I support the 2nd Amendment and protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners, putting term limits on county officials, and keeping our environment ...
from
Thursday, October 31, 2019
UMW hosts 17th District State Senate debate
Warren Agenda Displays Stupidity and Desire for Injustice
Massachusetts/United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Senator Elizabeth Warren is riding pretty high in the polls for the Democratic nomination – and that means we need to take her seriously. This includes her latest proposal to inflict injustice on those who seek to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arm: A total ban on suppressors.
The reason for the ban, according to anti-Second Amendment extremists, is that suppressors make firearms more dangerous. That’s a lot of nonsense. If anything, suppressors are something that would enhance the safety of firearms for the nearly 100 million Americans who lawfully use firearms.
For a quick summary, loyal Ammoland readers should be aware of the Hearing Protection Act. This legislation, introduced in March of this year, sadly has no chance of passage, given the fact that anti-Second Amendment extremists are in control of the House of Representatives. Suppressors, when combined with other modes of hearing protection, would reduce the risk of hearing loss for those who exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
We have seen a big focus on making a number of sports safer for children and young people. Football has been a primary focus of this effort, but it has spread to other sports as well. Why not try to make the shooting sports safer for them as well, especially when it comes to protecting their hearing? Does Warren think that people deserve to lose their hearing because they like target shooting or hunting?
Warren’s agenda of injustice to law-abiding citizens goes beyond the absurd suppressor ban. It’s sweeping, and it does not address those who misuse firearms, it targets law-abiding citizens. It includes a ban on modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms, licensing, gun rationing, and a host of other unjust infringements.
Warren, though, does not stop with attacking the Second Amendment. She is also targeting the First Amendment. Her agenda includes emulating Andrew Cuomo’s unconstitutional attack on the National Rife Association. In addition, she is also targeting Wells Fargo, the one major bank in the United States that is resisting efforts to financially blacklist companies and organizations that help people exercise and defend our right to keep and bear arms.
To enact her agenda of injustice and to further empower an army of Lois Lerners, Warren also intends to end the filibuster for legislative measures and to pass new restrictions on the right to petition lawmakers for the redress of grievances. The filibuster is what served as a crucial backstop in stopping a ban on modern multi-purpose semiautomatic firearms in the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting.
It may be frustrating for Second Amendment supporters who want to see repeal, or even the first steps towards reducing the burdens on law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their rights, but we should keep in mind that Warren’s desire for its elimination comes from a place that seeks to make it easier for her to strip our rights away. Prudence and a modicum of tactical and strategic competence dictate that we should ensure she does not get the chance to carry through on that threat.
As of this writing, the RealClearPolitics average of polls shows Warren is ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire, running a close second in Nevada, and is also second place in South Carolina. Second Amendment supporters need to be prepared to talk with our fellow Americans to convince them to support our agenda. This requires careful consideration of how we come across and which approaches we use to explain things to our fellow Americans.
Should Warren win the Democratic nomination in 2020, the stakes will be extremely high. Second Amendment supporters should work today to make sure her calls fall on deaf ears a year from now.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
The post Warren Agenda Displays Stupidity and Desire for Injustice appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2N1PMyW
via IFTTT
Constitutional carry among new laws taking effect Friday
Radical Spawn Chesa Boudin: Nation’s Most Toxic DA Candidate
Opinion
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Socialist Bernie Sanders just endorsed the bleeding-heart candidate for San Francisco District Attorney who makes President Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, look like Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Meet Chesa Boudin. He's the Bay Area public defender and former shill/translator for the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez who plans to turn the craphole of San Francisco into an even bigger sanctuary for the homeless, drug abusers, illegal immigrants, gangsters, vandals, thieves, recidivist criminals, and cop-haters than it is already. Boudin leads a spooky field of left-lefter-leftists running for DA on the Nov. 5 ballot.
[In addition to his wide support for gun control] the cornerstone of Boudin's campaign is sabotaging immigration enforcement.
He has called for prosecution and imprisonment of ICE and police officers for doing their jobs and vowed to create an “immigrant defense unit” within the DA's office to “stand up to Trump on immigration.”
While American veterans beg for money on San Francisco's feces-clogged street corners, Boudin will instead subsidize “universal legal representation” for illegal immigrants facing deportation.
While American angel families are denied standing in American courts to sue the sanctuary outlaws whose policies enabled criminals in this country illegally to injure, rape or murder their loved ones, Boudin will “help every single immigrant victim of every crime obtain a U-Visa.”
Boudin's campaign tagline claims he wants to build a criminal justice system “for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected.” The chutzpah. It burns.
Well-connected? Boudin has been endorsed by a who's who of far-left celebrities, from Sanders to Hamas-linked “Women's March” co-founder Linda Sarsour to Black Lives Matter hate crime hoax propagandist Shaun King to radical Chicago DA and Jussie Smollett fixer Kim Foxx to Black Panther Party commie revolutionary Angela Davis.
Wealthy? Boudin is the top fundraiser in the San Francisco DA's race, raking in more than $623,000 in donations this year — a significant chunk from out-of-state academics, entertainment industry executives, and East Coast lawyers in New York and D.C. I discovered from Boudin's most recent campaign finance disclosures that one of his top donors is Chloe Cockburn. She is a prominent partner of globalist billionaire George Soros' Democracy Alliance. Cockburn moderated a crucial 2017 summit with Soros and other deep-pocketed liberal philanthropists to strategize on taking over local and state offices to reclaim “our progressive future.” Other bigwig Boudin donors hail from the Soros-allied Tides Foundation and Soros-funded Brennan Center for Justice.
