Democrats have just one obstacle when it comes to achieving their vaunted gun control utopia. – You. IMG iStock-484139956
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Democrats have just one obstacle when it comes to achieving their vaunted gun control utopia.
It’s you – the completely irrational, rights-demanding, unreasonable, and uncompromising American. You “selfish” gun owners. You are the unbending firearm makers and gun buyers. You are what is stopping gun control in America.
That’s what the parade of Democratic lawmakers and their fawning news anchor endorsers are pitching now. They’re piling on to tell America that the problem isn’t that they can’t pass gun control. It’s those opposing them are “unreasonable” and “irrational.”
“This is not about getting rid of the Second Amendment,” Vice President Kamala Harris told CBS News. “It’s simply about saying we need reasonable gun safety laws.”
“The only gun control legislation that’s ever passed is mine,” President Biden said to CBS News of his 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. “It’s going to happen again.”
Chuck Todd hosted NBC’s Meet the Press to talk about why gun control is running into yet another brick wall. Todd quoted The Onion – a satire news site – to paint gun rights supporters as callous and uncaring of the tragedies that have occurred.
“Republicans say enough about gun control, this is a mental health problem, and we need to protect the Second Amendment,” Todd said. “And what happens? Nothing gets done.”
Todd’s assertion that those who value rights don’t value life is absurd. His polarization of the issue is more telling of his bias than the “irrational” gun lobby.
No Gun Laws?
Vice President Harris ignores that there are an estimated 20,000 gun laws between federal, state, and local governments. Critics argue there are 300 relevant gun laws, but that’s still a lot. Then-Sen. Harris voted for the Fix NICS Act, which was named for NSSF’s FixNICS initiative to ensure all disqualifying records are submitted to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
Why aren’t these laws sufficient? President Biden breezes over that his ban on modern sporting rifles was studied by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and found to have no effect on crime reduction. Additionally, since then, the landmark Heller decision affirmed the individual right to own firearms in common use. With more than 20 million in circulation, the modern sporting rifle qualifies.
Legislative Brinksmanship
U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) spoke to Todd on Meet the Press in terms of compromise before he put the onus on stubborn Republicans to knuckle under to Democratic demands. He threatened that if they don’t, they’re proving the party in power – Democrats – must nuke the filibuster to rule by one-vote majorities. It’s all or nothing.
“Here’s their opportunity, an issue which has 90 percent support, which doesn’t require them to shift their position, their current position to a herculean level. They can pass – they can help us pass an expansion of background checks and prove to Democrats and the country that the Senate can work at a 60-vote threshold.”
That’s a helluva way to compromise. Agree to the terms or we’ll destroy the rules. Sen. Murphy tosses around the “90 percent support” talking point, but none of these gun control supporters will admit that their overly broad survey question asks about gun sales that already require and are completed with background checks. In the spirit of rational debate, it would be more intellectually honest if they admitted that their proposal would actually require gun owners to be put on a government watch list for exercising a Constitutional right.
Compliance, Not Compromise
Gun control advocates grow apoplectic when opponents like gun owners, the firearm industry and even those like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) dare call them out for their double-speak. Sen. Murphy, Vice President Harris, and President Biden don’t seek compromise. They seek compliance.
They’ve offered nothing in return. They didn’t say expanded background checks or unending waiting periods for national concealed carry reciprocity. They didn’t offer any bans on commonly-owned firearms for closing imaginary loopholes. Their definition of compromise is paving the way for stricter laws later. Sen. Murphy admitted it.
“And I think that the theory of the case is that once we convince Republicans that the sky doesn’t fall for you politically when you support a reasonable expansion of something like background checks, you can move on to other interventions,” Sen. Murphy explained. “But yes, we should be having a broader conversation right now because, you know, in Connecticut, it’s not just universal background checks that protect our citizens. We require you to get a permit before you buy a pistol, something that had it been in effect in these states might have prevented one of the shooters from getting a gun.”
After all, more laws restricting rights are “reasonable.” Notice that? Except, you refuse.
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
USA –-(Ammoland.com)- Bereli.com has a great price on the CMC Triggers Kragos Glock Aftermarket Slides to fit G19 & G17 pistols at just $449.99 and with FREE Shipping after coupon code “FREESHIPPING” at check out. That is $100 OFF the MSRP and any easy way to upgrade your stock GLOCK pistol. Check prices online here.
The KRAGOS is manufactured in a state-of-the-art facility to tighter tolerances than factory slides for increased consistency in barrel lockup, improving accuracy. Constructed from 17-4 stainless-steel billet, CMC’s KRAGOS Glock® Slides are then heat-treated to H900 42-44RC and coated with a Diamond-Like-Carbon (DLC) finish for added corrosion resistance and durability. DLC coatings exhibit a desirable combination of low coefficient friction and high micro-hardness, making it extremely effective in high wear applications.
The KRAGOS features a wraparound scalloped serration pattern that improves grip while manipulating the slide, like press checking the chamber or clearing a malfunction. The 45-degree chamfer edge eases holster ingress and egress, preventing snags on gear. All slides come with standard Glock® sight cuts equipped with tritium night sights and pre-cut optic pocket for the easy, secure, low-profile mounting that accommodates optics that follow an RMR footprint.
