We need more of these types of Sheriff’s in NY….
Oregon – -(Ammoland.com)- The latest numbers are in from the State Police, and they once again prove what a massive fraud the background check system is and how much worse things will get when SB 941’s firearms transfer provisions kick in in early August.
While 129 transactions were denied in June (including 95 “felons”, 13 people actively “wanted”and 5 adjudicated mentally ill) the number of arrests was a bit smaller.
Of those 13 people actually “wanted” at the time of their denial exactly 1 was arrested. Of the 5 mentally ill people and 95 felons, the number of arrests was a whopping … zero.
So once again, we see the sham that the anti-gunners numbers are. Virtually no one is prevented from getting a firearm because of background checks. They are just diverted from that gun at that time and place. But soon this ridiculous system is going to be used against you for transfers that now don’t require the failed intervention of the Oregon State Police. Keep in mind, the OSP still has a policy of taking a trooper off patrol for every firearm’s transfer denial. What a tragic waste of scarce resources.
Maybe because this system is proving itself each day to be a joke (the shooter in the Charleston murders passed a background check) more and more sheriffs are making it clear they will not enforce the new registration, universal background check bill.
Last Saturday at a firearms event sponsored by the Josephine County Republicans with Rich Wyatt, the new sheriff of the county stated unequivocally that neither he nor his deputies would enforce SB 941. Sheriff Dave Daniel called SB 941 a “waste of time” and a “travesty.”
We will keep working to expose the fraud that SB 941 is. The fight is not over.
About Oregon Firearms Federation:
The Oregon Firearms Federation has proven itself to be Oregon’s only no compromise lobbying group, OFF takes the same tough stands and serves as a vehicle for educating gun owners, promoting their rights and when necessary, fighting the freedom haters in court. Visit: www.oregonfirearms.org
SOURCE :: AMMOLAND
In her standard stump speech, Hillary Rodham Clinton talks about fighting income inequality, celebrating court rulings on gay marriage and health care, and, since the Emanuel AME Church massacre, toughening the nation’s gun laws.
That last component marks an important evolution in presidential politics. For at least the past several decades, Democrats seeking national office have often been timid on the issue of guns for fear of alienating firearms owners. In 2008, after Barack Obama took heat for his gaffe about people who “cling to guns or religion,” he rarely mentioned guns again — neither that year nor in his 2012 reelection campaign.
But in a sign that the political environment on guns has shifted in the wake of recent mass shootings — and of Clinton’s determination to stake out liberal ground in her primary race against insurgent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Clinton is not only initiating a debate about gun control but also vowing to fight the National Rifle Association.
“I’m going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better,” Clinton said Tuesday in Iowa City.
“It is illegal to bring a gun across state lines, and yet it happens all the time, and I don’t understand why the federal government is not doing far more to prevent that.”
From the NRA Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms: (found here)
“A provision of the federal law known as the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA, protects those who are transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which would otherwise prohibit passage.
Under FOPA, notwithstanding any state or local law, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it, if the firearm is unloaded and locked out of reach. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Ammunition that is either locked out of reach in the trunk or in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console is also covered.
Travelers should be aware that some state and local governments treat this federal provision as an “affirmative defense” that may only be raised after an arrest. All travelers in areas with restrictive laws would be well advised to have copies of any applicable firearm licenses or permits, as well as copies or printouts from the relevant jurisdictions’ official publications or websites documenting pertinent provisions of law (including FOPA itself) or reciprocity information. In the event of an unexpected or extended delay, travelers should make every effort not to handle any luggage containing firearms unnecessarily and to secure it in a location where they do not have ready access to it.”
It seems New York state’s Mr Pataki needs to sit down with his handlers and bone up on the basic laws surrounding lawful gun ownership before he ‘shoots from the hip’ to the rest of middle America in his quest to be the next Republican president.
SOURCE :: AMMOLAND
He said this in response to Tapper’s question about Sanders’s vote for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). That act protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits tied to the misuse of their products. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush in October 2005.
Tapper said to Sanders, “Your Democrat rivals are starting to hit you with the fact that you have in the past sided with the NRA on some gun issues.” He then referenced the dismissal of the lawsuit against ammo retailer Lucky Gunner—a retailer from whom Aurora shooting suspect James Holmes allegedly bought ammo and other supplies.