What makes Boudin especially toxic is his family tree. Boudin is the militant offspring of spoiled-rich radicals Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, members of the violent Weather Underground terrorist group, which bombed government buildings and corporate headquarters, aided convicted felons in jailbreaks and participated in a 1981 Brink's armored car holdup in Nyack, New York, with the Black Liberation Army. That crime took the lives of three innocent Americans — police officers Edward O'Grady and Waverly Brown and private security guard Peter Paige.
Kathy Boudin was an 11-year fugitive from justice after an accidental homemade bomb explosion at her New York City townhouse resulted in three other deaths. At the time of her arrest in Nyack, Boudin gave police one of many false identities she had used to evade the law. She was paroled in 2003 after convincing parole board members that she acted nobly out of “white guilt” to protest racism against blacks. (Reality check: Officer Waverly Brown was a black, working-class military veteran.) Gilbert remains in prison. Their story was glorified and romanticized by Robert Redford in the 2013 movie, “The Company You Keep.”
After Kathy Boudin dropped off toddler Chesa at a babysitter's house so she could help perpetrate the bloody $1.6 million Brink's heist, this privileged elitist was adopted by another pair of America-hating domestic agitators, unrepentant Weathermen colleagues Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers celebrated bombing the Pentagon in his radical memoir, “Fugitive Days,” taught at the University of Illinois in Chicago, and mentored Barack Obama. Dohrn declared war on “AmeriKKKa,” helped stage the “Days of Rage” in Chicago, when Weathermen blew up a memorial statue to police officers and rioted violently, leaving 75 policemen wounded and one permanently injured in a wheelchair, and then spent years as a fugitive from justice before settling into a comfy post as former director of the Legal Clinic's Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University.
Steeped in Marxist ideology and self-pity, Boudin moaned to The New York Times that he was “sad that my parents have to suffer what they have to suffer on a daily basis” because they were “dedicated to fighting U.S. imperialism around the world.” No compassion for the families of the officers his parents helped murder, but the Yale grad and Rhodes Scholar did earn praise for his crusades against “urban misery in Bolivia, homelessness in Santiago and illiteracy in Guatemala.”
Now Boudin wants to avenge his cop-killing parents by imposing “restorative justice” and “decarceration” policies that will incentivize violent crime and endanger lives in San Francisco and beyond. If you think California is on fire now, just wait until this red diaper baby takes control of the prosecutorial wheel.
About: Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is host of “Michelle Malkin Investigates” on CRTV.com. As well as the author of “Who Built That: Awe-Inspiring Stories of American Tinkerpreneurs” and “Sold Out: How High-Tech Billionaires & Bipartisan Beltway Crapweasels Are Screwing America…” . Her email address is writemalkin@gmail.com.
The post Radical Spawn Chesa Boudin: Nation’s Most Toxic DA Candidate appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2qX2qXf
via IFTTT
Trump to hold campaign rally in Louisiana ahead of gubernatorial runoff
Ruidoso in brief: Hocus Pocus at Fort Stanton
Government View of Bear Spray vs Firearms for Defense Against Bears
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- In the United States, some governmental authorities are strongly pushing the use of bear spray over other methods of protection against bear attacks. From the Montana Hunter Ed Course:
In sudden encounters, bear spray has proven to work. Bears sprayed with bear spray often stop attacking and, as such, are less likely to inflict serious injury. Use a firearm only as a last resort and only if bear spray is unavailable. Always use your bear spray to help a hunting partner who is being attacked. Misdirected bear spray is survivable; bullets are not. Bears wounded with an arrow, knife, or firearm may intensify the attack, and killing a bear charging at full speed is difficult at best. If you shoot a bear in self-defense, leave the scene as soon as it is safe, and report the incident to Fish, Wildlife & Parks immediately.
The implication seems, if you are armed with a firearm, put it down and use bear spray instead! This is problematic advice at best. The advice ignores the possibility that bear spray will intensify an attack. It ignores the possibility a person attacked will only have 2-3 seconds to react.
Bear spray has NOT been shown to be more effective than firearms in stopping bear attacks.
The studies on bear spray were never done against aggressive bears. In this interview with Tom Smith, one of the principle authors of the most cited bear spray and firearms studies, Tom clarifies the issue. He says the methods are not comparable. He says bear spray has not been shown to be effective against aggressive bears. From outsideonline.com:
I asked Tom Smith if it was valid to conclude that the studied effectiveness of bear spray in brown bear charges is just 33 percent. “That’s what you would conclude from that data,” he says, before going on to point out that the sample size is very small. “Importantly, protracted mauling did not occur,” he says. “Whether that’s due to the spray or simply due to the vagaries of bear attacks is an open question.”
The Trouble with Numbers
Thirty-three percent is very far from that 98 percent efficacy rate so widely cited. And it’s an especially problematic number if we accept that firearms can be demonstrated to have a success rate of between a 76 percent (in a worst-case scenario, as presented in “Efficacy of Firearms”) and 96 percent (as is the case in Alaska’s DLP data or that compiled by firearms writer Dean Weingarten).
The Government of Svalbard, Norway, has strict requirements for protection against bears. People are not allowed to leave the town without adequate protection, because of the large number of polar bears in the vicinity, and the constant potential for attack. The governor of Svalbard does not recommend bear spray. The governor of Svalbard prohibits the use of bear spray as a protection against polar bears. The Governor requires people to have appropriate firearms in their group. From Svalbard, Norway;
Regulations on firearms and other devices to protect against polar bears:
3.2.Bear repellent spray/ pepper-ballsThe use, trade and import of bear repellent spray and pepper-balls for protection against polar bears in Svalbard is prohibited. The Governor of Svalbard is currently looking into the regulation of bear repellent spray and pepper-balls for protection against polar bears.
