Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

    2,555
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. The California Legislature has adjourned the 2019 session resulting in the final passage of AB 12, AB 61, AB 879, AB 893, AB 1254, AB 1297, AB 1669, SB 61 and SB 172 which are now eligible for Governor Newsom's consideration. Contact Governor Newsom and urge him to veto AB 12, AB 61, AB 879, AB 893, AB 1254, AB 1297, AB 1669, SB 61 and SB 172. Call Governor Newsom - (916) 445-2841 Email Governor Newsom by clicking HERE. Assembly Bill 12, sponsored by Assembly Member Jacqui Irwin (D-44), would extend the duration of California’s “gun violence restraining order” law from one year to a period of up to five years. Meaning a person could be prohibited from owning and possessing firearms for five years at a time without ever being adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill or convicted of a crime. Assembly Bill 61, sponsored by Assembly Member Philip Ting (D-19), would expand the list of those eligible to file “gun violence restraining orders” beyond the currently authorized petitioners, which include immediate family and law enforcement. The new list is expanded to employers, coworkers and employees of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months. GVRO’s can remove a person’s Second Amendment rights, not based on criminal convictions or mental health adjudications, but based on third party allegations, often without due process until weeks after a person’s rights have been suspended. Assembly Bill 879, sponsored by Assembly Member Mike Gipson (D-64), would require precursor firearms parts to be sold/transferred through a licensed precursor parts dealer in a similar process to the new laws regarding ammunition purchases. It would further create a registry of these parts and a new crime for transfer of precursor parts without the involvement of a licensed precursor parts dealer to anyone under 21 years of age or prohibited from owning firearms. Precursor parts include items such as unfinished frames and receivers. Assembly Bill 893, sponsored by Assembly Member Todd Gloria (D-78), would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition at the Del Mar fairgrounds located in the 22nd District Agricultural Association on and after January 1, 2021. Assembly Bill 1254, sponsored by Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-54) would prohibit the ability to hunt, trap or otherwise take a bobcat except in specified circumstances including depredation permits. Assembly Bill 1297, sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin McCarty (D-7), would remove the maximum fee a local authority can charge on the concealed carry permit application. Assembly Bill 1669, sponsored by Assembly Member Rob Bonta (D-18), would raise the fees paid by consumers when purchasing firearms. The DROS account has generated a massive surplus at times, so much so that tens of millions of dollars that have been utilized to fund other DOJ programs, including a $24 million dollar loan to the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) just a few years ago. This legislation appears nothing more than an effort to put more cost constraints on gun owners to foot the bill for the massive cost pressures the legislature has put on DOJ in recent years including ammunition background checks and long gun registration. Senate Bill 61, sponsored by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), as amended would expand California’s existing one handgun a month law to also apply to handguns or centerfire semi-automatic rifles, with limited exceptions. Further the bill expands the prohibition on acquisition of firearms by a person under 21 years of age by eliminating the existing exception for 18-20 year-olds with a valid hunting license. Senate Bill 172, sponsored by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), would expand California's existing storage laws and includes harsh penalties,such as a 10 year ban on firearm ownership. Continue to check your inbox and the California Stand and Fight webpage for updates on issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage.
  2. Over 100 Second Amendment supporters gathered Sept. 7 in Hartford, Conn., on the steps of the state Capitol to “make a stand and to support the constitution,” according to organizers. “It has become our obligation to tell Washington D.C. and the rest of the country how bad many of our laws are. It is also our job to tell America how hard it will be to get rid of any gun control package that passes,” noted the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL). The CCDL—the state’s largest gun-rights organization—planned the pro-Second Amendment rally in response to a recent political stunt held by Democratic lawmakers, including Gov. Ned Lamont and U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who stood two weeks early on the very same steps of the state Capitol and urged the federal government to adopt gun restrictions like those in Connecticut. The state has new anti-gun legislation that include three bills signed into law this year by Gov. Lamont. “This broad-based trio of gun control legislation will require firearms be made unavailable for self-defense, effectively end the centuries old practice of home-manufacturing firearms for personal use, and impose unnecessary restrictions on transporting handguns,” noted the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “I was a little bit incensed at our politicians here in Connecticut trying to tell the rest of the country that Connecticut is leading the way with gun control and that it would be a good idea for the other states or the federal government to pass gun control based on Connecticut’s policies,” Scott Wilson, CCDL president, told the Connecticut Post. Connecticut was the first state to pass a red flag law in 1999 and has some of the strictest gun restrictions in the country. “We want to make sure the free states know that if they pass these types of laws, they’re never going to go away,” said Wilson. The event’s coordinator, Molly Sullivan, told Fox 61, “We’re really here to talk about how the Second Amendment is for everybody. And what the Second Amendment means going forward and the history of where we’ve come from.” The NRA and the CCDL recently co-filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to get the nation's highest court to review a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling that reinstated part of a lawsuit against Remington. The NRA/CCDL brief stated: “The Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling in this case threatens the Second Amendment rights of all American citizens. The right to keep and bear arms means nothing if the ability to acquire those arms is not possible because the firearm industry is put out of business by unlimited and uncertain liability for criminal misuse of their products.”
