Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. Dear Texas NRA Member:

    In a shameless effort to exploit the El Paso, Midland, and Odessa tragedies, gun control advocates have been demanding that the Texas Legislature pass radical restrictions on your rights called for by failed politicians like Beto O'Rourke and Michael Bloomberg.  The Texas House Committee on Mass Violence Prevention & Community Safety needs to hear from you in opposition to calls for gun control, and in support of pro-gun reforms, as they take public input on two firearm-related study charges.

    Anti-gun organizations will undoubtedly use this opportunity to push for red flag gun confiscation laws, bans on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, limits on standard capacity magazines, and so-called "universal” background checks.  These checks, which would require all private firearm transfers be conducted through a licensed dealer, involve completion of extensive federal paperwork and require payment of an undetermined fee.  Only honest Texans will comply with this scheme, which would be unenforceable without gun registration.  Second Amendment supporters need to call for loosening restrictions on where and how law-abiding Texans can protect themselves.  Criminals are not deterred by gun-free zones, nor will they bother to seek government permission to carry and use a firearm in an unlawful act.

    The Select Committee will be accepting public comments on two interim study charges over the next several weeks.

    Duty #4: Evaluate the ongoing and long-term workforce needs of the state related to cybersecurity, mental health, law enforcement, and related professionals. 

    The committee designated certain parties to provide written testimony on this topic, as well as responses to written questions from committee members which were due on Friday, August 14.  Those have been posted on the committee website here.  Of particular interest are submissions from a representative of Sandy Hook Promise and from Dr. Jeff Temple of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, which call for restrictions on the private transfer of firearms and passage of red flag gun confiscation legislation.

    The committee also seeks written comments from the public, which are due via email by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 21.  Submission guidelines and instructions can be found here.

    Duty #1: Examine options for strengthening enforcement measures for current laws that prevent the transfer of firearms to felons and other persons prohibited by current law from possessing firearms.

    NRA-ILA is a designated party for this charge and will be providing written testimony on this topic, as well as responses to written questions from committee members, by Monday, August 24.  You can view the questions posed to ILA here, and ILA's written responses will be posted there after the deadline.

    The committee also seeks written comments from the public, which are due via email by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 31.  Submission guidelines and instruction can be found here.

    This may be your last chance before the 2021 legislative session to state your opposition to gun control schemes and to push for pro-Second Amendment reforms with the members of this Select Committee.  Make sure you submit your written comments before the appropriate deadlines!  

    Sincerely, NRA Institute for Legislative Action


  2. Firearms Policy Coalition

    It’s finally here. The thing you’ve all been waiting for. The DNC’s platform for this election cycle, and boy does it look bad. Here are the absolutely batshit goals they’ve set going forward: mandating universal background checks, ending online gun and ammo sales, banning people from ownership for misdemeanor, nonviolent and speech-based offenses, and expanding the federal background check system. 

    That’s not it, either. They want to prevent the manufacture and sale of commonly owned rifles and standard capacity magazines. They want to pay states to add licensing requirements for gun ownership and to establish kangaroo courts to deprive people of their property without due process. They want to require you to disarm yourself in your own home, and for firearms manufacturers to be sued for the criminal acts of other people. 

    Policies like these don’t produce results, but they deprive people of their inherent right to protect themselves, their families, homes, and communities.

  3. During the 2019 session of the New Mexico Legislature, anti-gun Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and state lawmakers who were elected with the support of New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg rammed legislation through which criminalized the private sale of firearms, over the strong objections of law-abiding citizens and law enforcement.  Opponents warned that the measure would be intrusive, ineffective and unenforceable.

    KRQE recently reported that in the year since that law went into effect on July 1, 2019, court records show no one has been charged with violating it.  This should come as no surprise to those who fought against this legislation, warning that it would be ineffective and unenforceable.  It certainly hasn't stopped or even slowed crime in the Duke City.

    Yet amidst the reporting on the state's failed so-called universal background check law, and even with the red flag gun confiscation law recently having taken effect, anti-gun members of the Albuquerque City Council are calling for MORE GUN CONTROL!   

    That's right.  This week, the Council's Finance & Government Operations Committee advanced Resolution 20-68 by Councilmembers Isaac Benton and Diane Gibson, which calls on the New Mexico Legislature to rewrite Article II, Section 6 (the Right to Keep and Bear Arms provision) of the New Mexico Constitution, rip out the state firearms preemption clause and put that enormously-significant change to a popular vote.  The full Council will consider the resolution in the coming weeks.

    Preemption prevents a patchwork of different local firearms rules and regulations across the state.  It helps ensure uniformity in gun laws wherever you live, work or travel, so that law-abiding citizens don't unknowingly run afoul of confusing and conflicting local gun restrictions.  If gun control advocates get their way, New Mexico could become one of only five states in the nation without this important protection.  Cities like Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Las Cruces would be free to pass whatever type of gun control they wanted -- gun bans, magazine limits, licensing and registration schemes, prohibitions on carrying firearms on your person or in your car -- restrictions far beyond anything the New Mexico Legislature has already done or will do to your Second Amendment rights in the future.

    Please contact each of the members of the Albuquerque City Council and let them know you OPPOSE Resolution 20-68.  NRA-ILA will alert you when this measure is considered by the full Council and whether/how you can state your position in-person at that Council meeting. 

