Insufficient Gun Owner Involvement in Unsuccessful Herrera Race Will Not Go Unnoticed

Establishment Republicans have spoken. Gun owners have responded. And Democrats couldn’t be happier. (Team Tony/Facebook)

“U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales prevails in primary runoff over gun influencer Brandon Herrera,” The Texas Tribune reported Wednesday. “The race became a referendum on the San Antonio Republican’s vote to support a bipartisan gun control package after the Uvalde school shooting.”

It also became a referendum — and a bellwether — for how involved gun owners are willing to involve themselves in the political process, and the results will no doubt encourage Democrats looking to this and the upcoming races for weaknesses to exploit, as well as Republicans looking to maintain the status quo.

Per The New York Times, with 95% of the vote tallied, Gonzales got 15,023 votes, and Herrera got 14,616. The difference between victory and loss was a mere 407 votes.

Per the U.S. Census, there were over 575,000 people over 18 in District 23 at last count. Even factoring out foreign nationals and illegal aliens who aren’t supposed to vote, that’s still an order of magnitude of eligible citizens voluntarily disenfranchising themselves.

“Measuring ownership is tricky, but there are snapshots,” The Texas Tribune noted in a 2022 analysis. “From 1980 to 2016, 46% of Texans, on average, had a firearm in their household…” Then factor in the District 23 majority is Republican down the line, president, senators, and congressman, and it’s hardly a wild leap to conjecture that 408 more votes for Herrera were more than doable.

Especially considering what big business area gun shows are. (Don’t get me started.)

Frustratingly, getting the right candidate depended on what gun owners were willing to do, and in this case, it wasn’t enough. But the community is not a monolith, so perhaps looking at types of gun owners will give clues as to where the potential for better participation exists. It’s also relevant to recall a quote attributed to the ancient Greek statesman Pericles:

“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.”

First there are Fudds, hunters and sport shooters who either aren’t involved in politics, don’t get involved unless it’s their ox being gored, are willing to throw EBR (Evil Black Rifle) owners under the bus, and worst of all, Fudds for Biden and their ilk. If they’re not persuaded by now that their turn in the barrel will come, chances are efforts to recruit them will fall on deaf ears.

Another group resistant to persuasion are the TINVOWOOTers, those who maintain “There is No Voting Our Way Out of This.” Ultimately, they may be right, who knows? And that’s the point. We don’t know when, we don’t know where, and in the meantime, we see signs that participating in citizenship and using the remarkable framework bequeathed us by the Framers can yet bear fruit: The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision on the Second Amendment and just now unanimously siding with the NRA on the First are but two examples. And regardless of the way things ultimately go for Donald Trump in court (if some government actor doesn’t take him out), perhaps enough outraged Americans, realizing that Joe Biden is an irredeemably corrupt dolt, will make a stolen election too risky to try. In any case, we could all use more time to prepare before things fall apart, and gun owners dropping out now serves no one whose intentions are good.

A third group offers promises for improvements, gun owners who attempt in various degrees to stay informed and involved. We’re talking a mixed bag, though, with some immersed in activism, joining national and state gun groups and spreading the word, and others limiting their contributions to angry comments under articles. Everyone in this group knows work needs to be done, but not everyone lends a shoulder to the wheel, so we’ll see grassroots efforts where 10% of the members do 90% of the work, and we’ll see the same ratio sharing links to important articles via emails and ADVOCACY media (“social” media is for kitten pictures).  Unfortunately, an even smaller number actively involve themselves in political campaigns and donate or do the necessary grunt work (precinct walking, campaign  banks, poll monitoring, etc.)

The Democrats beat “us” at organizing just about every time, and while there’s a bit of validity to the “we have jobs and families” excuse, in the end that’s what it is—an excuse. Plenty of us have jobs and families and still manage to do what we consider our civic duty with the time, resources, and talents that we have, and to join with like minds, find what we can do and do it. And that brings us to the fourth group, one I have no answer for.

“We have no shortage of expectations and strong opinions about what we want. But when it comes time to step up to the plate, things get awfully quiet,” I wrote in my January 2007 Rights Watch” column for Guns Magazine, “Profiles in Apathy.”

In it, I recalled three endeavors where gun owner involvement was needed, electing one of ours against a gun-grabber, supporting a man persecuted by the Democrat political establishment for his efforts to recall an “assault weapon ban” author, and a national advertising campaign to spread the word on the Second Amendment. All ultimately mirrored the story of “The Little Red Hen,” where plenty wanted to eat the bread, but good luck finding help planting wheat.

If this doesn’t change, correction, if we don’t change that, gun owners will be telling two supposedly opposite groups they can get away with more betrayals and infringements.

First will be establishment Republicans. Biden Bipartisan Gun Ban Bill backer Tony Gonzales got a big boost when NRA A-rated Gov. Greg Abbott endorsed him instead of red meat 2A Brandon Herrera. And now Tony’s out there doubling down on his betrayal – with CNN. So, when November rolls around, what are gun owners going to do? Vote for the gun-grabbing Democrat?

No wonder Vichycons feel like they can get away with feeding us anything and we’re going to keep eating it. Alternatively, why should true believers put their lives on hold and themselves out there if the people they’re trying to represent leave them hanging? (And don’t say “Libertarian” unless you’re good with “the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.”)

The Democrats are also watching and taking note. Experts at Astroturfing, they know gun owners don’t have “angels” (wrong word?) like billionaire Michael Bloomberg to finance their subversion, and our efforts, from funding lawsuits against infringements to supporting candidates, and everything in between, depend on what individuals are willing to do.

They have to be encouraged by what they’ve just witnessed. The question now is, is this what we — and they — should expect from now until November?

---

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/hGfLI0t
via IFTTT

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules for NRA in First Amendment Case Against New York

Opinion

 IMG NRA-ILA

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a historic legal victory today in one of the most closely followed First Amendment cases in the nation.

In a stinging rebuke of New York’s “blacklisting campaign” against the NRA, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled for the NRA in its case against former New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo. The decision remands the NRA’s case to the lower court – reviving the NRA’s claims that Vullo, at the behest of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, violated the NRA’s First Amendment rights when she urged banks and insurers to cut ties with the NRA in 2018.

