Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

    2,546
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by Charlie T Waite


  1. 12.09.19

    Just in time for the Christmas Holiday, the folks at “Lift Every Voice” have presented 3 new ways to send Oregon gun owners to jail.

    They’ve introduced three more ballot measures to restrict and regulate the possession of firearms and firearm feeding devices for the 2020 ballot.

    In their usual rush to ignore facts, they have created a new category of firearm; the “semi-automatic assault firearm.”

    Semi-automatic assault firearm means (among other things and we did not make this up) “A selective fire rifle capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user..” (Or anything that looks like scary.)

    They also include many shotguns and handguns in the list of firearms they hope to restrict.

    Early news reports not only got the number of new ballot measures wrong but also misidentified one of the ballot measures as “Measure 43” which was a measure dealing with driver’s licenses for illegal aliens.

    In this report (possibly corrected by the time you read this) Channel 12 said :

    “On Monday, they filed Measure 43, the first of two petitions that would require a five-day background check and keep anyone under 21 years old from purchasing assault-style rifles and limit magazines to ten rounds or less.”


    Channel 12 did, however, quote us correctly if not completely.

    The three new ballot measures (now in addition to the mandatory lock up measure we are currently addressing in court) are IP 60, IP 61 and IP 62.

     

    IP 60. “will implement an enhanced safety training course, add a waiting period and require that the background check be successfully completed before a semiautomatic assault firearm is delivered to the purchaser, so that we ensure these weapons are kept out of dangerous hands; and … follow several other states by raising the minimum age to purchase semiautomatic assault firearms to twenty-one …”

     

    IP 61 “will follow several other states by raising the minimum age to purchase semiautomatic assault firearms to twenty-one; and…enhance the safety of residents, particularly children, of this state by prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or transfer of large-capacity ammunition magazines…”

     

    IP 62 “will enhance the safety of residents, particularly children, of this state by prohibiting the manufacture, sale or purchase of large-capacity ammunition magazines”

     

    As usual, they are doing it all “for the children.”

    Obviously these attacks will only be part of the upcoming battles since the Democrats in Salem have promised to get as much of this nonsense as possible passed as legislation in February.

     

    As you can imagine, we’re going to need all the help we can get fighting these attacks as well as the previously filed IP 40 which requires that your firearms be inaccessible.

     

    Please consider donating what you can to protect your rights and the rights of your children and grandchildren.

     

    Details on proposed measures:

     

    IP 62

  2. New York City’s successful defense of its arbitrary restrictions on transporting handguns highlights judicial disrespect for the Second Amendment.  New York’s uniquely onerous restrictions on transporting guns were so hard to justify that the city stopped trying. Instead, it rewrote the rules after the Supreme Court agreed to consider a constitutional challenge to them, and now it argues that the case is moot.  

    Despite the obvious vulnerability of New York’s regulations, the city successfully defended them for five years, obtaining favorable rulings from a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

    That track record highlights a glaring problem the Supreme Court could address if it rejects the city’s mootness claim: More than a decade after the justices recognized that the Second Amendment imposes limits on gun control, lower courts routinely treat the right to keep and bear arms as a minor hindrance that can be overcome by the slightest excuse.  

    Under New York’s rules, licensed pistol and revolver owners were not allowed to leave home with their handguns, even if they were unloaded and stored in a locked container separate from the ammunition, unless they were traveling to or from one of seven gun ranges in the city.

    If a New Yorker wanted to practice at a range, participate in a competition or defend himself at a second home outside the five boroughs, the only legal option was to buy (or rent) additional handguns.

    The justification for those seemingly arbitrary restrictions was always hard to fathom, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, no one’s idea of a Second Amendment fanatic, noted during oral arguments on Monday. “What public safety or any other reasonable end is served by saying you have to have two guns instead of one,” she wondered, “and one of those guns has to be maintained in a place that is often unoccupied and that therefore (is) more vulnerable to theft?”  