  3. If it wasn’t enough to worry about politicians trying to grab our guns, law-abiding gun owners are being run through the wringer as more businesses show their anti-gun colors. While we’ve seen such things before, now companies are redoubling their efforts, as evidenced by a slew of retailers and grocery chains that recently said they’re not going to permit open carry in their establishments—thumbing their noses at state law and the U.S. Constitution. Walmart is leading this latest charge of further infringing on our Second Amendment rights. The liberal-leaning chain recently stated that it would stop selling some ammunition and would put the kibosh on open carry of firearms in its stores. Starbucks and Chipotle Mexican Grill implemented such policies a few years ago, but when the biggest kid in class says you can’t do something, others fall in line. And so it is that when the nation’s largest retailer publicized its move, it was mere hours before Kroger, CVS, Albertsons, Walgreens, ALDI, Meijer and Schnucks—to name a few—fell in line. We know what their objective is: they are appealing to the segment of their customer base that shakes in their boots when they even read about guns, much less when they see one or hear the word. What nobody seems to admit, though, is that by ceding to the nanny-state approach, businesses are actually making the whiners more vulnerable to the whims of the violent. The trend carries heavy implications. On the practical side, the companies are making it known that there is a lower likelihood of anyone putting up resistance when someone will evil intentions gets the notion of going on a shooting spree. That’s because law-abiding gun owners, by definition, follow the law. If a place of business says no open carry is allowed, they’ll leave their firearm behind. More troubling, however, is that as more retail outlets are letting politics influence business policy, law-abiding gun owners are being left with fewer opportunities to express their outrage. The simple response used to be that anti-gun businesses could be boycotted, and gun supporters have made public calls on social media for just that in the wake of Walmart’s latest policy decisions. But in today’s world—with less competition in the marketplace and more businesses climbing aboard the gun-control train—those who believe in the founding principles of this country need to find other ways to stop the trampling of our Constitutional rights. Why is it so imperative that gun owners not give up? Because when it comes to gun control there is no such thing as compromise; instead, it’s more a matter of the other side saying “give us this now and we’ll come back for more later”—and they’ve never made a secret of that. As early as 1976, Pete Shields, chairman of the seedling that would morph into the Brady Campaign, told The New Yorker: “We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily—given the political realities—going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal—total control of handguns in the United States—is going to take time.” There is no easy answer of how to move beyond the prospect of boycotting anti-gun businesses, but an obvious response starts with electing politicians—at all levels—who respect individual freedom. The people we put in office need to have the backbone to stand up to such bullying and let businesses know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land in America and that document expressly supports the right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. It’s time, too, to get those who shrug off such policy changes as “nothing more than a business decision” to realize that this is not only an infringement of the Second Amendment, but it is also discrimination. While they might not be directly affected by this issue, they really have to ask, if businesses are OK with discriminating against gun owners, who will be next?
  4. Great Britain is home to some of the world toughest gun-control measures, yet a rising spate of recent gun crimes shows that these restrictions are failing to stop criminals and other dishonest citizens from getting their hands on firearms. Gun-control rules are clearly not in control of this situation—which can serve as a lesson for U.S. gun-control advocates seeking to alter our country’s laws with the hazy goal of stopping gun crime. Some of the most recent noteworthy examples of gun-control failure in the U.K. include two fatal shootings in London just this month and an Irish national recently caught smuggling 60 firearms into the U.K. using his car—using such artful methods of concealment that it took highly trained police “several hours” to recover 59 of the weapons from various hiding places. Last month, a man on a busy street shocked London by opening fire on a pedestrian outside a pub with a pump-action shotgun. The BBC reported in February that gun crime in four English counties was the highest it has ever been in more than a decade. The head of firearms the U.K.’s National Crime Agency (NCA) said high volumes of guns smuggled into the U.K. are “a pernicious threat” and are a profitable business enterprise for criminals who “can be increasingly innovative and operate in a highly effective way.” But if gun control actually imposes limits on firearms, one might ask, where and how do these criminals obtain their guns? Surprisingly, U.K. criminals have long-discovered cunning ways to sidestep strict gun control that predate the American gun-control debate itself. The BBC reports that criminals in Britain have resorted to reworking antique and obsolete handguns dubbed “imitation weapons,” modifying blank-firing pistols and using stolen or illegally purchased firearms to commit crimes. In some cases, criminals smuggle gun components into the country using the postal