On December 2, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) attempted and failed to pass H.R. 8, the dangerously flawed, so-called “universal” background check bill. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On December 2, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) attempted and failed to pass H.R. 8, the dangerously flawed, so-called “universal” background check bill. As you may recall, Nancy Pelosi and her anti-gun allies in the U.S. House passed this misguided legislation earlier this year. H.R. 8 would do nothing to prevent crime, could not be enforced without a federal gun registry, and would turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals for simply loaning a firearm to friends or family members.
Sen. Murphy tried to bypass regular order, normally consisting of a committee hearing and markup, and instead offered a “unanimous consent” request to pass H.R. 8. Under unanimous consent, the Senate can pass legislation without any debate or a recorded vote. Fortunately for law-abiding gun owners, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, objected to Sen. Murphy’s unanimous consent request–effectively blocking H.R. 8 from moving forward.
In response, Sen. Grassley offered an alternative unanimous consent request for S.1775, the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act of 2021–legislation that would actually reduce violent crime while bolstering protections for law-abiding gun owners.
S. 1775 would increase prosecutions and penalties for those that violate the myriad of gun laws already on the books –an approach NRA has supported for decades. Further, the bill would ensure that National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) contains appropriate records so the system is fast, accurate, and fair. Moreover, S. 1775 would prevent Americans from being unjustly stripped of their Second Amendment rights without due process, as well as strengthen protections for the interstate transportation of firearms and ammunition.
Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, Sen. Murphy objected to S. 1775’s consideration. This objection is merely more evidence that Sen. Murphy and his gun control allies in the U.S. Senate are not interested in prosecuting criminals or ensuring constitutional protections, but instead seek to limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.
Sen. Murphy’s failed attempt to ram H.R. 8 through the U.S. Senate is a good reminder that NRA members and Second Amendment supporters must remain vigilant against any and all attempts to limit that right. We applaud Sen. Grassley for standing up to protect the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans.
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
“Our murder rate is the highest it’s been in two decades and I’m old enough to remember Richmond as the murder capital of America and we can’t go back there…”
AG-Elect Miyares mentioned that he wanted to further implement crime prevention such as “Project Exile,” a program championed by the National Rifle Association in the ‘90s and launched in Richmond, VA when the city had one of the highest homicide rates in the nation.
Project Exile was simple; if you are arrested for committing a crime while possessing a firearm, you don’t deserve to remain in the community. Project Exile added a minimum of five years to your sentence if you were convicted. Following the implementation of this program, Richmond’s overall crime rate plummeted.
AG-Elect Miyares’ commitment is in direct contrast to his predecessor, Attorney General Mark Herring, who has spent eight years reducing charges for repeat violent criminals and committing to unduly punish law-abiding gun owners. Before losing the 2021 Virginia election, AG Mark Herring had this to say when asked about rising crime rates despite having already imposed his gun control agenda:
“It means that we need to continue building on the progress that we’ve started,” Herring said. “I’ve got a proven record of standing up to the gun lobby.”
This response alone is all you need in order to understand why Virginians don’t feel safe. Violent crime is on the rise, residents are looking for help, and AG Mark Herring would only tout his commitment to fight against our Second Amendment rights and impose more anti-gun laws, instead of actually working to prevent crime.
Incoming Attorney General Jason Miyares has a lot on his plate when he begins in 2022. Stay-tuned to NRA-ILA Alerts for more updates.
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
ATF To Launch New eForms Platform for NFA Transfers
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Earlier today, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announced the imminent launch of a new electronic system for NFA transfers. Known as the eForms system, this overdue modernization will allow consumers to submit both ATF Forms 1 and 4 electronically, hopefully resulting in a significant decrease in transfer times when compared to traditional paper Forms.
According to ATF, the transition to the new system will occur sometime after December 15th, but before Christmas. The new eForms system will handle all existing NFA transfer forms, including the ATF Form 4.