The KRAGOS Slide accepts factory or aftermarket barrels and parts, is the ideal upgrade for your factory Gen 3 Glock® 17 or Glock® 19 pistols and pairs nicely with Polymer 80 frames for new custom gun builds.
All CMC products come with a Lifetime Warranty and are made in the U.S.A. CMC proudly designs all its products for Law Enforcement, Military, and Civilian use.
Daily Deal Disclaimer: The product represented in this AmmoLand News announcement is a short-term money-saving deal we find at third party retailers unrelated to AmmoLand Inc. Be forewarned that many of these “deals” will sell quickly or potentially expire in a few hours from the initial online publishing time or date. AmmoLand Inc. does not stock inventory or operate a shopping cart. When we find an exciting offer on gun products, we will be passing along those offers to AmmoLand News readers so you can try and save cash. When you leave www.ammoland.com to make purchases please be sure of what you are agreeing to buy and have applied all the appropriate coupon codes (subject to expiration out of our control) or taken the necessary steps to reproduce our highlighted deals in your shopping cart at these third party retailers. AmmoLand Inc (operating as AmmoLand News, at www.ammoland.com) is not responsible for changing prices, inventory availability, or expiration dates, discrepancies, or changes in product descriptions or models or for what you agree to purchase from these affiliate-link promoted websites. AmmoLand Inc can not correct, change, or help you return or warranty products purchased from other businesses online. All we can do is point out a few deals when we find them to help you save $$.
Consider checking our Gun Deals Coupon page and our past featured Daily Gun Deals page for additional savings from your favorite industry partners. Thank you very much for your support and I hope we save you some money by highlighting these sweet daily deals. Enjoy!
Gun Control Fails Violently – Democrats Call for More Gun Control IMG: iStock-496689884
U.S.A.– -(AmmoLand.com)- We saw two horrific examples of mass murder in the last few weeks. As usual, the initial news reports were wildly wrong. The initial reports claimed the attacks were by racist white men using assault weapons. They were wrong, but the false report served the political ends of the mass media and the politicians. The news reports deliberately failed to mention how the existing 20 thousand firearms regulations again failed to protect innocent people from violent attacks. Despite the shocking failure of gun-control laws, Democrat politicians called for more of the same.
Both politicians and pundits ignored the responses we know will reduce violent attacks. Unfortunately, the media and politicians are now part of the disease rather than being part of the cure to reduce mass public violence in the United States.
A murderer killed innocent women in Georgia. This murderer bought his gun legally.
He bought his gun through the same purchase process at a gun store that tens of millions of us use every year. The murderer used the same sort of handgun that millions of honest citizens use to defend themselves every year. In short, the murderer looked like us.
This murderer passed his firearms purchase background checks when he bought his handgun. He was not a prohibited person before he committed his attack. Background checks have not done much to stop mass murderers. Background checks look back in history and mass murder isn’t a repeat crime. Time after time, we’ve seen people who went on to commit mass murder pass their background checks.
It is uncomfortable to imagine that mass murder can look normal until he kills. It is uncomfortable to realize our gun-laws won’t protect us. This murderer didn’t bother to get his concealed carry permit because criminals don’t bother to follow gun-laws.
It would be nice if mass murderers were easy to identify ahead of time. They are not. They look like us and they act like us before they kill. They use the same firearms to harm others that we use to defend our families every day.
In Boulder, Colorado, a murderer killed innocent people in a supermarket. This murderer also bought his gun legally. He passed his background checks even though the FBI had a file on him. Like most mass murderers, and for the same reason, the murderer didn’t bother to get his concealed carry permit.
The grocery store this mass murderer attacked had a posted sign saying that customers should not carry firearms openly. A moment’s thought tells us that mass murderers won’t obey plastic signs. Again, honest citizens obey those gun-laws while murderers break the law. Gun-control may have disarmed the victims, but it did not stop violent criminals.
It is comforting to think a plastic sign saying “no guns allowed” will somehow keep violence away from us.
That comforting thought is dangerous because ink on paper doesn’t stop mass murderers. Prohibition may feel good but it is getting us killed from coast to coast, and time after time.
Prevention is hard. I’ve studied mass murderers for a few years and I could only find one small telltale sign in this murderer’s past. Team sports are usually an antidote to mass murder. You have to submit to a set of rules in order to play those sports. If you’re knocked down, you are expected to pick yourself up and continue to play the game. You are expected to win or lose, and to do so without blaming others.
This murderer was thrown off the high school wrestling team because of his violent temper. That is a small but telling fact. Unfortunately, failing at a team sport is too small of an indicator to think we can reliably detect mass murderers in the making. We’ll have to try something else.
Sadly, we’ve been here before. Despite the media hype, violence is not an epidemic in the United States. The slow and steady increase in mass public violence is caused by understandable and preventable forces.
Politicians talked about these murderers for hours on end. The media put the murderer’s name and face in the news for days. Effectively, the news media and the politicians gave the murderer a multi-million dollar publicity campaign. We’ve seen what happens next. That media-driven celebrity campaign attracts more broken people who will kill to be noticed.
That media-driven celebrity campaign attracts more broken people who will kill to be noticed.
Politicians don’t care. Republicans put forward an amendment to increase mental health funding after the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary school. Democrats voted down that amendment. That happened two decades ago, but the facts haven’t changed. Healing the sick isn’t sexy and it doesn’t get a politicians’ name in the paper.
