Firearms News

4th of July

Follow National Firearms Dealer Network's board 4th of July 2014 on Pinterest.

' target='_blank'>read more...

Pinterest

Pinterest



Instagram



School employee feared kid’s science project resembled weapon, so star teacher suspended

Posted By Eric Owens On 11:18 AM 04/10/2014 In

A beloved science teacher at a public high school in downtown Los Angeles has been suspended because a school employee was afraid that a kid’s air pressure-related science project looked too much like a weapon.

The teacher, Greg Schiller, was suspended (with pay) back in February. He teaches – or taught – at the brutally futuristic-looking $232 million Cortines School of Visual & Performing Arts (also called Grand Arts High School).

Schiller got into trouble after two of his students turned in science projects designed to shoot little projectiles, reports the Los Angeles Times. One of the projects used compressed air (but was not actually connected to any air). The other one was coil gun: a tube surrounded by a coil and powered by a standard AA battery.

An unidentified school employee saw the air-pressure projectile device and got scared because, to her, it looked like a fearsome weapon.

The amount of knowledge the employee has concerning science – if any – is unclear.

As a result of the unnamed employee’s fears, Schiller – who actually never got to see either the air-pressure project or the coil project except in photos – was dismissed from the classroom indefinitely.

School officials impounded both projects as “evidence,” according to the mother of the kid who did the coil project.

Officials with the Los Angeles Unified School District reportedly told Schiller his crime was “supervising the building, research and development of imitation weapons.” However, district officials aren’t commenting on the suspension.

The teacher’s union is defending Schiller.

“As far as we can tell, he’s being punished for teaching science,” Warren Fletcher, president of the Los Angeles teachers union, told the Times.

Students and parents want Schiller, 43, to return immediately to the classroom. Their campaign for his reinstatement has included a rally and a petition and, of course, forays into social media.

Students in Schiller’s various classes

read more...

Sig Sauer sues ATF for calling its 'muzzle brake' a gun silencer

By Elizabeth Dinan
edinan@seacoastonline.com
April 09, 2014 1:40 PM
NEWINGTON — Gun maker Sig Sauer has filed a civil suit against the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives claiming the federal agency wrongfully classified a “muzzle brake” Sig designed to reduce recoil, as an item “intended only for use” when making a silencer.

Sig claims that gun silencers are “subject to burdensome legal requirements” and by calling its muzzle brake a part for a silencer, the federal agency is subjecting it to “economic injury.”

“If classified as a silencer, no market exists for the subject device given that it will not silence, muffle, or diminish the report of a firearm and yet it would still be subject to the burdensome requirements set forth above as if it really is a silencer,” Sig argues through Manchester attorney Mark Rouvalis and Virginia attorney Stephen Halbrook.

ATF Director B. Todd Jones is named as defendant in Sig's lawsuit and has 21 days, after being served, to respond to the civil action, dated April 7.

Sig claims it designed the muzzle brake which “effectively reduces recoil and muzzle rise when a shot is discharged” and as such, it's not subject to regulation under the federal Gun Control Act.

“Accordingly, it will be highly marketable to consumers and will generate profit,” according to the suit.

If classified as a silencer or muffler, “no market would exist for the device,” because consumers would not subject themselves to the “required burdens” associated with silencers, to buy a device that doesn't perform as a silencer, Sig claims.

Silencers are subject to specific marking, record keeping and transfer restrictions, according to Sig.

The Newington gun maker's suit, filed in the U. S. District Court of New Hampshire, states that it submitted a rifle, with its muzzle brake, to the ATF on April 4, 2013 for evaluation. The device is described as 9.5 inches long and permanently attached with a weld to a 6.5 inch barrel, making the overall barrel length 16 inches.

The ATF responded, by letter dated Aug. 26, 2013, that the device is constructed as a silencer component commonly referred to as a “monolithic baffle stack,” the suit states.
“Welding it to a barrel does not change its design characteristics or function,” Sig says it was informed by the ATF.

In a Sept. 6, 2013 followup letter, Sig asked the federal regulatory agency for reconsideration, while reporting that sound meter testing proved the device amplified, not muffled sound, when a gun with it was fired. It also included evidence showing the device offsets and corrects recoil of a firearm when attached, Sig claims.

By letter dated Feb. 21, the ATF stuck to its original finding, stating that Sig's device is a part intended only for use in making a silencer. In its subsequent lawsuit, Sig tells the federal court the ATF did not dispute its evidence showing otherwise.

Due to the ATF's “erroneous” classification of the device as a silencer, Sig has and will continue to suffer economic consequences, it tells the court. The ATF failed to “articulate a satisfactory explanation for its classification and “failed to examine the relevant data,” the suit claims.

The federal agency also failed to address Sig's contention that there are similar devices on the market that are being transferred without being treated as firearms, Sig claims.

Sig asks the court to set aside ATF's determination as unlawful, to declare that its muzzle brake is not a part only intended for use in silencers, and to award it costs and damages.

read more...

How To Rack Your Handgun Slide Like A Boss

Rack [rak]
verb

Rack_the_slide1. to torture; distress acutely; torment: (His body was racked with pain.)

2. to strain by physical force or violence.

3. to strain beyond what is normal or usual.

In the shooting realm, rack has a different meaning (although the classic definitions of torture, strain and torment still apply for some people). For shooters, rak simply means to cycle the slide of a semi-auto handgun manually. Sounds simple doesn’t it?

Unfortunately, racking the slide is a source of pain, angst and frustration for many new shooters. Far too often, it causes people to make buying decisions that compromise what the really wanted for a model with an easier slide racking motion.

What if I were to tell you that anyone can easily rack most any slide using the right technique? Alright, that’s a pretty bold statement, and I realize there will always be some exceptions. Heck, right now I’m battling a shoulder injury that has me reduced to a whimpering puddle of whine and complain. But for the vast majority of folks, technique, body mechanics and simple physics make all the difference when it comes to successful racking.

First, let’s clarify racking, so we’re all on the same page. Racking the slide refers to the procedure of smartly (that’s a power word, isn’t it?) pulling the slide back in order to eject an empty cartridge case (if present) from the chamber. The passive part of racking refers to releasing the slide, allowing it to sling back into position, picking up and loading a new cartridge on the way. As you can tell by the description, racking applies to semi-automatic pistols, not revolvers.

If you use a semi-automatic pistol, effortless racking is a critical skill. Sure, it’s required to load the first round in the chamber. Just as importantly, it’s used to empty the gun after the magazine is removed. Racking is often required to clear a malfunction, and if you compete, it’s how you show the range safety officer that your gun is clear after completing a stage.

So why does racking the slide give so many people grief?

I think it’s a result of the curse of opposable thumbs.

Since we have them (opposable thumbs), we want to use them and pinch things between our opposable thumb and index finger - like babies noses, hors d’oeuvres and pennies. Unfortunately, we also want to pinch things like the back of pistol slides to draw them away from the frame. It’s only natural.

Here’s the problem. Thumb and index finger muscles are tiny and weak, at least compared to other muscles in the body.

Keeping that in mind, let’s walk through a simple way to use bigger muscles, the mass of your body and motion to rack even the most difficult slide. After all, we’re much stronger than recoil springs, so it’s just a matter of technique.

First, take a firing grip with your strong hand, making sure that your finger is off the trigger.

Bring it close to your body as shown in the photo. Make sure that the gun is pointed safely downrange throughout this whole procedure. The motions we’re going to do feel natural when the gun is pointed to the support hand side, so blade your body away from your backstop so that the gun points safely downrange.

Next, flatten your support hand and turn it so your palm is facing the ground. I know, this sounds a little weird, just stick with me. While it may seem like we’re embarking on a technique to use the power of the Force, we’re not.


OK, I'm exagerating a bit to show how to grasp the slide with your whole hand, not just a pinch.
Move your whole flat support hand over the back half of the slide of your gun.

Close it so that your palm is on one side of the slide and fingers on the other. Now you’re grasping that slide with large hand and arm muscles instead of thumb and finger mini-muscles. Squeeze! Imagine you’re squeezing water out of a sponge without using your thumb.


I'm using my whole hand to get a good grip on the slide.
Keeping your support arm in the same place, right up against your body, push the bottom half (frame) of the gun forward like you’re going to jab the target with the muzzle. The most important part of this motion is to make sure that the gun remains close to your body until you start to push the frame forward.



It seems that it’s a natural tendency for people to hold the gun away from their body while operating the slide. Keeping it close gives you room and leverage to use your shoulder and arm muscles to overcome the resistance of the slide.

You'll notice that my support hand didn't move, so I didn't pull back the slide. I pushed the frame forward, holding the slide still.
Now, see what we did there? Rather than pulling the slide backwards, as with the default thumb and finger pinch, we tricked you into pushing the whole gun forward. It makes all the difference in leverage.

When you have pushed the gun as far forward as the slide will allow it to go, quickly release the slide with your support hand. Let the springs snap the slide closed. Don’t ever try to ease the slide back gently as the gun was designed to work properly when the springs do their job with gusto. If you try to be gentle and allow the slide to close slowly and gently, you’re just asking for a malfunction.

Just remember to orient your body correctly so the gun remains pointed downrange through the whole racking process. Given the simple geometry of us human folk, we generally have hands and arms mounted on the sides while the eyes face forward. So, if you do this while facing the target, your gun will be pointed sideways. Turning your body a bit solves this.

How did that work out?

read more...

The Top 11 Bad Gun Clichés

Cliché [klee-shey]
noun

a trite, stereotyped expression; a sentence or phrase, usually expressing a popular or common thought or idea, that has lost originality, ingenuity, and impact by long overuse, as sadder but wiser, or strong as an ox.
anything that has become trite or commonplace through overuse.
a truly annoying phrase or saying that inflicts physical pain simply by the number of times it’s needlessly repeated.
Contrary to the image above, I don’t actually believe in banning things. That’s totalitarian and just plain mean-spirited. But hearing the following gun-related clichés is reminiscent of brushing my teeth a Dremel tool. Maybe we should limit their use to certified Maury Show guests instead?

So let’s get started. I might stretch the technical definition of cliché just a little bit, as some are just words that make me want to do anything else, like put my tongue on a hot rifle barrel. But that’s okay, because this is going to be fun.

Common sense in gun laws!

The problem with “common sense” is that it isn’t common. The second problem is that the people who define “common sense” have less sense than spackle. In an era in which politicians don’t read what they write and subsequently vote on, there’s no such thing as common sense laws.

I don’t dial 911!

If you don’t call 911, you’re an idiot. In fact, if you don’t dial 911 you’re the sort not likely to beat Forrest Gump at a rousing game of Wheel of Fortune. Always, always, always dial 911 at your very first opportunity. Good guys dial 911 to request help and/or report what happened. Bad guys don’t.

Arsenal!

This one drives me nuts! When I hear some apoplectic, blathering broadcaster talk about an “arsenal” I find out we have very different definitions of the word. To me, an arsenal is a building with more guns and ammunition than I can shoot in my lifetime, not a baby-stash that is a tad larger than what Michael Bloomberg will shoot in his lifetime.

Operator!

When someone tells me they’re an operator I assume they’re either a surgeon or a nurse. What defines a “tactical operator” anyway? I don’t even get the origin of the word “operator.” Is it because they operate tactical things? Or because they send evil folks to the operating room? Or perhaps it’s because they use those cool throat mikes instead of phones?

I shoot all sorts of guns but no one considers me a tactical operator. On the other hand, since I manipulate goofy articles on the Internet on a regular basis, maybe I’m a typographical operator?

I’d rather be tried by 12 than carried by six!

When it comes to running the federal government, I’d rather have the first 500 people in the phone book in charge than our elected officials. When it comes to a choice of being tried by 12 or carried by six, I choose door three: neither!

I really, really don’t want my fate resting in the collective judgement of 12 people I don’t know, who might believe in very different things than me. Accordingly, my strategy related to guns and self-defense is to do everything in my power to avoid actually using them. If you have no choice, be ready. If you have a choice, take the flight instead of fight option and bypass the six and the 12.

Gun crime!

Talking about “gun crime” makes as much sense as talking about Miller Genuine Draft DUIs. Nouns and verbs, people! The word “gun” is a noun, therefore it requires a verb to complete an action like causing a crime. Even if you take away all the nouns, the verbs still do verb-like things. Meaning: removing the guns doesn’t remove the crimes.

Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice!

The problem with some clichés is that people treat them as tactical advice. Actually implementing a cliché about “dragging someone into the house before calling the cops” or “anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice” is likely to land you in deep trouble.

This is a hot load!

When I hear the term “hot loads” I have flashbacks of Huggies, changing tables, and gas masks. While having children was amazingly awesome, that’s one part I could forget.

Gun control is being able to hit your target!

While I admit I do kind of like this one, I have to wonder if it’s run its course? Maybe using similar logic, “mind control” is the ability to understand Common Core math problems?

From my cold, dead hands!

I don’t doubt that some will fight for their rights all the way to their dirt nap, but how many internet tough-talk Action Jacksons are there really? How many will create their own home version of The Alamo board game in the event a dozen armed and amped dudes show up at their door? I estimate the actual martyr percentage at 0.000267 percent of those who use this cliche.

High-capacity magazines!

Part of the definition of cliché is something that has lost all legitimate meaning. When it comes to high-capacity magazines, I’m not sure there’s any meaning to begin with. What is high-capacity? Three rounds? Four rounds? Three-hundred rounds? It’s one of those phrases that has a different meaning for everyone.

These are the ones use a big straw to suck the fun out of my day. What say you?

read more...

Florida set to pass Pop Tart gun bill to protect kids playing in school

The days of kids playing cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians in the schoolyard may come to an end because of overly zealous “zero tolerance” policies.
Over the past year, schools have increasingly punished children for playing games that involve pretend firearms. Now Florida is leading the nation in stopping this madness.

On Tuesday, the Florida Senate Education Committee unanimously passed a measure that has become known as the “Pop Tart bill.”
The legislation got its nickname from an incident involving Josh Welch, a 7-year-old Maryland boy who was suspended from school in March 2013 for chewing his strawberry Pop Tart into the shape of a gun.
The Florida bill makes it clear that children in public schools will be allowed to simulate firearms while playing without risk of disciplinary action or being referred to the criminal or juvenile justice system.
The Florida House passed the companion bill Thursday by an overwhelming vote of 98-17. Republican Gov. Rick Scott’s spokeswoman Jackie Schutz told me, “The governor supports the Second Amendment and our state’s self-defense law and will review any bill that comes to his desk.”
Marion Hammer, a former president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the current head of its Florida lobbying operation said that, “Children should not be punished because some adult lacks common sense or the capacity for rational judgment.”
Ms. Hammer said the NRA supports the legislation because it would “give guidance and relief to school administrators who must walk a fine line between following the law and protecting our children” as well as “stop the abusive result of overreactions of some administrators.”

The House legislation lists the types of games that cannot get a kid into trouble, such as “brandishing a partially consumed pastry or other food item to simulate a firearm or weapon.”
Schoolchildren also will be allowed expressly to use a “finger or hand to simulate a firearm,” draw a picture of a weapon and possess a “toy firearm or weapon made of plastic snap-together building blocks.”
These specifics in the statute seem extreme until you look at the real-life cases in which children have been punished for playing these time-honored games.
Last month, 10-year-old Nathan Entingh was suspended for three days from his Columbus, Ohio, school for pointing his finger like a gun in the classroom.
In January, 6-year-old Rodney Lynch was suspended from his Silver Spring, Md., school for making a shooting gesture with his finger. (His appalled parents later hired an attorney to have the child’s school record cleared.)
Jordan Bennett, an 8-year-old Florida boy, was suspended from school in October for using his finger as a pretend gun while playing cops and robbers. In May, two second-grade boys were suspended from Driver Elementary School in Virginia for pointing pencils at each other while playing soldier.
The Florida bill also makes clear that children will not get into trouble for wearing clothes or accessories with firearms or weapons on them or express opinions about the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Last April, eighth-grader Jared Marcum was arrested at school in Logan County, W.Va., for refusing to take off his NRA shirt that had the organization’s logo of crossed rifles with the slogan “Protect Your Right.” A judge dismissed the charge.
Two weeks ago in upstate New York, 16-year-old Shane Kinney was suspended for a day for wearing an NRA shirt. Shane refused to obey school administrators who demanded that he turn the shirt inside out or put tape over the NRA logo with the crossed rifles and the words “The 2nd Amendment Shall Not Be Infringed” on the back.
If the Florida legislation is signed into law, it will be the first in the nation to codify what is considered children’s play instead of real danger. The NRA also supports similar legislation in Ohio and Oklahoma that instill common sense into “zero tolerance.”
Since the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, schools are understandably more concerned about the safety of their children.
However, cracking down on kids playing harmless games, using their imaginations or expressing their free speech has gotten out of control. And primary education teachers and administrators are notoriously knee-jerk anti-gun.
All states should consider introducing bills modeled after the one in Florida so our children are protected from unfair punishment for innocent fun.


Emily Miller is senior editor of opinion for The Washington Times and author of “Emily Gets Her Gun” (Regnery, 2013).



read more...

Why Would You Buy A Barrett M107 Sniper Rifle? A Short Review

Barrett Firearms are known in the market for making some of the biggest and most powerful rifles in the world. Based in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, the Barrett M107 Sniper Rifle came into being after years of redesign and development on the original M82 rifle system. Several new features were added to its predecessor to make it impactful. The best way to know about this rifle is through a Barrett M107 review. So here’s a quick review on how useful this rifle can be.

The maximum effective range of the M107 is 1,829m with improved accuracy. The rifle has incorporated polymer components in secure areas to increase mobility and has reduced the system in weight by 4lbs. The included monopod is fully adjustable for height and the forward mounted bipod feet are from a more rigid pattern than the original M82 platform. Accuracy is designated at 3MOA with the system producing a muzzle velocity of 2,7800ft.This is an excellent system for large or hard target interdiction at range and also a blast for target shooting applications.

The Barrett M107 can be used with a suppressor and it allows you to combine signature reduction capabilities with the flawless reliability. The bolt carrier group has been designed to make the rifle suppressor-ready. Its titanium four-port muzzle brake is engineered to work seamlessly with a quick-attach Barrett .50 BMG Suppressor. In addition to this, the aluminium upper receiver is light in weight. It has an integrated, rigid 27 MOA optics rail. Inside the upper receiver, the bolt carrier rides on a hardened steel, anti-wear strip for added durability. A thermal-guard cheek piece protects the user’s face from extreme heat or cold.

Advanced design and manufacturing make the M107 more precise than ever. The rear-barrel stop and front-barrel bushing are bolted and bonded with a compound similar to that used on space shuttles. A titanium barrel key and fully chrome-lined bore and chamber add to the rifle’s durability.
Its lower receiver includes a new aluminium recoil buffer system that’s optimized for use with a suppressor. The bolt carrier’s components are protected with a mix of ultra-hard PVD coatings and advanced nickel Teflon plating that increases lubrication. It is corrosion-resistant and greatly eases cleaning. Numbered witness holes on the magazine are just another example of how even the smallest detail makes a powerful difference.

The following are the specifications for Barrett M107 Sniper Rifle:

Weight: 30.9 lbs
Caliber: .50 BMG
Safety: Manual Thumb Lever
Rifle Operation: Semi-Automatic
Flip-Up Iron Sights
Optics Rail: 24”
Magazine: 10-Round Capacity
Rifling Twist: 1 in 15” .
50 BMG Rifle System – Flat Dark Earth Color
Magazine
Bipod
Monopod
Hard Carrying Case

read more...

When Holstering, Coolness is Overrated By Dan Zimmerman on March 14, 2014

The story about Police Chief David Counceller’s negligent discharge due to a stray windbreaker drawstring in the trigger guard brought to my mind a recent article written by firearms trainer Pat Rogers (above), who tackles the issue of after-action holstering in the April 2014 issue of SWAT Magazine (pages 53-57). Don’t waste time trying to look cool, the former Marine Chief Warrant Officer says: take a glance and make sure you’re not about to do something stupid . . .

To some, speed holstering looks cool. It shows mastery of man over machine, and style points are important in some endeavors. But herein lies the problem. Numerous negligent discharges occur when holstering. The main reason is of course a Rule 3 violation – finger on the trigger when sights are not on target. A secondary cause is when a piece of clothing or equipment insinuates itself into the trigger guard, causing the weapon to discharge—probably into your leg.

While some make an issue of teaching that you should holster while keeping your SA up, consider this: the pistol should only go away when the fight is truly over. Not when your opponent is down, but when he is incapacitated and handcuffed or otherwise restrained or covered by others. Once that happens—once you are positively sure the threat is no longer a threat—then you can reholster. Caveat: if you are a civilian or off-duty cop, it’s never a good idea to have your blaster in your paws when the police arrive.

I’m not advocating spending 30 seconds to put the firearm properly in your holster. What I am saying, though, is take the time to glance down, holster and prepare for the admin/legal issues that will follow in the aftermath of a shooting. Taking the time to glance down may spare you a lot of grief.

I have accumulated a little less than one hundred fifty hours of firearms training over the past few years, and many of the instructors I’ve worked with have thought that situational awareness is paramount, and that one should train to keep one’s head and eyes up, scanning for potential threats when holstering. Only one – Scott Reitz, of International Tactical – specifically advised that since holstering should only take place once the threats are down, glancing down to ensure that one is holstering safely is a good idea.

That said, I find it hard to disagree with either Chief Rogers or Mr. Reitz. I’m an ordinary citizen who happens to carry a concealed firearm. That means that my sidearm is either in an OWB holster under a jacket or shirt, or (for more formal occasions,) it’s in an IWB holster underneath a tucked shirt and suit jacket. If it’s been drawn in anger, when it comes to holstering, odds are good that it’ll need to go back in underneath some rather askew, possibly torn, clothing. Holstering when the gun is still hot, when the adrenaline is flowing, when the heart is pumping fast, when fine motor skills are at a low ebb, and when I may be injured is probably not when I want to be holstering a gun without looking. And dame fortune would doubtless be cruel enough to ensure that I would prevail over bloody-minded street thugs in combat, only to suffer a life-threatening wound from a negligent discharge because I wasn’t paying close enough attention while holstering afterward.

Practice doesn’t make perfect – it makes permanent. Whatever you do on the square range is probably what you’ll be doing when the balloon goes up. Seems to me that there’s less chance that a glance downward to make sure you know what’s going on when putting the iron away is less riskier than the alternative.

read more...

Pro-Gun Sentiment Dominates Social Media #2A

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Lately there has been much debate over what that means. As a firearms enthusiast and social media analyst, I wanted to cut through the noise and listen to the unscripted, unsolicited, social media conversation on guns.

Back in November when I sat down with Glenn on TheBlaze TV, our data showed that 64 percent of non-party affiliated voters indicated positive sentiment towards the Second Amendment. And many indicating negative sentiment were only negative on certain sub issues, for example fully automatic weapons. The call for outright gun bans were few. Current data suggests that support for the Second Amendment has risen slightly.

I first analyzed Twitter, and have to admit I was surprised. Hashtag #guncontrol did not bode well at all for the anti-gunners. Tweets were overwhelmingly in support of gun rights, with #guncontrol being used sarcastically. Gun control being the precursor to people control was the general sentiment, followed closely by personal protection. In fact, of the Tweets reviewed using #guncontrol, only a handful, less than 5 percent, were actually in support of more gun restrictions.


The same held true for the hashtags #2A and #SecondAmendment with 95+ percent in support of gun rights. Now, this isn’t to say that all of Twitter is pro-gun; #gunsense is predominantly anti-gun, but that is to be expected since it was created by the anti-gun lobby, and followed by those of like mind. I omitted it from my formal analysis as “gunsense” is not an issue or term in common use.

Moving on to Facebook, I took a look at the likes and chatter on both sides.

A recent study on Facebook demographics indicates that women comprise 53.3 percent of U.S. users, with those over 18 living in big anti-gun cities, (New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles were the top three respectively) accounting for the largest percentages. I was sure I would find powerful anti-gun sentiment on Facebook, but I was wrong.

My starting point was with the long time default leaders on the pro and anti-gun sides respectively: The National Rifle Association (NRA) and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (Brady Campaign). A quick review of likes and chatter indicated that the NRA’s official Facebook page enjoyed nearly 50 times more activity than the Brady Campaign’s official page. At the time of writing, the NRA page had 3,057,492 likes with 210,695 people talking about them. The Brady Campaign by comparison displayed 61,884 likes with only 4435 people talking.

The disparity was surprising, so I decided to analyze another well-known and generously funded anti-gun group, Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG). On MAIG’s official Facebook page, support was even worse. Only 20,692 likes and 116 talking. In simple terms, at the time I wrote this, the NRA had nearly 150 times more support, and well over 1,800 times more folks talking about them on social media than did billionaire Bloomberg’s group.

MAIG’s sister organization, Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America, did better with 147,630 likes. However, when compared to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), both Bloomberg groups again fell short as the NSSF realized 267,672 likes. Another Bloomberg satellite, Demand Action To End Gun Violence, came in a hair under the NSSF at 265,865 likes, but still 90 percent fewer likes than the NRA. In fact, the NRA had far more organic likes than all of the anti-gun groups I analyzed combined.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns and its satellite groups’ social media and web content appears to be designed to inflame, not educate. A video on Moms Demand Action’s homepage accuses Facebook of permitting illegal gun sales. A graphic in the video reads that on Facebook “anyone can buy and sell guns without criminal background checks.” That is simply untrue.

The process to purchase a firearm at a gun show or online is an identical process to that at a gun shop. Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) comprise the majority of gun show dealers. A show dealer would have the buyer fill out Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives form 4473, then run the National Instant Criminal System (NICS) background check (some states waive NICS if the buyer holds a concealed weapons or other firearms license).

A firearm purchased on the internet must be shipped to an FFL, and the buyer would undergo the exact same process. Certain states have waiting periods, or provisions to waive them. The only legal exceptions to this process are face-to-face transactions between two private individuals. State law varies, so be sure to have proper information before engaging in a face to face firearms transaction. Handgunlaw.us is an excellent resource to point you in the right direction.

