Philadelphia’s Emphasis on ‘Gun Laws’ Guarantees Violence Will Continue

Just blame the record homicides on citizens buying guns to protect themselves from the predictable results. (Larry Krasner for DA/Facebook)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “A rising tide of stolen guns helps fuel Philadelphia’s gun violence epidemic,” The Philadelphia Inquirer reports. “A surge in new gun owners and a spike in gun thefts from cars are contributing to the city’s gun violence crisis, police and experts say.”

An anecdote presented to prove the case involves an armed criminal who, with two armed accomplices, robbed a store of cash and a gun. The incident is then tied in with “Philadelphia’s surging tide of stolen guns, one that has risen in the last two years to an unprecedented high water mark,” and that in turn is used to segue into another factoid:

“Philadelphia has recorded more homicides this year than ever before — 545 — the vast majority of them caused by gunfire.”

While “caused by predators firing guns they obtained in spite of citizen disarmament edicts” might be a more accurate way of stating that, doing so would not support the next contention The Inquirer is betting readers will swallow:

“More people with guns – The pace of people purchasing legal guns in Philadelphia has soared, with many of them first-time owners. The swelling ranks of gun owners over the last two years has likely made the stolen gun problem worse.”

Note the use of the word “likely,” but give them that. What they’re really trying to make us believe is that owning a gun is a big front-end part of the problem.

“[C]ar break-ins that yield guns have shot up 37% this year, according to police data,” we are told.  “The rise in new gun owners and gun thefts from vehicles may be related.”

They “may be.” Leaving a gun in the car carries definite risks. What else “may be” is that “law-abiding” armed citizens don’t wish to travel through dangerous areas unarmed but also fear being caught if they have to park their cars and enter a “gun-free” establishment. The mandate is what creates the unsafe condition.

While it’s also true that new gun owners with less experience and training may be less informed on security options, it’s also true that “seasoned professionals” have guns stolen from their patrol cars seemingly all the time. Want some examples?

• The Hamilton County sheriff’s cruiser and gun were stolen right out of her driveway.
• Police seek gun from FBI Pittsburgh vehicle stolen from Schenley Park
• Officer’s gun, agency gear stolen from unmarked police car at Seminole County shopping plaza

I could keep doing onesies all day, but I’m going to let Michael Bloomberg’s “journalism project” give me a break:

“The Trace examined records from more than 100 law enforcement agencies and found that they had collectively reported the loss or theft of at least 1,781 guns between 2008 and 2017. The vast majority were department-issued handguns, but the count also included hundreds of rifles and shotguns, as well as four fully automatic submachine guns. The firearms were stolen out of glove boxes and closets, left in airports and on the roofs of cars, and in one case, forgotten in a high school bathroom. Some were later involved in crimes ranging from aggravated assault to homicide.”

Don’t get me started on “Only Ones” and bathrooms.

There is one admission in the Inquirer piece that again, points back to “gun laws” as being the catalyst and shows how those who are intent on flouting them do so without missing a beat: So-called “straw purchasers” make false police reports to give themselves an out if a gun traceable to them is recovered.

Enact a rule and the criminals will find a way to ignore it, if not turn it to their advantage.

That’s because it’s really not about guns and never has been. It’s about people who don’t follow the rules preying on those who do, and about government edicts aiding and abetting the predators by imposing ever more infringements on citizens inclined to obey.  The “dilemma” the Inquirer reporters are wringing their hands over has no solution if that reality is ignored and politicians instead go for the supposed “commonsense gun safety law” that is actually stupid and dangerous.

That is exactly what Philadelphia politicians are doing, suing the state over preemption and demanding “restrictions that the city can’t impose without state approval, such as requiring a permit to purchase a firearm within the city, setting limits on how many guns someone can purchase within the city during a certain time period, or ‘disarming firearm owners who pose an extreme risk of physical harm to themselves or others but have not yet acted.’”

Like the insane, totalitarian Queen of Hearts said:

“Sentence first — Verdict afterwards.”

Who seriously believes violent sociopaths who kill for petty gains, over disagreements, for revenge, or just because they feel like it, and do so without remorse, need permits to get as many guns as they want? Who seriously believes putting restrictions on people who don’t victimize others will do anything to change that, except to give an advantage to the aggressors?

Maybe focus on the attackers and on what they do, with full due process, and if they are proven beyond a reasonable doubt  “to pose an extreme risk of physical harm,” maybe keep them apart from the potential victim pool until they no longer do?

Not that Soros DA Larry Krasner sees that as an option…

It seems the people who would benefit the most are the ones who keep voting for politicians who make everything worse.

---

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.

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

Armed Citizens Defend Themselves at Home and from Coast to Coast

More than 30 percent of American gun owners say they have used a gun in self-defense.

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- You probably didn’t see these stories covered by the mainstream news media, but again last week, responsible gun owners defended themselves and the people they love. Self-defense instructor David Cole joins the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast to look at four new examples. Were these gun owners lucky, or did they have a plan?
(26-minute audio)

First story- Are you armed as you walk to your car?

You walk to your car on the way to work. It is 6:15 when you open your car door. That is when a middle-aged Hispanic man runs up and grabs you. He has a knife in his hand and he tells you to step away from your car and give him your keys. You’re armed. You drop your keys and step to the side. You present your concealed firearm and shoot your attacker several times. Now he stumbles back and drops his knife. You stop shooting. The news story doesn’t say if you called 911 from your driveway or if you went back inside your home to call for help.

Police find your attacker in the driveway. EMS declares your attacker dead at the scene from three gunshot wounds in the upper chest. You give a statement to the police. Police take your gun and your attacker’s knife as evidence. You are not charged with a crime.

Second Story- Do you have a firearm nearby at work?

You are helping your parents at their pizza shop. It is 9:30 on a weeknight when three strangers run into the store. One of them says he has a gun while another reaches over the counter and grabs money from the cash register. Your mom grabs his hands to stop him. That is when the stranger grabs your mom’s throat and starts shaking her and strangling her. She tries to yell for help. You grab the gun under the checkout counter. You raise the gun toward the attacker’s head and press the trigger. The attacker lets go of your mom. Now she can breathe. You stop shooting and all three attackers run away. Your parents call 911 and ask for help for your mom. Police arrive a few minutes later since your attackers robbed a store down the block only a minute earlier. You are 14 years old.