    Richard Dearing, the attorney representing New York City, was stumped. “Petitioners have identified a difficult application of our former rule that wasn’t really contemplated when the rule was adopted,” he said.

    Justice Samuel Alito asked Dearing if New Yorkers are “less safe” now that the city has loosened its restrictions. “No, I don’t think so,” Dearing replied. “We made a judgment, expressed by our police commissioner, that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule.”

    In that case, Alito wondered, “what possible justification could there have been for the old rule, which you have abandoned?”

    Dearing again had no good answer, except to say that it was a bit easier for police to verify that a gun owner was on his way to or from a range on Staten Island, as opposed to a range in Yonkers or New Jersey.

    Restrictions on fundamental rights usually pass muster only if they are narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest — in this case, preventing gun violence.

    But as the gun owners who challenged New York’s rules note, “The only ‘evidence’ the city has ever mustered to support the tailoring of its policy is an affidavit from a former commander of the state licensing division hypothesizing, with no evidentiary support whatsoever, that the mere presence of a handgun — even unloaded, secured in a pistol case, separated from its ammunition, and stowed in the trunk of the car — might pose a public-safety risk in ‘road rage’ or other ‘stressful’ situations.”

    That implausible scenario was enough to persuade the 2nd Circuit.

    In the appeals court’s view, the city’s assertion that the transport ban was necessary to protect public safety — a claim it has now disavowed — outweighed the plaintiffs’ “trivial” interest in using their guns for self-defense outside the city or in honing the skills required for that constitutionally protected purpose.

    Such casual disregard for the right to keep and bear arms is plainly inconsistent with what the Supreme Court has said about the Second Amendment.

    That’s why the city is so desperate to prevent the justices from considering an argument that was good enough until now.

    Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

    Creators Syndicate

    Send letters to letters@suntimes.com.


  3. In news that will not shock gun rights supporters, the anti-gun utopia of California has provided further evidence that unjust gun control laws invite official corruption. According to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California, former San Diego County Sheriff’s Captain Marco Garmo was arrested on November 22 for allegedly using his position to circumvent the state’s “roster of certified handguns.”Further, another individual allegedly made “unlawful payments”to a member of the county’s “CCW processing staff”to assist in the acquisition of may-issue California Concealed Weapons Permits.

    Readers should note that at present some of those mentioned in this article have yet to be convicted of the crimes which the federal government has accused them of committing.

    California Penal Code § 32000 provides a penalty for a person “who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends an unsafe handgun.”The state maintains a “roster”of “safe”handguns that have met the anti-gun jurisdiction’s criteria for sale.

    In order for a handgun to be certified for sale, a firearm manufacturer must send an example of the handgun to a DOJ-certified laboratory for testing. Handguns must meet a drop-test requirement and include certain mechanisms, such as a chamber load indicator and a magazine disconnect for semi-automatic pistols. Further, the manufacturer must pay an annual fee for the firearm to remain on the roster.

    As some firearms are not designed with the mechanisms California requires, they cannot meet the state’s criteria and are unavailable for sale to the general public. Moreover, some manufacturers are reluctant to send every minor variation of a compliant model firearm off for the costly and time-consuming process of certification. Therefore, there are a large variety of perfectly functional handguns that Americans in almost every jurisdiction across the country use for self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting that are unavailable for sale in the Golden State.

    Penal Code §32000 includes an exemption for the sale or purchase of off-roster handguns to “sworn members”of “the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff's official, a marshal's office,”as well as other law enforcement agencies.