A report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns blames internet sales for gun crime. Calling this report flawed would be generous as it makes no mention of internet buyers being required to undergo the identical process they would at a gun shop. Furthermore, the report considers eight anecdotal criminal incidents, in which the suspects didn’t follow the existing laws, statistical evidence of a pervasive problem requiring sweeping unconstitutional public policies. Public policies identical to the laws broken in the first place.

Social media confirms what many already knew, and dispels the media myth that the anti-gun lobby has widespread support. We the People hold our guns close. Anti-gun politicians and groups, especially those backed by Michael Bloomberg, use social media to fear monger and misplace blame in order to push anti-gun legislation. What that they didn’t count on was the intelligence of Americans, and our resistance to statist politicians coming after our firearms; the very thing the Second Amendment exists to prevent.

Perhaps that’s why the NRA enjoys nearly 150 times more support on Facebook than Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

read more...

UPDATE – Remington: GDSI Bid is a “Publicity Stunt”

In the latest turn of events in the Freedom Group bid situation, grandviewoutdoors.com reports that they’ve obtained an internal Remington memo from George Kollitides to all Remington employees. In a bid to calm internal nerves, the CEO called GDSI’s bid nothing more than an underfunded “publicity stunt” that’s barely worthy of their time . . .

“A small, unknown investment entity publicly announced its desire to acquire the Remington Outdoor Company,” the memo obtained by Grand View Outdoors says. “If this wasn’t disruptive to our employees and customers, we would not acknowledge the news and recognize it for what it is: a publicity stunt from an agenda-driven group with no credible financing options.”

And George doesn’t think much of GDSI’s strategic vision, either.

“Further evidence of [Global Digital Solutions'] misguided agenda is all over the entity’s website that displays logos of every major firearms maker and lays out a mission to introduce smart gun technology to the industry; something the consumer doesn’t want,” Remington’s internal memo says.

We’ve since spoken to GDSI CEO Dick Sullivan who called what was said in the Remington memo “disappointing.” He also pointed out that despite the company’s small market capitalization (about $100 million) given the people involved at GDSI and their resources, he isn’t worried about financing. Sullivan said he sees Remington as a “great company” and a “wonderful icon brand,” one which GDSI can help build even further.

Stay tuned.

read more...

Offensive Armalite ad?

ArmaLite has recently been made aware that an advertisement utilizing the image of the statue of Michelangelo’s David holding an ArmaLite AR-50A1 rifle was found to be offensive by certain individuals.
ArmaLite deeply regrets offending anyone and certainly had no intention of doing so.
The “Work of Art” media campaign was initiated over a year ago, but was removed from circulation when the new ownership of ArmaLite took responsibility for Company direction in July 2013.
ArmaLite has been making some of the finest firearms for military, law enforcement and commercial applications for 60 years and was the inventor of the AR platform of sporting rifles. In fact, AR stands for ArmaLite.
Mark Johnson, the chief executive officer of Strategic Armory Corps, LLC, the current owner of ArmaLite stated, “I believe that an advertisement utilizing an altered photograph of a masterpiece such as David is in poor taste. We deeply regret that ArmaLite offended anyone by this media campaign, which we ended upon our acquisition of the Company.”
“We will make every effort to be sure that any remnants from the campaign are removed from the public”.
About:
ArmaLite has one of the broadest product lines in the firearms industry. We manufacture and sell semiautomatic rifles in a variety of calibers including 5.56mm and 7.62mm, long range super-accurate bolt action rifles in calibers including .308 Winchester, .300 Winchester Magnum, .338 Lapua, and 50 BMG, and classic 9mm pistols.Visit: www.armalite.com



read more...

Guns and Violence in the United States, By the Numbers

By Nick Leghorn -


As the anniversary of the Newtown shooting approaches, the usual gun control advocacy organizations are gearing up their propaganda campaigns to try and convince us that guns make us less safe, and that the only “common sense” solution to the “gun violence epidemic” is gun control. But as we’ve proven time and again here on this website (and cataloged for you in our Gun Facts section), that’s just not the case. Every claim that gun control advocates make trying to link the existence of guns to violence falls flat on its face when you add a splash of context and some verified numbers. But in preparation for this weekend, I wanted to bring together some of those hard and fast facts, based on verified numbers from the U.S. government (rather than surveys or flawed studies), that illustrate the truth about guns and violence in the United States. This way you’ll have a single post to link to when you come across one of these pro-disarmament articles . . .


Gun Ownership On the Rise
NICS2013Oct

Over the last decade, the number of guns being purchased in the United States has skyrocketed. Just over the last two years, there really hasn’t been a month where the NICS checks (the background check required to buy a firearm from a firearms dealer) has dropped under a million checks per month. The NSSF tracks the number of NICS checks reported by the FBI, and while the numbers are slightly lower than last year around this time (artificially high due to Obama’s re-election) sales are still through the roof. And that doesn’t even count the number of new (factory fresh) gun sales in states where a concealed handgun license exempts the holder from having to pass a NICS check, such as Texas and Virginia.

Ruger is shipping over 1.2 million firearms this year, and that’s just one gun manufacturer — and not even the largest one. Some companies have backlogs of gun orders that will take them up to 2 years to fill, and when those guns do hit the market they’re quickly sold out in stores. Even without the new sales, guns are “durable goods” which means that they last a long time and the existing number of guns in the United States is (by some estimates) enough for eight guns for every ten people in the country.

All this is to say that guns are prevalent, and more guns are being sold every year in this country. The standard cry from gun control advocates is that more guns equals more death and more crime, so if their assertion is correct we should see a direct correlation between the number of guns being sold and an increase in the death rate in this country. But the numbers say otherwise.

Firearms Related Deaths On the Decline
HomicideCompare

If the gun control activists are right, then more guns must equal more crime. However, even in this graph that shows the overall homicide rate in blue and the firearms related homicide rate in red, you can clearly see that the phrase “steady” is the worst you can use to describe the current state of affairs in the United States, and the phrase “decline” might be more appropriate for the years since 2005. These numbers are from the U.S. Government Center for Disease Control, which tracks all deaths in the United States, and I personally pulled them yesterday when researching this article. .

Gun control activists constantly clamor that there’s a “gun violence epidemic” in the United States, but the numbers don’t reflect that statement. In fact, the argument could be made that as the firearms ownership rate increases there’s a correlation to a decline in the murder rate. So perhaps, more guns equal less crime? That’s the position taken by a recent study from Virginia that showed a decrease in violent crime as the number of firearms being sold increased, and while it’s an interesting possibility there’s no good way to decisively prove it. On the other hand, this data does decisively disprove the gun control hypothesis that “more guns = more crime.”

US-MURDER85101

To give you a little context on where these crime rates are compared to historical data, take this chart which shows the murder rate over a much larger period. The last time the United States was this peaceful was 33 years ago, according to the CDC. The United States has seen a decline in the murder rate ever since the peaks of the 1990s, and yet the gun control advocates claim that there’s now a “gun violence epidemic.” I’m not buying it.

Accidental Deaths On the Decline
AccidentDeathGunLine

While crime prevention is one claim of gun control advocates, another popular statement is that more guns mean that more people will accidentally shoot themselves. Well, again, the CDC disagrees with that assessment. Even as gun ownership is on the rise, and more people than ever are carrying concealed firearms, the number of people (raw number, mind you) accidentally killed with firearms each year continues to drop. The accident rate shows an even more marked decline.

Let me put this into context a little bit more. There are, according to the CDC, 308 million people in the United States. That’s 308,745,538. Of those 308 million people, only 600 were accidentally killed with a firearm. That’s a 0.000194% chance that you will be accidentally killed with a gun in any given year. According to the National Safety Council, over 12,000 people die every year simply by falling down.

Accidental Death Rate High, but Guns are Not the Problem
AccidentDeathOverall

The accidental death rate in the United States is about twice that of other countries, like the United Kingdom (18/100,000 versus 39/100,000). And while that may seem like a vote against guns, in reality the number of firearms related accidental deaths are so small that they’re barely visible in this chart (source: CDC). The main issue in the accidental death rate is traffic accidents, but when gun control advocates talk about their topic of choice they make it seem like the only thing keeping us from having the same lower statistics as the UK is gun control. It’s a lazy analysis of the situation, and even if we eliminated all firearms related accidental deaths it still wouldn’t bring us any closer to eliminating the gap in overall accidental deaths.

Interesting side note: the difference in accidental death rate is actually based on the way we commute to work. Cars are basically death traps, and the United Kingdom relies more on public transportation to get to work than the United States. We love our cars, even though we have an extremely high likelihood of dying in them. And yet we still drive, even though there’s a 0.012% chance we’ll die in one every year. For comparison, I have a 0.0002% chance that I’ll accidentally kill myself with my gun. So in reality, my gun is safer than my car. Go figure. Maybe I can somehow shoot my way to work, circus clown style…

Proportion of Guns Used in Crimes: Very, Very Low
Going back to that original point of the gun control advocates, that guns directly cause crime, then we should expect that a large percentage of the guns in this country would be used in a crime. However, that’s just not the case.

Percent firearms used in crime

This chart shows the number of guns in the United States (using a LOW estimate from Wikipedia) versus the total number of victims of violent crime involving a firearm every year (source: Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers for 2012). If we assume that a different gun was used for every robbery, murder and assault, then that number comes out to 460,718 firearms. That’s 0.185% of all guns in the United States. For reference, every year 2.13% of all motor vehicles are involved in a collision. So again, guns are safer than cars.

Concealed Carry: Safer and More Law Abiding than the Police
With the increasing popularity of concealed carry, there was a common thread among the gun control advocacy groups’ opposition: the statement that concealed carry would bring “blood in the streets.” That these “gun nuts” who carry guns everywhere they go are just “looking for trouble” and itching to kill someone. Well, again, that’s just not right.

MurderByGroup

Thanks to some sleuthing, we know that concealed carry holders are actually less likely than even the police to commit a murder. According to the Violence Policy Center, Florida has the highest murder rate among concealed carry holders, and Dean figured out that those numbers put the murder rate at somewhere around .58/100,000. Counting domestic homicides only, police officers committed 1.85/100,000 over the same time period. Nationally, the murder rate in the United States sits right around 4.5/100,000. Therefore, you’re over three times less likely to be killed in a room filled with concealed carry holders than police officers.

Cool, huh?

Firearms and Children: Declining Murders and Accidents
The last refuge for those without a logical leg to stand on is “think of the children!” OK, let’s think about the children for a second in terms of guns.

hr_trends_10-24-2010_600w340h

According to the CDC, the number of firearms related fatalities for “children” has been steadily falling over the last two decades even without more restrictive gun control laws. I put children in quotation marks because, while some people consider 24 year old people to still be children, my cut-off is the age at which the state lets you operate a 2-ton moving death machine unsupervised in public (16). The reason that this age bracket is used by gun control advocacy groups, as I outlined in this article, is that this is the age range in which most gang related crime is committed. Some estimates put the percentage of gang related murders in the United States at around 80%, indicating that the issue isn’t the availability of guns but the prevalence of gangs and the related violence.

Let’s move away from the murders for a second. Gun control advocates love to use the image of a child who accidentally shot themselves or someone else and died after “playing” with a gun. It evokes a parental response, making you feel like you need to “do something” to prevent such tragedies. And while those incidents do happen, it’s extremely rare — and getting rarer by the year.

Kids

Notice that distinctive downward trend? Yeah, I did too. Nevermind the fact that this happens to less than 150 kids every year, the fact of the matter is that the “problem” of kids accidentally killing themselves or others with a gun is one that is disappearing. Instead of increasing as more guns are being sold to the U.S. population, not only is the raw number of kids being killed in this matter staying relatively stable but it even seems to be declining.

Conclusions
The burden of proof is on the gun control activists. Their assertion is that more guns equal more crime, that concealed carry means “shoot-outs in the streets” and deranged “gun nuts” looking to kill people, and that there’s a “gun violence epidemic” that needs to be addressed. But looking at the numbers from the CDC, I don’t see it. Gun sales have gone through the roof in the last six years, and at worst the numbers for firearm related deaths are stable. At best, they’re declining. Not one single metric that I could find indicated that gun owners were anything less than model citizens, and that gun ownership is not the root of all evil.

The best confirmation of this comes not from any study or calculation, but from the opinions of the American people themselves. Support for gun control is at an all time low. I’d like to think that it’s because people are finally understanding that the object is not the problem but instead it’s the behavior that needs to be changed. However, some people still don’t see the light. Hopefully with enough proof we can change their minds as well.

read more...

Chicago: The Poster Child for Failed Gun Control

Chicago recently announced their firearm-related crime figures for 2012 – more than 2500 shootings and at least 513 homicides (we say “at least” because some of the victims haven’t died yet). Remember that this is in a city with among the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. In fact, Chicago has so many shootings that the Chicago Tribune devotes a special section to them:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/crime-law-justice/crimes/shootings/020010001165.topic

The situation in Chicago is best illustrated by this single headline from last August:

13 people shot and wounded in 30 minutes of Chicago violence, including 8 on a single street

http://www.startribune.com/nation/167314005.html?refer=y

Note that Illinois is the only state left in the nation where citizens have no ability to legally carry a gun for self-defense. In order to buy a gun, or even ammunition, an Illinois resident must produce a current FOID (Firearm Owners Identification) card. Chicago residents have yet more bureaucratic hoops to jump through, making it almost impossible to legally own a handgun, even after the city’s outrageously restrictive gun laws were rebuffed by the Supreme Court in the 2010 McDonald decision:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html

And if anyone expected things in Chicago to change after Mayor Richard M. Daley retired and Rahm Emanuel took over, they were sadly mistaken. In spite of a rash of shootings over the Summer, the new mayor’s approach is little more than a rehash of Daley’s “blame the guns” stand.

But what is really astonishing about most of Chicago political and civic leaders is their steadfast refusal to confront reality. No matter how obvious the failure of their anti-gun programs, no matter how many gang shootings shatter the night, their response is always the same – “we need more gun laws.”

It’s as if they live in some alternate universe – apparently, none of the city’s politicians have ever watched the History Channel’s illuminating series, “Gangland,” which makes it abundantly clear that inner city gangs are as heavily armed as ever. These brazen street thugs (including Chicago’s) merely laugh at gun laws, even boldly showing their guns to the interviewer, right on camera!

In stark contrast to Illinois and Chicago is the remarkable success of so-called “concealed carry laws” that are now the rule in 49 states. Most states have now implemented “shall-issue” laws that allow residents to carry handguns for self-defense. And contrary to the dire predictions of the anti-gun hysterics, the experience of these states has been uniformly, and overwhelmingly, positive – permit holders turn out to be MORE law-abiding than the average citizen, not less. It is a testament to their effectiveness that not a single state has ever repealed its carry law.

Yet time and again, whenever the citizens of Illinois, especially those in Chicago, even attempt to make it easier for the innocent residents to be able to defend themselves, the knee-jerk reaction from the political class is the same. They hysterically proclaim that letting the “good guys” carry guns will only result in “more blood in the streets” or similar irrational nonsense – seemingly ignoring the almost daily carnage that is the result of gangs who have absolutely no respect for any laws.

When I left Illinois in 1995 to move to Minnesota (where I now carry a gun daily), I accurately predicted that Illinois would be the very last state to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to enact a handgun carry permit law. The reason is simple – Illinois is not run by the people of Illinois, it is run by the city of Chicago. Why do you think Rahm Emanuel decided to run for mayor of Chicago instead of governor?

Because Emanuel knew quite well that the most powerful person in Illinois is not the governor – it is the mayor of the city of Chicago. Because by controlling the massive bloc of Democrat voters (alive and dead) that Chicago represents, the city dominates the state. And since the 1950′s Chicago has been run, and ruined, by Democrats.

And now, with the uproar over the Connecticut school shooting, no one should be surprised that another veteran of the virulently anti-gun Chicago Democrat machine, President Obama, is contemplating bringing Chicago-style gun control to the rest of the nation.

read more...

Facebook, Instagram Announce New Educational & Enforcement Measures Regarding Firearms

Facebook, at its heart, is about helping people connect and communicate.
Because of the diversity of people and cultures on our services, we know that people sometimes post or share things that may be controversial or objectionable.
We work hard to find a balance between enabling people to express themselves about topics that are important to them, and creating an environment that is safe and respectful.
This balance is important to how we view commercial activity on Facebook or Instagram. We have strict rules about how businesses can use our advertising tools. For example, we do not permit advertising for illegal drugs, tobacco products, prescription pharmaceuticals, weapons, and several other products and services, and restrict advertising for products such as alcohol, adult products, and gaming. In all cases, we have systems in place to review and remove advertising that violates our policies, is false, deceptive, or misleading.
Of course, most of our tools are free to use, and many people and organizations use them to establish a presence on Facebook, including to promote commercial transactions. While people can’t use our services to actually sell things to each other, they can set up a Page or make an occasional post to their Timeline to find a roommate, sell a home, or solicit contributions for a church or nonprofit organization. Just like posting on a bulletin board at a supermarket or community center, these activities may be considered commercial, but we treat this type of sharing like any other type of sharing on our services – and we respond to reports when something violates our Community Standards.
People sometimes use our free tools to discuss products that are regulated or controversial. In some cases they promote these products for sale or use, even though it’s not possible to complete a sale on Facebook or Instagram. While we’ve recently heard specific concerns from people about offers for the private sales of firearms, this is one of many areas where we face a difficult challenge balancing individuals’ desire to express themselves on our services, and recognizing that this speech may have consequences elsewhere.
Today, we are introducing a series of new educational and enforcement efforts for people discussing the private sale of regulated items:
Any time we receive a report on Facebook about a post promoting the private sale of a commonly regulated item, we will send a message to that person reminding him or her to comply with relevant laws and regulations. We will also limit access to that post to people over the age of 18.
We will require Pages that are primarily used by people to promote the private sale of commonly regulated goods or services to include language that clearly reminds people of the importance of understanding and complying with relevant laws and regulations, and limit access to people over the age of 18 or older if required by applicable law.
We will provide special in-app education on Instagram for those who search for sales or promotions of firearms.
We will not permit people to post offers to sell regulated items that indicate a willingness to evade or help others evade the law. For example, private sellers of firearms in the U.S. will not be permitted to specify “no background check required,” nor can they offer to transact across state lines without a licensed firearms dealer.
We have worked with a number of individuals and organizations on the development of these efforts, which will be implemented and enforced in the coming weeks. We are grateful in particular for the advice offered by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Americans for Responsible Solutions, Sandy Hook Promise, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action, (Editors Note: All groups are active Gun Ban Organizations] which helped us develop an approach for the private sale of firearms. We also appreciate the feedback provided by the Facebook Safety Advisory Board.
As always, we encourage people who see anything that violates our policies to report it to us using the tools found throughout our services. Facebook and Instagram will continue to remove content, and notify law enforcement where appropriate, when we are notified about things shared on our services that suggest a direct, credible risk to others’ safety. We will also continue to strictly enforce our advertising policies.
We believe these collective efforts represent the right approach in balancing people’s desire to express themselves while promoting a safe, responsible community.


read more...

Facebook mulling policy changes on gun-themed pages (exclusive)

Facebook may announce company policy changes for gun-related pages in the coming weeks, VentureBeat has learned.

The social network has been under pressure from the powerful Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Moms Demand Action civic group to ban gun-themed fan pages on the site.

“Talks are progressing. The discussions are ongoing; there have been positive developments,” sources close to the conversations told VentureBeat.

An extensive VentureBeat investigation last week revealed that adults and children were making arrangements to buy, sell, and trade guns through the many Facebook fan pages devoted to guns and the people who use them, sometimes in violation of federal and state gun laws.

Last October, a 15-year-old high school student in Kentucky bought a 9mm handgun from a man he met through a Facebook fan page. The teen was arrested when he was caught with the loaded pistol on the campus of Greenup County High School. The seller drove from Ohio to Kentucky to make the sale and was also arrested. The suspect told sheriff’s investigators he sold other guns to people he met on Facebook fan pages.

The two advocacy groups recently joined forces to pressure “Facebook [to] get out of the gun business.” Mayors Against Illegal Guns was cofounded by former NYC three-term mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg along with Boston’s then-mayor, Thomas Menino, in 2006. Mayors of more than 1,100 U.S. cities belong to the organization.

A Moms Demand Action petition on Change.org to prohibit gun sales on Facebook and Facebook-owned Instagram has over 94,000 signatures. Comedian Sarah Silverman recently tweeted about the campaign, which is getting massive exposure through U.S. media outlets.

The petition is addressed to Instagram chief executive Kevin Systrom and Facebook cofounder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg:

To:
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO
Kevin Systrom, Instagram CEO
Your platforms unfortunately allow users to buy, sell, and trade firearms without requiring criminal background checks.Other online platforms including Craigslist, eBay, and Google+ have already prohibited these sales.I ask that you put an end to this completely unregulated social media gun show and prohibit gun sales from your platforms immediately.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
“Anybody can go to Facebook and Instagram and buy a gun online. We’re asking them to review their policies,” a spokeswoman for Mayors Against Illegal Guns told VentureBeat last week.

Facebook, of course, is not an e-commerce site and doesn’t sell anything. Last week, a Facebook spokesperson told VentureBeat, “You can’t buy things on Instagram and Facebook, nor can you promote the sale or use of weapons in advertising. We encourage people who come across any illegal activity to report it to us.”

Users are still getting around the company’s stated user policies.

Google+, with about 450 millions users, also prohibits the sale of guns and many other items through the site.

A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment Monday.

Federal law enforcement sources told VentureBeat they view Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms “as emerging threats for unlawful gun transactions in the United States.”

read more...

SBR Caliber Showdown: 5.56/.223 vs. 300 BLK By Jim Barrett

Ever since I first read one of Foghorn’s 300 BLK fanboy articles back in early 2012, I’ve been hooked on the caliber. 300 BLK gives you essentially the same ballistics as 7.62 x 39 out of the ubiquitous AR-15 platform with only a barrel change. Everything else in your stock 5.56 AR can stay the same and you get to use the full 30-round capacity of your 5.56 magazines (offer void in CA, MA, NY, NJ, etc., etc.). The caliber is designed to be shot both supersonic and subsonic and unlike many other gas piston guns, you don’t need to fiddle with the gas settings when you screw on a suppressor. Really, what’s not to like? Well, pricing and availability are less than stellar, but 300 BLK is a cinch to reload and if you purchase clean and pre-sized brass from Carolina Brass, you can be cranking out your own rounds by the dozen in minutes with a very rudimentary reloading rig . . .

A while back, Foghorn told us about his latest project, a 300 BLK Short Barrel Rifle that had just recently cleared paperwork. That post prompted a lively exchange on a number of topics, one of which was the performance of 5.56 versus 300 BLK in SBRs. So I fired off an email to Foghorn and suggested that he do a comparison shoot off between 5.56 and 300 BLK in both full length and SBR length barrels and compare the results. Nick thought this was a peachy idea and in the meantime he sent me a link to a comparison someone else had done with 55 grain 5.56 and 110 grain 300 BLK in different barrel lengths from 4 inches up to 24 inches. For the curious, that chart can be found here.

But Nick’s a pretty busy guy and with my recent purchase of an AAC 9” 300 BLK upper, I had all of the tools I needed to do the comparison myself. With that in mind, I set up the following test:

For the .223/5.56 mm sequence, I decided to try both 55 grain and 62 grain M855 ammo. I wanted to use M193, but didn’t have any kicking around, so instead, I used some Fiocchi 55 grain .223.

imgp0001-3_7

Test weapons were my 16” SIG Sauer 516 Patrol Rifle and my SIG Sauer 10” P556 pistol.

516-patrol-Detail-Hero

For the .300 BLK testing, I opted for Remington UMC 115 Grain 300 BLK ammo

547535

and used both my 9-inch and 16-inch AAC 300 BLK uppers. For the curious ATF agents out there, you can relax. The 9-inch upper was mounted on a legitimate pistol lower receiver. Unfortunately, this isn’t exactly and apples-to-apples test. Ideally, the shorter barrel lengths for the two calibers should have both been either 9 inches or 10 inches, but one must work with what one has.

photo

The test was conducted on the same day to minimize the impact of temperature and humidity differences. For each string, 20 shots were fired through my chronograph and the average velocities taken. Finally, the velocity of each load in each barrel was compared and the percent reduction calculated.

There are a couple of things to note here. First of all, remember that while the 5.56 round had to contend with a 6-inch reduction in barrel length (16 to 10 inches), the 300 BLK had an even larger reduction – 7 inches (from 16 down to 9 inches). Even with this handicap, the velocity reduction of the 300 BLK versus the 5.56 was very close on the 55 grain bullet and 6% less than with the 62 grain projectile.

In an effort to adjust for the one inch difference in barrel length between the two calibers, consider that the chart Foghorn sent me predicted a 9.35% reduction in velocity of a 110 grain 300 BLK round. This would put it relatively close to the measured 55 grain .223 reduction and much better than the 62 grain velocity reduction. Further consider that the same chart predicts an 11.7% reduction in velocity for the 110 grain test round when moving from 16 inches to 9 inches. My testing showed the reduction was actually even less – 10.11% so its fair to suggest that had I fired this round from a true 10 inch barrel, the velocity reduction percentage might very well have been even less than the 55 grain .223 reduction.

The second thing to keep in mind is that velocity tells only half of the story. To determine a round’s effectiveness, you also have to consider bullet weight. While it’s true that the 115 grain 300 BLK round that was tested had a lower velocity across the board than the two .223/5.56 rounds that were tested, the 300 BLK was also about twice as heavy. In order to compare the three rounds another metric must be used to normalize the results – Muzzle Energy.

Muzzle Energy is a measurement of the kinetic energy of a round as it leaves the barrel. Both bullet weight and bullet velocity contribute to total kinetic energy. Because muzzle energy takes both weight and velocity into account, it allows us to calculate a single value for a particular load and enables comparisons between loads of different weights and velocities. That said, muzzle energy is not the one metric to rule them all because as soon as a bullet leaves the muzzle, other factors such as gravity and aerodynamic drag start to impact the bullet’s flight. Since the goal here is to draw a comparison and because I’m really bad at advanced mathematics, I’m not going to try and create a high level model that takes multiple factors into account. Instead, I’m going to calculate muzzle energy, compare the three rounds, and then go get a beer.