Tapper explained that the suit against Lucky Gunner quickly fizzled out and was dismissed because of PLCAA.
Then Tapper asked Sanders to explain why he voted for PLCAA?
Sanders responded by first explaining that the NRA has opposed him in “virtually every campaign” he’s been in. And he tossed out his gun control bona fides—”I voted to ban semi-automatic assault weapons, I voted to make sure that there’s an instant background check, I voted to make sure that guns do not get into the hands of people who should not have them by doing away with the loophole exists in the gun show legislation.”
Then he explained why he opposes frivolous lawsuits against gun makers:
Now… if somebody has a gun, and it falls into the hands of a murderer, and that murderer kills somebody with the gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer. That is not what a lawsuit should be about.
Sanders went on to say “99.9 percent” of gun owners “obey the law,” and no progress is going to made on gun control until “extreme positions” are abandoned.
Sanders did not address his own conundrum—if “99.9 percent” of gun owners are law-abiding, why do we need more gun control? Why not instead practice criminal control of the .1 percent of gun owners whom Sanders sees as problematic?
SOURCE :: Breitbart
New York, NY – -(Ammoland.com)- Hello Mr Trump. Many of our readers are very excited that you have thrown your hat in the ring to run for president in 2106.
They like the idea that you have nothing to do with politics and that you have real experience running large, successful business, successful being the key word. I hope you and your family are up for the challenges of running for president.
AmmoLand: Speaking of family I know you and your sons recently attended the 2015 NRA Annual Meeting, where you were asked to speak. How long have you been active with the NRA and what do you think about the influence the NRA has in politics?
“I am a Life Member of the NRA and am proud of their service in protecting our right to keep and bear arms. The NRA’s efforts to stop dangerous, gun-banning legislation and regulation is invaluable. The media focus on those efforts overshadows the great work the NRA does on behalf of safety and conservation.
I have a permit to carry and, living in New York, I know firsthand the challenges law-abiding citizens have in exercising their Second Amendment rights. My most trusted sources are my sons, Don, Jr. and Eric. They are fantastic sportsmen and are deeply involved in hunting, competitive shooting, and habitat conservation.”
AmmoLand: The deceptive term “Assault Weapons” has proven to be a buzz word among the anti-gun media. Back in 2000 in your book “The America We Deserve” you wrote “The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse to even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.” Since that time the AR15 rifle, what the media calls an “assault weapons“, has become America’s most popular firearm with millions and millions of them owned by good people.
Do you still stand by this quote or has your thinking evolved over the 15 years since you wrote that line?
“I certainly stand by my opposition to Gun Control when it comes to taking guns from law-abiding citizens. You mention that the media describes the AR-15 as an “assault rifle,” which is one example of the many distortions they use to sell their agenda. However, the AR-15 does not fall under this category. Gun-banners are unfortunately preoccupied with the AR-15, magazine capacity, grips, and other aesthetics, precisely because of its popularity.”
“To the Left every gun is an assault weapon.”
“Gun control does not reduce crime. It has consistently failed to stop violence. Americans are entitled to protect their families, their property and themselves. In fact, in right-to-carry states the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the United States and the murder rate is 28% lower. This should not be up for debate.”
AmmoLand: You have been a long time resident of New York City and we can only assume that you know former Mayor Michael Bloomberg pretty well. We have followed his efforts to undermine the Second Amendment through his various anti-gun front groups. What does he have against the RKBA and why don’t we see wealthy conservatives making a similar ‘all in’ push to support gun rights?
“Mayor Bloomberg and I are friends. However, on this we agree to disagree. I believe there are two reasons you do not see a similar effort from Mayor Bloomberg’s polar opposite. ”
“First, many wealthy live behind gates, armed security, and away from crime. They may have little understanding of how fellow citizens are challenged in defending themselves and their property. The second reason is that we have the NRA and other groups already in the arena.”
“The Trump family knows these organizations are the best investment if we are to defend the right to keep and bear arms.”
