allies or anyone else—to protect you. Those in law enforcement will do their best to protect us. They will also be the first to admit that they cannot be everywhere at once. In the end, all you have is your God-given right to protect yourself, your family, your freedom and your country. As Wayne LaPierre has often said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” That’s why, as former NRA President Charlton Heston put it, “The Second Amendment is our first freedom—the one right the allows ‘rights’ to exist at all.” Yet while Ukrainian authorities restored that right to save the lives of their citizens, President Biden and other anti-gun politicians try to gut it. On April 3, while Ukrainian authorities reportedly uncovered mass graves containing the bodies of hundreds of civilians murdered by Russian troops in what Ukraine President Zelenskyy called “genocide,” President Joe Biden called on Congress to “ban ghost guns ... Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” Make no mistake: Regardless of what happens in Ukraine in the coming months, nothing is more important to your Second Amendment right to defend yourself, your family and your country from every aggressor than casting your vote to protect that freedom on Election Day, Nov. 8. In the coming months, I’ll tell you how you can make a decisive difference in that crucial battle.
  7. Every year for more than a quarter century, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action has asked NRA members like you to complete our Truth About Gun Owners (TAG) Poll – our most important annual survey. And year after year, your completed surveys have had a powerful impact on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures across the country, helping us combat phony anti-gun polls paid for by billionaires and the lying media – and PROVE TO THE POLITICIANS where gun owners like you really stand. But this year your TAG Poll answers are taking on a far greater importance. COMPLETE YOUR TAG POLL! That’s because, less than six months from now, the American people will go to the polls in the most important midterm election in Second Amendment history – an election where you and I have the chance to SLAM THE DOOR SHUT on Joe Biden’s gun-ban agenda. Since the moment he took the Oath of Office, Biden has been waging a scorched-earth campaign against our gun rights. He’s demanded that Congress pass national gun registration, national gun-owner licensing, sweeping gun bans, and even nationwide gun confiscation. He’s used the full power of the Executive Branch to wage a regulatory assault on mom-and-pop gun stores and the firearms industry as a whole. And he’s packing the courts with gun-hating, anti-freedom judges – appointing more judges during his first year than any President in more than four decades! Michael, you and I both know that the only surefire way to defeat Biden’s disastrous anti-gun agenda is to take away his gun-ban majorities in Congress. And as a key part of your personal effort to help elect pro-gun majorities to the U.S. House and Senate, I need you to go to our special website and complete your TAG Poll questionnaire today. COMPLETE YOUR TAG POLL! With your answers, we can make it crystal clear to every member of the U.S. House and Senate that, if they want our votes and the votes of America’s 100 million gun owners this year, they need to join our fight against Joe Biden’s freedom-destroying agenda and stand firm in defense of our gun rights. By answering this TAG Poll, you can tell every elected official in Washington that, if they support Biden’s calls for national gun registration and nationwide gun bans, they’re going to lose our votes. You can make it clear to our elected officials that if they allow Biden to continue harassing the firearms industry through burdensome, misguided regulatory actions – like ammo bans and the ATF’s attempt to rewrite the very definition of a firearm – they’re going to lose our votes. You can make it clear to our elected officials that, if they support Biden’s radical judicial nominees who don’t believe in our fundamental, INDIVIDUAL right to own guns, they’re going to lose our votes. Most important, your TAG Poll answers will force every elected member of Congress – as well as every challenger candidate running for office this year – to make a firm choice. They can plant their flag with the NRA, take a stand for the Second Amendment on the campaign trail this year, and earn our support and our votes in November. Or they can cozy up to Biden and his anti-freedom administration – and pay the price when America’s 100 million gun owners go to the polls on November 8th. COMPLETE YOUR TAG POLL! In short, this TAG Poll is about more than winning day-to-day battles in Congress or stopping Joe Biden’s regulatory attacks on our gun rights. Your TAG Poll answers will force every member of Congress, and every 2022 candidate, to come clean with the American people, and let us know which path they want our country to follow in the years and decades to come. And that’s the first key step toward winning this crucial upcoming midterm election that will help shape the future of the Second Amendment for the rest of our lives. So please, Michael, take the time RIGHT NOW to complete your TAG Poll. COMPLETE YOUR TAG POLL! And even though it’s not required, I hope you’ll make a generous contribution of $28, $40, $55 or even $100 to NRA-ILA when you complete your TAG Poll answers. Make no mistake. Control of the U.S. House is going to be decided in about 50 key congressional districts across America. Control of the U.S. Senate is going to come down to less than half a dozen battleground states. In almost every instance, these swing districts and states are places where hunting and shooting are a way of life – places where you and I and our fellow NRA members CAN make the difference between victory and defeat. No other organization brings together nearly five million card-carrying, freedom-loving Americans under a single banner. No other organization can even come close to our track record of defeating candidates for every office from the White House to the state house. And no other organization has the same fighting