Since I’m lazy, I used Verne Trester’s muzzle energy calculator to figure out the energy of each of the tested rounds. Here are the results:

So, what were my conclusions? Well, first of all, a 115 grain 300 BLK round has more muzzle energy inch for inch than anything in the 5.56 or .223 range. No real surprise there. What’s more interesting is what happens when you cut the barrel down. The 300 BLK’s muzzle energy out of a nine inch barrel was within 100 fps of the 62 grain 5.56 coming out of a 16 inch barrel and when compared to the 62 grain 5.56 out of the 10 inch barrel, it was no contest. The 55 grain .223 bullet isn’t even in the game when compared to the performance of the 300 BLK.

In an AR-15 platform, there really is nothing that the 5.56 round can do that the 300 BLK can’t do better. Sure, for very long distances, the 5.56 might have a slight advantage, but with his 9 inch barrel, Foghorn was able to ring the 500 yard gong with supersonic ammo and could consistently hit the 250 yard gong shooting the slower subsonic ammo. We already know from the calculations above that once you cut the barrel down on a 5.56 round, you really impact its performance, so to keep up with the 9 inch 300 BLK SBR, you would need to retain your 16 inch barrel for 5.56. Now, for real distance work there are still better AR-15 calibers – 6.8 SPC for one. But then again, I have my .308 LWRC REPR, my 300 Win Mag Bolt Rifle, and my .338 Lapua for distance shooting, all of which will be superior to just about anything in the AR-15 platform.

A SBR is not likely to be something that I use for real distance work – it is a close-in gun. Based upon the results of my testing, assuming that you can overcome the cost and lack of availability problem of 300 BLK (and you either own or plan to get a suppressor), the 300 BLK is my choice for SBR caliber.


read more...

Five Ways To Carry A Full Size Gun

I’ve just started a new gig, as if juggling 17 projects at a time isn’t enough… I’m honored to be contributing a regular column at Beretta USA’s new blog. I own a number of Berettas, both pistols and shotguns, and will be talking about training, practice, recreational shooting and having good old-fashioned fun with shooting sports.
Here’s a link to the first article with suggestions on how to concealed carry a full-size gun like the Beretta 92FS:
Got big guns? I do.
Because I like big guns and I cannot lie. While liking big guns may sounds like a macho thing, it’s really the opposite. Two of my favorite big guns, the Beretta 92FS and the Px4 Storm, are the same caliber as plenty of smaller guns chambered in 9mm and .40 S&W respectively. They’re just larger. And that’s where the reverse macho element comes into play.
A larger gun is easier to shoot. You can get a good, solid grasp on it. It’s got a longer sight radius, so aiming is easier. The larger weight and size soak up felt recoil. When you add all that up, big guns shoot lighter and more comfortably than small guns. Heck, when I take a new shooter to the range, the first thing I steer them to, after some practice with a .22LR like the Neos, is the biggest gun they can properly hold – ideally chambered in 9mm. Why? Because I know it will be kinder and gentler to them. Less blast, less muzzle jump and less felt recoil.
As far as I’m concerned, there are lots of benefits to big guns, but only one drawback. That disadvantage is ease of concealment. If you carry a concealed gun on a daily basis, a large gun is more work. Not just in terms of weight, but the longer grip and barrel present more “bulk” that needs to be hidden away in your clothes. Depending on your lifestyle and daily activities, there are a number of ways to comfortably, and effectively, conceal a larger gun. Let’s consider a few.

Hybrid Inside-the-Waistband:

My personal favorite general purpose carry method for large guns is a hybrid-style inside-the-waistband holster. Beretta makes them for my 92FS and Px4 Storm. Here’s why they’re such a good solution for full size pistols:
The large leather back panel distributes the weight over a large area, so it tends to “feel” lighter.
The large surface area against your body also helps stabilize a heavier gun. Remember that Newton guy? One of his laws has something to do with body motion, mass of your pistol and stability. I think.
The kydex mold for the pistol itself has a tight snap fit so your heavy gun is locked in place.
Notice how the gun is aggressively angled forward. The angle directs the full size grip upwards, instead of backwards, so you’re less likely to print from the back when carrying a gun with a tall grip.
Last but not least, carrying inside-the-waistband makes barrel length a moot point as the barrel is inside your pants. From a concealment perspective, it doesn’t matter if your barrel is three, five, or 19 inches long, provided it’s not so long that it interferes with your knee joint!

Off Body Carry

While not my favorite for general purpose carry, off-body solutions have their place. Riding a bike. Jogging. Hiking. Going for a walk. Picnics. Basically, off body can be a great solution where your off body carry device is likely to stay on you the whole time you’re doing whatever it is you’re doing.

A few things fall into this category including concealed carry purses, fanny or belly packs and the new “sling” packs. For athletic activity, like riding, hiking or walking, I prefer the sling pack design. Usually a single strap backpack, these are designed to quickly rotate to the front of the body in such a way that a gun compartment is presented. Sling pack designs help you conceal a gun in plain sight while making it almost instantly accessible.

The only drawback to off body solutions is just that - they can be “off” body. If you’re engaged in activity where you won’t remove the carry pack for long periods of time, great. If you’re routine is such that you need to put the pack or bag down frequently, this is not a good solution. After all, you’re responsible for the security of your gun at all times.

Sexy Undergarments

No, I’m not talking getting into the Valentines’ Day spirit early. I’m talking about spandex undershirt and undershorts solutions. I’ve had good success with undershirt carry for my Beretta 92FS and Px4 Storm. They key is to find a shirt that has an elastic gun security strap mounted high - just under your arm. Not only is concealment outstanding, the high mount allows your arm to help retain the gun during physical activity. Some designs feature a pouch instead of an elastic strap. These are great for smaller guns, but not as effective for larger ones as the gun won’t fit entirely inside the pocket and allow it to close properly.

You might also check out concealment shorts. Think spandex athletic underwear with a gun pocket mounted in the four and eight o’clock positions. You get many of the advantages of an inside-the-waistband holster but with more wardrobe flexibility. You can tuck in a shirt or blouse with no telltale clips exposed.

Drawbacks? You won’t be able to access your gun as quickly as with other solutions as you have to grope inside your shirt first. As always, plenty of practice with your chosen method of carry is critical!

Shoulder Holsters

Don Johnson was onto something back in the Miami Vice days. A quality shoulder holster can be a good solution if you spend a lot of time at a desk or in vehicles - in other words, sitting. Of course, your daily attire needs to include a cover garment that’s open in the front, like a blazer or jacket. I find that the shoulder harness system with gun on one side and spare magazines on the other balances nicely. Carrying a full size gun and a couple of spare magazines is not a problem.

The biggest downside is muzzle discipline. Most shoulder holsters have the muzzle oriented behind you. And when you draw, you run the risk of muzzling people to your offhand side and front. Still, this is one of my favorite ways to carry a large, heavy pistol. Just practice your draw to muzzle the ground instead of bystanders.

The Not-Quite-Small-of-Back Holster

Trinity-922Using a traditional outside-the-waistband holster with a large gun usually requires a cover garment akin to those black trench coats Neo and Trinity wore in The Matrix. Sometimes that’s an option, especially in colder climates where a jacket stays on most of the time. If you live in the outdoor sauna known as the Southeastern United States, big cover garments can cause heat stroke. One option to consider is a heavily-raked holster, such as a small-of-back model. But wait, aren’t small-of-back holsters kind of dangerous? Perhaps. If you get pushed or fall down, you really don’t want a big gun between the ground and your spine. That’s why I like to use a small-of-back type holster carried in the four-thirty or five o’clock position. You get the benefits of good concealment without the risk of hurting yourself. And the gun is a lot easier to reach than from a six o’clock position. Why a small of back design you ask? Because of the aggressive cant angle (heavily raked) design. The severe angle allows you to carry the gun further back towards the six o’clock position. The angle also means the barrel of a full size gun doesn’t extend as far down, hence less of a need for an extra-long cover garment.

These are just a few suggestions that have worked for me. Keep in mind holsters are a very personal thing. You have to balance your body type, daily routine and gun accessibility requirements to find the right answer for you.

read more...

ATF Agents Lose Their Government Issued Guns, Kids Find Them.. Our government at work..

ATF Agents Lose Their
Government Issued Guns,
Kids Find Them
Katie Pavlich
2/27/2014 8:45:00 AM ­ Katie Pavlich
I am continually amazed how many of the very agents in charge of enforcing America's gun laws at the
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms are completely reckless with guns. Further, it's incredible
how good they are at losing guns as a result of irresponsible or careless behavior. The Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel is out with a new report showing ATF agents lost dozens of their loaded government
issued handguns, one of which was found by children (paging Diane Sawyer at ABC News):
ATF agents have lost track of dozens of government-issued guns, after stashing them under
the front seats in their cars, in glove compartments or simply leaving them on top of their
vehicles and driving away, according to internal reports from the past five years obtained by
the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Agents left their guns behind in bathroom stalls, at a hospital, outside a movie theater and on
a plane, according to the records, obtained Tuesday by the news organization under the
federal Freedom of Information Act.
In December 2009, two 6­year­old boys spotted an agent's loaded ATF Smith &
Wesson .357 on a storm sewer grate in Bettendorf, Iowa. The agent lived nearby
and later said he couldn't find his gun for days but didn't bother reporting it —
until it hit the local newspaper.
In Los Angeles in 2011, an agent went out to a bar drinking with other agents and
friends, reportedly consuming four alcoholic beverages. The next morning he
woke up and realized his ATF­issued Glock was gone. It was not found.
Unreal. A loaded handgun spotted by kids thanks to careless placement? Drinking while carrying a
firearm in a restaurant establishment? That's illegal. In fact, carrying a gun into a bar is illegal in most
states, including California. Oh and what's this? It wasn't just handguns that were lost or stolen but
long guns too? Terrific.
Most of the lost weapons were handguns, but there also were at least two assault rifles stolen.
Typically the reports do not indicate what happened to the unrecovered guns. However, in a
November 2008 incident, the gun may have wound up in Mexico, according to the report.2/27/2014 ATF Agents Lose Their Government Issued Guns, Kids Find Them- Katie Pavlich
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/02/27/atf-agents-lose-their-government-issued-guns-kids-find-them-n1801445/print 2/2
Last year the Journal Sentinel found ATF had lost a fully-automatic machine gun on the streets of
Milwaukee. In early 2011, shortly after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed, we found out the
Bureau allowed more than 2500 firearms to be trafficked from the United States and into Mexico for
use by brutal Mexican cartels. How do these incidents keep happening? Because there is never any real
accountability or consequences for these actions, so they continue.
At the end of 2013, the Obama administration announced new goals for legislation requiring lost or
stolen guns to be reported. They should start with ATF. It is completely asinine that the very same
agency responsible for enforcing gun laws is full of agents constantly breaking those laws and losing
firearm

read more...

Ukrainian Gun Owners Association’s official statement

Today every citizen of Ukraine understands why our country has hundreds of thousands of policemen. Last illusions were crushed when riot police used rubber batons and boots at the Independence Square on peaceful citizens.

After such actions we realize that it is not enough to only adopt the Gun Law.
As of today Ukrainian Gun Owners Association will start to work on the preparation of amendments to the Constitution, which will provide an unconditional right for Ukrainian citizens to bear arms.

People should have the right to bear arms, which will be put in written into the Constitution.

Authorities should not and will not be stronger than its people!

Armed people are treated with respect!

read more...

Body Armor, Punched Or Pierced, Your Choice.

Ft Collins, CO --(Ammoland.com)- Many of our non-LEO students ask me about body-armor.

Invented several decades ago by my friend, Dick Davis, “soft” body-armor has since become standard equipment for uniformed patrol officers, and has saved many lives. Its worth is no longer “theoretical!”

My non-LEO students want to know if they should buy it too. My standard answer is this:

“Soft body-armor makes sense only when you plan to wear it routinely. Even the latest versions of soft body-armor, when thus worn constantly, are still hot and uncomfortable. When you think you have a genuine need, and you’re willing to endure the discomfort of all-day wear, it is at least arguable.”

Soft body-armor will protect you from most common pistol bullets. You’ll end-up with a nice bruise, but you’ll probably live through it. The alternative is a penetrating wound that is much more likely to be fatal or seriously injurious.

Your choice is: “punched” or “pierced!”

Most soft body-armor is not designed to be donned quickly. Putting it on usually takes several minutes, as straps need to be adjusted, etc. It is, in most cases, intended to be worn over a T-shirt, but under the dress shirt, so it is not obvious, at least to the casual observer, that you have it on.

So, keeping soft body-armor next to your bed at night is probably not the best choice, as you likely won’t be able to get it on quickly enough during a crisis.

Some manufacturers make a “tactical jacket,” which is a bulky field-jacket or vest with integral kevlar panels. Worn externally, it is designed to be put on quickly, but is not suitable for all-day wear. At your bedside, this product makes more sense than does covert, soft body-armor, described above.

Now come my friends at CSE Gear with a lightweight carrier and plate system, specifically designed for bedside duty, but not suitable for all-day, covert wear. The carrier has a slick finish (no Molle), is Velcro-secured, and, at less than four pounds (front and back), is designed to be thrown on quickly. It uses DKX “hard” armor, thicker than soft body-armor and non-flexible (but very light), it provides protection from most pistol bullets. Since it is “hard,” you don’t get the bruise always associated with ” soft” body-armor.

Mate the carrier with the DKX Max III plates, and your total burden is still less than 7 lbs, and it stops rifle rounds, including 308!


read more...

Lights, Sights, Lasers 2014 US LE/MIL Tour: You Can’t Shoot What You Can’t See

Fort Worth, TX - Supporting sponsors of the Lights, Sights, Lasers 2014 US Tour have partnered to bring accredited training through Wes Doss of Khyber Interactive Associates and is intended for firearms instructors, tactical officers along with law enforcement and military professionals assigned to specialty details/assignments.

This one-day (8 hour) accredited workshop is being hosted by departments from Florida to Washington State and is no-cost to the attending student; for additional Tour information visit http://www.LSLTour.com.

Class sizes are limited and pre-registration is required.

2014 Tour Dates & Locations

February 20 & 21: ALS/AMTEC Training Ceneter – Perry, FL
March 18 & 20: Mobile Police Department – Mobile, AL
April 7 & 8: Alexandria Police Department – Alexandria, LA
April 21 & 22: Independence Township PD – Independence Township, NJ
May 19 & 20: Dillon Sportsman’s Park – Zanesville, Ohio
May 29 & 30: Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office – Phoenix, AZ
June 9 & 10: Minnesotta School of Business Dept. of Criminal Justice – Jordan, MN
September 15 & 16: Richland Police Department – Richland, WA
October 16 & 17: San Antonio Police Department – San Antonio, TX
October 20 & 21: Marine Corps Air Station – Yuma, AZ

This program is funded and made possible by the Lights, Sights, Lasers 2014 Official Tour Sponsors:

XS Sight Systems | Title Sponsor

XS Sight Systems is a family-owned business located in Fort Worth, Texas. For over 18 years XS® has been a leader in precision manufacturing of practical hunting and combat effective tactical products for civilian, law enforcement and military professionals. XS® 24/7 Tritium gunfighter sights utilize a shallow rear V and visible front Dot, designed for quick front sight acquisition in full to low lighting conditions. Upgrade your pistol, rifle and shotgun with The Fastest Sights in Any Light.

Steyr Arms | Partner Sponsor

Established in 1864 in Steyr, Austria, Steyr Arms is one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious firearms manufacturers. Steyr’s comprehensive lines of premium hunting rifles, precision sporting and tactical rifles, and striker-fired handguns are technically mature, and their subtle elegance also communicates the harmony between appearance and substance. Steyr’s legendary SBS actions and cold-hammer-forged barrels are distinctive and unparalleled.

Blade-Tech Industries | Ancillary Sponsor

Blade-Tech Industries is the leading manufacturer of custom, production thermoplastic, injection molded tactical holsters, knife sheaths and magazine pouches. Blade-Tech also produces its own line of high quality field knives. Our injection molded and Kydex holsters are the culmination of rigorous field testing by Law Enforcement, Military Personnel and also at Gunsite Academy, one of the world’s premier firearms institutions. Our holsters, pouches and knives are in daily use by members of law enforcement departments, Special Ops, civilians, competition shooters and military agencies worldwide.

Crimson Trace

Over the past 17 years, Crimson Trace Corporation has shipped nearly a million sets of Lasergrips and Laserguard units to responsible gun owners throughout the world. Our diverse and loyal customer base includes: the US military, federal/state/local law enforcement agencies, private security officers, concealed carry aficionados, defense-minded citizens, target shooters and sportsmen. As the undisputed industry leader in laser sighting products for handguns and rail-equipped long guns, Crimson Trace places a passionate focus on our products – because the lives of our customers may depend on it.

DRD Tactical | Ancillary Sponsor

DRD Tactical specializes in the design and manufacturing of quick take-down rifle systems that fit in suitcases, briefcases, attaché cases, small backpacks and camera hard cases. Our rifles can be assembled in less than one minute without the use of tools. These advantages allow for a very compact carry of full size carbines in 5.56, 300AAC and 7.62 NATO calibers by motorcycle officers, SWAT, and covert units, etc.

Gargoyles Performance Eyewear | Ancillary Sponsor

Release your inner hero with Gargoyles Performance Eyewear. Our line of military and law enforcement sunglasses is made with the best materials and the latest technology, resulting in excellent durability and unparalleled optical clarity. Every lens in our 2014 line meets or exceeds ANSI Z87.1+ standards for high mass and high velocity impact. Additionally, our Z87.1+ and Tactical+ lines meet or exceed additional ANSI Z87.1+ standards for impact resistance and coverage. Gargoyles sunglasses protect the eyes of the heroes who protect us.

Rainier Arms | Ancillary Sponsor

Started by enthusiasts for enthusiasts, Rainier Arms specializes in high-end AR15s/M16s, parts and accessories. Founded in 2005, RainierArms.com already has more than 2590 unique products, and growing. RA’s technical advisory team consists of enthusiasts, law enforcement and military personnel that continue to make our offerings unique and desirable in the marketplace.

Sharps Rifle Company | Ancillary Sponsor

The Sharps Rifle Company Relia-Bolt compensates by providing a patented camming action that allows the bolt to continue into battery. By rounding and tapering the lugs, the Relia-Bolt will push past carbon buildup, sand and dirt, unlike the square edges of traditional MSR bolts that would typically jam. The Relia-Bolt is an original invention, engineered by Broadsword Group designers. This drop-in bolt for assault rifle platforms is currently in the patenting process (patent also extending beyond ARs). Its contoured lugs make jamming in the bolt-to-barrel extension almost impossible – in fact, to date there have been no reports of jamming.

TerraLUX | Ancillary Sponsor

Founded in 2003, TerraLUX Inc. designs, patents, manufactures, and distributes LED-based lighting solutions. Born from a rich tradition of technology innovation in solid-state lighting, TerraLUX builds its expertise into every product and component it makes. Our LED flashlights, worklights, headlamps and LED conversions are designed to provide reliable, cutting-edge performance and features for the most demanding users.



read more...

Breaking News: Colt is buying LWRC for $60 million

A well placed source just told us that Colt is buying LWRC for $60 million. The deal is supposed to close on 1 March. The Maryland company may relocate to Florida or Texas and the LWRC M6 Individual Carbine (M6IC) rifle will become a Colt branded product.

Richard Bernstein purchased LWRC in 2008 for $5 million. Bernstein, who is an owner and investor in a number of private businesses, has been involved in the defense industry for a while now. In 2004 he sold BAI Aerosystems to L-3 Communications (the manufacturer of EOTech Holographic sights). One of his companies was a supplier to LWRC before he purchased it.

Our friends at All Outdoors broke the news yesterday that LWRC was up for sale.

* Colt Holding Corp. owns both Colt’s Manufacturing Company or Colt Defense LLC.


Not in Our House: Protecting the American Outdoorsman

Columbus, OH --(Ammoland.com)- I am starting to get a real edge to me. Actually, I’m flat out angry.

For much of my life I cruised along as an outdoorsman that was simply focused on where the next hunting or fishing trip would be, or what new piece of gear I would save up money to buy.

For most people who have hobbies or deep interests in something, they can focus their time and energy on enjoying it without constantly looking over their shoulder for someone trying to take it away from them.

If you’re an American outdoorsman, you do not have that luxury.

It’s my job at U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) to lead the fight against the bad guys. Primarily the bad guys include anti-hunting organizations and animal rights extremists. I love my work and consider it a great responsibility, but to be honest, I wish I didn’t have to do it. I wish that we could just be left alone to enjoy our outdoor lifestyles without the constant attacks designed to take away our way of life because someone doesn’t agree with it. All I wanted to do last night after returning home from a business trip was read my hunting magazines and catch up on current events within the outdoor industry. Instead I had to deal with anti-hunting initiatives being advanced in several places across the country.

Yes, I am complaining. I am not complaining about my job, however. I am complaining about having to waste time that should be spent on enjoying the outdoor traditions that have shaped my life because of a segment of society that is not only misinformed, but radical to the point of valuing the lives of animals more than humans.

I am scared that the average outdoorsman doesn’t really understand just how dangerous the situation is becoming, and how we may be closer to losing our hunting rights than maintaining them.

Just a few of the issues we’re working on as I type this include:

the attempt to eliminate all types of hunting with dogs in California;
ensuring that the management of Great Lakes wolves in Michigan is handled by the state’s wildlife management agency;
lawsuits dealing with wolf management on both a federal level and in Wisconsin;
more than 100 dog-related bills that could have a profound impact on hunting dog owners;
protection of sound bear hunting practices in Maine;
infiltration of state wildlife commissions across the country by anti-hunting interests;
the attempted elimination of mountain lion hunting in Nebraska despite the clear need defined by the state’s wildlife management agency;
formal education of everyone from elementary school children to aspiring attorneys by anti-hunting interests; and
a new anti-trapping bill in New Hampshire.

Sadly, this is just the tip of the iceberg and there are undoubtedly dozens of other issues that we don’t even know about. There are also other issues that we are aware of that we just don’t have the money or time to pursue.

I hope if you are reading this that you take a moment to pass it along or simply think about just how threatened our cherished outdoor endeavors are thanks to a group of people who simply don’t agree with our chosen lifestyles. Yes, they are boldly walking into our front doors and telling us how to live our lives. I know that everyone’s time is limited and we want to spend it enjoying hunting, fishing and trapping. I am asking you to please just dedicate a small percentage of that time on helping to protect our outdoor heritage by being aware of the issues, and by being ready when called upon to fight for what you believe in.

I am going to make time to catch up on a few of my favorite hunting magazines and I might even try to do some coyote hunting this afternoon. I hope the next piece I write is something you’ll enjoy. I wish everything I write could be.


Defending Yourself Against Knockout Gang Criminals With A Gun in Virginia

Covington VA --(Ammoland.com)- I’m sure many of you have heard of the “knockout game.”

If you haven’t, it is a game where the participants randomly select an innocent stranger and attempt to knock them out with one punch. Three people have already been killed in suspected knockout attacks. As Matt Walsh notes:

In some corners of the Earth, this activity is also known as “attempted murder.” Here, for some teenagers, it’s a hobby, like collecting baseball cards.

Matt advises his readers to defend themselves with a gun. This is good advice, but before you do that, here’s a primer on Virginia law.

In Virginia, you may open carry a weapon in most places with or without a concealed handgun permit. If you go on private property and the owner of the establishment prohibits guns, you must abide by their wishes. To learn more about where you can carry, I would recommend you check out the Virginia Citizen’s Defense League website. For example, there are prohibitions on carrying on federal facilities and schools.

In Virginia, if you desire to conceal carry a weapon, you will need a Concealed Handgun Permit. This is relatively easy to get. You can take a concealed carry online safety course, then apply for your concealed handgun permit at your local Circuit Court. Again, the VCDL website may be a good resource for you to learn about prohibited areas.

But be careful not to brandish a weapon. Virginia Code Section 18.2-282 states:

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense.

Some commentators have argued that the brandishing statute should be rewritten to prevent those with hoplophobia, an unreasonable fear of guns, from abusing the statute. There was recently a case where a citizen that was moving his own weapon from his person to a console while in his own vehicle was charged with brandishing a weapon because he was spotted by a hoplophobic bystander.

You should only draw your weapon if you need it for self-defense and are justified in using it. Brandishing a firearm in defense of personal property is a crime. There must be imminent danger to human life to justify drawing your weapon. The Virginia Court of Appeals notes: “… the amount of force used to defend oneself must not be excessive and must be reasonable in relation to the perceived threat.” Diffendal v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 417, 421, 382 S.E.2d 24,25 (1989).

The Virginia Citizens Defense League properly cites the relevant portions of the Sands case, which states:

The “bare fear” of serious bodily injury, or even death, however well-grounded, will not justify the taking of human life… “There must [also] be some overt act indicative of imminent danger at the time.” (citations omitted). In other words, a defendant “must wait till some overt act is done[,] … till the danger becomes imminent.” (citation omitted). In the context of a self-defense plea, “imminent danger” is defined as “[a]n immediate, real threat to one’s safety …” (citation omitted). “There must be . . . some act menacing present peril… [and] [t]he act… must be of such a character as to afford a reasonable ground for believing there is a design… to do some serious bodily harm, and imminent danger of carrying such design into immediate execution.” – Commonwealth v. Sands, 262 Va. 724, 729, 553 S.E.2d 733, (2001).

Because these knockout thugs operate with the element of surprise and there is legal risk involved in drawing a weapon preemptively or even in firing in self-defense, I would counsel you to be thoughtful about whether you should open carry or conceal carry your handgun. Some of my readers may opt to do both. Obviously you can’t brandish a weapon, but open carrying may provide a deterrent effect. (Or perhaps you might open carry an unloaded weapon and conceal carry a loaded one if you foresee someone grabbing your weapon.)

About:
Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right. Visit: www.vcdl.org




read more...

ABC News reports on guns mislead Americans

By John Lott

Published February 07, 2014

| FoxNews.com

advertisement

Gun control advocates not only push new fees and taxes on guns to reduce ownership, but they also employ another tactic: scaring people into not owning guns.

Last week, on January 31, ABC News saturated its news programs with the alleged danger of gun ownership.

It started early in the day with a segment on “Good Morning America,” then came a report on the evening news, and finally an entire hour devoted to the subject on "20/20."