“This victory is a win for the NRA in the fight to protect freedom,” says NRA President Bob Barr. “This is a historic moment for the NRA in its stand against governmental overreach. Let this be clear: the voice of the NRA membership is as loud and influential as ever. Regulators are now on notice: this is a win for not only the NRA, but every organization who might otherwise suffer from an abuse of government power.”

The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 18, 2024. The case is one of the most high-profile First Amendment cases in recent memory, with dozens of legal experts and constitutional scholars, including the ACLU, siding with the NRA.

“This is a moment of truth,” says NRA EVP & CEO Doug Hamlin. “The decision underscores the importance of this principled fight. When it comes to defending our members and their freedoms, the NRA will never back down.”

The opinion of the court, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, states, “Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ against a third party ‘to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment… Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that.”

“This is a landmark victory for the NRA and all who care about our First Amendment freedom,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA. “The opinion confirms what the NRA has known all along: New York government officials abused the power of their office to silence a political enemy. This is a victory for the NRA’s millions of members and the freedoms that define America.”

In the opinion, Justice Sotomayor writes that Vullo was “free to criticize the NRA” but “could not wield her power, however, to threaten enforcement actions against DFS-regulated entities in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy.”

Justice Sotomayor continues, “One can reasonably infer from the complaint that Vullo coerced DFS-regulated entities to cut their ties with the NRA in order to stifle the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy and advance her views on gun control.”

The History of the Case

In a May 2018 lawsuit, the NRA alleged that Vullo, at the urging of Governor Cuomo, took aim at the NRA and conspired to use DFS’ regulatory power to “financially blacklist” the NRA – coercing banks and insurers to cut ties with the Association to suppress its pro-Second Amendment speech. The NRA argues that Vullo’s actions were meant to silence the NRA – using “guidance letters,” backroom threats, and other measures to cause financial institutions to “drop” the Association.

The NRA’s First Amendment claims withstood multiple motions to dismiss. But in 2022, after Vullo appealed the trial court’s ruling, the Second Circuit struck down the NRA’s claims. The court ruled that in an era of “enhanced corporate social responsibility,” it was reasonable for New York’s financial regulator to warn banks and insurance companies against servicing pro-gun groups based on the supposed “social backlash” against those groups’ advocacy. The court also ruled that Vullo’s guidance – written on her official letterhead and invoking her regulatory powers – was not a directive to the institutions she regulated, but rather a mere expression of her political preferences.

On February 7, 2023, the NRA petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Second Circuit decision. On November 3, 2023, the Court granted review of the case.

Twenty-two amicus briefs representing more than 190 individuals and organizations were filed in support of the NRA’s position, including a filing by several of the nation’s foremost First Amendment scholars. The amicus briefs also included a joint filing by dozens of congressional Republicans and filings by 25 state attorneys general. The support came from across the political spectrum.

On Monday, March 18, 2024, the Court heard oral arguments in the case. ACLU National Legal Director and NRA counsel David Cole argued that Vullo and other New York officials abused their authority in violation of the First Amendment, telling the justices: “There’s no question on this record that they encouraged people to punish the NRA.” Cole said, “It was a campaign by the state’s highest political officials to use their power to coerce a boycott of a political advocacy organization because they disagreed with its advocacy.”

Eugene Volokh joined Brewer and the ACLU in representing the NRA, along with Brewer partners Sarah B. Rogers and Noah Peters.

---

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/GZd8er7
via IFTTT

American Caesar & Constitutional Indifference

Opinion
Judge Andrew Napolitano

Istock

A recent column in The Economist magazine asking if America is dictator-proof got me to thinking if our constitutional guarantees are secure.

Stated differently: Can the custodians of our constitutional norms be trusted to restrain a deliberate attempt to ignore, diminish or evade the Constitution? The short answer is: NO.

The history of what I will charitably call constitutional indifference is long and tortuous. It goes back to the earliest days of the republic when, in a period of eight years, Congress enacted and Presidents George Washington and John Adams signed into law legislation that directly defied restraints imposed upon the federal government.

And this constitutional indifference gave birth to the steady radical growth of government — usually in wartime and based on fears of foreign persons — at the expense of personal liberty.

In 1791, over a fierce and eloquent objection by then-Congressman James Madison — largely the author of the Constitution — Congress enacted a series of statutes that created the first National Bank of the United States. The bank’s purpose was to enable elites to enrich themselves by controlling the flow of cash.

Madison, in his famous Bank Speech, the best articulation of limited constitutional government by any Founding Father, argued that because the Constitution intentionally did not authorize Congress to establish a bank — it reserved banking regulation to the states — Congress was without the lawful authority to establish one. Congress enacted the legislation nevertheless.

In 1792, Congress enacted the Insurrection Act, also over Madison’s objections. That law enabled the president to declare an emergency and call upon the military to address the emergency. The definition of emergency has been and today remains the subjective choice of the president. This statute enabled the president to use federal troops to enforce federal and state laws, and to seize state militias from state governors and use them in presidentially declared emergencies for presidentially directed purposes.

And in 1798, again over Madison’s objections, and in utter defiance of the First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which criminalized public criticism of the government’s foreign policy and of the president personally.

These are the initial monstrous examples of constitutional indifference that set the government’s path on the vector of regular, consistent and systematic growth, ignoring the restraints that Madison had built into the Constitution. These early constitutional aberrations have established the precedent and the pattern in Congress for giving power to any president that will enable him or her to become an American Caesar.

Today there are around 135 of these largely unknown-to-the-public statutes that permit the president to close federal highways, confiscate bank accounts in federally insured banks and shut down the internet — all to address a self-willed emergency, all without due process, all in defiance of basic constitutional norms.

What is an emergency?

The courts have defined it as a state of affairs whereby the courts cannot sit to address due process. By that definition, we have never had an emergency in our history, including during the War Between the States and immediately after 9/11 in New York City.

Yet, with the congressionally indifferent attitude that emergency somehow creates lawful power where none existed before the so-called emergency, presidents have from time to time become Caesar.

When President Abraham Lincoln declared speech critical of his war machine to be an emergency, he claimed he was thereby able to use federal troops to arrest more than 3,000 journalists and editors in the North and confine them without charges. By the time one of those cases reached the Supreme Court, after the war’s end and Lincoln’s death, the court ruled that the Constitution tolerates no emergency powers and its plain meaning applies in good times and in bad.

