Judge Denies Two Former Cops Gun Rights Because of Capitol Riots

Judge Denies Two Former Cops Their Gun Rights Because of Capitol Riots, iStock-1006474816

WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- A federal judge stripped two former police officers from Rocky Mount, Virginia of their Second Amendment right to bear arms as they await a trial of charges related to the U.S. Capitol Riots that took place in January.

Judge Christopher Cooper originally stripped Jacob Fracker, 29, and Thomas Robertson, 47, of their gun rights in January. The two former officer’s lawyers asked the judge to reconsider the prohibition of firearms for the two Rocky Mount men. The men’s defense attorneys for the two men argued that the dangerous criminals that the two officers put behind bars in their sworn duty as police officers could seek revenge since the judge stripped the two officers of the best self-defense tool.

Both officers attended the “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington, D.C., on January 6th. The rally was protesting what the crowd perceived as a stolen election. During the protest, a small percentage of the attendees pushed their way into the Capitol building during the election certification. Democrats used the riot as a Constitutionally questionable excuse to impeach Trump to prevent him from ever running for office again. The move failed as Congress acquitted the former president.

Federal prosecutors charged both men with taking part in the riot at the Capitol.

They face charges of obstruction of an official proceeding because the election results’ certification was interrupted and delayed because of the incident. Prosecutors also charged the two men with remaining in a restricted area and disorderly conduct.

The Rocky Mount Police Department fired both officers when pictures of the two men inside the Capitol building surfaced online, and prosecutors filed federal charges against the two officers. Fracker is also a corporal in the Virginia National Guard and has served his country with honor.

“He has made many, many arrests on violent and dangerous people over his career path,” Fracker’s attorney Bernard Crane said. “He needs his firearm for personal protection.”

Crane will present the judge a sealed motion that names specific people who threaten Fracker’s safety. The lawyer argues that these violent criminals are in close proximity to the former officer and could attack him at any time. He hopes that the sealed motion will convince the judge that Fracker’s life is at risk and needs a firearm to ensure his safety and the safety of his family.

Robertson’s lawyer expressed the same concern of his client. Robertson has not been found guilty of any crime and feels that stripping him of his rights puts his life and the life of his family in danger from criminals seeking revenge on the officer for protecting the citizens of his town. The judge was unmoved by the men’s argument.

The court freed both former law enforcement officers on a $15,000 unsecured release bond. In addition to the federal judge stripping the two men of their Second Amendment rights, the judge also denied the two men of their First Amendment rights by barring them from participating in protest while they await trial for the filed charges.

---

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

The post Judge Denies Two Former Cops Gun Rights Because of Capitol Riots appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/2MCHal0
via IFTTT

Below The Radar – Closing the Loophole on Interstate Firearm Sales Act

Below The Radar – Closing the Loophole on Interstate Firearm Sales Act

Washington D.C. – -(AmmoLand.com)- To anti-Second Amendment extremists, anything that allows a law-abiding American citizen to exercise their Second Amendment rights is a “loophole.” Second Amendment supporters, though, often find people questioning this mindset – often because they don’t know the current laws, how little they are enforced, or what anti-Second Amendment extremists ultimately want to subject this country to.

Well, Second Amendment supporters now have a concrete example of this mindset from anti-Second Amendment extremists, and they can thank Representative Jason Crow (D-CO). Crow has introduced HR 647, the Closing the Loophole on Interstate Firearm Sales Act, with nine co-sponsors.

Under current law as laid out in 18 USC 922(b), it is legal to buy for a resident of one state to buy a long gun from a federal firearms licensee in another state provided that the laws of both states are followed. This makes things more convenient for a resident of the northern panhandle of West Virginia, who could find a long gun they wish to buy in either Ohio or Pennsylvania that would be much closer than the nearest FFL with that same gun in West Virginia. This is not an exclusive situation – the same would apply in a number of other regions in the country, like the Delmarva peninsula, the eastern panhandle of West Virginia, and much of New England.

For most Second Amendment supporters, this situation is inconvenient, but far less so than if they were limited to only buying from FFLs in their state. If anything, with NICS, there is no logic to restricting the sale of any firearm across state lines (not to mention the various waiting period and licensing schemes some states have).

Jason Crow, though, thinks of this as a “loophole.”

In a press release, he cannot cite a single actual horrific act, just a panic over a sale that already violated the existing provisions of the law! Even then, over this honest mistake on the part of an FFL, Crow wants to punish thousands of people over a panic.

Now, to be fair, the FFL should have taken the time to look up Florida’s laws – there is a summary on the NRA-ILA website – before the sale was completed. Because of that FFL’s mistake, anti-Second Amendment extremists have gained a pretext to justify pushing a new burden on our rights. We do not deserve to be punished for an honest mistake.

Second Amendment supporters should contact their Representatives and Senators and politely urge them to oppose HR 647, and instead seek to override state waiting periods and licensing schemes. They also should support the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund to ensure that the current anti-Second Amendment regimes in the House, Senate, and White House are defeated at the ballot box as soon as possible.

---

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 Below The Radar – Closing the Loophole on Interstate Firearm Sales Act appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/2NOvUSX
via IFTTT

Ninth Circuit to Hear Case Challenging California’s Magazine Ban En Banc

On February 25th, the Ninth Circuit granted en banc review of an NRA-ILA-backed lawsuit challenging California’s ban on magazines containing more than ten rounds. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On February 25th, the Ninth Circuit granted en banc review of an NRA-ILA-backed lawsuit challenging California’s ban on magazines containing more than ten rounds.

This case challenges California Penal Code §32310, which was amended in 2016, to outright ban magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. The NRA filed suit against California in 2017 and won a favorable decision at the district court level in 2019. California appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and in August of 2020, a three-judge panel ruled that the statute was unconstitutional.