The reports all focused on the dangers guns pose for children.

Although a producer for ABC News spent hours asking me questions about this subject before the reports aired on various news programs, our discussions seemed to have had no impact.

What I told them just didn’t fit the type of story they wanted to tell.

The producers appeared to want to argue that gun ownership had fallen, dropping as low as 33%, implying that gun ownership really is not all that popular any more.

Yet, as I explained to the producer I spoke with, the General Social Survey poll they wanted to cite was unusual. Other polls had found much higher rates of gun ownership.

Indeed, I pointed out, much to her surprise, ABC News’ own polls show that gun ownership has changed little, currently holding at 43%. But in their reports, ABC didn’t even mention their own polls, instead cherry-picking the one with the lowest number.

ABC’s goal was to make people believe that little, innocent children frequently play with guns, accidentally hurting themselves and others.

On "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer warned: “Every hour a child is rushed to the emergency room because of gun shots.”

Reinforcing this, correspondent David Muir was more specific: “Looking at children and guns, the most recent statistics from 2009. And take a look tonight, they are eye opening. The new numbers are arresting. . . . . 7,391 children rushed to the hospital every year because of those gun injuries, so often accidents in the home. 453 of those children die at the hospital. . . .”

And, he continued, reporting that "many of those cases are an accidental shooting in their own home."

ABC presented the tragic story of a 3-year-old boy who died from a self-inflicted gunshot. The father, a police officer, Mark Easter, had his gun accessible because he faced threats from criminals.

Not too surprisingly, the grieving officer now recommends people to lock up their guns in a safe.

With the statistics and this tragic case, it all seems to make sense: if you insist on owning a gun, lock it up. And to protect your children, ABC News recommends that you go as far as asking your neighbors about gun ownership.

Indeed, ABC News went into great detail about how to convince your neighbors to lock up their guns. But Sawyer and Muir are simply wrong to claim that the vast majority of firearm injuries involve accidents with young children.

Indeed, even the article from the medical journal Pediatrics that ABC News relied on for information, doesn’t show that.

The vast majority of the injuries do not involve little children, but older teenagers, including 18- and 19-year-olds (who normally would be labeled “adults”).

Consider the following statistics from the Pediatrics article:

- The injury rate for black males 15 to 19 years old was 13 times higher than for white males.

- 84 percent of the injuries were for 15 to 19 year olds and 62 percent as a result of criminal assaults. These injuries don’t occur from young children accidentally mishandling a gun in their own home, but rather as victims of brutal crimes, often gang related.

If the study had broken down the numbers further, one would see that most of these injuries were for 17, 18, and 19-year-olds.

For example, in 2012, the Centers for Disease Control reports that 76% of firearm injuries were for those under age 20 were for 17, 18, and 19 year olds.

This is hardly the impression ABC News created by showing pictures and stories of young children while mentioning the 7,391 injuries.

So what does all this mean? If we want to reduce these injuries, we need to focus our resources on gang violence. And normal law-abiding citizens locking up their guns will not reduce gang violence.

So what about gun accidents for little children? They are extremely rare. For all children under age 10, the Centers for Disease Control reports that for 2010 (the latest year available) there were 36 accidental gun deaths, and that is out of 41 million children living in the United States.

In addition, two thirds of these accidental gun deaths involving young children are not shots fired by other little kids but rather by adult males with criminal backgrounds. Unless you send your child to play over at a criminal's home, your child is exceedingly unlikely to get shot.

Indeed, if you worry about your child's safety, you better check into other dangers lurking around the playmate's house: a swimming pool, chemicals and medications, bathtubs, water buckets, cars and bicycles.

Consider the numbers: Accidental suffocations alone claimed 1,070 deaths, drownings 609 deaths; fires 262 lives; poisonings 54 lives.

If your child is offered a ride in a car, it would make more sense to check the parents’ driving record than whether they own guns. After all, 923 children under 10 died in car accidents.

Alas, this scaremongering about guns costs lives by making us less safe and turning people into sitting ducks for criminals.

According to my research, mandating that people lock up their guns didn’t reduce the few accidental gun deaths for children or teenagers.

What such laws did do is embolden criminals to attack more people in their homes and their crimes were more successful: 300 more total murders and 4,000 more rapes occurred each year in 18 states with these laws. Burglaries also rose dramatically.

Finally, what about families who have not been able to reach their gun quickly enough because it was locked in a safe? Children do die when criminals enter their homes, too. Diane Sawyer or David Muir ought to have presented such a grieving family,

read more...

Dan Haar: Untold Thousands Flout Gun Registration Law

Everyone knew there would be some gun owners flouting the law that legislators hurriedly passed last April, requiring residents to register all military-style rifles with state police by Dec. 31.

But few thought the figures would be this bad.

By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.

That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.

And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

"I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."

The problem could explode if Connecticut officials decide to compare the list of people who underwent background checks to buy military-style rifles in the past, to the list of those who registered in 2013. Do they still own those guns? The state might want to know.

"A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it," said Mike Lawlor, the state's top official in criminal justice. "They could send them a letter."

An aggressive hunt isn't going to happen, Lawlor said, but even the idea of letters is a scary thought considering thousands of people are now in an uncomfortable position. At the least, the legislature should reopen the registration period this year with an outreach campaign designed to boost the numbers.

It could be a tough sell. On Thursday night, Guglielmo heard from a constituent at a meeting in Ashford, who said most of his friends with military-style rifles such as AR-15s had not come forward.

"He made the analogy to prohibition," Guglielmo said. "I said, 'You're talking about civil disobedience, and he said 'Yes.' "

But it's not just refusers. A reopened registration would help many who failed to come forward out of ignorance.

"There are a lot of people, they just do not know about this law," said Scott Wilson, president of the 12,000-member Connecticut Citizens Defense League, a Second Amendment advocacy group. "There are people finding out now after the fact."

The law was widely covered in the media and Wilson said his group sent information to its members. But gun owners can be an independent bunch.

Guglielmo, who voted against the sweeping gun control bill, said he intends to raise the concern at the next meeting of the public safety committee. Lawlor said Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's administration is willing to talk about solutions.

But Lawlor, an undersecretary in the state Office of Policy and Management, said that even if many thousands of guns remain unregistered and are now illegal, the law is not necessarily failing at its goal.

"Like anything else, people who violate the law face consequences. … that's their decision. The consequences are pretty clear. …There's nothing unique about this," Lawlor said. "The goal is to have fewer of these types of weapons in circulation."

The law was adopted after the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Its main provision was a dramatic expansion of guns classified as assault weapons banned for sale in the state. The ban now includes any semiautomatic firearm — that is, one that reloads a round after each pull of the trigger — if it has even a single military-style characteristic, such as a pistol grip.

Any semiautomatic firearm banned for sale could remain legal if its owner registered it by Dec. 31. Those that were made before the state's first assault rifle law in 1993, and were not deemed to be assault weapons in that law, do not have to be registered.

The AR-15, a type of rifle, not a brand, is among those that must be registered and represents 50 percent to 60 percent of all rifle sales in the United States in recent years, federal figures show.

Sorting out the number of potential new felons is a guessing game. State police have not added up the total number of people who registered the 50,000 firearms, Vance said. So even if we knew the number of illegal guns in the state, we'd have a hard time knowing how many owners they had.

And it's all made even harder by the fact that the April 2013 law also required owners to declare ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, under penalty of a felony charge. Magazines are impossible to track because they have no serial numbers. The state received 36,932 declarations of these high-capacity magazines by the deadline, Vance said. An additional 1,277 were sent back for more information.

Each of those magazine declarations is a person, not a magazine. The state police firearms unit has not added up the number of magazines, Vance said.

As for the numbers out in circulation, in 2011 the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Research said there were more than 2 million high-capacity magazines in Connecticut, based in industry information from the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

That same legislative report cited a foundation estimate that there were, at the time, 1.2 million rifles in Connecticut, based on national sales and manufacturing figures. Of those, 372,000 used high-capacity magazines, making it very likely that they were in the class of weapons affected by the 2013 law. There are some rifles using high-capacity magazines that are not classified as assault weapons in Connecticut, but not many, said Jake McGuigan, director of government relations at NSSF.

Since 2011, the gun industry has enjoyed record sales. So that number, if it's accurate, would be much higher today. If there are 350,000 unregistered assault rifles in the state, and the average owner had three of them — a conservative guess because the vast majority own one or possibly two, Wilson said — that would be more than 100,000 people violating the law.

For a more conservative estimate, McGuigan looks at the number of background checks made for residents buying rifles from retailers. Between Nov. 30, 1998, and Oct. 31, 2013, there were 460,000 such checks. About 25 percent of all rifles sold in that period were AR-15s, implying that the number in Connecticut could be 115,000. But the number of background checks for rifles exploded in the past three years, precisely the time when the AR-15 was extremely popular.

Those registration numbers do not include private sales of rifles, which only become subject to background checks and registration in April of this year.

The number of newly illegal guns in Connecticut might have been reduced in several ways. Gun owners could have sold their military-style rifles privately to people outside the state, or sold rifles back to retailers, or destroyed them or turned them in to the police after last April's law.

Guglielmo also said some people told him they have moved guns to relatives and second homes out of state. And Wilson said some gun owners left the state altogether, disgruntled.

But it's highly unlikely that all of those categories taken together represent the bulk of unregistered guns.

Vance compared the noncompliance to motor vehicle registrations, in which some people choose not to follow the law and pay the consequences. Lawlor compared it to speeding — the law is still the law even if many people flout it. But those are infractions and, at worst, misdemeanors. Here we're talking about turning otherwise law-abiding citizens into felons.

NSSF has no position on the compliance rate, McGuigan said, because the group, which represents retailers and manufacturers, doesn't believe the registration law can ever be effective. He cited federal figures showing that one murder — one — was committed in Connecticut with a rifle between 2004 and the Newtown tragedy. "I don't even know if it was an AR-15."

Wilson said his group did not encourage people to defy the law, but he added, "If there are people out there that chose not to register, I sympathize with that perspective."

Some want the law repealed, but that debate is over. We have a registration law for better or worse, and now with the deadline passed, we have a new problem. As Guglielmo pointed out, it's hard to think of an issue Malloy would less rather deal with in an election year. A reopening of the registration period would reopen emotional debates.

Regardless, lawmakers should not ignore the stark fact that there are now enough people in serious violation of Connecticut gun laws to fill a small town at least, a very big town more likely and perhaps as many as live in the state's largest cities.


read more...

Audi’s ’2NRA294′ Super Bowl Message to the NRA #StayUncompromised

Manasquan, NJ - We have been flooded with questions from our readers as to what the license plate message “2NRA294′′ followed by the words, “compromise scares us too” meant in the recent Audi Superbowl commercial “Doberhuahua”?
Well after contacting everyone we could find at Audi USA, from Vice President & Chief Communications Officer, Joe Jacuzzi on-down, we finally received a call back from a Mrs James in Audi Customer service to tell us that the prominently featured license plate with 2NRA294 on it “means nothing and was chosen at random”.
Hmm? Totally at random?
Ok, then why did ABC’s Nick Watt’s recent video report ”Super Bowl Ad Mania: Behind the Scenes See how Audi’s “Doberhuahua, Ad came to be” go into great detail about how every minute aspect of the ad was carefully scripted and edited. Nick is told by the video production company’s James Allen, that they even had five people working on getting the Doberhuahua’s fur just right and yet you want us to believe that 2 seconds of a insanely expense commercial spot, with a licenses plate featured front and center, was just left to random numbers and letters?
So with Audi basically giving us the equivalent of “No Comment”on the 2NRA294 plate, could it be that Audi’s real message to the millions of NRA members may be just that, “Don’t Compromise” on principles or values.
Recently Adui’s Loren Angelo, Audi of America’s director of marketing, told Marketing Daily when talking about the A3 ” the larger point is that there are no compromises in any of Audi’s cars” and “Audi has a strong social program installed both on Twitter — #stayuncompromised — and Snapchat this year.”
We we all know that being pro gun in today’s world can be a reason for the anti gun groups and main stream media to attack a large company such as Audi, so maybe they are keeping a low profile, but their message is clearly intended to catch the eye of viewers.
So I for one am going with the belief that they are telling the millions of NRA members to hold strong on your belief in our right to keep and bear arms and as Audi’s hash tag says #StayUncompromised.
What do you think?


read more...

Restoring Public Employee’s Ability To Defend Themselves is a Growing Trend

A trend is growing across the nation to restore the ability of public employees to protect themselves.

During the last hundred years, the legal ability of public employees to carry defensive weapons has been eroded along with the rights of ordinary citizens. Originally intended to prevent minorities and immigrants from being armed, the philosophy of a disarmed population was put in place in employee codes at all levels of government, local, state, and federal.

Much of this was resisted by people with a long cultural affinity for arms, and, as with the general prohibition on concealed weapons, was selectively enforced against out of favor minorities. I recall my father taking a pistol along while working as a state employee in charge of a surveying crew in the 1960s. Even in the early 1970′s, I organized informal pistol matches while working for a federally sponsored forest improvement project in Wisconsin that employed students during summer break. No one blinked or considered that it might be improper. This was three years after the passage of the infamous Gun Control Act of 1968.

As the decades rolled by, more and more employee codes were written with rules forbidding employees to possess firearms at work. Many of these were pushed as “model” codes that erroneously claimed to limit the liability of employers, based on non-existent evidence that restricting employee rights to be armed reduced workplace violence. People who pushed such policies never considered the possibility of people protecting themselves or that agencies that restricted employees from protecting themselves could be liable for those employees’ protection.

With the success of the shall issue concealed carry permit laws across the nation, that trend has been discredited and reversed. Several states have passed laws to insure that employee second amendment rights will be respected during travel to and from the job, by insuring that employees can have legally owned firearms in their vehicles on company parking lots. Many private companies now allow or even encourage their employees to be armed. Some of the last bastions to prohibit their employees from exercising their second amendment rights on the job have been federal, state, and local governments.

The trend is for local governments to embrace those reforms. A recent article from Saline county, Kansas:

Employees of Saline County who wish to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection must have a concealed-carry permit, as required by law. Employees who wish to carry must keep the concealed firearm on their person at all times. Employees also are prohibited from storing or leaving a firearm in bags, coats, purses and briefcases while not on their person.

Nor is Saline County the only county in the state to do so. In Harvey County, Kansas, from The Kansan:

Commissioners approved a change to county policy 6.16 in the employee manual — the policy on workplace violence/weapons/concealed carry.

Under the policy, non-law enforcement or security personnel will be able to carry a gun with them if they have a conceal and carry permit from the state. A copy of their permit must be on file with human resources, part of the employee’s sealed personnel file.

From North Carolina, blackmountainnews.com:

MURPHY — Cherokee County leaders are taking North Carolina’s expansion of gun rights a step further by allowing legal concealed weapons in most county offices.Anyone, including county employees, may carry a concealed handgun with the proper permit.

Cherokee county is not the only county in North Carolina to do so.

Alamance County, between Greensboro and Durham, also repealed its 1995 ban on concealed weapons in most county buildings in December, County Manager Craig Honeycutt said.

From Michigan, we have Jackson County in 2012, from mlive.com:

“Our constitution tells us we should have this right and we should exercise our rights. It’s our privilege as an American,” said Phil Duckham, Jackson Co. Commisioner.

Duckham says right now, county employees can’t have a weapon, but licensed carriers can bring a weapon in. He says if a county employee is threatened, they should have the means to protect themselves to the extent the law allows.

In Texas, a city has made the same move, from The Aransas Pass Progress quoting Police Chief Blanchard:

“People need to understand the average response time for police is 5 minutes. That means people have to fend for themselves until police arrive on the scene. It takes 3 minutes for an active shooter to create massive destruction. I believe any good, honest, God fearing, America citizen should be armed.”

Some people argue that a city worker may take another path and suddenly start shooting inapropriately. Blanchard stated, “Any person can go crazy at any time. If a city worker went crazy and started shooting, I would hope another armed city worker standing nearby would subdue that threat.”

A law in Kentucky restores firefighters ability to have defensive firearms on duty. From usatoday.com, hardly a second amendment friendly source:

Additionally, because special districts are not covered under the separate law that allows cities to ban concealed weapons, they also must allow those with permits to bring guns into their buildings.

That includes firefighters on duty — something that has been met with mixed reaction among fire chiefs.

Bucking the trend is McHenry County, Illinois. Illinois was the last state to pass a concealed carry permit system, something it did after being required to do so by a federal court order.

In the wake of concealed carry taking effect in the coming months, the McHenry County Board is setting down rules forbidding employees who are not law enforcement from carrying handguns during their official duties….

At least one state lawmaker in Kentucky is looking to the future. State Representative John Becker (R-Union Township) has introduced a bill to restore the right to carry to most public employees in Kentucky. From cincinnati.com:

State Rep. John Becker (R-Union Township) introduced House Bill 236 that will allow all non-federal, public sector employees with a concealed carry license to carry into all non-federal and non-secured public buildings.




read more...

First Review of G2R R.I.P. Ammo is on YouTube, Interesting Results

G2 Research’s Radically Invasive Projectile “R.I.P.” has a fantastic marketing campaign, generating lots of buzz. Our own post has over 144 comments debating the effectiveness of the ammunition. Steve sums it up nicely:

“The company claims its 96 gr copper bullet is “the last round you will ever need”. The design is inspired by a triangular tipped surgical tool called the Trocar. It has 8 segmented spikes which break off as the bullet enters its target, while the solid base continues on its original trajectory.”

ShootingTheBull410 has posted the first video review (above) of the new ammunition to YouTube using ballistic gel. If you have not seen his reviews before, ShootingTheBull is known for his pursuit of the perfect “Pocket .380” ammo reviews (and now evaluating 9mm). For those who have not seen the tests, I recommend you take a look.

The trocars do break off the base as advertised, but the wound track is small compared to conventional HP ammunition. Combined with the feeding issue in a Glock 19 (!), the results are disappointing compared to the hype.

Still, the round does showcase the likely future of high-performance ammunition. Using CNC machines to shape bullets has huge potential compared to current casting technologies. I look forward to seeing what they come out with next after multiple reviews and real-word AARs provide valuable feedback.


read more...

Beretta, the World’s Oldest Firearms Manufacturer, Major U.S. Defense Contractor To Expand To Tennessee

NASHVILLE – Beretta USA officials along with Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam and Economic and Community Development Commissioner Bill Hagerty announced today the company will expand its U.S. operations by building a new firearms manufacturing plant in the Gallatin Industrial Park. Beretta, a global manufacturer of high-quality sporting and military firearms, will invest $45 million in a state-of-the-art manufacturing and R&D facility.

Beretta will create 300 new Tennessee jobs. The company is expected to complete construction on the facility this year.

Beretta is the world’s oldest manufacturing dynasty, operating since 1526 in Italy. The company is privately owned and operated by members of the 15th and 16th generations of the Beretta family. Beretta supplies quality sporting and self-defense firearms to consumers worldwide. The company manufactures the U.S. Armed Forces M-9 pistol, the standard sidearm of U.S. soldiers since 1985. Beretta will make firearms at the new Gallatin plant from both their sporting and tactical product lines.

“Beretta is one of the world’s greatest companies, and their decision to expand into Tennessee speaks to the standards of craftsmanship and quality our state’s workforce embraces every day,” Haslam said.

“Attracting a legendary company like Beretta reinforces our goal of becoming the No. 1 location in the Southeast for high-quality jobs. I want to thank the Beretta family for their substantial investment in Tennessee and the 300 jobs they’ll create in Sumner County.”

“Today’s significant announcement by Beretta USA is a historic moment for the state of Tennessee, the Haslam Administration and ECD,” Hagerty said. “Beretta is one of the best brands in the world. Tennessee’s global reputation for manufacturing in an artisan tradition means we are able to attract companies like Beretta, with a proven commitment to excellence. Tennessee continues to earn global accolades for our business climate, and we boast the best balance sheet in the nation. I appreciate Beretta’s decision to locate in Tennessee, and we look forward to a partnership that will last centuries.”

“From the moment when we started to consider a location outside of the State of Maryland for our manufacturing expansion, Governor Haslam and his economic development team did an excellent job demonstrating the benefits of doing business in Tennessee. We are convinced we could find no better place than Tennessee to establish our new manufacturing enterprise. We look forward to building operations here and being part of your community for many years to come,” said Franco Gussalli Beretta, executive vice president and director of Beretta Holding S.p.A.

“When Beretta chooses a location for its business, we start with the possibility that we will be in that location for decades, if not hundreds of years, to come. We move forward with confidence knowing that Tennessee is a great place to do business. We look forward to our opportunities here and we look forward to working side-by-side with our new Tennessee neighbors,” said Jeff Reh, Beretta USA general counsel and vice-general manager.

Beretta, established in 1526, is the oldest industrial dynasty in the world tracing its roots through 16 generations of continuous family ownership. Firearms bearing the Beretta name have been sold for almost 500 years. Beretta USA Corp. was founded in 1977 and supplies the standard sidearm to the U.S. Armed Forces. Today, Beretta manufactures, distributes and markets a complete line of firearms, accessories and apparel. Beretta also owns and operates six retail Beretta Gallery stores worldwide. For additional information, visit www.beretta.com.




read more...

Smith & Wesson Does NOT & Will NOT Include Microstamping In Its Firearms

Smith & Wesson Corp. announced today that although it continually seeks ways to refine and improve its firearms so that consumers have access to the best possible products, the State of California is making that impossible when it comes to California residents.

Under California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” any new semi-automatic pistol introduced into that state must comply with microstamping laws. In addition, California asserts that anything other than a cosmetic change to a handgun already on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, including performance enhancements and other improvements, requires it to be removed from the roster and retested. For semi-automatic pistols, this means it must comply with the microstamping requirements, as well.

Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms.

A number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes. The microstamping mandate and the company’s unwillingness to adopt this so-called technology will result in a diminishing number of Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistols available for purchase by California residents.

This is not a problem unique to Smith & Wesson. The microstamping legislation and California’s position regarding performance enhancements and other improvements creates the same challenge for all firearm manufacturers, since presumably all of them refine and improve their products over time.

Smith & Wesson currently produces a California-compliant version of its M&P Shield and SDVE™ pistols. Both of these new products were launched last week at SHOT Show® in Las Vegas and are expected to begin shipping within 90 days. They are expected to more than offset the impact of those M&P pistol models that will not remain on the Roster. Both the M&P Shield and the SDVE pistols are expected to remain on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale as long as no changes are made to those models and the company does not plan to make changes to them for this reason. All other Smith & Wesson handguns are at risk of eventually falling off the roster over time. The company expects that any current production revolvers that fall off will be re-tested and returned to the roster, since microstamping does not apply to revolvers. Without some change in position by California, however, any semi-automatic pistols (other than the California-compliant models referenced above) that are removed from the roster will not be returned and law-abiding citizens will not be permitted to buy them from a licensed dealer in California.

James Debney, Smith & Wesson President & CEO, said, “As our products fall off the roster due to California’s interpretation of the Unsafe Handgun Act, we will continue to work with the NRA and the NSSF to oppose this poorly conceived law which mandates the unproven and unreliable concept of microstamping and makes it impossible for Californians to have access to the best products with the latest innovations.

At the same time, we will do our best to support our customers in California with state-compliant products, enabling them access to at least a portion of the firearms to which we believe all citizens are entitled. In these challenging times, we hope you will support Smith & Wesson, and all gun manufacturers, in our fight to make the Unsafe Handgun Act about safety. We also encourage you to support the NSSF’s lawsuit and other efforts to stop microstamping, before it impacts your Constitutional rights.”

Unless California changes its position, all M&P pistols other than the M&P Shield, will fall off the roster by August, 2014, due to performance enhancements and other improvements we have made to those firearms. This includes the M&P9c, which has fallen off already and several other M&P models that will fall off by the end of this month. Other models already have fallen off and will continue to fall off for the same reason. Visit http://oag.ca.gov/sites/oag.ca.gov/files/pdfs/firearms/removed.pdf each week for a list published by the California Department of Justice of the handguns no longer on the roster.

California firearms dealers should check the official California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale frequently, to determine which handguns are certified for sale in California. This list can be found at http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/.

About Smith & Wesson
Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC) is a U.S.-based leader in firearm manufacturing and design, delivering a broad portfolio of quality firearms, related products and training to the consumer, law enforcement, and military markets. The company’s brands include Smith & Wesson®, M&P® and Thompson/Center Arms™. Smith & Wesson facilities are located in Massachusetts and Maine. For more information on Smith & Wesson, call (800) 331-0852 or log on to www.smith-wesson.com.

Smith & Wesson Corp. announced today that although it continually seeks ways to refine and improve its firearms so that consumers have access to the best possible products, the State of California is making that impossible when it comes to California residents.

Under California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” any new semi-automatic pistol introduced into that state must comply with microstamping laws. In addition, California asserts that anything other than a cosmetic change to a handgun already on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, including performance enhancements and other improvements, requires it to be removed from the roster and retested. For semi-automatic pistols, this means it must comply with the microstamping requirements, as well.

Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms.

A number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes. The microstamping mandate and the company’s unwillingness to adopt this so-called technology will result in a diminishing number of Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistols available for purchase by California residents.

This is not a problem unique to Smith & Wesson. The microstamping legislation and California’s position regarding performance enhancements and other improvements creates the same challenge for all firearm manufacturers, since presumably all of them refine and improve their products over time.

Smith & Wesson currently produces a California-compliant version of its M&P Shield and SDVE™ pistols. Both of these new products were launched last week at SHOT Show® in Las Vegas and are expected to begin shipping within 90 days. They are expected to more than offset the impact of those M&P pistol models that will not remain on the Roster. Both the M&P Shield and the SDVE pistols are expected to remain on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale as long as no changes are made to those models and the company does not plan to make changes to them for this reason. All other Smith & Wesson handguns are at risk of eventually falling off the roster over time. The company expects that any current production revolvers that fall off will be re-tested and returned to the roster, since microstamping does not apply to revolvers. Without some change in position by California, however, any semi-automatic pistols (other than the California-compliant models referenced above) that are removed from the roster will not be returned and law-abiding citizens will not be permitted to buy them from a licensed dealer in California.