AmmoLand: Karl Rove recently voiced support for a repeal of the Second Amendment as a way to stop gun violence. What do you think of this suggestion or, as our readers believe, is it a God given right that can not be repealed by politicians?
“Karl Rove is a proven loser. He wasted $400 million in 2012 and did not win a single race.
“The Second Amendment is a bedrock natural right of the individual to defend self, family, and property. It is a ridiculous notion to ever repeal it.”
“For Rove to even think it shows a lack of respect for all of the freedoms in our Constitution and a complete ignorance of our shared American inheritance.”
AmmoLand: As we have reported on AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, two of your sons, Eric and Donald Trump Jr., have been the target of harassment by anti-hunting groups after they posted pictures of their successes while hunting in Africa. What advice do you have for other hunters that maybe be being bullied online or elsewhere by this shrill minority?
“My advice is to remain vigilant. Harassment of this nature will always be with us, but we know that Americans have inherited a strong outdoor and shooting heritage that we are happy to defend.”
“The 2nd Amendment is right, not a privilege. The small minority of anti-everything activists may be vocal, but we have facts, and the Constitution, on our side.”
“I would also add that hunters contribute more to the preservation of game animals and their habitat than any of these protesters. Hunters are the original conservationists. To see this historically you have to look no further then Teddy Roosevelt and his creation of the National Parks System.”
AmmoLand: Universal Background Checks to acquire guns is something President Obama has long been pushing for, yet background checks would not or did not stop any of the recent shooters from getting guns. What is your position on Background Checks? And do you see a need for even more government approval for someone to own a gun?
“I do not support expanding background checks. The current background checks do not work.”
“They make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to acquire firearms while consistently failing to stop criminals from getting guns. We should re-examine our policy to make sure that these prohibitions do not impede law abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights.”
AmmoLand: A lot of Democrats in politics today are crying for firearms magazine restrictions. But as we saw just with the Charleston, S.C. church killer, he used standard capacity magazines and quickly changed them out five or more times. So how does it make any sense to have gun magazine size limits?
“Gun magazine limits do not make common sense. I have long opposed such limits. For instance, I fought the SAFE Act in New York, which I call the “Unsafe Act.” I also spoke at a rally in Albany championing gun rights and protesting the Unsafe Act. The law limited capacity to seven rounds, as if criminals were going to take rounds out of their magazines before committing a crime. It was later changed to a limit of ten rounds, but the entire episode was a complete disaster.”
“Never mindful of the results, this effort was just one more attempt to erode the Second Amendment.”
AmmoLand: Lots of AmmoLand’s active duty readers have complained that many, if not all, of our military bases are “Gun Free Zones” and that these highly trained war fighters are left defenseless and disarmed against murderers, like the Fort Hood Shooter, when they are stationed on U.S. bases. Would you have a problem allowing our military bases to set their own polices with regard to personal weapons and do away with the “Gun Free Zones” death trap?
“[gun free zones] No, not optional. As Commander-in-Chief, I would mandate that soldiers remain armed and on alert at our military bases.
President Clinton never should have passed a ban on soldiers being able to protect themselves on bases. America’s Armed Forces will be armed.
They will be able to defend themselves against terrorists. Our brave soldiers should not be at risk because of policy created by civilian leadership. Political correctness has no place in this debate.”
AmmoLand: Thank you for taking the time to answer some of our questions today. We wish you the best of luck in your presidential run. As we leave you would you like to tell our readers what the Second Amendment means to you and your family?
“The Trump family will stay vigilant in our support of right to keep and bear arms. And given today’s threats across the United States it is as important now as ever. National Security begins in our homes. All citizens must have the ability to protect themselves, their families, and their property. The Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege. Our safety and defense is embodied in the Second Amendment and I will always protect this most important right.
“Our country is ready for a bold new direction. We can bring common sense to Washington. This is our time to Make America Great Again!”
SOURCE :: AMMOLAND
ALBANY – The state Legislature left the Capitol early Friday without making any changes to the controversial gun-control law installed in 2013.
After some Senate Republicans ran for office last year vowing to seek a repeal of the gun-control law, they were unable to reach a deal to reform the SAFE Act, drawing the ire of gun-rights groups.