The governor of Svalbard requires firearms of adequate power to protect against polar bears. Here are the requirements:
2.Types of firearms
2.1. Rifles
The acquisition, use, trade and import of rifles for use as protection against polar bears is permitted in Svalbard, pursuant to the Firearms Act and Firearms Regulations.
2.1 Rifles used for protection against polar bears shall have a minimum calibre of .308W or 30-06 (7.62 mm). Rifle bullets shall be expanding, with a minimum bullet weight of 11.5 g. The required impact energy shall be 2,700 J, measured at a distance of 100 m.
For reasons of precision, range, functionality in cold conditions and stopping power, the Governor of Svalbard recommends the use of rifles as the primary means of protection against polar bears, rather than other types of firearms.
Hiring out rifles is permitted. For more detailed conditions regarding this, please refer to Section 4.2.2. Shotguns
The acquisition, use, trade and import of shotguns for use as protection against polar bears is permitted in Svalbard, pursuant to the Firearms Act and Firearms Regulations.
2.2 Shotguns used for protection against polar bears shall have a minimum calibre of 12, and should have a magazine permitting a minimum of four shots (automatic or pump-action shotgun). The use of slugs (shotgun ammunition comprised of one projectile) is recommended for protection against polar bears.
However, the Governor of Svalbard warns that most magazine-fed shotguns tend to have problems with icing and condensation, and require more preventive maintenance work if they are to function in difficult conditions. Because of this, combined with the fact that shotguns have less precise sights and a limited range, the Governor of Svalbard recommends the use of rifles as the primary means of protection against polar bears.
The Governor of Svalbard advises against the use of double-barrelled shotguns for protection against polar bears, because of the number of available shots.
It is prohibited to hire out shotguns for protection against polar bears.
2.3. Handguns/revolversHandguns for competition and practice can legally be used in the field for protection against polar bears, provided that the Governor of Svalbard has granted a special permit for this.
This combination of usage purposes shall be stated explicitly on the firearm permit and may only be granted upon application to the Governor of Svalbard. This permit may only be granted if the applicant meets the requirements for documented activity in an approved shooting association.
Handguns for which an applicant is seeking a permit for use as protection against polar bears shall have a minimum calibre of 44. Ammunition to be used for protection against polar bears shall have a minimum weight of 15.5 g and a minimum muzzle energy of 1,200 J.
In English measurement, that is 885 ft-lbs, with a minimum bullet weight of 239 grains. Full power .44 magnum loads, .480 Ruger, .454 Casull, .500 Smith & Wesson and .460 Smith & Wesson would qualify. Some .41 magnum loads would qualify.
Those who would carry a pistol for protection in Svalbard need to show they have participated in organized pistol training four times in the last year, before they can be approved.
The Governor also reserves the power to grant handgun permits for bear protection to trappers who are Svalbard residents, and in special cases. It is not permitted to rent handguns for protection against polar bears.
Another writer about protection from polar bears in Svalbard has something to say about bear spray. From Spitsbergen: Svalbard, Franz Josef, Jan Mayen, 3rd Brant travel Guide, by Andres Umbreit
Be properly armed
.. ; and then there's the hiker with the pepper spray (ask the bear to attack against wind direction, please, or serve yourself nicely peppered with the wind blowing in the same direction from which the bear attacks). I am grateful for all these ‘alternatives' as good entertainment stories and some of these ideas may even be useful in addition to a firearm. But there is no substitute for a big-bore firearm (see pages 132-7).
The same source says that in the previous 50 years, no properly armed person was injured or killed by a polar bear. They specifically exclude the case where a group armed with a .22 pistol and a flare gun were attacked. One person was killed, another seriously wounded.
Statistics support this: no properly armed person has been injured or killed by a polar bear in the last 50 years in Spitsbergen. There have been casualties, indeed, but all victims were unarmed or inadequately armed – here are some of these stories.
In 1998, an academic study of bear attacks was done in Svalbard. The study found, from 1971-1995, 77 bears had been killed in serious confrontations with people. Three bears escaped. 10 people were injured. Of those, four died from their injuries. None of those who were injured or killed had an appropriate firearm. From Man and Polar Bear in Svalbard: a solvable ecological conflict?:
From 1971 to 1995, approximately 80 bears were involved in serious bear-human interactions. Of these, 77 bears were killed and 3 escaped after having injured people. During the same period, 10 people were injured, 4 of them fatally, in 7 separate interactions, each involving a single bear. None of the victims carried an appropriate firearm.
The attitude of Svalbard authorities is clear: being armed with an appropriate firearm, knowledge of how to use it, (and an understanding of bear behavior) is the best protection against polar bear attacks.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
The post Government View of Bear Spray vs Firearms for Defense Against Bears appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2q70ACQ
via IFTTT
How to Tell That the News Media is Lying to US
U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- Some ecological environments show an amplifier effect where reducing one population lets another population explode. In our intellectual environment today, we see an explosive growth of lying politicians once the media starts lying to us even a little. I’m not a prude when it comes to dishonesty. I expect people to lie, and some much more than others. All of us expect politicians lie as they try to get what they want. We certainly don’t expect the truth from these undisciplined attention addicts who will say anything to get elected. The only thing that holds politicians in check is a spotlight from the press, and today, the press is in the tank for the Democrats. We know the media lies to us because the politicians are never shamed into telling the truth.