system, then assemble the pieces later. Many of these smuggling operations are being orchestrated by gangs and international organized crime groups. “In 2015, NCA officers seized a gun that had been sent to a man in the UK in the post, concealed within a radio,” noted the BBC. There is no question that these modified firearms are effective—U.K authorities have admitted that violent gun crime is on the rise, and that gun-control laws are not working to stop it. In fact, The Guardian reported that “the situation is so serious that the National Crime Agency has taken the rare step of using its legal powers to direct every single police force to step up the fight against illegal guns,” tasking all 43 police forces in England and Wales to direct efforts toward controlling illegal gun crime. In May, two men were sentenced in court for crimes involved in what is believed to be the U.K.’s first fully functioning firearms factory that made guns from scratch in a Sussex industrial estate. An NCA official told the BBC that the factory, which had parts to make 100 firearms, “was producing handguns, copies of a Browning pistol, from absolute scratch—from the nuts and bolts and producing fully functioning lethal firearms at the other end of it, with the bullets to go with it.” This dangerous situation in Great Britain continues to unfold even as the U.K.’s strict legal gun-control restrictions remain firmly in place—including background checks, police interviews, and assessments from physicians. And to anyone who believes gun ownership can somehow be regulated using DNA databases, another recent case from the U.K. demonstrates that even DNA matches are no surety for legal gun use—three identical brothers effectively used DNA to confuse police officers investigating their handling of illegal firearms destined for use by dangerous criminals. Investigating a case described as one that would baffle Sherlock Holmes, police initially couldn’t be sure which of the identical triplets handled illegal firearms because their DNA was so closely matched. The case involved possession of firearms including an Uzi sub-machine gun. The trio was convicted of handling illegal guns and each brother sentenced to 14 years in prison. Obviously gun-control measures are not keeping firearms off the streets or out of criminal hands, but rather allowing organized criminals to have a vast monopoly on guns in a tightly controlled firearms market. The situation in the U.K. demonstrates that changing our own country’s laws to inhibit the freedoms of law-abiding American gun owners will not effectively stop criminals from having the means and ability to commit gun crime.
  5. IS CNN A CAUSE OF MASS MURDER? Glorify and promote murderers and you get more, everyone knows this. Mass media perpetuates mass murder, critics claim, first by calling it "shooting" which is a sport, instead of "murder" which is a crime, deceptively framing the problem and displacing the blame. Then media promotes these crimes incessantly, sometimes for weeks, because they're used to attract "viewers," a euphemism for money. "If it bleeds it leads," is the reprehensible unethical mantra and behavior. By providing "the oxygen of publicity," as Margaret Thatcher called it, media encourages copycats, which the murderers themselves tell us they seek. Doesn't that imply at least some measure of complicity or guilt? Psychiatrists and law enforcement beg the media to wise up, a cry that falls on deaf ears, thanks to the greed. It is virtually mens rea. This is followed with "panels" that drone on about background checks, now in place for decades, which evidence repeatedly shows had no effect on the crimes but do impose hardships on innocent Americans who did nothing. Media staff are just coincidentally in lockstep with anti-gun-rights groups that seek more checks designed to overburden the innocent, increase government power (a common left-wing goal) and that provide zero focus on the psychotics, perpetuating the real problem, and psychotropic drugs exacerbating things--especially with school psychopaths. Reporters and producers must realize that limiting the public's civil rights never has a positive outcome--not with race, sex or arms, yet they continue to insist on doing so. Bans on America's civil right to arms will have no more effect on the psychotics committing mass atrocities than they've had on drug gangs or murder in historically black inner cities, as a review of the history of all these crimes demonstrates. Checks Limiting the public's civil rights never has a positive outcome-- not with race, sex or arms ignore the criminals and psychos already armed. The evidence is obvious yet lost on broadcasters and journalists. Spree-killer criminals have been stopped in primarily one way only--by killing them in the act or getting them to kill themselves. Calls for more paperwork and new law are an evil subterfuge promoted by "news" fabricators. Everything the savage murderers do--from getting and holding guns to using them--is already totally illegal, often with the death penalty attached. Laws do not stop crime, law enforcement does. Mass media doesn't seem to understand these simple facts, which the sane gun-owning public understands, leading to loss of credibility. If CNN, MSNBC or the networks included even one articulate spokesperson, like JPFO consultant Alan Korwin, on one of their panels they would at last provide a check on their array of misinformation, misdirection and malfeasance. They would learn something themselves as well. Include a degree of intelligent dialog instead of repeating the same failed messages audiences are getting that keep them in the dark. JPFO will gladly provide a list of experts with perspective outside the standard mass-media-panel view, to help improve your coverage.
