Pro-Gun Protections Enacted Into Law
Last week, Congress approved the Fiscal Year 2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act. Included in the Act were a number of pro-gun provisions that prevent the Obama administration from implementing its anti-gun agenda.
This Act includes new provisions to stop the Obama administration’s efforts regarding Operation Choke Point, a program in which the Department of Justice intimidates financial institutions into refusing or severing financial services to legally-operating ammunition and firearms dealers. In addition, the Act prohibits funds for the Internal Revenue Service to target groups for scrutiny based on their political beliefs, such as the NRA.
Further, the Act contains a new provision to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency, or any other federal agency, from regulating the lead content of traditional ammunition and fishing tackle. For years, radical animal rights and environmental advocates have used all the tools at their disposal, including litigation, to attempt to ban lead ammunition. A ban on traditional ammunition would affect hunters, sportsmen, law enforcement, military, and target shooters whether or not they hunt. There are currently no comparable alternatives to lead ammunition in terms of cost, ballistics, and availability. This provision would prevent a traditional ammunition ban and protect not just hunters, but millions of law-abiding American gun owners.
Moreover, the Act contains a provision to prevent the Department of Justice, or any government entity, from spending taxpayer dollars on ‘gun walking’ programs like Operation Fast and Furious. The Act also prevents funds being used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the National Institute of Health to advocate or promote gun control.
Finally, the Act prevents funds from being used by the Obama administration to implement the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
Source: NRA / ILA
SAF Spearheads Federal Lawsuit Against I-594
The Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Tacoma, seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of portions of Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure that took effect Dec. 4, alleging that “portions of I-594” ¦are so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot understand their scope, and that other parts violate the Second Amendment outright.
Joining SAF in this action are the Northwest School of Safety, Puget Sound Security, Inc., the Pacific Northwest Association of Investors, the Firearms Academy of Seattle, six individual citizens including SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb and the Gottlieb Family Trust. They are represented by Seattle attorneys Steven Fogg and David Edwards, and Bellevue attorney Miko Tempski.
Named as defendants are Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste, in their official capacities.
“We took this action due to the confusing and arbitrary language and nature of I-594,” Gottlieb explained. “Three of our plaintiffs, including my son, are residents of other states and cannot legally borrow handguns for personal protection while traveling in Washington. Under I-594, all transfers must be done through federally-licensed firearms dealers, but under federal law, dealers cannot legally transfer handguns to residents of other states. I-594 also essentially prohibits our non-resident plaintiffs from storing their own firearms here.
“This measure effectively infringes upon, if not outright prohibits, the exercise of their constitutionally-protected right to bear arms under the Second Amendment,” he added.
Gottlieb pointed to a recent directive from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife to its volunteer hunter education instructors regarding firearms transfers in class that amount to “straw-man transfers.” The lawsuit also notes that the State Patrol said it could not prove that a change of possession not covered by an I-594 exemption was a “transfer,” making enforcement of the new law “difficult if not impossible.”
“We’re not trying to stop background checks,” Gottlieb said. “We’re taking action against a poorly-written and unconstitutionally vague measure that criminalizes activities that are perfectly legal anywhere else in the country, thus striking at the very heart of a constitutionally-protected, fundamental civil right.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org ) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
Source: The Second Amendment Foundation
AN OPEN LETTER TO PANERA BREAD
Dear President and Members of the Board of Directors,
Had I still been Host and Producer of my 12 year TV program, "Focus on the Issues", I would have zeroed in on this story the very week it broke! As a frequent and satisfied customer of PANERA BREAD, I was totally upset to learn your company had banned firearms from your store! I have been a legally licensed carrier for about 40 years now, but never had to use my pistol in all those years! I do have an acquaintance however, who was beaten to the ground and robbed at 12:30 PM in front of our local K-MART! Not a licensed firearms carrier, she suffered a broken leg and spent months in Physical Therapy!
Because of your Edict, I can no longer, in good conscience, purchase your excellent lunches and-pastries! I do understand that good enterprises like PANERA's can be taken in by folks who appeal to our inner 'bleeding heart', but commonsense demands that we search for. the truth! When we take a closer look at moneyed 'left-wing groups' like, "Mom's Demand Action" and the Michael Bloomberg (millionaire leftist) funded, "Everytown for Gun Safety", we find they are apart of the left's Cabal to disarm our Nation!
These are the hard facts regarding our 2nd Amendment:
Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of our 2nd Amendment by it's very placement in our Bill of Rights! The 2nd Amendment states, "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."
Those citizens who are licensed to legally carry a firearm are people who who OBEY the law. Law-abiding citizens!
A criminal by his very nature, lives outside the law! He will disobey the law! By PANERA's 'anti-gun' proclamation, a criminal who carries a firearm illegally (putting everyone in your store at risk) can walk into your store at will and be welcomed! The law-abiding (licensed) citizen, however, who could stop the criminal, will no longer be welcome! As the old saying goes, "The only way to stop a bad man with a gun, is a GOOD man with a gun!"
Our Constitution is the greatest freedom document ever written! Because I've studied the Constitution as a student, a teacher, a debater on numerous radio and TV shows (including my own 12 year TV program) and as the first woman President of the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League, I came to recognize the importance of our right to keep and bear arms! For instance:
Hitler took the guns away from the Jewish people BEFORE the Nazi's could put them in concentration camps and exterminate them!
The Communists had to disarm every nation (but one), before they were able to take over! This is why the 'left' in this nation works so hard to disarm the USA!
I urge PANERA BREAD to thoughtfully rethink it's 'anti-gun' EDICT! As Santayana once said, "He who will not learn from history, is doomed to repeat history!" Kindly RETHINK, RESCIND AND RESPOND!
Respectfully, a longtime friend, customer and Constitutionalist
P.S. I would be most happy to meet with your Board of Directors at any time.
Public turns thumbs down on Kroger, Panera gun policies by Dave Workman, Senior Editor
When anti-gunners went after Kroger and Panera Bread, a groundswell of support for the right to keep and bear arms was immediate and overwhelming, thanks to unscientific opinion polls launched by MSNBC and CNBC.
The results amounted to arepudiation of the campaign, launched largely by the Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action groups. The gun prohibition lobbying organizations declared victory when Panera Bread asked customers not to bring guns into their facilities, while Kroger simply stated that it would follow state law, and didn't ban anyone.
An MSNBC poll asking whether Kroger shoppers should be allowed to carry handguns was coming in with 85% in favor and only 15% opposed. A CNBC poll on the Panera Bread decision was running at 84% support for gun rights and 11% against. An MSNBC poll on the Panera Bread request was also coming in at 75% in favor of armed customers, and 25% against guns.
Panera's bakery and caf© shops were just the latest to disinvite armed gunowners, following the Starbucks, Chipolte, Target and Kroger model.
There was no small amount of irony in the gun ban efforts. While the Moms group was pressing Kroger for a gun ban in its stores, a couple of stories quickly reinforced the notion that it's safer to carry. In Indianapolis, an alleged would-be robber was fatally shot by an armed citizen outside a bank branch near a Kroger. A violent attack by a mob of youths outside a Kroger in Memphis that was caught on video provided more evidence that it might be better to have a gun and not need it, than the other way around.
The flap is just the latest chapter in an ongoing effort by the anti-gun Moms group to push private property gun bans, essentially turning private companies into surrogates for their gun control agenda.
Bloomberg-supported groups have spent small fortunes to stigmatize gunowners over the past couple of years. Efforts launched by the Moms group and the Brady Campaign have targeted coffee shops, chain stores and grocery chains. A group calling itself Open Carry Texas has in recent months staged rallies at stores and inside several dining chains. The moms' group circulated photos from those events, which show people carrying so-called assault rifles and other large guns inside popular dining chains, as part of a campaign to convince the companies to adopt no-gun policies.
Some reports claim that Moms Demand Action recently launched a six-figure advertising campaign to pressure Kroger, the nation's largest grocery chain, to also ask customers to not bring guns into its stores.
The companies that have decided to ask customers to leave guns at home have framed the new policy as a request, saying that they do not want to put employees in the position of confronting an armed customer.
Panera, based in St. Louis, is a $2.4 billion company with nearly 2,000 locations. It has not previously been the target of a protest effort by Moms Demand Action, though in a statement, the group's founder Shannon Watts said the decision followed "months of discussion between Panera and Moms Demand Action."
Meanwhile, some politicians have been trying to get merchants in their cities to post their businesses with "No guns allowed" signs, another effort to force private enterprises to join them in establishing more "gun free" zones.
By,MRS. MARJORIE B. PROVAN
Mc KEESPORT, PENNSYLVANIA 15131
CCRKBA LISTS “TOP TEN ANTI-GUNNERS” FOR 2014
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today named the Top Ten Anti-Gunners for 2014, with billionaire Michael Bloomberg topping the list for using his wealth to buy elections in an effort to turn the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms into a heavily-regulated government privilege.
“The people on this list have worked very hard to undermine the civil rights of every American citizen who owns a firearm, or may one day want to, and they deserve vilification”, CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said.
Bloomberg spent $50 million to create Everytown for Gun Safety, the anti-gun lobbying organization. He helped finance the Initiative 594 gun control campaign in Washington State and he is supporting a similar effort in Nevada. Others on the list are, in alphabetical order:
Paul Allen“ The billionaire co-founder of Microsoft and principle owner of the Seattle Seahawks and Portland Trailblazers, he dumped a half-million dollars into the I-594 gun control campaign in Washington State.
Steve Ballmer“ Another Microsoft alumni and owner of the L.A. Clippers who added more than $1 million to the I-594 effort to criminalize perfectly legal activities in the Evergreen State.
Hillary Clinton“ The former First Lady and Secretary of State suggested earlier this year that gun owners “terrorize” people by vigorously defending the Second Amendment. She also supported the unratified UN Arms Trade Treaty.
Andrew Cuomo“ The New York governor who championed that state’s Draconian SAFE (for Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act, which is responsible for job losses in addition to penalizing every gun owner in the state.
Rahm Emanuel“ The vehemently anti-gun mayor of Chicago whose administration has stubbornly resisted adoption of rational gun policies that would allow citizens to defend themselves against out-of-control violence in the Windy City.
Bill Gates“ This billionaire Microsoft co-founder and his wife contributed more than $1 million to the I-594 gun control effort, thus helping to pay for one of the most insidious political campaigns in the United States.
Nick Hanauer“ Another elitist Seattle-area billionaire who launched the I-594 gun control campaign and poured more than $1 million into the effort. His deplorable effort to exploit the Pilchuck High School tragedy by sarcastically suggesting that, “We need more school shootings” was an offensive new low in anti-gun politics.
Eric Holder “ The outgoing U.S. attorney general fought to stall release of thousands of documents related to the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, final losing his battle in federal court this past fall.
Shannon Watts“ As founder of the Bloomberg-supported Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Watts has spread disinformation about gun crime and campaigned against laws that bolster personal protection outside the home.
CCRKBA also gave “dishonorable mention” to Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe for wanting to resurrect one-gun-a-month legislation in his state, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, who both have pressed their gun control agendas, driving businesses and jobs out of their states; California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who has steadfastly defended arbitrary and discretionary concealed carry permits; former CNN commentator Piers Morgan for continuing his anti-gun rhetoric even though it forced his program’s cancellation. Also on the list, Gerald Ensley, the Tallahassee Democrat columnist who wrote in November that handguns and semiautomatic modern sporting rifles should be banned, and that the Second Amendment should be repealed; and former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote earlier this year that he would like to see the Second Amendment changed to confine the right to keep and bear arms to people serving in the military and state militia.
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org
Source: the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
SAF Will Stop The Attack On Our States!
Nearly 200 anonymous (for now) state lawmakers have formed a gun control group in order to attack gun rights in our states. They are calling themselves American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention (ASLGVP).
Their reason for forming the anti-gun coalition is because of the lack of success by Congress to deteriorate our gun rights at the federal level. Now they are taking matters into their own hands by attacking gun rights in each of our states.
Their founder, Brian Kavanagh (D-NY), has proposed anti-gun legislation such as limiting gun owners to one purchase every 30 days, mandatory 10-day waiting periods before being able to accept a firearm, banning .50-cal rifles and ammo, and many more. This is what we have to look forward to from this group.
SAF has become one of the biggest names in protecting gun rights by challenging anti-gun laws in the courts from coast to coast. You can bet the Second Amendment Foundation will be there to protect your rights from the wave of new anti-gun laws headed to your state.
We are not guessing this coalition was formed because Congress did not get anti-gun legislation passed, they are being open about it:
Their founder, Brian Kavanagh (D-NY), said, "We've come together in recognition of the essential role state legislators must play, whether or not Congress chooses to act, in reducing gun violence."
Another member, Senator Jose R. Rodriguez (D-TX) said, "Given Congress's inability to enact sensible, commonsense laws, this coalition promises to provide legislators an avenue to share effective ways to reduce gun violence."
New gun control groups never use the words 'gun control'. They have learned that the public buys into their message quicker when they hide their agenda behind the words 'reduce gun violence' or 'gun violence prevention'.
It would be easier for all of us if their mission statement included their true agenda which is 'we are going after your gun rights'. ASLGVP includes all of the correct vocabulary in their goals, like reducing gun violence, yet their founder has introduced many anti-gun bills that have nothing to do with reducing gun violence.
When have you heard of a 50 caliber rifle being used in a mass shooting? How will restricting a law abiding gun owner to the purchase of one firearm per month prevent gun violence? Do not let their calculated diction fool you, they are after our firearms and they are headed to our states.
One report said that the group had not yet published a list of members over concerns about "political backlash." If these state lawmakers are worried about political backlash back home, they must have good reason for that.
Frankly, elected officials promoting an agenda to erode state and federal constitutional rights, as members of a New York-based group whose roster is apparently secret, ought to expect some political backlash.
They failed to pressure Congress, so now the strategy is to attack gun rights at the state level, where presumably members of this new anti-gun lawmakers' group will push their gun control agenda through the state legislatures
SAF lawsuits have overturned laws not only in Washington D.C., but in several states including Illinois, California, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nebraska, and cities like San Francisco, Seattle, Des Moines and New Haven, among others. Threats of SAF lawsuits have removed well over 200 anti-gun-rights laws across the country as well as stopping hundreds more from being enacted.
Gun owners in all 50 states deserve to know, before legislative sessions begin next month, which lawmakers in their states will be pushing this new group's agenda.
Private lobbying organizations might expect to have some degree of privacy but when an organization consists of elected public officials, there must be complete transparency. The public deserves to know who belongs to this organization, and who is providing financial support.
This might take a Second Amendment Foundation freedom of information suit to get this information public.
Source: The Second Amendment Foundation (www.SAF.org)
Prosecutor Cuts Deal With Killer After Penalizing Law-Abiding Gun Owners
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is both astonished and disappointed that King ‘County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg’s office yesterday announced a plea bargain with a two-time killer that involved dropping a serious gun charge, only weeks after helping pass a gun control measure that penalizes law-abiding firearms owners.
Yesterday, Satterberg’s office announced a guilty plea from Ja’Mari Alexander-Alan Jones in the murder of DeShawn Milliken at a Bellevue Square restaurant /bar, noting that a firearms charge was dropped as part of the deal that will send Jones to prison. Had the case gone to trial and Jones been convicted of murder and the firearms charge, he could have faced a much longer prison sentence, according to published reports.
"I am stunned that Dan Satterberg’s office cut this deal with the thug who had previously done time for the killing of Edward ˜Tuba Manâ McMichael in 2009", said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “œIt is astonishing, not only for the severity of this second crime, but because Satterberg helped lead the campaign to pass Initiative 594, the new gun control law that treats law-abiding gun owners like criminals of Jones’ ilk.