Shortly thereafter, California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed a petition for an en banc hearing, a hearing before 11 judges as opposed to the three-judge panel, in order to overturn the decision.

By granting en banc review, the previous decision ruling that California’s magazine ban statute violated the Second Amendment is vacated. This result is not surprising, but the NRA is prepared to continue to fight to defend the Second Amendment in California and throughout the country.

The case is called Duncan v. Becerra.

---

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

The post Ninth Circuit to Hear Case Challenging California’s Magazine Ban En Banc appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/2PlR6jR
via IFTTT

FPC: New Filings and Order in Lawsuit Challenging California’s “Assault Weapon” Ban

FPC: New Filings and Order in Lawsuit Challenging California’s “Assault Weapon” Ban iStock 884191010

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) submitted two new filings to the Court in Miller v. Becerra, its federal Second Amendment challenge to the State of California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The filings can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

Last week, FPC announced the filing of its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which detailed the legal and factual holdings we wish the Court to adopt in its judgment. FPC filed its response to the State’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law this week, where we continue to contend that:

• The arms banned by California as “assault weapons” are constitutionally protected
• The arms banned by California as “assault weapons” are commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes including self-defense in the majority of the United States
• The arms banned by California as “assault weapons” are not more lethal than arms that are not banned

FPC also filed its objections to the State’s evidence and trial exhibits on the basis of:

• Lack of relevance;
• Lack of foundation; and
• Confusion of the issues.

Additionally, a new order was filed today by District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, requiring the State to supplement the trial record, on or before March 15, with the following information from 2020 and 2021:

• The total number of firearms sold in the state with background checks
• If ascertainable, the total number of rifles, the total number of shotguns, the total number of semiautomatic pistols, and the total number of revolvers sold in the state, with background checks; and,
• If ascertainable, the number of first-time buyers of a firearm in the state.

The relief sought in Miller v. Becerra includes:

1. Declaratory relief adjudging that the definitions of “assault weapon” pursuant to Penal Code §§ 30515(a) and (b), and Title 11, California Code of Regulations §§ 5460 and 5471, are unconstitutional on their face and as applied, and violate the Second Amendment, to the extent that the State’s laws and regulations operate to prohibit or prevent Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons from exercising their rights, including acquiring, keeping, bearing, transporting, transferring, and using “assault weapons” for lawful purposes;
2. Declaratory relief adjudging that California Penal Code §§ 30600, 30605, 30800, 30910, 30915, 30945, 30950, 31000, and 31005 are unconstitutional on their face and as applied, and in violation of the Second Amendment, to the extent that the State’s laws and regulations operate to prohibit or prevent Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons from exercising their rights, including acquiring, keeping, bearing, transporting, transferring, and using “assault weapons” for lawful purposes;
3. Declaratory relief supporting an injunction, and an order temporarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcement or application of Penal Code §§ 30515(a) and (b), 30600, 30605, 30800, 30910, 30915, 30945, 30950, 31000, and 31005, as well as Title 11, California Code of Regulations §§ 5460 and 5471, against Plaintiffs on an as-applied basis, and against all similarly situated persons;
4. Costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable law; and,
5. Any and all further relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.

Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates for the right to keep and bear arms and adjacent issues, having recently filed many major federal Second Amendment lawsuits, including challenges to the State of Maryland’s ban on “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh), the State of Pennsylvania’s and Allegheny County’s carry restrictions (Cowey v. Mullen), Philadelphia’s Gun Permit Unit policies and practices (Fetsurka v. Outlaw), Pennsylvania’s ban on carry by adults under 21 years of age (Lara v. Evanchick), California’s Handgun Ban and “Roster” laws (Renna v. Becerra), Maryland’s carry ban (Call v. Jones), New Jersey’s carry ban (Bennett v. Davis), New York City’s carry ban (Greco v. New York City), the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition by federal firearm licensees (FFLs) to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. BATFE), and others, with many more cases being prepared today. To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPC’s website or follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

---

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, and other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

The post FPC: New Filings and Order in Lawsuit Challenging California’s “Assault Weapon” Ban appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3dOyljb
via IFTTT

Armed Driver Stops Carjacking Spree – Armed Citizen Stories

Armed Driver Stops Carjacking Spree – Armed Citizen Stories

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- We start with this news report from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania reported in the PennLive Patriot-News.

You’re driving through downtown Philadelphia on a weekday night. It is about 9 pm when a car pulls up beside you at a stoplight. The man in the car points a gun at you and says to get out of your car.

You own a handgun. You have your Pennsylvania license to carry. You’re armed tonight. You pretend to move the seat belt as you draw your firearm. Your attacker is getting out of his car when you shoot him. He drops his gun so you drive away and call 911.

Police find your attackers. The police call for EMS to transport the wounded robber to the hospital. The police arrest your attacker’s brother as the getaway driver. They claimed they were innocent, but the police had a video of them carjacking another driver at gunpoint only a few hours earlier. They were sitting in the stolen car. The police said they have surveillance videos of both attacks.

Comments

Our defender did a lot of things correctly to save his life. He was a gun owner and he was legally armed. Our defender recognized a lethal threat. He defended himself and then moved to safety. Once his safety was assured, he called the police. He met with the officers and made a brief statement.

These reports are always incomplete, so let’s think about what wasn’t covered in the news story.

Good guys have permits and holsters.

Even though he’d probably driven that route before, even though he had carried his firearm and not needed it on other days, he chose to go armed that day anyway. Our defender invested his time, money and effort to get his Pennsylvania license to carry firearms. His actions would have been scrutinized to a higher degree if he were carrying his firearm illegally.

