Armed Citizens Stop Mass Murder, Crime Prevention Research

Armed Citizens Stop Mass Murder iStock-1085735902

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Armed citizens have to be prepared to defend themselves at any moment. That moment can be as common as your neighbor scaring away an intruder who broke through her back door. Sometimes, it is as significant as stopping mass murder. You might not remember every incident when an ordinary armed citizen took extraordinary action. The mainstream media certainly forgets to mention it. We remember how Kenneth Gage saved lives in Manchester, New Hampshire, back on the 14th of April, 2007.

April 14th, 2007 | Manchester, New Hampshire

Trouble started between midnight and 1 am. Two customers had been drinking at a bar. They were known around town, and they were also known at the bar. One of the two men grabbed a woman in the upstairs lounge. She objected, and the two men didn’t take corrections very well. The upstairs bouncer then asked the patron to stop. The two men objected again, and the bouncer asked them to leave. The three men were now downstairs. When the two customers, Eliezer Encarnacion and Gilbert Brown, again objected, that drew the attention of the assistant manager and the downstairs bouncer.

The five men were near the back door when one of the two customers, Gilbert Brown, punched one of the bouncers in the face several times. These two customers were known as fighters. Brown medaled in the New England Golden Gloves championship. That was when Kenneth Gage, another customer at the bar, got up to help in case the fight got worse. The two customers, Encarnacion and Brown, were forced out the back door of the bar.

Eliezer Encarnacion then drew a 45 caliber handgun. He shot at the two bouncers and the assistant manager who was standing at the back door. The three men ducked. So did the customers and staff inside the bar. One exception was Kenneth Gage. He moved toward the sound of gunfire. Gage stepped into the doorway and shot at Brown and Encarnacion. Encarnacion stopped shooting. He and Brown ran. Gage stayed at the scene. There were about 50 customers in the bar that night. The patrons of the bar chased Brown and Encarnacion. Police found the two attackers a few blocks away.

Encarnacion shot his 45 caliber handgun six times and hit no one. There were at least two 45 bullets embedded near the door frame where the bouncers and assistant manager were standing. Kenneth Gage shot three times and hit Encarnacion twice, once in the arm and once in the leg. Gage was shooting a 380. The manager at the bar said that Gage saved their lives.

Encarnacion was charged and held on $100,000 cash/surety bail. Brown pleaded innocent to assault charges for punching the bouncer. Brown already had a 1 1/2-to-3-year deferred jail sentence pending, which stemmed from a cocaine conviction. His bail was set at $2,000.

The Uptown Tavern closed in November 2007. We don’t know how many customers at the bar were within line of sight of the back door so we don’t know how many people inside the building could have been hit by the shots Encarnacion fired. We know that the two bouncers, the manager, and Gage could have been hit by the attacker’s gunfire. How was one person shooting a small firearm able to hit his target while another man missed? The usual answer is practice and aim.

The defender was closer to the back door. The light over the doorway may have illuminated his sights allowing him to aim better and hit his target. The attacker was farther away from the light and may have been shooting in the dark. Also, we don’t know how the men were dressed or the color of the background. We don’t know how much or how often the two armed men practiced with their firearms. We do know that Gage thought there might be trouble and was both mentally and physically prepared to save lives.

Events like this don’t happen every day, but there are lots of fights outside bars at night. We have millions of honest citizens carrying concealed every day. An intoxicated criminal was bound to meet one of us eventually. Thank goodness someone like you was there when it happened this day in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Sources:

• Short News Summary
• Details from the New Hampshire Union Leader, but not on the UL website
• Comments from Georgia Packing
• Handgun law.us on current New Hampshire handgun laws

This story is part of a series. Dr. John R. Lott Jr. put together a list of mass murders that were stopped by armed citizens. We’ll explore another event in the next few weeks here at Ammoland Shooting Sports News.

---

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/JDd7RST
via IFTTT

NY Pays $30K For 3D Printed Firearms At Gun Buy Back

“Yankee Boogles” made specifically to be sold at this event.

UTICA, NY -(Ammoland.com)- New York Attorney General Leticia James claims last month’s Utica gun “buy back” was a massive success, with 296 guns being turned in to police.

What she doesn’t want the public to know is that 177 of those guns were 3D printed guns, including sixty “Yankee Boogles” that were printed just for the gun “buy back” that cost the state over $30,000, including $21,000 to a single person. The money was paid out in pre-paid Visa and Master Cards, costing the state even more in activation fees.

NY Pays $30K For 3D Printed Firearms At Gun Buy Back

The gentleman who turned in the 60 Yankee Boogles” is known online as Kem Regik. A “Yankee Boogle” is a drop-in auto sear (DIAS) allowing users to convert their AR-15 into a machine gun. The device can be 3D printed on any 3D printer for under a dollar. They also fetch over $100 a piece at the police gun “buy backs,” giving them a high return on investment.

The idea of trading in 3D-printed firearms isn’t to make money but to demonstrate that the “signal” can’t be stopped, and 3D printing has invalidated any gun control because a printer someone picks up at Microcenter for under $100 can print a working firearm. Mr. Regik drove hours from his home to make this point at the gun “buy back.”

“I hope Leticia James is happy because her little attempt at tyranny cost her police officers $21,000 and their dignities,” Regiks told AmmoLand News. “She can’t stop the signal, and now she knows what that really means. Every buy back from Long Island to Buffalo to Champlain is going to have someone raiding with Boogles. Either she admits they’re not a public danger, or she pays full price like any other machine gun, her choice.”

The police wanted the devices but didn’t want to pay the full amount. They offered Mr. Regiks $6000, but he promptly turned them down, insisting he gets full advertised value. They also promised full amnesty to anyone who brought guns to the buy back. This protection sent police scrambling to figure out what to do.

After many phone calls, the police decided to give in but didn’t have enough to cover the $21,000 owed to Regiks. While Regiks and the other 3D-printed firearm makers waited in the parking lot of the gun “buy back,” the police tried to buy the cards from multiple stores, but they couldn’t get the needed amount due to banking regulations.