“œIt is even more disappointing to me, personally,” he continued, “because I championed a Satterberg proposal two years ago that would have cracked down on exactly the kind of person Jones has become. When Jones shot Milliken, he was still a juvenile, a convicted felon and he was illegally in possession of a handgun. I testified on behalf of Satterberg’s plan in Olympia, when nobody from the gun control lobby showed up.
“Instead of throwing the book at Jones,” Gottlieb said, “Satterberg’s office dropped the gun charge. That's outrageous, especially after Satterberg prominently campaigned for I-594, a measure that was touted as a means of keeping guns out of the wrong hands “ people like Jones “ when all it really seems to do is penalize and inconvenience law-abiding gun owners and criminalize perfectly legal activities.
“Satterberg should be offering some hasty ˜begging-your-pardons’ for this" Gottlieb chided. “For a guy who just helped pass a poorly-written gun control measure that is supposed to disarm criminals, Satterberg shouldn’t celebrate too loudly over a plea deal that suggests he’s more interested in punishing good people for having guns than bad people who misuse them.”
Source: The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
www.ccrkba.org
Record-Level of Support for Guns in the Home
Score this one as a victory for the judgment of the American people.
For decades, anti-gun groups have been trying to scare Americans into getting rid of their guns, with the claim that you're more likely to have a problem if you have guns in your home, than if you don't. But whatever they've been doing all these years apparently hasn't been working. Not only have Americans been acquiring guns at record levels, Gallup recently reported that 63 percent of Americans now believe that having guns at home makes them safer, nearly double the percentage reporting the same belief 14 years ago.
Furthermore, Gallup found, support for having guns at home is shared by majorities of men and women, white and other Americans, people in all major geographic regions of the country, and Republicans and Independents. Only among Democrats does a majority still believe that having a gun at home makes them less safe.
Gallup's findings are, in a word, huge. Ever since the mid-1980s, anti-gun activists have realized that to achieve their goal, they can't attack only handguns, or compact handguns, like they did in the 1970s and early 1980s. Instead, they now attack gun ownership in general, with a particular emphasis on dissuading parents from introducing guns of any kind to their children, believing that children who aren't introduced to guns won't become gun owners as adults.
Most obviously, the fact that anti-gun groups now target guns of all types is evident in the group's names. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns has been renamed the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. The National Council to Control Handguns has been renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Newer groups have taken the names Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Additionally, whereas in the late 1980s, anti-gun activists wanted a waiting period on retail handgun sales, now they want a background check on commercial and private sales and trades of all guns. They complain about "gun" nuts, the "gun" culture, the "gun" lobby, and the "gun" industry. Even mentioning the word "gun" or wearing a T-shirt with the image of any kind of gun can get a kid suspended from school (and sometimes even arrested). And the words "gun" or "guns" appeared 13 times in President Obama's list of 23 executive actions on "gun" violence" issued in January 2013.
The anti-gun Washington Post covered Gallup's new findings last week, but found it interesting that even as people are increasingly embracing the idea of guns in the home, the number of homes with guns in them hasn't really risen With a little additional research, however, the Post would have found Gallup's explanation for the trend in household gun ownership reported to pollsters.
Referring to the period during and immediately after the Clinton Administration's campaign against guns, Gallup said, "A clear societal change took place regarding gun ownership in the early 1990s, when the percentage of Americans saying there was a gun in their home or on their property dropped from the low to mid-50s into the low to mid-40s and remained at that level for the next 15 years. Whether this reflected a true decline in gun ownership or a cultural shift in America's willingness to say they had guns is unclear. (Emphasis added.)
Gallup's finding that personal safety is the top reason that Americans own guns today, and its finding in 2008 that 73 percent of Americans believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, clearly show where the American people stand. The news that most Americans believe that guns enhance their safety at home should cause anti-gun activists to re-think not only their strategy, but the point of their disarmament crusade.
Source: NRA / ILA
CCRKBA BLASTS BUFFALO POLICE GUN GRAB FROM BEREAVED FAMILIES
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today said the announcement by Buffalo, N.Y. police that they will begin confiscating guns registered to recently deceased citizens "is not simply cold-hearted, it is ghoulish".
CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said a report on Fox News affirmed something that gun rights advocates have contended for years: "Gun registration leads to confiscation."
"The idea that police would peruse the obituaries and compare the names of recently deceased persons with their pistol permit records, and then send officers to take those guns while a family is still grieving their loss is simply unconscionable," Gottlieb said. "This is tantamount to dancing on someone's grave and it amounts to taking property without due process or probable cause."
At a press conference several days ago, Buffalo Police Commissioner Daniel Derrenda announced that his agency will dispatch officers to "collect guns that belong to pistol permit holders who had died so they don't end up in the wrong hands." Fox News reported. Under the law, when a permit holder passes, his or her estate has only 15 days to either dispose of the firearms or surrender them to authorities, who may hold onto them for as long as two years.
"This is the kind of behavior one might expect in a police state, but not the United States," Gottlieb observed. "But it proves that the anti-gun mindset knows no boundaries. From now on, no gun control zealot will be able to dismiss and ridicule the concerns of law-abiding firearms owners that there is no reason to fear gun registration, no matter what form it takes. This explains why gun owners are opposed to registration and other forms of record-keeping and permit laws.
"What's worse," he added, "is that this effort could forever drive a wedge between police and honest citizens whose only crime is that they exercised their Second Amendment rights.
"The final insult." Gottlieb concluded, "is that 16 days after someone dies, his or her survivors could become criminals simply because they didn't report a firearm, or maybe didn't even know it existed. This is the most disgusting and disrespectful thing that someone could do to people who have just suffered the heartbreaking loss of a loved one. Derrenda should be ashamed."
Sincerely yours,
Alan M. Gottlieb
Chairman
Citizens For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms (CCRKBA)
www.ccrkba.org
Federal Judge Denies District Motion To Reconsider Palmer Ruling
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has denied a motion by the District to reconsider its ruling in the case of Palmer v. District of Columbia, a Second Amendment Foundation case that nullified the city's ban on carrying firearms outside of the home.
Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., who issued an opinion in July striking down the total ban on carry as unconstitutional, wrote the five-page opinion denying the District's motion. He reminded the District that "In light of Heller, McDonald and their progeny, there (was) no longer any basis on which this court (could) conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home (was) constitutional under any level of scrutiny"
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb was happy with the ruling, asserting that the District's motion for reconsideration was "An attempt to forestall the inevitable."
"Judge Scullin made it perfectly clear in July that the District cannot continue its outright ban on carry," Gottlieb recalled. "This new ruling reiterates the language in the Peruta decision in California that "the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes "bearing arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment,"Im beginning to wonder what part of that the District doesn’t understand.”
Gottlieb said Judge Scullin’’s new ruling is “one more small, but significant step toward restoration of Second Amendment rights for residents of the nation’s capital city, and thus a victory for citizens everywhere.
“At some point,” he concluded, “gun prohibitionists will have to realize that the Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, not a government-regulated privilege.”
Source:The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org )
Governor Tom Corbett Signs Firearms Preemption Legislation into Law
Governor Tom Corbett (R) signed into law House Bill 80, the strongest firearms preemption statute in the country, at a public signing ceremony. This critical pro-gun legislation strengthens the state firearms preemption statute to further ensure that firearm and ammunition laws are consistent throughout Pennsylvania and allows citizens to seek legal remedies against localities whose gun control ordinances exceed state law. A much-needed protection for gun owners in the Keystone State, HB 80 will provide a way for responsible gun owners to hold municipalities accountable and responsible for infringing on our Second Amendment rights. HB 80 takes effect in sixty days.
After four years of hard work, your NRA thanks you for your active involvement and support on this issue. Without your years of phone calls and e-mails to your state legislators, this legislation might never have become a reality.
Please thank Governor Corbett for being a steadfast advocate of your Second Amendment rights and for signing HB 80 into law.
Governor Tom Corbett
Phone: (717) 787-2500
E-mail: Governor@pa.gov
Sportsmen Prevail in Maine Bear Hunting Ban
In a ballot initiative with national repercussions, Maine voters once again sent an unmistakable message to animal-rights extremists: stay out of our state.
For the second time in 10 years, Maine voters resoundingly rejected a ballot initiative backed and bankrolled by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Throughout the battle on Question 1, which would have banned the use of bait, dogs and traps when bear hunting, sportsmen and professional wildlife managers who opposed the initiative continually maintained a double-digit lead in the polls.
"This is a great victory for sportsmen. It shows that scientific wildlife management can withstand a direct attack from the well-funded anti-hunting movement." said Evan Heusinkveld, the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance" (USSA) vice president of government affairs. "Despite pumping more than $2.5 million into this campaign, HSUS received a loud and clear message from Maine voters that their radical agenda is out of touch with modern wildlife management."
Facing overwhelming opposition, HSUS and its front group, Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, attempted to undermine the political process with lawsuits and petty allegations meant to keep voters ignorant of the scientific facts that refuted their stance. Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting unsuccessfully sued to keep professional wildlife managers and biologists with the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife from speaking out about the ramifications to citizens should Question 1 pass.
"We fully expected them to employ this type of tactic when it became clear that they would be unable to overcome the willingness of Maine voters to listen to the facts. The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has earned a high level of trust based on a solid track record of managing Maine's wildlife, and there was no amount of misleading rhetoric that could change that" said Nick Pinizzotto, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance president and CEO.
Tonight's vote was the culmination of nearly two years of fundraising and fighting to protect the undeniable role of sportsmen in managing wildlife. The concerted effort of the USSA and other groups opposed to Question 1 ensures that hunting and trapping will continue to be available to state biologists tasked with managing Maine's 30,000 bears.
"Our success would have been impossible without the support of USSA. Not only were they one of our largest individual donors, USSA helped lead the effort to raise millions to defend all sportsmen in Maine. Their expertise and dedication on sportsmen issues is uncontested. The leadership they provided will help safeguard hunting opportunities in Maine, and throughout the country, in the future," said James Cote, campaign manager for the Maine Wildlife Conservation Council, of the USSA.
The Maine Wildlife Conservation Council was a ballot-question committee set up specifically to defeat Question 1. It was comprised of such groups as the Maine Professional Guides Association, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, Maine Trapper's Association, Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, as well as many other sportsmen's organizations, farmers, small business owners, unions, wildlife professionals and others concerned with managing the state's wildlife in a responsible manner.
In defeating HSUS on Question 1, the citizens of Maine rebuked the meddling of the out-of-state special-interest group and ensured their heritage and sound scientific wildlife management will endure. However, HSUS has a long history of attacking sportsmen, and while they might or might not return to Maine after such a decisive defeat, it's a safe bet that they will attempt to advance their animal-rights agenda in other states next year.
"It is the sole mission of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance to protect hunting, fishing and trapping from emotional and unfounded attacks by anti-hunting groups," Pinizzotto. "It is imperative for the future of all wildlife that management decisions be made by trained professionals guided by sound science and proven techniques."
www.ussportmen.org
Sportsmen Prevail: Judge Denies HSUS Injunction
On Oct. 22, Maine Superior Court Justice Joyce Wheeler denied a request for a temporary restraining order filed by the ad-hoc group Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting and Katie Hansberry, an employee of the animal-rights group Humane Society of the United States. Their request sought to block television commercials opposed to Question 1 in Maine, which will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot, and which informed the public of fact-based wildlife management issues and public safety concerns.
“We are obviously pleased with Justice Wheeler’s ruling, but not surprised,” said Nick Pinizzotto, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance president and CEO. “This was clearly a case of the HSUS-led Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting wasting everyone’s time by bringing a frivolous lawsuit designed to draw the attention of voters away from the facts that they cannot avoid.”
Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting objected to the appearance of uniformed state biologists speaking out against Question 1, which would ban the use of bait, dogs and traps when hunting bears. Their contention was that it is impermissible and unfair for state employees to become involved in the political process by influencing public opinion, regardless of their expertise on the matter and the direct impact to the department, as well as their assigned duties to the public.
The anti-hunting agenda of the Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting sought to remove all instances of opposition by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife from its website and social media platforms, and to block commercials featuring uniformed employees voicing the department’s management and public-safety concerns from appearing on television in the final weeks leading up to the Nov. 4 vote.
In denying all motions brought forth by Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, Wheeler overwhelming sided with the right of the state to provide comment.
“Restricting speech on contested public issues is directly contrary to the public interest, which favors a robust and dynamic public discourse. It is the voters, not the Plaintiffs or the courts, to assess the relative merits of conflicting speech,” wrote Wheeler in her decision, citing harm to public interest should the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s views, which fall squarely within its interest and duties, be silenced. “DIFW’s advocacy activities are based on their experience and expertise and relate to initiatives that it perceives would have serious consequences for their effective management of Maine’s bear population.”
Justice Wheeler’s ruling was a resounding blow to the flawed logic of Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting. In giving her ruling, Wheeler made it clear that they failed to meet any of the legal conditions required, let alone all of thresholds required to grant the temporary restraining order that would have muzzled the DIFW’s outspoken opposition to Question
“Today’s ruling is clear and convincing, and speaks to the need to hear from the only true experts on this issue”and that’s the wildlife management professionals at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife,” said Evan Heusinkveld, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance vice president of government affairs. “HSUS and their front group can try and divert attention from their anti-hunting agenda, but Mainers will head to the ballot box with full knowledge of just how dangerous Question 1 is, and how it will impact their lives, livelihoods and safety.”
Source: U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
SAF Sues Illinois Over Restrictive CCW Residency Requirements
The Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Illinois, challenging that state’s concealed carry statute that restricts otherwise qualified non-residents the rights and privileges of carrying concealed firearms based solely on their state of residence.
Joining SAF in this legal action are the Illinois State Rifle Association, Illinois Carry, Inc., and ten individual plaintiffs, all residing in other states and who are licensed to carry in those states. Under the restrictive Illinois statute, only residents from states with “substantially similar” requirements to obtain a carry license are allowed to apply for non-resident licenses.
Only four states currently qualify under that provision. They are Hawaii, New Mexico, South Carolina and Virginia. None of the individual plaintiffs reside in those states.
According to SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, this situation is not simply unfair, it is untenable and we believe unconstitutional.
“Our plaintiffs have qualified for carry permits or licenses in their own states,” Gottlieb said, “which means they have gone through background checks and other requirements that show they are responsible, law-abiding citizens. Yet, because of the current Illinois statute, their self-defense rights are suspended immediately after they cross the Illinois state line.”
Named as defendants in the lawsuit are Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Illinois State Police Director Hiram Grau and Jessica Trame, bureau chief of the State Police Firearms Service Bureau. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney David Sigale of Glen Ellyn, Ill.
“This lawsuit,” said Sigale, “is brought because it is unfair that otherwise qualified people from states outside Illinois, who work and travel in Illinois are barred from obtaining means to defend themselves in public solely based on their state of residence. We expect to correct that.”
“We’re asking the federal court for a declaratory judgment on equal protection and due process constitutional grounds,” Gottlieb stated. “It makes no sense at all for Illinois to enforce such a narrowly-defined law that seems to recognize the rights of some non-residents, while dismissing the rights of most other non-residents. We can’t allow that kind of discriminatory situation to stand.”
Source: The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org)
Drama in the Rose Garden: Defying Senate, Obama Vows to Win on Gun Control
On Wednesday, the Senate rejected a gun control agenda that President Obama has adopted as his own over the last few months, but to which other gun control supporters have bitterly clung for years: banning an ever-lengthening list of semi-automatic firearms, banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and expanding background check requirements to require government permission for many transfers of firearms among private citizens.
Within minutes of the Senate’s votes, which one political commentator called the “biggest loss” of Obama’s presidency, our Thespian-in-Chief theatrically stood beside a prominent crime victim and several family members of other victims in the Rose Garden, beginning his comments in a somber tone, so that the anger to which he would dramatically build over the next 13 minutes would, in contrast, appear more sincere.