Police follow the trail of blood until they find your attacker inside the local subway station. The police also find some of your family’s money in the robber’s pockets. He is taken to the hospital in critical condition.

Third story- Are you armed at home?

If you knew then what you know now then you would have chosen a different roommate. You had to press charges for disorderly conduct and violence against your roommate. You worked through eviction proceedings and the judge ordered him to return your keys. The judge also granted you a protective order.

Your ex-roommate doesn’t use the keys when he kicks in your door the next day. You’re armed. You shoot him. Now he turns and leaves. You call the police. You show them the judges protective order. You show them security video. They arrest you for aggravated assault anyway.

It takes you more than a year to get before a judge and have the charges dropped. You almost lose your home because of your legal fees and being out of work.

Fourth story- Do you have a firearm nearby at night?

You hear someone trying to break in through the back of your home. That wakes you up. You grab your gun and look toward the back door. You see someone kick in your back door and enter your home. You shoot the first intruder and try to shoot the second one. Both of them run from your home. You stop shooting and stay inside. You call 911 and ask for the police.

Officers find one of your attackers on your front lawn. EMS declares him dead at the scene. Police are looking for his accomplice. It is 4:30 in the morning.

Your family is shaken but not injured. Your family carries firearms, but you never thought it would be like this when you had to use them.

A discussion of each story is at the Self Defense Gun Stories podcast webpage.

---

About Rob Morse 

Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, Clash Daily, Second Call Defense, 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.

from https://ift.tt/3JzIwp2
via IFTTT

Anti-Gunners Favorite Lie: Don’t Worry, We’re Not Going to Take Away Your Guns

Anti-Gunners Favorite Lie: Don’t Worry, We’re Not Going to Take Away Your Guns

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The anti-gun crowd will use several different strategies to change the narrative around guns, and encourage as many people as possible to join them in spreading irrational gun fear. Sometimes, bold terms are used to influence unsuspecting victims. We’ve all heard the scary terms, Assault-Weapon, Weapons of War, High-Capacity, Wild West, and the big daddy term “Gun Violence.” We know there’s no such thing as “gun violence,” only human violence, but the anti-gun crowd doesn’t want to talk about “human violence” because they know that it would reflect poorly on the policies they support.

Human violence in America is primarily a result of bad Government policies such as bail reform, early prisoner release, gang-related violence, sanctuary cities, open borders, welfare dependency, and so on. All things, the gun-grabbers would prefer you didn’t think about. Instead, it’s much better for them to attach all human violence to guns. That way, the scrutiny, and blame can be placed on the one thing they would most like to see removed from society. Guns. Focusing on guns keeps the attention off their own failures such as New York Appointed Democrat Governor Hochul’s release of 191 Rikers detainees under the guise of “health and safety risks to the inmates.”

In order to keep the façade of “gun violence” alive, bold terms and accusations must be used, but the most insidious psychological tricks are often those which go unnoticed. What are some of the subtle ways in which the anti-gunners influence the conversation? Have you ever heard them say, “don’t worry, we’re not going to take away your guns” in conversation? There are a couple of assumptions within this statement that the gun-grabbers hope will be influential.

The first part of the statement, “don’t worry,” is used to accomplish the exact opposite of what it appears to intend. When you hear someone say “don’t worry,” what is the first thing you do? Exactly! You worry. It’s like saying, “don’t think of a pink elephant.” you can’t help but envision a pink elephant because your brain is always in problem-solving mode. The statement, “don’t worry, we’re not going to take away your guns,” is used to evoke an instant, fearful reaction and put gun owners in a defensive position. What better mindset would you want your opponent to be in during a debate? The answer is, a fearful, reactive one. “Don’t worry” does it every time.

There’s also another assumption within that statement that often goes unnoticed. Take one more look at the statement. “Don’t worry, we’re not going to take away your guns.” The assumption is that they “can” take away your guns. The idea behind this part of the statement is to convince you with this subtle implication that the gun-grabbers have leverage over your Second Amendment and can take away your guns whenever they want. But don’t worry, they’re not going to. So, you’re safe. For now. How nice of them. When the anti-gun crowd uses this type of rhetoric, they are trying to gain psychological leverage over gun owners. They are trying to put gun-owners in a defensive and subservient position psychologically. Of course, they’ll pretend that they’re trying to put you at ease but what they’re really saying is, “you should be very scared because we are able to take away your guns and we have every intention of doing so.”

The truth is, they’re trying to scare you and they’re doing it because they can’t break through the 2nd Amendment wall and it frustrates the hell out of them.

When political opponents can’t win legally, changing societal perception is used. In this case, they know they can’t come to your house and personally take your guns but if they can make you fear the thought of it while perpetuating the notion that “they can,” they believe they can break your will. They believe, in the long game of gun control, this will serve them.

In response to, “don’t worry, we’re not going to take away your guns,” we might want to play their own game and remind them that, “we know you’re scared of guns, but don’t worry, we’re not going to make you carry one.” The more we know about how the anti-gun crowd thinks, the better equipped we will be in shutting them down or helping them understand just how badly they’ve been misled.

The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.

---

About Dan Wos

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on the Sean Hannity Show, NRATV, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

Author – Good Gun Bad Guy
Host – The Loaded Mic

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

SCOTUS can Provide Restitution for Unconstitutional Laws

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an NRA-backed case about concealed carry laws in New York. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- There is an important case being considered by the United States Supreme Court. The case hinges on the fact that government officials in New York State can choose whether to give ordinary citizens a license to carry a concealed firearm in public. About one in a dozen of us carry in public now. That isn’t true in New York State where ordinary people are denied the right to carry personal firearms in public. Also, consider the fact that New York has arrested people who tried to pass through the state with a firearm. Now the case in front of the US Supreme Court takes on a different character.

We’ve seen similar cases before. We saw people who were driving up the east coast of the United States. They drove through Washington D.C. where they were pulled over for an ordinary traffic stop. (Let’s say that your windows were tinted, and though that is legal in Florida, it is illegal in D.C.) You are shaken down for a traffic fine. You’re also carrying a firearm in the trunk of your car. You’re arrested for having an unregistered firearm in the District of Columbia.

At that time, Washington D.C. didn’t issue permits so ordinary people could carry and transport their firearms in public. You pay fines, pay court fees, and pay lawyer’s fees. You also have a criminal conviction on your record as you try to get on with your life.

