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. More than 100 gun-rights supporters rallied at the Oklahoma state Capitol to celebrate constitutional carry becoming law on the same day it went into effect. “That is the core principal main function of government—to secure our rights—that is what government should be about, and today, in Oklahoma, we are celebrating the restoration of our rights to keep and bear arms,” state Sen. Nathan Dahm (R.) told a local news source. House Bill 2597 legalized constitutional carry in Oklahoma after it passed by a vote of 70-30 in the House and 40-6 in the Senate. With the bill’s passage, Oklahomans can now carry firearms, openly or concealed, without a permit. Purchases of firearms still require background checks in the state. Oklahoma joined over a dozen other states that recognized constitutional carry as law. The NRA has worked closely with the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association for nearly a decade to bring constitutional carry to the state. “Government exists for the people, not the other way around. This law honors the right of law-abiding Oklahomans to defend themselves and their loved ones without begging for the government’s permission beforehand,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The NRA fights for law-abiding gun owners because we recognize that our freedoms are fundamental and natural, not government-given.”
  2. It just popped in on my list so I passed it along - I thought it was from some time ago but maybe they were trying it again with all the new pushes by our liberal friends.
  3. Town Bypasses Constitution, US Citizens Given 60 Days to Turn in Guns Or Become Criminals
  4. The death of a Georgia college student and the disappearance of an Auburn student in Alabama have many women paying more attention to their own personal safety, and that led to a packed house at a recent concealed carry course in Birmingham, Alabama.
  5. In recent weeks, gun owners have been given two prime examples of just how important strong firearms preemption laws are to the vibrant exercise of Second Amendment rights. On October 22, the Montana Supreme Court struck down a Missoula ordinance that purported to restrict city residents’ ability to transfer firearms. On October 29, Allegheny County Common Pleas Senior Judge Joseph M. James struck down a raft of Pittsburgh ordinances that purported to regulate the use of firearms in public places within the city and provide for the confiscation of firearms without due process. In both instances the tribunals pointed to the state firearms preemption statute as precluding the locality’s anti-gun efforts. Today, almost all states have a firearms preemption law that prohibits localities from regulating firearms in a manner more stringent than state law. These laws are vital as they prevent localities from enacting an incomprehensible patchwork of local ordinances. Without these measures unsuspecting gun owners would be forced to forego the exercise of their Second Amendment rights or risk running afoul of convoluted and potentially inaccessible local rules. A look back at a 1970s edition of ATF’s State Laws and Local Ordinances reveals a baffling mishmash of local ordinances aimed at all manner of firearms related conduct. Prior to the enactment of preemption statutes there were city waiting periods, county gun seller licensing and gun registration schemes, and local permits to purchase regimes. With prodding from moneyed interests, localities have become increasingly brazen in defying state preemption statutes. The Missoula case concerned City Ordinance 3581. Passed in 2016, the ordinance criminalized the private transfer of firearms in the city. The ordinance required almost all transfers to take place pursuant to a National Instant Criminal Background Check System check. The city passed the ordinance in defiance of Montana’s strong state firearms preemption statute. The Montana Code Annotated § 45-8-351 provides, a county, city, town, consolidated local government, or other local government unit may not prohibit, register, tax, license, or regulate the purchase, sale or other transfer (including delay in purchase, sale, or other transfer), ownership, possession, transportation, use, or unconcealed carrying of any weapon, including a rifle, shotgun, handgun, or concealed handgun. The language is straightforward and explicitly prohibited the locality from regulating “the purchase, sale or other transfer” of firearms. Illustrating the obvious illegality of Missoula’s ordinance, the Montana Supreme Court ruled 5-0 against the city. The Pittsburgh case concerned a trio of ordinances passed in 2018. Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto called on the city to enact a total ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, a total ban on standard capacity magazines, and the development of a procedure to confiscate an individual’s firearms without due process of law. Further, Peduto called on municipalities throughout the country to ignore state statutes enacted by their residents’ elected representatives. In the end, Peduto and his cohorts on the city council enacted narrower, but still impermissible, versions of the initial gun and magazine ban proposals and the confiscation measure. Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption statute, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6120, provides, No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth. Like Montana’s statute, the language clearly prohibited Pittsburgh’s conduct. Moreover, in the Keystone State the matter of Pittsburgh’s power to regulate firearms had already been decided in the courts. In the 1996 case Ortiz v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania settled the question as to whether Pittsburgh and Philadelphia could restrict commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. In finding that they could not, the court stated, Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of such regulation. In ruling against the city’s most recent ordinances, Judge James noted that “the City has expended a large amount of energy attempting to categorize the restricted behavior in such a way that it is not expressly prohibited” by the state preemption statute. Continuing, James explained, “Despite the city’s efforts…. they are not able to avoid the obvious intent of the Legislature to preempt this entire field.” Note Judge James’ use of the word “obvious.” Both the Montana and Pennsylvania statutes contain clear language that obviously barred the cities’ behavior. Even so, city officials usurped the authority to regulate firearms and wasted untold taxpayer resources in order to persecute a disfavored subset of law-abiding citizens. Often more ideologically homogenous than larger political units, local governments have repeatedly shown a willingness to attack their gun owning constituents rather than practice the politics of pluralism. The larger political unit of a state can temper such virulent intolerance and provide a much-needed check on the radical impulses of local politicians. Such blatant defiance of state law and profligacy with taxpayer dollars should have state legislatures looking for ways to strengthen existing state firearms preemption statutes. This can be achieved by providing a clear avenue for which a variety of interested parties, such as civil rights organizations like the NRA, can bring suit to enjoin improper laws. Moreover, state preemption statutes can be crafted in a manner that provides a prevailing plaintiff with attorneys’ fees and liquidated damages. As the cases in Montana and Pennsylvania show, state firearms preemption statutes are an essential protection for gun owners. However, gun owners should not be forced to constantly vindicate their rights through the courts. State legislators should work to craft state preemption laws that prevent even the most recalcitrant localities from enacting illegal ordinances.