In one breath, Senator Kamala Harris, a Democrat candidate for president, says we should turn in our guns, yet she owns a handgun for self-protection. The senator thinks her life is more important than ours, and she knows the media won’t call her on her hypocrisy.
Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, blamed oil companies for the frighteningly high price of gas, and then signed a bill to restrict exploration for oil and gas in California. Setting aside the insane environmental regulations in California, the state and local taxes on a gallon of gas in California are far larger than industry profits. The governor will blame anyone and anything to hide the fact that taxes and regulations make gasoline in California over twice the price we see in the rest of the country. The politicians know the media won’t shine a light on their political failures.
The governor of California cut a deal with the largest electric utility in the state so the utility could shut off the electricity when high winds are forecast. Then, the governor says that we should buy electric cars and solar panels which don’t work when the utility turns off the electricity. The governor needs someone to else to blame for millions of California citizens sitting in the dark.. so he blamed the “greedy utility”. The news media lets this lie slide.
Environmentalists in California don’t want anyone to cut trees. They already shut down most of the lumber mills in California. That means the bankrupt state of California doesn’t have money from timber leases to build fire breaks, repair remote access roads, and thin brush. Underbrush accumulates and leads to the intense wildfires that are ravaging California..again and again, year after year. The Democrat politicians who rule California need someone to blame as citizens wonder if their house will burn down. California Governor Newsom blames.. climate change. The media nods their approval rather than ask why California is burning and the rest of the world isn’t.
-New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said that a pipeline company couldn’t build a needed natural gas pipeline to the New York City area. Then, the governor said the utility company had to connect customers to the gas pipeline the governor wouldn’t let the gas company build. The news media refuses to put two and two together.
We’ll know the media is doing its job when the politicians stop lying. Until then, we will have to put the pieces together on our own. We will have to read enough so that we can recognize truth from lies, separate hard fact from political fiction.
The great news is that with social media today, you have the means to spread the truth among your family and friends as never before. The media should be afraid of you. Thank you for all you do.
Please stay safe.
About Rob Morse
The original article is here. Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily, and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob is an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.
The post How to Tell That the News Media is Lying to US appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2q6AlfQ
via IFTTT
Stacey Abrams defends gun control stance after 'The View' co-host Meghan McCain comes for her
FPC Urges Supreme Court to Restore the Human Right to Carry Arms in Public
WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed an important United States Supreme Court brief in the case of Malpasso v. Pallozzi, asking the Court to hear a challenge to Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” requirement for a firearm carry permit. The brief is available online at FPCLegal.org.
“As the brief explains, we believe this case is worthy of the Supreme Court’s review for several reasons,” said FPC Director of Research and brief author, Joseph Greenlee. “By now, nearly every federal circuit court has addressed the right to bear arms in public. The courts have taken a variety of different approaches and have reached an even greater variety of outcomes. The result has been a different right from state to state, with the right essentially banned in many—leaving millions of Americans unable to exercise a fundamental right. Several courts have gone so far as to expressly request additional guidance from the Supreme Court in their opinions, and we hope that the Court will take this opportunity to provide that guidance.”
FPC was joined by amici organizations Firearms Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation.
Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)(4) grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to advance individual liberty, restore freedom, and defend the People’s rights—especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Background
- Maryland forbids anyone from carrying a firearm in public without a permit.
- Maryland issues permits only to applicants who can demonstrate a “good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun.”
- A desire to exercise the constitutionally protected right of self-defense is not a “good and substantial reason” according to Maryland. Rather, something like “apprehended danger’ is required.
- Receiving a vague threat or living in a high-crime area is insufficient to establish “apprehended danger.” Even a clear and credible threat is not necessarily sufficient. Before issuing a permit, the government first considers how likely it is that the threat will be carried out, whether carrying a handgun is a necessary response, and if some other approach to protection is more appropriate.
- The United States Supreme Court has strongly indicated that the right to bear arms for self-defense extends beyond the home. Some federal circuit courts have expressly held that it does. And no federal circuit court has held to the contrary. But several circuit courts have upheld good-reason standards that limit the exercise of the right to applicants who can provide a unique and government-approved reason to bear arms—like Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” requirement. By requiring a unique reason, these good-reason standards necessarily forbid ordinary law-abiding Americans from carrying a gun.
- FPC filed this brief to encourage the Court to establish consistency throughout the nation—so fundamental rights are not changing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction—and even more importantly, so that every law-abiding person can freely exercise the natural right to bear arms.
About FPC
Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)(4) grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to defend the People’s rights—especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom.
Firearms Policy Foundation (https://ift.tt/2dE21lZ) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the People’s rights and promote individual liberty through research, education, and legal action programs.
The post FPC Urges Supreme Court to Restore the Human Right to Carry Arms in Public appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2C1stz2
via IFTTT
USCCA Celebrates Defeat of Illegal Pittsburgh Gun Laws
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- The USSCA is hailing a long overdue decision by a Pennsylvania judge this week for striking down all three of Pittsburgh’s restrictive and unlawful gun ordinances that were passed by the City Council earlier this year. Calling it “a huge victory for self-defense and gun rights advocates,” the USCCA has been a vocal opponent of the Pittsburgh ordinances since they were first announced last December.
USCCA’s President and Founder Tim Schmidt made the following statement today:
“Of course, we’re thrilled with the decision. It’s just not every day you see a victory like this for responsibly armed Americans. A huge part of the problem is that many people simply don’t understand this simple fact: Responsible gun owners are amongst the most law-abiding citizens in the country. At the end of the day, we’re focused on protecting the people we love.”