At that time, the district didn’t even have a permit process so that people from out of town could get a permit. It was impossible for us to register, to carry, and then to legally transport a firearm through the district. Later, the district’s permit laws were ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the district must issue permits so that ordinary people could carry ordinary firearms in ordinary places. That is progress, but it gets better.

Later, a judge ruled that the district could require a permit, but the district could not prosecute someone who didn’t have a permit that was impossible for them to get. Individuals who were prosecuted in DC for the non-violent possessory offense of having a gun as they passed through DC asked to be reimbursed and to have their records cleared. A judge ruled that the city owes them their attorney’s fees and to expunge their record of a criminal conviction.

It is good that an individual should not be punished by an unconstitutional law. If they were unjustly punished, then they deserve restitution. So far, only a few people have applied for restitution in DC. There is a larger class-action lawsuit that needs to be filed against the district and settled.

Though that is good, it is a trifle compared to what has happened in New York. New York City routinely stopped and frisked ordinary people on the street. The state and the city prosecuted travelers who brought firearms with them as they traveled through New York. They prosecuted businessmen who had a decorative knife on their keychain, and they prosecuted boy scout troops who had a scout knife in their pockets. It prosecuted travelers who arrived at an airport with legal firearms locked in their luggage. The number of victims is in the tens of thousands, if not larger.

Are we safer now that boy scouts are disarmed? Is it moral to demand that people have a license to carry a “weapon” in public, a license that the state won’t issue to them?

That isn’t the way the current New York case in front of the US Supreme Court is framed. That case was filed by ordinary people in upstate New York who were arbitrarily denied their carry permits. Those plaintiffs were unlucky enough to draw a judge who doesn’t issue permits, while other judges hearing similar cases did issue them. The details in how the New York case is settled matter to thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people.

I hope that laws like New York’s are declared unconstitutional. If state governments owe restitution for the prosecution of unconstitutional laws, then they owe more than an apology. They also owe the victims a lot of cash.

I hope the New York case in front of the US Supreme court is decided broadly. Having a pocketknife shouldn’t land you in jail. Going to an airport in New York shouldn’t land you in jail either. I hope the Supreme Court rules that states like New York can no longer write and enforce such arbitrary laws. I hope those people who were abused by the state will finally get their day in court.

---

About Rob Morse

The original article, with sources, is posted here. Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily, at Second Call Defense, 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.

from https://ift.tt/3eJBq32
via IFTTT

Nevada Court Finds Ghost Gun Law Unconstitutionally Vague

Nevada Court Finds Ghost Gun Law Unconstitutionally Vague

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The Nevada legislature passed and Governor Sisolak signed into law AB 286 on June 7, 2021.  On June 22, Polymer80 filed a lawsuit challenging AB 286 as unconstitutionally vague, under the due process clause of the Nevada Constitution.

Both Polymer80 and the State of Nevada filed Motions for Summary Judgement, and opposition to the opponent’s Motion for Summary Judgement, in a timely manner.

Summary judgment is granted when the law and the facts of the case are so clear cut no trial is needed for a court to rule on the matter.

AB 286 attempted to ban the possession, sale, or transport of an “unfinished frame or receiver” as defined in the bill. As anyone with ordinary intelligence can determine, the definition of something which is unfinished is problematic. When does a process start? At what point does it become “unfinished”?  Does it start with molten metal, the combination of chemicals in a mold, or the first cut of a saw or turn of a drill?

Here is the definition of “Unfinished frame or receiver” as stated in AB 286:  

9.“Unfinished frame or receiver” means a blank, a casting or a machined body that is intended to be turned into the frame or lower receiver of a firearm with additional machining and which has been formed or machined to the point at which most of the major machining operations have been completed to turn the blank, casting or machined body into a frame or lower receiver of a firearm even if the fire-control cavity area of the blank, casting or machined body is still completely solid and unmachined.

Both parties agreed to the basic facts in the case.

On December 10, 2021, the Third Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, issued Summary Judgement in favor of Polymer80, striking down the law as unconstitutionally vague. From the opinion:

The definition does not tell anyone when during the manufacturing process a blank, casting, or machined body (whatever those terms mean) has gone through the “major machining operations” (whatever those are) to turn that  blank, casting or machined body into a frame or lower receiver of a firearm (whatever that may be), a person of ordinary intelligence could not proscribe their conduct to comply with the law. As a result, this Court finds that the text of AB 286 does not provide fair notice of whatever it criminalizes. To this end, this Court asked on multiple occasions during oral argument on the Motion for Summary Judgement, what those terms as used in AB 286 mean. Tellingly, the Defendants could not in any manner explain their meaning(s).

This has always been the difficulty with regulating partially made items. Where do you start, and where do you stop? In countries without any Second Amendment protections, they simply forbid you from having *any* firearm part unless you have a firearms license. Even that is problematic. When I was in Queensland, Australia, State authorities had ruled a rifled barrel that did not have a chamber, was not a finished firearm part and could be sold and purchased without a firearms license.

Making firearms for individual use has always been legal in the United States. It is reasonably common, and has many legal purposes. It is difficult to see how banning the private making of firearms could be Constitutional under the Second Amendment.

At the time of writing, it was not known if the State of Nevada will appeal the decision.

---

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.

from https://ift.tt/3zc3CFv
via IFTTT

Gun Control Advocates Had a Very Bad Year

National groups began the year with the high hopes of further restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. IMG iStock-490657417

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- National groups began the year with the high hopes of further restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. To them, it wasn’t about God-given rights enshrined in the Constitution or even about personal and community safety. To them it’s all about control.

But those hopes were decidedly dashed every step of the way throughout 2021 as law-abiding Americans fully embraced the Second Amendment, including millions who jumped off the fence and purchased a gun for the first time.

Americans handed gun control a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year.

White House Woes

For gun-control groups and their biggest backers, like billionaire and failed presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, expectations were sky-high that President Joe Biden could deliver. After all, he outsourced his Veepstakes to Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action and promised former Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke he’d be his gun confiscation sheriff and help him “take care of the gun problem with me.”

As millions of law-abiding Americans continued buying firearms at near-record high numbers continuing the 2020 trend, political realities took hold, and the White House and Pres. Biden faltered on their many promises. Gun control activists noticed and are feeling dispirited.

“He hasn’t really been a leader,” a policy director of March for Our Lives remarked. “We were really hopeful and he made a lot of promises.” A Giffords gun control representative added, “We would like to see more from the Biden administration.”