  6. BELLEVUE, WA – In the aftermath of Wednesday’s brutal stabbing attack in Florida, the Second Amendment Foundation today asked whether Congressional Democrats will now start pushing knife control. “Five people were brutally stabbed,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The nation deserves to know whether Democrats will hold the suspect responsible, or blame the knife he used.” Authorities said the five victims were being treated at a nearby hospital. Gottlieb noted that this is hardly an isolated incident. He pointed to an early-August stabbing rampage in Southern California that left four people dead, and another incident in Massachusetts late last month that left two people dead and a third injured. And in California’s Ventura County, authorities arrested a man for fatally stabbing a woman and her elderly mother two weeks ago. “Democrats and the gun prohibition lobby have been remarkably silent about these crimes,” Gottlieb observed. “We’re waiting for someone to start complaining about ‘an epidemic of knife violence.’ There are no background checks or waiting periods involved in purchasing knives, and in any given year, according to the annual FBI crime reports, more people die from stabbings than are killed with either rifles or shotguns, so maybe Congressional Democrats will start talking about that. “The real issue here,” he said, “is that in every brutal slaying, regardless of the weapon used, the perpetrator should be held responsible. But only when firearms are involved do these knee-jerk crusaders demand action, and it is always aimed at guns and the people who own them who had nothing at all to do with the crime. “We’re calling Democrats and gun control extremists out,” Gottlieb stated. “If they’re satisfied to hold knife-wielding killers individually responsible, the same standard must apply when it comes to crimes committed with firearms. Millions of people who own knives and/or guns have harmed nobody, so Democrats should stop treating them all like criminals.”
  7. Earlier this week, the California Legislature cast final votes on AB 12, AB 61, AB 879, AB 1254, AB 1297, and AB 1669, which will now move to Governor Newsom's desk for his consideration. Use the take action button below to contact Governor Newsom and respectfully urge him to veto AB 12, AB 61, AB 879, AB 1254, AB 1297 and AB 1669. Assembly Bill 12, sponsored by Assembly Member Jacqui Irwin (D-44), would extend the duration of California’s “gun violence restraining order” law from one year to a period of up to five years. Meaning a person could be prohibited from owning and possessing firearms for five years at a time without ever being adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill or convicted of a crime. Assembly Bill 61, sponsored by Assembly Member Philip Ting (D-19), would expand the list of those eligible to file “gun violence restraining orders” beyond the currently authorized petitioners, which include immediate family and law enforcement. The new list is expanded to employers, coworkers and employees of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months. GVRO’s can remove a person’s Second Amendment rights, not based on criminal convictions or mental health adjudications, but based on third party allegations, often without dueprocess until weeks after a person’s rights have been suspended. Assembly Bill 879, sponsored by Assembly Member Mike Gipson (D-64), would require precursor firearms parts to be sold/transferred through a licensed precursor parts dealer in a similar process to the new laws regarding ammunition purchases. It would further create a registry of these parts and a new crime for transfer of precursor parts without the involvement of a licensed precursor parts dealer to anyone under 21 years of age or prohibited from owning firearms. Precursor parts include items such as unfinished frames and receivers. Assembly Bill 1254, sponsored by Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-54) would prohibit the ability to hunt, trap or otherwise take a bobcat except in specified circumstances including depredation permits. Assembly Bill 1297, sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin McCarty (D-7), would remove the maximum fee a local authority can charge on the concealed carry permit application. Assembly Bill 1669, sponsored by Assembly Member Rob Bonta (D-18), would raise the fees paid by consumers when purchasing firearms. The DROS account has generated a massive surplus at times, so much so that tens of millions of dollars that have been utilized to fund other DOJ programs, including a $24 million dollar loan to the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) just a few years ago. This legislation appears nothing more than an effort to put more cost constraints on gun owners to foot the bill for the massive cost pressures the legislature has put on DOJ in recent years including ammunition background checks and long gun registration. Assembly Floor: SB 61 and SB 172 remain eligible for floor votes in the Assembly. Use the take action button below to contact your Assembly Member and urge him/her to OPPOSE SB 61 and SB 172. Senate Bill 61, sponsored by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), as amended would expand California’s existing one handgun a month law to also apply to handguns or centerfire semi-automatic rifles, with limited exceptions. Further the bill expands the prohibition on acquisition of firearms by a person under 21 years of age by eliminating the existing exception for 18-20 year-olds with a valid hunting license. Senate Bill 172, sponsored by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), would expand California's existing storage laws and includes harsh penalties,such as a 10 year ban on firearm ownership. Continue to check your inbox and the California Stand and Fight webpage for updates on issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage.