The Utica Police Department had to scramble to call in off-duty officers to buy the pre-paid credit cards from various stores clearing off shelves. After hours of waiting, Mr. Regiks received the full promised value for his devices. He told the Out of Battery podcast that the police finance woman was fuming, but in the end, the police did get his 3D printed devices, and Regiks got his money.

Gift cards paid out to Kem by the Utica Police

Mr. Regiks and the other members of the builder community celebrated at the Texas Roadhouse their successful troll attempt on the Utica Police, where Regiks ordered the biggest steak on the menu.

The Utica Police and the AG Office didn’t respond to AmmoLand’s request for comment.

---

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/4oe89sX
via IFTTT

ATF Posts Open Letter on New Definition of Firearm ‘Final Rule’

Images from ATF Letter on “Final Rule”

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– On September 27, 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued an open letter to all Federal Firearms Licensees.  The letter is available online.

The letter is seven pages long and includes several images.  The purpose of the letter is explained in the first paragraph. From the atf.gov:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is issuing this open letter to further assist the firearms industry and the public in understanding whether a “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional” receiver of an AR-15/M-16 variant weapon has reached a stage of manufacture such that it “may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted” to a functional receiver, and is therefore classified as a “frame or receiver” or “firearm” in accordance with the final rule titled “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms (Final Rule 2021R-05F), which became effective August 24, 2022. In particular, the following addresses items that are clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon—specifically, partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional AR-type receivers (also known as receiver ‘billets’ or ‘blanks’).

The “Final Rule” is being contested in the courts. In North Dakota, Judge Peter D. Welte accepted the ATF definition of a firearm in the Final Rule, at least in his refusal to issue a temporary injunction against the implementation of the rule. The rule might still be found to be unlawful in the court case.

In the Northern District of Texas, Judge Reed O’Conner found the ATF exceeded its authority, and issued a limited injunction against implementation of the rule.  From the opinion:

1.The Final Rule exceeds ATF’s statutory authority under the plain language of the Gun Control Act.

The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be … in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations.”5 U.S.C. §706(2)(C). Plaintiffs argue the Final Rule exceeds ATF’s statutory authority under the Gun Control Act in two ways. First, Plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule expands ATF’s authority over parts that may be “readily converted” into frames or receivers, when Congress limited ATF’s authority to “frames or receivers” as such. Second, Plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule unlawfully treats weapon parts kits as firearms. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on both claims.

The letter by ATF explaining the Final Rule does not mention the ongoing court cases.  It reiterates ATF’s position that association with tools and jigs, instructions or guides, can make a non-firearm into a firearm.

From page 3 of the letter:

Thus, in order not to be considered “readily” completed to function, ATF has determined that a partially complete AR-type receiver must have no indexing or machining of any kind performed in the area of the trigger/hammer (fire control) cavity. A partially complete AR-type receiver with no indexing or machining of any kind performed in the area of the fire control cavity is not classified as a “receiver,” or “firearm,” if not sold, distributed, or marketed with any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, or guides, such as within a receiver parts kit.

On page 6, the ATF emphasizes that information and tools which make the creation of a frame or receiver easier, are now considered items which make an incomplete part a firearm:

However, the above analysis only applies to partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers without any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, guides, or marketing materials. Pursuant to Final Rule 2021R-05F, partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers that are sold, distributed, possessed with such items (or made available by the seller or distributor to the same person) may change the analysis, including those distributed as frame or receiver parts kits. 27 CFR 478.12(c). For example, jigs, templates, or instructions can provide the same indexing as if it were placed directly on the unfinished frame or receiver.

At the end of the letter, the ATF adds further warnings about how unfinished frames or receivers are considered “defense articles”, and subject to permits for export or import. From page 7:

Further, although unfinished frames or receivers that do not meet the definition of a “firearm” are not subject to regulation under GCA provisions, they are still considered “defense articles” on the U.S. Munitions Import List and, therefore, require an approved Application and Permit for Importation of Firearms, Ammunition and Implements of War (ATF Form 6) for importation into the United States under 27 CFR 447.41; 447.22, and are also subject to export controls.1

In the old Soviet Union, typewriters had serial numbers and were tightly controlled by the state. Information was tightly controlled.  In the United States, the distribution of information is protected by the First Amendment.

The ATF is asserting that tools and information on how to make frames or receivers are, essentially frames and receivers. This is an unprecedented expansion of government control over the private making of firearms, never before existing in the United States.

The injunction by Judge O’Conner

Judge O’Conner sees the major expansion of power by the government. He believes the ATF does not have the authority to do so.

---

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/G3Y4S80
via IFTTT

Credit Card Situation Not As Bad As Feared, But Still Dangerous

Credit Card Situation Not As Bad As Feared, But Still Dangerous, iStock-471542783

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- The saga of the new Merchant Category Code (MCC) for gun and ammo purchases has seen a good first step come from some state attorneys general, but perhaps the best news came from a credit card company.

You might recall that New York Attorney General Letitia James was among those pushing for the new code, and celebrated its imposition by the International Standards Organization. But there are forces at work other than that of James in this country: A letter, signed by multiple state attorneys general, is warning the credit card companies not to go through with the new code.

That is a good thing – if nothing else, pro-Second Amendment AGs will provide some layer of protection. It may come down to passing some serious legislation to address financial deplatforming, but we have a good start from the AGs.

The best news on this front, though, comes from one of the credit card companies. A September 13 blog post by Visa provides some interesting reading – not just on the background of MCCs, but also how that company views the situation at this time.

The Visa blog post is worth noting for a couple of reassuring notes. First, the post states, “MCCs do not give Visa or any other payment network visibility into product-level data, also known as ‘SKU-level’ data. When we process a transaction, we have no visibility into what items a consumer is purchasing — this is true irrespective of which MCC applies to a merchant.”

In other words, Visa is not going to know what you buy – it just notes “this purchase was made at a gun store.” So, at least in Visa’s case, if you decide to use a credit card, it’s not going to know if you bought a rifle, a bunch of ammo or accessories (like a new sight or scope).

Visa, though, went further, in the post, with comments Second Amendment supporters should take heart from.