A senior advisor for Brady PAC stated, “It’s not enough.”

The White House failures to please gun control schemers were big and the changing demographics of the American gun owner were on full and public display as even U.S. Senate Democrats couldn’t be corralled into rubber-stamping the president’s gun control agenda.

The withdrawal of David Chipman to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) happened after a handful of Democratic senators voiced opposition to him, including Sen. Angus King (I-Maine). That was followed up with the withdrawal of Saule Omarova as nominee for Comptroller of the Currency after she refused to rule out another Operation Choke Point. Even Senate Democrats on the banking committee voiced concerns about her.

In Congress, Second Amendment supporters have held strong and prevented any significant restrictions from passing, forcing the White House to rely on executive actions on the margins. Even those announcements have left gun control disappointed.

“They’ve done probably, through executive action, not everything they can do but a lot,” gun control activist Fred Guttenberg said.

Who’s Buying, Anyways?

The resistance to gun control restrictions isn’t coming from “the gun industry” or boogeymen within the “gun lobby” as gun control so often repeat. It’s come from law-abiding Americans who are making their voices heard at the ballot box and at the firearm retailer counter.

When billionaire gun control funder Michael Bloomberg spent $1 billion to buy more gun control elections, he was roundly rejected by voters. Instead, more than 21 million law-abiding Americans went to the community firearm retailer last year, passed a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification, and walked out with a new gun. 8.4 million were first-time buyers in 2020 and more than 3.4 million did so during the first half of this year.

The remarkable changing demographics of the diverse gun-owning community in America are demonstrated by who purchased a gun. Firearm industry data showed more than 40 percent of first-time buyers in 2020 were women. African-Americans bought firearms at a pace 58 percent higher in 2020 than they did in 2019. For Hispanic-Americans the rate was 49 percent higher; Asian-Americans at 42 percent higher.

If elected officials weren’t paying attention before, their voting constituencies might look a little different as Second Amendment support has reached high marks and polling support for more gun control has cratered.

Gun control politicians should take note as the buying trend continues and Americans keep choosing to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. Californian and Latino Rifle Association founder P.J. Gomez put it bluntly. “I don’t believe self-defense… should be exclusive to people on the right politically.”

The new year means Election Day 2021 is closer. NSSF launched #GUNVOTE to help inform and educate Second Amendment supporters to know where candidates stand on the issue. If politicians from the White House or Congress down to local town boards don’t pay attention, their voters will send them packing.

---

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

from https://ift.tt/3pQbp8Z
via IFTTT

ATF Threatens Customers of Diversified Machine Over Solvent Traps

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has sent letters to customers of Diversified Machine informing them that they might be in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. IMG iStock-BrianAJackson 649236630

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has sent letters to customers of Diversified Machine informing them they might be in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

At the end of December of 2020, ATF agents raided Diversified Machine. Diversified Machine was selling solvent traps. The ATF claimed that the company was selling unfinished suppressors that were too close to being completed and were “readily convertible” into a functioning silencer. Since the ATF gives little guidance on what is a solvent trap and what is a suppressor, it can be confusing for customers and companies alike.

Diversified Machine was selling solvent traps with dimples on the end caps. The company didn’t think this violated any federal law. In fact, there is no law on the books explicitly banning dimpled end caps on solvent traps. The ATF used deference to determine that these dimples converted the solvent trap into a suppressor even if it does not function as one.

The ATF claims that the company included these dimples to be a guide for the customers to drill out the end caps turning the solvent trap into a working unregistered suppressor. The ATF has been cracking down on solvent traps over the past year. Multiple companies have been raided and visited by the ATF.

The ATF seized the company’s customer records and waited a year almost to the day to contact the customers. The agents insist that customers turn over the items purchased from Diversified Machine or face possible prosecution. Violating the NFA could result in a ten-year prison sentence if convicted of the felony.

In addition to companies being visited by ATF agents, federal law enforcement agents have visited several customers to purchase solvent traps and fuel filters. Most of these visits from federal agents stem from people buying the items for Chinese sites such as Wish and AliExpress. The ATF seems to be monitoring these sites not only for solvent traps and fuel filters purchases but also for people acquiring Glock switches that turn the pistols into machine guns.

Federal agents visited one Youtuber that goes by “Truck Master” and demanded that he turn over the suppressors he ordered from China. The man was confused because he didn’t buy any silencers from anywhere. It turned out that the ATF agents were talking about the diesel fuel filters that he used from his truck builds.

Another Florida man, who wishes to remain anonymous, purchased fuel filters for his Mazda Miata that he raced was visited by ATF agents. Even though the man didn’t own any guns and had a legitimate use for the fuel filters, the federal agent bullied the man into turning them over by threatening to press felony charges against him.

The upcoming new ATF rule on frames and receivers is expected to deal a blow to the solvent trap industry. AmmoLand’s sources say the tube itself will most likely become the suppressor. This change would put every company producing solvent traps out of business overnight.

Through a leak, AmmoLand News was recently informed about a change in policy where field offices were no longer permitted to tell people that the ATF does not regulate solvent traps. Insiders believe that this is in preparation for the new rule.

Building a homemade suppressor is still legal by paying $200 to the ATF and filling out a Form 1, but gun owners should consider getting the tax stamp before starting construction.

---

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.

from https://ift.tt/3Hja6VC
via IFTTT

WA Democrats Seek to Eliminate Drive-By Shooting as Factor in 1st Degree Murder

Two Washington lawmakers want to eliminate drive-by shooting as a reason to elevate first-degree murder to an aggravated status.

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- A pair of Democrat legislators in Washington State have pre-filed legislation that claims to promote racial equity “by eliminating drive-by shooting as a basis for elevating murder in the first degree to aggravated murder in the first degree.”

The bill was quietly prefiled on Dec. 23, allegedly to avoid public notice during the Christmas holiday weekend. But sharp-eyed former broadcast journalist Brandi Kruse, who now operates her own online news platform called (un)Divided, pulled this one from under the political covers via Twitter, and it is creating a firestorm.

