Charlie T Waite

Photo by: ABC15 KINGMAN, Ariz. (AP) — Mohave County in northwestern Arizona is officially on the record as a "Second Amendment Sanctuary County" in support of gun rights. The county Board of Supervisors' unanimous vote Monday follows similar actions by some state, county and local governments to take a public stance on the issue. The resolution says in part the board won't authorize county spending or other resources for "enforcing laws that unconstitutionally infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms." Republican U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar and GOP state legislators Sonny Borrelli and Leo Biasiucci spoke in favor of the resolution that Superivor Hildy Angius called a nonbinding "statement of fight." Mohave County Democratic Party Chairperson Mary McCord Robison urged the board to delay consideration of the resolution, which she called divisive and redundant.

Court Action Is Expensive …And Time Consuming

The Montana Supreme Court voted unanimously Oct. 22 to reverse a district judge’s decision to uphold extreme gun-control measures in Missoula, Mont. The Missoula City Council passed an ordinance in 2016 that criminalized virtually all private firearms transfers in the city by requiring a background check for the sale or transfer of every firearm, including purchases at gun shows. The law provided few exceptions, such as transfers involving immediate family members, antique firearms, members of law enforcement and temporary transfers “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.” Montana Attorney General Tim Fox issued a legal opinion in 2017 that deemed the ordinance to have infringed upon both the U.S. Constitution and Montana’s state constitution. The City of Missoula challenged Fox’s opinion and moved for summary judgment. Missoula District Court Judge Robert “Dusty” Deschamps overturned Fox’s opinion and upheld the ordinance in 2018. Fox appealed the ruling and the Montana Supreme Court recently voted 5-0 in his favor, invalidating Missoula’s ordinance. “This is a huge victory for Montana gun owners and everyone who cherishes freedom in Big Sky Country,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The unanimous ruling from Montana’s Supreme Court confirms that politicians cannot usurp a constitutional framework by contemptuously enacting gun control at the local level.” Montana is one of over 40 states with a firearm preemption law, which prohibits local government from enacting firearm regulations that are more restrictive than state law. Preemption laws protect law-abiding gun owners from having to deal with a myriad of local laws that make exercising Second-Amendment rights inconvenient and functionally impossible. The decision into protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens is a win for the Second Amendment in Montana. The Montana State Legislature voted to allow constitutional carry throughout the state as recently as 2015 and 2017 only to see Gov. Steve Bullock – a current Democratic presidential candidate polling at less than 1% in most major polls – veto both bills: 2015 bill, and 2017 bill.

On November 7th, the Wisconsin Legislature adjourned from its special session not long after it was convened. Governor Tony Evers’ latest attempt to pass gun control failed. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald demonstrated great leadership in standing up to Gov. Evers and protecting the Second Amendment. Please take the time to thank them for supporting your rights. Your NRA would also like to thank the other Wisconsin legislators of the pro-gun majority who made this possible. Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates on issues affecting our Second Amendment rights in Wisconsin.

The Daisy Adult Red Ryder comes with a Metal Cocking Lever.By Customer Service MANUFACTURER on October 8, 2019 Yes, the Adult Red Ryder does have a metal cocking lever. By Amazon Customer on October 3, 2019 The only difference between the youth Red Ryder and the adult Red Ryder is the stock. Is the same exact gun from the stock forward all they did was added a larger stock and cut it to fit the original parts and it actually looks awkward too big for the actual gun itself. It does not have any more power it's literally the same gun with a different wooden stock.