“We do not believe private companies should serve as moral arbiters. Asking private companies to decide what legal products or services can or cannot be bought and from what store sets a dangerous precedent. Further, it would be an invasion of consumers’ privacy for banks and payment networks to know each of our most personal purchasing habits. Visa is firmly against this,” the post states.

Given that NYSRPA v. Bruen has, in all likelihood, provided the constitutional basis to strike down gun bans, at least for now, Visa is saying they won’t go into financial deplatforming.

“A fundamental principle for Visa is protecting all legal commerce throughout our network and around the world and upholding the privacy of cardholders who choose to use Visa. That has always been our commitment, and it will not change with ISO’s decision,” Visa’s blog post continues. “Our rules require financial institutions involved in transactions to evaluate and process all legal transactions. Our network does not allow any financial institution member to deny transactions for the purchase of legal goods or services based on which MCC they fall under.”

These comments seem very unambiguous on Visa’s part. Second Amendment supporters should, at the very least, thank Visa for making it clear. A thank you costs us very little, but could pay dividends down the road.

Despite that, corporate gun control and financial deplatforming are serious threats in the wake of the Bruen decision, and vigilance will be required on our parts to prevent backsliding. Another Sandy Hook or Uvalde could alter the situation drastically and greatly increase the pressure from the likes of Letitia James or Elizabeth Warren.

While defeating anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels via the ballot box is crucial, we will also need to support those companies that do take a stand against private-sector gun control so that we can defeat anti-Second Amendment extremism in corporate boardrooms.

---

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

from https://ift.tt/R3b7cQ6
via IFTTT

Millions of First Time Gun Owners Confirmed

Below the Radar: The Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act of 2019

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– In the record-breaking sale of firearms in 2020, there were many people in that number that purchased firearms for the first time.

Many of the new gun owners were driven to purchase guns because of the uncertainty seen in 2020. There were many riots. There were prosecutors who refused to prosecute. The murder rate grew rapidly. The political system was attacked and vilified.

Gun sales reached a record level of about 20.66 million guns sold in 2020, according to this correspondent’s calculations.

The National Shooting Sports Federation ran surveys at numerous retail outlets. Those surveys indicated there were about 8.4 million first time gun buyers in 2020 and 5.4 million in 2021:

Recent firearm industry retail data revealed first-time gun buyers especially, totaling more than 5.4 million in 2021 and 8.4 million in 2020, are seeking training opportunities with their new purchases.

Once experienced with the process involved to legally purchase their gun and confident with using it, it’s no wonder gun-owning Americans view the push for more gun control with increasing skepticism.

Surveys are difficult to verify.

According to the NSSF survey, about 13.8 million gun purchasers in 2020 and 2021 were first time gun buyers.

In a California federal case about whether a state can ban semi-automatic firearms and magazines (Miller v Bonta), Judge Roger Benitez required the state to provide statistics about gun sales.

California is unusual among states, it requires all legal firearm sales to be processed through a federal dealer.  Those statistics are the most complete data we have on firearms sales in a state.

The California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms, was forced to provide data about new firearm buyers.

Blake Graham, Assistant Director of the California Department of Justice provided the following in a sworn document to the court:

 The total number of firearms sold in California with background checks in 2020 was 1,165,309. As of March 12, 2021, the total number of firearms sold in California with background checks in 2021 was 180,058. These figures account for all firearm sales conducted through FFLs in the state, including private-party transactions, consignments, and pawn sales.

Graham also provided the number of first time firearm purchasers, as well as could be determined:

Based on these parameters, approximately 369,511 individuals purchased a firearm in California who had not previously submitted a DROS application to the Department prior to January 1, 2020. As of March 12, 2021, approximately 42,548 individuals purchased a firearm who had not previously submitted a DROS application to the Department prior to January 1, 2021.

Of the guns purchased in all of 2020 in California, about 32% were by new gun buyers. Of the guns purchased up until March of 2021, about 24% were new gun buyers.

There were about 20.66 million guns purchased in the USA in 2020. Using the percentages from California, about 6.55 million of those would be new gun buyers. In the smaller sample from 2021, the percentage of new gun buyers was 24%. Extrapolated to the entire USA for all of 2021, that would be another 4.34 million new gun buyers.

Extrapolating the California percentages to the entire United States, there would be about 10.95 million new gun buyers in 2020 and 2021.

The total for the two years, based on the California Department of Safety figures, would be 10.95 million new gun buyers. While this figure is smaller than the NSSF estimate of 13.8 million new gun buyers, it is based on sales in California.

Gun sales are more difficult for a first-time buyer in California than for most other states. This might discourage prospective gun owners from buying the first gun in California.

For example, new gun owners in California must take a test and pass it. Then they are given a Firearms Safety Certificate (FSC). An FSC is required before they can purchase a firearm. Only one firearm may be purchased in any given 30 days.

Once the firearm is purchased, the purchaser has to wait 10 days before they are allowed to possess it.

In 2020, Californians purchased about .024 firearms per capita.

In nonrestrictive states (other than CA, HI, NY, NJ, MA, MD, and DC), residents purchased .075 firearms per capita or over three times as many.

Considering the limitations of retail surveys and the potential bias in purchasing guns in a restrictive state, the California numbers are reasonably close to the NSSF estimate.

As this is written, we are more than half way through 2022. It is reasonable to surmise over 12 million new gun owners have been added to the number of gun owners in the United States in the last three years.

The new gun owners go far in explaining the difficulty in obtaining ammunition at prices common only four years ago.

---

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/qu2ZU5R
via IFTTT

Gun and ‘Disinformation’ Control Show Tyranny is Growing

When government becomes the arbiter of what is allowed and what is deemed disinformation, anyone with different views can forget about having theirs heard. Gun control IMG: iStock-496689884

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern called for tighter regulations on Internet speech, suggesting that ‘disinformation’ should be treated like gun control,” The Daily Fetched reported Saturday, citing her address to the United Nations General Assembly. “Ardern called for ‘disinformation’ to be treated like bullets, bombs, or nuclear weapons, arguing that ‘a lie online or from a podium’ does not immediately kill people like the ‘weapons of old’ but could be more dangerous in the long run.”

