Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. On August 30, both the Senate and Assembly Appropriations Committees took up their respective suspense files and passed anti-gun legislation that will now head to the floor in each chamber for votes. It's imperative that NRA members contact their legislators in the final weeks of session and urge their opposition to these anti-gun measures. Assembly Floor The Assembly Appropriations Committee passed SB 61 and SB 172 with amendments. The amendments will be made publicly available next week prior to the bills being eligible for a vote on the Assembly floor. Use the take action button below to contact members of the Assembly and urge their opposition. Senate Bill 61, sponsored by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), would expand California’s existing one handgun a month law to apply to all firearms, absent narrow circumstances. Senate Bill 172, sponsored by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-25), would expand California's existing storage laws and includes harsh penalties for non-compliance. Senate Floor The Senate Appropriations Committee passed AB 12, AB 879, AB 893, AB 1254 and AB 1669 which will now head to the Senate Floor where they will be eligible for votes. Use the take action button below to the contact members of the Senate and urge their opposition. 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 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 to name a few. 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. The Anti-Gun Radicals CAN'T be Trusted! The anti-gun crowd loves to distort the position of gun-owners. It’s most often the only way they can win the argument. Often times, the gun-conversation turns into a war of words and statistics. But when the anti-gunners put their Bloomberg funded “statistics,” that have been reported in Huffington Post and “fact-checked” by Snopes, up against FBI data, their argument takes nose dive. So, what is a good anti-gunner to do when they know they need to recruit people, but they don’t have the facts on their side? They use what is called a “Strawman” argument. An anti-gun Strawman argument is a total distortion of what gun-owners actually think. It’s important to the anti-gun crowd to misrepresent the pro-gun position in a way that is easy to ridicule, mock and make look foolish. By distorting gun owners’ argument or position, it makes it easier to discredit. Here’s are some examples of distorted gun-owner’s positions or “Strawman” arguments. The first one is a common argument, misrepresenting the pro-gun position for the sake of making gun-owners appear reckless. The second one is an actual posting found on Facebook for the purpose of making gun-owners appear irrational and fearful. 1. “You gun-owners want every teacher to be armed to the teeth. I’m sorry, but making teachers carry guns against their will in the classroom is dangerous.” The reason this distorted representation is so dangerous, is that is implies that gun-owners want to pass out guns and force people, who wouldn’t know how to use them, to carry them around all day. This couldn’t be further from the truth and the anti-gun crowd knows this, but the perception of those listening to the argument is the target. In other words, it doesn’t matter if the argument is honest, as long as it paints a reckless picture of gun-owners in the minds of those who are watching but not paying close attention. 2. “I’m seeing so much on Facebook about Red Flag Laws. As it turns out, 100% of everything I’ve read on Facebook about Red Flag Laws is untrue. No, they cannot sneak into your house without your knowledge, search in the middle of the night while you sleep in your bed. This is false. The police will always make their presence known, and if there are people in the house, those people will be moved to one location or asked to leave the residence if not detained. They will not search your house while you are laying in bed. No, you are not subject to seizure of your guns for being a Trump supporter. This is false.” This is a very clever “Strawman” because it implies that gun owners actually believe police will be sneaking around in their houses in the middle of the night while they sleep. Ask any gun-owner if they think like this and you will get a resounding no. This type of thought process is more likely a notion conjured up in the minds of anti-gunners. This statement paints a vivid picture of gun-owners being fearful, irrational and suspicious. Not a good look and the anti-gun crowd knows it. That’s why they do it. When people are confronted with a Strawman argument, the natural inclination is to defend against it. The problem with defending against a false representation of your position is that it implies ownership of the position. That’s what the anti-gun crowd is trying to achieve. Because of our natural reaction to defend ourselves, the anti-gun crowd is able to position gun-owners the way they want, ultimately creating a false public perception. Unfortunately, gun-owners often fall into the trap when they defend the fake position the anti-gunner created. By understanding this strategy, we are much less likely to argue a position that the anti-gunners fabricate. The best way to respond to the dishonest “Strawman” strategy is to avoid defending it while shining a spotlight on it for all to see. A good response to a Strawman argument, may be:“You either need to distort my position because you can’t win the argument with your lies, or you don’t really understand my position at all. Which one is it?” Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate and spokesperson, he is author of Good Gun Bad Guy: Behind the Lies of the Anti-Gun Radical & Good Gun Bad Guy 2: Destroying the Anti-Gun Narrative.