Nevertheless, constitutionally indifferent presidents have defined emergency to suit their political needs and violated constitutional norms.

• President Woodrow Wilson declared the prevalence of anti-war speech during World War I to be an emergency, and thereby he claimed the emergency enabled him to arrest Princeton University students who recited the Declaration of Independence aloud outside draft offices in Trenton, New Jersey.
• President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared the presence of Americans of Japanese ancestry in the western parts of the United States to be an emergency, and thereby he claimed the emergency enabled him to arrest without charge and incarcerate more than 120,000 Americans without trial until the end of World War II.
• President George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 was an emergency that somehow authorized him to authorize the National Security Agency to spy on all Americans without suspicion, probable cause or search warrants.
• President Barack Obama claimed that the presence of Moammar Gadhafi as the leader of Libya was an American emergency such that he needed to be removed from office without a congressional declaration of war, and so he had the CIA bomb Libya.
• President Donald Trump declared the entry of undocumented immigrants into the United States at the Texas/Mexico border to be an emergency, and thereby he claimed this so-called emergency enabled him to begin construction of a border fence, in defiance of Congress, which had refused to fund it.
• President Joe Biden declared the unfulfilled obligation of former students to repay their college loans to be an emergency; thereby permitting him to forgive the loans in defiance of the Supreme Court, which ruled that only Congress can do this.

And last month, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken [NOT a President] filed documents with Congress claiming that the Israeli war in Gaza was an American emergency of such magnitude that weapons and supplies needed to be sent to the Israeli government before Congress could authorize them, and so they were sent.

The national bank is still with us, today as the Federal Reserve. The Insurrection Act remains available today for all presidents to employ on a whim. And the Alien and Seditions Acts have been reborn under the guise of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2024.

Why do we repose the Constitution for safe-keeping into the hands of those deliberately indifferent to it? Can anyone seriously argue that America is dictator-proof? Who or what will save us from those who’d crush our freedoms to enhance their own powers?

---

To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit www.JudgeNap.com. To find out more about Judge Andrew Napolitano and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

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

Oklahoma Gun Dealer Raided by ATF Takes Plea, but Serious Questions Remain

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

Russell Fincher needed three jobs just to provide for his family in Joe Biden’s economy. He taught high school history, served as a Baptist minister and sold guns and ammunition out of a small shed in the backyard of his Tuskahoma, Oklahoma home. Somehow, he also found time to coach a winning Little League team.

For reasons that are still not known, Fincher came to the attention of the ATF. A story published last year chronicled how 15 heavily armed ATF agents raided Fincher’s home June 15, handcuffed him on his deck and then yelled, screamed and threatened the 52-year-old man – in front of this 13-year-old son – until he “voluntarily” surrendered his Federal Firearm License, (FFL).

According to documents filed with the court, ATF agent Darrell Withem was responsible for the “knock and announce” during the search warrant execution. ATF agent Jon Butler carried the ballistic shield, and Agent Ben Nechiporenko took the battering ram, which was not used since Fincher opened the door and let them in. Agent Theodore Mongell led the raid.

“You’re done. We have to shut you down,” Fincher recalled Mongell saying. “You tell all your FFL buddies we are coming for them. We are shutting the gun shows down.”

The ATF agents seized dozens of Fincher’s personal firearms, which he estimated were worth more than $50,000.

“If you’re willing to forfeit them, we can make a lot of this go away,” Fincher said Mongell told him.

Russell Fincher. (Photo courtesy Russell Fincher).

Plea deal

Last November, a federal grand jury issued a three-count indictment charging Fincher with two felonies and one misdemeanor:

• Count one: Engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license, a felony.
• Count two: Selling ammunition to a prohibited person, a felony.
• Count three: Making false entry in records by a federal firearms dealer, a misdemeanor.

Fincher was arrested, booked, and released, subject to a $10,000 unsecured bond.

Fincher’s Federal Public Defender negotiated a plea agreement, in which Fincher would plead guilty to selling ammunition to a prohibited person, which is punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. Prosecutors agreed to dismiss the two remaining charges once Fincher signed the plea agreement.

The deal would keep Fincher out of prison. Both sides agreed that three years of probation would be “the appropriate disposition of the case.” The plea agreement also specified that Fincher would not contest the forfeiture of 39 firearms.

There were two major admissions Fincher would have to make if he took the plea. The first required he confess to selling firearms and ammunition without a Federal Firearm License, even though he had a valid FFL during the dates specified.

“Beginning on or about February 2, 2021, and continuing until on or about June 16, 2023, within the Eastern District of Oklahoma, I, Russell Richard Fincher, not being a licensed dealer of firearms within the meaning of Chapter 44, Title 18, United States Code and federal law, did willfully engage in the business of dealing in firearms at wholesale and retail. During this time, I devoted time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade and business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. During this time, I also devoted time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade and business to predominately earn a profit though the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. Finally, during this time period, the firearms I sold were not for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby and were not part of my personal collection of firearms, and I did this with the knowledge that my conduct was unlawful,” the plea agreement states.

The second admission concerned Fincher’s alleged sale of ammunition to a prohibited person. It does not say how Fincher should have known that the purchaser was a prohibited person. Like most states, Oklahoma does not require background checks for ammunition purchases.

“Within the above-mentioned time period, specifically, on or about May 5, 2023, I, Russell Richard Fincher, also knowingly sold sixty (60) rounds of Sig Sauer branded .40 S&W ammunition to C.I., knowing and having reasonable cause to believe that C.I. had been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” the plea agreement states.

There was no elocution-type statement in the plea agreement pertaining to the misdemeanor charge of making false entries in records of a federal firearm dealer.

Fincher signed the plea agreement on May 17, along with his Federal Public Defender, Brian Deer, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua Satter, who prosecuted the case.

As of Wednesday, Fincher has not yet been sentenced by the court.

Although he spoke freely for a previous story, Fincher did not return calls seeking comment for this story. It is not difficult to understand why he took the plea. Few people have the financial resources to defend themselves against the full weight of the United States Government, and a prison sentence would have destroyed his family.