Suddenly, big money in politics is a good thing, says the gun-control left. Back in the early 2000s money in politics wasn’t even supposed to be protected speech, according to the left. It took a U.S. Supreme Court decision—Citizens United v. FEC (2010)—to prohibit the government from stopping corporations, associations and more from utilizing their First Amendment rights to support or oppose politicians near elections. Now, after state elections handed Virginia’s legislature to Democrats on Nov. 5, the mainstream media is applauding Michael Bloomberg’s massive money dump—reportedly $2.5 million just on a select number of Virginia races—to sway voters in the state’s local elections. “A gun-control lobbying group funded largely by billionaire Michael Bloomberg just helped Democrats take over the state government in Virginia—right in the National Rifle Association’s backyard,” boasted CNBC. “‘The NRA is weaker than they’ve ever been,’” said a headline in The Washington Post. “Everytown officials—who provided CNN with details of their Virginia strategy—say their approach to the off-year election demonstrates the potency of the gun-safety message one year before the nation heads to the polls to decide control of Congress and the White House,” said CNN. As a telling aside, it’s worth noting here that by boasting that “Everytown officials … provided CNN with details of their Virginia strategy,” CNN actually showcased their lack of journalistic credibility. Everytown, you see, doesn’t even respond to journalists who won’t print their propaganda with few questions asked. I know this firsthand after numerous attempts to interview Everytown officials—and have been told this by other journalists, people who write for conservative-leaning publications, who have tried to reach Everytown for comment. Next, it must be said that the narrative that Bloomberg’s money is overwhelming gun-rights proponents, though convenient to those who want to disarm law-abiding Americans, is also too simplistic. Nationally, a lot of factors are affecting voter turnout and more; meanwhile, locally, specific issues, personalities and more are also influencing races. Still, this media narrative highlights the fact that many in the mainstream media have morphed into nothing more than an arm of the Democratic Party. To them, money in politics is a good thing when it supports their candidates, but a bad thing when it doesn’t—in others words, they are so obviously pushing narratives they think are helpful to the party they back that they can’t smell their own hypocrisy. Money in politics, of course, is neither good nor bad. Money can be used, just as speech can, to deceive, such as the propaganda Bloomberg dishes out, or to tell the truth. The media misdirection in this case is a foreshadowing of what they want to happen in the 2020 elections. Bloomberg’s group Everytown, and the many mainstream media outlets that print its press-releases almost verbatim, want voters to believe that more control over you, via new gun-control laws, bans and restrictions, are popular with voters and therefore will inevitably be passed after the November 2020 elections. They want voters to get in line with this inevitability. The politics here, however, are hardly inevitable; in fact, many signs point the other way. The departures of Beto O’Rourke, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Eric Swalwell D-Calif.) from the race for president, for example, speaks loudly and clearly, as all three of those failed candidates made gun control a central plank in their campaign platforms. In his explanation for his departure from the race, O’Rourke boasted that “we took the boldest approach to gun safety in American history….” Actually, his “hell yes” that, if elected president, he’d somehow confiscate millions of popular semi-automatic rifles owned by law abiding Americans was part of the reason for his lack of popularity. The exercising of Second Amendment rights, after all, is hardly only a Republican thing. Some 25% of Democrats say there is a gun in their home, according to the Pew Research Center (in comparison, 48% of independent voters and 56% of those who identify as Republican, say there is at least one gun in their homes). It is difficult to calculate what percentage of Americans do chose to own guns, as this is a question many gun owners are not interested in answering, so these numbers are likely low. It is also hard to survey what percentage of the voting public really wants new restrictions on their freedom. Many of the survey questions used, particularly those related to so-called “universal-background check laws” (How can it be “universal” when criminals by definition won’t obey the law?), are worded to skew the response. Public Policy Polling, for example, asked: “Do you support or oppose requiring a criminal background check of every person who wants to buy a firearm?” Anyone who hasn’t looked deeply into the topic can be forgiven for answering “yes” to this question. They simply don’t know that might be, depending on how any particular law is written, agreeing that gun owners should be barred from allowing a friend to shoot one of their guns at a range; or that gun owners shouldn’t allowed to loan guns to friends to go hunting; or that private sales between family members should be forbidden; or that a lot of other things America’s law-abiding gun owners have always done should now be illegal even though no one is seriously arguing that these onerous restrictions on our freedom will reduce violent crime rates, as the facts show that criminals get guns in other ways. As for 2020, voters are aware that “universal background check laws” are only a small part of what’s at stake. In this election, issues like whether a possible new nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court might support our individual right to keep and bear arms, will also be on the ballot. (Frank Miniter’s latest book is The Ultimate Man’s Survival Guide to the Workplace.)

A recent report from a security company revealed that the states with the most firearms purchases have some of the lowest violent-crime rates.According to the report from security.org, Montana had the highest percentage of firearms purchased in 2018, with nearly 142 guns bought per 1,000 adults. It also had some of the lowest rates of murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults involving a firearm.The top nine states for gun purchases are repeatedly listed as having some of the lowest firearms-related violent crimes. None of the top nine states for gun purchases had the highest gun-related violent crimes.Security.org sells home security systems, medical alert systems, and identity theft protection plans. Its researchers used 2018 data from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and applied an “industry-accepted formula” to determine an estimated number of firearms purchases. For the violent crime rates, the researchers used the FBI’s 2017 report on annual crime in the United States. (The FBI’s reports for both 2017 and 2018 show violent crime has been decreasing.)The researchers noted: “Bridging the political divides over guns and gun control could be helped by a deeper understanding of the geographic differences in gun sales, gun crimes and gun deaths. We wanted to look at where in the United States all three of these things were most common and see what connections and correlations can be drawn between those states.”However, where the connection or correlation showed that high gun purchases equate to lower violent crime, the authors seem to invalidate the conclusion. “It’s notable that some of the states with the highest population-adjusted rates of gun purchases (Montana, South Dakota and others) are among the states where guns are used the least in violent crimes. While this does not hold true for every state and across every crime category, it’s also not a fair comparison. That’s because guns used in the commission of a crime often are purchased illegally or stolen outright.”It is noteworthy that the authors did not clarify why illegal gun purchases and gun thefts would invalidate the connection with lower crime rates without also invalidating the rest of the report.