If you recently submitted an NFA application, keep it in the queue. We cannot stress this enough. Withdrawing your Form 4 and re-submitting electronically will take longer than allowing your Form 4 to make its way through the approval process.
That’s because ATF isn’t going to dig through the tens of thousands of forms being processed to find your application. They’re going to wait until your Form 4 reaches an NFA examiner’s desk – the exact point at which it would normally be approved – to process your withdrawal. Instead of approving it though, they will acknowledge your withdrawal and release your serial number. You will not be able to re-submit an eForm 4 with the same serial number until ATF acknowledges your withdrawal and puts it back into your dealers’ inventory.
Thus, withdrawing and re-submitting electronically will add months to your overall application process.
Once the transition to the new eForms system begins, ATF estimates that the transition will take between two to four days to complete, at which point the new eForms system will go live. ATF has indicated that they will notify the industry 24 to 48 hours prior to the transition, and we will let you know as soon as we receive this notification.
While traditional paper-based applications will remain a viable option, ASA’s recommendation to consumers is that they submit new NFA applications electronically. That’s because, if the new eForms system works as promised, it will increase efficiencies by reducing form submission and payment processing times, eliminating weeks of delays in data processing, and all but eradicating data entry errors.
As we gather more information, we will keep you posted. In the meantime, stay tuned by following the American Suppressor Association on Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube, and by subscribing to our newsletter.
About the American Suppressor Association
The American Suppressor Association (ASA) is the unified voice of the suppressor community. We exist for one reason and one reason only: to fight for pro-suppressor reform nationwide.
The ability of the American Suppressor Association to fight for pro-suppressor reform is tied directly to our ability to fundraise. Since the ASA’s formation in 2011, 3 states have legalized suppressor ownership and 18 states have legalized suppressor hunting. Much of this would not have happened without your support. For more information on how you can join us in the fight to help protect and expand your right to own and use suppressors, visit www.AmericanSuppressorAssociation.com.
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act, sponsored by Joe Biden as part of the 1990 Crime Control Act is getting people killed and anti-gun politicians refuse to address it.
Every time we hear of another school killing acted out with a gun, we are trained by the media to believe the problem is guns. Main-Stream and Left-Wing want you to believe that with more gun restrictions these things wouldn’t happen. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Quite the contrary; it’s because of gun restrictions these things occur.
The latest school killing occurred at Oxford High School in Oakland County Michigan. The deadly rampage was acted out by a 15-year-old named Ethan Crumbley. Crumbley killed four students and injured seven others when he opened fire at the School, just north of Detroit on Tuesday, November 30, 2021.
In the time it took for police to arrive on the scene, no one in this gun-free zone was able to stop him. 911 dispatchers received over 100 calls in the five minutes it took police to arrive on the scene. Credit to the police for the quick response, but unfortunately they were unable to stop Crumbley as quickly as an armed teacher or school staff member may have been able to do.
Some reports say that Ethan talked about killing students the night before in a video and even wrote about it in his journal. Some classmates say Ethan was bullied, indicating a possible motive.
The anti-gun crowd and left-wing media jumped on this story as a way of encouraging legislators to create even more gun control laws, but it’s important that we first look at situations like this with logic and try to understand the actual causes of this type of violence may be. It’s also important to look at what legislation has been put in place to enable this type of deadly violence. Amidst the cries for more gun-control laws from the fearful anti-gun left, there were a couple of voices of reason. One of them was Rep. Steve Carra, R- Three Rivers, who said on Wednesday that he was working on legislation that would allow schools to provide lockboxes for teachers and staff to store personal guns at educational institutions. He argued the policy could provide teachers a method of defense and could act as a deterrent.
“If you have multiple teachers who are ready to respond quickly, I think that helps to prevent the issue from being worse than it is,” Carra said.