Obama should not have been surprised by what happened on Capitol Hill, however. A CBS poll in March showed that support for gun control had dropped 10 points since December and a Gallup poll in April showed that only four percent of Americans believed that “guns/gun control” is the biggest problem facing the country.
However, as Obama’s Rose Garden performance wore on, it became less a monologue delivered for the benefit of the supporters with whom he stood, and became more an ideological soliloquy for his own indulgence.
Still, Obama is a politician, well-versed in how to mislead through distortion and omission. Thus, early on, he claimed that 90 percent of Americans agree that there should be background checks on firearm transactions and that “most Americans think that’s already the law,” without mentioning that 100 percent of firearm transactions between firearm dealers and non-dealers are subject to background check requirements already, and that only a small percentage of non-dealer transactions are between strangers.
Obama--whom the Washington Post gave Three Pinocchios for lying about the background check issue--also claimed that “the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the [background checks] bill” by saying it would implement gun registration. What the NRA had said is that a report from the National Institute of Justice concluded that requiring background checks on otherwise private firearms transfers would be “ineffective” without requiring gun registration. That was not a “lie.” It was, and is, a fact.
The bill Obama wanted to see pass was S. 649, by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the “universal background checks” provisions of which came from Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). Because Schumer’s legislation was too severe to have any chance of passage, Senators Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), along with Schumer, proposed a compromise amendment in the hope of winning additional votes. However, the amendment was riddled with pitfalls for gun owners, and even some potentially pro-gun provisions added to sweeten the pot were flawed. The amendment fell four votes short of the 60 that were required for passage under a rule the Senate adopted to avoid a filibuster. (Click here to see how your senators voted.)
That enraged Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who, when she rose to introduce her amendment to ban “assault weapons” and “large” magazines, accused the Senate of cowardice. Refusing to stop speaking after her allotted two minutes had expired, Feinstein ranted about the Senate’s 60-vote rule, knowing she would not get 60 votes but apparently believing that she would get at least 51, which under other circumstances would have enabled her to claim victory. One can only wonder what she must have thought when her gun and magazine ban was rejected 40-60. Perhaps she held hope that Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s amendment to ban only the magazines would fare differently, but it too went down to defeat, 46-54.
An NRA-supported amendment by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), to reduce law enforcement grant funding to states that publish the names of firearm permit holders, was approved.
Unfortunately, three NRA-supported amendments fell shy of the 60 votes necessary for passage.
First among those was a comprehensive alternative proposal by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and others, to provide incentives to the states to more fully report criminal and mental health records on persons prohibited from possessing firearms, while ensuring that people with mental health records who do not pose a threat to public safety could petition to have their rights restored. It would also have increased the prosecution of felons who illegally attempt to buy guns, and would have created a clear prohibition against illegal straw purchasing and trafficking of firearms. Finally, it would have provided grants for school security improvements and the creation of school safety guidelines. The vote, was 52-48, eight short of what was needed for passage.
A Right-to-Carry reciprocity amendment by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), which fell three votes short (57-43), would have allowed those who can carry concealed firearms in their home states to do so in any other state that issues concealed firearm permits. An amendment by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), which fell four votes short (56-44), would have prevented the government from denying gun possession by veterans based on mental health concerns without a judicial finding of dangerousness.
Obama, near the conclusion of his remarks in the Rose Garden, said the defeat of gun control in the Senate was only “Round One,” and vowed that “This effort is not over.”
Indeed, it’s not over. We can promise the president that our effort to protect and fully vindicate the rights of good Americans to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other legitimate purposes will continue as long as those rights are attacked. Gun owners and other Americans who support their rights have come together like never before, letting their elected representatives know that they stand in support of the Second Amendment, and against taking away people’s rights under the false rationale that all Americans should lose some rights because of the misdeeds of madmen and criminals. We will not abandon that noble cause.
Senate Majority Leader Reid has pulled S. 649 from the floor for the time being, but will almost assuredly bring it back in the future. And today, there are reports that Obama will soon announce further unilateral gun control actions by the executive branch. For now, please contact your senators, confidently expressing your support for their pro-Second Amendment votes, and respectfully expressing your dissatisfaction with their anti-gun votes. In other words, prepare for round two.
Source: NRA
Ask Your U.S. Representative to Cosponsor and Support H.R. 2959 "The Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013"
The "Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013" (H.R. 2959)--introduced in the U.S. House by Reps. Richard Nugent (R-Fla.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah)--would allow any person who is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under federal law and who has a valid concealed firearm permit, to carry a concealed handgun in any state that issues its own residents permits to carry concealed firearms. Persons carrying a handgun in another state pursuant to H.R. 2959 would be subject to the laws of that state with respect to where concealed firearms may be carried. Similar legislation to H.R. 2959 passed the House in 2011 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 272-154.
H.R. 2959 would not create a federal licensing system, nor authorize the federal government to interfere with the powers of the states to set standards for the issuance of carry permits, nor establish federal standards for carry permits, nor override state laws that recognized the right to carry firearms without a permit. Rather, it would simply require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, much like drivers' licenses.
Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 2959 "The Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013".
You can contact your U.S. Representative about this important legislation by using the "Write Your Lawmakers" tool below or by phone at (202) 225-3121.
To read the full Fact Sheet on H.R. 2959, please click here.
Source: NRA / ILA
PETA Announces "Aquatic Angel” Drones to Stalk Anglers While in the Field
According to a recent press release from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), anglers will now find themselves being stalked by anti-hunters thanks to PETA’s new ”aquatic Angel” drones.
The “Aquatic Angel” is the newest tool from the anti-hunting group, following the release of their “Air Angel” drones released in the spring of 2013 to stalk hunters in the field.
Described as a “submersible technology,” PETA plans to use the drones to stalk fishermen and “combat anglers who fish in restricted areas, catch protected species, and or chum for sharks illegally.” According to PETA, the group is currently recruiting members and supporters to field-test the new drones in all bodies of water.
PETA plans to use the new drones on National Hunting and Fishing Day this Saturday, or what they are referring to as “Fish Amnesty Day.” The release boasts a “beware to hunters and anglers: PETA could be watching.”
“The announcement of these drones comes as no surprise as PETA will stop at nothing to gain headlines”, said Nick Pinizzotto, USSA president and CEO. “The anti-hunting community continues to harass, threaten, and interfere with hunters across the country, which only further distances them from what mainstream America considers rational.”
The hunting community has seen an increase in backlash from anti-hunters in recent years thanks in part to new technology such as drones and social media. Hunters are now finding themselves the victims of cyber-bullying and are seeing an increase in interferences while hunting and fishing.
Recognizing these problems, USSA joined forces with sportsmen, conservation organizations and outdoor personalities to initiate theHunter Advancement Task Force to combat the growing threat to our outdoor heritage.
“The Hunter Advancement Task Force has been established to help stop these senseless attacks made against sportsmen,” explained Pinizzotto. “Using drones to interfere with hunting and fishing is a form of harassment and we will continue working to protect sportsmen across the nation from these threats.”
Source: U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
NRA Files Letter of Opposition to Harry Reid's Attempt to Silence Free Speech
As we reported last week, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been aggressively pushing "Senate Joint Resolution 19," a proposed "amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections."
As the title suggests, S.J.R. 19 would amend the United States Constitution to allow Congress and the states to ban certain political speech now considered protected under the First Amendment and would thereby allow anti-gunners in Congress to silence their critics, and to control the gun "debate" S.J.R. 19 would authorize burdensome federal and state regulation--or outright prohibition--of spending by corporations and other legal entities (like NRA) to do what many were created to do: protect the rights of their members at the ballot box.
On Wednesday, NRA sent a formal letter of opposition to S.J.R. 19 to Sen. Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and members of the U.S. Senate (please click here to read the letter).
On Thursday, the measure was voted on in the Senate and failed.
Still, the very fact that gun control forces would resort to attempts to repeal portions of the First Amendment to censor their opposition shows just how far they will go in pursuit of their agenda. You can speak to them in the strongest possible terms with your vote this November. Vote Freedom First and let your voice be heard!
Source: NRA / ILA
Pennsylvania: Senate Passes Firearms Preemption Legislation, Also Votes to Ban Pigeon Shoots
Your help is still needed - Call your state Representative now!
After four years in the making, yesterday the Pennsylvania Senate finally voted to pass firearms preemption legislation in the form of an amendment to House Bill 80. HB 80 passed by an overwhelming 34-14 vote. This critical firearms preemption bill is not out of the woods yet, though. We are down to the final hours of the 2014 legislative session, and your immediate action could make the difference to achieve this long-overdue measure. The state House is expected to vote on HB 80 on Monday, October 20, and we need you to contact your state Representative today!
To date, nearly fifty municipalities have enacted illegal local gun control ordinances, including Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Lancaster and Reading. Enough is enough. After four years, it’s time for the Pennsylvania Legislature to finally pass this critical legislation, without playing games with your Second Amendment rights. It’s time for the House or Representatives to follow the Senate in passing this important reform.
It is important that you contact your state Representative and urge him or her to VOTE FOR the Senate amendment to HB 80, strengthening Pennsylvania’s firearm preemption laws to provide consistency in the firearm and ammunition laws throughout the state.
Unfortunately this week, the Pennsylvania Senate caved to the radical anti-hunting Humane Society of the United States and passed House Bill 1750, previously reported on here, by a 36 to 12 vote. If HB 1750 becomes law, it would ban organized bird shoots and tower shoots in the Commonwealth. These types of activities have been held in the Keystone State for more than a century, and participants are law-abiding, ethical shooting enthusiasts, hunters and sportsmen. Your immediate help is also needed to ensure that the state House of Representatives defeats this misguided ban. The state House is expected to vote on HB 1750 on Monday, October 20.
Please also urge your state Representative to VOTE AGAINST the Senate amendments to HB 1750, tell your state Representative to protect the tradition of pigeon shooting in Pennsylvania.
To identify who represents you in the state House, click here.
CCRKBA BLASTS PAUL ALLEN'S TANK PURCHASE WHILE BACKING GUN CONTROL MEASURE
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said billionaire Paul Allen, who recently donated $500,000 to support gun control Initiative 594, has taken hypocrisy to a new level by reportedly attempting to purchase a WWII vintage German Panzer tank.
“While Paul Allen is eager to get his hands on a genuine weapon of war", CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb observed, “he is all-too-willing to support a measure that throws obstacles in the way of law-abiding citizens who may just want to borrow or buy a firearm from a friend or in-law. How silly is that"?
Published reports say Allen's Vulcan War birds company allegedly paid $2.5 million to a foundation for the tank, which apparently sits idle in California's Portola Valley. When the Collings Foundation would not release the tank, claiming it was never actually sold and that it never intended to give the tank up, Allen's company filed suit in San Mateo County.
“This is simply incredible," Gottlieb said. “This elitist Seattle billionaire thinks it is just fine to make it more inconvenient for average citizens to buy, sell or loan a rifle, shotgun or handgun, but he wants to buy a German tank with a 75mm cannon! We looked through I-594, which Allen supports, and discovered why he's probably hot to purchase that Panzer. I-594 has a tank-sized loophole.”
“Tanks appear to be exempt under the gun control measure because they're not specifically mentioned anywhere in those 18 pages," he explained. “So, Allen wouldn't have to go through a background check. But who needs a tank to go duck hunting?”
“Evidently," Gottlieb concluded, “the difference between billionaires and the rest of us is the size of the guns they want to own."
Source: the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms www.ccrkba.org
Missouri Legislature Overrides Governor’s Veto Of Bill Permitting Armed Teachers
Both chambers of the Missouri legislature this week accomplished an override of Democratic Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of a bill expanding both concealed and open carry rights at schools in the Show Me State.
Nixon had vetoed SB 656 in July, arguing that training educational staff to carry concealed firearms on campus “would not make our schools safer” and that only school resource officers should be allowed to possess weapons on school grounds.
The bill provides for school boards to designate âœone or more school teachers or administrators as a school protection officer after holding a public hearing, requiring the employee to complete a MPOSTC-approved training program, and sharing all information about the resource officers with the state Department of Public Safety. It also provides criminal penalties if a school protection officer fails to secure his weapon while at work.
The Senate overturned Nixon on a partisan 23-8 vote. The House followed suit a day later, overriding the veto Thursday on a bipartisan 117-39 vote.
The bill also does a number of other things, as summarized by The Missouri Times’ Collin Reischman:
An omnibus bill dealing with firearms, Nixon vetoed this bill for it’s provisions allowing schools to designate and train a “school protection officer, ”to legally carry a firearm on school property. The bill also lowers the minimum age for a CCW permit from 21 to 19. The bill also prohibits health care professionals from asking about requiring asking a patient about firearm ownership or recording and/or reporting such ownership to a government entity. The bill also addresses so-called “open carry” law. Under the bill, local governments will not be able to prohibit CCW holders from engaging in open carry practices. Democratic Senators Scott Sifton and Jolie Justus spent nearly two hours discussing the bill in a semi-filibuster. The bill ultimately passed by a vote of 23-8 along party lines.
All of those provisions are reinstated by the veto override. SB 656 will take effect in Missouri
Source: Ben Bullard
Task Force Formed to Counter Cyber Threats to Hunters
Sportsmen, conservation organizations and outdoor personalities met at the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA) headquarters yesterday to develop strategies to counter the recent increase in cyber-attacks on hunters.
The group makes up the Hunter Advancement Task Force with most members sharing a common theme of having been targeted by animal rights activists through social media.
"This is a great opportunity to start developing ways to hold those responsible for the recent wave of cyber-attacks against sportsmen accountable," said Nick Pinizzotto, USSA president and CEO. "The task force is not only working to stop direct attacks on hunters but also discussing how best to educate the public on the vital role sportsmen play in the conservation of all wildlife."
Attendees included outdoor television personalities Melissa Bachman and Jana Waller, Colorado hunter Charisa Argys along with her father Mark Jimerson, Doug Saunders of the National Wild Turkey Federation, Bill Dunn of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, John Jackson of Conservation Force, Dennis Foster of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, Tony Schoonan of the Boone and Crockett Club and Mark Holyoak of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Other attendees included USSA President and CEO, Nick Pinizzotto, Evan Heusinkveld, USSA vice president of government affairs, Bill Horn, USSA director of federal affairs, Michelle Scheuermann of Bullet Proof Communications and author Michael Sabbeth.
Bachman, a television producer and host, found her life and career threatened after posting a photo of an African lion she harvested to her Facebook page last year. Almost immediately, Bachman came under attack from anti-hunters around the world. Bachman also found herself the target of death threats that âœhit way too close for comfortâ when anti-hunters showed up at her office.
“Regardless of your beliefs about hunting, Americans can all agree that threatening someone’s life is simply unacceptable.” said Bachman.
Other members of the task force have also had personal experiences with cyber-bullying including Waller who has had not only threats to her life, but also to her career. Waller, the star of Skull Bound TV, found herself having to defend her livelihood after an anti-hunter called her show sponsors to accuse her of poaching.
“The whole issue of harassment is so important,” said Waller. “I am scared it is going to deter people from standing tall and proud as hunters.”
While attacks on outdoor-celebrity hunters have been going on for years, average hunters have largely avoided the wrath of the anti-hunting community. Earlier this year, however, Charisa Argys was thrown into the spotlight when a picture of her legally harvested mountain lion appeared online. The image brought a flood of criticism and threats not only to her, but to family members as well.
“Just because some anti-hunters in Europe went ballistic over a legal hunt, this issue is going to be associated with me for the rest of my life,” said Argys. “It is never going to go away. It’s going to be there forever. It could affect my job prospects and my life.”
This initial task force meeting was just the first of many to develop short and long-range strategies to protect hunters from cyber harassment.