Unanswered questions

Fincher’s original indictment was sealed by the court. Only a redacted version is available through the federal court’s public access computer system. It contains no information on the ATF investigation that led to the search warrant, raid and arrest.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua Satter declined to comment about the investigation, and referred questions to Assistant U.S. Attorney Jarrod Leaman, prosecutor and public information officer for the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

Leaman would not say why Fincher was charged with engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license, when he had a valid FFL.

“Litigation is still pending,” Leaman said Wednesday. “I cannot comment outside the four corners of the indictment.”

Instead, Leaman pointed to count three of Fincher’s indictment, the misdemeanor charge that accused him of making false entries in records by an FFL. The indictment alleges Fincher falsely recorded in his Acquisition and Disposition book that several firearms, mostly Palmetto State Armory lower receivers, were transferred to a party identified as “T.F.,” when they were not actually transferred.

Leaman would not say how Fincher was supposed to know that the ammunition purchaser, identified only as “C.I.” was a prohibited person.

“I can’t comment on that subject matter,” he said.

Neither would Leaman say if “C.I.” referred to the purchaser’s initials or stood for “confidential informant.”

“I can’t comment about that,” Leaman said.

Takeaways

The real question doesn’t involve who bought a couple boxes of ammo, or what Fincher wrote in his A&D book.

The real question is, why would ATF bother with a guy like Fincher at all?

During a recent hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, ATF Director Steve Dettelbach claimed his agents target trigger-pullers, shooters and gun traffickers, the “worst of the worst.”

Nowadays, hardcore gang members control many historically blue cities, and Mexican drug cartel sicarios operate with impunity on both sides of our porous border. These are murderous, heavily armed psychopaths and certainly qualify as Dettelbach’s “worst of the worst.” However, the ATF isn’t pursuing them with the same vigor they’ve shown for softer targets, like Baptist ministers and sleepy airport executives.

Fincher’s case involved a perilous SWAT-type raid, the forfeiture of $50,000 worth of firearms, a teenager who was seriously traumatized and a high-school teacher, clergyman and respected member of his community with no previous criminal history who is now a convicted felon, all for the violation of a single ATF rule – the very definition of a victimless crime.

I asked Leaman if this constituted justice.

“I don’t have any comment outside of the four corners of the plea agreement,” he said.

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/iw50Vzr
via IFTTT

NRA’s Political Victory Fund Endorses Utah Governor Spencer Cox for Re-election 2024

Opinion

NRA’s Political Victory Fund Endorses Utah Governor Spencer Cox for Re-election

The National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is proud to announce its full endorsement of Governor Spencer Cox in the 2024 Utah Primary Election as he seeks re-election for a second term as Governor of the State of Utah. Governor Cox received an “A+” rating from NRA-PVF, the highest grade possible, for being a steadfast defender of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

This endorsement recognizes Governor Cox’s unwavering commitment to the Second Amendment and his dedicated efforts to protect Utahans’ rights to defend themselves and their families during his tenure as Governor.

“As Governor, Spencer Cox signed critical legislation into law to guarantee the freedoms of law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen in the Beehive State,” said Randy Kozuch, NRA-PVF Chairman. “As a result of enacting permitless carry into law, citizens in Utah can now exercise their constitutional right to conceal carry without first having to obtain government permission. This was a tremendous victory in the continued fight to defend Second Amendment rights.”

In a time where misguided calls for restrictive gun control are rampant, Spencer Cox’s resolute stance to expand gun rights in the face of immense national pressure shows he can be trusted to carry our precious freedoms forward into another term as Governor. NRA members are encouraged to amplify this endorsement and rally behind a Governor whose track record undeniably accentuates the rights and liberties of Utah’s law-abiding gun owners.

“Governor Cox’s steadfast dedication to the Second Amendment is evident in his numerous enactments as Governor including signing legislation that enhanced Utah’s firearm preemption law and, most recently, legislation that provides important financial privacy protections for gun owners when purchasing firearms and ammunition,” added Kozuch.

“NRA and our millions of members are confident that Governor Cox will relentlessly advocate for our Second Amendment rights and continue to advance our fundamental liberties. In Governor Cox, Utah would continue to have a strong champion who will defend against any erosion to our constitutional freedoms.”

The National Rifle Association urges all its dedicated members and Second Amendment proponents in Utah to rally behind Governor Spencer Cox in the imminent election, ensuring that Utah continues to shine as a symbol of freedom and constitutionally protected rights.

Read Governor Spencer Cox’s full NRA endorsement letter.

---

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/6EQgevp
via IFTTT

A New Day Dawns at the NRA, Are Reform Efforts Paying Dividends?

Opinion

istock 861879906

The NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Dallas were held between May 15 and May 20, 2024, including meetings of various committees of the Board of Directors throughout the period, the Exhibit Hall with various seminars and presentations on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, the Annual Meeting of Members on Saturday, and a meeting of the NRA Board of Directors on Monday.

The big news came from the NRA Board of Directors meeting on Monday, May 20, in which the leadership of the NRA changed hands.

With the exception of the presidency, reform candidates ran the table resulting in a new direction for the 153-year-old Association. First Vice-President Bob Barr beat out a strong challenge from Owen “Buz” Mills, a retired businessman and the owner of Gunsite Academy. The 1st VP chair was filled by reform candidate Bill Bachenberg. The 2nd VP chair went to reform candidate Mark Vaughan, and in the most surprising election, the position of Interim Executive Vice President and CEO went to reform candidate Doug Hamlin over popular firearm designer and manufacturer Ronnie Barrett.

This shift bodes well for the NRA. Members have been deeply troubled by lawsuits and scandals for the past five years and have shown their displeasure by sending four reform candidates, including myself, to the Board of Directors. In that time, the former NRA regime has reportedly spent in excess of $200 million on attorney fees and “crisis communications” in an effort to avoid accountability for mismanagement and blatant corruption within its highest echelons. At the same time, membership has fallen precipitously, as have revenues.