In April 2019, the Pittsburgh City Council voted to break Pennsylvania law and approved the three new gun restrictions, which unlawfully regulated firearms and ammunition within the city. The USCCA was among those who warned the City Council that its actions were illegal. In January, the USCCA delivered a letter directly to the city council urging them not to further restrict the residents’ right to defend themselves and to instead focus their attention on supporting responsibly armed Americans, such as law enforcement and concealed carry permit holders, who are often the first line of defense in active shooter situations.
“I do believe we are making progress. I have a lot of hope for the future. But we know there are still many more battles to come. There will be new laws restricting law-abiding gun owners. There will likely be appeals to overturn our hard-earned victories. We need to stay strong and keep our focus on what really matters. We need to continue to defend and empower law-abiding Americans to be the strongest protectors they can be,” Schmidt concluded today.
The decision also comes right as responsible gun owners prepare to rally for their rights in Washington, D.C., on November 2 and USCCA’s Director of Content Kevin Michalowski will be among those in attendance this Saturday.
About USCCA
The U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) provides self-defense education, training and legal protection to responsible American gun owners. The USCCA is the largest and fastest-growing association whose sole focus is the responsibly armed American.
The post USCCA Celebrates Defeat of Illegal Pittsburgh Gun Laws appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2WwJmuY
via IFTTT
Stacey Abrams defends gun control stance after 'The View' co-host Meghan McCain comes for her
Bollier Scores Big Endorsements in Race for Kansas Senate Seat
Fort Worth area counties undermine gun-rights arguments with 'sanctuary' stunts
Trump tweets in support of Dunleavy, says Democrats are attacking governor
T&T's crossbow ban more about 'coup' than hunting
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Trump takes to Twitter to back Dunleavy amid recall effort
Follow-up: Momentum, Not Money, in WA Gun Control Repeal Effort
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Grassroots momentum is building fast in a the admittedly-uphill effort to repeal Washington State’s gun control Initiative 1639, but the Seattle-based gun prohibition lobby is already using the pro-rights repeal effort to raise cash to fight gun owners, and buried in a story about the new campaign in the Seattle P-I.com is a hard truth: Money matters.
Money can literally buy an election, a fact not lost on wealthy anti-gunners. They're using Washington as a “test tube” to learn how to launch similar efforts in other states with the citizen initiative process. They can out-spend gun owners, and they know it.
So far, rights activists pushing Initiative 1094—the repeal measure—have not been raising money, but they did just pick up some important support. Big Top Gun Shows has announced signature drives at each of its eight gun show events in November and December, all in Western Washington. Those gatherings are scheduled in Enumclaw, Bremerton, Ferndale, Tacoma, Everett, Vancouver and Lacey, with perhaps the most important of them all being the Tacoma event Nov. 23-24.
I-1639 was passed last November by just under 60 percent of the voters. It’s a formidable number to overcome, especially when asking voters to reverse what they did a year ago.
Veteran political columnist Joel Connelly, a pro-gun control writer, observed via e-mail, “How do (they) expect to reverse such a strong vote, in a state that has voted for three gun initiatives? Where will (they) get the money to go toe-to-toe with the Alliance for Gun Responsibility?”
It’s a fair question, underscored by something Connelly wrote in his P-I.com article.
“The Alliance for Gun Responsibility, at an annual luncheon in June, has cleared between $750,000 and $1 million,” he reported. “Backers of I-1639 spent about $4.4 million to get the measure on the ballot…”
Incredibly, after noting how much money the Alliance raised and spent, he was critical of how that group was described in Ammoland as the “Seattle-based gun prohibition lobby, which is bankrolled by billionaires and wealthy elitists.” Who else but wealthy elitists could open their wallets at a luncheon to cough up so much money?
The importance of the late-November Tacoma gun show, and one slated the same weekend in nearby Puyallup by the Washington Arms Collectors, cannot be overstated. Memories will still be fresh about the Tacoma City Council’s effort to adopt a gun and ammunition tax, which KTTH talk radio host Jason Rantz has dubbed “a self-defense tax” at MyNorthwest.com.
The vote, which was scheduled for Tuesday evening, was postponed until Nov. 12. Mayor Woodards said the delay was to allow the council more time to add amendments, according to KCPQ News.
I-1094 needs to collect 300,000 signatures by the end of December. It’s going to require a Herculean effort. Supporters are well aware of the daunting challenge they face. But they’re angry, and sometimes that’s more important than having a fat bank account.
But the importance of money hasn’t been lost on the Alliance, which sent out an e-mail blast on the heels of Connelly’s column.
“It's been almost a year since Washington State voters overwhelmingly passed Initiative 1639 to make our communities safer,” the Alliance said, “and almost a year since the NRA filed their first – but not last – lawsuit to stop this lifesaving initiative. Now, it seems that we are facing yet another threat to our hard work to make Washington safer. New reports claim that a group of gun rights extremists, including members of the anti-government militia group called the Washington State Three Percenters, are starting a petition to get a measure to repeal I-1639 on the ballot in November 2020.”
The lawsuit about which the Alliance speaks involves more than just the National Rifle Association, and they know it. The Second Amendment Foundation, based in Bellevue, Wash., is a full partner, and they are suing on behalf of two firearms retailers and individuals in the 18-20-year-old age group whose Second Amendment rights have allegedly been stripped away by I-1639’s prohibition on sales of so-called “semiautomatic assault rifles” to anyone under age 21. Both retailers are supporting the repeal effort.
That lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Tacoma on federal constitutional grounds, getting it out of the state court system.