James Debney, Smith & Wesson President & CEO, said, “As our products fall off the roster due to California’s interpretation of the Unsafe Handgun Act, we will continue to work with the NRA and the NSSF to oppose this poorly conceived law which mandates the unproven and unreliable concept of microstamping and makes it impossible for Californians to have access to the best products with the latest innovations.

At the same time, we will do our best to support our customers in California with state-compliant products, enabling them access to at least a portion of the firearms to which we believe all citizens are entitled. In these challenging times, we hope you will support Smith & Wesson, and all gun manufacturers, in our fight to make the Unsafe Handgun Act about safety. We also encourage you to support the NSSF’s lawsuit and other efforts to stop microstamping, before it impacts your Constitutional rights.”

Unless California changes its position, all M&P pistols other than the M&P Shield, will fall off the roster by August, 2014, due to performance enhancements and other improvements we have made to those firearms. This includes the M&P9c, which has fallen off already and several other M&P models that will fall off by the end of this month. Other models already have fallen off and will continue to fall off for the same reason. Visit http://oag.ca.gov/sites/oag.ca.gov/files/pdfs/firearms/removed.pdf each week for a list published by the California Department of Justice of the handguns no longer on the roster.

California firearms dealers should check the official California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale frequently, to determine which handguns are certified for sale in California. This list can be found at http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/.

About Smith & Wesson
Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC) is a U.S.-based leader in firearm manufacturing and design, delivering a broad portfolio of quality firearms, related products and training to the consumer, law enforcement, and military markets. The company’s brands include Smith & Wesson®, M&P® and Thompson/Center Arms™. Smith & Wesson facilities are located in Massachusetts and Maine. For more information on Smith & Wesson, call (800) 331-0852 or log on to www.smith-wesson.com.





read more...

Glock 42 Single-Stack .380 Micro-Pistol - Confirmed

Rumors can finally be put to rest. It has now been confirmed that the new Glock models 41 and 42 will be revealed at the 2014 SHOT Show and that they are, indeed, a long-slide .45 ACP and single-stack .380 ACP, respectively.
As reported here on Digital Journal a few weeks ago, there have been a lot of rumors on gun blogs and forums over the last several months regarding the possibility of two new Glock models to be released at the 2014 SHOT show in Las Vegas this month. Until recently, most of the talk regarding the two new pistols was just hype based on a few rumors, some leaked photos, and a few premature posts on some retailer websites. But it looks like those who said it was all bogus will now have to eat their words, as the release of the two new Glocks has been confirmed.
Glock 41 (Long slide .45 ACP) - The Glock model 41 will, indeed, be a longslide .45 ACP as many predicted based on the premature posts on retailer websites. The gun will be much like the practical/tactical models 34 and 35 but don't get too excited; if you're expecting a practical/tactical version of the Glock 21 this might not be exactly what you had in mind. According to an exclusive report on Guns & Ammo, the Glock 41 will basically be a model 34 slide on a model 21 frame. In other words, the frame will be wide and bulky like the .45 ACP and 10mm Glocks we've come to know and love while the slide will be the same width as that of a 34, 35, or any of the other 9mm/.40 S&W Glocks. Glock did something similar to this with their model 30S, putting a 36 slide on a 30 frame.

Another interesting thing about the model 41 is that, according to the pictures shown in the Guns & Ammo report, it does not have a compensated slide. The other practical/tactical Glocks (the models 34 and 35) have a piece of the slide hollowed out on top to reduce the weight. The 41, however, will not need this due to the fact that the weight is already reduced by having a thinner slide.
Glock 42 (Single Stack .380 ACP) - A lot of enthusiasts have been pushing for a single stack Glock but this isn't what most of them had in mind. Rather than releasing a single stack 9mm like many people have wanted for years, they have decided to release a single stack .380 ACP. The Glock 42 will apparently be the smallest Glock yet with an overall length of 5.94 inches, a width of .94 inches, and a weight of only 12 ounces. It will hold six rounds of .380 in the magazine (plus one in the chamber) and, unlike all of the other third and fourth generation Glocks, will not have finger grooves. Despite being the smallest Glock, however, it definitely won't be quite as small as some of the other .380 pistols available on the market, such as the tiny Ruger LCP and the Kel-Tec 3AT. Many believe (and hope) that this is because Glock plans to use the same frame design for other calibers in the future, possibly rolling out a 9mm and .40 S&W single stack in a model 43 and 44 sometime soon.

While they have confirmed the release of the models 41 and 42, there has been no official word from Glock yet regarding the model 40. Many are assuming that the rumors of Glock skipping the model 40 for fear that it might be confused with a .40 caliber are true. Although nothing is set in stone. Perhaps Glock is just keeping the model 40 a secret? Only time will tell. But rest assured; All of the new Glock models will most definitely be flying off the shelves.





read more...

Magpul Industries Announces Plans for Relocation

Magpul Industries announced today that it is relocating its operations to Wyoming and Texas.

The company is relocating manufacturing, distribution and shipping operations to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Magpul is leasing a 58,000 square foot manufacturing and distribution facility during the construction of a 100,000 square foot build-to-suit facility in the Cheyenne Business Parkway. The Wyoming relocation is being completed with support from Governor Matt Mead, the Wyoming Business Council and Cheyenne LEADS.

Magpul is moving its corporate headquarters to Texas. Three North Central Texas sites are under final consideration, and the transition to the Texas headquarters will begin as soon as the facility is selected. The Texas relocation is being accomplished with support from Governor Rick Perry and the Texas Economic Development Corporation.

“Magpul made the decision to relocate in March 2013 and has proceeded on an aggressive but deliberate path” says Doug Smith, Chief Operating Officer for Magpul Industries. “These dual moves will be carried out in a manner that ensures our operations and supply chain will not be interrupted and our loyal customers will not be affected.”

The company began a nationwide search for a new base of operations after legislation was enacted in Colorado that dramatically limits the sale of firearms accessories – the core of Magpul’s business. Magpul plans on initially transitioning 92% of its current workforce outside of Colorado within 12-16 months and will maintain only limited operations in Colorado.

"Moving operations to states that support our culture of individual liberties and personal responsibility is important,” says Richard Fitzpatrick, Chief Executive Officer for Magpul Industries. “This relocation will also improve business operations and logistics as we utilize the strengths of Texas and Wyoming in our expansion.”

About Magpul
Founded in 1999, Magpul was launched to manufacture an innovative device to aid in the manipulation of rifle magazines while reloading under stress. The company’s name comes from the original product called the Magpul. Over the last decade Magpul has continued to grow and develop into additional product areas using much the same mission and process with a focus on innovation, creativity, and efficiency.

OFFICE OF GOVERNOR MATT MEAD

State Capitol
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Ph. (307) 777-7437


January 2, 2014

Contact:
Renny MacKay
Communications Director
renny.mackay@wyo.gov

Governor Welcomes Magpul Industries to Wyoming

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Magpul Industries has announced that it will relocate its manufacturing, distribution and shipping operations to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Governor Matt Mead expressed his support in helping with the move, which begins immediately and his appreciation for Magpul recognizing the state’s benefits to a manufacturing company.

“Wyoming and Magpul are a great match. The state is looking to expand and diversify its economy. Bringing an innovative and growing manufacturing operation to Wyoming is a significant step for the state. We offer Magpul an attractive tax environment, stable and reasonable regulations, not to mention a firm commitment to uphold the Second Amendment,” Governor Mead said.

The company plans to lease a 58,000 square foot manufacturing and distribution facility while the construction of a new 100,000+ square foot build-to-suit facility is being completed in the Cheyenne Business Parkway. This two-phased approach allows for rapid movement of operations out of Colorado where the company is currently located. Additionally, Magpul is moving its corporate headquarters to Texas.

Magpul Industries has been looking at relocation since early this year. “Magpul made the decision to relocate in March 2013 and has proceeded in an aggressive but deliberate manner,” said Doug Smith, Chief Operating Officer for Magpul Industries. “These dual moves will be carried out in a manner that ensures our operations and supply chain will not be interrupted and our loyal customers will not be affected.”

“Magpul has a core set of values that guides its business plan, its relationship with its employees and how it develops and produces its products,” said Randy Bruns, Chief Executive Officer of Cheyenne LEADS. “We are pleased that they will be anchoring that approach to business here in southeast Wyoming. The company’s move to Cheyenne represents a significant expansion of local manufacturing and job diversity.”

Cheyenne LEADS is pursuing a grant and loan package through the Wyoming Business Council that will enable LEADS to construct a building that can be leased to Magpul. Cheyenne LEADS has secured a temporary facility in a vacant warehouse and committed to bring it into useable condition and make it available to Magpul while a new facility is under construction. “This project has clearly been a team effort of the Governor’s Office, the Wyoming Business Council, Laramie County and Cheyenne LEADS, working closely with Magpul,” states Bruns. “It is to the credit of the Cheyenne community and LEADS’ board of directors, past and present, that LEADS has the capacity to play an important role in bringing Magpul here.”

Magpul was founded in 1999 with the intent of developing a simple device to aid in the manipulation of rifle magazines while reloading under stress. Since that time, the company has expanded its production line to include consumer products and firearm accessories from phone cases to rifle stocks to magazines based on proprietary composite material. The company products are known for their extreme reliability and durability and have become some of the most sought after accessories in the industry. “This company brings a new level of manufacturing capability to Cheyenne and the state,” stated Bob Jensen, Chief Executive Officer of the Wyoming Business Council. “It will serve as a magnet that will help significantly grow Wyoming's manufacturing industry and is a great investment for Wyoming."



Office of the Governor

Rick Perry



Jan. 2, 2014

Press Release



Governor’s Press Office: 512-463-1826

Lucy Nashed: lucy.nashed@gov.texas.gov

In Case You Missed It: Magpul Industries to Move Headquarters to Texas

AUSTIN – Firearm accessories manufacturer Magpul Industries has announced it is relocating its corporate headquarters from Colorado to Texas. Magpul began a nationwide relocation search following the passage of anti-2nd Amendment legislation in Colorado this summer that made it difficult for the company to do business.

“In Texas, we understand that freedom breeds prosperity, which is why we’ve built our economy around principles that allow employers to innovate, keep more of what they earn, and create jobs,” Gov. Perry said. “I’m proud that Magpul is the latest employer to join the ranks of companies that call Texas home.”

“Excessive government regulation undermines a culture based on personal responsibility and creates a detrimental business environment,” Magpul CEO Richard Fitzpatrick said. “Texas supports personal freedoms and our company will thrive in that environment.”

Gov. Perry has reached out to more than 30 firearm manufacturers in states across the country that are considering restricting sales and manufacturing in the industry. Magpul cited the Lone Star State’s business-friendly environment, predictable regulations and consistent respect for the Second Amendment as key elements in its decision to relocate.



read more...

Giving a Firearm as a Gift? Some Reminders from NSSF

The holidays are just around the corner. As hunters, shooters, collectors or just plain plinkers, it’s a natural instinct to want to share our enjoyment of firearms with others. What better way to do that than to make a gift of a firearm to a family member, close friend or relative?

The first thing to remember if you’re thinking about giving someone a gun is that . . . it’s a gun! You already know that ownership of a firearm brings with it some serious legal and ethical obligations that other consumer products don’t. So let’s look at some questions you may have about giving a firearm as a gift.

The first question you have to ask is whether the intended recipient can legally own the firearm where he or she lives. More than 20,000 different gun laws on the books, even the kinds of firearms that law-abiding citizens can own vary from place to place; for example, juveniles (under age 18) generally speaking are precluded by law from possessing a handgun. Check out the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) website
for an overview of local laws and, whatever you do, don’t forget that you can never under any circumstances transfer a firearm to someone you know — or have reasonable cause to believe — legally can’t own one. That’s a federal felony, so be careful.

Though there’s no federal law that prohibits a gift of a firearm to a relative or friend that lives in your home state, some states—California for example—require you to transfer the gun through a local firearms dealer so an instant background check will be performed to make sure the recipient is not legally prohibited from owning the gun.

The ATF recommends that if you want to give someone a new firearm, rather than going to a gun store, buying it on your own and giving it to, say your father, consider instead purchasing a gift certificate from that retailer and giving it to Dad as his present. That way he’ll get the exact gun he wants, and there’s no question about who is “the actual buyer of the firearm,” which is a question any purchaser must certify on the Federal Form 4473 at the time of purchase.

You can only ship a handgun by common carrier (but not U.S. Mail) and a long gun by U.S. Mail or common carrier to a federally licensed dealer, but not to a non-licensed individual. With all carriers, federal law requires you to declare that your package contains an unloaded firearm. To be safe, always consult your carrier in advance about its regulations for shipping firearms.

What if you want to give “Old Betsy,” your favorite old deer rifle, to your son or daughter as a college graduation gift? Again, in most states, there’s no law that says you can’t, but some states require even inter-family transfers to go through a licensed dealer. Remember, you can never transfer a firearm directly to another person who is a resident of a different state. In that case, you must transfer the firearm through a licensed dealer in the state where the person receiving the gift resides. Using a gift certificate from a firearms retailer near where the recipient lives might be a good solution. Pre-1898 antique firearms are generally exempt from the dealer requirement. Be safe and check with your dealer or local law enforcement before you hand over your prized possession.

It’s often an emotional moment when a treasured family heirloom is passed down to the next generation. These moments are part of what our cherished enjoyment of firearms is all about and represent that unique bond that sportsmen have with their fellow enthusiasts.

So enjoy the holidays and do it right!

By Bill Brassard


read more...

Ladies first: Women fast-growing segment of outdoor enthusiasts



Move over, boys. The girls are coming to deer camp and the ol’ fishing hole, too, and they are doing it in record numbers. While that might not be news to folks who have been around the outdoor world for more than a few years and have read the sign, it probably is to those who haven’t. Not to mention those who don’t necessarily appreciate the hunting and fishing sports for what they are.

Just this week I received an email from an outdoorswoman who drew her first Nevada bull elk tag and was looking for information about the elk in her unit. “I am looking for advice on the best location for the biggest one. Any suggestions? I have hunted this area for deer but never an elk.”

I hope she bags the bull she is looking for.

Earlier this week I received a text message from Calli, my youngest daughter who is away at school. Her words were simple yet full of meaning and memories. “I want to go hunting,” she wrote. It was just a few years ago that I had the privilege of looking on as Calli calmly took a dead rest and harvested her first deer. It wasn’t a monster, but that didn’t matter. We shared a unique outdoor experience, and the smallish two-point helped fill the freezer.

Calli also has a wild turkey to her credit. Funny thing is, of my three daughters she is the girliest girl. So much for old stereotypes.

The fact is that women not only account for 25 percent of all anglers, and nearly 11 percent of all hunters, but also comprise the fastest-growing segment within the hunting and shooting communities, according to a new report entitled Women in the Outdoors in 2012. This report on women’s participation in outdoor recreation was compiled by Southwick Associates, a research firm specializing in fish and wildlife economics and statistics.

When it comes to freshwater fishing, largemouth bass hold the top spot in the interest column for male (63 percent) and female (51 percent) anglers; however, there is a significant difference between the two regarding their approach to fishing. Men tend to be more species focused than women. While 43 percent of female anglers indicated they fished for “anything that bites,” only 27 percent of male anglers did the same.

So why do men and women spend their time fishing? Both indicated they did so in part because they like to spend time on or near the water. In fact, this was the No. 1 reason women (86 percent) enjoyed fishing. An equal percentage of men indicated this was one of the reasons they chose to fish; however, their No. 1 answer was that they liked to spend time outdoors.

On this topic, the biggest difference between male and female anglers showed up when friends and family came into the picture. Nearly 84 percent of the women interviewed saw fishing as an opportunity to spend time with friends and family, while only 71 percent of men expressed this same thought. It appears that some of us guys don’t like company.

In the hunting realm, the most popular game species for hunters of either gender is deer, and statistically there is little difference in the level of interest between females (71 percent) and males (72 percent). The same is true for wild turkey and small game animals.

If there is a surprise in the research results, it is the fact that a larger percentage of female hunters choose to pursue elk than their male counterparts, by nearly double — 10 percent of female hunters compared with 6 percent of male hunters.

Freelance writer Doug Nielsen is a conservation educator for the Nevada Department of Wildlife. His “In the Outdoors” column, published Thursday in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is not affiliated with or endorsed by the NDOW. Any opinions he states in his column are his own. He can be reached at intheoutdoorslv@gmail.com.




An Open Letter from Howard Schultz, ceo of Starbucks Coffee Company

Dear Fellow Americans,

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Howard Schultz

Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA

WASHINGTON -- The first recall election in Colorado's history on Tuesday marked a stunning victory for the National Rifle Association and gun rights activists, with the ouster of two Democrats -- Senate President John Morse (Colorado Springs) and state Sen. Angela Giron (Pueblo). The two lawmakers were the target of separate recall fights over their support for stricter gun laws earlier this year.

"The highest rank in a democracy is citizen, not senate president," Morse said in his concession speech, as his supporters solemnly watched, some shedding tears.

What originally began as local political fallout over the Democratic-controlled legislature's comprehensive gun control package quickly escalated into a national referendum on gun policy. Morse and Giron both voted in favor of the legislation, signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) in March, which requires background checks for all firearm purchases and bans ammunition magazines over 15 rounds.

Gun rights activists initially sought to recall four Democrats they perceived as vulnerable, but only collected the required signatures to challenge Morse and Giron.

Language for the "yes" ballots, authored by proponents of the recall, said the lawmakers were guilty of contempt for "the constitutional liberties of the people" and "firearm manufacturers and for the rights of Colorado citizens." Those working against the recall used the "no" ballots to cast their opponents as "extremists" who were willing to make guns available to felons and "spouse abusers."

While voter turnout is typically low in recall elections, Democrats accused pro-recall activists of engaging in voter suppression tactics. A big blow to Morse and Giron was a ruling that prohibited voting by mail in the election, even though Colorado voters have overwhelmingly relied on mail-in ballots in the past. The decision ignored a state law passed earlier this year that guaranteed a ballot by mail to every registered voter in Colorado, including in a recall election.

A get-out-the-vote canvasser for Giron, who requested anonymity out of safety concerns, said gun rights activists also engaged in "extreme voter intimidation" at polling centers in Pueblo on Tuesday.

"We had to call the police on a van of four huge guys staking out our staging location," the canvasser told HuffPost. "Volunteers are being followed, threatened, having their pictures taken and yelled at. We're now being told that it's bad enough to call 911 immediately."

Lawmakers and advocates across the country eagerly awaited Tuesday's results, which many felt carried significant implications for the national debate on gun policy following December's mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. In April, the United States Senate failed to pass a measure to expand background checks, spurring anti-gun violence groups to mount a campaign to match the intensity of the NRA and to promise political retribution for the senators who voted against stricter gun laws.

This national focus meant outside spending reached unprecedented levels in the Colorado recall, with both sides viewing the election as must-win.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a staunch supporter of stricter gun laws, donated $350,000 to Morse and Giron. Billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad gave a separate $250,000 check to help the legislators, while Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) repeatedly issued fundraising calls for Giron in emails to her supporters. The Denver Post reported Monday that those in Morse and Giron's corner had collected nearly $3 million, while proponents of the recall raised about $540,000.

"One thing is clear from the Morse defeat: Mike Bloomberg is political poison," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said in a statement.

The NRA spent heavily on the recall effort, reporting at least $360,000 and funneling unspecified dollars through its nonprofit arm. The billionaire conservative Koch brothers also entered the fray, using their advocacy group Americans For Prosperity to target Morse and Giron. Due to the organization's nonprofit status, AFP also did not have to report its spending to the Federal Elections Commission.

In an interview with HuffPost last month, Giron acknowledged that the recall's outcome could send "reverberating messages to legislatures across the country." But she said the vast amount of money being spent by both sides underscored that the election had developed a much broader focus than gun policy.

"I think it's a lot about Democrats vs. Republicans, and has grown very partisan," she said.

Indeed, the Koch brothers' involvement had little to do with guns, and AFP primarily focused its attacks against Morse on other issues that made him a vulnerable target in his conservative-leaning district. The group distributed fliers and doorhangers likening Morse to Bloomberg on virtually every issue except guns, instead concentrating on issues like taxes and health care.

One coalition of Colorado Springs law enforcement officials even took advantage of the recall effort to go after Morse for touting his experience as a former police officer in his campaign ads. The group endorsed Morse's recall, citing its opposition to his votes on sentencing for convicted criminals and legislation he sponsored to soften prison terms and limit the number of people who could be incarcerated in state prisons.

For Giron, the gun vote was key and made her a primary target of the Pueblo Chieftain, the most influential newspaper in her district. During Colorado's gun debate, the outlet's general manager wrote to Giron expressing his opposition to the gun control measures. He identified himself as a gun owner who was "responsible for the entire newspaper, including the newsroom." As Giron stood by her support for stricter gun laws, the Chieftain published unflattering photos and coverage of her on its front page for more than a week.

Colorado's history on gun rights has long been a source of friction in a state that was home to two of the most deadly mass shootings in U.S. history. A turning point came on July 20, 2012, when a gunman walked into a late-night show at a movie theater in Aurora, killing 12 people and leaving more than 70 injured. A few short months later, the wounds of the Columbine High School massacre of 1999 were reopened as victims watched families in Newtown, Conn., go through an all too familiar struggle.

A Quinnipiac poll released last month found that 82 percent of Colorado voters supported expanded background checks for gun sales. But respondents were split down the middle on the 15-round magazine limit.

Proponents of the recall were defiant in their victory over Morse as results became clear Tuesday night.

"After tonight, no one should underestimate the political potency of the gun control debate," Republican strategist Kurt Bardella, who served as a communications consultant on the recall, said in a statement.

Mark Glaze, a spokesman for Bloomberg's anti-gun violence group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, cautioned against applying too many conclusions from Colorado to the broader gun debate.

"There's an understandable impulse to extrapolate the Colorado results into a national trend. The only trend here is the NRA wasn't able to defeat as many legislators as it went after," Glaze told The Huffington Post in an interview. "A national coalition against gun violence provided counterweight to the NRA in these recalls for the first time. The NRA cherry-picked the most vulnerable legislators in Colorado, including a Senate president who represents one of the most conservative congressional districts in the country."

A statement put out by the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund lauded Morse's defeat as "historic."

read more...

Obama to Nix Imports, Require FBI Checks for Firearms Trusts; New Director of BATFE Sworn In

More than a century ago, Congress established the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and authorized it to sell surplus military firearms to Americans interested in improving their marksmanship in support of national defense. "The Board," as it was commonly known among avid rifle shooters for decades, now exists as the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP).

To the everlasting benefit of all of us who are committed to maintaining Americans' marksmanship superiority over the peoples of all other countries on Earth, the CMP has continued to sell M1 Garands, many in outstanding condition. In doing so, the program has given tens of thousands of Americans the chance to develop their rifle skills with one of the most important firearms in our nation's history--which Gen. George S. Patton described as "the single greatest battle implement ever devised"--and to test those skills in its popular John C. Garand Matches, held across the country and during the National Rifle Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio. As the legendary Jeff Cooper once observed, "the purpose of shooting is hitting," and the contribution of John C. Garand and the CMP to that worthy goal has been immeasurable.

However, you know how President Obama feels about guns.

On Thursday, Obama's gun expert, Vice-President Joe "Two Blasts" Biden, announced that the president will use his executive authority and provisions of the Arms Export Control Act to deny future applications, by private importers, to import "surplus military weapons" for sale to private citizens. Lest there be any confusion, in this instance "surplus military weapons" means rifles, pistols and shotguns, and excludes fully-automatics, which haven't been legal to import for sale to private citizens since 1968.

The White House says that the new policy is intended to "keep surplus military weapons off our streets." But anti-gunners' worn-out "on the streets" line, always grossly exaggerated, is especially so in this instance. Americans own hundreds of thousands of surplus military firearms, yet the nation's murder rate is half of what it was 20 years ago, and is now at its lowest point since 1963. As Fox News observed, the firearms that Obama has moved to restrict are at least 50 years old and "it is safe to assume that few are used in crimes." Of course, the same firearms are legal to manufacture in the United States, suggesting either (or both) a profound lack of understanding of firearms on the administration's part, or that Obama's policies are driven by little, if anything, more than ideology unfiltered by reality.

How quickly they forget

It remains to be seen how Obama's latest salvo against the right to arms will play out. But when the federal "assault weapon" and "large" magazine bans of 1994 were imposed, Americans responded by buying AR-15s at an even greater rate than before, and by buying a new generation of ultra-compact handguns just barely capable of holding 10 rounds, such as the Glock 26.

So, we won't be surprised if Americans respond to the president's new importation ban by heading straight to the CMP Store for an authentic 8-round, fixed magazine certified U.S.G.I. M1, or to a local gun shop for a 30-round, detachable magazine AR-15, and put on the finishing touch by attending the modern equivalent of the defensive skill-based rifle shooting events that NRA and "The Board" introduced over a century ago--the NRA's new National Defense Match.

Along with moving against firearm importation, Obama intends to require FBI fingerprint-based background checks on the trustees and beneficiaries of corporations and trusts that have firearms. NRA is reviewing the proposed rule on this matter and will withhold comment until the review is complete.

Finally, during the event at which Vice-President Biden announced the president's new gun control initiatives, Todd Jones was sworn in as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Jones, nominated by Obama for the post in January and approved by the Senate in July, formerly served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota.



read more...

Guns in schools: Best way to protect students is to arm their teachers

By Steve Siebold

The Arkansas Christian Academy in Bryant, Arkansas, is making national headlines after it announced that some staff members will be armed with guns. It’s about time we have one institution that is finally standing up and protecting our children, and hopefully it won’t be the last. In fact, every school teacher in America should be armed in the classroom.

How many more times are we going to hear about a crazed gunman walking into a school armed and ready to kill? How many more innocent children need to die before we wake up and prepare our teachers to fight back? The only solution is self-responsibility: arm school officials and give them a fighting chance. Besides, a gunman is less likely to target a school that can defend itself and fight back.

Every second counts in a school shooting. Calling 911 and waiting for police to arrive isn’t good enough. Sheriff Chuck Wright of Spartanburg, South Carolina, says, “Don’t be so naïve to believe the police can be everywhere.” Then there was Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. who recently created a national uproar for urging citizens to learn how to handle firearms so they can defend themselves, because he says, “simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option.”