Now, the Association faces a major reorganization, with self-proclaimed reformers holding three of the top four officer positions and former Congressman Bob Barr holding the presidency. That reorganization started almost immediately with the appointment of Mike Blaz, a longtime, in-house attorney for the NRA, to replace John Frazer as the Association’s General Counsel. Frazer remains as the Association’s Secretary, despite having been found to have filed false financial reports by the jury in the recent trial in New York. One of his top deputies had challenged him but had sufficient support within the Board to remain as Secretary. Joe DeBergalis was hired back to be Executive Director of General Operations. DeBergalis was fired unexpectedly by Wayne LaPierre shortly before Christmas and replaced by Andrew Arulanandam.

A few weeks later, LaPierre announced his intention to resign for “health reasons,” putting Arulanandam in line to fill his seat. Arulanandam is now effectively out of the picture.

President Barr was elevated to the leadership last year when then-President Charles Cotton was allowed to be elected to a third term. An emergency Bylaw amendment was passed to allow the third term, and the then-First Vice President Willes Lee, who would have been expected to be elected President, was passed over by the Nominating Committee in favor of Barr for the First Vice President chair.

Barr is not widely considered to have been an active “insider” over the past several years, and reformers believe they can successfully work with him for the good of the Association and members.

The road ahead is a rocky one, but not nearly as rocky as it would have been had the previous leadership cabal retained power. That group is composed of Directors who appear to remain loyal to Wayne LaPierre and his legal advisor Bill Brewer, while apparently being blind to reality. As I’ve said repeatedly over the past 5+ years, there’s no question that New York AG Letitia James hates the NRA and NRA members and that her investigation and prosecution of the Association and its leaders were motivated predominantly by that hatred and her own political ambitions. That perspective is shared by the intransigent former NRA leadership, but their analysis appears to stop right there, while the reformers and I – and just about everyone else who’s ever looked into the situation – clearly see that there’s much more to the story.

All the hatred and political ambition in the world wouldn’t have allowed AG James to get as far as she has with her suit against the NRA if Wayne LaPierre and his enablers on the board had not opened the door for her with their improper actions.

The situation reminds me of a guy who gets into a beef with a local cop, then is later arrested by that cop after the guy drives drunk and careens his car through the front of a 7-11. All the guy can talk about is that the cop was out to get him while he ignores the fact that it’s his car that’s burning in the front window of the convenience store and his blood test that came back at three times the legal limit for alcohol. Sure, the cop might have it in for him, but that doesn’t explain or excuse the flaming car.

At this point, the fire is almost out, and most of those responsible for starting it, providing fuel for it, or fanning the flames, are gone or muted. There are many who stood by and failed to pick up a fire extinguisher or pull the fire alarm, but it will be up to the membership to decide whether those folks deserve to retain their positions of trust or be replaced by fresh faces in coming elections. What’s important now is ensuring the new leadership team has the resources to affect significant and enduring changes.

For a long time, I’ve said that I couldn’t in good conscience advise anyone to join the NRA or make extra contributions, but I am now changing my position.

The recovery has begun, and there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. I can’t blame anyone for being skeptical and wanting to take a wait-and-see posture, but if you wait too long, it could be too late. We’re trying hard to restore trust in the Association, rebuild basic services, reestablish old relationships, and regain the moral high ground. The problem is, we’re starting from deep in a hole. Of course, the first rule for when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. With the elections in Dallas, the NRA and its leadership have stopped digging and begun the process of trying to climb out of the hole. We could sure use some help with that. Our financial situation is dire, and that could be greatly improved by even a small uptick in membership and contributions. We’ll be seeking additional support from our friends in the industry who have, like many of our members, taken a step back in recent years. Being able to show them improvements in the support we’re receiving from the rank and file would be a great help.

As I said, NRA is not out of the woods yet, but we’re moving in the right direction, and with your help, we can move mountains. Your support of our “Four for Reform” election efforts made a significant impact, and we greatly appreciate them. I have no doubt you will continue to monitor the situation and hold us accountable on our road to recovery and restoration – as you should.

Hopefully, that road won’t be too long and will get easier as we go.

Thank you.

---

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.

The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona, and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

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

Surprisingly 9th Circuit Overturns Federal Gun Law, But the Comments Highlight Bigger Problems ~ VIDEO

In a groundbreaking decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with felon gun owners in the case of United States v. Duarte, overturning a federal law that prohibited felons, including non-violent offenders, from possessing firearms. This decision, which has stirred significant controversy, is seen as a victory by many Second Amendment advocates.

Understanding the Case

The case centers on Mr. Duarte, who had five non-violent felony convictions. In March 2020, during a traffic stop, Duarte was found in possession of a firearm, which he attempted to discard. He was subsequently indicted under 18 USC Sec. 922(g)(1), a law barring felons from owning firearms. Duarte’s defense, led by federal public defenders, argued that this law infringed on his Second Amendment rights.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit applied the analytical framework from the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. They concluded that Duarte’s right to bear arms for self-defense is protected by the Second Amendment and that the government failed to provide historical precedent to justify the lifelong ban on firearm possession for non-violent felons.

Key Points from the Decision

1. Second Amendment Protections: The court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to all American citizens, including those with non-violent felony convictions. The judges emphasized that the right to bear arms is an individual right belonging to “the people,” which includes Duarte.
2. Historical Context: The court found no historical tradition supporting a lifelong ban on firearm possession for non-violent felons. The government’s reliance on past precedents was insufficient under the Bruen framework.
3. Government’s Argument: The government argued that felons are not part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, suggesting that only “virtuous citizens” have this right. The court rejected this argument, highlighting that such an interpretation could extend dangerously to other constitutional rights.

Controversial Points and Public Reaction

The decision has ignited a firestorm of responses, with many comments revealing deep-seated frustrations and controversial viewpoints. Here are some of the most brilliant points made by astute viewers:

Rehabilitation and Rights:

@The_Privateer encapsulates this sentiment: “If you’re ‘rehabilitated’ enough to be released back into public circulation, you’re also rehabilitated enough to be able to exercise all rights.”

A dominant theme among commenters is the belief that individuals who have served their sentences should have their rights fully restored. @The_Privateer encapsulates this sentiment: “If you’re ‘rehabilitated’ enough to be released back into public circulation, you’re also rehabilitated enough to be able to exercise all rights.” This viewpoint is supported by the decision, which emphasizes that Duarte had completed his sentence for non-violent offenses and should, therefore, be entitled to his Second Amendment rights.

