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. by Jason Ouimet, Interim Executive Director, NRA-ILA - Friday, August 23, 2019
  2. NRA INSTITUTE for LEGISLATIVE ACTION Official NRA-ILA Petition to congress As your constituent, I urge that you uphold your OATH to PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND the Constitution of the United States—including my Second Amendment rights! I call on you to VOTE NO on ANY bill that would weaken, infringe upon, or undermine my constitutionally protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Please know that as an NRA-ILA supporter, I will be monitoring your votes and your actions on EVERY issue that affects my gun rights, and I will do EVERYTHING in my power to defeat any elected official who tries to take away my constitutional freedom.
  3. By David Keene - The Washington Times - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 ANALYSIS/OPINION: The idea that Americans have a constitutional right to own and possess firearms appalls today’s progressives. They believe that if they could just rid the nation of guns, then armed robberies, gang violence, mass shootings, rape, violent crime and maybe even suicide would vanish and we could all live peacefully ever after. The problem they have faced is not just the National Rifle Association or the reluctance of non-progressive politicos to advance their cause, but the fact that tens of millions of voting Americans support private firearms ownership and that Founders in drafting the Constitution and Bill of Rights shared their view. Progressives are prepared to pack the Supreme Court to do away with Second Amendment roadblocks, but have been forced to accept the fact that they’re never going to get the public to voluntarily surrender their firearms to a benevolent government. They know too that there is only one foolproof way to get their “deplorable” fellow citizens to bend to their wishes — and that is to mobilize the force of the state against them. Two Democratic presidential wannabes seem willing to take the step that the others have thus far avoided. Beto O’Rourke and Kirsten Gillibrand, struggling to attract support that continues to elude them, have come out for what other candidates may secretly support: Firearms confiscation. This week the Texan endorsed what those who don’t like to use the word now term a “mandatory buyback” of what Democrats call “assault weapons.” If a rose is a rose by any other name then confiscation by any other name is, well, confiscation. Mr. O’Rourke may not be a clear speaker or a clear thinker, but that is what he says he wants. Sen. Gillibrand has already suggested she would like to see guns taken away from citizens, and if Beto’s proposal resonates with the Democrat’s leftist base, others can be expected to advance similar proposals in the near future.
  4. President’s Column | My Take On NRA’s Leader, Wayne LaPierre
  5. This is long but a good read. Some good points were hit about his journey from a non-gun owner to a gun owner especially since he was in the MSM.
  6. BELLEVUE, WA – With guns definitely in the political crosshairs this year, the Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are anticipating a huge interest in this year’s 34th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference the weekend of Sept. 20-22 in Phoenix, Ariz. The conference will be held at the Sheraton Crescent Hotel, 2620 W Dunlap Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85021. It is co-sponsored by SAF and CCRKBA. Hundreds of Second Amendment activists and experts are expected to attend. The full list of speakers is not finalized, but there will be appearances by SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, nationally-syndicated radio hosts Tom Gresham (Gun Talk) and Mark Walters (Armed America Radio), SAF President Joseph Tartaro and many others. In addition, SAF and CCRKBA leaders will be joined by representatives from Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. The 2019 GRPC will feature some 70 speakers on subjects ranging from the midterm elections to personal protection. The weekend event typically attracts more than 800 gun owners, activists and experts from across the country. Attendance is free, and on-line registration is available at www.saf.org. WHO: National gun rights leaders WHAT: Speaking at the 34th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference WHEN: Friday, Sept. 21, Saturday, Sept. 21 & Sunday, Sept. 22 WHERE: Sheraton Crescent Hotel, 2620 W Dunlap Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85021
  7. A smart person learns from his mistakes. An even smarter person learns from the mistakes of others. Beto O'Rourke, an unemployed Texan running for president, must not be too smart. Not only is O’Rourke adopting as his own the signature issue pushed by Eric Swalwall, the first candidate to drop out of the race. He is proposing an even more over-the-top version of that agenda in a desperate bid for relevance and attention. Swalwell’s only claim to fame in the primary was being the lone contender to threaten imprisonment for Americans who did not yield to his proposed gun ban and surrender their lawfully acquired firearms to the government. Not coincidentally, he was also the first candidate to drop out of the race, barely two months after he started. That's saying a lot, especially considering who his competition was. Until recently, it was difficult to understand what Beto O’Rourke actually hoped to accomplish as president, as it seemed he spent most of his early time on the campaign trail apologizing for himself. And not without some reason. There was, for example, the time he authored a “murder fantasy” narrated in the first person about a random killer who deliberately runs over two children innocently walking home from school, pausing to revel afterward in the “sweet visions filling [his] head.” But that was then, and now a supposedly more mature