Arming our teachers and training them how to properly use a firearm will translate to less heinous acts taking place. It happened at Columbine; it happened at Sandy Hook; and it almost happened at a Georgia elementary school this week. The one place you can bet it will never happen: Arkansas Christian Academy.

If we look back at Sandy Hook last year, first grade teacher and hero Victoria Soto, who was shot and killed after hiding her kids in a closet and told the gunman the kids were in gym, might still be alive had she been armed and able to defend herself. So could a lot of other children and teachers who tragically died that day.

Then there was the Pearl High School shooting in 1997 when a student killed two classmates and injured seven others at his high school. An assistant principal, who was armed, intervened and held the shooter at gun point until police arrived, and most probably prevented more people from being killed.

Just this week outside Atlanta, Michael Brandon Hill allegedly walked into Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy with an AK-47 and enough ammunition to takeout half the school. Luckily, Antoinette Tuff, who works in the front office of the school, was able to talk Hill down. But what if she wasn’t able to? This had the potential to be one of the worst school massacres in history.

I believe that very shortly, carrying a firearm will become a requirement for all teachers and school administrators. It’s the way it has to be and if teachers aren’t comfortable with that they’re going to have to find a new profession.

In a perfect world we wouldn’t need to take such measures. But until that happens, critical thinking suggests that we all exercise our second amendment rights, arm our teachers and school officials to ensure the safety of our children, voice our support and keep a close eye on anti-gun crusaders who want to make our decisions for us. A school should be a safe haven where children can learn and grow. And right now, arming teachers is the only practical solution.

Steve Siebold is a Second Amendment advocate and author of the book “Sex, Politics and Religion: How Delusional Thinking is Destroying America.”

Gun Industry Begins to Fight Back

Written by Bob Barr

Firearms manufacturers usually find themselves playing defense. Following virtually every highly publicized incident involving a multiple shooting, manufactures often are among the first round of scapegoats flogged by the mainstream media and gun-control politicians. Indeed, were it not for the 2005 law that protects gun manufactures from frivolous lawsuits by victims of gun crimes, many would be out of business.

Thankfully, at least some firearms manufacturers now are going on the offensive; returning fire in New York’s escalating war against Second Amendment rights in the Empire State.

In a post on its Facebook page, for example, Olympic Arms, Inc., a company headquartered in Washington state but which markets its products, including the AR-15 rifle, nationwide, outlined a new sales policy for New York. The company declared: “the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity -- will no longer be served as customers.” The company has put its customers on notice this new policy will remain in effect until New York repeals its draconian gun regulations passed as a knee-jerk reaction to the December mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Olympic Arms is one of a growing number of gun manufactures responding to increasingly burdensome gun restrictions, by applying the same standards to government customers as governments are applying to private citizens. “If the leaders of the State of New York are willing to limit the right of the free and law abiding citizens of New York to arm themselves as they see fit under the Rights enumerate to all citizens of the United State through the Second Amendment,” writes Olympic Arms, “we feel as though the legislators and government entities within the State of New York should have to abide by the same restrictions.”

This long-overdue “line in the sand” drawn by firearms manufacturers against gun-control advocates in government, rests on the premise that we have reached a pivotal moment in American history for Second Amendment rights. Opponents of the Second Amendment, including Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and New York City’s Michael Bloomberg, are -- as they have in the past -- taking full political advantage of the latest mass shooting. Sensing they can use the Newtown shooting as a way to regain gun-control ground lost in the past two decades, they and others on their team are laying the groundwork for perhaps the most serious attack on Second Amendment rights ever.

More important than the actual economic impact of moves like Olympic Arms’, however, is the symbolism of the “reverse boycott,” and the message it sends to government officials at the national, state and local levels who believe themselves emboldened to run roughshod over the people’s constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

For example, in South Carolina -- the state that led the nullification fight against tyrannical federal tariffs back in 1832 -- State Senator Tom Davis is helping lead a modern “nullification” movement. Davis tells The State newspaper, “[f]or the first time I can remember in recent history ... [states are] actually stepping up (and) challenging the exercise of power by the federal government.”

The backlash against Big Government is an encouraging sign of a growing resistance to the mission creep of federal power. For far too long the American public and business sector have kept their silence as civil liberties have been whittled away by statutory and regulatory measures. Even if private businesses like Olympic Arms, and state officials like Davis, ultimately are not successful in every fight, their actions will at least help to slow down the spread of this toxic mindset that deems the Constitution irrelevant in today’s society.

Their stand may encourage leaders in Washington to begin taking more meaningful action at killing harmful bills before they become laws. Remaining on the sidelines in this battle is no longer an option for freedom loving Americans. The chips are down, and the opponents of the Second Amendment are going all in. For the rest of us, offering encouragement to companies like Olympic Arms that are willing to stand up to the Big Government forces arrayed against them, is a vital service in the never-ending fight to preserve individual liberty against government control.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th district in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 -2003 and as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986-1990.

Suggestions on how to sell your firearm - Quick guide to navigate some of the possible changes to private gun sales.

Suggestions on how to sell your firearm

We all saw the announcements made last week from the current administration. While no new laws have been finalized, it appears the climate for private gun ownership will be changing in the near future. Congress needs to hem and haw for a while before we know exactly what (if there are any) new laws being implemented.
In the meanwhile…..what if you want to sell a firearm as private owner to another private owner? While it’s still legal to simply sell your firearm to someone else with no legal recourse, if you are a concerned citizen and want to leave a paper trail, here is what NFDN recommends:
- Call your local gun dealer to see if they are willing to process a transfer for you.
- Explain to them you just want to do a universal background check on whomever you plan on selling your firearm and are willing to pay the transfer fee.
- Explain to the buyer of the firearm that you can meet them at a local gun dealer so you can process a background check.
- NOTE: Some cities and states have a waiting period do complete the background check. Be sure to ask the dealer if this is the case.
- Meet up with your buyer and pay the transfer fee to the dealer in order to get the universal background check.
- The dealer can then release the firearm once the background check is completed.
- Make sure you provide a detailed bill of sale (Firearm Bill of Sale Template). You will need two copies, one for yourself and one for the buyer.

It is also a good idea to get a copy of the buyers driver’s license to attach to you copy of the bill of sale.
This is the simplest method that provides a paper trail. While the process is not ideal it will keep your firearm “on the books” to ensure you are selling your firearm to someone who can legally purchase a firearm.

It is also recommended to check with all local & state regulations on the sale of a firearm. The above items are suggestions only.

Good Luck!


read more...

States Aim to Nullify Obama Gun Control

Written by Alex Newman

Across America, state lawmakers, governors, attorneys general, sheriffs, and other officials are promising to protect the gun rights of citizens in their jurisdictions in the face of the most aggressive assault on the Second Amendment in generations. Indeed, as the Obama administration’s unconstitutional agenda becomes increasingly transparent — backed by some Democrats and much of the establishment media — resistance to further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms is exploding nationwide.

Numerous bills have already been introduced in state legislatures, for example, that would nullify unconstitutional federal gun control and even criminalize enforcement of such lawless restrictions. Texas, Wyoming, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa, and other states are considering nullification legislation in the wake of Obama’s recent push to enact gun control by executive decree and proposals sent to Congress. Other states are expected to join soon, and many have already adopted laws in recent years protecting guns made and kept within their jurisdictions from federal regulations.

In Mississippi, Republican Gov. Phil Bryant sent a letter on Wednesday urging state lawmakers to "immediately pass legislation that would make any unconstitutional order by the President illegal to enforce in Mississippi." Citing widespread concerns over “our sacred rights as Americans,” the governor noted that "several states have introduced similar measures and I believe will be successful in preventing this overreaching and anti-constitutional violation of our rights as American citizens." He also urged citizens to resist any such presidential decrees, according to news reports.

Among the states that have already introduced strong legislation to protect gun rights from lawless federal restrictions is Wyoming, which has one of the most heavily armed populations in America while enjoying some of the lowest crime rates. State lawmakers there are rallying behind a bill, which they expect to pass, that would nullify any and all future infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, including restrictions on semi-automatic weapons or magazines. Federal officials attempting to enforce unconstitutional statutes or executive orders would face felony charges and up to five years in prison.

"We're a sovereign state with our own constitutional form of government," said Republican state Rep. Kendell Kroeker, the chief sponsor of the Firearms Protection Act and a strong believer in both the Wyoming and U.S. constitutions he took an oath to uphold. "We've got a right to make our laws, and if the federal government is going to try to enforce unconstitutional laws on our people and take away the rights of Wyoming citizens, then we as a state are going to step up and make that a crime."

Following Wyoming’s lead, lawmakers in Texas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, and other states all filed similar nullification legislation designed to put the federal government in its place on the gun rights issue. Legislators say that with the increasingly out-of-control federal government running wild and threatening to restrict the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, it is time for states to take action and re-assert their sovereignty.

“It’s our attempt to push back on the federal government’s ever increasing encroachment, not only on our personal liberties but on our state sovereignty, and this is what we’re going to do,” said Tennessee state Rep. Joe Carr during a press conference on his legislation to criminalize enforcement of the Obama administration’s anti-Second Amendment schemes. “We’ve had enough and enough is enough. We’re tired of cheap political antics, cheap props using children as bait to gin up emotional attachment for an issue that, quite honesty, doesn’t solve the problem.”

In Texas, famous for its independent-minded citizens and its relative respect for gun rights, state officials are also stepping up to the plate. State Attorney General Greg Abbott, for example, noted that the proposals being discussed in Washington, D.C., are unconstitutional and should be treated as such. Citing Supreme Court rulings on gun rights, the state’s chief law enforcement officer promised to take the infringements to court and get them thrown out. Gov. Rick Perry, meanwhile, also jumped on the Second Amendment bandwagon, slamming Obama and his allies in the media for exploiting dead children to advance an unconstitutional agenda.

State lawmakers in the Lone Star State are taking concrete action in defense of citizens’ rights, too. “We can no longer depend on the federal government and this administration to uphold a Constitution that they no longer believe in,” said state Rep. Steve Toth, who recently introduced a bill to nullify federal restrictions on gun rights and charge anyone trying to enforce them with a felony. “The liberties of the People of Texas and the sovereignty of our state are too important to just let the federal government take them away. The overreach of the federal administration’s executive orders that are do not align with the Constitution, are not very popular here in Texas.”

One state, however, is standing above even Texas. Analysts say that legislation filed in Missouri by Republican state Rep. Casey Guernsey with over 60 co-sponsors, known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act, appears to be among the strongest bills at this point. If passed, it would nullify any and all federal acts, orders, laws, statutes, rules, or regulations purporting to limit or restrict access to personal firearms, accessories, and ammunition. Any federal official caught attempting to enforce such unconstitutional rules in the state would be charged with a class D felony, facing up to four years in prison upon conviction.

The Tenth Amendment Center, which advocates state nullification of all unconstitutional federal statutes, celebrated the legislation in Missouri and called on other state governments to join the movement. The non-profit organization, citing history and the Constitution, insists that it is the duty of state officials to uphold their oath of office and protect the unalienable rights of citizens — especially with the federal government becoming increasingly lawless and unhinged.

“When you’ve got people like Feinstein talking about major bans and Biden telling us that all they need is an executive order, you know these folks are willing to go all the way. So, it’s good to see these folks in Missouri go all the way as well, all the way in support the 2nd Amendment without any ifs, ands, or buts,” said Mike Maharrey, the Tenth Amendment Center’s national communications director. “The feds have absolutely zero constitutional authority to make any laws over personal firearms. Period.”

The principle of nullifying unconstitutional federal activities goes back to the earliest days of the republic, when Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson invoked it. Throughout American history, though, it has always been around. The state of Wisconsin, for example, nullified a federal statute purporting to require that runaway slaves be returned to their masters.

Numerous constitutional scholars have studied the issue, and in recent years, the concept has exploded into the public consciousness, with even big government-oriented Americans nullifying unconstitutional federal power grabs. Some 18 states have nullified federal drug statutes by legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, for instance. Colorado and Washington State recently legalized the controversial plant even for recreational use — all in open defiance of clear federal dictates.

Conservatives, meanwhile, are increasingly relying on nullification as well, targeting everything from ObamaCare to the latest round of gun-control scheming. In a recent article for The New American on Missouri’s efforts, liberty-minded attorney Joe Wolverton, an expert on nullification, explained the foundation — both legal and historical — for state actions nullifying unconstitutional federal power grabs.

“Nullification is a concept of constitutional law recognizing the right of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution,” he explained. “Nullification exists as a right of the states because the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.”

While states pursue nullification, county sheriffs nationwide have also promised not to comply with new gun control, with more than a few chief law enforcement officers pledging to actively prevent the enforcement of such measures in their jurisdictions. At the federal level, of course, lawmakers who take their oath of office seriously are working to stop the administration’s anti-gun rights machinations as well, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) working to push a bill targeting “King” Obama’s executive orders. Some Republicans in the House have even put impeachment on the table.

Despite the intense efforts to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms being led by the Obama administration and some Democrats in Congress and amplified by their allies in the press, the anti-constitutional push may be backfiring, according to analysts. Aside from renewed interest in nullification, recent polls show two out of three Americans understand that the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect the people from tyranny — not for “hunting” or “sporting” purposes, as citizen-disarmament advocates continue to suggest.

Much of the state-level resistance is currently focused on stopping unconstitutional gun control, but the awakening taking place nationwide is increasingly expanding to other areas as well. As the federal government continues to lawlessly expand its size and scope far beyond constitutional limits — targeting more and more of the people’s rights in the process — activists from all sides of the political spectrum will increasingly rely on nullification. And if the anti-constitutional trends out of Washington, D.C., continue, a showdown between states and the feds will become imminent.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.

Biden meets with gun ‘stakeholders’ as ‘civil’ sell-outs begin

January 10, 2013
By: David Codrea

Joe Biden is meeting throughout the day “with advocates for sportsmen and women and wildlife interest groups as part of the Administration’s effort to develop policy proposals in response to the tragedy in Newtown, the Vice President’s schedule announced today. Among groups known in advance to be attending one of today’s meetings are the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Today’s series of meetings include a different set of what the administration calls “stakeholders.” Yesterday, the Vice President and Attorney General Eric Holder met with what they referred to as “gun safety groups” (even though the organizations in question are not qualified and do not teach gun safety, but rather, are committed gun prohibitionists) and “victims and survivors.”

Likewise, today’s meeting will raise concerns about more than terminology. What gun rights activists will find especially troubling is the premise of the meeting, noting the Second Amendment has nothing to do with sports or wildlife, and particularly noting the disturbing origins of the premise that it does. A true meeting of “stakeholders” would include representatives for those who believe in the unbending of the Founders’ intent for the Second Amendment, who know that it is necessary for the security of a free state, that it shall not be infringed, and who won’t stand for being scapegoated or for citizen disarmament edicts imposed by those who would try.

Meetings and attendees for today, including representatives for retailers and the entertainment industry, were conveyed by a White House official through Michael Scherer of TIME, acting on behalf of the press pool, and include:

11:45 AM: Sportsmen and Women and Wildlife Interest Groups:

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Blue Water Strategies

Bull Moose Sportsmen's Alliance Action Fund

Ducks Unlimited

Outdoor Industry Association

Pheasants Forever

Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Wildlife Management Institute

1:45 PM: Gun Owners’ Groups:

Defense Small Arms Advisory Council (DSAAC.)

Firearms Import/Export Roundtable

Independent Firearm Owners Association (IFoA)

National Rifle Association of America

National Shooting Sports Foundation

National Association of Arms Shows

6:00 PM: Representatives from the Entertainment Industry:

Branded Entertainment

Comcast Corporation

Directors Guild of America

Film & Television Alliance

Motion Picture Association of America

National Association of Broadcasters

National Association of Theatre Owners

National Cable and Telecommunications Association

Supplied by the Justice Department:

Today, at 3:15 the Attorney General will meet with retailers as part of the ongoing gun violence sessions being held at the White House by Vice President Biden.

Below is a list of the retailers who will be attendance.

Academy Sports + Outdoors

Bass Pro Shops

Big 5 Sporting Goods

Cabela's

Dick's Sporting Goods

Dunham's Sports

Gander Mountain

Sportsman's Warehouse

Wal-Mart

National Retail Federation – (awaiting confirmation)

There are many concerns this list raises, including what else a company like Dick’s is willing to preemptively surrender to further alienate customers who don’t go there for the sport of it.

Also of concern: The attendance of the Independent Firearm Owners Association, headed by Richard Feldman, once a lawyer representing the gun industry who spearheaded the last industry surrender to the White House, and went on to author an expose of his former allies. Who and exactly how many they purport to represent is somewhat of a mystery, but we do know they portray themselves as "moderates," include "a number of retired law enforcement officers" on their board, and boast "There are 15 million self-identified liberals that own guns -- that's four times the size of the NRA."

Last night, Gun Rights Examiner obtained a “boycotted” copy of an IFoA press statement, not authorized for release until 1 p.m., that is, exactly as this is being typed. The complete statement has now been posted on the organization’s website. Aside from calling for “a return to public civility,” it includes a series of measures presented as needed to fight crime, with dangerous concessions made on two fronts.

“Let’s agree that we are united in opposition to the misuse of firearms, especially the access of guns to criminals and mentally unstable individuals,” it recommends, making no mention of how due process will be ensured for the “unstable” so that innocence is presumed as opposed to having to be proven. As Gun Rights Examiner pointed out on Monday, “reforms” in this area could create a blanket dragnet for gun rights disabilities.

“Let’s agree to require the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) at gun shows,” the release further advocates. “NRA’s Wayne LaPierre supported this to Congress back in May 1999. Our proposal is called the Gun Show Preservation and Protection Act of 2013.”

In other words, end the practice of allowing private sellers to attend gun shows.

The IFOA does not explain what it believes ending private sales at gun shows will accomplish, and why, if they think it will reduce violent crime, they have not also called for ending private sales everywhere, and if that will be a concession they intend to make at some later point once this beachhead has been secured. Nor do they explain how this “agreement” squares with delegated enumerated powers of either Congress or the Executive branch under the Constitution, nor if either the Second or Tenth Amendments should be consulted before agreeing to anything.

Nor do they indicate how, with anti-gunners snarling for viscera, civilly throwing them a scrap and giving them a taste of flesh will do anything but encourage the ravenous pack to close in for more.

If NRA and NSSF join in with this divide-and-conquer preemptive surrender, and show anything but strength, gun owners will have an internal problem to resolve when they should instead be working together toward the victory it is within their power to achieve.

UPDATE: The following information just came in from the reporting pool immediately after this article was published and is quoted below:

The VP said he would give POTUS recommendations by Tuesday. "I have committed to him that I will have the recommendations to him by Tuesday."

He mentioned several recommendations to deal with guns that he said he had heard repeatedly from stakeholders. This included what he called "universal background checks, not just closing the gumshoe* loophole." He also mentioned a call do deal with high capacity magazines. And he said, "The last area is the whole subject of the ability of any federal agency to do research on gun violence."

He compared the current limits on federal data gathering with the 1970s restrictions on federal research over the cause of traffic fatalities. He said there was a need to gather information on "what kind of weapons are used most to kill people" and "what kind of weapons are trafficked weapons."

He described his own personal relationship with guns as "an owner of shotguns--I'm no great hunter, it's mostly skeet shooting for me."

He said he was still hoping to have a conference call with gun manufacturers. "There has got to be some common ground, to not solve every problem but diminish the probability" of future mass shootings. "That's what this is all about. There are no conclusions I have reached."

He referred to Newtown, saying, "there is nothing that has pricked the consciousness of the American people" as the image of "little six-year-olds riddled ... with bullet holes in their class."

* "Gumshoe loophole" is a perfect example of "Authorized Journalists" acting as subject matter authorities. Maybe Biden really said it, though. A transcript is said to be forthcoming.

UPDATE: Dave Workman says "The ‘fix’ was in; NRA ‘disappointed’ at meeting."

------------

If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream media, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."
Suggested by the author:

Biden promises anti-gunners 'executive action can be taken' on guns
Mental health ‘reforms’ could cast ‘blanket dragnet’ for gun rights disabilities
Missteps and setbacks impacting gun ban momentum as gun owners start to advance



Repeal the first amendment

Repeal the first amendment

liveapartmentfire.com – 3 hrs ago..
(Yahoo News, Gun Appeal Update)

Want to restrict guns in America? Good luck with that. When the second amendment was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights, it codified America’s gun culture. Hundreds of millions of guns later, it’s a genie that’s so accustomed to being out of the bottle that it won’t get shoved back in without a bloodbath. He’s not even an NRA member. Want to register those hundreds of millions of guns retroactively?

Right. It’s not even an option, unless you’re proposing sending government jackboots into private homes to search every dwelling in America. Want to repeal the second amendment?

Right. Put aside the fact that three-quarters of the states would have to ratify it, it opens a door I don’t want to see opened. Put the second amendment on the table for repeal, and the whole Constitution is up for grabs. The first amendment is probably even less popular in America than the second amendment. On his WSB radio show this month, Erick Erickson pitched repeal of the first amendment. This, from a guy who makes a living on radio, blogs and by masterminding election material. Erickson’s rant was probably mostly facetious, but was based on a legit gripe about the news media’s errors in the initial reporting of the Newtown massacre. The errors were unfortunate. It would be even more unfortunate to have the government restrict free expression and freedom of the press. (I write “freedom of the press” reluctantly. The phrase “freedom of speech, or of the press” appears in the first amendment. In my mind, there’s nothing particularly exceptional about the press. It’s about saying whatever you want without crossing the legal lines of libel or defamation, or yelling “fire” in a movie theater. It doesn't matter whether you’re an individual, a blogger, a TV station or the New York Times. But “the press” gets specific constitutional protection, and I won’t complain about it.) Erick Erickson, WSB-AM Everybody cherishes their own freedom of speech. But they’re tired of “freedom of the press.” They’re tired of the baggage attached to it — the promotion, the competition, the hype, the 24-hour news cycles, the foolishness in deciding what’s important and what isn’t (based on what decision-makers think the audience wants, of course). And they’re annoyed by the mistakes, amplified when a story is of high interest. I suspect Erickson’s rant reflects the sentiment of a lot of Americans. But it beats the alternative, which would likely include government safeguards of “official secrets” and restrictions on political speech and Lord only knows what else. I vote to keep it as it is, and to not tempt fate by tinkering with the Bill of Rights elsewhere. Besides “freedom… of the press,” can you imagine the re-writes elsewhere? Fourth amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, eighth amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment, even a trial by jury — all that stuff would get gutted. And the much-despised freedom of religion / “establishment” clause would get a total re-write. Hello, American theocracy. And three quarters of the states would probably ratify it. But they won’t touch the second amendment.


America's Gun Violence Problem is NOT Guns

By Jeff Siegel | Sunday, December 23rd, 2012

I've been trying to not weigh in on this one. But I don't think I can write about anything else until I get this off my chest...

Although it's been more than a week since we first learned of the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I can't seem to get through a single day without thinking about what happened, why it happened, and of course the debate over gun control that is sure to monopolize a lot of lawmakers' time next year.

Reading about the victims and the victims' families has nearly brought me to tears so many times over the past week.

And reading the opinion pieces about gun control and the lack of mental health support in this country has been beyond frustrating.

If you're a regular reader of these pages, you know my thoughts on the Second Amendment and the responsibility of Americans to defend that Amendment.

But with this tragedy still so fresh in our minds, I don't want to spend the next few minutes writing a diatribe about the Second Amendment. And I don't think I need to. You know where I stand.

Instead, what I want to talk about is the bigger picture that few in the mainstream media have been willing to address...

It's an issue I believe is at the heart of America's gun violence problem.

The Bigger Picture;
In 2011 there were 8,583 gun-related murders in the United States. More than 8,000 are expected for 2012.

And that doesn't include those gun-related homicides that don't get included in year-end totals.

There are likely thousands more that go unreported every year — some of which are intentionally omitted by unethical government employees looking to cook the books in an effort to create the illusion of a “safer” city or state.

Of course, even one gun-related murder — really any kind of murder, for that matter — is a tragedy.

But what's most frustrating is the way we deal with this gun-related violence reality as a nation.

There is no doubt that we live in a violent society. But it seems like we only pay attention after we witness a mass shooting. These are horrible events that absolutely highlight a problem we have as a nation and as a society.

However, there's a bigger picture here that few are willing to address.

And this bigger picture is the source for nearly all of the gun-related violence in this country.

Question...

In 2012 there have been sixteen mass shootings, leaving 88 people dead.

88 sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, friends, cousins, co-workers, aunts, uncles, and grandparents stolen from the ones they loved and who loved them.

These mass shootings have been defined as multi-victim shootings where those killed were chosen indiscriminately, and have taken place in movie theaters, spas, courthouses, churches, elementary schools, and at sporting events.

So it's not even remotely unexpected that with each mass shooting tragedy, many folks will question the availability of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

But here's something that we, as a nation, should be questioning...

If 88 innocent lives have been taken because of mass shootings, that means more than 8,000 other people were killed as a result of gun violence — but in different, non-mass shooting situations.

Let me explain...

Guns Aren't Illiterate, Unemployed, and Strung Out;

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know where the majority of these gun-related deaths occur. Most are not in our suburban schools, movie theaters, and high-rise office suites...

No, most are in the streets of our most violent cities and in areas where there are specific commonalities, no matter where you go in this country.

What are those commonalities?

The districts and neighborhoods where most of the nation's murders happen are plagued by broken homes, third- and fourth-generation welfare families, high unemployment, low literacy rates, rampant drug abuse, and limited opportunities for kids to spend their time constructively.

These are the ingredients for a violent society. Yet it's this part of society that most of us never see or hear about.

All we see are the numbers at the end of the year...

Here's a list of some of the nation's most violent cities:

City Total Homicides (2011)
Detroit 346
St. Louis 113
Oakland 110
Memphis 147
Baltimore 195
New Orleans 199
Chicago 435
Washington, D.C. 109
Philadelphia 324
Los Angeles 298

In these ten cities alone, 2,276 Americans were tragically killed last year.

These aren't just numbers, my friend... These are real people with real families. And their lives are no less important than the lives of those lost in mass shootings that the mainstream media rushes to cover — and that gun control advocates use to further their goal of restricting gun rights of responsible gun owners.