The environment works both against us and for us.

Darkness, bad weather, and the sounds of traffic are both a hindrance and a help. Unfortunately, they help an attacker get closer to us before we can recognize a threat. Fortunately, those environmental factors, and wearing a winter coat, mask the motions of our hands and the sound of our clothing as we grab our gun to defend ourselves inside a dark car.

We have choices about what to do.

We always have the option between complying with the robber’s demands and defending ourselves. The victim that these carjackers robbed a few hours earlier was proned-out on the street with a gun pressed to the back of his head. Surviving the attack by complying with a criminal’s demands puts us at the mercy of the merciless.

We choose when and how to defend ourselves.

We want to avoid a race to see who can draw the fastest when our attacker already has his gun pointed at us. We want to use tactical patience until we have better options. We want to wait our turn to defend ourselves so we avoid a gunfight where bullets are traveling in both directions.

Thinking about our defense gives us more choices.

We can’t think under stress. Almost none of us can. Thinking about our defense ahead of time lets us remember what is possible. For example, the outcome could have been tragic if the defender had shouted, “Oh, yeah? F#*k you!” It is better to put one hand up and say, “OK. OK.”.. as you undo your seatbelt and get a firm firing-grip on your concealed firearm.

Know what you can do.

Your practice lets your recognize realistic options. How much time and space do you need to draw your firearm while belted into your car? The only way to answer that is to practice it for yourself. Practice moving with your gun from your holster in your car. I had trouble getting my firearm untangled from the seat belt and steering wheel. Use a toy gun, a plastic training gun, or use dry practice. Dry practice includes a set of safety rules we follow so we can safely train with an unloaded gun.

You probably want to practice presenting your handgun while you are seated in your car. You first make sure that there is no ammunition anywhere in your car or in your garage. We’d like the convenience of practicing in our own garage, but will those walls stop a bullet? Maybe we have to find a safer place to train. Whether you think you are fast or slow, at least you know how much of an opportunity you need as you defend yourself.

Win the race to the phone.

Good guys call 911. We do that even if the bad guy ran away and we never pressed the trigger. It is common for a criminal to claim that you attacked them. Their story stands as the truth if it is the only story being told. Get to safety, and then call 911.

Call the police.. and say little.

Don’t let your anger get the best of you during your initial statement to the police. You want to say something like this when the police arrive-

I’m glad you’re here. I called you.

They attacked me. I thought they were going to kill me. I defended myself. I want you to arrest them and I will testify against them. I will cooperate and answer all your questions after I’ve talked to my lawyer.

And then, you keep your mouth closed. For example, you don’t know how many times you fired your gun, so don’t guess.

Not only is that sort of statement good legal advice, it is extremely practical. As obvious as it sounds, having a planned statement keeps you from saying stupid things. In the moment.

You might feel  “That S** of a B**** tried to kill me. I F****** fixed him.” It is certainly an understandable outburst, but it immediately draws your actions into question. Did you have to shoot several times, or was the attacker running away at the sight of your firearm? Did you drive away because you were worried that the other robber might be armed, or were you fleeing because you couldn’t justify your use of lethal force? Did you lie about the number of times you fired because your memory was faulty due to the effects of adrenaline, or were you trying to hide your use of excessive force? You are responsible for every shot you fire and every word you say. Don’t make extra work for your lawyer.

You have a lawyer to call, don’t you? You need one. Everyone does.

Rob Morse highlights the latest self-defense and other shootings of the week. See what went wrong, what went right, and what we can learn from real-life self-defense with a gun. Even the most justified self-defense shooting can go wrong, especially after the shot. Get the education, the training, and the liability coverage you and your family deserve, join USCCA.

---

About Rob Morse

Rob 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 was an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.

The post Armed Driver Stops Carjacking Spree – Armed Citizen Stories appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3pZUfSQ
via IFTTT

WI: Militant Leftists Attempt to Intimidate Judge in Rittenhouse Case

Screenshot from WISN, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On Friday evening, 12 February, a group of about a dozen far-left protestors, allied with the DA’s office in Kenosha, called for the removal of Judge Bruce Schroeder, because the Judge followed the rule of law and refused to facilitate the political persecution of Kyle Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse is being tried for the self-defense shooting of three men who attacked him as he fled from mobs during the Kenosha riots. Judge Schroeder required the DA to follow the rule of law.

Far Left activist Erica Ness, who is white, made these incendiary claims:  From kenoshanews.com:

“Yesterday’s (Thursday) hearing sent a clear message to violent white supremacists: come to Kenosha to kill protestors, and you’ll be supported by the police and the court system,” said Erica Ness, an organizer with Leaders of Kenosha. “Meanwhile, Black and brown folks are having their doors kicked in and are dragged back to jail for the smallest infractions against their bond. This is a gross display of bias, and we’re calling on Judge Schroeder to resign and for Kyle Rittenhouse to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

Rittenhouse has never been shown to have any associations with white supremacists. The Far Left has defined the common use of the “OK” hand gesture as a symbol of white supremacists. By this standard, anyone who uses the OK gesture is a white supremacist. If it were not taken so seriously by the media, it would be laughable.  Every person who Rittenhouse shot, was white.

Judge Schroeder, in the bond hearing, repeatedly corrected the prosecution on the facts, the law, and bond procedure. The hearing can be seen in its entirety online.   The prosecutor was well aware there was no restriction on where Kyle could reside, in the bond order. The prosecution could have requested such a restriction in the initial hearing but did not do so.

If you wish to understand the protest, watch the hearing for the full 52 minutes.