  8. Mississippi residents recently saved money on all purchases of firearms, ammunition and other hunting supplies due to the state’s Second Amendment Weekend Sales Tax Holiday. From Aug. 30 to Sept. 1, Mississippi residents did not have the 7% sales tax collected on firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies—giving hunters the chance to save money before the start of fall hunting. Besides firearms, the tax-exemption applied to many hunting items including ammunition, archery equipment, firearm and archery accessories, hearing protection, decoys, tree stands, blinds, holsters, belts, slings and more. The Mississippi Legislature passed (S 2425) in 2014, establishing the Second Amendment Weekend on the first Friday of every September. In 2016, (HR 1687) was passed and moved the sales tax holiday to the final weekend in August. State Sen. Philip Moran (R), who authored the bill, said Mississippi was losing business to other states like Louisiana, which implemented its own tax-free holiday in 2009. The Second Amendment Tax-Free Weekend in Mississippi not only provides savings to consumers, but also to businesses, which experience significant revenue spikes during that time period. “It’s like Black Friday for the gun industry. It’s absolutely the busiest weekend,” Joshua Gregory, owner of TGC Outdoors LLC in Abbeville, Miss, told America’s 1st Freedom. Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves has praised the holiday in a YouTube video: “You’ll get a tax break to make some of your favorite outdoor activities a little less expensive and you’ll support a Mississippi business.” This year’s Second Amendment Weekend coincided with the start of both alligator and dove seasons.
  9. Over 100 Second Amendment supporters gathered Sept. 7 in Hartford, Conn., on the steps of the state Capitol to “make a stand and to support the constitution,” according to organizers. “It has become our obligation to tell Washington D.C. and the rest of the country how bad many of our laws are. It is also our job to tell America how hard it will be to get rid of any gun control package that passes,” noted the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL). The CCDL—the state’s largest gun-rights organization—planned the pro-Second Amendment rally in response to a recent political stunt held by Democratic lawmakers, including Gov. Ned Lamont and U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who stood two weeks early on the very same steps of the state Capitol and urged the federal government to adopt gun restrictions like those in Connecticut. The state has new anti-gun legislation that include three bills signed into law this year by Gov. Lamont. “This broad-based trio of gun control legislation will require firearms be made unavailable for self-defense, effectively end the centuries old practice of home-manufacturing firearms for personal use, and impose unnecessary restrictions on transporting handguns,” noted the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “I was a little bit incensed at our politicians here in Connecticut trying to tell the rest of the country that Connecticut is leading the way with gun control and that it would be a good idea for the other states or the federal government to pass gun control based on Connecticut’s policies,” Scott Wilson, CCDL president, told the Connecticut Post. Connecticut was the first state to pass a red flag law in 1999 and has some of the strictest gun restrictions in the country. “We want to make sure the free states know that if they pass these types of laws, they’re never going to go away,” said Wilson. The event’s coordinator, Molly Sullivan, told Fox 61, “We’re really here to talk about how the Second Amendment is for everybody. And what the Second Amendment means going forward and the history of where we’ve come from.” The NRA and the CCDL recently co-filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to get the nation's highest court to review a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling that reinstated part of a lawsuit against Remington. The NRA/CCDL brief stated: “The Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling in this case threatens the Second Amendment rights of all American citizens. The right to keep and bear arms means nothing if the ability to acquire those arms is not possible because the firearm industry is put out of business by unlimited and uncertain liability for criminal misuse of their products.”
  10. Illinois-based retailer Rural King, which bills itself as America’s Farm and Home Store, recently released a statement reaffirming its commitment to lawfully selling firearms and standing by the Second Amendment. The statement came after both Walmart and Kroger announced gun restrictions in their stores. Founded in 1960, Rural King has over 110 stores in 13 states (Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia). The family owned and operated company sells rifles, handguns, shotguns and ammunition. It also sells livestock feed, farm equipment, agricultural parts, lawn mowers, workwear, fashion clothing, housewares and toys. Rural King has a 50-year tradition of giving a free bag of popcorn and a cup of coffee to customers. Rural King’s full statement on Facebook states: “Many rural Americans are defenders and supporters of our rights and the 2nd Amendment. We at Rural King are proud to stand with these Americans to protect and defend our freedoms. “While some retailers are bowing to pressures involving the selling of firearms, Rural King will continue to sell firearms lawfully in all our stores and online at RKGuns.com. “Hunting, camping, fishing, and other outdoor activities are some of our most treasured traditions and are woven into the fabric of rural America. At Rural King we are dedicated to living, loving, and embracing the rural lifestyle and carrying the products our customers expect. “We would like to thank you for shopping at Rural King and God Bless America!” Most Facebook users expressed support for the announcement. One man commented: “The nearest Rural King is a 40 minute drive for me. Rest assured, I’ll be buying everything I used to by at Walmart from you guys! You’re my new favorite store!” Another man said: “THANK YOU! We love Rural King, and shop there all the time. We will wave at Walmart as we drive by them on the way to your store.”