House Bill 1692 calls itself “AN ACT Relating to promoting racial equity in the criminal legal system by eliminating drive-by shooting as a basis for elevating murder in the first degree to aggravated murder in the first degree; amending RCW 10.95.020 and 10.95.020; creating a new section; providing an effective date; and providing an expiration date.” It is sponsored by Reps. Tarra Simmons (D-23^rd District) and David Hackney (D-11^th District). They both serve on the House Public Safety Committee and Simmons—whose biography is both harrowing and redeeming—is vice-chair of the House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee.

As Dems push to restrict firearms, a new bill would ease penalties for those who commit deadly drive-by shootings. That and more in a new episode of #unDivided – up now for subscribers @onLocals and @Patreon. pic.twitter.com/1O8aDISWhN

— Brandi Kruse (@BrandiKruse) December 26, 2021

The measure deletes drive-by shootings as an aggravating factor in determining a charge of aggravated first-degree murder. The idea seems so outrageous that Kruse’s revelation had garnered 139 responses and was re-tweeted 329 times over the Christmas holiday weekend. One reply, from someone named Phil, ripped the bill’s premise.

“Ridiculous rationale. File it on 12/23 in hopes there would be minimal press coverage,” he wrote.

Ridiculous rationale. File it on 12/23 in hopes there would be minimal press coverage.

— Phil (@pmdgom) December 24, 2021

Most responses to Kruse’s initial tweet ran from the silly to serious, with a majority so far being negative. There was one message that could only come from Seattle. The sender, “gt Whizz” stated, “If all we had was public transportation these drive-by’s (sic) would not happen. Fund Sound Transit and confiscate personal vehicles.”

The five-page legislation would also be retroactive, so if the bill is passed and signed by liberal Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee, it would apply to anyone whose charge was enhanced by the fact that they committed murder from a moving vehicle.

“This act applies retroactively,” the bill says, “to any person convicted of aggravated murder based on conduct committed prior to the effective date of this section where the only aggravating circumstance admitted in the guilty plea or found by a judge or jury at trial was that the discharge of the firearm was either from a motor vehicle or from the immediate area of a motor vehicle that was used to transport the shooter or the firearm, or both, to the scene of the discharge.”

Washington’s Legislature convenes Jan. 10, and this will be a 60-day session because it is an election year. Earlier this month, the Seattle Times acknowledged Democrat lawmakers are again pushing an anti-gun agenda including a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “Restrictions on high-capacity magazines.” AmmoLand News reported on this back on Dec. 19. However, this new measure carries Democrats to what many feel is a new level of absurdity.

Since her departure from KCPQ in Seattle—the local Fox News affiliate—where she had hosted a weekly news/comment program called “The Divide,” Kruse has garnered more than 54,000 followers for her online presence at Twitter. She has also been a substitute radio host for KIRO-FM’s Dori Monson. Both have a common-sense approach to local and national politics that Western Washington’s woke far-left often despise.

Kruse, in one of her online commentaries at (un)Divided, summed it up best, “If this bill passes, I don’t ever want to hear Democrats in Olympia complain about guns, all the while pushing leniency on those who use them to kill, because if Democrats truly care about gun violence, they sure as hell have a sad way of showing it.”

If Democrat sponsors Simmons and Hackney hoped to sneak this in under the radar, they failed miserably. Evergreen State gun rights activists might justifiably wonder if this is an effort to distract public attention from the gun control measures Democrats want to push over the next couple of months, however. Keeping track of those bills will be the challenge.

RELATED:

• Washington, Oregon Gun Prohibitionists Busy as 2022 Looms

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

from https://ift.tt/3FJ0cfQ
via IFTTT

Full Can of Bear Spray Used in Fatal Bear Attack

Full Can of Bear Spray Used in Fatal Bear Attack

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On April 15, 2021, Carl Mock was attacked by a grizzly bear, just outside of Yellowstone Park. Mock was an accomplished woodsman and guide. He did not have a firearm with him. He had bear spray.  He used the bear spray but was fatally injured.

This correspondent, with questions directed to Montana Fish and Wildlife Morgan Jacobsen, was able to determine bear spray had been used in the incident. Initially, the use of bear spray was reported as unknown by ktla.com:

Mock when attacked had bear spray — a Mace-like deterrent meant to protect against attacks — but officials said they did not know if he managed to use it. Bear spray canisters have safety tabs to prevent them from going off accidentally and the safety tab on Mock’s bear spray was off, Jacobsen said.

Eight months later, the investigation of the incident is over.

Ktvh.com reports the investigation confirms bear spray was used. Although the attack was fatal, the lead investigator, Hillary Cooley, is reported as characterizing the use of bear spray as helpful. From ktvh.com:

Cooley says the incident again shows the need for safety precautions, even close to town. While bear spray helped curtail this attack, carcasses can present a real hazard in grizzly country. 

Another report indicates the full can of bear spray was discharged in the incident. From gohunt.com:

Investigators say he had brought fishing gear and a camera to the closed campground and likely the surprised the grizzly bear around 3:30 p.m. He was able to discharge a full can of bear spray during the attack and call 911 to report where he was. 

The full investigative report makes clear the bear spray was deployed against the grizzly bear during the attack. From the full investigative report:

Due to the empty cannister of bear-spray and the bear-spray residue on the bear carcass(hair), Mr. Mock had obviously been aware of possible grizzly bear encounters in the area and had deployed his bear-spray at the bear. It is not known if he bear-sprayed towards the bear prior to the bear contacting him or at what points during the attack he used the spray. During field and lab investigations, it was confirmed that the bear had substantial bear-spray residue on its hair. Additionally, the overall effects of the bear-spray to the bear are not known but the bear had quit attacking Mr. Mock, indicating the bear was affected by the bear-spray.

It is common for grizzly bears to stop attacking humans after they stop moving.

A diagram of Mr. Mock’s personal items at the attack site can be viewed in Figure 2. The bear spray can was empty and investigators assumed Mr. Mock had likely sprayed the entire can of bear spray.

Recommendations from the report on self-defense:

• Carry and know how to use self-defense….bear-spray and or firearms
• It is always recommended to carry bear-spray even if individuals carry firearms.

The report identifies the bear spray used:

 *The can of bear spray was the UDAP brand, 7.9ounce, Expiration 12/2023 S/N P1711-071135).

The investigative report includes an aerial photo diagram that shows how close the bear attack occurred to populated areas.

A digital camera with a telephoto lens was recovered at the attack scene, but no photographs of the Baker’s hole campground area were found on the memory card for the camera. The moose carcass found 47 yards from the attack site was not noticed by the Search and Rescue team or by the helicopter during the initial rescue and recovery of Carl Mock.