O’Rourke hopes to use a plan for gun confiscation to reinvigorate his moribund campaign (Texas Monthly and the Houston Chronicle, for example, have already called for him to drop out of the race). Seizing on the terrible crimes in El Paso, Texas, O'Rourke has picked up where Swalwell left off, this week proposing a draft of extreme gun controls that, yes, include a broad ban on what he calls (without further explanation) “assault weapons,” coupled with mandatory surrender provisions. Anyone who failed to comply, according to the plan, would be punished. O'Rourke's "plan" states that those who refuse to surrender their once legal firearms "will be fined." It does not, however, explain what would happen to those who refused (or were unable) to pay the fine. Beyond that, the plan proposes a slate of extreme and entirely unoriginal bans, restrictions, and prior restraints, including: a national gun registry; federally-approved licensing of gun owners; requiring every gun owner to go through federally-approved firearm training; raising the minimum age to purchase a gun; mandatory microstamping of handguns; bans on the private sale of firearms; bans on “high capacity” magazines; new taxes on guns; rationing of gun purchases; new categories of people federally prohibited from buying guns; granting the FBI discretion to indefinitely delay gun purchases; and instituting a process whereby federal courts could order federal agents to seize guns from law-abiding Americans on an ad hoc basis. If that weren't enough, his agenda also includes a "voluntary" turn-in program for handguns. O'Rourke laid out some of these proposals in a lengthy speech. "I'm confident that if at this moment we do not wake up to this threat," he told his audience, "then we as a country will die in our sleep." Needless to say, O'Rourke is not alone in his concern for the victims of the El Paso crimes. But to blame their suffering on his political opponents and to exploit the pain and tragedy they've endured for his own political gain is shameful even by the standard of modern politics. Which is why, we suspect, we will soon say goodbye to Beto O'Rourke, and he will join the last candidate to call for confiscation of firearms from law-abiding gun owners as a former presidential candidate.
  8. The Christian Science Monitor describes itself as “an independent international news organization” that wants to “help you to see news events as starting points for constructive conversations.” Its editorial board recently published an article, A seed for society’s safety: Gun buybacks, discussing why New Zealand’s “gun buyback” program could serve as a useful model on how the government can engage with gun owners in this country. According to the piece, the “voluntary nature of gun buybacks – along with the incentive of being compensated – gives them a special place in the worldwide debate over gun regulations.” In the case of the New Zealand program, it is neither a “buyback” nor voluntary. Apart from the quibble that the privately-owned guns have not been owned or sold by the government such that any later relinquishment is, in fact, a “buy back,” there’s nothing optional about the program, unless the decision between surrendering your property or facing hard jail time can be said to represent a real and honest choice. 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 a crime, although the law includes an “amnesty period” which runs until December 20, 2019. Residents are forbidden to use these firearms during that period; the purpose of the amnesty is solely to give private owners and licensed dealers time in which to surrender their property to the police. The compensation for doing so is restricted by a “base price” set by the government, with an automatic discount built-in – a new firearm is only eligible for maximum compensation of 95% of the base price, and compensation for certain new magazines or parts is capped at 70% of the base price amount. Under the government’s price list, for example, compensation for a new suppressor cannot exceed $350, even though the assigned base value is $500. Moreover, no compensation is being offered for ammunition and other accessories (like optical scopes) that become useless without a firearm. Such “incentivizing” compensation cannot eclipse the fact that compliance with the New Zealand program rests on the threat of criminal prosecution. The New Zealand Police warn that “people should hand in their prohibited firearms, magazines and parts during the amnesty period.” If they do not, or “do not demonstrate any intent to do so, then Police will take action.” Criminal penalties for the new possession offenses begin at two years’ imprisonment for possessing a prohibited part or magazine, and increase exponentially. There are other fundamental problems with gun “buybacks.” The CSM article admits that “criminals or potential mass shooters are very unlikely to turn in their guns,” and the “effectiveness of such buybacks” in reducing crime “is highly uncertain.” Nonetheless, the CSM argues the value of these programs is that they “help stir the thinking of gun owners,” as the “popular buyback program” in New Zealand allegedly sparked a nationwide attitude shift. Such “programs help bring gun owners in contact with police and others in a community, fostering a dialogue about the ways to keep everyone safe,” because New Zealand’s gun owners, “when given an opportunity to think about safety, took their arms to the police rather than taking up arms.” This completely misses the point. Law-abiding citizens are not the ones responsible for crimes and firearm violence, and fostering a “dialogue” that appears to pave the way for a “second tranche” of even more government restrictions on legitimate gun owners will not change this. A compulsory government program of firearm confiscation is only “popular” in the same way that paying income tax is “popular” – few (if any) would volunteer