  3. Had already submitted it.
  4. I would add the type of health care they receive, way they receive their mail..... and we could go on & on. The blind obedience of some to perpetuate ignorance and falsehoods on concepts they have no firsthand knowledge is truly astounding to me. The problem I have with it is that they drag other misbegotten souls into their delusions as well, making our task that much more difficult. Then you add to that the number of firearm owners who do nothing because they think "It will never happen here", "I alone can't make a difference", "I spoke out on it once, it's like talking to a wall" or "I just hunt so it will not affect me"; that do or say nothing; we see why we have such an uphill battle. We need everyone to get off their collective duffs and fight for our rights or we are going to lose them - an not just the 2nd but all of them. All that you need do is look at history to see how this will play out and we are starting to repeat the failed histories of other countries right here in America. In 1770 the Irish statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke wrote about the need for good men to associate to oppose the cabals of bad men. He defined it further and said When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. You may know this quote better by it's more modern version; "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing" Charlie
  5. August 23, 2019 The National Association for Gun Rights opposes ALL gun control, and it’s our dedicated members and supporters like you who do the lobbying through your activism. Even the mainstream media is taking notice of NAGR, as shown in this FOX NEWS article where NAGR President Dudley Brown said: “As an organization, we don’t use Gucci-loafered lobbyists in Washington, D.C. in $200,000 wardrobes to grease the palms of weak-kneed politicians to vote right.” Rather than relying on backroom D.C. deal making, the key to NAGR’s success comes from its 4.5 million grassroots activists who support the organization. “Instead, we activate our members to do that lobbying for us and for them. That’s the power in a grassroots lobby and NRA lost that a long time ago,” said Dudley Brown. That’s the power in a grassroots lobby. That’s the power of real activism. Right now, NAGR is fighting the most massive push for gun control in years... ...even larger than President Obama’s 2013 push, which was defeated using grassroots pressure. Today it’s Democrats and Republicans passing “Red Flag” Gun Confiscation, Universal Gun Registration, and more. With the NRA under more scrutiny and pressure to cave than ever before, it’s crucial every gun owner get in the fight to protect the Second Amendment right now.
  6. Cracks Seemingly Forming in the Push for Gun Control!
  7. “Researchers from the University of California, Davis, have found that, in the three years since California implemented the nation’s first law allowing guns to be taken from individuals who pose an extreme risk, the so-called red flag orders have prevented at least 21 mass shootings. That’s how the Sacramento Bee summarized a research paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine earlier this week. The paper, titled “Extreme Risk Protection Orders Intended to Prevent Mass Shootings: A Case Series,” was produced by a team of researchers at the UC Davis School of Medicine in Sacramento led by Dr. Garen Wintemute. Wintemute is one of the most well-known anti-gun researchers in the country. As a man with a professional reputation to protect, his own explanation of the study’s findings is significantly less dramatic than the Bee’s summary. “It is impossible to know whether violence would have occurred had ERPOs not been issued, and the authors make no claim of a causal relationship,” Wintemute admitted. In conducting the study, Wintemute’s team requested court records for all 414 ERPO cases in California from 2016 through 2018. Yet the published paper included a case study analysis only of the 21 incidents in which the subject of the order had threatened to commit a mass shooting and had or would soon have access to firearms. These incidents are nothing to make light of, and that is not the intention of this critique. The point is instead to draw attention to the fact that emotional arguments are being advanced as “scientific” evidence of public policy. The 21 incidents included two suspected terrorist plots, and nearly all of the cases involved specific threats, which are already crimes in California and can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. A felony conviction or even indictment would itself result in a federal prohibition on the acquisition or possession of firearms. Some of the case subjects included in the study claimed they were “just joking” or were clearly in mental duress (examples include subjects having previously attempted suicide or making a threat against those perceived to be responsible for the death of the subject’s child). The bottom line, though, is most, if not all, of these cases – based on the brief information provided in the Annals paper – concerned behavior that seemingly could have led to serious criminal charges in California, even absent the state’s “red flag” law. In 11 cases, the subject was in fact arrested. In another five cases, arrest data is missing from the court records. That, of course, raises questions about the other five study subjects issued an ERPO. Did they receive help, treatment, or punishment after the order was issued? It’s also worth noting that the methodology used to determine that none of the subjects had gone on to commit post-ERPO violence was a Google search for the subjects’ names, locations, and date of order