“In the short term we are developing aggressive legal approaches to pursue both civil and criminal legal actions to prosecute anti-hunting harassers.” said Bill Horn, USSA director of federal affairs. “In the long term, we would like to cultivate strategies to provide additional legal protections for hunters who are finding themselves the target of cyber bullying.”
Pinizzotto added, "What this group discussed today and the ideas generated are a terrific first step in protecting hunters now and in the future. We have some of the brightest minds in our industry working on this critical issue. I look forward to continuing this discussion and adding additional key groups and individuals to the team in the coming weeks."
Source: U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance:
Lone Star Tick Can Cause Beef Allergy
It was just a small tick on her foot “ just part of working in the woods, September Norman thought.
“My husband took it off with a pair of tweezers, didn’t think anything else about it,” Norman said.
Then weeks later, she woke up in the middle of the night swollen with hives and unable to breathe.
“They said I was probably 20 minutes from dying at that point, so it was scary, one tick,” Norman said.
Eventually, doctors figured out Norman had developed a severe food allergy. That lone tick bite left her completely unable to eat red meat.
“It’s actually called the unintentional diet,’ she said. “This is to the point that if I didn’t make those changes, I’d die.”
Doctors are seeing more and more of this rare allergy, which is actually not against the meat, but a sugar on red meat called alpha gal.
“It’s very new. This disease is really first described in 2008,” allergist Dr. James DeAngelo said.
Alpha gal is also in the saliva of the biting tick, which is how the allergy starts.
All mammals carry the sugar, except primates. Humans are primates, and therefore react against the sugar in other mammalian meat. Steaks and burgers could cause a problem, but not chicken or fish.
“It’s also dose dependent. Unlike the peanut allergy, where even a little drop can cause a reaction, this case, it’s very hard to reproduce. In other words, the person has to consume enough beef to produce an allergic reaction, and then you have to wait, [up to eight] hours afterwards to confirm the reaction,” Dr. DeAngelo explains.
The Lone Star tick is seen mostly in the eastern and southeastern United States. Its area is expanding and includes Pennsylvania.
Dr. DeAngelo says local tick analysis has not shown any here in Allegheny County, though residents have found the tick on themselves, but it’s thought to be brought from other areas.
The allergy can be confirmed with blood tests, though these aren’t FDA approved yet, and could be a big out-of-pocket expense. There are no shots or tablets available for densensitization. But the allergy can be self-limited.
“Fortunately, it does go away. In the majority of the cases, if the person avoids future tick bites it will gradually diminish over time,” DeAngelo said.
Source: Dept. of Health
CCRKBA’S GOTTLIEB SWEETENS GATES DEBATE CHALLENGE: ˜BRING BLOOMY”
Since billionaire Bill Gates has not accepted a one-on-one debate challenge from Alan Gottlieb to reveal the myriad problems with Initiative 594, Gottlieb announced today that he will allow Gates to bring former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and make it a two-on-one discussion.
Both Gates and Bloomberg have each contributed over $1 million to the I-594 campaign. Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and spokesman for competing Initiative 591 , challenged Gates to debate the gun control measure last week, but received no response.
“In addition to bringing Bloomberg along,” Gottlieb said, “I'm willing to loan Gates my Apple iPhone, so if he doesn't know the answer to a question, he can ask Siri for help.” Siri is a voice-activated “personal assistant and knowledge navigator” offered with Apple’s IOS-7.
“The public needs to know,” he added, “why Gates supports doubling the state waiting period to get a firearm for personal protection. They need to know why I-594 criminalizes the lawful practice of loaning firearms to friends for hunting or target practice. They need to know why I-594 would prevent loaning a handgun to your sister-in-law for self-defense. They need to know why the initiative would prevent a police officer from loaning a firearm to a fellow officer.
“Voters also need to know why no state law enforcement group has endorsed I-594, and why it is opposed by two major statewide police groups, the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs, and the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association, which both endorse the rival Initiative 591 ,” he said. “These are questions the media need to ask so they can inform the public of what’s really in the 18-page gun control measure that Gates and Bloomberg support.”
Gottlieb also said that a Bloomberg appearance would give the Big Apple billionaire an opportunity to explain to Washington voters why he wants to bring New York-style gun control to the Pacific Northwest.
“He could explain why he defends a $340 permit fee and $90 background check fee on New York City residents just to keep a gun in their own homes,” Gottlieb noted. “He could also discuss his support for New York State’s gun law that bans and allows for the confiscation of many semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and handguns, and why he favors a law that only allows a person to keep seven rounds in a pistol at home for personal protection.
“If Gates is willing to debate, and if he can bring Bloomberg,” Gottlieb concluded, “we need to know soon, so we can book a larger venue, with room enough for their armies of bodyguards, and still allow room for the general public to attend.”
Source: The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Chicago robberies drop 20% after concealed carry permits are issued
When’s the last time you heard any good news out of Chicago as it relates to crime figures? Well, prepare yourselves for a change from the status quo. While the murder rate and gang violence are still bad “ and frequently in the local news “ the robbery rate has gone down recently. And the police think they might know why.
Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits this year, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.
“It isn’t any coincidence crime rates started to go down when concealed carry was permitted. Just the idea that the criminals don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t has a deterrence effect,” said Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. “The police department hasn’t changed a single tactic “” they haven’t announced a shift in policy or of course ” and yet you have these incredible numbers.”
The article also tells the story of an 86 year old resident (not being named to protect his safety) who fired his legal, concealed carry weapon at an armed robber leaving an AT&T store - causing the suspect to freeze in his tracks, allowing the police to make the arrest. He also stood outside the scene of the robbery, preventing other potential shoppers (and potential victims) from entering and being at risk in the middle of the robbery. It’s only one isolated incident, but as an example it demonstrates how even on the streets of Chicago, one good guy with a gun was able to make a difference.
I don’t expect to see these numbers being touted by Chicago’s mayor or the national media, but they should. The Windy City is one of the areas of the nation most plagued by violence and their efforts to make the entire metropolis a “gun free zone” have only fueled further violence by those who weren’t going to pay attention to the laws in the first place.
Source: by Jazz Shaw
Reciprocity Mix-Up Leads to Felony Charges for Philadelphia Mom
On Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Michael Donio declined to dismiss a case for unlawful possession of a firearm against Philadelphia resident Shaneen Allen. Allen was arrested during a traffic stop last October after she volunteered to the officer that she had a firearm in her car. She mistakenly believed her Pennsylvania license to carry firearms was valid in New Jersey. This was hardly an unreasonable assumption, considering that Pennsylvania concealed carry licensees can lawfully carry in over 30 other states.
Nevertheless, Judge Donio sided with prosecutors in deciding that Allen was not covered by a 180-day gun amnesty period for the surrender of firearms in New Jersey that happened to be occurring at the time of her arrest. The judge also refused to overrule the Atlantic County Prosecutor's decision to deny Allen a pre-trial intervention program that could have helped her avoid a criminal conviction.
New Jersey offers first-time offenders the opportunity to avoid criminal adjudications through the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI). The stated purpose of PTI is to "surrender early rehabilitative services, when such services can reasonably be expected to deter future criminal behavior" Allen is a 27-year-old mother of two with no criminal record who was employed as a health care worker at the time of her arrest. She obtained her concealed carry permit after she herself was twice the victim of robbery. The Atlantic County prosecutor has not alleged Allen possessed the firearm for criminal purposes or with evil intent. Indeed, the Atlantic County PTI Director agreed to accept Allen into the PTI program.
Nevertheless, the Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office refused to grant Allen's request for PTI. Instead, they are prosecuting her for a felony which is punishable by a minimum of three years in prison, with no chance for parole. The maximum potential sentence is 10 years imprisonment. According to Assistant Prosecutor Deborah Hay, Allen's prosecution could serve as a "deterrent" and the alleged offense was "too serious to warrant divergence" into PTI.
Allen is now planning on going to trial, which is scheduled for October 6th. Her attorney, Evan Nappen, has indicated that Allen plans to make a defense based on ignorance or mistake of law. Failing that, Allen would have to rely on jurors to recognize the injustice of her prosecution, or if found guilty, on Governor Chris Christie (R) to pardon her or commute her sentence. Christie had previously intervened in the case of Brian Aitken, who was also prosecuted on a technical violation of a gun control statute and sentenced to seven years in prison.
Following the commutation of Aitken’s sentence, Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of NRA-ILA, emphasized the need for the New Jersey Legislature to revisit the state's Draconian firearm regulations: "There is a serious need to reform New Jersey's gun laws so that the full weight of the state's law enforcement and legal system falls squarely on the shoulders of criminals, not on people like Brian Aitken. Reacting to these repeated injustices, Assemblyman Ron Dancer (R-12) has introduced a bill that would give courts more options in adjudicating these types of gun cases.
NRA-backed legislation is also pending in Congress that would protect travelers who found themselves in the same circumstances as Shaneen Allen. The Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013 (H.R. 2959) would require states that issue permits to their own residents (as does New Jersey, at least in limited cases) to provide full faith and credit to concealed carry permits issued by other states (please see related story). Allen’s case exemplifies why this law is needed and the type of person it is designed to protect. The Second Amendment right to bear arms means little in today’s increasingly mobile society when a person who has fully complied with the laws of her home state for carrying firearms becomes a felon simply for crossing a state boundary.
Legal theorists often described laws as fitting into one of two categories: malum in se or malum prohibitum. The distinction between the two was explained by the North Carolina Supreme Court in the 1905 case of State v. Horton: “An offense malum in se is properly defined as one which is naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community, whereas an act malum prohibitum is wrong only because made so by statute.” Laws that treat all carrying of firearms as presumptively criminal, without proof of bad intent, are malum prohibitum. The fact that the conduct which led to Allen’s arrest would have been legal in over two-thirds of U.S. states makes New Jersey an outlier amongst the "civilized community" of the rest of the nation.
Allen’s case illustrates an essential truth of gun control. No matter how its proponents attempt to justify it under the guise of “violence prevention,” “public safety,” or even “public health,” its primary purpose is to promote a social and political agenda. The same ruthless despotism that results in school officials berating a harmless child for a “zero tolerance” infraction until the boy wets his pants is reflected here in the attitude of the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office. Shaneen Allen caused no harm. By all accounts, she acted in good faith, unaware she was violating an unusual and totally arbitrary prohibition. Yet all that is irrelevant to the State of New Jersey, which is willing to ruin not just her life, but the life of her two young children, to demonstrate just how unwelcome firearms are in the state.
Decency and justice have so far failed Shaneen Allen. Let’s hope the jury system“ or “executive clemency, if necessary“ succeed where common sense and prosecutorial discretion have failed.
Those wishing to donate to Shaneen Allen’s legal defense fund may visit this link to contribute: http://gogetfunding.com/project/shaneen-allen-legal-defense-fund.
Source: NRA / ILA
Colorado's Experience Soundly Refutes Common Anti-gun Talking Point
Last month, while addressing a group of Colorado sheriffs, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper spoke on the topic of the state's 2013 measure outlawing almost all private transfers of firearms. According to the Denver Post, Hickenlooper told the sheriffs, "I think we screwed that up completely... we were forming legislation without basic facts." A new Associated Press report examining Colorado background check data in the first year of the new law proves the accuracy of Hickenlooper's statement, and should (although likely won't) end the repetition of an already discredited anti-gun background check factoid.
The report states that the Colorado Legislative Council, an offshoot of the state legislature that is tasked with analyzing legislation, estimated that 420,000 additional background checks would be conducted in the two years following the new private sale restrictions. This led the Colorado legislature to allocate $3 million to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to handle the anticipated increase.
However, the AP notes, "officials have performed only about 13,600 reviews considered a result of the new law -- about 7 percent of the estimated first year total." The article goes on to state, "In total, there were about 311,000 background checks done during the first year of the expansion in Colorado, meaning the 13,600 checks between private sellers made up about 4 percent of the state total."
How did the Colorado Legislative Council get their estimate so wildly wrong? They relied on same bogus statistic (that 40 percent of gun transfers occur between private parties) which gun control advocates and the White House have been using to advocate for expanded background checks all over the country.
The 40 percent statistic is from a Police Foundation survey, the results of which were published in a 1997 National Institute of Justice report titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. The figure has been debunked repeatedly by the NRA and others, and even earned the President "Three Pinocchios" from the Washington Post's fact-checker for his repeated use of the misleading stat.
Unfortunately, these public admonishments haven't deterred gun control supporters from using this absurdly inflated figure. In November, Sen. Dianne Feinstein repeated the factoid in an opinion piece for the San Jose Mercury News. As recently as early July, the Brady campaign asserted in a press release, "Approximately 40 percent of all guns sales go unchecked." A May press release from Michael Bloomberg's Every town for Gun Safety reiterated estimates "that 40 percent of gun sales occur without a background check in the US." Even President Obama's official website, whitehouse.gov, has a page for his "Now is the Time" gun control campaign that continues to claim, "Right now, federally licensed firearms dealers are required to run background checks on those buying guns, but studies estimate that nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from this requirement."
The data from Colorado's first year of restricted private transfers makes continued use the 40 percent figure untenable. Still, some gun control advocates might seek to blame Colorado's low increase in background checks on scofflaws, and those unaware of changes in the law, circumventing the new restrictions. Even if these factors did have a role to play in the underwhelming check numbers, they could hardly be expected to raise the percentage of undocumented private transfers by a factor of 10. Even if they could, it would merely weaken the case of the efficacy of private transfer restrictions. Evidence of background check avoidance would simply underscore NRA's position that background check laws cannot affect the behavior of those who intentionally or unknowingly violate them.
Colorado's expensive foray into background check expansion should serve as a warning to state and federal legislators as to the limited effect these laws can have, and the importance of collecting the "basic facts" before crafting legislation that inhibits the rights of their constituents.
Yet the tactics of gun control supporters are nothing if not shameless, so don't expect them to relinquish the 40 percent myth any time soon. President Obama has openly embraced the confiscatory gun bans of Australia and Great Britain, and he and other gun control radicals realize they can't achieve that goal without registration. "Universal" background checks are the next step in that direction, so for their proponents, the ends justify their dishonest means.
For everyone else, however, Colorado's example is a resounding reminder that the war the proponents of "universal" background checks are waging is one of ideology, not one of facts, and it is certainly not in the service of "gun safety."
Source: NRA / ILA
Task Force Formed to Counter Cyber Threats to Hunters
Sportsmen, conservation organizations and outdoor personalities met at the US. Sportsman's Alliance (USSA) headquarters yesterday to develop strategies to counter the recent increase in cyber-attacks on hunters.
The group makes up the Hunter Advancement Task Force with most members sharing a common theme of having been targeted by animal rights activists through social media.
"This is a great opportunity to start developing ways to hold those responsible for the recent wave of cyber-attacks against sportsmen accountable," said Nick Pinizzotto, USSA president and CEO. "The task force is not only working to stop direct attacks on hunters but also discussing how best to educate the public on the vital role sportsmen play in the conservation of all wildlife."
Attendees included outdoor television personalities Melissa Bachman and Jana Waller, Colorado hunter Charisa Argys along with her father Mark Jimerson, Doug Saunders of the National Wild Turkey Federation, Bill Dunn of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, John Jackson of Conservation Force, Dennis Foster of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, Tony Schoonan of the Boone and Crockett Club and Mark Holyoak of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Other attendees included USSA President and CEO, Nick Pinizzotto, Evan Heusinkveld, USSA vice president of government affairs, Bill Horn, USSA director of federal affairs, Michelle Scheuermann of Bullet Proof Communications and author Michael Sabbeth.
Bachman, a television producer and host, found her life and career threatened after posting a photo of an African lion she harvested to her Facebook page last year. Almost immediately, Bachman came under attack from anti-hunters around the world. Bachman also found herself the target of death threats that “hit way too close for comforting when anti-hunters showed up at her office.