Ness does not want the rule of law followed. She does not want due process. She wants Kyle Rittenhouse to be punished before any trial, because, apparently, he dared to defend himself against a violent mob that attacked him as he fled. Ness is quoted here.  From WISN.com:

“The judge has said, ‘OK sure, you broke that condition, you didn’t tell us your address, you lied, you don’t have to give people your address anymore.’ That is unprecedented,” Ness said. “This is someone who killed two people in our community and this is someone who continues to galivant around and flash white supremacist symbols and embolden more of this violence.”

At the hearing, Judge Schroeder repeatedly showed these claims (also made by the prosecutor) were false. People routinely forget to file the change of address for the postal delivery, which is the only thing that was missed by Kyle Rittenhouse’s legal team. People who do so are never arrested and jailed for this error, especially when they always appear at court as required.

Ness appears to believe that because her political prosecutor allies have claimed a person has violated the law, that person no longer has any rights. She wishes the Constitution to be ignored when she wants someone she hates to be punished.

Judge Schroeder refused to be intimidated by the mob.  From radio.com:

Though Schroeder ordered Rittenhouse to give the court his address, which would be kept under seal but refused to increase his bail and have him jailed. The judge also acknowledged Friday’s protesters.

“This case is not going to be decided by demonstrators of one type or another. And, frankly, it’s not going to affect anything that I do,” Schroeder said.

Ness and her allies on the far left are showing how much they detest the rule of law and due process. The only rule of law and due process they are interested in is that which gives them the outcome they desire, on a case by case basis. Instead of due process and the rule of law, they support mob rule, such as was attempted during the Kenosha riots.

The left does not accept the rule of law and due process are how Western civilization has achieved the enormous progress it has made in the last 250 years.

The abandonment of the rule of law and due process leads, inevitably, to Venezuela, Cambodia, and the old Soviet Union.

Judge Schroeder ordered Kyle’s physical location be kept secret from the District Attorney’s  Office, so as to prevent physical violence against Kyle and his family.  The District Attorney Binger was told necessary contact with Kyle can be made through the Court, or by the Sheriff’s department.

---

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 retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

The post WI: Militant Leftists Attempt to Intimidate Judge in Rittenhouse Case appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/2ZU19yt
via IFTTT

Below The Radar – HR 1004 Require Liability Insurance Coverage to Purchase Firearms

Second Amendment Activist Protest Activism Take Action

Washington DC – -(AmmoLand.com)- When we discussed financial de-platforming, we noted that for the firearms industry – in fact, even for those who want to buy firearms – access to financial services, including banking is a must. If access to those services are denied, say through a re-started Operation Choke Point, then the Second Amendment becomes a dead letter.

But now, Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) wants to require people to show proof of insurance to be able to buy a firearm. She introduced HR 1004 with one co-sponsor, Representative Andre Carson (D-IN). While text of this bill is not available as of this writing, Representative Maloney has introduced this bill in the 116th and 115th Congresses as the Firearm Risk Protection Act.

The text of the legislation as introduced in the 115th Congress states that it is unlawful to buy a firearm without a “qualified liability insurance policy” and that it is also illegal to sell to someone without said “qualified liability insurance policy.” Now, the definition the text provides is vague, beyond saying that the policy should provide “liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

It is not an overstatement to say that Second Amendment supporters can figure out just what sorts of mischief can take place. Operation Choke Point is just the start. Given the constant social stigmatization surrounding not just the exercise of Second Amendment rights, but against those who use the First Amendment to advocate in defense of our Second Amendment rights, some insurance agents may not want the business at all. In addition, there is no guarantee that insurance companies won’t engage in a form of “redlining” against certain firearms.

Even if those things don’t happen, the insurance is going to be yet another monthly expense for those exercising our Second Amendment rights. Even then, there would be questions: Would a new gun require an adjustment in the policy? Would rates go up for those with larger collections? The list goes on and on.

This legislation is not intended to address any problems with the misuse of firearms – or even accidents. What it is intended to do is to make exercising Second Amendment rights such a hassle people will decide to give them up. Second Amendment supporters should contact their Representatives and Senators and politely urge their opposition this legislation. Second Amendment supporters should also support the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund to ensure that the current anti-Second Amendment regimes in the House, Senate, and White House are defeated at the ballot box as soon as possible.

---

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 Below The Radar – HR 1004 Require Liability Insurance Coverage to Purchase Firearms appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3dOOS6E
via IFTTT

12-Year-Old Boy Defends 73-Year-Old, Shoots, Kills Home Invader

Image of Linda Ellis, a family photo from WRAL.com Screenshot, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Between midnight and 1 a.m. on 13 February 2021, two young home invaders came to the door of 402 S. Williams St. in Goldsboro, North Carolina. The address is to a modest apartment complex, home of Linda Ellis, a 73-year-old grandmother.

Ellis son, Randolf Bunn, answered the door. As he opened it the two suspects forced their way in. They forced Bunn to the ground. At least one of them had a gun. They barged into the kitchen, where they encountered 73-Year-Old Linda. They shot her in the leg. From abc11.com:

“They came in the house, I open the door, I open it, and they came in there… One guy had a gun. They just put me down on the ground…” The [73-year-old woman] was in the kitchen, I don’t know why they shot her,” said the son of the woman, Randolph Bunn. He also happens to be the great-uncle of the child who fired the gun.

Goldsboro police said charges against the 12-year-old are not anticipated but the investigation is ongoing.

“[The intruder] just shot his grandma… He would have shot him too, he would’ve shot me too, he would’ve killed us all,” Bunn continued.

As this was happening, a 12-year-old boy, said to be Linda’s grandson, accessed a firearm and opened fire on the home invaders. They fled the house. The police arrived minutes later. They found Ellis, wounded.