This attack is one of a growing number where bear spray was used by the victim, and the victim was killed. Others include the killing of Daniel Schilling in Alaska and the Mark Uptain tragedy in Montana. There are others where bear spray was used by other people, but the victim was still killed, such as the death of Erin Johnson in the Pogo mine incident in Alaska, the death of Stephanie Blais in Saskatchewan, Canada.

These incidents reveal bear spray to be far from the cure-all initially claimed in numerous early articles. Those articles were based on inappropriate comparisons of studies involving firearm effectiveness and bear spray effectiveness in wildly different conditions.

---

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.

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

Why Political Moderates Walked Away from Gun Control

I Voted sticker on a SIG P365XL 9mm handgun. IMG Jim Grant

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Most of us have fired a gun at least once. Many of us have a gun in our homes today. Gun ownership has increased steadily over the decades and is now common. Running counter to that trend, Democrat politicians became increasingly hostile towards gun owners in the last ten years. The Democrat party took that position while public opposition to gun control grew. Today, democrat voters want gun-control as much as ever, but we saw the undecided middle and political independents step off the gun-control bandwagon. Here is why they abandoned the idea of gun control.

The world became more dangerous.

The rate of crime fell steadily for decades. Despite that trend, we saw political policies in Democrat-controlled cities lead to a recent increase in crime and violence. We saw sentencing reform and bail reform put repeat offenders back on the streets. We saw riots and looting justified by Democrat politicians as legitimate expressions of political protest. Under Democrat administrations, we saw the country’s borders thrown open and an increase in drug trafficking along with rising gang violence. The average citizen saw extraordinary levels of social unrest.

The world looks more dangerous.

Our mainstream media sensationalizes violence in the news and in entertainment. They tell us mass murder is common. In fact, mass murder is extremely rare. The media tells us criminal violence with a gun is routine when it is a small fraction of all violent crime (8%). The media tells us firearms accidents kill many of us when they are a fraction of a percent of all accidental deaths.

The mainstream media hides the benefits of being armed while it magnifies the risks. The media tells us that gun ownership is rare, yet about a third of us own guns. The media tells us that armed defense against violent crime doesn’t happen, yet it happens over a million times a year. Today, about one-out-of-9 of us have used a firearm in self-defense. The mainstream media hides those facts from us.

But seeing the Summer of Unrest on our TV screens caused many of us to wonder about our personal safety. A significant fraction of those who slightly favored gun control came to question their position. The increased awareness of violence moved some gun-control supporters to take more moderate positions. And this increased awareness of violence moved the already political moderates to the gun shop where they investigated which firearm might fit their needs.

The largest segment of new gun owners is urban minority women. That demographic group was considered reliably liberal and strongly anti-gun. That was yesterday’s stereotype. Gun owners and advocates of citizen self-defense now come from every segment of society.

The shrill cries for gun confiscation seem out of touch with our experience.

We hear the call from Democrat politicians for mandatory disarmament of ordinary citizens. Minority women hear these gun-confiscation proposals as being directed at them since they are particularly vulnerable to violent crime. They see the crime in their cities. They know the victims. They hear the calls for forced disarmament. They wonder when and if the criminals will ever be forced to give up their guns.

Democrat politicians criticized firearms because some guns were too affordable. Guns were demonized if they were too easy for the average person to operate. Guns were condemned if they were effective in stopping a large number of criminals before the defender ran out of ammunition. Every firearm was suspect and needed more regulation. These arguments no longer ring true for those who have faced violence and destruction in their own neighborhoods.

Consider that the media called a gun a “patrol rifle” or “personal protection firearm” when a state employee carried it. Yet Democrat politicians called the identical gun an “assault weapon” and a “weapon of war” when honest citizens had that firearm in their closet. Millions of us heard the double-speak.

The hostile and extreme anti-gun rhetoric by Democrat politicians alienated independent voters and confirmed the beliefs of political conservatives. The anti-gun media said we owned a gun because gun owners yearned to kill people. Many of us looked in the mirror or across the table and knew the media lied. We believed what our eyes saw and what our hearts felt. That changed our minds about gun control and the people who advocate it.

Moderates who once might have supported some gun-control measures now looked at existing gun-control laws as infringements on their rights. They saw gun control fail to make us safe in cities that Democrats controlled for decades. They recognized the well-worn promise of gun control as a broken vow rather than as a new idea.

Politicians doubled down. When we asked Democrat politicians about public safety, they repeated their call for honest citizens to disarm themselves and “just be a good witness.” We were supposed to stand and watch as our family was robbed and beaten. Then we were to call the police.. who might never arrive to help us. We heard the radicals’ calls to defund our police, while politicians gave themselves full-time private security details.

The political and media elites criticized gun owners as being violent and callous. They said gun owners love their guns more than they love people. They didn’t consider the possibility that gun owners might have enough empathy to put themselves into their neighbor’s shoes and realized that they too might be the victims of violence. Any of us might have to defend the people we love. The anti-gun politicians and their media lapdogs cannot recognize this empathy with the victim. In return, many political moderates cannot recognize themselves and their loved ones in the media caricatures of gun owners.

The call to unilaterally disarm honest citizens sounds unbelievably calloused to the average voter when he or she considers their family being victimized or their businesses torched.

No wonder we saw a 15-point decrease in our support of gun control over the last five years. According to a recent Gallop poll, Republicans rejected gun control by an additional 14 points in 2020. Independent voters turned their back on gun control by an additional 15 points last year. Only Democrat voters continued to think that gun control would bring us peace while last year’s murder rate rose by an average of 30 percent. In some of our Democrat-controlled cities, the murder rate doubled.

More of us saw the effects of violence with our own eyes.

Within the last few weeks, millions of us saw our local stores close early to avoid being ransacked by looting mobs after dark. Plywood-covered windows replaced downtown Christmas displays. No business can survive when people can rob it at will.

These anti-rights Democrats are the same politicians who cried crocodile tears over an imagined “food desert” when grocery chains allegedly left our inner cities a few years ago. Today, we’ve seen stores of all types reduce their hours of operation due to the risks of crime. Just wait until their leases expire. Smaller drugstores and grocery stores will move away from the city center like a falling tide washing away the sand. These neighborhoods will experience “deserts” of all sorts. That is the ultimate cost of not prosecuting property crimes in Democrat-controlled cities.