“Regardless of your beliefs about hunting, Americans can all agree that threatening someone's life is simply unacceptable said Bachman.
Other members of the task force have also had personal experiences with cyber-bullying including Waller who has had not only threats to her life, but also to her career. Waller, the star of Skull Bound TV, found herself having to defend her livelihood after an anti-hunter called her show sponsors to accuse her of poaching.
“The whole issue of harassment is so important", said Waller. “I am scared it is going to deter people from standing tall and proud as Hunters."
While attacks on outdoor-celebrity hunters have been going on for years, average hunters have largely avoided the wrath of the anti-hunting community. Earlier this year, however, Charisa Argys was thrown into the spotlight when a picture of her legally harvested mountain lion appeared online. The image brought a flood of criticism and threats not only to her, but to family members as well.
“Just because some anti-hunters in Europe went ballistic over a legal hunt, this issue is going to be associated with me for the rest of my life." said Argys. “It is never going to go away. It's going to be there forever. It could affect my job prospects and my life."
This initial task force meeting was just the first of many to develop short and long-range strategies to protect hunters from cyber harassment.
“In the short term we are developing aggressive legal approaches to pursue both civil and criminal legal actions to prosecute anti-hunting harassers." said Bill Horn, USSA director of federal affairs. “In the long term, we would like to cultivate strategies to provide additional legal protections for hunters who are finding themselves the target of cyber bullying."
Pinizzotto added, "What this group discussed today and the ideas generated are a terrific first step in protecting hunters now and in the future. We have some of the brightest minds in our industry working on this critical issue. I look forward to continuing this discussion and adding additional key groups and individuals to the team in the coming weeks."
Source: U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance:
Boston Police Commissioner: I Say Who Needs a Gun!
Writing for a majority of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right under the Second Amendment to possess firearms for self-defense, Justice Scalia observed: “The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government and the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.”
Nevertheless, Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans expressed his support this week for a provision in the House version of a Massachusetts gun control bill that would give local law enforcement officials discretionary power to decide who may acquire licenses to own shotguns and rifles. This provision was stripped from the State Senate version of the bill. Under current law, local law enforcement officials already have discretion over who is issued a license to own a handgun.
In an interview Boston Public Radio, Evans stated:
For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun, nobody needs a rifle, and I don't know a lot of people who are into hunting who, being lifelong residents, would actually want that who lives in the city, but, especially here in the city I want to have discretion over who's getting any type of gun because public safety is my main concern and as you know it's an uphill battle taking as many guns off the street right now without pumping more into the system.
Unfortunately, Evans is not alone in his failure to comprehend that constitutional rights limit, rather than depend upon, the discretion of government functionaries. On Tuesday, several Massachusetts police chiefs gathered at the statehouse to protest the discretion provision having been stripped from the senate's bill. Among those participating were Evans, Chief Terrence Cunningham of Wellesley, Chief Erik Blake of Oaks Bluff, and former Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis. The Boston Globe additionally reported that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick supports the House bill.
Executive Director Jim Wallace of NRA’s Massachusetts state affiliate, Gun Owner's Action League, explained to Fox News that the discretion the chiefs have to issue handgun permits is already being misused.
Massachusetts police chiefs have had discretionary ability [to issue handgun permits] for decades here and the system has been pretty widely abused as far as suitability goes because it's left up to the chief to decide. Some chiefs say they just don't hand out those licenses, or some are granted for target and hunting purposes only.
Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that a California regulatory scheme that effectively granted local sheriffs the discretion to decide who had “good causerie to carry firearms in public was unconstitutional. That case, like nearly all successful Second Amendment litigation, was made possible by local officials who, though having sworn an oath to the Constitution, insisted they had a better grasp of human nature and public welfare than the framers of the Bill of Rights.
We therefore suggest some remedial reading and a dose of humility for Commissioner Davis and his like-minded colleagues. Some of the rights these officials now find so inconvenient arose from the overreaching of their predecessors in authority.
Source: NRA / ILA
What Is Gun Violence?
The term “gun violence” seems to have been coined by either the anti-gun media or some other anti-gun group in an effort to vilify the tool used to perpetrate violence on another.
Somewhere someone said, “If we call it ‘gun violence’ that will make it sound like guns are bad. We should do that.”
You and I know guns are neither good nor bad. Guns cannot do anything on their own. A gun cannot be violent any more than can a hammer, or a bowling pin or a rose bush. A gun can be used during violent acts. But here is something interesting: A violent act is not always a bad thing. Righteous violence in defense of the innocent is a good thing and should be applauded. Yet still the media and anti-gun politicians continue to beat the drum of “gun violence” in America as if to say, ”If we take away all the guns, there will be no more violence.”
Several years back, politicians also said, “If we take away all the booze, no one will drink and all those problems will go away.” We saw how that turned out. It spawned the largest crime wave in U.S. history and directly gave rise to criminal syndicates that are still running today.
Since 1993, crime has been dropping. Despite a few recent high-profile cases, the numbers of mass shootings have been dropping. Armed citizens regularly intervene to protect others by employing or threatening to employ violence with a gun. But the media doesn’t report on that. Criminals are much more interesting. Guns work. Violence, when employed against criminal predators, benefits honest citizens.
So I ask again, “What is gun violence?”
It is a fantasy term. It is political spin designed to dupe the masses. If the media and the politicians can keep you thinking that guns are bad and keep telling you that reducing the number of guns will reduce crime, maybe you will believe them and one day give up your freedoms.
Our Founding Fathers knew that each individual citizen of a free Nation would need guns in defense of those freedoms. To restrict guns is to restrict our ability to, when needed, draw a line in the sand and be able to back up our words.
So many liberals will decry such ideas as something that will never happen and will say that the right to bear arms against the government is something that simply is not and will not be needed.
I give to you “The Battle of Athens, Tenn” In 1946, after election fraud and voter intimidation in the elections of 1940, 1942 and 1944, the citizens of McMinn County took up arms to finally stop corrupt politicians.
We need guns. Righteous violence works to protect Americans. Don’t let liberals use the term “gun violence.” Call them on it, every time. Guns are not violent.
Source: July 14, 2014 by Kevin Michalowski
Bloomberg Proxy Releases Anti-Gun Manifesto; Proposes to Ban Cartoon Characters and Colors!
The name of U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) headlines the Kelly Report, a new manifesto identifying a long list of gun control initiatives that anti-gun activists intend to pursue in the near future. However, the document appears to be the handiwork of Michael Bloomberg, whose misleadingly-named Independence USA political action committee contributed $2.1 million to Kelly’s congressional campaign last year. With Bloomberg’s help, Kelly was elected to fill the Chicago-area seat previously held by fellow gun control supporter Jesse Jackson, Jr., who is currently doing time in federal prison.
The Kelly Report consists of essays by gun control supporters, followed by a long list of gun control legislation and other efforts they support. Anti-gun activist groups represented in the “report” include Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, the Brady Campaign, the Educational Fund to End Gun Violence, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and Americans for Responsible Solutions.
The “report” advocates two gun control restrictions intended to achieve universal gun registration incrementally. They are “universal” background checks, a Bloomberg priority, and repealing the law that limits the amount of time that the FBI can retain records on people who pass background checks to buy guns. Kelly also calls for gun registration outright.
The report also advocates a federal “assault weapon” and “large” magazine ban more severe than the one in effect between 1994 and 2004, gun owner licensing, repealing Stand Your Ground laws, opposing national Right-to-Carry reciprocity, empowering the Consumer Products Safety Commission to regulate the manufacture of firearms, prohibiting unlicensed and mail order ammunition sales, reporting people who purchase 1,000 or more rounds, removing restrictions on public access to BATFE firearm trace data, repealing the federal law that prohibits frivolous lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearm industry, requiring “ballistic fingerprinting,” pursuing “smart” gun technologies, and using taxpayer funds to pay for “research” that promotes gun control.
There has also been a further development and, no, we are not making this up. On Monday, even though children are already prohibited from buying firearms at retail under federal law and the laws of most states, Kelly introduced H.R. 5093, the Children’s Firearm Marketing Safety Act. This legislation would direct the Federal Trade Commission to prohibit the use of cartoon characters to market guns to children, to prohibit the manufacturing of guns in colors designed to appeal to children, and other such nonsense. As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh points out, the cartoon character ban would be unconstitutional and the color ban might be as well.
Regardless of who’s behind the “Kelly Report,” it and Kelly’s cartoon character bill remind us of how gun control supporters think and what they intend to do, once they have the votes in Congress and the state legislatures. And that reminds us of what we have to in the voting booth on Election Day.
Source: NRA - ILA
Facebook Removes Hate Page Thanks to Sportsmen’s Efforts
UPDATE: Facebook has now reversed its position regarding removal of this page after not allowing any new posts for approximately six hours. The page is again active as well as several similar pages. Sportsmen and women should remain vigilant in their support of Kendall Jones and all other hunters who are the victims of cyber-bullying. Stay tuned for more developments as they occur.
A page titled “Kendall Jones Hate Page” has been removed by Facebook after a deluge of complaints from sportsmen reporting it as harassment.
The page in question was created when numerous stories of 19-year-old hunter, Kendall Jones, surfaced after she posted photos of her recent African safari to her fan page. Photos of Jones with African animals she had legally harvested sparked outcry from animal rights activists who soon took to social media to harass and threaten the life of the teenager.
The “Kendall Jones Hate Page” served as a platform for the anti-hunting community to further post photos and berate and threaten the young hunter.
“I am truly proud of how our community rose up and helped dismantle this page, “said Nick Pinizzotto, USSA president and CEO. “This is a huge statement from the hunting community that we will not stand for this type of behavior.”
According to Facebook, the page violated the Facebook Community Standards for bullying and harassment. According to the standards, “Facebook does not tolerate bullying or harassment. We allow users to speak freely on matters and people of public interest, but take action on all reports of abusive behavior directed at private individuals. Repeatedly targeting other users with unwanted friend requests or messages is a form of harassment.”
“It’s a great day for the hunting community as they rallied around Kendall.” said Pinizzotto. “Anti-hunters have taken their insults and threats to the extreme. They are showing their true colors by threatening a young woman who is doing nothing more than practicing legal hunting methods and helping to conserve wildlife.”
Source: U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
Sunday hunting lawsuit dismissed by federal judge
A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit by a hunters' group that had challenged Pennsylvania's long-standing ban on Sunday hunting, saying she saw no proof the hunters' constitutionally protected rights were being harmed.
U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane made the ruling in a suit brought by the Lancaster County-based Hunters United for Sunday Hunting against the Pennsylvania Game Commission, the agency that enforces the state's game code.
Kane said she could find no proof that courts have extended Second Amendment protections to include recreational hunting.
She also found that the hunters could not prove that the law unfairly discriminated between classes of hunters or that the ban on Sunday hunting violates their religious freedoms.
The Sunday hunting law does include some exceptions. For instance, foxes, coyotes, crows and feral hogs can be hunted on Sunday. In addition, hunters may hunt on Sunday on non-commercial private property. Violators of the law can lose their hunting licenses.
Lawmakers have tried, but failed, to repeal the Sunday hunting law.
Notably, in 2011, then-House Game and Fisheries Committee Chairman John Evans sponsored a bill to permit hunting in the state on Sundays. He said opposition by the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau stalled action on the measure.
The farm bureau argued that people should be allowed to preserve one day a week to be outside without running into hunters or hearing gunfire. Outdoor recreation groups also were opposed to the bill.
Earlier in 2011, the game commission's board voted 4-3 in favor of repealing the Sunday hunting ban.
Source: WTAE News
U.N. ON ˜COLLISION COURSE” WITH SECOND AMENDMENT, SAYS SAF
The United Nations is “on a collision course” with the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment and the natural right of all people to defend themselves,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today in a statement to the U.N.’s Programme of Action (POA) meeting in New York.
SAF Operations Director Julianne Versnel told the committee that “the POA and other UN efforts repeatedly and vociferously discuss gender issues.”
“They acknowledge that women are disproportionally the victims of horrendous violence, sometimes even perpetrated by their own governments or others in power, Versnel said. “Yet, they turn a blind eye to the reality that women have a right to defend themselves and are capable of doing so. The Programme of Action seems unable to acknowledge anything beyond the simplistic notion that civilian firearms are inherently evil. The right of women, indeed the right of men and women, to self-defense is a human right.”
The U.N. has failed to recognize this human right, she stated, whether it deals with POA activities, the infamous Arms Trade Treaty or even its own Human Rights Council.
“This is not a geographically limited issue and a growing number of organizations consider it vital, she said. “In fact, the Second Amendment Foundation along with 20 other civilian firearms rights groups from six continents came together in 2008 to form the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms (IAPCAR). IAPCAR intends to vigorously pursue the right to self-defense in every possible venue.”
Versnel criticized a 2006 report by Barbara Frey with the UN Human Rights Council that “refused the idea that there is a right to have arms for self-defense and furthermore rejected any concept of self-defense as a human right. It also went on to say that states had a duty to engage in gun control. The kind of gun controls makes self-defense impossible.”
“These conclusions were outrageous, Versnel stated. ”These erroneous concepts have spread at the UN. It appears that Peru introduced a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council, based on the Frey report that, in essence, demanded that all states institute strict civilian gun control. NGOs are starting to base their opposition to firearms on the Frey report at the expense of recognizing an individual’s right to self-defense.”
While acknowledging that the question cannot be resolved quickly, Versnel promised to “debate this in any venue, at any time, at any place.”
Source:The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org)
Ask Your U.S. Representative to Cosponsor and Support H.R. 2959
"The Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013"
The "Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013" (H.R. 2959)--introduced in the U.S. House by Reps. Richard Nugent (R-Fla.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah)--would allow any person who is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under federal law and who has a valid concealed firearm permit, to carry a concealed handgun in any state that issues its own residents permits to carry concealed firearms. Persons carrying a handgun in another state pursuant to H.R. 2959 would be subject to the laws of that state with respect to where concealed firearms may be carried. Similar legislation to H.R. 2959 passed the House in 2011 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 272-154.
H.R. 2959 would not create a federal licensing system, nor authorize the federal government to interfere with the powers of the states to set standards for the issuance of carry permits, nor establish federal standards for carry permits, nor override state laws that recognized the right to carry firearms without a permit. Rather,it would simply require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, much like drivers' licenses.
Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 2959 â“ "The Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013".
To read the full Fact Sheet on H.R. 2959, please click here.
Source: NRA / ILA
After Tragedy, Dems Consider Gun Control In Spending Bill
Democratic lawmakers said Wednesday that a renewed push for gun control is likely to surface in debates about a sweeping spending bill making its way through the House of Representatives this week.
Representative Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told reporters that his party is considering making a push for amendments to the 2015 funding bill for the Commerce and Justice departments that would expand background checks for gun purchases and preserve a Federal rule requiring reporting of multiple purchases of semi-automatic rifles in border States.
The gun control talk has resurfaced after a severely disturbed 22-year-old went on a shooting spree in California which left four people dead, including him. The murderer had earlier stabbed three others.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) blamed the attack on the National Rifle Association.
“Unfortunately, the NRA continues to have a stranglehold on Congress” she said, “preventing even commonsense measures like universal background checks that have overwhelming support. Until that happens, we will continue to see these devastating attacks. Shame on us for allowing this to continue.”
The rampage took place in a region where many of the gun control mandates Feinstein is pushing at the Federal level already exist at the State and local levels.
Hoyer admits that it is unlikely that expanded background checks would have done much to prevent the most recent shooting tragedy, but contends that Congress must act in some way.
“In this instance it may not have made a difference, but it’s clear that in many instances it would have made a difference,” Hoyer said.