A bit down the street, they found Khalil Herring, on the ground with a gunshot wound. Linda is recovering at the hospital. Khalil died from his wounds. From witn.com :

Police said a 12-year-old who lived in the apartment with Ellis is believed to have shot at the masked suspects with a gun in self-defense, according to the investigation. They say two masked suspects forced their way into the apartment and demanded money from Ellis and shot her.

Khalil Herring was 19 years old. The identity of his accomplice has not been released by the police.  The identity may be unknown, or the accomplice may be less than 18 years of age.

Linda Ellis’ great-niece, Chiquita Coley, is fed up with violent crime:

Chiquita Coley, identified by CNN affiliate WRAL as Ellis’ great-niece, said she couldn’t believe what happened.

“Why would somebody come into her house and do this? It’s got to stop,” Coley said. “I don’t know what they’re thinking around here in Goldsboro, but it’s got to stop.”

Young men do not start their criminal career with armed home invasions. In September 2019, a Khalil Jered Herring was arrested for Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle. His address was listed as 713 West Oak Street, Goldsboro, NC.  713 West Oak Street is about a mile from 402 S. Williams Street in Goldsboro. The two Khalil Herrings may be the same person.

Pre-teens often are capable of defending their homes and family with a firearm. 11-year-old Elliot Clark killed a charging grizzly with his shotgun, saving family members, in July of 2017. 12-year-old Alyssa Caldwell used a rifle to kill a mountain lion that was stalking her in 2014.

Alyssa and lion she shot in self defense. Image used with permission of Caldwell family, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

From home invaders to charging grizzly bears, firearms are the great equalizer. They give pre-teens the power to stop adult criminals or other deadly predators.

---

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 retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

The post 12-Year-Old Boy Defends 73-Year-Old, Shoots, Kills Home Invader appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3pYDXdd
via IFTTT

Colorado: Multiple Anti-Gun Bills Heading for Committee Hearings Soon

Next week, House Bill 1106 and Senate Bill 78, are scheduled for committee consideration on Monday and Thursday, respectively. IMG iStock-884190572

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Next week, House Bill 1106 and Senate Bill 78, are scheduled for committee consideration on Monday and Thursday, respectively.  These measures do nothing to prevent crime and specifically target law-abiding gun owners.  Please contact committee members and ask them to OPPOSE these anti-gun measures.

CLICK HERE TAKE ACTION!

House Bill 1106 imposes government-mandated standards for storing firearms, rendering them unavailable for self-defense purposes.  HB 1106 will be heard on Monday, March 1, in the House State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs Committee.

Senate Bill 78 victimizes gun owners who suffer loss or theft of their property with a fine if they don’t report a lost or stolen firearm within five days of discovering them missing.  Senate Bill 78 will be heard on Thursday, March 4, in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Again, please contact members of each committee and ask them to oppose these measures that place an undue burden on law-abiding gun owners, instead of addressing actual criminals.​

---

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

The post Colorado: Multiple Anti-Gun Bills Heading for Committee Hearings Soon appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3bGxluT
via IFTTT

Texas Proposes More Laws Protecting Gun Rights During Disasters

Texas lawmakers are trying to defend 2A companies from being shut down during emergencies. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On Wednesday, we reported to you on House Bill 2249 and Senate Bill 18, NRA-backed bills which establish that firearms and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, suppliers, and retailers are essential businesses that shall not be prohibited by state or local officials from operating during a declared disaster or emergency.

Since then, several more measures with this NRA-supported language have been filed: House Bill 3, by Rep. Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock), a comprehensive bill relating to the emergency powers of state and local officials specifically during a pandemic, and House Bill 1500, by Rep. Cole Hefner (R-Mount Pleasant), identical to House Bill 2249 but assigned a lower bill number so it can be referred to, and be eligible for, committee action sooner.  We appreciate Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) and Rep. Burrows for ensuring that this critical language is included in one of the House priority bills, HB 3, and for granting HB 2249 a lower bill number, now HB 1500.

COVID-19 and uncivil disorder have illustrated that in times of crisis or uncertainty, Americans buy guns.  Last year, as concerned citizens across the country lined up outside gun stores to exercise their constitutional right to purchase and own firearms, state and local officials – including those in a number of Texas cities and counties – refused to designate firearms retailers as “essential businesses” and shut them down.  Fortunately, Texas’ current statewide leaders acted quickly, such as here and here, so that Texans’ Second Amendment rights were protected.  Now, with the Texas Legislature in session, state lawmakers must ensure that this will always be the case during a declared disaster or emergency, regardless of any statewide or local officeholder’s politics.

Members, please contact your state representative and urge them to CO-AUTHOR HB 1500.

---

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

The post Texas Proposes More Laws Protecting Gun Rights During Disasters appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3qZij9Z
via IFTTT

New York: Pro-Suppressor Legislation Introduced

The Daily News recently filed a lawsuit to compel the NYPD to release the full names and addresses of individuals with firearm licenses. IMG NRA-ILA

Albany, NY – On January 28^th, Senate Minority Leader Robert Ortt (R, C, IP) reintroduced legislation that seeks to legalize suppressor ownership and hunting in the state of New York. Senate Bill 3196, which is backed by the American Suppressor Association, has been referred to the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee. If enacted, S. 3196 would bring New York in line with the 42 states where suppressors are legal to own and the 40 states that currently allow hunters to use suppressors in the field.

“The legalization of suppressors for use during hunting activity has beneficial results for both the hunting community as well as the surrounding environment,” said Senator Ortt. “By muffling the sound of the hunting rifle, we are improving safety for participants, while also reducing the audible impact the activity has on those in the surrounding area. Any informed individual would know that a suppressor does as its title states, suppresses the noise of a gunshot. It does not silence it as portrayed by pop culture. This is important gun safety legislation that should be supported by both Republicans and Democrats alike.”