  6. Former Texas Congressman Robert Francis O’Rourke abandoned his run for President last week, once again leaving a void for the most strident anti-gun candidate seeking the Democrat nomination. Even before declaring his candidacy for President, California Representative Eric Swalwell raised the specter of banning AR-15s and similar firearms, forcing Americans to turn them in through a confiscation scheme mislabeled as a “mandatory buyback,” then “go[ing] after” resisters. He even famously “joked” about using nukes to enforce his scheme. After Swalwell became the first candidate to bow out of the race when he failed to generate any noticeable poll numbers, O’Rourke stepped up to push the confiscation message. Clearly, every Democrat that wants to run against Trump is anti-gun. The main difference among them, when it comes to semi-automatics, seems to be whether they want to ban their future production, ban them completely and confiscate them, or ban their future production and register those currently owned (presumably to make future confiscation easier). Candidate O’Rourke staked out his strident position during the third Democrat Debate when he infamously declared, “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15, your AK47….” The former Congressman even seemed to double-down on his ban and confiscate scheme. He said during the fourth debate that if a gun owner doesn’t turn in a lawfully acquired firearm, “…then that weapon will be taken from them,” as well as suggesting they may face “other consequences from law enforcement.” He also told Joe Scarborough during an interview the day after the fourth debate that if someone did not turn over a banned semi-auto, “there would be a visit by law enforcement.” Last week, an Iowa high school student confronted O’Rourke about his plan to ban AR-15s, the rifle the teen uses for hunting deer. The candidate feigned ignorance over the notion that people use the rifle for hunting deer, even though it is commonly used for taking such game. Later in the week, at an event in Newtown, Conn., that was closed to the public and organized by groups promoting gun control, O’Rourke was again confronted. This time, a Newtown resident accused the candidate of trying to exploit the tragedy her town experienced to promote his anti-gun agenda. O’Rourke must have finally seen the writing on the wall. He faced harsh criticism over his anti-gun extremism, even in what he may have thought would be “friendly” environments. He burned through an estimated $14 million in campaign funds, while poll after poll saw him stagnating in the low-to-mid single digits. And don’t forget he spent around $80 million last year to lose his U.S. Senate race against Senator Ted Cruz. If he could not win a statewide race with that kind of money, what hope did he have of winning a national election? Last Friday, the Texan answered that question when he pulled the plug on his latest campaign. But with O’Rourke now out of the race, will any Democrat candidate don the mantle of wannabe Confiscator in Chief? On Monday’s episode of The View, while the cast was doing a postmortem on O’Rourke’s failed campaign, host Joy Behar chastised the former Texas Representative for revealing exactly what NRA has been saying for years is the ultimate goal of anti-gun extremists. Perhaps as a warning to the remaining Democrat candidates, Behar stated, “They should not tell everything they’re going to do. If you are going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected and then take them away. Don’t tell them ahead of time.” For a party that claims to support transparency, it seems odd to hear a Democrat like Behar offer such advice. Perhaps more concerning, however, would be to consider what else Democrat candidates for President might have in store for law-abiding gun owners that they do not want to publicly reveal until after next year’s election. Of course, it is likely Behar’s advice will be followed. The top three candidates seeking the Democrat nomination seem to be set at Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and former Vice President Joe Biden, while South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has been showing signs of gaining some traction. All have rejected O’Rourke’s call for confiscation, at least openly, and at least for now. But, with multiple sources now reporting that anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg is once again considering throwing his name into the already crowded Democrat field, it’s likely that anti-gun extremists won’t have to wait long for a new champion of confiscation. After all, he’ll be the only candidate who can tout his experience as a firearm confiscator.
  7. 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.
  8. Court Action Is Expensive …And Time Consuming
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.)
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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