But rest assured, the majority of those 2,276 people that have been the victims of gun violence in our most dangerous cities were not murdered by those carrying legally-obtained firearms.

Now, I don't know how this is going to play out in Washington next year, but I do know there are a lot of folks who have now decided that nearly 10,000 gun-related deaths in the United States is not something we can brush aside any longer.

And I agree.

My hope, however, is that we are honest about what the real problem is and how we can fix it.

I hope we are honest about where most of these gun-related homicides are happening — and more important, why they continue to happen — and how we can help create environments where continued gun-related violence cannot continue to breed.

And my hope is we can do so without infringing upon the rights of responsible gun owners.

As far as whether or not assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should be available for legal gun owners, well, let me know what you think.

After all, here at Wealth Daily, we consider are readers — YOU — a part of our community. And your voice is just as important as the one that puts these thoughts in front of you every week.

Live honorably, live free...

Jeff Siegel
for Freedom Watch

P.S. Worth noting: Detroit has a 9.3% jobless rate and a 47% illiteracy rate. Homicides this year have exceeded 2011 numbers, and the number of rapes, robberies, and assaults are 5x the national average. There is a much stronger correlation between violent crime and societal shortcomings than there is between violent crime and the ability for responsible, law-abiding gun owners to legally purchase firearms.

NRA PRESS CONFERENCE - Wayne LaPierre

12/21/2012

"The Voice of Reason for many Americans"

The National Rifle Association's 4 million mothers, fathers, sons and daughters join the nation in horror, outrage, grief and earnest prayer for the families of Newtown, Connecticut ... who suffered such incomprehensible loss as a result of this unspeakable crime.

Out of respect for those grieving families, and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment. While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent.

Now, we must speak ... for the safety of our nation's children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one — nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?

The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth. Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.

And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.

How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security.

We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers.

Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!

The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them. They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his attack on a school he's already identified at this very moment?

How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame — from a national media machine that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave — while provoking others to try to make their mark?

A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?

And the fact is, that wouldn't even begin to address the much larger and more lethal criminal class: Killers, robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country. Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40% — to the lowest levels in a decade.

So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster, and you've got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization.

And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found it?

Then there's the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."

But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?

In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.

A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.

And throughout it all, too many in our national media ... their corporate owners ... and their stockholders ... act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.

The media call semi-automatic firearms "machine guns" — they claim these civilian semi-automatic firearms are used by the military, and they tell us that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle calibers ... when all of these claims are factually untrue. They don't know what they're talking about!

Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban — or one more law imposed on peaceful, lawful people — will protect us where 20,000 others have failed!

As brave, heroic and self-sacrificing as those teachers were in those classrooms, and as prompt, professional and well-trained as those police were when they responded, they were unable — through no fault of their own — to stop it.

As parents, we do everything we can to keep our children safe. It is now time for us to assume responsibility for their safety at school. The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minute away?

Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll claim, "are the NRA's answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word?

A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the President isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.

So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our President or our country or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools?

They're our kids. They're our responsibility. And it's not just our duty to protect them — it's our right to protect them.

You know, five years ago, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy. But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?

Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared? Is that so abhorrent to you that you would rather continue to risk the alternative?

Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America's gun owners that you're willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? No one — regardless of personal political prejudice — has the right to impose that sacrifice.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no national, one-size-fits-all solution to protecting our children. But do know this President zeroed out school emergency planning grants in last year's budget, and scrapped "Secure Our Schools" policing grants in next year's budget.

With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget, we can't afford to put a police officer in every school? Even if they did that, politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the right, the ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm.

Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America's schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America's police force.

The budget of our local police departments are strained and resources are limited, but their dedication and courage are second to none and they can be deployed right now.

I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school — and to do it now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January.

Before Congress reconvenes, before we engage in any lengthy debate over legislation, regulation or anything else, as soon as our kids return to school after the holiday break, we need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by that I mean armed security.

Right now, today, every school in the United States should plan meetings with parents, school administrators, teachers and local authorities — and draw upon every resource available — to erect a cordon of protection around our kids right now. Every school will have a different solution based on its own unique situation.

Every school in America needs to immediately identify, dedicate and deploy the resources necessary to put these security forces in place right now. And the National Rifle Association, as America's preeminent trainer of law enforcement and security personnel for the past 50 years, is ready, willing and uniquely qualified to help.

Our training programs are the most advanced in the world. That expertise must be brought to bear to protect our schools and our children now. We did it for the nation's defense industries and military installations during World War II, and we'll do it for our schools today.

The NRA is going to bring all of its knowledge, dedication and resources to develop a model National School Shield Emergency Response Program for every school that wants it. From armed security to building design and access control to information technology to student and teacher training, this multi-faceted program will be developed by the very best experts in their fields.

Former Congressman Asa Hutchinson will lead this effort as National Director of the National School Shield Program, with a budget provided by the NRA of whatever scope the task requires. His experience as a U.S. Attorney, Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency and Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security will give him the knowledge and expertise to hire the most knowledgeable and credentialed experts available anywhere, to get this program up and running from the first day forward.

If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained — armed — good guy.

Under Asa's leadership, our team of security experts will make this the best program in the world for protecting our children at school, and we will make that program available to every school in America free of charge.

That's a plan of action that can, and will, make a real, positive and indisputable difference in the safety of our children — starting right now.

There'll be time for talk and debate later. This is the time, this is the day for decisive action.

We can't wait for the next unspeakable crime to happen before we act. We can't lose precious time debating legislation that won't work. We mustn't allow politics or personal prejudice to divide us. We must act now.

For the sake of the safety of every child in America, I call on every parent, every teacher, every school administrator and every law enforcement officer in this country to join us in the National School Shield Program and protect our children with the only line of positive defense that's tested and proven to work.


President Obama’s Speech on Gun Control and Reform

Yesterday at 1:12 pm
by Sam Dwyer Posted in News,
Politics, President Obama

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good morning everybody.

OBAMA: It’s now been five days since the heartbreaking tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut; three days since we gathered as a nation to pray for the victims, and today a few more of the 20 small children and six educators who were taken from us will be laid to rest. We may never know all the reasons why this tragedy happened. We do know that every day since, more Americans have died of gun violence. We know such violence has terrible consequences for our society. And if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any of these events, we have a deep obligation, all of us, to try.

OBAMA: Over these past five days, the discussion has re-emerged as to what we might do not only to deter mass shootings in the future, but to reduce the epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country every single day. And it’s encouraging that people of all different backgrounds and beliefs and political persuasions have been willing to challenge some old assumptions and change some long-standing positions.

That conversation has to continue, but this time the words need to lead to action. We know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held (ph) passions and political divides. And as I said on Sunday night, there’s no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.

We’re going to need on making access to mental health at least as easy as access to a gun. We’re going to need to look more closely at a culture that, all too often, glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts.

But the fact that this problem is complex, can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing. The fact that we can’t prevent every act of violence, doesn’t mean that we can’t steadily reduce the violence and prevent the very worst violence. That’s why I asked the vice president to lead an effort to include members of my Cabinet and outside organizations to come up with a set of concrete proposals no later than January, proposals that I then intend to push without delay.

This is not some Washington commission. This is not something where folks are going to be studying the issue for six months and publishing a report that gets read and then pushed aside.

This is a team that has a very specific task to pull together real reforms right now.

I asked Joe to lead this effort in part because he wrote the 1994 crime bill that helped law enforcement bring down the rate of violent crime in this country. That plan — that bill also included the assault weapons ban that was publicly supported at the time by former presidents, including Ronald Reagan.

The good news is there’s already a growing consensus for us to build from. A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons. A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all.

I urge the new Congress to hold votes on these measures next year in a timely manner.

And considering Congress hasn’t confirmed a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in six years — the agency that works most closely with state and local law enforcement to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals — I’d suggest that they make this a priority early in the year.

Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual a right to bear arms. This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s been handed down from generation to generation.

Obviously, across the country there are regional differences. There are differences between how people feel in urban areas and rural areas. And the fact is, the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible. They buy their guns legally and they use them safely, whether for hunting or sports shooting, collection or protection.

OBAMA: But you know what? I am also betting that the majority — the vast majority of responsible law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war.

I’m willing to bet that they don’t think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas; that an unbalanced man shouldn’t be able it to get his hands on a military-style assault rifle so easily; that in this age of technology we should be able to check someone’s criminal records before he or she can check out at a gun show.

That if he we work harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people there would be fewer atrocities like the ones in Newtown or any of the lesser known tragedies that visit (ph) small towns and big cities all across America every day.

Since Friday morning, a police officer was gunned down in Memphis, leaving four children without their mother. Two officers were killed outside a grocery store in Topeka. A woman was shot and killed inside a Las Vegas casino. Three people were shot inside an Alabama hospital. A four-year-old was caught in a drive-by in Missouri and taken off life support just yesterday.

Each one of these Americans was a victim of the everyday gun violence that takes the lives of more than 10,000 Americans every year — violence that we cannot accept as routine.

So I will use all the powers of this office to help advance efforts aimed the at preventing more tragedies like this. We won’t prevent them all, but that can’t be an excuse not to try. It won’t be easy, but that can’t be an excuse not to try.

And I’m not going to be able to do it by myself. Ultimately, if this effort is to succeed, it’s going to require the help of the American people. It’s gonna require all of you. If we’re going to change things, it’s going to take a wave of Americans — mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, pastors, law enforcement, mental health professionals, and, yes, gun owners — standing up and saying, enough on behalf of our kids.

It will take commitment and compromise, and most of all it will take courage.

OBAMA: But if those of us who were sent here to serve the public trust can summon even one tiny iota of the courage of those teachers, that principal in Newtown summoned on Friday, if cooperation and common sense prevail, then I’m convinced we can make a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place for our children to learn and to grow.

Thank you.


read more...

Gun Owner Loses 2nd Amendment Case

Gun Owner Loses 2nd Amendment Case
By NICK MCCANN

(CN) - A woman who challenged San Francisco's gun laws as unconstitutional failed to persuade a federal judge that the rules burdened her ability to protect herself and her family.
Therese Marie Pizzo sued The City and County of San Francisco, Mayor Edwin Lee, Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, Police Chief Greg Suhr, and California Attorney General Kamala Harris, challenging a variety of local and state gun laws.
Pizzo, a lesbian, said in her complaint that she has suffered harassment for her sexual orientation, and gun laws in San Francisco and California prevent her from having a gun to protect herself and her family.
Pizzo claimed in her 2009 lawsuit that she feared threats and assaults in "more rural areas of California and in rural areas out-of-state" and that she has "no way to adequately defend or protect [herself]."
Pizzo challenged state laws that prohibit carrying weapons in public, and San Francisco ordinances making it illegal to discharge firearms in public.
Those discharge ordinances were amended in 2011 to remove references to firearms, and now prohibit only fireworks.
Pizzo also challenged state and county procedural requirements for applying for a concealed-carry weapon, and a county ordinance requiring handguns to be locked in an approved gun safe.
Pizzo said she wants to have a "readily accessible operable handgun ready for immediate use, loaded with proper ammunition, within my home for self-defense, on my person, and in my vehicle," but cannot do so without a concealed-carry permit.
"I will no longer go camping. I will no longer visit Texas unless I am issued a CCW permit," Pizzo said in her declaration.
She also wanted to be able to "use semi-jacketed hollow point ammunition that expands and fragments upon impact." She calls that ammunition better than "full metal jacket" ammo, which is more likely to ricochet and hurt innocent people.
The National Rifle Association filed an amicus brief in support of Pizzo's motion for summary judgment.
The Legal Community Against Violence filed a brief in support of the defendants' cross-motions.
Both the defendants and the NRA claimed that Pizzo did not have standing to challenge the storage and ammunition ordinances. The NRA, however, disputed the legal standard used by the defendants.
In her Dec. 3 order, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken found the storage ordinance does not prohibit Pizzo from having a gun in her vehicle or on her person in her home.
Wilken rejected Pizzo's argument that the ordinance prevents her from making her own decision about whether she can store her gun outside of her gun locker.
"Plaintiff offers no authority to support her argument that this deprivation can support standing, where she has expressed no intention to actually engage in any conduct that may be prohibited by the statute," the judge wrote in a 35-page order.
"Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that there is no material dispute of fact that plaintiff does not have an intention to engage in a course of conduct prohibited by the statute that is not 'vague and unspecified.'"
Wilken agreed with the San Francisco defendants that Pizzo lacked standing to challenge the ammunition ordinance.
"Plaintiff has not offered evidence that she intends to purchase the prohibited ammunition anywhere, including within San Francisco, and thus has not established that the ordinance has caused her an injury-in-fact," the judge wrote.
Finding Pizzo's argument speculative, Wilken granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment.
The City of San Francisco and the state attorney general also argued that Pizzo lacked standing to challenge the concealed-carry permit process because she did not submit proper applications to the police chief or sheriff.
The court agreed that she lacked standing, finding that she did not provide the city with contact information, and that she did not pay the required application fee.
Finally, because the San Francisco ordinance banning the discharge of firearms was repealed in 2011, Wilken found that part of Pizzo's challenge moot.
In November, another San Francisco federal judge shot down a challenge to gun ordinances brought by gun owners and the NRA.
In that action, the plaintiffs claimed the ordinances requiring a trigger lock on handguns and banning certain ammunition was unconstitutional.
The case centered on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down a similar trigger lock ordinance.
In denying the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction, Judge Richard Seeborg found that "Heller left too much unsettled for it to dictate a particular result" in the case.
"Against the backdrop of evolving law, and in the absence of controlling precedent, the conclusion emerges that plaintiffs have failed to show a probability of success on the merits of their claims that the challenged ordinances are constitutionally infirm," Judge Seeborg wrote.
Seeborg noted that "law in this arena undoubtedly will continue to develop" with more precise analytical standards for Second Amendment challenges.



Proper Ear Protection for Hunting

Did you know that hunting can damage your ears? Every hunter typically focuses on new guns but rarely focuses on buying hearing protection. With so many people suffering from hearing loss, there is a desperate need for ear protection. People who hunt without hearing protection run the risk of having permanent hearing loss and wearing hearing aids. The hearing aids will amplify sounds and improve the hearing levels.

How to Protect Hearing While Hunting

Hunters should take every effort to protect their hearing with protective ear wear. There are several types of ear wear that are available and consist of earplugs, earmuffs or electronic earmuffs. If protective ear wear is not worn, the sounds of hunting can be damaging to the ears. Earplugs are often used in conjunction with earmuffs to block noise during hunting.

Noise cancelling earmuffs are recommended for hunters. These earmuffs allow hunters to hear noises below 80 decibels (dB). Since normal voices are typically between 60 dB and 65 dB, most voices can be heard through electronic earmuffs. When you are shooting, the sounds will typically exceed 140 dB. The noise canceling earmuffs will block all noises to avoid damage to the ears.

My father who loves hunting and was a hunter for many years, often did not choose to pay much attention to his hearing protection while out on a hunt or at the range practicing. Now many years later he is paying the price for his actions and is severely affected by hearing loss. In order to help amplify sounds around him and to increase his hearing levels, my father now wears hearing aids. Hearing loss is very preventable especially in the case of hunting. Had my father taken the right precaution in the past he would probably have much better hearing these days.

Causes of Hearing Loss While Hunting

Hearing loss can be caused by sounds over 80 dB. Hunting without hearing protection can be dangerous. With more people losing their hearing due to poor nutrition and excessive noises, it is more important to be cognizant about hearing loss. Firing a firearm at close range without hearing protection can be a cause of hearing loss. Every hunter should make an extra effort to practice their shooting in an outdoor environment. Shooting practice outside is preferred over practice indoors because it is easier on the ears.

Why You Should Protect Your Hearing While Hunting

Every hunter should take the proper steps in protecting their hearing. Hearing ia very valuable and many people do not realize its work until it is gone. Decreased hearing levels can make life a lot harder, not only while hunting but while home with the kids, on the phone with a friend or even in meetings at work. Every part of your life becomes a little more difficult when you hearing levels are not up to par.

Earmuffs, earplugs and electronic earmuffs as mentioned above are all recommended while hunting. With protection, you can ensure that you will have healthy hearing levels for quite some time. Consider your hearing protection before the next time you go practicing at a shooting range or before hunting.


Hi my name is John O'Connor, I am a father, outdoorsman and passionate about living a healthy lifestyle. Over the past few years I have become more and more interested in hearing loss. My father and grandfathers, who are and were all hunters, are affected by hearing loss. I feel that there is a general lack of understanding around the issue and it is our job to spread awareness where we can. Check out my new blog at bloggingwjohno.blogspot.com!


Gun Control

By CHARLES M. BLOW
New York Times

For three decades, the story of gun control was one of notorious crimes and laws passed in response, beginning with the federal law that followed the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. But after a Democratic-controlled Congress in 1994 passed bills proposed by President Clinton to restrict certain kinds of assault weapons and to create a national system of background checks for gun purchases, the political pendulum began to swing the other way. President Bush’s defeat of Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election was attributed in part to the perception among gun owners that Mr. Gore was “anti-gun.”

Supporters of gun control regularly point to the power of the National Rifle Association, whose 4.3 million members make it one of the most effective advocacy groups in Washington.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights included a guarantee of the personal right to own a gun. The decision was both a measure of how far the pro-gun debate had moved, and a blow to many of the stricter gun control laws adopted by cities like Washington and Chicago.

In recent years, there have been calls for a renewed debate over gun violence after a series of horrific shootings. In November 2009, an Army psychiatrist at Fort Hood, Tex., was accused of shooting and killing 13 people and wounding 30 people. In January 2011, a gunman in Tucson, Ariz., armed with a Glock semiautomatic, shot and killed six people and wounded 14 others, including former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona.

In the wake of the Tucson shootings, gun control advocates said they believed the shock of the attack would alter the political atmosphere, in no small part because one of the victims was a member of Congress. But the bills that were introduced — including ones to restrict sales of 100-bullet magazines or to tighten background checks — went nowhere.

Mixed Views Found on Stricter Laws for Guns

Most voters in Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin are not clamoring for stricter state laws covering the sale of guns, with majorities in each state saying more restrictions would not prevent violent attacks like the killings in Aurora, Colo.

Still, roughly 4 in 10 likely voters say gun laws in their individual states should be made more strict, according to Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News polls conducted from July 31 to Aug. 6, 2012.


But as many voters in Virginia say the laws should stay the way they are, as do about half of voters in Colorado and Wisconsin. (Most interviews in Wisconsin were conducted before the shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis.) The polls found that 6 percent in Wisconsin, 8 percent in Colorado and 9 percent in Virginia want their gun laws made less strict.

Many voters seem to lack confidence in the effectiveness of more stringent laws. About 6 in 10 voters in Virginia and Wisconsin and two-thirds in Colorado say stricter laws would not deter gunmen intent on mass shootings.

Few voters in the polls are satisfied with how much time the presidential candidates have spent on gun laws. More than 4 in 10 in Virginia and Wisconsin say too little time has been spent on the issue, while nearly 3 in 10 say it has been the right amount; Colorado voters are more divided. About 2 in 10 in each state say they have spent too much time discussing the issue.

About half of voters in each state say they or someone in their household owns a gun.

The polls found majority support in each state for a nationwide ban on the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines, ranging from 52 percent in favor in Virginia, where 32 people were killed by a gunman in 2007 at Virginia Tech, to 57 percent in Wisconsin and 58 percent in Colorado.

Partisanship is a factor fueling views of gun control, with Democratic voters largely in support of stricter laws and Republicans in support of keeping the laws as they are.

Independents in each state are more apt to favor keeping the laws, rather than making them tougher.

The telephone polls were conducted among 1,463 likely voters in Colorado, 1,412 likely voters in Virginia and 1,428 likely voters in Wisconsin. The results in each state have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 points.

A Push for Tougher Gun Laws in New York State

In the wake of mass shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin and an uptick in gun violence in New York City, lawmakers are planning a new push to win approval of tighter gun laws in New York State.

One measure introduced in early August would require background checks of anyone buying ammunition. Another, still being drafted, would limit the purchase of firearms to one per person per month.

Supporters of the measures said they would fill several gaps in New York’s gun laws, which are already among the toughest in the country, and make them more complete than any other state’s in discouraging gun crime.

Opponents, including the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, said lawmakers were trying to capitalize on the mass shootings to push their own agendas and prevent responsible people from owning guns.

In recent years, many gun control measures have passed the Assembly, where Democrats are in the majority, only to stall in the Republican-controlled Senate. For example, in 2012 the Senate blocked a measure to require micro-stamping, a form of ballistics identification.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, supported tougher gun control measures during his campaign in 2010, but, facing a divided Legislature, he has not made it one of the central elements of his legislative agenda.

In addition to the mass shootings nationally, there has been a steady stream of gun crimes in New York City. As of Aug. 5, there had been 1,058 shooting victims in New York City in 2012, up from 977 in the same period the previous year.

A number of lawmakers have offered proposals to address gun violence. State Senator José R. Peralta, Democrat of Queens, would limit ammunition sales to 500 rounds per customer each month.

Mr. Peralta is also seeking to require courts to strip people of their guns or gun permits if they are committed to psychiatric hospitals, and to require that all handgun licenses across the state be renewed at least once every five years. He is also the sponsor of the measure to require background checks of people buying ammunition.

State Senator Michael N. Gianaris, Democrat of Queens, is the lawmaker seeking to limit firearm purchases to one per month. He said the measure would cut down on gun trafficking, in which a person buys a large cache of guns legally and then resells them.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg expressed ambivalence about Mr. Gianaris’s proposal because, he said, most guns used in murders in New York City come from out of state.

Court Battles Over the Second Amendment

Recent battles have taken place in the courts, revolving around fundamentally differing interpretations of the oddly punctuated, often-debated Second Amendment, which reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Supreme Court in 2008 embraced the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for personal use, ruling 5 to 4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.

But the landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller addressed only federal laws; it left open the question of whether Second Amendment rights protect gun owners from overreaching by state and local governments.

In June 2010, the court ruled in another 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment restrains government’s ability to significantly limit “the right to keep and bear arms.” The case involved a challenge to Chicago’s gun control law, regarded as among the strictest in the nation.

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right “applies equally to the federal government and the states.”

The McDonald v. Chicago ruling is an enormous symbolic victory for supporters of gun rights, but its short-term practical impact is unclear. As in the Heller decision, the justices left for another day the question of just what kinds of gun control laws can be reconciled with Second Amendment protection.

A 1939 decision by the Supreme Court suggested, without explicitly deciding, that the Second Amendment right should be understood in connection with service in a militia. The “collective rights’' interpretation of the amendment became the dominant one, and formed the basis for the many laws restricting firearm ownership passed in the decades since. But many conservatives, and in recent years even some liberal legal scholars, have argued in favor of an “individual rights’' interpretation that would severely limit government’s ability to regulate gun ownership.

In May 2009, President Obama signed into law a provision allowing visitors to national parks and refuges to carry loaded and concealed weapons. The provision represented a Congressional victory that eluded gun rights advocates under a Republican president.

But in July 2009, the Senate turned aside the latest attempt by gun advocates to expand the rights of gun owners, narrowly voting down a provision that would have allowed gun owners with valid permits from one state to carry concealed weapons in other states.

read more...

Should doctors be able to ask their patients about guns in the home?

By Michelle Andrews, Published: November 26

Should doctors be able to ask their patients or patients’ parents whether they own a gun? What about health insurers, employers or health-care officials implementing the Affordable Care Act?

The issue is playing out in Florida, where a federal judge in July issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of a law that would have prohibited doctors from asking patients about gun ownership in many instances, saying the prohibition impinged on doctors’ First Amendment right to speak with their patients about gun safety.

The law would have allowed physicians to ask about guns if it seemed relevant to a patient’s medical care or safety — for example, if a patient was severely depressed or experiencing violence in the home. Florida is appealing the judge’s ruling.

Six other states — Alabama, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia — have considered similar legislation in recent years, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, though none of them has approved such a law.

The Affordable Care Act doesn’t prevent doctors from asking patients about guns, but it does prohibit insurers, employers and Department of Health and Human Services officials from asking about gun ownership in many instances, and it prohibits HHS from collecting such data.

Employer-sponsored wellness programs, for example, are prohibited from asking people about gun use or storage. Such questions might be posed as part of a questionnaire that asks about risky health behavior such as smoking and inadequate exercise. Likewise, health insurers can’t use gun ownership, use or storage as criteria for setting premiums or denying coverage.

Even without the new restrictions, such questions are rarely asked or acted on, say experts. “We don’t have any data or industry information on [this subject], but it isn’t something that we’ve heard about or seen companies do,” says Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group.

Physicians say that asking whether there are guns in the home and how they’re stored should be part of routine discussions doctors have about hazards in the home, just as they ask about poisonous cleaning materials or fencing around outdoor pools. In most instances, those conversations take place between pediatricians and parents of young children

In 2009, one in five deaths caused by injuries to people younger than 20 were related to firearms, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics’ revised policy statement on gun-related injuries released in October.

“It’s inconceivable to me that I wouldn’t be able to have a conversation about something that might harm the child,” says Robert Sege, director of the division of family and child advocacy at Boston Medical Center. Sometimes parents have declined to answer when he asks if they have guns at home, he says, and in those cases he doesn’t push for answers but does provide gun-safety pointers.

But gun-rights advocates say information about gun ownership is no one’s business but their own. They say it’s up to the individual to abide by laws related to gun ownership and safe storage.

“We take our children to the doctor because they’re sick or need health care,” says Marion Hammer, a former National Rifle Association president who is the executive director of United Sportsmen of Florida, the NRA’s legislative affiliate for the state. “We don’t take them there for political dialogue or for pediatricians to ask us not to exercise a constitutional right.”

This column is produced through a collaboration between The Post and Kaiser Health News. KHN, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health-care-policy organization that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. E-mail: questions@kaiserhealthnews.org.

"Campus Carry"

Texas State Representative John Frullo Says Campus Carry May Not Come up in Legislative Session, but It Still an Important Issue
By Ariel Walden4 days ago

Texas Legislature
On the Monday edition of the Chad Hasty Show, state representative John Frullo joined guest host Paul R. Beane in studio to discuss the upcoming Texas legislative session.