    The press release indicated that Garmo was allegedly working with local jeweler Leo Hamel and Federal Firearms Licensee Giovanni Tilotta to acquire and sell off-roster handguns to those who would not qualify for an exemption under Penal Code §32000. In describing the scheme, the report explained,

    As part of his guilty plea, Leo Hamel, the owner of Leo Hamel Fine Jewelers, admitted to purchasing a variety of off roster handguns from Garmo, and engineered a series of “straw purchases” in which Garmo would falsely certify that he was acquiring an “off roster” gun for himself when in truth he was purchasing it for Hamel. Hamel further admitted that he acquired several firearms from Garmo without proper documentation through bogus, long-term firearm “loans” in exchange for money—which were sales in all but name. Hamel agreed in his plea to conducting straw purchases with Garmo and Lt. Fred Magana, and to planning with Garmo and Tilotta to construct a false paper trail to make it appear that the straw purchases were legitimate…

    The release also noted that “Garmo received an explicit warning from the ATF that excessive resales for profit could violate federal law.”Under federal law, a person engaged in the sale of firearms “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit”must obtain a Federal Firearms License.

    The indictment of Garmo also alleged that the former sheriff’s captain was engaged in an elaborate scheme involving kickbacks from “consultant”Waiel Anton. The feds have accused Anton of working with a member of the county’s permit processing staff to fast-track the Concealed Weapons Permit applications of certain individuals. The release noted,

    Anton aided and abetted Garmo’s unlicensed firearms dealing by helping Garmo’s firearms buyers apply for permits to carry a concealed weapon (“CCW”) as part of Anton’s “consulting” business.  In exchange, the indictment alleges that Anton received cash payments from his clients and then paid a kickback to Garmo for referrals.  The benefit of Anton’s “consulting” arrangement was to secure early appointments for his clients to avoid the substantial backlog of CCW applicants—a benefit that Anton provided by leveraging his relationship with a member of the CCW processing staff to whom he had made an unlawful cash payment.

    Sound familiar?

    In California, local permitting authorities are given significant leeway in the issuance of Concealed Weapons Permits. As a result, some jurisdictions operate shall-issue permitting regimes; whereby permits are issued to all applicants who meet a discrete set of predictable criteria. Other jurisdictions operate may-issue regimes; whereby a permit may be denied for any number of subjective criteria and applicants are forced to justify a “good cause”for exercising their Right-to-Carry.

    In regards to San Diego, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department website explains,

    Good cause is determined on an individual basis. Applicants for a CCW should be able to set forth a set of circumstances that distinguishes the applicant from other members of the general public and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way. Simply writing "self defense" or "personal protection" on an application does not provide the requisite proof of good cause.

    Such may-issue permitting regimes invite corruption. Back in 2016, a wide-ranging federal probe of the New York Police Department uncovered a New York City gun license bribery scheme. According to the federal indictment in that case, applicants paid a person who had influence with the NYPD License Division $18,000 to facilitate issuance of gun licenses.

    Authorities later uncovered further evidence of corruption involving so-called “gun license expeditors.”According to a complaint in that case, members of the License Division “sought and/or obtained cash, paid vacations, personal jewelry, catered parties, guns, gun paraphernalia and other benefits from multiple expediters.”Such bribes allegedly also included alcohol, exotic dancers, and prostitutes.

    New York City gun licenses are difficult for law abiding New Yorkers to obtain, but according to a federal press release, the License Division “approved licenses for individuals with substantial criminal histories, including arrests and convictions for crimes involving weapons or violence, and for individuals with histories of domestic violence.”

    In the San Diego case, federal authorities alleged that “Garmo’s business of firearms dealing as undertaken for both financial profit and to cultivate future donors for his anticipated campaign for Sheriff of San Diego County.”

    As NRA-ILA has previously noted, police corruption in the administration of gun laws is detestable, but merely a symptom of the underlying problem. It is California’s gratuitous handgun restrictions and may-issue concealed weapons permit regime that allow those tasked with enforcing the law to use it for their political and pecuniary advantage. In fact, there is evidence that New York City’s handgun licensing law, the Sullivan Act, was passed for this purpose. The alleged corruption in San Diego County is the predictable consequence of California’s gun laws and a wiser group of state lawmakers would seek to remedy the current problem by crafting a more liberal, just, and predictable set of gun laws.


  4. Earlier this year, U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) introduced a bill that would protect persons lawfully carrying firearms under state law, including in those states that do not require a carry permit, from being snared by a confusing provision of federal criminal law. This week U.S. Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK) introduced a companion measure in the House. 