“Am I disappointed? Absolutely, and I think the gun owners of New York state are going to be disappointed also,” said Thomas King, the president of the state Rifle & Pistol Association.
Senate Republicans passed a bill to make a variety of changes to the measure, which was championed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo. But Assembly Democrats and Cuomo showed no appetite to follow suit.
The lack of action on the SAFE Act will create further friction within the Republican Party: upstate GOP members loathe the law, but Long Island Republicans voted for it in 2013 — including new Senate Republican Leader John Flanagan, R-Suffolk County.
“Flanagan had a chance to unite the Republican Party, but he didn’t,” Assemblyman Bill Nojay, R-Pittsford, Monroe County, a gun-rights advocate, said.
Nojay said Flanagan should have pressed harder in negotiations for SAFE Act changes, saying Flanagan had leverage when it came to New York City Democrats who wanted rent-control laws.
“This is a huge disappointment for the Second Amendment community, and it’s not a good omen for the Republicans in the state Senate,” Nojay said. “They always ask for our support for the past two and a half years. They have failed to deliver on anything.”
Flanagan and other senators, however, said they tried to get an agreement with Democrats, but were unsuccessful. Some Assembly Democrats want more gun-control laws.
“For the first time since it became law, we’ve made real headway. However, because the bills failed to pass in the Assembly, there is still clearly work to be done to fully restore our Second Amendment rights,” Sen. Sue Serino, R-Hyde Park, Dutchess County, said in a statement.
Serino, along with Sens. Rich Funke of the Rochester area and George Amedore of the Albany area, were among new state GOP senators who pledged to try to get a repeal of the law as they successfully beat incumbent Democratic senators last November.
Among the changes approved by the Senate would have dropped a requirement that every purchaser of ammunition undergo a background check. The ammunition database that was part of the SAFE Act has yet to function, and the state allocated $27.7 million in 2013 to implement the law, including the creation of the database.
“I will be the first to acknowledge that there is unfinished business – further economic development, more mandate relief, SAFE Act repeal and reform – are all issues that I will continue push,” Sen. James Seward, R-Milford, Otsego County, who sponsored the bill, said in a statement.
A Siena College poll last month found that 62 percent of voters supported the SAFE Act.
Leah Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, said the law has worked to limit gun violence, require greater registration of weapons and kept guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
“None of the parties are inclined to anything about it. And the reason they are not is because it is actually working,” Barrett said. “People support it because it’s commonsense: It’s background checks on all guns sales; it’s an assault weapons ban; it’s a five-year renewable permit; tougher penalties for bringing guns on school grounds. These are all commonsense measure. We have an epidemic of gun violence in this country.”
Flanagan narrowly beat out Syracuse Sen. John DeFrancisco for the Senate leadership post last month after the resignation of Dean Skelos as leader amid corruption charges. Six upstate senators went with Flanagan over their fellow upstate member, which irked upstate leaders and led Flanagan to pledge to revisit the SAFE Act.
The Republicans who voted for Flanagan behind closed doors were: Cathy Young of the Southern Tier; Michael Nozzolio of the Finger Lakes; Hugh Farley of the Albany area; Seward of the Mohawk Valley; and William Larkin and John Bonacic of the Catskills.
Stephen Aldstadt, president of the Shooters Committee on Public Education, said talk of primaries against Senate Republicans who backed Flanagan will likely grow after the SAFE Act was left untouched.
“There are a lot of people angry” over the law, Aldstadt said. “They are still as angry as they ever were.”
SOURCE :: Poughkeepsie Journal
A very interesting article from over on Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership…
Have you had the experience of going to your doctor for a particular problem, let’s say headaches, and been surprised by the doctor asking you about a completely unrelated subject—whether you have a gun in your home?
It’s no accident that doctors’ or health plans’ questions about guns in your home have become routine. In the 1980s and 1990s medical professional organizations declared a culture war on gun ownership in America. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) developed an official policy (2012 version here) urging pediatricians to probe their young patients’ parents about guns in their homes.
Claiming only to be concerned about “gun safety”, the latest code term for gun control, the AAP pushed its member doctors to advise families to get rid of their guns. One of the authors of the original AAP anti-gun policy, Dr. Katherine Christoffel, was quoted in an AMA journal as saying “Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.”