According to multiple peer reviewed studies, between 70 to 80% of hunters never wear traditional hearing protection devices like earplugs or earmuffs while in the field. As a result, Dr. William W. Clark, Director of the Washington University School of Medicine’s Program in Audiology and Communication Sciences, asserts, “the most serious threat to hearing comes from recreational hunting or target shooting”.

The sound pressure level (SPL) of most unsuppressed hunting rifles range between 160 to 185 decibels (dB). At these levels, even earplugs and earmuffs are often incapable of providing complete protection. In a letter addressed to the American Suppressor Association, the National Hearing Conservation Association (NHCA) states:

“Persons wearing conventional hearing protection are not without risk of NIHL when using firearms. The noise reduction of hearing protection devices varies considerably across users and may provide significantly less protection from noise than the labeled noise reduction rating (NRR) suggests…However, using conventional hearing protection in conjunction with a suppressor can significantly reduce the risk of NIHL more than using either device alone…Therefore, NHCA supports the use of firearm noise suppressors as a form of an engineering noise control to reduce hazardous firearm noise exposures.”

“Senator Ortt is absolutely correct when he says that Hollywood’s depiction of suppressors has no basis in reality,” said Knox Williams, Executive Director of the American Suppressor Association. “As a society, we should listen to the experts and scientists when they say that hearing loss related to recreational firearm use is a widespread issue that suppressors can help fix. We applaud Senator Ortt for his efforts to help protect the hearing of the citizens in the great state of New York, and look forward to working alongside him as we pursue this common-sense reform.”

 

There are many benefits to using a suppressor, including:

1. HEARING PROTECTION: Noise induced hearing loss and tinnitus are two of the most common afflictions for recreational shooters and hunters. Everyone knows that gunfire is loud, but very few people understand the repercussions that shooting can have on their hearing until it’s too late. Suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by an average of 20 – 35 dB, which is roughly the same as earplugs or earmuffs. By decreasing the overall sound signature, suppressors help to preserve the hearing of recreational shooters, hunters, and hunting dogs around the world.
2. SAFER HUNTING: Most hunters do not wear hearing protection in the field because they want to hear their surroundings. The trouble is, exposure to even a single unsuppressed gunshot can, and often does, lead to permanent hearing damage. Suppressors allow hunters to maintain full situational awareness, while still protecting their hearing. The result is a safer hunting experience for the hunter, and for those nearby.
3. NOISE COMPLAINTS: As urban development advances into rural areas, shooting ranges and hunting preserves across the country are being closed due to noise complaints. Although it can still be heard, suppressed gunfire helps mitigate noise complaints from those who live near shooting ranges and hunting land.
4. ACCURACY:  Suppressors reduce recoil, and help decrease muzzle flinch. These benefits lead to improved accuracy, better shot placement, and more humane hunts.

Although legal in 42 states, suppressors have been federally regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Currently, prospective buyers must send in a Form 4 application to the ATF, pay a $200 transfer tax per suppressor, undergo the same process that is required to purchase a machine gun, and wait months for ATF to process and approve the paperwork. In stark contrast, many countries in Europe place little to no regulations on their purchase, possession, or use.

---

About the American Suppressor Association

The American Suppressor Association (ASA) is the unified voice of the suppressor community. We exist for one reason and one reason only: to fight for pro-suppressor reform nationwide.

The ability of the American Suppressor Association to fight for pro-suppressor reform is tied directly to our ability to fundraise. Since the ASA’s formation in 2011, 3 states have legalized suppressor ownership and 18 states have legalized suppressor hunting. Much of this would not have happened without your support. For more information on how you can join us in the fight to help protect and expand your right to own and use suppressors, visit www.AmericanSuppressorAssociation.com.

The post New York: Pro-Suppressor Legislation Introduced appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3r1Otlg
via IFTTT

Anonymous Snitch Group to Dox ‘Domestic Terrorist’ Trump Voters

“Outed” Trump voters get what they deserve? (The Witch, No. 2, Joseph E. Baker, Library of Congress)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Help Us Fight Domestic Terrorists!” TrumpVoterList.org with its slogan “Keep America Honest” urges anyone and everyone. “We’ve created this organization to ensure that those responsible for the election of Donald Trump can never threaten our nation and our freedom again. We’re building a list of known Trump voters to be submitted to public officials willing to take action. Join us in ensuring freedom always rings!”

Join you? After you libel 79+M Americans as “domestic terrorists”? More to the point, who are you?

“We’re a diverse group of patriots and People of Color looking to make a positive difference in America by unmasking Donald Trump voters,” they declare. “We believe that the majority of Trump voters only supported his presidency anonymously. It’s clear that the true majority of Americans opposed Donald Trump in public, but it’s our duty to expose those who actually supported him in private.”

They followed that up with a non sequitur quote against the tyranny of standing armies from James Madison, interestingly the Founding Father who penned the Second Amendment. It goes without saying that’s the issue that attracted so many Trump voters against the gun-grabbing Democrats. And the “About Our Team” blather still hasn’t answered the question of who “they” actually are, and whether this is really a “team” or just some lunatic loser with a website, and a white one at that, the claim of being diverse and the “PoC” appropriation notwithstanding.

And it’s a cowardly, hypocritical lunatic loser at that if the WhoIs domain registry can tell us anything about someone who proposes to lob rocks from the safety of the shadows. The website is registered through a Panamanian proxy.