Government officials tried to blame the businesses for the mass shoplifting and looting. They told the police to stand down as criminals smashed and ransacked businesses. We are left to wonder if the police would also stand aside as our family is attacked. More of us felt that we have been left to defend ourselves.

These political choices may have sounded good in an academic paper, or polled well as a sound bite. We were not shocked when those policies failed. We were shocked at how little the politicians really cared that they had produced unprecedented levels of crime and violence.

The media is losing its control of information.

Political independents saw things they hadn’t seen before. They saw the world as more violent than they previously supposed. That violence posed a personal danger to them and their family. The average voter came to see the Summer of Unrest as also the Summer of Hypocrisy. The moderate voter and political independent noticed that the elite politicians who called for personal disarmament were protected by armed guards. Minorities heard the call to disband the police, but they noticed that the police were the only force that kept peace in their neighborhoods.

This then is why political moderates walked away from gun control. They saw the media as more biased and less trustworthy. They questioned the political narrative that disarming people who obey the law would lead to peace. They came to doubt that the media or the politicians actually understood or cared about them. All these factors led political moderates to walk away from gun control.

We are unlikely to go back to who we were.

Political independents began the incremental cascade from being anti-gun to endorsing the right to bear arms. They had to first question and then abandon gun control. Only then could they allow themselves to be armed. The surge in new gun owners did not cause the rejection of gun control. The reverse is true.

The body can’t go where the mind has not gone before. New gun owners, particularly women and minorities, are a lagging indicator of support for the right to bear arms. Tens of millions of us rejected the idea of gun control. Then, after careful consideration, we finally took the steps to select and purchase a firearm.

Millions are still moving along the path from reflexive support for gun control to passionate support for the right to bear arms. These voyagers are rapidly changing our culture. Last month’s public opinion polls are already out of date. The shift away from supporting gun control is accelerating. The shift toward a passionate and committed defense of citizen self-defense will be deep and lasting.

The Ruling Class won’t be able to stop it.

---

About Rob Morse

The original article, with sources, is posted here. Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily, at Second Call Defense, 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.

from https://ift.tt/3zbPV9g
via IFTTT

Colorado: Denver City Council Chasing “Ghost” Guns

Please contact your City Council and respectfully ask them to OPPOSE the “ghost gun” ban. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On January 3^rd, 2022, the Denver City Council will vote on a bill to ban custom-made firearms, which are currently referred to as “ghost guns.” This means we only have a few days left to stop the City of Denver from infringing on law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights. Please contact your City Council and respectfully ask them to OPPOSE the “ghost gun” ban.

Earlier this year, Governor Polis signed SB21-256 into law, giving cities and local governments in Colorado the authority to establish their own gun regulations that are more stringent than state law. Using this authority, the Denver city council now seeks to criminalize custom gun makers and their customers by passing a bill banning “ghost guns.” Repealing the state preemption law gives the anti-gun-controlled city council the opportunity to push their encroachment on the Second Amendment, instead of tackling the real issue of crime.

Not only is the City Council wanting to make criminals out of law-abiding citizens, but they want to address the imaginary issue of “ghost guns.” There is scant evidence that these types of custom firearms are used in crimes in Denver or any other city in Colorado. Criminals are not interested in costly equipment and the time-consuming and laborious process of manufacturing their own firearms when they can simply remove serial numbers from firearms to achieve the same purpose.

Again, please contact your City Council before Monday, January 3^rd, 2022, and ask them to OPPOSE the “ghost gun” ban. The sign-up for public comment on the Denver bill starts at noon on Friday, 12-31-21.

CLICK HERE TAKE ACTION!

---

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

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

Liberal PAC Source for Media’s 2024 Civil War Obsession, Anti-Gun Disinformation

Liberal PAC the source for media’s 2024 civil war obsession, anti-gun disinformation

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- VoteVets is a hybrid political action group that operates as both a PAC and a Super PAC by donating money directly to political campaigns and by raising and spending unlimited amounts of cash for “independent expenditures,” such as ad campaigns that target conservative candidates and issues while supporting liberal issues and politicians.

The organization operates two groups, the VoteVets PAC and the VoteVets Action Fund. Its stated mission is to “to elect veterans to public office,” but in actuality, it only backs liberals. All of the candidates VoteVets supports for federal, state, and local offices are Democrats, and all of the issues it supports promote a liberal agenda.

Since it was formed in 2006, VoteVets has spent more than $120 million. Nearly half went for radio and television ads. According to FactCheck.org, VoteVets receives money from the Democrats and Bloomberg:

“The PAC’s top three donors in 2018 were the Senate Majority PAC, the House Majority PAC and Bloomberg L.P. The organizations contributed $4.5 million, $2.2 million and $1.5 million, respectively.”

While pretending to advocate on behalf of veterans and veterans’ issues, in reality, VoteVets operates in lockstep with other anti-gun groups funded by Bloomberg’s cash. To be clear, VoteVets advocates for more anti-gun laws and restrictions even though most veterans own guns and strongly support the Second Amendment.

While VoteVets does fund lobbying efforts, it is the group’s liberal public-issue campaigns – which are usually not fully disclosed or attributed – that the mainstream media laps up like hungry dogs.

“They have really been punching above their weight this election cycle,” Rachel Maddow, MSNBC’s highest-paid news actor said of VoteVets.

Hoodwinking readers

The Washington Post and scores of other newspapers recently published an opinion column, which was actually just the latest VoteVets public-issue campaign.

The headline was damning: “3 retired generals: The military must prepare now for a 2024 insurrection.”

“The signs of potential turmoil in our armed forces are there. On Jan. 6, a disturbing number of veterans and active-duty members of the military took part in the attack on the Capitol. More than 1 in 10 of those charged in the attacks had a service record. A group of 124 retired military officials, under the name “Flag Officers 4 America,” released a letter echoing Donald Trump’s false attacks on the legitimacy of our elections,” the column states.

It called on the Department of Defense to take “more intensive intelligence work at all installations.”

“The goal should be to identify, isolate and remove potential mutineers; guard against efforts by propagandists who use misinformation to subvert the chain of command; and understand how that and other misinformation spreads across the ranks after it is introduced by propagandists,” the generals wrote.

The column followed a similar bit of anti-Trump 2024 fearmongering, which was published by Newsweek, titled: “Millions of Angry, Armed Americans Stand Ready to Seize Power If Trump Loses in 2024.”