The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American College of Physicians (ACP) have also mounted aggressive and highly publicized campaigns against gun ownership and advised their member physicians to pressure their patients to get rid of their guns. Other physician specialty groups have done the same.
Many people are rightly outraged by this unprofessional behavior of some physicians. Several states, most notably Florida, have passed laws to stop doctors and other health care professionals from misusing their patients’ trust to push a political agenda of gun control. Such abuse of authority and trust by a physician is called an ethical boundary violation.
You may encounter the question in your health plan’s standard health appraisal questionnaire. Even though it may not be of your doctor’s making, it’s still part of your permanent medical record. Or your doctor may have a personal prejudice against gun ownership, shaped by her training in medical school or residency. Either way, it is important for people to know some very important facts:
• Doctors receive absolutely no training about firearm safety, mechanics, or tactics in medical school or residency. They are completely unqualified by their training to advise anyone about guns.
• Gun ownership is a civil right. A doctor’s abuse of his position of trust to pressure you to give up that civil right is professionally and morally wrong. In some states it is illegal. You DO NOT have to tolerate it.
• You as a consumer have great power in the doctor-patient relationship. Do not be afraid to use it.
Let’s be clear. We’re not talking about a doctor who casually talks with you about guns out of a common interest you both may have. If you and your doc get to comparing notes about your favorite hunting rifles or latest trip to the gun range, that is a world apart from a calculated effort to prejudice you against gun ownership.
So what can you do when your doctor or your health plan starts asking you about guns in your home? Your doctor may very likely just be going along with the guidelines of his or her gun-hating medical organization, such as the AAP or ACP. One survey showed that although many doctors agree that guns are a public health problem, only a minority feel it’s right to ask their patients about guns in their homes. Many doctors sense that it’s wrong and don’t allow themselves to be recruited as gun control activists by their medical organizations.
A range of options is available to you, some sending a more powerful message than others. These are updated from DRGO’s original recommendations, since the medical profession has changed so much in the last two decades.
1) Politely refuse to answer the doctor’s question or the health plan’s questionnaire item about guns. You can either explain your discomfort with the question or decline to give a reason.
2) If the gun question(s) appears on your health plan’s routine health assessment questionnaire, file a formal written complaint with the health plan. Every health plan has a member complaint process, often prescribed by law. Your complaint will be registered and the health plan will respond.
3) If the health plan responds with the excuse that their questions about your guns are standard medical practice that they must follow, you can take the complaint to the next step—file a written complaint with your state agency that regulates health plans. For example, in California you would follow the complaint procedure on theDepartment of Managed Health Care web site. It’s your right as a patient under California law.
4) If your doctor persists in asking intrusive questions about guns in your home, you can also file a complaint specifically against him or her with your health plan. Such complaints are taken seriously, and the doctor will be called to account for it. Having one or more complaints about ethical boundary violations on her record will make her think twice about doing it again.
5) Internet consumer rating sites have created another way doctors can be publicly rated on the basis of service, attitude, and behavior. Some commonly used rating sites are Yelp.com, Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, andRateMDs.
6) Increasingly, doctors’ pay from Medicare and insurance companies is tied to how they score on patient satisfaction surveys. These are often sent randomly to patients, but you can request one to fill out. You can have a powerful impact on a doctor’s conduct by reporting the doctor’s unethical questioning about your guns.
7) If the doctor’s conduct is especially offensive, as was the case with this Florida pediatrician, you have the right to submit a complaint to the doctor’s licensing board. This is an agency in your state government that holds the ultimate power of licensure over your doctor. A quick internet search for “medical board” in your state should take you to the official form for filing a complaint. This is a step that should not be taken lightly.
Remember when writing your complaint to be polite. Explain why you find the doctor’s or health plan’s behavior unacceptable. Include the powerful points we’ve discussed:
• Your doctor is professionally unqualified to give expert advice on firearms
• Your right to own firearms is a civil right that is none of your doctor’s business
• A doctor misusing his or her authority and trust to push a political agenda of gun control is an ethical boundary violation. Such unprofessional conduct is not acceptable.
Your right to own a firearm is enshrined in the Constitution. Don’t let any doctor or health plan intimidate you into giving up your civil rights.