In 1990 Joe Biden sponsored the Crime Control Act. In it, was the deadly Gun-Free School Zones Act. As a result of Joe Biden’s irresponsible legislation, school killings have nearly doubled since the time this bill was signed into law. This is due to the fact that law-abiding citizens, teachers, school personnel, and other staff are no longer able to defend themselves and their students on school property. Gun-free zones attract killers and legislators implement these policies knowing very well that they may result in unnecessary death. You would think that if they really wanted to save lives they would roll back these deadly policies, but they don’t. The truth is, the higher the gun-related deaths numbers, the more fuel they have to push for gun restrictions. How do we know this? For more than 30 years, they have seen the results and haven’t uttered a peep about changing this horrible law. Logical thinking people however have been speaking out for decades.
“Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, Public-Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police.
In response to the tragedy, Michigan Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said, “I think it’s every parents’ worse nightmare.”
Whitmer also continues to push the false narrative that guns are a public health crisis for political purposes. Will she actually do anything to address the real causes of human violence in her State? Will she look at the deadly gun-free school policies she and her colleagues support? Will she consider allowing school personnel the tools to protect students? Probably not. Instead, our elected employees perpetuate the problem with politically driven legislation, and use the tragedies to push for more gun laws that restrict law-abiding citizens and encourage violence.
The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege.
It’s your right.
Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information contact PR HERE
Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on the Sean Hannity Show, NRATV, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun owners.
Florida – -(AmmoLand.com)- Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Thursday that he wants to create the Florida State Guard – a 200-member volunteer paramilitary force that he would control – not Joe Biden – which would assist the Florida National Guard in state-specific emergencies.
According to a press release, DeSantis wants to spend more than $100 million to beef up the Florida National Guard, and $3.5 million to create the new Florida State Guard.
“The establishment of the Florida State Guard will further support those emergency response efforts in the event of a hurricane, natural disasters and other state emergencies. The $3.5 million to establish the Florida State Guard will enable civilians to be trained in the best emergency response techniques. By establishing the Florida State Guard, Florida will become the 23rd state with a state guard recognized by the federal government,” the press release states.
More than 20 states already have similar state paramilitary forces, many of which were formed as state militias during the 18th Century.
The move comes as tension is brewing between DeSantis and Biden.
During a press conference, DeSantis noted that the Florida State Guard would “not be encumbered by the federal government,” and that the unit would give him “the flexibility and the ability needed to respond to events in our state in the most effective way possible.”
Florida, he pointed out, has always been one of the most military-friendly and veteran-friendly states.
“We are proud of our veterans and active-duty military members and proud of what our communities do to support them,” DeSantis said in the press release. “Florida is one of the most veteran friendly states and I think there are very few places that you would rather be on duty than in the state of Florida. As a veteran, I really appreciate what everyone who wears the uniform does in our state and am excited about these proposals – they will go a long way and have a meaningful impact. In Florida, we are going to continue our momentum of supporting our military, supporting our veterans and being good stewards of our military installations.”
U.S. Rep. Charlie Crist, a Democrat who is running for governor in 2022 and may face DeSantis, tweeted, “No Governor should have his own handpicked secret police.” [you mean like the DC Capitol Police?]
Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, another Democrat running to replace DeSantis, tweeted similar concerns.
“Can’t believe I have to say this, but Florida doesn’t need a paramilitary force that only answers to @RonDeSantisFL. Millions of Floridians know what it’s like to live under regimes like this — and came to our state to escape them. This must be stopped,” Fried tweeted.
Can't believe I have to say this, but Florida doesn't need a paramilitary force that only answers to @RonDeSantisFL. Millions of Floridians know what it's like to live under regimes like this — and came to our state to escape them. This must be stopped. https://t.co/JoTgXmKTzc
In my humble opinion, the Florida State Guard is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.
The only problem I foresee is the unit’s 200-member limit. I predict DeSantis will receive 1,000-times that many applications and letters of interest.
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.