In the Washington Post story, VoteVets received only an oblique mention – certainly not full disclosure – in the authors’ byline: “Paul D. Eaton, a retired U.S. Army major general and a senior adviser to VoteVets; Antonio M. Taguba, a retired Army major general, with 34 years of active-duty service, and Steven M. Anderson, a retired brigadier general who served in the U.S. Army for 31 years.”

What the Post and the other media platforms that republished the syndicated column did not tell their readers was that the entire piece was little more than VoteVets’ ongoing political agitprop, and that two of the three generals are thinly veiled political activists, and apparently far more interested in partisan politics than they ever were the welfare of the troops who served under their command.

The newspapers never mentioned that after he retired in 2006, Major General Easton strongly criticized the Bush Administration on multiple media platforms for its handling of the Iraq War. Nor was it disclosed that he served as a special advisor to both Hilary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns.

In 2004, Major General Taguba was assigned to investigate allegations of mistreatment at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. His report, which was extremely critical, was almost immediately leaked to the media. The stories served as an inspiration for the Iraqi insurgency and, ultimately, cost American lives. It is still a rallying cry for our foes throughout the Middle East. After the leak was investigated, Taguba was ordered by the Army’s Vice Chief of Staff to retire. This fact, too, never made it into print.

Ignorant beginnings

VoteVets has a long history of advocating for more gun control.

In 2012, VoteVets chairman Jon Stolz wrote a scathing op-ed column about the Trayvon Martin case, titled: “Shoot First Laws: Even troops in war zones can’t do that.” Stolz’s column, which was widely republished, excoriated “Stand Your Ground” laws in Florida and other states.

“The Trayvon Martin case has gripped the nation and forced the country to re-examine our gun laws. But the horrible affair has struck me in another way, because of my two tours in Iraq,” Stolz wrote. “One fact stands out in my mind: The ‘Stand Your Ground’ law in Florida, which may let George Zimmerman off the hook for the killing of Martin, gives more leeway to shooters than our own military gives to soldiers in war.”

The problem with Stolz’s column is that his premise is 100% wrong. The Trayvon Martin shooting was never a “Stand Your Ground” case. Zimmerman never invoked the immunity the statute provides. Stolz’s subsequent comparisons between Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law and the military’s Rules of Engagement were completely moot.

One year later, VoteVets joined with Giffords, Michael Bloomberg and Bloomberg’s proxy group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in opposing the 2013 Colorado recall, which successfully removed two Democratic state senators who supported new gun-control legislation. VoteVets ran ads speaking, falsely, on behalf of the veterans’ community.

It was the first time a Colorado lawmaker had ever been recalled.

“Good” anti-gun messengers

In 2018, VoteVets barnstormed across the country with Gabby Giffords’ anti-gun group.

“We’re hitting the campaign trail with @VoteVets! Ahead of this year’s election,” Giffords tweeted on Aug. 20, 2018. The two groups supported anti-gun candidates in Pennsylvania, Colorado, California, New Jersey, Virginia and Kentucky.

We’re hitting the campaign trail with @VoteVets! Ahead of this year’s election, @ShuttleCDRKelly will travel across the US to support veteran candidates with the courage to fight gun violence in Congress. Learn more https://t.co/6CiVBYPiUa

— Giffords (@GiffordsCourage) August 20, 2018

“For a long time, Democrats have been playing defense on issue of gun safety,” Dan Helmer, VoteVets vice-president told a McClatchy newspaper. “We see a trend across the country where, increasingly, the American people are demanding change.”

VoteVets and Giffords both said veterans made “especially good messengers for policies that restrict access to guns.”

“They have the ‘platform and credibility’ to talk about the issue,” Helmer said. “No one more than vets know just how deadly some of these weapons can be. Nor have others proven so dedicated to defending the country.”

Giffords and VoteVets called the candidates they supported “part of a new generation of leaders challenging gun-lobby backed politicians.”

“Military veterans know that weapons of war have no place in our schools, in our places of worship, at concerts, at night clubs and in our communities. Too many in Congress are afraid to take on the NRA and pass meaningful legislation supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans to reduce gun violence,” Helmer said in a joint press release. “The veteran candidates we are meeting with on this tour have already answered the call of duty once and bravely stood up to defend and serve this nation. They have the courage to stand up to the NRA and fight for legislation to protect our communities from the epidemic of gun violence. We are proud to partner with Captain Kelly and Giffords on this tour.”

Democratic, not veterans’ issues

According to its Facebook page, VoteVets claims to be “the first and largest progressive group of veterans in America.”

“We represent over 1.5 million veterans, military families, and their civilian supporters,” the site states.

However, the issues posted on Facebook and its other social media accounts reveal that the group is far more aligned with the Democratic Party than any veterans’ community – even a progressive one.

VoteVets advocates for Vaccine mandates, “accountability” for the Jan. 6 protest, Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan, climate change, abortion rights, Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, Critical Race Theory, GBLT issues, voting rights and of course more gun control.

Biden and Kamala Harris receive nothing but praise, while Donald Trump and other Republican lawmakers receive nothing but criticism – intense criticism.

Real veterans’ issues, such as dysfunctions within the VA, civilian job resources, posttraumatic stress disorder, suicide prevention, POW/MIA, disability benefits and illnesses caused by burn-pit exposure, are rarely, if ever, mentioned.

To be clear, VoteVets regurgitates nothing but liberal talking points rather than advocating for veterans as it claims.

Takeaways

It’s no secret why anti-gun groups believe veterans would make good messengers for their rhetoric. Veterans have the credibility that they never will. Unfortunately for Giffords, Brady and Bloomberg, most veterans are too politically savvy to fall for their anti-rights shenanigans.

Besides, every veteran I know owns guns – every single one. While I’m sure there are some who don’t, I’ve never met one, but I’ll admit I tend not to run in those circles. Vets, especially those who served in the combat arms, understand the importance of being able to defend themselves and their families, which is why they are such strong protectors of the Second Amendment.

VoteVets has its supporters, of that I am sure, but the group doesn’t speak on behalf of the vast majority of veterans, and they certainly don’t speak for me. Quite frankly, I find what they’re doing – pushing a liberal agenda under the guise of advocating for veterans – sickening. It’s time for them to stop pretending they’re working on our behalf.

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.

---

About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

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