Mass murder serves the interests of the media and of anti-gun politicians. They won’t change their actions until we change them. You and I will have to defend ourselves in small ways until we cure the sickness in our government and in the press.
Tennessee on the Brink of Strong Constitutional Carry, iStock-884202954
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Tennessee is on the brink of passing a strong Constitutional Carry bill. HB0786 originally relied on the requirements needed for an advanced carry permit in Tennessee.
The requirement made the bill somewhat unclear. The Tennessee Senate amended the bill to change the “advanced carry permit” section to a requirement the person be 21 years of age or more, with exceptions for people who served in the military. The bill passed the Senate on 18 March 2021.
On 29 March 2021, The House passed the bill without amendment.
The House amendment needs to be affirmed by the Senate, before being sent to Governor Lee. It seems a done deal. The celebrations should wait until the bill is signed into law.
Here is the language of the Constitutional Carry bill SB0765. From capitol.tn.gov:
by deleting the amendatory language of Section 1 and substituting instead the following:
(g) It is an exception to the application of subsection (a) that a person is carrying, whether openly or concealed, a handgun and:
(1)
(A) The person is at least twenty-one (21) years of age; or
(B) The person is at least eighteen (18) years of age and:
(i) Is an honorably discharged or retired veteran of the United States armed forces;
(ii) Is an honorably discharged member of the army national guard, the army reserve, the navy reserve, the marine corps reserve, the air national guard, the air force reserve, or the coast guard reserve, who has successfully completed a basic training program; or
(iii) Is a member of the United States armed forces on active duty status or is a current member of the army national guard, the army reserve, the navy reserve, the marine corps reserve, the air national guard, the air force reserve, or the coast guard reserve, who has successfully completed a basic training program;
(2) The person lawfully possesses the handgun; and
(3) The person is in a place where the person is lawfully present.
AND FURTHER AMEND by inserting the following new section immediately preceding the last section and renumbering the subsequent section accordingly:
The new law mimics the requirements of the current carry permit in general, including prohibiting carry by a class of individuals that may be unique to Tennessee.
Anyone convicted of a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in the last five years, or two DUI offenses in the last 10 years, would be unable to carry a firearm with the intent to go armed. That prohibition is in the current permit law 39-17-1351.
Tennessee Governor Lee is expected to sign the bill.
Iowa has sent a clear Constitutional Carry bill to Governor Kim Reynolds. She will probably sign the bill.
If the governors of both Iowa and Tennessee sign their respective bills into law, Iowa and Tennessee will become the 19th and 20th members of the Constitutional Carry club.
Nineteen states will have restored Constitutional Carry, joining Vermont.
Vermont is the only state to maintain Constitutional Carry through the slave era, the black codes in the aftermath of the Civil War, and the Progressive era, where laws against concealed carry were passed to disarm various minority groups from slaves to new immigrants, who were out of favor.
Twenty states or 40% of the Union is a number that cannot be ignored. It is almost exactly 50% (49.4%) of the land area of the United States. The 18 current Constitutional Carry states are:
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The states are large and small, with large urban centers and large rural areas, on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, and in the middle of the country.
If Constitutional Carry passes in Indiana, more than 50% of the land area of the United States will be under close approximations of carry law as it existed when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.
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.
How can they when one of their leaders is endorsing freedom control?
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “We are two advocates, activists and leaders from opposite sides of the ‘gun debate’ who have come together because we both believe we are at a make-or-break moment,” a co-authored “Open Letter” on AmmoLand Shooting Sports News declared Friday. “Suffice it to say, there is plenty that we disagree on, but for anyone with the genuine goal of reducing the number of preventable gun deaths in our nation, we believe we have an opportunity for real impact that has not existed in years and, if we are not able to seize it, it is likely to have negative repercussions for years to come.”
The writers are trainer Rob Pincus and citizen disarmament careerist Dan Gross, formerly president of the Brady Campaign. Numerous responses, articles, and comments posted on sites frequented by the “gun community” show most aren’t buying what they’re selling.
It’s because of so many responses, and because of a problematic personal history with Pincus that I initially put off writing my own analysis. First, I like to find insights that others aren’t talking about or emphasizing, and second, this shouldn’t be about personal squabbles, nor even about differences of opinion – it should be about evaluating verifiable statements to see which position most closely approximates the truth. With that in mind, some friends whose opinions I respect asked me to weigh in on this and I have no good reason to refuse them.
This isn’t going to be a line-by-line “fisking,” but I am going to try and address some claims Pincus and Gross make and document why what they’re saying just ain’t so. That, and maybe come up with a few relevant recollections and side trips along the way.
First, I challenge the notion of “opposite sides of the gun debate” as a valid concept. There is truth and there is falsehood, and the latter should never be credited with equal weight or value. That and there’s another point they miss throughout, a saying I first heard decades ago that I have always found both simple and profound:
It’s not about guns. It’s about freedom.
And that’s not up for debate.
Next is their contention that they have the answer to “preventable gun deaths,” followed up by talking about “meaningful change” that relies on a coming together Kumbaya melding of the “interests of the American people,” as if those interests are shared throughout the Republic.
“[W]e must first change the entire conversation, from one defined by politics,” they urge. Remember that line. I’ll come back to it.