    District 1: Councilor Sena - lansena@cabq.gov | (505) 768-3183
    District 2: Councilor Benton - ibenton@cabq.gov | (505) 768-3186
    District 3: Councilor Pena - kpena@cabq.gov | (505) 768-3127
    District 4: Councilor Bassan - bbassan@cabq.gov | (505) 768-3101
    District 5: Councilor Borrego - cynthiaborrego@cabq.gov | (505) 768-3189
    District 6: Councilor Davis - patdavis@cabq.gov | (505) 768-3152
    District 7: Councilor Gibson - dgibson@cabq.gov | (505) 768-3136
    District 8: Councilor Jones - trudyjones@cabq.gov | (505) 768-3106
    District 9: Councilor Harris - dharris@cabq.gov | (505) 768-3123


  4. Last month, the Trump Administration fixed a U.S. Department of State policy on suppressors that had kept American suppressor makers out of the international market for these hearing-safety devices.

    According to the NRA-ILA: “The Department of State has rescinded its April 18, 2002, firearms sound suppressor policy. This policy … restricted their export to only official end users such as government or military entities…. The old policy completely excluded American suppressor manufacturers from competing in foreign markets where firearm suppressors are perfectly legal. It was also based on the misguided idea that suppressors completely silence firearms and that similar suppressor technology isn’t already available in the rest of the world.”

    NRA-ILA also said, “This policy reversal is long overdue and just one more step the Trump administration has taken to help law-abiding gun owners and American manufacturers.” 

    “I see this as pro-business and pro-America,” said Brandon Maddox, MBA and the founder of Silencer Central. “Now, the reality is that U.S. silencer makers are so highly regulated, it may be difficult for them to price competitively in the international marketplace; however, this change might increase manufacturing and sales volumes and reduce overall costs, which manufacturers could pass on to American consumers.”

    Never a group to pass up a chance to mis-represent anything to do with the Second Amendment, the gun-control group Brady: United Against Gun Violence used the change in policy as part of its recent fund-raising efforts. As an article in Townhall noted, a Brady fund-raising email claimed that this Trump administration change could lead to the deaths of U.S. troop stationed overseas: “The harm is clear: This [suppressor] repeal will increase the risk that U.S. service members will be shot or killed with American-made guns and accessories. This repeal is immoral. It’s unpatriotic. It’s lethal.”

    “It’s also complete BS,” wrote Mark Oliva, director of public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “Brady should learn to conduct a basic fact check. Even checking Wikipedia would suffice.”

    It is true, Oliva confirmed to A1F.com, that the original Department of State policy banning suppressor exports cited—among other things—that U.S.-made suppressors might be used against U.S. servicemen and women. 

    “Of course, back then [2002], everything was done in the name of anti-terror, so it was the politically expedient thing to do,” Oliva said. “But it wasn’t true then and it’s not true now.”

    As he noted in his Townhall article, “A quick internet search could easily reveal that suppressors are not just legal for use in foreign countries, some actually require their use. In Finland and France, suppressors are available over the counter. The notion that the rest of the world is devoid of suppressors because U.S. companies could not export them is preposterous.”

    Oliva is also a retired Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant with 25 years of service, including tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Albania and Zaire, so he was speaking from this experience. “Brady’s ‘do it for the troops’ assertion would be laughable if they weren’t so serious in their outright dishonesty,” said Oliva. “Brady isn’t doing anything about illicit international arms trade. They’re only out to deny law-abiding Americans their God-given rights. They don’t care how unscrupulous they are in that goal.”

    The anti-gun extremists truly don’t care, even when at issue is a product that actually provides a public-health benefit like hearing protection.

  5. BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has joined four other gun rights organizations in an amicus brief supporting Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode in her challenge of California’s onerous background check requirement to purchase ammunition.

    SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation and the Madison Society Foundation. They are represented by attorney Joseph G.S. Greenlee. The case is known as Rhode v. Becerra.

    Rhode, a world-renowned competitive shooter, is a California resident. She quickly challenged the California ammunition requirement, the first such background check mandate in the country, when it was adopted. According to the amicus brief, this scheme is “complex, deficient, and ineffective.” It places a burden on every law-abiding gun owner in the state and often requires people to make two trips to the store just to purchase ammunition, and it still refuses about 16 percent of lawful purchases.

    “California has some of the strictest, and over-bearing, draconian gun control laws in the nation,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This ammunition background check requirement represents the foolishness of state gun laws at their worst.

    “As we note in the brief,” he continued, “the state has offered no evidence that this background check requirement even works to prevent violent crimes involving firearms. What the law does accomplish is to inconvenience good citizens such as Kim Rhode, for whom competitive shooting is not just a hobby, but a vocation. It penalizes Kim and many other Californians who have committed no crime.”

    Gottlieb said this case is important because the state’s defense of the ammunition background check is not supported by the facts, or in this case, lack of facts.

    “There is simply no evidence that a background check requirement on ammunition has, or ever will, prevent a single crime involving a firearm, while placing a burden on thousands of California citizens by preventing them from buying ammunition and thus exercising their constitutional rights,” he said.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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