Frullo said that there are a large number of issues the legislature needs to bring up in this session. Redistricting and the budget will be discusses again, as well as the Voting Rights Act. One issue that might not come up, but is still a concern for many people is the question of allowing concealed carry on campuses in Texas. Frullo is a big supporter of campus carry, and concealed carry in general. He said that people should be able to protect themselves no matter where they are.

“One of the things with concealed carry is the element of surprise. And I think that’s very important when you come to protect yourself. The main thing, as far as I’m concerned, is being able to protect yourself, your family and your property. I think that’s paramount to everything else. And Texas has some great laws as far as that goes.”

Frullo also discussed the manufacturing committee, of which he is a member, and how Texas can bring more manufacturing businesses to the state. He also took questions concerning the 10th Amendment, and whether or not Texas should be an open carry state. The 2013 Texas legislative session begins on January 8th.


Residential "Gun Sales Hot Topic" in Pleasant Hill, CA.

By Lisa P. White Contra Costa Timescontracostatimes.com
Posted: 11/16/2012 03:03:19 PM PST

PLEASANT HILL -- During the usual arguments from gun control advocates and gun enthusiasts at a workshop on residential gun sales Thursday, one new piece of information emerged -- the online firearms business that prompted the meeting is up and running, police confirmed.

In October 2011, Rico Tedjakusuma received a home occupation permit for an office for LNC Arms. But for months it was unclear if he was selling guns since the LNC Arms website remains under construction.

At the workshop, Councilman Jack Weir said Tedjakusuma is selling guns and that most of his customers find him through online chat rooms where federally licensed gun dealers solicit business.

Tedjakusuma also told police he operates by purchasing a gun from a vendor and shipping the firearm to a federally licensed dealer, who completes the transaction with the buyer, according to Lt. Dan Connelly. Furthermore, the staff report notes that Tedjakusuma has told the city that "firearms are not typically shipped to or stored at the residence."

Whether Tedjakusuma keeps inventory at home is a major concern of residents who believe residential gun sales threaten public safety. The U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics recently reported that from 2005 to 2010, an estimated 172,000 guns per year were stolen during residential burglaries.

Tedjakusuma is a federally licensed firearms dealer and has passed criminal background checks by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the state Department of Justice, according to Pleasant Hill police. He listed a condominium on Scottsdale Road in the Tres Lagos North development as the business address on his permit application. The business hasn't caused any problems, police said.

The city held Thursday's workshop to discuss the sale of guns and ammunition in residential neighborhoods. Although the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence's Contra Costa chapter seeks a ban on home gun dealers in Pleasant Hill, the council has no plans to take action on the issue.

Several people who argued against restricting home gun sales cited the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms. However, the courts have ruled that the Second Amendment doesn't prohibit government regulation of firearms dealers. More than 32 California counties and cities -- including Antioch and Lafayette -- require a police permit or land use permit, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a national advocacy group.

Barbara Wagner, who lives in the Tres Lagos condominium development, believes the city shouldn't have approved Tedjakusuma's home occupation permit.

"If he wants to do this he should have a store," Wagner wrote in an email to the council. "(A) home gun business is a threat to public safety because firearms can be stolen, and who knows what kind of clients he has who are angry at him and show up at his house, which is across from where I live."

Bruce Lesser, who also lives in Pleasant Hill, slammed the Brady Campaign and dismissed the group's concerns as a "fabricated issue."

"There's no problem," said Lesser, who exhorted the council members to uphold the Constitution. "Where this all started was with a radical, left-wing group."

Pleasant Hill's zoning code does not require public notice or a public hearing for a "home occupation" use as an office, so Tedjakusuma's neighbors weren't notified about his intention to sell firearms, nor did the council review his proposal.

Pleasant Hill resident Bruce Weissenberger acknowledged the possibility that the exposure from a hearing could make a home occupation gun dealer a target for thieves. But he argued that the public process often leads to better conditions on a use permit, and he urged the council to err on the side of greater disclosure.

"I want to know what's going on beside me in my neighborhood."


The Biggest Threat in an Obama Second Term

Worth another look!

Posted by NRA on October 19, 2012

There are many ways a second term for President Barack Obama threatens the rights of gun owners. He wants to bring back the 1994 semi-auto ban; his administration has already imposed an illegal registration scheme on certain rifle sales; and there is no way to know how far he would go to use his executive powers to curb our rights if he didn't have to face reelection.

But without a doubt, the biggest threat would be his potential appointments to the Supreme Court, as highlighted in a new advertisement unveiled this week by the NRA Political Victory Fund.

We already know the kind of jurists Obama will appoint. Even before joining the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor proved their opposition to the most basic rights protected by the Second Amendment.

But this past week, we had the opportunity to get a peek into the legal mind of another Supreme Court justice who recently opposed our rights, and his comments tell us a great deal about what would happen if the majority of the court shared those views.

On Oct. 15, the Brady Center hosted a legal symposium, with retired justice John Paul Stevens as the featured speaker. Current justices do not often discuss issues that come before the court, but Justice Stevens is now free to speak his mind, and his opinions should be of concern to anyone who values the right to keep and bear arms.

In his remarks, Stevens bemoaned the Heller and McDonald decisions striking down city gun bans, while at the same time claiming the decisions' impact should be strictly limited to the right to have a firearm in the home--a theory the NRA is currently battling in courtrooms around the country.

He also claimed an "assault weapons" ban would be constitutional because "automatic" weapons are not commonly owned. Of course, these bans have nothing to do with "automatic" firearms, and the guns they do ban are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans, which should make them "common" by anyone's definition. With Obama being reelected, will he appoint more justices who believe such misinformation? The likelihood of this is true, gun owners would have much to fear.

Since the election guns sales have soared, get in on the action and protect your second amendment right to bear arms! (NFDN)

More Sharing Services on Facebook and Twitter. Join National Firearms Dealer Network on Facebook! (NFDN)


read more...

Only a .50 Caliber Ban? Don't You Believe It!

The .50 caliber is being dishonestly branded as a "terrorist" weapon, supposedly because it's a hair's breadth larger than other rifles. The anti-gunners' language reveals their true strategy: to ultimately ban all rifles, no matter their size.

BY JAMES O.E. NORELL

The only difference between .50-caliber targets of opportunity and any other rifle is a matter of a mere fraction of an inch. If such a restriction becomes law, that will be the beginning of gun ownership "reduction" based on bore size. This .458 Lott is a mere four-one-hundredths of an inch smaller in bore diameter than a .50.

With the stage set and direction provided by the radical Violence Policy Center (VPC), CBS's "60 Minutes" used its Jan. 9, 2005, show to vilify .50-caliber rifles. The CBS/VPC story line was that these guns are "too dangerous to be in the hands of private citizens." Right on cue, anti-gun zealot Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) introduced the "50 Caliber Sniper Rifle Reduction Act" in Congress.

Moran's bill, H.R. 654, is a prime example of how the gun-ban crowd seeks legislation that outlaws many guns in addition to those they target directly. A ban on rifles with a bore of .5 of an inch also would include many antique and blackpowder rifles and a number of big-bore rifles owned by hunters of dangerous game. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

In addition to a freeze on possession and transfer of all center-fire .50-caliber rifles, H.R. 654 requires guns now legally owned be placed under Title II of the Gun Control Act, and be treated like fully automatics--for starters, owners would have to register their firearms and themselves; submit to photographs and fingerprints and undergo a rigorous FBI clearance process that could last up to six months. Moran's ban would prohibit any legally registered rifle from being bought, sold, given, traded or willed. "Reduction" is accomplished with the death of the registered owner, at which time the once-private property becomes the presumed property of the U.S. government.

This far-reaching attack targets law-abiding citizens, while being disguised in ugly hype about "heavy sniper rifles" and threats of "terrorism." The propaganda war is calculated to frighten the unknowing public and fool and divide gun owners.

The centerpiece of the "60 Minutes" broadcast--as with the core of the entire VPC anti-rifle campaign--is manipulating the fear that a terrorist could use a .50-caliber rifle on U.S. soil. But one phrase hidden in the VPC's phony terrorism hype should prove to America's gun owners that they need to be personally concerned about the ".50-caliber issue." The phrase is "intermediate sniper rifle," and it is the future of the gun-ban movement.

For a practical definition, look no further than your own gun cabinet or safe. If you own a Remington 700 or a Winchester Model 70, a Ruger 77, a Weatherby Mark V or a Savage 110 variant, or any number of common bolt guns, especially in a magnum caliber, you own what the VPC would ultimately have the government treat in the same category as a "machine gun"--or ban outright.

A VPC propaganda sheet titled "Voting From the Rooftops," that supposedly targets .50 BMG rifles, shrieks about "the severe and immediate threat that heavy and intermediate civilian sniper rifles pose to public safety and national security." Read that again, dropping the "heavy" part, and you'll see what the future holds for your tack-driving magnum big-game guns, varmint rifles and target guns.

The VPC demands that these guns--your guns--be brought under the control of the National Firearms Act. Failure to register your guns--semi-autos, bolt actions, falling blocks, Trapdoors, you name it--would become a federal felony. Needless to say, an unregistered "heavy or intermediate sniper rifle" would be contraband. And under Title II of the Gun Control Act, any infraction, no matter how innocent--say, transporting a registered firearm across a state line without explicit written permission of federal authorities--could bring a 10-year prison term and large fines.

Don't believe that this "reduction" of firearms ownership by caliber will reach the smaller bores under the phony targeting of "sniper rifles?" Read what Rebecca Peters, head of the U.N.'s global gun-ban group, International Action Network on Small Arms, said about the .223 rifle used by the "Beltway sniper." In an Oct. 23, 2002, appearance on "CNN International Interview," she firmly set the parameters for her notion of an international "sniper rifle ban." In response to questions about the Washington, D.C., "sniper," Peters said: "[W];;e need to have fewer guns, but the guns that are in societies need to be under better control. And that means that civilians should not have sniper rifles, or rifles that they can kill someone at 100 meters distance, for example."

Clearly, Peters is demanding a ban on every hunting and target rifle. At the same time, Jim Moran, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy--you know the list--claim that the big .50 BMG is the favorite of terrorists and assassins.

"Sniper rifle," like "assault weapon," is an utterly elastic, all-encompassing term. The word these gun-banners are really focusing on is "rifle." The gun control dragon always has a need for steel and wood, but it has an even more voracious appetite for Freedom.This time, it culminates with what the gun control crowd always promised it would never go after--hunting rifles. The only difference between those .50-caliber targets of opportunity and any other rifle in private hands is a matter of a mere fraction of a millimeter or a fraction of an inch in the bore. If such a restriction becomes law, that will be the beginning of gun ownership "reduction" based on bore size.

If you think this is a stretch, remember England's handgun ban. In the beginning, when licensed gun owners fought to stop confiscation of their registered handguns, the government threw them a bone--it only banned guns of a bore size larger than .22. Honest British licensed gun owners turned in their "large bore" handguns for destruction. They were told they could keep their .22s in government-approved lockups at government-certified gun clubs.

Yet, that "bore reduction" gun control had barely been in place when British handgun owners were told the government was going to collect their registered private property from the approved armory sites--.22s suddenly had become "too big." The rest, as they say, is history.

That's "firearms reduction" by caliber. That's history. That's reality. That's where all this is headed--under the smokescreen of protecting Americans from terrorists with big-bore rifles.

MILLER: Lead bullets under fire - Senate bill would protect ammunition from EPA grasp

Should President Obama win in November, it’s a certainty he’ll try once again to ban lead ammunition. Just two months after he moved into the White House, the National Park Service suddenly announced it was banning lead bullets from its parks. The blowback from sportsmen was intense, so the agency backed down. Mr. Obama surely will exert “more flexibility” in a second term to accomplish this backdoor assault on the Second Amendment.

Sen. Jon Tester, Montana Democrat, introduced a bill to make sure that can’t happen. Just before the Senate adjourned Saturday to go campaigning, the body voted 84-7 to take up the Sportsmen Act during the Nov. 13 lame-duck session. It’s a priority for a number of pro-hunting groups, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

“The threat to ban use of traditional ammunition without sound science is the most significant threat facing the firearms and ammunitions industries today,” NSSF senior vice president Larry Keane told The Washington Times. “If the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were to ban traditional ammunition using the Toxic Substances Control Act, it would destroy the ammunition industry in the U.S., crater conservation funding and create massive supply shortages for consumers.”

The ban is a priority for liberal groups like PETA, the Humane Society and the radical Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) that want legislation to prohibit anything but “nontoxic bullets.” This is mostly an excuse to sue ammo manufacturers out of business. In June, CBD filed suit against the EPA for not addressing the “toxic lead in hunting ammunition that frequently poisons our wildlife.”

Opponents are ridiculing CBD’s “Get the Lead Out” campaign. “The notion that you can get lead out of the environment showed these people should not have passed their high-school chemistry test,” said Mr. Keane. “Lead is in the periodical table. There is no more lead in the environment than there was 100 years ago.”

Don Saba, a research scientist and National Rifle Association board member, said that these groups are deliberately attempting to confuse the public into thinking the lead in bullets is the same as lead paint that is harmful to children.

“The lead that is used in ammunition is metallic lead and is a very inert material that does not dissolve in water and it is not absorbed by plants or animals,” Dr. Saba explained. “There is a tremendous toxicity difference between the highly inert metallic lead used in ammunition and the highly toxic lead compounds used in legacy leaded paints.”

The ammunition demonized by the self-styled environmentalists happens to fund highly successful animal-conservation efforts. The Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 set up an excise tax, now 11 percent, on ammunition and long guns and 10 percent for handguns. The resulting $7 billion in revenue over the years has gone toward restoring habitats for wild turkey, bald eagle, duck, elk and antelope populations.

America’s ammunition industry works on high volume and thin margins, manufacturing 9 billion cartridges a year, 95 percent of which have lead components. Lead is used in bullets because it is the perfect material — dense, heavy, soft and inexpensive. Asked for an alternative, Winchester Ammunition engineer Mike Stock replied, “We’d use gold if it was cheap enough to make bullets.”

The NSSF estimates a lead ban would result in tens of thousands of jobs lost as prices would necessarily rise 190 percent. Mr. Obama has killed enough jobs in his first term. The last thing our economy needs is another assault on successful businesses.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

Read more: MILLER: Lead bullets under fire - Washington Times http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/27/lead-bullets-under-fire/?goback=%2Egde_3675333_member_169560559#ixzz27m5szwtV
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


November 6: A historic opportunity for Louisiana voters to protect their gun rights

By Chris W. Cox

With just one vote on November 6th, you can build an iron wall around your Second Amendment freedoms and protect them from anti-gun, activist judges.

That’s because on your ballot this year is an amendment to Louisiana’s state constitution that would provide the most rock-solid state-level legal protection for the right to keep and bear arms in the nation. The language of the amendment reads:

The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny. (emphasis mine)

The key words here are “strict scrutiny.” This is a legal term that guarantees the highest level of protection to a constitutional right. It’s reserved exclusively for those rights that are deemed “fundamental” – like the right to free speech or the right to vote.

For decades, anti-gun judges and lawyers have fought against the application of “strict scrutiny” to your fundamental Second Amendment rights. That’s because they know that without this gold standard of legal protection, gun-ban politicians are virtually unbound to pass any freedom-killing laws that infringe on your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

And in 1977, the anti-gun lobby in Louisiana got its way.

That year, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that your Second Amendment freedoms can be restricted for virtually any reason. As a result, there is nothing in the Louisiana Constitution that would stop state politicians from passing even the most draconian anti-gun laws – including a ban on your right to carry a concealed firearm for protection… even if you’re in your own home!

As Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, I get to see firsthand the sinister ways state and local governments seek to destroy their citizens’ gun rights. The NRA is currently spending nearly $400,000 a month fighting to defeat numerous anti-gun laws in state and federal courtrooms across America.

The simple truth is without this vital constitutional amendment, your gun rights as a Louisiana citizen are ripe for the picking.

That’s why the NRA worked closely this past year with Governor Bobby Jindal, State Senator Neil Riser, State Representative Chris Broadwater and other pro-gun champions in the Louisiana legislature to overwhelmingly pass this constitutional amendment and get it on the ballot.

But now it’s up to you! On Election Day, every gun owner and freedom-loving voter who believes the right to own, carry and use a firearm is anindividual and fundamental right — that no government can infringe upon — needs to get to the polls and “Vote Yes on 2!”

By doing so, you’ll send a clear message to all of America that Louisiana is at the forefront of the battle to protect our Second Amendment liberty!


Jim Irvine Earns the Jay M. Littlefield Memorial NRA-ILA Volunteer of the Year Award

Fairfax, Va. – Jim Irvine of Strongsville, Ohio, is a recipient of the 2011 Jay M. Littlefield Memorial NRA-ILA Volunteer of the Year Award. This award recognizes an individual NRA member for his or her meritorious defense of the Second Amendment.

“Jim Irvine has worked tirelessly to help preserve the Second Amendment by helping elect pro-freedom candidates in Ohio,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director for NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “He has answered freedom’s call every time he was needed and diligently assisted our efforts in Ohio. Jim’s outstanding efforts are an inspiration to NRA members all over this country who share our common goal of electing pro-gun candidates.”

As the current chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Coalition and NRA-ILA Election Volunteer Coordinator (EVC) for Ohio’s 16th Congressional District, Jim Irvine was instrumental in guiding the passage of restaurant carry and restoration of rights legislation in Ohio in 2011. As a dedicated citizen and EVC, Mr. Irvine has been instrumental in turning out volunteers for numerous campaigns to ensure that pro-gun candidates are elected. The passion and drive that Mr. Irvine has shown over the years to advance gun rights and his desire to defend, preserve, and restore the Second Amendment are second to none.

Prepared store owner foils robbery, WYMT, Hazard, Ky.

A pair of armed robbers entered the Meta Mart convenience store in Pike County, Ky. and headed towards the counter. Upon spotting the men, the clerk on duty called out to store owner Garry Thornsberry, who was in a back office. After glancing up at a security monitor, Thornsberry recognized the threat, retrieved a gun and fired at the two criminals, causing them to flee.

Thornsberry told local media that he had mentally prepared himself for a violent confrontation following robberies at other stores in the area, stating, “You have to prepare. It’s too late when it happens to start thinking ‘what am I going to do.’” Thornsberry went on to comment, “Until we get some of these people off the streets we’re going to have to live in fear of going to work.” (WYMT, Hazard, Ky. 09/18/12)


Nebraska: North Platte Repeals Firearm Ban in City Parks

On September 18, the North Platte City Council approved Ordinance Number 3852, repealing the ban on firearms in North Platte city parks. This repeal passed in the city council by a 5-2 vote in front of a full house of concerned gun owners.

We thank the North Platte City Council and Mayor for approving this pro-gun reform, and we look forward to opportunities in the upcoming state legislative session to further ensure firearm and ammunition laws are uniform throughout the state.



Feinstein, Democratic Party Get Head Start on Gun Ban Anniversary

A week from today marks the eight-year anniversary of the expiration of the federal "assault weapon" and "large" ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004. While gun owners have been preparing to celebrate by going to three-gun competitions, doing some recreational target practice, taking carbine classes, or zeroing their ARs to get ready for hunting season, their detractors have been busy too.

At its national convention this week, the Democratic Party adopted a platform calling for renewal of the ban, as it has every four years since the ban expired. Meanwhile, the author of the 1994 ban, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), promised to introduce the legislation next year. How such legislation would fare in Washington will depend, of course, on who wins the presidential election. Gov. Mitt Romney unequivocally opposes the ban; President Obama not only supports it now, but voted for even more restrictive legislation as an Illinois state senator.

In remaining committed to the ban, Obama and Feinstein prove themselves to be ideologues in the severest sense, blind to the truth and filled with disdain for Americans whose values they don't share.

If they were to think rationally, they would face the fact that, as the congressionally-mandated studyof the ban verified, the ban affected firearms and magazines used only rarely in crime. They would face the fact that the ban made it a crime to install things like flash suppressors and bayonet mounts on various semi-automatic firearms--things of no concern to a criminal. They would realize that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to own handguns and other commonly-owned firearms, and that semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and handguns that use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are about as common as you get.

They would also realize that imposing the ban only made things worse for gun control supporters. Along with the Brady bill, the ban so displeased gun owning voters that they turned out heavily on Election Day 1994, defeating dozens of gun control supporters in Congress. They would also realize the ban's prohibition on manufacturing magazines holding more than 10 rounds (for any firearm) inspired the invention of subcompact handguns just large enough to hold 10 rounds--the very type of firearm that gun control supporters have always tried to ban as so-called "Saturday Night Specials."

To top it off, the ban caused purchases of the affected guns and magazines to skyrocket. Today, there are more than 3 million AR-15s alone, sales of new semi-automatic handguns (most of which use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds) have soared, and the number of such magazines privately owned is surely in the hundreds of millions.

We don't know what gun ban supporters like Sen. Feinstein expect to gain by clamoring for a new ban with the election just around the corner. But if they want motivate more Americans to vote for Gov. Romney and other candidates who support the right to keep and bear arms, we say "have at it."

For more information on the "assault weapon" and "large" magazine issue, visit www.gunbanfacts.com.

Rise in Female Gun Ownership May be Good for America

The tapestry of the American West is woven with the stories of amazing women sharpshooters from Annie Oakley to Calamity Jane. Each cut a trail across the parched landscape with guns-a-blazin’ adding to the richness of American history.

So the news of a sharp rise in female gun ownership in the last few years comes as no surprise.

The rise in female firearm ownership is not only for self-protection, but also for sport –- sometimes fiercely competitive sport!

read more...

More legal guns mean less violent crime, U.S. figures show

BY BRYN WEESE , SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2012
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Toronto's lefty city councillors looking to ban guns and bullets as a panacea for violent crime should pedal their bikes south of the border.

Here, as gun sales continue to skyrocket the violent crime rate keeps dropping.

According to the 2011 Federal Bureau of Investigation's crime report released last week, violent crimes -- murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault -- dropped 4% from 2010 as gun sales rose 14% over the same period.

In fact, gun sales in the U.S. last year hit a record high at 16.5 million, up a whopping 65% from 2006. During that same time, the violent-crime rate dropped 23% nationwide.

But the good news story unfolding nationwide is not the case in Chicago, where 5,000 people have been shot to death since 2001. For much of that time, there was a complete handgun ban in effect.

Owning a handgun in Chicago has actually been banned outright for the past 28 years, but the murder rate continued to climb, reaching a peak in the 1990s when 900 people were being killed every year.

And while parts of the ban have recently been ruled unconstitutional, strict handgun laws remain in effect, and so far this year Chicago has seen a 50% jump in gun-related homicides -- already at more than 200 -- compared to the same time period last year.

read more...

Coalition of Attorneys General Want National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity

Charlotte, NC | May 21, 2012
(Ammoland) As reported last November, the ongoing effort to fully vindicate the fundamental, individual right to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense took a major step forward with House passage of H.R. 822, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.”

The bill, sponsored by Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), has 245 cosponsors and was approved in the U.S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 272-154.

After passage in the House, the bill was sent to the Senate, where it remains. Since November, the Senate has failed to take any significant action on the bill.

Read more at Ammoland.com

read more...

NFDN Network Scheduled to Launch May 1st.

Call for more Info.....

read more...

Most Americans back gun lobby, right to use deadly force

By Deborah Charles
WASHINGTON | Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:18pm EDT
(Reuters) - Most Americans support the right to use deadly force to protect themselves - even in public places - and have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association, the main gun-lobby group, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.

However, there was also strong support from respondents for background checks as well as limiting the sale of automatic weapons and keeping guns out of churches, stores and workplaces.

The online survey showed that 68 percent, or two out of three respondents, had a favorable opinion of the NRA, which starts its annual convention in St. Louis, Missouri, on Friday.

Eighty-two percent of Republicans saw the gun lobbying group in a positive light as well as 55 percent of Democrats, findings that run counter to the perception of Democrats as anti-NRA.

Most of the 1,922 people surveyed nationwide from April Monday through Thursday said they supported laws that allow Americans to use deadly force to protect themselves from danger in their own home or in a public place.

"Americans do hold to this idea that people should be allowed to defend themselves and using deadly force is fine, in those circumstances," said pollster Chris Jackson. "In the theoretical ... there's a certain tolerance of vigilantism."

The poll was conducted amid a nationwide debate over gun rights and race after the Florida shooting of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood crime watch volunteer who is white and Hispanic.

The poll results were welcomed by the NRA, which is one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country and regularly clashes with anti-gun groups and often with Democrats as it seeks to protect and expand gun rights across the United States.

"Regardless of how others try to distort our position, the general public knows where we stand," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "It shows the failure of the continuing efforts of many to try and discredit the National Rifle Association."

read more...

Gun owners seek end to state barriers to concealed weapons

By Marilyn W. Thompson and Donna Smith
WASHINGTON | Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:51pm EDT
(Reuters) - Ryan Jerome took his .45-caliber Ruger with him to Manhattan last September and thought he understood the city's weapons laws when he carried his loaded handgun on a side trip to the Empire State Building.

But Jerome, who is from Indiana, soon found himself in a legal tangle that he said illustrates the confusing array of gun laws in the U.S. and the need for uniformity.

"How can the city of New York override your rights under the second amendment of the Constitution?" said Jerome, 29, who pleaded guilty last month to a misdemeanor weapons possession charge as part of a plea deal with the Manhattan District Attorney's office.

Jerome's case is one of several widely publicized gun arrests that have prompted a new push for federal legislation requiring states to honor one another's concealed weapons permits. Jerome's lifetime concealed weapons permit in Indiana carried no weight in New York, which does not recognize other states' licenses.

A similar Manhattan case involved a Tennessee woman who was arrested for carrying a gun near the World Trade Center memorial. Both she and Jerome were originally charged with felony gun offenses carrying prison terms of three and a half years.

Proposals for reciprocal arrangements among states, which are now percolating in Congress, would address a common complaint of gun advocates and their chief lobbying group, the National Rifle Association, which holds its annual conference in St Louis, Missouri, this week.

But they are sharply opposed by proponents of stricter gun laws.

read more...

Connect with us        Contact us   855-554-4867     412-896-9704 fax     Email for fastest service     Go to checkout