to opt in absent the element of criminal sanctions. And if government “buybacks” are really and truly about promoting community safety, it makes no sense to shrug off the critical detail that criminals and other evil-minded persons are “very unlikely” to be the ones giving up their guns. Closer to home, a voluntary “buyback” program in Baltimore, Maryland provides insight into the actual transformative impact of these events, which appears to be less Kumbaya than KonMarie. Last December, officials in Baltimore held a series of gun “buybacks” for city residents. Any resident who wanted to turn in their gun or magazine was free to do so, including any “legitimate gun owner” who no longer had “a need for that weapon.” Then-mayor Catherine E. Pugh candidly explained that the objective was to take in as many guns as possible, regardless of their potential for use in street crime. “Our point here is, there are guns on the streets of our city. We are signaling folks out there, we don’t care if it’s Grandpa’s gun or your gun, we want it.” The city paid up to $500 in cash for each firearm, irrespective of condition, and $25 for every “high capacity” (over ten round) magazine. All transactions were completely anonymous. Savvy citizens could use the event to make a quick profit on magazines (retailing, in many cases, at significantly less than $25) or their inoperative wall-hangers. One happy participant brought in the barreled action of a bolt action shotgun; another advised she was turning in a handgun so she could upgrade to a better gun. One source described the overall haul as akin to “the bargain table (or maybe trash bin) at your local gun show.” And although the buyback was open to Baltimore residents only, the no-questions-asked process potentially meant that anyone within driving distance could cash in. While those at the CSM are certainly free to believe that buybacks “help bring a community together to look at the foundations of peace,” an editorial in the Baltimore Sun more practically concluded that the event was a complete waste of government resources. Momentous language about the deliverance of peace aside, it observed that too often, “buybacks” do more towards decluttering basements than reducing the number of guns in the hands of criminals.
  9. DATE: August 19, 2019 TO: USF & NRA Members and Friends FROM: Marion P. Hammer USF Executive Director NRA Past President The so-called "assault weapons" ban that is proposed for a constitutional amendment to be on the 2020 Election Ballot bans the possession of: “any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun CAPABLE of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition at once, either in a fixed or detachable magazine or other ammunition feeding device.” The fact is, any rifle or shotgun that is "capable" of accepting or using, a detachable magazine that holds 10 rounds or less is also "capable" of accepting a magazine or magazine extension of any size. Magazines with a capacity of 3 all the way up to 100 rounds are in common use throughout the United States. Therefore, ALL semiautomatic rifles and shotguns "capable" of using a detachable magazine or fixed magazine would be banned. UNLESS YOU REGISTER THEM WITH THE GOVERNMENTwithin a year -- so the government knows who has guns and how many. Otherwise you can be arrested, charged and prosecuted for felony possession of so-called "assault weapons" and your guns confiscated. That means all Ruger 10-22 semiautomatic rifles, all Remington Model 1100 shotguns, all Benelli shotguns, all semiautomatic hunting rifles, all semiautomatic plinking and target rifles -- you get the picture. If it is semiautomatic, kiss it goodbye. Firearms that you legally purchased, legally owned, legally used, and legally possessed for years could suddenly be banned and you could end up in prison for merely continuing to possess your own property if you fail to register with the government. History shows that when the government knows who has guns and where they are, they can come and confiscate them. Remember, once convicted of felony possession of a so-called “assault weapon,” then YOU LOSE ALL OF YOUR GUNS because felons can’t possess ANY GUNS, Period. Further, manufacture and sale is also banned since there is no exemption whatever for possession due to manufacturing, distribution or sale. Simply put, over 150 manufacturers may be forced to shut down and move out of Florida if they manufacture semiautomatic rifles or shotguns. Goodbye jobs, goodbye Pittman-Robertson money for youth gun safety programs, goodbye retail gun shops, HELLO, major damage to the job market and Florida's economy. A recent Gallup poll shows that over 40% of households ADMIT to owning at least one gun. That number is probably much higher since we don't like telling pollsters what we own. In Florida with a population of over 22 million, that means 9-10 million Florida households could lose their home defense firearms if they are semiautomatic rifles or shotguns. At an August 16th hearing, sponsor and supporters of the "Assault Weapons" Amendment said the following: “We don’t think it bans Ruger 10-22 rifles, they’re just .22s.” --BUT IT DOES!!!!! "My Benelli shotgun is beautiful and shouldn't be banned. -- BUT IT WILL BE!!!!! “We don’t want to shut down your shooting range and gun shop.” -- BUT IT WILL!!!!! Welcome to reality. What they think or what they say they want doesn’t matter. ONLY the words matter and the proposed amendment will ban Ruger 10-22s, Benelli Shotguns, Remington Model 1100 shotguns and all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with detachable or fixed magazine. What matters is what the language says and does. And past experience has shown us that the government will enforce it as badly as they possibly can. BOTTOM LINE: The sponsors and supporters either don’t know what the heck they are doing or they are lying. AND your Second Amendment rights are in danger. PERIOD.