“We came together as communities to minimize these threats, Ardern declared. “We created international rules, norms, and expectations. We never saw that as a threat to our individual liberties – rather, it was preservation of them.”

She’s literally saying “freedom is slavery.” In Ardern’s case, especially in bringing it to the UN, that’s an appropriate translation.

“Global Socialist Leads New Zealand Disarmament Drive,” I wrote for Firearms News a few years back. “Look at New Zealand as a canary in a coal mine of sorts. This is what we have to look forward to if the globalist socialists here continue with their long march toward totalitarianism.”

“[I]n 2008, she was elected president of the International Union of Socialist Youth, an affiliate of Socialist International, which unsurprisingly is ‘heartened’ by the March for Our Lives ‘movement’ and its young useful idiot figureheads,” that article documented. “Among IUSY’s goals: ‘Building a new world order…’”

When government becomes the arbiter of what is allowed and what is deemed disinformation, anyone with different views can forget about having theirs heard. They’ll be lucky if they’re only ignored.

Let me give you an example of the type of “gun reporting” New Zealand demonstrated 12 years ago when the Tarnaki Daily News published a column wherein their “reporter” recounted her recent trip to Texas.

“Sitting down for dinner at any Texan diner, in my experience, often involves guns,” columnist Rachel Stewart told her readers. “I can’t recall the exact number of times I have eaten a meal in the immediate company of a man, or men, with shooters on their hips in plain view. For me, I am always equal parts spellbound and queasy. Spellbound because there is something so fundamentally cowboy and western about it. Guns, freedom, country music, and the Second Amendment. It is Texas after all. Yeeha!”

The one thing she said that was true was that she couldn’t recall the exact number of times. That’s because at the time her ridiculing hit piece was written, Texas was not yet an open carry state.

I called her on what was obviously “disinformation” and was met back with denials, excuses, and published name-calling and insults from the columnist and her editor in which they threw everything back at my provable observations but the truth.

I recall this story to illustrate just the type of public discourse on guns that will be allowed in New Zealand and elsewhere if Ardern and her globalist partners in disarmament and censorship have their way. And in the U.S. too, if we listen to who — what I call the DSM — passes off as its token “conservative.”

“[Jennifer Rubin] (long cited by the [Washington] Post as their ‘Republican columnist’ for balance) has called for the media to abandon balance and impartiality,” Jonathan Turley reports. “Rubin is demanding that the media just become overt advocates in refusing to report both sides in the myriad of political issues in this election.”

“That balance was once called ‘journalism’ but Rubin now calls it facilitating ‘disinformation,’” Turley explains. “Balanced reporting is now dangerous and makes the media ‘a megaphone for disinformation, upholding the pretense that there are two political parties with equally valid takes on reality.’”

How very Ardern-like of her.

Rubin is one of those Vichycon collaborators along the lines of “Republicans for Biden” as represented by The Lincoln Project and “conservative” William Kristol’s Defending Democracy Together. A while back she was demanding “‘rules’ that would prohibit media outlets from treating Republicans as ‘normal.’”

So naturally, she comes down squarely on the same side as Ardern when it comes to guns, issuing screeds claiming:

“Already awash with guns, the country has instead witnessed a further relaxation of reasonable gun restrictions. Age limits have been lowered. Gun licensing requirements have been repealed. Gun owners have been allowed to carry concealed weapons.”

“This is gun fetish run amok. Republican politicians pose with weapons of war in campaign ads and shoot at whatever object can be most dramatically destroyed. No sane society would permit this.”

They don’t want you to have guns and they don’t want you to have free speech. Hey, if you can get away with ignoring the Second Amendment, why should you respect the First?

The observable truth is that violence monopolists demand all the power. Every bit of it. That’s why they’re called totalitarians.

If the globalists have their way, “disinformation” will be whatever they say it is. Forget arguing against the safety and effectiveness of Covid shots, questioning “climate change,” objecting to the sexualization of children, challenging election result narratives, decrying open borders, criticizing the state enforcement apparatus, exploring the results of “a woman’s right to choose,” disputing critical race theory, disapproving “equity,”  opposing “commonsense gun safety laws”…

And don’t forget the “systemic racism” built into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and all that “disinformation” in the Bible…

Everyone realizes that the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives the rulers an “out,” right?

Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

That’s the opposite of the unalienable Bill of Rights culture established by the Framers of the Constitution. Rendering citizens defenseless and then muzzling them is so “alien” to every principle traditional Americans cherish that it suggests a paraphrasing of a famous movie tag line:

In a police state, no one can hear you scream.

Afterword:

I’d no sooner finished posting this article in the publishing tool than a news item from Legal Insurrection came across the transom, to once more illustrate how “Big Tech” economic fascists are enthusiastically on board with all this:

YouTube Removes Viral Video Of Incoming Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni “For Violating Terms Of Service” – The whole point of her speech was that being pro-family, pro-Christian, and pro-country instills in the political class and media a visceral fear. Seems that, at least for now, YouTube has proven her correct.

---

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/v8QliRH
via IFTTT

SAF Lawsuit Challenges Prohibition on Handgun Sales to Young Adults

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed another lawsuit on behalf of young adults, this time in West Virginia, challenging the federal prohibition on handgun sales to citizens under age 21.

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Challenging state and federal gun laws on behalf of young adults in the 18-20-year age group is becoming a habit for the Second Amendment Foundation, which has filed a lawsuit in federal court in West Virginia, seeking to overturn the federal prohibition on handgun sales to young adults.

The case is known as Brown v. ATF, coming on the eve of this year’s Gun Rights Policy Conference in Dallas, Texas.

Joining SAF as plaintiffs are the West Virginia Citizens Defense League and two private citizens, Benjamin Weekley and Steven Brown, for whom the case is known. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys John H. Bryan and Adam Kraut.

Defendants are the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF Director Steven Dettelbach and Attorney General Merrick Garland, in their official capacities. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

According to a SAF news release, Weekley and Brown are in the affected age group and were unable to buy handguns from a West Virginia sporting goods store earlier this year. According to the lawsuit, “The Handgun Ban impermissibly infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms of all law-abiding, peaceable individuals aged eighteen to twenty.” The complaint further asserts the ban “is flatly unconstitutional under the Second Amendment” and Supreme Court rulings in the 2008 Heller case and this year’s Bruen decision.