    Federal law generally bans the carrying of firearms in a “school zone,” which includes not just the grounds of the school itself but a zone that extends 1,000 feet in all directions beyond the school grounds.

    This federal law contains a number of exceptions, however, including for those transporting secured and unloaded firearms by vehicle or for those with certain firearm licenses (including carry permits) issued by the state or locality in which the school is located.

    Since the federal law was passed, however, a number of pro-gun states have recognized the right to carry a firearm for lawful purposes without a license or permit (provided, of course, the individual is not otherwise prohibited from firearm possession).

    Nevertheless, those acting lawfully under these sorts of state laws could still accidentally run afoul of federal law, should they accidentally cross the invisible threshold of a school zone. This could include simply driving by a school on a public road while carrying a holstered handgun or with a loaded handgun in a vehicle’s center console or glove compartment.

    Particularly in densely populated areas, where school zones may overlap, it might be impossible to travel through certain parts of cities or towns without crossing through a school zone. The federal law could therefore criminalize harmless conduct which is recognized as lawful by the state and locality in which it occurs.

    The bills filed by Sen. Rounds and Rep. Hern would solve this problem and protect law-abiding gun carriers. Under either measure, the fact the firearm was being carried “in compliance with the law of the State and political subdivision in which the school zone is located” would become a defense to a prosecution under the federal law.

    Americans should be able to exercise their rights confidently and without fear of being entrapped by the potentially complicated interplay of state and federal law. The NRA applauds these commonsense measures and commends them for swift action by Congress.


  5. New Zealand’s dumpster fire of a government-mandated “buyback” program has become even more of a hot spot of contention. Sources indicate that the sensitive personal information of gun owners kept in a police database became accessible to users of the buyback program website. The information includes names, addresses, firearm license numbers, and bank account details.

    The database was established shortly after the government announced a ban on certain semiautomatic firearms and accessories, along with a mandatory “buyback,” early this year. Under New Zealand’s new firearm law, the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Regulations 2019, the possession of “prohibited firearms, magazines and parts” is now a crime, although affected owners have until December 20 in which to surrender their property to the police. Police obtain firearm license, bank account, and other personal information from owners as part of the buyback process.

    The country’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, confirmed that gun dealers were given access to the police buyback database. “[N]ot everyone would wish to return their weapons directly through police stations so dealers were created as agent authorities that could be part of the buyback process. As part of that they were able to access [the database].”

    The buyback database is administered by an external provider, the German software company SAP. The breach was unrelated to hacking; instead, SAP admitted it made changes so that the site’s security profile “was incorrectly provisioned” and allowed access. Police Minister Stuart Nash indicated that these changes had not been authorized by the New Zealand Police.  

    The government and police were reportedly not aware of the security issues with the site until a gun rights group, the Council of Licensed Firearm Owners (COLFO) raised the alarm in a December 1st public notice. Minutes later, the entire site was shut down

    Police Deputy Commissioner Mike Clement subsequently advised that the data may have been exposed since November 27, and was unable to give “ironclad” assurances that the data had not been more widely disseminated. COLFO, however, released redacted screenshots of the website and advised that information had been downloaded before the site was disabled.

    Going forward, the site will remain offline and the buyback will be implemented using pen and paper. The data breach is just the most recent of the problems surrounding the buyback program.

    Pranksters were able to use online notification forms associated with the buyback to send police fake notices regarding firearms that would be turned in, causing “a huge waste” of police resources. Criminals, predictably, are refusing to turn in their weapons. Police met with gang leaders as part of a compliance effort for the gun ban and buyback program, but reported that the criminal fraternity (oddly enough) “had a different approach to law abiding members of the public, in relation to the return of guns.”            