“It is about advocates, leaders, and the media considering, far more than they have in the past, the narrative they are helping to create,” they declare. “It is about those who really care about impact, changing that narrative from one that is too often divisive and counterproductive to one that genuinely unites the American public and provides the foundation that is necessary for real, lasting, and fundamental change.”
“This is not just a matter of deciding whether to call it ‘gun control,’ ‘gun violence prevention,’ ‘responsible gun ownership’ or ‘gun safety,’” they argue. No, it’s not. Some of us argue it should be called “citizen disarmament” and “totalitarianism.”
The minds behind citizen disarmament don’t care about any of their touchy-feely horse****. Those who mean to rule don’t believe the lies they feed to useful idiots ignorant enough to believe that defenselessness makes everybody safer. They want Americans disarmed because it is the ultimate impediment to a “monopoly of violence.” As for the media, how many more examples must we see of lies of commission, lies of omission, universal talking point narratives, smears, outright fabrications, journalistic incompetence, and malpractice to grok what the major newspapers, networks, and social media platforms are about?
“Together, we can cut the number of gun-involved deaths in our country in half and make all of us safer, just by keeping guns from the people we all agree should not have them (i.e., people who are a danger to themselves or others),” Pincus and Gross promise. It’s a hollow one. They can do no such thing. And further, it ignores the reality that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian, as evidenced by the three largest mass murders in this country being committed without guns.
That and Baltimore. Does anybody think street criminals are going to play?
“For gun control advocates, it demonstrates an authentic respect for rights, and a compelling context for the most impactful proposed solutions, a context which creates a more powerful whole greater than the sum of its parts,” they fantasize, recalling for me nothing so much as Gary Coleman demanding “What you talkin’ ’bout, Willis?”
“For gun rights advocates, it provides reassurance and tangible demonstration that no one is seeking to take rights away from responsible gun owners,” they soothe us.
That was the long-range goal of the organization Gross headed for years, as admitted by its founder, Nelson “Pete” Shields in 1976, back when it was still called Handgun Control, Inc.:
“We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. . . . [W]e’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”
But we’re to believe Gross is now a kinder, gentler confiscator, even though the “plenty that we disagree on” part is left (deliberately) undefined. News flash: You can’t “respect the Second Amendment” and then endorse infringements. Among other things, that’s called having a big “but.”
That didn’t stop Gross from being introduced by Pincus as a featured speaker at 2019’s Rally for the 2nd Amendment in Washington DC. Notice how he again admitted “we don’t agree on everything” without being required to reveal what he meant, and how, sadly, that didn’t dampen the cheers and applause of those who demanded nothing more than meaningless, happy-talk platitudes:
But wait: Did I miss something? Am I being unfair? After all, go to 5:55 of the above video, where Gross promises:
“And just as importantly, the common ground I want to talk about here today represents an opportunity to keep us all safe without – now wait for it – without any involvement of the government.”
And the crowd went wild.
So you tell me how Dan’s and Rob’s goal of “keeping all guns from certain people” can be accomplished without a government mandate.
Remember earlier when I asked you to remember their line about “changing the conversation from one defined by politics”? You tell me how forbidding private sales, what they call “expanded background checks” can be accomplished without that.
It’s almost like they say one thing and intend another.
“Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”
And what does registration enable?
Meanwhile, Democrat mega-apparatchik Rahm Emanuel is getting national press saying the strategy for bans needs to be exactly what Rob and Dan are saying, “keeping all guns from certain people,” meaning those on watchlists, those “Lautenberged” out of their rights, veterans, those whose mental health is questioned – and generally meaning those who have not even been charged with a crime in many cases, let alone convicted of one, and due process be damned. Not satisfied that all the “loopholes” have been closed, the bans “must” then be expanded to include “boyfriends” and “haters,” and the qualifications to petition expanded from family members to include police.
Add to all this the inconvenient (for them) truth that “gun control” simply does not work.
“Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?” criminologists Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser asked in the Spring 2007 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. “In 2004, the US National Academy of Sciences … failed to identify any gun control that reduced violent crime, suicides or gun accidents.”
This was “from a review of 153 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the US Centers for Disease Control….”
For Second Amendment advocates to cede that point is to surrender to the citizen disarmament forces, who will then employ every bit of politically-manipulated “junk science” at their disposal to once more do what got the CDC anti-gun agenda (not gun studies in general, as the lie goes) defunded, when its then-director Mark Rosenberg bragged:
“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.”
Why give any tactical advantage to those who are intent on disarming us? For that matter, why do the same for them with “background checks”?
If experience has taught us anything, it’s to take the success of the antis at incremental disarmament seriously. They will never be satisfied and they will never go away. Ceding anything just means surrendering to demands for which they have no legitimate claim – these are, after all, supposedly, our unalienable rights that we’re talking about. Any concession will have the same effect as throwing a scrap of meat to a pack of circling jackals in the hopes you’ll then be left alone. That doesn’t happen in nature and it doesn’t happen in politics.
If you give up on any point you then free up their resources to be used against you on their next attack and give them a new beachhead from which to launch it. Again, this is about nothing less than freedom, and that’s about nothing less than your life and the lives of everyone you care about. You don’t surrender that and you make anyone trying to take it away pay dearly, and when necessary, ultimately.