This is not SAF’s first foray into the “young adult” arena. The organization, which has gained a reputation as a Second Amendment litigation powerhouse, earlier filed suit in Minnesota, challenging that state’s ban on concealed carry by young adults, alleging the ban violates the Second and 14th Amendment rights of citizens in that age group. Recently, SAF attorneys filed a motion for summary judgment in the case, which is known as Worth v. Harrington.

“We recognize the rights of law-abiding young adults to vote, join the military, sign contracts, start businesses, get married and do other things,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “but when it comes to exercising one of the most basic fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, suddenly we treat them like children. You shouldn’t be able to have it both ways.”

Gottlieb added there is no historical evidence supporting an arbitrary prohibition on handgun purchases by young adults over age 18 but under age 21.

“Indeed,” Gottlieb observed, “history goes the other direction, with young adults considered mature enough for militia service, duty in the armed forces and in today’s world being able to vote, run for public office, start businesses, get married, enter into contracts and enjoy the full protections set down in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments.”

SAF has also filed a federal lawsuit in Illinois, challenging that state’s ban on concealed carry by young adults. Joining SAF in that legal action are the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and three private citizens in the 18-21-year age group, David Meyer, Eva Davis and Mitchell Nalley. SAF and ISRA teamed up with the late Otis McDonald and other Chicago residents in the landmark lawsuit against the Windy City’s handgun ban which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Illinois concealed carry case is known as Meyer v. Raoul.

In May of this year, a three-judge panel for the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a California prohibition on sales of semiautomatic rifles to young adults in a case known as Jones v. Bonta.

This SAF case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings, but then came the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which set the appeals courts on their collective ear by eliminating the “means-end scrutiny” strategy that has allowed lower courts to justify restrictive gun control measures. Henceforth, Second Amendment cases will be guided by history rather than political correctness.

SAF was joined in the Bonta case by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Firearms Policy Foundation, Calguns Foundation, Poway Weapons and Gear and PWG Range, North County Shooting Center, Inc, Beebe Family Arms and Munitions, and three private citizens including Matthew Jones for whom the case is named.

Perhaps underscoring the importance of presidential elections, the majority opinion in Bonta was written by Judge Ryan Nelson and joined by Judge Kenneth Lee, both Donald Trump appointees, and in part by Judge Sidney Stein from the Southern District of New York, a Bill Clinton appointee. Judge Stein also dissented in part.

---

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/EA5abwK
via IFTTT

Highland Park Lawsuit Points To Serious Post-Bruen Threat

Highland Park Lawsuit Points To Serious Post-Bruen Threat

Highland Park, IL/United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- One of the reasons that Second Amendment supporters needed a post-Bruen strategy became evident with the news that victims of the Highland Park shooting have filed suit against Smith and Wesson, aiming at the M&P 15 rifle the shooter misused in the horrific act.

Aiding the suit is Brady United, which coordinated the lawsuits from big cities and some states in the late 1990s and early 2000s. So, Second Amendment supporters can bet the mortgage, utility, and cable payments that these suits aren’t about addressing real issues, but coercing gun manufacturers into agreeing to settlements with provisions that would never pass constitutional muster if passed into law. It goes without saying that the shooter is the only person responsible for that horrific act, and said shooter should be the one who pays.

Making this threat even worse are the actions of Kirkland and Ellis in the wake of the Bruen decision, which points to a long-term threat that has to be addressed as well: Ensuring a new generation of lawyers to take Second Amendment cases can rise up to the level of Paul Clement. As of now, it is a safe bet that if these actions go unchecked, many conservative lawyers may be either unable – or unwilling – to take a Second Amendment case due to the fear of repercussions.

Our enemies weren’t stupid. They know they are losing the arguments in a straight-up fight, even when they have major advantages in the mainstream media. So, their next-best option is to find ways to make sure we can’t even take the field, whether through campaign-reform schemes or by getting businesses to go along with what is, for all intents and purposes, a form of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction regime that is aimed at Israel.

Second Amendment supporters will need to work to beat back this assault on our rights because the stakes are quite high. With NYSRPA v. Bruen, Caetano v. Massachusetts, and Heller v. D.C., we have gone a long way towards securing our rights on the constitutional front, but the legal front is not the only one.

Between settlements and threats of legal action, we could still lose our rights if no company wants to make a modern multi-purpose semiautomatic long gun for fear of being drowned in a sea of litigation, or if banks and credit card companies decide to financially deplatform the Second Amendment.

Obviously, part of the answer is to strengthen the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to close off these suits. But the other part is going to be a long-term effort to deter businesses from engaging in corporate gun control. Defeating anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels is important, but it also has to be defeated in corporate suites.

---

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

from https://ift.tt/TDcI0oO
via IFTTT

Judge Issues Time Limits for Briefs in California Magazine Ban Case

USGI Metal AR-15 Magazines

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– Judge Benitez found California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition to be unconstitutional on its face. On March 29, 2017, Judge Benitez issued an injunction preventing the enforcement of the ban. In the week that followed, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of magazines were sold to California residents who had been deprived of their Second Amendment rights.

The week of March 29, 2017, to April 5, 2017, has become known as Freedom week.

The name of the case changed as the name of the California AG changed.

Subsequent court actions reversed the injunction, upheld Judge Benitez’s opinion, reversed the three-judge panel with an en banc hearing, and appealed the en banc hearing to the Supreme Court. On June 22, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Bruen case. On June 29, the Supreme Court vacated the decision by the Ninth Circuit en banc on Duncan v. Bonta and sent it back to the Ninth Circuit to be re-decided.

The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to Judge Rodger T. Benitez. Judge Benitez is now following proper procedure. He is not allowing delays. On September 26, 2022, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order as to the timing for briefs on the now Duncan v. Bonta case.