An I Voted sticker on an IWI X95 bullpup carbine in 5.56mm with an Elcan SpectreDR 1.5-6x optic on top. IMG Jim Grant
United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- One thing Second Amendment supporters need to have in mind is what they should push for after the 2022 elections. Now, there is a lot of time between now and 2022, but based on what happened in Virginia and some other trends, it is shaping up to go very nicely for those who support the Second Amendment.
But what is to be done with what could be a pro-Second Amendment majority in the House and Senate? While Joe Biden will still have a veto pen, it doesn’t mean that Second Amendment supporters will be without options.
One could say that there is a Second Amendment supportive majority in the United States, given that all 50 Republicans and Joe Manchin, Angus King, and Jon Tester have made pro-Second Amendment votes at times. However, currently, the Senate Majority Leader is Chuck Schumer, and Schumer is making Second Amendment supporters miss having Mitch McConnell in that position.
So, what changes when Congressional leadership is pro-Second Amendment. The biggest changes will be in oversight and spending. Here, they can help prevent things like Operation Chokepoint and also put the halt to funding for anti-Second Amendment propaganda from the Centers for Disease Control. In addition, Congressional oversight could also be a way to shine the light on corporate gun control and put the heat on the CEOs.
The other thing they will do is block a lot of anti-Second Amendment legislation via a numbers game and control of the committees in the House and Senate. Now, given pro-Second Amendment legislation will not be signed into law by Biden and getting the veto-proof majorities will be highly unlikely, but just blocking anti-Second Amendment legislation at the federal level will protect our rights, especially in a post-NYSRPA v. Bruen world.
It won’t just be anti-Second Amendment legislation that will be killed if Second Amendment supporters take control of Congress. Various other attacks on our rights will also be halted, like the For the People Act and other campaign finance “reform” schemes. That will allow Second Amendment supporters to make their case to the American people, and when we are able to make that case, we win the arguments.
For the potential gains in the 2022 midterms to happen, though, Second Amendment supporters will have a lot of work to do. They need to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels via the ballot box.
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.
Untangling the Gun Lobby’s Web of Self-Defense and Human Rights
New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- Is armed self-defense a basic human right? That is the crux of an ongoing debate for many people in the United States. It shouldn’t be but it is.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution makes clear that armed self-defense is a fundamental human right. If anyone harbors doubt about that, the United States Supreme Court settled the question in 2008, in the seminal Second Amendment case, Heller vs. District of Columbia.
The late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, opined “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”
This means armed self-defense is not to be perceived as a thing apart from the broader notion of self-defense, but, rather, is subsumed in it.
The sole issue in Heller was “whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.”
In ruling that an outright ban on the use of a handgun for self-defense in one’s home does violate the core of the Second Amendment right, the majority also held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia. This ruling is consistent with and is implied in the Court’s ruling on the salient issue.
Moreover, the High Court made patently clear that Government didn’t create the right of armed self-defense but simply codified it, for the right of armed self-defense exists intrinsically in one’s being.
The Court said,
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment like the First and Fourth Amendments codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”
The recent Kyle Rittenhouse case is a textbook study of the utility of a firearm in effective defense of self against aggressive predatory attack.
But this idea doesn’t sit well with Anti-Second Amendment proponents:
Her assertion is posited not as a thesis to be proved but as an assumption to be accepted as self-evident, true, notwithstanding the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and the High Court’s rulings in Heller.
No matter——
Bhatia makes the assertion in a “Report” published by the George Soros funding Marxist think tank, “Center for American Progress,” on August 12, 2020. The Report is titled, “Untangling the Gun Lobby’s Web of Self-Defense and Human Rights,” and is subtitled, “Peddling False Rights, Profiting Off Fear.”
“Today, alongside this rights-based narrative, a parallel narrative exists that is perpetuated by the U.S. gun industry as part of a multifaceted effort to increase gun sales. This so-called gun-rights narrative manipulates the ideals of human rights to establish not only an inalienable right to life but also an unfettered right to armed self-defense to protect oneself from any perceived threat of harm. This narrative hinges on fear and the need to defend oneself and loved ones from unknown but ever-present threats through whatever means necessary and without regard to the rights of others. It is grounded by the false claim that the most effective means of self-preservation involves using a firearm.”