That’s not the only thing that’s cowardly about all this. If you want to be a snitch, you have the option to turn in friends, family, and acquaintances anonymously, just like the Stalinists, the Nazis, and the Chicoms!  There’s a “group of patriots” for you! And note the update that they’ve “added filters to stop the names of prominent Democratic officials and contributors from being added,” to keep the list “Republican.”

So, what else do they tell us about this “effort”?

“We’re compiling the information in a secure database to be released to the public at a later date, or to public officials if we decide that releasing the names publicly constitutes significant risk,” they proclaim. “If you have strong feelings regarding the potential use of this data, or would like to see it released publicly, let us know!”

What delegated powers Democrat politicians have for avenging themselves on Trump voters is left unsaid, although there are certainly some who have made their desire to pursue treason charges clear. While the site links to a government voting laws page, it offers no legal insights on whether the vengeance it seeks could be construed as a conspiracy to encourage voter intimidation and suppression.

There’s also no indication if they are qualified to determine “significant risk” and have the resources to make restitution should their evil irresponsibility be legally found to have contributed to an injury or worse to a growing list of threatened and/or attacked Trump supporters. That said, there’s every indication they are maniacs urging retaliatory terror against any whose votes they want to punish.

Did I mention they are cowardly maniacs?

Who else has noticed that these are the same people who demand our guns?

This site is so ridiculous, a part of me wonders if it’s really not just a goof, or even a trap by “friendlies” to get leftist snitches to out themselves by submitting entries, and then doxing them. Could be. Could also be some clinically narcissistic, psychopathic, and sadistic troll with delusions of significance.

You can sign me up, comrade. I wasn’t a “Trump voter” per se as much as a Trump agenda voter because he didn’t go nearly far enough for me, but feel free to “out” me to anyone pathetic enough to turn to a twitching loser snitch like you for “guidance.”

---

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 Anonymous Snitch Group to Dox ‘Domestic Terrorist’ Trump Voters appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/2ZPCJ9x
via IFTTT

VA Senator Admits To Adding Barriers & Hoops For Gun Owners

RICHMOND VA –-(Ammoland.com)- SB 1430 failed in the Virginia Senate Judiciary. The bill’s point was to eliminate a double background check that the Commonwealth requires when someone sells an NFA item privately.

Senator Bill DeSteph introduced the bill because of a poorly written Virginia law. Right now, if someone buys an NFA item from a private seller, the law requires them to go through a background check at the time of sale and an identical background check at the time of the transfer of the item. The checks are redundant and just serve to add obstacles for those seeking to buy NFA items.

During the hearing of SB 1430, Senator DeSteph explained the bill’s purpose to a room full of Democrat Senators. His explanation fell on deaf ears. The Democrats seemed to have had already decided to kill the bill. The anti-gun politicians admitted to keeping the flawed law in place and add barriers and hoops for gun owners to jump through.

Senator Scott Surovell was transparent in his reasoning for rejecting the bill. He did not attempt to hide that he already decided he wanted to kill the bill to discourage gun owners from purchasing NFA items.

“I feel uncomfortable about reducing the number of hoops someone has to jump through to get a machine gun,” Surovell told DeSteph.

DeSteph tried to explain to Surovell that the bill just removes the first check because it doesn’t serve a purpose. After all, the second check is the same thing as the first. Surovell looked disinterested and disregarded the Republican Senator’s explanation of the intention of the bill. He said he likes it the way it is. The other anti-gun Senator’s looked like they didn’t even want to be in the hearing.

Surovell then said, “I know a lot of people in my district would be very concerned that we’d be reducing barriers to obtaining a machine gun.”

Democratic Senator and Chairman John Edwards jumped in to try to define a machine gun for the hearing. Unfortunately, Edwards didn’t seem to know what a machine gun is. The aging statesman stated that a machine gun is a firearm that takes two people to fire.

DeSteph tried to correct him, Edwards cut him off and insisted it takes two people to fire a machine gun. When DeSteph tried to correct him once more, Edwards insisted that the Marine Corps taught him that you need two people to fire a machine gun. One person to fire the weapon, and “one guy is guiding” the ammunition.

The Marine Corps has never taught that a machine gun was a firearm requiring two people to shoot. AmmoLand News reached out to a USMC recruiting office to ask about the Marines’ assertion taught Edwards’s definition of a machine gun. The recruiter laughed and immediately hung up.

Another Senator spoke up and said he was thinking of a belt-fed machine gun. Edwards laughed at him and said, “Well, no. It can’t feed itself.”

After the exchange, DeSteph and others in the room looked dumbfounded. Edwards then called for a vote on the bill. The bill failed in the Senate Judiciary by a count of 8-6.

---

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

The post VA Senator Admits To Adding Barriers & Hoops For Gun Owners appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3dNyyD6
via IFTTT

Congressional Legislation 101 – Sponsorship And Co-Sponsorship

Congressional Legislation 101 – Sponsorship And Co-Sponsorship, iStock-1154438278

Congress – -(AmmoLand.com)- When discussing legislation, like HR 127 or HR 880, there are two terms Second Amendment supporters should be well aware of: Sponsorship and Co-Sponsorship. Knowing these terms can actually help inform our activism.

Many times, lawmakers will say they support our rights. The easiest way to tell is looking at their voting record. They have to vote “Yea” or “Nay” on a given piece of legislation or an amendment, and that vote is public record – it’s hard to run away from. But there is a part of the public record that often isn’t covered as much by the media: Who sponsors and co-sponsors legislation.

Sponsorship and co-sponsorship can be a very big tell for Second Amendment supporters. It’s what separates a member of the legislature who does the bare minimum from someone who is willing to be a leader in the fight to defend our Second Amendment rights. It can also reveal who is not being forthright when they claim to support our rights.