From the District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Roger T. Benitez:

On June 29, 2017, this Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) & (d) requiring persons to dispossess themselves of magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds lawfully acquired and possessed. The preliminary injunction was affirmed on appeal. Duncan v. Becerra, Appeal No. 17-56081 (9th Cir. July 17, 2018). On March 29, 2019, on summary judgment, this Court concluded that California Penal Code § 32310 is unconstitutional. On April 4, 2019, this Court made the preliminary injunction on subsections (c) and (d) permanent but stayed, pending appeal, the injunction of § 32310 (a) & (b).

This Court was again affirmed on appeal. Duncan v. Becerra, Appeal No. 19-55376 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2020). The Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc, vacated its opinion, and entered an opinion reversing the judgment of this Court.Duncan v. Bonta, Appeal No. 19-55376 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2021). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and remanded for further consideration. Duncan v. Bonta, No. 21-1194, 142 S. Ct. 2895 (June 30, 2022). The Ninth Circuit now remands the case to this Court for further proceedings in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) and the mandate has issued.

This Court hereby spreads the mandate upon the minutes of this Court. 

The Defendant shall file any additional briefing that is necessary to decide this case in light of Bruen within 45 days of this Order. Plaintiffs shall file any responsive briefing within 21 days thereafter. This Court will then decide the case on the briefs and the prior record or schedule additional hearings.

The previously entered preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and (d) for magazines able to hold more than ten rounds shall remain in effect for all those who previously acquired and possessed magazines legally (including those persons and business entities who acquired magazines between March 29, 2019 and April 5, 2019), pending further Order of this Court. Dated: September 26, 2022 

The 45 days to file briefs ends on November 10th, by my calculations; the time given for response briefs ends on November 30th.

The Miller v. Bonta case briefs will have been in and responded to about a month earlier, at the end of October.

Miller v. Bonta and Duncan v. Bonta are closely related cases about restoring Second Amendment rights.

---

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/mOQJeCw
via IFTTT

FOIA Uncovers ATF and Legacy Media Working Together

ATF Police Raid IMG 2nd instagram.com/atfhq/

SPRINGFIELD, VA -(Ammoland.com)- When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) told Representative Michael Cloud’s (R-TX) office that it held nearly one billion out of business records, Gun Owners of America (GOA) called it an illegal gun registry. The legacy media newspaper, USA Today, issued a “fact check” stating that the claim was false. Now thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by GOA and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), we know how much of a role the ATF played in determining the rating.

Last January,  the ATF answered an inquire by Rep Cloud’s office stating that it held nearly one billion records in its Out of Business Office in Martinsburg, West Virginia. The vast majority of the records were digitized, and the ATF’s Firearms Trace Center had access to the documents. Although the ATF claims the records are not searchable by anything other than the former federal firearms licensee (FFL) name, by just selecting a few options in the software, those records could be usable by using optical character recognition (OCR).

A new FOIA request by GOA and GOF shows the communication between the USA Today fact checker, ATF’s former Chief of the Public Affairs Division, April Langwell, and former ATF Associate Deputy Director Thomas Chittum. Mr. Chittum has left the ATF to work for ShotSpotter. Ms. Langwell also recently left the ATF to work as the Director of Communications for the United States Marine Corp (USMC).

In the exchange, the unnamed fact-checker asked about the alleged registry. Ms. Langwell and Mr. Chittum denied the existence of the gun registry. Mr. Chittum replied that there was no firearms registry and handed off the conversation to Ms. Langwell. Ms. Langwell repeated the claim that the database is only searchable by FFL name. She stated that the ATF doesn’t consider the digitally scanned records to be a gun registry. The fact checker did not follow up on how easy it would be to turn on optical character recognition. The fact checker seemed to accept Ms. Langwell’s claims at face value.

The issue the fact checker overlooked is that according to the email exchange, the records are stored in PDF format. The PDF file format is the product of Adobe. Adobe Acrobat is needed to read the documents in the file format. The ability to OCR documents is built into Adobe Acrobat and can be applied to a PDF in as little as two clicks.

The ATF also told USA Today that all records had been digitized as of 2017. This claim contradicts what the ATF told Congressman Michael Cloud (R-TX). The fact checker did ask Ms. Langwell about the discrepancy. The ATF repeated the claim to the fact checker that the ATF completed the move to a digital format in 2017. The fact checker never followed up on why the ATF told USA Today something different than what the Bureau told Congress. Someone received the wrong information from the ATF, and it is unclear who has the incorrect information.

GOF and GOA were deeply troubled by USA Today’s “fact checking” methods. They point out that the paper discounted the mountains of evidence and the ATF’s own statements on the matter.

“ATF openly admitted to USA Today that ‘scanning out of business records began in 2005’ and now ATF ‘processes an average of 5.5 million’ records containing private gun and owner information into its database per month,” said Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs, Gun Owners of America. “We are disappointed that this ‘journalist’ simply reported ATF’s denial of an illegal gun registry as truth, without any critical thinking whatsoever.”

USA Today did not respond to AmmoLand’s request for comment.

---

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/SQAKGq7
via IFTTT

Ohio Gun ‘Buyback’ Posturing Will Mask Democrat Failures, Endanger Public

Everybody feel safer yet now that these are in a box instead of “on the street”? iStock-1365229422

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Summit County is planning a gun buyback event to try to curb gun violence in the community,” the Akron Beacon Journal reports. “The Summit County Sheriff’s Office will facilitate the gun buyback event, spending up to $55,000 from the county’s general fund on gift cards…”

The cards will be redeemable at Dick’s Sporting Goods, of course. Ever since it turned its back on all gun owners but Fudds and hired a lobbyist to push for citizen disarmament, the woke retailer never misses an opportunity to stick it to the customers it pushed away.

That this article is one-sided in favor of the gun-grabbers and rapidly descends into non sequitur talking points and unsubstantiated claims designed to swindle the ignorant out of their rights is to be expected. The Beacon Journal is part of the USA Today/Gannett Publications network, so what else would we expect? And it’s not like they were any better before Gannett acquired them.