At least that’s what history teaches to anyone who would learn from it.
I could go on but the points are made. If you have the inclination and the time, you can learn about the BIDS System, which would provide background checks without creating a record of who bought what. That’s why the antis would never accept it, because, again, they’re liars about why they want to require them. (And for the record, I offer that not because I believe such prior restraint is Constitutional, but simply to prove that point.)
I could talk about the naïve insanity of looking at what is happening right now and who is behind the disarmament bills and believing that “pro-gun Democrats” are the same as “pro-freedom Democrats.” And yeah, I get that Republicans have their share of backstabbers and poltroons. For now, at least, we can still get most of them to go our way, but if we keep accepting “lesser of two evils” excuses and not making them pay a price, that will change soon enough.
I could also talk about why Rob first came unglued on me, for advocating that gun owners not give their business to an instructor who is a Democrat activist and who supported Hillary Clinton and helped elect the Northam regime in Virginia. I could also talk about why Rob is in denial over what made that Democrat takeover possible, but I’ve done that elsewhere and the point here was to address the “Open Letter,” not to introduce new grievances and/or resurrect old ones.
So, all I have left to say is that endorsing “gun control” and partnering with an anti who won’t disclose what it is he wants to have taken away from gun owners (under the force of government arms) is one hell of a way to “Save the Second.”
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.
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear Senate Bill 6, to ban magazines over an arbitrary capacity limit. As previously scheduled, the committee will also hear Senate Bill 3, to impose a Maryland-style “handgun qualified purchase card” and a handgun transfer registry in Delaware. Please contact committee members and ask them to OPPOSE SB 6 and SB 3.
The hearing will be conducted remotely by video conference. If you wish to give public comments or to view the hearing, you may do so here.
Senate Bill 6, the so-called “Delaware Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition Act,” bans possessing magazines with a capacity greater than seventeen rounds of ammunition. Such arbitrary limits are not grounded in public safety and, instead, restrict law-abiding citizens who use these magazines for various purposes, such as self-defense and competition.
Senate Bill 3 requires prospective purchasers or recipients of a handgun to first have a “handgun qualified purchaser card,” which requires a training course. While those with a carry permit are exempt from the training requirement, they are not exempt from the license. In addition, it requires information regarding prospective handgun purchasers be made available to state law enforcement, and does not prohibit law-enforcement from retaining records of purchasers, and of the firearms purchased. This provision essentially creates a state registry of handguns.
As the nation’s leading provider of firearms training, NRA knows the important role that high-quality firearms education plays in the safe and responsible use of firearms. At the same time, NRA understands that gun owners are a diverse community with a variety of educational needs. That is why NRA opposes mandatory and one-size-fits-all firearms training policies that can act as a barrier to the competent exercise of Second Amendment rights.
Again, please contact committee members and ask them to OPPOSE SB 6 and SB 3.
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
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Elhady v. Kable, which reversed the District Court’s opinion and held that the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) “conforms to long-settled propositions of law” and therefore does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Last year, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a brief in this case detailing the numerous rights violations inherent in the TSDB and how it threatens the right to keep and bear arms.
In the opinion authored by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee who previously ruled against the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Court held that “[t]he delays and burdens experienced by plaintiffs at the border and in airports, although regrettable, do not mandate a complete overhaul of the TSDB” but that “[i]ndividual applications of the program may run afoul of recognized legal prohibitions and thus remain subject to judicial review.”
Additionally, the court held that “[t]he experiences alleged by plaintiffs do not rise to the level of constitutional concern” and stated that “[t]he plaintiffs have not actually alleged an inability to gain employment, obtain permits or licenses, or acquire firearms.”
“We are disappointed in the Fourth Circuit’s decision in this case,” said FPC’s Director of Constitutional Studies, Joseph Greenlee. “It is alarming that Americans are being denied rights based merely on their inclusion on a secretive and demonstrably unreliable government list. FPC will continue to defend the rights of individuals against government abuse in this and other cases.”
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.
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Once again, an op-ed published in an established Second Amendment blog has unified Americans against gun control. This is the second major publication, this month, to give screen time to opinions that are wildly out of step with gun owners. It is wholly appropriate for these outlets to give a voice – from time to time – to opposing views.
The editors in both outlets felt it necessary to issue statements about the need to publish opposing views and letting the readers decide.
This time we are considering an op-ed by Dan Gross and Rob Pincus in an AmmoLand News.
Dan Gross is the former President of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Rob Pincus is the Executive Vice President of Second Amendment Organization.
The Brady Campaign is perhaps the premier American organization dedicated to:
Restricting purchase for “military-style assault weapons” (i.e., America’s most popular rifle),
Banning ghost guns and the practice of making firearms at home; which is an American practice older than the Republic itself,
Repealing stand your Ground Laws which allow Americans to use deadly force when they reasonably believe their life is in mortal danger,
Enforcing and maintaining a narrow reading of the landmark DC v. Heller Supreme Court Case. Heller, in their view, should be no impediment to enacting more gun control.
Preventing Americans from carrying firearms in national parks
Rob Pincus is known for his work in the Second Amendment community. Among other responsibilities, he is a firearms instructor and public speaker.
For the reader’s benefit, read the article they published in AmmoLand before reading this response. This will provide a better understanding of how their subtle rhetorical tricks can be used to disguise bad ideas with anapestic policy talk.