    When called upon to account for the damaging data breach, Police Minister Nash said he was “bloody annoyed” about it but flatly refused to be held accountable, suggesting that data breaches are to be expected in government operations (“400 data leaks occurred” with the previous administration) and that “it’s not my responsibility” to oversee a contractor delivering a government service. Asked to at least concede that the data leak had eroded whatever support the country’s gun owners had for the buyback program, Nash instead called out the gun rights community as the real problem: a “small group of radical gun nuts … called COLFO who are against this. They have always been against it. This is how the gun lobby works here and overseas.” Elsewhere, the police minister emphasized that the police were “doing a fantastic job on monitoring this buyback” program, and that the program “was going incredibly well.”   

    Kiwi gun owners likely have different feelings about the program’s success (and the release of their personal data) than these dismissive and sunny pronouncements.

    If nothing else, the data breach – and the government’s nonchalant reaction – give ample cause for concern regarding the next phase of New Zealand’s gun control law. The new firearm registry will be another such repository of sensitive personal information in the hands of the government, to monitor every legal firearm in New Zealand by collecting both personal information (the licensee’s name, address, date of birth) and the particulars of the firearm (identifying information and all transfers, sales and purchases).


  6.  

    A person would have to be living under a very large rock, if they are not aware of our gun rights being systematically dismantled.
    One would also be living under that same rock if they are unaware of the impeachment sham, and blatant corruption going down today.

    And there is not one damn thing we can do about it.
    In my state of CA, literally 75% of the legislature are Democrats.
    This is far higher than the minimum for a super-majority, so they do what they please without challenge.

    I vote, and my vote is swept aside or invalidated by a hundred opposing votes from illegals or dead people.

    One can read the news, read Team SASS and all the other blogs and raise their blood pressure until the onset of a stroke.
    All for nothing.
    Angry and $0.35 buys cheap coffee.

    What are you really going to do when cop(s) come to your door with a court order to confiscate your guns?

    • Shoot the Cop
    • Explain the 2nd Amendment
    • Refuse Entry on 2nd Amendment grounds
    • Stand by helplessly


    #1 your rectum will be married to your cell mate for eternity
    #2 will get you cuffed and placed in the police cruiser
    #3 will get you beaten up, cuffed, and placed in the cruiser
    #4 you watch them ransack and confiscate your gun safe


    Law enforcement and the courts will systematically destroy you if you refuse to surrender your guns.

    Which of your neighbors and friends will bring weapons and stand by you? 
    Which of them is willing to be financially destroyed, made destitute and homeless by the courts?

    The real choice comes when America is forced to choose between rolling over and accepting Totalitarianism or rising up and accepting civil war.
    Sad to say, I think Pat Riot is correct that most Americans will roll over and accept Totalitarianism.

     

     

    The rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. You have free speech, but you can be sued for slander or libel. You have freedom of religion, but the law prohibits polygamy. The same limitation is true for the Second Amendment.


    For the first couple of centuries of the Republic, constitutional law held that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms provided for a militia, and we have one, the National Guard. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to own firearms apart from service in the militia. (Please note this if you object to "judge-made law.")

     

    But the court also held that the right is not unlimited and the government may regulate firearms. Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion explicitly states that the right to individual ownership is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and that governmental limitations are "fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' "

     

    For all of the dissembling by gun rights advocates, the amendment’s full wording is pretty clear: “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.”

     

    But the level of apathy is quite disturbing as well as frightening.  Apathy will Kill the 2nd Amendment and End your Right to own a Firearm!  SO what are you doing to help defend the constitution?; what are you doing to help defend your right to own a firearm? (I’ll wait while you think about it.).  Reading the Team SASS Wire is a good start, but I guess I was hoping for something more. I was hoping gun owners would get off their butts and fight to keep their rights.  I, our State Directors and others post on the Team SASS Wire not only to provide information and avenues for action.  A while back I posted How Important Is One (1) Person's Voice ???  which can be found by looking here in previously pinned post: 

     

    • Thanks 2

  7. 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.

    click-here-take-action.gif?width=500&hei

    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


  8. 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.

    • Confused 1

  9. 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.


  10. 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.


  11. 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.

    click-here-take-action.gif?width=500&hei

    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


  12. 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

    • Sad 2

  13. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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