SOURCE :: DRGO
Sen. Chuck Schumer vowed Sunday to make a major push to get new gun control legislation through Congress, connecting the Charleston massacre to other mass killings that have rocked the country.
“Everyone in the world scratches their heads and says what is wrong with America here,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, listing the Newtown, Conn.; Aurora, Colo., and Virginia Tech mass killings.
Schumer proposed three components of “common-sense” legislation: increasing the strength of gun background checks, particularly to weed out mentally ill individuals; requiring background checks at gun shows, and cracking down on the flow of guns from the South to cities in the Northeast.
SOURCE :: NY Daily News
Whether to capitalize on a tragedy for political purposes, or because their urge to “do something” isn’t tempered by a sense of reality, Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) reacted to the deplorable murders at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, last week by saying that they may reintroduce so-called “universal” background check legislation to require background checks on private sales and trades of firearms, including those between many family members and friends. NRA members and supporters will recall that a previous version of the Manchin-Toomey “universal” background check legislation was soundly defeated in the U.S. Senate in 2013.
As we noted at that time, such a system could only be enforced through national gun registration. But don’t just take our word for it, even Obama administration “experts” wrote that the effectiveness of “universal” background checks “depends on . . . requiring gun registration.”
Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported that Manchin wants to focus on preventing the acquisition of guns by people diagnosed with a mental illness. However, the person who admitted to the South Carolina church shooting had no such diagnosis in his background. Like the perpetrators of a large percentage of other multiple victim shootings, he passed a background check to acquire a gun because there was nothing in his record to prohibit him from doing so.
Background checks don’t stop criminals from stealing guns, or buying them on the black market, as noted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in Table 14 of a May 2013 report. And they don’t stop criminals from getting guns through straw purchases—using people who can pass background checks to buy guns for people who cannot pass them—as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives indicated in a separate report.
In addition, there is another reason to oppose expanding the scope, intrusiveness and record-keeping practices of so-called “universal” background check systems. Giving in to what gun control supporters call “common sense” restrictions would simply take us closer to their ultimate goal.
Last year, Hillary Clinton said that people shouldn’t be allowed to even have an opinion in opposition to gun control. And just last week, former president Bill Clinton, who would presumably wield significant influence over public policy if Mrs. Clinton is elected president in 2016, said people shouldn’t be allowed to “walk around” with guns in public. At the same time, the Violence Policy Center encouraged people to believe there’s not much to be gained by carrying guns in public in the first place, falsely claiming that “Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.”
And then there’s former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nomination, who’s made it very clear that he supports a ban on the private possession of firearms. O’Malley’s position reflects gun control supporters’ refusal to recognize that people have a fundamental right to possess guns for self-defense; that guns are often used for self-defense; and that criminals would reap an enormous advantage from any gun-ban that is effectively implemented. As civil rights attorney Don Kates and Professor Gary Mauser have noted, “violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians . . . . [I]ndividuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use.”
Indeed, the FBI reports that one-third of murders, 59 percent of robberies and 78 percent of aggravated assaultsreported to law enforcement agencies are committed without firearms. As an example of the first of those statistics, Charles C.W. Cooke noted for National Review earlier this month that a woman was brutally killed by a knife-wielding attacker recently, unable to defend herself because her pending New Jersey handgun permit application hadn’t been approved.
Meanwhile, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that President Barack Obama, always enamored by gun bans in other parts of the world, cited, as he has previously, Australia’s massive gun ban and confiscation via a mandatory “buy-back” in the 1990s as an example of what he’d like to see happen in America.
Obama also blamed the Senate’s rejection of his 2013 gun control proposals on that perennial anti-gunner bogeyman, “the grip of the NRA on Congress.” What he fails to realize is that the NRA’s strength comes from its millions of members and tens of millions of supporters throughout the country. As a result, to gun control supporters’ everlasting regret, public opinion places more faith in guns and gun ownership than in gun control.
SOURCE :: NRA-ILA
Great article from Bearing Arms…
If you’re following any of the various media outlets this morning, you’re probably aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has just extended gay marriage to all 50 states.
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states.
Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s ruling on Friday means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage.
The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.