“And it’s also clear the overwhelming majority of the American public think it makes sense to make sure somebody is mentally stable before they buy something that, misused, can cause damage to a lot of people very quickly,” he added.
Source: by Sam Rolley
Texas Teenager Cyber Attacked After Posting Hunting Photos
A 19-year-old Texas Tech cheerleader is the latest female hunter to be attacked by animal rights groups after she posted photos of her successful African safari on Facebook.
Kendra Jones, from Cleburne, Texas has been hunting with her father since she was a child, including being on a safari when just six years old. Her latest hunt however has brought her a wave of Facebook attacks, including death threats.
Those included “Come to South Africa and try to hunt our endangered animals, you will be shot on sight and believe me, there will be celebrations.” ”I hope you get eaten by a lion, you cow,” and “How about we have a real hunger games? I vote we hunt this horrible woman down first.”
Anti-hunters have also created “the official Kendall Jones Hate Page” on Facebook.
But even these attacks have not deterred her thoughts on hunting.
In an interview with a Houston television station, she said she always gives the meat to local villagers, but does not want to give up her hobby. In fact, she is pursuing a reality television series about her passion. She stated that all of her kills were the result of fair chase.
Jones is the latest female hunter targeted for her passion, but certainly not the first.
Charisa Argys, a Colorado native, legally harvested a mountain lion and posted the photo online with her father. An animal rights activist from Germany led a campaign to spread it to dozens of Facebook pages and Internet sites belonging to international anti-hunting organizations. The floodgates opened with specific threats targeting her physical appearance, her life and her family.
“I have never been called so many horrible, hateful names in my life,” said Argys. “They went so far as to post my full name, address and directions to my house. It was awful.”
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance has been working to help sportsmen fight cyber harassment from animal rights extremists by building support for them from the hunting community.
“It is never okay to harass and even assault someone simply because they choose to live their life differently." said Nick Pinizzotto, USSA president and CEO. "Unfortunately anti-hunters clearly lack this basic value and have decided to use their keyboards to attack law-biding hunters.”
Whereas Jones and Argys are not hunting celebrities, some of the recent attacks have targeted high profile hunters as well.
Jana Waller, host of Skull Bound TV on Sportsman Channel, was recently barraged by activists after also posting photos online. She is undaunted by the criticism.
“It’s a shame that people who know nothing about hunting and conservation feel the need to spew insults and threats regarding a topic they obviously are uneducated about,” said Waller. “Without hunters’ dollars spent in Africa, there would be catastrophic effects on the vast majority of their animal populations.”
“Trying to explain that hunters are true animal lovers is like trying to explain algebra to a two-year old. They’re just not going to get it,” she added.
Another high profile hunter, Melissa Bachman, outdoor TV host and producer, came under attack after posting a photo of a male African lion she legally harvested while on a safari. Anti-hunters quickly took to social media to attack Bachman, labeling her as an “animal murderer.” Other posts included “I hope you die alone “ losers.” wish to have some money and kill you all myself” and “If I have the opportunity I will put a rifle inside Melissa’s mouth and I will shoot.”
"Each and every hunter needs to band together and support one another in our rights as hunters”, said Bachman. ”What the antis fail to comprehend is that if it weren't for sportsmen and women, populations of game and non-game species plus the lands they inhabit would be in dire straits today, period."
Anti-hunters wrath hasn’t been focused just on individuals. Organizations such as USSA and Dallas Safari Club have received threats and media outlets such as HuntingLife.com have as well.
âœWe have received death threats towards us and other people we have posted on our site,â said Kevin Paulson, owner of HuntingLife.com. “The antis are especially venomous toward women and those who are hunting big game such as cats in Africa and the U.S.”
As the cyber threats to female hunters and others continue to escalate, so to have the efforts to protect these innocent victims.
âœAs an organization with the sole mission to protect hunting, fishing and trapping, we see it as our responsibility to step up and lead the effort to put an end to cyber harassment of sportsmen,” added Pinizzotto. “We are currently working with a number of conservation partners and key individuals to do just that.”
Source: U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
Ohio River Sweep 2014
Saturday, June 21, 2014
History of the Ohio River Sweep
Since 1989, River Sweep has been organized by the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, an interstate water pollution agency for the Ohio River Valley, along with environmental protection and natural resource agencies from Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
In 1990 The Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League (ACSL) decided that since the Ohio River is formed by the Monongahela and the Allegheny rivers the member clubs of the ACSL could band together and clean those river banks. Together with the PA DEP we have collected many tons of debris from the river banks.
Later the Beaver and Youghiogheny rivers and their tributaries were added to the task.
The River Sweep is the largest organized volunteer river cleanup effort in the country, winding through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia and Illinois, covering more than 2,400 miles of shoreline.
2014 marks the 24th year of the ACSL’s involvement.
Let’s hope that the next generation of ACSL member clubs will continue this excellent project.
Media Matters’ Fires Blanks in Attack on Reporter
Media Matters -- the self-styled "progressive" watchdog that howls in protest whenever anyone deviates in thought or word from its version of the "progressive agenda" -- confirmed its lack of credibility this week by attempting to smear Fox-5 (Washington, D.C.) investigative reporter Emily Miller over her comments relating to gun control.
On a Fox-5 program and in a MyFoxDC.com article earlier this week, Miller correctly pointed out that firearm-related crime has declined over the last 20 years. On that point, Media Matters didn't disagree. And no wonder. Crime data are readily accessible on the FBI's UCR Data Tool website, within the FBI's annual crime reports, and in numerous reports published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), such as Firearm Violence 1993-2011. These statistics were also reported in a Pew Research public opinion poll that received widespread attention recently.
What Media Matters went apoplectic over were two points that in no way altered or obscured the true picture. One was Miller's innocent slip of the tongue, saying that the FBI had reported a 70 percent decrease in non-fatal shootings over the last 20 years. Technically, it was actually the FBI's sister agency within the Department of Justice, the BJS that reported a 75 percent decrease in non-fatal firearm crimes over that period of time. The other was Miller's politically insightful explanation of a recent comment by Hillary Clinton that America needs to "rein in" gun ownership. Apparently, Media Matters is unacquainted with the concepts of paraphrasing or editorializing and absurdly accused her of fabricating a quote, when Miller was simply opining on the import of Clinton's statements.
This is the same Media Matters that reliably stays silent as gun control supporters deliberately say things that that intentionally distort the truth. In fact, Media Matters repeats these canards itself. For example, take the claim that "40 percent of guns are sold without a background check." Even that whopper was too much for the Fact Checker at the Washington Post, the editorial staff of which aggressively supports gun control. A year ago, the newspaper rated the claim Three Pinocchios.
There wasn't a peep out of Media Matters, however, when the "40 percent" claim was repeated by Bloomberg proxy Shannon Watts on NBC and by Watts' (Bloomberg's) "Moms" website relative to the "universal background checks" issue, and by Bloomberg's anti-gun "Mayors" group in its attack upon online firearm sale negotiations. Media Matters even used the "40 percent" claim itself in a Thanksgiving Day attack upon the NRA and in a separate article. Both, incidentally, were written by a Media Matters staffer who used to work for the Brady Campaign and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Maybe Media Matters thinks that Miller can be dissuaded from reporting on gun control issues in the future just because of its lowbrow sniping from the political fringe. If so, however, we suspect they will be disappointed. Miller has repeatedly demonstrated a level of independence and journalistic integrity foreign to her lockstep, rabble-rousing detractors.
Source: NRA / ILA
ANOTHER MAYOR’S LEGAL TROUBLE SHOWS WHY GUN OWNERS DON’T TRUST MAIG, SAYS SAF
Federal fraud charges against another member of anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) is another example of why gun owners don't trust the anti-gun group, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
North Miami, Florida Mayor Lucie Tondreau is the latest in a growing list of MAIG members who have wound up facing criminal charges. She was indicted earlier this week on fraud charges, and will be arraigned May 30.
“Mayors don't trust gun owners, and gun owners don't trust the mayors,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. âœMichael Bloomberg obviously doesn't trust them, either, because he keeps trying to conceal them under other names, like ˜Everytown for Gun Safety.” The irony here is that all of the MAIG members who have been charged with crimes cannot possess firearms and those who have been convicted can no longer even possess firearms. No wonder these people want to disarm the rest of us.
“Of course,” he added, “Mayor Tondreau must be considered innocent until proven guilty, but we should keep in perspective that, under existing law, that applies to everyone but gun owners. Anybody under indictment for a crime, even a non-violent one, is not allowed to possess a firearm even if they haven't been convicted of anything. Any gun owner who is ultimately acquitted has a hell of a time getting his or her guns back, and that’s a legal entanglement supported by MAIG members who don't want any average citizen to own a gun.
“This makes between 25 and 30 MAIG members who have run afoul of the law,” Gottlieb estimated. ‘The majority of these people have been convicted, and that includes former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who presided over the Hurricane Katrina gun grab that illegally and unconstitutionally deprived New Orleans residents of more than 1,100 of their personally-owned firearms.
“If you did some quick math,” he concluded, “you would find a far higher percentage of MAIG members committing crimes than American gun owners. It’s why we started Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors, and why gun owners will fight this organization and its anti-gun agenda no matter how many millions of dollars Michael Bloomberg pours into it.”
Source: The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org)
Obama Administration Puts Money Squeeze On Gun Retailers
The Obama Administration is waging a semi-successful campaign to burden firearms dealers with regulations and veiled scrutiny tied to the consumer credit industry to such an extent that retailers are scrambling, in some cases, to find a bank willing to process customers’ card-based transactions or even handle their merchant accounts.
According to The Washington Times, which reported on what appear to be a multi-pronged strategy emanating from the Administration to bureaucratically hamstring businesses that lawfully deal in firearms, small dealers in particular face the prospect of losing their business, thanks to banks cautious of the Department of Justice’s Operation Choke Point initiative, which ostensibly targets businesses that carry a “reputational risk.”
“[The] Justice Department has launched Operation Choke Point, a credit card fraud probe focusing on banks and payment processors. The threat of enforcement has prompted some banks to cut ties with online gun retailers, even if those companies have valid licenses and good credit histories,” the Times reported Sunday.
That places gun dealers, especially small mom-and-pop operations, in the same company as pornographers, sweepstake scammers and short-term loan sharks when it comes to setting up a bank account or merchant service agreement to accept card-based payment.
Here are some examples the Times listed of firearms sellers who've had close calls or worse with Operation Choke Point:
T.R. Liberti, owner and operator of Top Gun Firearms Training & Supply in Miami, has felt the sting firsthand. Last month, his local bank, BankUnited N.A., dumped his online business from its service.
An explanatory email from the bank said: “This letter in no way reflects any derogatory reasons for such action on your behalf. But rather one of industry. Unfortunately your company's line of business is not commensurate with the industries we work with.”
Black Rifle Armory in Henderson, Nevada, had its bank accounts frozen this month as the bank tried to determine whether any of Black Rifles online transactions were suspicious.
In 2012, Bank of America suddenly dropped the 12-year account of McMillan Group International, a gun manufacturer in Phoenix, even though the company had a good credit history, the owner said. Gun parts maker American Spirit Arms in Scottsdale, Arizona, received similar treatment by Bank of America, the country's largest banking institution.
On top of that, banks have been clamping down on gun dealers following a 2011 warning by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that takes aim at the firearms trade as a “high-risk” business category.
“Basically, what we're saying is, these types of programs can be, can involve high-risk activities that could create litigation risk and reputation risk for financial institutions,” FDIC General Counsel Richard Osterman told a House panel last month. “So, they need to do due diligence to ensure that the folks who they're banking are acting in a safe and sound manner.”
Does that apply even to the many mom-and-pop gun dealers who have been doing business “in a safe and sound manner” for decades without government-prompted institutional harassment?
In January, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) was already condemning Operation Choke Point as a government scheme to regulate the legal payday loan industry out of business.
“The extraordinary breadth of the Department's dragnet prompts concern that the true goal of Operation Choke Point is not to cut off actual fraudsters’ access to the financial system, but rather to eliminate legal financial services to which the Department objects,” Issa wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder. “It appears the Department has indiscriminately targeted an access point to the financial system that countless legitimate merchants rely upon simply because it is ˜faster” than targeting the actual perpetrators of fraud.”
Issa wrote that before the Operation's other convenient regulatory uses came into full view. As a web of Federal regulations continues to tighten around the gun trade, his words now reflect what many small gun dealers are experiencing firsthand.
Source: May 19, 2014 by Ben Bullard
Dudley Brown’s Despicable Deception
Dudley Brown and his “National Association for Gun Rights” (NAGR) have built a reputation by attacking every other major gun rights organization and even pro-gun politicians, to the detriment of the gun rights movement. His rhetoric has done more to marginalize Second Amendment activism than all of the slanders from gun prohibition lobbying groups combined.
Now Dudley has spewed his venom toward Alan Gottlieb, a true champion of Second Amendment advocacy with a proven track record of accomplishment. Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA).
In his latest effort to raise money for his own self-aggrandizement, Dudley Brown has launched a vicious canard against Alan Gottlieb, accusing the veteran gun rights advocate of “Leading the fight for national gun registration.”
Alan Gottlieb has never advocated for gun registration in his life. His legislative efforts have been to prevent that, and Dudley knows it.
Sean Tonner, deputy chief of staff for former Republican Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, was quoted by The Denver Magazine , asserting, “All Dudley wanted to do was create controversy. He makes his money when there’s turmoil, real or perceived, because that’s what gets his members to write him checks.”
It is time to call Dudley what he is, a political bomb-throwing bully whose stock in trade is to incite distrust and discontent within the ranks of the gun rights movement to enhance his own fund-raising efforts and power base.
Instead of directing his energies toward fighting the real enemy, Dudley Brown has attacked other gun rights organizations in an effort to elevate his own group, but at what cost to gun rights?
Perhaps he believes the only way to raise his own status outside the borders of Colorado is to trample on people and organizations with whom he should be allied for the common cause of advancing Second Amendment rights, rather than inflating his own ego.
When anti-gunners see people in the gun rights movement attacking one another they cheer. Such vicious attacks provide aid and comfort to the enemies of the Second Amendment.
WHERE WAS DUDLEY?
The Second Amendment Foundation has championed gun rights legal actions and won in federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. Remember, it was SAF that took McDonald v. City of Chicago to the Supreme Court and won. Where was Dudley?
SAF and CCRKBA have conducted the annual Gun Rights Policy Conference for more than 25 years, bringing together major gun rights leaders with grassroots activists to unify and expand the gun rights movement. Where was Dudley?
When SAF and the National Rifle Association joined forces to stop the unconstitutional gun grab in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, where was Dudley?
When SAF and NRA joined forces to defeat the San Francisco gun ban, where was Dudley?
When SAF, NRA and CCRKBA joined forces to defeat the City of Seattle’s parks gun ban thus strengthening state preemption in Washington state and providing a lesson for anyone who might challenge other states preemption laws, where was Dudley?
When the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) was created, Alan Gottlieb was there to help bring together an organization that now has member groups from every continent and several nations. Where was Dudley?
When multi-national gun rights organizations gather in Europe to resist global gun control efforts, Alan Gottlieb is there, but where is Dudley?
Where is Dudley? We'll ask again: WHERE IS DUDLEY? He is AWOL!
CCRKBA is currently fighting oppressive gun control legislation in Washington State, to prevent passage of the kind of gun laws that were adopted in Colorado, right under Dudley’s nose. Instead of isolating CCRKBA as is Dudley’s “my way or the highway” style. “ Alan Gottlieb has helped bring together a coalition of organizations that includes gun collectors, hunters, competitors and law enforcement professionals. Their goal is to prevent expansion of federally-mandated background checks and state handgun registration, and prohibit government gun confiscation (ala post-Katrina New Orleans).’