Government Overreach and Arbitrary Laws:

@chasedavidson2855 points out, “The problem with ‘law-abiding citizens’ is the government can make a law-abiding citizen a law-breaker overnight by passing a law.”

Many commenters expressed concerns about the potential for government overreach. @chasedavidson2855 points out, “The problem with ‘law-abiding citizens’ is the government can make a law-abiding citizen a law-breaker overnight by passing a law.” This aligns with the court’s analysis, which discusses the broad and often arbitrary nature of laws that can instantly criminalize previously lawful behavior, thus stripping individuals of their rights.

Taxation and Citizenship:

A recurring argument made by several commenters, including @user-gk4xt1mm5m and @Couldnt_let_J.Marston_die, is the inconsistency of denying felons their Second Amendment rights while still requiring them to pay taxes. They argue that if felons are not considered part of “the people” for gun rights, then they should not be obligated to pay taxes either. This painfully valid point is indirectly supported by the case decision, which highlights the flawed logic in the government’s arguments about who qualifies as “the people.”

Historical Precedents and Legal Shifts:

@liquidsmokemustang1537 brings up the historical context, noting that before the 1968 Gun Control Act, felons were not prohibited from owning firearms after serving their time.

@liquidsmokemustang1537 brings up the historical context, noting that before the 1968 Gun Control Act, felons were not prohibited from owning firearms after serving their time. The video’s breakdown of the court’s reasoning reinforces this point, which found no historical tradition supporting the categorical ban imposed by 18 USC Sec. 922(g)(1).

If You Did Your Time, Keep Your Guns

The 9th Circuit’s decision in United States v. Duarte not only fuels Second Amendment rights but has also highlighted broader issues of government overreach, arbitrary lawmaking, and the rehabilitation of felons.

This ruling underscores the fundamental belief held by many in the gun rights community: that the right to bear arms is intrinsic to all American citizens, regardless of their past non-violent offenses.

As the fight for our rights continues, the conversation around Second Amendment rights, rehabilitation, and government authority remains as vital and contentious as ever. This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of defending constitutional rights and the ongoing struggle to balance public safety with individual freedoms.

---

Read Related:

• Challenging the Status Quo: The Case for Allowing Convicted Felons to Exercise 2nd Amendment Rights

• What Happens When Millions of Gun Owners Become Felons May 31st 2023?

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

Your Gun Rights Hang by a Single Vote in the Nevada State Senate, VOTE!

Go out and vote! The fate of the Second Amendment and the Republic as a whole are at stake. iStock-1271805899

Primary voting is again upon the Silver State, with early voting starting Saturday, 25 May.

Much is at stake for gun owners this cycle, because the Republican Governor Joe Lombardo’s veto power hangs on one seat in the state Senate.

If the Democratic-controlled Assembly keeps their super-majority, and the Democrats in the state Senate add one more seat, they will have a super-majority in both chambers, and Governor Lombardo’s veto will be just a ceremonial exercise, capable of being over-ridden at the whim of the Democrats.

NVFAC and its PAC are non-partisan, but as you have heard me say many times, in this political moment in the life of the American republic, Democrats are more likely to be anti-gun and anti-self-defense, while Republicans are more likely to be pro-gun-rights and pro-self-defense.

One interesting fact of the 2022 election is that over 150,000 registered Republican voters stayed home from the polls, while Adam Laxalt lost his U. S. Senate race to Catherine Cortes Masto by 8,000 votes.

You read that right. 150 thousand registered Republicans didn’t vote in 2022, and Cortes Masto won by 8,000 votes.

Why didn’t those 150,000 Republicans vote that year?

Only they know.

I’ve heard a lot of gun owners in my time say they don’t vote because they don’t want to be called for jury duty, as juries are called from voter roll lists.

I hope you’re not that guy. Our liberties are maintained by three boxes: the ballot box, the cartridge box, and the jury box.

One of the best things you can do to defend our gun rights, and all of our rights and liberties, is to vote, maintain your legal arms and ammunition, and serve on juries.

Politicians like to say, especially in recent years, that this election is the most important election of our lifetime.

For citizens who value their rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms, this time it’s true.

As patriots and lawful gun owners and as freedom-loving Americans, you will not like what you get from our legislature if the Silver State’s crop of Democrats are able to override Joe Lombardo’s vetoes.

Your calls and letters to the legislature and Joe Lombardo’s veto were the only things that saved us from some bad anti-gun bills during the last session.

Nevada Firearms Coalition PAC Endorsements 2024

The same people who wrote and passed those bad anti-gun rights bills last session are still around, working and hoping and praying that they can keep their Assembly super-majority and gain a Senate super-majority so they can pass more infringements on your and my Second Amendment rights.

I urge you to vote in the Primary election, to help preserve the Governor’s veto.

I also urge you to vote early, to bank those pro-2A votes early so we don’t win on election day only to lose after the absentee ballots are counted days after Election Day.

Encourage your friends, family, and like-minded people to register to vote, and to vote, and vote early!! Your gun rights hang by a single vote in the state Senate. Don’t be the guy who loses them for all of us by not voting.

Click here to see NVFAC PAC’s endorsed candidates for Assembly and Senate.

Yours in Liberty,

Randy

Duncan Rand Mackie
President, NVFAC PAC

---

Nevada Firearms Coalition PAC

The Nevada Firearms Coalition-PAC was created as the political arm of the Nevada Firearms Coalition. Our mission is to support responsible, pro-gun policies and likeminded political candidates, and we will oppose all efforts to infringe on our 2nd Amendment Rights and candidates who support increased gun control. www.nvfacpac.org

from https://ift.tt/gafPrJ9
via IFTTT

Military Cemetery Gun Bans an Affront to Patriots Who Died Fighting for Freedom

“Memorial Day is a day of remembrance. We remember those no longer with us. We remember what they fought for. We remember the sacrifices they made while serving our country. Forever and always, we honor their legacy.” (IMG U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs/Facebook)

“On Memorial Day and the days leading up to it, Americans from across the country will gather at cemeteries and memorials to honor and remember the service members who sacrificed everything in defense of our nation and freedoms,” VA News announced Wednesday.

“VA is hosting ceremonies in honor of Memorial Day at VA National Cemeteries and invites everyone to join with Veterans and their families at these events taking place on and around Memorial Day weekend.”