Now, this is not to condemn those who vote the right way on legislation or to diminish their support. There can be many reasons someone doesn’t often sponsor or co-sponsor legislation.  Perhaps their positions are more a rejection of anti-Second Amendment extremism than wanting to push back laws. They may have real questions about a given piece of legislation. Maybe there is a lot of anti-Second Amendment extremist activism in their district. There may even have been a horrific crime or act of madness involving firearms in the recent past. As a general rule, member of Congress or your state legislature who votes the right way should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Sponsorship

The member of Congress or a state legislature who introduces a piece of legislation is known as the sponsor. They can be considered to be the primary proponent of that given legislative item – be it a bill or resolution. Someone sponsoring pro-Second Amendment legislation, like the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act can rightly be seen as a leader, and that sort of move is something to be considered when you are weighing your vote should they seek higher office. On the flip side, someone who sponsors anti-Second Amendment legislation can be seen as a leader for the other side.

Co-Sponsorship

The real tell, though, can be something called co-sponsorship. This is a way for many lawmakers to express their support for legislation that has been introduced, and often the media doesn’t tell you who co-sponsors legislation involving your Second Amendment rights.

Tracking co-sponsorship of legislation can do a lot of things. It can tell you how much support there is for a given piece of legislation. Sheila Jackson Lee’s HR 127, the Sabika Sheikh Firearms Licensing and Registration Act, for instance, has ZERO co-sponsors as of this writing, so it can be seen as something too extreme for a number of anti-Second Amendment extremists.

It also can tell you who is being forthright about their Second Amendment support. Is your lawmaker co-sponsoring a lot of pro-Second Amendment pieces of legislation? That’s a good sign they are solid supporters. On the flip side, a lawmaker who sponsors some anti-Second Amendment legislation while claiming to back gun rights needs to face some tough questions.

Knowing about sponsorship and co-sponsorship can give Second Amendment supporters a good idea of where things stand. Always be in touch with your elected officials to politely urge their support for our rights, and don’t forget to support the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund to ensure that the anti-Second Amendment elected officials are defeated at the ballot box as soon as possible.

---

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 Congressional Legislation 101 – Sponsorship And Co-Sponsorship appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3spaP0f
via IFTTT

Industry, Retailers and ATF Partner to Safeguard Communities

By Larry Keane

The firearm industry is leveraging unique partnerships to help firearm retailers become part of the safety solutions in their communities. iStock-648978888

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The firearm industry is leveraging unique partnerships to help firearm retailers become part of the safety solutions in their communities.

Through Real Solutions the firearm industry trade association partners with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), for a campaign called Operation Secure Store (OSS). The goal is to deter and reduce the instances of theft and burglary of firearms from retailers. These partnerships have had a positive impact on reducing the criminal misuse of firearms. After all, local firearm retailers live and work in the same communities and want those neighborhoods to be free of crime too.

Resources for Safer Communities

More than 21 million customers since last January visited a firearm retail store and lawfully purchased a firearm. That figure includes more than 8.4 million buyers who did so for the first time. Firearm retailers work with NSSF on several safety initiatives, but OSS is one that’s critical to business vitality and community safety at the same time.

Operation Secure Store works with firearm retailers to enhance their operational security and identify potential risks to their businesses. The program focuses on five key areas:

• • Education and Awareness, so retailers understand potential security threats and how to address them;
  • Assessment and Risk Analysis, provided to identify vulnerabilities and security weaknesses;
  • Planning and Strategy, to assist retailers to develop an action plan to address any potential issues;
  • Engagement, encouraging retailers to work with their communities and customers to build trust; and,
  • Response, providing retailers timely response services in the event of any criminal activity.

By focusing on these key areas, firearm retailers can ensure their store and inventory are available and open the next business day when customers begin lining up.

Matching Rewards

In the event of a smash-and-grab burglary, the first priority is recovering the stolen firearms and bringing the criminals to justice. As part of Operation Secure Store, the NSSF matches ATF reward offers for information leading to the arrest and conviction of criminals that steal guns from retailers.

“ATF works closely with members of the firearms industry to curb the criminal acquisition and misuse of firearms,” said ATF Acting Special Agent Toby Taylor.  “ATF’s Crime Gun Intelligence will leverage investigative resources across state lines combined with community partnerships to recover the stolen firearms.”

Business-Crushing Laws

Laws are often proposed under the guise of “gun safety,” but are really gun control. This is especially the case when local governments mandate onerous storage regulations on gun retailers that can make it impossible for small business owners to follow because of cost. The Littleton, Colo., city council passed an ordinance to force gun retailers to place their inventory in a “locked safe, gun cabinet or secured safe room after business hours.” This one-size-fits-all policy is unworkable for many retailers and will likely force businesses to shut down. It’s gun rights elimination by another means. 

Operation Secure Store initiatives and the efforts of gun retailers using available NSSF and the ATF resources have helped to reduce crime and break-ins at gun stores. According to data available for 2017 through 2019, the number of firearm retail burglaries decreased year-over-year, from 577 down to 343. The number of firearms stolen by criminals has trended down over the same period, from 7,841 in 2017 down to 4,490 in 2019.

Criminals are paying for their crimes too. In similar available data, the number of criminals arrested for firearm retailer burglaries, according to ATF data, jumped from 133 in 2016 to 280 during 2017. Those arrested for state-level firearm burglaries matched the trend, rising from 114 to 137 over the same period.

The firearm industry continues to believe Real Solutions lead to safe communities and will continue partnering with the ATF and community retailers to ensure Americans can safely exercise their Second Amendment rights and gun stores are safe and secure to provide the outlet to do so.

---

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

The post Industry, Retailers and ATF Partner to Safeguard Communities appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/2ZT2wh4
via IFTTT