  10. HASLET, Texas — Acrid gun smoke clouded the sunny entrance of a Texas church on a recent Sunday.
  11. Citizens of England and Wales are actively pursuing interests in shooting sports despite strict gun control and pressure from anti-gun groups. The number of firearms licenses across England and Wales is now at a record peak, with approximately 597,000 guns this year—an amount 160,000 more than 10 years ago, according to the Home Office. The Home Office estimated that each legal gun owner owns an average of four guns. These figures do not include shotguns, which are subject to different licensing. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation attributed this rise in firearms interest to increased participation in shooting sports. “BASC membership numbers are at a record high showing the popularity of shooting in the UK,” according to the BASC website, which has launched an appeal to encourage women to get involved in traditionally male-dominated shooting sports. Some of the traditional shooting sports practiced in Great Britain include clay pigeon shooting, deer stalking, driven game shooting, wildfowling and woodpigeon shooting. Membership in shooting clubs and participation in clay pigeon shooting is up in various regions on a never-before-seen scale, according to members of sports associations. Young people, in particular, are turning out in droves to participate in clay pigeon shoots in the countryside on weekends. One local shooting club, whose membership was down to less than 50 only five years ago, now has 80 members with a waiting list of seven. The sport of clay pigeon shooting is increasingly popular with youth; in some cases, children as young as seven have been granted shotgun licenses to practice the sport with adult supervision. Experts note that clay pigeon shooting is also a popular and rewarding hobby for the elderly and disabled people who have limited mobility. This interest comes during a time when shooting sports enthusiasts in England are under fire from gun-control groups seeking to discourage interest in firearms. Notably, the sport of target shooting was barred from the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games this June. The games are a competitive sporting event spanning 53 member states of the British Commonwealth of Nations. This is the first time that target shooting has been excluded from the games since 1970. “The news was met with dismay in the shooting world, with a petition on Change.org receiving 61,094 supporters,” noted British Shooting, adding that the UK’s home countries regularly achieve about 30 medals in shooting sports and lamenting the exclusion of talented athletes from the games. As gun ownership is on the rise, anti-gun activists have alleged that the increase in legally owned firearms is dangerous to society. The BASC disagrees, citing the U.K.’s stringent gun-control laws. “The number of licensed firearms used in crime is minuscule,” said Bill Harriman of the BASC. Also, Britain’s Opposition Labor Party has called for a critical review of the ancient sport of driven-grouse shooting, with a spokesperson claiming that: “There are viable alternatives to grouse shooting such as simulated shooting and wildlife tourism.” However, grouse shooting provides “essential income” for land conservation “and is responsible for over 1,500 jobs” in rural areas, according to the Moorland Association, a conservation group dedicated to maintaining 860,000 acres of wilderness used for the sport. Owners and sporting tenants within the Association’s 190 member grouse hunting lands in England and Wales have spent more than 50 million pounds per year on land management and the protection of endangered bird species, according to the organization. “The Labor review needs to hear from the people on the ground who maintain grouse moors with massive benefits for conservation and the environment,” the BASC responded to recent criticisms of grouse shooting, stating the sport stimulates “massive economic benefits” to rural communities. The U.K boasts some of the strictest gun-control laws in the world. Police conduct home inspections and at-home interviews for gun-license applicants. Applicants must also provide detailed plans for securing firearms in their homes and provide witnesses to reference those details. In addition to background checks, the police also interview the applicant’s primary-care doctor to determine eligibility for a firearms license.
  12. GOA Activists Flood the Senate with 1.5 Million Messages; Limbaugh Highlights GOA on Fox News
  • Create New...

Important Information

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