  11. Guns “empower” women, and this empowerment also makes female gun owners more politically active, according to a new study. “Intersectionality in Action: Gun Ownership and Women’s Political Participation,” was published July 2019 in Social Science Quarterly. Its lead author is Alexandra Middlewood, who holds a doctorate in political science and is an assistant professor of political science at Wichita State University. “Gun-owning women exhibit levels of political participation about gun policy and a greater willingness to engage in political discussions about gun control than nonowning women,” the study noted. It also found greater participation on political matters not related to gun policy. The study observed that women gun owners are more likely than other women to participate in the following ways: Following politics, Contacting officials, Contributing money, Expressing opinions about gun issues on social media, Signing gun-policy petitions, Registering to vote, and Voting in elections. That’s great news for the Second Amendment, but why are gun-owning women more politically active? Middlewood told America’s 1st Freedom that it’s important to understand the reasons behind the behavioral changes. These reasons, as outlined in the study, are as follows: Gun owners can be politically mobilized more easily than non-owners. “Due to their associations with gun-related organizations and social networks, women gun owners are relatively accessible to political organizations intent on engaging citizens—especially pro-gun organizations.” Particularly since many women purchase firearms for personal safety, political issues become personal to them. “The possibility of future, more restrictive regulations on gun owners may be sufficient motivation for political engagement.” Gun possession can be empowering, which can translate to more action even outside of gun issues: “surveys suggest … gun ownership helps women overcome feelings of vulnerability and victimization. … Conceivably the transformation that firearms produce should strengthen women’s motivations to engage in various forms of politics, especially gun-related issues.” The study also found that gun-owning women seem more willing to discuss the matter with those who disagree. Female gun owners were willing to discuss gun ownership even if they didn’t think the majority would support their opinion. Non-gun-owning women were considerably less likely to discuss it if they thought the majority opinion was different from their own. Essentially, since women who don’t own guns can be “more sensitive to perceptions of public support,” women gun owners’ willingness to discuss and publicly support Second Amendment issues may be a very powerful way to influence American culture overall.
  12. On September 3, the San Francisco Board of Supervisorsunanimously passed a resolution, “declaring that the National Rifle Association is a domestic terrorist organization and urging other cities, states, and the federal government to do the same.”The resolution was sponsored by District 2 Supervisor Catherine Stefani, who is described on the city’s website as a former prosecutor and “a leader and spokesperson for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.” According to the document, NRA “musters its considerable wealth and organizational strength to …incite gun owners to acts of violence.”The board also contended that NRA “through its advocacy has armed those individuals who would and have committed acts of terrorism.”The resolution also made clear that the City and County of San Francisco intend to “assess the financial and contractual relationships [city and county] vendors and contractors have with”NRA and to “take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with”NRA. NRA is a five million member civil rights organization dedicated to preserving the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. NRA carries out this mission by organizing its members and other freedom-supporting individuals to vote and otherwise engage in the democratic process. This ranges from helping individuals register to vote, educating voters on gun rights issues, and organizing members and others to share their views directly with lawmakers at public hearings and meetings or through correspondence. NRA is a model for effective grassroots political participation. Moreover, NRA’s bylaws explicitly state, No individual who is a member of, and no organization composed in whole or in part of individuals who are members of, any organization or group having as its purpose or one of its purposes the overthrow by force and violence of the Government of the United States or any of its political subdivisions shall be eligible for membership. The absurd resolution has been met by many with the derision it deserves. Writing for Reason, Jacob Sullum jibed, “Yesterday the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously declared that the National Rifle Association is a ‘domestic terrorist organization,’because words no longer have any meaning.” The urge to dismiss this hateful resolution as the fevered tirade of a radical enclave is understandable. After all, this is the same board that earlier this year adopted “language guidelines” that rebranded “felons” and “convicts”as “justice-involved persons.” At the time Supervisor Matt Haney noted “We don’t want people to be forever labeled for the worst things that they have done.” Evidently, law-abiding individuals engaged in the political process are not to be afforded the same open-mindedness. For an entity acting under color of law to single out those with differing viewpoints, and those who might do business with them, for government persecution flies in the face of the First Amendment. Such noxious actions chill free speech by discouraging individuals from expressing viewpoints contrary to those of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for fear of official reprisal. Moreover, such government actions can implicate individuals’ freedom of association and right to petition the government. In recent weeks, the world has watched as hundreds of thousands of pro-democracy protestors have assembled on the streets of Hong Kong to petition the Chinese government to respect their rights. Predictably, the Chinese communist regime has sought to shape the narrative around the events by describing many of those involved in the pro-democracy movement as “terrorists” in an attempt to de-legitimize their cause.