But the Alliance, portraying itself as an underdog, declares in its e-mail, “They need to know that we'll never give up on fighting for the safety of our children and defending the will of the people – but every day this fight gets more expensive, and we depend on financial support from gun safety advocates like you to keep it going.”
In reality, the bulk of I-1639 campaign funds came from about ten sources, according to data from the state Public Disclosure Commission.
One of those sources was the late Paul Allen, who kicked in more than $1.2 million. Another was Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, which donated more than a half-million dollars in cash and “in-kind” contributions.
The Alliance e-mail beg also claims, “Our country is suffering from a gun violence epidemic and the gun lobby won't even acknowledge it. Time and time again, they've blatantly ignored the facts, and now they're blatantly ignoring the people's will – all in support of their deadly guns-everywhere agenda.”
Here are some facts. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2018, homicide, including those involving firearms, declined. In 2018, the FBI reported 10,265 and in 2017, there were 10,982 gun-related slayings. Gun prohibition lobbying groups typically combine homicide and suicide data to create a more dramatic impression, calling it all “gun violence.” By most estimates, roughly 60-66 percent of all firearms-related deaths in any given year are suicides.
Annually, people are fatally stabbed, stomped or beaten to death than are killed with either rifles or shotguns.
Connelly is correct when he intimates the Alliance will throw a bank vault supply of money at any effort to repeal I-1639. Beleaguered Evergreen State rights activists can attest that’s what happens when “billionaires and wealthy elitists” find their agenda challenged.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
The post Follow-up: Momentum, Not Money, in WA Gun Control Repeal Effort appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2PE7L0d
via IFTTT
The Virginia Legislative Elections are a Big Deal
Virginia – -(AmmoLand.com)- The third year after a presidential election doesn’t get a lot of attention. After all, there are only two governors’ races that headline results on the first Wednesday after the first Monday. But there are many other races decided on this coming election day.
Included in them are the state legislative elections in the Commonwealth of Virginia. There are 100 members of the House of Delegates and 40 members of the State Senate, and all 140 of those seats are up for grabs this year. This could matter a great deal for Second Amendment supporters.
Why? Because the House of Delegates and Virginia Senate are controlled by Republicans, and the Republican leadership is pro-Second Amendment. This mattered, because in the wake of a tragic shooting in Virginia Beach, that leadership successfully put the kibosh on Ralph Northam’s effort to advance an anti-Second Amendment agenda in response to the shooting.
These elections are going to be tougher than we might expect. Litigation has led to new district maps drawn by a professor in California for the 2019 election, and these lines are much friendlier to anti-Second Amendment extremists. As a result, we could see pro-Second Amendment majorities wiped out – and worse, the new leadership controlling the General Assembly in Virginia will be ardent foes of our rights, eager to rubber-stamp the injustices that Northam sought to inflict upon law-abiding citizens in the wake of the Virginia Beach shooting.
This is a disaster in more ways than one. While one more state adopting anti-Second Amendment laws is bad enough, Virginia is a special case, since the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America are both headquartered there. Many of those who would work for the NRA or GOA are likely to own the modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms that Northam wants to ban. This means that the talent pool for these groups will be greatly depleted, even as the full-spectrum fight that Second Amendment supporters are facing requires that the best talent be hired for the fight for our freedoms.
Now, hiring that talent will be more difficult to do, and the successful hires will be more expensive. Worse, the sheer propaganda victory that passing Michael Bloomberg’s wish list in the state where NRA and GOA are based in will be significant as well. This is largely due to the fact that Second Amendment supporters are losing the suburbs, largely due to their failures to have pro-Second Amendment solutions to concerns their fellow Americans have and to keep in mind how their Second Amendment support comes across.
The news is not all bad. Non-Second Amendment issues could take the fore, including the impeachment effort against President Trump. The 1998 mid-terms saw a backlash against the impeachment of Bill Clinton on much stronger evidence than there is against Trump. In addition, Second Amendment supporters could have an opening via Kanye West, who has expressed support for our rights. This could change things in urban areas, and affect statewide races.
In addition, next year, the Supreme Court could shift the legal and political landscape with its ruling on New York City’s regulations. But the real key to keeping Virginia a pro-Second Amendment state is going to be a lot of hard work by Second Amendment supporters. We must effectively use our First Amendment rights to save our Second Amendment rights.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
The post The Virginia Legislative Elections are a Big Deal appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2q3U53I
via IFTTT
Bevin, Beshear have their final debate
Virginia Customer Disarmament Group Calls to Mind Quote about Capitalists and Rope
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Virginia businesses want action on gun safety,” a Wednesday opinion piece in The Washington Post claims. “Unlike ever before, business leaders and corporations are actively stepping forward to propose and support bold and substantive action to keep their customers, employees and communities safe.”
Not all Virginia businesses do, and Ken Biberaj, the opinion piece author doesn't even try to substantiate his claim. Instead, he cites high-profile national examples, such as anti-gun actions from Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart. Even when he links to “recent polling,” it goes to an article about an agenda-driven PBS News Hour/NPR/Marist national poll, not one targeting Virginia businesses.
Still, it’s no surprise to those who follow such things that gun-grabbers manipulate those they wish to swindle out of their birthrights. And it’s hardly a jaw-dropper that The Washington Post would encourage submissions from both editorial writers and “news” reporters who play fast and loose with “Policies and Standards” that pledge to:
“[T]ell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it … not be the ally of any special interest … [not] consciously or unconsciously mislead… or even deceive… the reader [and to ] avoid active involvement in any partisan causes…”
So who is this Biberaj character, and which Virginia businesses is he speaking for?