You could tell the Democrats who passed this ludicrous publicity stunt don’t know about its futility and wouldn’t care if they did. No less an authority than the DOJ’s National Institute of Justice concluded years ago in its “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” that:

“Evidence: Gun buybacks are ineffective as generally implemented. 1. The buybacks are too small to have an impact. 2. The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime. 3. Replacement guns are easily acquired. Unless these three points are overcome, a gun buyback cannot be effective.”

Of course, those points haven’t been overcome. Summit County’s major city, Akron, is part of the disastrous Bloomberg Coalition. So naturally, per Neighborhood Scout, 95% of U.S. cities are safer places to live. (As a personal aside, I see the neighborhood where my grandparents lived, my father grew up in, and I safely and happily played in as a young child, is now rated one of the most dangerous in this crime-ridden city.)

Not having an answer besides posturing and pretending citizens who are not responsible for the crime their policies enable will somehow turn the tide if they turn in their guns is all these frauds on the Council have.

And they couldn’t have picked a more supportive executor for their media attention grab. Sheriff Kandy Fatheree is a doctrinaire apparatchik endorsed by, among others,  our “F”-rated gun-grabber ban state rep.

“I think every single weapon needs to be registered so that we know where they’re at,” Fatheree declared in a Carroll News candidate comparison. “You have to register your car, so I don’t see any reason why a weapon shouldn’t be registered as well.”

Of course, she doesn’t. But it does explain the gun prohibitionist fixation on so-called “universal background checks,” which again, turning to the NIJ Summary we find:

“Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”

Nobody thought a law that violent criminals don’t follow is actually about safety, did they?

Speaking of which, the County Council, Sheriff Featheree, the Beacon Journal cheerleaders, and all the useful idiots parroting the “commonsense gun safety” mantra will be making things more dangerous when they hold their event. Anyone who has ever taken a person shooting for the first time could tell you why.

You don’t just hand over the gun to a novice. You explain it to them and show them how it works before you ever let them touch it. You go over Cooper’s rules, get their acknowledgment that they understand them, and then monitor and guide the novice into being able to first safely handle the firearm, and then safely shoot it.

Look at all the negligent discharges involving “trained law enforcement professionals” (the origin of my “Only Ones” Files). Inviting people of unknown training and ability (for instance an elderly widow or someone who has never touched one before) to handle and transport a gun invites disaster, especially if they have no idea how to clear a gun and think figuring out how to get the magazine out without blowing out a window or a grandchild will do the trick.

Here’s my challenge for the County Council and Sheriff Featheree: You’re enticing people of unknown abilities to handle and transport guns. You’ll no doubt tell them to make sure it’s not loaded.

How will you ensure they know how to first safely handle it and then safely do that?

How will you know whoever is turning a gun in is not using you to “fence” a stolen weapon risk-free (which is why I don’t advocate gun owners showing up and offering cash instead of cards), or dispose of a piece of evidence with “no questions asked”?

How does creating new dangers make everyone safer? Or is your position that making sure everyone who touches a gun knows how to doesn’t matter?

---

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/3GsJIbL
via IFTTT

DC Poll on Gun Control Highlights Its Failures

By Larry Keane

The recent news about major credit card companies tracking purchases at firearm retailers is ruffling feathers. IMG iStock-484139956.jpg

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The recent news about major credit card companies tracking purchases at firearm retailers is ruffling feathers. That is, with everyone except the nation’s largest gun control groups and supporters.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) announced late last month it created a firearm-specific Merchant Category Code (MCC) and it’s gone over like a lead balloon. In the nation’s Capitol, a news station tried to gauge support for the code. What should’ve been a slam dunk in one of the country’s strictest gun control cities, the exact opposite happened.

Gun Control Praise

News outlets all covered the new MCC for firearm-related purchases. The Washington Post reported, “Visa, Mastercard, AmEx to start categorizing gun shop sales,” asserting the nation’s major credit card companies all agreed to implement the new tracking code. Gun control advocates praised the news.

“Today’s announcement is a critical first step towards giving banks and credit card companies the tools they need to recognize dangerous firearm purchasing trends,” John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, said. “But this is only the first step.”

Moms Demand Action’s Shannon Watts praised the announcement too. “These new merchant codes will help banks and financial institutions track suspicious and potentially illegal gun purchases.”

New York’s Democratic Attorney General Letitia James added, “Today’s decision requiring credit cards to categorize gun sales is a big victory.”

One of the biggest cheerleaders for the new tracking code is Priscilla Sims Brown, president, and CEO of New York-based Amalgamated Bank, the gun control advocacy bank that applied for the new code from ISO. “We won,” Sims Brown stated.

Survey Says?

Law-abiding Americans see it as nothing more than overreach, even though gun control schemers are praising the code. There has been no definition by the code’s backers as to what “suspicious activity” means. No word on what the financial institutions will do with the information and what stores will specifically be coded. Americans see the ruse.

In Washington, D.C., FOX 5 News polled their audience on the new MCC. They asked, “Do you think credit card companies should track gun sales?” In a city that has some of the country’s most strict gun control laws, and whose citizens overwhelmingly vote for gun control-supportive politicians, the response was resoundingly clear.

All told, 75 percent of respondents voted “No.” That’s crystal clear. Americans understand the code isn’t about safety at all. It’s about tracking them.

Credit Card Companies Pushed

The MCC announcement came at a pertinent time. The CEOs of major banks were grilled by lawmakers last week in Washington, D.C., over the issue. Bank CEOs from Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Truist Financial Corporation, U.S. Bancorp and PNC Financial all faced questions, mostly dodged on answers and didn’t deny the banks’ consideration of implementing the code, while not outright dismissing the practice.

Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser provided only a vanilla acknowledgment while not saying the bank would reject using the code. “We respect the Second Amendment, as I said, we do not intend to use the code to restrict or limit any purchases or firearm sales by our credit card customers.”

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon was similarly coy.

“We actually don’t know what they use it for, and we don’t want to be in the business of telling American citizens what they can do with their money. We understand your concerns over the issue,” he told members of the Senate Banking Committee.

In a letter responding to U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and several senators supportive of the new tracking code, American Express Executive Vice President Brett Loper wrote, “We require merchants who accept American Express cards to adhere to all applicable laws. Our policy has been, and will remain that our customers are able to make legal firearm purchases using our Cards.”