Honoring those who “gave the last full measure of devotion” is a fitting obligation for those of us who recognize how profoundly we have benefited from the ultimate sacrifices of the fallen.

Attending memorial parades is nice, family gatherings and picnics, where expressing solemn gratitude for those who met untimely ends, is fitting, and, when feasible, visiting a VA Cemetery to place flowers, remember, and reflect is humbling and good for the soul.

However, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs bureaucracy, with the full force of the government behind it to require that we first surrender a fundamental right, is being arrogant and demeaning, both to the living and to the memories of those who never made it back to the grieving families they loved. So, if you decide to take the Department up on its invitation, just keep in mind that if you believe in the Second Amendment, you’ll either need to forfeit the right while on their premises or keep things hidden and hope you don’t get caught.

As per the Ohio Western Reserve National Cemetery (where my parents rest):

VA regulations 38 CFR 1.218 prohibit the carrying of firearms (either openly or concealed), explosives or other dangerous or deadly weapons while on VA property, except for official purposes, such as military funeral honors. Possession of firearms on any property under the charge and control of VA is prohibited. Offenders may be subject to a fine, removal from the premises, or arrest.

Here’s the law in question:

Weapons and explosives. No person while on property shall carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes… [Penalty for] Possession of firearms, carried either openly or concealed, whether loaded or unloaded (except by Federal or State law enforcement officers on official business, $500… Violations included in the schedule of offenses and penalties may also subject an offender to a term of imprisonment of not more than six months, as may be determined appropriate by a magistrate or judge of the United States District Court.”

“Subject to… arrest” means armed government enforcers can require you to surrender your person to them – or else. “While on VA property” means parking lots included, just like at the Post Office. That means leaving your tools of defense at home and hoping nothing makes you regret what happens on your trip to and from (it takes me 45 minutes each way) – or taking a risk and hoping you don’t get caught.

That’s one hell of a way for citizens to memorialize their gratitude for freedom!?

There is no valid reason the government can give that should supersede the rights of deceased veterans’ survivors, certainly nothing that would comply with the Bruen standard of history, text, and tradition at the time the Constitution was ratified. There is also no apparent move to rectify this infringement (what other word could be used?) with a bill from our “A-rated” Congressional representatives who rely on gun owners’ support for their positions of privilege and power (maybe you can find one).

Will one be submitted when there’ll be a chance of passage (if Republicans manage not to blow it in November)? While we absolutists would prefer to see all bans immediately lifted, realistically, that is not going to happen without effort and support that does not appear to be forthcoming. That said, as with National Parks, there is no reason military cemeteries should not defer to the laws of the state in which they exist.

And the same goes for Donald Trump, who has made a great show of recruiting our support, especially while riding high with NRA’s endorsement and his newly formed “Gun Owners for Trump” coalition. Will he call for Congress to show political courage, uphold their oaths, and pledge to sign a bill overturning the National Cemetery gun ban?

And if not, why not?

It’s not like those who already hate him will hate him – or us – more.

---

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/nphmrHX
via IFTTT

NRA’s Political Victory Fund Endorses President Donald J. Trump ~ VIDEO

Opinion

Last week, the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is honored to announce its full endorsement of President Donald J. Trump for re-election to a second term as President of the United States of America. NRA-PVF Chairman Randy Kozuch announced the endorsement at the 2024 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits in Dallas, TX.

This endorsement is a recognition of President Trump’s unwavering support of the Second Amendment and his dedication to protecting the constitutional right of Americans to defend themselves and their families. As an NRA Life Member, President Trump has proven his strong, personal commitment to the Second Amendment and the rich American tradition of firearm ownership.

The NRA-PVF first endorsed President Trump in May of 2016, helping him secure the Republican nomination and defeat Hillary Clinton. Since then, he has been a steadfast advocate for NRA members and the Second Amendment—including his promise in 2016 to never let NRA members down.

“On behalf of NRA members, the NRA’s Political Victory Fund is proud to endorse President Donald J. Trump’s re-election campaign,” said Randy Kozuch, Chairman of NRA-PVF. “A second term for President Trump is a victory for the Second Amendment. NRA members recognize that we are the torchbearers for liberty, and we are in a generational fight for freedom. With President Trump, we had a powerful champion in the White House who always fought for our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and come November, we will return him to the Oval Office.”

This endorsement is more than an announcement, but a commitment from NRA and its millions of members nationwide to mobilize to help President Trump build an unbeatable ground game, especially in critical swing states where NRA members could be the key to President Trump’s re-election victory. This mobilization includes a vast scope of voter outreach efforts, including a comprehensive GOTV program, grassroots organizing and activation, election integrity initiatives, voter education, and on-the-ground deployment of NRA volunteers in every battleground state in the country.

“NRA members are not just spectators in the political arena. We turn our beliefs into action,” continued Kozuch. “The NRA Political Victory Fund is fully committed to this fight because we know this is a battle we can’t afford to lose. We are committed, like never before, to reclaim the White House for President Trump and once again demonstrate the political power of the NRA and its members.”

The National Rifle Association calls upon its members and all supporters of the Second Amendment to stand with President Donald J. Trump in the upcoming election, ensuring America remains a beacon of liberty, freedom, and civil rights.

NRA’s Political Victory Fund Endorses President Donald J. Trump

---

Gun rights supporters and NRA members are encouraged to visit the NRA-PVF’s website at www.nrapvf.org to learn more about the endorsement of Donald J. Trump as the 47^th President of the United States of America.

 

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

Self-Reliance & Protection: Lessons from Safed, Israel for American Gun Owners

Opinion

iStock-13287975

A significant change is happening in the historic town of Safed, Israel. Once known for its ancient Jewish mysticism, this town is now a hub for civilian armament. The reasons behind this shift offer valuable lessons for American gun owners who believe in self-reliance and community defense.

Self-Reliance & Community Defense

Eyal Ben-Ari, a resident of Safed, joined a civilian militia to protect his family. Initially, he was uncomfortable with carrying a weapon. The idea of sleeping with a gun under his pillow and the presence of a real firearm in his home, especially after his 13-year-old son brought home a toy replica, made him uneasy. However, as he faced the reality of the threats around him, he realized it was necessary for their safety.