From her remarks, dubious and outlandish as they are, one detects a note of irritation and frustration, borne of a deep-seated ethical or aesthetic abhorrence of guns and of the citizen’s right to keep and bear them. But there is more to be gleaned from this account.
The Marxist antagonism directed to armed self-defense, as reflected in Bhatia’s “Report,” hides a sinister agenda.
It is an agenda at loggerheads with the sanctity and inviolability of personal selfhood and one inconsistent with the preservation of the United States as a free Constitutional Republic.
Grounded on the tenets and precepts of Collectivism (See e.g., Arbalest Quarrel article on the differences between Collectivism and Individualism), the Marxist intends to thrust their vision of reality on the entire Nation. Most Americans find that vision disagreeable if not thoroughly reprehensible and repugnant.
The Marxist isn’t unaware of this and resorts to artifice and chicanery to seduce the polity. The Marxist relies on the legacy Press and social media to assist in making it palatable to the public policy goals designed to transform a free Republic into a Marxist Dictatorship.
Marxists mask their disdain for the dignity of man by disingenuously claiming to venerate it.
At the outset of her Center for American Progress Report, Bhatia cites Article 1 of “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (“UDHR”) a document crafted by the United Nations, where, citing Article 1of the UDHR and then expanding on the sentiments of it, Bhatia writes,
“Every human life has inherent value and dignity, and every person has the right to life, liberty, and personal security. These truths are codified in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR was historic, with nations coming together to explicitly recognize the need to protect and preserve these fundamental rights, structuring constitutions to explicitly defend their citizens’ human rights, and particularly their rights to life, freedom, and security. The protection of human rights continues to be a defining pillar to secure a stable, peaceful liberal world order. But in the United States, some groups—such as the gun lobby—are seizing upon this rights-based narrative to justify, dangerously, the right to bear, carry, and use firearms.”
The United Nations says this about the development of the UDHR:
“Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and. . . is widely recognized as having inspired, and paved the way for, the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties, applied today on a permanent basis at global and regional levels. . . .”
Extolling the sentiments of the UDHR, as Rakmani Bhatia does in her Center for Progress Report, is all well and good. But how is one expected to effectively confront an aggressive, vicious attack that emanates from the predatory beast, predatory man, or the tyrannical, predatory Government if not through armed self-defense? The Marxist, Bhatia, doesn’t say, which begs the very question at issue in her Report. Is Bhatia not aware of this? Perhaps, she is aware of this but consciously chooses to slither around it, hoping no one perceives the gaping hole that she has left open in her Report.
In an attempt to avoid dealing with the question, head-on, Marxists, like Bhatia, simply take the easy way out. They deny the essence of the problem, claiming, as Bhatia does, and as she argues, that the threat of harm isn’t real, was never real, but is and always was grounded in an unwarranted fear of harm.
But the threat is real, and the fear isn’t unwarranted, and Americans are witnessing all of it. And it is painfully evident through the inaction and empty posturing of effete and impotent Federal and State Governments to the harm generated.
Either the Marxist-controlled Federal Government and similar Marxist-controlled State and local Governments are simply inept and incompetent and, so, wholly unable to deal with the harm, or they welcome, even encourage, the attendant harms to the citizen and society alike. Likely it is a combination of both.
The framers of the United States Constitution had the answer to the threat of harm caused by predatory beast, predatory man, or predatory Government, an unwelcome one for these Marxists, to be sure, as they aim to break apart American society and culture so that they can rebuild society in accordance with the strictures of Marxism.
The answer rests in the Nation’s Bill of Rights (BOR), specifically in the citizen’s exercise of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This, more than anything else, is the answer to the bedlam and mayhem wrought by those that seek the Country’s undoing. Small wonder, then, that these Marxists desire to destroy the Right.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