I found this on someones' 2nd Amendment Timeline: When I was 19 years old I joined the United States Army, I raised my hand and took an oath, I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; I took this obligation deadly serious then and for every minute up until now. My fear today is that the greatest enemy of our Constitution is indeed domestic and it it rooted in generations of ignorance. I am personally GREATLY concerned that the vast majority of Americans have lost sight of or worse never know what the founding of this great Constitutional Republic was all about and what it was meant to be. I am mortified that the Individual Rights, Liberty and Freedom that our Founding Fathers Fought so hard to preserve for us seem so unimportant to so many Americans today. I hope that reading and sharing these very important documents might help enlighten some of my fellow Americans. If you know anyone who might like to or should read them PLEASE Forward this along to them. All Americans should read these documents. The Constitution of the United States of America Constitution of the United States - Preamble, Articles & Summary https://constitution.findlaw.com/articles.html Constitution of the United States - Amendments 1-27 https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendments.html Constitution of the United States - Bill of Rights 1- 10 https://constitution.findlaw.com/bill-of-rights.html The Federalist Papers No. 1 through No.85 here: https://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm https://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/ The Anti-federalist Papers No. 1 through No.85 here: http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/antifed.htm The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution. In total, the Federalist Papers consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. All of the essays were signed "PUBLIUS" and the actual authors of some are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote 52, James Madison wrote 28, and John Jay contributed the remaining five. The Anti-Federalist Papers is the collective name given to works written by the Founding Fathers who were opposed to or concerned with the merits of the United States Constitution of 1787. Starting on 25 September 1787 (8 days after the final draft of the US Constitution) and running through the early 1790s, these anti-Federalists published a series of essays arguing against a stronger and more energetic union as embodied in the new Constitution. Although less influential than their counterparts, The Federalist Papers, these works nonetheless played an important role in shaping the early American political landscape and in the passage of the US Bill of Rights.

ILLINOIS (KMOV.com) -- Some News 4 viewers said they've had problems getting their Illinois Firearm Owner's Identification or FOID card renewed.

But Northam saw new hope on Wednesday for his gun measures

When do you know your legislation is facing an uphill battle? When the chairman of the committee is....

I know a few who would really like this.

November 5, 2019 When most anti-gun Leftists talk about banning “assault weapons,” they often refer to firearms of the rifle variety; AR-15’s and AK-47’s It should come as no surprise to any gun owner who pays attention to the news that they want to ban “scary-looking” AR-15’s or any other “assault weapon.” It should also come as no surprise that they’ll do whatever they can to restrict gun rights as much as possible without anyone noticing. Take Senator Dianne Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons” Ban for example. Senator Feinstein introduced the bill (S.66) earlier this year alongside 28 of her colleagues. On the surface, it may look like a typical attempt to ban the sale and possession of whatever the gun control propagandists decide is an “assault weapon.” However, looking closer, it’s much more aggressive than that. S.66 makes it a crime to sell, transfer, or possess semi-automatic “assault weapons” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” The only exemptions to this ban are firearms that are manually operated, permanently inoperable, or antique. That means any semi-automatic firearm is considered an “assault weapon” in Feinstein’s bill — including rifles, pistols, and shotguns. The bill also defines any magazine that holds more than seven rounds as a “large capacity ammunition feeding device.” Thankfully, National Association for Gun Rights staff took the time to read the bill and interpret it for what it is. Senator Dianne Feinstein doesn’t just want to ban a few guns, she and her colleagues want to leave Americans defenseless. Semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns are all commonly used for self-defense; and any prepared gun owner knows that defending yourself isn’t always as simple as needing only seven rounds. At its core, Senator Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons” Ban does more to put American citizens in danger by leaving them defenseless.