Their op-ed starts with what they think is a key insight into the gun debate,
[M]eaningful change begins with changing the conversation, from one defined by politicians, lobbying organizations, and the media as a partisan political debate, to one that truly reflects the interests of the American people, whether they own guns or not.
Changing the conversation to serve the American people, they write, should unite the American public and provide “the foundation that is necessary for real, lasting and fundamental change.”
All they want to do is give peace a chance!
Here we have the first rhetorical trick used by the authors.
Both gun and non-gun owners can read the above and agree with it in theory. Lasting change, solutions that reflect the interests of the American people, even a side shot at the media will garner a sympathetic ear from Americans who are tired of the political posturing on the Second Amendment.
Letters to the AmmoLand Editor: Got something on your mind? Let us know and you can see it here.
They also blame the “polarizing political debate” on the “extremists on both sides”. But both sides of the debate include those who want to ban all firearms as well as the millions of Americans who support gun rights.
It seems that the national Pincus/Gross debate on guns doesn’t include me, my friends, and millions of law-abiding Americans.
But Gross and Pincus have framed their arguments is such a way as to put those who disagree with them opposite the American public and their best interests. They would have served their own interests better by being honest with the readers by asking for more gun control, which is what they want. More on that below.
They believe there should be a new narrative in the discussion on guns in America. Specifically, one that advocates “just [keeping] guns from the people we all agree should not have them.”
In case Pincus and Gross were not aware, there is nothing new about this. I had to read their “paradigm-shifting counter narrative” a few times to be sure I didn’t miss the point. But in the end, their plan is gun control, not even a new idea for gun control.
For this totally unoriginal idea, Rob Pincus teamed up for an op-ed with the former president of American’s premier gun control group.
After the world premier unveiling of the game changer, Pincus/Gross give reasons why both gun control advocates and gun rights supporters should get on board.
The gun rights groups can be assured by this new narrative, they say, because it will assure them that no one is going to take guns away from responsible gun owners.
Ok. But again, nothing new here. We’ve all heard that no one is coming for our guns since the 1934 National Firearms Act.
The more interesting part is when Pincus/Gross give the reason that gun control advocates should support their new narrative. I need to quote it in full so the reader can appreciate it’s majesty.
For gun control advocates, it (i.e., the new narrative) demonstrates an authentic respect for rights, and a compelling context for the most impactful proposed solutions, a context which creates a more powerful whole greater than the sum of its parts.
What the heck does that even mean?
They are not proposing a new idea. There is nothing transformative or bold here. If you read their article, you know the punchline, they want more gun control. If you haven’t, keep going and I’ll show you.
This was their second rhetorical trick. They pretended to unveil something that can cut through the politics and divisions. There is something here that everyone can appreciate, they say. It’s simple, deceptively simple according the Pincus and Gross. So simple even a child can do it! Let’s just hope that child doesn’t grow up and want to buy a gun. If we follow the Pincus/Gross plan, guns won’t be legal by the time that child becomes of age.
The next rhetorical trick is a slight of hand that should be obvious to most readers.
Pincus/Gross write that gun control advocates should advocate to keep, “guns from the people gun owners easily agree should not have them.” They write that “this may be a tough pill to swallow for many of the staunchest gun control activists” but that the possibility for “real and significant impact” (i.e., gun control) should be enough to get them on board with the new narrative.
Let’s look at what just happened here.
Pincus and Gross suggested that gun control groups jump onboard with their proposal, because in the end they will get more gun control.
Once again, nothing here that hasn’t already been debated before.
Pincus and Gross also briefly gave some consideration to the concerns of gun rights supporters. While still talking to gun controllers, they suggested that the messages the anti-gunners use not deter “members of the gun owning community that would otherwise be supportive” of gun control from joining the new narrative.
But they are begging the question (making a claim they assume is true) on what gun-owning Americans want. Do the millions of Americans want to be part of the Pincus/Gross new narrative? Working with non-gun-related groups or even across the aisle is great, but never when it means gun control.
And yet, I still have not really gone into their plan for gun control. There have only so far been allusions to it in their op-ed. I promise, it’s there and we will get to it.
But before we do, there’s one more skin-crawling piece to the Pincus/Gross path to total gun control and better wellness.
Here is the most important part of the Pincus/Gross plan that we are all going to have accept:
Most importantly, in the end, true change is going to require an unprecedented degree of empathy and open mindedness from everyone with pure intentions who agrees with the fundamental goal of doing everything we can to prevent gun-involved tragedies without impacting the rights of responsible gun owners. This means all of us accepting, without the appearance of judgment, those who make different choices around gun ownership; This means truly listening in order to gain a deeper understanding of how our words are being perceived and the many, avoidable subtle cues that belie our best intentions and make it easy for those with other motivations to undermine us.
When I took my friend, a good father and someone who only votes for candidates that support gun control, to buy his first rifle I was reaching across the aisle. But I was doing it on my terms and it showed him a new side to gun ownership.
When we take friends and colleagues who have never fired a gun to the range and pay for the lane and ammo (I’m not the only one, right?) that is great ambassadorship for the cause of the Second Amendment.