You can peruse the full ruling here, but the meat of the activist Court’s over-long decision hinges on a single paragraph.
The Court used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify their argument, which reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice.
The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states.
My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday.
Today they must.
Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
I’ll be driving through the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York in several weeks, places that until yesterday I did not have a legal right to concealed carry. As of today, with this decision, it would seem that these states and the District must honor my concealed carry permit, or violate my constitutional rights under the 14th and Second Amendment.
God Bless America.
SOURCE :: Bearing Arms
Rochester, N.Y. – The Master Lock Company announced Tuesday it will close the SentrySafe plant in Rochester.
All positions at the Rochester plant, along with the Cannelton, Indiana location, will be relocated to Oak Creek, Wisconsin, and Mexico.
A total of 350 employees will lose their jobs.
The positions will be reduced starting January 2016 and the plants will be completely closed by June 2016.
A statement from Master Lock states the “decision is in no way a reflection of the successes, talents and skills of the SentrySafe team. We’re incredibly impressed with their commitment to build a great company.”
The company said it will provide severance and job placement services. Some employees have already been offered positions and relocation opportunities. Other offers will be made to the most qualified individuals.
A portion of the release reads:
“We continue to believe that SentrySafe is a great fit for Master Lock as both companies deliver iconic brands with strong market share, consumer awareness and significant potential to leverage the brands globally.”
In a statement, Pittsford Town Supervisor Bill Smith said, “Of course, we are disappointed to be losing a business in town as long-established and as prominent as Sentry Safe. I’ll be reaching out to the company to see what role, if any, we can play in helping to facilitate the re-employment of its employers.”
SOURCE :: 13WHAM
Lucky Gunner is donating the legal fees awarded to them by the judge in the Brady Campaign’s failed junk lawsuit against them to pro-gun organizations.
NYSRPA has stated that they will use the money for their lawsuit against the NY SAFE Act.
From the Lucky Gunner website:
The Brady Center recently organized a lawsuit against us. Their stated goal was to put us out of business, and we believe, to outlaw the sale of ammunition online by judicial decree. After several months of spending our own money defending the lawsuit, it was dismissed and the judge awarded us $111,971.10 as a partial reimbursement for our legal fees.
We’re a small team of hardworking people, and we took the Brady Center’s assault against us and the 2nd Amendment very seriously. So far, we’ve spent more than $150,000 of our own money to hire the best attorneys we could find. Our goal was to protect our livelihood and to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans to responsibly buy and sell ammunition online.
We believe this lawsuit was just one step in the direction of sidestepping Congress and outlawing the sale of ammunition online. As stated by the judge in his ruling:
“It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants [Lucky Gunner] into the Colorado court… appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order.”
The Brady Center predictably appealed the judge’s ruling and we are prepared to continue defending your rights and ours. While it is not yet clear when the $111,971.10 fee reimbursement will be paid, we are going to donate 100% of what is recovered to groups that support and defend the 2nd Amendment. We will fight to recover these funds from the Brady Center and to hold the Brady Center responsible for yet another frivolous lawsuit.
Please tell us where you want the recovered fees to go by voting in the form below. A number of organizations were added per shooter requests on June 23. We will end the voting on August 1, 2015. Once we have recovered the fees, we’ll cut checks to each organization receiving votes on a percentage basis. In other words, if “Organization A” gets 5% of the vote, it will receive 5% of whatever is recovered.
Thank you for your continued support and interest in protecting 2nd Amendment rights. As we were very recently reminded, these rights are under constant assault and the stakes are high.
Please vote below. To see our most recent tabulated results, head here.
Now if only we could get this to happen in New York…..
Last week, Governor Peter Shumlin signed H. 5 into law, officially making Vermont the 41st state to legalize the private possession of suppressors. The new law, which will go into effect on July 2nd, was the culmination of months of education and negotiation, and a great deal of hard work on the part of Rep. Patrick Brennan (R-Chittenden), the American Suppressor Association, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and many others.