The announcement of the new tracking code for sales at federally-licensed firearm retailers has given the country’s largest banks just enough wiggle room to avoid being specific. In most cases, they acknowledge the code was created and state they won’t use it to deny law-abiding Americans the ability to buy lawful firearms or that those Americans would be flagged by authorities for “suspicious activity.” Their answers are far from clear.

What is clear is that Americans do not support the tracking code. Even in a gun-control city like Washington, D.C.

---

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/6iXcdnR
via IFTTT

Hunting Council Masks Hostility to Founding Intent with Gun Banner’s Appointment

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends upon what the meaning of the words “responsible” and “infringe” are. (Giffords/Facebook)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The Hunting and Wildlife Conservation Council’s purpose is to provide recommendations to the Federal Government, through the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, that (a) benefit wildlife resources; (b) encourage partnership among the public; sporting conservation organizations; Federal, State, Tribal, and territorial governments; and (c) benefit fair chase recreational hunting and safe recreational shooting sports,” the Council declares on its website.

A name included among primary council members raises a red flag, particularly in how it is presented:

“Ryan Busse (Unaffiliated) representing shooting sports interests”

“The appointment of Ryan Busse to the Hunting and Wildlife Conservation Council, a federal advisory committee, is a farce and demonstrates the contempt the Biden administration holds for lawful gun owners who hunt on America’s public and private lands,” Mark Oliva, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Managing Director of Public Affairs tells AmmoLand News. Busse was listed as ‘unaffiliated,’ but that is not true. He is not an unaffiliated shooting sports interest expert.”

“He is an advisor for the Giffords gun control group and has openly advocated the ban on the most popular selling centerfire rifle in America – the Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR),” Oliva explained. “He has published a book advocating radical gun control policies.”

“Glaringly absent, however, is any representative from the firearm and ammunition industry even though the industry is responsible for the vast majority of conservation funds through the Pittman-Robertson excise tax,” Oliva continued. “To date, the firearm and ammunition industry has provided over $15.3 billion to wildlife conservation since 1937 and over $1.1 billion of the conservation funds apportioned to the states last year was directly tied to taxes paid by firearm and ammunition manufacturers.”

“The Biden administration has politicized this advisory council to legitimize Busse and the far-left gun control policies he and the gun control group he represents,” Oliva concluded. “This is a sham and doesn’t come close to representing the interests of lawful gun owners who hunt and are faithful stewards of the precious wildlife resources our nation enjoys.”

Readers here are well aware of Busse and the danger he represents to the right to keep and bear arms. Once a highly compensated industry insider, he now masks his (that is, his Giffords benefactors’) citizen disarmament goals with the obligatory big “but” qualifier:

I believe in the Second Amendment but…

“I’m still a proud gun owner who believes in responsibility,” Busse disingenuously claims. By that, he means accusing his former employers of complicity in mass murders, dissing Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawful acts of self-defense, and channeling his inner Antifa blackshirt by implying that his ideological opponents are Nazis by injecting “a Norse tattoo known to be favored by white supremacists and by the ‘QAnon’ shaman” into his argument.

How “responsible” of him.

The thing is, Busse’s hardly alone.  We’ve seen all kinds of phony Astroturf “hunter” groups show up over the years trying to recruit political support among uninformed or overtly leftist “sportsmen” who have earned a “Fudd” disparagement. I wrote an article for Firearms News a couple of years back recalling early efforts like the American Hunters and Shooters Association, and Sportsmen for Obama, and bringing things up to date with Giffords’ Gun Owners for Safety.

Interestingly, one of the Council’s alternate members, “Theodore Sedgwick … representing wildlife & habitat conservation/management organizations,” is also listed as “Unaffiliated.”

That hardly means “disinterested.”

“Sedgwick aimed to organize a chapter of ‘Sportsmen for Obama’ in every state to counter the gun lobby’s portrayal of the candidate as hostile to its interests,” The Slovak Spectator recounted in 2010 when he was rewarded for his Democrat loyalties with an ambassadorship.

Noting Oliva’s citing of the deliberate lack of industry representation, it’s fair to wonder what an analysis of the rest of the names for political affiliations would yield.

Here’s a prime example from several years back of how the prohibitionists mask their agenda and try to trick gun owners into supporting incremental infringements, “courtesy” of Michael Bloomberg’s billions and the slick ad agencies he employs:

And here’s what Giffords is doing today:

Consider what Agriculture Secretary (and gun-grabber in his own right) Tom Vilsack told CNN back when he was filling the same gig for Obama:

I view when the conversation starts, as this conversation started, with a respect for the 2nd Amendment and a recognition that there is a value system attached to it that is important, and it starts with the recognition that people do hunt and that that’s important to them — 38 percent of America either hunts or fishes. So you know, it’s a big part of the population. It’s a much deeper conversation.

How deep he’ll never let on.

They’ve never stopped using this deceptive tactic. Joe Biden used it just the other day when he told cheering and nodding Democrat apparatchiks at the National Education Association:

“Look, I support the Second Amendment.  I have two shotguns, and I’m not — I — the only thing I really do is really target practice.  I haven’t done that in a long time.”

Then came his big “but.” Actually, if you read the rest of what he said, including the stupid crap about deer in Kevlar vests and bullet speed, it was huge.

Because as the saying goes, the Second Amendment ain’t about duck hunting. Continental Congress delegate Tench Coxe made it clear, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is about the most egalitarian power-sharing arrangement ever devised:

“Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the foederal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

It’s about those “weapons of war” the violence monopolists are trying to swindle the people into turning their backs on and surrendering. It’s about tricking Americans into thinking it’s all about hunting (which they then regulate through licensing, restrictions, and lead ammunition bans that are extended to the non-sporting gun owner population). And by appointing known prohibitionists and masking their affiliations, the Hunting and Wildlife Conservation Council is doing its part to help spread the deception.

You have to wonder how many “sportsmen” realize if the collectivists succeed, their turn in the barrel was plotted out years ago, and the fanatics behind it are just waiting until the time is right.

---

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/jht81RS
via IFTTT