Where is Dudley now? Maybe he’s trying to figure out how to exploit this battle to raise funds that would never be spent in Washington State, and perhaps even to scuttle the grassroots gun rights effort there. Remember, his forte is to create turmoil, exploit it and raise money from it, not win battles.
WHERE DUDLEY WASN'T
Two years ago, Dudley tried to claim credit for a lawsuit victory that wasn't his, in a case he didn't pay for.
When Students for Concealed Carry won a judgment against the University of Colorado, Dudley created the impression that it was his victory, claiming in an e-mail fund-raiser that his “National Foundation for Gun Rights” and Dudley’s Colorado-based Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) had “successfully overturned the college campus gun ban in the Colorado Supreme Court.”
SCC President Daniel Crocker sent a blistering letter to Dudley that criticized him for “misleading remarks for the pecuniary gain of your organizations.”
In that letter, Crocker stated that Dudley’s message was “not only misleading but patently false.”
What was Dudley’s contribution to that case? RMGO provided an amicus brief. Alan Gottlieb and SAF also filed an amicus brief in that case, but they never claimed credit for winning the case.
Dudley claimed to be at the United Nations for the Arms Trade Treaty conference, yet nobody saw him in the building, but they did see Alan Gottlieb there, fighting to protect Americans’ gun rights.
IS DUDLEY BROWN A CHARLATAN?
Last year, the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance felt it necessary to respond to one of Brown’s e-mails regarding legislation that the MGOCRA had been supporting. Without naming him, the group posted a message on it's Facebook page stating, “There is an inflammatory email being sent to Minnesotans by an out-of-state individual who has never actually accomplished anything for Minnesota gun rights (or those of any other state that we can see). “
“The real purpose of this email is the same as all the rest of the emails this individual sends: to solicit donations,” the message added.
Last year, when NAGR launched an attack fund raiser against Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Association, gun owners in North Carolina became fed up. Some members of the NC Gun Owners forum asked questions such as, “Where was Dudley Brown during the Senate hearing on AWB and Magazine limitations?” Another observed, “I never liked an organization or person trying to build themselves up by putting others down” A third noted, “I have not supported them at all, as I feel they are opportunists that seem to be looking for donations more than actually helping the fight.”
While SAF has as its motto “Winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time,” and CCRKBA’s motto is “The Common Sense Gun Lobby,” Dudley may as well say that his motto is “Destroying the gun rights movement from within, one selfish attack at a time.”
We have never made it a practice to disparage other gun rights organizations. That’s not constructive, nor does it further the cause of Second Amendment freedom. We are all supposed to be in this fight together.
However, we cannot ignore this calumny, especially from someone whose rhetoric has gun owners constantly fighting one another, rather than uniting against a common enemy.
What Dudley Brown and NAGR have done with his e-mail attack on Alan Gottlieb is deliberately divisive, disturbingly deceitful and downright despicable.
And Alan Gottlieb isn't asking for a penny from anyone with this e-mail. He’s just setting the record straight.
Source: The Second Amendment Foundation
SAF WINS PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN CHALLENGE TO ARKANSAS CCW LAW
The Second Amendment Foundation has won a significant victory on behalf of legal resident aliens in Arkansas, with a federal district court there declaring the state’s citizen-only concealed carry licensing law unconstitutional, and granting a permanent injunction against its enforcement on behalf of a man named Martin Pot (pronounced Pote), a citizen of the Netherlands.
U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks, for the Western District of Arkansas, handed down the ruling. He ordered the state to pay SAF $10,000 in attorney’s fees and court costs of $726.41. SAF and Mr. Pot were represented by attorney David Sigale of Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
The lawsuit, filed last November, challenged the Arkansas statute because it “completely prohibits resident legal aliens from the concealed carry of guns, in public, for the purpose of self-defense. Colonel Stan Witt, director of the Arkansas State Police, was named as the defendant in his official capacity.
“This is yet another victory in our effort to expand Second Amendment protections in the United States,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Mr. Pot is a law-abiding resident of Eureka Springs, and has been so since 1986. He is self-employed and is a productive member of the community, with an American-born wife and family. He came here almost 30 years ago, met and married his wife, and has many solid connections in his community.”
While Arkansas statute allowed Pot to possess a firearm only in his home, on his property or “under certain circumstances“ while on a “journey” he was prohibited from obtaining a concealed carry permit because he is not a citizen.
“This case is not unique,” Gottlieb noted. “SAF has successfully challenged other state laws, in New Mexico, Washington, Nebraska and Massachusetts. Legal resident aliens should not be penalized at the expense of their self-defense rights. This was a good outcome to a case that should help lots of people.”
“This is another case where SAF is winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time,” he concluded.
Source: The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org)
Supreme Court gun rights: Gun owners still must justify need to carry in public
The Supreme Court on Monday let stand New Jersey's requirement that gun owners demonstrate a justifiable need in order to carry firearms in public, turning away another case over whether Americans have a constitutional right to be armed outside the home.
Several residents claimed the law was unconstitutional, but in refusing to take their case, the high court left in a place a ruling last fall from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Philadelphia-based appeals court upheld New Jersey's requirement that gun owners demonstrate "specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating a special danger to applicant's life that cannot be avoided by other means."
One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Sussex County resident John Drake, said he needed to carry a gun because of his job restocking ATM machines. Other plaintiffs included a reserve sheriff's deputy, a civilian FBI employee and a victim of an interstate kidnapping, all of whom were initially denied gun permits. In New Jersey, permit applications have to be approved by local police and then a state Superior Court judge.
Two gun groups, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, joined the lawsuit. The effort was backed by 19 states.
Court filings in the case focused on the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down a local law that prohibited the keeping of guns in the home for self-defense. That ruling left open the right to bear arms in other situations; Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment doesn't allow citizens "to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
In his 2012 ruling upholding New Jersey's law, U.S. District Judge William Walls wrote that the alternative to the state's "justifiable need" requirement would be granting permits to carry a gun to anyone who felt "the subjective need based on nothing more than 'general fears' to go about their daily lives prepared to use deadly force. The risks associated with a judicial error in discouraging regulation of firearms carried in public are too great," he concluded.
The 3rd Circuit upheld Walls' ruling in a 2-1 decision. In his dissent, Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman wrote that in its Heller decision, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home and "protects an inherent right to self-defense."
The Supreme Court has turned away similar questions on at least two earlier occasions.
Source: (Associated Press) (Examiner)
Hundreds rally for gun rights at Pa. Capitol
A few hundred gun rights advocates took their cause to Pennsylvania lawmakers on Tuesday as part of Second Amendment Action Day, an annual event that focuses on one of the state's most divisive political issues.
The rally brought dozens of sympathetic legislators to the steps of the state Capitol, and after an hour of speeches in a steady rain, those in attendance fanned out to make their case directly to the elected representatives. Speakers warned that Second Amendment rights are at risk and described pending legislation that could further broaden gun rights.
Rep. Rick Saccone, R-Elizabeth Township, touted his proposal to eliminate the need for a license to carry a concealed weapon.
“There's no reason we need the government's permission to put a coat over our weapons,“,Saccone told the crowd.
There should be a right to carry a gun “even when we park on our employer's property,” said Kim Stolfer, president of Firearm Owners Against Crime.
He said Pennsylvania should eliminate the state police-run Pennsylvania Instant Check System, a background check for those who want to buy firearms or obtain concealed carry permits. Rep. Tim Krieger, R-Delmont, spoke about his proposal to prevent the state police from maintaining a list of firearm purchasers.
“What our opponents can never seem to understand is that gun control can never make us safe”, Krieger said.
Source: By The Associated Press
PA GOP AD FACT CHECK:
A CeaseFirePA Ad Tells Tragic Story, Facts Regarding Connection To Florida Reciprocity Agreemen Don’t Hold Water
Republican Party of Pennsylvania Spokesman Mike Barley released the following statement regarding the recent CeaseFirePA advertisement:
The event depicted in the recent CeaseFire PA ad is tragic and our heartfelt wishes, thoughts and prayers go out to the Hacke family.
That being said, the facts of the ad regarding the Florida reciprocity agreement and this case are not accurate. This tragic event took place in 1997, nearly five years before a reciprocity agreement was struck between our Commonwealth and the state of Florida.
The CeaseFirePA ad implies that this story would not have happened if the Florida reciprocity agreement were not in effect, when in actuality there was no agreement with Florida at the time. Furthermore, the man charged with this awful crime, Vaughn Mathis, was scheduled to go on trial for raping and pistol-whipping a 53-year-old woman and had a record of other charges including unlicensed carry. That conviction would have prevented him from carrying a firearm legally.
Here are the facts surrounding the Hacke case:
On January 11, 1997, 22-year-old Vaughn Mathis discharged a firearm in Homestead, an Allegheny County neighborhood. A bullet struck 14-month-old Ryan Hacke as he sat in his parents car as it left a gas station. Hacke died days later.
Mathis testified that he fired his gun into the air to scare another man away. The jury apparently believed that Mathis accidentally discharged the gun toward the gas station while raising it to fire warning shots.
In September of 1997, Mathis was convicted by a jury of involuntary manslaughter, three counts of reckless endangerment and carrying a firearm without a license. The judge said, “By the verdict of the jury, you are not a murderer, but the jury found you to be a reckless killer”.
Mathis was sentenced the following month. Mathis’ sentence on all counts carried a maximum 18 years if run consecutively; he is currently incarcerated at Somerset, though it is unclear as to whether his present incarceration is solely due to the shooting incident or if it’s also related to other offenses.
At the time of Mathis’ sentencing, he was scheduled to go on trial for pistol-whipping and raping a 53-year-old woman. He also went to trial for drug possession while in custody.
Mathis’ conviction for unlicensed carry in September of 1997 indicates that he had no carry license.
At the time of the shooting incident, Mathis was free on $5,000 bail. He had also been convicted of unlicensed carry in 1994.
The reciprocity agreement with PA and Florida was brokered on September 21, 2001, close to five years after the incident.
Source: Mike Barley
Firearms Preemption Bill Stalled in House
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives recessed until next week without acting on House Bill 2011, (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2013&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=2011&pn=2987) critical firearms preemption legislation.
Sponsored by state Representative Mark Keller (R-86), HB 2011 would strengthen Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption statute to further ensure that firearm and ammunition laws are consistent throughout the state. To date, nearly fifty municipalities have enacted and enforce illegal gun control ordinances including Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Lancaster, Reading and the state capital of Harrisburg. Enough is enough.
Anti-gun state lawmakers in Harrisburg are still attempting to kill this crucial legislation and have filed 124 amendments in an attempt to derail HB 2011, which passed in the House Judiciary Committee by a 20 to 5 vote (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/RCC/Public/listVoteSummaryH.cfm?sYear=2013&sInd=0&cteeCde=24&theDate=03/18/2014&rNbr=1576 ) on March 18. HB 2011, without any anti-gun amendments, is critical to the law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen of Pennsylvania and your voice will make the difference!
Over the past four years, the Pennsylvania Legislature has failed to act on this important pro-gun reform. Please help prevent this from happening again this year. Contact your state Representative TODAY and urge him or her to support HB 2011 without ANY anti-gun amendments. For contact information or help identifying your state lawmakers, click here. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator/index.cfm#address
Source: NRA / ILA
California Anti-Gun State Senator Is A Gun Trafficker
Criminal charges, including conspiracy to traffic firearms, have been brought against CA anti-gun State Senator Leland Yee.
If these allegations are true, Sen. Yee is easily the biggest hypocrite on gun control to walk the halls of the capitol in Sacramento, if not the entire United States.
Hypocrisy and lies are nothing new to the anti-gun crowd. We've seen similar cases against members of Mayor's Against Illegal Guns but nothing as major as these allegations.
Yee is charged with conspiracy to traffic in firearms without a license and to illegally import firearms, as well as six counts of scheming to defraud citizens of honest services. Each corruption count is punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000, while the gun-trafficking count is punishable by up to five years and $250,000.
According to the Associated Press Yee was to receive campaign donations in exchange for various favors, including working through a Muslim rebel group. The people with whom the deals were made turned out to be undercover FBI agents.
Yee discussed helping the agent get weapons worth $500,000 to $2.5 million, including shoulder fired automatic weapons and missiles, through a Muslim separatist group in the Philippines to bring them to the United States, according to the affidavit by FBI Special Agent Emmanuel V. Pascua.
This is the same man that voted "yea" for the proposed California assault weapons ban (SB 374) in 2013. He also voted "yea" for the ban on lead hunting ammunition and "yea" for background checks for ammunition purchases.
The 137-page complaint is simply staggering. Here's a prominent anti-gun Democrat state senator allegedly involved in a gun trafficking scheme, among other alleged crimes that include wire fraud and dealing firearms without a license. And this guy has spent a considerable amount of energy in the California legislature trying to deny law-abiding Californians of their gun rights.
The gun trafficking scheme allegedly involved activities in the Philippines, with the cash to be broken up into "legitimate campaign donations," according to the court documents.
It is hard to fathom this kind of activity on a scale as massive as these court documents allege. If Sen. Yee and his fellow defendants are convicted, they're going to wind up in one of the biggest gun-free zones in the country, a federal prison.
Source: The Second Amendment Foundation (www.SAF.org)
Mentored Youth Fishing Days Rescheduled to May 10
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) announced today that it has rescheduled its two Mentored Youth Fishing Days into one statewide date on May 10 because most of the waters where the events will be held remain covered in ice and aren’t expected to completely thaw in time.
The days were originally scheduled for March 22 and April 5.
“This program is designed to encourage adults to take kids fishing, to show them that fishing is fun, and to promote active, outdoor recreation,” said PFBC Executive Director John Arway. “We will be better prepared to deliver this experience at this later date when the weather is warmer and the waters are free from ice.”
An evaluation of the waters shows that the majority of them are still covered in thick ice “ some as much as 19 inches “ and may still have ice on them on March 22 and April 5.
“We have received nothing but positive publicity and positive public comments about the Mentored Youth Fishing Day program,” Arway added. “Adults and kids are excited and we want to keep it that way. To ensure our customers have an outstanding chance to catch fish on this day, the Bureau of Hatcheries will stock a fresh load of trout at each water prior to the event.”
The PFBC has confirmed that all of the originally scheduled waters will be available on May 10.
The program regulations will remain the same on the new May 10 statewide date. The waters will be open only for mentored youth day participants from 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., and anglers may keep two trout.
After 7:30 p.m. the waters will be open to all anglers.
To ensure that plenty of the stocked trout are available to anglers on the mentored youth day, the waters will be closed to all fishing from noon May 9 until 8 a.m. on May 10.
To participate, adult anglers (16 years or older) must have a valid fishing license and trout/salmon permit and be accompanied by a youth. Youth anglers must obtain a free PFBC-issued permit or a voluntary youth fishing license. Both are available at www.GoneFishingPA.com or at any of the more than 900 licensing agents across the state.
Also, the PFBC is reminding anglers that the process to participate this year has changed. Last year, participants registered online.
Because the program is expanding statewide this year, and with an eye to the future, the PFBC is now using the Pennsylvania Automated License Service (PALS) to issue youth permits and voluntary licenses.
“Issuing permits and licenses through PALS allows us to collect and manage information regarding youth anglers,” said Carl Richardson, PFBC education section manager. “Specifically, this process provides us with more customer data for better assessment of lifelong fishing license buying habits and to develop programs designed to retain anglers.”
As a result, anglers must create a separate customer account for each child in the PALS system. In order to obtain the permit or voluntary license, the youth’s address, social security number, date of birth, height and eye color must be provided at the time of the transaction. Phone number and e-mail address are optional. These may be added to the customer’s profile at a later time by following the instructions in The Outdoor Shop at www.GoneFishingPA.com. Click here for detailed instructions.