issuance. While it’s likely that any act of mass violence would have generated some media coverage, a Google search is not the same thing as an actual arrest or criminal records inquiry. Perhaps Wintemute and his team are working on further analysis of all 414 cases. If so, we hope that their work will include a more detailed examination of what happens to the subjects of these orders. Are the appropriate subjects charged with crimes? Do those who need help receive it? Or does the intervention end with the seizure of firearms? Wintemute told the Sacramento Bee that his team had submitted the paper for publication last spring and that the timing of its public release was not related to the criminal mass attacks in Gilroy, El Paso, or Dayton. Still, it’s hard to ignore the coincidental timing and easy to wonder why Wintemute and his team did not wait until they had analyzed all 414 cases before publishing. In the meantime, this paper represents a notable trend in emerging “gun violence” research. There is no real scientific analysis nor an estimate of the law’s impact. There is merely a list of cases presented as anecdotal evidence that “this urgent, individualized intervention can play a role in efforts to prevent mass shootings.” In other words, it bears more of the hallmarks of political advocacy than actual science, especially in the way it is presented by a mass media eager to promote any anti-gun narrative. We know that there are monsters out there that wish to do harm and who would emulate the deranged individuals that have attacked innocent people. No one doubts that. We just hope that efforts to prevent tragedies protect the rights of all involved, deliver the help people clearly need, and do not come to rely on scare tactics or mere anecdotes that may not actually represent broader trends.
  8. Retirement age or even older country rednecks—such is the cliché view of an American gun owner as perpetuated by the mainstream media and its anti-Second Amendment comrades. It’s a smear job, no doubt, and conveniently neglects to tell another very important story. This is that millions of women and minorities have become gun owners and shooters in recent years. In fact, the new gun owner is also much younger than traditional gun owners and more likely to not live in rural locations. Data supplied by the good people at the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) reveals that the number of “target shooters” in the nation rose from 34.4 million Americans in 2009 to 52.1 million Americans in 2018—a jump of 51% in “new target shooters.” For data-gathering purposes, NSSF research defined “new target shooter” as someone who had begun shooting in the past five years and had not shot beforehand. According to NSSF statistics, the new target shooter is more likely to be female and younger than established shooters. A full 47% (nearly half) of the new target shooters are women—compared to just 22% of established shooters being female. The average age of the new shooters is 34 years old, while the average age for established shooters is 45. Meanwhile, 47% of these new shooters live in urban and suburban locales. Also a smaller but growing percentage of these new shooters are from minority groups. Most of the new target shooters are also new gun owners. Some may use firearms from a friend or family member, and a few may be target shooters by renting firearms at shooting ranges. But most have purchased a firearm. “It’s generally self-defense concerns driving the growing number of females and other non-traditional groups to buy a gun for the first time and enter the shooting sports,” noted Mark Duda, owner of Responsive Management, the research firm which performs much of NSSF’s data gathering and presentation. He added, “Well, the stereotype of older, rural males being shooters is still true for shooters who have been doing it for a long time. But it is the new shooters who look so different: younger, female, and from an urban or suburban area. Generally speaking, they are not hunters. Pretty interesting and important dynamics that are changing the face of the American gun owner and shooter.” In fact, women are the fastest-growing segment in the target-shooting population. Between 2001 and 2016, male participation in target shooting was up by just over 14% compared to female participation, which grew by a whopping 81%, according to an NSSF report called, “Target Shooting in America: 2018.” “We also measured other, non-traditional new shooter audiences, of which minorities were looked at and the trends are similar,” Duda noted. “Many more minorities are becoming new target shooters, and females represent a large block of those new shooters and, male or female, about half of these new minority shooters live in urban areas.” So, the next time you hear someone repeating stereotypes about gun owners, you might want to let them know they are incorrect.
  9. Firearms sales in California surged 26% in June, the last month before stricter gun-control laws mandating background checks for ammunition purchases went into effect. A total of 76,684 guns were sold in California in June, up from 61,060 in June 2018, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). Ammunition sales were also reportedly way up. Meanwhile, the number of background checks called in to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in Washington State, according to the NSSF’s adjusted numbers, for June 2019 were 118% higher than June 2018. The reason: June 2019 was the last month before gun-control restrictions brought by Proposition I-1639 went into effect July 1.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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