As you might remember from our earlier post, Rep. Brennan successfully lobbied to have suppressor ownership language inserted into an economic development bill, S. 138. When the suppressor ownership provision was later removed from that bill in conference committee, Rep. Brennan went right back to work, reaching across the aisle to work with Sen. John Rogers (D-Essex/Orleans), who inserted the provision into H. 5, a hunting bill, on the Senate floor. Together Rep. Brennan and Sen. Rogers, along with Rep. David Deen (D-Westminster), worked tirelessly to whip votes in favor of the suppressor ownership bill in both the House and Senate. Their efforts paid off, and H.5 passed both the Senate and the House with overwhelming majorities.
As part of the negotiation, the use of suppressors will be restricted to “sport shooting ranges”, which are defined in 10 V.S.A. § 5227(a). Next year, we will be back to remove this restriction, and to legalize their use while hunting.
There are many benefits to using a suppressor, including:
The American Suppressor Association would like to thank all the legislators who worked hard to secure suppressor rights in Vermont, but special gratitude is owed to Rep. Brennan. Rep. Brennan worked vigorously throughout the session for our suppressor rights, not only by drafting the language that would make them legal, but also by making sure the language was attached to no fewer than three bills before finally being approved. The ASA would also like to thank the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation and the National Rifle Association for their support on this issue. We would finally like to thank Gov. Shumlin for signing H. 5 into law.
The American Suppressor Association is grateful for the support of our members, and we are very excited about bringing suppressor ownership to Vermont. We will continue to work towards our goal of legalizing suppressor ownership and hunting in all 50 states. Special thanks to Vermont for taking us one step closer!
SOURCE :: American Suppressor Association
“According to Bloomberg Business, gun deaths will exceed traffic fatalities in America this year. Can’t put a seatbelt on a semi-automatic,” he wrote on Twitter.
“Too many closed minds on gun control. Worse, far too many PROUDLY closed minds. Meanwhile, the American shooting gallery remains open.
“Until responsible gun owners support responsible gun control laws, innocent blood will continue to flow. How many times must we see this?”
The shooting at the historic black church, Emanuel AME Church, claimed the lives of nine parishioners. Although the gunman, who was allegedly motived by a belief in white supremacy, passed a background check when he bought his .45-caliber Glock pistol, he had recently been arrested on a misdemeanor drug charge.
“The Confederate flag flying over a state capital is disgusting, but it’s a sidetrack. The real problem comes with a 30-shot clip,” King wrote.
King expressed support for gun control measures following other tragedies. A month after the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which claimed the lives of 20 first-graders and six educators, he penned an essay calling out gun-rights advocates and the National Rifle Association.
“In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings gun advocates have to ask themselves if their zeal to protect even the outer limits of gun ownership have anything to do with preserving the Second Amendment as a whole, or if it’s just a stubborn desire to hold onto what they have, and to hell with the collateral damage,” he wrote.
King has put his money where his mouth is. In the early 1990s he pulled a novel he wrote under a pen name in which the plot described a school shooting. Once he learned the book was been associated with shooting incidents, King allowed the novel to fall out of print.
Source :: Guns.com
Ride-hailing app company Uber says it is banning its riders and drivers from carrying guns.
Uber Technologies says it is banning firearms of any kind during rides arranged through the Uber platform, and drivers or riders who violate the rule may lose access to the platform. The rules also apply to Uber’s affiliates.
The company said Friday it changed its firearms policy on June 10 to make sure riders and drivers feel comfortable. In a statement, Uber said it made the change after reviewing feedback from both passengers and Uber drivers. Previously it had deferred to local law on the issue.
San Francisco-based Uber lets passengers summon cars through an app in more than 250 cities worldwide, and the privately held company is valued at around $40 billion. However it’s faced legal and regulatory challenges as it expands in the United States and abroad. It has also been criticized over the thoroughness of the background checks it does on drivers and other safety issues.
In April, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit shot a 22-year-old man who had opened fire on a group of pedestrians in Chicago. Court records say the man was shooting at pedestrians who were walking in front of the Uber driver’s vehicle, and the driver shot the gunman. The driver wasn’t charged, as prosecutors said he acted in defense of himself and others.
Competitor Lyft also has a “no weapons” policy. According to Lyft’s website, if a driver or rider is found to have a weapon in a Lyft vehicle they’ll be barred from the platform regardless of local laws on weapons possession.