But what was proposed in the quoted paragraph above must be an intentional attempt to fool gun owners and Americans who support gun rights into conceding the Second Amendment. Why? Because we begin from the starting place that gun control is an answer.
Gun control is never the answer.
Letters to the AmmoLand Editor: Got something on your mind? Let us know and you can see it here.
This brings us close to the end of the trip through the new – not so new – narrative.
Pincus and Gross propose three solutions – their words no mine – they think will elevate the discussion around guns.
But all three proposals are forms of gun control or are biased against gun owners.
The first is education. According to them,
Achieving success here requires fostering a deep appreciation among gun owners of the real dangers of owning and carrying guns and what can be done to mitigate those dangers.
We know guns are dangerous, that’s why we carry them for our protection.
It is also odd that Pincus and Gross want to talk to the gun-owning community about mental illness. Why is that odd? Because we already know that some gun owners can have a mental health crisis and need treatment. It’s also why Americans who support gun rights are quick to say that roughly two-thirds of gun death are suicides. Instead, the education should be directed toward gun control groups who think all gun deaths are a result of murders, and guns should therefore be restricted or banned.
Second, on the list is to enforce existing laws.
Pincus/Gross want greater enforcement measures against some FFLs, but FFLs did not exist as they do today in law prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act. Gun owners should not be advocating to enforce measures created to deny them their liberties.
Their third proposal is choosing the right policy to push.
According to Pincus/Gross, the chosen policy should be friendly to “responsible gun owners who overwhelmingly support the most impactful measures.” So, once again Pincus/Gross frame the issue in terms of responsible gun owners who want gun control and irresponsible gun owners who disagree with gun control.
All this finally brings us to where Pincus and Gross were leading us all along. Gun Control!
Specifically, expanded background checks.
This policy, say Pincus and Gross has “the most synergistic message” with “the greatest potential for impact.” Again, they write that since, “overwhelming majority of gun owners have already accepted that anyone engaged in the business of selling guns commercially, should be required to conduct a background check” that background checks are a viable option. So once more I say “so what?” we are all here to preserve our liberties. I will not concede on any control.
The focus, according to Pincus and Gross, should be on expanding the background check system on transfers to strangers. But they want enough exceptions for those of us who will gift a gun to a family member or let someone borrow a firearm temporarily.
That’s awfully nice of them to allow that. As long as there are exceptions carved into my natural, God-given rights I guess we’re all set.
So where does all this leave us with the Pincus/Gross plan?
The authors begin by writing that they understand that gun owners have legitimate concerns over their gun rights. But their article is polluted with nothing but gun control disguised as solutions.
Americans have already been victimized by gun control over the decades. The same kind that Pincus and Gross are advocating for in their op-ed. The kind where some politicians and their proxies said that gun control would unite us because it would make us safer if we would only just cross over and work with them.
But Americans have already crossed these lines. Too many times, in fact. We’re done giving inches away.
We want safety and we’re going to get it on our own terms. We will advocate, and push, and vote to undo the gun control that has victimized and made us weak over the years.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has one word for lawful, regulated, and licensed firearm retailers – Evil. IMG iStock-969890630
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has one word for lawful, regulated, and licensed firearm retailers.
Evil.
In remarks to the media pushing his gun control agenda, Sen. Schumer said, “…the evil gun dealers, pushed by the NRA, have used gun shows as a major way to get guns into the hands of people without a background check.”
What is evil is the senator’s twisted distortions to bastardize the truth to disarm Americans. Sen. Schumer knows he’s lying. He knows all commercial sales of firearms, whether at a brick-and-mortar store, at a gun show, or initiated online, must be completed in a face-to-face-transfer with the required background check forms and verification from the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
Sen. Schumer is lying. That’s evil. Yet, he casually slings insults to those small business owners who follow the law and sell firearms to law-abiding citizens. That’s the mom-and-pop shops on downtown street corners and the destination big-box retailers too, that sell camping equipment, fishing tackle, and hunting gear.
He said firearm retailers are evil. That’s not the conviction he applied to the murderers who commit their horrendous crimes. That’s not the final word for those who criminally misuse a firearm, who wantonly ignore laws and prey on innocent Americans. Sen. Schumer reserved the harsh and final verdict to one of the most regulated industries in America.
Ignorant Hate
Sen. Schumer slapped the label on gun owners during a New York City press conference where he spun tales about home-built firearms, or so-called “ghost guns.”
“They’re as easy to buy and easier to assemble than Legos,” he told reporters. Which is another lie. Unless of course toddlers are using drill presses, power rotary tools, metal files along with other hand tools like hammers and screwdrivers, he knows this is another lie.
That’s also assuming that Legos also now fall under the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the 1988 Undetectable Firearms Act to ensure the Legos meet the required specifications, including the 3.7 ounces of metal that must be part of the overall design. Sen. Schumer’s far-fetched comparisons dare to assume then that like all firearms, Legos would also be barred from being possessed by prohibited individuals. If Sen. Schumer were less prone to throw incendiary rhetoric and actually study the laws he’s maligning, he’d know children, criminals, and those adjudicated mentally-defective by a judge are prohibited from possessing firearms.
Hate You, Not the Gun
Sen. Schumer’s problem isn’t with the gun or the gun retailer. He’s surrounded by guns. As part of the Senate’s leadership, he is constantly surrounded by Capitol Hill police that carry guns to provide for his safety. He went along with Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and surrounded Capitol Hill with National Guardsmen carrying guns.