Eyal’s story resonates with many Americans who support the Second Amendment. For us, the right to bear arms is not just about owning a gun; it’s about having the means to protect ourselves, our families, and our communities when the situation demands it.

Eyal’s experience highlights a crucial point: armed citizens can make all the difference in a crisis, especially when official responses are delayed or inadequate.

Consider a scenario where police have been defunded, and law enforcement or even military response is slow. Just as in Safed, where Hezbollah’s rockets posed a constant threat, there are times when immediate action is required to protect loved ones and property. Eyal’s decision to join a civilian militia reflects a broader principle of self-reliance and readiness that many American gun owners hold dear. It’s about being prepared and ensuring that we can defend our homes and communities, no matter what.

Eyal’s journey also underscores the responsibility that comes with gun ownership. It’s not about seeking confrontation but being prepared to protect when necessary. This mindset aligns with that of many responsible gun owners in America who undergo training and follow strict safety protocols. They understand that owning a gun is a serious commitment and approach it with the gravity it deserves.

Safed’s experience shows how crucial armed citizens can be in times of crisis. Eyal Ben-Ari’s story is a powerful reminder of the importance of being prepared and the role that responsible, armed citizens can play in safeguarding their communities. Whether in Safed, ISRL, or in towns across America, the principles of self-reliance, responsibility, and readiness make our communities resilient in the face of threats.

Government Support & Civic Responsibility

Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, supports increasing civilian gun ownership, believing that “weapons save lives.” This mirrors the beliefs of many American pro-gun advocates who emphasize responsible gun ownership. The Israeli government’s trust in its citizens to defend their communities is a powerful example of how armed civilians can play a key role in ensuring safety.

In America, law-abiding gun owners undergo multiple background checks and training, in some cases, to prove that they can handle firearms responsibly. Safed’s example reinforces the idea that armed citizens are an essential part of community safety.

Balancing Security & Morality

Safed’s blend of spirituality and security challenges offers a unique perspective. Residents, including religious leaders and artists, show that it’s possible to value peace while recognizing the need for self-defense. This is important for American gun owners who face criticism. Responsible gun ownership isn’t about promoting violence; it’s about being ready to protect our loved ones and maintain peace.

Stay Armed

The NYTimes.com story of Safed teaches us about the importance of civilian armament in protecting communities. As Americans, we can learn from their resilience and commitment to self-reliance. By continuing to embrace responsible gun ownership, we uphold our dedication to protecting our families, communities, and freedoms.

Just as Safed’s residents have taken up arms to defend their way of life, we must stay vigilant and prepared. This honors the spirit of the Second Amendment and supports the values of self-reliance and community defense that define the American way.

Read Related: Gun Carrying Church Deacon Foils Burglary in Beaumont, Texas

---

About Tred Law

Tred Law is your everyday patriot with a deep love for this country and a no-compromise approach to the Second Amendment. He does not write articles for Ammoland every week, but when he does write, it is usually about liberals Fing with his right to keep and bear arms.

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

Pro-Gun Safe Firearm Storage Nonprofit in Serious Financial Crisis

Sarah Joy Albrecht is founder and executive director of Hold My Guns®, a liberty-based nonprofit that connects donors and FFLs to provide crisis services to their communities. (Photo courtesy Hold My Guns®)

The small Pennsylvania-based nonprofit Hold My Guns® describes itself as “for gun owners, by gun owners.” Its mission is to “connect responsible firearm owners with voluntary firearms storage, through our national network of partnering FFLs, during times of mental health crisis or personal need.”

The process is simple. If a gun owner wants to securely store their weapons, they go to the website, find a participating Federal Firearm Licensee in their area, bring in their guns, fill out a contract and agree to pay a small fee for firearm storage, usually $5-$20 per month. When they pick up their guns, they fill out an ATF Form 4473, which makes the process compliant with ATF’s custodial storage regulations, and then take their guns home.

Sarah Joy Albrecht, founder and executive director of Hold My Guns®, says gun owners have used their safe storage during military deployments, while on vacation, during a difficult divorce, after a watermain break, while they cared for an at-risk foster child, and if someone is struggling with mental health.

“If people have a way to store firearms with family and friends who they trust, it’s not always ideal to take their firearms to an FFL. However, not everyone is blessed with friends or family who can help. That’s how we can meet their needs as a community who cares,” Albrecht said. “And it’s not always the gun owner who is the person at risk, but it’s the gun owner being responsible for their household.”

Second Amendment attorney Joshua Prince of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group®, serves as the nonprofit’s legal counsel. Prince developed the contracts used by the FFLs, which have sections for state and local laws pertaining to firearm transfers and guided the group through ATF’s regulatory pitfalls.

Albrecht described Hold My Guns® as a “liberty-based” nonprofit. She pointed out that when she refers to gun safety, she actually means gun safety, not gun control. Throughout the process, the gun owner’s privacy is tantamount, especially given today’s “red flag climate.”

Albrecht didn’t hesitate when asked about her nonprofit’s biggest success:

“Someone went with a friend to drop off their guns at a storage partner, who could tell there was something going on. It’s hard to bring in your firearms, but they were grateful for the help. A month or two later when they picked them up, the gun owner was smiling. It was clear that whatever the situation was, it was not much of a problem anymore. There was a sense of happiness and relief. The gun owner was proud of themselves for being able to manage the situation and grateful for the service,” she said.

Secure funding needed

During 2022, the nonprofit’s FFLs stored five firearms. During 2023, 144 firearms were stored.

As of this week, Hold My Guns® had nine volunteer FFLs in its network. Albrecht is the nonprofit’s only paid employee, and she doesn’t take home much.

At a board meeting Monday night, Albrecht announced the nonprofit had only three months of funding left.

“We need a secure funding source that will allow us to continue,” she told the Second Amendment Foundation Tuesday. “We have turned down funding that had gun control attached. I have to be able to sleep at night, and I need to make sure there are no strings attached to any gun control. It’s important that those investing in our mission are staunch Second Amendment supporters.”

“We need more FFLs, and we need a funding source that doesn’t include any form of gun control,” Albrecht said. “It’s the only way we can keep going. We are doing this for our own community, to be able to equip them with this service if it’s ever needed. We want to be able to meet our community’s needs.”

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/vzd0HTi
via IFTTT