  13. Proving once again that ignorance is no bar to publication in the U.S. legacy press, former executive editor of the New York Times Howell Raines has offered his inane take on the current gun control debate in a piece for the Washington Post. According to the gun-control supporting newspaperman, the key to solving the political stalemate over firearms is to “revert to the gun laws that prevailed in the United States around 1960.” Raines claimed such a move would “break the maniacal hold of the National Rifle Association on the nation’s recreational shooters, not to mention Congress.” If this proposal seems downright bizarre coming from a gun control supporter, readers should keep in mind that Raines had no idea what he was writing about. Harkening back to a fictional past, Raines wrote, law-abiding hunters and target shooters had all the weapons and firepower they needed and were not in a state of constant turmoil over state and federal laws that restricted most shotguns to three rounds and most semiautomatic rifles and handguns to fewer than 20 rounds… Deer and elk hunters who used larger caliber rifles felt amply equipped with standard magazines of a half-dozen or so shells. A return to these basic restrictions on loadings would appeal to most hunters, firing-range shooters and gun collectors who battle the nonstop whirlpool of NRA paranoia. Contrary to Raines’s memory, there was no federal restriction on shotgun or semi-automatic rifle magazine capacity in 1960. A restriction on magazine with a capacity greater than 10-rounds was enacted under the 1994 Clinton “assault weapons” ban. To consider some of the consequences Raines’s proposal would have for gun owners, one must look to the actual laws in 1960. On the federal level that means gun owners would be subject to the Federal Firearms Act and the National Firearms Act. In 1960 the federal prohibited persons categories were far narrower. The FFA prohibited the possession of firearms by fugitives and those who had been convicted of a “crime of violence.” There would be no National Instant Criminal Background Check System or requirement that gun dealers run any kind of background check on gun buyers. Gun buyers could order firearms through the mail directly to their doorstep. As the Hughes Amendment wasn’t enacted until 1986, Americans could once again purchase newly-manufactured machineguns, provided they pay for the tax stamp required under the NFA. There would be no federal restriction on the composition of handgun projectiles. However, were Raines’s proposal to be carried out, there would be some ways in which firearms laws would be more restrictive. In 1960 gunowners did not enjoy the strong state firearms preemption laws that they do today. Old versions of ATFs State Laws and Published Ordinances are replete with all manner of local registration, may-issue licensing, permit to purchase, and carry ordinances that have been wiped off the books by state preemption laws. The same goes for the Right-to-Carry. The Right-to-Carry revolution did not start until 1987, when Florida passed its landmark legislation. Prior to 1987, there were 9 Right-to-Carry states. Today there are 42. Before this sea change, many Americans could only lawfully exercise their Right-to-Carry at the discretion of a government official. Not to be overlooked is the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. Much of FOPA was enacted to remedy deficiencies in the Gun Control Act of 1968, which would be repealed under Raines’s scenario. However, the law was also important for ensuring that an individual “shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm” regardless of the laws of any jurisdictions they are traveling through, provided the firearm is stored in compliance with FOPA. Was it Raines’s intention to propose a gun law regime where you can meet the mailman in your driveway to pick up your new AR-15 while carrying a Glock 18 loaded with KTW ammunition? Unlikely, considering his misconceptions of federal law. What is likely is that more lazy thought pieces containing inaccurate information will disseminated by a legacy press eager to publish anything that promotes a gun control agenda.
  14. It’s hard to imagine that Joe Biden could outdo himself with a gun control proposal even more absurd than his DNA-activated smart gun, but our imagination is apparently more constrained by truth and facts than that of the former vice president. On September 2, while being interviewed in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Biden opined that it was “absolutely mindless” that “we don’t have elimination of assault-type weapons and magazines that can have, hold multiple bullets in them,” adding that such measures are entirely compatible with the Second Amendment. Biden already supports a ban of “high-capacity magazines” (more than ten rounds). Assuming this new ban refers only to detachable magazines capable of holding more than a single round, Biden has still managed to move the needle on the daffy meter from just “bizarre” to “entirely unhinged.” Law enforcement officers, members of the military, and the vast majority of American gun owners would be disarmed under this new scheme. Of course, this “multiple bullet” test may be less of an issue given that Biden also proposes the “elimination of assault-type weapons.” While it is not particularly clear what he means, his gun control platform currently refers to a prohibition on “military-style firearms designed to fire rapidly” – namely, modern semiautomatic guns used by ordinary Americans for hunting and recreational shooting. Besides an “assault weapon” ban, the 2020 Democratic candidates almost uniformly embrace repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, imposing government buybacks of firearms, and national gun licensing. Biden’s latest idea may be nothing other than an effort to distinguish himself as even more virtuously anti-Second Amendment than the rest of the bunch. If that’s the case, though, one of these presidential hopefuls immediately rose to the challenge. Stuffing the gun-control clown car with yet another ridiculous idea,Marianne Williamson wrote (in an op ed for the Washington Post, no less) that not only must “assault weapons” be banned, but the “bullets needed to shoot them” need to be outlawed, too. Frontrunner Biden’s campaign website proclaims “Our Best Days Still Lie Ahead.” For America’s gun owners, that can only mean more dodgy political posturing aimed at extinguishing fundamental rights and freedoms.