We’re told he’s “a member of the board of directors of the Democratic Business Council of Northern Virginia,” but that in itself doesn’t really tell us who the member businesses are. We can see what their self-promotion says they’re about from the DemBiz website, but that doesn’t tell us which specific businesses are undermining the rights of their gun-owning Virginia customers so that choices can be made about whose store doesn't deserve to be patronized.
Looking at the “leadership,” it actually doesn’t look like that’s applicable. The Executive Committee is comprised of a Democrat PAC board member and consulting firm advisor, a commercial real estate finance VP, a commercial real estate finance and investment consultant, and yet another consultant who says she “help[s] leaders ignite change, accelerate success and create workplaces where people want to work,” whatever the hell that actually means. The Board of Directors appears equally insulated from the retail impacts of angering gun owners.
In short, they’re above-it-all elitists intent on being influencers and string-pullers.
Ditto for Biberaj, who is another commercial real estate mucky-muck and a transplant from New York City, bringing Big Apple politics and “values” with him to “help” turn Virginia blue. And therein lies what’s really going on— changing demographics are what is doing that, something Bibaraj, the son of Eastern bloc immigrants himself, understands full well (and which our “gun rights leaders” have yet to admit).
So yes, the state that won’t even turn out a blackfaced Democrat governor and attorney general or a Democrat lieutenant governor accused of sexual assault, will continue its leftist descent. Guns are just being highlighted here because citizen disarmament is central to the larger plan. To claim generic “Virginia businesses” are demanding more infringements is a manipulative lie. And we know from their own words what Democrat Socialists think of the “bourgeoisie.”
Those businesses are not typically the ones out there screaming for the Democrat platform of higher taxes, higher wages, more regulatory chains, and making ordinary people even more vulnerable to “walk-in” violence.
Such dangers rarely stalk the halls of investment and consulting firms, which, by the way, are also adept at insulating themselves from the effects of burdensome Democrat policies via write-offs the little guys don’t get, and also via “who you know” and quid pro quo connections. As comedian/philosopher George Carlin observed, “It’s a big club and you ain’t in it.” Besides, the elites who pull strings or suck up hard enough are not the ones who have to do without when collectivism fails to deliver the goods.
“Business leaders” such as these, while more “economic fascists” than anything, nonetheless bring to mind a quote that takes many forms and is variously attributed to Lenin, to Stalin, to Marx and to others:
“The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
They should remember what happens when useful idiots are no longer needed and are then designated as useless eaters. Because the radicals they’re helping to assume power haven’t forgotten.
—
Afterword: I see next Monday, DemBiz is hosting Shannon Watts to tell them why advocating customer disarmament is good for business. Who thinks any of the “concerned for social justice” Democrats will ask her what role she played in flacking for Monsanto and its Roundup cancer damage control PR?
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
The post Virginia Customer Disarmament Group Calls to Mind Quote about Capitalists and Rope appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2Wwz4Lk
via IFTTT
President Trump says he supports Dunleavy's defense against recall
Vote All-Republican
First Look: Walker's Right to Bear Arms Razor Earmuffs
Sheriff Heath Jackson endorses Jerry Carl for Congress
GOA Brief Refutes Bans on “Military-Style” Firearms, Components
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Gun Owners of America filed an important amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit, defending standard capacity magazines in the Duncan v. Becerra case.
California law bans any magazine that can hold over ten rounds. But in March, a district court judge blocked the law from going into effect.
California appealed the decision to the full Ninth Circuit Court. Eighteen Democrat Attorneys General from around the country then followed suit by submitting a brief in support of the state’s ban.
GOA and its legal arm, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), have weighed in on this case in conjunction with Gun Owners of California, the Heller Foundation, and several other pro-gun organizations.
This is an important case when it comes to the ability to defend oneself, because the government has no business telling people how many rounds they “need.”
We refute several anti-gun arguments in our brief, including the idea that the Second Amendment does not apply to so-called “military-style” firearms. For example:
The Second Amendment protects first and foremost the right to self-defense — not just against petty criminals, but against governments, both foreign and domestic. In order to combat foreign aggression or domestic tyranny, military-grade arms are, as the framers understood, “necessary to the security of a free State.”
You can read the entire brief here:
GOA Amicus Brief-Duncan v Becerra
About Gun Owners of America
GOA was founded in 1975 by Sen. H.L. (Bill) Richardson (now retired). The GOA Board of Directors brings over 100 years of combined knowledge and experience on guns, legislation and politics. GOA’s Board is not satisfied with the “status quo.” Americans have lost some of our precious gun rights and we want them back! This is why GOA is considered the “no compromise” gun lobby.
From state legislatures and city councils to the United States Congress and the White House, GOA represents the views of gun owners whenever their rights are threatened.
The post GOA Brief Refutes Bans on “Military-Style” Firearms, Components appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/36jcSZk
via IFTTT
FPC Sue State Department For Records About ‘3-D’ Gun Blueprints
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) announced a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State. The case, Firearms Policy Coalition, et al., v. U.S. Department of State, is lead by attorneys Stephen Stamboulieh and Alan Beck. The complaint is available online at FPCLegal.org.
In August 2018, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was sent to the State Department seeking “all public records and information” about subjects including 3-D printable gun blueprints, firearm printing files, firearm machining files, “ghost guns”, “Defense Distributed”, “Cody Wilson”, “Code is Free Speech”, “CodeIsFreeSpeech.com”, and other individuals and organizations. After receiving no records following the August request, another request was sent in December to the State Department and Secretary Michael R. Pompeo.