For every voluntary youth license sold, the PFBC will receive approximately $5 in federal revenue from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Sport Fish Restoration Act program, which provides funds to states based on a formula that includes the number of licenses a state sells. All revenues earned from a voluntary youth fishing license will be dedicated to youth fishing programs.
Also, vouchers for the voluntary license will be available at the 900 license-issuing agents and online. A voucher acts as a gift card and does not require any personal information at the time of sale. Clubs, organizations, businesses, and individuals who are interested in promoting youth angling can purchase quantities of voluntary youth license vouchers to distribute to children. Personal information is required at the time the voucher is redeemed and a customer identification number is issued.
More information about the program is available at www.GoneFishingPa.com.
Source: The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC)
NJ AG OPPOSES SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF NJ CARRY LAW
The New Jersey Attorney General filed a brief in the Drake right to carry case, urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to take the case. Drake is the pending federal challenge to New Jersey’s unconstitutional carry law, brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), who have asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.
At the heart of the lawsuit is the idea that citizens should not have to prove “need” to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right. New Jersey’s “justifiable need” standard requires the applicant to provide evidence of prior attacks or threats before a carry permit is issued by a judge ” a virtually impossible standard for most people to meet.”
Though less extreme in its rhetoric than in earlier phases of the case, the Attorney General in the brief essentially defends New Jersey’s carry law and tells the Supreme Court there is no reason for it to hear the case:
“The Second Amendment does not prohibit New Jersey from requiring applicants to demonstrate a justifiable need before granting a permit to publicly carry a handgun. The justifiable need standard in New Jersey’s Handgun Permit Law qualifies as a presumptively lawful, longstanding regulation that does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee... Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the Third Circuit’s decision here presents a question that warrants this Court’s discretionary review.”
While it is not unusual for an attorney general to defend state law, it is unfortunate to see such a blatant violation of fundamental rights be given legitimacy by bureaucrats.
“The right to defend yourself with a firearm outside the home, otherwise known as right to carry, has long been disparaged and denied in the Garden State,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “We intend to change that with this lawsuit.”
“This case is extremely important because it may have a national impact on gun rights in all 50 states,” said SAF Executive Vice President and founder Alan Gottlieb. “This suit is part of our effort to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”
The Supreme Court will likely decide whether it will take the Drake case between April and June. We will spare no effort or expense to restore right to carry in the Garden State and protect that right all across America.
Source: The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org)
The Public Image Toward Gun Rights Has Never Been Better
Gun lovers are making all of the positive headlines this week. Thousands of CT residents refusing to register their firearms, The Boston Globe published an article showing the ineffectiveness of gun buyback programs, the Missouri Senate advanced a Bill that would nullify all federal anti-gun laws, and the NH State Legislature overwhelmingly voted against universal background checks.
We are only used to seeing negative headlines in the mainstream media concerning gun rights. All of this recent positive exposure shows our hard work is paying off, the balance of power is reversing, and the overall outlook on our Second Amendment Rights has never been more positive.
We must continue our unrelenting pressure on the anti-gunners to get the truth about gun rights to every person in our Country. The Second Amendment Foundation will not rest until every citizen's Second Amendment Rights are protected from coast to coast.
Connecticut passed outrageous anti-gun legislation in 2013 and it appears residents of the state are completely disregarding the new laws. 50,000 residents have registered their now classified "assault weapons". The only catch is, the state estimates there could be as many as 350,000 "assault weapons" that citizens are choosing not to register.
The penalty for not registering these firearms is a class D felony. Unless they want to track down 300,000 law-abiding gun owners they should just scrap this draconian anti-gun law. These Second Amendment patriots are making a stand together and the country is hearing you loud and clear. Registering a firearm is just about the last thing a law-abiding gun owner wants to do.
The Boston Globe recently published an article on the ineffectiveness of gun buyback programs. Below is what we already knew about gun buyback programs but now is out there for the public to see:
"...there is no compelling evidence that gun buyback programs are an effective crime-fighting tool or that they reduce the rates of crime,'' said Jon Vernick, co-director of Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research
"... A 2003 study of buyback programs nationwide by Anthony Braga, a crime specialist who is now a professor at Rutgers University, found that the programs had no impact on gun crime or gun-related injuries, and that the programs do not target guns highly likely to be used in violence..."
If anything, a gun buyback program would help criminals. You bring your firearm to this event, turn it in with no questions asked, and you receive a gift card or new shoes. That gun could have been stolen, used in a murder or in an armed robbery, and the police just destroyed the evidence. It certainly does not make a lot of sense.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives just shot down a Bill that would have required a background check for every private gun sale. All we have heard from the mainstream media and the Obama Administration is that nearly every American supports Background checks that contain universal registration of gun owners. Then we see a blue state such as New Hampshire pass a bipartisan vote to stop such a law. Once again, it appears their numbers may be just a little misjudged by the Obama camp.
Another state making waves in the gun rights world is Missouri. The Missouri State Senate just advanced a Bill that would make it a crime for any federal, state or local law enforcement office to attempt to enforce federal gun control laws within the state. The law even allows for arresting and fining officers who try to do so. The bill would also lower the carry age from 21 to 19 as well allow open carry anywhere in the state, even in cities which have local bans on the practice.
The Bill needs to pass one more vote in the state Senate, then it would go to a vote in the state House, and if passed would have to be signed into law by the state governor.
It is so reassuring to see our cities and states making such a difference in the fight to protect the Second Amendment. It helps us realize that each and every one of us can make a difference in this fight.
Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.
Thank you. I know I can count on you.
Sincerely yours,
Alan M. Gottlieb
Founder
Second Amendment Foundation
P.S. Remember, the anti-gunners are raising tens of thousands of dollars to steal our rights from us -- we need your support now to help stop them dead in their tracks!
To send a check, please mail to:
Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
Dept Code 144
12500 NE 10th Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Source: The Second Amendment Foundation (www.SAF.org)
SAF EXPRESSES GRATITUDE FOR STRONG AMICUS BRIEFS IN SCOTUS CERT PETITION
The Second Amendment Foundation today extended its heartfelt gratitude to five groups, including two fellow gun rights organizations, for their strong amicus curiae briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting SAF’s petition for review of the New Jersey carry challenge, Drake v. Jerejian.
“In addition to briefs filed by 19 state attorneys general and 34 members of Congress, SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb noted, “our case has now gotten support from our friends at the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners Foundation, the Cato Institute and Madison Society Foundation, plus the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and the Judicial Education Project.
“Weâ’re encouraged by the additional boost last week of an opinion on carry outside the home by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case funded by the NRA, in which SAF submitted an amicus brief, that clearly defines the issues raised by our New Jersey lawsuit,” he added. “This was a great ruling and well written legal opinion that relied heavily on the decisions in Heller as well as SAF court victories in McDonald, Ezell and Moore. This ruling should help get the Second Amendment Foundation’s cert petition in our New Jersey Drake case on the right to carry heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. I am very excited.”
Gottlieb believes the time may have finally come for the nation’s highest court to address the important issue of firearms carry outside the home.
“Naturally”, he said, “from our perspective, the issue seems to beg for a definitive ruling that settles the question for the entire nation. We have divisive lower court opinions on a fundamental civil right that require resolution, and there’s only one place this can happen.
“The briefs submitted in support of our effort include some of the most intelligent and well-thought-out arguments on the Second Amendment’s scope we’ve ever seen,“ Gottlieb concluded. “We will be forever grateful to all of those who put so much time, effort and intellect into these briefs. They really are remarkably clear and compelling documents.
Source: The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org)
U.S. District Court Strikes Down Chicago's Unconstitutional Ban on Firearms Sales
Upholds Second Amendment Rights
Judge Edmond E. Chang of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, ruled that the City of Chicago's ordinance banning virtually all sales and transfers of firearms inside city limits violates the Second Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional. In his ruling, Judge Chang noted the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" includes the right to acquire firearms.
As the court stated, "Chicago's ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms, and at the same time the evidence does not support that the complete ban sufficiently furthers the purposes that the ordinance tries to serve [protecting its citizens]."
The case was brought against the City of Chicago and Mayor Rahm Emanuel by the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers; Kenneth Pacholski; Kathryn Tyler; and Michael Hall, with the strong support of the National Rifle Association.
"Today's ruling is a vindication of the constitutional freedoms of Chicago's law-abiding citizens," said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "Chicago's continued refusal to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's clear directive in its landmark ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago is unacceptable, and the NRA will continue to challenge the City until it fully respects the right of its law-abiding residents to keep and bear arms."
Source: -NRA-
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at www.facebook.com/NationalRifleAssociation and on Twitter @NRA.
Critical Federal Hunting and Fishing Bill Passes U.S. House of Representatives
The U.S. House of Representatives voted this week to pass H.R. 3590, a bi-partisan package of pro-sportsmen legislation. The measure, which passed by a vote of 268-154, includes vital language ensuring over 700 million acres of federal public lands remain open to fishing and hunting.
H.R. 3590, sponsored by Congressman Bob Latta (R-OH), addresses the top concerns of American hunters, anglers and recreational shooters. Known as the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2013, it includes many important provisions for the future of hunting.
“This legislation is extremely important for the sportsmen’s community and the future of access to public lands,” said Nick Pinizzotto, USSA president and CEO. “We’re only half way home, however. Sportsmen must urge their Senators to take up these important bills today.”
A key feature of H.R. 3590 is the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) supported “Open Until Closed” language, which spells out that hunting, fishing and recreational shooting are legitimate and important activities on the more than 700 million acres of federal land managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The language will help stop frivolous lawsuits brought by animal rights and anti-hunting organizations when federal agencies move to open land to sportsmen. The bill is similar to the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act USSA championed to make hunting and fishing “priority public uses” on National Wildlife Refuge lands.
In addition to “Open Until Closed,” the bill includes language to:
prohibit the U.S. EPA from regulating lead ammunition and fishing tackle;
allow for the importation of 41 legally harvested trophies taken before Polar Bears were listed as an endangered species in 2008;
promote the construction of shooting ranges on public lands; and
permanently authorize the online sale of duck stamps.
Source : U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA)
President to Press his Anti-Gun Agenda "With or Without Congress"
Last year, in the wake of the shootings in Newtown, Conn., Barack Obama gave a State of the Union performance that was filled with theatrical pandering. Seeking to capitalize on that tragedy by exploiting the understandably intense emotions that followed in its wake, the President reiterated his support for increased background checks and bans on common semi-automatic firearms and their magazines, which he referred to as "weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines."
As usual, Obama's remarks were short on evidence to support the efficacy of his proposals. That's because evidence was (and still is) sorely lacking--and experts at Obama's own Justice Department acknowledged that fact, even if the President will not.
In April, the U.S. Senate soundly rejected Obama's gun control agenda, which prompted one political commentator to call the action the "biggest loss" of Obama's presidency.
This year, Obama's State of the Union gun control rhetoric was toned down substantially but was no less disturbing, with the president pledging that he will continue to promote his anti-gun agenda "with or without Congress."
As reported by Reuters.com, Obama said, "I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say 'we are not afraid,' and I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls, or schools."
What the president is saying, of course, is that he intends to continue flouting the Constitution to force his anti-gun agenda. The president's solution for preventing shootings by deranged perpetrators--a number of whom passed the very background checks he sought to expand last year--is to leverage the full weight of the Oval Office to harass and harry anybody who is associated with firearms through regulations, appointments, international treaties and accords, and by acting through his adoring proxies in the media, academia, and entertainment industry. Perhaps the president feels he's showing strong leadership by threatening to bypass Congress. We suspect that most Americans won't think so.
A new Gallup poll shows that the country's overall dissatisfaction with U.S. gun laws and policies has increased to 55 percent this year (up from 51 percent last year) but the increase came largely from Americans who say that gun laws are too strict. As reported by the National Journal, this percentage jumped to 16 percent this year, a rate that more than triples the five percent recorded by Gallup last year. Meanwhile, the article reports that the percentage of Americans favoring stricter gun laws fell seven points in 2014, from 38 to 31 percent.
As the Gallup poll concludes, "Americans have become more dissatisfied with gun laws over the past year, but this is attributable to a greater percentage who say gun laws are too strict, rather than not being strict enough. Americans' changing views could set the course for future gun law debates and legislation" (emphasis added).
Thus, the President's single-minded pursuit of gun control may well continue not only "without" Congress but against the express will of a growing segment of the American people.
Source: NRA / ILA
Chris W. Cox's Message to Gun Owners on Their Victory in the Senate
While both sides in the gun control debate regroup after our victory in the Senate earlier this week, I want to give credit where credit is due. The credit for Wednesday’s defeat of gun control goes to the countless gun owners and other Americans who drew a line in the sand—who sent emails and letters and made phone calls to their U.S. senators, urging them to protect private firearm transfers, semi-automatic firearms, and the magazines that millions of Americans own for self-defense.
There is no question that you shocked the enemies of liberty two days ago. Going into Wednesday’s votes, they thought victory was within reach. Many in the media had pushed the idea that resistance to the gun control agenda was futile, and some of our more aggressive adversaries may have started to believe their own propaganda. I’m sure some had convinced themselves that the intensity of their anger toward gun owners was all that was necessary to assure victory.
But you and your fellow gun owners proved them wrong. As you know, the best Americans do what they have to do, not for personal praise, but because it’s the right thing to do. They do what has to be done not only for themselves, but for their fellow Americans today and for generations of Americans to come. Nevertheless, on behalf of all of us at NRA headquarters, I want to thank you for answering the call.
As you know, however, we can take only measured comfort from this week’s success. In his bitter response to the Senate’s votes, President Obama said that this fight is far from over, and that’s the one thing that he is right about.
Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), sponsor of the gun control bill debated this week, has promised to bring his bill up at a more opportune moment. Obama’s “Organizing for America,” billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Gun Guns,” and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ “Americans for Responsible Solutions” will focus their efforts on defeating pro-Second Amendment senators in 2014.
I say to those groups and their leaders, that pro-Second Amendment senators stood with us and we will stand with them, as we have with other elected representatives who have supported the Second Amendment before them.
Over the last generation, gun owners have had tremendous success advancing our cause. The refusal of the Obama administration and anti-gun radicals in Congress to attack us during Obama’s first term is a testament to our strength. They became emboldened by Obama’s reelection and over the last four months, we have weathered an anti-gun public relations campaign as severe as any we have experienced. And we have won the first legislative battle at the national level.
Our adversaries are well-funded, though, and as determined as any we have seen before. The fight ahead will be as difficult as this organization and the gun owning community has ever faced. Prepare for what’s ahead. Every gun owner will be needed on the team. Elected officials who support the Second Amendment will be subjected to a well-financed, cleverly conceived campaign designed to convince them that they are on the wrong side of history. Our job and yours will be to expose that claim for the fraud that it is. Please find strength in the knowledge that the victories best savored are those that are hardest fought, and encourage our friends in Congress to do the same.
Thank you for all you did to win this fight, and for your readiness to win the fights that will come.
Source: NRA
Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Has to Change
According to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the recent terror bombings in Boston require a new interpretation of the Constitution to give the government greater power to protect citizens.
"The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry," Bloomberg said during a recent press conference. "But we live in a complex world where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."
According to a Breitbart.com article, the anti-gun Bloomberg claims that recent attacks on the Second Amendment have left him confident that such re-interpretation is possible.
"The Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws," Bloomberg said. He employs the tactic of incrementally "lowering the bar" by suggesting that Americans should be willing to give up a degree of freedom in exchange for a degree of security.
"It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks," he said. "We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can't do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection."
Bloomberg would do well to remember what Benjamin Franklin had to say on the subject back in 1775: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Source: NRA
ACSL Archives 2014
PLEASE NOTE: We have tried to maintain links where possible,but due to the archival nature of these articles,some links may have changed or be otherwise unavailable.