  15. By Rob Morse. August 29th, 2019Article Source It is neither moral nor practical for you to give away your right of self-defense. It isn’t our right of self-defense; it is yours. One to a person. Most of us couldn’t give it away we tried. The idea of outsourcing our defense is so foreign that we hardly know what it looks like. Most of us don’t arrive at work with a group of guys paid to surround us as we take public transportation. You probably drive yourself to work. That means you’re not being driven by a chauffeur and an armed security team. You protect yourself on the way to work and also as you stop for gas. You don’t have paid bodyguards (plural) with us at all times. You provide your own security. You may do an effective job of it or an ineffective one, but your safety is your problem when you’re in public. When you’re at home, you don’t have someone standing guard outside your bedroom door as you sleep. I don’t blame you. I can’t afford to pay a team to protect me, a team to protect my wife, and teams to protect each of my children. I can’t afford that, and neither can most of us. We do the best we can. Only a few billionaires can buy that level of security. Only a few politicians have security teams like that, and those teams are paid for with other peoples’ money. The police don’t provide that level of security. They can’t. The cops I know wish they could, but they are not there in time to stop an assault. Instead of purchased security, millions of us protect ourselves every day with no days off. There is an upside to that. Self-reliance follows us wherever we go. It does no harm and can do a great deal of good. The virtue of self-defense seems shockingly obvious to me given the people I’ve met, but some folks disagree. They say that protecting yourself might confuse the police. I’ve never met a cop who said that, but I have met a few people who wanted an excuse to say their safety is someone else’s problem. They say we should do everything possible to save one life, but then they ignore their own. They’re saying that the police might be confused if I resist a robbery? They’re saying that the police might be confused if my wife stops an intruder from entering our home at night? They’re saying my daughter shouldn’t stop a sexual assault because it might confuse the police? I shouldn’t treat the injured in an emergency because it might confuse EMTs and doctors? Really? I don’t believe it. Neither do you. We learned trauma care so we can keep people alive until EMTs arrive. There is no moral ambiguity in this. Of all the problems an EMT has to sort out, an unfamiliar tourniquet is one of his smallest concerns. We have fire extinguishers so we can escape a fire before the fire department gets there. We learn self-defense so we can protect the people we love until the police arrive. The cops sort the good guys from the bad guys every hour. They are good at it. There is a theoretical concern that someone might seek greater risks now that they know first-aid or self-defense. That is possible, but it doesn’t match with my experience. Force-on-force training shows us that self-defense is imperfect and that we remain vulnerable. A trauma-care class shows us how people have been hurt and that we can’t fix every injury. Rather than feeling invincible after a class, I walk away filled with caution. I think I have a lot of company. Lots of us seek out training. We’re told that we should take every effort even if it might only save one life. Armed defense saves thousands of us every day. Trauma care saves more. There is a psychological benefit that goes beyond any measure of health and safety. These courses in human self-reliance teach us that we are effective. We have a library of practiced responses that replace panic. We can’t stop every assault and save every life, but we sure change the odds. That knowledge, that feeling, my friends, is priceless. It is worth it for the peace of mind it brings..and it is worth it if it only saves one life.
  16. On The Second Amendment
  17. West Virginia's Attorney General Patrick Morrisey affirmed his state’s concealed-carry reciprocity with several states in an annual practice. “Since 2013, our office has vigorously worked to uphold the rule of law and preserve our citizens’ constitutional right to carry a firearm,” Attorney General Morrisey told America’s 1st Freedom via email. “West Virginians travel the country every day, and by protecting their concealed-carry rights, we ensure their continued freedom to do both—travel and still exercise their Second Amendment rights.” West Virginians can carry concealed in the state without a concealed handgun license (CHL) if they are at least 21 years old, U.S. citizens or legal residents, and not prohibited from possessing a firearm. However, many obtain the license anyway. The Attorney General’s FAQ site notes that the license can be used as an alternative to a background check when purchasing a firearm and will allow them to lawfully carry a handgun in any state that honors or recognizes West Virginia CHLs. Currently, there are 23 states that recognize West Virginia’s CHL or don’t require a license to carry concealed. An additional 15 states recognize West Virginia’s license and its provisional license for citizens over age 18 but under 21. West Virginia’s CHLs are not recognized by nearby District of Columbia and these states: California Connecticut Hawaii Illinois Maine Maryland Massachusetts New Jersey New York Oregon Rhode Island Vermont Washington state West Virginia also allows people from other states to carry concealed in the state without a license, provided they meet the same legal requirements as noted above for residents. “This [annual affirmation] also preserves the rights of law-abiding gun owners everywhere, including those who visit our beautiful state,” he noted. “That is a victory for the individual liberties our country has always cherished and that make America the greatest nation in the world. We hope our efforts remain intact for many years to come.”
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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