“As of the date of this Complaint,” the court filing explains, “the Defendant has failed to: (i) produce the requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt from production; (ii) notify Plaintiffs of the scope of any responsive records Defendant intends to produce or withhold and the reasons for any withholdings, or (iii) inform Plaintiffs that it may appeal any adequately specific, adverse determination.”
“The Department of State cannot avoid their duties under FOIA,” said Stamboulieh. “This lawsuit is the result of the government yet again failing to follow the law and do their job. We look forward to once more vindicating the rights of our clients and holding those in power responsible for their unlawful actions.”
FPC and FPF are co-plaintiffs, along with Defense Distributed, Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF), and FPC founder and President, Brandon Combs, in a federal lawsuit against New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal. Key documents for that case are available at CodeIsFreeSpeechCase.com.
About FPC
Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)(4) grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to defend the People’s rights—especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom.
Firearms Policy Foundation (https://ift.tt/2dE21lZ) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the People’s rights and promote individual liberty through research, education, and legal action programs.
The post FPC Sue State Department For Records About ‘3-D’ Gun Blueprints appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2Npq1aL
via IFTTT
Court Blocks Pittsburgh Gun Control Scheme in Lawsuit Brought by FPC
PITTSBURGH, PA —-(Ammoland.com)- Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a victory in its case against the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Mayor Bill Peduto. FPC was joined by co-plaintiffs Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and three individual gun owners. The plaintiffs were represented by Joshua Prince of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C. The opinion and order issued by Judge Joseph M. James, holding that “Ordinances 2018-1218, 2018-1219, 2018-1220 are void and unenforceable,” is available online at PittsburghCase.com.
“I am delighted that Judge James’ decision today appropriately struck down the City of Pittsburgh’s unlawful firearm ordinances and signage,” said attorney Joshua Prince. “The City’s gun control sought to eviscerate the inviolate right of the residents of the Commonwealth to keep and bear arms and ensnare law-abiding citizens through a patchwork of laws. Today, Judge James made clear that Mayor Peduto and the Pittsburgh City Council are neither above the law nor a special class of citizens that may violate the law with impunity.”
“We look forward to Judge James issuing a decision on Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League’s contempt petition against the City of Pittsburgh and District Attorney Zappala filing criminal charges against Mayor Peduto and the City Council Members who enacted these illegal ordinances,” Prince concluded.
“Pennsylvania’s preemption statute serves an important purpose, to ensure that Pennsylvanians are not subjected to a patchwork of illogical and inconsistent rules and regulations pertaining to the firearms they chose to employ,” explained FPC Director of Legal Strategy, Adam Kraut.
“The City of Pittsburgh, along with support from the billionaire funded Everytown for Gun Safety, decided to waste City taxpayers’ money by knowingly violating Pennsylvania law,” Kraut continued. “Fortunately for those who favor individual liberty and the rule of law, the Court held what everyone already knew to be true—state law ‘preempts any local regulation pertaining to the regulation of firearms.’ ”
“We are gratified to have partnered on this important case and successfully defended the rights of those who reside in or visit Pittsburgh against corrupt, anti-rights politicians and the evil gun control lobby,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We are prepared to defeat the City and Everytown once more should they decide to appeal this ruling.”
In a prior statement, FOAC President Kim Stolfer said, “Peduto and his ‘gun-grabbing gang of six’ at the City Council know that they violated the Pennsylvania Constitution and statutory law. These political puppets of the gun control lobby have victimized the people of Pittsburgh and burdened the taxpayers with an unconstitutional and unlawful pile of radical garbage.”
The City was represented by Everytown Law, the litigation arm of Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, a gun control group, as well as Carlson Lynch LLP and the City’s Department of Law.
About FPC
Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)(4) grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to defend the People’s rights—especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom.
Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the People’s rights and promote individual liberty through research, education, and legal action programs.
The post Court Blocks Pittsburgh Gun Control Scheme in Lawsuit Brought by FPC appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/330cGfH
via IFTTT
Pennsylvania Court Knocks Out Pittsburgh Gun Control in NRA-Backed Case
Fairfax, Va. – -(AmmoLand.com)- The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today applauded a decision by the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Pennsylvania. In the NRA-backed case Anderson v. City of Pittsburgh, the court found that Pittsburgh's attempt to impose local gun control measures was a clear violation of state law.
“This is a huge victory for law-abiding gun owners and everyone who values freedom in the Keystone state,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA. “Cases like this underscore the peoples’ need for judges who will faithfully interpret the law in defense of their rights and liberties.”
At issue was a Pittsburgh restriction on so-called “high capacity” magazines. Pennsylvania, like 45 other states, has a preemption law restricting local governments from passing gun control measures that are more restrictive than state law.
Preemption laws protect law-abiding gun owners from dealing with a confusing patchwork of laws in a single state.
“We are grateful that the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas saw what is clear on the face of the statute, that the general assembly alone regulates firearms in Pennsylvania,” said attorney Jonathan Goldstein, partner at McNelly and Goldstein.
Earlier this month, NRA-backed firearm preemption cases in Washington and Montana voided similar unlawful local ordinances.
“This is a great day for law-abiding Pennsylvania gun owners. The NRA applauds this ruling and will continue defending our constitutional rights everywhere,” Ouimet concluded.
~NRA~
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Follow the NRA on social at Facebook.com/NationalRifleAssociation and Twitter @NRA.
The post Pennsylvania Court Knocks Out Pittsburgh Gun Control in NRA-Backed Case appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/3322KCu
via IFTTT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)