chance to hand Joe Biden a crushing defeat this November. And with your generous contribution of $28, $40, $55 or $100 today, we’ll have the resources to tell the TRUTH about President Biden and his anti-gun candidates to every single gun owner in every single state where the 2022 elections will be decided. We’ll hammer home our election-year message across this nation every single day… We’ll make sure gun owners know that the future of American freedom hangs in the balance on Election Day… And we’ll make sure they recognize – and act on – their sacred DUTY to defend the Second Amendment and our way of life by turning out to vote in record numbers this year. Michael, if America VOTES FREEDOM FIRST on November 8th, Joe Biden’s gun-ban candidates will go down to defeat. It really is that simple. COMPLETE YOUR TAG POLL! But reaching out to tens of millions of voters in the months ahead is a huge and expensive challenge – requiring us to take our message to tens of thousands of Americans every single day between now and November 8th. Our advertising budgets will need to be larger than ever before. Our voter identification, education, and get-out-the-vote campaigns will be – and must be – bigger and more extensive than they’ve ever been before. But with members like you contributing what you can, when you can, we can get the job done. It’s all going to come down to whether our members give us the resources we need – and that’s why I hope I can count on you for a contribution of $28, $40, $55, $100 or any other amount when you complete your TAG Poll. There’s simply no way we can fund our day-to-day campaign efforts without your help right now. And there is no other contribution you can make this year – to any candidate or campaign organization – that will have a greater impact on this election, or that will do more to save freedom, than your gift to NRA-ILA today. So please take a moment as soon as you can to visit our special website and complete your TAG Poll. Thank you, in advance, for standing on the front lines with me in the most important Second Amendment battle of our lifetimes. Yours in Freedom, Jason Ouimet Executive Director COMPLETE YOUR TAG POLL!
  8. Money can buy a lot of things. But, it doesn't wiggle it's butt when you come home!
  9. LANSING, Mich. (May 13, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today announced a new FPC-supported federal lawsuit against the superintendent of Durand (Michigan) Area Schools, the principal of Robert Kerr Elementary School, and a Robert Kerr school staff member for violating a third-grader’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they prevented her from wearing a hat bearing the text “Come and Take It” as well as an image of an AR-15 rifle to the school’s “hat day.” The complaint for C.S. v. McCrumb can be found at FPCLaw.org. “The Supreme Court ruled 50 years ago that schoolchildren do not shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate,” said the student’s attorney, John R. Monroe. “That is still the law, and schools that teach our children civics and government should recognize that.” The student, through her father, seeks a declaration that wearing the hat in question is constitutionally protected speech, a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the school officials from restricting her speech and preventing her from wearing the hat, and nominal damages. “Public schools may not violate the rights of pro-Second Amendment students because they don’t like guns or people who support the fundamental, individual human right to armed self-defense,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We look forward to reminding these anti-rights authoritarian school defendants that the Constitution applies in public schools.” Defending and restoring the right to speak in favor of other rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, has been a key part of FPC’s legal and research programs throughout the organization’s history. For example, FPC has previously engaged to protect other students’ speech against similarly unconstitutional speech restrictions, such as in the case of Guardanapo v. Washoe County [Nevada] School District. Based on input from attorneys and legal scholars, including UCLA law professor and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, FPC also publishes a helpful guide for parents and students, “K-12 Schools, Free Speech, And The Fundamental, Individual Right To Keep And Bear Arms: A Guide to How Students Can Use Their First Amendment Rights to Defend and Promote Second Amendment Rights,” that explains public school students’ free speech rights, provides answers to common and important questions, and even provides sample letters parents can send to schools to protect the rights of their children. If a student (or parent of a student) believes they were discriminated against or disciplined for peacefully expressing their pro-Second Amendment views or not participating in some anti-rights event or speech, and would like to share your experience with us, or to report a possible civil rights violation, please feel free to email our FPC Legal Action Hotline at hotline@fpchq.org or call our toll-free Legal Action Hotline at (855) 252-4510.
  10. A conference committee convened to iron out inconsistencies in the language of firearm discrimination prevention measure, House Bill 3144. Having successfully passed the measure with its originally intended language, the measure now heads back to both chambers for a vote. Please contact your lawmakers and encourage them to SUPPORT House Bill 3144. House Bill 3144 provides that a governmental entity may not enter into a contract with a company for the purchase of goods or services unless the contract contains a written verification from the company that it does not have a practice, policy, guidance, or directive that discriminates against a firearm entity or firearm trade association and will not discriminate during the term of the contract against a firearm entity or firearm trade association. Again, please contact your State Representative and State Senator and ask them to SUPPORT House Bill 3144.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.