Clearly, if Sen. Schumer were so reviled by guns, he’d demand they were nowhere in his presence. That’s not that.
His slandering of regulated, licensed, and law-abiding firearm retailers is because they serve the more than 21 million Americans who rejected Sen. Schumer’s control over their lives and chose instead to protect themselves. It must be infuriating that 8.4 million of them – including a record number of New Yorkers – bought a firearm for the first time.
Sen. Schumer’s only borrowing a page from President Joe Biden’s playbook. President Biden, from the debate stage while running for the White House, called firearm manufacturers “the enemy.” This is the industry that provides the U.S. military with their small arms, law enforcement tools, and citizens the means by which to exercise Second Amendment rights and protection for themselves and their loved ones.
This is an industry that’s veteran-heavy. These are men and women who literally swore oaths to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic – the cost of which could include their lives.
In President Biden’s estimate, being a firearm manufacturer is enough to earn the label of “enemy.” To sell a firearm in accordance with the law and regulation is enough in Sen. Schumer’s mind to earn the label “evil.”
This isn’t Sen. Schumer’s first time going off half-cocked if the pun is allowed. Sen. Schumer threatened U.S. Supreme Court Justices they would “pay the price” if they didn’t vote his way on issues.
The left-leaning publication The Atlantic offered Sen. Schumer unsolicited advice then.
Shut. The. Front. Door. Now.
He should listen.
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
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- First, let me be clear that I believe that all gun control is an infringement on our God-given rights. The only gun law I think we need is “shall not be infringed.”
Some people don’t have a line in the sand that they are not willing to cross. I am not one of those people. I have a very clear line in the sand, and I am right up against it. Not one more inch! Not one more concession! These statements are not just me spewing rhetoric. It is something I believe in with every fiber of being. For fairness to AmmoLand News’s readers, I must highlight my bias in case it bleeds through in the article below.
The gun world exploded about an article from a gun rights advocate and a former anti-gun activist. My Instagram, Twitter, and email inbox blew up with people asking me to investigate what was going on with the pair. I followed the link people sent to me to see about the fuss the article stirred up.
I was not shocked that AmmoLand News ran the article. I know where the staff of the site stands on the Second Amendment. Also, in my years of writing for AmmoLand News, I knew the philosophy of running even unpopular articles. AmmoLand News breaks the mold of an echo chamber.
What shocked me about the article was the apparent call for enhanced background checks. I expected that stance from Dan Gross since he did run the extreme anti-gun Brady Organization for many years, but not from a guy that is constantly posting about 3D printing guns.
I then read articles that claim Mr. Pincus was walking back his call for enhanced background checks. It seemed like double-speak to me. Could I have been reading it wrong? Could the meaning of the article have been lost somewhere? I saw people posting on Social Media all sorts of claims about Rob Pincus, from being a Fed to being a Mike Bloomberg plant. Others claimed that he was a grifter just looking for his next payday.
I needed to interview Pincus on the record and get that information out to the public. I figured the best way to do it was to record the interview and release the raw uncut video for the world to see and decide for themselves. I am not here to give my personal opinion on Rob Pincus. I am not here to vindicate him, and I will not demonize him either.
Too many media outlets and so-called journalists tell people what to think. Much like AmmoLand News, I am old school. I report the facts, and I ask tough questions. I will allow the informed and opinionated readers of AmmoLand News to watch the video and make up their own minds about Mr. Pincus.
Did Rob Pincus expose himself in the AmmoLand article as an anti-gun turncoat? Is he a staunch defender of the Second Amendment? Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It isn’t my place to tell you what to think of Rob Pincus. (you can read all his previous articles published on AmmoLand here) Or, watch the video (above) and come to your own conclusions.
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.
Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee voted to pass pro-gun legislation that fixes the handgun purchase process in the Granite State IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee voted to pass pro-gun legislation that fixes the handgun purchase process in the Granite State, by a vote of 5-2. Thanks to your strong support, this important legislation will advance this session, and will move to the State Senate for a floor vote tomorrow, April 1. Please contact your State Senator and ask them to SUPPORT Senate Bill 141.
Senate Bill 141 resolves New Hampshire’s longstanding problem with delays during handgun purchases, by abolishing the “state gun line” system that the State Police currently use for handgun purchases. Instead, the process for purchasing a handgun will now mirror buying a long gun, which goes through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This switch in the process will not only reduce taxpayer burdens, but it will also greatly reduce the number of delays experienced by those attempting to exercise their Second Amendment rights by purchasing a handgun.
Again, please contact your State Senator and ask them to SUPPORT Senate Bill 141.
NRA would like to thank the following members of the Senate Finance Committee for their hard work supporting and protecting our Second Amendment rights:
Chairman Gary Daniels (SD 11)
Vice-Chairman John Reagan (SD 17)
Senator Erin Hennessey (SD 1)
Senator Bob Giuda (SD 2)
Senator Chuck Morse (SD 22) Stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates on issues affecting our Second Amendment rights.
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
is manufactured in a state-of-the-art facility to tighter tolerances than factory slides for increased consistency in barrel lockup, improving accuracy. Constructed from 17-4 stainless-steel billet, CMC’s KRAGOS
